Correspondence from Carraway to Cox Re: Joint Appendix; from Carraway to Neyhart; Annotated Draft Joint Appendix

Correspondence
July 27, 2000
Cite this item
Correspondence from Carraway to Cox Re: Joint Appendix; from Carraway to Neyhart; Annotated Draft Joint Appendix preview
137 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
- f67117e2-db0e-f011-9989-002248226c06
Cite this item

Case Files, Cromartie Hardbacks. Correspondence from Carraway to Cox Re: Joint Appendix; from Carraway to Neyhart; Annotated Draft Joint Appendix, 2000. f67117e2-db0e-f011-9989-002248226c06. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/c884a552-82f0-4ad1-bc01-cf85b99e01a3/correspondence-from-carraway-to-cox-re-joint-appendix-from-carraway-to-neyhart-annotated-draft-joint-appendix. Accessed November 23, 2025.

Copied!
    o® o® 

  

From: Fran Carraway 

To: Todd Cox, Todd NAACP 

Subject: Cromartie Joint Appendix 

We are sending you, this evening, all the material sent to Everett on the 25th by fed ex 

and the documents we have generated since then. | will send you another package 

tomorrow with most of the remaining designations (or fax them if they are not too long). 

The biggest things remaining are: clean-up on Peterson's charts, formatting the 

Chronology; formatting Weber's report and charts; and of course proofing everything. 

The current plan for Weber's report is to delete a rather large portion of it - those parts 

pertaining to the 1st district - and reduce the content of the charts accordingly. I've 

included a copy of the original report with sections marked for deleting as was given to 

us by Everett. | think that you will be able to distinguish the portions he intends to be 

deleted. | do not have Tiare's input on that yet, so we haven't formatted it to date. 

Gilkeson's Chronology "issue" is being resolved by leaving all the text under the 

Congressional heading, deleting what is under the headings for House and Senate, and 

putting a header on each page that indicates in bold print the limited purpose for which 

the Court admitted the exhibit. Tiare felt it was not worth the fight to edit out the 

comments. 

Also included in the fed ex package are the two letters regarding the joint appendix that 

| have faxed to Everett's office and our "master list" of what has been designated for the 

JA. This includes all page and line references from both deposition and trial transcripts. 

Call or e-mail if you have any questions or additions. 

I'll be out of the office from 11:15 to about 2:00 tomorrow, but in all the rest of the day. 

Fran 

 



    
State of North Carolina 

MICHAEL F. EASLEY Department of Justice 

ATTORNEY GENERAL P. O. BOX 629 
RALEIGH REPLY TO: Frances S. Carraway, CLAS 

Special Litigation 

27602-0629 (919) 716-6900 
FAX: (919) 716-6763 

July 27, 2000 

Seth Neyhart BY FAX ONLY 

Robinson O. Everett 919-682-5469 

Post Office Box 586 (Self-Help Building) 

Durham, NC 27702 

Douglas E. Markham BY FAX ONLY 

333 Clay, Suite 4510 713-655-8701 

Post Office Box 130923 

Houston, TX 77219-0923 

Re: Joint Appendix in Hunt v. Cromartie 

Dear Seth: 

Attached please find the list of any additions we have made to your designations of 

stipulations and trial and deposition transcripts. In most instances we have simply expanded 

your designations to add more context. 

In looking over what I sent on the 25th, I see that the Cohen Shaw deposition transcript 

excerpt is wrong. Our computer file does not match the hard copy of the deposition. 1 will send 

you the corrected text in the next mailing, which I hope to get out this afternoon. 

Also, some excerpts from Exhibit 100 have been added as follows: pp 18 (last 

paragraph) - 21 (line 4) of 97C-28F-4E(1); all the text of 97C-28F-4E(2); pp 1 - 4 (middle of 

page) of 97C-28F-4E(3); the remainder of Linwood Jones’ statement on p. 4 of 97C-28F-4E(4); 

pp. 10 (last paragraph on Rep. Daughtry) - 12 (ending with “amendment”) of 97C-28F-4F(1). 

Again, most of these additions simply put your requested portions in broader context. 1 will send 

these sections as soon as we get them formatted. 

Sincerely, 

Pr 
Frances S. Carraway, CLAS 

 



o® oh 

  

Changes in Designations 

Stipulations from Pre-Trial Order: 

27,28, 30, 33, 35, 36, 37, 40, 48, 76 

Trial Testimony 

Reuben Oscar Everett 

89:24-91:08 

Neal Williams 

116:2-119:3 

Dan Frey 

139:17-141:23 

John Weatherly: 

72:8-77:14 

R.O. Everett: 

81:12-18 

95:4-97:16 

Jake Froelich 

107:11-22 

Dr. Weber 

207:18-209:12 

251:14-265:15 

269:23-290:1 

290:12-300:23 

306:20-309:22 

311:1-320:24 

Senator Cooper 

395:16-25 

414:13-15 

435:11-435:2 

 



Depositions 

Winner Deposition 

69:11-72:2 

78:6-79:20 

92:25-95:21 

99:3-100:23 

105:3-106:19 

108:18-109:22 

129:22-131:21 

132:18-134:22 

138:7-145:17 

146:17-147:2 

Weber Deposition - 9-27-99 

135:8-24 

192:1-15 

34:16-36:7 

70:10-13 

119:4-122:4 

131:8-132:3 

138:19-139:16 

141:21-142:7 

144:21-145:14 

156:14-157:1 

167:1-167:11 

247:24-250:1 

250:22-251:13 

Weber Deposition - 10-18-99 

348:14-349:22 

Froelich Deposition 

16:14-17:4 
18:11-19:19 
52:5-55:20 
76:21-25 
78:9-80:8 

Peterson Deposition 

4:10-4:25 

9:11-24 

11:11-12:18  



  

13:6-14:25 

16:16-17:24 

18:4-20:8 

71:4-19-73:25 

80:15-83:15 

84:24-88:10 

08:18-99:19 

Cooper Deposition 

80:24-82:8 

Jones Deposition 

73:3-24 

Cohen Cromartie Deposition 

123:13-130:16 

158:3-162:15 

167:22-176:19 

194:22-196:3 

Earlier Transcripts 

Cohen Pope Deposition 

99:3-101:21 

Cohen Shaw Deposition 

75:11-77:17 
188:5-192:11 

Cohen Shaw Trial 

341:17-344:16 

347:12-348:8 

420:22-421:15 

468:11-470:1, 470:5-25 

488:6-489:1 

 



   
MICHAEL F. EASLEY Department of Justice 

ATTORNEY GENERAL P. O. BOX 629 
RALEIGH REPLY TO: Frances S. Carraway, CLAS 
27602-0629 Special Litigation 

3 (919) 716-6900 
FAX: (919) 716-6763 

July 26, 2000 

Seth Neyhart By FAX and US MAIL 

Robinson O. Everett 

Post Office Box 586 (Self-Help Building) 

Durham, NC 27702 

Re: Joint Appendix in Hunt v. Cromartie 

Dear Seth: 

In trying to get the federal express package off to you with as many of the documents 

as possible, I did not take time to include a letter. This fac will explain the materials contained 

in the package you should receive this morning. 

Please note that we have not yet addressed headings on the documents. What you 

receive will not have the final headings as will be used in the Joint Appendix. Also you will 

note that the page numbers are not in any sequence at all and vary in form. They will be an 

arabic numeral followed by ja, but they will not be put on any documents until we have 

finalized the order in which they will appear. Although in the list below, I have attempted to 

group like documents together, this is not necessarily indicative of the order for entry in the 

Joint Appendix. 

Also, I believe I mentioned to you that I have not done a final proofing of all of these 

documents. Please fax to me any pages on which you find errors, with the correction noted. 

I will do the same on any I find. For your convenience, our fax number is 919-716-6763. 

DOCUMENTS EXPRESSED TO APPELLEES 7/25/00 

Chronological List of Relevant Docket Entries 

Excerpts of Stipulations from Final Pre-Trial Order 

Trial Transcript Excerpts 

Gerry F. Cohen 

R.O. Everett 

Dan Frey 

J.H. Froelich 

 



  

oi we 
Seth Neyhart 

July 26, 2000 

Page 2 

Hamilton Horton 

David Peterson 

Tiare Smiley (opening remarks) 

Adam Stein (closing remarks) 

Neil Carson Williams 

Steven Ray Wood 

Deposition Excerpts 

Roy A. Cooper, III 

J.H. Froelich 

Linwood L. Jones 

W. Edwin McMahan 

David Peterson 

Gerald R. Webster 

Trial Exhibits 

Excerpts from Ex. 100 (the Submission) 

97C-28F-4E(2) 

97C-28F-4D(2) 

97C-28F-4D(3) 

97C-28F-4F(1) (excerpts) 

Exhibit 309 

Exhibit 421 (affidavit omitted) 

Exhibit 426 (affidavit omitted) (*the text that appears twice, on the bottom of the first 

page and again on the top of the second is a printer error. I guess it - the printer- 

was tired. We did not have that problem when we reprinted this morning.) 

Documents from Earlier Proceedings 

Excerpts from Deposition of Gerry Cohen from Pope v. Hunt 

Excerpts from Deposition of Gerry Cohen from Shaw v. Hunt 

Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate in Shaw v. Hunt, 92-202-CIV-5-BR 

Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of Motion to Consolidate in Shaw v. Hunt, 92- 

202-CIV-5-BR 

Order in Shaw v. Hunt, 92-202-CIV-5-BR 

You may notice that there have been some additions to some of the transcript/deposition 

designations. I will send you the details on that later this morning, so you won’t have to do a 

comparison to determine what has been added. 

 



od wh 

  

Seth Neyhart 

July 26, 2000 

Page 3 

As always, call if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

Frances S. Carraway, CLAS 

 



o® a 

CHECKLIST - JOINT APPENDIX - Cromartie 

  

NAME OF ITEM FILENAME PROOFED 

district\cromarti\2000app\jtappndx 
  

Chronological list of reldock 

relevant docket entries 
  

Stipulations from Pre-Trial Order stippto 

24 -37,40,48,52-63,74-76 
  

Opening Statement - Smiley trialtes/smiley 

30:20-32:13 
  

Argument of A. Stein trialtes/stein 

595:21-596:8 
  

Trial Testimony - G.Cohen trialtes/cohen 

515:17-517:18 

528:10-528:14 

529:8-529:22 

531:5-531:17 
  

Trial Testimony-Cooper ee bo wn 
Tiare - all his test. from JS app? See ato ha (3 4 

IF NOT ADD CITES 
  

Trial Testimony - R. O. Everett 

81:12 - 81:18 trialtes\everett 

82:23 - 89:23 

89:24 - 91:08 

95:4 - 97:16 
  

Trial Testimony - D. Frey 

121:2 -:123:11 trialtes\frey 

139:17 - 141:23 
  

Trial Testimony - J.H. Froelich 

101:4 - 103:19 trialtes\froelich 

106:18 - 107:7 

107:11 - 107:22 

108:16 - 108:23           
   



  

o® oe 

CHECKLIST - JOINT APPENDIX - Cromartie 

  

NAME OF ITEM FILENAME 
district\cromarti\2000app\jtappndx 

FORMATTED PROOFED 

  

Trial Testimony - H. Horton 

34:4 - 34:14 

33:25 -36:15 

36:19 - 42:15 

42:19 - 43:16 

45:2 -45:9 

trialtes\horton 

  

Trial Testimony - E. McMahan 

Tiare/Norma - all his test. from 

469:17 - 472:11 
  

Trial Testimony - D.Peterson 

498:20-499:15 

507:23-512:18 

trialtes/peterson 

  

Trial Testimony - J. Weatherly 

66:12 - 68:17 

70:5 -72:4 

72:8 - 77:14 

77:18 - 78:18 

trialtes\weatherl 

  

Trial Testimony - Weber 

143:22 - 154:5; 213:9 -214:9 

158.21 - 160:15; ~220:10 -240:24 

161:15- 163:20; 242:15 - 246:4 

164:23 - 166:18; 248:23 -251:10 

167.23 -168:2); 261:7-11 

181:7 -- 18220; 279:12 - 279:21 

185:11-190:20; 315:8-21 

195:1 - 196:20; 318:22 -319:10 

198:24 - 207:5; INCOMPLETE 

trialtes\weber 

  

Trial Testimony - N. Williams 

109:11 - 114:23 

116:2-119:3 

trialtes\williams 

    Trial Testimony - S. Wood 

48:2 - 51:23 

55:22 - 62:5 

62:9 - 64:21 

64:25 - 66:6   trialtes\wood     
  

  

 



  

o® we 

CHECKLIST - JOINT APPENDIX - Cromartie 

  

NAME OF ITEM FILENAME 
district\cromarti\2000app\jtappndx 

FORMATTED PROOFED 

  

Deposition - Baker 

4:13 - 4:17 58:1 - 58:7 

6:5-6:12 58:24 - 59:3 

7:5-7:14 77:22 - 78:22 

49:17 - 50:25 82:9 - 83:8 

STILL NEEDS TODD’S INPUT 

wf onluded 

  

  

  

  

  

2521-282 78.25 -79:13 

34:19 - 35:6 03:7-93:22 

36:3-39:8 98:20 - 101:20 

40:6 - 41:12 109:22 - 110:14   46:14 - 48:23     

Deposition - G. Cohen depos/cohen / 

31:1-36:19 145:2 - 146:24 | 194:22-195:9 291:10-292:8 
116:1-117:1 151:2-153:21 | 195:14-196:3 293:1-300:3 ye 
119:13 - 120:5 158:3-162:15 |201:23 -202:21 313:24-323:10 
121:12-121:14 © 167.22 -176:19 | 205:1 - 207:13 P 
121:20 - 123:8 186:5 - 187:2 243:23 - 245:17 
123:13-130:16  187:22 - 188:15 | 254:12 - 258:22 

Deposition - Sen. R. Cooper depos/cooper 

18:12 - 19:14 74:17 - 76:6 132:6 - 133:22 7 
36:20 - 38:1 77:7 - 78:11 138:4 - 138:11 hf 
53:5 - 59:6 80:24 - 82:8 C 
62:9 - 66:11 104:4 - 109:25 dB 
68:16 - 70:8 112:11-114:18 
70:25 - 72:19 128:20 - 131:18 

Deposition - J.H. Froelich depos\froelich xf 

7:14 - 8:21 47:20 - 48:23 
14:9 - 15:10 52:5 - 56:18 hie 

16:14 - 19:19 76:11- 76:25 7, 
45:14 - 46:25 78:9 - 80:8 ied 

Deposition - L. Jones depos\jones 

64:24 - 67:14 112:6 - 114:24 
71:4 - 74:15 118:4-119:10 
75:22 - 76:13 159:18 - 160:10 

Deposition - Rep. E. McMahan depos\mcmahan   
  

  

 



  

ah 

CHECKLIST - JOINT APPENDIX - Cromartie 

wh 

  

NAME OF ITEM FILENAME 
district\cromarti\2000app\jtappndx 

FORMATTED PROOFED 

  

  

250:22 -251:13 

10/18/99 depo. - 348:14 - 349:22 

Deposition - D. Peterson depos\peterson 

4:10 - 4:25 39:22 - 41:2 
8:3-8:14 42:10 - 43:11 
9:11-9:24 44:22 - 51:16 
10:22 - 12:18 59:6 - 64:10 
13:6 - 14:25 71:4 - 73:25 
15:1-16:9 80:15 - 83:15 
16:16 - 17:24 84:24 - 88:10 
18:4 - 20:8 98:18 - 99:19 
38:10 - 39:8 

Deposition - Weber depos\weber 

NEED TODD’s INPUT : 
34:16-36:7  135:8-24: hel Cnilndedl 
36:25 -37:10 138:19 - 139:16 
44:13 - 45:14 141:21 - 142.7 
46:10 - 46:19 143:5-18 
49:16 - 50:11 144:21 - 145:14 
63:7 - 13 156:14 - 157:1 
69:11 - 17 167:1 - 167:11 
70:10 - 13 169:13 - 22 
79:20 - 81:9 172:16 - 173:7 

119:4 - 122:4 188:24 - 190:5 
122:13 -23 192:1 - 15 
131:8 - 132:3 247:24 - 250:1 

  

    108:18 - 109:22 146:17 - 147:2 

Deposition - Webster depos\webster 

44:13 - 45:14 49:16 - 50:11 
46:10 - 46:19 79:20 - 81:9 

STILL NEEDS TODD’S INPUT 

Deposition - L. Winner 

69:11 - 72:2 111:20-112:10 
78:6 - 79:20 129:22 - 131:21 
92:15-95:21  132:18- Logr22-| [34:2 
99:3 -100:23 135:24 - 136:24 
105:3 - 106:19 138:7 - 145:17       
  

  

 



  

o® we 

CHECKLIST - JOINT APPENDIX - Cromartie 

  

NAME OF ITEM FILENAME 
district\cromarti\2000app\jtappndx 

FORMATTED PROOFED 

  

Exh. 23 - Type P Divergent 

Segments (Dr. P.) — Exh 2% dy) 
  

Exh. 24 - Type R Divergent 

Segments (Dr. P.) re Exh 14 Ww 
  

Exh. 25 - Summary of Divergent 

Precincts and Segments 

divprec.sum 

  

Exh. 47 - Weber Rpt. w/ tables wr sd 
  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

    

Exh. 58 - Cohen e-mail gcemail Wor ED 

Exh. 100 - Information Supporting | submit 

North Carolina’s Section 5 

Submission for Its 1997 

Congressional Redistricting Plan 

Exh. 100: 97C-28F-4D(2) (ALL) 9728f4d2 

Exh. 100: 97C-28F-4D(3) (ALL) 9728f4d3 

Exh. 100: 97C-28F-4E(1) G FEF 

p. 18, last §-21:4 

Exh. 100: 97C-28F-4E(2) 9728f4e2 

all debate 

Exh. 100: 97C-28F-4E(3) Shera TV Pr 
p. 1-4 ending w/ “basically as they 

are” 

Exh. 100: 97C-28F-4E(4) 

p. 2 Cooper quote “I think ... NC.” Wes . 
p. 4, lines 1-11 

CHECK W/TIARE 

Exh. 100: 97C-28F-4F(1) 9728f4f1 

pp- 1-4, 
p. 10, Rep. Daughtry last § - p 12, 

ends Daughtry “amendment” 

p. 23 McMahan “I am confident ... 

to the Court.”         

  

 



  

o® wh 
CHECKLIST - JOINT APPENDIX - Cromartie 

  

NAME OF ITEM FILENAME 
district\cromarti\2000app\jtappndx 

FORMATTED PROOFED 

  

Exh. 100: 97C-28F-4F(2) 
ASK TIARE ABOUT THIS TE ns 
  

Exh. 106-12th Dist. area Race Map Map 2 
  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

Exh. 108-Forsyth County Race & Map 

Democrat Registration 

Exh. 124-total black population by | Map 

county with 12th Dist. Overlay 

Exh. 139-Congressional Dist. 12 Map 

overlap, 1992 & 1997 

Exh. 143-Forsyth Precinct Map Map 

Exh. 144-Guilford Precinct Map Map \ 1% ’ YD 
\ vg 

Exh. 253-COA results map of Dist. | Map nd 
12 Area 

Exh. 263-Senate results map of Map y 

Dist. 12 Area 

Exh. 265-Senate results map of 

Forsyth County 
  

Exh. 266-Senate results map of 

  

  

  

    

    
Guilford County 

Exh. 268-Senate results map of Map 

Mecklenburg County 

Exh. 270-Map of NC Population Map 

Density 

Exh. 288a-Map of 1980s Map 

Congressional Districts 

Exh. 289-Map of 1970s Map 

Congressional Districts 

i 
Exh. 305-Comparative Map of the | Map (3) ’ 

Three Twelfth Districts         

  

 



o® - 
CHECKLIST - JOINT APPENDIX - Cromartie 7 

  

  

NAME OF ITEM FILENAME FORMATTED | PROOFED 

district\cromarti\2000app\jtappndx 

Exh. 306 - Chronology of redchron ok 

Redistricting (excerpts) yu 

exh309 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

Exh. 309 

Exh. 402, Comp. Screen n/a \ i 

Exh. 405, Comp. Screen n/a x WK Wr) 

Exh. 411, Comp. Screen n/a 1 vr 

Exh. 416, Comp. Screen n/a / 

Exh. 421, Webster’s Rep’t & webster2.aff (?) 

Tables, no maps (?) webstrpt 

webstbls 
  

Exh. 426 - Webster’s Addendum to | webster2.aff (?) 

"An Evaluation of North Carolina's | webadd 

  

1998 Congressional Districts addtbl5 

[1997 plan]" addtbl6 

Exh. 429 - Third Affidavit of David | peteaff3 

W. Peterson, Phd. petrpt 

petrptbl 
  

Exh. 437, Guilford Precincts Nes 

Excluded from Dist. 12 Map 

‘Deposition - G. Cohen, Pope 
  

  

99:3 - 101:21 depos\cohenpop 

Deposition - G. Cohen, Shaw 

75:11-77:17 depos\shaw 

188:5-192:11 
  

Trial Testimony - G. Cohen, Shaw 

341:17 -344:16 468:11 -470:1 | trialtes\cohen2 

347:12 - 348:8 470:8 - 25 
402:3 - 21 488:6 - 489:1 

420:22 -421:15  497:18 - 498:22 

466:8 - 23 543:21 - 544:1 
            Saw) Jue Cong dole 
  

“ Meme a Stpgort oF Wh 

“ Ovdw 

 



  

Highlighted: dreds NA DEEN Ya mn 

«Ted hpriinge andreas ha 

h been included UNITED one DISTRICT COURT NAV EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA _-- nai "EASTERN DIVISION 

  

    

~ MARTIN CROMARTIE, et. al. Civil Action No. 04-CV-104-K2 
Plaintiffs, - Es 

{ 
VS: 

JAMES B. HUNT JR. 
~ 

Las j : 3 — i 
: ge . 5 

1 

-. 

DECLARATION OF DR. RONALD E. WEBER     

1; Ronald E. Weber, Ph.D., declare pursuant to 28: U.8.:C. 
1746 as follows: 

1. Tam currently the Wilder Crane Professor of Government 
in the Department of Political Science at the University of 
Wisconsin, a leeuies Wisconsin; President of Campai and 
Ovinicn Research An lysts, Inc .; former co-editor of The Journal 

  

  

litics and Chairman of the Department of Political Science 
at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; former Fulbright 
Commission John Marshall Professor of Political Science at the 
Budapest University of Economic Sciences and the Central European 
University, Budapest, Hungary (1996-97) ; and former President of 
the Southern Political Science Association (1997-98). TI received 
my B.A. in Political Science and History from Macalester College, 
St. Paul, MN, in 1964 and a Ph.D. in Political Science from 
Syracuse University in 1969, with specialties in American state 

   



o® wh 
politics, voting behavior, and quantitative analyses of political 

  

data. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit a. 

/ 2.4 1am the author of numerous scholarly works on state 
glitical behavior; pacluding several works, on’state legislative 

'0
 

{) p
t
 

{)
 

N rt
 

-
 0 3 0n
 

jl]
 

Ho Q,
 

< 0 ot
 

I
]
 

3 wn
 Oo
 

1) [o
f 

[A]
 < |
 (©)
 

a Jol)
 

rt
 

rt
 

O°
 

()]
 

1
 ro 

J 
a
,
 

H d 2\
 

c fu
 
=
 f 8) A,
 

fu {e]
 

0]
 H {) wn
 fu
 

T
t
 

{) \ 

i 

fievels of analysis. These works. | have appeared in such academic - : — - - 

oy 
w
e
 

—
 

——
— 

—
—
 

RE 

ijournals as the American Political>Science Review, The Journal of   r
s
 
ba
 

. 

  

eetiica, Midwest Sauroa) of Political Sciefice, Public Opinion 
Quarterly, American Politics Quarterly, and Legislative. Studies 
iy riv. 

Sh 

  

  

3% I have been retained as a consultant and expert witness 

in a number of redistricting and voting rights cases and have 2 
been qualified as an expert by the U.S. District Courts in the 
    

—— a —a Middle Dist =rict (Northern. ang Southern Divisions) of Alabama, the 

(Tzllahassee Division) and Middle District 

(Jacksonville Division) of Florida 
4 

,» the Southern Districr 

(Augusta Division) of Georgia, the Northern District (Eastern 

the Eastern, Middle S&nd Western Districts 
~~ ” 

Se” 
the District of Maryland; the District (Western 

Division) of Illinois, 

of Louisiana, 

~ el! 

Division) of Massachusetts, ‘the Eastern District (Southern 
Sa 

Division) of Michigan] tHe Northern Bistrict (Eastern and Western 
or 

PER 
Divisions) of. Mississippi, the BRSt ozs District JZascen Snr 

: 
Division)’ of Missouri, the District of Nebraska, he gouthern 
District of New York, the Northern (Dallas Division), BS uEhaTn | ’ 

a 

 



   iY A 9 
(Fouato on Division), and Western (Austin Division) Districts of 

ag 

Texas, the “Efstern District of Virginia (Richmond Division), and 
a 

the Eastern District of-Wisconsin, I have given testimony by | 

deposition in a number of cases ‘including a a deposition for the 

Plaintiffs in the _Corigressional redistricting case of Shaw v. 

  

  

Reno, n/k/a- Shaw v. Hunt (Eastern District of North Carolina, 

Raleigh Division), and SDs re -a -declaration--for.the. plaintifrs™ VY 
atthe’ summary -JUdomEnee Hase of. THIS 5 casein eariv—i5o8 (x have re 

testified in a number of Congressional and state legislative 

redistricting cases | inetnaing iohnzon Vv. Miller (Southern 

Qistrict. of Georgia; Augusta Division), Vera v. v. Richards 

  

  

(South&rn, District of Texas, Houston Division), Hays v.o State of - x 
  

Louisiana (Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport Division), 

Johnson v. Mortham (Northern District of. Florida, Tallahassee.     

  

Division), Moon v. Meadows (Eastern Districttof Virginia, 

  

Richmond Division), DeGrandv.v. Wetherell (Northern District of 

Florida, Talla hassee Division), NAACP v. Austin, (Eastern   

istrict of Michigan, Southern Division), and Thomas v. Bush, 
  

(Western District of Texas, Austin Division). A full listing of 

‘the cases in which I_ have testified in Federal coir -or I Wag 5) 

‘deposed under-oath—is attached as Exmibtr—s. I also have 

extensive experience developing redistricting plans for local and 

  

  

state government clients and assisting them with preclearance of 

those plans under Section 5 of the U.S. Voting Rights Act of 

1965, as amended in 1982. 

 



  

| 

fthat I am being 

ho " 
2 I have been retained by plaintiffs in this case -and’am Ze : y “a, 

te being comperisated at the rate of $125. ver “hour plus out-of- pocket reir 
i 

expenses. Neither the _amour(t of my compensation nor the fact i 
BL 

compensated has an the opinions that I have 
Given—afid will give in this declaration and cage Fite, 

5% I address the tollowing questions +n enelyzing whetirer 
= U-S5 ComGTess Iona rea str boring in North Carolina: 

  

  

aad pas 
pate Be nT . results in violation of the Fourteenth and. Fiftéenth Amendments i, . 

rine =o” *, yo of the U.s. Constitution in Hees] with factors set forth by the rr" ae 

U.S. Supreme Court in Shaw v. Reng Miles v Johnson, Shaw ata 
HUE, andi "BUsSh Vv —ve¥a: Sa 

  

  

(1) whether race was the predominant factor used by the 

state of North Carolina to draw the boundaries of the 

1997. .U.s. Congressional districts; 

(2) whether the state of North Carolina in creating.the 

U.S. Congressional dis tricting plan of: 1997 

subordinated traditional race-neutral districting 

principles, such as compactness, contiguity, respect 

for political subdivisions or communities defined by 

actual shared interests, to racial considerations; 

73), whether the political explanation for theiblan A 

Congressional districts adopted in 1997 offered by 

state defendants and their expert Professor Peterson 

has Credibility or can be characterized as a post - -hoc 

  

| zationalization for the districting plan; 

Wh»
 

 



»h we 
PE ether the African-American voting S53) PopulaETGh 

I} Et 

anywhere in North.Carolina is mb ficiently large and 

  

| geographically concentrated enough to constitute a 
" 

‘potential voter majority using traditional” districting 
- 

principlesto draw a single-member gre SS anal 

da; rice: 

(5) whether African-American voters residing in 

Districts 1 and 12 in the Act 586 plan of 1997 

participate at lower rates than white voters in recent 

state-wide elections, indicating some evidence that a 

history of official discrimination has led to 

politically significant differences in political 

participation in the districts as drawn in 1997; 

7/8) whether sufficient levels of white crossover voting 

exists in the northeast and Piedmont regions of North 

Carolinaisuchithat fair.U’s. Congressional districts   
can pe drawn that do not need to be majoritv:African- J 

Ls § age population or voter registration le
ft
 

\ in order to allow African-American voters a reasonable 

\ opportunity to elect candidates of choice in U.S.   \ = \ Congressional elections; and 

(7) whether race-predominant U.S. Congressional 

Districts 1 and 12 in the 1997 North Carolina plan are 

overly safe from the standpoint of giving a candidate 

of choice of African-American voters an opportunity to 

be elected, thus questioning whether the plan was 

 



oh o® 
narrowly tailored to satisfy a compelling state 

  

interest. 

6. The results of my analysis to date will be presented in 

this declaration in the following form: in Section IT, Itwill 

outline briefly the history of Congressional districting in North 

Carolina since 1960; in section II, I will describe the analyses 

conducted to answer the first two questions and set forth my 

conclusions on those questions; in section III, I will describe 

the analyses conducted to answer the third question relating to 

the political explanation offered by Professor Peterson; +m 

seetion-IV,-I-will describe the analyses conducted to answer the 

fourth. question -relating-to- size ‘and concentration of African--_. 

American-voters-in North Carolina; and in sections V, VI; and 

VII, I will discuss participation rates of African-American and 

white voters as well as white crossover rates in recent statewide 

elections within two ragions of North Carolina and the electoral 

safeness of North Carolina Congressional districts 1 and 12. 

Tables, charts, and exhibits relevant to my analyses will be 

included within the body of the declaration or as attachments to 

this declaration. 

 



oe " 
FINDINGS 

  

T. HISTORY OF RECENT CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTINGS 
  

IN NORTH CAROLINA 

Following the 1960 Census of Population, the U.S= 

Congress in appertioning Congressional seats amofig the states 
i 

decreased the size of the-North CT urersions) delegation 
Co 

‘ from 12 to 11 seats. Thus, the North Carolina General Assembly 

redistricted the ctase fia total of olFerices in time for 

> 
rin 

use in the 1962- elections. In this plan not a single county was 

    

  

split across two Congressional districts. This plan was seq TST 

1962 and 1964 elections. 

» 

».8.. Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Wesberry v.. 

Sanders (1964), the North Carolina Congressional districting plan 

was challenged in Federal ccurt. A three-judge Federal panel 

held the plan unconsc itutional in 1965 and. ordered the North 
~ 

=~ 

Carolina General Assembly to enact = edusticucionsl Congressional 

districting plan by Jan. 33, 1966 Fane. Sewell, ___ F.Supp 

 M.D.N C1965). The- et order spurred the Ns Carolina 

General Assembly i the Congressional districts in early 

1966, reducing some population disparitxX among the districts. 

   



o® o® 
The Federal Court ordered that the General Assembly. 

adopt a other plan by July 1, 1967 to further reduce the- 
Tong 

pcoulation disparities in the plan of EY i of’ 1966. A third 
i 

rah, 

Congressional districting~plan for the 1960s was adopted by the 

North Carolina General Assembly on July 3, 1967 and received 
~- 

Federal Court approval-later that month. Again, the Ceneral 
oi 

Assembly was able to achieve a plan that reduced population 
S. 

disparities nile not splitting any counties. This plan was>used 

tre 1968 and 1970 elections. 

~29. Based on the 1970 Census of Population, the 11 
ar 

ConoTose! hit] districts of North Carolina were out of balance in 

porulation and the General-Assembly had t to adjust the populations 

of the 11 districts before the 1972 ‘elections. In 1971, the 

General Assembly ata a plan that did not Tie county 

and had a maximum population deviation of 3.8 percent. The 

districts were used in the elections of 1572-1980. 

10. As was true following the 1970 Census of Population, 

the 1980 Census of Population revealed that the 11 districts of 

the 1970s were out of population balance. Thus, the North 

Carolina General Assembly had to adjust the Populationsior the 11 

districts before the 1982 elections. The first plan adopted in 

July, 1981 did not receive pre-clearance under Section 5 by the 

U.S. Department of Justice. The General Assembly followed-up 

with a revised plan that satisfied the Department of Justice's  



o® o® 
objections in a special session of February, 1982. For the first 

  

time in the modern history of North Carolina, it was necessary to 

split four counties in order to balance the populations across 

the districts. Avery, Johnston, Moore, and Yadkin counties were 

each split across two districts. The town of Chapel Hill as well 

as the city of High Point were each split across two districts 

owing to the fact that those two places cross county lines and 

the General Assembly decided to draw the Congressional districts 

using county lines between Orange and Durham counties and between 

Guilford and Randolph counties. These 11 districts were used in 

the elections of 1982-1990. 

, 

The population of the state of North Carolina grew more    
rapidly than the U.S. as a whole between 1980 and 1990, and thus 

the Congres Senet apportionment following the 1990 ir of 

Population allocated an additional seat to North Carolina, 

bringing the size of the Congressional delegaticn back to 12 

s=2ats as it had been'in the 1650s. I will not recount the 

history of General Assembly action in‘the:early. 1590s on 

Congressional districting as\that has been extensively discussed 

ini Shaw v. Reno (113 S.Ct. riven and Shaw v. Hunt (861 

F.Supp 408, E.D.N.C., 1994; 116. S.Ct )1894, 1995). Suffice it to 

say that the Congressional districting plan of the 1990s which 
7s 

   
was used in the 1992 and 1994 elections was i 

Shaw challenge. The 1996 election was also held using these 
4 4 2 

disfricts as the North Carolina General Assembly was given Sin 

9 

 



o® wh 
the 15997 regular sessicn to redraw the Congressional districts. 

   
The 1997 plan as embodied in HB S86 of the North Carolina General 

Assembly is under challenge in this action. 

12. TI conclude this section by making several observations. 

First, the sub-dividing of counties to achieve equally populated 

Congressional districts in North Carolina is a relatively recent 

occurrence, taking place for the first time with the splitting of 

just four counties in the early 1980s. Second, no county in 

North Carolina is large enough that it must of necessity be sub- 

divided to comply with the principle of "one-person, one-vote". 

Mecklenburg Sova the largest county in population in North 

Carolina, is slightly smaller than a current Congressional 

district. Third, asa matteref principle the—number-of counties. 

that wouldineed to be sub-divided--te—eomply with "orne-persorr, 

  

  

.one-vote""is N-1_the number-of -Congressional-districts. Thus. at 

the maximum a total of eleven North Carclina counties might need 

by using whole ccunties to create Congressional districts and 

then splitting just one county to balance the population between 

each of two districts. Fourth, despitetHe Fact £hat the number — 

of personsinseded-to-poputate AT ETUIEALLY BOPUIouS pla 

increases each-deeade~-(after the 1980 Census-the-ideal. district. 

  'Size-was-534,7067 aftsr I99U 1€ was 55273867; and after-2000 it — 

  icouldebesas high as 648,104 based on recent state population— 

| projectiens) the percentage of African-American persons in the s 

10 

 



   
North Carolina population declined between 1980 and 1990 ff As: 

Proreseis Alfred.W.. Stuart! -S-repert—for. this case- reveals, -it-is- 

likely- ‘that the African-American percentage of asns total state 

population will be less in 2000 ih it was in 1990. Thus, as 

the average size of. a Congressional district increases, the 

number of African-American persons: of voting age available to 

nSt Luts a majority of voters in a Congressional district does 

not” increase as-rapidiys(Towill returmto: this POinETT Mora. Lo hi 

specifically later). Finally, as I will consistently point out 

below, the appropriate social science benchmark for comparison of 

the challenged plan is the plan of the 1980s (with 11 districts) 

and not the constitutionally invalidated 12 district plan of the 

1990s. ‘Thus. in my assessment-of thé challenged plan T™w I TWillhe 
—— et 

Making comparischs £3 the plan of | the 1980s as WE to other 
———. —— 

Congressional ‘districting plans of the 1990s from states whose 

plans-have been modified by Federal court order or revised byithe 

staté legislatures foiiowing invalidation. by.the Federal¥courts, 

Il. ANALYSTS OF DISTRICTING CRITERIA EMPLOYED BY STATE   

13% The data needed to address the questions relatéd to the 

role of race and adherence to rece-neucral tioaitional 

districting principles was"proyided-By counsel for the 

Plaintiffs.” This material-includes 
— ~ 

Carolina General Assembly, special analyse rovided by the 

        ocuments from the North 

General embly's Information Services Division, and reports and. 

1s 

 



  

oh wh 
FFA Wr a AT . . ' 3 3 ' Wr atfridavits of both plaintiffs' and defendants' expé&Tts. “In 

addition, data compiled by the U-S: Congressional Research 

Service and the U.S. Census Bureau are analyzed in my answers to 
~~ 

these questions. 
— 

14. The question of whether race was the predominant factor 

used by the state of North Carolina to draw the boundaries of the 

U.S. Congressional districts in 1997 can be addressed by an 

examination of both tabular data prepared by the North Carolina 

Information Systems Division from data compiled by the U.S. 

Bureau of the Census and maps created on the computer facilities 

of the North Carolina General Assembly Legislative Services 

Office Redistricting System. Data from both sources are reported 

in tabular form ané on maps to display the use of race as a 

redistrictingscriterion; 

15. ‘Tabuiar-data-showing how race dc¢téd as’ the predominant’ 

sonsideration iri the creation Of the 1997 plan’ (EB S86) for the  . — 

Nexrth-€Carolina Congressional ‘districts are reported in Tables 1° 

apd-.2+ Table 1 reports for each 1997 North Carolina 

Congressional district the racial composition of the total 

population of the counties that were sub-divided in Tat ior 

of the plan using data from the County Split Assignments Report 

of March 26, 1997 of the North Carolina Information Systems 

Division. For both Districts 1 and 12 that were created to elect 

an African-American member of Congress, the county splits show a 3 

12 

 



    

    

% = (puntics nelud ig@ 

TABLE 1 v pet] et f 

e 
Proporticn cf Tctal Population in Split Counties 

by Congressional District for 1997 Plan (HB 586--Plan A) 

  

African- 
Countv/Citv cD Total White % Amer. 3: 

Beaufort 2 3 23,714 14,659 61.8 8,948. 37.7 

Craven 1 257279 14,207:%56.2 10,920 43.2 

Granville 1 20,717 10,480 50.6 10,106: 48.8 

Jones 14 8,553 5,045 © 55.0 3,461" 40.5 

Lenoir 3 31,015 11,887 38.3 18,959. 61.1 

Person ih 212001 13,436 64.0 7,307. 34.8 

Pitt 1 49,584 23,676 47.7 25:373581%2 

Washington 1 10,750 5,499: 51.2 5,207 48.4 

Wayne 1 36,323 17,110: 47.1 18,781:.51.7 

Wilson 3 43,517 21,008 48.2 22718) 3.0 

Granville 2 17,628 12,589 71.4 4,803 27.2 

Sampson 2 22,745 14,114 62.1 1,985 +35.) 

Wake 2 185,642 118,648 63.9 62,515 33.7 

Wilson 2 22,544 19,615::.87.0 2,715%:12.0 

Beaufort 3 18,569 14,290 76.9 4,246 22.9 

Craven 3 56,334 44,453 78.9 10,196: 18.1 

Jones 3 861 642 74.6 218: 25.1 

Lenoir 3 25,258 22,435 85.4 3,580: 13.6 

Pitt 3 58, 340 46,967 80.5 10,548 18.1 

Washingtcn 3 3,247 2,057 63.4 1,1895 35.7 

Wayne 3 68,343 52,062 276.2 15/012 2222.0 

Chatham 4 29,239 22,800 178.0 §,112 20.9 

Person 4 8.179 7,304.79.6 1,788 1:1.9.6 

Wake 4 237,738: 205,363 86 .¢ 25,548 3.0.77 

Alamance 5 79,976 60,647 " 75.8 18,544 22.2 

¥ Forsyth S 206,766: 181,381" 87.7 22,9975:311.1 

Alamance 6 28,237 25,726 91.1 2,278 8.1 

Chatham 6 9,520 6,623 169.6 2,733 28,7 

X% Davidson 6 59,993 87,135:495.2 2,468 4.1 

*Guilford 6 211,363 186,331 88.2 21,5417 10.2 

s¢Rowan 6 77,499 70,819. 91.4 5,979 7.7 

Cumberland 7 127,913 94,213:-73.7 27,363 21.4 

Robeson 7 81,548 29,364 36.0 17,204 21.2 

Sampson 7 24,552 16,159 65.8 7.701 31.4 

Cumberland 8 146,653 75,856 :51.7 60,133 41.0 

Robeson 8 23,631 8,622 36.5 8,981 38.0 

 



  

untv/Citv 

¥ Mecklenburg 

¥Iredell 

X Davidson 

Forsyth 

«Guilford 

Iredell 

*Mecklenburg 

Rowan 

    

o® 
TABLE 1 (Crd ¥) 

pre 

Proportion of Total Population in Split Counties 
by Congressional District for 1997 Plan (HB 586--Plan A) 

[G10] Total 

292,808 

54,472 

66,684 

59,112 

1357057 

38,459 

218,625 

33,106 

White 

264,604 

48,438 

567161 
315,537 

63,7253 

28,769 

100,047 

237032 

14 

African- 

Amer. 

21,026 

5,526 

9,846 

43,105 

70,114 

9,343 

113,442 

11,794 

 



o® o® 
typical pattern cf African-American total population majorities 

in the largest jurisdictions of each district. <A-tetal—eof—=22 

C unties. are.split-across the 12 districts and just one-—-district 

(DistrIce. il) is composed of whole counties. «Ten of the split 
i, no. 

. counties are accotnted. for by thé construction of District 1, 
Cond 

Sa. 
Corn ~ 
oi 

“while another six are accounted-for by District :12.¢ Six other 

. counties are split insthe plan. Half of the counties in District 

1 are _split;fwhile 100 percent of the counties (alli: six) are. __ 

HEL IT HE CEA ISR OE DES trict 1277 

16% Turning first to District 1, six of the ten counties 

wholly within the district have African-American population 

majorities and the other four counties have African-American 

population percentages of at least 42 percent. The racial make- 

up of the parts’ of the ten sub-divided counties dssigned to 

District 1 include four with parts over 50 Do African- 

American, four others with parts of over 40 percent African- 

American, and two wi Bi cf over 30 percent African-American. 

The African-American percentage of the total population in the 

counties split across Distfict and another district is above 

the district-wide Afriéan-American ercentage in four counties. 

The African-Amerigin percentage of thé\total population is above 

60 percent A County and above 50 percent in Pitt, Wayne, 

Counties. Conversely, Table 1 repodxts that the 

-American percentage of the total population in the parts 

of Most’ of those split counties assigned to another district than  



  

o® oe 
District 1 is consistently lower. For example, the partiof== 

  

Lenoir County assigned to District 3 is 13.6 percent Afyrifcan- 

American in total population, while the part of Pitt“County 

allocated to District 3 is 18.1 percent African-XKmerican in total 
7 

population. The county splits as they impack” the white majority 
> 

districts in eastern North Carolina can b€ divided into two 
Vd 

rd 

categories: 1) those county splits for’ the districts where the 

“intent usually was to provide Afri€an-American voters to shore up 
SN 

the electoral bases of candid3rés who might be characterized as 

: 3 DEA ; 
candidates of choice of African-American voters (e.g. Districts 2 ; % 

and 4), and 2) those county splits for the district where the 

‘intent usually was to” carve out African-American voters so as not 
7 , 

to endanger the electoral bases of the candidates who might not 
~ 
~ 

. . . - 3 Neo 
be characterized as candidates of choice of minority voters (e.g. 

District 3). Almost every time there was an opportun LE use 

race as the basis for. dividing political subdivisions up 
. oN 

politically, the Ncrth Carolina Congressional districting plan. 
i 

N 
« 

does it in the eastern part of the state. 

17. Turning next to District 12, the racial make-up of the 

parts of the six sub-divided counties assigned to District 12 

include three with parts over S0 percent African-American and 

three in which the African-American percentage is under 50 

percent. Almost 75 percent of the total population in District 

12 comes from the three county parts which are majority African- 

American in population. Mecklenburg, Forsyth, and Guilford 

16 

 



  

o® »e 
counties which contribute almost 75 percent of the district's 

  

total populaticn are located at the extremes of the district. 

The other three county parts (Davidson,. Iredell, and Rowan) have 

narrow corridors which were designed to pick up as many African- 

American persons from each of those counties to £ill out the 

district to an ideal sized district. A precinct level map of 

District 12 shows that all African-American majority precincts 

but one in those three counties have been assigned to the 

district. Conversely, Table 1 reports that the African-American 

percentage of ithe:total population in the parts of those split 

counties assigned to another district than District 12 is 

consistently lower. For example, the part of Mecklenburg County 

assigned to District 9 is 7.2 percent African-American in total 

population, while the part of Forsyth County allocated to 

District 5 is 11.1 percent African-American in total population 

and the part of Guilford County assigned to District 6 is 10.2 

cercent African-American. The county splits as they impact the 

white majority districts adjacent to District 12 in the Piedmont 

are those county splits for the districts where the intent 

usually was to carve out African-American voters so as not to 

endanger the electoral bases of the candidates who might not be 

characterized as candidates of choice of minority ren (e.g. 

Districts 5, 6, and 9). Almost every time there was an 

opportunity to use race as the basis for dividing political 

subdivisions up politically, the North Carolina Congressional 

districting plan does it in the Piedmont part of the state as 2 

39 

 



  

o® »e 

  

well. 

18. Table 2 prcvides further confirmation that race was the 

predominant factor in the drawing of the lines for the North 

Carolina Congressional districts in 1997. This table reports the 

exact same data as in Table 1 except that in Table 2 the data are 

organized by county rather than Congressional district. 

example, the pattern shown in each ofthe ten. counties thdt are 

    
  

BI District 1 and an adjacent district is ofie in which 

of the time the sub-division was along racial fines. All 

  

nties were split along racial lines. The Tost dramatic 

examples \from Table 2 include Lenoir County where 61.1 percentgof 

the total a allocated to District 1 is African-American 

while only 13.6\ percent of the total population assigned to 

District 37is African-American, and Wilson County where 51.0 

percent of:the total population allocated to District 1 is 

African-American vile Only 12.0 percent of the total population 

assigned to District 2 is Re con taariran A similar pattern 

holds in the other eigh /count s of District: l.: In each of 

those counties, the pdpulation on the District 1 side of the 

Congressional distfict line is more strongly African-American 

while being more strongly white on the other side of the line in 
vd : 

an adjacens Qistrice. When counties were sphit to achieve 
  

  

  : 
FA population equality, the racial composition of the, components ' Ju 

  

  
  

differ little. When the splits are for racial purposes, the 
  

  

— 
7 

differences are large. 

      

  

   
  

   



% = incduddd 

by County for 1997 Ccngressional Districting Plan (HB S586--Plan A) 

Countv/City 

Alamance 

Alamance 

Beaufort 

Beaufort 

Chatham 

Chatham 

Craven 

Craven 

Cumberland 

Cumberland 

X Davidson 

¥ Davidson 

¥ Forsyth 

% Forsyth 

Granville 

Granville 

¥ Guilford 

})Guilford 

% Iredell 

¥Iredell 

Jones 

Jones 

Lenoir 

Lenoir 

X Mecklenburg 

% Mecklenburg 

Person 

Person 

  

ae 
TABLE 2 

o® 

Proportion of Total Population in Split Counties 

<D 

S 
N
 

Wn
 

$
=
 

Total 

19,976 

28,237 

23,714 

18,569 

29.239 

9,520 

257273 

56,334 

127,513 

146,653 

597993 

66,684 

206,766 

59,312 

20,717 

17,628 

292,808 

218,625 

21,001 

9/173 

White 

60,647 

25,726 

34,65) 

14,290 

22,800 

6,623 

14,207 

44,453 

94,213 

75,856 

57,135 

56,161 

181,381 

15,537 

10,480 

12,589 

185,331 

63,253 

48,438 

28,769 

5,045 

642 

11,887 

22,435 

264,604 

100,047 

13,436 

7,304 

27,363 21.4 

60,133 41.0 

2,468 4 1 

9,846 14.8 

22,997 .:.11.2 

43,105 72.9 

10,106 48.8 

4,803-°27.2 

21,541 :30.2 

70,114 51.5 

5,526 10.1 

9,343: 24.3 

3,461 40.5 

216:25.1 

18,959: 61.1 

3,580: 13.6 

21,025 7.2 

113,442:.51.9 

7,307; 34.8 

1,799:=19.6 

¥7 
Late 

 



oo - 
TABLE 2 (Ctd.) 

Proportion cf Total Population in Split Counties 
by County for 1997 Congressional Districting Plan (HB 586--Plan A) 

African- 

Countv/City cD 

Pitt 

Pitt 

Robeson 

Robeson 

¥ Rowan 

% Rowan 

Sampson 

Sampson 

Wake 

Wake 

Washington 

Washington 

Wayne 

Wayne 

Wilson 

Wilson 

2. 49,584 
58,340 

81,548 

23/6831 

77,498 

33,106 

22,745 

24,552 

185,642 

237,738 

10,750 

3,247 

23,676 

46,967 

29,364 

8,622 

70,819 

21,032 

14,114 

15,159 

118,648 

205,361] 

5,499 

2,057 

37,310 

52,062 

21,008 

13,613 

257373 

10,548 

17,204 

8,981 

57919 

11,794 

7,985 

7,701 

62,515 

25,548 

5,207 

3.159 

38,781 

15,012 

22,181 

els 

 



h wh 
13. The pattern shown in each of the six counties that are 

  

split between District 12 and an adjacent district is one in 

which most of the time the sub-division was along racialilines: 

All six counties were split along racial lines. The most 

dramatic examples from Table 2 include Forsyth County where 72.9 

percent of the total population allocated to District 12 is 

African-American while only 11.1 percent ofthe total population 

assigned to District 5 is Shinnadiiaiipany and Mecklenburg 

County where 51.9 percent of the total population allocated to 

District 12 is African-American while only 7.2 percent of the 

total population assigned to District 9 is African-American. 

Similarly, I find Guilford County where 51.5 percent of the total 

population allocated to District 12 is African-American while 

only 10.2 percent of the total population assigned to District 9 

is African-American. A similar pattern holds in the other three 

counties of District 12. In each of those counties, the 

porulaticn on the District 12 side of the Congressional district 

line is more strongly African-American while being more strongly 

white on the other side of the line in an adjacent district. 

When counties were split to achieve population equality, the 

racial composition of the components differ little. When the 

splits are for racial purposes, the differences are large. 

I can infer from these data that race was a predominant factor in 

the line drawing:for Districts 1 and 12 and the adjacent 

districts in the 1997 North Carolina Congressional district plan. 

el 

 



oh 
20.0 To test further whether greater racial disparities 

  

existed when a county split involved Congressional Districts 17 

and 12 then when i: did not, I analyzed the magnitude of the 

disparity in the percent African-American in the two Li of 

each divided ‘county. The results reported below were calculated 
\ 

using the figure obtained when the percent African<American in 
N 

the portion of the county with the lower African-American 
oN nt 

: Nex Ta ri : : percentage 1s subtracted from the percent African-American in the 
N\, 

\ 

DN ° . 3 . . . 

portion of the county having the higher African-American 
\ 7, 7 \ \ Ya 

percentage. These figures‘are calculated using the percentages 
7 7 

in Table 2 of my report. > 

CD Minimum Maximum A >, Mean Std. Dev. N 

1 12.7 £7 5 25341 11595 10 

12 1.0% 61.8 33.43. podeS 6 

Others 377 23.0 14.38 > 7226 6 

The table shows that the ranges, means, and standard deviations 

for the two digtricrs ar issue ini this case are much larger than 

for the county splits that involved neither Sa 

Districts 1 nor 12. These results comport with the othesis 

that 1 Sirawins Congressional LCistricts 1 and 12, much eater    

   

  

tion was given to race than when splitting counties ix other 

parts of the state where race was not a consideration. 

21. I have also examined data related to city and town 

splits in 1997 North Carolina Congressional district plan. These 

22 

 



‘data will-be-used-to-determine. whether I-should alter my—opinion 

  

  

that Facewas—a~ predominant factor in the construction St the~ 

&rstricts. Using a report titled Places Splitiby 97: North 

Carolina Congressicnal Districts prepared by Dan Frey, GIS 

Analyst, with the North Carolina General Assembly Information 

Systems Division, I created Tables 3 and 4. These tables—are 

directly Eompazrable-to-Tableslasnd 2 Notesthat -these-tghies 
ne Md 

-— pe 

pe -luir eusey] city or town in North Carolina that- is split across 
TR 

two or more districts by geography in the” 1997 plan. Thus, there 
tt Ta, 

nF 
Ls 

are four places mii the" geographical split does not involve 
oh Var, 

people on both sides of the? Shay | “Furthermore, there are several 

others where a small number of People are Split away from a 

— 155s larger number oF people by the use of the precincts in the 1997 

Congressionalidistricting plan’: 
og 

  

——rrt 
Eh sth to Table 37iFlliofaI3zcitieszor: towns: were. 

Bi 

~— 
—— 

split along racial lines to create Congressionalidistrictil, 
—- - 

Nine cf the cities or towns split between district 1 and another 
— 

~~ 
~~ 2 — : : 

district involve placing a majorit of the African-American 
re 

. 

population into District 1.-a$ Sea 3.. When cities 
nl 

rr 

id — id * Ld Py * or towns were split to achieve population equality, the_racial 
od = 

of 

: : — + 3 3 

the components differ little. When the splits axe 

for 
a lt   

ial RUl0S es? the differences are large. 
sm ; 95   

23. A similar pattern of splitting cities .or towns is shown 

for District 12. Nine of 13 cities or towns were split along 

oa 

 



  

TABLE 3 

  

Proportion of Total Pcpulation in Split Municipalities and Census 
Designated Places by Congressional District for 1997 Plan (HB 586--Plan A) 

  

Non-Af. African- 
Citv/Town CD Tota Amer. % Amer % 

Ayden 1 4,590 2,186 47.6 2,404 52.4 
Battleboro* 1 280 99 35.4 181 64.6 
Fremont 1 1,638 784 47.9 854 S2.1 
Goldsboro 1H 25,734 9,833 38.2 15,901. 61.8 
Greenville 3 19,249 6,052 .31.4 13,197 68.6: 

Kinston 1h 16,328 2,968::1872 13,360 81.8 
New Bern 1 33,921 7.201% 51.7 6,720 48.3 
Rocky Mount* 1 17.057 2,584: 15.1 14,473 84.9 

Sharpsburg* x 482 91 18.9 3912-81.1 

Trent Woods 14 299 299 100.0 0 0.0 
Washington l 9.073 4,915 54.2 4,158 45.8 
Whitakers* 3 464 183; 39.4 281 60.6 
Wilson 3 26,127 9,3551 35.8 16,772 64.2 

Battleboro* 2 167 156:.93.4 11 6.6 
Clinton #4 7,313 4,024 55.0 3,289.:45.0 

Garner 2 3,008 22,2328 74.2 776: 25.8 

Raleigh 2 107,973 60,848 56.4 47,131 43.6 

Rocky Mount¥* 2 31,940 22,116 69.2 9,824 30.8 
Sharpsburg* 3 1,054 861; 81.7 193i.18.3 
Whitakers~* ° 3396 233 -58.8 163 :41.2 
Wilson 2 10,803 10,249 94.9 554 fab 

Ayden 3 150 150:100.0 0 0.0 
Fremont 3 75 10-.13:.9 62 86.1 

Goldsboro 3 14,975 11,5862: 77.2 3,413 22.8 
Greenville > 25,723 23,583 91.7 2,140 8.3 

Kinston 3 8,967 7,712 :.86.0 1,2552:14.0 
Mount Olivex 3 4,581 2,177 47.5 2,404 52.5 

New Bern 3 3,442 2,599:.75.5 843 24.5 

Surf:City~ 3 317 314::99.1 3 0.9 

Trent Woods 3 2,067 2,067 100.0 0 0.0 
Washington 3 J 2 100.0 0 0.0 

Garner 4% 11,8958 10,102 84.5 1.857: 15.5 

Mebane* 4 485 420 86.6 ; 65..13.4 

Raleigh 4 $9,873 89,744 89.8 10,229; 10.2 

Burlington 5 36,339 27,580 75.9 8,759 24.1 
Elkin» 5 3,720 3,373: 90.7 347 2 a3 
Gibsonville~* S 1,480 1,332" 90.0 148 10.0 
Graham S 7,234 5,857 81.0 1 1,377..19.0 

# High Point 5 6 6 100.0 0 0.0 : 

 



o® al 

  

TABLE 3 (Ctd.) 

Proportion of Total Population in Split Municipalities and Census 

Designated Places bv Congressional District for 1997 Plan (EB 586--Plan A) 

  
  

25 

Non-Af. African- 

Citv/Town CD Total Amer. 3 Amex. 3 

Kernersville 5 10,836 10,230 94.4 606 5.6 

Mebane* S 4,269 3,382-759.2 887 20.8 

Winston-Salem 5 89,215 74,885 83.9 14,330 16.1 

Burlington 6 3,159 3,009¢:55.3 150 4%7 

Gibsonvillex* 6 1,961 1,483: 275.6 478 24.4 

Graham 6 S92 2,896 : 50.7 296 9.3 

+ Greensboro 6 88,441 78,981 89.3 9,460 10.7 

—~High Point 6 37,200 32,833 88.3 42,367: 11.7 

Kannapolis 6 8,476 7,149 84.3 19327315.7 

Kernersville 6 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Lexington 6 2,885 2,522.87.4 363::12.6 

—Salisbury 6 5,250 4,442 84.6 808 15.4 

~Spencer 6 8 6:75.0 2525.0 

» Thomasville 6 6,909 6,249 90.4 660 9.6 

Clinton 7 891 *+.720:.80.8 1717 19.2 

Fayetteville 7 £4,988 34,279: 76.2 20,709 23.8 

Mount Olive* 7 » | 0 0.0 1100.0 

Red Springs 7 S8 S8 100.0 0 0.0 

SurfiCity* 7 653 652. 939.8 2 0.2 

Fayetteville 8 30,707 12,437 40.5 18,270 53.5 

Kannapolis 8 215220 17.,205:5:.81.1 4,015 18.9 

Red Springs 8 3,738 1,771 47.4 1,968 ::52.6 

weddington* 8 3,803 3,695 97.2 108. 2.8 

vCharlotte S 213,515.:38196,172+ 91.9 17,343 8.1 

v Cornelius 9 308 304 98.7 4 323 

Weddington* 9 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

~Davidson* 10 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Elkin* 10 70 62 88.6 8:11.4 

. Mooresville 10 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

8tatesville 10 12,324 9,997 81.1 2,327: 18.9 

Troutman 10 1,419 1,024 72.2 395 27.8 

VCharlotte 12 182,419 73,935 40.5 108,484 59.5 

vCornelius 12 2,273 1,752: 77.1 521 22.9 

Vdavidson* 12 4,046 3,407 84.2 639 15.8 

vGreensboro 12 95,080 42,236 44.4 52,844 55.6 

vHigh Point 12 32,290 15,677 48.6 16,613 51.4 

viexington 12 13,696 9,143 66.8 4,553 33.2 

 



o® ah 
TABLE 3° (Ctd.) 

  

Proportion of Total Populaticn in Split Municipalities and Census 
Designated Places by Congressional District for 1997 Plan (HB 586--Plan A) 

  

  

; Non-Af African- 
City/Town CD Total Amer. E3 Amer. z 

V Mooresville 12 8,818 6,687 75.8 2,131% 242 
VSalisbury 12 17,837. 10,521 59.0 7,316 41.0 
Spencer 32 37211 2,488 77.5 723 22.5 
Statesville 12 5,243 1,290 24.6 3,953 75.4 VThomasville 12 9,006 5,246 58.3 3,760 41.7 

V Troutman 12 74 74 100.0 03 0.0 
inston-Salem 32 54,270 12,272:22.6 41,998 77.4 

*City or town is split across a county boundary. 

Source: North Carolina General Assembly, Information Systems Division. 
All information is based on that in the General Assembly’s 
apportionment system. Provided by Dan Frey, GIS Analyst. 

Fey 

26 

 



> 
   

+ included 

  

TABLE 4 

we 
Peet 

Proportion of Total Population in Split Municipalities and Census 
Designated places by City or Town for 1997 Plan (HB 586--Plan A) 

Citv/Town 

Ayden 

Ayden 

Battleboro* 

Battleboro* 

Burlington 

Burlington 

% Charlotte 

¥ Charlotte 

Clinton 

Clinton 

Cornelius 

Cornelius 

* Davidson* 

X Davidson* 

Elkin~* 

Elkinvr 

Fayetteville 

Fayetteville 

Fremont 

Fremont 

Garner 

Garner 

Gibsonville* 

Gibsonvillex* 

Goldsboro 

Goldsboro 

Graham 

Graham 

€D 

1 

36,7339 

7359 

233,515 

182,419 

Hs313 

891 

308 

21273 

3,720 

70 

44,988 

30,707 

1,638 

72 

3,008 

3.1,959 

1,480 

1,96) 

25,734 

14,975 

7,234 

3,192 

White 

<,186 

1.50 

99 

156 

27,580 

3,009 

196,272 

23,935 

4,024 

720 

304 

2,352 

2,232 

10,102 

1,332 

1,483 

9,833 

11,562 

5,857 

2,896 

27 

lov
e 

47.6 

100.0 

35.4 

93.4 

90.0 

75.6 

African- 

Amer. 

10,708 

18,270 

854 

62 

776 

1.857 

148 

478 

15,90) 

3,413 

17372 

296 

 



  

Proportion of Total Population in Split Municipalities and Census 

Designated Places by City or Town for 1997 Plan (HB 586--Plan A) 

Citv/Town 

* Greensboro 

¥X Greensboro 

Greenville 

Greenville 

>% High Point 

% High Point 

X High Point 

Kannapolis 

Kannapolis 

Kernersville 

Kernersville 

Kinston 

Kinston 

X Lexington 
* Lexington 

Mebane* 

Mekbane~* 

% Mooresville 

»% Mooresville 

Mount Oliver 

Mount Olive~* 

New Berm 

New Berm 

Raleigh 
Raleigh 

Red Springs 
Red Springs 

Rocky Mount+ 

Rocky Mount+ 

€D 

6 

12 

j=
 

wn
 

12 

10 

12 

TABLE 4 (Ctd.) 

Total 

88,441 

85,080 

19,249 

25,723 

6 

37,200 

32,290 

8,476 

21,220 

10,836 

0 

16,328 

8,367 

2,885 

13,696 

485 

4,259 

13,921 

3,442 

107,979 

99.973 

58 

3.736 

317,057 

31,940 

Whit : 3 

78,981: 89.3 

42,236 44.4 

32,833:-:88.3 

15,677, 48.6 

7,149..84.3 

17,205: 81.1 

10,230::94.4 

28 

a 

African- 

14,473 

9,824 

 



    

o® wh 
TABLE 4 (Ctd.) 

  

Proportion of Total Population in Split Municipalities and Census 
Designated Places by City or Town for 1997 Plan (HB 586--Plan A) 

African- 
ityv/To ch Total White x Amer. k 

Y salisbury ia 5,250 4,442 84.6 808 15.4 
% salisbury 12 17,837 10,521 59.0 7.316: 21.0 

Sharpsburg+ 1 482 91 18.9 391 81:1 
Sharpsburg* 2 1,054 861 :81.7 19382183 

% Spencer 6 | 6 75.0 2:225.0 
Xk Spencer 12 3/211 2,488 77.5 723:=22.5 

X Statesville 10 12,324 S,997:=81.1 2,327::18.9 
% Statesville 12 5,243 1,290 24.6 3,953 75.4 

Surf City 3 317 314 99.1 3::'0.9 
Surf: City* 7 653 652 99.8 i) 0.2 

* Thomasville 6 6,909 6,249 90.4 660 9.6 
% Thomasville 12 9,006 5,246 58.3 3,760 41.7 

Trent Woods 3 299 299:100.0 0 0.0 
Trent Woods 3 2,067 2,067 100.0 0 0.0 

¥ Troutman 12 74 74 100.0 0 0.0 
¥ Troutman 10 1,419 1,024% 72.2 395 27.8 

Washington 1 9,073 4.915 54.2 47158 45.8 
Washington 3 2 2:100.0 0 0.0 

Wweddington* a 3,803 3,695 97.2 108 2s 
Weddington+ 9 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Whitakers+ +3 464 183 39.4 281 60.6 
Whitakers+ 2 396 233 58.8 163 41.2 

Wilson 1 26,127 9,355 35.8 16,772 64.2 
Wilson 2 10,803 10,249 94.9 554 5.17 > 

% Winston-Salem 5 89,215 74,885 83.9 14,330 16.1 
Winston-Salem 12 54,270 12,272 22.6 41,998 77.4 

*City or town is split across a county boundary. 

Source: North Carolina General Assembly, Information Systems Division. 
All information is based on that in the General Assembly’s «' 
apportionment system. Provided by Dan Frey, GIS Analyst. 

29 

 



   a wh 
racial lines to create Congressional district 12. Five of the 

cities or towns split between district 12 and another district 

involve placing a majority of the African-American population 

into Districtiiz as displayed in Table 3. Also the four largest 

cities assigned to District 12 are split along racial lines. 

24. The above analysis is further confirmed by the listing 

of split cities and towns in Table 4. sHsZo ene can Ses-hew-most 

of the Cities-and-towns-sssigmed-to-District-i-are-spTiE™s along 
  

X&8cizl:liness sd ~Particularly.striking-are: the~figures for 

Goldsboro, Greenville; Kinston, New Bern,-Rocky.Mount, and 

Milsorr™ Table 4 also highlights the racizl splits of the cities 

Or towns assigned to District 12. Again the difference in the 

figures for Charlotte, Greensboro, High Point, Statesville; and 

Winston-Salem are large. On the other hand, many of the cities 

and towns split ketween other districts do not display l= zrge 

racial differences (exceptions are Fayetteville and Ra =
 0 H
e
 

in
 e 

25. Defendants' experts point out that the 1957 North 
-—y ~~ 

Carolina Congressional districting plan relies almost without 

exception to the Tog Tabulation Districts (VIDs) or 

precincts as the building blocks for constructing districts. 

They note that only two precincts were split in constructing the ps 
~ 

12 districts. One of -these two precincts~\is in Mecklenburg 
County and was split to provide a geographical d bridge to} 
connect twd parts of District 9 to each other. The precinct in + 

30 

 



w ”» 
discussion is Charlotte Precinct 77 and extends to the southern 

  

county-.boundary and the state line with South Carolina. The 

precinct is “a.predominantly African-American majority precinct 

and the bulk of the people was needed to create a race-based 
Se Pe 

~, # 
- 

District 12. Thus, the state split the precinct placing one non- 
eo 

African-American person in the part ofithe precinct in District 
#7 

9. If that one person-is a registered voter and does vote in a 
rat —. 

Congressional election, there will be a ballot™s crecy issue for 

that one voter. The other split precinct is in Cravemn County 

where 23" persons are put in District 3 rather than District 1 

wi remainder of the precinct's residents. 

26. The discussion of not ‘splitting precincts by 

defendants' experts misunderstands how racially homogeneous 

precincts are today in North Carolina and other parts of the 

  nation. +Qr_ example, both Georgia and South Carolina; —split—only 

a small number of precincts in creating their Congressional 

Pistricting plans. cf the 1990s But this fact did not prevent 

PLaint iS challenges from invalidating Districts 2:andil1ll in 

Georgia andifrom attacking-Disbrictas iniSanrhiCALOTiimL. 

Louisiana did not split a single precinct in the creation of the 

two plans invalidated by the Hays court in the Western District 

of Louisiana. Thus, given the homogeneous racial character of 

precincts in North Carolina, it is quite possible to draw 

districts in which race predominates using whole precincts. 

ad 

 



wh - 
27. Next I present Table 5 which details at the precinct 

level by county the assignment of precincts to Congressional 
districts for the 22 counties that were split in Creating the 

1597 Plan (HB 586). For the counties which were split 

Predominantly on the basis of race I expect that the precincts 

with the highest percentage of African-American persons will be 

Placed in either District 1 or 12 and the precincts with the 

highest percentage of non-African-American persons will be placed 
in an adjacent district. For the counties which were not split 

predominantly on the basis of race, I expect to find a less 

Systematic assignment of precincts to the two districts into 

which the population is divided. To assist the reader in 

following the tables, I have ranked the precincts from high to 

: low by the beércentage of African-American population in each 

precinct (see Table 5). The table also reports a breakdown of 

the voting age population by race as well as the total population 
5 by race. Fin ally," the 41 Ct to which the precinct is assigned 

in the 1997 Plan 1s noted in the final column of the table. 

TS 

nN I focus first on the ten counties split ‘between 

District *l_a8nd an adjacent district and then turn to an ren 
rn &°° 

v 

pr? - examination AF the six counties divided between Districtil2 and 
Er — rv? 

an adjacent district. rerfia revesled in Tables 1-4 are 
rT 

reinforced by the precifict level data I le 5 for the ten 

Split counties-Gf District 1. Two groupings of count: are most 
ba where the difference between African-American 

32  



= 4 inserked by Han. 
NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

  

TABLE 5 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 

    
  

of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District FE LL A SNR 

COUNTY PRCTNAME TOTALPOP WHITEPOP WHTPPCT BLACKPOP BLKPPCT TOTALVAP WHITEVAP WHTVPCT BLACKVAP BLKVPCT DISTRICT 

Alamance “Worth-Burl ington " 6059 2234 36.87 3783 62.44 4678 1903 40.68 2751. 58,B1 : 5 

Pleasant Grove * 2779 1094 39.37 1627. 58.55 2155 869 40.32 1234 _ST.26 5 

Burlington #7 * 5172 2556 49.42 2571 49.71 - 3892 2001 51.41 1862 ~~ 47.84 5 

Haw River * 5020 2811 56.00 2177 43.37 3833 2182 56.93 1630 42.53 5 

. Burlington #8 * . 3222 2119 65.77 1065 33.05 2600 1833 70.50 "736 28.31 5 

; South Melville * = 3841 2693 70.11 1105 28.77 2935 2095 71.38 817 27.84 5 

South Burlington * >. 2360 1647 69.79 672 28.47 1708 1285 75.23 401 23.48 5 

North Graham * "3902 2954 75.70 902 23.12 3026 2369 78.29 624 20.62 5 

North Thompson * 1949 1569 80.50 375 19.24 1498 1208 80.64 288 19.23 6 

Graham #3 * 4019 ~~ 3228 80.32 752 18.71 3066 2563 83.59 480 15.66 5 

South Thompson * 2860 2316 80.98 491 17.17 2096 1699 81.06 354 16.89 6 

North Melville * 3252 2675  B2.26 526 16.17 2475 2042 82.51 397 16.04 5 

East Burlington * 2906 2436 '~.83.83 439 15.110 2339 2022 86.45 294 12.57 5 

East Graham * 3450 2905 84.20 519 15.04" 2774 2364 85.22 392 14.13 5 

Morton * 4501 3872 86.03 616 13.69 3368 2904 86.22 455 13.51 5 

Patterson * 2800 2433 86.89 357 12.75 . 2147 1867 86.96 270 12.58 6 

North Newlin * 2183 1891 86.62 275 12.60 1679 1446 86.12 221 13.16 6 

North Boone * 3145 2815 89.51 305. 9.70 2606 2333 89.52 251 9.63 5 

Burlington #6 * 4653 4163 89.47 430 "9.24 3697 3324 89.91 336 9.09 5 

West Boone * 2042 1873 91.72" 156 7.664... 1629 1508 92.57 113 6.94 5 

West Graham * 1995 1812 90.83 152 7.62 1615 1481 91.70 11 6.87 5 

Faucette * 3007 2788 92.72 215 7.15 2350 2179 92.72 167 7.11 5 

South Graham * 5737 5376 93.71 327 5.70 4510 4249 94.21 238 5.28 6 

West Burlington * 2684 2515 93.70 149 5.55 2180 2054 94.22 115 5.28 5 

Boone #5 * 4182 73955 94.57 193 4.62 3515 3326 ~-.94.62 164 4.67 5 

Albright * 2567 “2444 95.21 m 4.32 1961 1870 95336 83 4.23 6 

Burlington #9 * 3613 3413 94.46 151 4.18 2871 2727 94.98 107 3.73 6 

Central Boone * 2508 2377 94.78 104 4.15 1926 1830 95.02 ~77 4.00 5 

South Newlin * 1113 1062 95.42 43 3.86 872 833 95.53 34 3.90 6 

Melville #3 * 2184 2103 96.29 67 3.07 1669 1605 96.17 55 ~3.30 6 

Coble * : 3231 3119. 95.53 81 2.51 2552 2460 96.39 67 2.63 6 

South Boone * 3018 2912 96.49 56 1.86 2440 2362 96.80 45 1.84 5 

Burlington #5 * 2259 2213 97.96 30 1.33 1876 1843 98.24 21 1.12 

' Total ll 108213 86373 79.82 20822 19.24 84538 68636 81.19 15190 17.97 : 

 



  

TABLE 5 (Ctd.) 

NORTH CAROLINA HB 5B6--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 
of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

- 

ro ~ 

TOTALPOP WHITEPOP WHTPPCT BLACKPOP BLKPPCT TOTALVAP WHITEVAP WHTVPCT BLACKVAP BLKVPCT DISTRICT 

  

COUNTY PRCTNAME 

Beaufort Richland Township 3543 1852 52,27 1686 47.59 2651 1468 55.38." 1178 44.44 1 
Washington Township(Pt) 13682 8242 60.24 5356 39.15 10000 6448 64.48 3503 35.03 1 
Pantego Township 6925 4431 63.99 2482 35.84 5116 3385. 66.16 1719 33.60 3 
Chocowinity Township 6489 4565 70.35 1906 29.37 4800 3554 74.04 1231 25.65 1 

’ Long Acre Township 7845 6608 84.23 1221 15.56 5877 5097 86.73 766 13.03 3 
Bath Township 3797 3249 85.57 543 14.30 2882 2488 86.33 389 13.50 3 
Washington Township (Pt) 2 2 100.00 0 0.00 TEED 2 100.00 0 0.00 3 

Total 42283 28949 68.46 13196 31,20 31328 22442 71.64 8786 28.05 

 



  

TABLE 5 (Ctd.) 

NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 
of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

BLACKPOP BLKPPCT TOTALVAP WHITEVAP WHTVPCT BLACKVAP BLKVPCT- DISTRICT 

  

COUNTY PRCTNAME TOTALPOP WHITEPOP WHTPPCT 
Sl 

of 

Chatham Haw River * 1020 527 51.67 452 44.31 767 408 ~~ 53.19 334° 43.55 4 
West Pittsboro * 3308 2034 61.49 1226 37.06 2515 1583 62.94 7906 36.02 4 
North Siler City * 4745 3031 63.88 1613 33.99 3576 2373 66.36 1126 31.49 6 
East Pittsboro * 1684 1107 65.74 548 32.54 1312 904 68.90 390 29.73 4 
Goldston * 2863 1989 69.47 848 29.62 2230 1575 70.63 634 28.43 4 
Hickory Mountain * 1194 850 71.19 334 27.97 896 652 72.77 237 26.45 4 
Oakland * 929 692 74.49 226 24.33 690 519 75.22 162 23.48 4 
Cape Fear * 1048 789 75.29 252 24.05 800 617 77.13 181 22.63 4 
South Siler City * 4775 3592 75.23 1120 23.46 3699 2836 76.67 805 21.76 6 

Bonlee * 1710 1364 9.77 333 19.47 1303 1040 79.82 254 19.49 4 

East Williams * 692 559 80.78 130 18.79 552 452 81.88 98 17.75 4 

West Williams * 3735 3051 81.69 650 17.40 3107 2624 84.45 457 14.7 4 

Bynum * 1508 1279 84.81 222 14.72 1172 990 84.47 176 15.02 4 

Albright * 2130 1837 86.24 270 12.68 1641 1428 87.02 203 12.37 4 

West Mann's Chapel * 1269 1085 85.50 160 12.61 991 854 86.18 123 12.41 4 

East Mann's Chapel * 1975 1737 87.95 213 10.78 - 1604 1437 89.59 145 9.04 4 

New Hope * 1320 1182 89.55 133 10.08 1051 942 89.63 106 10.09 4 

Bennett * 978 on 93.15 66 6.75 754 705 93.50 48 6.37 4 

Hadley * 796 746 93.72 37 4.65 599 569 94.99 23 3.84 4 

Harpers Crossroads * 1080 1061 98.24 12 1.11 814 798 98.03 " 1.35 4 

29423 75.91 8845 22.82 30073 23306 77.50 6419 21.34 Total 38759 

   



  

TABLE 5 (Ctd.) 

NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 

of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 
rd 

TOTALPOP WHITEPOP WHTPPCT BLACKPOP BLKPPCT TOTALVAP WHITEVAP WHTVPCT BLACKVAP BLKVPCT DISTRICT 

  

COUNTY PRCTNAME 

Craven Rhems * (Pt.) 23 0 0.00 23 100.00 17 0 0.00 17. 100.00 3 

Harlowe * 2635 748 28.39 1865 70.78 1814 562 30.98 1233 67.97 3 

Second Ward * 2345 781 33.30 1545 65.88 1613 640 39.68 961 59.58 1 

First Ward * 2664 974 36.56 1676 62.91 1998 840 42.04 1146 57.36 1 

Fifth Ward * 2439 1075 44.08 1348 55.27 1725 823 47.71 889 51.54 1 

Rhems * (Pt.) 571 254 44.48 308 53.94 412 192 44.60 216 52.43 1 

Dover * i 834 473 56:71 356 42.69 622 354 56.91 264 42.44 1 

Cove City * 1338 786 58.74 544 40.66 995 608 61.11 381 38.29 1 

Clarks * 1707 1052 61.63 646 37.84 1241 794 63.98 440 35.46 1 

Jasper * 2459 1543 62.75 907 36.88 1774 1136 64.04 634 35.74 1 

Fort Barnwell * 1255 792 63.11 461 36.73 953 626 65.69 325 34.10 1 

Third Ward * 3464 2247 64.87 1197 34.56 2678 1846 68.93 820 30.42 1 

Vanceboro * 3915 2599 66.39 1288 32.90 2843 1964 69.08 857 30.14 3 

Country Club * 2344 1571 67.02 764 32.59 1749 1161 66.38 583 33.33 1 

Epworth * 1106 751 67.90 353 31.92 842 583 69.24 257 30.52 1 

Fourth Ward * 2753 1908 69.31 815 29.60. 2011 1481 73.64 510 25.36 1 

Sixth Ward * 4157 3200 76.98 904 23:75 3163 2548 80.56 578 18.27 3 

Grantham * 6878 5473 79.57 1347 19.58 5174 4158 80.36 973 18.81 3 

Havelock * 23376 17980 76.92 4006 17.14 15962 12426 77.85 2550 15.98 3 

Ernul * 930 799 85.91 123 13.23 700 622 88.86 72 10.29 3 

Woodrow * 972 896 92.18 70 7.20 774 715 92.38 54 6.98 3 

Bridgeton * 5695 5286 92.82 360 6.32 4436 4157 93.71 241 5.43 3 

Croatan * 1736 1609 92.68 01 5.24 1263 17 92.72 63 4.99 3 

River Bend * 2408 2282 94.77 103 4.28 2062 1981 96.07 65 3.15 3 

Truitt * 663 644 97.13 15 2.26 495 479 96.77 13 2.63 3 

Trent Woods * 2946 2937 99.69 1 .03 2254 2248 99.73 0 0.00 3 

81613 58660 71.88 21116 25.87 59570 464115 74.06 14142 23.74 
Total 

   



TABLE 5 (Ctd.) 

  

NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data - Er 
of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District fr 

COUNTY PRCTNAME TOTALPOP WHITEPOP WHTPPCT BLACKPOP BLKPPCT TOTALVAP WHITEVAP WHTVPCT BLACKVAP BLKVPCT DISTRICT 

  
Cumberland Cross Creek #13 * 2122 20 94 2097 98.82 1828 18 .98 1806-" 98.80 8 

Cross Creek #16 * 2642 27 1.02 2598 08.33 2038 21 1.03 2000 98.14 8 
Cross Creek #19 * 2811 112 3.98 2662 94.70 1880 96 5.11.7 1762 93.72 8 
Cross Creek #3 * 1856 292 15.73 1499 80.77 1349 205 15:20 11 82.36 7 

’ Cross Creek #1 * 2913 568 19.50 2235 76.73 2042 495 24.24 1468 71.89 7 
Cross Creek #17 * 6621 1582 23.89 4864 73.46 4619 1229" 26.61 3270 70.79 8 
Cross Creek #5 * 3477 934 26.86 2473 71.12 2430 782 32.18 1601 65.88 8 
Morganton Road #1 * 3813 1493 39.16 1969 51.64 2617 1063 40.62 1309 50.02 8 
Spring Lake * 7406 3031 40.93 3685 49.76 4882. 2156 44.16 2255 46.19 8 
Cross Creek #10 * 2054. 985 47.96 994 48.39 1462 795 54.38 607 41.52 7 
Westarea * 9695 4544 46.87 4554 46.97 6506 3441 52.89 2667 40.99 8 
Seventy First #1 * 16101 7533 46.79 7391 45.90 ° 10407 4986 47.91 L684 45.01 8 
Cottonade * 6690 3496 52.26 2674 39.97 4809 2591 53.88 1850 38.47 8 
Cedar Creek * 2199 1282 58.30 861 39.15 1599 971 60.73 591 36.96 7 
Sherwood * 1875 1135 60.53 670." 35.73 1306 807 61.79 463 35.45 7 
Cross Creek #2 * 2389 1256 52.57 832 34.83 © 1744 078 56.08 567 32.51 7 
Brentwood * 12140 7426 61.17 3956 32.59 8247 5212 63.20 2531 30.69 8 
Cross Creek #21 * 5096 3197 62.74 1642 32:22 3801 2539 66.80 1074 28.26 8 
Vander * 2243 1365 60.86 716 31.92 1605 1020 63.55 479 29.84 7 
Manchester * 4219 2518 59.68 1326 31.43 3016 1869 61.97 891 29.54 8 
Montclair * L716 2921 61.94 1468 31.13 3413 2189 64.14 994 29.12 7 
Beaver Lake * 41573 24817 59.69 12809 30.81 31262 19367 61.95 9083 29.05 8 
Eastover * 5400 3743 69.31 1534 28.41 4085 2926 71.63 1078 26.39  § 
Cross Creek #9 * 5786 3905 67.49 1641 28.36 4391 3001 68.34 1217 27.72 8 
Black River * 2511 1748 69.61 696 27.72 1865 1327 71:15 495 26.54 7 
Long Hill * 3344 2304 68.90 881 26.35 2337 1632 69.83 595 25.46 7 
Morganton Road #2 * 14333 9456 65.97 3518 24.54 9956 6756 67.86 2236 22.46 8 
Cross Creek #22 * 5033 3665 72.82 1155 22.95 3940 2957 75.05 827 20.99 7 
Pearces Mill #3 * 2263 1640 72.47 502 22.18 1712 1282 74.88 351 20.50 7 
Beaver Dam * 1541 1184 76.83 328 21.28 1100 868 78.91 217 19.73 7 
Cross Creek #8 * 1703 1348 79.15 346 20.32 1325 1084 81.81 233 17.58 4 
Pearces Mill #2 * 5088 3608 70.91 1031 20.26 3572 2666 74.64 597 16.71 7 
Seventy First #2 * 4369 3265 74.73 883 20.21 3073 2400 78.10 518 16.86 7 
Alderman * : 2914 2178 74.74 587 20.14 2078 1570 75.55 409 19.68 7 
Hope Mills #2 * 4907 3612 73.6) 987 20.11 3522 2628 74.62 682 19.36 7 
Cross Creek #11 * 2258 1648 72.98 445 19.7 1732 1326 76.56 294 16.97 7 
Seventy First #3 * 2776 2105 75.83 530 19.09 2072 1665 80.36 310 14.96 7 
Wade * 1159 913 78.77 218 18.81 893 706 79.06 164 . 18.37 7 
Cumberland #2 * 4068 3057 75.15 739, 18.17 "2805 2196 78.29 422 15.04 7 
Cross Creek #15 * 3265 2548 78.04 568 17.40 2513 2011 80.02 399 15.88 7 
Linden * 2992 2426 81.08 513 17.15 2110 1726 81.80 351 16.64 7 

 



TABLE 5 (Ctd.) 

NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 

of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

TOTALPOP WHITEPOP WHTPPCT BLACKPOP BLKPPCT TOTALVAP WHITEVAP WHTVPCT BLACKVAP BLKVPCT DISTRICT 
COUNTY PRCTNAME 

  

Cumberland Pearces Mill #4 * 3004 2260 . : 2095 1631 : 284 

: 1213 Cross Creek #24 * 1471 : 

Cross. Creek #23 * 4013 : 2962 

Judson * 1340 : . 1020 

Stedman * 3401 4 2548 

Cumberland #1 * 9671 6747 

Cross Creek #6 * 1765 1376 

Cross Creek #20 * 2056 i : 1618 

Cross Creek #18 * 3845 . . ; 3056 

Cross Creek #14 * 3866 : : 2938 

Cross Creek #4 * 1301 . : 1120 

Hope Mills #1 * 7001 - 4872 

Cross Creek #7 * 1530 : 3 1261 

Cross Creek #12 * 1704 1662 i : 1314 

274566 170069 . B87: 197792 127233 

N
N
S
N
S
N
S
N
S
N
N
O
N
N
~
N
~
N
N
~
 

 



. 
LJ 

  

TABLE 5 (Ctd.) As | ) 

NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 { ent 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 

of Precincts in Split Counties by SR District Si nt 

  

oo \ 

COUNTY PRCTNAME (ome re WHTPPGT “cxgof verre TOTALVAP WHITEVAP WHTVPCT scr sine (Gsmics) 

Davidson Thomasville No. 3 * 2910 852 29.28 2039 70.07 2100 683 32.52 1409 67.10 12 

Ward No. 1 * 2777 805 28.99 1942 69.93 2055 649 31.58 1389 67.59 12 

Ward No. 5 * 2448 807 32.97 1610 65.77 1678 620 36.95 1040 61.98 12 

Thomasville No. 2 * 2709 1830 67.55 843 31.12 2025 16426 70.42 576 28.44 12 

Thomasville No. 1 * 3417 2506 73.34 878 25.70 2685 2036 75.83 627 23.35 12 

Ward No. 4 * 2403 1906 79.32 426 17.73 1910 1567 82.04 299 15.65 12 

: Cotton * 4475 3807 85.07 628 14.03 3251 2779 85.48 451 13.87 6 

Ward No. 2 * 3114 2612 83.88 425 13.65 2405 2100 87.32 262 10.89 12 

Ward No. 6 * 2896 2502 86.40 363 12:53 2300 2031 88.30 247 10.74 6 

Thomasville No. 5 * 3523 3149 89.38 353 10.02 2780 2517 90.54 246 8.85 6 

Thomasville No. 4 * 3377 3034 89.84 307 9.09 2539 2308 90.90 212 8.35 6 

Midway * 9897 9116 92.11 751 7.59 7497 6901 92.05 570 7.60 12 

Southmont * 3278 3053 93.14 202 6.16 2486 2313 93.04 158 6.36 6 

Yadkin College * 619 568 91.76 oh 37 5.98 454 418 92.07 27 5.95 12 

Ward No. 3 * 2954 2684 90.86 150 5.08 2358 2188 92.79 97 4.11 12 

Lexington No. 1 * 2122 2000 94.25 100 4.71 1664 1582 95.07 65 3.91 6 

Holly Grove * 3586 3425 95.51 139 3.88 2763 2606 94.32 137 4.96 6 

Tyro * 4023 3865 96.07 144 3.58 ° 3035 2906 95.75 120 3.95 12 

Boone * 3383 3236 95.65 121 3.58 2514 2404 95.62 93 3.70 12 

Arcadia * 6400 6148 96.06 184 2.88 4762 4594 96.47 124 2.60 12 

Reeds * 2353 2282 96.98 65 2.76 1848 1792 96.97 51 2.76 12 

Thomasville No. 7 * 2703 2617 96.82 74 2.74 2092 2032 97.13 51 2.44 6 

Welcome * 4723 4576 96.89 124 2.63 3596 3501 97.36 78 2.17 6 

Abbotts Creek * 6285 6117 97.33 145 2.31 4802 4683 97.52 99 2.06 12 

Hampton * 614 596 97.07 14 2.28 454 438 96.48 12 2.64 12 

Central * 1381 1347 97.54 28 2.03 1129 1106 97.96 19 1.68 é 

Lexington No. & * 2054 2007 97.71 34 1.66 1563 1531 97.95 21 1.34 12 

Lexington No. 2 * 2278 2202 96.66 34 1.49 1707 1664 97.48 19 1.11 6 

Thomasville No. 10 * 3511 3446 98.15 47 1.34 2710 2657 98.04 39 1.44 6 

Reedy Creek * 3563 3531 99.10 25 .70 2658 2636 99.17 16 .60 12 

Silver Hill * 4658 4607 98.91 29 .62 3500 3465 99.00 20 En? 6 

Thomasville No. 9 * 4841 4784 98.82 20 A 3810 3767 98.87 16 42 6 

Thomasville No. 8 * 3811 3753 98.48 13 .34 2982 2942 98.66 7 23 12 

Liberty * 3363 3345 99.46 10 .30 2451 2437 99.43 6 .24 6 

Emmons * 2467 2450 99.31 5 .20 1885 1871 99.26 5 a g 6 

Sflver Valley * ° 2579 2562 99.34 5 .19 1892 1882 99.47 3 16 6 

Alleghany * 506 506 100.00 0 0.00 400 400 100.00 0 0.00 6 

Denton * 1292 1292 100.00 0 0.00 989 989 100.00 0 0.00 6 

Healing Springs * 1644 1642 99.88 0 0.00 1289 1287 99.84 0 0.00 6 

Jackson Hill * 790 789 99.87 0 0.00 599 598 99.83 0 0.00 6 

Lexington No. 3 * 950 940 98.95 0 0.00 740 735 99.32 0 0.00 12 

Total 126677 113296 89.44 12314 9.72 96357 87041 90.33 8611 8.94 

 



  

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 

TABLE 5 (Ctd.) 

NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

TOTALPOP WHITEPOP WHTPPCT BLACKPOP BLKPPCT TOTALVAP WHITEVAP WHTVPCT BLACKVAP BLKVPCT DISTRICT 

of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

  

COUNTY PRCTNAME 

Forsyth M. L. King Recreatio 3134 19 61 3113 99.33 1972 15 76 1955 99.14 12 14th Street Recreati 2344 12 5 2328 99.32 1804 11 .61 1789 99.17 12 Mt. Sinai Church * 1711 20 1.17 1679 08.13 1160 16 1.38 1137 98.02 12 Ashléy Middle School 2045 14 .68 2002 97.90 1460 12 .82 1429 97.88 12 Happy Hill Recreatio 3386 67 1.98 3310 97.76 2411 49 2.03 2357 97.76 12 Carver High School * 4317 104 2.41 4209 97.50 3313 92 2.78 3217 97.10 12 
Kennedy Middle Schoo 3165 189 5.97 2970 93.84 2319 173 7.46 2141 92.32 12 . East Winston Library 2895 197 6.80 2686 92.78 2184 185 8.47 1990 91.12 12 Lowrance Middle Scho 3102 318 10.25 2781 89.65 2222 258 11.61 1962 88.30 12 Memorial Coliseum * 2746 583 21.23 2133 77.68 2123 525 24.73 1576 74.23 12 Winston Lake Family 3662 816 22.28 2803 76.54 2619 658 25.12 1936 73.92 12 
Forest Pk. Elementar 2968 745 25.10 2200 74.12 2144 619 28.87 1509 70.38 12 Forest Hill Fire Sta 3022 804 26.60 2192 72.53 2246 679 30.23 1551 69.06 12 
St. Andrews United M 4101 1610 39.26 2451 59.77 2975 1335 44.87 1616 54.32 12 Easton Elementary Sc 2606 1094 41.98 1496 57.41 1885 871 46.21 1003 53.21 12 Brown/Douglas Recrea 5643 2896 51.32 2658 . 47.10 4647 2653 57.09 1930 + 41.53 5 Mineral Springs F. S 3743 2030 54.23 1653 44.16 2667 1599 59.96 1028 38.55 12 Hill Middle School * 2621 1457 55.59 1134 43.27 2000 1214 60.70 mm 38.55 12 Bishop McGuinness * 2775 1571 56.61 1104 39.78 2131 1291 60.58 766 35.95 5 New Hope United Meth 4398 2758 62.71 1584 36.02 3403 2293 67.38 1073 31.53 5 Hanes Community Cent 6044 4029 66.66 1938 32.06 5473 3825 69.89 1576 28.80 5 Trinity Moravian Chu 2702 1787 66.14 858 31.75 2156 1527 70.83 588 27.27 12 Old Town Presbyteria 2860 1966 68.74 856 29.93 2247 1609 71.61 610 27.15 5 Middlefork #2 * 3449 2426 70.34 1004 29.11 2688 1961 72.95 714 26.56 5 Brunson Elementary S 2303 1630 70.78 641 27.83 1986 1448 72.91 514 25.88 5 Broadbay #2 * 4842 3671 75.82 1107 22.86 3721 2954 79.39 725 19.48 12 Middlefork #3 * 5497 4344 79.02 121 20.39 4202 3373 80.27 805 19.16 5 Latham Elementary Sc 2855 2249 78.77 566 19.82 2332 1895 81.26 406 17.41 5 Broadbay #1 * 3128 2497 79.83 618 19.76 2494 2023 81.1 462 18.52 5 South Fork Elem Scho 3995 3254 81.45 682 17.07 3108 2615 84.14 452 14.54 5 Parkland High School 2761 2218 80.33 465 16.84 2191 1802 82.25 335 15.29 5 Christ Moravian Chur 2600 2131 81.96 404 15.54 2215 1866 84.24 302 13.63 5 Bethania #3 * 3833 3285 85.70 505 13.18 3001 2624 87.44 346 11.53 5 

old Town #3 * ' 2062 1785 86.57 271 13.14 1611 1418 88.02 187 11.61 5 Greek Orthodox Churc 2130 1827 85.77 278 13.05 1739 1532 88.10 188 10.81 5 Salem Chapel #2 * 2958 2540 85.87 384 12.98 2301 1984 86.22 294 12.78 5 Country Club Fire St 3451 2871 83.19 442 12.81 2753 2324 84.42 331 12.02 5 
Covenant Presbyteria 2160 1856 85.93 273 12.64 1670 1489 89.16 163 9.76 5 Bethabara Moravian C 2444 2137 87.44 275 11.25 2152 1921 89.27 203 9.43 5 Bethania #2 * 3580 3173 88.63 383 10.70 2670 2392 89.59 261 9.78 5 
Bethania #1 * 5274 4717 89.44 538 10.20 4098 3720 90.78 362 8.83 5 

 



TABLE 5 (Ctd.) 

  

NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 

y of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

  

COUNTY PRCTNAME TOTALPOP WHITEPOP WHTPPCT BLACKPOP BLKPPCT TOTALVAP WHITEVAP WHTVPCT BLACKVAP BLKVPCT DISTRICT 

Forsyth Forsyth Tech W. Camp 3122 2765 88.57 310 9.93 2597 2346 90.34 213 8.20 5 

Parkway United Churc 2359 2095 88.81 228 9.67 1873 1690 90.23 157 8.38 5 

First Christian Chur 1897 1683 88.72 171 9.01 1669 1469 88.02 165 9.89 5 

Calvary Baptist Chur 4318 3883 89.93 386 8.94 3578 3241 90.58 296 8.27 5 

Philo Middle School 2172 1976 90.98 169 7.78 1759 1622 92.21 115 6.54 5 

Bible Wesleyan Churc 2619 2390 91.26 198 7.56 2136 1976 92.51 140 6.55 5 

. Mt. Tabor High Schoo 2242 2050 91.44 165 7.36 1783 1652 92.65 112 6.28 5 

old Town #2 * 2990 2749 91.94 215 7.19 2271 2111 92.95 144 6.34 5 

Vienna #1 * 3026 2770 91.54 211 6.97 2246 2077 92.48 144 6.41 5 

old Richmond * 4694 4364 92.97 316 6.73 3556 3322 93.42 227 6.38 5 

St. Anne's Episcopal 2371 2169 91.48 159 6.71 1876 1737 92.59 109 5.81 5 

Belews Creek * 4357 4050 92.95 287 6.59 3227 2998 92.90 215 6.66 5 

Kernersville #1 * 5482 5013 91.44 359 6.55 4234 3901 92.14 267 6.31 5 

South Fork #2 * 3534 3302 93.44 191 5.40 2766 2587 93.53 145 5.24 5 

South Fork #3 * 4543 4255 93.66 235 5.17 3585 3395 94.70 153 4.27 5 

Kernersville #3 * 5530 5196 93.96 279 5.05 3999 3772 94.32 188 4.70 5 

Vienna #2 * 3019 2861 94.77 145 4.80 2289 2186 95.50 94 4.11 5 

Kernersville #4 * 5342 5046 94.46 247 4.62 4125 3925 95.15 165 4,00 5 

Salem Chapel #1 * 3140 2987 95.13 138 4.39 2399 2296 95.71 91 3.79 5 

Clemmonsville #3 * 3066 2892 94.32 127 4.14 2178 2058 94.49 90 4.13 5 

Vienna #3 * 3405 3259 95.71 128 3.76 2525 2421 95.88 90 3.56 5 

Lewisville #3 * 2694 2570 95.40 08 3.64 1993 1907 95.68 69 3.46 5 

Ardmore Baptist Chur 1673 1572 93.96 59 3.53 1400 1316 94.00 51 3.64 5 

Lewisville #2 * 4079 3913 95.93 134 3.29 3032 2917 96.21 92 3.03 5 

Abbotts Creek #2 * 4037 3873 95.94 132 3.27 3065 2932 95.66 108 3.52 5 

Bolton Swimming Cent 2889 2748 95.12 93 3.22 2390 2295 96.03 62 2.59 5 

Abbotts Creek #3 * 3690 3569 96.72 108 2.93 2846 2766 97.19 72 2.53 5 

Lewisville #1 * 5005 4830 96.50 140 2.80 3740 3605 96.39 109 2.91 5 

Clemmonsville #2 * 3404 3286 96.53 92 2.70 2595 2514 96.88 64 2.47 5 

Reynolds High School 2095 2030 96.90 56 2.67 1688 1639 97.10 43 2:55 5 

Kernersville #2 * 5693 5520 96.96 122 2.14 4153 4039 97.25 82 1.97 5 

Miller Park Recreati 2091 2019 96.56 44 2.10 1812 1756 96.91 36 1.99 5 

Abbotts Creek #1 * 4655 4526 97.23 96 2.06 3547 3463 97.63 63 1.78 5 

Trinity United Metho 2547 2479 97.33 47 1.85 2129 2075 97.46 34 1.60 5 

Clemmonsville #1 * 2359 2296 97.33 43 1.82 1928 1880 97.51 31 1.61 5 

Polo Park Recreation 1689 1643 97.28 30 1.78 1391 1360 97.77 21 1.51 5 

Jefferson Elementary 2434 2351 96.59 36 1.48 1712 1661 97.02 26 1.52 5 

Sherwood Forest Elem 972 958 98.56 6 .62 766 755 98.56 6 .78 5 

Messiah Moravian Chu 1536 1506 98.05 6 39 1195 1175 98.33 5 42 5 

summit School * 1775 1767 99.55 1 .06 1383 377 99.57 1 .07 5 

Whitaker Elementary 2021 2010 99.46 0 0.00 1541 1532 99.42 0 0.00 5 

265878 196918 74.06 66102 24.86 205470 156596 76.21 46855 22.80 
Total 

 



  

TABLE 5 (Ctd.) 

NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 - 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data. 

of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District ob 

  

COUNTY PRCTNAME TOTALPOP WHITEPOP WHTPPCT BLACKPOP BLKPPCT TOTALVAP WHITEVAP WHTVPCY BLACKVAP BLKVPCT DISTRICT 

Granville Antioch * 1092 205 18.77 886 81.14 799 153 © 19.15 645 80.73 1 

East Oxford * 2 1220 39.09 1889 60.53 2173: .- 879 40.45 1288 59.27 1 

South Oxford * 2340 994 42.48 1336 57.09 1829 - 824 45.05 998 54.57 1 

Oak Hill * 1560 740 47.44 805 51.60 1175 560 47.66 604 51.40 1 

West Oxford Elementa 1757 907 51.62 834 47.47 1356 699 51.59 644 47.49 1 

Walnut Grove * 1715 887 51.72 811 47.29. 1286 695 54.04 577 44.87 1 

Credle * 2452 1365 55.67 1070 43.64 1900 1109 58.37 778 40.95 1 

Sassafras Fork * 2186 1285 58.78 888 40.62 1636 974 59.54 652 39.85 1 

Corinth * 2839 1717 60.48 1106." 38.96 2088 1303 62.40 mm 36.93 1 

Butner * 6321 3921 62.03 2308 36.51 5161 3290 63.75 1792 34.72 2 

Salem * 1655 1160 70.09 . 481 29.06 1235 868 71.90 335 27.13 1 

Brassfield * 4353 3289 75.56.77. 1010 23.20 3187 2406 75.49 748 23.47 2 

Creedmoor * 3708 2786 75.13 858 23.14 2873 2188 76.16 646 22.49 2 

Tally Ho * 3246 2593 79.88 627 19.32 2410 1923 79.79 468 19.42 2 
pe 

Total 38345 23069" 60.16 14909 38.88 29108 17891 61.46 . 10946 37.60 

     



  

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 
of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

TABLE 5 (Ctd.) 

NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

TOTALPOP WHITEPOP WHTPPCT BLACKPOP BLKPPCT TOTALVAP WHITEVAP WHTVPCT BLACKVAP BLKVPCT DISTRICT 

  

COUNTY PRCTNAME 

Guilford GB-29 * 3067 10 .33 3056 99.64 2393 8 .33 2384 99.62 12 

GB-07 * 2755 27 .98 2726 08.95 2060 26 1.26 2034 98.74 12 

GB-05 * 4503 35 .78 4436 98.51 4134 33 .80 4076 98.60 12 

HP-06 * 2423 34 1.40 2369 97.77 1681 22 1.31 1644 97.80 12 

GB-06 * 4363 108 2.48 4228 96.91 2977 94 3.16 2863 96.17 12 

GB-19 * 4006 178 4.44 3806 95.01 2744 144 5:25 2587 94.28 12 

GB-30 * 2940 121 4.12 2755: 93.7 2374 101 4.25 2227 93.81 12 

GB-09 * Lom er 5.45 4638 93.30 3121 217 6.95 2868 91.89 12 

GB-08 * 5186 368 7.10 4799 92.54 4026 321 1.97 3692 91.70 12 

Hp-12 * 5416 935 17.26 4424 81.68 3697 778 + 21.04 2884 78.01 12 

Hp-07 * 2740 593 21.64 2110 77.01 1891 505 26.7 1357 71.76 12 

HP-11 * 1638 351 21.43 1256 76.68 1167 308 26.39 833 71.38 12 

HpP-22 * 2837 835 29.43 1986 70.00 2046 662 32.36 1374 67.16 12 

GB-44 * 4225 1306 30.91 2877 68.09 3087 1090 35.31 1968 63.75 12 

GB-45 * 1571 487 31.00 1055 67.15 1150 381 33.13 747 64.96 12 

GB-03 * 3905 1458 37.34 2363 60.51 2953 1219 41.28 1683 56.99 12 

HP-05 * 4102 1710 41.69 2333 56.87 3353 1535 45.78 1776 52.97 12 

GB-25 * 4292 2054 47.86 2058 47.95 3292 1712 52.00 1459 44.32 12 

GB-42 * 5946 3051 51.51 2791 46.94 4494 2431 54.09 1983 44.13 12 

GB-35C * 2421 1234 50.97 1050 43.37 1710 955 55.85 681 39.82 6 

GB-04 * 2580 1446 56.05 1063 41.20 2182 1271 58.25 849 38.91 12 

North Madison * 2016 1252 62.10 734 36.41 1501 954 63.56 525 34.98 6 

GB-33 * 5732 3832 66.85 1796 31.33 4426 3010 68.01 1347 30.43 12 

GB-24A * 3192 2081 65.19 995 31.17 2528 1732 68.51 711 28.13. 12 

GB-26A * 3448 2371 68.76 992 28.77 2645 1885 71.27 699 26.43 12 

GB-268 * 2668 1835 68.78 756 28.34 2013 1462 72.63 508 25.24 12 

Hp-17 * 4m 3167 70.83 1260 28.18 3426 2578 75.25 822 23.99 6 

GB-01 * 4715 3281 69.59 1326 28.12 3724 2669 71.67 981 26.34 12 

HP-03 * 1699 1194 70.28 474 27.90 1400 1025 73.21 351 25.07 12 

GIB-G * 1961 1472 75.06 478 24.38 1454 1144 78.68 301 20.70 6 

HP-15 * 2174 1612 74.15 516 23.74 1630 1300 79.75 294 18.04 12 

GB-36 * 5607 L172 74.461 1303 23.24 3915 3026 77.29 797 20.36 12 

GB-15 * 3811 2687 70.51 858 22.51 2951 2210 74.89 579 19.62 12 

GB-23 * 5084 3672 72.23 1124 22.11 4047 3023 74.70 836 20.66 6 

GB-24B * 4654 3444 74.00 1020 21.92 3754 2874 76.56 739 19.69 12 

HP-18 * 4395 3337 75.93 957 21.77 Im 2573 82.7 473 15.20 6 

Gibsonville * 1810 1420 78.45 384 21.22 1441 1135 78.76 300 20.82 6 

GB-43 * 2666 2089 78.36 550 20.63 2162 1770 81.87 374 17.30 6 

GB-02 * 3667 2817 76.82 756 20.62 3096 2440 78.81 596 19.25 12 

HP-13 * 2565 1940 75.63 522 20.35 2036 1591 78.14 358 17.58 12 

North Sumner * 2552 2018 79.08 498 19.51 2008 1602 79.78 381 18.97 12 

 



TABLE 5 (Ctd.) 

NORTH CAROLINA NB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 
of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

COUNTY PRCTNAME TOTALPOP WHITEPOP WHTPPCT BLACKPOP BLKPPCT TOTALVAP WHITEVAP WHTVPCT BLACKVAP BLKVPCT DISTRICT 

  
3103 . 2 593 19.11 2034 83.57 15.00 Gui l ford. HP-Q9 * 

18.66 1697 79.82 19.10 North Monroe * 2915 : 544 

GB-38 * 3040 5 564 18.55 2100 79.61 18.84 

6 
6 
6 

Hp-21 * 4197 325 765 18.23 2402 81.62 16.11 6 
South Jefferson * 3618 : 639 17.66 2356 81.89 17.24 6 
GB-11 * 2015 6° 17.57 1466 80.20 17.89 6 
GB-22 * 4212 a 16.43 2809 82.28 15.67 6 
GB-378 * 3299 : 16.43 2340 83.27 15.09 6 
GB-32 * 2214 : 16.40 1391 79.67 16.67 6 
North Jefferson * 5098 . 15.20 3316 83.86 15.38 6 
GB-14 * 5417 : 15.19 4385 82.63 15.24 6 
HP-10 * 2125 : 15.06 1393 84.58 11.84 2 

3199 . 14.66 1966 83.48 15.29 é 
6 
6 
6 
6 
6 
2 
2 

HP-20 * 

GB-40A * 3604 : 14.35 2631 84.68 13.32 
GB-40B * 3120 - 14.29. 1951 83.16 14.19 
South Madison * 1742 é 13.20 1123 86.19 13.12 
South Washington * 852 3 12.79 585 87.44 11.96 
GB-10 * 2163 . 12.30 1499 85.71 11.61 

HP-02 * 1065 . 12.02 820 87.33 11.40 1 
GB-18 * 3276 11.94 2229 87.86 9.54 1 

South Monroe * 5140 : : 3449 88.73 10.39 
GB-358 * 2402 : y 1599 88.98 10.07 
Whitsett * 1721 : 3 1154 87.23 12.02 
Fentress-1 * 5276 . : 3587 89.76 9.61 
South Center Grove * 2407 . 1597 88.62 9.05 
GB-17 * 3552 2673 86.87 8.64 

6 
6 
6 
6 
6 
6 

GB-37A * 2524 ‘ . 1838 90.14 8.09 6 
Stokesdale * 2134 : 1487 90.67 7.99 é 

Jamestown-1 * 2606 : . 1mn 89.85 7.76 12 
GB-27C * 2095 . : 1486 92.41 5.85 6 
GB-418 * 2316 1568 90.58 7.57 6 
HP-08 * : 4156 3098 92.70 5.69 6 

é 
6 
6 

6 
6 
6 
é 
é 
6 

Friendship-1 * 6459 : 4739 91.29 6.55 
Oak Ridge * 2976 . 1960 92.37 6.74 
GB-28 * 2645 : : 93.67 5.60 
GB-24C * 2133 . . 90.37 6.23 
GB-35A * 2056 ] . 93.01 6.12 
Friendship-2 * 2436 . ‘ 93.67 4.96 
North Washington * 1195 94.75 
GB-41A * 1896 . 94.17 
HP-16 * 4111 . 94.76  



Sette 

  

TABLE 5 (Ctd.) 

NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 

of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

  

COUNTY PRCTNAME TOTALPOP WHITEPOP WHTPPCT BLACKPOP BLKPPCT TOTALVAP WNITEVAP WHTVPCT BLACKVAP BLKVPCT DISTRICT 

Guilford GB-34A * 1567 147 93.87 61 3.89 1159 1092 94.22 43 3.7 6 

GB-348B * 2006 1894 94.42 76 3.79 1504 1425 94.75 52 3.46 6 

Hp-19 » 1485 1420 95.62 53 3.57 1269 1228 96.77 33 2.60 12 

Bruce * 6491 6209 95.66 231 3.56 4917 4710 95.79 177 3.60 6 

. North Center Grove * 1569 1511 96.30 53 3.38 1200 1154 96.17 43 3.58 6 

HP-24 * 3363 3221 95.78 106 3.15 2525 2418 95.76 80 3.17 6 

Fentress-2 * 4472 4296 96.06 138 3.09 3599 3481 96.72 89 2.47 6 

Hp-23 * 2692 2568 95.39 ~ 80 2.97 2210 2126 96.20 57 2.58 6 

GB-278 * 1921 1831 95.31 57 2.97 1434 1373 95.75 40 2.79 6 

HP-14 * 1323 1232 93.12 39 2.95 997 934 03.68 30 3.01 6 

Greene * 2420 2338 96.61 64 2.64 1837 1773 96.52 49 2.67 6 

South Sumner * 5950 5747 96.59 152 2.55 4618 4458 96.54 118 2.56 6 

GB-39 * 3279 3157 96.28 82 2.50 2654 2566 96.68 56 2.11 6 

Deep River * 4680 4531 96.82 116 2.48 3559 3433 96.46 106 2.98 6 

GB-13 * 2533 2452 96.80 58 2.29 . 2163 2097 96.95 47 2.17 6 

Clay * 6017 5835 96.98 124 2.06: 4568 4442 97.24 84 1.84 6 

GB-12 * ; 2897 2835 97.86 50 1.73 2287 2229 97.46 46 2.01 6 

GB-16 * 3163 3075 97.22 53 1.68 2622 2555 97.44 44 1.68 6 

Jamestown-2 * 4000 3901 97.53 61 1.53 3142 3073 97.80 44 1.40 12 

GB-20 * 2847 2781 97.68 43 1.51 2279 2232 97.94 29 1.27 6 

GB-27A * 2015 1967 97.62 21 1.04 1534 1502 97.91 16 1.04 6 

HP-04 * 2759 2722 98.66 27 .98 2128 2104 98.87 17 .80 6 

HWp-01 * 1550 1521 98.13 15 97 1253 1233 98.40 13 1.04 12 

GB-31 * 2352 2309 98.17 21 .89 1983 1949 98.29 19 © .96 6 

GB-21 * : 3059 3017 98.63 25 .82 2443 2412 98.73 19 .78 6 

Jamestown-3 * 3726 3642 97.75 30 .81 2978 2920 98.05 20 67 6 

Total 347420 249584 71.84 91655 26.38 269704 199205 73.86 66194 24.54 

 



  

TABLE 5 (Ctd.) 

NORTH CAROLINA NHB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 

of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

TOTALPOP WHITEPOP WHYPPCT BLACKPOP BLKPPCT TOTALVAP WHITEVAP WHTVPCT BLACKVAP BLKVPCT DISTRICT 

  

Statesville #3 * 

Statesville #6 * 
Coddle Creek #2 * 
Cool’ Springs * 
Turnersburg * 

Statesville #2 * 
Statesville #5 * 
Statesville #4 * 

Chambersburg * 

Coddle Creek #1 * 

Statesville #1 * 
Coddle Creek #3 * 

Eagle Mills * 

Sharpesburg * 
Coddle Creek #4 * 

Union Grove * 

1814 
1909 
2477 
1393 
1853 
3116 
3052 

2979 
3079 
2943 
1343 
1817 
3154 
3000 
2924 
4056 
5943 
2593 
3063 
3275 
3007 
1237 
3282 
3856 
4589 
1583 
3187 
6397 
1246 
1031 
212 

70496 

1405 
1514 

47.16 
49.17 

1550 
1547 
966 
283 
377 
486 
462 
404 

10006 

52.03 
50.24 
32.82 
21.07 
20.75 
15.41 
15.40 
13.82 
13.98 
12.89 
13.04 
11.26 
9.34 
9.88 
9.78 
6.86 
7.21 
6.60 
3.79 
3.14 
2.41 
2.97 
2.23 
1.21 

14.19 

 



  

TABLE 5 (Ctd.) 

NORTH CAROLINA IIB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 
pure 

iol Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 
of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

TOTALPOP WHITEPOP WHTPPCT BLACKPOP BLKPPCT TOTALVAP WHITEVAP WHTVPCT BLACKVAP BLKVPCT DISTRICT 

  

COUNTY PRCTNAME 

Jones Trenton * 1897 815 42.96 1079 56.88 1358 617 45.43 738 54.34 1 

White Oak * 1950 1058 54.26 880 45.13 1380 789 57.17 580 42.03 1 

Pollocksville * 2406 13567. 56.82 1024 42.56 1790 1044 58.32 735 41.06 1 

Beaver Creek * 739 499 67.52 235 31.80 552 375 67.93 175 31.70 = 1 

Tuckahoe * 861 642 74.56 216 25.09 632 478 75.63 151 23.89 3 

Chinquapin * 666 528 79.28 135 20.27 527 415 78.75 110 20.87 1 

Cypress Creek * 895 778 86.93 108 12.07 672 582 86.61 85 12.65 1 

9414 5687 60.41 3677 39.06 6911 4300 62.21 2574 37.24 
Total 

 



  

TABLE 5 (Ctd.) 

NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 

of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 
dl 

rr 

TOTALPOP WHITEPOP WHTPPCT BLACKPOP BLKPPCT TOTALVAP WHITEVAP WHTVPCT  BLACKVAP BLKVPCT™ DISTRICT 

  

COUNTY PRCTNAME 

Lenoir Kinston #8 * 3325 3 .09 3319 09.82 2390 1 04 2387 99.87 1 

Kinston #1 * 2756 43 1.56 2711 98.37 1696 43 2.54 1652 97.41 1 

Kinston #2 * 2841 223 7.85 2614 92.01 2037 221 10.85 1813 89.00 1 

Kinston #6 * 3589 659 18.36 2915 81.22 2401 573 23.87 1818 75.72 1 

Kinston #7 * 2674 886 33.13 1779 66.53 1962 736 37.51 1221 62.23 1 

Moseley Hall * 4928 2570 52.15 2297 46.61 3573 1962 54.91 1570 43.94 1 

Contentnea * 2857 1634 57.19 1215 42.53 2107 1269 60.23 831 39.44 1 

Vance * 3534 2193 62.05 1328 37.58 2548 1691 66.37 849 33.32 1 

Institute * 1350 1027 76.07 319 23.63 970 763 78.66 205 21.13 1 

Kinston #3 * 2137 1685 78.85 431 20.17 1746 1439 82.42 288 16.49 3 

Kinston #5 * 2051 1655 80.69 391 19.06 1768 1461 82.64 302 17.08 3 

Neuse * 5565 4524 81.29 1006 18.08 4115 3418 83.06 673 16.35 3 

Pink Hill #2 * 1434 1215 84.73 214 14.92 1051 914 86.96 134 12.75 3 

Kinston #9 * 2221 1846 83.12 331 14.90 1690 1431 84.67 234 13.85 1 

Sandhill * 941 803 85.33 131 13.92 702 593 84.47 103 14.67 1 

Southwest * 1521 1328 87.31 188 12.36 1147 1006 87.71 138 12.03 3 

Pink Hill #1 767 629 82.01 84 10.95. 596 493 82.72 62 10,40: 3 

Falling Creek * 5265 4685 88.98 559 10.62 3879 3520 90.75 343 8.84 3 

Kinston #4 * 4018 3556 88.50 405 10.08 3338 2925 87.63 369 11.05 3 

Woodl ington * 1439 1300 90.34 134 9.31 1111 1012 91.09 94 8.46 3 

Trent #1 * 1278 1140 89.20 114 8.92 957 867 90.60 72 7.52 3 

Trent #2 * 783 718 91.70 54 6.90 605 562 92.89 36 5.95 3 

57274 34322 59.92 22539 39.35 42389 26900 63.46 15194 35.84 
Total 

 



  

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 

TABLE 5 (Ctd.) 

NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

BLACKPOP BLKPPCT TOTALVAP WHITEVAP WHTVPCT BLACKVAP BLKVPCT DISTRICT 

  

COUNTY PRCTNAME TOTALPOP WHITEPOP WHTPPCT 

Mecklenburg Charlotte Pct. 54 * 2049 8 .39 2037 99.41 1529 3 .20 1523 99.61 12 
Charlotte Pct. 55 * 2674 9 34 2657 99.36 2073 7 34 2061 99.42 12 
Charlotte Pct. 25 * 3416 15 4d 3393 99.33 2595 12 46 e577 99.31 12 
Charlotte Pct. 56 * 5848 54 972 5772 98.70 3888 46 1.18 3831 98.53 12 
Charlotte Pct. 16 * 2522 32 1:27 2485 98.53 = 1873 24 1.28 1846 98.56 12 
Charlotte Pct. 16 * (Pt) 1009 5 .50 993 98.41 719 2 .28 [ak 98.89 12 
Charlotte Pct. 12 * 5123 89 1.74 5023 98.05 3828 74 1.93 3745 97.83 12 
Charlotte Pct. 31 * 4789 129 2.69 4633 96.74 3112 115 3.70 2981 95.79 12 
Charlotte Pct, 22 * 4443 174 31.92 4255 95.77 3057 167 5.46 2882 94.28 12 
Charlotte Pct. 52 * 4296 166 3.86 4109 95.65 3212 135 4.20 3063 95.36 12 
Charlotte Pct. 42 * 4732 349 7.38 4355 92.03 3358 305 9.08 3035 90.38 12 
Charlotte Pct. 13 * 3511 235 6.69 3169 90.26 2213 223 10.08 1932 87.30 12 
Charlotte Pct. 14 * L648 321 6.91 4061 87.37 3194 268 8.39 2773 86.82 12 
Charlotte Pct. 77 * (Pt) 3460 439 12.69 2987 86.33 2308 350 15.16 1928 83.54 12 

Charlotte Pct. 39 * 5468 786 14.37 4496 82.22 3431 564 16.44 2753 80.24 12 

Charlotte Pct. 27 * 5261 932 17.72 4231 80.42. 3708 761 20.52 2874 77.51 12 
Charlotte Pct. 60 3226 712 22.07 2446 75.82 2266 595 26.26 1624 71.67 12 
Charlotte Pct. 17 * 3801 970 25.52 2763 72.69 2667 830 31.12 1797 67.38 12 
Charlotte Pct. 82 * 6053 1647 27.21 4263 70.43 4568 1440 31.592 3013 65.96 12 
Charlotte Pct. 41 * 3875 1239 31.97 2517 64.95 2672 915 34.24 1681 62.91 12 
Lc2 3357 1252 37.30 2098 62.50 2522 083 38.98 1534 60.82 12 
Charlotte Pct. 104 * 4877 1666 34.16 3042 62.37 3433 1387 40.40 1932 56.28 12 
Charlotte Pct. 11 * 3999 1502 37.56 2443 61.09 3363 1436 42.70 1890 56.20 12 

Charlotte Pct. 24 * 3854 1544 40.06 2272 58.95 2811 1234 43.90 1552 55.21 12 

Charlotte Pct. 23 * 3705 1659 44.78 1980 53.44 2606 1326 50.88 1237 47.47 12 

Charlotte Pct. 3 4613 2018 43.75 2393 51.88 3284 1596 48.60 1555 47.35 12 

Charlotte Pct. 26 * 4281 2047 47.82 2177 50.85 3010 1623 53.92 1352 44.92 12 

Charlotte Pct. 78 * 5335 2534 47.50 2682 50.27 3731 1976 52.96 1680 45.03 12 

Charlotte Pct. 98 * 5384 2756 51.19 2421 44.97 4094 2287 55.86 1669 40.77 12 
Charlotte Pct. 40 * L679 2579 55.12 2010 42.96 3346 2022 60.43 1259 37.63 12 

Charlotte Pct. 28 * 3848 2262 58.78 1431 37.19 2956 1859 62.89 989 33.46 12 

Charlotte Pct. 30 * 2453 1460 59.52 869 35.43 1881 1195 63.53 613 32.59 12 

XMC1 924 599 64.83 324 35.06 684 453 66.23 230 33.63 12 

Charlotte Pct. 46 * 4666 2850 61.08 1608 34.46 3674 2383 64.86 1135 30.89 12 

Charlotte Pct. 43 * 4062 2680 65.98 1228 30.23 3054 2140 70.07 802 26.26 12 

Charlotte Pct. 53 * 4582 3036 66.26 1358 29.64 3568 2507 70.26 929 26.04 12 

Charlotte Pct. 97 * 5917 4066 68.72 1664 28.12 4651 3436 73.88 1080 23.22 12 

Charlotte Pct. 35 * 1901 1461 76.85 424 22.30 151 1212 80.21 287 18.99 9 

Charlotte Pct. 29 * 3615 2675 74.00 781 21.60 2825 2173 76.92 538 19.04 12 

Charlotte Pct. 2 * 5898 4520 76.64 1213 20.57 5118 4062 79.37 934 18.25 12 

Charlotte Pct. 15 * 3816 2947 77.23 743 19.47 3085 2489 80.68 506 16.40 12 

 



  

TABLE 5 (Ctd.) 

NORTH CAROLINA 1B 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 
of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

  

COUNTY PRCTNAME TOTALPOP WHITEPOP WHTPPCT BLACKPOP BLKPPCT TOTALVAP WHITEVAP WHTVPCT BLACKVAP BLKVPCT DISTRICT 

Mecklenburg Charlotte Pct. 84 * 7719 5938 76.93 1487 19.26 6071 4839 79.71 1024 16.87 9 
Charlotte Pct. 81 * 4372 © 3478 79.55 831 19.01 3329 2756 82.79 526 15.80 12 
Charlotte Pct. 95 * 7442 5837 78.43 1400 18.81 5576 4506 80.81 927 16.62 9 
Charlotte Pct. 62 * 4277 3266 76.36 799 18.68 3264 2566 78.62 550 16.85 9 

’ Charlotte Pct. 5 * 2645 2070 78.26 488 18.45 2294 1823 79.47 404 17.61 9 
Charlotte Pct. 9 * 3241 2558 78.93 559 17.25 2878 2244 77.97 521 18.10 12 
Charlotte Pct. 6 * 4522 3560 78.73 775 17.14 3609 2923 80.99 549 15.21 9 
COR * 3706 3041 82.06 626 16.89 2743 2279 83.08 441 16.08 12 
Charlotte Pct. 7 * 2460 1991 80.93 414 16.83 2088 1729 82.81 318 15.23 9 
Charlotte Pct, 63 * 5113 4100 80.19 843 16.49 3933 3240 82.38 575 14.62 9 
Charlotte Pct. 45 * 3673 2871 78.16 589 16.04 2922 2346 80.29 432 14.78 9 
DAV * 4280 3529 82.45 669 15.63 3675 3099 84.33 510 13.88 12 
Charlotte Pct. 64 * 7206 5880 81.60 1076 14.93 5978 4995 . 83.56 790 13.22 9 
HUN * 5069 4305 84.93 725 14.30 3872 3316 85.64 524 13.53 12 
Charlotte Pct. 80 * 4007 3350 83.60 568 14.18 2958 2512 84.92 384 12.98 9 
MC2 4702 3902 82.99 664 14.12 3576 3006 84.06 475 13.28 12 
Charlotte Pct. 61 * L067 3386 83.26 573 14.09 3227 2759 85.50 398 12.33 12 
MC1 6429 5344 83.12 905 14.08 4805 4055 84.39 626 13.03 12 
co2 * 10599 8831 83.32 1463 13.80 8896 7481 84.09 1176 13.22 12 
Charlotte Pct. 105 * 5093 4146 81.41 672 13.19 3913 3271 83.59 447 11.42 12 
Charlotte Pct. 4 4056 3438 84.76 533 13.14 3129 2704 86.42 366 11.70 9 
CCK.» 2241 1906 85.05 286 12.76 1675 1442 86.09 199 11.88 9 
Charlotte Pct. 44 * 2155 1832 85.01 270 12.53 1707 1502 87.99 164 9.61 12 
LC1 - South 843 732 86.83 103 12.22 682 591 86.66 86 12.61 12 
Charlotte Pct. 79 * 2836 2449 86.35 339 11.95 2188 1931 88.25 228 10.42 9 
BER * 2299 2017 87.73 27 11.79 1803 1584 87.85 211 11.70 9 
Charlotte Pct. 59 * 2606 2153 82.62 307 11.78 1969 1677 85.17 196 9.95 9 
Charlotte Pct. 102 * 3572 3031 84.85 412 11.53 2562 2202 85.95 268 10.46 9 
PC2 * 2546 2230 87.59 293 11.51 1936 1706 88.12 214 11.05 9 
Charlotte Pct. 50 * 3373 2759 81.80 388 11.50 2747 2304 83.87 272 9.90 9 
Charlotte Pct. 38 * 3457 2936 84.93 397 11.48 2974 2576 86.62 299 10.05 9 
Charlotte Pct. 33 * 3931 3320 84.46 439 1.17 3234 2767 85.56 335 10.36 9 
SC1 5405 4645 85.94 592 10.95 3925 3462 88.20 362 9.22 9 
Charlotte Pct. 34 * 3662 3163 86.37 401 10.95 3068 2725 88.82 270 8.80 9 
Charlotte Pct. 21 * 3139 2683 85.47 330 10.51 e577 2282 88.55 202 7.84 9 
col * 1054 940 89.18 104 9.87 805 720 89.44 77 9.57 9 
Charlotte Pct. 94 * 5124 447 87.26 504 9.84 3655 3231 88.40 330 9.03 9 
Charlotte Pct. 51 * 3420 2936 85.85 319 9.33 2894 2554 88.25 223 7.7 9 
Charlotte Pct. 58 * 2032 1723 84.79 188 9.25 1515 1334 88.05 93 6.14 9 
Charlotte Pct. 83 * 4282 3821 89.23 373 8.71 3298 2969 90.02 260 7.88 9 
LC1 - North 4219 3803 90.14 337 7.99 3135 2830 90.27 256 8.17 9 

 



  

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 

TABLE 5 (Ctd.) 

NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

BLACKPOP BLKPPCT TOTALVAP WHITEVAP WHTVPCT BLACKVAP BLKVPCT DISTRICT 

  

COUNTY PRCTNAME TOTALPOP WHITEPOP WHTPPCT 

Mecklenburg Charlotte Pct. 87 * 4862 4400 90.50 349 7.18 3510 3206 91.34 227 6.47 9 

Charlotte Pct. 10 * 2248 2006 89.23 155 6.90 1808 1647 91.10 98 5.42 9 
Charlotte Pct. 85 * 3555 3209 90.27 244 6.86 2513 2291 91.17 154 6.13 9 

PRT °° 400 370 92.50 27 6.75 289 265 91.70 23 7.96 9 

MAY * 3784 3520 93.02 201 5.31 2521 2331 92.46 151 5.99 9 

MH2 * 5699 5360 94.05 277 4.86 4190 3965 94.63 174 4.15 9 

PVL * 6006 5655 94.16 280 4.66 4887 4612 94.37 218 4.46 9 

Charlotte Pct. 70 * 3933 3699 94.05 183 4.65 2977 2847 95.63 95 3.19 9 

Charlotte Pct. 100 * 4732 4429 93.60 215 4.54 3220 3051 94.75 116 3.60 9 

Charlotte Pct. 96 * 3190 2943 92.26 142 4.45 2338 2166 92.64 100 4.28 9 

Charlotte Pct. 88 * 3363 3085 91.73 145 4.31 2381 2183 91.68 103 4.33 9 

Charlotte Pct. 49 * 2463 2335 94.80 102 4.14 2172 2061 94.89 89 4.10 9 

Charlotte Pct. 73 * 4673 4397 94.09 188 4.02 3754 3586 95.52 103 2.74 9 

Charlotte Pct. 68 * 5823 5357 92.00 227 3.90 4279 3975 92.90 155 3.62 9 

Charlotte Pct. 92 * 5894 5532 93.86 220 3: 4380 4120 94.06 160 3.65 9 

PR3 2865 2688 93.82 103 3.60 2049 1942 94.78 61 2.98 9 

sc2 3664 3502 95.58 130 3.55 2881 2762 95.87 08 3.40 9 

Charlotte Pct. 93 * 3470 3186 91.82 117 3.37 2507 2332 93.02 66 2.63 9 

MA2 * 2563 2453 95.71 79 3.08 1875 1812 96.64 43 2.29 9 

OAK 2537 2444 96.33 75 2.96 1984 1915 96.52 58 2.92 9 

PC1 * 2617 2319 95.95 70 2.90 1851 1781 96.22 55 2.97 9 

Charlotte Pct. 66 * 1899 1808 95.21 53 2.79 1540 1474 95.7 37 2.40 9 

LEM * : 5597 5383 96.18 152 2.72 4449 4286 96.34 123 2.76 9 

PR2 3571 3415 95.63 96 2.69 2359 2249 95.34 70 2.97 9 

MAS * 5550 5301 95.51 147 2.65 4019 3862 96.09 97 2.41 9 

Charlotte Pct. 65 * 4574 4294 93.88 121 2.65 3347 3164 94.53 78 2.33 9 

Charlotte Pct. 69 * 2439 2321 95.16 62 2.54 1814 1739 95.87 42 2.32 9 

MH1 * 6374 6092 95.58 159 2.49 4685 4485 95.73 118 2.52 9 

Charlotte Pct. 8 * 2940 2841 96.63 72 2.45 2512 2437 97.01 51 2.03 9 

Charlotte Pct. 36 * 3207 3051 95.14 75 2.34 2650 2538 95.77 62 2.34 9 

Charlotte Pct. 90 * 5819 5581 95.91 130 2.23 4357 4201 96.42 82 1.88 9 

Charlotte Pct. 1 * 1758 1716 97.61 39 2.22 1526 1488 97.51 35 2.29 9 

MA4 * 2817 2734 97.05 59 2.09 2008 1952 97.21 37 1.84 9 

Charlotte Pct. 37 * 2620 2479 94.62, 52 1.98 2134 2035 95.36 32 1.50 9 

Charlotte Pct. 91 3982 3841 96.46 79 1.98 2653 2571 96.91 49 1.85 9 

Charlotte Pct. 76 * 4379 4199 95.89 86 1.96 3441 3329 96.75 47 1.37 9 

Charlotte Pct. 57 * 2286 2224 97.29 44 1.92 1894 1845 97.41 36 1.90 9 

Charlotte Pct. 67 * 1879 1828 97.29 36 1.92 1543 1508 97.73 26 1.69 9 

Charlotte Pct. 47 * 2039 2000 98.09 3 1.52 1698 1665 98.06 28 1.65 9 

XPR1 801 785 98.00 12 1.50 656 643 98.02 10 1.92 9 

Charlotte Pct. 71 * 2318 2232 96.29 33 1.42 1753 1697 96.81 24 1.37 9 

 



  

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 

TABLE 5 (Ctd.) 

NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

TOTALPOP WHITEPOP WHTPPCT BLACKPOP BLKPPCT TOTALVAP WHITEVAP WHTVPCT BLACKVAP BLKVPCT DISTRICT 

  

COUNTY PRCTNAME 

Mecklenburg Charlotte Pct. 72 * 3896 3746 96.15 48 1.23 3027 2925 96.63 39 1.29 9 

Charlotte Pct. 74 * 2720 2666 98.01 31 1.14 2231 2187 98.03 26 1.17 9 

Charlotte Pct. 86 * 3452 3311 95.92 37 1.07 2444 2357 96.44 23 .94 9 

Charlotte Pct. 89 * 3773 3691 97.83 38 1.01 3044 2990 98.23 27 .89 9 

Charlotte Pct. 75 * 3356 3247 96.75 33 .98 2692 2618 97.25 24 .89 9 

Charlotte Pct. 48 * 2092 2050 97.99 18 .86 1657 1628 98.25 1" 66 9 

MH3 * 6148 6047 98.34 50 .81 4442 4363 98.22 40 .90 9 

Charlotte Pct. 20 * 2124 2096 08.68 1 52 1752 1732 98.86 9 51 9 

Charlotte Pct, 32 * 2249 2234 99.33 9 40 1722 1710 99.30 9 52 9 

Charlotte Pct. 18 * 1851 1843 99.57 4 .22 1435 1430 99.65 3 21 9 

Charlotte Pct. 19 * 1937 1910 98.61 4 ok 1567 1547 98.72 4 .26 9 

Charlotte Pct. 77 * (Pt) 1 1 100.00 0 0.00 1 1 100.00 0 0.00 9 

XMC2 Noncont iguous 0 0 y 0 4 0 0 . 0 b 12 

511433 364651 71.30 134468 26.29 387981 286959 73.96 92487 23.84 
Sum 

 



  

TABLE 5 (Ctd.) 

NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF .1997 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 

of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

TOTALPOP WHITEPOP WHTPPCT BLACKPOP BLKPPCT TOTALVAP WHITEVAP WHTVPCT  BLACKVAP BLKVPCT DISTRICT 

  

COUNTY PRCTNAME 

Person Roxboro #1 3073 1488 48.42 1562 50.83 2324 1153 49.61 1155 49.70 1 

Woodsdale 1186 613 51.69 533 44.94 914 484 52.95 400 43.76 1 

Roxboro #3 3636 2130 58.58 1466 40.32 2662 1716 64.46 9216 34.41 1 

Roxboro #4 2103 1319 62.72 780 37.09 1624 1062 65.39 559 34.42 1 

. Allensville 2099 1316 62.70 778 37.07; 1548 986 63.70 559 36.11 1 

Cunningham/Chub Lake 2114 1480 70.01 620 29.33 1596 1126 70.55 462 28.95 1 

Bushy Fork 1186 851 71.75 311.2 26.22 885 635 71.75 236 26.67 4 

Hurdle Mills [aR 521 73.28 184 25.88 538 394 73.23 138 25.65 4 

Roxboro #1A 2622 1937 73.87 670 25.55 2026 1521 75.07 494 24.38 1 

Hol l oway 1099 776 70.61 243 22.11 847 607 71.66 173 20.43 1 

Roxboro #2 3069 2377 77.45 655 21.34 2457 1942 79.04 489 19.90 1 

Mt. Tirzah 2200 1727 78.50 457 20.77 1629 1319 80.97 300 18.42 a 

Olive Hill 1999 1590 79.54 396 19.81 1439 1141 79.29 287 19.94 Q 

Flat River 3083 .-"2615 84.82 451 14.63 2272 1948 85.74 309 13.60 4 

Total 30180 20740 68.72 9106 30.17 22761 16034 70.45 6477 28.46 

Lr 

 



UY ' 

  

TABLE 5 (Ctd.) 

NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

  

Facial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data s of ' 

of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

  

    

COUNTY PRCTNAME TOTALPOP WHITEPOP WHTPPCT BLACKPOP BLKPPCT TOTALVAP WHITEVAP WHTVPCT BLACKVAP BLKVPCT DISTRICT 

Pitt Greenville #1 * 3500 526 15.03 2909 83.11 2262 426 18.83 1792 79.22 1 

Greenville #3 * 3276 581 17.74 2657 81.11 2396 551 23.00 1813 75.67 1 

Greenville #2 3158 815 25.81 2302 72.89 2411 740 30.69 1642 68.10 1 

Greenville #4 * 1819 627 34.47 1169 64.27 1303 417 36.61 812 62.32 1 

. Bethel * 3162 1246 39.41 1903 60.18 2245 950 42.32 1285 57.24 1 

Greenville #5 * 6003 2894 48.21 3018 50.27 4523 2505 55.38 1950 43.11 1 

Greenville #13 * 1017 506 49.75 502 49.36 706 376 53.26 323 45.75 1 

Farmville West * 3371 1720 51.02 1643 48.74 2527 1340 53.03 1180 46.70 3 

Greenville #6 * 2628 1325 50.42 1267 48,21 2083 1204 57.80 849 40.76 1 

Ayden East * 5624 2922 51.96 2660 47.30 4013 2257 56.24 1722 42.91 1 

Belvoir * 5125 2758 53.81 2329 45,44 3451 2013 58.33 1414 40.97 1 

Farmville East * 3150 1872 59.43 1254 39.81 2333 1500 64.29 818 35.06 3 

Grimesland * 1528 956 62.57 570 37.30 1129 749 66.34 379 33.57 1 

Fountain * 1300 806 62.00 481 37.00 978 635 64.93 334 34.15 1 

Carolina * 1747 1105 63.25 628 35.95 1275 842 66.04 422 33.10 1 

Arthur * 3848 2495 64.84 1327 34.49. 2719 1841 67.71 860 31.63 3 

Pactolus * 4326 2939 67.94 1339 30.95 3079 2236 72.62 804 26.11 1 

Falkland * 1314 = 887 67.50 406 30.90 1002 688 68.66 302 30.14 1 

Grifton * 4057 2783 68.60 1233 30.39 3007 2184 72.63 791 26.31 1 

Simpson * 4499 3424 76.11 1031 22.92 3292 2570 78.07 690 20.96 3 

Winterville East * 8529 6584 77.20 1878 22.02 6022 L676 77.65 1303 21.64 3 

Swift Creek * 1252 1044 83.39 199 15.89 950 802 84.42 142 14.95 3 

Chicod * ; 3680 3071 83.45 568 15.43 2729 2331 85.42 372 13.63 3 

Winterville West * 1094 930 85.01 149 13.62 803 693 86.30 101 12.58 3 

Greenville #7 * 8944 7712 86.23 1045 11.91 8308 7200 86.66 = 961 11.57 3 

Greenville #9 * 3824 3317 86.74 450 19:77 3210 2803 87.32 362 11.28 3 

Ayden West * 1053 911 86.51 121 11.49 779 686 88.06 85 10.91 3 

Greenville #11 * 2930 2650 90.44 192 6.55 2267 2071 91.35 129 5.69 3 

Greenville #8 * 4872 4479 91.93 309 6.34 4504 4180 92.81 252 5.60 3 

Greenville #12 * 2775 2546 91.75 160 5.77 2031 1872 92.17 113 5.56 3 

Greenville #10 * 4519 4212 93.21 202 4.47 3483 3272 93.94 142 4.08 3 

Greenville #2 Noncon 0 0 4 "0 : 0 0 . 0 : 1 

Total,” ‘ 107924 70643 66.46 35921 33.28 81820 56670 69.26 24144 29.51 

 



TABLE 5 (Ctd.) 

  

  

  

NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 7) 
’ 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 

of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District rf 

COUNTY PRCTNAME TOTALPOP WHITEPOP WHTPPCT BLACKPOP BLKPPCT TOTALVAP WHITEVAP WHTVPCT BLACKVAP BLKVPCT: DISTRICT 

Robeson Lumberton #6 * 2857 78 2.73 2565 89.78 16564 48 2.90 1508 91.17 7 

Lumberton #5 * 3168 931 29.39 1726 54.48 2341 731 31.23 . 1231 52.58 7 

Red Springs #1 * 3725 9217 24.62 1988 53.37 2465 733 29.74 1236 50.14 8 

Fairmont #2 * 1417 398 28.09 692 48.84 1035 322 31.1 478 46.18 7 

Rowland * 2755 674 24.46 1327 48.17 1929 568 29.45 886 45.93 4 

Lumber Bridge * 1513 475 31.39 716 47.32 1009 350 34.69 459 45.49 8 

: Whitehouse * 1170 564 48.21 542 46.32 833 431 51.74 362 43.46 7 

Fairmont #1 * 4703 1603 34.08 21M 46.16 3156 1252 39.67 1326 42.02 7 

Maxton * 5621 1010 17.97 2556 45.47 3646 789 21.64 1590 43.61 8 

North St. Pauls * 3359 1834 54.60 1332 39.65 2410 1404 58.26 873 36.22 8 

orrum * 1494 862 57.70 544 36.41 1107 677 61.16 374 33.79 7 

Red Springs #2 * 1728 906 52.43 621 35.94 1309 757 57.83 426 32.54 8 

Parkton * 2189 1340 61.22 707 32.30 1585 1040 65.62 469 29.59 8 

Lumberton #2 * 4895 2883 58.90 1473 30.09 3600 2262 62.83 977 27.14 7 

Shannon * ; 647 94 14.53 189 29.21 612 62 15.05 130 31.55 7 

Back Swamp * 3798 400 10.53 1018 26.80 2528 330 13.05 649 25.67 7 

West Howellsville * 1302 575 44.16 341 26.19 925 440 47.57 234 25.30 7 

Gaddys * 971 191 19.67 250 25.75" 666 157 23.57 156 23.42 7 

Sterlings * 1277 921 72.12 297 23.26 979 754 77.02 188 19.20 7 

South St. Pauls * 2926 1904 65.07 650 22.21 2079 1437 69.12 401 19.29 8 

Union * 1944 208 10.70 379 19.50 1301 168 12.91 261 20.06 7 

Lumberton #4 * 3411 2230 65.38 560 16.42 2397 1697 70.80 315 13.14 7 

Lumberton #3 * 2406 1863 77.43 373 15.50 1817 1477 81.29 220 212. 11 7 

Alfordsville * 1650 199 12.06 237 14.36 1087 160 14.72 165 15.18 7 

Thompson * 1073 214 19.94 154 14.35 748 163 21.79 93 12.43 7 

Lumberton #7 * 1641 393 23.95 218 13.28 1074 292 27.19 113 10.52 7 

Philadelphus * 1554 264 16.99 187 12.03 1053 199 18.90 131 12.44 4 

Raft Swamp * 2669 488 18.28 317 11.88 1864 397 21.30 259 13.89 7 

East Howellsville * 1564 1228 78.52 182 11.64 1142 925 81.00 118 10.33 7 

Rennert * 1923 142 7.38 222 11.54 1221 112 0.17 143 1n.n 8 

Smyrna * 1074 495 46.09 120 11. 769 375 48.76 89 11.57 7 

Britts * 1757 130M 79.17 139 7.91 1271 1048 82.45 75 5.90 7 

Lumberton #8 * 3851 2857 74.19 272 7.06 2936 2294 78.13 175 5.96 7 

Burnt Swamp * 2644 101 3.82 154 5.82 1755 79 4.50 94 5.36 7 

~Wishart * 3687 2429 65.88 202 5.48 2561 1768 69.04 124 4.84 7 

Saddletree * : 2749 415 15.10 140 5.09 1806 295 16.33 87 4.82 7 

North Pembroke * 4213 638 15.14 195 4.63 3005 581 19.33 167 5.56 7 

Smiths * 4463 216 4.84 204 4.57 2891 170 5.88 136 4.70 7 

South Pembroke * 5393 421 7.81 134 2.43 3594 337 9.38 88. 2.45 7 

Lumberton #1 * 3998 3234 80.89 94 2.35 2943 2437 82.81 64 2.17 7 

Total 105179 37986 36.12 26185 264.90 72903 29518 40.49 16870 23.14 

 



  

TABLE 5 (Ctd.) 

NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 

of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

  

COUNTY PRCTNAME TOTALPOP WHITEPOP WHTPPCT BLACKPOP BLKPPCT TOTALVAP WHITEVAP WHTVPCT BLACKVAP BLKVPCT DISTRICT 

Rowan West Ward 111 * 2296 15 .65 2278 99.22 1738 1" .63 1726 99.31 12 

Trading Ford Noncont 26 1 3.85 25 96.15 13 1 7.69 12 92.31 6 

East Spencer * 2056 317 15.42 1735 84.39 1412 259 18.34 1152 81.59 12 

East Ward Il * 1089 292 26.81 796 73.09 824 251 30.46 572 69.42 12 

Blackwelder Park * 2448 1435 58.62 1001 40.89 1736 1107 63.77 624 35.94 6 

South Ward * 3659 2138 58.43 1489 40.69 2745 1787 65.10 037 34.13 12 

: East Ward 1 * 2673 1673 62.59 978 36.59 2074 1398 67.41 659 31.77 12 

West Ward 1 * 1964 1222 62.22 702 35.74 1571 1051 66.90 496 31.57 12 

North Ward 1 * 1750 1199 68.51 529 30.23 1473, 1065 72.30 393 26.68 12 

Faith Noncontiguous 67 38 56.72 20 29.85 55 32 58.18 17 30.91 6 

Scotch Irish * 1347 1004 74.54 343 25.46 997 750 75.23 247 24.77 12 

Cleveland * 1955 1461 74.73 485 24.81 1449 1097 5.7 348 24.02 12 

Spencer * 3546 2704 76.25 815 22.98 2708 2211 81.65 483 17.84 12 

Unity 1756 1381 78.64 358 20.39 1309 1038 79.30 263 20.09 12 

Milford Hills * 4680 In 80.58 835 17.84 3667 3083 84.07 527 14.37 6 

Franklin * 4589 3808 82.98 725 15.80 3545 2977 83.98 529 14.92 12 

Trading Ford 1845 1543 83.63 290 15.72; 1478 1226 82.95 244 16.51 6 

West Ward 11 * 2766 2328 84.16 412 14.90 2192 1894 86.41 282 12.86 6 

S. China Grove * 2362 2006 84.93 332 14.06 1791 1565 87.38 208 11.61 6 

Sumner * 4370 3705 84.78 609 13.94 3514 2930 83.38 542 15.42 6 

West Innes * 2598 2237 86.10 331 12.74 2255 1952 86.56 281 12.46 12 

North Ward Il * 1828 1581 86.49 230 12.58 1453 1309 90.09 132 9.08 12 

West Landis * 3386 3019 89.16 330 9.75 2680 2404 89.70 252 9.40 6 

Mt. Ulla * 1116 1013 90.77 103 9.23 824 755 91.63 69 8.37 6 

Hatters Shop * 3584 3222 89.90 318 8.87 2700 2447 90.63 219 8.11 é 

Steele * 1236 1134 91.75 102 8.25 209 832 91.53 77 8.47 6 

Granite Quarry * 4194 3815 90.96 345 8.23 3102 2805 90.43 270 8.70 6 

West Kannapolis * 3183 2891 90.83 220 6.91 2448 2269 92.69 131 5.35 é 

Locke * 5763 5373 93.23 309 5.36 4189 3927 93.75 207 4.94 6 

East Landis * 1874 1787 95.36 79 4.22 1499 1422 94.86 69 4.60 6 

N. China Grove * 2944 2819 95.75 105 3.57 2224 2135 96.00 75 3.37 6 

East Kannapolis * 3908 3762 96.26 132 3.38 3146 3049 96.92 89 2.83 6 

Faith 2641 2540 96.18 82 3.10 1955 1882 96.27 60 3.07 6 

Bostian Crossroads * 5415 5227 96.53 160 2.95 3971 3831 96.47 118 2.97 6 

Bradshaw * 3004 2890 96.21 a3 2.76 2212 2133 96.43 57 2.58 6 

Barnhardt Mill * ' 1342 1306 97.32 17 1.27 1007 983 97.62 12 1.19 6 

Rockwell * 3821 3763 98.48 37 97 2817 2773 98.44 29 1.03 6 

Enochville * 5688 5635 99.07 24 42 4339 4299 99.08 16 37 6 

Morgan 11 * 1809 1787 98.78 5 .28 1366 1353 99.05 3 .22 6 

Gold Knob * 1706 1701 99.71 4 .23 1210 1205 99.59 4 233 6 

Bostian School * 151 1505 99.60 0 0.00 1176 1173 99.74 0 0.00 6 

Morgan | * 810 803 99.14 0 0.00 636 632 99.37 0 0.00 6 

110605 91851 83.04 17773 16.07 84409 71303 84.47 12431 14.73 
Total 

 



  

TABLE 5 (Ctd.) 

NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 ee 
Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Datp.~~ 

of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

BLACKPOP BLKPPCY TOTALVAP WHITEVAP i oy BLKVPCT DISTRICT 

PE 
” 

  

COUNTY PRCTNAME TOTALPOP WHITEPOP WHTPPCT 

Sampson Central Clinton * 2064 463 22.43 1572 76.16 1418 354 24.96 1050 74.05 2 

East Clinton * 3252 1000 30.75 2224 68.39 2314 755 32.63 1546 66.81 2 

Harrells * 2388 744 31.16 1613 67.55 1705 570 33.43 1112 65.22 7 

Lakewood * 3587 1561 43.52 1992 55.53 2552 1170 45.85 1359 53.25 7 

Garland * 1906 960 50.37 903 47.38 1372 744 54.23 600 43.73 7 

Ingold * 1567 816 52.07 734 46.84 1137 596 52.42 530 46.61 7 

Giddensville * 1508 757 50.20 680 45.09 1133 601 53.05 476 42.01 2 

Turkey * 1842 1018 55.27 813 44.14 1320 761 57.65 552 41.82 2 

West Clinton * 2600 1829 70.35 692 26.62 1914 1417 74.03 447 23.35 2 

Newton Grove * 2002 1430 71.43 517 25.82 1509 1100 72.90 375 24.85 2 

Rowan * 2050 1505 73.41 495 24.15 1502 1134 75.50 336 22.37 7 

Mingo * 2376 1826 76.85 515 21.68 1718 1355 78.87 337 19.62 7 

Southwest Clinton * 2178 1421 65.24 456 20,94 1614 1143 70.82 285 17.66 7 

Keener * 1656 1268 76.57 342 20.65 1253 991 79.09 236 18.83 2 

Roseboro * 2007 1655 82.46 336 16.74 1398 1228 87.84 159 11.37 7 

Westbrook * 1736 1440 82.95 288 16.59 1281 1084 84.62 190 14.83 2 

Kitty Fork * 1978 1371 69.31 319 16.13 1501 1056 70.35 237 15.79 2 

Northeast Clinton * 3213 2731 85.00 458 14.25 2568 2219 86.41 328 12.77 2 

Clement * 1454 1157 79.57 204 14.03 1094 893 81.63 142 12.98 7 

Salemburg * 1063 925 87.02 117 11.01 858 754 87.88 90 10.49 7 

Autryville * 2007 1771 88.24 208 10.36 1518 1348 88.80 155 10.21 7 

Herring * 894 807 90.27 80 8.95 684 619 90.50 61 8.92 2 

Plainview * 1969 1818 92.33 128 6.50 1489 1382 92.81 92 6.18 7 

47297 30273 64.01 15686 33.16 34852 23274 66.78 10695 30.69 
Total 

 



  

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 
of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

TABLE 5 (Ctd.) 

NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

TOTALPOP WHITEPOP WHTPPCT BLACKPOP BLKPPCT TOTALVAP WHITEVAP WHTVPCT BLACKVAP-BLKVPCT DISTRICT 

  

COUNTY PRCTNAME 

—< 

Wake Raleigh 01-34 * 3439 31 .90 3391 98.60 2944 27 92 2901 98.54 2 
Raleigh 01-35 * Lah4 74 1.67 4353 97.95 3141 67 72.13 3062 97.48 2 
Raleigh 01-22 * 4994 93 1.86 4885 97.82 3609 78 2.16 3518 97.48 2 
Raleigh 01-20 * 2796 136 4.86 2645 94.60 2172 123 5.66 2036 93.74 2 
Raleigh 01-19 * 3457 238 6.88 3192 92.33 2478 219 8.84 2238 90.31 2 
Raleigh 01-26 * 5113 L66 9.1 4599 89.95 4188 458 10.94 3688 88.06 2 
Raleigh 01-40 * 5289 1296 24.50 3891 73.57 4120 1173 28.47 2868 69.61 2 
Raleigh 01-27 * 4078 1668 40.90 2329 57.11 2968 1475 49.70 1435 48.35 2 
Raleigh 01-21 * 4349 1826 41.99 2464 56.66 3186 1547 48.56 1599 50.19 2 
Raleigh 01-28 * 5095 2174 42.67 2878 56.49 3819 1868 48.91 1922 50.33 2 
Holly Springs * 5786 3149 54.42 2576 44.52 4154 2293 55.20 1817 43.74 4 
Little River #1 * 2547 1520 59.68 964 37.85 1841 1145 62.19 655 35.58 Fd 
Little River #2 * 6119 3868 63.21 2187 35.74 4493 2992 66.59 1458 32.45 2 
Raleigh 01-46 * 5733 3375 58.87 1949 34.00 4a 2714 61.53 1411 31.99 2 
Raleigh 01-14 * 4192 2751 65.63 1393 33.23 3473 2472 71.18 962 27.70 2 
Neuse #1 * 6098 L247 69.65 1745 28.62 4778 3404 71.24 1294 27.08 2 
Buckhorn * 1646 1145 69.56 458 27.83 1256 865 68.87 361 28.74 4 
St. Marys #2 * 3782 © 2690 71.13 1041 27.53 2948 2139 72.56 770 26.12 2 
Ralefgh 01-13 * 2154. 1551 72.01 566 26.28 1765 1330 75.35 413 23.40 2 
Raleigh 01-23 * 7511 5345 71.16 1855 24.70 7328 5266 71.86 17n 24.17 2 
Raleigh 01-31 * 8098 5004 61.79 1944 24.01 6929 4609 66.52 1423 20.54 2 
Raleigh 01-18 * 4183 3060 73.15 945 22.59 3177 2412 75.92 630 19.83 2 
St. Marys #6 * 2459 1883 76.58 551 22.41 1930 1511 78.29 398 20.62 hb 
St. Matthews #3 * 4349 3290 75.65 952 21.89 3288 2552 77.62 660 20.07 2 
St. Marys #1 * 4230 3285 77.66 211 21.54 3139 2506 79.83 606 19.31 2 
White Oak #2 * 4058 3145 77.50. 872 21.49 3114 2445 78.52 632 20.30 4 
Raleigh 01-01 * 2619 1875 71.59 552 21.08 2284 1694 74.17 419 18.35 2 
Raleigh 01-27 * (Pt.) 381 300 78.74 78 20.47 336 269 80.06 64 19.05 2 
Marks Creek #2 * 6198 4910 79.22 1241 20.02 4430 3592 81.08 802 18.10 2 
St. Matthews #4 * 3721 2941 79.04 738 19.83 2811 2239 79.65 542 19.28 2 
St. Marys #3 * 2651 2110 79.59 523 19.73 1947 1602 82.28 333 17.10 4 
Neuse #2 * 5363 4212 78.54 1034 19.28 3874 3117 80.46 675 17.42 : 
Middle Creek #2 * 6323 5022 79.42 1213 19.18 4659 3727 80.00 868 18.63 4 
St. Marys #4 * 4042 3247 80.33 759 18.78 2839 2323 81.82 493 17.37 4 
Wake Forest #1 * 7588 6148 81.02 1403 18.49 5532 4570 82.61 929 16.79 2 
Wake Forest #2 * 7998 6457 80.73 1458 18.23 5931 4853 81.82 1020 17.20 2 
Swift Creek #1 * 5077 3990 78.59 924 18.20 4289 34M 80.93 687 16.02 4 
Marks Creek #1 * 5107 4109 80.46 928 18.17 3632 2906 80.01 673 18.53 2 
Raleigh 01-45 * 2951 2301 71.97 536 18.16 2233 1750 78.37 404 18.09 4 
Cedar Fork * 2709 2209 81.54 464 17.13 2127 1740 81.81 363 17.07 4 
Raleigh 01-32 * 6607 5228 79.13 1126 17.04 5703 4612 80.87 890 15.61 4 

 



  

TABLE 5 (Ctd.) 

NORTH CAROLINA NB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 

of Precincts in'Split Counties by Congressional District 

TOTALPOP WHITEPOP WHTPPCT BLACKPOP BLKPPCT TOTALVAP WHITEVAP WHTVPCT BLACKVAP BLKVPCT DISTRICT 

  

COUNTY PRCTNAME 

Wake Raleigh 01-16 * 4452 3561 79.99 749 16.82 3862 3063 79.31 678 17.56 4 

Raleigh 01-36 * 2450 1997 81.51 397 16.20 2014 1671 82.97 308 15.29 4 

St. Matthews #1 * 7393 . 6058 81.94 1139 15.41 5720 4821 84.28 767 13°%% 2 

Housé Creek #5 * 4881 3940 80.72 724 14.83 3634 2996 82.44— 500 13.76 4 

. Middle Creek #1 * 8782 7397 84.23 1287 14.65 6359 5416 85.17 869 13.67 4 

House Creek #1 * 4567 3857 84.45 617 13.51 3902 3381 86.65 4a 11.30 4 

Raleigh 01-12 * 2587 2132 82.41 337 13.03 2194-1888 86.05 216 9.85 2 

Raleigh 01-39 * 3636 3079 84.68 462 12.71 2814~ 2432 86.43 313 11:12 b 

St. Matthews #2 * © TA39 6410 86.17 938 12.61 .5410 4702 86.91 640 11.83 2 

Raleigh 01-43 * 5489 L647 84.66 678 12.35." 4481 3816 85.16 542 12.10 b4 

House Creek #3 * 4766 3962 83.13 584 12.25 3499 2931 83.77 423 12.09 4 

Raleigh 01-41 * 5827 4899 84.07 72 2.22 5037 4319 85.75 556 11.04 4 

Raleigh 01-38 * 3575 30461 85.06 430 12.03 2724 2371 87.04 276 10.13 Fd 

Raleigh 01-44 * 5170 4387 84.85 621 12.01 4104 3526 85.92 462 11.26 4 

New Light #1 * 767 680 88.66 ~~ 87 11.34 598 527 88.13 n 11.87 2 

House Creek #4 * 7246 6149 84.86 820 11.32 5316 4583 86.21 550 10.35 4 

White Oak #1 * 6696 5822 86.95 744 11.11 4886 4230 86.57 569 11.65 h 

Raleigh 01-07 * 1950 1702 , 87.28 207 10.62 1710 1468 85.85 204 11.93 2 

Panther Branch * 7156 6330 88.46 734 10.26 5204 4624 88.85 529 10.17 4 

Leesville #1 * 3411 2923 85.69 347 10.17 2489 2182 87.67 216 8.68 4 

House Creek #2 * 3257 12880 88.42 319 9.79 2742 2434 88.77 268 9.77 4 

Cary #8 * 2765 2356 85.21 266 9.62 2292 197 85.99 215 9.38 4 

St. Marys #5 * 3440 3074 89.36 326 9.48 2690 2427 90.22 236 8.77 4 

Leesville #2 * 7552 6824 90.36 549 7.27 6000 5425 90.42 450 7.50 4 

Cary #5 * 5795 5028 86.76 402 6.94 4276 3737 87.39 298 6.97 4 

Raleigh 01-06 * 2740 2493 90.99 188 6.86 2576 2369 91.96 157 6.09 2 

St. Marys #7 * 3353 3085 92.01 222 6.62 2400 2227 92.79 141 5.88 4 

Cary #4 * 7037 6298 89.50 465 6.61 5149 4623 89.78 328 6.37 4 

Cary #2 * 5624 5020 89.26 in 6.60 4351 3920 90.09 263 6.04 4 

Raleigh 01-33 * 2116 1858 87.81 134 6.33 1729 1519 87.85 123 7.11 4 

Meredith * 3827 3490 91.19 230 6.01 3296 3034 92.05 184 5.58 4 

Raleigh 01-15 * 1941 1794 92.43 114 5.87 1618 1507 93.14 85 5.25 4 

Cary #9 * 5793 5243 90.51 337 5.82 4079 3719 91.17 216 5.30 4 

Leesville #3 * : 4933 4557 92.38 27 5.49 3454 3205 92.79 184 5.3% h 

Cary #1 * 2990 2765 92.47 150 5.02 2358 21N 92.92 112 4.75 4 

Swift Creek #2 * 4988 4700 94.23 247 4.95 3649 3454 94.66 159 4.36 4 

Bartons Creek #1 * 5285 4792 90.67 254 4.81 3532 3196 90.49 188 9.32 4 

Bartons Creek #2 * 6445 6009 93.24 306 4.75 4543 4257 93.70 214 4.7 2 

New Light #2 * 1787 1699 95.08 78 4.36 1338 1278 95.52 54 4.04 2 

House Creek #6 * 7505 6871 91.55 309 4.12 5471 5045 92.21 218 3.98 4 
2 

Raleigh 01-03 * 2205 2098 95.15 88 3.99 1824 1746 95.72 61 3.34 

 



  

TABLE 5 (Ctd.) 

NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 
7 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census pata 

BLACKPOP BLKPPCT 

of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

TOTALVAP WHITEVAP WHTVPCT BLACKVAP BLKVPCT DISTRICT 

  

COUNTY PRCTNAME TOTALPOP WHITEPOP WHTPPCT 

Wake Raleigh 01-42 * 6663 6179 92.74 262 3.93 4703 4388 93.30 180 3.83 4 

Cary #3 * 6867 6198 90.26 267 3.89 5020 4538 90.40 201 4.00 4 

Raleigh 01-05 * 1393 1336 95.91 54 3.88 1105 1051 95.11 52 4.7 2 

Raleigh 01-09 * 1274 1201 94.27 47 3.69 1100 1052 95.64 30 2.73 2 

Raleigh 01-37 * 2383 2260 94.84 86 3.61 1828 1736 94.97 64 3.50 4 

Raleigh 01-02 * 3427 3226 94.13 97 2.83 3183 3007 94.47 85 2.67 2 

Cary #10 * 2169 2025 93.36 60 2.77 1639 1532 93.47 43 2.62 4 

Swift Creek #4 * 3448 3322 96.35 93 2.70 2555 2461 96.32 66 2.58 4 

Cary #6 * 2329 2182 93.69 59 2.53 1643 1542 93.85 35 2.13 A 

Raleigh 01-30 * 1713 1635 95.45 41 2.39 1346 1289 95.77 31 2.30 4 

Cary #7 * 3725 3519 94.47 89 2.39 2635 2506 95.10 59 2.24 4 

Swift Creek #3 * 4084 3804 93.14 95 2.33 2902 2716 93.59 68 2.34 4 

Raleigh 01-17 * 1088 1063 97.70 20 1.84 909 892 98.13 12 1.32 4 

Raleigh 01-29 * 2636 2598 98.56 21 .80 2156 2119 98.28 20 .93 h 

Raleigh 01-04 * 1282 1268 98.91 8 .62 1084 1072 98.89 J .65 4 

Raleigh 01-10 * 1635 1623 99.27 8 49. 1339 1328 99.18 7 .52 2 

Raleigh 01-11 * 2312 2296 99.31 3 13 1818 1807 99.39 3 A7 4 

423380 324011 76.53 88063 20.80 325565 253422 77.84 63937 9.64 
Total 

   



  

TABLE 5 (Ctd.) 

NORTH CAROLINA HB 584--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census’Data 

of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District ~~ _.-* 

TOTALPOP WHITEPOP WHTPPCT BLACKPOP BLKPPCT TOTALVAP WHITEVAP WHTVPCT BLACKVAP BLKVPCT DISTRICT 

  

COUNTY PRCTNAME 

Washington Plymouth #2 * 1939 765 39.45 1160 59.82 1377 634 46.04 735 53.38 1 

Lees Mill * 3062 1272 41.54 1790 58.46 2182 989 45.33 1193 54.67 1 

Plymouth #1 * 2224 973 43.75 1236 55.58 1586 777 48.99 801 50.50 1 

Skinnersville * 1337 765 57.22 561 41.96 1002 580 57.88 415 41.42 3 

Scuppernong * 1910 1292 67.64 598 31.31 1391 965 69.37 415 29.83 3 

70.61 1021 28.96 2578 1920 74.48 648 25.14 1 
Plymouth #3 * 3525 2489 

13997 7556 53.98 6366 45.48 10116 5865 57.98 4207 41.59 

Total 

 



  

TABLE 5 (Ctd.) diy 

NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 pe” 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Pata“ 
of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

Rad 

COUNTY PRCTNAME TOTALPOP WHITEPOP WHTPPCT BLACKPOP BLKPPCT TOTALVAP WHITEVAP WHTVPCT BLACKVAP BLKVPCT DISTRICT 

  
5951 1260 21.17 4634 77.87 4182 1020 24.39 313 74.87 Wayne Goldsboro #1 * 1 

Goldsboro #2 * 7284 1669 22.91 5575 76.54 5338 1397 26.17 3918 73.40 1 

Goldsboro #5 * 5118 2486 48.57 2530 49.43 3677 2110 57.38 1503 40.88 1 

Goldsboro #3 * 5879 3106 52.83 2709 46.08 4358 2626 60.26 1687 38.71 1 

. Fremont * 2200 1188 54.00 1004 45.64 1663 920 55.32 738 44.38 1 

Mt. Olive * 6946 3828 55.11 3067 44.15 5239 3076 58.71 2127 40.60 3 

Brogden * 11745 7978 67.93 3620 30.82 8395 5877 70.01 2414 28.76 3 

Eureka * 1353 945 69.84 393 29.05 995 712 71.56 272 27.34 1 

Pinewood * 4636 3279 70.73 1261 27.20 3409 2474 72.57 871 2559 1 

Indian Springs * 2878 2074 72.06 750 26.06 2020 1488 73.66 491 24.31 3 

New Hope * 10965 8116 74.02 2613 23.83 7993 6056 75.77 1765 22.08 3 

Goldsboro #4 * 12821 9865 76.94 2413 18.82 9764 7676 78.62 1704 17.45 3 

Great Swamp * 1496 1211 80.95 264 17.65 1114 915 82.14 189 16.97 3 

Saulston * 3902 3177 81.42 675 17.30 2865 2349 81.99 482 16.82 1 

Fork * 7690 6486 84.34 1113 14.47 6018 4963 82.47 983 16.33 3 

Pikeville * 1968 1707 86.74 241 12.25. 1516 1321 87.14 180 11.87 3 

White Hall * 1321 1132 85.69 155 11.73 980 852 86.94 107 10.92 3 

Buck Swamp * 2891 2586 89.45 289 10.00 2077 1872 90.13 194 9.34 3 

Grantham * 3285 2970 90.41 286 8.7 2448 2236 91.34 198 8.09 3 

Stoney Creek * 4337 4109 94.74 201 4.63 3245 3080 94.92 145 4.47 3 

104666 69172 66.09 33793 32.29 77296 53020 68.59 23099 29.88 Total 

 



ULE 

  

TABLE 5 (Ctd.) i 

." 

NORTH CAROLINA IIB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 oo 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 

of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District ; 

  

COUNTY PRCTNAME TOTALPOP WHITEPOP WHTPPCT BLACKPOP BLKPPCT TOTALVAP WHITEVAP WHTVPCT BLACKVAP BLKVPCT DISTRICT 

Wilson Wilson G * 1428 2 4 1425 99.79 1047 2 .19 1044 99.71 1 

Wilson Q * 1400 4 .29 1390 99.29 1023 4 .39 1015 99.22 1 

Wilson H * 2614 54 2.07 2558 97.86 1760 37 2.10 1721 97.78 1 

Wilson N * 2799 518 18.51 2271 81.14 1990 412 20.70 157 78.94 1 

Wilson B * 3059 574 18.76 2468 80.68 2104 504 23.95 1586 75.38 1 

Wilson F * 3388 1082 31.94 2279 67.27 2237 811 36.25 1411 63.08 1 

Wilson C * 2828 1156 40.88 1649 58.31 2019 979 48.49 1025 50.77 1 

Wilson A * 2747 1381 50.27 1335 48.60 2209 1275 57.72 908 41.10 1 

Gardners * 2832 1528 53.95 1291 45.59 2094 1197 57.16 890 42.50 1 

Saratoga * 1868 1086 58.14 752 40.26 1328 823 61.97 493 37.12 1 

Toisnot * 5162 3174 61.49 1963 38.03 3774 2419 64.10 1336 35.40 1 

Stantonsburg * 1441 974 67.59 458 31.78 119 792 70.78 321 28.69 1 

Spring Hill * 2302 1620 70.37 650 28.24 1717 1257 73.21 437 25.45 2 

Wilson E * 2775 2029 73.12 725 26.13 2157 1679 77.84 465 21.56 1 

Wilson I * 2781 2012 72.35 716 25.75 2069 1593 76.99 442 21.36 1 

old Fields * 3466 2633 75.97 761 21.96. 2551 2005 78.60 502 19.68 2 

Wilson M * 3136 51 80.07 588 18.75 2342 1945 83.05 369 15.76 1 

Cross Roads * 3187 2706 84.91 471 14.78 2359 2014 85.38 338 14.33 2 

Taylors * 2975 2603 87.50 345 11.60 2307 2037 88.30 251 10.88 2 

Black Creek * 3259 2923 89.69 313 9.60 24617 2192 90.69 212 8.77 1 

Wilson J * 2825 2578 91.26 226 8.00 2220 2039 91.85 165 7.43 2 

Wilson P * 1417 1338 94.42 7 5.01 1055 1003 95.07 48 4.55 2 

Wilson L * 2179 2064 94.72 102 4.68 1620 1534 94.69 79 4.88 2 

Wilson K * 2098 2032 96.85 46 2.19 1600 1553 97.06 32 2.00 2 

Wilson D * 2095 2041 97.42 43 2.05 1714 167 97.49 35 2.04 2 

66061 40623 61.49 24896 37.69 48832 31777 65.07 16696 34.19 
Total 

 



  

iE 
percentage of the total population assigned to Dou Eis 

greater than 20 Pereentags points higher than the African 
a 

American percentage assigned to A “adjacent district and those 
where the difference in the Bfrice Aner ican percentage is less Sh 

Poon = 

‘than 20 percentage points. Lenoir, Wilson, Pitt, Wayne, Craven, 
Te a and Granville counties fall into the former category, while 

on Tey, 

Beaufort, Jones, Person, and Washington counties are in the 

latter category. 
wv 

= 

29s. I first examine the precinct assignment pattern for ~~ ™ 

ZF 
al Lenoir County which includes the city of Kinston. The only five 

African-American majority precincts in the county which happen to 
be in the city of Kinston are assigned to District 1, while the \ 

a 

Ne : : : : three of the four non-African-American mdjority precincts: in 
ay - 

Pt Kinston are assigned to District 3.” Three rural precincts where 
hy 4 

between 37.58 and 50 percent of the population is African- 
BS 

American are zalsc assigned to District-li. No precinct in which 
= yy hive : ; mcre than 20.17 Percent or the total pooulition is African- 

   

  

American is allocated to District 3. The assig 
Pid 

ent of Lenoir 

County precinéts between Districts 1 and 3 is one of e clearest 

patterns.of the predominant use of race in the creation o 
Ld 

District 1 in the 1997 Plan in the northeast part of North 

rolina.: 

30. I next look at the Precinct assignment pattern for 

Wilson County which includes the city of Wilson. The only seven 

33 

 



i we 

African-American majority precincts in the county which happen to, ~ 

  

oF be in the city of Wilson are allocated to District i. while. five | 
of the nine non- African- -American majority DS aac. in Wilson are 
assigned to District 2. “Five additional preciices where between 

"- 
ee 

31.78 and 50 percent of the oopulatian” is African- -American are 
Ta 

Tw. 

also assigned to District 17 No precinct in which more than 
S. 

Si 28.24 percent of the total population is African-American is 
allocated to District 2. The assignment of precinctiwithin 
Wilson County and the City of Wilson between Districts 1 and 2 

N shows a’ clear pattern of the predominant use of race in the £* 
vi 

pd 

.Creation of District 1 in the 1997 Plan. 

. 31. I next look at the precinct assignment pattern for pile \ 
\ 

County which includes the city of Greenville. All six Dr = e 

. 7 . 
African-American majority precincts in the county (fiye of which 
are in the city of Greenville are allocated to District 1, while 

th
 Six of the nine non-African-American majority Tiacincts in 

Greeriville are assigned to District 3° Also the City of Ayden is 

split along racial grounds with the part in which African- 

American persons live Eo ye tn 1 and the part which 

1s 100.0 percent white assigned to Digtrict 3. Nine additional 
precincts where between 30.39 and 50 percent of the population is 
African-American are also assigned to Distridt 1. Just three 
precincts between 30.39 and SO percent of ony population is 

S! 

A 
.,
 

African-American are allocated to District 3. The ne of : i 
~ 

: precincts” within Pitt County and the City of Greenville betw ed 

34 

 



“.  » 
Districts 1 and 3 shows a clear pattern of the predominant use of 

  

race in the creation of District 1" in the 1997 Plan: 

Bes 
NN 

Wayne County which includes the city of Goldsboro. The only two 

I next examine the precinct assignment pattern for 

African- -American majority precincts in the county which happen to 

be in the city of Golashoro are allocated to District 1. Five 

additional precincts where “between 27.20 and S0 percent of the i 

population is African-American ire also assigned to District 1.0 

Only two precincts in which more than 30.82 percent of the total 

population is African-American is allocatsd to District 3. The 

assignment of precincts within Wayne County and} Lhe City of 

Goldsboro between Districts 1 and 3 shows a clear pattezn of the 
NG 

predominant use of race in the creation of Districtil in the.1997 

Plan. 

33." Next I examine the precinct assignment pattern for 

Craven County which includes the city of New Bern. Four of the’ 

five African-American majority precincts in the countys La of 

which happen to be in the city of New Bera) are al¥ocated to 

District i, while one of the three Hon eATricel Anstican majority 

precincts in New Bern are Satin to bistrict 3. One African- 

American majority precinct as well as Sin piece of another 

precinct are assigned to District 3... The Herlowe precinct is too 

far distant to include in District 1 and the Rhems precinct is 
- 

- 

split to providé a land corridor to keep District 3 contiguous: 

35 

 



= Ce» 
All precincts but cne where between 29.60 and 50 percent of the 

  

3 population is African-American are also assionsg so District 1. 

NO precinct in which more than 21.7s nh of the total 

population is African-American is. PEERS to District 37% The 

assignment of precincts rR ven County between Districts 1 

and 3 shows a clear pattern of the predominant use of race in the 

Creation of District 1 in the 1997 Plan. 

34. I next look at the precinct assignment pattern for 

Granville County which includes the city of Oxford. all four™ 

African- -American majority precincts in the county are’ Llonated 

to, District 1: while: four of the five most white precincts in the 

county are assigned to District 2. Aa11l precincts where between 

38.96 and 50 percent of the population is African-American are 

also assigned to District®¥l, The assignment of precincts within 

Granville County between Districts 1 and 2 shows a-clear pattern 

cf the predominant use of race in the creation of plstricts in 

the 1997 Plan. 
- 

35. Turning next to the four counties split between 
rv 

Congressional District 1 and an adjacent district—where the 
E—. 

Sol — i - difference in the African-American percentage of the total 

population is less than ye points, I examine first 
nt 

Beaufort County. - Precinc€s are not usednto divide Be ior: 
rd 

rr 
Lo 

County by race; instead townships are the basi f the sub 
J tl 

division between Congressional Districts 1 and 3. Two of the 
= 

36 

 



o® 

  

three townships with the highest percentages of African-American 

population are assigned to District 1, while three of the four’ 

precincts with lowest percentages of African-American populdtion 

are assigned to District 3. Inexplicably, Washington Township is 

divided across the two districts, with the bulk of the’ population 

assigned to District 1 and just two white persons 7 located to 

District 3. The assignment of townships within Beaufort County 

between Districts 1 and 3 is consistent with an pattern in 

the other counties of the predominant use &f race in the creation 

Of District™itin the 1997 Plan. / 7 

36. I next examine the precinct splits in Jones County 

between Congressional Districts .i and 3. The fos precincts with 

the highest percentages of African-American population are 

assigned to District 1, while just one precinct with only 861 

persons residing in it allocated to District 3. An examination 

Of the Jones County Bap suggests that the split was done to find 

a cath rorthward into Lenoir County to EC oLlY civide the 

populations of thar’ county between the two districts. The desire 

to racially divide Lenoir County lead to a zacihl division in 

Jones County ad well. The assignment of precints\within Jones 

County betweén Districts 1 and 3 is consistent with“ the clear 
/ 

Y 

pattern in/ the other counties of the predominant use of race in 
7 

Z [3 + . 3 
\ the creation of District 1 in the 1997 Plan. \ 

7, / 
N 2 
A) 

Ee / 3 3 N. A 37. Next I look at the precinct splits in Person Cou LY 
7 

x 

AY 
S37 

Ld 

 



oh we 

  

between Congressional Districts 1 and 4. The six Precincts with 

the highest percentages of African-American population are 

74 
~~ 

Red - 

assigned to District 1, while three precincts with the lowest 

percentage of “African- -American population are allocated a 
~ r 

District 4. The assignment of precints within Person County 

between Districts 1 and 4 is consistent with he clear pattern in 

the other counties of the predominant use of race in the creation 

of District 1 in the 1997 Plan. 
+ Wd 

+ Ny 

7 
38. I next examine the ion ESsignment pattern for 

Washington County which includes the iby of Plymouth. All three 

African-American majority precincts in the county are allocated 

tO Districtil, while two of the three most hye precincts in the 
™N, 

county are assigned Co District 3. The assignment of\ precincts 
EN 

~ within Washington County between Districts 1 and 3 shows a.clear 
N 

Ny 

he Pattern of the predominant use of race in the creation of TH 

District. 1 in the 1997 Plan. 

39.1 -L turn next _to._the six: counties-divided-between= 

Districtil2iand antad]acent districts The patterns revealed in 

Tables 1-4 are reinforced by the precinct level data in Table 5 

for the six split counties of District 12." Two groupings of 

counties are most apparent: those where the difference between 

African-American .percentage of the total population assigned to 

District 12 is greater than 20 percentage points higher than the 

African-American percentage assigned to the adjacent district and : 

38 

 



oo we 
those where the difference in the African-American percentage is 

  

less than 20 percentage points. Forsyth, Guilford, Mecklenburg, 
and Rowan counties fall into the former category, while Davidson, 

and Iredell counties are in the latter category. 

40. TI first examine the precinct assignment pattern for 

Forsyth County which includes the city of Winston-Salem and where 
the most severe of racial disparities exist between Districts 5 

and 12.%-Aa11915 African-American majority precincts in the county 

are assigned to District 12, while all but four of the white 

majority precincts in Forsyth County are assigned to District 5. 

No precinct in which more than 20.39 percent of the total 

population is African-American is. allocated to Districti5: The 

assignment of Forsyth County precincts between Districts 5 and 12 

is the clearest pattern of the predominant use of race in the 

creation of District 12 in the 1997 Plan in the Piedmont region 

cf North Carolinz. 

41. TI next look at the precinct assignment pattern for 

Mecklenburg County which includes the city of Charlotte and where 

Very severe racial disparities exist between Districts 9 and 12. 

All 28 African-American majority precincts in the county are 

assigned to District 12, while all the precincts where around 85 

percent or more of the population is white in Mecklenburg County 

are assigned to District 9. Some white majority precincts are 

allocated to District 12, but for the most part these assignments 

3S 

 



  

ha oe 
are made to provide contiguous paths from the African-American 
majority precincts north to Iredeil County so as to connect 
African-American Populations in Charlotte with those in Winston- 
Salem, High Point, and Creensboro. The assignment of Mecklenburg 
County precincts between Districts 9 and 12 shows gz very clear 
Pattern of the Predominant use of race in the creation of 
District 12 in the 1997 plan in the Piedmont region of North 
Carolina. 

42. I next examine the precinct assignment pattern for 
Guilford County which includes the cities of Greensboro and High 

6 and i122. Al11%317 African-American majority precincts in the 
county (all of which are in either Greensboro or High Point) are 
assigned to District 12, while almost all of the precincts where 
arcund 80 percent or more of the population is white in Guilford 
County are &ssignec to District 6. Some white majority precincts 
are allccated to Di in

 
ct
 

2] 12, but for the most part these 

Populations in Greensboro and High Point with those in Winston- 
Salem and Charlotte. The assignment of Guilford County precincts 
between Districts 6 and 12 is another clear pattern of the 
predominant use of race in the creation of District 12 in the 
15997 Plan in the Piedmont region of North Carolina. 

40 

*y
 

 



wh oe 

  

43. I next examine the precinct assignment pattern for 

Rowan County including the city of Salisbury which is split 

between Districts 6 and 12. Three of the four African-American 

majority precincts in the county (the one African-American 

majority precinct assigned to District 6 is a small non- 

contiguous part of large white majority precinct)are assigned to 

District 12, while almost all of the precincts where around 80 

percent or more of the population is white in Rowan County are 

assigned to District 6. Some white majority precincts are 

allocated to District 12 to provide contiguous paths from Iredell 

County to Davidson County so as to connect African-American 

population concentrations in Charlotte with those in Winston- 

Salem, High Point, and Greensboro. The assignment of Rowan 

County precincts between Districts 6 and 12 is another clear 

pattern -ofithe predominant use of race in the creation of 

District: 123in the 1997 Plan in the Piedmont region of North 

Carolina. : 

ihe ¥ Charge 
: —+wo ah 44. Turning next to the fewer counties split between 

Congressional District 12 and an adjacent district where the 

difference in the African-American percentage of the total 

population is less than 20 percentage points, I examine first 

Iredell County. Only nine precincts in this county are assigned 

to Congressional -District 12," including two African-American 

majority precincts in the city of Statesville. The white 

majority precincts allocated to District 12 are there to provide 

41 

 



iY |g 

contiguous paths from Mecklenburg County to Rowan County so as to 

  

connect African-American Population concentrations in Charlotte 
with those in Winston-Salem, High Point, and Greensboro. The 
assignment of Iredell County precincts between Districts 10 and 
12 provides further evidence of a pattern of the predominant use 
of race in the creation of District 12 in the 1997 Plan in the 
Piedmont region of North Carolina. 

45. I next examine the assignment of precincts between 
Congressional Districts g and 12 in Davidson County. A total of 
20 precincts in this county are assigned to Congressional 
Districri12, including two African-American majority precincts in 
the cityiof Lexington and one in .the city of Thomasville. The 
white majority precincts allocated to District 12 are there to 
provide contiguous paths from Rowan County to Forsyth and 
Guilford counties so as to connect African-American population 
concentrations in Charlotte with those in Winston-Szlem, Eigh 
Point, and Greensboro. The assignment of Davidson County 

precincts between Districts 6 and 12 provides further evidence of 
a pattern of the predominant use of race in the creation of 
District 12 inthe 1997 Plan in the Piedmont region of North 
Carolina. 

| TFS Hauiagcxamined-in-detail—the-assignme ent-patt¥InSst 
«san RF 

o aurvas BX geography and Populatici™between _Congressicnal Districts 1 and. 
hil PU nv roam, adjacent districts and ‘Congressional District A2 2nd adjacent 

£ - 

42 

 



e® wo» 
‘districts using data at the Precinct level from Table 5, 1 

  

ra 

o 

conclude that the predominant use of race is verified fof both 
al Congressional Districts 1 and 12. Over and over again in the 

split counties, SEs creators.of the Plan A embodied in HB 586 of 
‘the 1997 North carolina legislative session used race as the 
predominant factor in “designing the two districts. Rarely is an 

~, 
~, African-American majority ‘precinct in one of these split counties 

not included in either District l-or 12. And typically the 
N, Precincts with the whitest populations are assigned to an - oo 

N, 

: 
i, . [J 

o 4 

adjacent district, with some minor exceptions in both Districts 1 
~ 

t 
Na . “ 

° 

and 12 as geographical paths were needed to link African-American 
majority Prec ncLS together to create race- based districts. | The 
Fact that neither District 1 nor.12 have a majority. of African- 

BN American voting age population or voter registration Tsinot 
a 

relevant in North Carolina in that high levels of white cross- 
™~ over voting exist to clearly enable candidates of choice of 

African-American volers to prevail in some white majority 

-Congressional dis tricrs; 

47. .,I.began._ to. answer. ‘the ~question- of. whether-the-distriets 
ah ht 

--—- fin the. 1997 North Carolina Congressional districting plan 
- ar Paine © 0 Kp 

jSubordinate race- -neutral Seadttionoy redistricting principles 
ia 7 ON hon Fiscussed-above -the-tebular-dat SRN IE EEE Een EE 

counties, cities, towns; and precincts. The state of North Erni er re en 
    

Carolina subordinated the splitting of county, city, and town 
boundaries to az desire to allocate persons by race to a greater 

43 

 



i wh 

  

extent than necessary to comply with the one-person, one-vote 

standard of population equality. This was particularly true in 

the. drawing of Districts 1 and 12 as well as adjacent districts. 

A total cf 22 counties and 41 cities and towns were split in the 

drawing of the 1997 North Carolina Congressional districting 

plan, for a total of 63 split political subdivisions. Only six 

counties and 15 cities and towns were split to create the other 

districts (several of the cities and towns were split because 

they are on a county boundary and different counties were 

assigned to different districts). In the recent past no counties 

had been split to create the 11 districts of the 1960s and 1970s, 

while just four had been split to construct the 11 districts of 

the 1980s. The maximum number of counties needed to be split to 

fashion a 12 district plan is 11, allowing for one county to be 

split between each two districts. 

48. A report by David C. Huckabee, "Congressicnal 

Districts: Objectively Evaluating Shapes," CR por: for 

congress (Washington: Congressional Research Service, The Library 

of Congress), May 24, 1994, also contains information from other 

states to compare with the experience of North Carolina in 

Congressional districting. 

camer ese TSE 
tS im oo, 

SREY prey 

which were-split With ancther-dictrictui5om] 

  

    
    Lo 

Districti12 has_six~countiss, all ‘six OP—which are split (100.0 

(pexrcefit) . This Huckabee report as well as subsequent data — 

44 

 



  

~ 
> 
EN 

wh we 

revealsithat nationwide," only the original Florida. 3, the ~/" 
Tot 

= 

i 

original Gebrgia 2, the original and revised Louisiana districts 
4, the original Louisiana 5 and 6, the current South Caroling 6, 

hg 
oP 

~~ and the original Virginia 3 have a greater’ number of split 
0 

SE 

parishes or counties nh Carolina Districtia’ Original 

Louisiana district 4 had 24 split parishes, original Florida 
B 

bg 

district 3 had 14 split counties, “revised Louisiana district 4 
had 13 split parishes; original Georgia    

    

   

istrict" 2 had 12 split 
a A ¥ i counties, and original Louisiana 5 and 6 as 11 as current South 
gl 

Carolina € and original Virginia 3 had/have 11 s 

All of fone listed districts but South Carolina § h 

invalidated by: the Federal: courts: ~ 

yd 

495. Huckabee also provides information on the percentage of 

split counties allocated to the Congressional districts of the 

1990s. There are a large number of Congressional districts from 
around the nation which have 100 percent of the counties split 
which are allocated to a district. Most of these are plans 

involving splits of large counties in the metropolitan areas of 
the country and these Plans are not comparable to the North 

Carolina setting. No single district in the country is like 

North Carolina 12 in splitting as many as six counties and sub- 

dividing 100 percent of them. 

50. Huckabee also provides information on the number of 

*e
 Places having populations of 10,000 or more and indicates how 

45 

 



o® oe 

many of these are split by district lines. In the 1997 plan, 

  

North Carolina.distriet—i-has mine such places(either citiesior 

towns, and six of them are. divided between district 1 and. another, 

district District 12 has eight cities or towns 10,000 or more 

in population, and all eight of them are split between districts. 

/ 
/ 2 Eh Another race-neutral traditional redistricting / 

criterion involves the issue of geographical contiguity. / I Bevo 

examined the maps of the 1997 Congressional districting plan to 

determine Mstnsr the state adhered to geographical fontiguity in 

the construction of the plans. I find that the fn are 

technically CEB + gems in that parts of mR territories 

are joined oy SEESugh water .areas — land bridges. 

A person wishing to 3 averse Congressigal districti3i by 

automobile, for example \vould JiEvS Xo leave the district, then 

go through another distrioty before returning to district 3. The 
™N ss 

best examples cf technical contiguity occur in Beaufort and Sr 

Pamlico counties where two parts of district 2 are joined across 

the Pamlico Sound, in She icity of Chaxlotte where two parts of 

district 9 are connecred through a split precinct at the southern 

edge of Mecklenburg’ County, and in Guilford County and the city 

of High Point whéze a narrow land bridge is use yi 

Davidson Count with the city of Greensboro in Guil¥ord County. 

Although the Congressional districts are technically c 

the district lines do not promote functional contiguity. 

  

serving districts 3, 9, and 12 in the U.S. Congress will need to 
L/ 

46 

 



o® ”» 
‘travel usually outside each district in order to traverse-the 

   
go 

~~ 
J . Se . . . 

N . > 
district é&ach is Serving 1n the most efficient manner. iy 

\, 
Ss 

Pe 

pw \ 

52. Another ra¢ezneutral traditional redistricting 
 — Bers . . . : Mg re i. ; principle involves the iSsus of Secgraphical compactness. The ! 

ig 

issue of geographical compactness can. be addressed first by 
vy, ~. 

“= 

examining maps of A 1997 Congressional districts. A statewide 

map of the 1997. ior cis and detailed maps of Districts 1 and 12 

Hemonstrase sisarly that Districts 1 and 12 as well as adjacent 

disericts are oddly shaped and not compact. 

S53. A second way to assess the compactness of a 

Congressional district is to use -a variety of compactness 

measures now standard in political science. These measures are 

reported upon in two works--1) Richard H. Pildes and Richard G. 

Niemi, "Expressive Harms, 'Bizarre Districts, znd Voting Rights: 

Evaluating Election-District Appearances after Shaw," Michigan 
Law Review, Vol. 92 (December 1593), pp. 101-205, and 2) David C. 

Huckabee, "Congressional Districts: Objectively Evaluating 

Shapes, " CRS Report for Conaress (Washington: Congressional   

Research Service, The Library of Congress), May 24, 1994. The 

actual computations of the compactness scores reported in these 
two works were conducted by Kimball Brace and Douglas Chapin of 

Election Data Services, Inc., Washington, D.C. 

54. Three measures of compactness are reported in the 

47 

 



oh 

Huckabee report for all 43s Congressional districts in the U.S. 

  

adopted following the release of the 1990 Census of Population. 

Huckabee adopts two geographic measures--a dispersion measure and 
ad perimeter measure--and one population measure. | Pildes—andg.-— 

‘Niemi rely on the. same.two-geographic— TCOMpACtHEss measures | 
SErorLed by Fuelebee rm erat -Horimor le hie = ort rsp pai 
defendants in this Case. use .the same two geographic compactness. 

Measures. asipildes? and Niemi aS wer as HicKabee 

  55. Combining infermatson-abodr the two measures: of 
Seographical compactness..in-the--Huckabee report - with-those-in-the..., 
EE ovr i be North Carolina's Congressional 

District 12 is still the least compact district in North Carolina 
on both indicators of geographic compactness -and—-that—Pistrict—1— 

+2 _Lhe second least compactidistriction the ‘perimeter measure. and. 

  

theifourthileast.compact=district—on-the-dispersionne5Sire In 
Appendix E of the Euckabee report, he reports a table containing 

the two geographic ccmpactness scores for the bottom ten percent 

of Congressional districts in the nation. Using the criterion of . 

having at least one compactness score in the bottom ten percent, 

North Carolina 12 would clearly continue in that compilation 

   
   

~make~the-list-ofthes, 

worst te ent of the districts even ERoagn many of he Lois, 

districts in Huckabee s table _ have moved up to higher scores will 
PT 

rs” [3 id . 

Nib revised districts. _ A number of Congréssional districts in other 
Re Wen, vy, 

3 
Iehouns a IO 

3 States with’ fever perimeter or dispersion scores “have “beer=found . 
ya o - 

48 

 



oe o® 

  

to be’ Unconstitutional by. Federal district courts. North” 
Carolina 12. is oss Compact than struck- down’ Shee 3 on one 
indicator, than invalidated- Georgia bmn 2 and 11 on both 

ad 

than unconstitutional Louisiana 4. on one indicator, 
— 

than invalidated a York 12 on one indicator, thas Struck-down 
Tar 

indicators, 

PIONS Texas districts 18, 29, and 30 on cne. indicator, and. a nol na TAA TAT de® dtm © Vat + Irn wo 
-— ps ape 

_tnéonstitutional Virginia 3.0on both: indicators. I have also 
taken the perimeter and Giger compactness scores from the 

» Huckabee report and revised the ranking order for the worst 

districts on each Measure] this proress—tms red rHeBEE: 

information .on. the. two-compactness scores forthe current 

  \ 

Congressional districts, “some=ofswhich:isscontained in. the 

Webster report)~=-North Carolina:12 ranks either 430 or 431 out 
of 435 in compactness using the dispersion measure he=amaunable, 

=O Setermine WHEther the ‘state of New York . increased tha” 
compactness of District 8 when=it- recently reworked is plan to Gah PDS wd 

rw a 

remedy~the-unconstitutionality of District 13]. North Carolina 
12 ranks either 432 or 433 of 435 in compactness using the 

perimeter measure. Thus, North Carolina 12 continues to be the 

least compact district in North Carolina and among the worst in 

the nation in terms of geographical compactness. 

S56. Pildes and Niemi report geographic compactness scores 

for the Congressional districts of the 1980s using the dispersion 

and perimeter measures. These scores for the old 11 districts in 

North Carolina are used to compare to the scores for the current 

49 

 



o® we 
12 districts in the 1997 Plan. Th 

  

e range on the dispersion 

measure in North Carolina runs from a low of .26 to a high of .57 
and averages .36 across the 11 districts in the 1580s. —Fm—the 

1237 plan —the—range—en-the—dispersion-measure runs from ra row—cf- 
Loa high fr Randa ve rages 3 5~aeross-the—curre nbd gem 
11 : : 

runs from a low. of 

The range on the perimeter measure in North Carolina 

-22 to a high of .46 and averages .30 across 

the 11 districts in the 1980s. Fr~the-1997-plan,-the.range qn _, 

the Perimeter.measure-runs.-£romsa-low :0f ++04~to 2 ~high .0fw.33.and 

SNEXages—rI9 across the Surreal “12 “gistricres This comparison 

reveals that the 1997 12 district plan is less compact overall 

than the 11 district rlan of the 1980s, using the two standard 

measures of geographic compactness. 

CE AY final race-neutral traditional redistricting 
EA 

criterion invQlves the issue of regionzl communities-of interest. 
— 

z have examined az map of the regions cf North Carolina included 

case (Figure S). One of the 
ef 

  

    

    

clearest distinctions is betwean the Ridewater, Inner Coastal 

Plains, and Piedmont a North Carolina. hus, current 

Congressional Bier 1 is in two principal communit £     
     interest redions of North Carolina. On the other hand, current 

t¥12 includes parts of six counties all in the Piedmont 

  
re 

}¢ Richard !H. Pildes and Richard G. Niemi, "Expressive Harms, 'Bizarre Districts, ' and Voting Rights: Evaluating Election-District Appearances after Shaw," Michigan Law Review, ’ Vol. 92 (December 1993), Table 6, pp. 189-91. 

S0 

 



  

A o® 
ou. 

gptes © 

ar Region. Thus, traditional regional communities ior interest were I 

mergad in the construction OF" Fr or 17in the Surrent North 
Carg) ina Congressional districting plan. 

N53. To sum up my conclusions about the predominant use of 
ACE apd the subordination of race- -neutral traditional 
disfy4 ring Principles to race by the state of North Carolina aos 
the @raation Qf the Congressional districts in 1997," 1 find) that 
a Significant hie of persons are assigned to districts” in 
€3SLayp Noxth cerns and the Piedmont Region based” on race. I 
conclude that race was a predominant factor in ‘the construction 
of Piseyicts 15:3, 9, hy 12% To a lesser, éxtent race also 
aifear ad the drawing of Diitrices 5, 6,7andi10 in that certain 
Count {ag in those districts wexe split on a racial basis. I also 

WEIS subkRrdinated ir the creation of “these districts. The state 
N of Ngyth Carolina dig not adhere to compactness in creating the 

    
CiSTLy apd, More countiss, Cities, towns, and recincts were split 
than aaded in constructing the districts, and gmmunity of 

distyi apes I found districts 3, 9, and 12 to be only technically 
conti ane, and that those three districts wer 
COOL { uae - 

   



a we 

EVALUATION OF TUE POLITICAL DEFENSE OF DISTRICT 5! RT PERORRn — 
Be ——— 

i 

A 
a S597 I conclude that the political defense of Congressionalt 

a Districtiid offered by state defendants and their expért 

  

    
  

  

i Professor David We. Peterson is nothing more than & post-hoc 

rationalization in ah attempt to mask a true Zin of including as : >. 
’ many African-American persons as possible qin District 12 given! a =, 

J : “ So : decision to make the district up Or persons from six counties. 

To permit a political explanatiqn trump the racial 

  

o 
\ : explanation, Professor Peterson old need to know that the state 

is 

actually displayed political data on the computer screen as the 

   

   

  

    

breakdowns as the an designer is working and ha not display 
hy Ter - ; N political breakddwns. Only after the plan is completed can a 

designer assess the political character of the districtMcreated. 
g 

J 
-— 

N, 

/ 

~ 

Assessment Gof the political character of z district is post-hoc 

anc ri De done while precincts are being allocated to a / 
distpict. Other problems exist with the analyses of Professor 

Pe erson which I will outline below. 

. 60. ~— Professor Peterson concentrates on the margins of 7 - 

—— 

Congressional District 32; e..ilgnores the core. ‘His measure 

focuses on the precincts just inside~6r just outside the 
ere 4 ae 

or 
“district. These precincts -- even the ones Fo 

Cig a 
12 -- are less heavily black than the ones in the center of t | 

a’ 

Sa 

 



  

we we 

urban areas included in the district. He should be focusing on 

the core of the district rather than focusing on the periphery, 

where decisions probably came late in the process, ile, is 

precinct X to be included or excluded. A 

61. Professor Peterson's segment analysis is flawed. 

Unless adjacent precincts inside and outside of Congressional 

District 12 have Equal noruiations, then it would not be possible 

. Lo substitute one for the\other. In other words, an outside 

precinct may have keen rejected because its inclusion -- or more 

likely the substitution of tHe precincts needed to eliminate the 

Type R divergences -- would have violated the equal population 
\ 

requirement. Professor Peterson ‘needs to demonstrate that when 

comparing inside and outside Semating they have nearly equal 

populations. Unless the population differences are‘trivial, fit 

would be necessary for him to make comparisons on groups of 

_Drecincts inside and outside Congressional District 12 that have 

nearly equal populations. 

62. According to Professor Peterson at co men #9 of his 

‘affidavit of February 27, 1998, a perfect correlition requires 

that a precinct would never be excluded if it has more African- 

American persons than an adjacent included precinct. \ One problem 

with making this- precinct-by-precinct assessment is that failure 

Lo include a precinct that is six percent African-Americ counts 

against the Racial Hypothesis if the adjacent precinct in 

53 

 



oh  o- 

  

Congressional District 12 is five percent African-American. The . 
: : 

~~ : N : : : 
2 

S1X percent African-American precinct may have been excluded 7 

because elsewhere in the district a 40 percent African-American 
ad 

precinct was, included and the population ceiling precluded adding 5 

the six percent. African-American precinct. 
WY 

\ 
N\, 1S 

63. Since with rare exceptions in North Carolina, African- : 
American voters cast more than 90 percent ‘of their votes for 

Democratic candidates in general elections, while white voters 
usually cast about 60 to 70 Peresat of their votes for Republican 
candidates, the Democratic vote “in a precinct will usually exceed 
the black voter percentage in the precinct. If the thesis of 

Professor Peterson is rue, one would tind that all African- 

American population majority precincts would be assigned to 
EN District 12 along with all non-African-Ameriean majority 

BN 

precincts where an African-American Demccratic ‘candidate carried 

the precinct in a recent election. As I:will demonstrate below, 

the former occurred, but the latter did not always otcur. This 

analysis will further demonstrate the power of the racid 

explanation and debunk the political explanation for the 

boundaries of Congressional District 12. 

  

64. To exami — Onl outlined above, ave 

examined the ‘assignment Of precincts within the Six Counties—of 

  

(Congressional Di strict-i2,leoking alternatively SE ARE Gruent Ey 

‘kace_and-by-—political prefererices: I have constructed a set of 

54 

 



J ph 

tables which Cross-tabulate the racial makeup of the population 

  

of each precinct by county with the Democratic registration 
Percentage, the Percentage of support for Democrat Harvey Gantt 
in the 1990 U.S. Senate contest, and the percentages of support 
for the Democratic candidates for Lieutenant Governor and Court 
of Appeals Judge in the 1988 general election. This Cross- 
tabulation will revealithat all African-American majority 
Population precincts are assigned to District 12 from the six 
counties and that many of the precincts carried by Democratic 
candidates in the EWO contests of 1988 and the one contest of 
1990 were not necessarily assigned to District 12. 

65. These results are displayed in Table 6 for each?ofithe 
Six counties and for Congressional District 12 as a whole. Bub 
four Davidson County precincts more than 30 percent African- 
American are in Congressional District 12. The weakest support 
for a racial explanation comes from the 1990 Gantt table as four 
of the five Precincts in wnich he polled a majority were placed 
in Congressional Districe®i1a! Charlotte's former mayor ran 
poorly in Davidson County, being held below 30% of the vote in 23 
of the 41 Precincts. Table 6 for Davidson County also 
demonstrates that most of the precincts less than 30 percent 
African-American in population but in which most voters are 
registered Democrats were excluded from Congressional District 
12. Analyses of the contests for lieutenant governor and Court 
of Appeals show that no precinct in which the population was less 

£5 

 



    
oT unty ond summary go bo District (o. = Tncluteh 0 forsygggounty 4nd Sunitieygy 

Cee Pg 53 : $7 2 

TABLE 6 

   
DAVIDSON COUNTY 

Precincts included in Congressional District 12 when classified by measures of Democratic strength and African-American Population 

% Democratic Registration 

% Black Population 50-359.9 60 - 69.9 > 70% 

<30% 3/8 4/8 0 

30-399 0 1/1 0 

40-499 0 0 0 

50-59.9 0 0 0 

60-699 0 £0 2/2 

> 70 0 0 1/1 

% Support for Harvey Gantt, 1990 

% Black Population 50-59.9 60 - 69.9 > 70% 

<30% Va 0 0 

30-39.9 1/1 0 0 

40 -49.9 0 0 0 

50-59.9 0 0 0 

60 - 69.9 0 0 2/2 

> 70 0 0 1/1 

S6 

 



JA - 

  

“ Support for Democratic Lt. Governor Candidate, 1988 
% Black Population 50-59.9 60 - 69.9 > 70% 

<30% 3/4 0/2 0 

30-39.9 1/1 0 0 

40 - 49.9 0 0 0 

50 59.9 0 0 0 

60 - 69.9 0 1/1 1/1 

> 70 0 0 1/1 

% Support for Democratic Court of Appeals Candidate, 1988 
% Black Population 50-59.9 60 - 69.9 > 70% 

< 30% 3/4 on 0 

30 -39.9 1/1 0 0 

40 - 49.9 0 0 0 

50 - 59.9 0 0 0 

60 - 69.9 0 1/1 1/1 

> 70 0 0 1/1 

» 

S7 

 



  

TABLE 6 (Ctd.) 

FORSYTH COUNTY 

Precincts included in Congressional District 12 when c 
strength and African-American Population 

% Black Population 

% Black Population 

lassified by measures of Democratic 

% Democratic Registration 

50-59.9 60 

0/5 

- 69.9 

% Support for Harvey Gantt, 1990 

50-59.9 

0/7 

58 

60 - 69.9 > 70% 

0 0/1 

1/1 0/1 

0 0/1 

0 2/2 

0 0 

0 13/13 

 



"we o® 

% Support for Democratic Lt. Governor Candidate, 1988 

  

% Black Population 50-59.9 60 - 69.9 > 70% 

<30% 0/8 0/1 0 

30 -39.9 0/2 1/1 0/1 

40 - 49.9 0 2/3 0 

50-59.9 0 2/2 0 

60 - 69.9 0 0 0 

> 70% 0 0 13/13 

% Support for Democratic Court of Appeals Candidate, 1988 

% Black Population 50-599 60-699  >70% 

<30% 0/6 ion 0 

30-399 OR Ve 0 

40 - 49.9 0 2/3 0 

50-599" ¢ 1/1 1/1 

60-699 0 0 0 

> 70% 0 0 13/13 

59 

 



oo oe 
TABLE 6 (Ctd.) 

  

GUILFORD COUNTY 

Precincts included in Congressional District 12 when classified by measures of Democratic strength and African-American Population 

% Democratic Registration 

% Black Population | 50-59.9 60 - 69.9 > 70% 

<30% 10/41 6/17 0 

30-39.9 0 - 2/2 0/1 

40 - 49.9 0 Ya 2/2 

50-59.9 0 0 1/1 

60 - 69.9 0 0 3/3 

> 70 0 0 13/13 

% Support for Harvey Gantt, 1990 

% Black Population 50 - 59.9 60 - 69.9 > 70% 

< 30% 4/18 0/3 0/1 

30 -39.9 0 0 0 

40 - 49.9 0 0/1 373 

50 - 59.9 0 0 1/1 

60 - 69.9 0 0 3/3 

> 70 0 0 13/13 

60 

 



ah BE | 

% Support for Democratic Lt. Governor Candidate, 1988 

  

% Black Population 50-59.9  60-69.9 > 70% 

<30% 7121 0/4 0 

30 -39.9 1/1 0/1 0 

40 - 49.9 0 212 1/1 

50 - 59.9 0 0 1/1 

60-699 0 0 3/3 

> 70 0 0 13/13 

% Support for Democratic Court of Appeals Candidate, 1988 

% Black Population 50-59.9 60 - 69.9 > 70% 

<30% 3/12 aly] 0 

30-39.9 1/1 0/1 0 

40 - 49.9 0 3/3 0 

50-359.9 0 0 1/1 ; 

60 - 69.9 0 0 3/3 

> 70 0 0 13/13 

61 

 



Re wh 

TABLE 6 (Ctd.) 

  

IREDELL COUNTY 

Precincts included in Congressional District 12 when classified by measures of Democratic strength and African-American Population 

% Democratic Registration 

% Black Population 50-599 60 - 69.9 > 70% 

<30% 5/12 | 1/7. 0 

30-399 0 0 1/1 

40-499 0 0 0 

50-599 0 0 2/2 

60-699 0 0 0 

>70 0 0 0 

% Support for Harvey Gantt, 1990 

% Black Population 50-59.9 60 - 69.9 > 70% 

<30% 1/1 0 0 

30-399 1/1 0 0 

40 - 49.9 0 0 0 

50 -59.9 0 1/1 1/1 

60 - 69.9 0 0 0 

> 70 0 0 0 

62 

 



oh oh 
“0 Support for Democratic Lt. Governor Candidate, 1988 

  

% Black Population ; 50-599 60°- 69.9 > 70% 

<30% 0/1 0 ; 0 

30-399 1/1 0 0 

40 - 49.9 0 0 0 

50 - 59.9 0 2/2 0 

60 - 69.9 0 0 0 

>70 0 0 0 

% Support for Democratic Court of Appeals Candidate, 1988 

% Black Population 50-599 60-699  >70% 

<30% Y; 0 0 

30-399: 1/1 0 0 

40-499 0 0 0 

50-399. In 0 0 

60-699 0 0 0 

> 70 0 0 0 

63 

 



wh wh 

TABLE 6 (Ctd.) 

  

MECKLENBURG COUNTY 

Precincts included in Congressional District 12 when classified by measures of Democratic strength and African-American Population 

% Democratic Registration 

% Black Population 50-59.9  60-69.9  >70% 

<30% 9/37 6/7 0 

30-399 0 2/2 3/3 

40-499 1/1 1/1 

50-599 0 2/2 3/3 

60-699 0 an 4/4 

> 70 0 0 18/18 

% Support for Harvey Gantt, 1990 

% Black Population 50-599 60 - 69.9 > 70% 

< 30% 5/21 3/9 3/4 

30-39.9 2/2 3/3 0 

40-499 1/1 0 1/1 

50-59.9 1/1 3/3 1/1 

60 - 69.9 0 0 Ad 

> 70 0 0 18/18 

 



oh we 

% Support for Democratic Lt. Governor Candidate, 1988 

  

% Black Population 50-599 60-699  >70% 

| <30% 4/7 2/5 0 

30-399 21 a 0 

40-499 1/1 0 1/1 

50-599. 3/3 212 0 

60-699 0 0 4/4 

> 70 0 11 17/17 

% Support for Democratic Court of Appeals Candidate, 1988 

% Black Population 50-59.9 60 - 69.9 > 70% 

<30% 4/5 Tn 0 

30-399: 1/1 21 0 

40-499 1/1 1/1 0 

50-599 21 212 1/1 

60-699 0 0 4/4 

> 70 0 3p) 16/16 

65 

 



  

TABLE 6 (Ctd.) 

ROWAN COUNTY 

Precincts included in Congressional District 12 when classified by measures of Democratic strength and African-American Population 

% Democratic Registration 

% Black Population 50-599 60-699 >70w 

<30% 2/9 | 1/1 1/1 

30-39.9 1/1 2/2 = 1g 

40-499 0 Y, 0 

50-599  ¢ 0 0 

60-699 0 0 0 

> 70 0 0 3/3 

% Suppor: for Harvey Gantt, 1990 

% Black Population 30-599 60 - 69.9 > 70% 

<30% 2/2 0 0 

50-39.9 2/2 1/1 0 

40 -49.9 1/1 0 0 

50-59.9 0 0 0 

60 - 69.9 0 0 0 

> 70 0 0 3/3 

66 

 



o® o® 
% Support for Democratic Lt. Governor Candidate, 1988 

  

% Black Population 50-59.9 60-69.9  >70% 

<30% 4/4 0 0 

30-39.9 2/2 1/1 0 

40-49.9 Ya 0 0 

50-59.9 0 0 0 

60 - 69.9 0 0 0 

> 70 0 0 3/3 

% Support for Democratic Court of Appeals Candidate, 1988 

% Black Population 50-599  60-69.9  >70% 

<30% 2/2 al 0 

30-3991 373 0 0 

40 -49.9 Ya 0 0 

50-399. 0 0 

60-699 0 0 0 

> 70 0 0 3/3 

67 

 



oh ® 
TABLE 6 (Ctd.) 

  

SUMMARY FIGURES FOR ALL SIX COUNTIES IN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 12 

Precincts included in Congressional District 12 when classified by measures of Democratic strength and African-American Population 

% Democratic Registration 

% Black Population 50-599 60 - 69.9 > 70% 

<30% 30/139 18/45 1/1 

30-39.9 12 8/9 4/6 

40 - 49.9 0 3/6 5/5 

50-59.9 0 2/2 8/8 

60 - 69.9 0 0 9/9 

>70 0 0 48/48 

% Support for Harvey Gantt, 1990 

% Black Population 50-359.9 60 - 69.9 > 70% 

< 30% 13/56 3/12 3/6 

30 -39.9 6/8 5/5 0/1 

40 - 49.9 4/4 0/1 4/5 

50 -59.9 1/1 44 5/5 

60 - 69.9 0 0 9/9 

>70 0 0 48/48 

638 

 



  

% Black Population 

% Black Population 

ve 

“0 Support for Democratic Lt. Governor Candidate, 1988 

50-59.9 

<30% 18/45 

30-399 79 

40-499 2/3 

50-59.9 3/3 

60-699 0 

> 70 0 

60 - 69.9 

2/12 

4/5 

4/5 

6/6 

1/1 

1/1 

> 70% 

0 

0/1 

2/2 

1/1 

8/8 

47/47 

% Support for Democratic Court of Appeals Candidate, 1988 

50-599 

<30% 13/52 

30-39.9 7/9 

40-499 22 

69 

60 - 69.9 

2/6 

3/5 

6/6 

5/5 

1/1 

2/2 

> 70% 

0 

° 

 



o® o® 
than 30 percent African-American but which cast more than 60 

  

- — -— > 2s -« o - he 3 0 . eo . percent of their taliots for the Democratic candidate are in 

66. = TE turn tor she Table 6 por COT LOT Er OTS FoR Counts 

Table 6 for Forsyth County shows that all precincts at least 50 

percent African-American in total population are included in 

Congressional District 12 for each of the measures of Democratic 

strength considersd. Once the Tricor Ana te pooulation 

percentage drops below 50 percent, then regardless of the 

Democratic strength registered in the precinct, there is no 

guarantee that the precinct will be assigned to Congressional 

District 12. As further evidence that race is more important 

than party when sorting precincts between Congressional 

District’s Siand 12 in Forsyth County, if the population is less 

then 40 percent RIrican-RBmericean, then regardless of how 

EenCcCen rt
 

" [A]
 

ct
 

( 9 @)
 

(D 3 0 0 Rh
 

fu
 

ct
 

)¢
 

0 wn
 

CS
 

ry
 

(0
 

3 o]
 

c
t
 

J HB fu
 

< O ({)
 rit 1s highly unlikely 

that the precinct will be included in Congressional District 12. 

67. [E-next turn to the Table 6 portion for Guitferd-€ounty. 

All 17 majority African-American Guilford County precincts are in 

Congressional District 12. However a number of precincts that 

are majority ay on the various measures are outside 

Congressional District 12. The contrast is proncunced in terms 

70 

 



at Ne 
of party registration where three-fourths of the precincts SO; - 

  

52.95 percent Democratic By registration are in Congressional 

District 6 rather than Congressional District 12. Even in the 60 

~:69.80% Inercentr registration range, most precincts are excluded 

from Congressional Districtii2; Similarly with the Gantt vote in 

1990, 18 of 22 precincts in which Gantt got 50 - 69.99 percent of 

the vote are outside Congressional District 12. The pattern 

repeats with the cther two sets of election data. 2ll of the 

heavily black Population precincts are in Congressional District 

12 while only some of the heavily Democratic precincts are 

included. 

68. L nexc turn to the Table. 6-portion—for-Iredell—Countys 

All three Iredell County precincts more than 30 percent African- 

American in population are in Congressional District 12 while 15 

CZ 21 precincts less than 30 percent African-American ere in 

cngressional District 10. The strongest evidence of & racial 

explanation comes from the Party registration analysis where 13 

of the 19 precincts less than 30 percent African-American black 

but majority Democratic in registration are excluded from 

Congressional District 12. The party explanation is best 

supported by the 1990 Gantt analysis in which the only four 

precincts carried by the African-American candidate are in 

Congressional District 12. Despite all but two precincts having os 

71 

 



o® 

  

ah 
Democratic registration majorities, no more than four precincts 

€Ver cast a majcrity of their votes for Democrats. If I lower -— 

the threshold tc 40 percent support for a Democrat, results for 

the Gantt and the Court of Appeals contests would support a 

racial explanation. 

69. fIfnext turn to the-Fable-6-portion=for-Mecklenbmrg — 
Geunty™ All 34 Mecklenburg County precincts more than 30 percent 

African-American are in Congressional District 12! 

of the 99 precincts less than 

in Congressional District 9. 

played an very important role 

Congressional Districts 9 znd 

registration and support for 

interpretation that race was 

both cf. these FCressntazcions, — nr rt we a A 

In contrast, 

30 percent African-American, 82 are 

This alone suggests that race 

in selecting precincts for 

12. The tables for Democratic 

Gantt in 1990 fit best with an 

more important than party since in 

the bulk of the 30 - 29.6% black 

percent range are excluded from Congressional: District 12. 

Focusing on the Gantt vote in 1990, the bulk of the 30 - 39.9 

percent African-American precincts in which he polled 60 ~- 69.9 

percent of the vote are outside Congressional District 12. The 

1983 Court of Arpeals vote provides the strongest support for a 

party explanation for districting. If, however, I include 

precincts in which Democratic strength is 40 - 49.9 percent, then 

72 

 



o® »e 
MOSt of the precincts are in Congressional District 8S, for. al} 

  

four measures of Partisanship. 

70. [I next turn to the Table 6 portion for. Rowan County. 
Rowan County has only three majority African-American population 
Precincts (all more than 70 African-American) and these are 
assigned to Congressional District 12. The majority-white 

Precincts in Congressional District 12 tend to be the ones with 
the strongest Support for Democrats. Every precinct that gave 
Gantt in 1990 a majority is in Congressional District 12 and all 
dut one precinct that voted Democratic for lieutenant governor or 
Court ofiappeals in 1988 is in Congressional District 12. The 
Strongest evidence for the racial explanation comes from the 
registration data where most of the precincts 50 - 69.9 percent 

( wn
 

wn
 

| o
d 0 3 [41
] 

| 
-d
 2 wn

 
(t
 

a I=
 

0 ct
 

p
t
 

nN
 

Democratic in registration are not in Congr 

£ I drop the chreshoid down to 40 perc (D
 nt Democratic on each 

in the 40 ~ 29.c¢ percent Democratic Category, most 
Srecincts are exciuded from Congressional District i2 on each of 
the four measures. 

£71. Finally, I turn to the Table 6 portion for all six 
counties combined in Congressional District 12. District-wide 
al9 African-American population majority precincts are assigned 
Co District 12. on the other hand, a large number of precincts 

73 

 



~ 
which demonstrated their willingness to support Democratic 

  

candidates in the 1988 and 1990 general elections irrespective of 
the race of the Democratic candidate are assigned to adjacent 

districts and not Congressional District 12. For example, 60 of 

the 98 white majority precincts won by Harvey Gannt in 1990 were 

assigned to another district. Tf the motivation was to create a 

Democratic majority Congressional District 12 which was 

hospitable to an African-American Democratic candidate in the 

1990:U7S. Senate contest, a large proportion of favorable turf is 

not included in the district. A partisan district would have 

attempted to include a majority of those precincts and paid less 

attention rt
 

Oo race in the construction of the district” 

. 
iS Si =. ee i i . Sh a IE Ter orig Biel Et2%~ Of course, no Congressional election was conducted 

a 

; Rie i ; ; : . hati within ‘the boundaries of Congressional District 12 inh the 1997 

olan under Chellenge &s this court invalidated that plan. 

Fowever, assuming that tre Chellenged district is similar to the 
- : 

. . an . — . 
. . 

1998 plan used in the 1598.elections, then if the objective 

behind the 1997 plan was toa iNra a partisan balance in the 

congressional delegation with six Democrats and six Republicans, 
gt 

the effort failed. 1In 1998, the election of Rebkin Hayes in or 

Congressiondl District 8 gave Republicans a 7 - 5 edge in the 
~ 

~~ 

delegation. The election of 2 Republican upon the retirement of 
~~ 

3:01 Hefner in district 8 had been widely expected so the only 

 



oh o® 
SUrorise was the smallness of the Hayes’ margin. Congressional 

  

  

i District 8 is rated highly competitive by The Almanac of ‘American 

  

Politics and a close race is expected if the 1998 plan is used 
for that districe:. Congressional District 12 .in the 1997 plan 

shares part of its boundary with Congressional District 8 so that 
potentially Congressional District 8 .could have been made more 
Democratic and Congressional District 12 less Democratic as a 

Step toward insuring that Congressional District 8 not go 
a, 

. . 
: Sy, 

. . 
Republican after Hefner’s departure. Information included by 

Prcfessor Peterscn at paragraph #21 of his affidavit indicates 
ho 

~, that Congressional District 12 was at “least 62 percent Democratic 
> 

in the 1997 plan. a plan motivated by a desire to maintain Six 

Democratic districts would have taken steps to. shore up 
N\, 

Congressional District 8 and the opportunity for oing SO existed 
8 

- if Congressional District 12 were made less Democratic, i.e. re 

fewer Democratic votes would be wasted. 

LRTEN NUMERQSITY AND CONCENTRATION OF AERTICAN-AMERTICAN VOTERS 
~ 

bh, 5 

il 

  

a 
~ 

rt 
- 

tr PN 
, 

732 I conclude that the African-American voting age 
oY ~ 

7 Ld kd - 
population in no part of Noxth Carglina is sufficiently numerous 

  

   
     

    

Or geographically compact e 

traditional districti principles to draw a single-member 

Congressional disfrict. Aan equitably pdulated Congressional 

75 

 



oo oe 
district in North Carolina needs a total population of about 

  

552,386 persons ‘tsing 1590 Census of Populatica data. First, an 

examination of maps and statistical data at the county, city, and 

precinct levels by race indicates that there are is only one 
a % 

or potential area rere one might lccate enough African- ~Americén 

persons of voting age Lo create a geographically compact” 
\ 

district. The area ig in hs northeastern part of the state 

located primarily ra counties of the Inner. Coastal Plain 

region. \ 

74. The best evidence of the difficulty of ‘constructing 

such an African-American majority district is contained in 

-— 

material from the 1997 Section 5 submission of North Carolina. 

This material indicates that current Congressional district 1 

does not contain either a majority of the voting age population 

American percentage of the registered voters in the districtiis 

44.89 percent. I presume that if the General Assembly could have 

Created a yotingsage population majority-minority districtiin 

northeastern Nor th Carolina it would have done so) There are no 
/ 

\ 
p, 

\ 
. gf . . . . large cities in the Inner Coastal Plain region from\which tc draw 

(a sufficient number of African-American persons to re dily 
/ 

/ . ’ * . 
id id » construct @ majority-minority Congressional district (contrast 

/ 

\ \ 
76 \ 

 



  

North Carolina circ: ties with Atlanta, Birmingham, New Orleans, and 
LR, Een ; : Memphis ‘where large African-American population concentrations 

exist and make possible the creation of majority-minority 

Congressional districts): 

1.5% Alternatively, I have employed Census of Population 

data from the 20 counties contained wholly or partially within 

the boundaries of challenged Congressional district 1 to see -ifga 

voting age population majority district can be drawn that is non- 

bizarre and compact shaped. San examinaticn of maps and 

Statistical data at the county and precinct level by race 

indicates that the best approach is to cencentrzte on a total of 

12 ccunties which include a total of 551,058 persons, which is 

just shy of the ideal figure for congressional districts of 

552,386 persons. These 12 ccunties include: Bertie, Edgecombe, 

Ieene, Halifax, Hertford, Martin Northampton, 2i po
t ct
 

(!
 

~ < fu
 0 ( b) 

arren, Wayne, anc Wilson ccunties wis — of >
 

}
 bh
 | 

cT
 

po (0
 

(@]
 

ht
 

a 1 
1 

(0
 

fu
 

wn
 

Tr
 

"J
y [41
] a cr
 

North Carolina. According to the 1990 Census of Population, 

236,482 African-American Persons reside in those 12 counties, 
3 

hp} 

5 making up 42.91 percent of the total population. These 12 

counties include 406,483 persons of voting age, of which 160,166 

\ are African-American (about 39.40 percent of the voting age 

population), according to the 1990 Census of Population. Using 

the 1990 voter registration data in the state redistricting da. 2 
\ 

&’ 

77 \ 

 



*® oh 
cunties contain a total of 262,484 registered ’ 

a 

r+ Of which 101,413-.are ‘African-American (about 38.64 of the 

  

TY 

registered voters). Thus, not enough African-American persons 
ore ly 

ost” Tr 

reside in the Inner Coastal Plain region to make.up a majority of 
Ae SE  ~——s 

the eligible vot&rs in a single-member district for Congress rt 
ERA a 

V. VOTER PARTICIPATION RATES WITHIN THE GEOGRAPHY OF   

CONGRESSTONAL DISTRICTS 1 AND 12   

76. In order to address the question of whether African- 

American persons within the boundaries of Congressional Districts 

1 and 12 of 1597 have less opportunity than white persons to 

participate in the political Frocess, I have estimated 

participation rates for selected Democratic primary, Democratic 

runoff, and general elections between 1990 and 1998 to determine 

Cf rarticipation among the two. £ For the purposes—of 

Lv (ATE Xing at-one--dimensiep—of-—overall   

LBgTricibation in.the electoral process. Participation—is-defined. 

and measured as the proportion of persons who zre registered-to 
- 

gL 
Say 

Vote who voted in the. contest in Jos stion bys selsciing one of the 
“— 

~ 
pe 

a i 
candidates running. I will present .analyses for the 1998 

So 2 Ne 
: S——. . Nee ry . Primary and general elections for~¥.S. Congress in — : 

re 
EE 

° 

Democratic 

-> Districts 1 and—17 I will also present analyses for the. 1990 

PemocreTls oeimary runoff, and general elections for U.S. 

78 

 



e® »h 
Senate, the 1992 Democratic Primary and general elections for - 

~—— 

a 

  

——— 

ee 

~— 

—— 

~ 

—— — 
State Auditor, the 1956 general elections for U+S. Senate and 

—— 

State Auditor, and the >008 Democratic Piipary and general 

elections for U.S. Ssnace Fain within just the ‘boundaries of the 
Dn, 
Ss precincts assigned t to Congressional Districts 1 and 12 in n the 

1987. plan under Challenge in this case. 

77. I present a summarization of these results in Table 7 
for Democratic Primary and runoff elections of the 1990s (see OK 
Exhibits C and D for summaries of the regression ang extreme case 

  

analyses for the elections examined) . Fall Live contested 
‘Remocratic PEinscysands -xunoff elections held within the he tn, 

or comesndfn 

  

iy 
© srs? geographical areas of 1997. Congressional bistricts 1 and 12, #7% 

N 
iF <x 

™, African- -American persons who Wer&( registered to voté had a So 
Wt Fons ot : ny, 

pazticipation advantage over white. Pegistered voters, based on ve 
“ure ra ¥y % 

«~ 
NN Pee, jj igtted regréssion analyses (see Table) ” ""So-.onten separate ~7 

- "ri ee fo occasions Afric an-American voters Pe ticirined &t higher: rates 
ton . -' ! 

. 

~ 

» 

: . 

than white voters: . 
= : 

oN, 

oN 
EN 

78. I present a summarization of these results in Table 8 
for general elections of the 1990s. IM =IT SIX contested—general 
£lectiens—hetd Within the geographical aATexs—of—39597 

Asn AL ars Ge bt te -.Congressional-Districts ~I"and 12, the African-AMeriean 
HIN TAIN > A ADIT en ALD red ATE ¥o Sw mars 

- 
wel 

as 

Participation rate was lower for persons who were registered to’ 
re RF rm ge Vote. compared to white registered voters, based on wetTghted 

73 

 



i Re 

  

TABLE 7 

Participation Rates b Y Race in Se a, lected North Carolina Congressional 

Primary 

Districts of the 19 

(Participation as % 

97 and 1998 Plans in Democratic and Runoff Elections of the 1950s 
of Registration) 

3 
3 

> 

  

Pass 4 Afr, Am. Year cn) Office Pare] ic, ot Ln -Partic, oD 
Tt XX 7 it a / Lr : — Ay 1990: ~~ 31 us. Senate” ®) 350 . = mE 38 199056: 7.1 2U./S/ Senate (RY 31% Fl ae oe 378 oi ger 1992 Fi a State Aud. \(B) 212 -/ “7 Ji. 2e8 0 199875 hn U/ (S+ Senate 18] 219.2 ee .198 L~ iL 1998/ 1 U: Zi Cong <128 .276; 

- 1990 32 U.S. Senate (Pp) +133 .255 Coa Vy 1990 12 U.S. Senate (R) .097 : .301 SN = 1992 12 State Aud. (Pp) .098 .176 2 Ty 1998 12 U.S. Senate (P) .089 $1.32 dod 1998 12 U.S. Cong. (Pp) .025 .065 
~] 

Note: 
voting for candidates 
estimated using weighte 
analysis. Voter regisgtrat] 

composition 

SAE i 
b 

    

80 

  

te at ea¢h 
oup using exoxe 

analysié Sup fusing ut 

- 

Participation rates ar€) based Pay of voters 
que tion and. dre 

Sed to measire the 
ction. | Simitar 

eme case 
are rep ted in 

(a



  

EC oh 
TABLE 8 

Participaticn Rates by Race in Selected North Carolina Congressional Districts of the 1997 and 1958 Plans in 
General Elections of the 1990s 

(Participation as % of Registration) 

White Afr. Am. 
Office Partic: Partic, 

U.S. Senate .620 .544 ~._ State Aud. 2-584 0 0 f 'U:S.. Senate .606 
State AlUd:-. = 563 
U.S. Senate C447. 
U.s Cong. .405 

U.S.” Senate 607 
State Aud. .653 

547 

.503 

.411 

.408 

Note: Participation rates are based on the number of voters voting for candidates for the office in question and are estimated using weighted bivariate ecological regression analysis. Voter registration figures are used to measure the racial composition of the electorate at each election. Similar estimates were found for each group using extreme case 
ct) analysis techniques and are reported in 

 



oh wh 
f SeEess lon saslyses {see—Tablet)—Tnue, ~on-the..12 Seprzars.. 
occasions I have. 2nalyzed-Africamr-American- “voters- DE  ivenam at SE 7 Lower rates: than white-wotert: T This means that in geheral 

  

er 
74 elections African-American voters must make electoral coalitions 

By PPE eg 

with white voters in order i Sisct Democratic dandidates to, Ng 7 

s congressichal office using ye: Sian A. In the next ro I 
§ will dssess the degree of hice cross-over ier same 7 — ie where I aye estimated participation rates of the two 

groups. fo 

V. WHITE CROSS-OVER VOTING IN NORTH CAROLINA   

79. I examine whether white voters in the northeast and 
Piedmont regions of the state of North Carclina in particular 
Cross-over and give SUPPOrt to candidates of choice of African- 
American voters in recent general elections. If white cross-over 
voting is common ir the Parts cf the state where Congressional 
Districts 1 and iz were created in the 1957 Plan, this 
information might have been taken into account by the architects 
of the North Carolina congressional districting plan under 
challenge. In order to address this question, I will first 
report upon estimated white Crossover rates using bivariate 
ecological regression and extreme case (homogeneous precinct) 
analysis for the. selected Statewide general election contests of 
1990," 1992, 1996, and 1998 held within the boundaries of 
challenged Congressional Districts 1 and 12 adopted in 1997. 

82 

 



   oh wh 
Second, I will report upon estimated white CXoss-over rates for the 199g Congressional elections held within the boundaries of the districrs ordered by the courts in 1998. 

80. In Table 9, 7 TE€pOrt my estimates of white cross-over voting in the 1990 contest for U.S. Senate involving the 
candidacy of African-American Harvey Gantt, in the 1990 contest for State Auditor involving the candidacy of African-American Bill Campbell, in the 1556 U.S. Senate ang State Auditor contests involving candidates Gantt ang Campbell, and in the 19598 contest 
for the U.S. Senate where John Edwards was the candidate of 
choice of African-American voters. : I conducted biva izte -— 

ecological regression and extreme case analyses of these 
elections,” 1p both Congressional Districts of the 1997 plan, 
African-American candidates obtained apprecizble levels of white CrXoss-over fees ATE NTE ross over. suppext. 450 a 

: * 

tr 
the hichest in District 12 and somewhat lower in District 3 - ~ for al 

rE SO a 

: S&ST the two elections involving Earvey Gantt. Gantt is 

I
=
!
 

et 

€stimated to have received a low of 17.9 percent of the white 
VOCLe in 1990 in District 1 and a high of 37.7 percent of the 

hn L 
white vote in district 12 "bas 

  

upon the weighted regression 
analyses. White cross-over was the highest in the two general ; 

Ee election contests of~1992 and 1996 in District l for State 
Auditor. ang J 

  

Edwards obtained between 35 and~40 percent of the white ¥dte in his Successful challenge to former Spe 
Fairc¥®dth in the Districts 1 and 12 in the Sedan 

83 

 



»e oh 
TABLE 9 

  

Estimated White Cross-Over Rates in North Carolina Congressional Districts of 1997 Plan A in Statewide General Elections for 1930," 1992, 1996, and 1998 
(% of Group Crossing-Over) 

   
     

  

    

~~" Gandidate Weigh Regression Extr Pees 7 : = = : y of Choijce te % “Whi 3 

“ Gantt (B) 
~ Campbell (R) 

Gantt (BY 
Camppet]l (B) 
Edwards 

Gantt (B) 
Campbell (B) 
Gantt (B) 
Campbell (B) 
Edwards 

  

  

Note: The Cross-over rate of white voters is estimated through the use of weighted bivariate ecological regression and extreme case (homogenous) analysis for each of the elections. 

84 

 



ow wh 
81. In Table 10, I report my estimates of white cross-over 

  

voting in the 1998 Congressional elections contests in Districts 

    1 and 12. #mr—the T9998 CONCEst TH DiSETTEET Eva Clayromr~was-the 

African-Amexican—Pemocratit CaRGISaES, while in District 12 Mer 
  

Ten 
NO WS 

Watt was the African-American.candidate.. I conducted bivariate 
ecologicaliregression andlextreme.case analyses. of. these. 

.elections:” In both Congressional Districts of the 1998 plan, 

African-American candidates obtained appreciable levels of hp 

cross-over support. ! The-levels of White Cross-over Support—are 

‘slightly higher-in"District “12 than in District-i, but.both _ . 

.estimates exceed 30 percent white cross-over support. ~ These 

. levels of white cross-over support along with African-American 

voter support translated into strong margins of-victory for the 

Democratic candidates in the two districts ® »= 

VII. ELECTORAI, SAFENESS OF CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS 1 "AND 12   

82. To assess the electoral safety of Congressional 

Districts 1 and 12 in the North Carolina Congressional 

districting plan of 1997, I use electoral history included in the 

1938 reports of plaintiffs' expert Lee Mortimer and defendants’ 

expert David W. Peterson as well as reconstituted election 

results for a number of Ly statewide elections. In my 

scholarly work on state legislative elections, I consider any 

election in which one candidate gets 60 percent or more of the 

total vote among two candidates as being a non-competitive 

85 

 



“> this L098 fo 
TABLE 10 

  

Estimated White Cross-Over Rates in North Carolina Congressiona: Districts of 1998 Plan A in Congressional General Elections for 1998 
(3 of Group Crossing-Over) 

  

  

Candidate Weighted Regression Extreme Case Year Ch of Choice White % White % 
1998 1 Clayton (B) 3074 33.3 
1998 12 Watt (B) 32.6 3150 

86 

PL 

 



    election. 

competitive. Students-of—eong: i erally adopt 

the same-threshold-for dist ing IsSHIAY Hon - competitive —Erem-— 

  

  

wcompetitive,elections. = 

83 

  

«for Congressional district. 12 ..I find that within the boundaries 
  
  

of the district that Peterson estimates that Democratic 

candidates won over 60 percent of the vote in two 1988 elections 

and the 1990 U.S. Senate election between Jesse Helms and Harvey 

  Gantt. All of these percentages EXCEEQ UE 1eVel needed tu have: 

a competitive Congressional district: ~THESE THTEE pertentages” 

all confirm -that-district-12-is-overly safe for hoth white and 

African-Americam-Ccandidates of the Demoeratic-party-in—generat 

elections 

oN 
“ Pe, - 1 - - . co 

84. "I have also:double-checked the calculations reported 
> ~ 

<r" —r 

for recent elections in the 1998 Mortimer report: Using whole 
~ 

county statistics, I confirm Seiad report is correct. 

For example, I find that the cratic candidate for Auditor 

Campbell, an African-Am can, won 

     

       

   
      

    

.5 percent of the vote in 

the 18 counties of-hortheastern North Carqlina outlined in 

Exhibit E of the Mortimer report. This findinx suggests that 

. Cong sional District«l-isrsalso overly safe. 

85. I have also reconstituted the precinct election returns 

87 

 



   oh a 
from nine recent statewide elections: the 1990 U.S. Senate 
Democratic primary, runoff, and general elections; the 1992 State 
Auditor Democratic primary and general elections; the 15956:U.8. 
Senate and State Auditor general elections; and the 1998 U.S. 
Senate Democratic Primary and general elections. By El iccating 
the precincts within Districts 1 and 12 to both the 1997 and 1998 
plans, I can determine how the various statewide candidates would 
have performed within the two sets of districts. These results 
are -summarized in Exhibit E. Candidates of choice of African- 
American voters are winning the Democratic primaries or runoffs 
within both districts of both plans. And candidates of choice of 
African-American voters are usually winning more than 60 percent 
of the vote in the general elections within both districts under 
both plans. These analyses suggest that neither the 1997 nor the 
1998 plan is narrowly tailored. 

CONCLUSION 

86. On the basis of my above analysis, I conclude: 

1) that race was the predominant factor aved by the 

state of North Carolina to draw the boundaries of the 

1997 U.S. Congressional districts; : 

(2) that the state of North Carolina in creating the 

1997 U.S. Congressional districting plan subordinated 
traditional race-neutral districting principles, such 

as compactness, contiguity, respect for political 

88 

o® 

 



  

wh J 
subdivisions or communities defined by actual shared 

interests, to racial considerations; 

(3) that the political explanation for the Plan A 

Congressional districts adopted in 1997 offered by 

state defendants and their expert Professor Peterson is 

flawed And-Gap—ee—CHarattE rized a5—a post-hoc 

  

‘rationalizationfor~the-districting-plan.- 

(43. that the African-American voting age population in 
i or an, avr 

rr vr 
> ‘North Carolina (particularly the northeastern part of 

gon 

ithe state) ‘is not fficiently-¥afge nor geographically 

concentrated enough, to” con itute a potential voter 
we 

wr 

majority using traditional districti 
Set 

draw a’ single-member Congressional district; 

rinciples to 

  

(5) that African-American voters residing in Districts 

1 and 12 in the Act 586 plan of 1997 do not participate 

at lower rates than white voters in recent state-wide 

Democratic primary and runoff elections, indicating any 

evidence that a history of official discrimination has 

not led to politically significant differences in 

political participation in Democratic primary elections 

in the districts as drawn in 1997 (there are 

participation differences between African-American and 

white voters in general elections held within the two 

districts of the 1997 plan, indicating that candidates 

of choice of African-American voters will need some 

white cross-over support to win within the two 

89 

 



  

wh we 
districts; of 

(6) that more than sufficient levels of white crossover 
voting exists in the northeast and Piedmont regions of 

North Carolina such that fair U.S. Congressional 

districts can be drawn that do not need to be majority 

African-American in voting age population or voter 

registration in order to allow African-American voters 

a reasonable opportunity to elect candidates of choice 

in U.S. Congressional elections; and 

(7) that U.S. Congressional Districts 1 and 12 in the 
1597 North Carolina plan are overly safe from the 

standpoint of giving a candidate of choice of African- 

American voters an opportunity to be elected, thus 

questioning whether the plan was narrowly tailored to 

satisfy a compelling state interest. 

S0 

 



" - 
I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing 

Declaration ig true and correct. 

  

Executed on this tenth day of September, 1999. 

re) Wh. 
  

Ronald E. Weber, Ph.D.
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.
Correspondence from Carraway to Cox Re: Joint Appendix; from Carraway to Neyhart; Annotated Draft Joint Appendix

Impact area

Topic

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in
