Brief of Defendants in Support of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the Board's Detroit Plan

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

WESTERN DIVISION 

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

MARTIN CROMARTIE, et al., ) 

) 
Plaintiffs, ) 

) 
v. ) 

) 
JAMES B. HUNT, JR, in his official ) 
capacity as Governor of the State of North ) PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO 
Carolina, et al, ) DEFENDANT AND DEFENDANT 

) INTERVENORS’ FIRST 
Defendants, ) REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS 

) 
and ) 

) 
ALFRED SMALLWOOD, et al., ) 

) 
Defendant-Intervenors. ) 

PLAINTIFFS MARTIN CROMARTIE, THOMAS CHANDLER MUSE, LOIS WEAVER, JOEL 

K. BOURNE, R. O. EVERETT, J. H. FROELICH, and JAMES RONALD LINVILLE respond to 

Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors’ First Request for Admissions through their Counsel as 

follows: 

The minimum travel time in District 12 (1997 Plan) between Greensboro and Charlotte 

is 1.67 hours as computed by TransCAD (version 2.1) software. 

 



  

Plaintiffs are unfamiliar with TransCAD computer software, but in general admit the travel 

distances and times stated appear within an accurate range, if travel follows the most direct route, 

accepting that travel is always affected by issues of traffic, weather, road conditions, speed, time of 

day, and the particular area of each city from which and to which one travels. If, however, a person 

traveling remains within the boundaries of District 12, the time will be much longer. 

o The travel distance between Greensboro and Charlotte as computed by TransCAD 

(version 2.1) software is 95 miles. 

See response to Request #1. 

3. The distance between Greensboro and Charlotte is the greatest distance from one end 

to the other of District 12 (1997 Plan). 

See Response to Request #1. 

4. Of all twelve congressional districts in the 1997 Plan, District 12 has the third shortest 

travel time between its farthest points (Greensboro to Charlotte), as measured by TransCAD (version 

2.1) software. 

 



  

See Response to Request #1. The conclusion as to travel time will be affected by whether the 

traveler remains within the district at all times. 

5: Of all twelve congressional districts in the 1997 Plan, District 12 has the third shortest 

distance (95 miles) between its farthest points (Greensboro to Charlotte), as measured by TransCAD 

(version 2.1) software. 

See Response to Request #4. 

6. District 12 is a highly accessible district by highway. 

Plaintiffs admit Request #6, at least with regard to most parts of the District and dependent 

on the meaning of “highly accessible.” 

7. District 12 is compact in the sense of travel time and distance for a congressional 

representative. 

Plaintiffs deny Request #7. District 12 is not compact in any sense relevant to this case. 

 



8. The map “North Carolina Congressional District 12: Travel Time and Distance,” 

reflecting the time and distance route between Greensboro and Charlotte as measured by TransCAD 

(version 2.1) software, is authentic and genuine. 

See Response to Request #1. 

9. The minimum travel time in District 3 (1997 Plan) between Holly Ridge and Corolla 

is 4.97 hours as computed by TransCAD (version 2.1) software. 

See Response to Request #1. 

10. The travel distance between Holly Ridge and Corolla as computed by TransCAD 

(version 2.1) software is 233 miles. 

See Response to Request #1. 

11, The distance between Holly Ridge and Corolla is one measure of the greatest distance 

from one end to the other of District 3 (1997 Plan).  



  

See Response to Request #1. 

12. The minimum travel time in District 3 (1997 Plan) between Dobbersville and 

Whalebone is 4.12 hours as computed by TransCAD (version 2.1) software. 

See Response to Request #1. 

13, The travel distance between Dobbersville and Whalebone as computed by TransCAD 

(version 2.1) software is 193 miles. 

See Response to Request #1. 

14. The distance between Dobbersville and Whalebone is one measure of the greatest 

distance from one end to the other of District 3 (1997 Plan). 

See Response to Request #1. 

 



    

15. Of all twelve congressional districts in the 1997 Plan, District 3 has the third longest 

travel time between its farthest points (measured between Holly Ridge and Corolla or Dobbersville 

and Whalebone), as measured by TransCAD (version 2.1) software. 

See Response to Request #1. 

16. Of all twelve congressional districts in the 1997 Plan, District 3 has the third longest 

distance (233 or 193 miles) between its farthest points (measured between Holly Ridge and Corolla 

or Dobbersville and Whalebone), as measured by TransCAD (version 2.1) software. 

See Response to Request #1. 

17. The map “North Carolina Congressional District 3: Travel Time and Distance,” 

reflecting the time and distance routes between Holly Ridge and Corolla or Dobbersville and 

Whalebone as measured by TransCAD (version 2.1) software, is authentic and genuine. 

See Response to Request #1. 

 



18. The minimum travel time in District 1 (1997 Plan) between Roxboro and Sunbury is 

3.02 hours as computed by TransCAD (version 2.1) software. 

See Response to Request #1. 

19. The travel distance between Roxboro and Sunbury as computed by TransCAD 

(version 2.1) software is 151 miles. 

See Response to Request #1. 

20. The distance between Roxboro and Sunbury is one measure of the greatest distance 

from one end to the other of District 1 (1997 Plan). 

See Response to Request #1. 

21. The minimum travel time in District 1 (1997 Plan) between Sunbury and Goldsboro 

is 2.72 hours as computed by TransCAD (version 2.1) software 

See Response to Request #1.  



  

22. The travel distance between Sunbury and Goldsboro as computed by TransCAD 

(version 2.1) software is 143 miles. 

See Response to Request #1. 

23. The distance between Sunbury and Goldsboro is one measure of the greatest distance 

from one end to the other of District 1 (1997 Plan). 

See Response to Request #1. 

24. The minimum travel time in District 11 (1997 Plan) between Cliffside and Oak Park 

is 3.58 hours as computed by TransCAD (version 2.1) software. 

See Response to Request #1. 

25. The travel distance between Cliffside and Oak Park as computed by TransCAD 

(version 2.1) software is 178 miles. 

See Response to Request #1. 

 



  

26. Of all twelve congressional districts in the 1997 Plan, Districts 1 and 11 have the 

longest travel times, after District 3, between their farthest points (Roxboro and Sunbury or Sunbury 

and Goldsboro, and Cliffside and Oak Park, respectively), as measured by TransCAD (version 2.1) 

software. 

See Response to Request #1. 

27. Of all twelve congressional districts in the 1997 Plan, Districts 1 and 11 have the 

longest distances, after District 3, between their farthest points (Roxboro and Sunbury, or Sunbury 

and Goldsboro; and Cliffside and Oak Park, respectfully) as measured by TransCAD (version 2. 1) 

software. 

See Response to Request #1. 

28. The map “North Carolina Congressional District 1: Travel Time and Distance,” 

reflecting the time and distance route between Roxboro and Sunbury or Sunbury and Goldsboro as 

measured by TransCAD (version 2.1) software, is authentic and genuine. 

See Response to Request #1. 

 



  

29. The map “North Carolina Congressional District 11: Travel Time and Distance,” 

reflecting the time and distance route between Cliffside and Oak Park as measured by TransCAD 

(version 2.1) software, is authentic and genuine. 

See Response to Request #1. 

30. The time and distances measures for Districts 1, 3 and 11 (as measured by TransCAD 

version 2.1 software) reflect the relative geographic size of the districts which result from the 

dispersion of the population in these sparsely populated areas of the state. 

See Response to Request #1. 

31. Congressional Districts 4, 6, 9 and 12 have travel times of less than two hours between 

their farthest points (Carbon and Picks, Eli Whitney and Landis, Matthews and Boiling Springs, and 

Greensboro and Charlotte, respectively). as measured by TransCAD (version 2.1) software. 

See Response to Request #1. 

10 

 



32. Congressional Districts 4, 6, 9 and 12 have travel distances of less than 100 miles 

between their farthest points (Carbonton and Picks, Eli Whitney and Landis, Matthews and Boiling 

Springs, and Greensboro and Charlotte, respectively) as measured by TransCAD (version 2.1) 

software. 

See Response to Request #1. 

33. The primary means used by persons moving around within a congressional district in 

North Carolina is the personal automobile. 

Plaintiffs deny Request #33 in part. The primary means used by persons moving around 

within a Congressional District depends on where they are going, what means of transportation they 

have available to them, and the distance involved. 

34. The degree of highway accessibility from one end of a congressional district to another 

is a significant measure of intra-district interaction. 

Plaintiffs admit Request #34 in part. Community organizations, contact through television, 

newspapers and other media are more significant means of interaction. 

11  



  

35. Average driving time is of greater concern for most people than mileage. 

Plaintiffs have no way of knowing whether Request #35 is true or not. 

36. “Figure 10. Afro-American Population, 1990” is an authentic and genuine map 

representing the Afro-American population in North Carolina in 1990 as a percent of total population 

for all 100 counties. 

Plaintiffs admit Request #36, referring to a portion of the withdrawn report of Dr. Alfred W. 

Stuart. 

37. “Table 1 North Carolina Congressional Districts (1997) Estimated Maximum 

Distances Within Districts” is authentic and genuine. 

Plaintiffs admit Request #37, referring to a portion of the withdrawn report of Dr. Alfred W. 

Stuart. 

12 

 



  

38.  Asreflected in the legislative record, a goal of the North Carolina General Assembly 

when enacting the 1997 Plan was to cure the constitutional defects in the 1992 Plan. 

Plaintiffs deny Request #38. Although this goal was stated, the General Assembly by its 

action made clear it did not sincerely want to cure the Constitutional defects of the 1992 plan. 

Instead of discontinuing the unconstitutional use of race to assign people inside or outside of a 

district, the legislative record shows that the General Assembly merely wanted to get away with using 

as much race as its members thought they could get away with. 

39. At the time the General Assembly enacted the 1997 Plan, the Senate was controlled 

by Democrats. 

With respect to Request #39, Plaintiffs admit that 30 members of the Senate were Democrat, 

and 20 were Republican. 

40. At the time the General Assembly enacted the 1997 Plan, the House of 

Representatives was controlled by Republicans. 

With respect to Request #40, Plaintiffs admit that 61 members of the House of Representative 

were Republican, and 59 were Democrat. 

13 

 



41. To enact a new congressional redistricting plan in 1997, the plan would have to garner 

the support of a majority of the members of the Senate. 

Plaintiffs admit Request #41. 

42. To enact a new congressional redistricting plan in 1997, the plan would have to garner 

the support of a majority of the members of the House of Representatives. 

Plaintiffs admit Request #42. 

43. As reflected in the legislative record, in order to achieve a compromise between the 

Democratic controlled Senate and Republican controlled House of Representatives, the 1997 Plan 

had to be perceived by the members of the General Assembly as preserving the existing partisan 

balance of six to six in the State’s then existing congressional delegation. 

With respect to Request #43, plaintiffs admit that some statements to this effect were made 

in the legislative record. Plaintiffs do not admit that these statements reflected the actual perception 

or intent of a significant number of legislators.  



  

44. As reflected in the legislative record, race was not the predominate factor in 

constructing any district in the 1997 Plan. 

Plaintiffs deny Request #44. As reflected in the legislative record, race was the predominate 

factor for constructing Districts 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 12 in the 1997 Plan. 

45. As reflected in the legislative record, traditional redistricting criteria were not 

subordinated to race in constructing any district in the 1997 Plan. 

Plaintiffs deny Request #45. As reflected in the legislative record, traditional redistricting 

criteria, especially the traditional North Carolina redistricting criteria of keeping counties intact, 

keeping municipalities intact, respecting regional and geographic communities of interest, and keeping 

districts geographically compact were subordinated to race in constructing Districts 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 

and 12 in the 1997 Plan. 

46. As reflected in the legislative record, emphasis was placed on the following factors 

in constructing the 1997 Plan: 

a. avoidance of division of precincts; 

b. avoidance of the division of counties when reasonably possibly consistent with 

other goals; 

15 

 



  

C. functional compactness (grouping together citizens of like interests and 

needs); 

d. avoidance of long narrow corridors connecting concentrations of minority 

citizens; 

e. ease of communication among voters and their representatives. 

Plaintiffs deny Request #46. The above factors in Request #46 are referred to in 

several places in the legislative record. However, the above list of factors is not a complete list of 

goals or factors mentioned in the legislative record. Nor does this list correspond with the stated 

factors in 97C-27N of the 1997 VRA Submission. In any event, the legislative record and statistical 

data found in the VRA Section 5 Submission, and the analysis of Dr. Weber show that race 

predominated over all of these factors in the creation of the 1* and 12% Districts. “Functional 

compactness” is a concept that was never clarified in the record and is too vague and ill-defined to 

merit any weight. 

47. The goals of the General Assembly as reflected in the legislative record (see request 

45 above) were accomplished in the 1997 Plan by 

a. reducing the number of divided precincts from 80 to 2; 

b. reducing the number of divided counties from 44 to 22; 

C. eliminating the division of any county between three congressional districts; 

d. eliminating cross-overs, double cross-overs and places with point contiguity. 

16 

 



  

Plaintiffs deny Request #47 in part. No goals of the General Assembly were listed in Request 

#45. Goals A, B, D, and E listed in Request #46 were not in fact accomplished by the 1997 plan. 

Request #47a is only true as to 1990 precincts, as defined (whether correctly or not) in the 

state’s computer system. Our review of the available data suggests that more than 2 existing 

precincts were in fact split in 1997, due to the changes in precincts between 1990 and 1997 that were 

not taken into account on the state’s redistricting computer program, and also several errors in the 

state’s mapping data. 

Request #47¢’s goal was not achieved. Iredell County under the 1997 plan would be in parts 

of three congressional districts, as a result of a redefinition of the county boundary between Iredell 

and Mecklenburg Counties, in an area north of Lake Norman. 

48. The two precincts divided in the 1997 Plan accommodate peculiar local circumstances 

unrelated to race. 

Plaintiffs deny Request #48. The peculiar local circumstances of Mecklenburg County 

Precinct 77 were in fact related to race, because dividing Precinct 77 was necessary to achieve the 

racial separation of Mecklenburg County between the 9™ and the 12" districts and retain contiguity 

of the 9" District. Plaintiffs also believe that the other split was racially motivated, because it was 

created for the purpose of forming a land bridge connecting racial populations. 

17 

 



  

49. All 12 districts in the 1997 Plan are contiguous. 

With respect to Request #49, Plaintiffs admit that all 12 districts are technically contiguous, 

but deny that Districts 1 and 9 are in any meaningful sense contiguous. 

50. The 1997 Plan did not pit then incumbents against each other. 

Plaintiffs admit Request #50, with the exception of Congresswoman Myrick, who chose to 

run in the adjacent District 9. 

51. The residence of the elected representative from District 9, Sue Myrick, was in District 

12 in the 1992 Plan, the 1997 Plan and the 1998 Plan, as a result of Representative Myrick’s 

residence being in the same neighborhood and precinct as the elected representative from District 12, 

Mel Watt. 

With respect to Request #51, plaintiffs admit that both Congresswoman Myrick and 

Congressman Watt live in the same neighborhood and precinct which has been placed in the 12% 

District of the 1992, 1997, and 1998 Congressional Plans. 

18 

 



  

52. Representative Myrick was not an incumbent when she ran for election in 1994 in 

District 9. 

Plaintiffs admit Request #52. 

53.  Asreflected in the legislative record, the General Assembly relied on voting results, 

not voter registration, to achieve partisan balance between the districts in the 1997 Plan. 

Plaintiffs deny Request #53. This contention cannot be established from the legislative record. 

54. As reflected in the legislative record, the General Assembly maintained the partisan 

cores of each of the districts based on the 1992 Plan. 

Plaintiffs deny Request #54. The General Assembly did maintain the racial cores of Districts 

1 and 12. However, because the partisan balance of the districts fluctuated so widely during the 

1990s, before, during, and after the adoption of the 1997 plan, the General Assembly cannot be said 

to have maintained the partisan cores of the 1992 plan. 

19 

 



  

55. Based on voter registration, none of the State’s twelve congressional districts in the 

1997 Plan has a majority of Republican voters. 

Plaintiffs admit Request #55. 

56. Election results were the principal factor which determined the location and 

configuration of all districts in the Senate’s proposed plan for 1997, Plan A. 

Plaintiffs deny Request #56. Race was in fact the principal factor which determined the 

location and configuration of Districts 1,2,3,5,6,9 and 12 in the 1997 Plan A introduced by Senator 

Cooper. 

57. Election results were used by Senator Cooper to determine the partisan balance of the 

1997 Plan and earlier drafts of the plan. 

With respect to Request #57, Plaintiffs have no way of knowing what Senator Cooper used 

in this regard besides his testimony and that of Gerry Cohen. Some of the pretrial discovery makes 

uncertain what results Senator Cooper relied upon and how. 

20 

 



58. Election results were used by Representative McMahan to determine the partisan 

balance of the 1997 Plan and earlier drafts of the plan. 

With respect to Request #58, Plaintiffs have no way of knowing what Representative 

McMahan used in this regard besides his testimony and that of Linwood Jones; and that testimony 

does not conform to the requested admission. 

59. Senator Roy A. Cooper, III, Chairman of the Senate Redistricting Committee in 1997, 

and Representative W. Edwin McMahan, Chairman of the House Redistricting Committee in 1997, 

were the primary persons responsible for: 

a. proposing the 1997 Plan and earlier drafts: 

b. negotiating between chambers on the 1997 Plan and earlier drafts; 

speaking for the 1997 Plan and earlier drafts in committee meetings; 

speaking for the 1997 Plan during floor debates; 

obtaining passage of the 1997 Plan in their respective chambers of the General 

Assembly by a majority vote. 

Plaintiffs deny Request #59. Gerry Cohen, Sen. Leslie Winner and others played a major role 

as well in proposing the plans. The legislative record speaks for itself as to the “speaking” by Senator 

Cooper and Representative McMahan; but in view of the claimed legislative privilege and attorney- 

client privilege, Plaintiffs cannot obtain the information to respond fully to this request. 

21  



    

60. As reflected in the legislative record, to assure race did not predominate over 

traditional redistricting criteria, District 12 was drawn so that in contrast to the 1992 Plan: 

a. only one precinct is divided; 

b. the only precinct divided is in Mecklenburg County and is divided in every 

local districting plan; 

C. its length was reduced by 46% (from approximately 191 to 102 miles); 

d. the number of counties included in the district was reduced from 10 to 6; 

e. all cross-overs, double cross-overs and places with point contiguity were 

eliminated; | 

f it is a functionally compact, highly urban district joining together citizens in 

the Piedmont Urban Crescent. 

Plaintiffs deny Request #60. The above listed measures did not assure that race did not 

predominate over traditional redistricting criteria, nor is there any showing that they were intended 

for this purpose, rather than as a means to help disguise the predominant race-based motive. 

61. As reflected in the legislative record, to assure race did not predominate over 

traditional redistricting criteria, District 1 was drawn so that in contrast to the 1992 Plan: 

a. no precincts are split; 

b. the number of counties included in the district was reduced from 28 to 20; 

22 

 



    

C. the number of divided counties in the district was reduced from 18 to 10; 

d. all cross-overs, double cross-overs and places of point contiguity were 

eliminated; 

e. the length of the district was reduced by 24% (from approximately 225 miles 

to 171 miles); 

f. it 1s a functionally compact district joining together citizens in rural and 

economically depressed counties in the northeastern and inner coastal plain 

region of the State. 

Plaintiffs deny Request #61. The above listed measures did not assure that race did not 

predominate over traditional redistricting criteria, nor is there any showing that this was intended for 

this purpose, rather than to help disguise the predominant race-based motive. Furthermore, at least 

one 1990-version precinct was divided in the formation of District 1 and a larger number of 1997 

version precincts are split. 

62.  Asreflected by the legislative record, considerations of avoiding pitting incumbents 

against each other and maintaining their residences in their congressional district affected the 

boundaries of districts in the 1997 Plan as follows: 

a. by extending District 3 into the eastern side of Pitt County and excluding 

Congessman Jones’ residence from District 1; 

23 

 



  

Plaintiffs deny Request #62a. Congressman Jones’ residence in Farmville is in the very 

western part of Pitt County. Pitt County was already split by race in the 1991 Congressional Plan 

which was denied preclearance by the Department of Justice, and by the 1992 Congressional Plan. 

The precise racial split of the City of Greenville contained in the 1992 plan for Pitt County was 

adopted into the 1997 Plan. The 1997 plan only added three western precincts in the county to the 

Third District in order to include Congressman Jones’ residence. 

b. drawing District 12’s boundaries to avoid placing the residence of 

Congressman Burr (District 5) and Congressman Coble (District 6) within 

District 12. 

Plaintiffs deny Request 62b. Neither the residence of Mr. Burr nor of Mr. Coble is 

so close to the external boundary of District 12 as to be an explanation for the contorted, race-based 

boundaries in Forsyth and Guilford Counties, repectively. 

C. drawing District 12 so as not to include Cabarrus County, the home county 

of Congressman Hefner (District 8). 

24 

 



  

Plaintiffs admit Request #62c, but are unable to know whether the impending 

retirement of Congressman Hefner was known confidentially to Mr. Cooper or other General 

Assembly members at the time of drawing the 1997 districting plan. 

63. As reflected in the legislative record, heavy concentrations of Democratic voters in 

the cities of Rocky Mount, Greenville, Goldsboro, Wilson and Kinston were included in District 1 

to help protect District 1 in the 1997 Plan as a Democratic district for Congresswoman Eva Clayton. 

Plaintiffs deny Request #63. The legislative record clearly dows that Rocky Mount, 

Greenville, Goldsboro, Wilson and Kinston were split along racial lines. Moreover, both Wilson and 

Goldsboro were split along racial lines between two Democratic Districts in the original plan adopted 

by the mostly Democrat Senate. Further, Dr. Weber’s analysis shows that the First Congressional 

District is overly safe for Democrat candidates, and thus such splits are unnecessary for this claimed 

goal. 

64. As reflected in the legislative record, heavy concentrations of Democratic voters in 

Charlotte, Greensboro, and Winston-Salem were included in District 12 in the 1997 Plan to help 

protect District 12 as a Democratic district for Congressman Mel Watt. 

25 

 



  

Plaintiffs Deny Request #64. The legislative record clearly shows that Charlotte, Greensboro, 

Winston-Salem, and every other major city or town in the 12" District were split along racial lines. 

The State’s own electoral data at the time of adoption, the NCEC data known to Sen. Cooper and 

others, Dr. Weber’s analysis, and the results of the 1998 District 12 election held in a less racially 

constructed version of District 12 establish that such heavy concentrations were not needed to 

“protect” the district as a Democrat district. 

65.  Asreflected in the legislative record, a goal of the General Assembly in drawing the 

1997 Plan was to comply with the Voting Rights Act. 

Plaintiffs deny Request #65. Moreover, the legislative record does not support this 

conclusion, nor does the testimony of Representative McMahan. However, Plaintiffs do admit that 

the record reflects - as does discovery - that the legislature believed that it would not get Section 5 

preclearance without forming a majority-black district in northeastern North Carolina - regardless of 

the violation of traditional districting principles to do so. A proper application of the retrogression 

analysis proper under Section 5 would not have caused the General Assembly to act in this way. 

66.  Asreflected in the legislative record, the General Assembly in 1997 had a strong basis 

in evidence for concluding that the creation of a district in the northeastern and inner coastal plain 

region of the State in which African-Americans have an equal opportunity to elect a representative 

of their choice was reasonably necessary to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. 

26 

 



  

Plaintiffs deny Request #66. There is no basis in evidence for concluding that the first 

Gingles precondition of a vote dilution claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act exists 

anywhere in North Carolina. Furthermore, the absence of this first precondition was not only 

recognized, but publicly stated by Senator Dennis Winner, Mr. Gerry Cohen, and other prominent 

figures in the North Carolina Congressional redistricting process as early as 1991. 

67. District 1 in the 1997 Plan includes all of the counties which at one time or another 

historically were placed in the district commonly referred to as the “Old Black Second.” 

Plaintiffs deny request #67. A review of the maps of the 2™ Districts of the Congressional 

plans used in the 1870s, the 1880s, and the 1890s reveals that the following 1* District counties were 

not included in the “Old Black Second:” Gates, Hertford, Martin, Washington, Beaufort, and 

Granville. This is some evidence of racial motive, but to the degree the State claims this intent to 

follow the former “Old Black Second” district as a compelling interest, the 1997 version of District 

1 is not narrowly tailored to conform to this objective. 

68. District 12 in the 1997 Plan is an island of Democratic-voting voters in a sea of 

Republican-voting voters in the Piedmont area of the State. 

27 

 



  

Plaintiffs deny request #68. Leaving aside the propriety of sequesing an admission of a 

metaphor, the plaintiffs specifically deny the truth of the imagery. The North Carolina General 

Assembly submerged several reefs of white Democratic voters surrounding this supposed “island”. 

This supposed “island” is directly attached to Cabarrus County, which in 1997 was a part of an 

adjacent District 8, represented by an incumbent Democrat. A more accurate characterization of the 

1997 12* District would be to refer to it as an archipelago of black islands connected at low tide by 

submerged and mostly white land bridges. 

69. District 12 in the 1997 Plan is not a majority African-American district as measured 

by: 

a. total population; 

b. voting age population; 

C. registered voters. 

Plaintiffs admit to Request #69 with respect to total population, voting age population and 

registered voters in the general election, but deny as to voters and persons in the pool eligible to 

participate in the Democrat primary. 

70. District 1 in the 1997 Plan is not a majority African-American district as measured 

28 

 



  

a. voting age population; 

b. registered voters. 

Plaintiffs admit to Request #70 with respect to voting age population and registered voters 

in the general election, but deny as to voters and persons in the pool eligible to participate in the 

Democrat primary. 

71. As reflected in the legislative record, 12 of the 17 African-American members of the 

House voted against the 1997 Plan on the grounds that it did not adequately take into account the 

interests of the State’s African-American citizens. 

Plaintiffs deny Request #71 in part. Not all 12 of the African-American members of the 

General Assembly House of Representatives recorded as voting against the plan were quoted or 

referenced in the legislative record as giving any grounds for their eventual vote. Moreover, since 

racial gerrymanders injure both white and black voters, the votes against the plan are consistent with 

plaintiffs’ claims. 

72. Asreflected in the legislative record, geographic compactness was not selected as a 

goal that should receive independent emphasis in constructing the 1997 Plan, so that the committees 

chose to avoid dividing counties only to the extent reasonably possible consistent with its other goals. 

20 

 



  

Plaintiffs deny Request #72 in part. Plaintiffs certainly agree that geographic compactness 

was frequently and repeatedly sacrificed in favor of other legislative goals such as race. However, 

geographic compactness is listed as a factor or goal in a number of places in the legislative record, 

as well as in 97C-27N of the 1997 VRA Section 5 Submission. To the extent “geographic 

compactness” is referred to in the legislative record, it appears to reflect a misunderstanding of the 

term or obvious misuse of that term in an effort to conceal the race-based purpose. 

73. To comply with the constitutional mandate of one person, one vote, it is not possible 

to draw a congressional plan (based on the 1990 Federal Census data contained in the General 

Assembly’s redistricting computer) without splitting counties. 

Plaintiffs admit Request #73, but at most 11 counties would need to be split to comply with 

one person, one vote concerns. Plaintiffs also note from a review of plans drawn on the public access 

computer terminal, that it is possible to draw a North Carolina Congressional plan on the General 

Assembly’s redistricting computer without splitting counties which has a disparity in population no 

greater than 3% of the ideal population. Moreover, in the 1997 plan the splitting was related to race 

and was especially prominent in drawing the 12" District (six out of six counties split) and the 1% 

District (10 out of 20). 

30 

 



  

74. Asreflected in the legislative record, the General Assembly did not use mathematical 

measures of compactness in constructing the 1997 Plan. 

Plaintiffs admit Request #74. 

75. The State of North Carolina may be required legally to split counties cities or towns 

in order to recognize concentrations of minority citizens in drawing election districts where Section 

2 factors and the totality of circumstances, as stated in Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), 

exist. 

Plaintiffs deny Request #75. Thornburg v. Gingles does not require splitting any counties, 

cities or towns anywhere in North Carolina, because the first Gingles precondition does not exist 

anywhere in North Carolina. Moreover; no city or county in North Carolina is so large or so 

populous that a mostly black section of that city or county could serve as a nucleus for a 

congressional district which would be majority black in voting age population. Finally, the totality 

of the circumstances requirement of Gingles is clearly lacking with respect to any application of 

Gingles to the drawing of the 1997 plan. 

76. Itis unlawful for the State of North Carolina intentionally to fracture concentrations 

of minority citizens when drawing election districts. 

3] 

 



  

Plaintiffs deny Request #76 in part. Plaintiffs deny Request #76 insofar as concentration 

refers to anything except a geographically compact group of minority citizens able to establish that 

the three Gingles preconditions exist and that, upon a totality of the circumstances, such division is 

improper. The State of North Carolina intentionally fractured a concentration of minority citizens 

in Rocky Mount, for example, in the very plan it is defending. 

77. Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the burden is on the State of North 

Carolina to establish that any changes to an election district do not have a discriminatory purpose or 

effect of abridging the right to vote on account of race. 

Plaintiffs admit Request #77 as to the 40 counties in North Carolina covered under the Act. 

78. The districts in the 1997 Plan reflect significant differences from the 1992 Plan, 

including the following: 

a. The plan reassigns more than 25% of the State’s population to different 

districts; 

b. The plan reassigns nearly 25% of its geographic area to different districts; 

C. District 12 contains less than 70% of its original population; 

d. District 12 contains only 41.6% of its original geographic area; 

32 

 



  

€. District 1 contains less than 70% of its original population; and 

f. District 1 contains only 65.3% of its original geographic area. 

Plaintiffs deny request #78 in part. The figures in Request #78 are admitted, but the 

legislative record shows that the cores of the 1* and the 12" districts were retained. Therefore, 

insofar as the phrase “significant differences” implies a difference in the predominance of racial 

motivations for the 1* and the 12™ Districts of the 1992 and the 1997 plans, Request #78 is denied. 

79. District 12 is built around major transportation corridors. 

Request #79 is denied in part. Plaintiffs admit that a number of major transportation corridors 

run in the vicinity of District 12. However, the contention that District 12 was deliberately designed 

to follow these corridors and not in order to connect the African-American concentrations of 

population found around them is unfounded and therefore denied. 

80. Seventy-one percent (71%) of District 12’s voters in the 1997 Plan are registered 

Democrats. 

Plaintiffs admit Request #80. 

33 

 



81. At least sixty-two percent (62%) of District 12’s registered voters voted for the 

Democratic candidate in the 1988 Court of Appeals Election, the 1988 Lieutenant Governor election 

and the 1990 United States Senate Election. 

Plaintiffs admit Request #81. 

82. Eighty-seven percent (87%) of District 1’s voters in the 1997 Plan are registered 

Democrats. 

Plaintiffs admit Request #82. 

83. Atleast 53% of District 1’s registered voters voted for the Democratic candidate in 

the 1988 Court of Appeals Election, the 1988 Lieutenant Governor’s Election, and the 1990 United 

States Senate Election. 

Plaintiffs admit Request #83. 

84. With rare exceptions, the registration maps relied on by plaintiffs (McGee Affidavit, 

Exhibits N. O, and P) demonstrate that:  



  

a. adjoining precincts excluded from District 12 consistently have Democratic 

voter registration below 60%; 

b. precincts included in District 12 consistently have higher Democratic voter 

registration ranging from 60% to over 90%; 

C: the rare precincts within District 12 with Democratic registration between 

50% and 60%, consistently have Democratic registrations higher than the 

adjoining excluded precincts. 

Plaintiffs deny Request #84. The exceptions are not rare, and are significant. 

85. In North Carolina, voter registration is not a reliable indicator of voting behavior since 

many voters who are registered as Democrats vote Republican in: 

a. national elections; 

b. statewide elections. 

Plaintiffs admit Request #85 to the degree that registration by party is less correlated with 

voting behavior than prior voting behavior in other partisan election contests. However, in North 

Carolina voting registration of African-Americans as Democrats correlates closely with voting results. 

Moreover, voter registration is a very reliable indication of voting behavior in primaries, since the 

State has closed primaries and precludes voting in a party primary by persons registered in another 

party. 

35 

 



  

86. As of 1990, 64% of the State’s voters were registered as Democrats and 31% as 

Republicans. 

Plaintiffs admit Request #86. 

87. In the 1988 Presidential election, George Bush received 58% of the vote compared 

to Michael Dukakis’ 42%. 

Plaintiffs admit Request #87. 

88. In the 1992 Presidential election, George Bush and Bill Clinton each received 43% 

of the vote. 

Plaintiffs admit Request #88. 

89. From 1992 until the 1998 election, the State had two Republican United States 

Senators. 

Plaintiffs admit Request #89. 

36 

 



  

This the 4th day of October, 1999 

  

  

Robinson O. Everett 

Everett & Everett 

N.C. State Bar No.: 1385 

Attorney for the Plaintiffs 

P.O. Box 586 

Durham, NC 27702 

Telephone: (919)-682-5691 

Williams, Boger, Grady, Davis & Tuttle, P.A. 

AT el 
Martin B. McGee 

State Bar No.: 22198 

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs 
P.O. Box 2 

Kannapolis, NC 28081 

Telephone: (704) 932-3157 

  

Dorin & MaLln, 

Douglas E. Markham 

Texas State Bar No. 12986975 

Attorney for the Plaintiffs 

333 Clay Suite 4510 

Post Office Box 130923 

Houston, TX 77219-0923 

Telephone: (713) 655-8700 

Facsimile: (713) 655-8701 

  

37 

 



  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that I have this day served the foregoing Response to Defendants and Defendant - 
Intervenors’ Request for Admissions by hand delivery to the following addresses: 

Ms. Tiare B. Smiley, Esq. 
Special Deputy Attorney General 
North Carolina Department of Justice 
114 W. Edenton St., Rm 337 

P.O. Box 629 

Raleigh, NC 27602 

Phone # (919) 716-6900 

Mr. Adam Stein 

Ferguson, Stein, Wallas, Adkins, Gresham, Sumter, P.A. 
312 W. Franklin St. 

Chapel Hill, NC 27516 

Phone # (919) 933-5300 

In addition, I also certify that I have served the above by mail to the following address: 

Mr. Todd A. Cox 
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. 
1444 Eye Street, NW 10% Floor 
Washington, DC 20005 

This the 4" day of October, 1999 

WL 

Robinson O. Everett 
Attorney for the Plaintiffs 

  

38