Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendants’ Response on Scheduling

    APR=-20-88 08:55AM tL +7043345654 1-76 P.10/28 F~T37 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

RALEIGH DIVISION 

Civil Action No. 4.96-CV-104-BO(3) 

  
MARTIN CROMARTIE, ¢! al., ) 

Plaintiffs, ) 

) 

vs. ) PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO 

) DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE 

J B. HUNT, JR,, in his official capacity ) ON SCHEDULING 

wer of the State of North Carolina, ) 

et pl., ) 

Defendants. ) 
  

Having received on the afternoon of April 17, 1998 Defendants’ Response on Scheduling, 

Plaintiffs now submit the following reply, of which a copy will be sent by facsimile to each 

Jupge in order 10 avoid delay. 

1. Plaintiffs do not object to the proposed deadline of Friday, May 29, 1998 for the 

Géneral Assembly to draw a new congressional redistricting plan. However, Plaintiffs request 

tht the Court also direct the General Assembly to inform the Court immediately if prior to that 

nh it becomes apparent that the two Houses of the General Asserably will be unable to agree on 

a plan; and in that event, responsibility for drawing a plan will immediately transfer to the Cour. 

2. Plaintiffs agree that any legislation redrawing the current redistricting plan should be 

submitted to the Court for approval and to the United States Deparment of Justice for 

peclearance simultaneously; but this agreement hy Plaintiffs is on the condition that the 

sybmission will take place on or beforc May 29, 1998. 

3. Plaintiffs are willing to inform the Coun in writing whether they will oppose the 

legislation redrawing the 1997 congressional plan within three days of enactment of that 

1   
 



    APR-20~-88 09:55AM Me te +7043345654 » T-678 P.11/28 E~-T3T 

lekislation, provided that the Court clarify that the three days are business days. Plaintiffs arc 

cncerned that otherwise Defendants will provide them a copy of new legislation on the 

afjernoon of Friday, May 29, 1998 and that they will be expected vo inform the Court of their 

pipspective opposition on Monday, June I, 1998 ~- in which event there would not be adequate 

  tne for consultation with experts. For * further information of the Court, Plaintiffs now 

orm the Court that if the new plan involves only the “tweaking” of the Twelfth District —    

  

ich newspaper reports indicate the Attorney General and the Chair of the Senate Redistricting 

Cpmmittee are contemplating — the Plaintiffs will definitely oppose the plan; and they also will 

so if the plan makes no revision in the First Congressional District. 

4. The response by the Attorney General leaves unclear the timetable that will be 

fqllowed on or before July 1, 1998 if the General Assembly has enacted a new redistricting plan 

by May 19, 1998. If it is contemplated that the Court will be considering in early or mid-June   hether to approve the plan and then, if it does not approve of the plan, will commence drafting 

anew plan, the Defendans’ proposal is acceptable to the Plaintiffs, If, on the other hand, the 

fendants’ response contemplates that the Court will delay until July 1, 1998 in determining 

whether 10 approve or disapprove the plan and then have a new plan ready on July 1, 1998, the 

response simply does not provide adequate time to the Court. Plaintiffs would request that in any 

ofder to the Court, it reserve to itself adequate time (0 draw a new redistricting plan and to obtain 

te assistance of such eapert consultants as might be necessary or desirable for that purpose. In 

boneitien with rhe possible desire or need of the Court to obtain suitable expert assistance in 

drawing a plan, Plaintiffs would suggest that the parties be invited by the Court to submit names 

of persons With expertise in redistricting and with suitable impartiality. Someone like John 

  
 



   

  

APR-20-88 09:56AM  FROM=FERGUSON, STEIN, WALLAS, ADKINS, GRESHAM&SUM  +7043345654 7-878 P.12/28  F~T37 

Sanders, former Director of the Institute of Government, comes to mind as a possible consultant 

or ial master who could help prepare a plan. 

S. With respect to the election schedule, the Plaintiffs believe that the Court, after 

opportunity for further response by Defendants, should at least consider an aliernative which was 

usegl in Texas in providing a remedy for its unconstimrional. There, after remand hy the Supreme 

Caohrt in Bush v. Vera, 116 8.Ct. 1941 (1996), the court adopted a plan whereundcr an open 

primary was held on Tuesday, November 5, 1996, with a “run-off” in early December in the   event that no candidate received a majority. See Vera v. Bush, 933 F.Supp. 1341 (5.D.TX. 

ih As Plaintifts interpret Foster v. Love, 118 S.Ct.464 (1997) — which held unconstitutional 

a Lionisiana statute authorizing an open October primary with a “run-off” on the date of the 

  
general elections — the remedy used In Texas would be permissible, because it is authorized by 2 

U.$.C. Sec. 8. This section creates an exception to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 7 — the statute relied on by the 

Supreme Court in the Louisiana case. Plaintiffs suggest this alternative because Defendants have 

i claimed that delaying the elections under the 1997 plan would create costs and would 

reduce voter participation, but usc of the remedy employed in Texas would assure a heavier voter 

pajticipation in choosing members of Congress than would probably have occurred if no 

injunction had been entered and also would probably reduce election costs quite substantially. 

6. Plaintiffs assure the Court of their intent to cooperate with the Court in every way 

fagilitate congressional elections in North Carolina which for the first time in six years will   ynply with the United States Constitution and which will also create a minimum of cost or 

“a for the voters. 

  
 



   APR-20-88 09:56AM  FROM-FERGUSON, STEIN, WALLAS ADKINS, GRESHAM&SUM  +7043345654 7-676 P.13/28 F~-T37 

Respectfully submited, this 19" day of April, 1998. 

Koes oO. Zuateef 1191 
  

Robinson OQ, Everett 

Everett & Everett 

N.C. State Bar No.: 1385 

As Attomey for the Plaintiffs 
P.O. Box 586 

Durham, NC 27702 

Telephone: (919)-682-5691 

Williams, Boger, Grady, Davis & Title, PA, 

Zullo feb 
Martin B. McGee 

State Bar No.: 22198 

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs 
P.O. Box 810 

Concord, NC 28026-0810 
Telephone: (704)-782-1173