# Joint Appendix — McCrory v. Harris, 136 S. Ct. 2512 (2016) (No. 15-1262) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0661%3A09 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Joint Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 2016 ## Text FILED SEP 1 2 2016 No. 15-1262 | __OFFICE OF THE CLERK [EE 3n the Supreme Court of the Gnited States PATRICK MCCRORY, in his capacity as Governor of North Carolina, NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, and A. GRANT WHITNEY, JR., in his capacity as Chairman of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, Appellants, Vv. DAVID HARRIS and CHRISTINE BOWSER, Appellees. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina JOINT APPENDIX VOLUME V MARC E. ELIAS PAUL D. CLEMENT Counsel of Record Counsel of Record JOHN M. DEVANEY ERIN E. MURPHY BRUCE V. SPIVA MICHAEL D. LIEBERMAN PERKINS COIE LLP BANCROFT PLLC 700 Thirteenth Street, NW 500 New Jersey Avenue, NW Suite 600 Seventh Floor Washington, DC 20005 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 654-6200 (202) 234-0090 melias@perkinscoie.com pclement@bancroftplic.com (Additional Counsel Listed on Inside Cover) September 12, 2016 Statement as to Jurisdiction Filed April 8, 2016 Probable Jurisdiction Noted June 27, 2016 KEVIN J. HAMILTON WILLIAM B. STAFFORD ABHA KHANNA PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 359-8000 Counsel for Appellees THOMAS A. FARR PHILLIP J. STRACH MICHAEL D. MCKNIGHT OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4208 Six Forks Road Suite 1100 Raleigh, NC 27609 (919) 787-9700 ALEXANDER MCC. PETERS NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Post Office Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602 (919) 716-6900 Counsel for Appellants TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I ECF 65 - Memorandum Order denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Denying Defendants’ Motion to Stay, Defer, or Abstain, U.S. District Court for North Carolina Middle District (May 22, 2014).................... ECF 95 - Notice by Christine Bowser, David Harris of Parties’ Joint Filing of State- Court Record, U.S. District Court for North Carolina Middle District (July 1, 2015)....... ECF 104 - Defendants’ Rule 26(a)(3)(A) Disclosures, U.S. District Court for North Carolina Middle District (September 14, ECF 125 Parties’ Joint Factual Stipulation, U.S. District Court for North Carolina Middle District (October 12, 2015).............. ECF 144 - Defendants’ Notice of Appeal, U.S. District Court for North Carolina Middle District (February 8, 2016) ...................00.. P-006 - Letter from the US DOJ to NC DOJ Preclearing the 2011 Congressional Redistricting Plan (November 1, 2011) ....... P-007 - Letter from U.S. Rep. G.K. Butterfield to N.C. Sen. Rucho and N.C. Rep. Lewis re: July 19, 2011 Joint Statement (2011) ......... (1) Page 10 15 235 242 246 il TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued P-010 - Letter with attachment from U.S. Rep. Mel Watt to N.C. Sen. Rucho and N.C. Rep. Lewis re: Statement Regarding Proposed VRA Districts (July 8, 2011)........ P-013 - NAACP e-mail frem Brent Woodcox to Tom Farr and e-mail string re: attorney client communications (June 30, 2011)....... P-015 - Second Affidavit of David Peterson, Superior Court of Wake County, North Carolina (January 4, 2012)..............0.......0... P-016 - Fourth Affidavit of David W. Peterson, Superior Court of Wake County, North Carolina (May 8, 2012)...................... P-O17 - Expert Report of Stephen Ansolabehere (December 23, 2013).............. P-018 - Report of Stephen Ansolabehere in Response to Thomas B. Hofeller (January ib 102 sda nasi eatea sit baees twnahaeniiodabacee P-067 - Statement by Senator Rob Rucho and Representative David Lewis re _ the Proposed 2011 Congressional! Plan (July 1, P-068 — Joint Statement by NC Sen. Rob Rucho and NC Rep, David Lewis re the Release of Rucho-Lewis Congress 2 (July i ccscecnan shone, cainand jenesithekinanniseunaiieonobeoresuin P-069 — Data Analysis Charts for N.C. Congressional Races: 1992-2001, including Districts 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13........000..... Page 251 259 262 289 306 338 353 362 ili TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued P-071 - Second Joint Stipulation (Dickson v. Rucho), Superior Court of Wake County, North Carolina (February 25, 2013)............ P-072 - 1992 Section 5 Submission (Letter and Compendium from NC DOJ to US DOJ re 1992 Congressional Plan) (January 28, EE cies has aisicdgvdakodeciacandbercoebeste banigadaiites P-073 - 1997 Section 5 Submission (Letter and Compendium from NC BoE to US DOJ re 1997 Congressional Plan) (April 9, 1997) iit. eee ee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee eee ee eee P-074 - 2011 Section 5 Submission (2011 Congressional Plan enacted by NC General Assembly on July 28, 2011)................... P-078 — Comparison of NC Congressional Districts in Section 5 Counties for 1997, NS iid dros nedsnwaahhaumenkovaideelahoutioedtanels P-106 2011 NC CD 1 VAP by Race and I Socdgad bs stirs Desavnstinencecdavwina ected caothancese P-107 2011 NC CD 12 VAP by Race and ii instadencoi ca Couibesvusssasaeebnsidpdiadpenss P-111 ~— District Attributes: VAP by Race, Data for the NC Congressional Plan in effect between 2001 and 2011...................... VOLUME II P-129 - Deposition Transcript of Thomas Hofeller Harris v. McCrory, U.S. District Court for North Carolina Middle District SERNA ho Be ns fe tai reer es po Page 381 394 421 457 491 493 499 503. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued P-136 — NC General Assembly Joint Senate and House Redistricting Committees Meeting Transcript (July 21, 2011)............. P- 137 - NC General Assembly Senate Redistricting Committee Hearing SROMETIE GIG BE, BIEL) ...cc.ciccccossscesecteccess P-139 - NC General Assembly Senate Floor Debate Transcript (July 25, 2011). ............. P-140 - NC General Assembly House Redistricting Committee Transcript of Meeting on Senate passed Redistricting PE I TEs BOWE E Pic ccccosstissseccesavenwecpenczessces VOLUME III D-2.28 — 2001 Split VTDs in Districts with 40% or Greater Total Black VAPs (CDs 1 a Oe D-2.60 - 2001 Congressional Plan - Districts with non-Hispanic White VAP under 50%, Election Winners (CDs 1 and 12)................. D-2.64 - 2001 Congressional Plan - Districts with Black Voter Registration Over 40%, Election Winners (CDs 1 and 12) ................ D-2.66 - SCSJ Congress — Districts with Black Voter Registration Over 40%, Incumbents (CDs 1 and 12)......................26:. D-2.67 - Fair and Legal Congress - Districts with Black Voter Registration Over 40%, Incumbents (CDs 1 and 12) ...................ue Page 605 654 685 825 866 867 868 869 Vv TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued D-4.5 - Congress Zero Deviation NC CD Map (2010 Census), including Actual Population based on 2010 Census Results, by VAPs, and for 2004 and 2010 Election Results...... D-5.6 - Excerpt of NC General Assembly House and Senate Redistricting Committees Public Hearing Transcript TL IEUED Scnctcieccscc biscosek sadasaccsueexawwnnetesoces D-5.7 — Testimony of Anita Earls, SCSJ- NAACP before NC General Assembly 2011 Redistricting Public Hearing (May 9, 2011) Dr. Ray Block, Jr., Executive Statement, Racially Polarized Voting In 2006, 2008, and 2010 in NC State Legislative Contests: A Report for the SCSJ (2011)...........00....0.2.. Anita S. Earls, Emily Wynes, LeeAnn Quatrucci, Voting Rights In North Carolina: 1982-2006, 17 S. Cal. Rev. L. & ge RE es ee aes D-5.8 - Executive Statement by Dr. Ray Block, Jr., Racially Polarized Voting In 2006, 2008, and 2010 in NC State Legislative Contests: A Report for the SCSJ Ss in AIG SAS ROMS a el Reel rg EN EE Da! SSE D-5.10 - Thomas L. Brunell, Report on Racially Polarized Voting in North Cre GN BG BPR cccscceci sc scccnsisiescccceces Page 871 876 883 888 903 956 vil TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page D-5.11 - Joint Statement by NC Sen. Rob Rucho and NC Rep. David Lewis (June 17, D-8 - Laura Leslie, Butterfield disputes chairs’ statement, WRAL.com (July 5, RP sah cabs cehedteed ticasra taseriin see cote tcieemsuneaanesoeidha pix tenon 1062 D-14 —Letter from NC Sen. Rucho and NC Rep. Lewis to Hon. Floyd McKissick re: redistricting criteria and legal issues (May Wig INE dics csssbctuaanntansscatinaiendiiaiebannenesspdatanses: 1066 D-15 — Letter to NC Sen. Rucho and NC Rep. Lewis from Michael Crowell and Bob Joyce, UNC School of Government (May Fg ian bctettastincinatietnasdeidiikeccavssscuassunnieeute 1072 D-25.8 - Rebuttal Expert Report of Thomas B. Hofeller, U.S. District Court for North Carolina Middle District (January 17, aac b aseideia gases css) cednenats daeheeacanedtede bane: 1092 D-25.10 — Report of Stephen Ansolabehere in Response to Thomas B. Hofeller Rebuttal I I IIIS So ciiccnences vesoxtetternceas 2310 Crs TEGO «ccc cccccevens - ccnveteuncaen 2330 x TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued Page Testimony of Congressman Melvin Watt: Direct Examination ..................-.....ccccecess 2361 i o csucdcwsceeececcncces 2373 Redirect Examination......................s0...000: 2408 VOLUME VII Testimony of G.K. Butterfield: BPEPOCE TEMTITIMCIOR ......0..00.c0ccceccscccscovcesses. 2411 Croes Examination .................cccccc..cccccccees 2418 Redirect Examination...................... ealnete 2444 Recross Examination ......................csceces00- 2446 Testimony of David Peterson: Darect Fememimation .................-c0.ccccccccesees 2448 NG se duvacccescccececssers 2469 Redirect Examination...............0.........00008. 2486 Transcript - Harris v. McCrory Bench Trial. U.S. District Court for North Carolina Middle District (October 14, 2015), Vol. IT.... 2490 Testimony of Stephen Ansolabehere: NES MIEERIIEOOED, ........>>> Reported by: Ranae McDermott, RMR, CRR [230] Appearances (Continued) For the Defendants: ALEXANDER (Alec) McC. PETERS Special Deputy Attorney General SUSAN KELLY NICHOLS Special Deputy Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Post Office Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602 1592 For the Defendants Rucho, Lewis, Dollar, Dockham, Berger and Tillis: THOMAS A. FARR, ESQ. PHILLIP J. STRACH, ESQ. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 4208 Six Forks Road Suite 1100 Raleigh, NC 27602 INDEX DEFENDANTS’ WITNESSES Page THOMAS BROOKS HOFELLER, PhD Direct Examination by Mr. Farr ......................... 233 Cross Examination by Mr. Speas........................ 295 Cross Examination by Ms. Earls......................... 343 RUTH SAMUELSON Direct Examination by Mr. Farr......................... 356 Cross Examination by Ms. Earls......................... 359 ROBERT RUCHO Direct Examination by Mr. Farr ......................... 361 Cross Examination by Mr. Speas.....................-.. 364 PLAINTIFFS’ REBUTTAL WITNESS ALLAN J. LICHTMAN, PhD Direct Examination by Ms. Earls........................ 370 Cross Examination by Mr. Farr.......................05- 413 DEFENDANTS’ EXHIBITS 1593 ID/Accepted De Gr Oe a Fe oc an cee tkcdbsensen deiransiacoant 234/369 2— Affidavit of Raleigh Myers and attached I citi saissiiennushdekoucstehcteviledantaadiagaaiashs ited anion 369/141 3 — Map of Congressional District 12............... 283/369 4 — Map of District 54 and part of District 51. 287/369 5 — Map of Rucho Lewis Congress 8 ................ 291/369 6 — Map of the enacted 12th District ............... 263/369 7— Map of the 2011 Fair and Legal Congressional plan ...................csecceecseeceees 292/369 8 — Maps of District 12 in 2001 and 2011........ 245/369 D — BEG CE TRBIIIGS 6. nc ccciscecsncccccccccenscccsscssessccess 265/369 BG — FI OE BINNS BB ccc ns cesscccescscreiccsncsessocetess 265/369 11 ~ Minority Statistics & 2008 Presidential annem a GOR toe Redd PENG NREL ABN BEEF 89 5 ZA, 258/369 12 — Minority Census Data chart..................... 272/369 14 — Listing of split VTDs in the 4th District and the 12th District in the enacted (NRT Nigel RIG Vk Set Reet, Beir re Mea 67/369 15 — 2001 Congress Zero Deviation plan........ 199/ 16 — 2011 Rucho Lewis Congress 3 plan......... 199/ 17—Map_ showing the enacted Senate ETS TSE PRR BAR Boe: Fe hoetaes eRe Eh Ee Be 271/369 18 —Southern Coalition for Social Justice Senate plan or the AFRAM plan.............. 272/369 19 — Map of the House districts in the Martin House Fair and Legal plan....................... 284/369 20 — Lewis Dollar Dockham 4 offer enacted of House Representatives plan..................... 284/369 PLAINTIFFS’ REBUTTAL EXHIBITS 12 — CV of Allan Lichtman, PhD ..................... 373/374 20 — Table 1 - Electoral Analysis of Previous State House Districts With Black Voting 1594 Age Population Greater Than or Equa! to 40% & Below 50% ..........0.......cccccccsecvseccoses 406/412 21 — Table 2 — Electoral Analysis of Previous State House Districts With 50%+ Black Voting Age Population........................06.... 406/412 22 —Table 3 — Electoral Analysis of Previous State Senate Districts with 40%+ Black Voting Age Population............00.....000...... 407/412 23 — Table 4 — Electoral Analysis of Previous Congressional Districts with 40%+ Black Voting Age Population..............0............... 408/412 24 —Table 5 — Comparison of State House Districts 30%+ Black Voting Age Population, Previous Districts and BNO TICBI NOE 0 cecin.ctcccsccnssvccescessseseess 411/412 25 —Table 6 — Comparison of State Senate Districts 30%+ Black Voting Age Popula- tion, Previous Districts and Enacted I aadahatrirciies skicanneiniens poecbihoes susunsinnantaianis 411/412 26 — Table 7 — Ecological Regression Results for Previous Senate District 5, 2008 and 2010 General Elections..................00..0000... 411/412 27 — Table 8 — Ecological Regression Results for Previous Senate District 24, 2008 and 2010 General Elections..................00......... 411/412 28 — Deposition Exhibit 286, Second Affidavit of David W. Peterson, Ph.D., January 4, PINE eucais bai cucaaieddabenclaninaess biideianuie ina tacukceds clus baaais 412/412 29 — Deposition Exhibit 287, Third Affidavit of Plaintiffs’ Statistical Expert, David W. Peterson, Ph.D. dated April 12, 2012 ...... 412/412 ee oust nips oeakceissatemctidid cbictbdas aids cody oS 382/412 34 -~ Package of maps of District 32................ 339/ 35 — Handwritten document authored by Dr. RR ccedcal ened Rata, c idiend a ceapiaiad 393/412 1595 |233] (The Special Session of the Superior Court of Wake County continued on Wednesday, June 5, 2013 before the Honorable Paul Ridgeway, the Honorable Alma Hinton and the Honorable Joseph Crosswhite at 9:02 a.m. JUDGE RIDGEWAY: Good morning. Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. I believe we were at a point yesterday asking whether the whether there was evidence for the Defense. Is there anything further from the Plaintiff? MR. SPEAS: No, Your Honor. JUDGE RIDGEWAY: All right. Very good. Let’s turn then to the Defense. MR. FARR: Thank you, Your Honor. The Defense would like to call Dr. Thomas Hofeller. WHEREUPON, THOMAS BROOKS HOFELLER, PhD, was called as a witness, having been first duly sworn, and testified as follows: JUDGE RIDGEWAY: Okay, Mr. Farr. MR. FARR: Thank you, sir. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. FARR: @. Could you please state your name. A. Thomas Brooks Hofeller. Q@. And where do you reside? A. Ireside at 7119 Marine Drive, Alexandria, [234] Virginia. Q. Allright, sir.And could | ask you, there’s a there’s a notebook up there, a little black notebook that says “Defendants’ Identification of Witnesses and 1596 Exhibits.” Would you please turn to Tab 1, which would be Defendants’ Trial Exhibit 1. A. Yes. Q. And could you tell the Court what that is? A. That is my resume. MR. FARR: And, Your Honors, just one question about this to speed up the testimony, I don’t propose to go through all his experience and background, unless you want me to. Q. But do you what’s your higher education experience? A. I have a bachelor’s degree from Claremont McKenna College, an MA and a PhD from Claremont Graduate University. Q. So may I call you “Dr. Hofeller” during the course of this examination? A. Certainly. Q. Dr. Hofeller, thank you. Since that is what I call you normally anyway, that will be more comfortable for me. Dr. Hofeller, could you tell the Court what [235] your experience has been in in general in the area of redistricting? A. Well, 1 actually first got my redistricting experience in California in 1965 in preparing a database for the State of California which was reacting to the One Person, One Vote rulings of the Supreme Court and had to redistrict at the State Legislative Chambers. Q. What year was that? 1597 A. 1966. Q@. And could you in general just tell the Court about your other experiences in redistricting since 1965 through the present? A. Well, Ive, of course, been active in the redistricting process in the last five decennial census redistricting processes doing work at the Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College in the ‘70s. I was cofounder of a company which assembled a database and did redistricting plans for the California State Legislature in 1970 and ‘71. I worked in several other states during that period of time. I worked in the State of Mississippi in Connor v. Finch in 1970 ‘78 for the Mississippi State Legislature, was trying for the third time to get the redistricting right, which they did at successfully at that period of time.|I did work in many other states in [236] the ‘80s, including North Carolina, testifying in the Gingles case. I have testified in Illinois cases, in the City of Chicago in city council cases. I’ve testified in the Shaw case and have been active in North Carolina since that time, since Gingles. Q@. All right. So you have background in redistricting in North Carolina and the demographics of the State of North Carolina? A. Ido. @. And do you have any experience drawing redistricting maps? A. Yes. Q@. Could you tell the Court a little bit about that? 1598 A. IV’m-—TIm sorry. Do you mean in North Carolina or— Q. In general. A. in general? I’ve — I’ve drawn many plans in North Carolina over the decades, and I’ve also drawn plans across the nation in many, many states. Q. Okay. Now, Dr. Hofeller, were you ever engaged by the General Assembly of North Carolina during the 2011 redistricting cycle? A. Iwas. [237] Q. And will you tell me the purpose of your engagement? A. Well, my first engagement with the General Assembly, actually through your office, was in data- base work preparing — helped — helping the legislative staff to prepare a database. They were a little bit behind in their database building work, and I had some technical discussions with their staff and helped move that process along so that the General Assembly could meet its redistricting schedule. I was then retained to essentially be the — the gatekeeper and lead technical person, map drawer, in the creation of the three Chambers — the two Chambers plans and the Congressional plan. @. Okay. And when you say “built” the database, would you tell the judges briefly what you meant by what — what went into the database? A. Well, the — the census data is — is easy because the census data comes from the U.S. Census Bureau. It’s in a form that is built for redistricting specifically. The problem is, is that election history and 1599 registration data is also required for redistricting. And these databases do not come from the federal government. They have to be constructed on a state by state basis. Sometimes they’re constructed [238] privately. In this case, the main responsibility is in the hands of the legislative services organizations in North Carolina. However, the problem is, is that these election databases are for multiple years. And so those years have those — years’ data, both the registration and the election data, have to be reconciled and put into one single database that covers all of the years. There also has to be primary data collected which is required for racial bloc voting analysis. Q@. All right, sir.And so is — is it fair to say that you were involved in building the database and that you were responsible for making sure the — the redistricting maps were drawn in a manner that would be approved by the General Assembly? MR. SPEAS: Objection to the form. It’s a leading question. JUDGE RIDGEWAY: Overruled. Ill allow it as a threshold question, but... MR. FARR: Thank you. A. Well, it was important to get the databases built and built right and built completely. And I advised really on that rather than actually technically building them myself.My main responsibility was to ensure that the plans were built legally and to inform [239] the leadership of what was — what was possible to draw and, as I said, to become the gatekeeper; to make sure that the plans pressed forward, were kept track of; that there was a ~— an official plan that was the plan 1600 into which any ideas or changes were made and to do it in a time frame which would allow the General Assembly to enact the plans; to get them precleared by the justice department and have them in the hands of the individual county election officials in time to determine where each voter lived district wise and to be prepared to begin the primary election cycle. Q. And who was the decision maker, Dr. Hofeller, about what plans would be released to the public or inactive? Is that you or was it the General Assembly? A. Those decisions were policy decisions, and all of those policy decisions were the purview of the General Assembly. Q All right, sir. And do you understand what if I if I say a “racial polarization study,” do you understand what that means? A. Ido. @. Were you ever asked to perform a racial polarization study? A. Iwas not. Q. Do you know why you were not asked to perform a [240] racial polarization study? A. Absolutely. Because, first of all, a_ policy decision was made that others would do those polarization studies, and there simply wasn’t time enough for me to do those studies and to do what was necessary to bring the plans to completion. That was a very big job and that was what I was hired to do. Q. All right, sir.And you’ve told the Court that you had redistrict — pas* odistricting experience in North Carolina. A. I did. 1601 Q@. And when — when you began drawing maps, did you have any assumptions about whether racial polarization existed in the State of North Carolina? A. I did. @. Could you explain what those assumptions were and why you had those assumptions? A. Well, first of all, I had several decades of previous experience in North Carolina.And in my experience in North Carolina, racial polarization was also deemed to have been present. And I had never seen any studies to the contrary during that time period; and, indeed, I would have operated under the assumption that it was present this time, too. That was later confirmed by studies which were presented by other experts which [241] confirmed that and also by testimony that was given before hearings. @. Did you have any familiarity with redistricting plans that had been enacted in North Carolina from the 1980s through the 2000s? A. Idid. @. Did — did those plans inform you at all in terms of your assumptions about the presence of racial polarization in North Carolina? A. They did. And | was also mindful of the minority districts that were created in previous plans, particularly after Gingles, where they were located and how they were comprised. @. And did you ever have a chance to review alternative plans presented by Democrats or — or the Southern Coalition for Social Justice or AFRAM during the 2011 redistricting process? 1602 A. Well, there was really only one set of plans that was presented during the process, and that was the AFRAM plans. The other plans came in at the very last minute and really didn’t inform the district building process. The districts were all but finalized before those plans came out from the other side. Q. Was there anything about those plans that further informed your opinion about whether racial [242] polarization existed in North Carolina? A. Well, I noted that many of the districts were created with 50 percent majority districts, and districts were located in the same places that the General Assembly’s enacted plan placed the districts. Q. All right. Thank you. I want to move to a different topic now, Dr. Hofeller. I want to ask you about your recollections about how the 2011 Congressional District 12 was created, and I want to refer you and the Court to a map that’s in front of you that’s been marked Defendants’ Trial Exhibit 15. Do you — do you have that map? A. Ido. Q. Do you know what that map is? A. I believe that’s a map of the previous plan, the one that was enacted in the last decade. Q. All right, sir.And do you have the Defendants’ Trial Exhibit 16 in front of you? A. Ido. Q. Can you tell the Court what that is? A. That was Rucho Lewis Congress 3, which was the enacted plan this decade. 1603 Q@. All right. And are you familiar with the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case called Cromartie versus Hunt or Cromartie versus Hunt? [243] MR. FARR: Alec, sorry. A. I think Ill use “Cromartie.” There had been a lot of — of court activity surrounding the 12th District, and this was a district which was redrawn to be a politically drawn district with the use of political data. And that was the justification that’s often called “the Cromartie Defense” for that district. Q@. And was the — was the district at issue in Cromartie taken to the U.S. Supreme Court? A. Several times, I believe. Q. Was — was the — did the — ultimately did the — did the Supreme Court accept the political justification or reject the political justification for Cromartie? A. As it — there was — the General Assembly was successful in the Cromartie case with the political justification, which was approved by the U.S. Supreme Court. Q@. Now, in drawing Congressional District 12, who did you receive your instructions from? A. I received the instructions from the General Assembly. Q. And what were your instructions? A. Well, everybody was well aware that the — the [244] 12th was not a—a VRA district. It was a political district and it was drawn for political reasons, and that that would be the only legal way to draw that 1604 district in this particular redistricting cycle. There was no doubt expressed by anybody that that was to be the way it was to be handled. _ All right, sir.And could you turn to Defendants Trial Exhibit 8, which is in the black notebook? > A. Okay. @. Could you please tell the Court what that exhibit is? A. If I have the right exhibit, it’s — there’s no exhibit sticker on it. Q. Its -—it’s Tab 8 — A. Okay. Well — Q. — which means it’s Defendants’ Exhibit 8. A. I think I actually have the wrong map. Sorry. MR. FARR: May I approach the witness, Your Honor? JUDGE RIDGEWAY: If you'll approach, Mr. Farr. JUDGE HINTON: Yes. A. Well, I think I have Q. Let me just check. [245] A. Sorry. My eyes aren’t all that good, actually. Q. Did you prepare this exhibit, Dr. Hofeller? A. I did. Q. Could you tell the Court what it is? A. It’s a —a set of two maps showing the district passed in 2001 and the district as it was passed in 2011. 1605 Q. Can you tell from this exhibit the counties the — the two districts are located in? A. Yes. Q. Could you tell the Court which counties those are? A. The district — it starts out in the north end in Forsyth and Guilford Counties and transits through Davidson, Rowan, and Cabarrus down to Mecklenburg. The district is — the primary population centers in the district are Forsyth, Guilford and Mecklenburg Counties. Q. [m sorry. Is that — is your — is that your testimony for both districts? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So did you — are — are both districts in the same six counties? A. They are. Q. And you have a — for the 2001 district, there appears to be a line traversing the district and there’s [246] an entry “95 miles.” What does that mean? A. That is what I believe to be the longest distance between two points of — of the district. In — in the 2001 district, it was 95 miles. In the 2011 district, it was 100 miles; five miles’ difference. Q. Okay. And, Dr. Hofeller, stepping back for a second, you say you received your instructions from the General Assembly. Were there any particular members of the General Assembly that you dealt with more than others? A. Yes. Q. And who were they? 1606 A. That was the chairmen of the two redistricting committees. Q. And who were they? A. Bob Rucho and David Lewis. Q. And “Bob Rucho” is Senator Rucho? A. I’m sorry. Yes. Q. And — A. And Representative Lewis. Q. All right. Now, were you given any particular political goals for redrawing the 12th District in 2011? A. Well, the political goals were — they were political goals, but the whole plan was a political plan and there were political goals for the whole plan. So it [247] is really impossible to understand the context of the — the 12th District without understanding the rest of the plan. But the goals for the 12th District were to draw it in such a manner that it would increase Republican opportunities in the surrounding districts. So in the drafting of that plan, the idea was to take VTDs or precincts, as you might characterize them, that had the highest percentage of Obama vote and to make the district as Democratic as possible, to take Democratic strength out of the surrounding districts and to take it out of the surrounding districts in such a manner that it would suit the other political goals of the — the drafters in the surrounding districts. Q. So could you explain what — what some of those surrounding districts were and what the goals were for those districts? A. They were the — the 6th, the 8th, the 9th, and the 5th. 1607 Q. And what was the intent for those surrounding districts? A. Well, again, it was to maximize the Republican political opportunity in all those districts. Do you want me to be more specific? Q. Sure. A. Okay. Probably the weakest GOP district in — [248] in the plan was the 9th District in Mecklenburg County. The new plan was devised with about 100,000 more population in the 12th in Mecklenburg County to take heavily Democratic precincts out of the 9th. The 6th District was changing its location markedly from one plan to another, and one of the goals was to, again, take Democrats out of Guilford County in the 6th and put them in the 12th. Whereas the strongest district going into it was the 5th, so less Democratic precincts needed to be included in the 12th for the benefit of the 6th and the 9th. Another thing that was required, as I think everybody knows — well, not everybody — is that Congressional maps have to be drawn with 0 deviation. There is no give at all in the deviations of the district. It’s — many people have said redistricting is like a — a balloon where you push in at one point, it goes out at another point. I would characterize it more as being like a water balloon because there’s no compression of water; so where you push on one side, you have to push on another. And there were protracted negotiations in the — with the Republican Caucus in particular about the — the boundaries between the surrounding Republican [249] districts; and, also, the population figures were different in 2011 than they were in 2001. And so in 1608 order to balance the populations out and to achieve the political goals and to meet One Person, One Vote given the context of those lines, the corridor through which the district — the 12th District transits from Forsyth, Guilford to Mecklenburg County had to be moved farther towards the southeast to accommodate those population goals. Q. All right. Now, what was the software program that you used to draw these districts? A. The software program was Maptitude for Redistricting engineered by Caliper Corporation, a firm located in Boston — well, not Boston, but in the Boston area; Newton, I think. Q. All right. And do you know what a “thematic” is? A. Athematic display in the terms of a Geographic Information System, which is essentially what the redistricting system was based upon, is a — a system which displays maps and connects those maps with data which is related to the units of geography that are in the GIS system. So a thematic is one way of displaying that information on the screen usually by color according to [250] some piece of — series of data on one item in the database that’s connected with the GIS system. In this case, in redistricting, they’re usually percentages of one kind or another. Q. Okay. And do you recall when you were drawing this map the thematic that you had on your screen when you were drawing the district? A. Im sorry. Did I just — Q. Did you have a particular thematic on your screen when you were drawing this district? 1609 The 12th? Yes. Yes. It was a — a political thematic. Could you tell the Court what that was? It was the percentage of vote that President Obama received of the two party vote. So it was computed by dividing the Obama vote by the sum of the Obama and the McCain vote. Q. And —and so why were you doing that? A. Well, because that was what we were using as the political thematic for drawing these districts. It was used in the other districts in the map, too, as the primary thematic. Q. And what A. It was, after all, a politically drawn map. [251] Q. And what — what unit of geography were you applying to that thematic? A. For the most part — and particularly in the 12th District outside of the 1st District, actually — it was VTDs. Q. And what are “VTDs”? A. A VTD — sometimes called a Vote Tabulation District; but, actually, a voting district officially by the Census Bureau — is created for the Census — I’m sorry — by the Census Bureau for the states specifically for redistricting use. States send back either maps or electronic files which indicate where their election precinct boundaries are, and those boundaries are incorporated into the Census Bureau’s geographic hierarchal structure actually called “TIGER,” a POP > 1610 TIGER file. It’s an acronym. And the Census Bureau releases a — a set of summary data for each VTD. Q. Okay.So you were looking at VTDs with information on your thematic from which you could determine the Obama or McCain vote in that particular VTD. A. Actually, it was just the Obama vote; but by the inverse, you knew what the other one was. Q. Okay. Now, did you — did you have to divide any VTDs in drawing this district? (252) A. Idid. MR. FARR: May I approach the witness, Your Honors? JUDGE RIDGEWAY: Yes, sir. Q. Dr. Hofeller, ’ve just given you an exhibit that we've marked as Defendants’ 14. Did you prepare that exhibit? A. Idid. Q. Could you tell the Court what that is? A. That is a listing of the split VTDs in the 4th District and in the 12th District in the enacted plan showing the — the populations in the plan. I could explain the columns going across. The first is the county in which the VTD is located. Second is the VTD itself, and you'll notice that there are two listings for each VTD that’s on one side or the other side of the split. The next column is the district number. I’ve shaded the district numbers green for splits that involve the 4th CD and orange for the splits that involve the 12th Congressional District. 1611 The next column is the population in the split itself; so there are two numbers, one for one side and one for the other. The next column is the population of the whole VTD if it were unsplit, and the next column is the percentage of the population in the whole VTD which [253] was !ocated in each split side. Q. And the last column — Dr. Hofeller, you have that last column shaded in different colors. Could you explain? A. I do. The — the green — I’m sorry — the blue indicates splits that were done for population adjustment. The yellow indicates VTDs for political split for political reasons. The red indicates VTD splits for district contiguity or compactness. Q. All right. So let’s — let’s start at the bottom and talk about the divided VTDs in — in the 12th Congressional District and let's. start with Mecklenburg. A. From the very bottom. Q. Yes, sir. We’re going to work from the bottom up. A. There was one precinct split in Mecklenburg and that was a split which added 17 people for the 12th District which was a population adjustment split. @. Now, tell — why do you — explain to the Court why you have to make population adjustments, please. A. Well, again, there’s— there’s no give on the — on the population deviations in the Congressional Districts. They all have to be at 0 or plus or minus 1 depending on how the State’s population is divided when it’s divided by the number of districts. So [254] adjustments have to be made at the boundaries of all the districts in order to equalize those populations. 1612 Is it fair to say you’re equalizing the population between the two adjoining districts with these splits? A. Yes. _ Ali right. Now, let’s go to the next divided precinct, which appears to be in Guilford; and I think that’s Jamestown 3. Could you explain to the Court why you made that divided VTD? A. Again, that was the same reason as the split in — in Mecklenburg County; that was a population adjustment. Q. And that was between which two Congressional districts? A. Between District 6 and District 12. Q. Okay. And — and then can we move to the next divided VTD in Guilford, which appears to be Guilford 64. A. Guilford 64 was a split of the precinct that was done to bring the incumbent in the 6th into the 6th as the — the plan was transiting through Guilford, through that precinct. So it was, in essence, a political split, but it was an incumbent seat. Q. All right. And who was — who was that incumbent? A. I-I believe — I’m sorry. I’m just having one of those... MR. FARR: Do you mind if I ask him, Your Honor? Q. Is it Howard Coble? A. Yes. I’m sorry. Q. Okay. And if you had not made that division of that VTD, which district would have 1613 A. He would have been in the 12th. Q. All right. Let’s go to the next division in Guilford, which appears to be Guilford 60. A. Again, Guilford 60 was split for population adjustment reasons. And what were the two districts impacted? 6 and 12 again. And then the next division is in Guilford 46? Yes. Would you explain that. Pr OPO Pe Another population adjustment. What happens when a plan is being finalized, often in re redistricting, it’s — in Congressional maps, it’s referred to as zeroing out the districts. So until the districts are really pretty much settled, it’ — it’s not fruitful to be zeroing out the districts. So you would see a redistricting person going around the [256] perimeter of the district and trying to find the appropriate bloc — the blocs with the appropriate population or populations to hit that 0 mark. And there indeed might be other ways to do it, but that’s the way it was done in this district. Q. Allright. Dr. Hofeller, then, there appears to be one final divided VTD in the — the 12th District in Davidson. Could you explain that division, please? A. Well, precinct 10 comes extremely close to bisecting the district. So I actually took off a -— a portion of the western extremity of that precinct and put it into District 12, 130 people, so that that corridor would be a little wider. Q. All right. Now, in drawing the 12th District, is there a thematic on the Maptitude software for race? 1614 No. There is not? > OP I’m sorry. Was there? Q. Is there — is there a thematic on the Maptitude consistent for race? A. Well, you can create any thematic you want. Q. Okay. A. So it’s possible to draw one for — for any — any factor that’s in the database — Q. All right. |257] A. — including race. Q. When you were drawing Congressional District 12, were you looking at any racial data? A. There was no thematic racial data displayed. Q. All right. And were you here yesterday for Congressman Watt’s testimony? A. Iwas. Q. Do you recall his testimony about what Senator Rucho stated to Congressman Watt about what Senator Rucho had been told by leadership to ramp the black percentage of District 12 over 50 percent? A. I did. Q. Did Senator Rucho ever instruct you to draw this district so that it would be over 50 percent in total black voting age population? A. Absolutely not. Q. Did he instruct you that it be over 50 percent in any sort of black category? 1615 A. Absolutely not. Q. All right. Could you turn to our black notebook again and turn to Tab 12 — Are you at Tab 12 A. I’m at Tab 12. @. —which is Defendants’ Trial Exhibit 12? Did you prepare that chart? A. I did. [258] Q@. Would you tell the Court what that chart is? A. That’s a chart of the Minority Census Data in several of the plans drawn in Forsyth County. Q. VDmsorry, Dr. Hofeller. ’'ve got you on the wrong exhibit. We'll get to that later. Turn to Exhibit Tab 11. MR. FARR: My apologies, Your Honors. A. Tab 11 is minority and presidential election statistics for the enacted 2011 12th District and a demonstration plan I have drawn, which I call the “High Obama Vote Plan” showing the — the differences between the two plans politically and demograph- ically. Q. Okay. So what is the — just the — the — the main difference between the way you — you drew the 2011 enacted plan and the High Obama Vote Plan? A. Well, as I stated before today, the goals of the enacted plan were political, but they were political in the sense that it was important which — and precincts were taken from each of the major counties and which districts they were either taken or given to the surrounding Republican districts. In the High Obama Vote Plan with the exception of the — the corridor through the three counties, | put up 1616 thematic — the political thematic again with a break on the Obama percentage which took the very highest Obama [259] precinct votes from all of the three major counties, notwithstanding what would be the political effect on the surrounding Republican districts. Q. Okay. So could you tell — explain to the the Court the chart that’s at the top of that page, could you explain the columns that are in that chart? A. Yes. First is the plan name. Second is the total population of both — both districts, which of course had to be the same because the High Obama — High Obama Vote Plan is a complete plan of the —for the whole state. The deviation, again, which I probably didn’t need to put it in because it’s 00. The adult non Hispanic/white percentage, the adult total black percentage, the adult non Hispanic total black percentage, the adult Hispanic percentage, and the difference between the total black percentage and the total non Hispanic/white percentage. Q. All right. Dr. Hofeller, could you explain give a little more detail to the Court about these categories that you just described? Are — are these census categories? A. All of them — well, except — with the exception of the last column, those are all data which are found in the TIGER file — not the TIGER file — the Census Bureau’s redistricting data file. [260] Q. All right. So starting with the percentage 18 plus non Hispanic/white, can you put that in — in English to what that means instead of the census acronym? A. Well, I guess the easiest way to say it is that Hispanic is an ethnic identification and everybody 1617 identifies his or herself ethnically. And a majority well, in — in — in most redistricting instances, one is looking at Hispanics and blacks.So some _ African Americans identify themselves as being ethnically Hispanic. A good example of that would be Puerto Ricans who speak Spanish as their — their native tongue if they’ve come — if they live and have come from Puerto Rico. So the — it’s important to differentiate that from total white population. It gives a truer indication of what we would normally say the white voting strength is in the district. Q. And — and when it says “18 plus,” is that the same as saying “voting age”? A. Itis. Q. All right. And what about the next column is “18 plus total black,” what does that mean? A. Again, all of the people who identified themselves as entire — wholly black or black and any other race who were of voting age. [261]Q. All right. And then, again, in — in English, what’s “18 percent plus non Hispanic total black”? A. Again, that — that is the group of people who identified themselves as either all or partially African American, but did not identify themselves as being of Hispanic ethnicity. Q. And “18 percent plus Hispanic,” is that the same as — A. Again, those are all the — all the population that identified themselves as being ethnically Hispanic — Q. And the voting — 1618 A. -—or linguistically. You could also use that term interchangeably. Q. And it means “voting age population Hispanic,” right? A. Yes. Q. All right. And then, again, explain what that last column is. A. Again, it’s — it’s the — the ~— the difference between the non Hispanic whites and the total black population Q. Okay. A. that are voting age. Q. Now — now, based upon that chart, is there any [262] meaningful difference between the enacted plan and the High Obama plan as to those statistics? A. Not in my judgment. Q. All right. Now, let’s go to the second chart on that page. What — what does that chart show? A. That looks at the — the votes and percentages for Obama and McCain in both plans. And then it, of course, shows the total two party presidential vote in the two districts. Again, it’s important to note that the — there are minimal differences. Q. All right. Now, I want to go back to something I overlooked. The — we talked about what you did when you drew the enacted 12th District and the — the VTDs you divided. When you divided the VTDs, did that change — did those divisions in the 12th District change in any significant way the political perfor- mance of that district for President Obama? A. No. 1619 Q. Did it change in any significant way the racial composition of that district? A. No. Q. All right. I want to do one more exhibit on 12. Could you turn to Tab 6? A. Okay. Q. Can you tell the Court what this is? [263] A. That's a detailed map of the enacted 12th District showing major highways and VTDs and shading the surrounding districts. Q. Okay. And just so the Court knows what a VTD is, could you take, say, Mecklenburg County and — well, first let me say, are the VTDs identified by a number? A. Well, they're identified by what we would call a alphanumeric depending on how the county names their precincts. So up in Guilford County, you could have a alpha designation followed by a number. In other counties, they’re just numeric. So it ~ Q. Okay. A. — depends on the naming system within each individual county. Q. All right. Let’s go into Mecklenburg County. Could you just point out for the Court a couple of numbers or a couple of VTDs so they can see how the VTDs are designated on this map? A. Again, my — these are very small numbers. Q. Are you able to read it? A. I might have a little trouble with them. There’s a VTD at — at the far — well, not — kind of the nearest 1620 VTD to Union County in District 12, which I believe is 099. It’s like a test they put up on the screen when you're getting your new glasses, which I'm [264] yverdue for. And there’s a number inside that VTD, which is the precinct number. MR. FARR: Okay. And I think, Your Honors, Ill just state for the record, I think he’s referring to 079. A. To what? MR. PETERS: No. I think he’s correct. MR. FARR: It is 099? — Okay. I got it. My eyes are just as bad evidently. All right. A. I had the numbers in larger type font on the screen when I was looking at them. Q. All right. Now, let’s turn to Congressional District 4. Can you tell the Court the instructions you received regarding the construction of Congressional District 4? A. 4was essentially constructed and finalized after the construction of Districts 12 and 1, and the purpose of the district was to gather in as many Obama high Obama percentage precincts into one district in the central part of the state, again, to create more opportunities for Republican candidates in the surrounding districts. Q. Okay. Could you please turn to Defendants’ Exhibit 9, which is Tab 9 in the notebook? And did you prepare this exhibit, Dr. Hofeller? [265] A. I did. Q. And could you tell the Court what this exhibit reflects? 1621 A. The red area is the — is District 4 placed on a county grid, and it also has a — a line with two arrows which indicates the farthest distance between two points in the district. Q. And -— and what would that be? A. 88 miles. Q. All right. Now, could you turn to Tab 10, Defendants’ Exhibit 10? — And did you create this exhibit? A. I did. Q. Could you tell the Court what this exhibit reflects? A. Again, this is the red — the red shading indicates the 13th Congressional District was enacted in 2001 by the General Assembly, and it stretched a distance of 111 miles from the northwest tip of Rockingham County to the far eastern tip of Wake County. @. And — and what was that length? A. 111 miles. Q. Now, Dr. Hofeller, in your mind, is there any correlation between the 2011 4th Congressional District and the 2001 13th Congressional District? A. In my mind, it was a — a — a distance of [266] some — a district of some miles, although not the largest in the — the state, connecting three population centers through less populated territory. So it essentially reached from Raleigh over to — to Greensboro probably taking route longer than the total distance from one point in the district to another. It also, incidentally, crossed through Guilford County actually at a — a — a point — a point contiguity 1622 where I believe you would have to shrink down to infinity — infinity small, the smallest —you couldn’t go from one part of the district to the other without disappearing like in a black hole. Point contiguity is — has, I believe, been ruled to be unacceptable in North Carolina since then. Q. Is there any sort of geometrical connection between the 2001 13th and the 2011 4th District? A. Well, 1 would just characterize it in many ways as a counterclockwise rotation. Instead of going east west, the district now goes — District 4 goes north south, again, connecting population centers. Q. Okay. And mindful of your explanation of how you drew the 12th District, would you again explain to the Court how you went about drawing the 4th Congressional District? A. Again, it was a — a political draw. It was [267] taking — let me go back to that map — taking highly Democratic precincts as defined by the Obama McCain vote from Wake County and Orange County and part of Durham County, the part that wasn’t in the Ist, and Alamance and connecting them with a _ large concentration of Democratic voters in Cumberland County. Q. And, again, you are basing this on what geographic unit? A. The VTD. Q. And what information did you gather about each VTD? _ A. Well, again, the — the thematic that I was using in drawing this district was the percentage of the vote for President Obama. 1623 Q. All right. In drawing this District 4, did you have to divide VTDs? A. I did. Q. Could you turn back to Exhibit 14, please? Let’s start at the top and go towards the bottom for this one. So the first divided VTD you have listed for the 4th District is in Alamance County; is that right? A. Right. It’s the 13th — V —- VTD 13 in Alamance County. Q@. Okay. And A. And it was — it was drawn as it was for a [268] population adjustment between the — the 4th District and the 6th District. Q. And I want to make sure the Court understands this. The “Counties” states the county. The “Voting District” is 13. So that means that’s the VTD 13, is that right, in Alamance County? A. Yes. Q. And then in district — that’s Congressional district, and it’s your — you’re — you're dividing that precinct between the 4th and the 6th Congressional District? A. Yes. It’s the same as we did for 12. Q. Okay. A. And then the population of the split on each side and the whole population of the VTD and, again, the percentages of each split. Q. So just to make sure the Court understands, for Alamance 13, 5,194 people were put in the 4th District and 235 people were put in the 6th District; is that right? 1624 A. That’s correct. Q@. Okay. And the reason for doing this, again, was... A. The — the reason was to balance out the population between 4 and 6. [269] Q. Okay. Now, let’s go to Cumberland County. Could you go through the — the divided VTDs in Cumberland County and explain why they were divided? A. Well, there were — there were — let’s see, one, two, three — four divided precincts in Cumberland County. Again, you see that there are small populations split off from the major portion of the VTD in each case, and those were done to balance the population between the 2nd and the 4th in Cumberland County. Q. Okay. And —- and could you, again, just explain to the Court briefly we don’t — I don’t think we need to go through every VTD, but could you explain the divisions of the VTD in Harnett County? A. Well, the — the — the Harnett County VTD split is a0 VTD split, and it was done for the reason of — of making the district contiguous. @. All right. And then could you — A. Legally contiguous. @. -— could you please explain the divided VTDs in Wake County? A. In Wake County, the —- the VTD 01 33 and 01 36 were split for political reasons. 01 39 was a population adjustment. 01 02 was, again, for a political reason. 01 16 was for contiguity — or I’m sorry — for compactness. 1625 O01 18, 01 21 and 16 02 were, again, done [270] for population adjustment. Q. Did the divided VTDs in the 4th Congressional District have any significant impact on the political performance of that district? A. None whatsoever. Q. Did the divided A. Ifyouif you saw it, it would be in the hundredths of percentages, I — I would imagine. Q@. Did the divided VTDs have any impact on the racial percentages in Congressional District 4? A. Not any significant impact, no. Q. Okay. MR. FARR: All right. Your Honors, I would like to now change to a different topic, and we have some testimony on the Senate Districts in Forsyth County. (Pause.) MR. FARR: Whoa, whoa, whoa. What did I do wrong here? ’m handing out the wrong map -— sorry. I did give you the right one. Yeu got the right one. You Honor, ’'m missing the Southern Coalition map. I’m sorry. I don’t know what happened to it. JUDGE RIDGEWAY: I've got — I have a book of maps here, so I’ve got it here. [271] MR. FARR: Okay. All right. MR. SPEAS: Mr. Farr, do we get one? MR. FARR: I’m sorry. MR. SPEAS: Or two? 1626 MR. FARR: MI can’t find — find the Southern Coalition map. Are there any extras? — Sorry. I’m a bad paralegal. Here you go, Judge Hinton. I’m sorry. JUDGE HINTON: Okay. JUDGE RIDGEWAY: That’s extra. JUDGE HINTON: Um hum. BY MR. FARR: Q. Dr. Hofeller, I now want to talk to you about Senate District 32 in Forsyth County. Could you identify the exhibit I've handed you marked as Defendants’ Exhibit 17? A. Defendants’ Exhibit 17 is a map showing the enacted Senate districts also indicating the county groupings in the solid blue line; so the shading is for the districts, and the — the solid blue line is for the county groupings. Q. And so, for example, could you tell the Court for the Rucho Senate 2, what county group is Forsyth County located in? A. Forsyth County is located in a two county [272] group. And, also, the two county group contains two districts. Q. All right. Now A. Districts 31 and 32. Q. What’s — tell the Court what Exhibit 18 is. A. Exhibit 18 is the Southern Coalition for Social Justice Senate plan or the AFRAM plan, and it — it has a three county group for — in which the Forsyth County districts are contained, which also has drawn within it three Senate Districts. The — the — again, the heavy 1627 blue line indicates the county groups throughout the the plan. Q. Okay. And in which — in both of these maps, in which county or counties is Senate District 32 drawn? A. Senate District 32 in both maps is drawn entirely within Forsyth County, primarily Winston Salem. Q@. Okay. Now, I would like for you to turn to Tab 12 of our notebook, which is exhibit — Defendants’ Exhibit 12. All right. Now, Dr. Hofeller, what do you —do you know the — the population differences between the two county group in which District 32 is located in the Rucho Senate 2 versus the three county group that’s found in the Southern Coalition plan? A. I don’t precisely remember or know the actual [273] populations of the group as a whole. I knew that in the Southern Coalition district, the population of — of the group allowed for the drafting of the three districts that they drew within that group at lower populations than was required by the two county group found in Rucho Lewis. Q. So-so let’s explore that. A. Rucho, I think. I’m sorry. Q. When you draw a Senate District, is there something called an “ideal number”? A. Well, there — there are two numbers that you have to keep in mind. The first number is common to each specific set of districts — one for the — well, one for Congress, one for the State Senate, and one for the House of Representatives which is the ideal district population for the state, which is mathematically 1628 found by dividing the total population of the state by the number of districts into which it’s being subdivided. . So — so to get an ideal number for a Senate District, you divide the population by 50? A. That’s right. Q. Okay. A. That’s the ideal district size for the state. Within each grouping — the groupings being determined by the provisions of Stephenson — there is — would be an average district population for districts drawn within the group which would be computed, again, by dividing the population within the county grouping by the number of districts you were going to draw in it. And those two numbers would be different. And depending on where that that average number for the group ended up in relationship to the ideal district population for the entire state, you could find yourself facing different challenges in drawing the districts. Q. Okay. So let me see if I can put this in context. Is is it fair to say that if you took a population in the Southern Coalition plan in that three county group, that the average population for those three districts would be lower than the average population for two districts drawn within the two county group in the enacted plan? A. That’s true. Q. Okay. A. That, of course, would be properly caused by the most optimal compliance to the Stephenson county grouping criteria. 1629 Q@. Okay. A. It’s not — it’s not really a choice of — of the — the map drafters. 1275] Q@. And does the Stephenson case put any outer limits on the population deviation that a district can have in order to still be lawful? A. You have to stay within the plus or minus 5 percent range as — as defined by the Court; a little bit different than in other states where the — the lowest district — the — the difference between the lowest district in the — drawn in the state and the highest district has to be just under 10 percent, what they call top to bottom. But in Stephenson, no matter where that average population falls for the county grouping, you’re still limited by that plus or minus 5 range, which is mandated. Q. So under the population guidelines of Stephenson, all three districts in the Southern Coalition group have to be within plus or minus 5 of the — of the ideal? A. Right. If I could be excused to give an example here. Q. Sure. A. Let’s say that the — he population of your county grouping divided by the — the number of districts to be drawn in the group is extremely high. It’s up at, let’s say, 4.9 percent high above the ideal district population. It would be much harder to draw a larger (276) number of districts within that — that particular group. If the two numbers were closer, it would be easier. 1630 So you're constrained. If you make one district too high or too low, you might push the other district up over the 5 percent mark, and that’s not allowable. Q. Okay. Now, turning back to your ~ Exhibit 12, did you make this chart? A. I did. Q. And could you explain to the Court what this chart represents? A. Again, this is a comparison of — of five different State Senate plans which are named in column one with the same figures you’ve seen in — in the other chart that I drew. It showed the total population, the deviation — which now is, of course, above 0, because we're not talking about Congressional districts. The non Ilispanic/white population, the total black population, the non Hispanic total black population, the Hispanic population, and, again, the total black minus the non Hispanic/white all for the adult voting age population. Q. And — and, Dr. Hofeller, does this chart does it not apply to the different versions of Senate District 32? [277] A. Yes. Q. That’s not noted on the chart, is it? A. No. Q. But it — but it — A. Im sorry. Q. —it was intended to apply to Senate District 32: is that right? A. Yes. They’re all the 32nd Senate District. 1631 Q. So if 1 can just go over this for a second. Under the 2010 Census, the — the 2003 version of Senate District 3 — 32 had a deviation of minus 8.01 percent? A. Yes. Q. And that would make it illegal under the Stephenson criteria, right? A. Well, certainly, because it wasn’t within the allowable deviation. Q@. Okay. And the enacted plan 32 had a deviation of minus 0.79; is that right? A. Right. Q. And that’s within the Stephenson range? A. Right in the middle. Q@. Okay. That’s the SCSJ plan had a deviation of minus 4.37 percent; is that correct? A. That’s correct. @. And that’s — that’s at the lower range? \278] A. It’s approaching the — the lower limit, allowable limit. Q. Okay. And then the — the Fair and Legal and McKissick possible Senate Districts appear to have the same deviation of 4.67 percent; is that correct? A. Yes. Although I notice there, I might have been dyslexic on that deviation. Q. Is it your understanding that they’re — they're the same district? A. They appear to me to be the exact same district. Q. Okay. Now, let’s now turn to the instructions that you received about redrawing Senate District 32. 1632 Could you — could you keep the old version of Senate District 32? A. Well, no. There — there — there are two reasons that we couldn’t have kept it. Possibly one was that it was under — it was out of range of the ideal district deviation — allowable district deviation, plus or minus 5 percent. Also, what would play into it is that because of the mandates of Stephenson and the county grouping criteria, which is really a formulaic type of — of draw, you might be limited by the — the average district size within each group. [279] Q. Okay. Did you receive any instructions about how you should attempt to redraw Senate District 32? A. Well, first of all, it was determined by our initial analysis of the state that there should be a ~— a minority district drawn within that — that county grouping similar to the district that was there in the 2003 map and that the placement of that district, which came out in the original VRA map, was known and approved by the — the General Assembly. So — @. Any further instructions? A. Well, again, after the initial plan was drawn, we were informed by the plan that was presented by SCSJ, which had a higher total black population in it than the original] district we had drawn. We were also informed by the fact that the 2003 Senate map for District 32 had a higher percentage. So | was instructed to bring that percentage into line with the percentages in the SCSJ map and the original map even though that district, the — the 2003 district, had to have added population in order to meet One 1633 Person, One Vote. That was the instruction that was given. Q. All right. And do you have an opinion for the difference in the shape and location of the enacted District 32 as compared to the Southern Coalition for {280] Social Justice 32? — Was there anything that caused the two districts to have a different shape or location? A. Well, again, because of the county grouping, which the SCSJ District 32 was drawn within a three county, three district group, the — it could be drawn at a much lower population. You can see, again, almost at the lowest allowable limit that districts could be drawn, which made it easier to draw the plan demographically as they drew it. However, in the two county, two district group which was present in the enacted 2011 plan — which, again, was mandated by Stephenson — the districts had to be higher. And there was also a limit to the lowest population at which we could draw the 32nd District in the enacted map, because if we had drawn it significantly lower in deviation than the minus 0.79 percent to reach the — the population of the SCSJ plan, not only would we be gone — have gone out of limit — well, we wouldn’t have gone out of limit necessarily, but we would have driven the adjoining district in the pair way up over plus 5; I would estimate somewhere around 9 percent. So we were limited in the population size of the 32nd by what it would cause population wise in the 31st, which was the paired district in the cluster. Q. So-—so- [281] A. So 1634 Q. Go ahead. A. Soin order to obtain the population we needed and to obtain the same demographics as were in the sc SCSJ plan and the 2003 plan, we had to do — we had to go out and reach out for the — the populations that we did in drafting the plan. Q. All right. And, Dr. Hofeller, do you recall whether the General Assembly when they first released maps, did they first release maps that only included the VRA districts? A. That’s true. Q. All right. When you were drawing districts initially, did you have any knowledge of where the incumbents were located? A. When] initially drew the districts both in terms of making the initial demographic analysis and drawing the and leaning towards the — _ the finalization of the VRA planned districts, I did not know until the very end of the process where the incumbents actually lived. Q. Did — did Senator Rucho ever instruct you to draw Senator Garrou out of her district? A. No. @. Prior to the release of the VRA districts, [282] did — did you determine that Senator Garrou was not in the district that you had drawn? A. Yes. Q. And did you have any discussions with — with Senator Rucho about that before the VRA districts were released? 1635 A. Well, part of the discussions that we would have with leadership — and in this case since it’s the Senate plan, it would be Senator Rucho. Prior to the release of any map, we would give a full presentation of the plan to Senator Rucho. And that would include all of the data on the plans, including incumbent residencies and possible pairings of incumbents in the plan. So there was no way we would not present the plan with — to him with all the information that was needed for him to make an informed analysis of the plan and to approve it. Q. And after you had that discussion with him and before the VRA districts were released, did Senator Rucho tell you either to keep her out of the district or to draw her back into the district? A. No. Q. Okay. MR. FARR: All right. Your Honors, I would now like to turn to Dr. Rucho — or excuse me, “Dr. Rucho.” He is a doctor, by the way. (283] Q. Dr. Hofeller, could you turn to Tab 3 in the exhibit notebook, Defendants’ Exhibit 3? Could you tell the Court what this is? A. This is a — again, a detailed map much like the detailed maps produced that we looked at before for Congressional District 12 which shows the major highways, the VTD boundaries in — in orange lined shading and the surrounding districts as they enter Forsyth County with the 32nd in yellow and the 31st in green. MR. FARR: All right. Thank you. Your Honors, we’re now going to turn to some testimony on the Chatham County/Lee County plan. 1636 And because of my abysmal ineptitude in handling the exhibits, ’'ve asked Mr. Peters to hand the exhibits out. MR. PETERS: _ If 1 may approach. JUDGE RIDGEWAY: Yes. BY MR. FARR: Okay. Dr. Hofeller, do you have the — wait. Excuse me. I'll wait until all the maps are handed out. (Pause.) Q. All right. Dr. Hofeller, you have Defendants’ Exhibit 19. A. Ido. Q. Can you tell the Court what that is? A. That is a map of the House districts in the [284] Martin House Fair and Legal plan, which shows the districts — the House districts colored and which shows the boundaries of the county groups for the plan in dark — heavy dark blue lines. Q. Okay. Anddo you do you notice the county grouping includes Lee County? A. There’s a three county group of Chatham, Lee and Harnett, which is also containing three districts. Q. Okay. And could you now turn to Exhibit 30 — 20 — excuse me — and tell the Court what this is? A. This is a — again, a map of the Lewis Dollar Dockham 4 or enacted House of Representatives plan, again, showing the districts shaded in colors and the county group shaded or lined in heavy dark blue, which also indicates that it created a — a three county grouping in Harnett, Lee, and Chatham with three 1637 districts. So the county groups in both plans were identical. Q. All right. And — and in comparing the — the three county group in the Martin House Fair and Legal versus the Lewis Dollar Dockham plan, is it fair to say in the Martin House plan, there are two whole counties? A. Yes. Q. All right. And is it fair to say that in the Lewis Dollar Dockham pian, there’s only one whole county, [285] that being Chatham County? A. Yes. Q@. In the Martin House Fair and Legal plan, Chatham and Lee are maintained as whole counties; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Now, can you explain to the Court what a “traversal” is, as far as you understand it? A. Atraversal is — MR. SPEAS: Objection, Your Honor. This is not relevant to the two issues in front of the Court. JUDGE RIDGEWAY: Overruled. A. A traversal is the crossing of a county line to connect to a portion of that county from an adjoining county. Q. All right. And can — can —- how many traversals, as you understand the term “traversal,” are found in the Lewis Dollar Dockham plan in this three county group that includes Lee County? A. Two. 1638 Q. Could you point the Court to what you consider to be a traversal? A. The traversal is the extension of District 54 into Lee County and the extension ofwell, the connection, actually, of Districts 51 and 53 across the [286] Harnett/Lee line. . Okay. So District 51 is — is — is created by a traversal of the Harnett and Lee County line; is that right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Can— when you look at the Martin House Fair and Legal plan, how many traversals are there in this county grouping? A. Two. Q. Could you explain to the Court what you believe to be the traversals in this? A. Again, there’s the traversal of District 56, I believe; am I seeing that clearly? Q@. That’s— that’s correct. A. Okay. Sorry — across the Chatham/Harnett line and the traversal of District 53 across the Lee/Harnett line. Q. Sois it fair to say that there’s a same number of traversals in both of these county groups? A. Yes. Q. All right. Now, could you tell the Court the instructions that you received in terms of drawing the districts in the — the three county group including Lee County in the Lewis Dollar Dockham plan? 1639 A. Well, first of all, we’re going to draw a [287] district wholly within Harnett County. And next — Q@. Excuse me. You're going to do what? I didn’t hear you. A. An entire district within — Q. Okay. A. — Harnett County. Q@. Okay. A. And — and, secondly, Chatham County was to remain whole. We — we surmised that District 54 was going to be a Democratic district. And, also, we were mindful of — of the fact that the then Speaker of the House had a residence in Chatham County and was also doubled up — or the term they use in North Carolina is “double bunked” — in — in Orange County, and we felt that that should be made into a — a stronger Democratic district, so we reached down into Lee County to find Democrats for the Chatham County district. Q. All right. Now, could you please turn to Defendants’ Tab 4, Defendants’ Trial Exhibit 4? Can you tell the Court what that is? A. That is a map of the Lee County portion of — of District 54 and also a part of the — of District 51 in Lee County — County. Excuse me. It shows the 54th in yellow, the 51st in pink. It shows also the VTD boundaries of Lee County. It actually could have shown [288] the boundaries of the portion in Chatham, too, but it probably is all in one VTD. Q. All right. Dr. Hofeller, do you see that big white notebook that’s up there, up next to you? Could you turn to Plaintiffs Exhibit 7? 1640 A. Yes. Q. Now, do you know what that exhibit represents? MR. FARR: May I approach, Your Honor, to make gure — JUDGE RIDGEWAY: Yes, sir. MR. FARR: he’s got the right one? Q. That’s it. A. Yeah, I have it. Q. Okay. A. Im sorry. Q. Does that — does that exhibit show the precinct —the VTD lines in Lee County? A. It shows a portion of Lee County, a little less detailed than the map we just looked at. It shows the VTD lines shaded in heavy blue, the district boundary in red, and looks at, I believe, the percentages of — of black VAP I don’t know whether that’s 18 year old or just total population — in each of the VTDs. Q. Well, and my question is: Does it show the VTD lines? [289] A. It does show the VTD lines. I’m sorry. Q. And do you know how many VTDs there are in Lee County? A. I believe there are five. Q. And how would you describe them? A. And they’re — they’re extremely large VTDs, even by North Carolina standards which has unusually large precincts as compared to a lot of them 1641 across the nation. I believe one of the — the VTDs is over 18,000 population, which is very, very high, which would give anybody drawing any type of district within that county a difficult time following VTD boundaries. Q. Ail right. Now, how many — how many VTDs include the City of Sanford in Lee County? A. I actually believe that all of them touch a portion of Sanford, although one of them is just a very, very, very small piece. So certainly four of them go through the City of Sanford. Q. Okay. And so that if —if you included the entire City of Sanford in a district, that would split four or five VTDs by doing that, correct? A. Yes. Q. All right. Now, I want you to turn back to our Exhibit 5 — it’s 4. So let me know when you have that, Dr. Hofeller. {[290) A. I have it. Q. All right. I want you — I want you to focus on part of this exhibit that shows how District 54 was drawn into Lee County, and I wanted to ask you: How did you come to make this draw for House District 54? A. Well, once again, as I said before, the idea was to find highly Democratic portions of Lee County to include in District 54 because District 4 was intended to be drawn as a Democratic district. So trying to find that out, I — as in many cases in these maps — was instructed by local knowledge of these areas and was essentially told that the strong Democratic MR. SPEAS: Objection. Clearly hearsay. 1642 JUDGE RIDGEWAY: Im going to allow it as the basis of this expert’s opinion on this matter. Go ahead, Mr. Farr. MR. FARR: Thank you, sir. A. Im sorry. I Q. What — what — what — A. That the Democratic — the highly Democratic areas of Sanford were found in the central portion of the city. Q. Okay. Now, what the Court has allowed you to testify on, Dr. Hofeller, is: Explain why you drew these lines and why you thought these were the Democratic areas [291] of Sanford. A. Because the — the people who were sitting by me when I drew the map told me that those were the highly Democratic areas. Q@. Okay. And did the large size of the VTDs render it impossible to determine where the Democratic voters resided simply by relying on VTDs? A. Yes. Q. Okay. When you drew this map, did you have any racial data up on your screen? A. No. Q. Did you get any instructions from any of the — or from Representative Lewis or anyone else that you should consider racial data in drawing this district? A. No. MR. FARR: All right. I have one more question, Your Honors, that I overlooked. MR. PETERS: We have a couple more. 1643 @. Could you turn to in our black exhibit notebook Tab 5? Can you tell the Court what this is, Exhibit 5? A. Exhibit 5 is a detailed — more detailed map of Rucho Lewis Congress 3 District 4, the Congressional ~ 4th Congressional District in the enacted plan showing the 4th District and the surrounding district in colored shading ~— which would actually be a thematic — and [292] county lines and VTD lines in a rather thin red line and major, major roads with VTD numbers on the VTDs. Q. All right. Now, could you turn to Tab 7? A. Yes. Q. And did you did you prepare this exhibit, Dr. Hofeller? A. I did. @. And could you tell the Court what this is? A. This is a — a — a — a map of the Stein 13" Congressional! District shaded in red. @. And did you have a ~ a diagonal line drawn on this particular map? A. Yes. @. And what’s the purpose of — of that line? A. It shows the boundary — the boundary line that — the farthest reach of the district. Q. And, Dr. Hofeller, is it your understanding when you say the “Stein 13th Congressional! District,” is that also known as the 2011 Fair and Legal Congressional plan? A. Yes. Q. All right. 1644 JUDGE RIDGEWAY: Mr. Farr, if you’re going to begin with a new district, we're going to take a break before you do that. Are you finishing up with a district (293] already talked about or are you about to change? MR. FARR: I just have one more exhibit to talk about. JUDGE RIDGEWAY: Okay. Go ahead. MR. FARR: It should take five minutes or less, then ll be finished. BY MR. FARR: Q. Okay. Could you turn to the Plaintiffs’ white exhibit notebook and turn to Tab 9? Now, have you — have you seen this exhibit before, Dr. Hofeller? A. Yes. Q. And do you understand this is an exhibit that has been prepared by a witness for the Plaintiffs named Chris Ketchie? A. Yes. Q. Can -—can you again tell us what the goals were for the Legislature in creating the enacted District 4? There were two goals. A. Well, again, the goal was to draw the — the most Democratic district that could be drawn for District 4 to make the surrounding districts better for Republi- can candidates. Q. All right. And — and in looking at Exhibit Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9, can you offer an opinion as to whether if the Legislature had enacted this district they [294] would have accomplished both of the goals that they gave you for drawing the enacted District 4? A. No. 1645 Q. And why — why can’t you render an opinion on that? A. Well, I mean, there — there are two reasons. One, I — I know that — that the District 4 as enacted was the — the best configuration that we could find. And, number two, this map is just one district in both cases. So you have to place a district in context in the whole plan and the goals of the whole plan when you look at it. This — this often happens in redistricting when people — members, public — many people submit a map and say “This is what I want this single district to look like” without either showing or having taken into consideration the way that district would fit into the rest of the state. @. So in looking at Exhibit 9, can you form an opinion on whether this variation in District 4 would have the same impact as the enacted District 4 of making adjoining districts more competitive for Republican candidates? A. Well, it would change — it would have changed the entire complexion of much of the map, and it certainly wouldn’t have been a configuration that would [295) have been approved by the General Assembly. Q. And, also, do you see that Durham is included in this configuration? A. Yes. Q@. And what district was Durham included in in the enacted plan? A. Much of it was included — I don’t know whether it was all or much of it. I would have to look in — in District 1. 1646 MR. FARR: All right. That’s all I have for now, Your Honor. JUDGE RIDGEWAY: All right. We'll go ahead and take a recess until 11 o’clock. That’s about 18 minutes from now. (Court was in recess from 10:44 a.m. to 11:02 a.m.) JUDGE RIDGEWAY: All right. Welcome back. It’s my understanding Defendant has no further questions for this witness for the Defense. All right. For the Plaintiff, cross examination? MR. SPEAS: Thank you, Your Honors. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SPEAS: Q. Good morning, Dr. Hofeller. ’m Eddie Speas. We've met many times over the years, and I look forward [296] to talking to you a little bit this morning about your testimony. I want to clear up a few things to begin with. You were not actually retained by the Legislature in this case. You were retained by Mr. Fart’s law firm. Is that correct? A. Yes. I believe I said that, actually. Q. And you have testified that you received instructions from the General Assembly with regard to drawing plans. I want to follow up on that. Actually, with regard to drawing the Senate plans, you received instructions only from Senator Rucho; is that correct? A. 1 don’t rightly recall if — if Il received any other comments that I would consider instructional, but he 1647 was the Chairman of the Senate Committee and hisit was his job to have the final word. Q@. And you — he is the person to whom you looked to gain your instructions with regard to the Senate plan. A. Yes. Q. And to the best of your memory, he’s the sole source of instructions to you in drawing the Senate plan. A. Once again, it’s been two years, so I can’t say that with abso]ute accuracy. Q. But you do not recall any other instruction any instructions from any other member of the Senate as [297] we speak sitting here this morning. A. If by “instructions” you mean any comments Q. No. A. 1-~- 1 would say that — once again, I would say my testimony is that — that Senator Rucho was the final word. @. Okay. And he’s the person who gave you instructions. A. The policy instructions, yes. Q@. And he’s the only person who gave you instructions. A. Well, again, I — it’s been two years, so I don’t — Q. Well, let’s distinguish between “comments” and “instructions.” I’m sure there were a lot of comments. I’m talking about who told you how to draw districts. That was Senator Rucho and Senator Rucho alone, correct? 1648 A. That’s my memory, yes. Q. Okay. Now, let’s talk about the House plan a minute. You said you received instructions from the General Assembly. In fact, the only instructions you received were from Representative David Lewis with respect to the House; is that correct? A. He was certainly the primary giver of instructions. At some point, I had input from other [298] members; but he had the last word. Q. And as you sit here this morning, you do not recall any other member of the House giving you any instructions with regard to the House plan. A. Certainly in terms of the policy, the general policy of how it was to be drawn. Q@. Okay. And with regard to the Congressional plan, your instructions were from Senator Rucho and Representative Lewis jointly with regard to the drawing of that plan, correct? A. To the best of my recollection, yes. Q@. And no other members of the House or Senate gave you instructions with regarding the — the instruction of the Congressional plan other than Senator Rucho and Representative Lewis, to the best of your memory. A. Again, I'd have to characterize it by saying Senator Rucho and Representative Lewis had the final word on what was going to go forward or not go forward. Q. And as between Senator Rucho and Representa- tive Lewis, Senator Lucho — Rucho was the lead source of instructions for you with regard to the Congres- sional plan. 1649 A. I don’t really know that I can make that judgment one way or the other. [299] Q. You had more contact with Senator Rucho regarding the Congressional plan than Representative Lewis. A. If 1 did, it was more; but it was certainly not overarching. @. Now, you were — you, in fact, have said in earlier testimony in this case that it’s fair to describe you as the chief architect of all three plans, correct? A. That’s one way you could put it, yes. Q. You don’t disagree with that today. A. Well, as I would define “architect,” yes. Q. Now, let me talk just a minute about the order in which you drew the plans. Your first focus was the House plan, your next focus was the Senate plan, and your final focus was the Congressional plan — is that correct — of your map drawing efforts? A. Yes. Could I make a comment on the last question? @. Please. Please. A. Okay.I think | described “architect” in the context of an architect building a house. And the client tells them how they want the house built; the architect engineers the House. But now to answer your question, 1 think I’m going to have to ask you to repeat it again. I’m sorry. [300] @. Okay. If I can remember it. That’s the problem. But with regard to the order in which you drew the plans, you drew that — your focus — first focus was the House plan, your next focus was the Senate 1650 plan, and then you focused on the Congressional plan. i. that — is that accurate? A. I-—Idon’t think that’s really precisely accurate. Q. Okay. Help me understand why it’s not accurate. A. Well, the — the three plans were not drawn consecutively. Q. Okay. A. We did not finish the House plan and then say, “Oh, ah ha, let’s draw a Senate map now”; and, “Oh, that’s done, so let’s focus on the Congressional! plan.” If you have redistricting experience in this setting where the state Legislature is drawing three maps, because there are 120 districts in the House plan — always a larger number of House districts than Senate districts in any state — and then the next number of districts in the Senate and then finally the fewest number in Congress — of course, unless you’re in California where they have less State Senate districts than House districts, if you can believe that — the [301] complexities are actually much more difficult with the larger number of districts. Q. Sure. A. There are more moving parts, so to speak. Q. Absolutely. A. So Im not wanting to give the Court the idea that they were being drawn one after the other. All three were going on together. But I had to put the greatest emphasis on the House map. 1651 Q. And that’s because it’s the most complicated because it’s got the most districts and it has the most moving parts. A. That’s correct. Q. Okay. Now, and it would take the most effort. So, logically, it makes sense to start with the project that’s going to take the most effort first; is that correct? A. Well, that makes sense to me. It might not make sense to others because, of course, each — each group of people think their plan is more important than the other plan. Q. I-I-I- A. You have to deal with that, too. Q. I-JI understand that completely. A. You’ve been there, I’m sure. {302} Q. Now, your prior testimony in this case was the first thing you did was to get the data organized. And then you started your map drawing, and you started that right after receipt of the census data. Do — is my memory correct? Is it A. I think it is, yes. Q. Okay. A. Ido that in a lot of states because I’m wanting to know what’s possible. Q. And the census data was received, I believe, on March 22nd, 2011. Is that consistent with your memory? A. That seems right to me. Q. Okay. 1652 A. It’s one of the — nearly the end of the — Q. Okay. A. — the period which the PL94 tapes were being distributed by the Census Bureau. Q@. Okay. And let me ask this: I know you've done a lot of map drawing and you've done a lot of map drawing for a lot of years. Have you ever had the assignment of — to draw the House and the Senate and the Congressional plans for any state? A. No. I don’t think so, actually. Q. Soin some sense A. Not that I can remember, again. (303) Q. I understand. A. I’ve drawn a lot of states in a lot of plans in a lot of decades. Q. But as you're sitting here today, you would have to say this North Carolina project that you undertook was the biggest project you ever had. A. You could characterize it that way, yes. Q. Okay. A. Ihad a lot more experience under my belt when I started it than I had maybe in other states. Q. I understand. Now, Dr. Hofeller, you did not draw these plans at the Legislative Building, did you? A. No. Q. None of the plans at the Legislative Building. A. That’s correct. 1653 Q. You drew them, you testified at your deposition, in three places. One was just over here on Hillsborough Street at the Republican Headquarters. The other was at the Republican National Committee Headquarters in Washington, DC. And then you said you drew some of them while you were traveling on the plane and the train. Is that an accurate description of where you drew these plans? A. Yes. Id add that there were outside locations [304] where I might have drawn the plans because thev were on my computer, so... Q@. Now, on direct examination, you indicated at one point that there were people sitting with you as you were drawing the districts. I want to talk about that just a minute. is it accurate that your two principal assistants in drawing these plans were Mr. Dale Oldham and Mr. John Morgan? A. No. 1 would be in trouble immediately if I got down off the witness stand and characterized Mr. Oldham as my “assistant.” He’s my counsel. Q. Okay. A. Okay. Please. Q. Okay. But Mr. Oldham — Mr. Oldham was your counsel in drawing these districts. A. He was extremely interested in what was going on in the district. Mr. Morgan, I believe — although ’'m not privy to it — was retained by the General Assembly, again, I believe, to assist in the Senate map. @. And Mr. Morgan is — I’m sorry — Mr. Oldham is a lawyer. A. Yes. 1654 Q. He’s not licensed in North Carolina, is he? A. You know, I don’t rightly know. I — it’s not [305] my business. Q. And he’s your business partner, right? A. Helis. Q. And yall have got a business that’s located down in South Carolina, I believe. A. That’s his — his home address, yes. Q. Okay. And Mr. Morgan is a demographer; is that right? A. Well, I don’t know how he characterizes himself. I think he does a lot of — of campaign work and he’s also a — a experienced redistricting plan drafter. Q. That — and I don’t mean this in a pejorative sense, but he was one of your assistants when you were drawing these maps. He was one of the people sitting with you when you drew these maps. A. Well, I think for the most part he was more drawing himself independently. Q. Okay. Now, you testified at your deposition that you were the consultant for the Republican National Committee and for redistricting for the 1990s, the 2000 and the 2010 series of redistricting cycles; is that correct? A. Im thinking back here. I believe in the ‘90s, I was the consultant to the — let’s see here — the [306] National Republican Congressional Committee, not the Republican National Committee. They are different. Q. But it’s fair to say that since the 19 — since 1990 or so, you have been retained in one capacity or 1655 another to draw districts or advise with regard to redistricting for the Republican National Committee. A. Yes. @. And Mr. Oldham and Mr. Morgan also have an association with the Republican National Committee, correct? A. They do, but 1—1 don’t really remember in 2010 whether or not Mr. Morgan actually had any contracts with the Republican National Committee in this cycle, so I'm not really privy to who retained him to do what. He does a lot of independent redistricting work on his own. Mr. Oldham also has a lot of other legal interests and does a lot more work for various clients throughout the country. Q. And was A. You’d really have to ask him. Q. Yeah. Was Mr. Oldham advising you about legal matters? A. Mr. Oldham and | have discussed many times redistricting in many different instances. Of course, part of his job and my job is to follow the redistricting {307} process across the whole nation, which is very interesting, I might add. Q. I’m-—TIm sure it is. I have no doubt. Did — let ~ well, let me — let me withdraw that question. When you were qualified to testify today, Mr. Farr asked you the question whether you know a lot about North Carolina demographics. Did — did — do I remember that correctly? 1656 A. Idon’t remember precisely what he asked me. I _ you — I think the record would speak for itself. Q. And let me just explore that for a minute. You've been to North Carolina before with redistricting and you know a lot about election data and you know a lot about lines on charts, but you don’t know much about North Carolina people and places, do you, Dr. Hofeller? A. I-—I think you would have to put that in a little more context for me. Q. Have you ever been to Yadkin County where I grew up? A. No. Q. Have you ever been to New Hanover County? A. No. Q. Do you know where it is? [308] A. Yes. Q. Where? A. It’s Wilmington. Q@. Okay. Have you ever been to Ashe County? A. Yes Q. Have you ever been to Wilson County? A. Yes, I have. Q. Ah. Well, when did you go? A. Well, actually, I have driven through there and I’ve gone through there on — on the train. Q. You went — you were on 95? A. OrIwas on Amtrak. 1657 And you didn’t get off the train, I guess. No, I didn’t. Okay. Might have stopped at the rest stop? I don’t believe there — well, there wasn’t time for a rest stop. Pr Ope Q. Is that about all you know about Wilson County, Dr. Hofeller? A. Yes. Inthe context that you asked me. Q. Okay. Now, let’s —let’s go back for just a minute to your source of instructions. Those instructions about the policy decisions, we'll call them, to use your term, came from Senator Rucho and Representative Lewis for all three plans. [309] Now, my question is this: Those instructions were oral, correct? A. Yes. Q. While you were drawing the maps, the instructions were oral, correct? A. Well, there were also some documents, policy documents that had been produced which I was familiar with. @. And — and do those A. Let me Q. Im sorry for interrupting. A. Let me continue, okay? As the maps were unfolded, the — the — the chairmen were very interested in monitoring the process and they would look frequently at what was being drawn and the state of the completion and the plan at various times. And they would comment on the plans, which it 1658 was my job to be very aware of and to take special notice of. Q. I — I have no doubt that they gave you instructions. But my question is: Those instructions were oral, weren't they? A. Yes. Q. They were — you did not receive any written instructions with regard to how to draw these districts [310] in any of the three plans from either Senator Rucho or Representative Lewis, correct? A. There — there were not specific written instructions given directly to me, but there were policy statements that were publicly issued by the committees which I read and took note of. Q. Okay. A. And I certainly would have been cognizant of that as being part of the mandate. Q. There is no memo or other document in written form anywhere that is addressed to Dr. Thomas Hofeller and signed either by Senator Rucho or Representative Lewis that says, Dr. Hofeller, we want you to draw these maps this way. There’s no such document. A. Not to my knowledge or recollection. Q. And you, in fact, had an agreement with Senator Rucho and Representative Lewis you wouldn't e mail each other, didn’t you? A. My general advice to anybody in life, including redistricting, is the less you say on the Internet, the better off you are. 1659 Q. Okay. A. So it would not be my practice to send those in e mail fashion. Q. I—I1-—TIm not questioning the soundness. [311] I’m just questioning the fact. A. Yes. Q. There were no e mail communications. A. Well, I gave you all the e mail communications that there were. Q. Okay. Okay. Now, at one point after the plans were made public for the first time, Senator Rucho and Representative Lewis did release public statements, correct? A. Yes. Q@. And — and you are aware that A. And I believe they — they issued public statements at the time several plans were released. Q. Okay. And you're aware that they described those as the criteria that they wanted you to apply in drawing these districts, correct? A. Yes. You know, it’s been two years, again. I don’t — don’t remember exactly specifically what was are in those statements. Q. But — but and — and it — it’s your memory this morning that there were public statements in those. A. Absolutely. Q@. Okay. And those were intended to describe the reasoning, the rationale, the policy decisions that Senator Rucho — [312] A. I believe there was — 1660 Q. Let me finish my question, Dr. Hofeller. A. Im sorry. Q. that doctor - that Senator Rucho and Representative Lewis were following or directing you when they were drawing the plans, correct? A. Well, it would be my understanding that when they released those statements, they were trying to explain to the public what was the policy and rationale behind the plans. They weren’t written for me. They were written for the public. Q. lunderstand. A. Okay. Q. You — you reviewed those public statements before they were released, though, I believe. A. I don’t recall that I did, no. Q. Okay. Now, you talked a little bit about what information you had as you were drawing your districts. I want to follow up on that just a little bit. Now, you never conferred with anybody living in any of these districts as you were drawing the districts, did you? A. Im sorry. J don’t understand what you mean by “these districts.” Q. Okay. Did you — do you remember going to Wake [313] County and asking anybody in Wake County about the House or Senate districts you were drawing in Wake County? A. Okay.1—Ibelieve again, I — I don’t quite understand the context of your first question. 1661 Q. Okay. Well, I'm sorry. ’m — A. Im trying to be accurate here. Q. I- A. Okay. Q. And I appreciate that and let — my obligation is to be clear, so let me try. I would think that if you were drawing a district that you would want to hear from the people in the area where the district is located before you draw the district. And — and my question is: Did you go out and talk with people in the — any of these districts before you started drawing them? A. Well, first of all, I think it’s inaccurate to infer what my — my desire would be by that question. That question assumes a predicate that isn’t true. There were public hearings that were held by the committees across the state, and that was part of the division of labor involved in bringing a plan to completion. The political leaders would go out and consult — excuse me — with the general public. They would get the comments. They would be informed by the [314] comments and they would come back and they would then comment on it. That was not my job, nor was it proper for me to go out on my own. And, oh, by the way, I wouldn’t have had time to do it anyway. Q@. Okay. A. This is a very long and complex process, and just getting done what I got done was a big challenge. Q. I-—Idon’t doubt that. But what I —I simply want to know is this: No matter how big this was, no matter 1662 how little time you had, you didn’t go out and talk to anybody in any of these districts when you were drawing them, correct? A. I didn’t go out to the general public, that’s correct. Q. Now, you referenced the public hearings and there were public hearings. Did you attend any public hearings? A. No. Q. Did you — they did transcripts of all those public hearings, every one of them. Did you read any of those transcripts? A. If I did, it would have only been a small portion of them. Again, I don’t Q. So all of your information as you were drawing these maps about what people were saying in North [315] Carolina about these districts you were drawing was filtered through Senator Rucho and Representa- tive Lewis. You didn’t hear directly from anybody about these maps, did you? A. Atleast for the most part, yes. Q. Now, you didn’t go to any legislative committee meetings either, did you? A. No. Except I walked through one once, as I — I believe I said in my deposition. But didn’t you But | didn’t stop. Sort of like the train down in Wilson County. POP & I mean, not that massive. 1663 Q. Okay. But you didn’t read the transcripts of those legislative committee meetings. A. No. @. Okay. Now, I want to talk to you a little bit more about your — how you and — and Senator Rucho and Representative Lewis did your work. So would they draw sample districts and come to you and say, Dr. Hofeller, what do you think about this? Or would you draw districts — sample districts and go to them? MR. FARR: Your Honor, may I just state an objection for the Court to consider as we’re going [316] forward? This trial was supposed to be on specific topics, and we seem to be going far afield from the areas of inquiry that the Court asked the — the parties to put evidence on. And I would just ask that there be some limit to this general inquiry, which is an — and the reason, Your Honor, is why we have great concerns about the limited scope of this trial. JUDGE RIDGEWAY: | believe the objection will be overruled. I — I am trusting Mr. Speas will tie it together in — into — into the relevancy related to the specific issues of this bifurcated procedure. MR. SPEAS: Yes, Your Honor. | think it’s important to understand the context in which these maps were drawn. The question here is whether they were narrowly tailored. And we have the mapmaker here, and it just seemed I — I — my — my intent is simply to find out what it was he had in front of him when he was doing it. JUDGE RIDGEWAY: Yes. The _ objection is overruled. BY MR. SPEAS: 1664 Q. Let -- let me pursue what you — what you had in front of you. MR. SPEAS: You made reference — and if I may approach, Your Honors, I’m going to ask the witness (317] about a document previously — my goodness. MR. FARR: Your Honor, I would like to state an objection. This is not the entire exhibit. There are quite a few pages that are not included in this exhibit. MR. SPEAS: That is accurate, Your Honor. There are some appendices that I did not include because of the — I mean, I can postpone asking him about this exhibit, if you would prefer, until I get the entire document. They are appendices that are not related to the questions. JUDGE RIDGEWAY: Well, let’s do this. Under Rule 106 of the Rules of Evidence, if there are provisions of this document that ought — in fairness ought to be provided to the Court at this time, then at the conclusion of your discussion about this exhibit, if the Defense wishes to have additional portions either added to the record, we'll certainly hear about that. MR. FARR: My only concern, Your Honor, what if there is something in this exhibit that would relate to the witness’s ability to respond to the question? JUDGE RIDGEWAY: Again, Rule 106, in the event that there are portions of this document that ought in fairness ought to be provided, then we'll [318) allow the Defense to — to supplement the record. BY MR. SPEAS: @. Dr. Hofeller, I just want to ask you a couple of general questions about that document. 1665 You mentioned in your testimony a few minutes ago that you were aware of policy statements that had been made by the Legislature as you began your task of drawing districts. Am J correct? A. Yes. q. And is the document in front of you, the Legislators’ Guide, the document to which you have reference? A. One of them, yes. Q. Okay. A. This was a — this was a — a document which | believe was also published in previous redistrictings by the General Assembly when the Democrats were in control of the redistricting process and | believe was updated by the — the General Assembly staff for the current redistricting cycle. Q@. But that is one of the documents that did reflect the guidance that you received from the Legislature as you were — from the Legislature as you were doing your work, correct? A. Yes. Iread the document. [319] Q@. And would you for the record simply state the number of that exhibit. I don’t think that’s been done. A. I believe it says, “46E Churchill.” Okay. 3 20 12. That’s correct. Okay. Wow. Pr OP f& 1666 Q. Now, if you would look just briefly at the document, Dr. Hofeller, is it true that that document does describe, among other things, the legal parame- ters of Gingles claims under the Voting Rights Act? MR. FARR: Your Honor, objection. A. You know, I haven’t read this document for two years. JUDGE RIDGEWAY: Hold on. Hold on. Let me rule on the objection. THE WITNESS: I’m sorry. Your Honor, I apologize. JUDGE RIDGEWAY: Overruled. Go ahead. You may answer. THE WITNESS: I’m sorry. JUDGE RIDGEWAY: That’s fine. A. Ihaven’t read this document for two years, so — MR. SPEAS: Well, may I approach the [320] witness A. Id have to MR. PETERS: — Your Honor? JUDGE RIDGEWAY: Well, let him finish. And, yes, sir. Q. All right. All right. A. And I — I would have to review it both specifically as to what you’re going to ask and in its entirety to make a complete evaluation of it. Q@. Okay. My question my first question is whether or not there is a section of that document that talks about the elements of a Gingles claim. ’'m not asking you to say whether it’s accurate or not. I’m just asking you whether it’s there. 1667 A. Well, I see that on page 5, it —it mentions Thorn v. Thornberg v. Gingles, so it is in the document. @. And this is one of the documents that you read in doing your work. A. Yes. MR. SPEAS: Now, Your Honors, if I may distribute another set of documents, hopefully, this will be more efficient. @. Dr. Hofeller, ['ve put in front of you a set of documents that have previously been identified as [321] exhibits in this case. And for — let me just say initially it is Exhibits 81, 82, 83, 93, and 94 from the deposition of Erica Churchhouse ~ Churchill on March 20, 2012. Dr. Hofeller, if you would — 1 want to ask you the same question about each of those documents. Is that a document that you had available to you as you were deciding how to draw districts? MR. FARR: Objection. A. Again, I haven’t seen these documents — JUDGE RIDGEWAY: Hold on. Hold on. JUDGE HINTON: Hold on a second. MR. FARR: And, Your Honor, my objection is how he was deciding to draw the districts. JUDGE RIDGEWAY: So sustained as to form. MR. SPEAS: Okay. All right. I apologize for that. BY MR. SPEAS: Q. Dr. Hofeller, are — my question to you with regard to these exhibits is whether these exhibits are 1668 documents you had before you as you were drawing districts. A. I guess my answer would have to be to you: I have to look at the documents before I can tell you that. Q. Would you take a minute to do that. [322] (Pause.) A. Im sorry. I just — Q. No. No. Take your time, please. A. The data that are contained in these documents in some cases would be contained in the dataset that was compiled by the legislative staff for use in the redistricting process, specifically to be a part of the GIS system that was incorporated into Maptitude to be available on multiple levels of geography for redistricting line drawing processes. So to that extent, there’s a relationship. Also, one might in the case of two of the documents Exhibit 83, I believe, and 82 — would be the basis for making a determination on more extensive data collection, which would need to be made primarily in order to do racial polarization studies. @. So these documents would be relevant to questions of determinations of Section 2 obligations of the General Assembly. A. That’s your statement. Is — yes, it is. Okay. Is that correct? ee 1669 A. I-Ithink that the largest determination would be as mandated in Stephenson as a first step to the 1323] redistricting process would be to make a demographic analysis of the state to determine where the demographics should lead you for legal conformance with Stephenson and the Voting Rights Act. Q. And that’s a nice transition to my next question. I ~I want to ask Dr. Hofeller about another document previously introduced. Dr. Hofeller, Exhibit 436 to your deposition on June 28th, 2012, is called a “Carolina Proportionality Chart.” Do you recognize that as a document you prepared? A. Yes. Although I haven’t seen it, again, for quite some time. @. And you testified earlier that you put together this document in March of 2002.Is that your memory today? A. That makes sense, yes. That — this document could not have been done before the redistricting data file had been released by the United States Census Bureau. @. Okay. And is it correct that this district this chart shows the number of African Americans who would need to be elected to State House and State Senate districts in order for African Americans to be said to have exact proportionality in those legislative bodies? [324] A. I don’t think I would characterize it that way at all. Q. Well, could you — could you tell me what it shows then? 1670 A. This shows nothing more than if you multiplied the number of districts in each chamber of the General Assembly by the percentage of, first, 18 plus any part black which we now call “Total Black” in the charts and — and in the last four columns, “Single Race” which is also a category that is in the Census Bureau times their percentage of the State’s population, it would yield a proportional number of seats. And then it said — which kind of goes without staying — if you truncated the result up or down, the result of the seats. Q. Okay. A. That’s all it says at this point. Q. Okay. And — and did you prepare this chart at the request of Senator Rucho or Representative Lewis? A. I don’t really remember. I have to be honest. Q. And do you remember that one of the policy decisions they made was that you should make an effort to achieve proportionality for African American citizens as you were drawing districts? MR. FARR: Objection to the form. A. I- [325] JUDGE RIDGEWAY: Hold on just a second. (Judge Ridgeway, Judge Hinton and Judge Crosswhite confer. JUDGE RIDGEWAY: All right. We're going to sustain the objection on the grounds of relevancy. The ~ the issue — there are two issues, and those relating to Voting Rights Act districts are whether they were drawn in a place where a remedy or potential remedy of racial polarized voting was reasonable for the purposes of preclearance or protection. 1671 The questions that I’m hearing now relate to the number, which is not — which is a different issue than the place. And we are specifically interested in the geographic placement of Voting Rights Act districts. With respect to the — I believe there are six non Voting Rights Act districts, that there may be broader inquiries; but — but proportion — a proportionality issue is not relevant to those six districts either. MR. SPEAS: I —I —-I appreciate that, Your Honor. It simply seemed to me that the number has a major impact on the location, and so I thought that was the reason for the questions. JUDGE RIDGEWAY: We - we -— we specifically are being very narrow in our inquiry in this [326] bifurcated proceeding specifically for the reason stated by Mr. Farr, that it would be unfair to the Defense to allow a broader inquiry when the purpose of this hearing is related to two fairly narrow issues. MR. SPEAS: Thank you, Your Honors. BY MR. SPEAS: Q@. Dr. Hofeller, directing you to the racial proportionality analysis or issue, you yourself, | believe, testified you did not do any racially polarized voting analysis; am | correct? A. I did. @. You did do one or did not? A. Youasked I believe you asked me if | testified to that. Q. Yeah. I’m sorry. Maybe my question — my — I heard I heard you say you did not perform any racially polarized voting analysis yourself. Did I mishear you? 1672 A. No, you did not mishear me. Q. So you yourself and Dr. Thomas A. Could you ask that incidentally again, because 1 think that was like a double negative? Q. Okay. Did you do any racially proportional proportionalized voting analysis yourself? A. No. Q. Thank you. [327] One of your obligations you — that you said was to ensure that the plans were legal. Is that one of your obligations to your clients? A. I think my more important role was to inform the General Assembly of what was possible and what. was not possible, and the determination as to whether or not you would — | would proceed or the plans would proceed under any certain policy was a decision made by them. Again, the — the — the demographics and and the county groupings and the populations and al] the political elements of making a plan are extremely complex and difficult. And the — the chairmen obviously could not sit through that whole process; so 1 think it was our job to, in essence, ensure that they were completely able to make informed policy choices. Q. Is one of the policy choices that Senator Rucho and Representative Lewis made to insulate the state from Section 2 liability? A. I believe it was — I believe — again, I’m not the lawyer — that they were trying to insulate themselves from any liability. 1673 Q. Did you inform the General Assembly with regard to their potential liability for Section 2 violations in each of the places where a Voting Rights district was drawn? [328] A. That was not — again, it was my — my job to queue up the facts. They would make informed decisions based on that and other information that they received. Q. Okay. In queuing up the facts, you did not do a racially polarized voting analysis yourself, correct? A. I already said I didn’t. Q. All right. They and — and the only racial that you are aware of how many racially polarized voting analyses here? A. I believe before the plan was enacted, there were two. Q. And what were they? A. Ithink one was done by Dr. Brunell and one was done by the expert for, I believe, the SCSJ or AFRAM. Q. All right. And do you know on what date Dr. Brunell completed his racially polarized voting analysis? A. No, 1 don’t believe, at this point. Q. Could it be June 14, 2011? A. Again, I don’t recall that. Q. Okay. Do you recall whether you had Dr. Brunell’s racially polarized voting analysis before you completed the draft of the VRA House and Senate districts that were released publicly? 7 1674 A. Again, I — I’m —I’m not completely sure of [329] the timeline. This has been two years. I just can’t say, and... Q. But there’s — A. I —Iwill—I would say this is what I said before, is that all my past experience in North Carolina was that there was racially polarized voting. Indeed, I believe SCSJ made that statement in a public meeting. And I know of no other study that ever said differently, so I was following — the policy decision was to proceed based on that basis. If something else came up that was — that made a policy change different, it could be reacted to. It couldn’t go the other way around. Q. Now, your — part of your duty was to queue up the information, to use your term, for the Legislature with respect to what it needed to know about Section 2 liability; is that correct? MR. FARR: Objection. JUDGE RIDGEWAY: Overruled. You may answer. A. Again, I think you’re making that more wide ranging than it was. There are — when you are drawing redistricting plans, especially when you're redrawing the whole state in the complexity we are, there are many different things you have to look at as you go along through the process. [330] My job primarily was to guide through the — the thicket of information and try and present the information in a manner that the chairmen could understand it and could visualize it, and it would be user friendly for them, I might say. And I think that’s not as wide ranging a — a job as you inferred in your question. 1675 Q. Well, you were reading more into my question than I intended. I would like for you to describe for the Court the information that you presented to Representative Lewis and Senator Rucho relevant to this Section 2 liability question. What did you give them? A. Again, I gave them the information they needed on all the minority districts what was possible, where they could be drawn so that they could make an informed judgment as to how they wished to proceed. Q. Okay. And what information did they need to make that decision? A. They needed to know where the minority population was located ~— in — in what places, in - in what areas of the state — what the possibilities were of districts that could be drawn, and what the possible levels of — of the demographics of all the segments of the population were. [331] Q@. And would they need, also, to know about the degree to which African American candidates had been elected from districts? A. It — that’s really not my job to make that determination. Q. Okay. So that was not information you gave Senator Rucho and Representative Lewis? A. No. Q. Now, you testified, I believe, that you thought there was racially polarized voting in North Carolina. A. All my prior experience in this state and everything that I had heard would have led me to that conclusion. 1676 Q. You testified in the Shaw case, | believe. A. I did. Q. And were you asked in the Shaw case about the presence of racially polarized voting in North Carolina? A. Shaw was a long time ago, so... Q. So you don’t remember. A. I don’t remember my testimony. | do — yes. Okay. Q@. Let me show you — whoops. Dr. Hofeller, in your dep — in your testimony from the Shaw case — I have the full transcript here if you want to look at it. But I put in front of you — I’m [332] sorry. It was your deposition in the Shaw versus James Hunt on Wednesday, December 8, 1993, at the Law Offices of Maupin, Taylor & Ellis in Raleigh, North Carolina. I have included the pages that show the counsel who were present. And I would ask you, if you would, please, to turn to the bottom of page 231 and ask you to read beginning at line 23 on 231 — no, no. I’m sorry. T have — I have directed you to the wrong place. If you would read — if you would go to page 233, Dr. Hofeller, and look at line 3. And were you then asked the question: Did you begin today with an opinion about whether or not there exists racially polarized voting in North Carolina? Your answer was: Yes. Do you see that? A. Yes, my answer was “Yes.” Q. Okay. And then you were asked:What is your opinion? And you say your opinion is that racially 1677 polarized does — voting does exist. And then you were asked: And is it your opinion that it exists at the level! as required to be shown under the Gingiles standard? And you said — what? I think it would vary -— probably vary from area to area in the state. Is that correct? A. Yes. [333} Q. And was it your opinion in 1993 that racial racially polarized voting in North Carolina varied from place to place? A. Yes. Q@. Was that — was that your opinion in 2011? A. I think that it would be mathematically impossible and unexpected to believe that the level of polarized voting would be absolutely homogeneous throughout the whole state. Q. And A. That would be a foolish statement. @. Okay. And did you go on to testify at this deposition in 1993 that you thought racially polarized voting probably didn’t exist in the Ral [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0661%3A09. Public record. Not legal advice.