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 31, 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