267 F. Supp. 3d 664
M.D.N.C.2017Background
- In Aug. 2016 the district court held 28 North Carolina legislative districts were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders and ordered the General Assembly to draw remedial plans but stayed changes for the Nov. 2016 election.
- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the finding that the 2011 plans were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders and remanded for further remedial analysis, vacating a prior remedial schedule.
- Plaintiffs sought a short deadline (two weeks from July 2017) for the legislature to enact remedial maps and asked the court to order a special election before the 2018 session; Legislative Defendants proposed a November 15, 2017 deadline and opposed a special election.
- The court declined to order a special election and analyzed appropriate remedial timing, balancing the need for prompt correction against the legislature’s prerogative to draw maps and to solicit public input.
- The court set a deadline of September 1, 2017 for the General Assembly to enact remedial House and Senate plans, with a possible extension to September 15 if certain public-disclosure steps were completed by August 21.
- The court required prompt filing of enacted plans and extensive supporting materials, permitted objections and responses on an expedited schedule, and temporarily relaxed the one-year residency requirement for candidates affected by remedial changes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should order a special election before 2018 session | Special election needed promptly to cure unconstitutional districts and reduce chilling on candidacy and participation | Legislative Defendants opposed special election as unnecessary and disruptive | Denied — court refused to order a special election |
| Appropriate deadline for General Assembly to enact remedial plans | Two weeks (to Aug 11, 2017): ample time given prior rulings and state practice; administratively feasible | Needed more time for public hearings, deliberation; proposed Nov 15, 2017 | Deadline set Sept 1, 2017 (with possible extension to Sept 15 if disclosure steps met) |
| Need for public process and hearings before finalizing maps | Plaintiffs favored quick remedial maps but recognized public input value | Legislature argued public hearings and feedback are necessary and justified more time | Court afforded time for public input; required public disclosure of criteria, proposed plans, and comment process by Aug 21 to permit extension |
| Relief, transparency, and post-enactment court review procedures | Plaintiffs sought expedited judicial review and ability to submit alternative plans | Legislative Defendants wanted time before court scrutiny | Court mandated filing of enacted plans within 7 days with transcripts, stat packs, criteria, alternative plans; objections due Sept 15; responses shortly after |
| Candidate residency qualification given remedial changes | Plaintiffs concerned displaced voters/candidates might be barred by 1-year residency rule | Defendants did not oppose temporary adjustment | Court temporarily allowed candidates residing in modified districts as of filing deadline to be qualified despite 1-year rule |
Key Cases Cited
- Stephenson v. Bartlett, 355 N.C. 354 (N.C. 2002) (state supreme court voided 2001 legislative plan; legislature redrew maps promptly after decision)