Fax from Carraway RE: Joint Appendix
Correspondence
October 8, 1998

41 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Cromartie Hardbacks. Fax from Carraway RE: Joint Appendix, 1998. 1796cd2e-e40e-f011-9989-002248226c06. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/ab28e062-81f2-4651-be2b-8540a83cf54c/fax-from-carraway-re-joint-appendix. Accessed July 20, 2025.
Copied!
os RC» State of North Carolina MICHAEL F. EASI EY Department of Justice ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. BOX 629 REPLY TO: Frances S. Carraway, CLAS RALEIGH Special Litigation 27602-0629 (919) 716-6900 (919) 716-6763 (fax) TELECOPIER TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: Todd Cox FAX: 202-682-1312 FROM: Frances S. Carraway, CLAS TELEPHONE NUMBER: (919) 716-6900 DATE: October 8, 1998 SUBJECT: Joint Appendix in Hunt v. Cromartie, No. 98-85 NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING TRANSMITTAL SHEET: 40 CONFIRM RECEIPT OF DOCUMENT(S) IF MARKED HERE: COMMENTS: I have included the entire introductory portion of the 1997 §5 Submission in this fax. Section 97C-27N was reproduced in the appendix to our jurisdictional staternent. Section 97C-27R is being designated in the Joint Appendix. The remainder of that material is for your information. Following the submission narrative in this fax are: excerpts from the 97 stat pack giving district population statistics; excerpts from the transcript from the House floor debate on 3-26- 97, excerpts from the transcript from the Senate floor debate on 3-27-97; and excerpts from the 92 stat pack giving district population statistics. All of this material is from the 1997 §5 Submission which was filed in the district court. These along with the complaint, answer, answer of defendant- intervenors, the motion for summary judgment and our cross-motion for summary judgment are what we plan to designate for the Joint Appendix. If you have any questions or suggestions or need anything further, please call Tiare or me. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS LEGALLY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS TELECOPY IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TELECOPY IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ADDRESS ABOVE VIA UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU. 10°d p:SY 86.8 +0 £92991.616: XEA 117 WI13d4S al ON &d wh o® Information Supporting North Carolina’s Section 5 Submission for its 1997 Congressional Redistricting Plan The following information is submitted by North Carolina in support of its request 10 preclear the State’s new congressional redistricting plan enacted by the General Assembly on March 31, 1997. The numbered paragraphs correspond to the numbers of the rules of the Department of Justice, 28 C.F.R. §§ 51.27 and 51.28. In most cases, information documenting the information in numbered paragraphs is contained in an attachment bearing a corresponding number. (e.g. Paragraph 97C-27A is documented by Attachment 97C-27A). 197C-27A. 1997 Enactment of Congressional Redistricting Plan Mh On March 31, 1997. the North Carolina General Assembly enacted a new congressional redistricting plan to remedy the constitutional defects in the State’s former plan identified by the United States Supreme Court in Shaw v. Hunt, 116 S. Ct. 1894 (1996). The new plan, known as 97 House/Senate Plan A, is contained in Section 2 of Chapter 11 of the General Assembly’s 1997 Session Laws. A copy of this legislation is included in Attachment 97C-27A-1. Chapter 11 contains two plans. 97 House/Senate Plan A and 97 House/Senate Plan AO. Plan A appears in Section 2 of Chapter 1. Plan AQ appears in Section 3 of Chapter 11. Plan A and Plan AQ are essentially identical except that Plan A has an overall population range from -544 10 +947 for a total deviation of .27%. Plan AQ has an overall population range from 0 10 +1 for a total deviation of .00%. Only Plan A is submitted for preclearance. Plan AQ would become effective only in the event Plan A is declared unconstitutional on one-person, one-vote grounds. For a discussion of the differences between Plan A and Plan AQ, see the March 26, 1997, memorandum to the Senate Select Commirtee on Congressional Redistricting and the House Committee on Congressional Redistricting included in Attachment 97C-27A-2. 2. Maps, including two large color maps, population data, voter registration data and certain election results for Plan A are included in Attachment 97C-27A-3. This Attachment also includes the same information for Plan AO. 3. A diskette containing the Chapter 11 plan is included as Attachment 97C-27A-4. 4. Access to the computer tape is available to the public by contacting Don Fulford, Director of the Legislative Information Systems Division, 400 Legislative Office Building, 300 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 29603-5925. Telephone (919) 733-6834. Technical questions should be addressed to Mr. Dan Frey of the Legislative Information Systems Division at the same address and phone number. ¢0°d cr: 8b: 8 30 £949914616: XE 111 H133d4S 9d ON »h o® {97C-27B. Prior Redistricting Plans The redistricting plan in effect for North Carolina’s congressional elections between 1992 and 1996 is attached as Attachment 97C-27B. §97C-27C. Documents Explaining the 1997 Changes to the Congressional Redistricting Plan 1. Chapter 11 of the 1997 Session Laws repeals the last valid plan in effect - the plan that was completed in 1982. The strike-throughs in the text of Chapter 11 therefore show changes from the 1984 plan, not from the current plan. 2. A chart showing the minority percentage of total population and voting age population in ¢ach district in the 1992 plan. and the 1997 plan is attached as Attachment 97C-27C- 1. Also included in the chart are minority voter registration percentages for each district in the 1992 and 1997 plans. (Note: North Carolina had 11 congressional districts in the 1980s). 3. The changes are also discussed in other sections of this document, particularly {497C-27H and 97C-27N. : 797C-27D. Persons making the submission are: Gary Bartlet Executive Secretary-Director State Board of Elections Suite 801, Raleigh Building Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Telephone: (919) 733-7173 Gerry Cohen Director of Legislative Drafting Senate Select Commirtee on Redistricting Counsel Suite 401, Legislative Office Building 300 N. Salisbury Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-5925 Telephone: (919) 733-6660 Fax: (919) 715-5459 E-mail: gerryc@ms.ncga.state. nc. us 2 ¢0°d gp:G1 86: 8 10 £94991.616: XES 113 1013345 80d ON ee o® Linwood Jones House Committee on Congressional Redistricting Counsel Suite 545, Legislative Office Building 300 N. Salisbury Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-5925 Telephone: (919) 733-2578 Fax: (919) 715-5460 E-mail: linwoodj@ms.ncga.state.nc.us €97C-27E. Submitting Authority The submitting authority is the Executive Secretary-Director for the State Board of Elections for the State of North Carolina. €97C-27F. Submitting Body Not applicable. €97C-27G. Enacting Body The congressional redistricting plan is an act of the State legislature -- the North Carolina General Assembly. €97C-27H. Authority and Process for Redistricting The North Carolina General Assembly is authorized by 2 U.S.C. §2a and §2¢ and Article I. §§2 and 4 of the United States Constitution to redistrict its congressional districts. The prior redistricting plan was enacted by the General Assembly on January 24, 1992, and was precleared under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act on February 6, 1992. The United States Supreme Court declared District 12 in this plan unconstitutional in Shaw v. Hunt on June 13, 1996. On remand, the three-judge panel in the Shaw case issued an order on July 30, 1996, permitting the use of the unconstitutional plan for the 1996 elections and giving the General Assembly until April 1, 1997, to draw a new plan. Chapter 11 was enacted In response 1o that order. A copy of the court order is attached as Attachment 97C-27P-2. The process leading to the enactment of Chapter 11 began in the North Carolina House of Representatives in June, 1996. The following is a chronology of events leading up to the enactment of the plan. The designation “AA” after a name indicates that the individual is an African-American. The designation “NA” after a name indicates that the individual is a Native American: June 13, 1996: United States Supreme Court declares District 12 unconstitutional in Shaw v, Hunz. 70d er:Gl 8b: 8 30 £99912616: XE 1173 "1913345 oud ON oo » June 14, 1996: House Speaker Harold Brubaker appointed a House Select committee on Congressional Redistricting. The committee was chaired by Representative Robert Grady. The other members were as follows: Representatives Carolyn Russell, Lyons Gray, Frances Cummings (AA), George Holmes. Julia Howard, Theresa Esposito, Ed McMahan, Richard Morgan, Mary McAllister (AA), Jim Crawford, and Linwood Mercer. This Committee never met. July 8, 1996: Senator Marc Basnight. President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate, appointed a Select Committee on Redistricting. The Committee was chaired by Senator Roy Cooper. The following were also appointed as members of the Committee: Senators Charles Albertson, Frank Ballance (AA), Patrick Ballantine, Betsy Cochrane, Richard Conder, Jim Forrester, Wib Gulley, David Hoyle, Don Kincaid, Bob Martin, Bill Martin (AA), Tony Rand, R.C. Soles, and Leslie Winner. July 10, 1996: The Senate Select Committee on Redistricting met to discuss the Shaw decision and the feasibility of adopting new congressional districts in time for the 1996 general election. The Committee heard from Mr. Gary Bartlett, Executive Director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, on the requirements for a shortened filing and primary election schedule. Senator Cooper wrote a letter to North Carolina Attorney General Michael Easley outlining the Senate's position and requesting that Atorney General Easley inform the three-judge federal panel that it was impracticable to adopt new congressional districts in time for the 1996 general election. The letter 1s attached as Attachment 97C-28F-4B(2). July 17, 1996: The House Committee on Rules. Calendar. and Operations of the House released a redistricting plan (Congress-96-001) to the public. The plan is attached as Anmachment 97C-27R- 1. The House Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House was chaired by Representative Richard Morgan. Its other members were as follows: Representatives Arlene Pulley, Jim Crawford, Jim Black, Joanne Bowie, Jerry Dockham, Theresa Esposito, Ed McMahan, Chuck Neely, and George Robinson. The redistricting plan was submitted by Representative Morgan to the Comminiee for its review, with instructions that the plan would pot be voted on at that meeting. Representative Morgan read a statement to the Committee about the plan that is attached as Attachment 97C-28F-4A and announced that there would be a public hearing the following week on redistricting. July 19, 1996: The three judge panel issued an order asking for the opinions of Speaker Brubaker and Senate President Pro Tempore Basnight on the likelihood that the General Assembly would be able to draw a plan in time for the 1996 elections. The House was at the time and remains under the control of Republicans. The Senate was at that time and remains under the control of Democrats. The North Carolina congressional delegation, elected in 1994, was divided as follows: 8 Republicans and 4 Democrats. Senator Cooper, acting on behalf of Senate President Pro Tempore Basnight, submitted an affidavit to the Anorney General that was filed with the Court. Senator Cooper stated in his affidavit that a new plan could not reasonably be enacted for the 1996 elections. Representative Morgan, acting on behalf of House Speaker Harold Brubaker, 4 SO °d pr:Sl 86:8" 130 £9991.616: XE 1171 1013345 84 ON " o> submitted an affidavit to the Attorney General that was filed with the Court. Representative Morgan stated in his affidavit that it would be practical to redraw legislative districts in time for the 1990 elecuons. Senator Cooper’s and Representative Morgan's affidavits are amached as Attachments 97C-285-4B(2) and 97C-28F-4B(1), respectively. July 24, 1996: The House Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House conducted a public hearing in Raleigh on July 24, 1996, to hear the views of interested parties on redistricting generally and on the plan released by the Committee the week before. A copy of the notice of this public hearing, which was published in legal ads throughout the State, diswibuted to the media through the media service “Xpedite,” and mailed to a list of minority contacts is attached as Auachment 97C-28F-2A. The list of the media organizations contacted bv Xpedite 1s attached as Attachment 97C-28F-4]. The list of minority contacts is attached as Amachment 97C-28H. The transcript of the hearing and sign-in sheets are attached as Amachment 97C-28F- 3A. This Atachment includes exhibits submitted by the speakers at the public hearing. July 30, 1996: The three judge panel issued an order allowing the 1996 elections to proceed under the unconstitutional plan and giving the North Carolina General Assembly unul April 1, 1997, to submit a revised congressional redistricting plan to the court for its approval. The order is amached as Artachment 97C-27H-1. The General Assembly adjourned its 1999-96 session on August 3, 1996. January 29, 1997: The North Carolina General Assembly convened its 1997-98 session on January 29, 1997. Speaker Harold Brubaker appointed a new House Committee on Congressional Redistricting. The Commitee was chaired by Representative Ed McMahan. The following were named as members of the Committee: Representatives Dewey Hill, Gene Arnold, Cherie Berry, Dan Blue (AA), Joanne Bowie. Walter Church, Jim Crawford, Arlie Culp, Don Davis, Theresa Esposito, Toby Fitch (AA), Robert Grady, Lyons Gray, Thomas Hardaway (AA), George Holmes, Robert Hunter, Larry Justus, Joe Kiser, Mary McAllister (AA), Richard Morgan, Warren Oldham (AA), Carolyn Russell, Edgar Starnes, and Ronnie Sutton (NA). Senator Basnight reauthorized the Senate Select Committee on Redistricting. The same members appointed to the first comynittee were appointed to this committee (See July 8, 1996 entry for the names). Senator Hugh Webster was also added as a member. February 12, 1997: The House Commitiee on Congressional Redistricting held its initial meeting, at which time Mr. Edwin M. Speas, Senior Deputy Attorney General, briefed the Committee on the Shaw litigation. Mr. Speas and Linwood Jones, Committee Counsel, answered questions of the Committee members. The transcript of this meeting is contained in Attachment 97C-28F-4E(1). February 20, 1997: The Senate Select Committee on Redistricting met and Senator Cooper presented a congressional redistricting plan (1997 Congressional Plan A) to the Commitice. This plan is attached as Attachment 97C-27R-2. Senator Cooper announced that no vote would be 5 90°4 pr:G1T 86: 8 330 £949914616: XE 111: W13d4S ad IN oo » taken on the plan so that the public could comment on the plan at the public hearing scheduled for the following week. The transcript of that meeting is attached as Attachment 97C-28F-4D(2). February 25, 1997: The House Committee on Congressional Redistricting met. Representative McMahan presented a plan to the Committee that had been drawn in response to the Senate plan. This plan, 1997 House Congressional Plan A.l, is attached as Attachment 97C-27R-3. Representative McMahan announced that no vote would be taken on the plan so that the public could comment on the plan at the public hearing scheduled for the following week. The transcript of that meeting is contained in Attachment 97C-28F-4E(2). February 26, 1997: The joint public hearing was held in the Legislative Auditorium in Raleigh. on February 26, 1997. The transcript of the public hearing and the sign-in sheets are attached as Attachment 97C-28F-3B. Exhibits submitted by the speakers at the public hearing are included as Amachment 97C-28F-3B Ex. See July 24, 1996 entry for the distribution of the notice of the hearing. February 27 - March 18, 1997: Senator Cooper and Representative McMahan met to anempt to resolve the differences between the House version of the plan and the Senate version of the plan and submitted numerous maps 10 each other during a four-week period of negotiations. During most of the negotiation period, the primary point of contention was how Wake County would be divided between proposed Districts 2 and 4. With one exception, none of these plans containing offers and counter-offers were released to the committees or made public. The exception is 97 House Congressional Plan G, discussed below. However, all of these plans are discussed tn 97C- 27R and are included in Attachment 97C-27R-12. Senator Cooper and Representative McMahan were uncertain if they could resolve their differences regarding Wake County before the Court's April 1 deadline. They each called for meetings of their respective committees to take up their own plans. Senator Cooper introduced Senate Bill 433, containing 1997 Congressional Plan A, the same plan Senator Cooper had presented to the Committee weeks earlier. The bill was referred to the Senate Select Committee on Redistricting. March 19, 1997: The Senate Select Committee on Redistricting met. Senator Cooper presented Senate Bill 433, containing 1997 Congressional Plan A. See Attachment 97C-27R-2. Senator Betsy Cochrane presented an amendment that would substitute her plan, “Congress Cochrane,” for the plan offered by Senator Cooper. Senator Cochrane’s plan is attached as Attachment 97C- 27R-11. The Commitee approved the plan presented by Senator Cooper. The transcript of this meeting is attached as Attachment 97C-28F-4D(3). The House Committee on Congressional Redistricting also met on March 19, 1997. Representative McMahan presented a new plan to the Commitee: 97 House Congress Plan G. See Attachment 97C-27R-4. Plan G was one of the more recent compromise proposals from Representative McMahan to Senator Cooper. Because House rules allow House commitiees to 6 20°d QfF:q1 86.8 10 £9/9914b16:XeS 117 'BI23d4S 98 ON o o® introduce bills, the passage of Plan G from committee in effect constituted approval to file a bill for introduction containing Plan G. The transcript of this committee meeting is attached as Anachment 97C-28F-4E(3). March 24, 1997: Representative McMahan filed the bill containing Plan G on behalf of the Committee. The bill was given a number — House Bill 586 -- and was referred back to the House Comminee on Congressional Redistricting. Afterwards, Senator Cooper and Representative McMahan announced to their committees that negotiations would continue and that they still thought the differences could be resolved before the deadline. Senator Cooper and Representative McMahan agreed on a plan that they would each submit to their respective commirtees and chambers. March 25, 1997: The plan agreed to, 97 HOUSE/SENATE PLAN (and its contingent backup plan, 97 HOUSE/SENATE PLAN 0), was presented 10 the House Congressional Redistricting Committee. Representative Dan Blue offered an alternative plan for the purpose of changing the proposed District 4 back to approximately its current location. The amendment was defeated by the Committee. Representative Ronnie Sutton (Native American) offered an amendment involving Robeson and Cumberland Counties that was also defeated by the Committee because he did not have statistical data showing the effect of hus amendment on the population of the districts at thc time. The Committee passed 97 HOUSE/SENATE PLAN as a proposed committee substitute for House Bill 586. The transcript of this meeting is attached as Attachment 97C-28F-4E(4). March 26, 1997: House Bill 586 was reported to the House floor and was calendared for debate. Representative McMahan presented an overview of the plan to the House. Representative Ronnie Sutton offered an amendment to move a predominantly Native American precinct in Robeson County from District & to District 7, where nearly all of the other predominantly Native American precincts were located. Representative McMahan had already announced in earlier remarks that he and Senator Cooper supported the Sutton amendment. The amendment passed by a vote of 117-0. Representative Mickey Michaux of Durham offered three successive amendments. These amendments represented, respectively, plans known as Fitch Michaux Plan A, Fitch/Michaux Plan B, and Fitch/Michaux Plan C. These amendments are discussed in more detail at 97C-27R and they are attached as Auachments 97C-27R-8, -9, and -10. The committee substitute for House Bill 586 was passed, with the Sutton amendment, by a vote of 87 to 30. Of the 18 members of the House who are minorities, 5 African-American members and 1 Native American member voted for the bill and 12 African-American members voted against it. The bill was sent to the Senate. A transcript of the House floor debate is attached as Attachment 97C-28F-4F(1). (The House does not record its debates. The transcript was prepared from a recording of the entire floor debate by the University of North Carolina Public Television). The relevant portions of the House Journal are included as Attachment 97C- 28F-4G(1). The record of the votes is attached as Attachment 97C-28F-4H. 80d GbP:ol. 86. 8 10 $£92991.616: XES 1177181034 9d IN oo - March 27, 1997: The Senate Select Committee on Redistricting met to discuss House Bill 586 as it came from the House. The Committee voted for the bill. No amendments were offered during the committee meeting. See Attachment 97C-28F-4D(4) for the transcript of this meeting. The bill was considered on the floor of the Senate the same afternoon. Senator Cochrane presented an amendment containing the same plan that she had presented and that had been defeated in the Senate Committee. (See entry above under Match 19, 1997). The amendment was defeated on the floor by a vote of 27 to 18. No other amendments were offered to House Bill 586. The bill passed by a vote of 32 to 14. All 7 African-American Senators voted for the bill. A transcript of the Senate floor debate is attached as Artachment 97C-28F4F. The relevant portions of the Senate Journal are included as Attachment 97C-28F-4G(2). The record of the vote is attached as Attachment 97C-28F-4H. March 31, 1997: House Bill 586 was ratified as Chapter 11 of the 1997 Session Laws. April 1, 1997: The Anorney General filed the redistricting plan with the three-judge panel. The Attorney General also filed a motion requesting that the court delay ruling on the plan until the State had received a response from the United States Department of Justice under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The Court was informed in this motion that the State would seek expedited consideration of this preclearance request. €97C-271. Adoption Date The enactment of the congressional redistricting plan, Chapter 11 of the 1997 Session Laws (House Bill 586), was effective when ratified on March 31, 1997. €97C-27). Implementation Date The congressional redistricting plan will take effect in the elections beginning in 1998. The times for the holding of primary and regular elections are contained in N.C. GEN. STAT. §163-1. The time for filing notice of candidacy is contained in N.C. GEN. STAT. §163-106. Copies of these states are included as Attachments 97C-27J-1 and 97C-27]-2. {97C-27K. Enforcement The changes in the congressional redistricting plan enacted March 31, 1997, have not yet been enforced or administered. The plan has now been submitted to the three-judge panel for approval in accordance with its July 30, 1996 Order (see {97C-27M below). §97C-27L.. Scope Not applicable. 60 'd op:Gl 86, 8 33] £9.991.616: Xe 1179 WI AAS 90 IN oh o® 1992 congressional general election Attachment 97C-28D-2 1994 congressional primary elections Attachment 97C-28D-3 1994 congressional general election Attachment 97C-28D-4 1996 congressional primary elections ~ Antachment 97C-28D-3 1996 congressional general election Attachment 97C-28D-6 197C-28E. Language usage Not applicable. §97C-28F. Publicity and Participation Relating to Congressional Redistricting Plans 1. An index of articles from major North Carolina newspapers is included as Attachment 97C-28F-1. These articles cover two different periods with respect to the North Carolina General Assembly’s involvement with redistricting: (1) the summer of 1996, when Shaw was decided and the legislature considered the feasibility of drawing new districts at that time and (2) the period since the reconvening of the legislature in late January, 1997. 2 Copies of notices for the two public hearings are included as Attachment 97C-28F. The first public hearing was held July 24, 1996, by the House Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House. The notice of this hearing, including legal ads published in major newspapers throughout the State, are included at Attachment 97C-28F-2A. The second hearing was a joint public hearing of the House and Senate redistricting commirees on February 26, 1997. The notice of this hearing. including legal ads published in major newspapers throughout the State, are included ar Attachment 97C-28F-2B. A list of newspapers in which the hearing notices were published is included as Attachment 97C-28F-4]. - 3. Copies of the transcripts of both public hearings and exhibits by speakers are included. The 1996 public hearing transcript is included as Attachment 97C-28F-3A. The 1997 public hearing transcript is included as Attachment 97C-28F-3B. Speaker and visitor registration sheets for the hearings are included. 4. The following statements, speeches, and minutes concerning the redistricting process are included: (a) Statement of Representative Richard Morgan, Chair of the House Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House, to that Committee on July 16, 1996, concerning a proposed redistricting plan “Congress-96-001." (Attachment 97C-28F 4A). (b) Affidavits of Senator Cooper and Representative Richard Morgan to the federal district court on behalf of Senate President Pro Tempore Marc Basnight and House Speaker Harold 19 0c 'd Za:51 86. 8.10 £92991.616: XES 1171 "H1J3d4S ag ON Brubaker, respectively, on the issue of whether redistricting could be accomplished in time for the 1996 elections. (Attachment 97C-28F-4B). (¢) Letter from Senator Roy Cooper, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Redistricting, 10 Attomey General Mike Easley stating the position of Senate leadership that redistricting could not be accomplished prior to the 1996 elections. (Attachment 97C-28F-4C). (d) Minutes and notices of the Senate Select Committe on Redistricting: July 10, 1996 meeting Attachment 97C-28F-4D(1) February 20, 1997 meeting Attachment 97C-28F-4D(2) March 19, 1997 meeting Attachment 97C-28F-4D(3) March 27, 1997 meeting Attachment 97C-28F-4D(4) (¢) Minutes of the House Committee on Congressional Redistricting February 12, 1997 meeting Attachment 97C-28F-4E(1) February 25, 1997 meeting Attachment 97C-28F-4E(2) March 19, 1997 meeting Attachment 97C-28F-4E(3) March 23, 1997 meeting Attachment 97C-28F-4E(4) (f) Transcript of the House floor debate Attachment 97C-28F-4F(1) Transcript of the Senate floor debate Attachment 97C-28F-4F(2) (¢) House Journal Excerpt Attachment 97C-28F-+G(1) Senate Journal Excerpt Attachment 97C-28F<4G(2) (h) Recorded voies Attachment 97C-28F-4H (i) Correspondence Senator Cooper Attachment 97C-28F-4I(1) Rep. McMahan Attachment 97C-28F-41(2) (J) Medalist Attachment 97C-28F-4]) €97C-28G. Availability of Submission 1. A copy of the public notice that will be published announcing the submission to the United States Attorney General of the materials required by 28 C.F.R. Part 51, informing the public that a complete duplicate copy of the submission is available for public inspection at the Legislative Office Building, Raleigh, North Carolina, and inviting comments to be addressed to the United States Attorney General is Attachment 97C-28G-1. 20 go: 8 3 £929914616: XES 117 BIJ3dS 95 ON 2d £5:G1 we » 2 The publication list for the public notice of the submission is Attachment 97C-28G- 2(a) and the distribution list for the public notice is Attachment 97C-28G-2(b). €97C-28H. Minority Group Contacts A list of minority contacts is maintained by the legislature for redistricting. The individuals and organizations on the list were contacted about public hearings on redistricting by mailing a copy of the notice of the hearing. The minonty contact list is attached as Attachment 97C-28H-1. 21 Z2°d garg] 86. 8 +4] $£99914616: XE 111 1BI33d4S 99 ON Ww 997C-27M. Reason for Change North Carolina’s twelve congressional districts were redrawn to remedy a redistricting plan containing a district (District 12) that was declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in Shaw v. Hunt. 997C-27N. Effect of Change on Minority Voters The General Assembly’s primary goal in redrawing the plan was to remedy the constitutional defects in the former plan. Those defects were the predominance of race in the location and shape of District 12, and perhaps in the location and shape of District 1, and a failure of narrow tailoring. This goal was accomplished by emphasizing the following factors in locating and shaping the new districts: (1) avoidance of the division of counties and precincts; (2) avoidance of long narrow corridors connecting concentrations of minority citizens; (3) geographic compactness; (4) functional compactness (grouping together citizens of like interests and needs): and (5) ease of communication among vorers and their representatives. Emphasis on these factors accomplished this goal. For example: (1) the unconstitutional plan divided 44 counties while the new plan divides only 22 counties; (2) the unconstimutional plan divided 6 counties among 3 districts while the new plan does not divide any county among 3 districts; (3) the unconstitutional plan divided 80 precincts while the new plan only divides 2 precincts; (4) the unconstinutional plan used “cross-overs,” “double cross-overs” and “points of contiguity” to create contiguous districts while the new plan uses none of these devices; (5) District 12 in the unconstitutional plan was 191 miles long (in “traveling distance”) while District 12 in the new plan is only 102 miles long; and (6) District | in the unconstitutional plan was 225 miles long while District 1 in the new plan is only 171 miles long. In addition, the new plan makes new District 12 a highly urban district by joining together citizens in the City of Charlotte and the cities of the Piedmont Triad (Greensboro, Winston-Salem and High Point). Conversely, new District 1 is a distinctively rural district formed from the largely agrarian and economically depressed northeastern counties. The General Assembly’s other primary goal was to preserve the 6-6 partisan balance in the State’s current congressional delegation. This balance reflects the existing balance between Democrats and Republicans in the State. The State House of Representatives is presently controlled by Republicans; the State Senate is presently controlled by Democrats; and most statewide elections are decided by narrow margins. It was clear from the beginning that the only plan the Senate and House would be able to agree on was one that preserved the existing 6-6 balance in the congressional delegation. At the same time, the chairmen of the Senate and House redistricting cornmittees felt strongly that the legislature had a constitutional duty to draw a plan for the three-judge panel to review, rather than leave that task to the court. For these reasons, preservation of the existing partisan balance became a driving force in locating and shaping the districts. These primary goals were accomplished while still providing minority voters a fair opportunity to elect representatives of their choice in at least two districts (Districts 1 and 12). 9 01d ¢7:Gl. "86.8 30 £929914616: XES 117 'BIJ3d4S 99 ON Data and expert studies before the General Assembly provided a strong basis in evidence for the conclusion that the Gingles factors are present in the area generally encompassed by new District 1. See Arachment 97C-28F-3B and 97C-28F-3B Ex. Based on this evidence, legislative leaders concluded that avoidance of potential liability under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act probably required the creation of a majority-minority district in that area. Accordingly, 50.27% of the total population within the District is African-American and 46.54% of the voting age population is African-American, based on 1990 census data. In addition, 1997 population projections indicate that the percentage of African-Americans and the percentage of African-American registered to vote are slightly higher in District 1 today than in 1990. See Attachment 97C-28A-2. These percentages plus the “cross-over” voters within the District (20 to 25%) provide African- American citizens in District 1 a reasonable opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice. This opportunity is almost certainly enhanced for the life of this plan (the 1998 and 2000 elections ) by the incumbency of Eva Clayton. Congresswoman Clayton was elected from old District 1 in 1992, 1994 and 1996 with percentages of 67.0%, 61.0% and 65.9%, respectively, even though African-Americans constituted only 53% of the District’s voting age population and 50.5% of the District’s registered voters. The General Assembly did not have sufficient evidence to conclude. and believes that sufficient evidence does not exist to conclude, that Gingles factors exist in any other area of the State so as likely to require the creation of a second majority-minority district. In Shaw the Supreme Court specifically rejected the State’s argument that it had a compelling interest in creating a majoritv-minority district in the area encompassed by old District 12. Likewise, the General Assembly specifically rejected the creation of a second majority-minoriry district in the area eastward of Charlotte to Cumberland and Robeson Counties, as proposed for example by Senator Cochrane. Creation of any district in that area would artificially group together citizens with disparate and diverging economic, social and culmral interests and needs. It would sandwich rural voters between urban voters in the State's banking and commercial center at one end of the district and voters residing on and around Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base at the other end of the district. Such a district would also rely on uncertain coalitions between African-American and Native-American voters for its “majority-minority” status, Significantly, it would have thwarted the goal of maintaining partisan balance. Under these circumstances, voters could not obtain effective representation, or be effectively represented. Moreover, under these circumstances, race would have become the predominate factor, to the exclusion of the State’s redistricting criteria, in the creation of a district which would bear an uncomfortable resemblance to Georgia’s District 11 declared unconstitutional in Miller v. Johnson. Nevertheless, District 12 in the State’s plan also provides the candidate of choice of African-American citizens a fair opportunity to win election. Though not a majority-minority district, the candidate of choice of the minority community within the District will have a fair and reasonable opportunity to win election based on a combination of minority and non-minerity votes. Congressman Mel Wart was elected from old District 12 in 1992, 1994 and 1996 with percentages of 70.4%, 65.8% and 71.5%, respectively. (African-American citizens constituted 53% of the voting age population and 53.5% of the registered voters of old District 12) 10 11d 27a 286.8 390 £929914616: XES 1171 "H134S 90 IN Consistent with the General Assembly's primary goal to preserve the existing partisan balance in Congress, new District 12 contains a substantial portion of the core of the urban population of old District 12 and a substantial percentage of voters with an affinity for Democrat candidates, regardless of their race. Those factors, together with the significant African-American population in the District (46.67% total population and 43.36% voting age population) provide a fair opportunity for incumbent Congressman Wart to win election. €97C-270. Litigation relating to Redistricting in North Carolina: 14 Litigation relating to 1990s congressional districts: (a) Pope v. Blue, 809 F. Supp. 382 (WDNO), aff'd. 113 §. Ct. 30 (1992). February 20, 1992 (suit filed claiming 1992 congressional plan was an unconstinutional political gerrymander); March 9, 1992 (three-judge court dismisses suit); October 5, 1992 (Supreme Court affirms three-judge court). (b) Shaw v. Hunt, 116 S. Ct. 1894 (1996). July 1, 1991 (General Assembly enacts plan containing one majority-minority district in northeastern counties): December 18, 1991 (USDOIJ refuses to preclear plan on grounds that second majority -minority district can be drawn); January 24, 1992 (General Assembly enacts plan containing two majority-minority districts, Districts 1 and 12); March 12, 1992 (sunt filed claiming Districts 1 and 12 are unconstitutional racial gerrymanders); April 27, 1992 (three-judge court grants defendant motion 0 dismiss): June 28, 1993 (Supreme Court reverses and remands): August 27, 1996 (three-judge court enters judgement for defendants following two week trial); June 13, 1996 (Supreme Court reverses, declares District 12 unconstitutional but disrusses challenge to District 1 on standing grounds); July 30, 1996 (three-judge court allows 1996 elections to proceed, gives General Assembly until April 1, 1997 to enact new plan and submit for court’s approval); April 1, 1997 (new plan submitted to three-judge court). = (c) Daly v. State Board of Elections, No. 5-96-CV-88-V (WDNC). January 27, 1997 (complaint served claiming several districts in 1992 congressional redistricting plan and several State House and Senate districts in the existing plans are unconstitutional racial gerrymanders); March 21, 1997 (defendants answer and move to dismiss or transfer for improper venue) (d) Cromartie v. Hunt, No 4-96-CV-104 (EDNC). July 3, 1996 (complaint filed challenging District 1 in 1992 congressional plan); September 4, 1996 (order entered staying all proceedings pending completion of Shaw v. Hunt remedial phase). 11 ¢l’'d 8P:Gl 86.8 £99914616: XE 117 'WIJ3d4S 9d ON 2 Other redistricting litigation: (a) Thornburgh v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) (Section 2 litigation concerning legislative districts). (b) Drumv. Sewell, 245 F. Supp. 877 (MDNC), aff'd. 383 U.S. 831 (1966) (one- person, one-vote challenge to congressional districts). €97C-27P, Preclearance of Prior Plan The prior congressional redistricting plan was precleared on February 6, 1992 (see Attachment 97C-27P-1). The authority of the North Carolina General Assembly to redistrict its congressional districts is contained in 2 U.S.C. §2a and §2c, Armicle I, §§2 and 4 of the U.S. Constitution, and the July 30, 1996, order by the three-judge court in Shaw v. Hunt. See Attachment 97C-27P-2. €197C-27Q. Information Required for Redistricting Information required for redistricting and specified under 28 C.F.R. §§51.28(a)(1) and (b)(1) is located is Attachments 97C-28A and 97C-28B. q97C-27R. Other Material Concerning the Purpose of the Plan Nearly 200 congressional redistricting plans have been drawn by legislative staff, interest groups, and the public using the North Carolina General Assembly’s redistricting computers since January 1, 1996. There were a few exploratory plans drawn by the legislative staff in the fall of 1993 after the United States Supreme Court overnuned Georgia's congressional redistricting plan. Some plans were never completed and some are duplicates of others. Plans that were actually presented during the legislative process as alternatives are discussed below and most are also discussed in 997- 271: 1. Plans Publicly released by the House and/or Senate (a) Congress-96-001: This plan was released by Representative Richard Morgan to the House Rules Committee in July, 1996. The plan was never voted on by the Committee. See §97C- 27H and Attachment 97C-27R-1. The plan contained a district from Charlotte to Robeson County similar to the district contained in the plan offered by Senator Betsy Cochrane as an amendment to 1997 Congressional Plan A and to the plan eventually enacted. (See Attachment 97C-27R-11 for the plan proposed by Senator Cochrane). Representative Morgan’s primary goal in releasing the plan at that time was to establish that a redistricting plan could be drawn in time for the 1996 elections. That plan was never considered by the General Assembly after the public hearing. 12 1d Sp:QY 0 86.8 1] £929914616: XES 117 'BI23dS 99 ON (b) 1997 Congressional Plan A: This was the first plan released by Senator Cooper to the Senate Select Committee on Redistricting on February 20, 1997. The plan was approved by the Committee on March 19, 1997 as Senate Bill 453, but was withheld from a vote on the Senate floor as negotiations between the House and Senate continued on a compromise plan. This plan is contained in 3 different forms in Attachment 97C-27R-2: as released on February 20; as re-released. on February 24 with a contingent zero-deviation plan; and as released again on March 18 as Senate Bill 433. (c) 1997 House Congressional Plan A.l: This was the first plan released by Representative McMahan to the House Committee on Congressional Redistricting. It was presented at the February 25, 1997 meeting of the committee. The plan was never voted on by the comminee. See Attachment 97C-27R-3. (d) 07 House Congress Plan G: This plan was submitted to the House Committee on Congressional Redistricting on March 19. 1997. The Committee approved it and had it introduced as a committee bil} (House Bill 586). The bill was sent back to Committee. (See Attachment 97C- 27R-4). (e) 97 HOUSE/SENATE PLAN: This plan represented the plan agreed to by the House and the Senate. The plan was approved by the House Committee on Congressional Redistricting on March 25, 1997. The plan was amended on the floor of the House by Rep. Ronnie Sutton, and the amended version was sent to the Senate as 37 HOUSE/SENATE PLAN A. See §97C-27H for a discussion of the Sutton amendment. See Attachment 57C-27R-3 for this plan. 2. House Committee Amendments (a) Blue Amendment: Representative Dan Blue offered an amendment that was designed primarily to preserve the 4th district essentially in its 1992 form instead of having it divided between the 2nd and 4th district. The amendment was rejected. See Attachment 97C-27R-6. (b) Sutton amendment: Representative Ronnie Sutton of Robeson County offered an amendment to shift a predominantly Native American precinct in Robeson County from District 8 back to District 7 and to “make up the population difference” in Cumberland County. Representative Sutton did not identify which precincts in Cumberland County should be moved to account for this change. Counsel to the Committee suggested that he make this change as a floor amendment to the bill so that the appropriate precincts could be identified and the population data recalculated on the computer. For purposes of the proposed back-up plan containing zero population deviation (97 HOUSE/SENATE PLAN 0), census blocks within a precinct would also have to be identified and moved and the population figures recalculated to ensure that there was still zero population deviation in Districts 7 and 8. Representative Sutton’s amendment was defeated in committee. (Note: Representative Sutton offered an amendment on the floor the following day, complete with a statistical analysis. See below). 71d 6: 86.8 0 £92991.616: XeS 117 'WIJ3d4S 98 ON 3. House Floor Amendments (a) Representative Sutton offered an amendment on second reading of the bill, complete with statistical analysis, to both the primary plan and the alternate zero deviation plan. His amendment moved a predominantly Native American precinct from District 8 to District 7, moved Fort Bragg from District 7 to District 8, and changed westem Cumberland County and western Favetteville to offset the population difference in District 7 created by the transfer of Fort Bragg. This amendment passed 117-0. See Attachment 97C-27R-7. The recorded vote is attached as Attachment 97C-28F-4H. (b) Representative Mickey Michaux offered the following three related amendments to House Bill 586 on second reading of the bill: (1) Fitch/Michaux Plan A (See Attachment 97C-27R-8) (2) Fitch/Michaux Plan B (See Attachment 87C-27R-9) — (3) Fitch/Michaux Plan C (See Attachment 97C-27R-10) Representative Michaux announced that the purpose of his amendments was to maximize the minority vote by creating more minority influence districts. See House floor debate, Attachment 97C-28F-4F(1), pp. 9-10. Each of these amendments contained a northeastern majority-minority district (District 1) comparable 10 the proposed District | in House Bill 586. The percentage of African American population (total population) of District 1 in all three Fitch/Michaux plans was 50.23%. (It is 50.27% in the enacted plan). Each of the amendments also contained a new District 3 running from Durham to Greensboro and a District 12 running from Charlotte to Winston-Salem. In Plan A. District 5 runs from Granville County through Durham into Greensboro. In Plans B and C, District 3 runs from Durham to Greensboro and then to High Point. The amendments also had variations in District 7. In Plan B, Robeson County is in District 8. In Plan C, Robeson County is in District 2 The percentage of African American and Native American population, based on 1990 census data, for Districts 1, 5, 7, and 12 in the Fitch/Michaux Plans were as follows. (Note: for District 7, the first number is African American population percentage; the second number is Native American population percentage. For the other districts, the number is African American population percentage): 14 Gl'd 05:57" 86: 8, 30 £99912616: XE 111. W134S 8d ON District | District § District 7 Distnict 12 Plan A: 50.23 33.88 29.62/8.61 37.44 Plan B: | 50.23 34.4] 52.17/1.39 37.66 Plan C; 50.23 34.41 30.02/8.55 37.66 All three amendments were voted on in the House and defeated bv the following margins: Plan A (90 10 27); Plan B (90 to 26); Plan C (87 to 30). The recorded votes on these amendments are attached as Attachment 97C-28F-4H. Representative Michaux’s amendments were rejected because they did not preserve the partisan balance in House Bill 386 nor did they preserve the cores of the existing districts in the Piedmont. Plan B would have placed two Democratic incumbents in the same district: Congressman Mcintyre from Robeson County and Congressman Hefner from Cabarrus County. All three plans (A. B. and C) would have placed two Republican incumbents together in District 6: Congressman Burr and Congressman Coble. - In addition. all three plans would seriously weaken the ability of the African-American incumbent in District 12 (Congressman Watt) to win re-election. The African-American percentage in District 12 is only 37.66 percent in Plans B and C and 37.44 percent in Plan A --- approximately nine percent lower than the African-American percentage of District 12 in the enacted plan (46.67%). The three Fitch/Michaux plans also reduce the percentage of African Americans in Districts 2. 3. 4 and 8 as compared 10 the enacted plan, as shown below: Dist. 2 Dist. 3 Dist. 4 Dist. Enacted plan 2791 15.79 21.02 21.73 Fitch/Michaux A 23.62 18.82 19.55 18.62 Fitch/Michaux B 23.71 16.77 18.93 20.90% Fitch/Michaux C B37 16.77 18.93 23.06 *Thus plan (B) also includes a Native American population of 8.64% in District 8. 4. Plans Offered in Senate Committee Senator Betsy Cochrane offered an alternative plan, Cochrane Congress (Attachment 97C- 27R-11), at the March 19, 1997 meeting of the Senate Committee. This plan was offered as an alternative to the plan offered by Senator Cooper (1997 Congressional Plan A). Senator Cochrane's plan was rejected by the Committee. See the minutes from the Senate Committee meeting for that 15 91 °d 05:91 86.8 +0 £94991.616: XES 111 '1BI33d4S SY ON day in Attachment 97C-28F-4D(3) and £97C-27N for extensive discussion on Senator Cochrane's plan and why it was not accepted. 5. Plans Offered on Senate Floor Senator Cochrane offered her plan again. See the discussion above. The plan was defeatad by a vote of 27 to 18. See Attachment 97C-28F4H for the recorded vote on the amendment. 6. Plans Discussed in Negotiations Senator Cooper and Representative McMahan were involved in negotiations with each other for nearly three weeks in an effort to develop a plan that both the House and the Senate could agree to. These negotiations centered primarily on the division of Wake County between the 2nd and 41h districts. Several proposed plans were exchanged during this time. The plans constituted a series of offers and counteroffers that gradually moved the Senate and House closer together. This series of changes can best be understood in light of the original plans released by both sides (1997 Congressional Plan A in the Senate and 1997 House Congressional Plan A.1 in the House) and how those plans came about. In developing the Senate's initial plan as well as subsequent plans, Senator Cooper consulted with members of the congressional delegation and members of the Senate, particularly Senator Frank Ballance, Senator Leslie Winner, Senator Bill Martin, and Senator Marc Basnight. Senator Ballance. an African-American and the Deputy President Pro Tempore of the Senate. was consulted about the placement of counties in the northeastern part of the state -- the area in which he resides (Warren County) -- including the location of the boundaries of the new 1st district. Senator Winner, counsel for the plaintiffs in the Gingles litigation in the early 1980s and a resident of Charlotte, was consulted about the composition of the 12th district, which includes much of Charlotte. Senator Martin, an African-American representing much of Greensboro and Guilford County, was consulted both as to statewide plan issues and the placement of parts of High Point and Greensboro in the 12th district. Senator Basnight, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, was consulted on the plan generally and on the placement of counties in the northeast. Senator Basnight also resides in the northeast (Dare County). Senators Basnight and Ballance together represent most of northeastern North Carolina. The initial Senate plan was perceived by many Republicans as treating incumbent Republican congressman Walter Jones (3rd District) unfairly (see, for example, the comments of Representative McMahan to the House Redistricting Committee on February 25, 1997 at Attachment 97C-28F- 4E(2)). The House Republicans felt that the 3rd district was perhaps their most critical district and that the Senate’s proposal, especially in the 3rd district, threatened the 6-6 partisan balance. Rep. McMahan responded by releasing a plan (1997 House Congressional Plan A.1) that in many respects resembled the Senate plan. However, Rep. McMahan’s plan also addressed the concerns about the 3rd district and created other intentional differences between the two plans to use as “bargaining 16 21d 15:5] 56. 8 130 £929914616b: XES 117 'BIJ3d4S 99 ON chips” in negotiating pnmarily on three districts -- the 2nd, the 3rd, and the 4th. Representative McMahan also consulted with numerous individuals, including African-American and other members of the House and Democratic and Republican members of the North Carolina congressional delegation. Although the boundaries of the 1st District were affected by changes in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th districts, these changes did not significantly affect the percentage of African-Americans in the 1st District. This percentage fluctuated about two-tenths of one percent as a result of this series of changes. The enacted 1st district is similar to the 1st district that was originally proposed by Senator Cooper after consultation with Senators Ballance and Basnight. As enacted, it includes more of the territory of the existing lst district than the original House plan, thus keeping more of Congresswoman Clayton’s current constituency intact in the district. At the same time, the counties in the coastal/ Tidewater region (Chowan, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Currituck, and Tyrrell) are able to remain together with the coastal counties with whom they share economic and other interests. Differences between the House and Senate plans in the 12th district were resolved quickly. The House agreed to include Winston-Salem in the 12th district in one of its first counter-offers to the Senate, recognizing that it was the only major city in the Triad area not included in the urban- based 12th district. - Afier the 3rd district and 12th dismicrt were resolved, the negotiations focused on the dividing line in Wake County between the 2nd and 4th districts. The Senate considered that many of the House plans for the 2nd district were not consistent with the goal of keeping a partisan balance and the House felt that the 2nd district in the Senare plans did not reflect the parusan makeup of the prior 2nd district. This issue was the last 10 be resolved. % Plans Presented at Public Hearing Several plans were presented at the public hearings. These plans are contained as exhibits to the public hearing transcripts and are included in Attachments 97C-28F-3A and -3B. Of these plans, it is believed that only three were ever introduced as bills or offered as amendments: the plan presented by Senator Cochrane (offered as an amendment to the first Senate plan and to the plan that was eventually enacted); a plan introduced by Representative Steve Wood (House Bill 599); and a plan introduced by Representative Robert Grady (House Bill 585). See Attachment 97C-27R-11. Neither Representative Grady nor Representative Wood offered his plan as an amendment to House Bill 586. 8. Public Access and Other Plans The legislature provides access to the public so that any member of the public may draw a redistricting plan. The legislature also provides a qualified staff person to assist members of the public in using the public access redistricting computer. Numerous plans have been drawn by members of the public and interest groups using the public access computer. Attachment 97C-27R- 17 81d 15:51. 86. 8 10 $£99914616: XE 111 WIJ3d4S SY ON 12 contains a list of all congressional plans drawn by legislative staff, the public and others since January 1, 1996. The legislative staff has reviewed this list and, after eliminating plans that were duplicates, has produced summary reports on all staff plans and public access plans, including some plans for which the districts were not completed or which were attempts to draw only certain districts. A map is also included with the reports. The reports provide summary information on population, voting age population, registration, and elections of the districts. This information is included in Attachment 97C-27R-12. 197C-28A. Demographic Information See the 1992 Submission at C-28A. See Attachment 97C-27A-2 for demographic data based on the 1990 census and 1990 voter registration data and estimated 1996 voter registration data. See Attachment 97C-28A-1 for 1997 population projections. €97C-28B. Maps 1. Maps of the prior districts (Congressional Base Plan 10) are contained in the State's previous submission as Attachment 2C-27A. -n Maps of the new districts (97 HOUSE/SENATE PLAN A and 97 HOUSE/SENATE PLAN A 0) are contained in Attachment 97C-27A-2. Two large color maps are included as Anachment 97C-27A-3. 2 Not applicable. - 3 Thematic maps of minority concentration by county (based on 1990 census data) are contained in the previous submission at C-28B. 4. Not applicable. Not applicable. 6. Not applicable. 97C-28C. Annexation Information Not applicable. ¥97C-28D. Election returns Election returns for the following elections are attached as follows: 1992 congressional primary elections Attachment 97C-28D-1 61 'd 25:91 85: 8 10 £929914616: XES 111 WIJ3dS 99 ON DB: NORTH CAROLINA : District Summary Date: 3/26/97 Tetal Populations, All Ages Time: 10:37 am.x. Plan: 97 HOUSE/SENATE PLAN A Page: 1 Plan type: CONGRESSIONAL WITH 97 HOME SEATS District Total Total Total Total Total Total Name Pop. White Black Am. Ind. Asian/PI Other District 1 552,161 268,458 277.565 3,461 1,238 1,440 100.00% 48.62% 50.27% 0.63% 0.22% 0.26% District 2 552,152 388,234 154,108 2,267 4,183 3,363 100.00% 70.31% 27.91% 0.41% 0.7% 0.61% District 3 £52,622 428,481 109,358 2,131 5,625 6,027 100.00% 77.72% 19.79% 0.39% 1.02% 1.05% District 4 EB1, 842 421,224 116,006 1,454 is.730 2,301 100.00% 76.33% 21.02% 0.26% 1.95% 0.43% District S 552,084 471,868 Be 27 1,045 2.381 1,€13 100.00% 85.47% 13.62% 0.19% 0.43% 0.29% District 6 £82,171 493,140 52,248 2,039 3,279 1,463 100.00% 86.31% 8.46% 0.37% 0.59% 0.26% District 7 £52,382 371,545 133,985 40,845 2,781 3,216 100.00% 67.26% 24.26% 7.35% 0.51% 0.58% District 8 553,143 373,569 153,396 14,294 5.541 6,343 100.00% 67.54% 27.73% 2.58% 1.00% 1.15% District © £82,615 481,834 61,443 1,837 €£,408 1,413 100.00% 87.19% 11.12% 0.27% 1.16% 0.26% District 10 . 553,332 Bl2,213 36,123 933 2,482 1,583 i 100.00% 52.57% 6.52% 0.17% 0.45% 0.29% District 11 552,089 512.127 29,276 7,888 1,838 960 100.00% 92.76% 5.30% 1.43% 0.33% 0.17% District 12 552,043 284,799 257,644 2,282 5,630 1,689 100.00% 51.59% 46.67% 0.41% 1.02% 0.31% Total 6,628,637 5,008,492 1,456,329 80,156 82.166 23,503 100.00% 75.56% 21.87% 1.21% 0.79% 0.48% 3 Zs ¢l'd 7G: Gl 86: 8 3130 ¢9/991/616: XE 111 B1)3dS 95 ON DE: NORTH CAROLINA pPistrict Suwwsmary Date: 3/26/97 Voting Age Populations Time: 10:37 a.m. Plan: 97 HOUSE/SENATE FLAN A Page: 1 Pl type: CONGRESSIONAL WITH 97 HOME SEATS ae District Total vot. Age Vot. Age Vot. Age Vot.. Age Vot. Age Name Vot . Age white Black Am. Ind. Asian/PI Other District 1 402,065 © 211,273 187,573 2,450 872 9585 100,00% 52.42% 46.54% 0.61% 0.22% 0.24% District 2 415,099 303,740 108,234 1,649 3,169 2,307 100.00% 72.47% 25.83% 0.39% 0.76% 0.55% District 3 417,769 330,971 76,672 1,657 4,012 4,457 100.00% 79.22% 18.35% 0.40% 0.86% 1.07% District 4 427,266 332,013 B4,535 1,118 7,927 1,893 100.00% 77.71% 19.75% 0.26% 1.86% 0.39% District 5 428,181 370,222 54,468 7°74 1,679 1,039 100.00% 86.46% 12.72% 0.18% 0.39% 0.24% District 6 426,321 384,226 37,317 1,472 2,263 1,044 100.00% 50.13% 8.75% 0.35% 0.53% 0.24% District 7 408,299 287,254 $0,005 26,816 2,067 2,183 100.00% 70.35% 22.04% 6.57% 0.51% 0.53% District 8 402,666 283,487 101,961 5,096 3,909 4,213 100.00% 70.40% 25.32% 2.26% 0.97% 1.05% District 9 419,559 371,456 41,670 1,110 4,358 966 100.00% 88,53% 9.93% 0.26% 1.04% 0.23% District 10 425,367 396,936 25,136 696 1,499 1,102 100.00% 93.32% 5.91% 0.16% 0.35% 0.26% District 11 430,111 402,639 20,455 5,159 1,257 601 100.00% 93.61% 4.76% 1.20% 0.25% 0,14% District 12 414,784 228,346 179,846 1,671 3,812 1,108 100.00% 55.05% 43.36% 0.40% 0.92% 0.27% Total 5,022,487 3,902,563 1,007,876 53,668 36,824 21,619 100.00% 71.70% 20.07% 1.07% 0.73% 0.43% v2 'd : Et 7S: G1 8b. 8 3130 ¢9/991/.616: XE ITT IBI)EH4S 9d IN DB: NORTH CAROLINA Dace: 3/26/97 ime: 10:37 a.m. District Summary Registration Plan: 97 EOUSE/SENATE PLAN A Plan type: CONGRESSIONAL WITH 97 HOME SEATS District 1 pPistrict District District District District District District District District District District Page: 1 District Name <Z'd G5: 61 86. Total Reg. 271,673 100.00% 262,713 100.00% 213,448 100.00% 315,782 100.00% 295,332 100.00% 290,562 100.00% 273,584 100.00% 233,898 100.00% 295,719 100.00% 300,037 100.00% 318,610 100.00% 277,525 100.00% 3,349,883 100.00% 8 130 White Reg. 148,208 54.55% 197,138 75.04% 177,975 83.38% 258,728 80.98% 283,385 88.50% 266,904 81.86% 393,582 70.76% 170,878 73.06% 267,583 90.49% 283,994 94.65% 304.158 95.17% 150,264 54.14% 2,677,778 79.94% 9 27 £94991.6b16: XES Black Reg. 121,958 44.89% 64,603 24.59% 34,801 16.30% 55,059 17.72% 33,380 11.30% 22,935 7 .89% £1,670 22.54% 58,907 25.18% 27,125 $.17% 15,676 5.22% 13,108 4.10% 126,488 ¢5.58% 636,610 12.00% Other Rag. 3.421 0.55% 972 0.37% 688 0.32% 4,085 1.30% 597 0.20% 726 0.25% 18,322 6.70% 4,112 1.76% 1,011 0 . 34% 365 0.12% 2,344 0.73% 773 0.28% 35,496 1.06% Dem. Reg. 235,336 BE.62% 188,416 71.72% 148,801 69.71% 200, 635 63.54% 172,461 143,304 49.32% 200,676 73.35% 160,654 68.70% 153,291 51.84% 139,665 46.55% 188, 349 58.93% 197,783 71.27% 2,129,411 63.57% Repub. Req. 31,393 11.56% 63,567 24.20% 54,152 25.37% 86,354 27.36% 105,168 35.61% 127,298 43 781% 63,968 23.38% 61,417 26.26% 120,358 40.70% 140,415 46.80% 111,879 35.04% 65,708 23.68% 1,031,818 117 B1o33d5 od IN DB: NORTH CAROLINA District Summary Date: 3/26/97 : Elections rime: 10:37 a.m. Plan: 97 HOUSE/SENATE PLAN A Pages 1 Plan type: CONGRESSIONAL WITH 97 HOME SEATS District Sanate Senate Lt, Gov Lt. Gov Court Court Name Gantt Helms Rand Gardnex Lewis Smith District 1 84,590 74,188 97,349 60,092 101,516 44,207 £3.28% 46.72% 61.83% 38.17% 62.66% 30.34% District 77,449 87,350 82,802 79,483 80,919 57,993 47.00% 53.00% 51.02% 48.98% 54.34% 45.66% District £3,362 75,119 62,4993 70,806 €5,828 57,263 41.53% 58.47% 46.85% 53.15% 53.48% 46.52% District 116,953 81,994 104,42° 51,266 01,892 82,439 58.75% 41.21% £3.36% 46.64% 52.33% 47.67% District 71,185 110,586 88,395 104,985 82,168 94,441 39.17% 60.83% 45.71% 54.29% 46.53% 53.47% District 65,644 109,545 73,141 104,528 63,286 103, 287 37.47% 62.53% 41.17% 58.83% 37.99% 62:01% ' District 75,154 80,562 81,897 68,676 87,320 61,441 48.26% 51.74% 57.23% 42.77% 58,70% 41.30% District 64,574 71,664 76,221 £1,265 69,782 56,442 47.40% 52.60% 55.44% 44.56% 55,20% 48.71% District 79,462 98,104 72,891 105,102 60,368 97.577 44.75% 55.25% 40.95% 59.05% 38.22% 61.78% District 68,023 115,662 77,694 116,377 73,264 113,144 37.37% | 62.63% 40.03% 59.97% 39,30% 60.70% District 86,212 101,511 94,396 105,889 91,924 96,040 45.93% 54.07% 47.13% 52.87% 48.91% 51.09% District 107,333 54,101 93,441 57.084 85,1023 53,177 66.49% 33.51% 62.08% 37.92% 61.54% 38.46% Total 950,941 1,060,363 1,015,155 1,025,657 953,081 928,451 47.28% £2.72% 45.74% 50.26% 50.65% 45.35% Z°d 65:91 86. 8 10 £99914616: XE 117013348 od ON 97C-28F+F(1) HOUSE CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION HOUSE FLOOR 3-26-97 Speaker Brubaker: For what purpose does the Gentleman from Moore arise. Representative Morgan: Mr. Speaker, House Bill 586 — short title — Congressional Redistricting 2 is placed on today’s calendar. Speaker Brubaker: Clerk will read. Clerk: House Congressional Redistricting Committee ~ House Committee Substitute for House Bill 586 — A bill to be entitled AN ACT TO DIVIDE NORTH CAROLINA INTO TWELVE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS. Speaker Brubaker: The Chair recognizes the Gentleman from Mecklenburg to explain the bill. Representative McMahan: Mr. Speaker — Members of the House -- Eight weeks ago today I was appointed by Speaker Brubaker to chair the Congressional Redistricting Committee. At the time, I really didn’t know what I was getting into, but today I must wonder what I did to the Speaker to deserve this punishment. Seriously, I first want to thank the 25 Members of our Committee for their input and support. The Committee Substitute before you has received a favorable report from our Committee and does include the Plan agreed upon by the Senate Congressional Committee. So this Plan has been negotiated between both sides for the past eight weeks. It 1s not a perfect Plan, but we have tried very hard to agree upon a Plan that is based on geographic compactness, racial fairness, population that is homogeneously compatible, incumbency friendly, and would divide the fewest number of counties and precincts as possible. The Current Plan divides 45 Counties and 80 precincts ~ new Plan divides 22 Counties and only 2 Precincts. I want to point out to each member that this job has been made doubly hard because we received an ultimatum in 1992 to have a second Majority /Minority District, but last year our 12" District, as you know, was ruled unconstitutional. So the point I Cd 95:51. 86: 8 "10 £949914616: XE 1171 1W133d48 a0 OM House Congressional Redistricting March 26, 1997 Page 2 want to make is that we have tried to agree on a Plan that will be approved by the Justice Department and also be found constitutional. As I said earlier, we don’t have a perfect Plan, but I want you to compare it closely to our Current Plan that I have placed on your desk. Starting in the West, please look at District 9, 10, 11 and see that we no longer divide Buncumbe, Henderson, Polk, McDowell, and Rutherford County. The current Plan also has parts of District 5 extending into Burke, Caldwell and Wilkes County — our new Plan no longer splits those counties. : We also have now Cleveland and Gaston together in District 9 and not divided as in the Current Plan. As you look at 12, we no longer extend from Gastonia to Durham — now only. - extends from Charlotte to Greensboro. We believe this District will now stand a Court test for the following reasons: 1. Not a Majority/ Minority District now so shape does not create that —~ that was the basis the Court used to say this was unconstitutional — not an argument now. N) Population in 12 has homogeneous interest — comprised of many citizens living in an urban setting. 3. Drawn to protect the Democratic incumbent. All three factors are recognized as legitimate factors for drawing Congressional District Plans. Not a great deal of change has occurred in District 8 except now we don’t divide Moore County. District 6 is also very similar — except it includes Moore County. 8d 95:61 86.8 10 £92991.616: XES 1171 1H133d4S 9d ON House Congressional Redistricting Mazxch 26, 1997 Page 3 Moving East, a great deal of change and certainly improvement has occurred due to realigning District 1 — old map has District 1 really scattered over the entire Eastern North Carolina. Now we have a considerably more compact District ) that still has over 50% of a minority population. With the changes in District 1, we are now able to keep Columbus, Brunswick, New Hanover, Pender, Duplin and Onslow Counties together, and all in District 7 except Onslow, which is in District 3. District 3 also more compact because it does not now come from the coast all the way into Sampson and Duplin County. Now to the Triangle where we have caused the most controversy. If you look at the Current Map, you see how District 2 wraps around Wake County on the north and i takes part of Durham County — now that District 12 from Charlotte no longer extends into Durham County, it certainly makes more sense to put Durham back together and combine it with Orange County and Chatham County -- counties already in District 4 — than to either put it entirely in District 2 or extend District 1 down from N/E to pick up Durham County. When we pick up Durham County, it obviously causes us to divide Wake County, and the logical division in my opinion is to include the Research Triangle and Western Wake County in with Durham and Chapel Hill, and Eastern Wake County moves into District 2. This also makes more sense to me than the original Senate Plan that divides Wake on a more East/West line with North Wake County going into District 4— and South Wake County, including Cary, moving into District 2. This seems to make sense not only for geographic compactness but also the makeup of the population certainly appears more homogeneous with the Triangle and 3 major Universities together. I regret that this has not made some of my good friends from Wake County happy, but | would like to point out that the other major counties, Guilford, Forsyth, and Mecklenburg, are all divided and represented by 2 Congressman and that is not all bad. Major metropolitan areas have a lot of needs unique to their area and having 2 Congressman working together for your county can be very positive. 62 °d 25:5) 86.8 33) £929914616: Xe 117 WID3Ad4S 99 IN House Congressional Redistricting March 26, 1997 Page 4 So, to close, I ask each of you to look at what we have done as to a total Plan for our State — again, taking into consideration the directives we have from both the Justice Department, the Court, the incumbency issue and all the other factors. Please keep in mind all the many other factors we have had pulling on us in doing this job. Those of us involved have done our dead level best to agree on a Plan that both sides of the aisle in each Chamber can support. Our alternative after next Tuesday will be to turn this matter over to the three judge panel to do our jobs. I am hopeful that we can forget the partisanship we may have on this issue and let's do this job that the Constitution directs us to do and not have to ask the Court to help us. I really don’t think any of us want to send that kind of message to the citizens across North Carolina. Please note that the bill also provides a back up plan that goes to 0% population variance if the Court should rule the Plan unconstitutional because of the very small variance we have between Districts. It will then divide 12 precincts in lieu of 2 to meet this requirement. Again, this is only in the event we need to go to 0% population, which most of us do not believe we will need to do. Mr. Speaker, Representative Sutton will offer an Amendment that makes a slight change in Robeson County that has been agreed to by all parties. It had been agreed to earlier, but somehow got changed in the final Plan approved in Committee yesterday, and I apologize for that. { understand that other Amendments will be offered and even though I want each Member offering an Amendment to know that I respect their reason for doing it, [ must ask my fellow Members to please keep the Plan in tact. If one change is made, other than Representative Sutton, we will begin to unravel weeks of intense negotiations and agreements that have happened in small steps along the way. Please understand that I can appreciate the reason for the Amendments being offered, but I must ask both sides to please defeat them to protect the integrity of the overall Plan so that we can get it approved in both bodies. Thank you. 02d 25:51 0 86. 8 0 £929914616: XES 111 WIJ34S 99 ON VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF FLOOR DEBATE ON HB 586 (COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE) CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING SENATE CHAMBER : THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 1997 97C-28F-4F(2) Reading Clerk: The Committee Substitute for HB 586, A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT TO DIVIDE NORTH CAROLINA INTO TWELVE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS, referred to the Select Committee on Redistricting. Senator Cooper: Mr. President. President: The members will take their seats, the Senate will come to order. I believe you all might want to hear about this. Senator Cooper: Mr. President. President: Senator Cooper Senator Cooper: To make an announcement. President: The Senator may make his announcement. Senator Cooper: Mr. President, the President Pro Tem will, hopefully before he walks out the door or maybe the Rules Chairman will, let us recess for fifteen (15) minutes to hold the Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting. It will be held in Room 1124, would ask you to please take your bill and your maps that are currently on your desks, take it down to the committee room with you. We don’t have but a few 1t'd 85:61 86. 8 10 £99914616: XE 111 'WIJ3d4S SY ON extra copies and we would ask you to take it with you to the committee and then bring it back with you up to the floor so that we won't have to have additional copies made. We will do that right now as soon as you call a recess, Mr. President. RECESS President: Senator Cooper is recognized. Senator Cooper: Mr. President, I would like to sent forth a committee report from the Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting. President: The Senator may send forth his report. The clerk will read. Reading Clerk: Senator Cooper, for the Redistricting Committee. Committee Substitute for HB 586, A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT TO DIVIDE NORTH CAROLINA INTO TWELVE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS. The committee recommends the bill do pass. Senator Cooper: Mr. President. President: Senator Cooper is recognized for a motion. Senator Cooper: Mr. President, I move that the rules be suspended to the end that the House Bill that was just read in be placed on the floor for immediate consideration. Ze 'd 89:51 86. 8 130 £99912616: XE 117 W148 9d ON President: You have heard the motion. Any discussion. If not, all in favor say “aye” opposed say “no.” The Chair rules that’s two-thirds (2/3). The clerk will read. Reading Clerk: H.B. 586, A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT TO DIVIDE NORTH CAROLINA INTO TWELVE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS, reported favorably. President: Senator Cooper is recognized to explain the bill Senator Cooper: Thank you, Mr. President , members of the Senate. Today we have a congressional redistricting plan that splits forty-six (46) counties, that has six (6) counties which have three members of Congress, and which splits over eight (80) precincts. The plan we have today has some social merit. As a result of this plan, for the first time in many, many years, we have two minority members of Congress as a result of the current plan. However, we have a plan that is a geographic mess. | have, for your viewing pleasure if you want to call it that, had placed on your desks a copy of the current map so that you can see how difficult it is for people to know in which Congressional district they reside. Last year, the United States Supreme Court ordered the Legislature to redraw the map as a result of the 12% Congressional District being declared unconstitutional. Now there are arguments for and against this decision. In fact, the Court found it close. It was a 5-4 decision and one of those Justices sort of wavered back and forth - Justice O’Connor. But the result was that the 12 District was held unconstitutional by a 5-4 decision and we were ordered by Apnl 1 to come up with a new map. When this process began, we had a House controlled by the Republican Party and a Senate controlled by the £2 d 65:51 86. 8+ 10 $£92991.616: XES 117 BIJ3d4S Sd ON Democratic Party and people were saying that it couldn’t be done, that we could not reach an agreement. In fact, other states which had been ordered by the Court to redraw their plans under similar circumstances, other states have been unable to agree on a plan. | want to commend all of those who have been involved in this process because we have agreed on a plan - a plan that is fair and workable, You have the plan on your desk, it is entitled “97 House/Senate Plan A.” This plan reduces the number of counties that are split from forty-five (45) to twenty-two (22). There are now only 22 counties split under this plan. It reduces the number of precincts split from over eighty (80) to two (2) and those two precincts have special circumstances with satellite annexations, etc. and are split under most other plans as well. You have a plan which provides for geographic compactness, provides for consideration of community of = interest, and provides for fair partisan balance. I think that all of the congressional districts would be competitive. However, it is likely that, if political fortunes remain the same, that we would end up with a plan that would elect six Democrats and six Republicans. We said from the beginning in the Senate that in 1996 the people made a decision to elect six members of Congress from the Democratic Party and six members of Congress from the Republican Party and we should not use court- ordered redistricting to alter that result. Therefore, we've come up with the plan that you see before you. In considering the plan, we looked at community of interest, looking at keeping precincts whole, at keeping counties whole as much as possible. We looked at making sure that no counties had more than two members of Congress representing the county. We looked at racial fairness. Let me tell you a little bit about the 1st and the 12% Districts because the unconstitutionality of the 12% District is the reason why we are here. You have the statistics on your desk, but the 1st District is majority minority, total population 50.27%. red 65:51 86. 8 3130 £9991.616: Xe 1177. W145 a9 IN However, let me emphasize that race was not the predominate factor in drawing the 1st Congressional District. We have a district that has ten whole counties and ten split counties. It’s a district which respects the rural agrarian nature of the northeast. It is a district which, I believe, that a minority member of Congress or even a minority challenger would have an excellent chance to be re-elected, but I believe the 1% District not only is constitutional, but also complies with the Voting Rights Act which is also a responsibility we have with this plan to have it pre-cleared by the Justice Department and held constitutional by the Courts. The 12% District is almost 47% majority minority. Currently, the 12% District under our current plan is majority minority. I believe that this new 12% District is constitutional for several reasons. First, and maybe most importantly, when the Court struck down the 12% District it was because the 12% District was majority minority and it said that you cannot use race as the predominate factor in drawing the districts. Well guess what! The 12% District, under this plan, is not majority minority. Therefore, it is my opinion and the opinion of many lawyers that the test outlined in Shaw vs. Hunt will not even be triggered because it is not a majority minority district and you won't even look at the shape of the district in considering whether it is constitutional. That makes an eminent amount of sense because what is the cut-off point for when you have the trigger of when a district looks ugly. I think that the court will not even use the shape test, if you will, on the 12% District because it is not majority minority. It is strong minority influence, and I believe that a minority would have an excellent chance of being elected under the 12% District. If, however, the court decides that the test is triggered for some reason and that we should look at the criteria outlined in Shaw vs. Hunt, you need to look at what the, how we have improved the shape of the 12t District. First, it is much more compact. It is 67% shorter in length Sed 00:91 - 86. 8" +0 £94991.616: XES 117 1WIJ3d4S Sd ON Td o? than under the old plan and you see how the old plan stretches from Gastonia to Durham. You can drive the length of this district in two hours. It is the third shortest district in the entire State. It covers six (6) counties instead of ten (10), it connects the metropolitan area of Charlotte and the metropolitan area of the Triad. There is certainly a community of interest along that corridor, economic, social, and otherwise. It is much wider and it takes into consideration the incumbent and political balance. For all of those reasons, I believe that the 12th District will be held constitutional. Members of the Senate, redistricting is a difficult process - I don’t want this job again, but I believe that we have been able to overcome partisan politics and we have been able to reach a plan that is fair to the people of North Carolina, and fair to all involved. The House agrees. Yesterday, the House voted is unanimously in favor of this plan - 87-30. Of those 87 members who voted “yes”, 52 were Republicans and 35 were Democrats. That is a good strong bipartisan show of support for this plan. I believe that this plan is acceptable to all of the members of Congress. There are a couple who have stated objections about the way that some area had been moved around, but as far as the partisan nature of the districts 1s concemed, we have preserved the current partisan nature of each of the districts and for that reason, I think that all of the incumbents are satisfied. And let me emphasize to you that this is not an incumbent protection plan. This is a plan that attempts to preserve the partisan nature of each of the twelve districts as they now exist. I believe that we've done that with this plan. Members of the Senate, I encourage you to vote for this plan. We have a responsibility as a legislature to draw a plan. It's easier politically to say “let the courts do it”, but that’s rolling the dice. Number one, you don’t know what you are going to get and, number two, it is shirking our responsibility as representatives of the people to do what the Court has 9rd 00:91 ..86., 8 3130 £99914616: XE 1171 1013348 94 ON wh ordered us to do. We may not like everything about the plan, there are some parts of the plan that I wish I could change, but the process of negotiations require give and take. That’s what has happened here. I think we have a result that is fair and equitable for all of the people of North Carolina and I encourage your “yes” vote, Thank you. President: For what purpose does Senator Reeves arise? Senator Reeves: To ask if Senator Cooper will yield. President: He yields. Senator Reeves: Senator Cooper, during your presentation of the plan over the last several weeks, did you have a chance to look at Plan O which we submitted to you for your review? Senator Cooper: Yes. Senator Reeves is referring to a plan that both Senator Reeves and Senator Miller support which would keep Wake County whole and couple it with Chatham and Orange as the current 4% District is currently configured. They have pushed hard for that plan. We officially presented that plan to the House, it was summarily rejected. I believe that if the Senate insisted upon that plan of keeping Wake County whole, that we would end up letting the federal courts draw this plan because they would not accept it. Senator Reeves: In reviewing the order from the courts to redraw these districts, they keyed on District 12 and District 1. They did not mention District 4 or 2 as being a problem and, indeed, in my review, of the plan as we have it right now the base plan as it is set out, District 4 is not the 7 it'd 10:91:86. ‘8. 130 £949914616: XE 1171 WIS ad IN wh problem. District 4 has two, almost two and one-half (2 %) counties and now we are going to split the largest of those counties right down the middle. What is the rationale of the House and what is your rationale for making this fundamental change in District 4 and District 2. Senator Cooper: The 12th District currently stretches from Gastonia to Durham. You necessarily have to change every single district in the state in order to rectify the unconstitutionality of the 12% District. Therefore, we had to make changes in all of the districts. If you were to keep Wake County whole under the current 4% District plan, the 20¢ District would have to stretch almost completely around the 4th District in order to get enough population and you would end up having a situation where you would have almost a doughnut, with the 4% District being the middle of = the doughnut and if we are looking at a plan that provides for geographic compactness, that’s not one that I think that we should consider. However, I presented it as an option and pushed for it at the instance of you and Senator Miller and we were not successful. Senator Reeves: Thank you. President: For purpose does Senator Cochrane arise? Senator Cochrane: | would like to send forward an amendment, please. President: The Senator may send forth her amendment. Do members have copies, Senator Cochrane? Senator Cochrane: Ycs. 8% 'd 10:91 86. § 10 £9/991616: XES 117 W10345 94 IN oh DB: NORTH CAROLINA District Summary Pate: 1/23/92 Total Poptlations, All Ages Time: 2:18 p.m. Plan: 1992 Congressional Base Flan #10 Page: 1 Plan type: Congressional Base Plan District Total Total Total Total Total Total . Name Pop. White Black An. Ind. Asian/PIl Other District 1 552,386 229,829 316,290 3,424 1,146 1,698 100.00X 41.61% 57.26% 0.62% 0.212 0.31) District 2 552,386 421,083 121,212 3,154 4,077 2,860 100.00% 76.23% 21.94% 0.57% 0.74% 0.52% District 3 $52,387 423,398 118,640 2,436 4,044 3,869 100.002 76.65% 21.48% 0.44% 0.73% 0.70% District 4 552,387 426,361 111,168 1,548 10,602 2,714 100.00% 77.19% 20.132 0.282 1.92% 0.49% District 5 552,386 463,183 83,824 1,083 2,448 1,848 100. 00% 83.85% 15.17% 0.20% 0.44% 0.33% District 6 552,386 504,465 41,329 1,973 3,489 1,129 100.002 . 91.32% 7.48% 0.36% 0.63% S0e20% District 7 552,386 394,855 103,428 40,166 5,835 8,102 100.00% 71.48% 18.72% 7.27% 1.06% 1.47% District 8 552,387 402,406 128,417 13,789 4,232 3,543 100.00Z 72.85% 23.25% 2.50% 0.77% 0.64% District 9 552,387 492,424 49,308 1,729 7,373 1,353 100.00% 89.14% 8.93% 0.31% 1.33% 0.28% District 10 552,386 517,542 30,155 942 2,238 1,510 100.00Z 93.692 5.46% 0.17% 0.41% 0.27% District 11 552,387 502,058 39,767 7,835 1,791 936 100.00X 90.89% 7.20% 1.42% 0.32% 0.17% District 12 552,386 230,888 312,791 2,077 4,891 1,739 100.00X 41.80% 56.63% 0.38% 0.89% 0.31% Total 6,628,637 5,008,492 1,456,329 80,156 52,166 31,501 100.00% 75.56% 21.97% 1.21% 0.79% 0.48% 6s 'd C0:91 86: 8 130 £92991/.616: Xe 413 HI)3I4S 95 IN wh DB: NORTH CAROLINA District Summary Date: 1/23/92 Voting Age Populations Time: 2:20 p.m, Plan: 1992 Congressional Base Plan #10 . Page: 1 Plan type: Congressional Base Plan District Total Vot. Age Vor, Age Vot. Age Vot. Age Vot. Age Name Vot. Age Vhite Black Am. Ind. Asian/PI Other District 1 ji 399,969 181,933 213,602 2,428 Bas 15110 100.004 45.49% 53.40% 0.61% 0.21% 0.28% District 2 420,087 328,676 84,311 2,173 3,074 1,963 100.00% 78.24% 20.07% 0.52% 0.73% 0.47% District 3 413,263 324,808 81,170 1,755 2,922 2,608 100.00Z 78.60% 19.64% 0.42% 0.71% 0.63% Bintetatr 4 478,984 336,850 81,210 1,239 7,782 1,903 100.002 78.52% 18.93% 0.29% 1.81% 0.44% District 5 428,782 364,886 60,204 B22 1,650 1,221 100.00% BS.10X 14.04% 0.19% 0.38% 0.28% District 6 428,096 393,271 30,188 1,433 2,407 798 100.00% 91.87% 7.05% 0.33% 0.56% 0.19% District 7 414,413 306,756 71,071 26,489 4,201 5,898 100.00 74.02% 17.15% 6.39% 1.01% 1.42% District 8 403,678 305,366 84,386 8,699 2,956 2,271 100.00¢ 75.65% 20.90% 2.15% 0.73% 0.56% Distriet 9 421,615 380,364 33,B49 1,275 5,059 1,069 100.008 90.22% 8.03% 0.30% 1.20% 0.25% District 10 421,456 197,476 20,837 700 1,409 1,036 100.00% 94.31% 4.94% 0.17% 0.33% 0.25% District 11 430,457 396,064 27,438 5,126 1,237 592 100.00 $2.01 6.37% 1.19% 0.29% 0.14% District 12 411,687 186,115 219,610 1,529 3,283 1,150 100.002 45.21% 53.34% 0.37% 0.80% 0.28% Total 5,022,487 3,902,563 1,007,876 53,668 36,824 21,619 100.008 77.70% 20.07% 1.07% 0.73% 0.43% ord : c0:91 86. 8 %0 $9/99T/616: XB 117 WIJ34S 95 ON nh DB: NORTH CAROLINA District Summary Date: 1/23/92 Registration Time: 2:19 p.m. Plan: 1992 Congressional Base Plan #10 Page: 1 Plan type: Congressional Base Plan District Total Vhite Black Other Dem. Repub. Name Reg. Reg. Reg. Reg. Reg. Reg. District 1 Ree 790,229 132,323 136,536 1,296 235,445 29,509 100.002 48.97% 50.53% 0.48% 87.13% 10.92% District 2 270,061 219,727 48,153 2,196 190,564 66,366 100.002 81.36% 17.83% 0.81% 70.56% 24.57% District 3 248,318 201,699 45,684 955 ‘© 173,132 64,771 100.00% 81.23% 18.40% 0.38% 69.72% 26.08% District 4 306,226 250,780 53,212 2,238 191,876 88,762 100.00% 81.89% 17.38% 0.73% 62.66% 28.55% District 5 293,437 255,458 37,427 550 178,786 97,316 100.00% 87.06% 32.75% 0.19% 60.93% 33.16% District 6 292,842 273,216 18,507 726 © 145,337 138,153 100.00 93.30% 6.46% 0.25% 49.63% 43.76% District 7 218,613 162,148 38,413 18,104 154,517 55,296 100.00% 74.17% 17.37% 8.28% 70.68% 25.29% District 8 254,082 197,961 52,140 3,973 166,645 74,262 100.00% 77.91% 20.52% 1.56% 65.59% 29.23% District 9 296,124 270,843 24,125 1,154 148,223 124,786 100.00% 91.462 8.15% 0.392 50.05% 42.14% District 10 297,917 283,928 13,611 398 135,660 142,775 100.00% 95.30% 4.57% 0.13% 45.54% 47.92% District 11 318,958 299,765 16,847 2,338 192,259 107,923 100.00 93.98% 5.28% 0.73% 60.28% 33.84% District 12 283,076 129,930 151,555 1,568 216,967 51,900 100.00% 45.90% 53.54% 0.55% 76.65% 18.33% Total 3,349,883 2,677,778 636,610 15,496 2,129,411 1,031,819 100.00% 79.94% 19.00% 1.06% 63.57% 30.802 7d ¢0:9T 86. 8 3 ¢9/991/6T6: Xe 117 WID3dS 99 ON