DOCSLIB.ORG

State of North Carolina in the General Court of Justice County of Wake Superior Court Division 18 Cvs 15292

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
State of North Carolina in the General Court of Justice County of Wake Superior Court Division 18 Cvs 15292 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE COUNTY OF WAKE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 18 CVS 15292 JABARI HOLMES, FRED CULP, DANIEL E. SMITH, BRENDON JADEN PEAY, and PAUL KEARNEY, SR., Plaintiffs, v. TIMOTHY K. MOORE, in his official [PROPOSED] capacity as Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives; JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER PHILLIP E. BERGER, in his official capacity as President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate; DAVID R. LEWIS,1 in his official capacity as Chairman of the House Select Committee on Elections for the 2018 Third Extra Session; RALPH E. HISE, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Election for the 2018 Third Extra Session; THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; and THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, Defendants. 1 David Lewis is no longer a member of the General Assembly. Plaintiffs Jabari Holmes, Fred Culp, Daniel E. Smith, Brendon Jaden Peay, and Paul Kearny Sr. (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Timothy K. Moore, Phillip E. Berger, Ralph E. Hise (“Legislative Defendants”), the State of North Carolina, and the North Carolina State Board of Elections (“State Defendants,” and together with Plaintiffs and Legislative Defendants, the “Parties”) hereby submit this Proposed Joint Pre-Trial Order. I. List of Participating Counsel A. Plaintiffs’ Counsel SOUTHERN COALITION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 1415 W. Highway 54, Suite 101 Durham, NC 27707 Allison J. Riggs State Bar No. 40028 Telephone: 919-323-3909 [email protected] Jeffrey Loperfido State Bar No. 52939 Telephone: 919-323-3380 [email protected] Mitchell Brown State Bar No. 56122 Telephone: 919-323-3380 [email protected] Hilary Harris Klein State Bar No. 53711 Telephone: 919-323-3380 [email protected] PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Andrew J. Ehrlich* Telephone: 212-373-3166 [email protected] David Giller* Telephone: 212-373-3561 [email protected] Amitav Chakraborty* Telephone: 212-373-3242 [email protected] Apeksha Vora* Telephone: 212 373 2706 [email protected] Ryan Rizzuto* Telephone: 212-373-3626 [email protected] PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Jane B. O’Brien* Telephone: 202-223-7327 [email protected] Paul Brachman* Telephone: 202-223-7440 [email protected] Benjamin Symons* Telephone: 202-223-7471 [email protected] Taylor Williams* Telephone: 202-223-7405 [email protected] (* admitted pro hac vice) 2 B. Defendants’ Counsel State Defendants NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Post Office Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602 Olga E. Vysotskaya de Brito Special Deputy Attorney General Telephone: 919-716-0185 Email: [email protected] Paul M. Cox Special Deputy Attorney General Telephone: 919-716-6932 Email: [email protected] Terence Steed Special Deputy Attorney General Telephone: 919-716- 6567 Email: [email protected] Legislative Defendants COOPER & KIRK, P.L.L.C. 1523 New Hampshire Ave. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 David H. Thompson* Telephone: 202-220-9659 [email protected] Nicole J. Moss State Bar No. 31958 Telephone: 202-220-9636 [email protected] Peter A. Patterson* Telephone: 202-220-9670 [email protected] 3 Haley N. Proctor* Telephone: 202-220-9636 [email protected] Joseph Masterman* Telephone: 202-220-9648 [email protected] John W. Tienkin** Telephone: 202-220-9643 [email protected] Nicholas A. Varone** Telephone: 202-220-9665 [email protected] PHELPS DUNBAR LLP 4141 ParkLake Avenue, Suite 530 Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Nathan A. Huff State Bar No. 40626 Telephone: 919-789-5300 [email protected] (* admitted pro hac vice) (** pro hac vice pending) II. Stipulations Counsel for each of the Parties hereby certifies that the Parties have met telephonically regarding stipulations of fact and testimony. Counsel also hereby certify that, in the same meetings, they discussed trial logistics, and have reached agreement on certain stipulations regarding those issues. The Parties’ Pre-Trial Stipulations are attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 4 III. Statement of Claims that Remain to be Tried A. Plaintiffs’ Statement Plaintiffs assert that Senate Bill 824 (“S.B. 824”) as enacted and subsequently amended by the North Carolina General Assembly violates the Equal Protection Clause of Article I, § 19 of the North Carolina Constitution because it was enacted with the unlawful intent to discriminate against African American voters. Plaintiffs allege, and contend that the evidence at trial will prove, that S.B. 824 bears more heavily on African American voters than white voters, that the enactment of S.B. 824 and its terms are consistent with the history of official discrimination against African American voters in North Carolina, and that the legislative history and events leading to the enactment of S.B. 824, including departures from the normal legislative process, reveal indicia of discriminatory intent. B. Legislative Defendants’ Statement Legislative Defendants assert that S.B. 824 as enacted and subsequently amended by the North Carolina General Assembly does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of Article I, § 19 of the North Carolina Constitution. Legislative Defendants allege, and contend that the evidence at trial will prove, that Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden to show that S.B. 824 was enacted with the unlawful intent to discriminate against African American voters. Legislative Defendants also allege, and contend that the evidence at trial will prove, 5 that S.B. 824 was enacted for non-racial reasons, including to fulfill the North Carolina Constitution’s mandate that the General Assembly enact legislation implementing the Constitution’s photo voter ID mandate. C. State Defendants’ Statement Given its expansive and permissive qualities, S.B. 824 complies with the North Carolina Constitution. The State Board therefore stands ready to implement the law in a nondiscriminatory way. IV. Statement Regarding Trial Logistics A. Plaintiffs’ Trial Duration Statement Plaintiffs request approximately 30 hours of trial time, which encompasses their estimate for opening, closing, direct testimony of Plaintiffs’ witnesses, and anticipated cross-examination of Defendants’ witnesses. B. Defendants’ Trial Duration Statement Defendants request approximately 30 hours of trial time, which encompasses their estimate for opening, closing, direct testimony of Defendants’ witnesses, and anticipated cross-examination of Plaintiffs’ witnesses. C. Joint Statement Regarding Remote Trial Logistics The Parties have conferred telephonically and respectfully propose the following protocols for the conduct of the remote trial in this matter: 1. The Parties shall exchange and provide to the Court via Secure File Transfer Protocol (“SFTP”) copies of stamped Exhibits at least seven (7) days 6 prior to trial. If the Court, or any member of the Court, prefers hard copies of the Exhibits, the parties are prepared to deliver binders containing the Exhibits to Your Honors via FedEx. 2. When a witness is shown an Exhibit or examined on the contents of an Exhibit, the questioning Party shall make the Exhibit visible to the Court and other Parties. 3. All Exhibits admitted into evidence during any trial day shall be provided electronically to the Trial Court Administrator, or the Court’s Clerk or other designee, at the conclusion of each trial day. 4. In the event a Party wishes to introduce into evidence an Exhibit designated as CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL under the governing Protective Order, the Parties shall meet and confer regarding appropriate steps to maintain the confidentiality of the Exhibit. If the Parties are unable to agree that the confidentiality designation should be withdrawn, the Parties will propose redactions to the Exhibit. If the Parties are unable to agree to redactions necessary to exclude the confidential or highly confidential information, any Party may move the Court for leave to submit such Exhibit under seal and conduct any examination on the Exhibit under seal. 5. The Parties will each have 45 minutes per side for opening arguments with Defendants’ 45 minutes to be split as mutually agreed upon by State and Legislative Defendants. 7 V. Deposition Designations The Parties have exchanged proposed deposition designations that may be offered at trial and objections and counter-designations thereto. The Parties will provide the Court with information on the Parties’ deposition designations in whatever form the Court prefers. VI. Exhibit Lists Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is the parties’ Joint Exhibit List. The exhibits are labeled JX[#]. Except as indicated, the parties do not object to the admission of the documents listed on the parties’ Joint Exhibit List and stipulate that they are admissible. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is Plaintiffs’ Exhibit List. Plaintiffs’ exhibits are labeled PX[#]. Defendants’ objections are indicated. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is Legislative Defendants’ Exhibit List. The exhibits are labeled LX[#]. Plaintiffs’ objections are indicated. VII. Statement of Relief Sought A. Declaratory Judgment Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment declaring that S.B. 824 as amended violates the equal protection clause of Article I, § 19 of the North Carolina Constitution. 8 B. Permanent Injunction Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction barring the enforcement of S.B. 824 and allowing qualified, registered voters without acceptable photo identification at the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Nalysts Disagree About How to Frame the Recent
    ml-l ii FROM THE CENTER O UT The Evolution of Party Politics: The March of the GOP Continues in North Carolina by Mebane Rash Whitman In March, the Center released the tenth edition of A Reactionary , Revolutionary, or Article II: A Guide to the N.C. Legislature. Article Evolutionary Election? II is a comprehensive guide to the 1995-96 General A nalystsdisagreeabout howtoframe therecent Assembly, containing profiles of each member, ef- electoral wins of the GOP in North Carolina. fectiveness rankings, demographic trends since Were the wins reactionary, that is, were voters 1975, and committee assignments. The latest edi- reacting in an angry anti-incumbent, anti-Democrat, tion reveals three major trends: (1) the significant anti-tax, anti-big government manner? Were the gains of the Republican Party, which now holds 92 wins revolutionary, a changing of the guard in terms of 170 seats in the legislature; (2) women have of which party governs the state-from Democrats, more power in the 1995-96 General Assembly be- whose party has governed the state for almost all of cause they secured plum committee chairs; and (3) the 20th century, to Republicans, who hope to gov- African-American legislators lost the speakership ern much of the 21st century? Or were they evolu- and powerful committee chairs, so their influence tionary, a single step in the long march of the has declined. Republican Party toward true competitiveness in a two-party state? The results of most elections are to some extent elections in North Carolina should not reactionary, but 1994 was not a run-of-the-mill be underestimated.
    [Show full text]
  • A 2010 Candidates
    CANDIDATE NAME NAME ON BALLOT FILING DATE ADDRESS US SENATE (DEM) WILLIAMS, MARCUS W Marcus W. Williams 02/08/2010 PO BOX 1005 LUMBERTON, NC 28359 WORTHY, WILMA ANN Ann Worthy 02/24/2010 PO BOX 212 GASTONIA, NC 28053 MARSHALL, ELAINE Elaine Marshall 02/22/2010 324 S. WILMINGTON ST NO. 420 RALEIGH, NC 27601 LEWIS, KEN Ken Lewis 02/10/2010 629 KENSINGTON PLACE CHAPEL HILL, NC 27514 HARRIS, SUSAN Susan Harris 02/26/2010 390 BIG BEAR BLVD OLD FORT, NC 28762 CUNNINGHAM, JAMES CALVIN Cal Cunningham 02/11/2010 118 WEST THIRD AVE LEXINGTON, NC 27292 US SENATE (REP) LINNEY, LARRY ROLANDO Larry Linney 02/25/2010 6516-F YATESWOOD DRIVE CHARLOTTE, NC 28212 JONES, BRADFORD WESLEY Brad Jones 02/11/2010 PO BOX 181 LAKE TOXAWAY, NC 28747 BURKS, EDWARD JAMES Eddie Burks 02/08/2010 616 OLD LIBERTY RD ASHEBORO, NC 27203 BURR, RICHARD Richard Burr 02/22/2010 2634 FOREST DRIVE WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27104 US SENATE (LIB) BEITLER, MICHAEL Michael Beitler 02/08/2010 2709 CURRIETON COURT OAK RIDGE, NC 27310 US HOUSE DISTRICT 1 (DEM) LARKINS, CHAD Chad Larkins 02/23/2010 266 CARROLL TOWN ROAD MACON, NC 27551 BUTTERFIELD, GK G. K. Butterfield 02/15/2010 PO BOX 2571 WILSON, NC 27894 CANDIDATE NAME NAME ON BALLOT FILING DATE ADDRESS US HOUSE DISTRICT 1 (REP) WOOLARD, ASHLEY Ashley Woolard 02/15/2010 PO BOX 1116 WASHINGTON, NC 27889 MILLER, JAMES GORDON Jim Miller 02/18/2010 700 S. MEMORIAL BLVD KILL DEVIL HILLS, NC 27948 GRIMES, JERRY Jerry Grimes 02/12/2010 704 SOUTH MADISON AVENUE GOLDSBORO, NC 27530 CARTER, JOHN John Carter 02/15/2010 5313 CARTER ROAD WILSON, NC 27893 US HOUSE DISTRICT 2 (DEM) ETHERIDGE, BOB Bob Etheridge 02/08/2010 PO BOX 28001 RALEIGH, NC 27611 US HOUSE DISTRICT 2 (REP) GAILAS, TODD Todd Gailas 02/19/2010 148 PRESTONIAN PLACE MORRISVILLE, NC 27560 ELLMERS, RENEE Renee Ellmers 02/23/2010 PO BOX 904 DUNN, NC 28335 DEATRICH, FRANK Frank Deatrich 02/08/2010 781 RANSDELL ROAD LOUISBURG, NC 27549 US HOUSE DISTRICT 2 (LIB) ROSE, TOM Tom Rose 02/08/2010 PO BOX 518 BENSON, NC 27504 US HOUSE DISTRICT 3 (DEM) ROUSE, JOHNNY G Johnny G.
    [Show full text]
  • House/Senate District Number Name House 10 John Bell House 17 Frank Iler House 18 Deb Butler House 19 Ted Davis, Jr
    House/Senate District Number Name House 10 John Bell House 17 Frank Iler House 18 Deb Butler House 19 Ted Davis, Jr. House 20 Holly Grange House 23 Shelly Willingham House 24 Jean Farmer Butterfield House 26 Donna McDowell White House 27 Michael H. Wray House 28 Larry C. Strickland House 31 Zack Hawkins House 32 Terry Garrison House 33 Rosa U. Gill House 34 Grier Martin House 35 Chris Malone House 36 Nelson Dollar House 37 John B. Adcock House 38 Yvonne Lewis Holley House 39 Darren Jackson House 41 Gale Adcock House 42 Marvin W. Lucas House 43 Elmer Floyd House 44 Billy Richardson House 45 John Szoka House 49 Cynthia Ball House 50 Graig R. Meyer House 51 John Sauls House 52 Jamie Boles House 53 David Lewis House 54 Robert T. Reives, II House 55 Mark Brody House 57 Ashton Clemmons House 58 Amos Quick House 59 Jon Hardister House 60 Cecil Brockman House 62 John Faircloth House 66 Ken Goodman House 68 Craig Horn House 69 Dean Arp House 70 Pat B. Hurley House 72 Derwin Montgomery House 74 Debra Conrad House 75 Donny C. Lambeth House 77 Julia Craven Howard House 82 Linda P. Johnson House 85 Josh Dobson House 86 Hugh Blackwell House 87 Destin Hall House 89 Mitchell Smith Setzer House 90 Sarah Stevens House 91 Kyle Hall House 92 Chaz Beasley House 95 John A. Fraley House 96 Jay Adams House 97 Jason R. Saine House 98 John R. Bradford III House 102 Becky Carney House 103 Bill Brawley House 104 Andy Dulin House 105 Scott Stone House 106 Carla Cunningham House 107 Kelly Alexander House 108 John A.
    [Show full text]
  • Feminine Style in the Pursuit of Political Power
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE Talk “Like a Man”: Feminine Style in the Pursuit of Political Power DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Political Science by Jennifer J. Jones Dissertation Committee: Professor Kristen Monroe, Chair Professor Marty Wattenberg Professor Michael Tesler 2017 Chapter 4 c 2016 American Political Science Association and Cambridge University Press. Reprinted with permission. All other materials c 2017 Jennifer J. Jones TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES iv LIST OF TABLES vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vii CURRICULUM VITAE viii ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION xi 1 Introduction 1 2 Theoretical Framework and Literature Review 5 2.1 Social Identity and Its Effect on Social Cognition . 6 2.1.1 Stereotypes and Expectations . 9 2.1.2 Conceptualizing Gender in US Politics . 13 2.2 Gender and Self-Presentation in US Politics . 16 2.2.1 Masculine Norms of Interaction in Institutional Settings . 16 2.2.2 Political Stereotypes and Leadership Prototypes . 18 2.3 The Impact of Political Communication in Electoral Politics . 22 2.4 Do Women Have to Talk Like Men to Be Considered Viable Leaders? . 27 3 Methods: Words are Data 29 3.1 Approaches to Studying Language . 30 3.2 Analyzing Linguistic Style . 34 3.2.1 Gendered Communication and the Feminine/Masculine Ratio . 37 3.2.2 Comparison with Other Coding Schemes . 39 3.3 Approaches to Studying Social Perception and Attitudes . 40 3.3.1 The Link Between Linguistic Style and Implicit Associations . 42 4 The Linguistic Styles of Hillary Clinton, 1992–2013 45 4.1 The Case of Hillary Clinton .
    [Show full text]
  • Progress Report to Highlight the Issues (I.E
    ONE STEP FORWARD, TWO STEPS BACK FOR CLEAN ENERGY? Representatives Dean Arp, John Szoka, and Sam Watford introduced House Bill 589, “Competitive Energy Solutions for North Carolina” during the 2017 session. This bill took small steps towards increasing the role solar plays in the state’s energy mix by creating a competitive bidding process and by expanding rooftop solar. Senator Harry Brown added a moratorium on wind energy projects, claiming NC’s military operations would be under threat by wind turbines. Senator Brown used the once bipartisan supported clean energy bill as an attempt to pit solar against wind. Governor Cooper refused to allow Brown to claim victory: after signing H589 into law, Cooper immediately issued an executive order to the Dept. of Environmental Quality asking for the expedition of wind project permits. No 18-month ban will stop this clean energy source from moving forward. WATER, AIR, AND HEALTH Legislators continued to put the water, air, and health of North Carolinians at risk throughout the 2017 legislative long session. State lawmakers approved a bill that would allow companies to spray “garbage juice” into our air; passed a policy that limits the amount of financial compensation a resident or property owner can receive for detrimental health and livelihood impacts in hog pollution or other nuisance cases; and thumbed their noses at local control over environmental safeguards by prohibiting state regulators from making stricter water quality rules than the federal standards (assuming those even exist). Overall, leaders of the General Assembly showed a lack of empathy for their constituents and clear preference for polluters with deep pockets in 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • 1- House Principal Clerk's Office (919) 733-7760 2021 N.C
    North Carolina General Assembly HOUSE PRINCIPAL CLERK'S (919) 733-7760 OFFICE 2021 N.C. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATION BY COUNTY COUNTY DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES Alamance 63 Ricky Hurtado 64 Dennis Riddell Alexander 94 Jeffrey Elmore Alleghany 90 Sarah Stevens Anson 55 Mark Brody Ashe 93 Ray Pickett Avery 85 Dudley Greene Beaufort 79 Keith Kidwell Bertie 1 Edward C. Goodwin Bladen 22 William D. Brisson Brunswick 17 Frank Iler 19 Charles W. Miller Buncombe 114 Susan C. Fisher 115 John Ager 116 Brian Turner Burke 86 Hugh Blackwell 112 David Rogers Cabarrus 67 Wayne Sasser 82 Kristin Baker, M.D. 83 Larry G. Pittman Caldwell 87 Destin Hall Camden 1 Edward C. Goodwin Carteret 13 Pat McElraft Caswell 50 Graig R. Meyer Catawba 89 Mitchell S. Setzer 96 Jay Adams -1- Chatham 54 Robert T. Reives, II Cherokee 120 Karl E. Gillespie Chowan 1 Edward C. Goodwin Clay 120 Karl E. Gillespie Cleveland 110 Kelly E. Hastings 111 Tim Moore Columbus 16 Carson Smith 46 Brenden H. Jones Craven 3 Steve Tyson 79 Keith Kidwell Cumberland 42 Marvin W. Lucas 43 Diane Wheatley 44 William O. Richardson 45 John Szoka Currituck 6 Bobby Hanig Dare 6 Bobby Hanig Davidson 80 Sam Watford 81 Larry W. Potts Davie 77 Julia C. Howard Duplin 4 Jimmy Dixon Durham 29 Vernetta Alston 30 Marcia Morey 31 Zack Hawkins 54 Robert T. Reives, II Edgecombe 23 Shelly Willingham Forsyth 71 Evelyn Terry 72 Amber M. Baker 73 Lee Zachary 74 Jeff Zenger 75 Donny Lambeth Franklin 7 Matthew Winslow Gaston 108 John A. Torbett 109 Dana Bumgardner 110 Kelly E.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Comments Received
    NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY STATE LEGISLATIVE BUILDING 16 W. Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1030 March 5, 2020 Jamille Robbins NC Department of Transportation– Environmental Analysis Unit 1598 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1598 Submitted via email: [email protected] Re: Modernization of outdoor advertising rules 19A NCAC 02E .0225 To the NC Department of Transportation, We are North Carolina legislators who care about the scenic beauty of our state and We are writing to oppose the proposed changes to the modernization of outdoor advertising rules (19A NCAC 02E .0225) that would limit local ordinances and allow billboards with a state permit to be converted to digital and raised to 50 feet in height, even if such changes are not allowed by the applicable city or county ordinance. Instead, we support the considered “Alternative 2” described in the agency’s March 1, 2019, fiscal note. Alternative 2 would recognize local government ordinances and limit the changes that could be made to an existing billboard as part of modernization. Alternative 2 as described in the fiscal note: “The second alternate is to further limit activities that industry could do as part of modernization. An example includes restricting companies to modernize from static to digital faces. Some local governments have more stringent rules associated with outdoor advertising regulations including moratoriums on allowing digital billboards. NCDOT considered excluding digital faces as part of modernization. NCDOT chose not to make this exclusion since the state already allows digital billboards and that industry should be allowed to accommodate for technology enhancements.” We wish to protect the ability of local communities to control billboards, especially taller, digitized billboards that impact the scenic beauty of North Carolina and can be a distraction to drivers.
    [Show full text]
  • Ch 5 NC Legislature.Indd
    The State Legislature The General Assembly is the oldest governmental body in North Carolina. According to tradition, a “legislative assembly of free holders” met for the first time around 1666. No documentary proof, however, exists proving that this assembly actually met. Provisions for a representative assembly in Proprietary North Carolina can be traced to the Concessions and Agreements, adopted in 1665, which called for an unicameral body composed of the governor, his council and twelve delegates selected annually to sit as a legislature. This system of representation prevailed until 1670, when Albemarle County was divided into three precincts. Berkeley Precinct, Carteret Precinct and Shaftsbury Precinct were apparently each allowed five representatives. Around 1682, four new precincts were created from the original three as the colony’s population grew and the frontier moved westward. The new precincts were usually allotted two representatives, although some were granted more. Beginning with the Assembly of 1723, several of the larger, more important towns were allowed to elect their own representatives. Edenton was the first town granted this privilege, followed by Bath, New Bern, Wilmington, Brunswick, Halifax, Campbellton (Fayetteville), Salisbury, Hillsborough and Tarborough. Around 1735 Albemarle and Bath Counties were dissolved and the precincts became counties. The unicameral legislature continued until around 1697, when a bicameral form was adopted. The governor or chief executive at the time, and his council constituted the upper house. The lower house, the House of Burgesses, was composed of representatives elected from the colony’s various precincts. The lower house could adopt its own rules of procedure and elect its own speaker and other officers.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................................... iii INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................ 2 ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................................. 5 I. Legislative Defendants Must Provide the Information Requested in the Second Set of Interrogatories ............................................................................................................. 5 II. In the Alternative, or if Legislative Defendants Do Not Provide The Home Addresses By March 1, the Court Should Bar Legislative Defendants From Defending the 2017 Plans on the Basis of Any Incumbency Theory................................. 7 III. The Court Should Award Fees and Expenses and Other Appropriate Relief ..................... 8 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .................................................................................................. 11 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Cloer v. Smith , 132 N.C. App. 569, 512 S.E.2d 779 (1999)............................................................................ 7 F. E. Davis
    [Show full text]
  • COMES NOW Legislative Defendants Pursuant to Paragraph 5 of This Court's November 1, 2017 Order (Doc. 206) and Hereby Identify
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NO. 1:15-CV-00399 SANDRA LITTLE COVINGTON, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) LEGISLATIVE DEFENDANTS’ v. ) NOTICE OF INCUMBENT LIST ) STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al. ) ) Defendants. ) ) COMES NOW Legislative Defendants pursuant to Paragraph 5 of this Court’s November 1, 2017 Order (Doc. 206) and hereby identify incumbents covered by Paragraph 2(g) of the same Order in the attached spreadsheets. The House incumbent list is attached as Exhibit 1. The Senate incumbent list is attached as Exhibit 2. Legislative defendants attempted to reach agreement with plaintiffs regarding a joint notice but plaintiffs refused to agree to a single submission after legislative defendants offered to accurately reflect each party’s views in the notice. Therefore, legislative defendants file this notice to submit incumbent lists that are correct to their knowledge. While plaintiffs contend that Exhibit 1 should not list Representative Larry Bell because of media reports, legislative defendants contend that the veracity of the media reports cited by plaintiffs has not been confirmed and Representative Bell has not announced to the House or its leadership that he is not running again in 2018, even as recently as during the recent redistricting in August 2017. In addition, while plaintiffs believe that the 1 Case 1:15-cv-00399-TDS-JEP Document 210 Filed 11/09/17 Page 1 of 3 residence address for Senator Trudy Wade may be incorrect, legislative defendants disagree based on information provided to the legislature by Senator Wade. Respectfully submitted this the 8th day of November, 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • State of North Carolina County of Wake in The
    STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION No. 18-CVS-014001 COUNTY OF WAKE COMMON CAUSE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Representative David R. LEWIS, in his official capacity as Senior Chairman of the House Select Committee on Redistricting, et al., Defendants. LEGISLATIVE DEFENDANTS’ AND INTERVENOR DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Proposed Findings of Fact ...............................................................................................................2 A. History and Development of the 2017 Plans ...........................................................2 (1) North Carolina’s Redistricting Process In 2017 ..........................................2 (2) Democratic Voters are More Concentrated Than Republican Voters .......11 a. Divided Precincts or VTDs and Divided Precincts in Current and Prior Legislative Plans ............................................................13 b. Members Elected to the General Assembly in 2010, 2016, and 2018................................................................................................14 B. Legislative Defendants’ Fact Witnesses ................................................................14 (1) William R. Gilkeson, Jr. ............................................................................14 (2) Senator Harry Brown .................................................................................17 (3) Representative John R. Bell, IV .................................................................21
    [Show full text]
  • Girls Gone Wild Video Series Is Tional $20 Million for the Project, but Only If It Went Looking for a Permanent Site to Produce the Contro- to Dare County
    • School Enrollment • Why Don’t Athletes Expected to Drop C A R O L I N A Graduate, NCAA Asks? Unplugging 911 Wireless Unlikely Conservative Volume 11, Number 6 A Monthly Journal of News, June 2004 Analysis, and Opinion from JOURNAL the John Locke Foundation www.CarolinaJournal.com www.JohnLocke.org Businesses, Politicians Turn Taxpayers Into a ‘Cash Cow’ Corporate government Incentives experts Ernst & relations officials learn how Young helped create law, to get economic incentives then get money for clients By PAUL CHESSER By PAUL CHESSER Associate Editor AND DON CARRINGTON RALEIGH Associate Editor & Associate Publisher workshop conducted in late March, RALEIGH led by experts in getting economic rnst & Young, the international firm Adevelopment incentives from state known best for its accounting ser- and local governments, shows that large E vices, has become a player on both companies are now banding together to sides of incentives policy in North Carolina. learn how to extract as much public money The company established a cozy rela- as possible from elected officials. tionship with state officials through an in- The seminar, presented during a por- centives bill it helped create in 2001, the tion of the annual three-day meeting of the N.C. Economic Stimulus and Job Creation State Government Affairs Council, taught Act. The Department of Commerce hired dozens of corporate government-relations Ernst & Young to study incentives in South- executives how to “Turn Your State Gov- eastern states, and its findings were a sig- ernment Relations Department from a nificant contribution to the new bill. It was Money Pit into a Cash Cow.” Michael Press, Carolina Journal illustration by Kim Pickering enacted into law in 2002.
    [Show full text]