On Wednesday, Jan. 11th a North Carolina state trial court upheld the congressional and state legislative maps drawn by the Republican-dominated legislature in Nov of 2021. Read the opinion and excerpts below.
Here is a breakdown of the court’s conclusions of law regarding each allegation:
Partisan Gerrymandering in Violation of the NC Constitution’s Free Elections Clause: “The Free Elections Clause does not operate as a restraint on the General Assembly’s ability to redistrict for partisan advantage.”
Equal Protection Clause of the NC Constitution: “The Court finds that the plans are amply supported by a
rational basis and thus do not violate the Equal Protection Clause.”
Free Speech Clause of the NC Constitution: The court rejected the First Amendment claims based on the free-speech and free association clauses stating; “Plaintiffs remain free to engage in their associational rights and rights to petition no matter what effect the Enacted Plans have on their district. . . Plaintiffs [also]are free to engage in speech no matter what the effect the Enacted Plans have on their district.”
The Court said this about the State Constitutional Claims as a Whole
“The objective constitutional constraints that the people of North Carolina have imposed on legislative redistricting are found in Article II, Sections 3 and 5 of the 1971 Constitution and not in the Free Elections, Equal Protection, Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Assembly Clauses found in Article I of the 1971 Constitution. . . even though the state Constitution does address limitations on considering partisan advantage in the application of its discretionary redistricting decisions, Plaintiffs’ claims on the basis of “extreme partisan advantage” fail.”
Intentional Racial Discrimination and Racial Vote Dilution Claims: “If partisan gerrymandering dilutes the vote of minorities, remedies under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act are available. However, either for strategic reasons or a lack of evidence, Plaintiffs have repeatedly informed the Court that they are not pursuing a Voting Rights Act claim, but rather, are only pursuing a State Constitutional claim for racial gerrymandering. This is true despite the fact that it potentially would be easier to prove a violation of the Voting Rights Act, as one only need prove effect and need not prove intent.”
Plaintiffs have failed to show a predominant racial motive through direct evidence. The Adopted Criteria proscribed the use of racial considerations in the drawing of the Enacted Plan, nor did the General Assembly consider race by, for instance, conducting a racially polarized voting study on the selected plans prior to their enactment. Plaintiffs have failed to link past, impermissible race-based redistricting to the current legislature and have failed to provide sufficient circumstantial evidence in accordance with the requirements of the Arlington Heights analysis.
Second, Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the General Assembly failed to adhere to traditional districting principles on account of racial considerations. Third, giving deference to the redistricting process as conducted by the General
Assembly, Plaintiffs have failed to make the requisite evidentiary showing that the General Assembly sought to dilute the voting strength of Blacks based upon their race, or that Blacks have less of an opportunity to vote for or nominate members of the electorate less than those of another racial group.
Regarding the vote dilution claim, “The (state constitution’s) Free Elections Clause is inapplicable to NCLCV Plaintiffs’ voter dilution claim. Further, Plaintiffs failed to assert a claim under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”), and their application of the Gingles analysis, even if used in support of a VRA claim, is insufficient—Plaintiffs failed to conduct a complete Gingles analysis. While Dr. Duchin conducted an analysis and made findings concerning the “effective” districts for Black voters, admittedly, she did not conduct step 1 of the Gingles analysis.”
The Whole County Provision of the State Constitution: “The Court further concludes that the manner by which the counties at issue for this specific claim were traversed was not unlawful because it was predominantly for traditional and permissible redistricting principles, including for partisan advantage, which are allowed to be taken into account in redistricting.”
Injunctive Relief Under Art. III Sec. 3 and 5 of the State Constitution: Plaintiffs alleged that the state constitution requires the legislature to “perform a meaningful attempt to determine whether there are any districts compelled by the VRA, which, at a minimum, requires the consideration of racial data to understand changing demographics and performing a racially polarized voting analysis.” The court concluded that the requirement in Stephenson v. Barlett that districts required by the VRA be drawn first was put in place to alleviate the conflict and tension between the Whole County Provision and the VRA, but there is nothing in Stephenson that requires any particular analysis prior to making a decision as to whether VRA districts are necessary.
Justiciability: ” This Court determines that satisfactory and manageable criteria or standards do not exist for judicial determination of the issue and thus the partisan gerrymandering claims present a political issue beyond our reach. This Court neither condones the enacted maps nor their anticipated potential results. Despite our disdain for having to deal with issues that potentially lead to results incompatible with democratic principles and subject our State to ridicule, this Court must remind itself that these maps are the result of a democratic process.”
