Final Pre-Trial Order (Redacted)

75 pages

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at

Impact area
- Political Participation
Topic
- Redistricting
LDF Attorneys
Cooperating Attorneys
Organizations
Matter
- Cromartie v. Hunt (Daly v. Hunt)
Case
- Cromartie v. Hunt (Daly v. Hunt)
U.S. state
- North Carolina
Collection
- Case Files
Taxonomy
Identifier
- da23acd8-912a-f011-8c4e-7c1e5267c7b6

Cite this item

Case Files, Cromartie Hardbacks. Final Pre-Trial Order (Redacted), 1999. da23acd8-912a-f011-8c4e-7c1e5267c7b6. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/73ffd9f8-25ce-40f8-b7af-0171983fe3a5/final-pre-trial-order-redacted. Accessed June 13, 2025.

Copied!

oh o®

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

EASTERN DIVISION

Civil Action No. 4:96-CV-104-BO(3)

MARTIN CROMARTIE, et al., )
Plaintiffs, )

)
v. )

: : : )
JAMES B. HUNT, in his official capacity ) FINAL
as Governor of the State of North Carolina, ) PRE-TRIAL ORDER
etal, )

State Defendants, )

)
and )

)
ALFRED SMALLWOOD, et al. )

Defendant-Intervenors. )

)

I. STIPULATIONS

3 All parties are properly before the court.

2. The court has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter.

3, All parties have been correctly designated.

4. There is no question as to misjoinder or non-joinder of parties.

EXHIBIT ISSUES:

5. _ Except as noted by an objection, the parties agree that all maps and corresponding
statistical reports on the exhibit list are authentic.

6. At the request of any party, the Court may take judicial notice of materials offered as an
exhibit from the 1991 and 1992 Section 5 Preclearance Submission to the Department of
Justice.

oh wh
STANDING/RESIDENCE: (The following stipulations as to standing are subject to a

ruling by this court as to the defense of claim preclusion)

7. Plaintiff J. H. (Jake) Froelich resides in Guilford County and is a properly registered voter
in Congressional District 12.

Plaintiff R. O. Everett resides in Rowan County and is a properly registered voter in
Congressional District 12.

Plaintiff Joel K. Bourne resides in Edgecombe County and is a properly registered voter in
Congressional District 1.

Plaintiff Lois Weaver resides in Edgecombe County and is a properly registered voter in
Congressional District 1. ;

Plaintiff Thomas Chandler Muse resides in Edgecombe County and is a properly registered
voter in Congressional District 1.

Plaintiff Martin Cromartie resides in Edgecombe County and is a properly registered voter
in Congressional District 1.

Plaintiff Jake Froelich has standing to challenge the constitutionality of Congressional
District 12.

Plaintiff R. O. Everett has standing to challenge the constitutionality of Congressional
District 12. :

Plaintiff Martin Cromartie has standing to challenge the constitutionality of Congressional
District 1.

Plaintiff Joel K. Bourne has standing to challenge the constitutionality of Congressional
District 1.

Plaintiff Lois Weaver has standing to challenge the constitutionality of Congressional
District 1.

Plaintiff Thomas Chandler Muse has standing to challenge the constitutionality of
Congressional District 1.

Plaintiff Ronald Linville resides in Forsyth County in Abbott’s Creek #2 precinct in the
1990 map of precincts in Forsyth County.

» _"
i 20. Plaintiff Ronald Linville in the 1992 plan was a properly registered voter in Congressional

District 12.

21. Plaintiff Ronald Linville is a properly registered voter in Congressional District 5 in the
1997 plan.

22. Abbott’s Creek #2, which was included in District 12 in the 1992 plan, is now in District 5
and borders District 12 in the 1997 plan

23. Ronald Linville is white and based on 1990 census data for total population, Abbott’s
Creek #2 precinct is 95.94% white. : #

DISTRICT DEMOGRAPHICS

24. Based on the 1990 Federal Census, 21.97% of the State’s total population is African-
American.

25. Based on the 1990 Federal Census, 20.07% of the State’s voting age population is
African-American.

26. District 12 in the 1997 plan is 46.67% African-American in total population and 43.36%
African-American in voting age population.

27. District 1 in the 1997 plan is 50.27% African-American in total population and 46.54%
African-American in voting age population. :

28. In creating the 1997 Plan, the General Assembly split 22 counties.

29. Six of six counties were split in creating District 12 in the 1997 Plan.

30. While District 12 in the 1992 Plan contained parts of 10 counties, District 12 in the 1997
Plan contains parts of six counties.

31. Ofthe total population of Congressional District 12 in the 1997 plan, approximately 75%
percent comes from parts of Mecklenburg, Forsyth and Guilford counties.

37 District 12 divides the populations of eight cities (Charlotte, Greensboro, High Point,
Lexington, Salisbury, Statesville, Thomasville and Winston-Salem).

33. The dispersion compactness score of District 12 was 0.045 in the 1992 Plan.

34. The dispersion compactness score of District 12 is 0.109 in the 1997 Plan.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44,

45.

oh wh
Approximately 25.7% of the African-Americans who were in District 12 in the 1992 plan
were moved out of District 12 in the 1997 plan. Approximately 74.3% of the African-
Americans who were in District 12 in the 1992 plan continue to be in District 12 in the
1997 plan.

Approximately 31.6% of all persons who were in District 12 in the 1992 plan were moved
out of District 12 in the 1997 plan. Approximately 68.4% of all persons who were in
District 12 in the 1992 plan continue to be in District 12 in the 1997 plan.

41.6% of the geographic area assigned to District 12 in the 1992 Plan remained assigned
to District 12 in the 1997 Plan. Akg : A :

180,984 people assigned to District 1 in the 1992 Plan and 174,471 people assigned to
District 12 in the 1992 Plan were assigned to other congressional districts in the 1997
Plan.

Over 25 % of North Carolina’s population (1.6 million persons) and almost 25% of the
State’s geography were assigned to new congressional districts as a result of the 1997
redistricting.

]

On average, 76.4 % of the geographic area in each of North Carolina’s twelve
congressional districts in the 1992 Plan was in the corresponding districts in the 1997
Plan, ranging from a high of 96.7 % for District 11 to a low of 41.6 % for District 12.

Approximately 31.5% of the African-Americans who were in District 1 in the 1992 plan
were moved out of District 1 in the 1997 plan. Approximately 68.5% of the African-
Americans who were in District 1 in the 1992 plan continue to be in District 1 in the 1997
plan.

Approximately 32.8% of all persons who were in District 1 in the 1992 plan were moved
out of District 1 in the 1997 plan. Approximately 67.2% of all persons who were in
District 1 in the 1992 plan continue to be in District 1 in the 1997 plan.

65.3% of the geographic area assigned to District 1 in the 1992 Plan remained assigned to
District 1 in the 1997 Plan.

Based on the 1990 Federal Census, District 1 in both the 1997 and 1998 plans is 50.27%
African-American in total population and 46.54% African-American in voting age
population.

The First Congressional District is comprised of ten whole counties and portions of ten
others.

oh wh

Five counties in North Carolina are majority African-American in total population, namely
Edgecombe, Bertie, Hertford, Northampton, and Warren. In addition, Halifax and Hoke
Counties are plurality African-American, but are not a majority because of Native
American and “other” racial categories.

Six of these African-American majority or plurality counties are included in whole in
District 1 in the 1997 plan. Hoke County is not included.

Each of the districts of the 1997 plan is composed of contiguous territory.

The portion of the City of New Bern assigned to District 1is 48. 27% black, while the
portion assigned to District 3 is 24.49% black.

TECHNICAL AND POLITICAL DETAILS

Data on precinct boundaries for 48 counties were taken from the US Bureau of the
Census IVTD TIGER files and placed on the North Carolina General Assembly’s
redistricting computer system in the late 1990. Population data were received in late
February, 1991, and placed on the data base.

The staff of the General Assembly added precinct boundaries to the North Carolina
General Assembly computer system data base for 21 additional counties: Anson, Bertie,
Camden, Caswell, Franklin, Gates Greene, Hertford, Hoke, Lee, Lincoln, Martin,
Mitchell, Northampton, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Person, Tyrell, Vance, Warren, and
Yadkin. These precincts were added so that, just as for the other 48 counties on the data
base, divisions below county lines potentially could be made.

For purposes of one person, one vote, a plan with almost zero deviation would contain
approximately 552,386 persons in each of North Carolina’s 12 congressional districts,
based on the 1990 Federal Census.

Registered Democrats are prohibited from voting in Republican primaries and registered
Republicans are prohibited from voting in Democratic primaries at the present time, and
during all times relevant to this case.

Guilford County Precinct 11 is not within District 12 but is contiguous to that district.
The precinct is 17.57% African-American in total population and 17.89% African-
American in voting age population. Democrats comprise 62.32% of registered voters.
Within this precinct, the Democratic candidate Gantt received 67.51% of the vote in the
1990 senatorial contest, the Democratic candidate Rand received 61.68% of the vote in
the 1988 Lt. Governor contest, and the Democratic candidate Lewis took 52.98% of the
vote in the 1988 Court of Appeals contest.

55,

56.

57:

58.

59.

60.

wh we

Guilford County Precinct 14 is not within District 12 but is contiguous to that district.
The precinct is 15.19% African-American in total population and 15.24% African-
American in voting age population. Democrats comprise 58.14% of the registered voters.
Within this precinct, the Democratic candidate Gantt received 86.91% of the vote in the
1990 senatorial contest, the Democratic candidate Rand received 65.66% of the vote in
the 1988 Lt. Governor contest, and the Democratic candidate Lewis took 63.92% of the
vote in the 1988 Lewis/Smith Court of Appeals contest.

Guilford County precinct 17 is not within District 12 but is contiguous to that district.
The precinct is 9.09% African-American in total population and 8.64% African-American
in voting age population. Democrats comprise 61.86% of the registered voters. Within
this precinct, the Democratic candidate Gantt received 65.08% of the vote in the 1990
senatorial contest, the Democratic candidate Rand received 61.68% of the vote in the
1988 Lt. Governor contest, and the Democratic candidate Lewis took 58.19% of the vote
in the 1988 Lewis/Smith Court of Appeals contest.

Forsyth County Brunson Elementary School Precinct is not within District 12 but is
contiguous to that district. The precinct is 27.83% African-American in total population
and 25.88% African-American in voting age population. Democrats comprise 65.75% of
the registered voters. Within this precinct, the Democratic candidate Gantt received
75.46% of the vote in the 1990 senatorial contest, the Democratic candidate Rand
received 66.30% of the vote in the 1988 Lt. Governor contest, and the Democratic
candidate Lewis took 65.84% in the 1988 Lewis/Smith Court of Appeals contest.

Forsyth County Hanes Community Center precinct is not within District 12 but is
contiguous to that district. The precinct is 32.06% African-American in total population
and 28.80% African-American in voting age population. Democrats comprise 76% of the
registered voters. Within this precinct, the Democratic candidate Gantt received 75.77%
of the vote in the 1990 senatorial contest, the Democratic candidate Rand received |
71.68% of the vote in the 1988 Lt. Governor contest, and the Democratic candidate Lewis
took 69.18% of the vote in the 1988 Lewis/Smith Court of Appeals contest.

Forsyth County Latham Elementary School Precinct is not within District 12 but is
contiguous to that district. The precinct is 19.82% African-American in total population
and 17.41% African-American in voting age population. Democrats comprise 65.25% of
the registered voters. Within this precinct, the Democratic candidate Gantt received
54.85% of the vote in the 1990 senatorial contest, the Democratic candidate Rand
received 53.86% of the vote in the 1988 Lt. Governor race, and the Democratic candidate
Lewis took 55.87% of the vote in the 1988 Lewis/Smith Court of Appeals race.

Mecklenburg County Precinct 10 is not within District 12 but is contiguous to that district.
The precinct is 6.9% African-American in total population and 5.42% African-American in
voting age population. Democrats comprise 63.45% of the registered voters. Within this

ow ww

precinct, the Democratic candidate Gantt received 73.01% of the vote in the 1990

senatorial contest, the Democratic candidate Rand received 62.66% of the vote in the

1988 Lt. Governor contest, and Democratic candidate Lewis received 55.78% of the vote

in the 1988 Lewis/Smith Court of Appeals contest.

Mecklenburg County precinct 21 is not within District 12 but is contiguous to that district.

The precinct is 10.51% African-American in total population and 7.84% in voting age

population. Democrats comprise 59.45% of the registered voters. Within this precinct,

the Democratic candidate Gantt received 60.11 of the vote in the 1990 senatorial contest,

the Democratic candidate Rand received 52.32% of the vote in the 1988 Lt. Governor

race, and the Democratic candidate Lewis took 48.30% of the vote in the 1988
Lewis/Smith Court of Appeals race.

The eastern and western portion of Congressional District 9 are linked by an area along

the South Carolina border which constitutes the southern portion of Mecklenburg Precinct

37.

Mecklenburg Precinct 77 is split in the 1997 Congressional District plan between District

9 and District12.

Precinct 77 is not split in the State Senate plan; it is wholly within District 33.

Precinct 77 is not split in the State House plan; it is wholly within District 56.

Precinct 77 is not split in the Mecklenburg County Commission and School Board

Districts; it is wholly within District 2.

Precinct 77 is not split in the Charlotte City Council districts; it is wholly within District 3.

The total number of precincts in District 12 in the 1997 Plan 1s 153.

There are a total of 435 Congressional districts in the United States of America, of which

North Carolina has 12 districts in the 1990s, but only had 11 districts in the 1980s.

The names of voters in each precinct who cast a ballot are a public record in North
Carolina.

Based on the 1990 Federal census, Mecklenburg County contains 93% of the ideal
population for a North Carolina congressional district of 552,386.

The incumbent congresspersons elected under the 1998 plan and their current voting

he 8

73.

74.

7s.

76.

77.

- 78.

79.

wh ww

residences in 1999 are: District One, Eva Clayton, River Precinct, Warren County;
District Two, Bob Ethridge, Lillington Precinct, Harnett County; District Three, Walter
Jones, Farmville West Precinct, Pitt County; District Four, David Price, Weaver Dairy
Precinct, Orange County; District 5, Richard Burr, Whitaker Elementary School Precinct,
Forsyth County; District 6, J. Howard Coble, Greensboro 43 Precinct, Guilford County;
District 7, Mike McIntyre, Lumberton #8 Precinct, Robeson County; District 8, Robin
Hayes, Cabarrus County; District 9, Sue Myrick, Precinct 140, Mecklenburg County;
District 10, Thomas “Cass” Ballenger, Viewmont #1 Precinct, Catawba County; District
11, Charles Taylor, Transylvania County; District 12, Mel Watt, Charlotte Precinct 11,
Mecklenburg County.

The 1997 Plan does not have “point contiguity”, “cross-overs”, or “double cross-overs”.

ELECTION RESULTS

Congressman Watt, an African-American, was re-elected in District 12 under the 1998
plan with 56% of the vote, with 82,305 votes to 42% for Republican “Scott” Keadle, a
white candidate, with 62,070 votes, with others, of unknown races, receiving 2% of the
vote, with 2,713 votes.

Congressman Watt (Charlotte, NC) won the 1998 Democratic primary in District 12
under the 1998 plan with 84% of the vote, with 12,160 votes to 16% for Ronnie Adcock
(China Grove, NC), a white Democrat, with 2,275 votes.

“Scott” Keadle (Salisbury, NC) won the 1998 Republican primary in District 12 under the
1998 plan with 3384 votes, defeating Jim Cohen (Salisbury, NC) with 3146, Mike Jackson
(Charlotte, NC) with 2271, Tom Bush (Charlotte, NC) with 1984, Steve Wood (High
Point, NC) with 802, and John Kozlowski (Lexington, NC) with 514.

Congresswoman Clayton, an African-American, was re-elected in District 1 under the
1998 plan with 62.2% of the vote, with 85,125 votes to 37% for Republican Ted Tyler, a
white candidate, with 50,578 votes, with Jack Schwartz, of unknown race, receiving less
than 1% of the vote, with 1,044 votes.

Congresswoman Clayton won the 1998 Democratic primary in District 1 under the 1998
plan with 66.5% of the vote, with 44,289 votes to 33.5% for Linwood Mercer, a white
Democrat, with 22,299 votes.

Ted Tyler won the 1998 Republican primary in District 1 with 1497 votes, defeating
Duane E. Kratzer, Jr. and Jerome Power, for both of whom race is unknown, with 1061
and 417 votes respectively.

wh we

80. In 1982, black candidate “Mickey” Michaux received 44.46 percent or 47,132 votes in the first Democratic primary in the Second Congressional District. Tim Valentine, white, received 32.74 percent or 34,708, and James Ramsey, white, received 22.80 percent or 24,179. 29.19% of the registered voters in the district at that time were African- Americans. Mr. Valentine went on to win the second primary, and the general election.

81. In 1982, Michaux received 46.35% of the second primary vote (50,949 ballots) in the 2™ Congressional District. Tim Valentine won with 53.65% of the second primary vote (58,964 ballots). 29.19% of the registered voters in the district at that time were African-
Americans.

32. In 1984, black candidate Kenneth Spaulding received 47.88% of the Democratic primary vote (60,535 ballots) in the 2* Congressional District. Incumbent Tim Valentine won
52.12% or 65,893 ballots. 37.2% of the registered voters in the district at that time were black.

II. CONTENTIONS

A. Plaintiffs’ Factual Contentions

1. A significant number of persons were either included or excluded from the 1997

version of District 12 on the basis of race.

2. The General Assembly's predominant racial motive is revealed by:

a. The racial assignment of precincts, parts of cities, and parts of counties in the

construction of the challenged districts.

~ b. the sequence in which redistricting plans were developed after the Supreme

Court decision in Shaw v. Hunt

c. recorded statements and correspondence by legislators and legislative staff

contained in the legislative record, Section 5 preclearance submission, and internal

E-mail.

d. The quick agreement on the heavily black districts 1 and 12.

wh oo

e. the retention of the racial cores of District 1 and District 12

f. Disregard for traditional redistricting principles such as respect for the

boundaries of cities, counties and other political subdivisions, geographic

compactness, contiguity and communities of interest resulting from geographic

proximity

g. The concern about complying with the Department of Justice maximization

policy

h. The advice given to the General Assembly that a district which was not

majority-minority was not subject to Shaw v. Reno

1. The history of the 1992 plan and the relation of the 1997 plan to the 1992 plan

which make clear that the later plan maintains the “vestiges” of the earlier plan and

is the “fruit” of the unconstitutional Twelfth District and First District in the 1992

plan.

J. The pretextual explanations and post hoc rationalizations offered in defense of

the 1997 plan

" The results of the congressional election in District 12 under the 1998 plan,

which revealed that a politically safe “Democratic” 12® district could be drawn

without linking together geographically dispersed black communities in six

counties in order that the total minority population would be around 47%.

-10-

oo ow»

I. The inconsistency between the results of the Associated Press survey taken of

legislators in late 1996 and the defendants’ claim that the 1997 redistricting plan

had a predominately political motive.

3. The efforts to claim a political motive for the First and the Twelfth Districts of the

1997 plan are pretextual.

a. The claim that “partisan balance” drove the formation of these districts has

been misused repeatedly by the state defendants throughout the 1990s.

b. The statistical analysis by Dr. Peterson is neither reliable nor relevant because

it ignores heavily black internal precincts in the 12% District, does not give varying

weight to the varying population and minority population in his “segment

analysis”, uses flawed data, which whet corrected, would lead to a contrary

conclusion, and is riddled with numerous additional errors, and which render the

report inadmissible.

c. The challenged districts are overly safe for Democratic candidates, but are

instead constructed so that blacks predominate in the Democratic primary

electorate, and so that nomination and election of African- Americans to Congress

1s assured.

4. No compelling government interest has been shown to exist for creating the racially

gerrymandered Twelfth District or the racially gerrymandered First District, as is revealed by:

a. The unwarranted effort on the part of the General Assembly to comply with the

unconstitutional maximization policy of the Department of Justice in its

administration of Section 5 preclearance.

“11

or wh
b. The inability of the defendants or anyone else to show that a geographically

compact district can be created in which a majority of the voting age population is

African-American.

c. The geographic dispersion of African-Americans in North Carolina, as a result

of which only 5 of 100 counties have a majority black population and no

geographically compact district can be created wherein a majority of its total

population is African-American.

d. The statements by officials of the State in the past which acknowledged that

such a geographically compact district can not be created in North Carolina.

e. The reliance by the defendants on an undefined and undefinable concept of

“functional compactness”, which is used to support their unconstitutional theory

that a person of one race has less community of interest with a person of another

race in his own city or county than he has with a person of his own race located in

a distant city or county.

f. The attempt to justify the racial composition of District 12 and 1 by reliance on

purposes such as partisan balance and incumbent protection, which are clearly not

compelling government interests.

5. Even if some compelling governmental interest could be imagined for either the 12%

District or the 1% District, neither District 12 nor District 1 of the 1997 plan is narrowly

tailored to further that interest.

wh pC

a. The districts are not narrowly tailored by shape and disregard geographical

compactness.

b. The districts are not narrowly wiloded because they unnecessarily violate the

integrity of political subdivisions.

c. The districts are not narrowly tailored in their racial composition because they

overconcentrate African Americans and thereby unduly reduce minority

participation in the electoral process in other districts.

d. The districts are not narrowly tailored because they concentrate African

Americans far more than is necessary for them to elect a candidate of their choice.

B. Plaintiffs’ Contested Legal Contentions

1. Plaintiffs in this action are not barred by claim preclusion from presenting their claims as

a result of the Shaw litigation.

2. Because of the unconstitutionality of the 12% and 1* Districts in the 1992 plan, the

General Assembly was not free to use that plan as a benchmark and to draw the 1997 plan so as

to preserve its Ali cores.

3. The General Assembly had a duty to remove all vestiges of the unconstitutional 12 a
and 1* Districts in the 1992 plan and clearly the evidence fails to establish that this duty was

fulfilled.

4. In order for Thornburg v. Gingles to apply to any district in North Carolina, it must be

shown that a district can be formed which js geographically compact and in which the majority of

«13-

we 0

the voting age population is African American. McDaniels v. Mehfoud, 702 F.Supp. 588, 592

(E.D.Va. 1988); Marylanders for Fair Representation, Inc. v. Schaeffer 849 E.Supp. 1022. 1051-

1052 (D.Md. 1994); Smith v. Brunswick County, 984 F.2d 1393, 1401 (4™ Cir 1993); Valdespino

v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, 168 F.3d 848, 850 (5™ Cir. 1999) (Solicitor

General invited by U.S. Supreme Court to file briefs expressing the views of the United States on

petition for certiorari, 1999 WL 782061); Perez v. Pasadena Independent School District, 165

F.3d 368 (5" Cir. 1999) (Solicitor General invited by U.S. Supreme Court to file briefs expressing

the views of the United States on petition for certiorari); Campos v. City of Houston, 113 F.3d

544, 548 (5™ Cir. 1997); Barnett v. City of Chicago, 141 F.3d 699, 704; (7* Cir. 1998); McNeil v.

Springfield Park Dist., 851 F.2d 937, 944-945 (7* Cir. 1988); Romero v. City of Pomono, 883

F.2d 1418, 1426 (9* Cir. 1989); Negron v. City of Miami Beach, Florida, 113 F.3d 1563, 1569

(11* Cir. 1997); Solomon v. Liberty County, Florida, 899 F.2d (11% Cir. 1990) (en banc); Clark

v. City of Cincinnati, 1993 WL 761489 (S.D.Ohio 1993) affd. Clark v. City of Cincinnati, 40

F.3d 887 (6™ Cir. 1994); Reed v. Babylon, 914 F.Supp. 843 (E.D.N.Y. 1996)

5. Functional compactness may not be substituted for geographic compactness in

attempting to justify the boundaries of a Congressional district under Thornburg v. Gingles and

Shaw v. Reno. |

6. Dr. Peterson’s unprecedented analysis of precinct boundary “segments” is subject to -

exclusion under Daubert because it is neither reliable nor relevant.

7. In the event the Court concludes that the 1997 redistricting plan is unconstitutional,

then because of the repeated failure of the General Assembly to prepare a constitutional plan, the

Court should proceed-with the aid of a special master if it so chooses-to draw a plan that is not

«14x

wh o®

predominately race based, is not a “vestige” or “fruit” of the 1992 plan, and will be used as a

remedial plan for the year 2000 elections.

8. Plaintiffs have standing because all but one are registered voters in the district that they

are attacking, and the other plaintiff Linville has standing since he and his precinct were removed

from one district to another on the basis of race.

9. The plaintiffs’ motion should be granted to further amend the complaint in order to

conform with the expected evidence that will establish plaintiff Linville’s standing, by proving that

he is white and that his predominantly white precinct was moved from the Twelfth District

because of race.

10. The Court should declare the 1997 plan unconstitutional and enjoin its use in

primaries or general election. The Court should prepare or direct the preparation of a

constitutional remedial plan for use in the 2000 election, because the General Assembly has

forfeited its right to prepare another plan by repeatedly failing to adopt a legal plan.

-15-

i
C. Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors Factual Contentions

L Defendant and defendant-intervenors contend that plaintiff James Ronald Linville

resides in Congressional District 5 of the 1997 Plan, and cannot establish any personal injury as a

result of being included in District 5.

2 Defendant and defendant-intervenors contend that race was not the predominant

factor in the creation of Congressional District 1 or Congressional District 12 of the 1997

Reapportionment Plan and that the General Assembly did not subordinate traditional redistricting

criteria to racial considerations in creating Congressional District 1 or Congressional District 12

of the 1997 Plan.

3. Defendant and defendant-intervenors contend that the North Carolina General

Assembly had two primary redistricting goals in 1997. The first was to remedy constitutional

defects found by the Supreme Court in the 1992 Plan, including the predominance of racial

considerations underlying the shape and location of District 12. Although District 1 in the 1992

Plan was never determined to be unconstitutional, District 1 also was redrawn with the lessons

from District 12 in mind. The General Assembly accomplished its goal by utilizing a variety of

different redistricting techniques, including: 1) avoiding any division of precincts and of counties

to the extent posi 2) avoiding use of narrow corridors to connect concentrations of minority

voters; 3) striving for geographical compactness without use of artificial devices such as double

Cross-overs or point contiguity; 4) pursuing functional compactness by grouping together citizens

with similar interests and needs; and 5) seeking to create districts that provide easy

communication among voters and their representatives. The second, but equally important, goal

was to preserve the even (six Republican and six Democratic members) partisan balance in North

«16+

we wo
Carolina's then-existing congressional delegation. With the State House of Representatives

controlled by Republicans and the State Senate controlled by Democrats, preserving the same

partisan balance in the congressional delegation was essential to ensure that the General Assembly

would be able to agree on a remedial plan. The General Assembly felt, as a matter of policy, that

the legislature, rather than the fodder] district court, had a constitutional duty to perform the

- necessary balancing of various interests to devise a new redistricting plan,

4. Defendants and defendant-intervenors contend that the General Assembly

succeeded in reaching its stated redistricting goals.

a. While the 1992 Plan divided 80 precincts and 44 counties, the 1997 Plan

only divides two precincts and 22 counties.

b. District 1 in the 1992 Plan divided 25 precincts while District 1 in the 1997

Plan does not divide any precincts. District 1 joins citizens together in the mostly

rural, economically depressed counties in the northern and central Coastal Plain.

C. District 12 in the 1997 Plan is significantly more compact geographically

than it was in the 1992 Plan. The new District 12 contains parts of six counties,

rather than ten, and it does not have any areas of only "point contiguity" and does

not contain any "cross-overs" or "double-cross-overs" as it did in the 1992 Plan.

, In the 1992 plan, District 12's boundaries divided 48 precincts, while District 12 in

the 1997 Plan divides only one. The boundaries of the new District 12 were

determined by partisan considerations and a desire to have an essentially urban,

Democratic district in the Piedmont region. As a result, District 12's

African-American total population was reduced from the original 56.63 percent in

“17-

wh oh

the 1992 Plan to 46.67 percent and the voting-age population was reduced from

the original 53.34 percent in the 1992 plan to 43.36 percent.

d. Defendant and defendant-intervenors contend that Districts 1 and 12 each

encompass a distinct community of interest. District 1 is a distinctly rural district

whose residents are largely poor. The economy of the region in which the district

is located is depressed and relies heavily on agriculture and logging and districts

residents are employed largely in agricultural businesses. The concerns of the

residents of District 1 are those of a rural population, including, unemployment and

economic development in an environment in which limited job opportunities are

available. However, District 12 is a largely urban district and the residents share

common economic interests in areas, including manufacturing, research, banking

and higher education. The residents are largely employed in blue collar, suburban,

and urban employment, rather than in agricultural businesses. The interests of the

residents of District 12 are those of a largely urban populous, including mass

transportation, urban crime problems, unemployment, and housing and economic

development concerns.

S. Defendants and defendant-intervenors contend that District 12 was drawn

- specifically to create a Democratic performing district with no intent to have a particular - - --

African-American percentage. The configuration of District 12 reflects the strong correlation

between the racial composition of the precincts and party preference of African-Americans in the

district.

-18-

6. Defendant and defendant-intervenors contend that during the 1997 redistricting

process, the North Carolina General Assembly was concerned that, when creating District 1 in the

1997 Plan, the Civil Rights Dividin might deny Section 5 preclearance if the General Assembly

failed to create a majority-minority district in the general area comprising District 1. Prior to

negotiating the 1997 Plan, the State House and State Senate each independently proposed plans

which included-a geographically compact majority African-American district in the northeastern

and central Coastal Plan. Further, it was important to the General Assembly that the 1997 Plan

provide fair and equitable electoral opportunities to all citizens of North Carolina. Consequently,

members of the General Assembly were concerned that failure to create a district in northeastern

portion of the state that provided African-American voters an equal opportunity to elect

candidates of choice would elicit significant opposition in the African-American community and

its advocates in the General Assembly which most likely would result in a denial of Section 5

preclearance.

4 Defendants and defendant-intervenors contend that the State of North Carolina

had a compelling justification in creating Congressional District 1 in order to comply with the

strictures of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973.

a. Defendants and defendant-intervenors contend that while the General

Assembly's primary goals in enacting the 1997 Plan were to correct the prior

constitutional violation found by the Supreme Court in Shaw v. Hunt and to

preserve the congressional delegation's partisan balance, the State was also under

an obligation to fulfill these objectives without diluting minority voting strength.

-19-

oh ,

b. Defendants and defendant-intervenors contend that there is a strong basis

in Sidon for the North Carolina General Assembly to have believed in 1997, that

the three Gingles preconditions and the factors set forth in the Senate Report

accompanying Section 2, S. Rep. No. 97-417, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. (1982), at

28-29, reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N 177, 207, required to establish a Voting

Rights Act Section 2 claim exist in North Carolina:

¥ Defendants and defendant-intervenors contend, that the

African-American population in the area encompassed by Congressional

District 1 is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a

majority in a congressional district.

2. Defendants and defendant-intervenors contend, and plaintiffs have

stipulated and agreed for purposes of this trial, that the African-American

population is politically cohesive.

3. Defendants and defendant-intervenors contend, and plaintiffs have

stipulated and agreed for purposes of this trial, that the white majority

votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat the minority's

preferred candidate.

C. Defendants and defendant-intervenors contend, and plaintiffs have

stipulated and agreed for purposes of this trial, that African-Americans in North

Carolina for many decades were victims of racial discrimination and a substantial

majority of African-American citizens in North Carolina are still at a disadvantage

o® we

in comparison to white citizens with respect to income, housing, education and

health; furthermore, through the 1990 elections, some appeals have been made to

North Carolina voters on the basis of race. .

d. Defendants and defendant-intervenors contend that there is a strong basis

in evidence for the State Legislature of North Carolina to have determined in 1997

that it had a compelling interest in complying with the Voting Rights Act and in

ensuring that, under the totality of the circumstances, racially polarized voting

patterns and the lingering effects of the State's past discrimination did not exclude

the State's African-American citizens from equal access to the political process.

10. Defendants and defendant-intervenors contend that Congressional District 1is

narrowly tailored to meet a compelling justification. District 1 is radaily tailored to remedy the

potential Section 2 violation in the eastern portion of the State of North Carolina. The

African-American population in the area encompassed by District 1 is large and secgraphically

compact. District 1 is located in the northern and central Coastal Plain where a high degree of

racially polarized voting persists and the African-American population is politically cohesive.

Moreover, the North Carolina General Assembly did not subordinate traditional redistricting

- criteria in creating District 1. District lis contiguous and geographically compact, encompassing

10 whole counties and whole precincts from portions of 10 other rural and economically

disadvantaged counties with a distinct community of interest. The 1997 Plan substantially

encompasses the configurations of District 1 initially proposed by the State House and State

Senate, and the modifications negotiated between the legislative chambers were not based on

22]

o® + if
racial considerations.

D. Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors Legal Contentions

1. Defendant and defendant-intervenors contend that plaintiffs are barred from

litigating the constitutionality of Congressional Districts 1 and 12 in this case. Under the doctrine

of claim preclusion, "a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their

privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action." Federated

Dep't Stores Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 398, 101 S. Ct. 2424, 2428, 69 L. Ed. 2d 103. 108

(1981). E.g., Allen v MCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94, 101 S. Ct. 411, 414, 66 L. Ed. 2d 308. 313

(1980). All Plaintiffs in this case are bound by the decision by the district court in Shaw v. Hunt

holding that the 1997 Plan cured the constitutional defect found by the Supreme Court in District

12 as urged by the Shaw plaintiffs. That decision is binding on plaintiffs Martin Cromartie and

Chandler Muse, because they were plaintiffs in Shaw at the time of that judgment and they had a

full and fair opportunity to litigate their claims concerning District 1 and 12 in Shaw. Because

they chose not to do so, they are barred from their attempt to pursue the claim in this litigation.

The remaining plaintiffs are equally barred from challenging District 1 on the grounds that the

Shaw plaintiffs were their "virtual representatives." See Ahng v. Alisteel, Inc., 96 F.3d 1033,

1037 (7th Cir. 1996); Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Celotex Corp.; 56 F.3d 343 , 345-46 (2d

Cir. 1995); Gonzalez v. Banco Cent. Corp., 27 F.3d 751, 761 (1stCir. 1994); Nordhorn v. Ladish

Co., 9 F3d 1402, 1405 (9th Cir. 1993); Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Quinn-L Capitol Corp., 960 F.2d

1286, 1297 (Sth Cir. 1992); Jaffree v. Wallace, 837 F.2d 1461, 1467-68 (11th Cir. 1988).

Similarly, the adverse judgment in Shaw holding District 12 constitutional is attributable to all the

37.

oh wh

plaintiffs in this case and bars them from litigating the constitutionality of District 12.

2 Defendant and defendant-intervenors contend that plaintiff James Ronald Linville

does not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of District 12. In this case, plaintiffs only

have standing where he or she can establish that he or she was personally injured as a result of

residing in the district challenged as a racial gerrymander or because he or she was otherwise

personally subjected to a racial classification. See United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 73 7, 744-745

(1995). Plaintiff James Ronald Linville is registered voter residing in District 5 of the 1997 Plan

and has not alleged that he has been injured as a result of having personally been denied equal

treatment on the grounds of race. He, therefore, has no standing to challenge the constitutionality

of District 12.

3. Defendant and defendant-intervenors contend that plaintiffs have the burden of

proving that they have standing to pursue their claim and that race was the predominant factor in

the creation of the 1997 Plan. See Shaw, 517 U.S. at 905 ("The plaintiff bears the burden of

proving the race-based motive. . . .") (citation omitted). See also Miller, 515 U.S. at 916.

4. Defendants and defendant-intervenors contend that the North Carolina General

Assembly is entitled to a great deal of deference in creating a redistricting plan designed to

remedy the constitutional infirmities found by the Supreme Court and a presumption that it acted

in good faith during the redistricting process. - Indeed, "[s]tates must have discretion to exercise

the political judgment necessary to balance competing interests" and "the good faith of state

legislature must be presumed." Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. at 915. See also, e.g., Lawyer v.

Department of Justice, 521 U.S. > 117 8. Ct. at 2192-3 (1997), aff'g Scott v. United States,

920 F. Supp. 1248, 1255 (M.D. Fla. 1996), Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. at 899 n.9; Upham v.

23-

od wh

Seamon, 456 U.S. 37, 42 (1982); White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. at 794-95 (1973).

5 Defendant and defendant-intervenors contend that federal law imposed a series of

obligations on the General Assembly in enacting the 1997 congressional redistricting plan. First,

one-person, one vote principles established by the Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186

(1962) and its progeny required the General Assembly to have a congressional redistricting plan in

which population was distributed equally among the congressional districts in the plan. Second,

the Voting Rights Act required the General Assembly to avoid diluting the voting strength of

minority citizens during the redistricting process. Third, the Supreme Court decision in Shaw v.

Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), and its Foe required that the General Assembly develop a plan in

which race did not predominate and subordinate traditional redistricting criteria.

6. Defendant and defendant-intervenors contend that in order for the Court to apply

strict scrutiny in its evaluation of the 1997 Plan, it must find that "race for its own sake, and not

other districting principles, was the legislature's dominant and controlling rationale in drawing its

district lines," Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. at 952, quoting Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. at 913, and

"that other, legitimate districting principles were subordinated’ to race." Bush, 517 U.S. at 958.

See generally id. at 259-68. The North Carolina General Assembly was permitted to conduct the

1997 redinicins "with consciousness of race." Bush, 517 U.S. at 1051. See also, Bush, 517

U.S. at 993. (O'Connor, J., concurring) (States may intentionally create majority-minority

distin: and may otherwise take race into consideration, without coming under strict scrutiny)

(emphasis in original); United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 745 (1995) ("We recognized in

Shaw. . .that the legislature always is aware of race when it draws district lines, just as it is aware

of age, economic status, religious and political persuasion, and a variety of other demographic

24.

wh EC

factors. That sort of race consciousness does not lead inevitably to impermissible race

discrimination") (citation omitted) (emphasis in original).

7. Defendants and defendant-intervenors contend that, while the configuration of

District 12 reflects a strong correlation between the racial composition of the precincts and party

preference and the General Assembly's goal of creating a partisan Democratic District 12, this

~ fact does not make the 1997 constitutionally suspect. The General Assembly may create a

plurality strong partisan Democratic district "even if it so happens that the most loyal Democrats

happen to be black Democrats and even if the State were conscious of that fact." Hunt v.

Cromartie, 119 S. Ct. 1545, 1547, 143 L. Ed. 2d 73 1, 741 (1999) (emphasis in the original)

(citing Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952, 968 (1996); Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. at 905; Miller, 515 U.S.
at 916; Shaw v. Reno, 509 US. at 646). Indeed,

Evidence that blacks constitute even a supermajority in one congressional district while amounting to less than a plurality in a neighboring district will not, by itself, suffice to prove that a jurisdiction was motivated by race in drawing its district lines when the evidence also shows a high correlation between race and party preference.

Hunt at 119 S. Ct. at 1547, 143 L_ Ed. 2d at 741.

9. Defendants and defendant-intervenors contend that the State of North Carolina

had a compelling justification in creating Congressional District 1 in order to comply with the

strictures of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973. Compliance with Section 2 of
the Voting Rights Act can be a compelling state interest, King v. State Bd. of Elections, 979 F.

Supp. 619, 621-22 (N.D. III. 1997), summ. aff, U.S. => 1138. Cr 377 (1998) (per curiam),

provided the State has a “strong basis in evidence” for finding that the threshold conditions for

Section 2 liability exist. Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. at 978. See also Shaw, 517 U.S. at 914 "§2

225.

I "we

could be a compelling interest" justifying even a plan drawn predominantly on a racial basis);

Bush, 517 U.S. at 990 (O'Connor, J, concurring) (nothing in Shaw or its progeny should be

interpreted as calling into question the continued importance of complying with Section 2 of the

Voting Rights Act); id. at 992 (concluding that States have a compelling interest in complying

with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act "as [the Supreme] Court has interpreted it"); King v.

State Board of Elections, Us. 1138. Ct. 877 (1998) (per curiam) (summarily affirming

district court ruling upholding the constitutionality of Illinois’ Fourth Congressional District found

to be narrowly tailored to a compelling justification of complying with Section 2 of the Voting

Rights Act); DeWitt v. Wilson, 856 F. Supp. 1409, 1413-14 (E.D. Cal. 1994) (intentional creation

of majority-minority districts does not violate Constitution when redistricting plan "evidences a

judicious and proper balancing of the many factors appropriate to redistricting, one of which was

the consideration of the application of the Voting Rights Act's objective of assuring that minority

voters are not denied the chance to effectively influence the political process"), aff'd, 515 U.S.

1170 (1995); Clark v. Calhoun County, 88 F.3d 1393, 1405 (5th Cir. 1996) (Higginbotham, J) (a

race-conscious Section 2 remedial plan is acceptable if it is narrowly tailored and it "substantially

addresses" the violation and "does not deviate substantially from a hypothetical court-drawn § 2

district for predominantly racial reasons") (citations omitted).

10. Defendants and defendant-intervenors contend that there is a strong basis in

evidence for the North Carolina General Assembly to have believed in 1997, that the three

preconditions established by the Supreme Court in Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) and

the factors set forth in the Senate Report accompanying Section 2, S. Rep. No. 97-417, 97th

Cong, 2d Sess. (1982), at 28-29, reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.AN 177, 207, required to establish

“26-

yA we

a Voting Rights Act Section 2 claim in North Carolina.

11. Defendants and defendant-intervenors contend that Congressional District 1 is

narrowly tailored to remedy the potential Section 2 violation in the northeastern and central

Coastal Plain portion of the State of North Carolina. In order to be narrowly tailored to remedy a

potential Section 2 violation, the location of the remedial district must substantially correspond to

_ the location of the potential violation. See Shaw, 517 US. at 915-16 ("[w]here, as here, we |

assume ols of § 2 liability to be a compelling state interest, we think that the racial

classification would have to realize that goal; the legislative action must, at a minimum, remedy

the anticipated violation or achieve compliance to be narrowly tailored") (footnote omitted);

King, 979 F. Supp. at 623-27 (finding Fourth District narrowly tailored because it "remedie[d] the
anticipated violation and achieves Section 2 compliance, and that its consideration of race

(reflected by its noncompactness and irregularity) is no more than reasonably necessary to fulfill

its remedial purpose.").

oh wh

IOI. EXHIBITS

A. DEPOSITION EXHIBITS

NO. TITLE
OBJECTION

8. Copy of article, The News & Observer, 12/29/96, Defendants: hearsay,
“Legislators loath to split counties when redistricting,” relevance
AP

9. Congressional Plans in System with Creation Dates
on or after January 1, 1996

16. Cohen e-mails 2/2/97 to 3/20/97

19. Affidavit of David W. Peterson, Ph.D, Plaintiffs: FRE 701, 702, 703, Cromartie, et. al. v. Hunt, et. al, 9/8/99 402, 403

20. Second affidavit of David W. Peterson, Ph.D., Plaintiffs: FRE 701, 702, Cromartie, et al. v. Hunt, 9/8/99 703, 402, 403

21. Data from PRI Associates, N:\Clients\ Plaintiffs: FRE 701, 702, NC Redistricting) 703, 402, 403
Programs\BASCORR, 2/24/98

22. Additional data from PRI Associates, 9/7/99 Plaintiffs: FRE 701, 702,
703, 402, 403

23. Type P Divergent Segments Using Democratic Defendants: authenticity and Black Registration

24. Type R Divergent Segments Using Democratic Defendants: authenticity and Black Registration

28, Summary of Divergent Precincts and Segments Defendants: authenticity by County

26. Congressional District 12, 1992 Plan, Black Population, Defendants: authenticity Watt races, 1992, 1994, 1996: Congressional District 1,
1992 Plan, Black Population, Clayton races, 1992, 1994,
1996 4

28.

wh ww

27. Population, Voting Age Population, and Registration for ~~ Defendants: authenticity
three elections

29. The Evolution of the First and Twelfth Congressional Defendants: relevance
Districts in the 1990s, Linwood Jones

30. Redistricting 1991, Legislator’s Guide to North Defendants: relevance
Carolina Legislative and Congressional
Redistricting, 2/91

is 31. Spreadsheet showing District 2 election and
registration data

34. Plan: Congress-95-8.1

37. Plan: Congress-95-9.1

42. Shaw, et al. and Pope, et al. v. Hunt, et al. and
Gingles, et al., Plantiffs’ and Plantiff-Intervenors’
Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint
Pursuant to rule 15(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. and Local
Rule 4.00, 7/9/96

43. Shaw, et al. and Pope, et al. v. Hunt, et al.
and Gingles, et al., Second Amended
Complaint for Preliminary and Permanent
Injunction, 7/9/96

44. Shaw, et al. and Pope, et al. v. Hunt, et al.
and Gingles, et al., Response to Order of
June 9, 1997, 6/19/97

47. Cromartie, et al. v. Hunt, et al., Declaration of Defendants: relevance
Dr. Ronald E. Weber

48. Exhibit A to Declaration of Ronald E. Weber, Defendants: relevance
curriculum vitae |

49. Exhibit B to Declaration of Ronald E. Weber, Cases Defendants: relevance
in which Dr. Ronald E. Weber has Testified as an
Expert or been deposed Under Oath

20.

50.

51.

52.

53.

55.

56.

58.

60.

61.

62.

63.

66.

68.

74.

Exhibit C to Declaration of Ronald E. Weber,
case analysis

Exhibit D to Declaration of Ronald E. Weber,
registration analysis

Exhibit E to Declaration of Ronald E. Weber,
reconstituted election analysis

Places Split by 97 NC Congressional Districts

Shaw, et al. and Pope, et al. v. Hunt, et al. and
Gingles, et al., Declaration of J. H. Froelich, Jr,
3/23/94, unsigned

Affidavit of J. H. Froelich, Jr.,
Cromartie, et al. v. Hunt, et al., 2/2/98

E-mail, Cohen to Cooper and Winner, 2/10/97,
re 97 Cooper 3.0

Precinct map, Rowan County, enlargement of portion
of Exhibit 61, prepared by R. O. Everett

Precinct map, Rowan County
prepared by R. O. Everett

Rowan County Districts

Note to Robinson O. Everett, 11/29/95

Affidavit of R. O. Everett,

Lromertre etal. v. Hunt, et al., 1/30/98

1999 Nort Carolina State ieiasdosation Map

Population Affected by Adoption of ‘97 Congressional
Plan

Shaw, et al. v. Hunt, et al., Order to file an Amended
Complaint to add new plaintiffs and
plaintiff-intervenors, 7/12/96

-30-

Defendants:

- Defendants:

Defendants:

hearsay

Defendants:

hearsay

Defendants:

relevance

Defendants:

relevance

Defendants:

relevance

Defendants:

relevance

relevance,

authenticity;

authenticity;
b

authenticity;
J

hearsay,

» »
JOINT EXHIBITS [100-199]

North Carolina’s 1997 Congressional Plan Section 5 Submission
[previously filed with Court under the Affidavit of Gary O. Bartlett, 3/2/98]

101A. 1992 Congressional Plan Map
101B Statistical Reports: Deviation; Total Population; Voting Age

Population; Registration: Election

. 97 House/Senate Plan A Map (8 2” by 11")
. 97 House/Senate Plan A Map (8" x 17")
. District 1 Focus Map
. District 12 Focus Map

. Statistical Reports: Deviation; Total Population; Voting Age Population:
Registration; Election

. 1998 Congressional Plan A Map
. Statistical Reports: Deviation: Total Population; Voting Age

Population; Registration; Election

1997 Congressional Plan A
District 1 Focus Map
District 12 Focus Map

- Statistical Reports: Deviation: Total Population; Voting Age Population;
Registration; Election

105A. House 97 Congressional Plan A 1
105B. District 1 Focus Map
105C. District 12 Focus Map
105D. Statistical Reports: Deviation; Total Population; Voting Age Population;

Registration; Election wr

Map of Area of District 12 with Black Population (McGee Exhibit M)

Map of Guilford County with Black Population and Democratic Voter -
Registration (McGee Exhibit N)

oh we

- Map of Forsyth County with Black Population and Democratic Voter Registration (McGee Exhibit 0)

. Precincts by Percentage of Population Black with Democratic Registration Values (McGee Exhibit P)(Mecklenburg County)

. Boundary Segment Map of Charlotte Area

111. Boundary Segment Map of Davidson County

112. Boundary-Segment Map of Davie County

113. Boundary Segment Map of Winston-Salem

114. Boundary Segment Map of Guilford County

115. Boundary Segment Map of Iredell County

116. Boundary Segment Map of Mecklenburg County

117. Boundary Segment Map of Rowan County

118. Map of North Carolina, Total Black Population by County

119. Number not in use

120.. Number not in use

121. Map of 1872-1883 North Carolina Congressional Districts

122. Map of 1883-1891 North Carolina Congressional Districts

123. Map of 1891-1901 North Carolina Congressional Districts

124.-Map of North Carolina Counties with Percentage Total Black Population, with ~~ 12" Congressional District Overlay

125. North Carolina Counties by Percent Population Black with First Congressional District Overlay

126.

127.

128.

129.

130.

131;

132.

133.

126A.

126B.

126C.

126D.

127A.

127B.

127C.

127D.

128A.

128B.

128C.

129A.

129B.

129C.

129D.

130A.

130B.

130C.

130D.

oh | we

96 Congress Winner/Cooper 1.0
District 1 Focus Map
District 12 Focus Map
Statistical Reports: Deviation; Total Population; Election

96 Congress Winner/Cooper 2.0 statewide map [omitted]
District 1 Focus Map
District 12 Focus Map
Statistical Reports: Election

97 Congress Cooper 1.0
District 12 Focus Map
Statistical Reports: Deviation; Total Population: Voting Age

Population; Registration; Election

97 Congress Cooper 2.0
District 1 Focus Map
District 12 Focus Map
Statistical Reports: Deviation; Total Population; Voting Age Population; Registration; Election

97 Congress Cooper 3.0
District 1 Focus Map
District 12 Focus Map
Statistical Reports: Deviation: Total Population; Voting Age Population; Registration; Election

List of Townships and Keys for Davie County

List of Precincts and Keys for Cabarrus, Davidson, Forsyth, Guilford, Iredell, Mecklenburg and Rowan Counties

133A.

133B.
96 Congress Martin 2.0
Statistical Reports: Deviation; Total Population; Voting Age Population; Registration; Election

33.

134.

135.

136.

137.

138.

139.

140.

141.

142.

143.

144.

145.

146.

oo wh

134A. House 97 Congressional Plan A

134B. District 1 Focus Map

134C. District 12 Focus Map

134D. Statistical Reports: Deviation; Total Population; Voting Age Population;

Registration; Election

135A. House 97 Congressional Plan B.1
135B. District 1 Focus Map

135C. District 12 Focus Map

-135D. Statistical Reports: Deviation; Total Population; Voting Age Population;

Registration; Election

136A. House 97 Congressional Plan E

136B. District 1 Focus Map

136C. District 12 Focus Map
136D. Statistical Reports: Deviation; Total Population; Voting Age Population;

Registration; Election

Comparative Maps of District 1 (1992 and 1997)

Congressional District 1 - 1992 versus 1997

Congressional District 12 - 1992 versus 1997

Republican Victories in Forsyth County Precincts Abutting District 12, Map and Data

Republican Victories in Guilford County Precincts Abutting District 12, Map and Data

Republican Victories in Mecklenburg County Precincts Abutting District 12, Map and

Data

Precinct Map (Forsyth County)

Guilford County Precinct Map- - - - or -

Mecklenburg County Precinct Map

North Carolina’s 1998 Congressional Plan Section 5 Submission [previously filed with
Court under Third Affidavit of Gary O. Bartlett, 6/1/98]

34-

C. PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBITS [200-399]

201.

202.

203A.

203B.

204.

205,

206.

207.

208.

209.

210.

211

TITLE

Memorandum of Gerry Cohen to US Department

of Justice, November 3, 1991, from 1991 plan

Section 5 submission, Section C.4.

Selected portions of 1991 plan Section 5 submission,

related to congressional redistricting 302A. Selected
‘pages of Memorandum of Gerry Cohen to US
Department of Justice, October 14, 1991

Memorandum of Mr. Gilkerson to Members of the

General Assembly

Precincts map for North Carolina, 1990

Townships map for North Carolina, 1990

Remarks for Sen. Dennis Winner in Senate floor

debate regarding 1992 plan.

Log for Congressional Plan Type-based Plans Created

in the Accounts of Gerry Cohen and Linwood Jones

from 6/28/93 through 3/26/97

NCEC Data for 1997 House/Senate plan

Clayton, Politics of North Carolina Redistricting,

Thesis for Ph.D, U. Missouri, at North Carolina

Collection, UNC-Chapel Hill library, C324.2 C619p

Almanac of American Politics, for 1998, District 1

Almanac of American Politics, District 12

Almanac of American Politics, for District 1

Almanac of American Politics, for District 12

“35.

OBJECTION

Relevance

Hearsay, relevance

Authenticity, hearsay,

relevance

Hearsay

o®

212A. Newspaper map of Morrill/Charlotte
Observer plan

212B. Computer map of Morrill/Charlotte
Observer plan

212C. Statistical Deviation: Deviation; Total
Population; Voting Age Population;
Registration; Election

Grofman, B. (1985), “Criteria for Redistricting:
- A Social Science Perspective,” UCLA Law
Review, 33:77-184.

Morrill, R. L. (1982), “Redistricting Standards and
Strategies After Twenty Years,” Political Geography
Quarterly, 1:361-369

Mormill, R. L. (1987), “Redistricting, Region, and
Representation, “Political Geography Quarterly,
6:241-260

Morrill, R. L. (1999), Electoral Geography and
Gerrymandering: Space and Politics, “in G.J. Demko
and W.B. Wood eds., Reordering the World,
pp. 101-119, Bolder, CO: Westview Press.

Pildes, R. H. and Niemi, R.G. (1993), “Expressive
Harms, “Bizarre Districts,” and Voting Rights:
Evaluating Election District Appearances after
Shaw v. Reno, “Michigan Law Review,
92(3): 483-587.

Conley, John M. and Peterson, D.W., The Science of
Gatekeeping 74 N.C. law Rev. 1183 (1996)

General Statute Section 163-201, section b

Dan Blue’s op-ed article on 1992 redistricting,
News & Observer Jan. 5, 1992.

Keech and Sistrom, “North Carolina”, in Davidson, ed.,
A Quiet Revolution: The Voting Rights Act in the
American South, 1989

Hearsay, relevance

Relevance

Hearsay, relevance

Hearsay

oe?

222A. 1991 Congressional District Plan (1991

Congress #6, denied preclearance)
222B. Statistical Information: Deviation;

Total Population;

Registration; Election

222C. News & Observer article Hearsay, relevance

1997 second proposal by State House (1997
Congressional Plan B)
(Rep. McMahan, committee)

Map of Evolution of Congressional District 1
(comparing 1992 and 1997 plans)

Map of Evolution of Congressional District 1 (comparing Relevance
1991 and 1997 plans), close-up of Lenoir, Craven and

Pitt Counties

Map of Evolution of Congressional District 12
(comparing 1992 and 1997 plans)

Map of area of District 1 with black voting age Relevance

population

Map of Craven County with black voting population Relevance, authenticity
and precinct names [Congressional Districts depicted
are incorrect; will be replaced by Exhibit 310]

Map of Granville County with black voting Relevance
population

Map of Jones County with black voting population Relevance, authenticity
and precinct names [Congressional Districts depicted
are incorrect; will be replaced by Exhibit 311]

Map of Lenoir County with black voting population Relevance
and precinct names

Map of Person County with black voting population Relevance
and precinct names

o® oh

233. Map of Pitt County with black voting population Relevance, authenticity
and precinct names [Congressional Districts depicted :
are incorrect; will be replaced by Exhibit 3 12]

234. Map of Washington County with black voting Relevance, authenticity
population and precinct names [Congressional Districts
depicted are incorrect; will be replaced by Exhibit 313]

235. Map of Wayne County with black voting population Relevance, authenticity
. and precinct names [Congressional Districts depicted

are incotrect; will be replaced by Exhibit 3 14]

236. Map of Wilson County with black voting age Relevance
population and precinct names

237. Map of Davidson County with black voting age Relevance
population and precinct names [black and white
version will be replaced with color map]

238. Map of Forsyth County with black voting age Relevance
population and precinct names [black and white
version will be replaced with color map]

239. Map of Guilford County with black voting age Relevance
population and precinct names

240. Map of Iredell County with black voting age Relevance
population and precinct names

241. Map of Mecklenburg County with black age Relevance
population and precinct names

242. Map of Rowan County with black voting age Relevance
population and precinct names

243. Map of area District 1 with support for Democrat Relevance
candidate in 1988 Court of Appeals contest
(results for Beaufort County are county wide)

244. Map of Craven County with support for Democrat Relevance
candidate in 1988 Court of Appeals contest

-33-

245.

246.

247.

248.

249.

250.

251,

252.

253,

254.

255.

256.

237.

258.

o®

Map of Granville County with support for Democrat
candidate in 1988 Court of Appeals contest

Map of Jones County with support for Democrat
candidate in 1988 Court of Appeals contest

Map of Lenoir County with support for Democrat
candidate in 1988 Court of Appeals contest

Map of Person County with support for Democrat
candidate in 1988 Court of Appeals contest

Map of Pitt County with support for Democrat
candidate in 1988 Court of Appeals contest

Map of Washington County with support for Democrat
candidate in 1988 Court of Appeals contest

Map of Wayne County with support for Democrat
candidate in 1988 Court of Appeals contest

Map of Wilson County with support for Democrat
candidate in 1988 Court of Appeals contest

Map of area of District 12 with support for Democrat
in 1988 Court of Appeals contest

Map of Davidson and Eastern Rowan Counties with
support for Democrat candidate in 1988 Court of
Appeals contest

Map of Forsgit county with support for Democrat
candidate in 1988 Court of Appeals

~ Map of Guilford County with support for Democrat
candidate in 1988 Court of Appeals

Map of Iredell County with support for Democrat
candidate in 1988 Court of Appeals

Map of Mecklenburg County with support for
Democrat candidate in 1988 Court of Appeals

-30.

Relevance

239.

260.

261,

262.

263.

264.

263,

266.

267.

268.

269.

- 270.

271.

272.

Map of area of District 1 with support for

Democrat candidate in 1990 U.S. Senate contest

(results for Beaufort County are countywide)

Map of Craven County with support for Democrat

candidate in 1990 U.S. Senate contest

Map of Granville County with support for

Democrat candidate in 1990 U.S. Senate contest

Map of Pitt County with support for Democrat

candidate in 1990 U.S. Senate contest

Map of area of District 12 with support for
Democrat candidate in 1990 U.S. Senate contest

~ Map of Davidson with support for Democrat
candidate in 1990 U.S. Senate contest

Map of Forsyth County with support for

Democrat candidate in 1990 U.S. Senate contest

Map of Guilford County with support for Democrat
candidate in 1990 U.S. Senate contest

Map of Iredell County with support for Democrat
candidate in 1990 U.S. Senate contest

Map of Mecklenburg County with support for

Democrat candidate in 1990 U.S. Senate contest

Map of North Carolina, population density, by
county

Map of North Carolina, population density, by
block groups, for total population, with 1997
Congressional Districts 1 and 12 overlaid

Map of North Carolina, population density, by
census tract, for total population

Map of Beaufort County with pin dot population
density for total black population

-40-

Relevance

273.

274.

275.

276,

277

278.

279.

280.

281.

232.

283.

284.

285.

286.

o®

Map of Craven County with pin dot population
density for total black population

Map of Granville County with pin dot population
density for total black population

Map of Jones County with pin dot population
density for total black population

Map of Lenoir County with pin dot population
density for total black population

Map of Person County with pin dot population
density for total black population

Map of Pitt County with pin dot population density
for total black population

Map of Washington County with pin dot
population density for total black population

Map of Wayne County with pin dot population
density for total black population

Map of Wilson County with pin dot population
density for total black population

Map of Davidson County with pin dot population
density for total black population

Map of Forsyth County with pin dot population
density for total black population

Map of Guilford County with pin dot population
density for total black population Sait

Map of Iredell County with pin dot population
density for total black population

Map of Mecklenburg County with pin dot
population density for total black population

Relevance

287. Map of Rowan County with pin dot population

density for total black population

288A. Map of 1980s congressional Districts in NC

288B. Racial data for 1980s plan

289. Map of 1970s congressional Districts in NC

290. 1999 split precincts, Beaufort County

291. 1999 split precincts, Craven County -

291A. Close up of New Bern precincts

292. 1999 split precincts, Davidson County
292A. Closeup of Thomasville and Lexington

precincts

1999 split precincts, Forsyth County

1999 split precincts, Iredell County

. Closeup of Statesville precincts

1999 split precincts, Jones County

1999 split precincts, Lenoir County

1999 split precincts, Person County

1999 split precincts, Pitt County

1999 split precincts, Rowan County

1999 split precincts, Washington County

. ~ 1999 split precincts, Wayne County

Multi-County Planning Regions, 1979

NC Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas,
1979 (B&W)

Topographical Divisions of North Carolina

Relevance

wh wh

Comparative map of the 12 District,
from 98C-27A-3C (1998 Section 5 Submission)

Chronology of Redistricting, by William Gilkerson Hearsay, relevance

Map of Eastern North Carolina, Percentage Total Black ~~ Hearsay, relevance
Population by Census Block Group

Map of Central North Carolina, Percentage Total Black ~~ Hearsay, relevance
Population by Census Block Group

Proportion of Precincts in Six Counties that are Hearsay, relevance,
in Congressional District 12, 1997 Plan authenticity

Map of Craven County with black voting population Relevance
and precinct names

Map of Jones County with black voting population Relevance
and precinct names

Map of Pitt County with black voting population Relevance
and precinct names

Map of Washington County with black voting Relevance
population and precinct names

Map of Wayne County with black voting population Relevance
and precinct names

315. Physiographic Regions of North Carolina Relevance

“Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors had not been provided as of Sunday, November 28 at 5 p.m. copies of the following exhibits and therefore reserve the right to modify their objections: Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 225, 269-271, 307-315.”

404.

405.

406.

407.

408.

409.

410.

411.

DEFENDANTS’ EXHIBITS

TITLE

Affidavit of Roy A. Cooper, III
(without attachment)

Affidavit of W. Edwin McMahan

Photograph of Default Screen in Plan90

Photograph of Plan90 Screen Showing Data
Window Scrolled Down to Show Election
Data and Widened to Show Percentages

Photograph of Plan90 Screen Showing Full
Data Window

Photograph of Plan90 Screen Showing County
with Precinct Lines and Data Window Sized
as Generally Used

Photograph of Plan90 Screen Showing Working
Size of Precincts

Photograph of Plan90 Screen Showing First
Step in Changing Labels from the Default
Precinct Names

Photograph of Plan90 Screen Showing List of
Variables for Labels

Photograph of Plan90 Screen Showing Formula
Entered to Change Precinct Labels to Democrat

- Percentage in 1988 Court of Appeals Election

Photograph of Plan90 Screen Showing Window
Used to Change Label Size

Photograph of Plan90 Screen Showing Democrat
Percentage Labels

OBJECTION

Plaintiffs: FRE 802, 402, 403

Plaintiffs: FRE 802, 403

Plaintiffs: FRE 403, 802

412.

413.

414.

415.

416.

417.

418.

419.

422.

423.

I Nt

Photograph of Plan90 Screen Showing Step in Plaintiffs: FRE 403, 802
Changing Precinct Assignment

Photograph of Plan90 Screen Showing Change in Plaintiffs: FRE 403, 802
Precinct’s Color and Updated Data Reflecting
Change in Assignment

Photograph of Plan90 Screen Showing Lassoing Plaintiffs: FRE 403, 802
Precincts, An Alternate Method of Changing
Assignments : Fa

Photograph of Plan90 Screen Showing Change in Plaintiffs: FRE 403, 802
Precincts’ Color and Updated Data Reflecting
Change in Assignment

Photograph of Plan90 Screen Showing Data Plaintiffs: FRE 403, 802
Window for a Precinct

Photograph of Plan90 Screen Showing Alternate Plaintiffs: FRE 403, 802
Size of Data Window Generally Used When
Analyzing a Precinct

28 CEFR §51 (1997) PART 51 - PROCEDURES FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION OF SECTION 5 OF THE VOTING
RIGHTS ACT OF 1965, AS AMENDED; and APPENDIX
TO PART 51 - JURISDICTIONS COVERED UNDER
SECTION 4(B) OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, AS
AMENDED

Shaw v. Hunt, No. 92-202-CIV-5-BR
Judgment In A Civil Case, filed 9/15/97

Shaw v. Hunt, No. 92-202-CIV-5-BR,
Order, filed 7/12/96

Affidavit of Dr. Gerald R. Webster and Attached Plaintiffs: FRE 402, 403
Report, AN EVALUATION OF NORTH CAROLINA'S
1998 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS, with
Curriculum Vitae (updated)

Webster Tables 1 through 8 Plaintiffs: FRE 402, 403

Webster Figures 1 through 12 Plaintiffs: FRE 402, 403

45.

wih we

Webster Figures A-1 through A-12 Plaintiffs: FRE 402, 403

Webster Figures A-13 through A-24 Plaintiffs: FRE 402, 403

Affidavit of Dr. Gerald R. Webster (11/23/99) Plaintiffs: FRE 402, 403
and Addendum to “AN EVALUATION OF NORTH
CAROLINA’S 1998 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS
[1997 PLAN],” Gerald R. Webster, Ph.D.

Webster Addendum Figures Al through AS Plaintiffs: FRE 402, 403

Segment Pie Charts by Dr. David W. Peterson
1 Segments Bordering District 12 Plaintiffs: FRE 402, 403, 701,

Total Population 702, and 703
Z Segments Bordering District 12 Plaintiffs: FRE 402, 403, 701,

Race 702, and 703
3. Segments Bordering District 12 Plaintiffs: FRE 402, 403, 701,

Court of Appeals 702, and 703
4. Segments Bordering District 12 Plaintiffs: FRE 402, 403, 701,

Party 702, and 703
12th district Boundary Segments Plaintiffs: FRE 402, 403, 701,
1988 Ct Appeal Dems v. Pop Blacks 702, and 703
12th District Boundary Segments Plaintiffs: FRE 402, 403, 701,
Party v. Race 702, and 703
12th District Divergent Segments Plaintiffs: FRE 402, 403, 701,
1988 Ct Appeals Dems * Pop Blacks 702, and 703
12th District Divergent Segments Plaintiffs: FRE 402, 403, 701,
Party Hypothesis v. Race Hypothesis 702, and 703
12th District Plaintiffs: FRE 402, 403, 701,
Unequivocally Divergent Segments 702, and 703

Third Affidavit of David W. Peterson Plaintiffs: FRE 402, 403, 701,
702 and 703

Segment Map of Rowan County - Plaintiffs: authenticity, relevance; this"
ol map has been changed from the form

in which it was used by Dr. Peterson

and his staff to define segments

Segment Definitions and Combinations

oh we

Pattern of Reasoning Plaintiffs: This is argument, not
evidence. FRE 402, 403, 701, 802

Percent Democrat in Split Counties
by County

Percent Democrat in Split Municipalities
by City or Town

Summary Cross-Tabulation (Tables 6a-6f)
and Complete Individual Cross-Tabulation
Tables (6a-6f)

“Old Black Second” Map

Guilford County Precincts “Excluded”
By Elm and Lee Streets

Segment Definition Map (Iredell County) Plaintiffs: FRE 402, 403, 701
702, 703

Segment Quality Map (Iredell County) Plaintiffs: FRE 402, 403, 701
702, 703

oh we

IV. DESIGNATION OF PLEADINGS AND DISCOVERY MATERIALS

Should the Court permit further objections and designations, Plaintiffs reserve the right to

designate further portions, make further objections, and make supplemental cross-designations.

A. PLAINTIFFS

Document Portion Objection Reason

Defendants’ Response to 1,4,6,7, 10-18,

Plaintiffs’ First Request 21, 22, 24, 27-29,

for Admissions. 31-35, 39-42, and 44

Defendant-Intervenors’ 6,7, 10-18, 21,

Response to Plaintiffs’ First 22, 24, 27-29, 31-35,

Request for Admissions 39-42, and 44.

to Defendant-Intervenors.

Defendants’ Response to 2.3..10:11. 14,

Plaintiffs’ First Set of 15, 20, 24, 29B,

Interrogatories. 29C, and 33

Defendant-Intervenors’ 2.3, 11,'and 12

Response to Plaintiffs’ First
Set of Interrogatories to
Defendant-Intervenors (unsigned).

Deposition of Page 5, lines Sto 11
R. O. Everett Page 15, line 15 to Page 19, line 6

yO Page 21. lines 5-10

Page 50, line 25 to Page 52, line 25
Page 58, lines 8-25

Page 63, line 11 to Page 67, line 19

Page 72, lines 2 to 25
Page 76, line 13 to Page 77, line 13

43-

Defendants generally object: “Hearsay; F. R.
Civ. P., Rule 32; Duplication; contrary to

agreement of the parties represented to

Court”

ow o®

Deposition of Page 5, line 24 to Page 6, line 12
Ron Linville Page 12, line 9 to 25

Page 14, line 9 to Page 15, line 10 Defendants object beginning line 12
“My dad . ..”, FRE 402 (relevance)

Page 36, line 1 to Page 37, line 1
Page 59, line 16 to 25 Defendants: FRE 402 (relevance) and

701 (inadmissible opinion)
Page 61, line 25 to Page 62, line 2

Defendants also generally object: “F. R. Civ. Pp -
Rule 32; Hearsay; not on witness list” ;

Deposition of Page 4, line 21 to Page 5, line 11
Joel K. Bourne Page 6, line 18 to Page 13, line 11

Page 15, line 18 to Page 18, line 2
Page 20, line 14 to Page 21, line 13
Page 22, line 6 to Page 24, line 6
Page 24, line 18 to Page 31, line 17
Page 27, line 14 to 23
Page 36, line 1to 3 and 11 to 15
Page 37, line 10 to Page 39, line 14
Page 40, line 1 to Page 44, line 6 Defendants object to 40:1 to 42:21

on F.R E. 402 (relevance), 602
(personal knowledge), 701
(inadmissible opinion)[Defendants
would withdraw designations for
40:1-4, 11-14 if the objection is
sustained]

Page 44, line 18 to Page 47, line 10 Defendants object to 44:18 to 45:5
on F.R.E. 402 (relevance), 701
(inadmissible opinion)

Page 47, line 20 to Page 51, line 4
Page 51, line 12 to Page 52, line 19

A Page 57, line 14 to Page 58, line 20 Defendants: F.RE. 402 (relevance), | 602 (personal knowledge), 701
(inadmissible opinion), Rule 802
(hearsay)

Page 59, line 5 to Page 60, line 15
Page 64, line 8 to Page 66, line 22 Defendants object to 64:22 to 65:9

on F.RE. 402 (relevance); 701
(inadmissible opinion)

-49-

oh "

Deposition of Page 4, line 17 to Page 5, line 3
J. H. Froelich Page 7, line 14 to Page 10, line 6

Page 14, line 9 to Page 18, line 18
Page 30, line 11 to 18
Page 34, line 23 to Page 37, line 21
Page 41, line 23 to Page 73, line 5
Page 76, line 11 to line 20
Page 77, line 1-19
Page 78, line 15 to Page 79, line 3
Page 80, line 22 to Page 81, line 2
Page 87, line 17 to Page 88, line 11-

Defendants generally object: “Hearsay; F. R. Civ. P.,
Rule 32; Duplication; contrary to agreement of the
parties represented to Court”

Deposition of Page 4, line 10 to 14
Martin Cromartie Page 5, line 14 to Page 6, line 20

Page 7, line 1 to 24
Page 8, line 8 to Page 9, line 16
Page 11, line 3 to 15
Page 14, line 15 to Page 16, line 18
Page 17, line 2 to 12
Page 19, line 20 to Page 20, line 16
Page 26, line 24 to Page 28, line 24 Defendants object to 27:1 to 28:2 on

FRE 402 (relevance), 602 (personal
knowledge) and 701 (inadmissible
opinion)

Page 30, line 1 to Page 32, line 6
Page 31, line 17 to Page 37, line 2
Page 43, line 5 to Page 44, line 5
Page 46, line 11 to Page 47, line 11
Page 48, line 20 to Page 50, line 13 :

- Page 55, line 7 to Page 56, line 19 Defendants: FRE 402 (relevance), : | ~ 602 (personal knowledge) and 701
(inadmissible opinion)

Page 57, line 12 to Page 59, line 1 Defendants object: 58:17 to 59:12
F.R.E. 602 (personal knowledge);
802 (hearsay)

Page 63, line 4 to 15
Page 65, line 1 to 18
Page 65, line 24 to 66, line 20

-50-

Deposition of

Dr. Ronald E. -

Weber

ou wh

Page 86, line 19 to Page 87, line 9

Page 91, line 20 to Page 92, line 18 Defendants object to 92:2-18 on FRE

402 (relevance), 701 (inadmissible
opinion)

Page 94, line 23 to Page 95, line 2

Page 4, line 20 to Page 5, line 6

Page 5, line 21 to Page 6, line 20

Page 37, line 6 to Page 38, line 4

Page 40, line 10 to 18
Page 57, line 6 to Page 58, line 12
Page 63, line 7 to Page 64, line 3

Page 66, line 23 to Page 68, line 1

Page 68, line 12 to Page 69, line 1

Page 69, line 8 to Page 72, line 19

Page 76, line 7 to Page 78, line 2
Page 84, line 23 to Page 89, line 8

Page 97, line 14 to Page 99, line 19

Page 102, line 25 to Page 103, line 11
Page 103, line 21 to line 23
Page 104, line 3 to line 10

Page 104, line 19 to 25

Page 105, line 15 to Page 107, line 3

Page 107, line 25 to Page 109, line 3

Page 110, line 24 to Page 114, line 11
Page 114, line 16 to Page 116, line 14

Page 117, line 19 to Page 118, line 21
Page 122, line 13 to 23

Page 129, line 1 to 10

Page 133, line 24 to Page 134, line 8
Page 135, line 21 to 24
Page 136, line 20 to Page 137,line3 -

Page 143, line 5 to Page 144, line 2 ”
Page 146, line 28 to Page 148, line 24

Page 149, line 16 to 19

Page 151, line 2 to 11

Page 155, line 7 to 12

Page 157, line 2 to 23

Page 169, line 13 to 17 :

Page 172, line 16 to Page 173, line 7

Page 175, line 14 to Page 176, line 7
Page 183, line 4 to 21
Page 188, line 24 to Page 190, line 5
Page 191, line 7 to 17

Page 197, line 5to 11
Page 200, line 9 to 22

Page 204, line 1 to 13

Page 212, line 1 to 10

Page 214, line 13 to 19

Page 215, line 19 to 23

Page 217, line 13 to 19

Page 224, line 10 to 20
Page 225, line 17 to Page 226, line 9
Page 227, line 7 to 15
Page 227, line 23 to Page 228, line 8
Page 230, line 17 to Page 231, line 7
Page 246, line 16 to Page 247, line 22
Page 249, line 12 to 18

Page 254, line 1 to 9

From Volume 2:

Page 274, line 6 to Page 275, line 12
Page 282, line 3 to Page 283, line 5
Page 284, line 13 to 24
Page 286, line 7 to Page 288, line 3

Page 288, line 13 to 19

Page 289, line 8 to 21

Page 291, line 5 to 8
Page 292, line 25 to Page 294, line 24
Page 297, line 2 to 13

Page 298, line 18 to Page 299, line 13
Page 300, line 2 to 24
Page 302, line 3 to Page 303, line 10
Page 310, line 12 to Page 312, line 22
‘Page 317, line 16 to Page 319, line 4 -
Page 321, line 19 to Page 324, line 12
Page 327, line 6 to Page 38, line 1
Page 333, line 2 to 23

Page 334, line 3 to 21
Page 337, line 18 to Page 338, line 12
Page 339, line 15 to Page 340, line 17
Page 342, line 17 to Page 343, line 4 *
Page 348, line 7 to 11

® ”e

Page 349, line 23 to Page 350, line 3

Page 350, line 9 to 13
Page 353, line 24 to Page 355, line 9

Defendants generally object: “Hearsay; F. R. Civ. P., Rule
32; Duplication; contrary to agreement of the parties
represented to Court”

Alma Lois Weaver Page 7, line 22 to Page 9, line 8
ge Page 10, line 4 to Page 14, line 6

Page 14, line 10 to Page 15, line 14
Page 16, line 2 to Page 17, line 2
Page 17, line 16 to Page 20, line 4

Defendants generally object: “F. R. Civ. P., Rule 32:
Hearsay; not on witness list”

PROFFERS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION

Gerry Cohen:

Pope v. Blue Deposition: Defendants object to all,
relevance

Page 66 line 1 to line 10
Page 97 line 19 to Page 98, line 4
Page 99, line 19 to Page 101, line 23

Shaw v. Hunt Deposition: Defendants object to all,
relevance

Page 27, line 11 to Page 29, line 11
Page 75, line 1 to Page 77 line 10
Page 81, line 1 to Page 82, line 9

Page 101, line 2 to 25- = %
Page 117, line 1 to Page 121, line 25 :
Page 121, line 8 to Page 128, line 21
Page 132, line 20 to Page 134, line 25
Page 162, line 6 to Page 163, line 10
Page 171, line 1 to 10
Page 175, line 9 to 23

Page 177, line 1 to Page 179, line 9 =
Page 180, line 6 to 15

-53.

o® ,

Page 188, line 5 to 25

Page 190, line 14 to Page 191, line 3

Page 193, line 1 to 22

Page 197, line 7 to 21

Page 230, line 5 tol7

Page 285, line 6 to Page 286, line 9

Page 303, line 11 to 22

Page 328, line 21 to 6

Page 338, line 17 to 19

Page 340, line 18 to 21

Shaw v. Hunt Testimony : Defendants object to all,
relevance

Page 320, line 10 to Page 321, line 12

Page 330, line 3 to Page 335, line 6

Page 342, line 18 to Page 348, line 8

Page 353, line 24 to Page 358, line 1

Page 364, line 21 to line 25

Page 402, line 3 to line 21

Page 404, line 25 to Page 404, line 21

Page 415, line 9 to line 22

Page 421, line to line 15

Page 450, line 2 to Page 451, line 2

Page 466, line 1 to Page 473, line 18

Page 488, line 9 to Page 495, line 17

Page 497, line 22 to Page 499, line 13

Page 510, line 7 to Page 514, line 25

Page 519, line 24 to Page 520, line 11

Page 522, line 7 to Page 527, line 4
Page 529, line 24 to Page 530, line 20

Page 540, line 19 to Page 541, line 6

Page 543, line 20 to Page 544, line 25
Page 546, line 5 to Page 48, line 9

Page 561, line 1 to Page 563, line 17

~ Page 569, line 2 to” Page 576, line 14 —

Page 578, line 6 to Page 582, line 15
Page 588, line 19 to Page 590, line 12

Page 614, line 11 to Page 615, line 9

Page 625, line 15 to Page 629, line 8
Page 647, line 8 to Page 650, line 18

-54-

Cromartie v. Hunt deposition

Deposition of
Dr. David Peterson

Page 34, line 14 to 22

Page 65, line 7 to Page 68:25

Page 77, line 20 to Page 78:4

Page 85, line 19 to Page 86:9

Page 89, line 13 to 19

Page 96, line 14 to 21
Page 99, line 25 to Page 100, line 2
Page 101, line 1 to § -
Page 105, line 1 to Page 114, line 5
Page 116, line 15 to Page 117, line 1
Page 119, line 13 to Page 120, line 5
Page 121, line 14 to Page 130, line 3
Page 131, line 9 to Page 132, line 5
Page 143, line 13 to 25
Page 146, line 1 to Page 147, line 7
Page 148, line 24 to Page 149, line 14
Page 151, line 1 to 25
Page 153, line 22 to Page 156, line 9
Page 161, line 22 to Page 162, line 5
Page 167, line 9 to 21
Page 1609, line 13 to Page 170, line 25
Page 172, line 5 to 8

Page 173, line 17 to 22
Page 195, line 14 to Page 196, line 3
Page 205, line 1 to 8
Page 238, line 19 to Page 239, line 2
Page 242, line 13 to 18
Page 254, line 1 to Page 258, line 25
Page 278, line 2 to 20

Page 291, line 10 to Page 299, line 8

Page 4, line 10 to Page 4 , line 22 .
Page 5, line 20 to Page 6, line 10 .
Page 6, line 16 to Page 7, line 20.
Page 8, line 3 to Page 8, line 14.
Page 9, line 11 to Page 12, line 18.
Page 13, line 6 to Page 14, line 21.
Page 15, line 1 to Page 18, line 8.

-55-

oe Rl

Page 18, line 12 to Page 37, line 10.

Page 37, line 24 to Page 41, line 2.
Page 41, line 16 to Page 44, line 17.

Page 44, line 22 to Page 52, line 18.

Page 53, line 17 to Page 53, line 23.

Page 54, line 5 to Page 66, line 10.

Page 69, line 19 to Page 72, line 24.

Page 77, line 9 to Page 77, line 11.

Page 80, line 15 to Page 83, line 2.

- Page 83, line 16 to Page 85, line 22.

: Page 86, line 13 to Page 88, line 10.

Page 90, line 24 to Page 92, line 8.
Page 92, line 22 to Page 93, line 18.

Page 96, line 10 to Page 97, line 13.

Page 103, line 10 to Page 104, line 14.

Deposition of
Roy Cooper

Page 27, line 20 to Page 28, line 4

Page 30, line 11 to Page 36, line 9

Page 38, line 10to 15

Page 51, line 9 to Page 58, line 12

Page 60, line 22 to Page 61, line 12

Page 63, line 13 to Page 66, line 6

Page 68, line 25 to Page 72, line 6
Page 74, line 17 to 22

Page 74, line 11 to Page 78, line 13

Page 80, line 23 to Page 82, line 4

Page 87, line 15 to Page 88, line 22

Page 89, line 10 to Page 97, line 18
Page 104, line 4 to Page 114, line 18
Page 122, line 6 to Page 124, line 25

Page 127, line 8 to Page 128, line 11

Page 128, line 25 to Page 129, line 24

Page 135, line 18 to Page 140, line 2
Page 146, line 8 to Page 148, line 25

- Page 156, line 8 to 10

Defendants generally object: “Hearsay; F. R. Civ. P,,
Rule 32; Duplication; contrary to agreement of the

parties represented to Court”

56-

Deposition of
Linwood Jones

Deposition of

Rep. Ed McMahan

-- Deposition of
Leslie Winner

wih wh

Page 23, line 1 to Page 33, line 5
Page 38, line 17 to Page 40, line 15
Page 41, line 17 to Page 42, line 5
Page 71, line 1 to Page 76, line 13
Page 102, line 18 to Page 103, line 18
Page 136, line 1 to 25
Page 149, line 18 to Page 150, line 4
Page 155, line 19 to Page 164, line 22
Page 176, line 1 to Page 177, line 9

Defendants generally object: “Hearsay; F. R. Civ. P.
Rule 32; Duplication; contrary to agreement of the
parties represented to Court”

Page 16, line 1 to 21
Page 30, line 1 to Page 33, line 2
Page 36, line 22 to Page 49, line 15
Page 52, line 6 to Page 58, line 13
Page 93, line 9 to Page 101, line 9
Page 105, line 21 to Page 107, line 21
Page 109, line 2 to Page 111, line 9

Defendants generally object: “Hearsay; F. R. Civ. P.
Rule 32; Duplication; contrary to agreement of the
parties represented to Court”

Page 22, line 24 to Page 26, line 18
Page 31, line S to Page 3, line 24
Page 49, line 18 to Page 51, line 6
Page 69, line 11 to Page 76, line 6
Page 87, line 9 to Page 113, line 25

-57-

Deposition of Dr.
Gerald Webster

oh a

Page 121, line 14 to Page 125, line 19

Page 128, line 17 to Page 130, line 16

Page 134, line 23 to Page 146, line 9

Defendants generally object: “Hearsay; F. R. Civ. P.,

Rule 32; Duplication; contrary to agreement of the
parties represented to Court”

Page 10, line 25 to Page 11, line 25

Page 13, line 15 to Page 15, line 10

Page 17, line 9 to Page 21, line 14

Page 22, line 20 to Page 23, line 21

Page 28, line 13 to Page 30, line 17

Page 32. line 11 to Page 33, line 16

Page 34, line 11 to Page 35, line 7

Page 36, line 19 to Page 38, line 2

Page 39, line 1 to Page 42, line 25

Page 46, line 10 to Page 49, line 12

Page 49, line 16 to Page 56, line 21

Page 58, line 2 to Page 59, linel

Page 61, line 17 to Page 66, line 17

Page 68, line 2 to 19

Page 71, line 3 to Page 74, line 12

Page 76, line 1 to Page 76, line 18
Page 78, line 17 to Page 79, line 12
Page 84, line 1 to Page 85, line 12

Page 86, line 3 to Page 88, line 1

Page 96, line 13 to Page 104, line 7

Page 104, line 24 to Page 111, line 20

«58.

Deposition of Mr.

Charles J. Worth

Deposition of

Mr. Don Baker

Page 4, line 17 to 21

Page 5, line 18 to 21

Page 11, line 4 to 9

Page 17, line 12 to 18

Page 23, line 7 to Page 25, line 4
Page 54, line 9 to Page 55, line 22

Defendants generally object: “Hearsay; F. R. Civ. P., Rule

32; Duplication; contrary to agreement of the parties
represented to Court”

Page 4, line 15to 17

Page 6, line 5 to Page 7, line 14

Page 17, line 11 to Page 18, line 11

Page 35, line 18 to Page 38, line 19

Page 42, line 4 to Page 44, line 14

Page 46, line 18 to Page 51, line 14

Page 52, line 17 to Page 60, line 21

Page 77, line 22 to Page 83, line 3

Defendants generally object: “Hearsay; F. R. Civ. P.,

Rule 32; Duplication; contrary to agreement of the

parties represented to Court”

-59-

”"w wh

B. DEFENDANTS AND DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS

Defendants and Defendants-Intervenors reserve the right to make further designations, make
further objections, and make supplemental cross-designations pursuant to the agreement of the
parties previously communicated to the Court.

DOCUMENT PORTION OBJECTION REASON

Defendants’ Response to 2.3, 5,3 9, 23,25. toall Hearsay
Plaintiffs First Request 26,30,36,37,38 43
for Admissions- = .

Defendants’ Response to 4,6,8,12..13. 32 to all Hearsay
Plaintiffs’ First Set of
Interrogatories

Deposition of

Reuben Oscar Everett

Page 5, lines 12 -17

Page 6, lines 6, 7

Page 8, lines 16-25

Page 9, lines 1-9

Page 10, lines 1-14

Page 14, lines 1-18

Page 19, lines 14-19

Page 20, lines 4-13

Page 21, lines 15-25

Page 22, lines 1-25

Page 23, lines 1-25

Page 24, lines 1-25

Page 25, lines 1-25

Page 26, lines 11-25

Page 27, lines 1-21

: Page 28, lines 19-25 “a eEe : o

~~ Page 29, lines 1-25 y
Page 30, lines 1-25

Page 31, lines 1-25
Page 32, lines 1-25

Page 33, lines 1-21

Page 34, lines 2-25

Page 35, lines 1-25

Page 36, lines 1-25

-60-

Ee A

Page 37, lines 1-4

Page 39, lines 1-25

Page 40, lines 1,2

Page 41, lines 13-25

Page 42, lines 1-22

Page 44, lines 16-25

Page 45, lines 1-21

Page 46, lines 1-21

Page 47, lines 3-25
- ; Page 48, lines 1-25.

: Raf Page 49, lines 1-5; lines 14-25

Page 50, lines 1-8; lines 15-24

Page 53, lines 4-25

Page 54, lines 8-25
Page 55, lines 1-25

Page 57, lines 16-25

Page 58, lines 1-7

Page 59, lines 1-25

Page 60, lines 1-18

Page 67, lines 20-25

Page 68, lines 1-25

Page 69, lines 1-12

Page 70, lines 4-25
Page 71, lines 1-25

Page 72, line 1; lines 15-25

Page 73, lines 9-16

Page 74, lines 12-23
Page 75, lines 1-14
Page 77, lines 14-24

Page 80, line 25

Page 81, lines 1-16

Deposition of
Jacob Henry Froelich, Jr.

~ Page 4, lines 10-11; 21-23
Page 11, lines 1-24
Page 12, line 23-25
Page 13, lines 1-25
Page 14, lines 1-8

Page 18, lines 19-25

Page 19, lines 1-25
Page 20, lines 1-25

-61-

Page 21, lines 1-3; lines 23-25
Page 22, lines 1-22
Page 23, lines 17-25
Page 24, lines 1-21
Page 27, lines 22-25
Page 28, lines 1-22
Page 29, lines 3-25
Page 30, lines 1-25
Page 31, lines 1-18
Page 32, lines 10-25

- Page 33, lines 1-24
Page 38, lines 23-25
Page 39, lines 1-25
Page 40, lines 1-13
Page 72, lines 15-25
Page 73, lines 1-25
Page 74, lines 1-25
Page 75, lines 1-25
Page 76, lines 1-10; lines 21-25
Page 79, lines 4-21
Page 80, lines 1-14
Page 81, lines 1-22
Page 83, lines 12-25
Page 84, lines 1-19
Page 85, lines 9-17
Page 86, lines 8-12; lines 20-25
Page 87, lines 1-16
Page 88, lines 12-14

Deposition of
Joel K. Bourne

Page 6, lines 18-25
Page 7, lines 1-25
Page 8, lines 1-25
Page 9, lines 1-25
Page 10, lines 1-25
Page 11, lines 1-25
Page 12, lines 1-25
Page 13, lines 1-11
Page 15, lines 18-25
Page 16, lines 1-25
Page 17, lines 14-25

-62-

Page 18, lines 1,2

Page 20, lines 14-25

Page 21, lines 1-13

Page 22, lines 6-21

Page 23, lines 7-25

Page 24, lines 1-6; 22-25

Page 25, lines 1-15

Page 26, lines 14-25

Page 27, lines 1-8

Page 28, lines 1-25
Page 29, lines 1-24

Page 30, lines 2-25
Page 31, lines 1-17
Page 32, lines 18-25

Page 33, lines 1-25

Page 34, lines 18-25

Page 35, lines 1-13

Page 36, lines 1-3; lines 11-15

Page 37, lines 10-24

Page 40, lines 1-4; lines 11-14

Page 42, lines 22-25

Page 43, lines 1-25

Page 44, lines 1-6

Page 45, lines 8-25

Page 46, lines 1-7; lines 12-25
Page 49, lines 23-25

Page 50, lines 1-23

Page 51, lines 5-11

Page 53, lines 2-25

Page 54, lines 1-25

~ Page 55, lines 1-25

Page 56, lines 1-5; lines 15-25

Page 57, lines 1-13

Page 58, lines 15-25

Page 59, lines 1-4 i

Page 60, lines 3-15
Page 62, lines 7-25
Page 63, lines 1-25

Page 64, lines 1-7
Page 65, lines 10-16

Page 66, lines 13-25

Page 67, lines 1-17

Page 69, lines 12-25

-63-

Page 70, lines 1-25
Page 71, lines 1-25

Page 72, lines 1-25

Page 73, lines 1-11
Deposition of
Alma Lois Weaver

Page 4, lines 9-25

Page 5, lines 1-11

Page 7, lines 22-25

Page 8, lines 1, 2, 3 :

Page 10, lines 23-25

Page 11, lines 1-14; lines 17-20

Page 12, lines 11-22

Page 13, lines 12-25
Page 14, lines 1-6; lines 19-25
Page 15, lines 1-14

Page 16, lines 1-5

Page 21, lines 1-22

Page 23, lines 3-18

Page 25, lines 18-25
Page 26, lines 1-4; lines 22-25

Page 27, lines 1-3; lines 19-22

Page 28, lines 4-14

Page 29, lines 9-25

Deposition of
Martin Luther Cromartie

Exhibits Number 42, 43, 44

Page 6, lines 3-5
Page 7, lines 5-14 :
Page 9, line 17 to Page 10, line 11

ey - Page 11, lines 5-17
Page 12, lines 3-8; lines 15-24
Page 13, lines 3-13

Page 14, lines 15-25
Page 15, lines 1-19
Page 16, lines 1-18; lines 22-25
Page 17, lines 1-9

Page 19, lines 20-25
Page 20, lines 1-13

-64-

oe oe

Page 21, lines 3-5; lines 16-25

Page 22, lines 1-25

Page 23, lines 1-17

Page 24, lines 20-25

Page 25, lines 1-25

Page 26, lines 1-8; lines 15-19

Page 28, lines 3-17

Page 29, lines 6-15

Page 30, lines 19-25

Page 31, lines 1-6

~ Page 33, lines 14-25

Page 34, line 1

Page 35, lines 2-17

Page 36, lines 17-25

Page 37, lines 1,2

Page 43, lines 12-25

Page 44, lines 1-5

Page 46, lines 11-25

Page 47, lines 1-25

Page 48, lines 1-19

Page 50, lines 3-25

Page 51, lines 1,2

Page 52, lines 4-25

Page 53, lines 1-25

Page 54, lines 1-4
Page 55, lines 1-6

Page 56, lines 3-6

Page 57, lines 12-25

Page 58, lines 1-16

Page 60, lines 17-25

Page 61, lines 1-3

Page 63, lines 16-25

Page 64, lines 1-17
Page 66, lines 21-25

Page 67, lines 1-25. "ann. Twn hy
Page 68, lines 1-10
Page 69, lines 7-17

Page 70, lines 5-20

Page 75, lines 2-18

Page 77, lines 15-18

Page 79, lines 15-23

Page 80, lines 6-25
Page 81, lines 1-25

-65-

o® "ve

Page 82, lines 1-8

Page 87, lines 17-25
Page 88, lines 1-25
Page 89, lines 1-25

Page 90, lines 1-4

Deposition of

Thomas Chandler Muse

- Exhibit Number 74

Page 4, lines 10-17

Page 12, lines 16-21
Page 14, lines 5-25
Page 15, lines 1-13
Page 24, lines 10-25 (through the word *me*)
Page 32, lines 19-24

Page 34, lines 12-15

Page 44, lines 20-24

Page 45, lines 23-25

Page 46, lines 1-10
Page 52, lines 10-25

Page 53, lines 1-25

Page 54, lines 1-14

Page 57, lines 4-6

Page 58, lines 3-22

Page 78, lines 10-25

Page 79, lines 1,2

Page 80, lines 5-20

Page 88, lines 8-11; lines 17-25

Page 89, lines 1-19; lines 23-25

Page 90, lines 1-20
Page 91, lines 4-25
Page 92, lines 1-20

~ Page 94, lines 9-25 is: : oh
Page 95, lines 1-21

-66-

Deposition of

Dr. Gerald R. Webster

Page 49, lines 16-25

Page 50, lines 1-11

Page 79, lines 20-25

Page 80, lines 1-25

Page 81, lines 1-9

Deposition of

- James Ronald Linville

Page 12, lines 1-6

Page 18, lines 23-25
Page 19, lines 1-19

Page 21, lines 10-25

Page 22, lines 1-25

Page 23, lines 1-19

Page 24, lines 17-25
Page 25, lines 1-5; lines 17-21

Page 27, lines 3-8

Page 74, lines 22-25

Page 75, lines 1-22

Page 89, line 25
Page 90, lines 1-5

Deposition of

Charles J. Worth

Page 11, lines 10-16

Page 17, lines 7-11
Page 40, lines 10-22
Page 55, line 25 to Page 56, line 5

Deposition of
~~ Don N. Baker - : fi SEE

Page 4, line 24 to Page 5, line 23
Page 67, line 24 to Page 68, line 13
Page 69, lines 6 to 24

V. WITNESSES

A. Plaintiffs

All witnesses listed by Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors

Name

Dr. Ronald Weber

Neil Williams

Rep. John

Weatherly

Address

Charlotte, NC

Kings Mountain, NC

Univ. of Wisconsin

263

Proposed Testimony

He is an expert political scientist who has
studied redistricting and consulted or
testified in many redistricting cases. He
believes that race predominated in the
construction of Districts 1 and 12; cities,
counties, and precincts were assigned by
race. He will describe the demographics and
discuss maps and data.

He is lawyer and resident of Charlotte who
served on its city council for several years
and is familiar with the Mecklenburg
precincts; ran for Congress in the 9 District
under the 1992 plan; is convinced that
Mecklenburg County was divided along
racial lines with a predominant racial motive,
and that the 12® District in the 1997 plan
was drawn with a predominantly racial
motive.

He was in the N. C. General Assembly when
the 1997 and 1998 redistricting plans were
being considered, and previously had served
on a commission considering North
Carolina’s legislative process, had introduced
legislation to facilitate the redistricting
process by use of a redistricting commission
and on the basis of his political and
legislative experience believes that Districts
12 and 1 were drawn with a predominantly
racial motive.

Rep. Steve Wood

Sen Hamilton Horton Winston-Salem, NC

R. O. Everett

J. H. Froelich, Jr.

High Point, NC

Salisbury, NC

High Point, NC

-69-

»e

He is a High Point resident. Mr. Wood has
served in the General Assembly and was
serving in 1997 in a position of leadership; he
is familiar with the 12" District, and ran for
Congress in the 12™ District under the 1998
plan; he is convinced High Point and
Guilford County were divided on racial lines
for a predominantly racial motive and that

the 12" District was drawn with such a
motive.

Sen. Horton lives in Forsyth County and has
served in the General Assembly for many
years; has introduced legislation in the 1999
legislature which is like that introduced in
earlier sessions by John Weatherly and has
studied and observed as a legislator the
redistricting process; from his examination of
the maps and his knowledge of the precincts,
he is convinced that Forsyth County and
Winston-Salem were split along racial lines
in the 1997 plan and that the 12" District had
a predominantly racial motive.

He has resided in Salisbury about 30 years;
was city executive there for Wachovia Bank,
has been active in politics and has run for the
legislature; is familiar with the congressional
districts in the Salisbury/Rowan County area;
is convinced they were divided on racial
lines, and that the Twelfth District was
drawn with a predominantly racial motive.

He is a lifelong resident of High Point, has
been active in politics on the state and local
level, and because of his experience is
convinced that Guilford County was divided
with a predominantly racial motive in the
1992 and 1997 plans, and that the 12%
District in 1997 was drawn with a
predominantly racial motive.

”® ul

Joel K. Bourne Tarboro, NC By deposition--A longtime resident and
political activist in Tarboro, Mr. Bourne is
familiar with the racial construction of the
First Congressional District.

Dennis Patterson Raleigh, NC Associated Press reporter who has covered
the General Assembly for many years, as on
several prior occasions he conducted a
survey of legislators after the November, i - 1996 election and this survey was published : ie An in late December.

Dan Frey Raleigh, NC Statistical data from the General Assembly’s
computer database, including relative
numbers of persons moved from the 1992
Plan to the 1997 Plan, and current precincts
split by the 1997 Plan.

Detailed Addresses for Plaintiffs’ Witnesses:
Bourne,

Everett,
Frey, Information Systems Division, N. C. General Assembly, Raleigh, NC 27601
Froelich, The Froehlich Companies,
Horton,
Linville,
Patterson, Associated Press, Suite 300, 4020 West Chase Blvd. Raleigh, NC 27607-3933
Weatherly,

Weber,

Williams,

Wood,

“Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors object to the addition of Dan Frey on plaintiffs’ witness list at 5 p.m. on Sunday, November 28.” :

<70-

A at

B. Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors

All witnesses listed by plaintiffs.

Name Address Proposed Testimony

Roy A. Cooper, III Room 2010 Legislative Bldg. The legislative history and
: 16 West Jones Street enactment of the 1997

Raleigh, NC 27601 congressional plan, especially
with regard to Districts 1 and
12 and proceedings in the
North Carolina Senate

W. Edwin McMahan Room 1019 Legislative Bldg. The legislative history and
16 West Jones Street enactment of the 1997
Raleigh, NC 27601 congressional plan,

especially with regard to

Districts 1 and 12 and

proceedings in the North
Carolina House of

Representatives.

Linwood Jones Research Division The legislative history and
545 Legislative Office Bldg. enactment of the 1997
300 N. Salisbury Street congressional plan,
Raleigh, NC 27601 especially with regard to

Districts 1 and 12 and the
technical aspects of redistricting.

Gerry Cohen Director of Bill Drafting The legislative history and
401 Legislative Office Bldg. enactment of the 1997
300 N. Salisbury Street congressional plan,
Raleigh, NC 27601 especially with regard to

Districts 1 and 12 and the
technical aspects of
redistricting.

Dr. Gerald R. Dept. of Geography By Deposition and Affidavits
Webster ~° University of Alabama --an evaluation of North

202 Farrah Hall Carolina’s congressional
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0322 districts from the perspective

Of a political geographer.

iy 1 TH

oh wh

Dr. David W. UNC-Ch Dept of Geography Statistical analysis of data Peterson & Sciences regarding the question
Room 448 McEniry whether race predominated
9201 University City Blvd. over party affiliation in the
Charlotte, NC 28223-0001 construction of the boundary

of District 12, the variance
between Democratic
registration and voting
behavior, and analysis of
Plaintiffs’ experts
reasoning on the
predominance of race.

Don Baker The process of running a
congressional campaign in
and the political and electoral
character of District 12

Charles Worth The process of running a
congressional campaign in
and the political and electoral
character of District 12.

Leslie Winner The legislative history and
enactment of the 1997
congressional plan, especially
with regard to Districts 1 and
12 and proceedings in the
North Carolina Senate

Dr. Richard University of New Orleans Rebuttal testimony, as Engstrom Dept. of Political Science necessary, to the trial
Lakefront testimony of Dr. Ronald Weber
New Orleans, LA 70148

oh o®

This 28" day of November, 1999, Respectfully submitted,

Ch O. Leer) bpp)
Robinson O. Everett

Everett & Everett

N.C. State Bar No.: 1385
Attorney for the Plaintiffs
P.O. Box 586

& Durham, NC 27702 :
: Telephone: (919)-682-5691

Williams, Boger, Grady, Davis & Tuttle, PA.

Wr
Martin B. McGee J
State Bar No.: 22198
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
P.O. Box 810
Concord, NC 28026-0810
Telephone: (704)-782-1173

Dboyiihinnd Se. AA ALL

Douglas EY Markham
Texas State Bar No. 12986975
Attorney for the Plaintiffs
333 Clay Suite 4510

Post Office Box 130923
Houston, TX 77219-0923
Telephone: (713) 655-8700

wi I : Facsimile: (713) 655-8701

Robert Popper
Attorney For Plaintiffs
Law Office of Neil Brickman
630 3™ Ave. 21* Floor
New York, NY-10017
Telephone: (212) 986-6840

73.

Seth Neyhart

Attorney For Plaintiffs

N7983 Town Hall Road

Eldorado, WI 54932

Telephone: (920) 872-2643

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

wh we
MICHAEL F. EASLEY,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA

2 dh By: (Ade 4 iad
Edwin M. Speas, Jr.
Chief Deputy Attorney General
N. C. State Bar No. 4112

Tiare B. Smiley

~ Special Deputy Attorney General
~ N.C. State Bar No. 7119 |

Norma S. Harrell
Special Deputy Attorney General
N. C. State Bar No. 6634

North Carolina Department of Justice
114 W. Edenton St.
P.O. Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602
Phone # (919) 716-6900

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS

Adam Stein’ ;
Ferguson, Stein, Wallas, Adkins, Gresham, Sumter,
PA.

312 W. Franklin St.
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Phone # (919) 933-3300

! Todd A. Cox /
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.
1444] Street NW, 10® Floor
Washington, DC 20005

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS

75.

Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Final Pre-Trial Order (Redacted)

Impact area

Topic

LDF Attorneys

Cooperating Attorneys

Organizations

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in