david harris, christine bowser, and samuel love v. patrick mccrory, in his capacity as governor of...

7/25/2019 David Harris, Christine Bowser, and Samuel Love v. Patrick McCrory, in his capacity as Governor of North Carolina

1/100

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

________________________________)

DAVI D HARRI S, CHRI STI NE )BOWSER, and SAMUEL LOVE, )

)Pl ai nt i f f s, )

)v. ) Case No. 1: 13- cv- 949

)PATRI CK MCCRORY, i n hi s )capaci t y as Gover nor of Nor t h )Car ol i na, NORTH CAROLI NA )STATE BOARD OF ELECTI ONS, )and J OSHUA HOWARD, i n hi s )

capaci t y as Chai r man of t he )Nor t h Car ol i na St at e Boar d )of El ect i ons, )

)Def endant s. )

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ci r cui t J udge Roger L. Gr egor y wr ot e t he maj or i t y opi ni on, i n

whi ch Di st r i ct J udge Max O. Cogbur n, J r . , j oi ned and f i l ed a

separ at e concur r ence. Di st r i ct J udge Wi l l i am L. Ost een, J r . ,

j oi ned i n par t and f i l ed a di ssent as t o Par t I I . A. 2:

[ T]he Fr amers of t he Four t eent h Amendment . . . desi r ed t o

pl ace cl ear l i mi t s on t he St at es use of r ace as a cr i t er i on f or

l egi sl at i ve act i on, and t o have t he f eder al cour t s enf or ce t hose

l i mi t at i ons. Ri chmond v. J . A. Cr oson Co. , 488 U. S. 469, 491

( 1989) . For good r eason. Raci al cl assi f i cat i ons ar e, af t er

al l , ant i t het i cal t o t he Four t eent h Amendment , whose cent r al

pur pose was t o el i mi nat e r aci al di scr i mi nat i on emanat i ng f r om

Case 1:13-cv-00949-WO-JEP Document 142 Filed 02/05/16 Pa e 1 of 100


2/100

2

of f i ci al sour ces i n t he St at es. Shaw v. Hunt , 517 U. S. 899,

907 ( 1996) ( Shaw I I ) ( quot i ng McLaughl i n v. Fl or i da, 379 U. S.

184, 192 ( 1964) ) .

The di sr egar d of i ndi vi dual r i ght s i s t he f at al f l aw i n

such r ace- based cl assi f i cat i ons. Regent s of t he Uni v. of Cal .

v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265, 320 ( 1978) ; see al so J . A. Cr oson Co. ,

488 U. S. at 493 ( expl ai ni ng t hat t he r i ght s cr eat ed by the

f i r st sect i on of t he Four t eent h Amendment ar e, by i t s t er ms,

guar ant eed t o t he i ndi vi dual . The r i ght s est abl i shed ar e

per sonal r i ght s ( quot i ng Shel l ey v. Kr aemer , 334 U. S. 1, 22

( 1948) ) ) . By assi gni ng vot er s to cer t ai n di st r i ct s based on t he

col or of t hei r ski n, st at es ri sk engag[ i ng] i n t he of f ensi ve

and demeani ng assumpt i on t hat vot er s of a par t i cul ar r ace,

because of t hei r r ace, t hi nk al i ke, shar e t he same pol i t i cal

i nt er est s, and wi l l pr ef er t he same candi dat es at t he pol l s.

Mi l l er v. J ohnson, 515 U. S. 900, 91112 ( 1995) ( quot i ng Shaw v.

Reno, 509 U. S. 630, 647 ( 1993) ( Shaw I ) ) . Quot as ar e especi al l y

per ni ci ous embodi ment s of r aci al st er eot ypes because t hey

t hr eat en ci t i zens per sonal r i ght s t o be t r eat ed wi t h equal

di gni t y and r espect . J . A. Cr oson Co. , 488 U. S. at 493.

Laws t hat cl assi f y ci t i zens based on r ace ar e

const i t ut i onal l y suspect and t her ef or e subj ect t o st r i ct

scr ut i ny; r aci al l y ger r ymander ed di st r i ct i ng schemes are no

di f f er ent , even when adopt ed f or beni gn pur poses. Shaw I I , 517



3/100

3

U. S. at 90405. Thi s does not mean t hat r ace can never pl ay a

r ol e i n r edi st r i cti ng. Mi l l er , 515 U. S. at 916. Legi sl at ur es

ar e al most al ways cogni zant of r ace when dr awi ng di st r i ct l i nes,

and si mpl y bei ng awar e of r ace poses no const i t ut i onal

vi ol at i on. See Shaw I I , 517 U. S. at 905. Onl y when r ace i s t he

domi nant and cont r ol l i ng consi der at i on i n dr awi ng di st r i ct

l i nes does st r i ct scrut i ny appl y. I d. ; see al so Easl ey v.

Cr omar t i e, 532 U. S. 234, 241 ( 2001) ( Cr omar t i e I I ) .

Thi s case chal l enges t he const i t ut i onal i t y of t wo Nor t h

Car ol i na congr essi onal di st r i ct s as r aci al ger r ymander s i n

vi ol at i on of t he Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause of t he Four t eent h

Amendment . Speci f i cal l y, t hi s case concer ns Nor t h Car ol i na s

Congr essi onal Di st r i ct 1 ( CD 1) and Congr essi onal Di st r i ct 12

( CD 12) as t hey st ood af t er t he 2011 r edi st r i ct i ng. The

pl ai nt i f f s cont end t hat t he congr ess i onal map adopt ed by t he

Nor t h Car ol i na Gener al Assembl y i n 2011 vi ol at es t he Four t eent h

Amendment : r ace was t he pr edomi nant consi derat i on wi t h r espect

t o bot h di st r i ct s, and t he Gener al Assembl y di d not nar r owl y

t ai l or t he di st r i ct s t o ser ve a compel l i ng i nt er est . The Cour t

agr ees.

Af t er car ef ul consi der at i on of al l evi dence pr esent ed

dur i ng a t hr ee- day bench t r i al , t he par t i es f i ndi ngs of f act

and concl usi ons of l aw, t he par t i es ar gument s, and t he

appl i cabl e l aw, t he Cour t f i nds t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s have shown



4/100

4

t hat r ace pr edomi nat ed i n bot h CD 1 and CD 12 and that t he

def endant s have f ai l ed t o est abl i sh t hat i t s r ace- based

r edi str i ct i ng sat i sf i es str i ct scr ut i ny. Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t

hol ds t hat t he gener al assembl y s 2011 Congr essi onal

Redi st r i ct i ng Pl an i s unconst i t ut i onal as vi ol at i ve of t he Equal

Protect i on Cl ause of t he Four t eent h Amendment .

Havi ng f ound t hat t he 2011 Congr essi onal Redi st r i ct i ng Pl an

vi ol at es t he Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause, t he Cour t wi l l r equi r e

t hat new congr essi onal di st r i ct s be dr awn f or t hwi t h t o remedy

t he unconst i t ut i onal di st r i ct s. See Wi se v. Li pscomb, 437 U. S.

535, 539- 40 (1978) .

Bef or e t ur ni ng t o a descr i pt i on of t he hi st or y of t he

l i t i gat i on and an anal ysi s of t he i ssues i t pr esent s, t he Cour t

not es t hat i t makes no f i ndi ng as t o whet her i ndi vi dual

l egi sl at or s acted i n good f ai t h i n t he r edi st r i ct i ng pr ocess, as

no such f i ndi ng i s requi r ed. See Page v. Va. Bd. of El ect i ons,

No. 3: 13- cv- 678, 2015 WL 3604029, at *7 ( E. D. Va. J une 5, 2015)

( [ T] he good f ai t h of t he l egi sl at ur e does not excuse or cur e

t he const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on of separ at i ng vot er s accor di ng t o

r ace. ) . Never t hel ess, t he r esul t i ng l egi sl at i ve enact ment has

af f ect ed Nor t h Car ol i na ci t i zens f undament al r i ght t o vot e, i n

vi ol at i on of t he Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause.



5/100

5

I .

A.

The Nor t h Car ol i na Const i t ut i on r equi r es decenni al

r edi st r i ct i ng of t he Nor t h Car ol i na Senat e and Nor t h Car ol i na

House of Repr esent at i ves, subj ect t o sever al speci f i c

r equi r ement s. The gener al assembl y i s di r ect ed t o r evi se t he

di st r i ct s and appor t i on r epr esent at i ves and senat or s among t hose

di str i ct s . N. C. Const . ar t . I I , 3, 5. Si mi l ar l y, cons i stent

wi t h t he r equi r ement s of t he Const i t ut i on of t he Uni t ed St at es,

t he gener al assembl y est abl i shes Nor t h Car ol i na s di st r i ct s f or

t he U. S. House of Repr esent at i ves af t er ever y decenni al census.

See U. S. Const. ar t . I , 2, 4; N. C. Const. ar t . I I , 3, 5; 2

U. S. C. 2a, 2c.

Redi st r i ct i ng l egi sl at i on must compl y wi t h t he Vot i ng

Ri ght s Act of 1965 ( VRA) . The Vot i ng Ri ght s Act was desi gned

by Congr ess t o bani sh t he bl i ght of r aci al di scr i mi nat i on i n

vot i ng . . . . Sout h Car ol i na v. Kat zenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 308

( 1966) , abr ogat ed by Shel by Cnt y. , Al a. v. Hol der , 133 S. Ct .

2612 ( 2013) . Enact ed pur suant t o Congr ess s enf orcement powers

under t he Fi f t eent h Amendment , see Shel by Cnt y. , 133 S. Ct . at

261921, t he VRA pr ohi bi t s st at es f r om adopt i ng pl ans t hat woul d

r esul t i n vot e di l ut i on under sect i on 2, 52 U. S. C. 10301, or

i n cover ed j ur i sdi ct i ons, r et r ogr essi on under sect i on 5, 52

U. S. C. 10304.



6/100

6

Sect i on 2( a) of t he VRA pr ohi bi t s t he i mposi t i on of any

el ect or al pr act i ce or pr ocedur e t hat r esul t s i n a deni al or

abr i dgement of t he r i ght of any ci t i zen . . . t o vot e on account

of r ace or col or . 52 U. S. C. 10301( a) . A sect i on 2 vi ol at i on

occur s when, based on t he tot al i t y of ci r cumst ances, t he

pol i t i cal pr ocess r esul t s i n mi nor i t y member s hav[ i ng] l ess

oppor t uni t y t han ot her member s of t he el ect or at e to par t i ci pat e

i n t he pol i t i cal pr ocess and t o el ect r epr esent at i ves of t hei r

choi ce. I d. 10301( b) .

Sect i on 5 of t he VRA pr ohi bi t s a st at e or pol i t i cal

subdi vi si on subj ect t o sect i on 4 of t he VRA f r om enf or ci ng any

vot i ng qual i f i cat i on or pr er equi si t e t o vot i ng, or st andar d,

pr act i ce, or pr ocedur e wi t h r espect t o vot i ng di f f er ent f r om

t hat i n f or ce or ef f ect on November 1, 1964, unl ess i t has

obt ai ned a decl ar at or y j udgment f r om t he Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he

Di st r i ct of Col umbi a t hat such change does not have t he pur pose

and wi l l not have t he ef f ect of denyi ng or abr i dgi ng t he r i ght

t o vot e on account of r ace or col or or has submi t t ed t he

pr oposed change t o t he U. S. at t orney general and t he at t orney

gener al has not obj ect ed t o i t . Beer v. Uni t ed St at es, 425 U. S.

130, 131- 32 ( 1976) . By r equi r i ng t hat pr oposed changes be

appr oved i n advance, Congr ess sought t o shi f t t he advant age of

t i me and i ner t i a f r om t he per pet r at or s of t he evi l t o i t s

vi ct i m, by f r eezi ng el ect i on pr ocedur es i n t he cover ed ar eas



7/100

7

unl ess t he changes can be shown t o be nondi scr i mi nator y. I d.

at 140 ( quot i ng H. R. Rep. No. 94196, pp. 5758 ( 1970) ) . The

pur pose of t hi s appr oach was t o ensure t hat no vot i ng- pr ocedur e

changes woul d be made t hat woul d l ead to a r et r ogr essi on i n the

posi t i on of r aci al mi nor i t i es wi t h r espect t o t hei r ef f ecti ve

exer ci se of t he el ector al f r anchi se. Hol der v. Hal l , 512 U. S.

874, 883 ( 1994) . Sect i on 5, t her ef or e, pr ohi bi t s a cover ed

j ur i sdi ct i on f r om adopt i ng any change t hat has t he pur pose of

or wi l l have t he ef f ect of di mi ni shi ng t he abi l i t y of [ t he

mi nor i t y gr oup] . . . t o el ect t hei r pr ef er r ed candi dat es of

choi ce. 52 U. S. C. 10304( b) .

I n November 1964, sever al count i es i n Nort h Carol i na met

t he cri t er i a t o be cl assi f i ed as a cover ed j ur i sdi ct i on under

sect i on 5. See i d. 1030310304. As such, Nor t h Car ol i na was

r equi r ed t o submi t any changes t o i t s el ect i on or vot i ng l aws t o

t he U. S. Depar t ment of J ust i ce ( DOJ ) f or f eder al pr eappr oval ,

a pr ocess cal l ed pr ecl ear ance. See i d. 10304( a) . To obt ai n

pr ecl ear ance, Nort h Carol i na had t o demonst r ate t hat a pr oposed

change had nei t her t he pur pose nor ef f ect of denyi ng or

abr i dgi ng t he r i ght t o vot e on account of r ace or col or . I d.

The l egal l andscape changed dramat i cal l y i n 2012, when t he

Supr eme Cour t hel d unconst i t ut i onal t he coverage f ormul a used t o

det er mi ne whi ch st at es ar e subj ect t o t he sect i on 5 pr ecl ear ance

r equi r ement . See Shel by Cnt y. , 133 S. Ct . at 2612. As a r esul t



8/100

8

of t he i nval i dat i on of t he cover age f or mul a under sect i on 4,

Nor t h Car ol i na i s no l onger obl i gat ed t o compl y wi t h t he

pr ecl ear ance r equi r ement s of sect i on 5. 1 See i d. at 2631.

B.

For decades, Af r i can- Amer i cans enj oyed t r emendous success

i n el ect i ng t hei r pr ef er r ed candi dat es i n f or mer ver si ons of CD

1 and CD 12 r egar dl ess of whet her t hose di st r i ct s cont ai ned a

maj or i t y bl ack vot i ng age popul at i on ( BVAP) t hat i s t he

per cent age of per sons of vot i ng age who i dent i f y as Af r i can

Amer i can.

The gener al assembl y f i r st drew CD 1 i n an i t er at i on of i t s

pr esent f or m i n 1992. Pl s. Ex. 64. Bet ween 1997 and 2011, t he

BVAP f el l bel ow 50 percent . The BVAP st ood at 46. 54 percent ,

f or exampl e, f or t he pl an i n pl ace f r om 1997 t o 2001. Pl s. Ex.

110. Af t er t he 2000 census, t he general assembl y enacted t he

2001 Congr essi onal Redi st r i ct i ng Pl an ( now r ef er r ed t o as t he

benchmar k or benchmark pl an) t hat r edr ew CD 1, modest l y

i ncr easi ng t he BVAP t o 47. 76 per cent . Pl s. Ex. 111.

The BVAP of f or mer CD 12 mi r r or ed t hat of f or mer CD 1.

I ni t i al l y i n 1991, t o compl y wi t h t he DOJ s t hen- exi st i ng

maxi mi zat i on pol i cy r equi r i ng maj or i t y- mi nor i t y di st r i ct s

1 Not hi ng i n Shel by Count y af f ect s t he cont i nued val i di t y orappl i cabi l i t y of sect i on 2 t o Nor t h Car ol i na. 133 S. Ct . at2619. And bot h sect i ons 2 and 5 wer e st i l l i n f ul l ef f ect whent he l egi sl at i on i n t hi s case was enact ed.



9/100

9

wher ever possi bl e CD 12 was dr awn wi t h a BVAP gr eat er t han 50

per cent . Pl s. Ex. 72. Af t er year s of l i t i gat i on and t he U. S.

Supr eme Cour t s r epudi at i on of t he maxi mi zat i on pol i cy, see

Mi l l er , 515 U. S. at 92124, t he gener al assembl y redr ew t he

di st r i ct i n 1997 wi t h a BVAP of 32. 56 per cent . Pl s. Ex. 110.

The gener al assembl y t hus det er mi ned t hat t he VRA di d not

r equi r e dr awi ng CD 12 as a maj or i t y Af r i can- Amer i can di st r i ct .

See Cr omart i e v. Hunt , 133 F. Supp. 2d 407, 413 ( E. D. N. C. 2000)

( Di st r i ct 12 [ was] not a maj or i t y- mi nor i t y di st r i ct ) . The

2001 benchmark versi on of CD 12 r ef l ect ed a BVAP of 42. 31

per cent . Pl s. Ex. 111.

Despi t e t he f act t hat Af r i can- Amer i cans di d not make up a

maj or i t y of t he vot i ng- age popul at i on i n t hese ear l i er ver si ons

of CD 1 or CD 12, Af r i can- Amer i can pr ef er r ed candi dat es easi l y

and r epeat edl y won r eel ect i on under t hose pl ans. Repr esent at i ve

Eva Cl ayton pr evai l ed i n CD 1 i n 1998 and 2000, f or i nst ance,

wi nni ng 62 per cent and 66 per cent of t he vot e, r espect i vel y.

Pl s. Ex. 112. I ndeed, Af r i can- Amer i can pr ef er r ed candi dat es

pr evai l ed wi t h r emar kabl e consi st ency, wi nni ng at l east 59

per cent of t he vot e i n each of t he f i ve gener al el ect i ons under

t he ver si on of CD 1 cr eat ed i n 2001. I d. Repr esent at i ve G. K.

But t er f i el d has r epr esent ed t hat di st r i ct si nce 2004. I d.

Meanwhi l e, i n CD 12, Congressman Mel Wat t won every gener al

el ect i on i n CD 12 bet ween 1992 and 2012. I d. He never r ecei ved



10/100

10

l ess t han 55. 95 per cent of t he vot e, gat her i ng at l east 64

per cent i n each el ect i on under t he ver si on of CD 12 i n ef f ect

dur i ng t he 2000s. I d.

No l awsui t was ever f i l ed t o chal l enge t he benchmark 2001

ver si on of CD 1 or CD 12 on VRA gr ounds. Tr i al Tr . 46: 2- 7,

47: 4- 7 ( Bl ue) .

C.

Fol l owi ng t he census conduct ed Apr i l 1, 2010, l eader s of

t he Nort h Carol i na House of Repr esent at i ves and Senate

i ndependent l y appoi nt ed r edi st r i ct i ng commi t t ees. Each

commi t t ee was r esponsi bl e f or r ecommendi ng a pl an appl i cabl e t o

i t s own chamber, whi l e t he two commi t t ees j oi nt l y were charged

wi t h pr epar i ng a r edi st r i ct i ng pl an f or t he U. S. House of

Repr esent at i ves Nor t h Car ol i na di st r i ct s. Senat or Rucho and

Repr esent at i ve Lewi s were appoi nt ed chai r s of t he Senate and

House Redi st r i ct i ng Commi t t ees, r espect i vel y, on J anuar y 27 and

Febr uar y 15, 2011. Par t i es J oi nt Act ual St i pul at i on, ECF No.

125 3.

Senator Rucho and Repr esent at i ve Lewi s were r esponsi bl e f or

devel opi ng a pr oposed congr essi onal map. I d. I n Repr esent at i ve

Lewi s s wor ds, he and Senat or Rucho wer e i nt i mat el y i nvol ved

i n t he craf t i ng of t hese maps. Pl s. Ex. 136 at 17: 2124 ( J oi nt

Commi t t ee Meet i ng J ul y 21, 2011) .



11/100

11

Senator Rucho and Repr esent at i ve Lewi s engaged pr i vat e

r edi st r i cti ng counsel and a pol i t i cal consul t ant . Speci f i cal l y,

Senat or Rucho and Repr esent at i ve Lewi s engaged the l aw f i r m of

Ogl et r ee, Deaki ns, Nash, Smoak & St ewar t , P. C. ( Ogl et r ee) as

t hei r pr i vat e r edi st r i ct i ng counsel . I n December 2010, Ogl et r ee

engaged Dr . Thomas Hof el l er , who served as r edi st r i ct i ng

coor di nat or f or t he Republ i can Nat i onal Commi t t ee f or t he 1990,

2000, and 2010 r edi st r i ct i ng cycl es, t o desi gn and dr aw t he 2011

Congr essi onal Redi st r i ct i ng Pl an under t he di r ect i on of Senat or

Rucho and Repr esent at i ve Lewi s. Tr i al Tr . 577: 1- 23; 587: 14- 25;

588: 1- 2 ( Hof el l er ) . Dr . Hof el l er was t he pr i nci pal ar chi t ect

of t he 2011 Congr essi onal Redi st r i ct i ng Pl an ( as wel l as t he

st at e senat e and house pl ans) . I d. 586: 13- 15.

Senator Rucho and Repr esent at i ve Lewi s were t he sol e

sour ces of i nst r uct i on f or Dr . Hof el l er r egar di ng t he desi gn and

const r uct i on of congr essi onal maps. See Tr i al Tr . 589: 3- 19

( Hof el l er ) . Al l such i nst r uct i ons wer e pr ovi ded t o Dr . Hof el l er

or al l y t her e i s no wr i t t en r ecor d of t he pr eci se i nst r uct i ons

Senat or Rucho and Repr esent at i ve Lewi s gave t o Dr . Hof el l er .

I d. at 589: 14- 590: 10. Dr . Hof el l er never r ecei ved i nst r uct i ons

f r om any l egi sl at or ot her t han Senat or Rucho and Repr esent at i ve

Lewi s, never conf er r ed wi t h Congr essmen But t er f i el d or Wat t , and

never conf er r ed wi t h t he Legi sl at i ve Bl ack Caucus ( or any of i t s

i ndi vi dual member s) wi t h r espect t o the pr epar at i on of t he



12/100

12

congr essi onal maps. Tr i al Tr . 48: 23- 25; 49: 1- 5 ( Bl ue) ; 588: 3-

589: 13 ( Hof el l er ) . Repr esent at i ve Lewi s di d not make Dr .

Hof el l er avai l abl e t o answer quest i ons f or t he member s of t he

Nor t h Car ol i na Senat e and House Redi st r i ct i ng Commi t t ees. Pl s.

Ex. 136 at 23: 3- 26: 3 ( J oi nt Commi t t ee Meet i ng J ul y 21, 2011) .

Thr oughout J une and J ul y 2011, Senat or Rucho and

Repr esent at i ve Lewi s r el eased a ser i es of publ i c st at ement s

descr i bi ng, among ot her t hi ngs, t he cr i t er i a t hat t hey had

i nst r uct ed Dr . Hof el l er t o f ol l ow i n dr awi ng t he pr oposed

congr essi onal map. As Senat or Rucho expl ai ned at t he J ul y 21,

2011, j oi nt meet i ng of t he Senat e and House Redi st r i ct i ng

Commi t t ees, t hose st at ement s cl ear l y del i neat ed t he ent i r e

cr i t er i a t hat wer e est abl i shed and what ar eas we wer e l ooki ng

at t hat wer e goi ng t o be i n compl i ance wi t h what t he J ust i ce

Depar t ment expect ed us t o do as par t of our submi ssi on. I d. at

29: 29.

I n t hei r J une 17, 2011, publ i c st at ement , Senat or Rucho and

Repr esent at i ve Lewi s hi ghl i ght ed one cr i t er i on i n t hei r

redi str i ct i ng pl an:

I n cr eat i ng new maj or i t y Af r i can Amer i can

di str i ct s, we ar e obl i gat ed t o f ol l ow . . .t he deci si ons by t he Nort h Carol i na Supr emeCour t and t he Uni t ed St ates Supr eme Cour t i nSt r i ckl and v. Bar t l et t , 361 N. C. 491 ( 2007) ,af f i r med, Bar t l et t v. St r i ckl and, 129 S. Ct .1231 ( 2009) . Under t he St r i ckl anddeci si ons, di st r i ct s creat ed t o compl y wi t hsect i on 2 of t he Vot i ng Ri ght s Act , must be



13/100

13

cr eat ed wi t h a Bl ack Vot i ng Age Popul at i on( BVAP) , as r epor t ed by t he Census, at t hel evel of at l east 50% pl us one. Thus, i nconst r uct i ng VRA maj or i t y bl ack di st r i ct s,t he Chai r s r ecommend t hat , where possi bl e,

t hese di st r i ct s be dr awn at a l evel equal t oat l east 50% pl us one BVAP.

Def s. Ex. 5. 11 at 2 ( emphasi s added) .

On J ul y 1, 2011, Senator Rucho and Repr esent at i ve Lewi s

made publ i c t hei r f i r st pr oposed congr essi onal pl an, ent i t l ed

Rucho- Lewi s Congr ess, and i ssued a publ i c st at ement . Pl s.

Ex. 67. The pl an was dr awn by Dr . Hof el l er and cont ai ned t wo

maj or i t y- BVAP di st r i ct s, namel y CD 1 and CD 12. Wi t h r egard t o

pr oposed CD 1, Senat or Rucho and Repr esent at i ve Lewi s s t ated

t hat t hey had i ncl uded a pi ece of Wake Count y ( an ur ban count y

i n whi ch t he st at e capi t al , Ral ei gh, i s l ocat ed) because t he

benchmar k CD 1 was under popul at ed by 97, 500 peopl e. Senat or

Rucho and Repr esent at i ve t hen added:

Because Af r i can Amer i cans r epr esent a hi ghpercent age of t he popul at i on added t o t heFi r st Di st r i ct f r om Wake Count y, we haveal so been abl e t o re- est abl i sh Congr essmenBut t er f i el d s di st r i ct as a t r ue maj or i t ybl ack di st r i ct under t he St r i ckl and case.

Pl s . Ex. 67 at 4.

Wi t h r egard to CD 12, Senator Rucho and Repr esent at i ve

Lewi s not ed t hat al t hough t he 2001 benchmark di st r i ct was not a

Sect i on 2 maj or i t y bl ack di st r i ct , t her e i s one count y i n t he

Twel f t h Di st r i ct t hat i s cover ed by Sect i on 5 of t he Vot i ng



14/100

14

Ri ght s Act ( Gui l f or d) . Pl s. Ex. 67 at 5. Ther ef or e,

[ b] ecause of t he pr esence of Gui l f or d Count y i n t he Twel f t h

Di st r i ct , we have dr awn our pr oposed Twel f t h Di st r i ct at a bl ack

vot i ng age l evel t hat i s above t he per cent age of bl ack vot i ng

age popul at i on f ound i n t he cur r ent Twel f t h Di st r i ct . I d.

On J ul y 28, 2011, t he general assembl y enacted t he

congr essi onal and l egi sl at i ve pl ans, whi ch Dr . Hof el l er had

dr awn at t he di r ect i on of Senator Rucho and Repr esent at i ve

Lewi s. ECF No. 125 5; see Sessi on Law 2011- 403 ( J ul y 28,

2011) ( amended by cur at i ve l egi sl at i on, Sessi on Law 2011- 414

( Nov. 7, 2011) ) . The number of maj or i t y- BVAP di st r i ct s i n t he

2011 Congr essi onal Redi st r i ct i ng Pl an i ncr eased f r om zer o t o two

when compared t o t he benchmark 2001 Congr essi onal Redi st r i ct i ng

Pl an. The BVAP i n CD 1 i ncr eased f r om 47. 76 per cent t o 52. 65

per cent , and i n CD 12 the BVAP i ncr eased f r om 43. 77 per cent t o

50. 66 per cent . Pl s. Exs. 106- 107.

Fol l owi ng t he passage of t he 2011 Congr essi onal

Redi st r i ct i ng Pl an, t he gener al assembl y, on Sept ember 2, 2011,

submi t t ed t he pl an t o t he DOJ f or pr ecl ear ance under sect i on 5

of t he VRA. SeePl s. Ex. 74 at 10- 11. On November 1, 2011,

t he DOJ pr ecl ear ed t he 2011 Congr essi onal Redi st r i ct i ng Pl an.



15/100

15

D.

1.

Two set s of pl ai nt i f f s chal l enged t he 2011 Congress i onal

Redi str i ct i ng Pl an i n stat e cour t f or i l l egal r aci al

ger r ymander i ng. See N. C. Conf erence of Br anches of t he NAACP v.

St ate of Nort h Carol i na, Amended Compl ai nt ( 12/ 9/ 11) , ECF No. 44

at Exs. 1- 2; Di ckson v. Rucho, Amended Compl ai nt ( 12/ 12/ 11) , ECF

No. 4 at Exs. 3- 4. A t hr ee- j udge panel consol i dat ed t he t wo

cases.

The st at e cour t hel d a t wo- day bench t r i al on J une 5 and 6,

2013. See Di ckson v. Rucho, J . and Mem. of Op. [ her ei naf t er

St at e Cour t Opi ni on] , ECF No. 30 at Exs. 1- 2. On J ul y 8,

2013, t he cour t i ssued a deci si on denyi ng t he pl ai nt i f f s

pendi ng mot i on f or summary j udgment and ent er i ng j udgment f or

t he def endant s. I d. The cour t acknowl edged t hat t he gener al

assembl y used r ace as t he pr edomi nant f act or i n dr awi ng CD 1.

Nonet hel ess, appl yi ng st r i ct scrut i ny, t he cour t concl uded t hat

Nor t h Car ol i na had a compel l i ng i nt er est i n avoi di ng l i abi l i t y

under t he VRA, and t hat t he di st r i ct s had been nar r owl y t ai l or ed

t o avoi d t hat l i abi l i t y. Wi t h r egar d t o CD 12, t he cour t hel d

t hat r ace was not t he dr i vi ng f act or i n i t s cr eat i on, and

t her ef or e exami ned and uphel d i t under r at i onal - basi s r evi ew.

The st at e cour t pl ai nt i f f s appeal ed, and t he Nor t h Car ol i na

Supr eme Cour t af f i r med t he t r i al cour t s j udgment . Di ckson v.



16/100

16

Rucho, 766 S. E. 2d 238 ( N. C. 2014) . The U. S. Supr eme Cour t ,

however , gr ant ed cer t i or ar i , vacat ed t he deci si on, and r emanded

t he case t o t he Nor t h Car ol i na Supr eme Cour t f or f ur t her

consi der at i on i n l i ght of Al abama Legi sl at i ve Bl ack Caucus v.

Al abama, 135 S. Ct . 1257 ( 2015) . On December 18, 2015, t he

Nor t h Car ol i na Supr eme Cour t r eaf f i r med t he t r i al cour t s

j udgment .

2.

Pl ai nt i f f s Davi d Har r i s and Chr i st i ne Bowser ar e U. S.

ci t i zens r egi st er ed t o vot e i n CD 1 or CD 12, r espect i vel y.

Nei t her was a pl ai nt i f f i n t he stat e- cour t l i t i gat i on.

Pl ai nt i f f s br ought t hi s act i on on Oct ober 24, 2013,

al l egi ng, among ot her t hi ngs, t hat Nor t h Car ol i na used t he VRA s

sect i on 5 pr ecl ear ance requi r ement s as a pr et ext t o pack

Af r i canAmer i can vot er s i nt o Nor t h Car ol i na s Congr essi onal

Di st r i ct s 1 and 12 and r educe t hose vot er s i nf l uence i n ot her

di st r i ct s. Compl . 3, ECF No. 1.

Pl ai nt i f f s sought a decl ar at or y j udgment t hat Nor t h

Car ol i na s Congr essi onal Di st r i ct s 1 and 12, as dr awn i n t he

2011 Congr essi onal Redi st r i ct i ng Pl an, was a r aci al ger r ymander

i n vi ol at i on of t he Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause of t he Four t eent h

Amendment . I d. 1, 6. Pl ai nt i f f s al so sought t o per manent l y

enj oi n t he def endant s f r om gi vi ng ef f ect t o t he boundar i es of

t he Fi r st and Twel f t h Congr essi onal Di st r i ct s, i ncl udi ng bar r i ng



17/100

17

t he def endant s f r om conduct i ng el ect i ons f or t he U. S. House of

Repr esent at i ves based on the 2011- enact ed Fi r st and Twel f t h

Congr essi onal Di st r i cts. I d. at 19.

Because t he pl ai nt i f f s act i on chal l eng[ ed] t he

const i t ut i onal i t y of t he appor t i onment of congr essi onal

di st r i ct s i n Nor t h Car ol i na, 28 U. S. C. 2284( a) , t he chi ef

j udge of t he U. S. Cour t of Appeal s f or t he Four t h Ci r cui t

gr ant ed t he pl ai nt i f f s r equest f or a hear i ng by a t hr ee- j udge

cour t on Oct ober 18, 2013. ECF No. 16

A t hr ee- day bench t r i al began on Oct ober 13, 2015. Af t er

t he bench t r i al , t hi s Cour t or der ed t he par t i es t o f i l e post -

t r i al br i ef s. The case i s now r i pe f or consi der at i on.

I I .

[ A] St at e may not , absent ext r aor di nar y j ust i f i cat i on,

. . . separ at e i t s ci t i zens i nt o di f f er ent vot i ng di str i ct s on

t he basi s of r ace. Mi l l er , 515 U. S. at 911- 12 ( i nt er nal

quot at i ons and ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . A vot i ng di st r i ct i s an

unconst i t ut i onal r aci al ger r ymander when a r edi st r i ct i ng pl an

cannot be under st ood as anythi ng ot her t han an ef f or t t o

separ at e vot er s i nt o di f f er ent di st r i ct s on t he basi s of r ace,

and t hat t he separ at i on l acks suf f i ci ent j ust i f i cat i on. Shaw

I , 509 U. S. at 649.



18/100

18

I n a r aci al ger r ymander case, t he pl ai nt i f f s bur den i s t o

show, ei t her t hr ough ci r cumst ant i al evi dence of a di st r i ct s

shape and demogr aphi cs or more di r ect evi dence goi ng to

l egi sl at i ve pur pose, t hat r ace was t he pr edomi nant f act or

mot i vat i ng t he l egi sl at ur e s deci si on t o pl ace a si gni f i cant

number of vot er s wi t hi n or wi t hout a par t i cul ar di st r i ct .

Mi l l er , 515 U. S. at 916. To make t hi s showi ng, a pl ai nt i f f

must pr ove t hat t he l egi sl at ur e subor di nat ed t r adi t i onal r ace-

neut r al di st r i cti ng pr i nci pl es, i ncl udi ng but not l i mi t ed t o

compact ness, cont i gui t y, and r espect f or pol i t i cal subdi vi si ons

or communi t i es def i ned by act ual shar ed i nt er est s, t o r aci al

consi der at i ons. I d. Publ i c st at ement s, submi ssi ons, and swor n

t est i mony by t he i ndi vi dual s i nvol ved i n t he r edi st r i ct i ng

pr ocess ar e not onl y r el evant but of t en hi ghl y pr obat i ve. See,

e. g. , Bush v. Ver a, 517 U. S. 952, 960- 61 ( 1996) ( exami ni ng t he

st at e s pr ecl earance submi ssi on t o t he DOJ and t he t est i mony of

state of f i ci al s) .

Once pl ai nt i f f s est abl i sh r ace as t he pr edomi nant f act or ,

t he Cour t appl i es st r i ct scr ut i ny, and t he St at e must

demonst r at e t hat i t s di st r i ct i ng l egi sl at i on i s nar r owl y

t ai l or ed t o achi eve a compel l i ng i nt er est . Mi l l er , 515 U. S. at

920. I f r ace di d not pr edomi nat e, t hen onl y r at i onal - basi s

r evi ew appl i es.



19/100

19

For t he r easons t hat f ol l ow, t he Cour t f i nds t hat t he

pl ai nt i f f s have pr esent ed di sposi t i ve di r ect and ci r cumst ant i al

evi dence t hat t he l egi sl at ur e assi gned r ace a pr i or i t y over al l

ot her di st r i ct i ng f act or s i n bot h CD 1 and CD 12. Ther e i s

st r ong evi dence t hat r ace was t he onl y nonnegot i abl e cr i t er i on

and t hat t r adi t i onal r edi st r i ct i ng pr i nci pl es wer e subor di nat ed

t o r ace. I n f act , t he over whel mi ng evi dence i n t hi s case shows

t hat a BVAP- per cent age f l oor , or a r aci al quot a, was est abl i shed

i n both CD 1 and CD 12. And, t hat f l oor coul d not be

compr omi sed. See Shaw I I , 517 U. S. at 907 ( Race was t he

cr i t er i on t hat , i n t he St at e s vi ew, coul d not be compr omi sed;

r espect i ng communi t i es of i nt er est and pr ot ect i ng Democr at i c

i ncumbent s came i nt o pl ay onl y af t er t he race- based deci si on had

been made. ) . A congr essi onal di st r i ct necessar i l y i s craf t ed

because of r ace when a r aci al quot a i s t he si ngl e f i l t er t hr ough

whi ch al l l i ne- dr awi ng deci si ons ar e made, and t r adi t i onal

r edi str i ct i ng pr i nci pl es ar e consi der ed, i f at al l , sol el y

i nsof ar as t hey di d not i nt er f er e wi t h t hi s quot a. I d.

Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t hol ds t hat r ace was t he pr edomi nant

f act or mot i vat i ng t he l egi sl at ur e s deci si on t o pl ace a

si gni f i cant number of vot er s wi t hi n or wi t hout a par t i cul ar

di str i ct . Mi l l er , 515 U. S. at 916.

Because r ace pr edomi nated, t he st ate must demonst r ate that

i t s di st r i cti ng deci si on i s nar r owl y t ai l or ed t o achi eve a



20/100

20

compel l i ng i nt er est . Even i f t he Cour t assumes t hat compl i ance

wi t h t he VRA i s a compel l i ng st at e i nt er est , at t empt s at such

compl i ance cannot j ust i f y r ace- based di st r i ct i ng wher e the

chal l enged di st r i ct was not r easonabl y necessar y under a

const i t ut i onal r eadi ng and appl i cat i on of f eder al l aw. I d. at

921; see al so Bush, 517 U. S. at 977. Thus, nar r ow t ai l or i ng

r equi r es t hat t he l egi sl at ur e have a st r ong basi s i n evi dence

f or i t s r ace- based deci si on, t hat i s, good r easons t o bel i eve

t hat t he chosen r aci al cl assi f i cat i on was r equi r ed t o compl y

wi t h t he VRA. Al abama, 135 S. Ct . at 1274. Evi dence of nar r ow

t ai l or i ng i n t hi s case i s pr acti cal l y nonexi st ent ; t he st at e

does not even pr of f er any evi dence wi t h r espect t o CD 12. Based

on t hi s r ecor d, as expl ai ned bel ow, t he Cour t concl udes t hat

Nor t h Car ol i na s 2011 Congr essi onal Redi st r i ct i ng Pl an was not

nar r owl y t ai l or ed t o achi eve compl i ance wi t h t he VRA, and

t heref ore f ai l s s tr i ct scrut i ny.

A.

As wi t h any l aw t hat di st i ngui shes among i ndi vi dual s on t he

basi s of r ace, equal pr ot ect i on pr i nci pl es gover n a St at e s

dr awi ng of congr essi onal di st r i ct s. Mi l l er , 515 U. S. at 905.

Raci al cl assi f i cat i ons wi t h r espect t o vot i ng car r y par t i cul ar

dangers. Raci al gerr ymander i ng, even f or r emedi al pur poses, may

bal kani ze us i nt o compet i ng r aci al f act i ons; i t t hr eat ens t o

car r y us f ur t her f r om t he goal of a pol i t i cal syst em i n whi ch



21/100

21

r ace no l onger mat t er s . . . . Shaw I , 509 U. S. at 657. As

such, r ace- based di st r i ct i ng by our st at e l egi sl at ur es demands

cl ose j udi ci al scrut i ny. I d.

To t r i gger st r i ct scr ut i ny, t he pl ai nt i f f s f i r st bear t he

bur den of pr ovi ng t hat r ace was not onl y one of sever al f act or s

t hat t he l egi sl at ur e consi der ed i n dr awi ng CD 1 and CD 12, but

t hat r ace predomi nat ed. Bush, 517 U. S. at 963. Under t hi s

pr edomi nance t est , a pl ai nt i f f must show t hat t he l egi sl at ur e

subor di nat ed t r adi t i onal r ace- neut r al di st r i cti ng pr i nci pl es

. . . t o r aci al consi der at i ons. Mi l l er , 515 U. S. at 916; see

al so Al abama, 135 S. Ct . at 1271 ( [ T] he pr edomi nance quest i on

concer ns whi ch vot er s t he l egi sl at ur e deci des t o choose, and

speci f i cal l y whet her t he l egi sl at ur e pr edomi nant l y uses r ace as

opposed t o ot her , t r adi t i onal f act or s when doi ng so. ) . When

a l egi sl at ur e has r el i ed on r ace i n subst ant i al di sr egar d of

cust omar y and t r adi t i onal di st r i ct i ng pr i nci pl es, such

t r adi t i onal pr i nci pl es have been subor di nat ed t o r ace. Mi l l er ,

515 U. S. at 928 ( O Connor , J . , concur r i ng) .

When anal yzi ng t he l egi sl at i ve i nt ent under l yi ng a

r edi st r i ct i ng deci si on, t her e i s a pr esumpt i on of good f ai t h

t hat must be accor ded l egi sl at i ve enact ment s. I d. at 916.

Thi s presumpt i on r equi r es cour t s t o exerci se ext r aordi nar y

caut i on i n adj udi cat i ng cl ai ms t hat a St at e has dr awn di st r i ct

l i nes on t he basi s of r ace. I d. Such r est r ai nt i s



22/100

22

par t i cul ar l y war r ant ed gi ven t he compl ex i nt er pl ay of f or ces

t hat ent er a l egi sl at ur e s redi st r i cti ng cal cul us, i d. at 915

16, maki ng r edi st r i ct i ng possi bl y t he most di f f i cul t t ask a

l egi sl at i ve body ever under t akes, Smi t h v. Beasl ey, 946 F.

Supp. 1174, 1207 ( D. S. C. 1996) . Thi s pr esumpt i on must yi el d,

however , when t he evi dence shows t hat ci t i zens have been

assi gned t o l egi sl at i ve di st r i ct s pr i mar i l y based on t hei r r ace.

See Mi l l er , 515 U. S. at 91516.

1.

CD 1 pr esent s a t ext book exampl e of r aci al pr edomi nance.

Ther e i s an ext r aordi nar y amount of di r ect evi dence

l egi sl at i ve r ecor ds, publ i c st at ement s, i nst r uct i ons t o Dr .

Hof el l er , t he pr i nci pal ar chi t ect of t he 2011 Congr essi onal

Redi st r i ct i ng Pl an, and t est i mony t hat shows a raci al quot a,

or f l oor , of 50- per cent - pl us- one- per son was establ i shed f or CD

1. Because t r adi t i onal di st r i cti ng cri t er i a wer e consi der ed, i f

at al l , sol el y i nsof ar as t hey di d not i nt er f er e wi t h t hi s 50-

per cent - pl us- one- per son mi ni mum f l oor , see Shaw I I , 517 U. S. at

907, t he quot a oper at ed as a f i l t er t hr ough whi ch al l l i ne-

dr awi ng deci si ons had t o pass. As Dr . Hof el l er st at ed,

[ S] omet i mes i t wasn t possi bl e to adher e t o some of t he

t r adi t i onal r edi st r i ct i ng cr i t er i a i n t he cr eat i on of [ CD 1]

because t he mor e i mpor t ant t hi ng was t o . . . f ol l ow t he

i nst r uct i ons t hat I ha[ d] been gi ven by t he two chai r men [ t o



23/100

23

dr aw t he di st r i ct as maj or i t y- BVAP] . Tr i al Tr . 626: 19- 627: 1

( Hof el l er ) ( emphasi s added) . I ndeed. The Cour t t her ef or e f i nds

t hat r ace necessar i l y pr edomi nat es when, as her e, t he

l egi sl at ur e has subor di nat ed t r adi t i onal di st r i cti ng cri t er i a t o

r aci al goal s, such as when r ace i s t he si ngl e i mmut abl e

cr i t er i on and ot her f act or s ar e consi der ed onl y when consi st ent

wi t h t he r aci al obj ect i ve. Bet hune- Hi l l v. Va. St at e Bd. of

El ect i ons, 14- cv- 852, 2015 WL 6440332, at *63 ( Oct . 22, 2015)

( Keenan, J . , di ssent i ng) ( ci t i ng Shaw I I , 517 U. S. at 907) .

a.

The l egi sl at i ve r ecor d i s r epl et e wi t h st at ement s

i ndi cat i ng t hat r ace was t he l egi sl at ur e s par amount concer n i n

dr awi ng CD 1. Dur i ng l egi sl at i ve sessi ons, Senator Rucho and

Repr esent at i ve Lewi s made cl ear t hat CD 1 [ w] as r equi r ed by

Sect i on 2 of t he VRA t o have a BVAP of at l east 50 percent pl us

one per son. See Pl s. Ex. 139 at 8: 19- 9: 6 ( J ul y 25, 2011 Senat e

Test i mony of Rucho) ( CD 1 was r equi r ed by Sect i on 2 of t he VRA

t o cont ai n a maj or i t y BVAP, and must i ncl ude a suf f i ci ent

number of Af r i can- Amer i cans so t hat [ CD 1] can r e- est abl i sh as a

maj or i t y bl ack di st r i ct ) ; i d. 17: 23- 25 ( CD 1 has Sect i on 2

r equi r ement s, and we f ul f i l l t hose r equi r ement s) ; see al so

Pl s. Ex. 140, at 30: 2- 4 ( J ul y 27, 2011 House Test i mony of

Lewi s) ( Repr esent at i ve Lewi s st at i ng that CD 1 was dr awn wi t h

r ace as a consi der at i on, as i s r equi r ed by t he [ VRA] ) ; Tr i al



24/100

24

Tr . 57: 24- 58: 6 ( Bl ue) ( Senat or Bl ue, descr i bi ng conversat i on

wi t h Senator Rucho i n whi ch Senator Rucho expl ai ned hi s

under st andi ng and hi s bel i ef t hat he had t o t ake [ di st r i ct s of

l ess t han 50 percent BVAP] al l beyond 50 percent because

St r i ckl and i nf or med hi m t hat t hat s what he s supposed t o do) ;

Def s. Ex. 100 at 29: 2- 7 ( J ul y 22, 2011, House Commi t t ee Tr .

Lewi s) ( I n or der t o f or ecl ose t he oppor t uni t y f or any Sect i on 2

l awsui t s, and al so f or t he si mpl i ci t y of t hi s conver sat i on, we

el ect ed t o dr aw t he VRA di st r i ct at 50 per cent pl us one

. . . . ) .

b.

The publ i c st at ement s r el eased by Senator Rucho and

Repr esent at i ve Lewi s al so r ef l ect t hei r l egi sl at i ve goal ,

st at i ng t hat , t o compl y wi t h sect i on 2 of t he VRA, CD 1 must be

est abl i shed wi t h a BVAP of 50 per cent pl us one per son. See,

e. g. , Def s. Ex. 5. 11 at 2 ( J une 17, 2011 J oi nt Publ i c

St at ement ) ; Pl s. Ex. 67 at 3- 4 ( J ul y 1, 2011 J oi nt Publ i c

St at ement ) ; Pl s. Ex. 68 at 3 ( J ul y 19, 2011 J oi nt Publ i c

St at ement ) . Fur t her , i n i t s pr ecl ear ance submi ssi on t o t he DOJ ,

Nor t h Car ol i na makes cl ear t hat i t pur posef ul l y set out t o add

a suf f i ci ent number of Af r i can- Amer i can vot er s i n or der t o

dr aw CD 1 at a maj or i t y Af r i can- Amer i can l evel . Pl s. Ex. 74

at 12; see al so i d. at 13 ( Under t he enact ed ver si on of

Di st r i ct 1, t he . . . maj or i t y Af r i can- Amer i can st at us of t he



25/100

25

Di st r i ct i s cor r ect ed by dr awi ng t he Di st r i ct i nt o Dur ham

Count y. ) .

c.

I n l i ght of t hi s si ngul ar l egi sl at i ve goal , Senat or Rucho

and Repr esent at i ve Lewi s, unsur pr i si ngl y, i nst r uct ed Dr .

Hof el l er t o t r eat CD 1 as a vot i ng r i ght s di st r i ct, Tr i al Tr .

478: 25- 479: 11 ( Hof el l er ) , meani ng t hat he was t o dr aw CD 1 t o

exceed 50- percent BVAP. I d. 480: 21- 481: 1 ( My underst andi ng was

I was t o dr aw t hat 1st Di st r i ct wi t h a bl ack vot i ng- age

popul at i on i n excess of 50 per cent because of t he St r i ckl and

case. ) ; see al so i d. 573: 1- 6 ( Dr . Hof el l er s i nst r uct i ons wer e

t o dr aw CD 1 at 50 percent [ BVAP] pl us one person) ; i d. 610: 3-

8 ( [ T] he i nst r uct i on was t o dr aw Di st r i ct 1 wi t h a bl ack VAP

l evel of 50 per cent or mor e. ) ; i d. 615: 15- 21 ( I r ecei ved an

i nst r ucti on t hat sai d . . . t hat Di st r i ct 1 was a vot i ng r i ght s

di st r i ct . ) ; i d. 572: 6- 17 ( [ T] he 1st Di st r i ct was dr awn t o be a

maj or i t y mi nor i t y di st r i ct . ) ; i d. at 615: 2021 ( [ B] ecause of

t he Vot i ng Ri ght s Act , [ CD 1] was t o be dr awn at 50 percent

pl us. ) ; i d. 620: 5- 11 ( Once agai n, my i nst r uct i ons f r om t he

chai r man of t he two commi t t ees was because of t he Vot i ng Ri ght s

Act and because of t he St r i ckl and deci si on t hat t he di st r i ct had

t o be dr awn at above 50 per cent . ) ; i d. 620: 17- 20 ( agr eei ng t hat

hi s expr ess i nst r uct i on was t o dr aw CD 1 as 50 per cent bl ack

vot i ng- age popul at i on pl us one) .



26/100

26

The Cour t i s sensi t i ve t o t he f act t hat CD 1 was

under popul at ed; i t i s not i n di sput e that CD 1 was

underpopul ated by 97, 500 peopl e and t hat t here were ef f ort s t o

cr eat e di st r i ct s wi t h appr oxi mat el y equal popul at i on. Whi l e

equal popul at i on obj ect i ves may of t en pr ove pr edomi nant i n

t he or di nary sense of t hat wor d, t he quest i on of whet her r ace

pr edomi nat ed over t r adi t i onal r aced- neut r al r edi st r i ct i ng

pr i nci pl es i s a speci al i nqui r y: I t i s not about whet her a

l egi sl at ur e bel i eves t hat t he need f or equal popul at i on t akes

ul t i mat e pr i or i t y, but r at her whet her t he l egi sl at ur e pl aced

r ace above nonr aci al consi der at i ons i n det er mi ni ng whi ch vot er s

t o al l ocat e t o cer t ai n di st r i ct s i n or der t o achi eve an equal

popul at i on goal . Al abama, 135 S. Ct . at 1270- 71.

To accompl i sh equal popul at i on, Dr . Hof el l er i ntent i onal l y

i ncl uded hi gh concent r at i ons of Af r i can- Amer i can vot er s i n CD 1

and excl uded l ess heavi l y Af r i can- Amer i can ar eas f r om t he

di st r i ct . Dur i ng cross- exami nat i on, Dr . Hof el l er , i n r esponse

t o why he moved i nto CD 1 a par t of Durham County t hat was t he

heavi l y Af r i can- Amer i can par t of t he count y, st at ed, Wel l , i t

had t o be. Tr i al Tr . 621: 3- 622: 19 ( Hof el l er ) ; see i d. 620: 21-

621: 15; i d. 640: 7- 10; see al so Bush, 517 U. S. at 962 ( These

f i ndi ngs t hat t he St at e subst ant i al l y negl ected t r adi t i onal

di st r i ct i ng cr i t er i a such as compact ness, t hat i t was commi t t ed

f r om t he out set t o creat i ng maj or i t y- mi nor i t y di st r i cts, and



27/100

27

t hat i t mani pul at ed di st r i ct l i nes t o expl oi t unpr ecedent edl y

det ai l ed r aci al dat a t oget her wei gh i n f avor of t he

appl i cat i on of st r i ct scrut i ny. ( emphasi s added) ) .

Dr . Hof el l er , af t er al l , had t o make sur e t hat i n t he end i t

al l adds up cor r ect l y t hat i s, t hat t he net r esul t was a

maj or i t y- BVAP di st r i ct . See Tr i al Tr . 621: 3- 622: 19 ( Hof el l er ) ;

see al so i d. 620: 21- 621: 15; i d. 640: 7- 10.

Dr . Hof el l er cer t ai nl y ma[ de] sur e t hat i n t he end i t

add[ ed] up cor r ect l y. I d. 621: 7. The BVAP subst ant i al l y

i ncr eased f r om 47. 76 per cent , t he BVAP i n CD 1 when t he

benchmark pl an was enact ed, t o 52. 65 percent , t he BVAP under t he

2011 Congr essi onal Pl an an i ncr ease of near l y f i ve per cent age

poi nt s. Pl s. Ex. 69 at 111. And, whi l e Dr . Hof el l er had

di scr et i on, concei vabl y, t o i ncr ease t he BVAP t o as hi gh as he

want ed, he had no di scr et i on t o go bel ow 50- per cent - pl us- one-

per son BVAP. See Tr i al Tr . 621: 13- 622: 19 ( Hof el l er ) . Thi s i s

t he ver y def i ni t i on of a r aci al quot a.

d.

The Supreme Cour t s skept i ci sm of r aci al quot as i s

l ongst andi ng. See gener al l y J . A. Cr oson Co. , 488 U. S. at 469

( mi nor i t y set - asi de pr ogr am f or const r uct i on cont r act s) ; Bakke,

438 U. S. at 265 ( hi gher educat i on admi ssi ons) . The Cour t ,

however , has yet t o deci de whet her use of a r aci al quot a i n a

l egi sl at i ve r edi st r i cti ng pl an or , i n par t i cul ar , use of such a



28/100

28

quota exceedi ng 50 percent , est abl i shes pr edomi nance as a mat t er

of l aw under Mi l l er . 2 See Bush, 517 U. S. at 998 ( Kennedy, J . ,

concur r i ng) ( r eservi ng t he quest i on) . But see League of Uni t ed

Lat i n Am. Ci t i zens v. Per r y, 548 U. S. 399, 517 ( 2006) ( Scal i a,

J . , concur r i ng i n t he j udgment i n par t and di ssent i ng i n par t )

( [ W] hen a l egi sl at ur e i nt ent i onal l y creat es a maj or i t y- mi nor i t y

di st r i ct , r ace i s necessar i l y i t s pr edomi nant mot i vat i on and

str i ct scr ut i ny i s t her ef or e t r i gger ed. ) . 3 The Cour t r ecent l y

has caut i oned agai nst pr i or i t i zi ng mechani cal r aci al t ar get s

above al l ot her di s tr i ct i ng cr i t er i a i n redi str i ct i ng.

Al abama, 135 S. Ct . at 1267, 127273. Al t hough t he Cour t i n

Al abama di d not deci de whether t he use of a raci al quota

exceedi ng 50 per cent , st andi ng al one, can est abl i sh pr edomi nance

as a mat t er of l aw, t he Cour t made cl ear t hat such mechani cal

r aci al t ar get s ar e hi ghl y suspi ci ous. I d. at 1267.

Ther e i s st r ong, per haps overwhel mi ng di r ect evi dence i n

t hi s case t hat t he gener al assembl y pr i or i t i ze[ ed] [ a]

mechani cal r aci al t ar get [ ] above al l ot her di st r i cti ng cri t er i a

i n r edi st r i ct i ng. See i d. at 1267, 127273. I n or der t o

2 Thi s Cour t need not r each t hi s quest i on because ther e i ssubst ant i al di r ect evi dence t hat t r adi t i onal di st r i cti ngcri t er i a wer e consi der ed, i f at al l , sol el y i nsof ar as t hey di dnot i nt er f er e wi t h t hi s 50- per cent - pl us- one- per son quot a.

3 Chi ef J ust i ce Rober t s, J ust i ce Thomas, and J ust i ce Al i t oappear t o agr ee wi t h J ust i ce Scal i a s stat ement . I d.



29/100

29

achi eve t he goal of dr awi ng CD 1 as a maj or i t y- BVAP di st r i ct ,

Dr . Hof el l er not onl y subor di nat ed t r adi t i onal r ace- neut r al

pr i nci pl es but di sr egar ded cer t ai n pr i nci pl es such as r espect

f or pol i t i cal subdi vi si ons and compact ness. See St ephenson v.

Bar t l et t , 562 S. E. 2d 377, 385- 89 ( N. C. 2002) ( r ecogni zi ng t he

i mpor t ance of count i es as pol i t i cal subdi vi si ons of t he St at e of

Nor t h Car ol i na and obser v[ i ng] t hat t he St at e Const i t ut i on s

l i mi t at i ons upon r edi st r i ct i ng and appor t i onment uphol d what t he

Uni t ed St at es Supr eme Cour t has t er med t r adi t i onal di st r i ct i ng

pr i nci pl es . . . such as compact ness, cont i gui t y, and r espect

f or pol i t i cal subdi vi si ons ( quot i ng Shaw I , 509 U. S. at 647) ) .

Dr . Hof el l er t est i f i ed t hat he woul d spl i t count i es and

pr eci nct s when necessar y t o achi eve a 50- per cent - pl us- one- per son

BVAP i n CD 1. Tr i al Tr . 629: 17- 629: 24 ( Hof el l er ) ; see al so

Pl s. Ex. 67 at 7 ( J ul y 1, 2011 J oi nt Publ i c St at ement ) ( Most

of our pr eci nct di vi si ons wer e pr ompt ed by the cr eat i on of

Congr essman But t er f i el d s maj or i t y bl ack Fi r st Congr essi onal

Di st r i ct. ) . Dr . Hof el l er f ur t her t est i f i ed t hat he di d not use

mathemat i cal measures of compact ness i n dr awi ng CD 1. Pl s. Ex.

129 ( Hof el l er Dep. 44: 19- 45: 12) . Had he done so, Dr . Hof el l er

woul d have seen t hat t he 2011 Congr essi onal Redi st r i ct i ng Pl an

r educed t he compact ness of CD 1 si gni f i cant l y. Pl s. Ex. 17,

Tabl e 1; see al so Tr i al Tr . 689: 22- 690: 1- 11 ( Ansol abeher e) .



30/100

30

Appar ent l y seei ng t he wr i t i ng on t he wal l , t he def endant s

make the passi ng argument t hat t he l egi sl atur e conf i gur ed CD 1

t o pr ot ect t he i ncumbent and f or par t i san advant age. 4 Def s.

Fi ndi ngs of Fact , ECF No. 138 at 74. The def endant s, however ,

pr of f er no evi dence t o suppor t such a cont ent i on. I d. Ther e i s

nothi ng i n t he recor d t hat r emotel y suggest s CD 1 was a

pol i t i cal ger r ymander , or t hat CD 1 was drawn based on pol i t i cal

dat a. Compar e Tr i al Tr . 479: 4- 479: 22 ( Hof el l er ) ( Congr essi onal

Di st r i ct 1 was consi der ed by the chai r s t o be a vot i ng r i ght s

di st r i ct . . . so i t had t o be dr awn i n accor dance wi t h t he f act

t hat i t needed to be passed t hr ough . . . Sect i on 2 and al so

Sect i on 5. ) ; wi t h i d. ( [ M] y i nst r uct i ons f r om t he t wo chai r men

wer e t o t r eat t he 12t h Di st r i ct as . . . a pol i t i cal

[ di st r i ct] . ) . I t cannot ser i ousl y be di sput ed t hat t he

pr edomi nant f ocus of vi r t ual l y ever y st at ement made, i nst r uct i on

gi ven, and act i on t aken i n connect i on wi t h t he r edi st r i ct i ng

ef f or t was t o dr aw CD 1 wi t h a BVAP of 50 percent pl us one

per son t o compl y wi t h t he VRA. See, e. g. , Tr i al Tr . 479: 4-

479: 22 ( Hof el l er ) .

4 The def endant s have suggest ed t hat CD 1 s conf i gur at i onwas necessar y t o add vot er s t o t he di st r i ct t o equal i zepopul at i on. Def s. Fi ndi ngs of Fact , ECF No. 138 at 74. Asdi scussed ear l i er , Al abama squar el y f or ecl oses t hi s argument asa mat t er of l aw, hol di ng t hat an equal popul at i on goal i s notone f actor among others t o be wei ghed agai nst t he use of r ace t odetermi ne whether r ace pr edomi nates. 135 S. Ct . at 1270.



31/100

31

e.

Even i f t he Cour t assumes, ar guendo, t hat t hi s i s a mi xed-

mot i ve sui t - i n whi ch a st at e s conceded goal of pr oduc[ i ng]

maj or i t y- mi nor i t y di st r i ct s i s accompani ed by ot her goal s,

par t i cul ar l y i ncumbency pr ot ect i on - r ace can be t he

pr edomi nant f act or i n t he dr awi ng of a di st r i ct wi t hout t he

di st r i ct i ng r evi si ons bei ng pur el y r ace- based. Bush, 517 U. S.

at 959 ( emphasi s omi t t ed) . I ndeed, t he Supr eme Cour t has

obser ved t hat par t i san pol i t i cki ng may of t en pl ay a r ol e i n a

st at e s r edi st r i cti ng pr ocess, but t he f act [ t ] hat t he

l egi sl at ur e addr essed t hese i nt er est s [ need] not i n any way

r ef ut e t he f act t hat r ace was t he l egi sl at ur e s pr edomi nant

consi der at i on. Shaw I I , 517 U. S. at 907; see al so Al abama, 135

S. Ct . at 1271 ( r emandi ng t o t r i al cour t t o det er mi ne whet her

r ace pr edomi nated even t hough pr eser vi ng the cor e of t he

exi st i ng di st r i ct , f ol l owi ng count y l i nes, and f ol l owi ng hi ghway

l i nes pl ayed an i mpor t ant boundar y- dr awi ng r ol e) ; Bush, 517

U. S. at 962 ( f i ndi ng pr edomi nant r aci al pur pose wher e st at e

negl ect ed t r adi t i onal di st r i ct i ng cr i t er i a such as compact ness,

commi t t ed i t sel f t o creat i ng maj or i t y- mi nor i t y di st r i ct s, and

mani pul at ed di st r i ct l i nes based on r aci al dat a) ; Cl ar k v.

Put nam Cnt y. , 293 F. 3d 1261, 1270 ( 11t h Ci r . 2002) ( [ The] f act

t hat ot her consi der at i ons may have pl ayed a r ol e i n . . .

r edi st r i ct i ng does not mean t hat r ace di d not pr edomi nat e. ) .



32/100

32

As t he Supr eme Cour t has expl ai ned, t r adi t i onal f act or s

have been subor di nat ed to race when [ r ] ace was t he cr i t er i on

t hat , i n t he St ate s vi ew, coul d not be compr omi sed, and when

t r adi t i onal , r ace- neut r al cri t er i a wer e consi der ed onl y af t er

t he r ace- based deci si on had been made. Shaw I I , 517 U. S. at

907. When a l egi sl at ur e has r el i ed on r ace i n subst ant i al

di sr egar d of cust omar y and t r adi t i onal di st r i ct i ng pr act i ces,

such t r adi t i onal pr i nci pl es have been subor di nat ed t o r ace.

Mi l l er , 515 U. S. at 928 ( O Connor , J . , concur r i ng) . Her e, t he

r ecor d i s unequi vocal l y cl ear : t he gener al assembl y r el i ed on

r ace t he onl y cr i t er i on t hat coul d not be compr omi sed i n

substant i al di sregar d of t r adi t i onal di str i ct i ng pr i nci pl es.

See, e. g. , Tr i al Tr . 626: 19- 627: 1 ( Hof el l er ) .

Mor eover , because t r adi t i onal di st r i ct i ng cri t er i a wer e

consi der ed, i f at al l , sol el y i nsof ar as t hey di d not i nt er f er e

wi t h t hi s 50- per cent - pl us- one- per son mi ni mum f l oor , see Shaw I I ,

517 U. S. at 907, t he quot a oper at ed as a f i l t er t hr ough whi ch

al l l i ne- dr awi ng deci si ons had t o pass. Such a r aci al f i l t er

had a di scr i mi nat or y ef f ect on t he conf i gur at i on of CD 1 because

i t r ender ed al l t r adi t i onal cr i t er i a t hat ot her wi se woul d have

been r ace- neut r al t ai nt ed by and subor di nat ed t o r ace. I d.

For t hese r easons, t he Cour t hol ds t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s have

est abl i shed t hat r ace pr edomi nat ed i n t he l egi sl at i ve dr awi ng of



33/100

33

CD 1, and t he Cour t wi l l appl y st r i ct scr ut i ny i n exami ni ng t he

const i t ut i onal i t y of CD 1.

2.

CD 12 pr esent s a sl i ght l y more compl ex anal ysi s t han CD 1

as t o whet her r ace pr edomi nat ed i n r edi st r i ct i ng. Def endant s

cont end t hat CD 12 i s a pur el y pol i t i cal di st r i ct and t hat r ace

was not a f act or even consi der ed i n r edi st r i ct i ng.

Never t hel ess, di r ect evi dence i ndi cat i ng raci al pr edomi nance

combi ned wi t h t he t r adi t i onal r edi st r i ct i ng f act or s compl et e

i nabi l i t y t o expl ai n t he composi t i on of t he new di st r i ct r ebut

t hi s cont ent i on and l eads t he Cour t t o concl ude t hat r ace di d

i ndeed pr edomi nate i n CD 12.

a.

Whi l e not as r obust as i n CD 1, t her e i s never t hel ess

di r ect evi dence suppor t i ng t he concl usi on t hat r ace was t he

pr edomi nant f act or i n dr awi ng CD 12. Publ i c st at ement s r el eased

by Senat or Rucho and Repr esent at i ve Lewi s r ef l ect t hi s

l egi sl at i ve goal . I n t hei r J une 17, 2011, st at ement , f or

exampl e, Senator Rucho and Repr esent at i ve Lewi s pr ovi de,

I n cr eat i ng new maj or i t y Af r i can Amer i can

di str i ct s, we ar e obl i gat ed t o f ol l ow . . .t he deci si ons by t he Nort h Carol i na Supr emeCour t and the Uni t ed St ates Supr eme Cour t. . . . Under t he[ se] deci s i ons, di str i ct scr eat ed t o compl y wi t h sect i on 2 of t heVot i ng Ri ght s Act , must be creat ed wi t h aBl ack Vot i ng Age Popul at i on ( BVAP) , asr epor t ed by t he Census, at t he l evel of at



34/100

34

l east 50% pl us one. Thus, i n const r uct i ngVRA maj or i t y bl ack di st r i ct s, t he Chai r sr ecommend t hat , where possi bl e, t hesedi st r i ct s be dr awn at a l evel equal t o atl east 50% pl us one BVAP.

Def s. Ex. 5. 11 at 2 ( emphasi s added) . Thi s st at ement descr i bes

not onl y t he new CD 1, as expl ai ned above, but cl ear l y r ef er s t o

mul t i pl e di st r i ct s t hat ar e now maj or i t y mi nor i t y. Thi s i s

consi st ent wi t h t he changes t o t he congr essi onal map f ol l owi ng

r edi st r i ct i ng: t he number of maj or i t y- BVAP di st r i ct s i n t he

2011 pl an, compared t o t he benchmark 2001 pl an, i ncr eased f r om

zer o t o t wo, namel y CD 1 and CD 12. Tr . 59: 25- 60: 6 ( Bl ue) . The

Cour t cannot concl ude that t hi s st at ement was t he resul t of

happenst ance, a mer e sl i p of t he pen. I nst ead, t hi s st at ement

suppor t s t he cont ent i on t hat r ace pr edomi nat ed.

The publ i c st at ement i ssued J ul y 1, 2011, f ur t her suppor t s

t hi s obj ect i ve. Ther e, Senat or Rucho and Repr esent at i ve Lewi s

st at ed, Because of t he pr esence of Gui l f or d Count y i n t he

Twel f t h Di st r i ct [ whi ch i s cover ed by sect i on 5 of t he VRA] , we

have dr awn our pr oposed Twel f t h Di st r i ct at a bl ack vot i ng age

l evel t hat i s above t he per cent age of bl ack vot i ng age

popul at i on f ound i n t he cur r ent Twel f t h Di st r i ct . Pl s. Tr .

Ex. 67 at 5 ( emphasi s added) . As expl ai ned, sect i on 5 was

i nt ended t o pr event r et r ogr essi on; t o ensur e that such r esul t

was achi eved, any change was t o be pr ecl ear ed so t hat i t di d

not have the pur pose and [ woul d] not have the ef f ect of denyi ng



35/100

35

or abr i dgi ng t he r i ght t o vot e on account of r ace or col or .

Beer , 425 U. S. at 131- 33. Despi t e t he f act t hat not hi ng i n

sect i on 5 r equi r ed t he creat i on of a maj or i t y- mi nor i t y di st r i ct

i n CD 12, 5 t hi s st at ement i ndi cat es t hat i t was t he i nt ent i on i n

r edi st r i ct i ng t o cr eat e such a di st r i ct i t was dr awn at a hi gher

BVAP t han t he pr evi ous ver si on. Thi s st at ement does not si mpl y

show[ ] t hat t he l egi sl at ur e consi der ed r ace, al ong wi t h ot her

par t i san and geogr aphi c consi der at i ons, Cr omar t i e I I , 532 U. S.

at 253; i nst ead, r eadi ng t he t ext i n i t s ordi nar y meani ng, t he

st at ement evi nces a l evel of i nt ent i onal i t y i n t he deci si ons

r egar di ng r ace. The Cour t wi l l agai n decl i ne t o concl ude t hat

i t was pur el y coi nci dent al t hat t he di st r i ct was now maj or i t y

BVAP af t er i t was dr awn.

Fol l owi ng t he r at i f i cat i on of t he r evi sed r edi st r i cti ng

pl an, t he Nor t h Car ol i na Gener al Assembl y and at t or ney gener al

submi t t ed t he pl an t o t he DOJ f or pr ecl ear ance under sect i on 5.

Pl s. Ex. 74. The submi ssi on expl ai ns,

One of t he concer ns of t he Redi st r i ct i ngChai r s was t hat i n 1992, t he J ust i ceDepar t ment had obj ect ed t o t he 1991Congr essi onal Pl an because of a f ai l ur e byt he st at e to cr eat e a second maj or i t y

mi nor i t y di st r i ct combi ni ng t he Af r i can-Amer i can communi t y i n Meckl enbur g Countywi t h Af r i can- Amer i can and Nat i ve Amer i canvot er s r esi di ng i n sout h cent r al andsout heast er n Nor t h Car ol i na.

5 See i nf ra Part I I . B.



36/100

36

I d. at 14. The submi ssi on f ur t her expl ai ns t hat Congr essman

Wat t di d not bel i eve t hat Af r i can- Amer i can vot er s i n Meckl enbur g

Count y wer e pol i t i cal l y cohesi ve wi t h Nat i ve Amer i can vot er s i n

sout heast er n Nor t h Car ol i na. I d. The r edi st r i ct i ng commi t t ee

accor di ngl y dr ew t he new CD 12 based on t hese consi derat i ons,

i d. at 15, i ncl udi ng DOJ s 1992 concer n t hat a new maj or i t y-

mi nor i t y di st r i ct be creat eda concern t hat t he U. S. Supr eme

Cour t handi l y r ej ect ed i n Mi l l er , when i t r epudi at ed t he

maxi mi zat i on pol i cy, see 515 U. S. at 92124. The di scussi on of

CD 12 i n t he DOJ submi ss i on concl udes, Thus, t he 2011 ver si on

mai nt ai ns, and i n f act i ncr eases, t he Af r i can- Amer i can

communi t y s abi l i t y t o el ect t hei r candi dat e of choi ce i n

Di st r i ct 12. Pl s. Ex. 74 at 15. Gi ven t he expr ess concer ns

of t he r edi st r i ct i ng commi t t ee, t he Cour t wi l l not ascr i be t he

r esul t t o mer e coi nci dence and i nst ead f i nds t hat t he submi ssi on

support s r ace pr edomi nance i n t he cr eat i on of CD 12.

b.

I n addi t i on t o t he publ i c st at ement s i ssued, Congr essman

Wat t t est i f i ed at t r i al t hat Senat or Rucho hi msel f t ol d

Congressman Wat t t hat t he goal was t o i ncr ease t he BVAP i n CD 12

t o over 50 per cent . Congr essman Wat t t est i f i ed t hat Senat or

Rucho sai d hi s l eader shi p had t ol d hi m t hat he had t o ramp up

t he mi nor i t y per cent age i n [ t he Twel f t h] Congr essi onal Di st r i ct

up t o over 50 percent t o compl y wi t h t he Vot i ng Ri ght s Law.



37/100

37

Tr i al Tr . 108: 23- 109: 1 ( Wat t ) . Congressman Wat t sensed t hat

Senator Rucho seemed uncomf ort abl e di scussi ng t he subj ect

because hi s l eader shi p had t ol d hi m t hat he was goi ng t o have

t o go out and j ust i f y t hat [ r edi st r i ct i ng goal ] t o t he Af r i can-

Amer i can communi t y. I d. at 109: 2- 3; see al so i d. at 136: 5- 9

( [ H] e t ol d me t hat hi s l eader shi p had t ol d hi m t hat t hey wer e

goi ng t o r amp - - or he must r amp up t hese di st r i ct s t o over 50

per cent Af r i can- Amer i can, bot h t he 1st and t he 12t h, and t hat i t

was goi ng t o be hi s j ob t o go and convi nce the Af r i can- Amer i can

communi t y t hat t hat made sense. ) .

Def endants argue t hat Senat or Rucho never made such

st atement s t o Congr essman Wat t , ci t i ng Senator Rucho and

Congr esswoman Rut h Samuel son s t est i mony i n t he Di ckson t r i al .

Def s. Pr oposed Fi ndi ngs of Fact , ECF No. 138, at 40 ( ci t i ng

Di ckson Tr . 358, 364) . Never t hel ess, af t er submi t t i ng

Congr essman Wat t t o t horough and pr obi ng cr oss- exami nat i on about

t he speci f i cs of t he cont ent and l ocat i on of t hi s conver sat i on,

t he def endant s decl i ned t o cal l Senator Rucho or Congr esswoman

Samuel son t o t est i f y, despi t e bot h bei ng l i st ed as def ense

wi t nesses and bei ng pr esent t hr oughout t he t r i al . The Cour t i s

t hus somewhat cr i ppl ed i n i t s abi l i t y t o assess ei t her Senat or

Rucho or Congr esswoman s Samuel son s cr edi bi l i t y as t o t hei r

cl ai m t hat Senator Rucho never made such st atement s. Based on

i t s abi l i t y to observe f i r st hand Congr essman Wat t and hi s



38/100

38

consi st ent r ecol l ect i on of t he conver sat i on bet ween hi m and

Senat or Rucho, t he Cour t cr edi t s hi s t est i mony and f i nds t hat

Senator Rucho di d i ndeed expl ai n t o Congr essman Wat t t hat t he

l egi sl at ur e s goal was t o r amp up CD 12 s BVAP.

And, make no mi st ake, t he BVAP i n CD 12 was r amped up: t he

BVAP i ncr eased f r om 43. 77 per cent t o 50. 66 per cent . Pl s. Exs.

106- 107. Thi s cor r el at es cl osel y t o t he i ncr ease i n CD 1. Such

a consi st ent and whoppi ng i ncr ease makes i t cl ear t hat t he

gener al assembl y s pr edomi nant i nt ent r egar di ng di st r i ct 12 was

al so r ace.

c.

The shape of a di st r i ct i s al so r el evant t o t he i nqui r y, as

i t may be per suasi ve ci r cumst ant i al evi dence t hat r ace f or i t s

own sake, and not ot her di st r i ct i ng pr i nci pl es, was t he

l egi sl at ur e s domi nant and cont r ol l i ng r at i onal e i n dr awi ng i t s

di st r i ct l i nes. Mi l l er , 515 U. S. at 913. CD 12 i s a

ser pent i ne di st r i ct [ t hat ] has been dubbed t he l east

geogr aphi cal l y compact di st r i ct i n t he Nat i on. Shaw I I , 517

U. S. at 906.

Under t he benchmar k 2001 pl an, CD 12 had a Reock scor e6 of

. 116, t he l owest i n t he st at e by f ar . Pl s. Ex. 17, Exper t

6 The Reock scor e i s a commonl y used measur e of compact nesst hat i s cal cul at ed as t he r at i o of t he ar ea of a di st r i ct t o t hear ea of t he smal l est i nscr i bi ng ci r cl e of a di str i ct . Pl s .



39/100

39

Report of St ephen Ansol abehere, at 22. Under t he new pl an, t he

Reock scor e of CD 12 decreased t o . 071, r emai ni ng t he l owest i n

t he st at e by a good mar gi n. I d. A score of . 071 i s l ow by any

measur e. At t r i al , Dr . Ansol abeher e t est i f i ed t hat a scor e of

. 2 i s one of t he t hr eshol ds t hat [ i s] commonl y use[ d] . . . one

of t he rul es of t humb t o say t hat a di st r i ct i s noncompact .

Tr i al Tr . 354: 8- 13.

Def endant s do not di sagr ee. At t r i al , Dr . Hof el l er

t est i f i ed t hat i n r edr awi ng CD 12, he made t he di st r i ct even

l ess compact . I d. 658: 3- 5; see al so i d. at 528: 1 ( Hof el l er ) ( I

have no quarr el whatsoever wi t h [ Ansol abehere s] Reock

scor es. ) ; i d. at 656: 20- 21 ( Hof el l er ) ( When I cal cul at ed t he

Reock scores, I got t he same scor es he di d. So, obvi ousl y,

we r e i n agr eement . ) . And i mpor t ant l y, Dr . Hof el l er di d not

appl y t he mat hemat i cal measures of compact ness t o see how t he

di st r i ct s wer e hol di ng up as he was dr awi ng t hem. Pl s. Ex.

129 ( Hof el l er Dep. 45: 3- 7) . Never t hel ess, Dr . Hof el l er opi ned

t hat Di st r i ct 12 s compact ness was i n l i ne wi t h f or mer ver si ons

of Di st r i ct 12 and i n l i ne wi t h compact ness as one woul d

under st and i t i n t he cont ext of Nor t h Car ol i na r edi st r i ct i ng

. . . . I d. ( Hof el l er Dep. 45: 20- 23) . Whi l e he di d not r ecal l

Ex. 17, Exper t Repor t of St ephen Ansol abeher e, at 5. As [ t ] heci r cl e i s t he most compact geomet r i c shape, t he Reock score ofa per f ect squar e woul d be t he r at i o of t he ar ea of a squar e t ot he ar ea of i t s i nscr i bi ng ci r cl e, or . 637. I d. n. 1.



40/100

40

any speci f i c i nst r uct i ons as t o compact ness, he was gener al l y

t o make pl ans as compact as possi bl e wi t h t he goal s and

pol i ci es of t he ent i r e pl an, i d. ( Hof el l er Dep. 44: 25- 45: 2)

t hat i s, as t he def endant s cl ai m, t o make t he st at e mor e

f avor abl e to Republ i can i nt er est s, a cont ent i on t o whi ch t he

Cour t now t ur ns.

d.

Def endant s cl ai m t hat pol i t i cs, not r ace, was t he dr i vi ng

f act or behi nd t he r edi st r i ct i ng i n CD 12. The goal , as t he

def endant s por t r ay i t , was t o make CD 12 an even more heavi l y

Democr at i c di st r i ct and make t he sur r oundi ng count i es bet t er f or

Republ i can i nt er est s. Thi s goal woul d not onl y enabl e

Republ i can cont r ol but al so i nsul at e t he pl an f r om chal l enges

such as t he i nst ant one. See Cr omar t i e I I , 532 U. S. at 258;

Cr omar t i e I , 526 U. S. at 551- 52 ( Evi dence t hat bl acks

const i t ut e even a super maj or i t y i n one congr essi onal di st r i ct

whi l e amount i ng t o l ess t han a pl ur al i t y i n a nei ghbor i ng

di str i ct wi l l not , by i t sel f , suf f i ce t o prove t hat a

j ur i sdi ct i on was mot i vat ed by r ace i n drawi ng i t s di st r i ct l i nes

when t he evi dence al so shows a hi gh cor r el at i on between r ace and

par t y pr ef er ence. ) .

Dr . Hof el l er t est i f i ed t o t hi s si ngul ar ai m t i me and agai n

at t r i al : My i nst r uct i ons f r om t he t wo chai r man [ Senat or Rucho

and Congr essman Lewi s] wer e t o t r eat Di st r i ct 12 as a pol i t i cal



41/100

41

di st r i ct and t o dr aw i t usi ng pol i t i cal dat a and t o dr aw i t i n

such a manner t hat i t f avor abl y adj ust ed al l of t he sur r oundi ng

di str i ct s . Tr i al Tr . 495: 12- 15 ( Hof el l er ) ; see al so, e. g. , i d.

479: 20- 22 ( So my i nst r uct i ons f r om t he t wo chai r men wer e t o

t r eat t he 12t h Di st r i ct exact l y as i t has been t r eat ed by t he

Democr at s i n 1997 and 2001 as a pol i t i cal dr aw. ) ; i d. 496: 10-

13, 15- 22 ( I t r eal l y wasn t about - - t ot al l y about t he 12t h

Di st r i ct . I t was about what ef f ect i t was havi ng on t he

sur r oundi ng di st r i ct s. . . . [ T] he 6t h Di st r i ct needed t o be

made bet t er f or Republ i can i nt erest s by havi ng more Democrat i c

vot es r emoved f r om i t , wher eas t he 5t h Di st r i ct had a l i t t l e

more st r engt h i n i t and coul d t ake on some addi t i onal Democrat i c

ar eas i n - - i nt o i t i n For syt h Count y. ) .

Dr . Hof el l er t est i f i ed t hat he compl i ed wi t h Senat or Rucho

and Repr esent at i ve Lewi s s i nst r uct i ons and di d not l ook at r ace

at al l when cr eat i ng t he new di st r i ct s. Usi ng Mapt i t ude, 7 Dr .

Hof el l er pr ovi ded, On the scr een when I was drawi ng the map was

t he Obama/ McCai n race shaded i n accor dance wi t h the t wo- par t y

vot e, whi ch excl uded t he mi nor part y candi dates, and t hat was

t he sol e t hemat i c di spl ay or numer i c di spl ay on the screen

except f or one ot her t hi ng, and t hat was t he popul at i on of t he

pr eci nct because of one per son, one vot e, i d. 526: 3- 8

7 Sof t war e commonl y used i n r edi st r i ct i ng. Tr i al Tr . 343: 14( Ansol abeher e) .



42/100

42

( Hof el l er ) ; see al so i d. at 496: 4- 5 ( [ T] he t hemat i c was based

on t he t wo- part y pr esi dent i al vot e i n 2008 Obama ver sus

McCai n. ) ; i d. at 662: 1- 17 ( st at i ng t hat onl y one set of

el ect i on r esul t s can be on t he scr een at a t i me and t hat t he

onl y r esul t s Dr . Hof el l er had on hi s scr een were the 2008 Obama

el ect i on r esul t s) . Hof el l er t est i f i ed t hat i t was onl y af t er

t he f act t hat he consi dered r ace and what i mpact i t may or may

not have had. I d. at 644: 2445: 1 ( [ W] hen we checked i t , we

f ound out t hat we di d not have an i ssue i n Gui l f or d Count y wi t h

f r act ur i ng t he bl ack communi t y. ) .

Despi t e t he def endant s pr ot est at i ons, t he Cour t i s not

per suaded t hat t he r edi st r i ct i ng was pur el y a pol i t i cal l y dr i ven

af f ai r . Par t s of Dr . Hof el l er s own t est i mony bel i e hi s

asser t i ons t hat he di d not consi der r ace unt i l ever yt hi ng was

sai d and done. At t r i al , he t est i f i ed t hat he was awar e of t he

f act t hat Gui l f or d Count y was a Sect i on 5 count y and t hat he

was i nst r uct ed [ not ] t o use r ace i n any f or m except per haps

wi t h r egar d t o Gui l f or d Count y. I d. at 608: 2324, 644: 12- 13

( emphasi s added) . Dr . Hof el l er al so t est i f i ed i n hi s deposi t i on

t hat r ace was a mor e act i ve consi der at i on: [ I ] n or der t o be

caut i ous and dr aw a pl an t hat woul d pass must er under t he Vot i ng

Ri ght s Act , i t was deci ded t o reuni t e t he bl ack communi t y i n

Gui l f or d Count y i nt o t he Twel f t h. Pl s. Ex. 129 ( Hof el l er Dep.

75: 13- 16) ; see i d. ( Hof el l er Dep. 37: 7- 16) ( [ M] y under st andi ng



43/100

43

of t he i ssue was because Gui l f ord was a Sect i on 5 count y and

because t her e was a subst ant i al Af r i can- Amer i can popul at i on i n

Gui l f or d Count y, t hat i f t he por t i on of t he Af r i can- Amer i can

communi t y was i n t he f ormer Di st r i ct 13 . . . whi ch was a st r ong

Democr at i c di st r i ct was not at t ached t o anot her st r ong

Democr at i c di st r i ct [ and] t hat i t coul d endanger t he pl an and

make a chal l enge to the pl an. ) . 8

Moreover , Senator Rucho and Repr esent at i ve Lewi s t hemsel ves

at t empt ed t o downpl ay t he cl ai m[ ] t hat [ t hey] have engaged i n

ext r eme pol i t i cal ger r ymander i ng. Pl s. Ex. 68 at 1. I n t hei r

j oi nt st at ement publ i shed J ul y 19, 2011, t hey asser t t hat t hese

cl ai ms ar e over bl own and i nconsi st ent wi t h t he f act s. I d.

The press r el ease cont i nues t o expl ai n how Democr at s mai ntai n a

maj or i t y advant age i n t hr ee di st r i ct s and a pl ur al i t y advant age

i n t he t en r emai ni ng di st r i cts. I d. at 2. Thi s publ i cat i on

ser ves t o di scredi t t hei r asser t i ons t hat t hei r sol e f ocus was

t o creat e a st r onger f i el d f or Republ i cans st at ewi de.

That pol i t i cs not r ace was mor e of a post - hoc

r at i onal i zat i on t han an i ni t i al ai m i s al so suppor t ed by a

ser i es of emai l s pr esent ed at t r i al . Wr i t t en by counsel f or

8 Mor eover , Dr . Hof el l er s asser t i on t hat he, t he pr i nci palar chi t ect , consi der ed no raci al dat a when dr awi ng the mapsr i ngs a somewhat hol l ow when he pr evi ousl y served as t he st af fdi r ector t o t he U. S. House Subcommi t t ee on t he Census l eadi ng upt o t he 2000 census. See Def s. Ex. 129, Hof el l er Resume, at 6.



44/100

44

Senat or Rucho and Repr esent at i ve Lewi s dur i ng t he r edi st r i ct i ng,

t he f i r st emai l , dat ed J une 30, 2011, was sent t o Senat or Rucho,

Repr esent at i ve Lewi s, Dr . Hof el l er , and ot her s i nvol ved i n t he

r edi st r i ct i ng ef f or t , pr ovi di ng counsel s t hought s on a dr af t

publ i c st atement by Rucho and Lewi s i n suppor t of pr oposed 2011

Congr essi onal Pl an. See Pl s. Ex. 13. Her e i s my best

ef f or t s t o r ef l ect what I have been t ol d about l egi sl at i ve

i nt ent f or t he congr essi onal pl ans. Pl ease send me your

suggest i ons and I wi l l ci r cul at e a r evi sed ver si on f or f i nal

appr oval by [ Senator Rucho] and [ Repr esent at i ve Lewi s] as soon

as possi bl e t omor r ow mor ni ng, counsel wr ot e. I d. I n r esponse,

Br ent Woodcox, r edi st r i ct i ng counsel f or t he gener al assembl y,

wr ot e, I do t hi nk the r egi st r at i on advant age i s t he best aspect

t o f ocus on t o emphasi ze compet i t i veness. I t pr ovi des t he best

evi dence of pur e part i san compar i son and ser ves i n my est i mat i on

as a st r ong l egal ar gument and easi l y compr ehensi bl e pol i t i cal

t al ki ng poi nt . I d. Unl i ke t he emai l at i ssue i n Cr omar t i e I I ,

whi ch di d not di scuss t he poi nt of t he r ef er ence t o r ace,

Cr omar t i e I I , 532 U. S. at 254, t hi s l anguage i nt i mat es t hat t he

pol i t i cs r at i onal e on whi ch t he def endant s so heavi l y rel y was

mor e of an af t er t hought t han a cl ear obj ect i ve.

Thi s concl usi on i s f ur t her suppor t ed ci r cumst ant i al l y by

t he f i ndi ngs of t he pl ai nt i f f s exper t s, Dr s. Pet er son and

Ansol abeher e. At t r i al , Dr . Pet er son opi ned t hat r ace bet t er



45/100

45

accor d[ ed] wi t h t he boundar

david harris, christine bowser, and samuel love v. patrick mccrory, in his capacity as governor of...

Documents