Amended Answer of Defendant Intervenors

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

RALEIGH DIVISION 

  

Civil Action No. 4:96-CV-104 

MARTIN CROMARTIE, et al. 

Plaintiffs, 

V. 

JAMES B. HUNT, JR, et al. 

Defendants, 

and 

ALFRED SMALLWOOD, et al., 

Applicant 

Defendant-Intervenors 

N
a
 

N
a
 

N
a
 

N
w
 

N
a
 

N
a
 

N
u
 

N
a
 

N
a
 

N
a
 

N
a
 

N
a
 

N
a
 

N
a
 

N
e
 

N
o
 

N
o
”
 

  

AMENDED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT INTERVENORS 

Defendant intervenors Alfred Smallwood, David Moore, William M. Hodges, Robert L. 

Davis, Jr, Jan Valder, Barney Offerman, Virginia Newell, Charles Lambeth and George Simkins 

answer the titled and numbered allegations of the Complaint as follows: 

Preliminary Statement 
  

Plaintiffs’ preliminary statement is a summary description of the nature of their claims and 

need not be admitted or denied. To the extent an answer is required, the allegations are denied. 

The Parties 
  

]. Defendant intervenors do not have sufficient information upon which to form belief 

H ey - it ti) HE | J § a { tif Rt 

i h | C Lm He i i) a i 
i 5 ed At Bn td 2) ed V1 

about the accuracy of the allegations of Paragraph 1. Those allegations are therefore denied. — 

   

 



  

2. It 1s admitted that James B. Hunt, Jr. is the Governor of the State of North 

Carolina, sued in his official capacity, and that pursuant to Article III of the constitution of North 

Carolina the executive power of the State is vested in the Governor and it is his duty to take care 

that the laws are faithfully executed. It is further admitted that pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163- 

194, the Governor shall issue a commission attesting to person’s election as a member of the 

United States House of Representatives upon the person’s production of a certificate of his or her 

election from the Sosretisy of State. Any remaining allegations in Paragraph 2 are denied. 

3. It is admitted that Dennis Wicker is the Lieutenant Governor of the State of North 

Carolina, sued in his official capacity, and that pursuant to Articles II and III of the Constitution 

of North Carolina, he is President of the Senate and performs such additional duties, including  - 

signing enacted legislation, as the General Assembly or the Governor may assign to him. Any 

remaining allegations in Paragraph 3 are denied. 

4. It is admitted that Harold Brubaker is the Speaker of the North Carolina House of 

Representatives, sued in his oficial capacity, and performs duties, including signing enacted 

legislation, assigned to him by the House of Representatives. Any remaining allegations of 

Paragraph 4 are denied. 

5 Paragraph 5 is admitted. 

6. Paragraph 6 is admitted. 

Jurisdiction and Venue 
  

7. It 1s admitted that plaintiffs rely upon the constitutional and statutory provisions 

cited in Paragraph 7. Any remaining allegations are denied. 

8. The allegations of Paragraph 8 are admitted. 

 



9. It 1s admitted that venue exists in the Eastern District of North Carolina. The 

  

remaining allegations in Paragraph 9 are denied. 

Three-Judge District Court 
  

10. It is admitted that the convocation of a three-judge district court is required to 

adjudicate this action as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2284. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 10 

are denied. 

History of the Case 
  

11. ~~ Paragraph 11 is admitted upon information and belief. 

12. Paragraph 12 is admitted. 

13. It 1s admitted that North Carolina became entitled to twelve representatives in = 

Congress as a result of the 1990 Census, and that the General Assembly undertook to prepare a 

redistricting plan that would contain twelve districts. The allegations in Paragraph 13 are denied. 

14. It 1s admitted on July 9, 1991, the General Assembly enacted a congressional 

redistricting plan which included one majority African American district. All remaining allegations 

of Paragraph 14 are denied. 

15. It is admitted that the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice denied 

preclearance of the 1991 plan under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 15 are denied. 

16. It 1s admitted that on January 24, 1992, the General Assembly enacted a second 

congressional redistricting plan which included two majority African American districts. All 

remaining allegations of Paragraph 16 are denied. 

17. Paragraph 17 1s admitted. 

 



18. Paragraph 18 is a legal contention which does not require an answer. 

  

19. The allegations of Paragraph 19 constitute legal contentions. To the extent an 

answer is required, the courts’ opinions speak for themselves and any remaining allegations are 

denied. 

20. Paragraph 20 is admitted. 

21. It is admitted that subsequent proceedings were stayed in this action pending the 

outcome of the proceedings in the Shaw litigation, including possible legislative action by the 

General Assembly to enact a new congressional redistricting plan to cure the constitutional defect 

held to exist in the 1992 plan. Any remaining allegations of Paragraph 21 are denied. 

22. Paragraph 22 is admitted. - 

23. It is admitted that as a result of the general elections conducted in November, 1996 

under the redistricting plan which in June, 1996 the Supreme Court had ruled unconstitutional, six 

Democrats and six Republicans were elected to Congress and continue to serve there at the 

present time. It is admitted that Melvin Watt, and Eva Clayton are African American, registered 

Democrats, and members of Congress. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 23 are denied. 

24. Paragraph 24 is denied. 

25. Paragraph 25 is denied. 

26. Paragraph 26 is denied. 

27. Paragraph 27 is denied. 

28. Paragraph 28 is denied. 

20 Paragraph 29 is denied. 

Claim for Relief   

 



Defendant intervenors incorporate and reallege their responses to prior allegations. 

Paragraph 31 is denied. 

Paragraph 32 is denied. 

Paragraph 33 is denied. 

Paragraph 34 is denied. 

Paragraph 35 is denied. 

Paragraph 36 is denied. 

FIRST DEFENSE 

Plaintiffs Cromartie and Muse are barred from bringing this action by the doctrines of res 

judicata and collateral estoppel. 

SECOND DEFENSE 

The 1997 Remedy Plan is not a racial gerrymander. 

THIRD DEFENSE 

Racial considerations did not predominate, and traditional districting principles were not 

subordinated in the construction or design of the 1997 Remedy Plan or in any of the districts in 

the Plan. 

FOURTH DEFENSE 

The State had a compelling interest in creating a majority African American district in the 

area of the State covered by the First District in order to comply with Section 2 of the Voting 

Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973. The African American population in that area of the 

State is sufficiently large and geographically compact to afford the opportunity of creating a 

majority African American district and is politically cohesive. The white population in that area  



votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat the African American population’s 

preferred candidate when elections are conducted in political units with a majority of white voting 

age residents. The Ist congressional district is narrowly tailored to serve that compelling interest. 

FIFTH DEFENSE 

The State had a compelling interest in creating a majority African American district in the 

area of the State covered by the First District in order to comply with Section 5 of the Voting 

Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c, and that district is narrowly tailored to serve that 

interest. 

SIXTH DEFENSE 

A majority African American district is required in the area of the State covered by the 

First District in order to remedy past discrimination against African American voters in 

congressional redistricting, voter registration, political participation, and elections. 

 



WHEREFORE, defendant intervenors respectfully pray that: 

  

I. This action be dismissed; 

2. Plaintiffs be taxed with the cost of this action; and 

3. Defendant intervenors have such other and further relief as the Court deems just 

and proper. 

ee 
This b% day of May, 1998. 

  

Respectfully submitted, 

ELAINE R. JONES ADAM STEIN 
Director-Counsel Ferguson, Stein, Wallas, Adkins 
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN Gresham & Sumter, P.A. - 
JACQUELINE A. BERRIEN 312 West Franklin Street 

NAACP Legal Defense Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516 

& Educational Fund, Inc. (919) 933-5300 

99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 

New York, New York 10013 

(212) 219-1900 

TODD A. COX 

NAACP Legal Defense 

& Educational Fund, Inc. 

1275 K Street, N.-W., Suite 301 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

(202) 682-1300 

Counsel for Applicants 

 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

  

This is to certify that I have today served a copy of the foregoing document upon 

counsel in this action by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, postage 
prepaid, addressed to: 

Robinson O. Everett 

301 West Main Street, Suite 300 

P.O. Box 586 

Durham, North Carolina 27702 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

Edwin M. Speas, Jr. 
Senior Deputy Attorney General 

North Carolina Department of Justice 

Post Office Box 629 

Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-0629 

This the 22™ day of May, 1998. ” 

VX 
  

ATT{)RNEY FOR APPLICANT DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS