Draft of Gingles v. Edmisten and Pugh v. Hunt Stipulation 2

Working File
February 1, 1982

Cite this item

Draft of Gingles v. Edmisten and Pugh v. Hunt Stipulation 2 preview

Document text

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

Download

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

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

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

Date is approximate.

Matter
- Gingles
Case
- Thornburg v. Gingles
U.S. state
- North Carolina
Collection
- Case Files
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 90de10dd-da92-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873

Cite this item

Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Working Files - Williams. Draft of Gingles v. Edmisten and Pugh v. Hunt Stipulation 2, 1982. 90de10dd-da92-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/76000dab-e5e3-4e9e-8cdb-1d647bd2c172/draft-of-gingles-v-edmisten-and-pugh-v-hunt-stipulation-2. Accessed November 02, 2025.

Copied!

     

 

W "“
.l" '

(5) The General Assembly did in fact adopt three new
apportionment plans with the ratification of H.B. l, S.B. l, and

S.B. 2 (Attachments D-F); s—

 

rev

(6) rIn addition to enacting its reapportionment plans
for the State Senate, State House of Representatives and United
States Congress, the General Assembly enacted H.B. 3, providing
alternative dates for North Carolina's filing period and primaries,
as more specifically indicated in Attachment G. I

(7) Pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of
1965, 42 U.S.C. 19730, North Carolina's three new apportionment
plans must now be submitted to the United States Attorney General
for pre—clearance;

(8) The parties hereto stipulate that they can complete
discovery in the actions pending before this Court by the 30th day
following the United States Attorney General's decision on the
issue of whether to pre-clear each and every apportionment plan
last enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly;

(9) With respect to interrogatories and requests to
produce submitted to any party during the discovery period, response
to said interrogatories shall be due by the 15th day following
service of the interrogatories or requests to produce.

This the _____ day of February, 1982.

RUFUS L. EDMISTEN
‘ ATTORNEY GENERAL

 

James Wallace, Jr.
Deputy Attorney General

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

 

 

 

J. Levonne Chambers
Leslie Winner ﬁ”
Chambers, Ferguson, Watt, Wallas,
Adkins & Fuller, P.A.

951 South Independence Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Telephone: (704) 375—8461
Attorney for gingles Plaintiffs

 

x

 

Arthur J. Donaldson ,
Burke, Donaldson, Holshouser & Kererly
309 North Main Street

Salisbury, North Carolina 28144
Telephone: (704) 637-1500

Attorney for Pugh Plaintiffs

.ae-po.

Copyright notice

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

Additional info

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

Draft of Gingles v. Edmisten and Pugh v. Hunt Stipulation 2

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in