Fax from Plaintiffs’ counsel, to opposing counsel RE: Draft plaintiff exhibits

    EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM al Nov 24°'9 0:44 No.002 P.0O2 

C. PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBITS [200-399] 

# TITLE 
OBJECTION 

200. Memorandum of Gerry Cohen to US Department 

of Justice, November 3, 1991 (7), from 1991 plan 

Section 5 submission, Section C.4. 

201. Selected portions of 1991 plan Section 5 submission, 

related to congressional redistricting 302A. Selected 

pages of Memorandum of Gerry Cohen to US 

Department of Justice, October 14, 1991 

202. Memorandum of Mr. Gilkerson to Members of the 

General Assembly 

203. Size D Precinct and township maps for North 

Carolina, from Legislative Research Office. 

204. Remarks for Sen. Dennis Winner in Senate floor 

debate regarding 1992 plan. 

205. Log for Congressional Plan Type-based Plans Created 

in the Accounts of Gerry Cohen and Linwood Jones 

from 6/28/93 through 3/26/97 

206. NCEC Data for 1997 House/Senate plan 

207. Clayton, Politics of North Carolina Redistricting, 

Thesis for Ph.D, U. Missouri, at North Carolina 

Collection, UNC-Chapel Hill library, C324.2 C619p 

708. Almanac of American Politics, for 1998, District 1 

200 Almanac of American Politics, District 12 

210. Almanac of American Politics, for District 1 

211. Almanac of American Politics, for District 12 

212. 
212A. Newspaper map of Morril/Charlotte 

Observer plan 

212B. Computer map (B&W) 

212C. Statistical Deviation: Deviation; Total 

 



    EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM al Nov 24°89 0:45 No .002 P.0O3 

Population, Voting Age Population, 

Registration; Election 

213. Grofman, B. (1985), “Criteria for Redistricting: 

A Social Science Perspective,” UCLA Law 

Review, 33:77-184. 

214. Morrill, R, L. (1982), “Redistricting Standards and 

Strategies After Twenty Years,” Political Geography 

Quarterly, 1:361-369 

215. Morrill, R. L. (1987), “Redistricting, Region, and 

Representation, “Political Geography Quarterly, 
6:241-260 

216. Morvill, R, L. (1999), Electoral Geography and 

Gerrymandering: Space and Politics, “in G.J. Demko 

and W.B., Wood eds., Reordering the World, 

pp. 101-119, Bolder, CO: Westview Press. 

217. Pildes, R. H. and Niemi, R.G. (1993), “Expressive 

Harms, “Bizarre Districts,” and Voting Rights: 

Evaluating Election District Appearances after 

Shaw v. Reno, “Michigan Law Review, 
92(3): 483-587, 

218. Conley, John M. and Peterson, D.W., T he Science of 

Gatekeeping 74 N.C. law Rev, 1183 (1996) 

219. Statute section b (map takes precedence) 

220. Dan Blue's op-ed article on 1992 redistricting, 

News & Observer Jan. 5, 1992, 

221. Keech and Sistrom, “North Carolina”, in Davidson, ed, 

American South, 198x 

222. 

222A. 1991 Congressional District Plan (1991 

Congress #6, denied preclearance) 

222B. Statistical Information; Deviation, 

Total Population; Voting Age Population; 
Registration; Election 

222C. News & Observer article 

 



EVERETT GASKINS DURHAM Gadi Nov i249 0:45 No.002 P.04 

1997 second proposal by State House (1997 

Congressional Plan B) 

(Rep. McMahan, committee) 

Map of Evolution of Congressional District 1 

(comparing 1992 and 1997 plans) 

Map of Evolution of Congressional District (comparing 

1991 and 1997 plans), close-up of Lenoir, Craven and 

Pitt Counties 

Map of Evolution of Congressional District 12 

(comparing 1992 and 1997 plans) 

Map of area of District 1 with black voting age 

population 

Map of Craven County with black voting population 

and precinct names 

Map of Granville County with black voting 

population 

Map of Jones County with black voting population 

and precinct names 

Map of Lenoir County with black voting population 

and precinct names 

Map of Person County with black voting population 

and precinct names 

Map of Pitt County with black voting population 

and precinct names 

Map of Washington County with black voting 

population and precinct names 

Map of Wayne County with black voting population 

and precinct names 

Map of Wilson County with black voting age 

population and precinct names  



EVERETT GASKINS DURHAM TEL :Q19-682-5469 Nov 24°9 0:46. .No..002 P.0O5 

Map of Davidson County with black voting age 

population and precinct names 

Map of Forsyth County with black voting age 

population and precinct names 

Map of Guilford County with black voting age 

population and precinct names 

Map of Iredell County with black voting age 

population and precinct names 

Map of Mecklenburg County with black age 

population and precinct names 

Map of Rowan County with black voting age 

population and precinct names 

Map of area District 1 with support for Democrat 

candidate in 1988 Court of Appeals contest 

(results for Beaufort County are county wide) 

Map of Craven County with support for Democrat 

candidate in 1988 Court of Appeals contest 

Map of Granville County with support for Democrat 

candidate in 1988 Court of Appeals contest 

Map of Jones County with support for Democrat 

candidate in 1988 Court of Appeals contest 

Map of Lenoir County with support for Democrat 

candidate in 1988 Court of Appeals contest 

Map of Person County with support for Democrat 

candidate in 1988 Court of Appeals contest 

Map of Pitt County with support for Democrat 

candidate in 1988 Court of Appeals contest 

Map of Washington County with support for Democrat 

candidate in 1988 Court of Appeals contest 

Map of Wayne County with support for Democrat 

candidate in 1988 Court of Appeals contest  



    

232. 

283, 

254. 

258, 

256. 

257. 

258. 

259. 

260. 

261. 

262. 

263. 

264. 

265. 

  

EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM TEL :219-682~-5469 

Map of Wilson County with support for Democrat 

candidate in 1988 Court of Appeals contest 

Map of area of District 12 with support for Democrat 

in 1988 Court of Appeals contest 

Map of Davidson and Eastern Rowan Counties with 

support for Democrat candidate in 1988 Court of 

Appeals contest 

Map of Forsyth county with support for Democrat 

candidate in 1988 Court of Appeals 

Map of Guilford County with support for Democrat 

candidate in 1988 Court of Appeals 

Map of Iredell County with support for Democrat 

candidate in 1988 Court of Appeals 

Map of Mecklenburg County with support for 

Democrat candidate in 1988 Court of Appeals 

Map of area of District 1 with support for 

Democrat candidate in 1990 U.S. Senate contest 

(results for Beaufort County are countywide) 

Map of Craven County with support for Democrat 

candidate in 1990 U.S. Senate contest 

Map of Granville County with support for 

Democrat candidate in 1990 U.S, Senate contest 

Map of Pitt County with support for Democrat 

candidate in 1990 U.S, Senate contest 

Map of area of District 12 with support for 

Democrat candidate in 1990 U.S. Senate contest 

Map of Davidson with support for Democrat 

candidate in 1990 U.S. Senate contest 

Map of Forsyth County with support for 

Democrat candidate in 1990 U.S. Senate contest 

Nov 24° ‘ 0:46 No.002 P.06 

 



   
266. 

267. 

268. 

269. 

270. 

27. 

272. 

273. 

274. 

275, 

276. 

277. 

278. 

279. 

280. 

EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM “6 = 

Map of Guilford County with support for Democrat 

candidate in 1990 U.S, Senate contest 

Map of Iredell County with support for Democrat 

candidate in 1990 U.S. Senate contest 

Map of Mecklenburg County with support for 

Democrat candidate in 1990 U.S. Senate contest 

Map of North Carolina, population density, by 

county 

Map of North Carolina, population density, by 

block groups, for total population, with 1997 

Congressional Districts 1 and 12 overlaid 

Map of North Carolina, population density, by 

census tract, for total population 

Map of Beaufort County with pin dot population 

density for total black population 

Map of Craven County with pin dot population 

density for total black population 

Map of Granville County with pin dot population 

density for total black population 

Map of Jones County with pin dot population 

density for total black population 

Map of Lenoir County with pin dot population 

density for total black population 

Map of Person County with pin dot population 

density for total black population 

Map of Pitt County with pin dot population density 

for total black population 

Map of Washington County with pin dot 

population density for total black population 

Map of Wayne County with pin dot population 

Nov 24°99 0:47. N0.002 P.07 

 



    

EVERETT GASKINS DURHAM TEL : 919-682-5469 

density for total black population 

281. Map of Wilson County with pin dot population 

density for total black population 

282. Map of Davidson County with pin dot population 

density for total black population 

283. Map of Forsyth County with pin dot population 

density for total black population 

284. Map of Guilford County with pin dot population 

density for total black population 

285. Map of Iredell County with pin dot population 

density for total black population 

286. Map of Mecklenburg County with pin dot 

population density for total black population 

287, Map of Rowan County with pin dot population 

density for total black population 

288A. Map of 1980s congressional Districts in NC 

[source Congressional Quarterly] 

288B. Racial data for 1980s plan 

289. Map of 1970s congressional Districts in NC 

290. 1999 split precincts, Beaufort County 

291. 1999 split precincts, Craven County 

291A. Close up of New Bern precincts 

202. 1999 split precincts, Davidson County 

292A. Closeup of Thomasville and Lexington 

precincts 

203. 1999 split precincts, Forsyth County 

204. 1999 split precincts, Iredell County 

294A. Closeup of Statesville precincts 

205. 1999 split precincts, Jones County 

Nov 24°99 0:47 No.002 P.OS8 

 



   

  

EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM TEL:    

  

9-682~5469 Nov 24°9 0:48 No .002 :P.09 

  

296. 1999 split precincts, Lenoir County 

297. 1999 split precincts, Person County 

208. 1999 split precincts, Pitt County 

200. 1999 split precincts, Rowan County 

300. 1999 split precincts, Washington County 

301. 1999 split precincts, Wayne County 

302. Multi-County Planning Regions, 1979, (B&W) 

303. NC Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, 

1979 (B&W) 

304. Topographical Divisions of North Carolina (B&W) 

305. Comparative map, evolution of the 12 District, 

from 98C-27A-3C 

306. Chronology of Redistricting, by William Gilkerson 

D. DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS 

# TITLE 
OBJECTION 

 



EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM TEL :Q19-682-5469 Nov 24°9 0:48 No.002 P.10 

Cooper Affidavit (without attachment) 

McMahan Affidavit 

Photograph of Default Screen in Plan90 

Photograph of Plan90 Screen showing Data 

Window Scrolled Down to Show Election 

Data and Widened to Show Percentages 

Photograph of Plan90 Screen showing Full 

Data Window 

Photograph of Plan90 Screen showing County 

with Precinct Lines and Data Window Sized 

as Generally Used 

Photograph of P1an90 Screen showing Working 

Size of Precincts 

Photograph of Plan90 Screen showing First 

Step in Changing Labels from the Default 

Precinct Names 

Photograph of Plan90 Screen showing List of 

Variables for Labels 

Photograph of Plan90 Screen showing F ormula 

Entered to Change Precinct Labels to Democrat 

Percentage in 1988 Court of Appeals Election 

Photograph of Plan90 Screen showing Window Used 

to Change Label Size 

Photograph of Plan90 Screen showing Democrat 

Percentage Labels 

Photograph of Plan90 Screen showing Step in 

Changing Precinct Assignment 

Photograph of Plan90 Screen showing Change in 

Precinct’s Color and Updated Data Reflecting 

Change in Assignment 

Photograph of Plan90 Screen showing Lassoing  



    

415. 

416. 

417. 

418. 

419. 

420. 

421. 

422. 

423. 

424. 

425. 

426. 

427. 

EVERETT GASKINS DURHAM TEL :Q19-682-5469 

Precincts, An Alternate Method of Changing 

Assignments 

Photograph of Plan90 Screen showing Change in 

Precincts’ Color and Updated Data Reflecting 

Change in Assignment 

Photograph of Plan90 Screen showing Data 

Window for a Precinct 

Photograph of Plan90 Screen showing Alternate 

Size of Data Window Generally Used When 

Analyzing a Precinct 

28 CFR §51 (1999) PART 51 - PROCEDURES FOR THE 

ADMINISTRATION OF SECTION $ OF THE VOTING 

RIGHTS ACT OF 1965, AS AMENDED and APPENDIX 

TO PART 51 - JURISDICTIONS COVERED UNDER 

SECTION 4(B) OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, AS 

AMENDED 

Judgment In A Civil Case, filed 9/15/97, 

Shaw v. Hunt, No. 92-202-C1V-5-BR 

Order, filed 7/12/96, Shaw v. Hunt, 

No. 92-202-CIV-5-BR 

Affidavit of Dr. Gerald R. Webster and attached 

report, AN EVALUATION OF NORTH CAROLINA'S 

1998 CONGRESSIONAT. DISTRICTS, with 

curriculum vitae (updated) 

Webster Tables 1 through 8 

Webster Figures 1 through 12 

Webster Figures A-1 through A-12 

Webster Figures A-13 through A-24 

ADDENDUM TO “AN EVALUATION OF NORTH 

CAROLINA'S 1998 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS 

[1997 PLAN],” Gerald R. Webster, Ph.D. 

Webster Addendum Figures Al through AS 

Nav a® 0:49 No.002 P.11 

 



    EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM al Now. 24799 8:49 No .002 P.12 

428. Segment Pie Charts by Dr. David W. Peterson 

A. Segments Bordering District 12 

- Total Population 

B Segments Bordering District 12 

- Race 

C. Segments Bordering District 12 

- Court of Appeals 

D Segments Bordering District 12 

- Party 

E 12th district Boundary Segments 

- 1988 Ct Appeal Dems v. Pop Blacks 

F. 12th District Boundary Segments 

- Party v. Race 

G. 12th District Divergent Segments 

_ 1988 Ct Appeals Dems * Pop Blacks 

H. 12th District Divergent Segments 

- Party Hypothesis v. Race Hypothesis 

I 12th District 
-Unequivocally Divergent Segments 

429. Third Affidavit of David W. Peterson 

430. Segment Map of Rowan County Plaintiffs object: relevance; this map 

has been changed from the form in 

which it was used by Dr. Peterson’s 

staff member to define segments 

431. Segment Definitions and Combinations 

432. Pattern of Reasoning Plaintiffs object. This is argument, 

not evidence. 

433. Percent Democrat in Split Counties 

by County 

434. Percent Democrat in Split Municipalities 

by City of Town 

435. Summary Cross-Tabulation (Tables 6a-6f) 

and Complete Individual Cross-Tabulation 

Tables (6a-6f) 

436. “Old Black Second” Map 

 



    

  

EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM al" Nov 24°99 0:50 No 002 P.13 

437. Guilford County Precincts “Excluded” 

By Elm and Lee Streets 

IV. Designation of Pleadings and Discovery Materials 

A. Plaintiffs 

Document Portion Objection Reason 

Defendants’ Response to 1, 4, 6,7, 10-18, 

Plaintiffs’ First Request 21, 22, 24, 27-29, 

for Admissions. 31-35, 39-42, and 44 

Defendant-Intesvenors’ 6, 7, 10-18, 21, 

Response to Plaintiffs’ First 22. 24, 27-29, 31-35, 

Request for Admissions 39-42, and 44. 

to Defendant-Intervenors. 

Defendants’ Response to 2,3, 10, 11, 14, 

Plaintiffs’ First Set of 15, 20, 24, 298, 

Interrogatories. 29C, and 33 

Defendant-Intervenors’ 2,3,11,and 12 

Response to Plaintiffs’ First 

Set of Interrogatories to 

Defendant-Intervenors (unsigned). 

Deposition of Page 3, lines 5 to 11 

R. O. Everett Page 15, line 15 to Page 19, line 6 

Page 21, lines 5-10 

Page 50, line 25 to Page 52, line 25 

Page 58, lines 8-25 

Page 63, line 11 to Page 67, line 19 

Page 72, lines 2 to 25 

Page 76, line 13 to Page 77, line 13 

Defendants also generally object: “Hearsay, 

F. R. Civ. P., Rule 32; Duplication, 

contrary to agreement of the parties 

represented to Court” 

Deposition of Page 5, line 24 to Page 6, line 12 

 



   

  

EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM TEL :9    

  

9-682-5469 Nov 24°99 0:50 No.0O2 P.14 , 

  

Ron Linville Page 12, line 9 to 25 

Page 14, line 9 to Page 15, line 10 Defendants object beginning line 12 

“My dad . . .”’, FRE 402 (relevance) 

Page 36, line 1 to Page 37, line 1 

Page 59, line 16 to 25 Defendants object FRE 402 

(relevance) and 701 (inadmissible 

opinion) 

Page 61, line 25 to Page 62, line 2 

Defendants also generally object: “Hearsay; F. R. 

Civ. P., Rule 32; Duplication; contrary to agreement 

of the parties represented to Court” and not on 

witness list 

Deposition of Page 4, line 21 to Page 5, line 11 

Joel K. Bourne Page 27, line 14 to 23 

Page 38, line 24 to Page 39, line 14 

Page 40, line 15 to Page 42, line 21 Defendants object on FRE. 402 

(relevance), 602 (personal 

knowledge), 701 (inadmissible 

opinion)[Defendants would withdraw 

designations for 40:1-4, 11-14 if the 

objection is sustained] 

Page 44, line 21 to Page 45, line 5 Defendants object on F R.E. 402 

(relevance), 701 (inadmissible 

opinion) 

Page 47, line 20 to Page 49, line 22 

Page 50, line 24, to Page 51, line 4 

Page 57, line 14 to Page 58, line 14 Defendants object on F.R.E. 402 

(relevance), 602 (personal 

knowledge), 701 (inadmissible 

opinion) 

Page 59, line 5 to 14 

Page 64, line 8 to 21 

Page 65, line 17 through Page 66, line 12 

Defendants also generally object: “Hearsay; F. R. 

Civ. P, Rule 32; Duplication; contrary to agreement 

of the parties represented to Court” 

Deposition of Page 4, line 17 to Page 5, line 3 

J. H. Froelich Page 7, line 14 to Page 8, line 21 

Page 14, line 9 to Page 18, line 18 

Page 34, line 23 to Page 37, line 21 

 



    

  

EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM al: Nov 24°99 03:51 ' No.002 P.l15 

Page 41, line 23 to Page 72, line 14 

Page 76, line 11 to line 20 

Page 77, line 1-19 

Page 78, line 15 to Page 79, line 3 

Page 80, line 22 to Page 81, line 2 

Page 87, line 17 to Page 88, line 11 

Defendants also generally object: “Hearsay; F. R. 

Civ. P., Rule 32; Duplication; contrary to agreement 

of the parties represented to Court” 

Deposition of Page 4, line 10 to14 

Martin Cromartie Page 5, line 14 to 16 

Page 26, line 24 to Page 28, line2 Defendants object to 27:1 to 28:2 on 

FRE 402 (relevance), 602 (personal 

knowledge) and 701 (inadmissible 

opinion) 

Page 30, line 1 to 8 
Page 55, line 7 to Page 56, line 2 Defendants object on FRE 402 

(relevance), 602 (personal 

knowledge) and 701 (inadmissible 

opinion) 

Page 66, line 8 to 20 

Page 86, line 19 to Page 87, line 9 

Page 91, line 21 to Page 92, line 18 Defendants object to 92:2-18 on FRE 

402 (relevance), 701 (inadmissible 

opinion) 

Defendants also generally object: “Hearsay; F. R. 

Civ. P., Rule 32; Duplication, contrary to agreement 

of the parties represented to Court” 

Deposition of Page 4, line 20 to Page 5, line 6 

Dr. Ronald E. Page 5, line 21 to Page 6, line 20 

Weber Page 37, line 6 to Page 38, line 4 

Page 40, line 10 to 18 
Page 57, line 6 to Page 58, line 12 

Page 63, line 7 to Page 64, line 3 

Page 66, line 23 to Page 68, line 1 

Page 68, line 12 to Page 69, line ] 

Page 69, line 8 to Page 72, line 19 

Page 76, line 7 to Page 78, line 2 

Page 84, line 23 to Page 89, line 8 

Page 97, line 14 to Page 99, line 19 

 



EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM al 

Page 102, line 25 to Page 103, line 11 

Page 103, line 21 to line 23 

Page 104, line 3 to line 10 

Page 104, line 19 to 25 

Page 105, line 15 to Page 107, line 3 

Page 107, line 25 to Page 109, line 3 

Page 110, line 24 to Page 114, line 11 

Page 114, line 16 to Page 116, line 14 

Page 117, line 19 to Page 118, line 21 

Page 122, line 13 to 23 
Page 129, line 1 to 10 

Page 133, line 24 to Page 134, ling 8 

Page 135, line 21 to 24 

Page 136, line 20 to Page 137, line 3 

Page 143, line 5 to Page 144, line 2 

Page 146, line 28 to Page 148, line 24 

Page 149, line 16 to 19 

Page 151, line 2 to 11 

Page 1585, line 7 to 12 

Page 157, line 2 to 23 

Page 169, line 13 to 17 

Page 172, line 16 to Page 173, line 7 

Page 175, line 14 to Page 176, line 7 

Page 183, line 4 to 21 

Page 188, line 24 to Page 190, line 5 

Page 191, line 7t0 17 

Page 197, line Sto 11 

Page 200, line 9 to 22 

Page 204, line 1 to 13 

Page 212, line 1 to 10 

[incomplete] 

Nov 24°99 0:51 No .0O2' P.16 

Defendants also generally object: “Hearsay, F. R. Civ. P,, 

Rule 32; Duplication; contrary to agreement of the parties 

represented to Court” 

PROFFERS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION 

Gerry Cohen: 

Pope v. Blue Deposition: 

66:1-10  



    

  

EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM al == Nov 24°99 0:52:-No.002 P.17 

97:19-98:4 

99:19-101:23 

Shaw v. Hunt Deposition; 

27:11-29:11 

75:1-77:10 

81:1-82.9 

101:2-25 

117:1-121:25 

121:8-128:21 

132:20-134:25 

162:6-163:10 

171:1-10 

175:9-23 

177:1-179:9 

180:6-15 

188:5-25 

190:14-191:3 

193:1-22 

197.7-21 

230:5-17 

2856-2869 

303:11.22 

328:21-6 

338:17-19 

340: 18-21 

Cromartie v. Hunt 

3414-22 

65:7-68:25 

77:20-78:4 

85:19-86.9 

89:13-19 

96; 14-21 

99:25-100:2 

101:1-5 

105:1-114:5 

116:15-117:1 

119;13-120:5 

121:14-130:3 

131:9-132:5 

143:13.25 

146:1-147.7 

 



    

Deposition of 
Dr. David Peterson: 

Deposition of 
Roy Cooper 

EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM TEL wv 

  

Nov 24°99 

148:24-149:14 

151:1-25 

153:22-156:9 

161:22-162:5 

167.9-21 

169:13-170:25 

172:5-8 

173:17-22 

195:14-196:3 

205:1-8 

238:19-239:2 

242:13-18 

254:1-258:25 

278:2-20 

291:10-299.8 

Page 4, line 10 to Page 4 , line 22 . 

Page 5, line 20 to Page 6, line 10. 

Page 6, line 16 to Page 7, line 20. 

Page 8, line 3 to Page 8, line 14. 

Page 9, line 11 to Page 12, line 18. 

Page 13, line 6 to Page 14, line 21. 

Page 15, line 1 to Page 18, line 8. 

Page 18, linc 12 to Page 37, line 10, 

Page 37, line 24 to Page 41, line 2. 

Page 41, line 16 to Page 44, line 17. 

Page 44, line 22 to Page 52, line 18. 

Page 53, line 17 to Page 53, line 23. 

Page 54, ling 5 to Page 66, line 10. 

Page 69, line 19 to Page 72, line 24. 

Page 77, line 9 to Page 77, line 11. 

Page 80, line 15 to Page 83, line 2. 

Page 83, line 16 to Page 85, line 22. 

Page 86, line 13 to Page 88, line 10. 

Page 90, line 24 to Page 92, line 8. 

Page 92, line 22 to Page 93, line 18. 

Page 96, line 10 to Page 97, line 13. 

Page 103, line 10 to Page 104, line 14. 

0:52 No.002 P.18 

 



    

Deposition of 

Linwood Jones 

EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM TEL : 919-682-5469 

27.20-28:4 

30:11-36:9 

38:10-15 

51:9-38:12 

60:22-61:12 

63:13-66:6 

68:25-72:6 

74:17-22 

74:11-78:13 

80:23-82:4 

87.15-88.22 

89:10-97:18 

104:4-114:18 

122:6-124:25 

127.8-128:11 

128:25-129:24 

135:18-140:2 

146:8-148:25 

156:8-10 

Noy 24°99 0:53 No .002 P19 

Defendants also generally object: “Hearsay; F. R. 

Civ. P.. Rule 32; Duplication; contrary to agreement 

of the parties represented to Court” 

 



    

  

EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM al = Nov 24°99 0:53 No.002 P.20 

23:1-33:5 

38:17-40:15 

41:17-42:5 

71:1-76:13 

102:18-103:18 

136: 1-25 

149:18-150:4 

155:19-164:22 

176:1-177.9 

Defendants also generally object: “Hearsay; F. R. 

Civ. P., Rule 32; Duplication; contrary to agreement 

of the parties represented to Court” 

Deposition of 
Rep. Ed McMahan 

16:1-21 

30:1-33:2 

36:22-49:15 

52; 6- 58:13 

93:9-101.9 

105:21-107:21 

109:2-111:9 
Defendants also generally object: “Hearsay, F. R. 

Civ. P., Rule 32; Duplication; contrary to agreement 

of the parties represented to Court” 

 



    EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM al Nov 24°99 0:54 No .002 P.21 

Deposition of 
Leslie Winner 

22:24-26:18 

31:5-34:24 

49:18-51:6 

69:11-76:6 

87.9-113:25 

121:14-125:19 

128:17-130:16 

134:23-146:9 

Defendants also generally object: “Hearsay, F. R. 

Civ. P., Rule 32; Duplication, contrary to agreement 

of the parties represented to Court” 

Deposition of Dr. 

Gerald Webster Page 10, line 25 to Page 11, line 25 

Page 13, line 15 to Page 15, ling 10 

Page 17, line 9 to Page 21, line 14 

Page 22, line 20 to Page 23, line 21 

Page 28, line 13 to Page 30, line 17 

Page 32. line 11 to Page 33, line 16 

Page 34, line 11 to Page 35, line 7 

Page 36, line 19 to Page 38, line 2 

Page 39, line 1 to Page 42, line 25 

Page 46, line 10 to Page 49, line 12 

Page 49, line 16 to Page 56, line 21 

Page 58, line 2 to Page 59, linel 

Page 61, line 17 to Page 66, line 17 

Page 68, line 2 to 19 
Page 71, line 3 to Page 74, line 12 

Page 76, line 1 to Page 76, line 18 

Page 78, line 17 to Page 79, line 12 

Page 84, line 1 to Page 85, line 12 

 



EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM al Noy 24°99 0:54 No..002 'P.22 

Page 86, line 3 to Page 88, line 1 

Page 96, line 13 to Page 104, line 7 

Page 104, line 24 to Page 1 11, line 20 

Deposition of Mr. 
Charles J. Worth 

17:12-17 

54:9-55:22 

Defendants also generally object: “Hearsay; F. R. Civ.P., 

Rule 32; Duplication; contrary to agreement of the parties 

represented to Court” 

Deposition of 
Mr. Don Baker 

35:18-38:19 

42:4-44:14 

46:18-50:4 

52:17-60:21 

77:22-83.3 

Defendants also generally object: “Hearsay; F. R. 

Civ. P., Rule 32; Duplication; contrary to agreement 

of the parties represented to Court” 

B. DEFENDANTS AND DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS 

DOCUMENT PORTION OBJECTION 

V. WITNESSES  



EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM ae = Noy 24°99 0:54. No.002 P.23 

A. Plainfiffs 

Dr. Ronald Weber ~~ Milwaukee, W1 He is an expert political scientist who has 

studied redistricting and consulted or 

testified in many redistricting cases. He 

believes that race predominated in the 

construction of Districts 1 and 12; cities, 

counties, and precincts were assigned by 

race. He will describe the demographics and 

discuss maps and data, 

Neal Williams Charlotte, NC He is lawyer and resident of Charlotte who 

served on its city council for several years 

and is familiar with the Mecklenburg 

precincts; ran for Congress in the 9" District 

under the 1992 plan; is convinced that 

Mecklenburg County was divided along 

racial lines with a predominant racial motive, 

and that the 12" District in the 1997 plan 

was drawn with a predominantly racial 

motive. 

Rep. John 
: 

Weatherly ~~ Shelby, NC He was in the N. C. General Assembly when 

the 1997 and 1998 redistricting plans were 

being considered, and previously had served 

on a commission considering North 

Carolina's legislative process, had introduced 

legislation to facilitate the redistricting 

process by use of a redistricting commission 

and on the basis of his political and 

legislative experience believes that Districts 

12 and 1 were drawn with a predominantly 

racial motive. 

Rep. Steve Wood High Point, NC He is a High Point resident, Mr, Wood has 

served in the General Assembly and was 

serving in 1997 in a position of leadership; he 

is familiar with the 12% District, and ran for  



   
EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM TEL :919-682-5469 Nov 24°99 0:55 Ho. 002 P.od 

Congress in the 12" District under the 1998 

plan; he is convincedbelieves High Point and 

Guilford County were divided on racial lines 

for a predominantly racial motive and that 

the 12® District was drawn with such a 

motive, 

Sen Hamilton Horton Winston-Salem, NC Sen. Horton lives in Forsyth County and has 

served in the General Assembly for many 

years; has introduced legislation in the 1999 

legislature which is like that introduced in 

earlier sessions by John Weatherly and has 

studied and observed as a legislator the 

redistricting process; from his examination of 

the maps and his knowledge of the precincts, 

he is convinced that Forsyth County and 

Winston-Salem were split along racial lines 

in the 1997 plan and that the 12" District had 

a predominantly racial motive. 

R. O. Everett Salisbury, NC He has resided in Salisbury about 30 years; 

was city executive for Wachovia Bank, has 

been active in politics and has run for the 

legislature; is familiar with the congressional 

districts in the Salisbury/Rowan County area, 

is convinced they were divided on racial 

lines, and that the Twelfth District was 

drawn with a predominantly racial motive. 

J. H. Froelich, Jr. High Point, NC He is a lifelong resident of High Point, has 

been active in politics on the state and local 

level, and because of his experience is 

convinced that Guilford County was divided 

with a predominantly racial motive in the 

1992 and 1997 plans, and that the 12° 

District in 1997 was drawn with a 

predominantly racial motive. 

Joel K. Bourne Tarboro, NC A longtime resident and political activist in 

Tarboro, Mr. Bourne is familiar with the 

racial construction of the First Congressional 

District. 

Dennis Patterson Raleigh, NC Associated Press reporter who has covered 

 



   
EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM TEL :919-682-5469 Nov 24°99 0:56 No, 002 P.25 

the General Assembly for many years, as on 

several prior occasions he conducted a 

survey of legislators after the November, 

1996 election and this survey was published 

in late December. 

B. Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors 

Gerry Cohen 

Linwood Jones REC'D By PAX, 

Rep. Ed McMahan WAM APLE To Pow LAAD 

Sen. Roy Cooper | 

Charles J. Worth 

Don Baker 

Dr. Gerald Webster 

Dr. David Peterson 

Respectfully submitted, 

        
  

Robinson O. Everett 

Everett & Everett 

N.C. State Bar No.: 1385 

Attorney for the Plaintiffs 

P.O. Box 586 

Durham, NC 27702 

Telephone: (919)-682-5691 

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

by:           
Martin B. McGee 

 



    

  

0:56.:N0.002 P.26 

    

EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM ol = Nov 24°99 

  

State Bar No.: 22198 

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs 

P.O. Box 810 

Concord, NC 28026-0810 

Telephone: (704)-782-1173 

    

Douglas E. Markham 

Texas State Bar No. 12986975 

Attorney for the Plaintiffs 

333 Clay Suite 4510 

Post Office Box 130923 

Houston, TX 77219-0923 

Telephone: (713) 655-8700 

Facsimile: (713) 655-8701 

Robert Popper 
Attorney For Plaintiffs 

Law Office of Neil Brickman 

630 3" Ave. 21" Floor 
New York, NY 10017 

Telephone: (212) 986-6840 

Seth Neyhart 
Attorney For Plaintiffs 
N7983 Town Hall Road 

Eldorado, W1 54932 

Telephone: (920) 872-2643 

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS 

MICHAEL F. EASLEY, 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA 

By: 
Edwin M. Speas, Jr, 
Chief Deputy Attorney General 

N. C. State Bar No. 4112 

  
  

 



    EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM al Noy 24°99 0:56 No .002 P.27 

Ms, Tiare B. Smiley, Esq. 

Special Deputy Attorney General 

N. C. State Bar No. 7119 : 

Norma S. Harrell 

Special Deputy Attorney General 

N. C. State Bar No, 6654 

North Carolina Department of Justice 

114 W. Edenton St., Rm 337 

P.O. Box 629 

Raleigh, NC 27602 

Phone # (919) 716-6900 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS 

    
  

Mr. Adam Stein 

Ferguson, Stein, Wallas, Adkins, Gresham, Sumter, 

PA. 
312 W. Franklin St. 

Chapel Hill, NC 27516 

Phone # (919) 933-5300 

Todd A. Cox 
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. 

1444 I Street NW, 10" Floor 

Washington, DC 20005 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS 

 



   

  

EVERETT GASKINS/DURHAM in Tin Nov 24°93 0:44 No .002 P.O1 

  

OY i & EVERETT a 

ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 

SUITE 300 

R.0. EVERETT (1878-1671) 301 W. MAIN STREET 

KATHRINE R. EVEREYT (1863-1962) 
P.O. BOX 588 

No 
TEL; (919) 682-5691 

ROBINSON Oe gre DurxaM, NorTH CaroLiNa 27702 FAX: (019) 682-5460 

SANDRA G. HERRING 

  

OF COUNSEL 

ROBERY D. HOLLEMAN 
OF COUNSEL 

CRAIG M, KABATCHNICK 

(ADMITTED N.C,, D.C) 

To: Ms. Tiare Smiley, via fax to 716-6763 

Mr. Adam Stein, via fax to 967-4953 

Mr. Todd Cox, via fax to 202-682-1312 

From: Robinson Everett, Marty McGee, Doug Markham or Seth Neyhart 

Subject: DAFT 

Date: November £ 3 , 1999 

Approximate Pages: _S ©