Harris v. McCrory
159 F. Supp. 3d 600
M.D.N.C.2016Background
- In 2011 North Carolina’s General Assembly adopted a congressional map that converted two districts (CD 1 and CD 12) into majority Black Voting-Age Population (BVAP) districts; both were precleared by DOJ under §5 before Shelby County.
- Chairs Rucho and Lewis retained Dr. Thomas Hofeller to draw the maps; the chairs provided oral instructions emphasizing VRA compliance and, for CD1, an explicit 50%+1 BVAP target.
- CD1’s BVAP rose from ~47.8% to 52.65%; CD12’s BVAP rose from ~43.8% to 50.66%.
- Plaintiffs (registered voters) sued alleging racial gerrymandering in violation of the Equal Protection Clause; a three-day bench trial produced direct statements, legislative materials, expert analyses, and map metrics.
- The court found race was the predominant factor in both CD1 and CD12 and applied strict scrutiny; the State failed narrow-tailoring under the VRA defenses, so the 2011 plan was held unconstitutional and the legislature was ordered to redraw districts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether race predominated in drawing CD1 | Rucho/Lewis set a nonnegotiable 50%+1 BVAP quota and subordinated traditional criteria; direct instructions and Hofeller testimony show racial quota | State claimed equal-population and VRA compliance motives; argued partisan/incumbent protection or population-equalization, not race | Race predominated in CD1; quota and record show race was the dominant, nonnegotiable criterion |
| Whether race predominated in drawing CD12 | Plaintiffs: direct statements, BVAP increase, shape/noncompactness, and expert analyses show race rather than politics explains boundaries | Defendants: CD12 was drawn as a political (very Democratic) district using 2008 election data to improve surrounding Republican districts; Guilford addition was for §5/preclearance and political goals | Court: race predominated in CD12 too (direct evidence + circumstantial metrics); political rationale found not credible as sole dominant factor |
| Whether VRA compliance (§2 or §5) justifies race-based districts (narrow tailoring) | Plaintiffs: State lacked a strong basis in evidence that §2/§5 required majority BVAPs; historical crossover voting shows §2 Gingles factors not met | State: compliance with §2 results-test and §5 nonretrogression justified creating BVAP-majority districts to avoid litigation and secure preclearance | Even assuming VRA is a compelling interest, State lacked a "strong basis in evidence" (esp. for CD1: third Gingles factor and §5 analysis); strict scrutiny failed for both districts |
| Remedy — court or legislature draw new maps | Plaintiffs asked court to order a valid remedial plan promptly | Defendants emphasized comity and legislative primacy in redistricting | Court ordered General Assembly to enact remedial plan within a set short period (two weeks to remedy; deadline to enact by Feb 19, 2016), allowing legislature first opportunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989) (strict scrutiny applies to race-based state action and racial classifications are constitutionally suspect)
- Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) (racial gerrymandering prohibited where lines cannot be understood as anything other than race-based separation)
- Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996) (Shaw II) (race-based districting demands close judicial scrutiny; VRA compliance assumed but not carte blanche)
- Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995) (race predominance test: plaintiffs must show legislature subordinated traditional criteria to race)
- Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996) (mechanical racial targets and large BVAP augmentations are highly suspect; states must have strong basis in evidence)
- Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) (three preconditions for §2 vote-dilution claims and framework for polarized voting analysis)
- Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 135 S. Ct. 1257 (2015) (section 5 and §2 analyses require district-specific, strong-basis evidence; cautions against mechanical racial targets)
- Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013) (invalidated §4 coverage formula; affected §5 preclearance obligations)
- Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25 (1993) (Gingles preconditions and discussion of when §2 requires majority-minority districts)
- Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130 (1976) (explaining §5 preclearance purpose and retrogression concern)