Joint Motion for Stay

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

EASTERN DIVISION 

Civil Action No. 4-96-CV-104-BO(3) 

MARTIN CROMARTIE, et al., Dia 

Plaintiffs, 

Vv. 

JAMES B. HUNT, JR., in his official 

capacity as Governor of the State of North 

Carolina, et al., JOINT MOTION 

FOR STAY 

Defendants, 

and 

ALFRED SMALLWOOD, et al., 

N
e
 

N
a
 

N
e
 

N
a
 

N
a
 

N
e
 

N
a
 

N
e
 

N
a
 

N
a
 

N
a
 

N
a
 

N
e
 

N
e
 

N
a
 

N
a
 

N
e
”
 

Defendant-Intervenors. 

NOW COME the plaintiffs, defendants and defendant-intervenors, by and through 

undersigned counsel, and jointly move the Court to stay all proceedings in this action until the 

United States Supreme Court renders a decision on the pending appeal, Hunt v. Cromartie, No. 98- 

85. In support of this motion, the parties show the following: 

This action was filed by plaintiffs on July 3, 1996, challenging the constitutionality of the 

1992 North Carolina congressional redistricting plan. Proceedings in the action were stayed, 

however, until the remedial proceedings in Shaw v. Hunt, 92-202-CIV-5-BR (E.D.N.C.), were 

concluded. The stay was dissolved October 16, 1997, and an amended complaint was filed October 

17,1997, challenging the 1997 congressional plan approved by the Shaw panel. On April 6, 1998, 

 



this Court entered a judgment granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to the Twelfth 

Congressional District and permanently enjoining congressional elections under the 1997 

congressional plan. 

Defendants gave notice of appeal to the Court’s judgment and filed a jurisdictional statement 

in the United States Supreme Court on July 6, 1998. Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss or affirm 

on August 26, 1998. By order entered September 29, 1998, the United States Supreme Court noted 

probable jurisdiction in Hunt v. Cromartie, No. 98-85, and established an expedited briefing 

schedule. Defendant-appellants brief is due by November 10, 1998; plaintiff-appellees’ response 

is due by December 8, 1998; and defendant-appellants’ reply brief is due by December 29, 1998. 

The questions presented for which the Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction are: 

1, In a racial gerrymandering case, is an inference drawn from the challenged district’s 

shape and racial demographics, standing alone, sufficient to support summary judgment for the 

plaintiffs on the contested issue of the predominance of racial motives in the district’s design, when 

it is directly contradicted by the affidavits of the legislators who drew the district? 

2.1 Does a final judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction, which finds a state’s 

proposed congressional redistricting plan does not violate the constitutional rights of the named 

plaintiffs and authorizes the state to proceed with elections under it, preclude a later constitutional 

challenge to the same plan in a separate action brought by those plaintiffs and their privies? 

3. Is a state congressional district subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection 

Clause simply because it is slightly irregular in shape and contains a higher concentration of 

minority voters than its neighbors, when it is not a majority-minority district, it complies with all  



of the race neutral districting criteria the state purported to be following in designing the plan, and 

there is no direct evidence that race was the predominant factor in its design? 

Before probable jurisdiction was noted, this Court filed a discovery scheduling order on July 

13, 1998, which directs that all discovery be concluded by December 11, 1998, and all motions 

(except those relating to the admissibility of evidence at trial) be filed by January 15, 1999. The 

scheduling of trial was left for a subsequent order so that no trial date has been set. 

The parties all concur that it is not in the best interests of justice or judicial economy to 

conduct discovery or hold any other proceedings in this action pursuant to the existing scheduling 

order until a decision is rendered by the Supreme Court. The resulting opinion on the three questions 

presented likely would substantially redirect or refocus discovery efforts by the parties, or may even 

obviate the need for discovery at all. The Supreme Court is taking this opportunity to offer the states 

and the lower courts additional guidance on the proper application of strict scrutiny in the context 

of an equal protection challenge to a state’s redistricting process; it therefore behooves the parties 

and this Court to defer further actions and proceedingsin this case until the Supreme Court’s nascent 

directions can be assessed and properly applied. 

Deferring further proceedings in this case will not affect any elections. The 1998 elections 

are proceeding as ordered by this Court under the 1998 plan. The election process for the 2000 

elections does not commence until January of 2000, when the filing period opens. Staying further 

proceedings at this time will avoid the futility of proceeding blindly in advance of the Supreme 

Court’s determination and will not significantly delay a final resolution of this action.  



  

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the parties jointly urge the Court to stay all 

proceedings in this action until the Supreme Court issues its opinion on the pending appeal. 

This the / day of October, 1998. 

Kit por O. orl Zig 
  

Robinson O. Everett 

Everett & Everett 

Post Office Box 586 

Durham, NC 27702 

(919) 682-5691 

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS 

MICHAEL F. EASLEY 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

SUA~_ 
Edwin M. Speas, Jr. 

Chief Deputy Attorney General 

N.C. State Bar No. 4112 

N.C. Department of Justice 

Post Office Box 629 

Raleigh, NC 27602 

(919) 716-6900 

  

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS 

(lpn Plo fice 
Adam Stein 

Ferguson, Stein, Wallas, a 

Gresham & Sumter, P.A. 

312 W. Franklin Street, Suite 2 

Chapel Hill, NC 27514 

  

COUNSEL FOR 

DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS