Letter to Hunter from Smiley RE: Proposed brief of Amicus Curiae

Correspondence
December 6, 1999

Cite this item

Letter to Hunter from Smiley RE: Proposed brief of Amicus Curiae preview

2 pages

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at .

Impact area
- Political Participation
Topic
- Redistricting
Matter
- Cromartie v. Hunt (Daly v. Hunt)
Case
- Cromartie v. Hunt (Daly v. Hunt)
U.S. state
- North Carolina
Collection
- Case Files
Taxonomy
Identifier
- c3fed31c-e60e-f011-9989-002248226c06

Cite this item

Case Files, Cromartie Hardbacks. Letter to Hunter from Smiley RE: Proposed brief of Amicus Curiae, 1999. c3fed31c-e60e-f011-9989-002248226c06. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/c6ded6ad-26ed-4720-b4b8-9a32cce6710c/letter-to-hunter-from-smiley-re-proposed-brief-of-amicus-curiae. Accessed November 19, 2025.

Copied!

State of North Carolina

MICHAEL F. EASLEY Department of Justice

ATTORNEY GENERAL : P. O. BOX 629 REPLY TO: Tiare B. Smiley

RALEIGH Special Litigation
27602-0629 (919) 716-6900

FAX: (919) 716-6763

December 6, 1999

BY FACSIMILE AND U. S. MAIL

Mr. Robert N. Hunter, Jr.

Hunter, Johnston, Elam & Benjamin, PLLC

822 North Elm Street, Suite 200

Greensboro, North Carolina 27401

Re: Proposed Brief of Amicus Curiae

Dear Bob:

We received a draft of your proposed amicus curiae brief in Cromartie by facsimile today.

Although some of the briefs illegible and we have been seeking a retransmission of the document,

it is clear that the import of the brief is not consistent with our understanding of the Republican

congresspersons’ position in this case. Defendants did not oppose the amicus motion based on your

representation that the congresspersons wished to appear in support of the constitutionality of the

1997 Plan. By contrast, your proposed brief at best implies a concession of the unconstitutionality

of one or both of the challenged congressional districts. The brief needs to take a clear position on

the merits supporting the constitutionality of the 1997 Plan before addressing the issue of remedy.

Furthermore, to the extent you previously represented an interest in presenting the

congresspersons’ views on remedy, it was never the State defendants’ understanding when consent

to proceed as amicus was given that the Republican delegation would take the position that in the

event a constitutional defect is found that redistricting should not be returned to the General

Assembly. Nor is it accurate to say that this representative of the Attorney General’s Office was

expressing reluctance on the part of the General Assembly to fulfill its duty to enact a redistricting

plan if called upon to do so. Finally, the defendants know of no support anywhere in the law for your

suggestion that the court should retain jurisdictionto pass judgment on the General Assembly’s2001

redistricting.

Mr. Robert N. Hunter, Jr.

December 6, 1999

Page 2

The State defendants and this office strongly urge you to reconsider the content and

implications of the amicus curiae brief as now written to make clear that the Republican

congresspersons support the constitutionality of the 1997 Plan on the merits and also to refrain from

asking the court to usurp the legislature’s redistricting authority.

Sincerel ly.

lare £4 dee 15

Special Deputy Attorney General

TBS/fa

CC: Adam Stein

Todd Cox

Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Letter to Hunter from Smiley RE: Proposed brief of Amicus Curiae

Impact area

Topic

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in