Complaint and Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction

    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