Letter from Primus to Cox RE Permission to serve as Amicus Curiae

    o® o® 
REDISTRICTING U.S.A. 

136 Gardner Avenue 

New London, CT 06320-4348 

(860) 444-6441 
FAX (860) 444-0590 

Norman S. Primus 

November 5, 1999 

Todd A. Cox, Esq. 
NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund 
14415 “TI” Street NW, 10th Floor 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

RE: Cromartie, et. al. v. James B. Hunt, Jr, et. al. USDC #96CV104-BO 

Dear Sir: 

It is my desire to serve the Eastern Division United States District Court as Amicus Curiae 
in the above matter. 

I write you to ask for your consent so that I may be granted the right to file a brief and 

participate in oral arguments. 

In light of the May 15th decision by the Supreme Court and the need for the parties to 
return to the USDC it is clear that a new approach must be taken to bring a closure to the endless 

process in which the parties and the Court finds themselves. It is my belief that I can bring closure 

to this case and do it with full consideration of all parties and segments of the State. For your 

edification I am including some material which you may not know or recall. 

In August 1993, I served Plaintiffs in Vigo v. Vigo, 834 F. Supp. 1083. My expert 
testimony resulted in a decision for the Plaintiffs. 

In December 1993, the County Seat of Vigo County, Terre Haute, Indiana, defendants in 

a similar lawsuit filed by the same Plaintiffs, engaged me to conduct the districting of the City for 
the Council members. Plaintiffs agreed to accept any plan I designated as being the best plan to 
use for subsequent elections. On February 3, 1994, the City Council enacted the plan I presented 
and the following day the Plaintiffs announced their intention to file a Motion to Dismiss with the 
United States District Court in Terre Haute.  



  

I should like to point out that I did not draw the districting plans personally. They were 

drawn by non-partisan individuals. The districting plans were drawn under my supervision and 
guidelines. 

It is my hope to utilize my experience and knowledge for the good of the people of North 

Carolina. I am certain that my participation can bring about a meritorious solution which will 

serve the constituents and electorate equally well and bring credit to those who assist in this 

endeavor. 

I trust that you will answer my request favorably. 

There is enclosed with this request, a duplicate copy for your response together with a 

self-addressed stamped envelope for your use. 

Yours truly, ) 

(Pa Pg : \ Lv vi [{ & L111 
( L 
\ 

Norman S. Primus 

NSP:me 

Consent for Norman S. Primus, Consultant, Redistricting U.S.A. 
to submit a brief and to participate in oral arguments is hereby 

Granted [OI Denied [J 

Date: By : 

Title: 

 



  

w - 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

EASTERN DIVISION 

CIVIL NO. 4:96CV104-BO (3) 

  

  

MARTIN CROMARTIE, et. al, ) 

) 
Plaintiffs, ) 

) 
V. ) FOR LEAVE TO FILE A BRIEF AND 

) PARTICIPATE IN ORAL ARGUMENTS 

) AS AN AMICUS CURIAE 

JAMES B. HUNT, JR., in his ) 

official capacity as Governor of the ) 

State of North Carolina, et al, ) 

Defendants. ) 

) 
and ) 

) 
ALFRED SMALLWOOD, et al., ) 

Defendant-Intervenors ) 

) 

PURPOSE(S) OF MOTION 

To bring an end to the prolonged legislative and judicial stalemate over the congressional 

districting of the State of North Carolina. 

To shed light on the underlying problem and to provide an understanding of the manner in 

which the problem can be solved. Solved for the matter before this Court, and, eliminating the 

need for judicial review of districting in this State and in every other State in the United States for 

the future. 

 



wv - 

This matter has been before this District Court since March 12, 1992. A period of seven 

years, and, has thrice been to the Supreme Court of the United States. On November 1, 1999, 

this panel will once again hear arguments in this matter and at that time it will be back at square 

one. It will read and hear the same arguments that have been presented for seven years with, 

perhaps, a different slant but the underlying problem will not be forthcoming and therefore the 

final solution will not be forthcoming. 

I have a two fold purpose and goal in seeking a friend of the court status. The first is to 

provide the Court with an insight into those methods which inhibits the creation of districting 

plans that are acceptable, constitutional and justiciable. By so doing, the Court and Defendants 

will recognize the method of districting that will bring an end to prolonged legal intervention in 

the future districting of the State. One that will be universally accepted by incumbents and the 

electorate because it will best serve the incumbents and electorate. With this goal achieved the 

next election will be secured. 

The second goal is to provide all future elections with the same sound method of 

districting. To accomplish this task it will be necessary to uncover those guidelines previously 

used by the General Assembly in its failed attempts to create districting plans. The inept 

guidelines used in past redistricting efforts will be ferreted out of existing state laws. In addition 

we will determine guidelines absent from existing law. In ferreting out these flaws in the law and 

manner of districting we should expect a prescribed manner of districting to evolve which will 

2  



  

" - 

present a specific, exact and fully understood manner of districting. These would then be enacted 

by the General Assembly of the State so that all future acts of districting will have creditability at 

law and will provide a justiciable basis for any and all future courts to rely upon. 

FOR YOUR INFORMATION 

On May 12, 1998, I submitted a Pro Se Motion in this matter. I sought to bring to your 

panel the insight stated above. An insight which had not been provided to you up to that time. 

An insight which you need if you are to get to the bottom of North Carolina’s problem, or, if you 

are to get on top of the districting problem. 

On June 22nd the court issued an ORDER denying my MOTION. 

Had the Court heard me at that time I am certain there would be no need to convene this 

session of the Court. I assure the Court that districting is a simple clerical process. It is not easy 

but it is...simple. The mishandling of this simple process over the many years of our Republic has 

taken a simple clerical process and converted it into an intangible smoke screen which will go on 

in perpetuity unless you take a stand here and now to end this charade. 

 



ww w 

This Motion is submitted by: 

  

Norman S. Primus, 136 Gardner Avenue, New London, CT. 06320-4548. 

Reteigh-Address—426-VanrThomas Prive Rateigh NE—27615 

A retired Controller, Auditor and Corporate Officer. 

For the past twenty five years I have been a citizen activist. 

Specialized in districting and election law. 

Created an open method of districting which has been utilized in a number 

of counties, cities and school boards. 

Served as consultant and expert witness with favorable results. 

Most active in New Jersey and Indiana. Have also pursued districting matters 

from California to New York. 

 



w -» 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1748, Norman S. Primus, under penalty of perjury, 

  

hereby declares that: 

1. Iam a citizen activist who has worked for twenty-five years endeavoring to establish a 

democratic method of districting our legislatures and councils. 

2. Ihave created a method of districting which eliminates gerrymandering and provides 

districting plans which are drawn in the best interest of the electorate and in the best interest of 

incumbents at the same time. 

3 Ihave served as a witness in districting cases and as a consultant for resolving 

districting cases with notable success. 

4. Tam certain that, upon presenting my knowledge of districting and election laws to 

you, this Panel will provide for the ultimate solution of districting for our Judicial System, our 

Constitution and for the People of our Nation. I am certain that gerrymandering will no longer 

plague North Carolina if you but listen. 

I declare under penalty that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 19th day of 

f 

October, 1999. \ ~ 4 

WL Pipe pros   

NORMAN S. PRIMUS 

 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE   

I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that I have caused copies of the foregoing Motion for 

Leave to File a Brief and Participate in Oral Arguments as an Amicus Curiae to be served upon 

counsel of record for Plaintiffs, Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors by sending two (2) copies 

of same via first class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to the address and counsel shown below, the 

fst 7 * 

(_Norman S. Primus 

19th day of October , 1998. 

  

Robinson O. Everett 

Everett & Everett 

P.O. Box 586 

Durham, NC 27702-0586 

Michael F. Easley 

Attorney General 

Department of Justice 

P.O. Box 629 

Raleigh, NC 27602-0629 

Adam Stein 

312 W. Franklin Street Suite 2 

Chapel Hill, NC 27516