270 F. Supp. 3d 881
M.D.N.C.2017Background
- In 2011 the North Carolina General Assembly, led by Sen. Rucho and Rep. Lewis with consultant Dr. Thomas Hofeller, drew legislative maps that increased majority‑Black districts and were alleged to rely impermissibly on race.
- Plaintiffs sued in 2015 alleging the 2011 state House and Senate plans were racial gerrymanders violating the Equal Protection Clause; after trial the district court agreed and the Supreme Court summarily affirmed the merits in 2017.
- The district court previously delayed injunctive relief for the 2016 election cycle but ordered remedial plans for future elections; the Supreme Court vacated the remedial order and remanded for a fuller equitable analysis of remedies, including whether to order a special election.
- Plaintiffs sought a special election (primary Dec 2017; general Mar 2018) to replace legislators elected under unconstitutional plans; Legislative Defendants opposed and proposed regular‑cycle remediation (use maps in 2018 regular elections).
- The court found the constitutional violation was widespread (affecting nearly 70% of districts and ~83% of the population), serious, and longstanding, but concluded a special election at that late date would cause undue disruption and likely depress turnout, and therefore denied Plaintiffs’ request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to order a special election to remedy unconstitutional racial gerrymanders | Special election urgently restores voters’ rights and remedies long‑standing injury; proposed schedule feasible | Special election is unnecessary, intrudes on state sovereignty, and would disrupt governance | Denied — court weighed equities and declined to order a special election at that time |
| Whether the severity/scope of the violation supports a special election | The gerrymander is widespread, severe, ongoing, and thus favors immediate remedy via special election | Even if severe, remedial timing should respect state processes and avoid disruption | Severity favors special election, but not dispositive given other factors |
| Whether judicial intrusion into state sovereignty weighs against ordering special elections | Court intervention is justified where violation is pervasive and voters’ sovereignty is impaired | Shortening terms and altering election rules unduly intrudes on state sovereignty | Intrusion is justified by severity; factor favors special election but balanced against disruption |
| Whether likely disruption outweighs equitable need for a special election | Any disruption is outweighed by need to vindicate constitutional rights promptly | Special election schedule would overlap filings and elections, confuse voters, depress turnout, and limit legislative/public input on maps | Disruption factor outweighs others here; special election would be harmful to voters, so relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (principle that remedy in redistricting must consider election timing and disruption)
- Swann v. Charlotte–Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1 (breadth and flexibility of equitable remedies)
- Cooper v. Harris, 137 S. Ct. 1455 (race‑based districts and VRA interplay; race may not predominate absent good reason)
- Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (dangers and harms of race‑based districting)
- Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (racial gerrymandering harms and legal standards)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (importance of voting rights in democratic governance)
- Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (right to vote as foundational to representative government)