Response to Order to Show Cause

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

EASTERN DIVISION 

NO. 4:96-CV-104-H2 

MARTIN CROMARTIE, THOMAS 

CHANDLER MUSE, and GLENNES 

DODGE WEEKS, 

Plaintiffs, 

RESPONSE 

TO 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

JAMES B. HUNT, JR., Governor of 
the State of North Carolina, 
et al., 

Defendants. 

N
a
 

N
a
 

N
a
 

Na
u 

Na
d 

N
a
 

N
u
 

a
 

N
u
 

“
a
 

N
u
t
 

N
u
 

N
a
t
 

“
a
e
 

  

The Court’s Order to Show Cause issued on July 9, 1996 

"questions whether any substantial issues remain for judicial 

review in this matter other than a determination that plaintiffs 

are citizens of District 1, a declaration @ regarding the 

unconstitutionality of District 1, and an order requiring the State 

to take action." Plaintiffs fully agree. 

The first of these issues can be disposed of readily. All 

three Plaintiffs are registered voters in the First Congressional 

District, as is conclusively demonstrated by the affidavit of Ms. 

Gayle Hudson, Director of the Edgecombe County Board of Elections. 

(Ex.1) 

  

1. . THE FIRST DISTRICT IS PATENTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

The second issue also has a readily apparent answer. The 

 



unconstitutionality of the First District has been made clear by 

the United States Supreme Court, which held on June 13, 1996 "that 

the North Carolina [congressional districting] plan... violate[s] 

the Equal Protection Clause because the State’s reapportionment 

scheme is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state 

  

interest." Shaw. Vv. Hunt, slip op. at" l. In reaching this 

conclusion, the Court held that race was the predominant factor 

motivating the Legislature’s decision to place a significant number 

of voters within or without District 12. See slip op. at 5-6. 

The Supreme Court noted that the District Court had direct evidence 

of the Legislature’s objective as well as indirect evidence based 

upon the district’s shape and demographics. "Here, as in Miller 

{v. Johnson, 115 8 Ct. 2475 (1995)Y,} we fall to see how 'the 
  

District Court could have reached any conclusion other than that 

race was the predominant factor in drawing [the challenged 

districtl.” See slip op. at 6 (quotation omitted). North 

Carolina, "therefore, must show not only that its redistricting 

plan was in pursuit of a compelling state interest, but also that 

its districting legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve [that] 

compelling interest." Id. at 8 (quotation omitted). 

In analyzing the State’s purported Section 2 justification, 

the Supreme Court assumed, for the sake of argument, both that 

Section 2 could serve as a compelling State interest and that 

Section 2 actually motivated the General Assembly in enacting the 

Twelfth District. Id. at 15. The Court then held that the North 

Carolina plan did not survive strict scrutiny because the creation  



of District 12 was not narrowly tailored to remedy an alleged 

Section 2 violation. 

The First District is unconstitutional for the same reasons. 

No one can seriously claim that race was the predominant factor in 

drawing the Twelfth District, but not the predominant factor in 

drawing the First District. Therefore, the First District is 

subject to strict scrutiny. Moreover, no one can seriously claim 

that the First District is narrowly tailored to achieve a purported 

Section 2 justification. Indeed, the District Court itself 

admitted that the First and Twelfth Districts are geographically 

non-compact by any objective standard, are among the least compact 

districts ever created, and are not the two most geographically 

compact majority-minority districts that could have been drawn. 

  

Shaw v. Hunt 861 F.Supp. 408, 469 (E.D.N.C. 1994). Further, the 

District Court described both the First District and the Twelfth 

District as "highly irregular in shape and extreme in their lack of 

geographical compactness as compared to other districts in the plan 

or to other. districts nationally.” Id. at 473 

The unconstitutionality of the First District is a corollary 

of the unconstitutionality of the Twelfth District. The map which 

reflects the North Carolina redistricting plan - the map which was 

appended to the Court opinion in Shaw v. Reno, 113 S.Ct. 2816 
  

(1993)- demonstrates that the plan was created in such a way that 

a material change in one district necessitates changes in the 

boundaries of several other districts in order to meet the 

constitutional requirement of equal population in each district.  



  

See Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964). Drawing the Twelfth 
  

District with a predominant racial motive was coupled with drawing 

the First District -- and several other districts -- with the same 

motive. This led to all of these districts being unconstitutional. 

Even if the First District were to be considered apart from 

the Twelfth District and the redistricting plan as a whole, its 

unconstitutionality is obvious. Once again, the map provides the 

best evidence, for the "bizarre" appearance of the district 

proclaims its lack of narrow tailoring. The undisputed evidence 

before the three-judge District Court in Shaw v.Hunt, supra, makes 
  

the absence of narrow tailoring even clearer. As reflected there, 

Gerry Cohen, who prepared the North Carolina redistricting plan, 

used a computer to arrange into twelve congressional districts the 

229,000 census blocks into which North Carolina is divided. The 

only data Cohen had available for the various census blocks 

concerned population, age of population, and race of population. 

Thus, instead of tailoring the plan to actual "communities of 

interest," the plan was premised on the impermissible racial 

stereotype that, because of their race, the African - Americans 

packed into the First and Twelfth Districts necessarily were 

"homogeneous" and had a community of interest. 

Traditional districting principles, such as "compactness" and 

"contiguousness," were totally disregarded in drawing the First 

District. For example, corridors of "white filler poplar were 

used to connect concentrations of urban blacks in Greenville, 

Fayetteville, and Wilmington with concentrations of blacks in rural 

 



areas. A "double-crossover" was created, in order that the First 

District might be described as "contiguous," even though no one can 

go between the eastern and western parts of the District without 

going through the Third District. 

The absence of narrow tailoring is also demonstrated by 

comparing the First District in the original North Carolina 

redistricting plan - which was enacted in 1991 but was denied 

preclearance - with the corresponding district in the second plan. 

Even in the earlier plan, the First District was an 

unconstitutional racial gerrymander. In the second plan, the First 

District became substantially less compact and ran from the 

Virginia line almost to South Carolina. Moreover, it divided more 

counties, cities and precincts than did its predecessor. 

Notably, North Carolina has never defended the First or 

Twelfth Districts by claiming that they were geographically compact 

and thereby narrowly tailored. Rather, the State argued, and "a 

majority of the District Court agreed, 861 F. Supp. at 454, n.50, 

that once a legislature has a strong basis of evidence for 

concluding that a Section 2 violation exists in the State, it may 

draw a Haier feysninority district anywhere, even if the district is 

in no way coincident with the compact Gingles district, as long as 

racially polarized voting exists where the district is ultimately 

drawn." See_Shaw v. Hunt, slip op. at 17. The Supreme Court found 
  

the State’s argument and the District Court’s reasoning "singularly 

unpersuasive." Id.  



  

In light of the Supreme Court’s holding concerning the Twelfth 

District and the fact that the State’s defense of the First and 

Twelfth District was identical, the unconstitutionality of the 

First District is "foreclosed as a litigable issue." Bailey v. 
  

Patterson, 369 U.S. 31, 33 (1962) (per curiam); see also Bush v, 
  

  

Vera, 1996 U.S. LEXIS 3882, *87 (1996) (O'Connor J., concurring) 

(" [Districts that are bizarrely shaped and non-compact, and that 

otherwise neglect traditional districting principles and deviate 

substantially from the hypothetical court-drawn district, for 

predominately racial reasons, are unconstitutional.) 

II. THE STATE DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE ORDERED 
  

TO TAKE IMMEDIATE REMEDIAL ACTION 
  

North Carolina used an unconstitutional redistricting plan in 

both the 1992 and 1994 elections. This was not done because State 

officials were unaware of the constitutional issues raised by the 

plan. Indeed, the litigation in Shaw v. Hunt (then Shaw v. Barr) 
    

began on March 12, 1992 before the primaries took place; and the 

dissent of Chief Judge Voorhees from dismissal of that action in 

1992 gave notice that the claim in that lawsuit was not frivolous. 

More definitive notice was given by the Supreme Court'’s 

decision in Shaw v. Reno, which was rendered on June 28, 1993 -- a 
  

month before the General Assembly adjourned and about a year before 

the 1994 primaries. Despite the plaintiffs’ request, the General 

Assembly took no action with respect to the unconstitutional 

 



  

redistricting plan -- other than to appropriate $500,000.00 to 

defend the plan. 

While discovery was underway, the plaintiffs in Shaw v. Hunt 
  

sought a preliminary injunction. Their motion was denied, over the 

dissent of Chief Judge Voorhees; and the parties proceeded to 

trial. The plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors in Shaw sontented 

that they all had standing to contest the racial gerrymandering of 

both the First District and the Twelfth District. The three-judge 

district court agreed that they had standing, because the 

plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors had been placed in their 

respective congressional districts by reason of their race. This 

determination was amply supported by Gerry Cohen’s testimony as to 

the drawing of the plan. 

Since the constitutionality of the First and Twelfth Districts 

was being vigorously contested, there was no occasion for the 

present plaintiffs to bring an action attacking the First District. 

In light of the lower court’s ruling as to standing -- which was 

rendered a year before the Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. 
  

Johnson, 115 S.Ct. 2495 (1995) -- they had every reason to believe 

that the Shaw litigation would resolve not only the issue of the 

Twelfth District’s constitutionality but also the same issue as to 

the First District. When, however, the Supreme Court failed to 

rule specifically as to the First District because of standing, the 

present Plaintiffs promptly instituted this action. 

At this point, the Plaintiffs are entitled to a specific 

judicial declaration that the First District is unconstitutional. 

 



The Supreme Court has made this so obvious that, if the State, the 

United States, or any defendant-intervenors seek to contest its 

unconstitutionality, their defense should be considered so 

"singularly unpersuasive" as to be frivolous. Moreover, in that 

event, the defendants should be taxed with substantial attorney 

fees for requiring plaintiffs to overcome this "frivolous" defense. 

(A) The Court Should Not Refer This Case To A 
  

Three-Judge Panel. 
  

The convening of a three-judge district court -- with the 

accompanying rich: of direct appeal to the Supreme Court -- is not 

a routine event. It requires the expenditure of precious judicial 

resources. At the trial level it may create problems of delay 

because of the difficulty in reconciling the schedules of three 

judges and circulating proposed opinions. 

In Bailey v. Patterson, supra, the Supreme Court pointed out: 
  

Section 2881 does not require a three- 
judge court when the claim that a statute is 
unconstitutional is wholly insubstantial, 
legally speaking nonexistent. Ex parte 
Poresky, 290 U.S," 30, 54 S.Ct. 3, 78 L.EQ. 
152; Bell wv, Waterfront Comm., 2 Ctr., 279 
F.2d $853, 8857..858. We held that three 
judges are similarly not required when, as 
here, prior decisions make frivolous any claim 
that a: state ‘statute on its face is not 
unconstitutional, Willis v. Walker, D.C., 136 
F.Supp. 181; «Bush v. Orleans Parish School 
Board, D.C., 138 F. Supp. 336; Kelley v. Board 
of PEducation, D.C., 139 F.Supp. ..578. We 
denied leave to file petitions for mandamus in 
Bush, 351 U.S. 948; 76 S.Ct. 854, 100 L.Ed., 
1472, and from a similar ruling in Booker v. 
Tennessee Board of Education, 3510.8. 948, 

76. S.Ct. 856, 100 L.Ed. 1472. The reasons for 
convening an extraordinary court are 
inapplicable in such cases, for the policy 
behind the three-judge requirement -- that a 

8 

 



single judge ought not to be empowered to 
invalidate a state statute under a federal 
claim -- does not apply. The three-judge 
requirement is a technical one to be narrowly 
construed, Phillips v. United States, 312 U.S. 
248, 251,61 S.Ct. 480, 483, 85 L.Ed. 800. 
The statute comes into play only when an 
injunction is sought ‘upon the ground of the 
unconstitutionality’ of a statute. There is 
no such ground when the constitutional issue 
presented is essentially fictitious. 

See also Turner v. City of Memphis, 369 U.S. "31 (1962). 
  

In a similar vein, it was noted in Bradley v. School Board, 
  

324 ‘FP. Supp. 396, 398 (E.D. Va. 1971), that 

"Indeed, bearing in mind the serious drain 
imposed upon the federal judicial system by 
the requirements of a three-judge court, there 
is a heavy duty placed upon the district court 
to be reasonably certain that the matter is 
one appropriate for a three-judge court before 
making any such certification and request to 
the Chief Judge of the circuit.” 

If the "three-judge requirement is a technical one to be 

narrowly construed", as the Supreme Court has stated in Bailey, 

there is no basis for referring the present case to a three-judge 

district court. This, also, would preclude referring the matter to 

the existing three-judge district court panel. 

B. Judicial Relief Should Be Granted Immediately 
  

A primary concern of Plaintiffs is to obtain prompt judicial 

relief, so that the 1996 elections can be conducted pursuant to a 

constitutional redistricting plan. This concern is ‘quite 

appropriate. Redistricting litigation began in North Carolina 

before it began in any other state, and it has been carried forward 

vigorously in North Carolina. Nevertheless, citizens of several 

9  



  

other States -- Loulsiana, Georgia, and Florida -- have already 

received relief from their unconstitutional racial gerrymanders. 

It now appears that in Texas a three-judge court will put a new 

redistricting plan into place for the 1996 election unless the 

state takes action to enact a constitutional plan. 

Unfortunately, it 1is clear from past experience that the 

defendants will use any available tactic to continue the racial 

gerrymander and prevent North Carolina citizens, such as these 

three Plaintiffs, from obtaining the relief from racial 

gerrymanders that a_ready has been granted to voters elsewhere. 

Therefore, every effort has been made to prod the General Assembly 

into enacting a pian for use in the 1996 election. 

To this end, the plaintiffs in Shaw -- one of whom, Robinson 

Everett, 1s counsel for the present plaintiffs -- petitioned the 

General Assembly to redistrict before it adjourned in June (See 

Exhibit 2). When Governor Hunt, a defendant both in Shaw and here, 

called the General Assembly back into Special Session to reconcile 

the budget, he was promptly petitioned to ask the Legislature to 

enact a new redistricting plan (Exhibit 3). Because the General 

Assembly and the Governor have given no indication that they would 

act, the Plaintiffs commenced this action. 

Newspaper accounts have made clear that legislative action to 

replace the existing congressional districts for the 1996 election 

is unlikely. Excuses of every sort are being offered. One is to 

the effect that drawing a constitutional redistricting plan will be 

difficult and time-consuming. However, a recent article in the 

10 

 



Charlotte Observer, (Exhibit 4) makes clear that this excuse is 
  

meritless. In that article the reporter, Jim Morrill, presents a 

"color-blind" (and "party-blind") plan, which required about two 

hours to create with use of the General Assembly’s public access 

computer. 

Plaintiffs also have attached the affidavit of Thomas 

Hofeller, an eminent redistricting expert (Ex. 5). Hofeller 

testified in Shaw v. Hunt and he is intimately familiar with the 
  

North Carolina redistricting plan and the computer technology used 

to draw iL. In preparation for .the trial in Shaw and "as a 

striking comparison to the current North Carolina plan", he drew in 

"less than one day" plans "that were much more compact and narrowly 

tailored than the current plan, including a much more compact First 

District." 

Hofeller points out that: 

I have attached a copy of the current North 
Carolina redistricting plan. See Exhibit 2. 
It splits numerous counties and precincts, 
including nineteen counties in the First 
District and ten counties in the Twelfth 
District. I created plans that were presented 
at the trial of Shaw v. Hunt for comparison 
for purposes of the narrow tailoring issue. 
These plans, which were created solely for 
comparison, took less than one day to complete 
and contained districts that were much more 
compact and narrowly tailored than the current 
plan, including a much more compact First 
District. Although these plans serve as a 
striking comparison to the current North 
Carolina plan, I am sure, given my experience 
drawing North Carolina congressional plans, 
that there are other acceptable plans that 
could be drawn and might represent better 
solutions within the current legislative 
environment. 

  

 



  

In his expert opinion, 

the General Assembly could use its existing 
computer technology and knowledge to create a 
constitutional reapportionment plan within 
approximately five days. That is particularly 
true given that drawing a plan using the 
traditional race-neutral criteria discussed in 
Shaw v. Reno and Shaw v. Hunt is much easier 
to draw than the present extreme racial 
gerrymander. Moreover, a revised plan could 
easily be digested by local election officials 
because there would be significantly fewer 
split counties and split precincts. 

    

Hofeller also observed that, according to a publication issued 

by the Federal Election Commission in January 1996, twenty-three 

states have primaries in August or September. In Hofeller'’s 

opinion, "North Carolina could create a constitutional 

reapportionment plan and have primaries this Fall in the newly 

redrawn congressional districts. The general election could then 

take place, as scheduled, on November 5, 1996." 

The spuriousness of the claim that it is too late to take 

remedial action for the 1996 election is also demonstrated by the 

circumstance that as recently as 1976 North Carolina conducted all 

primaries on the third Tuesday in August. See chapter 844, s. 1, 

1975 Session Laws. In 1996 the task would be simpler since 

election officials would only be required to conduct congressional 

primaries. To place the matter even more in perspective, it should 

be noted that Louisiana conducted its congressional primaries on 

the first Saturday in October. See Louisiana Ann. Stat. 18:402 

(B). Moreover, in Texas -- which like North Carolina conducts its 

12 

 



  

primaries early in May and its run-offs early in June -- there 

probably will be new districts in place for the 1996 elections. 

Certainly it is appropriate to give the General Assembly some 

opportunity to correct the problem which it created by enacting an 

unconstitutional redistricting plan. However, in light of the 

scheduled date of the general election, this Court should take 

immediate action unless the Legislature gives a clear assurance 

that it will act promptly. Certainly this is the message conveyed 

by Wise v, Lipscomb, 437 U.S. 535, 540 (1978), where the Supreme 
  

Court stated: 

"Legislative bodies should not leave their 
reapportionment tasks to the federal courts; 
but when those with legislative 
responsibilities do not respond, or the 
imminence of a state election makes it 
impractical for them to do so, it becomes the 
‘unwelcome obligation,’ conner y. Pinch, 
supra, at 415, 52 L.Ed. 24 465, 97 .S.Ct. 1828, 
of the federal court to devise and impose a 
reapportionment plan pending later legislative 
action." 

  

Plaintiffs submit that the relief granted by this Court should 

have several aspects. In the first place, it should preclude 

service as a Representative after the current Congress adjourns in 

January, 1997, by anyone who has been elected from the First 

District under the present plan. In this way, relief will be 

obtained for the plaintiffs by means of an injunction without 

specifically requiring the state to take any affirmative action. 

See Burruss v. Wilkerson 301 F. Supp. 1237, 1239 (W.D. Va. 1968). 
  

However, as a practical matter, this prohibition probably will 

cause the General Assembly to enact a constitutional redistricting 

13 

 



plan and thereby prevent loss, even temporarily, of representation 

in the House of Representatives. In the Louisiana redistricting 

litigation, the three-judge district court, in granting relief in 

1993, did not invalidate the 1992 election but held that no one 

elected under the unconstitutional plan should serve in the next 

Congress and specifically enjoined Louisiana legislation from 

holding any future congressional elections under the invalid plan. 

  

See Hays v. Louisiana (Hays 1), 839 F.Supp. 1181, 1209 (W.D. la. 

1993), vacated and remanded for further consideration, 113 S. Ct. 
  

2731 (1994). Not surprisingly, the Louisiana Legislature promptly 

adopted a new plan -- which subsequently was also held invalid. 

Haves v. louisiana (Hays 11), 862 F. Supp. 119 (W.D. La. 1994), 
  

  

vacated and remanded 115 S. Ct. 2431 (1995). 

Secondly, the Court should order the defendant Governor to 

keep the General Assembly in session or reconvene it to undertake 

drafting a new redistricting plan for the 1996 elections. No more 

than ten days should be allowed for completion and enactment of a 

plan by the General Assembly. Since the General Assembly already 

has a Redistricting Committee in each house, such a deadline is not 

unrealistic; and it allows more time than Dr. Hoffler believed to 

be necessary. 

Finally, if the General Assembly fails to enact a plan by the 

prescribed date, the Court should draw its own redistricting plan. 

Relevant in this connection is this observation by the three-judge 

district court in Louisiana: 

"Our strong preference is to leave to the 
Legislature the task of drawing election 

14  



districts. We reluctantly set our hands to 
the task, considering the lateness of the 
hour, the dismal history of the legislature 
in two previous attempts, foot-dragging by 
the defendants in the appeals and the risk 
that Louisiana might be without congressional 
representation in January, 1995." See Hays 
11, 862 F. Supp. at 124. 

Significantly, the opinion of the three-judge court in Hays II 

which sets forth that court’s redistricting plan, was announced on 

July 29, 1994 -- little more than a month after the remand by the 

Supreme Court on June 27, 1994. There seems to be no reason to 

doubt that a district court in North Carolina could formulate a 

plan in an equally timely manner. 

In drawing a plan, the Court might choose to appoint a Special 

Master, as was done by the three-judge court in Louisiana. See 

Hays 862 FF. Supp. at 128. Several persons would be well 

qualified for this task or to serve as experts to advise the court. 

Among the available redistricting experts is John Sanders who, at 

one time, headed the Institute of Government and who, for many 

years, assisted the General Assembly in preparing the redistricting 

and reapportionment plans. (See Ex. 6). Mr. Sanders has indicated 

to Plaintiffs’ attorney that he would be willing to assist the 

Court in preparing a plan. Also highly qualified as redistricting 

experts; are Professor. William .Reech of U.N.C. Chapel Hill, 

Professor Robert Dorff of N.C. State, and Professor Tim O'Rourke of 

Washington University in St. Louis. By use of such expertise, the 

Court could formulate a workable and constitutional plan if the 

General Assembly'failed to do so. 

Certainly some costs will be incurred in arranging for new 

15  



  

® » 

primaries; but these costs are minimal in comparison with the loss 

of confidence and the racial polarization that will result from 

continuing the present racial gerrymanders for two more years. 

Moreover, the cost of new primaries and many earlier costs could 

have been avoided by the defendants if they had decided not to rely 

on "post hoc rationalizations" and "singularly unpersuasive" 

arguments to shield a patently unconstitutional racial gerrymander. 

Finally, if the Court takes action now, it will discourage use of 

delay ‘tactics in" the future as -a means of continuing or 

perpetuating other racial gerrymanders in North Carolina. Thus, 

the cost of conducting a primary this fall is minimal in relation 

to the true costs of leaving the present racial gerrymander in 

place for the elections on November 5, 1996. 

To make the change in time for the 1996 election will impair 

no one’s legitimate interests. Retention of majority-black 

districts 1s not necessary to assure that African-Americans have a 

reasonable opportunity for election to the Congress. As the recent 

results in Georgia have demonstrated, there already has been too 

much “crying wolf” iin this regard. (See Exhibit 7, Wall Street 

Journal article). The current primary nominees have no complaint; 

when they filed, they were on notice that a new plan might be 

created for the 1996 election. Moreover, every incumbent who 

sought reelection has been nominated by his or her party in the 

primary and, as an incumbent, will have an advantage in the general 

election. It is unclear how many new candidates will enter the 

field in light of these heavy odds ‘against ‘them; but it jig 

16 

 



important that any citizen of North Carolina have the opportunity 

to. run for office in. an. election that is not racially 

gerrymandered. 

CONCLUSION 
  

The Plaintiffs -- and indeed, all other citizens of North 

Carolina -- have already had to wait far too long for the state's 

flagrant racial gerrymander to be eliminated. If they are to retain 

any confidence in the electoral process, that gerrymander must be 

terminated now. 

Having responded to the Court’s order, the Plaintiffs urge 

this Court to “act now to: udeclare. the  PFlrst District 

unconstitutional and preclude its use in its present form for the 

election on November 5, 1996. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Robinson O. Everett, N.C. Bar #1385 
Attorney for Plaintiffs 
Suite 300 
301 West Main Street 
Durham, North Carolina 27701 

  

 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

  

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

EASTERN DIVISION 

NO. 4:96-CV-104-H2 

MARTIN CROMARTIE, THOMAS 

CHANDLER MUSE, and GLENNES 

DODGE WEEKS, 

Plaintiffs, 

RESPONSE 

TO 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

JAMES B. HUNT, JR., Governor of 

the State of North Carolina, 
at al., 

Defendants. 

  

The Court's Order to Show Cause issued on July 9, 1996 

"questions whether any substantial issues remain for judicial 

review in this matter other than a determination that plaintiffs 

are citizens of District 1, a declaration regarding ‘the 

unconstitutionality of District 1, and an order requiring the State 

to take action." Plaintiffs fully agree. 

The first of these issues can be disposed of readily. all 

three Plaintiffs are registered voters in the First Congressional 

District, as is conclusively demonstrated by the affidavit of Ms. 

Gayle Hudson, Director of the Edgecombe County Board of Elections. 

{EX.1) 

I. THE FIRST DISTRICT 1S PATENTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 
  

The second issue also has a readily apparent answer. The 

200 £GBP L96 6TI68 8T-0T 86/91/L0 

 



  coop 

unconstitutionality of the First District has been made clear by 

the United States Supreme Court, which held on June 13, 1996 "that 

the North Carclina [congressional districting] plan... violate[s] 

the Equal Protection Clause because the State’s reapportionment 

scheme 1s not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state 

  

interest." Shaw vv. Hunt, slip op. at 3. In reaching this 

conclusion, the Court held that race was the predominant factor 

motivating the Legislature's decision to place a significant number 

of voters within or without District 12. Sge slip Oop. at 5-6, 

The Supreme Court noted that the District Court had direct evidence 

of the Legislature's objective as well as indirect evidence based 

upon the district’s shape and demographics. "Here, as in Miller 

[vs Johnson, 115 8 Ct." 2475+(1995),]7 we fail to see how the 
  

District Court could have reached any conclusion other than that 

race was the predominant factor 1n drawing [the challenged 

digtrict}i.” See slip op. at 6 (quotation omitted). North 

Carolina, "therefore, must show not only that its redistricting 

plan was in pursuit of a compelling state interest, but also that 

its districting legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve [that] 

compelling interest." Id. at 8 (quotation omitted). 

In analyzing the State’s purported Section 2 justification, 

the Supreme Court assumed, for the sake of argument, both that 

Section 2 could serve as a compelling State interest and that 

Section 2 actually motivated the General Assembly in enacting the 

Twelfth District. Id. at 15. The Court then held that the North 

Carolina plan did not survive strict scrutiny because the creation 

 



of District 12 was not narrowly tailored to remedy an alleged 

Section 2 violation. 

The First District is unconstitutional for the same reasons. 

No one can seriously claim that race was the predominant factor in 

drawing the Twelfth District, but not the predominant factor in 

drawing the First District. Therefore, the First District is 

subject to strict scrutiny. Moreover, no one can seriously claim 

that the First District is narrowly tailored to achieve a purported 

Section 2 Justification. Indeed, the District Court itself 

admitted that the First and Twelfth Districts are geographically 

non-compact by any objective standard, are among the least compact 

districts ever created, and are not the two most geographically 

compact majority-minority districts that could have been drawn. 

Shaw v. Hunt 861 F.Supp. 408, 469 (E.D.N.C. 1994). Further, the 
  

District Court described both the First District and the Twelfth 

District as "highly irregular in shape and extreme in their lack of 

geographical compactness as compared to other districts in the. plan 

or to other districts nationally.” Id. at 473 

The unconstitutionality of the First District is a corollary 

of the unconstitutionality of the Twelfth District. The map which 

reflects the North Carolina redistricting plan - the map which was 

appended to the Court opinion in Shaw Vv. Reno, 113 S.Ct. 2816 
  

(1993)~ demonstrates that the plan was created in such a way that 

a material change in one district necessitates changes in the 

boundaries of several other districts in order to meet the 

constitutional requirement of equal population in each district. 

CCF LOG 6168 6T:0T 96/91/L0  



See Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964). Drawing the Twelfth   

District with a predominant racial motive was coupled with drawing 

the First District -- and several other districts -- with the same 

motive. This led to all of these districts being unconstitutional. 

Even if the First District were to be considered apart from 

the Twelfth District and the redistricting plan as a whole, its 

unconstitutionality is obvious. Once again, the map provides the 

best evidence, for. the "bizarre" appearance of the district 

proclaims 1ts lack of narrow tailoring. The undisputed evidence 

before the three-judge District Court in Shaw v.Hunt, supra, makes 
  

the absence ¢f narrow tailoring even clearer. As reflected there, 

Gerry Cohen, who prepared the North Carolina redistricting plan, 

used a computer to arrange into twelve congressional districts the 

229,000 census blocks into which North Carolina is divided. The 

data Cohen had available for the various census blocks 

concerned pcpulation, age of population, and race of population. 

Thus, instead of tailoring the plan to actual "communities of 

interest," the plan was premised on the impermissible racial 

stereotype that, because of their race, the African - Americans 

packed into the First and Twelfth Districts necessarily were 

"homogeneous" and had a community of interest. 

Traditional districting principles, such as "compactness" and 

"contiguousness," were totally disregarded in drawing the First 

District, For example, corridors of "white filler people” were 

used to connect concentrations of urban blacks in Greenville, 

Fayetteville, and Wilmington with concentrations of blacks in rural 

£SeP LO6 6168 0¢:01 86/81/.0  



areas. A "double-crossover" was Created, in order that the First 

District might be described as "contiguous, ” even though no one can 

go between the eastern and western parts of the District without 
going through the Third District. 

The absence of narrow tailoring is also demonstrated by 

comparing the First District in the original North Carolina 

redistricting plan - which was enacted in 1991 but was denied 

preclearance - with the corresponding district in the second plan. 

Even in the earlier plan, the First District was an 

unconstitutional racial gerrymander. In the second plan, the First 

District became substantially less compact and ran from the 

Virginia line almost to South Carolina. Moreover, it divided more 

counties, cities and precincts than did its predecessor. 

Notaply, North Carclina has never defended the First or 

Twelfth Districts by claiming that they were geographically compact 

and thereby narrowly tailored. Rather, the State argued, and "a 

majority of the District Court agreed, 861 F. Supp. at 454, nN. 50, 

that once a legislature has a strong basis of evidence for 

concluding that a Section 2 violation exists in the State, it may 

draw a majority-minority district anywhere, even if the district is 

in no way coincident with the compact Gingles district, as long as 

racially polarized voting exists where the district is ultimately 

  

drawn." See_Shaw v. Hunt, slip op. ati17. «The Supreme Court found 

the State's argument and the District Court’s reasoning "singularly 

unpersuasive." 1d. 

Ele © OT : = ” (CBF LOG BT6 02:0T 900 geeb 6 Ae} Z  



LOO 

In light of the Supreme Court's holding concerning the Twelfth 

District and the fact that the State’s defense of the First and 

Twelfth District was identical, the unconstitutionality of the 

First District is “foreclosed &s8 a litigable issue." Bailey v. 
  

Pacters=son, 369 U.S. | 3 (1962) (per curiam); see also Bush v. 
  

Vers, 1996 U.S. LEXIS 3882, *87 (13%6) (O'Connor J., concurring) 

("[Districts that are bizarrely shaped and non-compact, and that 

otherwise neglect traditional districting principles and deviate 

substantially from the hypothetical court-drawn digiricet) for 

precominately racial reasons, are unconstitutional.) 

II.THE STATE DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE ORDERED   

  

ITO TAKE IMMEDIATE REMEDIAL ACTION 
  

North Carolina used an unconstitutional redistricting plan in 

both the 1992 and 1994 elections. This was not done because State 

officials were unaware of the constitutional issues raised by the 

plan. Indeed, the litigation in Shaw v. Hunt (then Shaw v, Barr) 
  

  

began on March 12, 1992 before the primaries took place; and the 

dissent of Chief Judge Voorhees from dismissal of that action in 

932 gave notice that the claim in that lawsuit was not frivolous. 

More definitive notice was given by the Supreme Court's 

decision in Shaw v. Reno, which was rendered on June 28, 1993 -- a   

month before the General Assembly adjourned and about a year before 

the 1994 primaries. Despite the plaintiffs’ request, the General 

Assembly took no action with respect to the unconstitutional 

CSBP L968 8168  



$00 

redistricting plan -- other than 

defend the plan. 

While discovery was underway, the aintiffs in Shaw v. Hunt wh 
  

sought a preliminary injunction. Their motion was denied, over the 

dissent of Chief Judge Voorhees; and the parties proceeded to 

trial. The plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors in Shaw contended 

standing to contest the racial gerrymandering of 

istrict and the Twelfth District. The three-judge 

they had standing, because the 

plaintiffs and plaintif had been placed in their 

respective congressional districts by reason of their race. 

determination was amply supported by Gerry Cohen’s testimony as to 

the drawing of the plan. 

Since the constitutionality of the First and Twelfth Districts 

was: being vigorously contested, there was no occasion for the 

© bring an action attacking © irst District. 

ruling as to standing -- which was 

rendered year pefore the Supreme Court’s decision in Miller vy, 
  

Johnson, 115 S.Ct. 24%5 (1995) -- they had every reason to believe 

that the Shaw litigation would resolve not only the issue of the 

Twelfth District's constitutionality but also the same issue as to 

the First District. When, however, the Supreme Court failed to 

rule specifically as to the First District because of standing, the 

present Plaintiffs promptly instituted this action. 

At this point, the Plaintiffs are entitled to a specific 

judicial declaration that the First District is unconstitutional.  



  600 [7 

The Supreme Court has made this so obvious that, if the State, the 

United States, or any defendant-intervenors seek to contest its 

unconstitutionality, their defense should be considered so 

"singularly unpersuasive” as to be frivolous. Moreover, in that 

event, the defendants should be taxed with substantial attorney 

fees for requiring plaintiffs to overcome this "frivolous" defense. 

(A) The Court Should Not Refer This Case To A 
  

Three~-Judge Panel. 
  

The convening of a three-judge district court -- with the 

accompanying right of direct appeal to the Supreme Court -- 1s not 

a routine event. requires the expenditure of precious judicial 

resources. At tne trial level it may create problems of delay 

EA 

because of the difficulty in reconciling the schedules of three 

  

In Bailey v., Patterson, supra, the Supreme Court pointed out: 

Section 2881 does not require a three- 
judge court when the claim that a statute is 
unconstitutional 1s wholly insubstantial, 
legally speaking nonexistent. Ex parte 
Poresky, 290 0.8. 30, 54 S.Ct. 3, 78 .1.Fd. 
152; Bell v. Waterfront Comm,., 2. Ctr.,, 279 
F.2d B53, 8857..85%, We held that three 
judges &re similarly not required when, as 
here, prior decisions make frivolous any claim 
thar “2 state statute on its face is not 

unconstitutional. Willis v. Walker, D.C., 136 
F.Supp. 181; Bush v. Orleans Parish School 
Board, D.C., 138 F. Supp. 336; Relley wv. Board 
gf Bducarion, .D.C., [139 F.Supp. 5718. We 
denied leave to file petitions for mandamus in 
Bush, 381 U.S, 948, 776 S.Ct. s8%4,5300 L.Ed., 
1472 ,wand from a similar ruling. in Booker v. 
Tennessee Board of Education, 351 U.S, 848, 
726 ?,Cr. 856, 100 L.E4A. 1472. The reasons. for 

convening an extraordinary court are 
ingpplicable in such. cases,” for the policy 
behind the three-judge requirement -- that a 

8 

 



  0T0[@) 

single judge ought not to be empowered to 
invalidate a state statute under a federal 
claim ~~. does not apply. The three-judge 
requirement is a technical one to be narrowly 
construed, Phillips v. United States, 312 U.S. 

248, 2581, 81 S.Ct, 430, 433,85 L.Ed. 804. 

The statute comes into play only when an 
injunction is sought ‘upon the ground of the 
unconstitutionality’ of a statute. There lis 
no such ground when the constitutional issue 
presented is essentially fictitious. 

See also Turner v. City of Memphig, 369 U.S. 31 (1962). 
  

In a similar vein, it was noted in Bradlev v. School Board, 
  

324 7. Supp. 398, 398 (E.D, Va. 1971), that 

"Indeed, bearing in mind the serious drain 
imposed upon the federal judicial system by 
the requirements of a three-judge court, there 
is a heavy duty placed upon the district court 
to be reasonably certain that the matter 1s 
one appropriate for a three-judge court before 
maxing any such certification and request to 
the Chief Judge ©f the circuit.” 

If the "three-judge requirement is a technical one to be 

narrowly construed", as the Supreme Court has stated in Bailey, 

there 1s no basis for referring the present case to a three-judge 

district court. This, also, would preclude referring the matter to 

the existing three-judge district court panel. 

B. Judicial Relief Should Be Granted Immediately 
  

A primary concern of Plaintiffs is to obtain prompt judicial 

relief, so that the 1996 elections can be conducted pursuant to a 

constitutional redistricting plan. This concern is quite 

appropriate. Redistricting litigation began in North Carolina 

Hh
 

before it began in any other state, and it has been carried forward 

vigorously in North Carolina. Nevertheless, citizens of several 

3 

 



other States -- Louisiana, Georgia, and Florida -- have already 

received relief from their unconstitutional racial gerrymanders. 

It now appears that in Texas a three-judge court will put a new 

redistricting plan into place for the 1996 election unless the 

state takes action to enact a constitutional plan. 

Unfortunately, it is clear from past experience that the 

defendants will use avallable tactic to continue the racial 

gerrymander and prevent North Carolina citizens, such as these 

ree. Plaintifi from obtaining 

gerrymand 

Therefore, every effort has been made to prod the General Assembly 

into enacting a plan for use in the 1996 election. 

To this end, the plaintiffs in Shaw -- one of whom, Robinson 

Everett, 1s counsel for the present plaintiffs -- petitioned the 

General Assembly to redistrict before it adjourned in June (See 

). When Governor Hunt, a defendant both in Shaw and here, 

led the General Assembly back into Special Session to reconcile 

the budget, he was promptly petitioned to ask the Legislature to 

enact a new redistricting plan 1pit 3). Because the General 

Assembly and the Governor have given no indication that they would 

act, the Plaintiffs commenced this action. 

Newspaper accounts have made clear 1 legislative action to 

replace the existing congressional districts for the 1996 election 

1s unlikely. Excuses of every sort are being offered. One is to 

ect that drawing a constitutional redistricting plan will be 

difficult and time-consuming. However, a recent article in the 

10  



Charlotte Observer, Exhibit 4) makes clear that this excuse 1s   

meritless. In that article the reporter, Jim Morrill, presents a 

"color-blind" (and "party-blind") plan, which required about two 

hours to create with use of the General Assembly’s public access 

computer. 

Plaintiffs also have attached the affidavit of Thomas 

Hofeller, an eminent redistricting expert Ex... 3). Hofeller 

testified in Shaw v. Hunt and he is intimately familiar with the 
  

North Carolina redistricting plan and the computer technology used 

£0. draw it. In. preparation for the trial in Shaw and “as a 

stroking comparison to the current North Carolina plan", he drew in 

nA 

less than one day" plans "that were much more compact and narrowly 

tailored than the current plan, including a much more compact First 

istrict.” 

Hofeller points out 

have attached a copy of ti 
&rolina redistricting plan. 

It splits numerous counties 
including nineteen counties 
District and ‘ten counties in. th 
District. I created plans that were presented 
at the trial of Shaw v, Hunt for comparison 
for purposes of the narrow tailoring issue. 
These plans, which were created solely for 
comparison, took less than one day to complete 
and contained districts that were much more 
compact and narrowly tailored than the current 
plan, including a much more compact First 
Districe. Although these plans serve as a 
striking comparison to the current North 

  

Carolina plan, I am sure, given my experience 
drawing North Carolina congressional plans, 
that there are other acceptable plans that 
could be drawn and might represent better 
solutions within the current legislative 
environment. 

CCP LO6 6168  



  C10) 

In his expert opinion, 

the General Assembly could use its existing 
computer technology and knowledge to create a 
constitutional reapportionment plan within 
approximately five days. That is particularly 

true given that drawing a plan using the 
traditional race-neutral criteria discussed in 
Shaw v. Reno and Shaw v. Hunt is much easier 
to draw than the present extreme racial 
gerrymander. Moreover, a revised plan could 
easily be digested by local election officials 
because there would pe significantly fewer 
split counties and split precincts. 

  
  

Hofeller also observed that, according to & publication issued 

by the Federal Election Commission in January 1996, twenty-three 

states have primaries 1n August or September. In Hofeller’s 

opinion, "North Carolina could create a constitutional 

reapportionment plan and have primaries this Fall in the newly 

redrawn congressional districts. The general election could then 

take place, as scheduled, on November 5, 1996." 

The spuriousness of the claim that it is too late to take 

remedial action for the 1996 election 1s also demonstrated by the 

circumstance that as recently as 1976 North Carolina conducted all 

primaries on the third Tuesday in August. See chapter 844, s. 1, 

1975 Session Laws. In 1996 the task would be simpler since 

election officials would only be required to conduct congressional 

primaries. To place the matter even more in perspective, it should 

be noted that Louisiana conducted its congressional primaries on 

the first Saturday in October. See Louisiana Ann. Stat. 18:402 

(B). Moreover, in Texas -- which like North Carolina conducts Lts 

12 

CCB L196 61882 €C 01 96/9 

 



  

primaries early in May and its run-offs early in June -- there 

probably will be new districts in place for the 1996 elections. 

Certainly it is appropriate to give the General Assembly some 

opportunity to correct the problem which it created by enacting an 

unconstitutional redistricting plan. However, in light of the 

scheduled. date of the general election, this Court should take 

immediate action unless the Legislature gives a clear assurance 

that 1t will act promptly. Certainly this is the message conveyed 

by Wise v, Lipscomb, 437 U.S. 535, 540 (1978), where the Supreme 
  

Court stated: 

Legislative bodles should not leave their 
reapportionment ‘tasks to the federal courts; 
Cut when those with legislative 
responsibilities do. not respond, or | the 
imminence of a state election makes it 
impractical for them to do so, it pecomes the 
"unwelcome obligation,’ Conner .v, F.nch, 

supra, at 415, 82 .1.E4. 2d 465, 97 8.Ct. 1828, 
of the federal court to devise and impose a 
reapportionment plan pending later legislative 
action." 

  

Plaintiffs submit that the relief granted by this Court should 

have several aspects. In the first place, it should preclude 

service as a Representative after the current Congress adjourns in 

January, 1997, by anyone who has been elected from the First 

District under the present plan. In this way, rellef will De 

obtained for the plaintiffs by means of an injunction without 

specifically requiring the state to take any affirmative action. 

See Burrusg v. Wilkerson 301 F. Supp. 1237, 1239 (W.D. Va. 1968). 
  

However, as a practical matter, this prohibition probably will 

cause the General Assembly to enact a constitutional redistricting 

13 

P10 gGeY L966 61682 Fc:0IT 96/91/L0 

 



plan and thereby prevent loss, even temporarily, of representation 

in the House of Representatives. In the Louisiana redistricting 

litigation, the three-judge district court, in granting relief in 

1993, did not invalidate the 1992 election but held that no one 

elected under the unconstitutional plan should serve in the next 

Congress and specifically enjoined Louisiana legislation from 

holding any future congressional elections under the invalid plan. 

See Hays v, Lowigiana (Have 1), 833% F. Supp. t 
i 

RY 
  

1893), vacated and remanded for further consideration, 
  

2731 .(18%4). Not su 151ngly, the Louisiana Legislature promptly 

adopted a new plan which subsequently was also held invalid. 

Haves v. louisians (Paves 113, 862 P. Supp. 119 w.D. La. 1994), 
  

vacated and remanded 115 8. . Ct. 2431 (1995). 
  

Secondly, the Court should order the defendant Governor to 

Keep the General Assembly 1n session or reconvene it to undertake 

drafting a new redistricting plan for the 1996 elections. No more 

than ten days should be allowed for completion and enactment of a 

plan by the General Assembly. Since the General Assembly already 

has a Redistricting Committee in each hous h a deadline is not 

unrealistic; and it allows more time than Dr. Hoffler believed to 

be necessary. 

Finally, 1f the General Assembly falls tc enact a plan by the 

prescribed date, the Court should draw its own redistricting plan. 

Relevant in this connection is this observation by the three-judge 

district court in Loulsiana: 

“Our strong preference is to leave to the 
Legislature the task of drawing election 

14 

196 6168  



districts. We reluctantly set our hands to 
the task, considering the lateness of the 

hour, the dismal history of the legislature 

in two previous attempts, foot-dragging by 
the defendants 1n the appeals and the risk 
that Louisiana might be without congressional 
representation in January, 1995." See Havs 
11.862 F.Supp. at 124. 

Signiticantly, the opinion of the three-judge court in Hays II 

which sets forth that court’s redistricting plan, was announced on 

July 29, 1994 little more than a month after the remand by the 

Supreme Court on June 27, 1994. There seems TO De no reason to 

doubt that a district court in North Carolina could formulate a 

plan in an equally timely manner. 

choose to appoint a Special 

Master, as ione by the three-judge court in Louisiana. See 

Hays 11, BoZ FE. Su : 128. Several persons would be well 

qualified for this task or to serve as experts to advise the court. 

Among the available redistricting experts 1s John Sanders who, at 

headed the Institute of Government and who, for many 

years, assisted the General Assembly in preparing the redistricting 

and reapportionment plans. : 6). Mr. Sanders has indicated 

to Plaintiffs’ attorney that he would be willing to assist the 

Court in preparing a plan. Also highly qualified as redistricting 

experts are Professor William Keech of U.N.C. Chapel Hill, 

Professor Robert Dorff of N.C. ate, and Professor Tim O'Rourke of 

Washington University in St. Louis. By use of such expertise, the 

Court could formulate a workable and constitutional plan if the 

General Assembly failed to do so. 

Certainly some costs will be incurred in arranging for new 

is 

CCF L968 6168  



primaries; but these costs are minimal in comparison with the loss 

of confidence and the raclal polarization that will result from 

continuing the present raclal gerrymanderg for two more years. 

Moreover, the cost of new primaries and many earlier costs could 

have been avoided by the defendants if they had decided not to rely 

On "posts hoc ‘rationalizations” and “singularly unpersuasive’ 

arguments to shield a patently unconstitutional racial gerrymander. 

Finally, if the Court takes action now, will discourage use of 

delay tactics: ii the future as a means of continuing or 

perpetuating other racial gerrymanders in North Carolina. Thus, 

the cost of conducting a primary this fsll is minimal in relation 

Lo the true costs Of leaving the present racial gerrymander in 

place for the elections on November 5, 1996. 

To make the change in time for the 1996 election will impair 

no one's legitimate interests. Retention of majority-black 

districts 1s not necessary to assure that African-Americans have a 

reasonable opportunity for election to the Congress. As the recent 

results in Georgla have demonstrated, there already has been too 

much "crying wolf" in this regard. (See Exhibit 7, Wall Street 

Journal article). The current primary nominees have no complaint; 

when they filed, they were on notice that a new plan might be 

created. for the 1986. electlon. Moreover, every incumbent who 

sought reelection has been nominated by his or her party in the 

primary and, as an incumbent, will have an advantage in the general 

election. It ie unclear how many new candidates will enter the 

field "in light Of these heavy odds against them; but ict J's 

16 

CS6F L96 B8I6Q  



8107 

important that aay citizen of North Carelina have the opportunity 

to’ run’ Bor office. in "an election ‘thar is’ not. racially 

gerrymandered. 

CONCLUSION 
  

The Plaintiffs -- and indeed, all other citizens of North 

Carolina -- have already had to wait far too long for the state's 

flagrant racial gerrymander to be eliminated. If they are to retain 

any confidence in the electoral process, that gerrymander must be 

terminated now. 

Having responded to the Court's order, the Plaintiffs urge 

Court wi Cr now to declare the = Pirst. District 

unconstitutional and preclude its use in its present form for the 

election on November 5, 199606. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Wl gy 
Robinson O. Everett, N. 

Attorney for tlre 
Suite 300 
301 West Main Street 

Durham, North Carclina 27701 

  

67 L96 6T6%Y  



  

EXHIBIT 1 

 



  

STATE OF 

NORTH CAROLINA 
  

Board of Elections 

P.O. Box 10 

GEORGE GOODWYN Phone (919) 641-7852 

  

Chairman Fax (919) 641-1740 

A. C. BATCHELOR 
Secretary EDGECOMBE COUNTY GAYLE HUDSON 

TARBORO, N.C. 27886 Director 
MELVIN R. HARRELL 

Member 

July 10, 1996 

Ms. Dorothy Bulluck 

Everett and Everett 

301 W. Main Street 

Suite 300 

Durham. NC 27701 

Dear Ms. Bulluck: 

In response to your request, I am enclosing the following affidavit to verify that the 

persons named are registered voters in the precincts and districts given. 

If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. 

Sincerely. 

Gayle Hudson 

Director 

 



STATE OF 

NORTH CAROLINA 
  

Board of Elections 

= FB Box Bo ERRJUTL REFR SA wow 4 P.O. Box 10 

GEORGE GOODWYN m— 3 PL GT HN ; Phone (919) 641-7852 
Chairman Fax (919) 641-1740 

A. C. BATCHELOR Jaton EDGECOMBE COUNTY CAVED HUDSON 

TARBORO, N.C. 27886 Director 

MELVIN R. HARRELL 
Member 

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE PERSONS LISTED BELOW ARE REGISTERED 

VOTERS IN THE COUNTY OF EDGECOMBE, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA: 

NAME Martin Cromartie, Jr. 

ADDRESS 400 St. Patrick Street, Tarboro, NC 

PRECINCT 1-1 WARD 6 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 1 

STATE SENATE DISTRICT 6 STATE HOUSE DISTRICT 8 

NAME Glennes D. Weeks 

ADDRESS 5035 St. Andrew Street, Tarboro, NC 

PRECINCT 1-I WARD 6 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 1 

STATE SENATE DISTRICT 6 STATE HOUSE DISTRICT 8 

NAME Thomas Chandler Muse 

ADDRESS 513 St. David Street, Tarboro, NC 

PRECINCT  1-! WARD 6 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 1 

STATE SENATE DISTRICT 6 STATE HOUSE DISTRICT 8 

WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL, THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 

1996. 
A 

oll eden 
DIRECTOR OF ELECTIONS 
  

(OFFICIAL SEAL) Ethel, SL. Brg 
  

Notary Public v 

My commission expires 
i LD Roo l 
   



EXHIBIT 2 

 



  

R.0. EVERETT (1878-1371) 
KATHRINE R. EVERETT (1353-1992) 
ROBINSON O. EVERETT 
DAWN T. BATTISTE 

  

CF COUNSEL 
ROBERT D. HOLLEMAN 

Memorandum 

To: 

Subject: Petition 

wa
nd
 

hen 
Lao ad 

tne pila 

A three-3u 

the Shaw pial. 

the 1992 elec: 

> In July 1893, 

appropriated -— nr Nh S 

After several 

trial in. March 

district cours 

racial gezryms 
the court. 

1994 el ec io’. 

1 ™ 
-—- The Shaw pla 

which, on June 
does violate 
reapportion 

po 
— 

The Shaw plai 

—ne Shaw plaintiffs sued 

nonths of 

Tra 

SE a 

EVERETT & EVERETT 
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 

SUITE 300 

301 W. MAIN STREET 

P.O. BOX 586 

DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27702 TEL: (319) 682-3891 
FAX: (919) 682-3483 

- as EE 
intiffs 

Shimm, Robinson 
— 

Everett, 

the General Assembly 

Zor Prompt 
~ 

Redistricting 

Assemply enacted a — reci 5S: 

—y 
because 

fEagerics court ruled (2-1) in April 1892 that 
to state a valid claim and 

lon proceeded using the plan. 

swt in June 1993 overtur 

the case back — 

- 
— a . 

ned 

for trial on 

the lower court 

the Shaw 

ral Assembly before adjourning 
D claim. +000 to fight the =

~
 

taking evidence, 
1984; and in August 1994, 
ruled (2-1) 

ncer, 

the case came to 
the three-judge 

that even though the plan was 
ir could withstand "strict scrutiny" 

redistricting plan was used again in the 

a 

by 
— 

— 
A iffs again appealed to the Supreme Court 
13, 1996, held "that the North Carolina plan 
e Equal Protection Clause because the state's 

. 
= 
aa 

iment scheme 1s not narrowly tailored to serve a 
compelling -scaze interest. 

— 
- iffs are convinced Rites tha two elections under 

 



an uncons-itutional, racial 

scheme is enough; 

effort -o have el 

court pu: 

. 
- =~ 

arolina to conduct it 

ional plan woul 

other states 

- new plan 

though lawsul 
lawsuit — eo 

hor 
PO Zsw days © 

already availabl 

were conducted 

the transcripts of 

assembled during 

Ad 1992 the redistrictin 
would be today 

was being forced to compl 

o< the Civil Rights Division, 

a 
de A than 

"~e-.d to be illegal. 

hardware and software 

AsseDo 

sophisticated, 

organize Census 

drewizg & plan. 

8X perts have studied North 
the 

Si~ce neither party controls bo 

Assembly, neither party will De 

~ediszricting plan that 1s un 

: 5 “palance of power" helps a 

[4 

ly gerrymandered 

and so they are CO 

ther the General As 

a constitutional plan in p 

. 
i 

data and other 1nformati 

and such a balance ma 

redistricting 

mmitted to make every 

sembly or the district 

lace for the 1996 

s election under the present 

d be especially 

such as Louisiana, 

sa will be in place for the 1936 

ts there followed and were 

inappropriate 
Georgia, and 

The General Assembly only 

er 18, 1991 to January 25; 

sent redistricting plan; 

was obtained. 

various 

General 
additional 

e 

9% 
J 
o 

ka! a 
re 
- 

g process was mor 

Because then the General 

y with the "maximization" 

which the Supreme Court 

is available for preparing & 

Even though the General 

ded or in disrepair, 

rties have access tO 

d software that can 

ion and facilitate 

Carolina's 

lawsuit and 

redistricting 

could be 

th Houses of the General 

able to obtain enactment of 

fair to the other party. 

ssure that a fair plan can be 

y not exist after the 1996  



  

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

Use of a new plan will not unduly surprise persons who are 
candidates under the present plan. When they first filed 
for office, they knew litigation was pending which 
threatened the continued existence of the present plan. 
Also, if new districts are created, each current candidate 
can decide in which district he or she will file in order to 
obtain the greatest benefit from any campaign efforts that 
have already taken place. There is no requirement that a 
candidate resice in the district where he or she runs; and 
even today, two of North Carolina's representatives do not 
reside in the cdistricts which they represent. (Walter 
Jones, Sr. resides in Eva Clayton's First District; and Sue 

Myrick resides in Mel Watt's Twelfth District.) 

A new districting plan may induce filing by some new 
candidates, who did not want to run for office in one of the 
current "bizarre" districts. 

5s not enacted by the General Assembly, the 
17] Shaw/pialinclzis will ask for prompt relief from the district 

court. They wlll ask the court to enjoin further use of the 
current unconstitutional plan and to develop - by means of 
special masters or otherwlse - a constitutional 
redistricting plan for the 1996 election. 

- 

If no new plan is adopted by the district court for the 1996 
election, -he Shaw plaintiffs will move the district court 
to appiy 2 U.S.C.§ 2(a) - whereunder eleven members would be 
elected from the eleven districts that were used before 1992 
and a twe_It: member of Congress would be elected on a 
statewide basis. 

To assure that no vestige remains of the current 
unconstitutional redistricting plan, the Shaw plaintiffs 
will encourage and assist the filing of a separate action by 
some registered voters of the First District. 

To obtain the most prompt and harmonious replacement of the 
present .reclgc-icting scheme, plaintiffs respectfully 

re Ce neral Assembly to proceed promptly with 
& fair and equitable redistricting plan. 

petition Tre C 
enactment ol 

 



  

EXHIBIT 3 

 



® EVERETT & EVERETT ® 
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 

SUITE 300 

301 W. MAIN STREET 

  

R.O. EVERETT (1878-1971) 
KATHRINE R. EVERETT (1893-1992) S58. 
RCBINSON O. EVERETT 2.0.80 388 
DAWN T. BATTISTE DurHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27702 TEL: (919) 682-5591 

FAX: (919) 682-5469   

CF CCUNSEL 
ROBERT O. HOLLEMAN 

July 2, 1996 

Governor James ons 
116 West 'JOones Street 

Raleigh, NC 27603 

Re: Prompt Redistricting 

Dear Governor: 

On March 12, 1852 Z2ive Durham voters - of whom I was one - sued 

in Federal District Court to-enjoin the use of North Carolina’s 
recently adopted congressional redistricting plan. Although our 
claims were twice rejected by the District Court in two-to-one 
decisions, our appeals were successful. On June 13, 1996, the 
Supreme Court ruled that "the North Carolina plan does violate 
the Equal Protection Clause because the state's reapportionment 
scheme 1s not narrowly tallored to serve a compelling state 
interest.” 

A few days later we plaintiffs petitioned the General Assembly 
to enact prompt.y & constitutional redistricting plan. (See 
petition enclosed) As we pointed out, two elections under the 
state's "bizarre" pian is more than enough. However, the 
Legislature adjourned on June 21st wlthout ever addressing this 
issue -.or adopting a final budget. The next day I was present 
when you addressed the North Carolina Bar Association and 
criticized the Gensral Assembly's fallure to adopt ‘a budget In 

my opinion you alsc could properly have criticized the 
Legislarure''s fal ure to deal with redistricting. 

Our petition to tne General Assembly sets out several compelling 
reasons for getting this task performed without delay. Last 
Sunday the Charlotte Observer provided yet another reason. This 
edition contained a redistricting plan drawn in two hours on the 
General Assembly public computer. (See enclosure.) As you will 

note, the plan is "color -iblind” and "party ~Bhlind. 
Coincidentally, Cchaly one of the proposed districts contains two 
incumbents - Sue Myrick and Mel Watt - both of whom now reside in 
the same distri 

=3 
- 

~— 
~ - 

 



  

In our petition to the General Assembly we stated that a good 
faith effort to apply traditional race - neutral redistricting 
principles could quickly produce a fair and lawful redistricting 
plan. The Charlotte Observer now has proved this point. 

Although you have called the General Assembly back to Raleigh in 
special session to consider the budget, we see no reason why they 
should not address redistricting during this same time. Indeed, 
we specifically request and petition that - as our Governor - you 
ask the Legislature to enact now a new redistricting plan for use 
in the November 1996 general election. To waste this opportunity 
would be tragic! 

I look forward to an affirmative response from you and the 
General Assembly. 

Sincerely, 

BALE | 
Robinson O. Everett 

 



  

EXHIBIT 4 

 



Sweet Auburn” —- - the story of 

the city from Gen. Sherman to 

the Olympics. 
i ios Sh a Books/Page 5¢ 
  

What could North Carolina's 

congressional districts look like if 
race or partisan politics weren't 

Colorblind. PT -blind 
taken mito account’: 

V'EESLon. 

  

Current 
districts 

Districts 3 and 12 are 
shaded for clanty. 

Here's one 

12 

Theoretical district statistics 

District (1) 
Minority population 

Total population 
555,815 

Politics 
Swing district 

Current incumbent 

Walter Jones Jr., R. 

District . 1 
Minority population 

Total population 
553,891 

Politics 
Republican 

Current Incumbent 

tichard Burr, KR.   

£ Ha 

548,043 

Politics 

Leans Democratic 

Current incumbent 
Eva Clayton, D. 

  

ARI Sw A gn 

District @ 
i "Minority population 
Total population 
547,051 

Politics 
Leans Democratic 

Current incumbent 

Bill Hefner, D. 

  

  

  

Mi | District) No 
J. | Minority population 

Total population 
548,927 

Politics 

Swing district 

Current incumbent 

David Funderburk, R. 

Total oation 
552,940 

Politics 

Leans Democratic 

Current incumbent 

Charlie Rose, R. 

Total population 
551.505 

Politics 
Leans Republican 

Current incumbents 
Sue Myrick, R.: Mel Watt, D. 

7 | District 
} || 7 Mii 

  
ER 

Ps LY i 

rity population fi 
Total population 

557,688 

Politics 

Heavily Republican 

Current incumbent 

None   

  

— Compiled by Jim Morrill 

lechiical assistance: by Dan Frey, mformiation 

system analyst, N.C. General Assembly 

District © ee 
Minority population 

Total population 
553,988 

Politics 

Democratic 

Current incumbent 

Fred Heineman, R. 

District {11 
Minority. population 4%; 

Total population 
554,786 

Politics 
Republican 

Current incumbent 
Cass Ballenger, RR.   

Total population 
552.397 

Politics 

Leans Democratic 

Current incumbent 

Howard Coble, R. 

pistrict @  F 
Minority population "7% | 
Total population - 
551,606 

Politics 
Heavily Republican 

Current incumbent 
Charles Taylor, R. 

PAL ARL NIT AY RAAR] a  



  

By JIM MORRILL 
Staff Writer 

hen lawmakers redrew 
North Carolina's congres- 
sional districts four years 

ago, they were forced to carve out 
two majority black districts. 50 
they drew convoluted lines to con- 
neat dispersed pockets of black 
voters, 

The map produced the state's 

first black members of Congress 
this century. ILalso invited ndicule. 
U.S. Supreme Court Justice San- 
dra Day O'Connor called it “politi- 
cal apartheid.” To the Wall Street 
Journal it was “political pornogra- 
phy.” 

This month the Supreme Court 
threw out one of those distrids — 

the 12th, which runs through Char- 
lotte from Gaston to Durham coun- 
ties. In Shaw vs. Hunt, it said race 
no longer can be the “dominant 
and controlling” factor in design- 
ing them. 

So when lawmakers go back to 
the drawing board this year or 
next, they'll be working with new 
rules. Race will be a factor, if not an 

overriding one. Partisan politics 
always will matter. 

We wondered what would hap- 
pen if you threw out those consid- 
erations and just rolled the dice. 

So we did. 
‘The result is a map that’s color- 

blind and panty-blind. It puts a 
premium only on compactness and 
preserving county hnes whenever 

possible. 
‘The map was drmwn on the 

General Assembly's public com- 
puter with the help of information 
systems analyst Dan Frey. Moving 
from west to east, we grouped 
counties as compactly as possible 

We rolled the redistricting dice 

and here's the result: A state 

divided by neither race nor politics. 

and accommodated population 

variances with no zig, here or a zag 

there. Then we looked at the re- 

sults. 
To achieve virtually identical 

populations from one district to 

another, the current plan splits 44 

counties and scores of precincts 

across the state. Ours splits only 

seven of 100 counties. The popula- 

tions of our districts vary, but by 

less than | percent. The average 

variance is .45 percent. 
Drawing the current plan took 

37 days. Ours took two hours. 
So what did we get with our roll 

of the dice? 
m Political balance. Of 12 dis- 

tricts, five tend to be Democratic 

and five Republican according to 

past voting behavior. The other 

two — one on the coast and one in 

the east-central part of the state — 
can swing either way. 

® Incumbent protection, ul least 

for the most part. When the map 

was done, Frey punched a button 

to see where the dozen congressio- 

nal incumbents lived. Up popped 

little houses showing 10 incum- 

bents living in separate districts. 

Only Republican Sue Myrick 

and Democrat Mel Watt ended up 

in the same district. Splitting them 

would have been hard anyway. 

They live two doors apart in Char- 

lotte’s Fourth Wand. 
m [wo whan distilcts. Mecklen- 

burg County, now split into three 
congressional districts, is whole. 
I's combined with Belmont, Mt, 
Holly and other parts of eastern 
Gaston County. 

‘The ‘Triangle cities of Raleigh, 
Durham and Chapel Hill form their 
own district. 

w A spread-out minority vote. 

Though no district has a black 

majority, one in the northeast has a 
population that's 44 percent minor- 
ity. Seven others have minority 
populations of at least 27 percent. 

“It demonstrates very convinc- 

ingly that you can draw these maps 
. and come up with voling per- 

centages that show a good candi- 
date can win, regardless of race,” 

says Robinson Everett, the Dur- 

ham attorney who successfully 

challenged the blnck- majority 12th 

District. “Those have to be very 

competitive.” 
Fverett and others argue that 

Instead of reducing minority voting 

strength, breaking up black-major- 

ity districts could enhance it by 

spreading it around. They say that 

serves minorities better by giving 

them influence in many districts, 

not just two. 

Please see MAP [ page 4 
  

  

  

Durham lawyer Robinson Everett: 

“You can draw these maps . . . and 

come up with voting percentages that 

show a good candidate can win, re- 

gardless of race.” 

  

  IAB IY 
  

Charlotte lawyer Anita Hodgklss: 

“Race plays an enormous role In vot- 

ers’ cholces as well as In the political 

process generally. 80 you can't say 

we're golng to redistrict and Ignore 

race."  



4C SUNDAY. JUNE J) 1300." = » 
  

edistricting 
renews debate 

on racial vote 
    

MAP MAJORITY BLACK DISTRICT 
Continued from page IC 

  

  

map done py > The 
shows 

te’s congressional 

cd (oor lire with 

majorily clack district. 

fet: rice 'S in tne northeast 

l rezcnes into Durham. 

The vast majority of black |! mpeorerin 1993 shat 
voiers in North Carolina are :..; 
Democrats. So it’s easy 10 see nat 
in a district where 27 percent or 
more of voters are black black 
support would be crucia. in a 
primary. It also would >e impor- 
tant in a general election. 

In that district, for example. a 
candidate with strong dlack sup- 
port would need 32 percent of the 
white vote to Win. 

Proponents like Everex Say 
that would force any card 
biack or white. nto a 
coalition representing man 
terests, including minomnt: ‘es. But 
you can turn that argument 
around. © Thariote 

“What's sauce for the goose ls Tm 
sauce for the gander,” says Anita 

  

    
  Hodgldss. a Charlotte attorney 

: rh DEAN NEITMAN/Staff who argued against Evere woen 
the Shaw case was in U.S. disTict 
court. “Why shouldn't wire vot- 
ers be equally hapov 10 be 
minorities in majority diack dis 
Ir:cts sO they can form coali 
tions? 

Helms over Gantt 
Having substantial numbers 5° 

minority voters in a distric: 
doesn't necessarily ensure tha: 
the candidate they suppor: wil! 
«in. Take our 2nd District. for 
example. 

Tucked in the northeast righ: 
under the Virginia line, it’s + 
percent black. According to a pair 
of benchmark 1988 races (for 
lieutenant governor and stare 
appeals court judge), the district 
is overwhelmingly Democratic. 

But in the 1990 U.S. Senate 
race it would have chosen Repub- 
lican Sen. Jesse Helms over 
Harvey Gantt. a black Democra:. 
bv 600 votes out of 160.000 cast. 

agree tharthere is something 
intuitively appealing about corn- 
ducting a redistricing process 
and not paying attention to race.” 
says Hodgkiss. “The problem is 
that the political process in North 
Carolina doesn’t operate thar 
way. 

“Race plavs an enormous r 
in voters’ choices as well as in 
poliacal process generaily. 
you can't say we're going 
redistrict and ignore race 
When [ say it plavs such a biz 
role, it determines who can wi-. 
And candidates who are the 
choice of black voters are consis- 
tently defeated.” 

Even though the high cour: 
said race can't be an overriding 
motive in redistricting. it didn’: 
close the door on majority-minor- 
ity districts. On the conmrary. it 
sald fragmenting a ‘politicalix 
cohesive’ group of minority vOr- 
ers ‘would not pe allowec. 

‘Tris notion of race not being 
the primary factor doesn’t mean 
that it's not a factor,” says Jerry 
Ingalls, a political geographer at 
UNC Charlotte who studies reap- 
portionment. “I fuliv expect the 
courts to require North Carolina 
to draw a map that sdll has a 
minority district.” 

rr
 
a
n
 

I 
I
 . 
0 

—t
 

 



N.C. quagmire 
Ever since the 1965 Voting 

Rigats Act. the court has sought 
to ensure minority voting 
strength. That was why the Jus- 
dace Depa—mment in 1991 rejected 
an N.C. pian with only a single 
minority district. It said two 
disTicts were necessary to make 
the state’s congressional delega- 
tion reflect its black population of 
22 percent. 

“The Justice Department 
guided us into the quagmire we 
face now. so it’s sdll going to be 
important to see how the Justice 
Departmen: reads this (latest) 
option.” says Sen. Roy Cooper, a 
Nash County Democrat who 
chairs the Senate Redistricting 

  
        

ity interests, a map with compact 
districts offers its own rewards. 

Some say it would restore a 
sense of community to a system 
that splits voters into different 
districts to elect candidates to city 
councu, county commission, state 
House, state Senate, judgeships 
and Congress. 

“It's the difference between 
living in a village and knowing 
who you're going to run into and 
living in Manhattan,” says D.G. 
Martin of Chapel Hill, who twice 
ran for Congress in the Charlotte- 
centered Sth District. 

“It's really important (as) we 
splinter in other ways — and our 
political process is really atrophy- 

Ing at tne grassroots level — that 
we search ‘or wavs for those who 

enjoy politics to make their con- 
tribution.” : 

He says overlaying congressio- 
nal boundaries onto existing 
county lines also would make it 
easier for elected officials to 
know their constituencies. 

Interest, not place 
Others disagree. 
“Quite frankly I think we are 

bemoaning something that 
doesn’t exist,” says Ingalls, the 
political geographer. “Our partic- 
ipation in politics isn’t based on 
place as much as it's based on our 
interests. And our interests don’t 
necessarily correspond to the 
place where we live.” 

So what will happen when 
lawmakers return to their com- 
puters? 

“I'd like to bring more common 
Sense to the redistricting pro- 
cess,” says Cooper. “Unfortu- 
nately our technology has out- 
raced our common sense with the 
ability to go in and redistrict by 
census blocks. : 

“The temptations to use parti- 
San politics and race will be great. 
I hope we'll be able to come to a 
consensus to have more compact 
districts that make sense. We'll 
just have to see how it works out.” 
  

Jim Morrill covers politics for The 
Observer. You can reach him at 
358-5059 or by e-mail at 
jimmorrill@aol.com 

 



  

EXHIBIT 5 

 



  

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT 

OF NORTH CAROLINA 

EASTERN DIVISION 

NO. 4:96-CV-104-H2 

MARTIN CROMARTIE. THOMAS 

CHANDLER MUSE, 222 CLENNES 

DODGE WEEKS. 

PlaiuiSs 

JAMES B. HUNT. JR . G>vamor of the 

State of North Carclinz. =: pr) 

De2I:nZants. 

  

AF-IDAVIT OF THOMAS B HOFELLER. PhD. 
  

I, Thomas B. Eaozzier. Ph.D. swear and affirm the following. 

lL. [ have cersonz: knowledge of the facts in this Affidavit, and I could competently 

testify if called as a witness I currently reside at 15334 Southeast 43rd Place, Bellevue, 

Washington 98006. 

2 [ have zzz:chec a copy of my resume, which was part of the record submitted to 

the United States Supramz Court and submitted to the trial court in Shaw v. Hunt. See Exhibit 1. 
  

[ testified as an expert wiinass for those challenging the current congressional plan in Shaw v. 

Hunt As detailed in mv resume, I have extensive experience in congressional redistricting 

matters. 

RAL/STI8S/1 

 



  

3. [ have attached a copy of the current North Carolina redistricting plan. See 

Exhibit 2. It splits numerous counties and precincts, including nineteen counties in the First 

District and ten counties in the Twelfth District. I created plans that were presented at the trial of 

Shaw v. Hunt for comparison for purposes of the narrow tailoring issue. These plans, which   

were created solely for comparison, took less than one day to complete, and contained districts 

that were much more compact and narrowly tailored than the current plan, including a much 

more compact First District. Although these plans serve as a striking comparison to the current 

North Carolina plan, I am sure. given my experience drawing North Carolina congressional 

plans, that there are otzer acceptable plans that could be drawn and might represent better 

solutions within ae curr2n: (2 Zislative environment. 

4 North Carcinz has the necessary computer technology for redistricting in place, 

and 1t 1s ready to use. Moreover, the data necessary to draw reapportionment plans (e.g., census 

data, voids registration. Za:a. giection data) are on the North Carolina computer. North Carolina 

also has an adequate gz2ograr nic information system (“GIS™) on which plans can be drawn. 

Moreover. the politicians anc their staffs are very familiar with the data and legal issues (e.g., the 

Voting Rights Act and zhe Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments) associated with redistricting; 

therefore, the learning curve or plan drafters is virtually non-existent. Additionally, the political 

issues (e.g. incumbenc. communities of interest, political parties) that influence redistricting 

are also well known. 

t
h
 In my cpinion. the North Carolina General Assembly could use its existing 

computer technology and knowledge to create a constitutional congressional reapportionment 

plan within approximately five days. This is particularly true given that drawing a plan using the 

lJ
 

RAL $7085] bss 

 



traditional race-neutral criteria discussed in Shaw v. Reno and Shaw v. Hunt is much easier to 

  

  
  

draw than the present extreme racial gerrymander. Moreover, a revised plan could easily be 

digested by local election officials because there would be significantly fewer split counties and 

split precincts. 

6. Finally, I have attached a copy of a publication issued by the Federal Election 

Commussion (“FEC”). See Exhubit 3. This document lists twenty-three (23) states that have 

primaries in August or September. In my opinion, North Carolina could create a constitutional 

reapportionment plan and have primaries this Fall in the newly redrawn congressional districts. 

Zs my 
Thomas B. Hofelle/Ph D\, 
  

- 

Sworn to and subscribad cefore me 

thisthe //7 day of Ww... 1996 
"Sy 
  

  

tary Public 

  

My Commission expires: lz 22 

SE ATTN ) 

IFF oI Noh 
£= ee® : © 
> < $ s 

2 PUBLNY Fo 
% AEE 

/ a POPP S 

“on 804 13 CONE 

Baggy? 

RAL/ST985/1 = 

 



  

EXHIBIT] 

 



THOMAS B. HOFELLER, Ph.D. 
8212 Cedar Landing Court 
Alexandria, Virginia 22306 
Telephone: (703) 780-6836 

Professional Skills 

Corporate executive management in varied settings , congressional liason, litigation 
support, proposal drafting, data processing, personnel management, budget design and 
supervision, technical writing, systems analysis, political and demographic data analysis, 
and survey research. : 

Academic studies in American political systems and 18 years of practical experience in 
application of computers to business and politics allow me to bring analytical and 
computer skills together to solve "real world" business, technical and political problems. I 
am at home in the corporate management structure, the computer environment, and the 
political arena. 

Education and Military Service 

Claremont Graduate School, Claremont California - Ph.D. in Government - 1980. 
Majors: Urban Politics. American Politics and American Political Philosophy; 

Claremont McKenna College (formerly Claremont Men's College), Claremont, 
Califorrua - B.A. in Political Science - 1970. 

U. S. Navy - Electronics Technician 2nd Class March, 1965 - 1969. (Hon. Dis.) 

Professional Experience 

Campaign Mail & Data Inc: Fails Chuch, Virginia - Director of Demographic Services 
and Geographic Analysis December 1993 - present. 
  

Supervising the development of Mapping and Demographic analysis tools used for list 
targeting for commercial, institutional and political use. Also assisting in the development 
of nationwide lists - particularly in the identification of proper geographic coding of 
political geography for congressional districts and state legislative districts. 

  

National Republican Congressional Committee: Washington D.C. - Redistricting Director 
1989 - October 1995. : 

Created division which handled all 1990 congressional redistricting activities. 
Developed nation's fastest and most functional mirco-based redistricting and mapping 
system. Project completed at low cost and under difficult time constraints. Division 
assisted all Republican House members and their staffs in redistricting. Tracked legislation 
on redistricting and 1990 Census. Provided technical support for federal litigation in many 
states and gave testimony as expert witness.  



  

Republican National Committee: Washington. D.C. - Director of Computer Services 
1982 - 1989. 

Transformed national party's computer capacity from isolated organization in single 

MIS shop to building-wide system utilized by all divisions in organization. Hardware 
grew from one DEC-2030 System with 50 terminals to clustered DECNET system using a 
VAX-8600 and a VAX-83550 with over 180 portable and fixed terminals plus a WANG 
VS-100 system with over 100 workstations. 

Directed all data processing activities of the RNC, managed staff of 40. Supervised 
divisional budget of 2.5 million dollars. Directed research activities involving analyses of 
election and census data. Was primary computer consultant to GOP's state and county 
party organizations. : 

  

Also served as RNC's redistricting Director (1982). Thereafter directed all related 

activities, including political, legal and technical work. Advised Chairman and Senior Staff 
on all redistricting activites. 

  

Rose Institute of State and Local Government, Claremont Men's College: Claremont, 

California - Associatz Director 1979 - 1982. Assistant to the Director 1973 - 1979. 

Co- founder. Supervised staff of 15. Oversaw development of software and 
databases. including extensive poiitical and demographic databases and California's first 
comprehensive computerized redistricting system. 

National Demographics Corporation: Claremont, California - V. P. 1979 - 1983. 

Responsible for incorporation and day to day operations. Consulting firm specialized 
in political targeting and construction of computerized redistricting systems. Responsible 
for hardware selection. acquisition, software design and development, and database 
construcuon. 

  

Self-Emploved Redistnzzne Consultant 1977 - Present. 
  

Redistricting consultant to state legislatures, congressional delegations, municipal 

Gave affidavits and tesumony in federal cases. Have worked for both Republican and 
Democrat clients. Gives advice on strategy, written legislation, developed computerized 
redistricting svstems and drew plans. 

  
Compass Systems, Inc: San Diego, California- V. P. 1970 - 1972 _ 

As part of managemer: team developed, software system and database for California 
State Assembly used in 1S71 redistricting of legislative and congressional districts. 
System included political voting history, population data and extensive data retrieval and 
mapping system. Directly supervised programming and database development staffs. 

Other Related Professional Activities: 1971 - 1982 
  

Retained by campaigns and party organizations as data processing consultant, political 
analyst, and in field of direct mail, including development of lists, mail targeting, and mail 
production. Supensed survey research activities. 

 



  

Publications 
Grofman, Bernard and Hofeller, Thomas (1990). Comparing the Compactness of 

California Congressional Districts Under Three Different Plans. in Bernard 
Grofman (ed), Political Gerrymandering and the Courts. New York: Agathon. 

Richard Niemi, Bernard Grofman, Thomas Hofeller, and Carl Carlucci (1990). 

Measuring the Compactness and the Role of a Compactness Standard in a Test for 
Partisan Gerrymanderings. Journal of Politics. 

  Thomas S. Engeman, Edward J. Erler, and Thomas B. Hofeller (1980). The Federalist 

Concordance. Chicago; University of Chicago Press. . 
  

- 
- 

 



PARTIAL SUMMARY OF CASES 

  

Shaw v. Hunt, 92-202-CIV-5-BR, U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of North 
Carolina, Raleigh Division (1993-4) 

This case is the second trial phase following the U. S. Supreme Court’s reversal of the 
lower court in Shaw v. Reno (1993). Prepared alternative plans for presentation to the 
court. Prepared poimcal and demographic analyses of the state’s plans along with 
numerous exhibits demorstrating plaintiffs’ complaint. Have given a deposition and will 
serve as witness at trial 

  

Arizonans for Fair Representation v. Svmington, CIV 92-0256, U. S. District Court 
Arizona (1992), alsc 113 SupCt 454 
  

Prepared affidavit evaluating the three major plans submitted to court for redistricting of 
Arizona's six congressionz! districts. Plans examined with regard to all major redistricting 
criteria. Also examined minority voting strength in proposed new sixth district in State 
Senate Plan. Gave exer testimony in trial phase. The plan adopted by the court was 
almost identical to xe nian constructed by me for the Indian plainuffs. 

De Grandv v. Wetrere® No $2-40015-WS, U.S. District Court Florida (1992)   

Prepared model plas anc affidavits evaluating other plans for two of the partes in the 
congressional phase of :ne case and gave testimony on the political and voting rights 
implications of varicus other plans. Also presented an affidavit and gave expert testimony 
in the legislative phzse of the case for the De Grandy plaintiffs. 

Good v. Van Straten. $2{ F.Supp 537, U.S. District Court Eastern and Western Michigan 
(1992) 
  

Prepared compactness analvsis of plans submitted to court to redistrict Michigan's 
congressional districts. Gave testimony on that subject and other relevant redistricting 
criteria. 

Pope v. Blue, U.S. Dist: Court Western District of North Carolina (1992)   

Prepared affidavit containing compactness analysis and political analysis of plan passed 
by North Carolina Legsiazure and approved by U.S. Department of Justice.  



  

Ketchum v. Bvrne, 740 F, 2d 1398, cert. den. City Council of Chicago v. Ketchum, 471 

U.S. 1135 (1985), on remand, Ketchum v. City of Chicago 630 F.Supp. 551 (N.D.Ill 

1985) 

  

Consultant to black plaintiffs (P.A.C.I.). Assisted in building their political and 
demographic database, performed a racial and ethnic analysis of City of Chicago, gave 
deposition, and testified in court. Participated in second remedy phase of case, gave 
another deposition, was prepared to give testimony (the case was settled before retrial). 

  

Carrillo v. City of Los Angeles, No. CV-85-7739 JMI-JRX (unreported) (C.D. Cal. 1986) 

Consultant to Mexican American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF). Constructed database, 

performed analysis of ethnic voter registration levels, analyzed various-plans submitted by 
all parties, submitted affidavit to the court. 

McNeil v. Senngfeld School Distniet, 656 F. Supp. 1200, 66 F. Supp. 1208 (C.D. Il 
1987), 851 F..2d, $37 (7:a Cir. 1988) 3 
  

Consultant to course! for School Board. Constructed demographic database, performed 
analysis on various proposed districts, gave deposition, presented affidavit to court. 

Analyses concerned levels of black voting strength in proposed districts. 

Conner v. Finch, 231 U.S. 407 (1977) 
  

Principle consultan: to Joint Reapportionment Committee of Mississippi State Legislature. 
Compiled databases. crew plans, prepared analysis for the legislature, gave general 
redistricting advice to Cemmuttee Chairman and Counsel. Gave an extensive deposition 
and court testimor.y t2iore District Court in D.C. Assisted in the preparation of all briefs. 

Bedham v. Eu, s F.2d 1170 (1983) ; -- F.Supp. — (Apr. 21 1988), 
appeal docketed, 

721 
6 U.S.L.W.3791 (U.S. May 4 1988) 

  

65 F.Supp. 136; 

No. 37-1818 56 

Principle technical consultant to counsel for Bedham and Republican National Committee. 
In charge of all database construction, development of sample court plans, analyses of 
Burton Plans and pregarzton of maps, charts and other materials for trial and briefs. 
Submitted tei d edistnicting consultant for the California Congressional Delegation 
during the 1981-82 Lire drawing process. 

Bandemer v_Dawis. 478 U.S. 109 (1986) 
  

Consultant to counsel! for amicus Republican National Committee and prepared 
demonstration plan for brief submitted to U.S. Supreme Court. 

 



  

  

California Legislature v. Reinecke, 6 Cal. 3d595 99 Cal. Rptr. 481, 492 P.2d 385 (1972) 

As consultant, drafted redistricting plan for California State Senate and Assembly. 
Subsequently accepted by California Redistricting Commussion. 

  

Jordan v. Winter, 541 F. Supp. 1135 (N.D. Miss. 1982) 

Performed analyses and gave court testimony on behalf of the defendants. 

  

Gingles v. Edmisten. 590 F. Supp. 345 (N.D.N.C. 1984), affd in part and rev'd in 
part Thornburg v. Gingles 478 U.S. 30 (1986) 

Consultant to Attorney General. Performed demographic analysis of state with regard to 
creation of black districts for State Legislature. Gave deposition and testified in court on 
behalf of Legislature. 

City of Port Arthur + United States, 459 U.S-159 (1982) 
  

Consultant to City Azorney. Performed analysis of racial content of City Council 

Districts. This was -2quired for the case as 1980 census data were not yet available. 

Analysis required extensive residential survey to determine racial characteristics of 
tindividual districts. Gave a deposition in the case. 

Rvan v. Otto, 661 F.2d 1130 (7th Cir. 1981) 
  

Consultant to Reputiican plaintiffs and Illinois Congressional Delegation. Drew 

aiternative plans for oresentauon to Court, gave deposition and testimony. 

Rybicks v. State Boz-d of Elections, 584 F. Supp. 849 (N.D.Ill. 1984) 
  

Principle technical consultant to State House of Representatives and Republican Senate 
Minonty Caucus. Supervised construction of political and demographic databases, the 

design and construction of computerized redistricting information system, analyzed and 

constructed a number of redistricting plans. Gave depositions and testified at the trial. 

  

La Comb v. Growe. 341 F. Supp. 145 (D Minn), aff'd sub nom.Orwall v. La Comb, 456 
U.S. 966 (1982) 

Consultant to Republican Congressional Delegation. Dew a plan for presentation to 
Court, submitted an affidavit. 

 



EXHIBIT 2 

 



  

  

    
  

{5 nb Vi) 2 ER OAT I LAR EE Tork eA Pb ol 

  

  
  

  

      

  

  

MAP 1 

NORTH CAROLINA 

CURRENT CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS   
  

2 

  
 



  

EXHIBIT 3 

 



   

    

  January 1996 

Table of Contents 

Commissioners 

1 1996 Chairman and Vica 

Chairmen Elected 

I Message from the Chairman 

Court Cases 
L.S. Chamber of Commerce 

: FEC 

3 Center for Responsive Politics v. Te & 

FEC 
3 New Litigation 

Reports 

53 Reports Due in 1966 

® Federal Register Notices 

Public Panging 

Begtnany 

13 Revised Disclaimer Rules 

14 Advisory Opinions 

Compliance 
15 MURs Releas 

16 Index 

ed to the Public 

Federal Election Commission 

Commissioners: 

  

1996 Chairman and Vice 
Chairman Elected 

On Decemper 7, 1993. the 

Commission unanimously siected 

Les Ann Elion as FEC Cheirman 
and John Warren McGarry as FEC 
Vice Chairman. Mrs. Elliott, who 

was the 1995 Vice Chaiman. 
suce gras Se McDonald as 

Chairman. 
re her SHEA & 2 

Mrs. Ellon was vic 

Bishop, Bryant d 

5
 3
 v 

|
 

[4
7 3 I'
s 

b
o
 

i 
v
i
a
 

1 
0 O
 

4 
Mi
 

(6
) 

rt
 

[47
] 

wn
 

» fa
 

edical Political Acuon 
Come ee. tpg Elliott was on ths 
board of directors of the American 
Association of Political Consultants 

and oa the board of the Chicago 
Ar Public Afrairs Group. of which 

he 1s a past president. Chi vas 2iso 

member of the Public ATairs 

ommmuctes of the U.S. Camber of 
or is 2 recipient Of he 

Award tor Excellence in Serving 
Corporate Public Affairs from the 
Nauonal Associaton of Manufac- 

lUrers. 

A native of St. Louis, Mrs. Elliott 

graduated rom the University of 
[llinois. She also completed North- 
westam University's Medical 

Association Managzment Execueay “s- 

{cominued on pa 

Volume 22, Number | 

‘A Message from FEC 
Chairman Lee Ann Elliott 

This year will be a busy Presiden- 
dal alecuon year but the FEC will 
continue 10 focus on its primary goal 
ot service to tha regulated community. 

We urge vou to take advantage ot 
4 ¢ Many Serv vices we offer. If you 

ave 2 nave a question about any phase of 
the Act or our regulations, please call 
an information specialist on our toll 
line: . 800/424-95" 30. Your question 
will recerve prompt arenuon. 

If you file with us, contact your 
analyst in the Reports Analysis Div. 
ision. He or she can help vou with 
goorang pr oblems. This is parocu- 

larly important if vou receive a 
Reguest For Additional Informauon. 

FEC publications on many phases 
of the election process are available 
ie you by mail or by Flaspfax. Call 
I 3413 to request 
the publicadon vou want & nd it will 
be e faxed to you ule this service 

Cperares 24 hours a day. 7 days a week 
A high prio for the FEC in 1996 

s preparing for electronic filing. We 
12 hy commissioned a study to help us 

an for a comprehensive program. 
Son are moving ahead on our internal 
computer capabilities and hope to be 
fully computerized shortly. We are 
raking every effort to be more 

ficient and user friendly. 
EH welcome your comments and 
SLZgesuons. 

 



  

   
January | yyo 

    

4 
@® LCL IU Cimwomrsan nan svs I VOTE 

Pre-Election Reporting Dates: 
1996 Primary and Runoff Elections 

: Registered/Certified 
State or Territory Election Day Close of Books? Mailing Date* Filing Date * 

  Alabama June 4 May 15 May 20 May 23 
Runoft: June 25 June 3 June 10 June 13 

August 7 August 12 August 15 

American Samoa’ November 3 October 16 October 21 
Runeft: November 19. October 30 November 72 

  Alaska August 27 

  
October 24 

November 7 

  Arizona Septamper 10 August 21 August 26 August 29° 

  Arkansas May 21 May 1 

  

  

  

  

  

  

May 6 May 9 
Runoff: June 11 May 22 May 27° May 30 

California March 25 March 6 March 11 March 14 

Colorado August 13 July 24 July 29 August 1 

Connecticut? Seprexier 10 August 21 August 26 August 29 

Delaware Sen-ambae = August 18 August 23 August 26 

District of Columbia May ~ Apnl 17 April 22 April 235 

Florida September 3 August 14 August 19 August 22 

Runoff Datsper September 11 Septamber 15 Saptember 19 

  

“This date indicates the end of the resorting period. A reporting period always begins the day after the closing daze of the las? 
report filed. If the commirree is naw ang has not previously filed a report, the first report must cover ali activity that occurred 
before the committee regisiered nz. 7 zoplicadle, before the individual became a candida. 

. ke : PI 5 : ; roo dghy Jy Tae oe we _ ¥ 
*Reports sent by registered or ceric mii must bz posunarked Oy the mailing date. Othervise, they must be rec 
niing date, 

x < ® 
A 

Sa
 

™~
 
3
 

nn 

3 1s ; Bh a, SORE Ce 2 Jys Sr ran Tu : i vr 
(ne mailing dare is the same as =z ling date because ie compuied mailing dave would fail one day before the prunary was neld. I 

‘Note that the last day for a registzriciczrified postmark is a federal holiday, when pos: offices are closed. The report should 
therzfore be postmarked before tmz: cate. 

Ss wmn——— 

“Irn American Samoc. if @ runoff is no: reid. the Novemper J elzcrion is considered the general election, and a post-general 
election report is therefore requirec. ii « runoff is held, the November 19 election is considered: ! elect! general elecrion. with the 
post-genercl reporting datzs as follows: close of books. December 9; mailing/filing date, December | 

RN
 
m
0
 

In Connecticut. each party will 70ic c convention (dates rot available yat) tha: has the zuthoricy to nominate c candidate; pre- 
convention reporfing is thereforz recuires. If a candidate is so nominated ar a convenrion. and the nomination is no! chalienged 

the nominee does not purticipace ir iz primar and has no contribution limit or reporting requiremencs for the primary. 14 CER 

110 1(jitd): cee also AO 1982-49. 

 



   Federdi Election Commission RECORD 
    

  

  

  

    

    

  

    

    

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

: Registered/Certified 
State or Territory Election Day Close of Books Mailing Date * Filing Date? > : 
Georgia July 16 June 26 July 1 July 4° TE 

Runoff: August 6 July 17 July 22 July 25 

Guam September 7 August 18 August 23 August 26 

Hawaii September 21 September | September 6 September 9 

Idaho May 28 May 8 May 13 May 16 

[lino1s March 19 February 28 March 4 March 7 

Indiana May 7 April 17 Apnl 22 April 25 « 

Iowa? June 4 May 15 May 20 May 23 

Kansas August 5 July 17 July 22 July 25 

Kentucky Mav 28 May 8 May 13 May 16 

Louisiana September 3} September | September 6 September 9 
General: November 3° October 16 October 21 October 24 

Maine Juns 11 May 22 May 27° May 30 

Marviand March 3 February 14 February 19° February 22 & 

Massachuser:s September 17 August 28 September 2° Sepiamber 5 Lg 

Michigan August July 17 July 22 July 25 

  
cbsna : same August 2] +L = 11 On , August i“ 

  

"This dare indicates the end of the resorting period. A report: 
reper: filed. If the commiz 
before tie committee registe 

4
 

ps
 

~
 9 0 iy “ 

3 
ty
 

* Note rirat the lzst dav for c regis:zred/certiied postmark is a federal holi 
therefore be postmarked before tha: cate. 

NE —— 

® Note that the filing dase is a federai hol: 
repor: should be received by the approp 
mati and postmarked by that date). 

a J81 

é 

red and, if aopiicadle. before tne individual became a carndidcze. 

~- 

ng period always begins the day afer the closing date of the last 
tee is new end nes rot previously filed a report, the first report must cover all activirs thar occurred 

ent py registered or certified maii must he posmmaried by the mailing dare. Otherwise, they mus: be received ev the 

liday. Because filing dates are not extended when they fall on rorworking days, the 
ricre filing offices bv July 2, the Wednesday before (or sen: by registered or certified 

'In lowa. a parry may. under certain circums:ances. have the option of holding a convenrion to nominate a candidate for the 
general election. In that case. a pre-convention report would be required instead of a pre-primary report. 

“A fesi-general election report is also required. Note that if a cardidare is uropposzd in the general election. his or her commit- 1h 
uijor ine general and is required to file pre- and post-general election reports. 11 CFR 

lee nevertheless has c contribution limi: § 
110.11j43) end AO 1984-54. 

 



  

  S PEE SBT En CENTS C0 at ¢ blind ard 6 
  

Registered/Certified 
State or Territory Election Day Close of Books! Mailing Date?! 

Mississippi March 12 ; February 21 February 26 February 29 Runoff: April 2 March 13 March 18 March 21 

  

  Missouri August 6 July 17 July 22 July 25 
  Montana June 4 May 15 May 20 

April 29 
  Nebraska May 14 April 24 

    Nevada September 3 August 14 August 19 
    New Hampshire September 10 August 21 August 26 

  New Jersey June 4 May 15 May 20 

  New Mexico : June 4 May 20 : May 23 
  New York September 10 August 26 August 29 
  North Carolina April 22 

May 20 

  Neon Dakota May 27° 7 

  Cnhio 
Mach & 

  ‘Oklahoma 
August 12 August 15 
September 2° September 5 

  

  

  primary: March 3 February 12 
nary: March 10 February 19 

  ‘Rhode Island August 21 August 26 

‘South Carolina May 22 
  

May 27° 
Runot?: June 25 June 5 June 132 June 13 
  

- 
~ 

~ 

end of the regortin 
: TR anc nas rot previousty flied a report, the firs: report must cover all c 

irree registered end. if applicable, vefore the individual become cardidare. 

g period. A reporting period always tegins the day after the closing dare of the las: rgd 
ro 

coviry that occurrzd ’ 
) 

R 2poris sent by registered or certified mail must be posorarked by the mailing dare. Otherwise, they must be recenved bv the fling date. 

“Tie mailing dare is the scme as the filing dace because the computed mailing date would fall one day before the primary was held. 

‘Note thar the [ast day jor a regisiered/certified postmark is ei 
The report should therefore be postmarked before thar dase. 

. R————— 

CN woe 

ther a federal holiday or a Sunday, when posi offices are closed. 

$ The April guar riy report is waived jor committees filing the Pennsylvania pre-primary report. See [1 CFR 104.5(a)(1)(iii jC) CRS oH INNING).  



   A verwl we kG LOMUNIISSION Ko LU KLY/ 
  

  
  

  

  

January 1865 

  

  

  

        

      

  

    

  

  

  

  

    

  

: Registered/Certified State or Territory Election Day Close of Books Mailing Date Filing Date? 

South Dakota June 4 May 15 May 20 May 23 
Runoff: June 18 May 29 June 64 June 6 

Tennessea August 1 July 12 July 17 July 20° 

Texas March 12 February 21 ebruary 26 February 29 Runoff: April 9 March 20 March 25 March 28 

Utah® June 25 June 5 June 10 June 13 

Vermont September 10 August 21 August 26 August 29, 

Virginia’ June 11 May 22 May 27° May 30 

Virgin Islands September 10 August 21 August 26 August 29 
Runoff: September 24 September 4 Septamber 124 September 12 

Washington eptember 17 August 28 September 2° September 5 

West Virginia May 14 April 24 Apnl 29 May 2 

Wisconsin September 10 August 21 August 26 August 29 

Wyoming August 20 July 31 

    

* This dare indicares the end of the reporiing period. A reporting per: 
repor: filed. If the committee is new 
oejore the comiminee registered and. if applicable, before the individual became a cardifote. 

*Reporzs sent by registered or certified mail must be postmarked by the mailing daze 

* The mciling daze is the same cs the fiiing dome because the computed mailing daze would f: 
* Note that the Last dav for a regisiered/certified pos 
therefore be postmarked before thas dae. 

Baa 

° Note thas the filing dete is ¢ Saturday. Because Jiling dares are nor extended when the 
should be received by the copropriase Al 
postmarked by the mailing dare,. 

*In Utah, pre-convention reporting is required for the Republican convention on Mey 4 (¢ 
April i9: filing date. April 22). the Libersarian convention on May [1 (close of books. April 2 
date, April 29), ihe Democratic convertion and the Independenr Parrio: 
are not available ver). A candidare recetving at least 70 
participate in the primary. In that case. the nominee ha 
110.1(j)(4); see also AOs 1992-25 and 1978-30. 

7In Virginia, each party within a Congressional District decides whether to hoid a pri 
held, pre-convention reporting is required. Information on conven: 
the Senate races, the Democrazs wi ll hold a convention on June 8 (reporting dates: close o 
filing daze. Mav 27, which is Memor: 
shown (rn table). 

al Day—see footnote ° above). The Republicans wiii 

tod always begins thz dav after the closing dare of the last 
ard ras rot previously filed a report, tie firs: report must cover all activity tha: occurred 

g daze. Otherwise, they must be received by the fing daze. 

‘all one day before the primary vas heid. 

tmark is a federal holiday, when pos: offices are closed. The report should 

¢v fall on nonworking days. the report 
ing offices by July 19, the Friday before (or sen: bv registered or certified mail and 

lose of books, Apri} 14: mailing date. 
ril 21: mailing date, April 26; filing 

Parry convention (dates Jor the laser two conventions 
percent of the convention vote becomes the party's nominee and does nor 

s ro contribution limir or reporting requirements for the primary. 11 CFR 

mary or a convention. If a conver:zion is 
ion dazes jor House races is not yet available. With respec: to 

f books. May 19; mailing dare. May 24; 
roid a primary on June 11] ( reporting dates 

m
y
 

Ek 

 



  

EXHIBIT 6 

 



  

1107 Sou-waod Drive 
Chapel Hill N.C. 7514 

Personal 

Born, Four Caks, Ne0.. 20 Juna 31927 
Married Ann Real, 19 

Children: 

Tracy Sandare Justus 

-an@ Sandorsa 

William Sanders 

A £3530) and 3.0, (1954), The University ef North 
Catoling &: Chapel Hill 

w dlllzary zxpericace 

£.5. Naval Reserve, active duty. 1945-46 

Work experia-ce 

0} 

Xx TC Chief Judze, U.S. Court of Appeals 
ircufir, 1654-33 

? 

5-56 
Faau_ty manher, Instlzure of Coverumment, UNC-CH, 
1936-73, 1879-94 (retirad, 31 December 1994) 
Director, Tnstitute of Coverament, 1962-73, 1979-92 
Vice President fer Planning, The Cuiversicy of North 
Carolina, 1373.78 4 

Honor asc. 

who's Wro in Aw:clca (40th and later eds.) 
Ruth Celtreue Caunon Award, given by North Carolina 
Historic Prese-vartion Scciety, 1982, for work in 
Historic preservation 
Avard ol Merit, given by Amer’can Associaticn for S: 
and Lical History, 1987, for work in historic presser Tiotasjefferscn Award, 1388, given by The Universiry 
North Larolina at Chapel Hill, for service tc Univer 

  

€/19/96 

ata 

vation 

ar 

gsizy 

 



Distinguished Alumnus Award of the law Schnnl af The Univarsity 
of Norza Carolina at Chapel Rill, 1491, for service to Univer- 

sity and profession ; 
Diaringuished Service Madal of the Ceneral Alumni Association 

of The Uaivereity of North Carclina at Chapel Mill, 1992, Cur 
service to University and State 

C. Knox Massey Award of Ths University ol North Carolina at 

Chapel £11, 1993, fur service Lu Unlversicy 

Achievement Award of the Nurlh Carolina Assocfaticn of Collages 

and Universilies, 1994, for service to higher education in 

North Catslina 

Unlversity Award of the 3oard of Governors of The University of 
North Carclina, 1993, for service to University. 

 



  

Publicacions 

Legislative Represeilation 

    

ca=a_2on North Carclina Congressional Districts, State Senatorial Dis- 
go 2 
    

  

    

S 
t-icts, and Apporiicrment of the 3racte Houze of Feoresentadives. 1335], 

VP 

Maps of North Cazclina Congressional Districts, 1789-156C, and cf S-ats= 
Sena-orfal Districts and Apportionment cf State Representatives, 1775- 

1360. 1361, 38 op. 

  

Fd., Marsrials on loangrazeional Diszrices in Nozth Carslina. ls ed. 

184%, 41 np.2 24 od, 1367, 35 pp. 
  

  

  

  

Fd.,  Macarials or Repreconca=lion in ‘the Gepezal Azzenmbly cf No:zzd 

Zoro inu. 3983, AD Dp. 

Memwvandae Swiew.oniuy Fiac.ional Voting an waighiaed VeLirg 1a the 

Seue-z. Asseud yy OF North Cazo.ira. 19483. 22 rp. 
  

tion in Cecngress and the General Asscmbly,™ Popular Gevern- 
pest, vol, 2%, re. 5 (Feb, 1961}, 1-35, 

  

  

e a 3, 

4; vo... 283, nos. S~6 (March-April 1942 

unty Commissioners,” 
  

tive Rep-cacntatior iu North Caro 
1. 32, no. 5 (Feb. 1964) 

< 

lna: A Chapter Ends," Popular 
¢ 1-7, 33; vol. 32, no. €& (March 

  
  

 



EXHIBIT 7 

 



  

er —
————

—r"   

aaa 

Crying Wolf 2 L¢ | 

(nen "ne Supreme Cot AWC This Week's primary results were 

4QWT. Over. racial gerrymandenng 
WNAMmolguous. RCP: Bishop won 59% of 

|ast wenth, the wails of despair rom the vota \n his rural soutd Qeorgia d
i 

ne cv) righis groups aad Te EO i 2 heavy favorite to win 

Rlack Caucus dscwr.ed out Mest sensi- November. “Wave goTien W 3 point 

we ccmmaitary on the decision. where people are beixg gratuatad 3S | 

glare RB. Jodes, director of me individuals,” ne told supporters. “1's | 

NAACP Leg Defense Fuad, warned, dt about where tne Lines are drawi. 

“This decision could well have wing 
Its apout the quality @ 

situation where members of he glack dered.” 
: 

~agcus cond Bt a back seat of 2 Rep. McKinney 8is0 took 2 political 

raxcab.” Wel, De results of the AI gold medal 10 me city Tatis pout 

rest of non-Tasiel gerrymandersd diz- host the Olympics. Qne collected 81% 

triers are J. and it's claal that 3 ore of the vote, a0 carried a args num- 

relaxed aTOtuae owasd hell {mpactis ber of majori 

. 
wil have 2 cumpittive Tacs tnis {all 

Democase Reps. cynthia MeKin- against Regubican
 Jotn Mitnick, but 

ray 30% Ianford BLENAD ware both largely because of her 100% liveral vat: 

oc eciad in 1992 from grossly Gstorted Ng record rather than ner race. 

4i5mricts that & spdaral COUT ruled Charles COOK, 3 politica! analyst —
 
—
—
—
—
—
—
 

were nconstutionaly
 ~qce cope Wih 3 nemocratic pedigree, says the 

scious. Rep VeeKinney's istrict dupreme Court's ruling against racial | 

seascned ul LE way from AYvanta 0 serTymandering 
will make {or nealifn- 

‘ne Alante =n with long fingers ler polnGS. “Riack Caucud members 

cazering out tor black volers in Al Wwilihave wg put togeber soalidons and 

gusta and gavannah, Toe ou-Jr broaden tneir QUEL the way white . 

sered Temaprig of Rep. MoKinbey's Southern Cong: ; 

asseric’ ~ranied 8 CCIMpacs eataroun
d years,” Le s8¥S. The 

: 
@ only black 1 ; 

Atantaand reduced tie percentage of cumbents who shoud seally fear ra 

¢ e tire OCS WHO refuse 

. Bl 
to ranscend race and 19peai tC white 

wercentagt fal) to 35% from 82%. voters. 

The new district lines attracted The tive Supreme Court lustices, ! 

ces} political ccrapenticn of both ine led bv Saadrz D8Y o} 

cumbents. A iormer aide 0 Ree. searing in 1992 have struck down ais: 

gisnop led against Un Comer tricts Wis wprrasented a form of “po- 

Yates. 2 modarate White lawyer Who tical anartheid” gesarve to fcel vin- 

: : 
, 

} 

nad won 42% in & 1394 Congrassionl 
dicated. The Bush Justice Departmen

t 

geo rymandeling 
and 

s critics as resisang the 

ier ty Locurnbents. At the 

gloomy abdul her prospects. “t's ind seme rime, \iberals accused the Jus 

at shocking 0 nave to leave a WT Hees of seeing to decimate minerity 

clack TK)” 
said Tyroae Brooks. voting strength. In reall ty. they have 

me co-chairman go! per campdidh. melped create @ tevel political playing 

Nonetheless, Rep. A cKinney was adie fold if WTLCD candicutet of Ali races 

ta raise $0C.00 and even moderated wil hove © use non-rasial appeals \( ! 

come of her Hery \peral positions {0 they waar: rhan-e Lei chances of | 

3pyea. to White voters. 
wNOINg 

)