Brief in Support of Motion to Further Amend the Complaint

    o® o® 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
EASTERN DIVISION 

Civil Action No. 4:96-CV-104-BO(3) 

MARTIN CROMARTIE, et al, 

Plaintiffs, 

V. 

) 
) 
) 
) 
) 

JAMES B. HUNT, in his official capacity ) 

as Governor of the State of North Carolina, ) BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF 

et al., ) MOTION TO FURTHER AMEND 

State Defendants, ) THE COMPLAINT 

) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 

and 

ALFRED SMALLWOOD, et al., 

Defendant-Intervenors. 

  

Pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs respectfully move 

the Court with good cause for leave to further amend their Amended Complaint to conform to the 

evidence. Mr. Linville, placed within the invalidated 12" Congressional District, was shifted 

along with his neighbors to District 5 in the 1997 plan when an adjacent precinct was used instead 

as the land bridge to connect black Winston-Salem with black parts of Thomasville, Salisbury, 

Statesville, Charlotte, High Point, and Grotto 

Mr. Linville’s precinct is immediately adjacent to two precincts in the 1997 version of the 

12 district, and election officials until just before the September, 1998 election insisted he 

remained in the 12% District. Only a very few precincts in the six counties forming parts of 

Congressional District 12 in the 1992 plan were not also continued and included in the 1997 

 



  

® ® 
version of the 12" District. Those removed precincts are overwhelmingly white, as is Mr. 

  

Linville’s precinct. Mr. Linville’s political participation is clearly affected personally by the 

contortions of the 1997 district, and he is personally affected by being in a precinct so close that it 

sometimes is and other times is not included. He was separated politically from his own father, 

who lives only a few miles away, in both the 1992 and 1998 versions of the 12™ Congressional 

District. 

Thus, Mr. Linville is “able to demonstrate that he...personally has been injured by...racial 

classification” and therefore “has standing to challenge the classification in federal court.” U.S. v. 

Hayes, 515 U.S. 737, 744, 115 S.Ct. 2431, 2436, 132 L.Ed.2d 635, 641 (1995). 

Wherefor plaintiffs respectfully move that the Complaint be amended in this manner. 

This the 12" day of October, 1999 

  

  

Robinson O. Everett 

Everett & Everett 

N.C. State Bar No. 1385 

Attorney for the Plaintiffs 

P.O. Box 586 

Durham, NC 27702 

Telephone: (919)-682-5691 

 



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

  

by: 
  

Martin B. McGee 

N.C. State Bar No. 22198 

Attorney for the Plaintiffs 

P.O. Box 810 
Concord, NC 28026-0810 

Telephone: (704)-782-1173 

Donrelenss be. MIS fron 
Douglas E. Markham 

Texas State Bar No. 12986975 

Attorney for the Plaintiffs 
333 Clay Suite 4510 

Post Office Box 130923 

Houston, TX 77219-0923 

Telephone: (713) 655-8700 

Facsimile: (713) 655-8701 

  

 



  

   
od 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

  

o® 

I certify that I have this day served the foregoing Brief in Support of Motion to Amend the 

Complaint by facsimile and United States Mail to the following addresses: 

Ms. Tiare B. Smiley, Esq. 

Special Deputy Attorney General 

North Carolina Department of Justice 

114 W. Edenton St., Rm 337 

P.O. Box 629 

Raleigh, NC 27602 

Phone # (919) 716-6900 

Mr. Adam Stein 

Ferguson, Stein Wallas, Adkins, Gresham, Sumter, P A. 

312 W. Franklin St. 

Chapel Hill, NC 27516 

Phone # (919) 933-5300 

In addition, I also certify that I have served the above by mail to the following address: 

Mr. Todd A. Cox 

NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. 

1444 Eye Street, NW 10" Floor 

Washington, DC 20005 

This the 12™ day of October, 1999 

  

re O. Everett 

Attorney for the Plaintiffs