and enjoined the use of that district in future elections. Shaw v. Hunt (Shaw II), 517 U.S. 899, 905-18, 116 S.Ct. 1894, 135 L.Ed.2d 207 (1996). In 1997, a politically divided General Assembly enacted a remedial plan expected to elect six Republican and six Democratic Representatives, rendering each party’s share of the state’s congressional delegation proportional to its share of the statewide vote in the most recent congressional election. Cromartie v. Hunt, 133 F.Supp.2d 407, 412-13 (E.D.N.C. 2000), rev’d sub nom. Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 121 S.Ct. 1452, 149 L.Ed.2d 430 (2001); id. at 423-24 (Thornburg, J., dissenting). In 2001, after several more years of litigation, the Supreme Court approved that remedial plan. See Easley, 532 U.S. 234, 121 S.Ct. 1452, 149 L.Ed.2d 430 (<HOLDING>). Just as litigation regarding the 1992 Plan
holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record holding substantial evidence supported jury finding of abuse of process holding that threejudge panels finding that race constituted the predominant motivation in redrawing remedial districts was not supported by substantial evidence holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination under title vii was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record holding that if a reasonable fact finder could make a particular finding on the administrative record then the finding is supported by substantial evidence