Gingles v. Edmisten and Pugh v. Hunt Answer to Supplemental Complaint of Plaintiffs Alan v. Pugh; Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time; Order; Answer to Supplemental Complaint of Plaintiffs Alan v. Pugh

    .*, 7A:,,1!' i
t
t

)(EROX JOB DESCRIPTION

ANumber of CoPies

Date Needed

,3 j.ze of PaPer

Scecial Instrrrctions

I
I
I



;?

MAY 25€J
J. RtcH LEoNARD, fr_enx
u. s. DtsrRrcr c0uRt

E. DJSI^ NO. CAR

FILED
ll

il

il

ii
I

li

li

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OP NORTH CAROLINA

RAIEIGH DTVISION

RALPH GINGLES, €t al.,
Plaintiffs,

V.

RUTUS EDIITSTEN,

' *t*

AIAN V. PUGII, Et

et a1.,
Defendants

&I. ,
Plaintiffs,

No. 81-803-CIv-5

No. 8I-1056-CIV-5v.

JAI,IES B. HI,}IT , JR. , EtC . , €t AI . ,
Defendants.

ANS:{ER TO SUPPLEIIIENTAL COT{PLAINT OF PI^AINTIPT'S

FIRST DEFENSE

The defenses of the answer to the original complaint as

filed are realleged and incorporated by reference herein as if

fully set out belo'.v.

SECOIID DEFENSE

The Supplemental Complaint fails to state a claim uPon

which relief can be granted.

THIRD DEFENSE

The Defendants in the above-captioned action answer the

allegations contained in the Complaint, aB follows:

1. Defendants reallege their ans$rers to Paragraphs I

through 31 in response to tlre allegations of Paragraph {8.

2. Defendants ad.mit the allegations of Paragraphs 49 and

50 insofar as ttrey describe theformer content of N.C.G.S. 120-I

and L2O-2, but are wittrout sufficient knowledge to understand

the Plaintiffrs use of the term "institutionalizes' so as to

furttrer ad.mit or deny the allegation.

3. Defendants ad.mit tfte allegations of Paragraphs 51, 52,

53 and 54.

4. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 55.

5. Defendante reallege their answers to Paragraphs I

through 31 and {9 and 50 in response to ttre allegations of

Paragraph 56.

WucII, et aI. 81-1056-crv-5

I



"l 
. ;

-2-

5. Defendants deny ttre allegations of Paragraph 57.

7. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 58 and are

witlrqut suff icient krpwledge to understand ttre Plalntif f I s use

of the terms 'gross malapportionment' so as to further admit or

deny the allegation.
8. Defendants reallege their answers to Paragraphs I

through 31 and 49 and 50 in response to the allegations of

Paragraph 59.

' 9. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 60.

10. Defendants reallege their answers to Paragraphs I

through 31 and {9 and 50 in response to the allegations of

Paragraph 61.

11. Defendants aamit that sone single member districts were

created during the February 9, 1982 Second Extra Session. De-

fendants deny the remaining portions of Paragraph 62.

L2. Def endants reallege their ans\rrers to Paragraphs 1

through 31 and 49 and 50 in response to the allegations of

Paragraph 63.

13. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 64.

14. Defendants reallege their answers to Paragraphs I

through 31 and 49 and 50 in response to the allegations of

Paragraph 65.

15. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraphs 55 and

67.

16. Defendants admit that the actions of the legislature

are intended to establish "rational state policy. " Defendants

deny the remaining allegations.
L7. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 69 excePt

that they admit, upon information and belief, the Plaintiffre

recltal of trrcpulation and relative deviations of Sampson, B1aden

and some townships of Pender County.

18. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 70.

19. Defendants reallege their answers to the Plaintiff's

original complaint in responae to Paragraph 7I.



-3-

FouRrH DEFENSE 
I

l

only forty (40) of North Carollna rB one hundred (100) 
.:

counties are subject to the preclearance reguirements of Section

5 of the Voting Rights Act.

PITTH DEFENSE

The legislature engaged in a good faith effort to achieve

? precise mathematical apportionment. The deviations in the

1981 Apportionment of the General Assembly were unavoidable and

are justified by rational state policies.

SIXTH DEFENSE

Portions of the Plaintiffs' original complaint and supple-

mental complaint are so vague and ambiguous that Defendants

cannot reasonably frame a resPonsive pleading. In particular,

the following Paragraphs should be amended by a IIDre definite

statement: 2L, 22,30, 33, 35, 36, 49,50, 58, 52,68 and 59.

SE'VENTH DEFENSE

The Plaintiffs' complaint as supplemented does not reflect

the latest enactments of ttre General Asserrbly, and consequently

any alLegations pertaining to superseded law are immaterial and

impertinent and should be stricken from the original complaint

and the complaint as supplemented.

I{IIEREFpRE, Defendants having fully answered each and every

allegation contained in the Plaintiffsr Complaint, and having

set forth their defensesr PraY that this Court deny the relief

requested and dismiss the Complaint and the Supplemental

Complaint with prejudice.

l)



Respectfully eubmitted, thiE rll" Zf&by of /f/*r,

RT'PUS L.
Attorney

ED!{ISTEN
General

-4-

ra1

N. C. Departrnent of
Post Office bx 629

Office
Justice

Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Telephone: (919) 733-3377

Norma
Tiare

General

r
Attorney General

Jerris Leonard
Kathleen Heenan
Jerris Leonard & Associates, P.C
900 17th Street, N. W.
Suite 1020
Washington, D. C. 20006
Telephone: (2021 872-1095

Attorneys for Defendants

Attorney
r LegaI Affai
rney Generalrs

HarrelI
iley



-5-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing

ANSWER TO SUPPLEI{EIITAL @]TPLAMT OF PIAINTIFES upon plaintlffs'

Attorneys by placing a copy of same in the United States Post

Office, postage prepaid, addressed to:

J. Levorme Charnbers
Leslie Winner
Chambers, Ferguson, Watt, I{allas,

Adkins & Fuller, P.A.
95I Souttr Independence Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

Jack Greenberg
Jannes H. Nabrit, III
Lani Guinier
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019

Arthur J. Donaldson
Burke, Donaldson, Holshouser, & Kenerly
309 North Main Street
Salisbury, North Carolina 28L44

RDbert N. Hunter, Jr.
Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 3245
201 West Market Street
Greensboro, North Carolina 27402

i

i
I
I

I

rhis Lne Zs&day of & , 1982.

General

lt



ron 
rilrl":" yHI:D^:TlIIi_DrsrRrcr couRrTHE EASTERN Drsrnrcr-oi -lsoi,i,

RAtETGH DTVTSTON

FITED
cARoLrNAlvlAy 2Olg8z

J. RrcH rebNRRo, cr_eix
u. s. DrsrRrcr couni'

E DJS.T. NO. CAR.

No. 81-803-Crv-5

RALPIi cf NGLES, et al. ,plaintiffs,

v.
RUFUS EDMfSTENT €t af .,

Defendants
****

ALAN V. puchr €t af .,
Plaintiffs,

v.
JAMES B. HUNT, JR.,

No. 81-106G-CrV-5

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

etc. r €t tsl.,
Defendants -

DEFENDANTS ' MgTrgry FOR EXrENsroN oFrrME ro REspoI? ro puiir-i;r,arNrrFFs,
#3$r3I Ipl.,SpTIIllrNA-mr- il"o, AcrroN;A.ofiii$

NOI{ COME, the Defendants in the above_entitled action
and move the court for an extension of tirne in which to respondtO PUgh PJ-AiNtiffS, MOTTON FOR DETERMTNATION THAT ACTTON MAY BEMArI'rrArNED A.9 A .LASS ACTToN to a date twenty days fol.0wingreceipt by Defendants of the pugh plaintiffs r response to

DEFENDANTS' FTRST SET OF TNTERROGATORTES AND REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTT,N (pucH) on the ground that Defendants, wi.thout therequested information, are unable to fu,l.y determine rvhethercertificatlon of the class reguested by pugh plaintiffs isappropriate. plaintiffs consent hereto.

This the If day of May, 19g2.

RUFUS L. EDMTSTEN
ATTORNEY GENERAL

y Attorney
r Legal AffairsAttorney General,s OfficeN.c. Department of J;;ti;"

!":t Office Box 629Raleigh r North- caiof i.na 27 602relephone : (eltt- t si:izli'



l' t 'l. ;
-2-

CERTTTTCAIE OF SERVTCE

hereby certify tlrat r have thie day served ttfe fogegoiirg
motion for extension of tiae and propoeed order upon ]rr.rrrarffs r-1attorneys by placing a copy of, sa'e in the United St{tes post
Off,icer postage prepaid, addresged to, I

.r. Levonne Chambers
Les1ie tlinner
Chambers, Ferguson, llatt, WaIIas,
^_Adkins e rulter,'p.;. -'
951 South fndepe"i""." -Boulevard
charlotte, rorltr cai"riii'zezoz
.7ack Greenberg
.Iames M. Nabrittr IrrLani Guinier
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New york lOOL9

Arthur J. Donaldson
Burke, poniifson, Holshouser, e xenerJy309.North Main StreetSalisbury, I{orth Carolina
Robert N. Hunter, .fr.Attorney at Lawpost Office Box 32115201 l{est Market Street
Greensboro, North CaroLina

This ttre cl,5- day of May, 19g2.

28L44

27 402

1982.

*l



t;
I

II{ THE UNTTED STATES DISTRTCT COURTPOR T}IE EASTERN DTSTRTCT Oi-NONTU CAROLTNARALEIGH DTVISION
.,: ..:

RALPIi Gf IJGLES r €t al. , )Plaintiffs )

v.) ) uo. Bt_803_crv_5
RUFUS EDII{ISTEN, €t d1., iDefendants )

***

- ALAN V. PUGH, et a1., iplaintiffs, 
)

v. )
)

JAMES B. HUNT, JR., etc., €t dl., iDefendants. )

Iito. 81-1065_crv_5

ORDER

FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOIVN, Defendants ln the above-entitled
iaction are hereby granted an extension of time in whlch to

respond to Pugh Plaintiffs' I{oTroN FoR DETERMTNATToN THAT AcrroN
MAv BE MATNTATNED AS A CLASS ACTT,N to a date twenty days fo,l0wingreceipt by Defendants of the frgr, plaintiffs, response to
DEFENDANTS t FTRST SET OP INTERROGATORTES AND REQUE-qTS TO PRODUCE
(PUGH) .

This the _ day of May, tgg2.

UNITED STATES DTSTRTCT COURTEASTERN DTSTRICT Oi HONri-IONOT,TOUO



ii
I

li

I

FILED
IN THE U}IITED STATES.bISTRICT COURT

FoR rHE EASTERN 
3l:IR'liT_3loilo*rH 

CARoLTNA

J. RtcH LEoNARD, dr-enx
u. s. DtsrRrcr c0unt

E D/sr. nq cdaRALPH GINGLES, €t aT.,
Plaintiffs,

V.

RUT'US ED:TTS3EN,

' ttt

AIAN V. PUGII, et

et a1.,
Defendants

aI .,
Plaintiffs,

No. 81-803{fV-5

No. 81-1056-CIv-5V.

JAITIES B. Bmm , JR. , etc . , €t aI . ,
Defendants.

ANS:{ER TO SUP?LE!,1ENTJ$ COITPLAINT OF PI.AINTIFFS

FIRST DEFENSE

The definses of the answer to the original complaint as

filed are realleged and incorporated by reference herein as if
fully set out belolv.

SECOTID DEFENSE

The Supplemental Complaint fails to state a claim uPon

which relief can be granted.

THIRD DEPENSE

The Defendants in the above-captioned action answer the

allegations contained ln the Complaint, aa follrys:
l. Defendants reallege their answers to Paragraphs I

through 31 in response to ttre allegations of Paragraph 48.

2. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraphs 49 and

50 insofar as they describe ttreformer content of N.C.G.S. 120-1

and L2O-2, but are without sufficient knowledge to understand

the Plaintiffts use of the term "institutionalizes' so as to

furtlrer admit or deny the allegation.

3. Defendants admit t[e allegations of Paragraphs 51, 52,

53 and 54.

4. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 55.

5.. Defendants reallege their answers to Paragraphs 1

ttrrough 3l and rl9 and 50 in response to the allegations of

Paragraph 56.



-2-

5. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 37.

7. Defendants deny the allegratlons of Paragraph 58 and are

witlrcut suff Lcient twledge to understand tJte Plaintif f I s use

of the terms 'gross nalapportiorment' so as to furtlrer admit or

deny the allegation.
8. Defendants reallege their answers to Paragraphs I

through 31 and tl9 and 50 in response to the allegations of

Paragraph 59.
' 9. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 60.

10. Defendants reallege their ansyrers to Paragraphs 1

through 31 and 49 and 50 in response to the allegations of

Paragraph 51.

11. Defendants Eanit that some single member districts were

created during the February 9, 1982 Second Extra Session. De-

; fendants deny the remaining trnrtions of Paragraph 52.

L2. Defendants reallege their ansuers to Paragraphs I
through 31 and 49 and 50 in response to the allegations of

Paragraph 63.

13. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 64.

14. Defendants reallege their answers to ParagEal:hs I
through 31 and 49 and 50 in response to the allegations of

Paragraph 55.

15. DefendantE admit the allegations of Paragraphs 66 and

67.

15. Defendants admit that the actions of the legislature
are intended to establish "rational state policy. " Defendants

deny the remaining allegation8.

L7. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 69 except

that they adrnit, upon information and belief, the Plaintiff re

recltal of populatlon and relative deviations of Sampson, Bladen

and gome townships of Pender County.

18. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 70.

19. Defendants reallege their answers to the Plaintiffrs
original complaint in responae to Paragraph 7L.

l)



-3-

FOURTII DEFENSE

Only forty (40) of North Carollna's one hundred (f001 
..

counties are subject to the preelearance requirements of Sectio

5 of the Voting Rights Act.

PITTH DEFENSE

The legislature engaged in a good faith effort to achieve

a precise mathematical apportionment. The deviations in the

1981 Apportionment of the General Asserubly rrere unavoidable and

are justified by rational state policies.
SI}MH DEFENSE

Portions of the Plaintiffs I original complaint and supple-

mental eomplaint are-so vague and ambiguous that Defendants

cannot reasonably frame a resPonsive pleading. In particular,

the following Paragraphs should be amended by a rpre definite

statement: 2Lr 22r 30, 33, 35, 36, 49r 50, 58, 621 68 and 69.

SE1IENTH DEFENSE

The Plaintiffsr complaint as supplemented does not reflect

the latest enactments of the General Assembly, and consequently

any allegations pertaining to superseded law are immaterial and

impertinent and should be stricken from the original complaint

and the complaint as supplemented.

WHEREFORE, Defendants having fully answered each and every

allegation contained in the Plaintiffst Complaint, and having

set forttr their defenses, Pray that this Court deny the relief

requested and dismiss ttre Comptaint and the Supplemental

Complaint with prejudice.

I

I

a)



lt

lt

tl

Ir

Reapectfully subml.tted, this rn" Zf&by of 
ry1982.

Post Office Box 629
Ra1eigh, Nortlr Carolina 27602
Telephone: (919) 733-3377

-4-

Nonna
Tiare

General

Attorney General

Jerris Leonard
Kathleen Heenan
Jerris Leonard & Associates, P.C.
900 17th Street, N. Vl.
Suite 1020
Washington, D. C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 872-L095

Attorneys for Defendants

y Attorney
Legal Affai'rs

n/
oc Ls



-5-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing

ANSIVER TO SUPPIJBUEI{TAL @MPLAMT OF PLAINTIFFS upon Plaintif f s'

Attorneys by placing a copy of s.rme in the United States Post

Office, postage prepaid, addressed to:
J. Levonne Chambers
Leslie Winner
Charubers, Ferguson, lrlatt, I{al1as,

Adkins & Fuller, P.A.
951 Souttr fndependence Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

Jack Greenberg
Jame€ H. Nabrit, III
Lani Guinier
10 Columbus Cire1e
New York, New York 10019

Arthur J. Donaldson
Burke, Donaldson, Holshouser, & Kenerly
309 North Main Street
Salisbury, North Carolina 28L44

RDbert N. Hunter, Jr.
Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 3245
201 West Market Streef
Greensboro, North Carolina 27402

rhis trre Zs&day of 4 , L982.

Attorney General



11 
-t

I

roarilrl":" 3I*3_TD^ : IIIIS_Dr srRr cr couRrrHE EAsrsRN oririiEr-6i'il6i,i,
RALETGH DTVTSTON

FILED
cARoLTNA MAy ZO €Bz

J. RrcH te,oNnRo, cr-pix
u. s. DtsTRtCr counr-

E DJqL Nq CA&

No. 8t-BO3-Crv-s
RUFUS

GfNGLES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

v.
EDI{rSTEN, et dl.,

Defendants
****

ALAN V. puchr €t al.,
plaintiffs,

v.
JAITES B. HUNT, JR., etc.r €t dI.,

Defendants.

No. B1-1O6G-CrV-5

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)
)
)
)
)
)

DEFENDANTS ' u-gTrgN FOR EXTENSToN oFrruE ro REspoIp ro iu&TrArNrrFFs,
#?grll IgL.:pT:IIrNAffir' i*, AcrroN.o3;i'3;

NOI, eoirr', the Defendants in the above_entitled actionand move the court for an extension of tirne in which to respondto Puqh Plaintiffs' I{oTroN FoR DETERMTNATT.N TIIAT AcrroN uAy BEMAT^ITATNED A.9 A cr.Ass ACTToN to a date twenty days foll0wingreceipt by Defendants of the pugh plaintiffs, response to
DEPENDAN?S I FTRST SET OF TNTERROGATORTES AND REQUESTS FORPRODUCIfON (PUGH) on the ground that Defendants, without thereguested informationr oE€ unable to ful,y determi.ne whethercertification of the class reguested by pugh plaintiffs i.sappropriate. plai.ntiffs consent hereto.

This the JS- day of May, 1982.

RUFUS L. EDMTSTEN
ATTORNEY GENERAT

y_ Attorney
r Legal AffairsAttorney -General, 

i -of fice
I.C.. Department of J;;;i;"
!":t.Office Box 629Raleighr North_Carofina 22602relephone: (e1rt-iii:j:ii



-2-

CERTTFTCATE OF SERVTCE

r hereby certify that r have this day served the foregoi.irgmotion for extension of tirne and proposed order upon praintirr";
attorneys by placing a eopy of same in the united states post
Officer postage prrepaj.d, addressed to:

J. Levonne Chambers
Les1ie glinner
Chambers, Ferguson, Watt, I{allas,Adkins c fuller,'p.A.--'
951 South rndepeni";;; BoulevardCharlotte, rorltr C"r"ii"I Zg2O2

Jack Greenberg
James I{. Nabritt, IrfLani Guinier
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New york 10019

Arthur J. Donaldson
Burke, Donaldson, golshous
309 Norah--;;i" street 

ier, & Kenerly
Salisbury, t{orth ciiofina 2gt44
Robert N. Hunter, Jr.Attorney at Lawpost Office Box 3245201 It'est Market StreetGreensboro, North Caiofina

This ttre J,f day of May, LgB2.

27 402



,f
rIiI THE UNTTED STATES DTSTRTCT COURTpoR rHE EASTERN 

Bi;fr.ii$;li;ilAi""IiI6rrro

RALPIi GTIJGLES r €t &1. ,
Plaintiffs

v.
RUFUS EDUfSTEN, et a1.,

Defendants
***

AI"AN V. PUGH, et Bl. ,
Plaintiffs,

v.
,JAII{ES B. IIUNT, JR., etc., et al.

Defendants.

No. 81-BO3-crV-5

riro. 8L-1006_crv_s

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

,,
)

onorn

FOR GOOD. CAUSE SHOifN, Defendants in the above-entitled
action .r. r,.-lby granted an extension of time in whi.ch tores,ond to Pugh Plaintiffs' !{oTroN FoR DETERMTNATT.N THAT AcrroN
MAy BE UATNTATNED AS A CLASS ACTT.N to a date twenty days fol10wingreceipt by Defendants of the Fuqh plaintiffs, response to
DEFENDANTS' FTRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUE.STS TO PRODUCE
(PUGH) .

This the day of May, lgg2.

,l

SIITED SrArEs DrsrRrcr couRrEASTERN DrsTRrcr oi-r,lonii -canolrNA



\.

IN THE U}IITED STATES DISTRIC? COURT
FOR THE E"ASTERN DISTRICT OP NORTH CAROLINA

RATEIGH DryISION

RALPH GINGIES, et Ef..r
Plaintiffs,

V.

RUFUS ED.'!ISTEN, et al. ,
Defendants

iat

V. PUGII, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

V.

JAI'IES B. HmfT, JR. , etc. e €t 81 . r
Defendants.

AIAN

ANS:{ER TO SUPPLEMENTAL COI{PLAINT OF PI.AINTIFFS
--Tmnfv. PUdI; et aI. 8l-I055-crv-5

FIRST DEFENSE

The definses of the answer to the original complaint as

filed are.realleged and incorporated by reference herein as if

fully set out belolv.

SECOITD DETENSE

The Supplemental Complaint fails to state a claim uPon

which relief can be granted.

THIRD DEFENSE

The Defendants in the above-captioned action answer the

allegations eontained in the Complaint, as follms:

1. Defendants reallege their answers to Paragraphs I

through 31 in restrrcnse to the allegati.ons of Paragraph tl8.

2. Defendants admit the allegations of ParagraPhs 49 and

50 insofar as they describe ttre former content of N.C.G.S. 120-1

and L2O-2, but are without sufficient knowledge to understand

the Plaintiffrs use of the term "institutionalizes' so as to

further admit or deny the allegation.

3. Defendants admit tle allegations of Paragraphs 51, 52,

53 and 54.

4. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 55.

5. Defendants reallege their answers to Paragraphs 1

ttrrough 3l and {9 and 50 in response to t}re allegations of

Paragraph 56.

FILED
l,lAY 2 5 i9

J. RICH LEONARD,
U. S. DISTRICT C

E DIST. Nq

No. 81-803-clv-5

No. 81-1056-CIv-5

LERK
URI



il

it

ti

-2-

6. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 57.

7. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 58 and are

witho.ut guff icient krculedge to understand tlre Plal,ntif f I s use

of the tems 'gross nalapportionsrent" so as to furtlter admit or

deny the allegation.
8. Defendants reallege their answers to Paragraphs 1

through 31 and 49 and 50 in response to the allegations of

Paragraph 59.
- 9. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 50.

10. Defendants reallege tlreir answers to Paragraphs I
through 31 and 49 and 50 in response to the allegations of

Paragraph 61.

11. Defendants Ed,rnit that some single member districts were

created during the February 9, 1982 Second Extra Session. De-

fendants deny the remaining portions of Paragraph 62.

L2. Defendants reallege their ansuers to Paragraphs 1

through 31 and 49 and 50 in response to the allegations of

Paragraph 63.

13. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 64.

14. Defendants reallege their anstrers to Paragraphs I
through 31 and 49 and 50 in response to the allegations of

Paragraph 55.

15. Defendants adnr:it the allegations of Paragraphs 56 and

67.

15. Defendants admit that the actions of the legislature
are intended to establish "rational atate policy. " Defend,ants

deny the remaining allegations.
L7. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 59 except

that they adrnit, upon information and belief, the Plaintiffrs
recital of population and relative deviations of Sampson, Bladen

and some townshi,ps of Pender County.

18. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 70.

19. Defendants reallege their answers to the Plaintiff's
original complaint in response to Paragraph 71.

l)



II

FOURTH DEPENSE

Only forty ({0) of North Carolina'e one hundred (100) 
..

counties are sr:bject to the preclearance requirements of Sectio

5 of the Voting Rights Act.

PIFTH DEFEISSE

The legislature engaged in a good faith effort to achieve

? precise mattrematical apportionment. The deviations in the

f981 Apgrcrtionment of the General Assembly were unavoidable and

are justified by rational state policies.
SI)MH DEFENSE

Portions of the Plaintiffs I original complaint and supple-

mental complaint arej-so vague and ambiguous that Defendants

cannot reasonably frame a responsive pleading. In particular,

the following Paragraphs should be amended by a IIDre definite
statement: 2L, '22, 30, 33, 35, 35, 49 , 50, 58, 52 , 68 and 59.

SE1IENTH DEFENSE

The Plaintiffsr complaint as supplemented does not reflect

the latest enactments of the General Assembly, and conseguently

any allegations pertaining to superseded law are immaterial and

impertinent and should be stricken from the original complaint

and the eomplaint as supplemented.

WHEREFORE, Defendants having fully answered each and every

allegation contained in the Plaintiffsr Complaint, and having

set forttr their defenses, Pray that this Court leny the relief
requested and dismiss the Complaint and the Supplemental

Complaint wlth preJudice.

a)



-4-

Respectfully gubmltted, this rn" Zf&by of 
ry1982.

Post Office Box 629
Ra1eigh, Nortfr Carolina 27602
Telephone: (919) 733-3377

Norma Harrell

Jerris Leonard
Kathleen Heenan
Jerris Leonard &

900 17th Street,
Suite 1020
Washington, D. C.
Telephone: (202t

Attorneys for Defendants

General

r
Attorney General

Associates, P.C.
N. W.

20006
8 72-I09 s

RT'PUS L.
Attorney

aIIaCg 1 rIE .
Attorney

Legal Affai
l#Eorney Generalr s office
N. C. Departruent of Justice

iley

n



rhis Lne Zs&day of 4

t;

ii

I

li
I'

t:

-5-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing

ANSVIER TO SUPPLEUEITTAL COITIPI.AIIIT OF PI.AINTIFFS UpON PIAiNtlff S I

Attorneys by placing a copy of Eame in the United States Post

Office, postage prepaid, addressed'to:

J. Lenorure Chambers
Leslie Winner
Charabers, Ferguson, Watt, $laIlas,

Adkins & Fuller, P.A.
951 Soutl fndependence Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

Jack Greenberg
James H. Nabrit, III
Lani Guinier
10 Columbus Circ1e
New York, New York 10019

Arthur J. Donaldson
Burke, Donaldson, Holshouser, & Kenerly
309 North Main Street
Salisbury, North Carolina 28L44

Robert N. Hunter, Jr.
Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 3245
201 West I'tarket Street
Greensboro, North Carolina 27402

, 1982.



l'; ,i

RUFUS

GINGT.ES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

v.
EDltfStEN, et EIl.,

Defendants
****

V. puchr €t 6f.,

___Ii'l THE UNTTED STATES DISTRICTFoR THE EASTERN prsrnicr-6r NoRTg
RALEIGH DTVISTON

FILED
COURT

cARoLTNA MAy ZS lggz
J. RrcH ldlNnRo, cr-eix

U. S. DISTRICT COURI'
E DJqL No. CA&

No. 81-gO3-CrV-5

No. B1-1065-Crv-5

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

plai.ntif fs,
v.

JAI{ES B. HUNT, JR. r_ €tc., et a1.,
Defendants.

DEFENDANTS ' M-gIrgN FOR EXTENSToN oFru{E ro REspoIp ro pul'n-i;aarNrrFFs,
#l$rgl 5pl.,:p5:Ilruaffii' i*, AcrroN

^A;it;
NOI, eoME, the Defendants in the above_entitled actionand move the court for an extension of tirne in which to respondto'Puqh Plaintiffs' MoTroN FoR DETERMTNATT.N THAT AcrroN MAy BEMAr,{TATNED A.9 A Cr.Ass ACTToN to a date twenty days forl0wingreceipt by Defendants of the pugh plaintiffs, response to

DEFENDANTSI FTRST SET OF' TNTERROGATORTES AND REQUESTS TqRPRoDUcrroN (puc,) on the ground that Defendants, without therequested information, are unable to fully determine whethercertiflcation of the class reguested by puqh plaintiffs isappropriate. plaintiffs consent hereto.
This the Jf day of May, tgl2.

RUFUS L. EDMTSTEN
ATTORNEY GENERAL

Attorney General's Office
I.C: Department of J;;ti;"
I":t.office Box 629

North_Carolina 27602Telep
Ralei-gh r North caiof ina 27relephone: (etrt- til:\zii



-2-

CERTIFTCATE OF SERVTCE

r hereby certify that r have this day served the foregoi.i:gmotion for extension of ti,e and proposed order upon plaintiffs,
attorneys by placing a copy of same in the United States post
Officer postage prepaid, addressed to:

J. Levonne ChambersLeslie Uinner
Chambers, Ferguson, Watt, I{al1as,Adkins e FuIIer,'p.;:-'
951 South rndepeni";;; Boulevardcharl0tte, worlh c"i"iiil 28202
Jack Greenberg
James M. ttabritt, fffLani Guinier
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New york lOO19

Arthur J. Donaldson
Burke, Donaldson, Holshouser, & Kenerly309 North Main street---Y.vv" s ^enerrlsalisbury, t{orth ciio:.ina 2gL44
Robert N. Hunter, Jr.Attorney at Law
l9"t Office Box 3245201 l{est Market StreetGreensboro, North Carolina 27402

This the c25 66y of May , ]jgz.



I

II\i THE UNTTED STATES DfSTRfCT COURTPOR TIIE EASTERN DTSTRTCT_OT NORTH CAROLTNARALETGH DTVTSTON

RALpIi GfIJGLES r €t il. ,plaintiffs

v.
RUFUS EDITIISTEN, et aI.,

Defendants
***

ALAN V. PUGH, et aI.,
plaintiffs,

v.
JAIIES E. HT'NT, JR.,

No. 81-803-CrV-5

riro. 81-1066_crv_s

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

etc. r €t d1.,
Defendants.

ORDER

FOR GOOD, CAUSE SHOtfN, Defendants in the above-entitled
action 

"r" t.riuy granted an extension of time in which torespond to Puqrh Pl'aintiffs' MoTroN FoR DETERMTNATT.N THAT AcrroN
lq'oY BE MATNTATNED As A cLAss AcrroN to a date twenty days followingreceipt by Defendants of the frgt, praintiffs, response to
DEFENDANTS' FTRST SET OF TNTERROGATORTES AND REQUE-STS TO PRODUCE
(PUGH) .

This the day of May, lgg2.

J

I'NITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DrsrRrcr oi-N6nii-canoLrNA