01081992
517
HARNETT COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RECoNvENED J~EETJNG, JANUARY 8, 1992
The Harnett County Board of Commissioners met in joint session with
the Harnett County Board of Education on Wednesday, January 8, 1992,
in the. Commissioners Meeting Room, County Office Building, Lillington,
JOINT MEETING BETWEEN North Carolina. The regular Board of Commissioners 'meeting on January
BOARD OF COMr-lIS- 6, 1992, was recessed to be reconvened at this time;; The following
SIONERS AND BOARD OF members were present: Mack Reid Hudson, Bill Shaw, Beatrice Bailey
EDUCATION Hill, and Chairman Lloyd G. Stewart presiding. Commissioner Walt
Titchener was absent. Others present were Dallas H. Pope, County
Manager; W. Glenn Johnson, County Attorney; Vanessa W. Young, Finance
Officer and Clerk to the Board; and Kay S. Blanchard, Recording
Secretary.
The Harnett County Board of Commissioners and the Harnett County Board
of Education conducted independent meetings during the joint session
as recorded in these minutes.
Chairman Stewart called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
EXECUTIVE SESSION Commissioner Shaw made a motion that the Board go into executive
session upon recommendation of the county attorney. Commissioner Hill
seconded the motion and it passed with the following vote: Ayes: 4,
Noes: 0, Absent: 1
Commissioner Hudson made a motion that the Board come out of executive
session. Commissioner Hill seconded the motion and it passed with the
following vote: Ayes: 4, Noes: 0, Absent: 1
W. Glenn Johnson, County Attorney, presented for the Board's
RESOLUTION RE: consideration, a proposed resolution concerning redistricting
REDISTRICTING associated with the 1990 census data. Commissioner Hudson moved for
adoption of the resolution. Commissioner Shaw seconded the motion and
it passed with the following vote: Ayes: 4, Noes: 0, Absent: 1
The resolution is copied in full at the end of these minutes as
Attachment 1.
There being no further business, the Harnett County Board of
ADJOUR.~ED Commissioners meeting of January 6, 1992, and January 8, 1992, duly
adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
~!. st!!.r~
/I~ ~'t~~
Vanessa W. Young, Clef
K~ 61[J~~.hMj
,Kay S Blanchard, ecretary
1 .,1....
----
518
A TT ACHMENT 1.
-,
- - , )' ..., . ,-,'-
''- pn ~ \1
,'. t"...: ,- , I
, .
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ~,' ,-, .- - -.'
~~ l~': ~ "," .-,.........,.,.
""~. c. .....:;
COUNTY OF HARNETT -,
.',',1' - ' -- , ,~ ..'
RESOLUTION
THAT wHEREAS, the Harnett County Board of Commissioners and
the Harnett County Board of Education duly met in joint session
which convened at 7:00 P.M. on Wednesday, January 8, 1992, in the
Harnett County Office Building, 102 East Front Street,
Lillington, North Caroline..., arC.
\'lHEREASf the purpose ~Z such meeting was to consider the
possible redefinition of electoral district boundaries within the
county of Harnett based upon statistical data resulting from the
1990 census; and
WHEREAS, Harnett County is divided into electoral districts
for the purpose of nominating and electing persons to the Harnett
County Board of commissioners and the Harnett County Board of
Education; and
WHEREAS, the electoral districts of Harnett County are five
(5 ) in number and constitute single member districts within which
only voters residing therein are eligible to vote for a candidate
for the Harnett County Board of Commissioners and a candidate for
the Harnett County Board of Education; and
WHEREAS, the Harnett County Board of Commissioners and the
Harnett County Board of Education have determined that, based
upon the 1990 census data now received, there is a substantial
inequality of population among such districts; and
WHEREAS, the General Statutes of the State of North
Carolina grant to the Harnett County Board of Commissioners the
authority to redefine electoral districts in order to alleviate
a substantial inequality of population among such districts; and
WHEREAS, in order to resolve this substantial inequality of
population among the districts which has been determined by
statistical data resulting:Lom the 1990 census it is necessary
to alter and change the boundaries of such districts; and
WHEREAS, the districts which were heretofore defined were
formulated based upon data from the 1980 census, and such
districts were established in 1989 under and pursuant to a
consent decree entered in Civil Action Number 89-950-CIV-5 which
was brought in united states District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, and any modification of such original
districts requires the approval of said court; and
WHEREAS, Harnett County is subject to the provisions of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, which requires that any
proposed alteration of voting districts within such county
be submitted for approval and clearance to the united States
Department of Justice; and
WHEREAS, the statistical data relative to the existing
districts based upon the 1980 census and the statistical data
relative to the existing districts based upon the 1990 census
are both set forth in the proposed motion which is attached
hereto as Exhibit A, and such data sets forth the inequality of
population among said districts; and
WHEREAS, the terms of office of those members presently
serving on the Harnett County Board of Commissioners from
Districts 3. ( and 5 expire i~ 1992, and the terms of office of
those members presentiy ~erving on the Barnett County Board of
Education from Districts 2 and 4 expire in 1992; and
WHEREAS, certain maps and plats have been prepared on behalf 1
of the Harnett County Board of Commissioners and the Harnett
County Board of Education which reflect a redefinition of such
electoral districts in order to alleviate the substantial
inequality of population above referenced and as set forth in
Exhibit A which is attached hereto, and said maps are attached
hereto collectively as Exhibit B and are incorporated herein by
reference:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HARNETT COUNTY BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS AND THE HARNETT COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION:
l. That the herein referenced electoral districts shall be
and same are hereby redefined to be as set forth on those certain
plats and maps which are attached hereto and incorporated herein
collectively as Exhibit B.
- - -
519
2. That the respective attorneys and administrative
and managerial officers and personnel of Harnett County and of
the Harnett County Board of Education shall be and they are
hereby authorized to submit this matter to the U.S. Department of
Justice for clearance under and pursuant to the provisions of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, and other applicable
provisions of law.
3. That the respective attorneys for Harnett County and the
1 Harnett County Board of Education shall be and they are hereby
authorized to submit to and file with the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, the motion,
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, together with such
other and further pleadings and matters as might be required oy
I law or deemed advisable by them.
4. That elections shall be held in 1992 as by law provided
for the purpose of selecting members of the Harnett County Board
of Commissioners from Districts 3, 4 and 5, and elections shall
be held in 1992 as oy law provided for the purpose of selecting
members of the Harnett County Board of Education from Districts 2
and 4, as shown on the maps and plats which are attached hereto
and collectively incorporated herein as Exhibit B.
This the 8th day of January, 1992.
HARNETT COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
.---::'-~"""",'~ , ---I' .
~' , \l\l'~ .'..- " / . . '-7 '. ~ I J
//..\\"\,,~\I.. 81} By: -{:'~-v j "' ,/, ~~ -::;N1
/'/..~" . ::' ~.(.f~ -; LlOYd G. Stewart, Chair
'-~,' -.:f\ ...,~ ~, ' )
."i, ~ _~/_ -, , c-'"
.:;....~. -:'" ~~. . ...~
,,' '.. _r~ . c:.:'I
, . '~_.:--:, ..-
; ~. ~ ....... \' ""-1 . i~
\~~. ~~'. '::--".J",:t:;!
~;\,_.~ ,h,
,;';'.('...','..: '. ..' ,...'~"'~",.
. ,\,!" ,4.f" ..,. . .'<.;..'~" -'! ...
... \ ~-.!fj .; '.. r '*-J_~ f. if .. Lt . ~ '.
\'.:i.", ,.w.;"Young, Glerk
~J.:.' ...:;....';....:'..".:1'
..... -.i..."\l.).i ..'..:.,;...; fl-
~~~it!J;.'
SEAL
HARNETT COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
By: ~ .,P ~~/
Bets~ P. Sloan, Chair
ATTEST:
~tI'O IJ..)~~
.~oryman, Secretary
/~'~"" ,._~
,.!.. . ;.: ,"""',,~~\'-....\
,(' r"'- \\~RNE',') II, ~,
' _'" ...... (, I,.,
" :', .< .> ;....~.',' ....
.' ::::>.' . .,...-." <6 '.' ,,',SJl.AL
, J,~~:i;i;~:~f:W)
. '. ,.: ..... ....:>>~:: I
" . .....=;",,)...:- I
,.-"11 fiOIl'''''::'~,_y
.. \\"'~~~:~~~~;>'.".
EXHIBIT A
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
RALEIGH DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 89-950-CIV-5
W.N. PORTER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
1 VS. MOTION IN THE CAUSE
LLOYD G. STEWART, et al.,
. ............~~~~~~~~~~:...
Defendants respectfully move the Court pursuant to Rule 7(b}
of the Federal Rules of civil Procedure and Local Rule 4.00, for
an order modifying the Consent Decree entered by the Honorable
Franklin T. Dupree, United States District Judge, on November 22,
1989. In support of said motion, Defendants show unto the Court
as follows:
520
1. on November 30, 1988, Plaintiffs instituted this action
by the filing of summons and complaint. prior to the filing of
responsive pleadings by Defendants, Plaintiffs filed and served
on Defandants an Amended Complaint. On February 17, 1989,
Defenda~ts filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint.
2. In tneir Amended complaint, plaintiffs alleged inte~
alia that the at-large method of electing members of the Harnett
County Board of Commissioners and Board of Education had the
effect of denying black voters an equal opportunity to elect
candidates of their choice.
3. After a period of negotiations, Plaintiffs and
Defendants agreed to eliminate at-large voting and create a new
plan of districting and mode of elections for the Harnett County
Board of Commissioners and Board of Education, whereby five
Total Black % %
Dist. # Population Black Deviation
1 11700 7190 61.5% -214 -1. 83%
2 11752 896 7.6% -162 -1. 36%
3 11805 1259 10.7% -109 -0.91%
4 1:1.921 1949 16.3% - 7 -0.06%
5 12392 2556 20.6% 478 4.01%
TOTALS 59570 13850 23.2%
Average District Size = 11914
Maximum Deviation = 5.84%
8. When considering the 1990 census data, the five single-
member districts have the following population breakdown:
Voting Age population
% % %
Dist. # Total Black Total Black Black Black Variation
1 11962 6862 57.36 8776 4797 54.66 -11. 81
2 12355 1574 l2.74 9345 1003 10.73 - 8.91
3 13607 1445 10.62 10708 989 9.24 - 0.32
4 l3839 2312 16.7l 10363 1536 14.82 + 2.03
5 16059 3122 19.44 11344 2045 18.03 +18.39
TOTAL 57822 13315 22.58 50536 10370 20.52 --
Av~==age ")i..&tr~,,=,": 5:_za 13 56~
Va.:. iati..::l.~,
High +18.39
Lo~ -11'.81
TOTAL 30.20%
9. As evidenced by paragraph 8 above, the 1990 census data
shows that District No. 1 has a total population of 11,962, of
which 6,862 or 57.30%' are black. The average district size is
13,564, but District No. 1 has 1602 fewer people than the average
which results in a variation of -1l.81%. Conversely, District
No. 5 has a total population of 16,059, which is 2495 more people
1
than the average, which results in a variation of +18.39. The
total variation for the existing five single member districts
when the 1990 census data is utilized is 30.20%.
10. When consi~ering the 1990 census data District No. 1
,
rernoins a minority dist=ic~ ~ince black citizens constitut~
57.36% of the total population and 54.66% of the total voting age
population. However, the deviation of 30.20% between the
population of District No. S and District No. 1 is more than the
521
de minimis maximum deviation of under lO% to be considered to be
of prima facie constitutional validity and thus subjects
Defendants to a possible equal protection challenge under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United states Constitution.
11- Defendants are submitting to the Court herein as
Composite Exhibit 4 a proposed modification to the present five
single member district plan. Under the proposed plan, all
districts are brought more in line with the average district size
of 13,564. Further, the integrity of District No. 1 is
maintained by continuing to be a "black majority district" with
black citizens constituting 57.02% of the total population and
54.07% of the total voting age population. Most importantly,
here is a total deviation of 7.61% between the population in
District No. 5 and District No. 1, which is well within the de
minimis maximum deviation of under 10% and thus requires no
governmental justification. Finally, the proposed district
boundaries f61low more closely existing geographical boundaries
which makes the districts more recognizable to the citizens of
Harnett county.
12. Other than altering the present geographical boundaries
of the five single member districts to conform with the "one
person, one vote" rule, Defendants seek no other modifications
agreed to by the parties and accepted by the Court in the Consent
Decree entered on November 22, 1989.
13. A copy of the proposed change to the present plan has
been provided to Plaintiffs and their counsel i~ advance of the
filing of this motion.
14. The filing period for the 1992 pr~mary elections begins
o~, FS:"'r.1az-y 1t:, 1992 and primary elections are scheduled to be
held ~n May, 1992. For this reason Defendants are in need of an
expedited and speedy hearing on the relief sought herein.
15. A supporting Memorandum of Law required by Local Rule
4.04 is attached hereto.
WHEREFORE, Defendants pray the Court that an expedited and
speedy hearing be conducted on the relief sought herein, that the
proposed modifications to the present five single member district
plan as identified in composite Exhibit 4 be approved by the
Court and that Defendants have such other and further relief as
the Court may deem just and proper;
DATED: " IfI/tft.. ~h\~
BENJAMIN N. THOMPSON
NC STATE BAR NO. 9005
P.O. BOX 1085
1100 WEST BRO~b SUITE 200
DUNN, NORTH COLINA 2 334
(~892-7115 /(:?
, .-\~.~ -
W. GLENN JOHNSON~
NC STATE BAR NO. 5690
JOHNSON & JOHN SO, "
P.O. BOX 69
LILLINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 27546
(919)893-5107
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS