Pugh v. Hunt Complaint

    t:rLrr DoHrLDsoN,

:,ttousEr & Krxealr'
\TTORHEYS AHD
'NSELLORS AT LAW
ORTII }dAIN ETREET

,.rsBUBY, N. C. 2sr4..

NORTH CA-ROLNA

IREDELL COUNTY

AIAN V. PUGH , GREGORY T. GRIFFIN
MASON MCCULLOUGH, PAUL B.
EAGLIN , and ETHEL R.' TROTTER 

'
on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v6.

JAN{ES B . I{UNT , JR. , in his capacify
as Governor of the State of North
Carolina; RUFUS EDI\IISTEN, in his
capacity as the Attorney General of
North CaroUna; JA-I\[ES C . CREEN,
Lt. Governor of North Carolina, in his
capacity as President of the North
Carolina Senate; LISTON B . RAI\ISEY,
in his capacity. as Speaker of the North
Carolina House of Representatives ;

T}{E STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS OF
NORTH CAROLINA: ROBERT lV .

SPEAR]\IAN , ELLOREE IU. ERWIN ,

RUTH T. SEIITASHKO, IVILLIAIU A.
IUARSH , JR. , and JOIIN A. I\'ALK-ER,
in their officia-l capacities as members
of the State Board of Elections'of North
Carolina; and THAD EURE, in his
capacity as Secretary of State of North
Carolina,

Defendants.

Come

and each of

THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DTVISION

81 CVS

COMPLAINT

IN

,)
)
)
)
)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

now the Plaintiffs, and for their causes of action against the Defendants

them in their respective officia-l capacities, state and allege as follows:

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

JURISDICTION

1.

Ptaintiff seeks in this action injunctive, declaratory, and other relief to

redress the deprivation of rights and privileges secured Plaintiffs by the 14th

Amenclment to the Constitution of the United States; by Article I, Sec. 3, See. 18,

and Sec. 35 of the Constitution of the State of North Carolina; and by 42 U.S.C

Section 1983, which provides for the redress of deprivation of Constitutional

rights under color of law.



I
Ir't,
t -2-

I

lr
ll otl . L.
llrl'
l, This action is filed to enjoin enforcement of North Carolina General Statutes
rl

il

ll srz0-l and $120-2 and related Statutes, in and for the reason that such Statutes

:, *or"," the 14th Amend.ment of the Constition of the United States as well as Article
It
rl

il l, S"c. 3, 18, 19 and 35 of the Constitution of the State of North Carolina. The

ii' li Statutes referred to above unconstitutionally reapportion and redistrict the
il
rl

i; State Legisiature of North Carolina. Accordingty , this action is also filed requesting
lr

l; tne Court to order a reapportionment and redistricting plan within fhe guidelines
I

ri

il established by the Lrnited states constitution and the constitution of North carolina
liIr^
ll where the latter does not conflict with the former

.li The proper venue for this action is Iredell County '

ll
rl

ll
I

Il n.
li .'-

ll

i fhat plaintiff , Alan V. Pugh, is a resident, elector and tax payer of the
,l

l' Counry of Randolph, and State of North Carolina.
:.
l;
rl
t,

:,

,t
:

;r

VENUE

3.

PARTIES

5.

That Plaintiff , Gregory T. GriJfin, is a resident, elector and tax payer

at.

That Plaintiff , Paul B. Eaglin, is a resident, elector and tax payer of the

I of the County of Sampson , and State of North Carolina '
l:
it

ii e.
:l
!i

ll

li ,hat plainti-ff , Illason l\lcCullough, is a resident, elector and tax payer

i.

li of the Counfy of lredell, and State of North Carolirra, and is a black citizen of
rl

ti

;; the State of North Carolina
ll
t.

ti
lr
ri

il
I

,, County of Cumberland, B.r:rd State of North Carolina, and is a black citizen of
t..
I

rr the State of Norlh Caroli:ra. That Plsintiff , Ethel R. Trotter, i6 a resident, elector
II
,i

'l and tax payer of the County of ltloore, and State of North Carolina.
t;

ti



lr
II

ll -.-il"
tl
ri
ti.ii 8.
il

ll That the Defendant, Jarnes B . Hunt, Jr . , is the Governor in and for the
Ir
:l

l! State of North Carolina, and in such capacity is the Chief Executive Officer
lr

il
li of tne State charged with the duly of enforeing compliance with State legislation
rl

ll
li under Article UI, Sec. 5(4) of the Constitution of North Carolina.
t'
::

t;Ii 9.
l;

I

I that the Defendant, Thad Eure, is the Secretary of State in and for the

ii

:i State of North Carolina, and in such capacity is the officer in charge of receiving,
I

Ir

ll maintaining and certiff ing the results of all North Carolina Senate and House
ll"
I

It of of Representatives from multi-county districts.

l,, ,0.
,l

ii ,hat the Defendant, Rufus Edmisten, is the Attorney General in and for
JI

ll ti,. State of North Carolina, a.nd in such capacity is the principal attorney for
It

ll tn" State of North Carolina charged with the duty of enforcing the laws of theil"
lr

It State of North Carolina and representing the State of North Carolina in those
ll

I

li civif actions in which the State of North Carolina is a party.
Ir

,;

1i tt '
lt '
ll
l: f hat the Defendant, James C . Green , is Lieutenant Governor of the State
t;
lr
I

ll of North Carolina, and is President of the North Carolina Senate.
il
rl

ll rz.
rl

ll

I f hat the Defendant, Liston B . Ramsey, is Speaker of the North Carolina
i

l; House of Representatives.

ill: tr.
I

li

i That the Defendant, State Board of Elections of North Carolina, is charged
ir
lr! with the duty of supervising and conducting primary and general elections,
I

i controUing the conduct of primary and general electjons, and for computing,

i' maintajning and reporting the results of multi-county primary arld general elections
i;i, re.;l

lr

I' fhat Defendants, R.obert W. Spearman, Elloree I\1. Erwin, Ruth 1'. Semashko,
I

rl

William A. lrlarsh , Jr. , and John A. lValker constitute the members of the North
l,

il
ll

l:
ll
rl
rl

I



'li

-1-
rl

I

I

I CaroSna Board of Elections and the same Robert lV . Spearman is Chai.rmaI of said

ill
l, gor"o, all of said Defendants being charged with exercising the powers and duties

i

lr of the State Board of Elections.
lt

il rs.
ti

lr

,l ny performing their respective duties as concerns the challenged Stalutes 'ti J r
ll

l: Def"nO&nts, and each of them in their respective official capacities ' act under
ll
I

,; color of State Statutes, ordinances, regulations, custcms and usages ' Such actS
rl

ij have resulted in and will result in a deprivation of rights guaranteed the Plaintiffs '
.i
rl

, a6 voters , Bnd each of them, by the Constitution of the United States and the

il

l, State of North Carolina.
I

l,r CLASS ACTION

I

t

i

7

llajntifis , Aian V . I'ugh, .Gregory' 1 . Griffin, Irirrson }lcCullough and Paul B .

1' Eaglin, ale a1i qualified and registered voters of multi-member Senate and House
rl
ll 

- __

il Districts of the North Carolina Genera-l Assembly, and PtaintiJfs, I\lason lt1cCullough
ir

l, ,*O Paul B . Eagiin, Bre black "itir".," eligble gncl registered to vote in the State
ii
,i

,l of North Caroiina, ard pr"",rr.r,t to Rule 23Cb) of the North Carolina Rules of

ll

I Civil Procedure bring this action on their own behalf , and on behalf of all residents

';iJ citiz.ens and qualified voters in all multi-member }Iouse and Senate Districts and

t:

ir on behalf of black citizens of said districts. The class is so numercus that joinder
li
il of all member is impracticable; there are questions of law and fact common to
t,

L

l, the class; the ciaims and defenses of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims and defenses

ti

ll of the class, Bnd PlaintiJfs wili fairly and adequately protect the interests of
t,
rl

li the class. Adjudication with respeet to individual members of the class would
1

I r" a practical matter be dispositive of the interest of the other members not parties

il to the adjudication; that counsel for the PlaintiJfs witl fairly 8nd adequately protectt-
it.;: the interests of the cless. Plaintiff , Ethel R. T'rotter, is a qualified and registered
t:

il voter of a single-member representative district.
I

tl

I

t;

I

lr
rl

I



-4-

Carolina Board of Elections and the same Robert W. Spearman is Chairman of said

Board, all of'said Defendants being charged with exercising the powers and duties

of the State Board of Elections.

15.

By performing their respective duties as concerns the challenged Statutes,

Defendants , and caeh of them in their respective official capacities, act under

color of State Statutes, ordinances, regariations, cu6tcms and usages. Such aets

have resulted in and will result in a deprivation of rights guaranteed the Plaintiffs,

as voters, &nd each of them, by the Constitution of the United States and the

State of North Carolina.

CLASS ACTION

16.

Plaintiffs, Alan V. Pugh, Gregory T. Griffin, Illason lt{cCullough and Paul B .

Eaglin, are all qual.ified and registered voters of multi-member Senate and House

Districts of the North Carolina Genera-l Assembly, and PlaintiJfs, Iilason Iv1cCullough

and Paul B . Eaglin, &re black "itir"r," etigble and registered to vote in the State

of North Carolina, and pr""rrnt to Rule 23Cb) of the North Carolina Rules of

Civi-l Procedure bring this action on their or,rrn behalf , &nd on behalf of a-tl residents

citizens and qualified voters in all multi-member House and Senate Districts and

on behalf of black citizens of said districts. The class is so numercus that joinder

of a1l member is impraetieable; there are questions of law and fact common to

the class; the claims and defenses of Plaintiffs are fypical of the claims and defenses

of the class, and PlaintiJfs wiU fairty and adequately protect the interests of

the class. Adjudication with respeet to individual members of the class would

a6 a practical matter be dispositive of the interest of the other members not parties

to the adjudication; that counsel for the PlaintiJfs will fairly and adequately protect

the interests of the c1ess. Plaintiff , Ethel R. Trotter, is a qualified and registered

voter of a single-member representative district.



-7-

24.

That former Article Il, Section 3 of the Constitution of North Carolina

(Const. lg6g) in effect provided that most representative districts were to be

single-member districts, but it did not prohibit the division of counties in the

formation of a representative district.

25.

That Article I, Scction 3 of the Constitution of North Carolina provides

in part that the geopie have the right to regulate the internn'l government but

,, . . every such right shall be exercised in pursuance of law and consistently

with the Constitution of the United States.

26.

That prior to November 5, 1968, the North Carolina Ceneral Aseembly

proposed an amendment to the Constitution of North Carolina rvhich was adopted

by the vote of the peopie at the general election held November 5, 1968, which

is now designated as Article 11, Section 3 of the Constitution exd contains the

provisions referred to in paragraph 1? herein which prohibits the division of

counties in the formation of sepate districts.

on

That the electorgl proeess in each of the 40 counties cqvered under Section

5 of the Voting Right Act, 42 U.S.C. 519?3c was adversely affected; that upon

information and belief , the United Stetes Departntent of Justice did not preclear

those provisions of the Constitr.rtion of North Carolina prohibiting the division

of counties in drawing district Lines all pursuant to its authority under 42 U .S.C.

s 1973

28.

That prior to November 5, 1968, the Ncrth Carolina General Assembly

proposed an amendment to the Constitution of Nori.h Carolina rvhich was adopted

by the vote of the people ut the general election held November 5, 1968, which

is now designated as Articie II, Seeiion 5 of the Constituion and contains the



It,|,
t'
lr'1,
li -s-
I

ti

it

liii provisions referred to in Paragraph 19 herein which prohibits the division of
Itlr.ll counties in the formation of representative districts

29.

Upon information and belief that the Constitutional Amendments referred

to in Paragraphs 26 and 28 herein were not submitted for approval to the Attorney

ri

il Cenera.l of the United States pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 519?3c, nor were they subjected
ll
illl to court approval under said act; ald, therefore, the United States Department
ir

li of Justice did not preciear those amendments which prohibited the division of
ll
i'

l: counties in forming districts
ii

30.
Ir

it

il That the General Assembly of North Carolina in its mistalien adherence
fl

:;

t, to the Constitutional Amendments of 1968 prohibiting the division of counties
,l

I

l, i, Senate and Representative clist:'icts has diluted the voting strength of minorities;
'l.t

il tnat it is impossible to devise a plan that doesn't dilute the voting strength of

i

. minorities without the abifify to divide counties in sueh redistricting.

31.
il.
II fhat Defendants in enacting redistricting legislation and conduetlng elections
lr
Ir

li pr"".rant to such enactments are violating the Equal Protection Clause of the
Iii-1, t4th Amenoment to the Constitution of the United Sta'.es,42U.S.C. $1983, Section
:

i, 5 of the Voting Rights Act and Article I, Section 3 and Section 35 of the Constitution

llti of North Carolina.

tl

I

t,

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

ii 32-
rl
it

i' as their Second Cause of Action, Plaintiffs rea-llege Paragraphs 1 through
t,

i

i, 31of their First Cause of Action as though fully set out herein.

33.

, fhat N.C.G.S . 120-1 and N.C.G.S . l2O-2 are in contravention of the 14th

llj, emenament to the Constitution of the United States of America by denying voters
i

':

, in single-member senatorial and single-member representative districts due
lr

ll
)r

lr

li

il



-9-

process and the equal protection o( the law, and by violating the "one m8n

one votel rule in the following par6culars:

A. The voter in a single-member senatorial district or a single-

member representative district is allowed oniy one vote for

for one candidate, whereas a voter in a multi-member district

!s a-llowed as mgny votes as there are seats in that district.

As a result, a single voter in a single-member district is a

constituent of and is represented by only one senator or

representative, whereas a single voter in a multi-member

district is represented by as meny senators or representatives

apportioned to that district.

B. The voter in the silgle-member senatoria-l or representative

district is unable to "weight' his vote by refraining from

voting for other eUgibie candidates in order to enhance the

value of his vote. In a multi-member district, by allowing

a voter to vote for only one candidate when he is entitled to

vote for as many capdidates as there are seats, a voter ln a

multi-member district is capable of casting as many votes for

a single candidate as there are seats in that district by casting

one vote for that candidate, and casting his/her remaining

votes against that candidaters competition, by failing to cast

any more than one vote. The problem is compounded as the

. number of seats and candidates increases.

C. By allowing voters in multi-member senatorial and representa-

tive districts to t'weight" their votes, the I'one m8-n - one vote"

rule is vioiated by making the vote of a voter in a multi-member

district more valuable than a vote of a voter in a single-member

district.



tl

t,
I

:

t,

t:
;,

lr
t'

tl

t'

tt

I

t;

I

t,
,,

| -'o-
I
il

I, THIRD CAUSE OF ACTIONlr-
ilI| 34.
t'
t,

il es their Third Cause of Action, Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 1 through
t'
I
l1

i, SS of their First and Second Causes of Action BS though fulty Eet out herein.
:

', ,t.
;i
I

,i ThatN.C.G.S. 120-1and N.C.G.S. 120-2 are in contravention of the
;t

14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States by denying voters in

multi-member senatorial and representative districts due process artd the equal

protection of the law, and by violating the "one man - one vote" rule in the

follo*'in g p articular s :

i O. By allow-ing the election of representatives and senators in
t-
li

;' .ulti-member districts at large, it is possible and indeed
I

likely that most senators and representatives will be eleeted

fuom a certain, limited georgraphic location and from a

certain, umited, socio-economic class , to the exclusion of

proportional representation for minorities who do not reside

within that geoglapfric location or occupy that socio-economic

class.

l, ". 
By exposing the voter in the multi-member district to numerous

l,

candidates whieh deserve the voters time, consideration, and

attention during the campaign, in order for the voter to cast
ti

i; an informed vote, logistical problems alone deny the multi-
,i

't rDember district voler the ability to discriminate between and
,i .

II among the viervs of numerous candidates, compared to the

I

I abifify of a single-member district voter to discriminate srnong

I

tr

1i

ri

l;

the views of a limited number of candidates.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

36.

i; plaintiffs, for their Fourth Cause of Action, reallege Paragraphs 1 through
I'

| 35 of their prior csuses of action as though fully set out herein.
lr

lr
I

lt

ll
ll
ir



,;
II
t:

lr

li

il - 11 -
II

ti
t:

ll
t:ri_l: thatN.C.G.S. 120-1 andN.C.G.S. L20-2 are in contravention of the 14th
ll
li

il emendment to the Constitution of the United States of America by denying potential
ll
tijl tegistative candidates in multi-member representative and senatorial districts
I

rl

li a.r" proces6 and equal protection of the law in the follorving particulars: '

t,
I

li A. The candidate in a multi-memL'rer district must run against,
lr
t'

ir in the case of Senatorial District 24, three other
I
I

ll candidates for his/her seat rather than one other senatorial
t'

i' r. . I h ^-^:--- n:-r, candidate, or ir the case of Representative District 29 ,
li

I six other eandidates rather than one other representative
t. '

candidate, thereby incurring iarger eosts in terms of dollars,

time , organization and interest in the pursuit of public office.

The same problem is present and increases in direct proportion

to the number of seats in a particular district.

B. The multi-member senatoria-l and representative candidate is

exposed to the hazard of the I'weighted't vote and related

organized poiitical maneuvering that does not confront the

candidate in a single-member district.

C. The representative or senator of a muiti-member district is
It
ll
t.
':

l,

ri

,t
tr
L

ir
l,

'i

il
I

lr"
l;
ll

Ir
lr

i' piaintiffs, for their Fifth Cause of Action, reallege paragraphs I through
t,

il SZ of their prior c&uses of action as though fully set out herein.
t.ri'
,l 39'

I

li the General Assembly on JuIy.J , 1981, ratified Senete Bill 313, Chapter
I

li

i gZt of the Session Laws known as "An Act to Establish Senatorial Districts and
rl

to Apportion Seats in the Senate Among Districts" codified 8s N.C.G.S. S120- 1.

accountabie to a number of constifuents far in excess of that

number to which the representaUve or senator of a single-

member district is aceountable

FIFTTI CAUSE OF ACTION

38.



-t2-

40.

The General Assembly on October 30, 1981, ratified House Bilt 1428 known

a6 "Al Act to Apportion The Distriets of The North Carolina House of Representa-

tives" codified as N.C.G.S . S120-2.

41.

According to the 1980 decenial cenus taken by the United States Bureau

of the Census, the State of North Carolina has a total population of 5,874'429,

The North CaroUna Senate has 50 seats. The North Caroiina House of Representa-

,tives has 120 seats. Accot.dingiy, the norm or ideal population size per member

of the Senate is ll?,489, and the norm or ideal population size per member of

the House of Representatives is 48 ,954.

42.

The redistrieting plans for the Senate and The House of Representatives is

now grossly malapportioned, the Senate having a tota-l sp&n c,f deviation of 22.688

and the House of.Representatives having a tota-l span of deviation of 15.605%' both

of which plans fail to provide substantial equality of population among the Senatori

and Representative districts .

43.

The Norlh Carolina General Assembly has failed to make an honest and

good faith effort to construct Senatoria-l and Representative districts for the North

Carolina General Assembly as nearly of equal population as it may be, in viola-

tion of the right of Plainti-ffs and all others simiiarly situated secured by the

Equal Protection CIause of the-.l4th Amendrnent, 4? U.S.C. $1983 and Article

I, Sections 3, 19 and 35 0f the constitution of North carolina.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

44.

plaintiffs, for their Sixth Cause of Action, reaJlage paragraphs 1 through

43 of their prior csuses of action as though fuily set out herein.

45.

The reapportionment end redistricting of the North Caroiina General

Assembly enacted ald codiJied as N.C.G.S. S120-1 and $120-2 has the intent

t,-t
I

I

q
I



lr
I

I

.li
I

ll

lr
ri

- 13 -

li

l, purpose and effeet of diminishing the concentration of black voters and decreasing
t'

I; the effectiveness of black citizens.
I

i.

I

rl
I

I

47.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

46.
ll
lr

rl

l; Oiailtiffs, for their Sevenlh Cause of Action, reallege paregraphs l through
i
I

,l 45 of their prior causes of action as though fully sct out herein.
I

I

I

;, T.he reapportionment and redistricting of the North Carolina Genera-I Assembly
l,l
I enacted and codi-fied as N.C.G.S. 5120-1 and 120-2 has the intent purpose and

I

, effeet of diluting the votes of black citizens in violation of 42 U .S.C. $1981 and
I

;,

jl SfSAS, and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the 15th Amend -
,l

I ment to the United States Constitution.
li

:l }\.HEF.EFORE, Plaintiffs pr8y that the court:
I

I

i f . Grant Plaintiffs preUminary and permanent injunctive relief against
I

, Defendants from effecting or performing any of their stalutory duties with
:

| 
"".p""t 

to the conduct of primary or general elections pursuant to the 1981

'l redistricting plans for the North Carolina Senate and the North Carolina House
I

i ot Representatives;

ili,' 2. Deelare that Article II, Section 3(3) and Article II, Section 5(3) of the
I

I

I North Carolina Constitution are in l'iolation of the greater rights secured by Artiele
i,

i ,. ,ections 3, 1g and 35 of the North Carolina Constitution; Section 5 of the Voting
lr

l' -^^- ^ --.L ^ ---i-^-. 
r^ .!-^ rr^-*:+rr+i^* ^fI nigfrts Act of 1g65, as amencied; the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of i

tl
rl 'I the United States and 42 U.S.C. 51983;
t..

l'

i; 
,. Deelare that the apportionment and redistricting of the North Carolina

., Senate and Nor1h Ceroiina House of Representatives as enacted by the North
I

il Carotina Genera-l Assembly in l98l violates the Equal Protection Clause of the
I

,, ,n,n Amendment to the United Staies Constitution and the North Carolina Consti-
tl
Ir

ll tution;
' 4. Order into effect a court dei,ised plan for the North Carolina Senate and

rlrr the North Carolina House of Representatives which provides single-member district.

li ,t"t"*ide and substantial equality of population among the districts;
ll

I

lr

il
rl

II
t,



-74-

5. Grant Plaintiffs their tuiabte costs of this action, necessary expenseg

of the litigation, and reasonable attorney's fees; and,

relief as the Court deems just6. Grant PlaintiJfs such other and further

and equitable.

ii

ri

ll

lt

t;

ll
lr

li

il

li
rl

,l

ti

li

ti
rl

ii

t;

t;

ti

lr

li

ii

li

ii
I

lr
lr

ll

ii

It

ll

lr

ii

ti

ii

rl
li
rl

i
'I

rl

I'

ii

lr
,i

;l
il

d

tl

li

ii

il
lr

! 5t a^y orThis the November, 1981.

BURKE, DONALDSON, HOLSHOUSER t KENERLY
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
309 North Main Street
Salisbury, North Carolina 28144

Telephone: #704-637-1500

Robert N. Hunter, Jr.
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Post Office Box 3245

201 West Market Street
Greensboro, North Carolina 2?402
Telephone: #919-373-0934

North Carolina - IredeU CountY

Irlason lrlcCullough , being first duly 6worn, deposes and says: That he

is a PlirintiJf in the above-entitied action; that he has read the foregoing Complaint
and knows the contents thereof and that the same is true to the best of his know-
ledge, except as to those matters and things therein stated upon information and

beUef , and as to those he believeslhem to be true'

Mason lvlcCullough, Affiant

Sworn to and
this the
198 1

subscribed befolc me
day of November,

NOTARY PUBLIC

My Commission Expires: