Motion to Intervene

    v.

RUFUS EDI{INSTEN, et aI.,

IN THE T'NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
F'OR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

RALEIGH DIVISION

)
)

Plaintiffs, )
)
) No. 8I-803-cIv-5
)
)
)

-and-

AIAN V. PUGH, €t Er1.,

Plaintiffs, )

v.

ALEX K. BROCK, €t dl.,

F ],. I- E, I)Defendants. )
)

v.

JAT\,IES B. HUNT, JR., et aI.,

iJAt{ 6 1983

J. RICH LIOT{ARD, CLERK
'I. S. DIS-I'RICT COURT. DIST. NO. CAR.

No. 81-1066-CIV-5

Defendants.

-and-

JOHN J. CAVANAGH, €t dI., )
)

Plaintiffs, )
)
) wo. 82-545-cIV-5
)
)
)

Defendants. )

I{OTION TO INTERVENE
Rule 24r Federal Rul-es of Civil Procedure

Ralph Gingles, Sippeo Burton, Joseph Moody, and Fred Be1fie1d,

individually and as representatives of the class of aII black resi-
dents of North Carolina who are registered to vote, move to intervene

as defendants in CavanagL v. Brock, 82-545-CIV-5. This motion is
filed pursuant to RuIe 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In support of this motion, Gingles, et al. show the Court:



B'
t

1. The movants are the plaintiff class in Lhe action of Gingles

v. Edminsten, 81-803-CIV-5, which is currently pending in this Court

and which is consolidated with Cavanaqh v. Brock. Gingles v. Edminsten

has been certified as a class action.

2. The Cavanagh plaintiffs challenge the division of Forsyth

County in the appointment of the North Carolina General Assembly.

In their memorandum in support of their motion for sunmary judgirnent,

the gavanaqh plaintiffs argue (1) that preclearance of the North

Carolina ConstitgLion's provisions prohibiting division of counties in

the creation of legislative districts was not required and, therefore,

that the objection of the Attorney General of the United States is of

no effect; and l2l that even if the objection to the North Carolina

Constitution's provisions is va1id, it does not affect North carolinar s

sixty counties which are not covered by SS of the Voting Rights Act.

See Cavanaqh memorandum at 5 6.

3. The Gingles plaintiffs filed their Complaint prior to the 55

submission of the relevant North Carolina Constitution's provisions

and requested as relief that submission of the provisions be required.

The state subsequently voluntarily made the requested 55 submission

and the Attorney General interposed an objection.

4. The Gingles plaintiffs further claim that the division of

counties in the apportionment of the General Assernbly is necessary to

avoid dilution of minority voting strength and to comply with the one

person - one vote requirements of the equal protection clause of the

14th Amendment to the united states constitution

5. The Cavanagh plaintiffs prevail and the Court holds either

that the Attorney General's objection to the North Carolina Constitu-

tion,s provisions is not valid, of that North carolina may not divide

-2-



o
i11any county not covered by SS, the Ginqles plaintiffs w

from receiving the relief they seek in that action.

be precluded

6. Thus, in accordance with Rrle 24 (a), Federal Rules of Civil

procedure, the Gingles plaintiffs are so situated that disposition

of the Cavanaqh claims ilaY, as a practical matter, impair or impede

their ability to protect their interests. In addition, in accordance

with RuIe 24lbl, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Gingles plain-

tiffs have claims which raise questions of law identical to the ques-

tions raised by the claims in the cavanagh complaint.

?. The Gingles plaintiffs do not intend to have their inter-

vention result in any additional discovery in the -Cavanaqh, matter nor

to alter in any way the discovery Order entered in the consolidated

actions on August 30, 1982. Furthermore, the Gingles plaintiffs do

not intend to file any new claims or counterclaims in the Cavanagh

action. They seek to intervene in order to be able to present argu-

ments and present evidence in opposition to the Cavanaqh claims.

g. Lf this motion is granted, then the Gingles plaintiffs re-

quest fifteen (15) days from the entry of the Order allowing interven-

tion in which to file a response to the Cavanagh plaintiffs' Motion

For Summary Judgment (fi]ed on or about December 22, 1982).

This day of December, L982.

Les1ie J. Winner
Chambers, Ferguson, Watt, Wallas,

Adkins & Fuller, P.A.
Suite 730 East IndePendence Plaza
951 South IndePendence Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

Attorneys for Plaintiffs in
Ginqles v. Edminsten

3o

-3-



We Consent:

for Pl hvanagh v. Brock

fendants in Cavanagh v. Brock

-4-



Eti,--.
a

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing

Motion to Intervene upon all other counsel by placing a copy of

same in the United States Post Office, Postage prepaid, addressed

to:
t'lr. James WaIIace, Jr.
Deputy Attorney General for Legal Affairs
Attorney General's Office
North Carolina Department of Justice
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

Kathleen Heenan
Jerris Leonard & Associates, P.C.
900 17th Street, N.W.
Suite 1020
Washington, D.C.

Arthur J. Donaldson
Burke, Doqaldson, Holshouser & Kenerly
309 North Hain Street
Salisbury, North Carolina 28L44

Robert N. Hunter, Jr.
Attorney at Law
201 West Market Street
Post Office Box 3245
Greensboro, North Carolina 27402

Wayne T. EIIiott
Southeastern Legal Foundation
1800 Century Boulevard, Suite 950
Atlanta, Georgia 30345

Hamilton C. Horton, Jr.
450 NCNB Plaza
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27LiL

day of December, L982.

20006

This u)

-5-