EXHIBIT A EXPERT REPORT OF JOWEI CHEN, Ph.D. September 27, 2019 Plaintiffs' counsel asked me to analyze the House Bill 1020 (S.L. 2019-220) House Districting Plan (hereinafter: "HB 1020 Plan") and the Senate Bill 692 (S.L. 2019-219) Senate Districting Plan (hereinafter: "SB 692 Plan"), as passed by the North Carolina General Assembly on September 19, 2019 and filed with the Court on September 19, 2019. Plaintiffs' counsel also asked me to analyze the individual House districts within five county groupings in the HB 1020 House Plan: 1) Columbus-Pender-Robeson; 2) Forsyth-Yadkin; 3) Cleveland-Gaston; 4) Brunswick-New Hanover; and 5) Guilford. For these five House county groupings, plaintiffs' counsel asked me to conduct a new set of computer-simulated plans (hereinafter: "Simulation Set 3"), producing 1,000 plans for each of the county grouping. Simulation Set 3 follows the same criteria as Simulation Set 2 from my April 8, 2019 expert report, except that the Simulation Set 3 algorithm intentionally avoids pairing the House incumbents currently in office as of this report, rather than incumbents from earlier years. Aside from avoiding the pairing of the 2019 House incumbents, Simulation Set 3 follows exactly the same non-partisan redistricting criteria as House Simulation Set 2. I made no changes to my computer code used to generate Simulation Set 2 other than changing the home addresses of the incumbents. Finally, within each of these five House county groupings, plaintiffs' counsel asked me to examine how individual House districts were altered from the House Base Map chosen using a lottery machine on September 11, 2019 (hereinafter: the "Base Map") to the final HB 1020 Plan filed with the Court on September 19, 2019. Specifically, I was asked to analyze how changes from the Base Map to the HB 1020 Plan affected the partisanship and compactness of the districts within each of these five county groupings, as well as the split VTDs and municipalities within these county groupings. Measuring the Partisanship of Districts: Throughout this report, I use the same 20102016 Statewide Election Composite to measure the partisanship of all House and Senate districts in North Carolina. As explained on pages 20-21 of my April 8, 2019 expert report, the 20102016 Statewide Election Composite calculates the Democratic vote share of any legislative district in North Carolina using the results from ten statewide elections held during 2010-2016. These ten statewide elections are the same elections that the Joint Select Committee on 1 Redistricting considered during its 2017 redistricting process, as announced by Representative David Lewis during the Committee's August 10, 2017 meeting. Statewide Analysis of the HB 1020 and SB 692 Plans: The HB 1020 House Plan: Using the 2010-2016 Statewide Election Composite, the HB 1020 House Plan contains 44 Democratic-favoring districts and 76 Republican-favoring districts. Figure 1 compares the statewide partisanship of the HB 1020 Plan to the 1,000 computersimulated plans in House Simulation Set 1 (following only non-partisan redistricting criteria), as described in my April 8, 2019 expert report. Similarly, Figure 2 compares the statewide partisanship of the HB 1020 Plan to the 1,000 computer-simulated plans in House Simulation Set 2 (following non-partisan redistricting criteria and avoiding incumbent pairings) from the April 8 report. Figures 1 and 2 reveal that the HB 1020 House Plan is a partisan outlier when compared to the computer-simulated plans. The HB 1020 Plan creates fewer Democratic districts than 97.8% of the simulated plans in House Simulation Set 2 (Figure 2). The HB 1020 Plan creates 44 Democratic districts, whereas 97.8% of the House Simulation Set 2 plans create 45 to 51 Democratic districts. Similarly, the HB 1020 Plan creates fewer Democratic districts than 94.6% of the computer-simulated plans in House Simulation Set 1. The SB 692 Senate Plan: As measured using the same 2010-2016 Statewide Election Composite, the SB 692 Senate Plan contains 19 Democratic districts and 31 Republican districts. Figure 3 compares the statewide partisanship of the SB 692 Plan to the 1,000 computersimulated plans in Senate Simulation Set 1 (following only non-partisan redistricting criteria), as described in my April 8, 2019 report. Similarly, Figure 4 compares the statewide partisanship of the SB 692 Plan to the 1,000 computer-simulated plans in Senate Simulation Set 2 (following non-partisan redistricting criteria and avoiding incumbent pairings) from the April 8 report. Overall, Figures 3 and 4 reveal that the partisanship of the SB 692 Senate Plan is not an extreme statistical outlier when compared to Senate Simulation Sets 1 and 2. The SB 692 Plan's creation of 19 Democratic districts is an outcome observed in 32.1% and 25% of the computersimulated plans in Senate Simulation Sets 1 and 2, respectively. 2 Figure 1: House Simulation Set 1 (Following Only Non−Partisan Redistricting Criteria): 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) Frequency Among Simulated Districting Plans (1,000 Total Simulated Plans) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 42 0.6% 4.8% 17.2% 28.4% 27.8% 13.2% 5.8% 2% 0.2% 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 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) 3 Figure 2: House Simulation Set 2 (Following Non−Partisan Redistricting Criteria and Avoiding Incumbent Pairings): Democratic−Favoring Districts in HB 1020 House Plan Versus 1,000 Simulated Plans (Measured Using 2010−2016 Election Composite) Frequency Among Simulated Districting Plans (1,000 Total Simulated Plans) 350 HB 1020 Plan (As Filed with Court on Sept. 19, 2019) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 42 0.1% 2.1% 8.8% 22.2% 31.9% 21% 9.9% 2.8% 1.2% 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 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) 4 Figure 3: Senate Simulation Set 1 (Following Only Non−Partisan Redistricting Criteria): Democratic−Favoring Districts in SB 692 Senate Plan Versus 1,000 Simulated Plans (Measured Using 2010−2016 Election Composite) SB 692 Plan (As Filed with Court on Sept. 19, 2019) 550 Frequency Among Simulated Districting Plans (1,000 Total Simulated Plans) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 18 32.1% 50.8% 17.1% 19 20 21 22 Number of Districts with More Democratic than Republican Votes (Out of 50 Total Districts) (Measured Using Votes Summed Across 2010−2016 Statewide Elections, Which corresponds to a 47.92% Statewide Democratic Vote Share) 5 Figure 4: Senate Simulation Set 2 (Following Non−Partisan Redistricting Criteria and Avoiding Incumbent Pairings): Democratic−Favoring Districts in SB 692 Senate Plan Versus 1,000 Simulated Plans (Measured Using 2010−2016 Election Composite) SB 692 Plan (As Filed with Court on Sept. 19, 2019) 700 Frequency Among Simulated Districting Plans (1,000 Total Simulated Plans) 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 18 25% 64.7% 9.8% 0.5% 19 20 21 22 23 Number of Districts with More Democratic than Republican Votes (Out of 50 Total Districts) (Measured Using Votes Summed Across 2010−2016 Statewide Elections, Which corresponds to a 47.92% Statewide Democratic Vote Share) 6 House Simulation Set 3 In my original April 8, 2019 expert report, I conducted House Simulation Set 2 to examine whether the partisan bias of the 2017 House Plan could be explained by an effort to avoid pairing the incumbents holding office when the 2017 House Plan districts were drawn. However, some of these past incumbents were no longer holding office as of the General Assembly's September 2019 redistricting process and have instead been replaced by different incumbents. Therefore, in order to analyze whether the HB 1020 House Plan districts are partisan outliers relative to the districts that would emerge from a nonpartisan process that avoids pairing the current incumbents, I conducted House Simulation Set 3, which avoids pairing any of the current incumbents in office. In House Simulation Set 3, I produced computer-simulated plans for only the following five county groupings: 1) Columbus-Pender-Robeson; 2) Forsyth-Yadkin; 3) Cleveland-Gaston; 4) Brunswick-New Hanover; and 5) Guilford. Table 1 lists the 22 current incumbents representing districts within these five county groupings. In all simulated plans in House Simulation Set 3, none of these 22 incumbents are ever paired in the same district as another incumbent. 7 Table 1: September 2019 House Incumbents Protected in House Simulation Set 3 House Incumbent: Carson Smith Brenden Jones Charles Graham Evelyn Terry Derwin Montgomery Walter Zachary Debra Conrad Donn Lambeth Francis Iler Deborah Butler Robert Davis Holly Grange John Torbett Dana Bumgardner Kelly Hastings Timothy Moore Ashton Clemmons Amos Quick Jon Hardister Cecil Brockman Mary Harrison Joseph Faircloth County: Pender Columbus Robeson Forsyth Forsyth Yadkin Forsyth Forsyth Brunswick New Hanover New Hanover New Hanover Gaston Gaston Gaston Cleveland Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford Guilford House District: 16 46 47 71 72 73 74 75 17 18 19 20 108 109 110 111 57 58 59 60 61 62 VTD: LT18 P26 11 501 402 NLIB 809 42 17 W03 M02 H09 43 16 36 KM3 G22 SUM2 RC1 H05 G15 H24 8 Aside from protecting the current set of incumbents considered by the General Assembly in September 2019, House Simulation Set 3 otherwise followed exactly the same non-partisan redistricting criteria and computer algorithm as House Simulation Set 2. These criteria, which are described in detail in my April 8, 2019 expert report, are briefly summarized as follows: 1) Population Equality within a 5% deviation of the ideal district population: House districts have an ideal district population of 79,462, with an permissible range of 75,489 (95% of the ideal population) to 83,435 (105% of the ideal population). 2) Geographic Contiguity: The computer simulation algorithm requires districts to be geographically contiguous, with contiguity by water permitted. 3) County Groupings: House Simulation Set 3 uses exactly the same county groupings as are used by the HB 1020 House Plan, producing districts that each lie fully within one of the existing county groupings. 4) Minimizing County Traversals: House Simulation Set 3 is programmed such that each county grouping contains only the minimum possible number of county traversals. 5) Geographic Compactness: House Simulation Set 3 follows geographic compactness in exactly the same manner as in House Simulation Set 1 and Set 2, with district compactness measured using the Reock and Polsby-Popper measures. 6) Minimizing Split Precincts: House Simulation Set 3 is programmed to follow Voting Tabulation Districts ("VTD") boundaries in exactly the same manner as in House Simulation Set 1 and Set 2. 7) Following Municipal Boundaries: House Simulation Set 3 is programmed to follow municipality boundaries in exactly the same manner as in House Simulation Set 1 and Set 2. 8) Freezing Districts Drawn by the Special Master: In the Guilford County Grouping, House Simulation Set 3 is programmed to freeze HD-57, HD-61, and HD-62 from the 2017 House Plan in every computer-simulated plan. 9) Avoiding Incumbent Pairings: As described above, House Simulation Set 3 avoids pairing any of the current incumbents listed in Table 1. As with House Simulation Set 1 and Set 2 from my April 8, 2019 expert report, House Simulation Set 3 uses no racial or partisan data in constructing districts in these five county groupings. 9 In the following sections, I analyze the HB 1020 districts within each of five county groupings. For each county grouping, I describe the results of House Simulation Set 3, comparing the computer-simulated districts to the HB 1020 districts with respect to partisanship, compactness, and municipality and VTD splits. For each county grouping, I also describe how the districts were redrawn from the Base Map (September 11, 2019) to the final HB 1020 Plan, as filed with the Court on September 19, 2019. I analyze how changes from the Base Map to the final HB 1020 Plan affected the partisanship and compactness of the districts within each grouping, as well as the municipality and VTD splits within each grouping. The Columbus-Pender-Robeson County Grouping: Changes from the Base Map to HB 1020: The Columbus-Pender-Robeson county grouping contains three districts. Table 2a describes how the partisanship of districts in the Columbus-Pender-Robeson county grouping changed from the Base Map (September 11, 2019) to the final HB 1020 House Plan (September 19, 2019), with district partisanship measured using the 2010-2016 Statewide Election Composite. Specifically, the boundary between Districts 46 and 47 was redrawn such that District 46, which had a 53.3% Democratic vote share under the Base Map, decreased in Democratic vote share by 1.93%. Meanwhile, District 16 increased slightly in Democratic vote share from 39.44% to 40.64%. Comparison of HB 1020 to House Simulation Set 3: For the Columbus-Pender-Robeson county grouping, Figure 5 directly compares the partisan distribution of districts in the HB 1020 Plan to the partisan distribution of districts in each computer-simulated plan in Simulation Set 3. I first order the HB 1020 House Plan's districts within the county grouping from the most to the least-Democratic district, as measured by Democratic vote share (using the 2010-2016 Statewide Election Composite). Next, I analyze each simulated plan from the set of 1,000 simulations and similarly order the simulated plan's districts within the same county grouping from the most to the least-Democratic district. I then directly compare the most-Democratic HB 1020 House Plan district within the county grouping to the most-Democratic simulated district within the same grouping from each of the 1,000 computer-simulated plans. In other words, I compare one district from the HB 1020 House Plan to 1,000 computer-simulated districts, and I compare these districts with respect to their Democratic vote share. I then directly compare the second-mostDemocratic district in the county grouping from the HB 1020 Plan to the second-most- 10 Democratic district within the same grouping from each of the 1,000 simulated plans. I conduct the same comparison for each district in the HB 1020 House Plan within the grouping, comparing the enacted district to its computer-simulated counterparts from each of the 1,000 simulated plans. The Columbus-Pender-Robeson county grouping contains three districts in the 2017 House Plan, so Figure 5 contains three separate rows. The top row of this Figure directly compares the partisanship of the most-Democratic HB 1020 House Plan district within the county grouping to the partisanship of the most-Democratic district within the same county grouping from each of the 1,000 simulated plans in House Simulation Set 1. The two percentages (in parentheses) in the right margin of this Figure report the percentage of these 1,000 simulated districts that are less Democratic than and more Democratic than the enacted plan district. Similarly, the second row of this Figure compares the second-most-Democratic district within the grouping from each plan, and the third row compares the third-most-Democratic district within the grouping from each plan. In each row of this Figure, the HB 1020 Plan's district is depicted with a red star and labeled in red with its district number (e.g., HD-47); meanwhile, the 1,000 computer-simulated districts are depicted with gray circles. As second row of Figure 5 illustrates, the second-most-Democratic district in the HB 1020 House Plan (HD-46) is more Republican than 92.2% of the second-most-Democratic districts within this grouping from each of the 1,000 computer-simulated plans. This calculation is also numerically reported in the right margin of the Figure. Meanwhile, the third row of Figure 5 illustrates that the least-Democratic district in the 2017 House Plan (HD-46) is more Democratic than 93.8% of the least-Democratic districts within this grouping from each of the 1,000 computer-simulated plans. Thus, I find that Districts 16 and 46 in the HB 1020 Plan are more extreme in their partisanship than the vast majority (over 90%) of their counterparts from the 1,000 House Simulation Set 3 plans. Traditional Districting Criteria: Table 2b compares the district-level Reock and PolsbyPopper scores of the Base Map and the HB 1020 Plan within the county grouping. Figure 6 compares the average Reock score of the districts in the county grouping under the HB 1020 Plan to the House Simulation Set 3 plans, while Figure 7 compares the average Polsby-Popper score of the districts in the county grouping under the HB 1020 Plan to the House Simulation Set 3 plans. Figure 8 simultaneously compares the HB 1020 Plan and the House Simulation Set 3 11 plans in terms of their Reock (horizontal axis) and Polsby-Popper (vertical axis) scores within the county grouping. Finally, Figure 9 compares the number of municipalities within the county grouping that are split into multiple districts by the HB 1020 Plan and the House Simulation Set 3 plans, while Figure 10 compares the number of VTDs within the county grouping that are split into multiple districts by the HB 1020 Plan and the House Simulation Set 3 plans. Overall, these results demonstrate it is possible to create a districting plan in the Columbus-Pender-Robeson county grouping that avoids pairing any incumbents while producing higher compactness scores and the same number of municipal and VTD splits as the HB 1020 Plan does. Specifically, 40.2% of the simulated plans have a higher Reock score (Figure 6), and nearly 36.5% of the simulated plans have a higher Polsby-Popper score (Figure 7) than the HB 1020 Plan. Thus, I found in House Simulation Set 3 that it is possible to create a version of this county grouping that avoids pairing any of the current (September 2019) incumbents while achieving a higher Reock and/or Polsby-Popper score than the HB 1020 and splitting no municipalities and no VTDs. 12 Table 2a: Columbus-Pender-Robeson County Grouping: Changes from Base Map (Sept. 11, 2019) to HB 1020 (Sept. 19, 2019) Columbus-Pender-Robeson County Grouping: Computer-Simulated Plan A455 Base Map Districts (Sept. 11, 2019): Final HB 1020 (Sept. 19, 2019) House Plan Districts: District: Democratic Vote Share: District: Democratic Vote Share: 16 46 47 39.44% 53.30% 53.44% 16 46 47 40.64% 51.37% 53.44% Change in Democratic Vote Share From Base Map to HB 1020 Plan 1.19% -1.93% 0.00% 13 Table 2b: Columbus-Pender-Robeson County Grouping: Changes from Base Map (Sept. 11, 2019) to HB 1020 (Sept. 19, 2019) Columbus-Pender-Robeson County Grouping: Computer-Simulated Plan A455 Base Map Final HB 1020 (Sept. 19, 2019) Districts (Sept. 11, 2019): House Plan Districts: District: Reock Score: District: Reock Score: 16 46 47 County Grouping Average: 0.284 0.280* 0.655 0.406 16 46 47 County Grouping Average: 0.331 0.202 0.655 0.396 Change in Reock Score From Base Map to HB 1020 Plan 0.047 -0.078 0.000 -0.010 Columbus-Pender-Robeson County Grouping: Computer-Simulated Plan A455 Base Map Districts (Sept. 11, 2019): Polsby-Popper District: Score: 16 0.181* 46 0.109* 47 0.340 County Grouping Average: 0.210 Final HB 1020 (Sept. 19, 2019) House Plan Districts: Polsby-Popper District: Score: 16 0.229 46 0.118 47 0.340 County Grouping Average: 0.229 Change in Polsby-Popper Score From Base Map to HB 1020 Plan 0.049 0.009 0.000 0.019 Note: Each district from the 2017 House is compared to the most geographically overlapping district from the final HB 1020 plan, subject to the restriction that each HB 1020 Plan district can only be compared to a single 2017 House Plan district. Each district from each county grouping's base map (selected on September 11, 2019) is compared to the most geographically overlapping district from the final HB 1020 plan. Note: The General Assembly's Stat Pack for the "House Base Map" (URL below), produced on Sept. 11, 2019, incorrectly lists District 16 as having a Polsby-Popper score of 0.21. I downloaded the shapefile of the Columbus-Pender-Robeson base map from the House Redistricting Committee website and verified that Districts 16 actually has a Polsby-Popper score of 0.181. Additionally, the Stat Pack incorrectly lists District 46 as having a Reock score of 0.30 and a Polsby-Popper score of 0.14. I downloaded the shapefile of the Columbus-Pender-Robeson base map from the House Redistricting Committee website and verified that District 46 actually has a Reock score of 0.280 and a Polsby-Popper score of 0.109. The General Assembly's Stat Pack is online at: https://www.ncleg.gov/documentsites/committees/house2019-182/09-12-2019/HouseBaseMapCombinedReports.pdf 14 Figure 5: House Simulation Set 3: Democratic Vote Share of the HB 1020 and Computer−Simulated Districts Within the Columbus−Pender−Robeson County Grouping ● 1,000 Computer−Simulated Districting Plans (House Simulation Set 3) HB 1020 Plan (As Filed With Court on Sept. 19, 2019) ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● HD−047 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Most Democratic District Within Each Plan ● 2nd−Most Democratic District ● 3rd−Most Democratic District ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● HD−046 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● HD−016 ●● ● ●● ● (67%, 32%) (7.8%, 92.2%) (93.8%, 6.2%) 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 District's Democratic Vote Share (Measured Using Votes Summed Across All 2010−2016 Statewide Elections) Robeson 47 Pender 46 16 Columbus HB 1020 Plan (As Filed With Court on Sept. 19, 2019) (3 Districts) 15 Figure 6: Columbus−Pender−Robeson County Grouping: House Simulation Set 3 (Following Non−Partisan Redistricting Criteria and Avoiding Pairing of 2019 Incumbents): Average Reock Score in HB 1020 Plan Versus 1,000 Simulated Plans HB 1020 Plan Frequency Among Simulated Districting Plans (1,000 Total Simulated Plans) 250 200 150 100 50 0 0.3 0.9% 5.4% 15.5% 1.3% 1.2% 5.3% 9.9% 7.7% 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.38 12.3% 14.1% 23.7% 0.39 0.4 Reock Score of Districts Within County Grouping 0.41 2% 0.7% 0.42 0.43 0.44 16 Figure 7: Columbus−Pender−Robeson 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 200 Frequency Among Simulated Districting Plans (1,000 Total Simulated Plans) HB 1020 Plan 150 100 50 0 0.14 0.4% 1.6% 5.3% 7.8% 10.7% 13.7% 14.2% 8% 5.4% 0.6% 0.1% 0.5% 1.2% 2.4% 6.8% 17.7% 3.6% 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.2 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.3 0.31 Polsby−Popper Score of Districts Within County Grouping 0.32 17 Polsby−Popper Score of Districts within the Columbus−Pender−Robeson Grouping (Higher Polsby−Popper Score Indicates Greater Compactness) Figure 8: Columbus−Pender−Robeson County Grouping: House Simulation Set 3 (Following Non−Partisan Redistricting Criteria and Avoiding Pairing of 2019 Incumbents): Comparison of HB 1020 House Plan Versus 1,000 Simulated Plans on Compactness Legend: 0.34 ● 0.33 1,000 Computer−Simulated Districting Plans (House Simulation Set 3) 2017 House Plan 0.32 0.31 ● ●● ● ● ● 0.3 ● ● ●● 0.29 ●● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● 0.28 ● ● ● ● ● ● 0.26 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 0.23 0.2 ● ● ● ● 0.24 0.21 ●● ● ● ●● ● ● 0.25 0.22 ● ● ● ●● ● 0.27 ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● 0.19 ● 0.18 0.17 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● 0.16 ● 0.15 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● HB●● 1020 ● ●● House Plan ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 0.14 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.4 0.41 Reock Score of Districts within the Columbus−Pender−Robeson Grouping (Higher Reock Score Indicates Greater Compactness) 0.42 0.43 18 Figure 9: Columbus−Pender−Robeson County Grouping: House Simulation Set 3 (Following Non−Partisan Redistricting Criteria and Avoiding Pairing of 2019 Incumbents): Split Municipalities in HB 1020 Plan Versus 1,000 Simulated Plans 750 700 HB 1020 Plan Frequency Among Simulated Districting Plans (1,000 Total Simulated Plans) 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 67.5% 32.5% 0 1 Number of Municipalities Split into Multiple Districts 2 19 Figure 10: Columbus−Pender−Robeson County Grouping: House Simulation Set 3 (Following Non−Partisan Redistricting Criteria and Avoiding Pairing of 2019 Incumbents): Split VTDs in HB 1020 Plan Versus 1,000 Simulated Plans HB 1020 Plan 1000 Frequency Among Simulated Districting Plans (1,000 Total Simulated Plans) 950 900 850 800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 100% 0 Number of VTDs Split into Multiple Districts 1 20 The Forsyth-Yadkin County Grouping: Changes from the Base Map to HB 1020: The Forsyth-Yadkin county grouping contains five districts. Table 3a describes how the partisanship of districts in the Forsyth-Yadkin county grouping changed from the Base Map (September 11, 2019) to the final HB 1020 House Plan (September 19, 2019), with district partisanship measured using the 2010-2016 Statewide Election Composite. This Table illustrates that District 74 from the Base map decreased significantly in Democratic vote share from 39.72% to 36.24% and was renumbered as District 75 in the final HB 1020 Plan. Meanwhile, the two Democratic districts in the Base Map (Districts 72 and 75) experienced an increase in their Democratic vote share: District 72's Democratic vote share with increased by 1.27%, while District 75 from the Base Map underwent a 2.28% increase in Democratic vote share and was renumbered as District 71 in the final HB 1020 Plan. Meanwhile, The remaining two districts from the Base Map (Districts 71 and 73) did not undergo significant partisan changes, although District 71 from the Base map was renumbered as District 74 in the HB 1020 Plan. Comparison of HB 1020 to House Simulation Set 3: Figure 11 illustrates that HB 1020's version of the Forsyth-Yadkin county grouping produces four extreme partisan outlier districts when compared to their corresponding House Simulation Set 3 districts. The third and fourth rows of Figure 11 show that Districts 74 and 75 are more heavily Republican than all or nearly all of their respective corresponding districts in the 1,000 computer-simulated plans. Meanwhile, the second and fifth rows of Figure 11 show that Districts 72 and 73 are more Democratic than virtually all of their respective corresponding districts in the 1,000 computer-simulated plans. The partisanship of all four of these districts are statistical outliers compared to the nonpartisan simulations in House Simulation Set 3 that avoid pairing the current incumbents. Traditional Districting Criteria: Were the HB 1020 districts in the Forsyth-Yadkin county grouping drawn in a manner that followed the non-partisan districting criteria of compactness and preserving municipalities and VTDs? Table 3b compares the district-level Reock and Polsby-Popper scores of the Base Map and the HB 1020 Plan, within the county grouping. Table 4 details the split municipalities in the county grouping under the Base Map, the HB 1020 Plan, and the 2017 House Plan. Figure 12 compares the average Reock score of the districts in the county grouping under the HB 1020 Plan to the House Simulation Set 3 plans, while Figure 13 compares the average Polsby-Popper 21 score of the districts in the county grouping under the HB 1020 Plan to the House Simulation Set 3 plans. Figure 14 simultaneously compares the HB 1020 Plan and the House Simulation Set 3 plans in terms of their Reock (horizontal axis) and Polsby-Popper (vertical axis) scores within the county grouping. Finally, Figure 15 compares the number of municipalities within the county grouping that are split into multiple districts by the HB 1020 Plan and the House Simulation Set 3 plans, while Figure 16 compares the number of VTDs within the county grouping that are split into multiple districts by the HB 1020 Plan and the House Simulation Set 3 plans. Overall, these results demonstrate it is possible to create a districting plan in the ForsythYadkin county grouping that avoids pairing any incumbents while producing higher compactness scores, the same or fewer municipal splits, and the same number of VTD splits as the HB 1020 Plan does. First, as Table 3b illustrates, the HB 1020 Plan substantially decreases the average Reock score in the grouping from the Base Map, from 0.464 to 0.415, and substantially decreases the average Polsby-Popper from 0.380 to 0.300. Moreover, these substantial decreases in the compactness of the grouping's districts were not necessary in order to avoid pairing the current incumbents. As illustrated in Figures 12 and 13, virtually all of the 1,000 House Simulation Set 3 plans produce higher Reock and PolsbyPopper scores in the Forsyth-Yadkin grouping than the HB 1020, while also avoiding any incumbent pairings. Over 99% of the House simulation Set 3 plans produce both a higher Reock and a higher Polsby-Popper score than the HB 1020 Plan in this grouping. The HB 1020 Plan also split more municipalities than necessary to avoid pairing incumbents and more municipalities than were split by the Base Map. The Base Map chosen on September 11, 2019 by the lottery machine split only one municipality (Winston-Salem city). But as detailed in Table 4, the final HB 1020 Plan split two additional municipalities (Kernersville and Walkertown), for a total of three split municipalities. Overall, it is therefore clear that in creating four partisan outlier districts in the ForsythYadkin county grouping, the HB 1020 Plan significantly subordinated the geographic compactness of the groupings' districts, whether measured using the Reock or Polsby-Popper score. Additionally, the creation of these outliers in partisanship and compactness was not necessary to avoid splitting more municipalities or VTDs. 22 Table 3a: Forsyth-Yadkin County Grouping: Changes from Base Map (Sept. 11, 2019) to HB 1020 (Sept. 19, 2019) Forsyth-Yadkin County Grouping: Computer-Simulated Plan A737 Base Map Districts (Sept. 11, 2019): Democratic Vote District: Share: 71 (relabeled to 74) 41.16% 72 67.31% 73 35.60% 74 (relabeled to 75) 39.72% 75 (relabeled to 71) 69.09% Final HB 1020 (Sept. 19, 2019) House Plan Districts: District: Democratic Vote Share: 74 72 73 75 71 41.28% 68.58% 35.60% 36.24% 71.37% Change in Democratic Vote Share From Base Map to HB 1020 Plan 0.12% 1.27% 0.00% -3.48% 2.28% 23 Table 3b: Forsyth-Yadkin County Grouping: Changes from Base Map (Sept. 11, 2019) to HB 1020 (Sept. 19, 2019) Computer-Simulated Plan A455 Base Map Districts (Sept. 11, 2019): Forsyth-Yadkin County Grouping: Final HB 1020 (Sept. 19, 2019) House Plan Districts: District: Reock Score: District: Reock Score: 71 (relabeled to 74) 72 73 74 (relabeled to 75) 75 (relabeled to 71) County Grouping Average: 0.582 0.512 0.349 0.448 0.428 0.464 74 72 73 75 71 County Grouping Average: 0.594 0.482 0.349 0.389 0.261 0.415 Change in Reock Score From Base Map to HB 1020 Plan 0.012 -0.030 0.000 -0.060 -0.167 -0.049 Forsyth-Yadkin County Grouping: Computer-Simulated Plan A455 Base Map Districts (Sept. 11, 2019): Polsby-Popper District: Score: 71 (relabeled to 74) 0.359 72 0.325 73 0.351 74 (relabeled to 75) 0.465 75 (relabeled to 71) 0.398 County Grouping Average: 0.380 Final HB 1020 (Sept. 19, 2019) House Plan Districts: Polsby-Popper District: Score: 74 0.337 72 0.268 73 0.351 75 0.265 71 0.278 County Grouping Average: 0.300 Change in Polsby-Popper Score From Base Map to HB 1020 Plan -0.022 -0.057 0.000 -0.200 -0.119 -0.080 Note: Each district from the 2017 House is compared to the most geographically overlapping district from the final HB 1020 plan, subject to the restriction that each HB 1020 Plan district can only be compared to a single 2017 House Plan district. Each district from each county grouping's base map (selected on September 11, 2019) is compared to the most geographically overlapping district from the final HB 1020 plan. 24 Table 4: Split Municipalities in the 2017 House Plan, the House Base Map (Sept 11, 2019), and the HB 1020 Map (Sept 19, 2019) in the Forsyth-Yadkin County Grouping County Grouping: Forsyth-Yadkin 2017 House Plan: Clemmons village (73 and 75) Kernersville town (74 and 75) Lewisville town (73 and 74) Walkertown town (72 and 74) Winston-Salem city (71, 72, 73, 74, and 75) House Base Map (Sept. 11, 2019): Final HB 1020 (Sept 19, 2019): Winston-Salem city (71, 72, 73, 74 and 75) Kernersville town (71 and 75) Walkertown town (71 and 75) Winston-Salem city (71, 72, 73, 74, and 75) 25 Figure 11: House Simulation Set 3: Democratic Vote Share of the HB 1020 and Computer−Simulated Districts Within the Forsyth−Yadkin County Grouping ● 1,000 Computer−Simulated Districting Plans (House Simulation Set 3) HB 1020 Plan (As Filed With Court on Sept. 19, 2019) ●● ● ● ●●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● HD−071 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● Most Democratic District Within Each Plan ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● HD−072 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ●●● ●● ● ●●● ● ●● ● ●● ●●● ●●● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● 2nd−Most Democratic District ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● (0.2%, 99.8%) ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● HD−075 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● 4th−Most Democratic District 5th−Most Democratic District (99.6%, 0.4%) ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● HD−074 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 3rd−Most Democratic District (57.2%, 42.8%) (0%, 100%) ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● HD−073 ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● (98.1%, 1.9%) 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 District's Democratic Vote Share (Measured Using Votes Summed Across All 2010−2016 Statewide Elections) 73 Yadkin Forsyth 72 74 75 71 HB 1020 Plan (As Filed With Court on Sept. 19, 2019) (5 Districts) 26 Figure 12: Forsyth−Yadkin County Grouping: House Simulation Set 3 (Following Non−Partisan Redistricting Criteria and Avoiding Pairing of 2019 Incumbents): Average Reock Score in HB 1020 Plan Versus 1,000 Simulated Plans HB 1020 Plan Frequency Among Simulated Districting Plans (1,000 Total Simulated Plans) 200 150 100 50 0 0.4 0.1% 0.1% 0.4% 1.8% 6.6% 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 10.4% 16.5% 0.46 0.47 15% 0.48 10.8% 15.9% 20.1% 0.49 0.5 Reock Score of Districts Within County Grouping 0.51 2.1% 0.2% 0.52 0.53 0.54 27 Figure 13: Forsyth−Yadkin 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 Frequency Among Simulated Districting Plans (1,000 Total Simulated Plans) HB 1020 Plan 100 50 0 0.27 0.1% 0.1% 0.7% 0.8% 1.1% 3.3% 3.3% 4.5% 5.9% 6.4% 6.4% 6.8% 6.9% 4.9% 5.3% 4.6% 3.7% 3.2% 3.7% 5.9% 7.6% 12.1% 2.7% 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 Polsby−Popper Score of Districts Within County Grouping 0.51 28 Polsby−Popper Score of Districts within the Forsyth−Yadkin Grouping (Higher Polsby−Popper Score Indicates Greater Compactness) Figure 14: Forsyth−Yadkin County Grouping: House Simulation Set 3 (Following Non−Partisan Redistricting Criteria and Avoiding Pairing of 2019 Incumbents): Comparison of HB 1020 House Plan Versus 1,000 Simulated Plans on Compactness 0.55 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.51 0.5 0.49 0.48 0.47 0.46 0.45 0.44 0.43 0.42 0.41 0.4 0.39 0.38 0.37 0.36 0.35 0.34 0.33 0.32 0.31 0.3 0.29 0.28 0.27 Legend: 1,000 Computer−Simulated Districting Plans (House Simulation Set 3) 2017 House Plan ● ● ● ● HB 1020 House Plan 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 the Forsyth−Yadkin Grouping (Higher Reock Score Indicates Greater Compactness) 0.52 ● 0.53 0.54 29 Figure 15: Forsyth−Yadkin County Grouping: House Simulation Set 3 (Following Non−Partisan Redistricting Criteria and Avoiding Pairing of 2019 Incumbents): Split Municipalities in HB 1020 Plan Versus 1,000 Simulated Plans 950 HB 1020 Plan 900 Frequency Among Simulated Districting Plans (1,000 Total Simulated Plans) 850 800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 0.2% 9.1% 87.3% 3.4% 1 2 3 4 Number of Municipalities Split into Multiple Districts 5 30 Figure 16: Forsyth−Yadkin County Grouping: House Simulation Set 3 (Following Non−Partisan Redistricting Criteria and Avoiding Pairing of 2019 Incumbents): Split VTDs in HB 1020 Plan Versus 1,000 Simulated Plans 1000 HB 1020 Plan 950 Frequency Among Simulated Districting Plans (1,000 Total Simulated Plans) 900 850 800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 95.5% 4.4% 0.1% 0 1 2 Number of VTDs Split into Multiple Districts 3 31 The Cleveland-Gaston County Grouping: Changes from the Base Map to HB 1020: The Cleveland-Gaston county grouping contains four districts. Two of the districts from the Base Map (September 11, 2019) were substantially redrawn in the final HB 1020 House Plan (September 19, 2019). Table 5a describes how the partisanship of districts in the Cleveland-Gaston county grouping changed from the Base Map to the HB 1020, with district partisanship measured using the 2010-2016 Statewide Election Composite. This Table illustrates how the partisan characteristics of two districts in this grouping were significantly altered from the Base Map to the final HB 1020 Plan. The Democratic vote share of District 108 from the Base Map was significantly decreased from 41.24% to 35.62%. Additionally, the Democratic vote share of District 111 from the Base Map was significantly increased from 26.63% to 31.10%, and the district was renumbered as District 110 in the final HB 1020 Plan. The remaining two districts from the Base Map (Districts 109 and 110) were not changed in the final HB 1020 Plan, although District 110 from the Base Map was renumbered as District 111 in the HB 1020 Plan. Comparison of HB 1020 to House Simulation Set 3: Figure 17 illustrates that as a result of the substantial changes in the partisanship of two districts from the Base Map, the final HB 1020 Plan produces a partisan outlier. The second row of Figure 17 illustrates that district 108 from the HB 1020 Plan is more heavily Republican than 99% of its corresponding districts in the House Simulation Set 3 plans. Traditional Districting Criteria: Were the HB 1020 districts in the Cleveland-Gaston county grouping drawn in a manner that followed the non-partisan districting criteria of compactness and preserving municipalities and VTDs? Table 5b compares the district-level Reock and Polsby-Popper scores of the Base Map and the HB 1020 Plan. Table 6 details the split municipalities and split VTDs in the county grouping under the Base Map, the HB 1020 Plan, and the 2017 House Plan. Figure 18 compares the average Reock score of the districts in the county grouping under the HB 1020 Plan to the House Simulation Set 3 plans, while Figure 19 compares the average Polsby-Popper score of the districts in the county grouping under the HB 1020 Plan to the House Simulation Set 3 plans. Figure 20 simultaneously compares the HB 1020 Plan and the House Simulation Set 3 plans in terms of their Reock (horizontal axis) and Polsby-Popper (vertical axis) scores within the county grouping. Finally, Figure 21 compares the number of municipalities within the county grouping 32 that are split into multiple districts by the HB 1020 Plan and the House Simulation Set 3 plans, while Figure 22 compares the number of VTDs within the county grouping that are split into multiple districts by the HB 1020 Plan and the House Simulation Set 3 plans. Overall, these results demonstrate it is possible to create a districting plan in the Cleveland-Gaston county grouping that avoids pairing any incumbents while producing higher compactness scores, the same number of municipality splits, and fewer VTD splits than the HB 1020 Plan does. First, as Table 5b illustrates, the final HB 1020 Plan noticeably worsened the compactness of the Cleveland-Gaston districts compared to the Base Map's version of the grouping's districts. Specifically, the HB 1020 Plan decreased the average Reock score in the grouping from 0.411 to 0.395 and decreased the average Polsby-Popper from 0.283 to 0.256. Moreover, these substantial decreases in the compactness of the grouping's districts from the Base Map were not necessary in order to avoid pairing the current incumbents. As illustrated in Figures 18 and 19, virtually all of the 1,000 House Simulation Set 3 plans produce higher Reock and Polsby-Popper scores in the Cleveland-Gaston grouping than the HB 1020, while also avoiding any incumbent pairings. Specifically, 97.2% of the House simulation Set 3 plans produce both a higher Reock and a higher Polsby-Popper score than the HB 1020 Plan in this grouping. The HB 1020 Plan also split a VTD that was not necessary to avoid pairing incumbents. The Base Map chosen on September 11, 2019 by the lottery machine did not split any VTDs in the Cleveland-Gaston county grouping. But, as detailed in Table 6, the final HB 1020 Plan split a VTD in Gaston County (VTD 39). Moreover, splitting this VTD was not necessary in order to avoid pairing incumbents. As shown in Figure 22, the majority of simulated plans in House Simulation Set 3 split zero VTDs in the Cleveland-Gaston grouping while also avoiding any incumbent pairings. Finally, note that while the HB 1020 Plan did not split any additional municipalities that were not split under the Base Map, the HB 1020 Plan did exacerbate the degree to which Gastonia city is split. Under the Base Map chosen on September 11, Gastonia was split into only two districts (108 and 109), as detailed in Table 6. But in the final HB 1020 Plan, Gastonia was split into three different districts (108, 109, and 110), just as was the case in the 2017 House Plan. 33 Overall, it is clear that in creating a partisan outlier in the Cleveland-Gaston county grouping, the HB 1020 Plan significantly subordinated the geographic compactness of the groupings' districts, whether measured using the Reock or Polsby-Popper score. Additionally, the HB 1020 Plan unnecessarily split a VTD that was not split under the original Base Map chosen on September 9, 2019, and it was possible to avoid incumbent pairings without splitting any VTDs at all. 34 Table 5a: Cleveland-Gaston County Grouping: Changes from Base Map (Sept. 11, 2019) to HB 1020 (Sept. 19, 2019) Cleveland-Gaston County Grouping: Computer-Simulated Plan A432 Base Map Districts (Sept. 11, 2019): Democratic Vote District: Share: 108 41.24% 109 34.97% 110 (relabeled as 111) 40.80% 111 26.63% Final HB 1020 (Sept. 19, 2019) House Plan Districts: District: Democratic Vote Share: 108 109 111 110 35.62% 34.97% 40.80% 31.10% Change in Democratic Vote Share From Base Map to HB 1020 Plan -5.62% 0.00% 0.00% 4.47% 35 Table 5b: Cleveland-Gaston County Grouping: Changes from Base Map (Sept. 11, 2019) to HB 1020 (Sept. 19, 2019) Cleveland-Gaston County Grouping: Computer-Simulated Plan A455 Base Map Final HB 1020 (Sept. 19, 2019) Districts (Sept. 11, 2019): House Plan Districts: District: Reock Score: District: Reock Score: 108 109 110 (relabeled as 111) 111 County Grouping Average: 0.540 0.455 0.447 0.202 0.411 108 109 111 110 County Grouping Average: 0.376 0.455 0.447 0.304 0.395 Change in Reock Score From Base Map to HB 1020 Plan -0.164 0.000 0.000 0.102 -0.016 Cleveland-Gaston County Grouping: Computer-Simulated Plan A455 Base Map Districts (Sept. 11, 2019): Polsby-Popper District: Score: 108 0.336 109 0.348 110 (relabeled as 111) 0.311 111 0.138 County Grouping Average: 0.283 Final HB 1020 (Sept. 19, 2019) House Plan Districts: Polsby-Popper District: Score: 108 0.210 109 0.348 111 0.311 110 0.154 County Grouping Average: 0.256 Change in Polsby-Popper Score From Base Map to HB 1020 Plan -0.127 0.000 0.000 0.016 -0.028 Note: Each district from the 2017 House is compared to the most geographically overlapping district from the final HB 1020 plan, subject to the restriction that each HB 1020 Plan district can only be compared to a single 2017 House Plan district. Each district from each county grouping's base map (selected on September 11, 2019) is compared to the most geographically overlapping district from the final HB 1020 plan. Note: In this county grouping, District 110 form the September 11 Base Map was renumbered as District 111 in the final HB 1020 Plan, even though the boundaries of the district remained the same 36 Table 6: Split Municipalities and Split VTDs in the 2017 House Plan, the House Base Map (Sept 11, 2019), and the HB 1020 Map (Sept 19, 2019) in the Cleveland-Gaston County Grouping County Grouping: ClevelandGaston County Grouping: ClevelandGaston House Base Map (Sept. 11, 2019): Final HB 1020 (Sept 19, 2019): Gastonia city (108 and 109) Mount Holly city (109 and 111) Gastonia city (108, 109, and 110) Mount Holly city (108 and 109) 2017 House Plan: House Base Map (Sept. 11, 2019): Final HB 1020 (Sept 19, 2019): VTD 05 (Gaston County) (109 and 110) none VTD 39 (Gaston County) (108 and 110) 2017 House Plan: Shelby city (110 and 111) Belmont city (108 and 109) Cramerton town (108 and 109) Gastonia city (108 and 109 and 110) Stanley town (108 and 110) 37 Figure 17: House Simulation Set 3: Democratic Vote Share of the HB 1020 and Computer−Simulated Districts Within the Cleveland−Gaston County Grouping 1,000 Computer−Simulated Districting Plans (House Simulation Set 3) HB 1020 Plan (As Filed With Court on Sept. 19, 2019) ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● HD−111 ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●●●● ● Most Democratic District Within Each Plan ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● HD−108 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●●●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ●● ● ●● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● 2nd−Most Democratic District ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ●● ●● ●HD−109 ●● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ●● ● ●● ● ●●●●● ● ●● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ●● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ●●● ● ●● ● ● ●●●●● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●●●●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ●● ●● ● 3rd−Most Democratic District 4th−Most Democratic District ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● (93.3%, 6.7%) (1%, 99%) (70.3%, 29.7%) ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ●● ● ●HD−110 ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●●● ● ●● ●● ●● ●● ● ●●● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ●●● ●●●● ● ● ●●●● ●● ● ● (35.2%, 64.8%) 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 District's Democratic Vote Share (Measured Using Votes Summed Across All 2010−2016 Statewide Elections) 110 Cleveland 111 108 Gaston 109 HB 1020 Plan (As Filed With Court on Sept. 19, 2019) (4 Districts) 38 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 HB 1020 Plan Versus 1,000 Simulated Plans 400 HB 1020 Plan Frequency Among Simulated Districting Plans (1,000 Total Simulated Plans) 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0.2% 0.3 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.4% 0.7% 7% 7.1% 3.2% 0.6% 36.4% 0.5% 36.1% 2% 5.5% 0.3% 0.39 0.4 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.49 0.5 Reock Score of Districts Within County Grouping 0.51 39 Figure 19: Cleveland−Gaston 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 350 HB 1020 Plan Frequency Among Simulated Districting Plans (1,000 Total Simulated Plans) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0.23 0.2% 1.3% 1.1% 6.7% 0.8% 3.1% 8.3% 6.4% 1% 0.3% 2.2% 0.3% 5.2% 1.6% 1.1% 31.6% 22.4% 4.3% 0.6% 0.1% 0.24 0.25 0.26 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 Polsby−Popper Score of Districts Within County Grouping 0.44 1.2% 0.2% 0.45 0.46 0.47 40 Polsby−Popper Score of Districts within the Cleveland−Gaston Grouping (Higher Polsby−Popper Score Indicates Greater Compactness) Figure 20: Cleveland−Gaston County Grouping: House Simulation Set 3 (Following Non−Partisan Redistricting Criteria and Avoiding Pairing of 2019 Incumbents): Comparison of HB 1020 House Plan Versus 1,000 Simulated Plans on Compactness 0.5 0.49 0.48 0.47 0.46 0.45 0.44 0.43 0.42 0.41 0.4 0.39 0.38 0.37 0.36 0.35 0.34 0.33 0.32 0.31 0.3 0.29 0.28 0.27 0.26 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.22 Legend: ● 1,000 Computer−Simulated Districting Plans (House Simulation Set 3) 2017 House Plan ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● HB 1020 House Plan 0.32 0.34 ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● 0.3 ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● 0.36 0.38 0.4 0.42 0.44 0.46 Reock Score of Districts within the Cleveland−Gaston Grouping (Higher Reock Score Indicates Greater Compactness) 0.48 0.5 0.52 41 Figure 21: Cleveland−Gaston County Grouping: House Simulation Set 3 (Following Non−Partisan Redistricting Criteria and Avoiding Pairing of 2019 Incumbents): Split Municipalities in HB 1020 Plan Versus 1,000 Simulated Plans 750 HB 1020 Plan 700 Frequency Among Simulated Districting Plans (1,000 Total Simulated Plans) 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 0.1% 11.4% 66.7% 19.2% 2.6% 1 2 3 4 5 Number of Municipalities Split into Multiple Districts 6 42 Figure 22: Cleveland−Gaston County Grouping: House Simulation Set 3 (Following Non−Partisan Redistricting Criteria and Avoiding Pairing of 2019 Incumbents): Split VTDs in HB 1020 Plan Versus 1,000 Simulated Plans HB 1020 Plan 550 Frequency Among Simulated Districting Plans (1,000 Total Simulated Plans) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 52.1% 46.4% 1.5% 0 1 2 Number of VTDs Split into Multiple Districts 3 43 The Brunswick-New Hanover County Grouping: For the Brunswick-New Hanover county grouping, the House Redistricting Committee selected computer-simulated map A198 from House Simulation Set 1 of my April 8, 2019 expert report as its Base Map. The final HB 1020 Plan made no changes to this Base Map in the Brunswick-New Hanover grouping. Therefore, the partisanship and compactness scores of the districts in this grouping did not change from the Base Map to the final HB 1020 Plan. However, the HB 1020 Plan produces partisan outliers when compared to the House Simulation Set 3 plans, which were programmed to intentionally avoid pairing the current House incumbents. Comparison of HB 1020 to House Simulation Set 3: Figure 23 illustrates that HB 1020's version of the Brunswick-New Hanover county grouping produces several partisan outlier districts when compared to their corresponding House Simulation Set 3 districts. The second and fourth rows of Figure 11 show that Districts 20 and 17 are more Republican and more Democratic, respectively, than 100% of their respective corresponding districts in the 1,000 computer-simulated plans that avoid pairing the current incumbents. Additionally, the first and third rows of Figure 11 show that Districts 18 and 19 are more Democratic and more Republican, respectively, than over 92% of their corresponding districts in the 1,000 Simulation Set 3 plans. Traditional Districting Criteria: Figure 24 compares the average Reock score of the districts in the county grouping under the HB 1020 Plan to the House Simulation Set 3 plans, while Figure 25 compares the average Polsby-Popper score of the districts in the county grouping under the HB 1020 Plan to the House Simulation Set 3 plans. Figure 26 simultaneously compares the HB 1020 Plan and the House Simulation Set 3 plans in terms of their Reock (horizontal axis) and Polsby-Popper (vertical axis) scores within the county grouping. Finally, Figure 27 compares the number of municipalities within the county grouping that are split into multiple districts by the HB 1020 Plan and the House Simulation Set 3 plans, while Figure 28 compares the number of VTDs within the county grouping that are split into multiple districts by the HB 1020 Plan and the House Simulation Set 3 plans. Figures 24 and 25 show that, while the HB 1020 districts have slightly higher average Reock scores than the House Simulation Set 3 districts, over 80% of the plans in House Simulation Set 3 have higher average Polsby-Popper scores than the HB 1020 districts. Figure 27 shows that the vast majority of plans in House Simulation Set 3 split the same number of 44 municipalities, as the HB 1020 Plan, and Figures 28 shows that nearly a quarter of the House Simulation Set 3 plans also split no VTDs. Overall, these figures show that the General Assembly could have avoided pairing the current incumbents in this grouping without sacrificing or subordinating the traditional districting criteria. 45 Figure 23: House Simulation Set 3: Democratic Vote Share of the HB 1020 and Computer−Simulated Districts Within the Brunswick−New Hanover County Grouping ● 1,000 Computer−Simulated Districting Plans (House Simulation Set 3) HB 1020 Plan (As Filed With Court on Sept. 19, 2019) ● Most Democratic District Within Each Plan ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ●●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● HD−020 ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● 2nd−Most Democratic District ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ●● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● HD−019 ●● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ●● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ●● ● 3rd−Most Democratic District 4th−Most Democratic District ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ●●● ● ●● ● ● ●● ●● ● HD−018 ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ●● ● ●●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● (92.5%, 7.5%) ● (0%, 100%) ● ● ●● (7.4%, 92.6%) ● ●● ● ● HD−017 ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ●● ● ● ●● ●●● (100%, 0%) 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 District's Democratic Vote Share (Measured Using Votes Summed Across All 2010−2016 Statewide Elections) 18 20 New Hanover 17 Brunswick 19 HB 1020 Plan (As Filed With Court on Sept. 19, 2019) (4 Districts) 46 Figure 24: Brunswick−New Hanover County Grouping: House Simulation Set 3 (Following Non−Partisan Redistricting Criteria and Avoiding Pairing of 2019 Incumbents): Average Reock Score in HB 1020 Plan Versus 1,000 Simulated Plans 700 HB 1020 Plan 650 Frequency Among Simulated Districting Plans (1,000 Total Simulated Plans) 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0.38 6.2% 1.6% 0.3% 3.2% 1.8% 63.1% 18.5% 0.1% 5.2% 0.39 0.4 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 Reock Score of Districts Within County Grouping 0.48 47 Figure 25: Brunswick−New Hanover 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 400 HB 1020 Plan Frequency Among Simulated Districting Plans (1,000 Total Simulated Plans) 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0.2% 0.2 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.28 3.2% 1.4% 0.29 0.3 0.31 2.6% 10.5% 0.1% 0.7% 27.5% 17.2% 36.1% 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.38 Polsby−Popper Score of Districts Within County Grouping 0.39 48 Polsby−Popper Score of Districts within the Brunswick−New Hanover Grouping (Higher Polsby−Popper Score Indicates Greater Compactness) Figure 26: Brunswick−New Hanover County Grouping: House Simulation Set 3 (Following Non−Partisan Redistricting Criteria and Avoiding Pairing of 2019 Incumbents): Comparison of HB 1020 House Plan Versus 1,000 Simulated Plans on Compactness Legend: 0.41 ● 0.4 1,000 Computer−Simulated Districting Plans (House Simulation Set 3) 2017 House Plan 0.39 ● 0.38 ● 0.37 ● ● ● ● 0.36 0.35 ● ● 0.34 ● ● 0.33 ● ● ● ● ● 0.32 HB 1020 House Plan ●● ● ● ● 0.31 ● 0.3 0.29 ● ● ●● ● 0.28 0.27 ● 0.26 ● ● ● 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.22 ● 0.21 ● 0.2 0.19 0.39 0.4 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 Reock Score of Districts within the Brunswick−New Hanover Grouping (Higher Reock Score Indicates Greater Compactness) 0.47 0.48 49 Figure 27: Brunswick−New Hanover County Grouping: House Simulation Set 3 (Following Non−Partisan Redistricting Criteria and Avoiding Pairing of 2019 Incumbents): Split Municipalities in HB 1020 Plan Versus 1,000 Simulated Plans 900 HB 1020 Plan 850 800 Frequency Among Simulated Districting Plans (1,000 Total Simulated Plans) 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 80.7% 19.1% 0.2% 1 2 3 Number of Municipalities Split into Multiple Districts 4 50 Figure 28: Brunswick−New Hanover County Grouping: House Simulation Set 3 (Following Non−Partisan Redistricting Criteria and Avoiding Pairing of 2019 Incumbents): Split VTDs in HB 1020 Plan Versus 1,000 Simulated Plans 850 800 HB 1020 Plan Frequency Among Simulated Districting Plans (1,000 Total Simulated Plans) 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 23.9% 76.1% 0 1 Number of VTDs Split into Multiple Districts 2 51 The Guilford County Grouping: Changes from the Base Map to HB 1020: The Guilford County grouping contains six total House districts, but three of these districts (HD-57, HD-61, and HD-62) are frozen in both the computer-simulated plans as well as in the final HB 1020 Plan. Among the remaining three non-frozen districts in Guilford County, the border between Districts 58 and 59 were altered from the September 11 Base Map to the final HB 1020 House Plan of September 19. Specifically, one VTD was shifted from District 59 to District 58. Table 7a describes how the partisanship of districts in the Guilford County grouping changed from the Base Map to the HB 1020, with district partisanship measured using the 2010-2016 Statewide Election Composite. Most notably, the Democratic vote share of District 59 decreased from 45.97% to 45.46%. District 60 was not altered from the Base Map to the final HB 1020 Plan. Comparison of HB 1020 to House Simulation Set 3: I conducted 1,000 computersimulated plans for the Guilford County grouping in House Simulation Set 3, and I found that the HB 1020 Plan does not create partisan outlier districts in this grouping. Traditional Districting Criteria: Were the HB 1020 districts in the Guilford County grouping drawn in a manner that followed the non-partisan districting criteria of compactness and preserving municipalities and VTDs? Table 7b compares the district-level Reock and Polsby-Popper scores of the Base Map and the HB 1020 Plan within the county grouping. Figure 29 compares the average Reock score of the districts in the county grouping under the HB 1020 Plan to the House Simulation Set 3 plans, while Figure 30 compares the average Polsby-Popper score of the districts in the county grouping under the HB 1020 Plan to the House Simulation Set 3 plans. Figure 31 simultaneously compares the HB 1020 Plan and the House Simulation Set 3 plans in terms of their Reock (horizontal axis) and Polsby-Popper (vertical axis) scores within the county grouping. Finally, Figure 32 compares the number of municipalities within the county grouping that are split into multiple districts by the HB 1020 Plan and the House Simulation Set 3 plans, while Figure 33 compares the number of VTDs within the county grouping that are split into multiple districts by the HB 1020 Plan and the House Simulation Set 3 plans. Overall, these results demonstrate that the HB 1020 Plan significantly and unnecessarily subordinates compactness in protecting incumbents. First, as Table 7b illustrates, the final HB 1020 Plan noticeably worsened the compactness of the Guilford County compared to the Base 52 Map's version of the grouping's districts. Specifically, the HB 1020 Plan decreased the average Reock score in the grouping from 0.440 to 0.401 and decreased the average Polsby-Popper from 0.264 to 0.232. Moreover, these substantial decreases in the compactness of the grouping's districts from the Base Map to the final HB 1020 Plan were not necessary in order to avoid pairing the current incumbents. As illustrated in Figures 29 and 30, virtually all of the 1,000 House Simulation Set 3 plans produce higher Reock and Polsby-Popper scores in the Guilford County grouping than the HB 1020, while also avoiding any incumbent pairings. Specifically, 99.8% of the House simulation Set 3 plans produce both a higher Reock and a higher Polsby-Popper score than the HB 1020 Plan in this grouping. Finally, the HB 1020 Plan splits three municipalities and one VTD in Guilford County, which is exactly the same number of split municipalities and VTDs as in the Base Map and in all House Simulation Set 3 maps (Figure 32 and 33). Therefore, it is clear that the significant decrease in geographic compactness created by the HB 1020 Plan were not necessary in order to avoid excessive municipality or VTD splits. Overall, it is clear that the HB 1020 Plan significantly subordinated the geographic compactness of the Guilford County grouping's districts, whether measured using the Reock or Polsby-Popper score, and this subordination of compactness was not necessitated by avoiding incumbent pairings or avoiding municipality or VTD splits. 53 Table 7a: Guilford County Grouping: Changes from Base Map (Sept. 11, 2019) to HB 1020 (Sept. 19, 2019) Guilford County Grouping: Computer-Simulated Plan A117 Base Map Districts (Sept. 11, 2019): Final HB 1020 (Sept. 19, 2019) House Plan Districts: District: Democratic Vote Share: District: Democratic Vote Share: 58 59 60 72.72% 45.97% 61.65% 58 59 60 72.35% 45.46% 61.65% Change in Democratic Vote Share From Base Map to HB 1020 Plan -0.37% -0.51% 0.00% 54 Table 7b: Guilford County Grouping: Changes from Base Map (Sept. 11, 2019) to HB 1020 (Sept. 19, 2019) Computer-Simulated Plan A455 Base Map Districts (Sept. 11, 2019): Guilford County Grouping: Final HB 1020 (Sept. 19, 2019) House Plan Districts: District: Reock Score: District: Reock Score: 58 59 60 County Grouping Average: 0.445 0.464 0.411 0.440 58 59 60 County Grouping Average: 0.333 0.457 0.411 0.401 Change in Reock Score From Base Map to HB 1020 Plan -0.111 -0.007 0.000 -0.039 Guilford County Grouping: Computer-Simulated Plan A455 Base Map Districts (Sept. 11, 2019): Polsby-Popper District: Score: 58 0.241 59 0.350 60 0.201 County Grouping Average: 0.264 Final HB 1020 (Sept. 19, 2019) House Plan Districts: Polsby-Popper District: Score: 58 0.174 59 0.321 60 0.201 County Grouping Average: 0.232 Change in Polsby-Popper Score From Base Map to HB 1020 Plan -0.068 -0.028 0.000 -0.032 Note: Each district from the 2017 House is compared to the most geographically overlapping district from the final HB 1020 plan, subject to the restriction that each HB 1020 Plan district can only be compared to a single 2017 House Plan district. Each district from each county grouping's base map (selected on September 11, 2019) is compared to the most geographically overlapping district from the final HB 1020 plan. 55 Figure 29: Guilford County Grouping: House Simulation Set 3 (Following Non−Partisan Redistricting Criteria and Avoiding Pairing of 2019 Incumbents): Average Reock Score in HB 1020 Plan Versus 1,000 Simulated Plans 1000 HB 1020 Plan 950 Frequency Among Simulated Districting Plans (1,000 Total Simulated Plans) 900 850 800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0.37 0.2% 93.3% 6.5% 0.38 0.39 0.4 Reock Score of Districts Within County Grouping 0.41 56 Figure 30: Guilford 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 650 HB 1020 Plan Frequency Among Simulated Districting Plans (1,000 Total Simulated Plans) 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0.27 2.7% 60.7% 36.6% 0.28 0.29 0.3 Polsby−Popper Score of Districts Within County Grouping 0.31 57 Figure 31: Guilford County Grouping: House Simulation Set 3 (Following Non−Partisan Redistricting Criteria and Avoiding Pairing of 2019 Incumbents): Comparison of HB 1020 House Plan Versus 1,000 Simulated Plans on Compactness Legend: Polsby−Popper Score of Districts within the Guilford Grouping (Higher Polsby−Popper Score Indicates Greater Compactness) ● 1,000 Computer−Simulated Districting Plans (House Simulation Set 3) 2017 House Plan ● 0.3 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 0.29 ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● 0.28 HB 1020 House Plan 0.39 Reock Score of Districts within the Guilford Grouping (Higher Reock Score Indicates Greater Compactness) 0.4 58 Figure 32: Guilford County Grouping: House Simulation Set 3 (Following Non−Partisan Redistricting Criteria and Avoiding Pairing of 2019 Incumbents): Split Municipalities in HB 1020 Plan Versus 1,000 Simulated Plans HB 1020 Plan 1000 Frequency Among Simulated Districting Plans (1,000 Total Simulated Plans) 950 900 850 800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 100% 2 3 Number of Municipalities Split into Multiple Districts 4 59 Figure 33: Guilford County Grouping: House Simulation Set 3 (Following Non−Partisan Redistricting Criteria and Avoiding Pairing of 2019 Incumbents): Split VTDs in HB 1020 Plan Versus 1,000 Simulated Plans HB 1020 Plan 1000 Frequency Among Simulated Districting Plans (1,000 Total Simulated Plans) 950 900 850 800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 100% 0 Number of VTDs Split into Multiple Districts 1 60 Analysis of District 58 in the 2017 House Plan and HB 1020 Plan Plaintiffs' counsel asked me to analyze the similarity between HD-58 in the 2017 House Plan and District 58 in the final HB 1020 Plan. To analyze the geographic similarity between these two versions of District 58, I overlaid the two plans against one another using the block assignment files of the two plans. I then calculated the amount of population from the 2017 House Plan's HD-58 that was also assigned to District 58 in the final HB 1020 Plan. I found that the 2017 House Plan's HD-58 comprised a total population of 82,137. Among these individuals, 70,646 (or 86.01%) were also assigned to District 58 in the HB 1020 Plan. The remainder were assigned to either District 59 or 60 in the HB 1020 Plan, as detailed in Table 8. 61 Table 8: Overlap Analysis of HD-58 from the 2017 House Plan and Districts from the Final HB 1020 Plan (Measured Using Total Population and Census Blocks): HD-58 from the 2017 House Plan Population: Census Blocks: District 58 (HB 1020 Plan): 70,646 (86.01%) 1,227 (81.42%) District 59 (HB 1020 Plan): 6,926 (8.43%) 152 (10.09%) District 60 (HB 1020 Plan): 4,565 (5.56%) 128 (8.49%) Total: 82,137 (100%) 1,507 (100%) 62 Comparing the Compactness of the Redrawn Districts and the Computer-Simulated Plans In this section, I compare the compactness of the HB 1020 Plan's districts in the redrawn county groupings to the districts in these same county groupings in the computer simulated plans. Specifically, I focus only on the county groupings that the Court struck down and ordered redrawn. Overall, these results show that the HB 1020 Plan's districts in the redrawn groupings are significantly less compact than the vast majority of the computer-simulated districts in these same groupings. First, Figure 34 compares the compactness of the HB 1020 districts in the fourteen redrawn county groupings to the computer-simulated districts in these same groupings produced in House Simulation Set 1, which follows only the non-partisan traditional districting criteria. The horizontal axis in this Figure measures the average Reock score of the House districts in these fourteen county groupings in each plan, while the vertical axis measures the average Polsby-Popper score of the relevant districts in each plan. Overall, Figure 34 illustrates that even when we examine in isolation only the fourteen redrawn House groupings, the HB 1020 Plan is significantly less compact than nearly all of the House Simulation set 1 plans. The HB 1020 Plan has a lower Polsby-Popper score than 100% of the House Simulation Set 1 plans and a lower Reock score than 98.6% of the Simulation Set 1 plans. Next, Figure 35 compares the compactness of the HB 1020 districts in the fourteen redrawn county groupings to the computer-simulated districts in these same groupings produced in House Simulation Set 2, which follows the non-partisan traditional districting criteria while avoiding incumbent pairings. The horizontal axis in this Figure measures the average Reock score of the House districts in these fourteen county groupings in each plan, while the vertical axis measures the average Polsby-Popper score of the relevant districts in each plan. Overall, Figure 35 illustrates that even when we examine in isolation only the fourteen redrawn House groupings, the HB 1020 Plan is significantly less compact than nearly all of the House Simulation set 2 plans. The HB 1020 Plan has a lower Polsby-Popper score than 100% of the House Simulation Set 2 plans and a lower Reock score than 73.9% of the Simulation Set 2 plans. Finally, Figure 36 measures the compactness of the HB 1020 districts in the five redrawn county groupings for which I conducted Simulation Set 3 plans. These five groupings are: 1) Columbus-Pender-Robeson; 2) Forsyth-Yadkin; 3) Cleveland-Gaston; 4) Brunswick-New Hanover; and 5) Guilford. Figure 36 then compares the compactness of the HB 1020 districts in 63 these five groupings to the compactness of the House Simulation Set 3 plans in these same five groupings. The horizontal axis in this Figure measures the average Reock score of the House districts in these five county groupings in each plan, while the vertical axis measures the average Polsby-Popper score of the districts in each plan in these five groupings. Overall, Figure 36 illustrates that even when we examine in isolation only these five redrawn House groupings, the HB 1020 Plan is significantly less compact than virtually all of the House Simulation Set 3 plans. The HB 1020 Plan has a lower Polsby-Popper score than 100% of the House Simulation Set 3 plans and a lower Reock score than 98.6% of the Simulation Set 3 plans. 64 Polsby−Popper Score of Districts within Fourteen County Grouping Struck Down by the Court (Higher Polsby−Popper Score Indicates Greater Compactness) Figure 34: House Simulation Set 1 (Following Only Non−Partisan Redistricting Criteria): Comparison of 2017 House Plan, HB 1020 House Plan, and 1,000 Simulated Plans on Compactness in the Fourteen House County Groupings Struck Down by the Court Legend: ● 0.39 1,000 Computer−Simulated Districting Plans (House Simulation Set 1) HB 1020 Plan (September 19, 2019) ● 0.38 0.37 0.36 ● ● 0.35 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ●●● ●● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ●● ●● ● ●● ●● ●● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ●● ● ● ●●● ●● ●● ● ● ●●● ● ●●● ● ● ● ●● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●●● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●●● ●● ● ● ●●● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●●● ●●● ●● ● ●● ●●● ● ● ●● ●●● ●● ●● ● ● ●● ● ●●●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●●● ●●● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ●●● ● ●● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ●●● ● ●● ●●●●●●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ●● ●● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ●● ● ● ●● ● ●● ●●●● ● ● ●● ● ● ●●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ●●● ●●● ● ●● ● ●● ● ●●●●● ● ●● ● ●● ● ●●● ●● ● ●● ● ● ●● ●● ● ●● ●●● ●●●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ●● ●●●● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ●● ●●● ● ● ●● ●● ● ●● ● ● ●●● ●●● ●●● ● ● ● ●●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●●●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ●●●● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ●●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ●●●●●● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ●● ●●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ●●● ●● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 0.34 0.33 HB 1020 House Plan 0.45 0.46 0.47 Reock Score of Districts within Fourteen County Groupings Struck Down by the Court (Higher Reock Score Indicates Greater Compactness) 65 Polsby−Popper Score of Districts within Fourteen County Grouping Struck Down by the Court (Higher Polsby−Popper Score Indicates Greater Compactness) Figure 35: House Simulation Set 2 (Following Non−Partisan Redistricting Criteria and Avoiding the Pairing of Incumbents): Comparison of 2017 House Plan, HB 1020 House Plan, and 1,000 Simulated Plans on Compactness in the Fourteen House County Groupings Struck Down by the Court 0.38 Legend: 1,000 Computer−Simulated Districting Plans (House Simulation Set 2) HB 1020 Plan (September 19, 2019) ● ●● 0.37 ● ● ● ● ● ● 0.35 ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● 0.34 ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ●●● ●●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ●● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ●●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●●● ●● ●●● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ●● ● ●● ● ●● ● ●● ●●● ●● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ●●●●●● ●● ● ●● ● ●●●●●●●● ● ●●● ● ●● ● ●●● ● ● ● ●● ● ●●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ●● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ●●● ● ●● ●● ● ●● ● ●● ●●● ● ● ●●● ●●●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ●●● ●●●●●● ●●● ●● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ●●● ● ● ●● ● ●●● ●●● ● ●● ● ●● ● ●● ●● ● ●● ●●● ●● ● ● ● ●●● ● ●● ● ●● ●● ● ●●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●●● ●● ●● ●● ●● ● ● ● ●● ●● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●●●●●●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● 0.36 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 0.33 ● HB 1020 House Plan 0.44 0.45 0.46 Reock Score of Districts within Fourteen County Groupings Struck Down by the Court (Higher Reock Score Indicates Greater Compactness) 66 Figure 36: House Simulation Set 3 (Following Non−Partisan Redistricting Criteria and Avoiding Pairing of 2019 Incumbents): Comparison of HB 1020 House Plan Versus 1,000 Simulated Plans on Compactness in Five County Groupings Legend: 0.39 1,000 Computer−Simulated Districting Plans (House Simulation Set 3) HB 1020 Plan (September 19, 2019) ● Polsby−Popper Score of 22 Districts within Five County Grouping (Higher Polsby−Popper Score Indicates Greater Compactness) 0.38 0.37 0.36 0.35 0.34 0.33 0.32 ● 0.31 0.3 ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●●● ● ●●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ●●●●● ●●● ●● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●●●● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ●●● ● ●●●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ●●● ● ●● ● ● ●●●● ●● ● ● ● ●●● ●●●●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ●●● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●●● ● ● ● ● ●●● ●● ● ●●●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●●● ●● ● ● ● ● ●●● ●● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ●●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●●● ●●●●● ● ● ●●●●●● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●●●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ●● ●● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●●● ●● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●●●●● ●● ● ● ● ●●●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●●● ●●● ●●● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●●●● ● ●● ● ●● ● ●● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ●●● ●● ●●● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ●●● ● ● ●● ●●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ●●● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ●● ● ● ●● ● ●●● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ●● ●● ●● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● 0.29 ● ● ● ● ● ● HB 1020 House Plan 0.28 0.4 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 Reock Score of 22 Districts Within Five County Groupings (Higher Reock Score Indicates Greater Compactness) The five county groupings included in this Figure's calculations are: Brunswick−New Hanover Cleveland−Gaston Columbus−Pender−Robeson Forsyth−Yadkin Guilford 67 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. This 27th day of September, 2019. Jowei Chen 68 EXHIBIT B Jacobson, Daniel From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Riggins, Alyssa Monday, September 9, 2019 4:24 PM Jones, Stanton; Erika Churchill (Legislative Analysis) Farr, Thomas A.; Strach, Phillip J.; espeas@poynerspruill.com; melias@perkinscoie.com; zzz.External.AKhanna@perkinscoie.com; Rep. David Lewis; Rep. Destin Hall; Rep. Elmer Floyd; Rep. John Sauls; Rep. John Szoka; Rep. John Torbett; Rep. Cecil Brockman; Rep. Deb Butler; Rep. Holly Grange; Rep. Pricey Harrison; Rep. Kelly Hastings; Rep. Zack Hawkins; Rep. Craig Horn; Rep. Joe Sam Queen; Rep. Robert Reives; Rep. Jason Saine; Rep. Harry Warren; Kara McCraw (Legislative Analysis); Jessica Sammons (Legislative Analysis); Peter Capriglione (ISD, Director); Dan Frey; Raleigh Myers; Mark Coggins (Rep. David Lewis); Dylan Reel (Rep. David Lewis) RE: Dr. Chen's maps and scores - House plans External E-mail Ms. Churchill, Please find in the link below Dr. Chen’s backup data produced to us on April 8, 2019 by Plaintiffs. In order to preserve data integrity, the backup data is in the same complete manner we received it from Plaintiffs. You are correct in that the appropriate House data you are looking for is House Set 2 within the backup. Please don’t hesitate to reach out to me if you have any issues accessing the data. https://ogletreedeakins.sharefile.com/d-s5dade7822424c8ea Best Regards, Alyssa Alyssa Riggins Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100 Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone: 919-789-3142 Fax: 919-783-9412 alyssa.riggins@ogletree.com www.ogletree.com Bio From: Riggins, Alyssa Sent: Monday, September 09, 2019 3:50 PM To: 'Jones, Stanton' ; Erika Churchill (Legislative Analysis) Cc: Farr, Thomas A. ; Strach, Phillip J. ; espeas@poynerspruill.com; melias@perkinscoie.com; AKhanna@perkinscoie.com; Rep. David Lewis ; Rep. Destin Hall ; Rep. Elmer Floyd ; Rep. John Sauls ; Rep. John Szoka ; Rep. John Torbett ; Rep. Cecil Brockman ; Rep. Deb Butler ; Rep. Holly Grange ; Rep. Pricey Harrison ; Rep. Kelly Hastings ; Rep. Zack Hawkins ; Rep. Craig Horn ; Rep. Joe Sam Queen ; Rep. Robert Reives ; Rep. Jason Saine ; Rep. Harry Warren 1 ; Kara McCraw (Legislative Analysis) ; Jessica Sammons (Legislative Analysis) ; Peter Capriglione (ISD, Director) ; Dan Frey ; Raleigh Myers ; Mark Coggins (Rep. David Lewis) ; Dylan Reel (Rep. David Lewis) Subject: RE: Dr. Chen's maps and scores - House plans Ms. Churchill, Legislative Defendants will do the same. We request that Plaintiffs’ copy us on their submission as well. Best, Alyssa Alyssa Riggins Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100 Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone: 919-789-3142 Fax: 919-783-9412 alyssa.riggins@ogletree.com www.ogletree.com Bio From: Jones, Stanton Sent: Monday, September 09, 2019 3:22 PM To: Erika Churchill (Legislative Analysis) Cc: Farr, Thomas A. ; Strach, Phillip J. ; espeas@poynerspruill.com; melias@perkinscoie.com; AKhanna@perkinscoie.com; Riggins, Alyssa ; Rep. David Lewis ; Rep. Destin Hall ; Rep. Elmer Floyd ; Rep. John Sauls ; Rep. John Szoka ; Rep. John Torbett ; Rep. Cecil Brockman ; Rep. Deb Butler ; Rep. Holly Grange ; Rep. Pricey Harrison ; Rep. Kelly Hastings ; Rep. Zack Hawkins ; Rep. Craig Horn ; Rep. Joe Sam Queen ; Rep. Robert Reives ; Rep. Jason Saine ; Rep. Harry Warren ; Kara McCraw (Legislative Analysis) ; Jessica Sammons (Legislative Analysis) ; Peter Capriglione (ISD, Director) ; Dan Frey ; Raleigh Myers ; Mark Coggins (Rep. David Lewis) ; Dylan Reel (Rep. David Lewis) Subject: Re: Dr. Chen's maps and scores - House plans Ms. Churchill: Plaintiffs will send the requested data tonight. Regards, Stanton Sent from my iPhone On Sep 9, 2019, at 3:01 PM, Erika Churchill (Legislative Analysis) wrote: External E-mail All, The House Redistricting Committee met this afternoon, and is currently in recess. We committee staff have been instructed to obtain the 1,000 House of Representative maps produced by Dr. Chen, using 2 incumbency, and the related scores for compactness, split VTD’s, and split municipalities. I believe we are looking for Simulation Set 2. We would like to arrange to obtain copies as quickly as possible, and would prefer an Excel document for the related scores and shapefiles and block assignment files for the underlying maps. If there are any maps associated with the Simulation, particularly PDF versions, we would also be appreciative. Please let us know if there is a website, or other location, from which we can access the files, or if you can provide. Thank you, Erika C Erika Churchill Staff Attorney, Legislative Analysis Division North Carolina General Assembly 300 N. Salisbury St, Suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27603 (919)733-2578 This communication may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please note that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Anyone who receives this message in error should notify the sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete it from his or her computer. ___________________________________________ For more information about Arnold & Porter, click here: http://www.arnoldporter.com This transmission is intended only for the proper recipient(s). It is confidential and may contain attorney-client privileged information. If you are not the proper recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any unauthorized review, copying, or use of this message is prohibited. 3 EXHIBIT C From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Riggins, Alyssa Monday, September 9, 2019 4:21 PM Erika Churchill (Legislative Analysis) Sen. Warren Daniel; Sen. Dan Bishop; Sen. Paul Newton; Sen. John Alexander; Sen. Dan Blue; Sen. Danny Britt; Sen. Harry Brown; Sen. Ben Clark; Sen. Michael Garrett; Sen. Kathy Harrington; Sen. Brent Jackson; Sen. Natasha Marcus; Sen. Floyd McKissick; Sen. Bill Rabon; Peter Capriglione (ISD, Director; Raleigh Myers; Dan Frey; Jessica Sammons (Legislative Analysis; Kara McCraw (Legislative Analysis; Karen CochraneBrown (Legislative Analysis, Director; Farr, Thomas A.; Strach, Phillip J.; Sen. Ralph Hise; Sen. Warren Daniel; Sen. Dan Bishop; Sen. Paul Newton; Sen. John Alexander; Sen. Dan Blue; Sen. Danny Britt; Sen. Harry Brown; Sen. Ben Clark; Sen. Michael Garrett; Sen. Kathy Harrington; Sen. Brent Jackson; Sen. Natasha Marcus; Sen. Floyd McKissick; Sen. Bill Rabon; Peter Capriglione (ISD, Director; Raleigh Myers; Dan Frey; Jessica Sammons (Legislative Analysis; Kara McCraw (Legislative Analysis; Karen CochraneBrown (Legislative Analysis, Director; Farr, Thomas A.; Strach, Phillip J.; Jones, Stanton; melias@perkinscoie.com; espeas@poynerspruill.com RE: Dr. Chen's maps and scores External E-mail Ms. Churchill, Please find in the link below Dr. Chen’s backup data produced to us on April 8, 2019 by Plaintiffs. In order to preserve data integrity, the backup data is in the same complete manner we received it from Plaintiffs. Please note that the appropriate Senate data you are looking for is Senate Set 2 within the backup. Please don’t hesitate to reach out to me if you have any issues accessing the data. https://ogletreedeakins.sharefile.com/d-s5dade7822424c8ea Best Regards, Alyssa Alyssa Riggins Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100 Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone: 919-789-3142 Fax: 919-783-9412 alyssa.riggins@ogletree.com www.ogletree.com Bio From: Erika Churchill (Legislative Analysis) Sent: Monday, September 09, 2019 12:27 PM To: Riggins, Alyssa Cc: Farr, Thomas A. ; Strach, Phillip J. Subject: FW: Dr. Chen's maps and scores Alyssa, Sorry I forgot to include you. I apologize. 1 Erika C From: Erika Churchill (Legislative Analysis) Sent: Monday, September 09, 2019 12:26 PM To: 'Farr, Thomas A.' ; Strach, Phillip J. ; 'espeas@poynerspruill.com' ; 'stanton.jones@arnoldporter.com' ; 'melias@perkinscoie.com' ; 'akhanna@perkinscoie.com' Cc: Sen. Ralph Hise ; Sen. Warren Daniel ; Sen. Dan Bishop ; Sen. Paul Newton ; Sen. John Alexander ; Sen. Dan Blue ; Sen. Danny Britt ; Sen. Harry Brown ; Sen. Ben Clark ; Sen. Michael Garrett ; Sen. Kathy Harrington ; Sen. Brent Jackson ; Sen. Natasha Marcus ; Sen. Floyd McKissick ; Sen. Bill Rabon ; Peter Capriglione (ISD, Director) ; Raleigh Myers ; Dan Frey ; Jessica Sammons (Legislative Analysis) ; Kara McCraw (Legislative Analysis) ; Karen Cochrane-Brown (Legislative Analysis, Director) Subject: Dr. Chen's maps and scores All, The Senate Redistricting Committee met this morning, and we committee staff have been instructed to obtain the 1,000 maps produced by Dr. Chen, using incumbency, and the related scores for compactness, split VTD’s, and split municipalities. We would like to arrange to obtain copies as quickly as possible, and would prefer an Excel document for the related scores and shapefiles and block assignment files for the underlying maps. If there are any maps associated, we would also be appreciative. Please let us know if there is a website, or other location, from which we can access the files, or if you can provide. Thank you, Erika C Erika Churchill Staff Attorney, Legislative Analysis Division North Carolina General Assembly 300 N. Salisbury St, Suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27603 (919)733-2578 This transmission is intended only for the proper recipient(s). It is confidential and may contain attorney-client privileged information. If you are not the proper recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any unauthorized review, copying, or use of this message is prohibited. 2 EXHIBIT D From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Riggins, Alyssa Monday, September 9, 2019 7:09 PM Jacobson, Daniel; Erika Churchill (Legislative Analysis); Jones, Stanton Farr, Thomas A.; Strach, Phillip J.; espeas@poynerspruill.com; melias@perkinscoie.com; zzz.External.AKhanna@perkinscoie.com; Rep. David Lewis; Rep. Destin Hall; Rep. Elmer Floyd; Rep. John Sauls; Rep. John Szoka; Rep. John Torbett; Rep. Cecil Brockman; Rep. Deb Butler; Rep. Holly Grange; Rep. Pricey Harrison; Rep. Kelly Hastings; Rep. Zack Hawkins; Rep. Craig Horn; Rep. Joe Sam Queen; Rep. Robert Reives; Rep. Jason Saine; Rep. Harry Warren; Kara McCraw (Legislative Analysis); Jessica Sammons (Legislative Analysis); Peter Capriglione (ISD, Director); Dan Frey; Raleigh Myers; Mark Coggins (Rep. David Lewis); Dylan Reel (Rep. David Lewis); Theodore, Elisabeth RE: Dr. Chen's maps and scores - House plans External E-mail Dan, Thank you for your email. Section 11(b) of the protective order allows confidential data to be disclosed to “Plaintiffs, Defendants, and employees of Plaintiffs or Defendants.” As such we believe there is clearly no violation of the protective order. However, if you identify with specificity the data you believe cannot be provided, we are willing to hear your concerns and work in good faith to resolve them. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution and respect for your position, the link has been disabled. It is also our understanding from subsequent communications to the group from Ms. Churchill that Legislative Staff have not completed downloading the data. Best, Alyssa Alyssa Riggins Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100 Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone: 919-789-3142 Fax: 919-783-9412 alyssa.riggins@ogletree.com www.ogletree.com Bio From: Jacobson, Daniel Sent: Monday, September 09, 2019 5:26 PM To: Erika Churchill (Legislative Analysis) ; Jones, Stanton ; Riggins, Alyssa Cc: Farr, Thomas A. ; Strach, Phillip J. ; espeas@poynerspruill.com; melias@perkinscoie.com; AKhanna@perkinscoie.com; Rep. David Lewis ; Rep. Destin Hall ; Rep. Elmer Floyd ; Rep. John Sauls ; Rep. John Szoka ; Rep. John Torbett ; Rep. Cecil Brockman ; Rep. Deb Butler ; Rep. Holly Grange ; Rep. Pricey Harrison ; Rep. Kelly Hastings ; Rep. Zack Hawkins ; Rep. Craig Horn ; Rep. Joe Sam Queen ; Rep. Robert Reives ; Rep. Jason Saine ; Rep. Harry Warren ; Kara McCraw (Legislative Analysis) ; Jessica Sammons (Legislative Analysis) ; Peter Capriglione (ISD, Director) ; 1 Dan Frey ; Raleigh Myers ; Mark Coggins (Rep. David Lewis) ; Dylan Reel (Rep. David Lewis) ; Theodore, Elisabeth Subject: RE: Dr. Chen's maps and scores - House plans Ms. Churchill, This applies to both the House and Senate plans and data that Legislative Defendants sent. Please confirm at your earliest convenience that all of the data that Legislative Defendants sent has been deleted. Best, Dan _______________ Daniel Jacobson Senior Associate Arnold & Porter 601 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington District of Columbia 20001-3743 T: +1 202.942.5602 Daniel.Jacobson@arnoldporter.com www.arnoldporter.com From: Erika Churchill (Legislative Analysis) Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 5:26 PM To: Jones, Stanton ; Riggins, Alyssa Cc: Farr, Thomas A. ; Strach, Phillip J. ; espeas@poynerspruill.com; melias@perkinscoie.com; zzz.External.AKhanna@perkinscoie.com ; Rep. David Lewis ; Rep. Destin Hall ; Rep. Elmer Floyd ; Rep. John Sauls ; Rep. John Szoka ; Rep. John Torbett ; Rep. Cecil Brockman ; Rep. Deb Butler ; Rep. Holly Grange ; Rep. Pricey Harrison ; Rep. Kelly Hastings ; Rep. Zack Hawkins ; Rep. Craig Horn ; Rep. Joe Sam Queen ; Rep. Robert Reives ; Rep. Jason Saine ; Rep. Harry Warren ; Kara McCraw (Legislative Analysis) ; Jessica Sammons (Legislative Analysis) ; Peter Capriglione (ISD, Director) ; Dan Frey ; Raleigh Myers ; Mark Coggins (Rep. David Lewis) ; Dylan Reel (Rep. David Lewis) ; Jacobson, Daniel ; Theodore, Elisabeth Subject: RE: Dr. Chen's maps and scores - House plans External E-mail Mr. Jones, Might I inquire as to whether this applies to both House and Senate information from Dr. Chen, or just the House? Thanks, Erika C From: Jones, Stanton Sent: Monday, September 09, 2019 5:04 PM To: Riggins, Alyssa ; Erika Churchill (Legislative Analysis) 2 Cc: Farr, Thomas A. ; Strach, Phillip J. ; espeas@poynerspruill.com; melias@perkinscoie.com; AKhanna@perkinscoie.com; Rep. David Lewis ; Rep. Destin Hall ; Rep. Elmer Floyd ; Rep. John Sauls ; Rep. John Szoka ; Rep. John Torbett ; Rep. Cecil Brockman ; Rep. Deb Butler ; Rep. Holly Grange ; Rep. Pricey Harrison ; Rep. Kelly Hastings ; Rep. Zack Hawkins ; Rep. Craig Horn ; Rep. Joe Sam Queen ; Rep. Robert Reives ; Rep. Jason Saine ; Rep. Harry Warren ; Kara McCraw (Legislative Analysis) ; Jessica Sammons (Legislative Analysis) ; Peter Capriglione (ISD, Director) ; Dan Frey ; Raleigh Myers ; Mark Coggins (Rep. David Lewis) ; Dylan Reel (Rep. David Lewis) ; Jacobson, Daniel ; Theodore, Elisabeth Subject: Re: Dr. Chen's maps and scores - House plans I’m copying colleagues who was not included on the original email below. Please use this thread for any replies, which will ensure the fastest possible response from Plaintiffs. Thank you. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 9, 2019, at 4:45 PM, Jones, Stanton wrote: Ms. Churchill: The data Ms. Riggins provided below includes Dr. Chen’s computer code which is designated Confidential under the Court’s Consent Protective Order in the Common Cause v. Lewis case, and therefore should not have been provided. In addition, the data Ms. Riggins provided below includes extensive partisan data, including partisan scoring of the simulated maps, all of which the General Assembly is prohibited from considering in this remedial process under the Court’s September 3 Judgment. For both reasons, please immediately delete Ms. Riggins’s email below, and if you have already downloaded the data provided through the link, please destroy that data as well. Please reply to this email to confirm that both the email and the data have been deleted. Also, please advise if the data has been shared with anyone else, including other legislative staff and any legislator. We will send appropriate data tonight, per my earlier email. Thank you for your prompt attention to this. Regards, Stanton Sent from my iPhone On Sep 9, 2019, at 4:24 PM, Riggins, Alyssa wrote: External E-mail Ms. Churchill, Please find in the link below Dr. Chen’s backup data produced to us on April 8, 2019 by Plaintiffs. In order to preserve data integrity, the backup data is in the same complete manner we received it from Plaintiffs. You are correct in that the appropriate House 3 data you are looking for is House Set 2 within the backup. Please don’t hesitate to reach out to me if you have any issues accessing the data. https://ogletreedeakins.sharefile.com/d-s5dade7822424c8ea Best Regards, Alyssa Alyssa Riggins Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100 Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone: 919-789-3142 Fax: 919-783-9412 alyssa.riggins@ogletree.com www.ogletree.com Bio From: Riggins, Alyssa Sent: Monday, September 09, 2019 3:50 PM To: 'Jones, Stanton' ; Erika Churchill (Legislative Analysis) Cc: Farr, Thomas A. ; Strach, Phillip J. ; espeas@poynerspruill.com; melias@perkinscoie.com; AKhanna@perkinscoie.com; Rep. David Lewis ; Rep. Destin Hall ; Rep. Elmer Floyd ; Rep. John Sauls ; Rep. John Szoka ; Rep. John Torbett ; Rep. Cecil Brockman ; Rep. Deb Butler ; Rep. Holly Grange ; Rep. Pricey Harrison ; Rep. Kelly Hastings ; Rep. Zack Hawkins ; Rep. Craig Horn ; Rep. Joe Sam Queen ; Rep. Robert Reives ; Rep. Jason Saine ; Rep. Harry Warren ; Kara McCraw (Legislative Analysis) ; Jessica Sammons (Legislative Analysis) ; Peter Capriglione (ISD, Director) ; Dan Frey ; Raleigh Myers ; Mark Coggins (Rep. David Lewis) ; Dylan Reel (Rep. David Lewis) Subject: RE: Dr. Chen's maps and scores - House plans Ms. Churchill, Legislative Defendants will do the same. We request that Plaintiffs’ copy us on their submission as well. Best, Alyssa Alyssa Riggins Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100 Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone: 919-789-3142 Fax: 4 919-783-9412 alyssa.riggins@ogletree.com www.ogletree.com Bio From: Jones, Stanton Sent: Monday, September 09, 2019 3:22 PM To: Erika Churchill (Legislative Analysis) Cc: Farr, Thomas A. ; Strach, Phillip J. ; espeas@poynerspruill.com; melias@perkinscoie.com; AKhanna@perkinscoie.com; Riggins, Alyssa ; Rep. David Lewis ; Rep. Destin Hall ; Rep. Elmer Floyd ; Rep. John Sauls ; Rep. John Szoka ; Rep. John Torbett ; Rep. Cecil Brockman ; Rep. Deb Butler ; Rep. Holly Grange ; Rep. Pricey Harrison ; Rep. Kelly Hastings ; Rep. Zack Hawkins ; Rep. Craig Horn ; Rep. Joe Sam Queen ; Rep. Robert Reives ; Rep. Jason Saine ; Rep. Harry Warren ; Kara McCraw (Legislative Analysis) ; Jessica Sammons (Legislative Analysis) ; Peter Capriglione (ISD, Director) ; Dan Frey ; Raleigh Myers ; Mark Coggins (Rep. David Lewis) ; Dylan Reel (Rep. David Lewis) Subject: Re: Dr. Chen's maps and scores - House plans Ms. Churchill: Plaintiffs will send the requested data tonight. Regards, Stanton Sent from my iPhone On Sep 9, 2019, at 3:01 PM, Erika Churchill (Legislative Analysis) wrote: External E-mail All, The House Redistricting Committee met this afternoon, and is currently in recess. We committee staff have been instructed to obtain the 1,000 House of Representative maps produced by Dr. Chen, using incumbency, and the related scores for compactness, split VTD’s, and split municipalities. I believe we are looking for Simulation Set 2. We would like to arrange to obtain copies as quickly as possible, and would prefer an Excel document for the related scores and shapefiles and block assignment files for the underlying maps. If there are any 5 maps associated with the Simulation, particularly PDF versions, we would also be appreciative. Please let us know if there is a website, or other location, from which we can access the files, or if you can provide. Thank you, Erika C Erika Churchill Staff Attorney, Legislative Analysis Division North Carolina General Assembly 300 N. Salisbury St, Suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27603 (919)733-2578 This communication may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please note that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Anyone who receives this message in error should notify the sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete it from his or her computer. ___________________________________________ For more information about Arnold & Porter, click here: http://www.arnoldporter.com This transmission is intended only for the proper recipient(s). It is confidential and may contain attorney-client privileged information. If you are not the proper recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any unauthorized review, copying, or use of this message is prohibited. This communication may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please note that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Anyone who receives this message in error should notify the sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete it from his or her computer. ___________________________________________ For more information about Arnold & Porter, click here: http://www.arnoldporter.com This communication may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please note that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Anyone who receives this message in error should notify the sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete it from his or her computer. ___________________________________________ For more information about Arnold & Porter, click here: http://www.arnoldporter.com This transmission is intended only for the proper recipient(s). It is confidential and may contain attorney-client privileged information. If you are not the proper recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any unauthorized review, copying, or use of this message is prohibited. 6 EXHIBIT E From: Sent: To: Subject: Jacobson, Daniel Monday, September 9, 2019 4:59 PM 'Farr, Thomas A.'; Jones, Stanton; 'Speas, Edwin M.'; 'cmackie@poynerspruill.com'; 'Braden, E. Mark'; 'McKnight, Katherine L. (kmcknight@bakerlaw.com)'; 'Stanley, Trevor M.'; 'Lewis, Patrick T.'; 'Raile, Richard (rraile@bakerlaw.com)'; 'Strach, Phillip J.'; 'McKnight, Michael D.'; 'Riggins, Alyssa'; 'John Branch'; 'sbrennan@ncdoj.gov'; 'Cox, Paul'; Theodore, Elisabeth RE: Incumbent addresses Alyssa, I understand that you sent a link to the legislative staff that has all of the backup data we sent you for Dr. Chen’s maps, including partisanship scoring and computer code that was designated confidential under the protective order. Can you confirm asap that you’ve removed all of these files from the link? _______________ Daniel Jacobson Senior Associate Arnold & Porter 601 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington District of Columbia 20001-3743 T: +1 202.942.5602 Daniel.Jacobson@arnoldporter.com www.arnoldporter.com From: Jacobson, Daniel Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 11:34 AM To: 'Farr, Thomas A.' ; Jones, Stanton ; Speas, Edwin M. ; cmackie@poynerspruill.com; Braden, E. Mark ; McKnight, Katherine L. (kmcknight@bakerlaw.com) ; Stanley, Trevor M. ; Lewis, Patrick T. ; Raile, Richard (rraile@bakerlaw.com) ; Strach, Phillip J. ; McKnight, Michael D. ; Riggins, Alyssa ; John Branch ; sbrennan@ncdoj.gov; Cox, Paul Subject: Incumbent addresses Phil, In light of the Court’s order yesterday and its direction regarding the criteria to be used for the remedial plans, please send us an updated list of the home addresses of the current incumbents in the relevant districts by next Monday, September 9. Best, Dan _______________ Daniel Jacobson Senior Associate Arnold & Porter 601 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington District of Columbia 20001-3743 1 T: +1 202.942.5602 Daniel.Jacobson@arnoldporter.com www.arnoldporter.com 2 EXHIBIT F Simulated Map A710: From House Simulation Set 1 (Following Only Non−Partisan Redistricting Criteria) Alleghany Ashe Surry 93 Wilkes Yadkin 26.5 Avery Caldwell 87 Burke 10.1 McDowell 10.3 Haywood Swain Cherokee Macon 5 27 Halifax Perquimans Chowan Durham Davidson Nash 40.6 Edgecombe23 40.9 40.2 Randolph 17.2 6 24 Wilson 40.4 Chatham 40.1 8.4 Pitt 33.2 Transylvania Cleveland 19.2 38.2 38.11 Gaston19.4 38.4 Mecklenburg 38.1 19.3 38.9 38.8 12.1 Wayne Moore 39.1 38.6 38.5 38.3 36.3 12.5 21.2 Craven 3.3 Union 3.2 3.1 Anson Richmond Hoke Cumberland 21.3 21.4 Sampson 21.1 48 Scotland Jones 13 Carteret 24.1 Onslow 20.1 Bladen 24.3 Pender 20.2 20.3 9.3 Simulated Map A710 0.4603 0.3633 7 46 Columbus 9.2 New Hanover 9.1 Brunswick 9.4 Legend: −− County Grouping Boundaries Pamlico 6.2 Duplin24.2 22 Robeson Name: Reock Score: Polsby−Popper Score: Split VTDs: Split Municipalities: Hyde 6.1 8.3 Lenoir 21 38.7 38.12 Clay 8.2 Harnett Stanly Montgomery Beaufort Greene 8.5 8.1 12.2 36.1 Johnston Lee Cabarrus Dare 36.2 40.5 12.3 19.1 Tyrrell 40.1 Rowan 12.4 38.1 Washington Martin 40.3 Wake 40.11 1 27.1 27.2 40.8 17.4 Bertie 15.2 39.2 Currituck Camden Pasquotank Hertford Franklin 40.7 23.2 35.1 Gates Northampton Warren Granville 17.3 Orange 1.2 Alamance 97 Lincoln Rutherford Polk 33.1 Vance29.2 39.3 Henderson Jackson 1.1 61 30.3 Guilford 23.1 10.2 32.2 120 12.6 16.2 Catawba 16.1 11.2 Graham 62 17.1 Davie Iredell 11.1 Buncombe 26.4 57 30.1 30.2 Alexander 35.2 32.1 Person 15.1 Forsyth26.1 26.3 85 Caswell 26.2 2.4 Mitchell Yancey 2.1 Rockingham 29.1 Watauga Madison 2.2 Stokes 2.3 County Boundaries Computer−Simulated House Districts (Including frozen districts from the 2017 House Plan) EXHIBIT G 012312450 6789 $%&'()%* +,+-./01234.4546+23+7+,089+1.24132414,:6/6;270.+2<04,6=2.4><+./1< ?@%)A(BCDECF@G*(* 42HIJKL2MNOHPQR2SKTU2RIVW2LIRMIKXVJ2KJ2TINXQTKVX2JLINLQ2NQJOYNLQJ2ZON2TUQ2ROJT2QZZKLKQVT2YJQ[ .INXQTKVX2IVIPWJKJ2NQ\KQSJ2MNQ\KOYJ2QPQLTKOV2NQJYPTJ2ZON2JQ\QNIP2WQINJ2ON2NILQJ2TO2MNKONKTK]Q2WOYN NQJOYNLQJ2ZON2JLUQ^YPKVX=2ZYV^NIKJKVX=2\OTQ2XOIPJ2ON2XQT_OYT_TUQ_\OTQ2QZZONTJ[ ` ?@%)A(BCDaFAF bQ2UI\Q2HQQV2LOPPQLTKVX2QPQLTKOV2^ITI2ZON2O\QN2TSQVTW2WQINJ2IV^2UI\Q2^Q\QPOMQ^2I2^ITI2JWJTQR SUKLU2LORHKVQJ2RYPTKMPQ2PQ\QPJ2OZ2MOPKTKLIP2XQOXNIMUW2KVTO2I2INLUK\KVX2IV^2NQTNQK\IP2ZONRIT[2.UQNQ INQ2LQNTIKVPW2UOPQJ2KV2OYN2LOPPQLTKOV2HYT2SQ2UI\Q2LOYVTW_PQ\QP2QPQLTKOV2NQJYPTJ2ZON2ROJT2JTITQJ2ZON ROJT2NILQJ2JKVLQ2cdef[ ` g%*Bh&)%*DFCiDjBB@* .UQ2TOOPJ2SUKLU2INQ2YJQ^2KV2I2ML_LORMITKHPQ2QV\KNOVRQVT2KVLPY^Qk29KLNOJOZT2lOm8NO2n[opn[q2ZON 306pbKV^OSJ;24TPIJ225OYV^INW2.NIVJPITON2HW29KLNO29IM2IV^2-43;27?:@8>;AB=8::B=:7?9:C9=9>8A:@;D>7:;<:ED67B@9 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::6DF9>B;>:@;D>7:GBHB6B;= @;D=7I:;<:J8K9:::::::::::::::::::LL:@H6:LMNOM :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::LL:@H6:LMOPQ R8>C8>97:GB@K6;=S:TU:VWXS::::::Y :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Y :::::::::::::FWVZ[UZ\\]S:::::::Y ::::^]X::::::::::::::::::::::::Y >;_9>7:>D@?;S:Z[:`Z]:::::::::::Y a\\ZbZVW:bVcVbZUd:a[Wd:V]::::::Y U`T:@`VZefV[:a\:U`T:=aeU`::::::Y @VeaWZ[V:6T[VUT::::::::::::::::Y >TgZ]UeZbUZ[h:@affZUUTTS:::::::Y TU:VWXS::::::::::::::::::::::::Y :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Y :::::::::::::GT\T[gV[U]X:::::::Y iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii::::Y =;>7?:@8>;AB=8:67879:::::::::::Y @;=<9>9=@9:;<:_>8=@?96:;<::::::Y 7?9:=88@FS:TU:VWXS:::::::::::::Y :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Y :::::::::::::FWVZ[UZ\\]S:::::::Y ::::^]X::::::::::::::::::::::::Y 67879:;<:=;>7?:@8>;AB=8S:::::::Y TU:VWXS::::::::::::::::::::::::Y :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Y :::::::::::::GT\T[gV[U]X:::::::Y :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Y :::::::::::::G9F;6B7B;=:;<:G8A9:;AG?8RS:96jX :iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ::::::::::::::::::::::::OklM:8XRX ::::::::::::::::J9G=96G8IS:ED=9:mnS:mQLm iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii :::::::::::::::::::::F;I=9>:6F>DBAA :::::::::::::::::lQL:<8I9779HBAA9:67>997 :::::::::::::::::::::::6DB79:LOQQ ::::::::::::::::::::>8A9BC?S:=@:mnMQL _dk::GT[Z]T:RdTe]:_degS:@6>:NlPQS:>F> -# .4!71/ 640 3 01012'43144 54%42!!5 123 ! 123 794' 4 " $ ( & )1 2 8 32,$ $ #& - # *1+,4$ $ #& "- 0123452671894 3 34 94 1 1 3 40 943 412 4 4 3 4 7 943 412 4 !4 "#$"4%4 4 !4 "$& 7 M V ` b d h j k 7m 77 7M 7V 7` 7b 7d 7h 7j 7k Mm M7 MM MV M` Mb 66 89:::;<:=<>:?@c^:=<>:^DIEGHTD:BCD:_cF@I:FI:=<>:GDKDKTDG:BCDKi :::::IBFGBH@a:AHBC:BCD:X<>ID:_cF@L ::::::::::::::NO9:PQOOR::[lK:a:^DIEGHTD:BCD:]D@FBD:_cF@:FI:=<>:GDEFcc:HBL ::::::::::::::NO9:PQOOR::STUDEBH<@9 ::::::::::::::NO9:]gYQ]R::Q@^:H@IBG>EB:CHK:@:F@KD@B :::::ACHEC:AD:AHcc:KFG?:FI:Vkk9 ::::::::::::::pZXYOYqgS\i:YrCHTHB:Vkk:AFI:KFG?D^:J9 ::::::::::::::;<:=<>:GDE;=??@ABC: E:;;;F=;G=H;IB=J;J@=;KLAMI;NOBP=B;QPR 9:;;;T;C=;IB=J;J@=;KLAMI;NOBP=B;QP: E:;;;V@=;QP;@OR 9:;;;KLAMI;NOBP=B;MHBP;A;CA>A;?QMX;IB=JB;AP;Y=LQCA>A;AP ;;;;;QP;H[;>@OMO: E:;;;FQC;KLAMI;NOBP=B;[AM>Q]Q[A>O;QB;>@O;<=M>@;KAM=LQBA ;;;;;MOCQP>MQ]>QB_;QB;>@O;D`8`;]G]LOR 9:;;;VOLLb;@O;[M=cQCOC;CA>A:;;T;C=Bd>;>@QBI;@O ;;;;;[AM>Q]Q[A>OC;eOG=BC;>@A>: E:;;;F=;G=H;IB=J;J@A>;CA>A;@O;[M=cQCOCR 9:;;;FA>Ab;CA>A: E:;;;V@A>OcOM:;;KM=XAM>QOb;KM=XAM>QO: 9:;;;fQ_@>: ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;<=b;T;J=HLCBd>;IB=J;>@O;OgA]>;BA>HMO;=?;>@O ;;;;;CA>A;>@A>;@O;[M=cQCOC: E:;;;hAcO;G=H;J=MIOC;JQ>@;iM:;NOBP=B;eO?=MOR 9:;;;jOP: E:;;;iM:;kLC@AXb;T;JAB>;>=;P@=J;G=H;A;XA[;ABC;CA>A;P@OO> ;;;;;[MOcQ=HPLG;XAMIOC;QB;>@QP;]APO;AP;lg@QeQ>;S^^;mm ;;;;;S\^b;TdX;P=MMG;mm;?=M;A;[LAB;]ALLOC;nO=M_O;DmD ;;;;;eOAMQB_;>@O;CA>O;iAG;DZb;D`88: ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;9BC;TdX;P=MMGb;_OB>LOXOBb;T;C=Bd>;@AcO ;;;;;AB=>@OM;]=[G;=?;Q>: ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;NH>;Q?;G=H;J=HLC;>AIO;A;XQBH>Ob;iM:;kLC@AXb -# .4!71/ 640 3 01012'43144 54%42!!5 123 ! 123 794' 4 " $ ( & )1 2 8 32,$ $ #& - # *1+,4$ $ #& "- EXHIBIT I From: Farr, Thomas A. To: Tom Hofeller - Redistricting; dloesq@aol.com; Dale Oldham - Redistricting Cc: Clark Bensen/POLIDATA May 18, 2011 2:47:39 PM (-04) Bcc: Subject: attorney client communication/consulting expert Attachments: Fellows   I just got word last night that the leadership wants all three maps enacted by June 30. Therefore we have to push the schedule.   We need to hold a joint committee hearing to take evidence including a statement from our testifying expert.   ideally the leadership now wants that hearing on or about June 1.   Clark, can we discuss feasibility.Our testify expert says he needs 5 to 7 days so that means you would need to pass off the information by next Tuesday, 5-24.   Tom, that would mean that leadership needs you here loading maps into state system late May and early June.   Can we talk today if possible as I am in Virginia tomorrow and Friday.   Thanks   Tom   Thomas A. Farr Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100 Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone: 919-789-3174 Fax: 919-783-9412 thomas.farr@ogletreedeakins.com www.ogletreedeakins.com     This transmission is intended by the sender and proper recipient(s) to be confidential, intended only for the proper recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law.  If you are not the intended recipient(s) you are notified that the dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you receive this message in error, or are not the proper recipient(s), please notify the sender at either the email address or telephone number above and delete this email from your computer. Receipt by anyone other than the proper recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other applicable privilege.  Thank you. Unless expressly stated to the contrary herein, (a) Nothing contained in this message was intended or written to be used, can be used, nor may be relied upon or used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that could be imposed upon the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; and (b) Any written statement contained herein relating to any federal tax transaction or issue may not be used by any individual or entity to recommend or support the promotion or marketing of any such transaction or issue.     From: Farr, Thomas A. To: Clark Bensen/POLIDATA; Tom Hofeller - Redistricting; dloesq@aol.com; Dale Oldham - Redistricting May 18, 2011 3:28:49 PM (-04) Cc: Bcc: Subject: RE: attorney client communication/consulting expert Attachments: OK Clark. I read you. If Brunell needs a week and you push as hard as you can, when is the earliest you think you can get an acceptable set of data to him. It is important to know so that the leaders can notice a committee meeting asap for a reasonable time frame.   The Speaker told me last night to tell you that the faster you can go, he will compensate you for premium work or , if it would help you, pay for you to have assistance.   Thanks for everything.   Thomas A. Farr Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100 Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone: 919-789-3174 Fax: 919-783-9412 thomas.farr@ogletreedeakins.com www.ogletreedeakins.com     This transmission is intended by the sender and proper recipient(s) to be confidential, intended only for the proper recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law.  If you are not the intended recipient(s) you are notified that the dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you receive this message in error, or are not the proper recipient(s), please notify the sender at either the email address or telephone number above and delete this email from your computer. Receipt by anyone other than the proper recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other applicable privilege.  Thank you. Unless expressly stated to the contrary herein, (a) Nothing contained in this message was intended or written to be used, can be used, nor may be relied upon or used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that could be imposed upon the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; and (b) Any written statement contained herein relating to any federal tax transaction or issue may not be used by any individual or entity to recommend or support the promotion or marketing of any such transaction or issue.   From: Clark Bensen/POLIDATA [mailto:clark@polidata.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 3:16 PM To: Farr, Thomas A.; thofeller@rnchq.org; dloesq@aol.com; 'Dale Oldham - Redistricting' Subject: RE: attorney client communication/consulting expert Tom (Farr),   Of course, there is only so much data I can pull together and pass along to Tom Brunell by then…I’m peddling as fast as I can already…I don’t see how a call will move things along any faster at this point.   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® Political Data Analysis www.polidata.org POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA ® at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: 703-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 Corinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA 22192 From: Tom Brunell To: Farr, Thomas A. April 24, 2012 9:49:00 AM (-04) Cc: Bcc: Subject: Fwd: Attachments:   From: April 24, 2012 9:49:00 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC GE2010 Attachments: rbvsg_nc_ld046_ge2010_nc_house_of_representatives_district_46_ind_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_LD046_GE2010_NC_HOUSE_OF_REPRESENTATIVES_DISTRICT_46_IND.csv rbvsg_nc_ld046_ge2010_nc_house_of_representatives_district_46_ind_sum.pdf N. C. House Dist. =46 Douglas Y. Yongue Male White N/L Democrat 2196 N. C. House Dist. =46 Gaston Pridgen Male White N/L Republican 2932       POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: To: Cc: Bcc: April 24, 2012 9:49:00 AM (-04) Subject: NC GE2010 Attachments: rbvsg_NC_LD047_GE2010_NC_HOUSE_OF_REPRESENTATIVES_DISTRICT_47_IND.csv rbvsg_nc_ld047_ge2010_nc_house_of_representatives_district_47_ind_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_ld047_ge2010_nc_house_of_representatives_district_47_ind_chk.pdf N. C. House Dist. =47 Charles Graham Male American Indian N/L Democrat 7865 N. C. House Dist. =47 Brawleigh J. =raham Male American Indian N/L Republican 3903     POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:49:00 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC GE2010 Attachments: rbvsg_NC_LD048_GE2010_NC_HOUSE_OF_REPRESENTATIVES_DISTRICT_48_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_ld048_ge2010_nc_house_of_representatives_district_48_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_ld048_ge2010_nc_house_of_representatives_district_48_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_LD047_GE2010_NC_HOUSE_OF_REPRESENTATIVES_DISTRICT_47_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_ld047_ge2010_nc_house_of_representatives_district_47_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_ld047_ge2010_nc_house_of_representatives_district_47_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_LD046_GE2010_NC_HOUSE_OF_REPRESENTATIVES_DISTRICT_46_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_ld046_ge2010_nc_house_of_representatives_district_46_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_ld046_ge2010_nc_house_of_representatives_district_46_blk_chk.pdf Same, 46, 47, 48 but for BLK as =OI.   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:49:00 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC SP2004 Attachments: rbvsg_nc_ld048_sp2004_nc_state_house_district_48_ind_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_LD048_SP2004_NC_STATE_HOUSE_DISTRICT_48_IND.csv rbvsg_nc_ld048_sp2004_nc_state_house_district_48_ind_sum.pdf NC State House District =8 Garland E. Pierce Male B UN Dem 733   2004   7/20/04 Primary   NC State House District =8 Russell C. Smith Male W NL Dem 76       NC State House District =8 J.D. Willis Male B NL Dem 805     POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:49:00 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC SP2004 REDO Attachments: rbvsg_nc_ld048_sp2004_nc_state_house_district_48_ind_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_LD048_SP2004_NC_STATE_HOUSE_DISTRICT_48_IND.csv rbvsg_nc_ld048_sp2004_nc_state_house_district_48_ind_sum.pdf NC State House District 48 Garland E. Pierce Male B UN Dem 733   2004     NC State House District 48 Russell C. Smith Male W NL Dem 76       NC State House District 48 J.D. Willis Male B NL Dem 805   7/20/04 Primary These =eplace the ones just sent…I had a programming issue to =ix. POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:49:00 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC GE2010 Attachments: rbvsg_nc_ld058_ge2010_nc_house_of_representatives_district_58_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_LD058_GE2010_NC_HOUSE_OF_REPRESENTATIVES_DISTRICT_58_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_ld058_ge2010_nc_house_of_representatives_district_58_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_ld060_ge2010_nc_house_of_representatives_district_60_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_LD060_GE2010_NC_HOUSE_OF_REPRESENTATIVES_DISTRICT_60_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_ld060_ge2010_nc_house_of_representatives_district_60_blk_sum.pdf I added “RSO” on =he “sum.pdf” for Race/Spanish Origin for each =andidate.   2010 General STATE HOUSE OF =EPRESENTATIVES DIST 58 ALMA SHEALEY ADAMS B F DE 15334 2010 General STATE HOUSE OF =EPRESENTATIVES DIST =8 DARIN DARIN THOMAS W M RE 8948   2010 General STATE HOUSE OF =EPRESENTATIVES DIST 60 MARCUS MARCUS BRANDON B M DE 10664 2010 General STATE HOUSE OF =EPRESENTATIVES DIST =0 LONNIE R WILSON W M RE 4646     POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:49:00 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC GE2010 Attachments: rbvsg_nc_ld033_ge2010_nc_house_of_representatives_district_33_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_LD033_GE2010_NC_HOUSE_OF_REPRESENTATIVES_DISTRICT_33_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_ld033_ge2010_nc_house_of_representatives_district_33_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_ld101_ge2010_nc_house_of_representatives_district_101_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_LD101_GE2010_NC_HOUSE_OF_REPRESENTATIVES_DISTRICT_101_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_ld101_ge2010_nc_house_of_representatives_district_101_blk_sum.pdf 11/02/2010 NC HOUSE DISTRICT =3 ROSA GILL F B NL DEM 18426 11/02/2010 NC HOUSE DISTRICT =3 PAUL TERRELL M W NL REP 5262   2010 General NC State House 101 Beverly Miller =arle F B NL Dem 15,184 2010 General NC State House 101 Rebecca H. Steen F W UN Rep 5,253     POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:49:00 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC GE2010 Attachments: rbvsg_nc_ld107_ge2010_nc_house_of_representatives_district_107_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_nc_ld107_ge2010_nc_house_of_representatives_district_107_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_NC_LD107_GE2010_NC_HOUSE_OF_REPRESENTATIVES_DISTRICT_107_BLK.csv I modified the =#8216;sum.pdf’ a bit: 1) it =oes not list precincts in the HMP section if they are a precinct that =ill be excluded below 2) I added a section at the end =#8220;E)” that lists the records actually included in the .csv =ile 3) I added some section breaks =o that there is a) HMP; b) problems/exclusion; and c) included =ecords   2010 General NC State House 107 Kelly Alexander M B NL Dem 13,132 2010 General NC State House 107 Debbie Ware F W NL Rep 6,392     POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:49:00 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC GE2010 Attachments: rbvsg_nc_sd021_ge2010_nc_state_senate_district_21_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_SD004_GE2010_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_4_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_sd004_ge2010_nc_state_senate_district_4_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_sd004_ge2010_nc_state_senate_district_4_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_SD021_GE2010_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_21_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_sd021_ge2010_nc_state_senate_district_21_blk_sum.pdf 10-Gen. NC Senate 4 Edward Jones M B   Democratic   10-Gen.   NC Senate 4 Rich Halbert M W   Republican =o:p>   2010 NC SENATE DISTRICT =1 Eric L. Mansfield M B NL DEM 21004 2010 NC SENATE DISTRICT =1 Wade Fowler M W NL REP 10062       POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:49:00 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC GE2010 Attachments: rbvsg_nc_sd028_ge2010_nc_state_senate_district_28_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_SD028_GE2010_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_28_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_sd028_ge2010_nc_state_senate_district_28_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_sd014_ge2010_nc_state_senate_district_14_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_SD014_GE2010_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_14_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_sd014_ge2010_nc_state_senate_district_14_blk_sum.pdf 2010 General STATE =ENATE 2010 General STATE SENATE DIST 28 GLADYS A ROBINSON B F DE 21496 DIST =8 TRUDY LYNN WADE W F RE 17383   11/02/2010 NC SENATE DISTRICT =4 DANIEL BLUE M B NL DEM 40746 11/02/2010 NC SENATE DISTRICT =4 GEOFFREY HURLBURT M M NL REP 21067       POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:49:00 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC GE2010 Attachments: rbvsg_nc_sd020_ge2010_nc_state_senate_district_20_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_SD020_GE2010_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_20_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_sd020_ge2010_nc_state_senate_district_20_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_sd005_ge2010_nc_state_senate_district_5_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_SD005_GE2010_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_5_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_sd005_ge2010_nc_state_senate_district_5_blk_sum.pdf 2010 Elec. NC SENATE 20 2010 =lec. NC SENATE =0 Floyd B. Mckissick, Jr. =o:p> M B NL DEM 38,309 John Tarantino =o:p> M W NL REP 14,092     11/2/10 NC Senate (5) Don Davis M B NL D 11/2/10 NC Senate (5) Louis M. Pate, Jr. =o:p> M W NL R   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:49:00 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC GE2010 Attachments: rbvsg_nc_sd024_ge2010_nc_state_senate_district_24_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_SD024_GE2010_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_24_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_sd024_ge2010_nc_state_senate_district_24_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_sd040_ge2010_nc_state_senate_district_40_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_SD040_GE2010_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_40_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_sd040_ge2010_nc_state_senate_district_40_blk_sum.pdf Nov-10 NC Senate-Dist. 24 Tony Foriest M B NL DEM 16,911 Nov-10 NC Senate-Dist. =4 Rick =unn M W NL REP 22,307 Nov-10 NC Senate-Dist. =4 Barry =oe M W NL LIB 2217   2010 General NC State Senate 40 Malcolm Graham M B NL Dem 32,168 2010 General NC State Senate 40 John Aneralla M W NL Rep 23,145     POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: Tom Brunell To: Farr, Thomas A. April 24, 2012 9:49:22 AM (-04) Cc: Bcc: Subject: Fwd: Attachments: From: April 24, 2012 9:49:22 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC notes Attachments: Ok, so I was so clever to add =he field header record for you…but I was also clever enough to =et it wrong….   The =ata are in the original format and not as indicated on the =eader…   i.e., =o:p> Not =#8220;RegWht”,”RegBlk” But =#8220;RegBlk”,”RegWht”   Same =or “VotWht”,”VotBlk”.   This =nly affects the header record, none of the data and none of the =istings.   So, if =ou were using the header and getting odd results…this could =xplain it.   My =ad…   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:49:22 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC SCOTL Attachments: rbvsg_nc_cyscotl_sp2010_school_board_at_large_ind_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_CYSCOTL_SP2010_SCHOOL_BOARD_AT_LARGE_IND.csv rbvsg_nc_cyscotl_sp2010_school_board_at_large_ind_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_cyscotl_sp2010_school_board_at_large_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_CYSCOTL_SP2010_SCHOOL_BOARD_AT_LARGE_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_cyscotl_sp2010_school_board_at_large_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_cyscotl_sp2010_sheriff__dem_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_CYSCOTL_SP2010_SHERIFF_-_DEM_IND.csv rbvsg_nc_cyscotl_sp2010_sheriff_-_dem_ind_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_cyscotl_sp2010_sheriff__dem_ind_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_CYSCOTL_SP2010_SHERIFF_-_DEM_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_cyscotl_sp2010_sheriff_-_dem_blk_sum.pdf The districts 46, 47, and 48, =re all in one county grouping (POD) and there are some county-level =aces which I will provide for both BLK and IND.   The =irst race, School Board-AL, looks like 2 members get elected because =he NETVH indicates lots of credits ‘missing’. =o:p> This is a non-partisan office =o all voters are considered together.   2010 5/4/10 Primary   School Board - At =arge James Underwood, =r. Male B NL 2439 School Board - At =arge Jennifer E. ='Donnell Female W NL   1773 School Board - At =arge Calvin Newton Male W NL 1136 School Board - At =arge Vicki C. Jackson Female B NL 1788 School Board - At =arge Charlie Fipps Male W NL 1780 School Board - At =arge Jimmy R. Bennett Male W NL 1959     The =heriff races are for a Dem Primary but I can only find data for 2010 =ight now.   2010 Sheriff Mike Webb Male W NL Dem 2155 Sheriff Shep Jones Male B NL Dem 3630   2006 Sheriff Mike Webb Male W NL Dem 1522 Sheriff Shep Jones Male B NL Dem 1937 Sheriff Buddy Blalock Male W NL Dem 1272     POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:49:22 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC LD060 Attachments: rbvsg_nc_ld060_ge2006_nc_state_house_district_060_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_LD060_GE2006_NC_STATE_HOUSE_DISTRICT_060_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_ld060_ge2006_nc_state_house_district_060_blk_sum.pdf 2006 General NC STATE =OUSE 2006 General NC STATE HOUSE DIST 60 EARL FREDERICK JONES B M DE 6417 DIST =0 WILLIAM STURART WRIGHT W M RE 4285     POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:49:22 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC LD043 Attachments: rbvsg_nc_ld040_sp2010_nc_house_district_43_-_dem_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_LD040_SP2010_NC_HOUSE_DISTRICT_43_-_DEM_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_ld040_sp2010_nc_house_district_43_-_dem_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_ld043_sp2006_nc_state_house_district_043_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_LD043_SP2006_NC_STATE_HOUSE_DISTRICT_043_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_ld043_sp2006_nc_state_house_district_043_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_ld043_sp2004_nc_state_house_district_43_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_LD043_SP2004_NC_STATE_HOUSE_DISTRICT_43_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_ld043_sp2004_nc_state_house_district_43_blk_sum.pdf 2010 NC HOUSE DISTRICT =3 Mary E. McAllister F B NL DEM 1127 Primary 2010 NC HOUSE DISTRICT =3 Elmer Floyd M W NL DEM 2172 Primary   Again, =008 primary but data problems.   2006 NC STATE HOUSE DISTRICT =43 Mary E. McAllister F B NL DEM 1679 Primary 2006 NC STATE HOUSE DISTRICT =43 Elmer Floyd M W NL DEM 1132 Primary   2004 NC STATE HOUSE DISTRICT =3 Elmer Floyd M W NL DEM 1376 Primary 2004 NC STATE HOUSE DISTRICT =3 Mary McAllister F B NL DEM 1875 Primary     POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:49:22 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC LD008 REDO Attachments: rbvsg_nc_ld008_sp2006_nc_state_house_district_008_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_LD008_SP2004_NC_STATE_HOUSE_DISTRICT_8_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_ld008_sp2004_nc_state_house_district_8_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_ld008_sp2004_nc_state_house_district_8_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_LD008_SP2006_NC_STATE_HOUSE_DISTRICT_008_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_ld008_sp2006_nc_state_house_district_008_blk_sum.pdf This replaces the previous =mail…I had incorrectly named those files as “SD008” =ut they should have been “LD008”.     2006 Primary NC House of Representatives District = Edith D. Warren Female White Not Hispanic or Not Latino Democratic 2006 Primary NC House of Representatives District = Derek K. Brown Male Black Not Hispanic or Not Latino Democratic   I also =ade a few more refinements to the ‘chk.pdf’ in =#8220;C)” and “D)” clarifying that the matching =roblems are excluded as well as the absentees.   2004 Primary NC House of Representatives District = Edith D. Warren Female White Not Hispanic or Not Latino Democratic 2004 Primary NC House of Representatives District = Mary Lawrence Williams Female Black Not Hispanic or Not Latino Democratic   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:49:22 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC LD008 Attachments: rbvsg_nc_sd008_sp2006_nc_state_house_district_008_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_SD008_SP2006_NC_STATE_HOUSE_DISTRICT_008_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_sd008_sp2006_nc_state_house_district_008_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_NC_SD008_SP2004_NC_STATE_HOUSE_DISTRICT_8_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_sd008_sp2004_nc_state_house_district_8_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_sd008_sp2004_nc_state_house_district_8_blk_chk.pdf   I also =ade a few more refinements to the ‘chk.pdf’ in =#8220;C)” and “D)” clarifying that the matching =roblems are excluded as well as the absentees.     POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     NC House of Representatives District = 2006 Primary NC House of Representatives District = 2006 Primary NC House of Representatives District = 2004 Primary NC House of Representatives District = 2004 Primary Edith D. Warren Not Hispanic or Not Female White =atino Democratic Derek K. Brown Male Not Hispanic or Not Black =atino Democratic Edith D. Warren Not Hispanic or Not Female White =atino Democratic Mary Lawrence =illiams Not Hispanic or Not Female Black =atino Democratic From: April 24, 2012 9:49:22 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC SD032 Attachments: rbvsg_nc_sd032_sp2010_nc_state_senate_district_32_-_dem_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_SD032_SP2010_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_32_-_DEM_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_sd032_sp2010_nc_state_senate_district_32_-_dem_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_sd032_sp2004_nc_state_senate_district_32_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_SD032_SP2004_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_32_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_sd032_sp2004_nc_state_senate_district_32_blk_sum.pdf 2010 = NC Senate-32nd Edward Hanes M B UN Dem 1,155 2010 P NC =enate-32nd Linda =arrou F W NL Dem 5,036   2004 = NC Senate-32nd Jermaine Baxter M B NL Dem 1,400 2004 P NC =enate-32nd Linda =arrou F W NL Dem 5,730   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:49:22 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC SD014 Attachments: rbvsg_nc_sd014_ge2004_nc_state_senate_district_14_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_SD014_GE2004_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_14_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_sd014_ge2004_nc_state_senate_district_14_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_sd014_ge2006_nc_state_senate_district_14_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_SD014_GE2006_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_14_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_sd014_ge2006_nc_state_senate_district_14_blk_sum.pdf 11/2/2004 11/2/2004 NC STATE SENATE DISTRICT =4 VERNON MALONE NC STATE SENATE DISTRICT =4 JOHN ODOM   For =E2004/GE2006, lots of absentee votes that are credited by precinct but =till reported centrally.     11/07/2006 NC STATE SENATE DISTRICT =4 JAMES DOEFFINGER M W M M B W NL DEM 45727 NL REP 25595 NL REP 13644 11/07/2006 NC STATE SENATE DISTRICT =4 VERNON MALONE M B NL DEM 26404   There =as a race in both DP2008 and GE2008 but I have a data issue with both =f these elections right now.   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:49:22 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC SD003 Attachments: rbvsg_nc_sd003_sp2010_nc_state_senate_district_3_-_dem_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_SD003_SP2010_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_3_-_DEM_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_sd003_sp2010_nc_state_senate_district_3_-_dem_blk_sum.pdf 2010 Primary NC State Senate District = Frankie L. =ordeaux Male Black Not Hispanic or Not =atino Democratic 2,965 2010 Primary NC State Senate District = Clark Jenkins Male White Not Hispanic or Not =atino Democratic 3,328 2010 Primary NC State Senate District = Florence Arnold =rmstrong Female Black Not Hispanic or Not =atino Democratic 583     POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:49:22 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC SD021 Attachments: rbvsg_NC_SD021_GE2004_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_21_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_sd021_ge2004_nc_state_senate_district_21_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_sd021_ge2004_nc_state_senate_district_21_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_nc_sd021_ge2006_nc_state_senate_district_21_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_SD021_GE2006_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_21_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_sd021_ge2006_nc_state_senate_district_21_blk_sum.pdf 2004 NC STATE SENATE DISTRICT =1 Larry Shaw M B NL DEM 27866 General 2004 NC STATE SENATE DISTRICT =1 Richard D. Evans M W U REP 16434 General 2004 NC STATE SENATE DISTRICT =1 Brian Irving M W NL LIB 1225 General     2006 NC STATE SENATE DISTRICT =1 Larry Shaw M B NL DEM 13412 General 2006 NC STATE SENATE DISTRICT =1 Juanita M. =onzalez F W NL REP 8344 General     POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: Tom Brunell To: Farr, Thomas A. April 24, 2012 9:49:43 AM (-04) Cc: Bcc: Subject: Fwd: Attachments: ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Clark Bensen/POLIDATA Date: Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:03 PM Subject: To: Tom Brunell   From: April 24, 2012 9:49:43 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC Attachments: ls11_pl2010_nc_vtd_cyabb_eq__scotl_.pdf ls11_pl2010_nc_vtd_minpva_ge__90.pdf ls11_pl2010_nc_vtd_nhbpva_ge__80.pdf ls11_pl2010_nc_vtd_hsppva_ge__25.pdf ls11_pl2010_nc_vtd_nhapva_ge__15.pdf ls11_pl2010_nc_vtd_nhipva_ge__50.pdf ls11_pl2010_nc_vtd_cyabb_eq__robes_.pdf ls11_pl2010_nc_vtd_cyabb_eq__hoke__.pdf I’ve attached a few =istings of the PL2010 data so you can get a feel for the concentration =f some population subgroups in the state.   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:49:43 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC 46, 47, 48 Attachments: rbvsg_nc_cyrobes_sp2010_us_senate__-_dem_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_CYROBES_SP2010_US_SENATE__-_DEM_IND.csv rbvsg_nc_cyrobes_sp2010_us_senate__-_dem_ind_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_cyrobes_sp2010_us_senate__-_dem_ind_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_CYROBES_SP2010_US_SENATE__-_DEM_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_cyrobes_sp2010_us_senate__-_dem_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_cyhoke__sp2010_us_senate__-_dem_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_CYHOKE__SP2010_US_SENATE__-_DEM_IND.csv rbvsg_nc_cyhoke__sp2010_us_senate__-_dem_ind_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_cyhoke__sp2010_us_senate__-_dem_ind_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_CYHOKE__SP2010_US_SENATE__-_DEM_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_cyhoke__sp2010_us_senate__-_dem_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_cyscotl_sp2010_us_senate__-_dem_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_CYSCOTL_SP2010_US_SENATE__-_DEM_IND.csv rbvsg_nc_cyscotl_sp2010_us_senate__-_dem_ind_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_cyscotl_sp2010_us_senate__-_dem_ind_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_CYSCOTL_SP2010_US_SENATE__-_DEM_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_cyscotl_sp2010_us_senate__-_dem_blk_sum.pdf In order to get a statewide =rimary for the 3 districts (46, 47, and 48) in HOKE, ROBES, SCOTL, I =eed to run them as separate county files. ROBES =as portions of all three and HOKE portions of 46, 48 and SCOTL portions =f 46, 48: 47 is all in ROBES. Another =ote: of course, WHT here means Non-BLK or Non-IND and varies with each =xtract of data.     Marcus W. Williams Democrat Robeson Lumberton African American Primary lost to =arshall Wilma (Ann) Benson Worthy Democrat Gaston Gastonia African American Primary lost to =arshall Ken   Lewis Democrat Orange Chapel Hill African American Primary lost to =arshall   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:49:43 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC 46,47,48 GE2008P Attachments: rbvsg_nc_ld046_ge2008_president_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_LD048_GE2008_PRESIDENT_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_ld048_ge2008_president_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_ld048_ge2008_president_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_LD047_GE2008_PRESIDENT_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_ld047_ge2008_president_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_ld047_ge2008_president_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_LD046_GE2008_PRESIDENT_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_ld046_ge2008_president_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_ld046_ge2008_president_ind_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_LD048_GE2008_PRESIDENT_IND.csv rbvsg_nc_ld048_ge2008_president_ind_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_ld048_ge2008_president_ind_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_LD047_GE2008_PRESIDENT_IND.csv rbvsg_nc_ld047_ge2008_president_ind_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_ld047_ge2008_president_ind_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_LD046_GE2008_PRESIDENT_IND.csv rbvsg_nc_ld046_ge2008_president_ind_sum.pdf I can now run data for the =E2008 but still can’t for the SP2008.   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:49:43 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC SP2004 Court of Appeals Attachments: rbvsg_nc_cyhoke__sp2004_court_of_appeals_judge_(thornburg)_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_CYHOKE__SP2004_COURT_OF_APPEALS_JUDGE_(THORNBURG)_IND.csv rbvsg_nc_cyhoke__sp2004_court_of_appeals_judge_(thornburg)_ind_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_cyhoke__sp2004_court_of_appeals_judge_(thornburg)_ind_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_CYHOKE__SP2004_COURT_OF_APPEALS_JUDGE_(THORNBURG)_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_cyhoke__sp2004_court_of_appeals_judge_(thornburg)_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_cyrobes_sp2004_court_of_appeals_judge_(thornburg)_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_CYROBES_SP2004_COURT_OF_APPEALS_JUDGE_(THORNBURG)_IND.csv rbvsg_nc_cyrobes_sp2004_court_of_appeals_judge_(thornburg)_ind_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_cyrobes_sp2004_court_of_appeals_judge_(thornburg)_ind_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_CYROBES_SP2004_COURT_OF_APPEALS_JUDGE_(THORNBURG)_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_cyrobes_sp2004_court_of_appeals_judge_(thornburg)_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_cyscotl_sp2004_court_of_appeals_judge_(thornburg)_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_CYSCOTL_SP2004_COURT_OF_APPEALS_JUDGE_(THORNBURG)_IND.csv rbvsg_nc_cyscotl_sp2004_court_of_appeals_judge_(thornburg)_ind_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_cyscotl_sp2004_court_of_appeals_judge_(thornburg)_ind_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_CYSCOTL_SP2004_COURT_OF_APPEALS_JUDGE_(THORNBURG)_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_cyscotl_sp2004_court_of_appeals_judge_(thornburg)_blk_sum.pdf Marcus   W. Williams Democrat Robeson Lumberton African American Primary lost to =ackson By =ounty, for HOKE, ROBES, SCOTL   However, looks like the data =re of minimal use for SCOTL because the absentees being centrally =abulated/reported means that half of the credits are missing for all =ut 2 precincts. POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:49:43 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC SD024 Attachments: rbvsg_nc_sd024_ge2006_nc_state_senate_district_24_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_SD024_GE2006_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_24_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_sd024_ge2006_nc_state_senate_district_24_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_sd024_sp2006_nc_state_senate_district_24_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_SD024_SP2006_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_24_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_sd024_sp2006_nc_state_senate_district_24_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_sd024_ge2004_nc_state_senate_district_24_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_SD024_GE2004_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_24_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_sd024_ge2004_nc_state_senate_district_24_blk_sum.pdf Nov-06 NC Senate-Dist. 24 Tony Foriest M B NL DEM 13,958 Nov-06 NC Senate-Dist. =4 Hugh =ebster M W NL REP 14,541   Actually, the final results are =ifferent (not sure where they got the above); Foriest won by a couple =f hundred votes…see the =#8220;sum.pdf”.   May-06 NC Senate-Dist. 24 Tim Purgason M W UN DEM 511 May-06 NC Senate-Dist. =4 Tony =oriest M B NL DEM 1703     Nov-04 NC Senate-Dist. 24 Tony Foriest M B NL DEM 21,361 Nov-04 NC Senate-Dist. =4 Hugh =ebster M W UN REP 31,459     POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: Tom Brunell To: Farr, Thomas A. April 24, 2012 2:30:20 PM (-04) Cc: Bcc: Subject: Fwd: Attachments: ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Clark Bensen/POLIDATA Date: Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:19 AM Subject: To: Tom Brunell   From: April 24, 2012 2:30:20 PM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC data Attachments: North Carolina is one of a =andful of states that reports voter registration and turnout by party =nd by race.   Therefore, the source data for =his review originated with the NC State Board of Elections (SBOE) and =as compiled for me by Clark Bensen of Polidata.   The =ata provided by the SBOE consisted of both election results and =ndividual voter registration and voter turnout summarized  by race =nd by party for precincts.   In =ddition, matching the appropriate precinct across each of the three =atasets (election results by candidate, voter registration by race, and =oter turnout by race) presented extra work.   A =eview of the matching process indicated some improbable, if not =mpossible, cases. For example, too many voters based upon the count of =egistrants.   The =bservation was excluded from the analysis if the data items were likely =o represent some improbable results. Precincts that might be split =y a district line were also excluded if the differences between the =oter registration and voter turnout was =izeable.   Likewise, absentee, and other =imilar votes, that were not redirected to the registration precinct for =abulation are excluded from the dataset. The manner by which these were =abulated varied by county and by year.   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 2:30:20 PM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: status Attachments: Big thunderstorm coming on me =ight now…may need to take a break…I think you should plan =n running the whole state for the Obama primary…I will try and =et you a whole state file but it will be a =hile.   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: To: April 24, 2012 2:30:20 PM (-04) Cc: Bcc: Subject: misc Attachments: You should probably just kill =he specific reference in my data language about split precincts and =ust leave it as something like, “matching checks were made and if =he results seem improbable, the observation was =xcluded”…that covers things more generally….i’m =ure there were some split precincts that made it through because they =ere split in the right direction…I didn’t check them out =pecifically but relied upon the proportion of the votes to the credits =s the threshold.   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 2:30:20 PM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: sched Attachments: What’s your plan for =oday? I think any new draft will work =or them now and we can work on style on Monday.   Do you =eed anything else from me? POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>   Methods: “Most =istricts” è=span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D'> “Most =recincts” or VTDs   Data: =olidata reference…you can kill this as far as I am concerned. =ust move the first sentence to be the end of the first paragraph and =ave the second paragraph start with “The =ata…”   Numbering sections: I think it =ould be quite beneficial for all concerned if you could add pagination =nd  also number or letter each major section, or even add a double =ine between sections…at least for those after “the =ata”…e.g., the 2008 Dem Prm could be =#8220;A.”.   In the =008 dem prm…”In the VTDs” è=span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D'> “In these =TDs” Same section, paragraph =ollowing the figure…”voters favoring” è=span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D'> “voters =avored”   Later =n: “50, I choose” è=span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:#1F497D'> “50, I =hose”   FYI: Jackson County, one of =he few section 5 counties in the southwestern part of the state is the =utlier in several analyses. This was also the county added after the =972 elections because turnout was below 50%. I suspect this is related =o the expansion of the voter pool due to the age reduction to 18 and =he presence of a college in the small county which has very few AA =esidents.   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =AE at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: To: April 24, 2012 2:30:20 PM (-04) Cc: Bcc: Subject: RE: typos Attachments: Not yet…   www.polidata.us =br>POLIDATA ® Political Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA ® at Lulu =a href="http://www.lulu.com/polidata" =arget=blank>www.lulu.com/polidata Vermont =ffice: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 Corinth, VT 05039 =/span> efax: =02-318-0793 email: clark@=olidata.org     From:=/b> =om Brunell [mailto:tbrunell@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June =3, 2011 10:28 AM To: Clark Bensen/POLIDATA Subject: =e: typos   Did you hear back from Farr on this in =erms of more additions or anything? On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Clark Bensen/POLIDATA =lt;clark@polidata.org> =rote: Intro: “In this report examine” =/span>è “In this report I =xamine”   Exec sum: “more analyzing” =/span>è “more =nalysis”   Global: “VTD’s” è “VTDs”   Methods: “Most districts” =/span>è “Most precincts” or =TDs   Data: Polidata reference…you can kill this =s far as I am concerned. Just move the first sentence to be the end of =he first paragraph and have the second paragraph start with “The =ata…”   Numbering sections: I think it would be quite =eneficial for all concerned if you could add pagination and  also =umber or letter each major section, or even add a double line between =ections…at least for those after “the =ata”…e.g., the 2008 Dem Prm could be =#8220;A.”.   In the 2008 dem prm…”In the =TDs” è “In these =TDs” Same section, paragraph following the =igure…”voters favoring” è “voters =avored”   Later on: “50, I choose” =/span>è “50, I =hose”   FYI: Jackson County, one of the few section 5 =ounties in the southwestern part of the state is the outlier in several =nalyses. This was also the county added after the 1972 elections =ecause turnout was below 50%. I suspect this is related to the =xpansion of the voter pool due to the age reduction to 18 and the =resence of a college in the small county which has very few AA =esidents.   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides www.polidata.us =br>POLIDATA ® Political Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA ® at =ulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: 703-690-4066 Vermont =ffice: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 Corinth, VT 05039 =/span> Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org    <=o:p>   From: Tom Brunell To: Farr, Thomas A. April 24, 2012 2:31:26 PM (-04) Cc: Bcc: Subject: Fwd: Attachments: ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Clark Bensen/POLIDATA Date: Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:18 AM Subject: To: Tom Brunell   From: April 24, 2012 2:31:26 PM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: data paragraph Attachments: I’ll do that in the =M. I’m almost ready ( i =ope) to send you the Obama primary for the state. Just ignore the =on-DOJ+ counties because I haven’t had time to run through them =et.   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 2:31:26 PM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: RE: data paragraph Attachments: I would…yes.   www.polidata.us =br>POLIDATA ® Political Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA ® at Lulu = www.lulu.com/polidata Vermont =ffice: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 Corinth, VT 05039 =/span> efax: =02-318-0793 email: clark@=olidata.org     From:=/b> =om Brunell [mailto:tbrunell@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June =8, 2011 8:56 PM To: Clark Bensen/POLIDATA Subject: =e: data paragraph   can I use =he file you sent a couple hours ago or not? I already started on =t. On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 3:42 =M, Clark Bensen/POLIDATA =rote: I’ll do that in the =M. I’m almost ready ( i hope) to send you the =bama primary for the state. Just ignore the non-DOJ+ counties because I =aven’t had time to run through them yet.   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target="_blank">www.polidata.us =br>POLIDATA ® Political Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA ® at =ulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: 703-690-4066 Vermont =ffice: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 Corinth, VT 05039 =/span> Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org    <=o:p>   From: Tom Brunell To: Farr, Thomas A. Cc: Clark Bensen/POLIDATA May 17, 2011 5:08:51 PM (-04) Bcc: Subject: Re: Attachments: I am available. On Tuesday, May 17, 2011, Farr, Thomas A. wrote: > > > > > > > > Fellows > > The two Nc > redistricting chairs have scheduled a joint committee meeting for taking > evidence on June 8, 2011. > > We need to discuss. > Are you available in the morning? > > Tom > > > Thomas > A. Farr Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. > 4208 Six > Forks Road, Suite 1100 Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone: 919-789-3174 Fax: > 919-783-9412 > thomas.farr@ogletreedeakins.com > www.ogletreedeakins.com > > > This transmission is intended by the sender and proper recipient(s) to be confidential, intended only for the proper recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law.  If you are not the intended recipient(s) you are notified that the dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you receive this message in error, or are not the proper recipient(s), please notify the sender at either the email address or telephone number above and delete this email from your computer. Receipt by anyone other than the proper recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other applicable privilege.  Thank you. > > Unless expressly stated to the contrary herein, (a) Nothing contained in this message was intended or written to be used, can be used, nor may be relied upon or used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that could be imposed upon the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; and (b) Any written statement contained herein relating to any federal tax transaction or issue may not be used by any individual or entity to recommend or support the promotion or marketing of any such transaction or issue. > > > > > From: Farr, Thomas A. To: 'Tom Brunell' May 18, 2011 8:40:58 AM (-04) Cc: Bcc: Subject: RE: Attachments: Clark I am out tomorrow and Friday so if it is possible to talk some time today that would be awesome. The leadership wants to push up the hearing by a week. Tom Thomas A. Farr Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100 Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone: 919-789-3174 Fax: 919-783-9412 thomas.farr@ogletreedeakins.com www.ogletreedeakins.com -----Original Message----From: Tom Brunell [mailto:tbrunell@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 8:22 PM To: Farr, Thomas A. Cc: Clark Bensen/POLIDATA Subject: Re: Would this be in person? Or phone? On Tuesday, May 17, 2011, Farr, Thomas A. wrote: > > > > > > > > Fellows > > The two Nc > redistricting chairs have scheduled a joint committee meeting for > taking evidence on June 8, 2011. > > We need to discuss. > Are you available in the morning? > > Tom > > > Thomas > A. Farr Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. > 4208 Six > Forks Road, Suite 1100 Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone: 919-789-3174 Fax: > 919-783-9412 > thomas.farr@ogletreedeakins.com > www.ogletreedeakins.com > > > This transmission is intended by the sender and proper recipient(s) to be confidential, intended only for the proper recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law.  If you are not the intended recipient(s) you are notified that the dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you receive this message in error, or are not the proper recipient(s), please notify the sender at either the email address or telephone number above and delete this email from your computer. Receipt by anyone other than the proper recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other applicable privilege.  Thank you. > > Unless expressly stated to the contrary herein, (a) Nothing contained in this message was intended or written to be used, can be used, nor may be relied upon or used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that could be imposed upon the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; and (b) Any written statement contained herein relating to any federal tax transaction or issue may not be used by any individual or entity to recommend or support the promotion or marketing of any such transaction or issue. > > > > > From: Tom Brunell To: Clark Bensen/POLIDATA Cc: Farr, Thomas A. Bcc: Subject: Re: sched Attachments: 2 pm Eastern works for me On Tuesday, May 24, 2011, Clark Bensen/POLIDATA wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2 works for > me. > > > > > > > > > > > > POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political > Guides www.polidata.us > POLIDATA ® Political Data Analysis www.polidata.org > POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata > POLIDATA ® at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata > > > > > > > > > Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: 703-690-4066 > Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 Corinth, VT 05039 > > Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA 22192 > efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Farr, Thomas A. > [mailto:thomas.farr@ogletreedeakins.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 5:55 > PM > To: clark@polidata.org > Subject: Re: sched > > > > > May 24, 2011 8:28:48 PM (-04) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How about 2? -------------------------Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Device This transmission is intended by the sender and proper recipient(s) to be confidential, intended only for the proper recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law.  If you are not the intended recipient(s) you are notified that the dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you receive this message in error, or are not the proper recipient(s), please notify the sender at either the email address or telephone number above and delete this email from your computer. Receipt by anyone other than the proper recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other applicable privilege. Thank you. Unless expressly stated to the contrary herein, (a) Nothing contained in this message was intended or written to be used, can be used, nor may be relied upon or used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that could be imposed upon the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; and (b) Any written statement contained herein relating to any federal tax transaction or issue may not be used by any individual or entity to recommend or support the promotion or marketing of any such transaction or issue. From: Clark Bensen/POLIDATA To: Farr, Thomas A. Sent: Tue May 24 11:38:07 2011 Subject: sched Tom, I have been sending data to Tom Brunell for review…I think we are finally in the production mode…perhaps a conference call with the three of us would be useful tomorrow morning. Clark POLIDATA Guides POLIDATA POLIDATA POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political www.polidata.us ® Political Data Analysis www.polidata.org ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata ® at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: 703-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 Corinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA 22192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org  >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: 703-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 Corinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA 22192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org  From: Farr, Thomas A. [mailto:thomas.farr@ogletreedeakins.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 5:55 PM To: clark@polidata.org Subject: Re: sched How about 2? -------------------------Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Device This transmission is intended by the sender and proper recipient(s) to be confidential, intended only for the proper recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law.  If you are not the intended recipient(s) you are notified that the dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you receive this message in error, or are not the proper recipient(s), please notify the sender at either the email address or telephone number above and delete this email from your computer. Receipt by anyone other than the proper recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other applicable privilege. Thank you. Unless expressly stated to the contrary herein, (a) Nothing contained in this message was intended or written to be used, can be used, nor may be relied upon or used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that could be imposed upon the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; and (b) Any written statement contained herein relating to any federal tax transaction or issue may not be used by any individual or entity to recommend or support the promotion or marketing of any such transaction or issue. From: Clark Bensen/POLIDATA To: Farr, Thomas A. Sent: Tue May 24 11:38:07 2011 Subject: sched Tom, I have been sending data to Tom Brunell for review…I think we are finally in the production mode…perhaps a conference call with the three of us would be useful tomorrow morning. Clark POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides   From: Tom Brunell To: Farr, Thomas A. Cc: Clark Bensen/POLIDATA June 03, 2011 6:17:41 PM (-04) Bcc: Subject: Re: attorney client communication/consulting expert privilege Attachments: Sure 972-883-4963 Tom On Friday, June 3, 2011, Farr, Thomas A. wrote: > > > > > > > > Fellows > > Can we do a > conference call Monday at 3:00 PM. I will initiate. > > Thanks > > Tom > > > Thomas > A. Farr Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. > 4208 Six > Forks Road, Suite 1100 Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone: 919-789-3174 Fax: > 919-783-9412 > thomas.farr@ogletreedeakins.com > www.ogletreedeakins.com > > > This transmission is intended by the sender and proper recipient(s) to be confidential, intended only for the proper recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law.  If you are not the intended recipient(s) you are notified that the dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you receive this message in error, or are not the proper recipient(s), please notify the sender at either the email address or telephone number above and delete this email from your computer. Receipt by anyone other than the proper recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other applicable privilege.  Thank you. > > Unless expressly stated to the contrary herein, (a) Nothing contained in this message was intended or written to be used, can be used, nor may be relied upon or used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that could be imposed upon the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; and (b) Any written statement contained herein relating to any federal tax transaction or issue may not be used by any individual or entity to recommend or support the promotion or marketing of any such transaction or issue. > > > > > From: Tom Brunell To: Farr, Thomas A.; Clark Bensen June 06, 2011 3:15:20 PM (-04) Cc: Bcc: Subject: Re: consulting expert privilege Attachments: RBV analysis report.docx here is what I have thus far. On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Farr, Thomas A. wrote: Tom   I am told that information on congressional races is on state board of elections web site.   Will be calling at 3 pm   Tom   Thomas A. Farr Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100 Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone: 919-789-3174 Fax: 919-783-9412 thomas.farr@ogletreedeakins.com www.ogletreedeakins.com     This transmission is intended by the sender and proper recipient(s) to be confidential, intended only for the proper recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law.  If you are not the intended recipient(s) you are notified that the dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you receive this message in error, or are not the proper recipient(s), please notify the sender at either the email address or telephone number above and delete this email from your computer. Receipt by anyone other than the proper recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorneyclient, work product, or other applicable privilege.  Thank you. Unless expressly stated to the contrary herein, (a) Nothing contained in this message was intended or written to be used, can be used, nor may be relied upon or used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that could be imposed upon the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; and (b) Any written statement contained herein relating to any federal tax transaction or issue may not be used by any individual or entity to recommend or support the promotion or marketing of any such transaction or issue.     From: Tom Brunell To: Farr, Thomas A. April 24, 2012 9:47:53 AM (-04) Cc: Bcc: Subject: Fwd: FW: NC Attachments: I am going to forward you the messages from clark.  I tried to burn a cd and it did not work.  Sorry as I am about to clog your inbox. ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Clark Bensen/POLIDATA Date: Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 2:59 PM Subject: FW: NC To: Tom Brunell     POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® Political Data Analysis www.polidata.org Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: 703-690-4066 efax: 202-318-0793 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 Corinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA 22192 email: clark@polidata.org     From: Clark Bensen/POLIDATA [mailto:clark@polidata.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 3:37 PM To: 'Tom Brunell' Subject: NC   Still trying to wade through all this data to send you something to work on….i have 30 datasets (3 datasets for 5 election years with one P and G) and millions of records to get organized so that I can find the 20-30 I will actually need from each for any one set of data to provide to you.   NC being a ‘good’ data state means that they provide Voter Registration and Voter History by several breakouts, notably by party and race. This is all summarized by precinct so we can use this instead of the PL2000 or PL2010 data. Likewise, they provide all manner of local election results as well. But…the price is everything is in a separate file and I need to get them ‘systematized’ so that I can run code on them and not do much hand work. This is taking some time to develop and test.   Of course, the timeframe is quite tight which is why I am trying to get it organized.   POLIDATA POLIDATA POLIDATA POLIDATA ® ® ® ® Demographic and Political Guides www.polidata.us Political Data Analysis www.polidata.org at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: 703-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 Corinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA 22192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org     From: Tom Brunell To: Farr, Thomas A. April 24, 2012 9:48:07 AM (-04) Cc: Bcc: Subject: Fwd: FW: NC sample Attachments: rbvsg_NC_SD003_SP2010_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_3_-_DEM_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_sd003_sp2010_nc_state_senate_district_3_-_dem_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_nc_sd003_sp2010_nc_state_senate_district_3_-_dem_blk_sum.pdf ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Clark Bensen/POLIDATA Date: Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:02 PM Subject: FW: NC sample To: Tom Brunell     POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® Political Data Analysis www.polidata.org Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: 703-690-4066 efax: 202-318-0793 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 Corinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA 22192 email: clark@polidata.org     From: Clark Bensen/POLIDATA [mailto:clark@polidata.org] Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 2:40 PM To: 'Tom Brunell' Subject: NC sample   Ok, here’s a first cut at some information for RBV: First: I don’t have any standardized information from them about the race/ethnicity from them, just several .xls sheets with various formats. Until I can get this organized I will just cut/paste it here.   Frankie L. Bordeaux Male Black Not Hispanic or Not 5/4/2010 5/4/2010 5/4/2010 Primary Primary Primary NC State Senate District 3 NC Senate (3) NC Senate (3) Samuel Clark Jenkins Florence Arnold Armstrong M F W B Latino NL NL Democratic Dem Dem     Three files are attached: a)      .csv containing the raw data (see fields below) b)       Chk.pdf listing records of note c)      Sum.pdf listing overall stats for the file   The CHK.pdf lists homogeneous precincts first (90%+ Wht or Blk) and then records with either matching problems or records that are excluded (e.g., absentee records). Some of the matching problems might be fixable, some are due to split precincts. I’ll spend more time on those but I wanted to get you something to test out when you can.   File notations: SP for State Primary (all in one file) and DP or RP for Dem Primary or Rep Primary specifically; GE for General Election.   Fields in Export/Extract: SEE THE ACCOMPANYING 'SUM.PDF' FOR VOTE TOTALS AND CANDIDATE INFORMATION   YEAR    Year of Election ETY      Type of Election (SP/GE) OFLEVEL          Level of Office (CY/CD/SD/LD) CYED   County or District Code PRABB Precinct Identification VTD     Reserved VNAME            Reserved   GOI      Group of Interest (race/ethnic group, B/H/I/A)   REGPRM          Registration: Total for General Election or for This Primary REGBLK           Registration: Number in the Group of Interest (GOI) REGWHT         Registration: Number not in the GOI   VOTPRM         Turnout: Total for General Election or for This Primary VOTBLK           Turnout: Number in the Group of Interest (GOI) VOTWHT         Turnout: Number not in the GOI   NUMCAN         Number of candidates   V01      Votes for candidate 1 ... V10      Votes for candidate 10   POLIDATA POLIDATA POLIDATA POLIDATA ® ® ® ® Demographic and Political Guides www.polidata.us Political Data Analysis www.polidata.org at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: 703-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 Corinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA 22192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org     From: Tom Brunell To: Farr, Thomas A. April 24, 2012 9:48:29 AM (-04) Cc: Bcc: Subject: Fwd: FW: NC GE2010 Attachments: rbvsg_nc_ld048_ge2010_nc_house_of_representatives_district_48_ind_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_LD048_GE2010_NC_HOUSE_OF_REPRESENTATIVES_DISTRICT_48_IND.csv rbvsg_nc_ld048_ge2010_nc_house_of_representatives_district_48_ind_sum.pdf   From: Clark Bensen/POLIDATA [mailto:clark@polidata.org] Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 10:10 AM To: 'Tom Brunell' Subject: NC GE2010   N. C. House Dist. #48 N. C. House Dist. #48 Garland E. Pierce John F. Arry Male Male Black White N/L N/L Democrat Republican     POLIDATA POLIDATA POLIDATA POLIDATA ® ® ® ® Demographic and Political Guides www.polidata.us Political Data Analysis www.polidata.org at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: 703-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 Corinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA 22192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org     4308 1553 From: Tom Brunell To: Farr, Thomas A. April 24, 2012 9:50:05 AM (-04) Cc: Bcc: Subject: Attachments:   From: April 24, 2012 9:50:05 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC LD102 Attachments: rbvsg_nc_ld102_sp2010_nc_house_district_102_-_dem_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_LD102_SP2010_NC_HOUSE_DISTRICT_102_-_DEM_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_ld102_sp2010_nc_house_district_102_-_dem_blk_sum.pdf 2010 Primary NC State House 102 Becky Carney F W NL Dem 1,510 2010 Primary NC State House 102 Ken Davies M W NL Dem 221 2010 Primary NC State House 102 Kim Ratliff F B NL Dem 714     POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:50:05 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC data issues Attachments: screen_sp2004_vh_guilford2.pdf screen_sp2004_vh_guilford1.pdf Ran a statewide =ace…found problems that I had not discovered =eretofore…   As you =an see from the attached screen shots….the input data have =roblems…   See how =REENE county looks ‘regular’ and GUILFORD =oesn’t….argh!!!   Alas, =his wasn’t just in one county…so, no statewide file =oday.   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:50:05 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC LD048 SP2004 Attachments: rbvsg_nc_ld048_sp2004_nc_state_house_district_48_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_LD048_SP2004_NC_STATE_HOUSE_DISTRICT_48_IND.csv rbvsg_nc_ld048_sp2004_nc_state_house_district_48_ind_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_ld048_sp2004_nc_state_house_district_48_ind_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_LD048_SP2004_NC_STATE_HOUSE_DISTRICT_48_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_ld048_sp2004_nc_state_house_district_48_blk_sum.pdf I can’t find one =ither…I reran them both.   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:50:05 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC SP2004 SOS Attachments: rbvsg_nc_cystate_sp2004_secretary_of_state_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_CYSTATE_SP2004_SECRETARY_OF_STATE_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_cystate_sp2004_secretary_of_state_blk_sum.pdf     POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:50:05 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC SP2010 USS Attachments: rbvsg_nc_cystate_sp2010_us_senate__-_dem_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_CYSTATE_SP2010_US_SENATE__-_DEM_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_cystate_sp2010_us_senate__-_dem_blk_sum.pdf     POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p> From: Tom Brunell To: Farr, Thomas A. April 24, 2012 9:50:25 AM (-04) Cc: Bcc: Subject: Attachments:   From: April 24, 2012 9:50:25 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC Attachments: rbvsg_nc_cystate_ge2008_president_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_NC_CYSTATE_GE2008_PRESIDENT_BLK_doj.csv rbvsg_nc_cystate_ge2008_president_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_CYSTATE_GE2008_PRESIDENT_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_NC_CYSTATE_GE2008_PRESIDENT_BLK.csv Ok, a couple of refinements =ere…I am trying to include the candidate information =lectronically as well…hence the “can.csv” file which =s really another header record…each candidate name is included in =he place of the votes, e.g., “john smith WD” or =#8220;alice brooks UR” the last two being race/ethnicity and =arty.   For =E2008 I have provided two data files: 1 for all counties and 1 for the =OJ+ counties…the “sum.pdf” is still based upon the =ll Cys data.   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: To: Cc: Bcc: April 24, 2012 9:50:25 AM (-04) Subject: NC SD004 Attachments: rbvsg_nc_sd004_ge2010_nc_state_senate_district_4_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_NC_SD004_GE2010_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_4_BLK.csv rbvsg_NC_SD004_GE2010_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_4_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_nc_sd004_ge2010_nc_state_senate_district_4_blk_chk.pdf Ok, I’ll finally start to =end you some stats…perhaps I already did, already lost =rack…will just send a few at a time…If you did already get =hem from me, not to worry…I didn’t change any of the =ata…just the labels, etc.   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:50:25 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC SD005 Attachments: rbvsg_nc_sd005_ge2010_nc_state_senate_district_5_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_NC_SD005_GE2010_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_5_BLK.csv rbvsg_NC_SD005_GE2010_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_5_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_nc_sd005_ge2010_nc_state_senate_district_5_blk_chk.pdf     POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:50:25 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC SD020 Attachments: rbvsg_nc_sd020_ge2010_nc_state_senate_district_20_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_NC_SD020_GE2010_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_20_BLK.csv rbvsg_NC_SD020_GE2010_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_20_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_nc_sd020_ge2010_nc_state_senate_district_20_blk_chk.pdf     POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:50:25 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC SD024 Attachments: rbvsg_nc_sd024_ge2004_nc_state_senate_district_24_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_sd024_ge2006_nc_state_senate_district_24_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_sd024_ge2010_nc_state_senate_district_24_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_sd024_ge2010_nc_state_senate_district_24_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_nc_sd024_ge2004_nc_state_senate_district_24_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_nc_sd024_ge2006_nc_state_senate_district_24_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_SD024_GE2010_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_24_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_NC_SD024_GE2004_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_24_BLK.csv rbvsg_NC_SD024_GE2004_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_24_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_NC_SD024_GE2006_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_24_BLK.csv rbvsg_NC_SD024_GE2006_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_24_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_NC_SD024_GE2010_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_24_BLK.csv     POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:50:25 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC SD028 Attachments: rbvsg_nc_sd028_ge2010_nc_state_senate_district_28_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_NC_SD028_GE2010_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_28_BLK.csv rbvsg_NC_SD028_GE2010_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_28_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_nc_sd028_ge2010_nc_state_senate_district_28_blk_chk.pdf     POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:50:25 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC SD040 Attachments: rbvsg_nc_sd040_ge2010_nc_state_senate_district_40_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_NC_SD040_GE2010_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_40_BLK.csv rbvsg_NC_SD040_GE2010_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_40_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_nc_sd040_ge2010_nc_state_senate_district_40_blk_chk.pdf     POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:50:25 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC LD008 Attachments: rbvsg_nc_ld008_sp2006_nc_state_house_district_008_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_NC_LD008_SP2004_NC_STATE_HOUSE_DISTRICT_8_BLK.csv rbvsg_NC_LD008_SP2004_NC_STATE_HOUSE_DISTRICT_8_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_nc_ld008_sp2004_nc_state_house_district_8_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_nc_ld008_sp2004_nc_state_house_district_8_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_NC_LD008_SP2006_NC_STATE_HOUSE_DISTRICT_008_BLK.csv rbvsg_NC_LD008_SP2006_NC_STATE_HOUSE_DISTRICT_008_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_nc_ld008_sp2006_nc_state_house_district_008_blk_chk.pdf     POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: Tom Brunell To: Farr, Thomas A. April 24, 2012 9:50:48 AM (-04) Cc: Bcc: Subject: Attachments:   From: April 24, 2012 9:50:48 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC LD107 Attachments: rbvsg_nc_ld107_ge2010_nc_house_district_107_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_NC_LD107_GE2010_NC_HOUSE_DISTRICT_107_BLK.csv rbvsg_NC_LD107_GE2010_NC_HOUSE_DISTRICT_107_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_nc_ld107_ge2010_nc_house_district_107_blk_chk.pdf     POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:50:48 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC LD102 Attachments: rbvsg_nc_ld102_sp2010_nc_house_district_102___dem_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_NC_LD102_SP2010_NC_HOUSE_DISTRICT_102___DEM_BLK.csv rbvsg_NC_LD102_SP2010_NC_HOUSE_DISTRICT_102___DEM_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_nc_ld102_sp2010_nc_house_district_102___dem_blk_chk.pdf     POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:50:48 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC State Attachments: rbvsg_nc_cystate_ge2008_president_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_cystate_ge2004_auditor_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_cystate_ge2004_auditor_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_nc_cystate_ge2008_president_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_CYSTATE_GE2004_AUDITOR_BLK_doj.csv rbvsg_NC_CYSTATE_GE2008_PRESIDENT_BLK.csv rbvsg_NC_CYSTATE_GE2008_PRESIDENT_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_NC_CYSTATE_GE2008_PRESIDENT_BLK_doj.csv rbvsg_NC_CYSTATE_GE2004_AUDITOR_BLK.csv rbvsg_NC_CYSTATE_GE2004_AUDITOR_BLK_can.csv I may have sent President =lready…   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: Tom Brunell To: Farr, Thomas A. April 24, 2012 9:51:13 AM (-04) Cc: Bcc: Subject: Attachments:   From: April 24, 2012 9:51:13 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC SD 3 Attachments: rbvsg_nc_sd003_sp2010_nc_state_senate_district_3___dem_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_sd003_ge2010_nc_state_senate_district_3_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_sd003_sp2008_nc_state_senate_district_03___dem_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_sd003_sp2008_presidential_preference___dem_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_sd003_sp2010_nc_state_senate_district_3___dem_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_nc_sd003_ge2010_nc_state_senate_district_3_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_nc_sd003_sp2008_nc_state_senate_district_03___dem_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_nc_sd003_sp2008_presidential_preference___dem_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_SD003_SP2010_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_3___DEM_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_NC_SD003_GE2010_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_3_BLK.csv rbvsg_NC_SD003_GE2010_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_3_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_NC_SD003_SP2008_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_03___DEM_BLK.csv rbvsg_NC_SD003_SP2008_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_03___DEM_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_NC_SD003_SP2008_PRESIDENTIAL_PREFERENCE___DEM_BLK.csv rbvsg_NC_SD003_SP2008_PRESIDENTIAL_PREFERENCE___DEM_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_NC_SD003_SP2010_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_3___DEM_BLK.csv Two primary elections, and one =eneral, for the state senate plus the Obama =rimary.   The =P2008 is an example of what I meant by the top two for each =/NB…big difference between the two B candidates in this =lection.   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:51:13 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC SD 32 Attachments: rbvsg_nc_sd032cyforsy_sp2008_presidential_preference___dem_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_sd032_ge2010_sheriff_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_sd032_sp2004_nc_state_senate_district_32_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_sd032_sp2010_nc_state_senate_district_32_-_dem_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_sd032_ge2010_sheriff_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_nc_sd032_sp2004_nc_state_senate_district_32_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_nc_sd032_sp2010_nc_state_senate_district_32_-_dem_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_nc_sd032cyforsy_sp2008_presidential_preference___dem_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_sd032CYFORSY_SP2008_PRESIDENTIAL_PREFERENCE___DEM_BLK.csv rbvsg_NC_CYFORSY_GE2008_PRESIDENT_BLK.csv rbvsg_NC_CYFORSY_GE2008_PRESIDENT_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_NC_SD032_GE2010_SHERIFF_BLK.csv rbvsg_NC_SD032_GE2010_SHERIFF_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_NC_SD032_SP2004_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_32_BLK.csv rbvsg_NC_SD032_SP2010_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_32_-_DEM_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_cyforsy_ge2008_president_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_NC_CYFORSY_GE2008_PRESIDENT_BLK.csv rbvsg_NC_CYFORSY_GE2008_PRESIDENT_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_nc_cyforsy_ge2008_president_blk_chk.pdf This needs to be reviewed =efore tomorrow so that they can work on some plan =eview.   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:51:13 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC ROBES Attachments: rbvsg_nc_cyrobes_sp2008_presidential_preference___dem_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_CYROBES_SP2008_PRESIDENTIAL_PREFERENCE___DEM_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_NC_CYROBES_SP2008_PRESIDENTIAL_PREFERENCE___DEM_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_cyrobes_sp2008_presidential_preference___dem_blk_sum.pdf So that you might have =omething to review…   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:51:13 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC Obama Primary Attachments: rbvsg_NC_CYSTATE_SP2008_PRESIDENTIAL_PREFERENCE___DEM_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_nc_cystate_sp2008_presidential_preference___dem_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_cystate_sp2008_presidential_preference___dem_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_nc_cystate_sp2008_presidential_preference___dem_blk.csv Ok, I’ll have to check =his out in the morning again but if I change anything it will be by =ounty so you don’t need to rerun =verything. Again…ignore the non-DOJ+ =ounties in here for now….they aren’t entirely wrong but I =eed to review them.   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:51:13 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC SD 13 Attachments: rbvsg_NC_SD013_SP2008_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_13___DEM_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_NC_SD013_SP2008_NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_13___DEM_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_sd013_sp2008_nc_state_senate_district_13___dem_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_sd013_sp2008_nc_state_senate_district_13___dem_blk_chk.pdf (has all of =obeson)   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:51:13 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC BUNCO Attachments: rbvsg_nc_cybunco_sp2008_presidential_preference___dem_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_CYBUNCO_SP2008_PRESIDENTIAL_PREFERENCE___DEM_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_NC_CYBUNCO_SP2008_PRESIDENTIAL_PREFERENCE___DEM_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_cybunco_sp2008_presidential_preference___dem_blk_sum.pdf   I’m trying to do the =bama Primary for the non-DOJ+ counties in order to cover the top 20 =ounties (most populous) in the state…which is about another 10 to =o. Of course, some of these may =ot have much of a concentration of AA voters.   BUNCO =as a problem so these would need to replace what I sent yesterday in =he state file. I will resend other counties if =here are problems as well.   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:51:13 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC JOHNS Attachments: rbvsg_nc_cyjohns_sp2008_presidential_preference___dem_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_CYJOHNS_SP2008_PRESIDENTIAL_PREFERENCE___DEM_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_NC_CYJOHNS_SP2008_PRESIDENTIAL_PREFERENCE___DEM_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_cyjohns_sp2008_presidential_preference___dem_blk_sum.pdf This had some matching issues =hat I fixed so, like BUNCO, so you will need to replace this county as =ell.   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:51:13 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC COLUM Attachments: rbvsg_NC_CYCOLUM_SP2008_PRESIDENTIAL_PREFERENCE___DEM_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_NC_CYCOLUM_SP2008_PRESIDENTIAL_PREFERENCE___DEM_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_cycolum_sp2008_presidential_preference___dem_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_cycolum_sp2008_presidential_preference___dem_blk_chk.pdf More of the same…replace =n the state file.   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:51:13 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC LD 102 Attachments: rbvsg_nc_ld102_sp2010_nc_house_district_102___dem_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_LD102_SP2010_NC_HOUSE_DISTRICT_102___DEM_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_NC_LD102_SP2010_NC_HOUSE_DISTRICT_102___DEM_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_ld102_sp2010_nc_house_district_102___dem_blk_sum.pdf My bad…I entered the =rong parameter for this race…I am supposed to pass the party =rimary (DEM or REP?) but passed the default for the general =XXX)…thus the universe was not limited to Dems =nly.   I =hecked my notes and this was, fortunately, the only primary for which I =essed this up. It is a key parameter because, =or registrants it is the party in which they are registered, and, for =oters, it is the party in which they voted that determine the =ggregations.   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:51:13 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC 08P DEM PRM Attachments: rbvsg_nc_cystate_sp2008_presidential_preference___dem_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_CYSTATE_SP2008_PRESIDENTIAL_PREFERENCE___DEM_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_NC_CYSTATE_SP2008_PRESIDENTIAL_PREFERENCE___DEM_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_cystate_sp2008_presidential_preference___dem_blk_sum.pdf Ok, the only county I =idn’t have of the 11 was SAMPSO so I reran that and there were no =atching problems…so here is the entire state, select out the ones =ou need.   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:51:13 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: richardson Attachments: Pages from tca22_text_p999_kf10a.pdf This gives the name of the =ooks, etc.   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: Tom Brunell To: Farr, Thomas A. April 24, 2012 9:51:35 AM (-04) Cc: Bcc: Subject: Attachments:   From: April 24, 2012 9:51:35 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC GUILF Attachments: rbvsg_nc_cyguilf_ge2008_high_point_city_council_at_large_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_nc_cyguilf_ge2010_city_of_high_point_city_co_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_NC_CYGUILF_GE2010_CITY_OF_HIGH_POINT_CITY_COUNCIL_AT_LARGE_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_NC_CYGUILF_GE2010_CITY_OF_HIGH_POINT_CITY_COUNCIL_AT_LARGE_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_cyguilf_ge2010_city_of_high_point_city_co_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_CYGUILF_GE2008_HIGH_POINT_CITY_COUNCIL_AT_LARGE_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_NC_CYGUILF_GE2008_HIGH_POINT_CITY_COUNCIL_AT_LARGE_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_cyguilf_ge2008_high_point_city_council_at_large_blk_sum.pdf     POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:51:35 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC DURHA Attachments: rbvsg_nc_cydurha_sp2010_sheriff___dem_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_CYDURHA_SP2010_SHERIFF___DEM_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_NC_CYDURHA_SP2010_SHERIFF___DEM_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_cydurha_sp2010_sheriff___dem_blk_sum.pdf     POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:51:35 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC FORSY Attachments: rbvsg_nc_cyforsy_ge2010_sheriff_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_CYFORSY_GE2010_SHERIFF_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_NC_CYFORSY_GE2010_SHERIFF_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_cyforsy_ge2010_sheriff_blk_sum.pdf     POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: To: Cc: April 24, 2012 9:51:35 AM (-04) Bcc: Subject: NC MECKL Attachments: rbvsg_NC_CYMECKL_GE2010_DISTRICT_ATTORNEY_DISTRICT_26_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_cymeckl_ge2010_district_attorney_district_26_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_cymeckl_ge2010_district_attorney_district_26_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_CYMECKL_GE2010_DISTRICT_ATTORNEY_DISTRICT_26_BLK_can.csv     POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:51:35 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC WAKE_ Attachments: rbvsg_NC_CYWAKE__GE2010_BOARD_OF_COMMISSIONERS_DISTRICT_2_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_NC_CYWAKE__GE2010_BOARD_OF_COMMISSIONERS_DISTRICT_2_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_cywake__ge2010_board_of_commissioners_dis2_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_cywake__ge2010_board_of_commissioners_dis2_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_CYWAKE__GE2010_BOARD_OF_COMMISSIONERS_DISTRICT_1_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_NC_CYWAKE__GE2010_BOARD_OF_COMMISSIONERS_DISTRICT_1_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_cywake__ge2010_board_of_commissioners_dis1_blk_sum.pdf rbvsg_nc_cywake__ge2010_board_of_commissioners_dis1_blk_chk.pdf     POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 9:51:35 AM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC LD058 Attachments: rbvsg_nc_ld058_ge2010_nc_house_district_58_blk_chk.pdf rbvsg_NC_LD058_GE2010_NC_HOUSE_DISTRICT_58_BLK_can.csv rbvsg_NC_LD058_GE2010_NC_HOUSE_DISTRICT_58_BLK.csv rbvsg_nc_ld058_ge2010_nc_house_district_58_blk_sum.pdf In =uilford   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: Tom Brunell To: Farr, Thomas A. April 24, 2012 2:31:43 PM (-04) Cc: Bcc: Subject: Attachments:   From: April 24, 2012 2:31:43 PM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: RE: NC Senate primary 2010 Attachments: I meant the top for each =ace.   From:=/b> =om Brunell [mailto:tbrunell@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June =7, 2011 1:33 PM To: Clark Bensen Subject: NC Senate =rimary 2010   The top =wo vote getters were both white.  One or both of them did well =ith black voters.  We can chat about this one some more. =nbsp;Overall voting is polarized, the problem is at some of the county =evel analyses, there are fewer significant coefficients. =o:p> From: April 24, 2012 2:31:43 PM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: RE: check senate primary Attachments: Clearly want primary elections…for several =easons…I think you need to review both from a combined =erspective (all W and all B candidates) as well as for the top =ote-getters alone i.e., candidate of choice =erspective.     From:=/b> =om Brunell [mailto:tbrunell@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June =7, 2011 12:19 PM To: Clark Bensen Subject: check =enate primary   what do =ou think about that one?  there are six candidates and I just used =wo groups - wht and blk candidates.  Voting is polarized, not a =uch as in general, but still I think we like to have primary elections =n there as well right? From: April 24, 2012 2:31:43 PM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC Attachments: I’m working through on =he Obama Primary numbers, county-by-county, before I send you a whole =ile. I still have some difficult counties, notably DURHA and =ORSY…with respect to the matching issue. It works pretty well for =he smaller counties…but I have some other projects to work on for =he rest of the morning…so nothing right =way…   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 2:31:43 PM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC Attachments: Give me a call at 703-690-4066 =r send me your number…if we can’t talk in the next 15 =inutes or so let’s talk tomorrow AM. I still =ave some data issues to address anyway.   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: April 24, 2012 2:31:43 PM (-04) To: Cc: Bcc: Subject: NC Attachments: Camden County only has 5,000 =eople and 3 precincts.   POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides =a href="http://www.polidata.us" target=blank>www.polidata.us POLIDATA ® =olitical Data Analysis www.polidata.org =br>POLIDATA ® at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata POLIDATA =reg; at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: =03-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 =orinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA =2192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org =o:p>     From: Tom Brunell To: Farr, Thomas A. April 24, 2012 3:31:45 PM (-04) Cc: Bcc: Subject: Re: Attachments: On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 7:40 AM, Farr, Thomas A. wrote: Clark I am out tomorrow and Friday so if it is possible to talk some time today that would be awesome. The leadership wants to push up the hearing by a week. Tom Thomas A. Farr Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100 Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone: 919-789-3174 Fax: 919-783-9412 thomas.farr@ogletreedeakins.com www.ogletreedeakins.com This transmission is intended by the sender and proper recipient(s) to be confidential, intended only for the proper recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient(s) you are notified that the dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you receive this message in error, or are not the proper recipient(s), please notify the sender at either the email address or telephone number above and delete this email from your computer. Receipt by anyone other than the proper recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other applicable privilege. Thank you. Unless expressly stated to the contrary herein, (a) Nothing contained in this message was intended or written to be used, can be used, nor may be relied upon or used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that could be imposed upon the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; and (b) Any written statement contained herein relating to any federal tax transaction or issue may not be used by any individual or entity to recommend or support the promotion or marketing of any such transaction or issue.   -----Original Message----From: Tom Brunell [mailto:tbrunell@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 8:22 PM To: Farr, Thomas A. Cc: Clark Bensen/POLIDATA Subject: Re: Would this be in person?  Or phone? On Tuesday, May 17, 2011, Farr, Thomas A. wrote: > > > > > > > > Fellows > > The two Nc > redistricting chairs have scheduled a joint committee meeting for > taking evidence on June 8, 2011. > > We need to discuss. > Are you available in the morning? > > Tom > > > Thomas > A. Farr Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. > 4208 Six > Forks Road, Suite 1100 Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone: 919-789-3174 Fax: > 919-783-9412 > thomas.farr@ogletreedeakins.com > www.ogletreedeakins.com > > > This transmission is intended by the sender and proper recipient(s) to be confidential, intended only for the proper recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law.  If you are not the intended recipient(s) you are notified that the dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you receive this message in error, or are not the proper recipient(s), please notify the sender at either the email address or telephone number above and delete this email from your computer. Receipt by anyone other than the proper recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other applicable privilege.  Thank you. > > Unless expressly stated to the contrary herein, (a) Nothing contained in this message was intended or written to be used, can be used, nor may be relied upon or used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that could be imposed upon the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; and (b) Any written statement contained herein relating to any federal tax transaction or issue may not be used by any individual or entity to recommend or support the promotion or marketing of any such transaction or issue. > > > > >   yes. I will call you and tom at 3 pm edt       Thomas A. Farr Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100 Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone: 919-789-3174 Fax: 919-783-9412 thomas.farr@ogletreedeakins.com www.ogletreedeakins.com     This transmission is intended by the sender and proper recipient(s) to be confidential, intended only for the proper recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law.  If you are not the intended recipient(s) you are notified that the dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you receive this message in error, or are not the proper recipient(s), please notify the sender at either the email address or telephone number above and delete this email from your computer. Receipt by anyone other than the proper recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney-client, work product, or other applicable privilege.  Thank you. Unless expressly stated to the contrary herein, (a) Nothing contained in this message was intended or written to be used, can be used, nor may be relied upon or used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that could be imposed upon the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; and (b) Any written statement contained herein relating to any federal tax transaction or issue may not be used by any individual or entity to recommend or support the promotion or marketing of any such transaction or issue.   From: Clark Bensen/POLIDATA [mailto:clark@polidata.org] Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 12:44 PM To: Farr, Thomas A. Subject: NC Status Tom, Just checking in…Tom Brunell is working on his report and I’m still wading through some stuff to fill in gaps…did you want to schedule a call for 3pm or so? clark   POLIDATA POLIDATA POLIDATA POLIDATA ® ® ® ® Demographic and Political Guides www.polidata.us Political Data Analysis www.polidata.org at CafePress www.cafepress.com/polidata at Lulu www.lulu.com/polidata Clark Bensen POLIDATA LLC  Tel: 703-690-4066 Vermont Office: 1303 Hayward Road P.O. Box 530 Corinth, VT 05039 Virginia Office: 3112 Cave Court Lake Ridge, VA 22192 efax: 202-318-0793 email: clark@polidata.org   EXHIBIT J