Response to Order to Show Cause
Public Court Documents
October 31, 1996
74 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Cromartie Hardbacks. Response to Order to Show Cause, 1996. 844ff54a-d90e-f011-9989-7c1e5267c7b6. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/bf8f2a01-67a4-427d-bd35-0a4b157f6d0b/response-to-order-to-show-cause. Accessed November 23, 2025.
Copied!
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
)