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 (4) Morgan Jackson .........................................................................................30 C. Intervenor Defendants’ Fact Witnesses .................................................................42 (1) Adrain Arnett .............................................................................................42 (2) Rev. Cathy Fanslau ....................................................................................42 (3) Aubrey Woodard ........................................................................................43 (4) Carolyn Elmore ..........................................................................................43 (5) Reginald Reid.............................................................................................44 (6) Connor Groce .............................................................................................45 (7) Ben York ....................................................................................................47 D. Plaintiffs’ Fact Witnesses ......................................................................................50 i (1) Common Cause Representative Robert “Bob” Phillips .............................50 a. Common Cause’s Legal Fees Are Funded by a National Partisan Organization. ....................................................................51 b. Common Causes Redistricting Efforts Failed Under a Democratic-Controlled General Assembly for a Decade and Continued To Fail in a Republican-Controlled General Assembly........................................................................................51 c. Common Cause Challenges the Process—Considers “Any Map” Drawn in North Carolina Unfair ..........................................52 d. Common Cause Uninvolved in Selecting the Districts It “Challenges” ..................................................................................52 e. Common Cause’s Simulated Map .................................................53 f. Common Cause’s Simulated Map for “Impartial Redistricting” Produces Districts “Essentially Identical” to Enacted Districts. ....53 g. Common Cause Analyzed Racial Data in Its Simulated Map To Ensure Compliance with the VRA ...........................................54 h. Common Cause Submitted Its Simulated Maps to the Covington Court .............................................................................54 i. Common Cause’s Simulated Map Submitted to the Legislature ...56 j. Common Cause Seeks to Force the Legislature through Litigation To Change North Carolina’s Districting Process ..........56 k. Common Cause Fully Participates in the Development of the 2017 Plans. .....................................................................................57 l. Common Cause Waits Until After November 2018 Election Results To File Suit—Seeks Redistricting Reform Suitable to Itself ...............................................................................................57 m. The 2017 Plans Produce Competitive Elections for the First Time in a Generation—Bucking Common Cause’s Definition of Partisan Gerrymandering ...........................................................58 n. Common Cause Lacks a Partisan Gerrymandering Standard ........58 (2) North Carolina Democratic Party Chairman George Wayne Goodwin.....58 a. The North Carolina Democratic Party (“NCDP”) and Its Mission. ..........................................................................................59 ii b. The NCDP Experiences Historic Success in Recruiting Democratic Candidates To Run for Elected Office Since Passage of the 2017 Plans. .............................................................60 c. The NCDP Experiences Historic Fund-raising Success Since Passage of the 2017 Plans. .............................................................60 d. The NCDP Experiences “Tremendous” Enthusiasm for the Party. ..............................................................................................61 e. The North Carolina Democratic Party (“NCDP”) Can Win an Election Without One Republican Vote. .......................................61 f. The NCDP Chairman Does Not Know What County Groupings or Specific Districts the NCDP Is Challenging. ...........63 g. The NCDP Election Measuring Tools: Democratic Support Scores and the Democratic Performance Index (“DPI”). ..............63 h. The 2017 Plans Purported Negative Impact on the NCDP and Its Members Contradicted by Facts. ..............................................64 i. The Purported “Blue Wave” in the 2018 Elections. ......................65 j. The NCDP Seeks To Take the Constitutionally Mandated Power To Draw Voting Districts from the North Carolina General Assembly. .........................................................................65 (3) Senator Dan Blue .......................................................................................66 a. Wake County Amendments ...........................................................67 (4) Dr. Kareem Crayton ...................................................................................68 (5) Representative Graig Meyer ......................................................................69 (6) Stephanie Hofeller Lizon ...........................................................................71 a. Ms. Lizon Takes Possession of Dr. Hofeller’s Files ......................71 b. Ms. Lizon Brings Dr. Hofeller’s Files To The Attention Of Common Cause ..............................................................................72 c. Plaintiffs’ Counsel Advises Ms. Lizon To Turn Over All Materials Without Restriction or Review and Advise Her That Only North Carolina-Related Documents Would Be Reviewed ...73 d. The Hofeller Documents (PTX. 124- 170; 240- 252; 329-356; 561-573; 724- 756) Are Irrelevant .................................................74 iii (7) Plaintiff Joshua Perry Brown .....................................................................74 (8) Plaintiff Rebecca Johnson ..........................................................................78 (9) Plaintiff Derrick Miller ..............................................................................80 (10) Plaintiff Lily Nicole Quick ........................................................................82 (11) Plaintiff Leon Schaller ...............................................................................84 E. Plaintiffs’ Expert Witnesses ...................................................................................86 (1) Christopher Cooper, Ph.D. .........................................................................86 a. Dr. Cooper’s Analysis of the Degree of the General Assembly’s “Being Out of Step” Is Irrelevant and Flawed ...........86 b. Dr. Cooper’s Analysis of District Lines Is Flawed and Irrelevant ........................................................................................93 c. Dr. Cooper’s Analysis of Dr. Hofeller’s Files Is Irrelevant and Flawed ..........................................................................................111 (2) Jowei Chen, Ph.D. ....................................................................................114 a. Dr. Chen’s Predominance Analysis Is Flawed ............................115 b. Dr. Chen’s Simulation Methods Failed To Implement The General Assembly’s Adopted Criteria. ........................................118 c. Dr. Chen’s Analysis of Partisan Effect Is Flawed and, Besides, Demonstrates a Very Modest Effect ............................................129 d. Dr. Chen’s Review of Dr. Hofeller’s Files Is Pure Guesswork ...140 e. Dr. Chen’s Partisan-Composition Analysis Shows That Few Plaintiffs Are Harmed ..................................................................150 f. Dr. Chen Recognizes Human Geography Can Unintentionally Produce Partisan-biased Election Results Divorced from any Intentional Partisan or Racial Gerrymandering Efforts ...............153 (3) Jonathan