Calla Wright v. State of North Carolina, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8731

Background

Wake County Board of Education redistricted from nine single-member districts in 2011 after a census showing growth and prior high population deviation; new plan produced by a Republican-controlled board but elected Board of Education members were Democratic after the 2011 election.
Session Law 2013-110 replaced nine districts with seven single-member districts and created two outer/inner “super districts,” increasing maximum population deviation among districts to 7.82% and between super districts to 9.8%.
Plan also prohibited further changes in method of election until 2021 and split 21 precincts (vs. 11 under prior plan), creating districts visually and mathematically less compact.
Thirteen Wake County residents sued the State of North Carolina and the Wake County Board of Elections, arguing the Session Law violates the federal one person, one vote and North Carolina equal protection guarantees.
District court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and Eleventh Amendment immunity; Plaintiffs appealed seeking to add Governor, Senate President Pro Tempore, and Speaker of the House as defendants; Appellants argued the proposed officials had En Ex parte Young enforcement obligations, which the district court did not heed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether proposed state officials are amenable to suit under Ex parte Young.	Plaintiffs contended proposed officials have enforcement duties.	Defendants argued no special relation to enforce the challenged law.	Proposed defendants not amenable; district court proper to dismiss.
Whether the complaint plausibly states a one person, one vote/equal protection claim.	Plaintiffs allege a taint of arbitrariness/discrimination due to near-10% deviation and urban-rural voting disparities.	Plan presumes constitutional minor deviations and is not shown to be arbitrary or discriminatory.	Complaint plausibly states equal protection/one person, one vote claim; district court erred in dismissal.
Whether the NC constitutional one person, one vote claim should have been dismissed as nonjusticiable.	State constitutional claim mirrors federal equal protection; should proceed.	Same concerns as federal claim; potentially nonjusticiable under state law.	Not dismissed on state-law grounds; meritorious to address alongside federal claim.
Whether the district court properly treated the case as political gerrymandering or misapplied pleading standards.	Claims are not mere political gerrymandering; allege unconstitutional weighting of votes.	Court should treat as political question or insufficient pleading under Twombly/Iqbal.	Court erred in dismissing; pleading adequate to survive initial review.
Whether to remand or permit amendments concerning defendants or relief.	Plaintiffs sought to amend to add officials as defendants to seek relief.	Eleventh Amendment immunity precludes adding those defendants.	Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded for appropriate proceedings.

Key Cases Cited

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) (equal protection applies to how votes are weighed)
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (one person, one vote principle applies to federal, state, and local elections)
Avery v. Midland Cnty., 390 U.S. 474 (1968) (one person, one vote applies to school boards)
Daly v. Hunt, 93 F.3d 1212 (4th Cir. 1996) (10% deviation threshold; requires taint of arbitrariness for challenge)
Larios v. Cox, 300 F.Supp.2d 1320 (N.D. Ga. 2004) (summary affirmance; districting plan with near-10% deviation can be unconstitutional)
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (foundation for suing state officials in their official capacities for injunction)
McBurney v. Cuccinelli, 616 F.3d 393 (4th Cir. 2010) (no special duty of state official to enforce a law; Ex parte Young not met)
S.C. Wildlife Fed’n v. Limehouse, 549 F.3d 324 (4th Cir. 2008) (demonstrates special relation sufficient for Ex parte Young in some contexts)
Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004) (plurality held political-gerrymandering claims not per se nonjusticiable; plurality opinions differ on approach)
Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973) (reapportionment largely within constitutional bounds; not compelled to strike minor deviations)
Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 135 S. Ct. 1257 (2015) (district-by-district analysis acceptable; harms individual voters)
Roman v. Sincock, 377 U.S. 695 (1964) (taint standard for recognizing arbitrariness in apportionment)