Publisher's Note: This post appears here courtesy of the Carolina Journal. The author of this post is CJ Staff.
A federal judge will not issue an injunction blocking local election districts the North Carolina General Assembly created for Watauga County. Those districts will proceed for this year's county commission and school board elections.
Plaintiffs led by the Watauga County Voting Rights Task Force and left-of-center activist group Common Cause sought an injunction to block the districts. The Republican-led General Assembly approved the five new single-member election districts in Senate Bill 759 in 2023 and Senate Bill 912 in 2024.
US District Judge Matthew Orso issued a 17-page order Friday explaining why he rejected the request.
The US Supreme Court's 2019 decision in the North Carolina case Rucho v. Common Cause hurts the plaintiffs' claims that the new districts lead to
"malapportionment."
"Rucho casts serious doubt on the justiciability of Plaintiffs' claim for malapportionment," Orso explained.
"Plaintiffs have styled their claim as 'one person, one vote' dilution, a type of claim beyond Rucho's reach. ... Yet the crux of their claims is that S.B. 759 and S.B. 912 unconstitutionally disadvantage Democratic voters in favor of Republican voters. Plaintiffs, in essence, ask the Court to weigh how much partisanship is too much, which is precisely the kind of political question Rucho explained is 'beyond the reach of the federal courts.'"
None of the districts includes populations deviating more than 4.96% from the districts' average.
"[A]ttacks on deviations under 10% will succeed only rarely, in unusual cases," Orso wrote.
"This is not that rare, unusual case."
The judge also addressed the plaintiffs' claims that SB 912 violated the US Constitution's Equal Protection Clause
"by disfavoring Watauga County voters." The law blocked local voters from changing their own districts through a referendum until after the 2032 election.
Watauga voters approved an election map drawn by county commissioners with 71% of the vote in the November 2024 referendum.
"As a threshold matter, Plaintiffs' disfavored treatment claim - like their malapportionment claim - likely falls within the Supreme Court's holding in Rucho and is nonjusticiable," Orso wrote.
"The Court's understanding of the evidence presented to date is that the Republican-controlled General Assembly passed S.B. 759 to create electoral districts favoring Republicans."
"In response, the Democrat-controlled Watauga County Board of Commissioners attempted to undue the General Assembly's action by passing a resolution enabling a referendum to redraw the districts in favor of Democrats," Orso continued.
"The Republican-controlled General Assembly responded by passing S.B. 912, which delays the effective date of any referendum, so as to nullify its effect, thus preserving S.B. 759's Republican-favored districts."
"At bottom, S.B. 912's changes to the effective date of any Watauga County referendum is part and parcel of S.B. 759's partisan redistricting," the judge explained.
"Adjudicating Plaintiffs' claim of disfavored treatment likely involves 'political questions beyond the reach' of this Court."
"Here ... the General Assembly's motivation for passing S.B. 912 is clear and undisputed - to nullify the effects of any referendum that sought to replace S.B. 759's districts," Orso added.
"The State has a conceivable interest in ensuring that electoral districts created by the General Assembly are not undone by lower political subdivisions of the State. ... Further, the General Assembly's partisan redistricting efforts involve a permissible intent under Rucho and therefore comprise a legitimate state interest. S.B. 912's passage in response to the referendum is rationally related to these legitimate state interests."
The plaintiffs' First Amendment claims
"are likely precluded by Rucho," Orso wrote.
"Here, like in Rucho, S.B. 912 does not contain any restrictions on Watauga County voters' ability to engage in First Amendment activities," he wrote.
"Instead, this case simply presents an example 'of partisanship driving districting decisions.' Regardless of how Plaintiffs style their claims, they likely amount to a dispute regarding political gerrymandering that is beyond the reach of this Court."
Orso rejected the argument that an injunction would help prevent
"irreparable harm" to Watauga voters.
"In this case, Plaintiffs' failure to bring their motion in a timely manner undermines their claim of irreparable harm," he wrote.
"The General Assembly enacted S.B. 759 and S.B. 912 over eighteen months ago. Yet, Plaintiffs waited to file their Complaint until October 1, 2025, and then waited another month, until November 3, 2025, to move for a preliminary injunction."
"During those eighteen months, Watauga County voters used S.B. 759's challenged districts in the 2024 election. This leads to the question: if the harm at issue in this case is truly irreparable, then how can the Court help the Plaintiffs now, after the same districts were already used in the 2024 election?" Orso asked.
"Put another way, how can this Court issue an injunction to prevent harm that has already occurred and cannot be repaired? Plaintiffs' delay in filing, while not dispositive, cuts against their claim of irreparable harm in this case."
The federal courts' Purcell principle also cautioned Orso against ordering new election maps during an ongoing election, he wrote.
"This case reflects a partisan political struggle between county- and state-level interests," Orso added.
"The Republican-controlled state legislature passed a partisan redistricting measure impacting a county's Democrat-controlled board of commissioners and how they are elected. Those Democratic commissioners then passed a resolution and won a local referendum, aiming to preserve their own political power - and that of their party."
"The Republican-controlled state legislature then responded with a bill to nullify the county Democrats' efforts," the order continued.
"While the Court need not decide the merits of this case at the preliminary injunction stage, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood that their claims belong in federal court or that they would otherwise succeed on the merits."
The General Assembly approved SB 759 in October 2023 with votes of 28-18 in the Senate and 64-40 in the House. No Democratic legislators voted for the bill. Lawmakers approved SB 912 in June 2024 with votes of 30-19 in the Senate and 75-39 in the House. Seven House Democrats supported the measure.
poll#218
