Correspondence from Carraway to Stein and Delinger Re: Cromartie Exhibits
Correspondence
October 12, 2000

307 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Cromartie Hardbacks. Correspondence from Carraway to Stein and Delinger Re: Cromartie Exhibits, 2000. 5259a917-d90e-f011-9989-0022482c18b0. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/56c03419-5404-4213-b4fc-4dfef5587641/correspondence-from-carraway-to-stein-and-delinger-re-cromartie-exhibits. Accessed July 13, 2025.
Copied!
State of North Carolina MICHAEL F. EASLEY Department of Justice REPLY TO: Fran Caraway, CLAS Special Litigation ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. BOX 629 (919) 716-6900 RALEIGH FAX: (919) 716-6903 27602-0629 MEMORANDUM TO: Adam Stein Walter Dellinger FERGUSON STEIN, | WALLAS, =! PR nam ssp 2a Bak FROM: Fran Carraway, CLAS Law Office Administrato \ OCT | 3 2000 fia ts DATE: October 12, 2000 | GRESHAM & SUMTER, Pi SUBJECT: Cromartie Exhibits, etc. Enclosed please find “a bunch of stuff’. There are copies of trial transcript pages, deposition transcript pages, exhibits, the Proposed Discovery Plan as filed, and the Final Pretrial Order as filed. All of these and more were referenced in Everett's brief, but these items weren't included in any appendix filed with the Court to date. We thought you might want them handy when reading the brief. There are 3 exhibits not included in the package, two of which we will be sending as soon as we have them. Those are exhibits 109 and 237. You will remember that 109 is Exhibit P from McGee's affidavit, the map of Mecklenburg County that has been used repeatedly. Exhibit 237 is a Map of Davidson County with Black Voting Age Population and Precinct Names. The third exhibit, number 31, which we do not plan to send, is the spreadsheet that was produced at the deposition of Linwood Jones. It is 2 oversized sheets, showing election and registration data for District 2. We do not feel the content itself is relevant since it does not pertain to District 12 and similar data was not generated for D-12 or any other district according to Linwood'’s testimony. Tiare requested that | include enough of the trial and deposition transcripts to give you the context in which a statementwas made. Primarily in Peterson’s deposition that meant that we copied a “chunk” instead of discreet pages as cited in the brief. Most other segments are restricted to a page or two before and/or after the reference. She also requested that | include the excerpt from the trial transcript that quoted McGee using, in his closing argument, the 1998 Plan as an example of a more compact Democratic voting district. That is at the back of the trial transcript pages. If you have any questions or need any additional material, please do not hesitate to call us at 919-716-6900. PRI ASSOCIATES Discovery Printed 09/01/99 10:28:52 N:\ CLIENTS \N C_REDISTRICT \ PROGRAMS \ BASCORR 02/24/98 01:01:08 PM Rte sn E/ 2) 25 26 27 28 23 30 31 32 36 37 mamma— 1 The SAS System NOTE: Copyright (c) 1989-1996 by SAS Instit nc., Cary, NC, USA. NOTE: SAS (r) Proprietary Software Release 6.12 TS020 Licensed to PRI ASSOCIATES, INC., Site 0001701002. Nora RR Na RN NNN ARERR RRR ett SUNREAN RRS ieee TT TL TTT TTT TT TOS ** PURPOSE: USE BORDER DATA AND MERGE WITH ORGINAL DATA TO GET COUNTS** ** INSIDE AND OUTSIDE DISTRICT 12. COMPUTE PERCENTAGES AND PRINT ed ** FREQS ON THESE. THIS STUDY WILL BE DONE FOR THREE BASE i POPULATIONS: TOTAL POPULATION, VOTING AGE POPULATION, REGISTERED *= BR cael et Bl SE ERR YE EE PRR i i pe Se Ee “* PROGRAMMER: MOR DATE ORIGINALLY WRITTEN: 02/18/98 ~ -w * * ** REVISIONS (BY/DATE): "e dh MOR / 2-20-98 CHANGED BORDER DATA MERGE TO GET TOTALS VIA*+ “- NEW IN AND OUT PRECINCT VARIABLES, ADDED FLAG ALL ne *e ORTHOGONAL RACE AND PARTY MEASURES. oh RR ww vin mm Sik gw me wma we ns Ssssssssnasisssenneowssecesmeeaese. 2 ** INPUT FILES : FNAME FTYPE ~ TYPE CREATED BY ae "= BORDERS SD2 SAS ~~ BORDRFI2.SAS an *e PRECINCT SD2 SAS ~~ PRECINCT1.SAS "e Shasta uk bens Lr EM ee GAT HEE TS TO L2 ** OUTPUT FILES : FNAME FTYPE TYPE CREATED BY ne 8 rita oddadobudulnfodobod death shod ddd de ddd LE **---PROGRAM OPTIONS, PRINT DATA INFORMATION; options mprint sasautos=‘n:\apps\sasutils\sasautos’ errors=1; libname nc ‘n:\clients\nc_redistrict\data’; NOTE: Libref NC was successfully assigned as follows: Engine: V612 Physical Name: n:\clients\nc_redistrict\data title °*NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING"; %datinfo(data=NC.BORDERS,0bs=25) MPRINT (DATINFO) : PROC CONTENTS DATA=NC .BORDERS; MPRINT (DATINFO): TITLE2 "CONTENTS OF DATA SET NC.BORDERS*; _ iT(DATINFO): RUN; 77 The PROCEDURE CONTENTS used 0.14 seconds. NOTE: The PROCEDURE CONTENTS printed page 1. MPRINT (DATINFO): PROC PRINT DATA=NC.BORDERS (0BS=25): MPRINT (DATINFO) : TITLE2 "25 OBS FROM DATA SET NC .BORDERS *; MPRINT (DATINFO) : RUN; 1 NOTE: The PROCEDURE PRINT printed page 2. NOTE: The PROCEDURE PRINT used 0.02 seconds. %datinfo(data=NC.PRECINCT,obs=24) MPRINT (DATINFO): PROC CONTENTS DATA=NC.PRECINCT; MPRINT (DATINFO): TITLE2 °CONTENTS OF DATA SET NC.PRECINCT®; MPRINT (DATINFO): RUN; NOTE: The PROCEDURE CONTENTS used 0.07 seconds. NOTE: The PROCEDURE CONTENTS printed pages 3-4. MPRINT (DATINFQ): PROC PRINT DATA=NC.PRECINCT (0BS=24); MPRINT (DATINFO): TITLE2 °24 0BS FROM DATA SET NC.PRECINCT"; UPRINT (DATINFO) : RUN; NOTE: The PROCEDURE PRINT printed pages 5-6. NOTE: The PROCEDURE PRINT used 0.19 seconds. **...BEGIN PROGRAM OUTLINE !. MERGE SEGMENT DATA WITH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE PRECINCT DATA - KEEP 2. SET UP DATA SET WITH ALL PERCENTAGES AND FLAGS NEEDED FOR PRINTS A. PRINT ANY PROBLEM RECORDS (MISSING COUNTS, ETC) 3. PRINT FREQS ON FLAGS FOR EACH GROUP OF COMPARISONS A. POPULATION, MINORITY COMPARISONS B. VOTING AGE, MINORITY COMPARISONS POPULATION COUNTS Printed 09/01.99 10:28:52 Discovery 38 C. REGISTERED, MINORITY COMPARISONS 39 D. COA 1988, DEMOCRAT COMPARISONS 40 E. LTG 1988, DEMOCRAT COMPARISONS Si F. SENATE 1990, DEMOCRAT COMPARISONS G. ALL ELECTIONS, DEMOCRAT COMPARISONS *---END PROGRAM OUTLINE; Qe 45 WH ymin wna ow wimnin mms ides iin iain Siew vin nn nnn oie aes es ae a dl oie 46 we 1. MERGE SEGMENT DATA WITH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE PRECINCT DATA - KEEP POPULATION COUNTS; 47 proc sql; 48 create table pair as 49 select b1.segment, 50 b1.vtdkey, S1 bi.oprecnct, 52 bi.iprecnct, 53 p1.totpop as itotpop, 54 p1.totwht as itotwht, 55 p1.totblk as itotblk, -._ 56 p1.whtvot as iwhtvot, 57 p1.blkvot as iblkvot, 58 p1.asivot as iasivot, 59 p1.amivot as iamivot, 60 p1.othvot as iothvot, 61 : p1.regvot as iregvot, 62 p1.regwht as iregwht, 63 p1.regblk as iregblk, 64 pil.regoth as iregoth, 65 p1.coadem88 as icdem8s, 66 p1.1ltgdem88 as ildem8s, 67 pl.sendem90 as isdem90, 68 p1.coarep88 as icrep8s, 69 p1.ltgrep88 as ilrep8s, 70 p1.senrep90 as isrep9o0, 71 pl.democrat as idea, 72 pl.republic as irep, 73 p2.totpop as ototpop, 74 p2.totwht as ototwht, Chi p2.totblk as ototblk, : p2.whtvot as owhtvot, p2.blkvot as oblkvot, bri p2.asivot as oasivot, 79 pP2.amivot as oamivot, 80 p2.othvot as oothvot, 81 p2.regvot as oregvot, 82 p2.regwht as oregwht, 83 p2.regblk as oregblk, 84 p2.regoth as oregoth, i 85 : p2.coadem88 as ocdem8s, 86 p2.ltgdem88 as oldem88, i 87 P2.sendem90 as osdeam90, 88 p2.coarep88 as ocrep8s, 89 p2.ltgrep88 as olrepss, 90 p2.senrep90 as osrep90, 91 p2.democrat as odes, 92 p2.republic as orep r= 93 from nc.borders bil left join nc.precinct pi 04 on bi.iprecnct=p1.precinct 95 left join nc.precinct p2 96 on bi.oprecnct=p2.precinct 97 order by segment; NOTE: Table WORK.PAIR created, with 234 rows and 44 columns. 98 99 “check data after sql merge; The SAS System NOTE: The PROCEDURE SQL used 1.73 seconds. 100 data probs; set pair; by segment; 101 if not (first.segment and last. segment) then output; 102 TT. The data set WORK.PROBS has 0 observations and 44 variables. The DATA statement used 0.27 seconds. | 103 proc print; 104 title2 “LIST OF ALL DUPLICATES BY SEGMENT“ ; © 108 run; 12:00 Tuesday, February 24, 1998 Printed 09/01/99 10:28:52 Discovery 3 NONE NPS Shs a RL SHEOTRANIIR RAR ate 8) 3 HEN 3 3 ES NN cv The SAS System 12:00 OO Tueuney February 24, 1998 NOTE: No observations in data set WORK. PROBS. NOTE: The PROCEDURE PRINT used 0.14 seconds. SET UP DATA SET WITH ALL PERCENTAGES AND FLAGS NEEDED FOR PRINTS; data final; set pair; format iblkpct ivblkpct irblkpct iminpct ivainpct irminpct ipdemltg ipdemcoa ipdemsen ipctdea oblkpct ovblkpct orblkpct ominpct ovminpct orminpct opdemltg opdemcoa opdemsen opctdem 5.2; itotvot = ee nt] if itotpop > 0 then iblkpct = itotblk/itotpop; if itotvot > 0 then ivblkpct = iblkvot/itotvot; if iregvot > 0 then irblkpct = iregblk/iregvot; itotmin = itotpop-itotwht; if itotpop > 0 then iminpct = itotmin/itotpop; iminvot = itotvot-iwhtvot; if itotvot > 0 then ivminpct iminvot/itotvot; iminreg = iregvot-iregwht; if iregvot > 0 then irainpct = iminreg/iregvot; if (idem+irep) > 0 then ipctdem = idea/(idem+irep); 11tg88 = ildem88+ilrepss; icoa88 = icdem88+icrepss; isen90 = isdem90+isrep90; if iltg88 > 0 then ipdealtg = ildem88/iltgss; if icoas8 > 0 then ipdeacoa icdem88/icoasgs; if isen90 > 0 then ipdeasen isdem90/iseng0; "calculations for precincts outside border of district 12; ototvot = owhtvot+oblkvot+oazivot+oasivot+oothvot; “total number of voters out of border; if ototpop > 0 then oblkpct = ototblk/ototpop; if ototvot > 0 then ovblkpct = oblkvot/ototvot; if oregvot > 0 then orblkpct = oregblk/oregvot; ototamin = ototpop-ototwht; if ototpop > 0 then ominpct = ototmin/ototpap; ominvot = ototvot-owhtvot; if ototvot > 0 then ovainpct ominvot/ototvot; ominreg = oregvot-oregwht; if oregvot > 0 then orainpct = ominreg/oregvot; if (odem+orep) > 0 then opctdem = odea/ (odea+orep); oltgss = oldem88+0lrep8s; 0coa88 = ocdem88+ocreps8s; 0sen90 = osdemS90+osrep90; if oltg88 > 0 then opdemltg = olusnsnselions: if ocoa88 > 0 then opdemcoa = ocdem88/0coa8s; if osenS0 > 0 then opdemsen = osdem90/0seng0; “now create comparison flags (gradient is coded toward inside district 12); *---black comp flags; “population; if iblkpct ne . and oblkpct ne . then do; gtblkpop = (iblkpct>oblkpct); 1tblkpop'= (iblkpct<oblkpct); eqblkpop = (iblkpct=oblkpct); end; “voting age population; if ivblkpct ne . and ovblkpct ne . then do; gtblkvot = (ivblkpct>ovblkpct); 1tblkvot = (ivblkpct<ovblkpct); eqblkvot = (ivblkpct=ovblkpct); end; “registered; ih if irblkpct ne . and orblkpct ne . then do; 176 gtblkreg = (irblkpct>orblkpct); 177 1tblkreg = (irblkpct<orblkpct): 178 eqblkreg = (irblkpct=orblkpct); Printed 09/01/99 10:28:52 Discovery 12:00 Tuesday, February 24, 1998 *---minority comp flags; *population; if iminpct ne . gtminpop ltminpop eqminpop end; *voting age population; if ivminpct ne . and ovminpct ne . then gtminvot = (ivainpct>ovainpct); ltminvot = (ivainpct<ovainpct); eqminvot = (ivainpct=ovaminpct); end; *registered; if irminpct ne . and orminpct ne . then gtminreg = (irminpct>orminpet); ltminreg = (irminpct<orminpct); eqminreg = (irminpct=orminpct); end; and ominpct ne . then do; (iminpct>ominpct); (iminpct<ominpct); (iminpct=ominpct); ®---democrat comp flags; "COA 1988 Election; if ipdemcoa ne . and opdemcoa ne . then gtdemcoa = (ipdescoa>opdeacoa); ltdemcoa = (ipdemcoa<opdescoa); eqdemcoa = (ipdemcoa=opdenmcoa); end; "LTG 1988 Election; if ipdemltg ne . and opdemltg ne . then gtdemltg = (ipdealtg>opdenltg); ltdemltg = (ipdealtg<opdealtg); eqdemltg = (ipdealtg=opdealtg); end; “SEN 1990 Election; if ipdemsen ne . and opdemsen ne . then gtdemsen = (ipdeasen>opdeasen); ltdeasen = (ipdeasen<opdeasen); eqdemsen = (ipdeasen=opdeasen); end; "Registered Voters; if ipctdem ne . and opctdem ne . then do: gtdemreg = (ipctdea>opctden); ltdenmreg = (ipctdem<opctdea); eqdemreg = (ipctdem=opctdea); end; *All democratic - when every measure of democratic points inside; 1f gtdemcoa ne - and gtdemltg ne . and gtdeasen ne . and gtdemreg ne . and gtblkpop ne demntblk blkntdea . and gtblkvot ne . and gtblkreg ne ((gtdemcoa and gtdeamltg and gtdemsen and gtdemreg) and . then do; (not gtblkpop and not gtblkvot and not gtblkreg)); ((not gtdemcoa and not gtdealtg and not gtdemsen and not gtdemreg) and (gtblkpop and gtblkvot and gtblkreg)); end; ”Z array check _NUMERIC_; do over check; prflag= (check=.); end; run; The data set WORK.FINAL has 234 observations and 111 variables. The DATA statement used 0.95 seconds. proc print data=final (where=(prflag)); title2 “LIST OF RECORDS WITH MISSING DATA“; The PROCEDURE PRINT printed page 7. The PROCEDURE PRINT used 0.45 seconds. 245 proc print data=final (obs=100) ; 246 title2 “LIST OF 100 08S FROM FINAL DATA SET - CHECK COMPARISONS®; Printed 09/01/99 10:28:53 Discovery 247 eet 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 page page page page page page page page page 268 page page page - page page page page page page 269 270 27 272 273 page page page page page page page page page page page page AN HENES S S Gal A ANCERE NOTE: The PROCEDURE PRINT printed pages 8-27. MATE: The PROCEDURE PRINT used 1.22 seconds. A. POPULATION, MINORITY COMPARISONS B. VOTING AGE, MINORITY COMPARISONS C. REGISTERED, MINORITY COMPARISONS D. COA 1988, DEMOCRAT COMPARISONS E. LTG 1988, DEMOCRAT COMPARISONS F. SENATE 1990, DEMOCRAT COMPARISONS G. ALL ELECTIONS, DEMOCRAT COMPARISONS; The SAS System title2 "FREQS ON FLAGS FOR PERCENT COMPARISONS BETWEEN PRECINCTS ON BORDER OF DISTRICT 32%; proc freq; tables gtblkpop ltblkpop egblkpop gtblkvot ltblkvot eqblkvot gtblkreg ltblkreg egblkreg; title3 °*FREQUENCIES FOR COMPARISONS OF BLACK PERCENTAGES ON BORDER OF DISTRICT 2% 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 29 for for for for for for for for for NOTE: For table location in print Tile, see GTBLKPOP LTBLKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKREG EQBLKREG NOTE: The PROCEDURE FREQ printed pages 28-29. NOTE: The PROCEDURE FREQ used 0.34 seconds. proc freq; tables gtainpop ltminpop eqminpop gtainvot ltminvot eqminvot gtminreg ltainreg eqainreg; title3 "FREQUENCIES FOR COMPARISONS OF MINORITY PERCENTAGES ON BORDER OF DISTRICT 12°; 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 31 for for for for for for for for for NOTE: For table location in print tile, see GTMINPOP LTMINPOP EQMINPOP GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQMINVOT GTMINREG LTMINREG EQMINREG NOTE: The PROCEDURE FREQ printed pages 30-31. NOTE: The PROCEDURE FREQ used 0.16 seconds. proc freq; tables gtdemltg ltdemltg eqdemltg gtdemcoa ltdemcoa eqdemcoa gtdemsen ltdemsen eqdemsen 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 gtdemreg ltdemreg eqdemreg; title3 "FREQUENCIES FOR COMPARISONS OF DEMOCRAT PERCENTAGES ON BORDER OF DISTRICT 12%; for for for for for for for for for for for for NOTE: For table location in print file, see GTDEMLTG LTDEMLTG EQDEMLTG GTDEMCOA LTOEMCOA EQDEMCOA GTDEMSEN LTOEMBEN EQDEMSEN GTDEMREG LTOEMREG EQDEMREG NOTE: The PROCEDURE FREQ printed pages 32-33. NOTE: The PROCEDURE FREQ used 0.33 seconds. 12:00 Tuesday, February 24, 1998 Printed 09/01/99 10:28:53 Discovery 3 3 EE nS id I RE) gay w f INET A Se - See A NR : The SAS Systema 12:00 Tuesday, February 24, 1998 274 proc freq; 2" tables demntblk blkntdem; title3 "FREQUENCIES ON FLAGS FOR CELLS WHERE ALL PARTY AND RACE VECTORS ARE OPPOSED*; NOTE: The PROCEDURE FREQ printed page 34. NOTE: The PROCEDURE FREQ used 0.4 seconds. 278 proc freq; 279 tables gtblkpop*(gtdemltg gtdemcoa gtdemsen gtdemreg) 280 gtblkvot*(gtdemltg gtdemcoa gtdemsen gtdemreg) 281 gtblkreg*(gtdemltg gtdemcoa gtdemsen gtdemreg); 282 title2 "CROSS TABS ON RACE AND PARTY COMPARISON FLAGS®; “83 titled; 284 NOTE: For table location in print file, see page 35 for GTBLKPOP*GTDEMLTG page 35 for GTBLKPOP*GTDEMCOA page 36 for GTBLKPOP*GTDEMSEN page 36 for GTBLKPOP*GTDEMREG page 37 for GTBLKVOT*GTDEMLTG page 37 for GTBLKVOT*GTDEMCOA page 38 for GTBLKVOT*GTDEMSEN page 38 for GTBLKVOT*GTDEMREG page 39 for GTBLKREG*GTDEMLTG page 39 for GTBLKREG*GTDEMCOA page 40 for GTBLKREG*GTDEMSEN page 40 for GTBLKREG*GTDEMREG NOTE: The PROCEDURE FREQ printed pages 35-40. NOTE: The PROCEDURE FREQ used 0.28 seconds. 285 proc print data=final (where = (blkntdes or deantblk)); rg title2 “LIST OBS WHERE ALL PARTY AND ALL RACE VECTORS ARE OPPOSED"; NOTE: The PROCEDURE PRINT printed pages 41-42. NOTE: The PROCEDURE PRINT used 0.34 seconds. MOTE: SAS Institute Inc., SAS Campus Orive, Cary, NC USA 27513-2414 or ’ninted 09-01.99 10:28:53 Discovery MANS ER NN CX N SN ~ IS BA d \ ANN nN \¢ DE WN SUES SP ae ETA RAEN HRR NN SN NN NCIRES Nan RRR NRW is ALAMLBNANN Sal 2 RN : NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING 12:00 Tuesday, February 24, 1998 1 CONTENTS OF DATA SET NC.BORDERS CONTENTS PROCEDURE £575 Data Set Name: NC.BORDERS Observations: 234 Member Type: DATA Variables: 6 Engine: V612 Indexes: 0 Created: 12:00 Tuesday, February 24, 1998 Observation Length: 280 Last Modified: 12:00 Tuesday, February 24, 1998 Deleted Observations: 0 Protection: Compressed: NO Data Set Type: Sorted: YES Label: cee-- Engine/Host Dependent Information----- Data Set Page Size: 8704 Nuaber of Data Set Pages: 8 File Format: 607 First Data Page: 1 Max Obs per Page: 31 Obs in First Data Page: 27 cee-- Alphabetic List of Variables and Attributes----- # Variable Type Len Pos 2 ANSADPI Char 33 12 4 BORDR Char 28 53 5 IPRECNCT Char 200 61 6 OPRECNCT Char 19 261 3 SEGMENT Num 8 45 1 VTDKEY Char 12 0 cee-- Sort Information----- Sortedby: SEGMENT Validated: YES Character Set: ANSI NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING 12:00 Tuesday, February 24, 1998 2 25 0BS FROM DATA SET NC.BORDERS . 08S VTDKEY ANSADPI SEGMENT BORDR IPRECNCT OPRECNCT 1 377.119.1002 LC2 1 119.1401 12.119.1002 09.119.1401 2 37.119.0116 Charlotte Pct. 16 = 2 119.1401 112.119.0116 09.119.1401 3 37.119.0141 Charlotte Pct. 41 = 3 119.1401 112.119.0141 09.119.1401 { 4 37.119.0141 Charlotte Pct. 41 = 4 119.0189 12.119.0141 09.119.0189 5 377.119.0181 Charlotte Pct. 81 * S 119.0189 12.119.0181 09.119.0189 6 37.119.0181 Charlotte Pct. 81 = 6 119.0180 12.119.0181 09.119.0180 7 37.119.0181 Charlotte Pct. 81 = 7 119.0179 112.119.0181 099.119.0179 8 37.119.0153 Charlotte Pct. 53 = 8 119.0179 112.119.0153 09.119.0179 9 377.119.0153 Charlotte Pct. 53 + 9 119.0301 112.119.0153 09.119.0301 10 37.119.0139 Charlotte Pct. 39 * 10 119.0301 112.119.0139 09.119.0301 11 37.119.0139 Charlotte Pct. 39 * 11 119.1801 12.119.0139 09.119.1801 12 37.119.0178 Charlotte Pct. 78 * 12 119.1801 112.119.0178 09.119.1801 13 37.119.0177 Charlotte Pct. 77 * 13 119.1801 112.119.0177 09.119.1801 14 37.119.0177 Charlotte Pct. 77 * 14 119.0177 112.119.0177 09.119.0177 15 37.119.0177 Charlotte Pct. 77 * 15 119.1601 112.119.0177 09.119.1601 16 37.119.0197 Charlotte Pct. 97 + 16 119.1601 112.119.0197 09.119.1601 17 37.119.0197 Charlotte Pct. 97 + 17 119.0192 112.119.0197 09.119.0192 18 37.119.0197 Charlotte Pct. 97 + 18 119.0176 112.119.0197 09.119.0176 19 37.119.0197 Charlotte Pct. 97 * 19 119.0158 12.119.0197 09.119.0158 20 37.119.0198 Charlotte Pct. 98 * 20 119.0158 12.119.0198 09.119.0158 21 37.119.0198 Charlotte Pct. 98 * 21 119.0159 112.119.0198 09.119.0159 22 37.119.0198 Charlotte Pct. 98 * 22 119.0150 12.119.0198 09.119.0150 23 37.119.0198 Charlotte Pct. 98 * 23 119.0137 112.119.0198 09.119.0137 24 37.119.0152 Charlotte Pct. 52 + 24 119.0138 12.119.0152 09.119.0138 25 37.119.0152 Charlotte Pct. 52 * 25 119.0151 12.119.0152 09.119.0151 Printed 09/01/99 10:28:53 Discovery AB SARIN NENA S TAR AN ING CONTENTS OF DATA SET NC.PRECINCT ARREARS AAS Na 12:00 Tuesday, February CONTENTS PROCEDURE i Data Set Name: NC.PRECINCT Observations: 2217 ! Member Type: DATA Variables: 57 Engine: V612 z Indexes: 0 Created: 15:46 Thursday, February 19, 1998 Observation Length: 498 Last Modified: 15:47 Thursday, February 19, 1998 Deleted Observations: 0 Protection: Compressed: NO A Data Set Type: Sorted: NO Label: “ee-- Engine/Host Dependent Information----- Data Set Page Size: 15360 Number of Data Set Pages: 75 File Format: 607 First Data Page: : Max Obs per Page: 30 Obs in First Data Page: 15 “eee Alphabetic List of variables and Attributes----- # Variable Type Len Pos Format Informat 44 AIR Char 10 362 16 ANMIVOT Num 8 131 1. 11 17 ASIVOT Num 8 139 11 11 15 BLKVOT Num 8 123 11 11 39 CNTY Char S 315 6 COADEMSS Num 8 S1 1¥. 11 7 COAREPS88 Num 8 59 11 11 56 CONGRESS Num 8 482 6. 6 46 COUNTY Char 12 382 49 COUSUBCE Char 12 414 SO COUSUBFP Char 12 426 36 DEMOCRAT Num 8 291 3. 11. 52 H0010001 Num 8 446 BEST12. 12. 31 HSGUNITS Num 8 251 11. 171. 54 HS_A Num 8 "488 6, 6. 85 HS_AO Num 8 474 6. 6. 4 LTGOEMS8 Num 8 35 1¥. 11. 5 LTGREPSS Nua 8 43 35. {HB 42 MCO Char 10 342 43 MCDKEY Char 10 352 22 NSAMI Nua 8 179 :. 11. 28 NSAMIVOT Num 8 227 1. TY. 23 NSASI Nua 8 187 131. 11. 29 NSASIVOT Num 8 235 11. 5 I 21 NSBLK Nua 8 171 i. 11. 27 NSBLKVOT Num 8 219 1. 131. 24 NSOTH Num 8 195 11. 31. 30 NSOTHVOT Num 8 243 11. 1Y. 20 NSWHT Nus 8 163 1y. 131. 26 NSWHTVOT Num 8 a2 atl 11. 57 OLDCONG Num 8 490 6. 6. 18 OTHVOT Num 8 147 11. 13. 51 P0010001 Num 8 438 BEST12. 12. 45 PLACECE Char 10 372 53 PLACEFP Char 12 454 1 PRECINCT Char 19 0 34 REGBLK Num 8 275 11. 11. 35 REGOTH Num 8 283 p & 19 11. 32 REGVOT Num 8 259 11. 11. 33 REGWHT Num 8 2687 11. 11. 37 REPUBLIC Num 8 299 19. 11. 48 SAC3 Char 12 402 2 SENDEMS0 Num 8 19 11. 11. 3 SENREPSO Nua 8 27 171. 11. 25 SPAVOT Num 8 203 1Y, 11. 1 TOTAMI Num 8 91 11. 11. 12 TOTASI Num 8 99 11. 11. 10 TOTBLK Num 8 83 11. 11. 13 TOTOTH Num 8 107 11. 11. 8 TOTPOP Nus 8 67 it. 11. 19 TOTSPA Nus 8 185 11. 11. 9 TOTWHT Nus 8 75 11. 11. 38 UNAFFIL Nus 8 307 33. 11. 24, 1998 3 Printed 09/01/99 10:28:53 Discovery NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING © 12:00 Tuesday, February 24, 1998 CONTENTS OF DATA SET NC.PRECINCT CONTENTS PROCEDURE Variable Type Len Pos Format Informat Vv1D Char 10 320 VTDS0 Num 8 394 BEST12. VTDKEY Char 12 330 WHTVOT Num 8 115 11. Printed 09/01/99 10:28:53 Discovery 08s 01 Bb | 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 J nN = o & O N O O O M E L O N = OO N O O N E L N = SAC3 PRECINCT .013.010 .013.025 .013.030 .015.0005 .015.0010 .015.0015 .015.0020 .015.0025 .015.0030 .015.0035 .015.0040 .015.0045 TOTASI 3 3 (2 ) - - N O O O O O O — 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 REGBLK 704 389 1471 453 403 389 207 450 464 365 1520 735 010 025 030 00S 045 013 020 023 COUSUBCE SENDEMSO 735 408 1535 258 237 207 124 237 259 213 816 335 TOTOTH C O A ~ A O O C O O D O O W O = O O S » , O D O — - ~ 0 O 0 O N O - + - 0 0 0 0 0 C O O 0 O W M W O = 906684 92664 93904 90712 SENREP90 1160 636 2428 235 6 122 101 134 72 275 792 105 WHTVOT 3554 1468 6448 488 23 294 348 393 245 650 1730 243 SPAVOT A s d a N O O D O O O W DEMOCRAT 2302 1268 4845 833 416 604 375 714 580 764 27386 930 COUSUBFP = X SN RED NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING 24 OBS FROM DATA SET NC.PRECINCT LTGDEMSS 1000 559 2097 275 NSWHTVOT 3545 1458 6419 488 23 294 348 392 245 649 1727 242 REPUBLIC 699 387 1459 72 3 20 22 43 21 72 26 P0010001 6489 3543 13684 3428 1737 1144 2766 1569 1204 1578 8322 1737 LTGREP8S8 1060 589 2237 200 9 98 72 100 S1 182 552 47 U Y N O O N N O O O = N NSBLKVOT 1231 1178 3489 603 438 S06 416 720 572 541 2191 904 UNAFFIL 90 COADEMSS COAREPS8S 1059 589 2236 1852 278 139 248 3 187 65 131 48 266 48 242 40 263 120 921 359 393 26 887 489 ASIVOT OTHVOT 10 1 —- M O O0 OO 0O DO 0O DO O = W O W nN H o O C O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 D O 0 O O 0 O O 0 = NSAMIVOT N E O N N O — = - O = N - N O O O O0 OD O0 OD O0 O = LL W L U W VTDKEY 37.013. 37.013. 37.013. 0005 37.015. 0010 37.015. 0015S 37.015. 0020 37.015. 0025 37.015. 0030 37.015. 0035 37.015. 0040 37.015. 0045 37.015. PLACEFP & > - t e d e h e d e d e d e d e d e d o d w d o d TOTPOP 6489 3543 13682 1528 640 1144 1105 1569 1204 1578 5389 1737 TOTSPA 23 16 110 FS N O D A W W O - 0 O 0 NSOTHVOT O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O N O O MCDKEY .013.010 .013.025 .013.030 .015.005 .015.045 .015.015 .015.020 .015.025 .015.030 .015.035 .015.040 .015.045 TOTWHT 4565 1852 8242 599 30 382 435 493 317 798 2161 312 NSWHT 4552 1838 8202 599 30 382 435 492 317 797 2158 310 HSGUNITS 2968 2088 S703 699 248 482 427 643 456 660 2255 665 AIR PLACEC AO CONGRESS h h ed w h e d e d e d e d e d e h e d d h o h o h o d o d o d o d o d o d a d a d ( ) = A = IR RY >: tk d ae D Rd TOTBLK 1906 1686 5356 925 610 760 666 1071 883 776 3200 1421 NSBLK 1906 1685 5324 923 610 760 666 1063 880 773 3199 1421 REGVOT 3111 1709 6479 910 421 630 399 762 607 843 2956 963 E COUNTY Beaufort Beaufort Beaufort Bertie. Bertie Bertie Bertie Bertie Bertie Bertie Bertie Bertie OLDCONG l h e d e d e d e d e d e d w d e d e d a d o h nN W 2 0 0 , U N L N O — - = - O i n = d £ — nN W O O L U N N L M N O = O = & REGWYHT 2397 1312 5004 457 18 241 192 312 143 478 1435 228 3 Oo w o t h o h w h w h e d e h w h - m o - OD O O O Printed 09/01/99 10:28:53 Discovery ¥ SIAR asa NERNEY BERRIEN \ NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING 24 OBS FROM DATA SET NC.PRECINCT 0BS PRECINCT SENDEMS0 SENREP90 LTGDEMSS LTGREPSS COADEMSS COAREPS8 TOTPOP TOTWHT TOTBLK TOTAMI | 011.015.1005 392 98 419 112 400 75 1900 637 1256 7 01.015.1020 233 211 261 147 277 70 1661 722 934 0 ~ , 01.015.1040 23 253 112 188 104 135 . 933 904 29 0 16 01.049.0102 119 30 106 40 103 26 1106 751 353 2 17 01.049.0301 317 331 249 267 249 197 1338 786 544 7 18 01.049.0302 133 170 160 131 148 89 834 473 © 356 3 19 01.049.0303 155 191 177 124 173 75 1255 792 461 1 20 01.049.0801 599 207 454 224 449 165 2664 974 1676 7 | 21 01.049.0802 449 188 401 183 384 140 2345 781 1545 5 22 01.049.0803 109 557 484 513 516 387 3464 2247 1197 13 i 23 01.049.0804 407 322 353 362 357 300 2753 1908 815 13 | 24 01.049.0805 576 258 486 217 478 175 2439 1075 1348 5 {| 08S TOTASI TOTOTH WHTVOT BLKVOT AMIVOT ASIVOT OTHVOT TOTSPA NSWHT NSBLK NSAMI 13 0 0 509 878 4 0 0 2 636 1256 6 | 14 5 0 574 542 0 4 0 0 722 934 0 15 0 0 657 27 0 0 0 2 904 27 0 16 0 0 583 257 2 0 0 4 747 353 2 17 1 0 608 381 5 y 0 0 786 544 7 18 2 0 354 264 2 2 0 1 473 355 3 19 0 1 626 325 1 0 1 5 788 460 1 20 4 3 840 1146 5 4 3 19 964 1670 7 21 4 10 640 961 5 2 5 12 781 1540 5 22 3 4 1846 820 6 3 3 36 2226 1184 13 23 12 5 1481 510 7 10 3 27 1885 815 13 24 10 1 823 889 4 8 1 9 1069 1345 5 | 08S NSASI NSOTH SPAVOT NSWHTVOT NSBLKVOT NSAMIVOT NSASIVOT NSOTHVOT HSGUNITS REGVOT REGWHT 13 0 0 2 508 878 3 0 0 779 1064 371 14 5 0 0 574 542 0 4 0 650 765 423 [ 15 0 0 2 657 25 0 0 0 367 501 493 SERS 0 0 4 579 257 2 0 0 444 267 153 PAE 1 0 0 608 381 5 1 0 518 927 554 x 2 0 1 354 263 2 2 0 345 521 334 ORE 0 1 4 622 325 1 0 1 515 526 333 TiZ0 4 0 14 831 1144 5 4 0 1386 1483 648 21 4 3 8 640 958 5 2 0 1111 1309 529 | 22 3 2 25 1831 812 6 3 1 1393 1659 1329 23 12 1 fs 7 1467 510 Z 10 0 1305 1402 1008 24 10 1 6 819 887 4 8 1 1118 1427 605 08S REGBLK REGOTH DEMOCRAT REPUBLIC UNAFFIL CNTY VID VTDKEY MCD MCDKEY AIR PLACECE COUNTY VTD90 i 13 693 0 975 72 17 015 1005 37.015.1005 005 37.015.005 Bertie 1 : 14 342 0 705 56 4 015 1020 37.015.1020 020 37.015.020 Bertie 1 15 8 0 447 48 6 015 1040 37.015.1040 040 37.015.040 Bertie 1 16 114 0 237 23 7 049 0102 37.049.0102 005 37.049.005 Craven 1 17 373 0 733 173 21 049 0301 37.049.0301 015 37.049.015 Craven 1 18 187 0 436 68 17 049 0302 37.049.0302 015 37.049.015 Craven 1 19 193 0 459 ER 14 049 0303 37.049.0303 015 37.049.015 Craven 1 20 833 2 1165 239 79 049 0801 37.049.0801 035 37.049.035 1770 Craven 1 21 779 1 1074 168 67 049 0802 37.049.0802 035 37.049.035 1770 Craven 1 22 329 1 1253 333 73 049 0803 37.049.0803 035 37.049.035 1770 Craven 1 23 389 5 915 390 97 049 0804 37.049.0804 035 37.049.035 1770 Craven 1 24 820 2 1174 190 63 049 0805 37.049.0805 035 37.049.035 1770 Craven 1 0BS SAC3 COUSUBCE COUSUBFP P0010001 H0010001 PLACEFP HS_A HS_AO CONGRESS OLDCONG 13 005 90712 3428 1478 1 1 1 1 14 020 92096 2766 10786 1 1 1 1 15 040 94064 8322 2622 1 1 1 1 16 0102 005 93256 5938 2443 1 1 3 1 17 0301 015 93360 3427 1378 1 1 1 1 18 0302 015 93380 3427 1378 1 1 1 1 19 0303 015 93360 3427 1378 1 1 1 1 20 0801 035 93592 28793 12709 46340 1 1 1 1 ‘1 0802 035 93592 28793 12709 46340 1 1 1 1 0803 035 93592 28793 12709 48340 1 1 1 1 .3 0804 035 93592 28793 12709 46340 1 1 1 1 24 0805 035 93592 28793 12709 48340 1 1 1 1 Printed 09/01/99 10:28:54 Discovery Ne - aD 1208 0 N N Na ? NN RD X NRE v3 RERRRANRRA RN ORRRINR JSR > SERRE Sad RRS 0 NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTIN 12:00 Tuesday, February 24, 1998 7 Al SY /MVG IMF LIST OF RECORDS WITH MISSING DATA 0BS SEGMENT VTDKEY OPRECNCT IPRECNCT ITOTPOP ITOTWHT ITOTBLK IWHTVOT IBLKVOT IASIVOT IAMIVOT 14 37.119.0177 09.119.0177 12.119.0177 3460 439 2987 350 1928 72 37.159.1112 06.159.06X2 12.159.1112 3659 2138 1489 1787 937 76 37.159.1108 06.159.11X6 12.159.1108 2673 1673 978 1398 659 77 37.159.1109 06.159.11X6 12.159.1109 1089 292 796 251 572 78 37.159.1101 06.159.11X6 12.159.1101 2056 E37 1735 259 1152 19 10 11 0 0 IOTHVOT IREGVOT IREGWHT IREGBLK IREGOTH ICOEM88 ILDEMSS ISDEM90 ICREP88 ILREP88 ISREPS0 1586 227 1355 446 515 997 197 217 1583 1088 492 557 582 489 407 420 1242 952 288 377 415 333 350 346 S03 190 313 241 247 240 70 74 1099 172 925 523 528 515 42 IREP oTOoTPOP OTOTWHT OWHTVOT OBLKVOT OASIVOT 157 466 390 83 66 0 17 12 12 12 OCREP88 IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVMINPCT IRMINPCT IPDEMLTG IPDEMCOA IPDEMSEN IPCTDEM OBLKPCT OVBLKPCT ORBLKPCT OMINPCT OVMINPCT 0.86 . 0.85 0.87 . 0.86 0.41 ‘ 0.31 0.42 v 0.31 0.37 ‘ 0.23 0.37 : 0.23 0.73 . 0.62 0.73 . 0.62 0.84 . 0.84 0.85 ’ 0.84 .90 .68 .66 .83 .94 ORMINPCT OPDEMLTG OPDEMCOA OPDEMSEN OPCTDEM ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IMINVOT IMINREG ILTG88 ICOA88 ISENSO OTOTVOT OTOTMIN OMINVOT OMINREG 14 p . : . . 2308 3021 1958 1359 732 643 1060 1 0 0 71 : : . g . 2745 “1521 958 495 1002 964 901 55 29 23 75 4 . . . : 2074 1000 676 290 761 727 659 13 25 12 78... ‘ ; 2 . 824 797 S73 313 321 311 299 13 25 12 77 . ‘ . ’ . 1412 1739 1183 927 578 565 554 13 25 12 OBS OLTG88 0COA88 OSENS0 GTBLKPOP LTBLKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKREG EQBLKREG GTMINPOP LTMINPOP EQMINPOP 14 71 75 76 77 0BS GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQMINVOT GTMINREG LTMINREG 14 71 75 76 77 EQDEMSEN GTODEMREG LTDEMREG EQDEMREG Printed 09/01,99 10:28:54 Discovery e3 3 £) 03 AN FEIN AN ATNRR 0 2 REGS: ANN NATE : SIENTSERNC a REOGKA Nh ae FES TL RES DRURY AN DN A SR NY AN NE RAIN NCR RRR AANA RRREN nN NS ANN RNR ; NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING 12:00 Tuesday, February 24, 1998 8 LIST™ 100 OBS FROM FINAL DATA SET - CHECK COMPARISNNS OBS SEGMENT VTDKEY OPRECNCT IPRECNCT ITOTPOP ITOTWHT ITOTBLK IWHTVOT IBLKVOT IASIVOT IAMIVOT a 137.119.1002 09.119.1401 12.119.1002 3357 1252 2098 983 1534 3 2 2 37.119.0116 09.119.1401 12.119.0116 2522 32 2485 24 1846 1 0 3 37.119.0141 09.119.1401 12.119.0141 3875 1239 2517 915 1681 47 24 4 4 37.119.0141 09.119.0189 12.119.0141 3875 1239 2517 915 1681 47 24 5 5 37.119.0181 09.119.0189 12.119.0181 4372 3478 831 2756 526 24 15 0BS IOTHVOT IREGVOT IREGWHT IREGBLK IREGOTH ICDEMSS ILDEMSS ISDEM90 ICREPSS ILREPSS ISREP90 1 0 1881 625 1254 2 750 878 1090 209 280 274 2 2 2236 18 2216 2 1012 1212 1661 17 32 12 3 5 1189 407 780 2 331 384 589 119 150 135 4 5 1189 407 780 2 331 384 589 119 150 135 5 8 2278 1937 338 3 499 572 635 656 780 789 0BS IDEM IREP OTOTPOP OTOTWHT OTOTBLK OWHTVOT OBLKVOT OASIVOT OAMIVOT OOTHVOT OREGVOT 1 1579 240 2537 2444 75 1915 58 0 6 5 1434 2 2165 45 2537 2444 75 1915 58 0 6 5 1434 3 974 173 2537 2444 75 1915 58 0 5 5 1434 4 974 173 3773 3691 38 2990 27 10 12 5 1721 5 1327 850 3773 3691 3s 2990 27 10 12 5 1721 08S OREGWHT OREGBLK OREGOTH OCDEMSS OLDEMSS OSDEMI0 OCREPS88 OLREP88 OSREPS0 ODEM OREP 1 1395 38 1 243 251 279 463 694 644 848 521 2 1395 38 1 243 251 279 463 694 644 848 521 3 1395 38 1 243 251 279 463 694 644 - 848 521 4 1699 19 3 263 371 295 660 799 868 933 701 5 1699 19 3 263 371 295 660 799 868 933 701 OBS IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVMINPCT IRMINPCT IPOEMLTG IPDEMCOA IPDEMSEN IPCTDEM OBLKPCT OVBLKPCT ORBLKPCT OMINPCT OVMINPCT 1.50.82 0.61 0.67 0.63 0.61 0.67 0.76 0.78 0.80 0.87 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 2 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.98 0.99 0.98 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 4 0.68 0.63 0.66 0.68 0.66 0.66 0.72 0.74 0.81 0.85 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.65 0.63 0.66 0.68 0.66 0.66 0.72 0.74 0.81 0.85 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.16 0.15 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.42 0.43 0.45 0.61 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0BS ORMINPCT OPDEMLTG OPDEMCOA OPDEMSEN OPCTDEM ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IMINVOT IMINREG ILTG88 ICOA88 ISEN9O OTOTVOT OTOTMIN OMINVOT OMINREG ~ 1 0.03 0.27 0.34 0.30 0.62 2522 2105 1539 1256 1158 959 1364 1984 93 69 39 2 0.03 Q.27 0.34 0.30 0.62 1873 2490 1849 2218 1244 1029 1673 1984 93 69 39 3 0.03 0.27 0.34 0.30 0.62 2672 2636 1757 782 534 450 724 1984 93 69 39 4 0.01 0.32 0.28 6.25 0.57 2672 2636 1757 782 534 450 724 3044 82 54 22 5 0.01 0.32 0.28 0.25 0.57 3329 894 573 341 13582 1155 1424 3044 82 54 22 OLTG88 0OCOA88 OSENSO GTBLKPOP LTBLKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKREG EQBLKREG GTMINPOP LTMINPOP EQMINPOP 1 945 706 923 2 945 706 923 3 945 706 923 4 1170 923 1163 5 1170 923 1163 d h od wh O O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O 0 o OO 0 O O 0 O 0 O 0 o C O O 0 O O 0 0 O 0 o O O O 0 O O 0 0 O 0 o h d d eh - O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O 0 o O O O 0 O O 0 O 0 O 0 o - — e d e d w h w h OO 0 O 0 O o 0 O o 0 0 0 0 O o OBS GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQUMINVOT GTMINREG LTMINREG EQUINREG GTDEMCOA LTDEMCOA EQDEMCOA GTDEMLTG LTDEMLTG EQDEMLTG GTDEMSEN LTDEMSEN N h s O N = a h wh i. O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O o O O 0 O O 0 O o 0 O o E S | O O 0 O O 0 O O o 0 O o O O 0 O O 0 o o - h e h w h bh bh 0 0 0 0 O 0o O O 0 O 0 O O 0 O o - — h e d w d e d bd O 0 0 O 0 O o O 0 0 O 0 O o TS O 0 0 0 O 0 o 0BS EQDEMSEN GTDEMREG LTOEMREG EQDEMREG DEMNTBLK BLKNTDEM PRFLAG A E O N = 0 0 0 0 0 - eh eh wh eh O O 0 O 0 O 0 O o CO C O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 C o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 O0 o 0 0 0 0 0 Printed 09/01/99 10:28:54 Discovery NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING LIST 100 0BS FROM FINAL DATA SET - CHECK COMPARINS SEGMENT VTDKEY OPRECNCT IPRECNCT ITOTPOP ITOTWHT ITOTBLK IWHTVOT IBLKVOT IASIVOT TAMIVOT 37.119.0181 09.119.0180 112.119.0181 4372 3478 831 2756 526 37.119.0181 09.119.0179 12.119.0181 4372 3478 831 2756 526 37.119.0153 09.119.0179 12.119.0153 4582 3036 1358 2507 929 37.119.0153 09.119.0301 12.119.0153 4582 3036 1358 2507 929 37.119.0139 09.119.0301 12.119.0139 5468 786 4496 564 2753 24 15 24 15 83 34 83 34 86 20 IOTHVOT IREGVOT IREGWHT IREGBLK IREGOTH ICDEM88 ILDEMSS ISDEMI0 ICREP8S ILREP8S ISREPS0 8 2278 1937 338 3 499 572 635 656 780 2278 1937 338 3 499 572 635 656 780 15 1985 1435 540 10 412 474 608 413 482 18 1985 1435 540 10 412 474 608 413 482 8 2014 222 1790 2 S45 630 1083 72 96 IDEM IREP oToTPOP OTOTWHT OTOTBLK OWHTVOT OBLKVOT OASIVOT OAMIVOT O0THVOT OREGVOT 1327 850 4007 3350 568 2512 384 1327 850 2836 2449 339 1931 228 1261 598 2836 2449 339 1931 228 1261 598 2299 2017 271 1584 211 1825 144 2299 2017 271 1584 211 2005 1516 1516 1015 1015 OREGWHT OREGBLK OREGOTH OCDEM88 OLDEM88 OSDEMSO OCREP88 OLREP88 OREP 1685 305 397 496 583 618 680 647 798 1350 162 311 415 409 457 551 559 856 S71 1350 162 311 415 409 457 551 559 856 571 872 141 220 268 272 292 320 362 597 361 872 141 220 268 272 292 320 362 597 361 IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVMINPCT IRMINPCT IPDEMLTG IPDEMCOA IPDEMSEN IPCTDEM OBLKPCT OVBLKPCT ORBLKPCT OMINPCT OVMINPCT -19 0.16 -15 . 0.17 0.15 0.42 3 0.45 .61 .14 .13 15: .16 15 .19 0.16 .18 . 0.17 0.15 0.42 . 0.45 .61 .12 .10 33 .14 32 .14 22 -32 -312 .14 12 «32 12 .12 .14 .32 -32 .30 0.26 -27 . 0.30 0.28 0.50 0.58 .68 .82 0.80 .89 . 0.84 0.89 0.87 . 0.95 .93 0 0 .30 0.26 27 . 0.30 0.28 0.50 : 0.58 .68 0.12 30 «11 0 0 ORMINPCT OPDEMLTG OPDEMCOA OPDEMSEN OPCTDEM ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IMINVOT IMINREG ILTG88 ICOA88 ISENSO OTOTVOT OTOTMIN OMINVOT OMINREG .18 .42 0.39 .47 . 3329 894 573 341 1352 11585 1424 2958 657 446 320 Th .43 0.40 .42 1 3329 - 894 573 341 1352 1155 1424 2188 387 257 166 <I .43 0.40 .42 : 3568 1546 1061 550 956 825 1057 2188 387 257 166 .14 .46 0.43 .43 : 3568 1546 1061 550 956 825 1057 1803 282 219 143 14 .46 0.43 .43 . 3431 4682 2867 1792 726 617 1135 1803 282 219 143 OLTG88 OCOA88 OSEN9SO GTBLKPOP LTBLKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKREG EQBLKREG GTMINPOP LTMINPOP EQMINPOP 1176. 1015 1230 : ~~ 966 768 968 966 768 968 588.512" 634 588 512 634 GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQMINVOT GTMINREG LTMINREG EQMINREG GTDEMCOA LTDEMCOA EQDEMCOA GTDEMLTG LTDEMLTG EQDEMLTG GTDEMSEN LTDEMSEN EQDEMSEN GTDEMREG LTDEMREG Printed 09/01,99 10:28:54 Discovery SF AENEAN SE HERE Wh ENN REESE 3 NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING ruary 24, 1998 10 LIST © 00 OBS FROM FINAL DATA SET - CHECK COMPARISONS 0BS SEGMENT VTDKEY OPRECNCT IPRECNCT ITOTPOP ITOTWHT ITOTBLK IWHTVOT IBLKVOT IASIVOT IAMIVOT 11 37.119.0139 09.119.1801 12.119.0139 5458 786 4496 564 2753 86 20 12 37.119.0178 09.119.1801 12.119.0178 5335 2534 2682 1976 1680 25 33 13 37.119.0177 09.119.1801 12.119.0177 3460 439 2987 350 1928 19 S 14 14 377.119.0177 09.119.0177 12.119.0177 3460 439 2987 350 1928 19 5 15 35 37.119.0177 09.119.1601 112.119.0177 3460 439 2987 350 1928 19 S 08s IOTHVOT IREGVOT IREGWHT IREGBLK IREGOTH ICDEMSS ILDEMSS ISDEMS0 ICREP88 ILREP88 ISREP90 1 8 2014 222 1790 2 545 630 1083 72 96 . 52 12 17 2269 1129 1125 15 683 778 1003 386 447 460 13 6 1586 227 1355 4 446 515 997 197 217 63 14 6 1586 227 1355 4 446 515 997 197 217 63 15 6 1586 227 1355 4 446 515 997 197 217 63 08S IDEM IREP OTOTPOP OTOTWHT OTOTBLK OWHTVOT 0BLKVOT OASIVOT OAMIVOT O0THVOT OREGVOT 1 1825 144 5405 4645 592 3462 362 57 16 28 2894 12 1680 472 5405 4645 592 3462 362 57 16 28 2894 13 1370 157 5405 4645 592 3462 362 57 16 28 2894 14 1370 157 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 15 1370 157 6006 5655 280 4612 218 35 11 11 2875 08s OREGWHT OREGBLK OREGOTH OCDEMSS8 OLDEMSS8 OSDEMS0 OCREP88 OLREP88 OSREPS0 ODEM OREP 11 2522 359 13 533 631 854 921 659 944 1501 1164 12 2522 359 13 533 631 854 921 659 944 1501 1164 13 2522 359 13 533 631 854 921 659 944 1501 1164 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 2752 112 11 393 548 704 991 1052 751 1174 1363 OBS IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVMINPCT IRMINPCT IPDEMLTG IPDEMCOA IPDEMSEN IPCTDEM OBLKPCT OVBLKPCT ORBLKPCT OMINPCT OVMINPCT 13 0.82 0.80 0.89 0.86 0.84 0.89 0.87 0.88 0.95 0.93 0.11 0.09 0.12 0.14 0.12 12 0.50 0.45 0.50 0.53 0.47 0.50 0.64 0.64 0.69 0.78 0.11 0.09 0.12 0.14 0.12 *1 0.86 0.84 0.85 0.87 0.85 0.86 0.70 0.69 0.94 0.90 0.11 0.09 0.12 0.14 0.32 0.86 0.84 0.85 0.87 0.85 0.86 0.70 0.69 0.94 0.90 0.00 0.00 . 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.84 0.85 0.87 0.85 0.86 0.70 0.69 0.94 0.90 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.06 08S ORMINPCT OPDEMLTG OPDEMCOA OPDEMSEN OPCTDEM ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IMINVOT IMINREG ILTG8S ICOA88 ISEN9O OTOTVOT OTOTMIN OMINVOT OMINREG ~ 1 0.13 0.49 0.37 0.47 0.56 3431 4682 2867 1792 726 617 1135 3925 760 463 372 12 0.13 0.49 0.37 0.47 0.56 3731 2801 1755 1140 1225 1069 1463 3925 760 463 372 13 0.13 0.49 0.37 0.47 0.56 2308 3021 1958 1359 732 643 1060 3925 760 463 372 14 » x : . . 2308 3021 1958 1359 732 643 1060 1 0 0 0 13 " 0.04 0.34 0.28 0.48 0.46 2308 3021 1958 1359 732 643 1060 4887 351 275 123 OBS OLTG88 0COA88 OSENSO GTBLKPOP LTBLKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKREG EQBLKREG GTMINPOP LTMINPOP EQMINPOP 11 1290 1454 1798 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 12 1290 1454 1798 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 13 1290 1454 1798 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 14 0 0 0 1 0 0 FR 0 0 . 4 1 0 0 15 1600 1384 1455 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0BS GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQMINVOT GTMINREG LTMINREG EQMINREG GTDEMCOA LTDEMCOA EQDEMCOA GTDEMLTG LTOEMLTG EQDEMLTG GTDEMSEN LTDEMSEN 11 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 12 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 13 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 14 1 0 0 . > . . . . . . 15 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 08S EQDEMSEN GTDEMREG LTOEMREG EQDEMREG DEMNTBLK BLKNTDEM PRFLAG 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 14 . . . . . . 1 *9 0 1 0 0 0 0 Printed 09/01,99 10:28:54 Discovery ERIN NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING LIST OF 100 OBS FROM FINAL DATA SET - CHECK COMPARISONS 0BS SEGMENT VTDKEY OPRECNCT IPRECNCT ITOTPOP ITOTWHT ITOTBLK IWHTVOT IBLKVOT IASIVOT IAMIVOT 16 37.119.0197 09.119.1601 112.119.0197 5917 4066 1664 3436 1080 108 8 | 17 37.119.0197 09.119.0192 12.119.0197 5917 4066 1664 3436 1080 108 8 18 37.119.0197 09.119.0176 12.119.0197 5917 4066 1664 3436 . 1080 108 8 I 19 19 37.119.0197 09.119.0158 12.119.0197 5917 4066 1664 3436 1080 108 8 20 20 37.119.0198 09.119.0158 12.119.0198 5384 2756 2421 2287 1669 80 27 08S IOTHVOT IREGVOT TREGWHT IREGBLK IREGOTH ICDEM88 ILDEM8S ISDEM90 ICREP8S ILREPSS ISREPS0 : I 16 19 2153 1621 518 14 401 508 768 634 683 304 17 19 2183 1621 518 14 401 508 768 634 683 304 18 19 2153 1621 518 14 401 508 768 634 683 304 19 19 2153 1621 518 14 401 508 768 634 683 304 20 31 2282 1297 969 16 642 742 911 283 312 278 0BS IDEM IREP OTOTPOP OTOTWHT OTOTBLK OWHTVOT OBLKVOT OASIVOT OAMIVOT O0THVOT OREGVOT 16 980 955 6006 5655 280 4612 218 35 11 11 2875 17 980 955 5894 5532 220 4120 160 90 6 4 3867 18 980 955 4379 4199 86 3329 47 S57 S 3 3103 19 980 955 2032 1723 188 1334 93 71 9 8 1642 20 1406 694 2032 1723 188 1334 93 n 9 8 1642 08s OREGWHT OREGBLK OREGOTH OCDEM8S OLDEM88 OSDEMSO OCREP88 OLREP88 OSREPS0 ODEM OREP 16 2752 112 11 393 548 704 991 1052 751 1174 1363 17 3708 133 26 431 : 702 1075 1490 1466 1101 1094 2322 18 3053 36 14 419 703 868 1295 1314 995 1136 1700 19 1496 131 15 306 388 487 484 521 493 806 709 20 1496 131 15 306 388 487 484 521 493 806 709 08S IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVMINPCT IRMINPCT IPDEMLTG IPOEMCOA IPDEMSEN IPCTDEM OBLKPCT OVBLKPCT ORBLKPCT OMINPCT OVMINPCT 16. 0.28 0.23 0.24 0.31 0.26 0.25 0.43 0.39 0.72 0.51 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.06 ~37 0.28 0.23 0.24 0.31 0.26 0.25 0.43 0.39 0.72 0.51 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.06 : 0.28 0.23 0.24 0.31 0.26 0.25 0.43 0.39 0.72 0.51 0.02 0.01 Q.01 0.04 0.03 0.28 0.23 0.24 0.31 0.26 0.25 0.43 0.39 0.72 0.51 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.15 0.12 0.45 0.41 0.42 0.49 0.44 0.43 0.70 0.69 0.77 0.67 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.18 0.12 08S ORMINPCT OPDEMLTG OPDEMCOA OPDEMSEN OPCTDEM ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IMINVOT IMINREG ILTG88 ICOA88 ISENSO OTOTVOT OTOTMIN OMINVOT OMINREG 16 0.04 0.34 0.28 0.48 0.46 4651 1851 1215 532 1191 1035 1072 4887 351 275 123 17 0.04 0.32 0.22 0.49 0.32 4651 1851 1215 532 11971 1035 1072 4380 362 260 159 18 0.02 0.35 0.24 0.47 0.40 4651 1851 1215 532 1197 1035 1072 3441 180 112 50 19 -0.09 0.43 0.39 0.50 0.53 4651 1851 1215 532 1191 1035S 1072 1515 309 181 146 20 0.09 0.43 0.39 0.50 0.53 4094 2628 1807 985 1054 925 1189 1515 309 181 146 08S OLTG88 OCOA88 OSEN90 GTBLKPOP LTBLKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKREG EQBLKREG GTMINPOP LTMINPOP EQMINPOP 16 1600 1384 1455 17 2168 1921 2176 18 2017 1714 1863 19 909 790 980 20 909 790 980 -— wh od wh wa O 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 o C 0 0 0 0 1 1 i 2 1 1 O O O O Oo O O O 0 O o 0 o o o PT CP G e Gy es | O 0 0 O 0 O 0 O o O o O 0 0 0 - — h e d e h d h bh O O 0 O O 0 0 O o O O O 0 O O 0 O 0 O o 0BS GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQMINVOT GTMINREG LTMINREG EQMINREG GTDEMCOA LTDEMCOA EQDEMCOA GTDEMLTG LTDEMLTG EQDEMLTG GTDEMSEN LTDEMSEN 16 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 17 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 | 0 0 1 0 18 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 19 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 20 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 08S EQDEMSEN GTDEMREG LTDEMREG EQDEMREG DEMNTBLK BLKNTDEM PRFLAG 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Printed 09/01.99 10:28:54 Discovery m - TINTS ES LSS SSN an, NANA A 9 NER SNE Sd SARE 0g DONSUE HS x] esa nc x NRERIEN EDISTR RR RSCOR \ UIEORORP > DORRIT RY DORR PERRIN RAN NN 4 N N N x NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING 12:00 Tuesday, February 24, 1998 LIS 100 OBS FROM FINAL DATA SET - CHECK COMPARIS 0BS SEGMENT VTDKEY OPRECNCT IPRECNCT ITOTPOP ITOTWHT ITOTBLK IWHTVOT IBLKVOT IASIVOT IAMIVOT 01 21 37.119.0198 09.119.0159 12.119.0198 5384 2756 2421 2287 1669 80 27 22 37.119.0198 09.119.0150 12.119.0198 5384 2756 2421 2287 1669 80 27 23 37.119.0198 09.119.0137 12.119.0198 5384 2756 2421 2287 1669 80 27 4 24 37.119.0152 09.119.0138 12.119.0152 4296 166 4109 135 3063 6 0 25 25 337.119.0152 09.119.0151 12.119.0152 4296 166 4109 135 3063 6 0 08s IOTHVOT IREGVOT IREGWHT IREGBLK IREGOTH ICDEMSS ILDEMSS ISDEM90 ICREPSS ILREPS88 ISREPS0 21 31 2282 1297 969 16 642 742 911 283 312 278 22 31 2282 1297 969 16 642 742 911 283 312 278 23 31 2282 1297 969 16 642 742 911 283 312 278 24 8 2340 80 2258 2 1097 1199 1600 35 69 56 25 8 2340 80 2258 2 1097 1199 1600 35 69 56 08S IDEM IREP OTOTPOP OQTOTWHT OTOTBLK OWHTVOT 0BLKVOT OASIVOT OAMIVOT OOTHVOT OREGVOT 21 1406 694 2606 2153 307 1677 196 78 6 12 1542 22 1406 694 3373 2759 388 2304 272 124 12 35 1913 23 1406 694 2620 2479 52 2035 32 57 6 4 1763 24 2247 69 3457 2936 397 2576 299 57 14 28 2086 25 2247 69 3420 2936 319 2554 223 85 8 24 2253 08s OREGWHT OREGBLK OREGOTH OCDEMS8 OLDEMSS OSDEM90 OCREP88 OLREP88 OSREPS0 ODEM OREP 21 1442 94 6 281 366 487 540 597 476 781 641 22 1787 115 11 386 487 575 680 753 601 979 778 23 1713 30 20 370 496 557 609 688 608 941 709 24 1895 176 15 410 534 634 598 654 533 1081 822 25 2092 147 14 423 594 750 686 766 616 1164 877 08S IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVMINPCT IRMINPCT IPDEMLTG IPDEMCOA IPDEMSEN IPCTODEM OBLKPCT OVBLKPCT ORBLKPCT OMINPCT OVMINPCT 21 0.45 0.41 0.42 0.49 0.44 0.43 0.70 0.69 0.77 0.67 0.12 0.10 0.06 0.17 0.15 22 0.45 0.41 0.42 0.49 0.44 0.43 0.70 0.69 0.77 0.67 0.12 0.10 0.06 0.18 0.16 ,—~23 0.45 0.41 0.42 0.49 0.44 0.43 0.70 0.69 Q.77 0.67 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.05 : 0.96 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.13 0.10 0.08 0.15 0.13 0.96 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.14 0.12 OBS ORMINPCT OPDEMLTG OPDEMCOA OPDEMSEN OPCTDEM ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IMINVOT IMINREG ILTG88 ICOAS88 ISENSO OTOTVOT OTOTMIN OMINVOT OMINREG 21 0.06 0.38 0.34 0.51 0.55 4094 2628 1807 985 1054 925 1189 1969 453 292 100 22 0.07 0.39 0.36 0.49 0.56 4094 2628 1807 985 1054 925 1189 2747 614 443 126 23 0.03 0.42 0.38 0.48 0.57 4094 2628 1807 985 1054 925 1189 2134 141 99 50 24 0.09 0.45 0.41 0.54 0.57 3212 4130 3077 2260 1268 1 13132 1656 2974 521 398 191 25 -0.07 0.44 0.38 Q.S5 0.57 3212 4130 3077 2260 1268 1132 1656 2894 484 340 161 OBS OLTG88 0COA88 OSEN90 GTBLKPOP LTBLKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKREG EQBLKREG GTMINPOP LTMINPOP EQMINPOP 21 963 821 963 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 22 1240 1066 1176 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 23 1184 979 11658 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 24 1188 1008 1167 1 0 0 i 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 25 1360 1109 1366 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 08S GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQMINVOT GTMINREG LTMINREG EQUINREG GTDEMCOA LTDEMCOA EQDEMCOA GTDEMLTG LTDEMLTG EQDEMLTG GTDEMSEN LTDEMSEN 21 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 22 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 23 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 24 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 25 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 OBS EQDEMSEN GTDEMREG LTOEMREG EQDEMREG DEMNTBLK BLKNTDEM PRFLAG 21 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 12 Printed 09/01/99 10:28:55 Discovery n HERTS TTR REE NST = A a ERR AERHEIIRIEERRTIRNS NR NS : 3 NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTIN 12:00 Tuesday, February 24, 1998 LIST OP 100 0BS FROM FINAL DATA SET - CHECK COMPARISO SEGMENT VTDKEY OPRECNCT IPRECNCT ITOTPOP ITOTWHT ITOTBLK IWHTVOT IBLKVOT IASIVOT IAMIVOT 26 37.119.0122 09.119.0121 12.119.0122 4443 174 4255 167 2882 27 37.119.0122 09.119.0110 12.119.0122 4443 174 4255 167 2882 28 37.119.0109 09.119.0110 12.119.0109 3241 2558 559 2244 521 29 37.119.0109 09.119.0120 12.119.0109 3241 2558 559 2244 521 30 137.119.0109 09.119.0108 12.119.0109 3241 2558 559 2244 521 2 2 14 14 14 IOTHVOT IREGVOT IREGWHT IREGBLK IREGOTH ICDEMSS ILDEMSS ISDEM90 ICREP88 ILREPSS ISREPS0 2005 130 1871 714 774 1082 43 S50 2005 130 1871 - 714 774 1082 43 50 2388 2047 333 638 913 1071 455 350 2388 2047 333 638 913 1071 455 350 2388 2047 333 638 913 1071 455 350 IDEM IREP oTOTPOP OTOTWHT OTOTBLK OWHTVOT 0BLKVOT OASIVOT OOTHVOT OREGVOT 1902 75 3139 2683 330 2282 51 1902 75 2248 2006 155 1647 11 1355 621 2248 2006 155 1647 11 1555 621 2124 2096 11 1732 5 1555 621 2940 2841 72 2437 14 1793 1483 1483 1692 2114 OREGWHT OREGBLK OREGOTH OCDEMSS8 OLDEM88 OSDEMS0. OCREP88 OLREP88 ODEM OREP 1667 118 425 553 663 455 504 1066 612 1409 64 410 714 325 342 941 407 1409 64 410 714 325 342 941 407 1682 8 341 665 554 570 514 931 2 643 2096 17 322 724 806 801 716 1036 955 IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVMINPCT IRMINPCT IPDEMLTG IPDEMCOA IPDEMSEN IPCTDEM OBLKPCT OVBLKPCT ORBLKPCT OMINPCT OVMINPCT 0.96 .94 0.93 ‘ 0.95 0.94 0.96 .94 0.93 . 0.95 0.94 0.17 .18 0.14 . 0.22 0.14 .96 3 - . 0.15 .96 . . ‘ 0.11 + 7 . . : 0.13 : . 0.01 wll .02 . .01 0.03 20.17 .18 0.14 . 0.22 0.14 . . 2 71 > 0.37 .18 0.14 : 0.22 0.14 ICOA88 ISENSO OTOTVOT OTOTMIN OMINVOT OMINREG 52 ; .60, .64 3057 4269 2890 1875 817 746 1132 2577 456 295 126 .63 ‘ : .70 3057 4269 2890 1875 817 746 1132 1808 242 161 74 .63 a : «70 2878 683 634 341 1368 1115 1421 1808 242 161 74 S50 . v . 59 2878 683 634 341 1368 1115 1421 1752 28 20 10 .01 .43 . . «52 2878 683 634 341 1368 1115 1421 2512 99 75 18 OLTG88 0COA88 OSEN90 GTBLKPOP LTBLKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKREG EQBLKREG GTMINPOP LTMINPOP EQMINPOP 1057 880 1103 916 735 978 916 735 978 1133 895 1179 1394 1128 1440 GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQMINVOT GTMINREG LTMINREG EQMINREG GTDEMCOA LTDEMCOA EQDEMCOA GTDEMLTG LTOEMLTG EQDEMLTG GTDEMSEN LTDEMSEN EQDEMSEN GTDEMREG LTDEMREG EQDEMREG Printed 09/01.99 10:28:55 Discovery SE - 0} 12:00 Tuesday, February 24, 1998 14 oe OBS FROM FINAL DATA SET - CHECK COMPARISSS OBS SEGMENT VTDKEY OPRECNCT IPRECNCT ITOTPOP = ITOTWHT ITOTBLK IWHTVOT IBLKVOT IASIVOT IAMIVOT 31 37.119.0102 09.119.0101 12.119.0102 5898 4520 1213 4062 32 337.119.0117 09.119.0147 12.119.0117 3801 970 2763 33 37.119.0117 09.119.0135 12.119.0117 3801 970 2763 34 37.119.0117 09.119.0107 12.119.0117 3801 970 2763 35 37.119.0117 09.119.0134 12.119.0117 3801 970 2763 934 69 830 1797 24 830 1797 24 830 1797 24 830 1797 24 IOTHVOT IREGVOT IREGWHT IREGBLK IREGOTH ICDEM88 ILDEMSS ISDEMS0 ICREP88 ILREPSS ISREPSO 2 3609 3070 S519 853 1111 1575 689 719 484 1618 505 1110 508 596 836 166 185 109 1618 505 1110 508 596 836 166 185 109 1618 505 1110 S08 596 836 166 185 109 1618 505 1110 508 596 836 166 185 109 IDEM IREP QToTPOP OTOTWHT OWHTVOT OBLKVOT OASIVOT OAMIVOT O00THVOT OREGVOT 2225 986 1758 1716 1488 35 1329 209 2039 2000 1665 28 1329 209 1901 1461 1212 287 1183 1329 208 2460 1991 1729 318 23 1383 1329 209 3662 3163 2725 270 40 1817 1427 1610 OREGWHT OREGBLK OREGOTH OCDEM8S OSDEMIO OCREP88 OLREP88 OSREP90 ODEM OREP 1421 6 262 528 478 486 386 732 z 598 1592 17 234 440 530 621 641 597 798 732 1088 102 236 376 479 382 385 321 634 476 1206 181 295 383 487 306 345 300 756 511 1667 143 398 485 495 489 565 515 992 642 IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVMINPCT IRMINPCT IPDEMLTG IPDEMCOA IPDEMSEN IPCTDEM OBLKPCT OVBLKPCT ORBLKPCT OMINPCT OVMINPCT .18 0.14 ‘ . ‘ .61 .55 .69 0.02 0.02 . 0.02 .02 -57 .69 : . s .76 75 . .86 0.02 0.02 . 0.02 .02 .67 : . . ; .76 75 . .86 0.22 0.19 . 0.23 .20 .67 : . % . .76 75 . .86 0.17 0.15 . 0.19 «17 -67 0. . ; «B .76 -75 . .86 0.1 0.09 . 0.14 «13 ORMINPCT OPDEMLTG OPDEMCOA OPDEMSEN OPCTDEM ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IMINVOT IMINREG ILTG88 ICOA88 ISENSO OTOTVOT OTOTMIN OMINVOT OMINREG ~~ .45 0.35 : ‘ 5118 1378 1056 539 1830 1542 2059 1526 42 38 6 .41 0.27 . > 2667 2831 1837 1113 781 674 945 1698 39 33 18 .49 0.38 . . 2667 2831 1837 1113 781 674 945 1511 440 299 10S .53 0.49 : . 2667 2831 1837 1113 781 674 945 2088 469 359 187 .46 0.45 : . 2667 2831 1837 1113 781 674 945 3068 499 343 180 OLTG88 OCOA88 OSENSO GTBLKPOP LTBLKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKREG EQBLKREG GTMINPOP LTMINPOP EQMINPOP 888 740 914 1081 885 1127 761 618 800 728 601 787 1050 887 1010 GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQMINVOT GTMINREG LTMINREG EQUINREG GTDEMCOA LTDEMCOA EQDEMCOA GTDEMLTG LTDEMLTG EQDEMLTG GTDEMSEN LTDEMSEN EQDEMSEN GTDEMREG LTDEMREG Printed 09/01/99 10:28:55 Discovery ITOTWHT 2850 2675 3386 3386 3386 ICD EM88 459 440 401 401 401 OWHTVOT 2767 1823 1823 2346 4839 0SD EMS0 598 512 512 565 1400 RRR RR NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTI NG 100 0BS FROM FINAL DATA SET - CHECK COMPAR} ITOTBLK 1 608 781 573 573 573 ILDEMSS S75 607 497 497 497 OBLKVOT 335 404 404 432 1024 OCREP88 617 308 308 565 879 IWHTVOT 2383 2173 2759 2759 2759 ISDEMSO OAS 805 648 675 675 675 IVOoT 86 S83 S53 108 144 OLREP88 691 357 357 646 997 12:00 Tuesday, February 24, 1998 IBLKVOT 1135 538 398 398 398 ICREP88 448 556 623 623 623 OAMIVOT 13 4 4 8 23 OSREPS0 573 335 335 622 780 IASIVOT 74 80 59 59 59 ILR EP88 508 621 680 680 680 OOTHVOT 33 10 10 28 41 ODEM 1164 803 803 1140 1981 IAMIVOT 22 1 (T oT Vo I Vo Is ISR ORE EP90 426 540 653 653 653 GVOT 2089 1408 1408 1929 3707 OREP 741 463 463 670 1344 IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVMINPCT IRMINPCT IPDEMLTG IPDEMCOA IPDEMSEN IPCTDEM OBLKPCT OVBLKPCT ORBLKPCT OMINPCT OVMINPCT 1291 652 468 ‘468 468 0.65 0.55 0.53 0.51 6.51 495 326 305 305 305 0 0 0 0 0 1083 1228 1177 1177 1177 .67 .64 .62 .62 .62 © O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O «13 18 .18 .16 - .19 o c o o o o .10 0.09 .18 0.17; .18 0.17 «15. 0.10 17 ~~<:0.19 0.16 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.23 ICOA88 ISENSO OTOTVOT OTOTMIN OMINVOT OMINREG 907 996 1024 1024 1024 1231 1188 1328 1328 1328 3234 2294 2294 2922 6071 611 575 575 802 1781 467 471 471 576 1232 21 252 252 206 756 OLTG88 0COA88 OSENSO GTBLKPOP LTBLKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKREG EQBLKREG GTMINPOP LTMINPOP EQMINPOP -- - - - 0 0 O 0 0 0 O o -_ ed wh a OO BLKNTDEM O «= O 0 0 = O 0 0 O 0 O o PRFLAG ANA LRIIUL LACT : « RHE LCR REDHS: FRIIS DEER 3 ean i 0BS SEGMENT VTDKEY OPRECNCT IPRECNCT ITOTPOP 28 36 37.119.0146 09.119.0133 12.119.0146 4666 37 37.119.0129 09.119.0105 12.119.0129 3615 38 37.119.0161 09.119.0105 12.119.0161 4067 : 39 37.119.0161 09.119.0145 12.119.0161 4067 40 40 37.119.0161 09.119.0184 12.119.0161 4067 0BS IOTHVOT IREGVOT IREGWHT IREGBLK IREGOTH 36 60 2189 1694 485 10 37 16 2005 1679 313 13 38 2 2201 1896 291 14 39 2 2201 1896 291 14 40 2 2201 1896 291 14 08S IDEM IREP OTOTPOP OTOTWHT OTOTBLK 36 1344 662 3931 3320 439 37 Wu: . 1175 666 2645 2070 488 38 1274 786 2645 2070 488 39 1274 786 3673 2871 589 40 1274 786 7719 5938 1487 08S OREGWHT OREGBLK OREGOTH OCDEMS8 OLDEMSS 36 1878 192 19 389 540 37 1156 244 8 280 362 38 1156 244 8 280 362 39 1723 194 12 410 535 40 2951 718 38 766 926 08S 386 0.34 0.31 0.22 0.39 0.35 0.23 0.53 37: 0.22 0.19 0.16. 0.26 0.23 0.16. 0.49 an 0.14 0.12 0.13 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.42 0.14 0.12, 0.13 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.42 0.44% ---0.12 . . 0.13 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.42 0BS ORMINPCT OPDEMLTG OPDEMCOA OPDEMSEN OPCTDEM ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IMINVOT IMINREG ILTG88 36 0.10 0.44 0.39 0.51 0.61 3674 1816 37 0.12 0.50 0.48 0.60 0.63 2825 940 38: 0.18 0.50 0.48 0.60 0.63 3227 681 39 0.13 0.45 0.42 0.48 0.63 3227 681 40 - 0.20 0.48 0.47 0.64 0.60 3227 681 08s 36 1231 © 1006 117) 1 0 0 1 az. 719 588 847 1 0 0 1 38 719 588 847 0 1 0 0 39 1181 975° 1137 0 1 0 ‘0 40 1923 1645 2180 0 1 0 0 08S GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQMINVOT GTMINREG LTMINREG 36 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 37 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 38 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 39 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 40 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 08S EQDEMSEN GTDEMREG LTDEMREG EQDEMREG DEMNTBLK 36 0 © 0 0 0 37 0 1 0 0 0 38 0 0 1 0 0 39 0 0 1 0 0 ‘a 0 1 0 0 0 © O O 0 O 0 O 0 O o C 0 0 0 O0 o -~ 0 1 1 0 1 » O O O O = -_ eh h o O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O = = 0 0 0 0 O0 c b h o o = - - - 0 0 - OO = -4 0 O O 0 O O 0 O 0 O o EQUINREG GTDEMCOA LTDEMCOA EQDEMCOA GTDEMLTG LTDEMLTG EQDEMLTG GTDEMSEN LTDEMSEN 15 Printed 09/01/99 10:28:55 Discovery ES EgIALESy ENS CHIEN TSI CURE DIS TRICEARROGRAMS 2 EGR X R N\ Soe AR BAe N AN LON 241g Hix ERR BIE ERNE AI RR TR RR ERR SONA BN RH DRE NI NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING 12:00 Tuesday, February 24, 1998 16 LI 100 0BS FROM FINAL DATA SET - CHECK COMPAR $ 0BS SEGMENT VTDKEY OPRECNCT IPRECNCT 1TOTPOP ITOTWHT ITOTBLK IWHTVOT IBLKVOT IASIVOT IAMIVOT ~~" 41 37.119.0161 09.119.0195 12.119.0161 4067 3386 573 2759 398 59 9 42 37.119.0103 09.119.0104 12.119.0103 4613 2018 2393 1596 1555 109 10 44 37.119.0602 09.119.0104 12.119.0602 10599 8831 1463 7481 1176 193 23 4 45 37.119.0602 09.119.0601 12.119.0602 10599 8831 1463 7481 1176 193 23 45 46 37.119.0602 08.025.0101 12.119.0602 10599 8831 1463 7481 1176 193 23 08S IOTHVOT IREGVOT IREGWHT IREGBLK IREGOTH ICDEMSS ILDEMSS ISDEM90 ICREPS8 ILREP8S ISREPS0 41 2 2201 1896 291 14 401 497 675 623 680 653 42 14 2171 1211 949 11 544 633 866 449 489 421 43 23 2957 2576 347 34 1114 732 1114 850 846 850 44 23 2957 2576 347 34 1114 732 1114 850 846 850 45 23 2957 2576 347 34 1114 732 1114 850 846 850 08S IDEM IREP OTOTPOP OTOTWHT OTOTBLK OWHTVOT OBLKVOT OASIVOT OAMIVOT OOTHVOT OREGVOT 41 1274 786 7442 5837 1400 4506 927 105 18 20 3773 42 1506 549 4056 3438 533 2704 366 44 9 6 1934 43 1418 1222 4056 3438 533 2704 366 44 9 6 1934 44 1418 1222 1054 940 104 720 77 5 2 1 2027 45 1418 1222 3635 3238 360 2260 245 19 7 1 2091 08S OREGWHT OREGBLK OREGOTH OCDEMS8 OLDEMSS OSDEMS0 OCREP8S OLREPSS OSREP90 ODEM OREP 41 3092 654 27 513 649 1365 668 702 881 1904 1501 42 1624 300 10 474 615 778 768 845 725 1054 742 43 1624 300 10 474 615 778 768 845 725 1054 742 44 1741 281 5 362 486 696 613 664 712 1039 835 45 1909 175 7 392 467 575 796 815 793 886 1003 0BS IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVMINPCT IRMINPCT IPDEMLTG IPDEMCOA IPDEMSEN IPCTDEM OBLKPCT OVBLKPCT ORBLKPCT OMINPCT OVMINPCT 41 0.33. 0.12 03.0 0.47 0.15 0.14 0.42 0.39 0.51 0.62 0.190 0.17: Fo.17 0.22 0.19 42° 05277 "0.47 0.44 0.56 0.51 0.44 0.56 0.55 0.67 0.73 0.13 0.12 0.16 0.15 0.14 43 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.17 0.16 0.13 0.46 0.57 0.57 0.54 0.13 0.12 0.16 0.15 0.14 ei 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.17 0.16 0.13 0.46 0.57 0.57 0.54 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.17 0.16 0.13 0.46 0.57 0.57 0.54 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.11 0.11 OBS ORMINPCT OPDEMLTG OPDEMCOA OPDEMSEN OPCTDEM ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IMINVOT IMINREG ILTG88 ICOA88 ISENSO OTOTVOT OTOTMIN OMINVOT OMINREG ~ 0.18 0.48 0.43 0.61 0.56 3227 681 468 305 1177 1024 1328 5576 1605 1070 681 42 0.16 0.42 0.38 0.52 0.59 3284 2595 1688 S60 1122 993 1287 3129 618 425 310 43 0.16 0.42 0.38 0.52 0.59 8896 1768 1415 381 1578 1964 1964 3129 618 425 310 44 0.14 0.42 0.37 0.49 0.55 8896 1768 1415 381 1578 1964 1964 805 114 85 286 45 - 0.09 0.36 0.33 0.42 0.47 8896 1768 1415 381 1578 1964 1964 2532 397 272 182 0BS OLTG88 0COA88 OSENSO GTBLKPOP LTBLKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKREG EQBLKREG GTMINPOP LTMINPOP EQMINPOP 41 1351 1181 2246 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 * 0 0 1 0 42 1460 1242 1503 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 43 1460 1242 1503 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 44 1150 975 1408 1 0 0 “1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 45 1282 1188 1368 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0BS GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQMINVOT GTMINREG LTMINREG EQMINREG GTDEMCOA LTDEMCOA EQDEMCOA GTDEMLTG LTDEMLTG EQDEMLTG GTDEMSEN LTDEMSEN 41 0 1 0 0 1-- 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 42 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 43 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 44 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 45 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0BS EQDEMSEN GTOEMREG LTOEMREG EQDEMREG DEMNTBLK BLKNTDEM PRFLAG 41 0 A p 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 rq 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 R 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 ; 0 0 0 0 as 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Printed 09/01,99 10:28:55 Discovery ING LIS 00 OBS FROM FINAL DATA SET - CHECK COMPARIS OBS SEGMENT VTDKEY OPRECNCT IPRECNCT ITOTPOP ITOTWHT ITOTBLK IWHTVOT IBLKVOT IASIVOT IAMIVOT —48 47 37.119.0602 08.025.0103 12.119.0602 10599 8831 1463 7481 1176 48 37.119.0602 08.025.0203 12.119.0602 10599 8831 1463 7481 1176 49 37.119.1101 08.025.0203 12.119.1101 6429 5344 90S 4055 626 S50 37.119.1101 08.025.0204 12.119.1101 6429 5344 905 4055 626 51 37.119.0801 08.025.0301 12.119.0801 5069 4305 725 3316 524 193 23 193 23 [0 19 90 19 10 20 IOTHVOT IREGVOT IREGWHT IREGBLK IREGOTH ICDEMSS ILDEM8S ISDEMS0 ICREP8S ILREPS8 ISREPS0 2957 2576 347 1114 732 1114 850 846 850 2957 2576 347 1114 732 1114 850 846 850 4493 3700 765 767 1006 1421 1250 1380 1258 4493 3700 765 767 1006 1421 1250 1380 1258 2837 2475 .359 541 653 822 792 891 948 IDEM IREP OTOTPOP OTOTWHT OTOTBLK OWHTVOT OBLKVOT OASIVOT OAMIVOT OOTHVOT OREGVOT 1418 1222 2273 2204 41 1728 1418 1222 2041 2002 1514 2284 1807 2041 2002 1514 6 2284 1807 1373 1322 995 36 1537 1142 3001 2602 1978 263 S 1347 1 919 1 919 0 746 6 1470 OSREPSO ODEM OREP OREGWHT OREGBLK OREGOTH OCDEM88 OSDEMI0 OCREP8S8 OLREP88 1319 23 303 282 524 567 631 668 575 908 6 184 215 191 353 370 : 397 383 ; 475 908 6 184 215 191 353 370 397 383 475 718 21 149 175 171 287 300 344 282 398 1336 134 343 396 310 579 587 673 731 651 IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVMINPCT IRMINPCT IPDEMLTG IPDEMCOA IPDEMSEN IPCTDEM OBLKPCT OVBLKPCT ORBLKPCT OMINPCT OVMINPCT .14 «13 «12 lg .16 “13 0.46 . «57 .54 .14 .13 -12 “17 «16 .13 0.46 ¥ -57 .54 .14 .13 17 «17 .16 .18 0.42 . 53 -56 .14 «13 17 «17 .16 18 0.42 . .53 -56 .14 .14 .13 +15 .14 .13 0.42 . .46 +57 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03 . 0.09 . oh ORMINPCT OPDEMLTG OPDEMCOA CPDEMSEN OPCTDEM ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IMINVOT IMINREG ILTG88 ICOA88 ISENSO OTOTVOT OTOTMIN OMINVOT OMINREG .02 .38 .37 . 0.54 8896 1768 1415 381 1578 1964 1964 1785 69 57 28 +0 -37 .34 ! 0.45 8896 1768 1415 381 1578 1964 1964 1541 39 27 1 +01 Wg .34 ; 0.45 4805 1085 750 793 2386 2017 2679 1541 39 27 11 .04 “37 .34 2 0.41 4805 1085 750 793 2386 2017 2679 1036 51 41 28 +09 .40 .37 . 0.53 3872 764 556 362 1544 1333 1770 2282 399 274 134 OLTG88 0COA88 OSEN9SO GTBLKPOP LTBLKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKREG EQBLKREG GTMINPOP LTMINPOP EQMINPOP 910 827 913 585 537 588 585 S37 588 475 436 S515 983 922 983 GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQMINVOT GTMINREG LTMINREG EQMINREG GTDEMCOA LTDEMCOA EQDEMCOA GTDEMLTG LTDEMLTG EQDEMLTG GTDEMSEN LTDEMSEN EQDEMSEN GTDEMREG LTDEMREG | Printed 09/01/99 10:28:55 Discovery NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING 12:00 Tuesday, February 24, 1998 18 LI 100 OBS FROM FINAL DATA SET - CHECK COMPARINE® OBS SEGMENT VTDKEY OPRECNCT IPRECNCT ITOTPOP ITOTWHT ITOTBLK IWHTVOT IBLKVOT IASIVOT IAMIVOT 52 37.119.0501 08.025.0301 12.119.0501 3706 3041 626 2279 441 S3 37.119.0701 08.025.0301 12.119.0701 4280 3529 669 3099 510 54 37.097.0404 08.025.0301 12.097.0404 4228 4064 140 3066 100 55 37.097.0403 08.025.0301 12.097.0403 4246 3750 458 2944 306 56 37.097.0403 06.159.0102 12.097.0403 4246 3750 458 2944 306 16 6 12 S 1 11 IOTHVOT IREGVOT IREGWHT IREGBLK IREGOTH ICDEMSS ILDEMSS ISDEMSO ICREP88 ILREPSS ISREPS0 1809 1537 269 380 479 S36 525 622 564 2203 1885 312 491 692 961 512 544 447 1668 1616 50 377 390 300 606 636 641 1920 1817 102 492 524 460 696 755 681 1920 1817 -102 492 524 460 696 755 681 IDEM IREP 0TOTPOP OTOTWHT 0TOTBLK OWHTVOT OBLKVOT OASIVOT OAMIVOT OOTHVOT OREGVOT 1078 628 3001 2602 384 1978 263 1413 613 3001 2602 1978 263 890 687 3001 2602 384 1978 263 1129 710 3001 2602 384 1978 263 1129 710 5688 5635 24 4299 16 1470 1470 1470 1470 2435 OREGWHT OREGBLK OREGOTH OCDEMSS OLDEMSS OSDEM90 OCREPS8 OLREP8S OSREP90 ODEM OREP 1336 134 343 396 310 579 587 673 731 651 1336 134 343 396 310 579 587 673 731 651 1336 134 343 396 310 579 587 673 731 651 1336 134 343 396 310. 579 587 673 731 651 2424 8 435 506 297 1072 1057 1132 1068 1244 IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVMINPCT IRMINPCT IPDEMLTG IPDEMCOA IPDEMSEN IPCTDEM OBLKPCT OVBLKPCT ORBLKPCT OMINPCT OVMINPCT 0.17 0.18 0.15 0.18 «17 0.15 ‘ 0.42 0.49 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.18 .16 0.14 . 0.49 0.68 0.63" 0.13 0.12 } 13 32 0. 0.03 _ 0.03 0.03, 0.04 .04 0.03 A 0.38 0.32 0. 0. 0. 0.13 0.12 . «13 12 0:33 032. 0.0 a3 12 0,11 ,...0.00 :. 0.08, 0.42 .10 0.05 Al ere limon 0.40, 0 0. 0.130.137" “008 .13 .12 0.11 0.09 0.05 0.12 .10 0.05 4 0.41 0.40 61 0.00 0.00 ; .01 .01 ORMINPCT OPDEMLTG OPDEMCOA OPDEMSEN OPCTDEM ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IMINVOT IMINREG ILTG88 ICOAS8 ISENSO OTOTVOT OTOTMIN OMINVOT OMINREG -° 0.37 . ‘ 2743 665 464 272 1101 90S 1100 2252 399 274 134 0.37 : . 3675 751 S76 318 1236 1003 1408 2252 399 274 134 0.37 . . 3187 164 121 52 1026 983 941 2252 399 274 134 .0.37 vii le .83 , 3275 496 331 103 1279 1188 1141 2252 399 274 134 0.29 : .46 3275 496 331 103 1279 1188 1141 4339 53 40 11 OLTG88 0COA88 OSEN9O GTBLKPOP LTBLKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKREG EQBLKREG GTMINPOP LTMINPOP EQMINPOP 922 922 922 922 1563 1507 1429 GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQMINVOT GTMINREG LTMINREG fr 1 EQDEMSEN GTDEMREG LTDEMREG EQDEMREG Printed 09/01/99 10:28:56 Discovery No} 12:00 Tuesday, February 24, 1998 LIST #100 0BS FROM FINAL DATA SET - CHECK COMPARISC 0BS SEGMENT VTDKEY OPRECNCT IPRECNCT ITOTPOP ITOTWHT ITOTBLK IWHTVOT IBLKVOT IASIVOT TAMIVOT S57 37.097.0403 06.159.0101 12.097.0403 4246 3750 458 2944 306 58 37.097.0101 06.159.0901 12.097.0101 4070 3620 435 2700 297 59 37.097.0301 06.159.0901 12.097.0301 8121 6858 1168 5114 766 60 37.159.0301 06.159.0901 12.159.0301 1955 1461 485 1097 348 61 37.159.0301 06.159.1301 12.159.0301 1955 1461 485 1097 348 11 6 12 2 2 IOTHVOT IREGVOT IREGWHT IREGBLK IREGOTH ICDEM88 ILDEM88 ISDEMSO ICREP88 ILREP8S ISREPS0 9 1920 1817 102 492 524 460 696 755 681 1 1372 1227 144 372 361 313 562 488 3608 3368 235 782 782 877 1582 1342 972 733 239 330 368 319 275 277 972 733 239 330 368 319 275 277 IREP 0TOTPOP OTOTWHT OTOTBLK OWHTVOT OBLKVOT OASIVOT OOTHVOT OREGVOT 710 3004 2890 83 2133 497 1013 103 755 1547 1013 103 755 269 1013 103 755 269 1134 102 832 2 1095 0 515 0 515 0 515 0 665 OREGBLK OCDEMSS8 OLDEM8S OSDEMS0 OCREP88 OLREP88 OSREPS0 ODEM OREP 15 258 306 209 482 491 511 535 493 31 155 157 122 194 203 213 286 201 31 155 157 122 194 203 213 286 201 31 155 157 122 194 203 213 286 201 56 164 186 146 269 263 294 315 307 IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVMINPCT IRMINPCT IPDEMLTG IPDEMCOA IPDEMSEN IPCTDEM OBLKPCT OVBLKPCT ORBLKPCT OMINPCT OVMINPCT «31 . .05 9.12 0.10 . : 0.41 ‘ .51 «31 . “10 6.1} 0.10 : . 0.42 . .62 .14 . 07 0.16 0.14 . : 0.35 . .35 “25 : +25 0.25 0.24 . ¢ 0.53 . .71 .25 . J25 0.25 0.24 . . 0.53 : <7 ORMINPCT OPDEMLTG OPDEMCOA OPDEMSEN OPCTDEM ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IMINVOT IMINREG ILTG88 ICOA88 ISENSO OTOTVOT OTOTMIN OMINVOT OMINREG .03 .38 .35 5 .52 3275 496 331 103 1279 1188 1141 2272 114 79 15 .06 .44 .44 . -59 3007 "450 307 145 923 891 801 824 103 69 31 .06 .44 .44 : .59 5943 1263 829 240 2364 2247 2219 824 103 69 31 .06 .44 .44 . -59 1449 494 352 239 643 619 596 824 103 69 31 .08 .41 .38 . «51 1449 494 352 239 643 619 5396 909 102 77 56 OLTG88 0COA88 OSENSO GTBLKPOP LTBLKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKREG EQBLKREG GTMINPOP LTMINPOP EQMINPOP 797 740 720 1 360 349 335 1 360 349 335 ie 360 349 335 1 449 433 440 1 GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQMINVOT GTMINREG LTMINREG EQMINREG GTDEMCOA LTDEMCOA EQDEMCOA GTOEMLTG LTDEMLTG EQDEMLTG GTDEMSEN LTDEMSEN EQDEMSEN GTDEMREG LTDEMREG Printed 09/01/99 10:28:56 Discovery SHRINE NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING 12:00 Tuesday, Februar 24, 1998 20 100 OBS FROM FINAL DATA SET - CHECK COMPARIMN OBS SEGMENT VTDKEY OPRECNCT ~~ IPRECNCT ITOTPOP ITOTWHT ITOTBLK IWHTVOT IBLKVOT IASIVOT ~~ rAMIvOT ~ 7%. 62 37.159.1401 06.159.1301 12.159.1401 1756 1381 358 63 37.159.1401 06.159.1104 12.159.1401 1756 1381 358 64 37.159.0401 06.159.1104 12.159.0401 4589 3808 725 65 37.159.1107 06.159.1104 12.159.1107 2598 2237 66 37.159.1115 06.159.1104 12.159.1115 2296 15 1038 263 1038 263 2977 529 331 1952 281 2278 1 1726 IOTHVOT IREGVOT IREGWHT IREGBLK IREGOTH ICDEMS8 ILDEM8S ISDEM90 ICREP88 ILREP88 708 135 269 286 241 254 278 708 135 269 286 241 254 278 2181 727 761 624 861 899 1143 334 397 366 384 392 2 619 606 522 13 27 IDEM oTOTPOP OTOTBLK OWHTVOT 0BLKVOT OASIVOT OAMIVOT 00THVOT OREGVOT 498 1236 102 832 77 0 0 498 4680 835 3083 527 40 10 1428 4680 835 3083 527 40 10 600 4680 835 3083 527 40 10 1141 4680 835 3083 527 40 10 665 2624 2624 2624 2624 OREGWHT OREGBLK OREGOTH OLDEM88 OSODEMS0 OCREP88 OLREP88 OSREPS0 ODEM OREP 609 56 0 164 186 146 269 263 294 315 2291 315 : 18 713 789 746 882 880 798 2291 315 18 713 789 746 882 880 798 2291 315 18 713 789 746 882 880 798 2291 315 18 713 789 746 882 880 798 307 1392 1041 1392 1041 1392 1041 1392 1041 IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVMINPCT IRMINPCT IPDEMLTG IPDEMCOA IPDEMSEN IPCTDEM OBLKPCT OVBLKPCT ORBLKPCT OMINPCT OVMINPCT 0.20 0.20 0.16 0.21 0.21 0.16 0.51 0.51 0.47 .62 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 .08 0.20 0.20 0.16 0.21 0.21 0.16 0.51 0.51 0.47 .62 0.18 0.14 8.12 0.19 .16 0.18... 8,15...10.13 0.17 0.16 0.13 0.46 0.46 0.40 .60 0.18 0.14 0.12 0.19 .16 0.13 ..0.12.. -0:05~ 0.14 0.13 0.05 0.50 0.47 0.49 .53 0.18 0.14 0.12- 0.19 .16 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.96 0.98 1.00 .96 0.18 0.14 0.12 0.19 .16 ORMINPCT OPDEMLTG OPDEMCOA OPDEMSEN OPCTDEM ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IMINVOT IMINREG ILTG88 ICOA88 ISENSO OTOTVOT OTOTMIN OMINVOT OMINREG ~ .08 .41 .38 0.33 -51 1309 375 271 136 564 523 513 909 102 77 56 «V3 .47 .45 0.48 «57 1309 375 27% 136 564 523 513 3667 S09 584 333 +13 .47 .45 0.48 57 3545 781 568 335 1660 1588 1573 3667 909 584 333 -13 .47 .45 0.48 .57 2255 361 303 64 789 718 743 3667 909 584 333 .13 .47 .45 0.48 +57 1738 2281 1727 1256 633 632 523 3667 S09 584 333 OLTG88 0COA88 OSEN90 GTBLKPOP LTBLKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKREG EQBLKREG GTMINPOP LTMINPOP EQMINPOP 449 433 440 i 0 1669 1595 1544 0 1669 1595 1544 1 1669 1595 1544 Xe a bd 1669 1595 1544 0 GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQMINVOT GTMINREG LTMINREG EQUINREG GTDEMCOA LTDEMCOA EQDEMCOA GTDEMLTG LTOEMLTG EQDEMLTG GTDEMSEN LTDEMSEN EQDEMSEN GTDEMREG LTDEMREG DEMNTBLK BLKNTDEM 1 1 a 0 1 Printed 09/01/99 10:28:56 Discovery OBS SEGMENT LIS ITOTWHT 15 1222 1222 2138 2138 ICD EM88 619 365 365 §57 857 OWHTVOT 0SD 3927 3927 1894 1894 2930 EM90 554 554 410 410 259 NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING 100 OBS FROM FINAL DATA SET - CHECK COMPARINS ITOTBLK 2278 702 702 1489 1489 ILDEM8S 606 414 414 S582 582 0BLKVOT 207 207 282 282 542 OCREP88 1 1067 067 517 517 551 IWHTVOT 11 1051 1051 1787 1787 ISD OAS OLR EMS0 522 410 410 489 489 IvVoT EP88 1045 1045 S70 570 561 IBLKVOT 1726 496 496 937 937 ICREPSS 13 264 264 407 407 OAMIVOT 999 551 551 S530 IASIVOT 0 18 18 10 10 ILREP8SS 27 267 OOTHVOT 1096 1096 943 943 685 IAMIVOT [ o ) 0 ~ IE _ ] ISREP90 1 273 273 412 412 OREGVOT 2574 2574 1634 1634 1445 OREP 1241 1241 584 584 658 IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVMINPCT IRMINPCT IPDEMLTG IPDEMCOA IPDEMSEN IPCTOEM OBLKPCT OVBLKPCT ORBLKPCT OMINPCT OVMINPCT © 0 O 0 0 O O ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IMINVOT IMINREG ILTGSS 1727 520 520 958 958 1 256 248 248 495 495 633 681 681 1002 1002 .96 .87 .67 .68 .68 OO O 0 O O 0 0 o O o .05 .05 15 15 14 0.0S .05 .13 .13 -135 O O O0 OO 0o 0.07 0.07 0.16 0.16 0.15 0 O 0 0 0 0 .06 .06 .14 .14 17 ICOA88 ISENSO OTOTVOT OTOTMIN OMINVOT OMINREG 632 629 629 964 964 523 683 683 901 901 4189 4189 2192 2192 3514 390 390 438 438 665 262 262 298 298 584 9 9 15 15 S 3 3 0 0 7 OLTG88 0COA88 OSENS0 GTBLKPOP LTBLKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKREG EQBLKREG GTMINPOP LTMINPOP EQMINPOP VTDKEY OPRECNCT IPRECNCT ITOTPOP is 67 37.159.1115 06.159.0701 12.159.1115 22386 68 37.159.1113 06.159.0701 12.159.1113 1964 69 37.159.1113 06.159.1114 12.159.1113 1964 od 70 37.159.1112 06.159.1114 12.159.1112 3659 70 71 37.159.1112 06.159.0702 12.159.1112 3659 0BS IOTHVOT IREGVOT IREGWHT IREGBLK IREGOTH 66 1 1258 2 1255 1 67 2 1158 910 245 3 68 2 1158 910 245 3 69 5 1583 1088 492 3 70 5 1583 1088 492 3 08S IDEM IREP oTOTPOP OTOTWHT OTOTBLK 66 1141 44 5763 5373 309 67 718 353 5763 5373 309 68 718 353 2766 2328 412 69 1007 466 2766 2328 412 70 1007 466 4370 3705 609 08s OREGWHT OREGBLK OREGOTH OCDEMS8 OLDEMSS 66 2481 87 6 539 639 67 2481 87 6 539 639 68 1484 148 2 491 509 69 1484 148 2 491 509 70 1348 89 8 281 327 08S 66 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.96 67 0.36 0.32 0.21 0.38 0.33 0.21 0.61 =a. 20.38 0.32 0.21 0.38 0.33 0.21 0.61 al I 0.34 0.3 0.42 0.35 0.33% 0.58 0.41 0.34 0.31 0.42 0.35 0.31 0.58 OBS ORMINPCT OPDEMLTG OPDEMCOA OPDEMSEN OPCTDEM 66 0.04 0.38 0.34 0.36 0.47 1738 2281 87 "0.04 0.33 0.34 0.36 0.47 1571 742 63 0.09 0.47 0.49 0.43 0.62 1571 742 69 0.09 0.47 0.49 0.43 0.62 2745 1521 70 0.07 0.37 0.34 0.33 0.51 2745 1521 08S 66 1684 1606 1553 1 0 0 1 67 1684 1606 1553 1 0 0 1 68 1079 1008 961 1 0 0 3 69 1079 1008 961 1 0 0 { 70 888 832 789 1 0 0 1 08S GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQMINVOT GTMINREG LTMINREG 66 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 87 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 68 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 69 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 70 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 OBS EQDEMSEN GTDEMREG LTDEMREG EQDEMREG DEMNTBLK 66 0 1 0 0 0 67 0 1 0 0 0 6s 0 1 0 0 0 69 0 1 0 0 0 Re 0 1 0 0 0 © O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O 0 o O 0 0 O 0 O 0 © 0 0 0 0 O 0o 0 O O 0 O O 0 0 O o O O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O 0 PRFLAG O O 0 O O 0 O 0 O 0 J N T A S G —y O O O 0 O O 0 O o l h w d w h w h bh (= « e e e 0 0 . 0 . 0 h t e d wd w h a C 0 0 0 0 l h e d e d a d hd O O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O 0 o O 0 0 O 0 O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O 0 o Printed 09/01,99 10:28:56 Discovery X WN A ER NR 3 2 R NaN SNERIRN SNARE x _: NTP PE EEN NSE A TT re SN oo > TTT YC EEREAS ln LS MCEIENTSENC REDISTRICENEROGRAMSNEASEOR 02538 NN SRN DIN RD N WN == REI > SA A RE RRA RE NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING 12:00 Tuesday, February 24, 1998 22 LIS 100 08S FROM FINAL DATA SET - CHECK COMPARISH OBS SEGMENT VTDKEY OPRECNCT IPRECNCT ITOTPOP ITOTWHT ITOTBLK IWHTVOT IBLKVOT IASIVOT TAMIVOT "i 72 37.159.1112 06.159.06%X2 12.159.1112 3659 2138 1489 1787 937 10 6 73 37.159.1112 06.159.0602 12.159.1112 3659 2138 1489 1787 937 10 6 74 - 37.159.1112 06.159.1102 112.159.1112 3659 2138 1489 1787 937 10 6 4 75 37.159.1108 06.159.1103 12.159.1108 2673 1673 978 1398 659 11 5 75 76 37.159.1108 06.159.11X6 12.159.1108 2673 1673 978 1398 659 11 5 08S IOTHVOT IREGVOT IREGWHT IREGBLK IREGOTH ICDEMS88 ILDEMSS ISDEMS0 ICREPS8S ILREPSS ISREPS0 71 5 1583 1088 492 3 557 582 489 407 420 412 72 5 1583 1088 492 3 557 582 489 407 420 412 73 8 1583 1088 492 3 557 582 489 407 420 412 74 1 1242 952 288 2 377 415 333 350 346 326 75 1 1242 952 288 2 377 415 333 350 346 326 oBsS IDEM IREP OTOTPOP QTOTWHT OTOTBLK OWHTVOT OBLKVOT OASIVOT QAMIVOT OOTHVOT OREGVOT 7 1007 466 67 38 20 32 17 0 0 6 0 72 1007 466 2641 2540 82 1882 60 11 2 0 1367 73 1007 466 4194 3815 345 2805 270 21 5 1 2279 74 757 390 3584 3222 318 2447 219 1 5 28 1616 75 757 390 26 1 25 1 12 0 0 0 0 | 08s OREGWHT OREGBLK OREGOTH OCDEMSS OLDEMSS OSDEMS0 OCREP88 OLREPS8 OSREPS0 ODEM OREP 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 1363 6 1 301 g 360 275 589 592 604 554 730 73 2046 232 1 525 594 557 828 832 831 1071 1052 74 1513 99 4 327 386 285 661 650 637 722 790 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0BS IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVMINPCT IRMINPCT IPDEMLTG IPDEMCOA IPDEMSEN IPCTDEM OBLKPCT OVBLKPCT ORBLKPCT OMINPCT OVMINPCT 71 0.41 0.34 0.31 0.42 0.35 0.31 0.58 0.58 0.54 0.68 0.30 0.31 . 0.43 0.42 72 0.41 0.34 0.31 0.42 0.35 0.31 0.58 0.58 0.54 0.68 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.04 id | 0.41 0.34 0.31 0.42 0.35 0.31 0.58 0.58 0.54 0.68 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.37 0.32 0.23 0.37 0.33 0.23 0.55 0.52 0.51% 0.66 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.10 0.09 0.37 0.32 0.23 0.37 0.33 0.23 0.55 0.52 0.51 0.66 0.96 0.92 . 0.96 0.92 0BS ORMINPCT OPDEMLTG OPDEMCOA OPDEMSEN OPCTDEM ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IMINVOT IMINREG ILTG88 ICOA88 ISENS0 OTOTVOT OTOTMIN OMINVOT OMINREG™— 71 : ; ; : ; 2745 1521 958 495 1002 964 901 55 29 23 0 72 0.00 0.38 0.34 0.31 0.43 2745 1521 958 495 1002 964 901 1955 101 73 4 73. 0.10 0.42 0.39 0.40 0.50 2745 1521 958 495 1002 964 901 3102 379 297 233 74 0.06 0.37 0.33 0.31 0.48 2074 1000 676 290 761 727 659 2700 362 253 103 75 Aoki, k : ’ 2074 1000 676 290 761 727 659 13 25 12 0 OBS OLTG88 0COA88 OSENSO GTBLKPOP LTBLKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKREG EQBLKREG GTMINPOP LTMINPOP EQMINPOP 71 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 72 952 890 879 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 73 1426 1353 1388 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 74 1036 988 922 1 0 0 i i 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 i 0 1 0 0BS GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQMINVOT GTMINREG LTMINREG 71 0 1 0 . . . . 72 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 73 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 74 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 75 0 1 0 . 083 EQDEMSEN GTDEMREG LTDEMREG EQDEMREG DEMNTBLK BLKNTDEM PRFLAG 71 . . . . 1 72 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 73 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 74 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Ts . . . 1 Printed 09/01/99 10:28:56 Discovery 08s ——— 08S 08s 08s SEGMENT 7 VTDKEY OPRECNCT 37.159.1109 06.159 78 37.159.1101 06.159 79 37.159.1101 06.159 80 337.159.1101 06.159 81 37.159.1105 06.159 IOTHVOT IREGVOT 0 503 0 1099 0 1099 0 1099 1 1644 IDEM IREP 401 83 1010 66 1010 66 1010 66 1187 387 OREGWHT OREGBLK 0 0 0 0 1513 99 714 126 714 126 NRE NORTH CAROLI LIST © IPRECNCT ITOTPOP .11X6 112.159.1109 1089 .11X6 12.159.1101 2056 .1103 12.159.1101 2056 .1106 12.159.1101 2056 .1106 12.159.1105 3546 IREGWHT IREGBLK IREGOTH 190 313 0 172 925 2 172 925 2 172 925 2 1501 143 0 OTOTPOP OTOTWHT OTOTBLK 26 1 25 26 1 25 3584 3222 318 1845 1543 290 1845 1543 290 OREGOTH OCDEMSS OLDEMS8S8 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 327 386 0 252 267 0 252 267 NA REDISTRICTING ITOTWHT 292 317 317 317 2704 ICDEM88 241 523 523 523 627 2447 1226 1226 OSDEM90 0 0 285 206 206 ITOTBLK 796 1735 1735 1735 815 ILDEMSS 247 528 528 528 645 OBLKVOT 12 12 219 244 244 OCREP88 294 100 OBS FROM FINAL DATA SET - CHECK COMPARISONS IWHTVOT 2 251 259 259 259 211 ISDEM90 240 515 515 515 489 OASIVOT N N - - O O OLREP88 650 298 298 IBLKVOT S72 | 1152 1152 1152 483 ICREP88 70 42 42 42 406 OAMIVOT 637 349 349 IASIVOT: + d O O O O ILREPS8 74 50 50 50 453 OOTHVOT 722 487 487 IAMIVOT DO = od cd oa ISR ORE 12:00 Tuesday, February 24, 1998 23 EPS0 59 39 39 39 483 GVOT 790 315 315 IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVMINPCT IRMINPCT IPDEMLTG IPDEMCOA IPDEMSEN IPCTDEM OBLKPCT OVBLKPCT ORBLKPCT OMINPCT OVMINPCT 0.69 0.62 0.82 0.84 0.82 0.84 0.82 0.84 0.18 0.09 .73 .85 .85 .85 .24 0 0 0 0 0 0.70 0.62 0.82 0.84 0.82 0.84 0.82 0.84 0.18 0.09 0.80 0 0.93 0 0.93 0 0.93 0 0.50 0 OBS ORMINPCT OPDEMLTG OPDEMCOA OPDEMSEN OPCTDEM ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IMINVOT IMINREG ILTG8S 76 0.06 RE 1 iP 0.15 0.37 0.33 0.47 0.46 0.47 0.46 824 . 1412 0.48 1412 0.61 1412 0.61 2708 797 1739 1739 1739 842 873 1153 1153 1153 497 313 927 927 927 143 321 S78 578 578 1098 .83 .94 .94 .94 5 0.96 0.96 0.09 0.16 0.16 0.92 0.92 0.08 0.17 0.17 0.06 0. 0. 15 15 0.96 0.96 0.10 0.16 0.16 0.92 0.92 0.09 0.17 0.17 ICOA88 ISENSO OTOTVOT OTOTMIN OMINVOT OMINREG 1 311 565 565 565 033 299 554 554 554 972 13 13 2700 1478 1478 25 25 362 302 302 12 12 253 252 252 0 0 103 126 126 OLTG88 0COA88 OSEN90 GTBLKPOP LTBLKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKREG EQBLKREG GTMINPOP LTMINPOP EQMINPOP 0 0 1036 565 565 GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQMINVOT GTMINREG LTMINREG - = 0 0 EQDEMSEN C 0 O o : 0 0 0 0 0 0 988 922 1 546 555 1 546 555 1 OC O O = = 1 0 1 0 . 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 GTDEMREG LTDEMREG o O 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 o 0 0 1 1 1 | 0 0 1 1 0 1 EQDEMREG DEMNTBLK 0 0 0 0 0 0 OO O O = = o O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O o (= J = J = J -h OO O O = = EQUINREG GTDEMCOA LTDEMCOA EQDEMCOA GTDEMLT o - _ e e - - - 0 0 OC O O = = C O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O 0 o G LTDEMLTG EQDEMLTG GTDEMSEN LTDEMSEN Printed 09/01,99 10:28:56 Discovery NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING LIST 100 OBS FROM FINAL DATA SET - CHECK COMPARISONS SEGMENT VTDKEY OPRECNCT IPRECNCT ITOTPOP ITOTWHT ITOTBLK IWHTVOT IBLKVOT IASIVOT IAMIVOT 82 37.057.0401 06.159.1106 112.057.0401 3383 3236 121 2404 93 83 37.057.0401 06.057.0601 12.057.0401 3383 3236 121 2404 93 84 37.057.1104 06.057.0601 12.057.1104 2054 2007 34 1531 21 85 37.057.1106 06.057.0601 12.057.1106 3114 2612 425 2100 262 86 37.057.1105 06.057.0601 12.057.1105 2777 80S 1942 649 1389 IOTHVQT IREGVOT IREGWHT IREGBLK IREGOTH ICDEMSS ILDEMSS ISDEMS0 ICREP88 ILREP8S8 ISREPSO 10 1470 1406 64 457 455 311 528 553 619 10 1470 1406 64 457 455 311 528 553 619 2 952 941 11 225 245 163 458 464 408 12 1494 1368 125 407 423 366 299 307 440 7 1558 437 1117 581 597 827 378 393 126 IDEM IREP OTOTPOP OTOTWHT OTOTBLK OWHTVOT OBLKVOT OASIVOT OAMIVOT OOTHVOT OREGVOT 946 483 1845 1543 290 1226 244 946 483 4475 3807 628 2779 451 463 434 4475 3807 628 2779 451 975 453 4475 3807 628 2779 451 1354 16S 4475 3807 628 2779 451 2 840 10 1998 10 1998 10 1938 10 1998 OREGWHT OREGBLK OREGOTH OCDEM8S OLDEM8S OSDEMSO OCREP88 OLREP88 OSREPSO ODEM OREP 714 126 252 267 206 294 298 487 1700 296 746 766 542 485 S03 1253 1700 296 746 766 542 48S 503 1253 1700 296 746 766 542 485 503 628 1253 1700 296 746 766 542 485 503 628 1253 IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVMINPCT IRMINPCT IPDEMLTG IPDEMCOA IPDEMSEN IPCTDEM OBLKPCT OVBLKPCT ORBLKPCT OMINPCT OVMINPCT 0.04 - 4- 0.04 0.04 : 0.04 : 0.45 ; : .66 6 <= 0.17 + 0215 0.16 7 0.04 ° 0.04 0.04 - : 0.04 . 0.45 : . .66 .14 --0.14 "~~ 0.15 0.15 15 0.02 .0 0.01 : 0.02 2 0.35 . : .52 140 0.14 0.15 0.15 .15 0.14 M1 0.08-.- oO. 0.13 : 0.58 : : .68 34. = 0.147 0.15 0.15 18 0.70 : 0.72 7 0.68 ! 0.60 .89 A4. 0.14 0.15 0.15 15 ORMINPCT OPDEMLTG OPDEMCOA OPDEMSEN OPCTDEM ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IMINVOT IMINREG ILTG88 ICOA88 ISENSO OTOTVOT OTOTMIN OMINVOT OMINREG - -15 .47 .46 0.37 .61 2514 147 110 64 1008 98S 1478 302 252 126 $15 .60 .61 0.46 .66 2514 147 110 64 1008 985 3251 668 472 298 215 .60 +81 0.46 .66 1563 47 32 11 709 683 3251 668 472 298 ii 8. .60 .B1 0.46 .66 2405 502 305 126 730 706 3251 668 472 298 -15 .60 .61 0.46 .66 2055 1972 1406 1121 990 959 3251 668 472 298 OLTG38 0COA88 OSENSO GTBLKPOP LTBLKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKREG EQBLKREG GTMINPOP LTMINPOP EQMINPOP 565 546 555 1269 1231 1170 1269 1231 1170 1269 1231 1170 1269 1231 1170 1 1 1 1 0 GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQMINVOT GTMINREG LTMINREG EQMINREG GTDEMCOA LTOEMCOA EQDEMCOA GTDEMLTG LTDEMLTG EQDEMLTG GTDEMSEN LTDEMSEN EQDEMSEN GTDEMREG LTDEMREG Printed 09/01/99 10:28:56 Discovery 3 MS\\BZ 5 Chon Na N LF d WW : SER: HT > RRTR N AN a TRICTING 12:00 Tuesday, February 24, 1998 25 LIST OF 100 08S FROM FINAL DATA SET - CHECK COMPARISONS 0BS SEGMENT VTDKEY OPRECNCT ~~ IPRECNCT ITOTPOP ITOTWHT ITOTBLK IWHTVOT IBLKVOT IASIVOT TAMIVOT ig 87 37.057.1105 06.057.1110 12.057.1105 2777 805 1942 649 1389 8 2 88 37.057.1106 06.057.1110 12.057.1106 3114 2612 425 2100 262 21 10 89 37.057.1109 06.057.1110 12.057.1109 2448 807 1610 620 1040 10 7 89 90 37.057.1109 06.057.0502 12.057.1109 2448 807 1610 620 1040 10 7 90 91 37.057.1109 06.057.1101 12.057.1109 2448 807 1610 620 1040 10 7 08S IOTHVOT. IREGVOT IREGWHT IREGBLK IREGOTH ICDEMSS ILDEMSS ISDEM90 ICREPSS ILREP8S ISREP90 86 7 1558 437 1117 4 581 597 827 378 393 126 87 12 1494 1368 125 1 407 423 366 299 307 440 88 1 1205 383 821 1 509 506 518 87 97 91 89 1 1205 383 821 1 509 506 518 87 97 91 90 1 1205 383 821 1 509 506 518 87 97 91 08s IDEM IREP OTOTPOP OTOTWHT OTOTBLK OWHTVOT OBLKVOT OASIVOT OAMIVOT 0OTHVOT OREGVOT 86 1354 165 2896 2502 363 2031 247 11 5 6 2021 87 975 453 2896 2502 363 2031 247 11 5 6 2021 88 1070 102 2896 2502 363 2031 247 1 5 6 2021 89 1070 102 3586 3425 139 2606 137 4 12 4 1575 90 1070 102 2122 2000 100 1582 65 7 9 1 811 08S OREGWHT OREGBLK OREGOTH OCDEMSS OLDEMSS OSDEMIO OCREP88 OLREP88 OSREP90 ODEM OREP 86 1851 165 5 754 775 644 491 509 626 1398 547 | 87 1851 165 5 754 775 644 491 509 626 1398 547 | 88 1851 165 5 754 775 644 491 509 626 1398 547 | 89 1566 6 3 405 415 287 662 678 704 776 876 1 90 785 25 1 219 225 144 320 324 337 411 351 08S IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVMINPCT IRMINPCT IPDEMLTG IPDEMCOA IPOEMSEN IPCTDEM OBLKPCT OVBLKPCT ORBLKPCT OMINPCT OVMINPCT 86 0.70 0.68 0.72 0.71 0.68 0.72 0.60 0.61 0.87 0.80: 0.13 Gis 0.08 0.14 0.12 87 0.14 0.11 0.08 0.16 0.13 0.08 0.58 0.58 0.45 0.68 0.13 0.11 0.08 0.14 Q.12 oo i068 0.82 0.68 0.67 0.83 0.68 0.84 0.85 0.85 0.91 0.13 0.11 0.08 0.14 0.12 : 0.66 0.62 0.68 0.67. 0.63 0.68 0.84 0.85 0.85 0.91 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.06 | 0.66 0.62 0.68 0.67. 0.63 0.68 0.84 0.85 0.85 0.91 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.05 08S ORMINPCT OPDEMLTG OPDEMCOA OPDEMSEN OPCTDEM ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IMINVOT IMINREG ILTG88 ICOA88 ISENSO OTOTVOT OTOTMIN OMINVOT OMINREG 86 .08 0 0.60 0.61 0.5%. 0.72 2055 1972 1406 1121 990 959 853 2300 394 269 170 87 0.08 0.60 0.61 0.51 0.72 2405 502 305 126 730 706 806 2300 394 269 170 88 0.08 0.60 0.61 0.51 0.72 1678 1641 1058 822 603 596 609 2300 394 269 170 89 0.01 0.38 0.38 0.29 0.53 1678 1641 1058 822 603 596 609 2763 161 157 S 90 0.03 0.41 0.41 0.30 0.54 1678 1641 1058 822 603 596 609 1664 122 82 26 08s OLTG88 0COA88 OSEN90 GTBLKPOP LTBLKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKREG EQBLKREG GTMINPOP LTMINPOP EQMINPOP 86 1284 1245 1270 87 1284 1245 1270 88 1284 1245 1270 89 1093 1067 991 90 549 539 481 — dh e d d h eh O O O O O o [ e e e l e o ] i h c e c o c o o o O O 0 0 0 0 a Ta ou o c o o o o O O O 0 0 Oo -— hd e b o d o b o b o c o o c o o c o o o o 08S GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQMINVOT GTMINREG LTMINREG EQUINREG GTDEMCOA LTDEMCOA EQDEMCOA GTDEMLTG LTDEMLTG EQDEMLTG GTDEMSEN LTDEMSEN 86 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 ; 0 1 0 87 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 ki 0 0 1 88 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 89 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 90 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0BS EQDEMSEN GTDEMREG LTDEMREG EQDEMREG DEMNTBLK BLKNTDEM PRFLAG 86 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 87 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 88 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 89 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 *nnted 09/01/99 10:28:57 Discovery \ = SRE 1 RSG RAMS NBA SRESHRN TN & 20 Y ARTHRE.. ERR RY = SRN = 3 FERN ORSNY MON D NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTIN 12:00 Tuesday, February 24, 1998 26 LIST 100 OBS FROM FINAL DATA SET - CHECK COMPARISO 0BS SEGMENT VTDKEY OPRECNCT IPRECNCT ITOTPOP ITOTWHT ITOTBLK IWHTVOT IBLKVOT IASIVOT IAMIVOT 7. 92 37.057.1108 06.057.1101 12.057.1108 2403 1906 426 1567 299 22 18 / 93 37.057.1107 06.057.1102 12.057.1107 2954 2684 150 2188 97 66 7 94 37.057.1103 06.057.1102 112.057.1103 950 940 0 735 0 S 0 y4 95 37.057.1401 06.057.1102 12.057.1401 3563 3531 25 2636 16 2 4 95 96 37.057.1401 06.057.1111 12.057.1401 3563 3531 25 2636 16 2 4 08S IOTHVOT IREGVOT IREGWHT IREGBLK IREGOTH ICDEMSS ILDEMSS ISDEM90 ICREP8S ILREP88 ISREPS0 91 4 1283 1149 132 2 437 459 408 323 336 328 92 0 1732 1674 47 11 578 593 480 540 563 608 93 0 560 558 2 0 138 146 103 279 275 273 94 0 1425 1419 3 3 261 268 170 685 707 732 95 0 1425 1419 3 3 261 268 170 685 707 732 08s IDEM IREP OTOTPOP OTOTWHT OTOTBLK OWHTVOT 0BLKVOT OASIVOT OAMIVOT 00THVOT OREGVOT 91 882 335 2122 2000 100 1582 65 7 9 1 811 92 1088 555 2278 2202 34 1664 19 16 3 5 1015 93 266 262 2278 2202 34 1664 19 16 3 5 1015 94 565 778 2278 2202 34 1664 19 16 3 5 1015 95 565 778 4723 4576 124 3501 78 4 9 4 2487 08S OREGWHT OREGBLK OREGOTH OCDEM8S8 OLDEM8S OSDEMS0 OCREP88 OLREP8S OSREPS0 ODEM OREP 91 785 25 1 219 225 144 320 324 337 411 351 92 1009 6 0 295 314 248 386 385 405 560 398 93 1009 6 0 295 314 248 386 385 405 560 398 94 1009 6 0 295 314 248 386 385 405 560 398 95 2429 56 2 598 639 436 1087 1081 1177 1215 1172 OBS IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVMINPCT IRMINPCT IPDEMLTG IPDEMCOA IPDEMSEN IPCTDEM OBLKPCT OVBLKPCT ORBLKPCT OMINPCT OVMINPCT 91 ‘0.18 0.16 0.10 0.21 0.18 0.10 0.58 0.58 0.55 0.72 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.05 92 0.05 0.04 0.03". 0.09 0.07 0.03 0.51 0.52 0.44 0.66 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 m7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.35 0.33 0.27 0.50 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 G.27 0.28 0.19 0.42 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 40.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.27 0.28 0.19 0.42 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0BS ORMINPCT OPDEMLTG OPDEMCOA OPDEMSEN OPCTDEM ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IMINVOT IMINREG ILTG88 ICOA88 ISENS0 OTOTVOT OTOTMIN OMINVOT OMINREG - 91 0.03 0.41 0.41 0.30 0.54 1910 497 343 134 795 760 736 1664 122 82 26 82 0.01 0.45 0.43 0.38 0.58 2358 270 170 58 1156 1118 1088 1707 76 43 6 93 0.01 0.45 0.43 0.38 0.58 740 10 5 2 421 417 376 1707 76 43 6 94 0.01 0.45 0.43 0.38 0.58 2658 32 22 6 975 946 902 1707 76 43 6 95. "0.02 0.37 0.35 0.27 0.51 2658 32 22 6 975 946 902 3596 147 95 58 CBs OLTG88 OCOA88 OSEN90 GTBLKPOP LTBLKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKREG EQBLKREG GTMINPOP LTMINPOP EQMINPOP 91 549 539 481 92 699 681 653 93 699 681 653 94 699 681 653 95 1720 1685 1613 - - - - 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 O o o g o ~ ~ - - - 0 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O o OO O O = = - ee 4 O 0 0 C O O = = c o o o o O 0 0 = = n O c o o o o 0BS GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQMINVOT GTMINREG LTMINREG EQMINREG GTDEMCOA LTDEMCOA EQDEMCOA GTDEMLTG LTDEMLTG EQDEMLTG GTDEMSEN LTDEMSEN 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 92 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 93 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 94 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 95 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0BS EQDEMSEN GTDEMREG LTDEMREG EQDEMREG DEMNTBLK BLKNTDEM PRFLAG 91 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 92 0. 1 0 0 0 0 0 93 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 94 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 gi, 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Printed 09.01/99 10:28:57 Discovery NERY ITOTWHT 6148 9116 9116 3753 852 ICDEMSS 672 845 845 345 697 OWHTVOT 3501 3501 2032 2032 2032 OSDEMS0 436 436 175 175 175 LIST OF 100 0BS FROM FINAL DATA SET - CHECK COMPARISONS ITOTBLK 184 751 751 13 2039 ILDEM88 736 929 929 414 707 0BLKVOT 78 78 51 51 S1 OCREP88 1087 1087 626 626 626 IWHTVOT 4594 6901 6901 2942 683 ISDEMSO 544 603 603 276 701 OASIVOT a n n e a OLREP88 1081 1081 614 614 614 IBLKVOT 124 570 570 7 1409 ICREP8S 1357 2263 2263 1033 171 OAMIVOT W o w o w o u o OSREPS0 1177 1377 676 676 676 IAS IvoT 2 W - = 0 o w ILREP8S 1406 2294 2294 1000 173 OOTHVOT PE U E N E SU G N ODEM 1215 1215 578 578 578 IAMIVOT 17 14 14 14 3 ISREPS0 1346 2218 2218 1017 159 OREGVOT 2487 2487 1402 1402 1402 OREP 1172 1172 758 758 758 IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVMINPCT IRMINPCT IPDEMLTG IPDEMCOA IPOEMSEN IPCTDEM OBLKPCT OVBLKPCT ORBLKPCT OMINPCT OVMINPCT O O O 0 0 OO .44 0.03 .42 0.03 .42 0.03 .38 0.03 VITRO AL .84 0.0 .02 0.02 .02 0.02 02 0.01 02. 0.m 02 oof 0 0 0. 0 0 .03 .03 03 .03 .03 ICOA88 ISEN9S0 OTOTVOT OTOTMIN OMINVOT OMINREG 168 94 2142 596 276 3223 596 276 3223 40 6 1414 1417 1114 880 2029 1890 3108 2821 3108 2821 1378 1293 868 860 3596 3596 2092 2092 2092 147 147 86 86 86 85 95 60 60 60 58 58 16 16 16 OLTG88 0COA88 OSEN90 GTBLKPOP LTBLKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKREG EQBLKREG GTMINPOP LTMINPOP EQMINPOP 0 O O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O o - — OD b h e d NORTH CAROLI 0BS SEGMENT VTODKEY OPRECNCT IPRECNCT ITOTPOP of 97 37.057.0301 06.057.1111 12.057.0301 6400 98 37.057.1201 06.057.1111 12.057.1201 9897 : 99 37.057.1201 06.057.1606 12.057.1201 9897 99 100 37.057.1607 06.057.1606 12.057.1607 3811 100 101 37.057.1603 06.057.1606 12.057.1603 2910 08S I0THVOT IREGVOT IREGWHT IREGBLK IREGOTH 96 4 3147 3053 87 7 3 97 3 4610 4334 271 5 98 3 4610 4334 271 5 99 18 1986 1980 4 2 100 2 1482 368 1112 2 08S IDEM IREP OTOTPOP OTOTWHT OTOTBLK 96 1291 1668 4723 4576 124 } 297 1851 2521 4723 4576 124 98 1851 2521 2703 2617 74 99 712 1141 2703 2617 74 100 1224 227 2703 2617 74 08S OREGWHT OREGBLK OREGOTH OCDEM88 OLDEMSS 96 2429 56 2 598 639 97 2429 56 2 598 639 98 1386 12 4 265 305 ' “ogg 1386 12 4 265 305 © 100 1386 12 4 265 305 | | oss | 95 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.34 97 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.29 7 0-08 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.29 Pst 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.29 Eig 0.70 7 "0.67 0.75 0.71 0.67 0.75 0.80 | OBS ORMINPCT OPDEMLTG OPDEMCOA OPDEMSEN OPCTDEM ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IMINVOT IMINREG ILTGSS | i 98s 9.07 0,27 0.35 0.27 0.51 4762 “252 97 0.02 0.37 0.35 0.27 0.51 7497 781 98 0.01 0.33 0.30 0.21 0.43 7497 781 99 . 0.01 0.33 0.30 0.21 0.43 2982 58 100. 0.01 0.33 0.30 0.21 0.43 2100 2058 08S 96° 1720. 16385 1613 1 0 0 1 97 1720 - 1685 1613 1 0 0 1 98 919 891 851 1 0 "0 % 99 919 891 851 0 ao 0 0 100 919 891 851 1 0 0 1 0BS GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQMINVOT GTMINREG LTMINREG 96 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 97 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 98 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 I 99 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 100 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 08S EQDEMSEN GTDEMREG LTDEMREG EQDEMREG DEMNTBLK ; ; i 98 0 0 1 0 0 97 0 0 1 0 0 98 0 0 1 0 0 29 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 BLKNTDEM PRFLAG 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -“ O 0 0 O O O O w b o d o b 4 O 0 0 O 0 O O 0 O o -’ OD bt eb a O O 0 O o 0 o 0 o o - 0 D O 1 0 1 pr ad 1 O 0 0 - = + 0 OO O 0 O O 0 O O 0 o O o EQMINREG GTDEMCOA LTDEMCOA EQDEMCOA GTDEMLTG LTDEMLTG EQOEMLTG GTDEMSEN LTDEMSEN Printed 09/01,99 10:28:57 Discovery FREQS ON FLAGS FC NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING PERCENT COMPARISONS BETWEEN PRECINCTS ON BORDER OF DISTRICT 12 12:00 Tuesday, February 24, FREQUENCIES FOR COMPARISONS OF BLACK PERCENTAGES ON BORDER OF DISTRICT 12 GTBLKPOP Cumulative Frequency Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent 0 1 LTBLKPOP 49 : 49 185 . 234 Cumulative Frequency Percent Frequency 20.9 100.0 Cumulative Percent EQBLKPOP 185 79.1 185 49 20.9 234 Cumulative Frequency Frequency Percent 79.1 100.0 Cumulative Percent 0 GTBLKVOT 234 100.0 234 Cumulative Frequency Frequency Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent LTBLKVOT 47 20.1 47 187 79.9 234 Cumulative Frequency Frequency Percent 20.1 100.0 Cumulative Percent EQBLKVOT 187 79.9 187 47 20.1 234 Cumulative Frequency Percent Frequency 79.9 100.0 Cumulative Percent 0 234 100.0 234 *v Cumulative Frequency Percent Frequency 100.0 Cumulative Percent 47 20.5 47 182 79.5 229 Frequency Missing = § Cumulative Frequency Percent Frequency 20.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 182 47 79.5 20.5 182 229 Frequency Missing = 5 79.5 100.0 Printed 09/01/99 10:28:57 Discovery 1998 28 NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING 12:00 Tuesday, February 24, 1998 29 FREQS ON FLAGS FOR PERCENT COMPARISONS BETWEEN PRECINCTS ON BORDER OF DISTRICT 12 FREQUENCIES FOR COMPARISONS OF BLACK PERCENTAGES ON BORDER OF DISTRICT 12 Cumulative Cumulative EQBLKREG Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 0 229 100.0 229 100.0 Frequency Missing = 5 Printed 09/01/99 10:28:57 Discovery FREQS ON FLAGS FOR PERCENT COMPARISONS BETWEEN PRECINCTS ON BORDER OF DISTRICT 12 I ONS NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING A SNORE 12:00 Tuesday, FREQUENCIES FOR COMPARISONS OF MINORITY PERCENTAGES ON BORDER OF DISTRICT 12 GTMINPOP Cumulative Frequency Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent LTMINPOP 47 20.1 47 187 79.9 234 Cumulative Frequency Frequency Percent 20.1 100.0 Cumulative Percent EQMINPOP 187 187 47 234 Cumulative Frequency Frequency Percent 79.9 100.0 Cumulative Percent 0 GTMINVOT 234 100.0 234 Cumulative Frequency Frequency Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent LTMINVOT 48 20:5 48 186 79.5 Cumulative Frequency Frequency Percent 20.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent EQMINVOT 186 79.5 48 20.5 186 234 Cumulative Frequency Frequency Percent 79.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent GTMINREG 234 100.0 234 - Cumulative Frequency Frequency Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent LTMINREG 46 20.1 46 183 79.9 229 Frequency Missing = 5 Cumulative Frequency Frequency Percent 20.1 100.0 Cumulative Percent 183 79.9 46 20.1 183 229 Frequency Missing = § 79.9 100.0 Printed 09/01/99 10:28:57 Discovery February 24, 1998 30 NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING 12:00 Tuesday, February 24, FREQS ON FLAGS FOR PERCENT COMPARISONS BETWEEN PRECINCTS ON BORDER OF DISTRICT 12 FREQUENCIES FOR COMPARISONS OF MINORITY PERCENTAGES ON BORDER OF DISTRICT 12 Cumulative Cumulative EQMINREG Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 0 229 100.0 229 100.0 Frequency Missing = 5 rd Printed 09/01/99 10:28:57 Discovery EE ER RANA SNRER NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING 12:00 Tuesday, Februa FREQS ON FLAGS FOR PERCENT COMPARISONS BETWEEN PRECINCTS ON BORDER OF DISTRICT 12 FREQUENCIES FOR COMPARISONS OF DEMOCRAT PERCENTAGES ON BORDER OF DISTRICT 12 Cumulative Cumulative GTDEMLTG Frequency Percent Frequency Percent os 0 49 21.4 49 21.4 1 180 78.6 229 100.0 Frequency Missing = 5 | Cumulative Cumulative LTDEMLTG Frequency Percent Frequency Percent + 0 180 78.6 180 78.6 : 1 49 21.4 229 100.0 Frequency Missing = 5 Cumulative Cumulative EQDEMLTG Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 0 229 100.0 229 100.0 Frequency Missing = 5 Cumulative Cumulative GTDEMCOA Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 0 44 19.2 44 19.2 1 185 80.8 229 100.0 Frequency Missing = 5 Cumulative Cumulative LTDEMCOA Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 0 185 80.8 185 80.8 1 44 19.2 229 100.0 Frequency Missing = 5 Cumulative Cumulative EQDEMCOA Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 0 229 100.0 229 100.0 Frequency Missing = § ; Cumulative Cumulative GTDEMSEN Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 0 44 19.2 44 19.2 1 185 80.8 229 100.0 Frequency Missing = 5 Printed 09/01/99 10:28:58 Discovery REINA Aha a 8 BRE oy AJ NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING 12:00 Tuesday, February 24, 1998 33 FREQS ON FLAGS FOR PERCENT COMPARISONS BETWEEN PRECINCTS ON BORDER OF DISTRICT 12 FREQUENCIES FOR COMPARISONS OF DEMOCRAT PERCENTAGES ON BORDER OF DISTRICT 12 Cumulative Cumulative LTDEMSEN Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 185 80.8 185 80.8 1 44 19.2 229 100.0 Frequency Missing = § Cumulative Cumulative EQDEMSEN Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 0 229 100.0 229 100.0 Frequency Missing = 5 Cumulative Cumulative GTDEMREG Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 36 15.7 36 15.7 1 193 84.3 229 100.0 Frequency Missing = 5 Cumulative Cumulative LTDEMREG Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 0 193 84.3 193 84.3 1 36 15.7 229 100.0 Frequency Missing = 5 Cumulative Cumulative EQDEMREG Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 0 229 100.0 229 100.0 Frequency Missing = 5 Printed 09/01/99 10:28:58 Discovery Caan NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING 12:00 Tuesday, February 24, FREQS ON FLAGS FOR PERCENT COMPARISONS BETWEEN PRECINCTS ON BORDER OF DISTRICT 12 FREQUENCIES ON FLAGS FOR CELLS WHERE ALL PARTY AND RACE VECTORS ARE OPPOSED Cumulative Cumulative DEMNTBLK Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 223 97.4 223 97.4 6 2.6 229 100.0 Frequency Missing = 5 Cumulative Cumulative Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 225 98. 225 98.3 1 3 4 7 229 100.0 Frequency Missing = 5 Printed 09/01/99 10:28:58 Discovery NCEREDISTRIC IREMBIIAINN Ha S ND RRR NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING 12:00 Tuesday, February 24, 199 0SS TABS ON RACE AND PARTY COMPARISON FLAGS TABLE OF GTBLKPOP BY GTDEMLTG GTBLKPOP GTDEMLTG Frequency Percent Row Pct Col Pct 21.40 Frequency Missing = 5 TABLE OF GTBLKPOP BY GTDEMCOA GTBLKPOP GTDEMCOA Frequency Percent Row Pct Col Pct va) Frequency Missing = 5 | | Printed 09/01/99 10:28:58 Discovery SNARES 0 0 FARADAY NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING 12:00 Tuesday, February 24, 1998 36 0SS TABS ON RACE AND PARTY COMPARISON FLAGS TABLE OF GTBLKPOP BY GTDEMSEN GTBLKPOP GTDEMSEN Frequency Percent Row Pct Col Pct 0 1 Total = 0 29 17 46 | 12.66 7.42 20.09 63.04 36.96 65.91 9.19 1 15 168 183 6.55 73.36 79.91 8.20 91.80 34.09 90.81 Total 44 185 229 19.21 80.79 100.00 Frequency Missing = 5 TABLE OF GTBLKPOP BY GTDEMREG GTBLKPOP GTDEMREG Frequency Percent Row Pct Col Pct 0 1 Total 0 23 23 46 10.04 10.04 20.08 50.00 50.00 63.89 11.92 1 13 170 183 5.68 74.24 79.91 7.10 92.90 36.11 88.08 Total 36 193 229 15.72 84.28 100.00 Frequency Missing = 5 Printed 09/01/99 10:28:58 Discovery 1 _r SERRATE oye > 0) -3, [Q { OGRAM NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING TABLE OF GTBLKVOT BY GTDEMLTG GTBLKVOT GTDEMLTG Frequency Percent Row Pct Col Pct 0 1 0 27 17 11.79 7.42 61.36 38.64 55.10 9.44 1 22 163 9.61 71.18 11.89 88.11 44.90 90.56 Total 49 180 21.40 78.60 Frequency Missing = 5 Total 44 19.21 185 80.79 229 100.00 TABLE OF GTBLKVOT BY GTDEMCOA GTBLKVOT GTDEMCOA Frequency Percent Row Pct Col Pct 0 1 0 27 17 131.79 7.42 81.36 38.64 61.36 9.19 1 17 168 7.42 73.36 9.19 90.81 38.64 90.81 Total 44 185 19.21 80.79 Frequency Missing = 5 Total 44 19.23 185 80.79 229 100.00 ROSS TABS ON RACE AND PARTY COMPARISON FLAGS 12:00 Tuesday, February 24, 1998 37 Printed 09/01/99 10:28:58 Discovery NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING TABS ON RACE AND PARTY COMPARISON FLAGS TABLE OF GTBLKVOT BY GTDEMSEN GTBLKVOT GTDEMSEN Frequency Percent Row Pct Col Pct 0 1 0 28 16 12.23 6.99 63.64 36.36 63.64 8.65 1 16 169 6.99 73.80 8.65 91.33 36.36 91.35 Total 44 185 19.21 80.79 Frequency Missing = 5 Total 44 19.21 185 80.79 229 100.00 TABLE OF GTBLKVOT BY GTDEMREG GTBLKVOT GTDEMREG Frequency Percent Row Pct Col Pct 0 1 0 24 20 10.48 8.73 54.55 45.45 66.67 10.36 1 12 173 5.24 75.55 6.49 93.51 33.33 89.64 Total 36 193 15.72 84.28 Frequency Missing = § Total 44 19.21 18S 80.79 229 100.00 12:00 Tuesday, February 24, 1998 38 Printed 09/01/99 10:28:58 Discovery Eh GE 0 2 OED NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING 12:00 Tuesday, February 24, 1998 39 TABS ON RACE AND PARTY COMPARISON FLAGS TABLE OF GTBLKREG BY GTDEMLTG GTBLKREG GTDEMLTG Frequency Percent Row Pct Col Pct 21, Frequency Missing = § TABLE OF GTBLKREG BY GTDEMCOA GTBLKREG GTDEMCOA Frequency Percent Row Pct Col Pct 20 8.73 42.55 10.81 165 72.05 90.66 89.19 44 185 19.21 80.79 Frequency Missing = 5 Printed 09/01/99 10:28:58 Discovery NORTH CAROLI TABS ON RACE AND PARTY COMPARISON FLAGS TABLE OF GTBLKREG BY GTDEMSEN GTBLKREG GTDEMSEN Frequency Percent Row Pct Col Pct 0 169 73.80 92.86 91.35 185 19.21 80.79 Frequency Missing = 5 TABLE OF GTBLKREG BY GTDEMREG GTBLKREG GTDEMREG Frequency Percent Row Pct Col Pct 26 11.35 55.32 13.47 167 72.93 91.76 86.53 193 15.72 84.28 Frequency Missing = 5 12:00 Tuesday, Feb NW ruary 24, DN 199 8 40 Printed 09/01/99 10:28:59 Discovery I ~ . NNRINRW RRBNN STRICTING LIST OY WHERE ALL PARTY AND ALL RACE VECTORS ARE OPPOED 0BS SEGMENT VTDKEY OPRECNCT IPRECNCT ITOTPOP " ITOTWHT ITOTBLK IWHTVOT IBLKVOT IASIVOT IAMIVOT 55.0 37.097.0403 08.025.0301 112.097.0403 4246 3750 458 2944 306 5 11 88.0 37.057.1106 06.057.1110 112.057.1106 3114 2612 425 2100 262 21 10 98.0 37.057.1201 06.057.1111 12.057.1201 9897 9116 751 6901 570 9 14 141 142.0 37.081.0118 06.081.0117 12.081.0118 3276 2784 391 2229 242 48 16 151 152.0 37.081.0219 06.081.0802 12.081.0219 1485 1420 53 1228 33 5 2 08S I0THVOT IREGVOT IREGWHT IREGBLK IREGOTH ICDEMSS ILDEM8S ISDEMS0 ICREP88 ILREP8SS ISREP90 54 9 1920 1817 102 1 492 524 460 696 755 681 87 12 1494 1368 125 1 407 423 366 299 307 440 97 3 4610 4334 271 5 845 929 603 2263 2294 2218 141 2 1864 1691 163 10 430 487 414 524 562 705 151 1 825 800 24 1 197 239 174 248 263 284 08S IDEM IREP OTOTPOP OTOTWHT OTOTBLK OWHTVOT OBLKVOT OASIVOT OAMIVOT OOTHVOT OREGVOT 54 1129 710 3001 2602 384 1978 263 1 4 6 1470 87 975 453 2896 2502 363 2031 247 11 5 6 2021 97 1851 2521 4723 4576 124 3501 78 4 Cc] 4 2487 141 1087 652 3552 3021 323 2673 266 123 13 2 2365 151 516 265 2436 2271 128 1849 98 13 13 1 1555 08S OREGWHT OREGBLK OREGOTH OCDEMS8 OLDEMSS OSDEMSO OCREPS88 OLREPS88 OSREPS0 ODEM OREP S54 1336 134 0 343 396 310 579 587 673 3 651 87 1851 165 5 754 775 644 491 509 626 1398 547 97 2429 56 2 598 639 436 1087 1081 1177 1215 1172 141 2174 180 11 604 713 777 434 443 417 1463 677 151 1480 62 13 314 393 293 622 624 642 795 663 08S IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVMINPCT IRMINPCT IPDEMLTG IPDEMCOA IPDEMSEN IPCTDEM OBLKPCT OVBLKPCT ORBLKPCT OMINPCT OVMINPCT 54. 0.11 0.09 0.05 0.12 0.10 0.05 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.61 0.13 0.12 0.09 0.13 0.12 87 0.14 0.11 0.08 0.16 0.13 0.08 0.58 0.58 0.45 0.68 0.13 0.11 0.08 0.14 0.12 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.29 0.27 0.21 0.42 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.15 0.312 0.09 0.46 0.45 0.37 0.63 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.15 0.13 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.48 0.44 0.38 0.66 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.06 OBS ORMINPCT OPDEMLTG OPDEMCOA OPDEMSEN OPCTDEM ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IMINVOT IMINREG ILTG88 ICOA88 ISENSO OTOTVOT OTOTMIN OMINVOT OMINREG S54 .09 0 0.40 0.37 0.32 0.53 3275 496 331 103 1279 1188 1141 2252 399 274 134 87 0.08 0.60 0.61 0.51 0.72 2405 502 305 126 730 706 806 2300 394 269 170 97 0.02 0.37 0.35 0.27 0.5y 7497 781 596 276 3223 3108 2821 3596 147 95 58 141 0.08 0.62 0.58 0.65 0.68 2537 492 308 173 1049 954 1119 3077 531 404 13 151 0.05 0.39 0.34 0.31 0.55 1269 6S 41 25 502 445 458 1974 165 125 75 08S OLTG88 0COA88 OSEN9O GTBLKPOP LTBLKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKREG EQBLKREG GTMINPOP LTMINPOP EQMINPOP 54 983 922 983 87 1284 1245 1270 97 1720 1685 1613 141 1156 1038 1194 151. 1017 936 935 OQ = = = 0 - O 0 0 = O 0 0 o 0 o 0 O o O = = = O - O 0 0 = O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O o O = = 2 0 - OO O O — O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O o O = = 2 0 O E D 0 0 0 0 08S GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQMINVOT GTMINREG LTMINREG EQMINREG GTDEMCOA LTDEMCOA EQDEMCOA GTDEMLTG LTDEMLTG EQDEMLTG GTDEMSEN LTDEMSEN 54 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 87 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 97 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 141 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 151 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 08S EQDEMSEN GTOEMREG LTDEMREG EQDEMREG DEMNTBLK BLKNTDEM PRFLAG 54 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 87 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 97 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 141 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Printed 09/01/99 10:28:59 Discovery 08S z14 223 08s 203 204 205 214 223 08s 203 204 205 214 223 08s SEGMENT VTDKEY OPRECNCT IPRECNCT 202.0 37.057.1302 05.059.020 112.057.1302 202.1 37.057.1302 05.059.025 12.057.1302 203.0 37.057.0401 05.059.025 112.057.0401 210.0 37.097.0301 10.097.1401 12.097.0301 219.0 37.097.0101 10.097.0901 112.097.0101 IOTHvOT IREGVOT IREGWHT IREGBLK 3 1822 1721 98 3 1822 1721 98 10 1470 1406 64 24 3608 3368 235 1 1372 1227 144 IDEM IREP OTOTPOP OTOTWHT 920 815 1631 1502 920 815 4636 4068 946 483 4636 4068 1879 1547 3859 3269 822 497 S386 4499 OREGWHT OREGBLK OREGOTH OCDEM8S 797 61 0 201 2274 185 1 590 2274 185 1 590 2219 143 6 643 2835 365 3 764 ITOTPOP 4023 4023 3383 8121 4070 IREGOTH -“ N o W w w OTOTBLK 118 538 538 S03 862 OLDEMSS 210 612 612 616 741 NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING B WHERE ALL PARTY AND ALL RACE VECTORS ARE OPH ITOTWHT ITOTBLK 3865 144 3865 144 3236 121 6858 1168 3620 435 ICDEMSS ILDEMSS 455 471 455 471 457 455 782 782 372 361 OWHTVOT 0BLKVOT 1135 94 3116 389 3116 389 2671 345 3471 567 OSDEMI0 OCREP88 180 400 508 1144 508 1144 644 892 778 1263 IWHTVOT 2906 2906 2404 5114 2700 ISDEM90 395 395 311 877 313 OASIVOT - O O OLREPS88 412 1188 1188 970 1369 IBLKVOT 120 120 93 766 297 ICREP88 707 707 528 1465 519 OAMIVOT 10 10 8 OSREPS0 411 1183 1183 893 1256 IASIVOT W N W O O o ILREPSS 727 727 553 1582 562 OOTHVOT 1884 IAMIVOT ISREPS0 757 757 619 1342 488 OREGVOT 863 2464 2464 2368 3203 OREP 492 1410 1410 785 1172 IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVMINPCT IRMINPCT IPOEMLTG IPDEMCOA IPDEMSEN IPCTDEM OBLKPCT OVBLKPCT ORBLKPCT OMINPCT OVMINPCT 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.14 0 0 0. 0 0.11 0 .04 0.05 .04 0.05 04 0.04 -13 0.07 +10 ¢.10 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.16 0.11 0.04 0.06 0.39 0.04 0.06 0.39 0.04 0.04 0.45 0.14 0.07 0.33 0.10 0.11 0.39 0.39 0.34 a. 0.39 0.34 0 0.46 0.33 0. 0.35 0.40 0 0.42 0.39 0 ORMINPCT OPDEMLTG OPDEMCOA OPODEMSEN OPCTDEM ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IMINVOT IMINREG ILTG8S .08 0 .08 0 .08 0 .06 0 11 0 Q O OO . 0 0 .34 0.33 .34 0.34 .34 0.34 .39 0.42 .35 0.38 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.42 0.38 0.40 3035 158 0.40 3035 158 0.40 2514 147 0.65 5943 1263 0.62 3007 450 129 101 129 101 110 64 829 240 307 145 1198 1198 1008 2364 823 53 «53 66 «55 .52 .07 -12 12 13 .16 C 0 0 0 0 0.08 0. 0.11 0. 0.11 0.11 0. 0.14 0. .08 «12 . 42 -15 .16 C O 0 0 0 .08 «13 i i .13 .14 0 . 0 0 0 0 ICOA88 ISENSO OTOTVOT OTOTMIN OMINVOT OMINREG 1162 1152 1162 1152 985 930 2247 2219 891 801 1234 3520 3520 3063 4056 129 568 568 590 887 99 404 404 392 585 OLTG88 0COA88 OSENI0 GTBLKPOP LTBLKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKREG EQBLKREG GTMINPOP LTMINPOP 622 601 1800 1734 1800 1734 1586 153S 2110 2027 GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQMINVOT GTMINREG LTMINREG oO - 0 0 0 EQDEMSEN O 0 0 O 0 O o 591 1691 1691 1537 2034 —_ OD db eh a O O O 0 O O 0 O 0 O 0 o GTDEMREG - _ OD bh e h a o O - 0 0 O 0 -_ OO = oh oO - 0 0 0 LTOEMREG O - + - 0 0 0 O O O 0 O 0 O 0 o - _ OD e b wd a EQDEMREG C 0 0 0 Oo OO «+ 0 O 0 O 0 o 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 DEMNTBLK 1 1 1 0 1 t O w d e d a O 0 0 O 0 O O 0 O 0 o © - 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 BLKNTDEM PRFLAG 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 -— OD bh bh a -_ OD h o oO -= - 0 0 0 O O O 0 O O 0 O o OO = 0 0 0 ( = = e e e ] PT R oo TT SP S Y -— _ OD tb ed 66 120 130 149 368 EQMINPOP C O O 0 C EQUMINREG GTDEMCOA LTDEMCOA EQDEMCOA GTDEMLTG LTDEMLTG EQDEMLTG GTDEMSEN LTDEMSEN O - 0 0 0 Printed 09/01/99 10:28:59 Discovery Nan WN ARN RNIN Discovery Printed 09/01/99 10:28:59 N:\ CLIENTS \ NC_REDISTRICT \ PROGRAMS \ BASCORR 02/24/98 01:01:08 PM Total number of one-sided sheets printed (including title page and end page): 49 hi sual, NORTH CAROLINA REDIS NG Ad 0d AJIULLALLD LINU LIST OF FINAL OATA SEY - CHECK COMPARISONS IToTveT eo VIDKEY ~~ OPRECNCT IPRECNGT ITaTPop .+) 162.0 157.057.1802 08.057.1604 12.057.1603 2910 102 109.0 397.057.1602 08.057.1604 12.057.1602 2709 103 104.0 37.057.1802 06.057.1605 12.057.1602 2703 104 103.0 37.057.1601 06.057.1605 12.057.1601 3417 105 106.0 37:057.1601 06.151.0414 12.057,1601 3417 08s IOTHVOT ~~ IREGVOT IREGWNT IREGSLK IREGOTH 101 2 1482 368 1112 2 102 7 1216 846 369 1 103 y 2 1216 846 389 1 104 4 1753 1401 34a 4 105 « 1753 1401 Ma p 083 IoEM IREP QTOTPOP OQTOTWHT OTOTBLK 104 1224 227 as77 3034 307 102 781 £07 arr 1034 307 103 781 407 1523 3149 353 104 835 752 asz3 3148 353 10S 235 752 4332 48a? 88 0S OREGMWT OREGBLK OREGOTH oCOEWGR OLDENSS 101 1315 103 2 ase ara 102 1315 103 2 386 373 103 1482 79 3 as4 390 - 104 1482 79 3 a54 398 105 734 0 0 85 109 ! N jo 0.70 0.1 0.31 0.26 0.28 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.08 ag,00 0.67 0.78 0.71 0.67 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.30 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.30 g.223 0.20 0.27 0.24 0.23 0.20 0.27 0.24 0.43 0.43 0.23 0.55 0.43 0.43 0.33 0.55 0.40 0.37 0.29 0.55 0.40 0.37 0.28 0.35 0.23 0.21 0.21 0.33 862 834 748 1 0 102 862 8634 749 1 0 103 996 957 881 1 0 104 990 957 881 1 a 105 471 452 407 1 0 083 101 1 0 0 1 0 102 1 0 0 1 0 103 1 ag a y | 0 104 1 0 Q 1 0 108 1 a 0 1 0 OBS EQDEMSEN GTDEMREG LTDEUREG 101 [0] 1 [4] 0 102 a | 0 6 1038 0 1 0 0 104 0 1 0 0 105 0 1 Q 0 C 0 0 0 Oo 0.75 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 2100 2025 2025 2685 288s O O O O O 0 O 0 O 0 2 ld od eh ed wd [= M l « = J = J ] 058 873 8738 311 911 EQGDEMREG DELNTBLK e d w d e d o d 0BS ORMINPCT OFDEMLTG OPDEMCOA OFDBMSEN OPCTDEM ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IMINYOT 14417 £99 599 649 649 O 0 0 O 0 O 0 O (= J = J = J = J =} BLKNTDEM [-2 E 1 ~ ~ I -} SER ITOTBLK IWHTVOT 2039 683 843 1426 843 1426 878 2036 B78 2038 ILDENBS 18DBEMS0 707 701 3a? 364 aa7 364 3Q7 410 307 410 0BLKVOT DASIVOT 212 2 212 2 246 S 246 5 79 a OCREPES OLREP88 478 489 478 489 603 600 603 600 357 362 0.82 0.54 0.5¢ 0.339 0.339 0.84 0.66 0.66 0.88 0.55 0.08 0.038 0.10 0.410 0.02 002,028 1BLKVOT IASTVOT 1409 3 576 4 S76 4 82? 2 827 ? ICREPAS 1LREPES 171 173 322 354 322 354 627 633 627 g33 CAUTVOT OOTHVOT 13 4 13 4 8 4 a 4 a5 a 0SAEPS0 oDEM 504 744 504 744 624 B18 624 B18 323 23s 0.07 Q.07 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.10 -9.10 0.11 0.11 0.03 IAUIVOT 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.09 0.03 1564 1564 734 DREP 612 612 671 671 438 08S IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVMINACT TAMINPET IPDEMLTG IPDEWCOA TPDEMSEN IPCYDEM OBLKPET OVELKPCT ORBLKPCT OMINPCT CVUINPCT IMINRED ILTG88 ICOAB8 ISENS0 OTOTYOT OTOTMIN OMINVOT OMINREG 1 O o 0 o o 0 o 0 O 0 114 370 370 352 352 880 868 860 741 707 869 741 707 669 1140 1089 1063 1140 1089 1083 (= J =R = o l ] PRFLAG (= I =J = e Rye) - h a d o b ab = A h h ed e d e b o d o o o o C c o O 0 0 0 O 0 ( « J « J o J = JY =] 343 343 J74 374 158 - l w d w d w d 4 (« Je H o l e lo ] 1 1 1 1 1 231 231 263 263 123 Q o O 0 0 o 0 o o 0 C 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 O 0 O D GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQWINVOT GTMINREG LTMINREG EQMINAEG GTDEMCOA LTOEMCOA EQDENCOA GTDEMLTG L7DEuiTc £anFui TA GTDEMSEN LTDEMSENW 0BS OLTGAs 0COAZa OSEN9O GTELKPOP LTBLKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTELXVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLXREG EQBLKREG GTMINPOP LTUINPOP EDMINPOP Printad 09/07/99 15:09:23 Discovery Fofegon LJ 21 PRI ASSOCIATES INC @o003,028 15:06 Tuesday, Septeaber 7, 1993 23 Of FINAL DATA SET - CHECK COMPARISONS 'SEGUENT VTDKEY OPRECNCT IPRECNCT ITOTPOP 1AMIVOT 107.0 37.057.1607 006.151.0414 12.057.1607 3e11 108.0 37.007,0219 06.191,0414 12,081,021S 21a 109.0 37.081.0215 06.081.0214 12.081.021S 2172 110.0 387.081.0211 06.081.0214 12.081.0211 1838 111.0 337.081.0213 06.081.0214 12.081.0213 2565 1QTHVOT IREGYQY IAEGMHT IREGALK IREGOTH ILREPaR 1986 1980 4 183 183 $54 141 1000 269 269 $7 200 OOTHVOT 1 . I : U N D NS OLREP8S OSREPQQ 357 3682 323 357 362 323 362 1 43 124 138 128 208 362 11 48 124 138 129 209 132 382 11 49 124 138 129 208 132 YBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRGLXPCT IMINPCT IVMINPCT JAMINPCT IPDEMLTG IPDEMCOA IPOEMSEN IPCTOEM OSLKPCT OVBLKPCT ORABLKPCT OUINPCT OVMINPCT 0 0.25 0.38 0.02 0,02 . a.03 0 0.45 0,82 0.02 0,02 3 © 0,03 a. 5 - 0.45 0.62 0.03 0.03 0.07 0. 0.84 0.89 0.03 Q.03 d 0.07 4 0.41 : 0.84 0.03 0.03 . 0.07 0.0 0.18 0.18 0.71 0.1 0.23 0.23 0.38 0,38 0.38 6 1414 1378 1293 3923 123 0 185 482 462 387 3923 123 go 198 482 462 aa7 S97 63 13 336 380 3 308 997 oA 13 144 847 358 288 997 e3 13 OLTGBA OCOAS8 OSENSO GTBLKPOP LTBLXPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLXVOT LTBLKVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKREG EQBLKREG GTMINPOP LTMINPOP EQWINPOP 471 407 471 407 221 178 221 178 221 178 GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQUINVOY GTUINREG LTMINAEG EGMINAEG GTDEMCOA LYDEMCOA EQDENMCOA GTDBMLTG LTDEWML.TG EQDEMLTG GTDEMSEN LTOEMSEN EQDEMSEN GTDEMAEG LTDEMREG EQDEMREG DEMNTBLK BLINTDEM Printed 09/07/99 15:09:23 Discovery @oo4/028 NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING LIST OF FINAL DAYA 8ET - CHECK COMPARISons SEGMENT VTDKEY OPRECNCT IPRECNCT ITOTPOP IToTHT ITOTBLK IBLKVOT 112.0 3a7.081.0213 04.081.0218 12.081.0213 2563 1940 J22 ass 143.0 37.081.0212 06.081.0218 12.081.0212 5418 835 4424 2884 114.0 37.081.0212 08.081.0221 112.081.0212 5416 83s 4424 2084 115.0 37.081.0222 06.081.0221 112.081.0222 2887 a3s 1088 1374 1168.0 37.081.1101 06.081.1103 12.081.1101 2606 20S 153 IOTHVOT IREGVOT IREGWHT IREGBLK IREGOTH ICREP8S ISREPS0 5 773 629 141 139 197 173 2048 437 1608 764 188 138 2048 437 1608 764 148 136 1411 432 979 587 187 168 1630 as 3158 652 B47 IDEM aToTPaP OTOTWHT OWHTVOT DREGVOT 459 4335 337 2573 1611 1708 4385 3337 2573 1611 1708 238 4197 3329 2402 474 1807 1152 205 4187 3329 .2402 1807 774 810 3726 3642 2920 20 1703 OREGHIT OREGBLK OREAOTH OCDEuas oLpEMaR QSDEM9Q OCREPES OREP 1387 220 268 278 192 548 773 710 1387 220 268 275 192 548 773 710 1548 25% 338 as2 357 618 626 815 831 1548 255 33a 382 357 618 626 815 831 1683 16 161 180 14S 483 484 87s 47% IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPGCT IVMINPCT IRNMINPCT IPDEMLYG IPDELCOA IPOEMSEN IPCTDEM OBLKFCT OVBLKPCT ORBLKPCT OMINPCT OVMINPCT 0.18 0.12 0.24 0.22 0.18 0.42 Q,40 0.1% 0.78 0.79 0.83 0.79 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.83 0.79 0.79 a.a7 0.639 0.71 0.68 0.63 o.o8 0.05 9.10 0.10 0.06 Q.14 0.24 0.17 7 . 0.83 . 0.15 0.14 0,24 0.17 7 0.83 . 0.18 0.14 0.21 0.18 74 | 0.78 . 0.16 0.14 0.21 0.18 .4 . 0.38 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 ORMINPCT OPOEMLYG OPOEWMCOA OPDEMSEM OPCTDEM ITOTVOT ITOTWIN IMINVOT ININREG ILTGS8 ICOAS8 ISENSO OTOTVAT OTOTMIN OMINVAT OMINAEG 0.33 0.27 0.52 2036 625 445 144 347 336 J 1058 538 224 0.33 0.27 0.52 3697 4481 29139 1611 966 952 3 1058 S38 224 0.38 0.38 0.50 3687 4484 2818 1811 966 952 2943 868 841 259 0.35 0.38 0.50 2046 2002 1384 878 737 754 2049 868 841 259 0.26 0.16 0.44 1971 273 200 100 1078 9&7 2978 84 LY: 20 OLTGS8 OCOA88 OSENSO GYALKPOP LTBLKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLKAEG LTBLKREG EQBLXAEG GTMINPOP LTMINPOP EQMINPOP 816 707 816 707 936 931 956 $31 624 880 GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQMINVOT GTMINAEG LTMINREG EOMINREG GTDEMCOA LTDEMCOA EQDEMUCOA GYDEMLTG LTDEML.TG EQDEMLTG GTDEMSEN LTDEMIEN EQDEMSEN AaTOeuREG LTDEWREG Primed 09/07/99 15:09:26 Discovery 08-07/99 15:36 FAX 819 544 49801 PRI ASSOCIATES INC do0s5-028 15:06 Tuesday, Saptaadar 7, 1999 31 * LIST OF FINAL DATA 8ET - CHECK COMPARISONS eau VTDKEY OPRECNCT xPRecncY ITOTPQP IBLKVOT IASIVATY LANIYVOQT 116 117.0 37.081.1102 08.081.1103 112.081.1102 44 17 117 118.0 37.081.1102 06.081.1602 12.081.1102 : a4 17 118 119.0 J37.081.1801 06.081.1602 12.081.160% aa1 14 118 120.0 37,081,16801 Q€,001.0702 12.061.1601 3a 14 120 121.0 37.081.0108 068.081.0702 12.081.0108 3892 9 OBS IOTHVOT IREGYOT IREGWT IREGBLK ICREPS8 ILREPaH ISREPSO 116 2885 2744 132 1105 1085 "1060 117 2885 2744 132 1105 1085 1060 118 1364 1187 228 425 403 479 118 1384 1137 226 425 403 479 120 3320 317 2996 132 149 98 10€u QTOTFOF OTOTWHT QTOTBLK 0QTHVOT 1362 3728 3642 30 1362 3850 5747 182 741 53850 S747 152 741 4472 4236 - 138 3023 4472 4298 139 OREGWHT OREGOTH OCDEMSS OLDENSS OLREP8S ODEY 1683 161 180 48a 879 2862 480 538 1186 1408 1329 2862 480 598 1186 1408 1329 2751 12€ 494 624 1044 140a 1227 2731 126 454 624 1044 1488 1227 IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVUINPCT IRMINPCT IFDENLTG IPOEMCOA IPOEMSEN IPCTDEM GBLKPET OVRLKPCY QRBLXPCT OMINPCT OVMINFCT 0.02 0.02 0.05 . . 0.01 . 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05 0. . . 0.03 . . 0.03 0.03 0.21 0.20 0.17 0.03 . 0.03 0.03 0.24 0.20 0.17 0.04 . . 0.04 0.03 0.93 0.92 0.90 . . 0.03 5 4 0.04 0.03 OFMINPCT OPDEMLTG OPDEMCDA OPOEMSEN OPCTCEM ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IMINVOT IMINREG ILTGEE ICOASE ISENSO OTOTVOT OTOTUIN OWINVOT OMINREG .18 .44 J142 69 141 1784 1604 1617 84 s8 20 -19 «59 3142 * B89 141 1784 1604 1647 160 72 .19 -51 2008 406 227 758 741 822 160 72 .28 .88 2008 406 227 735 711 822 118 133 .28 .55 4026 3705 3003 1785 1723 2108 118 133 OLTGAA OCOA88 OSEN9O GTBLKPOP LTBLKPOP EOBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKREG EOBLKAEG GTLOINPCP LTMINPOP EQUMINPOP 664 880 1794 1689 1794 1689 1868 1678 1668 1678 GTMINVOT LTMINYOT EQUMINVOT GTMINREG LTMINREG EQMINREG GTDEMCOA LTDEMCOA EODEWCOA GTOEWLTG LTDEMLTG EQDEMITG GTDEMSEN LTDEMSEN EQDEMSEN GTDEMREG LTDEMREG Primed 09/07/99 15:09:26 Discovery 08/07/88 15:36 FAX 819 544 4801 PRI ASSOCIATES INC 006/028 Er RAY 4 SR 15 . =~ — “ Tr. - : ; - ; 5 2 or SE a WEYL ot ne Ter LL i op EIA £3 NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING September 7, 1900 32 LIST OF FINAL DATA SET - CHECK COMPARISONS to | SEGUENT VTDKEY OPRECNCT IPRECNCT ITOTPOP ITOTWHT ITOTBLK TWHTVOT IBLKVOT IASTIVOT IAMIVOT 122.0 37.081.0108 06.081.1202 12.081.0108 5186 321 3692 123.0 37.081.0129 088.081.1201 12.081.0129 3067 8 2364 124.0 J7.081.0108 068.081,1201 12.081.0106 4363 84 2863 123.0 37.081.0145 06.081.1201 12.081,0143 1571 481 747 126.0 37.081.0119 06.081.1201 12.081.0119 4008 144 2547 I0THVOT IREGYOT TREGWT IREGBLK IREGATH ISDEUSO ICREPBS ILREPBS ISREPSO 3320 2906 2013 2227 2210 1507 2312 20282 926 1297 044 336 1924 1798 1424 OASIVOT 1 QLREPS8 121 122 123 124 125 a11 08S IBUKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVMINPGT IRMINPGT IPDEMLTG IPDEMCOA IPDEMSEN IPCTDEM OBLKPCT OYBLKPCT ORBLKPCT QNINPCT QYMINFCT hy 0.83 0,52 0.90 0.82 0.13 0.18 0,14 oe 1.909 1.00 0.99 0.57 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.97 0.96 : 0.99 0.97 : 0.15 » 0.18 0.18 0.87 0.85 . 0.73 . 0.91 ; .0. 0.15 ; 0.18 0.18 0.85 0.54 0.54 3 0.94 : : 0.15 : : 0.18. 0.18 ORMINFCT OFDEMLTG OPDEMCUA OPDEMSEN OFCTOEM ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IMINVOT IMINREG ILTGBS8 ICOAS8 ISENSO OTOTVOT OTOTMIN ONINVAOT OMINREG 0.23 0.53 0.52 0.46 : 4026 4818 3705 3008 1795 669 521 486 0.16 0.45 0.45 0.31 .61 2393 3057 2385 2211 813 638 418 0.18 0.45 0.45 0.31 2377 4255 2883 813 638 418 0.18 0.45 0.45 0.31 1150 1084 763 948 813 gaa 41a 0.16 0.45 0.45 0.31 : 2744 3928 2800 1793 813 83a 418 OLYGEE OCOABD OSENSO GTBLKPOP LTBLKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQBLKVOT GTELKREG LTBLKREG EGBLKREG- GTUINPOP LTWINPOP EQMINPOP 1263 1150 1288 EQDEMREG DELNTRLK BLIKNTDEUY Printed 09/07/99 15:09:26 Discovery Us/Ui/ BY "\ SEGMENY VIDKEY OPREGNGT IPREGNCT «8 127.0 127 128.0 128 129.0 129 130.0 130 131.0 397.081.0119 06.081.1402 12.081.0119 37.081.0103 06.081.1402 12.081.0103 37.081.0101 06.081.1402 12.081.0101 40:46 rAL 819 544 48ul 37.081.0133 06.081.1402 12.081.0133 37.081.0133 06.081.3135 12.081.0133 08s IOTHVOT 126 127 128 129 130 0BS 126 0.85 v0.8 : 0.28 Sid 0.31 130 0.31 2233 2283 2283 2293 552 0.94 0.57 0.26 0.30 0.30 InEavaT 1824 2021 2706 2642 2642 IREP 91 283 719 718 718 OREGBLK 231 221 231 231 417 0.83 0.S8 0.24 0.29 0.28 I REGWHT 125 . Bas 2036 1871 1871 OTaTpPop o 0 0 0 0 0 5140 S140 5140 5140 2421 REGOTH N o o o o .98 -€3 -30 33 .a3 PRI ASSOCIATES INC NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING LIST OF FINAL DATA 8ET « CHECK COMPARISONS ITOTPOP 4006 380s 4715 5732 5732 THEGBLK IREGOTH 1758 1 1130 S 657 13 758 12 759 12 OTOTWHT OTOTBLK 4480 608 4489 803 £489 809 44829 809 1234 1050 ocDEMsR OLDEuRE 333 611 553 611 533 611 333 611 175 247 Sg 5 2 32 32 . 0.4 0.56 0.25 0.29 0.29 CPS DAMINPCT OPDEMLTG OPDEMCOA OPDEMSEM QPCTREW ITOTYVOT ITOTMIN 126 0.09 127 0.09 128 . 0.09 129 0.09 -130 0.43 08S 126 1430 127 1430 128 1430 128 1430 130 S04 oBS 128 1 127 1 128 1 129 1 130 0 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.49 1301 1415 6.43 8.43 0.43 0.43 0.38 © wb wb wb = 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.88 - 0D 0 0 0 Q O 0 O 0 O 0 0 O 0 2744 2933 3724 4426 4426 3828 2447 1434 1000 1800 O 0 O D D O ITOTYHT 0.54 0.78 0.50 0.50 0.30 IMINVOT IMINAEG ILTGB8 ICOABB ISENSO OTOTVOT OTOTMIN OMINVOT OMINAEG 2600 1734 1055 1418 1416 463 328 1 1 ITOTBLK 3806 2363 1326 1796 1796 0.96 0.74 0.43 0.48 0.48 799 135 670 yi 71 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 I LOEvAEs 1333 1006 1421 1007 1007 IWHTVOT 1288 1481 948 1143 14316 18338 835 123138 835 123s 144 1219 2669 3010 3010 OLREP28 813 81s 813 818 257 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.43 IBLKVQOT 2587 1683 sat 1347 1347 Ich EPBA 83 213 635 464 464 oAMIVAT OSA 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.40 3887 3887 3887 3687 1710 23 23 23 23 1 EPS0 852 $52 852 852 166 IASIVOT 1187 @o07/028 1449 1449 1448 1443 643 0.123 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.49 438 438 438 439 755 IAMIVOT IELKPCT IVBLKPCT IRGLKPCT IMINPCT IVMINPCT IRMINPCT IPDEMLTG IPOEMCOA IPDEMSEN IPCTOEU DBLKPCT OVBLKPCT ORBLKPCT OMINPCT OVUINPCT D.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.44 37 237 237 237 418 OLTGR8 OCOA88 OSENQU GTELXPOP LTHLKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLXVOT LTBLKVOT. EQBLKVOT GTBLXRER LTELKRES EOBLXHEG GTMINPOP LTWINPOP EQMINPOP OREP 8286 828 928 928 246 Printed 09/07/99 15,609.26 Discovery 08/07/88 13:36 FAX 818 544 4801 PRI ASSOCIATES INC . d@oo08-028 NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING LIST OF FINAL DATA SET - CHECK COMPARISONS A SEGMENT VTDKEY OPRECNCT IPRECNCT IToTPOR ITOTWHT ITOTBLX DYNTVOT TAMIVOT 132.0 37.081.0101 068.081.3135 12.081.0101 4715 3281 1326 133.0 37.081.0101 06.081.2135 12.081.0101 4715 3281 1326 134.0 37.081.0102 06.081.0128 12.081.0102 3667 2817 756 135.0 237.081.0102 06.081.0112 12.0681.0102 3667 2817 756 136.0 37.081,0104 06.081.0112 12.001.0104 2380 1446 1083 26 26 12 12 13 JOTHVOT IREGVOT TREGWHT IREGBLK IREGOTH 1CDEMAA TLDEMaA ICREPBS IsAEPa0 16 2706 20886 657 13 861 732 655 16 2706 2038 857 732 2240 1844 389 S60 2240 1844 389 S60 1456 1230 870 855 870 468 60? 4638 607 287 206 IREP OTOTPOP CANIVOT 0QTHvOT OREGVAT 718 2421 1234 1 S71 719 2402 2100 1617 $14 264% 2461 2018 814 2887 2835 383 2897 2835 OREGBLK ~~ OREGOTH OCDEMER OLREPBS OSREPSO £17 178 257 166 1432 178 281 429 508 1362 31 aa7 634 713 1145 2263 22 438 6892 822 1380 2263 22 4339 652 822 1380 IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINACT IVMINPCY YAMINPCT IPDEMLTG IPDEMCOA IPDEMSEN IPCTDEM OBLKPGY OYELKPCT ORSLKPGT OMINPGT OYUINPCT 0.28 . 6.30 0.28 0,25 0.50 . 0.43 0.40 0.43 0.26 ; 0.30 0.28 a,25 0.30 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.19 . 0.23 0.21 0.18 0.52 . 0.06 0.0% 0.03 0.19 0.23 0.21 0.18 0.52 . : 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.38 ” 0.44 0.42 0.34 0.85 : .78 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.439 0.38 : 3724 1055 ‘670 1421 1538 1710 0.49 0.38 3724 10S3 670 1421 1538 1787 0.51 0.39 3096 638 396 1054 1115 2085 . 0.38 3086 S 396 1054 1115 2287 0.35 ‘ . 2182 911 886 928 22387 CODERS EN GTDEMREG LTDEMREG Priated 09/0749 15:09:46 Discovery 08/07/89 13:37 FAX 919 544 4801 PRI ASSOCIATES INC @oog/028 NORTH CAROLI LIST OF FINAL DATA SET - CHECK COMPARISONS \ SCGMENT VTOKEY OPRECNCT IPRECNCT 1TaTROP ITOTANT ITOTBLK IWHTVOT 136 137.0 37.081.0104 06.081.0111 12.081.0104 2380 1446 1063 1271 137 138.0 37.081.0109 06.081.0111 12.081.0109 48 2n 4638 138 139.0 437.081.0108 06.081.0114 12,081,.0109 4871 27 4638 139 140.0 387.081.0115 06.001.0114 12.081.0115 3811 2687 838 140 141.0 37.001.0115 06.081.0117 12.081.0115 3811 2887 838 10THVOT IREGVOT IREGWHT ICDEuBE ILDEUSS 1858 1230 £27 624 2508 180 1138 2598 180 1138 1886 1562 S24 1886 1562 S24 IREP OTOTPOP "© OBLKVOT 383 327 106 106 496 4968 123 OREGBLK OLREPSS 154 505 279 1.41 154 508 279 25 776 1434 45S 2056 776 1434 455 2058 180 11 77 443 1483 677 IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IABLKPCT IMINACT IVMINPCT IAMINPCT IPORATG IPOEMCOA IPREMSEN IPCTDEM OBLKPCT OVBLKPCT ORBLKPCT QMINPCT QVMINPGT 0.44 0.38 0.42 0.83 0.582 : 0.83 0.93 0.92 0 0.93 0.23 0.20 0.25 0.23 0.20 0.16 0.25 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.18 0.13 C0 0.20 0.15 8.15 . . 0.17 0.15 0.15 . 0.17 0.09 0.09 . 15 0.13 ORMINPCT OPDENLTG OPDEMCOA OPDEMSEN OPCTDEM ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IMINVOT IMINREG ILTGE8 JCOAR8 ISEN30 OTOTVOT OTOTMIN OMINVOT OMINREG a.11 0.62 2182 1134 811 626 B86 814 829 1828 330 362 158 Q.11 0.82 3121 4700 2804 2436 1211 1130 1342 1828 aso 3s2 158 9.23 0.66 . 321 4700 2904 2438 1211 1180 1342 S307 939 922 729 9.23 0.66 2351 1124 74 324 935 a7 998 5307 939 922 799 0.08 0.62 . . 2851 1124 741 324 935 871 998 3077 $31 404 191 OLTGS8 OCOASS GSENOO GTBLKPOP LTELKPOP EGBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTELXVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKREG EQBLKREG GTMINPCP LTMINPOP EQMINPOP 728 655 748 728 655 748 1325 1214 1650 1323 1214 1650 1156 1038 1194 GTMINYOT LTMINVOT EQMINVOT GTMINREG LTMINREG EOMINAEG GTOZMCOA LTDEMCOA EQDEMCOA GTDEMLTG LTDEMLTG EQDEMLTG GTOEMSEN LTDEMSEN EQDEMSEN GTDEMAEG LTDEMREG Printed 09/07/99 15:09:26 Discovery 08/07/88 13:37 FAX 918 544 4801 PRI ASSOCIATES INC @do10-028 NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING 13:08 Tuesday, Bepteaber 7, 1883 LIST OF FINAL DAYA SET - CHECK COMPARISONS SEGMENT VTDKEY OPRECNCT IPRECNCT ITaTPOP ITOTWHT ITOTBLK IWHTVOT IsLkvor IASTIVOT TAMIVOT 142.0 37.081.0118 086.081.0117 12.081.0118 3276 2784 301 2229 16 143.0 337.081.0118 06.081.0123 12.081.011& 3276 2784 391 2229 16 144.0 237.081.2124 06:081.0123 12.081.2124 4654 3444 1020 2874 © 38 145.0 237.081.0124 048.081.0123 12.0871.0124 3182 2081 935 1732 14 146.0 37.081.0138 066.081.0123 12.081.0136 5607 4172 1303 3026 g IQTHVOT IREGYOT IREGWYHT IAEGALK IREGOTH ILDEMBS ISDEMSO ICREF886 ILAEF88 ISRERSQ 1864 183 487 414 S524 562 70S 1884 163 487 414 524 562 705 2520 S04 43% 763 480 477 620 1522 318 275 371 301 300 399 2784 557 852 814 829 830 IREP O0BLKVOT QASIVOT QAUIVOT 266 123 13 836 124 836 126 838 126 836 126 QCAREPSS QLAEPEB 604 443 6r7 484 518 455 678 454 S18 455 678 464 £16 455 678 464 5186 455 678 IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVMINPGCT IRIONPCT IPDEMLYG IPDEMCOA IPOEMSEN IPCTDEM OBLKPCT QVBLKPCT ORBLXPCT ONINPCT OVMINPCT 0.12 0.09 0.15 0.12 0.37 0.03 0.08 0.12 0.09 0.14 0.12 0.37 : 0.21 0.21 0.22 ; 0.20 0.26 0.23 0.55 0.21 a. 0.31 : 0.20 0.3% 0.a1 0.48 0.21 8.21 0.23 ; 0.20 0.28 0.23 ‘ . : 0.54 : . a,21 0.21 CRUINPCT OPDEMLTG OPDEMCOA OPOEMSEN OPCTDEW ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IMINVOT IMINREG ILTGBE ICOAZS ISENSO OTOTVAT OTOTMIN OMINVOT OMINREG 0.08 0.62 0.58 0.65 0.68 2537 432 308 173 1049 BS4 1119 3077 $31 404 191 . 0.22 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.668 2537 492 308 173 1049 954 1118 4047 1412 1024 486 0.22 0.52 0.51 Q.51 0.68 3754 1210 880 527 916 849 1383 4047 1412 1024 486 0.22 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.68 2528 1111 785 326 575 533 770 4047 1412 1024 486 0.22 0.52 0.51 0.51 Q.68 3915 1435 8839 572 1882 ° 1568 1503 4047 1412 1024 486 OLTOa8 0COAGA DSENSO GTBLKPGP LTALKPGP EcAlkrop ETBLKVOT LTBLKYOT EQBLKYOT GTBLKAEQ LTBLKAEG EQELKAEG GTMINPOP LTWINPOP EQWIXPOP 1156 1032 1184 203 1020 1020 1020 803 1020 GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQUINVOT GTMINREG LYMINREG EQMINREG GTDEMCOA LTDEMCOA EQDEMCOA GTDEMLTG LTDEM.TG EQDEMLTG GTDEMSEN LTDEUSEN Printed 09/07/99 15:09:26 Discovery 08/07/88 15:37 FAX 919 544 4801 | SEGMENT VTDKEY OPRECNGT IPREGNCT 37.081.0136 06.081.3124 12.081.0136 87.081.0136 06.081.0462 12.081.0136 97.081.1601 046.081.0802 12.081.1601 97.081.1102 046.081.0802 12.081.1102 87.081.1102 06.081.2124 12.081.1102 146 147 148 149 150 147.0 148.0 149.0 150.0 1561.0 IoTHvOT IREGVOT IREGAHT 16 16 2764 2764 1364 26835 2683 2192 2192 137 2744 2744 oToTPOP 2133 2436 2438 2438 2133 OREGOTH S21 1480 1480 1480 821 10 13 13 13 10 PRI ASSOCIATES INC TRL a XY RN.” 2 NORTH CARO LIKA REDISTRICT LIST OF FINAL DATA SET - CHECK COMPARISONS IToTPOP IREGBLK J14 34 146 5607 Seo? 2552 4000 4000 IREGOTH 15 15 1 OTOTBLK 132 128 128 128 132 OLDEMAS 173 383 383 383 173 ITOTWHT 4172 4172 2018 3504 4301 ICDEMBS 737 737 286 293 2383 283 362 ITOoTBLK 1303 1303 428 . 61 61 ILDEMBS 852 252 352 708 703 OBLKYOT IwHTVOT OASIYOT IBLKVOT ICREPSB IASIVOY ILR OOTHYOT @oi11/028 TAMIVOT EPan ISAEPQO 830 830 403 10835 1085 694 694 4739 1080 1060 OREGYOT 7 8385 1 1855 ; (PP 1855 1 158% 7 8938 ODEM OREP 327 795 785 785 a27 §38 663 663 663 338 IBLKPCT IVELKPCT IABLKPCT IMINFCT IVWINPGT IRMINPCT IFOEULTG IPDEMCOA IPDEMSEN IPCTDEM OBLKPCT OVBLKPCT ORELKPCY GUINPCT OVMINPCT 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.07 0.01 0.28 0.26 0.21 0.02 0.02 0.48 0.359 0.39 0.38 0.48 0.57 0.31 Q.31 0.31 0.57 OLTGE8 0COABE OSENSO GTBLKPOP 361 1017 1017 1017 361 335 936 836 836 335 640 835 833 833 840 21 21 17 05 .05 a. 0. a. 0. 0 3315 3815 2008 3142 3142 1435 1435 53 oh 09 88s ass 406 69 68 S72 S72 227 141 141 0.57 0.57 0.58 0.54 0.51 1682 1882 755 1794 1794 1366 1566 711 1604 1604 1526 1974 1974 1974 1328 147 125 123 123 147 LTBLKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EOALKVOT GTELKREG LTBLKREG EQBLKREG GTMINPOP LTMINPOP EQMINPOP GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQMINVOT GTMINREG LTMINAREG COMINASG GTDEMCOA LTDEMCOA EQDEMCOA GTDEMLTG LTDEML.TG EDOEMLTO GQTDEMSEN LTDEMSEN Priated 09/0749 13:09-27 Diacovery Uus/ui/ 99 sewn VTOKEY 151 0.05 0.39 0.34 52 0.12 0.36 0.30 153 . 0.03 0,37 0.32 154 0.18 0,47 0.44 155 0.18 0.47 0.44 151 1017 938 93s 7 47 47 0 1 152 goa 851 879 0 1 153 $%0 $20 94g 1 0 154 1481 1617 13s8 0 1 1565 1481 1417 1338 1 0 08S 151 0 1 0 0 152 0 1 0 0 153 0 1 0 1 154 0 1 0 0 155 1 0 0 1 08S CQUEMSEN GTDEMREG LTODEUREG 151 0 1 1] 152 Q 1 0 153 [0] 1 0 154 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 13:37 FAX 818 544 4801 O O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 1268 1268 1268 1268 2046 PRI ASSOCIATES INC 2002 O O 0 0 NORTH CAROLI ITOTWHT 1420 1420 1420 1420 833 KA REDIS ICoEMR8 197 197 197 197 567 OovTvVOoT 1848 1966 2126 2578 2578 OSDEMQO 6.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.75 a1 a1 41 41 1384 293 383 as7 663 863 TRICTING LIST OF FINAL DATA SET - CHECK COMPARISONS ITOTBLK 0.38 0.38 0.58 0.58 0.78 25 25 23 25 979 0 0 0 0 0 OPRECNCT IFRECNCT ITOTPORP 131 132.0 37.081.0219 06.081.0802 12.081.0218 1483 132 133.0 937.061.0218 06.081.0220 12.081.0213 1485 133 154.0 37.081.0218 06.081.0223 12.081.0219 1485 134 155.0 937.001.0219 06.061.0217 12.067.021% 1485 13% 136.0 37.001.0222 06.001.0217 12.0081.0222 2837 08s IOTHVOT IREGVOT IREGMHT TREGBLK TREGOTH 151 1 R2s gao 24 1 182 1 82s 200 24 1 1583 1 82s 800 24 1 154 1 825 BOO 24 1 155 1 1411 432 ‘979 0 08S IDEM IREP OTOTPOP OTOTWHT OTaTBLK 131 916 265 2436 2271 128 1§ Jie 2685 3189 2685 469 153 316 265 2682 2564 40 184 S16 265 4471 3167 1260 185 1152 205 4471 3167 1260 08S OREGWHT OREGBLK OREGOTH OCDEMAS OLDEMBS 151 1480 62 13 314 393 152 1404 184 5 253 326 153 1734 42 3 285 363 154 2121 a72 2 61d 83S 155 2121 472 2 618 633 08S IBLKPCT IVELKPCT IRBLKPET IMINPCY IVMINPCT IRMINPCT IPOENLTG IPDEWCOA IPOEMSEN 5 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.48 Lo 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.48 SRR 7! 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.48 2.24 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.48 155 0.70 0.67 0.68 0.71 0.68 0.69 0.74 EMCOA IWMHTVOT 1228 1228 1228 1228 662 ISDENSO 174 174 174 792 @o12/028 I[BLKVOT IASIVOT 33 J 33 J 33 5 33 L] 1374 3 ICREPSR ILREPAR 244 283 248 263 248 263 248 263 187 201 OAUTVOT OOTHVOT 13 1 3 2 2 3 ¢ 4 qa 7 4 OSREPQO O0EM 642 795 5396 660 801 763 7335 1376 73S 1376 TAUIVOT a A N N ISREPSQ IPCTDEM OBLKPCT OVBLKPCT OQRBLKPCT ONINPCT OVMINPCT 0.88 0.86 0.88 0.86 0.85 302 502 S02 S02 797 443 445 44S 443 74 0,05 0,15 0.03 0.2a 0.28 458 4358 458 458 774 0.03 0.13 0.03 0.24 0.24 1874 2355 2210 3426 3426 0.04 0.12 0.02 0.18 0.18 163 314 124 1304 1304 123 389 84 848: 848 75 189 45 474 474 OLTGRS 0COAS8 OSENSO GTBLKPOP LTBLKPOP EQBLKDOP GTHLXVOT LTELKVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKREG EQBLKREG GTMINFOP LTWINPOP EQUINPOP Printed 09/07/99 15:09-27 Discovery 09,07/98 15:38 FAX 819 544 4801 PRI ASSOCIATES INC @o13/028 Rp eT age >i 3 oy ETT TY dE Es Be DES NOCATH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING — LIST OF FINAL DATA SET « CHECK COMPARISONS | sgoueNT VTDKEY OPRECNCT IPRECHCT ITOTPOP ITOTWHT ITOTBLK INHTYOT IBLKVOT IASIVOT TAMIVOT 156 157.0 87.081.0208 06.081.0217 12.081.0205 4102 1710 2333 1838 1776 29 7 157 158.0 37.081.0205 06.081.0209 12.081.0205 4102 1710 2333 18386 1776 28 138 159.0 387.081.0203 06.081.0209 12.081.0203 1699 1184 474 1025 351 11 1" 199 160.0 37.081,0202 06.081.0204 112.081.0202 1068 821 128 820 107 8 3 160 161.0 837.081.0201 606.081.6204 12.081 .06201 1550 1521 15 1243 14 ? 0 08S IOTHVOT IREGVOT IREGMHT IREGBLK IREGOTH ICogEuaa ILDENMAS ISOEMSQ ICREPAH ILREPER ISREPSQO 156 6 2088 8672 1373 4 250 961 a37 § 2a1 «88 . 208 157 6 2055 672 1373 4 859 961 957 261 28s 20a 158 2 04S 748 195 2 243 230 234 251 234 238 150 1 450 418 30 2 101 101 7 159 170 150 160 0 1212 1203 4 5 276 357 304 455 484 470 08S IDEM IREP. QTOTPOP QTOTWHT QTOTBLK QWHTYOT QBLKYOT 0ASIVOT OAMTYOT QQTHVOT QREGYQT 156 1689 287 4471 3187 1280 2578 822 15 7 4 2595 157 1680 287 3103 2447 533 2034 365 18 1 6 1494 158 893 274 31 2447 593 2034 365 18 11 6 ‘ 1454 15¢ 281 163 2733 2722 27 2104 17 4 1 2 2114 160 644 502 273% e722 27 2104 17 4 1 2 2114 08s OREGAHT OREGBLK OREGOTH OCDEURSG Ol.DEMER OSDEMSO OCREPRA OLREPSR OSREPSO ODEN OREP 196 2121 472 2 618 899 ged : 799 792 738 1376 9339 157 1309 187 4 76 411 288 434 467 433 3826 S70 158 1303 137 4 378 411 288 454 487 453 826 570 139 2107 7 0 412 S79 431 88S 849 838 967 1023 160 2107 7 0 41Z 373 431 8635 849 638 S67 1023 088 IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVWINPCT IRMINPCT IPDEMLTG IPDENMCOA IPDEMSEN IPCTDEM OBLKPCT OVEBLKPCT ORBLKPCT GMINPCT OVMINPET +58 .. 0.87 0.53 0.67 0.58 0.54 0.67 0.77 0.78 0.82 0.85 0.28 0.24 0.48 0.29 0.25 20.57 0.53 0.67 0.58 0.54 0.67 0.77 0.78 0.82 0.85 0.19 0.15 0.13 0.21 0.16 Ti 0.28 0.28 Q.21 0.30 0.27 0.21 0.35 0.43 0.30 0.68 0.18 0.15 0.13 0.21 0.16 ..99 0.12 0.11 0.07 0.14 0,13 0.07 0.97 0.39 0.32 0.61 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 180 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.42 0.38 0.39 0.56 0.01 0.01 . 6.00 0.0 0.01 08s CRAMINPCT OPDEMLTG OPOEMCUA OPDEWSEN OPCTDEM ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IMINVOT IMINREG ILTG88 ICOA88 ISENSO OTOTVOT OTOTUIN OMINVOT OMINREG 158 0.18 0.47 0.44 0.47 0.58 3353 2392 1818 1983 1246 1211 116% 426 1304 848 474 157 "0.13 0.47 0.45 0.39 0.59 3355 2392 1818 1383 1246 1211 1165 2434 656 400 191 158. 0.13 0.47 0.45 0.39 0.58 1400 505 375 197 524 494 472 2434 656 400 181 159 0.00 0.41 0.32 0.34 0.43 33s 144 119 az 271 260 221 2128 37 24 7 180 0.0 0.41 0.32 0.34 0.49 1233 23 20 S 836 731 774 2128 a7 24 vi 08s OLTGBS OCOASB OSENSO GTELXPOP LTBLKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EGBLKVOT GTBLKAEG LYBUKAEG EQBLXAEG GTWINPOP LYMINPOP EOMINPOP 136 1491 1€17 1388 197 878 830 741 158 878 830 744 158 1428 1277 1289 160 1428 1277 1261 O A = ot - 0 O 0 O 0 Q o C o J S E SP G y O 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 o O o 0 OQ = od ad oa d “A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hh wh wh wd wh o o n o0 O0 o ( = = ol = = ] OBS GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQMINVOT GTMINREG LTMINRCG EQMINREG GTDEMCOA LTDEMCOA EQDEMCOA GTDEMLTG LYDEMLTG EQDEMLTG GTDEMSEN LTDEMSEN 156 1 0 o 1 0 0 1 0 a 1 0 0 1 0 157 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 i] 1 0 0 1 0 158 1 Q Q 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 139 1 Q 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0. 1 0 0 1 180 1 a 0 i 0 0 1 0 0 1 Q 0 1 0 0BS EQDEMSEN GTDEMREG LTDEMAEG EQDEMREG DEMNTBLK BLKNTDEM PRFLAG 156 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 157 0 1 0 0 0 a 0 158 0 1 0 0 0 a 0 139 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 “4g 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Printed 09/07/99 13-09:27 Discovery 08/07/88 13:38 FAX 819 544 4801 PRI ASSOCIATES INC @o14/028 3 pi ag) hes POI ILL Ea y A 3 "w oa LY EE TE x ’ vd . By per TO j 3 TET NORTH CARQLINA RERISTRICYING LISY of FINAL DATA SET - CHECK COMPARISONS SEGUENT VTOKEY OPRECNCT ~~ IPRECNCT LTOTPOP TTOTWHT ITOTBLK IWHTVOT 1aLxvoT IASIVOT IANIVOT 161 162.0 137.057.1807 06.067.0204 412.057.1607 3811 3753 13 2842 7 1 1¢ 162 163.0 137.057.0101 06.081.0208 12.057.0101 6285 6117 145 4689 99 10 x 163 164.0 37.057.0101 06.081.0224 12.057.0101 6205 6117 145 4683 99 10 a 164 165.0 37.057.0101 05.067.0102 12.057.0101 6283 6117 145 48483 99 10 a 165 166.0 037.067.0402 0S.067.0102 12.067.0402 4842 3671 1107 2054 725 18 8 QBS IQTHYOT IREGVOT IREGWHT IREGBLK IREGOTH ICDEMBS ILDEMAR ISDEMSO ICREP8S ILREPRS ISREPSO 161 18 1888 1980 4 2 345 414 276 1033 1000 1017 162 2 3180 3128 41 3 492 S14 367 1601 1673 1530 163 2 3180 3126 a1 3 492 514 367 1601 1673 1530 164 2 3180 3126 31 3 452 514 A687 1601 1673 1530 16S 16 2014 1772 238 4 478 509 370 733 730 724 088 IDEU IREP OTOTPOP OTOTWHT OTOTBLK OWHTVOT OBLKVOT OASIVOT CAMTVOT COTHVOT OREGYOT 161 T12 1141 2759 2722 27 2104 17 4 1 2 2114 162 1126 1880 4156 3808 272 3098 190 32 12 10 2228 163 1126 1880 3363 3221 106 2418 80 19 4 4 © 2175 164 1126 1880 4037 3873 132 2932 108 13 10 2 1599 | 185 1078 788 4037 33873 132 2932 108 13 10 2 1599 | OBS OREGWHT OAEGBLK OREGATH OCDEMES QLLEMSS OS0EM30 OCREF88 OLREPSS8 OSREPS0 ODEM OREP 181 2107 r 0 412 §7¢ 431 86s 849 838 9687 1023 162 2118 105 5 332 486 422 770 754 736 998 1033 163 2087 82 6 us 450 481 803 809 aa7 890 1051 164 1575 19 Ss 239 330 203 732 776 764 612 828 165 1575 19 5 299 130 203 732 776 204 812 828 08s IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVNINFCT IRMINPCT IPDEMI TA IPOELCDA IPOEUSEN IPCTDEM OBLKPCT OVBLXPCT ORELXPCT ONINPCT OVWINPCT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.2% 0.25 . 0.21 0.33 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.24 0.24 0.19 9.37 0.07 0.06 0.0s 0.08 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.24 0.24 0.13 0.37 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 184 0,02 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.24 0.24 0.19 0.37 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.04 185 0.23 0.19 0.12 0.24 0.21 0.12 0.39 0.39 0.34 0.57 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.04 CBS ORMINPCT OPDEMLTG OPDEMCOA OPDEMSEN OPCTDEM ITOTVOT ITOTUIN IUINVOT IMYNAEG ILTGBR ICOASS ISENSO OTOTVOT oToTuIN OMINVOT QUMINREG 161 0.00 0.41 0.32 0.34 0.49 2982 58 40 6 1414 1378 1283 2128 a7 34 7 1€2 ~0.0s 0.38 0.33 0.36 0.48 4802 168 119 34 2187 2093 1897 3342 34a 244 119 163 0.04 0.33 0.28 0.30 0.45 4802 168 118 34 2147 2083 1897 2828 142 107 88 164 0.02 0.30 0.29 0.22 0.43 4802 168 119 3a 2137 2083 1897 306s 164 133 24 165 0.02 2.30 0.29 0.22 0.43 3721 1n 767 242 1288 1217 1094 3065 164 133 24 08s OLTAA4 ocoasg QSEN9Q GTBLKPOP LTELKPOP CEBLKFOP GTBLXYOT LTBLKVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKREG EQBLKREG GTMINPOP LTMINPOP EQWINFOP 161 1428 1277 126% o 1 Q 0 1 Q 0 1 0 1 0 0 162 1240 1152 1158 0 1 Q Q - 1 0 0 1 o Q 1 0 163 1350 1248 1268 0 1 0 0 1 Q 0 1 0 0 1 v 164 1106 1031 907 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 165 1108 1031 807 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 ) 0 1 0 0 08S GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQUINVOT GTMINREG LTMINREG EQUTNREG GTDEMCOA LTDEMCOA EQDELCOA GTDELL TG LTDEMLTG ECDEULTG GTDEMSEN LTDEMSEN 161 1 0 a 0 1 0 0 1 i] 0 1 0 0 1 162 Q 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 | 163 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 184 0 1 0 - 0 1 0 0 1 0 a 1 0 0 1 165 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 a 08S EQDEMSEN QTDEUREG LTDEWREG EQDEMAES DEWHTBLK BLKNTDEM PRELAG 161 0 0 1 0 °o 0 0 | 162 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 163 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ~q 0 0 1 0 0 0 ) | o 1 0 0 0 0 0 Printed 09/07/99 15:09:27 Dizcovery 08/07,88 15:38 FAX 8189 544 4801 PRI ASSOCIATES INC @o15/028 I Tees Toa _ NE, ET SE n 3} HE By pias 2 EY : F Fi D407 wie: 1:8 £3 FS ERS A it fire hte CRE GRR» 19.28 = A MIC iis 1 yg Var NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING 15:06 Tuesday, Scptember 7, 1999 41 | LIST OF FINAL DATA SET - CHECX COMPARISONS SEQGMENT VTDKEY OPRECNCT IPRECNCT IToTPOP ITOTWHT ITOTBLK IRHTVaT I8LKVOT IAsYvar TIAMTVOT 166 167.0 337.067.0402 0S5.067.0401 12.0687.0402 4842 3671 1107 2954 72% 16 8 167 168.0 37.0687.1424 D5.087.0401 13.067.4424 2624 1457 1134 1214 rah 3 10 188 {89,0 A7.087.1448 05.087.0401 12.087.4448 4101 1610 2451 1335 1816 9 0 189 170.0 87,087.1448 05.067.0808 12.067.1446 £101 1610 2451 1335 1616 9 0 170 171.0 37.0687.1448 05.067 .0801 12.07.1446 £101 1610 2451 1335 18186 9 0 083 IOTHVOT IREGVQT IREGWHT IREGBLK IAEGOTH ICDEURA ILDEUAR ISDEMS0 ICREPa8 ILREPBS ISRERQO 166 18 2014 1772 238 a arn s09 370 738 780 724 167 : 2 1155 740 412 3 438 439 386 235 263 307 168 15 1829 770 1058 3 543 555 783 266 312 315 168 15 1828 770 1056 3 543 555 783 266 312 3S 170 15 1828 770 1056 3 543 555 783 266 312 31S 08s IDEM IREP OTaTPQP OYOTWHT QTOTBLK aHTVaY QBLKYQT oAsIVoT OAMIVOT QOTHVOT OREGYOT 186 1078 798 3128 2457 813 2023 482 1 6 2 1574 167 870 220 3128 2497 818 2023 482 1 € 2. 1874 168 1456 287 9128 2497 818 2023 482 1 8 2 1574 169 1456 287 5530 5196 279 3772 188 21 9 [<] 2843 170 1456 | 287 3449 2426 1004 1961 714 11 2 0 1048 08S OREGWNT OREGBLK OREGOTH OCOEMSS OLDEMBS OSDEMSO OCREPER OLREPAA OSREPSO one OREF 166 1398 174 2 386 419 281 647 633 701 822 B42 167 1338 174 2 286 419 281 647 683 701 822 B42 168 1398 174 2 © 386 419 281 647 683 701 822 842 169 2720 118 5 601 705 S27 1326 1383 1060 1164 1403 170 1419 525 4 627 659 967 673 758 730 1171 §72 0BS IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVMINPCT IRMINPCT IPDEULTG IPDEMCOA IPDEMSEN IPCTDEM OSLKPCT OVBLKPET ORBLKPET OUINPCT OVMINFCT “6 0.23 0.19 0.12 0.2¢ 0.21 0.12 0.39 0.30 0.34 0.57 0.20 0.19 0:1. 0.20 0.19 +1 0.43 0.39 0.36 0.44 0.39 0.36 0.63 0.65 0.56 0.80 0.20 0.19 0.11 0.20 0.15 £4 0.60" 0.54 0.58 0.61 0.55 0.58 0.64 0.67 0.71 0.84 0.20 0.19 0.11 0.26 0.19 169 0.60 0.54 0.58 0.61 0.55 0.58 0.64 0.67 0.71 0.84 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.06 170 0.60 0.34 0.58 0.617 0.53 0.58 0.654 0.67 0.71 0.84 0.29 0.27 0.27 0.30 0.27 08S ORMINFCT OPDEMLTG OPDEMCOA OPDEMSEN OPCTDEM ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IMINVOT IMINAEG ILTGBS ICOAS8 ISENSO OTOTYOT OTOTWIN OMINVOT OMINREG 166 0.11 0,38 0.37 0.29 0.88 A121 nn 767 242 1299 1217 1034 2484 631 471 176 187 0,11 0.38 0.37 0.29 0.56 2000 1164 736 415 702 673 693 2404 631 471 176 188° 0.11 0.38 0.37 0.29 0.58 2975 2491 1640 1059 867 808 1088 2494. 639 471 176 189 0.04 0.34 0.31 0.33 0.45 2975 2481 1640 1059 867 808 1088 3580 234 227 123 170 0.27 0.47 0.48 0.45 0.64 2075 2451 1640 1058 867 800 1088 2628 1023 727 829 08S OLTGB8 OCOAB8 OSENSO GTBLKPOP LTBLKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLIVOT LTBLXVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLICREG LTELKREG EDBLXREG GTLONPOP LTMINPOP EQMINPOP 166 1102 1033 082 167 1102 1033 882 168 1102 1033 882 168 2088 1827 1587 170 1417 1300 1317 o d o d w b «b d o b a n o o 0 o o o o o o o o - oh wd ed od O D O O 0 O O O [= = J = J = J = | J S P G y 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 J GT G G gp | O 0 0 0 o O C O 0 o 0 0 O 0 QBS GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQMINVOT GTMIMAEG LTMINAEG EoMINAEG GYDEMCOA LTOEMCOA EQDEMCOA GTDEMLTG LTDEMLTG EQDEMLTG GTREMSEN LTDREMSEN 1 0 o 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 167 1 i] 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 168 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 ol 0 1 0 0 1 0 169 1 0 a 1 0 Q 1 i} 0 1 0 0 1 0 170 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 08S CODEMSEN GTDEMREG LTDEMAEG EQDEMREQ DEMNTBLK BLKNTDEM PRFLAG 0 1 0 [¢] 0 0 0 167 0 1 0 Q 0] °] 0 168 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 189 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 a o] [0] 0 Printed 09/07/99 15:0927 Discovery : VTDKEY OPRECNCT FAL JAY J44 4HUL FKL ASSOCIATES INC NORTH CAROLINA r A ALS ak Lr SEN NIN eet Tae aA “a Roe CAR Ta REDISTRICTING LIST OF FINAL DATA SET - CHECX COMPARISONS | SEGMENT IPRECNCT 1ToTPOP 171 172.0 37.067.1452 035.067.0801 12.067.1452 3662 172 173.0 37.067.1410 05.067.0801 12.067.1410 4317 173 173.1 37.067.1410 035.067.0802 12.067.1410 4317 174 174.0 137.067.1433 05.067.0802 12.067.1433 3743 175 173.0 237.007.1417 05.067.0802 12.067.1417 3022 08s IOTHVAT IREGYOT IREGWHT IREgELK IREGATH 171 ] 1467 261 1205 1 172 0 2509 sg 2561 0 173 0 2539 sa 2561 0 174 19 1388 841 539 6 175 2 1492 533 987 2 08S IDEM IRER OTOTPOP OTOTWHT oToTeLK 171 1280 127 3448 2428 1004 172 2483 61 3448 24286 1004 173 2489 61 5497 4344 1121 174 ora 32% 5497 4344 1121 178 1174 263% 5497 4344 121 083 OREGWHT OREGBLK OREGOTH 0COEuRE OL DEUAS 17 1419 525 £4 627 8sg 172 1419 525 4 627 859 173 18956 457 3 634 835 174 1958 457 3 €34 83s 175 1356 457 3 834 635 oBS rt 0.77 0.74 0.82 0.78 0.75 0.82 0.85 “1 0.97 0.87 0.53 0.98 0.97 0.39 0.952 0.97 0.97 0.99 0.98 0.87 0.88 0,92 PT RYE 0.39 0.39 0.48 0.40 0.39 0,84 375 0.73 0.69 0.84 0.73 0.70 0.64 0.75 08s 71 9.27 0.47 0.48 0.45 0.64 2618 2846 172 09.27 0.47 0.43 0.45 0.64 a33 4713 173 . Q.19 Q.40 0.43 0.37 0.60 3313 £213 174 0,19 0.49 0.43 0.37 0.60 26487 1713 175 0.19% 0.46 0.43 0,37 9.60 2248 2218 OBS OLTG88 0COAS8 OSENSO GTBLKPOP LTBLKPOP 171 1417 1300 1317 172 1417 1300 1317 173 1390 1475 1439 17¢ 1330 1475 1438 178 1330 1473 1439 Q8s 171 1 0 [0] 1" 1 0 a 173 1 0 a 174 1 0 0 173 1 a 0 0BS EQDEUSEN GTOEMREG 17m 0 1 173 0 1 173 Q 1 174 0 1 S 0 1 E a I O o o o o oh oA eh bh bh LTDEMAEG C 0 0 0 0 O o o o o (= JN - N o N - I ] EQDEVREG 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 a q Q o ad wd od A ob t h ad oh ed wh DEMNTBLK o o 0 o o 0 o 0 o Prted 05/07/99 15:09:27 Discovery ITOTWHT IToTELK B18 2803 104 4208 104 4208 2030 1653 804 2192 ICDEMAE Albumen 7 723 S80 1050 880 1050 649 670 671 704 OWHTVOT oBLXvOT 1861 714 1361 714 3373 805 3a 805 3373 803 GSPEMGO OCREPSS 587 673 saz 873 529 841 529 841 529 841 1861 Jz Jzz21 1068 1367 o o o o c a 12086 2561 2561 5435 259 O o o o 847 1140 1140 1043 944 td od fh 8 a 0 0 Q 0 Q 0 0 0 Lo} 0 BLKNTDEM PRFLAS Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ITMHTVOT 6 58 82 B82 1399 673 774 1017 1017 964 861 - — t eh ld A A ISDEMSO 743 1736 173¢ 425 708 OASIVOT 0 o o c o c o o LREP&8 758 758 98% 855 955 837 1751 1751 780 928 O n D o 0 o o o IBLKVOT 1936 3217 217 1028 1351 ICREP&S 0.27 0.27 0.18 0.18 0.19 2688 2668 1202 €202 202 o o 0 c a o 0 210 0 0 0 0 ] h h e d eh eh C o O 0 o O O 0 O o D O O o O IASIVOT 27 dg .18 «19 .19 1023 1023 1153 3153 1153 10 ILA @o016/028 EP&8 1479 1171 1349 -1348 td wd od oA 1349 0.30 0.30 0.21 0.21 0.21 727 727 B28 BZ9 B28 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 TAO Vor (= = J = J = J = O o o o o0 0.27 0.27 0.20 0.20 0.20 529 529 460 460 460 GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQMINVOT GTMINREG LTMINREG EQUINREG GTDEMCOA LTOCMCOA EQDEMCOA GTDEULTG LTDEALTG EQDEMLTG GTOEMSEN LTDEUSEN B93 IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPGT IMINPCT IVMINPCT IRMINPCT IPDEMLTG IFDEUCOA IPDEMSEN IPCTDEM OBLKPCT OVBLXPCT ORSLKPCT OMINPCT OVMINPCT ORMINPCT OPDEMLTG OPDEMCOA OPDEWSEN QOPCTDEM ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IUINVOT IMINAEG ILTGAS ICOAQS ISENSQ OTOTVOT OTOTMIN OMINVOT OMINREG EABLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQBLIVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKREG EQBLXREG GTMINPOP LTMINPOP EGMINPOP 08/07,88 13:38 FAX 918 544 4901 PRI ASSOCIATES INC @o17/028 | ’ NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING 15:06 Tuesday, Septeaber 7, 1999 43 Ga LIST OF FINAL DATA SET - CHECX COMPARISONS N\ BEQMENT VTDKEY OPAECNCT IPRECNCT ITareop ITOTWHT ITOTBLK wHTvor IBLKVOT IASIVOT TAMIVOT ; : 176 176.0 37,.087.1417 03,067.0303 12.067.1417 3022 804 2192 6739 1581 10 4 177 177.0 37.087.1417 053.087.1438 12,087,1417 3022 804 2192 675 1551 10 4 178 178.0 37.087,1417 Q05.087.1407 12.087,1417 3022 804 2192 87% 1551 10 4 179 179.0 37.087.1430 05.087.1407 112.087.1430 2748 583 2133 525 1576 15 4 180 180.0 347.087.1430 05.067.1403 12.087.4430 2748 584 21323 525 157¢ 15 4 08S IOTHVOT IREGVOT =~ IREGWHT IREGBLK IREGOTH ICDEMSS ILDEMSS ISDEMIO ICREPBS ILREPSB ISREPS0 176 2 1482 533 057 2 671 704 708 190 240 220 377 2 1432 533 857 2 671 704 708 180 240 220 178 2 1492 $33 857 2 671 704 708 180 240 220 179 3 1475 as? 1076 2 544 696 798 ° 119 153 100 180 a 1475 387 1076 2 644 6356 796 118 153 100 08S IDEM IREP QToTPOP OTOTWHT OTOTBLK OYHTVOT OBLKYOT DASIYOT OAMIVOT oOTHYOT OREGVQT {78 1174 265 9833 4285 505 2624 46 22 7 2 2810 177 1174 285 4398 2758 1584 2593 1073 1? 12 8. 1930 178 1174 285 S649 2896 2658 2658 1830 a1 23 10 2732 179 1228 190 5649 2896 2658 2653 1838 ai 23 10 2732 180 1228 190 2444 2437 275 1021 203 22 4 5 1780 03S OREGWHT OREGBLK OREGOTH OCDEAMS8S OLDEMSS O030EMDO CCREPRA OLAEPEER OSREPSQ ODEM OREP 176 2357 246 7 706 742 53d 257 1083 1042 1482 838 1m 1410 516 4 564 606 579 sos S36 436 1078 661 178 1626 1100 6 856 870 1041 516 S544 283 1683 759 179 1626 1100 6 B56 S70 1041 S16 544 289 1683 758 180 1623 132 8 473 559 S54 469, 493 508 868 624 CBS IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVMINPCT YRUINPCT IPOEMLTG XPOEUCOA IFDEMSEN IPCTDEM QBLKPCT QVBLKPCT ORBLKPCT OMINPCT OVMINPCT % 50.73 0.69 0.64 0.73 0.70 0.84 0.75 0.78 0.78 0.82 0.13 0.12 0.08 0.14 0.13 0.73 0.69 0.64 0.73 g.70 0.84 0.75 0.74 0.78 0.82 0.38 0.32 0.27 0.37 0.33 0.73 0.68 0.64 0.73 0.70 0.64 0.75 0.74 0.78 0.82 0.47 0.42 0.40 0.49 0.43 178 0.78 0.74 0.73 0.79 0.75 0.73 0.82 0.84 0.a9 0.87 0.47 0.42 0.40 0.49 0.43 180 0.78 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.75 0.73 0.82 0.84 0.88 0.87 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.13 0.11 083 CRMINPCY OPDEIATG OPDCMCOA OFDEMSCN OPGTDEM ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IMINVOT IMINAEG ILTGES ICOAB8 ISEN30 QTOTVOT OTOTMIN OMINVOT OMINREG 176 0.10 Q.41 Q.42 0.24 0.61 2246 2218 1567 959 944 861 923 3001 548 ar7 253 177 0.27 a,53 0.59 0.57 0.62 2246 2218 1567 as39 944 861 929 3403 1640 1110 S20 178 - 0.40 a.84 0.82 6.78 0.69 2246 2218 1567 gs39 944 861 929 4647 2747 1984 11086 179 0.40 0.84 0.82 0.78 0.69 2123 2183 183a 1078 849 783 856 4647 2747 1964 1106 180 0.08 0.53 0.50 0.52 0.61 2123 2183 1558 1078 848 763 836 2152 307 231 147 08S OLTG88 OCOAS8 OSENOG GTBLKPOP LTELKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLKREG LTRLXREG EOBLKREG GTMINPOP LTUINPOP EQUINPOP 176 1825 1663 1576 177 1142 1073 1015 178 1514 1372 1330 178 15314 1372 1330 180 1032 942 1063 PP RT 0 i o o o 0 0 0 0 Q P E E E o O o 0 o 0 O 0 O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 tA oh hd oh A O o o o O o 0 o Q Q a o - — e d wh wh A (o l = Ji = J = BY =| O D O O 0 O O o 08S BTMINVOT LTWINYOT EQMINYVOT GTMINREG LTMINREG COMINREG GTOEMCOA LTDEMCOA EQDEMCOA QTDEMLTG LTOEMLTG EQOEMLTG GTDEMSEN LTDEMSEN 178 1 i] 0 1 0 0 i 0 lo] 1 0 0 1 0 177 1 0 0 1 o 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 | 0 178 1 0 o 1 0 0 1 0 lo} 1 vl 0 0 1 179 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 180 1 a 0 1 0 o 1 0 ‘Q 1 0 0 } 0 083 EQDEMSEN GTOEMREG LTOEMREG EQDEMAEG DEMWNTRLK BLKNTDEM PRFLAG : 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 177 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 178 Q 1 Q 0 o 0 a 479 [1] 1 0 [0] [+] Q Q i. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Prioted 09/07/99 [5:09:28 Discovery 15:39 FAX 819 544 4801 PRI ASSOCIATES INC do018/028 14 hn) P RT NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING 15:06 Tuexzday, Ssptember 7, 1809 44 LIST OF FINAL DATA SET - CHECK COMPARISONS ; SEGMENT YTOKEY OPRECNCT IPRECNCT IToTPQP ITATWHT IToTBLK IWHTVOT IBLKYOT IASIYOT TAMIVOT 181.0 897.067.1430 05.087.1432 132.087.1430 2748 525 1576 | 182.0 137.067.1420 05.067.1422 12.087.1429 31u 15 1955 184.0 237.067.1426 05.067.1422 12.067.1426 s18s 173 2141 185.0 37.067.1426 05.067.1408 12.067.1426 318s 173 2141 186.0 37.067.1414 05.067.1408 12.067.1414 2895 185 1980 IOTHVOT IREGvOT IREGWT IREGBLK IREGOTH ISDENSO0 ICREP&S ILREPOR 1475 397 1076 796 1353 7 1346 758 1313 77 1235 707 1313 77 123% 707 25 1330 0TOTPOP QOTHYOT 11 19 olLocusa OCREF838 110m 405 : 1805 1101 40S 1805 461 1101 408% 1805 461 537 248 166 929 316 537° 248 166 824 316 IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLXPCT IMINPCT IVMINPCT IRUINPCT IPOEMLTG IPDEMCOA IPDEUSEN IPCTDEM OGLKPCY OVELKPCT ORBLKPCT OMINPCT OVMINPCT 0.74 0.393 0.52 0.92 0.81 0.32 0.29 0.42 0.32 0.28 0.42 0.32 0.28 0.42 0.28 0.26 0.18 0.28 0.26 0.18 12 : 21213 2183 1598 1078 763 886 8473 2015 1848 1006 . . 1972 . 3311S 1957 1348 604 763 5473 2015 1848 1008 2319 2978 2148 1238 5123 217 £473 20158 1848 1008 2319 2978 2146 1236 813 717 194ae8 873 538 288 2164 2698 1899 1330 718 B23 1948 873 538 266 0LTaaa 0COA88 OSEN90 GTBLKPOP LTBLKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLXREG LTBLKREG EORLKHEG GTMINPOP LTMINPOP 'EQUINPOP 1536 1314 1580 1536 1314 1560 1538 1314 1580 810 728 758 810 728 758 GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQMINVOT GTMINREG LTMINREG EQMINAEG GTDEMCOA LTDEMCOA EQDEMCOA GTDEMLTA LTDEMLYG EQDEMLTG GTDEMSEN LTDEMSEN EQDEMSEN GTDEMAES LTDEMREG Printed 09/07/99 15:09:28 Discovery PRI ASSOCIATES INC do18,028 STRICTIN LIST OF FINAL DATA SET - CHECK COMPARISONS OPRECNCT IPRECNCT 1ToTPOR IYoTwT ITOTBLK IWHTVOT IBLKVOT IASIVOT JAMIVOT 187.0 37.067.1414 05.067.1411 12.067.1414 2805 197 2686 185 188.0 137.067.1423 05.067.1411 12.067.1423 3386 67 3310 49 183.0 J7.067.1443 05.067.1411 12.067.1449 2702 1787 858 1527 190.0 27,087,14439 Q5,087,1427 12.067.1449 ATOR 178? asa 1527 181.0 Q37.087.1448 05.087.1441 12.087.1449 2702 1787 85a 1827 L[OTHVOT IRCGvaT IREGHHT IREGBLK IREGOTH 1CDEMSR ILDEUAR ISOEMSO ICREPBE 138% 23 1330 699 710 823 19 1722 1712 433 512 718 1283 369 423 438 468 275 1283 38g 488 275 1283 369 275 IREP OTOTPOP QTOTWHT : QREGVOT 26 2600 2131 1310 44 2600 2131 1310 265 2600 2131 1310 265 28%s 2249 : i 1603 285 2172 1976 § 1255 OREGBLK OREGOTH 0CoBu88 OCREP88 OLREP88 OREP 108 324 ¢ 38% 379 483 108 : 24 a55 379 483 108 324 ass 379 4835 212 £47 432 490 418 61 364 4353 543 433 IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVMINPCT IAMINPCTY 1POELE TG IPOEUCOA 1PDEMSEN IPCYDEU OBLKPCY OVEBLKPCT DRELXPCT OMINPCT OVMINPCT 0.98 . 0.92 : 0.97 1.00 0.16 0.14 . 0.13 0.18 0.838 0.88 0.88 1.00 = 0.16 0.14 - + 098 0.16 0.29 0.29 0.65 0.63 . 0.16 0.14 . 0.18 0.16 0.29 . 0.29 0.65 0.63 3 0.20 0.17 . 0.24 0.19 0.29 . 0.29 . . 0.65 0.63 : 0.08 0.07 > g.08 0.08 ORMINPCT QPOCMLTG OPDEMCOA OFDEMSEN CPGTOEM ITOTYOT ITOTWMIN IMINYOT IMINREG ILTG88 ICOA88 ISENSO OTOTYOT OTOTMIN OMINVOT OMINAEG 186 0.08 . 0.48 : . 2184 1899 1330 751 718 223 2218 4639 112 187 0.09 . 0.48 : 2411 2362 1713 S44 S0S 721 2215 489 112 188 0.0% : 0.48 . . 2186 829 374 €98 84€ 743 2215 489 112 189 © 0.13 0.56 2186 628 are 698 648 743 2332 806 218 190 0,05 0.44 . . 2156 629 374 698 648 743 17359 196 63 08S OLTG38 OCOAS8 OSENSO GTBLKPOP LTBLXPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLXVOT LTBLKVOT EQALKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKREG EQBLKREG GTMINPOP LTMINPOP EQMINPOP 186 737 699 187 7 699 188 757 698 189 1082 928 180 ass 820 OFS GTWINYOT LTMINYOT EQMINVOT GTNMINAEG LYWINAEG COMINACG GTDEMCOA LTDEMCOA EQDEMCOA GTDEMLTG LTDEMLTG EQDEMLTG GTDEMSEN LTDEMSEN 1 1 1 1 1 EQDEMSEN GTOBMREG LTDEMREG Printed 09/07/99 15:09:28 Discovery 08/07/,88 15:38 FAX 918 544 49801 PRI ASSOCIATES INC dc20-028 ROAT{ CAROLINA REDISTRICTING LIST OF FINAL DATA SET - CHECX COMPARISONS .GMENT ~~ VTDKEY OPRECNCT IPRECNCT ITOTPOP ITOTWHT ITOTBLK IWHTVQT IBLKVOT IASIVOT TAMIVOT 191 182.0 37.067.1415 05.067.1441 12.067.1415 2606 1094 1496 871 1003 4 2 192 193.0 347.067.1418 085.067.1413 123.067.1415 2606 1054 1496 871 1003 14 2 193 184.0 37.067.0402 05.067.1413 132.067.0403 4842 67H 1107 2554 725 18 8 104 195.0 87.067.0402 05.067.1202 112.067.0402 4842 S871 1107 2954 725 18 3 195 196.0 837.057.0301 05.067.1202 12.0S?.0301 6400 8148 184 4594 124 23 17 088 IOTHVOT IREGVOT IREGRHT IREGBLK IREGOTH ICDEMSS ILDEMGS ISDEMRO ICREPSR ILREPBE ISREPSO 191 5 1189 484 70S 0 548 549 S28 158 243 212 192 S 1189 484 708 0 548 549 528 188 243 212 183 16 2014 1772 238 4 47a 509 370 738 790 724 194 16 2014 1772 238 a 478 508 370 739 790 724 193 4 3147 3053 a7 7 872 736 S544 1357 1406 1346 08s IDEM IREP aYorpor QTOTWHT OTOTBLK OWHTVOT 0BLKVOT CASIVOT OAXIVOT 00THVOT OREGYOT 191 943 202 2172 1376 169 1822 115 a 6 2 1255 182 843 202 2180 1858 273 1489 163 3 s 10 769 183 1078 708 2180 1858 273 1489 163 3 5 10: 569 194 1078 708 353¢ 3302 191 2587 145 18 10 8 1588 195 1291 1668 Is 3302 191 2587 145 18 10 B 1988 083 OREGWHT OREGBLXK OREGOTH oCorMss OLDEM8S OSDEMS0 OCREPBA OLREPEA OSREP90D ODEM OREP 181 1182 a1 2 364 356 232 £59 543 588 720 459 182 886 73 0 267 260 174 283 3a4 386 492 agg 183 836 73 0 267 260 174 293 344 386 as2 ass 194 1938 48 4 448 arT as4 865 916 927 S68 859 195 1538 48 4 4489 477 354 865 916 827 8€a B59 083 IBLKPCT IVBLKPCY IRBLKPCT ILQMPCT IVNINFCT IRMINPCT IPDEMLTG IPDEMCOA 1POEUSEN IPCTDEM OBLKPCT OVBLKPCT ORBLKPCT OMINPCT OVMINPCT 0.57 0.53 0.59 0.58 0.54 0.59 0.69 0.74 0.71 0.82 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.09 0.03 0.57 0.53 0.59 0.58 0.54 0.59 0.69 0.73 0.71 0.82 0.13 a.10 0.08 0.14 0.11 0.23 0.19 0.12 0.24 0.21 0.12 0.39 0.39 0.34 0.57 g.13 0.10 0.08 0.14 0.11 we 0.23 0.18 0.12 0.24 0.21 0.12 0.39 0.39 0.34 0.57 0.08 0.05 a.02 0.07 0.06 185 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.34 0.33 0.29 0.44 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.07 0.06 OBS GRANINPCT OPDEMLTG OPDEMCOA OPOEMSEN OPCTDEM ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IMINVOT IMINREG ILTGS4 I1COA88 ISENSO OTOTVOT OTOTMIN OMINVOT OMINREG 181 0.05 6.40 0.44 a,28 0.61 1885 1512 1014 705 792 744 740 1759 196 137 63 192 0.08 0.43 0.48 0.314 0.55 1885 1512 1014 705 782 744 740 1670 304 181 73 193 .0.08 0.43 0.48 0.34 0.55 3721 1174 767 242 1289 1217 10D4 1670 304 181 73 194 0.03 0.34 0.34 0.28 0.53 a721 15 ira) 767 242 1289 {217 1084 2786 232 179 52 195 0.03 0.34 0.34 0.28 0.53 4762 252 164 84 32142 2029 1890 2788 232 179 52 08S OLTG88 0COAB8 OSENSO GTELKPOP LTBLKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQBLKVOT GTEBLKREG LTBLXREG EQBLKREG GTMINPOP LTUINPOP EMMINPOP 181 899 823 820 192 604 360 560 193 604 S60 360 184 1383 1314 {261 195 1393 1314 1281 0 = od oA ob -“ 0 0 0 0 O D D O O O © = bh md wd 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 h d wd wd C 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O O 0 O 0 O oo T E pt C r - O 0 O 0 0 O 0 Q O 0 O O 0 O 0 O 0 o 06S GTUINVOT LTMINVOT EQMINVOY GTUINREG LTMINREG EQMINREG GTDEMSGA LTDELCOA EQDEMCOA GTOEMLTG LTDEMLTG EQDEMLTG GTDEMSEN LTDEMSEN 191 1 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 1 bs] 182 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 183 1 0 0 1 0] 0 0 1 0 0 | o 1 0 194 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 o 1 0 195 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 085 EQDEMSEN GTDEMAEG LTDEMREG EQDEMAEQG DEUNTEHLK BLKNTDEM PRFLAG 181 0 1 0 ¢ o 0 0 182 0 1 0 Q 0 0 0 103 0 1 0 Ls] 0 0 0 ‘qq 0 1 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 “Prted 05/07/95 15:00:28 Discovery 09/07/99 15:40 FAX 918 544 4801 PRI ASSOCIATES INC @o21/028 Ry wed I eh Teves, WARE + SDS oT TI Wa ye TT: Be tom | re ~ TT Lge Le; SRE ; BET _ INS EH Ik "yy Hpk «oo, eave Jey TW. A Sa 5 KK Teed PS q RB HI % rage +4 Poth... . h vena “oe RGR RAINE X Ay SUR TURTITRSS, 27 Sibu 3, [TCE Shak S TRIN i 2 RETR SORIWPR- Sey, MORTH LINA REDISTRICTING LIST OF FINAL DATA 8ET - CHECX COMPARISONS VTDKEY OPRECNCT IPRECNCT ITQTPOP ITOTYHT ITOTBLK IAHTVOT IBLKVOT IASIVOT IAGVOT 327.057.0801 05.067.1202 12.057.0801 14 438 347.057.0801 05.067.0503 12.057.0801 14 438 347.057.0801 05.059.035 12.057,0804 14 438 37.057.1401 05.059.035 12.057.1401 25 2636 200.1 137.057.1401 05.059.020 12.057.1401 2636 I0THVOT IREGVOT IREGWHT JREGBLK ISDEMS0 ICREPBE ILREP8A ISREPSO 220 104 1135 117 220 : 104 115 fa I d 220 104 1135 117 1413 685 707 732 1418 685 7a7 732 oTOoTPOP OTOTWHT 0AMIVAT 0QTHVOT QfEavaT 3534 8302 1 1834 4666 2892 1916 2288 2217 1223 2203 2217 1223 1631 1502 863 OREGWT OREGOTH OCDEusa OLREPS88 O8REFSO 1936 449 816 827 868 858 1826 354 403 884 768 720 1130 233 231 533 581 467 698 1130 233 251 583 581 467 688 797 201 180 412 411 329 492 IBXPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVUINPCT IRUTNPCT IPDEULTG TPDEUCOA IPDEMSEN IPCTDEM OGLKPCT OVBLKPCT ORBLKPET OLINDCT OVMINPCT 0.04 . 0.22 0.28 0.20 0.38 0.04 . 0.22 0.28 ° 0.20 0.38 0.04 0.22 0.28 0.20 0.38 0.01 0.27 0.28 0.19 0.42 0.01 0.27 0.28 0.18 0.42 146 : 146 2178 148 1748 802 1748 502 1234 0.05 0,08 0,08 0.08 OLTGSR 0COASA CSENSO GTELKPOP LTBLKPOP EQBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQELKVOT GTELKREG LTOLKREG EQSLKAREG GTMINPOP LTMINPOP EQMINPOP 196 1393 1314 1281 197 1330 1184 1177 194 198 862 842 188 B38 862 842 a22 601 S91 GYMINVOT LTMINVOT EQAONYOT GTMINAREG LTWMINREG EQWINREG GTDEMCOA LTDEMCOA EQDEMCOA GTDEMLTG LTDEMLTG EQDEMLTG GTDEMSEN LTDEMSEN EQDEMREG DEMNTBLK BLKNTDEM Printed 09/07/99 15:09:28 Discovery CR-V ¥¥. 10:40 FAX 819 5 SEGMENT VTDKEY 201 622 601 591 203. 622 601 581 2 [or d [= ] -t [4 d oO — O O 0 O C O O 0 08s 201 0 1 0 202 o 1 0 203 [1] 1 0 20d 0 1 0 208 0 1 0 08S EQDEMSEN GTDEUREG LTDEMREG 201 0 1 0 a 0 1 0 203 0 1 0 204 Q 1 0 203 0 1 0 44 4801 201 9.08 0.34 0.33 0.30 0.449 202 0.08 0.34 4.33 a.3ao 0.40 2035 0.0a 0.34 0.33 0.30 g.40 204 © 0.04 0.34 0.34 0.30 0.40 205 0.08 0.34 0.34 0.30 0.40 088 o h o h o d o b o b PRI ASSOCIATES INC LIST OF FINAL DATA SEY - CHECK COMPARISONS [ = = « N e o 434 1844 5035 303s 2514 OBS ORMINPCT OPDEMLTG OPOEMCOA OPDEMSEN OPCTDEM ITOTVOT ITOTMIN 51 nn 158 158 147 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 EQDBMREG DEUNTBLK 0 0 a 0 a 1 0 1 0 1 ITOTWHT 568 2282 OPRECNCT IPRECNCT ITOTPOP «ol 201.0 37,057,701 05,059.020 12.057.1701 613 202 201.1 37.057.1301 05.059.020 12.057.130%1 2353 203 202.0 37.057.1302 05.089.020 12.057.1302 4023 204 202.1 3J37.057.1302 03.059.025 12.057.1302 4023 205 203.0 3J37.057.0401 05.033.025 12.057.0401 3383 OBS IOTHVOT IREGVOT TIREGWHT TREGBLK IREGOTH 201 0 278 260 18 0 202 4 1320 1280 39 1 203 3 1822 1721 g8 3 204 | 1822 1721 o8 8 205 10 1470 1406 . 64 0 08s IDEM IREP oTaTPOP OTOTWHT OTOTBLK 201 144 108 1834 1502 148 202 B41 817 1631 1502 118 203 S20 41s 1631 1502 118 204 820 818 4636 4068 538 20% 846 483 4636 4068 538 08s OREGWHT OREGBLK OREGOTH OCDENSS oLDEMER 201 57 61 0 201 210 202 787 61 0] 201 210 203 787 61 0 201 2io 204 2274 185 1 590 812 205 2274 185 1 S80 812 QBS IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLXPCT ININPCT IVMINPCT IRWINPCT IPDBATG IPDENMCDA IPDEMS 201 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.43 "0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.34 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.39 ¢ 0.04 0.04 0.05 Q.0¢ 0.0¢ 0.06 0.28 205 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.48 ITOTBLK 37 8s 144 144 121 ILDEUBSE 389 369 OCREPEB 400 400 400 1144 1144 IWHTVOT - -4 O 0 0 OLREPBS8 412 412 412 1188 1188 0.07 0.07 ‘0.07 Q.12 0.12 IBLKYOT 7 51 120 120 foc) ICREPSS 107 565 707 707 528 QAMI VOT O 0 0 » , i OSREP30 411 411 411 1183 1183 IASIYQT 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.07 g.oa 0.07 6.11 6.08 0.11 0.08 W O O O = D 022/028 ILREPBS 104 Sea rar 727 553 COTHYQT S D N N M N ODEM 328 329 329 849 5439 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.12 0.12 15;08 Tuesday, September 7, 1999 4g EN IPCTDEM QBLKPCY OVBLKPCY ORBLKPCT OMINPET OVMINPCT IMINVOT IMINREG ILTGB8 ICOA38 ISENSO OTOTVOT OTOTMIN OMINVOT OMINREG 36 S6 129 128 110 O 0 0 148 184 40 815 101 1194 101 1188 64 1008 O 0 O 0 O o O 0 O 182 833 1182 1162 885 172 aso 11582 1152 830 1254 1234 1234 3520 3520 128 129 129 5648 568 88 88 89 404 404 66 gs 66 190 180 OLTGS8E 0COAB8 OSENSO GTBLKPOP LTALKPOP EQBLKPOP GYBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKRES EOGBLKREG GTUINPOP LTRINPOP EQMINPOP “Primed 05/07/99 15.0931 Discovery 206 207 208 200 210 08s b. | Ud, Vis 99 19:40 FAX 819 544 4901 PRI ASSOCIATES INC So ER NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING LIST OF FINAL DATA 8ET - CHECX COMPARISONS TTOTWHT Jeosa 1381 1381 1381 1004 IcotMas 188 ITOTBLK 725 354 a58 S58 asLkvoT J89 IWHTVOT 2977 1039 1038 1039 750 ISDEMI0 488 221 140 140 OCREP88 1144 1144 1767 448 448 OLREFES8 1188 1188 1844 472 472 15:06 CF ENE csday, Septemb IBLXVOT IASIVOT 529 12 263 4 283 4 263 4 247 0 ICREFPOS ILAEPSS B61 899 254 278 254 278 254 278 251 284 OAMIVOT 0OTHVOT 10 4 10 4 17 4 4 3 4 3 OSREPS0 ODEN 1183 9490 1183 849 1842 1460 4686 ara 488 37a @023,028 er 7, 1999 43 TAMTVOT 27 O O O O XSREPSO £52 IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVMINPCT IRUINPCT IPOEMLTG IPDEMCOA IPDELSEN IPCTDEN OBLKPCT OVBLKPCT ORBLXPCT OUINPCT OVMINPGT 0.46 6.51 0.51 0.51 0.37 S68 Z71 371 271 247 0.40 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.35 338 1 136 136 136 115 680 S564 564 S64 423 1588 S23 523 523 401 Q.12 0.12 0.186 0.71 0.11 1573 513 513 513 404 g.11 0.11 0.15 0.10 0.10 3520 3520 5435 13687 1367 0.08 06.08 0.0d 0.08 0.08 202 0.12 0.12 0.17 0.11 0.11 404 404 8353 149 140 0.11 0.14 0.16 0.11 0.11 ILTG88 ICOA33 ISENSO OTOTVOT OTCTUIR OUINVOT OUINREG . 180 180 298 75 75 OLTG88 OCOA38 OSENSO GTBLKPOP LTBLKPOP EQBLKPOR GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQALKVOT GTBLKREG LTBUXREG EQBLKREG GTMINPOP LTMINPOP EQUINPOP BUNNTODEM C 0 0 0 OC | SEGMENT VTDKEY OPRECNCT YPRECNCT IToTPUP 204.0 237.158.0401 0S.059.025 12.159.0401 4583 205.0 37.159.1401 05.089.025 12.159.1401 1756 205.1 37.139.1401 05.059.030 12.158.1401 1758 205.2 237.158.1401 05.055.008 12.1S9_440% 1756 206.0 37.159.1201 05.053.005 12.159.120% 1347 IOTHVOT IREGVOT IREGWHT IREGALK INEGOTH 0 2518 2181 225 6 4 B44 708 185 1 4 844 708 135 1 a 844 708 135 1 0 5834 519 114 1 IDEU IREP oTorTPoP OTOTWHT OTOTBLK 1428 952 4636 4068 538 4358 300 4636 4068 538 438 aco 7014 5415 1138 458 300 1786 1584 190 299 297 1788 1884 190 OREGYHT OREGBLK OREGOTH OCDEMSS OLDEMAR 2574 185 | 550 812 2274 185 1 530 "812 3518 289 2 914 948 EBd 7a 3 223 240 B84 78 3 233 2490 0.16 0.15 0.13 0.17 0.16 0.13 0.46 0.20 0.20 0.16 0.21 0.21 0.16 0.$1 0.20 6.20 0.16 0.21 0.21 0.18 0.51 0.20 0.20 0.16 0.21 0.21 0.18 0.51 0.25 0.25 0.18 0.25 0.25 0.18 0.41 OAMINPCT OPDEMLTG QPDEMCOA QFDEWSEN OPCTDENY ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IMINVOT IMINAEG 0.08 0.34 0.34 0.30 0.40 3545 781 0.08 0.34 0.34 0.30 0.40 1309 375 0.08 0.34 0.34 0.30 0.40 1309 ars 0.08 0.34 0.34 0.30 0.40 1309 a78 0.08 0.34 0.54 0.30 0.40 837 841 1800 1734 1691 1 0 0 1 1800 1734 {891 1 0 a 1 2790 2681 2822 1 0 0 x TVA 712 631 665 1 0 0 1 712 681 665 1 0 0 1 1 0 o 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 Q 0 1 o Q 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 EOQDEMSEN GTDEMREG LTDEMREG CQDEMREG DEMTELK 0 1 [1] 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 PRFLAG o O 0 C c o o O o a e Printed 09/07/99 15:09:28 Discovery 08/01/89 SEGMENT VTDXEY 08s IOTHVAT 211 4 212 4 213 4 214 24 218 24 0oBs IDEM 211 768 212 768 213 768 214 1879 218 1878 08s OREGWHT 211 1049 212 710 213 2477 214 2219 215 2237 08S 3 0.23 0.21 Lh 0.23 0.21 3.0.23 0.21 £14 0.14 0.13 215 0.14 0.13 08s 211 0.19 0.50 212 0.03 0.35 213- 0.05 0.31 214 0.06 0.39 215 0.09 0.38 088 211 7183 751 212 484 433 213 1762 1677 214 1568 1535 213 1553 1481 3 sah meg® § = tl » OPRECNGT IPR IREGVOT 7 436 1871 1537 1428 17Nn 1171 17 3608 3608 IREP 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.07 0.07 oes 211 1 0 0 212 1 0 0 213 1 0 0 214 1 a 0 215 0 1 0 08S EQDEMSEN GTOEMAES 231 +4 1 212 0 1 213 0 1 214 a 0 8 0 0 I REGWHT OTOTPOP © ob wd od 2392 1372 5151 3859 as72 -24 0.21 24 0.21 24 0.21 16 0.14 +16 0.14 - O 0 0 D O D CQ d A LTOEMAEG - ad O 0 0 bay 13:40 FAX 919 544 4801 ECNCT 211 207.0 237.097.0601 10.087.1501 12.097.0601 212 208.0 37.097.0601 10.097.1101 12.087.0801 213 209,0 337.097.0601 10.097.0201 12.097.0801 214 210.0 S7.097.0301 10.097.1401 12.097.0301 215 211.0 137.097.0301 110.097.1402 12.097.0301 PRI ASSOCIATES INC — SERIE) te NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING LIST OF FINAL DATA SET - CHECK COMPARISONS IT IREGRLK 188 138 138 233 233 OTOTWHT 1853 1308 4759 3269 3116 OCOEM38 424 159 573 643 588 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.07 0.07 1343 1343 1343 5943 5543 O 0 0 0 0 oTPOP 1823 1823 1823 8121 8121 IREGOTH 0.438 0.48 0.48 0.33 0.33 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 EODEMAEG ~~ OEMNTBLK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Q ~~ 2 0 ITOYwWT 1383 1393 1393 68s €858 0.35 0.55 0.55 0.35 0.35 2a7 287 2a7 829 829 -“ - O 0 0 0 0 -_ et O O BLKNTOEM OO - 0 0 < C ITOTBLK IVHTVOT 419 1056 418 1056 419 1056 1168 5114 1168 5114 ILDEuUBA ISDEMSO 367 77 3687 ar7 367 ar? 782 er7 82 877 OBLKVOT OASIVOT 877 1 28 0 278 1 us 0 486 52 OCREPBS OLREP88 327 380 254 317 1104 1218 892 870 asa 856 0.51 0.68 0.51 0.68 0.81 0.68 0.40 0.58 0.40 0.5% 189 754 198 754 1688 754 0.22 0.02 0.07 0.13 0.18 71? 733 717 733 717 733 240 2364 2247 2219 240 2364 2247 2219 0 0 0 0 D e d t a D C 0 0 0 0 PRFLAG ( o l e RN e R e e O O =~ 2 0 “= 0 0 Oo -_ l O O = IBLKYOT 283 283 283 766 766 ICREPSS OSREPS0 429 374 1118 883 834 D. g. 0. 0 0 a 2 2 R 8 X 1817 1031 3856 3063 3154 0 0 0 0 0 lo JT Se pu Sp ry Q O 0 O O 0 O Q O 0 539 64 392 3530 358 O O = = a A 4 0 0 0 D 388 a4 J0s 382 348 0247028 - 0 0 0 842 242 22 125 1489 214 OLTGB8 OCOAS8 0SENSO GTELKPOF LTBLKFOP EQBLKPOP GTBLXVOT LTBLKVOT EORLKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKREG EOBLKREG GTMINPOP LTMINPOP EQHMINPOP [= =3 « l e =] GTMINVOT LTWMINVOT EQMINVOT GTMINREG LTMINREG EQMINREG GTDEMCOA LTOEMCOA EQDEMCOA GTDEMLYG LTOEML TG EQOEMLTG GTDEMSEN LTDEMSEN Printed 09/07/99 15:09:29 Discovery UB/ Ui, 8% 13:40 FAL 918 544 4801 PRI ASSOCIATES INC @o25-028 Fain NORTH pi REATSTAICT Ing 15:08 Tioeter, Septeaber 7, 1939 =m LIST OF FINAL DATA SET - CHECX COMPARISONS ‘SEGMENT VIDKEY oPRECNCT IPAECHCT ToThoP ITOTWHT IYOTBLK rwwrvoT IBLKVOT IASIVOT YAMIVOT «8 212.0 137.007.1408 10.087.1402 12.097.1408 4354 1509 2418 1514 1547 217 213.0 137.007.1403 10.097.1402 t2.097.1403 4220 1814 2373 1405 1550 218 214.0 37.097.1403 10.097.1404 12.097.1403 4220 1214 2373 1405 1550 219 215.0 37.097.1403 10.087.1405 12.097.1403 4230 1814 2373 1405 1550 220 218.0 37-.097.1403 110.087.1301 12.097.1403 4220 1814 1405 1550 OBS IOTHVOT IREGVOT IREGWT IREGBLK IREGO™ ICDEMS8 ISDEM30 ICREPBE ILAEFB8 ISREPSQ 2351 12386 863 610 320 1829 1048 722 2am 1828 1048 722 289 1829 1048 722 299 1829 1048 722 299 IDEM IREP oTaTpoOP OTOTWHT OTOTBLK h CASIVOT 1812 473 3972 3116 758 52 1449 318 3972 3116 758 52 1440 31s 3643 593 1449 31s a7ss 674 1449 315 6042 408 1 OREGAHT OREGBLK OREGOTH OLDEMES O0CM 2237 597 1370 2237 S97 1370 2067 8as 818 1485S 1979 807 797 1425S 2726 725 1227 1268 1784 IBLKFCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVMINPCT IRMINPCT IPDEMLTG IPDEMCOA IPDEMSEN IPCTDEM OBLXPCT OVBLKPCT ORBLKPCT OMINPCT OYMINPCT 0.50 D.55 0.56 . 0.55 0.63 0.51 0.69 0.13 0.15 0.52 0.57 0.57 . 0.58 0.66 0.57 0.71 ’ 0.19 0.15 0.52 0.57 0.57 3 0.58 0.66 0.57 0.71 0.16 0.14 0.32 0.37 0.57 : 0.58 0.66 0.57 0.71 : 0.18 0.15 0,32 0.37 0.57 0.358 0.66 0.57 0.71 - 0.07 0.07 0.17 0.17 0.15 0.18 0,07 ORMINPCT QPPEWMLTG QPPENCOA OPOEKSEN OPCTPEM ITQTVQT ITOTMIN IMINVOT IMINAZLG ILTaas8 IcoA88 ISENSO OTOTVOT OTOTMIN CMINVOT OUINREG 0.09 0.38 . . 3079 2445 1865 1201 1264 1240 1253 3154 858 548 214 0.09 0.38 . ‘ 2979 2406 1574 1082 974 883 1021 3154 858 S48 214 0.12 0.43 . . . 2979 2408 1574 1052 874 883 102% 2924 Big 438 281 0.14 0.41 : . . 2979 2408 1574 1052 B74 983 1021 3000 703 479 17 0.07 0.37 . . . 2979 2408 1574 1052 B74 pa3 1021 4589 430 324 185 OLTGE8 OCOABR OSENSO GTBLKPOP LTEBLKPOR EQALXPOP GTBLXVOT LTBLKYOT EQALKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLXREG EQBLKREG GTMINFOP LTMINPOP EQMINPOP 1533 14B1 1428 1853 1481 1428 1602 1830 1487 1488 1432 {33s 18852 184% 1880 GTMINVOT LTMINVOT EQMINVOT GTUINREG LTMINREG EQUINREG GTDEMCOA LTDEMCOA EQDEMCOA GTDEMLTG LTOEWLTG EQUEMLTG GTDEMSEN LTDEMSEN Printed 09/07/99 15:09:29 Ducovery 221 222 223 224 225 221 OPRECNCT IPRECNCY ITOTPOP ITOTWHT 217.0 237.087.1403 10.087.0801 12.087.1403 4220 1814 218.0 237.087.1406 10.087.0801 112.087.1406 4354 18069 219.0 237.097.0101 10.09Y.0501 112.087.0101 4070 3620 220,60 37,097,010 19,097,070{ 123.087.0104 4070 3820 221.0 37.097,0402 10,097, 0701 12,087.0402 3837 R477 IoTHvVaOT IREGVOT TREGWHT IREGSLK IREGOTH ICDEuga 7 1829 777 1048 4 580 9 2351 1050 1296 5 630 1 1372 1227 144 1 372 1 1372 1227 144 1 372 2 1859 1189 658 2 608 IDCM IREP 0TOTPOP OTOTWHT OTUTBLK OWHTYOT 1445 315 53486 44488 862 M71 1812 473 5386 449% 862 MU 822 4987 5386 4499 862 UN 822 497 8071 78%4 214 6217 1318 483 8071 7814 214 6217 OREGWHT OREGBLK OREGOTH OCDEMEQ OLDEMSR OSDEMGO 2835 ass a 784 741 778 2835 365 3 7684 741 778 2835 365 3 764 741 778 4077 76 3 761 B71 833 4077 76 3 761 B71 833 0.56 0.56 a.11 0.11 0.37 0.173 0.11 s B.11 0.02 0.02 2110 2110 2110 2716 are Us/Ui 89 15:41 FAX 818 544 4801 \ SEGMENT VTDKEY 0,3s 0.35 0.35 0.32 0.32 2027 2027 2027 25440 2540 2034 2034 2034 2560 2560 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.30 0.30 - w h ( e d a — REET DR NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING PRI ASSOCIATES INC LRTI SRGS TW LIST OF FINAL DATA SET . CHECK COMPARISONS 0.57 0.53 0.56 0.51 g.1 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.38 0.34 0.38 0.62 0.38 0.62 0.38 0.82 0.38 0.49 0.38 0.49 O Q ~ 0 0 221 1 o 0 1 0 222 1 0 0 1 0 223 0 1 0 0 1 224 1 0 0 1 0 225 1 0 0 1 0 083 EQDEMsEN GTDCMACG LTOEMREG EQDEMREG 21 0 1 0 [1] 222 0 1 6 o 223 0 1 0 0 | 294 0 1 0 io} : 0 1 0 0 0.11 0.11 "0.36 2979 A079 3007 3007 2543 DEMNTBLK .66 0.57 .63 0.51 .39 0.42 -39 0.42 S56 0.56 2406 1374 2445 1565 450 307 450 307 1£20 1005 C o - 0 0 BLKNTDEM [= JN = o o l e J 1 1ToTaLK 237 241 43 43 148 a 8 Ss 8 8 ILDEMGS 642 796 361 361 628 OBLKVOT OCAEPEB 1 1 1 1 1 283 263 263 778 778 052 974 301 1264 145 823 145 9283 660 1127 PRIFLAG O O O O 0 O 0 IWiTVOT 1405 1514 2704 2700 1933 ISO 0. 983 1240 881 831 1078 Printed 09/0799 15-09-29 Discovery Erman 03 1021 1259 801 801 1077 IBLKVOT 0 1550 1547 297 25? 988 ICR .02 4086 4086 4056 6387 8397 EPSa 423 610 519 519 470 IASIVOT 257 w + 30 @c26-028 ILREPAR 0.02 180 180 3s: 06 Yueetay, Septenter 20 1999 52 lAadIvor ~ N a D o D m D ISREPSS 299 390 488 408 460 083 DAMINPCT OPDEMLTG OPDEMCOA OFDEMSEN OPCTDEM ITOTVOT ITOTWIN IMINVOT IMINREG ILTG88 ICOA88 ISENSO OTOTYOT OTOTMIN OMINVOT OMINREG 79 OB3 OLTGB8 OCOABS GSEN9G GTBLKPQP LTBLKPOP EOBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKVOT EQBLKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKREG EQBLKREG!'‘GTMINPOP LTNINPOP Efzieop @o027/028 FRI ASSOCIATES INC I T Bi PR RAR EAS na al to ps dL EA NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING LIST OF FINAL DATA SET - CHECK COMPARISONS | SEGUENT VTDKEY OPRECNCT IPRECXCT ITOTPOP rotwT ITOTRLK IWHTVOT IBLKVOT IASIVOT Iaavor £26 222.0 37.007.0404 10.087.0701 12.097.0404 4228 4064 140 3066 100 12 3 227 223.0 37.119.0701 10.097.0701 12.119.0701 4280 3529 669 3089 510 47 12 228 224.0 37.119.0701 089.119.0901 12.119.070% 4200 8529 869 308s 310 47 12 229 225.0 037.112.0501 083.119.0901 12.119,0504 3708 3041 626 2279 441 16 6 230 226.0 937.119.0801 038.119.0801 12.119,0804 50€9 4305 725 3316 524 10 20 08S IOTHVOT YAEAVOT IRECWHT IREGELK IREGOTH ICDEMER ILDEusA ISDEM20 ICREPRA ILAEPBA ISREPSO 226 4 1888 1618 50 2 377 3s0 300 608 636 641 227 7 2203 1885 312 6 431 692 861 512 544 447 224 4 2203 1885 12 6 491 682 981 512 S44 447 229 1 1809 1537 269 3 360 47% 538 528 622 564 230 2 2837 2475 359 3 541 653 822 792 891 948 083 IDEM IREP OTOTFOP OTOTWHT QTOTBLK OWHTVOT ogLxvaT OASIVOT QAMIVOT 0OTHVOT OAEGVOT 226 890 687 8071 7814 214 6217 184 12 8 6 4156 227 1413 g13 8071 7814 214 6217 184 12 8 6 4156 228 1413 ¢13 £557 5389 152 4286 123 28 9 3 3508 228 1078 628 5537 5383 952 4286 123 28 8 3 3508 230 1537 1142 5597 5383 152 4286 123 28 9 3 3508 08s OREGYHT OAEABLK OREGOTH OCDEMER oLDEMEE OSDEMS0 OCREFE8 OLREPQA 0SREP90 OOEX OREP 228 4077 76 3 781 871 53a 1779 1845 1627 1814 1898 227 4077 76 3 781 871 933 177% 1845 1627 1914 1998 22a 3429 72 4 43S 760 83s 1397 1482 1288 1542 1715 229 3429 72 q 435 760 53s 1397 1482 1298 1542 1715 230 3429 72 a 4395 780 93s 1397 1462 1293 1542 1715 OBS IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLKPCT IMINPCT IVMINPCT IRMINACT IPDEMLYG IPDEMCOA IPDELREN IPCTDEM OBLKPCT OVBLKPCT ORBLKPCT OMINPGCT OVMINPET 26 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.38 0.38 0.32 0.56 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.56 0.48 0.68 0.70 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 i 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.18 0.18 0.14 0.56 0.43 0.68 0.70 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04 YT 0.18 0.15 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.44 0.42 0.49 0.63 0.03 0,03 0.02 0.04 0.04 230 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.18. 0.14 0.13 0.42 0.41 0.46 0.57 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.04 083 ORMINPCT OPOEMLTG OPDEMCOA OFDEMSEN OPCTDEM ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IMINVOT JMINREG ILTGB2 1COAB88 ISENSO OTOTVOT OTOTUIN OMINVOT OMINREG 226 0.02 0.32 0.30 0.36 0.49 3187 184 121 §2 1026 983 941 €307 257 180 79 227. .0.02 0.32 0.30 0.36 0.49 3675 751 576 318 1236 1003 1408 83897 257 180 79 228 0.02 0.3a 0.26 0.42 0.47 3675 751 578 318. Y938 1003: 1403 4449 214 163 76 229 0.02 0.3 0.28 0.42 0.47 2743 ans 484 272 1101 905 1100 4449 214 163 76 230° 0.92 0.34 0.28 0.42 0.47 3872 764 556 387: 1544 13833. 1770 4449 214 163 76 08s OLTGES OCoaEs GSENSO GTBUKPOP LTBLKPOP-EQBLKPOP GTBLKVOT LTBLKYOT COBLKVOT GTBLXREG LTBLKREG EQBLKAEG GTMINPOP LTMINPOP EQMINPOP 226 2718 2540 2580 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 227 2718 2540 2560 1 Q 0 1 0 Q 1 0 0 1 0 0 228 2222 1892 2233 1 0 0 : 4 0 i) 1 0 0 1 0 0 229 2222 1392 2233 1 0 a 1 0 ] 1 0 0 1 0 i} 230 2222 1892 2233 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 o 0BS GTUINVOT LTMINVOT EQMINVOT GTMINAEG LTMINREG EQMINREG GTDEMCOA LTDEMCOA EQDECOA GTDEMLTG LTDEMLTG EQDEMLTG GTOEMSEN LTDEMSEN 226 1 Q 0 1 Q 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 227 1 Q 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 228 1 Q 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 229 1 0 0 1 1] 0 1 ) 0 1 0 0 1 0 230 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 ho} 0 1 0 00S EQDEMSEN GTDEMAREG LTDEMREG EQDEMREG OZMNTBLK BLKNTDEM PRFLAG 226 0 1 o 0 0 0 0 227 0 1 0 Q Q o 0 223 0 1 0 0 0 0 a 229 0 1 0 +} 0 0 0 “0 4] 1 0 a 0 0 0 Printad 09/07/99 15:09:29 Discovery 519 344 i801 PRI ASSOCIATES INC do28-028 NORTH CAROLINA REDISTRICTING LIST OF FINAL DATA SET - CHECK COMPARISONS VTDKEY OPAECNCT I1PRECNCT ITOTPOP Y{oTWHT ITOTRLK IRHTVOT I1BLKVOT IASIVOT TANIVOT 231 227.0 37.119.0801 09.119,1001 112.119.0801 5089 4305 725 3316 524 10 20 232 228.0 37.119.10X1 09.119,1001 12.119.10X1 843 732 103 591 88 1 4 233 229.0 37.119.10X1 09.119,1501 12.118.10XY 843 732 103 501 8a 1 4 234 230.0 37.119.10X1 09.119.1401 12.119.10X1 843 732 103 591 86 1 4 08s IOTHVOT IREGVOT IREGWHT IREGBLK IREGOTH ICDEMBS ILDEMA8 ISDEMSO ICREFEE ILREP88 ISREPSQ 2 2837 2475 359 3 541 653 B22 792 881 948 232 0 421 376 44 1 84 107 127 104 123 {8a 233 0 421 376 44 1 64 107 127 104 123 153 234 0 421 376 44 1 64 107 127 104 123 155 083 IDEM IREP OTOTPOP OTOTWHT OTOTBLK OWHTVOT OBLKVOT QASIVOT QAMIVOT OOTHVOT OREAVOT 231 1537 1142 4218 3803 aay 2830 256 16 30 3 183s 232 250 149 4218 3803 337 2830 256 16 ao 3 1835 233 250 148 2417 2319 70 1781 58 3 7 5 1494 234 250 14g 25437 444 75 1918S sg 0 6 5 1434 08S OREGWHT OREGBLK OREGOTH OCDEMBS OLDEMER 0SDEMSO OCREP&E OLREP88 OSREP20 ODEM OAELP 231 1730 200 5 as7 484 581 478 S65 705 1146 666 232 1730 200 5 387 494 581 478 $65 705 1145 686 233 1436 56 2 184 256 343 513 ges 655 732 660 234 1385 38 1 243 231 279 483 664 ! 644 B4B 521 08S IBLKPCT IVBLKPCT IRBLXPCT IMINPCT IVMINPCT IAMINPCT IFDEMLTG IPDEUCOA IPOEMSEN IPCTDEM OBLKPCT OVBLKPCT ORBLKPCT OMINPCT OVMINPCT 231 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.42 0.44 0.486 0.57 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.10 232 L.12 0.13 0.19 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.47 0.45% 0.45 0.83 0.02 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.10 299 0.12 0.13 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.47 0.45 0.45 0.83 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 234 0.12 0.13 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.47 0.45 0.45 0.83 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 23 ORUINPCT OFDEMLTG OPDEUCOA OPDEMSEN ORCTDEM ITOTVOT ITOTMIN IMINVOT IMINREG ILTGS8 ICOABS ISENSO OTOTVGT OTOTMIN OMINYQT CMINMAEG —231 0.11 0.47 0.45 0.45 0.63 3872 764 556 302 1544 a3 aT0 Mls 418 305 205 232 0.1 0.47 0.45 0.45 0.63 682 1m 91 45 230 18a 280 3135 418 .305 205 233 0.04 0.21 0.27 0.33 0.53 682 111 31 45 230 188 280 1851 ga 70 58 234 0.03 0.27 0.34 0.30 0.62 682 111 81 46 230.0 dma. 280 1984 83 "69 39 QBS 0LTG38 0COA88 QSEN9Q GTBLKPOP |TBLXPOP EGELKPOP GTBLKVOT LTELKVOT EDBLKVOT GTBLKREG LTBLKREG EQBLKREG GTMINFOP LTMINPOP EQMINPOP 231- 105% 885 12as 232 1089 865 1286 233 825 707 1038 234 945 708 923 -t ob oh oh O O O O t h ed =A QO o 0 O 0 Q o O 0 0 O o 0 — d d Oo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Q O 0 0 1 1 1 1 o o 0 o o 0 o o [« JR e e e ] 0BS GTWINVOT LTMINVOT EQMINVOT GTMINREG LTMINAEG EQWINREG GTOEMCOA LTDEMCOA EQDEMCQA GTDEMLTG LTOEMLTG EQDEULTG GTDEMGEN LTDEMSEN 231 1 0 ) 1 Q 0 0 K 0 0 1 0 1 0 23z 1 0 0 1 a Qe" 0 1 9 0 1 0 1 0 233 1 Q Q 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 234 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 QBS EQDEMSEN GTDEMREG LTOEMRER EQDEVRES DEMNTBLK BLXNTDEM PRFLAG 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 232 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 233 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ; 234 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Printed 09/07/99 15:09:29 Dixcovery o F - 1 0 I S D r y , ol hi dt prs - — 2 o h MAP EXHIBITS Guilford Precincts by Percent of Population Black with Democratic Registration Values March 18, 1998 Joint Exhibit 107 Forsyth Precincts by Percent of Population Black with Democratic Registration Values March 18, 1998 Joint Exhibit 108 1997 Congressional Plan - Iredell County August 6, 1999 Voter Precincts by Percent Black Voting Plaintiff’s Exhibit Age Population 240 1997 Congressional Plan - Rowan County Voter Precincts by Percent Black Voting August 6, 1999 Plaintiff’s Exhibit Age Population 242 1997 Congressional Plan - Davidson County Voter Precincts by Percent August 6, 1999 Plaintiff’s Exhibit Democratic Vote in 1988 COA Race 254 EXHIBIT SZ (Ueber [27094 . = x ™ c c 3 > = = 5 Q =< £ o STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Reconstituted Election Analysis by U.S. Congressional District in House Bill 586 - Plan A (1997) 1990 Democratic Primary for U.S. Senate District Candidate Vote < 0) tT I) \o 1 Easley e 29603 Gantt (B) 36352 Garner 1716 Hannon 1274 Ingram 18520 Thomas 69517 o\ ® o\ ° o\ ° o\ ° o\ ° o\ 0 W o y w o wu id Easley 6351 Gantt (RB) 342481 Garner 352 Hannon 238 Ingram 3448 Thomas 1990 o\ ® o\ ° o\ % o\ % o\ ®@ o\ ° N D A U 0 O Y OY STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Reconstituted Election Analysis by U.S. Congressional District in House Bill 586 - Plan A (1997) 1990 Democratic Run-0fFff for U.S. Senate District Candidate Vote Vote % 1 Easley 27719 Gantt (RB) 33502 Easley 7016 Gantt (B) 39966 ® @® STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Reconstituted Election Analysis by U.S. Congressional District in House Bill 586 - Plan A (1997) 1590 Generzl Election for 0.8. Senate District Candidate Vote Vote % vs on Gantt (BR) 83594 53.8% Helms 71768 46.2% 12 ; Gantt (R) 107736 66.4% Helms 54533 33.6% * ww STATE OF NORTE CAROLINA Reconstituted Election Analysis by U.S. Congressional District in House Bill 585 - Plan a (1997) 1392 Democratic Primary for State Auditor District Candidate Vote Vote % 1 Campbell (B) 30068 46.5% Freeman 192459 29.8% Hicks 15332 23.7% 12 Campbell (RB) 20509 56.3% Freeman 8232 22.6% Hicks 7682 21.31% * w STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Reconstituted Election Analysis by U.S. Congressional District in House Bill 586 - Plan A (1997) 1552 Generzl Election for State Auditor District Candidate Vote Vote % 1 - » Campbell (RB) 112275 £9.23% Abernethy 49761 30.7% Campbell (B) 110545 66.8% Abernethy 54840 33.2% pe * STATE OF NORTE CAROLINA Reconstituted Election Analysis by U.S. Congressional District in House Bill 586 - Plan A (1997) 1996 Generzl Election for U.=s. Senate District Candidate Vote Vote % l Gantt (B): 87170 Helms 79075 Ubinger 803 Pardo 407 Kopperud 8 > Un O O O p ip o N UI o y o\ ® o\ % o\ % o\ ° o\ ° Gantt (BR) 1028484 Helms 57259 Ubinger 1378 Pardo 684 Kopperud 3 Ww on O O O W w W O n 0 W w w o\ ® o\ ® o\ ° o\ ° o\ ° # w STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Reconstituted Election Analysis by U.S. Congressional District in House Bill 586 - Plan A (1997) 1596 General Election for State Auditor Candidate Vote Vote % Campbell (B) 108309 57. Daly 51469 31. Dorsey 1475 Janowski 731 Campbell (BR) 103454 Daly 50844 Dorsey 2445 Janowski 1176 iw STATE OF NORTE CAROLINA Reconstituted Election Analysis by U.S. Congressional District in House Bill 586 - Plan A (1997) 1998 Democratic Primary for U.S. Senate District Candidate Vote Vote % 3 Ayers 3756 5.4% Carmack 1486 2.1% Edwards 37999 54.7% Gay 1732 2.5% Martin 17183 24.7% Robinson 2226 3.2% Scarborough (RB) 5132 7.4% 12 Ayers 1058 2.9% Carmack 383 1.31 Edwards 13297 36.8% Gay 508 1.4% Martin 7869 21.8% Robinson 791 22% Scarborough (B) 12226 33.8% o ® STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Reconstituted Election Analysis by U.S. Congressional District in House Bill 586 - Plan A (1997) 1598 General Election for U.S. Senate Digtrict Candidate Vote Vote % 1 Edwards 87415 63.4% Faircloth : 49069 35.6% Howe 1392 1.0% 12 Edwards 89726 69.3% Fazircloth 37619 29.3% Howe 2087 1.6% # i» STATE OF NORTE CAROLINA Reconstituted Election Analysis by- U.S. Congressional District in House Bill 1394 - Plan A (1998) 1330 Democratic Primary for U.S. Senate District Candidate Vote - Vote % 1 Easley 25603. 31.4% : : Gantt (BR) 36352 38.5% Garner 171s 1.8% Hannon 1274 1.3% Ingram 18520 15.6% Thomas 6917 7.3% 12 Easley 6517 15.22 Gantt (BR) 31033 68.0% Garner 377 0.8% Hannon 296 0.6% Ingram 4253 $.9% Thomas 2459 5.4% . E - 10 # o STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Reconstituted Election Analysis by U.S. Congressional District in House Bill 1394 - Plan A (1998) 1950 Democratic Run-Off for U.S. Senate District Candidate 1 Easley Gantt (B) 2 Easley Gantt (B) & # STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Reconstituted Election Analysis by U.S. Congressional District in House Bill 1394 - Plan A (1998) 1590 General Election for U.S. Senate District Candidate Vote ~ Vote % 3 Gantt (B) 83594 53.8% Helms 71768 46.2% 12 Gantt (RB) 97406 55.3% Helms 66862 40.7% ® @ STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Reconstituted Election Analysis by U.S. Congressional District in House Bill 1394 - Plan A (1998) 1592 Democratic Primary for State Auditor District Candidate Vote Vote % Dad d Campbell (RB) 30068 46.5% Freeman 192459 29.8% Hicks I5332 23.7% 12 Campbell (RB) 17820 50.9% Freeman 9899 28.3% Hicks 7266 20.8% . E -.13 # i pe STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Reconstituted Election Analysis by U.S. Congressional District in House Bill 1394 - Plan A (1998) 1592 General Election for State Auditor District Candidate Vote Vote % 1 Campbell (B) 112275 69.3% Abernethy 49761 30.7% 12 Campbell (B) 105001 59.1% Abernethy 72717 40.9% . £5 94 4 * STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Reconstituted Election Analysis by U.S. Congressional District in House Bill 1394 - Plan A (1998) 15996 General Election for U.S. Senate District Candidate Vote Vote % 3 Gantt (B) 97170 54.8% Helms 75075 44 .6% Ubinger 803 0.5% Pardo 407 0.2% Kopperud 5 0.0% 12 Gantt (EB) 103367 56.4% Helms : 77021 42.1% Ubinger 1851 1.0% Pardo S07 0.5% Kopperud 7 0.0% # > STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Reconstituted Election Analysis by U.S. Congressional District in House Bill 1394 - Plan A (1998) 1956 General Election for State Auditor District Candidate 3 ~~ Campbell (B) 108909 Daly 51469 Dorsey 1475 Janowski 731 Campbell 96767 Daly 68337 Dorsey 3270 Janowski 1521 r - STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Reconstituted Election Analysis by U.S. Congressional District in House Bill 1394 - Plan A (1998) 1998 Democratic Primary for U.S.Senate District Candidate Vote Vote % 1 Ayers on 3756 5.4% Carmack 1486 2.1% Edwards 37999 54.7% Gay 1732 2.5% Martin 37153 24.7% Robinson 2226 3.2% Scarborough (B) 5132 7.4% 12 Ayers 882 2.8% Carmack 307 1.0% Edwards : 11328 35.6% Cay 360 1.1% Martin 9379 29.4% Robinson 759 2.4% Scarborough (B) 8862 27.8% # - STATE OF NORTE CAROLINA Reconstituted Election Analysis by U.S. Congressional District in Bouse Bill 1394 - Plan A (1998) 1998 General Election for U.S. Senate District : Candidate Vote Vote % 1 Edwards 87415 63.4% Faircloth 45069 35.6% Howe 1392 1.0% 12 Edwards ‘ 87585 £1.1% Faircloth 52869 36.9% Howe 2973 241% gf a Information Supporting North Carolina’s Section S Submission for its 1997 Congressional Redistricting Plan The following information is submitted by North Carolina in support of its request to preclear the State's new congressional redistricting plan enacted by the General Assembly on March 31, 1997. The numbered paragraphs correspond to the numbers of the rules of the Deparment of Justice, 28 C.F.R. §§ 51.27 and 51.28. In most cases, information documenting the information in numbered paragraphs is contained in an attachment bearing a corresponding number. (e.g. Paragraph 97C-27A is documented by Attachment 97C-274). €97C-27A. 1997 Enactment of Congressional Redistricting Plan | On March 31, 1997, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted a new congressional redistricting plan to remedy the constitutional defects in the State’s former plan identified by the United States Supreme Court in Shaw v. Hunr, 116 S. Ct. 1894 (1996). The new plan, known as 97 House/Senate Plan A, is contained in Section 2 of Chapter 11 of the General Assembly's 1997 Session Laws. A copy of this legislation is included in Arachment 97C-27A-1. Chapter 11 contains two plans. 97 House/Senate Plan A and 97 House/Senate Plan AQ. Plan A appears in Section 2 of Chapter 1. Plan AO appears in Section 3 of Chapter 11. Plan A and Plan AQ are essentially identical except that Plan A has an overall population range from -344 to +947 for a towal deviation of .27%. Plan AO has an overall population range from 0 to +1 for a total deviation of .00%. Only Plan A is submitted for preclearance. Plan AO would become effective only in the event Plan A is declared unconstitutional on one-person, one-vote grounds. For a discussion of the differences between Plan A and Plan AQ, see the March 26, 1997, memorandum to the Senate Select Committee on-Congressional Redistricting and the House Commirtee on Congressional Redistricting included in Attachment 97C-27A-2. 2 Maps, including two large color maps, population data; voter registration data and certain election results for.Plan A are included in Attachment 97C- 27 A-3. This Attachment also includes the same information for Plan AO. 3. A diskette containing the Chapter 11 plan is included as Awachment 97C-27A-4. 4. Access to the computer tape is available to the public by contacting Don Fulford, Director of the Legislative Information Systems Division, 400 Legislative Office Building, 300 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 29603-5925. Telephone (919) 733-6834. Technical questions should be addressed to Mr. Dan Frey of the Legislative Information Systems Division at the same address and phone number. i“ — 197C-27B. Prior Redistricting Plans The redistricting plan in effect for North Carolina’s congressional elections between 1992 and 1996 is attached as Attachment 97C-27B. 97C-27C. Documents Explaining the 1997 Chan ges to the Congressional Redistricting Plan 1. Chapter 11 of the 1997 Session Laws repeals the last valid plan in effect - the plan that was completed in 1982. The strike-throughs in the text of Chapter 11 therefore show changes from the 1984 plan, not from the current plan. 2. A chart showing the minority percentage of total population and voting age population in each district in the 1992 plan, and the 1997 plan is attached as Anachment 97C-27C- 1. Also included in the chart are Minority voter registration percentages for each district in the 1992 and 1997 plans. (Note: North Carolina had 11 congressional districts in the 1980s). -~ 2 The changes are also discussed in o ther sections of this document, particularly €$97C-27H and 97C-27N. €©97C-27D. Persons making the submission are: Gary Bartlen Executive Secretary-Director State Board of Elections Suite 801, Raleigh Building Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Telephone: (919) 733-7173 Gerry Cohen Director of Legislative Drafting Senate Select Committee on Redistricting Counsel Suite 401, Legislative Office Building 300 N. Salisbury Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-5925 Telephone: (919) 733-6660 Fax: (919) 715-5459 E-mail: gerryc@ms.ncga.state.nc.us - ® Linwood Jones House Committee on Congressional Redistricting Counsel Suite 545, Legislative Office Building 300 N. Salisbury Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-5925 Telephone: (919) 733-2578 Fax: (919) 715-5460 E-mail: linwoodj@ms.ncga.state.nc.us (97C-27E. Submitting Authority The submitting authority is the Executive Secretary-Director for the State Board of Elections for the State of North Carolina. (97C-27F. Submitting Body Not applicable. 197C-27G. Enacting Body The congressional redistricting plan is an act of the State legislature -- the North Carolina General Assembly. €97C-27H. Authority and Process for Redistricting The North Carolina General Assembly is authorized by 2 U.S.C. §2a and §2c¢ and Arucle I, §82 and 4 of the United: States Constitution to redistrict its congressional districts. The prior redistricting plan was enacted by the General Assembly on January 24, 1992, and was precleared under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act on February 6, 1992. The United States Supreme Court declared District 12 in this plan unconstitutional in Shaw v. Hunt on June 13, 1996. On remand, the three-judge panel in the Shaw case issued an order on July 30, 1996, permitting the use of the unconstitutional plan for the 1996 elections and giving the General Assembly until April 1, 1997, to draw a new plan. Chapter 11 was enacted in response to that order. A copy of the court order 1s attached as Attachment 97C-27P-2. The process leading to the enactment of Chapter 11 began in the North Carolina House of Representatives in June, 1996. The following is a chronology of events leading up to the enactment of the plan. The designation “AA” after a name indicates that the individual is an African-American. The designation “NA” after a name indicates that the individual is a Native American: | June 13, 1996: United States Supreme Court declares District 12 unconstitutional in Shaw v. Hunt. | —_— June 14, 1996: House Speaker Harold Brubaker appointed a House Select committee on Congressional Redistricting. The committee was chaired by Representative Robert Grady. The other members were as follows: Representatives Carolyn Russell, Lyons Gray, Frances Cummings (AA), George Holmes, Julia Howard, Theresa Esposito, Ed McMahan, Richard Morgan, Mary McAllister (AA), Jim Crawford, and Linwood Mercer. This Committee never met. July 8, 1996: Senator Marc Basnight, President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate, appointed a Select Committee on Redistricting. The Committee was chaired by Senator Roy Cooper. The following were also appointed as members of the Committee: Senators Charles Albertson, Frank Ballance (AA), Patrick Ballantine, Betsy Cochrane, Richard Conder, Jim Forrester, Wib Gulley, David Hoyle, Don Kincaid, Bob Martin, Bill Martin (AA), Tony Rand, R.C. Soles, and Leslie Winner. July 10, 1996: The Senate Select Committee on Redistricting met to discuss the Shaw decision and the feasibility of adopting new congressional districts in time for the 1996 general election. The Committee heard from Mr. Gary Bartlett, Executive Director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, on the requirements for a shortened filing and primary election schedule. Senator Cooper wrote a letter to North Carolina Attorney General Michael Easley outlining the Senate's position and requesting that Anorney General Easley inform the three-judge federal panel that it was impracticable to adopt new congressional districts in time for the 1996 general election. The letter is attached as Arachment 97C-28F-4B(2). July 17, 1996: The House Committe= on Rules. Calendar, and Operations of the House released a redistricting plan (Congress-96-001) to the public. The plan is attached as Attachment 97C-27R- 1. The House Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House was chaired by Representative Richard Morgan. Its other members were as follows: Representatives Arlene Pulley, Jim Crawford, Jim Black, Joanne Bowie, Jerry Dockham, Theresa Esposito, Ed McMahan, Chuck Neely, and George Robinson. The redistricting plan was submitted by Representative Morgan to the Committee for its review, with instructions that the plan would not be voted on at that meeting. Representative Morgan read a statement to the Committee about the plan that is attached as Attachment 97C-28F-4A and announced that there would be a public hearing the following week on redistricting. July 19, 1996: The three judge panel issued an order asking for the opinions of Speaker Brubaker and Senate President Pro Tempore Basnight on the likelihood that the General Assembly would be able to draw a plan in time for the 1996 elections. The House was at the time and remains under the control of Republicans. The Senate was at that time and remains under the control of Democrats. The North Carolina congressional delegation, elected in 1994, was divided as follows: 8 Republicans and 4 Democrats. Senator Cooper, acting on behalf of Senate President Pro Tempore Basnight, submitted an affidavit to the Attorney General that was filed with the Court. Senator Cooper stated in his affidavit that a new plan could not reasonably be enacted for the 1996 elections. Representative Morgan, acting on behalf of House Speaker Harold Brubaker, 4 submitted an affidavit to the Attorney General that was filed with the Court. Representative Morgan stated in his affidavit that it would be practical to redraw legislative districts in time for the 1996 elections. Senator Cooper’s and Representative Morgan's affidavits are attached as Attachments 97C-28F-4B(2) and 97C-28F-4B(1), respectively. July 24, 1996: The House Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House conducted a public hearing in Raleigh on July 24, 1996, to hear the views of interested parties on redistricting generally and on the plan released by the Committee the week before. A copy of the notice of this public hearing, which was published in legal ads throughout the State, distributed to the media through the media service “Xpedite,” and mailed to a list of minority contacts is attached as Attachment 97C-28F-2A. The list of the media organizations contacted by Xpedite is attached as Attachment 97C-28F4J. The list of minority contacts is attached as Attachment 97C-28H. The transcript of the hearing and sign-in sheets are attached as Attachment 97C-28F- 3A. This Attachment includes exhibits submitted by the speakers at the public hearing. July 30, 1996: The three judge panel issued an order allowing the 1996 elections to proceed under the unconstitutional plan and giving the North Carolina General Assembly until April 1, 1997, to submit a revised congressional redistricting plan to the court for its approval. The order is attached as Attachment 97C-27H-1. The General Assembly adjourned its 1999-96 session on August 3, 1996. January 29, 1997: The North Carolina General Assembly convened its 1997-98 session on January 29, 1997. Speaker Harold Brubaker appointed a new House Committee on Congressional Redisuicung. The Committee was chaired by Representative Ed McMahan. The following were named as members of the Committee: Representatives Dewey Hill, Gene Arnold, Cherie Berry, Dan Blue (AA), Joanne Bowie, Walter Church, Jim Crawford, Arlie Culp, Don Davis, Theresa Esposito, Toby Fitch (AA), Robert Grady, Lyons Gray, Thomas Hardaway (AA), George Holmes, Robert Hunter, Larry Justus, Joe Kiser, Mary McAllister (AA), Richard Morgan, Warren Oldham (AA), Carolyn Russell, Edgar Starnes, and Ronnie Sutton (NA). Senator Basnight reauthorized the Senate Select Committee on Redistricting. The same members appointed to the first committee were appointed to this committee (See July 8, 1996 entry for the names). Senator Hugh Webster was also added as a member. February 12, 1997: The House Committee on Congressional Redistricting held its initial meeting, at which time Mr. Edwin M. Speas, Senior Deputy Attorney General, briefed the Committee on the Shaw litigation. Mr. Speas and Linwood Jones, Committee Counsel, answered questions of the Committee members. The transcript of this meeting is contained in Attachment 97C-28F4E(1). February 20, 1997: The Senate Select Committee on Redistricting met and Senator Cooper presented a congressional redistricting plan (1997 Congressional Plan A) to the Committee. This plan is attached as Attachment 97C-27R-2. Senator Cooper announced that no vote would be 5 iw — taken on the plan so that the public could comment on the plan at the public hearing scheduled for the following week. The transcript of that meeting is attached as Attachment 97C-28F4D(2). February 25, 1997: The House Committee on Congressional Redistricting met. Representative McMahan presented a plan to the Committee that had been drawn in response to the Senate plan. This plan, 1997 House Congressional Plan A.1, is attached as Attachment 97C-27R-3. Representative McMahan announced that no vote would be taken on the plan so that the public could comment on the plan at the public hearing scheduled for the following week. The transcript of that meeting is contained in Attachment 97C-28F4E(2). February 26, 1997: The joint public hearing was held in the Legislative Auditorium in Raleigh on February 26, 1997. The transcript of the public hearing and the sign-in sheets are attached as Attachment 97C-28F-3B. Exhibits submitted by the speakers at the public hearing are included as Attachment 97C-28F-3B Ex. See July 24, 1996 entry for the distribution of the notice of the hearing. February 27 - March 18, 1997: Senator Cooper and Representative McMahan met to attempt to resolve the differences between the House version of the plan and the Senate version of the plan and submitted numerous maps to each other during a four-week period of negotiations. During most of the negotiation period, the primary point of contention was how Wake County would be divided between proposed Districts 2 and 4. With one exception, none of these plans containing offers and counter-offers were released to the committees or made public. The excepuon is 97 House Congressional Plan G, discussed below. However. all of these plans are discussed in 97C- 27R and are included in Attachment 97C-27R-12. Senator Cooper and Representative McMahan were uncertain if they could resolve their differences regarding Wake County before the Court’s April 1 deadline. They each called for meetings of their respective committees to take up their own plans. Senator Cooper introduced Senate Bill 433, containing 1997 Congressional Plan A, the same plan Senator Cooper had presented to the Committee weeks earlier. The bill was referred to the Senate Select Committee on Redistricting. March 19, 1997: The Senate Select Committee on Redistricting met. Senator Cooper presented Senate Bill 433, containing 1997 Congressional Plan A. See Attachment 97C-27R-2. Senator Betsy Cochrane presented an amendment that would substitute her plan, “Congress Cochrane,” for the plan offered by Senator Cooper. Senator Cochrane’s plan is attached as Attachment 97C- 27R-11. The Committee approved the plan presented by Senator Cooper. The transcript of this meeting is attached as Attachment 97C-28F4D(3). The House Committee on Congressional Redistricting also met on March 19,1997, Representative McMahan presented a new plan to the Committee: 97 House Congress Plan G. See Attachment 97C-27R-4. Plan G was one of the more recent compromise proposals from Representative McMahan to Senator Cooper. Because House rules allow House committees to 6 » a introduce bills, the passage of Plan G from committee in effect constituted approval to file a bill for introduction containing Plan G. The transcript of this committee meeting is attached as Attachment 97C-28F-4E(3). March 24, 1997: Representative McMahan filed the bill containing Plan G on behalf of the Committee. The bill was given a number —- House Bill 586 — and was referred back to the House Committee on Congressional Redistricting. Afterwards, Senator Cooper and Representative McMahan announced to their committees that negotiations would continue and that they still thought the differences could be resolved before the deadline. Senator Cooper and Representative McMahan agreed on a plan that they would each submit to their respective committees and chambers. March 25, 1997: The plan agreed to, 97 HOUSE/SENATE PLAN (and its contingent backup plan, 97 HOUSE/SENATE PLAN 0), was presented to the House Congressional Redistricting Committee. Representative Dan Blue offered an alternative plan for the purpose of changing the proposed District 4 back to approximately its current location. The amendment was defeated by the Committee. Representative Ronnie Sutton (Native American) offered an amendment involving Robeson and Cumberland Counties that was also defeated by the Committee because he did not have statistical data showing the effect of his amendment on the population of the districts at that time. The Committee passed 97 HOUSE/SENATE PLAN as a proposed committee substitute for House Bill 586. The transcript of this mesting is attached as Artachment 97C-28F-4E(4). March 26, 1997: House Bill 586 was reported to the House floor and was calendared for debate. Representative McMahan presented an overview of the plan to the House. Representative Ronnie Sutton offered an amendment to move a predominantly Native American precinct in Robeson County from District 8 to District 7, where nearly all of the other predominantly Native American precincts were located. Representative McMahan had already announced in earlier remarks that he and Senator Cooper supported the Sutton amendment. The amendment passed by a vote of 117-0. Representative Mickey Michaux of Durham offered three successive amendments. These amendments represented, respectively, plans known as Fitch Michaux Plan A, Fitch/Michaux Plan B, and Fitch/Michaux Plan C. These amendments are discussed in more detail at 97C-27R and they are attached as Attachments 97C-27R-8, -9, and -10. The committee substitute for House Bill 586 was passed, with the Sutton amendment, by a vote of 87 to 30. Of the 18 members of the House who are minorities, 3 African-American members and 1 Native American member voted for the bill and 12 African-American members voted against it. The bill was sent to the Senate. A transcript of the House floor debate is attached as Attachment 97C-28F-4F(1). (The House does not record its debates. The transcript was prepared from a recording of the entire floor debate by the University of North Carolina Public Television). The relevant portions of the House Journal are included as Attachment 97C- 28F-4G(1). The record of the votes is attached as Attachment 97C-28F4H. * Nr March 27, 1997: The Senate Select Committee on Redistricting met to discuss House Bil] 586 as it came from the House. The Committee voted for the bill. No amendments were offered during the committee meeting. See Attachment 97C-28F-4D(4) for the transcript of this meeting. The bill was considered on the floor of the Senate the same afternoon. Senator Cochrane presented an amendment containing the same plan that she had presented and that had been defeated in the Senate Committee. (See entry above under March 19, 1997). The amendment was defeated on the floor by a vote of 27 to 18. No other amendments were offered to House Bill 586. The bill passed by a vote of 32 to 14. All 7 African-American Senators voted for the bill. A transcript of the Senate floor debate is attached as Attachment 97C-28F-4F. The relevant portions of the Senate Journal are included as Attachment 97C-28F-4G(2). The record of the vote Is attached as Attachment 97C-28F 4H. March 31, 1997: House Bill 586 was ratified as Chapter 11 of the 1997 Session Laws. April 1, 1997: The Anorney General filed the redistricting plan with the three-judge panel. The Arntorney General also filed a motion requesting that the court delay ruling on the plan until the State had received a response from the United States Department of Justice under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The Court was informed in this motion that the State would seek expedited consideration of this preclearance request. €97C-271. Adoption Date The enactment of the congressional redistricting plan, Chapter 11 of the 1997 Session Laws (House Bill 386). was effective when ratified on March 31, 1997. 997C-27J. Implementation Date The congressional redistricting plan will take effect in the elections beginning in 1998. The times for the holding of primary and regular elections are contained in N.C. GEN. STAT. §163-1. The time for filing notice of candidacy is contained in N.C. GEN. STAT. §163-106. Copies of these statutes are included as Attachments 97C-27]-1 and 97C-27]-2. 197C-27K. Enforcement The changes in the congressional redistricting plan enacted March 31, 1997, have not yet been enforced or administered. The plan has now been submitted to the three-judge panel for approval in accordance with its July 30, 1996 Order (see §97C-27M below). (97C-27L. Scope Not applicable. * "> 197C-27M. Reason for Change North Carolina's twelve congressional districts were redrawn to remedy a redistricting plan containing a district (District 12) that was declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in Shaw v. Hunt. (97C-27N. Effect of Change on Minority Voters The General Assembly’s primary goal in redrawing the plan was to remedy the constitutional defects in the former plan. Those defects were the predominance of race in the location and shape of District 12, and perhaps in the location and shape of District 1. and a failure of narrow tailoring. This goal was accomplished by emphasizing the following factors in locating and shaping the new districts: (1) avoidance of the division of counties and precincts; (2) avoidance of long narrow corridors connecting concentrations of minority citizens: (3) geographic compactness; (4) functional compactness (grouping together citizens of like interests and needs); and (5) ease of communication among voters and their representatives. Emphasis on these factors accomplished this goal. For example: (1) the unconstitutional plan divided 44 counties while the new plan divides only 22 counties; (2) the unconstitutional plan divided 6 counties among 3 districts while the new plan does not divide any county among 3 districts; (3) the unconstitutional plan divided 80 precincts while the new plan only divides 2 precincts; (4) the unconstitutional plan used “cross-overs.” “double cross-overs” and “points of contiguity” to create contiguous districts while the new plan uses none of these devices; (5) District 12 in the unconstitutional plan was 191 miles long (in “traveling distance”) while District 12 in the new plan is only 102 miles long; and (6) District 1 in the unconstitutional plan was 225 miles long while District 1 in the new plan is only 171 miles long. In addition. the new plan makes new District 12 a highly urban district by joining together citizens in the City of Charlotte and the cities of the Piedmont Triad (Greensboro. Winston-Salem and High Point). Conversely, new District 1 is a distinctively rural district formed from the largely agrarian and economically depressed northeastern counties. The General Assembly’s other primary goal was to preserve the 6-6 partisan balance in the State’s current congressional delegation. This balance reflects the existing balance between Democrats and Republicans in the State. The State House of Representatives is presently controlled by Republicans; the State Senate is presently controlled by Democrats; and most statewide elections are decided by narrow margins. It was clear from the beginning that the only plan the Senate and House would be able to agree on was one that preserved the existing 6-6 balance in the congressional delegation. At the same time, the chairmen of the Senate and House redistricting committees felt strongly that the legislature had a constitutional duty to draw a plan for the three-judge panel to review, rather than leave that task to the court. For these reasons, preservation of the existing partisan balance became a driving force in locating and shaping the districts. These primary goals were accomplished while still providing minority voters a fair opportunity to elect representatives of their choice in at least two districts (Districts 1 and 12). 9 h SY ® Data and expert studies before the General Assembly provided a strong basis in evidence for the conclusion that the Gingles factors are present in the area generally encompassed by new District 1. See Attachment 97C-28F-3B and 97C-28F-3B Ex. Based on this evidence, legislative leaders concluded that avoidance of potential liability under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act probably required the creation of a majority-minority district in that area. Accordingly, 50.27% of the total population within the District is African-American and 46.54% of the voting age population is African-American, based on 1990 census data. In addition, 1997 population projections indicate that the percentage of African-Americans and the percentage of African-American registered to vote are slightly higher in District 1 today than in 1990. See Attachment 97C-28A-2. These percentages plus the “cross-over” voters within the District (20 to 25%) provide African- American citizens in District 1 a reasonable opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice. This opportunity is almost certainly enhanced for the life of this plan (the 1998 and 2000 elections ) by the incumbency of Eva Clayton. Congresswoman Clayton was elected from old District 1 in 1992, 1994 and 1996 with percentages of 67.0%, 61.0% and 65.9%, respectively, even though African-Americans constituted only 53% of the District's voting age population and 50.5% of the District’s registered voters. The General Assembly did not have sufficient evidence to conclude, and believes that sufficient evidence does not exist to conclude, that Gingles factors exist in any other area of the State so as likely to require the creation of a second majority-minority district. In Shaw the Supreme Court specifically rejected the State’s argument that it had a compelling interest in Creating a majority-minority district in the area encompassed by old District 12. Likewise, the General Assembly specifically rejected the creation of a second majority-minority district in the area eastward of Charlotte to Cumberland and Robeson Counties, as proposed for example by Senator Cochrane. Creation of any district in that area would artificially group together citizens with disparate and diverging economic, social and cultural interests and needs. It would sandwich rural voters between urban voters in the State's banking and commercial center at one end of the district and voters residing on and around Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base at the other end of the district. Such a district would also rely on uncertain coalitions between African-American and Native-American voters for its “majority-minority” status. Significantly, it would have thwarted the goal of maintaining partisan balance. Under these circumstances, voters could not obtain effective representation, or be effectively represented. Moreover, under these circumstances, race would have become the predominate factor, to the 2xclusion of the State’s redistricting criteria, in the creation of a district which would bear an uncomfortable resemblance to Georgia’s District 11 declared unconstitutional in Miller v. Johnson. Nevertheless, District 12 in the State's plan also provides the candidate of choice of African-American citizens a fair opportunity to win election. Though not a mMajority-minority district, the candidate of choice of the MINOrity community within the District will have a fair and reasonable opportunity to win election based on a combination of mino votes. Congressman Mel Watt was elected from old District 12 in 1992, 1994 and 1996 with percentages of 70.4%, 65.8% and 71.5%, respectively. (African- 53% of the voting age population and 53.5% of the registered voters of old District 12) rity and non-minority American citizens constituted 10 2 R Consistent with the General Assembly's primary goal to preserve the existing partisan balance in Congress, new District 12 contains a substantial portion of the core of the urban population of old District 12 and a substantial percentage of voters with an affinity for Democrat candidates, regardless of their race. Those factors, together with the significant African-American population in the District (46.67% total population and 43.36% voting age population) provide a fair opportunity for incumbent Congressman Watt to win election. 197C-270. I. Litigation relating to Redistricting in North Carolina: Litigation relating to 1990s congressional districts: (a) Pope v. Blue, 809 F. Supp. 392 (WDNC), aff'd. 113 S. Ct. 30 (1992). February 20, 1992 (suit filed claiming 1992 congressional plan was an unconstitutional political gerrymander); March 9, 1992 (three-judge court dismisses suit); October 5, 1992 (Supreme Court affirms three-judge cour). (b) Shaw v. Hunt. 116 S. Ct. 1894 (1996). July 1, 1991 (General Assembly enacts plan containing one majority-minority district in northeastern counties): December 18, 1991 (USDOIJ refuses to preclear plan on grounds that second majority-minority district can be drawn); January 24, 1992 (General Assembly enacts plan containing two majority-minority districts, Districts 1 and 12); March 12. 1992 (suit filed claiming Districts 1 and 12 are unconstitutional racial gerrymanders); April 27, 1992 (three-judge court grants defendant motion to dismiss); June 28. 1993 (Supreme Court reverses and remands); August 27, 1996 (three-judge court enters judgement for defendants following two week trial); June 13, 1996 (Supreme Court reverses, declares District 12 unconstitutional but dismisses challenge to District 1 on standing grounds); July 30, 1996 (three-judge court allows 1996 elections to proceed, gives General Assembly until April 1, 1997 to enact new plan and submit for court's approval); April 1, 1997 (new plan submitted to three-judge court). (©) Daly v. State Board of Elections, No. 5-96-CV-88-V (WDNC). January 27, 1997 (complaint served claiming several districts in 1992 congressional redistricting plan and several State House and Senate districts in the existing plans are unconstitutional racial gerrymanders); March 21, 1997 (defendants answer and move to dismiss or transfer for improper venue) (d) Cromartie v. Hunt, No 4-96-CV-104 (EDNC). July 3, 1996 (complaint filed challenging District 1 in 1992 congressional plan); September 4, 1996 (order entered staying all proceedings pending completion of Shaw v. Hunt remedial phase). 11 ~ ~ 2. Other redistricting litigation: (a) Thornburgh v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) (Section 2 litigation concerning legislative districts). | (b) Drum. Sewell, 249 F. Supp. 877 (MDNC), aff'd. 383 U.S. 831 (1966) (one- person, one-vote challenge to congressional districts). 97C-27P. Preclearance of Prior Plan The prior congressional redistricting plan was precleared on February 6, 1992 (see Attachment 97C-27P-1). The authority of the North Carolina General Assembly to redistrict its congressional districts is contained in 2 U.S.C. §2a and §2c, Article I. §§2 and 4 of the U.S. Constitution, and the July 30, 1996. order by the three-judge court in Shaw v. Hunt. See Attachment 97C-27P-2. 197C-27Q. Information Required for Redistricting Information required for redistricting and specified under 28 C.F.R. §§31.28(a)(1) and (b)(1) is located is Attachments 97C-28A and 97C-28B. €97C-27R. Other Material Concerning the Purpose of the Plan Nearly 200 congressional redistricting plans have been drawn by legislative staff, interest groups, and the public using the North Carolina General Assembly’s redistricting computers since January 1, 1996. There were a few exploratory plans drawn by the legislative staff in the fall of 1993 after the United States Supreme Court overturned Georgia's congressional redistricting plan. Some plans were never completed and some are duplicates of others. Plans that were actually presented during the legislative process as alternatives are discussed below and most are also discussed in w07- 27H: 7 Plans Publicly released by the House and/or Senate (a) Congress-96-001: This plan was released by Representative Richard Morgan to the House Rules Committee in July, 1996. The plan was never voted on by the Committee. See €97C- 27H and Attachment 97C-27R-1. The plan contained a district from Charlotte to Robeson County similar to the district contained in the plan offered by Senator Betsy Cochrane as an amendment to 1997 Congressional Plan A and to the plan eventually enacted. (See Attachment 97C-27R-11 for the plan proposed by Senator Cochrane). Representative Morgan’s primary goal in releasing the plan at that time was to establish that a redistricting plan could be drawn in time for the 1996 elections. That plan was never considered by the General Assembly after the public hearing. 12 # * (b) 1997 Congressional Plan A: This was the first plan released by Senator Cooper to the Senate Select Committee on Redistricting on February 20, 1997. The plan was approved by the Committee on March 19. 1997 as Senate Bill 433, but was withheld from a vote on the Senate floor as negotiations between the House and Senate continued on a compromise plan. This plan is contained in 3 different forms in Attachment 97C-27R-2: as released on February 20; as re-released on February 24 with a contingent zero-deviation plan; and as released again on March 18 as Senate Bill 433. (c) 1997 House Congressional Plan A.1: This was the first plan released by Representative McMahan to the House Committee on Congressional Redistricting. It was presented at the February 25, 1997 meeting of the committee. The plan was never voted on by the committee. See Attachment 97C-27R-3. (d) 97 House Congress Plan G: This plan was submitted to the House Committee on Congressional Redistricting on March 19, 1997. The Committee approved it and had it introduced as a committee bill (House Bill 586). The bill was sent back to Committee. (See Attachment 97C- 27R-4). (e) 97 HOUSE/SENATE PLAN: This plan represented the plan agresd to by the House and the Senate. The plan was approved by the House Committee on Congressional Redistricting on March 25, 1997. The plan was amended on the floor of the House bv Rep. Ronnie Sutton. and the amended version was sent to the Senate as 97 HOUSE/SENATE PLAN A. See €97C-27H for a discussion of the Sutton amendment. See Attachment 97C-27R-3 for this plan. 9:8 House Committee Amendments (a) Blue Amendment: Representative Dan Blue offered an amendment that was designed primarily to preserve the 4th district essentially in its 1992 form instead of having it divided between the 2nd and 4th district. The amendment was rejected. See Attachment 97C-27R-6. (b) Sutton amendment: Representative Ronnie Sutton of Robeson County offered an amendment to shift a predominantly Native American precinct in Robeson County from District 8 back to District 7 and to “make up the population difference” in Cumberland County. Representative Sutton did not identify which precincts in Cumberland County should be moved to account for this change. Counsel to the Committee suggested that he make this change as a floor amendment to the bill so that the appropriate precincts could be identified and the population data recalculated on the computer. For purposes of the proposed back-up plan containing zero population deviation (97 HOUSE/SENATE PLAN 0), census blocks within a precinct would also have to be identified and moved and the population figures recalculated to ensure that there was still zero population deviation in Districts 7 and 8. Representative Sutton’s amendment was defeated in committee. (Note: Representative Sutton offered an amendment on the floor the following day, complete with a statistical analysis. See below). 13 - @® 3. House Floor Amendments (a) Representative Sutton offered an amendment on second reading of the bill, complete with statistical analysis, to both the primary plan and the alternate zero deviation plan. His amendment moved a predominantly Native American precinct from District 8 to District 7, moved Fort Bragg from District 7 to District 8, and changed western Cumberland County and western Fayetteville to offset the population difference in District 7 created by the transfer of Fort Bragg. This amendment passed 117-0. See Attachment 97C-27R-7. The recorded vote is attached as Attachment 97C-28F-4H. (b) Representative Mickey Michaux offered the following three related amendments to House Bill 586 on second reading of the bill: : (1) Fitch/Michaux Plan A (See Attachment 97C-27R-8) (2) Fitch/Michaux Plan B (See Attachment 97C-27R-9) (3) Fitch/Michaux Plan C (See Attachment 97C-27R-10) Representative Michaux announced that the purpose of his amendments was to maximize the minority vote by creating more minority influence districts. See House floor debate, Attachment 97C-28F-4F (1). pp. 9-10. Each of these amendments contained a northeastern majority-minority district (District 1) comparable to the proposed District 1 in House Bill 586. The percentage of African American population (total population) of District 1 in all three Fitch/Michaux plans was 50.23%. (It is 50.27% in the enacted plan). Each of the amendments also contained a new District 5 running from Durham to Greensboro and a District 12 running from Charlotte to Winston-Salem. In Plan A. District 5 runs from Granville County through Durham into Greensboro. In Plans B and C, District 5 runs from Durham to Greensboro and then to High Point. The amendments also had variations in District 7. In Plan B, Robeson County is in District 8. In Plan C, Robeson County is in District 7. | The percentage of African American and Native American population, based on 1990 census data, for Districts 1, 5, 7, and 12 in the Fitch/Michaux Plans were as follows. (Note: for District 7, the first number is African American population percentage; the second number is Native American population percentage. For the other districts, the number is African American population percentage): 14 * iw District | District 5 District 7 District 12 Plan A: 50.23 33.88 29.62/8.61 37.44 Plan B: 50.23 34.41 32.17/39 37.66 Plan C: 50.23 34.41 30.02/8.55 37.66 All three amendments were voted on in the House and defeated by the following margins: Plan A (90 to 27); Plan B (90 to 26); Plan C (87 to 30). The recorded votes on these amendments are attached as Attachment 97C-28F-4H. Representative Michaux's amendments were rejected because they did not preserve the partisan balance in House Bill 586 nor did they preserve the cores of the existing districts in the Piedmont. Plan B would have placed two Democratic incumbents in the same district: Congressman McIntyre from Robeson County and Congressman Hefner from Cabarrus County. All three plans (A, B, and C) would have placed two Republican incumbents together in District 6: Congressman Burr and Congressman Coble. In addition, all three plans would seriously weaken the ability of the African-American incumbent in District 12 (Congressman Watt) to win re-election. The African-American percentags in District 12 is only 37.66 percent in Plans B and C and 37.44 percent in Plan A --- approximately nine percent lower than the African-American percentage of District 12 in the enacted plan (46.67%). The three Fitch/Michaux plans also reduce the percentage of African Americans in Districts 2.3, 4 and 8 as compared to the enacted plan, as shown below: Dist. 2 Dist. 3 Dist. 4 Dist. 8 Enacted plan 27.91 19.79 21.02 27.73 Fitch/Michaux A 23.62 18.82 19.55 18.62 Fitch/Michaux B 23.731 16.77 18.93 20.90* Fitch/Michaux C 23.71 16.77 18.93 23.06 *This plan (B) also includes a Native American population of 8.64% in District 8. 4. Plans Offered in Senate Committee Senator Betsy Cochrane offered an alternative plan, Cochrane Congress (Attachment 97C- 27R-11), at the March 19, 1997 meeting of the Senate Committee. This plan was offered as an alternative to the plan offered by Senator Cooper (1997 Congressional Plan A). Senator Cochrane's plan was rejected by the Committee. See the minutes from the Senate Committee meeting for that 15 ~ » day in Attachment 97C-28F-4D(3) and §97C-27N for extensive discussion on Senator Cochrane’s plan and why it was not accepted. 5, Plans Offered on Senate Floor Senator Cochrane offered her plan again. See the discussion above. The plan was defeated by a vote of 27 to 18. See Attachment 97C-28F-4H for the recorded vote on the amendment. 6. Plans Discussed in Negotiations Senator Cooper and Representative McMahan were involved in negotiations with each other for nearly three weeks in an effort to develop a plan that both the House and the Senate could agree to. These negotiations centered primarily on the division of Wake County between the 2nd and 4th districts. Several proposed plans were exchanged during this time. The plans constituted a series of offers and counteroffers that gradually moved the Senate and House closer together. This series of changes can best be understood in light of the original plans released by both sides (1997 Congressional Plan A in the Senate and 1997 House Congressional Plan A.1 in the House) and how those plans came about. | In developing the Senate's initial plan as well as subsequent plans. Senator Cooper consulted with members of the congressional delegation and members of the Senate, particularly Senator Frank Ballance, Senator Leslie Winner. Senator Bill Martin. and Senator Marc Basnight. Senator Ballance. an African-American and the Deputy President Pro Tempore of the Senate. was consulted about the placement of counties in the northeastern part of the state -- the area in which he resides (Warren County) -- including the location of the boundaries of the new 1st district. Senator W inner, counsel for the plaintiffs in the Gingles litigation in the early 1980s and a resident of Charlotte, was consulted about the composition of the 12th district, which includes much of Charlotte. Senator Martin, an African-American representing much of Greensboro and Guilford C ounty, was consulted both as to statewide plan issues and the placement of parts of High Point and Greensboro in the 12th district. Senator Basnight, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, was consulted on the plan generally and on the placement of counties in the northeast. Senator Basnight also resides in the northeast (Dare County). Senators Basnight and Ballance together represent most of northeastern North Carolina. The initial Senate plan was perceived by many Republicans as treating incumbent Republican congressman Walter Jones (3rd District) unfairly (see, for example, the comments of Representative McMahan to the House Redistricting Committee on February 25, 1997 at Attachment 97C-28F- 4E(2)). The House Republicans felt that the 3rd district was perhaps their most critical district and that the Senate's proposal, especially in the 3rd district, threatened the 6-6 partisan balance. Rep. McMahan responded by releasing a plan (1997 House Congressional Plan A.1) that in many respects resembled the Senate plan. However, Rep. McMahan’s plan also addressed the concerns about the 3rd district and created other intentional differences between the two plans to use as “bargaining 16 * >» chips” in negotiating primarily on three districts -- the 2nd, the 3rd, and the 4th. Representative McMahan also consulted with numerous individuals, including African-American and other members of the House and Democratic and Republican members of the North Carolina congressional delegation. Although the boundaries of the 1st District were affected by changes in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th districts, these changes did not significantly affect the percentage of African-Americans in the 1st District. This percentage fluctuated about two-tenths of one percent as a result of this series of changes. The enacted 1st district is similar to the 1st district that was originally proposed by Senator Cooper after consultation with Senators Ballance and Basnight. As enacted. it includes more of the territory of the existing Ist district than the original House plan, thus keeping more of Congresswoman Clayton’s current constituency intact in the district. At the same time, the counties in the coastal/Tidewater region (Chowan, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Currituck, and Tyrrell) are able to remain together with the coastal counties with whom they share economic and other interests. Differences between the House and Senate plans in the 12th district were resolved quickly. The House agreed to include Winston-Salem in the 12th district in one of its first counter-offers to the Senate, recognizing that it was the only major city in the Triad area not included in the urban- based 12th district. After the 3rd district and 12th district were resolved, the negotiations focused on the dividing line in Wake County between the 2nd and 4th districts. The Senate considered that many of the House plans for the 2nd district were not consistent with the goal of keeping a partisan balance and p g pmgap the House felt that the 2nd district in the Senate plans did not reflect the partisan makeup of the prior 2nd district. This issue was the last to be resolved. Plans Presented at Public Hearing Several plans were presented at the public hearings. These plans are contained as exhibits to the public hearing transcripts and are included in Attachments 97C-28F-3A and -3B. Of these plans, it is believed that only three were ever introduced as bills or offered as amendments: the plan presented by Senator Cochrane (offered as an amendment to the first Senate plan and to the plan that was eventually enacted); a plan introduced by Representative Steve Wood (House Bill 599); and a plan introduced by Representative Robert Grady (House Bill 585). See Attachment 97C-27R-11. Neither Representative Grady nor Representative Wood offered his plan as an amendment to House Bill 386. Public Access and Other Plans The legislature provides access to the public so that any member of the public may draw a redistricting plan. The legislature also provides a qualified staff person to assist members of the public in using the public access redistricting computer. Numerous plans have been drawn by members of the public and interest groups using the public access computer. Attachment 97C-27R- 17 — 12 contains a list of all congressional plans drawn by legislative staff, the public and others since January 1, 1996. The legislative staff has reviewed this list and, after eliminating plans that were duplicates, has produced summary reports on all staff plans and public access plans, including some plans for which the districts were not completed or which were attempts to draw only certain districts. A map is also included with the reports. The reports provide summary information on population, voting age population, registration, and elections of the districts. This information is included in Attachment 97C-27R-12. 197C-28A. Demographic Information See the 1992 Submission at C-28A. See Attachment 97C-27A-2 for demographic data based on the 1990 census and 1990 voter registration data and estimated 1996 voter registration data. See Attachment 97C-28A-1 for 1997 population projections. 97C-28B. Maps 1. Maps of the prior districts (Congressional Base Plan 10) are contained in the States previous submission as Attachment 2C-27A. Maps of the new districts (97 HOUSE/SENATE PLAN A and 97 HOUSE/SENATE PLAN A 0) are contained in Attachment 97C-27A-2. Two large color maps are included as Attachment 97C-27A-3. Not applicable. Thematic maps of minority concentration by county (based on 1990 census data) are contained in the previous submission at C-28B. 4. Not applicable. Not applicable. 6. Not applicable. 197C-28C. Annexation Information Not applicable. - 97C-28D. Election returns Election returns for the following elections are attached as follows: 1992 congressional primary elections Attachment 97C-28D-1 # oe 1992 congressional general election Attachment 97C-28D-2 1994 congressional primary elections Attachment 97C-28D-3 1994 congressional general election Attachment 97C-28D-4 l 1996 congressional primary elections Attachment 97C-28D-3 1996 congressional general election Attachment 97C-28D-6 M97C-28E. Language usage Not applicable. {97C-28F. Publicity and Participation Relating to Congressional Redistricting Plans 1. An index of articles from major North Carolina newspapers is included as Attachment 97C-28F-1. These articles cover two different periods with respect to the North Carolina General Assembly’s involvement with redistricting: (1) the summer of 1996, when Shaw was decided and the legislature considered the feasibility of drawing new districts at that time and (2) the period since the reconvening of the legislature in late January, 1997. 2, Copies of notices for the two public hearings are included as Attachment 97C-28F. The first public hearing was held July 24, 1996, by the House Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House. The notice of this hearing, including legal ads published in major newspapers throughout the State. are included at Attachment 97C-28EF-2A. The second hearing was a joint public hearing of the House and Senate redistricting committees on February 26. 1997. The notice of this hearing. including legal ads published in major newspapers throughout the State, are included at Attachment 97C-28F-2B. A list of newspapers in which the hearing notices were published is included as Anachment 97C-28F-4J. - 3. Copies of the transcripts of both public hearings and exhibits by speakers are included. The 1996 public hearing transcript is included as Attachment 97C-28F-3A. The 1997 public hearing transcript is included as Attachment 97C-28F-3B. Speaker and visitor registration sheets for the hearings are included. 4. The following statements, speeches, and minutes concerning the redistricting process are included: (a) Statement of Representative Richard Morgan, Chair of the House Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House, to that Committee on July 16, 1996, concerning a proposed redistricting plan “Congress-96-001.” (Attachment 97C-28F-4A). (b) Affidavits of Senator Cooper and Representative Richard Morgan to the federal district court on behalf of Senate President Pro Tempore Marc Basnight and House Speaker Harold 19 — a Brubaker, respectively, on the issue of whether redistricting could be accomplished in time for the 1996 elections. (Attachment 97C-28F-4B). (c) Letter from Senator Roy Cooper, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Redistricting, to Attorney General Mike Easley stating the position of Senate leadership that redistricting could not be accomplished prior to the 1996 elections. (Attachment 97C-28F-4C). (d) Minutes and notices of the Senate Select Committee on Redistricting: July 10, 1996 meeting February 20, 1997 meeting March 19, 1997 meeting March 27, 1997 meeting Attachment 97C-28F-4D(1) Attachment 97C-28F-4D(2) Attachment 97C-28F-4D(3) Attachment 97C-28F-4D(4) Minutes of the House Committee on Congressional Redistricting February 12, 1997 meeting February 25, 1997 meeting March 19, 1997 meeting March 25, 1997 meeting Transcript of the House floor debate Transcript of the Senate floor debate House Journal Excerpt Senate Journal Excerpt Recorded votes Attachment 97C-28F-4E(1) Attachment 97C-28F-4E(2) Attachment 97C-28F-4E(3) Attachment 97C-28F-4E(4) Attachment 97C-28F-4F(1) Attachment 97C-28F-4F(2) Attachment 97C-28F-4G(1) Attachment 97C-28F-4G(2) Attachment 97C-28F-4H Correspondence Senator Cooper Attachment 97C-28F-4I(1) Rep. McMahan Attachment 97C-28F-41(2) (G) Media list Attachment 97C-28F-4] 197C-28G. Availability of Submission 1: A copy of the public notice that will be published announcing the submission to the United States Attorney General of the materials required by 28 C.F.R. Part 51, informing the public that a complete duplicate copy of the submission is available for public inspection at the Legislative Office Building, Raleigh, North Carolina, and inviting comments to be addressed to the United States Attorney General is Attachment 97C-28G-1. 20 * » 2. The publication list for the public notice of the submission is Attachment 97C-23G- 2(a) and the distribution list for the public notice is Attachment 97C-28G-2(D). 97C-28H. Minority Group Contacts A list of minority contacts is maintained by the legislature for redistricting. The individuals and organizations on the list were contacted about public hearings on redistricting by mailing a copy of the notice of the hearing. The minority contact list is attached as Attachment 97C-28H-1. 21 ORTH CAROLINA District Statistics JOINT EXHIBIT 101B Date: 1/23/92 Time: 2:17 p.m. ious Plan: 1992 Congressional Base Plan #10 Page: 1 Plan type: Congressional Base Plan ; District Number Total Ideal District XY District Name Members Population Population Variance Variance District 1~ TT. 1 337,386 552,386 0 0.00 District 2 1 552,386 552,386 0 0.00% District 3 1 552,387 552,386 1 0.00% District 4 1 552,387 552,386 1 0.00% District 5 1 552,386 552,386 0 0.00% District 6 1 552,386 552,386 0 0.00% District 7 1 552,386 552,386 0 0.00% District 8 1 552,387 552,386 1 0.00% District 9 1 552,387 552,386 1 0.00% District 10 1 552,386 552,386 0 0.00% District 11 l 552,387 552,386 1 0.00% District 12 1 552,386 552,386 0 0.00% Total 12 6,628,637 6,628,632 0 0.00% PLANWVIDE STATISTICS: Range of populations: Ratio range: Absolute range: Ahsolute overall range: - ative —-elative Absolute Relative Standard range: overall range: deviation: mean deviation: mean deviation: 552,386 to 552,387 1 0 1 a 28 0 Fk .0000 to 1 .00 to 0.00% .00% 42 .00% .6455 IORTH CAROLINA District Summary Date: 1/23/92 Total Populations, All Ages Time: 2:18 p.m. bes. Plan: 1992 Congressional Base Plan #10 Page: 1 Plan type: Congressional Base Plan District Total Total Total Total Total Total Name Pop. Vhite Black Am. Ind. Asian/PI Other District 1 552,386 229,829 316,290 3,424 1,146 1,698 100.00% 41.61% 57.26% 0.62% 0.21% 0.31% District 2 532,386" 421,083 121,212 3,154 4,077 2,860 100.00% 76.23% 21.94% 0.57% 0.74% 0.52% District 3 552,387 423,398 118,640 2,436 4,044 3,869 100.00% 76.65% 21.48% 0.44% 0.73% 0.70% District 4 552,387 "426,361 111,168 1,548 10,602 2,714 100.00% 77.19% 20.13% 0.28% 1.92% 0.49% District 5 552,386 463,183 83,824 1,083 2,448 1,848 100.00% 83.85% 15.17% 0.20% 0.44% 0.33% District 6 552,386 504,465 41,329 1,973 3,489 1,129 100.00% 91.32% 7.48% 0.36% 0.63% 0.20% District 7 552,386" 394,855. 103,428 40,166 5,835 8,102 100.00% 71.48% 18.72% 7:22 1.06% 1.47% jer 8 552,387 . 402,406 ~ 128,417 13,789 4,232 34543 ~~ 100.00% 72.85% 23.25% 2.50% 0.77% 0.64% District 9 552,387 492,424 49,308 1,729 7,373 1,553 100.00X% 89.14% B.93~ 0.31% 1.33% 0.28% District 10 552,386 517,542 30,155 942 2.238 1,510 100.00 93.69% 5.46% 0.17% 0.41% 0.27% District 11 552,387 502,058 39,767 7,835 1,791 936 100.00% 90.89% 7.20% 1.42% 0.32% 0.17% District 12 552,386 230,888 . 312,791 2,077 4,891 1,739 100.00% 41.80% 56.63% 0.38% 0.89% 0.312 Total 6,628,637 5,008,492 1,456,329 80,156 52,166 31,501 100.00% 15.56% 21.97% 1.21% 0.79% 0.48% ORTH CAROLINA District’ Summary Date: 1/23/92 Voting Age Populations Time: 2:20 p.m. Plan: 1992 Congressional Base Plan #10 Plan type: Congressional Base Plan District Total ~~ Page: 1 District 1 District District District District District District ict District District District District Total Vot. Age Vot. Age White 399,969 100.00% 420,087 100.00% 413,263 100.00% 428,984 100.00% 428,782 100.00% 428,096 100.00% 414,413 100.00% 403,678 100.00% 421,615 100.00 421,456 100.00% 430,457 100.00% 411,687 100.00% 5,022,487 100.00% 181,933 45.49% 328,676 78.24% 324,808 78.60% 336,850 78.52% 364,886 85.10% 393,27] 91.87% 306,754 74.02% 305,366 75.65% 380,364 90.22 397,476 94.31% 396,064 92.01% 186,115 45.21% 3,902,563 77.70% Vot. Age Black Vot. Age Am. Ind. Vot. Age Asian/PI 213,602 53.40% 84,311 20.07% 81,170 19.64% 81,210 18.932 60,204 14.04% 30,188 7.05% 71,071 17.15% 84,386 20.90% 33,849 8.03% 20,837 4.94% 27,438 6.37% 219,610 53.34% 1,007,876 20.07% 2,428 0.61% 2.173 0.52% 1,755 0.42% 1,239 0.29% 822 0.19% 1,433 0.33% 26,489 6.39% 8,699 2.13% 1,275 0.30% 700 0.17% 5,126 1.19% 1,529 0.37% 53,668 1.071 Vot. Age Other 844 0.21% 3,074 0.73% 2,922 0.71% 7,782 1.81% 1,650 0.38% 2,407 0.56% 4,201 1.01% 2,956 0.73% 5,059 1.20% 1,409 0.33% 1,237 0.29% 3,283 0.80% 36,824 0.73% 1,110 0.28% 1,963 0.47% 2,608 0.63% 1,903 0.44% 1,221 0.28% 798 0.19% 5,898 1.42% 2,271 0.567% 1,069 0.25% 1,036 0.25% 592 0.14% 1,150 0.28% 21,619 0.43% District Summary Registration 7 Plan: 1992 Congressional Base Plan #10 Plan type: Congressional Base Plan District © " JRTH CAROLINA 1/23/92 2:19 p.m. Page: 1 Date: Time: ~ Total White Black Other Dem. District District District District District District District District District District District Total Name Reg. 270,229 100.00% 270,061 100.00% 248,318 100.00% 306,226 100.00% 293,437 100.00% 292,842 100.00% 218,613 100.00% 254,082 100.00% 296,124 100.00% 297,917 100.00% 318,958 100.00% 283,076 100.00% 3,349,883 100.00% Reg. 132,323 48.97% 219,727 81.36% 201,699 81.23% 250,780 81.89% 255,458 87.06% 273,216 93.30% 162,148 74.17% 197,961 77.91% 270,843 91.46% 283,928 95.30% 299,765 93.98% 129,930 45.90% 2,677,718 79.94% Reg. 136,536 50.532 48,153 17.83% 45,684 18.40% 53,212 17.38% 37,427 12.75% 18,907 6.46% 38,413 17.57% 52,140 20.52% 24,125 8.15% 13,611 4.57% 16,847 5.28% 151,835 53.54% 636,610 19.00% Reg. 1,296 0.48% 2,196 0.81% 955 0.38% 2,238 0.73% 550 0.19% 726 0.25% 18,104 8.28% 3,973 1.56% 1,154 0.39% 398 0.13% 2,338 0.73% 1,568 0.55% 35,496 1.06% Reg. 235,445 87.13% 190,564 70.56% 173,132 69.72% 191,876 62.66% 178,786 60.93% 145,337 49.63% 154,517 70.68% 166,645 65.59% 148,223 50.05% 135,660 45.54% 192,259 60.28% 216,967 76.65% 2,129,411 63.57% Repub. Reg. 29,509 10.92% 66,366 24.57% 64,771 26.08% 88,762 28.99% 97,316 33.16% 128,153 43.76% 55,296 25.29% 74,262 29.23% 124,786 42.14% 142,775 47.92% 107,923 33.84% 51,900 18.33% 1,031,819 30.80% JB¢ NORTH CAROLINA District Summary Date: "3/14/97 Elections Time: 4:59 p.m. Plan: 1992 Cong plan £10 ~- copy 1 Page: 1 ?1... type: Congressional Base Plan District Senate Senate Lt. Gov Lt. Gov Court court Name Gantt Helms Rand Gardner Lewis Smith Jistrictil 92,395 61,852 102,669 51,356 106, 349 38,667 59.90% 40.10% 66.66% 33.34% 73.34% 26.66% istrict 2 67,911 99,914 78,686 83,370 80,513 73,717 40.47% 59.53% 46.82% 53.18% 52.20% 47.80% strict 3 62,122 89,207 74,899 82,722 77,490 68,209 41.05% 58.95% 47.52% 52.48% 53.18% 46.82% district 4 115,192 81,089 100,795 89,383 87,046 84,566 58.69% 41.31% 53.00% 47.00% 50.72% 49.28% Jistrict. 5 17,282 99,863 93,553 94,460 86,868 £5,457 43.63% 56.37% 49.76% 50.24% 5 50.41% 49.59% district 6 62,881 112,994 72,039 107,579 62,530 104,170 35.75% 64.25% 40.11% 59.89% 37.51% 62.49% istrict 37 57,098 65,188 70,412 56,539 65,173 51,469 46.69% 53.31% 55.46% 44.54% 55.87% 44.13% istrict 8 67,018 83,500 73,861 43,239 73; 151 68,099 44.52% 55.48% 52.16% 47.84% 51.79% 48.21% ) £t 9 80,275 98,139 71,404 106,527 57,711 89.533 44.99% 55.01% 40.13% 59.87% 36.70% 63.302 district 10 63,605 121,348 72,925 121,632 68,441 117,387 34.39% 65.61% 37.48% 62.52% 36.83% 63.17% districe 11] 87,482 100,302 26,001 103,966 94,114 83,708 46.59% 53.41% 43.01% 51.99% 50.11% 49.89% istrict 12 117,680 46,967 101,907 48,884 93,695 43,469 71.47% 28.53% 67.58% 32.42% 68.31%. 31.69% ‘otal 950,941 1,060,363 1,015,155 1,025,657 953,081 928,451 47.28% 52.72% 49.74% 50.26% 50.65% 49.35% JOINT EXHIBIT 103B “7” >NORTH CAROLINA District Statistics Date: 5/19/98 3 Time: 11:09 a.m. Plan: 98 CONGRESSIONAL PLAN A Page: 1 Plan type: CONGRESSIONAL WITH 97 HOME SEATS ; District . Number - Total Ideal District ~ % District Name Members Population Population Variance Variance District 1 1 552,161 552,386 -225 -0.04% District 2 1 552,152 552,386 -234 -0.04% District 3 1 552,622 552,386 236 0.04% District 4 I 551,842 552,386 -544 -0.10% District S 1 551, 848 552,386 -538 -0.10% District 6 4 552,415 552,386 29 0.01% District 7 1 552,382 552,386 4 0.00% District 8- 4 1 .553,143 7. 883.386 757 0.14% District 9 1 552,424 552,386 38 0.01% District 10 1 553,092 552,386 706 0.13% District 11 1 552,089 552,386 -297 -0.05% District 12 1 552.467 552,386 81 0.01% Total 12 6,628,637 6,628,632 0 0.00% PLANWIDE STATISTICS: Range of populations: 551,842 to 553,143 Ratio range: 1.0024 Absolute range: -544 to 757 Absolute overall range: 1.301 ative range: =0.10 to 0.14% ative overall range: 0.24% Absolute mean deviation: 307.42 Relative mean deviation: 0.06% Standard deviation: 399.4802 ~~ NORTH CAROLINA District Summary Total Populations, All Ages Plan: 98 CONGRESSIONAL PLAN A Plan type: CONGRESSIONAL WITH 97 HOME SEATS District Total Name Pop. Date: 5/19/98 Time: 11:09 a.m. Page: 1 Total White Total Black Total Am. Ind. - Total Asian/PT Total District District District District District District District District District District District Total 552,161 100.00% $52,152 100.00% 552,622 100.00% 551,842 100.00% 551, 848 100.00% 552,415 100.00% 552,382 100.00% 553,143 100.00% 552,424 100.00% 553,092 100.00% 552,089 100.00% 552,467 100.00% 6,628,637 100.00% 268,458 48.62% 388,234 70.31% 429,481 77.72% 421,224 76.33% 469,996 85.17% 430,794 77.98% 371,545 67.26% 373,569 67.54% 486,030 87.98% 510,697 82.33% 512.127 92.76% 346,337 62.69% 5,008,492 75.56% 277,565 50.27% 154,108 27.91% . .109,353 19.79% 116,006 21.02% 76,638 13.89% 113,427 20.53% 133,985 24.26% 153,396 27.73% 58,438 10.58% 37,583 6.80% 29,276 5.30% 196,549 35.58% 1,456,329 21.97% 3,461 0.63% 2,267 0.41% 2,131. 0.39% 1,454 0.26% 1.15] 0.21% 2,505 0.45% 40, 845 7.39% 14,294 2.58% 1,388 0.25% 873 0.16% 7,888 1.43% 1,889 0.34% 80,156 1.21% 1,238 0.22% 4,183 0.76% -5,625 1.02% 10,770 1.95% 2,450 0.44% 4,241 0.77% 2.781 0.51% 5,541 1.00% 5.371 0.97% 2,380 0.43% 1,838 0.33% 5,738 1.04% "52,166 0.79% Other 1,440 0.26% 3,363 0.61% 6,027 1.09% 2.391 0.43% 1,603 0.29% 1,447 0.26% 3.2186 0.58% 6,343 1.15% 1,198 0.22% 1,559 0.28% 960 0.17% 1,954 0.35% 31,501 0.48% “NORTH CAROLINA Voting Age Populations Time: 11:09 Plan: 98 CONGRESSIONAL PLAN A Page: 1 Plan type: CONGRESSIONAL WITH 97 HOME SEATS : District Total Vot. Age Vot. Age Vot. Age vot. Age Vot. Age Name Vot. Age White Black Am. Ind. Asian/PI Other District Summary Date: sf District 1 District District District District District District District District District District 403,065 100.00% 419,099 100.00% 417,769 100.00% 427,266 100.00% 426,737 100.00% 426,824 100.00% 408, 299 100.00% 402, 666 100.00% 416,251 100.00% 426,184 100.00% 430,111 100.00% 418,216 100.00% 5,022,487 100.00% 211,273 52.42% 303,740 72.47% 330,971 79.22% 332,013 77.71% 367,521 86.12% 339,863 79.63% 287,254 70.35% 283,487 70.40% 371,553 89.26% 396,840 93.11% 402,639 93.61% 275,409 65.85% 3,902,563 77.70% 187,573 46.54% 108,234 25.83% 76,672 18.35% 84,535 19.79% 55,615 13.03% 8),221 15.03% 90,009 22.04% 101,961 25.32% 39,319 9.45% 26,129 6.13% 20,455 4.76% 136,153 32.56% 1,007,876 20.07% 2,450 0.61% 1,649 0.39% 1,657 0.40% 1,118 0.26% 861 0.20% 1.819 0.43% 26,816 6.57% 9,096 2.26% 1,009 0.24% 664 0.16% 5.159 1.20% 1,370 0.33% 53,668 1.07% 872 0.22% 3,169 0.76% 4,012 0.96% 7.927 1.86% 1.718 0.40% 2.910 0.68% 2,067 0.51% 3,809 0.97% 3.572 0.86% 1,443 0.34% 1.257 0.29% 3,968 0.95% 36,824 0.73% 955 0.24% 2,307 0.55% 4,457 1.07% 1,673 0.39% 1.023 0.24% 1,012 0.24% 2,153 0.53% 4,24 1.05% 801 0.19% 1,108 0.26% 601 0.14% 1.316 0.31% 21,619 0.43% 4 # a *" "TORTH CAROLINA District Summary Date: 5/19/98 Registration Time: 11:10 a.m. Plan: 98 CONGRESSIONAL PLAN A Page: 1 Plan type: CONGRESSIONAL WITH 97 HOME SEATS District Total White Black Other ~Dem. Repub. ; Name Reg. Reg. Reg. Req. Reg. Reg. District 1 271,673 148,208 121,958 1.491 235 338 31, 393 100.00% 54.55% 44.89% 0.55% 86.62% 11.56% District 2 262,713 197,138 64,603 872°" ‘188.416 63,567 100.00% 75.04% 24.59% 0.37% 71.72% 24.20% District 3 — 213,448 177,975 . 34.801 688 148,801 54,152 - 100.00% 83.38% 16.30% 0.32% 69.71% 25.37% District 4 315,782 285.728 55,959 4,095 200,635 86,394 100.00% 80.98% 17.72% 1.30% 63.54% 27.36% District § 290,655 255,898 34,134 623 169,480 103,142 100.00% 88.04% 11.74% 0.21% 58.31% 35.49% District 6 302,789 241,483 60,459 847 166,447 116,292 100.00% 79.75% 19.97% 0.28% 54.97% 38.41% district 7 273,584 193,552 61,670 18,322 “200.576 63,969 100.00% 70.76% 22.54% 6.70% 73.35% 23.38% .ct 8 333,898 170,879 58,907 4,112 ' 160,654 61,417 100.00% 73.06% 25.18% 1.76% 68.70% 26.26% district 9 294,326 267,631 25,835 860 153,500 119,770 100.00% 90.93% 8.78% 0.29% 52.15% 40.69% district 10 302,951 285,988 16, 626 335°" 142,367 140,933 100.00% 94.40% 5.49% 0.11% 46.99% 46.54% districe 11 319,610 304,158 13,108 2,344 188,349 111,979 100.00% 95.17% 4.10% 0.73% 58.93% 35.04% district 12 268,454 179,100 88,550 807. © 174,710 78,752 100.00% 66.72% 32.99% 0.30% 65.08% 29.34% otal 3,349,883 2,677,778 636,610 35,496 2,129,411 1,031,819 100.00% 79.94% 19.00% 1.06% 63.57% 30.80% ™" NORTH CAROLINA y ale District Summary Date: §/1 Elections Time: 11:10 Plan: 98 CONGRESSIONAL PLAN A Page: 1 Plan type: CONGRESSIONAL WITH 97 HOME SEATS District Senate ' Senate Lt. Gov Lt. Gov .Court Court Name Gantt Helms Rand Gardner Lewis Smith District 1 84,590 74,188 97, 349 60,092 101,516 44,207 53.28% 46.72% 61.83% 38.17% 69.66% 30.34% District 2 77,449 87,350 82,802 79,483 80,919 67,993 47.00% 53.00% 51.02% 48.98% 54.34% 45.66% District 3 %i 53,362 75,119 62,499 70,906 65,828 57,263. Kan is 41 .53% 53.47% 46.85% 53.15% 53.48% 46.52% District 4 116,953 81,994 104,429 91, 265 91,593 83,439 58.79% 41.21% 53.36% 46.64% 52.33% 47.67% District § ¢ 68,536 110,048 84,789 103,153 78,140 92,392 38.38% 61.62% 45.11% 54.89% 45.82% 54.18% District 6 80,468 94,977 B2.722 92,643 72,587 92,353 45.87% 54.13% 27.17% 52.83% 44.01% 55.99% District 7 75,152 80,562 91,897 68,676 87,320 61,441 48.26% 51.74% 57.23% 42.77% S8.70% 41.30% iisict 8 tT 64,574 71,664 76,221 61, 265 69,792 56,44 is 47.40% 52.60% 55.44% 44 .56% 55.29% 44.71% District 9 76,502 101,483 72,569 106,079 61,819 98, 686 42.98% 57.02% 40.62% 59.38% 38.52% 61.48% Districr ‘10 70.730 115, 658 80,234 116,558 35,520 113,598 37.95% 62.05% 40.77% 59.23% 39.93% 60.07% Districec 11 86.212 102.511 94,396 105, 889 91,924 96,040 45.93% S4.07% 47.13% 52.87% 48.91% 51.09% District 12 96,411 65,809 85, 248 69,647 76,123 64,597 59.43% 40.57% 55.04% 44.96% 54.10% 45.90% Total 950,941 1,060, 363 1,015,155 1,025,657 953,081 928,451 ; 47.28% 52.72% 49.74% 50.26% 50.65% 49.35% f JoINT EXHIBIT 126A 96 Congress Winner /Cooper 1.0 — District 1 October 12, 1999 LEGEND County Boundary n RIX XX] District 1 ES NW] District 2 he F==——"Y District 3 mtn —] District 4 Dom LN t==———] District 7 [IIIT] District 8 f x = = a 19 County | E wi P es * = ty 1 Tse Y ] 3 x NN — \ ath - V1 Incheon < _- ET < I ll \ L \ , \, , , LY 8, \, AOR Sh ¢ N RS SNE ™, * be 2 \, ™ "\ ) \ > > ) - \ k “ Tey . ~S Hi NN \, ’N/ > > pa . \ NAS 355 2 k* wy \ “, N \ bY i, 5 > XL { Ea) oy ~ NIN MATT ANY! 06% > J. ) PCS RESIS SSR RRIRRAK, J CT | Dee Son w ul : NR R083: SRS RXR A NN a) ag MON RR RSS RIES E858 RRR SAE AN eS Ti N RN 0165008 6 Ju tal 0 220 telat 2a ede 2 0622 RK SGSKKA KS perierofl ras vont Ne, he : on 252535 REX RR Sa RK S35009S SHR SK TIN Re nN BN co030tuletotodeles Sotetetetatet canines FRYER AT K N, % x », ) 3% 4 LD IRE N/ ems CY R Cp hb RQ 2 > 0 hol ci IRR RAITE P5RRRHKIR Pe a: : oo a A RRR Flute IRS Al PTERRK 3% Tr / aN \/ CS Sirs NS . pr : UTR Ws oo RITTER 8 So - JOINT EXHIBIT 126B N.C. General Assembly Legislative Services Ofc. Redistricting System Software Copyright 1990 Public Systems Associates Ul = A Q 5 > ) Shay & S C O , bg S f = V E N = Ei a ] “~~ Se ~~ %: S r q R S bls > ~ L O B o t S g By = 8 O x > = 3 2 Y 3 > 3 a “ 2 0 509 To) = 3 Se a wi SON, EN all E S vw o o o = — —~— try S e y - OO d y gd i Wy R l Q 3) HE 3 " I Z : i i z : r e s o ; wm Ww mo Ww Wm ow E S § 3 2 3 2 2 8 2 2 ¢ 3 T o e Q S -— 3 3 % Z i th n S L $ e § ~ ~ . Z Vo a3 * P R R a - 4 7 = os = S A ps cl h y Q 2 kid | % 2 Coif (B i i J IJ a , ; = T N S e a |] \ > = | E N Bone. Ti n F - k 4 i . 3 Ir 1 BR aS / A P23 L | | gl = 4 b | a ) By | J 1 hd i f h! A Ad 1 i 4 ane % LY < n . 4.4 V t n A x r e p e > £ S n + L. 1} f e fm jet S t ( ) ) 4d AV A 1 es > 6 § Qo = F / — v4 oO ! — 7 c o m e QU | { h g L —~. 7 A p a d x O o aN) / 7 7 dif r l Ey S o m Z5 = TING - d d l g id E A rt = | rd i ~ S s r r / “ F E A 2 L x &* Tele 0 0 0 0 0 0 08 s £2 7 2 . ; LF 7 p e z i = = oo = 2 a L Z i ’ LAER a : p. z~ . pt ATT A x E = 0 7 4 7 f ; — — . r o m e d , A { — N L L / S S A “ e e — ) wn F o ) 7 c h i = a w n #7 yd 7 a . re 7 fo ~ z : QO r s = S be C A Se 3 L S or A SS 2 ) 0 = Z i a S a 1 E 2/7 S e o i = r y ~~ a A A ; ri E F vA e t i= % = % © a 3 BS H i g ¥ of Ac + (@p) z C y 3 FiOS 2 J r i d R R 7 Z z L A I N 2 A 7 / 2 5 N 4 Pe 7 7 r p 7 i x X rian \ ir o r 2 N R A L R ! 4 Vd 3 Ne “Ny 0% , h \, N\ 2 ; 'd £ pd 7 a oN : / 7 d : \ i f r r d 7 A ! i y vy. #” , 4 2 Ne ~ JS rd r a » 7 , / ] 7 d F #4 ht 5 f i k i ’ S il ’ i h j A pd w v Mu 3 ; "ie rd / 7 id o f a dey A 5 a » h ¥ a i A > | THEE Naw A ~ LY ™ \, ph %, “ \ 5 AY bY 4 W \, ~ N\, he \ N \ NN N ON ~ bo NS \ he" : Y ™ i a . Dnletthe Lonady Lis Coty [J se Com “ So oh oN 4 3 hb i WT oh NN $y NON, il NES N N ho % \ ia ~ ~ > BY oN i _-RTH CAROLINA District Summary Date: 9/ 7/99 Total Populations, All Ages Time: 2:11 p.m. Plan: 96 CONGRESS WINNER/COOPER 1.0 Page: 1 tvoe: Congressional Base Plan District Total Total Total Total Total Total -Name Poo. - White Black Am. Ind, Asian/PI Other rict 1 552,682 280,593 266,051 3,410 1,181 1,448 100.00% 50.77% 48.14% 0.62% 0.21% 0.26% rict 2 551,617 376,221 155,228 2,543 4,019 3,606 100.00% 68.20% 29.95% 0.46% 0.73% 0.65% rice .} 551,968 413,040 125,853 2,109 5,070 5,886 100.00% - "74.83% 22.80% 0.38% 0.92% 1.07% rice 4 551,774 417,437 119,326 1,489 11,228 2.320 100.00% 75.65% 21.63% 0.27% 2.03% 0.42% cuter Sw £552,632 470,397 76,982 1,184 2,543 1,545 100.00% 85.12% 13.93% 0.21% 0.46% 0.28% trict 6 552,617 448,555 96,102 2,353 4,093 1,513 100.00% 81.17% 17.35% 0.43% 0.74% 0.27% srict 7 552,916 33,910 142,215 45,820 5,226 4,42 100.00% 64.01% 25.7¢€% 3.47% 0.95% 0.82% 3 552,387 410,3¢¢9 125,47% 8,101 3,420 4,963 100.00% 74.30% 22.2% 1.47% 0.62% 0.50% =rict S §52,301 439,297 55,444 1,353 5,050 1,158 100.00% 83.55% 310.043 0.24% 0.91% 0.21% cxrict +10 553,077 £13,085 35.1429 e003 2.356838 1,535 100.00% 82.77% 86.35% 0.156% 0.43% 0.29% trict 11 552,085 512 127 29,2786 7,883 1,838 250 100.00% 92.76% 5.30% 1.43% 0.3332 0.17% ericr 12 562,597 323,450 219,033 2,033 6,127 1,949 100.00% 58.53% 39.64% 0.37% 7.11% 0.35% al 6,628,637 5,008,492 1,456,329 30,156 52,166 31,501 100.00% 75.56% 21.97% 1.21% 0.79% 0.43% EXHIBIT. 126D NORTH CAROLINA District Summary Date: 10/12/99 Elections Time: 12:36 p.m. Plan: 96 CONGRESS WINNER/COOPER 1.0 Page: 1 ?lan type: Congressional Base Plan District Senate Senate Lt. Gov Lt. Gov Court Court Name Gantt Helms Rand Gardner . Lewis Smith district. 1 84,793 74,403 96,732 60,076 102,357 44,330 53.26% 46.74% 61.69% 33.31% 69.78% 30.22% District 2 77,334 89,039 83,476 80,393 80,626 69,926 . 46.61% 53.39% 50.94% 49.06% 53.55% 46.45% District: 3 60,570 74,804 70,398 70,471 73,187 57,250 44.74% 55.26% 49.97% 50.03% 56.11% 43.89% District 4 112.375 80,260 99,480 89,925 86,993 81,246 59.34% 41.66% 52.52% 47.48% 51.71% 48.29% District 5 68,282 109,418 84,364 101,534 77,552 90,694 38.43% 61.57% 45.38% 54.62% 46.09% 53.91% District 6 78,098 98,099 81,475 85,504 71,188 95, 340 44.32% 55.68% 46.04% 53.96% 42.75% 57.25% District 7 72,466 70,058 37,509 60,065 81,613 54,736 50.84% 49.16% 59.30% 40.70% 59.86% 40.14% ct 2 64,116 82,035 77,447 70,519 72,034 63,079 43.87% 56.13% 52.34% 47 .66% 53.31% 46.69% District 9 73,182 101,916 71,545 106,199 61,605 99,082 41.79% 58.21% 40.25% 59.75% 38.34% 61.66% District. 10 70,584 117,976 30,352 113,818 76,034 115,204 37.43% 62.57% 40.34% 59.66% 39.76% 60.24% District 11 86,212 101,511 94,396 105, 889 91,924 96,040 45.93% 54.07% 47.13% 52.87% 48.91% 51.09% District 12 : 102,529 60, 844 87,981 66,264 77,968 61,524 62.76% 37.24% 57.04% 42.96% 55.89% 44.11% Total 950,9411,060,363.1,015,155 1,025,657 © 953,081 928,451 47.28% 52.72% 49.74% 50.26% 50.65% 49.35% » hl “ ® 96 Congess Winner/Cooper 2.0 — District 1 October 18, 1999 LEGEND RA OOOO] District 1 ESS] District 2 [7] Districts & [TTTTITT] District 4 Cy Cr visio ‘shan f [TTTITTTIII) District 8 Cony 19 ie Perquimans County Tyrrott County JOINT EXHIBIT 1278 Craven C N Shtly Pamitco County N.C. General Assembly Legislative Services Ofc. Counly dows Coury Corbort County Redistricting System \ Software Copyright 1990 orsiwbuaty Public Systems Associates 96 Congress Winner/Cooper 2.0 — District 12 October 19, 1999 ey rm So Higa hy Oey | LEGEND Ashe County ; Surry Cobaly - a Stokes County Rockingham County | Caswell County Corin Sey oT oo || pistriets Vida Xe gh gy E% | ] District 6 « Melange Cony : "Wilkes Counly ; : | a == District 7 j Yadkin Cotsaty ~ — [IIIT] District 8 Nt [ZZ] bistricts - OR) ——— Alamance County District 10 NON IY District 12 | Caldwell Coun 19 Counly y Alexander County on i iste pr oy | Koda Connly Ss RRS 2 2.64. 00.8 00 hE PER ee NN T2323 57505258 5000 525.05252509030 30005? OR : IS Np Bund Coty” / RRA CEL Nk Catowba County 52 SESSA oy Fs irfco ev. u : asion Leun EXHIBIT 12JC N.C. General Assembly Legislative Services Ofc. I Redistricting System , | | Software Copyright 1990 N . : . x : Public Systems Associates ee : A — > J EXHIBIT 127D JB: NORTH CAROLINA District Summary Date: 10/19/99 Elections Time: 9:24 a.m. -. Plan: 96 CONGRESS WINNER/COOPER 2.0 Page: 1 lan type: Congressional Base Plan District Senate Senate Lt. Gov Lt. Gov Court Court Name Gantt Helms Rand Gardner .. Lewis Smith district 83,981 75,769 96,913 51,3105 102,903 45,120 52.57% 47.43% 61.33% 38.67% 62.52% 30.48% District 77.73% 89,039 83,476 80,393 80,626 69,926 46.61% 53.39% 50.94% 49.06% 53..55% 46.45% District 61,382 73,438 70,217 69,442 72,641 56,460 - 45.53% 54.47% 50.28% 49.72% 56.27% 43.73% District 112,375 80,260 99,480 85,925 86,993 81,246 58.34% 41.66% 52.52% 47.48% B1.71% 48.29% District 68,235 109,642 84,371 101,728 77,537 90,897 38.36% 61.64% 45.34% 54.66% 46.03% 53.97% District 77,679 98,073 80,967 85,5684 70,654 95,481 44.20% 55.80% 45.87% 54.13% 42.53% 57.47% District 72,466 70,058 87,509 60,065 81,613 54,735 50.84% 45.16% 59.30% 40.70% 59.86% 40.14% 64,116 82,035 77,447 70,519 72,034 63,079 43.87% 56.13% 52.34% 47.66% 53.31% 46.69% District 74,527 103,552 12,593 107,541 62,135 100,434 41.85% 58.15% 40.30% 59.70% 38.22% 61.78% District 70,584 117,976 80,352 113,813 76,034 115,204 : 37.43% 62.57% 40.34% 59.66% 39.76% 60.24% District 86,212 101,511 94,396 105,889 91,524 96,040 45.93% 54.07% 47.13% 52.87% 48.91% 51.09% District 101, 650 59,000 87,434 64,668 71,987 59,828 63.27% 36.73% 57.48% 42.52% 56.59% 43.41% 950,941 1,060,363 1,015,155 1,025,657 © 953,081 928,451 47.28% 52.72% 49.74% 50.26% 50.65% 49.35% SS CJ October 14, 1999 * Calowba Sou os 24 velafid Cau LEGEND County Boundary [1] District4 77 72] District 5 RSS] District 6 [IIIT] District 8 [ZZ] District 9 ESS District 10 CCE District 12 19 Counly 7 25 JOINT EXHIBIT 128B N.C. General Assembly Legislative Services Ofc. Redistricting System Software Copyright 1990 Public Systems Associates & NORTH CAROLINA District Statistics Date: 3/5. = Time: 9:17 a.m. Plan: 97 CONGRESS COOPER 1.0 Page: 1 Plan type: Congressional Base Plan : District Number Total Ideal District ZX District Name Members Population Population Variance Variance Bistrict 1 1 552,135 552,386 -251 -0.05% Bistrict 2 1 551,998 552,386 -388 -0.07% District 3 1 552,138 552,386 -248 -0.04% Bistrict 4 1 552,274 552,386 -112 -0.02% Bistrict S 1 553,331 4852,386 945 0.17% Bistrict 6 A 1. ..553,260 552,386 874 0.16% District 7 1 552,027 552,386 -359 -0.06% District 8 1 552,752 552,386 366 0.07% District 9 1 552,048 552,386 -338 -0.06% District 10 1 553,077 552,386 691 0.13% District 11 1 552,089 552,386 -297 -0.05% District 12 1 551,508 552,386 -878 -0.16% Total 12 6,628,637 6,628,632 0 0.00% PLANVIDE STATISTICS: Range of populations: 551,508 to 553,331 Ratio range: 1.0033 Absolute range: -878 to 945 ~.. solute overall range: 1,823 “kelative range: -0.16 to 0.17% Relative overall range: 0.33% Absolute mean deviation: 478.92 Relative mean deviation: 0.09% Standard deviation: 552.1284 Ni )b: “NORTH CAROLINA Date: Time: District Summary Total Populations, All Ages Plan: 97 CONGRESS COOPER 1.0 3/31/97 9:17 a.m. Page: 1 ’lan type: Congressional Base Plan District Total Total Total Total Total Total district 1 Jistrict Jistrict Jistrict District District District District District District District Total Name Pop. 552,135 100.00% 551,998 100.00% 552,138 100.00% 552,274 100.00% 553,33) 100.00% 353,260 100.00% 552,027 100.00% 552,752 100.00% 552,048 100.00% 553,077 100.00% 552,089 100.00% 551,508 100.00% 6,628,637 100.00% Vhite 254,839 46.16% 379,132 68.68% 414,167 75.01% 451,452 81.74% 471,223 85.16% 449,667 81.28% 362,283 65.63% 389,727 70.51% 490,298 88.81% 513,066 92.77% 512,127 92.76% 320,511 58.12% 5,008,492 75.56% Black Am. Ind. Asian/PI Other 290,844 52.68% 162,925 29.52% 125,466 22.72% 85,7175 15.53% 76,854 13.89% 95,620 17.28% 145,341 26.33% 134,001 24.24% 54,415 9.86% 35,140 6.35% 29,276 5.30% 220,672 40.01% 1,456,329 21.97% 3,504 0.63% 1,994 0.36% 1,906 0.35% 1,553 0.28% 1,168 0.21% 2,364 0.43% 37,332 6.76% 18,161 3.29% 1,333 0.24% 908 0.16% 7,888 1.43% 2,043. 0.37% 80,156 1.21% 1,443 0.26% 4,161 0.75% 4,912 0.89% 10,940 1.98% 2,543 0.46% 4,131 0.75% 3,771 0.68% 4,920 0.89% 4,880 0.88% 2,368 0.43% 1,838 0.33% 6,259 1.13% 52,166 0.79% 1,506 0.27% 3,786 0.69% 5,687 1.032 2,558 0.46% 1,543 0.28% 1,477 0.27% 3,300 0.60% 5,943 1.08% 1,123 0.20% 1,595 0.29% 960 0.17% 2,023 0.372 31,501 0.48% * ® Foi, NORTH CAROLINA District Summary Pate: 3/3: 57 Voting Age Populations Time: 9:18 a.m. Plan: 97 CONGRESS COOPER 1.0 Page: 1 Plan type: Congressional Base Plan District Total Vot. Age Vot. Age Vot. Age Vot. Age Vot. Age Name Vot. Age Vhite Black Am. Ind. Asian/PI Other District 1 406,461 202,319 199,584 2,486 1,066 1,065 100.00% 49.78% 49.10% 0.61% 0.26% 0.26% District ‘2 419,543 298,650 113,698 1,443 3,181 2,570 100.00% "+= 71.18% 27.10% 0.34% 0.76% 0.61% District 3 416,187 319,994 86,977 1,471 3,521 4,224 100.00% 76.89% 20.90% 0.35% 0.85% 1.012 District 4 425,040 351,790 62,304 1,199 7,966 1,781 100.00% 82.77% 14.66% 0.28% 1.87% 0.42% District 5 428,040 368,592 55,781 881 1,800 988 100.00% 86.11% 13.03% 0.21% 0.42% 0.232 District 6 427,321". 352,714 69,038 1,705 2,831 1,033 100.00% 82.54% 16.16% 0.40% 0.66% 0.24% Di~rricr 7 408,413 281,066 97,822 24,596 2,770 2, : 100.00% 68.82% 23.957 6.02% 0.68% 8." +4 District 8 401,766 294,214 88,551 11,591 3,451 3,959 100.00% 73.23% 22.04% 2.89% 0.86% 0.992 Discrict'$ 415,772 374,282 36,558 958 3,228 749 100.00% 50.02% 8.79% 0.23% 0.78% 0.18% District 10 426,814 398,819 24,761 678 1,438 1,118 100.00% 93.44% 5.80% 0.16% 0.34% 0.261 District 11 430,111 402,639 20,455 5,159 1,257 601 100.00% 93.61% 4.76% 1.20% 0.29% 0.142 District 12 417,019 257,484 152,347 1,501 4,315 1,372 100.00% 61.74% 36.53% 0.36% ° 1.03% - 0.332 Total 5,022,487 3,902,563 1,007,876 53,668 36,824 21,619 100.00% 17.70% 20.07% 0.73% 0.432 hh + JRTH CAROLINA District Summary Date: 3/31/97 Registration Time: 9:17 a.m. Plan: 97 CONGRESS COOPER 1.0 Page: 1 lan type: Congressional Base Plan " District Total Vhite Black Other -~ Den. Repub. Name Reg. Reg. Reg. Reg. Reg. Reg. istrict 1 276,384 141,864 132,286 2,234 239,473 30,111 100.00% 51.33% 47.86% 0.81% 86.65% 10.892 istrict 2 262,635 194,678 67,025 932 192,066 61,304 100.00% 74.12%. 25.52% 0.35% 73.13% 23.34% istrict 3 227,878 -.181,935 45,306 637 163,743 53,526 100.00% 79.84% 19.88% 0.28% 71.86% 23.492 istrict 4 303,417 262,257 37,772 3,388 185,044 90,288 100.00% 86.43% 12.45% 1.12% 60.99% 29.76% istrict 5 290,638 i 255,817 34,188 633 171,124 101,075 100.00% 88.02% 11.76% 0.22% 58.88% 34.78% istrict 6 300,599 247,716 52,052 834 161,482 119,177 100.00% 82.41% 17.32% 0.28% 53.72% 39.652 )istrict 7 269,234 186,138 66,153 16,943 196,935 62,864 fi 100.00% 69.14% 24.57% 6.29% 73.15% 23.352 Yoieict 8 231,021 176,150 49,325 5,546 157,020 62,552 100.00% 76.25% 21.35% 2.40% 67.97% 27.08% Jistrict 9 293,513 +" 268,862 23,866 785 152,808 120,176 100.00% 91.60% 8.13% 0.27% 52.06% 40.94% Jistrict 10 304,768 289,055 15,372 339 140,908 144,329 100.00% 94.84% 5.04% 0.11% 46.23% 47.36% Jistrict 11 319,610 * 304,158 13,108 2,344 188,349 111,979 100.00% 95.17% 4.10% 0.73% 58.93% 35.04% district 12 270,186 169,148 100,157 881 180,459 74,438 100.00% 62.60% 37.07% 0.332 66.79% 27.55% Total 3,349,883 2,677,778 636,610 35,496 2,129,411 1,031,819 100.00% 79.94% 19.00% 1.067% .-- 63.57% 30.80% & {ORTH CAROLINA # t Date: 3/3..% District Summary Elections Time: 9:17 a.m. Plan: 97 CONGRESS COOPER 1.0 Page: 1 Plan type: Congressional Base Plan District Senate Senate Lt. Gov Lt. Gov Court Court Name Gantt Helms Rand Gardner Lewis Smith District 1 95,628 67,978 103,481 55,585 107,526 40,276 58.45% 41.55% 65.06% 34.94% 72.75% 27.25% District 2 75,745 87,560 83,173 79,669 81,149 67,496 46.38% 53.62% 51.08% 48.92% 54.59% 45.41% District 3 59,472 76,318 70,163 4 71,887 73,868 58,224 43.80% 56.20% 49.39% 50.61% 55.92% 44.08% District 4 104,288" -87,631 93,747 95,608 81,365 87,199 54.34% 45.66% 49.51% 50.49% 48.27% 51.73% District 5 68,235 109,642 84,371 101,728 77,537 90,897 38.36% 61.64% 45.34% 54.66% 46.03% 53.97% District 6 77,679 98,073 80,967 95,564 70,654 95,481 44.20% 55.80% 45.87% 54.13% 42.53% 57.47% Dierrict 7 76,142 77,149 91,082 66,094 85,380 59,847 - 49.67% 50.33% 57.95% 42.05% 58.79% 41.; { District § 60,779 73,963 73,396 62,606 67,522 57,526 45.11% 54.89% 53.97% 46.03% 54.00% 46.00% District 9 74,527 103,562 72,593 107,541 62,135 100,434 41.85% 58.15% 40.30% 53.70% 38.22% 61.78% District 10 70,584 117,976 80,352 118,818 76,034 115,204 37.43% 52.57% 40.34% 59.66% 39.76% 60.24% District ll 86,212 101,51} 94,396 105,889 91,924 96,040 45.93% 54.07% 47.13% 52.87% 48.91% 51.09% District 12 101,650 59,000 87,434 64,668 77,987 59,828 63.27% 36.73% 57.48% 42.92% - 56.59% 43.41% Total 950,941 1,060,353 1,015,155 1,025,657 953,081 928,451 47.28% 52.72% 49.74% 50.26% 50.65% 49.35% District Statistics 4 )B+- NORTH CAROLINA Date: 10/27/99 Time: 2:56 p.m. Plan: 97 CONGRESS COOPER 2.0 Page: 1 ’lan tvpe: Congressional Base Plan District Number _ Total Name Members Population Ideal Population District Variance 2 District Variance istrict istrict istrict J)istrict )istrict Jistrict district district district Jistrict istrict Jigtrice WO 0 J o U1 x W N P ( I = NN = O 551,434 552,245 553,216 551,774 553,331 553,260 551,903 552,752 552,048 553,077 552,089 551,508 552,386 552,386 552,386 552,386 552, 385 552,386 552,386 552,386 552,386 552,386 552,386 552,386 -952 -141 830 -612 945 874 -483 366 -338 691 -297 -878 17% .03% .15% 11% 17% .16% .09% .07% .06% .13% .05% .16% J TS E E = J mr ar SJ SC So fotal p e d 5,628,637 6,628,632 0 .00% SLANWIDE STATISTICS: Range of populations: 551.,4324°t0 553,331 Ratio range: 1.0034 Absolute range: Absolute overall range: -852° to 945 1,897 (tive range: kelative overall range: -0.17- 00.17% 0.34% Absclute mean deviation: Relative mean deviation: 617.25 0.11% Standard deviation: 874.8205 ® # District Summary Date: 10/27/99 Total Populations, All Ages Time: 2:58 p.m. Plan: 97 CONGRESS COOPER 2.0 Page: 1 an _tvpe: Congressional Base Plan District Total Name Pop. "ORTH CAROLINA Total White Total Total Black Am. Ind. Total Asian/PI Total Other strict strict Strict Strick (strict 551,434 100.00% 552.245 100.00% 553,216 100.00% 551,774 100.00% 553,331 100.00% 553,260 100.00% 551,803 100.00% 552,752 100.00% 552,043 100.00% $53,077 100.00% 552,039 100.00% 551,503 100.00% 6,628,637 100.00% 280, 659 50.90% 385,801 69.86% 412,974 74.65% 417,437 75.65% 471,223 85.16% 449,667 81.28% 365,002 66.14% 389,727 70.51% 490,298 83.81% 513,066 82.77% 512,127 82.76% 320,511 58.12% 5,008,492 75.56% 264,800 48.02% 157,369 28.50% 127,104 22.98% 119,325 21.63% 76,854 13.89% 95,620 17.28% 141,752 25.68% 134,001 24.24% 54,415 0.86% 35,140 6.35% 28,216 5.30% 220,672 40.01% 1,456,329 21.97% 3,394 0.62% 1,142 0.21% 4,164 0.75% 5,109 0.92% 11,228 2.03% 2,543, 0.46% 4,131 0.75% 3,584 0.65% 4,920 0.89% 4,880 0.88% 2,368 0.43% 1,838 0.33% 6,259 1.13% 52,166 0.79% 1,440 0.26% 3,215 850 0.17% 2,923 0.37% 31,501. 0.48% District Summary Voting Age Populations Plan: 97 CONGRESS COOPER 2.0 b+ ~*ORTH CAROLINA Date: 10/27/99 Time: 3:00 p.m. Page: 1 .an _tvpe: Congressional Base Plan District Total Vot. Age Vot. Age Vot. Age Vot. Age Vot. Age Name Vot. Age White Black Am. Ind, Asian/PI Other strict 1 404,733 221,039 179,543 2,400 816 993 100.00% 54.61% 44.36% 0.59% 0.20% 0.25% strict: 2 420,183 303,027 110.511 1,272 3,185 2,188 100.00% 72.12% 26.30% 0.30% 0.76% 0.52% istrict il 417,355 318.873 88,831 1,626 3,656 4,369 100.00% 76.40% 21.28% 0.39% 0.88% 1.05% istrict 4 425,265 327,847 86,414 1,153 8,205 1,646 100.00% 77.09% 20.32% 0.27% 1.93% 0.39% istrict 'S 428,040 368,592 55.781 881 1,800 .=988 100.00% 86.11% 13.03% 0.21% 0.42% 0.23% istrict 6 427,321 352,714 66,038 1,705 2,831 1,033 100.00% 82.54% 16.16% 0.40% 0.66% 0.24% istrict 7 408,108 283,033 85,086 24,744 2,642 2,603 100.00% 69.35% 23.30% 6.06% 0.65% 0.64% e.g 401,766 294,214 88,551 11,591 3,451 3,959 100.00% 73.23% 22.04% 2.89% 0.86% 0.99 istrict. S 415,772 374,282 36,558 958 3,228 749 100.00% 90.02% 8.79% 0.23% 0.78% 0.18% istrict 10 426,814 398,819 24,761 678 1,438 1,113 100.00% 93.44% 5.80% 0.16% 0.34% 0.26% istrict 11 430,111 402,639 20,455 5,159 1,257 601 100.00% 93.61% 4.76% 1.20% 0.29% 0.14% istrict 12 417,019 257,434 152,347 1,561 4,315 1.372 100.00% 61.74% 35.53% 0.36% 1.03% 0.33% >tal 5,022,437 3,902,583 1,007,876 53,668 36,824 21,619 100.00% 77.70% 20.07% 1.07% 8.73% 0.43% [ District Summary 4 "RTH CAROLINA Date: 10/27/99 - Registration Time: 2:58 p.m. Plan: 97 CONGRESS COOPER 2.0 Page: 1 an tvpe: Conaressional Base Plan District Total White Black Other Dem. Repub. Name Req. Req. Req. Req. Reg. Req. strict 1 =270,215 152,780 116,007 1,428 231,905 33,081 100.00% 56.54% 42.93% 0.53% 85.82% 12.24% strict 2 262,046 196,875 64,318 853 190, 148 81,355 100.00% 75.13% 24.54% 0.33% 72.56% 23.41% strict 3 225,882 177,803 47,435 644 162,226 53,104 100.00% 78.71% 21.00% 0.29% 71.82% 23.51% strict 4 308,157 248,308 55.719 4,130 194,612 84,812 100.00% 80.58% 18.08% 1.34% 63.15% 27.52% strict 5 20,638 255,817 34,188 633 171,124 101,075 100.00% 88.02% 11.76% 0.22% 58.88% 34.78% strict 5 300,599 247,716 52,052 834 161,482 115,177 100.00% 82.41% 17.32% 0.28% 53.72% 39.65% strict 1 273,248 191,106 65,063 17,0789 198,370 65,741 100.00% 69.94% 23.81% 6.25% 72.60% 24.06% == 8 231,021 176,150 49,325 5,546 157,020 82,552 100.00% 76.25% 21.35% 2.40% 67.97% 27.03% jgtrict © 293.513 268,862 23,865 785 152,808 126,175 100.00% 91.60% 8.13% 0.27% 52.06% 40.94% istrict 10 304,762 289, 05S 15.372 339 140,908 144,329 100.00% 94.84% 5.04% 0.11% 45.23% 47.36% istrict 1} 319,610 304,153 13,103 2,344 188,349 311.973 100.00% 95.17% 4.10% 0.73% 58.93% 35.04% istrict 12 270,186 169,143 100, 157 881 180,459 74,438 100.00% 62.60% 37.07% 0.33% 66.79% 27.55% stal 3,349,883 3, 677.778 636,610 35,496. 2,129,411:1,031,81¢9 100.00% 79.94% 19.00% 1.06% 53.57% 30.80% * & 3: NORTH CAROLINA District Summary » Date: 10/27/99 Elections Time: 2:59 p.m. Plan: 97 CONGRESS COOPER 2.0 Page: 1 .an tvpe: Congressional Base Plan District Senate Senate Lt. Gov LL. Gov Court Court Name Gantt Helms Rand Gardner Lewis Smith istrict 1 83,981 75,765 96,913 61,105 102,503 45.120 52.57% 47.43% 61.33% 38.67% 69.52% 30.48% istrict 2 78,535 86,052 33% 335 79,025 80,074 67,360 47.72% 52.28% 51.33% 48.67% 54.31% 45.69% istrict 3 51,3232 73,438 20,227 69,442 72,641 56,460 : 45.53% 54.47% 50.23% 49.72% 56.27% 43.73% istricre 4 112,375 80,260 99,480 89,925 86,993 81,246 58.34% 41.66% 52.52% 47.48% 5Y.71% 48.29% istricr-. 5S 68,235 109, 642 84.371 10%,728 77,537 9Q, 897 38.36% 61.64% 45.34% 54.66% 46.03% 53.97% istrict 6 77,679 98.073 80,967 85,564 70,654 95,481 44.20% 55.80% 45.87% 54.13% 42.53% 57.47% istrict. 75,002 81,117 91,701 69,346 86,677 82,855 43.04% 51.96% 56.94% 43.06% £7.97% 42.03% cto 60,77¢ 73,963 73,396 62,606 67,522 57,525 45.11% 54.89% 53.97% 46.03% 54.00% 46.00% istrict S 74.527 103,582 72,583 107,541 82,135 100,434 41.85% 58.15% 40.30% 59.70% 33.22% 61.78% tet rick 1-0 70,524 117,975 30,352 113,813 76,034 115,204 37.43% 62.57% 40.34% 59.66% 39.76% 60.24% istrict 11 86.212 101,511 94,396 105, 889 91,924 96,040 45.93% 54.07% 47.13% 52.97% 48.91% 51.09% strict 12 101,650 59,000 87,434 64,668 71,9387 59,828 63.27% 36.73% 57.48% 42.52% 56.59% 43.41% otal S50 ,941«1, 060,363>1.,015,155:1,025,657 953,081 822,451 47.28% 52.72% 49.74% 50.26% 50.65% 49.35% * 97 Congress Cooper 2.0 October 28, 1999 a. 1 LEGEND —————————— County Boundary BIRRER District 1 E=_~_\] District 2 [=u===x District 3 ! ] District 4 7] District 5 [ANNAN] District 6 E——] District 7 [III] District 8 [ZZ] District 9 [S=_X.] District 10 [~—==) District 14 ROX RXR] District 12 19 County JOINT EXHIBIT 129 A N.C. General Assembly Legislative Services Ofc. Redastricting System Software Copyright 1990 Public Systems Associates ® . ho | 97 Congress Cooper 2.0 — District 1 October 14, 1999 LEGEND ————— County Boundary | REITER District 1 | ES" _N] District 2 F————] istrict 3 [1 pistrict4 | Eg vistrict7 Person County | [III] District 8 19 County ~ ~ ge County Durham County AN Ec JOINT ama = oh " EXHIBIT PE LW = LL : BN = E 9 Y \ I= Graven Gouri 7 lllE ! 9 = oF on ", I N.C. General Assembly 2 Sr =F be = 2) Ta Legislative Services Ofc. : Lom = Tones Courly vanes z == Redistricting System = = a = eet 1 Software Copyright 1990 is = NY = —_— i Public Systems Associates 97 Congress Cooper 2.0 — District 12 November 4, 1999 P a ) B i d P S id rd L J i Ir LEGEND ee Sokinghars Coy ES District 2 \ */ 7 7 71 District § 23 DONS] District 6 [ITTIIITITITT District 8 [ ri i ee ] District 9 B N N J District 10 XXX] District 12 Caldw ; = JOINT EXHIBIT 129 C N.C. General Assembly Legislative Services Ofc. Redistricting System Software Copyright 1990 Public Systems Associates 'P~"TORTH CAROLINA ‘lan tvpe: Conaressional Base Plan District Statistics Plan: 97 CONGRESS COOPER 3.0 - Date: Time: 10/28/99 4:32 p.m. Page: 1 strict istrict ‘istrict )istrict yistrict )istrict district )istrict )istrict )istrict )istrict Mstrict ‘octal 00 J o y Wn vu W w District Name 'LANWIDE STATISTICS: Range of populations: Ratio range: Absolute range: Numbe r EE ; Total Members Population Ideal Population District Variance % District Variance ea al al eT CT ST Se So ST Cr Cl = nN £51,353 £0.553,287 $53,297 §52, 245 551,353 551,774 552,261 552,234 551,903 $52,152 553,173 552,928 552,08¢ 552,630 65,628,637 1.0035 =1,033 to.511 552,386 552,386 552,388 552,386 552,388 552,388 552,388 552,386 552,386 552,386 552,388 £52,388 6,628,632 911 -14% -1,033 -512 -125 -152 1-483 366 787 540 -287 244 .16% .03% .19% JI1% .02% .03% .09% .07% .14% .10% .05% .04% .00% absclute overall range: 1,844 rance: overall range: -0.19 0.35% acsolute mean deviation: Relative mean deviation: 474.25 0.09% Standard deviation: 859.4732 ry District Summary Total Populations, All Ages Plan: 97 CONGRESS COOPER 3.0 Congressional Base Plan District ~~ “ORTH CAROLINA Date: Time: 10/28/99 4:33 p.m. Page: 1 lan tvpe: Total Total Total Total istrict 1 Mstrict wsbriot Jistrict Nstrict istrict Yistrict Jistrice district Name Pop. 553,297 100.00% ‘552,245 100.00% 551,353- 100.00% $51,774 100.00% £82,281 100.00% $52,234 100.00% $51,503 100.00% 852,752 100.00% $53,173 100.00% 552,926 100.00% 552,089 100.00% 552,630 100.00% 100.00% White 276,099 49.90% 385,801 69.86% 417,534 75.73% 417,437 75.65% 478,856 86.71% 493,39] 3°.34% 365,002 66.14% 339,727 30.51% 432,41¢ 87.21% 506,833 91.66% 512,127 92.76% 233,264 51.26% 6,628,637 5,008,492 15.55% Black Am. Total" Asian/PI Total Other 271,188 42.01% 157,369 28.50% 120,716 21.89% 116,325 21.83% 141,752 25.68% 134,001 24.24% 60,784 10.99% 41.15) 7.44% 29,276 5.30% 250,215 47.09% 1,456,329 21.97% l.,116 0.20% 4,164 0.75% 5.135 0.93% 11,228 2.03% 2,369 0.43% 37267 0.59% 3,584 0.65% 4,220 0.89% 6,971 1.26% 2,405 0.43% 1,838 0.33% 5,165 0.94% 52,1565 0.79% 1,467 0.27% 3,215 0.58% 5,877 1.07% 2,320 0.42% *" 9RTH CAROLINA District Summary Date: 10/28/99 Voting Age Populations -" Time: "4:35 p.m. Plan: 97 CONGRESS COOPER 3.0 Page: 1 lan tvpe: Congressional Base Plan District Total Vot. Age Vot. Age Vot. Age Vot. Age Vot. Age Name Vot. Age White Black Am. Ind. Asian/PI Other iskrict 1 404,984 218,973 183,860 2,414 791 1,004 100.00% 53.58% 45.40% 0.60% 0.20% 0.25% strict 2 420,183 303,027 110,511 1,232 3,185 2,188 100.00% 72.12% 26.30% 0.30% 0.76% 0.52% ietrice 3 - 417,104 322,939 - 84,514 1,612 - 3,681 4,358 100.00% 77.42% 20.26% 0.39% 0.88% 1.04% istrict 2 425,285 327,847 86,414 1,153 8,205 1,646 100.00% 77.09% 20.32% 0.27% 1.93% 0.39% Jdistrict S g 430,047 376,936 4¢,634 743 1,899 1,031 100.00% 87.65% 11.54% 0.17% 0.40 0.24% Jistrict 6 425,917 384,712 37,39 1,48¢ 2,275 1,043 100.00% 50.11% 8.76 0.35% 0.53% 0.24% Jistrice 7 408,108 283,033 St,086 24,744 2.8642 2.603 100.00% 65.35% 23.30% 6.06% 0.65% 0.64% ).. ict 3 401,768 294,214 88,551 11.59% 3.45 3,859 100.00% 73.23% 22.04% 2.39% 0.86% 0.99% district 9 421,093 372,885 41,304 1,147 4,771 877 100.00% 83.55% ¢.31% 0.27% 1.13% 0.23% district 10 422,451 390,633 23,616 1,411 1,094 100.00% 02.47% 6.77% 0.1 0.33% 0.26 district 11 430,111 402,639 20,455 5 159 1,257 601 100.00% 93.61% 4.76% .20% 0.29% 0.14% district 12 414,453 226,740 181,532 1,645 3,456 1.115 100.00% 54.70% 43.80% 0.40% +. 0.83 0.27% Total 5,022,487 3,902,563:1,007,876 53,668 36,824 21,619 100.00% 77.70% 20.07% 1.07% 0.73% 0.43% District Summary ‘ORTH CAROLINA Date: 10/28/99 Registration Time: 4:33 p.n. Plan: 97 CONGRESS COOPER 3.0 Page: 1 ’lan _tvoe: Conaressional Base Plan District Total White Black Other Dem. Repub. Name Reg. Req. Req. Rea. Req. Rea. Mstrict 1 271,327 150,719 119,164 1,428 233,592 32,499 100.00% 55.55% 43.92% 0.53% 86.09% 11.98% Nstrict 2 282 046 196, 875 64,318 853 180,148 61,355 100.00% 75.13% 24.54% 0.33% 12.56% 23.41% istrict 3 224,770 179,864 - 44.378 644 © 160,539 ° 53.635 100.00% 80.02% 19.70% 0.29% 71.42% 23.88% district 4 308,157 248,308 55,719 4,130 194,612 84,812 100.00% 80.58% 13.08% 1.34% 63.15% 27.52% digzrier S 301,468 270,355 30,524 57¢ 173,820 108,402 100.00% 82.68% 10.13% 0.19% 57.66% 35.96% district 6 289,808 266,171 22,901 739 142,951 126,906 100.00% 91.84% 7.90% 0.25% 49.33% 43.79% Jistricr 7 273,243 191,106 65,063 17,079 128,370 85,741 100.00% 69.94% 23.81% 6.25% 72.60% 24.06% ; ict ‘8 231.022 176,150 49.325 5.546 157,020 62,552 100.00% 96.25% 21.35% 2.40% 67.97% 27.08% Jiseric: © 2%4,31¢ 286,720 27,001 1,088 150,728 121,550 100.00% 80.47% 9.16% 0.37% 51.13% 41.23% AHerricr 10 253,520 275,113 18,055 350 139.402 136,150 100.00% 93.73% 5.15% 0.12% 47.45% 46.39% Necrict 11 319,610 304,158 13,108 2,344 183, 349 111,¢79 100.00% 95 17% 4.10% 0.73% 53.93% 35.04% Jistricr 12 230,089 152,229 127,154 706 169,880 66,177 100.00% 54.35% 45.40% 0.25% 71.36% 23.63% octal 3,349,883 2,677,778 636,610 35,496 2,129,411 1,031,819 100.00% 79.94% 19.00% 1.06% 63.57% 30.80% "ORTH CAROLINA . District Summary Date: 10/28/99 . Elections Time: . 4:34 p.m. Plan: 97 CONGRESS COOPER 3.0 Page: 1 lan tvoe: Congressional Base Plan District Senate Senate Lt. Gov Lt. Gov Court Court Name Gantt Helms Rand Gardner Lewis Smith istrict 1 84,910 74,997 97,351 60,373 103,087 44,424 53.10% 46.90% 81.72% 38.28% 69.88% 30.12% Yistrict 2 78,535 86,052 83,335 79,025 80,074 67,360 47.72% 52.28% 51.33% 48.67% 54.31% 45.69% Mstrict 3 - os 60,453 74,210 “69.779 70,174 72,457 57,158 44.89% 55.11% 49.86% 50.14% 55.90% 44.10% istrict ¢ 112.3375 80,260 89,480 89,625 86,993 81,246 58.34% 41.66% 52.52% 47 .48 51.71% 48.29% district S 73,994 110,045 39,83¢ 105,470 83,205 95,003 40.21% 59.79% 46.00% €4.00% 46.69% 53.31% Mstrict 6 §4,S51 109, ¢256 72,23¢ 104,622 £2,553 102,863 27.1 62.86% 40.85% 55.15% 37.81% 62.19% district. 7 75.002 81,117 91,701 69,345 86,677 62, 855 43.04% 51.5% 56.54% 43.06% 57.97% 42.03% Jipralcr ia 60,77¢ 73,9863 73,396 62,€08 €7,522 57,526 45.11% 54.89% £3.57 45.03% 84.00% 46.00% district © 30,155 97,200 72,000 104 319 58 753 67,728 45.15% 54.31% 40.72% 55.23% 37.94% 62.06% Yistrict 10 55.813 116,435 96,377 135.514 32,674 112.212 36.11% 63.89% 39.80% 60.20% 39.31% 60.69% Jigteicr71 86,212 $01.51] Q4,305 105, 82¢ €1,924 G5,040 45.93% 54.07% 47.13% 52.87% 43.91% 09% district 12 107,781 54,646 95,262 57,8¢4 86,162 54,033 66.35% 33.65% 62.20% 37.80% 61.46% 38.54% Total 950,941 1,060,363 1,015,155 1,025,657 953,081 928,451 47.28% 52.72% 49.74% 50.26% 50.65% 49.35% 37.025.0101 37.025.0102 37.025.0103 37.025.0201 37.025.0202 37.025.0203 37.025.0204 37.025.0301 37.025.0401 37.025.0402 37.025.0403 37.025.0404 37.025.0405 37.025.0406 37.025.0407 37.025.0408 37.025.0409 37.025.04N1 37.025.04N2 37.025.04N3 37.025.0501 37.025.0601 37.025.0701 37.025.0801 37.025.0901 37.025.1001 37.025.1101 37.025.1201 37.025.1202 37.025.1203 37.025.1204 37.025.1205 37.025.1206 37.025.1207 37.025.1208 37.025.1209 37.057.0101 37.057.0201 37.057.0301 37.057.0401 37.057.0501 37.057.0502 37.057.0503 37.057.0601 37.057.0602 37.057.0701 37.057.0702 37.057.0703 37.057.0801 Cabarrus Cabarrus Cabarrus Cabarrus Cabarrus Cabarrus Cabarrus Cabarrus Cabarrus Cabarrus Cabarrus Cabarrus Cabarrus Cabarrus Cabarrus Cabarrus Cabarrus Cabarrus Cabarrus Cabarrus Cabarrus Cabarrus Cabarrus Cabarrus Cabarrus Cabarrus Cabarrus Cabarrus Cabarrus Cabarrus Cabarrus Cabarrus Cabarrus Cabarrus Cabarrus Cabarrus Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Township 1, Box 1 * Township 1, Box 2 * Township 1, Box 3 * Township 2, Box 1 * Township 2, Box 2 * Township 2, Box 3 * Township 2, Box 4 * Township 3 * Township 4, Box 1 Township 4, Box 2 * Township 4, Box 3 * Township 4, Box 4 * Township 4, Box 5 * Township 4, Box 6 * Township 4, Box 7 * Township 4, Box 8 * Township 4, Box 9 * Township 4, Box 1 Noncontiguous A Township 4, Box 1 Noncontiguous B Township 4, Box 1 Noncontiguous C Township 5 * Township 6 * Township 7 * Township 8 * Township 9 * Township 10 * Township 11 * Township 12, Box 1 * Township 12, Box 2 * Township 12, Box 3 * Township 12, Box 4 * Township 12, Box 5 * Township 12, Box 6 * Township 12, Box 7 * Township 12, Box 8 * Township 12, Box 9 * Abbotts Creek * Alleghany * Arcadia * Boone * Central * Holly Grove * Liberty * Cotton * Southmont * Denton * Emmons * Silver Valley * Hampton * JOINT EXHIBIT 37.057.0901 37.057.1001 37.057.1101 37.057.1102 37.057.1103 37.057.1104 37.057.1105 37.057.1106 37.057.1107 37.057.1108 37.057.1109 37.057.1110 37.057.1111 37.057.1201 37.057.1301 37.057.1302 37.057.1401 37.057.1501 37.057.1601 37.057.1602 37.057.1603 37.057.1604 37.057.1605 37.057.1606 37.057.1607 ~ 37.057.1608 37.057.1609 37.057.1701 37.067.0101 37.067.0102 37.067.0103 37.067.0201 37.067.0301 37.067.0302 37.067.0303 37.067.0401 37.067.0402 37.067.0501 37.067.0502 37.067.0503 37.067.0601 37.067.0602 37.067.0603 37.067.0604 37.067.0701 37.067.0702 37.067.0703 37.067.0801 37.067.0802 Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Davidson Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Healing Springs * Jackson Hill * Lexington No. 1 * Lexington No. 2 * Lexington No. 3 * Lexington No. 4 * Ward No. 1 * Ward No. 2 * Ward No. 3 * Ward No. 4 * Ward No. 5 * Ward No. 6 * Welcome * Midway * Reeds * Tyro* Reedy Creek * Silver Hill * Thomasville No. 1 * Thomasville No. 2 * Thomasville No. 3 * Thomasville No. 4 * Thomasville No. 5 * Thomasville No. 7 * Thomasville No. 8 * Thomasville No. 9 * Thomasville No. 10 * Yadkin College * Abbotts Creek #1 * Abbotts Creek #2 * Abbotts Creek #3 * Belews Creek * Bethania #1 * Bethania #2 * Bethania #3 * Broadbay #1 * Broadbay #2 * Clemmonsville #1 * Clemmonsville #2 * Clemmonsville #3 * Kernersville #1 * Kernersville #2 * Kernersville #3 * Kernersville #4 * Lewisville #1 * Lewisville #2 * Lewisville #3 * Middlefork #2 * Middlefork #3 * 37.067.0901 37.067.1002 37.067.1003 37.067.1101 37.067.1102 37.067.1202 37.067.1203 37.067.1301 37.067.1302 37.067.1303 37.067.1401 37.067.1402 37.067.1403 37.067.1404 37.067.1405 37.067.1406 37.067.1407 37.067.1408 37.067.1409 37.067.1410 37.067.1411 337.067.1412 37.067.1413 37.067.1414 37.067.1415 37.067.1416 37.067.1417 37.067.1418 37.067.1419 37.067.1420 37.067.1421 37.067.1422 37.067.1423 37.067.1424 37.067.1425 37.067.1426 37.067.1427 37.067.1428 37.067.1429 37.067.1430 37.067.1431 37.067.1432 37.067.1433 37.067.1434 37.067.1435 37.067.1436 37.067.1437 37.067.1439 37.067.1440 Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Old Richmond * Old Town #2 * Old Town #3 * Salem Chapel #1 * Salem Chapel #2 * South Fork #2 * South Fork #3 * Vienna #1 * Vienna #2 * Vienna #3 * Ardmore Baptist Church * Ashley Middle School * Bethabara Moravian Church * Bible Wesleyan Church * Bishop McGuinness * Bolton Swimming Center * Brown/Douglas Recreation * Brunson Elementary School * Calvary Baptist Church * Carver High School * Christ Moravian Church * Country Club Fire St. * Covenant Presbyterian Church * East Winston Library * Easton Elementary School * First Christian Church * Forest Hill Fire Station * Forest Pk. Elementary School * Forsyth Tech W. Camp. * 14th Street Recreation Center * Greek Orthodox Church * Hanes Community Center * Happy Hill Recreation Center * Hill Middle School * Jefferson Elementary School * Kennedy Middle School * Latham Elementary School * Lowrance Middle School * M. L. King Recreation Center * Memorial Coliseum * Messiah Moravian Church * Miller Park Recreation Center * Mineral Springs F. St * Mt. Sinai Church * Mt. Tabor High School * New Hope United Methodist Church * Old Town Presbyterian Church * Parkland High School * Parkway United Church * 37.067.1441 37.067.1442 37.067.1443 37.067.1444 37.067.1445 37.067.1446 37.067.1447 37.067.1448 37.067.1449 37.067.1450 37.067.1451 37.067.1452 37.081.0101 37.081.0102 37.081.0103 37.081.0104 37.081.0105 37.081.0106 37.081.0107 37.081.0108 37.081.0109 37.081.0110 37.081.0111 37.081.0112 ~ 37.081.0113 37.081.0114 37.081.0115 37.081.0116 37.081.0117 37.081.0118 37.081.0119 37.081.0120 37.081.0121 37.081.0122 37.081.0123 37.081.0124 37.081.0125 37.081.0126 37.081.0127 37.081.0128 37.081.0129 37.081.0130 37.081.0131 37.081.0132 37.081.0133 37.081.0134 37.081.0135 37.081.0136 37.081.0137 Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Forsyth Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford # Philo Middle School * Polo Park Recreation Center * Reynolds High School Gym * Sherwood Forest Elementary School * South Fork Elem School * St. Andrews United Methodist * St. Anne's Episcopal Church * Summit School * Trinity Moravian Church * Trinity United Methodist Church * Whitaker Elementary School * Winston Lake Family YMCA * GB-01 * GB-02 * GB-03 * GB-04 * GB-05 * GB-06 * GB-07 * GB-08 * GB-09 * GB-10 * GB-11 * GB-12 * GB-13 * GB-14 * GB-15* GB-16 * GB-17 * GB-18 * GB-19* GB-20 * GB-21 * GB-22 * GB-23 * GB-24A * GB-25* GB-26A * GB-27A * GB-28 * GB-29 * GB-30 * GB-31 * GB-32 * GB-33 * GB-34A * GB-35A * GB-36 * GB-37A * ps > 37.081.0138 Guilford GB-38 * 37.081.0139 Guilford GB-39 * 37.081.0140 Guilford GB-40A *. 37.081.0141 Guilford GB-41A * 37.081.0142 Guilford GB-42 * 37.081.0143 Guilford GB-43 * 37.081.0144 Guilford GB-44 * 37.081.0145 Guilford GB-45 * 37.081.0201 Guilford HP-01 * 37.081.0202 Guilford HP-02 * 37.081.0203 Guilford HP-03 * 37.081.0204 Guilford HP-04 * 37.081.0205 Guilford HP-05 * 37.081.0206 Guilford HP-06 * 37.081.0207 Guilford HP-07 * 37.081.0208 Guilford HP-08 * 37.081.0209 Guilford HP-09 * 37.081.0210 Guilford HP-10 * 37.081.0211 Guilford HP-11* 37.081.0212 Guilford HP-12 * 37.081.0213 Guilford HP-13 * 37.081.0214 Guilford HP-14 * 37.081.0215 Guilford HP-15 * 37.081.0216 Guilford HP-16 * 37.081.0217 Guilford HP-17 * 37.081.0218 Guilford HP-18 * 37.081.0219 Guilford HP-19 * 37.081.0220 Guilford HP-20 * 37.081.0221 Guilford HP-21 * 37.081.0222 Guilford HP.22 * 37.081.0223 Guilford HP-23 * 37.081.0224 Guilferd HP-24 * 37.081.0301 Guilford Bruce * 37.081.0401 Guilford North Center Grove * 37.081.0402 Guilford South Center Grove * 37.081.0501 Guilford Clay * 37.081.0601 Guilford Deep River * 37.081.0701 Guilford Fentress-1 * 37.081.0702 Guilford Fentress-2 * 37.081.0801 Guilford Friendship-1 * 37.081.0802 Guilford Friendship-2 * 37.081.0901 Guilford Gibsonville * 37.081.0902 Guilford Whitsett * 37.081.1001 Guilford Greene * 37.081.1101 Guilford Jamestown-1 * 37.081.1102 Guilford Jamestown-2 * 37.081.1103 Guilford Jamestown-3 * 37.081.1201 Guilford North Jefferson * 37.081.1202 Guilford South Jefferson * * North Madison * South Madison * North Monroe * South Monroe * Oak Ridge * Stokesdale * North Sumner * South Sumner * North Washington * South Washington * 37.081.1301 Guilford 37.081.1302 Guilford 37.081.1401 Guilford 37.081.1402 Guilford 37.081.1501 Guilford 37.081.1502 Guilford 37.081.1601 Guilford 37.081.1602 Guilford 37.081.1701 Guilford 37.081.1702 Guilford 37.081.2124 Guilford GB-24B * 37.081.2126 Guilford GB-26B * 37.081.2127 Guilford GB-27B * 37.081.2134 Guilford GB-34B * 37.081.2135 Guilford GB-35B * 37.081.2137 Guilford GB-37B * 37.081.2140 Guilford GB-40B * 37.081.2141 Guilford GB-41B * 37.081.2901 Guilford GIB-G * 37.081.3124 Guilford GB-24C * 37.081.3127 Guilford GB-27C * 37.081.3135 Guilford GB-35C * 37.097.0101 Iredell Barringer * 37.097.0201 Iredell Bethany * 37.097.0301 Iredell Chambersburg * 37.097.0401 Iredell Coddle Creek #1 * 37.097.0402 Iredell Coddle Creek #2 * 37.097.0403 Iredell Coddle Creek #3 * 37.097.0404 Iredell Coddle Creek #4 * 37.097.0501 Iredell Concord * 37.097.0601 Iredell Cool Springs * 37.097.0701 Iredell Davidson * 337.097.0801 Iredell Eagle Mills * 37.097.0901 Iredell Fallstown * 37.097.1001 Iredell New Hope * 37.097.1101 Iredell Olin * 37.097.1201 Iredell Sharpesburg * 37.097.1301 Iredell Shiloh * 37.097.1401 Iredell Statesville #1 * 37.097.1402 Iredell 37.097.1403 Iredell 37.097.1404 Iredell 37.097.1405 Iredell 37.097.1406 Iredell Statesville #2 * Statesville #3 * Statesville #4 * Statesville #5 * Statesville #6 * 37.097.1501 Iredell Turnersburg * 37.097.1601 Iredell Union Grove * 37.119.0101 Mecklenburg Charlotte Pct. 1 * 37.119.0102 Mecklenburg Charlotte Pct. 2 * 37.119.0103 Mecklenburg Charlotte Pct. 3 37.119.0104 37.119.0105 37.119.0106 37.119.0107 37.119.0108 37.119.0109 37.119.0110 37.119.0111 37.119.0112 37.119.0113 37.119.0114 37.119.0115 37.119.0116 37.119.0117 37.119.0118 37.119.0119 37.119.0120 37.119.0121 37.119.0122 37.119.0123 37.119.0124 37.119.0125 37.119.0126 37.119.0127 37.119.0128 37.119.0129 37.119.0130 37.119.0131 37.119.0132 37.119.0133 37.119.0134 37.119.0135 37.119.0136 37.119.0137 37.119.0138 37.119.0139 37.119.0140 37.119.0141 37.119.0142 37.119.0143 37.119.0144 37.119.0145 37.119.0146 37.119.0147 37.119.0148 37.119.0149 37.119.0150 37.119.0151 37.119.0152 Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Meckienburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg * Charlotte Pct Charlotte Pct Charlotte Pct Charlotte Pct Charlotte Pct Charlotte Pct Charlotte Pct Charlotte Pct Charlotte Pct Charlotte Pct Charlotte Pct Charlotte Pct Charlotte Pct Charlotte Pct Charlotte Pct Charlotte Pct Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. .4 5% 6* LT .8* .9* .10* 11” 12+ 13+ 14+ 15 16+ rd 18+ 19" 20 * 21* 22 * 23 * 24 * 25 * 26 * 27* 28 * 29 * 30 * 31+ 32+ 33+ 34* 35 * 36 * 37+ 38 * 39 * 40 * 41+ 42 * 43 * 44 * 45 * 46 * 47 * 48 * 49 * 50 * 51 * 52 * 37.119.0153 37.119.0154 37.119.0155 37.119.0156 37.119.0157 37.119.0158 37.119.0159 37.119.0160 37.119.0161 37.119.0162 37.119.0163 37.119.0164 37.119.0165 337.119.0166 37.119.0167 37.119.0168 37.119.0169 37.119.0170 37.119.0171 37.119.0172 37.119.0173 37.119.0174 37.119.0175 337.119.0176 37.119.0177 37.119.0178 37.119.0179 37.119.0180 37.119.0181 337.119.0182 37.119.0183 37.119.0184 37.119.0185 37.119.0186 37.119.0187 37.119.0188 37.119.0189 37.119.0190 37.119.0191 . 37.119.0192 37.119.0193 37.119.0194 337.119.0195 37.119.0196 37.119.0197 37.119.0198 37.119.0301 37.119.0401 37.119.0501 Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg ol Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. 53* 54 * 55 * 56 * 57> 58 * 59 * 60 61 * B82.» 63 * 64 * 65 * 66 * 67 * Charlotte Pct’ 68 * Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. Charlotte Pct. BER * CCK™ COR? 69 * 70 * 71> 2" 3 74 75+ 5* 77> 78 * 79* 80 * 81* 82 * 83* 84 * 85* 86 * 87" 88 * 89* 20+ 91 02» o3* 94 * 95 * 96 * o7 * o8* 37.119.0601 37.119.0602 37.119.0701 37.119.0801 37.119.0901 37.119.1001 37.119.1002 37.119.10X1 37.119.1101 37.119.1102 37.119.116T 37.119.11X1 37.119.11X3 37.119.1201 37.119.1202 37.119.1203 37.119.1204 37.112.1272 37.119.1301 37.119.1302 37.119.1303 37.119.1401 337.119.1501 37.119.1502 37.119.1601 37.119.1701 337.119.1702 37.119.1703 37.119.17X1 37.119.1801 37.119.1802 37.119.2000 37.119.2104 37.119.2105 37.159.0101 37.159.0102 37.159.0201 37.1569.0202 37.159.0203 37.159.0204 37.159.0205 37.159.0206 37.159.0207 37.159.0208 37.159.0301 37.159.0401 37.159.0501 37.159.0502 37.159.0601 Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Meckienburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Mecklenburg Rowan Rowan Rowan Rowan Rowan Rowan Rowan Rowan Rowan Rowan Rowan Rowan Rowan Rowan Rowan # CO1* CO DAV * HUN * LEM * LC1 - North LC2 LC1 - South MCA1 MC2 XMC1 XMC2 Noncontiguous MA1 * MA2 * MA3 * MA4 * MH1 * MH2 * MH3 * OAK Pci PC2* PVL:* PR1 PR2 PR3 XPR1 SC1 S5C2 Charlotte Pct. 100 * Bradshaw * Enochville * Blackwelder Park * Bostian School * N. China Grove * S. China Grove * East Kannapolis * West Kannapolis * East Landis * West Landis * Cleveland * Franklin * Barnhardt Mill * Rockwell * Bostian Crossroads * fl "» 37.1569.0602 Rowan Faith 37.159.06X2 Rowan Faith Noncontiguous 37.169.0701 Rowan Locke * 37.169.0702 Rowan Sumner * 37.159.0801 Rowan Morgan | * 37.159.0802 Rowan Morgan II * 37.1569.0901 Rowan Mt. Ulla * 37.159.1001 Rowan Gold Knob * 37.1569.1101 Rowan East Spencer * 37.169.1102 Rowan Granite Quarry * 37.169.1103 Rowan Hatters Shop * 37.159.1104 Rowan Milford Hills * 37.159.1105 Rowan Spencer * 37.169.1106 Rowan Trading Ford 37.159.1107 Rowan West Innes * 37.159.1108 Rowan East Ward | * 37.159.1109 Rowan East Ward Il * 37.159.1110 Rowan North Ward [| * 37.159.1111 Rowan North Ward Il * 37.159.1112 Rowan South Ward * 37.159.1113 Rowan West Ward | * 37.159.1114 Rowan West Ward Il * 37.159.1115 Rowan West Ward lil * 37.159.11X6 Rowan Trading Ford Noncontiguous A 37.159.1201 Rowan Scotch Irish * 37.159.1301 Rowan Steele * 37.159.1401 Rowan Unity * Mecklenburg County Precinct Map sgn RowWari es a Davidson Coddle Creek #4 ~Gdddie Creek Enochville ; West Kannapalis ast Kannapoli -. I mserd Bostian Crossroads Bamhardt Mill’ Rockwell DAV To ip 4, Box LA By nship 4, Box 3 ) ip4, B Township 6 COR Lincol n LEM Township 3 ownship 7 Medklenburg Vo] % HUN Township 8 Landers Chapel 3 High Shoals er 3 Stanley #1 Lucia ge Alexis Tryon Gaston Dallas #2 ir R roa Dallas #1 Stanley #2 Township 9 = Bessemer City #1 hig 9 ee A ealth Center Oye charlotte Pct 263 Bessemer City #2 any HER ~ — = oie fo Township 1, Box 2 ? EET A ONY LT 2S Ng ardner Park Belmont #2 Township 10 ™ ) Sh ood : \ Ashbrook Ci 2 | roman) Jaimont # Zp Forest Heights =F St Wy anly Crowders Min. South Gastonia ) Union Fairview Legend XSC2 Norcontighong SC2 ——— County 1] Precinct 92 Cong oi 97 Cong Hemby Bridge Fe x Unionville ( « mn | gc oe ~~ Jndian Trail EE 65 ETE Bo Bakers Crestview West Sandy Ridge iy a Siler Mon Wingate North Marshville CTO AUD LU IT Le UC 3/25/97 Drafc North Carolina Congressional Districts Plan: HszNe7 gi 97 Houae/Senata Plan : : 1994 199A 199q Narivae Black Black Dem, 1390 1996 1996 1988 13964 1996 1994 1992 Dem. Black Black Amer. Parzona Per. VAR Pact Sen. Sen. Prs. Pre. Aud. Hse. Hse. Sen. Req. Reg Req, rec. = Digerict : - ; coufore 23.7.4 37.73 33.28 49.4 18.3 33.3 43.1 383.57 50.0 37.9 33.5 42.3 67.9 as.3 22.3 0.0S extie 20,388 62.48". 57.41, 71.0 iS8.% 1082.9 10.9 83.1 77-1 84.1 RA3.2 RAT RID SA.R SS 4 0.23 Yaven 25,279 43.20 19.90: “88.4 mg.& S3.2 55.08 47.0. 58.9 586.5 61.0 - 61.3 6G.8 16.9 18.9 0.2% dgecombe §6,S58 §35.98 52.11 G9.1 56.6 S7.& 63.9 Ssa.2 71.7 68.5 65.4 62.1 30.9 52.8% 50.2 0.12 aces 3,308 44,92 43.00 75.8 61.2 51.7 67.1 58.5 6.0 53.3 5%. n.k R1.8 an.» 45.4 0.053 ranville 20,717 48.74¢ 47.122 $7.3 54.0 55.5 61.7 87.5 72.3 65.1 §G.0 gL.a 81.5 11.46 %1.3 0.10 reene 15,384 42.39 39.32 59.4 42.3 39.6 45.3 S2.3 83.5" 47.9% 37.4 _SO.Y. 4L.S8 5 1 10 36.0 a.10 falafax $5,918 43.69 45.76 86.2 2.5 95.65 62.8 54.3 $3.8 £4.68 $3.2 SY 8 83 449 42 4 3.03 cre fard 22,523 7.589 £3.49 Jy. .4F ies ® go Lt I3.08 83.0. 78.3 kR.s 60.2 677 86.4 Ga.5 65.4 1.03 ‘aes 8,553 40.47 "38.53 "52.6 43.9 ‘49.5. 853.8% 55.7 63.0 52.2 55.9 55.% 21.5 A%. 2 A%.2 0.09 .eno1r 31,016 £1.13 ST7.,3% 88.0 ‘sy 8 "Sigl.) 84.3 8.4 70.3 ..65.%5 60.7 62.3 .7B.9" 865.0 - 352.9 0.03 crean 25,0739 44.60 41.28 81.6 42.8 47: 85.4 53.4 63.4 47,1 31.4 5% 4 16.2 31.38 ia 2 0.08 lszchanpecon 20,798 S3.27 SE 98 ..70.85 50.3 - 84.) 73.5% 88.7 38.5 'GR.7 GS.G i 7L.8 $2.3 54.) -5Y.a 0.20 Jar3on 31,001 34,780 37.88 amy 40.8 46.3 51.8 47.5% 82.7 44.8. 45.8 50.8 76.4 31.4 32.5 0.74 ice 49.53d. 53.17 dC.2% 0 57.3 LC. G4. 67.8 Sr. RI.Y 96.1 48.8 96.9 KP.0. 0 AY, T4429 0.17 ’ance 38,802 45,03 43.40" 53.7 "49.4. S535 iS.) 50.6 $3.0 + C4.) 59.2 - 8V.% 42.1" 42.0. "120.7 0.12 iarz=n 17.265 87.03 £3.38 71.9 £§2.9 €2.0 8a.) . 67.3: 13.3 57.4 63.3: 88.3 38.0 54.5 55.1 4.42 fazhingecon 10,750 48.44 43.73 67.0 43.4" B5.0: 84.4 52.2 70.4 B3.2. 84.9 w9.0 a4. 45 , Tic iad] 0.02 {&yne 38.323 $5.7) 547.83 Sp. 4 "50.83 "54.3" $5.4 50.7 “62.2 50.1 641.8 58.2. 70.2 43.7% 448.5 fey iilaen 43,617 SN.97 46.73 Y6.§ 85.8 . S33 vst 7 54.1 67.3 §5.5 54.3% 60.4 71.0 49.7 17.4 a.Y} Tazal {~228) $32.16) » Ra.27 28.63 £3.55. 52.3 $5.0 80.5 iiss on :is7.3 $9.8 30.1 G9.3 38.4 RG.0i0 AG .¢ n.4% ve DigeTicr 2 fr lin Jg.424 35.27 4.32.39 S6.3 45.8 + 46.5 33.5. 49.9 50.3 780.3 -S4.9 S2.% €7.1 29.1) 32.4 0.20 re 17,828 27.28 nE.32 $0.7 42.3 35.2 4. 42.9 £2.85 32.¢ 50.3 24.3 hq 1 23.5 50.1 8.45 pa 67.322 22.52 20.52 48.3 39.00 37.8 ca.) 42.7 "450.4 83.4 Led: v48.67 ¢2.8 13.3 18.2 g.3) larnztan 31.308 17.70 7513.02 “43.4 = 233.2 33.3 YU4 36.0 &w.T : 48.9 AQ.8 490.3 187.4 13.9 15.4 0.22 Lea 42.374 22.930 aq ane eT 6 A008 40.3 46.4 37.1 $2.2 03.5 4.4 45.8 RI. Te 16.5 0.41 Nazh 5.8770: 3.49 39.30 247.0 16.7 17.9 43.2 38 7 aa 0 49.0 39.3 AG 60.1 an. v4 0 23 tampon 22,745 35.0% 37 EA FEY 49 0 AG.8 83.1 81.8 SSA TAB. 7 (S5.5 743.2% 60.4 1a.4a 3103 1.74 Jaics 135,641 33.67 31.36 56.3 62.3: S7T.8 .S7.0 91.5 93.1 esp 7 i823 0 39.) $7.7 10.4a 11 2 g.27 iiigson 22,544 12.04 11.91 45.2 29.3 29.1 va 24.3 34.5% 42.14 33.5 37.6 58. Yui 8.4 trl a.a0 Socal (-238) 532,181 27.91. 53% 33 SY 4 48.3 AS. a 43.) Na. 0 24.40 4.7 45.9 40.8 53.7 24.0.7 25.8% n.en =. Yigtrice 3 jesulort 13.883 “32.87 230.71 "43.47 39.0 ..°39.7" 41.1% 3%.» SU... 35.9 319.7 42.7 -6GR.0 25.4 22.7 a.ay Tamdon 5,904 45.09 24.23¢€ ca.o0 «9.3 43.9 $3.3 48.7 €3.0 40.0 A ..0 i iv 5 *2.6 -3.¢ 0.36 Tet wo we a” sé ®., 04 r.he 42.0 “3.8 ae.a SS.) 29.13 Tded = I Lvele 1d os VY . G& ree} 2.7 e.33 Chowan 13.808 27.66 la.48 60,9 '5%.1 52.2: 87.5 49.0 838. S%.7 -S5%.0 "56,7 Ix.4 2%.5 11.0 0.13 Craven $6,334 13.10 16.40 "19.4 40.) 39.0.7 33.1 33.4..:42.0 733.4 40.3 3/.4 47.2 ¥31.8 15.2 0.45% Qurrituck 13,736 11.35 10.31 48.9 45.4 in.4 47.1 3n.2 49.1 16.8 47.9 $0.9 59.0 8.6 33.7 0.417 ace RN, 746 3.5% 3.38 €1.0 €0.4 49.0 47.6 34.9 50.2 10.7 fs .1 43.8 a. 2.2 2.3 9.3 Tyde 5.413% 32.91 33.29. 70.4 S1.% C0.0 SSB.4 «858.0 1.7 44.1 CR.7 KN.7y . 3R.9 23.2 29 7 0.07 Joriza 361 25.03% 23.89 47.8 30.1: 27.04" 33.8 37.8 43.90 30.%. 40.3 ¥3.G 7G.) 20.7 aq 2 0.12 Lantoir 46,353 13.63 12.36 83.0 + 20.0 26.3 "30.8 25.0 44.0: 23.) 35.3 34.0 - 668.0 21.8 G.a n.1s nsicv 119.932 19.89 13.05 43.7 38.9 40.§ 32.5 37.4 47.6 39.4 42.9 I.9 53.0 16.4 15.2 0.63 »amlics 31.372 285.95 24.08 53.5 47.7 46.6 43.8 49.3 57.3 32.7 SI.L 53.7 69.2 229 11.8% 0.23 3axquotank 31,298 37.01 35.40 ‘631.4 '84.% 53.8 85.0" 49.7 61.9 5.54.3 AN.40 59.7 £7.1 16.2 36.307 0.19 ferguimana 30.447 « 312.99 29.94. 65.3 S0.5 43.2 57.0 36.% $7.1 "51.74. 53.) 63.9 71.3 29.7 07 33.3 a.17 ies $3,340 14.08 1G6.3a 46.9 46,1 43.6 43.0 39.2 "1.2 314.9 36.7 46.9 48.0 16,2 15.8 0.23 Tyrzell 3.306 eq.u1 372.03 76.3 47.6 81.7 65.1" 85.8 IS.6 «4F.4 0 h9.3 60.3 38.4 7 32.2 1L.4 0.1C ‘ashizzgcon 3,247 15.69 18,85 63.2 44.49 47.3 64.4 51.9 $3.9 G0 9) 0 NY. 82.5% 11.9 1y 3 0.34 # G i s : : ! ".. MAR-25-97 TUE 10:39 # » P. 03 Drak North Carolina Conqressional Nigrriess Plan: nHsenav 97 House/Sanats Plan 1996 1996 1390 Native Alack Black Dem. 1990 1936 19896 1938 1994 1996 1994 1992 Dem. Black Rlarck ner Parsons Pez. VAP Fert son. Sen. Pre. Pre. Aud. Hee. Hoe. Sen Raq. Raq Rag. Pet. {syne $3,347 31,97 20.65 39.2 28.0 6.36.7 32.7. 33.3 4.1 2.2 43.9718. s%.¢ 0 1v.8 8.9 0.29 Tonal =3C) £53, €22 10.70 13.35 7 Ny BC 41 ® an 9 42 2 ian 49 2 17 4 A485 2 44 0 87.7 16 § 16.5% a.a3 ws Bighrics 4 -lalliam 47,432 dV..OV 19.19 ahr.7 Ad. 8 24.2 33.0 pe fe 0 1 20.0 20.2 Pr Ed wl A Gaon. 16.% an. g.3% r tonm bomnens em os, am: aw . aa aec>a oe. cm .a ®e.w LE I on » < - gibi AE 4 - _. = -n . bu . we. on - St uty 33,833 33.37 12.083 ee.3 TY. @ “U.Z Cu.A “vo. Coote wit. Clo Cw.’ BYU so pI Vie dV Parzon 9.1379 19.50 18. /8 42.6 30.0 32.2: 38.0 36.2 47.5 30.6 3s.8 410.1 66.0 14 8 18.8 27 Take SHILNIS IMLS 010.30 43.8 £1.70 "47.5 43.9% 37.83 43.077 47.83 "4%. 3 ian] 27.1 ¥.3 1.3 0.28 Toral (-54d) 551,343 21.02 33.79 52.7 58.6 $6.0 53.5 48.1 56.9 87.3 80.5 54.8% 52.9 17.~ 17.4 0.25 sw District 5 Alamance 79,978 3.1 21.49 44.8 41.0 42.43 44.7 327.0 S0.1 38.5 36.3) 40.4 $6.3 22.9 12°% 9.27 Alleghany 9.583%0 1.98 1.96 Gi.7 43.8 42.8 47.3 47.2 53.4 37.7 47.0) 43 4 R7.1 1.8 1.4 a uHK Azha 22,209 0.65 0.65 44.0 38.7 33.5 41.8 39.7 44.9 36.3 41.8 e1.9 eh.2 0.a 0.3 0.09 Caswall 20,693 40.777 40.10 67.8 2.4 51.2 66.3 6.2 63.4 48.1 0.9 Gd. 6 79.18 319.0 43.7 0.13 Javie 47,859 3.31 8.5¢ 11.e 23.8 AR.4 3a. 28.3 1a .R 28.7 10.2 12.9 3.2 6.9 2.5 9.3) Faravrh 20A.766 11010 10.23 16.7 40.2 38.3 16.6 al 40.1 29.9% 23.8 19.6 41.6 9.1 7.6 0.20 Romie agham ac,acae 30.30 A0.00 46.0 38.3 480.3 Lc. 0 44.2 £2.90 3e¢e.7 40.2 40.2 €L.8 29.23 -=D.3 Td SLokaes 37.323 $.58 S.41 3a.s 34.3 31.4 33.3 371.9 38.4 3.1 36.3 44.0 45.56 “.U YZ nu 14 3urry 61, 704 4.31 4.18 43.8 37.40 37.5 19.6 33.3 45.13 33.90 41.0 5.0 62.3 4.3 41.6 9.11 *o%al (-302) 552.084 13.462 12.7%: 41.38 39.1 33.0 39.7 37.3 314.8% 31.3 33.38 43.3 50 13 1.5 bh | 0 w= Districe [3 4 ace 28,2217 A.07 7.84 da. Ll 28.5 qu.8 Allo 27.9 13.a z1.8 a.0 14.4 «7.4 1.9 y BE 0.30 m 9,520 28.71 26.54 23.0 44.5 46.7 54.2 43.3 55.6 S6.3 52.3 Ered 55.3 29.3 28.9 0.25 Ce _uso0n 23.398} e.11 3.8% 38.8 30.4 25.2 34.3 29.3 37.4 22.2 3.8 35.5 13.1 Y.2 3.3 0.30 Suilford 211,363 140.19 9.50 19.1 43.0 42.9 41.3 33.3 41.0 27.8 3.5 43.3 44.7 30.0 3.0 0.33 NMoare S3,011 19.44 14.03 39.2 42.0 41.1 40.2 34.7 41.6 47.1 i lig Ld 41.7 Ign 12 A 135.3 C.52 Randolph 106,546 5.%4 5.65 30.9 29.8 23.4 31.8 26.4 33.7 23.3 0.0 13.3 Ja. 4 S80 y a 1) 43 Rowan 77,499 7.7% 7.16 J4.3 32.2 31.2 310.5 29.0 15.4 38.7 26.8 31.4 60.1 6.2 6.13 1.322 Total (-215) 882,171 3.3 a.7s 37.0 37.3 37.3 37.4 31.1 30.2 33.2 22.0 33.7 42.3 3.5 7.8 0.17 ss Discrice 7 laden 28,6R3 33.37 36.21 $4.3 0.3 52.5 60.1. 57.3 70.0 63.7 63.3 G4.1 20.2 3x.) 15.8 1.682 Jounewick 50,988 13.07 15.94 s1.0 45.17 87.1 $0.2 44.5 5.9 53.2 53.1 19.7 52.9 13.3 $G.3 0.a/ Calumbua 49.587 30.83 27.5380 69.5.. 44.8 850.2. ED.2 SB. 20,3 7%.) FC 87.4 84.9 IR. 00 20. 10 28.9 2:76 Cumberland 132,639 26.31 25.323 51.6 45.3 41.9 4G.4 43.7 51.9 55.0 51.0 49.5 55.9 24.6 252 2.1) buplin 39,955 33.13 3C.67 £3.0 431.0 46.2 e3.2 S0.7 R1.a SD.s $3./ $1.8 14.9 31.86 30.9 0.25 New Hanavar 120.284 0.03 17.79 44.0 18.3 413.1 45.2 39.6 47.1 44.4 48.9 4,8 an, 4 ¥3 156.4 0.3¢ fender 28,855 30.39 27.62 “0.4 48.4 47.2 45.3 47.2 53.5 4197.2 61.6 48.1 €0.1 4.0 10.3 0.2% Rcbeson 77,0858 23.05 20.43 74.7 §9.2 €l.a 66.9 87.5 75.3 82.9 50.0 60.5 87.6 23 23.3 39.44 Sampxoa 24,5782 In.\7 28.94 48.7 43.0 43.8 47.4 23).4 £a.g ak. kh “1.1 an. 1 EY 29.7 30.3% 1.9¢ Total (309) 552.695 35.69 21.438 85.0 43.8 49.1 51.4 43.3 56.7 55.2 £0.2 h2.6 Gl1.9 pg 23 1 6 &: ** Didlr.icL 1 Ansnn 23,474 47.31 43.40 77.4 $3.5 S8.a 3.9 63.6 74.7 340.) 0.1 Ga .4 81.8 41.22 39 3 90.2: Cabarrus SR, 9138 12.99 11.83 39.9 35.0 37.1% 38.8 12.3 42.2 $0.2 46.1 30.5 45.0 4.0 11.4 g 3 Swab: Land 141,877 36.60 la . 064 SA 3 $7.8 $7.3 57.1 49.1 GO.8 f3.a 54 4 $6.6 59.0 3g.2 35.7 1.0. 4ok2 23.8%6 43.23 40.907 68.8 83.7 RQ 3 65.3 82.4 63.7 I2.7° GI:Y GR.R 13.9 $82. an." 13.3 “oncyomecsy 213, 144 1% .70 $3.29 $7.7 16.0 46.1 83.2 4/,2 s8.1 53.5 53.9 £2. G4.1 2.4 74.9 0.3 Uchmoad 14,514 2R.91 26.21 64.2 54.8 $3.9 65.4 GA.A 70.7 11.6 63.6 83.2 17.3 27.8 27.17 1.1 on 38,094 32.69" 30.82 74.8. 66.0 66.2 ° 72.0 . 85.9 17.7 AM.Y 793.3 U2.4 8.4" 30.9 MAUR. rage [RYRTRN . 31/25/97 Seatland Stanly Calon Total (444) ss Dizatric: 9 Cleveland Sazean Macklenburg Tocal (223) *o Daslroict 10 Alexander Avery surka Caldwell Carawha Iredell Lincoln Micshell watauga Hilkes Yadkin Total (947) Adywoud ‘lenderson Jackaon McCowvell Macon Yadixoa Folk Auycherford Swain Transylvania Yancey Tocal (=297) ss Discrice. 13 Davidsoa Ferayeh Guilford lzedall Mecklenburg rowan Tocal (-343) Cy Ji LUG Barzons 33,754 51,785 Re 211 552,830 84,714 175,093 292,808 §582,618 47,544 14,867 75,744 70,709 119.412 54,472 50,119 14,433 3§,9852 59,393 Jo.43a $33.333 174,322 20,170 7.1858 7.19€ 15,942 69,285 26,846 15.53% 23.439 13.953 14.418 SAa.9%18 31.268 25,540 15,419 562,049 G3.G0e4 $3,112 134, 057 13,459 213,615 131,106 552,043 LU«Qy Draft North Carolina Congressional Disnricha 97 House/Senara Plan 1530 Sex. 56.3 34.7 36.4 46.9 1996 San. 57.3 34.9 35.3 46.0 45.2 38.8 46.6 43.6 4.4 28.3 42.0 5.3 36.5 33.7 37.7 eb. 3 49.7 33.8 23.8 36.2 59.7 43.2 45.6 37.7 43.2 13.9 $4.9 38.0 42.1 43.6 46.1 40.0 52.0 a5. 46.5 46.0 33.3 79.0 69.6 43.2 72.3 53.58 64.2 1336 Prs. 63.3 38.3 3g.2 49.1 48.7 36.9 41.2 41.0 36.49 28.6 45.6 i8.7 35.3 34.7 40.3 27,8 47.2 35.0 28.7 37.7 50.2 a4.2 45.3 40.2 83.9 ag.% £5.2 41.5 44 4 $1.6 42.0 43.3 55.3 41.9 43.0 416.4 J6.0 v8.3 70.3 43.8 71.5 S2.a 64.4 da.e 37.5 372.5 50.8 32.4 49.0 40.5 33.5 46,5 41.1 40.12 $9.1 33.2 414 .4 41.8 33.8 77.0 51.9 37.14 60.8 48.4 56.5 1996 hze. a3.5 43.7 42.7 B.S 33.2 30.4 38.0 36.2 34.2 2V.8 33.2 3.2 23.1 32.0 331.6 19.5 40.§ 33.3 28.4 1934 Hse. 59.1 87.0 44.2 54.5% 41.9 31.9 36.3 3a.a 37.0 20.9 an. 4 33.2 26.6 J3.0 337.9 19.6 44.5 J4&.9 25.2 3.3 40.9 37.5 12.) 33.5 32.58 1.5 47. .h d2.3 33.9 42.3 38. 368.1 43.7 38.7 i8.9 3.7 16.4 77.4 84.3 45.6 RA. 415.2 54.5. 14 . “o ie . : ON I TR ~ YE V R J T TR E SE VIP I N R - wn - Ov + Oo Oo ~ . (8% ) OS = E N O oe P. 04 ("L I EN | o LY a 7] 19 8 00 O OO ¥ ~~ oO + OO QO ~ ON . . . . . . ' . . -~ WL u n o oe [SPIE R SE J = a 34.4 71i.4 “wl. an.s 47.6 «5.1 aa ,?2 . = uv O O O O 0 0 O O O O D O n o 5 0 . . . . . . a (1 ) uw nN 0. 0. Q. A.2 0. 9. 0. Cige ESTIMATED 1996 VOTER REGISTRATION DATA The following estimates of the percentage of African-American voters in the 12 districts as of the November, 1996 election was prepared by NCEC in Washington at the request of legislative staff and provided to the staff on April 7, 1997. ArR- 7-87 MON 13:08 04/07/97 Draft North Carolina Congressional Districts Plan: HSENS7A jee 97 House/Senate Plan A Estimated Black 1990 Black Reg. 1996 Black Reg. Nov 1996 Voter Registration Estimaces 1990 Persons VAP Total Pct.- Total Pot. Total D-Total (DS) R-Total (RA) Sen. «+» District Beaufort 23,714 33.88 2,572 22.8 3,353 25.3 13,206 8,978 67.9 3,360 . 38.8 Bertie 20,388 57.41 6,027 55.6 7,180 58.8 12,196 10,371 39.32 974 ‘ 8. Craven 25,279 39.90 4,829 38.9 5,99 36.9 16,200 10,832 66.8 3,804 . 56. Edgecombe 56,558 52.11 14,778 50.2 18,642 52.8 35,289 28,578 80.9 4,988 . Sé Gates 9,305 43.00 2,302 45.4 2,360 40.2 5,857 4,791 81.8 672 . 61 Granville 20,717 47.12 3,831 "91.3 5.35% 43.6 12,273 10,258 813.5 1,396 Greene 15,1384 39.22 2,726 36.0 2,980 35.3 8,491 6,933 81.6 1,150 Halifax 55,516 45.76 10,991 42.4 13,320 44.7 29,742 24,158 81.2 3.896 Hertford 22,523 53.48 7,461 55.4 7.59% S4.S 13,911 12,020 86.4 1,534 Jones 8,553 38.59 1,954 43,2 2,163 39.2 5,527 4,619 83.5 680 Lenoir 31,016 57.45 7,086 52.9 9,328 56.9 16,381 32,931 18.9 2,489 Martin 25,078 41.25 4,030 34.2 5,501 37.4 14,681 11.197 76.2 2,423 Northampton 20,798 55.76 6,744 53.4 7,086 54.1 13,092 12.082. 92.2 658 Person 21,001 32.55 3,034 32.5 3,589 31.4 11,404 8,717 76.4 2,014 Pite : 49,584 46.38 9,987 42.9 12,524 41.7 30,032 20,74S 69.0 5,357 Vance 38,892 41.60 2.553 40.7 8,450 42.0 20,088 16,497 82.1 2,529 darren 17,265 531.88 5,687 55.1 6,137 54.5 11,257 9.9121 88.0 328 Washington 10,750 43.73 2,627 44.1 2,822 45.7 6,166 $,189 84.1 707 Wayne 35,323 47.58 7.255 44.5 8,718 46.3 18,826 33.238 70.2 4,166 Wilson 43,517 46.73 9,174 47.4 11,764 49.7 23,638 17,262 73.0 4,805 Tocal (-225) $52,161 46.53 126,345 46.4 144,855 45.5 318,254 249,784 78.4 49,530 T V W aO N O O R Ww 0 @ HS OO A W D W DE O W L m D I B D R o h s se B d i e es. District Franklin 16,414 6,288 21,440 14,392 $,457 Sranville 17,628 1,989 9,025 5,786 2,294 Je 67,822 7,081 36,457 22,814 10,513 n 81,306 7,430 $3,290 30,592 17,790 41,374 4,106 23,890 15,094 6,377 Nash 76,677 12,114 48,224 29,016 15,566 Sampson 22,745 4,486 14,737 8,907 S,031 dake 185,641 40,443 232,675 76,640 37,3123 4ilson 22,544 : . 1,457 15,379 9.101 5.139 Tocal {=238). 552,153 85,364 355,137 212,342 105,482 . aA =~ HH N OO W O & a x OW = N N Jd © N N W w e m C = N O ® N A D ~ *~ Districec 3eaufort 18,569 camden S,904 10,343 2,635 4,333 682 Carterec $2,556 34,644 13,446 howan 13,506 7,599 1,482 raven $6,334 28,879 10,995 Jurrituck 13,736 9,738 2,399 dare 22,746 15,574 4,816 Hyde S,411 3,436 314 Jones 861 507 1u2 —anoir 26,258 14,473 4,021 Onslow 149,838 42,472 14,199 ?amlico 11,372 7.9301 2.737 Pasquotank 31,298 19,078 3,987 Perquimans 10,447 6,971 1,174 Piece 56,340 38,195 11,915 Tyrrell 3,856 2,268 236 EL I Y T - J = J Vo l C Y wn I TLR T O R ENE R T Lo . > [+ ] [* ] . Su vi ai e w e ee w w e ow E e Xe ie W O U W Jd J U V OO O W N ® VW e& J N oO { ye—tuyey ington 1 il (236) Yiseriah ham al {(=-543) district nance aghany : «cll .a sycth ingham es oy haa .dson ford “~ jolph n 21 (-219) nycrice lan rgwick mmbaiyg sacland -in Hanover lar nm S JE ivi Peaxgons 3,247 58,343 552,622 29,239 181, R36 931,151 3,173 237.739 551,84) 19,976 9.590 22,209 20,693 27.059 206,766 86,064 37,323 £1,704 552,084 28,237 8.520 59,991 211,363 $9,013 106,546 17,4739 552.171 28,6612 $0,98% 19,587 127,912 39,995 120,384 28,8585 81.548 24,552 553,382 13,474 98,938 146,653 33,856 22,246 The AA" | A 3.406 39.07 18.07 30.61 21.39 311.14 20.03 30.39 21.10 11.1317 44.36 47.31 12.99 41.00 43.122 26.170 Slack VAP 34.63 20.6¢ 23.35 19.69 14.74 14.49 18.78 10.30 12.73 21.49 1.86 0.65 40.10 8.54 10.23 1J.08 S.41 4.1% 12.72 7.86 26.64 1.87 3.50 156.08 5.G5 7.18 R.728 AA. 15.924 27.58 19.63 in.67 17.79 37.63 19.63 28.9¢ 22.04 41.40 11.¥1 38.7 40.9%0 23.29 Draft North Carolina Congressional Districta 97 House/Senate Plan A 1990 Black Reg. Pct. - Total 55) 3,834 35,419 3,532 33.420 7.3084 41 11,091 36,174 5,396 4,84) 7,979 3,636 S,849 9.942 4,447 2,342 J, 416 60,5G4R 4,519 €.0805 16,550 3,42) 3,082 38.3 18.9 16.5 35.8 16.2 28.9 13.3 30.9 16.4 Jo.13 22.1 30.1 22.5 39.8 11.4 49.8 40.0 24.9 Bscimaced 1996 Dlack Raq. Total S66 §,276 43,998 3.683 15,975 9,704 845 16,798 77,003 9,820 106 73 4,957 1,254 131,311 8,877 2,279 1.50 . - 41,139 1,436 1,590 1,134 16.190 5.320 3,11e 3,105 31,881 5,689 8,26) 9,559 13,787 6,708 13,508 4,997 9.542 4,062 73,121 5,657 7,943 24,228 4,823 31,148 Pct. 33.9 37.9 16.5% » te ] nu n N C 8& 8 D L Ww NM Nov 19596 Voter Registration PgCimartes Total 1,668 25,324 271,403 22,292 137,635 $0,661 §,679 201,339 447,600 49.140 7.004 15,737 12,687 18.149 142,700 48,306 25,398 37,000 356,331 19,833 S,812 34,697 141,244 41.567 41,992 43,5870 374.621 17.183 39,6243 32.75 69,R03 21,212 $8,212 20,7740 47,127 11.669 360.350 13,070 72,104 44,150 12,625 13,965 D-Total 3.377 16,909 160,139 13,491 06,061 46,876 1,751 86.074 237,0L.3 27,992 4,756 7,307 10,134 G.034 62,112 29,802 11,5138 23,599 179.474 9,480 3,697 14,93 12,137 16.516 21,593 20,009 152,404 13,764 20,981 25,924 19,%0Y 16,813 45,594 12,470 41,416 7,33 222,794 10,914 12,470 39,030 9,315 f.980 (DY) 82. 52. “). S é i 86.9 67. 46. 919. 33. 41]. 61. 45, La. 50. 47. 65. 43. 44 39. 34. 40. 42, a0. 53. 19. 56. 74, 46. 60. 87. 91. 61, 83. 4h. 60. 73. G4. bY 2 R 2 § S 6 a l 6 8 1 J 1 8 3 - 2 2 0 6 > | 3 | 6 A 3 0 2 - 3 R Taral 217 10,1865 Re, 522 6,023 30,3135 18,938 1,4AK8 80,599 13%, Jo) 16,293 1,887 1,132 1,RG2 10.5811 61,172 23,319 1,704 11,990 116.871 7.827 1,460 16,738 AA, HOT 19,218 33.503 43,578 109.327 7.404 14,1486 2.051 40,602 4,701 38,R70 6.217 4,127 5,560 101,648 1,534 29,998 11,068 1,986 1,H48 (RY) 13.0 34.8 4.4 27.0 22.0 23.4 25.8 40.0 Jo. 31.2 26.6 45.1 14.4 67.9 412.8 47.5 46.2 37.7 Ji.4 39.3 26.0 48.2 4] .4 4h. 54.12 437.5 45.2 14.0 35. 25.4 20.5% az2.1 A. 4 29.9 8.7 40.6 2¥.4 31.7 41.6 22.9 15.7 37.5 «Ja Plan: RSEN9IA 1980 1992 1994 Sen. San. Sen. 44.8 $2.3. 47.1 aR 0 34.1 30.7 41.5 44.0 40.9 84.8 57.2 64.2 63.3 63.0 64.8 70.6 66.7 68.2 0.0 40.9" 30.4 51.7 485.1" 47.5 213. G 41.0 43.5 38.7 82.4 29.18 40.2 38.3 FL A7.0 39.2 28.5 44.5 10.4 43.0 47.0 29.0 32.2 Y4.3 50.13 45.7 48.6 43.0 43.0 49.4 48.2 60.3 411.0 48.3 59.4 35.0 65.1 £9.72 46.0 45.4 d2.4¢ 410.4 42.9 41.9 38.% fa.6 61.2 32.92 708.4 13.6 12.9 49.9. 740.9 43.0 31.4 45.0.°27.9 43.31 39.0 an.c 30.4 $53.7. 46.1 AE 20.2 42.9 “42.9 AY 44), 3.8 29.12 33.4 32.2 ¥8.°7 84.2 54.3 52.5% 48.7 47. G4.9 §0.2 47.12 412.2 $1.8 46.2 43 4 48.1 48.1 47.1 70.4 62.4 46.0 43.1% $2.2 414.6 CR.4 58.4 38.5 27.a 64.4 66.7 66.6 560.2 52.1) dG. ren 79% Persons Richmond 44,518 Robeson - 23,631 Scotland 33,754 Scanly 51,765 Union 84,211 Total (757) 553,143 «=» Districe 9 Cleveland 84,714 Gascon 175,093 Mecklenburg 292,808 Total (229) 552,615 +¢ Districc 10 Alexande:z 27,544 Avery © 14,867 Burke 75,744 Jlaldwell 70,709 Zatawba 118,412 Iredell S4,472 Lincoln 50,319 vicchell 14,433 4acauga 36,952 dilkes 59,393 fadkin 30,488 Tocal (947) £83,333 0 Se e 174,821 Therokee 20,170 Clay 7.155 3raham 7.136 41aywood 46,942 denderson 69,285 Jackson 26,846 4cDowall 35,681 Macon 21,499 4adison 16,9583 olk 14,416 Jutherford 56,918 3wain 11,268 Transylvania 25,520 Yancey 15,419 focal (-297) S5%2,089 *¢ Discxice 12 davidson 66,684 "orsyth 59.112 nilford 136,087 Iredell 38,459 4scklenburyg 218,628 lowan 33,106 APR- 7-97 MON 13:11 Black PCL. 28.91 38.01 36.07 11.54 15.94 27.73 20.94 12.95 7.18 31.12 6.07 1.06 6.84 5.49 9.03 10.14 8.16 0.16 2.08 4.7% 4.25 6.53 8.20 1.79 0.57 0.01 3.38 3.41 1.58 4.15 1.64 0.80 7.30 11.44 1.74 4.66 0.98 5.30 14.77 72.92 51.53 24.29 51.89 35.62 Black VAP 26.21 35.49 32.72 10.18 14.10 25.32 18.83 11.52 6.47 9.93 5.68 1.19 §.37 4.99 7.96 9.14 2.13 0.18 2.24 4.47 4.10 5.3} 7.38 1.73 0.58 0.02 1.29 2.90 1.74 4.01 1.50 0.91 6.40 10.21 1.64 4.01 0.99 4.76 13.54 69.80 48.61 21.70 47.74 32.16 Draft North Carolina Congressional Districts 37 House/Senate Plan A Egtimated 1990 Black Reg. 1996 Black Reg. Tocal PCL.’ Total Pct. Total 5,914 27.7 7,438 27.8 26,673 6,661 40.0 4,893 37.0 13,208 4,611 30.1 6,533 34.2 19,100 2,662 9.9 3,053 9.4 32.173 5,012 1a.S 7,001 11.6 59,865 57,239 24.7 74,783 24.0 310,383 7,330 18.5 9,391 19.8 47,272 9,896 12.5 11,628 11.9 97,568 9,885 5.7 21,306 8.7 243,398 27,111 8.3 42,325 10.9 388,238 867 4 999 4.8 20,684 36 .4 43 0.4 10,691 2,320 6.1 2,671 S.7 46,455 1,944 2,174 $.2 41,117 4,25) S,426 6.9 78,139 2,221 . 2,871 7.8 36,623 3.37873 2,065 34,342 6 21 10,260 [+] 522 32.329 1,387 1,425 37,369 425 7 S04 18,357 15,246 5 § 18,723 5.3 366,406 6,559 . 6,728 .6 119,168 183 218 y.2 16,900 29 is 6,256 0 0 S.737 364 392 34,868 1.017 1,147 55,475 217 250 19,184 748 793 21,501 97 . 9s 0.5 18,760 62 60 13,472 617 678 $7 11,838 2,376 2,880 9.1 31,333 172 - 13? 8,592 636 «3 » 135 19,883 77 0.6 8s 12,958 13,154 . 14,253 3.6 39s,985 4,708 14.4 5,436 12.6 43,122 20,693 71.4 24,258 69.1 35,098 40,963 $1.3 46,6388 $2.3 89,238 3,966 20.5 S,014 18.7 26,697 $2,074 47.6 66,570 47.8 139,246 4,73%0 28.1 6,456 30.2 21,336 D-Totcal 20,625 11,127 13,409 15,139 27,617 178,626 30,007 48,028 91,052 169,087 9,071 1,721 23,460 17,586 30,285 17,216 16,363 1.351 12,535 13,194 5,737 148,579 64,516 8,269 2,787 2,674 2,747 18,652 10,797 12,256 8,645 8,218 5,284 19,086 5,241 9,193 6,841 204,176 19,331 26,850 60,065 13,37s 87,959 22,137 (D%) 77.3 84.2 70.2 47.0 46.1 57.4 R-Total 4,292 1,314 3,343 13,107 24,379 94,866 12,820 39,005 111,674 163,499 9.587 7,678 17,507 18,581 36,560 15,530 13,876 7,786 13,4397 21,125 11,289 173,015 39,900 6,891 2.522 2,63) 9.304 27,861 5.815 7.334 7.558 4,053 4,800 9.494 2,348 7,771 4,969 143,253 19,852 4,995 19,416 10,114 32,526 6,981 Nov 1996 Voter Registration EstimaLes (RY) 16.0 9.9 17.5 40.7 40.7 30.5 h a Ww oO w wn wv oO o o n N WW & Ww & Ww 4 O 0 © 0 a W w e N H W N O S 39.0 38.3 36.1 46.0 14.2 21.7 37.8 23.3 32.7 P. 04 Plan: HSEN®7A 1990 1992 1996 Sen. Sen. Sen. S4.8 63.2 53.9 63.0 70.0 63.3 56.8 66.3 S7.8 34.7 40.9 34.9 36.4 39.3 35.3 47.3 50.6 46.4 46.0 46.3 45.2 38.9 32.6." 35.8 48.1 40.0 46.6 44.6 38.9 43.6 15.9 4vu.3 34.4 20.1 29.9 28.3 42.1 45.0 42.0 372.3 38.0" 35.8 38.2 35.6.'36.5 36.3 35.6 33.7 38.6 "39.5. 37.7 “Te... TT.3 25.8 53.0 47.8 43%.7 31.2 35.6 32.6 24.9 31.3" 23.3% 37.7 138.0%.36.2 49.8 47.8 50.7 42.8 46.4 43.2 44.5 46.0 45.6 35.4 44.3 37.7 49.6 53.3 49.2 41.9%. 35.7 38.9 52.1..55.)1 54.9 38.4 46.0 38.0 47.8 "48 U0 - 42.1 47.7 ..53.5 “49.8 49.1. 44.) 45.1 40.0 44.0 40.0 46.2 S2.5 52.0 45.9 44.2 .45.] 42.4 S0.5 46.5 45.9 46.5 46.0 36.8 33.7 33.3 82.7 80.5 73.0 69.0 66.8 69.6 49.1 43.9 43.2 75.0 68.4 72.3 54.0 S3.2 83.5 7-97 MON 13:12 P.05 iid Draft North Carolina Congressional Districts Plan: HSENI7A 97 House/Senate Plan A Bstimaled Black slack 1990 Black Reg... 1996 Black Reg. Nov 1996 Voter Registralion Bwlimales 3990 "1992 1996 Persons Pct. VAP Tocal Pct. Total PCC. Total D-Total (D%) R-Tocal (R¥%) Sen. Sen. Sen. cal (-343) S52,043 46.67 43.36 127,191 44.23 154,419 43.5 354,734 219,717 61.9 93,884 26.4 66.6 62.6 64.2 Page 4 ESTIMATED 1996 VOTER REGISTRATION DATA The following estimates of the percentage of African-American voters in the 12 districts as of the November, 1996 election was prepared by NCEC in Washington at the request of legislative staff and provided to the staff on April 7, 1997. (-8( MON 13:09 14/07/91. Draft North Carolina Congressional Districts i 97 House/Senate Plan A Plan: HSENS7A Estimated Black 1990 Black Reg. 1936 Black Reg. Nov 1996 Voter Registration Estimates 1990 Persons - VAP Total Pct. Total Pct. Total D-Total (DS) R-Tocal (RA) Sen. » Plgtrict jeaufort - 23,714 33.88 2,572 22.8 3,353 28.3 13,206 8,978 67.9 3,360 38.8 iertie 20,388 57.41 6,027 55.6 7,180 58.8 12,196 10,871 89.2 974 . 58 raven 25,279 39.90 4,829 38.9 5,991 36.9 16,200 10,832 66.8 3,804 . S56. :dgecombe 56,558 52.11 14,778 50.2 18,642 52.8 35,289 28,578 80.9 4,988 . S6 ates 3,305 43.00 2,302 45.4 2,360 40.2 S,857 4,791 81.8 672 . 61 iranville 20,717 47.12 9.531 91.3 5,359 43.6 12,273 10,258 83.5 1,396 . 54 ireene 15,384 39.22 2,726 36.0 2,980 35.1 8,491 6,933 81.6 1,150 . 42 talifax 55,516 45.76 10,992 42.4 13,320 44.7 23,742 24,158 81.2 3.896 . 52 lect ford 22,523 53.48 7,461 55.4 7,591 54.5 13,911 12,020 86.4 1,534 y ile Jones 8,553 38.59 1,954 41.2 2,163 39.2 5,527 4,619 83.5 680 43. .enoir 31,016 57.45 7,086 52.9 9,328 16,381 12,931 78.9 2,489 . 57 fartin 25,078 41.25 4,030 34.2 S,501 14,681 21,1397 "76.2 2,423 42. iorthampton 20,798 55.76 6,744 53.4 7,086 . 13,092 12,082 92.2 658 . 60. Jerson 21,001 32.55 3,034 32.5 3,589 . 11,404 8,727 76.4 2,014 40. ice ; 49,584 46.138 9,987 42.9 12,524 . 30,032 20,745 63.0 6,357 . 56 ‘ance 38,892 41.60 7.553 40.7 8,450 . 20,088 16,497 82.1 2,529 faxren 17,265 53.88 5,687 55.2 6,137 : 11,257 9.911 88.0 328 61. tashington 10,750 43.73 2,627 44.1 2,822 6,166 S.189 84.1 707 . 48. tayne 36,323 47.58 7.255 44.5 8,718 . 18,826 13,2135 70.2 4,166 {ilson 43,8517 46.73 9.174 47.4 11,764 . 23,635 17,262 73.0 4,805 ‘otal {-225)" $52,161 46.53 126,345 46.4 144,855 . 318,254 249,784 78.4 wv Ww O N OO 0 14 49. S50. 5S. 49,530 . S2. Ww e s , W w E W D O Y » Discrice ‘ranklin 36,414 stranville 17,628 ii, 67,822 81,306 41,374 fash 76,677 21,440 9,025 36,457 $3,290 23,890 48,224 24,737 132,675 15,379 385, Y17 HH N N ew N © . T a SN Ww Oo & & H M H V W O W iampson 22,745 ‘lake 185,641 iilson 22,544 ‘octal (-2139%) $52,151 aA = H N OO W O & > XE WV = NN NJ © N N W e ~ * District eaufort 18,569 10,343 7,033 4,313 3,206 34,644 16,520 7,599 S,52¢ 28,879 13,640 9,738 5,750 15,574 8,302 3,436 2,988 507 386 14,473 9,560 42,472 22,547 7,301 5,473 19,078 12,816 6,972 5,133 38,195 21,036 2,268 1,939 amden S,904 arteret 52,556 howan 13,506 ‘raven 56,334 urrituck 13,736 are 22,746 yde S,411 ones 861 eanoir 26,258 nslow 149,838 amlico 11.372 asquotank 31,298 . Ww W & & 0 >» NW N C . N N W N N O E B A N N R A R N N RH ® R erquimans 10,447 dee 58,340 yrrell 3,856 ington e 11 (236) Yiseriah ham Fe § {t=543) district nance aghxny » wcll -® iycth :ingham ‘es nycrice lan 1swick mba y clad An Hanover lug -q0n iscrict n Poargons 1,247 68,343 552,622 29,239 181, R15 91,1851 3,173 237,739 351,84) 19,976 9.590 22,209 20,693 27,859 206,766 86,064 37,233 £1,704 352,084 28,237 9.520 69,991 211,363 $3,013 106,546 17,499 552,17 28,662 S0,98% 19,587 127,912 19,995 120,384 29,855 81,548 24,552 553,382 43,474 98,935 146,652 32,856 21,1246 flack Pee. 35.69 21.97 19.79 20.50 37.21 15.127 19.60 10.7% 21.02 22.71 10.19 18.44 1.7) 3.406 39.07 18.07 30.61 21.39 11.14 20.03 30.39 21.10 11.37 24.26 47.31 12.99 41.00 43.22 26.70 Slack VAP 34.63 20.86 12.35 19.69 14. 7¢ 14.89 18.778 10.230 13.79 21.49 1.86 0.65 40.10 8.54 10.23 1J.08 5.41 14.1% 12.72 7.86 26.64 1.27 3.50 15.08 5.65 7.16 R.7S A. Nn 15.94 47.58 19.63 in. 87 17.79 47.63 19.63 28.9¢ 22.04 41.40 11.41 38.7% 40.90 23.29 Draft North Carolina Congressional Districta 97 House/Senate Plan A 1990 Rlack Rag. Total 551 3,834 35,41) 3,532 33,420 7.304 14° 11,091 56,174 7,998 84 ‘7% 4.658 1.134 1,646 7.876 2.337 1.402 32,107 1,054 1,483 914 9.814 4,617 2.78% 1,942 22,479 5,396 4,841 7,979 3,636 S,849 9.942 4,447 2,342 3,416 60.548 4,519 6.0808 16,550 3,42) 3,082 Pek. 38.3 18.9 16.5 20.5 32.0 12.1 18.8 8.3 17.0 19.5 1.3 0.5% 41.7 7.5 7.6 19.1 5.2 4.€ 11.1 7.2 28.9 1.2 8.0 14.3 S.¢ 5.3 7.8 3s.8 16.2 28.9 13.8 30.9 16.4 3o.3 22.1 30.1 22.5 39.8 131.4 49.8 40.0 24.9 Bscimated 1996 Dlack Req. Total Pet. S66 33.9 §,27¢ 17.9 43,995 16.5% 3.681] 16.5 15,978 13.14 9,704 12.0 845 14.8 16,794 8.3 77,005 17.2 9,820 19.9 106 1.8 73 0.4 4,957 35.0 1,254 6.9 13,311 s.3 8,877 18.3 1,279 S.0n 2 LNG a 4.1 41,139 11.5 1,436 7.2 1,880 28.1 1,134 3.3 16.120 10.0 5.320 13.8 3,314 S.0 1.105 €.2 31,881 8.5 €.88% 313.3 f,26 13.3 9,559 23.1 13.107 9.7 6,705" 3.4 313,508 13.7 4,997 24.0 9.542 20.2 4,062 29.7 23.331: 29.3 5,657 411.2 7,943 11.0 24,225 §£0.2 4,895 34.9 1,145 22.9% Nov 1336 Voter Registration PgCimatrs Total 1,668 29,3234 477,403 22,292 137.615 80,661 §,879 201,339 447,000 49,140 7,004 1%,7%7 12,687 18,149 142,700 48,396 25,298 37,000 156.1311 19,839 S$,612 34,697 143,244 41.507 61,992 49,570 374,62) 17.19] 39,621 2.1 69,R03 21,212 98,232 4U,740 47,127 11,669 360,350 13,070 72,104 43,150 12,6758 13,965 D-Total 1,177 16,909 160,139 13,491 06,061 46,876 1,781 86,074 237,03 27,992 4,756 7,307 10,134 G.03¢ 62,112 29,802 11,538 19,592 179.474 9,480 3,697 14,973 RAN 36.514 21,593 20,009 150,404 11,758 20,981 25,924 a9,5%0Y 16,813 45,594 12,470 41,416 2.33 222,798 10,914 32,470 49,030 2,315 f,980 (DY) 82.§ 57.6 $2.7 <9 > oC ®& FF 2 Vv > Cc LV WP 61,4 83.5 45.0 60.2 73.7 64.2 R Toral 217 10,1865 Re, 522 6,023 10,1335 18,938 1,4RK8 80,559 Yi, 30) 15,293 1,887 1,132 1,RG2 10.5811 61,172 13,319 11, 700 11,990 116.871 7.027 1,460 16,738 AA, HOS 19,33R 33.28) 23,578 109.3217 2.404 14,186 5.051 40,602 4,701 a8,R70 §.217 4,127 5,560 101,698 1,534 29,998 11,068 1,986 1,448 (RY) 13.0 34.% la.4 » - N N W w » Js A N O W W - [3 > NW L O { S I B E N B E I SE L Y . I E S R | 3.27 41.6 22.9 15.7 47.3% la Plan: RSEN9IA 1990 1992 1994 Sen. San. Sen. 14.8 $3.3 47.1} AR 0 34.1 38.7 41.5 44.0 40.9 S4.R 57.2 64.2 63.3 63.0 64.80 70.6 66.7 68.2 30.0 40.37 7.2 53.7 45.1 41.5 ‘eld. le 41.0 €3.5 38.7 82.4 29.8 40.2 38.3 14,3 37.0 3g.1 23.58 44.5 30.4 43.0 47.0 29.0 32.2 ; of SH $0.4 tly 48.6 43.0 43.0 44.4 48.2 60.3 4131.0 48.3 £9.46 35.0 65.1 59.2 46.0 Uv 5.4 42.4 40.4 42.8 41.9 38.5 fa.6 61.2 12.9 28.4 39.0 33.9 49.9 40.9 45.0 31.4 45.0 2.8 41.3 19.0 35.6 20.4 $2.7 46 35.6 29.3 42.27 42.9 AV 4. 414 33.0% 29.3 33d aie 3.7 10.3 64.3 532.5% 4.7 4&7. Ga.9 0.2 47.1 42.3 S1.8 4€.2 43 4 48.1 48.1 47.1 70.4 52.4 16.0 43.8 $2.2 44.6 CR.a 58.4 31.5 27.8 64.4 66.7 66.6 50.2 52.1 4G. . APR- 7-97 MON 13:11 - 07/97 ichmond .obeson .cotland ‘canly ‘nion ‘otal (757) * Digtrict 9 leveland ascon fecklenburg ‘otal (229) ‘¢ Districc 10 \lexandez wery jurke laldwell ‘atawba ‘redell .Ancoln ticchell ‘atauga illkes ‘adkin ‘octal (947) Fick 11 e Therokee lay iraham iaywood ienderson ‘ackson icDowell acon adison olk wtherford 'wain Tansylvania ‘ancey ‘ocal (-297) ®* Discricc 12 avidson ‘orsyth amilford redell imcklenburg Qwan Persons 44,518 - 23,631 33,754 51,765 84,211 553,143 84,714 175,093 292,808 552,615 27,544 14,867 75,744 70,709 118,412 54,472 50,319 14,433 36,952 59,393) 30,488 $53,333 174,821 20,170 7.155 7,196 46,942 69,285 26,846 35,681 23,499 16,953 14,416 56,918 11,268 25,520 18,419 $52,089 66,684 59,112 136,087 38.439 218,628 33,106 Black PCC. 28.91 38.01 36.07 11.54 15.94 27.73 20.94 12.95% 7.28 11.12 6.07 1.06 6.84 5.49 9.03 10.14 8.16 0.16 2.08 4.75 4.25 6.53 8.20 1.79 0.57 0.01 1.38 3.41 1.58 4.15 1.64 0.80 7.30 11.44 1.74 4.66 0.98 5.30 14.77 72.92 51.53 24.29 51.89 35.62 Black VAP 26.21 35.49 2.71 10.18 14.10 5.32 18.83 11.52 6.47 9.93 S.68 1.19 6.37 4.399 7.96 9.14 7.13 0.18 2.24 4.47 4.10 5.91 7.38 1.73 0.58 0.02 1.29 2.90 1.74 4.01 1.%0 0.91 6.40 10.31 1.64 4.01 0.99 4.76 13.54 69.80 48.61 21.70 47.74 32.16 Draft North Carolina Congressional Districts 37 House/Senate Plan A 1990 Black Reg. Tocal Pcl.’ 5,914 27.7 6,661 40.0 4,611 30.1 2,662 9.9 5.012 13.8 57,239 24.7 7,330 18.5 9,896 12.5 9,885 S.2 27.111 S.3 867 «9 36 3 2,320 6.1 1,944 5.6 4,25) 2,221 9 1.287 [ 0 0 1.387 9 425 7 15,246 «2 6,559 133 29 [] 364 3,017 23173 748 97 . 62 617 2,376 172 636 9 77 . 13,154 . 4,708 14.4 20,693 71.4 40,963 $1.2 3,966 20.5 $2,074 47.6 4,79%0 28.1 Estimated 1996 Black Reg. Total pce. 7,438 27.8 4,893 37.0 6,533 34.2 3,053 9.4 7,001 11.6 74,783 24.0 9,39 19.8 11,628 31.9 21,306 8.7 42,325 10.9 999 = 43 .4 2,671 . 2,174 “2 5,426 2,871 . 2,065 21 $22 1,425 S04 18,721 : 4 6,728 [3 218 2 35 °] 392 1,147 250 793) 3.6 35 60 678 2,880 93.1 js Jo By J 1.3 i» 7985 8s 14,253 3.6 S,436 12.6 24,258 69.1 46,6388 52.3 S,014 18.7 66,570 47.8 6,456 30.2 Nov 1996 Voter Registration Estimates Total 26,673 13,208 19,100 32.1173 59,865 310,383 47,272 97,568 243,398 388,238 20,68¢ 10,691 46,495 41,117 78,139 36,623 34,342 10,260 32,329 37,389 18,357 366,406 119,168 16,900 6,256 S.79% 34,868 55,475 19,184 21,501 18,760 13,472 11,838 I1,333 8,592 19,883 12,958 39s, 985 43,122 35,098 89,238 26,697 139,246 21,336 D-Total 20,625 11,127 13,409 35,139 27,617 178,626 30,007 48,028 91,052 169,087 3.071 1,722 23,460 17,586 30,285 17,216 16,363 3.353 12,535 23,194 $.737 148,579 64,516 8,269 2,787 2,674 21,747 18,652 10,3197 12,256 8,645 8,218 5.2814 19,056 S,241 9,193 6,841 204,176 19,331 26,850 60,065 13,37s 87,959 12,137 (Ds) 77.3 84.2 70.2 47.0 46.1 57.4 63.4 49.2 37.4 43.5 43.8 16.1 50.4 42.7 38.7 47.0 47.6 13.1 33.9 35.3 3.2 40.5 $4.1 48.9 44.5 46.1 62.3 313.6 56.2 $7.0 46.0 61.0 44.6 60.8 61.0 46.2 52.7 51.5 44.8 76.5 67.3 50.1 63.1 $6.8 R-Total 4,292 1,31¢ 3,343 13,107 24,379 94,866 12,820 39,005 111,674 163,499 9,587 7,678 17,507 18,581 36,560 15,530 13,876 7.786 13,497 21,125 11,289 173,016 39,900 6,891 2.522 2.633 9,304 27.86) 5.815 7.334 7.558 4,053 4,800 9.494 2,348 7.77} 4,969 143,253 19,852 4,995 19,416 10,114 32,526 6,981 (R%) 16.0 9.9 17.5 40.7 40.7 30.5 39.9 45.8 ~ ~ w n [+ ] ~~ o * > a " ~ a da aa le «a y T e N U U uu ® d d J E 0 Ww F o Ww oo ® o W O W w n C N H W N w u a w oo P. 04 Plan: HSEN97A 19390 19392 1996 Sen. Sen Sen. S4.8 63.2 53.9 63.0 70.0 63.3 56.8 66.3 sS7.8 34.7 40.9 34.9 36.4 39.3 35.3 47.3 50.6 46.4 46. 46.3 45.2 35.9: 32.6" "315.8 48.1 40.0 46.6 44.6 38.9 43.6 35.9 40.3 34.4 26.1..29.8.728.3 42.1 45.0 42.0 37.3 38.0 35.8 38.2::35.6 35.5 36.3 “35.6 33.7 38.6 39.5 37.3% .“e i. 27.3 225.8 $3.0 47.8 495.7 31.2. 35.8 12.6 249.9 31.3 23.8 37.2 38.0" l5.2 19.8% 47.8. 90.7 42.8 46.4 43.2 44.5 46.0 45.6 35.4 449.1 37.7 49.5°::53.3- 49.2 41.5 415.7 ."38.9 $2.1 55.1. 54.9 38.4 46.0 38.0 47.6 46.0 42.1 47.7..'5S3.5 49.8 45.1 44.1 45.1 40.0 44.0 40.0 46.2 'S2.9 52.9 45.9 44.2 45.1 42.4 50.5 46.5 45.9 46.5 46.0 36.8 39.731.) 82.7 80.5 79.0 69.0 66.8 69.6 49.1 43.9 43.2 75.0 68.4 72.3 54.0 53.2 $83.5 . AFx- 7-97 MON 13:12 P. 05 il praft North Carolina Congressional Districts Plan: HSEN97A 97 House/Senate Plan A Bstimaled Black #lack 1990 Black Reg.. 1996 Black Reg. Nov 1996 Voter Regastralion EBxlimalwews 1990 1992 1396 Persons Pct. VAP Tocal Pct. Total Pct. Total D-Total (D%) R-Tocal (R¥) Sen. Sen. Sen. cal (-343) S52,043 46.67 43.36 127,191 44.2 154,419 43.5 354,734 219,717 61.9 93,884 26.4 66.6 62.6 64.2 Page 4 §163-201 ol sizcrions s1e320 @ 109, Block 133, Block 134, Block 135, Block 136, Block 137, Block 138, Block 139, Block 140, Block 141, Block 142, Block 143, Block 144, Block 146, Block 148, Block 191, Block 192, Block 193; Block Group 2: Block 216, Block 217, Block 218; Tolars *: Tract 0108: Block Group 2: Block 211A, Block 212, Block 213, Block 214, Block 215, Block 219, Block 220, Block 221, Block 222, Block 223A, Block 224A, Block 254A, Block 255, Block 256, Block 257, Block 258, Block 259A, Block 260A, Block 261A, Block 262, Block 263, Block 264, Block 265, Block 266, Block 267, Block 268, Block 269, Block 270, Block 275, Block 276, Block 277A, Block 285A; Caldwell *: Tract 0108: Block Group 2: Block 201, Block 202, Block 203, Block 204, Block 205, Block 206, Block 207, Block 208, Block 209, Block 210, Block 211B, Block 223B, Block 224B, Block 225, Block 226, Block 227, Block 228, Block 229, Block 230, Block 231, Block 232, Block 233, Block 234, Block 235, Block 236, Block 237, Block 238, Block 239A, Block 239B, Block 240, Block 241, Block 242, Block 243, Block 244, Block 245, Block 246, Block 247, Block 248, Block 249, Block 250, Block 251, Block 252, Block 253, Block 254B, Block 259B, Block 260B, Block 261B, Block 277B, Block 284B, Block 285B, Block 286, Block 287, Block 288, Block 289, Block 290, Block 291, Block 292, Block 293, Block 294, Block 295, Block 296A, Block 296B, Block 297A, Block 297B; Block Group 3: Block 301, Block 302, Block 303, Block 304, Block 305, Block 306, Block 307B, Block 319B, Block 320, Block 321, Block 322, Block 323; Block 324, Block 325, Block 326, Block 327, Block 328, Block 329, Block 330, Block 331, Block 332, Block 333, Block 334, Block 335, Block 336, Block 337, Block 341, Block 370, Block 371, Block 372, Block 373, Block 374B; Tract 0109: Block Group 2: Block 201B, Block 201C, Block 201D, Block 201E, Block 202, Block 203, Block 204B: Rowan County: Franklin *: Tract 0505: Block Group 1: Block 101E; Tract 0513.01: Block Group 2: Block 208B; Block Group 3: Block 302; Tract 0513.02: Block Group 3: Block 301, Block 307, Block 308, Block 309, Block 310, Block 311, Block 312, Block 313, Block 314, Block 315, Block 316, Block 317, Block 318, Block 321C, Block 321D, Block 322, Block 323, Block 324, Block 325, Block 326, Block 327, Block 328, Block 329, Block 330, Block 331, Block 332, Block 333, Block 334; Tract 0519: Block Group 2: Block 225A, Block 248A, Block 249, Block 250; East Spencer ¥, Milford Hills *, Spencer *, Trading Ford, West Innes *: Tract 0505 Block Group 2: Block 211, Block 212, Block 213; Block Group 3: Block 311, Block 315, Block 316, Block 317, Block 318, Block 319, Block 320, Block 321, Block 322, Block 323, Block 324, Block 325, Block 326, Block 327, Block 328, Block 329, Block 330, Block 331, Block 332, Block 333, Block 334, Block 335; Tract 0513.02: Block Group 3: Block 3214; East Ward II *, North Ward I *, North Ward IT *: Tract 0505: Block Group 1: Block 101B, Block 101C, Block 104, Block 107A, Block 110; Tract 0506: Block Group 1: Block 104A, Block 105, Block 106, Block 107, Block 112, Block 113, Block 114, Block 115, Block 116, Block 119, Block 120, Block 121, Block 122, Block 123, Block 132; West Ward III *, Trading Ford Noncontiguous A, Scotch Irish *, Unity *. - 2? (b) The names and boundaries of townships, precincts (voting tabulation districts), tracts, block groups, and blocks, specified in this section are as they were legally defined and recognized in the 1990 U.S. Census, except as provided in subsection (c) of this section. Boundaries are as shown on the IVTD Version of the United States Bureau of the Census 1990 TIGER Files, with such modifi- 228 ? ! ' } r J ART. 17. U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 3163-201 ca as made by the Legislative Services " and shown on its computer database as of May 1, 1991, to reflect census blocks divided by prior district boundaries, and precincts added or modified as outlined in subsection (c) of this section. (¢) For Guilford County, precinct boundaries for High Point Precincts 20, 23, and 24 are as modified by the Guilford County Board of Elections and shown on the Legislative Services Office computer database as of May 1, 1991. For Mecklenburg County, precinct boundaries are as altered by the Mecklenburg County Board of Elections as reported to the Legislative Services Office and shown on the Legislative Services Office computer database as of May 1, 1991. For Wake County: (1) St. Marys Precinct #7 is as created by the Wake County Board of Elections out of St. Marys Precinct #4; (2) Raleigh 01-27 Part is an area reported by the Bureau of the Census as part of Raleith 01-23 but has been put by the Wake County Board of Elections in Raleigh 01-27; and (3) VID ZZZZ has been assigned to the appropriate parts of Wake Forest #1 and Wake Forest #2, all as shown on the Legislative Services Office computer database as of May 1, 1991. For Anson, Bertie, Camden, Caswell, Franklin, Gates, Greene, Hertford, Hoke, Lee, Lincoln, Martin, Mitchell, Northampton, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Person, Tyrrell, Vance, Warren, and Yadkin Counties, precincts are as shown on maps on file with the Legislative Services Office as of May 1, 1991, except that: (1) In Anson County, Lanesboro #1 and Lanesboro #2 are listed together as Lanesboro #1 and #2; (2) In Vance County, where West Henderson II is not contigu- ous, the northerly part is listed as West Henderson IIA and the southerly part as West Henderson IIB; (3) In Perquimans County, computer VID Code 0005 (Tract 9801, Block 550A) is actually part of Belvidere Precinct and is districted with it notwithstanding any description above; (4) In Greene County, Snow Hill Town Satellite is Tract 9503, Block 301A which is a part of Snow Hill Town Precinct entirely surrounded by Sugg Precinct and is districted with Sugg Precinct notwithstanding any description above; (5) In Greene County, Snow Hill Town Sat B is Tract 9503, Block 224B which is a part of Snow Hill Town Precinct entirely surrounded by Snow Hill Rural Precinct and is districted with Snow Hill Rural Precinct notwithstanding any description above; (6) In Mecklenburg County, Precinct XMC2 Noncontiguous is Tract 55.01, Block 303C, and is districted with Precinct MC1 notwithstanding any description above; (7) In Martin County, any listing of VTDs not defined consists of Tract 9705, Block 413 (which is in Poplar Point Precinct), Tract 9704, Block 202 (which is in Goose Nest Precinct), and Tract 9706, Block 168A (which is in Robersonville #2 Precinct), and those blocks are districted with those respec- tive precincts regardless of any listing above; (8) In New Hanover County, Tract 123.98, Blocks 307B, 308A, 309, 310A, 311A, and 312A, listed by the Census Bureau as art of VID ZZZZ, are districted by this section as part of ilmington #2. 229 \ BPA s Se §163-201 rr] ELECTIONS §163-201 If any precinct or township boundaries are changed, such ch shall not change the boundaries of the Congressional Districts, which shall remain the same. Ti In the case where any individual blocks are listed above, the district allocation of unlisted water blocks shall be as found on maps and statistical reports of the districts on file with the Secretary of tate (cl) In this section: (1) Wake County Tract 05 10, Block 301 is shown on the computer database as part of Raleigh 01-23 * when it isin fact correctly shown on the Board of Elections map ag part of North Brook III; 3 (4) Mecklenburg County Tract 0044 Block 906F is shown on the computer database as part of OAK when it is in fact correctly shown on the Board of Elections map as part of (d) If this section does not specifically assign any area within North Carolina to a district, and the area is: : (1) Entirely surrounded by a single district, the area shall be deemed to have been assigned to that district; (2) Contiguous to two or more districts, the area shall be deemed to have been assigned to that district which con- tains the least population according to the 1990 United States Census: or (3) Contiguous to only one district and to another state or the Atlantic Ocean, the area shall be deemed to have been 1982, Ex. Sess., c. 7; 1991], ¢. 601, s. };c 761 1991, Ex. Sess, c. 7,8. 1; 1993, c. 553, s. 66.) Editor's Note. — Session Laws 1991, Justice on February 6, 1992. Ex. Sess., c. 7, which amended this sec- Legal Periodicals. — For article, tion and which was submitted to the “Political Gerrymandering After Davis v. Attorney General of the United States Bandemer,” see 9 Campbell L. Rev. 207 pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting (1987). Rights Act of 1965, as amended (42 For article, “Racial Gerrymandering U.S.C. 1973¢), received preclearance and the Voting Rights Act in North Caro- from the United States Department of lina,” see 9 Campbell L. Rev. 255 (1987). 230 An ta st ’ { ! ? i N 1 ' I ’ # §163-201.1 ART. 17. U.S. REPRESENTATIVES §163-201.2 CASE NOTES Constitutionality. — As the variance between the enacted legislative plan and a rejected alternative plan was insub- stantial and de minimis, and the legisla- ture made a good faith effort to equitably reapportion, this section was constitu- tional and not in violation of the equal protection clause of U.S. Const., Amend. XIV. Drum v. Scott, 337 F. Supp. 588 (M.D.N.C. 1972). The act of the 1967 session of the legislature reapportioning congressional districts met minimum federal constitu- tional standards. Drum v. Seawell, 271 F. Supp. 193 (M.D.N.C. 1967). For case holding former apportion- ment unconstitutional, see Drum w. Seawell, 249 F. Supp. 877 (M.D.N.C. 1965), aff’d, 383 U.S. 831, 86 S. Ct. 1237, 16 L. Ed. 2d 298 (1966). Practical and Rational Equality Required. — While rigid mathematical standards are not the sine qua non of constitutional validity, practical and ra- tional equality is required. Such equality recognizes only minor deviations which may occur in the recognition of rational and legitimate factors, free from the taint of arbitrariness, irrationality and discrimination. Drum v. Seawell, 250 F. Supp. 922 M.D.N.C. 1966). Stricter adherence to equality of population between districts may more logically be required in congres- sional than in state legislative represen- tation. Drum v. Seawell, 250 F. Supp. 922 (M.D.N.C. 1966). § 163-201.1. Severability of congressional appor- tionment acts. If any provision of any act of the General Assembly that appor- tions congressional districts is held invalid by any court of compe- tent jurisdiction, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions that can be given effect without the invalid provision; and to this end the provisions of any said act are severable. (1981, c. 771, s. 2.) § 163-201.2. Dividing precincts in congressional apportionment acts restricted. (a) An act of the General Assembly that apportions congressional districts after the return of a census may not divide precincts unless an act that apportioned congressional districts after the return of that same census has been rejected by the United States Depart- ment of Justice or the District Court for the District of Columbia under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. (b) If an act that apportioned congressional districts has been rejected by the United States Department of Justice or the District Court for the District of Columbia under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, then a subsequent act may only divide the minimum number of precincts necessary to obtain approval of the act under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. (c) This section does not prevent the General Assembly from taking any action to comply with federal law or the Constitution of the United States. (1995, c. 355, s. 2.) Editor’s Note. — Session Laws 1995, upon ratification. The Act was ratified c. 365, s. 3, made this section effective June 29, 1996. 231 1997 Congressional Plan — Davidson County Precincts by Percent Democrat Vote in 1990 Senate Race Fe = TT —— 7 7 : A September 13, 1999 LEGEND County Boundary VID Boundary Dist. Boundary (C004) 1 0-39.9X Democrat DOCKXXX)] 40 — 49.9% Democrat PZ777777] 50 — 59.9% Democrat EER] 60 - 100% Democrat PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 264 N.C. General Assembly Legislative Services Ofc. Redistricting System Software Copyright 1990 Public Systems Associates Precincts by Percent Democrat Vote in 1990 Senate Race 1997 Congressional Plan — Iredell County Ls 0. 0.0.0 0. @ 0.6.6” OV) * 200%". os BHOTRS A CX BRRRX XN] 00? 70%% Ou PLEX & ORR \/ RA BERK > $6 September 13, 1999 LEGEND County Boundary VTD Boundary Dist. Boundary (C004) [CC] 0- 39.9% Democrat BOON] 40 — 49.9% Democrat 0777777] 50 — 59.9% Democrat 60 — 100% Democrat PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT N.C. General Assembly Legislative Services Ofc. SS MA 2 000%! oo OOO " OOOO ee KX AERL RAS | 00,00 0°03 ‘ets *® I Redistricting System Software Copyright 1990 Public Systems Associates NORTHAMPTON In ALLEGHANY, 3 y GATES 2 n ASw ARSON £ ARREN sroxts OCHINOHAM SWELL | PERS & x, w. t 2 VARTIONG NN J HALIPAR ! Aa. of 3 PY Oreensbors «°° s PRANKLIN 4 ° CALDWELL OUILIOAD d , IATDELL Jf DAVIE TYRRELL DARE VANCEY MADISON DAVIDION su~nCOoMel Aohovite CATAWSA ® [1 RUTHEAPORD HInCOLN rie CARTON @ STANLY avian 0, hb [) \ Chortetve CHEnOw « CUMBE ALAND SAMPSON ROSLION BLADEN coLumeus V Y N I ' T O d VD H L Y O N HE Re SA SY PLAINTIFF'S’: EXHIBIT 24 a Er vc) E (11 Districts) ALL L1ivan NUL RINGHAM ASHE STOXLS ™ fd WILKLS YAORIN TORSTIN SCREEN SBORO fe WINSTON-SALEM PY hi HIGH <'e — DAVIL fe POINT : -« HADISON o DAVIDSON ; VY Eiak ranoouPr A] CHATHAM BUNCONBE a). PS [ J 0 SALISBUR in HATWOOD |, cy ev ILLE nr RUTHERFORD % %%, CRATAN HENDERSON GASTONIA x, 0, POLK s ® ’) i BEA LEVELAND < GASTON ra an CHEROREL MACON o S o CHARLOTTE z CLAY 3 UNION ANSON i & < 5 ( o 3 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC STATISTICS ADMINISTRATION BUREAU OF THE CENSUS CaswlLL | PLRSON ; HALIFAR — - ~ Iq id C 2 3 FRANRLIN / BURLING TO ROCKY MOUNT aD NASH Fr pGECOMBE Map of Congressional Districts, Counties, and Selected Cities — NORTHAMPTO0 — WARREN HERTFORD APEL HILL RALEIGH WILSON WAK( JOHNSTON GOLDSBORO ® FAYETTEVILLE SAMPSON STAAL ESR SE I nT Es pm a * 22 PEAINTIEES; 5 2 wis San pect + oH tv] ioe [ / 4 1 ° 4 7 | M A Y pa ys qo is y si MULTI-COUNTY PLANNII REGIONS AND THEIR PLANNING AGENCIES © cums © © Gum— © © Gm——"© © . Ce 0.0 a fp Sn © 6 wn 0 @ angen Commu oo 0 Gms © 0 Cum © @ Sm—" "6 00 omnes og Gm—" oO [ [ELLLANY rine peatnsar ios peeat [RITIR) aettineein Ba F-/ man seas wataves Ne iki / nine avdmancl MI sey 0 rascey w > soi wareeer wl LO] ark ” . CLEviLang Aye’ A Jacenen a / cataesnt nites Li dich \.—* . — 44 ed mel weer isenne [ “ay nt Je, 00 mms ob cmm— [LUA LL] 00 men 00 Gmm— ® LY - "uy Ty. coLomnt J) IA XX Planning Agency Southwestern North Carolina Planning and Economic Development Commission Land-of -Sky Regional Council Isothermal Planning and Development Commission Region D Council of Governments o w » Western Piedmont Council of Governments Centralina Council of Governments Piedmont Triad Council of Governments Pee Dee Council of Governments Q ™ m m —~ foo d Northwest Piedmont Council of Governments Triangle J Council of Governments Kerr-Tar Regional Council of Governments Region L Council of Governments R L Region M Council of Governments N——— “« (or aga EE Se Lumber River Council of Governments EAR Sa 3 Cape Fear Council of Governments BLAIN IFES EXHIBIT = Neuse River Council of Governments w o O o Z X Mid-East Commission Albemarle Regional Planning and Development Commission = O NOTE: The map outlined above shows the new Planning Region I that was created in 1979 when Region G was divided into two planning regions. The statistical tables presented in this "Abstract'' were compiled before this change in planning regions took place and therefore do not show data for Region I. BAAR TIPLE { NORFORK-VIRGINIA BEACH-PORTSMOUTH NORFOLK CITT PORTSMOUTH CITY KAO) FAOSR PORTSMOUTHI®) @YrGrm BEACH w= VIRGINIA BEACH CHESAPEAKE Hata ra \ ed ALLEGHANY A OOOTIN Ang SURRY CASWELL | PERSON GREENSBORO-WINS BURLINGTON WATAUGA 8 SRE a SE BY AVERY CKY MO 5 GREENVILLE sUNCOMBE 2 MC DOWELL CATAWBA 0 pUAUFORT © ASHEVILLE WS SFE ‘e, UNCOLN TT A H 3 HENDERSON Runemone “O23 Ni GASTON AN > eh, MOORE SR POLK GASTONIAQ) oy \ Bam “s, Vs BD CHEROKEE EHANQITE J cn : o A 5 I” TTEVILLE Ww CHARJLOTTE-GASTONIA Fi % o 2 SAMPSON ; ih S. FAYETTEVILLE ROBISON PENDLR ILMINGTON COLUMBUS LEGEND ® Places ol 100,000 or more inhabitants [] Places of 50,000 to 100,000 inhabitants (®) Central cities of SMSA's with fewer than 50,000 inhabitants OQ Places of 25,000 to 50,000 inhabitants outside SM3A’'s 7 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA’s) EERE TT as defined in 1972 PLAINTIFF’ or EXHIBIT SOURCE: U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. O 0 0 9 A nt A W N = e T e T S E = SE = SE ey a r R E e r R E L v g WE ee 19 # No Gerry F. Cohen 9/17/99 Page 198 A Are you talking about the 1st District or the 12th? Are you talking about if the 12th became 51? Q 1st and the 12th. If it were a district that had 46 percent, would you say there would be a very high likelihood that an African American--- | Ms. Smiley: (interposing) Objection; asked and answered. Q —---would be nominated and elected? I am just trying to clarify the two. A I think it is a much greater likelihood that a black candidate be elected in a 12th District that was 46 percent black than in a 1st District that was 51 percent black, more likely with the 46. Q I’m sorry? A More likely with the 46 in the 12th than with 51 in the 1st. Q Is that because of the substantial white crossover vote? A That and because of the substantial number in the 12th of whites that are registered as Republicans that still vote in the Democratic primary. | Q So that would mean that the nominee would be much more likely to be an African American in the first instance? A What is the first--- Ms. Smiley: (interposing) Object to the form of KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 [o— y DN OB he ped ped ped ped fed pd fd ped ped 3 = 0 F i © WW. O00 A O N Un RA N e e # # Gerry F. Cohen 9/17/99 Page 199 eC 00 9 a n n A& A W B N the question. A What is the first instance? The 12th District, I’m sorry, the 12th District. When you said the first instance--- Ms. Smiley: (interposing) I still object to the form of the question. Q Okay. Let me rephrase it, then. Would it be true, then, that you are surmising that if there is a 46 percent population of African Americans in the 12th District, then the percentage of African Americans voting in the Democratic primary would be very substantial, considerably above 46 percent? A Yes. Q And that in turn it would be highly likely they would nominate an African American as a candidate; is that correct? Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question; characterization of dominance. A I think it would allow in that situation minority candidates to elect a candidate of their choice. Q And would it be your view that in most instances their choice would be to have an African American candidate represent them? A I can’t speak for the voters in the district, but I think the historical record probably would show that. Q I'm sorry? KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 © JANE S TS J SE = S y = GE Cr SS T E a < = # a Linwood L. Jones 9/22/99 N D B NE EN a dN TG N p in 1991 by myself and others on the staff covering a number of issues relating to redistricting. Q And Exhibit 317? A Exhibit 31 is a spreadsheet, and it is showing I believe 1996 election data and 1996 registration data for District 2 at some point during the 1997 negotiation. I do not know if this is the final plan or sons plan that led up to the final plan. Q This was used in negotiation of what? A This was used by Representative--or by myself and Representative McMahan to look at the Republican versus Democratic voting in District 2 in 1997. Q Well, I will get back to that in just a moment, if I may. A Okay. Q Are you aware of whether the same thing was done with respect to any other congressional districts? A I believe we did a similar spreadsheet for District 4, but those were the only two we did this for, 2 and 4. Q Were you working primarily with and for the chair, Representative McMahan, in doing this or were you working with several others very closely in that connection? A In connection with the House redistricting committee, I worked primarily for Representative McMahan. I did work with a few other legislators in drawing plans. KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 eo 0 9 A n n A W N BD be d pe d pd pe d fe ed pe d fe d pe d pe d fe d | 4 @ Linwood L. Jones 9/22/99 Ms. Harrell: (interposing) She has not waived the legislative privilege, so as far as any requests from her-—- Mr. Everett: (interposing) Okay. Ms. Harrell: ---I would instruct him not to answer. Mr. Everett: Sure; all right. By Mr. Everett: Q Under what circumstances did you prepare this particu- lar e-mail? Ms. Harrell: Objection to the extent that he cannot answer without revealing communications to her from--further communications to Senator Winner or communica- tions from Senator Winner that would come within the legislative privilege. A"--Yeah. ‘I'don’t recall what it is in connection with. I mean, it appears to be during the time of redistricting, but I don’t recall anything else about it. Q Now, this was back in the 1960s? A 1996, ‘right. Q 1996. Do you remember whether you sent the same information to anybody besides Leslie Winner? ‘A I don’t recall. Q To the best of your knowledge, is that accurate in terms of registration figures as of April 1996? A To the best of my knowledge, although I do not recall KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 Lo XR 9 A Un A W O DN 11 # # Linwood L. Jones 9/22/99 Page 80 what the source of this information was. Q So far as you can recall, was that the last date as to which you had what you thought were relevant--thought were accurate registration figures, the most current date as to which you had what you thought to be accurate registration figures? | A To the best of my recollection. Q And those are statewide figures? A They are statewide. Q Is it true that the African American population in North Carolina is about 22 percent of the population? A I don’t know exactly. I would put it between 20 and 25. Q And the voting age population? . A I don’t know what the voting age population is. Q Would the voting age population of African Americans, to the best of your knowledge, be a lower percentage than the total population percentage? A It would be a lower percentage. Q Now, would you consider African Americans in North Carolina to be widely dispersed? Ms. Harrell: Objection; I don’t--objection to the form of the question. I don’t know what you mean by widely dispersed. Q Okay. Are the--- KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 O G0 e l N U N A W N = C U R E © J © J V JE Sh Or GU S R S U S E SE o R oo JE eee A BD . RB EE SB 8 : N e n i h W N m S 4 » Linwood L. Jones 9/22/99 Page 148 Mr. Stein: Objection. A I don’t know what agreement or discussions they had on, you know, how they would do the district. Q And I believe I asked you this earlier, but just to be sure, you do not recall any discussions where McMahan, Cohen or you were involved where you were present where the view was expressed that if it is below 50 percent it is not subject to Shaw v. Reno, or do you recall that? Ms. Harrell: Asked and answered. Mr. Everett: It probably is, but I must admit I can’t recall. That was long ago and far away. The Witness: Yeah. Ms. Harrell: I believe that is one where I had directed him not to answer as to any legislator--- The ‘Witness: ~ (interposing) Right. Ms. Harrell: ---other than the ones who had waived their legislative privilege. The Witness: I believe the answer I gave was that I believe Senator Cooper referred to that on the Senate floor, which is in the transcript. By Mr. Everett: Q And that was never withdrawn as a matter of record-- j.e., he never said, "I ‘was vrong" or—-- A (interposing) Yeah. He never took it back, as far as I know. KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 C e 0 0 9 A n n A W O N = I S C p p d 25 4 * Linwood L. Jones 9/22/99 Page 149 Q And nobody else ever took it back for him? A As far as I know. Q And so far as you know, neither Mike Easley, Tiare Smiley, Eddie Speas, or anyone else you could identify from the AG’s office ever came over ‘and said it was wrong, "I take it back"? Ms. Harrell: Objection to the extent you are asking for advice of counsel. Mr. Everett: Let’s say on the record instead. Ms. Harrell: In the public record. By Mr. Everett: Q Let me ask you to look at Exhibit 34. Mr. Markham: 31. Q 31; I beg your pardon. And 31 is--I believe you t-a@lready- testified generally what it was, but in preparation for the next question could you describe again what 31 purports to be? A It is a spreadsheet showing various election data and registration data which I believe is all from 1996. And this is only for District 2. And what I don’t know is exactly which stage of the development of plans this spreadsheet goes to. Q And with respect to--is there any other one like this" for say the 4th District, to the best of your recollection? A We may have had one for the 4th District, but in KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 eo 0 0 9 A n i A W O N T R E C R S E R fe R S IW SE S R N a e AR P E R R B S E I 5 hn B W N S 4 a Linwood L. Jones 9/22/99 Page 150 looking for it we weren’t able to locate it. I do know we didn’t do them beyond the 2nd and possibly the 4th. Q You don’t recall any being done for the 12th or for the 1st or anything like this? A Not by the House; there was nothing we had access to or that I had access to. Q Is there any that was done by the Senate that you had access to or are aware of? A There was nothing we had access to--that I had access to during the time the negotiations between Representative McMahan and Senator Cooper were going on. Q Now, with respect to results of various types, did you at any time see any results of elections that had been furnished by NCEC, whatever that means, I think National 1 Center. of something,=which is a think:tank having some sort of Democratic orientation? A I don’t recall seeing anything like that until after the enactment of the plan. Q So during the process you saw nothing of that sort? A Right. Q How about election results furnished by any other group regardless of whether they are partisan or non- partisan? Did you see anything other than what you have already told me? A No, not that I recall. KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 No 0 Na A A n t A W N SS o T T T oo S C C y GA Gh CO S y GH S Y l g N w OS NS R T T ER W N m S » * W. Edwin McMahan 10/1/99 Page 88 Q Did you receive any additional election data from groups like the National Republican Committee or any other group with respect--- A (interposing) No, sir, I did not. Q And so far as you know, was the data in the computer in 1996 or ‘97 when you were preparing the plan the same data that had been there in 1992? A I do not know that for a fact. I was not here in ‘92, but I know it was old data. Q And while you were there, was there any change made or any insertion of data to the best of your knowledge? A At the end of--close to the end of the process we did get Linwood to try to zero in on District 2 and District 4 with some current registration data, because that is--we were down to trying to balance those two districts, Republican- Democrat, to maintain the six-six balance. So that was some new data he went out to gather, but as far as I know that was the only new data. Q So with respect to the 12th or the 1st, there was no additional data obtained at any time? A No, sir, I don’t believe so. Q Do you recall what the results had been as between Gantt and Helms in the 12th District? A No, sir, I don’t recall at this point. Q Or the 1st? KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 K o 0 0 a A i n A W O N [\ S nN [) [N e] pe oo t _" tt oh HY oh au l a —_ - th 3 Ww [\ S) tl (= ) o oo EN | = Wn ¥S Ww 3] ne y (= > * David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 A No. Q Do you recall having any discussions with anyone back during that time that they were seeking your assistance in some aspect of evidence? A I don’t recall any such incident. Q Is it your conclusion that party is a better explana- tion than race in the construction of the external boundaries of congressional districts of the 1997 plan or that it is essentially an equal explanation? A My conclusion is that although there is a correlation between the racial composition of the populace and the boundaries of the 12th District, there is also a correlation between the political affiliation of the people in the 12th District and nearby and the boundary taken by the district and that .of ‘the two correlations the lightly stronger one is with political affiliation and not with race. Q Is the degree of difference in the explanatory value of the data sufficient to permit you to say that one is a better fit than the other? A Yes. Q So these differences are in your view significant? A I am not sure how you are using the term "signifi- cant." It is simply the case that one correlation is larger than the other. Q Does your analysis provide an answer to the question KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 Wo O B i a d S N U r Y N No ro \° ] bo al HL pt ro ms Ly bo t —_ Mil ly pn t id IN N No bo [= ] & oo J = th Ra l Ww No I. <> — David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 14 of whether a significant number of persons are placed into or excluded from the district on the basis of race? A It doesn’t really address that issue, nor does it address the similarly phrased issue with respect to party affiliation. All it does is measure the correlation between race and the boundary and the correlation between party affiliation and the boundary and observe that of the two correlations that with party affiliation seems to be somewhat stronger than that with race. Q Do you have any direct knowledge concerning the motivation of members of the legislature who shaped the plan? A Not direct in the sense that I have spoken with any of the legislators. Q And what is the source of your knowledge? A What knowledge? Q Did you have any indirect information respecting the motivations of legislators? 'A I am told that the legislators, at least some of them, have said that in drawing the boundaries they considered party affiliation and not race. But I have not in any way relied on that information. My analysis is purely objective. Q And have you been told what measure of party affilia- tion these legislators indicated was relied upon? A I may have been told. I don’t remember at the moment what I was told. KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 W W 0 0 S J N h A W e 10 NN O N pe pe k p pb pk ek p k pk pe d @ Nl David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 15 Q Have you reviewed any of the materials from the Section 5 submission of the North Carolina legislature to the Department of Justice? A I am not familiar with that material by that name. Q Have you reviewed any materials that are provided to the Justice Department in connection with seeking pre- clearance in a congressional districting plan? A Not by that name. Q Have you been provided any information that with respect to Congressional District 12 that someone moved the Greensboro black community into Congressional District 12 and then later removed 60,000 persons from the district? A I am unaware of that. Q And if you were aware of that information and assuming its accuracy, would that.affect your.analysis.in.any way? A No. Q Have you done or attempted any segment analysis similar to that reflected in the data before you using the boundaries of either the 1st or the 12th Congressional District from the 1992 congressional district plan? A No. Q So do you have any basis to offer an opinion in any way as to whether the external boundaries of the 1st or 12th Congressional Districts in that plan were predominantly racial or predominantly political in motivation? KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 S E Y - S E R S e W A E e C S E I S E p t p d p d N N = O rd Wh _ David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 16 A I have no opinion on that. Q On how many other occasions have you performed some sort of segment analysis in your work? A I have never done an analysis exactly like this, but it is rather common in my practice to start with a fact situation and tailor an analysis to that--to the question of interest in that fact situation. So the general approach is one that I have used lots of times. The specific result of that approach in this instance is unique. Q Have you at any time attempted a boundary analysis for the 1997 plan for Congressional District 1? A No. Q And have you attempted such a boundary analysis for any of the other districts in the 1997 plan? A No. Q Do you know whether segment analysis is a standard, recognized procedure in any scientific field? A It is certainly common to identify atomic entities and examine them individually and then aggregate the results of those individual instances to see whether there is an overall statistical pattern. That is really the essence of statistical analysis. In this particular case the atomic pieces were segments of a boundary. I am unaware of anyone who has done exactly that kind of analysis in the past. Q Have you used this sort of analysis, this atomic KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 = |e ] J A A Wn Ha Ww [} qi“ ! BO pm pe d pe d Je d pe d pe d pe d pe d e d pe d &* @ David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 17 analysis, to offer an opinion respecting whether--the intent behind an action? A I’m sorry; is the question complete? Q Yes. A I don’t understand it. Q Have you used this sort of atomic analysis using subparts of the data and then evaluating them in the method that you have described as a way of establishing the intent of some person or somebody? A Only indirectly; in employment discrimination litigation it is fairly common to examine atomic circum- stances in which an employer made a decision and then to aggregate the results of those individual decisions to see whether there is a pattern of the employer in instance after instance -making..decisians .which.are adverse .to.the. interest. . of some particular protected group from which one, typically not the statistician, but the trier of fact, may be inclined to infer intent. Q Do any of your writings, either your newsletters or your academic writings, deal with some sort of segment analysis? A They certainly deal with atomic analysis, but not specifically segment analysis. That is rather particular to the circumstances of this case. Q And other than the documents that are before you here KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 e o 0 9 A n n A W N N N O N O N e d ee pd pd pd pd e d p e d p e d ed R r R a h : N o d W e e N o n n i a m a s Ra, a. David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 18 today, do you have any other writings regarding redistricting? A I.4on’t think so, no. Q Is it possible that this same sort of segment analysis would indicate a predominance of party over race even for a district which a court may have already invalidated under the conclusion that race was indeed the predominant factor? A It could happen, yes. Q Have you conducted any analysis concerning issues that relate to voter cohesion by race in North Carolina? A No. Q Have you conducted any analysis concerning polariza- tion of voting by race within North Carolina or the absence of such polarization? A Only to the extent that I have =xamined the correla-— tion between race and affiliation with a Democratic party, but those results are reported in my two affidavits. 'Q But with respect to voting behavior in terms of election contest results have you conducted any such analysis? A I would just repeat my earlier answer in response to that. To the extent that I have, the results are reflected in my two affidavits. Q And you are referring to the political party affilia- tion data as including the election contest results as well KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 © 00 NN O S tn A W h N D N Y T A D e e C p e T e d E k e d op ed eh ed B H N N N m B . ® 0 o t h A W i p e © * w David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 as the registration by race and other similar data? A Yes. I have used four different measures of party affiliation and I have referred to them collectively. Q Have you analyzed the question of whether or not Congressional District 12 as drawn in 1997 maximized Democratic strength within any particular region of North Carolina? A No. Q Did you conduct any analyses or begin any analyses which are not included in your report or reflected in its results? A On that issue? Q No; on any issue that relates to redistricting in this Cromartie assignment. (Pause.) A Not that I can recall; this was our study. Q So there is no instance in when you began a process and found it wasn’t fruitful or properly illustrative and just dropped that analysis? A No; we don’t do that. Q And other than the segment analysis, is there anything else you relied on in reaching your conclusions? A No. Q How large a difference in values is necessary, for example, with respect to partisan affiliation before you KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 W o 0 0 sd O N T L e S N ee DS D p ek C k e t ee k eh e d ge p e a k B R N N 0 8 i n e t e e a e e a David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 20 consider that difference important enough to be helpful in this analysis? A I am not sure I understand your use of the term "helpful." All I did was to develop a measure of correlation between where the boundary of the 12th District runs and the racial makeup of the populace and then apply that same measure to the political affiliation of the same populace and note which of the two correlations tended to be stronger. Q Let’s look at the data in Exhibit 21: <7 would like to look at a sample line of the data to make sure I am following the numbers and their import. Perhaps we could look at observation 80. And I believe observation 80 will appear beginning on page 23? A Yes. Q Is that correct? . And .observation 80 would be the fifth of the five lines written across the page for each of these? "A Yes. Q Beginning at the first--obviously, your first column, your observation, is a number which you have designated. What is the second column? A The one that is labeled "Segment"? QO . Yes. A That also is a number that we have designated. The first number is simply a line counter. The second number is KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 (V - JO N - E N IE ~ YR 7) EE ~ SE R P R B E CE E CT CE CG ST GE — U R S R SS SR oo S R * * David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 a segment number which we assigned. Q What is the third column? A I don’t recall offhand. It is some kind of an identifier, but I can’t tell you exactly what its origin is. Q What is the next column? A The next column is a precinct identifier. And it is identifying the outside precinct for which this line segment forms a boundary, outside precinct meaning outside of District 12. Q Do you know what the subparts of that number, for example, the 06 at the beginning of that item, stands for? A There is a way of decoding it. TI have forgotten exactly how it goes. That may be a county identifier, but I am not sure. Q And the fifth column on the first line is-entitled "IPRECNCTM? A Yes. That is the identifier of the internal precinct. And the segments in question here is the boundary between-- the external precinct and the internal precinct are identi- fied by those two identifiers. Q What is the meaning of the next column? A I believe that is the number of people that reside in the internal precinct. Q Okay. And the next column? A Would be the number of white people that reside in the KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 Lo 0 0 9 A n t A W N B N Pe k ee k fk Je s pe t pe d pe d pk pe s ped iy on David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 internal precinct. Q And the next? A Would be the number of African Americans who reside in the internal precinct. Q And the next column? A Is the number of white people--whoops; this would be the number of white registered voters living in the internal precinct. Q And the next line? A The next column is the number of African American registered voters living in the internal precinct. Q And the next column? A Is the number of Asian registered voters in the internal precinct. Q And the next one, which is the final one for the first line? A That is the number of American Indians who are registered voters and living in the internal precinct. Q Now coming down to the second row in which observation 80 continues, what is the first column that begins with NIOTHVOT"? A That is the number of registered voters who are counted neither as whites, African Americans, Asians, or American Indians who live in the internal precinct. Q Then what is the next column? KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 ES e n C w N U B T N e e U R C B E U E N E T R S I a h on ET E oh i l S ye I E e A cr a N B R R B S e a A W N e S & * David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 23 A Oh; well, I need to back up just a bit because the--let’s see; the preceding one, two, three, four, five columns were not registered voters but rather voting age population voters. And we are beginning now the sequence of counts of registered voters in the internal precinct. Q So the second column on the second row reflects total number of registered voters in the precinct? A Yes; that is correct. Q And the next column? A Is the number of white registered voters in the internal precinct. Q And the next one? A Is the number of African American registered voters in the internal precinct. Q And the next one? A Is the number of registered voters who are not counted either as whites or blacks living in the internal precinct. 0 And what is the next column, which is labeled "TICDEM3S8"? A This would be the total number of people--- (Witness peruses document.) Well, it is——- ‘(Witness peruses document.) I. am not sure what that count is. I would have to go back and look at probably documentation in my office. Let me KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 Oo 00 gO O& O n i A W O N N N N N e d m d pd e d m d m d p e d pe nd p e d pe d B R D a l o D o w e h e o t E o m e d e b David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 24 just see if I can get another clue here; just a minute, please. (Witness peruses document.) Q And you are referring to which page of the other part of the materials? A I am referring back to the program segments, and that is on page 2 where the numbers appear in the upper left-hand corner. Q Still in document 217? A Still in ‘document 21; right. (Witness peruses document.) Oh, 1 see; okay. Going back to page 23, the ICDEMS8S8 count is the number of people in the internal precinct who voted Democratic in the 1988 Court of Appeals election. And the next .column.over that. is headed. TILDEMSS.is the. number. of. people who voted for the Democratic candidate in the 1988 lieutenant governor election. Q And the next column? A Is the number of people who voted for the Democratic candidate in the internal precinct in the 1990 Senate election. Q Okay. And the next three columns? A Are the analogous counts for people who voted for the Republican candidate in each of those three elections. Q And then coming down to the third set of lines, again KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 N S 0 W F S N U n u s W T S R R Y L N R W E S I e a e , E S R B R E R E E E R E B N : 8 . N B . N B B B i s a o a t h b w N e OD é > David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 . Page 25 to observation 80, the first column that says IDEM, what does that signify? (Witness peruses document.) Q IDEM is the number of people who are registered Democrats in the internal precinct. Q And the next column? A Is the number of registered Republicans in the internal precinct. Q Now, beginning at the next column, which is the third column on the third row, and continuing to the end of the fourth column, is it correct that those are all the analogous data with respect to the outside precinct for each of the categories you have just identified above? A That is the case, yes. Q Now, coming to the fifth line where the first column is IBLKPCT~-- A (interposing) Yes. 'Q ---can you tell me what that means? A Yes. These are percentages that are calculated on the basis of the preceding numbers. So the IBLKPCT pertains to the internal precinct, and it is a percentage that African Americans constitute of the whole, where the whole is the total population of people living in that precinct. Q And the next column? A Is the percentage that blacks constitute of the voting KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1332 (800) 255-7886 © 0° 00 0 A Un A W N d N O N O N O N e e d p d ee e d h e d p k p e t p w d p k pe a B D R D B o b a m o S o a r B o o p n m i a e d Ww —. David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 | Page 26 age population. Q And the next column? A Is the percentage blacks constitute of the registered voting population. Q And again, whith are all with respect to the internal precinct; is that correct? A Yes, Q And the next? A Is the percentage that minorities constitute of the population of the internal precinct. Q And the next column? A Is the percentage that minorities--voting age minorities constitute--the percentage that minorities constitute of the voting age population of the internal precinct. Q And the next column? A Is the percentage that minorities constitute of the registered voters in that precinct. Q Now, with respect to each of those three columns, are all persons other than those who identify themselves as white in the census considered to be members of a minority? A Yes. Minority should be interpreted as meaning not white. Q So it would include Asians and it would include Native Americans? KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 No O O I N n O R W D I 0 BO pm pe pk pe t h b e d e d d fe d ed * * David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 27 A Yes. Q The next column, which will be I believe the sixth column--I’m sorry; the seventh column? A Yes. Q Can you tell us what that signifies? A Yes. That is the--in the internal precinct, that is the percentage of people who voted for the Democratic candidate in the 1988 lieutenant governor election. Q Do you have any information concerning how third party candidates, if any, are treated in that data? A Yes; they are excluded. Q And the next column? A Is the percentage of people living in the internal precinct who voted for the Democratic candidate in the 1988 Court of Appeals election. Q And the next column? A Is the fraction of people living in the internal precinct who voted for the Democratic candidate in the 1990 senatorial election. Q And then our next column, which is IPCTDEM? (Witness peruses document.) And again, can you let us know which page you are referring to to attempt to respond to that question? A I am looking at pages 2 and 3 where the numbers appear in the upper left-hand corner in the first part of the KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 W o q h B W oR L R 7 W E a W W N = ® » David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 28 exhibit. (Witness peruses document.) Well, I have forgotten how I characterized the variables IDEM and IREP to you earlier. But the entry that shows up in the column that is headed IPCTDEM is the ratio of IREP to IDEM. So it is--or let’s see. Tt is--no; it'is the--it is the fraction that the Democrats constitute of the sum of those two numbers. So it is IDEM divided by the sum of IDEM plus IREP. Q And the next ten columns, they are just the analogous entries for the external precinct; is that correct? A Yes. Q And that brings us then to the sixth line across--or group of lines across and the sixth column that is headed ITOTVOT. A Yes, Q What does that signify? A That is the total voting age population of the internal precinct. Q And the next column, ITOTMIN? A That is the total number of minorities living in that--in the internal precinct. Q And the next column? A Is the total number of minority voting age residents in the internal precinct. KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 Co 0 9 S N a W N N O O N N N O N e k pd pd k d e d m d pd p e d e d pd i g D N N D B M B E 8 B O B o h r e m N | David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 29 Q And the next line, which is ILTG88? A I think we skipped one here. Q I’m sorry. A What I gave you--the answer--my last answer was for the column headed IMINVOT. Q Okay; fine. A And the next column--- Q (interposing) Let’s go back to IMINREG--- A (interposing) Right. Q ---which I believe will be the ninth column of the sixth row. A That is the total number of minority registered voters living in the internal precinct. Q What is the significance of the next column? (Witness peruses document.) A That is the total number of people who voted either for the Democratic candidate or for the Republican candidate in the 1988 lieutenant governor’s election. Q And the next two columns are the similar totals for the Court of Appeals and the Senate; is that correct? A That is correct, yes. Q And then we begin a series of columns. The next seven peginning with OTOTVOT and ending with OSEN90, are those columns that provide similar information for the external precinct? KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 iw a. David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 30 A Yes, Q So that brings us then in our data down to the seventh group of lines and to the fourth column. Can you tell me what GTBLKPOP means? A. It is a flag. It takes the value zero or 1 depending on the truth of the proposition, which I have now to recollect. (Witness peruses document.) Okay. That is a variable that is equal tol: if the representation of blacks in the inside Precinct is greater than the representation of blacks in the outside precinct. Q And what does the next column signify? A Just the reverse of that. Q And the third column--I’m sorry; the sixth column of that line, which is the seventh line? : A That is also. a flag, and: that is equal to ‘1 dif the internal and external percentages are identical. Q And taking the next columns in groups of three, can you tell me what the next three columns relate to? A Yes. They relate to the representation of blacks among voting age population. Q And the next three columns? A They relate to the representation of blacks among registered voters. Q And the next three? KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 O O O J O t h B N ee BO hd pe d he d pe d e d fe d he d e d pd ed Lg * David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 31 A They relate to minorities in the population as a whole. Q And then coming down to our eighth line of data, can you tell me what the next three columns that begin that line provide data regarding? A They pertain to the minority voting age population. The next three? Pertain to the minority registered voters. The next three? oS «al e 8 They pertain to voting behavior in the Court of Appeals election in 1988. Q And the next three? A They pertain to voting behavior in the lieutenant governor election in 1988. Q And now for the final two of that row and the first one Of the very last row of data, what does that data show? A These are more flags again doing comparisons across the segment boundary. And these flags pertain to voting behavior in the 1990 senatorial election. Q What about the next three? A These pertain to party affiliation as revealed through voter registration. Q And the next column, which is DEMNTBLK? A That is a flag that--—- (Witness peruses document.) KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 800) 255-7886 O o 0 uO A N n n R A W D D O T © T E = SE So G y Sr G y S l S W S R a a * David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 --—-takes the value 1 if the internal precinct is Democratic or more Democratic than the external precinct by every one of the four measures and is not greater in black population than the external precinct by every one of the three measures of racial composition. Q And the next column? Is that the reverse? A Close to it; it is also a flag that takes the value 1 if the internal precinct is not more Republican than the external precinct by every single one of the four measures of party affiliation and has a greater representation of blacks in it than the external precinct by every one of the three measures of black representation. 0 And the final column, PRFLAG? A That is a flag that takes the value 1 if any one of the numeric values. in the preceding record is missing. Q So does that indicate observations upon which there is incomplete data? A Yes. Q Going from observation 1 to observation 234, how is the data arranged? What is the thematic organization of these data, if any? A They are sorted in order of segment number, which is the second variable. Q How are the segments generated? A I think we looked at a map and figured out from a map KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 oo 00 uN A Un A W O N J NS T N E T a TE oe T E <= WE SO = SE So SE Go py wey “ —_ David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 33 of the different segments where and then just numbered them in order of occurrence starting at some place on the boundary, no place in particular. Q So it is your understanding, then, that these segments will continue in procession around the boundary of the district? A It is probably the case that they do, but they might not. There is no--there is nothing about the segment number that is important to our analysis. Q And when you say we looked at a map, who particularly did that? Did you personally look at these maps? A I personally looked at the maps, but I didn’t do the--all of the segment coding. Q Did you--- A (interposing) There was another--there was another person who worked on this project who has since left PRI Associates, and she probably did most of the actual segment numbering. Q What was her name? (Pause.) A It will come to me. I can see her face. I can’t think of her name at the moment. 07 .ip6 you know her background and education and experience? A She has a Ph.D. in sociology from Duke. I will supply KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 7 BO G - S R A EE E W E J SR E E E CC ER a e d e g n 6 T E E S EN EE T 0 EE S " C C E WH ER E S E E E R e i E E E E i T I B D E R N E R R B o R O o m a 0 s m S # * David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 34 her name as soon as I think of it. Q Did you generate any of the segments, the listing of the segments, by looking at the maps? A I am not sure what you mean, the segments--I mean, they are just lines on a map and you go through and number then. Q And what set of maps did you use to find those segments? A It was a set of maps that was supplied to us by the State. Q Were they maps of a similar character as the map of Iredell County which is contained in your second affidavit, Exhibit 20, entitled "1990 Voting Precincts in Iredell County"? A Yes. Q And did you have a map of that sort for every county in the 12th Congressional District? A I don’t know that we had them county by county, but we had maps that were at that level of detail. Q Do you remember if you just had one map for the entire state? A I have seen such maps, but the ones that we used for identifying the segments were of a larger scale than that. Q But you don’t recall today whether in preparing the segment analysis whether you had individual maps of each KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 N o 0 S N D W N a N N M e t e e k pd pd pd e d e d e d ee B B N R B g g u n s B o n e e e k e No Wn a David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 35 individual county similar to those of Iredell? A I don’t recall at the moment, no. Q So the process of identifying the segments was done visually by comparing these maps and looking at the Segments as you march along the boundary of the district? A Yes. Q And did the maps which you had include overlaid upon it the 1997 congressional district boundary? A It would have been that boundary that we were following. It had to have been. Q But you don’t recall today how that boundary was marked or in what fashion? A 1 don’t. I don’t recall if it was--the inside portion was colored a different color than the outside portion or whether the boundary itself was purple and the others were black. Q Now, these data which are in Exhibits 21 and 22, can you identify for me--for example, let’s look at observations 53 and 54, which I believe will be reflected on page 18. A Yes. Q Can you tell me looking at observation 53 and the outside precinct what county that precinct comes from? A TI cannot tell that looking at page 18. Q Do you have any other data that would assist you to answer that? KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 ~ ~ R I T T R CR ER GE V G E S HR ET E E R N N O N O N em p t p k w d m k d k pd m k pd pd B . A . 5 . P R N S N N S R G N e S @* David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 36 A Not in my possession at the moment, no. Q And at the time that you were preparing this analysis did you have some sort of correlating key which would correlate the VID key and the outside precinct key to a particular county and a particular named precinct? A Yes. Q And what was the source of that information? A Well, it ultimately would have been the State. (Witness peruses document.) Q In determining--- Ms. Smiley: (interposing) Excuse me; I am not sure he has answered his question--finished answering. A Right. Let me check one other thing. (Witness peruses document.) A Yes. If vou will look at page 2 you will see listed there--sorry; it is page 2 where the numbers appear in the upper right-hand corner, so it is later on than where you are looking just at the moment. Q Okay. A There. Q All right. A You have gone too far; there you are. Ms. Smiley: What exhibit number, David? The Witness: I'n.sorry;«it:is Exhibit: 21, Thank you. You will see listed there 25 records from a file called KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 ND OO “ a l i B N U N S U N e A | S E E M E HR U C R S R l n C O S e B a R R e b b o B o n s m e m e a e pe a E * a David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 37 NC Borders. And that file provides a link between the VTD key and the segment number and the internal and external precinct numbers and something which might pass for an English description of the precincts that are involved. Q Do you know in determining or generating the listing of segments whether two precinsts which touch at a point and have only point contiguity would have counted as being segments of this district? A No. Segment had to have a positive length in order to come to the analysis. Q Do you know whether or not the precincts that are reflected on page 2 numbered in the upper right-hand corner are data for 1990 or for precincts as they exist today? A I don’t know for sure, but I expect that they are the identities of precincts that were used in the drawing of the 12th Digtrict. Q The maps that were used to establish the segment listings, did you retain those maps? A Yes, I think so. Q Do you know from what sort of software those maps were produced? A Not exactly; we didn’t produce them. They were produced for us by the State. Q Do you know if--well, let me step back. All’ the election data numbers that are contained in the data, were KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 Y S » - I E E C R E 7 S R - T E T C H h e B N OB R e d m d p e d fe ed e d e d p e d p e d p e d ed N A N N b E B R R B h R O N m S * * David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 38 they provided to you, then, by the State of North Carolina? A Yes. . . Q Do you know in calculating their election data whether absentee ballots are assigned back to the precinct from which the voter resides in this data? A I don’t know. Q Do you have any information concerning how absentee ballots are allocated with respect to these data? A No. Q And you indicated earlier that third party candidates, it was your understanding, were discarded in the analysis and the data was just removed? A We discarded them. Q Okay. A . So that anytime we report a precinct as being say 40 percent Republican, it is a fair inference that by that same measure it is 60 percent Democratic. Q And you would have done that both respect to party registration data and with respect to election contest data? A Yes. Q If there are mistakes in the accuracy of the data, could that affect the degree of difference of the ultimate conclusions of your analysis? A it could, yes. Q Could it affect whether there is a difference? KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 N O OD ad T O N WU B R W N DN B N e d e d ew pd e d e d ee p e d pe d R - R 0 3 N o i o m e n o a a k e T a w . David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 39 A It could, yes. Q And it could therefore affect the direction of the difference? A Yes, it could. Q Did you or anyone in your organization make any effort to verify the accuracy of the data? A No, not beyond making sure that we had read it correctly. Q Do you have any information concerning whether any of the data that is contained in Exhibits 21 and 22 were the result of a modification process by the State of U. S. Census Bureau data? A The question was whether we had done what? Q Do you have any information whether the data that is contained in Exhibits 21 and 22 reflect = modification by State personnel of U. S. Census Bureau data? A Well, some of the information is obviously not U. Ss. Census Bureau data, so in that sense I suppose--I am not sure if you would consider it a modification. Q Well, let me change--- A (interposing) It is unrelated---— Q (interposing) Well, let me rephrase my question. With respect to the population data, total population and voting age population per precinct, do you know whether or not the State of North carolina modified data from the U. S. KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 ND O 0 8 N l O N W n A W N pe C R E E L R Oe a S E S n e e e e E E E R ee a l B r R R R B i m { n h R N i D Lg » David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Census Bureau in preparing the data which they provided to you in Exhibits 21 and 22? A I don’t know. Q And if that data were modified in error, could that affect the accuracy of your results? A It could, although if the data are erroneous and the data are in fact what the legislature relied on in making its decision, it might be that even erroneous data would not affect the conclusion that I draw. Q I would like to draw your attention to observation 198, which I believe is in Exhibit 22. I believe that is reflected on page 47 in the upper right-hand corner; is that correct? A Yes. Q. Can you tell me how many black registered voters in observation 198, segment 199, are shown for the external precinct, the outside precinct? (Witness peruses document.) A My copy is a little hard to read, but it looks like it might be 93, but it might be 90 or it might be 98. Q And how many black persons in total are there for that observation? ‘(Witness peruses document.) A It looks like there are 60 recorded here. Q So a precinct with 60 black persons generates a black KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 Co O0 8 J S h Wn BA W O N me DN N O N p d pd pl ee e d p e d pe e d p e d pe a hy David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 | Page 41 registered voter population of 90 or greater? A That is what it looks like, yes. Q Let’s look at observation 199. Is the same trend present in that observation as well? A Yes. It. looks like it. is the--probably the same precinct that is involved. Q And observations 203, 204, and 205, which appent on page 48 of the data in Exhibit 22, is that also another example in which there are more black registered voters than black persons residing in the precinct? A Where would that be again, please? Q Observations 203, 204, and 205. A I show in 203, 118 blacks, 61 registered blacks, and in 204, 538 total blacks and 185 registered, and in 205, 538 total blacks and 185 registered. . Q Let me look, then, at observations 149 and 150, which is in Exhibit 22, page 37; is that correct? A It was 149 and 1507? Q Yes. A Yes. (Pause.) Is there a question pending? Q Yes. The question is is that precinct and that observation an instance in which there are more black registered voters than total blacks in the precinct? KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 AD O O W E N U N R W N C E © T E S C Sh Sr S S = S R S R SR S S Lg e David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 42 A No. Q You are looking at observations 149 and 1507 A Yes. Q Okay. Which columns are you looking at there? A The--in the third row the column that is headed "OTOTBLK," which would be the total black population, and in the fourth column the--sorry; the fourth row, the second column, in the one that is "OREGBLK," showing the number of registered black voters. Q I'm sorry; can we focus on the internal precinct? A Okay. (Witness peruses document.) Yes. In the internal precinct the data show 44--no, sorry; the data show 61 blacks in total but 132 registered black voters in lines 149 and. in.line 150 as well.. Q And the number you began to give, the 44 number, would be the number of adult blacks who reside in that precinct according to the data. A Yes. Q Is that correct? A That:is right. Q In Exhibit 21 is there a listing of precincts for which you lacked full data? (Witness peruses document.) Q Sir, can I draw your attention to page 77? KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 N 0 0 : a l N U N RR O N pe o l l SE ES C B E E T L T Wa Tr CO G U S W S W e g B R O D a l B a g h B E a m e “ Wy David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 A Yes, Q Were you aware at the time you prepared your analysis that you were missing full data with respect to these observations, these five observations? A Yes. What effort, if any, did you make to obtain complete data? A I don’t recall whether we specifically asked about these data or not. We had several conversations with the people who supplied us with the data. But my understanding is that we have all of the data that are available. Q And who are the persons at the State who were providing and answering technical questions concerning the data? A There were two people, I believe, that we.worked with. It has been quite awhile since--since we worked on this with them. One name that comes to mind is Dan Frey. 1 am not sure if I have got it right. And there was another person, I think a woman, with whom we worked, but I don’t remember her name offhand. Q Do you know whether any of the precincts that are reflected in the missing data on page 7 would--their inclusion in the complete data would affect results of any of the precincts which you have analyzed? A I'don’t know. KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 G 0 e d O N t h B R A N D N O N O N N O N ee pe e d pd ed e d e d p e d f e d pd B - R . N B N R B e R R E N D C R S Lg a David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 44 Q Do you know whether in the state of North Carolina there are some precincts which are not--in which all portions are not geographically contiguous? A Do you mean that there are precincts that are not contiguous, that have--- Q (interposing) That are comprised of two chunks. A That are separated by some distance; is that what you are saying? Q Yes. Are you aware that such precincts exist in the state of North Carolina? A No. Q Did you evaluate that, of course, in any way in your analysis? A It seems as though they would have come to our attention as we were looking at the precincts that.bound the... 12th District’s, but I don’t recall any such precincts coming to light. 'Q Do you know whether the census geography is equivalent to the precincts for the material that you were provided for the counties relevant to this analysis? A I don’t understand the question. Q Do you know whether the--in your footnote--let me just start a different way. In your footnote in your first affidavit——- Ms. Smiley: What exhibit number is that? KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7386 A, Ty David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 45 1 Mr. Markham: That is Exhibit Number 19, page 3, 2 |" footnote 1. 3 By Mr. Markham: 4 Q You make a mention of some special circumstances which S | relate to Davie County? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Can you explain to us what those circumstances are? 8 A I am not sure what there is to say beyond what is said 91 in the footnote. 10 | Q Did you make any effort to obtain data that was 11 | missing from the State with respect to Davie County? 12 A No. We just used minor civil division data. 13 Q Do you know whether the minor civil division data 14 | corresponds to the precincts for that county? 154 A As I sit here, I don’t. 16 Q Did you calculate the data for Davie County with 17 | respect to election results or were these figures that were 18 | supplied to you by the State? 19 A All of the figures were supplied to us by the State. 20 Q Can you identify which of the data contained in 2] | Exhibits 21 or 22 relate to Davie County? 22 A No. 23 Q ‘Assume with me that evidence will show that observa- 24 | tion 199 will be among those observations which relate to 25 | Davie County. KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 pk Oo 0 a S a wn A W N 11 |g BE David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 46 A All right. Q What is the percentage of support for the Democratic candidate for the U. S. Senate in 1990 in that precinct? A Are we talking about an internal precinct or an external precinct? Q The external precinct. (Witness peruses document.) A The question again was? Q What was the level of support for the Democratic candidate for the United States Senate in the precinct reflected as the outside precinct in segment 199--I’m sorry; segment 200, observation 199. A It looks as though 30 percent of the voters in that precinct voted for the Democratic candidate. Q Looking at the next observation--- A (interposing) Yes. Q -—-—-can you confirm that that involves a different external precinct from the same county, and can you tell us what the results were for the Democratic senate race in that precinct? A That does have a different precinct identifier. And the fraction is once again 30 percent. Q And continuing to the next page, I believe the next identifying--the next new identifier for an external precinct will be in the fourth line, observation 2047? KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 o o 0 0 gO O Q n l A W O N (\® ) \® ) rh [— — — po d pt pk pt — pd 2 3 0 ty C a © c o ~~ (= ) Wn SN W w 13 °) _- _- " ~ ~ hey —S David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 47 A Yes. Q Can you tell us what the Democratic percentage was for the Democratic candidate--I’m sorry, what the percentage was of support for the Democratic candidate in that precinct according to observation 209 for another precinct in that county? A Observation 2047? Q Yes. 1'm sorry; yes, i204. A 30 percent. Q And continuing to the next page, what is the next unique precinct on the outside? Is that at observation 208? A Yes, Q Can you tell me what the Democrat support was for the United States Senate in that precinct in the same county? A. Also 30 percent. Q And the next observation, 209, does that also reflect a unique precinct within the same county? A Yes. Q And what is the Democrat support? A Also 30 percent. Q As a statistician would it surprise you that every precinct in the county voted in the same proportion in the United States senate contest? A It would surprise me if they had all voted in exactly the same proportion, yes. KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 ,- RE EL JO SE " E E W E J S R S t G E R E I O 1 D k e N p pe pk ek d k S t a h a a a y S E b e S R R E R C W E E E Y L 4 a David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 48 Q And if those data are incorrect could they affect the accuracy of your analysis? A Yes, they could. Q In fact, were precincts bordering Davie County among those which you used in calculating whether or not race or party were a better explainer--a better method of explaining the external boundaries of the district? Q Yes. Q There are more segments than precincts that comprise your analysis; is that correct? A Yes. Q Is that a form of double counting? A No. Q Are all convergent segments equally probative of each of the two theories, whether race or party predominated in the construction of the external boundary of the district? A I treated them as equally probative. .Q Would it be possible that because of differences--that convergent segments could be used to support one or the other theory of the construction of the external boundary of the district because of differences in the level of change with respect to party or with respect to race? A One could devise other measures that take into account the magnitudes of the differences across boundaries, yes. Q And did you make any effort to conduct such an KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 N o 0 0 aT A y U n B e R D p e D N : D e i C t fk 5 k L a p a uk pn # Ny David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 _ Page 49 analysis? A No. Q Do you have any sense for what that analysis would show without conducting it? A No. Q Did you consider conducting such an analysis? A Briefly, yes. Q Did you make some initial attempts to evaluate data with respect to such an analysis? A No. Q I had an unrelated question on Exhibit 21, page 5, in the upper right-hand corner. These are 24 observations from data set NC.PRECINCT. Can you tell me what that analysis began to show, what the purpose of this activity was? A What this program does is..to.combine.information. from. | _. two files. The first few records of one of the files is—--are listed on page 5. And a short time ago we looked at the records that are listed on page 2. Those are the top few records from the other file on which this analysis is based. And what the analysis--or what the computer program does is to combine these two files together to produce the single file that runs for many, many pages and contains the results of our calculations. Q I wanted to draw your attention to the fourth row across of data, the fourth grouping of rows, where county KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 Oo © uN O S n n A W N N O N O N O N ee pe p e d e d e k pd pe d pe d pe d B N D R h E R N i t h R R m S * * David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 names are listed, Beaufort and Bertie. A Yes. Q Are those the very first that exist in the file and is that the reason they are included at this location, or is there some other purpose or reason why those two counties were included in these data? A This is just the top of the file called NC.PRECINCT. Q Do you have any information concerning in which congressional district those two counties are located? A Not at the moment, no. Q Does your analysis treat away all precinct comparisons as equivalent regardless of their respective populations? For purposes of proving or disproving theory, does each precinct segment count the same regardless of what the population is .inside..or.outside..the. district? A When you say what the population is, you are referring to the number of people as opposed to their--- Q (interposing) The total--- A —-—-either political composition or their racial composition? Q That is right, their total number. A The total number? Yes, the count is independent--or the correlation measure that I use is independent of the total number of people involved in each precinct. Q In evaluating intent would there not be a need to KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 N D . O0 C A E N U C R C O h E pe E E H E C E E e e R h C U I i e E E E E W Ry a David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 51 weigh the segment analysis according to populations in order to determine intent in constructing a congressional district? A I wouldn’t think that there would be a need to do it. One could do it, but it is not necessary. Q So this was not an approach you have attempted? A That is correct. I did not attempt it. Q And so each segment counts the same even if the two precincts involved are relatively small in population and have relatively little effect on the overall character of the congressional district? A That is correct. Q And does this analysis count each precinct equally either in support or in opposition to the theory even if the differences are very small or even trivial? A Well, I don’t know about trivial, but all it does is to count up differences. Q Did you ever prepare a listing of those instances in which--of the precincts and the observations that reflect your Type P divergent segments? (Witness peruses document.) A Those are listed on pages 41 and 42 of Exhibit 21, or at least these are the ones that are consistently opposed. Did you intend--- Q (interposing) My question was any that were divergent. KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 OC 0 0 uO O N n h A a W N N O N RN ee d pm bd e d b e d f e d p e d p e d p e d pe d B o a N e N N H 2 2 O B n D R R D i p R S s * » David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 52 A Any that are—--- Q The 26 that you have listed in your report. A Oh; I don’t recall having printed those out: separately. They are of course included in the entire list, Exhibit 22 and the bulk of Exhibit 21, but they aren’t listed separately. Q Let’s mark as Exhibit 23, I believe, a list which I will place before you. | A Thank you. (Exhibit 23 was marked for identification.) Q And I would like for you to briefly review the data reflected inside and outside and confirm for me that those would be instances if these data and numbers are correct that would support the Type P divergent analysis and these would be the 26 segments. And you have before you, I believe, Exhibits 21 and 22, the original data, if you need to make a check on any of those. (Witness peruses document.) Ms. Smiley: We have been going for over an hour and a half. David, would you like to take a break? Mr. Markham: That is fine with me. The Witness: I am doing fine. Ms. Smiley: Okay; we will wait. Why don’t we go for another--- KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 py David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 53 The Witness: (interposing) But if you want to take a break while I do some homework here, that is fine. Ms. Smiley: Well, that was the other thing, whether or not you would be more comfortable taking a few minutes to look at the data. Stein: How long will it take for you to figure an answer to the question? Witness: It is going to take a little while. Markham: Well, why don’t we take a short Smiley: When we say a little while, minutes we will check again? Witness: Yes. Smiley: Todd, we will take at least ten Cox: Okay. Mr. Markham: Let me do this before then: I have got an additional set of data for the R divergent segments. Why don’t we have him review those as well? And we will later identify that as Exhibit 24. The Reporter: Why don’t we just identify it now? Mr. Markham: Let’s identify it as 24 now and have him make the same analysis, if he will. (Exhibit 24 was marked for identification.) KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 eo O R NJ O N T U W N e N N ee ee pd e d pd pd p e d e d p e d pe R R R N B S g i o n om ml a e * * David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 54 The Reporter: Off the record. 2:10 p.m. (A brief recess was taken.) Mr. Markham: On the record. 2:29 p.m. By Mr. Markham: Q Dr. Peterson, before we went on the break we had presented to you Exhibits 23 and 24 and asked you to confirm that those are indeed the--with respect to Exhibit 23 the 15 Type P or party divergent segments and with respect to Exhibit 24 the group of Type R or race divergent segments that comprise a part of your analysis in this case? A Well, I didn’t quite understand my assignment to be that. I understood it to be that if the numbers on these exhibits are correct would they be Type P or Type R--- Q (interposing) Okay. With that limited——- A --=-Segments. Q ——-understanding let me ask you with respect to Exhibit 23 are each of these Type P divergent segments? A | They appear to be. In some cases it is hard to tell because the accuracy with which the numbers are shown I think in some instances makes it ambiguous. But they appear to be the Type P divergent segments. Q Which ones do you think have some ambiguity as to whether they are or are not Type P divergent based on the accuracy by which the numbers are calculated? A I am trying to find an example. It may be--- KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 © 0 N O O S n n A W N D S B D h e m pe d p m b e h p e d p d d h ee d e d O N E R E l s E a UR E r o t e r B R S R O T Y T R a @ David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 55 (Witness peruses document.) It may be in the Exhibit 24 that I found one or more instances where I couldn’t really tell. Let me check that one as well. (Witness peruses document.) Yes. On Exhibit 24, segment number 118, the figure 51 percent is shown for the Democratic representation both in the internal precinct and the external precinct. But I think that if the numbers were calculated to greater precision, one would find that the two percentages are in fact not identical. Q Okay. Can we look at Exhibit 22 and locate observation 1177? A It is on page 31. Q And is the data reported in your data set calculated beyond the third digit? A No, but all of the comparisons that are done of the percentages are done with greater precision than is indicated on the page. Q Can you define what a trivial difference would be with respect to numbers reflected on these two charts? Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question; I don’t think he has indicated he used trivial in any of the analyses. If you can answer the question, Dr. Peterson, give ita go. KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 e o 0 9 A Un B A W N e [3 ° IN B N e e p e p m p e d p e d p e d p e d e d p e e d pe a . —_ David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 56 A If you can define for me what you mean by trivial,;-X can try to answer. Q I was going to ask you if there are any of these results which you would perceive as being trivial differences in terms of the internal black percentage or the external black percentage, for example. A No, I have not characterized any of them as trivial. They are simply differences. Q In your normal analysis, your statistical analysis that you prepare for various clients, do you from time to time determine whether differences are or are not trivial? A On occasions when I calculate the statistical significance of differences, I will say that some differences ar significant and others are not significant, but trivial is not a technical term. Q Are there differences between the values on charts 23 and 24 comparing internal precincts to external precincts and comparing percentage black party--excuse me; percentage black voter registration to Democratic registration in which these numbers are not significant? A I don’t know what significant means in this context. When I use the term "significant," it is within the context of a particular probability model. And I can’t think of a probability model that it would be appropriate to employ here. KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 pr ed © 0 N N S N tn t A W B N C T E © T E C E G E SE U R S E S E S E S T # * David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 57 Q If in fact these are the instances in which--all the instances in which segments provide support for the political hypothesis reflected in your affidavits, Exhibits 19 and 20, can you tell me what is the range of black voter registration reflected for this group of precincts? A What you want to know is the largest of the black percentages that is shown here and the smallest of the black percentages? Is that what your question is? Q For those that were included inside Congressional District 12. A Well, the range for the inside figures shown on Exhibit 23 for the black percentages goes from a low of zero percent——- (Witness peruses document.) I haven’t checked these numbers to see if the right-- are these fractions or are they in fact percentages? They look more like fractions than percentages despite the label. I will interpret them as fractions. Q I will represent to you that the first number of the first line, .1484, is intended to represent 14.84 percent. A All right. 1 will interpret it that way, then. It looks like the largest of the numbers in this column is 20.1 percent. Q Do you have any information concerning the range of black voter registration in the total group of precincts that KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 Oo 0 QO A nN A W N em a A E S R S R SR U y I E G T o r (E R —_ —- David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 58 comprise Congressional District 12? A Within the district as a whole? Yes. The representation of blacks among registered voters? Yes; do you have any information concerning that? Yes. 0 B O O B D And what is that percentage? A The representation of blacks amount registered voters within the 12th District is 46 percent. Q So are any of these precincts typical of the bulk of Congressional District 12? Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question; if you can divine an answer to it, David, go ahead. A I am not sure what you mean by representative. None of them contain blacks to the extent of 46 percent. . Q I am looking at Exhibit 24, the precincts which are said to argue for a racial explanation for the external boundary structure of the district. What is the most African American by voter registration of any of those precincts? A External, did you say? Of the internal precincts. Internal. Included within Congressional District 12. 24 percent included--I'm sorry. O e y 0 . » 0 Included within Congressional District 12 internally. KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 o R A Y N t h B a i N e C T © T E SO Co S C G y G S S S R Y R R Y N E N E R Y R L # i David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 A Okay; 24 percent. Q So all the precincts reflected on Exhibit 24 would be considerably lower in black voter registration than would the district be as a whole; is that correct? A It is lower, yes. Q I want to turn your attention back to Exhibit 22 to observation number 160. (Witness peruses document.) A Page 39. Q In looking at Exhibit 23, this is one of the observa- tions that is used to support the Type P divergent segment analysis; is that correct? (Witness peruses documents.) A Yes. Q And assuming that. the evidence will show those identifiers to be High Point Precinct 1 on the inside included in Congressional District 12 and High Point Precinct 4 externally, which is excluded and not--or not included in Congressional District 12, can you tell me how many black registered voters there are in the 1st Precinct inside the district and what total number? A Internally there are four registered blacks out of a total of 1,212. Q And what about the external precinct not included? (Witness peruses document.) KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 O o 0 0 g O O Q n t A W N DN O N ee ed e d pd mm pe d pe d m d ee pe — ~ David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 60 A And outside it is seven blacks registered out of 2, 114% Q And this is evidence that there is a higher proportion of black persons outside the district than inside the district for that segment? ° A Yes, if you calculate the two percentages and compare them, one number is greater than the other. Q And is that a significant difference in your view? A Again, when I use the term "significant" it is within the context of a probability model. And I don’t see what probability model would be applicable under these circum- stances, so I don’t use the term "significant" here. Q So is this evidence that the designers of the district in determining which precincts to include or exclude along the external boundary as it wanders through High Point chose High Point Precinct 1 on the inside and excluded High Point Precinct 4 on the outside despite the fact that High Point 4 was a blacker precinct? A What it is is an element in the correlation of the boundary line with the racial makeup of the precincts which it separates. Q I want to look at observation number 6, which I believe will appear on page 9 of Exhibit 21. (Witness peruses documents.) Q Have you located that? KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 WO 00 . J S h W h K W O N mm ju [= é # David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 61 A Yes. Q And can you tell me again for that precinct how many black persons are in the precinct outside the district and how many black persons are in the precinct inside the district? A In the total population? Q Among the registered voters, black registered voters. (Witness peruses document.) A Outside there are 305 black registered voters and inside there are 338 black registered voters. Q What is the total number of registered voters inside the precinct? A The total number of registered voters inside the precinctis 2,278. Q And for the external precinct? A The total number of registered voters is 2,005. Q Now, again, is this evidence significant or important to support a hypothesis that the designers of the district were looking at party rather than race and determining to select the internal precinct and to exclude the external one in this instance? A It is an element of evidence of that, yes. 0. Ts lt wrivial evidence? A That is your word, not mine. Q Is it significant evidence? KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 OC 0 NN O S n n A W N B O BN he e d pe d pd pe d pe d fe d pe d pe d pe d — » David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 62 A Again, I don’t know what significance means in this context. Q Would it surprise you that there are a number of other observations with very small differences in the number of black persons or in number and support for or registration as a Democrat for a number of these precincts that your analysis is based upon? A I am sure there are small differences that go both ways. Q And have you made any evaluation of those, the numbers and types of--let me back up. Have you made any evaluation of thresholds beyond which there are larger differences or smaller differences and relate them to these 25 precincts said to be supportive of the party analysis and these 16 precincts said to be supportive of a race analysis? A No. Q Now, does your analysis take into account whether inclusion of the external precinct touching the boundary of the 12th Congressional District would require the creators to split open another county which at the moment in the process of developing this plan is wholly contained elsewhere? A I don’t understand the question. Q Does it matter to you whether parts of the segment of this district lie along county boundaries for counties which are not included otherwise in the congressional district? KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 Oo 0 N a O & A wn A W N C T S J SO a S E SR S R S S N o g M u i RB C B R A B h h R O N m R . a» David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 63 A No. Q So you give the same weight and force to the failure of the legislature to break across a county line to take out a single precinct of a county and include it than if they are making adjustments within counties that are already in part included in the district? A Right. It is important to note that what I am doing is measuring a correlation, not doing a decision analysis. Q Do you have any information concerning how many of these, the 26 Type P comparisons or the 16 Type R compari- sons, involve counties other than the six that are in the 1997 plan included in part in Congressional District 127? A I’m sorry; I didn’t understand the question. Q Do you know how many of these data set--these data examples, the 25 Type P divergent and the 16 Type R divergent, involve counties external to the six counties which comprise in part Congressional District 12? A I think the answer is no, but I still don’t understand the question. Q Well, let me step back. Do you know the six counties that are included in the 12th Congressional District in 19977? A Not offhand, no. Q okay. And do you know how many of the external precincts that are compared to precincts within the 12th Congressional District would be in counties that are not at KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 © 0 0 Jd A n r A W O N DN ON be md hd ed pd md fe d pe d pe d ped - » David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 64 present included in the 12th Congressional District at all? A I don’t know. Q And again, in your view every segment counts equally in the analysis regardless of whether that is maybe a factor in the decision maker’s mind? A Right; this is a correlative study. Q Do you know, for example, whether Davie County is a county that is included in the 12th Congressional District in any part at the present time? A I don’t recall at the moment. Q I want to go back briefly to the Davie County data. I believe we were at observation 190s to 200, in that area. Ms. Smiley: That is the data that you were telling us is the Davie County data. I don’t believe Dr. Peterson has identified it as Davie County data. Mr. Markham: Okay. By Mr. Markham: Dr. Peterson, are you familiar with FIPS codes? Q A What kind of codes? Q FIPS, F-I-P-S. A Well, I may have been at one time, but I am not at the moment. Q Are you familiar with county identifier codes of the U. S. Census Bureau data? A Oh, yes; yes. KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 © 0 NN S A un A W N = W E T e S e t N S T S E a a t EE R Y B h BR 3 8B 5 QO n i s i m OS ”® i» David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 65 Q and is that-—— A (interposing) That is to say that I know there are such things and I have worked with them in the past, but I couldn’t cite one to you at the moment. Q I believe we were looking at observation 199 before. I wanted you to look through and confirm, if you would, that the data for the percentage of support for the Democrat candidate for the Court of Appeals in those various precincts that we identified as being part of a same county but unique precincts also is all the same figure. A Well, you will have to lead me through step by step, because I don’t recall what the comparisons were that you were interested in. Q If we go to observation 198 through observation 210. A Okay. Q I am looking at the external precinct results for first the lieutenant governor’s race. Can you confirm that they are all either 34 percent? A If you could point me to the right column, that would be helpful. Q If I could point you to the correct column? A Yeah. Are we looking at the--in the one, two, three, four, five, sixth row, the second column in? Is that what you are looking at? Q Yes. KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 ! FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 Lo. R E ~~ S I R , SE E R E E { R A 7 R l © E E FY D N D N = p d p e d p e d m d h d p e d e e d p e d ea d h o D B M e l 8 S a i n B o S o g e o a p t A » David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 66 A And the question is in those entries in records 198 through 210 are the numbers all 34 percent? Q Yes. (Witness peruses documents.) A Yes, they are. Q And you confirmed earlier that several of those reflect unique precincts within whatever county is reflected by the code 059? A It seems to be the case. That is, the precinct numbers do change but the--- Q And now if you would look at the next column, can you confirm that the support for the Democratic candidate in the Court of Appeals in each of those precincts is also identical or equivalent? A This is starting with 198? Q Yes. A And it is the column that is headed OPDEMCOA? Q Do you understand that to be the Democrat support. for a Court of Appeals candidate? A TY do. Q Yes. A (interposing) Okay. I am just-—- Q (intetposing Are those the same? A ---trying to make sure--no, they are not. That is why I was asking. KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 OW 0 0 S N . NN t h A W NM m= S Y S E S S S S S N S R S S * * David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 67 Q Are they essentially equivalent? Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question. A Are you asking me if the differences are trivial? Q Yeah. Just so we can be clear, some are reflecting 33 percent and some are reflecting 34 percent support; is that correct? A Yes, that is correct. Q And for Democrat registration can you tell me what the percentages are for each of the precincts within that same county? Ms. Smiley: I am going to object. I think you have already noted from his affidavit that Davie County does not have precinct level information, that he used minor civil divisions. That was in footnote 1 on page 3. To the extent that you keep referring to these as precincts, I will object. By Mr. Markham: Q Well, then let me ask you this, Dr. Peterson: when you did your segments along the boundary of Davie County did you compare precincts in Davidson County to minor civil divisions in Davie County? A My recollection is that what we did was to draw the boundaries based on precincts driven primarily by the Stecingt. definition internal to. District 12. . But for purposes of calculating the percentages that applied to the geographic areas in Davie County, we relied on minor civil KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7836 eo 0 9 A n i A W O N DN = p d p e d p e d p e d p e d p e d p e d p e d pe d R o R B e N N B N B t B r o d a e m E * » David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 68 division data. All of this--- Q (interposing) Do you know if any elections are conducted in minor civil division territories? A Well, certainly there are elections conducted there, but whether they are tabulated by minor civil division is the important question, don’t you think? Q That is the import of my question. Are elections tabulated by the minor civil divisions? A The information that we had on voter registration and election results in Davie County was at the minor civil division level, so apparently so. Q And do you know whether that data is imputed or whether it was actually calculated by the State? A I don’t know. But if it was the data on the basis of which the redistricting was done, it probably doesn’t matter. Q And looking again at this set of observations, 199 through 210, can you tell us what the party registration figures are tor each of the precincts? Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question. Are you talking about internal or external? If you are talking about external--- Mr. Markham: (interposing) External, external. Ms. Smiley: Does external mean you think it is Davie County data? Mr. Markham: Yes. KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 © ° ° 9 a n t A W h N O O N RN N N ee pe pm e d p d e d pd pd pe ed o k o R E o e L P L t e o R l g y n r i g B l # * David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 69 Ms. Smiley: I think he has just testified that the data there was by minor civil division. David, if you can answer the question--- By Mr. Markham: Q Well, for the observations, regardless of whether with respect to Davie County they are precincts or minor civil divisions, can you tell us whether all the minor civil divisions of Davie County have the same percentage of persons registered as Democrat in them? And again, we are defining Davie County as being those observations 199 through 210. A I am sure there are more minor civil divisions in Davie County than are reflected here. Q For the ones that are reflected in your data set, Exhibit 22, can you confirm that for a group of Davie County precincts all of them have the exact same Democrat voter registration percentage? Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question; same objection. Q In that case, let me reword the question: can you confirm that for a group of minor civil division of Davie County that the voter registration is the same for all those minor civil divisions? A This is the black registered voters that you are asking about; is that right? Q Yes. I’m sorry; Democrat registered voters. KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 LC RX 9 A n n A W N BD p e d p e d pd p e d e d e d pe p d pe d N— —. David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 70 A Democrat registered voters; okay. (Witness peruses document.) For all of the entries 198 through 210, the fraction indicated for the percentage of Democrats is the same. i It is 40 percent. Q I am correct that your segment analysis considers only precincts that are the external border of the district and adjacent ones outside, but not those that are internal to cores of the district in the urban areas of Charlotte, Winston-Salem, High Point, and Greensboro, for example? A It just--the calculations just involve those precincts that touch the border. Q Would that analysis be affected in any: 1f all the precincts which don’t touch the border were 100 percent white? A No. Q And similarly they would not be affected if they were overwhelmingly black? A That is right. Q Did the characteristics, demographic or political or otherwise, of the cores--and by core district I am referring to--let me use a different term: nonexternal touching precincts. Rather than "core," I will just use a made up term for those precincts which are not touching the external boundary of the district. would your analysis be affected in KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 ND OD sy E N U N . N e NN O N pe pd p e d e n d e d p e d pd pd p e d pd Pi ed N N N N i e B S L R B B r S ® * David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 71 any way by either the political or racial characteristic of those precincts? A No. Q Does it matter to your analysis whether those precincts which tend to support the party explanation for external precinct selection or the racial theory for their selection--whether they are in the urban counties at the extreme of the district or whether they are in the counties that make up the bridge or connection between those counties? Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question; answer it, David. Go ahead. A Could you give me the early part of the question again, please? Q Does it matter to your analysis whether the precincts which are a Type P divergent or Type R divergent are located - in the large urban counties of Mecklenburg, Forsyth, and Guilford or whether they are located in the connecting counties of Iredell, Rowan, and Davidson? A It does not affect my calculation. Q Have you ever performed any analysis to determine how many of those precincts upon which your analysis relies fall in one type of county as opposed to another? a No. | Mr. Markham: Let me mark as Exhibit 25 a summary of the divergent precincts. KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 No w y T O N t n a W D em O N T G S O UO CO G O G A G C0 S G G U CI R R P R B o o s e i t e a m e l e A. » David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 72 (Exhibit 25 was marked for identification.) Q Assume with me that population data elsewhere in this case will establish the percentage of black population in the 12th Congressional District in the 1997 version from each of the counties. Does it matter to your analysis whether the Type P segments or for that matter the Type R segments occur in a county that provides a plurality of the black population for the district or whether it occurs in counties that provide less than 5 percent? A The initial part of the question again was does it matter to the analysis? Q Yes, A No, it doesn’t. Q Do you know how many precincts in total are responsible for the 25 segments which are Type P and the 16 segments which are Type R? A No. Q Do you know what portion of the entire number of precincts or of the population of the district those precincts comprise? A No. And again, that has no effect on your analysis? Q A That is correct. Q Is it your view that because the partisan level of the KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 © 0 N N a un A W D RS R D ee k he ph dk C a b i h b h p # @ David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 | Page 73 district is in the 60 percentiles and the race level of the district is in the 40 percentiles for African American under several different measures that the designers must have been concerned more about party than by race? Was that the conclusion that you reached in your affidavit? A Well, we can read the affidavit. Ms. Smiley: Which affidavit are you referring to? (Counsel peruses documents.) Mr. Markham: I am interested in the--- Ms. Smiley: (interposing) Are you referring to Exhibit 197? By Mr. Markham: Q Yeah. I am referring to page 8 of Exhibit 19 and the analysis before that time. Is it the fact that partisan | levels of support are higher than black population levels that in your view somehow lend support to a view that the designers were more concerned about party than about race, or am I misreading your analysis there? A Well, the conclusion that I state is that these figures support the position that creation of a Democratic majority in District 12 is a more important consideration in its construction than was the creation of a black majority. The assertion there I think is based on the fairly obvious point that blacks in fact are not a majority in the 12th District, but Democrats are. KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1332 (800) 255-7886 No O0 0 N O N . U r R W DN N O N ee ee pd pd pe l pd e d pd pe d pe d David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 74 Mr. Markham: We will mark this, then, as Exhibit 26. (Exhibit 26 was marked for identification.) Q So would the data at the top of Exhibit 26 support the same conclusion that the designers of the district--that in designing--the creation of a Democratic majority in the district was a more important consideration in the con- struction of the 1992 Congressional District 12 than was the creation of a black majority? Ms. Smiley: I object to the form of the question. I don’t believe that Dr. Peterson has any basis of knowing where this data came from or whether it is accurate. If you would like to attempt to answer, David, go ahead. A Well, the first thing that I notice is that in Congressional District 12 according to Exhibit 26 there is a black majority in the 12th District. And that makes this set of numbers quite different from the set of numbers to which I refer in my first affidavit. Q Okay. So if we look at your affidavit at page 8, would those figures also support the proposition that creation of a district with a high Democrat support was more important than the construction of a district with a high level of black population? Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question; KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 © 0 Nd A n n A W N 0 pe t i ie d p e t pk p t t k C e o David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 75 go ahead and answer if you can. A I am not sure that I can... I have given a fairly precise interpretation of those figures that applies to that set of figures. That interpretation does not apply to the figures in Exhibit 26. Q If it were the case that in--let’s assume hypothetically there were a district in which the black population, black voting age population, black registered voters were 51 percent--- A (interposing) Yes. Q ——-1in all categories and that the partisan results were the same as those reflected on page 8. Then would you be able to make the same assertion that you have made on page 8? A I don’t think so, no. Q So you think it is significant to your analysis that the African American population is less than 50 percent on population measures? A Because 50 percent is the cutoff between minority and majority. Q Well, there is nothing about that data, if I under- stand your analysis, that would prevent the fact that in the selection of precincts to include in a district or to exclude from a district race was predominant? A Give me the question again, please. KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 Oo 0 0 a A n t A W N BN DN ee m d pe d e d pe d ee d pd e d pe d pe R R O . B R B g i n o f o n D e R m A. » David. W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 76 Q If I understand your paragraph 21 of page 8 of Exhibit 19, an important element of that analysis is the fact that the numbers are literally under 50 percent? A That is a critical feature of that set of data, yes. If the object were to create a minority majority district, the object was not met. But the object of--if it had been the object to create a Democratic majority district, that objective was met. ° And if the object was to create a district with a substantial African American population, would that change your analysis? A I would have to know now what is meant by substantial. Q Suppose we created a black majority district in the State of North Dakota, where there are relatively few blacks. Would that indicate to you that persons were considering race in the construction of that district? A If they set out to create a black majority district there and they said that was their purpose and they succeeded in doing it, I would say they probably had done what they set out to do. Q And suppose--because there are relatively few African Americans in North Dakota, suppose that the greatest African American concentration that can be created is a 40 percent district. A Okay. KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 J c S G R E G E B E E T E E CC SE E BO BO kd md md pe d e d fe d pe d pe d pe d # # David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 77 Q Is the fact that they only reached 40 percent in your mind somehow proof that they were not looking at race in the construction of the district because they didn’t get to the magic 50 percent number? A Well, now I am confused as to what the underlying supposition is. Are we looking just at the numbers or are we looking at more information about what motivated the selection of the boundaries? Q Could the construction of a 40 percent African American district be racial in intent? A Of course, as could any other number. Q And is it generally the case that African American-- let me step back. Could it generally be correct for any political subdivision of North Carolina based on your review of the data that you have- had before you that the number of registered Democrats in a unit would exceed the number of registered black persons? ‘A I'm sorry; is the question could the registered--the number of registered Democrats exceed the number--- Q (interposing) Would it generally exceed the number of registered black persons? Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question. A could it or would it or does it? Q Would it usually? Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question. KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 O O S N A W M U L E oa Vo uk T R L E n T e T re E u ® ~ David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 A Page 78 A Could I have the question again, please? Q Have you conducted any analysis of the relationship of Democratic registration and African American registration? A Not formally; I have certainly looked at lots of individual numbers, some of it here today. Q Would it generally be the case that a Democratic candidate will receive a percentage of vote in a precinct which will exceed the black percentage in that precinct? Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question. A I am not sure I understand the question. Can you give me something more specific? (Pause.) Q I will move to another topic. What is the effect of the exclusion of independence in determining the Democrat and Republican percentages? A It tends to overstate both the Democratic representa- tion and the Republican representation. Q Do you have any information regarding whether or not black and white voters have equal or similar levels of registration as independents? A I have not looked at that issue. Q If there were racial differences in party registration as Independent, could that affect the accuracy of the analysis in sone instances? A I don’t think accuracy is the word that is appropriate KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 oo O O S J U n A W N pe Y E To S G C G S S S E S R S C S S No W a n . N N M S R P h R A E D R I S # @ David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 79 here. If some different account were taken of independence, it could change the numbers. But I am not sure that it would make the study any more or less accurate. Q Did you make any effort to perform such an analysis? A No. Q And such an analysis would have required dividing Democrat voter registration by total registration; is that correct? A Well, it would have required the same thing for Republican registrations. Q And might it be the case that certain precincts which appear as race divergent or party divergent in one set of analyses might shift as a result of that type of analysis? A It could happen. Q And it would be most likely to happen in instances where differences in Democrat registration between external and internal precincts are relatively small as a percentage of the difference? A That is true. Q So for example, looking at Exhibit 24, observation 19, where you have a 2 percent difference in Democrat registra- tion in the internal and external precinct, if you had a precinct that had 20 percent independents and another had very few, then that is the sort of instance in which the analysis could change?’ KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 pd e o 0 0 gO A n n A W N wn David W. Peterson, Ph.D. : 9/20/99 Page 80 A It could change the character of a segment, yes. Q Now, in measuring race, your analysis uses three measures, if I understand it correctly, total population, voting age population, and registration. In your view, are each of those equal, each of those equal in weight? A For determining the character of the racial composi- tion in a precinct? Q No; for determining whether in assigning precincts along the external boundary of the 12th Congressional District precincts were included or excluded more likely on the base of race rather than party. A I haven’t really thought about one being more appropriate or important than the other. I simply used each in turn. Q - And is the same true for the four measures of party’ support? Did you make any effort to evaluate which of those is more likely to be a predictor of partisan behavior than another? A I did do something there, although in the final analysis I treated all four equally. But I think that of the four voter registration is probably the least reliable indicator of voting behavior. Q And yet if I understand correctly, the data which you provided which shows the greatest difference or support for the party thesis over the race thesis is in fact the voter KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 " B E E S - E E E E V E B E Y C O C S T E a BO be d e d pd pd pe d p d e d pd pe d ed & ® David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 registration data? A I don’t remember if that is the case or not. It may be. Q Well, I will draw your attention to paragraph 18 of your Exhibit 19. And can you confirm that in fact it was the voter registration data upon which you base this portion of your analysis? A Well, paragraph 18 does describe an analysis that is based on voter registration; that is correct. Paragraph 19 reports the results of all of the other analyses. Q And are those results of the other analyses also reported in Exhibit 21 in summary fashion? And if so, can you tell us which pages? A Yes. (Witness peruses documents.) The results are reported starting on page 35 through page 40. Mr. Markham: Next we will mark Exhibit 27. (Exhibit 27 was marked for identification.) Q Can you confirm that this is an accurate summary of the race and party divergent segments on the various measures that you employed? (Witness peruses documents.) A Yes, it ‘is. KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 e o 0 QQ S N 1 A W N DN D N p e d p d p d p d p e d p d e e p d p d p e B R BD p h S o g n o n m o e m i w® David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Q Just so I am clear, as an example, if one were constructing the district based on the results in the lieutenant governor’s race, the analysis would show that race was a better predictor than party for the external segments of the district 22 occasions to 19; is that correct? A Yes. Q And comparing to the voting age population data, if one were constructing a district using the political results of the lieutenant governor’s race in 1988, race would be a better predictor than party for the external segments of this district 22 occasions compared to 17 occasions? A Yes. Q And similarly if you are looking at voter registra- tion, 20 to 187 (Witness peruses documents.) A Yes, I believe that is correct. Q And in fact the analysis that you reported in your affidavit is a comparison of Democrat voter registration to racial registration, which is the last column in the bottom row; is that correct? The one that is described in paragraph 18? Yes. Yes, I believe that is the case. Q And that is the instance out of these 12 comparisons in which party most exceeded race; is that correct? KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 No G O . T N t n A W B O . DN AD pe t pb ph e t pa k p b b k k * * David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 83 (Witness peruses documents.) A Yes. Q And if registration is less reliable, is it less reliable both with respect to Democratic registration and with respect to African American registration? A I doubt it. I don’t know what the reason for that would be. Q But if we discounted those analyses which include registration as a component, then the analyses which would be relevant to this inquiry would be the six analyses on the top two rows for the first three columns for lieutenant governor, Court of Appeals, and U. S. Senate; is that correct? A If for some reason we were to discount registration entirely, you are right, although I can’t think why we would dc that. Q I believe you told us earlier that you don’t know where any of the particular segments are that are reflected on Exhibit--that are analyzed in Exhibit 27, do you, any particular locations of those boundary segments along the edges of the district? A That is correct. Q So if you were to review maps here today of these various districts, you would be unable to add any additional information other than the statistical analysis which you have prepared; is that correct? KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 Oo O° O9 9 A n t A W N NN O N p d pm em ed pe d pe d p t pe d A. A. David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 84 A That is right. "I ‘don’t have a way of pointing out to you what the particular segments are. Q And if in fact it were known where a particular segment was, do you have any information about what other explanations might account for the inclusion of that segment or the exclusion in the district other than the mathematical analysis? A That is right. I have no information on point. Q So if, for example, one of the segments which establishes race as a better predictor than--I’m sorry; which establishes party as a better predictor than race for the external structure of the district, if that precinct were the only precinct connecting two ends of the district, the necessity for that precinct wouldn’t factor into your analysis about whether in fact it was truly party or race that accounted for its inclusion? Ms. Smiley: Objection to the form of the question; excuse me. If You can answer that, go ahead. (Pause.) A I am not sure what the question is. Q Suppose there is a single precinct--- A (interposing) I understand the geometry. I am not sure what the question is that I am supposed to respond to. Q If that single precinct were needed to provide contiguity to the district--- KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 ND OR T wd ON B U N a WU IN p e BO . N D h p fh pr as f h ek E h CO pd * * David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 85 A (interposing) Right. Q ---that element of the analysis wouldn’t fagtor into your mathematical analysis, but in fact that segment along that precinct is proof that party drove the external boundary location at that location of the district? Mr. Stein: Objection. Ms. Smiley: Objection to form. A The boundary of the segment would be included in my calculation and it would be an element in the calculation of the correlation or the degree of association between the 12th District boundary and the characteristics of the party affiliations on the one hand or the racial identities on the other of people living on either side of the boundary. So it would figure into the calculation. Q- But your analysis would not take into account the possible individual idiosyncratic explanations for any one precinct’s presence or exclusion in a district based on geography, for example? A That is true. It simply accepts the boundary as it was drawn and asks does this boundary function better to separate--does this boundary function better to fence in Democrats or does it function better to fence in blacks. Q Ard for example, in your Exhibit 20, the map of Iredell County where——— (Counsel peruses document.) KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 a m a s B E C T E YE R | SE R GE N ST A a e , DN AN E Ct pd pe ek pe p h p t pl p h pk ph Wi D a n i m e n i e a ai pi ni nt iy yg no u ° iY David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 : Page 86 Let me scratch that. For example, if inclusion of a precinct would result in some distortion of the geographic shape, that would not factor into your analysis in any way? Mr. Stein: Objection; asked and answered. A The analysis depends upon the boundaries that are involved in the 12th District and the nature of the people on either side of the boundary, immediately on either side of the boundary. And it measures the degree of correlation between the path taken by the boundary and the racial composition of people living on either side of the boundary and the political affiliation of the people living on either side of the boundary. Q And if in fact you included a precinct which had previously been excluded, your analysis doesn’t review where it would be necessary to remove a precinct of equivalent population in order to achieve population equality, for example? A | No. Q And you don’t swap or compare groups of precincts of equivalent populations, do you? A 1 certainly don’t. Q And the segment analysis--in an instance where the district is one precinct wide, the segment analysis assumes that you could add the external precinct and exclude the internal precinct, or does it? KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 800) 255-7886 © 0 NN O O n t A W N BO pd he d pe d p d pe d pd pe d pe d pe d fe d # al David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 87 A No, it makes no such assumption. Q And it makes no comparison of what the effect on the district would be to have both the internal and the adjacent external precinct compared to just the internal precinct? A That is correct. It doesn’t do that either. Q So in the construction of a district are decision makers able to decide to include or exclude a district based on a difference in race or party as the model analyzes? Mr. Stein: Objection. A I don’t understand the question. Q Does the analysis that you have conducted take into account whether a decision maker in fact could include the external precinct and exclude the internal one consistent with, for example, contiguity or equal population or any other interest? Mr. Stein: Objection; asked and answered. A What the analysis does is to measure the correlation between an existing line. It doesn’t consider other lines. It considers just the existing line. It says what is the correlation between this and race, what is the correlation between this and political affiliation. Q And when you said your analysis is not a decision making analysis, you meant by that that your analysis doesn’t determine whether at that stage of drawing the boundary any decision maker would or could make that kind of comparison? KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 pd Co o O 3 S N N n A W % dy : David W. Peterson, Ph.D. 9/20/99 Page 88 A What the analysis doesn’t do is to ask what other correlations might be achieved by drawing the lines else- where. Q Do you have any personal knowledge of the neighbor- hoods of the 12th Congressional District or the counties that comprise it? Have you done any--as a part of your analysis have you made any investigation? A Only to the extent that I have driven through them on occasion, but not for any purpose connected with this litiga- tion. Q What other criticisms other than those that you have stated in your written report, Exhibit 20, and Exhibit 21 do you have of Dr. Weber’s analysis in this case? A Well, Dr. Weber, as I understand it, has submitted two analyses, one of which I received late last week and at this point I have no comment on. Q Have you reviewed it at all? “A I have skimmed through it. I have not read words on every page yet. And with respect to my comments on his earlier report, I think they are all fairly summarized in my second affidavit. Q Have you reviewed any report of Mr. Lee Mortimer? A tai see something by Mr. Mortimer, and it had to do with identifying the segments that I mention in my second affidavit. But that is the only thing I have studied in KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 Do G y 8 n h Ah WG N D N O N O N O N DN pe pm m k pk pk pd ed p d e d a» Ronald E. Weber, Ph.D. Volume 2, 10/18/99 Page 329 overly safe? Mr. Markham: Objection; asked and answered. A Yeah. My normative perspective is that we don’t need a lot of safe congressional districts. So any congressional district that is safe is overly safe. Q Okay. On page 87 also-—-- A (interposing) Yes, sir. Q I’m sorry; 88. A Okay. Q You use the word "narrow tailoring"--- A (interposing) Yes. Q ---in this first paragraph. Would you define narrow tailoring for me? A Well, again, I am going to define it as a social scientist, not in a legal sense. A narrowly tailored district is one that has a high degree of electoral com- petitiveness, that comports with race neutral principles of districting. And I guess, you know, sort of moving from the definition to the instance here is that if you have an unusual pattern where the African American--the candidates of choice of African American voters are winning more than 60 percent of the vote in the general elections, that seems to me is prima facie evidence that it is not a narrowly tailored district. KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 G e S N i h B A W A D C R T CE Tr G T G o C n TE ~ TE J S E SE Ronald E. Weber, Ph.D. Volume 2, 10/18/99 Page 330 Q You say high degree of electoral competitiveness. What does that mean? A It means that it is going to be less than 60 percent. And of course when it comes to 50-50, that would be a more narrowly tailored district. Q You say more narrowly tailored? A Yes. Q Would 60 percent in your assessment be narrowly tailored? A No. Q So anything less than 60 percent would be not narrowly tailored? A Anything less than 60 percent would be narrowly tailored, but I am saying that the most narrowly tailored district is going to be a district that is like 51-49 or 50.5 to 49.5. Q And this is in terms of electoral--—- "i (interposing) Competitiveness. Q -—-—support? A Competitiveness; yes. Q You mentioned that 60 percent is your measure for assessing degrees of electoral competitiveness. Is there anywhere in the social science literature that applies that assessment of electoral competitiveness to narrow tailoring? A I don’t--I am not aware that there is any social KAY McGOVERN & ASSOCIATES (919) 782-9100 Post Office Box 31382 FAX 782-0814 Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-1382 (800) 255-7886 # ww Winner - 51 thought we were done with some plan or some version of the plan, if we were going to make more changes to it we would then copy it and do it under the name of a new plan. So while this looks like we did a whole lot of different plans, it may be just like one precinct different that would be impossible to see on these maps. Well, let's then.do this. Let's look at these subsequent maps and we can -- to whatever extent it's possible to trace or to identify changes we can do that, and that's what I have in mind. So if you could, for example, look at the -- look at Plan Number 2, Exhibit Number 2 I should say. Are you going to want me to be looking at Exhibit 2 compared to Exhibit 17? Exhibit 2 compared to Exhibit 1 and compared to -- MS. SMILEY: Well, I'm going to.object to you having her compare it to the 1992 plan. You still haven't laid any foundation that she was working off the 'S2 plan. I don't believe that you've established that with any of these maps, and I mean, what she's Just’ sald is that they -- this 1 through 5 is a series of plans and that she could testify to maybe if she 24 25 yl i» Winner - 52 could see the modifications. MR. EVERETT: Well, I can certainly ask her that now. I don't think it's too material one way or the other, but to what extent were you working off the 1992 plan, if at all? There was a procedure that you could superimpose one plan on another on the computer and 8Ctually import it. Okay. We did not do that, so - = You didn't use that procedure, okay. So to that extent we did not literally start from the '92 plan and modify it. Although we could have, we didn't. I think we were generally aware of where the districts were in general in the state, and some districts more than others we tried to keep the same or approximately the same. For example, the 11th District, which is the western part of the state, just because of the geography of North Carolina, it's going to be sort of what it is, so the only -- but we did make a decision, if you'll see in the 1992 plan, that there are several counties that are divided in the 11th District and we decided not to divide them. So while the 11th District is still generally in the same part of the state, it doesn't have the same boundaries. Because you 24 25 -» IJ 0 CIRCUIT, THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. THAT'S OUR BASIC POSITION. YOUR HONORS, THANK YOU. JUDGE THORNBURG: LET ME ASK YOU FOR MY EDIFICATION. IF YOU WOULD JUST TELL THE COURT WHAT YOU FEEL THE ISSUES ON WHICH YOU HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ARE; JUST A SIMPLE STATEMENT OF WHAT YOU HAVE TO PROVE IN ORDER FOR US TO RULE. MR. EVERETT: WE THINK WE HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF AS TO PREDOMINATE RACIAL PURPOSE, SUBJECT POSSIBLY TO THE CAVEAT IN A SITUATION WHERE THIS IS A CONTINUATION OR REPLACEMENT OR REMEDY FOR A DISTRICT THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY ADJUDICATED UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR CLEARLY WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THE 12TH HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THERE SEEMS TO BE LITTLE DOUBT THAT THE ORIGINAL FIRST IN THE 1992 PLAN WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. WE WOULD MAINTAIN THAT UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE BURDEN IS ON THE DEFENDANT TO SHOW THAT THE VESTIGES HAVE BEEN REMOVED. THAT'S THE WAY IT HAPPENED IN THE SEGREGATION CASES. THEY HAD TO SHOW THE VESTIGES OF THE OLD SEGREGATION; RACIAL SEGREGATION HAD TO BE REMOVED. THAT WAS A BURDEN ON THE DEFENDANTS. CITES THE SAME SORT OF BURDEN YOU HAVE ON THE FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE TO SHOW THE TAINT HAS BEEN CUT OUT. THAT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE. SO WE WOULD MAINTAIN REALLY AS TO EVERYTHING, THEY # HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF. CLEARLY AS TO THE TEST OF SCRUTINY, THEY HAVE TO SHOW THAT THERE IS A COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST AND THEY HAVE TO SHOW THAT THERE'S NARROW TAILORING. THAT'S OUR POSITION IN THAT REGARD. AND WE WOULD MAINTAIN, THOUGH AS FAR AS THE PREDOMINATE RACIAL PURPOSE, THAT IT IS SO CLEAR, AS WAS EVIDENT TO THE COURT AT THE TIME IN MORGANTON WHERE WE HAD THE HEARING, IT'S SO CLEAR IT DOESN'T MAKE MUCH DIFFERENCE WHETHER WE BEAR THE BURDEN OF PROOF OR NOT BECAUSE WE THINK THE INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE POINTS IN THAT DIRECTION. AND WE THINK IT WILL POINT MORE IN THAT DIRECTION IF THE COURT CONSIDERS ULTIMATELY THE POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT OUT ON THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE DEPOSITION OF DR. PETERSON, WHICH WAS READ, ON WHICH THE SUPREME COURT GLEANED ITS PARTICULAR DECISION. WE THINK THAT PLAYED A PART IN THE DEBEAUR (PHONETIC) MOTION WE MADE, ALTHOUGH NOT TO PERSUADE THE COURT TO EXCLUDE IT, NEVERTHELESS SHOWING THIS IS VERY UNRELIABLE. AND THERE'S NOTHING THAT THEY HAVE THAT WILL DISPUTE THERE WAS A PREDOMINATE RACIAL PURPOSE WITH RESPECT TO BOTH THE 12TH AND FIRST AND WE MAINTAIN THEIR OWN ADMISSIONS DEMONSTRATE THERE WAS PREDOMINANT RACIAL PURPOSE IN THE FIRST DISTRICT. MS. SMILEY: FOR THOSE I HAVE NOT HAD THE PLEASURE OF APPEARING BEFORE, I BELIEVE THAT'S YOU, JUDGE BOYLE, I'M TIARE SMILEY. THIS IS TODD COX, MS. NORMA 24 25 & - i 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. Q. IN REVIEWING YOUR REPORT, WE SKIPPED OVER EXHIBITS 50, 51. I WONDER IF YOU COULD TELL US WHAT THESE DATA ARE AND WHAT ASSISTANCE THEY PROVIDE TO THE ANALYSIS? A. DISTRICT 50, WHICH IS LABELED AS EXHIBIT C FOR MY DECLARATION, IT INVOLVES TWO COMPONENTS. ONE IS ESTIMATING THE PARTICIPATION RATES OF AFRICAN AMERICAN AND NON-AFRICAN AMERICAN VOTERS IN THE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1998, NAMELY THE 1ST DISTRICT AND THE 12TH DISTRICT. SO IT’S GOT THE PARTICIPATION RATES AND, AGAIN, THE PICTURE THERE IS ONE IN WHICH AFRICAN AMERICANS PARTICIPATED HIGHER RATES THAN NON-AFRICAN AMERICAN IN THE PRIMARY ELECTIONS FOR THOSE TWO DISTRICTS IN 1998. AND THEN IN THE GENERAL ELECTIONS, THE WHITE OR NON-AFRICAN * BC 169 AMERICAN VOTERS TEND TO VOTE AT HIGHER RATES, SLIGHTLY HIGHER RATES THAN THE AFRICAN AMERICAN VOTERS IN THOSE PARTICULAR DISTRICTS. SO THAT’S THE FIRST COMPONENT IS PARTICIPATION RATES. THE SECOND THING DONE IN THESE IS THROUGH AGGRESSION ANALYSIS AND EXTREME CASE ANALYSIS TO APPORTION THE SHARES OF THE VOTE BY AFRICAN AMERICAN VOTERS TO THE VARIOUS CANDIDATES AND NON-AFRICAN AMERICAN VOTERS TO THE CANDIDATES. SO CONSEQUENTLY ONE CAN GET WHITE CROSS-OVER NUMBERS FROM THOSE PARTICULAR ELECTION RESULTS. ALTHOUGH I DO NOT REPORT THEM IN THE BODY OF MY DECLARATION, THE GENERAL ELECTION RETURNS FOR THE TWO CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS SUGGESTS THAT REPRESENTATIVE CLAYTON GOT ABOUT 30.4 PERCENT OF THE NON-AFRICAN AMERICAN VOTE IN THE 1998 GENERAL ELECTION WITHIN THE 1ST DISTRICT. AND REPRESENTATIVE WATT GOT ABOUT 32.6 PERCENT OF THE WHITE VOTE IN THAT CONTEXT. INTERESTINGLY, IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES, IN THE 1ST DISTRICT, THE DISTRICT PERFORMS FAIRLY CONSISTENTLY WITH THE OTHER PRIMARY ANALYSIS THAT IT HAD DONE AND SHOWS THAT REPRESENTATIVE CLAYTON GOT ABOUT 12.5 PERCENT OF THE WHITE VOTE, SO UNDER A LOWER NUMBER THAN TYPICALLY HAPPENS IN THE GENERAL ELECTION. BUT INTERESTINGLY MR. WATT, .1 HAVE HIM GETTING 60 PERCENT OF THE WHITE VOTE IN THE PRIMARY IN 1998 IN DISTRICT 12, 64 PERCENT IN THE * > 170 1 DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY FOR MR. WATT. 2 Q. WHAT DOES EXHIBIT 51, YOUR EXHIBIT D OF YOUR REPORT, 3 REFLECT? 4 A. EXHIBIT D HAS -- OR EXHIBIT 51 OF THE DEPOSITIONS HAS 5 ALL OF THE ESTIMATIONS THAT UNDERLIE TABLES SEVEN, EIGHT, 6 AND NINE IN MY DECLARATION, AGAIN, HAVING THE 7 PARTICIPATION RATES AND THE DIFFERENCES IN THE RACIAL THE 8 PREFERENCES OF THE TWO RACIAL GROUPS IN THE ELECTIONS. SO 9 WHAT I HAVE DONE IS -- THIS IS THE DETAIL -- AND WHAT I 10 DID IS I SUMMARIZED IN THE DECLARATION ITSELF WHAT I ll THOUGHT WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINTS FROM THAT EXHIBIT. 12 Q. NOW, YOUR REPORT ILLUSTRATES THE ASSIGNMENT OF 13 PRECINCTS IN A STATISTICAL WAY. DO THE MAPS -- THE 14 PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBITS, WE BEGIN WITH 227. DO THEY ALSO 15 PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST THE COURT WITH THE QUESTION 16 OF HOW VOTERS ARE ASSIGNED IN THE STRUCTURE OF THE 17 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT? LET ME GET YOU A COPY OF THAT 18 MAD. 19 CAN YOU TELL US WHAT INFORMATION MAP 227 HAS TO 20 ASSIST THE COURT IN EVALUATING THE QUESTION OF WHETHER 21 PERSONS WERE ASSIGNED TO THE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 1 ON 22 THE BASIS OF RACE? 23 A. THE MAP PORTRAYS THE NORTHEAST TO EASTERN QUADRANT OF 24 THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA RUNNING FROM DARE COUNTY ON 25 THE RIGHT TO -- LOOKS LIKE LEE COUNTY, CHATHAM COUNTY, BE RC 188 1 IT’S A MAP OF THE 80’S OR THE MAP OF THE 70’S OR EVEN A 2 MAP OF THE 60’S, ALL OF THEM SHOW HOW THE STATE IN USING 3 TRADITIONAL CRITERIA, DREW CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS AND 4 THIS PARTICULAR MAP FROM THE PLAN OF THE MAP OF THE 1970 5 ADOPTED APRIL 29, 1971, DOES NOT SPLIT A SINGLE COUNTY OF 6 THE 100 IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN DRAWING 7 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS. 8 Q. SORRY. YOU ARE REFERRING TO THE 1970 MAP? 9 A. YES. MAYBE I PULLED OUT THE WRONG EXHIBIT. 10 Q. YOU WERE REFERRING TO 288 A? 31 A. I GOT INTO THE WRONG EXHIBIT, I’M SORRY. 12 MY BOOK DOES NOT HAVE A 288, THAT’S WHY OR IT’S OUT 13 OF SEQUENCE. 14 288 A IS THE PLAN FROM 1980 -- AFTER THE 1980 CENSUS, 15 I SHOULD SAY, AND IT REFLECTS THAT THERE WERE A TOTAL OF 16 FOUR COUNTIES SPLIT IN ALL OF NORTH CAROLINA. I CAN'T 17 READ THE ONE COUNTY UP IN -- 18 JUDGE BOYLE: AVERY. 319 A. SORRY, AVERY, YADKIN, MOORE AND JOHNSTON COUNTY WERE 20 SPLIT. ALL THE REST WERE COMPOSED OF WHOLE COUNTIES. 21 Q. NEXT I WOULD DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO EXHIBIT 288 D, 22 WHICH IS A DATA SHEET THAT COMES FROM A SECTION 5 23 SUBMISSION. CAN YOU TELL US FROM THAT INFORMATION WHAT 24 WAS THE MOST HEAVILY AFRICAN AMERICAN CONGRESSIONAL 25 DISTRICT IN THE 1980’S? * a a0 1 A. THAT WOULD BE DISTRICT 2, WHICH IF YOU TAKE THE 1980 2 CENSUS WAS 41.1 PERCENT AFRICAN AMERICAN WHERE YOU TAKE 3 THE CALCULATION AFTER THE 1990 CENSUS WAS AVAILABLE IS 4 43.5 PERCENT. DISTRICT 2 IS THE MOST AFRICAN AMERICAN 5 DISTRICT AT THAT TIME. 6 Q. WHERE GENERALLY IS THAT DISTRICT LOCATED? 7 A. THAT DISTRICT ON THE EAST WAS EDGECOMBE COUNTY AND 8 HAD ALL OF ROCKY MOUNT IN IT INCLUDING NASH, WILSON, A 2 PORTION OF JOHNSTON AND HALIFAX, WARREN, VANCE, GRANVILLE, 10 PERSON, CASWELL AND DURHAM. DURHAM IS IN THAT DISTRICT. ko Q. NEXT WE GO FORWARD TO EXHIBIT 289, WHICH I BELIEVE 12 YOU LOOKED AT EARLIER. WHAT INFORMATION DOES THAT MAP OF 13 THE 1970°8 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT PROVIDE THAT WOULD 14 ASSIST THE COURT WITH REGARD TO ANY ISSUES IN THIS CASE? 15 MS. SMILEY: OBJECTION TO CHARACTERIZATION AS 16 EITHER OF THESE MAPS, 288 OR 289, PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO 17 THE COURT. I DON’T THINK THAT FOUNDATION HAS BEEN LAID. 18 JUDGE THORNBURG: I’LL LET THE WITNESS ANSWER 19 THE QUESTION. 20 A. THESE MAPS EITHER NOW OR IN THE PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 21 WERE ORIGINALLY IN MY DECLARATION IN 1998 BECAUSE IN THAT 22 DECLARATION I WAS TRYING TO OUTLINE THE WAY IN WHICH 23 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT PLANS HAVE DEVELOPED OVER TIME IN 24 THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA. AND IN THE DAYS RIGHT AFTER 25 THE ONE-PERSON, ONE-VOTE DECISION, THE STATE WAS ABLE TO 24 25 # ® pe 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 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 Ir, SO 11 1s THE MAXIMUM TO BE SPLIT IN NORTH CAROLINA. Q. NEXT I DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE SERIES OF MAPS, 290 THROUGH 301. THESE ARE MAPS WE LOOKED AT EARLIER REGARDING QUESTIONS FOR PRECINCTS. DO THESE MAPS PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION TO YOU WITH RESPECT TO ISSUES THAT RELATE TO THE CASE? 24 25 # > 103 A. YES. THESE WERE VERY IMPORTANT MAPS AND I HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR THEM EARLY ON IN THE CASE THAT WE GET THESE KIND OF MAPS. MS. SMILEY: YOUR HONOR, I’M GOING TO OBJECT TO THE RELEVANCE OF THESE 1990 MAPS. I UNDERSTAND YOU MAY WANT TO SEE IF HE CAN MAKE THE ‘99 PRECINCTS RELEVANT. I OBJECT TO THE RELEVANCY TO THIS LINE OF TESTIMONY. WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE PROBLEMS WITH THE 1999 PRECINCTS. JUDGE THORNBURG: I’LL LET THE WITNESS ANSWER SO WE CAN MOVE ALONG AND, OF COURSE, WE'LL MAKE A DECISION ON WHAT WE CONSIDER RELEVANT WHEN REVIEWING THE EVIDENCE. A. I HAVE KNOWN ALL ALONG, IN DOING THE ELECTION ANALYSIS IN THIS CASE, THAT THERE WERE MORE THAN TWO PRECINCTS SPLIT IN THE CREATION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING PLAN. THERE ARE BY 1996 AND 1998, WHEN I'M DOING ANALYSIS OF ELECTIONS, I KNOW THERE ARE MORE PRECINCTS SPLIT BECAUSE I HAVE THE ELECTION RETURNS. I CAN SEE IN THE ELECTION RETURNS, THE PIECES. SO THESE MAPS NOW PROVIDE ME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO DOCUMENT EXACTLY WHERE THE SPLIT PRECINCTS ARE THAT ARE PRODUCED AS A RESULT OF NOT FOLLOWING THE CURRENT PRECINCTS IN THE DRAWING OF THE PLAN RATHER THAN USING THE STILL OUTDATED 1990 PRECINCTS. MS. SMILEY: I’M GOING TO OBJECT. I DON’T KNOW THERE'S A CLAIM IN THIS CASE THAT THERE'S A CONSTITUTIONAL 24 25 # a 152 OR EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIM WHERE THE LEGISLATURE NOT ONLY USING THE CENSUS DATA BUT PRECINCT DATA THAT MATCHES UP WITH THE CENSUS DATA. I DON’T SEE A CLAIM IN THIS CASE THERE’S SOME CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION FOR THE LEGISLATURE NOT TO HAVE SOMEHOW TRIED TO TAKE THE 1990 CENSUS DATA AND ATTACH IT TO 1999 PRECINCTS. I DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW THIS IS RELEVANT TO ANY LEGAL ISSUE IN THIS CASE. JUDGE THORNBURG: I'LL LET YOU POINT THAT OUT ON CROSS. YOU WILL HAVE AMPLE TIME TO DO THAT. BY MR. MARKHAM: Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION CONCERNING WHAT SORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE OR ANY BASIS FOR INFORMATION CONCERNING WHAT SORT OF ADMINISTRATION OR ELECTION CONDUCT EFFECT THESE SPLIT PRECINCTS WOULD HAVE? A. I KNOW THE ELECTION RETURNS, AS THE ELECTION WAS CONDUCTED IN 1998, WHEN YOU HAVE COUNTIES THAT ARE SPLIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF CREATING A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT IN SOME CASES THE ELECTION OFFICIALS HAD TO DIVIDE THE VOTERS IN THE PRECINCT, SOME IN SAY DISTRICT 12 AND SAY SOME IN ANOTHER DISTRICT SO THAT THE VOTERS ARE VOTING IN THE RIGHT PORTION OF THE PRECINCT BECAUSE THE COUNTY DID NOT HAVE THE TIME BETWEEN THE ORDER OF THE COURT TO PUT A PLAN IN PLACE AND THE TIME TO CONDUCT THE PRIMARY OF THE GENERAL ELECTION TO SORT OUT THE PRECINCTS. SO I KNOW FROM THE ELECTION RETURNS THAT SOME PRECINCTS WERE SPLIT 24 25 # ®:. AND THAT, YOU KNOW, I’M NOT GOING TO INFER ANYTHING ELSE FROM THAT BUT I DO KNOW FOR A FACT THERE ARE ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS WHEN YOU HAVE SPLIT PRECINCTS. Q. FROM YOUR ANALYSIS INVOLVING ISSUES OF SPLIT PRECINCTS, WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL RISK OF VOTER BALLOT SECRECY FROM THIS PRACTICE? MS. SMILEY: I’M GOING TO OBJECT, YOUR HONOR. JUDGE THORNBURG: SUSTAINED. Q. LET’S MOVE TO MAP 302, THE MULTI-COUNTY PLANNING REGIONS. JUDGE THORNBURG: LET’S TAKE A TEN MINUTE RECESS. (RECESS TAKEN.) MS. SMILEY: YOUR HONORS, MIGHT WE ASK, FOR PURPOSES OF STAFF AND OTHER THINGS, HOW LATE YOU INTEND TO GO TODAY? JUDGE THORNBURG: WE'LL BE GOING UNTIL AROUND 5:15, | MS. SMILEY: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BY MR. MARKHAM: Q. DR. WEBER, LET ME DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE MAP AT EXHIBIT 302. A. YES, SIR, I HAVE THAT BEFORE ME. Q. AND WHAT DO THE PLANNING REGIONS, WHAT SORT OF INFORMATION DO THESE PROVIDE WITH RESPECT TO ANY ISSUE 24 25 # #* ” THAT’S BEFORE THE COURT? A. WELL, PLANNING REGIONS ARE ONE WAY THAT YOU CAN DIVIDE A STATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFINING COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST. TYPICALLY PLANNING REGIONS ARE ORGANIZED AROUND A MAJOR CITY AND THEN THE COUNTRYSIDE AROUND THAT CITY WILL BE THE BASIS FOR THE DEFINITION OF A REGIONAL PLANNING DISTRICT. Q. AND SIMILARLY IS THE EXHIBIT 303, WHICH SHOWS METROPOLITAN AREAS, IS THAT ANOTHER ILLUSTRATION OF REGIONALISM? A. YES. THE MAP PORTRAYED IN EXHIBIT 303 HAS THE STANDARD METROPOLITAN AREAS FOR NORTH CAROLINA AND, AGAIN, SHOWS THE EITHER MULTI COUNTY SMSA’S OR SINGLE COUNTY SMSA AND, AGAIN, THOSE ARE BASICALLY THE URBANIZED AREA OF THE STATE. MS. SMILEY: YOUR HONOR -- EXCUSE ME, ARE YOU THROUGH? I WANT TO OBJECT TO THESE BEING ANY USE TO THE COURT, EXHIBIT 302 AND 303, UNLESS THERE’S SOME FOUNDATION LAID. IN FACT, THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED IN ANY WAY TO USE THESE PARTICULAR MAPS WHICH ARE NOT FROM THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN THEIR THOUGHT PROCESS. I DON’T UNDERSTAND THE RELEVANCE. JUDGE THORNBURG: GIVE US SOME MORE FOUNDATION AND MOVE ON. BY MR. MARKHAM: # * 195 2 Q. IN DETERMINING HOW WOULD YOU, AS A POLITICAL no 2 SCIENTIST, GO ABOUT DETERMINING WHAT CONSTITUTES 3 TRADITIONAL PRINCIPAL, SPECIFICALLY IN A COMMUNITY OF 4 INTEREST? 5 A. ONE OF THEM IS COMMUNITY OF INTEREST. SO THERE ARE A 6 NUMBER OF WAYS OF DEFINING TRADITIONAL -- DEFINING 7 COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST AND AMONG THEM ARE METROPOLITAN 8 AREAS, PEOPLE WHO LIVE AND WORK IN THE SAME REGION OF THE 9 STATE ARE DEFINED AS HAVING A COMMUNITY OF INTEREST. AND 10 THIS MAP IN PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 303 CLEARLY EXHIBITS SHOWS ii THOSE COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST. 32 Q. AND THE MAP IS EXHIBIT -- JOINT EXHIBIT 102 13 ILLUSTRATES THAT THE 1997 PLAN, IN FACT, CUTS ACROSS THOSE 14 COMMUNITIES; IS THAT CORRECT? 15 A. YES. WELL, CHARLOTTE IS IN A DIFFERENT METROPOLITAN 16 AREA THAN WINSTON-SALEM AND GREENSBORO. 17 MS. SMILEY: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT AND MOVE TO 18 STRIKE THIS WHOLE LINE OF TESTIMONY. ONCE AGAIN, THE FACT 19 A POLITICAL SCIENTIST THINKS OF THESE ARE TRADITIONAL 20 PRINCIPLES, I DON’T THINK ANY COURT SAID ANY LEGISLATURE 21 IS REQUIRED TO USE THESE MAPS AND THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT 22 THE LEGISLATURE USED THESE MAPS, SO I DON’T SEE THEY'RE 23 RELEVANT TO THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE, WHAT IT DID OR 24 DIDN'T DO. 25 JUDGE VOORHEES: YOU THINK THE LEGISLATURE WAS 24 25 # "> v 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. Q. TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO EXHIBIT 304 REGARDING TOPOGRAPHICAL OF THE STATE. A. THIS IS ONE ALTERNATIVE WAY TO LOOK AT REGIONS WITHIN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA. AND COMMUNITY OF INTEREST IN THE CONTEXT OF CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING IS PAYING SOME 24 25 * i 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 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 FIVE 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 # > 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? 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. Q. BUT CAN ALL OF THOSE DISTRICTS BE ASSIGNED TO DISTRICT 12 AND MEET ONE-PERSON, ONE-VOTE? A. YOU CAN DISCARD SOME OTHER PRECINCTS IN ORDER TO DO THAT. Q. AND WHY, IF YOU ARE TRYING TO CREATE A SAFE DEMOCRATIC DISTRICT, WOULD YOU DISCARD YOUR STRONGEST DEMOCRATIC PRECINCTS? A. I QUIBBLE WITH THE NOTION THAT THE STATE SHOULD BE DESIGNING SAFE DEMOCRATIC DISTRICTS. THEY SHOULD BE r * DESIGNING COMPETITIVE DEMOCRATIC DISTRICTS, NOT SAFE DEMOCRATIC DISTRICTS. Q. TELL ME, IS THAT A LEGAL REQUIREMENT THAT LEGISLATORS SHOULD NOT CREATE SAFE DISTRICTS? A. POLITICALLY IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. IT’S NOT A LEGAL TERM, BUT AS A POLITICAL SCIENTIST, IT -- I WOULD TELL YOU IT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE TO CREATE ONE SET OF SAFE DISTRICTS FOR ONE-PERSON PARTY AND ANOTHER FOR ANOTHER PARTY WHICH DISCOURAGES THE VOTER FROM HAVING A CHOICE IN ELECTIONS. Q. THAT'S YOUR VIEW IN POLITICAL SCIENCE? A. YES, MA’AM. Q. DO YOU KNOW ANY POLITICIANS WHO WOULD SAY THEIR DISTRICT IS TOO SAFE? A. NO, I NEVER MET A POLITICIAN WHO WOULD ADMIT THEIR DISTRICT WAS TOO SAFE. Q. NOW, YOU TESTIFIED YESTERDAY YOU LOOKED AT EXHIBITS 433 AND 434. DO YOU HAVE THOSE EXHIBITS STILL UP THERE? A. I DON'T BELIEVE I HAVE THAT BOOK. Q. NOW, AM I RECALLING CORRECTLY THAT YOU LOOKED AT THESE TWO EXHIBITS AND YOU COMPARED IT TO YOUR DECLARATIONS AT 47 AND YOU INDICATED THAT THE RACIAL DIFFERENCES THAT YOU FOUND WHEN YOU ANALYZED WERE GREATER THAN THE PARTY DIFFERENCES THAT ARE SHOWN WHEN YOU DO A POLITICAL ANALYSIS? A. YES. FOR 433, THE FIRST PAGE, WHICH HAS THE 12TH P > ” 1 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, I FOUND ALL SIX OF THOSE COUNTIES 2 | THAT THE RACIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PORTION ASSIGNED TO 3 | DISTRICT 12 OR THE PORTION ASSIGNED TO ANOTHER DISTRICT 4 | WAS GREATER THAN THE PARTISAN DIFFERENCE. 5 | Q. WHAT WERE YOU COMPARING IT TO IN YOUR —- 6 | A. I'M SORRY. I WAS COMPARING IT TO TABLE TWO IN MY 7 | REPORT. 8 | Q. TABLE TWO IN YOUR REPORT? 9 | A. YES, MA’AM. 10 | Q. YOU DID THE SAME THING WITH 434. TIS THAT A 11 | COMPARISON OF TABLE FOUR WITH THE POLITICAL DATA? 22 |'a. yrs, 13 | Q. OKAY. AND YOU CONCLUDED THAT THE POLITICAL 14 | DIFFERENCES WERE NOT AS GREAT AS THE RACIAL DIFFERENCES? 15 | A. THAT'S CORRECT, YES. 16 | Q. TELL ME, DR. WEBER, EXHIBITS 43 AND 44 ARE USING A 17 | DATA BASE THAT COMES FROM THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; IS THAT 18 | RIGHT? IS THAT RIGHT, THAT'S POLITICAL DATA? 19 A. THAT MAY HAVE BEEN THE ULTIMATE SOURCE, BUT I BELIEVE 20 | IT’S ACTUALLY THE DATA BASE THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY USED 21 | FOR REDISTRICTING. 22 | Q. AND -- ALL RIGHT. AND YOUR TABLES TWO AND FOUR, YOU 23 | USED GENERAL ASSEMBLY DATA BASE ON TOTAL POPULATION. AND 24 | IS IT YOUR BELIEF THE TOTAL POPULATION FIGURES COME FROM 25 THE CENSUS BUREAU? P i A. YES. THE CENSUS DATA WAS LOADED INTO THE STATE'S COMPUTER SYSTEM AND VARIOUS REPORTS WERE PRODUCED BASED UPON THAT TABLE. Q. IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THE CENSUS BUREAU PROVIDED THE ELECTION DATA? A. NO, THEY DID NOT. Q. SO THEY DID COME FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES? A. YES, THE PRIMARY SOURCES ARE DIFFERENT. Q. THE PRIMARY SOURCES ARE DIFFERENT? A. YES. Q. AND CENSUS IS COUNTING ALL PEOPLE? A. THAT’S RIGHT. Q. THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, THEIR DATA ON REGISTRATION IS NOT GOING TO INCLUDE ALL PEOPLE? A. NO. Q. WE KNOW EVERYONE DOESN'T VOTE? A. WE/D LIKE THEM TO BUT -- Q. SO THOSE PEOPLE WOULDN'T BE FROM THE SAME UNIVERSE? A. IT’S A SMALLER UNIVERSE. Q. THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT VOTE, THAT COMES FROM THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS ALSO? A. YES, IT COMES ULTIMATELY FROM THE COUNTIES, BUT IT’S REPORTED TO THE STATE BOARD. Q. AND THAT'S GOING TO BE A LOT SMALLER THAN THE CENSUS DATA, TOO? 24 25 + El a A. IT’S GOING TO BE SMALLER, BUT I WOULDN'T CHARACTERIZE IT A LOT SMALLER THAN THE CENSUS DATA, ACTUAL VOTERS WHO SHOW UP AND VOTE. Q. UNFORTUNATELY, WE KNOW THAT’S A MUCH SMALLER NUMBER THAN THE TOTAL POPULATION. A. YES, MA'’AM. Q. WE'RE LOOKING AT TWO SOURCES OF DATA WITH POLITICAL DATA ON EXHIBITS 434 AND 343 IN YOUR TABLES? A. lyre, Q. AND ISN'T IT TRUE ALSO THAT CENSUS DATA FROM 1990 —- A. THE DATA IN 434 AND 433 ARE ALSO FROM ’88 AND ‘90 AS WELL. Q. WELL, THE ’88 ELECTIONS. IS THAT GOING TO BE -- T MEAN, THERE ARE TWO 1988 ELECTIONS INCLUDED IN THERE, AREN'T THERE? A. YES. Q. SO THAT'S A DIFFERENT YEAR FROM THE CENSUS IN 19907? A. YES. Q. SO YOU ARE DEALING WITH SOME OF THAT DATA IS COMING FROM DIFFERENT YEARS? A. YES, I AGREE TO THAT. Q. AND YOU HAVEN'T GIVEN US AN EXHIBIT OR ANYTHING DEMONSTRATING THE DIFFERENCES THAT YOU SAY EXIST BETWEEN THE RACIAL GAP AND THE POLITICAL GAP? A. NO, I ONLY SAW 433 AND 434 WHEN I ARRIVED ON SUNDAY. * Q. WOULD YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE DATA BUT JUST DRAWING COMPARISONS BETWEEN EXHIBITS 434 AND YOUR TABLES BASED ON THE FACT BASED ON THESE DATA DIFFERENCES? A. I WOULD RELY MOSTLY IN 433 AND 434. I WOULD RELY ON THE FAR RIGHT HAND COLUMN, WHICH HAS THE 1990 U. S. SENATE RETURN. Q. WHICH IS THE SAME YEAR? A. YES. Q. BUT YOU HAVE TWO DIFFERENT DATA SOURCES AND YOU ARE LOOKING AT TWO DIFFERENT UNIVERSES, TOTAL POPULATION FROM THE CENSUS AND THE OTHER SOME LIMITED? A. RIGHT. BUT STILL DOESN’T -- SORT OF BEGS THE QUESTION. THE POINT IS THAT THE RACIAL DIFFERENCES ARE GREATER THAN THE PARTISAN DIFFERENCES. Q. BUT THAT'S ONLY IF IT’S ACCURATE TO COMPARE THOSE TWO PERCENTAGES ACROSS THE BOUNDARY OF THE POLITICAL DATA AND THE RACIAL DATA? A. THAT’S ALL WE HAVE. Q. AND YOU WOULDN’T CRITICIZE SOMEONE ELSE’S -- ANOTHER EXPERT WHO PERHAPS TRIED TO MAKE THAT KIND OF COMPARISON? A. I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I THINK IT’S AN APPROPRIATE COMPARISON, GIVEN THE QUESTION THAT'S BEEN POSED. 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 +, » CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, ISN’T IT? A. I DON’T CONSIDER MYSELF AN EXPERT ON EVIDENCE, BUT I HEARD 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. TI 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. 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? 24 25 P | » i 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 INTERPRETATION OF 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 24 25 2 N vy Cae t Ho FACT, NO. 0. BUT THEN YOUR DATA TABLES DON'T REFLECT ANY OF THE REAL LIFE 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. 0. 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. 0. 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. 0. 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, I WASN'T PERSONALLY PRESENT ALWAYS HERE IN RALEIGH 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, 24 25 dP w ohh AND WE THINK THE OTHER EVIDENCE PRETTY CONVINCINGLY, WHEN PUT IN CONTEXT, EVEN THE EVIDENCE OF THE STATE'S EVIDENCE MAKES IT PRETTY CLEAR IT WAS A RACIALLY PREDOMINATE PURPOSE. BUT WE THINK, TAKING ALTOGETHER AND LOOKING AGAIN AT THE MAPS, WHICH ARE HERE, PARTICULARLY THE ONE THAT SHOWS THE RACIAL CONCENTRATION, THAT YOU COME TO THE CONCLUSION INEVITABLY IT WAS DONE WITH A RACIAL PURPOSE AND THAT IT WAS PREDOMINATE. OBVIOUSLY, IT’S VERY EASY AND I ASK THE QUESTION: COULD THEY REENACT THE OLD PLAN, SAY GEE WHIZ, IT’S NOW POLITICAL. IT’S VERY EASY TO USE A COVER STORY IN POLITICS. THAT MAY BE ONE OF THE UNHAPPY ASPECTS OF THE SUPREME COURT OPINION. YOU DON’T GET INTO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT IT IS FOR A PREDOMINATE MOTIVE, SIMPLY WHETHER IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE THAT WAY APART FROM THIS. EVEN IF, IN THE CONFINES OF THIS PREDOMINATE RACIAL MOTIVE, WE THINK THE CASE WAS PROVEN BY OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, SO WE DON’T -- WE FEEL THAT THE COURT SHOULD BE COMPELLED IN THE RULING WITH US ON THAT BASIS, JUST AS THEY FELT THE CASE WAS CONSIDERABLE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT A YEAR AND-A-HALF AGO. WE DON’T THINK ANYTHING IS CHANGED. BUT, IN ADDITION, WE FEEL VERY PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN TERMS OF THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED IN THIS TRIAL WHICH SHOULD PERSUADE YOU THERE WAS A PREDOMINATE RACIAL MOTIVE. 24 25 + * ou TO PERSUADE YOU, FIRST, THE STATE CONCEDED THEY CAN'T SURVIVE STRICT SCRUTINY TO THE 12TH DISTRICT AND SHOULD PERSUADE YOU IN ADDITION THEY CANNOT SURVIVE STRICT SCRUTINY AS TO THE 1ST DISTRICT. I APOLOGIZE FOR INTERRUPTING CO-COUNSEL’S PRESENTATION. I REALIZE THIS IS THE BASIC ISSUE WHICH YOU ARE DEALING WITH AND WE THINK THAT FROM THE POINT WHERE WE MADE OUR OPENING CONTENTIONS, THE OPENING STATEMENT WHICH IS -- WHICH HAS BEEN TRANSCRIBED, YOU HAVE DAILY TRANSCRIPTS, WILL SHOW OUR POSITION. WE THINK IT’S CONSISTENT. WE BELIEVE WE PROVED IT. JUDGE THORNBURG: WE APPRECIATE YOUR CANDOR WITH THE COURT. MR. MCGEE: YOUR HONORS, IF I MAY APPROACH, I'D LIKE TO PUT UP A MAP THAT JUDGE EVERETT MENTIONED BEFORE. I’M GOING TO BE DISCUSSING THE 12TH DISTRICT AND WE TRULY THINK THIS PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS. IT SHOWS HOW THE DISTRICT ZIGS AND ZAGS BACK AND FORTH TO PICK UP VIRTUALLY EVERY PRECINCT IN WHICH AFRICAN AMERICANS CONSTITUTE 40 PERCENT. 70 PERCENT OF THE POPULATIONS ARE AT THE EXTREMES OF THE DISTRICTS AND YOU CAN SEE HOW IT, IF YOU COMPARE THIS MAP WITH THE MAP OF THE PLAN IN 1992, IT’S VERY CLEAR THAT IN THESE SIX COUNTIES THE AREAS WHERE THE MINORITY CONCENTRATIONS ARE LOCATED FROM THIS MAP ARE PRIMARILY # iw MR. MCGEE: YOU CAN DO IT AS LONG AS YOU DON'T DO IT BY RACE. IN THIS ATTEMPT THEY HAVE GONE IN AND TAKEN HIGH CONCENTRATIONS OF AFRICAN AMERICANS AND THEY PUT THEM IN THE DISTRICT AND AFRICAN AMERICANS DO PERFORM AS =~ JUDGE BOYLE: IF YOU WENT THROUGH AND CHERRY PICKED OUT EVERY PRECINCT 80/20 IN ITS ELECTION RESULTS, YOU WOULD PROBABLY HAVE A STRONG MINORITY CONCENTRATION, BUT THAT WOULD BE INCIDENTAL. MR. MCGEE: THE POINT THAT I WAS ATTEMPTING TO MAKE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT IS YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DRAW A DISTRICT THAT IS THIS CONTORTED. THIS DISTRICT CANNOT BE EXPLAINED IN POLITICAL TERMS. IF YOU ARE TRYING TO CREATE A DEMOCRATIC DISTRICT, YOU CAN CREATE ONE NOT THIS SPREAD OUT, NOT THIS NONCOMPACT AND PERFORMS EXCELLENTLY FOR A DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE WITHOUT TAKING IT TO THIS EXTENT. AN EXAMPLE OF THAT IS THE DISTRICT IN 1998, WHICH IS LESS RACIALLY MOTIVATED, WHICH IS MORE COMPACT, SPLITS FEWER COUNTIES, AND INCLUDES FEWER COUNTIES AND PERFORMS PERFECTLY WELL FOR THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE, DID NOT EFFECT RESULTS OF ANY OF THE SURROUNDING AREAS. IN THAT INSTANCE, WE SAY IT’S NOT A DEMOCRATIC ISLAND OF A REPUBLICAN SEED. THERE'S OTHER AREAS IN THAT GENERAL PROXIMITY THAT WOULD SUPPORT A DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE AND THOSE WERE EXCLUDED BECAUSE OF RACE. I SEE I’M ABOUT OUT