UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERM DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

CHARLOTTE DIVISION

CEDRIC DEAN,
and
CHARLENE HENDERSON El, COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND
Pro Se Plaintiffs, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

v. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

REQUESTED

EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION
CITY OF CHARLOTTE COUNCIL
Defendant.
 INTRODUCTION

1. As the 2020 U.S. Census results demonstrate, Mecklenburg County has

experienced significant population shifts and growth during the past decade. These changes have

caused the City of Charlotte to produce three unconstitutional MAPS. This suit is being filed, Pro

Se, by CEDRIC DEAN, and Charlene Henderson El similarly situated residents of District 4

whom stand in the face of racial discrimination from The City of Charlotte in redrawing the lines

that compromise the character and preservation and history of the residents of District 4 and

Hidden Valley. We believe in voters choosing our politicians rather than politicians choosing their

voters. We believe GERRYMANDERING is a national problem on both sides of the political

spectrum. Electoral districts should be formed in a fair and open process in the best interest of all

our residents, especially in Precincts 42 and 82.

2. Yet the City of Charlotte (“City”) has concocted a voter disenfranchisement

scheme that will violate the Constitutional Rights of the residents of District 4.

3. The City has the constitutional duty and privilege of redrawing Charlotte’s districts

every ten years, following the completion of the decennial census and release of data by the U.S.

Census Bureau. In doing so, the City must ensure equal representation for all Charlotte. Meeting

this obligation, in part, requires that city districts have equal population, and that City districts

have roughly equal population. Otherwise, some people will have too little voice, and others too

much. “Diluting the weight of votes because of place of residence impairs basic constitutional

rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 566 (1964).

4. To achieve equal representation while respecting existing communities and

boundaries, the U.S. Supreme Court has emphasized that redistricting requires a nuanced and

intensely local analysis. This analysis for a single district—let alone for Charlotte’s 4th district —
takes significant time. And this analysis— which is performed by the City but requires input from

members of the public, like Plaintiffs—must be completed well in advance of the next election

cycle. This is so Charlotte communities, including those that Plaintiff CEDRIC DEAN serves, and

if necessary courts can thoroughly vet the maps for compliance with constitutional and other legal

standards; (ii) candidates know where and whether they will run, qualify, and campaign for office;

(iii) interested parties like Plaintiffs can start educating and mobilizing the electorate; and (iv)

individuals like Plaintiff CEDRIC DEAN’s members and others he serves can educate

themselves on potential candidates and hold the appropriate representatives accountable at

election time.

5. As lifetime citizens of Charlotte, residents of District 4 and Hidden Valley believe

that Charlotteans’ faith in government has been shaken, and creating a fair and transparent system

of redistricting would help restore the public’s confidence. Only human beings, not corporations

and other legal entities, are persons endowed with constitutional rights, and that is why as

residents of District 4 and Hidden Valley, through a judicial fix, is asking the United States

District Court to order an injunction against the voter disenfranchisement scheme that will violate

the Constitutional Rights of the residents of District 4 and Hidden Valley. We are respectfully

requesting a Court order for an independent commission to oversee the redistricting process if

precincts of color are NOT allowed to stay in District 4.

6. The city must demonstrate that the proposed maps do not have a racially

discriminatory effect – like maps B, B(1) and C. Maps B, B(1) and C are regressive not

progressive for District 4 and Hidden Valley’s voting preference. In fact, Map A is the only map

that does not have a racially discriminatory purpose. Map A protects Precincts of Color in District

4 and Hidden Valley’s all black voting preference.

 7. The U.S. Supreme Court laid out a formula for determining which communities

need "VRA Districts." VRA districts are districts where the City must ensure that communities of

color have the power to elect their preferred candidates. The formula considers factors like the

numbers related to the demographics – but the City is legally required to consider racial

polarization in voting.

8. Voting is polarized when the political preferences of District 1 [all white] and

precincts 42 and 82 [all black] differ solely by race.

9. The State of North Carolina also has a troubling record of enacting legally

inadequate maps over the last five decades. Each cycle, it has taken significant time to resolve

issues in the courts. Therefore, the City’s decision to disregard the will of the people practically

guarantees that the City will not meet constitutional and other requirements or follow a process

that offers an opportunity for meaningful public consideration.

10. This poses an immediate problem. Right now, District 1 votes with all white

preference cohesion that will always defeat Precincts of Color (42 and 82) all black preference of

choice. The courts term this “preference polarization” and “voting power” requirements.

11. This lawsuit is exclusively about racial fairness in the distribution of political

opportunity. Polarization findings must be based on “voting preferences expressed in actual

elections,” such as the racial preferences of all black representatives of 42, 82 and the entire

District 4 – in the last 10-year census.

12. This means that, at this very moment, the people of these districts and many others

exemplified by Plaintiffs as discussed below (i) do not know whether their current representatives

will be eligible to run in their districts in the upcoming election and whether these representatives

can be held accountable at election time for the conduct and policy positions they have advocated
for while in office; (ii) cannot identify the proper persons to whom to communicate their concerns

effectively because those individuals may or may not be accountable to them in the next election;

and (iii) have no prospect of ceasing and desisting the gerrymandering in time to plan for the

upcoming election.

13. The people of Charlotte, including those represented by Plaintiffs, face a

substantial and imminent risk that constitutionally compliant district lines will not be redrawn

fairly to cure the current unconstitutional gerrymandering for the 2022 elections. The City’s

decision to disregard the will of the people during this mapmaking process renders it virtually

impossible for any maps the City may ultimately select (other than Map A) to undergo judicial

scrutiny and be deemed constitutional for the scheduled start of the 2022 election cycle.

14. For example, the statutory deadline for candidates to declare their intent to run for

City office through the party primary process is December — less than two months from now.

These candidates, and the people who would organize and vote for or against them, need to know

if the proposed Maps are constitutional before then. Individuals who seek to communicate,

campaign on behalf of, or contribute to independent candidates are particularly burdened because

independent candidates and their supporters must know in a timely manner if the Maps are

constitutional to be placed on the correct district ballot but are unable to effectively do so until the

Maps have undergone judicial scrutiny. If the Court refuses to review the Maps for compliance

with the Voting Rights Acts of 1965 and 1968, district 1 and 4 candidates and individuals who

would support them would have too little time to exhaust their legal remedies.

15. All communities of interest – that vote all black – especially District 4 and Hidden

Valley – has a federally protected constitutional right to political incorporation. Moreover, every

day without constitutional maps is a day in which candidates and interested persons, such as
Plaintiff CEDRIC DEAN and his fellow constituents, cannot be contacting and educating the

electorate in their districts.

16. The City’s abrupt decision to suspend the public input part of the redistricting

process is especially problematic because of North Carolina’s track record of violating the Voting

Rights Acts. This includes inevitable time for judicial review to ensure compliance with the U.S.

Constitution and Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”). VRA map requirements are mandatory,

and the City must guarantee that District 4 and Hidden Valley – a community of color – has the

power to elect candidates of color. The City’s preferred maps B and B(1) considers only one

factor – the numbers related to the demographics. The City’s preferred maps are the definitions of

denial and dilution. Maps B and B(1) are as racially polarized as they are unconstitutional.

17. The City’s decision to suppress the will of the voters renders the process not just

unfair but unnecessarily unconstitutional.

18. For decades, litigation often revealed serious deficiencies in the City’s initial maps

that only courts could fix. In almost all of the most recent redistricting cycles, federal court

intervention was necessary for North Carolina to have legally compliant maps. As the public

knows all too well, judicial intervention in the North Carolina redistricting process has been

frequently unavoidable. Given this history, the Court should make a ruling expeditiously to avoid

public, voter, and candidate confusion ahead of the declaration deadline and the 2022 primaries.

Cf. Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4-5 (2006); see also Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 570 (observing

that “[l]egislative inaction, coupled with the unavailability of any political or judicial remedy, had

resulted, with the passage of years, in the perpetuated scheme [that is, Alabama’s existing City

maps] becoming little more than an irrational anachronism”).

 19. The Plaintiffs in this case are District 4 voters.. Plaintiffs are being presently

harmed by the City’s decision to gerrymander the redistricting process, which denies them the

ability to know and influence the representatives they can hold accountable at election time or

their opponents, to associate with others in their district and advocate and organize for candidates,

and to educate the electorate and other constituents in their proper district lines.

20. For example, in the past 10 years, District 1 has voted for all white representatives,

District 4 has voted for all black representatives. If redistricted to District 1, there will be no racial

fairness whatsoever for District 4’s Precincts of Color such as Hidden Valley.

21. The Voting Rights Acts abovementioned are related entirely to racial fairness. The

City has a legal obligation under federal law to protect its citizenry from denial and dilution of our

voting rights.

22. District 4 is the only community of interest for Precincts 42 and 82, where

Henderson El resides. The voting preferences expressed in every election in the last 10-years of

the census have been all black representatives.

23. District 1’s all white voting record exempts it from being a community of interest.

Map A is the only map that protects and preserves District 4 and Hidden Valley’s all black voting

record. Map A is the only map that guarantees the federally protected constitutional right to vote

with racial fairness.

24. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court to order the City to abide by a

fair process that will allow sufficient time for public notice, input, and the resolution of any

litigation, and result in finalized, legally compliant maps well in advance of critical deadlines,

including the upcoming candidate declaration deadline. We believe this can only be achieved with

an independent commission to oversee the redistricting process. Moreover, we ask the Court to
order the City to cease and desist the voter disenfranchisement scheme that will violate the

Constitutional Rights of the residents of District 4 and Hidden Valley.

PARTIES

25. Plaintiff CEDRIC DEAN is a District 4 resident.

20. Consistent with the values set forth in the constitution, CEDRIC DEAN, seeks to

remove all barriers of racial discrimination through democratic processes and the enactment and

enforcement of federal, state, and local laws securing civil rights, including laws relating to voting

rights.

21. In this post-2020 redistricting cycle, CEDRIC DEAN’s personal liberties has been

frustrated by the City’s conduct, which has violated traditional voter education and mobilization

efforts. Further, CEDRIC DEAN has used his limited resources to advocate for electoral and

representational equality in District 4 and City maps, specifically by urging the City, by written

and verbal testimony, to comply with the Fourteenth Amendment’s one-person, one-vote mandate

and other legal requirements, and by proposing maps for its consideration.

22. Henderson’s neighborhood, Hidden Valley, has around 12,000 residents, who are

predominantly, but not exclusively people of Color.

23. Precincts 42 and 82 have voted for African American candidates in every single

election for City Council in the last census calendar. District 1 has not elected a single African

American candidate during the last census calendar.

24. The U.S. Constitution guarantees every Precinct 42 and 82 member the power to

elect their preferred candidates of color. The Voting Rights Acts of 1965 and 1968 are more

important than the numbers related to the demographical increases in District 4. The City is

legally required to protect Precincts 42 and 82’s political preferences.

 25. Voter suppression in any way whatsoever is a danger to democracy in every way.

26. Precincts 42 and 82 votes for candidates of color, and our color preference will be

suppressed by an all-white color preference in District 1. The two districts are polar opposites,

predominantly by racial political preferences.

27. Precincts 42 and 82’s opposition to Maps B and B(1) are strictly about racial

fairness in the voting rights procedural due process. Our right to elect candidates of color is

engrained in the words of WE THE PEOPLE.

28. As politicians, City leaders do not have a constitutional right to pick their voters,

but WE THE PEOPLE have the constitutional right to elect City leaders, sustained by the Voting

Rights Acts of 1965 and 1968.

29. Councilwoman Rene Johnson lost precincts 42 and 82 in the 2019 election and

refuses to stand for the will of the residents of District 4 that have expressed strong opposition to

being redistricted to District 1.

30. The current absence of a constitutionally and legally compliant redistricting Map

and the City’s apparent refusal to protect the voting rights of District 4 residents also harms

plaintiffs, because it engages in accountability and voter education efforts that are hindered by the

lack of a valid redistricting plan in the following ways:

a. Plaintiffs who desire to influence the views of their fellow residents in the City

or candidates for the City are not able to communicate their concerns

effectively because current members of the City or City candidates may not be

held accountable to those citizens as voters in the next election;

b. Potential candidates for the City will not be able to come forward and the

policy platforms those candidates advance be supported or opposed by

 Plaintiffs CEDRIC DEAN and CHARLENE HENDERSON EL until potential

candidates know the borders of the districts in which they, as residents of the

district, could seek office; and

c. Plaintiffs desire to communicate with and contribute financially to candidates

for the City who will represent them—a right guaranteed by the First

Amendment—are hindered from doing so until districts are constitutionally

apportioned.

31. Plaintiff’s residents and constituents are also harmed by the inability of candidates

to campaign effectively and provide a meaningful election choice to voters.

32. Plaintiff CHARLENE HENDERSON El is a U.S. citizen and Black, registered

voter, and resident of Charlotte. Specifically, Ms. Henderson El resides in Hidden Valley, which

supported her over Councilwoman Rene Johnson in the 2019 City primary. Ms. Henderson El and

residents of her community, who have lived in Hidden Valley for four or more generations, are

people of Color, descendants of people of Color who built precincts 42 and 82 into the most

powerful Black precincts in District 4. While living and contributing to Charlotte in a myriad of

ways, Hidden Valley residents, like Ms. Henderson El, have endured discrimination and other

harms relating to taxation, heirs’ property, land seizures, lack of business and development

opportunities, and many other issues. Ms. Henderson El plans to be a District 4 Candidate in the

upcoming elections in Charlotte, and Councilwoman Johnson is being allowed to gerrymander

Hidden Valley for not supporting Councilwoman Johnson in 2019. Ms. Henderson El seeks fairly

apportioned and constitutional redistricting Maps for District 4 before these 2022 consequential

elections so that she can communicate her platform with voters whom have concerns with the

state of Charlotte and desire to hold accountable the appropriate representatives, given the many

pressing needs facing people of Color, specifically that City officials must respond to.
 33. Defendant CITY OF CHARLOTTE is a proper defendant because the City

Council possesses the authority to approve or veto any redistricting Map proposed by the City

Council Ad Hoc Committee. Defendant City of Charlotte also has the authority to order an

independent redistricting commission to ensure a fair and balanced process for redistricting.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

34. This action arises under Article I, § 2 and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to

the U.S. Constitution.

35. This court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343,

2201, and 2202, as well as 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

37. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

38. This District Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate, and must adjudicate, this lawsuit

because Plaintiffs are challenging the constitutionality of the redistricting of Charlotte’s 1st

and 4th districts and the racial discrimination of Hidden Valley’s residents of Color.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The City of Charlotte has an obligation to protect the voting rights of the residents of Hidden
Valley.

39. The U.S. Constitution requires that members of the City be elected on an

“equipopulous basis in accordance with the results of the decennial census.” Each census

reveals inevitable malapportionment of districts, and the City has the obligation to redraw

districts with substantially equal populations.

40. All redistricting Maps must comply with both the federal and state constitutions.
 41. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

provides that states may not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due

process of law.”

42. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizens the

right to vote in state and federal elections and requires that City districts be apportioned with

substantially equal populations, giving each person equal representational access and each

voter equal electoral opportunity.

Charlotte’s current redistricting Maps B and B(1) and C are unconstitutional.

43. Precincts 42 and 82 are not a community of interest as congressionally intended.

District 4’s voting record for African American candidates have been as consistent as District

1’s voting record for White candidates.

44. Communities of interest are those that vote racially the same in every election. For

District 4, this is not about politics; it is about the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

DRAFT PLAN A

Draft Plan A demonstrates the least possible change from the current district map – moving as

few voter precincts as possible – while meeting the constitutional requirement of population

balance.

This plan moves three precincts:

 In far east Charlotte, precinct 205 would move from District 4 to District 5.

 Precinct 22 near the South End and Wilmore neighborhoods would move from District 3

to District 1.
  Precinct 77 in southwest Charlotte would move from District 3 to District 6.

Under this plan, the Republican Party maintains its advantage in District 7, but degrades its

advantage in District 6. Additionally, it puts Precinct 77 into District 6 although the precinct's

population has more in common with the population in District 3 than the population in District 6.

DRAFT PLAN B

Draft Plan B is racially discriminatory. It moves 15 precincts, primarily people of Color, along

the district borders. District 7, a primarily White District, would remain unchanged.

This map also maintains the Republican Party's historic election advantage in districts 6 and 7.

Precincts Currently in District 1:

 Precincts 1, 8, 18 and 35 would move to District 6.

 Precinct 3 would move to District 5.

Precincts Currently in District 2:

 Precinct 54 would move into District 1.

 Precinct 211 would move to District 4.

Precincts Currently in Districts 3:

 Precincts 23, 24 and 81 would move to District 2.

Precincts Currently in District 4:

 Precincts 26, 42 and 82 would move to District 1.

 Precinct 205 would move to District 5.

Precincts Currently in District 5:

 No precincts would move out of District 5. Precincts 3 and 205 would be added to District

5.

Precincts Currently in District 6:

  Precinct 37 would move to District 1.

NOTE: The new map under consideration, B1, is an update to draft map B. It moves voting

precincts 5 and 45 from District 1 to District 5.

DRAFT PLAN C

Like Draft Plan B, Draft Plan C racially discriminates against Communities of Color. It moves 17

precincts, primarily people of Color, and five of the seven districts differ from the ideal

population of 124,950 by no more than 2%. It also maintains the Republican advantage in

districts 6 and 7.

Precincts Currently in District 1:

 Precincts 1, 8, 18 and 35 would move to District 6.

Precincts Currently in District 2:

 Precinct 54 would move into District 1.

 Precincts 146 and 211 would move to District 4.

Precincts Currently in Districts 3:

 Precincts 23, 24 and 81 would move to District 2.

Precincts Currently in District 4:

 Precinct 26 would move to District 2.

 Precincts 42, 82 and 132 would move to District 1.

 Precinct 205 would move to District 5.

Precincts Currently in District 5:

 No precincts would move out of District 5. Precincts 99 and 205 would be added to

District 5.
Precincts Currently in District 6:

 Precinct 99 would move to District 5.

 Precinct 103 would move to District 7.

Precincts Currently in District 7:

 No precincts would move out of District 7. Precinct 103 would be added to District 7.

45. Unless this court rules on the Constitutionality of the Maps, Plaintiffs will be

deprived of their constitutional rights in the upcoming 2022 election cycle, beginning as early

as December.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I

City Redistricting Maps Are In Violation of Article I, § 2 of the U.S. Constitution

46. Plaintiffs re-allege and reincorporate by reference all prior paragraphs of this

Complaint and the paragraphs in the counts below as though fully set forth herein.

47. Article I, § 2 of the U.S. Constitution requires that every vote for the U.S.

Congress be given the same weight as all other votes. Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 8, 84 S

(1964) (“[T]he command of Art. I, § 2, that Representatives be chosen ‘by the People of the

several States’ means that as nearly as is practicable[,] one [person]’s vote in a congressional

election is to be worth as much as another’s”) (citation omitted).

48. Indeed, the U.S. Constitution requires virtually identically sized City

districts. Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725, 730 (1983). Any deviation from absolute population

equality dilutes equality of access to representation and must be justified by the state. Kirkpatrick

v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526, 531 (1969).

 49. There is no justification for this racial discrimination, and yet the City, by

its actions, has created substantial, imminent, and unnecessary risk that constitutionally compliant

electoral districts will not be in place before commencement of the 2022 election cycle.

50. Accordingly, if elections are allowed to take place under these circumstances,

voters in racially different districts, like Plaintiff Henderson El, will suffer from vote dilution and

be deprived of political power and tangible resources. Racial discrimination and the unfairness it

creates ahead of the 2022 election cycle also harms voters like Plaintiff Henderson El by

preventing them from, among other things, knowing the details of the district in which they

reside, engaging in candidate advocacy and recruitment, learning which candidates are running to

represent them, holding their representatives accountable, and associating and organizing with

others who share his favored candidates.

51. Plaintiff CEDRIC DEAN is also directly harmed in the same way Plaintiff

Henderson El is, as listed in the paragraph above.

52. The City’s inaction also creates the imminent risk of confusion prior to the

current candidate declaration deadline in December 2021 and possibly the March 2022 primaries.

53. Plaintiffs are suffering these harms on a current and ongoing basis.
 COUNT II

City Racial Discrimination In Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution

54. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that no state shall “deny to

any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This requires that the Maps

must be in compliance with the Constitution.

55. Humbly stated, an individual’s right to vote for City leaders is unconstitutionally impaired

when its weight is in a substantial fashion diluted when compared with votes of citizens living

in other parts of the City, specifically, from District 4’s 43.9% black voting strength to District

1’s 33.6% black voting strength.

56. .

57. Accordingly, if elections are allowed to take place before the legal sufficiency of districts

are resolved, voters in racially discriminatory districts, such as Plaintiff Henderson El, will

suffer from vote dilution and be deprived of political power and tangible resources. Racial

discrimination and the uncertainty it creates ahead of the 2022 election cycle also harms

voters like individual Plaintiff Henderson El by preventing them from, among other things,

knowing the contours of the district in which they reside, engaging in candidate advocacy and

recruitment, learning which candidates are running to represent them, holding her

representatives accountable, and associating and organizing with others who share their

favored candidates.

58. Plaintiff CEDRIC DEAN is also directly harmed in the same way as Plaintiff Henderson

El is, as listed in the paragraph above.

59. The City’s inaction also creates the imminent risk of confusion prior to the current

candidate declaration deadline in December 2021 and possibly the March 2022 primaries.
 60. Plaintiffs are suffering these harms on a current and ongoing basis.

COUNT III

Deprivation of the Freedom of Association In Violation of the First and Fourteenth

Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

61. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of association

and applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. U.S. Const. amends. §§ 1, 14; Preston v.

Leake, 660 F.3d 726, 729 (4th Cir. 2011).

62. Unduly prolonged uncertainty about the constitutionality of the district boundaries

impedes candidates’ ability to effectively run for office. This infringes upon Plaintiff Henderson

El’s First Amendment right to association because it restricts an individual’s ability to assess

candidate positions and qualifications, advocate for their preferred candidates, and associate with

like-minded voters.

63. Plaintiff CEDRIC DEAN is also directly harmed in the same ways that

Plaintiff Henderson is, as listed in the paragraph above.

64. The City’s inaction also creates the imminent risk of confusion prior to the

current candidate declaration deadline in December 2021 and possibly the March 2022 primaries.

65. Plaintiffs are suffering these harms on a current and ongoing basis.

In Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, No. 13-895, 575 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 1257

(2015), Justice Breyer delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority. The Court held that the district

court improperly considered evidence of statewide racial effects as a claim that the state used race

as a factor when redrawing all of the boundary lines, when the actual allegations were that the
racial gerrymandering took place in a few select electoral districts. Next, the Court held that the

evidence suggested that the Caucus had standing to sue because it appeared to have members in

every electoral district in the State of Alabama; the Court directed the Caucus to provide

membership information sufficient to support this inference on remand. The district court also

erred by considering Alabama’s goal of obtaining a 1% population deviation among districts as a

relevant factor to determine whether race was a “predominate” factor in redrawing the electoral

districts rather than considering the traditional goals of the Voting Rights Act. Finally, the Court

rejected the district court’s holding that Alabama’s gerrymandering satisfied strict scrutiny. In

application, Alabama’s interest in maintaining a particular population percentage of minority

voters in each district did not equate to the Voting Rights Act’s goal of preventing “retrogression

in respect to racial minorities’ ‘ability . . . to elect their preferred candidates of choice’; therefore,

using a race as a factor to meet Alabama’s extraneous goals was not justified. The Court vacated

and remanded the district court’s decision for further consideration consistent with its holding and

additional evidence.

The City asked the wrong question when it concluded that it must answer, “How can we

maintain present minority percentages in majority-minority districts?” The proper inquiry would

have focused on the extent to which present percentages of minority voters had to be maintained

to preserve a minority’s ability to elect a candidate of its choice? Asking the wrong question,

yielded the wrong answer.

 REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court give expedited consideration

before November 8, 2021 and:

i. Declare that VRA requires that a jurisdiction maintain the minority voters’

ability to elect their candidate of choice, regardless of the specific percentage of minority voters;

that the City’s redistricting plan is not narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling interest of

ensuring minority voters’ ability to elect their preferred candidates; and that the current

configurations of Charlotte’s districts violate Article I, § 2 of, and the First and Fourteenth

Amendments to, the U.S. Constitution; ii. Declare that the current configurations of Charlotte’s

Maps violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; iii. Permanently

enjoin Defendants and all persons acting on its behalf or in concert with the City from

implementing, enforcing, or conducting any elections under Charlotte’s Map plan that will enable

the Court, in the absence of timely enacted and lawful plans for Charlotte, to adopt and implement

new plans for Charlotte City districts;

Respectfully Submitted,

CEDRIC DEAN,

CHARLENE HENDERSON EL

Email: savefounder@gmail.com

Phone: 704-492-1533
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, CHARLENE HENDERSON EL and CEDRIC DEAN, hereby certify that we have served a

copy of this action to the City of Charlotte, via cityclerk@charlottenc.gov this 28th day of

October, 2021.

Respectfully Submitted,

CEDRIC DEAN,

CHARLENE HENDERSON EL

Email: savefounder@gmail.com

Phone: 704-492-1533