283 F. Supp. 3d 410
M.D.N.C.2018Background
- In 2016 the district court (Covington I) found North Carolina's 2011 legislative plans were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders; the Supreme Court summarily affirmed in 2017. The General Assembly enacted new "2017 Plans" to remediate the defects.
- Plaintiffs (31 NC voters) objected to 12 of 116 remedial districts; the court identified 9 districts of concern and appointed Dr. Nathaniel Persily as Special Master to redraw the problematic configurations.
- The Special Master produced draft and then final Recommended Plans; Plaintiffs accepted them, while Legislative Defendants objected and argued, among other things, that the case was moot and that review should be narrowly circumscribed.
- The court held hearings, considered evidence (including experts and simulations), and evaluated whether the 2017 Plans (and particular districts) (1) fully remedied the prior racial gerrymanders and (2) complied with federal and state law (including North Carolina’s Whole County and mid‑decade prohibitions).
- The court sustained Plaintiffs' objections to four remedial districts (Senate 21, Senate 28, House 21, House 57) and several state‑law violations (five Wake/Mecklenburg House districts); it adopted the Special Master’s Recommended Plans to replace those districts and approved the remaining unchallenged remedial districts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness — did enactment of 2017 Plans moot the case? | 2017 Plans do not moot because court must ensure remedial plan fully cures the prior violation. | Enactment moots the controversy since original plans were replaced. | Not moot; court reviews remedial plans to ensure they fully remedy constitutional violations. |
| Scope of review — may court consider new federal/state objections to remedial maps? | Court may evaluate whether remedial plan "violates anew" other federal or state law and need not be limited to original theory. | Review should be limited to same legal theory that produced jurisdiction (racial gerrymander). | Court may review remedial plans for other federal and state legal defects that are "inextricably intertwined" or necessary to determine adequacy of remedy. |
| Three‑judge panel / pendent jurisdiction — can court hear state‑law claims? | State‑law objections (e.g., mid‑decade ban, Whole County Provision) are appropriately before the three‑judge court when intertwined with federal claims. | Section 2284 limits panel to federal apportionment claims; pendent state claims shouldn't be decided. | Panel has jurisdiction and may exercise pendent jurisdiction over state claims where appropriate; it declined to exercise it for some unsettled state‑law questions. |
| Whether specific 2017 districts still constitute racial gerrymanders (S.D.21, S.D.28, H.D.21, H.D.57) | These remedial districts preserve the unconstitutional "cores," rely on partisan/election data correlated with race, and therefore perpetuate racial predominance. | Adopted race‑blind criteria preclude a finding of race predominance; Special Master’s plan illegally targeted BVAP and favored Democrats. | The four challenged districts failed to eliminate discriminatory effects and remain racial gerrymanders; Special Master’s Recommended Plans cure those defects. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (interpretation of Section 2 vote‑dilution standard)
- Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (principles for racial predominance and strict scrutiny)
- Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 135 S. Ct. 1257 (invalidity of mechanical racial targets)
- Upham v. Seamon, 456 U.S. 37 (limits on court redrawing legislative plans beyond necessary remedial scope)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (state given first opportunity to remedy apportionment violations; courts may impose remedies if legislature fails)
- Chapman v. Meier, 420 U.S. 1 (court responsibility where legislative remedy is constitutionally unacceptable)
- Lane v. Wilson, 307 U.S. 268 (facially neutral remedial measures can perpetuate unconstitutional effects)
- League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (limits and concerns on incumbency protection and use of political data)
- McGhee v. Granville County, 860 F.2d 110 (4th Cir.) (court must reject remedial plan that "violates anew" statutory or constitutional rights)
- Perry v. Perez, 565 U.S. 388 (deference to state policy but courts must avoid displacing legitimate state policy judgments without necessity)