Pugh v. Hunt Complaint

    ;utrt, Dot{arrsot{,

-sgousEn & Klrranr
ATTORNEYS AND
JNSELLORS A? LAW
IORTH I(AIN STREET
LISBUBY, }I. c. ,Er{

NORTH CAROLINA

IREDELL COUNTY

AIAN V. PUGH , GREGORY T. GRITFIN ,

IvIASON MCCULLOUGH, PAUL B .

EAGLIN , and ETIfEL R .' TROTTER,
on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v6.

JAMES B . HUNT, JR. , in his caPacitY
as Governor of the State of North
Carolina; RUFUS EDMISTEN, in his
capacity as the Attorney General of
North Carolina; JAI\'IES C. GREEN,
Lt. Governor of North Carolina, in his
capacity as President of the North
Carolina Senate; LISTON B. RAMSEY '
in his capacity. as Speaker of the North
Carolina House of Representatives ;

THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS OF

NORTH CAROLINA: ROBERT W.
SPEARMAN , ELLOREE M. ERWIN,
RUTH T. SEMASHKO, WILLIAM A.
IVIARSH , JR. , and JOHN A. I{ALKER,
in their official capacities as members
of the State Board of Elections of North
Carolina; and THAD EURE, in his
capacity as Secretary of State of North
Carolina,

Defendants.

THE GENERAL COURT OF JI,]STICE
SUPERIOR COURT DTVISION

. 81 CVS

COMPI.AINT

IN

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Come now the Plaintiffs, and for their causes of action against the Defendants

and each of them in their respective officiat capacities, state and allege as follows:

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

JURISDICTION

1.

Pleintiff seeks in this action injunctive, declaratory, and, other relief to

redress the deprivation of rights and privileges secured Plaintiffs by the 14th

AmendmenttotheConstitutionof theUnitedStates; byArticlel, Sec.3, Sec. 18,

arrd Sec. 35 of the Constitution of the State of.North Carolina; and by 42 U .S.C.

Section 1983, which provides for the redress of deprivation of Constitutional

rights under color of law.

\



,

This action is filed to enjoin enforcement of North Carolina General Statutes

$120-1 and $ t2!-zand related statute8, in and for the reasonthat such statutes

violate the 14th Amendment of the Constition of the United States as well as Article

I, Sec. 3, 18, 19 and 35 of the Constitution of the State of North Carolina. The

Statutes r6ferred to above unconstitutionally reapportion and redistrict the

State Legislature of North Carolina. Accordingly, this action is also filed requestin

the Court to order a reapportionment and redistricting plan within thg guidelines

established by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of North Carolina

where the latter does not conflict with the former

\rENUE

3.

The proper venue for this action is IredeU County.

PASTIES

4.

That Plaintiff , Alan V. Pugh, is a resident, elector and tax payer of the

County.of Randolph, artd State of North Carolina

5.

That Plaintiff , Gregory T. Griffin, is I resident, elector and tax psyer

of the County of Sampson, and State of North Carolina

6.

That Plaintiff , Mason McCullough, is a resident, eleetor and tax payer

of the County of Iredell, and State of North Carolina, and is a black citizen of

the State of North Carolina

7.

That Plaintiff , PauI B. Eaglin, is a resident, elector and tax payer of the

Count5r of Cumberland, and State of North Carolina, and is a black citizen of

the $tate of North Carolina. That Ptaintiff, Ethel R. Trotter, is a resident, elector

and tax payer of the County of Moore , and State of North Carolina.



-3-

8.

That the Defendant , James B . Hunt, Jr. , is the Govertor in and for the

State of North Carolina, and in such capacity is the Chief Executive Officer

of the State charged with the dufy of enforeing compliance with State legislation

under Article III , Sec. 5 (4) of the Constitution of North Carolina '

9.

That the Defendant, Thad Eure, is the Secretary of State in and for the

State of North Carolina , and in such capacit5l is the officer in charge of receiving,

mairrtaining and certifying the results of all North Carolina Senate and House

of of Representatives from multi-county distriets.

10.

That the Defendant, Rufus Edmisten, is the Attorney General in and for

the State of North Carolina, and in such capaeity is the principal attorney for

the State of North Carolina charged with the dufy of enforcing the laws of the

State of North Carolina and repreeenting the State of North Carolina in those

civil actions in whieh the State of North Carolina is a party.

11.

That the Defendant, James C . Green, is Lieutenant Governor of the State

of North Carolina, and is President of the North Carolina Senate.

L2.

That the Defendant, Liston B . Ramsey, is Speaker of the North Carolina

House of Representatives .

13.

That the Defendant, State Board of Elections of North Carolina, is charged

with the duty of supervising and conducting primary and general elections,

controlling the conduct of primary and general elections, and for computing,

maintaining and reporting the results of mu16-county primary and general electionsL
I

That Defendants,

William A. Marsh, Jr. ,

14' 
r

Robert W. Spearmar, Elloree M. Erwin, Ruth T. Semashko,l

and John A. Walker constitute the members of the North



.lr
ll,tl
ti
t,

ir

:,

I

li
I

I

lr
lr.
l!
t:
ll

I

I

ll

ll
ri

li
rl

il
!I

ii

ll
I

lr
rl

rl

li
;i

I
:i

ir

i
i.

I'

t,

t:
ii
!t

llll
ri
lr

ir

li
:t
rl

ll
lr
h

l:
rl
tl

'l
1;

li
ir
I
:t

tl
ll
li

ii
ll
h

il
Ir

t:
I.

ii

ti

lr
t:
lr
rl
ti
{
li
li

li
t:
ll
I

il
ri
ri

l:
'l
l;
ll
t,
t,
lr

-4-

Carolina Board gf Elections and the Bame Robert W. Spearman is Chairman of said

Board, all of'said Defendants being charged with exercising the powers and duties

of the State Board of Elections.

15.

By performing their respective duties as concerns the challenged Statutes,

Defendants, and each of them in their respective official capacities, aet under

color of State Statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs and usages. Such aets

have resulted in and will result in a deprivation of rights guaranteed the Plaintiffs,

as voters, and each of them, by the Constitution of the United States and the

State of North Carolina

CLASS ACTION

,u.

Ptaintiffs, Alan V. Pugh, Gregory T. Griffin, Mason McCullough and Paul B .

Eaglin, are all qualified and registered voters of multi-member Senate and House

Distriets of the North Carolina General Assembly, and Plaintiffs, Mason McCullougtr

and Paul B . Eaglin, ate black "itir"rr" eligble and registered to vote in the State

of North Carolina, and pursuant to Rule 23O) of the North Carolina Rules of

Civil Procedure bring this action on their own behalf , and on behalf of all residents

eitizens and qualified voters in all multi-member House and Senate Districts and

on behalf of black citizens of said districts. The elass is so numerous that joinder

of all member is impractieable; there are questions of law and fact common to

the class; the claims and defenses of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims and defensesi

of the. class, and Plaintiffs wi[ fairly and adequately protect the interests of

the class. Adjudication with respect to individual members of the class would

as a practical matter be dispositive of the interest of the other members not parties

to the adjudication; that counsel for the Plaintiffs witl fairly snd adequately protect

the interests of the class. Pla.intiff, Ethel R. Trotter, is a qualified and registered

voter of a single-member representative district



ll
I',I
I,.t
I

i

I

tt

t:
lr

,l
I

ri
t,
l,

li
rlilt.
il
ri'rl

i

lr
ri

't.
lr
l,
I'
I

tl
tr

lr

t:
i,
l;

-5-

ALLEGATIONS OF FACT

17.

That Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution of North Carolina provides

in part that North Carolina General Assembly t' . . .. at the first regular session

convening after the refurn of every decennial census of population taken by order

of Congress, Ehnll revise the senate districts and the apportionment of Senators

amongthose districts . . ."; that subsection (1) thereof provides for equality

of representation in senate districts; that subsection (3) thereof provides that

!l "No county shall be divided in the formation of a senate distriet"; that upon infor- Iii--l
lr

ll mation and belief , the United States Department of Justiee did not preclear subsectioJ
I

(3) , pursuant to its authority under 42 U.S .C. $1973 (Voting Rights Act) .

18.

That pr"",r"rr, to the Constitutional mandate referred to in Paragraph 1?

herein, the North Carolina General Assembly met and on the 3rd day of July,

passed Senate Bill 313, Chapter 821 of the 1981 Session Laws codified as N.C.G.S.

120-1, and the Defendant, James C. Green, President of the Senate and the

Defendant, Liston B . Ramsey, Speaker of the House, signed said biU on the 3rd

day of July, 1981. (Exhibit nAr)

19.

That Article II, Section 5 of the Constitution of North Carolina provides

in part that the North Carolina General Assembly rr . at the first regular

session convening after the rehrrn of every decennial cenaus of population taken

by order of Congress, shall revise the representative districts and the apportionmenf

of Representatives among those districts . . ."; that subsection (1) thereof proviaesl

for equality of representation in representative districts; that subsection (3)

thereof provides that I'No c.ounty shall be divided in the formation of a representativJ

districtrt; that upon information and belief, the United States Department of Justice

did not preclear subsection (3), pursuant to its authority under 42 U.S.C. 91973

CVoting Rights Aet) .



-6-

-20
That pursuant to the Constitutional mandate referred to in Paragraph 19

herein, the North Carolina General Assembly met end on the 30th day of October,

1981, passed House Bill 1428, Chapter 1130 of the 1981 Session Laws, codified

as N.C.G.S . L20-2, and the Defendant, James C. Green, President of the Senate,

and the Defendant, Liston B . Ramsey , Speaker of the House, signed said bill

on the 30th day of October, 1981. (Exhibit I'Brr)

2L.

That N.C.G:S . 120-1 institutionalizes 16 multi-member senatorial districts,

namely: District 1, (2); District 8, (2); District 11, (2); District 14, (2);

Dietrict 15, (3); Distriet 18, (2); District 19, (2); District 2t, (2); District 22,

(3);. Distriet 23 , (2); Distriet 24, (4); District 25, (2>; District 26, (2); Distric't

27 , (3); District 28, (2); and District 29, (2); the remaining 13 districts are

single-member districts .

22.

That N.C.G.S . L20-2 institutionalizes 31 multi-member representative

districts, namely: District 1, (2); District 3, (3); District 4, (3); District 5,

(3); District 6, (4); District 7, (2); District 8, (2); District 10, (2); District

11, (3); District 13, (3); District 14, (5); District 15, (2); District 16, (2);

District 17, (6); District 18, (3); District 19, (3); Distriet 20, (4); District

24, (3); District 26, (3); District 27, (2); District 28, (2); District 29, (7);

District 30, (4); District 31, (5); District 32, (5); District 33, (6); District

34, (8); District 35, (4); District 36, (3); District 38, (5); District 39, (2);

the remaining 9 districts are single-member districts.

23.

That former Artiele II, Section 4 of the Constitution of North CaroUna

(Const. 1868, 1872-3, c.81) provided that tr. . . each Senate district shall

contain, aB near as msy be, an equal number of inhabitants . and no count5l

shall be divided in the formation of a Si:nate district, unless steh county shall

be equitably entitled to two or more senators . t'



-7-

24.

That former Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution of North Carolina

(const. 1868) in effect prowided that most rePresentative districts were to be

single-member districts, but it did not prohibit the division of counties in the

formation of a representative district '

25.

That Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution of North Carolina provides

in part that the people have the right to regUlate the internal government but

r'. . . every such right shall be exercised in pursuance of law and consistently

with the Constitution of the United States '

26.

That prior to November 5, 1968, the North Carolina General Aseembly

proposed an amendment to the Constihrtion of North Carolina which was adopted

by the vote of the people at the general election held November 5, 1968, which

is now designated as Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution end contains the

provisions referyed to in paragraph 1? herein which prohibits the division of

counties in the formation of senate districts '

27.

That the electoral process in each of the 40 counties cqvered under Section

5 of the Voting Right Act, 42 U.S .C. SL9?3c was adversely affected; that upon

information and belief , the United States Department of Justice did not preclear

those provisions of the Constitution of.North Carolina prohibiting the division

of counties in drawing district lines all pursuant to its authority under 42 U.S.c.

s 1973

28.

That prior to November 5, 19-68, the North Carolina General Assembly

proposed an amendment to the Constitution of North Carolina which was adopted

by the vote of the people at the general election held November 5, 1968 ' which

is now designated as Article II, Section 5 of the Constituion and contains the



I'

l1

li
ll

It

li

li
ll
lr

II
ll

ti

tl
lr

li

ll

ii

li
i,
rl

il
il

li
rl

ti
rl

li
l:
ir

i'

rl

li

il
li
lr

i.
l

ii

lr
il
li

I

li

ir
ti

ii
I

li
t.

i;
ii
il
ll
l1

ll
:l

li
.t
il

ll
it

li

t;
I

liIt
lr
i:
li

I

il
l'
ti

I

ii

li

il
li

li
ll

li

-8-

provisions referred to in Paragraph 19 herein which prohibits the division,of

counties in the formation of representative districts

,o

Upon information and belief that the Constitutional Amendments referred

to in Paragraphe 26 and 28 herein were not submitted for approval to the Attorney

General of the United States pursuant to 42 U.S.C. $19?3c, nor were they subjected

to court approval under said aet; and, therefore, the United States Department

of Justiee did not preclear those amendments which prohibited the divieion of

counties in forming distriets.

30.

That the General Assembly of North Carolina in its mistaken adherence

to the Constitutional Amend,ments of .1968 prohibiting the division of counties

in Senate and Representative districts has diluted the voting strength of minorities;

that it ie impossible to devise a plan that doesn't dilute the voting strength of

minorities without the ability to divide counties in such redistricting.

31.

That Defendants in enacting redistricting legislation and conducting electionsl

pursuant to such enactments are violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 
I

14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States , 42lr.S .C. S1983, Section 
I

5 of the Voting Rights Act and Article I, Section 3 and Section 35 of the Constihrtion

of North Carolina

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

32'

As their Second Cause of Action, Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 1 through

31 of their First Cause of Action as though fully set out herein. '

33.

That N.C.G.S . 120-1 and N.C.G.S . 120-2 are in contravention of the 14th

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America by denying voters

in single-member senatorial and single-member representative districts due



i:

.ll
li
t:

.!'
'I
ri

l:
I

ll
li

l;
li

-l'
t:

ri
lr
lr
l,

. tr

'l.l
li
ti
t,

I
.:

I

lr
It
I

-9-

process and (he equal protection of the law, and by violating the "one msn

one votelt rtrle in the following particulars:

A. The voter in a single-member senatorial district or a eingle-

member representative district is allowed only one vote for

for one candidate, whereas I voter in a multi-member district

is'allowed as many votes aB there are aeat6 in that district.

As a result., a single voter in a single-member district is a

constituent of and is represented by only one senator or

representative, whereaE a single voter in a multi-member

district is represented by as marly Eenators or rePresentatives

apportioned to thet district.

B. The voter in the single-member senatorisl or repreeentative

district is unable to ?'weight' his vote by refraining from

voting for other eUgible eandidates in order to enhance the

value of his vote. In a multi-member district, by allowing

a voter to vote for only one candidate when he is entitled to

vote for aB many candidates as there are seats, a voter in a

multi-member district is capable of casting as many votes for

a single candidate as there are seats in that district by casting

one vote for that candidate, and casting his/her remaining

votes against that candidatets competition, by failing to cast

any more than one vote. The problem is compounded as the

ber of seats and candidates increases.

C. By allowing voters in multi-member senatorial and representa-

tive districts to rrweightrr their votes, the Itone man - one votett

rule is violated UV r"f.i.rg the vote of a voter in a multi-member

district more valuable than a vote of a voter in a single-member

district.



ti
il
lr

t:
ll

li -to-
i

ti

t, THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
ll
til, 34.
I

t:

lrrl As their Third Cause of Action, Plaintiffs renllsge Paragraphs 1 through
I'
Ir

ii tt of their First and Second Causes of Action as though fully set out herein.

ri , 35.
I

'r

rt ' That N.C .G.S . 120-1 and N.C.G.S . 120-2 are in contravention of the
il
lrtl 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States by denying voters in
I'

li

ii multi-member senatorial and representative districts due Process and the equal
Il:-
ill, protection of the law, and by violating the ttone man - one voten rule in the
t,
rl

'. following Particulars:
i,
t,

!. e. By allowing the election of representatives artd senators in
.11

t'

lii, multi-member districts at'large, it is possible and indeed

Iikely that most senatori and representatives will be elected

from a certain, limited georgraphic location and from a

certain, limited, socio-economie elass, to the exclusion of

proportional representation for minorities who do not reside

tl

ii within that geographic location or occupy that socio-economic

class.

ii g. By exposing the voter in the multi-member district to numerous
t;

candidates whieh deserve ttre voters time, consideration, and

attention during the campaign, in order for the voter to cast

an informed vote, logistical problems alone deny the multi-

lr tnember district voter the ability to discriminate between and
:lt'
Ii, *ong the views of numerous candidates, compared to the
i

I aUility of a single-member district voter to discrirninate among
.i

i: *e views of a limited number of candidates.

Ir

,'

li 36.rl--'
ti

ii plaintiffs, for their Fourth Cause of Action, reallege Paragraphs 1 through
il

ll
li

li

t,

lt
ri

rl

L

lr

tt

ll,I
lr

35 of their prior causes of action as though fully set out herein.



-11 -

3?.

That N.C.G.S . 120-1 and N.C.G.S. 120-2 are in contravention of the 14th

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America by denying potential

legislative candidates in multi-member repreBentative and senatoria-l districts

due process and equal protection of the law in the following particulars: '

A. The candidate in a multi-member district must run against,

in the case of Senatorial District 24, three other

candidates for his/her seat rather than one other senatorial

candidate, ot in the case of Representative District 29,'
:

six other. candidates rather than one other representative

candidate, thereby incurring larger coets in terms of dollars,

time , organization and interest in the pursuit of public office.

The same problem is present and increases in direct proportion

to the number of seats in a particular district.

The multi-member senatorial and representative cendidate is

exposed to the hazard of the I'weighted" vote and related

organized political maneuvering that does not confront the

candidate in a. single-member district.

The representative or senator of a multi-member district is

accountable to a number of constituents far in excess of that

. number to which the representative or senator of a single-

member district is accountable

rIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

38.

plaintiffs, for their Fifth Cause of Action, reallege paragraphs I through

3? of their prior causes of action as though fuIly set out herein.

39.

The General Assembly on JuIy.!, 1981, ratified Senate BiU 313, Chapter

821 of the Session Laws known as "An Act to Establish Senatorial Districts and

to Apportion Seats in the Senate Among Districts" codified as N.C.G.S. S120- 1.

B.

c.



-L2-

40.

The General Assembly on October 30, 1981, ratified House Bill 1428 known

8s nAn Act to Apportion The DisEicts of The North carolina House of Representa-

tives" codified as N.C.G.S . S120-2.

4t.

Aecording to the 1980 decenial cenus taken by the United States Bureau

of the Census, the State of North Carolina has a totel population of 5,874,429.

The North Carolina Senate has 50 seats. The North Carolina House of Representa-

,tives has 120 seats. Aceordingly, the norm or ideal population size per member

of the Senate is 11?,489, and the norm or ideal population size per member of

the House of Representatives is 48,954.

42.

The redistricting plans for the Senate and The House of Representatives is

now g:rossty malapportioned, the Senate having atotal spen of deviation of 22.6888,

and the House of Representatives having a total span of deviation of 15.605%, both '

of which plans fail to provide substantial equality of population among the Senatoriel

and Representative districts .

43.

The North Carolina General Assembly has failed to make an honest and

good faith effort to construct Senatorial and Representative districts for the North

Carolina General Aseembly as nearly of equal population as it may be, in viola-

tion of the right of Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated secured by the

Bg"t.Protection Clause of the_ 14th Amendrnent ,. 42 U.S .C . S1983 and Article

I, Sections 3, 19 and 35 of the constitution of North carolina.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

44.

Plaintiffs, for their Sixth Cause of Action,

43 of their prior cauaea of action as though fulty

reallage parag?&phs 1 through

set out herein.

45.

The reapportionment and redistricting of the North Carolina General

Assembly enacted and codified as N . C .G .S . $ 120-1 and 5 L20-2 has the intent



-13 -

purpose and effect of diminishing the concentration of black voters and decreasing

the effectiveness of black citizens;

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

46.

Plaintiffs, for their Seventh Cause of Action, reallege paragraPhs 1 through

45 of their prior causes of action as though fully set out herein.

47.

The reapportionment ard redistricting of the North Carolina General Assembl

enacted and codified as N.C.G.S. S120-1 and 12.0-2has the intent purpose and

effect of diluting the votes of black citizens in vioiation of 42 U.S.C. 51981 and

S1983, and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the 15th Amend -

ment to the United States Constitution.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court:

1. Grant Plaintiffs preliminary and permsJrent injunctive relief against

Defendants from effecting or performing any of their statutory duties with

respect to the conduct of primary or general elections pursuant to the l98l

redistricting plans for the North Carolina Senate and the North Carolina House

of Repreaentatives;

2. Declare that Article U, Section 3 (3) and Article II, Section 5 (3) of the

North Carolina Constitution are in viotation of the greater rights secured by Article

r I, Sections 3, 19 and 35 of the North Carolina Constihltion; Section 5 of the Voting

Rights Act of 1965, as amended; the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of

r the United States and 42 U.S.C. S1983;

;l g. Declare that the apportionment and redistricting of the North Carolina
t

tr

i Senate and North Carolina House of Representatives as enacted by the North
,l

I Carolina General Assembly in 1981 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 
i

:i Utn Amendment to the United States Constitution and the North Carolina Consti-
l.
ll
ll

ll hrtion;

;i 4. Order into effect a court devised plan for the North Carolina Senate and 
i

ll trr" North Carolina House of Representatives which provides single-member districtA

I statewide and substantial equality of population among the districts;



-a

-14-

S. Grant plaintiffs their tocable costs of this action, necessary expenseg

of the litigation, and reasonable attoraeyre fees; and,

6. Grant plaintiffs such other and further relief as the Court deems just

and equitable. 
,.L

This tne l5Y daY of November , 1981'

tr7.il*,u"a*,-
ffitot
BURKE, DONALDSON, HOLSHOUSER t KENERLY

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
309 North Main Street
Salisbury, North Carolina 28L44
Telephone: #704-63?-1500

Robert N. Hunter, Jr.
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Post Office Box 3245

201 l{est Market Street
Greensboro, North Carolina
Telephone: #919-373-0934

2? 402

North Carolina - Iredell CountY

Mason McCullough, being first duly aworn, deposes and says: That he

is a Plhintiff ill the above-entitled action; that he has read the foregoing Compleint

and knows the contents thereof and that the same is true to the best of his know-

ledge, except as to those matters and things therein stated upon information and

beUef , and as to those he believes them to be true '

Mason McCullough, Affiant

Sworn to and subscribed before me

this the daY of November,
1981.

NOTARY PUBLIC

My Comrnission ExPires: