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 30, 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