David Harris, Christine Bowser, and Samuel Love v. Patrick McCrory, in his capacity as Governor of North Carolina, North Carolina State Board of Elections, and Joshua Howard, in his

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

Documents

David Harris, Christine Bowser, and Samuel Love v. Patrick McCrory, in his capacity as Governor of North Carolina, North Carolina State Board of Elections, and Joshua Howard, in his