Complaint and Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction
Public Court Documents
July 3, 1996

29 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Cromartie Hardbacks. Complaint and Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction, 1996. 9c4005d7-df0e-f011-9989-7c1e5267c7b6. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/aeab2161-3428-4a43-8f3c-21ab21ae7dd8/complaint-and-motion-for-preliminary-and-permanent-injunction. Accessed May 16, 2025.
Copied!
Z00 FROM NC RG SPECIAL LITIGATION 919-715-4018 ce mo tm mA Se wm a m e © 19 s Su s e S — — — — — E E B — — . w Em H O E S E E 6 5 UO Sh a E S Gy S m a d So h Sa s Sm et — .e - - - a e — — gr — G S He SS eS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 87.83.1996 14:47 pe. a FIED ; ! EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CARCLINA JUL 3 1996 RALEIGH DIVISION Davip Civil Actien No.4 Nn ] ge CV - 1085 NO, cag 7 MARTIN CROMARTIE, THOMAS CHANDLER MUSE, and GLENNES DODGE WEEKS, p.aintiffs, Vv, JAMES B. HUNT, JR., in his official capacity as Governor of the state of North Carolina, DENNTZS WICKER, in his official capacity Aas —iesutenant Governor of the State of No=:h Carolina, HAROLD J. BRUBAKER, in his official capacity as Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representativas, JANICE FAULKNER, in her official capacity as Secretary of State of North [Chrolina, THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, an officlal agency of the State of North Carolina, EOWARD J. HIGH, in his officlal capacity as Chairman of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, MS. JEAN #. NELSON, MR. LARRY LEAKE, MS. JUNE KX. YOUNGBLOOD, AND MRS. DOROTHY PRESSER, in their official capacities as members of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, ) | ] ] : ] COMPLAINT AND MOTION ] FOR PRELIMINARY AND ] PERMANENT INJUNCTION ] ] ] ] ] ] ) ] ] ) ] ] ] ) ] l ) ] ] ] ) ] ] } ] Defendants. -— amen 9° Oommmm—- * wma rs es, or Mi Post-It* Fax Note 7671 [Doe > . To Reath Co.J/Dept. ce. [Phone *) (awe — (oc |TToe! Fee 99a 267-¥3Ss™" i op L | : rtater £e8y L968 BT8LD 0€:-LT 88/€0/L0 FROM NC RG SPECIAL LITIGRTION 919-713-4818 87.83.1996 14147 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT this is an action which challenges tha constitutionality of the c4ce-based congressional Redistricting plan which was enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly in January 19352. Plaintiffs’ claim here is predicated on the claim upheld by the Unitek States Supreme Court in Shaw v. Reig and Shaw vv, Hunt;and it is grbunded on =he injury to the pPlainci?fs which results {rom the Sesaihing application by the Defendants of an unconstitutional plan for which race was the predominant and overriding motive. This | plan injures and impairs the important rights of the plairtiffs as citizens and registered voters of the state of North Se and it threatens to injure and impair those rights into the next century and next millennium. The rights infringed by the acts! of the Defendants are those granted expressly or implicitly by Article I, §8 2 and 4 of the United States Constitution and by the Foudteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. | Plaintiffs seek & declaration that the redistricting plan for North carolina, which was used in the 1992 and 1994 elactions and whibn nas been used already for tha 1996 primaries, is i 2 coo £S8y L968 818% T€: AT 88/€0/L0 “FROM NC RE SPECIAL LITIGRTION 919-713-4218 07.83.1996 14:48 ! uncon leitutional. As to the First Congressional District, where the i reside and vote, as well as to the othar eleven atserices, the plaintiffs also request that the Pefaendants De enjoided from continuing te use the current redistricting plan in prepatatien for the 1996 cengressional elections, and that <the court enter a judgment declaring that anyone elacted to Congress to reprebent the First Congressional District, as lt presently exists, will not be entitled to hold office after January 20, 1997. The plaintiffs also geek a similar declaratory judgment with respect to any Representatives elected from other districts under the current redidsrieting plan. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. this action arises under Article I, §§ 2 and 4; and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of tha Constitution of the Unithd Statas and under 42 U.S.C. §6 1983 and 1988, and 2 U.S.C. $ 2 | | 2. This Court has original jurisdiction of this action pucduant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1232(3) and (4). and § 2284. y-3, venue exists under 28 u.s.c:| §¢ 1351(b) beacause the ‘enagunan of the unconstitutional, rece based redistricting plan and : ‘the other acts and events which are the subject of this action occirzad principally in Ralaigh, Moreh {Caroline 1n the Eastern I . ! 3 v00@) £S8Yy L196 818% TC: AT 898/€0/L0 FROM NC RG SPECIAL LITIGATION 919-715-4018 87.83.1996 14:48 pistzict of North Carolina. Hy | THREE- JUDGE DISTRICT COURT ‘. convocation of a& three-judge district court is required by 2's U.S.C. § 2284 because this action challenges the constiitutionality of the statewide apportionment Of congressional aLatiiate for the State of North carolina. PARTIES 1 iS. All the plaintiffs are citizens and residents of Tarbare, in Edgecombe County, North carolina, and are ragistered to vote in that (county. 18. pefendant James B. Hunt, Jr. is the Governor in and for the Btate of North Carolina and, in such capacity, is the Chief Executive Officer of the State charged with the duty of enforcing | Seng) tenes with state legislatien under Article II, § 5(4) of the Conspiiveios of North Carolina. Moreover, it ls the Governor's duty to issue a commission to a person elected to the United States Houde of Represantatives upon that person's production to the Gov4znor of a certificata of his election from the Secretary of seabe, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §6 163-194. He 1s sued in his : stejstal capacity. , Defendant Dennis Wicker is the Lieutenant GOVeZAOT of North carolina and, as part of his official duties, presides over ! 4 so0@ £S6y 196 61682 eC: LT 86/€0/L0 ! FROM NC AB SPECIAL niin 87.83.1996 14:48 Pe. 5 the Ti carolina Senate and cartifies certain sections of the Senate. He is sued in his official capacity. t 4. Defendant Harold J. Brubaker is the Speaker ©f the North cardlina House of Reprasantatives and, in this capacity, he £4 presides over that body and certifies certain actions taken by the House: of Representatives. He is sued in his official capacity. | : B. Defendant Janice Faulkner, Secratary of State of North { : Carolina, 1s charged with praparing a certificate of elaction for ! each |person elected after the Board of Elactions certifies the | | B R A a dpe m s A r a s v result to her, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. $§§ 163-153. She {s sued in de official capacity. 10. The North Carolina States Board of Elections is an | | tial agency of the Stata of North Carolina, which has been t lished to supervise and conduct elections in the State of ; : Ng Representatives. Defendant Edward J. High is the Chairman and Ms. h carolina, including elections for the United States House of Jear| H. Nelson, Mr. Larry Leake, Ms. June K. Youngblood, Ms. Dorgthy Presser, are members of the North Carolina State Board of va gy i off Eledtions. All of these Defendants are charged with exercising the. powgrs and duties of the State Board of Elections pursuant to N.C. I Geni Stat. §§ 161-22. These Defendants are all sued in thelr | official capacity. Hous B T a e t "1900 [7 £SeY L196 6T8 2€:LT 96/€0/L0 FROM NC RAG SPECIAL LITIGATION 919-713-4018 87.83.1996 14:49 1992 CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING | 11. Pursuant to the results of the 1980 decennial census, the | 1 State, of North Carolina was entitled to only eleven members in the United States House of Representatives. Because of the substantial popu’ facion increase recorded by the 1950 decennial census, North Carobing ie now entitled to an additicnal member in the United Statep House of Representatives. Thus, the size of the state's Congrlassional delegation has increased from eleven to twelve membalrs pursuant to 2 uy.s.C. § 2. The increase in the size of the State's population and congressional delegation required the State of North Carolina to redideziee the State's Congressional districts, so that each of the twelve Congressional Districts would have equality in population. To this end, on July 9, 1991, the Genaral Assembly snacted rediprricting legislation as Chapter 601 of the North Carolina soso Laws Of 1991. 13. Because portions of the State of North carolina are subject to the preclearance procedures of § 5 of the Voting Rights Act) the redistricting legislation could not take affect and was aneNtorceenin, unless and until the Attorney General of the United Bribes failad to object to the redistricting plan within a prepcribed time aftar its submission to him. £987y L968 6T8%2 gC: LT 86/€0/L0 800) FROM NC RG SPECIAL LITIGATION 919-715-4218 ; 87.93.1996 14:49 | | 1a. Following its enactment, Chapter 601, the redistrieting Legislation, was duly submitted by the gtate of North Carolina to the Attorney Genaral for preclearance pursuant to the voting Rights Act. 1s. on December 18, 1991, the Attorney General, acting through his subordinate in the United States paepartment of Justice, Le to this redistricting and refused precleazance. The basis for danysng preclearance was that the General Assembly had failed to Hovis TWO congressional Districts containing a majority of atk persons and voters in order to better assure that in each district a black person would ba elected to Congress. BY denying preclearance on this basis, the Attorney Genaral exceeded any authbrity he was entitled toc exercise under any constitutionally prop r interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, as has now been decided by the Supreme Court in Miller v. Johnson and Shaw vv, Hunt. 16. Because of the objection chat had been made by the o o . c a B n Attdrney General, the General Assembly of North Carollna, convened in rectal session and enacted Chapter 7 (1981 Extra sassion) (hereinafter "Chapter 9"), which provides for the redistricting of oo ressional districts and an increase from eleven to twelve Gorlrrousional districts. 17. In enacting Chapter 7, the predominant motive of the = £S8Vv L98 8162 £e- LT 98/€0/L0 FROM NC RAG SPECIAL LITIGRTION 919-715-4818 8? 83.1996 14:58 General Assonbly was rAce, 28 Was reflected in its own zecord of proceedings and otherwise. The drafting of the plan relied upon computer cechnology to Group 229,000 census blocks in accord with race, no that census blocks with a predominantly slack population would|be clustered together a and these clusters would be connected by stiings of census blocks with a predominantly white population. Thezeby an African-American majority and thelr election of an Atrichn-American representative could be assured in these aisedicts. No socioeconomic data other than race and age of | population was available in the computer page for use in drawing the $auEiats. . 18. in the first redistricting plan the First congressional nn {et had been drawn with the predeminant and overriding purpose of creating a majority-black district and all racially neutral and traditional redistricting principles were subordinated to this ws and motive. In the second plan, enacted by Chapter 7, the t dll axisted but the First District was even more "bizarre" and was formed with an even greater disregard of neutral and eagicsonal redistricting principles. fe contained a "double crohsover”., reached from the virginia line almost to south Sarina, split many counties, cities and towns, and precincts, and usdd corridors of white wgiller people" to connect concentrations 8 - — e ® me e® 800 £S8y L968 81882 Ce LT 88/€0/L0 FROM NC AG SPECIAL LITIGRTION 919-715-4818 97.03,1996 141858 : ; P. 9 of Af — — — — —— — {can~Americans in the center of Fayetteville, Wilmingten, areentille and othar towns with predominantly black rural areas. is. The redistricting legislation, Chapter 7, was submitted | to the Attorney General for praclsazance. The Attorney General | entered no objection to the new redistricting plan. RO. Subsaquently, on Yebruary 28, 1952, an action was filed jr against State officials by various plaintiffs objecting to the redistricting plan on several grounds. (See Pope et al ¥,. Blua ef al. fivil Action No. 3:92CV71-P, United States District Court, Westdcn District of North Caraelina, Charlotte pivision.) Those grounds are distinct from the basis for this action; and the present plaintiffs in no way adopt or incorporate the contentions made; py the Plaintiffs {in that action, which was dismissed. | CAUSE OF ACTION | : 21. The preceding allagations of this complaint are f incqrporated py reference and realleged. i 22. The Plaintiffs, as citizens and zesidents of the State of vein Carolina, are part of its “people”; and as registerad voters in fhe stats, they have, under Article I, § 2 of the constitution, a right to choose members of Congress. Under Article.l, § 4, this right is subject to control by Congress and the federal government : : ! W 010M ¢S8Y L96 6T6S pe:LT 88/£0/L0 FROM NC AG SPECIAL LITIGATION 919- - x 19-715-4918 @7.83,1996 14158 only to a limited extent and not in the manner in which tha Attorney General has intezrprated the Voting Rights Act. 23. The right of the plaintiffs to vote for members of the House, of Representatives is & right for which the Plaintiffs are enticed to the "equal protection cof the laws", with respect to any actioh taken by the State of North Carolina. Moreover, this right to vde for members of the House of Representatives of the United states is a "privilege" of citizens of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment and 1s protected by that anenden from being abridged by the State of North Carolina. The right of the plaintiffs as citizens of the United States to vote for embers of the House of Representatives is also protected by the Fifeaench Amendment against being "abridged" by the State of worth carolina on account of the race or color of the Plaintiffs. 24. Any action by officers of the State of North Carolina which discriminates on the basis of race or coler violates this | pa of Plaintiffs to vote for membars of Congress; denies the plajntifts and all other voters equal protection of the laws; and | on 4ccount of race or color abridges their Fighs to vota. | I 25. BY submitting to the ancoRptitutionsl requirements imppsed py the Attorney General, and acquiescing in the creation of race-based congressional Districts intended €O concentrate voters 10 TT0 : £C8v L968 618% pei) T 86/€0/L0 Z10@ FROM NC AG SPECIAL LITIGATION 919-715-4818 87.83.1996 14:31 of a |particular race and to elect members of Congress of a partidular race, the General Assembly of North Carolina, in 1992, becamé a necessary participant in creating a racially discriminatory voting process for the election of members of Congrpas from North carolina; and the present dafendants, as past of their official duties, implement and execute this unconstitutional action of the General Assembly. } 26. By their acts done in submission tO the requirements imposed py the Attorney General, the dafendants have heretofore violated, and, unless enjoined, will in the immediate future inevitably violate rights conferrad upon these Plaintiffs by. | ATsizie 1, §$¢ 2 and 4, and by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. : : [2% The decision by the Ganeral Assembly to cCZeate two Congressional Districts in which a majority of black voters was condentrated arbitrarily -- without regard to any other considerations, such as compactness, cont iguousnaess, geographical boundaries, or political subdivisions -- was 3 decision made with gall awareness of the intended consequences and effects and was made with the purpose, to create congressiecnal Districts along racial lines and to assure that black members of Congress would be elected from two Congressional Districts ia which a majority of 1l £S6Yy L968 616% Se: LT 868/¢€0/.L0 CTO FROM NC RG SPECIAL LITIGATION 919-715-4818 @7.83,.1996 14:51 black [voters were intentionally and purposefully coricentzated On the basis of census data raflecting the racial compesition af North Cazoline's population. plaintiffs allege chat, for purposes of the Fourtéenth and Fifteenth Amendments tO the United States const sutton, this intent and purpose on the part of the members of the deneral Assembly in North carolina was and is a racially discriminatory intent and purpose. The overriding and predominantly racial motive requires strict scrutiny which these districts cannot survive because there was no compelling State intezest in creating them and they are not narrowly tailored. olaidtiffs further allege that Chapter 7, the North carolina redistricting legislation -- which creates bizarre, non-contiguous, and jextraordinasily dispersed districts, such as the First and | Twelfth Districts, and which was enacted as a result of the conscious decision by Members of the General Assembly which the various State defendants are now continuing to {implement -- is the resylt of an unconstitutional and racially discriminatory intent and | purposa. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that: . 1. The United States District Court Judge to whom this case l . is initially assigned, immediately notify the Chief Judge for the ! United states Court of Appeals for the fourth Circuit so chat a 2: £Sey L968 818% SC LT 96/€0/L0 “12 FROM NC RB SPECIRL LITIGRTION 919-715-4818 87.83.1996 14:32 1 three-judge Court may pe convened to hear this case in as expeditious a manner as feasible. 3, The Court declare Chapter 7 to pe unconstitutional and of [ no further force and effect as it purports to establish Congrpssional districts for the State of North Carolina. B. That the Court direct the General Assembly to prepare a new redtstricting plan for the State of Nogth carolina which will not concentrate in any Congressional district persons of a particular race or coler =- whether black, white, Native American, or WT -« in a manner that is totally unrelated tO considerations of conpactness, contiguousness, and geographic OF | juripdictional communities of interest. | 4 Upon the enactment by the General Assembly of new radgsecicting legislation, the new redistricting plan shall be submitted gorthwith to the Defendant Attorney General for pre¢learance. | 2 P The Court parmanently enjoin the defendants from | conHucting elections for the U.S. House of Representatives in North Carelina until the General Assembly enacts, and the Department of | | we preclears, 8 new redistricting plan as prayed for in pagagraphs 3 and & above. } ' §. The Court enter a preliminary injunction enjoining the 13 vI0@ £S8y L968 B818L2 9¢ LT 96/¢0/.L0 FROM NC RG SPECIAL LITIGATION 919-715-4018 87.83.1996 14:52 l catendants from taking any action in the preparation for primary Or genera} elections for the U.S. House of Representatives in North carclifa until the General Assembly enacts, and the Department of } : Ge Justich preclears, 8 new redistricting plan as prayed for in paragraphs 3 and 4 above. RR Tie For the purposes of considezation of any injunctive } relief this complaint, when properly varified, be treated as an atfiddvit {n this action. i { 9- The Court award COStS and attorneys feas to the plaintiifs as authorized by law. I 9- Tha Court grant such other and ¢urther relief as MAY, to the chuzt, seem just and proper. Respectfully submitted, this 3rd of July, 1996. ‘ 4 i 1 : Ry | Robinson O. Everett ; %.c. State Bar #1385 Attorney for Plaintiffs Suite 300 First Union Natl. Bank Bldg. ; 301 W. Main Strest \ p.0. Box 586 ; Durham, NC 27702 Telephone: (919) 682-5691 06 Ba se am m— —" S w e | wr AD L 14 ST0@ ....5s8v 196 8T6Q 9C:LT 96/C0/LO FROM NC ARG SPECIAL LITIGRTION 919-715-4018 87.83.1996 14:47 . : Pe. 3 FIED : UNITED STATES DISTRICT cou ; EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA » oy 3 19% J RALEIGH DIVISION Civil Action No.4 Q Re «CV= 10 Sime i MARTIN CROMARTIE, THOMAS CHANDLER MUSE, and GLENNES DODGE WEEXS, p.ainciffs, — - v. | COMPLAINT AND MOTION ¥ : ] FOR PRELIMINARY AND £ JAMES B. HUNT, JR., in his official |] PERMANENT INJUNCTION capacity as Governor of the ] state of North Carolina, ] DENNIS WICKER, {in his official ] capacity as Lleutenant Governor 1 of the State of Nozth Carolina, ] HAROLD J. BRUBAKER, in his official ] capacity as speaker of the North | carolina House of Representativas, ] JANICE FAULKNER, in her official ] capacity as Secretary of State ) of North Carolina, ] THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD ] OF ELECTIONS, an official agency of | ] ] ] ) ] ] ] ) ] ] ) ] E n eS . — — — — — 5 E — —- Me ns . S e e 9 0 Bo ca e ma m t= o v e ~ the S-ate of North Carolina, "EOWARD J. HIGH, in his officlal capacity as Chairman of the North Carolina State Board of Flections, MS. JEAN H. NELSON, MR. LARRY LEAKE, MS. JUNE KX. YOUNGBLOOD, AND MRS. DOROTHY PRESSER, in their oficial capacities as members of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, - — — — . — EP St un ot — — — — — — _ Defendants. © 4 ames 0" Cem— "mE oom eEE——— ore mo ee Post-It* Fax Note 7671 |Dewe |pades® - FHdam Sten Coo ; : [Co/Dept Ce. [Phone 803 (awe — Coo Tome! ill TEE LA ER atl FROM NC R6 SPECIAL LITIGATION 519-715-4818 87.83.1996 14:34 - ? P. 2 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT tris {is an action which challenges tha constitutionality of the zdce-based congressional Redistricting plan which was enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly in January 1992. Plaintiffs’ claim here is predicated on the claim upheld by the unite states Supreme Court in Shaw v. Rano and Shaw v, Hunt and it is grbunded on =he injury to the Plaintiffs which results from the santlrstng application by the Defendants of an unconstitutional plan for which race was the predominant and overriding motive. This | plan injures and impairs the important rights of the Plagfsiozs as citizens and registerad voters of the State of North Te and iz threatens to injure and impair those rights into the next century and next millennium. The rights infringed by the acts! of the Defendants are those grantad expressly or implicitly by Article I, §8 2 and 4 of the United States Constitution and by the Foudteenth and Flfteenth Amendments. | | Plaintiffs seek & declaration that the redistricting plan for North carolina, which was used in the 1992 and 1994 elactions and whikn nas been used already for tha 1996 primaries, is { | 2 ROM NC RG SPECIAL LITIGATION 919-715-4018 87.03.1996 14:48 | a As to the First Congressional District, where the pl aintiffs reside and vote, as well as to the othar eleven districts, the plaintiffs also request that the Defendants be enjoined from continuing te use the current redistricting plan in prepatation for the 1996 congressional elections, and that the court enter a judgment declaring that anyone elected to Congress to represent the First Congressional District, as it presently exists, | will inot be entitled to hold office after January 20, 1997. The t ! plaintifis also seek a similar declaratory judgment with respect to any Representatives elected from other districts under the current cedidusitestng plan. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This action arises under Article I, 6§ 2 and 4; and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of tha Constitution of the United Statas and under 42 U.S.C. §6 1983 and 1988, and 2 U.8.0. = { } 1 l i : I | 2. his Court has original jurisdiction of this action $§ 2 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1232(3) and (4), and § 2284. 3 venue exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1351(b) because the enadtment of the unconstitutional, race-based redistricting plan and (the other acts and events which are the subject of this action i occlizred principally in Raleigh, North [Carolina in the Eastern 3 i FROM NC RG SPECIAL LITIGATION 919-715-4818 87.83.1996 14:48 REgertes of North Carolina. THREE - JUDGE DISTRICT COURT ‘. convocation of a three-judge district court is required by 2's U.S.C. § 2284 because this action challenges the constiitutionality of the statewide apportionment of congressional dussriicts for the State of North carolina. | PARTIES iS. All the plaintiffs are citizens and residents of Tarboro, gecombe County, North Carolina, and are registered to vote in county. 18. Defendant James B. Hunt, Jr. is the Governor in and for the Btate ©0f North Carolina and, in such capacity, is the Chief Executive Officer of the State charged with the duty of enforcing | Sonpiiante with state legislatien under Article II, § 5(4) of the Constitution of North Carolina. Moreover, it is the Governor's duty to issue a commission to a person elected to the United States Houde of Represantatives upon that person's production to the Govdznor of a certificata of his election from the Secretary of Stade pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 163-194. He is sued in his sttjetal capacity. ’. Defendant Dennis Wicker is the Lieutenant Governor of North carolina and, as part of his official duties, presides over { ! 4 P E R E a t e e e t ann FROM NC AB SPECIAL rtrd 919-715-4418 87.83.1996 14:48 the gis Carolina Senate and cartifies certain actions of the Senate. He is sued in his official capacity. ok 8. Defendant Harold J. Brubaker is the Speaker of the North lina House of Representatives and, in this capacity, he 1 presides over that body and certifies certain actions taken by the car House: of Repragentatives. He ls sued in his official capacity. ’. Defendant Janice Faulkner, Secratary of State of North Co cotins) is charged with praparing a certificate of elaction for stn serion elected aftar the Board of Elections certifies the fosils to her, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. $§§ 163-153. She is sued in heér official capacity. 10. The North Carolina $tate Board of Elections {is an No h carolina, including elections for the United States House of 4 nepchianratives. Defendant Edward J. High is the Chairman and Ms. Jean H. Nelson, Mr. Larry Leake, Ms. June KX. Youngblood, Ms. Sordiny Presser, are members of the North carolina State Board of Eludotone All of these Defendants are charged with exercising the. powgrs and duties of the State Board of Elections pursuant to N.C. Gen} Stat. §§ 163-22. These Defendants are all sued in thelr ofthcial capacity. CRY JAR RTRL. dh St A Aag/eNn/ Ln FROM NC RAG SPECIAL LITIGATION 919-713-4018 87.83.1996 14:49 | 1992 CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING ov; Pursuant to the results of the 1380 decennial cengus, the State or North Carolina was entitled toc only elaven members in the united States House of Representatives. Because of the substantial popu btion increase recorded by the 1990 decennial census, North caroline ie now entitled to an additional member in the United i Statep House of Representatives. Thus, the size of the State's Congressional delegation has increased from eleven to twalve members pursuant to 2 U.S. Cv. 8 2. 12. The increase in the size of the state's population and congzassional delegation raeguired the State of North Carolina to Peat TL RE the State's Congressional districts, so that each of the twelve Congressional Districts would have equality in population. TO his end, on July 9, 1991, the Genaral Assembly enacted rediprricting legislation as Chapter 601 of the North Carelina & session Laws of 1991. ' 13. Because portions of the State of North carolina are Sup isce to the preclearance procedures of § 5 of the Voting Rights Act) the redistricting legislation could not take affect and was uniazelonabie, unless and until the Attorney General of the United sviles sailed to object to the redistricting plan within & ppeponibes time aftar its submission to him. i 6 ~ aoa rm FROM NC ARG SPECIAL LITIGATION 919-715-4218 : 87.93.1996 14:49 | | 14. Following its enactment, Chapter 601, the redistricting tegtalattdn, was duly submitted by the State of North Carolina to the Attorney General for preclearance pursuant to the voting Rights Act. ; } 18, on December 18, 1991, the Attorney General, acting through his subordinate in the United States pepaztment of Justice, sotstiied to this redistricting and refused precleazance. The basis for denying preclearance was that the General Assembly had failed to cpeate two Congressional Districts containing a majority of rar persons and voters in order to pettar assure that in each [4 dieshict a black person would be elected to Congress. By denying | 5. preclearance on this basis, the Attorney Genaral exceeded any | : authbrity he was entitled toc exercise under any constitutionally ! proper {nterpreatation of the Voting Rights Act, as has now been decided by the Supreme Court in Miller v. Johnson and Shaw v, Munk. 16. Because of the objection that had been made by the — — ea m = o— Attdrney General, the General Assembly of North Carolina, convened in special session and enacted Chapter 7 (1981 Extra session) (he einafter "Chapter 7"), which provides for the redistricting of cob ressional districts and an increase from eleven to twelve SEeravetonal districts. 17. In enacting chapter 7, the predominant motive of the 5 no /7060n 71 FROM NC RG SPECIAL LITIGATION 919-715-4018 87.83.1996 14:5 ® ® 4: -.] General Assembly was IACe, as was reflected in its own record of proceadings and otherwise. The drafting of the plan relied upon computer technology to Group 229,000 census blocks in accord with’ cace., ao that census blocks with a predominantly black population would|be clustered together and these clusters would be connected by stiings of census blocks with a predominantly white population. Theseby an African-American majority and thelr election of an Atrichn-Anerican representative could be asgured in these asscdicts. No socioaconomic data other than race and age 0f BopuiRtion was available in the computer base for use in drawing the districts. 18. In che first redistricting plan the First Congressional Distiict had been drawn with the predominant and overriding purpose of creating a majority-black district and all racially neutral and traditional radistricting principles were subordinated to this Seniors and motive. In the second plan, enacted by Chapter 7, the sand purpose axisted but the First District was even more "bizarre" and vas formed with an even greater disregard of neutral and ceabitsonal redistricting principles. It contained a "double ciipagier”, reached from the virginia line almost to South Sarizine, split many counties, cities and towns, and precincts, and usdd corridors of white wgiller people” tO connect concentrations Onn Fh cecayr 10R ATA Qty QR /0N/IN FROM NC AG SPECIRL LITIGRTION 919-715-4818 P7.03,1996 14158 : | of Atfican-Americans in the center of fayetteville, wilmingten, greenville and other towns with predominantly black rural areas. is. The redistricting legislation, Chapter 7, was submitted ; to the Attorney General for praclsazance. The Attorney Genarsal | enterpd no objection to the new redistricting plan. RO. subsaquently, on ¥ebruary 28, 1952, an action was filed against State officials by various plaintiffs objecting to the redistricting plan on several grounds. al. fivil Action No. 3:92CV71-P, United States District Court, (See Popa et al ¥,. Blue 2% gd District of North Carelina, Charlotte Division.) Those grounds are distinct from the basis for this action; and the present plaintiffs in no way adopt Or incorporate the contentions made; by che Plaintiffs in that action, which was dismissed. | ; CAUSE OF ACTION | © 21. The preceding allagations of this complaint are incqrporated py reference and realleged. 23. The Plaintiffs, as citizens and residents of the State of a Carolina, are part of its "people"; and as registered voters in the State, they have, under Article I, § 2 of the Constitution, a right to choose members of Congress. Under Article.l, § 4, this right is subject to control by Congress and the Federal government | 8 ~vra FD NANOS IN NO JOON 71 NN FROM NC AG SPECIAL LITIGATION 919-715-4818 07.083,1996 14:58 1 only je a limited extent and net 1in the manner ina which tha Attorney General has interpreted the Voting Rights Act. 3. The right of the Plaintiffs to vote for members of the House of Representatives is a right for which the Plaintiffs are enticed to the "equal protection cf the jaws", with respect to any sctioh taken by the State of North Carolina. Moreover, this Tigat to vole for members of the House of Representatives of the United states is a "privilege" of citizens of the United States within the meaning of the fourteenth Amendment and is protected by that amendmen from being abridged by the State of North Carolina. The right of the plaintiffs as citizens of the United States to vote for penbezs of the Houses of Representatives is also protected by the Fifteenth Amendment against being "abridged" by the State of worth carolina on account of the race or color of the Plaintiffs. 24. Any action by officers of the State of North Carolina whidh @isonininase. on the basis of race or color violates this rio of plaintiffs to vote for membars of Congress; denies the Plajntifts and all other voters equal protection of the laws; and on socount of race or color abridges thelr right to vota. | 28. 'BYy submitting to the unconstitutional requirements fmpiiand by the Attorney General, and acquiescing in the creation of ratio paged congressional Districts tatended to concentrate voters | 10 FROM NC RG SPECIAL LITIGATION 919-715-4018 87.83.1996 14:31 LJ of a |particular race and to olact members of Congress of . pertidular race, the General Assembly of North Carolina, in 1992, becané a necessary participant in creating a zacially aiscriminatory voting process for the election of membars of Congzrpss from North Carolina; and the present dafendants, as pact of kheir official duties, implement and execute this unconstitutional action of the General Assembly. 26. By their acts done in submission to the requirements imposed by the Attorney General, the defendants hava heretofore violated, and, unless enjoined, ‘will 4n the immediate future inevitably violate rights conferred upon these Plaintiffs by. Achiste 1, §¢ 2 and 4, and by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. | . | 27% Tne decision by the General Assembly to create two Congressional Districts in which a majority of black voters was condentrated arbitrarily -- without regard to any other considerations, such as compactness, contiguousness, geographical boundaries, or political subdivisions -- was a decision made with full awareness of the {ntended consequences and effects and was made with the purpose, to create Congrassional Districts along racial lines and to assure that black members of Congress would be elected from two Congressional Districts in which a majority of 1: Tn Fh CCRY JAR RTRO. ee :IY arR/¢eNn/’n oTn FA FROM NC RG SPECIAL LITIGRTION 919-?15-4018 @7.83.1996 14:51 black [voters were intentionally and purposefully concentzated on the pa) is of census data raflecting the racial composition of North carolina’ s population. Plaintiffs allege that, for purposes of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States const zution, this intent and purpose on the part of the membars of the deneral Assembly in North Carolina was and 13 a racially discriminatory intent and purpose. the overriding and protopinaneiy racial motive requires strict scrutiny which these disratees cannot survive because there was NO compelling State inteZest in creating them and they are not narrowly tallered. Plaintiffs further allege that Chapter 7, the North Carolina redistricting legislation -=- which creates bizarre, non-contiguous, and i dispersed districts, guch as the First and rvefen Districts, and which was enacted an a result of the conscious decision by Members of the General Assembly which the | various State defendants are now continuing to implement -- is the resylt of an unconstitutional and racially diseriminatory intent and | purpose. | WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that: Pika. The United States District Court Judge to whom this case 1 : is initially assigned, immediately notify the Chief Judge for the United states Court of Appeals for the fourth Circult 80 chat a . | : : 12 ceayr 10” ARTAROY eer IT Qr /¢N/ IN FROM NC AB SPECIRL LITIGATION 919-715-4018 87.05.1996 14:52 il i Court may De convened to hear this case 1 expeditious a manner as feasible. i. The Court declare Chapter 7 to be unconstitutional and of no further force and effect as it purports tO establish congressional districts for the State of North Carolina. { 3. That the Court direct the General Assembly to prepare & new reasatzicting plan for the State of North carolina which will not concantzate in any Congressional district persons of a particulsr race or color ~~ whether black, white, Native American, or ii -- in a manner that 1s totally unrelated tO considerations of compactness, contiguousness, and geographic OF | jurspdiceional communities of interest. | 4. Upon the enactment by the General Assembly of new redistricting legislation, the new redistricting plan shall be submitted forthwith =O the Defendant Attorney General for pre¢learance. | i 8. The Court permanently enjoin the defendants from | confucting elections for the U.S. House of Rapresentatives in North | carolina until the General Assembly enacts, and the Department of | hn preclears, a new redistricting plan as prayed for in pa agraphs 3 and 4 above. §. The Court enter & preliminary injunction enjoining the 13 n as « FROM NC RG SPECIAL LITIGATION 919-715-4018 87.03.1996 16:52 | ' : P.14 satendants ¢rom taking any action in the preparation for primary or general elections for the U.S. House of Representatives in North Carclifa until the General Assembly enacts, and the Department of 1 . Sis Justicp precleazrs, 8a naw redistricting plan as prayed for in paragraphs 3 and 4 above. die 7. For the purposes of considazation of any injunctive relies this complaint, when properly verified, be treated as an atgiddvit in this action. { . The Court award Costs and attorneys feas to the plaintiffs as authorized by law. I 9. Tha Court grant such other and further relief as may, to the chuzt, seem just and proper. respectfully submitted, this 3rd of July, 1996. if | 1 _-—— Robinson O. Everett N.C. State par #1385 Attorney for Plaintiffs Suite 300 First Union Natl. Bank Bldg. ; 301 W. Main Street \ p.0. Box 586 ; Durham, KC 27702 Telephone: (919) 682-5691 PE a n d FY 14