Raleigh Wake Citizens Assoc v. Wake County Board of Elections, 827 F.3d 333

Background

Wake County redistricting: 2011 plan reduced population deviation to ~1.75% (compact single-member districts); 2013 Session Law 2013-110 (School Board) and 2015 Session Law 2015-4 (County Commissioners) replaced those maps with twin plans creating 7 single-member districts plus two overlay “super districts,” increasing maximum deviations to ~7–10%.
Plaintiffs (voters and civic groups) sued alleging federal and North Carolina one-person, one-vote violations and a racial-gerrymander claim for County Commission District 4; district court held for defendant after bench trial, discrediting Plaintiffs’ witnesses and expert analyses.
On appeal, Fourth Circuit reversed in part (one-person, one-vote claims), affirming dismissal of the racial-gerrymandering claim; Judges Wynn and Gregory formed majority, Judge Motz dissented.
Plaintiffs’ proofs: expert simulations (Dr. Jowei Chen) producing distributions of nonpartisan maps that rarely matched the enacted plans; statistical and election-result evidence showing overpopulation of Democratic-leaning districts and underpopulation of Republican-leaning districts; legislators’ emails and testimony suggesting partisan objectives; alternative maps (Rep. Gill) achieving stated goals with minimal deviation.
District court errors (per majority): applied an overly deferential, rational-basis-style inquiry (requiring Plaintiffs to negate every conceivable legitimate purpose), discounted legislators’ testimony improperly, and misanalyzed expert simulation evidence.
Remedy: Fourth Circuit held Plaintiffs proved by a preponderance that illegitimate partisan considerations predominated in explaining the deviations (below 10%), reversed on one-person, one-vote claims and remanded with instruction to enter judgment and permanent injunction; racial-gerrymander claim affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether deviations <10% require plaintiffs to show predominance of illegitimate factors	Wake plaintiffs: must show it is "more probable than not" that deviations reflect predominance of illegitimate factors (partisanship/regional favoritism)	Board: deviations <10% are presumptively constitutional; plaintiffs must negate any conceivable legitimate purpose	Held for Plaintiffs: Harris standard applies — plaintiffs must prove predominance of illegitimate factors by preponderance; district court misapplied a broader rational-basis test
Whether enacted plans were driven predominantly by partisan intent (one-person, one-vote)	Plaintiffs: simulations, electoral data, emails, and alternative maps show partisan packing/overpopulation of Democratic districts to secure Republican seats	Board: legitimate districting objectives (incumbent protection, communities of interest, turnout, cost, administrative ease) justify deviations; plaintiffs’ proof insufficient	Held for Plaintiffs: record permits only one conclusion — illegitimate partisan considerations predominated; reversed and injunction ordered
Whether regional favoritism (urban vs. rural) predominated in causing deviations	Plaintiffs: regional favoritism alleged as alternate illegitimate factor	Board: regional/community considerations are legitimate; plaintiffs failed to prove which districts are "urban"/"rural" or that this predominated	Majority: unnecessary to decide because partisan finding dispositive; noted district court used wrong standard on regional claim
Whether District 4 was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander	Plaintiffs: race predominated in drawing District 4 without narrow tailoring	Board: traditional race-neutral factors and partisan motives explain the district; evidence does not show racial predominance	Held for Board: district court’s credibility and factual findings were plausible and not clearly erroneous; racial-gerrymander claim affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) (recognizing fundamental character of voting rights and one-person, one-vote concerns)
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (States must make an honest, good-faith effort to draw equal-population districts)
Harris v. Arizona Indep. Redistricting Comm’n, 136 S. Ct. 1301 (2016) (for deviations under 10%, plaintiffs must show it is more probable than not that illegitimate factors predominate)
Larios v. Cox, 300 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (N.D. Ga. 2004) (three-judge) (districting with <10% deviation struck for blatantly partisan deviations); aff’d, 542 U.S. 947 (2004) (mem.)
Wright v. North Carolina, 787 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2015) (prior Fourth Circuit decision clarifying pleadings standard and reliance on Larios)
Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234 (2001) (reversing district court for improperly rejecting expert evidence on partisan/racial motives)
Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973) (recognizing some partisan considerations can be legitimate and upheld under equal protection)
Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995) (race predominance standard; strict scrutiny when race predominates in redistricting)
Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474 (1968) (one-person, one-vote applies to local governing bodies)