Publisher's note: The author of this post is Barry Smith, an associate editor for the Carolina Journal, John Hood Publisher.
RALEIGH The N.C. Supreme Court on Friday reaffirmed its earlier ruling that congressional and legislative redistricting maps drawn by the Republican-controlled General Assembly in 2011 are constitutional, although the plaintiffs bringing the lawsuit plan an immediate appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
With candidate filing for the 2016 primary and general elections ending at noon today, the federal justices would have to intervene quickly to ensure the state's scheduled elections take place on time.
The state Supreme Court earlier had upheld the ruling of a three-judge panel appointed to decide if the maps passed constitutional muster. However, the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently ruled new districts drawn by Alabama were unconstitutional, and the federal justices ordered the North Carolina Supreme Court to use the Alabama ruling as guidelines for a fresh look at the Tar Heel State's congressional and legislative districts.
"We hold that the enacted House and Senate plans, as well as the federal congressional plan, satisfy state and federal constitutional and statutory requirements and, specifically, that the three-judge panel's decision fully complies with the Supreme Court's decisions in Alabama," Justice Paul Newby, a Republican, wrote for the majority.
The court's three other GOP members - Chief Justice Mark Martin and Justices Bob Edmunds and Barbara Jackson, joined Newby.
The three Democratic justices, Cheri Beasley, Robin Hudson, and Sam "Jimmy" Ervin IV, dissented.
"The bottom line is that manipulation of district lines based on race to a greater extent than necessary to comply with the [Voting Rights Act] is unconstitutional," wrote Beasley in her minority opinion.
Beasley said that lawmakers used
"numerical targets formulated by racial considerations" to ensure preclearance under the Voting Rights Act without
"fully considering whether the decisions made were necessary to enable the minority group to elect its preferred candidate of choice."
Sen. Bob Rucho, R-Mecklenburg, and Rep. David Lewis, R-Harnett, who chaired the redistricting panels in 2011 when the districts were drawn, praised Friday's ruling.
"We are pleased with the court's decision, which validates these maps for a fourth time and once again makes clear the General Assembly protected the rights of voters and established voting boundaries that are fair and legal," Rucho and Lewis said in a joint statement, citing previous court challenges to the districts.
"It's time for these left-wing groups to stop wasting taxpayer money pursuing their frivolous and politically-motivated appeals and finally accept the will of the voters."
Former state Sen. Margaret Dickson, a Cumberland County Democrat and one of the plaintiffs, issued a statement saying an immediate appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court will be filed.
"[Friday's] ruling by the North Carolina Supreme Court reflects their continued misunderstanding of the facts in this case and the law," Dickson said.
"We are confident that we will prevail and that North Carolinians will finally get fair and legal districts from which to elect their representatives."
"This is the fourth time we have been vindicated by a court," said Brent Woodcox, the General Assembly's redistricting counsel.
"We absolutely believe we followed the law. We hope that the plaintiffs will abandon their frivolous, partisan appeals and allow the will of the voters to stand."
Woodcox said the most interesting part of the decision was that Newby's ruling upheld a principle found in a previous U.S. Supreme Court case that held that if lawmakers create what's called a Voting Rights Act district, 50 percent plus one of the residents of that district must be members of a minority group.
"As far as the Newby opinion goes, it was pretty well couched in the law," Woodcox said.
For the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Friday's ruling, the federal high court would have to backtrack from that
"50 percent plus one" principle, Woodcox said.
"If they were not to do that, I just don't see how they could rule for the plaintiffs," Woodcox said.
Much of Newby's opinion centers on how much race was a factor in drawing what are called "majority-minority" districts - districts where a majority of the voters comprise a minority race.
"It appears from the three-judge panel's findings that the General Assembly was concerned with compliance with federal law more than addressing race per se," Newby wrote.
"In other words, race was only a factor insomuch as required by federal law."
Every 10 years, the General Assembly is required to redraw congressional and legislative districts based on the most recent census. The current districts, which are the subject of the lawsuit, were based on the 2010 census. They'll be in place through the 2020 elections unless the courts require the state to redraw them.
