Rodney Pierce v. North Carolina State Board of Elections, 97 F.4th 194

Background

North Carolina enacted a new state Senate map (SB 758) in October 2023; Plaintiffs (two Black voters) sued in November 2023 claiming Senate Districts 1 and 2 dilute Black voting strength in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and sought a preliminary injunction ordering use of plaintiffs’ remedial districts for the 2024 elections.
The General Assembly did not use racial data when drawing the 2023 Senate map, held public hearings, and made racial data available shortly before final enactment; the Southern Coalition for Social Justice submitted a letter asserting the enacted districts would dilute Black voting strength.
The district court held an evidentiary hearing and denied the preliminary injunction, finding plaintiffs failed to show likelihood of success on the merits (particularly Gingles third precondition and totality-of-circumstances), irreparable harm, and that equitable factors (including Purcell timing concerns) counseled against emergency relief.
Plaintiffs’ primary expert (Dr. Barreto) produced ecological-inference and reconstituted-election analyses purporting to show racially polarized voting and that remedial majority-Black districts would elect minority-preferred candidates; the district court found methodological problems, incompleteness (no district-effectiveness analysis), and conflicting evidence of white crossover voting.
The district court also credited defense expert evidence (Dr. Alford) that partisanship largely explains Black/White voting divergence in 2020–2022 elections; the court emphasized courts’ prior findings that North Carolina lacked legally significant racial bloc voting in these northeastern counties.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed, applying the heavy burden for mandatory preliminary injunctions, deferring to the district court's factual findings unless clearly erroneous, and concluding Purcell and the equities foreclosed altering election rules mid-process.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Plaintiffs likely to succeed on Section 2 vote-dilution claim (Gingles preconditions and totality)	Plaintiffs argue expert analyses show legally significant racially polarized voting and that reasonably drawn majority-Black districts (Demonstration A or B) would enable election of minority-preferred candidates	Defendants argue plaintiffs’ expert is unreliable/incomplete, evidence shows substantial white crossover voting, and partisanship explains polarization; no strong basis in evidence required race-based districts	Affirmed: plaintiffs failed to show likelihood of success — district court’s credibility and factual findings re: Barreto, district-effectiveness concerns, crossover voting, and totality analysis not clearly erroneous
Whether plaintiffs demonstrated irreparable harm warranting preliminary relief	Voting under allegedly dilutive districts causes irreparable harm to plaintiffs’ voting rights	Defendants emphasize state interest in implementing duly enacted map and disruption of elections; courts should not substitute maps close to election	Affirmed: because plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on merits, irreparable-harm showing failed; equities disfavour injunction
Whether a mandatory preliminary injunction altering the status quo should issue given election timing (Purcell)	Plaintiffs contend limited remedy (changing only SD1/SD2) is administratively feasible, legislature delay caused urgency, and strong VRA claims justify intervention	Defendants invoke Purcell principle: changing rules during ongoing elections would cause chaos, absentee ballot disruption, candidate refiling, and broader cascade requiring statewide changes	Affirmed: Purcell and disruption concerns counsel strongly against ordering race-based redistricting mid-election; plaintiffs’ limited remedy not sufficient to overcome Purcell and equity concerns
Whether district court erred legally by demanding a “district-effectiveness” analysis to show third Gingles precondition	Plaintiffs contend third precondition can be shown without a district-effectiveness metric and that ecological and reconstituted analyses suffice	Defendants argue absence of district-effectiveness analysis undermines claim that majority-minority district was necessary; prior NC precedent required similar proof to justify race-based departures	Held: Fourth Circuit found no reversible legal error — district court’s suggestion that district-effectiveness analysis is probative (though not always strictly required) was acceptable in context; court’s case-specific skepticism of plaintiffs’ proof was not clearly erroneous

Key Cases Cited

Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) (articulating three preconditions for Section 2 vote-dilution claims and totality-of-circumstances inquiry)
Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1 (2009) (Section 2 first Gingles precondition requires potential remedial district with minority >50% for certain claims; Section 2 does not always require crossover districts)
Cooper v. Harris, 581 U.S. 285 (2017) (a legislature must have a strong basis in evidence to use race in districting; causation and district-specific evidence required to justify race-based districts)
Abbott v. Perez, 138 S. Ct. 2305 (2018) (assumes compliance with the VRA can be a compelling interest and discusses liability hazards when race and politics interact)
Milligan (Allen v. Milligan), 143 S. Ct. 1487 (2023) (reaffirming Gingles framework and emphasizing local, fact-intensive totality-of-circumstances analysis)
Wisconsin Legislature v. Wisconsin Elections Comm’n, 142 S. Ct. 1245 (2022) (discussing restrictions on race-based districting under Equal Protection and interaction with VRA compliance)
Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (per curiam) (federal courts should ordinarily avoid enjoining state election rules close to an election due to risk of disruption)
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (establishing the Winter four-part test for preliminary injunctions; injunctions require clear showing of likelihood of success and irreparable harm)