Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider Stay and Shorten Time for Response

    04/20/98 MON 10:12 FAX 919 967 4953 
FROM NC RG SPECIAL a | 919-716-6763 

MARTIN CROMARTIE, er al, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JAMES B. HUNT, JR, in his official 
capacity as Governor of the State of North 
Carolina, ef al,, 

Defendants, 

RUDOLF & MAHER 
24.17.1998 ® 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

EASTERN DIVISION 

Civil Action No, 4-96-CV-104-B0O(3) 

) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 

doo4 

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER STAY 
AND TO SHORTEN TIME FOR RESPONSE 

Defendants respectfully request the Court to reconsider defendants’ prior motion to stay 

the Court’s 3 April 1998 injunction by modifying that injunction to permit primary elections to go 

forward May §, 1998, in those congressional districts which will not be affected by the redrawing 

of Diatriet 12. 

Because time is of the essence, defendants further request the Court to shorten the time for 

response by requiring plaintiffs to respond, if they so choose, by Monday at noon, April 20, 1998, 

In support of this metion, defendants rely on the supporting memorandum filed contemporaneously 

with this motion. 

 



04/20/98 MON 10:13 FAX 919 967 4953 RUDOLF & MAHER 
FKUM NU RAG SFECIAL lhe 4 919=716=6763 a 

This the 17th day of April. 1998, 

MICHAEL F. EASLEY 
ATTORNEY GENERAL 

“ ry > 

Edwin M. Speas, Jr. 
Senior Deputy Attorney General 
N.C. State Bar No. 4112 

/ (gL v > nd 

  

  

ire B. Smiley 
Special Deputy Attorney General 
N. C. State Bar No. 7119 

Wowie df rel is, 
Norma S. Harrell 
Spetial Deputy Attorney General 
N.C. State Bar No. 6654 

  

N.C. Department of Justice 
P.O. Box 629 
Raleigh, N.C. 27602 

(919) 716-6900 

 



    

04/20/98 MON 10:13 FAX 919 967 4953 RUDOLF & MAHER do06 
FROM NC AG SFECIAL Shi 319=716=6763 94.17.1998 @® P. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ie 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA § IA & 

EASTERN DIVISION SE a i) 

A 
Civil Action No. 4-96-CV-104-BO(3) | Sill / 1998 

a 0 Wp aa 
USTs Clem MARTIN CROMARTIE, et al, = OST ng SOURT 

Plaintiffs, 

V. 

JAMES B. HUNT, JR, in his official 
capacity as Governor of the State of North 
Carolina, ef al., 

Defendants. 

DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 
TO RECONSIDER STAY AND TO SHORTEN TIME FOR RESPONSE 

By order dated April 3, 1998, and judgment dated April 6, 1998, this Court permanently 

enjoined defendants from conducting primary or general elections for the United States House of 

Representatives under the State's 1997 congressional redistricting plan. The Court's injunction 

applies without Jimit to all of the State's twelve congressional districts, even though the grounds for 

the Court's injunction were flaws found in a single district, District 12. 

Defendants moved the Court to stay that Injunction, but the stay was denied. Defendants 

today have moved the Court to reconsider defendants’ motion to stay that injunction by modifying 

that injunction to permit elections to procecd as scheduled in districts which will not be effected by 

a redrawing of District 12. In support of this motion, defendants rely on the following points: 

1. It is axiomatic that the Court's power to remedy a violation of the Constitution does 

not exceed the scope of the violation of the Constitution. Lewis v. Casey, 518 US. ___, _ 116 

 



    

04/20/98 
FROM HNC RG SPECIAL a 919-716-6763 

MON 10:13 FAX 919 967 4953 RUDOLF & MAHER 
el ad Thi 

1. It is axiomatic that the Court's power to remedy a violation of the 

not exceed the scope of the violation of the Congtirution. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 

Constitution does 

. 116 
r— Tr—— 

S.Ct. 2174, 2184, 135 L. Ed. 2d 606, 623 (1996). For this reason “systemwide” remedies are 

inappropriatein the absence of a “systemwide violation. See also Upham v. Sea mon, 456 U.S. 37, 

43.102 8. Ct. 1518, 1522, 71 L. Ed, 2d 725, 731 (1982) (court's remedy must be limited to curing 

constitutional and or statutory defect). 

i 3 The sole violation of the Constitution which is the basis for 

enjoining congressional elections is the unconstitutionality of District 12. As 19 

the Coun's order 

apparent from the 

Court's April 14, 1998 memorandum opinion, that violation can be cured by “pruning” District 12 

so as to reconfigure its boundaries with the boundaries of its neighboring district 

9 and 10, with no effect on the remaining districts. Among these six potentially 

g Districts §, 6, 8, 

affected districts,   
primary elections are scheduled only in Districts 8, 9 and 12." By contrast, primaries are scheduled 

in five of the six diswicts which will not be effected by redmwing District 12. 

are Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7.2 Thus, five of the States eight congressional prim 

districts covering the eastern balf of the State that will not change when District 

| 1 Staying the Court's injunction to allow these five primaries to 

substantial positive results for voters, taxpayers and candidates, First, the severe 

tumout resulting from special elections and voter burnout will be avoided. Seca 

  

ol five districts 

ies will be held in 

12 is redrawn, 

proceed will have 

reduction in voter 

nd, the significant 

: The Democratic primary in District 8 has two candidates on the ballot, but one 
candidate has withdrawn, 

: See Second Affidavit of Gary O. Bartlett (filed March 20, 199 
preliminary injunction) § 3 & Exhibit A. 

8 in opposition to 

  

dioo7 
P. 4 

 



  

CE 

campaign efforts of the candidates in these districts will not be wasted. Cf. Second Affidavit of Gary 

O. Bartlett, 

4. Because of the timing of the Court's injunctionorder, county boards of elections have 

not reprogramed election machinery or reprinted ballots for the May Sth primaries, although 

pursuant to the Court order no votes in the congressional elections would be officially counted 

absent a stay. Thus, with the issuance of a limited stay for the five districts, the congressional 

primaries can still go forward on May Sth. 

3 Plaintiffs have indicated they will object to this motion on the grounds that District 

1 is also unconstitutional and must be redrawn. That point is without merit. This Court has denied 

plaintiffs’ motions for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment as to District 1. The district 

is presumed constitutional and, in the absence of a constitutional flaw in the district, there is at 

present no basis to disrupt unnecessarily the State's elections process in large areas of the State. 

6. Defendants have also | requested the Court to shoren the time for response by 

requiring plaintiffs to respond, if they so choose, by Monday at noon, April 20, 1998. Time is of the 

essence if the primaries are to be allowed to move forward in the five districts on May 5, 1998, and 

defendants, therefore, respectfully urge the Court to act on this motion immediately. 

  

[doos 

  

 



   
04/20/98 MON 10:13 FAX 919 967 4953 RUDOLF & MAHER doo9 

This the 17th day of April. 1998. 

MICHAEL F. EASLEY 
ATTORNEY GENERAL 

[1.0 
Edwin M. Speas, Jr. 

- Senior Deputy Attorney General 
N.C. Stare Bar No, 4112 A 

(Ge 5 ti 

  

  

tafe B. Smiley 
Special Deputy Attomey General 
N. C. Suate Bar No. 7119 

Yet iC Merit 
  

Ndrma §. Harrell 
Special Deputy Attomey General 
N.C. State Bar No. 6654 

N.C. Department of Justice 
P.O. Box 629 
Raleigh, N.C. 27602 
(919) 716-6900 

oko END koko