COVINGTON et al v. THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA et al

Filing 220

SPECIAL MASTER'S RECOMMENDED PLAN AND REPORT issued by Nathaniel Persily on 12/1/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13. (Powell, Gloria)

Exhibit 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SANDRA LITTLE COVINGTON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

No. 1:15-cv-399

THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE AND PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE
SPECIAL MASTER’S DRAFT PLAN
Plaintiffs have carefully analyzed the Special Master’s Draft Plan (hereinafter,
“Draft Plan”) and have concluded that the plan does remedy the constitutional flaws in
the legislature’s 2017 enacted plan. Because the Special Master has invited “suggestions
as to unpairing incumbents or otherwise,” ECF 212 at 1, Plaintiffs here offer some
suggestions to unpair incumbents, and a few other slight proposed revisions to the Draft
Plan. Such suggestions are offered only where, in accordance with the Court’s and
Special Master’s instructions, those modifications take into account the state’s legislative
policy preferences as expressed in the state’s adopted redistricting criteria, see ECF 212
at 3, and “do not degrade the underlying features of the plan as expressed in the Court’s
November 1st order.” ECF 212 at 4.
I.

House Districts 57 and Surrounding Districts in Guilford County
Plaintiffs’ analysis of the proposed changes to House Districts in Guilford County

indicates that the racial gerrymandering has been cured. However, the reconfigured
1

Case 1:15-cv-00399-TDS-JEP Document 216 Filed 11/17/17 Page 1 of 9

districts do pair two sets of incumbents: African-American Democrat Amos Quick,
currently representing House District 58, and White Republican Jon Hardister, currently
representing House District 59, are paired in Draft Plan House District 59; White
Democrat Pricey Harrison, currently representing House District 57, and White
Republican John Blust, currently representing House District 62, are paired in Draft Plan
House District 61. Districts 57 and 58 in the Draft Plan are left with no incumbent.
Plaintiffs believe that Representative Quick and Representative Hardister can be
unpaired easily without degrading the underlying features of the plan. Representative
Quick lives in Precinct SUM2, which is immediately adjacent to Draft Plan House
District 58, which has no incumbent. There are two options for moving Representative
Quick to open District 58:
(1) Rep. Quick’s entire precinct could be added to HD 58. This change would not
make HD 59 or HD 58 over- or under-populated.
(2) Rep. Quick lives at the northern end of Precinct SUM2, closer to the border
with HD 58, so the precinct could be split to add only the top portion of SUM2
to HD 58.
Moving the entire precinct SUM2 to HD 58 does make HD 58 less compact than it
is in the Draft Plan, but it is still within acceptable compactness ranges and much more
compact than districts in the 2011 Plan.1 Splitting the SUM2 precinct would make HD
1

In the Draft Plan, HD 58 scores 0.27 on Reock and 0.15 on Polsby-Popper. Plaintiffs’
proposed version of HD 58 that moves the entire SUM2 precinct scores 0.23 on Reock
and 0.13 on Polsby-Popper. Thus, the Plaintiffs’ Proposed whole-precinct modification
2

Case 1:15-cv-00399-TDS-JEP Document 216 Filed 11/17/17 Page 2 of 9

58 more compact—comparable to the version in the Draft Plan2—but it would split a
precinct where the Draft Plan in Guilford County currently split no precincts. In
Plaintiffs’ view, both options are acceptable—neither significantly degrades the
underlying plan in terms of compactness or respect for precincts and municipal
boundaries. Plaintiffs offer both options to the Special Master—the maps presented in
Exhibit A (the whole precinct map is at page 1 and the split precinct map is at page 2)
and the shapefiles being served via email—but express no preference in terms of which
option best complies with the Court’s directives to the Special Master.
II.

Wake County Districts
Plaintiffs propose two small modifications to the Wake County Districts in the

Special Master’s Draft Plan. First, and most importantly, Plaintiffs have observed an
apparently inadvertent violation of the North Carolina Constitution’s prohibition on middecade redistricting. The Special Master was instructed by the Court to “recreate the
2011 House Districts 36, 37, 40 and 41” because the modification of those districts in the
2017 plan exceeded the court’s order to remedy the two districts found to be racial
gerrymanders. ECF 212 at 14 (Special Master’s Order on Draft Plan); see also ECF 206
at 2-3 (Court’s Order Appointing Special Master). It appears that the Draft Plan

is slightly less compact than the Draft Plan, but not in a way that degrades the plan in any
significant way.
2
In the Draft Plan, HD 58 scores 0.27 on Reock and 0.15 on Polsby-Popper. Plaintiffs’
proposed version of HD 58 that adds only the northern part of precinct SUM2 scores 0.24
on Reock and 0.14 on Polsby-Popper. Plaintiffs’ proposed split-precinct modification is
thus more compact than the whole-precinct modification, and essentially comparable to
the Special Master’s Draft Plan version of the district.
3

Case 1:15-cv-00399-TDS-JEP Document 216 Filed 11/17/17 Page 3 of 9

inadvertently makes one precinct whole that was split in the 2011 version of HD 40. See
Ex. A at 3. That is precinct 08-10, which is split in the 2011 version of HD 40 but is
whole in the Draft Plan version of HD 40. Plaintiffs recommend slightly modifying the
Draft Plan’s version of HD 40 to restore it entirely to its 2011 version, including that split
precinct. Significantly, restoring HD 40 to its 2011 form has ripple effects on at least two
additional districts—certainly HD 49 and potentially HD 34. Splitting the precinct in HD
40 means that population is moved to HD 49, which then becomes overpopulated, and
some population must be moved to an adjacent district. HD 34 is an obvious choice to
receive that additional population from HD 49. The other districts that were to be
restored to their 2011 versions (36, 37 and 41) have been perfectly restored.
Second, in the Draft Plan, two incumbents are paired. Democrat Cynthia Ball,
currently representing House District 49, and Democrat Grier Martin, currently
representing House District 34, are now paired in Draft Plan House District 49, while
House District 34 is left with no incumbent. Representative Martin lives in Precinct 0110, which is near the edge of Draft Plan District 49, making it easy to move him out of
that district. Plaintiffs’ proposed modification moves only six precincts between the two
affected districts—Precincts 07-03 and 07-09 are moved from District 34 to District 49,
and Precincts 01-10, 01-11, 01-12 and 01-36 are moved from District 49 to District 34.
These modifications unpair the incumbents, keep the two districts within acceptable
population deviations, have no impact on municipal boundary splits, do not split any
precincts, and create two districts that are comparably compact to the same two districts
4

Case 1:15-cv-00399-TDS-JEP Document 216 Filed 11/17/17 Page 4 of 9

in the Draft Plan.3 The two districts are maintained in the same region and retain the
same general shape as they have in the Draft Plan. The map displaying Plaintiffs’
proposed modifications to Wake County House Districts is can be seen in Exhibit A at
page 4.
III.

A.

Plaintiffs Make No Suggested Changes to the Following Districts
Mecklenburg County – HD 92, 103, 104, and 105

Plaintiffs’ analysis of the proposed changes in this county in the Draft Plan indicates
that the racial gerrymandering has been cured and that no incumbents intending to run in
2018 are paired by the configuration of the districts. Thus, Plaintiffs lodge no objections
or proposed modifications to House Districts 92, 103, 104, and 105 in the Draft Plan.
B.

Guilford County – HD 61

While Plaintiffs are able to recommend changes to the pairing of Representatives
Hardister and Quick in Guilford county, see supra at Section I, at 1-3, unpairing
Representative Blust and Representative Harrison is much more challenging.
3

The change in compactness scores in HD 49 and 34 cannot be attributed entirely or even
predominantly to the unpairing of Representatives Ball and Martin. Both of those
districts were modified to accommodate the restoration of HD 40 and even out the
population between districts in that area. Notwithstanding that fact, the compactness
scores of the districts in the Special Master’s plan and the Plaintiffs’ suggested revisions
are comparable. HD 49 in the Draft Plan scores 0.41 on Reock and 0.33 on PolsbyPopper. HD 49 in the Plaintiffs’ Proposed Wake Modification scores 0.46 on Reock and
0.30 on Polsby-Popper. HD 34 in the Draft Plan scores 0.46 on Reock and 0.53 on
Polsby-Popper. HD 34 in the Plaintiffs’ Proposed Wake Modification scores 0.44 on
Reock and 0.43 on Polsby-Popper. Thus, the Special Master’s version of HD 34 is only
very slightly more compact than Plaintiffs’ suggested version, but that may be due to the
restoration of HD 40. With HD 49, the Special Master’s version scores better on PolsbyPopper and the Plaintiffs’ version scores better on Reock. Ultimately, Plaintiffs’
suggested modifications do not degrade the compactness of the Special Master’s plan.
5

Case 1:15-cv-00399-TDS-JEP Document 216 Filed 11/17/17 Page 5 of 9

Representative Blust lives in Precinct FR3, which is at the edge of Draft Plan House
District 61 and directly adjacent to House District 62. But moving Representative Blust
into that District pairs Rep. Blust with Republican Representative John Faircloth, and has
no other added advantages in terms of compactness or municipal boundaries. In addition,
based on where Rep. Blust and Rep. Harrison live, it is not possible to move either of
them into the open HD 57 without significantly degrading the underlying features of the
plan. Thus, it seems like this pairing may be unavoidable, particularly given the fact that
the Court has instructed that preventing the unpairing of incumbents is a “distinctly
subordinate consideration.” ECF 212 at 3.
C.

Sampson, Wayne, and Bladen Counties – HD 21 and 22

Plaintiffs’ analysis of the proposed changes in this area of the state in the Draft Plan
indicates that the racial gerrymandering has been cured and that no incumbents intending
to run in 2018 are paired by the configuration of the districts. Thus, Plaintiffs lodge no
objections to House Districts 21 and 22 in the Draft Plan nor have any proposed
modifications.
D.

Cumberland and Hoke Counties – SD 19 and 21

Plaintiffs have no objection or proposed modification to Senate Districts 19 and 21 in
the Draft Plan, although there is a potential pairing of Senators Clark (African-American
Democrat) and Meredith (White Republican), using Senator Clark’s new house in
Fayetteville. See ECF 208, Ex. 2. Plaintiffs have not been able to create a map that cures

6

Case 1:15-cv-00399-TDS-JEP Document 216 Filed 11/17/17 Page 6 of 9

the racial gerrymander, unpairs Senator Clark’s new home from Senator Meredith’s
residence, and maintains the underlying features of the plan.
E.

Guilford County – SD 28

Plaintiffs’ analysis of the proposed changes to Senate District 28 indicates that the
racial gerrymandering has been adequately cured. As with the Senate Districts in
Cumberland County, there are two incumbents paired—African-American Democrat
Gladys Robinson, currently representing Senate District 28, and White Republican
Senator Trudy Wade, currently representing Senate District 27, are paired in Draft Plan
Senate District 27.
Plaintiffs have not been able to design a configuration of Senate Districts in this
cluster that would both cure the racial gerrymandering in Senate District 28, leave Senate
District 26 untouched, see ECF 212 at 7, not degrade the underlying features of the plan,
and not pair these two incumbents.
CONCLUSION
Therefore Plaintiffs respectfully make the foregoing proposed slight adjustments
to the Special Master’s draft plan. Shapefiles with these proposed changes are being
served upon the parties and the Special Master with the filing of this brief.
Respectfully submitted this 17th day of November, 2017.

7

Case 1:15-cv-00399-TDS-JEP Document 216 Filed 11/17/17 Page 7 of 9

POYNER SPRUILL LLP

SOUTHERN COALITION FOR
SOCIAL JUSTICE

By: /s/ Edwin M. Speas, Jr.
Edwin M. Speas, Jr.
N.C. State Bar No. 4112
[e-mail]
Caroline P. Mackie
N.C. State Bar No. 41512
[e-mail]
P.O. Box 1801 (27602-1801)
301 Fayetteville St., Suite 1900
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 919-783-1075

By: /s/ Allison J. Riggs
Allison J. Riggs
N.C. State Bar No. 40028
[e-mail]
1415 Highway 54, Suite 101
Durham, NC 27707
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 919-323-3942

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Counsel for Plaintiffs

8

Case 1:15-cv-00399-TDS-JEP Document 216 Filed 11/17/17 Page 8 of 9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this date I have electronically filed the foregoing with the
Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will provide electronic notification of
the same to the following:
Alexander M. Peters
James Bernier
Special Deputy Attorney
General
Office of the Attorney
General
P.O. Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602
[e-mail]

Thomas A. Farr
Phillip J. Strach
Michael D. McKnight
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, P.C.
4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100
Raleigh, NC 27602
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Counsel for Defendants
Counsel for Defendants

This 17th day of November, 2017.

/s/ Allison J. Riggs
Allison J. Riggs
Counsel for Plaintiffs

9

Case 1:15-cv-00399-TDS-JEP Document 216 Filed 11/17/17 Page 9 of 9

Exhibit A

Case 1:15-cv-00399-TDS-JEP Document 216-1 Filed 11/17/17 Page 1 of 5

Plaintiffs’ Suggested Modification to House Districts 58 and 59 in Guilford
County
(Whole precinct SUM2 moved)
18

HU

NB
IR

SF2

STOK

WM

NCGR2
NMAD

MON3
SF1

OR1
OR2

NCGR1

062

04

CG1

SF4

SF3

CG2

CG3B
G27 CG3A

FR3
FR5
NDRI

G41

FR4
G42
G43

H27
H25

H24

H26

H20A

H23

H21

H15
H16

HP

H20B

H22
H17

H11
H12 H09

H14
H13

H08

H02

H19B

G24
G23 G22
G31 G20

G30
G33

G39

G34

G38

G26

G35
G36

057
G09

G13

035

G10

MON1

G08

G21

G07

G18 G19

G17

SWASH

SMAD

G02

G03

GIB

JEF1

G06

G05

G72

RC1
03S

JEF2
RC2
JEF3

JEF4

NCLAY2
02
FEN2

JAM4

NCLAY1

PG1

H06

SUM3

H05

SUM2

H03

JAM5

H04
01

03W

G04

G12

SUM1

H10

060
H07

H01

G40A1 G32

JAM1

H18 H19A

G28
G29
G25

G40A2
G40B

MON2

G11 G01 G68
G16
G37
G64
G67
G15 G14 061
G44
G45
G71
G49
G63
G48
G69 G70
G47
G50
G46 G73
FR2
G74
G51
G60
FR1 G62
G56
G52
G61
G58
G75
058
G66
G54
G65
JAM2
G59 G57
G53
JAM3
G55
FEN1

SDRI

NWASH

GR
PG2

059

SUM4

SCLAY

03
01

22

02

28

25

23
29

37

30

39
26
38

32
33
31

35

1

Case 1:15-cv-00399-TDS-JEP Document 216-1 Filed 11/17/17 Page 2 of 5

3

Plaintiffs’ Suggested Modification to House Districts 58 and 59 in Guilford
County
(Precinct SUM2 split)
NB

IR

STON

SF2

WM

STOK

NCGR2

021

NMAD

MON3
OR1

04

SF1
OR2

NCGR1

062

066

CG1

SF4

SF3

CG2

FR3

FR5
NDRI

G41

FR4
G42

SDRI

H27
H25

H23

H26

H20A
H21

H15

H17

H16
H14
H13

HP

H20B

H22

H08

H02

G39

H19B

G33

061

G09

G21

035

G10

MON1

G08

03W

G07

G18 G19

G17

G02

G03

G06

G05

03N
G72

RC1
JEF2
03S
RC2

JEF3

JEF4

NCLAY2
FEN2

H06

GIB

JEF1

G04

02

NCLAY1

059

PG1
SUM3

H05

SUM2
JAM5

GR
PG2

SUM4

H04
01

057

JAM4

H03
H01

G24
G23 G22
G31 G20

G30

SWASH

SMAD

SUM1

H10

060
H07

G34

G26

G38

JAM1

H18 H19A

H11
H12 H09

G40A1 G32

G28
G29
G25

G35
G12
G13
G11 G01 G68
G16
G37
G36
G64
G67
G15 G14
G45 G44
G71
G49
G63
G48
G69 G70
G47
G50
G46 G73
FR2
G74
G51
G60
FR1 G62
G56
G61
G52
G58
G75
058
G66
G54
G65
JAM2
G59 G57
G53
JAM3
G55
FEN1
G43

H24

G40A2
G40B

MON2

CG3B
G27 CG3A

061

NWASH

SCLAY

03
01

22

02

28

25

23
29

37

30

39
26
38

32
33
31

35

2

Case 1:15-cv-00399-TDS-JEP Document 216-1 Filed 11/17/17 Page 3 of 5

3

Special Master’s House Draft Plan in Wake County
(Red lines are 2011 House district borders)
02-05

031

02-02
02-03

32

08-08
08-07

034
02-01

08-03

02-06
08-02

07-06

08-05
08-11

040
07-13
07-07

08-06

08-10

07-05
07-11
01-45

07-04

07-10

08-09
07-03
07-02
01-39
07-12

05-05

05-04

01-51

07-01

01-37

01-30

07-09

01-17

05-03

01-15

041
04-05

11-02

049

04-18

01-36

01-16

01-11

01-29

04-17
01-10

01-04

11-01
01-03

04-08
01-33

04-21

01-05

01-02

04-09

01-01
04-20

01-06
01-14

01-31

04-11

01-07
04-15

04-01

04-02

01-49

011

01-23
01-32

01-09

01-48

3

Case 1:15-cv-00399-TDS-JEP Document 216-1 Filed 11/17/17 Page 4 of 5

038

Plaintiffs’ Suggested Modifications to House Districts 34, 40, and 49 in Wake
County
(Red lines are 2011 district borders)
14-02

040
02-02

30-1

19-06

02-03

08-04
02-05

32
31

08-08

02-04
08-07

02-01

33

13-11

08-03

02-06

07-06

08-02

08-05

08-11

07-13

13-06

01-47

07-05

07-07

08-10

08-06

07-11
07-03

08-09

034

07-04

01-43

01-39
07-10

13-07
01-44

01-51

07-12
01-37

07-01

05-04

07-09

13-01

01-18

01-30
01-17

05-03

11-02

01-46

01-15

01-11

17-11

038

17-10

04-18

01-38

01-36

041

04-05
01-29

01-16

04-17

17-05

01-04
04-08

049

01-01

04-04

01-49

011

04-02
04-03

01-48
01-32

01-09

01-23

01-41

039

17-01
01-13

01-06

01-28

01-07

01-31
04-01

01-12

17-03
01-05

01-02
04-11

04-20

01-10

01-03

01-33

11-01

04-21

04-09

04-14

13-08

13-05

01-42

01-45

07-02

05-05

04-15

035 13-10

13-02

01-14

033
01-27

01-40

01-20
01-26

17-07

01-34

01-19

4

Case 1:15-cv-00399-TDS-JEP Document 216-1 Filed 11/17/17 Page 5 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SANDRA LITTLE COVINGTON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

No. 1:15-cv-399

THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO LEGISLATIVE DEFENDANTS’ NOVEMBER 17,
2017 FILING
The Special Master instructed the parties to provide proposed objections and
revisions to the Draft Plan and specifically encouraged the parties to include suggestions
as to how incumbents should be unpaired. ECF 212 at 19. Legislative Defendants provide
only abstract objections, not meaningfully engaging with any element of the Draft Plan,
and offer no alternative plan or suggestions for unpairing incumbents for the Special
Master’s consideration (or upon which Plaintiffs could comment). Indeed, this lack of
meaningful response from Legislative Defendants is surprising since a large portion of their
brief complains about the absence of another chance to remedy the continued
unconstitutionality in the 2017 enacted plan. When presented with an opportunity by the
Special Master to do just that, Legislative Defendants declined.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs submit the following observations to assist the Special
Master in completing the task assigned to him.

1

Case 1:15-cv-00399-TDS-JEP Document 217 Filed 11/21/17 Page 1 of 7

I.

UNDER THE NORTH CAROLINA CONSTITUTION, THE COURT DID
NOT AUTHORIZE THE LEGISLATURE TO ENGAGE IN MIDDECADE REDISTRICTING BEYOND THAT WHICH WAS
NECESSARY TO REMEDY RACIAL GERRYMANDERING, AND
THUS THE SPECIAL MASTER’S MODIFICATIONS ARE
APPROPRIATE
Legislative Defendants’ continued protestations that the legislature was free to make

any changes it saw fit to all Wake and Mecklenburg County House Districts during the
2017 remedial process defies all logic and legal reasoning. A federal court can only
authorize a legislature to depart from state constitutional demands insofar as is necessary
to correct violations of federal law. See Cleveland Cnty. Ass'n for Gov't by the People v.
Cleveland Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 142 F.3d 468, 477 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (“[I]f a
violation of federal law necessitates a remedy barred by state law, the state law must give
way; if no such violation exists, principles of federalism dictate that state law governs.”).
The Court’s reading of Article II, Sections 3(4) and 5(4) of the North Carolina constitution
is neither “novel,” Defs’ Br. at 13, nor inconsistent with North Carolina state law precedent.
It is difficult to imagine any directive more “clear, complete, and unmistakable,” Kornegay
v. Goldsboro, 180 N.C. 441, 445, 105 S.E. 187, 189 (1920), than the plainly-worded rule
that legislative districts “shall remain unaltered until the return of another decennial
census.” N.C. CONST. art. II §§3(4) and 5(4).
In Wake and Mecklenburg Counties, it is factually incorrect that “the shapes and
locations of the non-adjoining districts were directly caused by the location of the illegal
districts,” Defs’ Br. at 13-14, and thus must somehow be altered in correcting the racial
gerrymanders. Plaintiffs’ proposed maps for these two counties, introduced during the
2

Case 1:15-cv-00399-TDS-JEP Document 217 Filed 11/21/17 Page 2 of 7

legislative session and presented to this Court, demonstrate that the racial gerrymanders
can be remedied without touching the five implicated districts, and there is no “domino
effect” on every district in the county. Defs’ Br. at 14. Were the Special Master to suggest
to the court that the legislature should have free rein to redistrict county-wide, even where
such alterations are not necessary to remedy a federal law violation, then the Court would
commit the very errors that were central in Perry v. Perez, 565 U.S. 388, 392 (2012), where
a federal court erroneously disregarded state law and policy. The Special Master should
decline to offer such poor advice.
II.

THE AVAILABILITY OR USE OF RACIAL DATA DOES NOT
EQUATE TO RACIAL PREDOMINANCE IN REDISTRICTING
Legislative Defendants’ only remotely-specific condemnation of the Draft Plan is

that the Special Master employed “racial sorting” in the plan. Defs’ Br. at 15.

As

Legislative Defendants should know—after years of litigation over its 2011 maps and three
recent United States Supreme Court decisions reiterating the standards for the appropriate
use of race—the consideration of race in redistricting does not condemn a plan as an
unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

See Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952, 993 (1996)

(O’Connor, J., concurring); see also Doe v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 665 F.3d 524, 555
(3d Cir. 2011); Prejean v. Foster, 227 F.3d 504, 509 (5th Cir. 2000); Shirt v. Hazeltine, 461
F.3d 1011, 1019 (8th Cir. 2006). The use of race in drawing district lines only triggers
heightened scrutiny where race is “the predominant factor motivating the [mapdrawer’s]
decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.” Ala.
Legis. Black Caucus v. Alabama, 135 S. Ct. 1257, 1267 (2015) (quoting Miller v. Johnson,
3

Case 1:15-cv-00399-TDS-JEP Document 217 Filed 11/21/17 Page 3 of 7

515 U.S. 900, 916 (1995)) (“ALBC”); see also Cooper v. Harris, 137 S. Ct. 1455, 1463
(2017); Bethune-Hill v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, 137 S. Ct. 788, 794 (2016).
These three recent cases paint a detailed picture of what actually constitutes a
mechanical racial target. See ALBC, 135 S. Ct. at 1257, 1271 (finding that the “primary
redistricting goal [] to maintain existing racial percentages in each majority-minority
district” was a mechanical racial target); Cooper, 137 S. Ct. at 1468-69 (holding that a
prerequisite that certain districts “must include a sufficient number of African-Americans”
to make the “majority black district[s],” regardless of the level of racially polarized voting
in the region, is a “textbook example of race-based districting”) (internal quotations
omitted); Bethune-Hill, 137 S. Ct. at 802 (ruling that the legislature’s predetermination that
each district that elected an African-American representative must have, as redrawn, at
least 55% black voting age population was, in all but one instance, an unjustified racial
target). Contrary to Legislative Defendants’ allegations, mechanical racial targets do not
exist and predominate in the redistricting process where, in areas of the state with
substantial African-American populations, compact districts drawn from whole precincts
and respecting political subdivisions might have black voting age populations ranging from
39% to 43.6%. Defs’ Br. at 15. This geographically-predictable outcome is neither
surprising nor constitutionally suspect. There is no racial gerrymandering or racial sorting
in the Draft Plan because there is neither “circumstantial evidence of a district’s shape and
demographics” that race predominated “or more direct evidence going to [] purpose.”
Bethune-Hill, 137 S. Ct. at 797. In making these specious claims, Legislative Defendants
4

Case 1:15-cv-00399-TDS-JEP Document 217 Filed 11/21/17 Page 4 of 7

can point to no evidence that the Special Master “subordinated traditional race-neutral
districting principles . . . to racial considerations,” because none exists. Id.
CONCLUSION

The three-judge panel provided the Special Master with detailed instructions on how
to construct a proposed remedial map, see, e.g., Court Order, ECF 206 at 5-13 (detailing,
among other things, the data the Special Master was to obtain or refrain from using, the
traditional redistricting criteria he was to respect, and many others). The Special Master’s
Draft Plan evidences that he understood the detailed instructions from the Court and has a
firm grasp on compliance with the United States Supreme Court’s precedent on racial
gerrymandering.
Therefore, Plaintiffs respectfully urge the Special Master to reject Legislative
Defendants’ broad and abstract objections, make only the proposed slight adjustments
proposed by Plaintiffs to the Draft Plan, and otherwise present the Draft Plan to the Court
for its consideration in its current form.
Respectfully submitted this 21st day of November, 2017.

5

Case 1:15-cv-00399-TDS-JEP Document 217 Filed 11/21/17 Page 5 of 7

POYNER SPRUILL LLP

SOUTHERN COALITION FOR
SOCIAL JUSTICE

By: /s/ Edwin M. Speas, Jr.
Edwin M. Speas, Jr.
N.C. State Bar No. 4112
[e-mail]
Caroline P. Mackie
N.C. State Bar No. 41512
[e-mail]
P.O. Box 1801 (27602-1801)
301 Fayetteville St., Suite 1900
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 919-783-1075

By: /s/ Allison J. Riggs
Allison J. Riggs
N.C. State Bar No. 40028
[e-mail]
1415 Highway 54, Suite 101
Durham, NC 27707
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 919-323-3942
Counsel for Plaintiffs

Counsel for Plaintiffs

6

Case 1:15-cv-00399-TDS-JEP Document 217 Filed 11/21/17 Page 6 of 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this date I have electronically filed the foregoing with the
Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will provide electronic notification of the
same to the following:
Alexander M. Peters
James Bernier
Special
Deputy
Attorney General
Office of the Attorney
General
P.O. Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602
[e-mail]

Thomas A. Farr
Phillip J. Strach
Michael D. McKnight
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, P.C.
4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100
Raleigh, NC 27602
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Counsel for Defendants
Counsel for Defendants

This 21st day of November, 2017.

/s/ Allison J. Riggs
Allison J. Riggs
Counsel for Plaintiffs

7

Case 1:15-cv-00399-TDS-JEP Document 217 Filed 11/21/17 Page 7 of 7