Appellees' Motion to Expedite Schedule for Appeal

    In the 

Supreme Court of the United States 
October Term, 1999 

  

JAMES B. HUNT, JR., in his official capacity as 

Governor of the State of North Carolina, ef al, 

Appellants, 

v. 

MARTIN CROMARTIE, et al, 
Appellees. 

  

APPELLEES’ MOTION TO EXPEDITE SCHEDULE FOR APPEAL 

  

To the Honorable William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States and Circuit 

Justice for the Fourth Circuit: 

Appellees respectfully move this Honorable Court to enter an Order that will expedite any 

appeal of this case by appellants by prescribing an accellerated schedule for the filing of the 

Jurisdictional Statement by Appellants, any Motion to Affirm or Motion to Dismiss by 

Appellees, and any Reply Brief by Appellants. 

Appellees further move that the Order provide that the Jurisdictional Statement be filed 

with the court no later than April 10, 2000; that any Motion to Affirm or Motion to Dismiss be 

filed by Appellees no later than April 17, 2000; and that any Reply Brief be filed no later than 

20d St:l1 00. OZ Jel $9.991.610: XE 117 BIJ34S 99 ON 

 



  

2 

April 24, 2000; and further provide that any party who so chooses may initially file a pleading by 

the required date in ten copies in typewritten form to be replaced forthwith by forty printed 

copies. 

In support of this motion Appellees respectfully show the following: 

1) Appellants filed their Notice of Appeal with respect to an Order and Opinion that were 

entered on March 7, 2000 by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North 

Carolina. 

2) The Opinion held unconstitutional the Congressional Redistricting Plan that the North 

Carolina General Assembly had enacted on March 31, 1997 and the Order enjoined the use of 

that plan in any subsequent primaries and elections. 

3) After Appellants had filed their Notice of Appeal on March 9, 2000, they moved the 

District Court on Friday, March 10, 2000 to grant a stay; and after the denial of that stay on 

March 13, 2000, Appellants applied to this Court for a stay, which was granted on March 16, 

2000. 

4) Because North Carolina’s primaries and elections are involved, it is important that this 

Court resolve as quickly as possible any constitutional issues that Appellants raise on appeal in 

view of the inevitable uncertainty that accompanies the present stay. 

5) The current appeal by Appellants to this Court is the fourth appeal since 1992 to raise 

the issue of the constitutionality of a North Carolina congressional redistricting plan; and 

therefore, the parties to this litigation are well aware of the legal issues which may arise and are 

also familiar with this Court's precedents concerning such issues. 

6) Because Appellants are already familiar with any relevant legal issues and have 

20d Sr:¢1 00, OC Jew $9.991.676: Xe 117 HI34E 959 ON 

 



  

  

3 

previously briefed these issues in their Application for Emergency Relief, they can readily 

prepare a Jurisdictional Statement and file it in this Court by April 10, 2000. Likewise, 

Appellees, who intend to file a Motion to Affirm or Dismiss, can reasonably do so within seven 

days from the filing of the Jurisdictional Statement. For the appellants to file a Reply Brief, if 

they choose, should also take no more than a week. Meeting these time requirements will be 

simplified if the parties are allowed to file their various pleadings in ten typewritten copies which 

shall be promptly replaced thereafter with forty printed copies. 

7) From the Application for Emergency Stay which Appellants have made, it appears that 

the issues for any appeal of the judgment below have already been set forth by Appellants in 

some detail in that Application; and this circumstance should also facilitate greatly the readiness 

with which Appellants can prepare their Jurisdictional Statement. 

8) If the expedited schedule proposed by Appellees in this matter or a schedule akin 

thereto is followed, the Court will have more opportunity to consider in Conference before the 

end of the 1999 Term what disposition it should make of any Appeal, especially whether the 

judgment below should be summarily affirmed. 

9) Because the “analytically distinct” claim for racial gerrymandering was first 

recognized by this Court in connection with an unconstitutional 1992 North Carolina redistricting 

plan that was used for three elections, it seems especially important that the Court decide as 

rapidly as possible whether the General Assembly has imposed upon the voters of the North 

Carolina another unconstitutional racially gerrymandered redistricting plan, the use of which 

would violate the Fourteenth Amendment. 

10) Pending appeal, this Court has granted a stay of the injunction entered by the District 

vl d Sy: C 00 OC Jel £9.99T4616: Xe LI RHI E48 94 

 



  

4 

Court upon remand. Therefore in order to prevent the irreparable injury to North Carolina’s 

voters that would result from conducting still another Congressional election under an 

unconstitutional plan, the need exists for the Court to decide this appeal as quickly as possible, 

and the need 1s especially great to determine during this term whether full briefing and oral 

argument will be necessary. 

11) The judgment appealed from was entered by the Court below upon remand by this 

Court from its earlier decision, and it is important to the Appellees and other North Carolina 

voters that this Court decide as quickly as possible whether on remand the court below correctly 

followed and obeyed this Court’s mandate in conducting the extensive trial that took place on 

November 29 through December 1, 1999. 

12) In light of the nature of the issues which Appellants’ Application for Emergency 

Relief indicates that they intend to raise on their appeal, it appears probable that those issues can 

be readily resolved on motion by Appellees for Summary Affirmance before the end of the 1999 

Term if the Jurisdictional Statement is presented to the Court on an expedited schedule. 

Wherefore Appellants respectfully pray that an expedited schedule be ordered for this 

appeal on such terms and conditions as this Court may prescribe. 

SO °d Sy:¢l 00. OZ Jel 9.991.616: XE 117 WilE4% ad ON 

 



5 

Respectfully submitted this the 20" day of March, 2000 

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, P.A. 

by: 
  

Martin B. McGee 

State Bar No.: 22198 

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs 

P.O. Box 810 
Concord, NC 28026-0810 
Telephone: (704)-782-1173 

  

Douglas E. 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 
Facsimile: (713) 655-8701 

1171 B81 3d48 99 IN  



  

  

6 

Seth A. Neyhart / 
Wisconsin State Bar No. 1035049 

N7983 Town Hall Road 

Eldorado, WI 54932 

Telephone: (920) 872-2643 

  

Robert Popper 
Law Office of Neil Brickman 

630 3™ Ave., 21% Floor 
New York, NY 10017 

£0°d Sp:Z1 00. OC JEW $9.9912616: <k 117 WIJ3d4S 9d IN 

 



  

  

> 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that I have this day served the foregoing Appellees’ Motion to Expedite Schedule for Appeal by hand delivery to the following addresses: 

Tiare Smiley 
North Carolina Department of Justice 
P.O. Box 629 

Raleigh, NC 27602 

Mr. Adam Stein 

Ferguson, Stein Wallas, Adkins, Gresham, Sumter, P.A. 
312 W. Franklin St. 

Chapel Hill, NC 27516 

This the 20" day of March, 2000. 

Hl 
Robinson O. Everett 

Attorney for the Plaintiffs 

    

90d. SRT Oh. 0 £9LIITLETE: XE 117 WIJ3dS 99 IN