367 N.C. 542
N.C.2014Background
- After the 2010 Census, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted 2011 redistricting plans for the State Senate, House, and U.S. House; the plans were submitted for and received DOJ preclearance under VRA §5. Plaintiffs (voters and NAACP-related groups) sued in state court alleging racial gerrymandering and other federal and state-law violations; a three-judge state panel tried the case and entered judgment for defendants.
- The trial court concluded 26 challenged districts were drawn as "VRA districts" (TBVAP ≥50%) and applied strict scrutiny, finding the legislature intended to create those districts to comply with the Voting Rights Act; four challenged districts were treated under rational-basis review.
- The North Carolina Supreme Court reviewed (a) whether designation/creation of VRA districts automatically makes race the predominant motive (thus triggering strict scrutiny), (b) whether compliance with §§2 and 5 of the VRA can be a compelling interest, and (c) whether the challenged districts survived strict scrutiny or rational-basis review; it also reviewed alleged violations of the state Whole County Provision.
- The Court held the trial court erred to the extent it treated the General Assembly’s concession that districts were intended as VRA-compliant as establishing race as the predominant motive as a matter of law, but proceeded to assess the districts under strict scrutiny on the existing record and found the 26 VRA districts survived strict scrutiny; it affirmed the trial court’s rulings on the remaining districts and on state-law Whole County Provision claims.
- Key factual record items accepted by the court: legislative chairs’ directives and public statements about seeking TBVAP ≥50% where possible and obtaining rough proportionality; expert reports finding racially polarized voting across many counties; historical §2 litigation in many affected counties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether creation of VRA-compliant (TBVAP ≥50%) districts makes race the "predominant" motive as a matter of law, triggering strict scrutiny | Dickson/NAACP: deliberate creation of majority-Black VRA districts shows race was predominant and strict scrutiny applies | State: consideration of race to comply with VRA does not ipso facto make race the predominant motive; other neutral principles motivated mapmaking | Court: trial court erred treating VRA intent as automatically establishing predominance, but on the record strict scrutiny may be assumed; nevertheless districts survive strict scrutiny, so no remand necessary |
| Whether compliance with §§2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act can be a compelling governmental interest | Plaintiffs: VRA does not require racial proportionality and legislature overstepped; VRA compliance alone not a license to racially classify | State: avoiding §2 liability and non-retrogression §5 preclearance are compelling and legitimate interests, supported by legislative evidence | Court: compliance with §§2 and 5 can be a compelling interest where legislature identified discrimination with specificity and had a strong basis in evidence (Gingles preconditions) |
| Whether the 26 VRA districts were narrowly tailored (i.e., whether TBVAP targets and proportionality were reasonably necessary) | Plaintiffs: legislature used racial "packing/proportionality" as a benchmark, amounting to impermissible racial balancing and not narrowly tailored | State: districts targeted TBVAP ~50%–57%, average ~52%, considered traditional principles (one-person/one-vote, county grouping, incumbency); rough proportionality was prophylactic and reasonable | Held: districts were narrowly tailored given the record (Gingles evidence, racially polarized voting studies, modest TBVAP margins); plaintiffs failed to identify alternative plans that met political objectives and achieved greater racial balance |
| Whether enacted House and Senate plans violated North Carolina’s Whole County Provision and related Stephenson criteria | Plaintiffs: plans divide and traverse counties excessively; alternative plans better preserve whole counties and reduce splits | State: Stephenson requires minimizing size of multi-county groupings (maximize two-county groupings before larger groupings); enacted plans better meet that test and Pender County rules than plaintiff maps | Held: Court adopts defendants’ reading of Stephenson; enacted plans comply with Stephenson / Whole County Provision as harmonized with federal law; plaintiffs’ alternatives fail because they conflict with Pender County and Stephenson criteria |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (racial predominance standard; strict scrutiny required when race is predominant)
- Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (race-based districting and predominance test)
- Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (courts must be cautious in inferring racial predominance where politics and race correlate)
- Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (three-precondition framework for §2 vote-dilution claims)
- Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997 (proportionality relevant but not dispositive under §2 totality of circumstances)
- Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (plurality) (discusses race as predominant factor and strict scrutiny in redistricting)
- League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (proportionality and §2; totality review)
- Pender County v. Bartlett, 361 N.C. 491 (N.C. rule that TBVAP ≥50% satisfies first Gingles precondition/safe harbor in state context)
- Stephenson v. Bartlett, 355 N.C. 354 (Whole County Provision criteria for harmonizing state constitutional county-whole rule with federal law)