Final Pre-Trial Order (Redacted)
Public Court Documents
November 28, 1999

75 pages
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 6m 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- wh 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 30 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. wh 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- ie Defendants: Defendants: Defendants: - Defendants: Defendants: hearsay Defendants: hearsay Defendants: relevance Defendants: relevance Defendants: relevance Defendants: relevance relevance relevance relevance relevance 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- ot C. PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBITS [200-399] i 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 Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Hearsay, relevance Authenticity, hearsay, relevance Hearsay Hearsay Hearsay 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 ve Hearsay, relevance Relevance Relevance Hearsay, relevance Hearsay, relevance Hearsay, relevance Hearsay, relevance Hearsay, 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. wh Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance 239. 260. 261, 262. 263. 264. 263, 266. 267. 268. 269. - 270. 271. 272. ot 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 Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance 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 Al bd Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance 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 Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance Relevance 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. oe 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 od OBJECTION Plaintiffs: FRE 802, 402, 403 Plaintiffs: FRE 802, 402, 403 Plaintiffs: FRE 802, 403 Plaintiffs: FRE 802, 403 Plaintiffs: FRE 802, 403 Plaintiffs: FRE 403, 802 Plaintiffs: FRE 403, 802 Plaintiffs: FRE 403, 802 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 BY oh 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- wh 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” bl 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” bh 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- wh 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- |g 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- wh 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. oe 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. we Seth Neyhart Attorney For Plaintiffs N7983 Town Hall Road Eldorado, WI 54932 Telephone: (920) 872-2643 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS 4. 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.