STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF WAKE

IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
18 CVS 014001

COMMON CAUSE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO
REMEDIAL PLANS

v.
DAVID LEWIS, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
SENIOR CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE SELECT
COMMITTEE ON REDISTRICTING, et al.,
Defendants.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE PROCEEDINGS.....................................................................3
A.

Legislative Defendants Fail to Explain When, How, and Why They Chose Dr.
Chen’s Simulated Maps to Serve as the Base Maps for the Remedial Plans ..................... 3

B.

Legislative Defendants’ Counsel Sends Partisanship Data on Dr. Chen’s Maps to
the Entire House Redistricting Committee and Political Staff .......................................... 4

C.

Legislative Defendants’ Counsel and the House Redistricting Committee Likely
Gather and Analyze Partisanship Data on Dr. Chen’s House Maps .................................. 2

D.

House Incumbents Draw Their Own Districts .................................................................. 6

E.

The House Map Passes on a Party-Line Vote ................................................................... 7

ARGUMENT ..............................................................................................................................8
I.

The House’s Process Violated the Court’s Decree ...........................................................8

A.

Legislative Defendants Improperly Provided Partisanship Data to House Members
and Relied on Outside Counsel with Access to Partisanship Data .................................... 8

B.

The House’s Incumbency Protection Process Violated Multiple Aspects of the
Court’s Judgment and Decree ........................................................................................ 11

II.

The Court Should Reject Five House Groupings in the Proposed House Plan ................ 16

A.

Columbus-Pender-Robeson ........................................................................................... 17

B.

Forsyth-Yadkin.............................................................................................................. 21

C.

Cleveland-Gaston .......................................................................................................... 29

D.

Brunswick-New Hanover............................................................................................... 35

E.

Guilford ......................................................................................................................... 41

III.

The Referee Should Redraw the Five House Groupings ................................................. 45

CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 46
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .................................................................................................. 48

i

 INTRODUCTION
This Court gave Legislative Defendants clear and simple instructions for drawing
remedial districts. The Court ordered that “Legislative Defendants and their agents shall conduct
the entire remedial process in full public view,” and that, “[t]o the extent that Legislative
Defendants wish to retain one or more individuals who are not current legislative employees to
assist in the map-drawing process, Legislative Defendants must seek and obtain prior approval
from the Court to engage any such individuals.” Decree ¶¶ 8, 9. The Court ordered that
“partisan considerations and election results data shall not be used in the drawing of legislative
districts in the Remedial Maps,” Judgment COL ¶ 169, and “no effort may be made to preserve
the cores of invalidated 2017 districts,” Decree ¶ 6. And the Court made clear that any efforts to
protect incumbents must be “reasonable” and limited to avoiding pairing incumbents into the
same district. Judgment COL ¶ 168.
One of the two chambers of the General Assembly violated every one of these
commands. In violation of the Court’s transparency requirements, the House Redistricting
Committee secretly engaged two of Legislative Defendants’ experts, including a political
consultant who specializes in elections data analytics and who helped Legislative Defendants in
drawing the unconstitutional 2011 Plans, to analyze Dr. Chen’s maps and data before the House
moved forward with its process. Legislative Defendants’ counsel also emailed partisanship data
on Dr. Chen’s maps to every member of the House Redistricting Committee, just hours after the
announcements that each chamber would use one of Dr. Chen’s simulations as its base map. The
House then permitted the incumbents of each relevant county grouping to revise their own
districts to their personal liking, and to do so largely outside of public earshot.
These procedural violations would provide ample grounds to throw out the House’s
remedial plan (the “Proposed House Plan”) in its entirety, but in an effort to limit the scope of
1

 relief the Court must grant, Plaintiffs focus their objections here on five House county groupings
where the House’s procedural violations led to the most significant substantive violations of the
Court’s Decree. These five groupings are: (1) Columbus-Pender-Robeson; (2) Forsyth-Yadkin;
(3) Cleveland-Gaston; (4) Brunswick-New Hanover; and (5) Guilford. Incumbents in these
groupings acted with partisan intent and impermissibly sought to preserve the cores of their prior
districts, in violation of the Court’s mandates. Indeed, as detailed in Dr. Chen’s new expert
report attached as Exhibit A, Dr. Chen has created new simulations for these five groupings that
avoid pairing the current incumbents, and he finds that in four of the five groupings the Proposed
House Plan is an extreme, pro-Republican partisan outlier. Two of the groupings are 100%
outliers—the adopted map, as amended by the incumbents, is more favorable to Republicans
than all 1,000 of Dr. Chen’s simulations for that grouping. Dr. Chen also finds that the only
grouping that is not a partisan outlier, Guilford County, nonetheless replicates the prior version
of one of the districts in the grouping. Dr. Chen further finds that the amendments to the base
map in Guilford County and several of the other groupings significantly subordinated
compactness in service of partisan advantage.
This Court gave the General Assembly an opportunity to draw remedial maps and cure
their prior constitutional violations. Although its process was not without flaws, the Senate has
done so. But the House has not. The Court should pay no heed to the threats in Legislative
Defendants’ most recent filing and should direct the Referee to redraw these five House
groupings.

2

 SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE PROCEEDINGS
A.

Legislative Defendants Fail to Explain When, How, and Why They Chose Dr.
Chen’s Simulated Maps to Serve as the Base Maps for the Remedial Plans

On September 9, six days after this Court’s Judgment, Legislative Defendants held their
first hearings. Senator Newton, who now serves as a co-chair of the Senate Redistricting
Committee, announced that he and his co-chairs had decided to select one of Dr. Chen’s
simulated maps from the litigation to serve as the “base map” for the new Senate plan. Several
hours later at the opening hearing of the House Redistricting Committee, Representative Lewis
stated that he independently had decided also to use one of Dr. Chen’s simulations as the base
map for the new House plan. 9/9/19 House Comm. Tr. at 16:21-17:21; see also id. at 45:20-23
(Representative Lewis claiming he had not been “aware of exactly what approach the Senate was
going to take until this morning”). Neither the House nor Senate Committee leadership
explained who was involved in the decision to use Dr. Chen’s simulated plans (e.g., whether it
included outside counsel or consultants), when those discussions took place, or what analysis
was done of Dr. Chen’s maps before deciding to use them as the base maps. Legislative
Defendants’ most recent filings still do not provide any of this information. Legislative
Defendants have not indicated whether they, their counsel, or their consultants analyzed the
partisan attributes of Dr. Chen’s simulated maps in deciding to use them as a central foundation
of the remedial process. When Representative Hawkins asked the leadership of the House
Committee whether they had consulted with counsel who had access to partisanship data on Dr.
Chen’s maps, Representative Hall, who was serving as Chair of the House Redistricting
Committee, invoked attorney-client privilege. 9/10/19 House Comm. Tr. at 85:19-86:4.
There is reason to believe that partisan considerations did factor into Legislative
Defendants’ choice of Dr. Chen’s maps. Whereas the Senate used Dr. Chen’s Simulation Set 2

3

 that sought to avoid pairing the incumbents in place at the time each relevant district was drawn
in 2011 or 2017, the House ultimately used Dr. Chen’s Simulation Set 1 that did not consider
incumbency at all. Legislative Defendants have not explained why the House and Senate pulled
their base maps from different simulation sets. Notably, the set chosen by each chamber is the
one that is relatively more favorable to Republicans. Based on the 2010-2016 statewide
elections that Dr. Chen employed to measure partisanship, House Simulation Set 1 produces a
distribution of seats more favorable to Republicans than House Simulation Set 2. See PX1 at 27
(final row listing distribution of seats in House Simulation Sets 1 and 2). In contrast, Senate
Simulation Set 2 produces a distribution of seats slightly more favorable to Republicans than
Senate Simulation Set 1. Id. at 58 (listing distribution of seats in Senate Simulation Set 1 and 2).
B.

Legislative Defendants’ Counsel Sends Partisanship Data on Dr. Chen’s
Maps to the Entire House Redistricting Committee and Political Staff

Shortly after the leaders of the House and Senate Committees announced their intent to
use Dr. Chen’s simulated plans, legislative staff emailed counsel for Plaintiffs and Legislative
Defendants requesting shapefiles and block assignment files for Dr. Chen’s simulated maps as
well as an Excel spreadsheet listing scores for compactness, split VTDs, and split municipalities
for each map. Ex. B (9/9/19 3:10 PM email from Churchill). Plaintiffs’ counsel responded that
they would send the requested information later that day. Id. (9/9/19 3:22 PM email from Jones).
Nonetheless, Legislative Defendants’ counsel proceeded send emails to both the House and
Senate Committees with a link to a repository containing all of Dr. Chen’s backup files that
Plaintiffs had transmitted to all Defendants with his opening expert report on April 8, 2019. Id.
(9/9/19 3:50 PM and 4:24 PM email from Riggins); Ex. C (9/9/19 4:21 email from Riggins).
Legislative Defendants’ counsel’s emails containing the link to these backup files went to dozens
of recipients, including all members of the House and Senate Redistricting Committees, several

4

 political staffers for Representative Lewis, and career staff. Ex. B; Ex. C. All of these recipients
were also able to forward the link to anyone else, and any subsequent recipient could have
downloaded the files available through the link.
The files that Legislative Defendants distributed—on the first day of the legislative
process, within hours after the announcements that Dr. Chen’s simulated maps would serve as
the base maps—contained extensive partisanship data on every district in every one of Dr.
Chen’s simulated plans. That is because Dr. Chen analyzed the partisan characteristics of his
simulated plans in his opening expert report. The screenshots copied below show some of the
partisanship data that was in the files that Legislative Defendants’ counsel sent. In these files,
which relate to one of Dr. Chen’s 2,000 simulated House maps, the numbers in Column A (e.g.,
“G1.1”) represent the label for each district in the plan, the next two columns contain the
compactness scores for each district, and the numbers in the columns to the right represent the
number of votes received by the Democratic (“D”), Republican (“R”), and Libertarian (“L”)
candidates in a particular election for that simulated district (e.g., “EL10G_USS” means the 2010
general election for U.S. Senate). In the fourth-to-last column in the second screenshot below,
the column “rshare17” indicates the average Republican vote share in the given simulated
districts using the ten statewide elections from 2010 to 2016 that Dr. Chen used to measure
partisanship in his report.

5

  

AA 5 DE LIMN. PQIR wal AC AD AE AGAHHAIAJAKIALAMANAO 42le

PL104A PL10VA E1106 E1126 E1126 E1126 E1146 E1166 E1166 
1le reock pper group LGR 
2?611 0.454091 0.411402 1 75628 56630 7683 11258I 473 6 19420 14735 17374 284 8 60 32461 13103 18357 682 1 7 32150 14573 16977 31550 10907 8901 850 43 20701 18148 15018 852 325 34343 18251 14631 1156 34038 16056 17474 619!
3_61.2 0.307377 0.246165 1 75503 59058 7763 13754 556 19 22092 14140 20796 313 10 56 35315 12521 21687 751 1 3 34963 13927 20373 34300 13473 9244 880 30 23627 20667 14815 943 389 36814 21129 14242 1212 36583 15976 20027 664I
4_62.1 0.498231 0.317935 2 82809 64021 7018 15475 550 4 23047 9982 23740 412 7 98 34239 8864 24505 728 0 8 34105 10703 22333 33036 15065 6794 1345 61 23265 28012 8029 835 344 37220 27275 8123 1417 36815 10324 26005 699!
5_62.2 0.356438 0.261501 2 83426 64496 5999 16523 590 6 23118 10106 25668 447 14 96 36331 9047 26461 810 0 10 36328 11086 24337 35423 16059 6300 1441 73 23873 29299 8174 942 363 38778 25500 8292 1601 38493 10673 27005 902'
6_62.3 0.516974 0.333981 2 82856 64640 7761 13900 689 18 22368 15142 21594 303 6 72 37117 14039 22130 667 0 10 36846 15903 20062 35965 13615 9782 1289 65 24751 22745 13141 735 290 36911 22145 13115 1316 36576 14970 20980 728I
7?624 0.508466 0.278664 2 83319 64502 7941 16930 719 14 25604 10493 25386 505 7 117 36508 8857 27047 627 1 7 36539 10979 24502 35481 15992 6658 1572 81 24303 28871 8724 875 347 38817 27691 8899 1806 38396 10695 27239 798I
8763.1 0.53553 0.318387 3 76052 53352 5171 13343 444 13 18971 12309 23563 395 18 93 36378 8835 26724 615 3 9 36186 11648 23502 35150 14132 7280 779 98 22289 25170 13288 1344 521 40323 25571 12424 1834 39829 14090 24947 10431
9 63.2 0.49978 0.425911 3 75837 56542 7733 9852 248 7 17840 14701 16872 208 5 66 31852 12987 18341 371 1 7 31707 15290 15638 30928 9998 8295 696 41 19030 18663 12299 596 219 31777 18298 12005 1033 31336 12377 18697 464!
10 05.5 0.45454 0.455415 5 25551 51500 5504 14055 425 12 15554 12452 24555 555 2 21 52254 5125 22551 555 5 5 52455 12525 24555 55455 15545 2551 255 24 24555 22522 14515 1525 550 44155 25400 15452 1255 45555 15511 22501 555?
114051 0.455555 0.225242 5 25451 55522 5255 15551 450 14 25225 25052 20455 255 2 51 55501 14525 20555 525 0 4 55551 15150 15505 54555 15502 10552 1125 105 25452 21554 15541 521 251 55152 20525 15551 1221 55525 15511 21424 500I
1205.2 0.411515 0.245554 5 25225 55202 5255 15555 405 5 21105 25155 20452 251 5 22 55555 11252 21252 555 0 12 55555 15405 15555 55100 25215 5455 522 42 25025 20540 22555 555 544 54502 21051 12010 2522 54455 12255 21052 215
1368.1 0.512436 0.357101 8 83430 59498 7716 10527 364 8 18615 14308 17323 328 0 72 32031 13342 17792 699 0 9 31842 14885 16245 31130 10309 8825 911 37 20082 18562 13835 1027 333 33757 18324 13808 1265 33397 14920 17776 840
1468.2 0.634373 0.519199 8 83434 62046 7629 12449 383 6 20467 12483 20186 313 1 65 33048 11503 20783 639 1 13 32939 13361 19081 32442 12311 7816 892 39 21058 21551 12234 878 336 34999 21291 12286 1191 34768 12958 21159 719I
1368.3 0.417933 0.204564 8 83434 62500 6648 15135 288 3 22074 11225 23168 207 0 10 34610 10712 23356 409 0 6 34483 11992 21902 33894 15288 7526 909 32 23755 24108 11190 696 259 36253 23855 11023 986 35864 11596 24052 443'
16 68.4 0.505295 0.331582 8 83429 60611 7544 15801 444 11 23800 12869 24638 380 1 100 37988 11610 25518 722 1 15 37866 13534 23578 37112 15636 8362 989 51 25038 27565 13124 1117 371 42177 27406 13094 1397 41897 14613 26743 735I
17_68.5 0.629125 0.352975 8 83433 59843 7857 14249 461 9 22576 14662 22446 371 0 106 37585 13322 23353 740 0 8 37423 15096 21580 36676 14075 9207 989 42 24313 25357 15604 1200 446 42607 25197 15512 1542 42251 16877 24773 812;;
1505.1 0.452255 0.255552 5 22052 50510 11255 20552 452 5 22114 22520 15520 410 0 100 52500 25452 25555 2050 2 12 52124 21542 24222 55515 5555 15552 1025 55 25215 12542 22252 1554 545 42152 15152 21411 1525 42422 25550 15505 1155:
1555.2 0.522015 0.505225 5 25552 54552 5555 15255 552 12 25152 15555 25250 525 2 145 40251 15555 25255 2225 0 12 40025 15500 22525 55525 14055 10255 1252 45 25142 24251 15554 1222 555 45042 24525 12505 1545 44525 20255 22545 2255
20_69.3 0.207556 0.325577 9 77140 60933 9012 16226 584 15 25837 17288 22490 469 2 108 40357 14556 24059 1164 0 9 39788 17148 21593 38741 13531 11868 1477 46 26922 23816 18064 1446 603 43929 23752 17444 2098 43294 20393 21868 1245I
21_69.4 0.491621 0.379108 9 76029 63230 9386 19704 631 9 29730 15135 26508 336 4 69 42052 12702 28078 872 0 4 41656 15674 25099 40773 17809 10897 1706 39 30451 31991 15524 1144 448 49107 31382 14977 2024 48383 16873 30603 1111I
22_610.1 0.382739 0.360153 10 78607 62653 13252 11454 690 16 25412 23703 17674 588 3 218 42186 21680 18544 1439 0 11 41674 23488 17293 40781 10866 16616 1109 24 28615 18350 24927 1281 1179 45737 18200 25340 1728 45268 27287 16835 1324i
23_610.2 0.55907 0.420114 10 82348 64434 12019 12922 672 13 25626 22981 19133 548 6 219 42887 20919 20083 1387 0 16 42405 22853 18722 41575 11617 15766 1133 41 28557 19574 25175 1552 1178 47479 19834 25164 1967 46965 27286 18337 1521I
24_610.3 0.484765 0.324295 10 77363 62391 13724 12229 714 22 26689 23934 17892 585 4 199 42614 21783 18912 1396 0 8 42099 23513 17766 41279 11389 17073 1204 41 29707 17791 25347 1453 1137 45728 18055 25387 1838 45280 27299 16704 1449
25_611.1 0.415077 0.297654 11 80583 62648 7775 12560 459 4 20798 12509 20296 399 4 119 33327 9957 22744 602 0 14 33317 13025 19411 32436 12953 8156 1379 41 22529 23640 10421 908 414 35383 22734 10576 1614 34924 12311 22126 777'
26_611.2 0.430138 0.32811 11 78139 60662 6359 13857 503 10 20726 10566 20925 345 5 78 31919 13112 18233 547 1 9 31902 11866 18962 30828 12969 7305 1253 28 21555 24469 8342 704 329 33844 22797 9135 1310 33242 10573 22012 827I
27_612.1 0.434942 0.470454 12 82683 60163 7098 16495 539 0 24132 13613 25794 440 0 0 39847 9726 29442 735 0 0 39903 13605 24940 38545 15323 8775 1188 94 25380 28328 15031 1428 561 45348 28141 14676 2132 44949 16422 27631 1138
28.6122 0.370726 0.384435 12 80880 61151 5311 14541 544 12 20408 9929 24951 412 1 131 35424 7453 27293 601 0 3 35350 10067 24396 34463 14587 5752 1349 57 21745 27647 8388 886 364 37285 26444 8419 2020 36883 9876 26302 949
29_612.3 0.486494 0.361344 12 82262 62939 7669 16348 548 11 24576 1411? 24532 371 9 103 39115 11783 26547 651 0 13 38994 13783 24439 38222 15581 8663 1174 51 25469 26362 12744 1064 445 40615 26070 12423 1773 40266 14403 25057 971I
3116124 0.41191 0.306688 12 82734 62735 10539 11479 418 11 22447 15868 18281 289 0 31 34469 14464 19292 556 0 21 34333 17326 15877 33203 11549 10732 1327 67 23675 20310 13693 633 187 34823 19231 13679 1305 34215 14789 19172 569
31 612.5 0.36849 0.269749 12 81191 62583 8015 15451 483 15 23964 14092 23708 377 1 78 38256 11496 26078 562 0 8 38144 14239 22893 37132 14923 8748 1464 72 25207 26235 11971 874 314 39394 25033 12010 1997 39040 13248 25105 888?.
32 612.6 0.478684 0.385388 12 82951 59797 7576 12729 459 0 20764 16639 21312 395 0 0 38346 12894 24615 719 0 0 38228 16511 20689 37200 12581 9895 878 57 23411 22825 18110 1249 550 42734 23002 17296 1967 42265 19019 22351 1151I
550151 05415220545225 15 25555 54555 20515 5410 552 15 25454 55225 5540 551 1 155 45555 55155 10512 1425 1 54 45555 55245 5155 44555 4525 25045 540 22 51555 5255 41555 1442 552 50055 5225 55525 1025 45222 42045 5554 524
545152 0.555152 0.552051 15 22552 55222 15524 12540 522 10 25551 12420 15155 455 5 210 42252 20215 15111 1045 0 12 40550 21455 12504 40052 21541 15100 552 25 25552 15515 25525 1221 502 45525 15100 22522 1255 45022 24555 15052 224;
336161 0.310037 0.311311 16 76570 58084 6582 12941 469 14 20006 13137 20642 374 3 89 34245 10236 23242 596 1 3 34078 12715 20653 33368 12810 7915 1035 56 21816 21609 12003 1041 494 35147 21418 11608 1684 34710 13185 20799 917'
36 616.2 0.331601 0.324308 16 77788 59479 6065 14762 558 12 21397 10927 23892 396 5 127 35347 8111 26479 567 0 11 35168 10585 23768 34353 14615 6368 1178 67 22228 26698 9198 932 344 37172 25795 9123 1777 36695 10565 25454 898
32617.1 0.378661 0.435931 17 83299 67798 18240 6589 446 13 25288 34318 10761 485 4 69 45637 31359 12317 1348 0 21 45045 33327 10785 44112 5876 23519 596 32 30023 7179 40152 1384 915 49630 9656 38637 1042 49335 40409 8118 827'
38617.2 0.611405 0.574322 17 83260 63726 17182 9839 439 12 27472 31788 13388 387 2 61 45626 29218 14711 1162 0 13 45104 31236 13067 44303 8784 20861 702 28 30375 12176 33219 1159 731 47285 13500 32348 1203 47051 33657 12704 781I
39_617.3 0.424919 0.412725 17 82632 64482 17075 13312 676 11 31074 26944 19441 488 0 90 46963 24514 20876 1169 0 15 46574 26445 19183 45628 13390 20899 991 33 35313 19143 30711 1492 788 52134 20636 29852 1432 51920 31878 19303 944-;
40522.4 0.502145 0.522252 22 52501 50524 12541 5542 250 10 21555 55555 5544 522 2 44 45245 54552 5050 550 0 50 45522 55545 5555 42541 5555 22225 425 55 25552 5522 52525 1052 545 45255 2521 52015 1055 45554 52205 2555 225:
41_015.1 0.555222 0.554054 25 22200 55255 5405 12520 555 2 22515 15251 20502 252 10 51 54425 15255 20501 425 0 2 54224 14455 25510 55405 12522 5522 1122 55 22515 22201 12055 555 250 55225 22452 22115 1255 54555 12552 22425 555
42_619.2 0.374666 0.311214 19 75824 57892 5050 11896 421 0 17367 10704 21114 368 0 0 32186 8491 23093 534 0 4 32122 10696 20577 31273 12173 6055 1971 43 19272 23621 9753 851 322 34547 22685 9727 1683 34095 10795 22722 804 
43_619.3 0.432778 0.422179 19 75634 57968 6118 14339 489 0 20946 12734 23719 364 0 0 36817 9899 26323 561 0 10 36793 12406 23396 35802 14500 7888 914 65 23367 25399 13187 1212 503 40301 25426 12689 1777 39892 14220 25014 8971
44619.4 0.453982 0.301257 19 75506 56797 6155 9733 356 4 16248 13014 16791 274 3 15 30097 11442 18195 421 0 7 30065 13124 16249 29373 9651 7122 718 29 17520 19056 11112 533 276 30977 18221 11075 1270 30566 11810 18340 589 
45_620.1 0.27596 0.206179 20 80388 61917 9212 14516 476 9 24213 14300 21138 313 2 81 35834 13862 20977 717 0 7 35563 15630 19194 34824 12636 9273 1456 54 23419 25017 13125 854 247 39243 24138 12842 1557 38537 14188 23640 844;
46620.2 0.410266 0.209604 20 80999 59266 7326 7118 217 4 14665 14978 11647 165 0 50 26840 15200 10876 420 0 9 26505 16773 9231 26004 7213 8117 567 29 15926 13092 11377 468 149 25086 12512 11324 545 24381 11168 13289 249I
47_620.3 0.302713 0.159112 20 83096 61952 8862 7770 238 19 16889 16392 12283 260 0 83 29018 16875 11230 512 0 9 28626 18572 9371 27943 7045 8898 745 19 16707 14439 12731 462 173 27805 13843 12624 607 27074 12494 14609 281
0.382393 0.322027 21 82738 60612 8469 10955 338 12 19774 17109 17986 256 3 69 35423 16023 18317 689 1 5 35035 17741 16625 34366 11321 9957 848 28 22154 19041 16611 917 329 36898 18950 16299 1176 36425 16680 19094 766%
0.547969 0.453525 21 76234 55239 6843 3853 170 6 10872 15121 6474 170 0 48 21813 14085 6775 536 0 6 21402 14904 6256 21160 3559 7568 312 14 11453 5500 13845 638 262 21245 6701 13493 805 20999 13544 6840 5961

 



oo-aom-t-wNEl086_ Notes dvotes rvotes dvotes rshare rshare repsea

IDs 17 17 11 11 11 17 right left 
61.1 14141 1061 30699 14860 14308 883 30051 14616 16105 189 55 30965 9715 7078 147 16940 15144 14222 29366 15530 14181 973 11 30695 4276 4426 62 8764 7683 11258 473 6 19420164329135116180215180789 0.4992 0.5488180215180789 FALSE
61.2 16940 1144 33043 14194 17028 1013 32235 14302 18754 247 85 33388 8940 8175 141 17256 14612 16758 31370 15571 16463 1053 8 33095 3992 4934 77 9003 7763 13754 556 19 22092193265132151213309176742 0.5469 0.5939213309176742 TRUE
62.1 18434 1160 34717 13639 19100 1102 33841 11637 22652 329 156 34774 5929 7886 220 14035 13585 19117 32702 14294 19098 1338 11 34741 2506 5063 122 7691 7018 15475 550 4 23047 234768 88678 253533 167445 0.6022 0.7258 253533167445 TRUE
62.2 20006 1520 36336 13280 20935 1348 35563 11584 24262 385 174 36405 6083 9684 200 15967 13046 21515 34561 14104 20655 1627 18 36404 2500 6639 120 9259 5999 16523 590 6 23118 249219 88700 285074 168533 0.6285 0.7375 285074168533 TRUE
62.3 16557 1309 36622 17642 16797 1277 35716 15914 20660 279 113 36966 9949 7452 222 17623 17321 17287 34608 18158 17022 1456 22 36658 3626 3767 170 7563 7761 13900 689 18 22368 199787 132000 230672 219328 0.5126 0.6022230672219328 TRUE
62.4 22101 1014 36774 13223 21354 1229 35806 11565 24711 383 251 36910 5923 8845 206 14974 13302 21207 34509 14203 20929 1606 15 36753 3084 5255 187 8526 7941 16930 719 14 25604 247868 93339 277271 167744 0.6231 0.7264277271167744 TRUE
63.1 23181 710 33166 10585 20830 846 32261 11964 21137 215 109 33425 5900 11310 140 17350 11468 19612 31080 12516 19238 1234 18 33006 2480 5980 33 8493 5171 13343 444 13 18971227949110876244785130527 0.6522 0.6728244785130527 TRUE
63.2 15863 420 29826 14322 14304 530 29156 13816 16004 146 76 30042 10318 6790 115 17223 14745 13571 28316 15028 13845 808 11 29692 4932 3626 62 8620 7733 9852 248 7 17840162216120910174479178679 0.4941 0.5729174479178679 
63.3 23262 646 33027 10323 21007 813 32143 11865 21189 211 90 33355 5998 10928 126 17052 11017 19843 30860 12282 19455 1107 24 32868 2545 5493 55 8093 5304 14089 479 12 19884 246942 117539 245412 128972 0.6555 0.6775245412128972 TRUE
66.1 13755 784 34191 16828 15908 816 33552 14903 19338 136 24 34401 10124 6434 131 16689 16284 16374 32658 16325 16854 981 5 34165 4905 3729 91 8725 8783 13981 450 14 23228 192200 134413 207204 209497 0.4972 0.5885 207204209497 FALSE
66.2 13948 755 32225 14062 16717 863 31642 13541 18586 181 95 32403 8651 8163 146 16960 14429 16368 30797 14044 17175 952 14 32185 3745 4795 55 8595 6789 13899 406 9 21103193447116183201563168894 0.5441 0.6248201563168894 TRUE
68.1 14286 916 30349 14788 13867 957 29612 13953 16339 201 104 30597 8150 5339 157 13646 15419 13491 28910 15026 14297 1047 16 30386 4179 4306 60 8545 7716 10527 364 8 18615162572130581188528192792 0.4944 0.5546188528192792 FALSE
68.2 16366 763 31218 13804 16017 827 30648 12230 18818 170 86 31304 7667 6711 128 14506 14084 16022 30106 13891 16399 901 10 31201 3249 4859 63 8171 7629 12449 383 6 20467190838115993209554171623 0.5498 0.622 209554171623 TRUE
68.3 17815 598 33267 13789 18037 625 32451 11197 22230 115 56 33598 7299 8038 124 15461 13132 18530 31662 12913 19665 735 9 33322 4225 7084 62 11371 6648 15135 288 3 22074 217619 104982 226394 158025 0.5889 0.6746226394158025 TRUE
68.4 20280 852 35380 14112 19656 862 34630 12884 22385 196 93 35558 7488 8656 158 16302 14624 19311 33935 14296 21053 1017 15 35381 3460 6452 89 104301 7544 15801 444 11 238111240859122192258215175441 0.5954 0.6634 258215175441 TRUE
68.5 18428 822 34577 15126 17749 921 33796 14422 20068 191 110 34791 8315 7659 139 16113 15814 17259 33073 15496 18017 1022 19 34554 4237 6334 89 10660 7857 14249 461 9 22576 220951 140100 231211 187452 0.5523 0.612231211187452 TRUE
69.1 12173 1400 34037 19579 12185 1594 33358 20735 13811 188 118 34852 11580 5025 162 16767 19842 12383 32225 21673 11248 1208 14 34143 5010 3304 89 8403 11293 10362 451 8 22114 154065199654153757246197 0.3844 0.4356153757246197 FALSE
69.2 19971 1633 38741 15733 20072 1764 37569 17294 21827 253 170 39544 7540 8412 190 16142 16419 19605 36024 18933 18368 1585 24 38910 2737 4725 63 7525 8369 16199 552 12 25132 222041 157975 254004 200964 0.5583 0.5843 254004200964 TRUE
69.3 19054 1645 38019 15714 19526 1826 37066 16925 21401 211 164 38701 7630 7536 174 15340 16766 18849 35615 18985 17564 1615 17 38181 2994 4791 79 7864 9012 16226 584 15 25837 213346 162585 249144 208106 0.5449 0.5675 249144208106 TRUE
69.4 20609 1672 39207 15387 21244 1786 38417 15217 24009 251 144 39621 6812 8835 224 15871 16202 20845 37047 18624 18956 1740 13 39333 3647 7267 114 11028 9386 19704 631 9 29730 272175 143879 254683 198173 0.5624 0.6542254683198173 TRUE
610.1 15067 1681 40434 22351 15547 1655 39553 23611 16821 312 237 40981 13057 6732 221 20010 23094 15101 38195 23959 15010 1604 15 40588 6922 4276 98 11296 13252 11454 690 16 25412 164276 228106 192327 276461 0.4103 0.4187192327276461 FALSE
610.2 16539 1600 40381 20718 17260 1567 39545 22246 18297 261 226 41030 12179 7534 212 19925 21582 16600 38182 22627 16304 1603 14 40548 6435 4801 96 11332 12019 12922 672 13 25626 178523 223856 210174 253936 0.4529 0.4437 210174 253936 FALSE
610.3 15640 1584 40967 22340 16259 1510 40109 23751 17338 306 239 41634 13598 7237 207 21042 22953 15799 38752 24081 15508 1540 15 41144 7545 4655 112 12312 13724 12229 714 22 26689 165675 229973 201009 276141 0.4213 0.4187201009276141 FALSE
611.1 19257 758 34196 15157 17402 974 33533 13619 20211 247 147 34224 7790 8418 251 16459 14933 17931 32864 15726 17079 1308 11 34124 3028 3922 110 7060 7775 12560 459 4 20798 201189 107939 224678 181542 0.5531 0.6508224678181542 TRUE
611.2 16971 1020 31369 17931 12779 758 31468 10923 20660 223 133 31939 6092 6431 238 12761 13253 16583 29836 14190 16178 1210 14 31592 2683 4054 135 6872 6359 13857 500 10 20726 200190 95771209502162843 0.5627 0.6764209502162843 TRUE
612.1 25540 848 37751 12727 22924 1144 36795 13528 23974 258 14 37774 6169 9457 148 15774 13624 21658 35282 15139 20832 1579 0 37550 2336 4148 68 6552 7098 16495 539 0 24132252119129673284621166353 0.6311 0.6604284621166353 TRUE
612.2 23611 843 34551 10728 21901 1154 33783 10370 23858 293 126 34647 5207 9844 140 15191 11316 21470 32786 12015 20860 1597 14 34486 2103 6074 97 8274 5311 14541 544 12 20408 238692 84124 284629 142312 0.6667 0.7394284629142312 TRUE
612.3 21880 1103 37917 14396 21504 1154 37054 14424 23402 268 124 38218 7881 9559 195 17635 14924 21094 36018 15939 20738 1267 21 37965 3436 6344 108 9888 7669 16348 548 11 24576 236116 122238 274329 183076 0.5998 0.6589274329183076 TRUE
612.4 15482 691 33950 17821 14399 858 33078 15872 17951 231 134 34188 10286 4892 147 15325 17852 14300 32152 18615 14058 1180 22 33875 4607 2579 128 7314 10539 11479 418 11 22447 171841 140471 182906 230778 0.4421 0.5502182906230778 FALSE
612.5 22918 815 37885 14991 20983 1062 37036 14447 23153 252 144 37996 8344 9339 206 17889 15530 20269 35799 16304 20068 1421 16 37809 3575 4955 119 8649 8015 15451 483 15 23964 229406 119369 262790 189810 0.5806 0.6577 262790189810 TRUE
612.6 20935 743 34973 14419 18653 1064 34136 15474 19366 200 9 35049 8218 7461 117 15796 15336 17606 32942 16575 16971 1298 1 34845 3094 3320 45 6459 7576 12729 459 0 20764 205797 153754 228710 183630 0.5547 0.5724228710183630 TRUE
615.1 11022 2158 45042 32685 9036 1853 43574 37075 8526 322 205 46128 20957 3972 201 25130 33576 8890 42466 35212 8967 1156 28 45363 10444 1641 42 12127 20516 5410 552 16 26494 77301354228114564 388740 0.2276 0.1791114564 388740 FALSE
615.2 15304 1553 39193 21941 14993 1378 38312 22276 16948 283 137 39644 13341 6806 141 20288 22364 14998 37362 22858 15286 1150 19 39313 8025 3826 63 11914 13974 11940 627 10 26551 170951 212611 195622 270579 0.4196 0.4457195622270579 FALSE
616.1 21161 734 34086 13276 19072 1065 33413 13851 19900 246 139 34136 7873 9567 183 17623 14022 18584 32606 14671 18048 1277 14 34010 2795 5414 57 8266 6582 12941 469 14 20006196698111938263330179977 0.594 0.6373 263330179977 TRUE
616.2 23768 755 35315 11908 21547 1129 34584 11800 23089 244 173 35306 6532 10928 224 17684 12457 21215 33672 13252 20421 1510 20 35203 2360 6105 52 8517 6065 14762 558 12 21397 232853 90698 293235 165050 0.6399 0.7197293235165050 TRUE
617.1 11089 2263 42454 29776 10005 1559 41340 33308 9699 223 137 43367 17981 3849 135 21965 30850 9623 40473 31701 9920 976 13 42610 6613 1750 30 8393 18240 6589 446 13 25288 89382 337250 122984 361938 0.2536 0.2095122984361938 FALSE
617.2 14100 1683 43300 27956 13216 1256 42428 29030 14385 224 146 43785 15939 5220 157 21316 28378 13135 41513 28912 13522 966 13 43413 6718 2561 45 9324 17182 9839 439 12 27472 124259 294977 161342 334176 0.3256 0.2964161342334176 FALSE
617.3 16790 1679 43000 24607 15899 1531 42037 25843 17011 306 174 43334 14818 6798 147 21763 25456 15423 40879 26016 15775 1254 20 43065 9174 4829 52 14055 17075 13312 676 11 31074185157269441197487298895 0.3979 0.4073197487298895 FALSE
617.4 6430 952 38895 31724 5815 939 38478 33137 5926 144 84 39291 20419 2489 117 23025 32029 5926 37955 32163 5989 755 21 38928 8630 1200 47 9877 17841 3842 260 10 21953 66849 332688 75429 383461 0.1644 0.1673 75429383461 FALSE
619.1 19361 575 34767 18900 14733 692 34325 14060 20603 186 138 34987 9003 6341 134 15478 16195 16595 32790 16961 16601 1128 15 34705 4110 2679 108 6897 8406 12510 395 7 21318 192265 121608 219712 206128 0.5159 0.6126219712206128 TRUE
619.2 19425 570 29565 10522 17715 790 29027 9969 19461 166 10 29606 5631 8617 97 14345 10666 17330 27996 11307 16944 1188 0 29439 2501 5161 S7 7719 5050 11896 421 0 17367 203683 91719 222395 129806 0.6314 0.6895222395129806 TRUE
619.3 22840 648 34094 11859 20562 875 33296 12141 21800 173 21 34135 6142 9291 98 15531 12506 19549 32055 13432 19279 1200 0 33911 2895 5760 52 8707 6118 14339 489 0 20946 229127 115474 254389149996 06291 0.6649254389149996 TRUE
619.4 15990 461 28708 13601 13977 694 28272 12269 16327 168 38 28802 8189 6439 155 14783 13251 14177 27428 13747 13865 1026 4 28642 3691 3586 72 7349 6155 9733 356 4 16248162534108150187848165949 0.5309 0.6005187848165949 TRUE
620.1 15084 1488 34470 16403 15811 1467 33681 14566 20002 222 122 34912 9637 7019 486 17142 16318 16066 32384 17350 15643 1513 12 34518 5429 4946 121 10496 9212 14516 476 9 24213 208054 130170 204647 206797 0.4974 0.6151204647206797 FALSE
620.2 7739 373 25357 16554 7507 614 24675 13677 11786 122 61 25646 10225 2498 156 12879 15836 8522 24358 14501 10585 419 8 25513 4497 1670 72 6239 7326 7118 217 4 14665107218120888114101203244 0.3595 0.47114101203244 FABE
620.3 7504 492 27906 19066 7465 649 27180 15775 12237 153 99 28264 12181 2466 164 14811 18249 8364 26613 17165 10264 564 13 28006 5813 1504 93 7410 8862 7770 238 19 16889115150134984111671238101 0.3193 0.4604111671238101 FALSE
621.1 14730 699 33700 17621 14550 832 33003 16212 17677 130 62 34081 10952 6756 159 17867 17412 14975 32387 17611 15289 828 7 33735 4614 3886 61 8561 8469 10955 338 12 19774 168857 152571 192986 214572 0.4735 0.5253192986214572 FALSE
621.2 6857 527 22916 15281 6779 557 22617 15820 7502 80 57 23459 11067 3795 114 14976 15417 6894 22311 15574 6906 505 5 22990 4199 1541 30 5770 6843 3853 170 6 10872 59924126840 89023185535 0.3242 0.3209 89023185535 FALSE

Once the House and Senate Redistricting Committees announced the specific Chen base
map that was selected for each grouping, any recipient of the backup files that Legislative
Defendants’ counsel sent on September 9 could have looked up the partisanship data for any
given district. At the Committees’ request, Dr. Chen had also sent PDFs to the Committees of
each simulated House and Senate map, and those PDFs labeled the districts using the same labels
of “1.1,” “1.2,” etc. that appear in Dr. Chen’s backup files containing all the partisanship data.
See, e.g., Ex. F (one of the PDFs that Dr. Chen provided to the Committees).
While career staff from the Legislative Services Office stated that they did not complete
downloading the backup files that Legislative Defendants’ counsel distributed, Legislative
Defendants never disclosed whether any other recipients of the email downloaded the files.
Several members of the House Redistricting Committee asked Representative Lewis to have the
General Assembly’s IT staff investigate whether anyone using the General Assembly’s network
clicked on the link in the email from Legislative Defendants’ counsel, and Representative Lewis
pledged that he would have the IT staff conduct such an investigation. 9/10/19 House Comm.
Tr. at 81:1-82:18. But, to Plaintiffs’ knowledge, Representative Lewis never reported back
whether IT conducted such an investigation and if so what it found.1
Legislative Defendants’ failure to conduct such an inquiry is particularly troubling
because their counsel failed to take prompt action to prevent recipients of the email from
accessing the files. Legislative Defendants’ counsel sent the email containing the link at 4:24
p.m. on September 9. Ex. D (9/9/19 4:24 PM email from Riggins). Twenty minutes later,
Plaintiffs’ counsel replied all to the same email thread notifying all recipients (including all

1

The findings of any such investigation would not have been conclusive in any event, since the email containing the
link could have been forwarded and anyone could have clicked on the link and downloaded the files from a network
outside of the General Assembly.

1

 members of the House Redistricting Committee) that the files contained partisanship data and
should not have been sent. Id. (9/9/19 4:45 PM email from Jones). When Plaintiffs’ counsel did
not hear back right away, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent another email 15 minutes later asking
Legislative Defendants’ counsel to confirm they had removed all of the files from the link. Ex. E
(9/9/19 4:59 PM email from Jacobson). Legislative Defendants’ counsel did not respond until
over two hours later, at 7:09 p.m., indicating only then that the link was disabled. Ex. D (9/9/19
7:09 PM email from Riggins). Thus, there was a nearly three-hour window between the time
when Legislative Defendants’ counsel transmitted the link to the partisanship data and when
counsel stated that the link was no longer active.
No one, including this Court, has any way of knowing which recipients of the email from
Legislative Defendants’ counsel downloaded the files and accessed the comprehensive
partisanship data collected there about Dr. Chen’s simulated maps. And of course, Legislative
Defendants, their counsel, and all of their consultants and experts have had unfettered access to
the backup files showing the partisanship of every district in Dr. Chen’s simulated maps since
April 8, when Dr. Chen submitted his opening expert report and accompanying backup files.
C.

Legislative Defendants’ Counsel and the House Redistricting Committee
Likely Gather and Analyze Partisanship Data on Dr. Chen’s House Maps

Even beyond the likelihood that individual members of the House Redistricting
Committee downloaded and accessed partisanship data on Dr. Chen’s simulated maps, there is
reason to believe that Legislative Defendants’ counsel and their experts analyzed partisanship
data on Dr. Chen’s House maps and used it to guide the House redistricting process.
As mentioned, on the first day of public hearings, legislative staff asked Plaintiffs’
counsel to send the shapefiles, block assignment files, and an Excel spreadsheet for Dr. Chen’s
maps. Dr. Chen proceeded to assemble this large volume of data, and Plaintiffs’ counsel

2

 transmitted the requested materials to legislative staff and Committee members late at night after
the first day of hearings.
Whereas the Senate Committee promptly began the process of picking base maps from
Dr. Chen’s simulations the morning after Plaintiffs’ counsel transmitted the necessary data, the
House Committee did not. Rather, on September 10 at the first House Committee hearing after
receiving the data, Representative Lewis announced that “the defendants’ counsel have asked for
a chance to review” the data sent by Plaintiffs’ counsel to purportedly “make sure, indeed, that
this is the same information that was before the Court.” 9/10/19 House Comm. Tr. at 4:19-22.
Representative Lewis did not explain what exactly Legislative Defendants’ “review” would
entail. Representative Lewis also did not disclose that Legislative Defendants’ counsel were
having two outside experts—including a political consultant named Clark Bensen who has
previously assisted Legislative Defendants in gerrymandering districts in North Carolina—
conduct this review of Dr. Chen’s maps and data. See Leg. Defs. Br. at 27.
It was not until late in the evening on Wednesday, September 11—nearly two full
business days after the House Committee received Dr. Chen’s maps and data from Plaintiffs’
counsel—that the House Committee re-commenced its process. Legislative Defendants now say
that their outside counsel and consultants were ensuring the “accuracy and authenticity” of the
data that Plaintiffs’ counsel had sent. Leg. Defs. Br. at 27. But Legislative Defendants have not
explained how this review was conducted, let alone why their counsel and consultants needed
nearly two full days to conduct this purported review.
It appears likely that Legislative Defendants’ counsel or their consultants were instead
organizing and/or reviewing partisanship data on Dr. Chen’s simulated House maps during this
two-day period. When Plaintiffs’ counsel sent Dr. Chen’s maps and data to the House and

3

 Senate Committees, Plaintiffs’ counsel noted in the transmission email that, because Legislative
Defendants’ counsel had improperly sent the backup files containing partisanship data, Dr. Chen
had relabeled the numbers for his 4,000 statewide plans; e.g., he may have changed the map
originally labeled “Map 1” to “Map 376.” But, unfortunately, this measure could not have
prevented Legislative Defendants’ counsel or their experts from matching the new map numbers
to the old ones. For instance, in the Excel spreadsheet he provided, Dr. Chen reported the
statewide Polsby-Popper and Reock compactness scores for each of his 4,000 statewide plans. In
his April 8 backup files, Dr. Chen had provided those same Polsby-Popper and Reock scores for
each of the 4,000 plans. Hence, Legislative Defendants’ counsel or their experts would have
needed only to identify the old and new map numbers that had the same compactness scores to
know which old map number corresponded to which new number. There are many other ways
Legislative Defendants’ counsel or their experts could have matched up the maps as well during
their two-day review.
In addition, during this two-day gap, Legislative Defendants’ outside counsel and
consultants may have been comparing the partisanship of the top 5 unique maps in each relevant
House grouping in Simulation Set 1 versus Simulation Set 2. On the first two days of the
legislative hearings, Representative Lewis insisted that the House Committee would use
Simulation Set 2 and not Set 1. See, e.g., 9/9/19 House Comm. Tr. at 73:13-21; 9/10/19 House
Comm. Tr. at 58:20-24, 61:6-14. But when the House Committee finally re-convened after
Legislative Defendants’ outside counsel and consultants finished their review, Representative
Lewis announced that he had changed his mind and that the House would be using Set 1 instead
of Set 2. 9/11/19 House Comm. Tr. at 3:16-18. Given that Dr. Chen had listed his top 5 unique
maps in each grouping in Set 1 and Set 2 in the Excel spreadsheet he provided, Legislative

4

 Defendants’ counsel and consultants could have analyzed partisanship data for those top 5
unique maps in each grouping and concluded that Simulation Set 1 was better for House
Republicans, on net. Representative Lewis’ explanation for his change of heart—that he
suddenly saw merit in the arguments against Simulation Set 2—is dubious at best. See id.
Indeed, Legislative Defendants’ reliance on “their non-testifying expert” Clark Bensen
raises enormous red flags. Mr. Bensen runs a political consulting firm known as “POLIDATA”
that specializes in “collecting election data” at “multiple levels of political geography.” Ex. G.
In 2011, Legislative Defendants relied on Mr. Bensen to provide political data for them in
drawing the 2011 plans. See Ex. H at 55-56 (Dale Oldham stating in deposition that Mr. Bensen
“provided data” for use in North Carolina’s 2011 redistricting); see also Ex. I (additional
documents produced in discovery in Dickson involving Mr. Bensen). Further, according to his
resume, Mr. Bensen previously served as the director of “Political Analysis” for the Republican
National Committee (RNC), where his duties were to “undertake the collection, compilation,
systematization and analysis of politically related data.” Ex. J at 4.2 Here is a biography that Mr.
Bensen himself wrote describing his experience as a political consultant who specializes in
analyzing elections data:
An attorney by training and a data analyst by practice, Clark Bensen has been
involved in projects related to the art of politics for over thirty years. He has been
involved in redistricting and census issues throughout the previous three
reapportionment cycles and has developed political and census datasets for every
state in the nation. His company, a demographic and political research firm, is
also the publisher of the POLIDATA ® DEMOGRAPHIC AND POLITICAL
GUIDES.
***
As a data analyst familiar with both census and political data, he has developed
countless political, demographic, and other datasets for analysis. Development of
2

Mr. Bensen filed this resume in connection with his service as an expert in Wilson v. Kasich, No. 12-0019 (Ohio),
available at https://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/volume7.pdf/.

5

 election datasets for every level of geography has been a specialty since 1974. For
several projects he has been responsible for the establishment of a nationwide
database of demographic and political information. Development of block-level
datasets with combined census information and estimated political data are the
key elements for many analyses related to districting and voting rights litigation.
Clark Bensen has been actively involved in elective politics for the past three
decades. His participation has included service at every level of local, state and
national politics, moving to Washington following the 1980 elections. He focuses
on database development, analysis, and publication while developing political and
census datasets for political stakeholders, the press, and academics as well as
providing litigation support for politically-related legal actions.
Ex. J at 17.
The notion that Mr. Bensen was not conducting partisanship analysis for Legislative
Defendants and their counsel during the remedial process is not credible.
D.

House Incumbents Draw Their Own Districts

After the House and Senate Committees picked base maps from Dr. Chen’s simulations,
each Committee began amending its base for the ostensible purpose of unpairing incumbents.
The entire framework of selecting a base map from Dr. Chen’s simulations that paired
incumbents and then allowing the incumbents to manually unpair themselves was ill-conceived,
see infra, but the process was far worse in the House than in the Senate. In the Senate, only two
of the seven Senate groupings required unpairing incumbents, and for those two groupings,
legislators at least worked together on a bipartisan consensus basis to achieve the unpairing.
Moreover, while Senator Hise improperly ejected the public and the press from the mapmaking
area in the Senate Committee room while incumbents were developing their amendments, the
Senate Committee room was at least small enough that the public in the back of the room could
hear most of the discussions amongst the legislators.
That was not true in the House, which carried out the incumbency protection process very
differently. In the House, for each county grouping, Representative Lewis called up to the

6

 mapmaking computer terminal the incumbents who lived in that particular grouping, and he
allowed those incumbents to redraw the districts to unpair themselves. In other words,
incumbents got to pick and choose how they wanted to amend their own districts from the base
map, ostensibly in the name of unpairing themselves but in many cases for obvious partisan
purposes. See infra. Making matters worse, the incumbents made these changes largely outside
of public earshot and without explaining each change that was being made. The House
Committee room is much larger than the Senate Committee room, and the mapmaking terminals
were at the front of the room several hundred feet away from where the public could sit in the
back. And the audio of the computer terminal on the live feed was often difficult or impossible
to hear. Thus, while the public could see House districts lines being moved on the screen, it
could not hear the hushed discussions amongst incumbent legislators—who were huddled around
the computer terminal—as those legislators were moving the boundaries of their own districts.
E.

The House Map Passes on a Party-Line Vote

The material differences between the House and Senate processes were apparent to
legislators and reflected in the final roll call votes. While a number of Democrats voted for the
Proposed Senate Plan, every Democrat in both chambers voted against the Proposed House Plan.
The Proposed House Plan thus passed both chambers on straight party-line votes.
Legislative Defendants misleadingly quote several statements from Democratic Senators
as support for their erroneous assertion that the process used by both chambers “received the
support of Democratic members.” Legs. Defs. Br. at 5. All of the quotes reproduced in
Legislative Defendants’ brief related solely to the Senate’s process and not the House.
Democrats in both chambers consistently expressed opposition to the House Committee’s
process, actions, and ultimately the House map.

7

 Legislative Defendants also erroneously suggest that Democrats opposed only one
particular House grouping (the Columbus-Pender-Robeson grouping). Legislative Defendants
assert that, for every other House grouping, the House Committee “adopted the map”
unanimously. See Leg Defs. Br. at 17-20. What actually happened was that, within minutes of
the incumbents of each grouping revising their districts from the base map, Representative Lewis
asked whether any Committee members wanted to voice objections. See, e.g., 9/12/19 House
Comm. Tr. at 34:6-15. This request was made before Committee members even had any time to
closely review the revisions from the base map. When the House later called a separate vote on
all of the House groupings other than Columbus-Pender-Robeson, all but eight House Democrats
voted against it. 9/13/19 House Floor Sess. at 591:1-12.
ARGUMENT
I.

The House’s Process Violated the Court’s Decree
The House’s remedial mapmaking process violated this Court’s Decree in a host of ways.

The violations include that: the House Committee enlisted Legislative Defendants’ outside
counsel and consultants to assist in the mapmaking process, without securing Court approval and
outside of public view; Legislative Defendants provided partisanship data on Dr. Chen’s
simulated maps to House Committee members; House incumbents sought to preserve
“communities of interest,” a criterion not permitted by the Court; and House incumbents ignored
compactness in amending the maps to protect themselves.
A.

Legislative Defendants Improperly Provided Partisanship Data to House
Members and Relied on Outside Counsel with Access to Partisanship Data

1.

The House Committee violated this Court’s Decree by having Legislative

Defendants’ outside counsel and consulting experts assist in the House’s remedial process. This
Court directed that, “[t]o the extent that Legislative Defendants wish to retain one or more

8

 individuals who are not current legislative employees to assist in the map-drawing process,
Legislative Defendants must seek and obtain prior approval from the Court to engage any such
individuals.” Decree ¶ 9. The Court further provided that “Legislative Defendants and their
agents shall conduct the entire remedial process in full public view.” Id. ¶ 8 (emphases added).
The House Committee violated both of these provisions in having Legislative
Defendants’ outside counsel and consultants conduct a secret two-day review of the maps and
Excel spreadsheet that Dr. Chen provided. Legislative Defendants’ outside counsel and
consultants are not “current legislative employees,” and the Court did not authorize these
attorneys and consultants to assist the House Redistricting Committee in its remedial process.
Legislative Defendants’ outside counsel and consultants, moreover, conducted their two-day
analysis of Dr. Chen’s maps and data outside of “public view,” even though they are “agents” of
Legislative Defendants subject to the Court’s Decree.3 The House Committee’s reliance on Dr.
Thornton and Mr. Bensen—two consultants with extensive experience sorting and analyzing
elections data—is an especially flagrant violation of the Court’s order. See Leg. Defs. Br. at 27.
Dr. Thornton analyzed the partisanship of Dr. Chen’s maps for her expert report, LDTX286 at
30-33, and Mr. Bensen is a political consultant who specializes in analyzing political data,
including for use in redistricting generally and for redistricting in North Carolina specifically.
Indeed, in 2011, Mr. Bensen provided granular North Carolina elections data to Legislative
Defendants to help them draw the 2011 Plans. See Exs. H, I. Had Legislative Defendants sought

3

As described previously, unlike the House Committee, the Senate Committee did not have outside counsel or
consultants review Dr. Chen’s data to purportedly ensure it was “accurate and authentic” before picking a base map.
Legs. Defs. Br. at 26. Instead, the Senate Committee immediately began the process of picking a base map the
morning after Plaintiffs’ counsel transmitted Dr. Chen’s maps and data. That the Senate Committee did not need
outside counsel or consultants to “review” the data only further calls into question the House Committee’s actions.

9

 the Court’s permission to have Mr. Bensen and Dr. Thornton assist in the remedial process, as
was required by the Court’s Decree, Plaintiffs would have vigorously opposed the request.
The House Committee’s violations of the Court’s Decree are all the more troubling given
that Legislative Defendants’ outside counsel and consultants have had access to partisanship data
on all of Dr. Chen’s maps since April 8. As already explained, there are strong indications that
counsel and/or the consultants did assemble and analyze partisanship data on the maps, and the
mere fact that this Court cannot be certain such did not occur casts an enormous shadow over the
House’s process and final maps. But in any event, the work performed by Legislative
Defendants’ outside counsel and consultants during the remedial process violates the Court’s
Decree no matter the nature of the work, since that work was done outside of “public view” and
without approval of the Court. See Decree ¶¶ 8, 9.
2.

Legislative Defendants independently violated the Court’s order that “election

results data shall not be used in the drawing of legislative districts in the Remedial Maps,”
Judgment COL ¶ 169, by transmitting “elections data” for each of Dr. Chen’s maps to all House
Committee members and several political staffers for Representative Lewis on the very first day
of hearings. Legislative Defendants will likely claim that there is no direct proof that any
recipients of the email downloaded and used the elections data. But Legislative Defendants
appear to have not investigated that question and they have provided no accounting to the Court
of who accessed the link. The fact that this Court has no way of knowing one way or the other
whether House members or staff accessed the data suffices to find a violation of the Court’s
order. And it provides reason to reject any House grouping where House incumbents exercised
significant discretion in amending (or choosing not to amend) the base map.

10

 B.

The House’s Incumbency Protection Process Violated Multiple Aspects of the
Court’s Judgment and Decree

This Court ordered that “[t]he mapmakers may take reasonable efforts to not pair
incumbents unduly in the same election district.” Decree ¶ 5(g). The House’s efforts to avoid
pairing incumbents were not “reasonable.”
The House’s entire approach to incumbency protection—i.e., starting with one of Dr.
Chen’s maps that paired incumbents and then allowing incumbents to manually unpair
themselves—was unreasonable. If Legislative Defendants wanted to use one of Dr. Chen’s maps
but also to avoid pairing the current incumbents, they could have simply asked Dr. Chen to run a
new version of his Simulation Set 2 that avoided pairing the current incumbents (Dr. Chen’s
Simulation Set 2 avoided pairing the incumbents in office in 2011 or 2017 when the relevant
districts were drawn). That would have been straightforward—Dr. Chen has now done so for the
five House groupings described in detail below—and it would have allowed for a set of nonpartisan simulated maps in which incumbency protection did not subordinate traditional
districting criteria and could not be manipulated for partisan gain. Representative Lewis
acknowledged on the second day of hearings that this “idea has been floated.” 9/10/19 House
Comm. Tr. at 62:13-17; cf. 9/17/19 Senate Comm. Tr. at 21:25-22:1 (Representative Lewis
claiming, “I don’t think anyone in the House Committee suggested a Chen Set 3” along these
lines).
The House instead started with maps that paired incumbents and had the incumbents
contort the district lines to unpair themselves, guaranteeing that the compactness of many
groupings would be mangled. This process also opened the door to partisan manipulation,
especially because the House entrusted the incumbents from each grouping to amend their own

11

 districts rather than having the whole House Committee perform the unpairing. The House’s
process took the notion of having “representatives choose their own voters” to the extreme.
As no surprise given this fatally flawed process, the House’s incumbency protection
efforts led to multiple violations of the Court’s Decree. In addition to improperly pursuing
partisan goals in the specific House groupings described in the section to follow, the House’s
incumbency protection efforts violated the following aspects of the Court’s order.
1.

The House improperly sought to preserve “communities of interest” in amending

the base map. Legislative Defendants explicitly state in their September 23 filing that House
Committee made changes to the base map not “simply to unpair incumbents,” but also “to
preserve communities of interest.” Leg. Defs. Br. at 16. Representative Hall, the Chair of the
House Committee, stated the same after the House’s revisions to the base map were complete.
He told the Senate Committee that House incumbents “knew their areas as to where particular
neighborhoods are and communities of interest,” and took this into account in revising their
districts. 9/17/19 Senate Comm. Tr. at 17:6-18:3. This violates the Court’s Decree. The Court
directed that the criteria set forth in Paragraph 5 of its Decree “shall exclusively govern the
redrawing of districts in the House and Senate.” Decree ¶ 5 (emphasis added). Preserving
communities of interest is not one of the exclusive criteria that the Court permitted the House to
apply. Indeed, this Court noted in its judgment that “Legislative Defendants expressly declined
to include ‘communities of interest’ as a criterion for the 2017 Plans,” Judgment FOF ¶ 200, and
the Court did not include communities of interest as a criterion for the remedial process for this
reason.
As documented further below, it is apparent that in some cases the House used
“communities of interest” as a smokescreen for reverting to the invalidated districts and/or

12

 putting incumbents into more politically favorable districts. But regardless, given that the House
by its own admission applied a criterion that the Court did not permit, the House’s process on its
face violates the Court’s order.
2.

The House entirely ignored compactness in protecting incumbents. There was

little, if any, mention of compactness throughout the process of revising the House groupings
from the base map. And there were never any calculations presented in the House as to how the
revisions to a grouping from the base map affected the compactness scores for that grouping.
As a result, the House subordinated compactness just like it did in the 2017 House Plan.
In striking down the 2017 House Plan, this Court credited Dr. Chen’s finding that the 2017
House Plan “subordinate[d] the traditional districting criterion of compactness” and produced
districts that were “less compact than they would be under a map-drawing process that prioritizes
and follows the traditional districting criteria.” Judgment FOF ¶ 93. Dr. Chen reached this
conclusion after finding that the 2017 House Plan was less compact than all 2,000 of his House
plans in Simulation Set 1 and Simulation Set 2. Remarkably, the same is true of the new
Proposed House Plan. Dr. Chen compared the compactness of the 14 House groupings that this
Court ordered to be redrawn to those same 14 groupings in his House Simulations Set 1 and 2.
Dr. Chen found that, across these 14 groupings, the Proposed House Plan has a lower PolsbyPopper score than all 2,000 plans in both House Simulation 1 and House Simulation 2, and has a
lower Reock score than the overwhelming majority of the simulated plans as well. Chen 9/27
Report at 63-66. If the 2017 House Plan improperly subordinated compactness, then the
Proposed House Plan necessarily does as well.
In the event that Legislative Defendants argue that the Proposed House Plan is good
enough on compactness because it is more compact than the 2011 Plan that preceded the 2017

13

 Plan, this Court should reject that argument for the same reasons it did at trial. This Court held
that “Dr. Chen’s interpretation and application” of the compactness criterion in the 2017
Adopted Criteria—that all else being equal, more compact districts are preferable to less compact
districts—“is fully consistent with the guidance provided by Legislative Defendants at the time
of the 2017 redistricting.” Judgment FOF ¶ 142; see Trial Tr. at 257:14-18. This Court rejected
Legislative Defendants’ argument that the Adopted Criteria meant that the General Assembly
should seek only to meet some minimum compactness threshold tied to the 2011 Plans but do no
better. Judgment FOF ¶¶ 142, 143. The House was on full notice of the proper application of
the compactness requirement in this Court’s Decree and simply ignored it.
***
All of the above violations of the Court’s Decree led to a Proposed House Map that is an
extreme partisan outlier. As Dr. Chen details in his attached report and is shown below, based on
the ten statewide elections from 2010-2016 that Dr. Chen used to assess partisanship, the
Proposed House Map produces more Republican-leaning seats than nearly 95% of Dr. Chen’s
House Simulation Set 1 plan and nearly 98% of Dr. Chen’s House Simulation Set 2 plans.4 Chen
9/27 Report at 2-4 (Figures 1 and 2).

4

In contrast, the Proposed Senate Plan is not at outlier relative to the distribution of Dr. Chen’s simulated Senate
plans, although it is at the more Republican-favorable end of the distribution. Chen 9/27 Report at 2, 5-6.

14

 Frequency Among Simulated Districting Plans

(1 ,000 Total Simulated Plans)

 

Figure 1:
House Simulation Set 1 (Following Only Non-Partisan Redistricting Criteria):
Democratic-Favoring Districts in HE 1020 House Plan Versus 1,000 Simulated Plans
(Measured Using 2010-2016 Election Composite)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HB 1020 Plan
300 (As Filed with Court on

Sept. 19, 20190.6% 4.8% 17.2% 28.4% 27.8% 13.2% 5.8% 2% 0.Number of Districts with More Democratic than Republican Votes (Out of 120 Total Districts)
(Measured Using Votes Summed Across 2010-2016 Statewide Elections,
Which corresponds to a 47.92% Statewide Democratic Vote Share)

Figure 2:

House Simulation Set 2 (Following Non-Partisan Redistricting Criteria and Avoiding Incumbent Pairings):

Frequency Among Simulated Districting Plans

(1,000 Total Simulated Plans150-

100-

50-

 

Democratic?Favoring Districts in HB 1020 House Plan Versus 1,000 Simulated Plans
(Measured Using 2010?2016 Election Composite)

HB 1020 Plan
(As Filed with Court on
Sept. 19, 2019)

 

 

 

 

 

0.1% 2.1% 8.8% 22.2% 31.9% 21% 9.9% 2.8% 1.Number of Districts with More Democratic than Republican Votes (Out of 120 Total Districts)
(Measured Using Votes Summed Across 2010?2016 Statewide Elections,
Which corresponds to a 47.92% Statewide Democratic Vote Share)

15

The 2017 House Plan was “an extreme partisan outlier,” Judgment FOF ¶ 102, and that
continues to be the case with the Proposed House Plan. The Proposed House Plan cannot stand
in its current form.
II.

The Court Should Reject Five House Groupings in the Proposed House Plan
For all of the reasons provided above, the Court would be justified in rejecting the entire

House Plan. However, to limit the scope of relief sought and facilitate the expeditious adoption
of final plans, Plaintiffs focus their objections on the specific House groupings where the above
process violations had the most significant substantive effects. Specifically, Plaintiffs focus on
the five House groupings where the House’s incumbency protection process was carried out with
clear partisan intent, significantly subordinated traditional districting criteria, and/or improperly
reverted to the prior 2017 version of districts with the grouping. These five House groupings
are: (1) Columbus-Pender-Robeson; (2) Forsyth-Yadkin; (3) Gaston-Cleveland; (4) BrunswickNew Hanover; and (5) Guilford.
To aid the Court’s evaluation of these groupings, Dr. Chen created a new Simulation Set
3 for these five groupings that avoided pairing the current incumbents in office. Dr. Chen’s
Simulation Set 3 is identical to his Simulation Set 2 in all respects except Set 3 avoids pairing the
current incumbents rather than the incumbents in office in 2011 or 2017. Chen 9/27 Report at 1.
Dr. Chen finds that, in four of the five groupings, the Proposed House Plan is an extreme partisan
outlier relative to the districts in his Simulation Set 3. In other words, the Proposed House Map
in these four groupings is an extreme partisan outlier—in three of the groupings, an over 99%
outlier—relative to the possible configurations of the grouping that would emerge under a nonpartisan process that applied the traditional districting criteria and avoided pairing the current
incumbents. In Guilford County, the only of the five groupings that is not a partisan outlier, the

16

 Proposed House Plan significantly subordinates compactness and creates one district (HD 58)
that is nearly identical to the invalidated 2017 version of that district.
A.

Columbus-Pender-Robeson

In finding that the 2017 version of this county grouping was an “extreme partisan
gerrymander,” this Court gave “weight to the analysis of Plaintiffs’ experts.” Judgment FOF
¶ 333. Plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Cooper had explained that the 2017 map not only packed
Democratic voters in Robeson County into House District 47, but also cracked Democratic
voters in Columbus County across House Districts 46 and 16. In particular, Dr. Cooper
explained that “the Democratic areas of Chadbourne [were] cracked from the Democratic voters
in and around Whiteville, helping to ensure that neither HD-46 nor HD-16 would elect a
Democrat.” PX253 at 70 (Cooper Report). This Court highlighted this cracking in its opinion.
The Court held that “Legislative Defendants cracked African American voters” in groupings
including Columbus-Pender-Robeson “where cracking Democratic voters would maximize
Republican victories.” Judgment FOF ¶¶ 688-69. Chadbourn, Whiteville, and their surrounding
communities are the heavily African-American areas of Columbus County that the 2017 House
Plan cracked.
The base map that Legislative Defendants selected from Dr. Chen’s simulations cured
this cracking, as it kept Whiteville, Chadbourn, and their immediately surrounding areas together
in House District 46. But the Republican incumbents in this grouping proceeded to reinstate the
prior gerrymander. While the base map paired Republican incumbents Jones and Smith in
House District 16, Jones lives in a VTD on the border with House District 46, which had no
incumbent under the base map, meaning that unpairing him should not have been difficult.
Rather than make minimal, non-partisan changes to unpair the two incumbents, the incumbents
swapped a total of 11 VTDs between District 16 and 46 in a blatant effort to make District 46
17

 more favorable for Republicans. The amended map again cracks the Democratic voters of
Columbus County, again separating the VTDs in and around Whiteville and Chadbourn.
The below maps show the 2017 House Plan’s version of this grouping, the base map, and
the amended Proposed House Plan for this grouping. In these maps and all to follow, the colorcoding of VTDs represents the Democratic or Republican vote margin in the 2016 Attorney
General race, implemented the same way as in Dr. Cooper’s opening expert report. The blue star
represents the home address of the Democratic incumbents and the red stars represent the home
addresses of the Republican incumbents.

18

 2017 House Plan

    
    
 
   
        

Fender

Chadha .m ?Whiteville


Columbus

   

 

We



i0 20 40min


 

Proposed House Plan

I

'RObeson




Lu _n

 

Pr: ".5qu

16

     
 

Columbus

19

The revisions to the base map cracking Columbus County’s Democratic voters anew have
significant partisan effects. The revisions made House District 46 roughly two points more
Republican than the base map, while House District 16 remained a safe Republican seat despite
adding more Democratic voters. Chen 9/27 Report at 13 (Table 2a).
This cracking also rendered House District 46 an extreme outlier relative to the versions
of the district found in Dr. Chen’s Simulation Set 3. As shown below and in Dr. Chen’s report,
the Proposed House Plan’s version of House District 46 is less Democratic than its
corresponding district in over 92% of plans in Dr. Chen’s Simulation Set 3.

20

 None of Legislative Defendants’ explanations for the amendments that were made to this
grouping withstand scrutiny. Legislative Defendants appear to suggest that the amendments
were made to preserve communities of interest, as they note that members of the public from
Columbus County “expressed the view that Columbus County should be kept as whole as
possible.” Leg. Def. Br. at 20-21. Communities of interest is not a permissible criterion under
the Court’s Decree, and this explanation does not make sense anyway. Due to the county
traversal rule, this grouping necessarily must split Columbus County between House District 46
and House District 16. No configuration of this grouping can keep Columbus County more
“whole” than any other. Legislative Defendants also note that the Proposed House Plan does not
pair the incumbents in this grouping, but Representative Darren Jackson proposed two different
amendments that would have unpaired the incumbents while making fewer changes to the base
map, and Republicans rejected these amendments on a party-line vote. 9/13/19 House Floor
Sess. at 539:14-552:4. Dr. Chen’s Simulation Set 3 also establishes that there are numerous
configurations of this grouping that would avoid pairing the current incumbents.5 The House
Committee clearly acted with impermissible partisan intent in revising this country grouping.
B.

Forsyth-Yadkin

This Court found that the 2017 House Plan version of the Forsyth-Yadkin grouping
unlawfully “packed Democratic voters into House Districts 71 and 72” and “then cracked the
remaining Democratic voters in this grouping across the remaining districts.” Judgment FOF
¶ 405. The Court explained that, “in order to join Republican VTDs, House District 75
traverse[d] an extremely narrow passageway on the border of Forsyth County,” and that House

5

Dr. Chen also found that all of his Set 3 simulations for this grouping avoid splitting any VTDs and most do not
split any municipalities either. Chen 9/27 Report at 19-20. More than 40% of the simulations are equally or more
compact than the Proposed House Plan using Reock, and about a third are using Polsby-Popper. Id. at 16-18.

21

 District 75 also “wrap[ped] around the city [of Winston-Salem] to include Republican-dominated
VTDs on either side of Forsyth County.” Id. The Court also relied on Dr. Chen’s findings that,
compared to Simulation Set 1, “two of the districts in this grouping (House Districts 71 and 75)
[were] extreme partisan outliers above the 95% level,” and that four districts were outliers above
the 94% level compared to Set 2. Id. ¶ 409.
The incumbents in this grouping recreated the prior gerrymander and then some. The
base map had paired Republican incumbent Donny Lambeth with a Democratic incumbent in
southern Forsyth County. At the very onset of making revisions to the base map at the
mapmaking terminal, Representative Lambeth instructed staff to “take the 75th out to
Kernersville because I’ve represented it in the past.” 9/12/19 House Comm. Hr’g Video at
7:12:00-10.6 Representative Lambeth then reiterated a minute later in proposing a revision: “I’ve
represented Kernersville in the past.” Id. at 7:13:50-7:13:59. The remainder of the discussion
among the incumbents in this grouping is inaudible, but the incumbents from Districts 71 and 75
engaged in lengthy deliberations at the mapmaking terminal.
The Proposed House Plan that emerged from this process is an obvious gerrymander. In
particular, in amending the base map, the boundaries of House Districts 71 and 75 were amended
to pack three additional heavily Democratic VTDs into House District 71 and move the
Republican incumbent Lambeth into a safe Republican district. The House recreated the specific
features of the prior gerrymander of House District 75 in the process. Once again, “in order to
join Republican VTDs, House District 75 traverses an extremely narrow passageway on the
border of Forsyth County,” and once again, House District “wrap[s] around the city [of Winston-

6

Available at Redistricting 2019 Live Stream, https://www.ncleg.gov/Video/Redistricting2019 (at “Legislative
Office Building Room 643 feed). Conservations that occurred at the mapmaking do not appear on the transcripts
provided by Legislative Defendants but in some instances are audible on the live stream.

22

 Salem] to include Republican-dominated VTDs on either side of Forsyth County.” Judgment
FOF ¶ 405.
The map of the Proposed House Plan for this grouping—including the perfect division of
Democratic and Republican voters on the east side of Forsyth County—lays bare the patent
gerrymandering of this grouping.

23

 2017 House Plan

 

 

 

 

Base Map

 

Yaclliin 73

- av.

v. e.

 

 

Proposed House Plan

 

 

 

24

The House Committee’s amendments to the base map inured to the benefit of the
incumbents in this grouping and to the Republican Party as a whole. The House Committee
amended four districts in this grouping from the base map, and these amendments made the
districts of all four affected incumbents more politically favorable for those incumbents than the
districts in which they were placed into under the base map. Chen 9/27 Report at 23; see also
supra (showing district of each incumbent under base map). Most notably, the amendments
made House District 75 roughly 3.5 percentage points more Republican and House District 71
over two percentage points more Democratic using the 2010-2016 statewide elections. Id.
In making these revisions, the House explicitly violated this Court’s Decree that “the
invalidated 2017 districts may not be used as a starting point for drawing new districts, and no
effort may be made to preserve the cores of invalidated 2017 districts.” Decree ¶ 6.
Representative Lambeth openly stated that the revisions he was making to House District 75
were to allow him to regain areas that he has “represented it in the past,” i.e., under the
unconstitutional 2017 House Plan. 9/12/19 House Comm. Hr’g Video at 7:12:00-10. While the
House Committee asked staff to confirm that the revisions to this grouping were “minimal
changes” necessary to accommodate incumbents, 9/12/19 House Comm. Tr. at 69:7-11, even a
cursory review of the base map reveals that there were several other ways to unpair the
incumbents that would have moved fewer VTDs.
The end result of the gerrymandering and core retention efforts in this grouping was to
produce four districts that are extreme partisan outliers compared to their corresponding districts
in Dr. Chen’s Simulation Set 3. As shown below and in Dr. Chen’s report, the Proposed House
Plan has four districts that are above 98% outliers compared to the Set 3 plans that also avoid
pairing the current incumbents. The Proposed House Plan thus is an even more extreme

25

 gerrymander that the unconstitutional 2017 House Plan version of this grouping, which only had
one district that was above a 98% outlier compared to Set 1 and two districts that were that level
of an outlier compared to Set 2. Compare Chen 9/27/19 Report at 26 with PX1 at 94, 112.

26

 The House Committee significantly subordinated compactness in pursuing these partisan
ends. The House’s amendments to the base map lowered the compactness of each of the four
districts that were altered, and significantly lowered the compactness of the grouping as a whole.
The amendments lowered the average Reock score of the grouping from 0.464 to 0.415 and
lowered the average Polsby-Popper score of the grouping from 0.380 to 0.300. Chen 9/27
Report at 24 (Table 3b). The final Proposed House Plan is an extraordinary outlier in its lack of
compactness compared to Dr. Chen’s Simulation Set 3. As shown below and in Dr. Chen’s
report, the Proposed House Plan has a lower Reock score than 99.9% of the plans in Simulation
Set 3 and a lower Polsby-Popper than over 99% of the Set 3 plans. Id. at 27-29 (Figures 12-14).7

7

Almost all of Dr. Chen’s Simulation Set 3 plans for this grouping do not split any additional municipalities or
VTDs compared to the Proposed House Plan. Chen 9/27 Report at 30-31 (Figures 15-16).

27

 Frequency Among Simulated Districting Plans

Frequency Among Simulated Districting Plans

(1,000 Total Simulated Plans)

(1,000 Total Simulated Plans)

 

Figure 12: County Grouping:
House Simulation Set 3 (Following Non-Partisan Redistricting Criteria and Avoiding Pairing of 2019 Incumbents):
Average Reock Score in HE 1020 Plan Versus 1,000 Simulated Plans

HB1020

Plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

200? i 
I
I
150? 
5
I
1000.1% 0.1% 0.4% 1.8% 6.6% 10.4% 16.5% 15% 10.8% 15.9% 20.1% 2.1% 0.0.4 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.49 0.5 0.51 0.52 0.53 0.54

 

Reock Score of Districts Within County Grouping

Figure 13: County Grouping:
House Simulation Set 3 (Following Non-Partisan Redistricting Criteria and Avoiding Pairing of 2019 Incumbents):
Average Polsby?Popper Score in HE 1020 Plan Versus 1,000 Simulated Plans

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HB1020
Plan
i

I
I

I
I

I

10001% 01% 07% 03% 11% 33% 33% 45% 59% 64% 64% 63% 69% 49% 53% 46% 37% 32% 37% 59% 76% 121% 27%

0.27 0.28 0.29 0.3 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.4 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.49 0.5 0.51

Polsby?Popper Score of Districts Within County Grouping

28

The House also split additional municipalities to accomplish its partisan and incumbency
protection objections. Whereas the base map split only Winston Salem, the Proposed House
Plan additionally splits Walkertown and Kernersville. Chen 9/27 Report at 25 (Table 4). These
municipalities were also split under the 2017 House Plan, id., further illustrating the extent to
which the House recreated the prior gerrymander.
The Proposed House Plan is an extreme gerrymander that improperly seeks to retain the
cores of the prior districts and subordinates traditional districting criteria, all in violation of the
Court’s order.
C.

Cleveland-Gaston

This Court described the 2017 House Plan version of the Cleveland-Gaston grouping as a
“textbook example of cracking.” Judgment FOF ¶ 485. The Court explained that “[t]he
Democratic voters in Gastonia [were] cracked across House Districts 108, 109, and 110,”
diluting the influence of these Democratic voters. Id.
History repeats itself. The base map for this grouping split Gastonia across just two
districts, but the Republican incumbents in this grouping substantially altered the districts to
again crack Gastonia across three districts (House Districts 108, 109, and 110). The incumbents
moved a total of 13 VTDs from the base plan and even split one VTD in the process—the same
VTD that was split under the 2017 House Plan. Chen 9/27 Report at 37 (Table 6). The maps
below demonstrate this clear return to the prior gerrymander via the cracking of Gastonia. In the
second set of maps, the gold shading shows the municipal boundaries of Gastonia.

29

 The 2017 House Plan

     
   
     

111

Cleveland

 

Base Map

    
 

   

I Cleveland



110

20'??es

 

Proposed House Plan

 

 

30

2017 House Plan

 

 

Casar

Beiwood

Fallston
Polkville' Lawndale

  
    
 
    

   

       
 

 
 

1 1 1 L?I'Highismab
- Deilview --
Kingstow?ngi 
aco
11 0
Lattimore

  
   

108

L?>Well

MDOYESIDD 
Mou nt Holly

    
   

Bess?rnher??ity


Springs

Patterson Springs Kings Mountain Belimont
Earl

  

rover

10 20 miles


 

Base Map

 

 

Cesar

Belwood

Poikville. Lawndale

  
       
 
     
     
    
 

   

1?Ch?'ririwiIre . High?5?70?
Kingstown Dellvre?ww
W??m Stanley
Latti more
Spencer Mountain
Mooresboro Shelby . .
Harlin? Mount Hoily
?nrell
1 1 0 ?McAdemwlle

Ga?sto ia

Patterson Springs Kings Moun_t'_a_in'= Belmont

Eari

  

109

Grover
20 miles







 

Proposed House Plan

 

 

Cesar

Bel ood

  

"Faliston

         
 
 
 
 
   

wndale

1 10 Che?r?yville . High?31177315
Kingstown

?ii

Latti more
ooresboro Shelby

Boiling Springs

111

Patterson Springs Kings Mountain
Earl

  

Grover
0 10 20 miles



 

31

 

 

 

The incumbents’ amendments to this grouping had substantial partisan effects. The
revisions caused House District 108 to become 5.62 percentage points more Republican relative
to the base map using the 2010-2016 statewide elections, while House District 110 remained a
safe Republican seat despite adding more Democratic voters. Chen 9/27 Report at 35 (Table 5a).
Consistent with this swing, Dr. Chen finds that House District 108 is an extreme partisan outlier
compared to his Simulation Set 3 plans. The Proposed House Plan’s version of District 108 is
more favorable to Republicans than the corresponding district in 99% of Dr. Chen’s Set 3 plans.

32

 The incumbents in the Cleveland-Gaston grouping significantly subordinated
compactness in pursuing these partisan ends. The revisions to the base map lowered the average
Reock score of the grouping from 0.411 to 0.395 and the average Polsby-Popper score from
0.283 to 256. Chen 9/27 Report at 36 (Table 5b). The Proposed House Plan is now less compact
than the invalidated version of this grouping from the 2017 House Plan, and it is an extreme
outlier in comparison to Dr. Chen’s Simulation Set 3. As shown below and in Dr. Chen’s report,
the Proposed House Plan has a lower average Reock score for this grouping than 99.6% of the
plans in Simulation Set 3 and a lower Polsby-Popper than 98.5% of the plans in Set 3. Id. at 3941 (Figures 18-20).8

8

Most of Dr. Chen’s Set 3 plans for this grouping split zero VTDs, whereas the Proposed House Plan splits one.
Chen 9/27 Report at 43. Most of the Set 3 plans split one more municipality than the Proposed House Plan, but
11.5% of the Set 3 plans split the same number of municipalities or fewer. Id. at 42. This does not reflect when
municipalities are split multiple times, such as the Proposed House Plan’s splitting of Gastonia across three districts.

33

 Frequency Among Simulated Districting Plans

Frequency Among Simulated Districting Plans

(1,000 Total Simulated Plans)

(1,000 Total Simulated Plans)

100-

50?

 

HB 1020
Plan



01% 01% 07%

0 8%

Figure 13: County Grouping:
House Simulation Set 3 (Following Non?Partisan Redistricting Criteria and Avoiding Pairing of 2019 Incumbents):
Average Polsby-Popper Score in HB 1020 Plan Versus 1,000 Simulated Plans

 

 

 

11121% 2 7%

 

0.27 0.28 0.29

 


0.3

0.31

0.32 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.36

0.37

0.38

0.39


0.4

0.41 0.42

0.43 0.44 0.45

0.46 0.47 0.48

Polsby-Popper Score of Districts Within County Grouping

Figure 18: Cleveland?Gaston County Grouping:
House Simulation Set 3 (Following Non-Partisan Redistricting Criteria and Avoiding Pairing of 2019 Incumbents):
Average Reock Score in H3 1020 Plan Versus 1,000 Simulated Plans

 

 

 

0.49 0.5 0.51

28

 

 

400 -
HB 1020
Plan
350 
0.2% 0.4% 0.7% 7% 7.1% 3.2% 0.6% 36.4% 0.5% 36.1% 2% 5.5% 0.0.3 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.4 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.49 0.5 0.51
Reock Score of Districts Within County Grouping 39

34

Dr. Chen’s Set 3 thus demonstrates that the Proposed House Plan for this grouping is a
pro-Republican gerrymander that cannot be explained by an effort to avoid pairing incumbents.
The Proposed House Plan is an extreme partisan gerrymander that unnecessarily splits Gastonia
across three districts and subordinates compactness, in violation of the Court’s order.
D.

Brunswick-New Hanover

Unlike the prior groupings, the House acted with impermissible partisan intent in not
unpairing incumbents in the Brunswick-New Hanover grouping. The base map for this grouping
paired two Republicans incumbents in House District 20, Representative Holly Grange and
Representative Ted Davis. Representative Lewis asked Representatives Grange and Davis
whether they wanted to revise the districts to unpair themselves, like the incumbents in the other
groupings were doing. 9/12/19 House Comm. Tr. at 37:2-5. Representative Grange answered
that, although she has preliminarily indicated that she intends to “run[] for another office,” she
had not “filed for any election yet” and wanted to be unpaired from Representative Davis. Id. at
37:1-17. Representative Grange stated that it would be an inappropriate “political consideration”
to not unpair the current incumbents based on whether she may run for another office. Id.
Representative Lewis then agreed that it would be proper for these two incumbents to
revise their districts. Representative Lewis stated that the House Committee should attempt to
“un-pair these incumbents, which has been our intent from -- from the start here.” 9/12/19
House Comm. Tr. at 37:22-23. Representative Lewis thus invited the incumbents in the
grouping to the mapmaking terminal to carry out the unpairing process.
The subject of whether to unpair Representatives Davis and Grange again arose while the
incumbents were huddled around the mapmaking terminal. Representative Grange reiterated that
she believed it was proper, and indeed necessary, to avoid pairing incumbents in this grouping
even though she may ultimately run for another office. Representative Grange stated that “I
35

 don’t think that what I’m going to do [in terms of running for Governor] should matter at this
point because the maps are supposed to be based on incumbency.” 9/12/19 House Comm. Hr’g
Video at 5:34:20-33. Representative Grange added: “incumbency is supposed to be reflected
[inaudible] nobody is officially running for office.” Id. at 5:28:30-50.
A review of the base map reveals that there were a number of possible ways to unpair
Representatives Grange and Davis, and legislative staff explained several of these options to the
incumbents huddled around the mapmaking terminal. 9/12/19 House Comm. Hr’g Video at
5:26:30-5:31:30. Representative Davis, however, was dissatisfied with these potential changes.
See id. He lamented that he would “lose” particular communities if certain changes were made
to unpair him and Representative Davis. Id. at 5:30:08-15. He stated that he had “been
representing for eight years” certain areas that he “no longer [would] be representing” under an
option that staff proposed. Id. at 5:34:00-12.
After a lengthy discussions at the computer terminal, but during which the incumbents
did not actually move any VTDs on the screen to try to unpair the two incumbents, the
incumbents took a break. Over the next hour, Representative Grange and Representative Davis
each entered and re-entered the hearing room several times, and Representative Davis at one
point could be seen talking on his cell phone. 9/12/19 House Comm. Hr’g Video at 6:09-6:17.
After nearly an hour passed, Representative Davis returned to the room and whispered something
to Representative Lewis. Id. at 6:38:55-6:39:18. Several minutes later, Representative Lewis
announced that “[t]he Chair has been informed that there are no incumbency changes to make to
this map, therefore, no changes to the Chen Map would be in order.” 9/12/19 House Comm. Tr.
at 46:10-12. Representative Lewis provided no explanation why the incumbents no longer were
seeking to be unpaired. Nor did he explain why he was permitting the incumbents to remain

36

 paired, unlike in all other groupings, despite stating earlier that his “intent . . . from the start” was
to unpair the incumbents in this and all other groupings. Id. at 37:22-23.
Representative Grange did later provide a purported explanation for her change in
positions. During a House floor debate on September 13, Representative Grange admitted that
the incumbents could have found a “viable solution” to unpairing themselves. 9/13/19 House
Floor Sess. at 555:8-556:9. But Representative Grange stated that she “withdrew [her] objection
to the [base] map that I was double bunked with Representative Davis for the reason that in the
Covington case, there was precedent set that an incumbent member that was not running for
reelection, that map was thrown out.” Id. at 560:19-25. It seems apparent that Legislative
Defendants’ counsel, who were also counsel in Covington, directly or indirectly supplied this
justification to Representative Grange—in a discussion that was not public. Of course,
Legislative Defendants’ counsel and their experts had partisanship data on the base map.
The most plausible inference from this sequence of events is that Legislative Defendants
or their counsel directed the incumbents in this grouping to not unpair themselves because doing
so would be politically disadvantageous to Republicans. Dr. Chen’s Simulation Set 3 confirms
as much. Dr. Chen finds that all four districts in this grouping are over 92% partisan outliers
compared to their corresponding districts in Set 3, and two of the districts are 100% outliers.
Chen 9/27 Report at 47-48. As shown below and in Dr. Chen’s report, House District 20—the
district that pairs Representatives Grange and Davis—is one of these districts that is an 100%
outlier, as it is less Democratic than its corresponding district in all of the 1,000 simulations that
avoid pairing the current incumbents.

37

 The House’s adoption of the base map that pairs incumbents violates this Court’s order in
at least three respects. First, the decision seems to have been made based on discussions
involving Legislative Defendants’ counsel behind closed doors. This Court directed that
“Legislative Defendants and their agents shall conduct the entire remedial process in full public
view,” Decree ¶ 9, and the conversations where Legislative Defendants’ counsel apparently
directed the incumbents to not amend the base map did not occur “in full public view.” This

38

 apparent violation of the Court’s transparency requirements is highly material because
Legislative Defendants’ counsel and their consultants had partisanship data on the base map and
all of the individual VTDs. Legislative Defendants’ counsel surely knew that amending the base
map to unpair the two incumbents would produce a less Republican district.
Second, and relatedly, the House violated this Court’s prohibition that “partisan
considerations . . . shall not be used in the drawing of legislative districts in the Remedial Maps.”
Judgment COL ¶ 169. While avoiding pairing incumbents was an optional criterion, once the
House decided to apply that criterion, it had to do so evenhandedly across-the-board and not only
when it served one political party’s partisan interests. As detailed throughout this brief, the
House repeatedly unpaired incumbents to the detriment of the Democratic Party. The House’s
decision not to unpair the incumbents in this grouping—and only in this one grouping—was
based on impermissible “partisan considerations.”
Third, Representative Davis improperly acted “to preserve the core[]” of his prior district
under the invalidated 2017 House Plan. Representative Davis rejected an option for unpairing
him from Representative Grange because it would cause him to lose certain areas he had “been
representing for eight years.” 9/12/19 House Comm. Hr’g Video at 5:34:00-12. This House
grouping is one that was drawn in 2011 and unchanged in 2017, and thus Representative Davis’
reference to areas that he had “been representing for eight years” was a direct reference to the
composition of the 2017 House Plan version of this grouping. Representative Davis
affirmatively acted to preserve the core of his prior district, contrary to the Court’s order.
The pretextual explanation offered for the decision to not unpair the incumbents in this
grouping—because of a purported “precedent” set in the Covington case—further illustrates that
improper considerations were at play. 9/13/19 House Floor Sess. at 560:18-24. Contrary to

39

 Representative Grange’s assertion, it is not true that the proposed map in Covington “was thrown
out because it was drawn to take incumbency into account when [Representative Larry Bell] had
already announced that he was not running for reelection.” Id. at 560:25-561:2. The Covington
court rejected the General Assembly’s proposed House District 21 because it retained “the very
problems that rendered the prior version of the district unconstitutional.” Covington v. North
Carolina, 283 F. Supp. 3d 410, 440 (M.D.N.C. 2018). “[I]n order to draw Representative Bell’s
residence into House District 21, the General Assembly retained much of the bizarre shape of the
Sampson County portion of the district and divided a precinct and municipality along racial
lines.” Id. Here, in contrast, unpairing Representatives Grange and Davis would not require
retaining the problematic aspects of the 2017 House Plan.9 Moreover, Representative Bell in
Covington swore under oath that he did “not intend to run for re-election to the General
Assembly.” Covington, ECF No. 211-1. Representative Grange has made no such assertion; to
the contrary, she repeatedly stated during the hearings that she is not “officially running for”
another office yet. 9/12/19 House Comm. Hr’g Video at 5:28:30-50; see also 9/12/19 House
Comm. Tr. at 37:1-17 (“frankly, nobody has filed for any election yet”).
Because improper political considerations and non-public deliberations drove the
House’s decision to treat this grouping unlike every other grouping, the Court must reject the
Proposed House Plan for this grouping.

9
Dr. Chen’s Simulation Set 3 demonstrates that unpairing the incumbents would not subordinate traditional criteria
other. All of Dr. Chen’s simulations of this grouping in Set 3 split the same number of municipalities as the
proposed House Plan, and nearly a quarter of the simulations also do not split any VTDs. Chen 9/27 Report at 50-51
(Figures 27-28). While the simulations have slightly lower Reock scores than the Proposed House Plan, over 80%
of the simulations have better Polsby-Popper scores. Id. at 47-49 (Figures 24-26).

40

 E.

Guilford

This Court found that the 2017 House Plan version of the Guilford grouping
impermissibly “packed Democratic voters into House Districts 58 and 60 to make House District
59 favorable to Republicans.” Judgment FOF ¶ 384. This Court found especially problematic
that “House District 58 ha[d] ‘boot-like appendages’ to grab Democratic VTDs and ensure these
voters could not make House District 59 competitive or Democratic-leaning.” Id. (quoting Dr.
Cooper’s testimony).
The Proposed House Plan recreates this feature of House District 58—and in fact reverts
House District 58 almost entirely to its prior boundaries. As shown below, the base map for this
grouping paired two representatives in House District 60, and to unpair these incumbents the
House added the “boot-like,” heavily Democratic VTD in southern Guilford County back to
House District 58. The result is that House District 58 is a near-replica of the 2017 version of the
district. Dr. Chen finds that the 86% of the population in the proposed House District 58
overlaps with the invalidated 2017 version of the district. Chen 9/27 Report at 61-62.

41

 2017 House Plan

 

   
 
  

Gullr'ord

 

 

 

  
   



 

?5

Proposed House Plan

 

Gllilf? 

  

 

While Dr. Chen does not find that the Proposed House Plan for this grouping is an
extreme outlier in partisanship relative to his Simulation Set 3, the extraordinarily high overlap
between the proposed and old versions of House District 58 violates this Court’s prohibition on
“preserv[ing] the cores of invalidated 2017 district.” Decree ¶ 9. And the consequence of
changing House District 58 to recreate its old boundaries was to make House District 59 more
favorable to Republicans. Chen 9/27 Report at 54 (Table 7a).
Moreover, Dr. Chen does find that the Proposed House Plan is an extreme outlier in its
lack of compactness. The revisions to the base map for this grouping significantly subordinated
compactness. The revisions lowered the Reock and Polsby-Popper scores of both House District
58 and House District 59, and for House District 58 in particular. The Reock score of House
District 58 fell from 0.445 to 0.334, and the Polsby-Popper score of the district fell from 0.241 to
0.174. Chen 9/27 Report at 55 (Table 7b). The average compactness scores for the grouping
correspondingly dropped as well: the average Reock score for the grouping dropped from 0.440
to 0.401, and the average Polsby-Popper score dropped from 0.264 to 0.232. Id. And, as shown
below and in his expert report, Dr. Chen finds that the Proposed House Plan for Guilford County
is less compact than 100% of his Set 3 simulations using Polsby-Popper and 99.8% of the Set 3
simulations using Reock. Id. at 56-58 (Figures 29-31).

43

 Frequency Among Simulated Districting Plans

Frequency Among Simulated Districting Plans

(1,000 Total Simulated Plans)

(1,000 Total Simulated Plans)

Figure 29: Guilford County Grouping:

House Simulation Set 3 (Following Non-Partisan Redistricting Criteria and Avoiding Pairing of 2019 Incumbents):

1000 -
950 -
900 -
850 -
800 -
750 -
700 -
650 -
600 -
550 -
500 -
450 
400 -
350 -
300 -
250 -
200 -
150 -
100 -

50 -

 

0?

Average Reock Score in HE 1020 Plan Versus 1,000 Simulated Plans

HB 1020
Plan

 

 

 

 

0.2% 93.3% 6.5%

 


0.37 0.38 0.39 0.4 0.41

Reock Score of Districts Within County Grouping

Figure 30: Guilford County Grouping:

House Simulation Set 3 (Following Non-Partisan Redistricting Criteria and Avoiding Pairing of 2019 Incumbents150?

100-

50-

 

Average Polsby-Popper Score in H3 1020 Plan Versus 1,000 Simulated Plans

HB 1020
Plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

l0.27 0.28 0.29 0.3 0.31

Polsby?Popper Score of Districts Within County Grouping

44

In short, in the name of unpairing incumbents, the House substantially recreated one of
the invalidated 2017 districts in this grouping and rendered this grouping less compact than
nearly 100% of the nonpartisan possibilities in Dr. Chen’s Simulation Set 3.
III.

The Referee Should Redraw the Five House Groupings
The Court should direct the Referee to draw from a blank slate all five of the House

groupings described above, following the criteria set forth in the Court’s Decree. The Court
retained the Referee “to develop remedial maps for the Court should the General Assembly fail
to enact lawful Remedial Maps within the time allowed.” Decree ¶ 13. The General Assembly
failed to enact lawful remedial districts in these five groupings, and accordingly the Referee
should now “develop remedial plans” for these groupings as specified in the Court’s Decree.
The Court should reject Legislative Defendants’ request that the Court adopt the base
map for those groupings where the Court finds issue with the revisions that were made. That
suggestion should be rejected for at least three reasons. First, it would result in different criteria
being applied in different groupings. There would be some groupings (that the Court does not
change from the Proposed House Plan) in which an incumbency protection criterion was applied
to intentionally unpair incumbents from the base map, but other groupings (where the Court
would revert to the base map) where no incumbency protection criterion is applied and
incumbents remain paired. The same criteria should apply in all groupings. Allowing otherwise
would in fact violate a motion passed by the House Committee “to treat all of the incumbents the
same” by unpairing incumbents in every House grouping. 9/12/19 House Comm. Tr. at 12:8-9.
Second, the base maps themselves are infected by the House’s myriad procedural violations of
the Court’s Decree, including the apparent reliance on political consultants and partisan data in
deciding to switch from Set 2 to Set 1. And third, adopting the base map would not remedy the

45

 violation in Brunswick-New Hanover, since the problem there is that the House adopted the base
map for impermissible partisan and core retention reasons.
Legislative Defendants’ assertion that “[t]he Court has no guiding principle by which to
guide its own line drawing” is false. Leg. Defs. Br at 24. The Court set forth specific criteria to
govern the drawing of remedial districts, and those criteria are the ones that the General
Assembly itself adopted in 2017. Decree ¶ 5. The Referee’s “guiding principle” in redrawing
these five groupings will be these General Assembly-endorsed criteria. Legislative Defendants’
assertion that having the Referee redraw districts “will necessarily raise questions,” Leg. Defs.
Br. at 24, is not grounded in law but rather is a thinly-veiled threat that this Court should not
countenance.
While Plaintiffs believe that the appropriate course of action is for the Referee to simply
redraw these groupings, if it would assist the Court or the Court otherwise deems it appropriate,
Plaintiffs would be happy to provide the Court with any relevant data and files from Dr. Chen’s
Simulation Set 3 for these five House groupings.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs request that the Court reject the General Assembly’s
Proposed House Plan in the Columbus-Pender-Robeson, Forsyth-Yadkin, Cleveland-Gaston,
Brunswick-New Hanover, and Guilford groupings, and direct the Referee to draw new remedial
districts in these groupings.

46

 Respectfully submitted this the 27th day of September, 2019
POYNER SPRUILL LLP
By:

ARNOLD AND PORTER
KAYE SCHOLER LLP

/s/ Edwin M. Speas, Jr.
Edwin M. Speas, Jr.
N.C. State Bar No. 4112
Caroline P. Mackie
N.C. State Bar No. 41512
P.O. Box 1801
Raleigh, NC 27602-1801
(919) 783-6400
espeas@poynerspruill.com

R. Stanton Jones*
David P. Gersch*
Elisabeth S. Theodore*
Daniel F. Jacobson*
601 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20001-3743
(202) 954-5000
stanton.jones@arnoldporter.com

Counsel for Common Cause, the North
Carolina Democratic Party, and the
Individual Plaintiffs

PERKINS COIE LLP
Marc E. Elias*
Aria C. Branch*
700 13th Street NW
Washington, DC 20005-3960
(202) 654-6200
melias@perkinscoie.com
Abha Khanna*
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
(206) 359-8000
akhanna@perkinscoie.com
Counsel for Common Cause and the
Individual Plaintiffs
*Admitted Pro Hac Vice

47

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing by email, addressed to
the following persons at the following addresses which are the last addresses known to me:
Thomas A. Farr
Amar Majmundar
Phillip J. Strach
Stephanie A. Brennan
Michael McKnight
Paul M. Cox
Alyssa Riggins
NC Department of Justice
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,
P.O. Box 629
P.C.
114 W. Edenton St.
4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100
Raleigh, NC 27602
Raleigh, NC 27609
amajmundar@ncdoj.gov
Thomas.farr@ogletree.com
sbrennan@ncdoj.gov
Phillip.strach@ogletree.com
pcox@ncdoj.gov
Counsel for the State Board of Elections and Michael.mcknight@ogletree.com
Alyssa.riggins@ogletree.com
its members
Counsel for the Legislative Defendants
John E. Branch III
Nathaniel J. Pencook
Andrew Brown
Shanahan Law Group, PLLC
128 E. Hargett Street, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27601
jbranch@shanahanlawgroup.com
npencook@shanahanlawgroup.com
abrown@shanahanlawgroup.com
Counsel for the Intervenor Defendants

E. Mark Braden
Richard B. Raile
Trevor M. Stanley
Baker & Hostetler, LLP
Washington Square, Suite 1100
1050 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-5403
rraile@bakerlaw.com
mbraden@bakerlaw.com
tstanley@bakerlaw.com
Counsel for the Legislative Defendants

This the 27th day of September, 2019.
/s/ Edwin M. Speas, Jr.
Edwin M. Speas, Jr.

48