Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Consider Additional Evidence; Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Consider Additional Evidence

    9 . . ftOFIL’ED

NOV :5 01983
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ilflCHLEONARD,CLERK
RALEIGH DIVISION U.S.DBTWCTCOURT
E.DBT.NO.CAR

RALPH GINGLES, et a1., No. 81—803—Civ—5

Plaintiffs,

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION TO CONSIDER ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE

V.

RUFUS L. EDMISTEN, et a1.,

Defendants.

NOW COME Defendants, by and through their counsel of record,

and respond to Plaintiffs' Motion to Consider Additional Evidence,
filed with the Court on November 22, 1983, as follows:

1) Defendants do not object to the Court's consideration
of proposed new Exhibits 90, 91 & 92;

2) Defendants do object to the introduction of new statistical
data or other evidence relating to other municipal elections
held in North Carolina since the trial of this cause.

In support of their foregoing Response, Defendants file herewith

their Memorandum and attached Exhibits 65, 66 and 67.

Respectfully submitted, this the 43ZZ_ day of November, 1983.

RUFUS L. EDMISTEN
ATTORNEY GENERAL

 

 

r Legal Affairs
North Carolina Department
of Justice
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

HV.'

"\

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

RALPH GINGLES, et a1.,
Plaintiffs,
v. I
No. 81-803-C1v-5
RUFUS L. EDMISTEN, et a1.,

vvvvvvvvv

Defendants.

DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
OF DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO CONSIDER
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

5.5

. . -2- _ . .

FACTS

.‘

On or about November 22, 1983; Plaintiffs filed with the
Court their Motion to Consider Additional Evidence, attaching
thereto proposed new Exhibits 90, 91 and 92, constituting
respectively 1) the official abstract of votes cast for

Mayor and City Council at large at the November 8, 1983 Charlotte

municipal election; 2) an official tabulation of registered

I

voters by race, by precinct, in Charlotte; and 3) a notarized
letter from the Chief Registrar of the Mecklenburg County Board
of Elections, specifying the race and, where applicable, the
incumbency of each of the candidates for Mayor and for City
Council at large.

Plaintiffs attribute significance to the fact that Harvey
Gantt, a black candidate who won election as Mayor, won in
only nine of 70 majority white precincts while winning in each
of 18 majority black precincts, and that 2 black candidates at
large for Charlotte City Council placed seventh and sixth
out of eight candidates competing for four seats, one or both
having carried only 6 of 70 majority white precincts.

Plaintiffs have offered to compile and submit results of
other municipal election results in elections held since the
trial of this cause.

On November 30, 1983 Defendants responded to Plaintiffs'
Motion, in effect consenting to the introduction of Plaintiffs!
proposed new exhibits, but objecting to the introduction of

evidence relating to post—trial elections held in other jurisdictions.

9f

. . -3— . .

I. THE DEFENDANTS DO NOT. OBJECT TO THE INTRODUCTION OF STATISTICS
RELATING TO THE CHARLOTTE ELECTIONS SO LONG AS THOSE EXHIBITS
ARE FAIRLY PRESENTED AND EVALUATED.

The fact that Defendants have no objection to the Court's
consideration of Plaintiffs' new evidence does not mean that

Defendants do not take issue with the manner in which the

evidence has been presented to the Court. The motion and the

evidence on which it is based tend to skew the situation as it

exists in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County and to avoid the true
significance of Charlotte's November 8 elections. To the extent
that the Court is aware of Defendants', as well as Plaintiffs',
interpretation and evaluation of the facts surrounding that
election, Defendants have no quarrel with the Plaintiffs' submission.
Defendants have not objected to the Court's use of the new.
evidence in reaching its determination as to the merits of Plaintiffs'
Mecklenburg claims for two reasons: First, that same evidence,
Defendants submit, when examined in conjunction with the additional
matters put before this Court in Defendants' Response, goes much
further toward supporting Defendants' position in this case than
that of the Plaintiffs; second, the essential messages contained
in Plaintiffs‘ filing and the Defendant's response thereto serve
to crystallize, and thereby better clarify, the basic theoretical

difference between the positions of Plaintiffs and Defendants in

this case.

---v‘

O. O.
Apparently Plaintiffs have proffered their new evidence only
for the purpose of further supporting their claim of polarized ‘.
voting in a given jurisdiction. One can only glean from Plaintiffs'
filing that they find the results of especially the Mayoral 1
contest in Charlotte to be indicative of ongoing racial bias
among the city's white voters and indicative of the continued

submergence of minority citizens in an electoral jurisdiction

created and maintained with the effect, if not for the purpose,

of ensuring continued white domination of the political processes.
What Plaintiffs' have failed to acknowledge as being far more
"substantively significant", however, is the fact that Charlotte,
North Carolina, a Southern city in which only one registered
voter in four is black, gig elect a black mayor on November 8‘
Plaintiffs' failure to attribute any significance whatsoever to
this fact is rendered even more disturbing by their avoidance of
the fact that perhaps as many as 40% of the white registered
voters in Charlotte voted for Harvey Gantt. (Culp Affidavit,
DX 65, m 5).1

Plaintiffs seem to premise the importance of their evidence
on an assumption that their strained definition of the terms
"polarized voting" or "block voting" is the definition which will
be adopted by this Court and that this Court will determine an
isolated study of voting patterns, undertaken by an analysis
of numbers only, to be decisive in the case. They cling to an

unreasonable and unwarranted analytical standard which calls for

.1 ____...__-
.._ ___‘

casting aside any appreciation for the existence of positive

 

lThe Culp affidavit is submitted only as evidence of an

experienced election official's interpretation of the documents
filed by Plaintiffs.

. . —s-. O .

factors indicating interracial coalition and cooperation in

Charlotte's political arena. But while Plaintiffs' seem to

regard the Gantt victory and the white support behind it as

irrelevant for the purposes of this inquiry, the results of

that contest have been heralded in the news media nationwide

as a major achievement in the entire country's efforts to %
_accomplish a higher degree of racial harmony in politics.(DX 66 & 67).. I
‘ Defendants' position, simply put, is that while Plaintiffs

have continued to busy themselves with a numbers game, the

politicians and voters of Mecklenburg County, both black and

white, have gotten down to the serious business of dealing

with modern political realities. This is what Plaintiffs' , é
evidence most acutely evidences. Evidence relating to the I ;
political fortunes of two black at large council candidates,

about which the Court and the Defendants know virtually nothing,

shows nothing and indicates nothing but the simple.fact that

for every election winner there is a loser. The Gantt election,

however, is of far greater consequence. In their own way, both

Plaintiffs and Defendants acknowledge that fact. What remains

to be seen is whether plaintiffs have managed to successfully

convince this Court that their concept of "political equality"

is the fairest concept. Defendants submit that the Plaintiffs

have missed the mark.

.'

'(E.D.La. 1963), aff'd., 341 F. 2d 377 (5th Cir. 1965), that Court,

. . -6.- 6 . .

II. THE COURT SHOULD NOT CONSIDER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING
MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS HELD IN OTHER DISPUTED JURISDICTIONS.

Though a motion to reopen for the purpose of introducing
additional evidence after close of trial, but prior to rendering
of decision, has been characterized by one Court as a "cannibaliza—
tion of those qualities found in Rules 59 and 60," Caracci v.

Brother International Sewing Machine Corp of La., 222 F. Supp. 769

as have other Courts, allowed such a motion, essentially premising
the propriety of do so on the notion that "[t]he common denominator
of Rules 55(c), 59 and 60(b) is the sound discretion of the trial
court." Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc. v. Hughes Aircraft
Company, 73 F.R.D. 16,22(D.Delaware 1976).

It is certainly not the position of the Defendants that this
Court cannot properly consider vote abstracts and voter registration
figures for all 1983 municipal elections held in Mecklenburg,
Forsyth, Wake, Durham, Nash, Wilson, or Edgecombe Counties or in
municipalities lying within the area which Senate District No. 2
comprises. Rather, Defendants submit, the compilation and
evaluation of such data would cause both Plaintiffs and Defendants
to expend considerable time and money in the assimilation of
information which should have little bearing on the Court's
ultimate determination in a state legislative reapportionment
case. Further, the undertaking of such an endeavor would delay 7 [
an ultimate resolution of the issues by this Court, a serious i I
consideration in light of the fact that the State's filing I
period for legislative offices is set by law to begin on

January 2, 1984 (N.C.Gen.Stat. §163—106(c)).

. . -7— ‘ . .

Of course, should the Court deem the examination of further ;'
information desireable, Defendants, too, remain fully prepared
to provide such information to the Court.

Respectfully submitted, this the 5g? day of November, 1983.

RUFUS L. EDMISTEN
ATTORNEY GENERAL

>fléW
Jam 5 Wallace, Jr.

De y Attorney neral
or Legal Affairs
orth Carolina Department of Justice
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

 

1.-

AFFADAVIT

Comes now affiant William B. A. Culp, Jr., and being duly sworn, does
state and aver as follows:

 

1. My address is 700 Mt. Vernon Avenue, Charlotte, North Carolina 28203

2. I am Supervisor of Elections for Mecklenburg County and have served
in that capacity since January, 1970.

3. I am responsible for supervising the conduct of federal, state and
county elections as well as municipal elections for the seven municipa-
lities in Mecklenburg County; among these municipalities is Charlotte. ;

 

4. Following the November 8, 1983 Municipal Election in Charlotte, I
examined the precinct returns in the mayoral election taking into
account the percentage of black and white voters registered in each
precinct.

5. By examining the precinct returns, I arrived at a conclusion, which
was satisfactory to me and which reflected my best professional
judgement, that approximately thirty-eight percent (38%) of the white
registered voters in Charlotte had voted for winning candidate
Harvey Gantt, a black person.

6. The percentage of white registered voters in Charlotte is 77.2 percent.
The percentage of black registered voters in Charlotte is 22.7 percent.

7. My analysis was done for the purpose of satisfying my own curiosity
and was precipitated by neither the parties, the defendent in the
case of GINGLES, ET AL vs. EDMINSTEN, ETC, ET AL, No. 81-803-Civ-5,
nor their attorneys.

 

Further affiant saith not.
William B. A. Culp, Jr.

Supervisor of Elections
Mecklenburg County

Subscribed and sworn to (affirmed) before me, this afl day of W, 1983

7141M Ac (3W
My commission expires ,jqj-QQ ,'

- qugxwuguununfik

I 9832:»-

.;.
\ g
u
A ,

. "A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10913 SH HDIBWUH

| I | 47 i . . fl IS 3111A3113AUJ ror
- ~ L Dde xaeaalj ABHUd uIAljo

1 I] 2: x - o 91 as IvLOhUTAJ 000 28330

ITII

24404

.I'.
IDSLZ 11910_S##¥¥**#**l***ifi

..

1.

 

 

 

 

. ,_ .... _. _..__...-..»~...-. .w..- ._. . . .4 ..

 

 

Nation

 

3?

. ’ 35‘s

a: , it
,1 ‘% :i' 4
- a

 

 

300515 nvl'lWIM

 

Elections ’83: A Winning Round

 

Listening to the uniformly cheery post-
election analyses, it was possible to
forget that there were losers as well as
winners. Everybody seemed able to find
hopeful political omens in the patchwork
of results. “Tuesday‘s election,“ said
Democratic National Committee Chair-
man Charles Manatt, “brought good news
for the national Democratic Party." Oh
yeah? Declared Frank Fahrenkopf, Man-
att‘s G.O.P. counterpart: "The election
provided good news to the Republican
Party and President Reagan."

Indeed, when the votes from the myri-
ad elections were counted last week, there
seemed to be something for everyone.
Black and female candidates were high-
profile winners in every section of the
country. At the same time, in voting on
scores of statewide and municipal propo-
sitions. the electorate seemed inclined to-
ward common sense. Most important.
when the dust settled. it did seem that
more often than not, votes were cast based
on candidates“ qualifications rather than
their race. sex or personal life.

Overall, the Democrats probably
came out slightly ahead. Mississippi and
Kentucky, the only states to elect Gover-
nors last week, both chose new Demo-
crats. Those successes preserve the party‘s
overwhelming (35 to 15) control of US.
Governors’ mansions, a significant power
base for the 1984 elections.

On the other hand, the GOP. will
keep a 55¢to-45 majority in the Senate.
thanks to the victory in Washington State
of Daniel Evans, who was appointed to
the seat when Democrat Henry Jackson
‘died in September. The race was, in Fah-
renkopfs partisan view, "the only elec~
tion with national implications.“ Cer-
tainly the Democrat, liberal Seattle Con—
gressman Mike Lowry, did his best to cast
the special election as a referendum on
Ronald Reagan‘s policies. He gave pas-
sionate speeches, arms flailing, in which

 

 

A good day for women and blacks—but not for moose

AkOG' 3K JJZT

    

._ .11: - v , ' VJ, ' . .
Mississippi Govern r-elect William Allain
”l in no Sexual deviate and [he/knows it!"

 

he deplored Reagan Administration cuts
in social spending and warned against
US. military adventurism.

Evans, 58, who radiates a sort of clear-
headed country-club cool, shrugged ofl‘
any special importance attached to his
election. “People are trying to read too
much into this,“ he said. At their debate
last month, he gracefully deflected at-
tacks: “Mike, if you want to run against
President Reagan, you‘re a year too early."

Evans, who was Governor from 1965
to 1977, took an unexpectedly large share
(55%) of the vote. One improbable sup-
porter was Walter Mercer, 50, a labor
lawyer who calls himself “a left-wing

. Democrat." Says Mercer: "He‘s the most

progressive politician in the state. In the
Senate, ] expect him to vote very indepen-
dently. He thinks for himself.“ Evans is
what used to be called a Rockefeller Re-
publican. His victory was important for
the G.O.P.. but it would be a mistake to
count his voters as enlistees in the Reagan
re-election cause.

In the most closely watched munici-
pal .election, W. Wilson Goode won 55%

n§W¢1N352
Iii-4" W n
. -- up.

 

. I"
.A _ '3’

of the vote to become Philadelphia’s first
black mayor. Four of the nation’s six larg-
est cities (Los Angeles, Detroit, Chicago
and Philadelphia) and 15 others with pop-
ulations over 100,000 will now be led by
blacks. Goode, 45, who has a manage-
ment degree from the University of Penn-
sylvania’s Wharton School, dresses in
Main Line corporate fashion. He is sober
to a fault. relying on position papers far
more than polemics. Said Goode after his
election: “People will see by my actions
that I want to be mayor of all the people.”
Neither he nor his Republican oppo-
nent, John Egan Jr., appealed to racial
antagonisms of the kind that besmirched
Chicago’s mayoral election. It is encour-
aging that the Democratie machine in the
City of Brotherly Love, unlike its counter-
part in Chicago, did not stint in its support
for a black nominee. Even Frank Rizzo,
the bilious ex-mayor who was beaten’by
Goode in the primary, campaigned for
him. However. the vote still cut unmistak-
ably along racial lines. Goode received
the support of 98% of blacks. And though
he picked up a quarter of the white vote,
a comparable white candidate surely
would have pulled a much larger share.
Registered Democrats outnumber Re-
publicans 4-to-l. Goode was by far the
more experienced candidate. As the city‘s
managing director for the past three
years, he had nuts-and-bolts responsibil-
ity for delivering municipal services.
Goode‘s election was a first only in
Philadelphia. Among other black mayor-
al candidates victorious last week, Rich-
ard Hatcher was elected to his fifth term
in Gary, Ind., and Thirman Milner to his
second in Hartford, Conn. _
' But perhaps the most heartening black
mayoral success was that of Democrat
Harvey Gantt in Charlotte, NC, where
just one in four v'oters is black. He took
40% ofthe white vote. the election was al-
most entirely free ofracial animosity. Said
Gantt: "We ought to be able to go out and
recruit industry on the basis that we have
such racial harmony." ludecd.only in Los
Angclcs has a big-city black mayor won a
larger share ofthe white vote.

 

«1v: manoeu—

n

 

.nr ,

 

l8 ' - TtMu.Nt)VI~;MiiiaR 2|. i983

 

war-rm? w“

'lf.

, Tm‘ sum: . ; v-a. ,, _-... . " ....,--.-_...._.:".” .. ..........
. _' _ .07 .« - «'-....—"-

I
. Nation
This is the second time , _fl.‘-'~i{pf'f'~'i"
Gantt. 40, has stood as a symbol i.“
. ofracial progress. Twenty years
‘ ago, the color barrier was (
peacefullybroken atSouthCar- _-
olina’s Clemson University 7 “
when he became the first black ‘ ,
student. A practicing architect ,_
with a master‘s degree in city '
planning from M,I.T.,heserved i,
on the Charlotte city council.
leading _a drive to revitalize
Charlotte‘s inner city. “Busi-
nessmen are attracted to Har- . ,
vey's intellect," says Banker , - ‘ _‘ ‘. ,z .
llugh McCoIl Jr., who plays I ' » ‘ '
tennis on Gantt‘s OWn court. ‘ 4 2:. C , ‘. .3 "
“He‘s no firebrand. He's very :“J, 7 . . m _ .. .
thoughtful, and unlike many 3 ivffiifl ' . - ti" 4+. . ",1
black politicians, he’s fiscally HarveyGantt,eleete mayorwithwhitevotesandnoraneor
conservative.“

A feisty populist was elected Gover- Donna Owens became the first woman
nor in Mississippi. Attorney General Wil- mayor of Toledo, Ohio, and female may-
Iiam Allain,a Democrat, took 56% ofthe ors elsewhere were easily reelected.
vote to Republican Landowner Leon Houstonians gave businesslike Mayor
Bramlett‘s 39% But in the end, Allain‘s Kathy Whitmire, 37, a second term by a
positions on utility regulation and educa- lopsided (64% to 35%) margin. San Fran-
tion reforms were obscured by a flurry of cisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein was even
lurid charges: two weeks before the elec- more unstoppable: her five challengers to-
tion, Bramlett supporters trotted out a gether could muster only 21% ofthe vote.
pair of young black men, both transves- Collins ofKentucky may outrank her, but
tites, who claimed to have been paid 20 Feinstein, 50, has more Democratic Party
times by Allain» for sexual services. A clout than any otherwoman.
polygraph test commissioned by the Jack-

‘. son CIm-iou-Ledger buttressed the hus— n a special congressional election in
' tlers‘ allegations. Allain. 55 and divorced, Georgia, however, simply being a worm
called the charges “damnable, vicious, an—andawidow—was notenough to win.
malicious lies.“ He added, “I‘m no sexual Ultraright Democratic Congressman Law-
deviate,and Leon Bramlettknowsit!“ rence McDonald, chairman of the John

Gender. not sex, figured prominently Birch Society, died on Korean Air Lines
in Kentucky, which elected its first wom- Flight 007. His wife Kathy, 34, believed
an Governor. Moreover. Lieutenant Gov- that the Soviets deliberately “assassinated“
ernor Martha Layne Collins. 46. will be McDonald, and ran to serve out his fifth
the Democrats‘ highest elected female of- term. But moderate Democrat George
ficial. A former home-economics teacher, (“Buddy“) Darden trounced her, 59% to
she soundly beat State Senator Jim Bun- 41%. The national New Right tried but
ning. 52. a former major league pitcher. then despaired of helping Kathy McDon-
Neither candidate had much administra- ald. “To be perfectly candid," said Paul
live experience. and neither focused very Weyrich, director of the right-wing Com-
clearly on state issues such as acid rain mittee for the Survival ofa Free Congress,
and the decline ofthe coal industry. Col- “they ran one of the worst campaigns 1
Iins only tepidly supports the Equal have ever witnessed. lf 1 were a Bircher, I
Rights Amendment. Bunning
came off as an unimaginative
conservative.

The lifeless campaign‘s

most inspired moment, in fact,
may have been its last, the work
of former .Governor Albert
(“Happy") Chandler, 85.
When Collins' victory speech
had rambled on too long,
Chandler sidled up to the mi-
crophone. Kentucky voters, he
said, should be proud to have
elected a woman so “well
trained and well educated."
Then. smiling and sweet-
voiced, he softly began to sing
My Old Kclimcky llama. The
crowd joined in.

Women also won at the
municipal level. Republican

20

..,.. . .4. . _
Way... .

'1' ‘-
>“II.A

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

  
 

     

 

. would believe the KGB was run-
ning the campaign."

. Also on the ballot last week
was a thicket of initiatives. In
San Francisco, voters narrowly
passed (80,740 to 79,481) a
measure designed to protect
nonsmokers from co-workers‘
smoke. It requires every em-
ployer to isolate the staffs smok-
ers; if any nonsmoker remains
dissatisfied, the firm can be
fined $500 a day. Enforcement
will be annoying and probably
impossible.

Indeed, San Francisco vot-
ers seemed crotchety: 61% vot-
ed for a nonbinding resolution
to do away with bilingual baI- .
lots in the polyglot city. They
also passed a proposition con-
demning military aid to El Salvador; Seat-
tle and Boulder, Colo., adopted similar
measures, which additionally oppose US.
aid to comm guerrillas fighting the Nica-
raguan government.

Massachusetts voters in the liberal
precincts of Harvard and M.I.T. refused
to meddle in national security: the Cam~
bridge initiative, defeated 3 to 2, would
have gone beyond symbol by outlawing
all research and development of nuclear
arms in the city. The main target was a
lab that designs missile guidance systems.

In general, prudence seemed to pre-
vail. Ohioans voted not to repeal huge in-
come tax increases passed by the legisla-
ture during the past year. New Yorkers
approved a $1.25 billion bond issue to save
the state‘s decaying roads and bridges. A
rent-control law'was rejected in Los Ange-
lcsCounty. Citizens in parched Petroleum
County, Mont, decided to regulate “sod-
busting," the dangerously erosive practice
of plowing up marginal grazing land to
plant wheat. And outdoorsy Maine voters
sided with hunters over their prey: a pro-
posal to end the state’s annual moose hunt
was shot down 2 to 1.

Last week’s voting outcomes were
seldom startling or disturbing. Local
elections were decided on local issues,
.. like new convention centers

 

 

a; (Houston, Philadelphia), old
~§infrastructures (New York,
,_.. TLouisvilIe) and bad schools
.‘1 §(Mississippi). Perhaps there
r . Swas no national sea change,
_ {- gbut the social revolutions of
s the past 20 years were consoli-
dated. “We can hold our heads
high,”- said Governor-elect
Collins. “This is a place where
. no one is limited by race, creed
or gender: people cast their
votes solely for quality and
ability to govern.“ She was
talking about Kentucky, but
her pride seemed apt across
the nation. —By KurtAndcrsen.
Reported by Hays Gorey/Washing-
ton and 8.1. Phillips/Jackson, with
other bureaus

 

 

M‘QK‘UW-M—mlu‘h‘ .‘x .m

TIM l3. NOVEM Illiil 2 l. 1983

 

 

 

 

 

 

far”: t“ 1.1"? t... l. .’ ;;v

.- .~ v.2":- —..

'H“ '.

u mics 9 [800
i

' :-. , .. . . ‘-.'- 1;.- ; (-‘1“,v- m up, .'f‘,-.-;‘_~_r,,’—'- ...
. . . i ‘ ' _ .. ~ .
,. - . H - . . . . .
. ~ . _. , .......- ,_ ...,. ,. -
'1 1. l I "I‘! , . v 4 err. . . t I
_ . . p . , -. .. ,.
. - ,. , .
. . . _ -
|~ . -. . . < i v. .‘. - < . t
‘ .-. - ,l - .‘ L‘-. .- . - .. ' . - ' " ‘ ' ‘ .
. ,' , . t. I, ‘ . . . '. — _ .
,l r (I . . . ..
l -'_ - - . _._ .‘.;r
.

, Ken:
Ii

firm pgrrrséur‘o/séruamro/sm

 

-,\.

ti - ,
‘A‘.‘ Jr 23 _
.,. . n

. 1;“

‘l 5
/. ."‘ ‘4‘: .. .

_"'v_.

i.

,. fa'iu ‘nfiramr ‘caer fez Ja'l'lRM’

1|
i
r

 

“v' .'

-.- .I ,g
5. ..-i .\.
we; ~ .-'>.
gel-- .5
.;
-, fl -.
..

‘l
.,I
.‘r.
,i,.
‘. L‘.

», ,~ ‘ ,- ‘.&y,A;,a,‘.A/_ —‘

— ‘4‘..‘ fi“. 0“,. ,

 

.V_ /

 

. was... ;. _.,~_~.y~fi_-rp”lryq.-r.e~q.n Ma...

“woe. .... _v-w'auv"-“‘

.—‘.L..

. , .._a-J.“,\H<J~$D,fi"" M

. I .
. - ‘ ' '-
...a.q. _. .‘m r nu. _w- anna“... .9 .. .

 

 

 

     

dc‘Eg

Whiskey»; r:

‘n' .

  

a..- .-.-.-_....—..,o~. ~v~ .

. _CHARLO'l'rE (AP); ;—._Char-‘.
lotte’s first black mayor says a

' fierce determination to succeed -
gimme—was

. ' victory. -

_, “Whether it was making all Na"
.in elementary school or making‘
the football team in highschool,__
my family supported me and told
me to go after i,” said Harvey
Gantt, 40, an architect. “l was new”
3r told something could notj-béli

one. It never occurred to. me that“. 5'

I couldn’t do something once~ I:
made up mind to do it. ; -. .. ~.:-

eciding what I want, preparing
nd putting my mind to accomi‘
plishing it," he said. “I really
, gang see, that race figures in it at
‘ ¢antt, a Democrat, defeated his
' . White Republican opponent, Ed.
_ Peacock, 52 percent to 48 percent. .
antt collected 40 percent of the
White vote. Only '23 percent 'of
Elbarl-‘lotte’s registered voters are
- ac . ‘. .-
iLos Angéles is the only big'city

wihere a blaclr mayorhas won 8' ‘gelection'this'year after decidingto. ‘

larger share of the white vote. "
Gantt said the desire to succeed
was instilled in him at an early age * '

. by his father, Christopher,:a re

tired shipyard worker, and his .
mother, Elizabeth, a homemaker...“
_ He grew up in Charleston, S.C.',
With four sisters, andlwaSencour-

— aged by his parents to set goals for" -

himself and reach them. " p , ,
Elie said his admission at Clem-
son (S'LC.) University in 1963 under
a federal desegregation order was
an example of the results of posi-
tive thinking. Black leaders called '
Gantt’s acceptance at the all-white

' .. 1_,._:.,

.5'

ca sedwm

‘ major fade; in , '

jtschoolfaj‘vietory for minorities
. Gantt calls‘it a personal victoryxr‘

. “With me, it’s just a matterlofi '.'_ __ He ’went‘ on to the_Massachus~ .

= In the Nov-.3 mayoral election,"

. I
f
. .
’ c .
' ‘t _n ~v ‘
‘.'. Hg. .- I
. ".5
V
#1.,
J .
. ‘ .
_ -
.
r .
‘ r
v .
> I ‘0
. ,.
. ' t 3
j '- ‘ . l \
.... . ._ . '7
-."-\§'.” -‘ - ~
. f, ._

  
   

 
   

', 1f: - Harvey Gantt.;

setts? Institute, of Technology, '22. ,.

where he earned a master’s de-. 3,, ,

greeinurban planning. . :
While serving on the Charlotte-1' . '

_' f City Council, Gantt led a drive to

revitalize the inner city and even ,
bought a.‘ home in the city‘s,”-
Stored'EoiIrth Ward section-3. '72:; .:.
'In 1979, Gantt surprised many ,5 .,
political observers by’ filing for .
mayor. against Democrat H. Ed- : '.

‘ ward Knox. He came withinlpoo .:.
1 votes of defeating Knox inthe‘pri- '. ..

mary and became the odds-on raw; ' '
lvorite in 1983.,Knox didn't seek re- " 7'

. -~.- ..... —

runforgovernor. . .1
g Ganttsays he is a man driven to .‘

.win but not obsessed _‘with itJ-lis ,

‘days start before dawn, when he

"_‘jogs four miles before going to,

_work at his architectural firm'and ‘

often stretch into 16 hours. Be‘~

tween meetings and blueprints, he
tries tosqueeze in time forhis
wife, Lucinda, and his four chili“ 3
dren. He plans to keep up his ar- '
chitectural practice after he is-
sworn in as mayor Dec.5,.5; 5r: '-

.- ‘;'1 work hard, but I know howto
relaxrzl’m not a workaholic_,”_
.Gantt‘said."‘-"“’ M ‘ .

.1..-..._

   

,_ I.

H..-" ‘,.»-.'.. ..., ......... ~... . » V.- ~. -

- o

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing

Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Consider

Additional Evidence and supporting Memorandum by placing a copy

of same in the United States Post Office, postage prepaid,

addressed to:

Ms. Leslie Winner

Chambers, Ferguson, Watt, Wallas,
Adkins & Fuller, P.A.

951 South Independence Boulevard

Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

Mr. Jack Greenberg

Mr. James M. Nabritt, III
Ms. Lani Guinier

99 Hudson Street

New York, New York 10013

Mr. Arthur J. Donaldson

Burke, Donaldson, Holshouser &Kenerly
309 North Main Street

Salisbury, North Carolina 28144

Mr. Robert N. Hunter, Jr.

Attorney at Law

Post Office Box 3245
Greensboro, North Carolina 27402

This the 32 day of November, 1983.

WW

5 Wallace,