Memo from Berrien and Cox to Counsel Re: NC Congressional Redistricting Case Decision and Order and Permanent Injunction

Correspondence
April 3, 1998

Memo from Berrien and Cox to Counsel Re: NC Congressional Redistricting Case Decision and Order and Permanent Injunction preview

3 pages

Cite this item

  • Case Files, Cromartie Hardbacks. Memo from Berrien and Cox to Counsel Re: NC Congressional Redistricting Case Decision and Order and Permanent Injunction, 1998. 7d225703-dd0e-f011-9989-002248226c06. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/9dee624d-84d3-4459-add3-30f7b9798368/memo-from-berrien-and-cox-to-counsel-re-nc-congressional-redistricting-case-decision-and-order-and-permanent-injunction. Accessed July 30, 2025.

    Copied!

    EDF MEMORANDUM 

TO: Elaine Jones, Ted Shaw, Norman Chachkin and Victor Bolden 

FROM: Jackie Berrienland Todd Cox 

RE: North Carolina Congressional Redistricting Case Decision 

DATE: April 3, 1998 

  

As you may recall, after the Supreme Court’s 1996 decision in Shaw v. Hunt invalidated 
North Carolina’s Twelfth Congressional District (represented by Congressman Mel Watt), the 
North Carolina Legislature adopted a new congressional plan ("the 1997 plan"). A group of 
white voters, represented by the same attorney who filed the Shaw case, challenged the First and 
Twelfth congressional districts of the 1997 plan in Cromartie v. Hunt, Civil No. 4:96CV104- 
BO(3). The 1997 plan was drawn using data from past elections, with the goal of preserving 
a balance of six Republican and six Democratic congressional districts in the state. African 
Americans comprise a minority of the population of the revised Twelfth Congressional District, 
and both the new Twelfth, and the First Congressional District of the plan (which remains a 
majority-Black district) are more geographically compact than their companion districts in the 
1992 congressional plan. 

Despite these revisions, a three-judge federal court in North Carolina entered an Order 
today which invalidated the revised Twelfth Congressional District and permanently enjoined 
the State from conducting elections under the 1997 redistricting plan. The ruling was entered 
following a hearing in which the Court refused to rule on our pending intervention motion and 
did not allow us to participate in oral argument. Todd Cox, Anita Hodgkiss, and Adam Stein 
attended the hearing. 

A copy of the Order and Permanent Injunction, which was entered by Judges Boyle and 
Voorhees, is attached to this Memorandum. Circuit Judge Ervin dissented from the Order. 
Neither majority nor dissenting opinions have been issued by the Court yet. The majority 
directed the parties to propose a timetable for the legislature to enact a new plan and a revised 
election schedule by April 8, 1998. The State is planning to seek a stay of the decision (Chief 
Justice Rehnquist is the Circuit Justice). 

/attachment 

 



    APR-03-98 06:14PM FROM-FERGUSON, Yl) HALLAS ADKINS  GRES HAMAS UM +7043345654 a T-430 P.01/02 F-173 

FILED 
Iu THE DISTRICT COURT OF TED UNITED STATES 

. JOR THE SABTERN DIBTRICT OF FORTH CAROLINA 
: 

EASTILN DIVISION APR 3 1998 

CIVIL NO. 4196CV104-BO(3) 
DAVID W. DANIEL, CLERK 

u. S DISTRICT COURT 

MARTIN CROMARTIE, ot al., E DIST. NO. CAR 

plaintifrs, 

ve QBREIR._ANR 

JAMES B. HUNT, 3k., in his 

capacity as Governor of the 

gcats of North Carolina, 

et al., 
Defendants. 

et
? 

Va
g?
 

Ca
e?
 

Ca
ll
 
B
e
d
 
B
t
 
C
a
 

Go
vt
 
B
t
 

B
d
 
B
®
 

M
e
h
 

Be
t 

Ca
g 

Q
e
”
 

  

2HYE MATTER la Dafora tha Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for 

prelirinary injunction, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, 

and Defendants’ motion for susaary judgrent. 

Following a hearing an Tuesday. March 31, 1558, tho Court 

took these mationa under advisement and naw isaves the fallowing 

ruling: 

1) Finding That the Twelfth congressional plstrict under 

the 1597 North Carelina cangresaianal redistricting 

plan is unconstitutional, the Court hersby GRANTS 

Plaintifzs' motion for summary judgment as to the 

Twelfth congressional Disrriat. 

2) Based upsnh tha Court's finding that the Twelfth 

Cangressianal Diotrict is unconstitutlanal, it is 

further ORDERED that Plaintiffe’ motion for a 

preliminary injunction and Plaintiff's request for a   
 



    

  

APR-03-98 06:14PM FROM-FERGUSON, ff) HALLAS ADKINS. GRESHAWASUM +7043345654 @ T-430 P.02/02 F-173 

permanent injunaction ans contained in its complaint aya 

GRANTED. Defendants ars herady ENJOINED from canducting 

any primary or general election lor congveaaisnal 

off {cen under the redistricting plan enacted as 1997 

N.C. Sespien Laws, Chapter 11. 

3) Tt is rurther ORDERED that tha parties file a written 

gubmigsion no later than Wadnesday, april 8, 19338, 

addrensing the tollawing lgsues: 

a) An appropriate time peried within which tha North 

carolina General Assambly may he allawed the 

cpportunicy to corrsct the conctitcutional dafacts 

in the 1997 plan, in default of which the caurt 

would.undartaka the task. 

b) A proposed glection schedula to follaw 

redimrricting which providds far a primary 

election process culminating in a general 

congtasajonal election ta be held an Tuesday, 

November 3, 1958. 

Tnis order and permanent injuncticnh ara entered hy a 

majority of theo thras-judge papal. Circuit Judges Bam J Bevin, 

TTY, dissents. Memoranda with reference to chim order will be 

issued as scon as possibla. 

THIS the shira day of April, 1998. 

TERRENCE W. BOYLE 

chief United States District Judge 

FICHARD L. VOORHEES 
United States District Judge 

BY: N garnet (J: 
TERRENCE W. BAQYLE Eo 
chief United States District Judge

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

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.

Return to top