Joint Appendix Pt 1 (Pg. 218 - 823)

Public Court Documents
May 19, 2000

Joint Appendix Pt 1 (Pg. 218 - 823) preview

615 pages

Cite this item

  • Case Files, Cromartie Hardbacks. Joint Appendix Pt 1 (Pg. 218 - 823), 2000. 66bdb479-d90e-f011-9989-7c1e5267c7b6. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/cc6347d8-0244-4907-b40e-4da5695e2840/joint-appendix-pt-1-pg-218-823. Accessed May 20, 2025.

    Copied!

    218 

issue that it became once we started negotiating plans. Like I 

said, that's not the kind of thing that legislators like to talk 

about publicly. It's not pretty and I don't particularly enjoy 

sitting here talking about it. But it became a very important 

issue in the practical problem of getting the plan passed 

through the legislature. 

hf * 

[*424] Q. Now, did the issue of minority representation 

maintain importance as you went through the process? 

A. Racial fairness was important to this plan, yes. 

Q. Well, by “racial fairness”, what do you mean? 

A. I believed that we needed to have a majority/minority 

district in the 1st District, and I think that that went a long way 

toward racial fairness and that the plan overall was fair to 

African Americans across the state. 

Judge Boyle: Suppose you were in the minority and the 

opposing party is in the majority and they decided to redistrict 

and not only went up to 50 percent African American in two 

districts, but went all the way up to, say, 80 percent. Would 

that be racial fairness or would that be racial unfairness? 

They could make two districts safe beyond belief, but 

-- and that could be done for partisan reasons, if you follow me. 

It's a slippery slope you get on when you decide you are going 

to engage in some use or acknowledgment of race. 

[*425] A. Well, that's true, but I did not read the Shaw v. Hunt 

case to say we were doing race. 

Judge Boyle: So politics could override race if politics 

were the true star of your decision? 

        
 



219 

1 The Witness: Yes, it could have been, could have. 

| Judge Boyle: Some party could decide they would put 

80 percent minority in a district and thereby deprive their 
. : | opponents of what would be predictable support in another 

. district? 

The Witness: Well, I think it's very, very difficult to 

draw a district in North Carolina with an extremely high 

percentage of African Americans under Shaw v. Hunt. 

Judge Boyle: But you did it in ‘92 in District 1. All 

you would have to do would be to hopscotch around to other 

counties. In the 7th, you could make it more minority/majority 

than it is now. 

The Witness: The Supreme Court told us we couldn't 

do that. : 

. Judge Boyle: I thought when you went back in ‘97, you 

1 felt like you had to do that in order to pass the Justice 

1 Department? 

The Witness: No, not with respect to the 12th. With 

respect to the 1st, we thought that it was important [*426] 1 

have a majority/minority district; that wasn't the overriding 

factor. If we could not draw a district that looked reasonably 

4 geographically compact and met the other criteria, then we 

1 would not have drawn a majority/minoritydistrict. But it all fit 

i nicely together, so that's why we did it. 

Judge Voorhees: Now, you testified that the legislature, 

in coming up and reviewing various plans over the process of 

developing the ‘97 Plan, was mindful of the court decision in 

the Shaw case and Voting Rights Act and the other factors that 

you have mentioned. 

  

  
 



  

220 

Now, would it be accurate to say that the various 

members of your committee and of the legislature were 

cognizant of the percentages of minors who were being placed 

into the various districts, but particularly the 12th and the 1st? 

The Witness: Yes. I mean, that was something that 

was printed out for every district and yes, everyone would have 

looked at that figure and some members would have cared 

more about it than others. 

Judge Voorhees: I may have misunderstoodyou earlier. 

I thought you said you didn't know what the final percentage 

was on 12 when the ‘97 Plan was enacted. 

The Witness: 1did. I'm sure that I did. Yes, I did. 

[*427] Judge Voorhees: If I thought otherwise, I just 

misunderstood what you said? 

The Witness: I think he asked me what percentage of 

African Americans were in Guilford County that we put into 

the 12th. I can't remember. I didn’t remember that particular 

figure. : 

Judge Voorhees: I think the question had to do with 

whether you were trying -- that the relevant powers in the 

legislature were trying to keep the number just under 50 

percent? 

The Witness: No, that was not. 

Judge Voorhees: You say you weren't trying to do that? 

The Witness: No. 

Judge Voorhees: In so saying, you are not saying the 

legislature was not aware of the plans discussed? 

The Witness: We did know, absolutely we knew a lot 

of people I think were happier the African American percentage 

  

  

  

    
   



221   went up as a result of Guilford County being moved into the 12th. 
Judge Voorhees: Was there a viable motive within the 

legislature to keep it just below 50? 
The Witness: No. 

Judge Voorhees: The final percentage was sheer [*428] 
happenstance? 

. The Witness: Absolutely. I mean, if you were trying @ 
to do that, then you would be running afoul of what the Court 
told us to do and that's just not what we did. 

Judge Voorhees: All right. 
By Mr. Everett: 

Q. In one of your statements I think made on March 25, 
1997, to the meeting of the House Committee on Congressional 
Redistricting you said, as I recall, see if this sounds right: | 
think overall it provides for a fair geographical, racial and 
partisan balance throughout the state of North Carolina. Does 
that sound right what you said? 
A. Yes. 

» 

  

  
[*429] Q. I'm reading what purports to be a copy of a 
Statement you made to the March 25, 1997, meeting of the 
House committee. I think that overall it provides for a fair 
geographical, racial and partisan balance throughout the State 
of North Carolina. Now, what were you referring to? Was that 
the plan that you were referring to? 
A. I would assume that that's what I was referring to. I 
said many times I thought the plan was racially fair and -- 
Q. Racially fair. What do you mean by "racial balance"? 

    
 



  

222 

A. I don't know. I don't know what particular context I 

was making. 

Q. Well, let me ask you this: Do you know what you mean 

by "partisan balance"? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What does that mean? 

[*430] A. Keeping the 6/6 split. 

Q. All right. When you use the term "racial balance," 

wouldn't it follow that you were referring to maintaining a 10 

to 2 racial balance between Whites and African Americans in 

congressional delegation? 

A. No. I think I testified in the deposition and the testimony 

earlier that African Americans would have a fair shot to win 

both the First and the 12th Districts, and I think that's racially 

fair. 

Your Honor was asking me, I think you had gotten the 

impression that we didn't pay any attention to race, but we did 

pay attention to race. That was one of the factors that was 

considered. But it was certainly not the predominate factor. I 

talked about why all the different reasons, why we did the 

Mecklenburg to the Triad District and certainly the fact that an 

African American has a fair shot at winning that district is part 

of racial fairness and I have testified to that. 

Q. I want to ask you more about what you mean by "fair 

shot." With respect to the earlier testimony you gave and 

testimony you gave at the deposition, didn't you say that you 

were -- you had to have a majority black First District? 

A. For a lot of reasons I thought that was a very important 

thing to do. 

  

    
   



i 223 

iq [*431] Q. And I asked you whether it was necessary to 
_E have it? 

A. I don't know whether it was necessary or not. I think 
probably it was important for three reasons. It was numerous 

~ reasons, but, one, I think trying to get votes into the General 

Assembly. I think we would have lost a lot of votes if we had 
not done that. Secondly, we may have run afoul of the Voting @ 

Rights Act if we had not done that. So all of those things 
together were important. I thought we had a lot of interest that 
we needed to make sure to keeping the agrarian core all of that 

was important in dealing with the First. 

Q. You might have run afoul on preclearance with the 

Department of Justice under Section 5? 

A. We may have. 

Q. When you say something “had to be”, doesn't that mean 

that's a predominate motive? 

A. Well, I think that it needed to be and should have been 

for many reasons, and I have given you those reasons. It being 
the right thing to do. Needing the votes, past history of ® 

discrimination, voting patterns, potential Voting Rights Act, 

violations, preclearance, all of those things added up. This is 
something we ought to do, so we did it. 

Q. You should -- when you say you “had to”, doesn't that 

mean it was mandatory and that was predominant? 

[*432] A. I don't know what your question means about 

1 who was making it mandatory. All of those things told us that 

. we needed to do it, so we did it. 
1 Q.  Ibelieve you earlier testified that you thought it had to 

be done? 

Ms. Smiley: Asked and answered, your Honor. 

  

           



  

224 

A. To get the plan passed, because it's the right thing to do, 

because it may run afoul of the Voting Rights Act. If we don't 

-- you can draw a nice compact district by doing it. All of 

those things add up. 

Q. But didn't you say that having a majority black First 

District was something that had -- you said was not to be 

compromised? Did you -- didn't you say that? 

A. I don't remember that exact language, but I think it -- I 

would agree with that. Yes, I think it was important. 

Q. So, basically, as you viewed the legislature had no 

choice but to create -- 

A. Of course we had a choice, we could have not done it. 

Q. You would have been close? 

A. Probably close to that. 

Q. Wasn't it your testimony if you would have any plan at 

all you would have to have a majority black district? 

A. That was very important. I'm not going to sit here and 

testify that we just simply would not have passed the 

[*433] plan if that had not been the case, but it's close to that. 

It was very important for all the reasons that I said. 

[*434] A. It’s likely. 

Q. All right. With respect to the 12th District, I'll ask you 

the same question: Would you think it was highly likely that an 

African American would be the Democratic nominee? 

A. I think it would be likely. 

      

  
   



  

  

    

225 

Q. Would it be likely in each of those districts the 
Democratic African American Democratic nominee would then 
be elected? 

A. I think it’s likely. 

Judge Boyle: This is all pure speculation. We live in a 
democracy. Anybody can run. If you chose to run in the 12th 
District, you have widespread support around, everybody g 
behind you, you are a white male and you could easily be the 

nominee and win. 

The Witness: He asked me earlier saying there was no 

doubt. Yes, there’s doubt. There’s doubt. 

Judge Boyle: Who's to say? 

The witness: He asked me the question. 

Judge Boyle: Yes, I understand. I'm critical of the 

question. 

By Mr. Everett: 

Q. You gave us your opinion on likelihood. I was asking 
you about it. 

A. You mean by personal opinion as to likelihood, but 
[*435] you know, it’s far from a sure thing, but it’s likely — 
more likely than not. 

* % % 

[*436] Q. I'm going to ask you if indeed there are 60,000 
African Americans in Greensboro and the precincts are in the 
12th District. Do you have any interpretation of the sentence 
as to “now need to take about 60,000 out of the 12th” in the 

e-mail which was directed to you? 

Ms. Smiley: Object to speculation. 

 



  

226 

[*437] Judge Thornburg: Overruled, if he knows. 

A. I don't know everything that -- I don't specifically 

remember this e-mail for one thing; and secondly, I don't know 

all the other things going on at the time. But I would presume 

-- and I know I'm not supposed to presume, but I presume the 

60,000 we're talking about is total population of needing. If he 

went to Greensboro and put an area in Greensboro into the 12th 

that now he needed to take 60,000 people out of the 12th in 

order to make the population correct. That's what I presume. 

Q. Wouldn't you also presume that the Greensboro black 

community approximated 60,000 when you read that? 

A. No, I would not. We certainly don't believe they were 

all African Americans in Guilford County that were put into the 

district. We looked at the Democratic leaning districts in 

Guilford County, and for all the reasons I stated, we put them 

in the 12th. 

[*438] Q. Let me ask you about earlier provisions, 

statements in this e-mail where it begins by stating: by shifting 

areas in Beaufort, Pitt, Craven Counties, I was able to boost the 

minority percentage in the 1st District from 48.1 percent to 

49.25 percent. The District was only as the white percentage 

was 49.67 percent. : 

Do you recall a change in the plans that were being 

prepared by Mr. Cohen, under your general direction, which 

achieved such a boost in the minority percentage? 

A. I don't remember this e-mail specifically and I do not 

remember these specific instructions about counties and 

~3 
La ig 

&: 

    
B
e
 

cA 
ons

 
ao

s 
E
E
R
 
A
 

mat 
c
v
s
 

   



p
o
t
 
E
S
 

5 

227   precincts, but I do know when we were dealing with the 2nd 

and the 3rd and all of those things that go in between, that 

sometimes because it's beside the 1st, sometimes we would 

drop below or just below [*439] majority/minority and we 

would have to do things from time to time to have a 

majority/minority, but not radical types of moves. This “gy 

obviously, I don't remember it specifically, but reading it no 

had to do with that issue of African Americans and what 

percentage. You know, it could be that Gerry was just had that 

on his mind and used in that last sentence, used black 

community and Greensboro as a descriptive term. I don't 

know, that's not something that I would have instructed him to 

do. 

Q. Now, the next sentence: This was all the district could 

be improved by switching between the 1st and 3rd. And then 

reading further down, as to improvement, isn't it pretty clear 

that Mr. Cohen viewed it as an improvement to increase the 

African American percentage? 

A. I don't know what he was thinking, but, I mean, " 

pretty clear that at this point we were in one of those times 

where we were trying to make sure that the district had 

majority/minority and he was probably operating under some 

other parameters in the 1st that he couldn't move for some 

reason or another, and I don't know what stage of the process 

1 this was. 

4 Q. Isn't it pretty clear, Senator, that he was informing you 
that he believed at least he was improving the district, he was 

informing you and Senator Leslie Winner that he was 

improving the district by switching precincts [*440] and 

increasing the African American percentage? 

  
  

      
  
 



  

228 

A. I don't remember this specifically of the ones again, but 

probably we were in one of those situations where we had 

moved something in the First District dropped a little below 50 

percent and we were getting it back up again, and that's what he 

meant by improvement, but I don't remember specifically. 

Q. And that would be in line with your belief that you had 

to have over 50 percent? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And you were getting there one way or the other and he 

was looking at all the options? 

A. Not one way or the other, we had to get there making 

sure we had a compact district that looked good, that complied 

with Shaw v. Hunt and took into account all the other 

considerations I testified to here today. 

[*441] Q. So you gave this statement to the Senate and 

wouldn't it be inferred from that statement that Shaw v. Hunt 

was [*442] inapplicable as long as you didn't get to 50 percent? 

A. Let me tell you why I made that statement. It had not 

really occurred to me until this final plan had been prepared, 

that this was an argument for constitutionality that it wasn't a 

majority/minority district. 

In fact, Mr. Everett, you were over in the General 

Assembly and you came to see me and several other people and 

were telling people this was an unconstitutionalplan. And a lot 

of people have a lot of respect for you, including me, and there 

were people who began to ask me questions about the 

constitutionality of the plan. And in all of the other reasons 

    

  

   



229 

that I gave I think were good arguments for the 
constitutionality, but this was an argument that came to mind 
said, wait a minute, where should the Court start looking at this 
issue as to when a district is predominately racial? And it 
became clear, made common sense to argue at least the process 
for the sake of argument that the test should not even be 
triggered if you don't have a majority/minority. ® 

I didn't start out this process by trying to get it just 
under majority/minority for that reason. That was an idea and 
an argument that came to me later on in the process and I 
consulted with the Attorney General’s office. They said that's 
a good argument to make, and I made it. 

  

    

       



  

230 

[This page intentionally left blank.] 

  

    

  
   



AEE 

    

  
    
    

231 

W. EDWIN MCMAHAN TRIAL TESTIMONY (EXCERPTS) 

[*462) W. Edwin McMahan, being first duly sworn, testified as 

follows during cross examination: 

By Mr. Everett: 

Q. Representative McMahan, I just want to ask you a few 

questions. You, of course, are Representative McMahan a 

identified in the deposition. 

With respect to the formulation of the 1997 Plan and its 

boundaries, to the extent there was a difference in participation 

in the origin of the plan, was it your [*463] recollection that the 

final details of that emerged more from the Senate committee 

or from your committee? 

A. My recollection is that it actually came probably more 

from the chairs of the two committees negotiating individually. 

Q. All right. And with respect to your deposition, at the 

time you had rather limited recollection of some of the events, 

as I recall, are there any of the answers -- have you reread your 

deposition in preparation for the appearance today? 

A. Yes, sir, I have. 

Q. Is there anything in the deposition that you did at the 

time of the deposition you did not recall that you now recall 

more fully? 

A. Having read the deposition and some of the answers 

that -- well, actually, no I think the deposition is a fair 

representation of what I intended to say. 

Q. And at what point, with respect to the 1st District in the 

plan at the time, you indicated that in its formulation race was 

a predominate factor -- well, was a huge factor, as I believe you 

stated. Is that still your recollection? 

 



  

232 

A. District 1, no question is because of the makeup of the 

House on our side and the number of minorities that we had to 

deal with on the House side. Certainly, when we [*464] looked 

at District 1, race was a factor and we determined early on that 

we could draw that district and make it more compact and 

geographically compact and also address the race issue. 

Q. But was it your belief that it was necessary to have a 

majority/minority district in order to obtain preclearance? 

A. Yes, sir, one district, yes sir. 

Q. And that was the one in the northeast? 

A. That’s correct, sir. 

Q. So in your instructions to Mr. Jones, who was your 

resident, did you inform him of this particular determination? 

A. Again, we looked at one, it was never really a big issue 

as far as whether it would be a majority/minority district 

because what we were doing is primarily looking at it to make 

it more compact. And it certainly, from the very beginning, as 

Linwood Jones drew the map and we talked with the Senator 

and looked at it, it could be done, the majority/minority,as well 

as geographically compact. 

Q. Now, was it then your testimony that the objective, the 

purpose of having a majority, black majority African American 

district in the northeast was a purpose that you were not going 

to compromise. You were going to get there [#465] one way 

or the other? 

A. Well, it was one of the factors certainly that we needed 

to address. 

Q. And did you have a belief from what you had been 

informed that without that particular district it would not be -- 

  

  

    
 



233 

the plan would not be precleared if that were not a majority 
black district? 

A. I certainly recall that we felt, in order to get 
preclearance, it would need to be a majority/minority district. 
Q. Finally did you develop alternatives which you felt 
were more compact than those that were finally adopted for a 
majority district? 

A. Would you repeat the question? 

  

Q. In other words, in your planning, did you perceive ways 

of getting to a majority black district that were more compact 
than those that were in the plan that was more final adopted? 
A, We were dealing with a situation where we needed to 

satisfy a lot of people to get the plan approved. So even though 
we might have been able to draw it more compact, it was other 
factors that led to us drawing it the way we did. 

Mr. Everett: I have no further questions. 

Judge Boyle: Was it your understanding, as you 

[*466] approached redistrictingin 1997, that the 1st District, as 

composed in the '92 Plan, was facially in violation of the “ 

Constitution? 

The Witness: No, sir, we did not look at District 1 as 

being in violation of the Constitution. 

Judge Boyle: How about District 12? 

The Witness: We knew that the three judge panel had 

ruled it to be in violation of the Constitution in District 12. 
Judge Boyle: No, they hadn't, the Supreme Court had. 

The Witness: I'm sorry. 

Judge Boyle: So the U.S. Supreme Court told you 

District 12 violated the Equal Protection Clause and you could 

not continue to use that?     
 



  

234 

The Witness: That's correct, sir. 

Judge Boyle: That's why you were in the redistricting 

exercise in '97? 

The Witness: Yes, sir. 

Judge Boyle: But as to District 1, without the Supreme 

Court directly speaking to that, was it the sense and 

understanding of the House that that district was likewise in 

violation of the U.S. Constitution as composed? 

The Witness: Sir, as I think 1 said in my 

[*467] deposition, when I looked at District 1, having known 

the ruling on District 12, in my mind as a layman and not an 

attorney, it certainly appeared to me that we did need to make 

some changes in District 1 the way it had been drawn in 1992. 

Judge Boyle: Does that mean there was a recognition 

you could not repromulgate District 1 in its then existing form? 

Do you want me to say it again? 

The Witness: Please. 

Judge Boyle: Was there the sense or the understanding 

of the House that you would not be able to effectively or 

constitutionally repromulgate, readopt, District 1 in the same 

form as it existed in the '92 Plan? 

The Witness: Well, again, we felt it was our 

responsibility to look at the map and where we could make 

changes and make fewer counties divided, no precincts 

hopefully divided, which certainly included District 1. Because 

of the way it was drawn, it went all the way across the eastern 

part of the State. We felt it was our responsibility to make 

changes, yes, sir. 

Judge Boyle: Thank you. 

  
 



  

  

235 

Judge Thornburg: Your concern at that point was 

primarily compactness as opposed to racial matters? 

The Witness: Yes, sir. The biggest concern we had, 
when Senator Cooper and I first sat down and talked 
[*468] about it was, of course, maintaining the balance. The 

6/6 balance was very, very important as well as geographic 
compactness, because at that time there were like 80 countic-@ 
divided and a number of precincts, maybe 80 precincts were 
divided, but a lot of division there we felt like we needed to 

correct. 

Judge Thornburg: Thank you. 

Mr. Everett: May I ask a couple follow up questions to 
Judge Boyle, so there's no misunderstanding? 

Judge Thornburg: Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Everett: 

Q. I'm trying to find -- here is the 1992 Plan and up here is 
the First District. You are not a lawyer? 

A. (Witness nods head.) 

Q. You were dealing with Mr. Cooper, who was a lawyer; w» 
you had Mr. Linwood Jones, who was a lawyer. I'm going to 
put it to you simply with respect to the 1st District in the 1992 

Plan, which extended from the Virginia border almost down to 

South Carolina. Didn't you, on the basis of what you were told 

when you became chair of that committee, believe that that was 
an unconstitutional district? 

Ms. Smiley: Object, asking him for legal opinion, your 
Honor. | 

Judge Thornburg: Overruled. 

[*469] A." Judge Everett, again, I could look at that district, 
and knowing the problems with District 12, that we needed to 

 



  

236 

also try to see if we could make it more geographically 

compact. That's what we tried to do. We could do both, you 

know, make it more compact as well as satisfy the requirements 

on racial fairness. 

Q. I hate to pressure you for a yes or no answer, but are 

you able to give a yes or no answer to whether you thought it 

was unconstitutional at that time? 

A. I certainly felt that it needed to be redrawn. Whether it 

was because it was unconstitutional or because you could look 

at it and tell it needed to be redrawn, I'm not sure, Judge 

Everett. 

Q. You are saying you are not sure whether you had belief 

one way or the other? 

A. No, sir, I'm not. 

Q. Let me ask you this: with respect to this district, which 

had been held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, was it 

your belief that you could reconstitute this District without 

being subject to any issue as to constitutionality if you got the 

percentage of African Americans below 50 percent? 

A. Judge Everett, the percentage was not the fact that we 

considered. It was primarily the fact that we felt the reason it 

was unconstitutional was because, again, the way [*470] it was 

drawn and so even though, you know, the racial fairness 

entered into it, it was not one -- it was one of a number of 

factors. I think geographic compactness was more important, 

we felt, than the racial percentage. 

Q. Let me ask you this, then: when you got ready to 

present the plan to the House, didn't you, in fact, tell them that 

a reason for allowing or having the new plan, which I believe 

is right here, the reason for allowing it was that it was below 50 

      
   



237 

: ou : percent African American and, therefore, the shape didn't 
ie matter? | 
1 A. Judge Everett, I was asked that in my deposition. I 
3 went back and read the minutes. I did say that on the floor as 

one of the factors. I'm not an attorney. I didn't mean to 

interpret that to mean it's now constitutionally correct. I quite 
honestly, you know, Senator Cooper made that statement a 

I had picked up on that and that was the reason that I actually 
made that statement. 

Q. So on the basis of what Senator Cooper told you or 

statement that he had made, and in trying to persuade the 

House members to adopt the plan, you so informed them with 
respect to the 12th District in the 1997 Plan? 

A. As far as the racial percentage? 

Q. Yes. 

A. I think the question was asked, what was the racial 

[*471] percentage? I can assure you, though, that was not the 

primary objective that we had in drawing 12, was to try to 
maintain a certain percentage of minorities. ® 
Q. Didn't you specifically say that you had gotten it up to 
46 percent or above 46 percent? Didn't you tell the members 
of the House that you had done the best you could in order to 
satisfy the Department of Justice and satisfy the courts? 

A. Well, again, racial fairness was an issue and I had to 
deal with the House that had 18 minor members, so it was 
certainly an issue and people had asked the question of where 
the percentage was, but, again, our first attempt, I think was 
like 40 percent. We were trying to make it as Republican as 
possible and make it fair for Republicans to have a chance, but,     
 



  

238 

again, it was not the main issue, the percentage, but I did 

answer the question that it was 46 percent. 

Q. So it went up to 40 percent where you proposed to have 

it up to 46 percent and that was at persistence of the 

Democrats? 

A. The Senate Plan was 46 percent. 

Q. Insofar as the members of the House were concerned, 

African members, were they in favor, as expressed to you, as 

having the higher percentage of African Americans in the 12th 

District as possible? 

[*472] A. Yes, sir, they were. 

Q. And with respect to the 1st District, was that the same? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And they were a very significant force in the House at 

that time? 

A. They were certainly a force that I had to deal with along 

with a lot of other factors. 

Q. And the partisan breakdown of the House at that time 

was 61/59? 

A. Yes, sir, that's correct. 

Mr. Everett: Thank you, your Honors. 

Judge Voorhees: Now, you said that you felt the 1st 

District needed to be redrawn from the '92 Plan and that you 

weren't sure whether that was because of constitutional concern 

or because it just needed to have more compact shape? 

The Witness: Yes, sir. We, of course, did not get any 

kind of ruling on One, but it was only a 12. But when we 

looked at the map again, we were trying to look at the map 

overall, primarily to address 12, but that affected the other 

districts. And when I looked at one, it was felt by Senator 

    

  
 



  
  

239 

Cooper and myself it did need to be looked at and redrawn 
because of the way it was configured. 
[*473] Judge Voorhees: The reason for that is the Supreme 
Court sent a concern about shape? 

The Witness: Yes, sir. 

Judge Voorhees: So whether it was a fundamental 
concern or specific concern that the Supreme Court voic 
about shape, that's still the reason why you felt it had to be 
reconfigured? : 

The Witness: Again, I'm not an attorney; that's my 
interpretation. 

Judge Voorhees: Would that have been the sense of 
your colleagues, as far as you could tell? 

The Witness: Yes, sir, I believe so. 
Judge Thornburg: Are there any questions by defense 

that aren't covered in the deposition and the affidavit or by way 
of explanation of what's been asked here this morning? 

Ms. Harrell: We would like to ask a few, your Honor. 
IfT may approach the witness and give him a notebooks? He 
not going to use most of them. This was prepared way in 
advance. 

Judge Thornburg: All right. 

Redirect Examination 
By Ms. Harrell: 

Q. Representative McMahan, you referred to your plan a 
few moments ago. Were you speaking about the plan that 
[*474] you presented to the House committee? 
A. Yes, sir -- yes, ma'am. 
Q. And could you look at the Joint Exhibit 105, 
Representative McMahan? : 

 



  

240 

A. Okay. 

Q. And is that labeled House Selecting '97 Congressional 

Plan 8.1? 

A. Yes, it is. : 

Q. And is that the plan that you were speaking about that 

you presented to the House committee? 

A. Ms. Harrell, I believe so. You know, when you look at 

these maps, it takes a little bit of time to make sure, but I 

believe that's it. I do recall it was labeled 8.1. 

Q. All right. And did you refer to the percentage of 

minorities in your Senate District 12 in your House Plan? 

A. As 1 recall, it was 40 percent having read the 

information in the minutes of the meetings. 

Q. All right. And were you trying to make the Senate 12th 

District in your plan more competitive or less competitive for 

Republicans? 

A. We were trying, obviously, to make it more competitive 

for Republicans. 

Q. And when you became Chairman of the House 

Congressional Redistricting Committee, did you meet early on 

with Senator Cooper? 

[*475] A. Yes, we did. 

Q. And based on your understanding with your meeting 

with Senator Cooper, what were your overall goals in trying to 

steer this plan through the committee? 

A, Again, he and I sat down and talked about what we 

thought was necessary in order to get this approved. I don't 

think very few people in the legislature felt that we could do it, 

that we could get the bodies together because, of course, the 

House was Republican and the Senate was Democratic. So we 

  

o
n
 
D
E
 

SO
S 
O
R
S
 

  
    

   



  

    
    

241 

sat down and said let's try to see what's important to you and 
important to me and see if we can bring it together. 

Several of the factors, the primary factors, of course, he 
and I both agreed on was maintaining the 6/6 balance, which 
currently existed in the congressional delegation. And we 
needed to make sure we did that. We wanted to try to look ‘® 
geographic compactness and divide as few counties and no 
precincts, if it was possible. It ended up we did a good job on 
that. We talked about racial fairness. We knew we would have 
to address to that. On the House side, certainly had a 
substantial number of minorities I would have to deal with and 
talk to and we wanted to be fair. 

So geographic compactness and, of course, the 
incumbency issue. We were -- obviously knew that, you 
[#476] know, that it was probably important to try to protect as 
many of the incumbents as we could. So those were the 
overall, I think the majority of the issues that we agreed that 
would have to be addressed. 
Q. Just briefly, what was the district that you werd 
concerned about in the negotiations? 
A. The one we spent the most time on, as it turned out, 
would be 2 and 4, and then 3 was important, too, because those 
were the districts that the numbers were very close on. And we 
were trying to make sure, again, to maintain this 6/6 balance. 
So 3, 2 and 4 got more attention, as it turned out, than any of 
the others. 

Q. Okay. And are 2 and 4 both held by Democratic 
incumbents? 
A. Yes, they are. 

 



  

242 

Q. What were you trying to do with regard to those 

districts? 

A. Well, we -- 3 actually is -- the numbers indicated it's 

Democratic even though it's held by a Republican, so the 

Senate was trying to make 3 as Democratic as possible; I was 

trying to make 2 as Republican as possible. 

Q. Okay. And if I could ask you to look also at Joint 

Exhibit No. 134. You have one of those in your notebook, 

Representative McMahan, Exhibit 134. And that's the labeled 

House '97 Congressional Plan A. You have that [*477] before 

you? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Is this a plan before you considered your A-1 to the 

House Committee? 

A. Yes. This was, I think, the first plan that Linwood 

Jones and I redrew. 

Q. And with regard to trying to work with minority 

members of the House, were you able to persuade them to 

support your bill? 

A. As it turned out, the majority of them voted against it on 

the House side. 

Q. And overall, would you say that you were able to 

accomplish the goals that you started out with regard to the 

redistricting process? 

A. Yes, I was very pleased that we were able and I think 

actually Senator Cooper was surprised that we were able to get 

it approved with the numbers we did on the House side. 

Judge Voorhees: What were the numbers, do you 

recall? 

    

  

  

  

 



  

A
E
R
 

  
    

243 

The Witness: Sir, I believe we had 85 positive votes, as 
Irecall. I know it was 55 Republicans, I believe, that voted for 
it on our side, but I believe like 85. 
By Ms. Harrell: 

Q. And did you feel like the basic objectives that you 
[*478] started out with were met in the plan? 
A. Yes, ma'am, I do. ® 

Judge Thornburg: Did you say a majority of the 
minority members of the House voted against? 

The Witness: Yes, sir, they did, which actually was a 
surprise, because I tried to work with them as we went along, 
but they offered a number of amendments on the floor because 
they were disturbed. They didn't think District 12 was strong 
enough, you know, the minority, they didn't have enough 
influence in District 12. So they offered amendments on the 
floor to actually put it back more like it existed on the '92 Plan, 
but we were able to defeat those amendments. 

Judge Boyle: Were they trying to add Durham back to 
it? 

The Witness: 1 believe Representative Michaux 
brought it back to Durham, I believe so. 

Judge Boyle: They didn't care about losing Gastonia. 
The Witness: I think that's correct. 
Mr. Everett: May I ask one or two other questions? I'll 

be brief. 

Judge Thornburg: All right, sir. 

 



  

244 

Recross Examination 

By Mr. Everett: 

[*479] Q. The questions were asked of you by Ms. Harrell 

about the area of dispute, major controversy that was over 

around 2 and 4? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. So then would it be correct that 12, the idea of 12 was 

46 percent, or thereabouts, was accepted as a starting point not 

to be compromised. You are not going to compromise that 

part; the big dispute was to 2 and 4? 

Ms. Smiley: Objection. 

Judge Thornburg: Overruled. 

A. The percentage was not -- we didn't discuss, Senator 

Cooper and I, the actual percentage that needed to be. 

Q. Whatever it was, this was sort of a starting point to have 

this district with whatever the percentage of African Americans 

was? 

A. Well, again, what we tried to do was look at it from the 

geographic compactness to make it acceptable in the fact of not 

making it any longer from one end to the other than other 

districts were. And, again, the actual percentage came out at 

the end because people asked for it, but it was not what Senator 

Cooper and I discussed as one of the criterias. 

Q. I wanted to be sure I understand then. You are saying 

this 12th District, as shown here, is now geographically 

compact? : 

    

    

  

 



  

245 
DR. DAVID W. PETERSON TRIAL TESTIMONY (EXCERPTS) 

[*483] Q. Would you please identify yourself? 
A. Yes. My name is David West Peterson. 
Q. And could you just give a very brief summary of your 
[*484] qualifications and background? 
A. Yes. I'm President of PRI associates, a statistic 
consulting and software development firm in Durham, North 
Carolina; recently retired as a faculty member from Duke more 
than 20 years. I taught first in the business school, later on in 
the law school and later yet in the statistics department. My 
area of specialty is statistics. I'm coauthor of a book titled Use 
of Statistics in Equal Employment Opportunity Litigation and 
co-author of a law review article on the subject of judging 
science and extended review of a book published by the Federal 
Judiciary Center. It was published in Washington in the use of 
scientific evidence in court. 

I'm an occasional speaker at seminars for attorneys 
sponsored by the American Bar Association and othe 
organizations. I'm a member of the faculty of a seminar put on 
annually at Duke University on the subject of judging science. - 
The clientele there are not practicing attorneys, but judges. 
Q. Could you elaborate what you are teaching the judges? 
A. Basically, what we're trying to do is teach them the 
difference between good science and what might be called 
nonscience. 

Q. What portion of that program were you responsible for? 
[*485] A. I'm responsible for the initial portion where we talk 
about what ideal scientific study is and compare it with a study 

  

  

 



  

246 

which is far from ideal and point out what the differences are 

and why one is probative and the other is not. 

Q. And what kind of judges attend this seminar? 

A. Mostly state level judges, but we draw judges from all 

across the country. We draw an occasional federal district 

judge and an occasional federal circuit judge. Chief Justice 

Henry Frey of the North Carolina Supreme Court is one of our 

recent graduates and we recently took the show on the road, so 

to speak, down to Florida and put on the program there for the 

State Appellate Court judges, including several from the State 

Supreme Court. 

Q. And attached to your second affidavit, which is 

Exhibit 20, is there a full resume and list of your articles and 

publications and background? 

A. Yes. 

Q. All right. Dr. Peterson, briefly, just what was your 

assignment? 

A. My assignment in this case was to see to what extent 

there was statistical evidence in support of the proposition that 

race was the predominate factor in the drawing of the boundary 

of the 12th District. 

Q. What was your analysis? 

[*486] A. It was based on the following line of thought. 

If the boundary of the 12th District were drawn with the 

purpose of collecting blacks inside of it, one would expect as 

one travels along the boundary to find consistently that blacks 

are more heavily represented inside the boundary than outside. 

In contrast, if the boundary were drawn with the purpose of 

collecting Democrats into the 12th District, one would expect 

as one travels along the boundary to find consistently that 

  

      
   



247 

4 Democrats are more heavily represented inside the boundary 
than outside. 

The situation can be likened to that of a contour line on 
a contour map. A contour line is drawn for the purpose of 
providing one with a level path. As one walks along a contour 
line, one has neither to climb nor descend consistently on i 
side of the line. The land is higher than it is on the other side 

We might suppose that we’re given a boundary down 
on the map such as the boundary of the 12th District and ask to 
determine empirically whether it's a contour line. One test of 
that would be to travel along the line and see whether 
consistently the land is higher on one side of the line than it is 
on the other. 

And if it turns out that that turns out to be the case, 
that's evidence in support of the proposition that [*487] the 
purpose for drawing the line was to make it a contour line. 
Likewise, if the purpose for drawing the line was to collect 
blacks into the 12th District, one would expect that nalkinggy 
along the line one would see a consistent pattern in which 
blacks were more heavily represented inside than outside. 
Likewise, if the purpose for drawing the line was to collect 
Democrats within the 12th District, traverse of the line should 
reveal that most of the time Democrats are represented more 
heavily inside than out. 

What I found in my study traversing the boundary of 
the 12th District is that most of the time blacks are represented 
more heavily inside the line than out, about 80 percent of the 
time. I also found that Democrats are represented more heavily 
inside than out, also about 80 percent of the time. And so the 
evidence is equally supportive of both hypothesis, that is to say 

  

  
   



  

248 

the two are statistically indistinguishable. In particular, neither 

one dominates the other. 

[t is true that the party affiliation association is slightly 

stronger than the racial affiliation association, but it is not 

significantly, that is to say statistically significantly stronger. 

I can not conclude that the party -- that the evidence in favor of 

the party theory is statistically significantly stronger than it is 

in favor [*488] of the race theory. 

Q. Would the converse hold for the race theory? 

A. That's right. Neither race nor party dominates 

statistically. 

Q. Okay. Could you briefly tell the Court, in very 

summary form, perhaps using some of your exhibits, what your 

analyses were? 

A. Sure. I have described what I characterize as my main 

study and maybe the exhibit that best exemplifies the 

conclusions not only of that study but also of a couple of other 

studies that I did is an Exhibit numbered 428, which consists of 

a collection of pie charts. 

Q. If you will allow the Judges a moment. 

A. Sure. And I point particularly to Chart Number 8 in 

that collection. 

Q. The full details of this one are in your first, second and 

third affidavit? 

A. That's right, primarily the first. The chart that we're 

looking for is the one that looks like this, Chart Number 8. 

Q. Exhibit 428? 

A. In Exhibit 428. And this is a collection of 12 pie charts 

that summarize 12 variations on the second of three studies that 

    

  

    

   



249   
I did. But the results that were apparent here typify the results 
of all of the studies that I have [*489] done. 

In interpreting a pie chart here, the more heavily the 
darker portion of each pie represents the strength of evidence 
in support of the race hypothesis, the hypothesis that race was 
an important factor in the drawing of the predominate bound 
of the 12th District. The light gray areas indicates the strengt 
of statistical report for party affiliation. That party affiliation 
was an important factor in drawing the boundary. 

In looking across these charts, there's a pretty even split. 
The support for the one hypothesis, about as strong as the 
support for the other that's in all of my studies. If you get in 
and count closely, you will see that support is slightly stronger 
in favor of the party hypothesis overall than it is for the race 
hypothesis, but not statistically significantly stronger. 
Q. And what did you -- what did you determine -- excuse 
me., You did three studies? 
A. Yes. 

® 
Q. What was the result of the first study? 
A. The result of the first study was that about 80 percent of 
the time going around the boundary, blacks are more heavily 
represented inside than out and about the same can be sajd for 
Democrats. 
Q. And was that using convergent segments? 
[*490] A. That was using all segments, 100 percent of the 
segments, all of the segments for which we had data. 
Q. Did you do additional studies? 
A. Yes, I did one study focused on what I call divergent 
segments in the Exhibit that we were just looking at. There's 
reference in the title to divergent segments, so this is a 

oY 
On
 
d
a
n
 de

 
SN 

R
i
a
 

pd 
¥ 

    

  

  
   



  

250 

summary of the second study based on divergent second 

segments. 

Q. Did you do a third study? 

A. Did a third study based on segments unequivocally 

based on divergent, that is by all measures they were divergent. 

Q. Did you determine the results of those studies? 

A. The same thing. The balance is about equal between 

the two. Summary of that one is shown in the next exhibit -- or 

Chart 9 of Exhibit 428. 

[*494] Q. Okay. Now, I believe you have looked at Dr. 

Weber's statistical tables and you yourself ran a study based on 

his Table Two in his Exhibit 47? 

A. Yes, that's true. 

Q. Okay. Could you tell the Court what you did and 
perhaps show them your exhibit? 

[*495] A. Sure. 
Q. I believe it's Exhibit 433? : 

A. Yes, thank you. I don't have a copy of Dr. Weber's 

Table Two here, but referring to Exhibit 433, I recall that Dr. 

Weber's Table Two identified all of the counties that were split 

in the formation of not only the 12th District but other districts 

as well, including the First. And the point that he makes in 

looking at his Table Two is that consistently the portion of the 

county that's included in the 12th District in a split contains 

blacks to a greater extent than the county -- than the portions of 

the county not included in the 12th District. And he makes a 

similar finding with respect to the First District. What I did 

    

  

   



251 

was to ask essentially the same question, but with respect to 
party affiliation rather than racial identity. 

1 What I find is that consistently the portion of split 
oq counties that are included in the 12th District contain 

Democrats to a greater extent than the portions of the counties 
that were not included in the 12th District, and that's whats ey 
reflected on the first page of Exhibit 433. So if I were to follow 
Dr. Weber's pattern of analysis, I would conclude, based on the 
first page of Exhibit 433, that party affiliation must have been 
the predominate factor in the drawing of the boundary of the 

  

  

  

12th [*496] District. 

Q. What about page two? 

A. Page two is an analogous portion of Dr. Weber's Table 

  

Two, also based on party affiliation but this time pertaining to 
the 1st District. And once again, when you split by party 
affiliation rather than by race, you find that by and large it's the 
portions of the counties in which Democrats are more heavily 
represented that are included in the 1st District than the “® 
portions of the counties that are excluded. 

There's an exception that has to be made for Beaufort, 

  

because Beaufort is a county like Davie County, a county in 
which precinct data are not available and the voter information 
for Beaufort County, as represented in the state, is really 
meaningless. You can see there's tiny differences in the 
portions included and excluded. Those are of no material 
consequence. We should probably scratch Beaufort off of this 
Exhibit. 

Having done that, if I follow Dr. Weber's pattern and 
thought I would have to conclude from this part of Table Two 

     



  

252 

that party affiliation was the predominate factors in the drawing 

of the boundaries in the 1st District. 

Q. Did you do similar analysis with respect to Table Four? 

A. Yes, I did. 

[*497] Q. Which I believe is splitting municipalities in 

places? 

A. Yes. The results of that are shown in Exhibit 434. 

Once again, I split -- noted what the party affiliations are of 

each of the split pieces and noted that in virtually every sense 

it's the more heavily Democratic portion of the split geographic 

unit included in the 12th District. 

So once again, following Dr. Weber's pattern of 

thought, I would be forced to the conclusion that party 

affiliation must have been the predominate factor in the 

drawing of the boundaries of the 12th District. And on the 

second page of Exhibit 434 is the analogous analysis for the 1st 

District. Once again, party affiliation is shown here. 

Again, consistently it's the portions of the 

municipalities with the higher representations of Democrats 

included in the 1st District, if I follow Dr. Weber. Again, I 

would have to conclude that party affiliation was the factor 

predominate in the drawing of the First District. 

Q. Dr. Peterson, Dr. Weber testified yesterday. He looked 

at your chart and he compared it and said, well, you notice that 

if you look at my tables that the gap in the racial percentage is 

greater than the gap in your [*498] political percentage? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Could you comment on that? 

A. Oh, sure. Those percentages are measured on two 

completely different scales and the problem is essentially this: 

    

  

    
 



253 

most of the precincts in North Carolina and in the vicinity of 
the 12th District contain Democrats in the percentages of 40 to 
60 percent. Relatively few precincts contain blacks in the 
percentage of 40 to 60 percent. Most precincts are either 
heavily black or heavily white. Most precincts are within a 
60/40 mix of being Republican and Democrat. i 

As you move around North Carolina, you will find 
much wider representationsin the racial mix than you will find 
in the political mix of the population. So those percentages are 
simply measured on two different scales. One can't compare 
directly a difference between racial percentages and a 
difference between party affiliation percentages. They are not 
just comparable. 
Q. Does this difference in scale relate in any way to the 
questions that Dr. Weber has been making about your study 
that does not weigh your results the whole issue of weighing? 
A. Sure. One of the complaints that was raised about my 
analysis in taking this hypothetical walk around the w 
[*499] boundary of the 12th District, all I did was notice 
whether the representation of Democrats was greater on the 
inside than the outside or the representation of the blacks. And 
I didn't take explicit account of the magnitude of the difference, 
whether it was 20 percent greater or only 2 percent. 

Part of the reason for not doing this is trying to figure 
out some way of dealing with the scale problem because small 
differences in the percentage between blacks and whites doesn't 
necessarily equate to small differences in representation 
between Democrats and Republicans. If one were going to 
devise a proper measure that took into account magnitudes of 

  

    

    

2 

4 1 

2 

qf 
SG 

Lad 

+    



  

254 

differences, one would also take into account differences in the 

scale. I'm not sure exactly how to do that. 

[*500] A. There are three things wrong with Dr. Weber's 

Table 6. The first is that an underlying predicate is that within 

a county all of the precincts are freely interchangeable in the 

following sense. That any collection of the precincts in that 

county could as well be included in the 12th District as any 

other regardless of the geographic location of those precincts. 

That's a fault that underlies not only as Table Six, but as 

Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5. Of course, 

that's an unrealistic supposition. 

The second thing that's wrong with Dr. Weber's 

Table 6, is that it's incomplete. It applies only to precincts in 

which there are a majority of Democrats. And in my 

Exhibit 435, 1 have completed Dr. Weber's table to show 

additionally what the situation is with respect to all of the other 

precincts. 

Q. If I might stop you right here, Dr. Peterson. I think for 

the Court to understand what you mean by complete, that they 

need to turn to Exhibit 47. 

A. Okay. 

Q. Table 6. I apologize, that's in another notebook. 

Now, could you explain. Before when you say the table 

is not complete, could you -- and do you need a copy of 

Table 6? 

[*501] A. I have it in mind, but I don't have a copy in front 

of me. 

  

  
    

   



255   
Ms. Smiley: Excuse me while I approach the witness. 

Q. Now, what do you mean by the table is "not complete"? 

A. If we look at the first page, page 56, we see the column 

headings indicate percent Democratic registration in the range 

of 50 to 59.9 percent and then 60 to 69.9 percent and greater 

than 70 percent. But there's no play place in the table fo 

precincts in which the percent Democratic registration is x 

than 50 percent. So what I have done in Exhibit 435 is to 

provide the information on the other precincts. 

Q. So you have completed the table? 

A. So I completed the table, yes. 

Q. Could you tell the Court what you conclude in this 

table? 

A. Yes. This is the third point that's troubling about the 

Table 6, and that is when you complete Table 6 and examine it 

closely, what you find is that support is about equal even in 

Table 6 for the party hypothesis and for the racial hypothesis. 

And I can demonstrate that with the use of just a little analysi 

of the first page of Exhibit 435 if the Court would care to Ny 

it? 
  

%* % % 

[*S06] We tally up the numbers here, see how many R's we 

have, how many P's we've got. You see we have five P's and 

two R's. It's evident that there is more support here for the 

party affiliation hypothesis than there is for the race hypothesis. 

What may not be so apparent is those two differences are not 

statistically significant. There were not enough instances of 

comparison to say the party hypothesis dominates the race     
 



  

256 

hypothesis. It's clear the race hypothesis does not dominate the 

party affiliation [*507] hypothesis. We could do the same 

thing with the other tables, and what we would find is 

essentially the same result. 

Q. Dr. Peterson, could you give us, after your various 

studies and your reviews of Dr. Weber's studies, could you give 

us your bottom line conclusion? 

A. Sure. The statistical evidence is almost vocal in its 

support of the race hypothesis and party affiliation hypothesis. 

The two are statistically indistinguishable, but of the two 

hypotheses, the statistical evidence supports the party 

affiliation hypothesis marginally better than it supports the race 

hypothesis. | : 

* % % 

[507] Q Dr. Peterson, I want to look with you at 

Exhibit 435. If we look at the first -- I'd like to ask you: If you 

look across these summary charts for all of the precincts 

[*508] involved in all the six counties, is it correct that for 

those precincts that are 60 percent black, nine of nine are 

included in the 12th Congressional District? 

A. Yes. 

Q. And is it true that of those precincts which are greater 

than 60 percent Democratic by registration, 32 of 63 are 

included in the Congressional District? 

Q. I'm sorry, between 60 and 70 percent? 

A. That's correct, yes. 

    

  

     



  

1 257 

  ~ : 1 Q. Is it true for those precincts which are voted greater, or 

. which are registered Democratic, greater than 70 percent, 75 of 

77 were included in the 12th District? 

A. Yes. 

Q. But for those greater than 70 percent black, all 49 of 49 

are included? 

A. That's correct, yes. Nj 

Q. Similar data would be shown with respect to the Senate 

election, the Court election and Lieutenant Governor election 

on the chart? 

A. That's correct. 

Q. Has this boundary segment analysis, which you have 

  

created, has it ever been applied to any other political districts 

anywhere in the world at any time in history? 

A. I don't know the answer to that question. 

Q. Are you aware of any instances where it's been 

[¥509] applied elsewhere? 

1 A. No. 

. 3 3 Q. Ever been presented at any academic colleges? A 

1 A. No. 

i] Q. Ever published in any scholarly journal for criticism or 

3 peer review of scholars? 

1 A. No, not that I'm aware. 

1 Q. Did you make the decision how proper segment 

| : analysis should be conducted? 

1 A. I designed the study, yes. 

Q. You made the decision to look only at the external 

boundary segments, not to consider in any way issues that 

relate to the construction of the district with respect to those   
 



  

258 

precincts which you don't touch the central boundary; is that 

correct? : 

A. It's true that the -- that ultimately the calculations 

depend only on the characteristics of the boundary just as when 

one draws a contour on a contour map. One has a sense of 

where the top of the mountain is. 

Q. So if, in fact, there were precincts in the internal portion 

of the district that were largely white or largely Republican, 

would that affect your analysis in any way? Would it affect 

your boundary segment analysis? 

A. If we had two 12th Districts, one of whose internal 

precincts were different in composition from the other, 

[*510] but the boundary segments in both 12th Districts were 

identical, my results would be the same for both. 

Q. Have you ever testified in any redistricting cases 

before? 

A. I don't believe so. 

Q. And when you made the decisions concerning how 

boundary segments analysis should be conducted, did you 

make the decision not to weight the segments based on the 

populations of the relative of the precincts both inside and 

outside? 

A. I did make that decision, yes. 

Q. Did you make the decision to treat all convergent 

precincts, those which there are more blacks inside the district 

than outside and more Democrats inside than outside as 

absolutely equal in what they prove about either a partisan or 

a racial hypothesis? 

A. Yes. [Each segment was given an equal vote in 

determining the outcome of my studies. 

      

  

  

   



259 

a Q. You did definitely look at degree of difference between 

race inside or outside or the degree between politics inside or 

outside? 

A. Part of the reason for that is establishing an appropriate 
scale to use to normalize the magnitudes of differences. 

Q. Did it matter to your analysis where within '® 

[*511] geography of the district these segments were locate 

whether they were in the core areas preserved or whether they 
were in connector areas? 

  

  

A. Every single segment was given the same voice in 
= determining the outcome regardless of its location. 

: Q. Is it possible that, in fact, for example, we talked about 

Davie County and also this district borders on Cabarrus 

County. Is it possible the explanation for why a boundary was 
selected may not have to do with race nor partisanship but 
simply no one wanted to cut up another county, like Davie 

County? 

A. There were reasons for drawing a county where it wa 
drawn that might be different from either race or orl 
affiliation. 

Q. Yours is not an additional analysis. This information 
wasn't available for the legislature to assist in their decision 
process? This analysis wasn't created at the time of the 

legislature's action, was it, this boundary segment analysis? 
A. No. This was done after the boundary of the 

12th District had been defined. My work was done after the 
boundary of the 12th District had been defined. 

Q. And you are not suggesting that one could substitute 
the external precinct if it had a greater number of African 

Americans or Democrats for one internally? 

  

    
 



  

260 

[*512] A. No, there's nothing about my study that 

presumes substitutability, which is an important distinction 

between my analysis and Dr. Weber's analysis. : 

Q. And you were the one who decided to generate the list 

of segments. You did so by an eyeball inspection of the 

series of maps rather than any sort of GI system or more 

technical approach? 

A. I don't know how else one would do what we did. 

Q. And is it fair to say that there's some issues relating to 

the data; for example, there are some precincts in which the 

data reflects that there are more black registered voters in a 

precinct than there are black adults? 

A. Yes. 

Q And there are some precincts which the difference 

between the number of blacks inside and outside might be very 

small? 

A. Yes. 

    

  

  

   



  

  

  

261 
GERRY COHEN TRIAL TESTIMONY (EXCERPTS) 

[*515] Q. Isn't it true that as a practical matter for each of 
the plans from 1991 through 1998 you were the person 
primarily responsible with actually drafting the plan that was 
ultimately adopted? 
A. I'm not sure if each time I was , primarily responsi) 
Many times I shared responsibilities or perhaps was primarily 
responsible for the Senate version of the plan. 
Q. With respect to the operation of the computer 
[*516] terminal, were you the person that did most of the 
operation of the computer terminal with respect to all the 
plans? 

A. Are you asking about all the enacted, the plans enacted? 
Q. Yes. 

A. I think that other than the House version of the 1997 
Plan, I was probably the primary operator and in ‘91, ‘92, ‘97 
Senate and ‘98 Senate. 

Q. Now, would it be true that under the operating with +l 
computer terminal that you used, the racial data as to 
percentage of population, total population, percentage of voting 
age population and percentage of registered voters was readily 
available at all times on the screen? 
A. Not always. The default certainly had a lot of that data 
appearing on the screen. Many times I sat for a particular 
session that defaults differently, so it didn't always appear on 
the screen. 

Q. In any event, it was available if you wanted to use it and 
much of the time you had it available as you looked over the -- 
A. Over the decade, yes, but less in the ‘97 drawing. 

 



  

262 

Q. Was the data in the computer base as to the registration, 

the results of the elections, everything else essentially the same 

from 1991 when you first became [*517] engaged in 

redistricting right up through 1998 when the most recent plan 

was adopted? 

A. From mid April ‘91 when we brought the system on 

line until now, we made no changes in any of the data in the 

data base in our system. 

Q. And you were quite familiar with that data as a result of 

drawing the different plans certainly by 1997? 

A. Yes, sir. 

* % % 

[*523] Q. Do you recall on or about February 10, 1997, 

writing a memorandum to an e-mail -- I should say to Leslie 

Winner and to Roy Cooper? 

A. Yes. I probably wrote several e-mails to them. Are you 

asking about this one in particular? 

Q. Yes, I'm referring now to what's Exhibit 58. With 

respect to that document, that e-mail, do you recall sending 

such an e-mail on or about February 10, 1997? 

[*524] A. Yes, I do. 

Q. And in that context, in the last sentence or the last two 

lines, there is a reference to the Greensboro black community? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What were you referring to as the "Greensboro black 

community" when you wrote that memorandum? 

A. Well, Senator Cooper had earlier that day or the 

previous day told me to draw a new plan which would 

  

  

  

   



263 

eliminate the problem in the prior plan that Guilford County 

was in three Congressional Districts, which he said was not 

acceptable. And there needed to be no county more than two 

congressional districts in the state. He asked me to make 
changes in the plan to have Guilford only in two congressional 

districts. My basic instruction was to include more of the 12th 

District -- excuse me, more of Guilford County in the 12 

District for several different factors. 

And the first thing I did was extend all the way up into 

Greensboro including, I think, most of two State House 

Districts and this was actually one sentence at the end of a 

longer memorandum that really talked about the First 

Congressional District. And by mentioning the Greensboro 

black community, I talked about the basic part of a larger group 
in the precincts that I moved in. I [*525] think I moved 27 

precincts in at that time of which the Greensboro black 

community was about 11 of those 27. 

Q. All right. Now, with respect to Guilford County, was 

any part of Guilford County already in the plan you wer 

developing? 

A. Yes. The plan that I was working from at that point 

had, I think, ten or 11 precincts in High Point; the Guilford 

County part of High Point in the 12th District already. 

Q. Do you recall whether those precincts were 

predominately African American? 

A. I think that five of the nine or ten in High Point at that 

time were predominately African American in the plan I had 

been working from at that point. I'm not sure of the exact 

numbers.     
 



  

264 

Q. Was that number either decreased or increased at a later 

time? 

A. I believe that when -- the 27 precincts that I moved in 

that it was referring to in this memo, at least one of them was 

in High Point, but it was predominately white. 

Q. Do you recall approximately the number of African 

Americans that were in Guilford County at the time of the plan 

immediately preceding the one that you drew and referred to in 

that memorandum? 

A. I don't recall that number. : 

[*526] Q. All right. I'm going to show you this map, 

which purports to indicate racial concentrations in the 

1997 Plan? 

A. Okay. 

Q. I'm going to ask you whether, with respect to 

Greensboro, whether or not the area that is indicated with red, 

red checks there, is the Greensboro black community includes 

the Greensboro black community that you were referring to in 

your memorandum? 

A. Your key there shows those red precincts, shows those 

being 40 percent or higher black in terms of total population, so 

I think that certainly is the same sort of -- the red coloring is the 

same shorthand that I used at the time I talked about the black 

community in Greensboro. 

Q. Do you recall how many African Americans in Guilford 

County were included in the plan that you submitted at that 

time? 

A. I know the number that I added between the previous 

plan, which was called '97 Cooper 2.0 and the resulting Cooper 

3.0, that I mentioned in this memo, I recall the total number of     

  
  

  
   



          i ph 

265 

people moved and the racial composition, but I don't recall 

what had been previously and I don't remember the total. 

Q. What was the percentage of those you moved as far as 

[*527] race was concerned? 

A. I think the total number actually moved, I went back 

and looked at that after the deposition, was about 108,000 

which about 52,000 were black. 

Q. All right. And with respect to the moving the 52,000 

black, were they moved in or moved out -- let me rephrase that. 

You mean a hundred some thousand were moved into the 

district as a result of this plan? 

A. Yes. There were about 102,000 plus population in 

Guilford County moved from the 6th District to the 12th or 

from the 5th District to the 12th, because it had been in three 

different districts at the time. 

* % % 

[*528] Q. So the 50,000 approximately African Americal 

who were moved in at that time when you prepared the plan 

and sent the e-mail remained there in the district from that time 

on? 

A. That's my belief, yes, sir. 

% % % 

[*529] Q. Would you view the 50,000 as a significant 

number of African Americans moved into the 12th District? 

Ms. Smiley: Objection, Your Honor. 

Judge Thornburg: Overruled. 

 



  

266 

A. I view both the 50,000 African American and 100,000 

total as being significant in a district that had a total of about 

600,000, yes. 

I thought equal populous required 550 some thousand? 
I guess I rounded it to 600,000. 

About 552,000? 

Yes. 

So 50,000 with respect to 552,000 would be roughly 10 

ercent? 

Yes. >E
 
O
P
O
 PR
O 

[*530] Q. Just with a view to pointing out in the first two 

lines, you are referring to a change and could you indicate what 

that change was and what the purpose of the change was? 

A. I mention the changes were in Beaufort, Pitt, Craven 

and Jones Counties. Do you want me to read the sentence? 

Q. That will be fine. 

A. By shifting areas in Beaufort, Pitt, Craven and Jones 

County, I was able to boost the minority percentages in the 

First District from 48.1 to 49.25. 

[*531] Q. In the next paragraph you use the word 

"improve" on two occasions, I believe. Improving the 

percentage. What do you have in mind there? 

A. ‘Well, in the sentence I mentioned this was all the 

district could be improved by switching between the First and 

    

  
  

   



267   

E
a
 

Third, unless I wanted to go to Pasquotank, Perquimons or 
Camden. There since the instructions at that point were to 
increase the percentage of minority in the district, improvement 
moving towards that goal, which means increasing the number. 
Q. So improve is synonymous with increase African 

Americans in this particular numbering? 

A. Yes, sir ® 

Q. Was that based on the premise that you had to have a 

majority black in the First District? 

Ms. Smiley: Objection to foundation. 

Judge Thornburg: I'll let the witness answer to what he 

had in mind. That's what we're trying to get at here. 

A. Could you restate the question? 

Q. Indicate what you had in mind then with respect to 
[#532] achieving a majority black precinct -- majority black 

district, I mean. 

A. The understanding that I received from Senator Cooper 

was that in order for the plan to pass and in order for what he 
thought was to perceive approval from the Justice Departmen) 

along with a bunch of other factors, it was going to need to be 
more than 50 percent in terms of total population. So that's 
where we were moving along that track towards. 

  
Q. So your instructions were to create a district with at 
least 50 percent? 

A. I'm not sure right at the point of this memo it was to get 
it to 50, but I know I was told to make it higher at that point. 

Q. It was 49 percent at that point? 

A. Yes, sir. 

% % %     
 



  

268 

[*538] Q. Let me ask you one question: Mr. Cohen, have 

you had an opportunity to look at your Exhibit with the 

changes and also compare it to Weber's Exhibit 47, Table 5? 

A. Yes, I examined both of those against each other. 

Q. How many precincts were moved when Greensboro was 

added to District 12? 

A. 29. 

[*¥539] Q. Of those precincts, how many were majority 

white? 
A. 18. 

Q. One last question, I hope last question: Do you know 

about why the Greensboro precincts were added to District 12, 

this particular move we were talking about? 

A. So as to not have Guilford County divided into three 

districts and so as not to waste Democratic votes in the 6th 

District since that had been designed as a Republican District. 

Instead use them to improve the Democratic vote in the 12th 

District. 

Q. What's the source of your information -- that's your 

belief that that's why they were moved? 

A. Yes. 

Q. And why do you believe that? 

A. Conversations with Senator Cooper at the time the 

instructions were given. 

Q. So he did not give you an instruction to move the black 

community into District 12? 

A. No, he instructed me to move more Guilford County 

precincts that were predominately Democratic into District 12. 

Q. And for the reasons you just stated? 

A. Yes, ma'am. 

  

  
  

 



  

  

      

269 
CLOSING ARGUMENT OF ADAM STEIN (EXCERPTS) 

[#595] Let me just say one thing about this and that's all I will 

say about the 12th, unless anybody has any question about the 

First. Ms. Smiley covered our position. I wanted to make clear 

that when my clients, some of my clients go back to the 

Gingles case, in fact Ralph Gingles [*596] was an Interveno 

in the Hunt case -- in the Shaw case, and then when this case 

started he didn't intervene because Gastonia was out. Gaston 

County was out of the12th District but some of the other people 

did intervene. Their position all along is, and once we 

understood the law after Shaw versus Hunt, that there couldn't 

be -- there was not a basis for majority\minority district in 

the 12th. 

 



  

270 

[This page intentionally left blank.] 

    

  

      
  
 



    
  

    

      
         

       
       
    
      
    
    

          
      
     
        
      
     

    

Exhibit 23 Type P Divergent Segments Using Democratic and Black Registration 

Internal External Inside 12 Outside CD 12 

Obs Segm. County Precinct County Precinct % Black % Dem % Black % Dem 
6 6 Mecklen. Charlotte 81 Mecklen. Charlotte 80 0.1484 0.61 0.1521 0.57 
  

                

  

37.37 do. Charlotte 29 do. Charlotte 5 0.16 0.6382 0.17 0.6343 

40 40 do. Charlotte 61 do. Charlotte 84 0.13 062 0.19 0.6 

41 41 do. do. do. Charlotte 95 do. do. 0.17 0.56 

53 54 Iredell  Coddle Creek 3 Cabarrus 0.0301 0.03 0.56 0.09 0.53 

54 55 do. Coddle Creek 4 do. do. 0.05 0.61 do. do. 

211 207 do. Cool Springs Iredell Turnersburg 0.17 0.68 0.19 0.67 
223 219 do. Barrington do. Fallstown 0.010496 0.6232 0.011396 0.6165 

Trading 
80 81 Rowan Spencer Rowan Ford 0.09 0.75 0.18 06] NM 
81 82 Davidson Boone do. do. 0.04 0.66 0.15 061 = 

82:83 do. do. Davidson Cotton do. 0.662 0.15 0.6564 

205 203 do. do. Davie 0.025 do. do. 0.08 0.4 

84 85 do. Ward 2 Davidson Cotton 0.08 0.68 0.15 0.66 

139 140 Guilford GB 15 Guilford GB 14 0.16 0.71 0.22 0.69 

144 145 do. GB 24 do. GB 23 0.201 0.6595 0.2087 0.6574 

150 151 do. Jamestown 2 do. GB 24C 0.05 0.51 0.06 0.38 

151. 152 do. HP 19 do. Friendship 2 0.03 0.66 0.04 0.55 

152.153 do. do. do. HP 20 do. do. 0.12 0.44 

154 155 do. do. do. HP 17 do. do. 0.18 0.58 

160 161 do. HP 1 do. HP 4 0.0033 0.56 0.00331 0.49           

     
 



Inside 12 Outside CD 12      
  

Obs Seg i Precinct ly Precinct  % Black % Dem % Black % Dem 
199 200 Davidson Reedy Creek Davie 0.035 0 0.42 0.08 0.4 
200200.1 Do. do. do. 0.02 Do. do. 0.07 04 

201 201 do. Yadkin College do. do. 0.06 0.58 Do. Do. 

202201.1 Do. Reeds do. do. 0.03 0.51 Do. do. 
203 202 do. Tyro do. do. 0.05 0.53 Do. do. 
204202.1 Do. do. do. 0.25 Do. do. 0.08 0.4 

CL
T 

   



  

    

  

Exhibit 24 Type R Divergent Segments Using Democratic and Black Registration 

Inside Outside Internal Precinct External Precinct 
0 

Obs Segm County Precinct County Precinct Black % Dem % Black % Dem 
19 19 Mecklen. Charlotte 97 Mecklen. Charlotte 58 0.24 0.51 0.08 0.53 
39 39 do. Charlotte 61 do. Charlotte 45 0.13 0.62 0.1 0.63 
46 47 do. CO2 Cabarrus 0.0103 0.12 0.54 0.02 0.54 

231. 227 do. HUN Mecklen. LCI - North 0.13 0.57 0.1 0.63 
87 88 Davidson Ward 2 Davidson Ward 6 0.08 0.68 0.08 0.72 
96 97 do. ' Arcadia do. Welcome 0.03 0.44 0.02 0.51 

South Fork 
195 196 do. do. Forsyth 2 do. do. 0.02 0.53 
196 197 do. Hampton do. do. 0.03 0.38 do. do. 
97: 98 do. Midway do. do. 0.06 0.42 do. do. 

: Thomasvill 
98 99 do. do. Davidson e 6 do. do. 0.01 0.43 

117 118 Guilford Jamestown 2 Guilford Bo 0.05 0.51 0.02 . 0.51 
Friendship 

149 150 do. do. do. 2 do. do. 0.04 0.55 
141 142 do. GB 18 do. GB 17 0.09 0.63 0.08 0.68 
214 210 Iredell Eagle Mills Iredell Statesville 1 0.07 0.55 0.06 0.65 

Chambersbe 
58 50 do. rg an Mt. Ulla 0.07 0.59 a 0.06 

€L
T 

 



  

274 

[This page intentionally left blank.) 

  

PRA R
A
R
E
R
.
 

8 S
CR
EE
NE
RS
 

Fh
 

8 

    
   



  275 

EXHIBIT 25 SUMMARY OF DIVERGENT PRECINCTS AND 

SEGMENTS BY COUNTY 

: Type P % of TypeR 

County Precincts/Segments CD 12  Precincts/Segments 
Black Pop. 

i Davidson 6 10 3.8 4 6 ® 

1 Iredell 4 4 3.6 

Rowan i 1 4.6 0 0 

No
 

No
 

Forsyth 0 16.7 0 

\}
 

(U
8)

 

0 

Guilford 5 7 27.2 

Mecklenburg 3   

  

 



  

276 

[This page intentionally left blank.) 

    

 



277 

EXHIBIT 47 (EXCERPTS) 

  

[Caption Omitted in Printing] 

  

DECLARATION OF DR. RONALD E. WEBER   I, Ronald E. Weber, Ph.D., declare pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

1746 as follows: a 

1. I am currently the Wilder Crane Professor of 

Government in the Department of Political Science at the 

University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; President of 

Campaign and Opinion Research Analysts, Inc.; former co- 

editor of The Journal of Politics 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). I received 

my B.A. in Political Science and History from Macalest 

College, St. Paul, MN, in 1964 and a Ph.D. in Political Science 

from Syracuse University in 1969, with specialtiesin American 

state [*2] politics, voting behavior, and quantitative analyses of 

political data. 

  

* % % 

3. I have been retained as a consultant and expert 

witness in a number of redistricting and voting rights cases and 

have been qualified as an expert by the U.S. District Courts in 

[22 instances].   
 



  

278 

[*3] I have testified in a number of Congressional and state 

legislative redistricting cases . . . 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. 

%* % % 

[*4] 5. 1 address the following questions in analyzing 

whether the 1997 U.S. Congressional redistricting in North 

Carolina results in a violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth 

Amendments of the U.S. Constitutionin accord with factors set 

forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Shaw v, Reno, Miller v. 

Johnson, Shaw v. Hunt, and Bush v. Vera: 

(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 districting 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; 

(3) whether the political explanation for the Plan 

A Congressional districts adopted in 1997 offered 

               



279 

by state defendants and their expert Professor 

Peterson has credibility or can be characterized as 

a post-hoc rationalization for the districting plan; 

[*S] (4) whether the African-Americanvoting age 

population anywhere in North Carolina is 

sufficiently large and geographically concentrated 

enough to constitute a potential voter major) 

using traditional districting principles to draw a 

single-member Congressional district; 

(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; 

(6) whether sufficient levels of white crossover 

voting exists in the northeast and Piedmon@ 

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) 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          



  

280 

an opportunity to be elected, thus questioning 

whether the plan was [*6] 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 I, I will 

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; in 

section 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, Iwill discuss participationrates of African-American and 

white voters as well as white crossover rates in recent statewide 

elections within two regions 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. 

  

  

on 

gl 

i 

3 

    
  

 



281 

  A [*7]FINDINGS 

L HISTORY OF RECENT CONGRESSIONAL 
REDISTRICTINGS IN NORTH CAROLINA 

* % % a 

[*8] 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 populations 

  

  

of the 11 districts before the 1982 elections. The first plan 
i adopted in July, 1981 did not receive pre-clearance under 
ad 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 [*9] 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. 

  

  
11. The population of the state of North Carolina grew 

more rapidly than the U.S. as a whole between 1980 and 1990,   
   



  

282 

and thus the Congressional apportionment following the 1990 

Census of Population allocated an additional seat to North 

Carolina, bringing the size of the Congressional delegation 

back to 12 seats as it had been in the 1950s. 

[*10] 12. 1 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 County, the largest 

county in population in North Carolina, is slightly smaller than 

a current Congressional district. Third, . . . at the maximum a 

total of eleven North Carolina counties might need to be split 

to create an equally populous twelve district plan, by using 

whole counties to create Congressional districts and then 

splitting just one county to balance the population between 

each of two districts. Fourth, despite the fact that the number 

of persons needed to populate an equitably populous plan 

increases each decade (after the 1980 Census the ideal district 

size was 534,706; after 1990 it was 552,386; and after 2000 it 

could be as high as 648,104 based on recent state population 

projections), the percentage of African-American persons in 

the [*11] North Carolina population declined between 1980 

and 1990. As Professor Alfred W. Stuart’s report for this case 

reveals, it is likely that the African-American percentage of the 

    

  

  

   



  

  

    

283 

total state population will be less in 2000 that 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 constitute a majority of voters in a Congressional 
district does not increase as rapidly (I will return to this point 
more specifically later). Finally, as I will consistently point @ 
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. 

II. ANALYSIS OF DISTRICTING CRITERIA 

EMPLOYED BY STATE 
  

* % % 

[*12] 14. The question of whether race was the icin 

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 and on 
maps to display the use of race as a redistricting criterion. 

 



  

284 

15... . 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 the creation 

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-Americanmember of Congress, the 

county splits show a [TABLE 1 relocated to 319 - 391] [*15] 

typical pattern of African-Americantotal population majorities 

in the largest jurisdictions of each district. A total of 22 

counties are split across the 12 districts and just one district 

(District 11) is composed of whole counties. Ten of the split 

counties are accounted for by the construction of District 1, 

while another six are accounted for by District 12. Six other 

counties are split in the plan. Half of the counties in District 1 

are split, while 100 percent of the counties (all six) are split in 

the creation of District 12. 

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 assigned to 

District 1 include four with parts over 50 percent African- 

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

American, and two with parts of over 30 percent African- 

American. The African-American percentage of the total 

population in the counties split across District 1 and another 

district is above the district-wide African-American percentage 

in four counties. The African-Americanpercentage of the total 

Se 

  

  

  
   



285 

a . populationis above 60 percent in Lenoir County and above 50 
i percent in Pitt, Wayne, and Wilson Counties. Conversely, 

Table 1 reports that the African-American percentage of the 
total population in the parts of most of those split counties 
assigned to another district than [*16] District 1 is consistently 
lower. For example, the part of Lenoir County assigned 
District 3 is 13.6 percent African-Americanin total population, 
while the part of Pitt County allocated to District 3 is 18.1 
percent African-American in total population. The county 
splits as they impact the white majority districts in eastern 
North Carolina can be divided into two categories: 1) those 
county splits for the districts where the intent usually was to 
provide African-Americanvoters to shore up the electoral bases 
of candidates who might be characterized as candidates of 
choice of African-Americanvoters (e.g. Districts 2 and 4), and 
2) those county splits for the district where the intent usually 
was to carve out African-Americanvoters so as not to endanger 
the electoral bases of the candidates who might not "QP 
characterized as candidates of choice of minority voters (e.g. 
District 3). 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 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 50 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   
 



  

286 

African-American in population. Mecklenburg, Forsyth, and 

Guilford [*17] counties which contribute almost 75 percent of 

the district’s total population 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-Americanpersons from each of those counties 

to fill 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 the 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 percent 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 voters (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 [*18] well. 

      

  

  
  

    
 



287 

18. Table 2 provides further confirmation that race was 

the predominant factor in the drawing of the lines for the North 

Carolina Congressional districtsin 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. For 

example, the pattern shown in each of the ten counties that 4 

split between District 1 and an adjacent district is one in which 

most of the time the sub-division was along racial lines. All 

ten counties were split along racial lines. The most dramatic 

examples from Table 2 include Lenoir County where 61.1 

percent of the total population allocated to District 1 is African- 

  

  

American while only 13.6 percent of the total population 

assigned to District 3 is African-American,and Wilson County 

where 51.0 percent of the total population allocated to District 

1 is African-American while only 12.0 percent of the total 

population assigned to District 2 is African-American. A 

similar pattern holds in the other eight counties of District 1. 

In each of those counties, the population on the District 1 sid 

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. [TABLE 2 relocated to 

323 - 325] 

  
[*21] 19. 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 racial lines. 

All six counties were split along racial lines. The most   
 



  

288 

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 of the total 

population assigned to District 5 is African-American, 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 population 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. 

2 21. Ihave also examined data related to city and 

town splits in 1997 North Carolina Congressional district plan. 

These [*23] data will be used to determine whether I should 

alter my opinion that race was a predominant factor in the 

construction of the districts. Using a report titled Places Split 

      

    

 



289 

by 97 North Carolina Congressional 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 comparable to Tables 1 and 2. Note that 
these tables include every city or town in North Carolina that 
is split across two or more districts by geography in the 19 
plan. Thus, there are four places where the geographical spli 
does not involve people on both sides of the line. F urthermore, 
there are several others where a small number of people are 
split away from a larger number of people by the use of the 
precincts in the 1997 Congressional districting plan. 

    

  

    

22. Accordingto Table 3, 11 of 13 cities or towns were 
split along racial lines to create Congressional district 1. Nine 
of the cities or towns split between district 1 and another 
district involve placing a majority of the African-American 
population into District 1 as displayed in Table 3. When cities 
or towns were split to achieve population equality, the racj 
composition of the components differ little. When the splits are 
for racial purposes, the differences are large. 

23. A similar pattern of splitting cities or towns is shown 
for District 12. Nine of 13 cities or towns were split along 
[TABLE 3 relocated to 327 - 331; TABLE 4 relocated to 333 
- 337] [*30] 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 District 12 as displayed in Table 3. Also the 
four largest cities assigned to District 12 are split along racial 
lines.  



  

290 

24. The above analysis is further confirmed by the 

listing of split cities and towns in Table 4. Here one can see 

how most of the cities and towns assigned to District 1 are split 

along racial lines. Particularly striking are the figures for 

Goldsboro, Greenville, Kinston, Rocky Mount, and Wilson. 

Table 4 also highlights the racial 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 between other districts do not display large racial 

differences (exceptions are Fayetteville and Raleigh). 

25. Defendants’ experts point out that the 1997 North 

Carolina Congressional districting plan relies almost without 

exception to the 1990 Voting Tabulation Districts (VTDs) or 

precincts as the building blocks for constructing districts. They 

note that only two precincts were split in constructing the 12 

districts. One of these two precincts is in Mecklenburg County 

and was split to provide a geographical land bridge to connect 

two parts of District 9 to each other. The precinct in 

[*31] 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 District 12. Thus, the state split the precinct 

placing one non-African-American person in the part of the 

precinct in District 9. If that one person is a registered voter 

and does vote in a Congressional election, there will be a ballot 

secrecy issue for that one voter. The other split precinct is in 

R
R
s
 

S
E
 

a
 

a 
T
A
 a
 

A 
S
a
 
C
S
 

L
e
 

  

  

    
   



291 

Craven County where 23 persons are put in District 3 rather 

than District 1 with 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 '® 

nation. For example, both Georgia and South Carolina, spli 

only a small number of precincts in creating their 

Congressional Districting plans of the 1990s but this fact did 

not prevent plaintiff challenges from invalidating Districts 2 

and 11 in Georgia and from attacking District 6 in South 

Carolina. 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. 

  

  

[*32] 27. Next I present Table 5 which details at the recin 

level by county the assignment of precincts to Congressional 

districts for the 22 counties that were split in creating the 1997 

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     
 



  

= 292 

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

low by the percentage of African-Americanpopulation 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 

by race. Finally, the district to which the precinct is assigned 

in the 1997 Plan is noted in the final column of the table. 

[*38] 39... . 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 

[*39] 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. I 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. All 15 African-Americanmajority 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 District 5. 

      

  

   



  

  

  

    

293 

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 of North Carolina. 

41. I 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 [#40] are made to provide contiguous 
paths from the African-American majority precincts north to 
Iredell County so as to connect African-American populations 
in Charlotte with those in Winston-Salem, High Point, and 

Greensboro. The assignment of Mecklenburg County precincts 
between Districts 9 and 12 shows a 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 Point and where severe racial disparities exist between 
Districts 6 and 12. All 17 African-Americanmajority 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 around 80 percent or more of the population is 
white in Guilford County are assigned to District 6. Some 

 



  

294 

white majority precincts are allocated to District 12, but for the 

most part these assignments are made to provide contiguous 

paths from the African-American majority precincts in 

Greensboro and High Point southwest to Davidson County so 

as to connect African-Americanpopulations 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 1997 Plan in the Piedmont 

region of North Carolina. 

[*41] 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 of the predominant use of race in the 

creation of District 12 in the 1997 Plan in the Piedmont region 

of North Carolina. 

      

  
   



295 

44. Turning next to the two 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 Atti Anetiond 
majority precincts in the city of Statesville. The white majority 
precincts allocated to District 12 are there to provide 
[*42] 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 p 
Congressional Districts 6 and 12 in Davidson County. A total 
of 20 precincts in this county are assigned to Congressional 
District 12, including two African-Americanmajority precincts 
in the city of 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- 
Salem, High 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     
 



  

296 

the creation of District 12 in the 1997 Plan in the Piedmont 

region of North Carolina. 

[*43]47. 1 began to answer the question of whether the districts 

in the 1997 North Carolina Congressional districting plan 

subordinate race-neutral traditional redistricting principles 

when I discussed above the tabular data on the splitting of 

counties, cities, towns, and precincts. The state of North 

Carolina subordinated the splitting of county, city, and town 

boundaries to a desire to allocate persons by race to a greater 

[*44] 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 of 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, "Congressional 

Districts: Objectively Evaluating Shapes," CRS Report for 

    

  

 



297 

  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. 

* % * » 

[*45]49. 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 places having populations of 10,000 or more and indicates 
how [*46] many of these are split by district lines. In the 1997 
plan, North Carolina district 1 has nine such places (either 
cities or 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. 

51. Another race-neutral traditional redistricting 
criterion involves the issue of geographical contiguity. I have 
examined the maps of the 1997 Congressional districting plan   
 



  

298 

to determine whether the state adhered to geographical 

contiguity in the construction of the plans. I find that the plans 

are technically contiguous in that parts of geographical 

territories are joined together through water areas or narrow 

land bridges. A person wishing to traverse Congressional 

district 3 by automobile, for example, would have to leave the 

district, then go through another district, before returning to 

district 3. The best examples of technical contiguity occur in 

Beaufort and Pamlico counties where two parts of district 3 are 

joined across the Pamlico Sound, in the city of Charlotte where 

two parts of district 9 are connected through a split precinct at 

the southern edge of Mecklenburg County, and in Guilford 

County and the city of High Point where a narrow land bridge 

is used to connect Davidson County with the city of 

Greensboro in Guilford County. Although the Congressional 

districts are technically contiguous, the district lines do not 

promote functional contiguity. Anyone serving districts 3, 9, 

and 12 in the U.S. Congress will need to [*47] travel usually 

outside each district in order to traverse the district each is 

serving in the most efficient manner. 

52. Another race-neutral traditional redistricting 

principle involves the issue of geographical compactness. The 

issue of geographical compactness can be addressed first by 

examining maps of the 1997 Congressional districts. A 

statewide map of the 1997 districts and detailed maps of 

Districts 1 and 12 demonstrate clearly that Districts 1 and 12 as 

well as adjacent districts are oddly shaped and not compact. 

  

  

  

   



299   
53. 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,’ and 

Voting Rights: Evaluating Election-District Appearances 4 
Shaw," Michigan Law Review, Vol. 92 (December 1993), pp. 

101-205, and 2) David C. Huckabee, "Congressional Districts: 

Objectively Evaluating Shapes," CRS Re for Congres 

(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 

[*48] Huckabee report for all 435 Congressional districts in the 

U.S. adopted following the release of the 1990 Census | 
Population. Huckabee adopts two geographic measures-- 

dispersion measure and a perimeter measure--and one 
population measure. Pildes and Niemi rely on the same two 

geographic compactness measures reported by Huckabee. 

Gerald Webster in his report for the defendants in this case use 

the same two geographic compactness measures as Pildes and 

Niemi as well as Huckabee. 

55. Combining information about the two measures of 

geographical compactness in the Huckabee report with those in 
the Webster report I can see that North Carolina's 
Congressional District 12 is still the least compact district in     
 



  

300 

North Carolina on both indicators of geographic compactness 

and that District 1 is the second least compact district on the 

perimeter measure and the fourth least compact district on the 

dispersion measure. In Appendix E of the Huckabee report, he 

reports a table containing the two geographic compactness 

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 while North 

Carolina 1 would probably not make the list of the worst ten 

percent of the districts even though many of the lowest districts 

in Huckabee’s table have moved up to higher scores will 

revised districts. A number of congressional districts in other 

states with lower perimeter or dispersion scores have been 

found [*49] to be unconstitutional by Federal district courts. 

North Carolina 12 is less compact than struck-down Florida 3 

on one indicator, than invalidated Georgia districts 2 and 11 on 

both indicators, than unconstitutional Louisiana 4 on one 

indicator, than invalidated New York 12 on one indicator, than 

struck-down Texas districts 18, 29, and 30on one indicator, and 

unconstitutional Virginia 3 on both indicators. I have also 

taken the perimeterand dispersion compactness scores from the 

Huckabee report and revised the ranking order for the worst 

districts on each measure (this process has used the best 

information on the two compactness scores for the current 

Congressional districts, some of which is contained in the 

Webster report). North Carolina 12 ranks either 430 or 431 out 

of 435 in compactness using the dispersion measure (I am 

unable to determine whether the state of New York increased 

the compactness of District 8 when it recently reworked is plan 

    

  

     



OE 

  

301   
to remedy the unconstitutionality of District 12). 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. pe 

56. 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 [*50] 12 districts in the 1997 plan.! The 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 1980s. In the 1997 plan, the range on the dispersion 

measure runs from a low of .11 to a high of .62 and averages 

.35 across the current 12 districts. The range on the perimeter 

measure in North Carolina runs from a low of .22 to a high ‘® 

.46 and averages .30 across the 11 districts in the 1980s. In thé 

1997 plan, the range on the perimeter measure runs from a low 

of .04 to a high of .33 and averages .19 across the current 12 

districts. This comparisonreveals that the 1997 12 district plan 

is less compact overall than the 11 district plan of the 1980s, 

using the two standard measures of geographic compactness. 

  

  

  

! 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. 

  
  

  
 



  

302 

[*52] III. EVALUATION OF THE POLITICAL DEFENSE 

QF DISTRICT 12 

59. I conclude that the political defense of 

Congressional District 12 offered by state defendants and their 

expert Professor David W. Peterson is nothing more than a 

post-hoc rationalization in an attempt to mask a true aim of 

including as many African-American persons as possible in 

District 12 given a decision to make the district up of persons 

from six counties. To permit a political explanation to trump 

the racial explanation, Professor Peterson would need to know 

that the state actually displayed political data on the computer 

screen as the plan’s designer was doing his/her work. The 

computer screen used by the North Carolina Legislative GIS 

system displays racial breakdowns as the plan designer is 

working and does not display political breakdowns. Only after 

the plan is completed can a designer assess the political 

character of the district created. Assessment of the political 

character of a district is post-hoc and cannot be done while 

precincts are being allocated to a district. Other problems exist 

with the analyses of Professor Peterson which I will outline 

below. 

60. Professor Peterson concentrates on the margins of 

Congressional District 12; he ignores the core. His measure 

focuses on the precincts just inside or just outside the district. 

These precincts -- even the ones just inside District 12 -- are 

less heavily black than the ones in the center of the [*S3] urban 

areas included in the district. He should be focusing on the 

    

     



  
Sen

i 

303 

core of the district rather than focusing on the periphery, where 
decisions probably came late in the process, i.e., is precinct X 
to be included or excluded. | 

0
 
R
o
s
t
 

S
R
R
 

a 
Sa
 

ae
 

ei
 

  

61. Professor Peterson’s segment analysis is flawed. 
Unless adjacent precincts inside and outside of Congression 
District 12 have equal populations, then it would not b 
possible to substitute one for the other. In other words, an 
outside precinct may have been 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 precincts 
they have nearly equal populations. Unless the population 
differences are trivial, it would be necessary for him to make 
comparisons on groups of precincts inside and outside 
Congressional District 12 that have nearly equal populations. 

62. According to Professor Peterson at paragraph #9 K 
his affidavit of February 27, 1998, a perfect correlation 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 to include a precinct that is six percent African- 
American counts against the Racial Hypothesis if the adjacent 
precinct in [*54] Congressional District 12 is five percent 
African-American. The six percent African-American precinct 
may have been excluded because elsewhere in the district a 40 
percent African-American precinct was included and the 

  
    
 



  

304 

population ceiling precluded adding the six percent African- 

American precinct. 

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 percent 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 true, one would find that 

all African-American population majority precincts would be 

assigned to District 12 along with all non-African-American 

majority precincts where an African-American Democratic 

candidate carried the precinct in a recent election. As I will 

demonstrate below, the former occurred, but the latter did not 

always occur. This analysis will further demonstrate the power 

of the racial explanation and debunk the political explanation 

for the boundaries of Congressional District 12. 

64. To examine the proposition outlined above, I have 

examined the assignment of precincts within the six counties of 

Congressional District 12, looking alternatively at assignment 

by race and by political preferences. I have constructeda set of 

[*55] 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 reveal that all 

  

  

    
 



305 

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 two 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 of + | 

six counties and for Congressional District 12 as a whole. All 

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 which he polled a majority 

were placed in Congressional District 12. 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 fro 

Congressional District 12. Analyses of the contests N 

lieutenant governor and Court of Appeals show that no precinct 

in which the population was less [ TABLE 6 relocated to 357- 

360] [*70] than 30 percent African-American but which cast 

1 more than 60 percent of their ballots for the Democratic 

: a candidate are in Congressional District 12. 

  
  

  

66. I next turn to the Table 6 portion for Forsyth County. 

‘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   
 



  

306 

Democratic strength considered. Once the African-American 

population 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 5 and 12 in Forsyth County, if the population is less 

than 40 percent African-American, then regardless of how 

concentrated Democratic strength may be, it is highly unlikely 

that the precinct will be included in Congressional District 12. 

67. 1 next turn to the Table 6 portion for Guilford 

County. All 17 majority African-American Guilford County 

precincts are in Congressional District 12. However a number 

of precincts that are majority Democratic on the various 

measures are outside Congressional District 12. The contrast 

is pronounced in terms [*71] of party registration where three- 

fourths of the precincts 50 - 59.99 percent Democratic by 

registration are in Congressional District 6 rather than 

Congressional District 12. Even in the 60 - 69.99 percent 

registration range, most precincts are excluded from 

Congressional District 12. 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 other two sets of election data. All of the 

heavily black population precincts are in Congressional District 

12 while only some of the heavily Democratic precincts are 

included. 

        

  

  

 



  

      
307 

68. I next turn to the Table 6 portion for Iredell County. All three Iredell County precincts more than 30 percent 
African-American in population are in Congressional District 12 while 15 of 21 precincts less than 30 percent African- 
American are in Congressional District 10. The strongest evidence of a 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 [*72] Democratic registration 
majorities, no more than four precincts ever cast a maj ority of 
their votes for Democrats. If I lower the threshold to 40 
percent support for a Democrat, results for the Gantt and the 
Court of Appeals contests would Support a racial explanation. 

69. I next turn to the Table 6 portion for Mecklenburg ® County. All 34 Mecklenburg County precincts more than 30 
percent African-Americanare in Congressional District 12! In contrast, of the 99 precincts less than 30 percent African- American, 82 are in Congressional District 9. This alone 
suggests that race played an very important role in selecting 
precincts for Congressional Districts 9 and 12. The tables for 
Democratic registration and support for Gantt in 1990 fit best 
with an interpretation that race was more important than party 
since in both of these presentations, the bulk of the 30 - 39.99 
black precincts in which Democratic strength is in the 50 - 59.9 
percent range are excluded from Congressional District 12.   

  

 



  

308 

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 1988 Court of Appeals 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 [*73] most of the precincts are in Congressional District 9, 

for all 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 but one precinct that voted Democratic for lieutenant 

governor or court of appeals 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 Democratic in registration are not in 

Congressional District 12. If drop the threshold down to 40 

percent Democratic on each measure, then in the 40 - 49.9 

percent Democratic category, most precincts are excluded from 

“Congressional District 12 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 

all African-American population majority precincts are 

assigned to District 12. On the other hand, a large number of 

      

  

 



  

a
k
 
o
e
 
B
R
E
 

SE
 

309 

2 

oF 
3 

precincts [*74] 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. 
If the motivation was to create a Democratic majority 
Congressional District 12 which was hospitable to an African- 
American Democratic candidate in the 1990 U.S. 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 to race in 
the construction of the district. 

    

  

72. Of course, no Congressional election was conducted 
within the boundaries of Congressional District 12 in the 1997 
plan under challenge as this court invalidated that plan. 
However, assuming that the challenged district is similar to the w» 
1998 plan used in the 1998 elections, then if the objective 
behind the 1997 plan was to maintain a partisan balance in the 
congressional delegation with six Democrats and six 
Republicans, the effort failed. In 1998, the election of Robin 
Hayes in Congressional District 8 gave Republicans a 7 - 5 
edge in the delegation. The election of a Republican upon the 
retirement of Bill Hefner in district 8 had been widely expected 
so the only [*75] surprise was the smallness of the Hayes’ 
margin. Congressional 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 district. Congressional District 
12 in the 1997 plan shares part of its boundary with  



  

310 

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 Republican after 

Hefner’s departure. Information included by Professor 

Peterson at paragraph # 21 of his affidavit indicates 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 

Congressional District 8 and the opportunity for doing so 

existed if Congressional District 12 were made less 

Democratic, i.e. fewer Democratic votes would be wasted. 

[*78] V. VOTER PARTICIPATION RATES WITHIN THE 

GEOGRAPHY OF CONGRESSIONAL 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 1997 have less opportunity than white 

persons to participate in the political process, I have estimated 

participation rates for selected Democratic primary, Democratic 

runoff, and general elections between 1990 and 1998 to 

determine the patterns of participation among the two. 

    

  

  
 



311   
i [*79] 77. 1 present a summarization of these results in 

Table 7 for Democratic primary and runoff elections of the 

1990s (see Exhibits C and D for summaries of the regression 

and extreme case analyses for the elections examined). In all 

five contested Democratic primary and runoff elections held 

within the geographical areas of 1997 Congressional Districlgy 

1 and 12, African-American persons who were registered to 

vote had a participation advantage over white registered voters, 

based on weighted regression analyses (see Table 7). So on ten 

separate occasions African-American voters participated at 

higher rates than white voters. 

  

78. 1 present a summarization of these results in Table 8 

for general elections of the 1990s. In all six contested general 

elections held within the geographical areas of 1997 

Congressional Districts 1 and 12, the African-American 

participation rate was lower for persons who were registered to 

vote compared to white registered voters, based on regia 

[TABLE 7 relocated to 361ja: TABLE 8 relocated to 363ja; 

TABLE 9 relocated to 365ja] [*82] regression analyses (see 

Table 8). Thus, on the 12 separate occasions I have analyzed 

= : 4 : African-American voters participated at lower rates than white 

voters. This means that in general elections African-American 

voters must make electoral coalitions with white voters in order 

to elect Democratic candidates to congressional office using 

1997 Plan A. In the next section, I will assess the degree of 

white cross-over voting in the same elections where I have 

estimated participation rates of the two groups. 

  
  
 



  

312 

V. WHITE CROSS-OVER VOTING IN 

NORTH CAROLINA 
  

  

79. 1 examine whether white voters in the northeast and 

Piedmont regions of the state of North Carolina 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 in the parts of the state where 

Congressional Districts 1 and 12 were created in the 1997 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 

ecologicalregressionand 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. 

[*83] Second, I will report upon estimated white cross-over 

rates for the 1998 Congressional elections held within the 

boundaries of the districts ordered by the courts in 1998. 

80. In Table 9, I report my estimates of white cross-over 

voting in the 1990 contest for U.S. Senate involving the 

candidacy of African-American Douglas Wilder, in.the 1990 

contest for State Auditor involving the candidacy of African- 

American Bill Campbell, in the 1996 U.S. Senate and State 

Auditor contestsinvolving candidates Gantt and Campbell, and 

in the 1998 contest for the U.S. Senate where John Edwards 

was the candidate of choice of African-American voters. I 

conducted bivariate ecological regression and extreme case 

  

  

  

  
 



313 

analyses of these elections. In both Congressional Districts of 

the 1997 plan, African-American candidates obtained 

appreciable levels of white cross-over support. The levels are 

white cross-over support are the highest in District 12 and 

somewhat lower in District 1 for at least the two elections 

involving Harvey Gantt. Gantt is estimated to have received 

low of 17.9 percent of the white vote in 1990 in District 1 an 

a high of 37.7 percent of the white vote in district 12 based 

upon the weighted regression analyses. White cross-over was 

the highest in the two general election contests of 1992 and 

1996 in District 1 for State Auditor. And John Edwards 

obtained between 35 and 40 percent of the white vote in his 

successful challenge to former Senator Faircloth in the 

Districts 1 and 12 in the 1998 general election. 

  

  

    

[*85] 81. In Table 10, I report my estimates of white 

cross-over voting in the 1998 Congressional elections contests 

in Districts 1 and 12. In the 1998 contest in District 1 Ev 

Clayton was the African-American Democratic candida dl) 

while in District 12 Mel Watt was the African-American 

candidate. I conducted bivariate ecological regression and 

extreme case analyses of these elections. In both Congressional 

Districts of the 1998 plan, African-American candidates 

obtained appreciable levels of white cross-over support. The 

levels of white cross-over support are slightly higher in District 

12 than in District 1, but both estimates exceed 30 percent 

i white cross-over support. These levels of white cross-over 

a support along with African-American voter support translated 

1 into strong margins of victory for the Democratic candidates in 

  

the two districts.   
 



  

314 

VII. ELECTORAL 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 

1998 reports of plaintiffs’ expert Lee Mortimer and defendants’ 

expert David W. Peterson as well as reconstituted election 

results for a number of recent 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 

[TABLE 10 relocated to 367ja] [*87] election. Elections won 

by less than 60 percent are considered competitive. Students of 

congressional elections generally adopt the same threshold for 

distinguishing non-competitive from competitive elections. - 

83. Using electoral history data from the Peterson report 

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 exceed the 

level needed to have a competitive Congressional district. 

These three percentages all confirm that district 12 is overly 

safe for both white and African-American candidates of the 

Democratic party in general elections. 

    

  

  

  

   



315 

85. Ihave also reconstituted the precinct election returns 

[*88] 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 1996 U.S. Senate and State Auditor general elections; and 

the 1998 U.S. Senate Democratic primary and genera 
elections. By allocating 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 used 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 [*89] subdivisions or     
 



  

316. 

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 can be characterized as a 

post-hoc rationalization for the districting plan; 

(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-Americanvoters will need some white 

cross-over support to win within the two 

[¥90] districts; 

(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 

  

  

 



  

317 

reasonable opportunity to elect candidates of 
choice in U.S. Congressional elections; and 
(7) that 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 b 
elected, thus questioning whether the plan was 
narrowly tailored to satisfy a compelling state 
interest. 

  
I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing 

Declaration is true and correct. 

Executed on this tenth day of September, 1999.   
/s/ Ronald E. Weber, Ph.D. 

 



  

318 

[This page left intentionally blank.}] 

    

  

  

        

   



319 

TABLE 1 

(EXCERPTS) 

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

African- 
County/City C Total White % Amer. % 

  

Beaufort 23,714 14,659 61.8 8,948 37.7 
Craven 25,279 14,207 56.2 10,920 43.2 
Granville 20,717 10,480 50.6 10,106 48.8 
Jones 8,553 5,045 59.0 3,461 405 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Lenoir 1. 31,016 -.11887 383 13959 61.1 
Person 1 <.21,001 13,436 64.0 7,307 34.8 
Pitt 1 49584 23676 477 25373 S12 
Washington 1 10,750 5499 512 5,207 484 
Wayne 1 36,323 17,110 “47.1 18,781 51.7 
Wilson 1 43,517 21008 482 22.131 510 

Granville 2 17,628 12,589 714 4,803 27.2 w» 
Sampson 2. 22.745 14,114 62.1 7935 35.1 
Wake 2 185,642 118,648 63.9 62.515 .:33.7 
Wilson 2 2.354 19,615 87.0 2715 120 

Beaufort 3 18,569 14,290 76.9 4,246 229 
Craven 3 56,334 44453 789 10,196 18.1 
Jones 3 861 642 74.6 216. 25.1 
Lenoir 3 26258 22435 854 3,580 13.6 
Pitt 3 58340 46,967 80.5 10,548 18.1 
Washington 3 3,247 2,057 63.4 1,150 35.7 
Wayne 3 68,343 32,062 762 15012 220       
 



  

Proportion of Total Population in Split Counties by Congressional 

County/City CD 

Chatham 

Person 

Wake 

Alamance 

Forsyth 

Alamance 

Chatham 

Davidson 

Guilford 

Rowan 

Cumberland 

Robeson 

Sampson 

Cumberland 

Robeson 

320 

TABLE 1 (Ctd.) 

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

4 
4 - 

4 

CL
V 

ON
 

OF
 

Ov
ii

On
 

x
 

Mecklenburg 9 

Iredell 10 

Total 
29,239 
9,179 

237,738 

79,976 

206,766 

28,237 

9,520 

59,993 

211,363 

77,499 

127,913 

81,548 

24,552 

146,653 

23,631 

292,808 

54,472. 

60,647 

181,381 

25,726 

6,623 

57,135 

186,331 

70,819 

94,213 

29,364 

16,159 

75,856 

8,622 

264,604 

48,438 

% 

78.0 

79.6 

86.4 

75.8 

87.7 

91.1 

69.6 

95.2 

88.2 

91.4 

73.7 

36.0 

65.8 

51.7 

36.5 

90.4 

88.9 

African- 

Amer. 
6,112 

1,799 

25,548 

18,544 

22,997 

2,278 

2,733 

2,468 

21,541 

5,979 

27,363 
17,204 
7,701 

60,133 
8,981 

21,026 

5,526 

% 

20.9 

19.6 

10.7 

23.2 

11.1 

8.1 

28.7 

4.1 

10.2 

7.7 

21.4 

21.1 

314 

41.0 

38.0 

12 

10.1 

    

  

  

   



BR
R 
C
N
 

  

  

  

    

321 

TABLE 1 (Ctd.) 
Proportion of Total Population in Split Counties by Congressional 

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

County/City CD Total 
Davidson 12 66,684 
Forsyth 12 59,112 
Guilford 12 136,057 
Iredell 12 38,459 
Mecklenburg 12 218,625 
Rowan 12 33,106 

White 
56,161 
15,537 
63,253 
28,769 

100,047 
21,032 

% 
84.2 

26.3 

46.5 

74.8 

45.9 

63.5 

African- 

Amer. 

9,846 

43,105 

70,114 

9,343 

113,442 

11,794 

% 

14.8 

72.9 

51.5 

24.3 

51.9 

35.6 

 



  

322 

[This page left intentionally blank.) 

    

  
ped z 

a 

2 
2 

   



  

  
dr ‘0 

& 

% 
i 

fo 

+ 323 
i 
4 TABLE 2 

| : Proportion of Total Population in Split Counties 
5 by County for 1997 Congressional Districting Plan 
a (HB 586--Plan A) 

i African- 

County/City CD Total White % Amer. % 
Alamance 5 9976 60,647 758 18,544 2322 
Alamance 6 28237 25,726 91.1 227% 8.1 

i Beaufort 1 23,714 14,659 61.8 8948 37.7 
a Beaufort 3. 18569 14,200 769 4,246 229 

1 Chatham 4 29239 22,800 78.0 6,112 209 
: Chatham 6' 9520 6613 696 2733 17 

: Craven 1 25279 14207 562 10,920 432 
1 Craven 3 56,334 44453 789 10,196 18.1 

i Cumberland 7 127,913 94213 73.7 27363 21.4 ‘ 
1: Cumberland 8 146,653 75,856 51.7 60,133 41.0 

i Davidson 6 59993 57135. 952 J46% 41 
1 Davidson 12 66,684 56,161 842 9,846 14.8 

: Forsyth 5 206,766 181,381 87.7 22,997 11.1 
i Forsyth 13° 59.112. 15,537. 263 43.105 729 

Granville I 20,717 10,480 50.6 10,106 48.8 
Granville 2 17028 12589 714 4303 272 

 



  

by County for 1997 Congressional Districting Plan 

(HB 586--Plan A) 

324 

TABLE 2 (Ctd.) 

Proportion of Total Population in Split Counties 

County/City CD 

Guilford 6 

Guilford 12 

Iredell 10 

Iredell 12 

Jones 1 

Jones 3 

Lenoir 1 

Lenoir 3 

Mecklenburg 9 

Mecklenburg 12 

Person 

Person 

Pitt 

Pitt 

Robeson 

Robeson 

Total 

211,363 

136,057 

54,472 

38,459 

8,553 

861 

31,016 

26,258 

292,808 

218,625 

21,001 

9,179 

49,584 

58,340 

81,548 

23,631 

White 

186,331 

63,253 

48,438 
28,769 

5,045 

642 

11,887 

22,435 

264,604 
100,047 

13,436 

7,304 

23,676 

46,967 

29.364 
8,622 

% 

88.2 

46.5 

88.9 

74.8 

59.0 

74.6 

38.3 

85.4 

90.4 

45.9 

64.0 

79.6 

47.7 

80.5 

36.0 

36.5 

African- 

Amer. 
21,541 

70,114 

5,526 

9,343 

3,461 

216 

18,959 

3,580 

21,026 

113,442 

7,307 

1,799 

25.373 

10,548 

17,204 

8,981 

% 

10.2 

51.5 

10.1 

243 

40.5 

251 

61.1 

13.6 

72 

51.9 

34.8 

19.6 

512 

18.1 

21.1 

38.0 

    

    

   



323 

TABLE 2 (Ctd.) 

Proportion of Total Population in Split Counties 
by County for 1997 Congressional Districting Plan 

(HB 586--Plan A)   

  

African- 
County/City CD Total ite % Amer. % @) 
Rowan 6 77,499 70,819 914 5979 77 
Rowan 12 33,106 21,032 635 11,794 35.6 

Sampson 2 22,745 14,114 62.1 7985 35.1 
Sampson 7 24552 16,159 658 7.701 31.4 

Wake 2 185642 118,648 63.9 62,515 33.7 
Wake 4 237,738 205363 864 25.548 10.7 

Washington ~~ 1 10,750 5499 512 5207 484 
Washington ~~ 3 3247 2057. 634 1159 357 

Wayne 36323 17110 47.1 18781 517 () 
Wayne 3 68343 52,062 762 15012 22.0 

Wilson 1 43,517 21,008 482 22.181 51.0 
Wilson 2 22,544 19,615 87.0 2,715 120 

    
 



  

326 

[This page left intentionally blank.] 

  

p
g
 
A
A
A
I
 
a
 

S
I
A
 
Ts
 

0 p
d 

O
R
N
s
 

0s 

    

      
  

 



  

    

  
327 

TABLE 3 

Proportion of Total Population in Split Municipalities and Census 
Designated Places by Congressional District for 1997 Plan 

(HB 586--Plan A) 

Non-Af, African- ® 
ity/Town CD Total Amer. % Amer, % Ayden 1 4,590 2,186 47.6 2404 524 

Battleboro* 1 280 90° 354 181 64.6 
Fremont 1 1,638 784 479 854 52.1 
Goldsboro 125,734 = 9833 382 1 5,901 61.8 
Greenville 1 19,249 6,052 314 13,197 636 
Kinston 1 16,328 2968 182 13,360 81.8 
New Bern 1 13,921 7201 517 6720 483 
Rocky Mount* 1 17,057 2,584 15.1 14473 849 
Sharpsburg* 1 482 91. 189 391 81.1 
Trent Woods 1 299 299 100.0 0 0.0 
Washington 1 9,073 4915 542 4,158 458 
Whitakers* 1 464 183 394 281 60.6@) 
Wilson 1%:.226,127 9335 158 16,772 64.2 

Battleboro* 2 167 156 934 11 6.6 
Clinton 2 7,313 4,024 550 3289 450 
Garner 2 3008 2232 ‘742 776 25.8 
Raleigh 2 107,979 60,848 56.4 47,131 43.6 
Rocky Mount* 2 31,940 22,116 692 9824 30.8 
Sharpsburg* 2 1,054 861 81.7 193 18.3 
Whitakers* 2 396 233 58.8 163 41.2 
Wilson 2 10,803 10,249 94.9 554 5.1    



  

328 

TABLE 3 (Ctd.)   
Proportion of Total Population 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. Y% Amer. % 
Ayden 3 150 150 100.0 0 0.0 

Fremont 3 72 10 13.9 62 - 86.1 

Goldsboro 3 14,975 11562. 772 3413 228 

Greenville 3.25723 23,583..-91.7. 2,140 83 

Kinston 3 8,967 7.712 :86.0 "1,255 140 

Mount Olive* 3 4,581 2.377 475. 2404 52.5 

New Bern 3 3,442 2.509. 75.5 843 24.5 

Surf City* 3 317 314 99.1 3 09 

Trent Woods 3 2,067 2,067 100.0 0 00 

Washington 3 2 2 100.0 0 0.0 

Garner 4 11,959 10,102 84.5 1,857 155 

Mebane* 4 485 420 86.6 65 134 

Raleigh 4 99,973 89,744 89.8 10,229 10.2 

Burlington 5 236339 27580 759 8,759 24.1 

- Elkin* 5 3,720 3373 90.7 347 93 

Gibsonville* 5 1,480 1,332 90.0 148 10.0 

Graham 5 7,234 5357 810 1377 190 

High Point 5 6 6 100.0 0 00 

Kernersville 5 10,836 10,230 944 606 5.6   
Mebane* 5 4,269 3,382 79.2 887 20.8 

Winston-Salem 5 89,215 74,885 839 14,330 16.1   
 



329 

TABLE 3 (Ctd.)   
Proportion of Total Population in Split Municipalities and Census 

Designated Places by Congressional District for 1997 Plan 

(HB 586--Plan A) 

Non-Af. African- CB 

City/Town CD Total Amer. % Amer. % 
Burlington 6 3,159 3,009 953 150 4.7 

Gibsonville* 6 1,961 1,483 75.6 478 244 

Graham 6 3,192 2,896 90.7 296 93 

Greensboro 6 88,441 78,981 893 9460 10.7 

High Point 6 37,200 32,833 88.3 4367 11.7 

Kannapolis 6 8,476 72.149. 843... 1327 157 

Kernersville 6 0 0 0.0 0 00 

Lexington 6 2,885 2422 874 363 12.6 

Salisbury 6 5,250 4,442 84.6 808 15.4 

Spencer 6 8 6 75.0 2 25.0 

Thomasville 6 6,909 6,249 904 660 9.6 

  Clinton 7 891 720 80.8 171 19.2 

Fayetteville 7 44988 34279 762 10,709 23.8 

Mount Olive* 7 1 0 0.0 1 100.0 

Red Springs 7 58 58 100.0 0 00 
Surf City* 7 653 652 99.8 ¥ 0.2 

Fayetteville 8 30,707 12,437 40.5 18,270 59.5 

Kannapolis 8 21.220 17,205. 81.1. 4015S 139 

Red Springs 8 3,736 1,771 474 1,965 52.6 

Weddington* 8 3,803 3,695 97.2 1083... 2.8     
 



  

330 

TABLE 3 (Ctd.) 

  Proportion of Total Population 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. % Amer. % 

Charlotte 9 213,515 196,172 919 17343 8.1 

Cornelius 9 308 304 98.7 4 5:13 

Weddington* 9 0 0 0.0 0 00 

Davidson* 10 0 0 0.0 0 00 

Elkin* 10 70 62 88.6 8S 114 

Mooresville 10 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Statesville 10 12,324 9997 81.1 2327 189 

Troutman 10 1,419 1,024 72.2 395 27.8 

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

Cornelius 12 2.213 1,752 "71.1 521 229 

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

Greensboro 12 95,080 42236 444 52,844 55.6 

High Point 12 32,290 15,677 48.6 16,613 514 

Lexington 12 13,696 9143 66.8 4,553 332 

Mooresville 12 8,818 6,687 75.8 2,131 24.2 

Salisbury 12 17,837 10,521 °59.0 7316 41.0 

Spencer 12 3211 2,488 77.5 723 22.5 

Statesville 12 5,243 1,200 246 3953 754 

Thomasville 12 9,006 5246 583 3,760 41.7 

Troutman 12 74 74 100.0 0 00 

Winston-Salem 12 54270 12272 22.6 41998 774   
 



331 

TABLE 3 (Ctd.) 

Proportion of Total Population in Split Municipalities and Census 
Designated Places by Congressional District for 1997 Plan 

(HB 586--Plan A) 

Source: North Carolina General Assembly, Information Systems 
Division. All information is based on that in the General Assembly3 
apportionment system. Provided by Dan Frey, GIS Analyst. 

*City or town is split across a county boundary. 

  
    
 



     
332 1 

[This page left intentionally blank.]   
    
 



333 

TABLE 4 
Proportion of Total Population in Split Municipalities and Census 

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

    
African- 

City/Town CD Total White % Amer, % 

Ayden 1 4,590 2,186 47.6 2404 52.40) 
Ayden 3 150 150 100.0 0 0.0 

Battleboro* 1 280 99: 354 181 64.6 
Battleboro* 2 167 156 934 11 6.6 

Burlington S$ 36339 27580 759 8,759 “2a 
Burlington 6 3,159 3.009 953 150 4.7 

Charlotte 9 213,515 196,172 919 17,343 8 
Charlotte 12 182,419 73,935 40.5 108,484 59.5 

Clinton 2 7.313 4,024 550 3,289 45.0 
Clinton 7 891 720 80.8 171 19.2 

Cornelius 9 308 304 98.7 4 13 A 
Cornelius 12 2.73 1,72 77.1 521 229 

Davidson* 10 0 0 0.0 0 00 
Davidson* 12 4,046 3,407 84.2 639 15.8 

Elkin* 5 3,720 3,373 90.7 347 93 
Elkin* 10 70 62 88.6 8 114 

Fayetteville 7 44,988 34,279 76.2 10,709 23.8 
Fayetteville 8 30,707 12,437 40.5 18,270 59.5   
 



  

334 
TABLE 4 [cont’d] 

Proportion of Total Population in Split Municipalities and Census 
Designated places by City or Town for 1997 Plan 

(HB 586--Plan A) 
African- 

City/Town CD Total White % Amer. % 

Fremont 1 1,638 784 47.9 854 52.1 
Fremont 3 72 10 13.9 62 86.1 

Garner 2 3,008 2.232 7142 776. 25.3 

Garner 4 11,959 10,102 . 84.5 1.857. 15.5 

Gibsonville* 5 1,480 1,332 90.0 148 10.0 

Gibsonville* 6 1,961 1483 175.6 478 244 

Goldsboro 1 25,734 9,833 38.2 15,901 61.8 

Goldsboro 3 14,975 11,562 + 71.2 3413 22.3 

Graham 5 7,234 5357 810 1377 190 

Graham 6 3,192 2,896 90.7 296 9.3 

Greensboro 6 88,441 78981 89.3 9,460 10.7 

Greensboro 12 95,080 42236 444 52,844 55.6 

Greenville 1 19,249 6,052 31.4 13,197 68.6 

Greenville 3 25.723 23.583 "91.7: 2,140 33 

High Point 5 6 6 100.0 0 0.0 

High Point 637200 32,833 88.3 4367 11.7 

High Point 12 32,290 15,677 48.6 16,613 514 

Kannapolis 6 8,476 7,149 843 1.327 15.7 

Kannapolis 821,220 17,205. 31.1" 4015 189   
 



335 
TABLE 4 [cont’d] 

Proportion of Total Population in Split Municipalities and Census 
Designated places by City or Town for 1997 Plan 

(HB 586--Plan A) 
African- 

City/Town CD Total White % Amer. % 

Kernersville 5 10,836 10,230 944 606 5.6 

Kernersville 6 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 AS 

Kinston I 16328 2,968 18.2 13,360 81.8 

Kinston 3 8,967 7.712 86.0 1255 140 

Lexington 6 2,885 2.522 874 363 12.6 

Lexington 12 13,696 9,143 668 4553 33.2 

Mebane* 4 485 420 86.6 65 134 

Mebane* 5 4,269 3382... 79.2 887 20.8 

Mooresville 10 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 
Mooresville 12 8,818 6,687 758 2131-242 

Mount Olive* 3 4,581 2,177 47.5 2404 52.5 
Mount Olive* 7 ] 0%. 00 1 100.0 w 

New Bern 1 13.921 7201 .507--6.720 433 
New Bern 3 3442 2,599 75.5 843 24.5 

Raleigh 2 107,979 60,848 56.4 47,131 43.6 
Raleigh 4 99973 89,744 89.8 10,229 10.2 

Red Springs 7 58 58 100.0 0 0.0 
Red Springs 8 3,736 1,771 474-1965 3526 

H
E
 Rocky Mount* 

Rocky Mount* 
17,057 2,584 15.1 14,473 84.9 
31,940 22,116 69.2 9,824 30.8 No

   
 



  

TABLE 4 [cont'd] 
336 

Proportion of Total Population in Split Municipalities and Census 

Designated places by City or Town for 1997 Plan 

City/Town 

Salisbury 
Salisbury 

Sharpsburg* 
Sharpsburg* 

Spencer 

Spencer 

Statesville 

Statesville 

Surf City* 

Surf City* 

Thomasville 

Thomasville 

Trent Woods 

Trent Woods 

Troutman 

Troutman 

Washington 

Washington 

Weddington* 
Weddington* 

Whitakers* 

Whitakers* 

12 
10 

(HB 586--Plan A) 

  

White 

4,442 
10,521 

91 
861 

6 
2,488 

9.997 
1,290 

314 
1652 

6,249 
5,246 

299 
2,067 

74 

1,024 

4,915 
2 

3,695 
0 

183 
233 

% 

84.6 
59.0 

18.9 
81.7 

75.0 
713 

81.1 
24.6 

99.1 
99.8 

90.4 
58.3 

100.0 
100.0 

100.0 
72.2 

54.2 

100.0 

97.2 
0.0 

394 
58.8 

African- 

Amer. 

308 
7,316 

391 
193 

% 

15.4 
41.0 

81.1 
18.3 

25.0 
22.3 

18.9 
75.4 

0.9 

0.2 

9.6 
41.7 

0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
27.8 

45.8 
0.0 

2.8 
0.0 

60.6 
41.2 

  
 



  

337 
TABLE 4 [cont’d] 

Proportion of Total Population in Split Municipalities and Census 

; Designated places by City or Town for 1997 Plan 

(HB 586--Plan A) 

African- 

City/Town CD Total White % Amer. % 
  

Wilson 1 26,127 9355 358 16,772 642 
Wilson 2 10,803 10249 949 554 14) 

Winston-Salem 5 89,215 74,885 83.9 14330 16.1 
Winston-Salem 12 54,270 12,272 226 41998 774 

*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. 

 



  

338 

[This page left intentionally blank.] 

  

  

    
 



      

TABLE 5 

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/ TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACK BLKPPCT TOTAL WHITE WHTVPCT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST PRECINCT NAME POP POP POP VAP VAP VAP 

DAVIDSON 

Thomasville No. 3 * 2910 852 29.28 2039 70.07 2100 683 32.52 1409 67.10 12 Ward No. 1 * arr? 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 1426 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 29% - 15.685 ¥2 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 9.76 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 3.9 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 8.75 120 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 145 2.3% 4802 4683 97. 99 2.068 12 Hampton * 614 596 14 2.28 454 438 96. 12 2.64 12 Central * 1381 1347 129% 28 2.03 1129 1106 97.9 19 1.68 6 

  

6¢
t 

  



  

   NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1897 

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

    
   
   
    

TABLE S cont’d 

  

COUNTY / TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACKBLKPPCT TOTAL WHITE WHTVPCT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST 
PRECINCT NAME POP POP POP VAP VAP VAP 

DAVIDSON (cont'd) 

Lexington No. 4 * 2054 2007 97.71 34 1.66 1563 1531 97.95 21. 1.3 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 «57 6 
Thomasville No. 9 * 4841 4784 98.82 0 41 3810 3767 98.87 16 42 6 
Thomasville No. 8 * 3811 3753 98.48 3 34 2982 2942 98.66 7 «25 12 Ww 
Liberty * 3363 3345 99.46 10 30 2451 2437 99.43 6 24 6 a 
Emmons * 2467 2450 99.31 5 .20 1885 1871 99.26 5 27 6 
Silver 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 00.00 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 

FORSYTH 

M. L. King Recreatio 3134 19 61 3113 99.33 1972 15 «76 1955 99.14 12 
14th Street Recreati 2344 12 .51 2328 99.32 1804 11 61 1789 - 99.17 12 
Mt. Sinai Church * 1711 20 3.17 1679 98.13 1160 

2045 . Ashley Middle School 

    

    

      

    

    

  PER TRE vem abby A



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

TABLE 5 cont'd 

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

of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

  

COUNTY / TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACK BLKPPCT TOTAL WHITE WHTVPCT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST 
PRECINCT NAME POP POP POP VAP VAP VAP 

FORSYTH (cont'd) 

Happy Hill Recreatio 3386 67 1.98 3310 97.76 24611 49 2.03 2357 91.76 12 
Carver High School * 4317 104 2.41 4209 97.50 3313 92 2.78 %217 97.10 12 
Kennedy Middle Schoo 3165 189 5.97 2970 93.84 2319 173 7.46 21. 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 %2 
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. 1531 63.06 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 1003.53.27 12 
Brown/Douglas Recrea 5643 2896 81.32 2658 47.10 4647 2653 57.09 1930 41.53 5 
Mineral Springs F. S 3743 2030 54.23 1653 44.16 2667 1599 59.95 . 1028 38.5% 12 
Hill Middle School * 2621 1457 55.59 1134 43.27 2000 1214 60.70 777 38.5% 12 
Bishop McGuinness * 275° 18 56.61 1106 39.78 2131 1291 60.58 766 35.95 5 
New Hope United Meth 4398 2758 62.71 1584 36.02 3403 2293 57.38 073 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 31.73 2156 1527 70.83 588 27.27 . 12 
Old Town Presbyteria 2860 1966 68.74 856 29.93 2247 1609 71.61 510 27.13 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 5% 25.88 5 
Broadbay #2 * 4842 3671 75.82 1107 22.86 3721 2954 79.39 75. 19.43 32 
Middlefork #3 * 5497 4344 79.02 132% 20.39 4202 3373 80.27 805 19.16 5 
Latham Elementary Sc 2855 2249 77 566 19.82 2332 1895 81. 406 17.41 5 
Broadbay #1 * 3128 2497 ry 618 19.76 2494 2023 81 a 462 18.52 5 
South Fork Elem Scho 3995 3254 5 682 17.07 3108 2615 84. 452 14.54 5 

       



TABLE 5 cont’d 

NORTH CARCLINA 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 / TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACKBLKPPCT TOTAL WHITE WHTVPCT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST 
PRECINCT NAME POP POP POP VAP VAP VAP 

  

FORSYTH (cont'd) 

Parkland High School 2761 2218 80.33 465 16.84 2191 1802 82.25 335. 15.29 
Christ Moravian Chur 2600 2131 81.96 406 15.54 2215 1866 84.24 302 13.63 
Bethania #3 * 3833 3285 85.70 505 13.18 3001 2624 87.44 346 11.53 
Old Town #3 * 2062 1785 86.57 2711 13.14 1611 1418 88.02 187 11.61 
Greek Orthodox Churc 2130 1827 85.77 278 13.05 1739 1532 88.10 188 10.81 
Salem Chapel #2 * 2958 2540 85.87 384 12.98 2301 1984 86.22 29% 12.78 
Country Club Fire St 3451 2871 83.19 442 12.81 2753 2324 84.42 33. 12.02 
Covenant Presbyteria 2160 1856 85.93 273 12.64 1670 1489 89.16 163 9.76 
Bethabara Moravian C 2444 2137 87.44 2655 11.25 2152 1921 89.27 203 9.43 
Bethania #2 * 3580 3173 88.63 383 10.70 2670 2392 89.59 261 9.78 
Bethania #1 * 5274 4717 89.44 538 10.20 4098 3720 90.78 362 8.83 
Forsyth Tech W. Camp 3122 2765 88.57 310 9.93 2597 2346 90.34 213 8.20 
Parkway United Churc 2359 2095 88.81 228 9.67 1873 1690 90.23 157 8.38 
First Christian Chur 1897 1683 88.72 17 9.01 1669 1469 88.02 165 9.89 
Calvary Baptist Chur 4318 3883 89.93 386 8.94 3578 3241 90.58 296 8.27 
Philo Middle School 2172 1976 90.98 169 7.78 1759 1622 92.21 115 6.54 
Bible Wesleyan Churc 2619 2390 91.26 198 7.56 2136 1976 92.51 140 6.55 
Mt. Tabor High Schoo 2242 2050 91.44 165 7.36 1783 1652 92.65 112 6.28 

(4
43
 

m
v
i
v
i
v
i
v
i
v
i
u
n
i
v
i
v
i
v
i
i
v
i
v
i
i
v
i
v
i
v
i
v
i
a
i
u
v
i
a
i
 

v
i
a
 

i 

Old Town #2 * 2990 2749 91.94 215 7.19 227M 2111 92.95 144 6.34 
Vienna #1 * 3026 2770 91.54 211 6.97 2246 2077 92.48 Hi 6.41 
Old Richmond * 4694 4364 92.97 316 6.73 3556 3322 93.42 227 6.38 
St. Anne's Episcopal 2371 2169 91.48 159 6.71 1876 1737 92.59 109 5.81 
Belews Creek * 4357 4050 92.95 287 6.59 3227 2998 92.90 215 6.66 
Kernersville #1 * 5482 5013 91.44 359 6.55 4234 3901 92.14 267 6.31 
South Fork #2 * 3534 3302 93.44 191 5.40 2766 2587 93.53 145 5.24 

  



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

  

TABLE 5 cont‘d 

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

of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

  

  

13
43
 

COUNTY / TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACKBLKPPCT TOTAL WHITE WHTVPCT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST 

PRECINCT NAME POP POP POP VAP VAP VAP 

FORSYTH (cont'd) 

South Fork #3 * 4543 4255 93.66 235 3:37 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 9% 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 20 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 98 3.64 1993 1907 95.68 69 3.46 3 
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 é2 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 6 é .62 766 755 98 6 .78 5 
Messiah Moravian Chu 1536 1506 ¢o 6 .39 1195 1175 5 42 5 
Summit School * 1775 1767 «35 1 .06 1383 1377 99. 1 .07 5 
  
  



TABLE 5 cont‘d 

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 / TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACK BLKPPCT TOTAL WHITE WHTVPCT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST 
PRECINCT NAME POP POP POP VAP VAP Vap 

  

FORSYTH (cont'd) 

4102 1710 41.69 2353 55.87 3353 1535 45.78 1776 52.97 12 
4292 2054 47.86 2058 47.95 3292 1712 52.00 1459 44.32 12 
5946 3051 51.31 2791 46.94 4494 2431 54.09 1983 44.13 12 

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

Total 265878 196918 76.06 66102 24.86 205470 156596 76.21 46855 22.80 

GUILFORD 

; Ww 
GB-29 * 3067 10 .33 3056 99.64 2393 8 .33 2384 99.62 12 2 
GB-07 * 2755 27 .98 2726 98.95 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 * 4971 271 5.45 4638 93.30 3121 217 6.95 2868 91.89 12 
GB-08 * 5186 368 7.10 4799 92.54 4026 321 7.97 3692 91.70 12 
HP-12 * 5416 935 17.26 4426 81.68 3697 778 21.046 2884 78.01 12 
HP-07 * 2740 593 21.64 2110 77.01 1891 505 26.71 357 M1.76 12 
HP-11 * 1638 351 21.43 1256 76.68 1167 308 26.39 833 71.38 12 
HP-22 * 2837 835 29.43 1986 70.00 2046 662 32.36 1376 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 1058 A7.15 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 

* 

* 

*   TART ££ mmm? A  



+ TI UJ A ladl &l 73 HJ 7% SST [Salo Cina A 2 4 $702 ee 12 Ic 

  

TABLE 5 cont’d 

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 / TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACK BLKPPCT TOTAL WHITE WHTVPCT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST 
PRECINCT NAME POP POP POP VAP VAP VAP 

  

GUILFORD (cont'd) 

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 Mad. * 2016 1252 62.10 734 36.41 1501 954 63.56 525 34.98 6 
GB-33 * 5732 3832 66.85 196. 31.33 4426 3010 68.01 1347 30.43 12 
GB-24A * 3192 2081 65.19 99 31.07 2528 1732 68.51 Mn 28.13 12 
GB-26A * 3448 2371 68.76 9092 28.77 2645 1885 71.27 699 26.43 12 
GB-26B * 2668 1835 68.78 756 28.34 2013 1462 72.63 508 25.24 12 Ww WP-17 > 4471 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 71.67 931 26,34 12 
HP-03 * 1699 1194 70.28 474 27.90 1400 1025 73.21 51 28.07 12 
GIB-G * 1961 1472 75.06 478 24.38 1454 1144 78.68 301 20.70 6 
p=15% 2174 1612 74.15 516 23.74 1630 1300 79.75 294 18.04 12 
GB-36 * 5607 4172 74.41 1303 23.24 3915 3026 77.29 797 20.35 12 
68-15 * 3811 2687 70.51 858 22.51 2951 2210 74.89 39 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. 1B. 12 
HP-18 * 4395 3337 75.93 87. 1.77 3111 2573 82.7 473 15.20 6 
Gibsonville * 1810 1420 78.45 384 21.22 1441 1135 20.82 6 
GB-43 * 2666 2089 78.36 550 20.63 2162 1770 17.30 6 
GB-02 * - 3667 2817 76.82 756 20.62 3096 2440 19.2% 12 
Hp-13 * 2565 1940 75.63 522 20.35 2036 1591 17.58 12 
North Sumner * 2552 2018 79.08 498 19.51 2008 1602 18.97 12 
HP-09 * 3103 2447 78.86 593 19.11 2434 2034 15.00 6 
North Monroe * 2915 2338 80.21 S544 18.66 2126 1697 19.10 6 
GB-38 * 3040 2421 564 18.55 2638 2100 18.84 6 

6 Np-21 * 4197 3329 765 18.23 2943 2402 16.11    



TABLE 5 cont’d 

NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 13597    
Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 

of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

COUNTY / TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACK BLKPPCT TOTAL WHITE WHTVPCT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST 
PRECINCT NAME POP POP POP VAP VAP VAP 
  

GUILFORD (cont'd) 

South Jeff. * 3618 2949 81.51 639 17.68 2877 2356 81.89 496 17.2 6 
68-11% 2015 1625 80.65 354 17.57 1828 1466 80.20 327 17.89 6 
GB-22 * 4212 3425 81.32 692 16.43 3414 2809 82.28 535. 15.67 6 
GB-37B * 3299 2702 81.90 542 16.43 2810 2340 83.27 426 15.09 6 
GB-32 * 2214 1765 79.72 363 16.40 1746 1391 79.67 291 16.67 6 
North Jeff. * 5098 4285 84.05 773 15.20 3954 3316 83.86 608 15.33 6 
GB-14 * 5417 4478 82.67 82% - 15:19 5307 4385 82.63 809 15.24 6 Ww 
HP-10 * 2125 1711 80.52 320 15.06 1647 1393 84.58 195 11.84 12 ro 
HP-20 * 3199 2685 83.93 469 14.66 2355 1966 83.48 360 15.29 6 
GB-40A * 3604 3008 83.46 517 14.3% 3107 2631 84.68 44 13.32 6 
GB-40B * 3120 2584 82.82 446 14.29 2346 1951 83.16 333 14.19 6 
South Madison * 1742 1500 86.11 230 13.20 1303 1123 86.19 71... 13.12 6 
South Washington * 852 739 86.74 109 12.79 669 585 87.44 80 11.96 6 
GB-10 * 2163 1836 - 84.88 266 12.30 1749 1499 85.71 203 11.8 6 
HP-02 * 1065 921 86.48 128 12.02 939 820 87.33 107. 11.40 12 
GB-18 * 3276 2784 84.98 391 11.9 2537 2229 87.86 242 9.54 12 

South Monroe * 5140 4489 87.33 609 11.85 3887 3449 88.73 404 10.39 6 

GB-35B * 2402 2100 87.43 274 11.41 1797 1599 88.98 181 . 10.07 6 

Whitsett * 1721 1512 87.86 192 11.16 1323 1154 87.23 159 12.02 6 

Fentress-1 * 5276 4689 88.87 545 10.33 3996 |. 3587 89.76 384 9.61 6 

South Center Grove * 2407 2128 88.41 222 0.22 1802 1597 88.62 163 9.05 6 

GB-17 * 3552 3021 85.05 323 9.09 3077 2673 86.87 266 8.64 6 

GB-37A * 2524 2258 89.46 216 8.56 2039 1838 90.14 165 8.09 6 

Stokesdale * 2134 1932 90.53 169 7.92 1640 1487 90.67 131 7.99 6 
Jamestown-1 * 2606 2333 89.52 205 7.87 1971 1771 89.85 153 7.76. 12 

5.85 6 es-2rC > 2095 1906 90.98 150 7.16 1608 1486 92.41 9%   TABLE 5 cont‘’d  



dys Yue YU.¥G 
         

  

TABLE 5 cont‘’d 

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 / TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACK BLKPPCT TOTAL WHITE WHTVPCT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST PRECINCT NAME POP POP POP VAP VAP VAP 

  
GUILFORD (cont'd) 

GB-41B * 2316 2111 91.15 158 6.82 1731 1568 90.58 131 7.57 6 HP-08 * 4156 3808 91.63 272 6.54 3342 3098 92.70 190 5.69 6 Friendship-1 * 6459 5898 91.31 418 6.47 5191 4739 91.29 340 6.55 6 Oak Ridge * 2976 2751 92.44 188 6.32 2122 1960 92.37 143 6.74 6 GB-28 * 2645 2461 93.04 166 6.28 2055 1925 93.67 115 5.60 6 GB-24C * 2133 1911 89.59 132 6.19 1526 1379 90.37 95 6.23 6 GB-35A * 2056 1913 93.04 117 5.69 1503 1398 93.01 92 6.12 6 Ww Friendship-2 * 2436 2271 93.23 128 5.25 1974 1849 93.67 98 4.96 6 North Washington * 1195 1123 93.97 56 4.69 915 867 94.75 39 4.26 6 GB-41A * 1896 1773 93.51 86 4.54 1492 1405 94.17 62 4.16 6 HP-16 * 4111 3876 94.28 185 4.50 3322 3148 94.76 140 4.21 6 GB-34A * 1567 1471 93.87 61 3.89 1159 1092 94.22 43 3.7 6 GB-34B * 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 6177 3.60 North Center Grove * 1569 151 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 #p-23 » 2692 2568 95.39 80 2.97 2210 2126 96.20 57 2.58 6 GB-27B * 1921 1831 95.31 57 2.97 1434 1373 93.75 40 2.79 6 HP-14 * 1323 1232 93.12 39 2.95 997 934 93.68 30 3.01 6 Greene * 2420 2338 96.61 64 2.64 1837 1773 96.52 49 2.67 6 South Sumner * 3950 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 9 116 2.48 3559 3433 96. 106 2.98 6 GB-13 * 2533 2452 ® 58 32.2% 2163 2097 .@) 47 2.17 6 

  
 



TABLE 5 cont’d 

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 / TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACKRBLKPPCT TOTAL WHITE WHTVPCT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST 
PRECINCT NAME POP PoP POP VAP VAP VAP 

  

GUILFORD (cont'd) 

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 Ww 
HP-01 * 1550 1521 98.13 15 97 1253 1233 98.40 13 1.06 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 

IREDELL 

Statesville #3 * 4220 1814 42.99 2373 56.23 2979 1405 47.16 1550 52.03 12 
Statesville #6 * 4354 1909 43.84 2418 55.54 3079 1514 49.17 1547 50.26 12 
Coddle Creek #2 * 3997 2477 61.97 1468 36.73 2943 1938 65.85 966 32.82 12 
Cool Springs * 1823 1393 76.41 419 22.98 1343 1056 73.63 283 21.07 12 
Turnersburg * 2392 1853 77.47 522 21.82 1817 1429 78.65 37 20.75 10 
Statesville #2 * 3972 3116 78.45 758 19.08 3154 2605 82.59 48 15.41 10 
Statesville #5 * 3755 3052 - 81.28 676 17.95 3000 2521 84.03 462 15.40 10 
Statesville #4 * 3643 2999 82.32 593 16.28 2924 2486 85.02 404 13.82 10°   APRA A “vi nl  



  

  

TABLE 5 cont’d 

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 / TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACK BLKPECT TOTAL WHITE WHTVECT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST 
PRECINCT NAME POP POP POP VAP VAP vVap 

IREDELL (cont'd) 

Fallstown * 5386 4499 83.53 862 16.00 4056 3471 85.58 567 13.98 10 Chambersburg * 8121 6858 84.45 1168 14.38 5943 5114 86.05 766 12.89 12 Coddle Creek #1 * 3400 2884 84.82 464 13.65 2593 2219 85.58 3383 13.04 12 Statesville #1 * 3859 3269 84.71 503 13.03 3063 2671 87.20 345 11.26 10 Coddle Creek #3 * 4246 3750 88.32 458 10.79 3275 2944 89.89 306 9.36 12 Barringer * 4070 3620 88.94 435 10.69 3007 2700 89.79 297 2.88 - 12 Eagle Mills * 1621 1438 88.71 187 .. 10.30 1237 1106 89.41 121 9.78 10 Ww Concord * 4288 3981 92.84 299 6.97 3282 3050 92.93 225 6.86 10 3 Bethany * 5151 4759 92.39 358 6.95 3856 3551 92.09 278 7.21 10 Shiloh * 6042 5612 92.88 408 6.75 4589 4265 92.94 303 6.60 10 Sharpesburg * 2073 1971 95.08 77 3.7 1583 1506 95.14 60 3.79 10 Coddle Creek #4 * 4228 4064 96.12 140 3.3 3187 3066 96.20 100 3.36 - 12 Davidson * 8071 7814 96.82 214 2.65 6397 6217 97.19 154 2.41 10 Union Grove * 1672 1612 96.41 44 2.63 1246 1195 95.91 37 2.57 10 Olin * 1372 1308 95.34 33 2.41 1031 987 95.73 23 2.23 1 New Hope * 1175 1155 98.30 14 1.19 912 899 98.57 1 1.21 10 
Total 92931 77207 83.08 14869 16.00 70496 59915 84.99 1000614.19 

MECKLENBURG 

Charlotte Pct. 54 * 2049 8 .39 2037 99.41 1529 3 20 1523 99.61 12 Charlotte Pct. 55 * 2674 9 4 2657 99.36 2073 7 . 2061 99.42 12 Charlotte Pct. 25 * 3416 15 * 3393 99.33 2595 12 ’ 2577 99.31 12 Charlotte Pct. 56 * 5848 54 5772 98.70 3888 46 1.1 3831 98.53 12 

 



TABLE 5 cont'd 

NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 13897    
Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 

of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

COUNTY / TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACKBLKPPCT TOTAL WHITE WHTVPCT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST 
PRECINCT NAME POP PCP PoP VAP VAP VAP 
  

MECKLENBURG (cont'd) 

Charlotte Pct. 16 * 2522 32 1.27 2485 98.53 1873 24 1.28 1846 :98.56 12 
Charlotte Pct. 16 * (Pt)1009 3 .50 993 98.41 719 2 .28 711 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 3.92 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 30683 95.38 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 * 4648 321 6.91 4061 87.37 3194 268 8.30 2773 8.32 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 20.52 287% 17.5% 12 

Charlotte Pct. 60 3226 712 22.07 24646 75.82 2266 595 2b.26 1624 71.67 12 

Charlotte Pct. 17 * 3801 970 25.52 2763 72.69 2667 830 31.12  YVI97 67.38 - 12 

Charlotte Pct. 82 * 6053 1647 2.2) 4263 70.43 4568 1440 31.52 3013 65.95: 12 

Charlotte Pct. 41 * 3875 1239 31.97 2517 64.95 2672 915 34.26 1681 62.91 12 

Lc2 3357 1252 37.30 2098 62.50 2522 983 33.98 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 1352. 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 2621 44.97 4094 2287 55.86 1669 40.77 12 

Charlotte Pct. 40 * 4679 2579 55.12 2010 42.96 3346 2022 63.43 1259 37.83 12 

0S
¢ 

    TABLE S cont’d  



    

  

Charlotte Pct. 4U * 4077 cl 22. 1 aviv {Th 4° od ud 2 A Gus A ed me? J oF od 

  

   

   
    
   
      
   

  

    

  

      
       

              

   

    

TABLE S cont’d 

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 / TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACKBLKPPCT TOTAL WHITE WHTVPCT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST 
PRECINCT NAME POP POP POP VAP VAP VAP 
  

MECKLENBURG (cont'd) 

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 32 
XMC1 924 599 64.83 324 35.06 684 453 66.23 230 33.43 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 26.06 12 
Charlotte Pct. 97 * 5917 4066 68.72 1664 28.12 4651 3436 75.88 1030 233.22 12 
Charlotte Pct. 35 * 1901 1461 76.85 . 424 22.30 1511 1212 80.21 287 18.99 9 
Charlotte Pct. 29 * 3615 2675 74.00 781 21.60 2825 2173 76.92 533 19.04 12 
Charlotte Pct. 2 * 5898 4520 76.64 123 20.57 5118 4062 79.37 93 18.25 12 
Charlotte Pct. 15 * 3816 2947 77.23 743 19.47 3085 2489 80.68 506.1640. 12 
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 22644 77.97 52] 18.10 12 
Charlotte Pct. 6 * 4522 3560 78.73 775 17.14 3609 2923 80.99 549 15.21 9 
COR * 706 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 82.81 218... 15,238 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 
HUN * 5069 4305 &. 725 14.30 3872 3316 

IS
¢ 

    

      
  

    
      Charlotte Pct. 80 * 4007 3350 60 568 14.18 2958 2512



    
   

    

    
   

              

   

TABLE 5 cont’d 

NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1987 

  

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1930 Census Data 
of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

COUNTY/ TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACKBLKPPCT TOTAL WHITE WHTVPCT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST 
PRECINCT NAME POP POP POP VAP VAP VAP 

  

MECKLENBURG (cont'd) 

    

   

                        

         
MC2 4702 3902 82.99 664 

Charlotte Pct. 61 * 4067 3386 83.26 573 
MC1 6429 5344 83.12 905 
co2 * 10599 8831 83.32 1463 
Charlotte Pct. 105 * 5093 4146 81.41 672 
Charlotte Pct. 4 4056 3438 84.76 533 
CCK * 2241 1906 85.05 286 
Charlotte Pct. 44 * 2155 1832 85.01 270 
LC1 - South 843 732 86.83 103 
Charlotte Pct. 79 * 2836 26449 86.35 339 2188 1931 88.25 228 10.42 
BER * 2299 2017 87.73 271 1803 1584 87.85 211 11.70 

1969 1677 85.17 196 9.95 
2562 2202 85.95 268 10.46 
1936 1706 88.12 214 11.05 
2747 2304 83.87 272 9.90 
2974 2576 86.62 299 10.05 
3234 2767 85.56 335 10.36 
3925 3462 88.20 362 9.22 
3068 2725 88.82 270 8.80 
2577 2282 88.55 202 7.84 
805 720 89.44 7 9 

3655 3231 88.40 330 9 
2554 88.25 223 7.7 

6 
7 
8 

Charlotte Pct. 59 * 2606 2153 82.62 307 
Charlotte Pct. 102 * 3572 3031 84.85 412 
PC2 * 2546 2230 87.59 293 
Charlotte Pct. 50 * 3373 2759 81.80 388 
Charlotte Pct. 38 3457 2936 84.93 397 
Charlotte Pct. 33 3931 3320 84.46 439 
Sci 5405 4645 85.94 592 
Charlotte Pct. 34 * 3662 3163 86.37 401 
Charlotte Pct. 21 * 3139 2683 85.47 330 - 
col > 1054 940 89.18 104 
Charlotte Pct. 94 * 5124 4471 87.26 504 
Charlotte Pct. 51 * 3420 2936 

Charlotte Pct. 58 * 2032. 1723 
~~ Charlotte Pct. 83 * 4282 3821 

LC = North... lh : 

*
 %
 

1334 88.05 93 
2969 $5.02 260     

V
O
O
0
O
 
V
O
 

O
V
O
 

OV 
O
V
O
V
O
V
O
V
O
V
O
O
 

       
  



8 

  

~SEeT0 [24rd FdeUL [A= 

‘3135 2830 90.27 256 
sid 
99 

OF. 2D 
90.14 337       

[+ To Sih) 20L) 

  

0
0
 ~
    

«1        
   
   

  

LO 
of 

    

~.Lhart Otte Fet. 
LCY = North North               

      

~N 

0
X
 

        

  

     

  

   

           

    
    

     

TABLE 5 cont’d 

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/ TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACK BLKPPCT TOTAL WHITE WHTVPCT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST PRECINCT NAME POP POP POP VAP VAP VAP 

  

MECKLENBURG (cont'd) 

   
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 
PR1 400 370 92.50 27 6.75 289 265 91.70 23 7.96 9 
MAT * 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 w Charlotte Pct. 70 * 3933 3699 94.05 183 4.65 2977 2847 95.63 95 3.19 9 ph 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 3.73 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 98 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 58 2.92 9 
PC1.* 2417 2319 95.95 70 2.90 1851 1781 55 2.97 9 
Charlotte Pct. 66 * 1899 1808 95.21 53 2.79 1540 1474 37 2.40 9 
LEM * 5597 5383 96.18 152 2.72 L449 4286 123 2.76 9 
PR2 3571 3415 3 96 2.69 2359 2249 70 2.97 9 
MA3 * 5550 ° 5301 (7 147 2.65 4019 3862 oF 2.41 9 
Charlotte Pct. 65 * 4574 4294 : 121 2.65 3347 3164 78 2.33 9 

      



TABLE 5 cont’d 

NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1897    
Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 

of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

COUNTY/ TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACK BLKPPCT TOTAL WHITE WHITVPCT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST 
PRECINCT NAME POP POP POP VAP VAP VAP 
  

MECKLENBURG (cont'd) 

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 7 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? 
MAG * 2817 2734 97.05 59 2.09 2008 1952 97.21 37 1.84 9 (3%) 
Charlotte Pct. 37 * 2620 2479 94.62 52 1.98 2134 2035 95.36 32 1.50 9 0 
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 Bh 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 31 1.52 1698 1665 98.06 28 1.65 9 
XPR1 801 785 98.00 12 1.50 656 643 98.02 10 1.52 9 
Charlotte Pct. 71 * 2318 2232 96.29 33 1.42 1753 1697 96.81 24 1.57 9 
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 26 117 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 98.36 50 .81 L442 4363 98.22 40 .90 9 
Charlotte Pct. 20 * 2124 2096 98.68 1" «52 1752 1732 98.86 9 31 9 
Charlotte Pct. 32 * 2249 2234 9 .40 1722 1710 99.30 9 .52 9 
Charlotte Pct. 18 * 1851 1843 4 .22 1435 1430 99.65 3 .21 9 

4 .26 9 Charlotte Pct. 19 * 1937 . 1910 Lae 2 1567 1547 98.72         

 



  

   Charlotte Pct. 19 * 1937 1910 98.61 4 21 1567 1547 98.72 4 26 9 
   

   

          

TABLE 5 cont’d    

   
    
         

   
    
    

       

    

                  

   

  

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/ TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACKBLKPPCT TOTAL WHITE WHTVPCT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST 
PRECINCT NAME POP POP POP VAP VAP VAP 
  

MECKLENBURG (cont'd) 

  

      

  

Charlotte Pct. 77 * (Pt) 1 1 100.00 0 0.00 1 1 100.00 0 0.00 9 
XMC2 Noncontiguous 0 0 . 0 . 0 0 ‘ 0 . 12 

Sum 511433 364651 71.30 134468 26.29 387981 286959 73.96 92487 23.84 

ROWAN 

Ww 
West Ward 111 * 2296 15 .65 2278 99.22 1738 11 .63 1726 99.31 12 Ww 
Trading Ford Noncont 26 1 3.85 28. 96.15 13 1 7.69 12 92.31 é 
East Spencer * 2056 317 15.42 1735 84.39 1412 259 18.34 1152 81.59 12 
East Ward II * 1089 292 26.81 796 73.09 824 251 30.46 572. 60.42 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 o37 34.13 12 
East Ward | * 2673 1673 62.59 978 36.59 2074 1398 67.41 859 3.77 12 
West Ward 1 * 1964 1222 62.22 m2 35.74 1571 1051 66.90 496 31.57 12 
North Ward | * 1750 1199 68.51 527... 30.23 1473 1065 72.30 03 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 26.77 12 
Cleveland * 1955 1461 76.73 485 24.81 1449 1097 75.71 348 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 377 80.58 835 17.84 3667 3083 84.07 227 14.37 Lo) 
Franklin * 4589 3808 82.98 725 15.80 3545 2977 83.98 529 14.92 12 

  

     
        

  

West Ward I] * 2766 2328 412 14.90 2192 1894 86 
§. China Grove * 2362 2006 332 14.06 1791 1565 87.      

Trading Ford 1845 1543 Pe: 230 15.72 1478 1226 82.9



TABLE 5 cont’d 

NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1897 

  

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

COUNTY/ TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACKBLKPPCT TOTAL WHITE WHIVPCT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST 
PRECINCT NAME POP POP POP VAP VAP VAP 

  

ROWAN - cont'd 

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 II * 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 6 
Steele * 1236 1134 91.75 102 8.25 909 832 91.53 77 8.47 é 
Granite Quarry * 4194 3815 90.96 345 8.23 3102 2805 90.43 270 8.70 6 Ww 
West Kannapolis * 3183 2891 90.83 220 6.91 2448 2269 92.69 131 3:3 6 0 
Locke * 5763 5373 93.23 309 2.36 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 83 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 vg 6 
Morgan II * 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 «33 6 
Bostian School * 1511 1505 99.60 0 0.00 1176 1173 99.74 0 0.00 6 
Morgan I * 810 803 99.14 0 0.00 636 632 99.37 0 0.00 6 

Total 110605 91851 83.04 17773 16.07 84409 71303 84.47 12431 14.73 

   



357 

TABLE 6 

(EXCERPTS) 

FORSYTH 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 > 70% 

<30% 1/32 0/5 0 

30-399 0/1 Ya 0/1 

40 - 49.9 0 0/1 2/2 

50-59.9 0 0 2/2 

60 - 69.9 0 0 0 

> 70% 0 0 13/13 

% Support for Harvey Gantt, 1990 

% Black Population 50-599 60-699 >70% 

<30% 0/7 0 0/1 

30-399 0/2 1/1 0/1 

40 - 49.9 2/2 0 0/1 

50-599 0 0 2/2 

60 - 69.9 0 0 0 

> 70% 0 0 13/13   
 



  

358 

% Support for Democratic Lt. Governor Candidate, 1988 

% Black Population 

<30% 

30-399 

40 - 49.9 

50-599 

60 - 69.9 

> 70% 

60-69.9 >70% 

0/1 0 

1/1 0/1 

2/3 0 

2/2 0 

0 0 

0 13/13 

% Support for Democratic Court of Appeals Candidate, 1988 

% Black Population 

<30% 

30-399 

40-499 

50-599 

60 - 69.9 

> 70% 

60-699 >70% 

0/1 0 

72 0 

2/3 0 

1/1 1/1 

0 0 

  

 



  

359 

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 8 

% Democratic Registration 

% Black Population 50-599 60 - 69.9 > 70% 

<30% 30/139 18/45 1/1 

30-399 1/2 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 - 59.9 60 - 69.9 > 70% 

<30% 13/56 3/12 3/6 

30-399 6/8 5/5 0/1 

40 - 49.9 4/4 0/1 4/5 

50 - 59.9 1/1 4/4 5/5 

60 - 69.9 0 0 9/9 

>70 0 0 48/48 

 



  

360 

% Support for Democratic Lt. Governor Candidate, 1988 

% Black Population 

< 

30-399 

40 - 49.9 

50 - 59.9 

60 - 69.9 

>70 

30% 

50-599 

18/45 

7/9 

60 - 69.9 

2/12 

4/5 

4/5 

6/6 

1/1 

1/1 

> 70% 

% Support for Democratic Court of Appeals Candidate, 1988 

% Black Population 

<30% 

30-399 

40 - 49.9 

50 - 59.9 

60 - 69.9 

>70 

50 - 59.9 

13/32 

60 - 69.9 

2/6 

3/5 

6/6 

3/3 

1/1 

2/2 

> 70% 

      

  

 



361 

TABLE 7 

Participation Rates by Race in Selected North Carolina 

Congressional Districts of the 1997 and 1998 Plans in Democratic 

Primary and Runoff Elections of the 1990s 

(Participation as % of Registration) 

White Afr. Am.   
  

  

at Year CD Office Partic, Partic. 

1 1990 1 U.S. Senate (P) 350 385 
a 1990 1 USS. Senate (R) ~~ .212 276 

1992 1 State Aud. (P) 212 248 
1998 1 U.S. Senate (P) 219 .198 

1998 1 U.S. Cong. (P) 128 276 

1990 12 U.S. Senate (P) 133 255 
1990 12 U.S. Senate (R)  .097 301 

A 1992 12 State Aud. (P) .098 176 
a 1998 12 U.S. Senate (P) 089 132 
3 1998 12 U.S. Cong. (P) 025 065 ® 

Note: Participation rates are based on the number of voters votingfor 

candidates for the office in question and are estimated using weighted 

bivariate ecological regression analysis. Voter registration figures ae 

A 5 : used to measure the racial composition of the electorate at each 

1 | election. Similar estimates were found for eachgroup using extreme 

case (homogeneous precinct) analysistechniques and are reported in 

Exhibits C and D. 

  
 



  

362 

[This page intentionally left blank.) 

              

  
   



363 

TABLE 8 

Participation Rates by Race in Selected North Carolina 
Congressional Districts of the 1997 and 1998 Plans in General 

Elections of the 1990s 

(Participation as % of Registration) 

Year CD Office Partic. Partic, 
1990 1 U.S. Senate .620 544 
1992 1 State Aud. 584 493 
1996 1 U.S. Senate .606 A472 
1996 1 State Aud. 563 423 
1998 1 U.S. Senate A447 357 
1998 1 U.S. Cong. A405 383 

1990 12 U.S. Senate .607 572 
1992 12 State Aud. .653 625 
1996 12 U.S. Senate 547 473 
1996 12 State Aud. 503 A453 
1998 12 U.S. Senate 411 345 A 
1998 12 U.S. Cong. 408 346 

Note: Participation rates are based on the number of voters votingfor 
candidates for the office in question and are estimated usin g weightel 
bivariate ecological regression analysis. Voter registration figures ae 
used to measure the racial composition of the electorate at each 
election. Similar estimates were found for eachgroup using extreme 
case (homogeneous precinct) analysistechniques and are reported in 
Exhibits C and D.   
 



  

364 

[This page intentionally left blank.] 

  
 



  

365 

TABLE 9 

Estimated White Cross-Over Rates in North Carolina 
Congressional Districts of 1997 Plan A in Statewide General 

Elections for 1990, 1992, 1996, and 1998 
(“ of Group Crossing-Over) 

Candidate Weighted Regression Extreme Case 3 
Year CD of Choice White % White % 
1990 1 Gantt (B) 17.9 23.0 
1992 | Campbell(B) 46.2 3 492 
1996 1 Gantt (B) 22.3 25.9 
1996 1 Campbell (B) 44.2 47.8 
1998 1 Edwards 35.6 37.6 

1990 12 Gantt (B) 37.7 32.6 
1992 12 Campbell (B) 40.7 39.8 
1996 12 Gantt (B) 35.1 32.1 

1996 12 Campbell (B) 35.8 35.6 
1998 12 Edwards 41.8 40.3 

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. 

 



    
366 

[This page intentionally left blank.]   

  
  
 



367 

TABLE 10 

Estimated White Cross-Over Rates in North Carolina 

Congressional Districts of 1998 Plan A in 

Congressional General Elections for 1998 

(% of Group Crossing-Over) 

Candidate Weighted Regression Extreme Case 

Year CD of Choice White % White % 
1998 1 Clayton (B) 30.4 33.3 
1998 12 Watt (B) 32.6 31.0 

  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.   

of : 

1 A 

  

  

  
 



    
368 

[This page intentionally left blank.] 

  
 



369 

EXHIBIT 58 FEBRUARY 10, 1997 E-MAIL FROM GERRY 
COHEN 

[from:] Gerry Cohen (Bill Drafting, Director) 
[date:] Monday, February 10, 1997 8:40 PM 
[to:] Sen. Roy A. Cooper 
[copy:] Sen. Leslie Winner 
[subject:] 97 Cooper 3.0 

By shifting areas in Beaufort, Pitt, Craven, and Jones Counties, 
I was able to boost the minority percentage in the first district 
from 48.1% to 49.25%. The district was only plurality white, 
as the white percentage was 49.67%. 

This was all the district could be improved by switching 
between the 1st and 3rd unless I went into Pasquotank, 
Perquimans, or Camden. I was able to make the district 
plurality black by switching precincts between the 1st and 4th 
in Person/Franklin Counties (Franklin was all in the 1st under p 
COOPER 3.0, but had been in the 4th District in the 80’s 
under Price. By moving four precinct each way, I was able to 
boost the district to 49.28% white, 49.62% Black. About 0.6% 
is native American (Haliwa). I could probably improve thins 
a bit more by switching precincts in Granville and Franklin 
betwen the 1st and 4th. 

I have moved Greensboro Black community into the 12th, and 
now need to take bout 60,000 out of the 12th. I await your 
direction on this. I am available Tuesday.  



    
370 

  
  

¢ intentionally left blank.] 

  

    
 



  

371 

EXHIBIT 100 INFORMATION SUPPORTING NORTH 
CAROLINA’S SECTION 5 SUBMISSION FOR ITS 1997 
CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING PLAN (EXCERPTS) 

The following information is submitted by North 
Carolina in support of its request to preclear the State’s new 
congressional redistricting plan enacted by the Ge 
Assembly on March 31, 1997. The numbered paragraphs 
correspond to the numbers of the rules of the Department of 
Justice, 28 C.F.R. §§ 51.27 and 51.28. In most cases, 
information documenting the information in numbered 
paragraphs is contained in an attachment bearing a 
corresponding number. (eg Paragraph 97C-27A is 
documented by Attachment 97C-27A). 

   

* % % 

197C-27H. Authority and Process for Redistricting 

The North Carolina General Assembly is iin 
2 U.S.C. §2a and §2¢ and Article I, §§2 and 4 of the United 
States Constitution to redistrict its congressional districts. The 
prior redistricting plan was enacted by the General Assembly 
on January 24, 1992, and was precleared under Section 5 of the 
Voting Rights Act on F ebruary 6, 1992. The United States 
Supreme Court declared District 12 in this plan 
unconstitutional in Shaw v. Hunt on June 13, 1996. On 
remand, the three-judge panel in the Shaw case issued an order 
on July 30, 1996, permitting the use of the unconstitutional 
plan for the 1996 elections and giving the General Assembly 
until April 1, 1997, to draw a new plan. Chapter 11 was 

 



  

372 

enacted in response to that order. A copy of the court order is 

attached as Attachment 97C-27P-2. 

The process leading to the enactment of Chapter 11 

began in the North Carolina House of Representatives in June, 

1996. The following is a chronology of events leading up to 

the enactment of the plan. The designation “AA” after a name 

indicates that the individual is an African-American. The 

designation “NA” after a name indicates that the individual is 

a Native American: 

June 13, 1996: United States Supreme Court declares District 

12 unconstitutional in Shaw v. Hunt. 

[*4]June 14,1996: House Speaker Harold Brubaker appointed 

a House Select committee on Congressional Redistricting. The 

committee was chaired by Representative Robert Grady. The 

other members were as follows: Representatives Carolyn 

Russell, Lyons Gray, Frances Cummings (AA), George 

Holmes, Julia Howard, Theresa Esposito, Ed McMahan, 

Richard Morgan, Mary McAllister (AA), Jim Crawford, and 

Linwood Mercer. This Committee never met. 

July 8, 1996: Senator Marc Basnight, President Pro Tempore 

of the North Carolina Senate, appointed a Select Committee on 

Redistricting. The Committee was chaired by Senator Roy 

Cooper. The following were also appointed as members of the 

Committee: Senators Charles Albertson, Frank Ballance (AA), 

Patrick Ballantine, Betsy Cochrane, Richard Conder, Jim 

  
 



373 

Forrester, Wib Gulley, David Hoyle, Don Kincaid, Bob Martin, 

Bill Martin (AA), Tony Rand, R.C. Soles, and Leslie Winner. 

July 10,1996: The Senate Select Committee on Redistricting 

met to discuss the Shaw decision and the feasibility of adopting 
new congressional districts in time for the 1996 general C 

election. The Committee heard from Mr. Gary Bartlett, 

Executive Director of the North Carolina State Board of 
Elections, on the requirements for a shortened filing and 
primary election schedule. Senator Cooper wrote a letter to 

North Carolina Attorney General Michael Easley outlining the 

Senate’s position and requesting that Attorney General Easley 

inform the three-judge federal panel that it was impracticable 
to adopt new congressional districts in time for the 1996 
general election. The letter is attached as Attachment 97C- 

28F-4B(2). 

July 17,1996: The House Committee on Rules, Calendar, and 

Operations of the House released a redistricting plan 
(Congress-96-001) to the public. The plan is attached as 
Attachment 97C-27R-1. The House Committee on Rules, 

Calendar, and Operations of the House was chaired by 

Representative Richard Morgan. Its other members were as 

follows: Representatives Arlene Pulley, Jim Crawford, Jim 

Black, Joanne Bowie, Jerry Dockham, Theresa Esposito, Ed 

McMahan, Chuck Neely, and George Robinson. The 

redistricting plan was submitted by Representative Morgan to 
the Committee for its review, with instructions that the plan 

would not be voted on at that meeting. Representative Morgan 
read a statement to the Committee about the plan that is   
 



  

374 

attached as Attachment 97C-28F-4A and announced that there 

would be a public hearing the following week on redistricting. 

July 19, 1996: The three judge panel issued an order asking 

for the opinions of Speaker Brubaker and Senate President Pro 

Tempore Basnight on the likelihood that the General Assembly 

would be able to draw a plan in time for the 1996 elections. 

The House was at the time and remains under the control of 

Republicans. The Senate was at that time and remains under 

the control of Democrats. The North Carolina congressional 

delegation, elected in 1994, was divided as follows: 8 

Republicans and 4 Democrats. Senator Cooper, acting on 

behalf of Senate President Pro Tempore Basnight, submitted an 

affidavit to the Attorney General that was filed with the Court. 

Senator Cooper stated in his affidavit that a new plan could not 

reasonably be enacted for the 1996 elections. Representative 

Morgan, acting on behalf of House Speaker Harold 

Brubaker, [*5] submitted an affidavit to the Attorney General 

that was filed with the Court. Representative Morgan stated in 

his affidavit that it would be practical to redraw legislative | 

districts in time for the 1996 elections. Senator Cooper’s and 

Representative Morgan’s affidavitsare attached as Attachments 

97C-28F-4B(2) and 97C-28F-4B(1), respectively. 

July 24, 1996: The House Committee on Rules, Calendar, and 

Operations of the House conducted a public hearing in Raleigh 

on July 24, 1996, to hear the views of interested parties on 

redistricting generally and on the plan released by the 

Committee the week before. A copy of the notice of this _ 

public hearing, which was published in legal ads throughoutthe 

a
e
 
i
 

  
    

 



  

375 

State, distributed to the media through the media service 
“Xpedite,” and mailed to a list of minority contacts is attached 
as Attachment 97C-28F-2A. The list of the media 
organizations contacted by Xpedite is attached as Attachment 
97C-28F-4). The list of minority contacts is attached as 
Attachment 97C-28H. The transcript of the hearing and sign-inglly 
sheets are attached as Attachment 97C-28F -3A. This 
Attachment includes exhibits submitted by the speakers at the 
public hearing. 

July 30,1996: The three judge panel issued an order allowing 
the 1996 elections to proceed under the unconstitutional plan 
and giving the North Carolina General Assembly until April 1, 
1997, to submit a revised congressional redistricting plan to the 
court for its approval. The order is attached as Attachment 
97C-27H-1. The General Assembly adjourned its 1999-96 
session on August 3, 1996. 

January 29, 1997: The North Carolina General Assembly 
convened its 1997-98 session on January 29, 1997. Speaker 
Harold Brubaker appointed a new House Committee on 
Congressional Redistricting. The Committee was chaired by 
Representative Ed McMahan. The following were named as 
members of the Committee: Representatives Dewey Hill, Gene 
Arnold, Cherie Berry, Dan Blue (AA), Joanne Bowie, Walter 
Church, Jim Crawford, Arlie Culp, Don Davis, Theresa 
Esposito, Toby Fitch (AA), Robert Grady, Lyons Gray, 
Thomas Hardaway (AA), George Holmes, Robert Hunter, 
Larry Justus, Joe Kiser, Mary McAllister (AA), Richard   
 



  

376 

Morgan, Warren Oldham (AA), Carolyn Russell, Edgar 

Starnes, and Ronnie Sutton (NA). 

Senator Basnight reauthorized the Senate Select 

Committee on Redistricting. The same members appointed to 

the first committee were appointed to this committee (See July 

8, 1996 entry for the names). Senator Hugh Webster was also 

added as a member. | 

February 12, 1997: The House Committee on Congressional 

Redistricting held its initial meeting, at which time Mr. Edwin 

M. Speas, Senior Deputy Attorney General, briefed the 

Committee on the Shaw litigation. Mr. Speas and Linwood 

Jones, Committee Counsel, answered questions of the 

Committee members. The transcript of this meeting is 

contained in Attachment 97C-28F-4E(1). 

February 20, 1997: The Senate Select Committee on 

Redistricting met and Senator Cooper presented a 

congressional redistricting plan (1997 Congressional Plan A) 

to the Committee. This plan is attached as Attachment 97C- 

27R-2. Senator Cooper announced that no vote would be[*6] 

taken on the plan so that the public could comment on the plan 

at the public hearing scheduled for the following week. The 

transcript of that meeting is attached as Attachment 97C-28F- 

4D(2). 

February 25,1997: The House Committee on Congressional 

Redistrictingmet. Representative McMahan presented a plan 

to the Committee that had been drawn in response to the Senate 

   



  
377 

plan. This plan, 1997 House Congressional Plan A.1, is 
attached as Attachment 97C-27R-3. Representative McMahan 
announced that no vote would be taken on the plan so that the 
public could comment on the plan at the public hearing 
scheduled for the following week. The transcript of that 
meeting is contained in Attachment 97C-28F-4E(2). ® 

February 26,1997: The joint public hearing was held in the 
Legislative Auditorium in Raleigh on F ebruary 26, 1997. The 
transcript of the public hearing and the sign-in sheets are 
attached as Attachment 97C-28F-3B. Exhibits submitted by 
the speakers at the public hearing are included as Attachment 
97C-28F-3B Ex. See July 24, 1996 entry for the distribution of 
the notice of the hearing. 

February 27 - March 18, 1997: Senator Cooper and 
Representative McMahan met to attempt to resolve the 
differences between the House version of the plan and the w 
Senate version of the plan and submitted numerous maps to 
each other during a four-week period of negotiations. During 
most of the negotiation period, the primary point of contention 
was how Wake County would be divided between proposed 
Districts 2 and 4. With one exception, none of these plans 
containing offers and counter-offers were released to the 
committees or made public. The exception is 97 House 
Congressional Plan G, discussed below: However, all of these 
plans are discussed in 97C-27R and are included in Attachment 
97C-27R-12.   
 



  

378 

Senator Cooper and Representative McMahan were 

uncertain if they could resolve their differences regarding Wake 

County before the Court’s April 1 deadline. They each called 

for meetings of their respective committees to take up their 

own plans. Senator Cooper introduced Senate Bill 433, 

containing 1997 Congressional Plan A, the same plan Senator 

Cooper had presented to the Committee weeks earlier. The bill 

was referred to the Senate Select Committee on Redistricting. 

March 19, 1997: The Senate Select Committee on 

Redistricting met. Senator Cooper presented Senate Bill 433, 

containing 1997 Congressional Plan A. See Attachment 97C- 

27R-2. Senator Betsy Cochrane presented an amendment that 

would substitute her plan, “Congress Cochrane,” for the plan 

offered by Senator Cooper. Senator Cochrane’s plan is 

attached as Attachment 97C-27R-11. The Committee approved 

the plan presented by Senator Cooper. The transcript of this 

meeting is attached as Attachment 97C-28F-4D(3). 

The House Committee on Congressional Redistricting 

also met on March 19, 1997. Representative McMahan 

presented a new plan to the Committee: 97 House Congress 

Plan G. See Attachment 97C-27R-4. Plan G was one of the 

more recent compromise proposals from Representative 

McMahan to Senator Cooper. Because House rules allow 

House committees to[ *7] introduce bills, the passage of Plan G 

from committee in effect constituted approval to file a bill for 

introduction containing Plan G. The transcript of this 

committee meeting is attached as Attachment 97C-28F-4E(3). 

  
 



379 

March 24, 1997: Representative McMahan filed the bill 

containing Plan G on behalf of the Committee. The bill was 
given a number -- House Bill 586 -- and was referred back to 
the House Committee on Congressional Redistricting. 
Afterwards, Senator Cooper and Representative McMahan 
announced to their committees that negotiations mould ay 
continue and that they still thought the differences could be 

resolved before the deadline. Senator Cooper and 

Representative McMahan agreed on a plan that they would 

each submit to their respective committees and chambers. 

March 25, 1997: The plan agreed to, 97 HOUSE/SENATE 

PLAN (and its contingent backup plan, 97 HOUSE/SENATE 
PLAN 0), was presented to the House Congressional 

Redistricting Committee. Representative Dan Blue offered an 

alternative plan for the purpose of changing the proposed 
District 4 back to approximately its current location. The 
amendment was defeated by the Committee. Representative w 
Ronnie Sutton (Native American) offered an amendment 

involving Robeson and Cumberland Counties that was also 
defeated by the Committee because he did not have statistical 
data showing the effect of his amendment on the population of 
the districts at that time. The Committee passed 97 
HOUSE/SENATE PLAN as a proposed committee substitute 
for House Bill 586. The transcript of this meeting is attached 

as Attachment 97C-28F-4E(4). 

March 26, 1997: House Bill 586 was reported to the House 
floor and was calendared for debate. Representative McMahan 
presented an overview of the plan to the House.   
 



  

380 

Representative Ronnie Sutton offered an amendment to move 

a predominantly Native American precinct in Robeson County 

from District 8 to District 7, where nearly all of the other 

predominantly Native American precincts were located. 

Representative McMahan had already announced in earlier 

remarks that he and Senator Cooper supported the Sutton 

amendment. The amendment passed by a vote of 117-0. 

Representative Mickey Michaux of Durham offered three 

successive amendments. These amendments represented, 

respectively, plans known as Fitch Michaux Plan A, 

Fitch/ Michaux Plan B, and Fitch/Michaux Plan C. These 

amendments are discussed in more detail at 97C-27R and they 

are attached as Attachments 97C-27R-8, -9, and -10. 

The committee substitute for House Bill 586 was 

passed, with the Sutton amendment, by a vote of 87 to 30. Of 

the 18 members of the House who are minorities, 5 African- 

American members and 1 Native American member voted for 

the bill and 12 African-American members voted against it. 

The bill was sent to the Senate. A transcript of the House floor 

debate is attached as Attachment 97C-28F-4F(1). (The House 

does not record its debates. The transcript was prepared from 

a recording of the entire floor debate by the University of North 

Carolina Public Television). The relevant portions of the 

House Journal are included as Attachment 97C-28F-4G(1). 

The record of the votes is attached as Attachment 97C-28F-4H. 

[*8]March 27, 1997: The Senate Select Committee on 

Redistricting met to discuss House Bill 586 as it came from the 

House. The Committee voted for the bill. No amendments 

  
 



381 

were offered during the committee meeting. See Attachment 

97C-28F-4D(4) for the transcript of this meeting. 

The bill was considered on the floor of the Senate the 

same afternoon. Senator Cochrane presented an amendment 

containing the same plan that she had presented and that had NE 

been defeated in the Senate Committee. (See entry above 

under March 19, 1997). The amendment was defeated on the 

floor by a vote of 27 to 18. No other amendments were offered 

to House Bill 586. The bill passed by a vote of 32 to 14. All 

7 African-American Senators voted for the bill. A transcript of 

the Senate floor debate is attached as Attachment 97C-28F-4F. 

The relevant portions of the Senate Journal are included as 

Attachment 97C-28F-4G(2). The record of the vote is attached 

as Attachment 97C-28F-4H. 

March 31, 1997: House Bill 586 was ratified as Chapter 11 of 
the 1997 Session Laws. » 

April 1, 1997: The Attorney General filed the redistricting 

plan with the three-judge panel. The Attorney General also 

filed a motion requesting that the court delay ruling on the plan 

until the State had received a response from the United States 

Department of Justice under Section 5 of the Voting Rights 

Act. The Court was informed in this motion that the State 
would seek expedited consideration of this preclearance 
request.   
 



  

382 

[*9]1997C-27M. Reason for Change 

North Carolina’s twelve congressional districts were 

redrawn to remedy a redistricting plan containing a district 

(District 12) that was declared unconstitutional by the United 

States Supreme Court in Shaw v. Hunt. 

997C-27N. Effect of Change on Minority Voters 

The General Assembly’s primary goal in redrawing the 

plan was to remedy the constitutional defects in the former 

plan. Those defects were the predominance of race in the 

location and shape of District 12, and perhaps in the location 

and shape of District 1, and a failure of narrow tailoring. This 

goal was accomplished by emphasizing the following factors 

in locating and shaping the new districts: (1) avoidance of the 

division of counties and precincts; (2) avoidance of long 

narrow corridors connecting concentrations of minority 

citizens; (3) geographic compactness; (4) functional 

compactness (grouping together citizens of like interests and 

needs); and (5) ease of communication among voters and their 

representatives. Emphasis on these factors accomplished this 

goal. For example: (1) the unconstitutional plan divided 44 

counties while the new plan divides only 22 counties; (2) the 

unconstitutional plan divided 6 counties among 3 districts 

while the new plan does not divide any county among 3 

districts; (3) the unconstitutional plan divided 80 precincts 

while the new plan only divides 2 precincts; (4) the 

unconstitutional plan used “cross-overs,” “double cross-overs” 

and “points of contiguity” to create contiguous districts while 

    

 



383 

- the new plan uses none of these devices; (5) District 12 in the 

unconstitutional plan was 191 miles long (in “traveling 
distance”) while District 12 in the new plan is only 102 miles 
long; and (6) District 1 in the unconstitutional plan was 225 
miles long while District 1 in the new plan is only 171 miles 
long. In addition, the new plan makes new District 12 a highly 
urban district by joining together citizens in the City of 

Charlotte and the cities of the Piedmont Triad (Greensboro, 

Winston-Salem and High Point). Conversely, new District 1 is 

a distinctively rural district formed from the largely agrarian 

and economically depressed northeastern counties. 

The General Assembly’s other primary goal was to 
preserve the 6-6 partisan balance in the State’s current 
congressional delegation. This balance reflects the existing 

balance between Democrats and Republicansin the State. The 
State House of Representatives is presently controlled by 
Republicans; the State Senate is presently controlled by w 
Democrats; and most statewide elections are decided by narrow 
margins. It was clear from the beginning that the only plan the 

Senate and House would be able to agree on was one that 
preserved the existing 6-6 balance in the congressional 
delegation. At the same time, the chairmen of the Senate and 
House redistricting committees felt strongly that the legislature 
had a constitutional duty to draw a plan for the three-judge 
panel to review, rather than leave that task to the court. For 

these reasons, preservation of the existing partisan balance 
became a driving force in locating and shaping the districts.   
 



  

384 

These primary goals were accomplished while still 

providing minority voters a fair opportunity to elect 

representativesof their choice in at least two districts (Districts 

1 and 12).[*10] Data and expert studies before the General 

Assembly provided a strong basis in evidence for the 

conclusion that the Gingles factors are present in the area 

generally encompassed by new District 1. See Attachment 

97C-28F-3B and 97C-28F-3B Ex. Based on this evidence, 

legislative leaders concluded that avoidance of potential 

liability under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act probably 

required the creation of a majority-minority district in that area. 

Accordingly, 50.27% of the total population within the District 

is African-American and 46.54% of the voting age population 

is African-American, based on 1990 census data. In addition, 

1997 population projections indicate that the percentage of 

African-Americans and the percentage of African-American 

registered to vote are slightly higher in District 1 today than in 

1990. See Attachment 97C-28A-2. These percentages plus the 

“cross-over” voters within the District (20 to 25%) provide 

African-American citizens in District 1 a reasonable 

opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice. This 

opportunity is almost certainly enhanced for the life of this plan 

(the 1998 and 2000 elections ) by the incumbency of Eva 

Clayton. Congresswoman Clayton was elected from old 

District 1 in 1992, 1994 and 1996 with percentages of 67.0%, 

61.0% and 65.9%, respectively, even though African- 

Americans constituted only 53% of the District’s voting age 

population and 50.5% of the District’s registered voters. 

  
 



385 

The General Assembly did not have sufficient evidence 

to conclude, and believes that sufficient evidence does not exist 

to conclude, that Gingles factors exist in any other area of the 

State so as likely to require the creation of a second majority- 

minority district. In Shaw the Supreme Court specifically 

rejected the State’s argument that it had a compelling intere 

in creating a majority-minoritydistrict in the area AY 

by old District 12. Likewise, the General Assembly 

specifically rejected the creation of a second majority-minority 

district in the area eastward of Charlotte to Cumberland and 

Robeson Counties, as proposed for example by Senator 

Cochrane. Creation of any district in that area would 

artificially group together citizens with disparate and diverging 

economic, social and cultural interests and needs. It would 

sandwich rural voters between urban voters in the State’s 

banking and commercial center at one end of the district and 

voters residing on and around Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force 

Base at the other end of the district. Such a district would als 

rely on uncertain coalitions between African-American an 

Native-American voters for its “majority-minority” status. 

Significantly, it would have thwarted the goal of maintaining 

partisan balance. Under these circumstances, voters could not 

obtain effective representation, or be effectively represented. 

Moreover, under these circumstances, race would have become 

the predominate factor, to the exclusion of the State’s 

redistricting criteria, in the creation of a district which would 

bear an uncomfortable resemblance to Georgia’s District 11 

declared unconstitutional in Miller v. Johnson. 

  
  

 



  

386 

Nevertheless, District 12 in the State’s plan also 

provides the candidate of choice of African-American citizens 

a fair opportunity to win election. Though not a majority- 

minority district, the candidate of choice of the minority 

community within the District will have a fair and reasonable 

opportunity to win election based on a combination of minority 

and non-minority votes. Congressman Mel Watt was elected 

from old District 12 in 1992, 1994 and 1996 with percentages 

of 70.4%, 65.8% and 71.5%, respectively. (African-American 

citizens constituted 53% of the voting age population and 

53.5% of the registered voters of old District 12)[*11] 

Consistent with the General Assembly’s primary goal to 

preserve the existing partisan balance in Congress, new District 

12 contains a substantial portion of the core of the urban 

population of old District 12 and a substantial percentage of 

voters with an affinity for Democrat candidates, regardless of 

their race. Those factors, together with the significant African- 

American population in the District (46.67% total population 

and 43.36% voting age population) provide a fair opportunity 

for incumbent Congressman Watt to win election. 

  

 



  

387 

[*12]997C-27R. Other Material Concerning the 

Purpose of the Plan 

* % *% 

[*16]6. Plans Discussed in Negotiations % 

Senator Cooper and Representative McMahan were 

involved in negotiations with each other for nearly three weeks 

in an effort to develop a plan that both the House and the 

Senate could agree to. These negotiations centered primarily 

on the division of Wake County between the 2nd and 4th 
districts. 

Several proposed plans were exchanged during this 
time. The plans constituted a series of offers and counteroffers 

that gradually moved the Senate and House closer together. 
This series of changes can best be understood in light of the 

original plans released by both sides (1997 Congressional Plan w 

A in the Senate and 1997 House Congressional Plan A.1 in the 

House) and how those plans came about. 

In developing the Senate’s initial plan as well as 
subsequent plans, Senator Cooper consulted with members of 

the congressional delegation and members of the Senate, 
particularly Senator Frank Ballance, Senator Leslie Winner, 

Senator Bill Martin, and Senator Marc Basnight. Senator 
Ballance, an African-American and the Deputy President Pro 

Tempore of the Senate, was consulted about the placement of 

counties in the northeastern part of the state -- the area in which 

 



  

388 

he resides (Warren County) -- including the location of the 

boundaries of the new 1st district. Senator Winner, counsel for 

the plaintiffs in the Gingles litigation in the early 1980s and a 

resident of Charlotte, was consulted about the composition of 

the 12th district, which includes much of Charlotte. Senator 

Martin, an African-American representing much of Greensboro 

and Guilford County, was consulted both as to statewide plan 

issues and the placement of parts of High Point and Greensboro 

in the 12th district. Senator Basnight, President Pro Tempore 

of the Senate, was consulted on the plan generally and on the 

placement of counties in the northeast. Senator Basnight also 

resides in the northeast (Dare County). Senators Basnight and 

Ballance together represent most of northeastern North 

Carolina. 

The initial Senate plan was perceived by many 

Republicans as treating incumbent Republican congressman 

Walter Jones (3rd District) unfairly (see, for example, the 

comments of Representative McMahan to the House 

Redistricting Committee on February 25, 1997 at Attachment 

97C-28F-4E(2)). The House Republicans felt that the 3rd 

district was perhaps their most critical district and that the 

Senate’s proposal, especially in the 3rd district, threatened the 

6-6 partisan balance. Rep. McMahan responded by releasing 

a plan (1997 House Congressional Plan A.1) that in many 

respects resembled the Senate plan. However, Rep. 

McMahan’s plan also addressed the concerns about the 3rd 

district and created other intentional differences between the 

two plans to use as “bargaining[*17] chips” in negotiating 

primarily on three districts -- the 2nd, the 3rd, and the 4th. 

    

 



  

1 389 

. Representative McMahan also consulted with numerous 
| : individuals, including African-American and other members of 
1 the House and Democratic and Republican members of the 

North Carolina congressional delegation. 
  

Although the boundaries of the 1st District were 
affected by changes in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th districts, these » 
changes did not significantly affect the percentage of African- 

Americans in the 1st District. This percentage fluctuated about 

two-tenths of one percent as a result of this series of changes. 

The enacted 1st district is similar to the 1st district that was 

originally proposed by Senator Cooper after consultation with 
Senators Ballance and Basnight. As enacted, it includes more 
of the territory of the existing 1st district than the original 

House plan, thus keeping more of Congresswoman Clayton’s 

current constituency intact in the district. At the same time, 

the counties in the coastal/Tidewater region (Chowan, 
Pasquotank, Perquimans, Currituck, and Tyrrell) are able to 

remain together with the coastal counties with whom they share w 

economic and other interests. 

Differences between the House and Senate plans in the 

12th district were resolved quickly. The House agreed to 
include Winston-Salem in the 12th district in one of its first 
counter-offers to the Senate, recognizing that it was the only 
major city in the Triad area not included in the urban-based 
12th district. 

After the 3rd district and 12th district were resolved, the 

negotiations focused on the dividing line in Wake County   
 



  

390 

between the 2nd and 4th districts. The Senate considered that 

many of the House plans for the 2nd district were not consistent 

with the goal of keeping a partisan balance and the House felt 

that the 2nd district in the Senate plans did not reflect the 

partisan makeup of the prior 2nd district. This issue was the 

last to be resolved. | 

  
 



391 

SECTION 97C-28F-4D(2) 

MINUTES SENATE COMMITTEE 

ON CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING 

FEBRUARY 20,1997 

The Senate Committee on Congressional Redistricting met on . 

Thursday, February 20, 1997 at 11:30 am. A majority of 

members were present. 

Senator Cooper: The Committee will come to order. If we 

can get everybody to have a seat. I know you are interested in 

looking at these plans. We also have plans being passed out for 

the public. O.K., we are about to begin. I need for you to be 

quiet in the back, please. Thank you. 

Senator Conder: Mr. Chairman 

Senator Cooper: Senator Conder * 

Senator Conder: We have former Representative, Allen Myer 

and his wife, House of Delegates, from Virginia here. Would 

you recognize him back in the back? 

Senator Cooper: Most certainly. Thank you for coming. Glad 

to have you here. 

Senator Cooper: Members of the Committee, the purpose of 

this meeting is to present to you a plan for considerationon the 

redrawing of the Congressional districts for the State of North   
 



  

302 

Carolina pursuant to Order of the Court. We will not vote on 

this plan today. I would ask that you take it home, look at it, 

study it. It will be available for the public, we are going to be 

online, it will be on the Net and I think the public information 

people have the web site where you can go look at this plan. 

We will be having a Public Hearing on Wednesday at 3:30 p.m. 

to get public input on the plan and on redistricting in general. 

I don't know at that time whether the House will have a plan 

[*2]available or not. But then the plan would be to, maybe the 

end of next week or at the latest the first of next week, to try to 

get the Senate to act on a plan to get it over in the House and to 

talk with them. Hopefully convince them that this is a good 

plan. If they don't think so, certainly talk with them about the 

situation and go from there. We are operating under a deadline 

of April 1st, so we definitely need to get moving. 

For the elections beginning in 1992, the General Assembly 

drew the current Congressional districts, which you see, some 

of the maps around have the current districts which are up 

there. The General Assembly first sent a plan to the Justice 

Department with one minority district in the northeast. That 

plan was rejected by the Justice Department with the 

instruction that another minority district was needed in the 

State of North Carolina. The result was the current plan that 

we have now. This is an overall recap of the current plan. 

Currently, we have 46 counties which are split, we have six 

counties which have three members of Congress, an issue that 

the Supreme Court found particularly problematic. We have 

several districts with clearly irregular shapes and we have a 

situation where over a 100 precincts are split. Although lower 

    

  
  

 



393 

federal courts held this plan constitutional, the United States 

Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision declared specifically the 

12* Congressional District to be unconstitutional. There are 

different interpretations of that decision and other decisions. 

The bottom line interpretation is that race cannot be the 

predominate factor in redistricting and that if race is used, 

districts must be reasonably compact. Of course, the standard » 

of reasonably compact is open to interpretation. Quoting from 

the Court, the Court wrote that the standard is not the least 

possible amount of irregularity, but the districts must be 

reasonably compact and regular. 

We had a challenge in trying to draw a plan and we have a 

challenge ahead of us. In seeking to draw a plan to present to 

this Committee, Plan A you have there, the following issues 

were considered. First, geographic fairness, second, reasonable 

compactness, third, communities of interest, fourth, racial 

fairness, five, reasonable political fairness, six, precinct 

boundaries, seven, county boundaries when rh oni 

[*3]possible, eight, the core geographic area of the current 

districts and their incumbents, ninth, the potential to achieve 

consensus within this chamber and within the House chamber 

and tenth, and probably most importantly, the constitutionality 

of the plan. 

    
This plan took all of those factors into consideration. As a 

result, this plan is fair and workable. It will please everyone 

somewhat and no one completely. This is an overall 

a description of the plan: First, it reduces from 46 to 24 the 

1 number of counties which are split into two Congressional 
  
 



  

394 

districts. There are 24 counties that are split, bringing it down 

from 46, cutting the number almost in half. It reduces from 

6 to 0 the number of counties which have three members of 

Congress. As I said earlier, the Court had problems with this. 

Under the prior plan we had six counties with three members 

of Congress and now we have none. It uses as a foundationthe 

basic core of the existing Congressional districts. No district 

is dramatically changed and most of the districts, if not all of 

the districts have become more compact. I want to go over a 

brief description - and you have it in your package - but a brief 

description of the plan as follows: Here is the first district - as 

you can tell from this plan, the first district went way down into 

what is currently the 3", the 7* and the 2¢ and intentionally 

sought out minority population. This district is now much 

more compact and it contains 50.11% minority overall 

population. The 2™ district is here, in the green striped, it has 

the basic core of the current 2" district. The 3¢ district is a 

local district, basically as it was before. You have to have a lot 

of land mass when you are in the 3" district to get 552,000 

people, but that is out here. The 4™ district is pretty much the 

Research Triangle Park. It covers all of that area with Orange, 

Durham County wholly in the 4" district and part of Wake 

County. The 5™ district along this part of the state, is relatively 

unchanged. The 6™ district here, there is not a whole lot of 

change to that in the Guilford County area. The 7" district 

down here is relatively unchanged. It moves north a little bit 

and one of the reasons for that is that - the main reason for that 

is that the 1* district had a lot of area in this - down here at the 

bottom of the southeast and so you had to come a little bit north 

to get the population. The 8" district here is relatively 

  
 



395 

unchanged. I know there a few changes, but when you make 

changes in one district, you pretty much have[*4] to make 

changes in all the areas. The 9" district here ... relatively 

unchanged. The 10™ district here, relatively unchanged. The 

11* district - much more compact. You can see it is somewhat 

jagged here. We used county lines to make the 11" distri 

compact. And here the 12" district from Greensboro el 

Mecklenburg. 

Let me talk just a little bit about the 12" district because that 

was the district which was held to be unconstitutional by the 

Court. In Congressional Plan A, I believe the 12 district is 

constitutional as drawn and I will tell you why. First it is much 

more compact. It is 67% shorter in length than the current 

district. You can drive it in about 2 hours - from Greensboro 

to Charlotte. 

  
Senator Winner: An hour and a half Ww 

Senator Cooper: An hour and a half - well I was thinking the 

very southern end of Mecklenburg. Let's go back and look at 

the Insider again and check on Senator Winner. (laughter) 

Senator Cooper: It is the third shortest district in the state - the 

only districts which are shorter in length are the 4™ and the 10™. 

It covers 6 counties instead of the 10 counties that it covered in 

the past. It connects the metropolitan areas of Charlotte and 

the metropolitan area of the Triad. It is much wider. One of 

the main problems the Court had with the 12* district was that 

it went long stretches with not covering any people at all.....   
 



  

396 

just go down the highway and not have anybody and just have 

a thin point of continuity along the Interstate. Here in every 

place but one, the district is 2 precincts wide, at least and much 

more - much wider in other areas. Only one area is one 

precinct wide and that is a very wide precinct. It takes into 

consideration the incumbent and the overall political balance. 

It is 47.09% minority, it is not a majority/minority district, but 

it is a minority influenced district. 

[*5]Members of the Committee, I believe that this is a fair plan. 

You know - there will be questions about the partisan issue. I 

am no fortune teller. We have some results from 1988 and 

1990 races that are in the computer. We are now dealing with 

7 years later. It is very difficult to tell. I believe that all 12 of 

the incumbents would have an excellent opportunity to win 

each one of these districts. We are not drawing the districts for 

incumbents. We are trying to draw a plan that will get 26 votes 

in the Senate and 61 votes in the House. And I believe that we 

have a plan that all 12 of the incumbents should be able to live 

with because we have not dramatically altered the geographic 

nature of their districts. 

What I want to do now is open the floor for questions from the 

Committee and questions, comments - I shared with you 

previously, most of you on the Committee the Plan and I want 

to open the floor up for questions or discussion at this time. 

Senator Cochrane: Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you 

and whatever staff for the efforts that you have presented here. 

I have admiration for the compactness that I see in several 

  
 



  

397 

districts as opposed to some fingers that we saw before and 

certainly 12 is improved. But I do have a question - when you 

say that it appears to you that incumbents - your feeling is that 

the incumbents have a better than average chance at re-election 

- you think that they are well cared for here. So that brings me 

to the information sheet - and is maybe more for Gerry than for 

you - but as I go down registration of Democrats w@ 

Republicans, and I realize you have to go back to 1990 for 

these numbers, I presume that they are 1990 registration 

numbers. Based on the numbers, how can you even consider 

the possibility it is going to stay 6 to 6? Here are only two that 

I see where Republican registration is even close to Democrat. 

The numbers are pretty - there is a preponderance of Democrat 

registration throughout the district. 

Senator Cooper: Party registration has very little relevance at 

all to election outcome. North Carolina is predominately 

registered Democratic, but if you look at election[*6] results, 

it's pretty obvious - particularly in eastern North Carolina - thal) 

many registered Democrats vote Republican. That's no 

indication at all as to political outcomes and once again, I don't 

want to get into the fortune telling business because, but I don't 

think that that is a very relevant issue. 

Senator Cochrane- I do understand that the demographic, 

well the registration......... arenot the voting pattern. Then what 

voting patterns would you apply that leads you to be able to say 

so emphatically that you think the ...  



  

398 

Senator Cooper: I'm not saying that emphatically and this is 

not - I don't want this to be called an incumbent protection plan 

because it is not. What we tried to do was to make each district 

more geographically compact, leaving the core area for each of 

the present districts. That means each of the incumbents are 

there in their core area and the districts have not changed 

radically to the point of affecting the past political outcome. 

Most of the incumbents that have won, that are there now, won 

by pretty handy margins. 

Senator Cochrane: And you are of the opinion that that is a 

potential scenario in the next election? 

Senator Cooper: Certainly a better than average potential 

scenario, yes. 

Senator Cooper: Senator (William) Martin 

Senator William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I would just mention 

following up on Senator Cochrane's question - just looking at 

these numbers on the basis - where if you look at the 

Republican representation on the current plan that does exist, 

you want to look at that and say that it is highly unlikely that 

there could be more Republicans elected under the current plan 

than exists when you look at those numbers. Really, the[*7] 

numbers are.......on the one that is proposed. I think that 

supports the idea that the voting patterns - patterns of voting, 

the trend, would be consistent with this.......... 

Senator Cooper: Senator Cochrane 

  
 



399 

Senator Cochrane: Let me respond to that - as for one 

Representative Jones certainly would not be of the same 

opinion that you have just offered. 

Senator Cooper: Further questions from the Committee? 

Senator Conder: Wonderful job Senator Cooper - we applaud 

you. 

Senator Cooper. Senator Ballance 

Senator Ballance: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a comment. 

I think a lot of people worked real, real hard making 1991, 92, 

whenever we adopted our current plan, and the Justice 

Department nudged us very much to get two districts where 

African-Americans, in my opinion, could be elected. I think I 

recall the results in the Atlanta races of Cynthia McKinney and 

ieietee Bishop, where those districts were.......downto 35 or 40% 

African-American and they were nominated and elected. But 

I do have a little concern that in the 1 District, for example, we 

are coming up now with 44% registration. I think I got that 

right and because we have talked about this a little bit, but I do 

not object to this plan because the courts have said that they 

gotta be compact. At the same time, I don't want people to 

think that......ecstatic about it because it will be difficult 

nonetheless to maintain what I consider the progress we've 

made in sending to Washington a delegation to represent seven 

million people that is, for the first time, diverse in terms of 

race. And I think all of us are proud of that. We may not 

prefer that particular person who's in that position, but I think  



  

400 

all of us have to be, have to say we are proud of the fact we 

now have a delegation in Washington, D. C. that is, as Bill 

Clinton is often saying, it looks more like North Carolina. And 

I would just hope that[*8] whatever we do with this plan that 

we will continue to try and look at that issue as something that 

is important to all of the people of North Carolina. 

Senator Cooper: Senator Forrester 

Senator Forrester: Thank you Senator Cooper. Was there any 

particular reason that your committee did not put the 

12" District going east from Charlotte rather than going north, 

etc. and the district going more into the eastern North Carolina- 

for the 12", Mel Watts district? 

Senator Cooper: Number 1, that is the current incumbent's 

district. That's very important in being able to get this plan 

passed the General Assembly. Number 2, you have 

communities of interest along 1-85. If you go from west to east 

from Mecklenburg to Robinson County, I think you have a real 

problem with community of interest. 

Senator Cooper: Senator Winner. 

Senator Winner: I wasn't going to ask this - but first let me 

address Senator Forrester's question. From my prospective 

having spent a lot of time in the downtown, urban Charlotte 

and a fair amount of time in Union and Anson and Robinson 

counties, they're really different places with really different 

kinds of economies and really different kinds of problems and 

  

 



401 

it never has made sense to me to put them together in a district 

whereas Charlotte, Winston-Salem and Greensboro are much 

more similar in their economies and in the kind of problems 

that they have. But what I wanted to say, and I think it is 

important from a constitutional basis on this plan, is that it was 

my opinion that one of the most problematic things about the 

other plan was the number of precincts that it divided. And, . 2 

that was really problematic for voters also because it was very 

hard for the voters in those divided precincts to know which 

Congressional district they were in. So I think probably the 

biggest improvement in this plan is that it only divides two 

precincts instead of dozens of precincts. And the two precincts 

that are divided - one of [*9]them is in Mecklenburg County 

and it is divided in practically everything, but there are only 

four people that live in the part that are divided off. It's just a 

particular precinct and the other one is in, I think, Washington 

or Beaufort - 

Senator Cooper: Beaufort. It is non-contiguous. p J 

Senator Winner: And it has some water that divides the 

precinct? The precinct...... 

Senator Cooper: Satellite annexation. 

Senator Winner: So we only divided off the part of the 

precinct that wasn't contiguous to the rest of the precinct? And 

I think that that's very - very important constitutionally, but I 

also think from the point of view of our constituents and the  



  

402 

voters being able to know where there Congress people are, 

that that is a very important improvement in this plan. 

Senator Cooper: Follow up question for Senator Forrester. 

Senator Forrester: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Is it not true 

when you get the numbers down in the crunch, you are going 

to have to divide some more precincts? 

Senator Cooper: Yes, I was going to add, thank you Senator 

Forrester, I was going to add a caveat to that. The Supreme 

Court has held in a case in 1983, and Senator Ballantine and I 

were just talking about it, we read the case, that you have to get 

down to no more than one vote variance. That is a ridiculous 

requirement, particularly when we are working with 1990 

census data. But we must do that for the plan to be 

constitutional. Right now this plan you have before you is just 

a few hundred off, but necessarily we are going to have to, 

when we refine the plan and get it ready for introduction, we're 

probably going to have to end up splitting up about ten or 

eleven precincts in order to make sure that the numbers come 

out precisely right - that there is [*10] not more difference than 

one person for each district. That is very frustrating, but that 

has to be done. 

Senator Cooper: Senator (William) Martin. 

Senator William Martin: I just want to add, Senator Warren 

and I were talking about it yesterday that we might also have to 

  
 



  

403 

do some legislation placing a moratorium on births and deaths. 

(laughter) 

Senator Cooper: Senator Hoyle. 

Senator Hoyle: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Have you had any 

conversation with your counterparts in the House and, if you 

have, do you think their plan has - bears any resemblance to 

ours? 

Senator Cooper: I don't understand that they have a plan at 

this point. I know they ran a plan out last time, or last session 

in the summer, that does not resemble this plan. But I have 

talked in generalities with the House chairman, we have not 

talked specifics, he may be here, Ed may be here, I don't know. 

Oh, OK. But it is my understanding that they would be 

receptive to looking at this plan and I don't think they are gonna 
have a plan for the public hearing. And I'll let him speak on 

that. Ed, would you want to say something concerning that? 

Representative McMahan: We're glad to see your plan this 

morning ........ some very positive points on, as part of the plan. 

I've enjoyed the conversations I've had with Senator Cooper in 

trying to get this resolved. We do intend to look at this over 

the weekend and we are in the process of finalizing, maybe not 

just one plan, but actually looking at a couple of plans and I 

think this is an excellent start and we will certainly take this 

plan and factor it in to what we are looking at. And we do 

intend to present a, our version of the plan, probably in a 

committee meeting Tuesday afternoon, actually [*11] prior to 

 



  

404 

the hearing. But again, I see some real positive points as part 

of this plan and we will be able to use it in factoring it into our 

plan. 

Senator Cooper: This is what you call an open meeting. 

Thank you. All right, further discussion from Committee 

members? Hearing none, we are adjourned. | 

/s/Roy A. Cooper, III 

Senator Roy A. Cooper, III, Chairman 

/s/Susan M. Moore 

Susan M. Moore, Comm. Clerk 

  

  
    

  

 



405   
SECTION 97C-28F-4D(3) 

  

MINUTES SENATE COMMITTEE ON 

CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING 

MARCH 19,1997   
The Senate Committee on Congressional Redistricting met on ® 

Wednesday, March 19,1997 at 4:00 p.m. in Room 1124 of the 

Legislative Building in Raleigh, N. C. A majority of members 

were present: 

Sen. Cooper: Order please. Members of the Committee, we 

have before us Senate Bill 433. It is the same plan that was 

presented to the Committee at our meeting a couple of weeks 

ago. Let me just briefly go over some of the important points 

about this plan. I believe that we have strived to come into 

compliance with the one-person, one-vote rule. We've strived 

to come into compliance with the Voting Rights Act. We've 

strived to follow the direction of the Supreme Court to draw » 

more geographically compact districts. We have strived to 

keep precincts whole. We strived to keep as many counties 

whole as possible having reduced the number of counties that 

were split from 46 in the old plan to 24 in this plan. We have 

strived to maintain partisan balance. We have strived to keep 

the core geographic areas of the current districts in place so that 

it will be easier to get a plan past both chambers. We have 

strived to keep together communities of interest, particularly 

looking at rural and urban interests. And we have looked at 

ease of communication between voters and representatives. 

One important issue is that under the current plan, we have six   
 



  

406 

counties which are currently represented by three members of 

Congress. In this plan there are no counties which will have 

three members of Congress and we believe that we have put 

forth a plan here which has the potential to achieve consensus. 

To talk briefly again as I did last time about the 

12" Congressional District as it is the reason why we are here, 

the Court having held it unconstitutional. The current 

12" District which we have in Plan A is more compact, much 

more compact. It is 67% shorter in length, you can drive it in 

two hours. It is the third shortest district in the state, it covers 

six counties instead of ten. It[*2] connects the metropolitan 

areas of Charlotte and the Triad, all with communities of 

interest in the 1-85 corridor. It is much wider. It is not a 

majority/minority district. I don't believe, certainly we can 

argue and don't believe that the test for the constitutionality as 

laid out in Shaw v. Hunt would even be considered because it 

is not majority/minority. And we have taken into consideration 

the current partisan nature of the 12% District which is 

Democratic and strived to keep it in that same partisan vein as 

we have the other six current Democratic districts and the other 

six Republican districts. 

Let me tell you a little bit about the status of the negotiations 

with the House. This Plan A is the Senate position and the 

Senate position throughout has been that we need a fair and 

equal partisan balance. In 1996, the people spoke in an election 

and decided it was important to have six Republican members 

of Congress and six Democratic members of Congress. And I 

don't believe that we should use court-ordered redistricting to 

redraw that result. The House has come forward with a plan, 

    

  

 



  

  

E
A
 

a
 

aie
 

HO
TA

) 
so 
S
E
R
 

a
 

a 
e
e
 
D
L
 

BN
 

a 
BS

 
a
 

W
y
 

Ty
 

j 

  

  

407 

and I think they voted on it today, which does not provide for 
a fair partisan balance. However, we will continue to negotiate, 
the fact that we are moving forward with this plan today does 
not cut off negotiations. In fact I believe it has spurred an even 
greater interest in negotiations and we will continue to 
negotiate right up to the last minute if necessary. Hop 
reaching some type of compromise before that time. However, 
until we can reach a negotiated settlement, it is my opinion that 
we should go forward with a plan that we believe is fair and 
reasonable realizing that we do have room to negotiate and we 
will continue that process of negotiation. 

  

At this point, I want to....to recognize Mr. Adam Stein who is 
here. He wanted to present some information to the Committee 
which we did not have at the last committee meeting, 
particularly concerning the Voting Rights Act as it applies to 
this plan. And so briefly, Mr. Stein, I would like to recognize 
you and to have you present remarks to the Committee. 

[*3]Adam Stein: Thank you Senator Cooper. At the public 
hearing Anita Hodgkiss of my firm, presented a lot of material 
which had previously been introduced in the lawsuit which is 
pending and been to the Supreme Court twice. Material which 
we contend shows that there is a requirement on the state to 
adopt a plan that includes a majority/minority district in 
the....of the northeast portion of the state. Part of that 
submission was a report by Professor Richard Engstrom who 
is an expert in the field in analyzing of voting....for voting 
rights purposes. We have asked... and he did that at the 
instance of the state....he was hired by the state in connection  





409 

ame time, we are charged with drawing a plan that is 

onstitutional under Shaw v. Hunt which requires us not to[*4] 

Ise race as the predominate factor. So, we are....we are caught 
etween two difficult tasks. Amazingly, I think that we've been 

ble to do that with this Plan A and with many of the 

egotiated proposals that have gone back and forth. If we “® 

compromise, I would hope we could come into compli 

vith the compromise as well. But, I saw some hands. Senator 

loyle. 

enator Hoyle: Just curious how Mr. Stein came up....where 

e got the facts that Jones got 100% and Eva got 95%. 

enator Cooper: Adam, if you want to come up. 

«dam Stein: This is evidence which was introduced in the 

haw against Hunt case by a social scientist who did....they are 

stimates and he looks at it two ways. And the way I 

'porting was with his regression analysis. 1 think - 

/inner understands it better than I do. He looks at it two ways. 

ne is looking at what he calls homogeneous precincts. These 

'e precincts which are at least 95% minority. He looks at 

ecincts that are at least....thatare 10% or less minority and he 

es how the vote breaks down that way. He also then does an 

timate based on the percentage of....of voter registration by 
ce and the....what the election returns show for that. And 
tactly what the mathematics are in coming to that estimate, I 

m't know. Clearly, when I said 100%, that is an estimate. It 

obviously less than 100%, but it is overwhelmingly... 
ongressman Jones got overwhelmingly high white vote. And 

 



  

410 

the homogeneous analysis, and he does both, as I recall it 

showed it about 95%. So it is a very high percentage of the 

white vote and I'm.... 

Senator Cooper: Yes 

Senator Hoyle: You mentioned again Helms' race and the 

polarization there among the voters. What percentage 

black/white did Gantt get and Helms? 

[*SJAdam Stein: Again, I'm using his...now using his 

regression analysis, it's the.... homogeneous analysis is....only 

a few points difference. The spread is about the same. In 1990, 

it showed that Gantt received 37% of the....and he expressed in 

non-black, non-African-American vote, and about 98% of the 

African-American vote. And that Helms had the reverse of 

63% of the non-black vote and about 2% of the black vote. 

And then six years later when they ran again, that Gantt again 

....this time had 36% of the non-black vote and 100% of the 

black vote. Again, this is an estimate....obviously wasn't 

perfectly 100%. And Helms had 64% and 0%....a small 

amount. 

Senator Cooper: Senator Winner and then Senator Martin. 

Senator Winner: As long as he's reading the numbers....could 

I ask you to read the numbers for just these northeast counties 

that are in the proposed 1* District.     
  
 



     

  

411 

Adam Stein: In the northeast counties, in .... for Helms, Gantt 

in 1996 and I don't have....have this for 1990. It showed that 

Gantt had 25% of the non-black vote. Statewide he had 36%. 

The 25% in the fourteen counties and 100% of the black vote 

and Helms had the reverse - 75% and 0% which shows that 

there is strong racially polarized voting across the state but it is 

much stronger in that portion of the state than in the rest of the 

state. It also showed the....the Engstrom report that the voter... 

the participation rate, which is essentially turnout, that the 

non-black turnout percent was about 60% and the black was 

about 47%. And those numbers were about the same both in 

those fourteen counties and across the state. 

Senator Cooper: Senator Martin 

Senator R. L. Martin: Mr. Chairman, who is the gentleman 

speaking and is he an authority on redistricting or does he 

represent a group, or does he represent himself or what? 

[*6]Senator Cooper: Please identify yourself. 

Adam Stein: My name is Adam Stein, I'm a lawyer. 1 

represent, together with other members of my firm, individuals 

who intervened in the Hunt against....in Shaw against Hunt case 

supporting the districting plan that had been in place. 

Senator Cooper: Senator Martin. 

Senator R. L. Martin: Is he speaking for this plan or against 

it? 

 



  

412 

Adam Stein: I am speaking in.....for the plan in saying that as 

you go through the negotiations that it's our legal position that 

it is required that there be a majority/minority district in the 

northeast part of the state. 

Senator Cooper: And I would say....thank you Mr. Stein. And 

I would say that I think that, as I said earlier, we've met both 

tests with Plan A and that we have a majority/minority district 

inthe 1* but at the same time it is geographically compact and 

it has a community of interest with rural agrarian northeastern 

North Carolina, in search of adequate economic development, 

etc. So I think we have been able to meet both tests. 

Now, Senator Cochrane. 

Senator Cochrane: At the appropriate time, I would like an 

alternative... 

Senator Cooper: Okay. 

Senator Cochrane: .....to offer an alternative to your map.... 

[*7]Senator Cooper: At this point, I'm going to recognize....I 

did not go over the specifics of Plan A because we did that at 

the last meeting and I think you all have maps and everybody 

is familiar with what it does. So at this time, I will recognize 

Senator Cochrane who will officially send forth an amendment 

which is essentially another plan. So ... 

    

  

  

 



  

  

  

413 

Senator Cochrane: There are lots of plans. The Sgt. at Arms 
will pass those out. 

Senator Cooper: All right, Senator Cochrane is recognized to 
explain her proposed amendment. Senator Cochrane. 

Senator Cochrane: Thank you Mr. Chairman and ladies and 
gentlemen of the Committee. There are some colored maps if 
you are interested and it is the map to the extreme right that is 
on the wall here. I beg your pardon, on the far left, 
unfortunately it is on the far left which is strange for me! 

As I was listening to our esteemed Chairman, I was thinking 
how very similar the generalities could be of the maps that we 
are offering here today because the criteria that we used had 
three main points. Primarily we were trying to keep counties 
whole.... 

Senator Cooper: Members of the Committee, Senator 
Cochrane has the floor. 

Senator Cochrane: We were trying to have districts that were 
compact and we were trying to join areas or counties of 
common interest. And we think from our map that we have 
accomplished that. Incumbency was not a criteria that we used. 
I believe the constituents choose the congressman, not that the 
congressman chooses the constituency. So we did not consider 
incumbency when we were drawing this map. 

 



  

414 

By striving to keep the counties in tact, there is the appearance 

of less gerrymandering and we think that was accomplished in 

this map. There are only 18 counties that are[*8] divided 

between two congressional districts and when they are divided, 

it is only two congressmen who represent the counties. That's 

for getting the numbers more the same in each of the 

congressional districts as I'm sure any of the maps end up 

doing. 

We think the appearance of the districts is compact. There are 

no unusual shapes like the "Zorro" district down in Louisiana 

that we are all familiar with. We believe that we do show 

compactness and commonalties in here because of using the 

criteria that we did. This map, we think, will meet the 

constitutional requirements because we do not have that 1-85 

corridor, the 12" district, that seemed to have given the courts 

a problem. Obviously, we could give you more detail. Quite 

frankly I recognize that in one respect I am sort of tilting at 

windmills here today. But I did think it was important that we 

offer you an alternative as members of this body and we are a 

significant number in the body. And we did have a criteria that 

we used that has directed the implementation of this map. We 

think it is an attractive map because of its compactness and we 

do think there are common areas....Senator Winner and I had a 

discussion of one problem....perhaps, depending on your view 

of commonalties, but except for that one, I think most of the 

areas....the counties do have a lot that they do together. In fact, 

some of the counties where there is a division in order to create 

the numbers as Bill Gilkeson worked with us, some choices 

were made in an effort to keep a part of the county where we 

  

  
   



  

  

  

415 

would have to split to get numbers, joined with the counties 
that they already did a lot of things together. For instance, 
industries or regional activities or common communities that 
shared schools, fire districts, that kind of thing. I hope you will 
consider this seriously and look at this. If there are questions, 
I will certainly try to answer. I will tell you, I am not an expert 
on map drawing, even after doing this one. It was simply a 
case of thinking it was appropriate that we have a map to 
present and so one was drawn, criteria was established that 
guided and you have the results of that before you today. 

Senator Cooper: Thank you Senator Cochrane. As sponsor of 
the bill that you are attempting to amend with this new plan, let 
me point out....let me make a statement on[*9] it if I might, 
Senator Cochrane. I would ask you to oppose this amendment 
for a couple of reasons. The main one is the constitutionality 
of the plan. I have a problem, and I would think that our 
attorneys would have much more of a problem arguing the 
constitutionality of both the 1% and the 12 districts under this 
plan. And let me tell you why. First, the 12" District. It, 
although it does not have the majority/minority 
African-American, when you add it with Native-Americans 
from Mecklenburg to Robeson, then you do have just slightly 
majority/minority. 1 believe it's a little over 41% 
African-American and a little over 8% Native-American, so 
you add those together, you make it majority/minority. That in 
turn would trigger the test under Shaw v. Hunt and I don't think 
our 12" District...under Plan A has triggered the test. And 
when you look at the test under Shaw v. Hunt, the communities 
of interest between downtown Charlotte and Robeson County 

 



     
416 

are worlds apart. I want to point out a case to you. I think that - 

this....this district is similar to Georgia's 11™ District which was 

ruled unconstitutionalin the case of Miller v. Johnson. Andlet 
"me describe....the Supreme Court described that district this 

way. Connecting the black neighborhoods of metropolitan 

Atlanta and the poor black populous of coastal Chatham 

County, that's in Georgia. Though 260 miles apart in distance 

and worlds apart in culture, in short the social, political and 

economic makeup of the 11" District tells the tale of disparity, . : 

not community. I think that is right on point with what you 

have with the 12% District in Senator Cochrane's plan. In the 

12" District in Plan A, you have...if you do trigger the test, 

which I don't think you do, but if you do trigger the test, you 

certainly have community of interest with the 1-85 corridor and 

Mecklenburg to the Triad there. Secondly, the Court has talked 

about incumbency protection as being a....fair game in 

congressional redistricting. That was done in Plan A. Both 

Representative McMahan and I stated from the beginning that 

an even partisan balance, 6 and 6, would be the way to 
approach this process and it does not do that in Senator 

Cochrane's plan. Also, I think when you trigger the test, this 

shape will cause a problem. In the 1% District, I think you have 

some of the same problems. You do trigger the test because it 

is majority/minorityand when you come into Durham County 

you then add the urban element to the rural element that we 

have in Plan A. We're solely a rural 1* district, but when you 

add the urban element, I think you lose[*10] your community 

of interest and I think you have a danger of unconstitutionality 

for both the 1* and the 12™ districts. Now, can we have further 

discussion on the amendment. Senator Cochrane. 

   



      

  

417 

Senator Cochrane: Thank you, I appreciate that. I will 

immediately confess not being an attorney. I cannot respond to 

you perhaps as appropriately as I personally at this moment 

might like to. But I will tell you that I do question some of the 

comments you had to make. Some of the areas of commonality 

are, except for the part of Charlotte, I think that does apply. If » 

you are talking about the 12" District, you are looking at 

50.6%, that is true. If you include everybody, it is not anything 

I have heard about when we have talked in the past about 

minority representation that you brought in Asians, that you 

brought in Native-Americansand put that all together. So this 

is the first time I've heard our compilation of all of those in 

order to defend or, in this case, attack a minority district. I do 

think that the voting in the area and the contention that has 

been made in the past would indicate that this is not a problem. 

If you are again going to have representation of the people, that 

will also work out as it probably should. I cannot challenge, 

nor do I choose to, on the partisan area, keeping 6 and 6. It is 

not our role to try to protect the incumbents. We did not 

choose to do that. It is our role to put the people together in 

districts where they may choose the congressman that they 

wish to be representative of them. So I do not have an answer 

about your maintaining the partisanism, and this map will not 

stand that test. 

     
    
    
     

        

     
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
     

     
  

  

Senator Cooper: Okay. Discussion. Senator Hoyle. 

  

     Senator Hoyle: What is the partisan balance in Senator 

Cochrane's plan? You just said you didn't know.   



  

418 

Senator Cochrane: He was saying that his was 6 and 6 and 

that this one would not do that. I told him I could not challenge 

it... 

[*11]Senator Hoyle: What do you think this one is? 

Senator Cochrane: I know the ones in the west are, I'm not 

sure about the toss up. 

Senator Cooper: 8 and 4 

Senator Cochrane: That's....he's saying because he contends 

that this one is and I do not. 

Senator Hoyle: He'd better know. 

Senator Cochrane: Well fine, but he didn't see the maps. 

Senator Cooper: Senator Ballance. 

Senator Ballance: Question for Senator Cochrane. 

Senator Cochrane: Certainly 

Senator Ballance: Senator Cochrane, your plan has 79,805 

citizens in Durham County and you do not have in your plan 

Perquimans, Pasquatank, Chowan and Washington counties 

with a total of 69,248. 1 did that very quickly, I hope my math 

is right. But, based on what Senator Cooper just said, are you 

    

  

     



419 

not concerned that you are in fact bringing in an urban county 

and get the same numbers on rural counties? 

Senator Cochrane: I'm sure that's possible. I'm not sure that 

I fully understand all that you are saying. Looking at the map, 

we have a lot of focus on compactness and areas being together 

that in some historical, traditional ways had frequently had 5 

been together. And so the comment you are bringing up about 

the urban and rural[*12] opposition is not something I am 

familiar enough within that section of the state to comment on. 

Senator Cooper: Senator Ballance. 

Senator Ballance: At present, you notice that the current map, 

the 1° District goes to Elizabeth City which is Pasquatank 

County, it also has Warren and Catawba and it has Washington 

init. Currently those counties would be extremely compact up 

on the northern end of your district that you have drawn. Ido 

iq have concern that the plan might not be constitutional @ 

. a Obviously, I'd like to have a 1* District that....that's a high 

a concentration of minorities to the extent that it could be done 

constitutionally. But, if you....to go to Durham and pick up 

79,000 people, I don't know if that would solve the problem. 

  
  

Senator Cochrane: One thing, if you will notice, we tried to 

give some consideration to....in the configuration of some of 

the districts had to do with the thought of the person in mind 

who would be representing that....If you look at their travel 

area, if you look at north, south or east or west, there're some 

1 | elements like that that come into play that, quite frankly, play 

  
   



  

420 

out as well on this map as they do in Congressional A Plan that 

is there. Those are some facts that should be considered. 

Again, I can't answer you about the rural against urban in the 

areas you're talking about. I'm just not that familiar with them. 

Senator Cooper: Senator Martin. 

Senator William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I would just 

comment that I think........... in terms of commonality. I would 

go further to say that if we could draw a plan where race would 

be a predominant factor, then, yes, there would be a lot of 

commonality in the 12" District than was drawn. However, 

since we cannot do that under the Supreme Court ruling, since 

race cannot be a predominant factor, if we look at the other 

items,[*13] such as the state of the economy, the type of 

industry, factors involved in that industry, the predominance 

and availability of education institutions not in the other. You 

look at the social and cultural factors, etc. There is clearly not 

a commonality there and therefore, I believe it clearly would be 

held unconstitutional and would not.....the Supreme Court..... 

Senator Cochrane: Well, tell me how you would defend your 

12" District as it is now. How do you defend the parts in 

Davidson County for instance, being with Greensboro and 

Durham? You know, these maps are just like anybody else's 

maps. They're drawn the best anybody can for reasons that 

they are drawing. That 12" District on Congressional A map 

is drawn for very specific reasons, many of which you just 

talked about and the 12" District would challenge the 

comments you just made. 

  

   



421 

Senator William Martin: Okay, I would suggest that the.... 

when you look at the 12™ District as drawn under 

Congressional Map A you do have that strong commonality 

interest in terms of the economic factors involved. There are 

always going to be some areas where that would not be the 

case. But the vast majority of the district itself is focused 

- around particular types of business and industry, focus around 

the very strong focus on the educational sector and the 

commonality of other urban concerns that link from Charlotte 

to Winston-Salem to Greensboro, picks up Surry, picks up..... 

between....inthat revised....the vast majority of the population 

is in that district. So I don't think we have....subject to 

challenge. 

  

  Senator Cochrane: And I understand what you are saying, but 

I think it is just as....Itis not going to meet it as well when you 

are talking about those areas in between. They've become just 

as significantly a concern for someone like me or like the 

Judges, maybe, as you are saying in the other instance would@ 

be. 

Senator Cooper: Senator Winner. 

[*14]Senator Winner: I feel a need to talk about this 12% 

District in Senator Cochrane's plan which many people in the 

Mecklenburg part I represent, I also live in the current 

12™ District, I guess I'd live in it in the A Plan as well. The.... 

Senator Cochrane's plan, 1 think, has a really very difficult 

urban/rural split in her 12" District. Half of its people, 

277,000, live in either Cumberland County or Mecklenburg    



  

srland County and 

different kind of 

ne being primarily 

ry different kinds of 

1y, a very unpleasant 

ve Union, Anson, 

which have a whole 

and difficulties and 

So, I think that this 

yossible, for a single 

swell. The kinds of 

t economies to the 

7 different from the 

s of urban housing be 

roblems. The very 

ry different in these 

tte to Fayetteville is 

mpaign, it would be 

rs, and again, I think 

district. And finally, 

is plan disrupts the 

“his plan completely 

1 a way I believe it 

~ongressman Hefner 

ychrane was not out 

te that Congressman 

[t is very valuable to 

m there. He is the 

3 Subcommittee on 

portant to our state, 

  

  

  

   



  

423 

although not to Charlotte, but to parts of the state that he 

represents. And, while I don't think we should assure his 

re-election, and I don't think Senator Cooper's plan does assure 

his re-election, I think it would be a big mistake to make it 

practically impossible to get re-elected. So, for those reasons 

I could not support the plan. » 

[*15]Senator Cooper: Senator Kincaid. 

Senator Kincaid: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Members of the 

Committee, I differ just a little with Senator Winner and.... I'm 

not sure that Senator Cochrane's proposal before us now would 

give us 8 to 4, maybe if you had a year like we did two years 

ago, but a year like we had this past election, I don't think that 

would be true. Now, Senator Winner, I hate to admit this, but 

it's going to be hard to match anyone from Mecklenburg in 

commonality. I'm sure Senator Rand will go along with that. 

Senator Rand: I would. ® 

Senator Kincaid: No offense intended, but we don't have any 

other counties that has the kind of prospective that 

Mecklenburg has. But, Senator Cochrane mentioned a minute 

ago and under Plan A, if you look up under the 12%, there's 

nothing that.... has in common with Mecklenburg, no more than 

does Robeson. But folks, I'll tell you, I don't know about your 

counties, but I can recall the last eight or nine years since we've 

had split counties, and my people in Caldwell County are so 

split, they don't know who their congressman is. And, 

consequently means more....and they have no allegiance to their  



  

424 

congressman. You should have an allegiance to your 

congressman. Senator Cochrane's proposal does the least 

splitting of any proposal yet. It only splits eighteen counties. 

I really believe we need to be concerned about the constituent 

and what's good for the constituent. And, now if I may go a 

little bit selfish, as a state senator, it's awful difficult for me to 

represent a county that's split because I have to funnel part of 

the problems to Congressman Burr, I have to send part of them 

to Congressman Ballenger and both of those guys are sending 

all their state problems to me and they are working me to death. 

So really, whatever plan we adopt, if we try to reach as close 

to minority that we can as Senator Cochrane has, if we try to be 

compact and her plan is more compact than any I've seen, and 

then if we try to solve....... problems, I think it is a good plan. 

[*16]Senator Cooper: Senator Rand. 

Senator Rand: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I agree with what 

Senator Winner says. We might be willing to trade NCNB, 

First Union for Fort Bragg, but I don't believe this will make it 

work. It is most important to Cumberland County that if we 

can continue our association with Congressman Hefner that we 

do so. We are split three ways now, this would split us two 

ways, between the 7" and the 8 . Congressman Hefner's 

ranking minority member, as has been said, on the Military..... 

the Appropriations Committee for Military Construction, which 

has been extremely important to our community. All of you 

know, of course, that the base closings have gone on around the 

world. For southeastern North Carolina, the part where I live, 

Cumberland, Robeson, Hoke, for that whole area Fort Bragg is 

  
 



425 

  the thing that keeps us economically viable. When you look at 

the areas outside, when you go to Richmond County, which is 

not far from us, unemployment is significant. It is not 

significant in our county because of the military presence and 

because the buildup at Fort Bragg has gone on while the 

military worldwide has been shrinking. So we are most 

concerned about that and the implications for our area. ® 

Anybody who doesn't think that the military is important to our 

area should have been in Fayetteville when Desert Storm... 

when the 82™ Airborne went to the desert. The Maytag 

repairman was lonely down there and it was really tough on 

business and it was a time that showed our area really what the 

military presence means to us. And we have been far more fair: 

and far more nicer to our friends in the military since that time. 

I think the kind of district Plan A has, while not exactly as I 

would have it, it does show a certain commonality of 

interesting our area and it allows the 7" and 8" to co-exist 

together. Congressman McIntyre is on what used to be the 

Armed Services Committee, I'm not sure what they call it now. &@ 

but we have a strong military presence in our area and we are 

now ably represented by two gentlemen who really have the 

military interest at heart and we are anxious to continue that 

representation. If your.....I do congratulate you on being a 

better person than I am[*17] and drawing this a 6-6, you know, 

I think you are to be congratulated for rising above yourself. 

  

Senator Cooper: I have had a couple of out-of-body 

experiences.  



  

426 

Senator Rand: I figured you had, but obviously, Plan A suits 

southeastern North Carolina a lot better than that (pointing to 

Senator Cochrane's plan) plan. 

Senator Cooper: Senator Gulley. 

Senator Gulley: Thanks. Mr. Chair, I wanted to add briefly 

that one of the things I have learned through this process is that 

we have to abide by federal law to use 1990 census data as we 

make these plans and, therefore, when we're looking for a sense 

of how they will impact us with this number of races, several 

races that were looked at, whatever plan somebody draws, that 

they give you those indicators and I hear Senator Cochrane 

talking about how she hadn't paid any attention to incumbents, 

and how it affects one party one way or the other. But, then I 

look at her own data that she handed out.....I look at those races 

and I see where every Republican incumbent congressman is 

well protected. And in addition to that, eight of the twelve 

districts are made Republican districts and that is a significant 

change from where we are today. And it just lacks creditability 

to me that we are not paying any attention to. the partisan 

impact of this. I do think we need to all have out-of-body 

experiences and transcend the effort to be partisan on this and 

that's the argument I think for Congressional Plan A. 

Senator Cooper: All right. Senator Martin and then Senator 

Soles. I'm going to let Senator Cochrane wrap it up and then 

we're going to vote on this amendment. 

  

  

  

 



427 

Senator William Martin: Real quickly, I just want to say.... 

make a couple of comments on the issue of split districts. It 

was raised today, it was raised at the last[*18] meeting and at 

the public hearing. I just want to say just for the record....inmy 

area there has not been as much dissension about split districts 

as one might think. As a matter of fact, in many instances, it 

can work well because we're represented by Mel Watt ni @ 

Howard Coble. One of the things that's favorable in that 

situation is that when they get a call or inquiry, they don't ask 

where do you live, what street you live in, they................. both 

of them do that. And the same thing is true with reference to 

the three of us who represent Guilford County in the Senate. 

Senator Shaw, Senator Blust and myself, same thing. You..... 

in the area, any of us will deal with and I think most people see 

that not as a disadvantage but, if anything, somewhat an 

advantage in some instances. So I don't think that should be 

one of the issues that's..... : 

  

  

Senator Cooper: Senator Soles. » 

Senator Soles: I'd forgotten that the amendment was really 

what we were talking about and I want to make a motion 

regarding the bill. 

Senator Cooper: All right, I'm....let Senator Cochrane wrap 

up. I told her I'd let her wrap up and respond on the 

amendment and then we will vote on the amendment. 

Senator Cochrane: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just one 

comment that I must make. I can appreciate you all picking    



  

428 

this apart, and that's perfectly all right. In the first place, I am 

not a map maker. But secondly, how those of you who're 

involved in drawing the original 1-85, many of you sifting 

around this table, and now have the second 1-85, can have as 

much to say as you can about some of the other districts is just 

a little bit beyond my ability to fathom. But that is neither here 

nor there. 1 appreciate that you allowed me the opportunity to 

come forward and present something. The other thing I would 

share with you, we were of the assumption in conversations 

with Bill Gilkeson, before getting these final numbers, there 

were six that we thought were districts for Republican, possibly 

seven and so I am sorry, I don't know where the eighth one is. 

I would be glad to look at it. 

Senator Cooper: Senator Conder and then we're going to vote. 

[¥*19]Senator Conder: I just want to rebut what Senator 

Cochrane just said about the 1-85. If you remember, Senator 

Cochrane, in the plan we set up there in 1991, only had one 

minority district and you folks wanted two, so you got two and 

that's where........ I just want to remind you of that... 

Senator Cochrane: Where are the two? I mean you are just 

saying.... 

Senator Cooper: All right, all right. Senator Cochrane moves 

adoption of the amendment. All in favor of the motion, let it be 

known by saying “aye”. All opposed “no”. “No's” appear to 

have it. Did you call division? Okay. Division having been 

called, all in favor of the motion let it be known by raising you 

    

  

 



429 

  hand. All opposed, raise your hand. Fails 4-11. All right, 

now. Plan A is on the floor. Senator Ballance. 

Senator Ballance: I just wanted to make a couple of comments 
on...on Plan A. And I know we've all had enough of this and 
I think Justice O'Connor and Justice Thomas are wrong. That's 

got nothing to do with it, I suppose. So we've got to follow . 
ruling and Senator Cochrane, what I'm concerned about is the 

plan, Plan A as we have it here, I believe that, according to my 
research, you could....could split additional counties and come 
up with a plan that would have a higher percentage of 
African-Americans in it. But as Senator Martin pointed out, 

you cannot use race as the predominant factor. And so, while 

I'm not totally carried away with the 1* District, I think under 
the law, it's probably as close as you can get - you only split in 
that district, I think, six counties....five or six counties and 
maybe twenty-four in the plan as Senator Cooper pointed out 
versus forty-six. But, here's what concerns me and maybe this 

has got nothing to do with anything. But until '92, it's beer 

almost a hundred years since George White was in Congress 

after the last African-American was elected. His home is still 
there in New Bern, preserved and we could have a situation, I 
hope and pray we[*20] don't, where because of this ruling, 
which I said I don't like, we might have no African-Americans 
representing this state. That's sort of a scary feeling and I know 
those of us sitting around this table wouldn't want that to 
happen. And I don't know why it is that the Supreme Court 
said that the plan was ugly, we couldn't use it because I've seen 
some plans dating back to the turn of the century where the 

lines went all kinds of ways. And so we're trying to comply 

  

  

  

   



  

430 

and the plan that has been drawn here, presented as Plan A, 

tries to comply with the law and a lot of us are going to go 

silently because we think it fits within the law. That's the only 

reason as far as I'm concerned. 

Senator Cooper: Senator Winner. 

Senator Winner: In contrast to the 12% District in the 

Cochrane Plan, I do think that the 12% District can, in Senator 

Cooper's plan, make a lot of sense. In fact, there is an 

urban/Piedmont presence that gets very well represented in this 

plan. It gets to have a voice. Of the 550,000 people in that 

12 District, over 70% of them live in Mecklenburg, Forsyth 

and Guilford counties. And they do have a real commonality 

of urban interests with inner city schools, urban health 

CA esrieens problems, public housing problems and it is a part of 

the state that deserves to be represented and is well represented 

in this plan. It is also a very functional district. You can drive 

from one end to the other of it in an hour and a half without 

speeding. It would be easy to have district-wide meetings, to 

campaign, to get.....for any constituent to get to....if you have 

a congressional office in Greensboro and one in Charlotte, any 

constituent could get to one of those offices within an hour, it 

would be very functional, it would be in two media markets, 

not spread all over the place. It would be easy to have 

communication. I will say from Mecklenburg County, it has 

been very good for us to have bi-partisanrepresentation. There 

have been many instances in which Congresswoman Myrick 

and Congressman Watt working together with the Republicans 

in Congress and the Democrats in the administration. They 

  

  

 



  

431 

have been able to do a very good job of representing us but yet 

it is good to continue to do that. And I would think that that 

will be as true as well for Forsyth and Guilford as they will be 

well-served by having two congress people, [*21] probably of 

different parties. In addition, this plan only divides one 

precinct in the 12™ Congressional District and that one little 

piece is taken off in Mecklenburg County only has one housc@) 

in it and it is divided every.....in the county commission plan, 

in the city council plan, in the school board plan, it's just an odd 

shaped precinct. So that little house is used to being separate. 

And, it's a house that is in an industrial....part that is otherwise 

industrial. It....it divides no counties into three districts. The 

former 12" District divided almost all of these counties into 

three districts and it only has six counties in it. It can really 

function as a district. And I would say, since I'm very happy 

having Mel Watt as my congressman, I also view it as a plus 

given the voting behavior of the people of our congressional 

district that our current congressmen have a fair chance of 

getting re-elected. And I think that...... » 

  

Senator Cooper: Senator Hoyle. 

Senator Hoyle: Mr. Chairman, I've been redistricted to death. 

I'd like to move for favorable report. 

Senator Cooper: Senator Hoyle has moved for a favorable 

report for Senate Bill 433. Further discussion, Hearing none, 

all in favor of the motion let it be known by saying “aye”. All 

opposed “no”. The “ayes” appear to have it, the “ayes” do have  



  

432 

it. The bill is given a favorable report. Thank you members of 

the Committee. 

The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m. 

/s/Roy A Cooper, III 

Senator Roy A. Cooper, III, Chairman 

/s/Susan M. Moore 

Susan M. Moore, Committee Clerk 

A
U
S
 

Th 
a
 

Ce 
a
 

  

C
E
R
 

aR
 

N
S
 

es
 

a 
i 

E
s
 
a
 

Ca 
: 

ea
d 

  
D
R
E
 

RR
R 

2 
ST

 
E
S
A
P
I
 s 

    

  
   



  

    
    
  

433 

ATTACHMENT #3 

March 11, 1997 

Senator Roy Cooper 

‘Chair, Senate Congressional Redistricting Committee ® 

North Carolina General Assembly 

16 West Jones Street 

Raleigh, North Carolina 

RE: Congressional Redistricting 

Dear Senator Cooper: 

As you may recall, this firm represents defendant-intervenors 

in the Shaw v. Hunt litigation. Included in the materials we 

submitted at the Joint Congressional Redistricing public 

hearing on February 26, 1997, was analysis of racially polarized 

voting by Professor Richard Engstrom. Professor Engstrom’s @ 

report was based on various elections he analyzed prior to the 

trial in the Shaw v. Hunt case in 1994. We asked Professor 

Engstrom to update his study by looking at the most recent 

Gantt versus Helms election. In particular, we asked him to 

look at the level of racially polarized voting statewide as well 

as the level of racially polarized voting in the northeastern 

region of the state, which we defined as the eighteen counties 

that are included in the proposed First Congressional District 

in the Senate plan, 1997 Congressional Plan A.



  

434 

There are two important findings in Professor Engstrom’s 

updated analysis. First, he found that there is greater polarized 

voting in the northeast than in the state generally. Second, he 

found that turnout for African-Americanvoters is significantly 

lower than turnout among non-African-Americanvoters. Both 

of these findings support the propositions that there is a strong 

basis in fact for concluding that the legislature’s failure to 

create a majority black district in the northeasternregion of the 

state would violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. 

I am enclosing for your consideration a copy of Professor 

Engstrom’s report of his findings. Please feel free to give me 

call if you have any questions. Thank you very much for your 

work on this very important issue. 

Sincerely yours, 

/s/Anita S. Hodgkiss 

ASH:rer 

cc: Members, Senate Redistricting Committee 

    

  

    

    
  

 



435 

ATTACHMENT # 4 

February 7, 1997 

Ms. Anita S. Hodgkiss 

Ferguson, Stein, Wallace, Adkins, Gresham, and Sumter 

Suite 300 

741 Kenilworth Ave. ® 

Charlotte, NC 28204 

  
Dear Ms. Hodgkiss: 

I have performed, at your request, an analysis of the 

vote for Mr. Harvey B. Gantt in the November 1996 general 

election for a United States Senate seat in North Carolina. This 

work supplements the analysis of North Carolina elections that 

I performed previously for the State of North Carolina in the 

Shaw v. Hunt litigation. The methodologies employed in the 

analysis of this election, regression and homogeneous precinct 

analyses, are identical to those employed in my previous » 

reports for the state. The voter registration data utilized to 

analyze this election are for October 11, 1996, and therefore 

reflect the registered electorate at the time of this election. 

The homogeneous precinct analysis concerns the votes 

case in the precincts in which over 90% of the registered voters 

was African American and in which less than10% was African 

American. Mr. Gantt received 97.9% of the votes cast in the 

homogeneous African American precincts across the state, but 

only 38.1% in the homogeneous non-African American 

precincts. The voter participation rate in this election in the 

homogeneous African American precincts, expressed as a 

    
  
 



  

436 

percent of the registered voters, was 49.6%, while the 

participation rate within the non-African American precincts 

was 59.0% 

The estimated support for Mr. Gantt among the African 

American voters in this election produced by the regression 

analysis, which is based on the votes cast in all of the precincts 

in the state, is 100%. His support among the non-African 

American voters is estimated by regression to have been 

35.7%. The correlation coefficient for the relationship between 

the racial composition of the precincts and the vote for Gantt is 

statistically significant .777. The regression estimate of the 

participation rate in this election among state’s African 

American registered voters is 46.8%, while that for non-African 

Americans is 58.9%. 

You also requested the results of these analyses for the 

northeast region of the state, an area that you informed me is 

comprised of the following 18 counties; Beaufort, Bertie, 

Craven, Edgecomb, Gates, Granville, Greene, Halifax, 

Hertford, Lenoir, Martin, Northhampton, Pitt, Vance, Warren, 

Washington, Wayne, and Wilson. The vote in this area is more 

racially divided than in the state as a whole. Mr. Gantt received 

96.6% of the votes cast in homogeneous African American 

precincts in this region, but only 29.0% of those cast in the 

homogeneous non-African American precincts. Voter 

participation in these African American precincts, again 

expressed as a percentage of registered voters, was 50.2%, 

compared to 61.9% in the non-African American precincts. 

The regression analysis of the votes cast in all of the 

precincts in these 18 counties places Mr. Gantt’s support 

among the African American voters at 100% and his support 

  

   



437 

  

  

e among the non-African American voters at 24.9%. The 

S correlation coefficient for the relationship between the racial 

composition of the precincts and the vote for Gantt is .930, 
n higher than that for the state as a whole. This is also a 
n statistically significant correlation. The regression estimates of 
S the voter participation rates in the northeast region are 47.0% 
n for African Americans and 61.6% for non-African Americans @) 
n I hope you find this information useful. If you require 

n any additional analysis, please let me know. 

S 

€ Sincerely, 

n 

n /s/Richard L. Engstrom 

Research Professor of 
© Political Science 

S 

, 

: “ 
2 

d 

n 

€ 

- 

n 

D, 

e 1 

xt ,       
   



  

438 

[This page intentionally left blank.] 

  

  

    

  
   



  

  

  

439 

SECTION 97C-28F-4E(1) (EXCERPTS) 

MINUTES 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON 

CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING 

FEBRUARY 12, 1997 

3:00 P.M. 

W. Edwin McMahan, Chairman 

[*18] Chairman McMahan: If you don’t mind, prerogative 

of the chair, let me make a couple of closing comments. First 

off, I would like to say that we know this is probably one of, if 

not the, most partisanissues that we will talk about this session. 

It always is, and there is no reason for it to be any different this 

time. I really do hope that all of us working on this Committee 

and working with the Senate can recognize that we do have w 

[*19] an April 1* deadline, and that we do try to put forth our 

best effort to approach this in a non-partisan way to really come 

up with a plan that has the best change to be approved by the 

court, and at the same time be acceptable by both sides. I’ve 

heard a lot of Members say that they really believe that there is 

an advantage for the Democrats if, in fact, we don’t reach an 

agreement and it goes to the court and the three judge Panel 

decides. That’s been said, but I don’t really believe that the 

Senate leadership, and I certainly don’t believe the incumbents 

that are holding these offices in these twelve districts are in 

favor of us not trying to do our job, and do it to the best of our 

ability and try to reach an agreement. I don’t think any of us 

 



  

440 

want to let the court decide this issue. We really want it to be 

the very last resort. I want you to know that I have been 

assured by the leadership of the Committee on the other side 

that they do have an attitude that they want to cooperate and all 

of us try to get on board and agree upon a plan that both sides 

can live with, and again, hopefully, it’s not going to be their 

plan and our plan and they are far apart, which again if they are 

done in a completely partisan way, they are going to be far 

apart. I hope we can approach it in a way that we know we 

don’t have a lot of time and try to do our job, but do it well. I’d 

like to just make three or four points about the plan itself. 

First off, it’s a plan that will only be for four years -- so 
it’s not like it’s a plan that’s going to be for the next ten years -- 

it’s only a plan for four years. I want to also point out to you 

that everyone needs to keep in mind that currently we have a 

balance in the State Congressional seats, six Republicans and 

six Democrats, so I think it’s extremely important that we focus 

on the idea that we want to continue to maintain balance. It’s 

very important as far as the new plan is concerned. We also 

have to keep in mind that I think the plan that has the best 

chance to be approved will be the plan that protects the current 

incumbents. So, it is more of an incumbency plan, and some 

of you may not like to hear this, but I think the plan that 

protects the existing incumbents and does the least in the way 

of changing the overall plan has the best chance of being 

approved and everybody getting on board -- again, in this short 

time frame. We know that we have got to redraw the 

12" District. There’s no question. We certainly believe 

[*20]also have to redraw the 1* District, even though it has not 

been ruled unconstitutional -- everyone tells us, and we 

    

  

  

  

   



  

  

          

LE) 

certainly have been given the opinion that it probably needs to 

be looked at. They didn’t actually say it was unconstitutional, 

but they sort of just said the first one is and leave it at that. If 

you look at this map up here, it’s pretty obvious that number 12 

is unconstitutional, but if you look at number 1, to me it is 

probably just as bad. I do hope that we can keep in mind that 

we want to draw a plan that certainly, of course, will consider 

race, and it will certainly be a consideration, but we will not 

base it on race. At the same time, we have got to keep in mind 

that we have got to be geographically compact. That is 

certainly a condition that we have been told -- in my opinion 

from what I’ve read about it -- as well as race -- so both things 

have to be considered. I think also, of course, we want to try to 

divide as few counties and precincts as we possibly can, and as 

to how much flexibility we have on population -- I know we’re 

hearing all kinds of answers. I don’t know what that is, but at 

the same time, Georgia has drawn a plan that now takes into 

consideration trying not to divide counties, and we ought to 

make that effort to try to divide as few counties and as few 

precincts as we possibly can, and then again as I mentioned 

earlier, 1 think we have got to think in terms of generating a 

plan that protects the incumbents as best we can and maintains 

the balance that now exists, and hopefully, with that in mind, 

and all of us on board to try to work together. Again I know I 

am a newcomer to this process, and I might be too optimistic 

that we’re going to get everybody on board, but I don’t really 

have a choice at this point in time and I don’t think we do. The 

only way we’re going to do this job and do it right is for 

everybody to get together and look at it as if we’re balanced 

today -- let’s do the job we need to do and walk away with a 

 



  

442 

plan that is still balanced. I have been assured by the other side 

that is the way it is being approached, and their plan next week 

will be a plan that we will not just turn our backs on. We’ll 

have to wait and see, and I hope the Committee again will keep 

a optimistic attitude until we do that, and at the same time I 

have asked Staff to, of course, try to determine the criteria as 

best we can and asked Linwood to go ahead and pull some of 

these plans. We’ve got some plans. There have been a lot of 

them drawn over the past year, and there are some that we 

probably [*21] already know about that will come out of the 

other side and I’m pretty optimistic. I hope all of you will be, 

and all of us can keep that kind off attitude and get on board 

and get this job done. I wanted to close with that, but hopefully 

we’ll continue on and answer any other questions. 

    

  
   



  

  

  

      

  

  

  

        

443 
SECTION 97C-28F-4E(2) 

MINUTES 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON 

CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING 

FEBRUARY 25,1997 

1:00 P.M. 

Chairman McMahan: Good afternoon. I'm Ed 

McMahan - I'd like to welcome all of you - Committee 

Members in particular and all the members of the Press and 

guests to our Congressional Redistricting Committee Meeting 

this afternoon. I am very pleased to present this afternoon the 

House version of the Congressional Redistricting Plan. Even 

though it's probably impossible to draw a plan that everyone 

finds completely acceptable, I sincerely believe that the plan we 

are presenting here this afternoon is very close to being a 

perfect plan -- a plan that recognizes racial fairness but does 

have geographic compactness to the districts, while 

maintaining the balance that exists in our Congressional 

Delegation. 

The leadership of the House has said from the very first 

day of this session that we are very interested in doing this job, 

which we are actually responsible to do in a fair and 

non-partisan way. 

We all recognize the problem we have with the Justice 

Department telling us to have minority/majority districts while 

the Supreme Court has ruled that the manner in which we drew 

these district lines used race as the predominate factor, and that 

was not an acceptable practice. Add the incumbency issue to 

 



  

444 

that, and what is needed to get a consensus on both sides, and 

you can see that we have a very tough assignment, but I have 

tried to stress from the beginning that we on the house side are 

interested in fairness and that means maintaining at least the 

current balance we have in our Congressional Delegation. 

As 1 said last Thursday, the Senate Plan was an 

excellent start. You will see many similarities between the two 

plans -- in fact, many of the districts are either identical or so 

similar it may be scary to many of you that have been here a 

while. One of our major concessions has been to not try and 

force drawing district 12 from Charlotte along 74 to Robeson 

County. The Senate said early on that this was unacceptable, 

and we have certainly respected their wishes. 

The highlights of our plan are as follows: 

1. We split 19 counties - I think we can go to 18 

counties - in lieu of the 24 on the Senate Plan 

and 45 on the current plan. 

2. We make District 12 more compact than the 

      

  

  
Senate Plan. We fear that the Senate Plan may = 

not be as compact as it needs to be for the 

Court, so we have taken a more direct route to 

Greensboro from Charlotte. 

When you do make it more compact, we do 

reduce the minorities in this district, but I am 

100% confident that a minority can certainly 

win in a district that exceeds 40%. 

  

 



445 

We cross Cabarrus County and Davidson in lieu 

of Iredell and Davidson, and we do not enter 

Forsyth County with the 12" District. 

  

3. Districts 8, 9, 10, 11 are very close on both 

plans. 

» 
A. Based on the 90 registration data, we 

have actually strengthenedthese sli ghtly 

for the incumbents. 

  

4. Next District 7 - the McIntyre District is 

actually a little stronger Democrats because of 

the minority added from Congresswoman 

Clayton's District before. 

  
5. District 6 is almost identical between the two 

plans - we originally had Moore County in 

District 2, but we have moved it back to be i 

similar to the Senate Plan. We have moved it to 

District 6. 

  

    
6. District 5 is similar except we have to make it 

more compact by moving all of Forsyth and 

Yadkin into District 5 -- and not dividing 

Wilkes -- and moving Caswell into District 6. 

  
7. District 2 and 4 which divide Wake County on 

the Senate Plan - our plan does also divide 

Wake County, but we felt we needed to 

   



  

446 

maintain more balance in these two Districts. 

We moved some Republican voters from 

District 4 (Cary and the Northwest quadrant of 

Raleigh) into District 2, but left the area inside 

the Beltway in District 4 -- along with Orange, 

Durham and Person County. 

We feel that the Senate Plan treated District 3 - 

the Walter Jones District — very unfairly, and 

we moved the majority of Wayne County back 

into this District and did not split Beaufort 

County as the Senate Plan does. 

We also gave District 3 a portion of New 

Hanover County but followed the Senate Plan 

and did not include Sampson County. As it is 

now, it will move to District 7 along with 

Duplin County. 

9. Finally, District 1 is now drawn to be far more 

geographically compact than the Senate and is 

similar to the actual Senate Plan, except we do 

include Pasquotank, Camden and Tyrrell 

County in District 1, and we do not divide 

Washington County like the Senate Plan. 

Our District 1 has a minority/majority of 

50.26% versus the Senate Plan of 50.11%. 

a 
D
R
E
 

N
a
S
 

  

   



(
R
S
 

A
N
S
E
 

  

o
n
 

C
O
I
 

HD
L,

 
SE
 
S
O
 

Bi
 

  

a
l
i
s
h
a
 
d
i
 
A
 

I
R
 

447 

I also want you to know that I am going to 

recommend to Senator Cooper that we consider 

renumbering the Districts. There just has to be 

a better way to number the Districts than they 

currently are from the Coast going West. I'm 

not sure whether we can do that or not, but I 

think it's something we ought to consider. 3 

So, to close, I hope all of you see a lot of positives in 

this plan. Please remember we are developing a plan for only 

the next four years. I sincerely believe that this plan does have 

geographic compactness, but it also recognizes the need for 

racial and political fairness that must be present in order for us 

to get the support of both chambers. 

I certainly would welcome any questions or comments 

by Committee Members at this time. 

Representative McAllister: Do you have the 

percentages in this plan for District 7. 

Chairman McMahan: Yes Ma’am w 

Linwood Jones: Are you looking for the total 

population or registration. 

Representative McAllister: What are these based on 
- population - total population or what. 

Linwood Jones: We have reports on different 

categories - we have it on total population- we have it on voting 

age. It's in your package - the second part of that package. 

Chairman McMahan: Representative McAllister, as 

far as number 7 - I would give you the data that I have. We're 

showing the current plan has about 70.6% Democrats -- if 

you're asking the difference between Democrats and  



  

448 

Republicans. The Senate version increases that to about 72%- 

the House Plan actually increases it to 75% -- so actually 

District 7 becomes stronger under our Plan than it does under 

the Senate version. 

Representative Sutton: I have some concerns about 

Robeson County. Under the Senate Plan there was less 

division of Robeson County, and under the House Plan it's split 

almost equal, and to me that's critical because that's the center 

of the Native American population in Southeastern North 

Carolina -- and what they are doing in the House Plan is -- for 

total population you split about 6% in one district and 3% or so 

in the other. That is certainly diluting the 9 or 9 ¥%2 % Indian 

vote down in that area. It just appears to me that this was done 

-- for whatever reason -- with no regard for the Native 

American population down in that part of the county. 

Chairman McMahan: Thank you, so the Senate 

version is much more palatable. 

Representative Sutton: The Senate version is much 

more palatable to the people in my district than the House 

version. We have some minor concerns with the Senate 

version but we have a lot of heartburn with the House version. 

Chairman McMahan: Thank you Sir. 

Representative Fitch: District 1, District 6 and 

District 12 - going to be 1,000 off the ideal population - you 

plan on working on that or do you plan on leaving it as is. 

Chairman McMahan: Yes Sir, the final Plan will have 

to continue to look at the population. As of right now we are 

- as | mentioned - we're only dividing 19 counties - we're 

actually only dividing 2 precincts. As we try to get this closer 

-- you know the question is will we need to go down to one 

    

    

  

  

 



  

  

      

3 
5 7% 
a 

449 

vote - one person districts - but to answer your question 

Representative Fitch, we do need to still do some minor 

adjustments with the Senate to get this probably less than 1,000 

- whether it needs to go to one - we'll have to decide that. I 

personally am more inclined to think that maybe we can use a 

200-250 number if it turns out to be necessary to keep from 

dividing precincts - but of course that would be something the 

Committee will have to decide and we'll decide with the 

Senate. : 

Representative Morgan: Thank you Mr. Chairman. It 

appears likely that the House will not accept the Senate Plan, 

and these bills, or one of these bills will go to Conference - and 

isn't that the time we'll have to finalize agreements to get it as 

close as we can, so each District will have the proper number. 

Chairman McMahan: Yes Sir, I do believe that what 

I hope we can do is to get feedback from the Committee 

Members today, and we’ll, actually spend the next few days 

sitting down with the leadership of the Senate Committee and 

look at the differences between the Plans and see if we can 

come to a Plan that we can all agree upon that we'll bring back 

to you and they will go back to the Senate - of course at that 

time if we can find a common ground, and we feel we can 

introduce a Plan to both Committees, and maybe run one bill in 

both Chambers - that will be the time we will make the 

adjustments for the size of the Districts. If we see that we 

cannot reach an agreement, or run one bill - Representative 

Morgan, I think the way you described it would be the way it 

would work. We’ll do it in the actual Conference Committee 

after we each do our own bill. 

 



  

450 

Representative Hill: Thank you Mr. Chairman, I agree 

with Representative Sutton - I hope we can do something about 

Robeson County because we're dividing the District all to 

pieces there. I like the 7" Congressional District, and I like 

keeping Hanover in District 3 - I don't think we need that in 

District 7 - if we can work out the numbers, I think he's got a 

good point. 

Chairman McMahan: Thank you, we'll certainly look 

at that. 

Representative Russell: Yes, I wanted to ask as we go 

into the process of deciding between the two Plans if we have 

concerns - for example - Wayne County is still split - Lenoir 

County is still split - do we put that request in writing to you or 

how do we communicate that. 

Chairman McMahan: Certainly you need to 

communicate it to me, and I think depending on the number 

that have remarks - I think that would be an excellentidea -- so 

if you would -- all Committee Members -- any thoughts or 

comments after you have had a chance to look at it later today-- 

if you would jot those down and give those to me - then we'll 

take those and use those as we meet with the Senate. 

Representative Sutton: Mr. Chairman, can you give us 

some feel for the time frame that you are going to be operating 

under for this - try to get an acceptable bill to both Houses prior 

to deciding that you are going to go with a particular bill - 

whatever it is - can you give me some time frame for that so 

we'll know how expeditiously we need to work and what have 

you. 

Chairman McMahan: Representative Sutton, I spoke 

with Senator Cooper yesterday. He agreed not to introduce his 

    

  

  

  
   



oi 

451 

bill until he had a chance to review our Plan following the 

presentation today. I think we'll get together during the next 

couple or three days and we'll see if we're going be able to put 

the two together - if not, then I would envision next week -- 

we'll have a Public Hearing tomorrow and get the feedback 
from the Public - factor all that in -- if we're not able to get 
together again next week - then try to come up with a House @ 

version to be introduced as a House bill - with them doing their 

bill. I envision that being done in the next week. 

Representative Justus: Hearing no positive remarks, 

Mr. Chairman, it must be a good Plan, because everybody must 

be dissatisfied. 

Chairman McMahan: Thank you very much. Any 

other questions or comments. If not, this meeting is adjourned. 

The meeting was adjourned at 1:25 P.M. 

  

  

  

  

  

/s/W. Edwin McMahan 

W. Edwin McMahan, Chairman » 

  /s/Sharon Cram 

a Sharon Cram, Committee Clerk 

  

    
 



  

452 

[This page intentionally left blank.] 

             



    

  

  
  

453 

SECTION 97C-28F-4E(3) (EXCERPTS) 

MINUTES 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON 

CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING 

MARCH 19, 1997 

3:15PM 

W. Edwin McMahan, Chairman 

[*1] Chairman McMahan: Good afternoon. I'm Ed 

McMahan and I'd like to welcome the Committee Members 

here today. I'd like to welcome the guests who are here with 

us. Our Pages for today are Kristen Howell from Ash County 

and Cynthia Ferrell from Johnston County. Welcome, we are 

glad you are with us this week. 

Before we get started and entertain questions about 

what is being passed out to you, I would like to open by 

making a few general comments to you. Some of us have been 

working very, very hard since our first Committee Meeting on 

February 12" to negotiate a Plan that would be acceptable to 

both bodies while still being racially fair, geographically 

compact, incumbency friendly, and divide as few counties as 

possible. [*2] During this period of time, of course, I have 

asked most of you to give me back any comments or feedback 

that you had, and we have tried to look at Plans and take your 

comments back and discuss them and try to incorporate them 

into the Plan -- again keeping in mind though that we needed 

to develop a Plan that could be approved by both bodies. I 

want to thank each and every one of you for the time you have



  

454 

put into it and the feedback you’ve given us. We also, of 

course, held a Public Hearing to hear from the citizens of North 

Carolina -- other legislators who are not actually serving on this 

Committee -- and we’ve tried to respond to their comments as 
best we can. We appear to be very, very close to agreeing on 

a Plan that at least the Chairpersons of the two Committees 

believe would be acceptable to both sides, but quite honestly I 

must tell you that we are not quite there. I have decided today 

to have the Committee Meeting and to bring to you one version 

of our Plan, and the one that I hope you will approve and 

recommend to the other House Members. The leadership of the 

House has asked me to work for a Plan that both sides could 

agree on and that is exactly what we have tried to do, but with 

the April 1* deadline only seven legislative days away, both - 

Senator Cooper and I believe that we need to proceed to 

approve a Plan in each Chamber and then let us continue to 

negotiate. Our goal was to come to an agreement before 

introducing a bill, but with the deadline pending, I think we 

need to move ahead. 

The Plan being shown to you today is what we call 

Plan G, and it’s the one that we actually presented back to the 

Senate -- or I did -- last Friday. We felt then, and we still do 

today, that this should be a Plan that’s acceptable to both sides. 

We have decided not to go back to an earlier version of our 

Plan as the Senate may do today when they meet at 4:00 P.M., 

because I personally believe that that really means moving 

backwards, and I certainly hope that this is not the case. I must 

say that I was somewhat disappointed yesterday when the 

Senate responded to the Plan you’ll see today and the response 

did seem to move somewhat backward. I want to still say that   
  

      
i 
a 

   



455 

we are very, very close and, in fact, the reason I was late 

coming over here was that Senator Cooper was talking to me, 

and we’re continuing to talk, and again, I think we’re very 

close to having a Plan that at least the Chairpersons agree upon. 

The Plan you see does maintain racial fairness in [*3] District 1 

and 12. We’ve actually agreed to increase the percent of 

minorities in District 12 to 46% and are now basically 

following the Senate Plan on District 1 and 12. We recognize 

the division that occurred in Robeson County, as far as the 

Indian population was concerned in the earlier plan, and we’ve 

corrected that problem. Also, we’ve moved to compromise 

District 3 to move New Hanover County back to District 7, and 

moved several Northeastern North Carolina Counties into 

District 3 as the Senate requested. In District 2 and 4, our Plan 

is intended to be a reasonable compromise. The Plan 

strengthens the number in District 4 for the Democrats, but it 

maintains in District 2 the balance that occurs under the current 

Plan. The current Plan and the Plan you’re looking at basically 

has approximately -- as best we can tell -- a 70/30 registration w 

in favor of the Democrats over the Republicans and, as best we 

can tell, it maintains about a 53/47 margin that Congressman 

Etheridge had during the last November election. So again, as 

far as District 4 is concerned, it is definitely with Durham 

County being added to that district -- it’s probably shifted 

towards the Democratic side. District 2 -- we’ve tried under 

this Plan, and Staff has been instructed to really sort of 

maintain what the current Plan shows. We believe that this 

approach is a fair approach and should be the basis for our 

agreement and, of course, I would again very much appreciate 

    

    
 



  

456 

the Committee Members support of this Plan and would ask for 

any comments or questions that you might have at this time. 

Representative Blue: Mr. Chairman, I noticed that in 

reading the cover sheet that you are basing it on election data 

from the ‘90 and ‘88 elections. Is there any particular reason 

the election data wasn’t updated to reflected current trends. 

Chairman McMahan: Representative Blue, we have 

actually gone and gotten this current data as best we can. What 

I described was based on the fall of last year’s election results. 

The printed data, of course, has been what’s been part of the 

package from the very beginning, and what’s been handed out 

doesn’t reflect the current figures because they are basically 

estimates. Staff has gone back and tried to go -- because the 

Districts are not the same, and obviously they overlap, and they 

actually involve several Congressional Candidates -- not just 

the Candidates presently holding office in 2 and 4 -- [¥4] so the 

figures that Senator Cooper and I are looking at actually are 

based on current registration as best we can determine ‘96 and 

also based on ‘96 election results. I don’t know whether you’d 

like Staff to comment on that. If you feel it appropriate, I 

would be very happy to ask them to. 

Representative Blue: No - my question I guess - and 

you’ve answered it - you’re saying that these maps now are 

based on ‘96 election results and Congressional races as well 

as the election data from the ‘90 Senate election, ‘88 Lieutenant 

Governor’s election, and the ‘88 Court of Appeals election. 

Chairman McMahan: Sort of a combination, Speaker 

Blue, of all of it. We’ve analyzed it from every angle and both 

sides have tried to come up with what could be the best set of 

data we can get. It is being analyzed not only on the old data 

    

      

  

 



    

  

457 

— what it is on is current data — particularly as it relates to 

District 4 and District 2, Speaker Blue, because those are the 

two that we feel like are the ones we are having to have the 

most discussionon. The rest of the Districts are — both sides I 

believe feel like we’ve balanced and left basically as they are. 

 



  

458 

[This page intentionally left blank.] 

   



    

  
  

    

  

459 

SECTION 97C-28F-4E(4) (EXCERPTS) 

MINUTES 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON 

CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING 

MARCH 25, 1997 

3:25 P.M. 

W. Edwin McMahan, Chairman 

[*2] [Chairman McMahan]: . . .I believe our Plan does a 

much better job than the Current Plan in providing geographic 

compactness, homogeneouscompatibility,and divides less than 

half the Counties than the current Plan does. At the same time, 

it recognizes racial fairness and is friendly to our incumbents, 

which we both determined on the front end to be an important 

consideration in this process. 

Now I hope that you the Members of the Committee 

will recognize this Plan as certainly not a perfect Plan, but a 

Plan that has been negotiated in good faith between both sides 

and will be found acceptable to you this afternoon. At this time 

I would like to call on Senator Cooper to say a few words. 

Senator Cooper: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I 

appreciate the opportunity to appear before your Committee. 

We are currently on the Senate floor debating the Excellent 

Schools Act so I need to get back as quickly as possible, but I 

would like to say that we as a Legislature were given the 

responsibility by the Courts before April 1* deadline to redraw 

these Districts. I think this agreement is a large step towards 

fulfilling that responsibility. It would be very easy to turn this 

 



  

460 

matter over to the Courts and avoid that responsibility. I think 

it’s also very easy to vote against the Plan because each one of 

us can find a problem with it. Those of you who dealt with 

Redistricting before realize that you cannot solve each problem 

that you encounter and everyone can find a problem with this 

Plan. However, I think that overall it provides for a fair, 

geographic, racial and partisan balance throughout the State of 

North Carolina. I think in order to come to an agreement all 

sides had to give a little bit, but I think we’ve reached an 

agreement that we can live with. I think it is much better than 

rolling the dice with the Federal Courts, and I hope that you 

will give it your due consideration. I also want to publicly 

thank Representative McMahan for working with me. It’s a 

very contentious issue and we have [*3] dealt with each other 

on an up front and honest basis from [t]he beginning, and I 

appreciate the opportunity of working with you on this 

Representative McMahan. 

[*3] Linwood Jones: The Plan we reported out last week 

was labeled Plan G. This is, of course, labeled ‘97 House 

Senate Plan. I’m doing this visually -- so I’m just going to give 

you some of the major differences, but in District 5, Ash and 

Yadkin have flipped between 5 and 10. In Iredell we have 

gone into Statesville, which I believe picked up the minority 

percentage of District 12 -- we came a little bit more out of 

Southern Rowan [*4] when we did that. District 7 and 8 down 

in the Cumberland, Robeson area is different -- we pick up a 

few more precincts along the western edge of Robeson County 

      

    

    
  

   



  

461 

-- Ft. Bragg goes into District 7, which is now represented by 

Congressman McIntyre. Sampson County is a little different 

in our Plan we passed last week -- we took a few more 

Northwestern Precincts from Sampson County into District 2 -- 

you can see we have retreated a little bit from that in this Plan. 

Wake County is different -- the major differences in Wake 

County are that a little more of Northwest Raleigh goes into a 

District 4. Inside the Beltline, a little more of that comes into 

District 2 than what we had put in Plan G last week. Those are   
the major changes. There are a couple of small changes in 

  

Jones and Craven Counties, but for the most part District 3 and 

  

District 1 are essentially the same as last week. 

  

of 

 



    
462 

[This page intentionally left blank.] 

 



    

  

  

463 

SECTION 97C-28F-4F(1) (EXCERPTS) 

HOUSE CONGRESSIONAL 

REDISTRICTING COMMITTEE 

DISCUSSION HOUSE FLOOR 3-26-97 

[*1] Speaker Brubaker: For what purpose does the Gentleman 

from Moore arise. 

Representative Morgan: Mr. Speaker, House Bill 586 - short 

title - Congressional Redistricting 2 is placed on today's 

calendar. 

Speaker Brubaker: Clerk will read. 

Clerk: House Congressional Redistricting Committee - House 

Committee Substitute for House Bill 586 - A bill to be entitled 

AN ACT TO DIVIDE NORTH CAROLINA INTO 

TWELVE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS. 

Speaker Brubaker: The Chair recognizes the Gentleman from 

Mecklenburg to explain the bill. 

Representative McMahan: Mr. Speaker - Members of the » 

House — Eight weeks ago today I was appointed by Speaker 

Brubaker to chair the Congressional Redistricting Committee. 

At the time, I really didn't know what I was getting into, but 

today I must wonder what I did to the Speaker to deserve this 

punishment. 

Seriously, I first want to thank the 25 Members of our 

Committee for their input and support. The Committee 

Substitute before you has received a favorable report from our 

Committee and does include the Plan agreed upon by the 

Senate Congressional Committee. So this Plan has been 

negotiated between both sides for the past eight weeks. It is not 

 



  

464 

a perfect Plan, but we have tried very hard to agree upon a Plan 

that is based on geographic compactness, racial fairness, 

population that is homogeneously compatible, incumbency 

friendly, and would divide the fewest number of counties and 

precincts as possible. The Current Plan divides 45 Counties 

and 80 precincts - new Plan divides 22 Counties and only 2 

Precincts. 

I want to point out to each member that this job has 

been made doubly hard because we received an ultimatum in 

1992 to have a second Majority /Minority District, but last year 

our 12" District, as you know, was ruled unconstitutional. So 

the point I [*2] want to make is that we have tried to agree on 

a Plan that will be approved by the Justice Department and also 

be found constitutional. : 

As I said earlier, we don't have a perfect Plan, but I 

want you to compare it closely to our Current Plan that I have 

placed on your desk. 

Starting in the West, please look at District 9, 10, 11 

and see that we no longer divide Buncumbe, Henderson, Polk, 

McDowell, and Rutherford County. 

The current Plan also has parts of District 5 extending 

into Burke, Caldwell and Wilkes County - our new Plan no 

longer splits those counties. 

We also have now Cleveland and Gaston together in 

District 9 and not divided as in the Current Plan. 

As you look at 12, we no longer extend from Gastonia 

to Durham - now only extends from Charlotte to Greensboro. 

We believe this District will now stand a Court test for the 

following reasons: 

         



465 

1. Not a Majority/ Minority District now so shape does 

not create that - that was the basis the Court used to say 

this was unconstitutional - not an argument now. 

2 Population in 12 has homogeneous interest - comprised 

of many citizens living in an urban setting. ® 

3 Drawn to protect the Democratic incumbent. 

  

All three factors are recognized as legitimate factors for 

drawing Congressional District Plans. 

Not a great deal of change has occurred in District 8 

except now we don't divide Moore County. 

District 6 is also very similar - except it includes Moore 

County. iti, 

[*3] Moving East, a great deal of change and certainl 

improvement has occurred due to realigning District 1 - old 

map has District 1 really scattered over the entire Eastern 

North Carolina. Now we have a considerably more compact@® 

District 1 that still has over 50% of a minority population. 

With the changes in District 1, we are now able to keep 

Columbus, Brunswick, New Hanover, Pender, Duplin and 

Onslow Counties together, and all in District 7 except Onslow, 

which is in District 3. 

District 3 also more compact because it does not now 

come from the coast all the way into Sampson and Duplin 

: County. 

| " Now to the Triangle where we have caused the most 
1 controversy. If you look at the Current Map, you see how 

District 2 wraps around Wake County on the north and takes 

     



  

466 

part of Durham County - now that District 12 from Charlotte no 

longer extends into Durham County, it certainly makes more 

sense to put Durham back together and combine it with Orange 

County and Chatham County -- counties already in District 4— 

than to either put it entirely in District 2 or extend District 1 

down from N/E to pick up Durham County. When we pick up 

Durham County, it obviously causes us to divide Wake County, 

and the logical division in my opinion is to include the 

Research Triangle and Western Wake County in with Durham 

and Chapel Hill, and Eastern Wake County moves into 

District 2. This also makes more sense to me than the original 

Senate Plan that divides Wake on a more East/West line with 

North Wake County going into District 4 — and South Wake 

County, including Cary, moving into District 2. This seems to 

make sense not only for geographic compactness but also the 

makeup of the population certainly appears more homogeneous 

with the Triangle and 3 major Universities together. I regret 

that this has not made some of my good friends from Wake 

County happy, but I would like to point out that the other major 

counties, Guilford, Forsyth, and Mecklenburg, are all divided 

and represented by 2 Congressman and that is not all bad. 

Major metropolitan areas have a lot of needs unique to their 

area and having 2 Congressman working together for your 

county can be very positive. 

[*4] So, to close, I ask each of you to look at what we 

have done as to a total Plan for our State - again, taking into 

consideration the directives we have from both the Justice 

Department, the Court, the incumbency issue and all the other 

factors. Please keep in mind all the many other factors we have 

had pulling on us in doing this job. Those of us involved have 

       



467 

done our dead level best to agree on a Plan that both sides of 

the aisle in each Chamber can support. Our alternative after 

next Tuesday will be to turn this matter over to the three judge 

panel to do our jobs. I am hopeful that we can forget the 

partisanship we may have on this issue and let's do this job that 

the Constitution directs us to do and not have to ask the Court 

to help us. I really don't think any of us want to send that kin) 

of message to the citizens across North Carolina. 

Please note that the bill also provides a back up plan 

that goes to 0% population variance if the Court should rule the 

Plan unconstitutional because of the very small variance we 

have between Districts. It will then divide 12 precincts in lieu 

of 2 to meet this requirement. Again, this is only in the event 

we need to go to 0% population, which most of us do not 

believe we will need to do. 

Mr. Speaker, Representative Sutton will offer an 

Amendment that makes a slight change in Robeson County that 

has been agreed to by all parties. It had been agreed to earlier 

but somehow got changed in the final Plan approved 

Committee yesterday, and I apologize for that. 

I understand that other Amendments will be offered and 

. i even though I want each Member offering an Amendment to 

_ know that I respect their reason for doing it, I must ask my 

fellow Members to please keep the Plan in tact. If one change 

is made, other than Representative Sutton, we will begin to 

unravel weeks of intense negotiations and agreements that have 

happened in small steps along the way. Please understand that 

I can appreciate the reason for the Amendments being offered, 

but I must ask both sides to please defeat them to protect the 

 



  

468 

integrity of the overall Plan so that we can get it approved in 

both bodies. 

Thank you. 

[*10] Representative Daughtry: Thank you Mr. Speaker. 

I hope this body will vote against this Amendment. No one has 

worked harder in a more difficult job than Representative 

McMahan has done in trying to work out with the Senate -- and 

there are two bodies by the way -- us and them -- and they 

would have liked very much to have drawn Districts that would 

have 7 Democrats and 5 Republicans. Likewise, we would like 

to have 7 Republicans and 5 Democrats, but we have 6 and 6 

and our agreement is that we talked to the incumbents about 

these Plans. At the same time, try to make them more compact, 

have communities together as best we can with commonalties 

of interest. [*11] This Plan has not been approved by the 

Senate. This Amendment would simply set us back and 

ultimately require Federal Judges to reapportion our State at a 

time when we don’t need that to occur. I urge you to vote 

against this Amendment. Vote for the Plan that has been 

worked on for eight weeks -- is a very delicate balance. I 

realize that many of you find it distasteful to see the way the 

Districts have been drawn, but under the circumstances -- the 

way the makeup of these bodies are -- it is the best that 

Representative McMahan and Senator Cooper could do based 

on these circumstances. Please vote against the Amendment. 

Thank you. 

    

 



469 

Speaker Brubaker: Further discussion -- further 

debate. If not, the question before the House is the Amendment 

sent forward from the Gentleman from Durham. Those in 

favor will vote aye -- opposed no -- the Clerk will open the 

vote. The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote -- 30 

in the affirmative -- 87 in the negative -- the Amendment fails. 

For what purpose does the Gentleman from Durham arise. I 

Representative Michaux: I have an Amendment to 

send forward. 

Speaker Brubaker: The Gentleman may send forward 

his Amendment. The Clerk will read the Amendment. 

Clerk: Representative Michaux moves to amend the 

bill on page 2, line 22 through page 17, line 10. 

Speaker Brubaker: The Chair recognizes the 

Gentleman from Durham to explain the Amendment. 

Representative Michaux: Mr. Speaker and Ladies and 

Gentlemen of the House, this is almost the same Amendment 

as before except some of the percentages have been changed. 

Let me tell you what is wrong with the Plan that has been » 

brought out here. They talk about the 12" District being held 

constitutional because it is not now a Majority/Minority 

District. The Court has said in its ruling that race cannot be a 

predominate factor -- other factors have to be taken into 

consideration, and that would be a community of interest, and 

even the shape that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor called 

attention to in here opinion. All you have done with the 

12" District in this bill is knock [*12] sixty miles off of it. 

That’s basically all that is done, because if you look at the 

configuration of the 12" District on the map that the Committee 

sent forth, you will see that it is basically the same 

  

 



  

470 

configuration with sixty miles lopped off of it. The 

Amendment takes the 12" District — broadens it to a degree 

and yet keeps an Influence District there where the 

Representative -- the incumbent Representative -- is in a good 

position to win that District. There are two other Districts, so 

I would urge you to adopt this Amendment. 

* % % 

[¥16] Representative Wainwright: Thank you 

Representative McMahan. In your opinion -- in this present 

Plan that is being presented today - do you feel that you have - 

the Committee has - truly set out any Minority Districts in this 

Plan - a true realistic Minority District. 

Representative McMahan: We certainly feel that 

District 1 - where it has been based on the old data - and I think 

the current data would even be more - we have more than 50% - 

of the population as minorities in District 1. I certainly do 

believe that would qualify as a Majority/Minority District. As 

far as District 12 -- I believe, again, that Congressman Mel 

Watt is very comfortable and anyone else that might choose as 

a minority to run in that District should feel very, very 

comfortable -- when there is 46.5% of the people in that 

District are also minorities -- that they could win. So, I think 

we've done our very, very best considering the Justice 

Department's ruling, the Court's ruling - we've done our very 

best to try to create two Districts that certainly do have racial 

fairness, and of course you have to keep in mind Representative 

Wainwright that we were instructed by the Court not to depend 

   



471 

solely on race. It can only be a factor -- along with other 

factors -- and that's what we've tried to do. 

Representative Wainwright: Follow up Mr. Speaker. 

Speaker Brubaker: Does the Gentleman yield - the 

Gentleman yields. 

Representative Wainwright: Certainly I want to 

commend you for your efforts and the efforts of the Committee ® 

in putting forth this Plan Representative McMahan. If you 

remove the element of incumbency out of this Plan, do you 

really think that a minority would have a fair chance of being 

elected especially in the District that I was in, and that takes me 

out of the District now and puts me in a different District in this 

Plan. Do you believe that a minority will have a fair chance of 

being elected if you remove the incumbency element out of it. 

Representative McMahan: Absolutely without any 

question. 

kx 

[*23] [Representative McMahan] . . . I am confident that we 

have done our best — our dead level best — to draw two Districts 

that are fair racially and do have one of them the majority of 

the population and the other one over 46%, and that’s the very 

best we could do on both sides, and we looked at this very, very 

closely — obviously — and the very best we could do and yet 

create Districts that we felt would be acceptable to the 

Department of Justice and to the Courts. 

 



    
472 

[This page intentionally left blank.] 

 



473 

SECTION 97C-28F-4F(2) (EXCERPTS) 

FLOOR DEBATE ON CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING 

SENATE CHAMBER THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 1997 

[*3] Reading Clerk: H.B. 586, A BILL TO BE ENTITLED 

AN ACT TO DIVIDE NORTH CAROLINA INTO TWELVE 

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS, reported favorably. p 

President: Senator Cooper is recognized to explain the bill. 

  

Senator Cooper: Thank you, Mr. President, members of the 

Senate. Today we have a congressional redistricting plan that 

splits forty-six (46) counties, that has six (6) counties which 

have three members of Congress, and which splits over 

eight [sic] (80) precincts. The plan we have today has some 

social merit. As a result of this plan, for the first time in many, 

many years, we have two minority members of Congress as a 

result of the current plan. However, we have a plan that is a 

geographic mess. I have, for your viewing pleasure if you wan 

to call it that, had placed on your desks a copy of the current 

map so that you can see how difficult it is for people to know 

in which Congressional district they reside. Last year, the 

United States Supreme Court ordered the Legislature to redraw 

the map as a result of the 12" Congressional District being 

declared unconstitutional. Now there are arguments for and 

against this decision. In fact, the Court found it close. It was 

a 5-4 decision and one of those Justices sort of wavered back 

and forth - Justice O’Connor. But the result was that the 

12™ District was held unconstitutional by a 5-4 decision and we 

were ordered by April 1 to come up with a new map. When 

  

  

  

    
 



  

474 

this process began, we had a House controlled by the 

Republican Party and a Senate controlled by the 

[*4] Democratic Party and people were saying that it couldn’t 

be done, that we could not reach an agreement. In fact, other 

states which had been ordered by the Court to redraw their 

plans under similar circumstances, other states have been 

unable to agree on a plan. I want to commend all of those who 

have been involved in this process because we have agreed on 

a plan - a plan that is fair and workable. You have the plan on 

your desk, it is entitled “97 House/Senate Plan A.” This plan 

reduces the number of counties that are split from forty-five 

(45) [sic] to twenty-two (22). There are now only 22 counties 

split under this plan. It reduces the number of precincts split 

from over eighty (80) to two (2) and those two precincts have 

special circumstances with satellite annexations, etc. and are 

split under most other plans as well. You have a plan which 

provides for geographic compactness, provides for 

consideration of community of interest, and provides for fair 

partisan balance. I think that all of the congressional districts 

would be competitive. However, it is likely that, if political 

fortunes remain the same, that we would end up with a plan that 

would elect six Democrats and six Republicans. We said from 

the beginning in the Senate that in 1996 the people made a 

decision to elect six members of Congress from the Democratic 

Party and six members of Congress from the Republican Party 

and we should not use court-ordered redistricting to alter that 

result. Therefore, we’ve come up with the plan that you see 

before you. In considering the plan, we looked at community 

of interest, looking at keeping precincts whole, at keeping 

counties whole as much as possible. We looked at making sure 

   



475 

that no counties had more than two members of Congress 

representing the county. We looked at racial fairness. Let me 

tell you a little bit about the 1* and the 12" Districts because the 

unconstitutionalityof the 12" District is the reason why we are 

here. You have the statistics on your desk, but the 1% District 

is majority minority, total population 50.27%. [*5] However, 

let me emphasize that race was not the predominate factor in@) 

drawing the 1* Congressional District. We have a district that 

has ten whole counties and ten split counties. It's a district 

which respects the rural agrarian nature of the northeast. It is 

a district which, I believe, that a minority member of Congress 

; or even a minority challenger would have an excellent chance 

. to be re-elected, but I believe the 1* District not only is 

. constitutional, but also complies with the Voting Rights Act 

which is also a responsibility we have with this plan to have it 

pre-cleared by the Justice Department and held constitutional 

by the Courts. The 12" District is almost 47% majority 

minority. Currently, the 12" District under our current plan is 

: majority minority. I believe that this new 12" District y 

| constitutional for several reasons. First, and maybe most 

| importantly, when the Court struck down the 12" District it was 

! because the 12" District was majority minority and it said that 

. you cannot use race as the predominate factor in drawing the 

1 districts. Well guess what! The 12" District, under this plan, 

is not majority minority. Therefore, it is my opinion and the 

opinion of many lawyers that the test outlined in Shaw vs. Hunt 

will not even be triggered because it is not a majority minority 

district and you won't even look at the shape of the district in 

considering whether it is constitutional. That makes an eminent 

amount of sense because what is the cut-off point for when you 

 



  

476 

have the trigger of when a district looks ugly. I think that the 

court will not even use the shape test, if you will, on the 12% 

District because it is not majority minority. It is strong 

minority influence, and I believe that a minority would have an 

excellent chance of being elected under the 12™ District. If, 

however, the court decides that the test is triggered for some 

reason and that we should look at the criteria outlined in Shaw 

vs. Hunt, you need to look at what the, how we have improved 

the shape of the 12" District. First, it is much more compact. 

It is 67% shorter in length [*6] than under the old plan and you 

see how the old plan stretches from Gastonia to Durham. You 

can drive the length of this district in two hours. It is the third 

shortest district in the entire State. It covers six (6) counties 

instead of ten (10), it connects the metropolitan area of 

Charlotte and the metropolitan area of the Triad. There is 

certainly a community of interest along that corridor, economic, 

social, and otherwise. It is much wider and it takes into 

consideration the incumbent and political balance. For all of 

those reasons, I believe that the 12% District will be held 

constitutional. Members of the Senate, redistricting is a 

difficult process - I don't want this job again, but I believe that 

we have been able to overcome partisan politics and we have 

been able to reach a plan that is fair to the people of North 

Carolina, and fair to all involved. The House agrees. 

Yesterday, the House voted unanimously in favor of this plan - 

87-30. Of those 87 members who voted “yes”, 52 were 

Republicans and 35 were Democrats. That is a good strong 

bipartisan show of support for this plan. I believe that this plan 

is acceptable to all of the members of Congress. There are a 

couple who have stated objections about the way that some area 

    

  

 



B
E
 

ai
e 

477 

had been moved around, but as far as the partisan nature of the 

districts is concerned, we have preserved the current partisan 

nature of each of the districts and for that reason, I think that all 

of the incumbents are satisfied. And let me emphasize to you 

that this is not an incumbent protection plan. This is a plan that 

attempts to preserve the partisan nature of each of the twelve 

districts as they now exist. 1 believe that we’ve done that with 

this plan. Members of the Senate, I encourage you to vote for 

this plan. We have a responsibility as a legislature to draw a 

plan. It’s easier politically to say “let the courts do it”, but 

that's rolling the dice. Number one, you don't know what you 

are going to get and, number two, it is shirking our 

responsibility as representatives of the people to do what the 

Court has [*7] ordered us to do. We may not like everything 

about the plan, there are some parts of the plan that I wish I 

could change, but the process of negotiations require give and 

take. That’s what has happened here. I think we have a result 

that is fair and equitable for all of the people of North Carolina 

and I encourage your “yes” vote. Thank you. 

[*21] Senator Blust: Let me first start out by saying that this 

is, this plan is and improvement over what we have now, no 

doubt about it. Senator Cooper has put in a lot of work on this. 

I admire his stamina sometimes, all the tasks he’s been given, 

he seems to perform very well in meeting with . . . . of them, 

but I think I am falling into a familiar role here, I guess I am 

starting to find any role on the team. I think more and more I 

am becoming the little boy who in the story, “The Emperor’s 

 



  

478 

New Clothes”, had to get up and say when no else dared to tell 

~ the Emperor that he was not wearing anything because he had 

been snuckered(?) by some con men tailors, a little kid not 

knowing what he was doing said in public one day that the 

Emperor didn’t have any clothes. At that point, once it was 

said everybody was free to realize that, but my problem with 

this plan is [*22] fundamental and I just don’t think - in 

anything you come out with a good result unless you have good 

fundamentals. Everybody now is excited about the Final Four 

and the Tarheels have been practicing all week, but most of 

their practice time, even at this level of competition, is drilling 

the fundamentals and drilling the fundamentals, because if you 

forget them everything else crashes down and the major 

weakness with this plan, quite frankly, and I think everybody 

here knows this is the truth whether they will get up and admit 

it or not it’s not going to make a difference, is the fundamental 

predicate was on protecting the current twelve. And that was 

the only way to really get a deal between the parties on this and 

get support for it and there were just two factors that went into 

developing this plan - one was protecting incumbents, the other 

was race. We might as well face that. Part of the problem is 

that the Courts have put, I think, ridiculous constraints on this 

process. Some of the problem lies in the fellows in the black 

robes, but we come to this Body and I think we sometimes lose 

our way, we forget the big picture, forget what it’s all about and 

I just want to quote from the Constitution of this State that sets 

up this Body and sets up our government and its says this in 

Article 1, Section 2 called “Sovereignty of the People - All 

political power is vested in and derived from the people; all 

government of right originates from the people, is founded 

   



479 

upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the 

whole” and 1 think concocting a plan based mainly on 

protecting twelve out of seven million (7,000,000) citizens 

means that the plan can’t be a good one. Logic teaches that if 

the premise of something is wrong, all the predicates that 

follow from that flawed premise aren’t really logical and here 

we have a premise that’s wrong and I think we forget this 

fundamental point about our government being for the people 

and the people having power, because what happens is 

politicians win an election [*23] and suddenly they seem to 

think they become entitled to their seats for as long as they 

want to have them. That’s what we have, we have it at every 

level, we have it here in our district system, we have it in 

Congress, if once you are elected you search, there’s a science 

behind this, I hear people arguing over I want this precinct, I 

want that precinct, solely designed to make it easier for them to 

retain their seat and we argued in here the other day on a bill 

about tenure. I think what we have in our redistricting is a form 

of political tenure and two of these seats, in 1994 the publi 

voted one way and in 1996 another. So now in 1997 that we’ve 

got an opportunity because of a court decision to redo the 

districts, we are gonna do it to solidify what happened in “[sic] 

96 so that in ‘98 maybe a difference public can’t see it 

differently. You know, sometimes I talk to people and talk 

about government and try to keep it on the basics and I have 

found that you can hold up a map of our districts and you don’t 

even have to say any more when you are trying to make the 

point that government has gone astray somewhat, people look 

at these things and they can see it without any need for anything 

more and we have been talking about districts here. Someone 

 



  

480 

said that one of the districts is too long, look at District 5, here. 

It goes along the Virginia border forever. No one tried to 

correct that and I just don’t see any rational plan to make 

districts concise to where they serve the people in the 

community and I’ll just give one example. There’s actually a 

precinct in Mecklenburg that is split between everybody else in 

the precinct and one person, one house, and I’m told, wait a 

second, it’s not one house, there is some industrial area around 

it and that had to be split in order to keep one of these districts 

contiguous. That is the kind of . . . . we go through here and 

someone, Senator Hoyle, mentioned that 51 House Republicans 

voted for this as if that is some kind of . . . . between House 

Republicans and Senate Republicans. Well, I don’t know how 

to explain that, I don’t think when [*24] we are pointing the 

fingers over district there’s a, any party can say anything about 

the other and have totally clean hands, but I do fear that some 

of my brethren in the House may have lost their way and 

bought into this, bought into this idea that we’ve got to protect 

the current twelve and I just think that’s a fundamental flaw and 

I hear some chuckling and maybe I am too naive for this job, I 

decided to become a Republican because I thought we, as 

Republicans, believed in a certain set of principles and ideals 

and when I see one of the fundamental ideals behind 

government being violated, I just can’t bring myself to support 

it. Thank you. 

   



481 

[¥24] Senator Lucas: Senator Cooper, many of my 

constituents were concerned about their not being placed with 

District 1. Can you explain to me why that was not possible? 

Senator Cooper: Thank you, Senator Lucas, I know that there 

are numerous members of the community of Durham, 

particularly in a minority community of Durham, who are  S 

concerned about this plan. [*25] Currently in the 12 District 

is where the minority community of Durham resides. 

Unfortunately, that is the very tale end of the 12" District and 

I think everyone understands that in order to draw a map that is 

constitutional, you cannot include Durham in the 12" District 

and I think that, although the wishes and the desires may be 

there, it’s not possible. The reason that, really twofold, as to 

why we did not go with the Durham County and pick up the 

minority portion of Durham County and put it in the 1%, the 

first reason is that we very much wanted to retain the rural 

agrarian nature of the northeastern North Carolina 1 District. 

That was very important. The court talks a lot abouielly 

communities of interest and when you put urban Durham in 

with the rest of rural northeastern North Carolina, you run into 

the same problems that you run into with Senator Cochrane’s 

amendment and you can . . . . of the courts, and secondly, I do 

think if you did that then it would be clear that race would have 

been the predominate factor in drawing the 1* District. For 

those two reasons, it was not done. 

 





 



  

  

  

  

  

  

   



    
    
    

    

  

   

    
   
     

  

    
    

  

Robinson o. Everett 

= Seth Neyhart es 

 Everett& Everett: 

     

     

   
   

  

      
    

      
     

    

   
- NC Attorney General 
.. Tiare B. Smiley* | 
. Norma S. Harrell 

NC Department of Justice 
* Post Office Box 629. 
Raleigh, NC 276020629 She 

Telephone: (919) 716-6900 a 

Counsel for Appellants. rol 

  

Davis & T uttle. P. AL 
Hea - Post Office Box 2 

i dam Stein 
: Ferguson. Stein. Wallas LE 
dkins Gresham & Sumer i a 
12W. Franklin Street =~ 
hapel Hill, NC 27514 

elephone: 019) 933- 5300 a        Foon geno 77219-0923 
: elephione: 013) 655-8700 

‘odd Cox* 

NAACP Legal Defense & ° 0 
ducational Fund, Inc. 

Washington, DC:20005° = vo 

Telephone 02). 682- 3300 ra 

  

i Counsel for Appeies 

+ Counsel for Appellant a 
 Intervenors 

~~ *Counsel of Record 

   



  

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

VOLUME I 

Chronological List of Relevant Docket Entries 

- Stipulations from Pre-Trial Order (excerpts) . 

TRIAL TRANSCRIPT EXCERPTS 

Opening Statement of Tiare B. Smiley ...... 

Hamilton Horton RIN in 

Steven Ray Wood TR gr Ee Tg 

JoonHush Weatherly ............c000ent 

Reuben OscarEverett.................... 

JH.Froelich cn. cu eve sevesaioneesss 

Neil Carson Williams... ................. 

DanlPrey . co rieiiisarssnsenrndivnns 

Dr.Ronald E. Weber .........covserunees 

Roy A. Cooper, Jl ........co0vvcecrenssns 

W. Edwin McMahan ............coouun.. 

Dr.David W.Peterson ......cceevvernse., 

Gerry Cohen ... ovr scvvsvcninsnsitn sons 

 



  

ii 

Closing Argument of Adam Stein ................. 

EXHIBITS 

Type P Divergent Segments (Exhibit 23) ........... 

Type R Divergent Segments (Exhibit24) ........... 

Summary of Divergent Precincts and Segments 
1 EO aa A oh 

Declaration of Ronald E. Weber (excerpts) 
Ebi AY saa 

February 10, 1997 E-mail from Gerry Cohen 
EXhRS8Y ne LT 

North Carolina Section 5 Submission for 1997 
Congressional Redistricting Plan 
(Exhibit 100) (excerpts) 

Information Supporting North Carolina’s 
Section 5 Submission (excerpts) ......... 

- Section 97C-28F-4D(2) Senate Committee 

Minutes (February 20, 1997) ............ 

Section 97C-28F-4D(3) Senate Committee 
Minutes (March 19,1997) .............. 

Section 97C-28F-4E(1) House Committee 
Minutes (February 12, 1997) (excerpts) .... 

Section 97C-28F-4E(2) House Committee 

    

  

 



iii 

. Minutes (February 25,1997) ............. 443 

Section 97C-28F-4E(3) House Committee 

Minutes (March 19, 1997) (excerpts) ...... 453 
  

Section 97C-28F-4E(4) House Committee 
Minutes (March 25, 1997) (excerpts) ...... 459 PS 

Section 97C-28F-4F(1) House Floor 
Debate (excerpts) ..... 00 ie ved diuivv ans 463 

Section 97C-28F-4F(2) Senate Floor 

Debate)(excerpts) ...:.... 0 eheerenin. es 473 

VOLUME II 

Map of Precincts by Percent of Population Black 
with Congressional District Line Overlay 
CEXNII0BY vc vne i neces iiansie 483 

Forsyth Precincts by Percent of Population Black w 
with Democratic Registration Values 
ExXhibR 108) .. cinco tes i dati Bienes 484 

North Carolina Counties by Percent of Population 
Black with 12™ Congressional District Overlay 
(EXD 124) aun hn a tai bash 485 

Congressional District 12 - 1992 versus 1997 

fT RL ER Se 1h SE 486 

Forsyth County Precinct Map (Exhibit 143) .......... 487   
 



  

iv 

Guilford County Precinct Map (Exhibit 144) ER 

District 12 Region Precincts by Percent Democrat 

Vote in 1988 Court of Appeals Race 

RU | 

Forsyth County Voter Precincts by Percent 
Democratic Vote in 1988 COA Race 

ExhiblZS5) oi vai 

Guilford County Precincts by Percent 
Democratic Vote in 1988 COA Race 

(EX I86) os trae. vin 

Mecklenburg County Precincts by Percent 
Democratic Vote in 1988 COA Race 

LIU | IE i ET a nn 

District 12 Region Precincts by Percent Democratic 
Vote in 1990 Senate Race (Exhibit 263) ..... 

Forsyth County Voter Precincts by Percent 
Democrat Vote in 1990 Senate Race 
E268) Ee casa I 

Guilford County Voter Precincts by Percent 
Democrat Vote in 1990 Senate Race 

E260) 5. ait rem i, 

Mecklenburg County Voter Precincts by Percent 
Democrat Vote in 1990 Senate Race 

(EXD 0B)... ovis ea hii he 

    

  

 



  

Vv 

North Carolina 1990 Population Density 

(By Block Group) (Exhibit 270) ............. 497 

Map of 1980s Congressional Districts in 
North Carolina (Exhibit 288A) .............. 498 

Map of [1970s] Congressional Districts (11 Districts) 
Exuibit229) 2 a ams, , 19/4) 

Comparative Map[s] of the 12 District, from 98C-27A-3C 
(1998 Section 5 Submission) (Exhibit 305) 

1992 Congressional Plan ..... 0... 000, 500 

97 House/Senate Plan A ....... 0 cine viic ons 501 

98 Congressional Plan A ................... 502 

A Chronology on North Carolina Redistricting 

in the 1990s (Exhibit 306) (excerpts) ......... 503 

Proportion of Precincts in Six Counties That Are a 
in Congressional District 12, 1997 Plan 

(Exhibit 300) sb. Sie dia Vein sa vs 515 

Photograph of Default Screen in Plan90 
SLi) SE IE OER SER Sai 517 

Photograph of Plan90 Screen Showing County with 
Precinct with Precinct Lines and Data Window 
Sized as Generally Used (Exhibit 405) ........ 518 

Photograph of Plan 90 Screen Showing Democrat 
Percentage Labels (Exhibit 411) ............. 519 

 



  

vi 

Photograph of Plan90 Screen Showing Data Window 
for a Precinct (Exhibit416) ................. 

An Evaluation of North Carolina’s 1998 

Congressional Districts [1997 Plan], 

Gerald R. Webster, PhD (Exhibit 421) 

(CHCEIPIBY «is vite ernie vs dr vid anata wands ve 

Addendum to “An Evaluation of North 
Carolina’s 1998 Congressional Districts 
[1997 Plan],” Gerald R. Webster, PhD 
(Exhibit 426) (eXcerpis) .....ccoei tne sinvin'sn 

Third Affidavit of David W. Peterson, PhD 

GLa) een A eT a BR Te 

Guilford County Precincts “Excluded” By 
Elm and Lee Streets (Exhibit 437) ............ 

DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT EXCERPTS 

DonNichols Baker... i. iiss inv iodaur its 

Gerry Farmer Cohen uit. us i does iin vie, 

Roy Asberry Cooper, TH... civic ivi, sven is 

YH Froelich... ... co ind iho Td oo BLE 

    

    

   

      

   
   

    

    
   
   

   
   

  



vii 

Ronald BE, Weber, PhD) eevee i vii vanainnnns oun 743 

Gerald R Webster, PhD vii es conse ssuvannnviin 765 

LeslieWinner ., ...c ete sisi iisiidnan vive wminnis 769 

| OTHER 

Materials from Shaw v. Hunt, No. 92-202-CIV-5-BR 

Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate, 

October 14, 1997 . .. con. ti cian saddniinis 791 

Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of Motion to 

Consolidate, October 14, 1997 .............. 797 

Order [denying motion to consolidate], 

October 16,1997... vs itis si stss ans a 803 

Trial Testimony of Gerry Cohen (excerpts) .......... 805 

Deposition Transcript of Gerry Cohen (excerpts) ..... . 81 ; 

Materials from Pope v. Blue, No. 3:92-CV-71-PR 

Deposition Transcript of Gerry Cohen (excerpts) ...... 821   
 



  "e i A Ee NL ME SE a we SI 
lack 

| 

Precincts by Percept of Population Blac $ | 

March 17, 1998 | 
| 

with Congressiona] Distric Line Oy erlan 

Snery County 

Shes County 

¥ i 

(Yeduin Cova 
k bls 3 : ; ny 1 $s 

i [ ] 0-35 Percent Black 

aa 
ee 

g ; = 

H a 35 = 40 Percent Black 

10 = 100 Percent Black 

fLognty-- 

County 

vie Bu 

Meranaer Lo 

Dovie Count, 

  [IE. 
be otiry— 

’ t te 

Fondo pi iCauniy—- 
Catawba County 

: 4 J 
—t— | % : Sn 

Rowen Coun 
: 

7 y 

    

f ¢ 3 f 
Linvaln Sogriy 

- ag 5 BY 
ater iusLount, — REY p 

" ph 

Mantge= ar, & Staniy Count, 

Moore County 

hon County ’ f 

  

  

  

  

    
   



    

ation Values 11) 

- 

alice R 
>. th Demo Wl     

r
E
 
 
 

 
 

(C004) Boundary Dist. 

40 Percent Black 35 - 
‘ 
. 

40 = 100 Percent Black 

oo 

2 

RES 

Rates 

a
a
 

A
 

n
a
 as 

Xo 
e
e
,
 

S
A
 20 

E
E
 

S
s
 

ARE 
>, 

A
a
n
 

 
 

R
n
 

x. 

C
y
 

    

tem 

ght 1990 

Sys ng. ~f 1ST Reda 

[tware Copyr NO 

 
 

 
 

 
   

 
 

 
 

         



    
   

  

485 

  
  

  

  

     

     

  

   

   
    
          

        

  

    

  

      
    
   

North Carolina Counties by Percent of Population Black with 12th Congressional District Overlay 

Eel ART Ne 

JNVilkes A 

470 

Yadkin 

j 4.25 

Tod 
Guifforcd 
03.33 8 

Alexander 

6.07 

Davidson ] 
9.72 | 

; Randolph 
Catawba 508" 

G03 

Lincoln 

8.16 

re wr — 

ath Uninet 

Fercent Bincs 

Cabarrus a 
12.99 / Stanly 

Gaston 11.54 
: 12.85 : Mackinnon 

i 98.29) 

Picnmond 

PERN   
 



  

486 

  

Congressional District 12 - 1992 versus 1997 

  

  

      
  

  

Witkes 

  

Alexander     
  

  Catawba 

    

Uncoln 

ni 
rion Anson Richmond 

  
Hoke 

  

  

  

  

  

          

  

 



487 

  

  

Forsyth County Precinct Map 

  

Yadkin     
    

    

     

     
     

    

Vanna #3 

Lewsville #3 

Vanna #2 

Vienna #1 

Lewisville #2 

     
Legend 

or 

= 

87 Cong 

82 Cong 

Precinct 

County       
Jatterson Elmantary Behoot 

R— 

Rh THUIch 

   

  

Bethania 12 ee 
Bethanae 3 

4 ; Forsyth 

Na 1  — 

Hew Hope Unec Methodis: Chureh 

~ ——— / 

~ D1 Toph #3; 

Old Town PSA Charen 
~— 

Mudigtork £3 Forel | Fire Staton 

Brown/Dougtas Recrespon Mnecal Bprngs F BY 
- pa 

te rsa 

“ Fa 
7 

/ 
ie! 

 Bethabars Moravian Church 
~ 

-’ 1} 

{ 
St Anne's Epscops! Church Vv 

di rT  —— toa gos pr A ! Carver High Sq 00 Middietork #2 

own EL HIT Tabex High Behopl™ orial Sonia 

ig Hanes Community Center 3 fr 
Pom Park Recreation Center ance Middle Sahoo! o 

Summit Schoo! Aphiay Middle Scho? .. 
ML KingRecreation CoRteT] | L- 

np Fores! rb sihol~, ol ~~ Vdtn Gireet Recreatidh Center J 
Wheaker Elementary | Behoc) nedy Middle Schoo! 7 Winston Lake Famiy YMCA 

Meviian foravian Chueh Beynon High School G gp 

_Mt Sinai Church 

  

gy Chee Methodii Church East Winston Library 
So” Fr Sivintan Church Riumon Ele Schodl ~~ rr 

TT jv = Christ Woravian Chugh 
Country ClubFirs'St GreekOrthodsx Church pny #0 Recreaton Center 

|" SoutvEork Elem Schoo! <—Argmore-Bagtis} Chueh = | ~81 Andrews United Methed 
Tr — Paricday Unxett Church %, 4 i 

— SHE : Latham Elementary [Schvgl 

; ——— | Rorest'P, Elementary Sch op 

rt” 

Pm. 

r——— 

Si 

  

  

Broadbay #1 

h Hill Middie Schof 
Tiny Rarer amn, a 

ho 

Pie Middle 8 y b i Fl i Eston ways 
; r ! J fie 

; { 
CHE wt Bible aah a 

~—Rarkiand High Schoo! 

Covensin Presbyteria 

id ¥ 5 Fi 

Foteyth Tech W. Caritey — Baton McGuiniess | — 
La ~Boton  Simaning Canter 

Broadbay #2 

hurch 

———— 

Osk Ridge 

  Kernersvile #2 

Kernersville #3 - 

= Kernersville md 

  

  

Deep River 
. Abbotts Creek #3 
S— 

- ~~ 

Guilford 

1 Abbotts Creek #1   

  

    

South Fork #2 

  

Davidson Arcadia 

Abbotts Creek #2 i 
{ 

| HP.24 

  

Abbotts Creek 

  

  

I~ 

— 

4 

ly 
os, 

» Pd 

2 al 

z      
EXHIBIT 

  

   



488 

  

  

Guilford County Precinct Map 

      

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  
        

      

  

  

          

— ; A | swell oe New Bene Rockingham  voens fecrsie ne Waipmaug Saswe : i H— 

Swketcaw i | i 

{ | 

Bevews Crook = i hart uses ! 

ii Lye Norm Center Grove NOT ied Nori Vashmgion 
nn Cir i 

i & Brce | 
; Forsyth : Re { 
: ; y Guilford ~~ “5 

J Salem Chapel 12 i — TY EE i 
oh ur ~~. = - 0 -~ PI i | t 

Osx Ricge Te - f nil Be iti 
— i \ 

J ST Center Grove South Medion ~ P—— | — | 
ve oF FY South Washington { wl ’ 

mite ce Spe———— ; * oB.418" = i a i fl 

rn RAIA Oh TE Se ee LR eo SIRE Cl Lo Ee t ge) ; i & 
— 08.408 gp" tor ¥ —— Boor 42 ! ri ; - ———— 

_ GB-2TC — Lo Frencurvp-1 er T  oamy OO | —- 
08-10 pg an — i rt =. 

68. . : NAT i i a. BG! 0 v 

~ — FT EE, Che] [i 68-19 CT 
Fn il 2 GB.MB, Mn - Bosonviie on mow r 6B-34A ~ i , I Step Rin? A 68-3 A \ GB-12 68-03, Norm Jetierson i i «North Boone 

RA Sn ll on 
~~ TS, South Jeflerson — = 

~. - 
ee . 

HP.24 H2y Nr AY } 

5 i ia oF Fevuss-2 | T Gg RR ne Alamance = sik 

\ er” | 
\ “upg J Ll 2} . ! { 

i HP-17 z ; 5 d 
| es ; egen 

Abbotts Creek 0 | g 
~~ 1 HP-09 —— HP.O5 | i 

ip —T } County 

. Lo dnp ory i 1 i i 
i“ - Th | Graene [A Precinct 

Be or r i Fentress. 1 i 

ge an =H! 82 Cong 

0.15, way Pee | : Pan r~ sflerson 

HP.14 ~~ EE a7 Cong 
Thomaswie Ng, B 4 i $54 Lr 

act | 
roman No Progp West Archdale East Archdale | North New Marke! ra ; J (®) | nN T 

m— 

  
  

  

  
 



489 

  

 
 

 
 

    

tember 7, 1999 I he 1 id 

a
 

~
 

he 
. s
d
 

~
 

*
 

—- 
—
t
 

s—d 
p
f
 

—
—
 

r 
S
—
 

1 L 

t
t
t
 

. 

at 
—— 

A
 

A 
-~ 

> 

n
t
 

p
—
 

‘ 

d
o
?
 

—
 

Ns? 

—
 

p
o
 

r
a
 

sy 
A—g— 

—
 

i
.
 

i 
a
—
 

w
d
 — 

4 
—
 

m
t
 

. 
—
 

«
p
d
 

- dur 

a
 

- 

H
—
—
y
 

" 
i
 

- 
S
L
 

Tenant 

-— 
—
 

s 
—
 

lary County Bounce 

VIL Boundary 

Democrat } 0- 39.9 

nem—— {J 050. Bocndinry (C004) 

— 

Democrat 10 - 49.9% { 

7 Democrat = 100 

 
 

ELLE 

    
 
 

 
 

Au 03 RE [] — 

  =     

 
 

 
 

 
 

  
 
 

 
 

      

  
  

  
 
 

    
 
 

  
  

 
 

  
 
 

    

  
  

  
  

 
  
 

wn py 

  

 
 

IRN © ——— 

      
 



  

490 
  

1997 Congressional Plan — Forsyth County 

Voter Precincts by Percent Democratic Vote in 1988 COA Race 
  

  
  
  

    

  

= 

  

  
    

  

  

            

  
  

  

  

r———— County Boundary 

VID Boundary RS 

Dist. Boundary (C004) 

te 0 - 39.9% Democrat 

40 - 49.9% Democrat 

— 50 — 59.9% Democrat 

| 60 — 100% Democrat 

  

      
      N.C. General Assembly 

Legislative Services Ofc. 
Redistricting System 
Software Copyright 1990 
Public Systems Associates 
      
  

 



491 

  

  

1997 Congressional Plan — Guilford County 

Voter Precincts by Percent Democratic Vote in 1988 COA Race 

    

  

  

  

oR 

  

22 
4 Xe Ss 0% SX 

  

  
  

  

   

    

    

    

1! —— County Boundary 

VTD Boundary 

Dist. Boundary (C004) 

Em 0 — 39.9% Democrat 

OOOO 40 — 49.9% Democrat 

XA 50 ~ 59.9% Democrat 

~~~ 60 - 100% Democrat 

  
  

      
          ee brid a Sed N.C. General Assembly 

Legislative Services Ofc. 
Redistricting System 

Software Copyright 1990 

Public Systems Associates 
  

  

  
  

  

 



492 
  

  

| 1997 Congressional Plan - Mecklenburg County 
| Voter Precincts by Percent Democratic Vote in 1988 COA Race 
          
  

  

  

  

A EE: County Boundary 

VID Boundary 

Dist. Boundary (C004) 

[C1] 0-39.9% Democrat . 

LN 40 - 49.9% Democrat 

PSS X, 50 — 59.9% Democrat 
ROI 

| 60 — 100% Democrat 
  

  

  
          

      
    

  
  

N.C. General Assembly 
Legislative Services Ofc. 
Redistricting System 

Software Copyright 1990 

Public Systems Associates 
  
  

  

  

      

          
    

 



  
  

  

  
  

  

  

1999 

  

  

  

  

  

      
          

  

  
  

  

    

  

    

  
  

  

Cc { 
tT SR RE A | . } i oF t A 

I #4 1 | ~ t 
I ) 3 } 

{ 

| 
Iver ye Ty ey SERA TRE CR 

‘ 

Sent 5 alg il September 21, etm" ey te —— 
So Er—— r—————— 

I mr mts 
! 

- = -~ 
= 

EE A RE RL isi ain in 

—— Caunty Boundary " 

[eit 
{ eye — 

| 

Il 
Ale glans iv aa 

i { } 0 = 44.9% Democrut 

: 

i cAirnidon) 
i “ - 

ie 1) { 40 = 19.97 Democrat 

  \
 

Granvile     
  

  

' 

hou
s 

Catongeiicnny { a 
: 7 

\ 

       
  

       

  

  
  

- g= ¥ 

ERR     

   

  

   

bo
n r~
r 

A 
“ 

> 

A
   

  

   Oneiharifiouny], 
No 

a an 

~~ 

H 1 AY f 
] [ / ny E a ; 

pep ign : % \ ¥ 5 
fo \ 14 ud { 

[ NES { 7 - 

k 1 A 

“od Lount ps > 
» \ Mentgctres Consty : 
A bia TA nad + 

     

    

  
bertons Col 

  

    

7 od 

Ar 
oN 4 : 3 - pe 

gin 
my TEL fe 

J eg > 

      

  

County 

it [ mon] Dh = 59.97 Detmocral 

60 ~ 1007 Democrat 

List, Havadaey (07004 ) 

  
      

   
  

  

      

> i 

. y AN > 
/ 

rd . ” 
. 5 5% 

: thi § 
Wi dand Count Y 1 8 pa y P \ Po CNA Va 

- 
ot Fug 

fe 

— — = 3 EE Sal — 
3 

  

      
            

  

  

  

  

 



494 

  1997 Congressional Plan — Forsyth County 

Voter Precincts by Percent Democrat Vote in 

1990 Senate Race 
September 13, 1999 

  
    

    

  

  
w 

    
  

  

  

  

  

        
    
  

  

} 

1 

| 

| cme COUR LY Boundary 

VID Bounsary M————— c y 

| peasy Dist Boundary (C004) 

[as 0 - 39.8% Democrat 

VI 40 - 49.9% Democrat 

50 - 59.9% Democrat 

{ 80 ~ 100% Democrat 

    
  

  
N.C. General Assemb 

Legislative Services Ofc. 

Redistricting ! 

Software Copyright 191 

Public § stem n 
>            



  

495 

  
1997 Congressional Plan - Guilford County 

Precincts by Percent Democrat Vote 2 
in 1990 Senate Race September 7. 1993 

    Ts | 
  

  
  

{| — COUDLY Boundary 

—— LL EO GOGCY CE 
remem Dist. Boundary (C004) 

i SE 0 - 30.9% Democrat 

fe, 40 - 48.9% Democrat 

50 - 59.9% Democrat 

60 - 100% Democrat 

    
  

  
        

            
SE esd ARR 

{ 7 va a sa A : cl NY \ 

XIAN \ 

  | | 

    
  

  

        
    

    
      
  

  
    
 



496 

  

1997 Congressional Plan — Mecklenburg County 
Precincts by Percent Democrat Vote in 

1990 Senate Race 
September 13, 1999 
  

    
  

IRORND 

  

—— County Boundary       

    
| prem Dist. Boundary (C004) 
[1 0-230.9% Democrat 

[1] 40- 48.8% Democrat 

50 - 58.9% Democrat 

60 - 100% Democrat 

    
  

  

    
  

                   



497 

North Carolina 1990 Population Density 

(By Block Group) 

———. 
  

  

  

  

LEGEND 

Persona Per Square Mile 

0-50 

51-150 : 

151.50 
ge NRUNSWICK 

\ 4 on h 
50 -2,000 

More Than 2,000 

Major Hydrography 

1997 Congressional 
District Boun 
(Districts 1 & 12) 

State/County Boundary 
ne wigs 

Block Group Boundary 

  

  

Map Prepared November 1999 by the 

N.C. Center for Geographic Information & Analysis 

301 N. Wilmington 5¢., Sulte 700 * Raleigh, NC 27601-2825 

Phone: (919)733-2090  



 
 

 
 

  

NORTH 
CAROM@NA 

 
 

 
 

 
   

  

    
   
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
    



  

  

  

499 

Map of Congressional Districts, Counties, and Selected Cities 

(11 Districts) 

  

  
| \ ( | Bw Kibturhed Se > ARBRE N 

caswiu, Posen dt TY 4 

  nel 

EN Asilremany ; 

asME Ne #5 

        
  

  

   
  

=F" Con fuan Or0 Than 

REENSS : 
WINSTON -satem © % PANN ROCKY MOUNT 

di * # BURLING TON 
- H io 1 . ie wase Pr oaccouss 

oavit oO v APEL HILL 

anson 
RALEIGH WiSON 

ci 

Ld IN.OVBE Tuc DOWELL 

  

& DAV'DSON 

vd [ TEL Y TH PANDO iis io want 6 

é@ . 

HAT WOUD ALISBUR 
ASHE Vie ——— Et 

Swan > RUTHERFORD ' Ns A Waly L484R8US “a, nine 

GRANAN WENBLRASON GAST pe ee ~~, MOORE 

CLEVELAND SOR %,) on, NRT 

NT CHARLOTTE £ * 
CLAY UNION 1 ANSON ; ES 

( 

WILMINGTO 
COLUMBUS 

  

  

  

   

SRUNSWILE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC STATISTICS ADMINISTRATION 

BUREAU OF THE CENSUS 

  
  

1 
S
A
d
I
U
N
I
V
I
d
 

Lg
iH
xa
 

          

       

    

      

 



1992 Congressional Plan 
  

  
    

Alleghany 
  

  

Lo 

Rockingham Caswell 1 Person 

    

  
  

Catawba 

  

  

Alamance     

  
  

  

4 
Randolph Chatham     

Lincoln 

  

Gaston 9g 

A ; 
Dag A 

  

  
Anson) Richmond 

  
‘Montgomery 

Scotland 
  

  
      

Praduced bv the North Carolina General Assembly. [  . Svstems Division. May 20. 1998  



97 House/Senate Plan A 

  

  

  

    

  

Alleghany 

Stokes : - 2 Rockingham Caswell Rerson 

        
  

Wilkes y rsyth Ha 
: iil | 

3 Wy | Guilford | Lg 4 
| 2 ~~ 7 \ 

Hwa” a 

wi 7 hol f Orange 

gon Alamance Durham 

    
a ;   

i 
FY al 7] 
AFL] Alexander a ; He ; 

{ Chatham 

Pe a if 
AE     

  

  

Catawba Randolph     
  Lincoln 

Harnett 
  

Cabarrus 
Gaston S Stanly ¢ Montgomery 

Mecklenburg- : 
§ an \ ( Ys 

! 

\ 1 2 5 Ti 

Anson 

Richmond 

  
Scotland 

    
   



98 Congressional Plan A 
  

  Alleghany /-. i sais 

i Stokes ov r Rockingham : 

a Forsyth on : x ; ¢ Fh : : ¥ Ro : : ThE Yadkin . 3 | : pea EL Lg . 4 

Person 

        
  

  

La   1     
Guilford Orange 

Alamance Durham Alexander 
SEE :   x N > - y of rr ————— 

Iredell / §, 

{ 
Davidson 

§ 

  

Randolph \ Chatham       Lincoln 

ge Cabarrus Stanly Montgomery 
Mécklenburg- 

i 7 X Wea 

PE 

Richmond on y 
~~ Cumberland 

  
  

Scotland          



  

 
 

G
i
 
e
e
 
e
e
 

el 
a
d
 
D
I
 

   
 



503 

EXHIBIT 306 - A CHRONOLOGY OF NORTH CAROLINA 
"REDISTRICTING IN THE 1990s. AUGUST 1999 (EXCERPTS). 

  
THIS EXHIBIT WAS ADMITTED FOR 

TIMES AND DATES ONLY 

    
y [me Harold Re ri a 

Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting, headed 
by | Rep Robey St gra. : 
     

      

  

Rn 0. Everett files a v. Tin unt in nu. S. 
Eastern District of N.C., using a Shqw theory to challenge 

the 1* congressional district. Action in the case is later 
= ed pending outcome of a         

  

       oh 8, 1996 
  

President Tr Tem Marc Basnight Re ie 
Senate Select Committee on Redistricting, headed by Sen. 
Roy Cooper (WD). 

Sen. Cooper writes letter to N.C. Attorney General Michael 
Easley saying that it is not feasible to redraw 
congressional districts in time for new districts to be used 
in 1996 congressional elections. 
    

somes Select mn Fy to discuss Shaw decision 
and the feasibility of enacting a remedial plan before the 
1996 Sovgrorsional flection: w 

    

          

3-judge panel a a rT a dplaimtit 

intervenors amend complaint to add new parties and 
Shallonge District 1, 

  

    

  

    
House Rulee ow Chair Richard Moreen ES 
releases a congressional redistricting plan, "Congress-96- 

001", containing one majority black district in northeast 
and one S jory black Indian Gistrier| in south. 

: #2 Rh Wl give 

RR panel i issues order Ly a. opinions of Speck. 
President Pro Tem, and committee leaders on whether it is 

feasible to adopt a remedial congressional plan for the 
1996 elections. 

Senate says no. 
House Sas yes, 

  
        

  

SRL ter 

July 19, 1996 [3 

  

           



  

504 
THIS EXHIBIT WAS ADMITTED FOR 

TIMES AND DATES ONLY 

    
Tuly 24, 1996 House Rules Ln Ea ne pL 

Re More Li and explains BL 001". 
  

  

  

brad (a 

Re 30, 1996 |3-judge panel issues order : 
e Prohibiting State from conducting any 

congressional elections after 1996 under existing 
plan. 

eo Allowing State to conduct 1996 elections under 
existing plan. 

e Giving the General Assembly until April 1, 1997 
to propose remedial plan 

yp Rr SERRE 

  

     

  

    
  

September 29, Americans for Defense of Constitutional Rights, a group 
1996 connected with the Shaw plaintiffs, announces it will 

award $1,000 to anyone who can draw a majority black 
congressional district that is ruled to be compact by expert 

judges. (It is later announced that $2,000 will be awarded 
to anyone who can draw two majority-black districts that 

pass the compaciness test.)     

  

November s, mie Ct election held under 1990s redistricting 

1996 plans. Following results occur in minority districts: 
CD1 -- Eva Clayton (BD) 
CD12 — Melvin Watt (BD) 

In addition, these black legislators are elected in multi- 
member, majority-white districts: Mickey Michaux (BD) 
in HD23, Jeanne Lucas (BD) in SD13, and Howard Lee - 1 
(BD) in SDI16. 1 

  
Total of 25 minority legislators is same as the 25 elected in 
1994. 

  

Total of 2 minority Congress members is the same as 1994. 

[Republicans and Democrats divide the U.S. House 
delegation evenly, 6 and 6. Shift of 2 seats from 
Replicas to Democratic     

  

      
  

  
   



505 
THIS EXHIBIT WAS ADMITTED FOR 

TIMES AND) DATS ONLY 
5 LC ongreys va aR EN Sete 

{iment 17, LL min on Election Laws Reform recommends 
1996 that 1997 General Assembly propose a constitutional 

amendment to give redistricting decisions to an 
Independent Redistricting Commission. This would apply 
to congressional and legislative redistricting beginning in 

2001. The Study Committee will report January 3, 1997, 
to the Legislative Research Commission. The LRC will 

vote to transmit the request to the 1997 General 
Assembly. The proponent of the Independent 
Redistricting Commission, Rep. John Weatherly (WR), 
will introduce the Study Committee's recommendation 

February 5as House Bill 52. 

  

  

         

      

Li 23, Sik Magisteaio judge gives pm in 5 v. “High until uy 
1997 February 14 to report why the suit has not been served on 

the Jerendam. 
& Te 5 

SSAA iy 

January 29, Te 1997 General Cin convenes. “With i 
1997 majority of 61-59, Speaker Harold Brubaker re-elected. 

With Senate Democratic majority of 30-20, President Pro 

Tem Marc Basnight re-elected. 

  

    

Speaker Brubaker appoints new House Committee on 
Congressional Redistricting, chaired by Rep. Ed 
McMahan (WR).   

President Pro Tem Basnight reauthorizes the Senate Select 
Lommitios on Redistricting, still chaired by Sen. Cooper. 

        
  

: IEE pager oR 
os 5, Rep. Weatherly introduces HB 52, calling fora 

1997 constitutional amendment to give an Independent 
Redistricting Commission, rather than the General 
Assembly, the authority to redistrict State House, State 

Senate, and Congress. The amendment would go into 

effect for the 2001 redistricting. The bill, similar to one 
Rep. Weatherly had introduced in 1995, was 
recommended by the Legislative Research Commission's 
Study Comics on | Pleciion Law Reform     

     

  

February 10, Deadline for ra of plans i in oe contest for compact 
1997 minority districts conducted by Americans for Defense of 

Conaiuional Bh     
      
 



  

506 
THIS EXHIBIT WAS ADMITTED FOR 

1997 

1997 

1997 

1997 

— 12, as CR , holds first meeting, hears from 

5: BEL pH 

February 13, 

a, Select en erry Sen roe mes "1997 

     

Ty AND DATpS ONLY 
   
     
   

    

      

Edwin Speas, Senior Deputy State AG, on the Shaw 
litigation. 

ile Eh 

Rep. Mickey Michaux (BD) removed from House 

Redistricting Committee by Speaker. Replaced by Rep. 
Toby Fitch (BD). Speaker Brubaker says change was 
made to correct an oversight: He had originally intended 
to appoint Rep. Fitch. 

Congressional Plan A," containing 2 minority districts. He 
says no vote will be taken on the plan, but that a public 
hearing will be held the next week. 
  

  

      Po 24, om 

  

Six N.C. Democratic Congress Members meet in 
Legislative Building with Sen. Cooper. They express 
mixed feelings about the Senate proposal. 

Robinson Everett announces there are no winners for the 
prize of $2,000 for drawing two compact majority-black 
congressional districts. But he awards $1,000 to Jack W. 
Daly for drawing the most compact majority-black single 
congressional district. Daly's plan, "Everett's Bane 3", split 
three counties and stretched from Durham to Pasquotank 

counties. Daly says he will use the money to further his 

lawsuit. John Sanders, retired director of the Institute of 
Govermen!, | is Judge of fhe contest. 

  

1997   
  

Pe 25, 

  
Rep. Weatherly introduces House Joint Resolution 322, 
providing for an independent commission to draw a 
congressional redistricting plan to satisfy the court order 
in Shaw. 

House CR Committee meets. Rep. McMahan presents 
"1997 House Congressional Plan A.1", similar in many 
ways to the Senate proposal. Rep. McMahan says no vote 
will be taken, but the plan will receive input at a public   

  

  

 



      

507 

THIS EXHIBIT WAS ADMITTED FOR 

Es 27- 

March 18, 

  

    

  

TIMES AND DATES ony 
  

    
Joint a in in Er Sh 
Building. Everett calls House and Senate proposals "fruit 
of the poisonous tree." Sen. Betsy Cochrane says Senate 

Republicans will present a plan that will have a minority 
district from Charlotte to the Sandhills. Rep. Weatherly 
promotes his idea of an independent commission. Several 
Speakers address local matters. 

  

  

Sen. aon and Rep. McMahan ne BR over TS 
between their two plans. Chief issue is how Wake County 
would be givided betwosn Districts 2 and 4. 

  

Irving Joyner, ET N.C. a Black 
Lawyers, sends letter to Sen. Cooper criticizing both 

House and Senate LopoiaL. 
  

    

  

      

    

"Sen. a Da SB 433, I "1997 
Congressional Plan A". 

Senate Select Committee meets, and Sen. Cooper presents 
SB 433 for a vote. Sen. Cochrane presents "Congress 
Cochrane” as an amendment; that amendment is defeated. 

Committee gives a favorable report to SB 433 as 
introduced. 

House CR Committee meets. Rep. McMahan presents "97 
House Congress Plan G" for a vote. Under House rules, a 

favorable vote by a committee constitutes authorization 
for the committee to introduce the bill. 

  

      

Rep. Grady Lo HB 535. 

Rep. McMahan introduces HB 586, embodying "97 House 

Congress Plan G", on behalf of his committee. The 
Speaker refers that bill back to the House CR Committee. 

Rep. McMahan and Sen. Cooper negotiate the differences 

between their committees’ two plans and agree to "97 
an PLAN", 

  

  

  

 



    

     

  
  

: House CR Come Lh Rep. a mmr the 

    4. 15h bi CARES $d Hd Re RC 2] 33 di 

HB 586 goes to House floor. Rep. McMahan presents an 

    

508 
THIS EXHIBIT WAS ADMITTED FOR 

TIMES AND DATES ONLY 

compromise, "97 HOUSE/SENATE PLAN", as a 

committee substitute for HB 586. 
Two amendments are defeated: ; : 

e¢ One from Rep. Dan Blue to change Dist. 4 so 

that Wake County would be predominately in 
Dist. 4. ("1997 CONGRESSIONAL PLAN 
D1") 

e One from Rep. Ronnie Sutton to a majority 
Native American precincts of Robeson County 
in Dist. 7. 

The Committee Substitute for HB 586 is given a favorable 
report without committee amendment. 

Rep. Steve Wood (WR) introduces HB 599, ("Shaw 
Compliance Plan C"). % 

fi $a 

overview, saying that the plan is designed so that all 
incumbents, black and white, Democratic and Republican, 

have a fair chance at re-election. Four amendments are 
offered: 

e One from Rep. Sutton, similar to one he offered in 
committee. It passes. 

¢ Three amendments from Rep. Mickey Michaux, 
embodying "Fitch Michaux Plan A", 
"Fitch/Michaux Plan B", and "Fitch/Michaux Plan 

C". All have one majority-black district and three 
districts with minority populations between 30% 
and 40%. They are defeated. 

House passes the bill on second reading 87-30. Bill passes     third reading and is sent to Senate. 
173 ial on Pipa TT 

  

  

  

        

A
 

EL
 

Z
i
 

  

  
 



  

  

  

  

March 27. oni 

1997 

  

  

    

  

    

509 
THIS EXHIBIT WAS ADMITTED FOR 

TIMES AND DATES ONLY 

   
  

Senate Select TTI on » Redistricting ‘takes up i 
passed HB 586. No amendments are offered. Committee 
gives bill a favorable report. 

HB 586 goes to Senate floor. Sen. Cooper gives an 
explanation, says that while the bill is not designed to 
protect incumbents that it gave all incumbents a fair 
chance at re-election. He said the authors took note of the 
6-6 partisan split in the congressional delegation and felt 

that they should not use court-ordered redistricting to 
overturn that decision of the people. 
One amendment is offered by Sen. Cochrane, embodying 

"Congress Cochrane". It is defeated. 
Senate passes bill « on 1 second EH 14. 

    

      

  
   

“AGE Easley files the a with the RE i 

  

Adams). 
EAE 

House De pm ee mmr it 

    

  

He also moves requesting that the court delay ruling on 
the plan until the U.S. Justice Department has precleared 
or denied preclearance pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting 

Ne Act. 
  

  

: ie $i ¥ i! 

Chapter 11 re 1997 Session Laws om to 5 S. 
Justice Department under Section 5 of Voting Rights Act. 
Rep. Michaux introduces HB 901 (with Reps. Fitch and 

  

consider HB 52 (Independent Redistricting Commission). 

After discussion, Committee votes to send bill to a 

subcommitice, 
  

en panel denies Ee ry Taylor, Ellis, : and 
Adams, attorneys for plaintiff intervenors in a wy 

    

    
Reps. Michaux eo Fitch meet with U S. actics officials 
in Washington to advocate for their congressional plan 
(embodied in March 26 House floor amendment) as 
alternative to enacted plan. (Date is 16" or earlier same 

    week.) 
        

 



  

510 
THIS EXHIBIT WAS ADMITTED FOR 

  

    

     

    
  

Cy Ci 

object to dsnissal of the suit and if so on | what basis. 

  

TIVES AND DATES ONLY 

S-judge Eat denies a to intervene in Shaw suit To 
several black voters and associations. They sought to 
assert dilution claims and offer aliernative phens, 

U.S. Justice ne preclears Chapter 11. 
3-judge panel directs Shaw plaintiffs and plaintiff- 
intervenors to tell court by July 19 whether they will 

  

31 BYE 3 

June 19, 1997 Ce Sn and a respond that a. 

wish the lawsuit to be dismissed without prejudice against 
the filing of a new one. Robinson Everett, plaintiffs’ 
attorney, urges the court to declare the new plan 
unconstitutional, but states that his plaintiffs no longer 
have standing to challenge the new 12% or 1* districts, 

because they do not live in them. 

U.S. Supreme Court upholds court-ordered districting plan 

  

in Georgia. 

  

  

[State argues to court that plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors g 
do live in the districts, do have standing to continue the 

lawsuit, and are seeking dismissal simply so they can file a 

      
te > 
1997 

new lawsuit and shop for a more favorable 3-judge panel. 

a panel dismisses the Shaw Suit. In opinion hs 

  

accompanying its order, the court says the dismissal is 

only on the issue of the remedial adequacy of the violation 
of Equal Protection that the plaintiffs succeeded in 
Sowing against the former Dist. 12. 

  

  

“October 10, 

1997   Robinson Everett, attorney for Shaw plaintiffs, — an 
amended complaint in Cromartie v. Hunt. The complaint 
uses a Shaw theory to challenge the March 31 

congressional redistricting plan as "fruit of the poisonous 
tree" planted in 1992. Plaintiffs reside in the new 1* and 

  

12% districts.   
  

    

 



   

   

    

    

  

   

  

   

   

  

   

    

   

  

   
511 

THIS EXHIBIT WAS ADMITTED FOR 

    

(april 3.1998 

    

  

     

   

TIVES AND DATES ONLY 

   
   

  

en an an I of na same +i 
judge panel as Daly: Ervin, Yoorhess and Boyle. 

  

  

: is ; Rui 

3 judge ow holds Swan in Morganton on Cromartie 

cross motions for summary judgment and plaintiffs’ 
motion for Prelimineny je 
  

  

   

    

    

3 -judge panel grants TT fro and ee 
injunction in Cromartie for 12 district only. Gives State 
until April 8 to report how long it will take to redraw the 
plan and to propose a special primary schedule that would 
allow the general election in the new congressional 
districts toc occur on November 3. 
  

    

State tells ft in Ea it ne: more time 
to answer its S Questions. 
  

  

  

    

     
    

U.S. Supreme a pre stay of 3-judge po 

  

   
    

    

  
   3-judge p panel i in Cromartie os State's s deadline for 

responding to order. 
  
  

   
  

enjoining 1998 congressional elections and requiring 
redrawing of plan. Decision is 6-3, with Breyer, Ginsburg, 
and Stevens ns 

  

  

3-judge panel i issues DE Opinion i in Cromartie. 
Says the new 12* district shows race as a predominant 
factor and is uncompact. Says those issues are clear 
enough to grant summary judgment for 12%, but not so 
clear i in case of the new 1% district. J udge Ervin dissents. 

   

  

| April 7. 

1998 

    
  

State ov a ih to 3iudge oy 
including May 29 deadline for General Assembly to enact 
corrective plan and September 15 special congressional 
primaries with no runoff. 

   State also moves that court allow May 5 primaries to 
proceed in congressional districts unaffected by redrawing   District ja: 

   



    

1998 
    Co 21, 

  

512 
THIS EXHIBIT WAS ADMITTED FOR 

MESA AND DATES ONLY 

x panel orders a for an and for 
special congressional primaries: 
e May 22 deadline for legislature to redraw. 
* June 24 for Voting Rights Act preclearance of redrawn 

plan. If no preclearance by then, Court will assume 
sole responsibility. 

e July 1 deadline for Court if Court must draw the plan. 
e July 6-20 special congressional candidate filing period. 
* September 15 special ol kali plmades 

; TT i; 

   

  

  

  

Hi 

April 21, 1998 |3-judge panel rejects State's evi = yy or 5 primary 
in naifcleg i Ss districts. 
  

  

   
“Regular 1998 Short Session of 1997 General a 

Sonyenes. 
  

  
  

May 13, 1998 

    House and leaders agree — n "08 

    

    

  

  
  

House and Senate Committees hold joint public hearing on 

congressional redistricting: 
e Robinson Everett urges legislators to redraw by creating 

a whole new plan, not simply by "tweaking" the 12* and 
leaving the 1* alone. He says Mecklenburg should not be 
split, and no district should run from Charlotte to Forsyth 
or Guilford. 

e Reps. Wayne Goodwin, Larry Womble, and Linwood 

Mercer and Sen. Betsy Cochrane present plans of their 

  

CONGRESSIONAL PLAN A." It changes only Districts 
5,6,9, 10, and 12 from the 1997 plan. District 12 is 

removed from Guilford County and fills all of Rowan 
County. It goes from 46. 67% black to 35 58% black.     

ree wr plan troduced by Sen. Cooper as SB 1185. 
Agreed-upon plan approved by House Congressional 
Redistricting Committee, which under House Rules can 

introduce it as a bill.   
      

  

      
 



    

  

    

    
  

513 
THIS EXHIBIT WAS ADMITTED FOR 

TIMES AND DATES ONLY 

  

L pH Ab BIN) ; ERIM Mo 

May 20, 1998 Eis Congressional Rediaionns Commitice lr 
its approved plan as HB 1394. 

Full House takes up HB 1394. Adopts an amendment 
providing that plan will be effective for 1998 and 2000 
elections unless U.S. Supreme Court reverses the 

decision invalidating the prior plan. House then passes EL 
bill 90-27 on 2™ reading. House rejects effort by Rep. 
Linwood Mercer to delay final vote, saying he wanted 

time to prepare an amendment revising the 1* district. 
Bill passes 3" reading. 

Senate Select Redistricting Committee approves SB 1185, 
after adopting the same amendment adopted on House 
   
        

    

“May 21 1908 Full en a up HB 1394 Re of | its own i : 
SB 1185, passes it on 2" and 3" readings 30-17. 

I 3354 ratified as oki Law Io 2. 
    

    

  

  

Session Law 1998.2 hi to both a — vs 
to U.S. Department of Justice under the Voting Rights 
Act.   
      

  

  

  

  

  

  

“July 20, 1998 Special pa Te a ends, Six 
candidates file for Republican nomination for 12% 
District. 
      
     



| 
8 

a 
A 

g 

: 

! 
2 
3 

: 
: 
£4 

i 
‘] 

is 

  

Icon Box 

  
  

EE hatred 

  

Plan Buildervs 0 

  

  

Ww Please choose function 

 REbErgee el {353 [eV YR VN DEMO CAE, State (37) ann 

  
35.2531 74.7469. Lal. IS-N]: 32.0388 - 

i Current District 
  

Map long. [Ww 1] 
- me 

> — +E WOOF a =. 
38.4612 (592 0090 x_443 
REIRTiH ed Re 7 

1498 mi.) BE 

fb 
  

  

  

    

    
  

                  

        

  

          —+ 

  

District 3 

382 (0. 
Total Pop. : 
White Pop. 
Black Pop. 
Am. Indian Pop. : 
Asian Pop. : 

Total Voting Age P 

Black Voting Age P 
Am. Indian Voting 
Asian Voting Age P 
Other Voting Age P 
Hispanic Voting Ag 

  
1 Other Population: 

| Hispanic Pop.: 

1%       

or] Ideal population: 655 
] : ] Variance: 

op. 
White Voting Age Pop. : 

op: 
Age Pop. : 
op. : 
op. : 
e Pop.: 

      

  
Legend 

  [J 

    
FEATURE 

"Road 

"Railroad 

Special Transport 

Landmark 

Physical Boundary 

_ POUNDARY: 
w{[7] [state 

Political Boundary jm 
[Water 

CH lassified 

FRoundaries Only 

i 
i 

  
  

a 
District Pops: Ideal’ ‘Actual Var. Fill: 
  

        

552,386 
552,386 
552,386 
552,386 
552,386 
552,386 

    
5 

      

-519 

-50 
362 

-612 

=125 552,261 

+ T152 552,239 

      

Sh — em remem sat ari 

      p 3 { ron = i 
ee a ASSES 

  

        

  

  
  

  
 



  

  

         Jeon Bos 

    3 yet tg 

os : TR Torian butlderys 0 

  

  

  

  

1997 CONGRESSIONAL PLAN A DEM JE Meckienburg County (119) 
Please choose function 

> 
  

   

S1.2375 NO) Tal. at {5- NL 34.9951 - 35.5247 ( 485 S083 x 36.50 E 

  

  

bans] + Oe Ww sd Auge tong | 
vw: ta 

- Me i { 

tl 

   | - ERRICTRI IN d RY 

  

  
Oy Rr eqgi st ered Other 8 $0      

  

   

   

  

: Ad 

   
Sons me es Tg a 

R pie : » . A Democrats: 

District 3 

  

  

   

: FEE 
A ans EY 4 ed, ) a 

| Z 
py ia? b 

{     

  

   

J ¢ 

    
   

    

Republican: 
Unaffiliated: 

Dem. 9 of Appeals, 1938 
Rep.1968 

  

ve
   

Senatorial Race, Dem. 1990: 
Senatorial Race, Rep. 1990: 
It. Gov., Dem. 1986; 
Lt. Gov. , Rep. 1988: 

647 

161 522 
53,001 

10.321 

  

  

  

of Appeals,       
  

   Cs of 

ip 10 #7   

  

      
  

  

  

  

    

M tegend 

  

  

hl Districts ; ; jal) 
LEAT He BO UNDARY: Saal a 0 a : District. Pops: d Ideal: 3 Ac tual Var. Fill: [1 

oo Road frome [1] [7] State PE To K 552,386 551,867. -519 { 2 
Railroad poner! BE [] County : 21 552,386 552,336 ~50 id 

; har Hii I =i C] [] os ne n Res. 3. 552.386 552 768 382 ( 

andmark } { | MCD/CCD 

Physical Boundary 3 5 on 3: B22 300 2] » 174 =612 | 

Palit al Boundary on i Voting District | be ih2,386 252,201 ~125 { 
Wale i = i) [7] Tract 4 6: 592,380 552,234 =152 1 

Hoe Lassitiod {71 [Group 
Boundaries Only HoT [islock e LC ER eA 

  

    

  

    
          

    

  

        

    

    

  

   
       

   
   

    

      
       

  

   

   

    

    

  

   

  

    

  

     

      

  

  



      

  

  1997 CONGRESSIONAL PLAN A DEMO 
Please: « have Luncl om 

  

Mecklenburg County ( IRE) 

  

  SUERTE TL 25.2965 4 1} 35.19 X 8.5668 mi) 

  

  
15 NL 35.1223 

    
   

  

  

    

   

  

    
    

A 
PEAR 

    

        

  

  

    

  

  

   
         

  

   

  

\ mi — le = 

Si Legon ET] Districts i 5 Pi TT RE OE SER 
Horace pemessst [1 || Stale 1: YH2,386 551,867 =-519 « -0.09%" 

Batts) ret Sl County 2: Hb%2,386 552,336 -50 0.014 | 
Spectral Transpont p< 40 TT Ame Indian Res. 3. 552 386 552.768 382 { . | | 
Pandan ' FMCD/CCD Pd 
Phy al Bourudary FPMlace : | S52 4174 { 
Peeled ead Bertin far re 0 im Voting District b bl, 386 5524261 =125.4 
ey feet] 11 TAP O HH, 380 hh 2,234 -1h2 ¢ 

FERNIITI ] FGroup I I 
dries Onl Block Ji i my 

   

     

           
      

      

 



   

        

ny 

 — 

A 

4 

  TRIN I 

rev dU 0 

fan butldernvs UO 

J    
  
  Pe 

    

  
— 

1997 CONGRESSIONAL PLAN A DEMO 

Please choose function 

  

      

  

Emmy 0     

  

    
  

| 78 5553. tat. |S NL 35.7903 35.8752( 72.7642X 5.8542 mi.) 

  

  

TE 
  

    
SHY org jw 1] 78 oad 

a 
- 

oR, 
4 

Lol BL ERIC) GY £2 Yew XX 

  
mv = + Ea GF [3 
   

  

feigh G1; ¢ EN Ke     

15 ¢ 1 

Ralo is 0 01-93 1» 

Haigh 

( 

wi EES 

  

\ : 
0 Raleigh CL-4rt + 

Fi 

: 
Pied 

| 7s 

I~ id 
/ \ 

| 

’ a — ——"— Ny io wiian sari wi} 

: Hewse #1 
Vg 

. mmm 

{ GE T=. 

Raleigh C146 4 J 

/ 
/ 

/ 
leigh, 41-38 4 / 

Gt. Ratthers #1 ® 

   

  

. 3 

    

    

      

      

    

  
  

    

  

      
     

  

i Legend FIRE Districts : 

FE Tiny hit OUNDARY: a District Pops: Ideal Actual 3 

TT fond! 1 L state 1: 552,386 558,470 d 
atic bo County v2 552,386. 552,336 
Spec dal Transpor! : (| FD TAam. indian Res. o 3. 552,386 546,165 -d 

Fanicdimatk HE IMOn/CLD A 552.366 551,774 

Phys al Boundary did Place ; & pins a i ai 

Poditic al Boundary » - «Hl BW Voling District a PER, 380 Ble 26] 
t 6: H5H2,3606 552,234 

    

6 | [ J Tract 

[ JGroup 

I Block 

  

  

  

    

  

Population IRE e]] 01-44 = (0143) 
   

  

H- 
i p— 

  

   

  
      

: Wake County (183) 

Raleigh 01-44 = (0144) 
Area: 1.0737 sq. mi. 

Perimeter: 4.2246 mi. 

Assigned to: 4 

Units number: 216326 

Black Voting Age Pop: 

Asian voting Age Pop.: 

Other Voting Age Pop.: 
Hispanic Voting Age Pop.: 

Lt. Gov., Dem. 1988: 

Lt. Gov., Rep. 1988: 

Ct. of Appeals, Rep.1988: 

            
    
       
    
    
      

  

  

  

  

  
Ct. of Appeals, Dem. 1988: 

Total Pop.: 5.170 (100%) ; 

white Pop.: 4,387 (54.85%) °& 
Black Pop.: 621 (12.01%) 

Am. Indian Pop.: 15 (0.29%) 

Asian Pop.: 130 (2.51%) 
Other Population: U7. (0.33%) 
Hispanic Pop.: 78 (1.51%) 
Total Voting Age Pop.: 1,104 (79.3 

White Voting Age Pop.: 3,526 (85.¢ 

3462 (11.26 
Am. Indian Voting Age Pop.: 11 

95 (2.31 
10 (0.24 } 
52 

Total Registered Voters: 2,703 (52.2 
Registered Whites: 2,439 (90.23 
Registered Blacks: 241 (8.92%) 
Registered Others: 23 (0.85%) 

Democrats: 1,420 (52.53%) 

Republican: 997 (36.88%) 

Unaffiliated: 286 (10.58%) 

Senatorial Race, Dem. 1990: 939 

Senatorial Race, Rep. 1990: 655 

763 

        

    
       

  

      
        

      

   

   

       
        

  

   

  

    
      

  

(0.2} 
   

        

(1.2 } 

  

     

  

    

  

      
   
       

  

(538. 

(41.0 
      
        
      
        

          
                 

         

         
    

  



  

     



  

521 
EXHIBIT 421 (EXCERPTS) 

AN EVALUATION OF NORTH CAROLINA'S 

1998 [1997*] CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS 

Professor Gerald R. Webster 

Department of Geography 

University of Alabama 

Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0322 

Phone (205) 348-1532 

Fax (205) 348-2278 

GWebster@ual vim.ua.edu 

I am a Professor of Geography at the University of 

Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, where I have been employed 

for the past nine years. My formal education includes a BA 

(1975) in political science from the University of Colorado- 
Denver, a MS (1980) in geography from Western Washington 
University, and a Ph.D. (1984) in geography from the 

University of Kentucky. My primary research and teaching 
emphases are in political geography, and range in topical focus 
from the local to international scales. My research has most 
emphasized topics in electoral geography including the issue of 

redistricting. I have authored over 50 publications including 

more than 30 in refereed journals on varied topics including 
redistricting. Between 1995 and 1997 I served as the Chair of 
the Political Geography Specialty Group, Association of 

American Geographers, the largest organization of political 

geographers in the world. My Vita accompanies this report. 

* References to 1998 congressional districts are to districts 
used in the 1998 elections held under the 1997 Plan. 

 



  

522 

On December 9, 1997, I met with representatives of the 

North Carolina Attorney General's Office and was asked to 

evaluate the state's twelve congressional districts intended for 

use in the 1998 elections (hereafter referred to as the "1998 

districts"). For this purpose I was provided maps of the 1992- 

1996 (hereafter referred to as the "1992 districts") and 1998 

districts, and access to data from Election Data Services, one of 

the country's most prominent providers of data on elections and 

districts. From Election Data Services I secured the majority 

of the compactness indicators used in this report, and shape 

files of the congressional districts in selected states including 

North Carolina. 

The purpose of this report is to evaluate the twelve 

congressional districts now in place for the 1998 elections 

(Figure 1). Where pertinent, these districts are compared to the 

1992 districts (Figure 2). This report uses a set of traditional 

districting criteria on which to base its evaluation. Basic 

background reading on these criteria is found in the published 

work of Professor Richard Morrill (Department of Geography, 

University of Washington), and Professor Bernard Grofman 

(School of Social Sciences, University of California, Irvine). 

Professor Morrill is a political geographer and the 

foremost geographic authority on districting procedures in the 

- United States today. His 1981 monograph, Political 

Redistricting and Geographic Theory, includes a chapter 

entitled "Criteria for Redistricting" whichis cited in this report. 

Professor Grofman is a political scientist and is among the most 

recognized authorities from that discipline on redistricting 

  

  

  

   



523 

  
issues. Professor Grofman's "Criteria for Districting: A Social 

Science Perspective" published in the UCLA Law Review in 

1985 is perhaps the most exhaustive evaluation of redistricting 

criteria published in the past twenty-five years. (Additional 

sources detailing districting criteria include Dixon 1982; 

Morrill 1982, 1987 and 1994; Cain 1984; Butler and Cain 

1992; Grofman et al., 1992; Grofman 1993; Pildes and Niemi ® 

1993). 

  

REDISTRICTING CRITERIA 

What follows is an evaluation of North Carolina's 

twelve congressional districts on the basis of the following 

criteria: equal population, contiguity,compactness, the integrity 

of local government boundaries, and continuity of 

representation. It should be noted at the outset that it is 

virtually impossible for a redistricting plan to simultaneously 

satisfy all criteria perfectly or completely. 

  

In some cases, the real-world application of two criteria 

may contradict one another. For example, published work on 

the districting process suggests that the number of county 

divisions should be limited where possible. But it is nearly 

always impossible to have no divided counties in the 

redistricting process due to the constitutionally-based 

requirement that districts have little or no difference in their 

populations. Thus, any county with a population above the 

ideal population will of necessity be divided among two or 

more districts. And it is frequently necessary or appropriate to 

divide counties with smaller populations between two or more     
 



  

524 

districts to achieve compliance with the equality of population 

criterion or another districting goal. In short, it is indeed rare 

for a state not to divide some, if not many, counties. At present 

all southern comparison states include multiple county 

divisions on their congressional district maps. Twenty-six 

(38.8%) of Florida's 67 counties, for example, are divided 

between multiple congressional districts (Duncan and 

Lawrence 1997: 298-299). 

In other cases, data limitations and real-world 

constraints limit the degree to which one or more criteria may 

be simultaneously satisfied. For example, a state with an 

irregular coastline will find it nearly impossible to create highly 

compact districts in that area of the state. A state which uses 

county boundaries which follow the irregular courses of rivers 

will find it difficult if not impossible to create highly compact 

districts. The pattern of population distribution can also 

severely limit the degree of resulting compactness. Hence, a 

state with an uneven population density will likely find it 

difficult to create highly compact districts while achieving 

equality of population between districts. An evaluation of 

districting plans must therefore consider the existing map in 

light of state or local conditions, and not solely on the basis of 

theoretical possibilities. 

Some explanation of each criterion's purpose precedes 

the North Carolina specific evaluation. All Tables and Figures 

referenced in this evaluation are found sequentially at the rear 

of the report following the references. An Appendix follows 

the referenced Tables and Figures which includes maps 

    

  

  

 



525 

depicting each of North Carolina's twelve 1992 and 1998 

congressional districts. 

  

1) Equality of Population. 

The "equality of population” criterion stems from the   
U.S. Constitution and it therefore must carry substantial, if not 

preeminent, weight in the development of all redistricting 

plans. Since the 1960s the legally permissible variations 

between district populations have declined substantially. 

Concomitant improvements in technology and the detail of the 

data provided by the U.S. census have allowed ever-greater 

adherence to the principal of one-person-one-vote. 

Population equality between districts may be measured 

by multiple indicators. The "total deviation" (also referred to 

~ as the overall range) is defined as the population difference 

between the smallest and largest districts (see Grofman 1985: 

175, for the total deviations of districts existing in 1983, and (ff) 
Rayburn and Leib 1994: 23, for the total deviations existing in 

1993). The "maximum deviation" is defined as the largest 

absolute (+ or -) population deviation among a jurisdiction's 

districts relative to the optimal population (total 

population/number of seats) to be allocated to each district. 

Also pertinent is the mean or average of all district deviations 

from the ideal population. These measures may be expressed 

  

in terms of absolute numbers and percents. 

The maximum permissible population deviation of 

districting plans depends on their geographic scale - whether,     
 



  

526 

for example, the districts are used to elect members of the U.S. 

House of Representatives, a state legislature, or a city council. 

Due to the limits of both the census of population data and 

geography, maximum allowable deviations are generally 

greater the more local the jurisdiction being evaluated. But 

congressional districts are expected to have total deviations of 

less than 1% (Morrill 1981; Grofman 1985; Grofman et al., 

1992). As determined by Rayburn and Leib (1994: 23), the 

districting plans in all states in 1993 were in compliance with 

this criterion with the largest total deviation determined for 

Georgia at 0.94%. 

The ideal population for each congressional district in 

North Carolina is 552,386 (1990 state population of 6,628,637 

/ 12 districts = 552,386.42) (Table 1). The average absolute (+ 

or -) deviation of North Carolina's twelve congressional 

districts is 361 individuals, or 0.065% of the ideal population 

to be allocated to each district. Among the districts, District 7 

has the smallest deviation at a mere 4 individuals (0.001%), 

and District 10 the largest at 947 individuals (0.171%). District 

10's deviation thus constitutes the Maximum Deviation for the 

state's congressional districts. The Total Deviation for the 

twelve districts is 0.270%. 

In terms of the population equality criterion, North 

Carolina's present congressional districts are well within 

accepted guidelines. Their level of population equality is 

therefore evaluated favorably on this criterion. But it should be 

noted that 1990 census of population data is now eight years 

old. Based upon population projections by the North Carolina 

    

  

  

 



  

  

    

527 

Office of State Planning, the state's 1997 population was nearly 

12 percent greater than enumerated in 1990. That office further 

projects the next Census, to be undertaken in a little over two 

years, will enumerate 7.7 million North Carolinians, or 16.4 

percent more individualsresiding in the state than were counted 

in 1990. Thus, while the constitutional purpose of the census 

of population is to aid the reapportionment and redistricting 

process and the 1990 census should be used for such 

comparisons, malapportionment is clearly a result of using 

eight year old data. It is therefore true that any subsequent 

delineation of North Carolina's 12 congressional districts prior 

to the 2000 census will be hampered in achieving compliance 

with the preeminent criterion of the districting process, that of 

equal population between districts. 

2) Contiguity. 

There is no Constitutional obligation for congressional 

districts to be contiguous, though some states include such a 

requirement in their constitutions variously pertaining to 

legislative or congressional districts (Grofman 1985). The state 

of North Carolina does not formally stipulate that congressional 

districts be contiguous. A district is typically defined as 

contiguous if every part of the district is accessible to all other 

parts without traveling into a second district. This requirement 

has rarely generated controversy in the past. When controversy 

has emerged, the focus of contention has generally pertained to 

areas dissected by water features and whether bridge 

connections are sufficient to constitute contiguity (see Grofman 

1985: 84). 

 



  

528 

All of North Carolina's 1998 districts are contiguous, 

and are thus evaluated favorably on this criterion. Second, on 

this criterion the present plan compares very favorably with the 

state's 1992 congressional districts which generated 

controversy pertaining to the contiguity of the 6th and 12th 

districts (Grofman 1993: 1261). The practical contiguity of 

Districts 1, 2, 5 and 10 was also substantially improved. For 

example, the proruption of District 2 into District 1 in Halifax 

County in the 1992 plan no longer exists. In the 1998 plan the 

mutual boundary of Districts 1 and 2 is the Halifax County- 

Nash County boundary. A second example pertains to the no 

longer existing proruption of District 5 into District 10. The 

boundary between these two districts now entirely follows 

county boundaries. 

3) The Allocation of Local Government or Electoral Units. 

The non-division of local political units in their 

allocation to districts has traditionally been viewed as a 

legitimate though secondary goal of the districting process. 

Counties, for example, may constitute political systems in and 

of themselves. But it is also true that the equal population 

criterion carries substantially greater weight in all evaluations 

of districting plans than efforts to limit county subdivisions. 

Thus, any county which has a population above the ideal 

population per district will almost certainly be divided into two 

or more districts in a system which employs single-member 

districts. 

    

GHAR § 

  

  
  

 



529 

At times it may be either appropriate and/or necessary 

to subdivide counties with lesser numbers of residents to 

achieve compliance with the equal population or another 

districting goal. For example, it may well be appropriate to 

divide the urban environs of a county from its dominantly rural 

hinterland given the widely differing circumstances oftentimes 

found in these two settings. Such divisions can be beneficial to SB 

the quality of representation provided to the constituents in a 

district because Representatives do not have to simultaneously 

focus their attention on both urban (e.g., mass transit and 

crime) and rural needs (e.g., agriculture and basic highways). 

In short, it is nearly always technically impossible in any state 

with two or more districts for all counties to be allocated in 

their entirety to congressional districts and meet the goals of 

other criteria. And there are numerous practical reasons for 

  

  
dividing counties as well. Hence, county divisions are 

commonplace and all southeastern state comparators include 

multiple county divisions (Webster 1995; Duncan and 

Lawrence 1997). w   
The 1992 congressional districts in North Carolina 

divided 44 off the state's 100 counties (Webster 1995). The 

1998 congressional districts reduce this number to 22, a 50% 

percent decline in the number of county divisions. This level 

of county divisions compares favorably with Florida, a state 

having undergone similar litigation, which divides 26 of its 67 

counties, or nearly 40%. Thus, from the perspective of county 

divisions, the 1998 districts are superior to the 1992 districts on 

this criterion. Secondly, using Florida for the comparator,     
 



  

530 

North Carolina's proportion of divided counties is judged 

acceptable. 

The building block units used to delineate congressional 

districts differ between states. While some states rely on 

census units such as blocks or tracts, others use voting districts 

or precincts (Raburn and Leib 1994: 23). For the 1990 census 
the Bureau of the Census requested that all states participate in 

an effort to-geographically mesh voting districts with other 

unitsof census geography. Approximately three-quarters ofthe 

states fully participated, with the remainder participating in 

varying degrees. In North Carolina seventy-nine of the state's 

100 counties fully participated and are subdivided by voting 

precincts which follow the boundaries of other units of census 

geography such as blocks or tracts (see Rayburn and Leib 

1994). 

It should be a goal of districting plans to avoid 

subdividing voting precincts wherever possible unless local 

circumstances make such divisions appropriate. If voting 

precincts are subdivided by congressional district boundaries, 

additional polling units or ballot forms may be required. Such 

changes can lead to voter confusion and frustration. 

: As of October 1, 1996, there were a total of 2,531 

election precincts in the state of North Carolina. The 1992 

districts divided 80 precincts. The 1998 districts reduce this 

number to only 2. Thus, the 1998 districts are vastly superior 

to the 1992 districts in their very minimal number of voter 

precinct divisions. Secondly, it has been conveyed by the 

  

  

   



531 

  Attorney General's Office to the author that the basis for the 2 

precinct divisions pertained to local circumstances. This being 

true, the 1998 congressional district map must be judged very 

favorably in terms of its use of precincts as district building 

blocks. 

Of the 31 counties which do not include census voter) 

precincts, only one (Beaufort County) is not allocated to a 1998 

congressional district in its entirety. This division employed 

township boundaries which are vastly superior to the use of 

census blocks or tracts which may have little significance to 

human patterns of interaction or governance. 

4) Geographic Compactness. 

Unlike the equality of population criterion, the 

geographic compactness criterion has no foundation in the U.S. 

Constitution. But it has long been viewed as a legitimate 

criterion for evaluating redistricting plans, and is included as 

goal in approximately half of all state constitutions. The state 

of North Carolina is not among those states legally requiring 

that the members of legislative bodies be elected from compact 

districts (Grofman 1985). But given recent Supreme Court 

decisions, the compactness criterion has received renewed 

attention. 

There is substantial legal and academic disagreement 

over the value of mandating districts be compact. First, 

requiring compact districts does not guard against the political 

or racial manipulation of electoral space. The geographic   
 



  

532 

resolution and quality of the data now provided by the census 

in conjunction with the increasing sophistication of computer 

technology may allow compact districts to be delineated which 

are also directly discriminatory to a population group. Thus, 

highly compact districts may be intentionally detrimental to a 

population group (see both Morrill 1981, and Grofman 1985). 

Second, in the real-world perfectly compact districtsare 

an impossibility. Most compactness indices assume that an 

optimal district will be a perfect circle, the most compact of 

geometric shapes. But if circles were employed to subdivide 

the space of a jurisdiction, some of the jurisdiction's area would 

not be allocated to districts, but be left in the gaps between 

circles. Thus, circular districts are an unrealistic abstraction 

without direct application to real-world circumstances. 

Third, the building blocks of redistricting plans, blocks, 

block groups, tracts, or voting precincts, are frequently 

delineated by streets and are oftentimes square or rectangular 

in shape. The shapes of these building blocks therefore largely 

precludes circular districts from being formed. 

A fourth concern limiting real world compactness is the 

constitutional criterion of equality of population discussed 

above. It is of substantially greater legal necessity to comply 

with this criterion than to create perfectly compact districts. To 

meet this constitutional criterion map makers may be forced to 

create districts of less than perfect compactness. In short, 

evaluations of the geographic compactness of political districts 

    

  

  

  

   



  

must consider the constraints faced by the map maker with 

substantial attention focused upon local circumstances. 

Compactness Indicators Used In This Report 

  

There are a host of different geographic compactness 

measures available (see Niemi, et al., 1990 for a description of) 

24 different measures). In general these methods concentrate 

on a district's perimeter, areal dispersion, or population 

distribution in their design. 

  

  

Two compactness measures are used in the present 

report, both of which are now among the most commonly 

recognized and applied by legal and academic scholars. Their 

elevated recognition is due largely to their calculation and 

application in a 1993 Michigan Law Review article by Richard 

Pildes (Professor of Law, University of Michigan) and Richard 

Niemi (Professorof Political Science, University of Rochester). 
Both authors are among the most recognized authorities on 
redistricting and the courts in the United States today. The 

purpose of their article was to measure the compactness of all 

congressional districts in the United States existing in 1993 in 

such a manner as to parallel the discussion in the Supreme 

Court's decision in Shaw v. Reno (1993). Adding to the 

relevance of this article and its methods was its citation in Bush 

v. Vera, 1996, as supporting evidence for the Supreme Court's 
findings that three congressional “districts in Texas were 

unconstitutional. 

      i oo 
vo 

 



  

534 

The first measure is based on the geographic 

"dispersion" of a district. To calculate this measure a circle is 

circumscribed around a district. The reported coefficient is the 

proportion of the area of the circumscribed circle which is also 

included in the district and ranges from 1.0 (most compact) to 

0.0 (least compact). 

The second measure is based upon the calculation of the 

"perimeter" of the district. The reported coefficient is the 

proportion of the area in the district relative to a circle with the 

same perimeter and ranges from 1.0 (most compact) to 0.0 

(least compact). 

Pildes and Niemi (1993: 564) provide some guidance 

on the evaluation of both measures. With respect to the 

dispersion compactness measure, they suggest "low" is equal 

to or less than 0.15. On the perimeter compactness measure 

they suggest that "low" is equal to or less than 0.05. By 

suggesting these guidelines they caution that "we do not imply 

that all districts below those points, or only those districts, are 

vulnerable after Shaw." These cutoff points are therefore best 

characterized as general guidelines and they should not be 

employed as absolute indicators of acceptable or unacceptable 

levels of compactness. Supporting their statement is the fact 

that in 1998 ten congressional districts in the U.S. are below the 

0.05 benchmark on the perimeter measure (e.g., New York's 

12th (0.021) and Texas' 6th (0.027)), and 13 are below the 0.15 

benchmark on the dispersion measure (e.g., Florida's 22nd 

(0.0331) and California's 36th (0.042)). 

  
 



  

533 

Some Theoretical and Real World Comparisons 

In addition to the compactness scores for each of North 
Carolina's congressional districts, additional scores were 

calculated for hypothetical and real-world units. The purpose 

for calculating these additional scores is to provide 
comparisons for the evaluation of the compactness coefficient 
for North Carolina's congressional districts. Thus, Figure 3 
displays a square circumscribed by a circle. While most would 

visually evaluate a square district as a highly compact, the 

geographic dispersion score for the square is .640, and its 

perimeter compactness score is .785. Similarly, Figure 4 
displays a rectangle circumscribed by a circle. Again, while 
most viewers would visually evaluate a rectangular district as 
substantially compact, the dispersion compactness of the 
rectangle is .431 and its perimeter compactness is .641. 

Table 2 provides further comparisons in tabular format 
with selected units also presented in Figures 5-9. Among thos) 
units for which the two compactness indicators were calculated 

are Camden, Davie and Swain counties, the cities of 
Greensboro, Charlotte and Winston-Salem, and two precincts 

each in the cities of Greensboro, Charlotte, and Winston-Salem. 

These additional compactness coefficients provide instructive 
comparators using real-world geographic units. But it must 
also be underscored that these units are not directly indicative 

of the constraints faced by those undertaking the redistricting 
process. For example, counties are not required to maintain 
equal populations and their initial geographicdelineations were 

 



  

536 

not constrained by the need to aggregate smaller units of census 

geography such as tracts and blocks. 

With the cautionary notes above in mind, the 

comparators provided in Table 2 are helpful to contrast the 

levels of compactness magnitude of real-world political units 

relative to the square and rectangle examples presented above. 

Secondly, these more real-world examples are indicative of the 

contrast in magnitude of the two compactness measures for the 

same jurisdiction, the perimetercompactness measure generally 

being lower in magnitude for such units. Thus while 

Charlotte's dispersion compactness measure is high at .571, its 

perimeter compactness coefficient is much lower at 0.079. 

Similar contrasts in the magnitudes of the two coefficients were 

also found to characterize both Greensboro and Winston- 

Salem. 

The purpose for calculating the compactness 

coefficients of precincts in the three cities is to demonstrate the 

constraints posed by the building-block units used by the State 

of North Carolina in delineating its congressional districts. On 

the dispersion compactness measure the coefficientsrange from 

a low of 0.154 to a high of 0.297 (Table 2). On the perimeter 

compactness measure the scores range from a low of 0.114 to 

a high of 0.213. These measures are significant because 

building-block units of relatively low compactness will 

generally result in districts of lesser compactness than districts 

composed of highly compact building-block units. 

    

 



  

    

537 

Added Constraints Facing Map Makers Drawing 

Political Districts 

As noted above, electoral district compactness must be 

evaluated with flexibly due to the greater number of constraints 

placed on the process of their formation. The compactness of 

a congressional district can be limited by a host of conditions 

beyond the control of the map maker. For example, many 

counties use meandering rivers as their boundaries. Thus a 

congressional district with boundaries following such county 

boundaries would likely have a limited degree of perimeter 

compactness. Secondly, simple geographic compactness 

indicators ignore real-world patterns of interaction, population 

homogeneity and travel. 

Using the river example above, a geographically 

elongated district centered upon a riverine environment where 

patterns of employment and sociopolitical interaction are 

focused upon the river may be highly appropriate. Even more 

appropriate to the current situation is the focus of a district 

upon major transportation corridors such as freeways. As 

stated by Professor Morrill, the most distinguished political 

geographer in the United States with a long standing interest in 

the districting process, 

A too simplistic application of . . . geographic 

compactness measures is foolish, especially 

where the distribution of the population is 

uneven, perhaps strung out along roads or 

railroads. Travel may be easier and cheaper in 

some directions than in others, such that an 

 



  

538 

elongated district astride a major transportation 

corridor might in fact be the most compact in 

the sense of minimum travel time for a 

representative to travel around the district. 

This passage underscores that there are circumstances 

under which there are appropriate reasons for districts to be of 

lesser compactness. An excellent example is Florida's 22nd 

district (see Figure 12). It is described by Duncan and 

Lawrence (1997: 367) as 

a shoestring of a district hugging the south 

Atlantic coast from Juno Beach south to Miami 

Beach. It is roughly 90 miles long and in some 

places just a few blocks wide. Its width never 

extends beyond three miles. 

This district reflects the reality that the beaches along 

central Florida's coast are peopled by comparatively wealthy 

families as compared to those only three or four miles from the 

coast. It is represented by Republican Clay Shaw, Jr., and to 

my knowledge has not been the target of any litigation. Its 

level of perimeter compactness is 0.0467, while it has the 

lowest level of dispersion compactness of any congressional 

district in the United States at 0.0331. 

A second example pertains to Illinois’ 4th district which 

has popularly been referred to as the "earmuff district." It has 

also been described as "C-shaped," "distended," as having an 

"uncouth configuration," and as resembling a "Rorschach ink 

blot" (Duncan and Lawrence 1997: 454). While most assuredly 

  

   



539 

contorted in its geographic design, this district was found to be 

constitutional by the Supreme Court on January 26, 1998 

because it serves a compelling state interest. Its dispersion 

compactness coefficient is 0.1933, while its level of perimeter 

compactness is 0.0263. Its perimeter compactness score is the 

second lowest among congressional districts in the United 

States today (the lowest is New York's 12th district). 

It must be stressed that legislators represent people, and 

the distribution of the population on the landscape is invariably 

uneven. Given this unevenness, and the desire to include a 

requisite number of people with similar social, economic or 

political orientations, among other competing goals, it is 

largely an impossibility to universally create districts of perfect 

theoretical compactness. Such an endeavor would be at odds 

with quality representation, and likely fruitless in result. 

North Carolina's Congressional Districts ® 

In 1992 the mean dispersion compactness of North 

Carolina's twelve congressional districts was 0.280, with the 

range being from a low of 0.045 for district 12 to a high of 

0.440 for district 6 (Table 3). The mean level of dispersion 

compactness for the 1998 districts substantially increased to 

0.354. While the 12th District continued to be the lowest 

among the state's 12 congressional districts, its dispersion 

compactness more than doubled to 0.109. Secondly, this level 

should be evaluated in light of the district's focus upon major 

transportation corridors including Interstates 40, 77 and 85. 

District 7 had the greatest level of dispersion compactness at     
 



  

540 

0.622. It should be noted that District 7's level of compactness 

is nearly that of the square displayed in Figure 3. 

In 1992 the mean level of perimeter compactness for 

North Carolina's twelve districts was 0.095 (Table 3). The 

perimeter compactness coefficients ranged from a low 0f 0.014 

for the 12th district to a high of 0.319 calculated for the 4th 

district. The mean level of perimeter compactness for the 1998 

districts is a substantially increased 0.192. These coefficients 

ranged from a low 0f 0.041 for the state's 12th district to a high 

0.325 for the 7th district. Again, the 12th district's level of 

objective geographic compactness should be evaluated in light 

of its focus upon major transportation corridors in the area. 

Table 4 presents the absolute and percentage change in 

the levels of compactness on both the dispersion and perimeter 

measures for North Carolina's 12 congressional districts. The 

average district in North Carolina increased its level of 

dispersion compactness by 0.075 or 39.1%. The increase in the 

level of District 12th's dispersion compactness was greatest at 

142.2%. District 6's level of dispersion compactness actually 

fell by nearly 18 percent. This finding underscores that 

changes in one district very frequently lead to changes in other 

districts, and the direction of such successive impacts will not 

necessarily be in the desired direction. 

The average level of perimeter compactness for the 

state's 1998 districts is also well above what existed in 1992 

(Table 4). The mean district's level of compactness rose 0.097 

  
 



  

541 

or nearly 172%. District 7's increase was the greatest at 525%. 

District 4's perimeter compactness fell by over 13%. 

North Carolina Compared to Other States 

Other states have made adjustments to their 

congressional districts since 1992 because of litigation similar 

to that experienced by North Carolina. Table 5 compares the 

means for both compactness indicators in 1992 and 1998 for 

the state's of North Carolina, Florida, Georgia and Texas. 

These coefficients are invaluable because they suggest the 

degree of change impacting all districts within each state. In 

short, the redrawing of a single district may impact most other 

districts in a state. Thus, while North Carolina's 12th district 

was a principal focus of legal challenges, no district in the state 

was left untouched by the changes to its design. 

North Carolina's mean dispersion compactness 

coefficient is 0.354 for the 1998 districts, higher than both w» 

Florida and Texas (Table 5). Its mean dispersion compactness 

rose by 0.074, or 26.4% between the 1992 and 1998 plans. 

This mean increase in compactness was the greatest of the four 

states examined. 

North Carolina's mean perimeter compactness 

coefficient is 0.192 for the 1998 districts, higher than that for 

Texas (0.164) and similar to that calculated for Florida (0.207) 

(Table 5). In terms of absolute change, North Carolina's mean 

level of perimeter compactness rose from 0.095 to 0.192, or by 

0.097. In terms of both absolute and percentage change, this 

 



  

542 

level of increase was the greatest among the four states 

examined, doubling the percentage increase of second place 

Georgia. 

Table 6 specifically compares the levels of compactness 

for North Carolina's 12th congressional district with other 

challengeddistricts in North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Illinois 

and Texas. As can be ascertained from the Table, the increase 

in the 12th district's level of dispersion compactness is second 

only to Georgia's 11th district among those examined. While 

the 12th district experienced the second smallest level of 

increase among the set of districts considered on the perimeter 

compactness measure, its increase was substantial at 192.9%. 

The levels of compactness for North Carolina's twelve 

districts are substantially increased in the 1998 districts as 

compared to the 1992 districts. Thus, the system as a whole 

experienced a substantial increase in compactness. At present 

eleven of the state's twelve districts are above the benchmarks 

suggested by Niemi and Pildes (1993) as indicative of "low" 

compactness. While the 12th congressional district's level of 

compactness remains marginally below the suggested 

benchmarks, its level of increase is substantial and is 

comparable to that of redrawn districts in other states. 

Secondly, and in reference to the earlier quote by Professor 

Morrill, evaluations of the 12th district's geographic 

compactness should also consider its travel time compactness. 

Travel times are rarely a direct function of straight line 

distances. Rather the available travel modes and directness of 

traffic corridors between points must also be considered. Thus - 

  
 



  

543 

it-is highly probable that the time needed for the 12th district's 

representative to travel to meet constituents at opposite ends of 

the district is substantially less than in many if not most other 

more geographically compact districts. 

5) Continuity of Representation. 

It is counterproductive to fundamentally alter the 

system of districts in a state each time new districts are 

delineated. Wholesale change may lead to voter confusion and 

frustration, and thus non-participation. While the goal of 

preserving the integrity of the district system may be difficult 

if a state has experienced substantial population growth in the 

decennial districting cycle, boundary "stability helps to develop 

and maintain a sense of identity with districts" (Morrill 1981: 

27). The goal of maximizing the continuity of representation 

is particularly important when changes occur in the middle of 

the normal decennial redistricting cycle. Thus the voters of the 

state of North Carolina have now experienced two significant 

changes to their district association in the past seven years, with 

a third necessarily coming for the 2002 election cycle. 

It is clear that the 1998 congressional districts are 

significantly different from those employed in the elections of 

1992, 1994, and 1996. It is also clear that effort was expended 

to maintain the geographic cores of the 1992 districts in the 

1998 remap. Table 7 presents the proportion of each district's 

area in 1992 which remains in the 1998 districts. On average 

76.4% of the area in each of the state's twelve districts in 1992 

was preserved in the 1998 districts. This proportion ranges 

 



  

544 

from a high of 96.7% for the 11th district to a low of 41.6% for 

the 12th district. Thus, the 12th district was more dramatically 

redrawn than any other district in the state. By comparison, 

when Florida's 3rd district was redrawn under similar 

circumstances, 48.4% of the area of the early 1990s district was 

preserved in the current district (see Figures 10 and 11). 

The changes created by the redrawing of North 

Carolina'scongressional districts also shifted one-quarter of the 

state's population to a different district, a very substantial 

movement of the population between districts even for a 

decennial redistricting (Table 8). The impact on individual 

districts ranged from a low of 7.6% of District 11's population 

being shifted, to a high of 40.5% for District 2's population. 

Districts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 12 all had more than 30% of their 

residents shifted to another district in the 1998 remap. Clearly, 

such substantial shifts from one representative to another can 

be unsettling for many constituents. 

Attention to balancing the legal necessity for change 

with the interests of those represented is appropriate in all 

districting cycles, but most particularly for those changes in the 

middle of the normal decennial cycle. The changesin the 1998 

districts as compared to the 1992 districts cannot be 

characterized as minimal. Rather I would characterize the 

change as moderate because attention was paid to maintaining 

the geographic cores of the 1992 districts (I would characterize 

extreme change as a plan that paid no heed to the existing 

geographic cores of the former districts). Thus, on this 

criterion I evaluate the efforts of those producing the remap 

  
 



  

  

  
  

545 

favorably because of their balance in complying with the June 

1996 court order while preserving a moderate level of 

continuity of representation for residents of the state's twelve 

congressional districts. 

Conclusions 

The purpose of this report was to examine the twelve 

1998 congressional districts in the state of North Carolina from 

the perspective of five traditional redistricting criteria. Where 

appropriate the current districts were compared with those first 

used in the 1992 congressional elections. The findings of this 

report are summarized below. 

1) Equal Population. 

The total deviation of the 1998 districts is 0.270%, well 

below the generally accepted guideline of less than 1.0%. Thus 

the present districts are evaluated positively on this criterion. w» 

2) Contiguity. 

All twelve of North Carolina's 1998 districts are 

contiguous and are therefore evaluated positively on this 

criterion. Secondly, the level of practical contiguity in the 

1998 districts is substantially increased over that existing in the 

1992 districts, particularly as this criterion relates to the 6th and 

12 districts. Thus, when considering the change between the 

1992 and 1998 districts, the current plan is evaluated very 

favorably. 

 



  

546 

3) The Allocation of Local Government or Electoral Units. 

The 1998 districts reduce the number of divided 

counties from 44 in 1992 to 22 at present. This is a substantial 

reduction and the present plan is therefore evaluated favorably 

from this perspective. Secondly, the 1998 districts effectively 

employed voting precincts as building blocks with only 2 of the 

2,531 census defined precincts in the state being divided. Of 

the 31 counties not subdivided by census defined voting 

precincts, only one was divided in the districting process. In 

this case (Beaufort County), township boundaries were used, 

which are far better building blocks than census blocks or 

tracts. 

4) Geographic Compactness. 

The level of compactness determined for the 1998 

districts is substantially improved over that existing in the 1992 

districts. At present only the 12th congressional district is 

marginally below the suggested guidelines for judging "low" 

compactness. But such judgements should also consider the 

rate of change for the 12th, which was found here to be very 

substantial and in line with the magnitude of change 

experienced for other districts ordered redrawn by the court 

system. Secondly, the 12th's level of compactness is similar to 

otherexisting districts not under challenge (e.g., Florida's 22nd, 

see Figure 12), and at least one district found constitutional by 

the Supreme Court (e.g., Illinois' 4th). Finally, Professor 

Morrill's 1981 argument that elongated districts which center 

      

  

    

       



Kh
 

1 547 

upon transportation corridors may be highly compact in terms 

of travel time is pertinent. 

  

a 5) Continuity of Representation. 

The redrawing of North Carolina's 1992 congressional 

districts introduced substantial change in the state's system of . 

representation. On average, 24% of the area in the 1992 

districts was allocated to a different district on the 1998 map. 

Most dramatic was the impact upon the 12th congressional 

district - the 1998 district includes only 42% of the original 

area of the 1992 district. Similarly, nearly 26% of North 

Carolina's population was moved to a different district in the 
1998 plan as compared to the 1992 map. The magnitude of this 

change is substantial, most particularly in a mid-decennial 

redrawing of the state's congressional districts. In short, those 

undertaking the remap appear to have sought balance between 

the necessity of district boundary change and the preservation 

of representational continuity. » 

  
 



  

548 

[This page intentionally left blank.] 

  
   



  

  

      
  

549 
EXHIBIT 426 (EXCERPTS) 

ADDENDUM TO 

"AN EVALUATION OF NORTH CAROLINA'S 1998 

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS [1997 PLAN*]" 

Professor Gerald R. Webster 

Department of Geography 

University of Alabama 

Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0322 

Phone: (205) 348-1532 

Fax: (205) 348-2278 

Email: GWebster@bama.ua.edu 

In February 1998, I submitted an evaluative report to 

the North Carolina Department of Justice which included an 

examination of the geographic configuration of North 

Carolina's congressional districts as delineated in the state's 

1997 plan. The districts evaluated were intended for use in the 

1998 congressional elections though subsequently replaced due 

to the litigation in Cromartie v. Hunt (E.D. NC). In late August 

1999 I was again contacted by the North Carolina Department 

of Justice and informed that the case was proceeding to trial. 

At that time I was asked to consider the results of additional 

Shaw related cases on district compactness in other states since 

the submission of my report in early 1998. This addendum is 

intended to update my report in terms of district compactness 

changes due to Shaw related litigation in other states since that 

time. It therefore specifically relates to the subsection in my 

report entitled "North Carolina Compared to Other States" (pp. 

21-23) and Tables 5 and 6. 

 



  

550 

Since the submission of my original report the states of 

Virginia and New York have undergone Shaw related litigation 

which resulted in the redrawing of some congressional districts 

in both states. In New York the 12th congressional district was 

challenged, eventually found unconstitutional, and redrawn in 

advance of the November 1998 elections. In Virginia the 3rd 

congressional district was challenged, found unconstitutional, 

and redrawn prior to the November 1998 congressional 

elections. It is the purpose of this addendum to present the 

level of change in congressional district compactness resulting 

from these cases in comparison format. 

The data used in this addendum were secured from 

Election Data Services, one of the country's most prominent 

providers of data on elections and districts. Election Data 

Services also provided the bulk of the data used in my earlier 

report. The data presented here are therefore directly 

- comparable to those employed in my 1998 report. The data 

secured from Election Data Services were computer files 

("district shape files") delineating the geographic extent of all 

districts in New York as existing in 1992-1996 and 1998, and 
in Virginia as existing in 1992, 1994-1996 and 1998. 

The state of Virginia undertook voluntary technical 

adjustments to multiple congressional districts in 1993 to avoid 

splitting newly defined voting precincts. Due to these 

adjustments, either the 1992 or 1994-1996 districts (hereafter 

referred to as the "1994 districts") might be employed to gauge 

changes in district compactness. As a result, two sets of 

calculations are offered for districts in the state of Virginia. 

    

   



    

551 

First, the change during the entire period from 1992 to 1998 are 

calculated. Second, the compactness change in Virginia's 

districts between 1994 and 1998 are calculated. In my opinion 

the calculations for the period 1994 to 1998 are more relevant 

for assessing litigation induced change in the levels of 

compactness associated with Virginia's congressional districts. 

For the purposes of this analysis, the levels of 

compactness for all districts in both states were calculated for 

each of the relevant benchmark years by the University of 

Alabama Cartography Laboratory. The results of these 

calculations are presented in "Addendum Table 5" and 

"Addendum Table 6." Maps are included of New York's 12th 

congressional district before and after changes were made to 

comply with the court decision (Figures Al and A2). Three 

maps are included of Virginia's 3rd congressional district 

reflecting its original configuration in 1992 (Figure A3), its 

geographic extent after voluntary technical adjustments were 

made by the state in 1993 (Figure A4), and depicting its shape 

after it was redrawn as a result of litigation for use in the 1998 

congressional elections (Figure AS). 

RESULTS 

In 1992 (districts used from 1992-1996) the mean 

dispersion compactness of North Carolina's twelve 

congressional districts was .280, lower than for New York's 31 

districts in 1992 (.307) or Virginia's eleven districts in either 

1992 (.314) or 1994 (.313) (see Addendum Table 5). But the 

mean dispersion compactness of North Carolina's districts 

 



  

552 

(.354) in the 1997 plan was above the levels in the 1998 

districts for either New York (.322) or Virginia (.340). Thus, 

in absolute terms North Carolina's post-Shaw districts as 

delineated in the 1997 plan were on average of greater 

dispersion compactness that those in either New York or 

Virginia after similar court challenges. While the average 

North Carolina district increased its level of dispersion 

compactness by 26.4% (1992 districts versus 1997 plan 

districts), the average New York district had its dispersion 

compactness increased by 8.1% between 1992 and 1998. 

Similarly, the average Virginia district had its level of 

dispersion compactness increased by 8.6% between 1994 and 

1998. 

In 1992 (districts used from 1992-1996) the mean 

perimeter compactness of North Carolina's districts was .095, 

significantly less than the means for New York (.204) or 

Virginia (.185) (see Addendum Table 5). But the North 

Carolina districts as redrawn in the 1997 plan had an average 

level of perimeter compactness of .192, above the mean for 

Virginia's redrawn 1998 districts (.190), though below the 

mean for New York's 1998 redrawn districts (.220). The 

average rate of improvement on this compactness measure for 

North Carolina's twelve districts between 1992 and the 1997 

plan was 102.1%, several times the rate of improvement in 

either New York (+7.8%) or Virginia (+6.7%). 

The rate of change in the specifically challenged 

districts in the three states also underscores North Carolina's 

efforts to redraw its districts after Shaw in the 1997 district 

  

  

 



    

  

  

  

    

553 

plan. For example, North Carolina's 12th district in the 1997 

plan increased its level of dispersion compactness by 142.2% 

from its level in 1992. This compares to the 107.3% increase 

in New York's 12th between 1992 and 1998, and a -10.5% 

decline in the dispersion compactness of Virginia's 3rd 

congressional district between 1994 and 1998. In terms of the 

rate of change in the levels of perimeter compactness, North 

Carolina's 12th congressional district in the 1997 plan increased 

192.9% from its geographic configuration in 1992. This was 

over three times the rate of increased perimeter compactness of 

Virginia's 3rd district (+60.0%) between 1994 and 1998, 

though less than the rate of increase in New York's 12th 

(+361.9%) between 1992 and 1998. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The purpose of this addendum was to add two 

comparison states to my original report as submitted in early 

1998. The above analysis indicates that the rate of increase in 

the levels of geographic compactness for districts in North 

Carolina's 1997 plan is quite comparable if not significantly 

better than that accomplished by New York and Virginia in the 

court mandated redrawing of their districts prior to the 1998 

congressional elections. 

 



    
554 

    

[This page intentionally left blank. ]   

 



559% 

EXHIBIT 429 

THIRD AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID W. PETERSON, PHD 

[Caption omitted in printing]   
DAVID W. PETERSON, PHD, being duly sworn, deposes and 

declares the following: b 

Identity 

1. Asindicated in my first affidavit,] am president of PRI 

Associates, Incorporated, a company whose chief activity is 

providing statistical litigation support. I am also a retired 

statistics professor. Further detail about my qualificationsis set 

forth in my first affidavit, and in the resume attached to that 

affidavit.   
Assignment 

2. 1 am retained in this matter by the defendants N 

respond to and comment on several issues raised by plaintiffs 

in their Motion in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of David 

West Peterson (“Motionin Limine”). In particular, these issues 

are 

a. The key requirements of a logical and scientific 

demonstrationthat race was the predominant factor in 

the defendants’ choice of a congressional district 

boundary; 

b. Statistical precedents for my analysis;   
 



  

556 

c. The effect of anomalous data on my analysis; 

d. The meaning of testability in the context of a scientific 

e. Various assertions by plaintiffs in their Motion. 

Conclusions 

3. For reasons set forth below, it is my opinion that 

a. To support plaintiffs’ case, a statistical analysis must 

demonstrate that the empirical evidence is statistically 

significantly incompatible with the reasons advanced 

by the defendants for their choice of boundary, and 

that there is no apparent reason other than race that 

accounts for the boundary. There has been no such 

demonstration in this case of which I am aware, and 

none of the variations on my analysis suggested by 

plaintiffs constitutes such a demonstration. The import 

of all of my analysis as well as those variations 

suggested by plaintiffs is that race and party affiliation 

are almost indistinguishable as explanations for the 

boundary of the Twelfth Congressional District 

defined in 1997 Senate Plan A. That overall result 

supports the defendants’ case; it does not support the 

plaintiffs’ case. 

Plaintiffs argue that my segment analysis, as they call 

it, is without precedent and partly for that reason 

should not be admitted into evidence. On the contrary, 

  

  
n
y
 
r
a
n
i
 

e
a
r
 

R
O
 

ET
 

  

  

  

  
 



  

a
 

r
a
 

  

  
  

  
  

557 

that analysis is based on three operations used 

throughout not only the theory and practice of statistics 

but also in everyday life. These operations are (i) the 

comparison of two numbers to determine which is 

greater, (ii) the counting of a number of objects, and 

(1ii) the calculation of simple percentages. Such 

methods are central to an entire branch of statistical 

methods called “non-parametrics,” which includes 

several measures of correlation which, like the one I 

use in my analysis, are based on counts and 

percentages. As statistical applications go, my 

segment analysis is very straightforward and easy to 

understand, and there is little danger that a trier of fact 

will accord it either more or less evidentiary weight 

than it deserves. 

. Plaintiffs point out that the data on which my analysis 

is based contain several anomalies. There are some 

precincts for which the numbers of registered voters 

exceed the numbers of residents of voting age, and 

some precincts for which the numbers of people in the 

different racial categories sum to a number different 

from that stated as the total. Plaintiffs also point out 

that while Davie County does have precincts within 

each of which voting results are tallied, the details of 

those tallies in that one county are not used in my 

study. Plaintiffs are correct in suggesting that this 

indicates an inconsistency between the actual numbers 

of people in a precinct at a given moment in time and 

the numbers in the data file on which my studies are 

based. But such inconsistencies are completely



  

558 

irrelevant if, as is represented to me, the data used by 

the General Assembly in choosing congressional 

district boundaries are the data on which my analysis 

is based. The issue here is not whether the Assembly 

used correct data, it is whether, using whatever data 

they used, the Assembly relied predominantly on racial 

information contained therein. Therefore, the data 

anomalies noted by plaintiffs are irrelevant and should 

not be a basis for excluding my testimony. 

d. Plaintiffs argue that because the particular type of 

analysis I use has not been used in exactly the same 

form in previous cases or in published literature, it 

should be excluded because it is “untested.” This 
argument misconstrues the meaning of testability 

almost surely intended by the Court in Daubert. In 

using this term, the Court was referring to the quality 

of a proposition that permits its truth to be ascertained 

either by logical inference or by experimental 

observation. My method of analysis poses a testable 

question: Does race provide a statistically significantly 

stronger explanation of the boundary of the 12% 

District than does party affiliation? The answer is, it 

does not; the two factors provide about equally 

complete explanations, and of the two, the party 

affiliation explanation is marginally more complete. 

There is no indication that race predominated over 

party affiliation in the drawing of the boundary. 
    
 



559 

e. Many of the assertions made by plaintiffs in their 

Motion are either misleading, wrong or irrelevant; the 

details are provided in paragraphs 18 - 37 below. 

~ Underlying Data   
4. In reaching the above conclusions, I rely on the Octobe 

18, 1999 Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Exclude the 

Testimony of David West Peterson and the same computerized 

data base on which my first affidavit is based. 

Requirements for Demonstrating that Race was 

Predominant 

5. There is a standard statistical paradigm for interpreting 

circumstantial data to determine whether they suggest that race 

may have influenced a group of decisions. This paradigm is 

widely used in employment discrimination (e.g., Hazelwood 

School District v. United States) and jury selection Ce 

Castanedav. Partida) litigation. This paradigm is as follows. 

An idealized decision process not based on race is 

hypothesized, and the data are examined in light of this 

hypothesized model. If the data are statistically significantly 

inconsistent with the model in a manner correlated with race, 

one concludes that the model does not accurately reflect the 

actual decision process, and that some additional factor 

correlated with race (if not race itself) influenced the actual 

decision process. In the absence of a non-discriminatory 

justification for the inconsistency, the inference is raised that 

the decisions were influenced at least in part by considerations 

of race. 

    
 



  

560 

6. As applied to the matter of drawing the boundary 

defining a congressional district, one form of this paradigm is 

to ask first how well a proposed boundary correlates with party 

affiliation, second, how well it correlates with racial identity, 

and finally, whether the correlation with race is significantly 

stronger than the correlation with party affiliation. If it is not, 

the proper conclusion is that, by this statistical measure, race 

appears not to have predominated over party affiliation in the 

drawing of the boundary. If race did not predominate over 

party affiliation, then clearly it was not the predominant factor 

in the choice of the boundary. 

7. Note that, as with nearly all analyses of circumstantial 

evidence, one cannot conclude unequivocally either (i) that race 

played no role in the choice of boundary or that (ii) it did play 

some role. The most that can be inferred from any objective 

analysis of circumstantial data is that it tends to support a 

particular one of these propositions more strongly than the 

other. Dr. Weber’s positive conclusion that “race was the 

predominant factor” is simply not within reach of objective 

science. 

Precedents for My Analysis 

8. My segment analysis, as plaintiffs’ call it, is just a 

systematic tallying of the characteristics of the segments 

forming the boundary of the 12" District. Compared with such 
common statistical procedures as regression analysis or 

Fisher's Exact Test, it is very straightforward, easy to 

understand and unlikely to mislead. It also has the virtue that 

it lends itself easily to calculations of statistical significance, 

    

  

   



  

561 

though in this case that is not necessary because the results are 

so nearly perfectly balanced between the race and party 

hypotheses. 

9. The use of tallies as the basis for examining and 

interpreting empirical data is well-established in both theory 

and practice. See E. L. Lehmann, Nonparametrics: Statistical 

Methods Based on Ranks, Holden-Day, 1975 for an extensive 

account of statistical methods of analysis based on counts of 

binary comparisons. 
  

Effects of Data Anomalies 

10. Plaintiffs point out that the data on which I rely are 

anomalous in several respects, namely:   
| . There some precincts for which the numbers of registered 

1 voters exceed the numbers of residents of voting age, 

There are some precincts for which the numbers of 

people in the different racial categories sum to a ——_. 

number different from that stated as the total, and 

While Davie County does have precincts within each of 

which voting results are tallied, the details of those 

tallies in that one county are not used in my study. 

    

11. The reason that the number of registered voters in a 

precinct might exceed the number of people of voting age who 

reside there is that the numbers come from two different 

sources, and probably pertain to two different times. The 

population data come from the 1990 US census, and reflect the 

population as of April 1990. The voter registration counts are 

  

  
 



  

562 

from some date unknown to me, but I have no reason to believe 

that it is April 1990. More importantly, the voter registration 

counts probably include people who once lived in the precinct 

but who have since moved away. There is no practical way to 

keep a precinct’s list of registered voters absolutely current; it 

will almost always overstate the actual number of voters 

actually eligible to vote in the precinct. 

12. The reason that in some precincts, the numbers of 

black, white and other voters do not add up-to the total number 

of voters is most likely due to the manner in which the precinct 

level data were distributed when constructing the data base. 

Each precinct is a geographic area comprising one or more 

smaller geographic areas called blocks. Blocks are standard 

geographic units defined and used by the US Bureau of Census 

for reporting the results of the decennial census. The various 

voter counts for a precinct were allocated among its blocks, and 

the counts falling within a block were rounded to the nearest 

whole person. For example, in a precinct having 100 black 

registered voters and three blocks, this allocation process might 

assign 23.33 black voters to the first block, 40.33 to the second, 

and 36.33 to the third. Rounded off, these numbers become 23, 

40 and 36. In processing these data, the first step taken by the 

computer programs used by the State and by me is to add up 

the counts for all the blocks in a precinct to obtain the totals for 

that precinct. In this case, the total is 99, not the original 100. 

In like fashion, the number of white voters associated with the 

precinct may be altered, the number of other minorities, and the 

total number of registered voters. Thus a precinct’s numbers of 

black, white, other minority and total registered voters might be 

transformed from, say, 100, 500, 10 and 610, respectively, to 

          
 



563 

: - 99,498, 11 and 612. The former numbers add up (100 + 500 

+ 10 = 610) but the latter do not (99 + 498 + 11 = 608, not 

612). 

13. In Davie County, voters register and vote in 

geographic areas called precincts just like they do in other 

counties. However, the data in the file on which the General IB 

Assembly and I rely do not reflect these data precinct by 

precinct. Instead, the precinct level data for Davie County 

apparently were aggregated up to the county level, and then 

allocated to the minor civil divisions (MCDs) into which the 

county is partitioned. An MCD is an entity defined by the US 

Bureau of Census, and it consists of one or more blocks. The 

allocation of county-wide voter data in Davie County to its 

MCDs was done in such a way that every MCD appears to have 

the same fraction of republican and democratic voters. While 

this is almost surely not true, it is the way the file was 

constructed. 

14. While the anomalies cited in 11 - 13 above put the 

data somewhat at odds with reality, they have no effect 

whatsoever on my inquiry. The General Assembly used these 

data, however anomalous, to define the 12™ District, and the 

central question is whether, when using these data, the 

Assembly used the racial information contained therein as the 

predominant factor in setting the course of that boundary. 1 

have used these same data, however anomalous, to determine 

whether race or party affiliation correlate better with that 

boundary. The presence of these anomalies in no way tarnishes 

my analysis, or renders it less probative than it otherwise would 

be.   
 



  

564 

The Meaning of “Testability” 

15. The Supreme Court in Daubert indicated that one 

factor that might bear on a trial court’s inquiry into the 

suitability of proffered expert testimony is “[w]hether a theory 

or technique can be and has been tested.” The Court here was 

surely referring not to the extent to which a theory or technique 

has been used in the past, but rather to the extent to which it 

can be shown empirically or logically to be true or correct. 

16. As an example, consider the technique used by 

plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Weber. It fails to pose a testable 

question. Dr. Weber merely collects data tending to support 

the proposition that race was the predominant factor in the 

construction of the 12" District. His technique does not 

entertain any alternative to that proposition, and therefore is 

doomed to produce the conclusion that race was the 

predominant factor. Had he applied his method of analysis, 

without change, to political affiliation instead of race, he would 

have been forced to conclude that political affiliation was the 

predominant factor in the construction of the 12 District! 

Since it is not possible for both of these propositionsto be true, 

there must be something wrong with Dr. Weber’s method of 

analysis. The flaw is that he does not pose a testable question. 

  

! 1 have verified that this is so by recreating Dr. Weber's tables 

using party affiliation instead of race. Not only does one conclude, by 

Dr. Weber’s methods, that political affiliation was the predominant factor 

in the construction of the 12" District, one concludes that political 

affiliation was also the predominant factor in the construction of the 1* 

District. 

  

  

  

  
   



565   
| i - 17. My analysis poses three testable questions: 

To what extent does race correlate with the boundary of 

the 12 District? 

To what extent does party affiliation correlate with the 

boundary of the 12" District? 

Of the two correlations, does that with race predominatcif)) 

I answer those questions, objectively.   
Miscellaneous Issues 

18. Motion in Limine, p. 3, Note 1: Plaintiffs’ complain 

that in calculating the fraction of a precinct’s registered voters 

who are republicans and the fraction who are democrats, I 

excluded from the denominators people who were neither 

republicans nor democrats, namely the independents. This is 

true, and I did it purposefully to keep those percentages directly 

analogous to all other percentages I used in my analysis 

Nevertheless, I reran all of my segment studies using 

percentages calculated by including people registered as 

independents, as plaintiffs imply I should, and there is not one 

single segment among the 234 constituting the border of the 

12" District whose qualities are altered. In this case, the issue 

raised by plaintiffs not only has no material effect on my 

analysis, it has no effect whatsoever. 

  

19. Motion in Limine, p. 4: Plaintiffs claim that I have 

assigned each MCD in Davie County the same composition of 

voters, but that is not true. The data base I was given already 

contained that assignment; it was not something I did.   
 



  

566 

20. Motion in Limine, p. 5, Note 4: Plaintiffs raise the 

specter of a segment having “2,000 African-Americans out of 

3,000 total population in the inside precinct and 5 African 

Americans out of 30 total population in the outside precinct.” 

Only five of the 234 segments bordering the 12™ District 

involve population disparities comparable to these counts, and 

these are the five excluded from most of my analysis because 

they do not have complete information about party affiliation. 

No precinct among the 229 used in most of my studies has 

fewer than 614 people, and most have several thousand. 

21. Motion in Limine, p. 8: Plaintiffs assert here, with 

reference to my twelve race-party pie chart comparisons, that 

“if there were more Type R divergent segments than Type P [in 

a given one of the twelve pie charts] [I] concluded that the 

combination supported the Race Hypothesis.” This is an 

overstatement. My testimony was and is that in all twelve 

charts, there is an almost even division between segments 

favoring the Race Hypothesis and those favoring the Political 

Hypothesis; in no chart does one type predominate over the 
other to a statistically significant extent. On balance, there are 

a few more segments favoring the Political Hypothesis than the 

Race Hypothesis. 

22. Motion in Limine, p. 9: Plaintiffs suggest that it would 

be appropriate to exclude segments from my analysis that 

border Davie County. I can think of no principled basis for 

doing so. The Davie County MCD data, right or wrong, are the 

data available to the General Assembly through its computer 

system and on which I understand it relied. 

    

  

 



  

  

567 

23. Motion in Limine, p. 9, Note 6: Plaintiffsindicate that 

if the Davie County segments were removed from my analysis, 

then the number of remaining segments that are unequivocal in 

their support of the Race Theory would be four, while the 

number unequivocal in support of the Political Theory would . 

be three. However, this does not make plaintiffs’ case; it leaves 

the two theories virtually indistinguishable, just as they are 

under my analysis. An imbalance of four to three is not 

statistically significant, and does not suggest that race is a 

significantly more complete explanation for the boundary than 

is party affiliation. 

24. Motion in Limine, p. 10: Plaintiffs make much of the 

fact that, at my deposition, I could not recite the locations of 

the various segments. The locations of the segments are well- 

documented and not at all ambiguous. I just happened not to 

have that documentation at hand at my deposition. 

25. Motion in Limine, p. 17: Plaintiffs assert that 

“Peterson’s calculations and results cannot be independently 

verified.” That is absurd. My affidavits explained what we 

did, and we gave plaintiffs the computer program detailing 

exactly what we did down to the last digit. My work is 100% 

verifiable on the record provided to plaintiffs. 

26. Motion in Limine, p. 18: Plaintiffs assert that my 

segment analysis has not been subject to peer review. It is at 

the moment being subjected to very careful review by 

plaintiffs, and as yet they have not set forth any sustainable 

objection to it. Furthermore, the Supreme Court had no 

difficulty understanding my analysis; indeed, the Court gave it 

 



  

568 

considerable credence in reaching its opinion. The analysis 

answers the questions asked of it, and the answers do not help 

plaintiffs. Furthermore, the questions posed by plaintiffs’ 

expert Dr. Weber are so inartfully and unscientifically phrased 

that the answers he obtains do not help plaintiffs either. 

27. Motion in Limine, p. 18: Plaintiffsmake much of the 

fact that at my deposition I 

did not recall that some precincts involved in my study were 

non-contiguous. Whether they were or not and how they were 

treated in my study are both well-documented and perfectly 

logical; it is of no importance that, in the absence of that 

documentation, I did not recall the details at my deposition. 

28. Motion in Limine, p. 18: Plaintiffs assert that I “did 

not bother to look at the differences in race and party in the 

convergent segments, and thus arbitrarily discarded 

approximately 80% of [my] segment observations.” That is not 

true. I did three types of analysis. In the first of the three, I 

used all of the segments, both convergent and divergent. It was 

- that study that produced the observation that almost 80% of all 

segments have a higher representation of African-Americans 

inside than out, and that slightly more than 80% of them have 

a higher representation of democrats inside than out. In the 

second and third studies, I set aside the convergent segments 

and studied only those for which the race-party qualities 

diverge. 

29. Motion in Limine, p. 19: Plaintiffs assert that “Of a 

total of twelve differing measurements, [I] report that seven 

result in a pattern of divergent boundary segments favoring the 

      

   



569 

political hypothesis over race, three result in a pattern favoring 

the race hypothesis over the political, and two result in a 

pattern equally strong for both. ... These variable results show 

the unreliability of the analysis.” This is absurd. Each of the 

twelve analyses conveys essentially the same message: 

Measure how you will, there is almost the same level of 

support for the race hypothesis as for the political hypothesis) 

Twelve times that same message is repeated. That is a highly 

1 consistent and reliable result. On balance, the data tip slightly 

1 in favor of the party hypothesis, but these twelve comparisons 

; are in no sense inconsistent. | 

    

30. Motion in Limine, p. 19: Plaintiffs again suggest that 

it would be proper to cast out the three of my twelve 

comparisons that use voter registration to identify party 

preferences, and also to cast out the segments bordering Davie 

County. While there may be a good argument for according the 

three voter registration comparisons less weight than the others, 

I do not think they should be ignored altogether? I can think 

of no valid reason for excluding the Davie County segments. 

      

31. Motionin Limine, p. 21: Plaintiffs assert that I am not 

i qualified to testify as a political scientist, a point I do not 

1 dispute. I am a statistician, and my task is to comment on the 

quality of Dr. Weber's statistical reasoning, and to assess the 

statistical evidence bearing on the issue of whether race was the 

  

2 If one does cast out all comparisons based on party affiliation 

according to voter registration, the number of unequivocal divergent 

segments increases from ten to twelve, seven of which favor the Party 

Hypothesis.   
 



  

570 

predominant factor in the construction of the boundary of the 

12" District. : 

32. Motion in Limine, p. 22: Plaintiffs assert that 

“segment analysis” has no non-judicial usefulness. - That’s 

rather like saying that adding up yesterday’s laundry bill has no 

usefulness outside of that one transaction. In a sense that is 

true, but it is a trivial sense. My analysis is founded on widely 

used and accepted principles involving (i) calculating 

percentages, (ii) comparing two numbers to determine which is 

greater, and (iii) counting up the number of items that have 

certain properties. Such operations underlie several commonly 

used methods for statistical analysis, including the calculation 

of certain kinds of correlations. Furthermore, they provide a 

foundation for calculations of statistical significance, should 

that be necessary. (In this case it has not been necessary, since 

the balance between race and political theories is so close, and 

generally tipped slightly in favor of the political.) 

33. Motionin Limine, p. 23-4: Plaintiffs assert, following 

its argument that all Davie County segments should be 

withdrawn from my analysis, that my segment analysis would 

not support my final conclusion. They claim that the final 

count of unequivocally divergent segments would total seven, 

of which four tip in favor of the race hypothesis. But such a 

result is highly consistent with my results — the proper 

statistical conclusion is that there is virtually no difference in 

the amount of evidence supporting each of the two theories. In 

that case, plaintiffs still fail to demonstrate that race was the 

predominant factor, because it clearly does not predominate 

over the factor of party affiliation. Left moot is the possibility 

  

  

  

  
  

 



571 

that there may be additional factors over which race does not 

predominate — for purposes of deciding this case it suffices to 

show that there is at least one such factor, and I have done so. 

34. Motion in Limine, p. 23, Note 17: Plaintiffs note that 

in Charlotte’s Precinct 77, the data base indicates that 515 

votes were cast for the democrat in the 1988 Lt. Governo 

election, and 217 votes for the republican. In contrast, a paper 

document attached to the Motion indicates that there were 

1257 votes from that precinct for the democrat and 529 for 

the republican. According to the first set of figures, 515 /(515 

+217) = 70.4% of the votes cast from that precinct were for 

the democratic candidate. According to the second set of 

figures, 1257/ (1257 + 529) = 70.4% of the votes cast from 

that precinct were for the democratic candidate — the same 

percentage as that obtained from the first set of figures. Thus 

it makes no difference at all to my analysis which set of figures 

is used. I used the ones that were available on the computer 

data file that linked into the program I believe was cal 

used to construct the 12" District. 

  

  
35. Motion in Limine, p. 24: Plaintiffs assert that my 

testimony is not relevant. On the contrary, it seems highly 

relevant to me that the court know the answers to the following 

questions: 

To what extent does the boundary of the 12% District 

correlate with race? 

To what extent does the boundary of the 12™ District 

correlate with party affiliation?   
 



  

572 

Does race correlate with the boundary to an extent 

significantly greater than does party affiliation? That 

is, does the statistical evidence suggest that race 

predominated over party affiliation in the definition of 

the 12" District? 

36. Motion in Limine, p. 27: Plaintiffs assert that “[i]t is 

startling that [I don’t] even know where any of the particular 

precincts in [my] segments actually are on the map.” The 234 

segments and their relationship to the precincts bordering the 

12™ District are both logical and well-documented. With a 

properly annotated map and documentation in hand, anyone 

can trace the connections. Plaintiffs refer here to what I was 

able to recollect from memory at the time of my deposition, 

without that documentation at hand. 

37. Motion in Limine, p. 27: Plaintiffs assert that my 

segment analysis has no practical relevance to the actual 

decisions made to include or exclude particular precincts along 

the boundary of the 12™ District. I disagree. In an employment 

discrimination case, one may compare the average pay of 

women in a job to that of the men. The difference in those 

averages is a clue to whether the employer discriminates by 

gender. The employer may never have done that calculation, 

but that does not mean that the calculation is irrelevant to the 

issue of discrimination. In like fashion, the correlation of the 

boundary of the 12" District with race is highly suggestive of 

the extent to which race may have been a factor in its 

definition. It is absurd to hold that this correlationis irrelevant. 

  
 



573 

Further the Affiant saith naught. 

/s/ David W. Peterson, PhD   
[Notary acknowledgement omitted in printing] 

    
   



  

574 

[This page intentionally left blank.] 

H
A
R
E
 
E
S
R
 

A
A
T
 

WA
RN
 
A
N
R
I
R
L
 

    

    

  

 



  

S
E
R
E
N
E
 

Sh 
A 

A 
A
 

a 
E
a
 

  

  

Guilford County Precincts "Excluded" 
By Elm and Lee Streets 

Elm} St    
    

  Greensboro 

City Limits 

Guilford County Precincts Cited 
By Appellees As "Excluded" From 

District 12 

      
| 
4 

  
  

 



  

576     
  

  
[This page intentionally left blank.] 

  
 



577 

DON NICHOLS BAKER DEPOSITION (EXCERPTS) 

[*4] ... If you would state your name, residence, occupation? 

A My name is Don Nichols Baker. I am District Director 

with the office of Congressman Melvin Watt, 12th District 

North Carolina. 

‘nn *® 

[*4] Q Did you say your title was District Director for Mr. 

Watt? : 

[*5] A That is correct. 

Q What are the duties of that position? 

A We have three district offices, fixed offices, in the 

present district: one in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, one in 

Salisbury, North Carolina, and one in Charlotte, North 

Carolina, and a number of satellite offices that works out of 

those fixed offices. 

My responsibilities is constituent services, to provide 

services to the residents of the 12th Congressional District. We 

work with individuals on cases, primarily federal government 

agencies, IRS, INS, those type of issues. We also try to 

provide the residents of the 12th District with information that 

is coming from the federal government, grants--notices to let 

them know that there are grants available to them, 

municipalities, working with the municipalities within those 

cities and towns within the 12th District. 

Q How many people are in Mr. Watt's office altogether? 

A We have two individuals in the Winston-Salem office, 

two in the Salisbury office, and five including myself that 

would be in the Charlotte office. 

  

  
  
 



  

578 

Q And how long have you worked for Mr. Watt? 

A I have worked in this capacity since January of '93. 

[*6] Q Now, we have been notified that you are an expected 

witness at the trial which is scheduled to take place sometime 

in November. Do you have any knowledge of what you are 

expected to testify about, the general area? 

A I have worked enough years in the Mel Watt for 

Congress campaign, so I have been campaign manager and 

worked in terms of election process, trying to ensure that we 

have enough numbers to win the election. 

%* % % 

[*7] Q You worked in that capacity as--were you a paid staff 

person in the campaign or just a volunteer or in what capacity? 

A In '92 I was a paid staff person. In '94 I was a paid staff 

person. That is correct. 

Q And in '98 also? 

A In '98 also. 

Q And in each instance you were the manager? 

A I was the deputy manager in '92, the manager in '94, the 

manager in '98. 

[*49] Q How about in terms of newspapers? What 

newspaper advertising were you doing in the '94 campaign and 

    

  

  
  

 



579 

what were you doing in the '98 campaign by way of 

comparison? 

A In the '98 campaign we did use some newspapers. As 

a way to target voters we generally do not buy newspapers 

because we just don't think it is a good way to go out and make 

a direct appeal to voters. However, we did purchase some 

newspaper ads in some newspapers in the district. a 

Q Like Charlotte Observer? 

[*50] A No. In Charlotte we used--The Charlotte Post 

was the newspaper that we used in Charlotte. 

Q I think I know what The Charlotte Post is, but maybe 

you can fill that in for the record. 

A It is primarily an African American newspaper. 

Q How about in Greensboro? Did you have any 

newspaper you used there? 

A In '98 Greensboro was not a part of--- 

Q (interposing) Oh, I'm sorry. How about in '94 in 

Greensboro? Was there any newspaper that you used 

predominantly then? 

A I am pretty sure, to the best of my knowledge, we did 

advertise in The Greensboro Chronicle. 

Q The Greensboro Chronicle; is that like The Charlotte 

  

    
. Post basically? 

1 Q Is there a similar publication in Winston-Salem? 

A Yes. 

Q And what is that, if I may ask? 

A The Chronicle, 1 believe. I don't know. I cannot 

remember the name of the newspaper in Winston-Salem. But 

there is a similar African American newspaper in---   
   



  

580 

Q (interposing) And did you focus most of your 

advertising in that publication under those circumstances? 

A Most of it, yes. 

%* % * 

[*58] Q The '97 plan, would you say that was compact, 
geographically compact? 

Yes. 

Is that even more compact than the '92 plan? 

To me; no. 

It is less compact to you? 

To me. o
O
 

> 

*® % % 

[*58] Q Would you say that the '98 plan is more compact 

or less compact than the '97 plan? 

[¥59] A In my eyes? 

Q Yes, sure. 

A In my eyes I would say it is less. 

[67] Q Would you have any preference between 

Democratic precincts that were substantially composed of--or 

[*68] predominantly composed of African Americans or other 

Democratic precincts that were not predominantly composed of 

African Americans?   
   



581 

~A My preference would be have highly Democratic 

performing precincts both in terms of how they vote and in 

terms of the number of votes. 

Q Are there any more highly performing Democratic 

precincts in North Carolina that you are aware of than those 

that are predominantly African American? 

i A Most of the highest Democratic performing precincll) 

are African Americans. I have a--there are precincts that 

produces more numbers for a candidate that are not as favored 

in terms of African Americans. 

* % %* 

[*69] Q Are there any particular groups that try to rally 

behind you in organizing a campaign for--and you have 

represented a number of--well, let me put it this way. You have 

been a manager not only for African American candidates, but 

also for some white candidates, I believe you said. Was there 

any difference in the tactics that you used in the two situations 

A Difference in terms of tactics; campaigns are pretty 

much boilerplate things, I think. I think that you figure out 

what voters that you want to go ahead and target in and then 

you work to bring those voters home. 

Q Was there a difference in the targeted voters with 

respect to the African American candidate? 

A Not really; interestingly enough, not really. We have 

worked for many affiliated organizations. We have worked for 

women, senior citizens, African American, the Hispanic 

community. In the campaigns that I have been involved with 

  

  
 



  

582 

that is kind of the target groups that we were working towards, 

keeping them involved. 

* % % 

[*77] Q I may have asked you this earlier, but with your 

direct mail how do you select your targets? 

A For direct mail that is in the campaign office or in the 

congressional office? 

[*78] Q Well, let's say in the campaign office and then 

you can tell us to what extent the congressional office uses 

direct mail. 

A Direct mail in the '98 campaign? Is that what we are 

talking about right now? 

Q In the what? 

A In the 1998 campaign? 

Q That will be fine. 

A We did polling to see exactly what the issues were that 

was on people's minds. We in turn developed mail towards 

target groups. Seniors was one of the target groups that we sent 

direct mail to. Women was a targeted direct mail. African 

Americans was a targeted direct mail. And we sent smaller 

mailers to other individual groups, organizations. 

Q With respect to African Americans that you target, how 

do you get the information as to whether a person is African 

American or in some other category? 

A In North Carolina that is part of their voting history. 

They have demographics on the voter profile in North Carolina 

so you can select whether you want white, male, or African 

American. 

    

  

  
  

     



583   
[*82] Q Are there some that you target with respect to 
race in your direct mailing without regard to party? 
A I am not sure. Can you restate that one more time, 
please? 

Q Do you have some direct mailouts--andI am not alkin 
about five or ten; [ am talking about sending several hundred--- 
A (interposing) Right. 
Q ---where you are selecting those who the voter 
registration data identifies as being African American? 

Mr. Cox: Object as to form. 
A Do we send out direct mail to African Americans? 
Q Right. 

A Yes. 

Q Selected as such? 

Mr. Cox: Object as to form; answer if you can.   Q Let me try to clarify it--where you not sending it to 
[*83] whites; you are sending it only to African Americans? » 
A We have sent mail out that has been directly to the 
African American community, yes. 
Q And in those instances the source of the list were the 
voting registration? 
A The source of the list came from the voter registration, 
but we use a vendor that we request those voters to come from, 
yes.   

  
 



  

584 

[This page intentionally left blank.] 

    

  

 



585 

GERRY FARMER COHEN DEPOSITION (EXCERPTS)   
[*31] A Yes. 

Q Now, let's talk about how that works. You have a map 

showing--it could be census blocks? 

Yes, sir. 

It could be precincts? 

Yes, sir. 

It could be counties? 

Yes. 

A combination thereof? 

Yes. 

And as you look at that, what statistics are displayed in 

the regular course of things? Are there any standard statistics 

that are displayed? 

A The default in the system is to display the name of the 

unit on the screen, the name of the precinct, the number of the 

census block, the name of the county. And also there is 

maintained--although the window is small so you can't see all 

the statistics, there is a--the district that you are at that point w 
assigning units to or removing units from, there is a long table, 

all of which isn't seen unless you scroll down, showing about 

30 different components of that district at that point in time. 

Q Can you recall what--recall as many of those 

components as you--as you do recall? 

A Total population broken down by race, voting age [*32] 
population broken down by race, voter registration broken 

down by party and broken down by race, and election returns 

from three different elections. I believe that was the total list 

of items that you could scroll through. 

L
P
O
 

P
L
O
 

P»
L0

 
» 

         



  

586 

Q So as you displayed that, you would have all of that 

information there before your eyes; is that correct? 

A Well, you could, but it depends on whether you make-- 

put that window on top. With the Windows technology, some 

of the windows are going to be on top and some of them on the 

bottom, so it all depends. Normally I didn't have that whole 

window open all the time because it made--you couldn't read 

half the map then. | 

Q If you had it only partly open, would the population 

data be there? 

A Yes. That was at the top--the top of the scroll bar was 

total population. 

Q And how about the racial data? 

A That came next below it on that scroll bar. The 

beginning of the scroll bar was data gotten from the Census 

Bureau, and at the bottom of the scroll bar was data that we 

added to that system. 

Q And that was what data that you added? 

A Voter registration and election returns. 

Q So the top part--you would have to scroll down in order 

to get that other data? 

[*33] A Either that or put the window on top and expand 

it to show the whole window. There were two different ways 

to do it. 

Q And if you did the latter, then it was very difficult to 

read, I believe you testified? 

A Well, you could read that very well, but it suppressed 

about a third of the map so it was hard to see the map at that 

point. 

      

  

       



  
  

587 

Q I see. So was it your typical practice to use--to scroll 

down when you wanted all the information rather than to use 

. the larger--- 

A (interposing) Well, if I wanted all the information, then 

I would leave the whole window open, but normally I would be 

looking at perhaps one or maybe two of the different 

components depending on what year I was at and for wha 

purpose I was doing it. 

Q And what were the components you would typically be 

looking at, or was there any typical data? 

A Typically the main--the three things that were looked at 

were election returns, total population, and voting age 

population. I rarely looked at the voter registration 

information. 

Q Did you look at the race? 

A Yes. 

Q Was that one of the things you regularly looked at? 

[*34] A I think it really depended on which year and 

which--on which plan as to what I regularly looked at. 

Q Can you describe that with respect to years and plans? 

Ms. Smiley: I'm sorry. I am going to object. That is 

compound question. You are going to have to direct him-- 

Q (interposing) All right. Describe it with respect to 

years. 

Ms. Smiley: You are going have to--that is still a 

compound question. You are going to have to direct him to a 

particular plan. 

Q Can you clarify your--you said which year and which 

plan. What did you mean by that? 

 



  

588 

A Well, in the 1991 plan, which is the one that was 

rejected by the Justice Department, I believe that I looked at 

total voting age population and election returns. 1 believe that 

was true in ‘92 also. 

In the 1997 plan in doing the 12th Congressional 

District, I looked almost exclusively at total population and 

election returns, in the 1st Congressional District at the total 

population, racial breakdowns, and election returns, not 

necessarily in that order. 

In the 1998 plan--I am having trouble jumping around-- 

Q (interposing) Sure. | 

[*35] A ---because I have done the ‘98 plan most 

recently, so sometimes it is difficult for me to sort out in my 

memory the ‘98 from the ‘97, since much of this litigation is 

about not the latest thing I did. The ‘98 plan--I don't know 

which district we did, 12th--predominantly at the election 

returns in the 1998 plan. 

Q And--- 

A (interposing) But all the various factors were looked at 

at one time or another, probably about every district to try to-- 

we came down to the bottom line to see what the totals were on 

everything. 

Q And with--you have indicated, I believe, in your last 

answer that with respect to the ‘97 plan, you looked at race as 

to the 1st District? 

A Well, I also said that eventually I looked at everything. 

But in the 1997 plan, I looked at race to a greater extent in the 

Ist District than in the 12th District. 

Q And why was that? 

  
 



589 

A Well, because the demographics were different in the 

east and the piedmont in terms of creating a district; the--there 

were just different areas of the state and different goals, 

different results, different voting patterns in different parts of 

the state. Issues like racial bloc voting, et cetera were different 

in different parts of the state, so my analyses were different 

depending on what I felt [*36] the important legal issues were) 

to satisfy. 

Q When you speak of racial bloc voting, are you referring 

to racial bloc voting by blacks and whites or by whites alone or 

by blacks alone? 

A By both. 

Q Okay. Well, let me ask you this. Isn't it true that in 

North Carolina 95 percent of the African Americans who 

register register as Democrats? 

A I did some research in 1992 looking at the 30 or so 

counties that had their voter registration at that time cross- 

tabulated by party and race. And I found--and I think this was 

in our 1992 submissionto the Justice Department--thatin urb 

counties that had substantial minority populations that 
95 percent of the blacks were registered Democrats, and in the 

rural counties with a substantial black population it was about 

97 or 98 percent. 

Q And was it also your belief that the African Americans 

voted cohesively in the same manner as they registered? 

A Yes. 

  

    
 



  

590 

[*116] Q What does it mean? What do you understand 

functional compactness to mean? 

A Well, I think the traditional means of measuring 

compactness have been the social science ones. I think we 

mentioned four or five. You mentioned two specific ones and 

I can't remember the names, P and N. 

Q Dispersion compactness, perimeter--- 

A (interposing) Pildes--I can't remember the names of the 

scientists. But basically there are four or five different widely 

used factors that are basically purely mathematical based on 

compactness. But they don't really deal with any issues of 

demography, history, or other types of social sciences other 

than the application of a mathematical model. 

I think functional compactness is compactness, not just 

the mathematics but looking at population, looking at where the 

population is, where it came from, looking at history, looking 

at settlements. In North Carolina you look at pattern of 

- plantations and slavery, and there is a whole bunch of different 

factors that are not mathematical. So I think functional 

compactness is the nonmathematical component of 

compactness, larger word. 

Q Is that the way you use compactness, sort of in line 

what you have explained as functional compactness? 

A I think functional compactness would really be the 

[*117] nonmathematical parts of the word. 

* % % 

             



591 

[¥119] Q By the way, with respect to the functional 

compactness, is there any--how do you measure it? What are 

the measurements? 

A Well, I don't know of any measure that you could do 

with a calculator of that. I think it is a component looking at 

issues of history, past history, whether it is history of the area, 

history of settlement patterns or racial segregation, history of 

transportation or history of past redistricting. 

Again, I go back again to the Black Second, which you 

had raised first, as an issue where a district running from Vance 
to Jones County, basically all three configurationsare basically 

Vance to Jones with a number of variants that--I [*120] don't 

know what that district would come up with in the 

mathematical formulas, but I think it was widely viewed as one 

that was fair and put together a compact population of those 

with like interests in the northeastern part of the state for 

30 years. 

kK » 

[*121] Q Well, how do you--I am just trying to tie down 

i : how do you determine whether something is functionally 

5 7 compact. 

1 A The totality of the circumstances. 

1 ®t vx 

: . = Q Well, you mentioned history and the history of the 

Black Second. Isn't it also relevant that for two centuries the   
 



  

592 

legislature never combined Mecklenburg County with either 

Guilford or Forsyth County? 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question; if 

you can answer that--relevant to whom? 

[*122] Q Relative to functional compactness. 

A Well, remember in the three plans prior to 1792 they 

were combined. So I mean, I think that is relevant also, but I 

think certainly that would be a factor deciding the totality of 

the circumstances. Yes. 

Q And as to the totality of the circumstances, wouldn't 

it also be a factor in that Mecklenburg County is in one 

metropolitan statistical area and that Guilford and Forsyth 

are in a different one? 

A Well, I think--the current term, I think, is 

metropolitan statistical area. I think they dropped the word 

"standard" --- 

Q (interposing) Yeah. 

A ---but the--- 

Q (interposing) I am old fashioned. 

A That is okay. It is hard to remember the changes in 

terminology. That is a census department test that usually 

deals with a central city or urban area and its urban suburbs, 

and I am not sure how exactly they define these, but 

Charlotte and I think it is--I think it includes two counties in 

South Carolina which are not and have never been 

congressionally redistricted together with Mecklenburg 

County. 

Q Quite true. But still given the circumstance that the 

Census Bureau uses this terminology, isn't it significant in 

[*123] determining functional compactness that Charlotte is 

      

  
   



593 

-in one MSA, if I may use that abbreviation, and Guilford--I 

~ mean and Greensboro and Winston are in a different MSA? 

Ms. Smiley: I will object to the form of the 

question. You are attempting to without identifying what is 

significant to put words into Mr. Cohen's mouth. If you can 

answer the question, Mr. Cohen, go ahead. 

    

A I certainly think it has some significance. Re 

* % % 

1 [*123] Q ‘Are you familiar with circulation areas, 

newspaper circulation areas, that term? 

A It is the area where they deliver their paper. 

Q Yeah; okay. Would you think it significant in 

determining functional compactness that there is nobody in 

Mecklenburg County who subscribes to the Winston-Salem 

newspaper? 

A I bet there is a bunch of students at UNC Charlotte who 

are from Forsyth County that subscribe to it. 

Q Have you looked at--do you mean subscribe to it in 

Forsyth County? 

A I know that when I was in college most college   students subscribed to their hometown paper if they were 

[*124] away. But if you are talking about--you know, so I am 

sure that there are some subscriptions in Charlotte to The 

Winston-Salem Journal. It is probably largely students at 

school in Charlotte plus libraries. 

Q And you would think there was some subscription to 

the Greensboro newspaper by the same token? 

A Yeah. I mean, you asked if there are some. 

  
  
   



  

594 

Q Yeah. 

A Maybe, you know, a couple of hundred. 

Q Have you by any chance looked at the table provided by 

one of the defendants’ experts--I forget which one--that had the 

circulation and as I recall indicated zero, zero for the Winston- 

Salem and Greensboro papers down in Charlotte? 

A I have not, though I don't believe it zero. I think they 

may be confusing mail circulation with carrier delivery. I don't 

think it is zero mail delivery. 

Q Well, certainly wouldn't it be relevant to functional - 

compactness how much the newspapers of one community are 

read in other communities in the same district? 

A I am sure that that would have some relevance to all the 

factors; yes. 

Q And if I told you that DMA is a television term 

referring basically to market area, wouldn't it be significant that 

the DMA, the market area, for the Charlotte TV stations is 

different from the market area for the [*125] stations in the 

Triad, namely Greensboro, High Point and Winston-Salem? 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question and 

characterizationof significant. If you can answer the question, 

go ahead. 

A Iam sure that they are different. 

Q They are different. I can assure you of that, too. But 

isn't that relevant to functional compactness or lack of 

functional compactness? : 

A Well, I think that also that one of the things that this-- 

when you are looking, for instance, at the minority population, 

there is also a number of newspapers in circulation in the   
   



  
  

  

T
h
 

OT
 

Vi
de
o 

RE
E 

a 
a 
R
e
 

  

595 

minority community that are not based on the community 

where they live. 

I know there is--I think there is one or two newspapers 

in the black community that circulate over the entire state, so 

I am not sure whether--I don't believe that any one sole source 

of information on television is network television anymore, nor 

do I believe that everyone's sole source of newspaper 

information is simply the daily newspaper anymore. I think 

that things are changing and have changed substantially. 

Q And with respect to television, there is change to cable, 

a lot of use of cable; correct? 

A Yeah. I mean, I think things are fragmenting rapidly. 

[*126] Q Yeah, but they are fragmentingaround particular 

geographic areas; isn't that true? 

A Smaller and smaller areas. 

Q And isn't it true that the cable access channel on a cable 

system in Charlotte would have nothing from Winston-Salem 

or Greensboro? 

A It would certainly be very unlikely, although I know 

they invite people in to produce stuff and will carry stuff from 

other systems, so I don't really know the specific content of the 

public access channel in Charlotte. 

Q Now, with respect to functional compactness, you 

referred to newspapers published by African Americans and 

designed for African American readership predominantly; is 

that correct? You made some reference to that a moment or 

two ago? 

A Yes. 

Q What is the relationship between race and functional 

compactness? 

 



  

596 

A I think that the significance comes under Section 2 and 

Section 5 in the Gingles case, where if you look at is there a 

compact--is the minority community compact. So I think it 

becomes relevant to look at the minority community as 

opposed to the entire community because I think that is one of 

the tests of Gingles. Gingles doesn't ask whether the district is 

compact. It asks whether the minority population [¥127] is 

compact, so I think that becomes relevant then. Yes, sir. 

Q It asks whether it is geographically compact, doesn't it? 

A Yes. 

Q Now, is the fact that a person lives--a black person lives 

in Charlotte significant in determining the functional 

compactness of that black person with an African American 

who lives in Greensboro? 

A I believe that there was some expert testimony 

submitted in the 1992 trial that in fact the settlement patters in 

the urban area post-slavery were that the settlement patterns 

from Greensboro to Charlotte were largely determined by 

railroad structure and industrialization along the line with 

people moving from one city to another still within racially 

segregated communities and in fact historically there were links 

given manufacturing, transportation, and dispersion of slave 

populations that linked together those communities in the 

piedmont crescent. 

Q All right; but now let's look at center city Charlotte, 

then, with that in mind. You have a white citizen who lives in 

one part of central city Charlotte and you have an African 

American who lives ten blocks away. 

A Uh-huh. 

      

  

  
  

     



        

597 

Q Does race have anything to do with their functional 

compactness? 

[*128] A Well, I think historically it is more likely that 

the ancestors of the black--of that black citizen came via the 

North Carolina Railroad. Perhaps their ancestors lived in 

Greensboro or Thomasville or whatever after coming off a 

plantation as opposed to the white person probably coming 

from New York. So I think, yes, there is a substantial 

distinction historically. 

Q So historically, but you say that relates to functional 

compactness--- 

A (interposing) Yes. 

Q ---as of the present time? 

A Yes. 

Q And therefore if the white is put in one district and the 

black is put in another, that makes sense because they are not 

functionally compact; is that--- 

A (interposing) I wouldn't say it makes--necessarily 

makes sense. I said that in fact that the issue of compactnessin 

the population is that there may be more commonality of 

interest between a black person in Charlotte and one in--and 

one in Greensboro and one in Winston-Salem or one in 

Greensboro and Charlotte in terms of family ties than there 

may be between two white persons, one of whom came from 

New York and the other came from Ohio. 

Q And with respect to Charlotte, staying in Charlotte, isn't 

it true that Sue Myrick, who is a member of Congress 

[*129] from one district, lives only a few doors away from 

Melvin Watt, who is a congressman from another one? 

 



  

598 

A Yes; I believe they live in the same census block, in 

fact. 

Q Same census block? 

A Yes. 

Q And census block is fairly limited; is that correct? 

A It would in the context of Charlotte normally be a city 

block. 

Q But in the--there are in the same block, though, 

basically? 

A Yes. 

Q How functionally compact are they? 

A Well, Ms. Myrick decided to run in a congressional 

district that she didn't live in. I mean, that was her decision. I 

am not sure if that has anything to do with--the U. S. 

Constitution doesn't require you to live within your 

congressional district in order to run, so I am not sure of the 

relevance of Ms. Myrick and compactness when she chose to 

live in a district she didn't run in, or I think I said that 

backwards. 

Q I am asking in the context of race as it relates to 

functional compactness are Sue Myrick and Melvin Watt 

functionally compact because they live in the same district or 

does geography have anything to do with it? 

[*130] A Well, I think they probably are unusual in that-- 

in much of North Carolina that they live in an integrated census 

block, which is not probably the norm in North Carolina. 

Q And in drawing the 1992 plan, isn't it true that you went 

block by block and had blocks that were heavily African 

American put in with the 12th District and the 1st District and 

      

  

   



599 

nearby blocks, census blocks, which were predominantly white 

i which you put in either the 1st or the 12th in--- 

1 A (interposing) Which year's plan were you asking about? 

Q 1992. 
A Well, we started in 1992 with using precincts, not 

census blocks, as I already testified. But in the 1992 plan, yes, 

in that plan there was a lot of--when it got down to the very 

i bottom level of assignments being made looking at the race 

predominantly. Yes. 

  
* % * 

[*145] Q All right. Are you aware of any statement by 

anyone at the--did you have any conversation with anybody in 

the Civil Rights Division? 

A In 1996, I don't think so. 

Q How about in 1997? 

A Yes. 

Q What, if anything, did they--and during what periods of » 
time did those--well, how many communications did you have 

and over what period of time? 

A I would have had discussions with people in the Justice 

Department during the time of putting together the Section 5 

submittal in 1997 and during their review process. I don't 

remember what months they were in ‘97. 

Q Did you have any discussions with them at the time that 

you were actually preparing the plan? 

A No.   
 



  

600 

Q Did you in any way seek to ask them whether they 

would approve anything less than a majority black district in 

the northeastern part of North Carolina? 

A They don't give advisory opinions. 

Q S0--- 

A (interposing) The answer is no, I did not. 

Q So you had to rely on whatever information you had 

apart from any advisory opinion on their part? 

[*146] A Yes. 

Q And then when you prepared the Section 5 submission, - 

did you direct that towards assuring that they would recognize 

that the 1st District was majority black and would thereby be 

inclined to approve it? 

A My duties in putting together a Section 5 submittal was 

essentially to be an advocate for the State in helping show that 

the plan met the requirements of Section 5, so I would have 

assisted or put together arguments designed to show that it met 

Section 5 based on what we thought the Justice Department 

thought it meant. 

Q And in doing that, did you proceed on the assumption 

that the Justice Department thought that it meant that there had 

to be a majority black district in northeastern North Carolina? 

A I felt that Section 5 would require it so that was what-- 

and Section 2 in the Gingles case, so that was basically what 

we were putting forward. I don't remember exactly what I said 

or what the language of the submission was. 

Q So that was your belief from 1996 right on dirondh to 

the time you submitted the Section 5 preclearance documents 

in the spring--~ 

A (interposing) Yes, sir. 

    

 



  

601 

* % % 

[*151] Mr. Everett: I would like for him to explain why he 

views the--I believe he did indicate he viewed the 12th District 

in the 1997 plan as being more compact, not geographically 

compact, but compact functionally--- 

The Witness: (interposing) There is not just one--- 

Mr. Everett: ---than the earlier one. 

The Witness: There is not just one compact 

12th District that you can create. I think that just as there is 

functional compactness between urban populations in Guilford 

County with those in Mecklenburg County, there is also some 

functional compactness between people in one part of Davidson 

and another and one part of Rowan and another. It is a 

balancing test and there are many different options the 

legislature can choose from that are constitutional. The 

legislature chooses which ones it wants to go down. 

So I think that both--both the areas in Davidson relatelff) 

to each other, Rowan, relate to functional compactness just like 

Guilford versus Mecklenburg, so I think the answer is both to 

your question, not exclusively one or the other. 

Q So you could do it either way but one winds up with 

what, 47 percent black and the other around 40 percent? 

A Yes, sir. 

Q Now, are you aware why the choice was made to be 47 

[*152] percent black instead of 40 percent? 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question. If 

you can answer that--I think you are assuming facts not in 

evidence. 

 



  

602 

A I think the choice is whether to create a district that a 

Democrat was capable to be elected in because the key issue 

here in creating the district in 1997 was really to create a 

district--an urban district in the Piedmont where a Democrat 

could best be elected and also the same thing as reelecting the 

incumbent. 

‘And I think the issue was Greensboro being in the 

district as compared with more rural areas of Davidson or 

Rowan County that the result was more--was a more 

Democratic district. So I think the cause and effect is the 

district is more Democratic and it is also more black, not the 

other way around, that there was not any goal to have 

47 percent and then the boundaries of the district followed that. 

Q Now, with respect to the 19--well, with respect to the 

Exhibit 1 plan and the plan that was adopted in 1998--- 

A (interposing) Yes, sir. 

Q Isn't there a similarity in that Guilford County was not 

in either one of those? 

A Yes, that is similar. 

Q And in that one--didn't you testified earlier that 

Congressman Watt won in the general election? 

[*153] A Yes, he did. 

Q And he won--you are not--you are not aware of what 

majority he won by, but he did win? 

A I remember it was a smaller majority in 1998 than it 

was in 1996. That is my recollection. 

Q Yeah. And wouldn't you have expected a smaller 

majority if there were a reduction of the African American 

population from the mid 50s to the--to 47 percent? 

  

  

         



603 

~ A I expected a reduction because the number of 

Democratic voters was far less. 

Q And also--well, let me put it this way. Couldn't you 

state it just as readily by saying you expected because the 

  

number of blacks was far less? 

A Well, you asked me earlier wasn't it true that 95 percent 

of the blacks were registered and voted Democratic. 

answered that yes. And I think that the analysis of Democratic 

vote and black population are very close to being the same 

questions and answers. 

Q So you could word it either way; right? 

A It could be worded the same way, but my answer was 

the intent was to deal with the Democratic, not the race. 

[*158] Q Is it your understandingthat under Shaw v. Reno 

and the later cases race has to be a predominant motive as a 

basis for any sort of strict scrutiny? w 

A That is my understanding of the cases. 

Q If race isn't a predominant motive, then Shaw v. Reno 

doesn't apply? 

A I don't believe it applies. 

Q Now, let me ask you this. With respect to the 1992 

plan, if the North Carolina General Assembly had simply 

reenacted it and said, "We are doing"--"We are doing this for 

political reasons and not for race; race is not the predominant 

motive," would it be your interpretationthen that Shaw v. Reno 

would not apply?   
 



  

604 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question; if you 

can answer that. 

A - Youmeanthat Shaw v. Reno wouldn't apply because we 

said it wasn't the predominant factor? 

Q No. 

A I mean I think it is a question for the court to decide. 

Q Okay. 

A I don't think just because we say something means it is 

SO. 

[*159] Q And if the court believed that you were doing it 

now for a political reason, Shaw v. Reno wouldn't apply? 

A Well, the case would apply, but the holding of the case 

would not require it to be held unconstitutional if the court felt 

that politics was the predominant factor. 

Q So would it true that in any situation where it is stated 

by the legislature that politics is the predominant motive and if 

the court believes that, then no matter what the racial 

configuration is there should be--there should be no application 

of Shaw v. Reno? 

A I don't know if I really analyzed the case to that extent 

to answer your question, so I don't know. 

Q Well, do you see any reason why that wouldn't yield an 

affirmative answer just thinking about it? 

Ms. Smiley: I am going to object to the form of the 

question. 

A Could you ask it again, please? 

Q Okay. My question is--and I realize you haven't had an 

attempt--haven't had a long chance to analyze it, but wouldn't 

it be true that if the legislature says that political motivation is 

predominant and if a court agreed, accepted that, that then no 

  

  

 



605 

  matter what the racial pattern or configuration was, there would 

be no basis for applying Shaw v. Reno? 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question. 

    

[*160] Answer if you can. 

A From what I know of reading the majority opinions in 

the Shaw cases, the answer would be that it would not apply. 

Q Now--- 

A (interposing) I didn't want to get it backwards. 

Q And given that circumstance and given that in North 

Carolina 95 percent of the African Americans are--or at least 95 

percent are registered to vote as Democrat, doesn't that mean 

that if the legislature says "We moved 300,000 African 

Americans into this district because they were Democrats" that 

then Shaw v. Reno would not apply? 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question. 

Answer if you can. 

A I don't think it necessarily is just because we said it is. 

Q Well, let's say if they believed it. 

A Yes. pa 

Q So doesn't that mean that if the legislative leaders can 

put their legislators in a frame of mind to say and believe that 

"We are doing this for politics," there is no basis for applying 

Shaw v. Reno? 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question. You 

can answer if you can. 

A If race is not the predominant factor--whatever 

predominant means, if it is not the predominant factor, then 

[*161] I don't think Shaw applies. If politics is the sole factor, 

then race is certainly not the predominant factor.   
 



  

606 

Q So that if the--if you have a situation where you--which 

you have in North Carolina, where there is almost an identity 

between--well, let me put it this way--where almost every 

African American who registers to vote and votes--registers to 

vote and votes as a Democrat, doesn't this mean that by simply 

referring to them as Democrats you have eliminated the effect 

of Shaw v. Reno? 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question. I 

believe the Bush v. Vera answered that question. Gerry, if you 

want to try and respond. 

A I think I have already testified today that the genesis of- 

-and this relates to your question--the genesis of going to this 

configuration of the 12th District rather than the 1991 plan 

came from a political understanding of Mr. Balmer's plans to 

the Justice Department that creating a district--a predominantly 

Democratic district in the urban piedmont would add a 

Democratic seat as opposed to a Republican one, and that was 

the genesis for that decision, not race at all. 

Q So that actually the 1st District in the--I mean, pardon 

me, the 12th District in the 1992 plan was politically motivated 

predominantly rather than racially? 

A I think it was--I think it was predominantly 

[*162] politically motivated. 

Q And therefore the district should not have been held 

unconstitutional; is that correct? 

A Well, the court didn't--obviously the court did not feel 

that that was the case, that politics was predominant. 

Q But if they had thought that it was predominant, even 

though it yielded the configuration that it did, they should have 

allowed the district to be--to continue--- 

    

  

  

   



  

  

607 

Ms. Smiley: (interposing) Object to the form of the 

question. 

Q ---as it exists in the 1992 plan? 

A If the holding of--I think the holding had to do with the 

shape triggering the analysis and then belying the allegations 

of motive. The court gave it special scrutiny and then did not 

believe the state's case in point. $ 

[*167] Q Now, in the 1997 plan the 12th District has less 

than majority black, if I recall; is that correct? 

A Yes. 

Q Was it your opinion at the time, and I hope I am not 

[*168] repeating the question, that because of that circumstance 

Shaw v. Reno did not apply? 

A Well, I think all cases always apply to--- 

Q (interposing) I'm sorry? 

A I think the case of Shaw v. Reno certainly applies, bul) 

I am not sure what your question is. 

Q Okay. My question is whether a less than majority 

minority district is subject to any sort of strict scrutiny. 

A I have never really had any opinion on that question. 

Q Then let me ask you this. In connection with the 

12th District as it exists there, if a court should find a 

predominantly racial motive for drawing that district, do you 

believe it would then be able to meet strict scrutiny? 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question. 

Answer if you can. 

Q Do you have any opinion on that? 

 



  

608 

A If the court found that race was a predominant reason 

with strict scrutiny; well, it is hard for me to answer since my 

contention is that politics was the most predominant factor. So 

if race was the most predominant factor, and if the court--if the 

court found that race was the most predominant factor and that 

Shaw applies even if the district is not majority black, then it is 

my opinion that the strict scrutiny rule would have to be 

applied. 

Q All right. 

[*169] A And then I need to figure out whether--then the 

answer--now I think I phrased the question. 

Q All right. 

A The question you have now asked me is based on all of 

that--- 

Q All right. Based on all that, do you think it would meet 

the test of strict scrutiny? 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question. 

Answer if you can. 

A I don't have any opinion on that. 

Q Well, politics would certainly not be a compelling 

government interest as you understand it, would it? 

A Sure I think politics is a compelling government 

interest. 

Q So you do think it would be a compelling government 

interest--politics? 

A Yes. 

Q How about incumbent protection? Would that be a 

compelling government interest? 

A Okay; the question is compelling. I think to meet the 

compelling test, you have to look at all the factors together to 

    

 



609 

determine whether you have met this compelling test. I am not 

sure--it depends on what the--it depends on how important the 

factors were in a particular case by case basis. I don't think in 

the abstract you know whether the court is going to [*170] find 

something compelling unless you know--you know, were there 

two incumbents that live in the same area, were there--you 

know, were you are trying to keep the same state's division 

members in Congress based on the politics. I think it would 

depend on what the facts were. 

Q So you think that that type of wording keeping 

incumbents in the same--having them in the same district 

would constitute or could constitute a compelling government 

interest? 

A Along with other factors, it could meet--help meet that 

test. I don't know if on its own--if that was the only factor I 

think it probably would not be a compelling state interest, but 

I think it would be relevant in determining the whole set of 

factors and would be important. 

Q Can you give us some other factors that might be dial) 

into the equation? 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question. 

Q Or that might be considered; I will rephrase it. 

Ms. Smiley: I still object to the form of the question. 

A Partisan balance, preserving the core of existing 

districts, putting members together, complying with Section 2 

if the Gingles factors are met; I think there is--those are all 

things that could be considered. 1 think I mentioned 

incumbents.   
 



  

610 

[¥171] Q = Okay. Complying with the Gingles factors, 

would that have any relevance to the creation of this 

12th District in the 1997 plan? 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question. You 

may answer if you can. 

A I don't know. I don't have any opinion on that. 

Q You don't have an opinion one way or another? Okay. 

You referred to something about a core? 

A Yes. 

Q What do you mean by that reference? 

A If you have an existing district, then one governmental 

interest I think is allowing a new district to resemble to some 

extent the prior one. 

Q When the 1991 plan was drawn, did the legislature 

make any effort to retain the core of the districts from the 

1990 plan--- 

A (interposing) Yes. 

Q ---or 1980 plan I should say. 

A Yes. 

Q And in drawing the 1992 plan, was there an effort made 

to retain the core of the 1991 plan? 

Ms. Smiley: Objection. He has already answered that 

question. 

A I have already answered that we completely changed the 

configuration of the 12th and basically started afresh so 

[¥172] that--there was no core of an existing 12th District 

because we didn't have 12 districts for 30 years before that, so 

it is really had to answer that question in a meaningful way; the 

remaining 11 districts, yes. 

     



611 

Q Now, with respect to the 1997 12th District in 

comparison with the 1992 12th District, was there an effort to 

maintain a core? 

A Yes. 

Q And can you describe how that effort was carried out? 

A Well, as we looked at the previous 12th District and at 

the Shaw decisions in validating that district, that in coniniliflly 

to try to construct a district that was--would elect a Democrati 

member of Congress we looked at the precincts. first that had 

been in the 12th District that had been invalidated because most 

of them were overwhelmingly Democratic. 

And in putting together the 12th District, we looked at 

the election returns of all those precincts as our predominant 

oT factor in constructing the 12th, so in that--the core of the 

1 district was kept because it was a district that had elected a 

Democratic congressmanin 1992. Ergo, some of those factors 

were already there. 

Q Elected an African American as an incumbent; correct? 

A Yes. 

Q And wasn't a substantial amount of the vote for th: 

1 [*173] African American given by persons who were African 
1 Americans? : 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question. You 

can answer if you can to the characterization "substantial." 

A A substantial amount of the votes that Harvey Gantt 

received, were they from blacks? I have never analyzed it in 

that context whether looking at whether--I have never looked 

to see whether a majority of the votes that Gantt got--excuse 

me, that Watt got were from blacks, so I wouldn't have any 

  

  
  
 



  

612 

opinion of that. It would probably be an easy thing to figure 

out, but I have never looked at that. 

Q So you do not deny that a substantial--we will put it this 

way. Would it be your belief that a substantial number of the 

votes that he received was from African Americans? 

A Yes. 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question. 

Q Now, did you consider Charlotte as a hub for drawing 

the 12th District after the--in the 1997 plan after the 

invalidating of the 12th District in the earlier plan? 

A Yes. 

Q So Charlotte was a sort of beginning point; correct? 

A Yes. 

Q In connection with the--in connection with the old 

12th District that was invalidated, who and when was the 

decision made to take Durham out of it? 

[¥174] A Did you say who and when? 

Q Yeah. Who made it? I'm sorry. That is a very poorly 

phrased question. When was it made--when was the decision 

made and by whom to take Durham out of the 12th District? 

A Well, I worked as committee counsel and my primary 

responsibility in our management structure is to report to the 

chairman of the committee, who was Senator Roy Cooper. 

And I am sure that one of my first instructions was to remove 

Durham from the district to meet the constitutional infirmity. 

Since Mecklenburg was to be the hub, that had to be the 

conclusion. 

Q And how about Gastonia, which is fairly close to 

Mecklenburg? How about the decision to take that out, when 

made and by whom? 

  

  
  

 



613 

A I think the same context looking at the appearance issue 

since the court had focused on that--that an appearance could 

trigger something--that removing Gaston County removed 

something that--I think from a reading of the court that that was 

another thing that was felt to be objectionable in trying to meet 

Justice O’Connor’s concerns. 

Q In the goals that are stated when this process beg 

wasn't it stated there would be an effort to avoid splitting of 

counties? 

A I don't remember. 

Q Okay. Well, let me ask this, then. Did you consider 

[*175] in drawing the 1997 plan which was enacted that all of 

the counties of the proposed 12th District would be split? 

A I think that--yes, that we certainly looked at the issue of 

that, but then felt that by dividing counties a district that was 

more Democrat could be created since the--- 

Q (interposing) And by dividing--I'm sorry. 

Ms. Smiley: Please let him finish his question. | 

A ---since the areas that were not included in thos) 

counties were predominantly Republican. 

    Q And were also predominantly white? 

A That is also the case. Yes. 

Q Do you recall in any instances areas being excluded 

which were in fact predominantly Democratic? 

A What appeared on my screen while I was doing the 

redistricting for each precinct was--election returns is what I 

would have had on my screen. In some cases, we might have 

taken a precinct that was slightly less Democratic as opposed 

to more because the district had to be contiguous and it also 

had to have the right population.       
 



  

614 

Sometimes you would want to do “A” but the 

population didn't work, so you had to switch out a precinct to 

make the population tolerance fall within it, and I might have 

probably wound up taking something that was slightly less 

desirable from the partisan viewpoint in order to meet the 

population criteria since we had so many different criteria 

[*176] to juggle. 

Q Now, in this process of getting the voting results, were 

the voting results something that you scrolled up? 1 believe 

you indicated certain voting results were near the bottom and 

you could scroll them up? 

A Well, you could do that. Actually, I answered an earlier 

question that the default on the screen was to show the name of 

the unit. You could also choose to put something else, so that 

while the default might have been to say Charlotte Number 1, 

in fact when I was doing this what I showed on the screen 

instead of the name of the precinct was one or several of the 

election returns with that precinct rather than the name of the 

precinct, so it was there right in front of me. It was also up in 

the corner there with that other map with the other window. 

Q Were you aware at the time that some of the precincts 

that had the heaviest Democratic voting results were African 

American--- 

A (interposing) Yes. 

[*186] Q Do you know whether there was a much higher 

percentage of African Americans who were retained in the 

  

    
  

 



615 

12th District as between the 1992 and the 1997 than the 

percentage of whites? 

A I do not know the answer to that question. 

Q Do you know conversely whether of those who were 

moved into the 19--into the 12th District from other districts as 

shown in the ‘92 plan whether the number of whites that was 

moved in from other districts was greater than the number of 

African Americans moved in? 

A Well, since the district dropped from 54 to 47 percent 

black, the answer would have to be yes. 

Q Pardon me? 

A Without knowing anything else, since the district 

dropped from 54 to 47--- 

Q (interposing) You don't know to what extent the 

formation of the district involved movement of whites as 

compared with blacks to get that number? 

A I would accept that since the percentage of blacks 

dropped by 7 percent, then more whites must have been moved 

in than blacks. w 

[*187] Q But isn't it true the blacks who were there were 

the ones who had already been there for the most part? 

  
[187] A Well, I don't know because since all of 

Greensboro--I'm sorry--Orange, Durham, Alamance, Gaston 

were dropped out. I wouldn't think that it is most, but I have 

never done any statistics to know what the percentage is. 

[188] Q Do you have any idea to what extent whites who 

had been in the earlier district--that is, the 1992 version of the   
 



  

616 

12th District--were still in the 1997 version of the 

12th District? 

A Well, obviously those in Alamance, Orange, Durham, 

eastern Guilford, and Gaston were obviously no longer there. 

Q And where did they--where did they make up the 

difference in that regard? 

A Mecklenburg County. More of--when the eastern and 

western ends of the district were eliminated, the remaining 

district had more population in each of the remaining six 

counties than in the prior one, although it is possible that in 

Iredell County it was the same configuration of precincts. Iam 

not sure. But the other counties all had more population in the 

1997 12th District than they did in 1992. 

[*194] Q Now, with respect to the formation of this 

district, the one that ultimately was--redrawing this district, the 

one that ultimately was enacted into law, can you explain your 

role in the drawing of that district? 

[*195] A Yes. 

Q And what was that role? 

A To create a district that would elect a Democrat that had 

the proper population. 

Q That had what? 

A That had the proper population, that one-twelfth of the 

state's population, that would elect a Democrat, that included 

the residence of Congressman Watt, and that took the most 

Democratic precincts in order to do that. 

  

  
 



617 

[¥195] Q Have you heard the term "racial fairness" 

anywhere along the line in your work on these--- 

A (interposing) I have heard that word at some point; I 

am not sure in the context of this district or this plan. 

Q Do you have any idea what that term might mean? w® 

A Well, it could be a euphemism for proportionality. It 

could be a euphemism for one of any number of factors; giving 

an opportunity for candidates to elect--voters to elect a 

candidate of their choice, which would be a requirement of the 

Voting Rights Act. 

Q When you say euphemism for proportionality, can you 

explain what you mean by that? 

[*196] A You went back to talk to Mr. Dunn's comments 

in 1991, for instance, where I think he was using those as 

synonymous terms. 

[*201] Q ---about the 12th. At the bottom of the 

12th District right near the South Carolina line, is there an area 

that is in a different district, I believe in the 9th district? 

[*202] A If you are talking about part of Precinct 77, 

Charlotte Precinct 77 is divided between the 12th and 9th, I 

1 believe. 

1 Q And had it not been divided in that manner, as shown 

1 on the map of the district--I mean, the map of the redistricting 

plan--the 9th district would not have been contiguous; is that 

true? | 

  

  
  
 



  

618 

A Assuming the rest of the 12th was the same way it was, 

yes; that is correct. 

Q And so this provided a bridge between the two, the east 

and the west parts of the 9th District? 

A That is correct. 

Q The 77th--Precinct 77 was primarily African American, 

wasn't it? 

A Yes. 

Q And indeed isn't it true the portion that is in the 

9th District--the portion of Precinct 77 in the 9th District had 

either one person or no persons at the time? 

A It had one person in the 1991 census, but she has since 

died and there is actually nobody there now. It is the 

Westinghouse Industrial Park. 

RN 

[¥205] Q All right. Now, in a floor debate, and I believe 

this is Senator Cooper speaking, he speaks--he says, “We have 

preserved the current partisan nature of each of the districts.” 

Does that mean, then, that in drawing the 12th District that it 

was intended to retain the partisan nature of the 12th Districtin 

the 1992 plan, i.e., ‘97 and ‘92 were both designed to have the 

same partisan nature? 

A Yes. 

Q Is that what he is referring to? 

A Yes. 

Q And he also says that the Senate plan, which was the 

precursor to the eventually adopted 1997 plan--here is his 

passage— ‘uses as a foundation the basic core of the existing 

  

  

    
 



619 

congressional districts. No district is dramatically changed, 

and most of the districts, if not all of the districts, have become 

more compact.” Is that a correct statement in your view? 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question. You 

can answer that if you can. 

A Certainly from a mathematical basis they are al 

substantially more compact. That was the first part of ® 

question? I'm sorry. I wasn't listening to the second part. 

Q The first part says the Senate plan ultimately adopted as 

a practical--- 

A (Iinterposing) No radical change. 

[*206] Q No radical change, yeah, that “It uses as a 

foundation the basic core of the existing congressional 

districts.” Would you agree with that? 

A Yes. [I think I already stated that earlier in my 

testimony today. 

Q And he says, “No district is dramatically changed.” 

A Well, 1 mean, I think in fact that the 1st an 

12th Districts were dramatically changed. I think 

removing the area from Guilford to Durham County, the 

narrow corridor west of Gastonia, and the part of the 

1st District that ran all the way almost to the South Carolina 

border--I would think they were dramatic changes, but you just 

stated the floor speech from the introducer. 

Q And when Senator Cooper says, "What we tried to do 

was to make each district more geographically compact, 

leaving the core area for each of the present districts," insofar 

as he was referring to the core area for the 12th District he 

1 would be referring to the six counties shown on the map as part 

7 of the 12th District? 

  

    
  
 



  

620 

A It lopped off three counties on the east and one on the 

west and the one--the six in the middle were the core. Yes. 

Q And so you are saying the same--yousay the same thing 

with respect to the 1st District, the lopping off of the counties 

on the southern end? 

[*207] A And I think there were maybe seven or eight 

counties removed, parts of. 

Q Do you have any recollection as to the number of 

people in the noncore district that was lopped off of the 

1st District? : 

A The number of people who were in the 1st District 

under the 1992 plan that were not in there in 1997? 

Q Were lopped off. 

A I think that in one of our submissions or maybe the 

prior litigation that question was asked and answered, but I 

don't remember the answer. It was some substantial number of 

people, though. I recall hearing that question and seeing the 

answer at some point in the past. I don't know the 

[*243] A I don't know the connection to anything, but I 

know that one of the--one of the instructions that Senator 

Cooper gave me was to try to divide a fewer number--a 

substantially [*244] fewer number of counties that had been 

divided in the 1992 plan. I don't know if there was any 

connection between this article and survey and that instruction. 

I would have no way of knowing. 

Q Did he tell you anything about minority representation? 

A I don't understand that question. It is pretty broad. 

         



          

621 

+ Q Did he suggest to you at any point that it was very 

important to assure minority representationof the congressional 

delegation? 

A I think our conversations indicated to me that he 

thought that the Voting Rights Act would require the creation 

of a minority district in the northeast given the Gingles case 

I don't know if he used the word importance of minor) 

representation in those instructions. 

Q Did he refer to that in the context of the 12th District at 

all? 

A No. He did not tell me that we should create a district 

that was majority black in the 12th District because that had 

already been ruled unconstitutional. 

Q Did he tell you that it should be as substantial number 

as possible, up to 40--up to 50 percent? 

A No. 

Q Did he suggest to you anything with respect to the plans 

that you initially drew which--the Cooper/Winner plans 

[*245] which had only 39 percent? w 

A He told me--the only comments on that was the--in the 

context of that looking at the Democratic-Republican statistics 

that some of those other plans were not heavily enough 

Democrat to ensure the election of a Democrat. And he told 

me a couple of times that Congressman Watt was concerned 

about that issue, that he did not feel that under--Senator Cooper 

told me that--did I say Senator Watt--Congressman Watt was 

concerned that some of those earlier plans you mentioned in 

Exhibits 1 through 4 or so that he would have trouble getting 

elected in that district. 

 



  

622 

Q And would that trouble be related to the absence of 

enough Democrats in the district or the absence of enough 

African Americans in the district? 

A I was not told the origin or nature of the comments, just 

that he felt that he did not like that district and those proposals. 

[*254] Q Yes. Let's start with Guilford. 

A Two things: one, I think in doing the 

12th Congressional District--I earlier testified we relied on 

election returns in our analysis. I think to a large extent--I don't 

know if I was using--I think I was probably using the Gantt- 

Helms race equally with probably the Rand-Gardner race so 1 

am not sure if the same things would have shown up with that 

other race. 

But I do remember discussing in Guilford County the-- 

there are a number of precincts that appear to meet that criteria 

in central and western Greensboro that are not in the 

12th District. | 
One of the things we looked at--I believe that in fact as 

we came down to the end, there were a number of precincts 

[*255] that I had put in that district, but that required removing 

precincts either that were more favorable in Mecklenburg 

County or removing precincts in between Mecklenburg and 

Guilford County that would have left it either point contiguity 

or in many cases just one precinct instead of two. 

So in trying to balance the factors, I remember 

discussions with Senator Cooper and my own analysis that that 

factor had--that decision had to fail because it would either 

      

 



623 

- make it worse on the other end in Mecklenburg County where 

there was more crossover voting than in Guilford or make the 

a district so narrow that we ran--would run into the wrath of 

i Justice O'Connor on the issue of shape. So that would be my 

answer in Guilford County. 

1 Q How about Forsyth? 

1 A Forsyth County, the reason those precincts were left + 
i were very specific. Representative Burr lived in the west side 

of Winston-Salem. Those particular precincts were the 

precincts between his home precinct and the dividing line we 

wound up with. And we felt that taking those precincts, the 

ones right up to Representative Burr's home precinct, might be 

seen as unacceptable. I am talking about formulating the 

Democratic plan, not necessarily the compromise. 

That would be unacceptable because Representative 

  

Burr would see more of his hometown taken, thus making him 

[*256] potentially threatened by a primary opponent in another 

part of the district. So we tried to leave as much of Winston- 

Salem with--in the 5th District in conjunction with all the oth 

criteria. So those precincts were in between the boundary that 

we eventually drew and Representative Burr's home precinct. 

Q And Burr is Republican? 

A Yes. 

Q And so you think that--you concluded that Burr would 

rather have these Democratic leaning precincts in his district? 

  

Is that it? 

A We viewed them as his hometown precincts--- 

Q (interposing) All right. 

A ---as opposed to Democratic precincts, that he would 

prefer those. Again, what you see in this particular shading is   
 



  

   

    

    

   

   

624 

the votes for Gantt that would have included a number o 
nominal Republicans who may have in many urban are 1s voted 

against Helms and for Gantt. And in a white on white 

congressional race that Representative Burr would be ikel 

face in the 5th District, the Gantt-Helms returns probably 

would not be as relevant to him as some other analysis like 

Gardner-Rand analysis. 

Q So you are not sure what the Gardner-Rand analysis 

would show one way or the other? 

A No. I mean, at the time I remember looking at it on 

[*257] the screen, but I don't recall what it was. 

Q Now what about down in Mecklenburg? Were there-- 

are there any along the way that you see where there are--- 

A (interposing) The 50 and over? 

Q Yeah, that is in--- 

A (interposing) No, nothing--nothing until you get to 

Mecklenburg County. 

Q Then what about in Mecklenburg County? 

A Well, we faced the same thing again in Mecklenburg 

County that we did back in Guilford, which is if you took more 

of Mecklenburg there is a number in the--two factors. One is 

looking at Gantt-Helms statistics in Mecklenburg County is a 

bit distorted because that was Gantt's home county. 

So I think that looking at that as some prognosticatorof 

Democrat-Republican races for Congress in general was not 

really the best factor because a lot of that was voting for the 

hometown candidate, Gantt, against the incumbent senator 

from Monroe or Raleigh, depending on how you look at him. 

And so I think that those were actually artificially inflated 

numbers. 
  

 



  

625 

    

  

   

   

   
   

   

          

    

. Butevenif they weren't, I go back to the same analysis 

in 1 Guilford. If you took more precincts in Guilford County 

since the population had to be equal you would have had to 

nove them either in the middle or at the end in 
*258] Greensboro, so I think either of those were 

unacceptable. We were trying to strike a balance between 

“making the district the most Democratic as possible and not 

having the same kind of shape that Justice O'Connor found so 

objectionable in Shaw v. Reno. 

Q And yet you knew that by adding in Forsyth County and 

in Mecklenburg you would be able to come up with a district 

which would be more compact and would not include Guilford; 

isn't that true? 

A Are you saying if we chopped Guilford off it would be 

more compact? 

Q Isn't that true? If you were to--- 

A (interposing) In a mathematical analysis, yes; I think I 

answered that earlier. 

Q All right. And if you added the Democratic leaning » 

precincts that were adjacent you wouldn’t have to extend the 

district as far, would you? 

A The district would be less Democratic--if you removed 

Guilford County and replaced it with any combination of 

precincts in Forsyth and Mecklenburg County, the district 

would be less Democratic than the one we enacted in 1997, 

which was our primary concern. 

  

  

* % % 

    
 



  

626 

[*291] Q Then on Monday, February 10th in the evening 

there is one to you with a copy to Leslie Winner--- 

A (interposing) From me. 

Q From you, from you to them, "Subject: 97 Cooper 30." 

A Uh-huh. 

Q What was 97 Cooper 3.0? 

A That would have been some plan that I was working on, 

probably the correct name of it. So it should show up on the 

plan list. Sometimes] would shortenit. The actual name could 

have been 1997 Congress Plan Cooper 3.0 or congressional 

plan but the--the 97 should match with the Cooper 3.0 on there, 

assuming I got the header right. 

And this was--I was obviously asked to make some 

revisions in that plan because the district was still not majority 

black. And as I already testified, one of the things that we were 

trying to do to meet Section 2 [*292] requirements in Gingles 

was to make the district majority black, so this just shows me 

some of the changes I was making to do that at this point in 

time. I don't know whether these stuck or not. 

Q I believe you furnished us as one of the documents 

Cooper 3.0. 

A Okay. Yes. Yeah, probably the 97 Congress 

Cooper 3.0 is the same as my reference to 97 Cooper 3.0. 

[*293] Q You have got--do you now have that--- 

A (interposing) Yes, I do. I have Exhibit 18 in front of 

me along with my e-mail of Monday, February 10th, 8:40 p.m. 

    

 



627 

Q Now, could you continue your comments about 

97 Congress Cooper plan? 

A Well, now, it doesn't--- 

Ms. Smiley: (interposing) Object to the form of the 

question. Do you know what question is pending, Gerry? 

The Witness: He was asking me what the references 

were from changing 48.1 to 49.25 in the first paragraph. it@ 

doesn't seem to match up with the statistics on Cooper 3.0 

because on Cooper 3.0 it shows the black percentage as 49.01. 

But it is possible what happened was that I went to Cooper 3.0 

and would edit at various times and each time would just save 

it under the same name so it gradually changed. 

So -this--document number 18 is a reference to 

Cooper 3.0 as it finally wound up and probably this e-mail may 

have related to some prior version of a plan with the same 

name. The audit trail there would probably show what I did 

to 3.0. It is also possible that my reference to 3.0 was wrong 

and it was actually something else. But I don't know at this 

point. w» 

By Mr. Everett: : 

Q On that memo the last line says, "I have moved 

Greensboro Black community into the 12th, and now need to 

[*294] take about 60,000 out of the 12th. I await your direction 

on this." What do you mean by the Greensboro black 

community? 

A Well, in the other plans that we looked at, Exhibits 1 

through 5 or 6, I believe that you noted that at one point it was 

just Forsyth County and then Forsyth and High Point. 

: I believe at some point I was instructed to include more 

of Guilford County in the district, and the first thing I did was 

  

  
  
   



  

628 

to move the precincts, as I noted here in shorthand to Senator 

Cooper that this probably meant the precincts that were 

predominantly black or maybe something like 40 percent and 

over or something like that the area from probably the 

6th District into the 12th, which then meant it had 60,000 too 

many people. So I was asking him what do you want me to 

remove from the district if we are adding 60,000 from Guilford 

County into the 12th District in whatever plan I was working 

off of. 

Q Would it be a fair reading to assume that by the 

Greensboro black community you were referring to 

60,000 people? , 

A Yes, since I said I need to take 60,000 out, it probably 

meant that I had moved 60,000 in. 

Q You didn't refer to them as Democratic or anything like 

that. You referred to them as blacks; right? 

A That is correct. 

Q And can you tie that in at all with the precincts that 

[*295] were predominantly black that were moved in at that 

particular point? 

A Well, generally the first thing--the first thing I would do 

because it was the easiest thing is to take--I was familiar from 

having worked on plans for 15 years of where the Democratic 

and black concentrations are in Greensboro. 

And the first thing I did was to move the precincts--I 

think it was probably the precincts in Senator Bill Martin's 

Senate district or the two predominantly--the two House 

districts in Guilford County represented by blacks. Probably I 

-moved those into the district first. 

  
 



  

629 

And after that I remember going around the edges of the 

district in the 12th adding in precincts that were heavily 

Democratic because I already knew that the precincts that were 

in the predominantly black areas were heavily Democratic. 

And then I remember going after that--going around the edge 

looking at all the Democratic precincts that surrounded either 

the Senate or House districts. 

Q Is Senator Martin a state senator that you are referring 

to? 

A Yes, he is. 

Q Is he African American? 

A Yes, he is. 

Q And how many African Americans are there in his 

senatorial district, if you know? 

[*296] A I think it is--the total population may be 

54 percent black, 53 percent, something like that. I am not 

quite sure. I don't--- 

Q (interposing) With respect to--I'm sorry. 

A I don't have that information in front of me. 

Q With respect to the map which is attached as 

Congressional Cooper 3.0--- 

Ms. Smiley: (interposing) Are you talking about 

Cohen Exhibit 187 

Q Yes, I'm sorry, the last page there. 

A Yes. 

Q Does that reflect the moving of the Greensboro black 

community into to the 12th district? 

A Well it has got some dots there that go into central 

Greensboro on that map, which would have indicated probably 

that was my first attempt at adding Greensboro to the 

 



  

630 

12th District. So that probably reflects, looking at the shape, 

just adding at that stage the precincts that were, you know, 

99 percent black and 99 percent | Democrat. That is probably 

what I started with. 

Q Now, up to that time would it be true that Greensboro 

and Guilford--well, Greensboro had not been included in the 

maps that you had constructed? 

A Well, there were several different tangents going on. Of 

course it was in the 1992 plan that we had done. But 

[*297] Exhibits 1 through 5 show the district as being just in 

Forsyth County and then into High Point. Then it went into 

Greensboro. 

I think that there were other series of plans. There is 

other plans with similar names. For instance, the Martin plans 

I think all had Greensboro--that series of Martin plans that I 

had done prior to that all had Greensboro in it. I think there 

was another series of plans that had Greensboro in it, but I 

think this was evolving from the Exhibits 1 through 5, this. 

particular trail then including Greensboro in it. I don't know 

whether this particular thing wound up being the committee 

plan or it would up being a dead end somewhere. 

Q Is the Greensboro black community different from the 

High Point black community? 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question; if you 

can understand that reference. 

Q At least as you used the term--- 

A (interposing) Well, Greensboro is a different city than 

High Point. Probably--from that Exhibit 5 or 6 where High 

Point was already in the district probably it was extending on 

    
 



  

631 

into Greensboro. I mean, this is one plan out of a hundred from 

two and a half years ago. 

Q Do you remember how many predominantly black 

precincts in High Point were included in the 12th District? 

[*298] A Which 12th District? 

Q In the 1997 plan; I'm sorry. 

A I do not remember. 

Q Are most of the predominantly black districts in High 

Point in Guilford County as you recall, or if not, how many of 

them are in one of the other three counties which you say reach 

High Point? 

A Forsyth County only has like 20 registered voters in 

High Point in it and the areas in Davidson and Randolph 

County in High Point I believe are like 98 percent white. 1 

think there may be 1,000 in each county. 

Q So that as a practical matter in High Point all of the 

African Americans are located in the Guilford County portion 

of High Point? 

A Yes. That is correct. 

Q Now, with respect to the move of the Greensboro black 

community into the 12th, where did you take 60,000 out of the 

12th District, if you recall? 

A I don't remember; most likely the--usually when I--there 

was a number of times in different tracks--on these 100 plans 

that I went down usually it would involve taking precincts out 

of Davidson, Rowan, and/or Mecklenburg. 

Q Would it be a fair inference that most of the 60,000 that 

were taken out of the district would have been white? 

A They would have been predominantly white or 

[¥299] predominantly Republican; yes. 

 



  

632 

Q And would it also be true that as of this time Durham 

and Gastonia had already long earlier been removed from the 

plans entirely? 

A I have testified already yes, that is correct. 

Q So the evening off--the making up for the move of the 

Greensboro black community into the 12th District was the 

removal of white Republicans from other districts? 

A Other counties. 

Q Other counties? 

A Other districts, too. 

Q Yeah. Other--- 

A (interposing) Yes; into other districts from other 

counties. : 

Q Into other districts? 

A Yes. 

Q Do you have any sort of--you said white Republicans. 

To what extent are you--well, put it this way: was it 

100 percent white Republicans? 

A I would have gone along the edge of the district all the 

way around removing precincts consistent with keeping the 

district contiguous, et cetera, that were the most heavily 

Republican is what I would have removed any time I had to 

add something. 

Q Well, wouldn't there have been inevitably a number of 

[*300] white Democrats that would also have been taken out? 

A Yes. I don’t know of any precinct that is 100 percent 

Republican. 

  
B
R
R
 

AS
N 

  
   



633 

[*313] Q There is a memo of March 14 indicating “The 

attached compares Senate Plan C2 with House Plan G.” Is this 

another [*314] instance of a comparison as to precincts that are 

different between--or units that are different between the two 

plans? | 

A Yes. These are two later plans that were in negotiation 

between the House and Senate. - 

Q And the same explanationwould apply to these as to the 

earlier one? 

A Yes, sir. 

Q With respect to Davidson County, what--with respect to 

those two precincts that are in one instance to be in the 12™ and 

the other in the 6th, can you explain where those precincts were 

with respect to Davidson County, what portion thereof? 

A Well, Ward Number 6 is either in Thomasville or 

Lexington. I am not sure which one itis in. And I am not sure 

    
. 2 where Cotton precinct is. 

1 Q Do you know whether either of those is predominantly 

: black? 

1 A I do not know. 
i Q Do you know whether either of those is predominantly 

Republican? 

A I do not know. 

Q In Forsyth County where is the Brown/Douglas 

Recreation precinct? 

A Somewhere in the city limits, but I don't know where. 

Q Guilford County--well, let's see. Granville County, 

[*315] that is between the 1st and the 2nd. How did that work 

out in the final plan?   
 



  

634 

A That was probably the change that I mentioned that was 

requested by a member from that area. Right, it is. It has got 

Butner and Creedmoor, which I had testified to earlier being 

moved from the 1st to the 2nd. Brassfield and Tally Ho are 

along the Durham County line as well. 

Q Now, in Guilford you have a GB-18 and a GB-35C, and 

one the precinct--well, sort of--one is in 6 in one plan and 12 in 

the other and vice versa. Do you know what that involves? 

A No. Most likely it was trying to get the population 

equality right so precincts in Guilford were switched, possibly 

even irrespective of anything relating to their characteristics of 

the precinct but trying to get the population equal. That is 

probably what happened on this one. 

Q And you are unaware of either the racial demographics 

or the political voting results in those two counties? 

A Certainly not from memory; it would be in the--it would 

be in the statistics available. 

Q In Iredell County in the Senate plan, C2, there are a 

number of precincts that are placed in the 10th District and in 

the House plan those same districts would be in the 

12th District. Can you explain what is involved there? 

[*316] A The House proposal had more of Iredell in the 

12th District, and my recollection is that Senator Cooper did 

not like that idea because they were predominantly Republican 

and did not--I don't know whether--which was the final result, 

but I remember that he characteristicallydid not want any more 

of Iredell added because it was very heavily Republican. 

Q Do you remember any characteristics racially one way 

or the other? 

  

  

  

   



635 

A I think Chambersburg is about 40 percent black, but I 

think the Coddle Creek and Barringer are overwhelmingly or 

almost all Republican white. 

Q Looking at Jones County, where in the Senate plan five 

precincts are in the 1st District--I mean in the 3rd District   rather, and in the House plan they are all in the 1st, can you 

explain what is involved there? » 

A Well, this eventually--since eventually all but one 

precinct in Jones County wound up in the 1st District, then the 

House position must have prevailed here. These are probably 

the five precincts. I think the earlier Senate plans had all of 

Jones in the 3rd District and the House had proposed moving 

five of the six precincts. And I think the Senate agreed to this 

change eventually. | 

Q Do you know anything about racial characteristics or 

political characteristics of those five precincts? 

A Jones County is very heavily Democratic and the 

county [*317] as a whole is probably 45 percent black, but I 

don't know anything specific about those precincts. iw 

Q With respect to Mecklenburg County, do you recognize 

the location of any of the precincts that are listed there from 

what is stated here as the designation? 

A Yes. The House had proposed putting Cornelius, Crab 

Orchard to Davidson, Long Creek 1 and Charlotte 105 in 

the 12th. Except for Davidson all of those precincts are heavily 

Republican. 

I believe that the Senate--that these precincts, 

Charlotte's 5, 35, 45, 62, 84 and 95, are precincts my 

recollection is that are Democratic precincts that the Senate 

  

  
 



  

636 

wanted to put in the 12th District, or more Democratic than 

other precincts in the county anyway. 

Q And do you recall--- 

A (interposing) Certainly more Democratic than places 

like Cornelius and Crab Orchard. 

Q And do you recall how that finally was resolved? 

A No, I do not. 

Q On Person County there seem to be a number of the 

precincts that are in the Senate plan would have gone into the 

4th District and under the House plan would go into the 1st. 

Can you describe what is involved there and what the 

resolution was? 

A I think this was in the--this was part of moving--I am 

[*318] trying to think. Roxboro--Roxboro wound up being in 

the 1st District, so it looks like on this particular issue they 

were deciding--I mentioned earlier that Granville and Person 

were being divided and there was obviously a difference of 

opinion between the Senate and House how to do it. Roxboro-- 

all of Roxboro wound up being in the 1st District eventually, so 

I guess the House position wound up prevailing here on how to 

divide Person. 

Q But Person was divided ultimately? 

A Yes. 

Q And Roxboro is what, in the southern part of the--- 

A (interposing) Central part of the county. 

Q Central part. Pitt County, is the divergence between-- 

well, let me ask you this. In the Senate there are four counties 

that are placed in the--I mean, four precincts that are placed in 

the 1st District. Those same counties in the House plan are 

placed in the 3rd District. 

  

  

  

   



    
  

  

637 

A Yes. 

Q Are those the precincts that were involved with--well, 

how many of those precincts are involved with location of 

Farmville and access to there? 

A I think Arthur and Simpson are the ones between 

Farmville and the southeastern part of the county. I am pretty 

sure. But this would have been the change that the Senate 

wanted to put Walter Jones in the 1st. I am not sure 

[¥319] why at this point the House's position that Jones be in 

the 3rd. 

There were a lot of negotiating points that went on that 

you would see a proposal from the other side and you would 

think “They don't really want this. They must want the other 

thing,” which you never know why in bargaining-- somebody 

sometimes will ask for something they really don't want 

because they don't think you will give it to them. 

Q Moving down to Rowan County--- 

A (interposing) Yes. 

Q ---you have Bradshaw, Enochville and West Ward, 

three precincts that in the Senate plan were going to be in the 

12th District and in the House plan would have been in the 6th? 

A Uh-huh. 

Q Who was the--okay. Who was the incumbent for the 

6th District at that particular point? 

A Howard Coble. 

Q With respect to those particular districts, what was the 

resolution in terms of where they were placed? 

A I don't know the eventual conclusion. That would be in 

our submittal. 

 



  

638 

Q Do you know anything about the demographics of those 

districts? 

A Bradshaw and Enochville are predominantly 

Republican, [#320] and I don't know where West Ward II is. 

Ms. Smiley: Mr. Everett, I would note that it is 6:35 

and I hope you would finish at least by 7 o'clock. 

Mr. Everett: I think I can assure you I will. 

Ms. Smiley: Well, we have exceeded the six hour 

limit. Let's finish up. | 

Mr. Everett: That is great. 

By Mr. Everett: 

Q So this comparison that we have just been going 

through indicates the points of difference that were still 

outstanding on March 14? 

A Right. And that was--at some point in time I was asked 

to run that report. There were lots of other plans. There were 

sometimes several a day put forward by each side. This was a 

case--they must have been--they must have been serious about 

at that point those two plans because I was asked to run a 

report. So that must have been some significance on each side 

to that particular plan, but I don't know whether that was the 

penultimate or middle or where it was in the process of 

negotiating. 

Q And there is a reference on March 14th also in your 

memo to Senator Cooper that information on the House Plan G 

has been sent to the NCEC, which was processing it. 

A Yes. Senator Cooper would have asked me, you know, 

“Let's look at statistics on the House's latest proposal from 

[*321] a partisan standpoint.” 

    

    
  

 



639 

Q Then in the next document, which bears date of March 

18th, 1997, there is a reference to various documents that have 

been filed and. the location of particular precincts that 

apparently was the subject of earlier discussion. 

A Uh-huh. | 

Q And are all of these precincts so far as you can 

determine among those that are listed in the earlier enumeration » 

of differences? 

A This is a draft--in other words, the actual memorandum 

on March 18th or 19th may or may not be the same as this 

draft. This was a draft--the reason I included it here, it was a 

draft of a memo and I don't know whether it was a change 

between that and the one that actually accompanied Senate 

Bill 433. 

But what I did here is basically outline the details of the 

plan and what was divided and if we had to go to zero deviation 

  

  
  

what changes would have to be made, which I discussed were-- 

had no political consequence, but might be needed to satisfy the 

Karcher decision. 

  

Q And on the date of that memo you forwarded the memo 

to Senator Cooper for his inspection? 

A Yes. 

Q Then there is a memo of March 19th, and what is that, 

if I may ask? 

[*322] A Well, this was near the very end of the 

negotiations, and the two points in controversy at that point 

between the House and the Senate were--Sampson County and 

Wake County were the two issue left at that point in 

negotiations. And this memo talks about what the outstanding 

  
  
 



  

640 

differences were in that point in time. That was all that was left 

of negotiations at that point. 

Q And so those pertain to districts other than those that are 

directly involved in this litigation? 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question. You 

can answer if you can. 

A Well, the legislative process is one of compromise, and 

every district was part of the legislation in the 1997 plan and 

the--just like many of the decisions that I have already testified 

had nothing to do with race. 

These last points of discussion between the House and 

Senate had to do with differences between the 2nd, 4th and 

7th District, nothing--many of the final negotiations and 

discussions had absolutely nothing to do with the 1st District 

or 12th District. 

Q And would it be true that these districts might have had 

a ripple effect that could have affected the 1st and the 12th or 

would that have been as a practical matter impossible? 

A At this stage on March 19th, the discussions were the 

[*323] 2nd, 4th and 7th Districts had not yet been finalized. I 

believe everything else had been agreed to at this point in time, 

the night before the final compromise was reached. 

Q So everything on the 1st and the 12th had already been 

agreed upon at that--- 

A (interposing) I can't tell you if at the last minute some 

final change was made, but my recollection is that a lot of the 

discussions had to do with precincts in north Raleigh and 

Clinton, and I think they had absolutely nothing to do with 

anything except partisan politics. 

  

  

  

  
 



641 

ROY ASBERRY COOPER, III DEPOSITION (EXCERPTS) 

[18] Q And in drafting the plan, did you pretty well 

proceed on the premise that if there was a high percentage of 

African Americans, there would be--and who were registered 

to vote, that there would be at least that high a percentage of 

Democrats registered to vote in a particular precinct? 

A We did not use registration figures in determining hogy 

we were looking at a precinct or a county or a district in a 

partisan manner. Registration numbers were meaningless to 

me. 

Q How about in matching up the voting results in those 

three races that I mentioned? Was it pretty clear to you that the 

African Americans who had registered had voted as 

Democrats? 

A I did not do that analysis and that did not enter into 

[*19] my thinking. We were looking at it on a partisan basis. 

It didn't matter what the race was. But it would not surprise me 

that that would be a relatively high number. 

Q Incidentally, if you are looking at something on fF] 

partisan basis and were trying to assure--and you are a 

Democrat; right? 

A Yes. 

Q In trying to assume a Democratic perspective, if you 

wanted to have some sure thing Democrats, you couldn't do any 

  

  
better than North Carolina than having a large number of 

African Americans in the particular precinct, could you? 

A Well, nothing is ever a sure thing, but obviously African 

Americans as a general rule are supportive of Democratic 

candidates in many instances; yes. 

  
  
 



  

642 

[*36] Eventually it became my belief that there should be a 

majority minority district in the 1st District, but I can't 

remember at that time whether I believed that. 1 don't 

remember. 

Q Why did you come to the belief that a majority minority 

district should be there? 

[*37] A In the 1st District? 

Q Yes. 

A There was evidence presented to the judiciary--excuse 

me; the redistricting committee that Section 2 of the Voting 

Rights Act would require it. And then in drawing the district 

as we moved through the process, it was very easy to draw a 

compact--functionally compact district and have a majority 

minority, which I think would be evidenced by the initial plan 

that I presented to the senate committee. 

Q You used that term "functional compactness." What 

does that mean? 

A It means a district that is reasonably compact and that 

you pull together communities of interest, with like interest, 

and you put them together in a district. I think it means that it 

is not--it is as absolutely mathematically compact as it possibly 

can be, but that there are other criteria that you use as well. 

Functionally compact can also mean that we take 

election results into considerationto make the district so that it 

would pass both houses of the General Assembly as well. 

(Mr. Cohen exits at 2:25 p.m.) 

Q So functional compactness also includes making sure 

that the political results are concerned--are considered? 

  

  

i
 

a
 

AR
 

Pe 
O
S
E
 

S
e
n
a
 

a
 
B
A
)
 

S
I
 

B
C
R
 

R
D
 

Si
 

TE
 

  

  

  
S
l
i
t
 

   



  

  

  

  

643 

A Yes, specifically because of what we had to do in 

[*38] getting the plan passed. 

Q Now, in reading some of these Supreme Court cases to 

whatever extent you have read them, did you come across the 

term "geographic compactness"? 

A I don't specifically recall that, no. 

Q Did anybody--were you advised that functional  B 

compactness was a permissible criterion? 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the extent that you are 

asking whether or not he received any legal advice. 

A I think functional compactnessis a term that we used to 

describe what we did. I mean, it--I don't think it was lifted 

from any case, to my knowledge. It was something to put a 

good description on what we did. 

Q Is racial fairness part of functional compactness? 

A Yes. 

* % % 

[*53] Q Now, at a later time when you were presenting w 

I guess Plan A, did you talk to the members of the Senate or 

maybe the committee there, the redistricting committee, about 

some of the things you had considered in drawing the plan? 

A Yes. 

Q Do you remember telling them that--in words to the 

effect that since this was less than a majority African 

Americans and it was not majority white that it was not subject 

to the requirements that would apply to a majority black 

district? 

 



  

644 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question; did 

you say District 127 

Mr. Everett: Pardon me? 

Ms. Smiley: Did you reference District 12 or a 

specific district, or are you just asking the question generally? 

Mr. Everett: 1 am asking him with respect to the 

12th District. 

The Witness: The 12th District. 

Mr. Everett: In Plan A, yeah. 

The Witness: Yes. 

[*54] Ms. Smiley: 1 just don't think you said District 12. 

Mr. Everett: Okay; I'm sorry. 

The Witness: Yes, I recall saying that in my belief one 

of the arguments that the district would be constitutional would 

be that it was not a majority minority and I believed that that 

was a very good argument that the district was constitutional. 

By Mr. Everett: 

Q Had you been advised to that effect by anyone? 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question to the 

extent that you are asking for legal advice. If you want to ask 

about any other people who informed him, that's fine. 

Mr. Everett: Okay. IfI understood you correctly, you 

are saying you object insofar as to ask for whether it is legal 

advice--~ 

Ms. Smiley: (interposing) Well, if it is asking for the 

advice of--you know, any advice given by the Attorney 

General's Office and legal advice, I mean, you know, it is 

privileged, anything we say to him. But if you want to ask him 

nonprivileged communications--- 

Mr. Everett: (interposing) Okay. 

  

    
 



645 

By Mr. Everett: 

Q So you did consult extensively with the Attorney 

General's Office? 

[*S5] A Yes. 

Q And regardless of what they advised you, you came to 

the conclusion that a majority--that unless it was a majority 

black district it was not subject to the same requirements as :@) 

majority black district? 

A I didn't come to that conclusion; I came to the 

conclusion that that was a good argument to argue the 

constitutionality. 

Q Do you remember--- 

A (interposing) I think when I began doing that was when 

someone questioned the constitutionality solely on the basis 

that he thought that it was unconstitutional because you said it 

was. And so at that point I needed to make some arguments as 

to the constitutionality. And in addition to all of the other 

arguments I made, that was one of the arguments that I made to 

the Senate. 

Q Let me just ask you whether this sounds like what you 

said concerning the 1997 plan: 

“I believe that this new 12th District is 

constitutional for several reasons. First, and 

maybe most importantly, when the Court struck 

down the 12th District it was because the 

12th District was majority minority and it said 

that you cannot use race as the predominant 

factor in drawing the districts. 

Well, guess what. The 12th District, under 

this [*56] plan, is not majority minority. 

  

    
  
   



  

646 

Therefore, it is my opinion and the opinion of 

many lawyers that the test outlined in Shaw vs. 

Hunt will not even be triggered because it is not 

a majority minority district and you won't even 

look at the shape of the district in considering 

whether or not it is constitutional. That makes 

an eminent amount of sense because what is the 

cutoff point for when you have the trigger of 

when a district looks ugly? I think that the 

court will not even use the shape test, if you 

will, on the 12th District because it is not 

majority minority. It is strong minority 

influence, and I believe that a minority would 

have an excellent chance of being elected under 

the 12th District.” 

Is that what you said? 

A I recall saying that in addition to making other 

arguments as to the constitutionality. 

Q When you speak of your opinion, you, of course, are a 

lawyer? 

A Yes. 

Q And soon may be the chief legal officer for the State of 

North Carolina? 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question. 

Mr. Everett: All right. 

Ms. Smiley: It is not necessary to answer that [*S7] 

question. Senator Cooper has already told you he is a lawyer 

but he is not a redistricting lawyer. 

Mr. Everett: Well, let me just finish the question. 

By Mr. Everett: 

    

    

  

  
  

  
 



647 

Q And the opinion of many lawyers that this test and so 

forth don't apply, did you talk to other lawyers besides those in 

the Attorney General's Office? 

A I don't recall specifically whether I did. I came to the 

| conclusion after talking to lawyers that that was a very good 

argument to make. I had not even thought of this while 

drawing the plan. I thought of the argument after the plan ha 

been drawn that hey, this is not a majority minority district so 

why should it even be triggered. It made common sense. 

I didn't base it personally on any case law. I didn't do 

any research and I am not a redistricting lawyer. But it makes 

common sense. I ran this opinion by some lawyers, and they 

told me it was a good argument to make, so I did. 

  

  

  

Q So you as the chair of that committee made that 

statement for the legislative record; correct? 

A Yes. 

Q And did you at any time prior to the enactment of the 

1997 plan ever say anything to the Senate or to your committee 

  

wherein you purported to withdraw or limit thai 

. [*58] particular statement? 

A No. 

3 Q So what you said then as far as you were concerned 

| remained the last word right on through until the plan was 

A enacted? 
1 Ms. Smiley: Objection; what do you--I mean, if you 

a can answer what you said meant was the last word--- 

3 Q (interposing) As far as you were--- 

1 Ms. Smiley: ---you can try to answer that. But I 

object to the form of the question.   
 



  

648 

A That as far as I was concerned remained one of the 

arguments to be argued that the district was constitutional. 

Q Now, when you all started to draw the plan, did you 

outline certain purposes that were to be served? 

A Yes, sir. 

Q Contiguousness was one of them, wasn't it? 

A The purposes were to correct the constitutional defects 

in the district and to have a plan that had a partisan six-six 

balance so that it would get enough votes in the Senate and the 

House to get it passed. Those were the prime directives. 

Q And with respect to the purposes, when you were 

drawing the plans--or when then plans were being drawn back 

in the 1996 period after Shaw v. Hunt, were you concerned with 

partisan balance at that particular point? 

[*S9] A I don't recall for certain. When the partisan 

balance issue became crystallized was when after the 

‘96 elections we had a six-six split. I don't specifically recall 

thinking about drawing plans before those elections. We may 

have, but I don't remember. And I don't know when the dates 

on these particular plans were. I just--I just don't recall. 

[¥62] Q Now, with respect to the route followed, isn't it 

true that in the plan that was ultimately adopted, the ‘97 plan, 

you don't follow 85; you go out of Greensboro onto 77 and go 

up and pick up some black precincts in Statesville and 

Salisbury and then come back over to 85 and at various points 

depart from I-85? Wouldn't that be true? 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question. 

  

  

 



649 

Mr. Everett: Okay. 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the characterization. I den't 

think he said that he has gone out and picked up black precincts 

anywhere. 

The Witness: Yes. 

Mr. Everett: All right. 

The Witness: Youknow,I can't specifically remembe/ff) 

where the interstate is in regard to this, but it is in the general 

vicinity of the areas between Guilford and Mecklenburg 

County and in the general travel route as far as [*63] I 

remember. 

By Mr. Everett: 

Q Well, if you were traveling from--the best you 

remember, if you were traveling from Greensboro to Charlotte, 

  

could you have done so and stayed within that district and 

followed the most direct route? : 

A We had to pick up enough population along the way to 

make a district. And basically in drawing this district we 

looked at the community of interest. We put together what w 

believed to be a functionally compact district between Guilford 

and Mecklenburg County. But the driving force behind it was 

the partisan balance issue. 

Just going back to this map, as I recall, when this idea 

was discussed of going from Charlotte to Winston-Salem said 

that that made no sense because we need to keep, number one, 

the Triad together, and number two, there are really no areas 

around the 12th that need help from Democratic leaning voters 

in Guilford and Forsyth and Davidson and Rowan and Iredell 

and Mecklenburg. So why not go ahead and let's put all of   
 



  

650 

those Democratic leaning voters based on election results in the 

12th District and make it a solid Democratic district? 

And that was the--it may be even more of a driving 

force than the community of interest. Although the community 

of interest was important, it was important not to separate 

[*64] the Triad because they are sort of an entity. And to pull 

Winston-Salem out and pull it away from High Point and 

Greensboro, that didn't make geographic sense. 

Q So you are saying that High Point and Winston-Salem 
should be kept together. And are you saying--- 

A (interposing) And Greensboro. 

Q And those should be tied in with Charlotte? 

A Yes. 

Q Okay. And so--- 

A (interposing) The Democratic leaning voters in those 

districts. 

Q And those--- 

A (interposing) In those areas. 

Q And for the most part, those were African American; 

right? 

A I don't know if you could say for the most part. Itisa 

not a majority minority district. So I wouldn't characterizeit as 

for the most part. | 

Q Well, let's put it this way: as far as those three counties 

that include Charlotte, Greensboro, High Point and so forth, 

each of those counties is--the portion of each of those counties 

that is included in the 12th District is majority black, isn't it? 

A Say that again. 

Q Okay. Take--there are six counties in the 12th 

[*65] District--- 

    
 



  

  

651 

A (interposing) Okay. 

Q ---as it was drawn. Isn't the portion of Guilford County 

that is in the 12th District majority black? 

A I really--- 

Ms. Smiley: (interposing) I am going to object to the 

form of the question. I mean, this is--- 

A (interposing) Well, I don't remember. i 

Ms. Smiley: This is population data that is in the 

record, and for you to expect--unless Senator Cooper absolutely 

knew and that is what he was using, I don't see any point in him 

trying to guess or speculate. 

Mr. Everett: Well, we are trying to find out what he 

did know and what he--- | 

Ms. Smiley: (interposing) Well, why don't you ask 

him if he knows, not whether it is true? 

Mr. Everett: Well, I am asking--- 

Ms. Smiley: (interposing) Ask him if he knows--- 

The Witness: (interposing) I don't remember;I really 

don't remember. pe 
By Mr. Everett: 

Q All right; the same question with respect to Forsyth? 

A I don't remember that. I know that they were mostly 

Democratic leaning. And I really don't remember. 

Q And did you know that--you did not know they were 
[66] mostly--you did not know whether they were mostly 

black? 

A Well, yes; I knew that there were a significant number 

of African American voters there, yes. And we didn't ignore 

that fact. I mean, that is true. I don't know whether I would 

 



  

652 

characterize it as mostly, but there were African American 

voters there. 

Q And is it true that you--well, didn't you proceed on the 

premise that they would--the African Americans would be 

registered as Democrats and vote as Democrats? 

A We didn't look at registration data. We looked at 

election data. 

% % %_ 

[*68] Q Now, with respect to the 12th District as it 

currently--well, as it was in the 1997 plan, if it is-- assuming 

for the moment that it was being viewed as being constructed 

with a predominantly racial motive, are you aware of any 

compelling governmental interest for its being constructed as 

it was? 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question. 

Mr. Everett: Okay; I will rephrase it. 

By Mr. Everett: 

Q Do you know of any compelling governmental interest 

[*69] for the 12th District having the form that it now has? 

Ms. Smiley: Objection; are you asking for a legal 

conclusion? 

Mr. Everett: Pardon me? 

Ms. Smiley: Are you asking for a legal conclusion? 

Mr. Everett: 1 am asking him for his personal 

conclusion. 

Ms. Smiley: Okay; then you can answer. 

The Witness: Going back the community of interest, 

you mentioned traffic congestion. That is an issue--- 

    

  
 



  

  

653 

Q (interposing) I'm sorry? 

A You mentioned--going back to the communities of 

interest, it comes to mind that you mentioned traffic congestion 

in Winston-Salem and Greensboro. That is also a significant 

problem in Mecklenburg. 

I think a largely urban district has a lot of common 

problems that government can try to address and that a membe 

of Congress from that district can try to address, so I think that 

certainly the community of interest in that area is a 

governmental interest. 

Q Any other compelling government interest that comes 

to mind? 

A think as opposed to the ‘92 plan, it is much easier to 

know what district you are in. There are no split 

[*70] precincts, as it were. I think there is one that was maybe 

a satellite annexation in the 12th. But everybody in the same 

precinct knows what district they are in. So I think that that 
helps clear up matters significantly. 

Q Okay. And--- 

A (interposing) There may be others. We considered a lot 

of issues when we drew these maps that I can't recall at the 

moment, but there may be others. 

[*70] Q Senator Cooper, with respect to the 1st District, 

are [*71] you able to state any compelling interest why that had 

to be--why that was drawn as a predominantly--well, pardon 

me; as a majority black district? 

 



  

654 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question; I 

assume you are not asking for a legal conclusion? 

Mr. Everett: No; just personal. 

Ms. Smiley: To the extent you can answer--- 

The Witness: (interposing) Compelling governmental 

interest--- 

By Mr. Everett: 

Q (interposing) Right. 

A ---as to why it was majority--- 

Q (interposing) Uh-huh. 

A + I think there are compelling governmental interests as 

to why it was drawn as it was. It is a largely agrarian district. 

The northeastern part of the state is generally probably one of 

the poorest areas of the state. 

There are a lot of concentrations of the Tier 1 counties 

under the Bill Lee Act to get greater tax incentives for poorer 

counties. There are a lot of those concentrated in the northeast. 

They have a lot of problems that are related to their rural nature 

and the poor nature. And all of that, I think, helped make us 

decide to draw a district up in the northeast. 

As to why it was majority minority, first we did 

[*72] believe that under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act that 

it needed to be majority minority, but that we could draw the 

district in a functionally compact manner and still have 

majority minority. And historically that district in that area, 

oftentimes the 2nd District in history, had a large concentration 

of African Americans that lived there. 

So I think with all of those reasons we came to the 

conclusion that the district should have been drawn as it was. 

  

  
 



  
  

655 

I think really that the district that I presented to the Senate was 

a little better than the district we ultimately ended up with. 

Q What do you mean in that regard? Can you explain 

that? 

A I think probably it was a little more functionally 

compact than the district that we ended up with. But there 

were partisan considerations and the effect of the 3rd and the 

2nd and all of the negotiations that went on there that required 

the additional changes that we made in the 1st District. 

[*74] Q And that was not one of your express objectives 

anyway to have geographic compactness? 

A I think geographic compactness, having people close 

together as much as possible, is part of being 1 guess this term 

we coined functionally compact. That is a component of 

communities of interest. 

Q Well, now, you were aware, weren't you, that when yo 

created the 12th District in the 1997 plan you were splitting 

each of the six counties in that district? 

[*75] A Right. And most of that had to do with the 

partisan nature of the district. 

Q And also with maintaining the core; right? 

A That is part of it, yes. But most of that had to do with 

the partisan nature of the district. 

Q And so is it your testimony, then, that the 12th District 

was going to vote Democratic? Is that it? 

 



  

656 

A I don't think anybody can absolutely predict, but from 

the election results that we analyzed District 12 would be a 

strong leaning Democratic district; yes. 

Q Okay. Would you also have been able to predict that 

the Democratic candidate to be elected would be African 

American? 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question; if you 

can attempt to answer that question, go ahead. 

A No, I don't think you could predict that. I do think an 

African American would have a good chance at winning that 

district; yes. 

Q Has it been your experience that African Americans 

have a strong desire to have persons of their own race elected 

to public office? 

A I think that many African Americans believe that there 

need to be more people elected to public office who are African 

American; yes. 

Q And is that part of the concept of racial fairness, 

[*76] having more persons of minority groups, minority ethnic 

or racial groups, elected to office? 

A I think that racial fairness means making--well, racial 

fairness means that you have a district where an African 

American would have a good chance at winning the election; 

yes. 

%* % % 

[*77]1 Q Did you have any contact Representative Watt 

or any person who purported to be acting in his behalf with 

    

  

  

 



  
  

  
  

657 

respect to the percentage of African Americans to be included 

in the 12th District? 

A Well, first I talked with, I think, every member of 

Congress or their representative except for Congressman 

Taylor. I don't believe that I talked with anybody in his office 

with respect to the 11th District. But yes, I did have 

conversations with Congressman Watt and with representatives 

of his office concerning many things involved with the 

12th District. And one of those would have been race, yes. 

Q And in the course of any of those discussions was it 

indicated that he would like to have as high a percentage of 

African Americans as could reasonably be put into the district? 

A He wanted to maintain as much of--as many of his 

constituents as he had under the old plan; yes. He wanted to 

keep as much of that as possible. 

[*78] Q And by constituents did he identify which 

constituents, by race or otherwise? 

A He wanted to keep as much of his district as he could. 

But that was a goal of many of the members of Congress with 

whom 1 talked because of the fact that they send letters and 

communicate with each other, and so he wanted to do that. 

Q So he wanted to maintain as many of the voters from 

the original 1992 plan 12th District--he wanted them to 

be--continue in his district to the greatest extent possible? 

A As much as the constitution would allow under the 

constraints of Shaw v. Hunt, yes. 

%* % % 

 



  

658 

[*80] believe you said something to the effect that among the 

factors you took into account in configuring one of the 

[*81] districts was race. What did you mean by taking it into 

account in this context? 

A Racial fairness was one of the factors that we 

considered in drawing the districts. 

Q And racial fairness was what? 

A We. wanted to draw districts that cured the 

constitutional defect in the plan but still maintained the core of 

the plan. And racial fairness was a part of that. 

Q Maintaining the core of the plan was in your view part 

of racial fairness? 

A Uh-huh 
Q Okay. 

A Yes, it was. 

Q Somewhere along the line according to some notes I 

had, you said that back in February of 1997 in talking to the 

Senate committee, "What we tried to do was make each district 

more geographically compact leaving the core are for each of 

the present districts." There when you were referring to 

geographic compactness, what did you mean? 

A Making it look prettier. 

Q Okay; maybe I need to get you to clarify what is pretty 

and what is ugly in this context. 

A I guess it is up to the Supreme Court. I think that 

specifically the court did not like one county having three 

congressional districts. The court did not like the double 

[*82] crossovers and point contiguity and long areas where you 

didn't have any people connecting counties and precincts and 

  

    
 



659 

areas. And putting things more geographically together was 

one of the issues that we looked at. 

Q So that--- 

A (interposing) Not as many counties being split, trying 

not to split precincts; I think that is all part of geography. 

* % % Rk 

[104] A I just don't know. I mean, racial fairness was 

important, and having a plan that was racially fair was 

important to me, and it was important to other legislators with 

whom I--- 

Q (interposing) And racial fairness is like minority 

representation? 

A Well, having an African American fair shot to winning   a congressional district, yes. 

Q And what is necessary for a fair shot? 

A I think what we did is a good example of that. 

Q When you--- A 

A (interposing) But keeping in mind that you have got all 

the other constitutional criteria to meet at the same time. 

Q Well, let me ask you this: in 1997, in March or 

1 thereabouts, to give African Americans a fair shot, you created 

| q a 12th District with about 47 percent black; is that right? 

1 Ms. Smiley: Asked and answered, and he has also 

indicated 47 is an approximation. 

Q About that; okay? 

A Yes, I do think that would give an African American a 

[*105] fair shot to win that district; yes. 

     



  

660 

Q And then in 1998 did you also try to create a 

12th District that would give an African American a fair shot? 

A Yes. I mean, that was one of the factors in drawing the 

district in 1998; yes. 

Q And at this time it was about what, 35 percent? 

A I think that is right. 1 don't remember. - 

Q Significantly less, in any event? 

A I don't remember specifically, but yes, it was less. 

Q Can you explain why it was necessary to have that 

47 percent or whatever it was, that significantly higher 

percentage, in 1997 and then the legislature went back and cut 

it back to 35 percent? 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question if you 

are implying in any way that the legislature voluntarily went 

back and did that. If you can answer the question, go ahead. 

A What we did between the ‘97 and ‘98 plan is read--and 

I don't remember it all now, but at the time we read line by line 

the three court--three judge panel's decision. And we tailored 

the ‘98 plan to try to address every problem that they pointed 

out with the plan. And that is how we drew the ‘98 plan. 

Q Still trying to give a fair shot, right, to--- : 

A (interposing) That was, yes, one of the factors. But 

[*106] the overriding factor at that point was going through and 

addressing the court's issues and drawing a plan that would be 

constitutional. 

Q But you were still doing it for partisan fairness and 

incumbent protection, the same objectives? 

A All those objectives were there, yes. 

Q Could you answer this? Why couldn't you have created 

a district with 35 or so percent in the first place to give 

Gi
s 

o
r
]
 

  

R
E
S
 

ta
 

TS 
O
R
S
 
P
U
R
S
E
 

e
S
 

B
N
 

  

  
   



661 

minorities--a minority candidate a fair shot and not had a six 

county district all of which were split, et cetera? 

A A couple of reasons: one, we felt that we had complied 

with Shaw v. Hunt with the district that we drew. We 

significantly shortened the district--youare talking about going 

from Gastonia to Durham--and significantly shortened it, 

significantly widened it, kept communities of interest. . 

And as I told you before, basically you were wasting 

Democratic leaning voters when you look at the issue of 

partisan balance if you simply put those Democratic leaning 

voters in surrounding districts, which are Republican districts 

anyway. 

Q Well, let's see; Congressman Hefner, he was there at 

that time, right? 

1 A That is correct, but there was really no way to help him. 

1 Cabarrus is his home county and he wanted all of that [¥107] in 

his district. But there was really no way to help Congressman 

Hefner with the 12th District. 

Q How about putting some of those folks in from 
Mecklenburg County? 

A Congressman Hefner I don't believe was interested in 

representing part of Mecklenburg County. 

Q You don't think he would have liked to have had 

1 black--would have liked to have had black Democrats from 

Mecklenburg? | 

A That never was requested by him and it never came up 

in our discussions. 

      
  Q So nobody ever suggested that as an alternative? 

A Well, no; I am not saying that. I mean, I think Senator 

Cochrane presented a Mecklenburg to Robeson plan on the   
 



  

662 

floor, so that yes, it was suggested but it never did enter my 

way of thinking as what we ought to do. 

Q = Well, what I am wondering about is the extent to which 

you looked at the alternatives around about there and decided 

that it would be a waste to take any of these solid Democratic 

voters, African American voters, and put them in some other 

district where they could help Democrats. 

Mr. Stein: Object. 

A Well, as I have said earlier, the surrounding districts 

were all solidly leaning Republicans. And from my 

conversations--like 1 said, I talked to all the members of 

[*108] Congress or representatives except for Congressman 

Taylor. And from my conversations with those folks they were 

fine with the 12th District as we drew it. 

Q And Congressman Watt was particularly fine with it; 

correct? 

A Well, I think Congressman Watt had some public 

comments that he did not want to lose the constituents that he 

had before. But I think that he accepted the plan because he 

understood the court's decision--- 

Q (interposing) He had no choice, did he? 

A ---and he accepted it. No. 

Q Well, when you reduced the number of African 

Americans in the 12th District by some 10 percent at least 

in 1998, these were all--virtually all Democrats; right? 

A That is correct. 

Q You had no--- 

A (interposing) Now, wait a minute; no. Okay. Ask your 

question again. 

  

  
 



663 

Q Okay. My question is in some way or other you went 

from 47 percent to around 35 percent? 

A Because we followed the lower court's order; they said 

the district was not constitutional. We disagreed, but we had 

to do it. 

Q Yeah. 

A So we did it. 

[¥109] Q And that meant removing 10 percent of the 

population of the 12th District and putting it somewhere else; 

is that what--- 

A (interposing) That was a natural occurrence of 

complying with the court's order; yes. 

Q Okay. Now, and that was all--they were all--virtually 

all Democrats; right? 

A I mean, you know, I don't remember specifically. Yes, 

the part in Guilford that we included in the 12th was strong 

1 leaning Democrat. And I don't want to characterize it as 

| virtually all were Democrats, but it was a strongly leaning 

Democratic voters. And yes, they were taken out of the 12th 

and put into the 6th, Congressman Coble's district. 

Q And all of those were black, correct, virtually? 

A No. 

Q What percentage of those that were--- 

A (interposing) 1 told you I don't remember the 

percentage of African Americans. It was a strong Democratic 

leaning area. 

  
Q And that being--taking this Democratic leaning group 

and putting them in Coble's district, was that just a waste of the 

Democratic votes? Is that the way you viewed it?   
 



  

664 

A Huh-uh. I don't want to characterize it as that, but I 

don't think it would have affected Congressman Coble's district 

so that a Democrat could be elected. 

* % % 

[¥112] Q Now, if you look at some of these plans, the 

Winner/Cooper plan back in 1996, back in the summer of ‘96, 

you will find districts which are pretty much like the 

12th District in 1998? 

A There were some plans that were fairly close to that; 

yes. 

Q My basic question then is why didn't you adopt one of 

those plans in 1997 instead of going for a much higher 

percentage of African Americans? 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question; he 

hasn't said that the reason they adopted the plan they did was 

because of the percentage of African Americans in the 

12th District. 

Q I am just asking you why they didn't do it. 

A Going back to the partisan issue of going ahead and 

[*113] making it a strong Democratic district where you really 

could not help any of the surrounding district, going back to the 

partisan issue. 

Q But isn't it true you knew very well if you had 

47 percent African Americans in that total population it was 

going to at the very least be Democratic? 

A Yes. Well, yes; I mean, we looked at the election 

results of that district, and yes, we knew that it was going to be 

a strong Democratic district. 

    

  

 



  

    

665 

Q And you didn't even really have to look at the election 

results, did you? 

A But we did; I mean, we did pretty specifically look at it. 

Q And that confirmed pretty much what you would have 

anticipated anyway; correct? 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question; he 

said that he looked at election results. He didn't make othe) 

inferences. 

Q. Did anybody tell you--go ahead. 

A I think--I am not even sure what I am answering at this 

point. 

Q You have probably answered it.. Did anybody tell you 

that it was going to be 47 percent? I mean, did Gerry Cohen or 

somebody say 47 percent would be African American? 

A Yes, we knew the racial composition of the district, 

[*¥114] yes. 

Q And--- 

A (interposing) It was printed out on each plan along with 

all of the other demographic information. » 

Q And didn't you know very well as a direct inference 

from that that that meant that it would be very strongly 

Democratic as well? 

A I don't think you can just look at that by itself because 

you don't know what kind of district that you have. But I--it is 

hard for me to separate that from my knowledge of the election 

results of the district. We knew it would be a strong 

Democratic district, yes. 

Q Well, what I am asking you basically is when you put 

47 percent African American there, weren't you really just 

using race as a proxy for politics for your Democrats? 

 



  

666 

A We looked at election results is what we looked at. 

That was the primary tool that we used in drawing the 

12th District. Yes, racial fairness played a part in it. 

[*128] Q Has anybody anywhere ever advised you that 

functional compactness was a permissible redistricting 

principle? 

Ms. Smiley: I am going to object to the extent that 

you asking him for any conversations with legal counsel. To 

the extent that you can answer--- 

A (interposing) I don't recall that. I think that is 

[¥129] just a term that we were able to use to show that we 

considered many factors in drawing the plans. 

Q In other words, you are not saying it is--you didn't 

originate the term? You weren't the first person that said--- 

(interposing) I don't remember how it got started. 

Okay. 

It sounded good; we started using it. 

All right. | 

I don't know coined it. I don't know. 

And you are not aware--- 

(interposing) I have no clue if it is in any case law or 

not. But I mean, we have talked about this, and there are many 

factors. 

o
o
 

P
L
O
»
 

And this is not necessarily all-inclusive, but we talked 

about trying to keep as many counties whole as we could, 

trying not to split precincts when possible, trying to look at 

communities of interest, trying to make sure that we had a 

    

   



    
  

  

667 

partisan balance, to make sure that it was racially fair, to look 

at the incumbents and consider that because that was important 

in getting enough votes to get it past the General Assembly 

because of the influence that they had over the General 

Assembly. All of those things I think come into play. And 

there may be a few more that I have left out. 

A I suppose there is no point in going back and asking 

[*130] you about community of interest which you used in 

your last answer. You have already talked about that earlier. 

Do you remember whether when the time came to prepare the 

Section 5 submission you had any involvement in that? 

Ms. Smiley: For which plan, the 1997 plan? 

Mr. Everett: Right. 

A Do you mean submitting everything to the Justice 

Department--- 

By Mr. Everett: 

Q (interposing) Right. 

A ---for preclearance? Yes, I did have involvement. 

Q What was your role and who else was involved in that? 

A I talked to members of the Justice Department. That is 

about it. I mean, I talked to them. 

Q Who actually submitted it, under what name, if you 

recall? Was that by the Justice Department, by you, or 

somebody else, if you recall? 

A It was a combination of the Justice Department and the 

General Assembly staff putting things together and submitting 

it. I don't know under what name they put it under. 

Q And in that context was it your belief that because the 

Section 5--because there was a majority black 1st District that 

 



  

668 

the Section 5 submission for preclearance would in fact be 

precleared? 

A That was an important part of preclearance, but as I 

[*131] recall, the 12th had to be precleared, too. So I mean, I 

think both of them--- 

Q (interposing) The whole plan, didn't it? 

A The whole plan had to be precleared, but they were 

looking at both of them. 

Q And did you have any concern as to whether it would be 

precleared or any belief as to whether it would be precleared if 

the 12th District had a much lower percentage of African 

Americans? | 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form if you are asking for 

a legal opinion. 

A I did not have too much concern about it because we 

had a Supreme Court decision striking it down and I thought 

the Justice Department would take that into consideration when 

we submitted the plan. So I did not have a great deal of 

concern. You never know what the Justice Department is 

going to do and I really didn't know. But I was more concerned 

with correcting the constitutional defects. 

%* % % 

[132] Q Did you have any other election results you 

considered besides the three that you mentioned? 

A Yes. | 

Q What were those results and how did you obtain them, 

from whom? 

    

  

    

  
 



  

669 

-A I obtained them from an organization called the 
National Committee for an Effective Congress. They had some 
election results in the different districts from 1990 to I 
believe 1996. And we used those election results along with 
those election results that were already in the General 
Assembly computer. 

Q Those results that you obtained from the NCEC well) 
not put into the computer at any time? 
A No, they were not. 

  

  
Q It was not published in any way you were relying on 
them? 

A It was their data that they were letting me look at. 
Q [s that organization affiliated in any way, direct or 
indirect, with a political party? - 
A I don't know if they are affiliated, but they 
[*133] are--what they do is that they try to affect the process so 
that Democrats are elected to Congress. That is at least part of 
their mission. 

Q Is any of their mission assuring that minority persondf) 
get to Congress? 

A No. They started out telling me that, but they had no 
interest in that whatsoever. 
Q So their mission was simply to give you results in that 
regard as to what the likely outcome would be? 

(Witness nods affirmatively.) 
Q When did you get those results from the National 
Center? 

A When did I get them? 

Q Uh-huh. 

  

  
 



  

670 

A At various times when I requested the information 

through the entire process. 

Q Was it pretty clear to you from that information that an 

African American would be elected or reelected to Congress 

from the 12th District under the plan you drew? 

A I didn't affect my opinion one way or the other. I felt 

that an African American would have a fair shot at being 

elected in the 12th. 

[*138] Q Now, with respect to the 12th District, the six 

counties, all of which were split in the '97 plan, is it your 

testimony that could not reasonably be avoided consistent with 

other goals? 

A That is correct, yes. 

Q So that--- 

A (interposing) Other goals were more important than 

having whole counties in the 12th. 

    

 



  

  

    

671 

J. H. FROELICH DEPOSITION (EXCERPTS) 

[*7] Q Have you always lived in North Carolina? 

A I have always lived in North Carolina and always lived 

in High Point, North Carolina. 

Q Could you tell me what your educational Yadkground 

is? 

A I went to school in High Point, then to Woodbury 

Forest School in Orange, Virginia. And then I went to the 

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and then I was in 

the first MBA class in Chapel Hill, graduating in 1953. 

Q All right. Where have you been employed, if you could 

briefly describe your employment--- 

A (interposing) I have been employed in--- 

Q ---background? 

[*8] A I went to work when I got out of school for my 

father in the face veneer business and then took that business 

over upon his death in 1962 and then got into the import 

business bringing in products from southeast Asia and started 

two manufacturing plants that made drawer component part 

for the furniture industry and brought in teak lumber and other 

things for--mahogany and other things for this region. 

I got in the furniture business in the '70s and became-- 

took over the old Tomlinson Furniture facility, which we 

turned into Market Square, which is the second largest--it and 

its sister buildings, the second largest group of market 

buildings in the High Point market. And we just recently sold 

that to a real estate investment trust. And I am involved in the 

motion picture production business and in the hotel business. 

We own this particular property right here. 

Q It sounds pretty busy. 

 



  

672 

A Yes. 

Q It must keep you pretty busy. 

A Well, I am also president of AAA Carolinas and I am 

the vice chairman of the School of the Arts board and involved 

in a lot of other board activity. 

[*13] A. I know Greg Everett. 

And Robinson Everett? 

I know Robinson Everett. 

And Dorothy Bullock? 

Dorothy Bullock, yes. 

You know her? 

Uh-huh. 

How do you know Ms. Bullock and the Everetts? 

I have been involved in the television business and have 

been in business--we have been in business together in the 

television business in Greensboro and also in Wilmington. 

Q. You have been in business with Robinson Everett, 

would that be? 

A. Yes; and his mother, who is deceased. And Dorothy 

Bullock is the lady in the office that I would--who would 

communicate with me. 

Q. And is Greg Everett Robinson Everett's son? 

(Witness nods affirmatively.) 

Q. Have you had any business dealings with him or just 

know him as Robinson Everett's son? 

A. I just know him as Robinson's son. 

P
O
P
O
P
R
O
P
L
O
 

           



  

P
l
a
n
s
 

A
E
 

  

673 

Q. When did you first become involved in business with 

Robinson Everett and Ms. Catherine Everett? 

A. In the 70s. 

Q. In the 1970s; okay. 

[*14] A. Or really late '60s. 

Q. Once you went to vote in 1992 and found out that you 

were in the 12th District, did you contact Robinson Evere 

about this lawsuit? 

A. I think I was conscious of what was going on, and I may 

have mentioned to him that I was pleased that that was going 

on when I saw him under some--I didn't go vote and call 

Robinson, no. 

Q Did you try to keep track of the Shaw lawsuit? 

A I very much did. 

Q And how did you keep track of it? 

A In the press and finding out what is going on; I have 

been involved in politics in North Carolina all my adult life. I 

have been chairman of the Democratic Party in Guilford 

County. Iran Skipper Bowles' campaign for governor in 1972 

I have been involved very much in what goes on 

politically in North Carolina and how North Carolina is put 

together. So I very much agreed that a suit ought to be filed 

because I thought the congressional district was absolutely not 

justifiable at all. 

Q Did you talk about it with Robinson Everett other times 

other than just mentioning to him that you agreed with the suit? 

A Well, I am sure I had conversation with him, yes, 

[*15] ma'am. Yes. And I told him a number of things, which 

are in some of the affidavits, that after we had Mel Watt as the 

 



  

674 

congressman up here, Mel Watt didn't have a telephone number 

in our--there was no way to contact him locally. 

He was in our town twice during the first year that he 

was--the first two years that he was in office, one of those at the 

Episcopal church and one at String and Splinter Club. String 

and Splinter happens to be located in his district. But he made 

no effort at all to be much conscious of High Point, and so that 

made me very, very concerned. 

[¥16] Q You are not aware that he had a full-time office 

in Greensboro? 

A No. 

Q You are not aware that he had a satellite office twice a 

month in High Point? 

A No. When did that happen? 

Q I can't testify. 

A When did--when did he have a satellite office in High 

Point? 

Q I can't testify. I will be glad to talk to you after the 

deposition. 

Mr. McGee: She is going to have to ask you the 

[*17] questions. 

The Witness: Okay. 

Mr. McGee: . We will find that out for you. 

By Ms. Harrell: 

Q You are not aware that he ever had any kind of office in 

High Point so far as you know; is that right? 

A To the best of my knowledge, no. 

    

  

 



675 

Q And are you aware of trips he made in connection with 

the furniture market every year? 

A No. 

Q Are you aware of any other trips to High Point during 

the period that he represented--- 

A I mentioned to you two trips, one he took to talk to 

some businesspeople at the String and Splinter Club, which! 

happened to be in his district--- 

Q (interposing) Yes, sir. 

A ---and an event at the Episcopal church. I am not--and 

I have been very involved in the political world of this town 

and he has never contacted me once. 

Q Have you made any efforts to contact him? 

A I don't--1 can't recall that there has been any--1 think 

there probably were some specific events that I sent some 

  
information about, but--- 

Q Could you tell me what you mean by events that you 

sent information about? 

[*18] A Well, things going on; I may have sent a lett) 

to him or something, but I don't ever recall--I don't know that 

I did that, and I don't know that I ever got any--any 

correspondence from him. 

Q To the best of your memory, have you ever contacted 

him and asked him to respond to a problem or specifically 

asked him to respond about an event that you thought he should 

attend or anything like that? 

A I just--he was not here, not anywhere near here. I just 

wrote him off as representing us. 

Q So if he would testify or a member of his staff would 

testify that he came to High Point on a number of occasions for 

  
  
 



  

676 

events connected with the furniture market, something 

connected with the housing authority, events connected with 

Martin Luther King Day and other events as well, you wouldn't 

be aware of them? 

A No. And I am very much--in that period of time very 

much involved in the furniture industry and in the markets. 

Q And of course High Point is not in his district now; is 

that right? 

A Currently not. 

Q So it wouldn't be surprising--- 

Mr. McGee: (interposing) By that do you mean in the 

1998 plan? 

Q I'm sorry. He is not in his district under the--it is 

[*19] not in his district under the 1998 plan? 

A Right. | 

Q So if he had--- 

A (interposing) It was in the '97 plan, I believe, but it-- 

that never was operable. 

Q So if in connection with the implementationof the 1998 

plan he closed any Guilford County offices, that wouldn't 

surprise you; right? 

A Well, if he wasn't representing Guilford County, if he 

had offices to close, that would be something for him to do, but 

I am not familiar with where those might have been. 

Q Did you say--I know you said so far as you knew there 

was no phone number in the High Point telephone book. Did 

you also say so far as you could tell there was no phone number 

in the Greensboro telephone book or did you check that? 

  

R
S
 

RA
NE
 

R
O
 

SI
 
ST
R 

S
A
R
 

FI
R 

S
A
T
 

S
E
A
 

  

  

    
   



  
  
      

677 

A I did not check Greensboro to see if it was in there; no. 

I mean, our book has everything in the region, but no, not in the 

High Point. 

%* % * 

[*22] Q. You were never a plaintiff in the Shaw case) 

right? 

A. I wasn't a plaintiff in the Shaw case. 

Q. Were you aware that the Shaw plaintiffs asked the court 

not to rule on the 1997 plan in that case? 

A. Say again. 

Q. Were you aware that the Shaw plaintiffs asked the court 

not to rule on the validity of 1997 plan in that case? 

A. Yes. 

Q. You were? 

A. I think I was. 

fof % w 

[*30] A. I mean, I was told what was going to happen and 

I agreed to that. 

Q. You were told this is the way it would work; is that 

right? 

A. The way it was going to--the way it was in the process 
of working, yes. 

Q. How did it come about that you were going to become 

a plaintiff in this lawsuit? 

A. Because I felt very strongly that something had to be 

done.



  

678 

Q. All right. And had you previously told Robinson 

Everett that you would like to be a plaintiff or were willing to 

be a plaintiff? | 

A. Yes. 

Q. Had you done that before you filed your declaration in 

the Shaw suit? Do you recall? 

A. I don't remember that. 

* * *X 

[*45] Q Have you contributed to any African American 

candidates’ campaigns? 

A Yes, uh-huh. 

Q Who would that be? 

A Let's see; I guess I have--the senator from Orange 

County. 

Q Would that be Howard Lee? 

A Howard Lee. 

Q All right. 

A Let's see. I guess Senator Martin in this county I sent 

some to. 

Q State Senator Martin from Guilford County? 

[*46] A Right. I contributeto the North Carolina Senate 

Campaign Committee, and so I do that that way and do a 

significant amount for that. 

Q Was that what you meant when you said you 

contributed to Senator Lee and Senator Martin? 

A No. I have done those--- 

a
e
 

       



679 

Q (interposing) You have done those directly in addition 

to what you contribute to the general fund for Senate 

campaign? 

A But particularly of late Senator Hagan. 

Q And have you participated actively in the campaigns of 

candidates for Congress? 

A Got involved in Rich Preyer's campaign. I have been 3 

involved in--oh, let's see who else. I have not been as active in 

  

congressional campaigns as I have in other campaigns. 

Q Would it be fair to say, then, that you have not been as 

active--you have not been really active perhaps by your 

standards in congressional campaigns other than Rich Preyer's? 

A No; I am always active in some campaign, but I have 

1 not been overly active in congressional campaigns. 

Q Okay. 

Mr. McGee: However defined. 

Ms. Harrell: However defined. 

oo » 

[*47] Q All right. Let me rephrase that. I'm sorry. 

Could you explain a little bit more what you mean when you 

say what the fruit of the poisonous tree means? 

A What they did is they came up with a deal that stretched 

a congressional district almost halfway across the state and 

going here, there and yon, particularly take [*48] racially-- 

heavily racially represented areas to achieve a racial purpose. 

And that is poisonous. That isn't the way it is supposed to be 

set up. That isn't the way you are supposed to do it. 

Q And you are talking about the 1992 plan here; right? 

  

  
  
 



  

680 

A Well, that is what the '92 plan did. That is what--thatis 

what--- 

(interposing) Describe--I'm sorry. Go ahead. 

And that is what has been going on. That is what--- 

And the 1997 plan is a different plan, is it not? - 

It is still doing the same--much the same thing. 

But it is different; right? 

Yeah, it is different. It is not quite as bad, but it is still 

doing the same kind of stuff. If you put Mecklenburg County 

down here and its tentacles move on--way on up into the 

piedmont, that is--and do it the way that has been done, that is 

poisonous. 

Q And so your view is that a plan that combines different- 

-those areas is a poisonous--is necessarily poisonous; would 

that be fair to say? 

A Yeah, I think it is, going about that way, trying to 

interconnect areas that are not interconnected any other way, 

trying to do it solely to accomplish a racial purpose. 

s
o
l
 

o
R
 

g
e
 

[*52] Q And did you refer to having homogenous groups 

in a district? Didn't you use the word "homogenous"? 

A I was saying like a district will have a number of 

homogenous problems. I mean, the problems in Mecklenburg 

County are somewhat similar to some problems in Guilford 

County, but there are also problems that aren't at all like 

Guilford is facing. In other words, there is a homogeneity of 

the population group here that has got a thrust that differs from 

what it is down in that part of the state. 

    

  

 



  

  

681 

Q So you are saying that there are some differences based 

on geography between residents of Guilford and residents of 

Mecklenburg in terms of their interest and concerns; is that 

right? 

A Yeah; as you look at all manner of different issues. 

Q And are there some differences based on citizens in 

terms of their concerns and interests based on whether they live 

in inner city areas or rural areas? 

A There certainly are some issues that very much differ at 

the inner city or rural areas. But you put that balance--they are 

there within the district, so you balance those issues out. 

[*53] Q So some citizens in a rural area might not have 

the same concerns as a citizen in the--as citizens in the urban 

area even in the same county; is that a fair statement? 

A Let me tell you my observation running a statewide 

gubernatorial campaign. We are five--basically five different 

states. The view varies and the interests around North Carolina 

vary in at least five different ways by area. That goes back to 

where it is and what they do and how they--and the things that 

are the issues that come up. And so in effect what is done by 

this is to put parts of two states together, if my five is working. 

Q What are your five areas? 

A Well, the five--western North Carolina is about two. 

You have got two in, say, eastern North Carolina, two in 

western North Carolina, and two in the central part of North 

Carolina, at least. 

Q So are you saying that it is the equivalent of five states 

or are you saying there are actually five separate identifiable 

areas? 

 



  

682 

A It is very much like five states in their--if you go-to 

western North Carolina, it is totally different than eastern North 

Carolina. Our part of the piedmont is significantly--ithas got-- 

Winston, Greensboro, High Point. It has got some significant 

differences to Mecklenburg and Gaston County and down that 

way. : : 

[*54] Q And where do you put Wake and Durham? 

A Well, Wake and Durham is different, too. 

Q Would you consider the east all one or would you break 

that up? 

A Well, the east is more like one because of its 

topography. 

Q Because of what? 

A Topography and so forth. 

Q So you would say the concerns of the folks who are 

actually on the coast would be similar to the concerns of folks 

in Greenville and Rocky Mount? 

A Yes. 

Q And the folks up in Bertie County and down in 

Robeson? 

A Yeah. 

Q And would you say the concerns of the folks throughout 

the western part of the state would all be similar to each other? 

A They have got some significant similarities, yes. 
Q So the folks in--- 

A (interposing) You take Asheville west, and that group 

up in there has got--they have got a number of different issues 

and things that are different for them. You take the Boone area 

all back to the Virginia line and all up, that is another different 

kind of--set of things. So that is what happens. 

         



683 

[*55] Q And in your view people in the inner city in 

Greensboro have more in common with people in the rural 

areas of Guilford County than they would with the people in 

the inner city of Mecklenburg? 

A I didn't say that. 

Q Oh, I'm sorry. 

A No, ma'am. I said they are part of this county. They are ® 

part of what is here. Now, they may have some similarity with 

    

I a similar kind of group in Mecklenburg County, but that doesn't 

3 mean that those ought to all be interconnected. 
1 Maybe I ought to be interconnected and you 

interconnected with everybody that is in one particular kind of 

3 level over seven or eight counties. That is just not the way it is 

| q supposed to be. You have got a group and you are representing 

a the group within your district, not your district and another 120 

| miles away another district. 

Q If you would, would you look at paragraph 25 of that 

complaint that I think we have agreed is Exhibit 46? 
1 (Witness peruses document.) “» 
| A Okay. 25 you want me to read? I have. 
= Q Could you tell me what it means to you in that 

paragraph of the complaint to say that the 12th District in the 

1997 plan does not conform to traditional redistricting 

principles? 

A Because they took--they just interconnected minority 

[*56] groups all through the central part of the state. That is 

what they did. 

Q And that is what you say is why it doesn't conform to 

traditional districting---   
 



  

684 

A (interposing) That is right. That is the poison tree to do 

that kind of stuff. 

Q And now, you say it is the same thing in the 

12th District in the '97 plan as the '92 plan? 

(Witness nods affirmatively.) 

Q And you don't have any question about its being 

contiguous, do you? 

A Yes. I have got a real problem--well, it is contiguous. 

That is what they have done. But I mean, you get down to a 

teeny, teeny thread just to make it kind of work. 

Q Well, what do you call a teeny thread? 

A Well, probably one precinct through--one precinct line 

through a county. 

[*76] Q How have your rights as a voter been abridged? 

Do you believe that your right as a voter has been abridged-- 

your rights as a voter have been abridged? 

A I think I have been put in--when it was the 12th District, 

I have been put into a district that doesn't fairly represent me 

and our region and I think my rights have not been properly 

looked after. I think it has been gerrymandered for a reason, a 

racial reason, and I don't think that ought to be happening in 

representation in this region right here. 

Q You haven't been denied the right cast a ballot, have 

you? 

A No. 

Q And have you cast a ballot each time for Congress? 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  
  
 



  

i 685 

  

  

A Yes. 

* % % 

[78] Q You yourself live in a very urban area, don't 

you? 

1 A Do you mean where my residence is? RS 

. Q Yes, sir. 

1 A We live in a high rise, triple mixed use condominium 

building, which is part showrooms, part offices, and 

1 18 condominiums. 

1 Q And you live in High Point? 
A High Point. 

Q Is that in the central area of High Point? 

A Yes. Itis the tallest--about the tallest building in High 

Point. 

Q And if High Point is considered a city, you live in the 

center city; is that right? 

A Right. ® 

Q And so in the 12th District in the '92 and '97 plans, you 

are grouped with other urban residents? 

A I am grouped in my precinct with mostly minority 

[*79] people. 

Q And is--- 

A That is what my precinct is. 

Q Right. I mean, your precinct happens to be more 

minority voters than--- 

A (interposing) Almost all--- 

Q ---white voters; is that right? 

A Almost all minority.   
 



  

686 

Q And so you and the other members of your precinct all 

live in the city; is that right? 

A Yes. Oh, yes. Yes, ma'am. 

Q So you are grouped with people who live in the same 

area that you live in; is that right? 

A Yes. 

Q You weren't pulled in from an adjacent area--- 

A (interposing) No. 

Q ---as a land bridge or whatever? 

A No. 

Q You are grouped with a group of people who live in the 

city; is that right? 

Mr. McGee: Objection as to the form. 

Q You are a resident of the inner city of High Point? 

A Central. 

Q Central city of High Point? 

A Central city. 

[*80] Q And you are grouped with people who live in 

the nearby area in the central city of High Point; is that right? 

A Yes. 

Q And when you say that most of the people who are in-- 

from High Point who are in the 12th District are minority, you 

are living in an area which has more minority residents than 

white residents; is that right? 

A Yes, ma'am. 

  

  

  

  

   



    
  

687 

LINWOOD LEE JONES DEPOSITION (EXCERPTS) 

[*64] Q Just in terms of how the computer operates, as 

you draw these maps on the computer, there is a screen of the 

[¥*65] map. I mean, on the screen there is a map; is that 

correct? 

A That is right. 

Q And it can be of a relatively small area, a district, or the » 

whole state? 

A Right. 

Q And given the size of the screen if it is the whole state 

rather than a single district, it is a little bit harder to discern; 

would that be true? 

A That is true. 

Q How big is the screen, if you recall, approximately? 

A I would guess it is about a 15 to 17 inch screen. 

Q And all the screens were the same. You didn't have 

some computers with bigger screens, did you? 

A Right. 

Q Now, on that screen did you have to scroll in 

information or was it all there at the beginning--I mean, you 

just look up and there it is--as to percentages, let's say racial 

percentages? 

A I think you would have to put in a formula to get the 

screen to actually display racial percentages. You could always 

put your mouse on a particular census block, precinct, possibly 

even county, click on it, and get information for that unit on 

population and racial breakdown. 

Q Could you do it with respect to a district, click your 

mouse and get the percentage in a particular district, if you 

[*66] recall? 

 



  

688 

A I don't recall that you could do that. You would have 

to--my recollectionis you would have to run a report to get that 

information for the district, although there was some 

cumulative information on the district on the side, as I recall, 

the side of the screen. 

Q I see. The cumulative information, do you remember 

what that was? Was it--did it include race? 

A To the best of my knowledge it did, although I don't 

recall whether it showed it as a percentage or an actual number 

or both. 

Q And isn't it true that it did not to the best of your 

knowledge include the results of the three elections, the 

elections in 1988 and 1990? 

A To the best of my recollection, that was also totaled 

cumulatively for the district. 

Q All of that was there, to the best of your recollection? 

A As I recall. 

Q Now, with respect to the middle portion of the map in 

Exhibit 34, there is a line. And I don't know how to . 

characterize it exactly. It seems to run from Mecklenburg 

County in a northeasterly direction. Can you tell us what 

relationship, if any, that might have to any particular 

congressional district? 

[*67] (Witness peruses document.) 

A It appears to be the 12th District. 

Q And by the way, what appears to be the 1st District? Is 

that the northeasterly part of the state not touching the ocean? 

Is that the 1st District in this plan? 

A I believe so, and I believe that the part touching the 

Atlantic is the 3rd. 

  

    
  

 



689 

Q With respect to the counties that are traversed by the 

12th District in this plan, do you recall what those counties are 

and how many? 

A It looks like Guilford, Forsyth, Iredell, Rowan, 

Cabarrus, and Mecklenburg. 

Q So in that one Cabarrus is included? 

A It appears to be. ® 

[*71]Q If I ask you what is meant by the Greensboro 

black community, do you have any idea of what I would be 

talking about? 

A I am not familiar with the Greensboro area, but I would 

assume those neighborhoods where there are higher 

concentrations of minorities, of blacks. 

Q And by the same token, if I said the High Point black 

community you would have the same--- 

  
A (interposing) Right. Ws 

Q ---interpretation, or the Winston-Salem black 

community? 

A Right.   Q Or the Charlotte black community? 

(Witness nods affirmatively.) 

1] Q Now, with respect to the 1997 plan that was ultimately 

| adopted, isn't it true that it joined the Greensboro black 

community, the High Point black community, and the Winston- 

Salem black community at the north end and at the south end 

the Charlotte black community? 

Mr. Stein: Objection.   
 



  

690 

A It does join what I would see as those communities. 

Whether it pulls them--the entire black community in, I don't 

[*72] know. 

Q But a substantial amount of the black community in 

Greensboro? I am talking now about the 1997 plan. 

A To my knowledge, yes. 

Q A substantial percentage of the black community in 

High Point? | 

A To my knowledge, yes. 

Q A substantial percentage of the Winston-Salem black 

community? 

A To my knowledge, yes. 

Q A substantial percentage of the Charlotte black 

community? 

A To my knowledge, yes. 

Q Now, earlier you used the term "land bridge." You used 

it; I didn't. Isn't it true that the 12th District as constituted in 

the map being shown here and the one that was enacted--isn't 

it true that that district as formed contains a land bridge 

connecting the Charlotte black community with the High Point 

black community and with the Winston-Salem black 

community and with the Greensboro black community? 

A It is true--- 

Mr. Stein:  (interposing) Objection. 

A It is true that those are connected, but that doesn't fit my 

definition of a land bridge. 

Q And is that because it is wider in the connecting area 

[*73] than your definition of a land bridge? 

A It is--no, it is because the full precinct is used. 

    

  

 



  

1: 691 

Q Now, if told you that at least ten points that is only one 
precinct wide, would that in turn change as to whether it was a 
land bridge? 

A Repeat that again; I'm sorry. 

Q If I told that in at least ten places the 12th District as 
enacted was only one precinct wide, would that change your 
definition? y 
A No. 

Ms. Harrell: Objection. 

Mr. Stein: Objection. 

Q So it would have to involve a splitting of at least one 

  

  

precinct or how many precincts before it became a land bridge? 
A I don't know of a magic number that it would have to 
split. It is really more in the--if there is one split, it is more in 
the context of looking at why the particular precinct was split. 
If it was split solely to bridge two, I would say that would meet 

my definition of a narrow land bridge. 

  Q Do you mean if it were split solely to get from point A 
to point B? p 
A Right. 

Q Now, in respect to the formation of a congressional 
[*74] district, if it were the intent of the persons who drafted a 
plan to join the Greensboro black establishment me--or pardon 
me, I'm sorry--the Greensboro black community, pardon me, 
the Winston-Salemblack community, and the High Point black 
community on the one hand with the Charlotte black 
community on the other and if the only way to do it was by 
linking certain precincts, the only way to do it and maintain the 
one person one vote criteria, would you say then it was a land 
bridge?   
 



  

692 

Ms. Harrell: Objection. 

A No. 

Q So even if the only way to combine them was to route 

something in a particular way, that would not make it a land 

bridge in your view? 

A Not alone. 

[*75] Q (interposing) Allright. Let me ask you another 

question. Do you know whether or not Precinct 77 in Charlotte 

was split so that the northern part of that precinct is in the 

12th District and the southern part is in [*76] the 9th District? 

A It is my recollection the precinct was split to keep 
District 9 contiguous. 

Q Now, within your definition, isn't that a land bridge 

between the east and the west part of the 9th District? 

Mr. Stein: Objection. 

A That would be within--sorry; that would be within my 

definition. 

Q So there is at least one land bridge that was drawn in 

creating the 12th District in order to maintain the contiguity of 

the 9th District; correct? 

Mr. Stein: Objection. 

A That would be my opinion. 

[*112] Q Did Representative McMahan make any 

comments to you with respect to his perception as to the 

    

  

    

  

     



  

  
  

      

693 

-12th District being proposed by Cooper after it had been drawn 
in a form containing parts of Charlotte, parts of Winston- 
Salem, parts of Greensboro, and parts of High Point? Did he 
talk to you about that particular plan, that configuration? 

Ms. Harrell: Objection to the form of the question. If 
you can understand it, go ahead. 

A Did he talk to me about the plan or that 12th Disuict’) 
Q The 12th District is what I am focusing on. 

A At some point he indicated that he felt that the portion 
of--I believe it was Winston-Salem that we had left out--he 
would go ahead and put that back in because it was part of the 

same urban areas as Greensboro and Charlotte. 

Q Do you remember whether or not that was 
predominantly black, that area? You said he would take--you 
say he would put back in. Maybe I better start with another 

question. When you use the term "put back in," it implies that 

it was once in, taken out, and you are putting it back in. Had it 
[*113] been in before in some plan? 

A I don't think it had been in the House plan that hdffj) 
worked on. It was obviously in one of Grady's plans and I 

think he had seen that, but I don't think he had proposed putting 

it in at that point. So instead of saying "put back in," I meant 
to say "put in." 

Q Okay. I just wanted to make sure on that. 

A Right. 

Q Do you remember what precincts was contained there? 

A I don't know. 

Q Do you remember anything about the racial 

configuration of that area? 

A Not offhand. 

 



  

694 

Q Did you ever discuss with him the circumstance that to 

a considerable extent Charlotte was split on racial lines? 

Ms. Harrell: Object. 

Q That is, that the number of predominantly black 

precincts placed in the 12th District from Winston-Salem--I 

should say Charlotte--from Charlotte was much greater than the 

number of such precincts placed in the 9th District? 

Ms. Harrell: Objection to the form of the question; if 

you can understand it, Linwood, you can go ahead and answer. 

A I don't recall having any discussion with him about: 

what was inside and what was outside. 

[*114] Q Nothing about who was in, who was out, 
African American or otherwise? 

A I don't think we looked at that on a county basis. ‘He 

would have been aware of the overall district's breakdown as 

far as racial percentage and as far as its elections and 

registration. But I don't recall us doing that for Mecklenburg 

County. Now, he did--and I don't recall--he did have some 

interest in certain precincts in Mecklenburg County that he was 

trying to keep in Sue Myrick's district, I believe. 

Q How about with respect to--and were any of them 

predominantly black? 

A To the best of my knowledge, they were not. The two 

that I can recall are in the northern part of Mecklenburg 

County, up at the neck of Mecklenburg County. 

Q Was that what might be termed the 77 corridor up 

toward Statesville, or was that more on the 95--pardon me, 

85 corridor going over toward Concord, or do you recall those 

precincts? | 

    

  

  

 



  

1 695 

A I mean, I don't recall. They are precincts that stretch 

across from the east to the west side of Mecklenburg County up 

at the neck of Mecklenburg County. 

  

Q They were from the east to the west? 

A One precinct stretches all the way across, yeah. 

ot; ® 

[118] A Yeah. I believe one of the precincts may be now 

  

in the enacted 9th District and one in the 12th. But I don't 

have a precincts map in front of me and I don't recall for certain 

what they were. I just know they were in north Mecklenburg. 

Q With respect to any of the other counties besides 

Mecklenburg did you and Representative McMahan discuss the 

nature of the splitting insofar as it pertained to any racial 

concentrations? 

1 A No; I don't recall discussing splitting as it relates to 

racial concentrations. We at some point early on took what the 

Senate had on District 12. And I do not know what discussions w 

Representative McMahan had with Senator Cooper about that. 

We did make some adjustments to that district but they 

1 were mostly to try and get Cleveland County whole because the 

1 : Senate plan had split Cleveland County. So we had to make 

2 some adjustments in District 12 to get the population in 

District 9 worked out so that we no longer had Cleveland split. 

Q So this discussion affected whether or not a portion of 

Cleveland County might be included in the 12th District? 

1 [*119] A No; it was a discussion of splitting Cleveland 

. E between the 12th and the 10th--I mean, excuse me; the 9th and 

the 10th. 

  

         



  

696 

Q Oh, the 9th and the 10th, not--- 

A (interposing) And the House was trying to put it alli in 

the 9th. 

Q So there was no plan that you are aware of by anybody 

to put Cleveland--to try to extend the 12th District to include 

Cleveland County? 

A No, no, no, no. 

[159] Q Now, with respect to urban setting, would it be 

your view that a white citizen living in Winston-Salem in 

the--well, the district other than the 12th District right across 

from a black citizen who is in the 12th District is also urban? 

Is there any difference in being urban based on race? 

Ms. Harrell: Objection to the form of the question; if 

you can understand it, answer it. 

[¥160] A I don't understand. 

-Q Okay. In determining homogeneity as it relates to 

living in an urban setting, is there any difference between a 

white and a black living in the urban part, the center part, of 

Greensboro or Winston-Salem or any of these other cities? 

Ms. Harrell: Objection; if you can answer it, go 

ahead. 

A I wouldn't consider a black in one district and a white 

in another to be distinguished based on whether they were 

urban or not. 

    

 



  

697 

WILLIAM EDWIN MCMAHAN DEPOSITION (EXCERPTS) 

[*¥25] Q Now, look below there. “The population in 12 

has homogeneous interests comprised of many citizens living 

in an urban setting.” Do you remember any sort of comment 

by yourself to that effect? 

A Again, I do recall that that was one of the factors 

[*26] that we considered was trying to put people of common 

interests together in a district, not just this district, but other 

districts. 

Q But this is particularly with respect to District 12? 

A Yes, it is. 

Q And by homogeneous what do you mean? 

A Just that they function together, they have common 

interests, they are, you know, basically urban livers, live in an 

urban setting is primarily what we were trying to--you know, 

what we were talking about. 

Q Let me ask you this with respect to urban versus rural. 

Let's take a look at say Rowan County. Would you consider 

Rowan County urban or rural? ® 

A Probably both. 

Q And what do you mean by that? 

A I would consider Salisbury to certainly have some 

urbanites living there. I certainly would consider there being 

some rural areas outside of Salisbury in that county. 

Q How about Iredell County? 

A Iredell, Statesville--- 

Q (interposing) Urban or rural? Same thing? 

A ---Mooresville, you know, would be some of the--but 

not to the extent that Greensboro, Winston-Salem, High Point 

and Charlotte would be considered urban. 

 



  

698 

Q How about--you may not know these areas that well, 

but [*27] let me show you what purports to be the North 

Carolina congressional plan for 1997 now and ask you to 

refresh your recollection there. 

A Yes, sir. : 

Q With respect to the southwestern corner of Forsyth 

County--I'm sorry; the southeastern corner, I beg your pardon-- 

up there between High Point and Winston, would you say it is 

urban or rural? 

Ms. Harrell: I am going to object. At least let the 

record reflect that you are showing him a map that has nothing 

but the names and boundaries of the counties and it has no 

indication of where any cities or highways or any other 

characteristics are. But to the extent you can answer that, 

Representative McMahan, please go ahead. 

A Well, I do think that in Forsyth and Guilford the intent 

was to pick up basically Democratic voters in the urban areas. 

And so that is what this map--I assume those are two areas in 

those two counties that we did pick up. 

Q Well, what I am trying to figure out is from your 

testimony how much of Forsyth is urban. Is it all urban or is 

part of that rural? 

A Again, we are basically picking up Winston-Salem, the 

primary city of the county of Forsyth--- 

Q (interposing) And Winston-Salem--- 

A ---and also Greensboro in Guilford. 

[*28] Q And so Greensboro and Winston-Salem would 

be urban? 

A That is my opinion; yes, sir. 

  

  
I
N
C
R
E
 
S
E
R
S
 

M
T
 

e
A
 

H
R
,
 

se 
S
S
L
 

I 
R
S
 
P
T
 

A 
Sg 

i 
5 

P
E
I
N
 

oh 

  Pai 
 



  
  

  
  

699 

[*34] Q Now, to the best of your knowledge, with 

respect to Charlotte now, were all of those areas put into the 

12th District in the plan in--- 

A (interposing) Judge Everett, I do not know. I did not 

look at specific precincts. Again, we went into Mecklenburg 

and modified it somewhat from what the old plan already 

included. But as I recall, we were not picking up 

[*35] minority voters in Mecklenburg. We were picking up 

more of the voters in the southern part of the county in order to 

balance the numbers out. 

Q When you say balance the numbers out, what do you 

mean in that regard? 

A To be able to get the 550,000 per district. 

[*36] Q So your starting point basically was t 

change 12, which had been held unconstitutional? 

A Yes, sir. 

Q Now, there was a District 1 in the earlier plan, the 

1992 plan, which is probably over here. 

(Map shown to witness.) 

Q Do you remember seeing that 1992 plan, looking at it? 

A I believe that is it, sir. Yes, sir; it looks like it. 

Q And that stretched almost from Virginia down to South 

Carolina? 

A Yes, sir, it did. 

 



  

700 

Q And did you form any belief from the advice you 

received and otherwise whether that district as it existed in the 

1992 plan was unconstitutional? 

Ms. Harrell: Iam going to object to the extent you are 

asking him for a legal conclusion. 

Mr. Everett: I am asking him for his belief. 

Ms. Harrell: Go ahead. 

A I was not familiar at all with the process prior to being 

involved in ‘97. But yes, when I looked at that plan at that time 

and I looked at District 1 and District 12, District 12 had been 

declared unconstitutional. In my [*37] nonprofessional, 

nonlegal opinion, the way it was shaped in District 1 it could be 

also interpreted as being unconstitutional. 

Q So then in your work as chair and work with Linwood 

Jones was the starting point to try to clean up--change 

District 12 and District 1? Was that sort of the--- 

A (interposing) Well, that and also to look at all the 

districts to see if we could reduce the number of counties that 

were divided, reduce the number of precincts that were divided, 

and make it a more compact plan across the state was our 

real--our goal. But yes, sir, District 12 and District 1 that were 

the two that seemed to be the most odd shaped got primary 

consideration. 

Q So in a sense that was the starting point, and you had 

certain factors that you were considering? 

A Again, looking at it in total context as I just explained 

it, again, they were certainly looked at and were a big part of 

the changes in the plan that governed the 97 plan. 

  
 



  

701 

Q What were the factors--you mentioned some reference 

to telling Linwood Jones of factors to look at. What were those 

- factors that--- 

A (interposing) 1 think two or three of the primary 

factors--one was of course to try--we had to maintain the 

balance that existed, the six-six balance. That was first 

[*38] and foremost. Senator Cooper and I sat down early on 

and talked about a few of the things that we needed to have in 

order to get both sides to agree and one was to maintain a six- 

six balance. 

We also wanted to try to make as geographically 

compact districts as possible dividing the fewest number of 

counties and no precincts if we could help it. We also wanted 

to try to put people of common interest together. We also 

looked at the--let's see; I am trying to think of other factors that 

were being considered. 

Certainly in District 1, you know, the idea was to try to 

make it as compact as possible, but to try to also make sure that 

it was racially fair. And that would also apply to District 12. 

We did have, you know, the minorities in the House on both 

sides that we had to deal with and get everybody on board. 

And a big consideration that we had to deal with, of 

course, was the fact that we had a Democratic Senate and a 

Republican House and to try to come up with a plan that both 

sides would agree on. It had to be fair to both sides, and then 

also to protect the incumbents. That was a huge--that is the one 

I was trying to remember. That was a huge consideration. And 

so it was a combination of all those things that were the 

instructions I gave Linwood to try and draw the map. 

[*39] Q When you say racially fair, what do you mean? 

 



  

702 

A Just that minorities could have a chance to have fair 

representation. 

Q Well, when you say fair representation, does that mean 

representation by people of their own race? 

A Well, it could be both. I mean, obviously Democrats-- 

it could be Democrats as well as people of their race is the way 

I would interpret it. 

* * Xx 

[*40] A Again, there were a lot of factors that had to be 

considered. In a nonprofessional, nonlegal way my 

understanding was that we--that District 1--that in order to get 

it precleared that we would probably need to have at least one 

majority minority district. 

My understanding, again, was back in--at the time we 

drew the plan in ‘92 we were told we needed to have two 

minority majority districts and that was what really led to 12. 

That was my--again, just what I understood the process to be 

when we got started. 

Consequently, we looked at 1, and race was a factor, 

because--not that it was necessarily the predominant factor, but 

it was a huge factor in 1, because it was my understanding we 

did still need to maintain one minority majority district. 

Q So in other words--- 

A (interposing) And we could do that in the northeastern 

part of North Carolina very easily and make it a lot more 

compact. And then looking at the other district, of course, then 

it was to my judgment that it not necessarily [¥41] did not need 

  

  
 



  
  

703 

to be majority minority, and that was not in any way the 

primary factor for 12. 

Q So then was it your belief that if you had a plan that did 

not have a majority minority or majority black district in the 

northeastern part of the state, it would not receive preclearance 

and all effort would be wasted? 

A We certainly--we understood we needed to get 

preclearance, and that was a factor certainly in getting that. 

Whether it would be totally denied, I did not know for sure 

until the Justice Department acted, but certainly felt that it 

would enhance the preclearance process if we had one minority 

majority district. 

[*46] Q Now, there came a time when you-- well, let me 

first ask you another question. In some of your statements you 

have referred to racial fairness. What do you mean by racial 

fairness? 

Ms. Harrell: 1am going to object unless you want to 

put it in context. 

Mr. Everett: Okay; sure. 

By Mr. Everett: 

Q Let's say, for example, in the floor debate on March 26 

you speak of trying to agree upon a plan based on geographic 

compactness, racial fairness. What is racial fairness to you in 

that context? What do you mean? 

[*47] A Well, again, that the members of the minority 

race would be adequately represented. 

 



  

704 

Q And in construing what is adequate representation,does 

that involve the race of the persons who are doing the--who are 

the representatives? 

Ms. Harrell: Object to the form of the question. If 

you can understand and answer that question, go ahead. 

A Certainly District 12, you know, was represented by a 

minority and he was an incumbent. And you know, that 

certainly was taken into consideration, that we did have an 

incumbent there. 

And as I mentioned earlier, you know, obviously we 

had to deal with the minority members of the legislature and try 

to get all parties in the legislature on board and approve a new 

plan. You know, it was--you know, it was necessary to make 

sure that at least they were--could be fairly represented, you 

know, in the election process. So that is how I would answer 

that. 

Q So at the time of the ‘97 plan there was an incumbent, 

Mr. Watt, Representative Watt? 

A That 1s correct. 

Q An African American? 

A That is correct. 

Q And basically if he were not protected so that he would 

be reelected, the members of the General Assembly who 

[*48] were African Americans would be upset; is that about 

right? 

Ms. Harrell: Object to the form of the question. 

A It was certainly a part of the discussion, one factor of 

many, many factors. 

Q I mean, isn't it true--and you have only been involved 

in politics a short period of time, but isn't it true that in every 

  
 



  

705 

‘way it was represented to you that unless it was almost assured 

that Representative Watt would be reelected that there would 

be some real problems with the minority members? 

Ms. Harrell: 1 am going to object to the form of the 

question. I am also going to object to the extent that when you 

say it was represented to him you are asking for confidential 

communications from legislators with any privilege or anybody 

who might have an attorney-client privilege. But otherwise if 

you can understand and answer the question--- | 

A (interposing) Judge Everett, it was no different than all 

the other incumbents. You know, whether a minority or not, 

Republican, Democrat, in my opinion it was--you know, it was 

the same way. We certainly were--it was very important for us 

to get--in order to get the members of the legislature on board 

to protect the incumbents that did serve in the districts that our 

representatives served in. 

[*78] Q Now, I am going to show you the same map, 

and I [*79] believe this is in gray, what purports to be the 

1st District. And I am just going to ask you to look at it. Is it 

your testimony you think that is geographically compact? 

A As compared to the ‘92 plan it is very geographically 

compact. 

Q Now, if there had been no 1992 plan, would you say 

that it was geographically compact? 

Ms. Harrell: Object to the form of the question; 

asking him to speculate. If you can answer it, go ahead. 

 



  

706 

A In my opinion, there are some other districts that do 

have the same geographical compactness that District 1 does, 

So yes, sir, I consider it to be a geographically compact plan. 

[*93] Q With respect to preserving the cores of the prior 

districts, what did you mean there? 

A We felt--we being Senator Cooper and I, the two chairs 

of the committees--that the best way to get a plan that both 

sides could agree on, one of the things we needed to do was to 

try to make the fewest number of changes in the plan as 

possible and obviously also for the purpose of trying to--the 

voters, in order to try not to disturb, you know, the voting 

public any more than we had to as far as them having to move 

to new districts or new precincts from what they have already 

been in. 

So this was something that we decided in this plan that 

we would try to--you know, obviously protecting incumbents 

was a big part of it, as I said earlier in my testimony, and also 

to make the fewest number of changes in the new plan. 

[*98] Q Did you go up to Washington? 

A Yes, sir, I did. 

Q And that was to meet with the Civil Rights Division 

people? | 

A It was at the Justice Department. I am not sure who 

was--- 

  

 



707 

[*99] Q (interposing) Okay. Who went with you and 

when did that trip take place? 

A. Idonotrecall when it took place. As]I recall, there was 

a representative from--Eddie Speas was with us, I believe, from 

the Attorney General's Office, and Senator Cooper and myself. 

And it seems like there may have been one--maybe Leslie 

Winner. I am not sure if she was there or not. 1 think she 

might have been. That is all I--oh, and Linwood Jones; I'm 

Q And how about Gerry Cohen? 

A I do not remember. 

Q And about when did that take place? 

A I honestly don't remember the date. 

Q It was after the plan was enacted? 

A Yes, sir, it was. 

Q And what did you all say to the folks up at Justice, 

whoever they were? 

A The plan had been presented. They asked us questions 

about the plan. “ 

Q And what were the questions they asked you? 

A I don't recall specifically what the questions were. 

Q Did any of the questions relate to race? 

A As I--one question, I believe, or I know was the--1 

remember them asking me why did the majority of the blacks 

vote against the plan. And that was a question they asked me 

[*100] specifically. 

Q And that was against the 1997 plan? 

A Yes. 

Q The majority of blacks where? 

A In the House.   
 



  

708 

Q And what did you say in reply? : 

A I told them I was very surprised because 1 had worked 

with the minorities all the way through the process thinking 

that, you know, they were on board. And I really didn't know 

the answer to that other than they had a plan they preferred and 

they weren't--youknow, they weren't totally satisfied with our 

plan and tried to offer an amendment for their own plan, but 

that is to the best of my recollection what I remember. 

Q When you speak of working with the minorities, who 

are you referring to? I gather you were--- 

A (interposing) The minority members of the--primarily 

the minority members of the congressional redistricting 

committee. 

Q Can you identify some of them by name, if you recall? 

A It was just several of the members on the committee. I 

can identify, I believe, who actually were members of the 

committee: Representative Toby Fitch, Representative 

Michaux, I believe; he certainly had some comments about the 

plan. Representative Blue was part of the committee. Those 

[*101] are the three that ] remember as--- 

Q (interposing) Representative Blue, who had been 

Speaker of the House when the--- 

A (interposing) Yes. 

Q ---1992 plan was adopted? 

A I don't know about that, but yeah, he was a former 

Speaker of the House. 

Q And when you say you felt they were on board, d why did 

you feel they were on board? 

Ms. Harrell: Object to the extent that it calls for any 

statement made in an nonpublic forum by any of those House 

  
 



709 

members as they have not waived their legislative immunity. 

Otherwise, Representative McMahan, if you can answer the 

question, go ahead. 

A I don't--you know, they were part of the committee. 

And as I recall, they probably voted for the plan in committee. 

I really don't remember, Judge Everett. I just felt like when '®D 

came out of committee that we had their support. And as it 

turned out, on the floor they decided to vote against it. That is 

about all I recall. 

[¥109] Q What state interest, if any, or governmental 

interest, if any, were there in drawing the 12th District as it was 

in the 1997 plan? 

Ms. Harrell: Objection to the form of the 

[110] question; but Representative McMahan, if you can 

answer, go ahead. 

A Judge Everett, I don't recall as part of my deliberation 
that the state was really the big issue. It really was the issue of 
‘Senator Cooper and I trying to work together, because our 

leadership of both bodies wanted the legislature to do this in 

lieu of letting the court do it. And we were trying to make our 

best effort to develop a plan that we could get approved by the 

General Assembly. And that was the primary goal that we had 

and, you know, our plan was based on that. 

Q You weren't trying to do it to avoid a lawsuit from 

somebody else? 

A No, sir; not as I recall. 

  

  
 



    
710 

  

[This page intentionally left blank.] 

  
  

   



711 

DAVID PETERSON, PHD DEPOSITION (EXCERPTS) 

[*4] Q Dr. Peterson, my name is Douglas Markham, and I am 

here today in association with Judge Robinson Everett, who 

represents a group of North Carolina citizens who are opposed 

to a set of congressional districts which in our view reflect a 

policy of segregation. Have you been retained as an expert in 

this case? AS 

I have. 

And by whom? 

I have been retained by the State of North Carolina. 

How are you being compensated? 

I send in bills monthly and I get paid in return. 

And at what rate? 

My hourly rate is $335 an hour. 

And is this your customary and usual rate that you 

charge for analysis or presenting testimony? 

A Yes, it is. 

O
P
O
 

P
L
O
 

»
L
O
 

>»
 

* %.% a 

[*8] Q Do you have a sense on how many occasions in your 

lifetime you have testified in deposition? 

A Perhaps 40 times. 

Q And how many occasions have you given testimony in   A Total? 

2 Q Yes. 

3 A Perhaps 35 or 40 times over the last 25 years. 

4 Q Have any of those occasions involved redistricting? 

A No.   
   



  

712 

Q Have any of those occasions involved segment 

analysis? 

A No. 

* % % 

[*9] Q In what subject is your bachelor's of science degree? 

Electrical engineering. 

And in what subject is your master's? 

Electrical engineering. 

And your doctorate? 

Electrical engineering. 

What is the training which qualifies you to conduct and 

offer opinions on segment analysis of the external boundaries 

of a congressional district? 

o
c
»
 

»
>
o
 

> 

A I am an applied mathematician. 

Q How are you currently employed? 

A I am currently retired from Duke University's statistics 

department, and I am president of PRI Associates, a statistical 

consulting and software development firm. 

* % * 

[*10] Q What is the purpose of this institute of which 

you are president? 

A It is a statistical consulting and software development 

firm. 

[*11] Q And what percentage of its activities are related 

to preparing to testify for trial and doing analyses related 

thereto? 

      
 



    

713 

Slightly more than half. 

And how long has that institute operated? 

It is not an institute. It is a corporation. 

I'm sorry. 

A C corporation. 

And how long has it been--- 

(interposing) And it was incorporated in May of 210 

When you were retained with respect to this case, by C
P
O
 

P>
L0
 
P
L
O
»
 

whom were you first consulted? 

A My first contact was with Edwin Speas. 

Q What was the nature of the assignment you were given? 

A Mr. Speas asked me if there was any way that I thought 

one could address the issue of whether--whether one could 

address the issue statistically of whether race had been the 

predominant factor in the drawing of the boundaries of the 

12th District. 

Ms. Smiley: And we will object to any further 

questions that might ask Dr. Peterson to talk about 

conversations with Mr. Speas. » 

By Mr. Markham: 

Q Were you asked in any way to prepare an analysis of 

whether race in fact was predominant in the construction of 

[*12] the congressional district? 

A I don't understand the question. 

Q Was your assignment limited to an analysis of the 

relationship of the external boundaries to the issue of whether 

race predominated or some other purpose predominated in the 

construction of the district? 

 



  

714 

A No. The question was is there some way of addressing 

the issue statistically of whether race was the predominant 

factor in the drawing of the boundaries of the 12th District. 

Q In your mind is that question in any way different from 

whether race is predominant in the construction of the district? 

A I am not sure. The way I prefer to phrase the question 

is whether race was the predominant consideration in the 

construction of the 12th District or the construction of the 

boundaries of the 12th District. I don't think it matters whether 

you use one phrasing or the other of the two which I have just 

given. 

[*13] Q Is it your conclusion that party is a better 

explanation than race in the construction of the external 

boundaries of congressional districts of the 1997 plan or that it 

is essentially an equal explanation? 

A My conclusion is that although there is a correlation 

between the racial composition of the populace and the 

boundaries of the 12th District, there is also a correlation 

between the political affiliation of the people in the 

12th District and nearby and the boundary taken by the district 

and that of the two correlations the slightly stronger one is with 

political affiliation and not with race. 

Q Is the degree of difference in the explanatory value of 

the data sufficient to permit you to say that one is a better fit 

than the other? 

A Yes. 

Q So these differences are in your view significant? 

  

 



715 

A I am not sure how you are using the term "significant." 

It is simply the case that one correlation is larger than the other. 

Q Does your analysis provide an answer to the question 

[*14] of whether a significant number of persons are placed 

into or excluded from the district on the basis of race? 

A It doesn't really address that issue, nor does it address 

the similarly phrased issue with respect to party affiliation. Ald 

it does is measure the correlation between race and the 

boundary and the correlation between party affiliation and the 

boundary and observe that of the two correlations that with 

party affiliation seems to be somewhat stronger than that with 

race. 

Q Do you have any direct knowledge concerning the 

motivation of members of the legislature who shaped the plan? 

A Not direct in the sense that I have spoken with any of 

the legislators. 

Q And what is the source of your knowledge? 

A What knowledge? 

Q Did you have any indirect information respecting they 

motivations of legislators? : 

A I am told that the legislators, at least some of them, have 

said that in drawing the boundaries they considered party 

affiliation and not race. But I have not in any way relied on 

that information. My analysis is purely objective. 

Q And have you been told what measure of party 

affiliation these legislators indicated was relied upon? 

A I may have been told. 1 don't remember at the moment 

what I was told. 

  

  
 



  

716 

[*15] Q Have you reviewed any of the materials from the 

Section 5 submission of the North Carolina legislature to the 

Department of Justice? 

A I am not familiar with that material by that name. 

Q Have you reviewed any materials that are provided to 

the Justice Department in connection with seeking preclearance 

in a congressional districting plan? 

A Not by that name. 

Q Have you been provided any information that with 

respect to Congressional District 12 that someone moved the 

Greensboro black community into Congressional District 12 

and then later removed 60,000 persons from the district? 

A I am unaware of that. 

Q And if you were aware of that information and 

assuming its accuracy, would that affect your analysis in any 

way? 

A No. 

Q Have you done or attempted any segment analysis 

similar to that reflected in the data before you using the 

boundaries of either the 1st or the 12th Congressional District 

from the 1992 congressional district plan? 

A No. 

Q So do you have any basis to offer an opinion in any way 

as to whether the external boundaries of the 1st or 

12th Congressional Districts in that plan were predominantly 

racial or predominantly political in motivation? 

[*16] A I have no opinion on that. 

Q On how many other occasions have you performed 

some sort of segment analysis in your work? 

    

  

 



  

717 

A I have never done an analysis exactly like this, but it is 
rather common in my practice to start with a fact situation and 

tailor an analysis to that--to the question of interest in that fact 
situation. So the general approach is one that I have used lots 
of times. The specific result of that approach in this instance is 
unique. #® 

  

  

[*16] Q Do you know whether segment analysis is a 
standard, recognized procedure in any scientific field? 

A It is certainly common to identify atomic entities and 
examine them individually and then aggregate the results of 
those individual instances to see whether there is an overall 
statistical pattern. That is really the essence of statistical 
analysis. In this particular case the atomic pieces were 
segments of a boundary. I am unaware of anyone who has 
done exactly that kind of analysis in the past. 

Q Have you used this sort of analysis, this stor 
[*17] analysis, to offer an opinion respecting whether--the 

intent behind an action? 

  
A I'm sorry; is the question complete? 

Q Yes. 

A I don't understand it. 

Q Have you used this sort of atomic analysis using 
subparts of the data and then evaluating them in the method 
that you have described as a way of establishing the intent of 
some person or somebody? 

A Only indirectly; in employmentdiscriminationlitigation 
it is fairly common to examine atomic circumstances in which   
 



  

718 

an employer made a decision and then to aggregate the results 

of those individual decisions to see whether there is a pattern of 

the employer in instance after instance making decisions which 

are adverse to the interest of some particular protected group 

from which one, typically not the statistician, but the trier of 

fact, may be inclined to infer intent. 

Q Do any of your writings, either your newsletters or your 

academic writings, deal with some sort of segment analysis? 

A They certainly deal with atomic analysis, but not 

specifically segment analysis. That is rather particular to the 

circumstances of this case. 

[*18] Q Is it possible that this same sort of segment 

analysis would indicate a predominance of party over race even 

for a district which a court may have already invalidated under 

the conclusion that race was indeed the predominant factor? 

A It could happen, yes. 

Q Have you conducted any analysis concerning issues that 

relate to voter cohesion by race in North Carolina? 

A No. 

Q Have you conducted any analysis concerning 

polarization of voting by race within North Carolina or the 

absence of such polarization? | 

A Only to the extent that I have examined the correlation 

between race and affiliation with a Democratic party, but those 

results are reported in my two affidavits. 

Q But with respect to voting behavior in terms of election 

contest results have you conducted any such analysis? 

    

 



  

719 

A I would just repeat my earlier answer in response to 

that. To the extent that I have, the results are reflected in my 

two affidavits. 

Q And you are referring to the political party affiliation 

data as including the election contest results as well [*19] as 

the registration by race and other similar data? 

A Yes. I have used four different measures of party 

affiliation and I have referred to them collectively. 

Q Have you analyzed the question of whether or not 

Congressional District 12 as drawn in 1997 maximized 

Democratic strength within any particular region of North 

Carolina? 

A No. 

Q Did you conduct any analyses or begin any analyses 

which are not included in your report or reflected in its results? 

A On that issue? 

Q No; on any issue that relates to redistricting in this 

Cromartie assignment. 

(Pause.) 

A Not that I can recall; this was our study. 

Q So there is no instance in when you began a process and 

found it wasn't fruitful or properly illustrative and just dropped 

that analysis? 

A No; we don't do that. 

Q And other than the segment analysis, is there anything 

else you relied on in reaching your conclusions? 

A No. 

Q How large a difference in values is necessary, for 

example, with respect to partisan affiliation before you 

 



  

720 

[*20] consider that difference important enough to be helpful 

in this analysis? 

A I am not sure I understand your use of the term 

"helpful." All I did was to develop a measure of correlation 

between where the boundary of the 12th District runs and the 

racial makeup of the populace and then apply that same 

measure to the political affiliation of the same populace and 

note which of the two correlations tended to be stronger. 

%* % % 

[*38] Q And you indicated earlier that third party 

candidates, it was your understanding, were discarded in the 

analysis and the data was just removed? 

A We discarded them. 

Q Okay. 

A So that anytime we report a precinct as being say 

40 percent Republican, it is a fair inference that by that same 

measure it is 60 percent Democratic. 

Q And you would have done that both respect to party 

registration data and with respect to election contest data? 

A Yes 

Q If there are mistakes in the accuracy of the data, could 

that affect the degree of difference of the ultimate conclusions 

of your analysis? 

A It could, yes. 

Q Could it affect whether there is a difference? 

[*39] A It could, yes. 

Q And it could therefore affect the direction of the 

difference? 

  
 



721 

A Yes, it could. 

Q Did you or anyone in your organization make any effort 

to verify the accuracy of the data? 

A No, not beyond making sure that we had read it 

correctly. 

* kk  H 

[*39] Q (interposing) Well, let me rephrase my 

question. With respect to the population data, total population 

and voting age population per precinct, do you know whether 

or not the State of North Carolina modified data from the U. S. 

[*40] Census Bureau in preparing the data which they provided 

to you in Exhibits 21 and 22? 

A Idon't know. 

Q And if that data were modified in error, could that affect 

the accuracy of your results? 

A It could, although if the data are erroneous and the data 

are in fact what the legislaturerelied on in making its decision, 

it might be that even erroneous data would not affect the 

  

conclusion that I draw. 

Q I would like to draw your attention to observation 198, 

which I believe is in Exhibit 22. I believe that is reflected on 

page 47 in the upper right-hand corner; is that correct? 

A Yes. 

Q Can you tell me how many black registered voters in 

observation 198, segment 199, are shown for the external 

precinct, the outside precinct? 

(Witness peruses document.) 

    
 



    
722 

    

    

   

   

  

    

   

   

      

A My copy is a little hard to read, but it looks like it might 

be 93, but it might be 90 or it might be 98. 

Q And how many black persons in total are there for that 

observation? 

(Witness peruses document.) 

A It looks like there are 60 recorded here. 

Q So a precinct with 60 black persons generates a black 

[*41] registered voter population of 90 or greater? 

A That is what it looks like, yes. 

* * * 

[¥42] Q I'm sorry; can we focus on the internal precinct? 

A Okay. 

(Witness peruses document.) | 

Yes. In the internal precinct the data show 44--no, 

sorry; the data show 61 blacks in total but 132 registered black | 

voters in lines 149 and in line 150 as well. 

Q And the number you began to give, the 44 numbe 

would be the number of adult blacks who reside in that preci 

according to the data. | 
A Yes. 

Q Is that correct? 

A That is right. 

Q In Exhibit 21 is there a listing of precincts for whi 

you lacked full data? 

(Witness peruses document.) 

Q Sir, can I draw your attention to page 77 

[*43] A Yes. 

 



  

723 

   

            

    

    

   

    

    

   
    

    

Q Were you aware at the time you prepared your analysis 

that you were missing full data with respect to these 

observations, these five observations? 

A Yes. 

Q What effort, if any, did you make to obtain complete 

data? 

A I don't recall whether we specifically asked about these 

data or not. We had several conversations with the people who 

supplied us with the data. But my understanding is that we 

have all of the data that are available. 

[*44] Q Do you know whether the--in your footnote--let 
me just start a different way. In your footnote in your first 
affidavit--- 

Ms. Smiley: What exhibit number is that? 
[*45] Mr. Markham: That is Exhibit Number 19, page 

3, footnote 1. 
_ By Mr. Markham: 

-Q You make a mention of some special circumstances 
~ which relate to Davie County? 
A Yes. 
Q  Canyou explain to us what those circumstances are? 
A I am not sure what there is to say beyond what is said 
in the footnote, 
Q Did youmakeany effort to obtain data that was missing 
from the State with respect to Davie County? 

No. We just used minor civil division data. 

  

  

 



  

724 

Q Do you know whether the minor civil division data 

corresponds to the precincts for that county? 

A As I sit here, I don't. 

Q Did you calculate the data for Davie County with 

respect to election results or were these figures that were 

supplied to you by the State? 

A All of the figures were supplied to us by the State. 

Q Can you identify which of the data contained in 

Exhibits 21 or 22 relate to Davie County? 

A No. 

Q Assume with me that evidence will show that 

observation 199 will be among those observations which relate 

to Davie County. 

[*46] A All right. 

Q What is the percentage of support for the Democratic 

candidate for the U. S. Senate in 1990 in that precinct? 

A Are we talking about an internal precinct or an external 

precinct? 

Q The external precinct. 

(Witness peruses document.) 

A The question again was? 

Q What was the level of support for the Democratic 

candidate for the United States Senate in the precinct reflected 

as the outside precinct in segment 199--I'm sorry; segment 200, 

observation 199. 

A It looks as though 30 percent of the voters in that 

precinct voted for the Democratic candidate. 

Q Looking at the next observation--- 

A (interposing) Yes. 

  
 



725 

Q ---can you confirm that that involves a different external 

precinct from the same county, and can you tell us what the 

results were for.the Democratic senate race in that precinct? 

A That does have a different precinct identifier. And the 
fraction is once again 30 percent. 

Q And continuing to the next page, I believe the next 

identifying--the next new identifier for an external precinct will@ 

be in the fourth line, observation 204? 

[*47] A Yes. 

Q Can you tell us what the Democratic percentage was for 

the Democratic candidate--I'm sorry, what the percentage was 

of support for the Democratic candidate in that precinct 
according to observation 209 for another precinct in that 

county? 

A Observation 204? 

Q Yes. I'm sorry; yes, 204. 

A 30 percent. 

Q And continuing to the next page, what is the next 

unique precinct on the outside? Is that at observation 208? 

A Yes. 

Q Can you tell me what the Democrat support was for the 

United States Senate in that precinct in the same county? 

A Also 30 percent. 

Q And the next observation, 209, does that also reflect a 

unique precinct within the same county? 

A Yes. 

Q And what is the Democrat support? 

A Also 30 percent.   
 



  

726 

Q As a statistician would it surprise you that every | 

precinct in the county voted in the same proportion in the 

United States senate contest? 

A It would surprise me if they had all voted in exactly the 

same proportion, yes. i 

[*48] Q And if those data are incorrect could they affect 

the accuracy of your analysis? 

A Yes, they could. 

Q In fact, were precincts bordering Davie County among 

those which you used in calculating whether or not race or 

party were a better explainer--abetter method of explaining the 

external boundaries of the district? 

Q Yes. 

Q There are more segments than precincts that comprise 

your analysis; is that correct? 

A Yes. 

Q Is that a form of double counting? 

A No. 

Q Are all convergent segments equally probative of each 

of the two theories, whether race or party predominated in the 

construction of the external boundary of the district? 

A I treated them as equally probative. 

Q Would it be possible that because of differences--that 

convergent segments could be used to support one or the other 

theory of the construction of the external boundary of the 

district because of differences in the level of change with 

respect to party or with respect to race? 

A One could devise other measures that take into account 

the magnitudes of the differences across boundaries, yes. 

   



727 

Q And did you make any effort to conduct such an 

[*49] analysis? 

- A No. 

Q Do you have any sense for what that analysis would 

show without conducting it? 

A No. 

Q Did you consider conducting such an analysis? 5 
A Briefly, yes. 

Q Did you make some initial attempts to evaluate data 

with respect to such an analysis? 

A No. 

Q I had an unrelated question on Exhibit 21, page 5, in the 

upper right-hand corner. These are 24 observations from data 

set NC.PRECINCT. Can you tell me what that analysis began 

to show, what the purpose of this activity was? 

A What this program does is to combine information from 

two files. The first few records of one of the files is--are listed 

on page 5. And a short time ago we looked at the records that 

are listed on page 2. Those are the top few records from the 

other file on which this analysis is based. 

And what the analysis--or what the computer program 

does is to combine these two files together to produce the 

single file that runs for many, many pages and contains the 

results of our calculations. 

Q I wanted to draw your attention to the fourth row across 

of data, the fourth grouping of rows, where county [*50] names 

are listed, Beaufort and Bertie. 

A Yes. 

Q Are those the very first that exist in the file and is that 

the reason they are included at this location, or is there some   
 



  

728 

other purpose or reason why those two counties were included 

in these data? 

A This is just the top of the file called NC.PRECINCT. 

Q Do you have any information concerning in which 

congressional district those two counties are located? 

A Not at the moment, no. 

Q Does your analysis treat away all precinct comparisons 

as equivalent regardless of their respective populations? For 

purposes of proving or disproving theory, does each precinct 

segment count the same regardless of what the population is 

inside or outside the district? 

A When you say what the population is, you are referring 

to the number of people as opposed to their--- 

Q (interposing) The total--- 

A ---gither political composition or their racial 

composition? 

Q That is right, their total number. 

A The total number? Yes, the count is independent--or 

the correlation measure that I use is independent of the total 

number of people involved in each precinct. 

Q In evaluating intent would there not be a need to 

[*51] weigh the segment analysis according to populations in 

order to determine intent in constructing a congressional 

district? 

A I wouldn't think that there would be a need to do it. 

One could do it, but it is not necessary. 

Q So this was not an approach you have attempted? 

A That is correct. I did not attempt it. 

Q And so each segment counts the same even if the two 

precincts involved are relatively small in population and have 

  
 



  

729 

relatively little effect on the overall character of the 

congressional district? 

A That is correct. 

Q And does this analysis count each precinct equally 

either in support or in opposition to the theory even if the 

differences are very small or even trivial? 

A Well, I don't know about trivial, but all it does is to 

count up differences. 

[*59] Q I want to turn your attention back to Exhibit 22 

to observation number 160. 

(Witness peruses document.) 

A Page 39. 

Q In looking at Exhibit 23, this is one of the observations 

that is used to support the Type P divergent segment analysis; 

is that correct? 

(Witness peruses documents.) 

A Yes. 

Q And assuming that the evidence will show those 

identifiers to be High Point Precinct 1 on the inside included in 

Congressional District 12 and High Point Precinct 4 externally, 

which is excluded and not--or not included in Congressional 

District 12, can you tell me how many black registered voters 

there are in the 1st Precinct inside the district and what total 

number? 

A Internally there are four registered blacks out of a total 

of 1,212. 

Q And what about the external precinct not included? 

 



  

730 

(Witness peruses document.) - 

[*60] A And outside it is seven blacks registered out 

of 2,114. 

Q And this is evidence that there is a higher proportion of 

black persons outside the district than inside the district for that 

segment? 

A Yes, if you calculate the two percentages and compare 

them, one number is greater than the other. 

Q And is that a significant difference in your view? 

A Again, when I use the term "significant" it is within the 

context of a probability model. ‘And 1 don't see what 

probability model would be applicable under these 

circumstances, so I don't use the term "significant" here. 

Q So is this evidence that the designers of the district in 

determining which precincts to include or exclude along the 

external boundary as it wanders through High Point chose High 

Point Precinct 1 on the inside and excluded High Point 

Precinct 4 on the outside despite the fact that High Point 4 was 

a blacker precinct? 

A What it is is an element in the correlation of the 

boundary line with the racial makeup of the precincts which it 

separates. 

Q I want to look at observation number 6, which I believe 

will appear on page 9 of Exhibit 21. 

(Witness peruses documents.) 

Q Have you located that? 

[¥61] A Yes. 

Q And can you tell me again for that precinct how many 

black persons are in the precinct outside the district and how 

many black persons are in the precinct inside the district? 

  
 



731 

A In the total population? 

Q Among the registered voters, black registered voters. 

(Witness peruses document.) 

A Outside there are 305 black registered voters and inside 

there are 338 black registered voters. 

Q What is the total number of registered voters inside the 

precinct? 

A The total number of registered voters inside the precinct 

is 2,278. 

Q And for the external precinct? 

A The total number of registered voters is 2,005. 

Q Now, again, is this evidence significant or important to 

support a hypothesis that the designers of the district were 

looking at party rather than race and determining to select the 

internal precinct and to exclude the external one in this 

instance? 

A It is an element of evidence of that, yes. 

Q Is it trivial evidence? 

A That is your word, not mine. » 

Q Is it significant evidence? 

[¥62] A Again, I don't know what significance means in 

this context. 

Q Would it surprise you that there are a number of other 

observations with very small differencesin the number of black 

persons or in number and support for or registration as a 

Democrat for a number of these precincts that your analysis is 

based upon? 

A I am sure there are small differences that go both ways. 

Q And have you made any evaluation of those, the 

numbers and types of--let me back up. Have you made any   
 



  

732 

evaluation of thresholds beyond which there are larger 

differences or smaller differences and relate them to these 

25 precincts said to be supportive of the party analysis and 

these 16 precincts said to be supportive of a race analysis? 

A No. 

Q Now, does your analysis take into account whether 

inclusion of the external precinct touching the boundary of the 

12th Congressional District would require the creators to split 

open another county which at the moment in the process of 

developing this plan is wholly contained elsewhere? 

A I don't understand the question. 

Q Does it matter to you whether parts of the segment of 

this district lie along county boundaries for counties which are 

not included otherwise in the congressional district? 

[*63] A No. 

Q So you give the same weight and force to the failure of 

the legislature to break across a county line to take out a single 

precinct of a county and include it than if they are making 

adjustments within counties that are already in part included in 

the district? 

A Right. It is important to note that what I am doing is 

measuring a correlation, not doing a decision analysis. 

Q Do you have any information concerning how many of 

these, the 26 Type P comparisons or the 16 Type R 

comparisons, involve counties other than the six that are in the 

1997 plan included in part in Congressional District 12? 

A I'm sorry; I didn't understand the question. 

Q Do you know how many of these data set--these data 

examples, the 25 Type P divergent and the 16 Type R 

  
 



733 

divergent, involve counties external to the six counties which 

comprise in part Congressional District 127 

A I think the answer is no, but I still don't understand the 

question. 

Q Well, let me step back. Do you know the six counties 

that are included in the 12th Congressional District in 1997? 

A Not offhand, no. ® 

Q Okay. And do you know how many of the external 

precincts that are compared to precincts within the 

12th Congressional District would be in counties that are not at 

[*64] present included in the 12th Congressional District at all? 

A I don't know. 

Q And again, in your view every segment counts equally 

in the analysis regardless of whether that is maybe a factor in 

the decision maker's mind? 

A Right; this is a correlative study. 

Q Do you know, for example, whether Davie County is a 

county that is included in the 12th Congressional District in any 

part at the present time? w 

A I don't recall at the moment. 

* % % 

[*71] Q Does it matter to your analysis whether those 

precincts which tend to support the party explanation for 

external precinct selection or the racial theory for their 

selection--whether they are in the urban counties at the extreme 

of the district or whether they are in the counties that make up 

the bridge or connection between those counties?   
  
 



  

734 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question; 

answer it, David. Go ahead. 

A Could you give me the early part of the question again, 

please? 

Q Does it matter to your analysis whether the precincts 

which are a Type P divergent or Type R divergent are located 

in the large urban counties of Mecklenburg, Forsyth, and 

Guilford or whether they are located in the connecting counties 

of Iredell, Rowan, and Davidson? 

A It does not affect my calculation. 

Q Have you ever performed any analysis to determine 

how many of those precincts upon which your analysis relies 

fall in one type of county as opposed to another? 

A No. 

Mr. Markham: Let me mark as Exhibit 25 a 

summary of the divergent precincts. 

[*72] (Exhibit 25 was marked for identification.) 

Q Assume with me that population data elsewhere in this 

case will establish the percentage of black population in the 

12th Congressional District in the 1997 version from each of 

the counties. Does it matter to your analysis whether the 

Type P segments or for that matter the Type R segments occur 

in a county that provides a plurality of the black population for 

the district or whether it occurs in counties that provide less 

than 5 percent? 

A The initial part of the question again was does it matter 

to the analysis? 

Q Yes. 

A No, it doesn't. 

  
 



  

735 

Q Do you know how many precincts in total are 

responsible for the 25 segments which are Type P and the 

16 segments which are Type R? 

A No. 

Q Do you know what portion of the entire number of 

precincts or of the population of the district those precincts 

comprise? 

A No. 

Q And again, that has no effect on your analysis? 

A That is correct. 

Q Is it your view that because the partisan level of the 

[*73] district is in the 60 percentiles and the race level of the 

district is in the 40 percentiles for African American under 

several different measures that the designers must have been 

concerned more about party than by race? Was that the 

conclusion that you reached in your affidavit? 

A Well, we can read the affidavit. 

Ms. Smiley: Which affidavit are you referring to? 

(Counsel peruses documents.) 

Mr. Markham: I am interested in the--- 

Ms. Smiley: (interposing) Are you referring to 

Exhibit 19? 

By Mr. Markham: 

Q Yeah. I am referring to page 8 of Exhibit 19 and the 

analysis before that time. Is it the fact that partisan levels of 

support are higher than black population levels that in your 

view somehow lend support to a view that the designers were 

more concerned about party than about race, or am I 

misreading your analysis there? 

 



  

736 

A Well, the conclusion that I state is that these figures 

support the position that creation of a Democratic majority in 

District 12 is a more important considerationin its construction 

than was the creation of a black majority. The assertion there 

I think is based on the fairly obvious point that blacks in fact 

are not a majority in the 12th District, but Democrats are. 

[*80] Q And is the same true for the four measures of 

party support? Did you make any effort to evaluate which of 

those is more likely to be a predictor of partisan behavior than 

another? 
A I did do something there, although in the final analysis 

I treated all four equally. But I think that of the four voter . 

registration is probably the least reliable indicator of voting 

behavior. 

Q And yet if I understand correctly, the data which you 

provided which shows the greatest difference or support for the 

party thesis over the race thesis is in fact the voter 

[*81] registration data? 

A I don't remember if that is the case or not. It may be. 

Q Well, I will draw your attention to paragraph 18 of your 

Exhibit 19. And can you confirm that in fact it was the voter 

registration data upon which you base this portion of your 

analysis? 

A Well, paragraph 18 does describe an analysis that is 

based on voter registration; that is correct. Paragraph 19 

reports the results of all of the other analyses. 

  
 



  

737 

Q And are those results of the other analyses also reported 

in Exhibit 21 in summary fashion? And if so, can you tell us 

which pages? 

A Yes. 

(Witness peruses documents.) 

The results are reported starting on page 35 through 

page 40. 

Mr. Markham: Next we will mark Exhibit 27. 

(Exhibit 27 was marked for identification.) 

Q Can you confirm that this is an accurate summary of the 

race and party divergent segments on the various measures that 

you employed? 

(Witness peruses documents.) 

A Yes, it is. 

[*82] Q Just so I am clear, as an example, if one were 

constructing the district based on the results in the lieutenant 

governor's race, the analysis would show that race was a better 

predictor than party for the external segments of the district 22 

occasions to 19; is that correct? 

A Yes. 

Q And comparing to the voting age population data, if one 

were constructing a district using the political results of the 

lieutenant governor's race in 1988, race would be a better 

predictor than party for the external segments of this district 22 

occasions compared to 17 occasions? 

A Yes. 

Q And similarly if you are looking at voter registration, 20 

to 18? 

(Witness peruses documents.) 

A Yes, I believe that is correct. 

 



  

738 

Q And in fact the analysis that you reported in your 

affidavit is a comparison of Democrat voter registration to 

racial registration, which is the last column in the bottom row; 

is that correct? 

A The one that is described in paragraph 187? 

Q Yes. 

A Yes, I believe that is the case. 

Q And that is the instance out of these 12 comparisons in 

which party most exceeded race; is that correct? 

[*83] (Witness peruses documents.) 

A Yes. 

Q And if registration is less reliable, is it less reliable both 

with respect to Democratic registration and with respect to 

African American registration? i 

A I doubt it. I don't know what the reason for that would 

be. 

Q But if we discounted those analyses which include 

registrationas a component, then the analyses which would be 

relevant to this inquiry would be the six analyses on the top two 

rows for the first three columns for lieutenant governor, Court 

of Appeals, and U. S. Senate; is that correct? 

A If for some reason we were to discount registration 

entirely, you are right, although I can't think why we would do 

that. 

[*84] Q If that single precinct were needed to provide 

contiguity to the district--- 

[*85] A (interposing) Right. 

  
 



  

739 

Q ---that element of the analysis wouldn't factor into your 

mathematical analysis, but in fact that segment along that 

precinct is proof that party drove the external boundary location 

at that location of the district? 

Mr. Stein: Objection. 

Ms. Smiley: Objection to form. 

A The boundary of the segment would be included in my 

calculationand it would be an element in the calculation of the 

correlation or the degree of association between the 

12th District boundary and the characteristics of the party 

affiliations on the one hand or the racial identities on the other 

of people living on either side of the boundary. So it would 

figure into the calculation. 

Q But your analysis would not take into account the 

possible individual idiosyncratic explanations for any one 

precinct's presence or exclusion in a district based on 

geography, for example? 

A That is true. It simply accepts the boundary as it was 

drawn and asks does this boundary function better to 

separate--does this boundary function better to fence in 

Democrats or does it function better to fence in blacks. 

Q And for example, in your Exhibit 20, the map of Iredell 

County where--- 

(Counsel peruses document.) 

[*86] Let me scratch that. For example, if inclusion of a 

precinct would result in some distortion of the geographic 

shape, that would not factor into your analysis in any way? 

Mr. Stein: Objection; asked and answered. 

A The analysis depends upon the boundaries that are 

involved in the 12th District and the nature of the people on 

 



  

740 

either side of the boundary, immediately on either side of the 

boundary. And it measures the degree of correlation between 

the path taken by the boundary and the racial composition of 

people living on either side of the boundary and the political 

affiliation of the people living on either side of the boundary. 

Q And if in fact you included a precinct which had 

previously been excluded, your analysis doesn't review where 

it would be necessary to remove a precinct of equivalent 

population in order to achieve population equality, for 

example? 

A No. 

Q And you don't swap or compare groups of precincts of 

equivalent populations, do you? 

A I certainly don't. | 

Q And the segment analysis--in an instance where the 

district is one precinct wide, the segment analysis assumes that 

you could add the external precinct and exclude the internal 

precinct, or does it? 

[*87] A No, it makes no such assumption. 

Q And it makes no comparison of what the effect on the 

district would be to have both the internal and the adjacent 

external precinct compared to just the internal precinct? 

A That is correct. It doesn't do that either. 

Q So in the construction of a district are decision makers 

able to decide to include or exclude a district based on a 

difference in race or party as the model analyzes? 

Mr. Stein: Objection. 

A I don't understand the question. 

Q Does the analysis that you have conducted take into 

account whether a decision maker in fact could include the 

  
 



  

741 

external precinct and exclude the internal one consistent with, 

for example, contiguity or equal population or any other 

interest? 

Mr. Stein: Objection; asked and answered. 

A What the analysis does is to measure the correlation 

between an existing line. It doesn't consider other lines. It 

considers just the existing line. It says what is the correlation 

between this and race, what is the correlation between this and 

political affiliation. 

Q And when you said your analysis is not a decision 

making analysis, you meant by that that your analysis doesn't 

determine whether at that stage of drawing the boundary any 

decision maker would or could make that kind of comparison? 

[*88] A What the analysis doesn't do is to ask what other 

correlations might be achieved by drawing the lines elsewhere. 

Q Do you have any personal knowledge of the 

neighborhoods of the 12th Congressional District or the 

counties that comprise it? Have you done any--as a part of 

your analysis have you made any investigation? 

A Only to the extent that I have driven through them on 

occasion, but not for any purpose connected with this litigation. 

* % % 

[*98] Q In the analysis that you have performed 

respecting the selection of grand jury foremen, members of the 

grand jury, has one of the issues in the analysis been whether 

race was a motive in that selection process? 

A That has been the issue, yes. 

 



  

742 

Q And is the same true in your employment 

discrimination activities in preparation for testimony in those 

cases? 

A In some of them, yes. 

[¥99] Q And have you both testified that race was a 

motive in employment decisions and was not a motive? Have 

you both--- 

A (interposing) Usually--- 

Q You have reached that analysis? 

A Usually statistical analysis can't reach the ultimate 

issue. The only thing statistical analysis can do is to say here 

is evidence in favor of this or here is evidence in favor of that. 

But it doesn't ever get to the bottom line that says race was a 

factor or race was not a factor any more than I can do party 

affiliation was the factor or not the factor. 

But to get back to what I think is the spirit of your 

question, have I worked both for plaintiffs and for 

defendants--noton the same case, of course--the answer is yes, 

sometimes I have supported plaintiff's position, and yes, 

sometimes I have supported defendant's position. I have also 

had clients that I have had to tell that I was sorry that I couldn't 

support their position, both plaintiff and defendant. 

  

  
 



743 
RONALD E. WEBER, PHD DEPOSITION (EXCERPTS) 

[*33] Q Well, as a social--I realize that you are not a 

lawyer, but you are a political scientist dealing in the 
redistricting area. Would it be your view that a state law which 

forbids the cutting of a county line would outweigh or [*34] 

override the Voting Rights Act, Section 2 of the Voting Rights 

Act? ® 

Mr. Markham: Objection. He is not an 

attorney. 

Q As a political scientist, you have discussed this issue 

and you said you had given advice. I am not asking--- 

A (interposing) Yeah. 

Q ---for your legal opinion. 

A Yeah. It now turns out because of--because of Miller v. 

Johnson to be one of the race neutral criteria, you know, to 

minimize the splitting of counties. And even at that time I had 

the sense that that was where the courts were ultimately going 

to go as they were going to pay some attention to county lines. 

And Michigan had a tradition of--in the state legislature, now, 

of paying a tremendous amount of attention to county lines. 

Q So as a political scientist, you do believe that county 

lines override Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act? 

Mr. Markham: Objection to form; calls for legal 

conclusion. 

Q As a political scientist. 

a A I think these are factors that the court would have to 

a take into account, and the question about whether or not there 

3 is a violation of Section 2 would depend more upon the 
numerosity and concentration of the minority group, you know, 

  
  

   



  

744 

the cohesiveness of the minority group, and of course the [*35] 

third element, the cohesion of the white voters. 

Q And if that exists, as a political scientist do you believe 

that a county line can be preserved and you could ignore a 

concentration of cohesive African Americans? 

A You could then cross the county line in order to create 

a district; yes. 

Q And in fact have you--in any of the cases where you 

have been involved in Section 2, have you ever had to give 

advice to a governmental entity that it needed to cut county 

lines or other political subdivisions in order to create a 

Section 2 district, or has that just never been part of what you 

have to do in a Section 2 case? 

A I have had to evaluate proposals that did that. 

Q Section 2? 

A Yeah; proposals by the plaintiffs typically to do that, 

and so that--I have had to take that into consideration. 

Q And on occasion have you had to give your 

governmental client an opinion that in fact they might have to 

split some jurisdictional boundary or governmental boundary? 

Mr. Markham: Again, objection as it calls for a 

legal conclusion. 

Ms. Smiley: No, I am asking him a fact question. 

By Ms. Smiley: 

Q Have you on occasion so advised a governmental 

entity? 

[*36] A Yeah. I think back in--way back in the early 

Clark v. Edwards case where we had multiparish judicial 

districts and where, you know, the evidence suggested that 

there was a sufficiently large and geographically concentrated 

  
 



745 

African American population and there was other elements to 

the proof, ultimately the districts that I drew crossed some 

parish boundaries. 

[*36] Q And who did you--who were you retained by in 

those [*37] cases? 

A Plaintiffs in Hays, plaintiffs in Johnson, and plaintiffs 

in Shaw. | 

Q And were the plaintiffs white plaintiffs in those three 

cases? 

A In Hays they were mixed, two white, one African 

American and one Asian American. Johnson, I don't remember 

all of the plaintiffs. I do remember Davida Johnson, the first 

named plaintiff, is white. And as I recall, 1 believe the 

plaintiffs in Shaw were white--are white. 

* k % ® 

[63] Q Moon v. Meadows? 

A Shaw case. 

Q And what kind of analysis did you offer--excuse me. 

Did you represent the plaintiffs suing the government? 

A Yes, Donald Moon and his coplaintiff. 

Q And were they minorities? 

A One was white and one was African American. 
  

* % % 

  
 



  

746 

[*69] Q And I believe in that declaration you 

addressed that question looking at county splits and town 

splits; is that correct? 

A County and municipality splits; yes. I did not have 

time to do the precinct splits at that point. There were only 

two precincts in that geography. There are more precincts in 

today's world that are split than those two. 

* % % 

[*70] Q Did you consider any other hypothesis aside 

from race as a predominant factor? 

A No. I have always found race to be the most 

powerful explanation for bizarre districts. 

Q Then you don't look at any other alternative? 

A I consider other alternatives to the extent that the 

defendants offer alternative explanations. 

Q In your '98 declaration, did you consider--when you 

did your work at that time, did you consider any other 

alternative explanations? 

A I read the Peterson affidavit. I didn't know what to 

make of it. I was really under incredible time pressure. I 

finally said to Mr. McGee--I said, "I can't really relate very 

well in my declaration at that time to this Peterson analysis," 

because it was a nonstandard analysis. It wasn't an analysis 

that political scientists typically do. 

[*71] Q It was one you were not familiar with? 

A I was not familiar with it at that time; yes. 

Q Well, you knew there was an alternative hypothesis? 

  

    
  

 



747 

A From Peterson's report I knew there was an 

alternative hypothesis. 

Q And was that the first time that it was ever presented 

to you that there might be an alternative hypothesis as 

opposed to race? 

A No. I have heard this in other cases, the alternative 

hypothesis being it is politics; yeah. , 

Q And how did you eliminate politics--when you were 

doing your 1998 report, how did you eliminate the political 

hypothesis? 

A I did not eliminate it at that time. 

Q You did not? 

A Did not. 

Q Are you saying that in your--in your Exhibit 47, are 

you saying that you have eliminated that hypothesis? 

  
A I believe I have done enough analysis of the Peterson 

analysis to come to the conclusion that race was more 

important then party. : 

Q And have you--is that the only way you have @ 

attempted to eliminate that hypothesis is refuting the 

Peterson affidavit? 

A Well, no. You take the data from the--all of the [*72] 

precincts in the district and as we--I1 have done here in Table 

6 array both the racial data and the four--excuse me, the three 

- i partisan measures, and then consider whether one is better 

than the other. 

  
%* % % 

  
 



  

    

748 

[¥119] Q And what do you mean by electorally 

competitive? 

A Meaning to say that either party would, absent 

incumbency, have a reasonable opportunity of winning the 

district. 

Q And what do you consider a reasonable opportunity? 

A Meaning that when the candidates file and they raise 

their funds and they go to the voters that they are going to be 

sitting on pins and needles until the election returns are over. 

Q Have you put a number? 

A Oh, yes, of course. 

- Q And--- 

A (interposing) The criterion that I use in all of my 

work in political science is that a district that is 60 percent or 

more in favor of one party--60 percent Republican or 60 

percent Democratic--is uncompetitive. A district that is less 

then 60 percent, 59.9 and lower, in the return is competitive. 

Q When you said fair you talked about leaving aside 

incumbency? 

A Well, yes. Incumbency can affect the relative 

competitiveness of a district. 

[*120] Q So if you have a district that is over 60 

percent and the elections reflect incumbent voting totals, then 

would you still--would you say a district is unfair based on 

election results that are--- 

A (interposing) No. 

Q ---based on incumbency or do you have to use a 

different number? 

A No, we don't have to use a different number. What 

we just know is that it is--it is highly unlikely that the   
 



749 

challenger, whoever the challenger might be, will in fact 

make an effective challenge--that is, be able to in fact unseat 

the incumbent. 

There are a few occasions in the United States where 

districts in the previous election were greater than 60-40 in 

difference where in the next election an incumbent was 

unseated, but they are usually in the context of scandals or » 

something like that. 

Q Well, do you put a number--I mean, if you put a--you 

say anything over 60 percent you say is noncompetitive. Do 

you put a number in terms of what percent you give to an 

incumbent? 

A No, because it is going to vary from district to 

district. 

Q Well, do you have even a--well, do you analyze? Do 

you compare elections to determine whether or not you can 

put [*121] a number? 

A You can go through and look at the elections and 

make some assessment of the effectiveness of a challenge. w 

Typically incumbents do not fact effective challenges. There 

are only a few districts in the country that are ever effectively 

challenged. 

Q Well, I just--I am just trying to figure out--since some 

of the election data I think that you are relying on here does 

have incumbents, I am trying to figure out how you 

determine that a district is not competitive when you know 

the issue has to do with incumbency. 

A Well, that is where you have the data for all--as many 

elections as you possibly can so you can in fact have some 

that involve incumbency and don't involve incumbency. I   
 



    
750 

mean, unfortunately in--I believe of the statewide elections 

that I am looking at I think only perhaps the '72 election with 

Mr. Campbell may not have been an incumbent election. I 

am not sure, but I don't believe he was an incumbent that 

year. But I think all of the others involving Mr. Helms or the 

one most recently with Mr. Faircloth, they were incumbents. 

Mr. Markham: So the record will be clear, I 

think you misspoke and said 1972 election. 

The Witness: Okay; 1992. I am sorry. 

By Ms. Smiley: 
[*122] Q So you recognize that incumbency is a 

difference, but you have not in any way tried to weight or put 

a number on the incumbency advantage--- 

A (interposing) No. 

%* % % 

[*122] Q Well, do you have a particular measure or 

criteria for deciding whether a district is race predominant? 

A It has to do again with the assignment of the 

precincts. Remember, we talked about overwhelming-- 

almost always assigning the black precincts to the black 

district. 

Q Well--all right; so it wouldn't matter, say, in District 

12 the fact that it is not majority minority. You would still 

consider that a race predominant district? 

A Yes, because again, statewide it is--you know, the 

statewide numbers are all in the neighborhood of 20 to 22 

percent African American.   
 



  

751 

[131] Q And do you know where the majority of that 

population growth occurred? 

A I think I have seen something on that in Dr. Stuart's 

report, but I don't recall specifically. 

Q Well, do you know anything about North Carolina 

and its--- 

A (interposing) Well, I--- 

Mr. Markham: (interposing) Objection to 

form. 

Q ---population? 

A I am not going to speculate, but I do remember the 

following. That is that generally the counties in the 

northeastern part of the state have been declining relative to 

the growth and the growth has primarily been in the 

piedmont. 

Q And the piedmont would be--do you know what 

towns or counties--- 

A (interposing) Yeah. Well, you are talking about the 

so-called Triad, the urban Triad, running from Charlotte to 

[¥132] basically Durham with stops in Greensboro and 

Winston-Salem. 

Q So that is where the population growth has occurred? 

A Yes, ma'am. 

Q If you are going to insert a district, there is one place 

that you have got population? 

A Well, you can insert it almost anywhere when you do 

it. 

 



  

752 

Q And in fact that is a prerogative of the General 

Assembly--- 

Mr. Markham: Objection to form; calls for 

legal conclusion. 

Q ---in terms of--- 

A (interposing) It is in fact a prerogative, but the only 

problem we now have is that one has to do this using race 

neutral criteria. 

%* % % 

[¥135] Q But you have already agreed that that plan, the 

1980s plan, would not be constitutional under the 1990s 

population figures? 

That is correct. Yes. 

And this is not to be a legal benchmark of any kind? 

I can't assert legal benchmarks. 

Well--- 

(interposing) As an expert I can't do that. 

Well, I agree. You are not a lawyer, but you cite cases 

throughout this opinion--I mean, throughout this report, and I 

just wondered, are you using that term "legal benchmark" in a 

legal sense at all? 

A I think it could be construed that way. 

Q Is the 1980s plan an appropriate social science 

benchmark for determining a racially fair 12 district plan? 

A The 1980s plan was determined to be racially fair by the 

Department of Justice. 

Jo
li
 

ol
i 

VO
R 

  
 



753 

[138] Q Now, if you were going to address the role of 

partisan politics or party preference, what data would you 

need? 

A I believe there are sufficient data in the submission 

materials--thatis, the three elections 1988 and 1990, albeit that 

I consider them somewhat stale, and you have the registration ® 

breakdown by both party and race. 

Q And that is what you would need to address the issue 

[*139] of party, or the role of party? 

A That would be sufficient. 

Q Okay. 

A That would be sufficient. 

Q Now, what criteria would you use to determine the 

relative importance of the role of race and the role of party? 

A It would be the exact same criteria. If I were to be 

assessing the predominance of race, I would be looking at the 

racial characteristics of the precincts. If I were looking at the 

predominance of party, I would look at the party data by 

precinct. 

Q And would you give--and you had what, four measures 

of party data? 

(Witness peruses document.) 

A Yes. 

[*141] Q Well, I thought somewhere in your report you 

talked about how Democrats could have been put in District 8?   
 



  

754 

A Yes, if you were going to cut a line between District 9 

and 8 over to 12 in Mecklenburg because you have a border 

there that is coterminous. But they chose not to do that. 

[*142] Q And what is your inference on their choosing 

not to do that? - 

A My inference is that they did not want to split 

Mecklenburg more than twice. 

Q Do you have any basis for that? 

A I remember, I think, Senator Cooper was proud that 

they hadn't done that anywhere in the state. 

* % % 

[¥143] Q Now, you say in paragraph 15 at the bottom of 

page 12 that Districts 1 and 12 were created to elect an African 

American member of Congress? 

A Right. 

Q And what is the basis for that opinion? 

A Well, with some subsequent data that I received I 

determined that both District 1 and District 12 have a majority 

of black registered voters in the Democratic primary, so that 

means that black voters have the ability to control the 

Democratic nomination and having the ability then to control. 

the Democratic nomination can nominate the Democratic 

candidate. Then the Democratic candidate can count on some 

crossover voting in the general election to win. 

  
 



735 

[*144] Q Well, would you also conclude from this data 

that Districts 1 and 12 would allow the election of a Democrat? 

A Yes. Whoever was nominated by the Democratic 

electorate would be--would be elected by the electorate in the 

general election; yes. 

[*¥145] Q So that might be white or black? 

A Yes, but the crucial point to me was that if you have i 

majority of the registered voters participating in the Democratic 

primary who happen to be African American that at least gives 

a very strong opportunity for that group to control the outcome 

of the nomination. 

Q And is there something wrong with that? 

A No, there is nothing wrong with that. 

Q Okay. 

A It is just a fact; yeah. 

Q Okay. That is right; it is just a fact. It is just a fact. 

A No. There is nothing--nothing normatively wrong with 

that at all. » 

* % % 

[¥156] Q So it doesn't matter to you whether a precinct is 

5 miles wide or 10 miles wide. Ifit is one precinct, then that is 

a narrow bridge? 

That is relatively narrow; yes. 

And it doesn't matter the number of miles? 

I guess the more miles, the less narrow it would be. 

But the problem is, though--- 

(interposing) The fewer--yeah, yeah. O
R
 

J 
OR
   
 



  

756 

Q ---for your criteria it doesn't matter how many miles or 

how big that precinct is geographically. If it is precinct, you 

would describe it as a political scientist as a narrow corridor? 

[157] A Yes. 

[*167] Q Well, as a drafter of a plan, if you were 

concerned with the partisan aspects and creating Democratic or 

Republican districts, how would you start? 

A You would start with the precincts that gave the largest 

degree of support to Democratic candidates. 

Precincts or counties? 

Counties and then precincts. 

And then precincts? 

Yeah. 

And then you would work along the margins? 

Yeah. >
0
 
P
o
 

PA
LO
 

[*169] Q You say at the bottom of that page 18, "When 

counties were split to achieve population equality, the racial 

composition of the components differ little." Which counties 

demonstrate that? 

A Chatham, for example; not much difference. 

Q Is that chart 2? 

A Yeah, Table 2. 

Q Well, 6,000 versus 2,000? 

    
T
P
R
   
 



  

  

    

  

757 

A Right; but then look at the percentages, 20.9 

versus 28.7. 

%* % % 

[172] Q And you particularly pick out Mecklenburg 

County and Guilford County in terms of looking at the ® 

differences? 

A And Forsyth as well. 

Q Is Forsyth in there? 

A Yeah; at the top. 

Q At the top; that is why I can't see it. Okay. For those. 

counties, were you using once again your 20 percent? 

A These are vastly greater than 20 percent. I mean, 

Forsyth is like 61 percent difference. Guilford is 41 percent. 

Mecklenburg is about 43 percent difference. These [*173] are 

vast differences. 

Q So what is--40 percent--what percentage criteria is vast 

as opposed to enough? 

A There are twice--there are twice as many as the--it is 

significant, a substantively significant number. It turns out 

they put 88 percent of the black populations in those three 

counties in District 12. 

[*188] Q --—-you apparently are not particularly impressed 

that the state did not split precincts particularly in the 1997 

[*189] plan? 

 



  

758 

A In comparison to what they used to do, yes, that is an 

improvement. But the point I think is very important is that 

they did not use the 1997 precincts. They used the 1990 

precincts. So there are places in the state where there were old 

precinct lines that now split new precinct lines and so you have 

got some difficulties in election administration with the 

districts as they were fashioned. 

Q But is that something the legislators would have 

necessarily been aware of? 

A If you had asked me my advice, given the Shaw 

litigation and all of that, I would have been prepared and have 

altered--and I know the system is alterable because Louisiana 

did it--put in and adjusted the population data to fit the political 

data after 1996 as you were going to start doing this work 

in 1997. 

Q Well, isn't the fact that there are only two districts (sic) 

split in the entire plan a positive, I mean, based on 1999 data, 

obviously. : 

Mr. Markham: Objection to form. 

A It is an improvement over 1992, but again, I just don't 

think that that is terribly important. It is a question of is it an 

improvement over 1980s in terms of, again, what was the 

electoral geography in the '80s and what could one do in that 

particular plan. 

[*190] Louisiana did everything in Hays using precinct lines 

and the court ultimately found that they were not protected by 

using precinct lines. Precinct lines are now defined racially in 

the south, and so precinct lines are not a protection. 

  
L
E
 

So
e 

  
 



759 

[¥192] program in 1990. My larger point was it would have 

been better to have used the current precinct structure so you 

don't have election administration problems where a piece of 

the precinct is in one district and another piece of the precinct 

is in another district. 

Q And do you know how many places that occurs in ® 

North Carolina? 

A No. I have been asking hoping to find that out. 

Q And apparently it must be a manageable problem? 

A I don't know. 

Q You don't know? 

A I don't know. 

Q So that is speculation? You have no data to support   
A No. That is correct. 

5 * % % 

[*247] Q Well, if the General Assembly did not onsite 

the Gantt-Helms the best political bellwether, would that be a 

[*248] reason why fewer of the districts that show over 50 

percent Gantt support in this particular election are not included 

in the district? 

  

i 
) 

A 

4 

a 
, 

S23 

7 
2 

So 

A I guess. All can say is that as a political scientist that 

doesn't make any sense. I would use the best and most recent 

race. And furthermore, if I am trying to construct a district that 

. would be a realistic opportunity district for an African 

; American candidate, I would use the Gantt versus Helms race.   
 



  

760 

Q But what if the legislature was trying to build a 

Democratic district? 

A That is the theory. That is the theory. They are trying 

to build a Democratic district. 

Q And if they were trying--okay; that is the theory. And 

if they were trying to build a Democratic district--- 

A (interposing) Then--- 

Q ---wouldn't they look at the races that were more 

bellwethers for Democratic-Republican strength and that did 

not also have incumbency factors--or, I'm sorry, not 

incumbency but home court advantage? 

A Yeah. I understand what you are saying. It just seems 

to me for District 6--or excuse me, District 12, I would have 

used the Gantt-Helms race of 1990. 

Q Do you have any information--you said you have read 

depositions and you got this other information about [*249] 

legislative intent and you have read all these other things. Do 

you have any information to support your--to support a theory 

that the legislature in fact relied most importantly on this Gantt 

race? 

A No. I believe Senator Cooper said they didn't. 

Q So the fact that you might and this chart gives you your 

best results--I mean, if the legislature--- 

A (interposing) But you see, I am not--- 

Q ---didn't use it--- 

A (interposing) I am not asserting a defense that this was 

partisanship. 

Q Exactly; you are asserting it is racial? 

A Yes. The State is asserting that it is partisan, so--- 

Q (interposing) And your are--- 

    

 



  

  

  

  

  

761 

A ---it seems to me that the best partisan--the best way to 

get at the partisan data would have been to use the Gantt-Helms 

race in 1990. 

Q But that is only because you consider that a good 

partisan measure? 

A Yes. 

Q And the politicians in North Carolina--the Democratic 

politicians in North Carolina you understand do not believe that 

that is the best race to use? 

A They are entitled--we are entitled to our differences 

[*250] in opinion, yes. 

[250] Q And based on what you have read, and 

apparently you have looked at other materials besides data and 

maps, what your understanding of the importance of 

registration data to the North Carolina legislators? 

[*251] A Not very important. 

Q Not very important? 

A No. 

Q Okay. 

A Senator Cooper says that and I would have been 

surprised if he had said anything but that. 

Q Are you inferring that he is lying? 

A No, no, no, no. You misunderstood me. I would--- 

Q (interposing) I would hope so. 

A Yeah; I would be surprised--you know, all I am saying 

is that partisan registration data are notoriously imprecise in 

 



  

762 

terms of determining whether one is going to vote Democratic 

or vote Republican. 

* % % 

[*348] Q You had mentioned earlier in your testimony, I 

thought, that you found that maintaining the core was a 

traditional--maintaining the core was something they were 

trying to achieve--in these districts was something they were 

trying to achieve in redistricting '97. 

A Well, that is--according to Mr. Cohen, that was a goal, 

yes. 

Q And my question for you is as a social scientist or in 

your assessment of the redistricting cases that have come out 

since Shaw that you have assessed and talked about, would that 

also be a traditional redistricting criteria? 

A No, I don't consider it a traditional districting [*349] 

principle. It is a principle that legislatures invariably use, 

because they were having to deal with people that literally 

believe they own their seats that they have. And they would 

like to have minimal disruption to the electoral connection 

between them and the voters that they are representing. So 

consequently it comes up over and over again. 

And so legislatures are in a way you can understand-- 

you may not excuse but you can understand why legislatures 

are reluctant to make major changes to districts. And it is only 

in the context of unconstitutional districts that sometimes 

legislatures are forced to do this. And this goes back to the '60s 

when, you know, I began to look at one person one vote cases.         sae 

bo 

To 

    

 



763 

a So the point is that yes, reality suggests that legislatures 

- and legislators pay a lot of attention. And this is in a way why 

sometimes when these things all come to fruition in courts 

perhaps the best possible outcome is what happened in 

Louisiana and what happened in Georgia, was that the judges 

ordered interim plans rather than leaving it to the legislature to 

. continue to sort of constantly modify plans based on the @) 

a unconstitutional plans. 

  

S
L
 

H
o
 

A
 

AR
ES

 
A 

i 
n
L
 

  
 



    
764 

  

  

[This page intentionally left blank.] 

  

    
 



  

765 

GERALD R. WEBSTER, PHD DEPOSITION (EXCERPTS) 

[*44] Q All right. Well, regardless of what you said, I 

am still curious as to whether you think Shaw as originally 

decided was wrongly decided. And not to be difficult, but I do 

believe this partakes of a yes or no answer. 

A I am an academic, and rarely is anything yes or no. 

Q I am a lawyer, and everything is yes or no. 

Ms. Smiley: The witness has answered the question 

and you are entitled to explain the answer. 

Mr. Popper: 1 apologize for arguing; I apologize. 

Ms. Smiley: You may have distracted the witness, 

Mr. Popper. 

A I believe the patterns of interaction are a wonderful 

basis on which to delineate a district, and therefore a 

[*45] freeway system is a wonderful basis on which to 

delineate a district. Whether or not the 12th was a racial 

gerrymander I don’t know. But I don’t take exception as a 

political geographer to the delineation of the district focusing 

on transportation routes. 

Q You have read that decision all the way through, 

haven’t you? 

A In 1993 I believe so, quite some time ago. 

Q If you were a Supreme Court justice would you have 

sided with the majority or minority? 

A I likely would have sided with the minority because I do 

believe that the state legislature of each state has an overriding 

right to delineate districts in the way that they see fit. 

 



  

766 

[*46] Q Would you have sided with the majority or 

minority in Miller v. Johnson? 

A I do not specifically recall the levels of compactness of 

the 11th District, but I likely would have sided with the 

minority. 

Q Would the same probably be true for Shaw v. Hunt and 

Bush v. Vera? 

A I hate to use the word “probably”, but 1 believe 

probably if I went back and looked at the evidence that I likely 

would have sided with the minority. 

[¥49] In your report did you compare the compactness of the 

North Carolina districts in the ‘97 plan to the compactness of 

the North Carolina districts in the plan that resulted after the 

1980s round of redistricting? 

A No, sir. 

Q Why not? 

A One, I am not sure it is as relevant as comparing them 

to the ‘92 districts, and — 

Q  (interposing) Relevant in a legal sense? 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question. 

[*50] Q Well, in what sense do you mean relevant? 

A In this particular circumstance, one, there was an 

increase of one district. That changes the system. Two, in 

terms of the continuity of representation, I think it should be 

based on the last plan. Three, the 1990s plan had a population 

disparity of 1.76 and therefore would have been found 

unconstitutional in 1992 in any case. 

    

  

  

  
 



  

      

  
  

767 

Q The 1980s plan? 

A Yes, sir. And therefore, is the 1980s plan the most 

relevant given that it was unconstitutional, given its population 

disparities. 

[*79] Q You are not prepared to say that there is even 

one possible African American majority district? 

A In the “97 plan, if I recall, but again, I don’t have my 

report in front of me, I believe the 1st District was less than 

51 percent African American but still slightly majority in terms 

of its African American total population. Both of [*80] its 

compactness indices were above benchmark minimal levels. I 

suspect I could based on those two elements conclude that in 

general, yes, there is in the area of the 1st. 

Q There may be numerically sufficient numbers to 

constitute a majority, but my question is do you have an 

opinion about whether a reasonably geographically compact 

district could be drawn in North Carolina that encompasses 

such a majority? 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the question; asked and 

answered. You can go ahead and repeat your answer. 

A I did compactnessindices, of course, for ‘92 and the ‘97 

plans’ district--districts. I don’t have my report in front of me, 

so I can’t look at those coefficients to confirm how far about 

the benchmarks for low compactness. 

But given the fact that a district was delineated, given 

the fact that it is slightly majority African American, and given 

the fact that its compactness indices are above the minimum 

 



  

768 

levels, I think I could conclude that there is a sufficiently 

geographically compact African American population in that 

part of the state that could be the core of a district. 

Q Do you believe that the measuring unit in constructing 

what I shall call a Gingles district is voting age population or 

total population or registered voting population? 

A This is, of course, an issue that political scientists [*81] 

debate actively. Political geographers, on the other hand, we 

have not debated it to any great degree. 

Though many would argue that voting age population 

is critical, and I understand that logic implicitly, it does seem 

to me that regardless of whether one is 6 months old or 

80 years old, one is still entitled to representation even though 

one can’t vote. Hence, I think in terms of my reading, the first 

place one ought to look is total population. 

    

  

  

 



  

  

  

  

  

he
 

  

769 
LESLIE WINNER DEPOSITION (EXCERPTS) 

[*69] Q. Well, the first four of those plans did not have 

a majority African American population, the fifth one is 

slightly over 50 percent. Do you recall whether or not at that 

time there was any belief on the part of any of you who were 

working on preparing plans as to whether it would be necessary 

to have a majority black district in North Carolina in the 

redistricting plan? 

A. I recall that at some point in time that I formed the 

opinion that we should have a majority black district in the 

northeast to avoid being in violation of Section 2 of the Voting 

Rights Act, but I do not recall when in time I formed that 

opinion. 

Q. How about in terms of pre-clearance, did you form an 

opinion as to whether or not there was a requirement -- whether 

or not the Department of Justice would deny 

[*70] pre-clearance unless there was a majority black district 

formed? 

A. I don't recall forming that opinion. 

Q. So your concern then was primarily with respect to 

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act? 

A. Right. 

Q. Can you explain the basis of that opinion -- and, well, 

first do you have any idea of the time frame in which you 

formed it? 

A. It would have been in 1996 or 1997, and it -- and I think 

that one of the things that we were trying to do was to 

determine whether we could make a majority black district in 

that part of the state that we thought was compact, which would 

have been relevant to answering that question. So it's not like 

 



  

770 

you answer it in the abstract and then go try to draw the district, 

it's a little interactive. I was aware from my previous 

experience that there was a high level of racially polarized 

voting in that part of the state. 

Q. You mean the northeastern part of the state? 

A. Right. And I believe that -- that at some point in time, 

although I don't remember what year it was, that Adam Stein 

came to the Redistricting Committee with updated data about 

racially polarized voting in the northeast part of the state. It 

must have been in 1997, [*71] because I think the data came 

from the Gant/Helms 1996 race. The -- and I was of course 

aware that there was a relatively high concentration of black 

people living in the northeast part of the state. And I think one 

of the -- one of the questions we had was whether -- whether 

there could be a compact district or relatively compact district 

without going all the way down to Columbus County or 

Cumberland or New Hanover County that would be majority 

black, and one of the questions was whether it could really be 

a district that didn't include Durham because there was some 

sense that the urban nature of Durham made it pretty different 

from the rural Eastern North Carolina. 

Q. Then did you finally come to the conclusion that it was 

possible to create a geographically compact majority black 

district that would not -- in the northeastern part of the state 

that would not include Durham? 

A. Yes, eventually. 

Q. Pardon me? 

A. Eventually we did. 

Q. Can you describe how -- now, did you actually -- did 

you actually print out or display a district of that type, I mean 

rr 3 

i 

& 

Fi 

i 

a 

7 

2 

3 
oe a 

8 

           



  

    

771 

so you knew where it was? 

A. Well, it's my opinion that the 1997 Senate plan that 

Senator Cooper presented to the Senate Committee 

[*72] contains a geographically compact majority black district 

in the northeast part of the state in it. 

[*78] Q. How does that compare as to the 1st District 

with the plan that you were mentioning a moment ago, the 

Cooper plan where you said that you thought they had a 

geographically compact majority black 1st District? 

Ms. Smiley: Which is Exhibit 6? 

Mr. Everett: Yes. 

A. Well, the '97 plan splits Granville and Person Counties 

and Senator Cooper's plan didn't split Granville and Person 

Counties. I believe the adopted plan put more of Pitt County 

into the 3rd District, which is what Representative Jones, 

Walter Jones wanted, because he lives in Pitt County. Jones 

County is mostly in the 1st District in the adopted plan and 

none of Jones County is in the 1st District in the Cooper plan, 

which I assume was done to -- in part because of the movement 

of people out of Pitt County from the 1st District into the 

3rd District, to balance out the population. I can't really tell 

about Lenoir County, whether it's the same or not. That seems 

to be the biggest difference is that Person, Granville became 

split, I don't remember why, and -- but [*79] my guess is it had 

something to do with trying to balance out the 2nd and 

4th District, which is a big matter of controversy between the 

House and the Senate, and that more of Pitt went into the 3rd 

 



  

772 

to make Walter Jones happy and more of Jones went into the 

1st I guess to balance out the population. Those seem to be the 

major changes. 

Q. Which of the two would you view as the more compact, 

the Cooper plan or the plan, the 1997, that is as to the 

1st District? 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question. You 

can answer that if you can. 

Q. I'm sorry, geographically compact. 

Ms. Smiley: I still object to the form of the question. 

You can answer if you can. 

A. Well, the Cooper plan seems to have more whole 

counties and the adopted plan seems to have more fractured 

counties. 

[*92] A. . . . if I even kept it when I got it. The only 

thing that I kept at the time was -- I kept some copies of some 

maps that were kind of on the table at the time and then when 

we moved on to another map I tended to throw them away 

because it got too confusing. I didn't keep -- I made no attempt 

to keep an accurate like historical file of the stuff, because I 

assumed that the people would in bill drafting, that that was 

their job, it wasn't my job. So I just kept what was useful to me 

at the moment. 

Q. Let's look at the second paragraph of that e-mail. Can 

[*93] you give us the benefit of your interpretation of what is 

meant by that paragraph? And there is a reference in here that 

Franklin was all in the 1st under Cooper .30 and it's a past 

  

  
HI
RT
   

i 

Zo! 
is 

a 

a 
Si 

Sel 

A 

a 

SE 

4e% Ha 

an 

ok 

i 

rn 

2a 

SE 

Gr 3 

i i 
i if 

Pic 

2 

Ld 

is 

2 

33 

CR 

    

 



  

    SAA REE La EE DO SR RS gr Bt EXONS Ra BX   oi 0 

3 

i 8 
eh 

73 

tense, which may or may not be significant, but what is -- what 

do you interpret that paragraph to mean? 

A. The part about Franklin County? 

Q. Well, the whole paragraph. The district -- when he 

refers to improved, what do you interpret that to mean? 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question. 

A. I don't know what he meant. Are you asking me what 3 

he meant? 

Q. What do you think he meant? 

A. That in some way he thought the district was better -- 

well, the first sentence I can't tell whether he's -- on what -- 

there's some way that he can't make it any better, but since I 

don't know what Senator Cooper's instructionsto him -- I don't 

know what his goal was so I don't know the answer to that. It 

could have been political, it could have been racial, it could 

have been -- and I just -- geographic, you know, pretty, I don't 

know. 

Q. In the context, since it's only a reference to racial, 

wouldn't it be your interpretation that the improvement Tt 

[*94] related to changes in racial percentages? 

A. No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't necessarily infer that, 

because as I have previously told you, in that part of the state 

there are also political concerns about these counties that were 

in the 1st Senate District, so I don't -- I don't -- and he could 

have had more than one thing on his plate at the same time. 

Q. But when he says I was able to boost the district to 

49.28 percent white, 49.62 percent black, what is your 

interpretation of that sentence? 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question. 

Q. What was being boosted? 

 



  

774 

A. I assume what was being boosted was the black 

percentage. 

Q. And at the same time the white was being reduced? 

A. Yes. It appears to be. 

Q. And when he says I could probably improve this or 

thins, t-h-i-n-s, a bit more by switching precincts, would your 

interpretation be that the improvement was in terms of 

increasing the black percentage to a higher? 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question. You 

can answer it if you can. : 

A. I don't know what he was thinking, but I would infer 

[*95] from that that he was talking about making the black 

percentage higher. 

Q. Now, do you know whether or not in any way this was 

against a backdrop of any belief that it had to get up to 50 

percent? 

A. Whose belief? 

Q. Pardon me? 

A. Whose belief? 

Q. His belief or that he -- that he had been instructed to get 

it to 50 percent or to try to get it to 50 percent? 

A. I don't know whether it was in the backdrop of trying to 

determine whether it was possible to get it to 50 percent or 

whether it was in the backdrop that we already knew it was 

possible but there were some political constraints that we were 

trying to see if it was possible to do it in some other way. I 

don't -- it's possible that we already knew it could be done and 

we were trying to find a different way to do it or it's possible 

that we didn't yet know whether it could be done. 

      

  

   



775 

  

  [*99] Q. Thank you very much. Returning to the e-mail, 

which is Exhibit 58. The last sentence there, last two 

sentences. I have moved Greensboro black community into 

the 12th. What was the Greensboro black community that he 

was referring to, if you -- if you know or have any belief? eS 

A. I assume that it means that he had put part of Guilford 

County, probably -- and probably -- certainly not just the 

. Greensboro black community but part of Guilford County that 

1 contained -- part of which was the predominant black precincts 

. in Greensboro, and I assume some other precincts as well, had 

moved them from I guess the 6th Congressional District to 

the 12th, and it must have meant that he had moved about 

60,000 people into the 12th and to keep the population 

balanced you would have to take 60,000 people out. 

  

Q. His reference to the black community, does that mean 

that he would have to take about 60,000 whites out to make up 

for that or do you -- w 

A. Oh, no, I doubt if that was possible. He probably took 

. -- and I don't know what we took out, but -- and he could have, 

I don't know. I don't know whether the net impact of that was 

- to increase the black population of [*100] the district or 
whether it wasn't. He may have taken out -- and you can't tell 

from this. I'm sure it wasn't 60,000 black people that he moved 

in. It may have been just like 30,000 or 25,000, and you can't 

tell from this whether that had a net impact of increasing the 

black population of the district or whether it kept just even or 

-- you can't tell. 

Q. Do you have any recollection as to how many African   
 



  

776 

Americans in Guilford County were in the 12th District under 

the 1997 plan? 

A. No. 

Q. Nor how they were allocated between -- how many 

were in High Point on the one hand and Greensboro on the 

other or some third place, you don't know any allocation? 

A. Well, I don't believe there would have been a third 

place, but -- and there is some territory between High Point and 

Greensboro and it may have some black people that live in it 

too, I don't know. 

Q. I was thinking places like Jamestown and out in that 

area. | don't know. 

A. Jamestown is pretty republican, so I doubt if we 

intentionally put it in the 12th District, but it may have been 

just for geographic reasons. 

[*105] Q. Okay. Let me rephrase it. Do you remember 

Senator Cooper, for example, saying that the 12th District as 

created in the plan was not majority black and therefore the 

requirements of Shaw V Reno would not apply? 

A. I remember he said that kind of after the fact, but I don't 

recall that that was ever stated as a goal. 

Q. And when you say -- I'm sorry, go ahead. 

A. I think after the plan was -- had already been developed 

-- and I don't remember whether it was the Senate plan that he 

was referring to or the compromise plan that he was referring 

to, but what I remember is that -- that it was a hindsight 

statement, it wasn't something that was a goal. 

    

  

  

 



777   
Q. So there was a plan and he was talking about that and 

in that context making that comment? 

A. As a justification -- as a defense of the plan, not as a 
reason for having created it. 

Q. Did you agree with that defense? 

A. Honestly, my opinion is that the case law in that area is 
somewhat of a muddle. I haven't kept up with reading all of the » 
cases and I don't believe that I either agreed or disagreed. I 

thought it was a plausible argument. 

[*106] Q. Do you know whether or not he obtained any 

sort of legal advice before he made that statement on the floor? 

A. I don't know. 

Q. Are you aware of any advice that was ever given to 

either the members of the Redistricting Committee or anyone 

in the General Assembly to the affect that thel2th District 

might be subject to strict scrutiny even though it was not 

created as a majority black district? : 

A. I think that Senator Alran said that you said that. 

Q. Yeah, so -- so that was -- Ww 

A. And I think it was Senator Cooper was responding to 

Senator Alran's having said that you said it in a floor debate. 

Q. So he took that position in response to something I was 

alleged to have said? 

A. I can't say what motivated him, but my memory is that 

Senator Alran said that on the floor as a reason to vote against 

the plan and Senator Cooper responded in a floor debate saying 

that he disagreed with you.   
 



  

778 

[*108] Q. Okay. Fine. What about predominantly race 

based, what does that mean to you? 

A. That the primary motivation for creating it was to 

achieve either some racial separation or some racial percentage 

or some racial mix or something that had to do with race. 

Q. And if some other justification or reason is offered then 

it's perfectly permissible to have it as race based [*109] as one 

chooses? 

A. That's a question of law, I think. 

Q. Well, in other words could the General Assembly take 

another look -- the new General Assembly that was elected in 

1996, take another look at the 1992 plan and say we like the 

results that were generated under that plan, we're going to 

reenact it and it's no longer race based, would that be 

permissible, in your opinion? 

A. I think it would just be a question of fact whether that 

was a pretext or whether they really had some other non-racial 

reason for-doing it, but that's not what we did. 

Q. So as long as it was not a pretext, it would be 

permissible to do that in your opinion, it would be a factual 

issue? 

A. It's my understanding of the case that they inferred from 

the shape that it was racially -- race based, but that I suppose it 

would have been possible to prove that it wasn't. In that case | 

in 1992 it clearly was race based since the Justice Department 

had told us that we had to draw a majority black district, so 

there was no point in trying to prove that it wasn't. 

  

  
  

  

 



779 

[*111] Q. Well, what would be your understanding of a 

term like core, maintaining the core? 

A. That -- and it's subjective, but for any -- for any 

incumbent you would have a constituent base that you 

considered to be your core constituent base and that -- that you 

would like to keep if the district was modified. Now, I don't 

know that we did that in this case. I'm -- as a matter of fact | 

don't think we did do it in all cases in this case. For example, 

Eva Clayton may have thought that the black communities of 

Fayetteville and Wilmington were part of her core constituent 

base and she didn't keep them. Mel Watt may have thought 

that the black community of Durham was one of his core 

constituent bases and he didn't keep that. So I don't think that 

we in fact did maintain the core of all these districts.   * % % 

[¥129] Q. I see, okay. Now, Senator Cooper has referreigly 

to accepting certain data from the National Committee for an 

~ Effective Congress. Did you receive -- were you a participant 

i in receiving any such data, did you have any [*130] contact 

with that committee that you recall? 
A. I was a secondary recipient of it. 

: Q. I'm sorry? 

| i A. I didn't talk to them myself but Senator Cooper shared 

their reports with me. 

Q. Okay. Do you remember the nature of that data and 

how it was used? 

A. We thought it was a more reliable indicator of the 

  
 



  

780 

partisan balance of a district than voter registration was. I 

didn't think voter registration was very useful information, 

because in North Carolina more and more registered democrats 

don't always vote democrat, so having -- and as you know the 

election data that we had on the legislative computer was very 

old, so having access to more current election data was useful 

to determine partisan. : 

Q. Do you remember any particular insights you receive 

from that data and tried to use in drawing the '97 plan? 

A. By 1997 the congressional delegationhad six democrats 

and six republicans, and it seemed apparent to me that if we 

were going to get a plan adopted by the House which was the 

majority republican and the Senate which was the majority 

democrat that the only plausible way to do that was to have a 

plan that had six districts that were at least leaning democrat 

and six districts that [*131] were at least leaning republican. 

Q. Now, when you started the process or you were drawing 

some plans in the summer of 1996 the balance was 8/4 

republican, wasn't it? 

A. Right. 

Q. Then it became 6/6 as of November, 1996. 

A. Right. 

Q. When you were drawing the plan, did you or Senator 

Cooper -- this is the '97 plan. Did you know that Congressman 

Hefner was going to be leaving? 

A. I don't think we did. I don't think we knew that. I don't 

even think we knew it when we were drawing the '98 plan. 

Q. And so that district was left the same in both plans in 

any event? 

A. Well, there was no need to change it between '97 an 

    

  
  

  

     



          

    

781 

'98, but one of the complications is that I believe that Senator 

Hefner lives in the corner of Cabarrus County that's close to 

Mecklenburg County, so we didn't want to put him in the -- we 

wanted to keep him in his own Congressional District. 

%* % % 

[¥132] Q. Going back to the preserving partisan balance. 

After Hefner retired that district in the last election went 

republican, if you were trying to preserve partisan balance, why 

didn't you strengthen the democratic character of Hefner's 

district when you were drawing the '97 plan and '98 plan? 

A. Well, I think that that district is the democratic leaning 

district. You know, there are no guarantees in [*133] this 

game, but you had a very strong widely known popular 

republican candidate and a democratic candidate that didn't 

mount much of a campaign. Nobody said that we were 

drawing districts that would be guaranteed to go one way or the 

other and I don't think we were even trying to guarantee safe 

seats, but we were trying to create some balance between what 

you would call safe seats, swing seats and safe seats the other 

way, and I don't know, I don't think that you can conclude 

anything from the fact that Robin Hayes won that district, and 

he may not keep it, who knows. 

Q. So your conclusionis that under the circumstancesthen 

the drawing of the district from which Hefner -- well, the 

drawing of that district in which Hefner was serving was done 

in a manner that would give him pretty good assurance -- it 

would be democratic leaning at least you would say? 

A. It was democratic leaning, and as you look around the 

 



  

782 

borders of it, I don't see anything right on the edge of it that 

would have made it more democratic that wouldn't have hurt 

the 7th District. 

Q. ~~ What about adding some of the democrats from 

Mecklenburg County? 

A. Well, the part of the Mecklenburg County that Boiders 

on the 8th District is not democratic. 

[*134]Q. So you're saying there was no way to add the 

Mecklenburg democrats and take some out of the -- 

A. Not unless you were going to do a polka-dot. 

Q. With respect to -- 

A. Let me be more specific. Mecklenburg County along 

the Union Mecklenburg line is highly republican. 

Q. Okay. And -- 

A. And also on the Cabarrus Mecklenburg line it is leaning 

republican. And I guess it's possible that there might be -- that 

you could put Davidson Town into it, but then Mecklenburg 

would have been divided into three districts, which was 

something that we absolutely didn't want to do. 

Q. Now, the town of Davidson currently is in the 

12th District? 

A. Right. 

Q. Is all of it or is it split or do you recall? 

A. I believe it all is. But we absolutely didn't -- and one of 

the real complaints we had had from the '92 plan was that 

Mecklenburg was divided into three congressional districts 

with just a tiny little bit of it in the 8th, and people really didn't 

like that. 

% % * 

E
N
R
 

  

  

  

    
   



| 783 

[*135] Q. There's a phrase that's been used from time to 

time, functional compactness. What do you interpret that to 

[*136] mean or have you used that phrase at all yourself? 

A. XS: 

Q. And when you used it, what did you mean? 

A. Well, I used it in the context of a case I handled i 

Columbus County in the early 1990s, in which what we meant 

then was that although the black community was split between 

two towns, I believe Taber City and Whiteville, that they 

shared a black community leadership, they shared a community 

A
 
R
E
E
 

i 

of interest, that it was -- that there was easy communication 

between them, wasn't quite as hard to get from one place to the 

other and that they had some shared political concerns and that 

therefore they were functionally compact, and Judge Brett 

agreed with that. I think it was Taber City and Whiteville. 

Q. So it was in that context that you used it in the past? 

A. What I think it means is that -- that it's more important 

whether it ends up being a district that you can pcos) 

represent than it is precisely what shape the district is, which is 

  
  

just -- which doesn't have anything to do with democracy or 

representation. But let me add that I haven't done any legal 

research on that theory since 1991 or 2 or whenever that was I 

did that case. 

% x % 

[*138] Q. You did not, okay. In consideration of the 

Cochrane proposal, Senator Cochrane's proposal, did you 

consider what alternatives might exist in terms of drawing a 
  
 



  

784 

district that would go from Charlotte toward the -- toward the 

east and include some of the counties there instead of going up 

to Greensboro and Winston Salem? 

A. I considered Senator Cochrane's proposal. 

Q. And did you consider perhaps modifications of it, 

whether something could be better constructed, not necessarily 

what she had but something that would move between 

Charlotte and the Eastern part of the state and would constitute 

a desirable district? | 

A. Let me answer that in two ways. She did not consult 

with me in developing her plan, so I didn't have an opportunity 

to say why don't you try moving it this way or that way or add 

this or subtract that. She did not consult with me. In general 

I would say that I am familiar with Union, Anson, Robeson, 

Scotland, and Cumberland Counties and thatI do not think that 

[*139] they bear much in common with what I know of 

Mecklenburg County. They are rural, agrarian, military, have 

bad roads. The roads are getting a little better but at that point 

in particular it was very hard to get from here to there, they -- 

their housing and health care and economic problems were 

substantially different from Mecklenburg's, although in recent 

years we've had a little Suburban creep into Union County, but 

that's also recent, whereas the Piedmont Crescent is a name 

that's been around, wasn't invented for this District, it's been 

around for a long time. You know, there actually is a fault line 

that -- where the soil changes and the economy changes and 

we're on one side of it and Anson County is on the other side, 

whereas this whole Piedmont Crescent has the same kind of 

textile history more industrialized, more urban now, more 

banking, more electronics, more universities, and although the 

  
 



  

785 

“people make fun of the roads, the roads do make it an easy 

district to represent, because you can have district meetings that 

-- with the '97 plan you have a district meeting in Salisbury and 

everybody in the whole district can get there in an hour, so it -- 

the northern route always made more sense to me and I never-- 

from a constitutional viewpoint I never could understand why 

a Court would care whether you went north or east. 

[¥140] didn't view any constitutional significance of that 

question. 

Q. With respect to -- you mentioned Salisbury when you 

considered a desirable change that in the 1998 plan all of 

Rowan County is in one district instead of being split? 

A. Personally, honestly I thought it was a ridiculous 

change, but it was very clear to me that that's what the Court 

wanted to see. And if you were trying to get a Court approval-- 

the notion that it mattered to this district that we included 

southern rural Rowan County did nothing to enhance the 

district from a viewpoint of making it a good district to 

represent or anything like that. It made it prettier, there's n 

question about that, but I didn't -- I thought it -- it was really six 

of one half dozen of the other. I really didn't think it made an 

difference in the district. It didn't have very many people in it. 

Q. Don't you think it makes a difference to have all of one 

county in one district to whatever extent feasible? 

A. Actually, personally I do not. I've never been a big 

advocate of keeping counties whole. I think the role of 

counties is overrated in this debate. I think it was much better 

for Mecklenburg County to be divided than it would be to have 

it whole, that it has absolutely [*141] enhanced our 

representation in Washington by having a republican and a 

 



  

786 

democrat who sort of -- we've doubled our umph. We have one 

person that can talk to the administration, somebody else that 

can talk to the leadership of the House. We get two different 

perspectives. I see no disadvantages and numerous advantages 

to having your county divided. 

Q. And would that be equally true with having the City of 

Charlotte divided or the City of Winston Salem or some other 

city? 

A. I just don't think it matters. 

Q. Do you remember whether one of the goals were 

stated -- whether there was any goals stated of not dividing 

political subdivisions or not dividing counties, whether that 

was one of the goals stated at any time in regard to the plan? 

A. Let me say this. There was a goal of not dividing 

precincts, which I think was a very important goal, because 

when you divide a precinct it's hard for people to know who 

their representativeis and you have to like say well if you live 

on the east side of Jones Street you have this representative but 

if you live on the side of it south of -- and it's very confusing 

just to even tell somebody who their representative is, so I 

think that dividing precincts is something that's good [*142] to 

avoid. I think that dividing -- I've heard some rural legislators 

say that if you divide a little teeny tiny county up that they end 

up feeling like they don't have any impact at anybody's district, 

and I've thought that that was a legitimate consideration, but in 

terms of as a general matter do I think it's bad to divide 

counties, I don't think it's bad but I do recognize that it's more 

politically popular not to, that I'm somewhat in the -- that there 

are people that disagree with me. 

Q. You've heard the phrase traditional districting 

    

  

  

 



  

  

    

  

787 

principles, have you ever heard that being used? 

A. Well if you talk about traditional districting principals 

in terms of decades, traditionally we didn't care about one 

person one vote. 

Q. Well I'm talking about in the context of compactness, 

contiguousness and not dividing political subdivisions. Have 

you ever heard any of those referred to as traditional districting 

principles? 

A. I don't think that not dividing whatever that last thing 

you said was. 

Q. Political subdivisions. 

A. I don't think that is a traditional districting principal. 

Well, and I guess prior to 1980 the North Carolina constitution 

said you couldn't divide counties and districting the legislature 

but the Justice [*143] Department objected to that, that part of 

the constitution had never been pre-cleared. 

Q. Now, the '97 plan, the 12th District has 6 out of 6 

counties divided, and is it true that -- you don't think that's 

important one way or the other? » 

A. I do not find that to be problematic. 

Q. And in the 1st District they've got 10 out of 22 divided 

and you don't find that problematic? ta! 

A. The piece that I find a little problematic is this little 

piece of Jones County that's split off, but of course that was 

done for political reasons, it wasn't done for racial reasons. It 

was done because -- what's his name -- Representative Jones 

wanted more of Pitt County in the 3rd so we had to add 

something and then you had to get the numbers to balance. But 

like Beaufort County is split and although you can't tell it from 

this map this is a big body of water right here and you can't 

 



  

788 

even get from this part of Beaufort County to that part of 

Beaufort County without going around this way. So I think 

dividing Beaufort County along that big body of water, which 

I'm embarrassed to say I cannot remember the name of, is not 

particularly problematic. I think that there are bad ways to do 

it but I don't think it is on its face bad. 

Q. And by the way, I made a mistake when I said 10 out of 

[*144] the 22, I think it's 10 out of the 20 that are divided. 

And by the same token would you think it's perfectly okay to 

divide a town like Greenville and put the black portion of the 

town in the 1st District and the predominantly white in the 3rd? 

A. Well you're making an assumption that the race was the 

motivation, which might be unconstitutional but -- 

Q. I'm just asking whether the fact that as divided it is 

divided along racial lines, whatever the reason for it, whether 

that in your view makes any difference. 

A. Well I don't know whether that's true or not, but I don't 

find dividing a town in and of itself to be a bad practice. 

Q. But the county is no problem? 

A. As I said, I think there are bad ways to do it but I don't 

think it's necessarily a bad thing to do, and sometimes I think 

it's an affirmatively good thing to do. 

Q. You mentioned the happy state when there are two 

congressmen who can represent Charlotte and Mecklenburg 

County. Would you feel the same way if the Congressmen 

from the 12th District were from Greensboro, Winston Salem 

instead of from Charlotte? 

A. As long as he was -- he or she was responsive to me 

when I called him up it would be okay with me. Now I have to 

[*145] say that one of the things that I was concerned about in 

    

  

  

  

 



  

  

      

    

789 

“the 12th District was keeping a substantial portion of 

Mecklenburg in it, because 1 thought that that would help Mel 

be reelected as opposed to having the heart of it shift north. 

Q. The heart of it was Mecklenburg basically? 

A. Well, I think not -- I don't think it's half, but somewhere 

close to half of it is Mecklenburg. And I thought that that -- 

that that would help Mel -- also Sue Myrick wanted Ms 

substantial part of Mecklenburg to be in her district, so we had 

to be careful to divide Mecklenburg in a way that both of them 

got a substantial hunk of Mecklenburg. 

Q. And hopefully each of them got what they wanted, 

would that be true? 

A. I doubt if either of them got precisely what they wanted 

but I think that both of them were okay with it. 

* % % 

[¥146] Q. And do you recall some specific modifications 

that were made to Mecklenburg County and why they wer) 

made? 

A. Well, one thing that we ended up trying to do was make 

sure -- make Gaston and Cleveland Counties whole, so if -- to 

do the one person one vote and end up with Gaston and 

Cleveland being even and not just needing like one precinct in 

Lincoln County or leaving one precinct out of one of those 

counties, the easiest way to do that was to figure -- to add their 

populations [*147] together and figure out how much of 

Mecklenburg needed to be in the 9th to get those two counties 

to be able to be whole and then put the rest of Mecklenburg in 

thel2th. So to some extent the exact line between the 12th and 

 



  

790 

the 9th in Mecklenburg County had to do with how -- how it 

affected the population of the 9th District to be able to make 

that be a clean district. And when we changed it in the '98 plan 

we added more of Mecklenburg in the 12th than -- we added 

enough more to put all of Lincoln County into the 9th, so that 

—- that seemed a preferable way of doing it than having just a 

small fraction of a county into or out of the 9th. 

    

  

     



791 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
= EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

WESTERN DIVISION 

Civil Action No. 92-202-CIV-5-BR 

RUTH O. SHAW, et al., ) 

Plaintiffs, ) 

and ) 

JAMES ARTHUR “ART” POPE, et al., ) 

Plaintiff-Intervenors, ) 

Vv. ) 

JAMES B. HUNT, JR., et al., ) 

Defendants, ) 

) 
) 
) 

  

and 

RALPH GINGLES, et al. 

Defendant-Intervenors. 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE a 

: Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) 

Defendants’ move the Court pursuant to Rule 42(a) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to consolidate Cromartie       
v. Hunt (No. 4:96-CV-104-H2) (E.D.N.C.) and Daly v. High 

(No. 5:97-CV-750-BO) (E.D.N.C.) with this case for all 

purposes. In support of this motion, defendants rely on their 

memorandum filed herewith.   
 



  

792 

STANDARDS FOR DETERMINING MOTIONS - 

TO CONSOLIDATE 

Rule 42 motions are addressed to the court’s broad 

discretion and provide a powerful tool for managing litigation 

to assure judicial economy, fairness and the interests of justice. 

See 8 JAMES WM. MOOREET AL., MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE 

91 42.10(3d ed. 1997). The sole legal requirement that must be 

met for invoking the Court;’s discretion is that the cases to be 

consolidated present common issues of law or fact. Generally 

this means only that the cases should be of “like nature.” 

MOORE’S § 42.10 [1][b], p. 42-10. Once this threshold is met, 

the Court should consider conservation of resources, fairness, 

and the interests of justice in deciding whether to exercise its 

broad discretion. MOORE'S J 42.10[4], pp. 42-16 to -18. 

CROMARTIE AND DALEY SHOULD BE 

CONSOLIDATED WITH THIS CASE 

The threshold Rule 42(a) requirement that this case and 

Cromartie and Daly present common questions of law or fact 

is plainly met. The claims and legal theories advanced by the 

plaintiffs in this case are identical to the claims and legal 

theories advanced by the plaintiffs in Cromartie and Daly, and 

the facts found by this Court in ruling on the State’s’s 1992 

congressional plan provide the necessary framework for 

determining whether the State’s 1997 congressional plan cures 

or continues the defects in the 1992 plan. Moreover, the partial 

identity of the plaintiffs in this case and in Cromartie 

(Cromartie and Muse) and the complete identity of the 

defendant int his case and in Cromartie and in Daly make these 

cases “apt candidates for consolidation.” Hanes Cos. v. 

      

  

   



  

793 

Ronson, 712 F. Supp. 1223, 1230 (M.D.N.C. 1988) (quoting 9 
CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL 
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2384 (Ist ed. 1971)). See also 
MOORE’s 42.10 [1][c], p. 42-12. 

The benefits which will result fro consolidation of these 
- cases are compelling. There will be at least a fifty percent 

savings in judicial resources, a doubling of legal resources or @ 
the plaintiffs, and the elimination of duplicative or repetitive 
discovery demands. All of this can be achieved without any 
prejudice or unfairness to any party in any of the cases. 

For these reasons, defendants request the Court to enter 
an order consolidating Cromartie and Daly with this case for 
all purposes. 

Respectfully submitted, this the 14th day of October, 
1997. 

MICHAEL F. EASLEY 
ATTORNEY GENERAL 
/s/ Edwin M. Speas, Jr. 
Senior Deputy Attorney General » 
N.C. State Bar No. 4112   /s/ Tiare B. Smiley 

Special Deputy Attorney General 
N.C. State Bar No. 7719 

North Carolina Department of Justice 
P. O. Box 629 

Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-0629 
Telephone: (919) 716-6900     
 



  

794 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

This is to certify that I have this day served a copy of 

the foregoing Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate and 

Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of Their Motion to 

Consolidate in the above-captioned action upon all parties to 

this case, Cromartie and Daly by depositing a copy in the 

United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as 

follows: 

Mr. Robinson O. Everett 

Post Office Box 586 

Durham, NC 27702 

Thomas A. Farr 

Maupin, Taylor, Ellis & Adams, P.A. 

Highwoods Tower One 

3200 Beechleaf Court, Suite 500 

Raleigh, NC 27619 

Ms. Anita S. Hodgkiss 

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

P.A. 

Suite 300 

741 Kenilworth Avenue 

Post Office Box 36486 

Charlotte, NC 28236-6486 

Mr. Nathanael K. Pendley 

Post Office Box 30070 

Winston-Salem, NC 27130-0070 

    

  

 



  

795 

This the 14th day of October, 1997. 

/s/Tiare B. Smiley 

Special Deputy Attorney General 

 



  

796 

[This page intentionally left blank.] 

a
 

a
 

a
s
t
 

  
     



797 

. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

WESTERN DIVISION 

Civil Action No. 92-202-CIV-5-BR 

RUTH O. SHAW, et al, 

Plaintiffs. 

and 

JAMES ARTHUR “ART” POPE, et al., 

Plaintiff-Intervenors, 

V. 

JAMES B. HUNT, JR, et al., 

Defendants. 

and 

RALPH GINGLES, et al., 

Defendant-Intervenors. 

  
N
r
 

N
e
?
 

S
e
?
 

Na
tl
 
N
a
 

Ne
tt

 
N
r
 

gl
 
N
i
e
t
 

DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM IN 

SUPPORT OF MOTION TO 

CONSOLIDATE » 

This memorandum is submitted by defendants in 

support of their motion to consolidate Cromartie v. Hunt (No. 

4:96-CV-104-H2)(E.D.N.C.)and Daly v. High (No. 5:97-CV- 

750-BO) (E.D.N.C.) with this case for all purposes. 
CASES TO BE CONSOLIDATED WITH THIS CASE 

A. Cromartie v. Hunt. The complaint in this case 

was filed on July 3, 1996, by Robinson Everette on behalf of 

Martin Cromartie, Thomas Muse and Glennes Weeks claiming 

that North Carolina’s /st Congressional District as contained in 

the State’s 1992 congressional redistricting plan was an 

      
     



  

798 

unconstitutional racial gerrymander.! The defendants in 

Cromartie, as in this case, are the Governor and the State Board 

of Elections. By a series of consent orders, all proceedings in 

Cromartie have been stayed. On October 11, 1997, however, 

Mr. Everette moved the Court to dissolve the current stay so 

that he may file an amended complaint on behalf of Mr. 

Cromartie, Mr. Muse and certain other plaintiffs claiming 

Districts 1 and 12 in the State’s 1997 congressional 

redistricting plan are unconstitutional racial gerrymanders. 

That amended complaint was lodged, but not filed, with the 

Court pending the Court’s lifting the stay. 

B. Daly v. High. The complaint in this case was 

filed in the Western District sometime in 1996 but never served 

on defendants. On January 21, 1997, plaintiffs filed an 

amended complaint and served that amended complaint on the 

defendants who are essentially identical to the defendants in 

this case. In the amended complaint a number of citizens 

claimed that several districts in the State’s 1992 congressional 

redistricting plan as well as certain districts in the State’s 1992 

legislative districting plans were unconstitutional racial 

gerrymanders. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended 

complaint for improper venue. Plaintiffs never responded to 

that motion, and by order dated August 27, 1997, venue was 

transferred to the Eastern District. On October 9, 1997, 

plaintiffs moved to amend their amended complaint. In their 

  

Mr. Cromartie, Mr. Muse and Ms. Weeks are 

also parties to this action having been added as plaintiffs by this 

Court’s. July 11, 1996, order which allowed plaintiffs’ motion 

to amend their complaint. | 

    

    

     



799   
“a ‘second amended complaint, plaintiffs seek to challenge 

Districts 1 and 12 in the State’s 1997 congressional 

redistricting plan as well as several districts in the State’s 1992 

legislative redistricting plans. From the amended complaint it 

is plain that the focus of their congressional challenge is 

Districts 1 and 12. 

STANDARDS FOR DETERMINING MOTIONS TO ht 

CONSOLIDATE 

Rule 42 motions are addressed to the Court’s broad 

discretion and provide a powerful tool for managing litigation 

to assure judicial economy, fairness and the interests of justice. 

See 8 JAMES WM. MOOREET AL., MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE 

942.10 (3d ed. 1997). The sole legal requirement that must be 

met for invoking the Court’s discretion is that the cases to be 
consolidated present common issues of law or fact. Generally 

this means only that the cases should be of “like nature.” 

MOORE’S 142.10 [1][b], p. 42-10. Once this threshold is met, 

the Court should consider conservation of resources, fairness, 

and the interests of justice in deciding whether to exercise «@) 

broad discretion. MOORE'S § 42.10[4], pp. 42-16 to -18. 

CROMARTIE AND DALEY SHOULD BE 

CONSOLIDATED WITH THIS CASE 

The threshold Rule 42(a) requirement that this case and 

Cromartie and Daly present common questions of law or fact 

is plainly met. The claims and legal theories advanced by the 

plaintiffs in this case are identical to the claims and legal 

theories advanced by the plaintiffs in Cromartie and Daly, and 

the facts found by this Court in ruling on the State’s 1992 

congressional plan provide the necessary framework for 

determining whether the State’s 1997 congressional plan cures 

  

    
 



  

800 

or continues the defects in the 1992 plan. Moreover, the partial 

identity of the plaintiffs in this case and in Cromartie 

(Cromartie and Muse) and the complete identity of the 

defendants in this case and in Cromartie and in Daly make 

these cases “apt candidates for consolidation.” Hanes Cos. v. 

Ronson, 712 F. Supp. 1223, 1230 (M.D.N.C. 1988) (quoting 9 

CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL 

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2384 (Ist ed. 1971)). See also 

MOORE’s § 42.10 [I][c], p. 42-12. 

The benefits which will result from consolidation of 

these cases are compelling. There will be at least a fifty 

percent savings in judicial resources, a doubling of legal 

resources for the plaintiffs, and the elimination of duplicative 

or repetitive discovery demands. All of this can be achieved 

without any prejudice or unfairness to any party in any of the 

cases. 

For these reasons, defendants request the Court to enter 

an order consolidating Cromartie and Daly with this case for 

all purposes. 

       



301 

Respectfully submitted, this the 14th day of October, 

1997. 

MICHAEL F. EASLEY 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

/s/ Edwin M. Speas, Jr. 

Senior Deputy Attorney General) 

N.C. State Bar No. 4112 

1 /s/ Tiare B. Smiley 

i Special Deputy Attorney General 

N.C. State Bar No. 7719 

NC Department of Justice 

P. O. Box 629 

Raleigh, NC 27602-0629 

Telephone: (919) 716-6900 

   



    
802 

[This page intentionally left blank.] 

 



A
 

R
R
R
 

803 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

WESTERN DIVISION 

Civil Action No. 92-202-CIV-5-BR 

RUTH O. SHAW, et al, 

Plaintiffs. 

and 

JAMES ARTHUR “ART” POPE, et al, 

Plaintiff-Intervenors, 

V. ORDER 

JAMES B. HUNT, JR, et al., 

Defendants. 

and 

RALPH GINGLES, et al., 

Defendant-Intervenors. 

e
r
 

A
 

S
u
?
 

Na
? 

N
a
t
 

N
a
 

N
r
 

N
l
 

N
g
 

N
t
!
 

Defendants’ motion to consolidate Cromartie v. Hunt 

(No. 4:96-CV-104-H) (E.D.N.C.) and Daly v. High (No. 5.974) 

CV-750-BO) (E.D.N.C.) with the above-captioned matter is 

DENIED. 

This 16 October 1997. 

For the Court: 

/s/l W. EARL BRITT 

United States District Judge 

Filed October 16, 1997 

 



    
804 

[This page intentionally left blank.] 

 



  

  

  

2 

x 

CT 

£74 

fo 

wn 
i = 

ir 

Se 
i 

2 

  

805 

TRIAL TESTIMONY OF GERRY COHEN, SHAW Vv. HUNT, 92- 

202-CIV-5BR (EXCERPTS ) 

[*341] Q. Mr. Cohen, you testified yesterday about the 

genesis of the Peeler Plan put on the legislative computer 

system. Are maps 418 and 422 maps of the Peeler Plan? 

A. Yes, those two maps are maps of the Peeler Plan. 

Q. All right. And does the Peeler Plan contain t 

majority minority districts? 

A. Yes, it does. 

Q. Where are they located, generally? 

A. One of them is located, beginning in Charlotte, up 

[*342] through Statesville, east through Salisbury, and on 

through Greensboro to Durham, and then several counties north 

of Durham along the Virginia border. 

The second starts in Warren County, runs through much 

of the eastern part of the state, down to New Bern, Wilmington 

and Fayetteville. 

Q. All right. Without repeating too much of yesterday's 

testimony, could you indicate, briefly, what were the first maj 

changes you made to the Peeler Plan? 

A. The first two major changes that I made in the Peeler 

Plan was adding a large portion of Winston-Salem, as I 

mentioned yesterday, along the goal of adding another urban 

area as requested by Mr. Robert Hunter, and also making the 

district more urban. 

At the same time, portions of four counties along the 

Virginia border were removed; Caswell, Person, Granville and 

Vance. 

Q. You explained yesterday using Exhibits 406 and 407, 

your reference to population? 

   

 



  

806 

A. Yes. At that point, we ran a report looking at the 

population of which cities were in that district, and looked at 

those tables I was referring to, just before adjournment of the 

Court yesterday, as to which cities were sized to be considered 

urban in North Carolina context, the largest 25 incorporated 

places. [*343] And I noticed that approximately 80 percent of 

the12th District was in communities, incorporated places of 

20,000 or over; whereas, about 80 percent of the population of 

the 1st District was in places of 20,000 or under. Seemed to be 

co-existent of a suggestion of public hearing the 12th District 

be urban in nature. 

Q. When you used the population statistics in Exhibits 406 

and 407, were you just looking at the black population 

statistics? 

A. No, I wasn't looking at them at all. I was looking at the 

report of the total population of the 12th and 1st District -- that 

were in the 1st and 12th Districts, not at the racial classification 

of any of the populations. : 

Q. All right. Did this urban/rural concept guide your 

efforts, your later efforts on the plan? 

Mr. Farr: Objection. 

Judge Phillips: Overruled. 

A. Yes, it was a central part of the plans for finishing the 

Redistricting Plan from that point forward. 

Q. And did you discuss this urban/rural concept with the 

leadership? 

A. Yes. After noticing it myself, I did report that finding in 

discussion with the leadership. 

Q. In your own view, are there similarities or 

commonalities of interest in the urban areas of the 12th? 

          
  
 



  

  

  

  

807 

“[*344] Mr. Farr: Objection. 

Judge Phillips: Overruled. 

A. Yes. From my knowledge and experience, both from 
being Director of Bill Drafting, and also from studies that I 
worked on in 1982 and 1983. I have been Staff Counsel to a 

legislative study commission on the North Carolina railroad 

where I was required, and did, spend, several weeks ravelind@) 

along the railroad corridor from Charlotte on through Durham, 

and then onto Goldsboro and Morehead City. And made a lot 

of observations at that point about the nature of a lot of these 

counties in this area, especially the urban counties. And I felt 

then, as I do now, that there are major similarities between the 

communities, the urban communities and Piedmont Urban 

Crescent, all of which are from Durham west are in the 12th 

District. 

* % % 

[*347]Q. Allright. Gerry -- Mr. Cohen, as you worked N 
Redistricting in the '90's, were you familiar with the existing 

districts in the 1980's of the Congressional Districts? 

A. Yes, I was familiar with them. 

Q. Did you know where the incumbents lived? 

A. Yes, I do. And did. 

Q. And did you give any consideration to where the 

incumbents lived or what might be called the core of their 

districts? 

A. Yes. One of the factors used in my drawing of the Plan 

was to have each incumbent member of congress be in a 

separate district from each other, no pairing. In the second 

 



  

808 

ones, to the extent possible, while creating two [*348] minority 

districts and keeping them urban and rural, also to preserve the 

core of existing districts. 

Q. And did you use the same district numbers for 

incumbents? 

A. Yes. The district numbers in Chapter 7 are the same 

district numbers that each incumbent congressman had in the 

prior decade, with the exception, of course, of the 12th District, 

which was an open seat. 

[*402] Q. In the enacted plan, you drew two majority 

black districts? 

Yes, I did. 

Was race a factor in drawing those districts? 

Yes, it was. 

Was race the sole factor? 

>
o
P
>
R
o
 PP
 

No, it was not. 

Mr. Farr: Objection. 

Judge Phillips: Overruled. 

A. No, it was not. There were a number of other factors 

that I discussed, chords of existing districts, presuming the 

opportunities of incumbent congressmen to be reelected, 

accommodating concerns of individual legislators, members of 

Congress, committee chairs, other things that I covered in my 

testimony already. 

Q. Does that include the urban/rural analysis? 

A. Yes, and including the keeping the 1st and 12th District, 

one very urban in nature and the other very rural in nature. 

    

  

  
  

 



      

  

809 

* % % 

[*420] Q. Q. Mr. Cohen, I think you testified yesterday 

that when drafting what became Chapter 7, that one of your 
jobs was not to screw Republicans? 

A. Yes. 

[*421] Q. Isn't it true, Mr. Cohen, one of your other jobs 

was to make sure you protected the incumbent Democratic 
congressmen? 

A. Yes. 

Q. And Mr. Cohen, if the Republicans ended up getting 

screwed a little along the way, you wouldn't lose your job; is 

that correct? 

Ms. Smiley: Objection to the form of the question. 

Judge Phillips: Overruled. 

A. My objective in protecting incumbent Democratic 

congressmen was to try to preserve — my understanding was to 

preserve the general partisan balance of the delegation as it 
existed in the 1980's, not shift it dramatically one way or hel) 
other, as various different alternatives might have done. 

[*466] Q. And in your view, Mr. Cohen, in the enacted 

plan, would you describe District 1 and District 12 as being 
geographically compact? 

A. Well, my definition of geographical includes political, 
economic geography. Geography, in my view, is not just maps; 
it includes the entire totality of the political process. 
Geography isn't just county names. 

 



  

810 

From the context of — you asked me about the 1st and 

12th in the enacted plan or just the first- 

Q. Ist and 12th? 

A. 1 believe, from the context of political geography, 

communities of interest, commonalities of interest, that those 

districts are, in fact, compact because they put together persons 

with commonalities of interest with common history, common 

factors, tying different parts of the districts together. 

* % * 

[*468] Q. You prepared a statement in that submission; 

Gingles requires a district be geographically compact in order 

to satisfy one of the prongs of the initial test? 

A. Yes. 

Q. When you made that statement, Mr. Cohen, were you 

using compactness to mean geographically compact or the 

definition of compactness that you just gave us a few minutes 

ago? 

A. [ was dealing with my definition of compactness as I 

knew from alternative plans that I had seen at that point in time, 

which included through the Balmer 8.1 Plan, but didn't include 

the enacted plans. 

I believe at that point, in commenting there, I was 

commenting on geographical compactness more in the lines of 

the map making sense. 

[*469] Q. Okay. And, Mr. Cohen, would you agree that 

there are situations where minority districts cannot be drawn 

because the majority population is geographically dispersed? 

       



811 

A. I don't think that it's geographical dispersion. My view 

at this point about compactnessis that geographical dispersion 

does not have an absolute, at least insofar as it's been crossed 

by Chapter 7. 

Q. Could you please turn to page twenty-nine of Exhibit 

425? 

A. Yes. SS 

Q. Is it fair to say on page twenty-nine you were 

responding to a comment that the ACLU made about 

Legislative Districts? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Did you not say that another district couldn't be drawn 

because black population was geographically dispersed? 

A. I think there's a difference between standard of 

compactness that I would apply in the state Legislative Districts 

and Congressional Districts because of the, you know, part time 

nature of legislators, the absence of any staff, as opposed to 

Congressional Districts where members of Congress have far 

different resources at their behest and abilities t 

communication through different parts of [*470] their district. 

* % % 

[*470] Q. Mr. Cohen, I think when we broke up I asked 

you a question; I think you gave the explanation. I would 

1 like to ask you again. 

| A. Allright. 
i Q. Do you not agree there were circumstances where the 

geographic — the dispersion of the population concentrations 

preclude — exclude the creation of majority minority district? 

     



    
812 

A. Yes. There are situations where geography could be a 

deciding factor in that. 

Q. Okay. And don't you also agree, as you understand 

the voting rights act, that act did not require the state to stitch 

together geographically dispersed black population centers? 

A. I agree with that; although, as I have said, my 

definition of geographical compactness includes the 

communities as compact if they share commonalities of 

interest. So, yes, I still agree with that statement. 

% % * 

[*488] Q. We have Exhibit 302 up here, Mr. Cohen. 

This is a map of the enacted plan? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Would you agree that District 1 and District 12 are 

materially stranger in appearance than at least some of the 

other districts in Chapter 7? 

A. From the context of compactness that I have used, 

including commonalities of interest and communities of 

interest. I think those two districts and the 4th District are 

the most compact in the state in terms of political 

communities. 

Q. That wasn't the question I asked you. a 

A. I answered the opposite way. No, it's not the least | | 

compact. 1 

Q. Let me ask it again. I'm not sure what your answer 

was. My question was, do you agree that the 1st and 12% 

Districts are materially stranger in appearance on that map 

 



813 

than at least some of the other districts as reflected on the 

map? 

A. Materially stranger in appearance, yes. I agree that 

[*489] it is materially stranger in appearance, yes. 

[*497] Q. All right. Mr. Cohen, I now want to ask you 

about the chronology of events related to the objection letter 

that was received related to Chapter 601? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Is it not true that you attended a meeting with the 

Justice Department officials on December 17, 1991, in 

Washington, D.C.? 

A. Yes, it is true. 

[*498] Q. And Senator Winner, Speaker Blue, 

Representative Fitch were present at that meeting with you? 

A. Yc: 

Q. John Dunne, at that point in time, hope I get his i 

right. Was he the Assistant Attorney General for Civil 
Rights? 

A. I'm not sure of his title. 

Q. Did you get the impression he was in charge of the 

Voting Rights Section for the Justice Department? 

A. I got the impression he was making the decision. On 

the title, whatever title you have to have to do that. 

Q. Since the general population of North Carolina was 

23 to 24 percent black, it would be fair to have two majority 

minority districts? 

 



    
814 

A. He posed it as a question to us. I recall his words 

were, North Carolina is about 23 or 24 percent black and the 

plan you submit to us, only one out of the 12 districts or 

eight percent are black. Don't you think it would be more 

fair to have two. That it would more roughly reflect the -- 

state's population. I recall him asking that as a question, 

which is more or less of the same as to what you said. 

[*543] Q. Mr. Cohen, you spoke of creating a rural a 

district and an urban district? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You meant a rural black and urban black; is that 

correct? 

  

[544] A. Yes. 

  
 



815 : 

DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF GERRY COHEN IN SHAW V. 

HUNT, 92-202-CIV-5-BR (EXCERPTS) 

Q Okay. Basically I was asking you about what the 
percentage was that you were using in the--what percentage of 

minority, of black, you were using in the second plan, and you 

might compare that with the percentage you used in the first 

plan. ® 
A Well, I stated--youasked what was used. Numbers that 

were used were higher than in the first plan. In the case of the 

Ist District, it was 57.26 percent black total population, 
District 12, 56.63 black in total population. And those numbers 

were designed to meet the requirements of Section 2 of the 

Voting Rights Act that blacks have an opportunity to elect a 

candidate of their choice. 

To be of their choice, it would seem to be 

mathematically necessary that it be over a majority so that the 

"they" making a choice would be a majority, and then 

somewhat [*76] higher than that to account for the fact that 

blacks tend to be of a lower average age than whites because of “® 

both longevity and birth rates thus that the voting age 

population in the 1st District was 53.4 black, in the 12th 

District, 53.34 percent black, and also knowledge that black 

voter registration tends to lag behind whites and that black 

voting turnout tends to lag behind white. So all of those 

require the number to be somewhat higher than 50 percent. 

Q So that--- 

A (interposing) We felt that--to finish answering the 

question, we felt that these numbers met the requirements of 

Section 2. 

    

  

  
   



  

816 

Q Is there a requirement in Section 2, an explicit 

requirement, that there be a majority--the creation of a majority 

minority district? 

A My understanding from having read the Act and the 

House and Senate Conference Committee documents is that 

yes, reading all those documents together. 

Q That was the--- 

A (interposing) That is the legal interpretationthat I have 

based my actions answering--getting the result and answering 

your question, yes. 

Q And so then you proceeded--now, were you in turn 

instructed this was a requirement or was this something you 

formulated on your own as to the--in other words, you say 

[*77] what you construed Section 2 to mean and that it required 

the creation of the type of majority minority district you have 

just indicated? ; 

A I think it was, described without violating any 

privileges, a common statement that was I believe made and 

accepted by all of the persons on various sides participating in 

the legislative deliberations, that in order for minorities to have 

an opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice, as we 

understood Section 2 to require, that it had to be over a 

majority. 

Q Did the Justice Department indicate that that was their 

interpretation? : 

A Certainly from their actions, yes. 

Q And the Justice Department indicated by their actions 

and otherwise that they would not approve--thatis, not preclear 

under Section 5 unless there was a creation. of two majority 

minority districts? 

        

 



817 

* % % 

[¥188] Q Are there any minority concentrations, in 

particular urban blacks, that could have been put into 

District 12 because of proximity to District 12, but rather were 

split off into an adjacent district? 3 

A Not of any majority. I mean, there are some precincts 

that are in a, you know, 25 to 30 percent black area that are on 

the fringe of the black community that are not in the 

12th District, but no--none of the core of any black 

community, no. And you are talking about the counties that are 

in the 12th District in the enacted plan? 

Q I am talking--- 

A And your question was, was anything divided in any of 

those counties that wasn't put in the majority black district, in 

the counties that were divided in the 12th District? 

Q My question is, are there any minority concentrations, 

such as were there any urban blacks put into Congessnalll 

Neal's district? 

A Not substantially. As I have testified, there are some 

precincts that are, you know, I think 25, 30-some percent black 

in Winston-Salem that remained in the Sth [*189] District. But 

the majority black precincts in Winston-Salem, the core of the 

urban black community, the most urban part of Winston-Salem 

as opposed to some suburban areas, were put in the 

12th District. I mean, not every black voter in Winston-Salem 

is in the 12th District, 

Q But--- 

 



  

818 

A So to that extent, there was certainly division, but not 

every--you know, there is a core of precincts in Winston-Salem 

that are 98 to 100 percent black. That core of the community 

is all in the 12th District. But areas that were, you know, 25 to 

33 percent black that aren't in the core of the black community 

were not necessarily in the Sth District, to speak specifically 

about Forsyth County. 

Q Well, were the precincts that had significant--and by 

"significant" I would view 20 percent, in that range, as 

significant. Were there precincts that ended up in Neal's 

district that were originally in the 12th District in the Peeler 

plan? 

A No, none of Forsyth County was in the 12th District in 

the Peeler plan. Would it help if I pointed to you on the map 

Forsyth County in the Peeler plan? This is Forsyth County in 

the Peeler plan (indicating). None of the 12th District is in it. 

(Counsel confer.) 

Q Mr. Cohen, at any juncture in the legislative 

[*190] process between the submission of the Peeler plan, the 

promulgation of the Peeler plan and the passage of Chapter 7, 

did you draft a plan that put minority concentrations in 

Winston-Salem that are now in the Neal district into 

District 127 

A Yes. 

Q And why were they subsequently removed from 

District 127 

A To help increase--to make the stated goal of increasing 

the majority black percentage. If you are trying to-- 

mathematically if you are trying to build a district that is 56 to 

   



819 

~ 57 percent black, it doesn't help that goal to have a number of 

precincts that are 33 or 40 percent black. 

Q But weren't those 33 or 34 percent or 40 percent black 

precincts sufficiently urban? Weren't they urban? 

A Yes, they were urban, but there were areas elsewhere--1 

do not remember--I think there were maybe three or four 

precincts that were changed between--one of the sort that 

describe as interim. There were a number of plans in the record 

in between the Peeler plan and the enacted plan that had three 

or four more precincts. 

And you are still working on the goal of increasing the 

urbanness of the district and increasing the majority percentage 

black so that it was as high or higher than the first district that 

was rejected in Chapter 601. And those [*191] precincts were 

removed because they were less than majority black in a district 

where the goal was to have a number that was 56 or 57 percent. 

Q So in effect, the principal motivation was not urbanness, 

but blackness? 

A The principal motivation for taking those precincts ly 4 

is that your question--- 

Q (interposing) Yes. 

   

  

A ---or the principal motivation for what? 

Q For taking those precincts out of District 12. 

A I am not really sure on the particular density of those 

particular precincts. I mean, precincts that are 20 to 30 percent 

black tend to be less dense than precincts that are 80, 90, 

100 percent black because they tend to be very heavily 

concentrated, urban, often public housing, with very high 

densities, whereas precincts that are 20 to 30, 35, 40 percent 

 



  

820 

black are precincts that tend to be more suburban in nature and 

less population dense. 

Now, I will also say that another factor--you asked if 

that was the only factor? What was your question again? Did 

you ask previously what was the reason? 

Q Is there a difference in a community of interest between 

urban blacks and suburban blacks? 

A No, but to the extent that changes resulted in more 

urban blacks--I believe that some of the changes may 

[*192] have been to add more black precincts, black areas in 

Charlotte to the district. And to the extent the changes simply 

put urban blacks in one county in and took urban blacks in 

another county out--it is the extent that maybe suburban blacks 

were taken out in one county and instead urban blacks were put 

in in another district that fostered that goal. 

I am not testifying whether suburban or urban blacks 

have or don't have similar interests. [ am saying that there were 

two different goals, increase urbanness and increase the black 

percentage, and--~ 

   



821 

DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF GERRY COHEN IN POPE V. 

BLUE, 3:92-CV-71-P (EXCERPTS) | 

[*99] Q Assume you're a white Republican in the 

Chambersberg precinct in the Twelfth Congressional District 

A Yes. 

Q What chance do you have of having someone who 

identify with or support politically being elected in any 

congressional election during the next ten years? 

Ms. Smiley: Objection to the form of the question and 

the content of the question. 

A In any congressional district, there’s going to be 45 

percent of the people who are not black, roughly, and I refuse 

to accept any implication that a black legislator is less able to 

represent a white legislator — white constituent. 

Q That wasn’t my implication. If it was, I apologize. Let 

me rephrase it. 

A Okay. 

Q ° What chance does that white Republican ws J 

electing a Republican candidate in the Twelfth District in the 

next eight years? 

A Well, since the purpose of the Voting Rights Act is to 

allow minorities to elect a candidate of their choice that 

whatever minority districts there would be that there would be 

a corresponding less [*100] likelihood that a white candidate 

would have the — white would have an opportunity to elect a 

candidate of their choice. So the answer is nil. It has nothing 

to do with the characteristics of the Twelfth District. It has to 

do with the characteristics of the Voting Rights Act. 

Q So would you agree that this white Republican in the 

 



  

822 

Chambersberg precinct that’s in the Twelfth District that he 

might as well — there’s no reason for him to vote for the next 

eight years for Congress, is there? 

A I disagree with that entirely. 

Q He can’t have any effect on the election, can he? 

A I don’t think there’s any voter that has no effect on an 

election. I think any congressman is responsive to the needs of 

his or her constituents. And I don’t think that that voter will be 

ignored by the member of congress simply because of his or 

her race — the fact that that person is white. 

Q Do you agree that there’s very little, if any, chance of a 

Republican being elected in the Twelfth District? 

A There is very little chance of a Republican being elected 

from any — there is very little chance of a white Republican 

being elected from any of the [#101] minority districts whether 

they be one or two in any proposed plan the General Assembly 

has considered, could consider, or any court could consider — 

that that is the purpose of the Voting Rights Act to — now if 

black voters would chose — now let me rephrase that — it’s to 

allow black voters to elect a candidate of their choice. If the 

black voters wanted to elect a Republican candidate, they 

could. I note that in the Twelfth District, the candidates filed 

to date — either two, three or all three of those candidates are 

black. 

Q Mr. Cohen, historically have not blacks voted in North 

Carolina about 90 percent Democrat? 

A Yes. 

Q So if voting trends continue, it’s very unlikely that we’d 

have a black Republican nominated in the — or to win in the 

Twelfth Congressional District, would you agree with that? 

   



  

823 

Unless the Democrats nominated a white, I would say 

that district. 

A 

yes, in

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

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.

Return to top