Gingles v. Edmisten and Pugh v. Hunt Stipulation

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
RALEIGH DIVISION

RALPH GINGLES, et d1.,
Plaintiffs

VS.

RUFUS EDMISTEN, €t dI.,
Defendants

ALAN V. PUGH, €t dl.,
Plainti ffs

VS.

JA.T\,IES B. HUNT, JR., EtC., €t d1.',
Defendants

No. 81-803-CIV-5

) No. 81-1066-CIv-5
)

)

)

STIPULATlON

The parties in the above-entitled actions, bY and through

their respective attorneys, do hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

(1) By letter of 30 November 1981, the office of the

United States Attorney General interposed objection to tl''o proposed

amendments to the Constitution of North Carolina, Article fI,

Sections 3(3) and 5(3) (Attachment A);

(2) By letter of 7 December 1981, the Office of the United

States Attorncir General advised the State that it would not pre-clear

Chapter 894 (S.B. 87,1981) or Chapter 821 (S.B. 313, 1981), North

Caro1ina, s reapportionment plans for the Sltate Senate and the United

States Congress (Attachment B);

(3) By letter of 20 January 1982, the Office of the

United States Attorney General advised the State that it would not

pre-clear Chapter 1130 (H.B. L428, 1981), North Carolina's reapportion-

ment plan for the State House of Representatives (Attachment C);

(4) On 9 Fehruary 1982, the }lorth Carolina General

Assembly convened for the purpose of enacting apportionment plans

for the State House of Representatives, State Senate, and United

States Congress;



(5) The General Assernbly did in fact adopt three nerv

apportionment plans with the ratification of H.B. \t S.B. I, and

S. B. 2 (Attachments D-F) ;

(6) In addition to enacting its reapportionment plans

for the State Senate, State House of Representatives and llnj-ted

States Congress, the General Assembly enacted H.B. 3, nroviding

alternative dates for North Carolina's filing period and primaries,

as more specifically indicated in Attachment G.

17) Pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of
1965, 42 U.S.C. L973c, North Carolina's three new apportionment

plans must now be submitted to the United States Attorney General

for pre-clearance;

(8) The parties hereto stipulate that they can complete

discovery in the actions pending before this Court by the 30th day

following the United States Attorney Generalrs decision on the

issue of whether to pre-c1ear each and every apportionment plan

last enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly;

(9) With respect to interrogatories and requests to

produce submitted to any party during the discovery period, response

to said interrogatories shal1 be due by the 15th day follorving

service of the interrogatories or requests to produce.

This the day of February, 1982.

RUFUS L. ED},IISTRIiI
ATTORNEY GENERAL

James Wa11ace, Jr.
Deputy Attorney General

for Legal Affairs
Attorney Generalrs Office
IJ. C. Department of Justice
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Telephone: (919) 733-3377
Attorney for Defendants

*.^/r.*.-{.n



& .i.:

'1
, at 

t
a

J, f,evonne Chambers
Leslie l{inner
Chambers, Ferguson, $Iatt, Ir?a1l,as,

Adkins & Fu1ler, P.A.
951 South Independence Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Telephoner (704) 375-8461
Attorney for gingLes Plaintiffs

i

A
Burke, Donaldson, Holshouser & Kererly
309 North tiain Street
Salisbury, North Carolina 28L44
Telephone: (704) 637-1500
Attorney for Pugh Plaintiffs