Fax from Cox to Chachkin, Berrien & Stein re: Draft Motion to Intervene As Appellants

    No. 97-893 

  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

October Term, 1997 

  

JAMES B. HUNT, JR, ef al., 

Appellants, 

V. 

MARTIN CROMARTIE, et al., 

Appellees. 

  

MOTION OF ALFRED SMALLWOOD, DAVID MOORE, WILLIAM M. HODGES, 

ROBERT L. DAVIS, JR., JAN VALDER, BARNEY OFFERMAN, VIRGINIA NEWELL, 

CHARLES LAMBETH, AND GEORGE SIMKINS 

(CURRENTLY DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS IN THE COURT BELOW) 

TO INTERVENE AS APPELLANTS IN THIS COURT 

Alfred Smallwood, David Moore, William M. Hodges, Robert L. Davis, Jr., Jan Valder, 

Barney Offerman, Virginia Newell, Charles Lambeth and George Simkins (“Applicants”), by their 

undersigned attorneys, respectfully move this Court for leave to intervene as appellants in the 

above-captioned action, so that they may protect their interests (which have been recognized by 

the court below in permitting their intervention as of right as defendant-intervenors below 

following entry of the order under review on this appeal) in sustaining the constitutionality of the 

Twelfth Congressional District. As grounds for this motion, Applicants state the following: 

¥ Applicants are white and black registered voters residing in either North Carolina's 

Twelfth Congressional District (as reconfigured in the legislature's 1997 plan) or its First 

Congressional District. 

 



2 Appellees filed their complaint in this case -- days later, on July 11, 1996, 

Applicants sought to intervene in this suit as defendants. On November 26, 1997, after the 

district court failed to rule, Applicants renewed their motion to intervene. Appellees did not 

respond to either motion. 

3. As of the March 31, 1998 hearing on cross-motions for summary judgment and 

request for preliminary injunction, the district court had not ruled on the motions to intervene, 

then pending for over eight and four months respectively; instead the court issued its permanent 

injunction and granted summary judgment without ruling on the unopposed motions or holding a 

hearing on intervention. In fact, the district court rebuffed counsel for Applicants’ attempt to 

bring the motion to intervene to the Court’s attention and expressly denied counsel for Applicants 

an opportunity to speak at the March hearing. 

4. On April 3, 1998, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North 

Carolina issued an order granting summary judgment to plaintiffs, declaring North Carolina's 

Twelfth Congressional District unconstitutional, permanently enjoining elections under the 1997 

congressional redistricting plan, and ordering the State of North Carolina (“State”) to submit a 

schedule for the General Assembly to adopt a new redistricting plan and to hold elections under 

that plan." The Court issued its judgment on April 6, 1998. Following the district court ruling, 

Applicants filed a amicus curiae memorandum in this Court, bringing to the Court's attention 

additional reasons why a stay of the district court’s April order was essential. 

5: On May 26, 1998, with the two prior intervention motions still pending, Applicants 

  

'See Cromartie v. Hunt, No. 4:96CV104-BO(3) (E.D.N.C. April 3, 1998) (order and 

permanent injunction), attached to Jurisdictional Statement at Appendix 45a. 

2See Judgment of United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, 
April 6, 1998, attached to Jurisdictional Statement at Appendix 49a.  



filed a third motion to intervene as defendants in the case. On June 20, 1998, after the deadline 

for filing a timely notice of appeal of the district court’s April 3rd order and April 6th judgment, 

the district court ruled that the Applicants’ were entitled to intervene as of right in this action. 

6. This Court has permitted individuals to participate in cases on appeal to the 

Supreme Court in order to protect their interests, regardless of whether they were parties or 

intervenors below, so long as their interests are truly at stake. In United States v. Terminal 

Railroad Association, 236 U.S. 194, 199 (1915), the Court permitted parties denied intervention 

below to intervene on appeal to this Court so that they could seek modification of a decree which 

could prejudice their rights. See also Eastern-Central Motor Carriers Association v. United 

States, 321 U.S. 194, 198-99 n.5 (1944) (Court granting intervention to organization to file brief 

in support of three-judge district court judgment); Labor Board v. Acme Industrial Co., 384 U.S. 

925 (1966), 385 U.S. 432 (1967) (Court permitting union, which had not participated in the 

appellate proceedings below, to intervene to file brief in support of its interests). 

7. The delay in granting Applicants’ motions to intervene prevented Applicants from 

fully participating as parties in the district court and prevented them from being able to exercise 

their right to appeal. Indeed, the court’s delay in ruling on the motions to intervene and the 

timing of the subsequent grant of the motions to intervene were de facto denials, seriously 

prejudicing their rights below. Moreover, by refusing to rule on Applicants’ motions, the district 

court placed Applicants in the untenable position of being unable to either appeal the court’s 

decision on the merits or appeal a denial of any of their motions to intervene. 

8. As defendant-intervenors below, Applicants have a continuing interest in the 

disposition of this litigation and the appeal of this case in this Court. The lower court decision 

and the ultimate disposition of this appeal will vitally affect their interests. This is why numerous  



  

courts, following Shaw v. Reno, 113 S.Ct. 2816, 125 L.Ed.2d 511 (1993), have granted 

intervention to voters similarly situated to Applicants to defend challenges to redistricting plans, 

particularly in cases which have later proceeded to this Court on appeal. See, e.g., Vera v. 

Richards, 861 F. Supp. 1304, 1310 (S.D. Texas 1994), aff’d, 577 U.S. 952 (1996); Johnson v. 

Miller, No. CV 194-008, Order dated March 30, 1994 (S.D. Ga.). Indeed, Applicants have had a 

continuous interest in this case. All Applicants sought and were allowed to intervene as of right 

as party defendants in Shaw v. Hunt, No. 92-202-CIV-5 (Order, September 7, 1993), the 

predecessor to this action. Applicants participated fully in every stage of that case in the trial 

court and in this Court, including in the remedial proceedings which resulted in the approval of 

the 1997 Remedy Plan and oral argument before this Court. 

0, Even before applicants were allowed to participate as parties in this case, they filed 

pleadings throughout the litigation, including the summary judgment and preliminary injunction 

phases of the litigation, and appeared at the hearing on these issues in March 1998. 

10. As in Shaw v. Hunt, Applicants seek to intervene in this case to protect their 

interest in defending the constitutionality of District 12 and, if necessary, asserting their rights 

under the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. As in Shaw, if granted intervention on 

appeal in this Court, Applicants are prepared to follow the briefing schedule already set by the 

Court and coordinate their appeal with the States to avoid duplication of arguments. 

WHEREFORE, Applicants pray that their motion to intervene be granted. 

  

Respectfully submitted, 

ADAM STEIN TODD A. COX* 

Ferguson, Stein, Wallas, Adkins NAACP Legal Defense 

Gresham & Sumter, P.A. & Educational Fund, Inc. 

 



  

312 West Franklin Street 1275 K Street, N.W._, Suite 301 

Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516 Washington, D.C. 20005 

(919) 933-5300 (202) 682-1300 

ELAINE R. JONES 

Director-Counsel 

NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 

JACQUELINE A. BERRIEN 

NAACP Legal Defense 

& Educational Fund, Inc. 

99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 

New York, New York 10013 

(212) 219-1900 

*Counsel of Record 

Counsel for Applicants 

 



# » : 
EDK 

FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION 

  

TO: IL al» Dd. en 

. Lilie Aa PN 

[OA gan Ste. : 
2|29\q- 7087 

FAX: @ 2/7~226~ KE 5/5 ~ 7 ~ LG? 

FROM: _ odd (ox 
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 

1444 Eye Street, N.W. 

10th Floor 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

(202) 682-1300 Phone (202) 682-1312 Fax 

DATE: or LE 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

You will receive ~ page(s) -- including this cover sheet. If you do not, please call us at the 

number above to notify us. 

mel of Ho dod ints ot pon. CAH NATE 

Fopsclf- In Fadly Eloy Theos 
  

  

  

  

  

  

  

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE 
  

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS LEGALLY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 

INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, 

DISTRIBUTION OR COPY OF THIS TELECOPY IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TELECOPY IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY 

TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE.