IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
REBECCA HARPER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID R. LEWIS, IN
HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SENIOR
CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE SELECT
COMMITTEE ON REDISTRICTING, et al.
Defendants.
____________________________________

TO:

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No: _________

THE JUDGES OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Defendants Representative David R. Lewis, Senator Ralph E. Hise, Jr., Senator
Warren Daniel, Senator Paul Newton, Speaker Timothy K. Moore, and President Pro
Tempore Philip E. Berger, as agents of the General Assembly (the “General Assembly” or
“Legislative Defendants”) and the State of North Carolina, see N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1-72.2,
120-32.6(b) in accordance with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1443(2) and 1446, hereby
give notice and remove to this court the civil action bearing the Case No.: 19-CVS-12667,
which is now pending in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Wake
County, North Carolina.
In support of this Notice of Removal, the General Assembly shows the Court as
follows:

Case 5:19-cv-00452 Document 5 Filed 10/14/19 Page 1 of 17

 1.

Plaintiffs initiated this action in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court

Division, Wake County, North Carolina, Civil Action No. 19-CVS-12667, on September
27, 2019, by filing the Complaint.
2.

The Legislative Defendants were served with the Summons and Complaint

on September 30, 2019. The North Carolina Department of Justice and Attorney General,
who is not a party, was served on September 27, 2019. A complete copy of all process,
pleadings, and orders served upon Legislative Defendants is attached as Exhibit 1 to this
Notice of Removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). These documents constitute the pleadings to
date.
3.

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), this Notice of Removal is filed with this

Court within thirty (30) days of service of process on the Legislative Defendants and on
the North Carolina Department of Justice and Attorney General.
4.

The Complaint purports to allege claims under the North Carolina

Constitution.
5.

Nevertheless, removal here is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(2).

6.

Removal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(2), which provides for

removal of state-court actions against state officials “for refusing to do any act on the
ground that would be inconsistent” with “any [federal] law providing for equal rights….”
7.

This provision is satisfied, and removal is appropriate, where there is “a

colorable conflict between state and federal law.” White v. Wellington, 627 F.2d 582, 587
(2d Cir. 1980) (quotations omitted). The state official’s federal-law defense need not
ultimately be meritorious so long as there is a colorable conflict between the official’s
2
Case 5:19-cv-00452 Document 5 Filed 10/14/19 Page 2 of 17

 federal-law duties under equal-rights law and the alleged state-law duties. See, e.g., New
Haven Firefighters Local 825 v. City of New Haven, 2004 WL 2381739, at *1 (D. Conn.
Sept. 28, 2004).
8.

The Complaint seeks equitable relief from all Defendants, including the

General Assembly. The equitable relief is not limited to enjoining the current congressional
redistricting plan; Plaintiffs also demand “a new congressional districting plan that
complies with” their view of the North Carolina Constitution. Complaint, Prayer for Relief
¶ (c); see also Compl. ¶ 5.
9.

Plaintiffs’ requested relief, to be effective, will require affirmative

cooperation from some agent of North Carolina. The General Assembly is the body
responsible for redistricting under the North Carolina Constitution, and Plaintiffs’ need for
equitable relief from the General Assembly stems from that role. Further, because an
official-capacity suit is, in truth, a suit against the State, and all its component parts,
Plaintiffs’ requested relief will require the affirmative cooperation of the State itself. Their
failure to name the State specifically as a party does not change the fundamental character
of their suit as one against the state for equitable relief.
10.

Affirmative cooperation can be refused. Plaintiffs’ demand for a court-

drawn map if the General Assembly does not redistrict in accord with Plaintiffs’ state-law
theory is a form of state-court coercion that triggers the possibility of refusal under 28
U.S.C. § 1443(2).
11.

Independently, Plaintiffs will seek to impose an obligation on North

Carolina, sued through its agents, to administer elections under Plaintiffs’ preferred
3
Case 5:19-cv-00452 Document 5 Filed 10/14/19 Page 3 of 17

 redistricting scheme. The General Assembly, through its officers named as Defendants
here, represents the State according to state statute. By comparison, the members of the
North Carolina Board of Ethics and Elections Enforcement are not tasked with representing
the State by any statute. The General Assembly, speaking for the State, can refuse
Plaintiffs’ demand for affirmative state cooperation in this second, independent sense.
12.

In both these independent senses, the General Assembly’s resistance to

Plaintiffs’ state-law theory qualifies as “refusing” an “act” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1443(2). The relevant “acts” here include both the act necessary to create new legislation
and the State’s “act” of implementing that new legislation.
13.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”) applies to the entire State of

North Carolina. VRA § 2 is a federal-law provision providing for “equal rights” within the
meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1443(2).
14.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution applies to the entire state of

North Carolina. The Equal Protection Clause is a federal-law provision providing for
“equal rights” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1443(2).
15.

A colorable conflict between state constitutional redistricting requirements

and the dictates of the Voting Rights Act and Equal Protection Clause supports removal
under Section 1443(2). Cavanagh v. Brock, 577 F. Supp. 176, 180 (E.D.N.C. 1983).
16.

Representative David R. Lewis is a state official covered under Section

1443(2). Representative Lewis is Senior Chairman of the House Select Committee on
Redistricting. Representative Lewis has been sued in this matter in his official capacity as
a representative of the General Assembly, which is alleged to have violated state-law
4
Case 5:19-cv-00452 Document 5 Filed 10/14/19 Page 4 of 17

 requirements related to redistricting and against which affirmative equitable relief is sought
requiring a new redistricting plan or, alternatively, state-court seizure of the General
Assembly’s redistricting authority. But, as described below, the affirmative relief sought
from Representative Lewis in his official capacity as a representative of the General
Assembly and the State would be inconsistent with federal law that protects racial equality
in voting.
17.

Senator Ralphs E. Hise, Jr., is a state official covered under Section 1443(2).

Senator Hise is Chairman of the Senate Committee on Redistricting. Senator Hise has been
sued in this matter in his official capacity as a representative of the General Assembly,
which is alleged to have violated state-law requirements related to redistricting and against
which affirmative equitable relief is sought requiring a new redistricting plan or,
alternatively, state-court seizure of the General Assembly’s redistricting authority. But, as
described below, the affirmative relief sought from Senator Hise in his official capacity as
a representative of the General Assembly and the State would be inconsistent with federal
law that protects racial equality in voting.
18.

Senator Warren Daniel is a state official covered under Section 1443(2).

Senator Daniel is Co-Chairman of the Senate Committee on Redistricting. Senator Daniel
has been sued in this matter in his official capacity as a representative of the General
Assembly, which is alleged to have violated state-law requirements related to redistricting
and against which affirmative equitable relief is sought requiring a new redistricting plan
or, alternatively, state-court seizure of the General Assembly’s redistricting authority. But,
as described below, the affirmative relief sought from Senator Daniel in his official
5
Case 5:19-cv-00452 Document 5 Filed 10/14/19 Page 5 of 17

 capacity as a representative of the General Assembly and the State would be inconsistent
with federal law that protects racial equality in voting.
19.

Senator Paul Newton is a state official covered under Section 1443(2).

Senator Daniel is Co-Chairman of the Senate Committee on Redistricting. Senator Newton
has been sued in this matter in his official capacity as a representative of the General
Assembly, which is alleged to have violated state-law requirements related to redistricting
and against which affirmative equitable relief is sought requiring a new redistricting plan
or, alternatively, state-court seizure of the General Assembly’s redistricting authority. But,
as described below, the affirmative relief sought from Senator Newton in his official
capacity as a representative of the General Assembly and the State would be inconsistent
with federal law that protects racial equality in voting.
20.

Speaker Timothy K. Moore is a state official covered under Section 1443(2).

Speaker Moore is Speaker of the House of Representatives. Speaker Moore has been sued
in this matter in his official capacity as a representative of the General Assembly, which is
alleged to have violated state-law requirements related to redistricting and against which
affirmative equitable relief is sought requiring a new redistricting plan or, alternatively,
state-court seizure of the General Assembly’s redistricting authority. But, as described
below, the affirmative relief sought from Speaker Moore in his official capacity as a
representative of the General Assembly and the State would be inconsistent with federal
law that protects racial equality in voting.
21.

President Philip E. Berger is a state official covered under Section 1443(2).

President Berger is President Pro Tempore of the Senate. President Berger has been sued
6
Case 5:19-cv-00452 Document 5 Filed 10/14/19 Page 6 of 17

 in this matter in his official capacity as a representative of the General Assembly, which is
alleged to have violated state-law requirements related to redistricting and against which
affirmative equitable relief is sought requiring a new redistricting plan or, alternatively,
state-court seizure of the General Assembly’s redistricting authority. But, as described
below, the affirmative relief sought from President Berger in his official capacity as a
representative of the General Assembly and the State would be inconsistent with federal
law that protects racial equality in voting.
22.

The Legislative Defendants have all been sued in their official capacities on

behalf of the General Assembly, which enacted the congressional plan challenged. They
have been sued for the purpose of obtaining affirmative relief in the form of a new plan to
by administered, under compulsion of court order, by North Carolina—which Legislative
Defendants also represent—in future elections. Plaintiffs claim that the 2016 maps violate
provisions of the North Carolina Constitution. The Prayer for Relief asks this Court to
enjoin the Legislative Defendants from taking these actions and to require the Legislative
Defendants to re-draw the 2016 plans or, alternatively, seize the Legislative Defendants’
legislative power and redistrict the state itself.
23.

As representatives of the State of North Carolina and the General Assembly,

which exercises the State’s sovereignty in the most immediate way, Legislative Defendants
are empowered to waive the State’s sovereign immunity for a suit purporting to enforce
state law against the State court. By filing this motion to remand, they waive the State’s
sovereign immunity for the purposes of this case.

7
Case 5:19-cv-00452 Document 5 Filed 10/14/19 Page 7 of 17

 24.

Both the actions Plaintiffs demand and their theories of relief create direct

conflicts with federal law guaranteeing equal protection—namely, the Voting Rights Act
and the Equal Protection Clause.
A.

The Voting Rights Act

25.

One conflict arises because one of the congressional districts challenged

satisfies the State’s obligations under the Voting Rights Act, and Plaintiffs demand that the
racial composition of this district be dramatically altered. In particular, Plaintiffs’
Complaint identifies multiple districts as containing a high percentage of Democratic Party
constituents. They refer to these districts as “packed.” But, in North Carolina, there is a
strong correlation between racial and political identity, so removing Democratic Party
constituents from these districts will necessary reduce the percentage of African American
voting-age persons.
26.

For example, paragraphs 78-82 of the Complaint attack Congressional

District 1 (“CD 1”). Plaintiffs claim that CD 1 is a “packed Democratic district.” Compl.
¶ 78. They assert that the packing is accomplished by placing the “most Democratic VTDs”
in certain counties in CD 1 instead of “more moderate and Republican VTDs.” Compl. ¶¶
80-81. The Complaint therefore calls for the legislature to replace “Democratic VTDs”
with “more moderate and Republican VTDs.”
27.

But the Legislative Defendants intend to defend this charge, inter alia, by

presenting evidence demonstrating that CD 1 is a minority “crossover” district. For
example, in Harris v. McCrory, 159 F.Supp.3d 600 (M.D.N.C. 2016), Congressman
Butterfield testified about the appropriate level of BVAP in CD 1. A copy of this testimony
8
Case 5:19-cv-00452 Document 5 Filed 10/14/19 Page 8 of 17

 is attached as Exhibit 2. Congressman Butterfield has been the U.S. Representative from
CD 1 since 2004. Ex. 2, at 160. Prior to that, he held numerous elected offices. Ex. 2, at
158-60. During private practice as a lawyer in this area of the state, Congressman
Butterfield engaged in voting rights litigation. Ex. 2, at 159. As such, he is intimately
familiar with the voting patterns in CD 1 and the extent to which racially polarized voting
affects elections. Ex. 2 at 172-75, 199-200. In Harris, Congressman Butterfield testified
that in his experience two out of three white voters in the area encompassing CD 1 would
not vote for a black candidate. Ex. 2 at 174, 199-200. In his experience, in order for black
voters to be able to elect their candidate of choice in CD 1, the district’s BVAP should
ideally be at 47% and no lower than 45%. Ex. 2 at 201-02. The current BVAP of the
district

is

44.46%

(https://www3.ncleg.gov/GIS/Download/District_Plans/DB_2016/Congress/2016_Contingent_C
ongressional_Plan_-_Corrected/Reports/DistrictStats/SingleDistAdobe/rptDistrictStats-1.pdf),

just shy of the 45% level at which Congressman Butterfield testified is necessary for black
voters to elect their candidate of choice. As such, the district is protected from being
intentionally dismantled under VRA § 2.
28.

To be sure, race was not the predominant factor in the creation of CD1, but

the VRA does not turn on motive, and recent Supreme Court precedent anticipates that
VRA districts should be drawn with minimal or no attention to racial data. A VRA plaintiff
would not have to prove anything with respect to the intent of how CD1 was drawn to
prove a VRA violation, and intent has no bearing on whether the VRA protects it from
being dismantled, as Plaintiffs demand.
9
Case 5:19-cv-00452 Document 5 Filed 10/14/19 Page 9 of 17

 29.

Although VRA § 2 cannot be used as a sword to require states to create

crossover districts, the Supreme Court has made clear that states may create crossover
districts “as a matter of legislative choice or discretion” in order “to choose their own
method of complying with the Voting Rights Act.” Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1, 23
(2009). Thus, creating a crossover district is a valid shield against a Voting Rights Act
claim that might otherwise by meritorious. CD 1, as a crossover district, therefore complies
with the Voting Rights Act and precludes a valid claim of liability under a law guaranteeing
equality.
30.

Plaintiffs’ theory of state law—which the Legislative Defendants contest—

would require the Legislative Defendants to drop the African American voting-age
population in CD 1 and thereby dismantle the district. It would no longer be a crossover
district. Importantly, Plaintiffs are not contending that CD 1 should be a majority-minority
district. To the contrary, they demand that African American voting-age population be
removed from the district.
31.

The need to drop CD1’s BVAP results from the correlation between race and

political affiliation in North Carolina. Removing Democratic residents of CD1 will
necessarily result in dropping its BVAP. Although polarized voting has been alleged to be
in decline in some portions of North Carolina, CD1 is in the northeastern part of the state,
populated by white voters who lean Republican. Given these dynamics, Congressman
Butterfield’s testimony about the appropriate level of BVAP in CD1 is credible and likely
to be born out be the evidence in this case.

10
Case 5:19-cv-00452 Document 5 Filed 10/14/19 Page 10 of 17

 32.

Legislative Defendants’ Voting Rights Act concerns are not merely

speculative. Instead, Legislative Defendants’ concerns are bolstered by two recent cases:
Common Cause v. Rucho, 139 S. Ct. 2484 (2019) (“Rucho”) and Common Cause v. Lewis,
2019 WL 4569584 (N.C.Super.) (Sept. 3, 2019) (“Lewis”).
33.

In Lewis, a three-judge panel of the Wake County Superior Court entered a

judgment finding that certain North Carolina legislative districts violated the state-law
theory Plaintiffs posit in their Complaint in this case. In concluding that the challenged
districts were supposedly partisan “outliers”, the court credited and relied upon the expert
analysis by Dr. Jowei Chen. 2019 WL 4569584, at *17-*28. Dr. Chen created an algorithm
that he used to draw thousands of simulated legislative districts. Dr. Chen’s algorithm
relied only on neutral, non-partisan criteria to draw the simulated districts. Dr. Chen’s
simulated districts therefore embodied the principles Plaintiffs contend apply under the
North Carolina Constitution. See id. at *18-*28.
34.

In Common Cause v. Rucho, a challenge to the very same congressional

redistricting plan at issue in this case, the United States Supreme Court recently decided
that partisan gerrymandering claims present a nonjusticiable issue for federal courts. 139
S. Ct. at 2506-07. In the district court proceedings, however, Dr. Chen used his algorithm
method to draw thousands of simulated congressional plans for North Carolina. As in
Lewis, Dr. Chen’s algorithm relied only on neutral, non-partisan criteria to draw the
simulated districts. As in Lewis, Dr. Chen’s simulated districts therefore embody the
principles Plaintiffs contend apply under the North Carolina Constitution. 318 F.Supp.3d
777, 874-877 (2018).
11
Case 5:19-cv-00452 Document 5 Filed 10/14/19 Page 11 of 17

 35.

On September 30, 2019, Plaintiffs in the instant case filed a motion for

preliminary injunction. In support of that motion, Plaintiffs attached a new expert report
from Dr. Chen analyzing the 2016 Congressional Plan. A copy of Dr. Chen’s report is
attached as Exhibit 3. In his report, Dr. Chen states that his analysis in the instant case is
based upon the same simulated districts he created in Rucho. Exhibit 3, at ¶¶ 7-8.
36.

In Lewis, the Superior Court’s Decree ordered the General Assembly to

redraw the challenged legislative districts according to Plaintiffs’ state-law theory. To
satisfy this state-court command, the General Assembly adopted maps simulated by Dr.
Chen, with minor modifications. As a result, the General Assembly incorporated the
political and racial outcomes that Dr. Chen’s simulated maps achieved. It had no choice
but to do so in some way, given the state-court order to redraw.1
37.

An order from the state court to apply neutral redistricting criteria for the

purpose of complying with Plaintiffs’ desire to replace “Democratic VTDs” with more
“moderate and Republican VTDs” will destroy CD 1’s status as a crossover district. This
is not speculative as evidence from Dr. Chen in Rucho demonstrates. As explained above,
Dr. Chen created thousands of non-partisan congressional maps using his computer

1

In that instance Plaintiffs presented—only at the remedial stage—evidence that they claimed
undercut any showing of polarized voting. That evidence, however, is not relevant here. CD1
comprises the following counties: Durham (partial), Granville, Vance, Warren, Halifax,
Northampton, Hertford, Gates, Bertie, Washington, Martin, Edgecombe, Pitt (partial), and
Wilson (partial). Out of all these counties, the Plaintiffs’ VRA filing in Lewis covered only Pitt
and therefore lacks probative value for assessing voting patterns in CD1. Other evidence in the
Lewis case also did not address all these counties or the most probative elections. No evidence
exists, to the General Assembly’s knowledge, undercutting Congressman Butterfield’s first-hand
knowledge and sworn testimony that a 45% BVAP is necessary to create an equal-opportunity
district.
12
Case 5:19-cv-00452 Document 5 Filed 10/14/19 Page 12 of 17

 algorithm. According to evidence admitted at the Rucho trial, not a single one of Dr.
Chen’s thousands of maps drew a district in the area of CD 1 with a BVAP at or above
45% or even 44%. Most of the districts were at a BVAP meaningfully below the BVAP
level Congressman Butterfield testified would be necessary to preserve the minority ability
to elect in CD1. See DX5038, attached as Exhibit 4. Moreover, as demonstrated by
DX5038, only 262 of Dr. Chen’s thousands of maps drew any district with a BVAP of at
least 40%. Many of the maps drew districts in the area of CD 1 that were below 40%.
Therefore, it is highly likely that the relief requested by the Plaintiffs in this case will
require the dismantling of CD 1 as a crossover district.
38.

The General Assembly’s contention that CD 1 preserves African American

voting strength to ensure equality in voting is a defense to Plaintiffs’ state-law challenge.
To satisfy Plaintiffs’ state law theory, a map with their criteria and the resulting political
and racial impact must be adopted. There appears to be no way to satisfy Plaintiffs’ statelaw theory and create a district in northeast North Carolina in which black residents can
maintain an equal opportunity to elect their preferred candidate of choice. Section 1443(2)
creates a federal forum for this defense. Under Section 1443(2), the defense need not be
proved as a factual matter at this time. The defense is colorable and supports removal.
B.

The Equal Protection Clause

39.

A conflict also arises between Plaintiffs’ asserted state-law theories and

Legislative Defendants’ obligations under federal law because affording Plaintiffs the
relief they request would require intentionally dismantling this crossover district.

13
Case 5:19-cv-00452 Document 5 Filed 10/14/19 Page 13 of 17

 40.

But intentionally dismantling this district would violate the equal-protection

prohibition on intentionally “cracking” communities composed of racial minorities. This
too is a direct conflict between the alleged state-law duties Plaintiffs assert (wrongly, in
the General Assembly’s view) and the dictates of a federal law guaranteeing equality.
Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1, 24 (2009) (“And if there were a showing that a State
intentionally drew district lines in order to destroy otherwise effective crossover districts,
that would raise serious questions under both the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.”);
see also Reno v. Bossier Parish School Bd., 520 U. S. 471, 481–482 (1997).
41.

The racial composition of CD1 is something the General Assembly, or a

court, cannot help but know, and it would be readily apparent that, in drawing it as Plaintiffs
demand, the General Assembly would be cracking the black community. The General
Assembly would then have a choice: (1) draw it at 45% BVAP or above in violation of
Plaintiffs’ state-law theory, (2) use racial data with a predominantly racial purpose to
achieve a “non-packed” district at 45% BVAP by intentionally excluding white Democratic
voters, or (3) draw it at 45% BVAP without that predominantly racial purpose and violate
Plaintiffs’ state-law theory. Options (1) and (2) violate the Equal Protection Clause; option
(3) violates Plaintiffs’ state-law theory. That is a “conflict.”
42.

Under Section 1443(2), these defenses need not be proved as a factual matter

at this time. The defenses are colorable and support removal.2

2

The General Assembly acknowledges that a judge in this district earlier this year remanded a
removal from Legislative Defendants in the Lewis case that was also based upon 28 U.S.C.
§ 1443(2). Common Cause v. Lewis, 358 F.Supp.3d 505 (2019). Legislative Defendants
respectfully disagreed with that decision and exercised their right to appeal it. Common Cause v.
14
Case 5:19-cv-00452 Document 5 Filed 10/14/19 Page 14 of 17

 43.

Consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), the Legislative Defendants are

concurrently filing a Notice of Filing of Notice of Removal with the Clerk of Court for the
General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Wake County, North Carolina, a copy
of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 5. Consistent with Local Rule 5.3 a Civil Cover
Sheet is attached hereto as Exhibit 6, and a Supplemental Removal Cover Sheet, is
attached hereto as Exhibit 7.
44.

Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) because this

District embraces the place where the removed state court action is pending.
45.

Consent from the other Defendants in this action who have not (at least as of

yet) sought removal is unnecessary because consent is only required when “a civil action
is removed solely under section 1441(a).” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A). That is not the case
here.
WHEREFORE, the Legislative Defendants give notice that this action has been
removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

Respectfully submitted, this the 14th day of October, 2019.

Lewis, No. 19-1091 (4th Cir. Jan. 24, 2019). As of the date of the instant removal petition, the
Fourth Circuit has not yet ruled on the merits of the appeal. Legislative Defendants believe that
the district court decision was erroneous for the reasons stated in their appellate briefing and that
the instant removal is therefore warranted by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for
extending, modifying, or reversing the existing district court opinion, or establishing new law.
15
Case 5:19-cv-00452 Document 5 Filed 10/14/19 Page 15 of 17

 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
By: /s/ Phillip J. Strach
Phillip J. Strach
N.C. State Bar No. 29456
Michael McKnight
N.C. State Bar No. 36932
phil.strach@ogletreedeakins.com
michael.mcknight@ogletreedeakins.com
4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Telephone: (919) 787-9700
Facsimile: (919) 783-9412
Counsel for the Legislative Defendants

16
Case 5:19-cv-00452 Document 5 Filed 10/14/19 Page 16 of 17

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
It is hereby certified that on this date the foregoing Notice of Removal was duly served
upon all other parties to this matter by mailing a copy thereof, via Federal Express addressed to:
Burton Craige,
Narendra K. Ghosh
Paul E. Smith
100 Europa Dr., Suite 420
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
(919) 942-5200
bcraige@pathlaw.com

R. Stanton Jones
David P. Gersch
Elisabeth S. Theodore
Daniel F. Jacobson
601 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20001-3761
(202) 942-5000
Stanton.jones@arnoldporter.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Marc E. Elias
Aria C. Branch
700 13th Street NW
Washington, DC 20005-3960
(202) 654-6200
melias@perkinscoie.com

Paul Cox
Stephanie Brennan
North Carolina Department of
Justice
114 W. Edenton St
Raleigh, NC 27603
(919) 716-6932
pcox@ncdoj.gov

Abha Khanna
1201 Third A venue
Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
(206) 359-8000

Counsel for the State Board of
Elections

Counsel for Plaintiffs
DATED this the 14th day of October, 2019.

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
By: Phillip J. Strach
Phillip J. Strach (N.C. Bar No. 29456)
4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100
Raleigh, NC 27609
Telephone: 919.787.9700
Facsimile: 919.783.9412
Phil.strach@ogletree.com
Attorneys for Legislative Defendants
40326283.1

17
Case 5:19-cv-00452 Document 5 Filed 10/14/19 Page 17 of 17