Deposition of Terence D. Sullivan

    3\

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR TIIE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
RALEIGH DIVISION

N0.81-803-Crv-5

RALPH GINGLES, ET AL.,

PLAI NT I FFS,

VS.

RUFUS EDI.,lISTEN, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA,
ET AL.,

_?:::):if:_

DEPOSITION
OF

TERRENCE D. SULLIVAN

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

};;

:*i

AT RALE I GIt,
10:00 A.M.
NOVE}1BER 9,

REPORTED BY:

NORTH CAROLI NA

1981

.JUDI TH A. MORAWSK I

ffiffiffi
Court
Reporting

P.O. Box 1729
Raleieh, N.C. 27602
(9r9) 832-4rr4

P.O. Box 4592
Charlotte, N.C. 28207
(704t 375-s133

P.O. Box I 1O
Laurel Springs, N.C. 2864{
(er 9). 3s9-228e

NCNB Blds.
Durham, N.C. 27702
(e r 9) 683-8656

SerYices



1

2

3

4

5

b

7

8

I

10

11

12

13

MR.

a

A

SULLIVAN D I RECT

THIS IS SUBSTITUTE NO. 2?

THIS IS SUBSTITUTE NO. 2. IT IS CONTAINED

MINUTES OF THE JUNE L6, 1981 MEETING, JUST

ITIS EASY TO FIND JUST BEFORE THE JULY 7,

CONFERENCE COMMITTEE MEETING.

AND THIS IS IN EXHIBIT NO. g?

THIS IS IN EXHIBIT NO. 9. OKAY.

DO YOU KNOW WHO PROPOSED THIS SUBCOMMITTEE

NO. 2?

149

AFTER THE

BEFORE-.

1981

SUBST I TUTE

I

i

I
I

:

I

,

a

A

a

THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JUNE 16, 1981 STATES

THAT THE ALFORD-DANIELS MAP NO. 1 AND 3, BEING THE

SAME MAP WAS SELECTED BY THE COMMITTEE AS THE ONE TO

15

16

17

18

l9

20

21

22

23

24

25

BE PRESENTED ON THE CITY--SENATE FLOOR. SENATOR

MATHIS MOVED THAT WE THE COMMITTEE AC{EPT THE MAPS.

SENATOR DANIEL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED.

SENATOR ALFORD MOVED THAT WE ADJOURN.

A DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH EITHER SENATORS

ALFORD OR DANIELS PRIOR TO THEIR DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR

MAPS ?

A IIVE HAD CORRESPONDENCE WITH ALL THE SENATORS AT ONE

TIME OR ANOTHER. BUT I CAN'T REMEMBER ANY PARTICULARS,

REALLY, OF THIS PARTICULAR MAP. I WAS NOT CONSULTED

ON THIS. OR IF I WAS, I HAD A VERY MINOR PART. So

MINOR THAT I CAN'T REMEMBER IT.



2

3

4

MR. SULLIVAN DI RECT

a so You DoN r T KNOW FROM YOUR

WHAT CONSIDERATIONS SENATOR

USING IN DRAWING THIS MAP?

(tHeRrueoru, THERE WAS

DISCUSSION, WHICH WAS

THE COURT REPORTER.)

YES. FOR THE RETENTION OF

150

OWN PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE

ALFORD OR DANIELS WERE

AN OFF_THE-RECORD

NOT REPORTED BY

CONGRESSMAN L. H. FOUNTAIN.

5

6

7

I

9

10

11

12

13

I THINK THAT IF YOU--THE CONSIDERATION THAT CAME OUT

DURING THE MEETING OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD, I

THINK IT WAS IN RALEIGH ON CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING

AND OTHER PLACES WAS THAT THE RETENTION--COULD WE GO

OFF .JUST FOR A MOMENT..

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

I NCUMBENCY.

A AND THIS IN YOUR OPINION WAS BEHIND THE PLANS DRAWN

BY SENATORS ALFORD AND DANIELS?

A I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE MAJOR CONSIDERATIONS.

a Do You KNow WHAT ANy OF THE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS WERE?

A NOT REALLY.

a D0 You HAVE AN OPINION AS TO WHAT ANy OF THE OTHER

CONSIDERATIONS WERE?

MR. WALLACE: OBJECTION. GO AHEAD AND ANSWER

IT.

A WELL, ONE OF--MY OpINION IS THAT THEY--SENATOR ALFORD

DID NOT WANT DURHAM IN THE SECOND DISTRICT.



2

3

4

5

6

7

rs1
MR. SULLIVAN DI RECT

A DID YOU EVER HEAR SENATOR ALFROD SAY THAT?

A I CAN'T RECALL ANY SPECIFIC STATEMENT WHERE HE SAID

HE DID NOT WANT DURHAM IN THE SECOND DISTRICT.

A AND ON WHAT IS YOUR OPINION BASED THEN?

A GENERAL DISCUSSIONS OF OTHERS ON THIS MATTER.

MR. WALLACE: OBJECTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE.

A WITH WHOM DID YOU DISCUSS SENATOR ALFORD'S CONCERNS

OR WHO DID YOU EVER HEAR DISCUSSING SENATOR ALFORDIS

CONCE RNS ?

MR. WALLACE: oB.JECT I oN.

A THERE HAVE BEEN SO MANY DISCUSSIONS ON EACH OF THESE

MAPS, IT IS HARD TO SEPARATE WHO SAID WHAT, WHEN AND

8

9

10

11

12

13

l5

't6

17

18

19

20

2t

22

23

24

25

WHERE. AND I CAN'T REMEMBER. ALFORD MAY HAVE COME

OUT IN A COMMITTEE MINUTE. THEN A COMMITTEE MEMBER

WHO SAID THAT-_TRANSCRIPTS OF THE RECORD WILL INDICATE

THAT, IF YOU DID. I DON'T REMEMBER.

A WITHOUT GIVING A SPECIFIC TIME OR DATE, COULD YOU

STATE THE NAMES OF PEOPLE THAT YOU OVERHEARD DISCUSSI

SENATOR ALFORD'S CONCERNS?

A AGAIN--AGAIN, THIS IS-_MAY HAVE BEEN JUST HEARSAY.

AND I IM GIVING YOU MY IMPRESSION.

A WELL,YOU SAID THAT YOUR OPINION WAS BASED oN GENERAL

DISCUSSIONS. AND i WAS JUST TRYING TO DETERMINE WHO

WAS HAVING;-OR wHo wAS PARTIcIPATING?



I

2

3

4

5

b

7

152
MR. SULLIVAN DIRECT

A LEGISLATORS IN GENERAL, I THINK WOULD BE IT.
A WERE THESE PRIMARI.LY SENATORS OR REPRESENTATIVES?

A I DONIT THINK THERE'S PROBABLY EITHER ONE OR THE

OTHER. THIS WAS A BI-PARTISAN EFFORT IN MY OPINION

TO KEEP MR. FOUNTAIN IN OFFICE. NOT BI_PARTISAN.

I IM SORRY. EXCUSE ME. BICAMERAL.

A WAS IT ALSO A BICAMERAL EFFORT TO KEEP DURHAM OUT

OF THE SECOND DISTRICT?

A MY MEMORY IS THAT SENATOR ALFORD IS THE ONLY ONE THAT--

SENATOR ALFORD IS THE ONLY ONE THAT--OF WHICH I HAVE

A GENERAL FEELING OF HEARSAY, OR WHATEVER, THAT WANTED

DURHAM OUT OF THE SECOND.

8

I

'10

l1

12

t3

15

16

17

l8

19

20

21

22

23

24

?5

KNOW WHY SENATOR ALFORD WANTED DURHAM OUT OF

THE SECOND DISTRICT?

A NO.

A DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION AS TO WHY HE WANTED DURHAM OUT

OF THE SECOND DISTRICT?

A NO.

A DID YOU HEAR ANYONE DISCUSS WITH EITHER YoU, oR IN
YOUR PRESENCE, WHY SENATOR ALFORD WANTED DURHAM oUT

OF THE SECOND DISTRICT?

A I DONIT REMEMBER ANY REASON GIVEN OTHER THAN HE DID

WANT DURHAM--I THINK ONE OF THE REASONS MAY HAVE BEEN

THAT DURHAM WAS AN URBAN COUNTY. PREDOMINANTLY URBAN.



I

2

3

4

5

b

7

I

I

10

11

12

13

MR. SULLIVAN D I RECT

URBAN COUNTY, AND THAT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE

THEY PERCEIVED AS SUPPORTERS IN THE SECOND,

PREDOMINANTLY RURAL AREA.

IN

AS

153

WHAT

A

A

a

A

a

WERE YOU EVER PRESENT WHEN THE RACIAL POPULATION OF

DURHAM WAS DISCUSSED IN CONNECTION WITH THIS SENATE

SUBSTITUTE NO. 2?

NO.

WERE YOU--WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION THAT YOU ARE AWARE

OF BETWEEN LEGISLATORS ABOUT THE RACIAL POPULATION

OF DURHAM?

I DONIT REMEMBER ANY DISCUSSIONS ALONG THOSE LINES.

THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME DISCUSSIONS THAT YOU DONIT

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

RECALL RIGHT NOW?

A UH-HUH (YES)

A WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT A VIABLE CANDIDATE IN

DURHAM WHO MIGHT CHALLENGE CONGRESSMAN FOUNTAIN?

A THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS, I THINK, ON EACH OF THE

DISTRICTS. THE MAPS, AS THEY WERE BEING PRESENTED.

AND AMONG THE CHALLENGERS THAT I HEARD MENTIONED,

AND I DONIT REMEMBER WHO MENTIONED THEM, WERE SEVERAL

FROM DURHAM COUNTY. THAT WERE IDENTIFIED AS BEING

FROM DURHAM COUNTY. I DON I T REMEMBER I F THEY WERE

OR NOT.

A DO YOU RECALL THE NAMES OF THESE POTENTIAL CHALLENGERS?



I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

a

A

a

MR. SULLIVAN D I RECT
154

FORMERREPRESENTATIVE--ONE MOMENT-.MICKEY MICHAUX.

REPRESENTATIVE MICKEY MICHAUX.

COULD YOU SPELL HIS LAST NAME?

M-I-C-H-A-U-X. WHO ELSE?

AND REPRESENTATIVE--FORMER REPRESENTATIVE MICKEY

MICHAUX WAS AT ONE TIME A U.S. ATTORNEY?

IN GREENSBORO, MIDDLE DISTRICT.

AND HE RESIDES IN DURHAM? DURHAM COUNTY?

I ASSUME SO. I HAVENIT--HE RESIGNED HIS APPOINTMENT.

SO I ASSUME HEIS MOVED BACK TO DURHAM

DO YOU RECALL WHO DISCUSSED THE POTENTIAL CANDIDACY

OF REPRESENTATIVE MICHAUX?

A

a

A10

11

12

13

23

24

25

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

. AS I MENTIONED TO YOU BEFORE, THE--EVERY TIME A

DISTRICT WAS CHANGED SOMEONE WOULD TROT OUT THE NAMES

OF POTENTIAL CHALLENGERS. CHALLENGERS THAT WERE EITHE

STRENGTHENED OR WEAKENED BY THE CHANGE IN THE DISTRICT.

a FOCUSING FoR rne momerur oN FOUNTAINTS DISTRICT, wHICH

IS NO. 2, WERE THERE ANY OTHER POTENTIAL CHALLENGERS

WHO LIVED IN DURHAM AND WHOSE NAMES WERE MENTIONED

AS A REASON wHY, IN ORDER To PRorEcr MR. FOUNTAIN's

INCUMBENCY, THAT DURHAM SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED AS

PART OF THE SECOND DISTRICT?

A I KNOW THERE WERE OTHERS MENTIONED AND I'M JUST--I

CANIT REMEMBER WHO THEY WERE. I'M NOT REALLY FAMILIAR



I

2

3

4

15I
MR. SULLIVAN D I RECT

WITH THE DURHAM POLITICAL SITUATION, OR INDEED THAT

OF THE SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.

DO YOU KNOW WHETHER MR. MICHAUX IS BLACK OR WHITE?

MR. MICHAUX IS BLACK

DO YOU R,ECALL ANY CONVERSATIONS BY ANY OF THE BLACK

REPRESENTATIVES, OR THE BLACK SENATOR, APROPOS OF

PUTTiNG DURHAM IN THE SECOND DISTRICT?

CONVERSATIONS WERE OVERHEARD. CONVERSATIONS WITH

THE BLACK SENATORS AND REP--BLACK SENATORS AND

REPRESENTATIVES-_BUT I CAN'T REMEMBER THE SUBSTANCE

OF THE--AS I REMEMBER, THEY WERE OPPOSED TO PLACING

DURHAM IN THE DISTRICT WITH WAKE COUNTY, AS MOST OF

5

6

7

8

9

a

A

a

l0

l1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

THE SMALLER COUNTIES IN POPULATION ARE

BUT, I DON'T REMEMBER THEIR FEELINGS ONE wAY

OR THE OTHER TOWARD THE DISCUSSION-_ONE WAY OR THE

OTHER TOWARD THE SECOND DISTRICT, AND THE INCLUSIoN

OF DURHAM IN THE SECOND.

A WAS THERE ANY EFFORT MADE TO ASCERTAIN THE FEELINGS

OF THE BLACK COMMUNITY IN DURHAM, AS TO WHERE THEY

WANTED TO BE PLACED, VIS-A-VIS THE CONGRESSIONAL

REDISTRICTING?

A I THINK THAT QUESTION IS ANSWERED BY THE PUBLIC

HEARING THAT WAS HELD ON_-IN RALEIGH ON THE QUESTION

OF CONGRESSIONAL REDI STRI CTING.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

I
o

10

l1

12

13

MR. SULLIVAN DIRECT I 56

A AND THAT WAS HELD ON WHAT DATE?

A 0N APRIL t6, 1981. THAT HEARING WAS FOR--WAS

STIPULATED AS BEING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS 2,

3, I+ AND 6, WHICH ARE THOSE ADJACEI.{T TO THE RALEIGH

AREA

a Do You KNow WHAT TIME THAT WAS HELD?

A ] P.M. ACCORDING TO THE MINUTES OF THE TRANSCRIPT.

a AND DO YOU KNOW WHERE IT WAS HELD?

A IN THE STATE LEGISLATIVE BUILDING IN THE AUDITORIUM.

A WERE YOU PRESENT AT THAT MEETING?

A I DONIT BELIEVE I WAS. I CAME IN FOR A PERIOD OF

TIME, AND LEFT. I DONIT KNOW--

l4

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A YOU WERE PRESENT FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME?

A FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.

a DID YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO SEE HOW MANY pEOpLE WERE

THERE ATTENDING THE--

A AS I REMEMBER THE MINUTES OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE

HEARING CONTAINS A VOTER REGISTRATION SHEET, HAVING

FOUR SHEETS FILLED WITH THE NAMES OF THOSE, AND

SIGNATURES OF THOSE, APPEARING ON THAT MEETING--AT

THAT MEETING.

A AND ABOUT HOW MANY SIGNATURES ARE ON THOSE SHEETS,

APPROXIMATELY?

A THEY WOULD N|T'I FROM--I WOULD SAY SOMEWHERE BETWEEN



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

I

10

11

12

13

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. SULLIVAN DI RECT

12 AND 18 PER SHEET.

a so rHERE WERE ACCORDING TO

SIGNED A LITTLE LESS THAN 1

157

THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO

OO PEOPLE WHO ATTENDED

THE MEETING?

A I WOULD GUESS AT LEAST.WHO HAD SIGNED. THE CHAIRMAN

HAD ASKED ALL VISITORS TO SIGI'I. I DONIT KNOW HOW

MANY MAY NOT HAVE SIGNED.

aDoYoURECALLFRoMTHE.SHoRTPERIoDTHATYoUWERE

, THERE, ABoUT Hotl, MANY PEoPLE WERE PRESENT IN THE

AUDITORIUM?

AIWoULDESTIMATESoMEWHEREARoUNDI00.MAYBEA

LITTLEBITMoRE,L25.BECAUSETHEYALSoINCLUDED

SPAULDING WAS THE CHAIRMAN.

aANDISTHEREALSoALISToFTHEPEoPLEwHoSPoKEFoR
THE MEETING?

A THERE IS A TRANSCRIPT OF THE RECORD OF THOSE WHO

SPOKE

A AND DOES THE TRANSCRIPT INDICATE HOW MANY PEOPLE

SPOKE? IS THAT THE TRANSCRIPT THAT YOU'RE LOOKING

AT NOW?

A YES, AND THAT'S EXHIBIT NO.--WHATEVER IN YOUR BOOK.

a THIS IS EXHIBIT NO- 10-

A IN EXHIBIT NO. 1O-_



10

t1

12

13

I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

I

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

lStl
MR. SULLIVAN DI RECT

(THEREUPON, THERE WAS A SHORT RECESS.)

A OKAY, SO THE SENATE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE NO. 2 WAS

ADOPTED BY THE SENATE ON JUNE 18, 1981 AND PLACED ON

THESENATECALENDARFoRTHE22ND.oNTHE22ND,A

BILL PASSED FOR SECOND,AND THIRD READINGS, AND THE

SENATE WAS SENT TO THE HOUSE, AND REFERRED TO THE

HOUSE COMMITTEE FOR CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING'

YOU WILL REMEMBER THAT THE COMMITTEE--TWO

CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING COMMITTEES BROKE APART'

NEVERToMEETAGAIN,oNTHEMAY2STHMEETING.THE

HoUSEMETAGAIN--THEHoUSEcoMMITTEEBYITSELF,

MET AGAIN ON THE 9TH.

a THE 9TH?

A OF JUNE. THERE ARE TWO TRACKS TO FOLLOW THE HOUSE

COMMITTEE AND THE SENATE COMMITTEE. AND THIS IS

INDICATEDINTHISMEMoRANDUMwHICHISGIVENAS

EXHIBIT NO. L2,T BELIEVE.

aCoULDI.JUSTINTERRUPTFoR.JUSToNESEcoND,AND

ASK YOU WHETHER THERE WAS ANY RACIAL ANALYSIS DONE

ON SENATE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE NO. 2?

A SENATE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE NO. 2?

A OR OF THE UNDERLYING PLANS, THE ALFORD AND DANIELS

PLANS, WHI CH--

A I BELIEVE--MY MEMORY IS,WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE



2

3

4

MR. SULLIVAN I5!t
D I RECT

RACIAL DATA PREPARED AT THE REQUEST OF REPRESENTATIVE

SPAULDING, AND OF WHICH I GAVE TO YoU A MOMENT AGo,

WERE SENATE CONGRESSIONAL PLAN AND TRIAL DISTRICT

PLAN C-200Nt, I BELIEVE, THAT THAT WAS THE ONLY

CONGRESS I ONAL--THAT PLUS THE 1 97 O PLAN USED I hL- ::11-1g

L97L PLAN USED IN THE 1980 CENSUS.-

5

6

I

I

10

11

IT WAS THE ONLY RACIAL STATISTICS

PRODUCED, THAT EITHER I PRODUCED OR WAS

UNDER MY SUPERVISION FOR CONGRESSIONAL

BEFORE THE SUBMISSION OF THE FINAL PLAN

IN WASHINGTON IN SEPTEMBER--LATE AUGUST

I BELIEVE EARLY SEPTEMBER.

WHICH I

PRODUCED

REDISTRICTING

TO JUST I CE

OR SEPTEMBER,
12

13

14

l5

16

l7

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SO, IN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, THERE WERE NO

OTHER RACIAL BREAKDOWNS.

A COULD YOU TELL US WHAT THE RANGE OF DEVIATION WAS ON

THE SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 2 PLAN?

(THEREUPoN, THERE wAS AN oFF_THE_REcoRD

DISCUSSION, WHICH WAS NOT REPORTED

BY THE COURT REPoRTER.)

(THEREUPON, THE DEPOSITION WAS

ADJOURNED TO BE CONTINUED ON MONDAY,

NOVEMBER 15, 1991.)