Redistricting

The North Carolina Supreme Court’s Historical Role in North Carolina Redistricting

Election Law Society · March 17, 2023 ·

By William & Mary Student Contributor

Can legislatures promulgate any election rule or redistricting plan, free of any state institutional checks and balances, subject only to intervention by Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court? That question will be answered by the Supreme Court this term in Moore v. Harper (“Moore”). The argument that the plaintiffs seek to advance is based on the independent state legislature theory (ISL). Moore, who is Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, and his co-plaintiffs argue that the Elections Clause of Article 1, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution allocates the authority to draw congressional districts exclusively to state legislatures. Therefore, according to ISL, the North Carolina Supreme Court cannot exercise any power regarding the time, place, and manner of elections. Further ISL would deem the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision in Harper v. Hall (“Harper”) unconstitutional, because the legislature’s redistricting maps violated North Carolina’s constitutional guarantee to equal voting power.

Similar to state supreme courts across the nation, the North Carolina Supreme Court had ruled on redistricting prior to 2022. In Harper, the North Carolina Supreme Court principally cited to two cases, where the court held that those maps infringed upon the rights of North Carolinians. Stated bluntly, the court declared, “Our state constitution provides greater protection of voting rights than the federal Constitution,” citing 2009 case Blankenship v. Bartlett and 2002 case Stephenson v. Bartlett. To better understand the role that the North Carolina Supreme Court has historically played in redistricting and what the U.S. Supreme Court restricts it from doing, it is helpful to re-examine Blankenship and Stephenson, as well as past cases in which the state high court has grappled with how maps are drawn and what equality in voting really means.

As early as 1875, the court declared it “too plain for argument” that the General Assembly’s malapportionment of election districts “is a plain violation of fundamental principles.” This line was consistent with the court’s first assertion of duty of judicial review of legislative enactments for compliance with the North Carolina Constitution in 1787. However, the state high court has been historically reticent—like the Supreme Court in Colegrove v. Green—to wade into political waters, and in 1939 held that “[t]he [redistricting] question is a political one, and there is nothing the courts can do about it.” The court followed the revolution of election law in the 1960s with the recognition of equal protection claims in Baker v. Carr and Reynold v. Sims, establishing the one-person, one-vote principle, and the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. North Carolina’s Supreme Court did not enter the thicket in a meaningful manner until Stephenson.

In 2002, North Carolina voters challenged the state legislative redistricting plans adopted by the General Assembly in Stephenson on the basis that the plans violated North Carolina’s constitution. The court specified the criteria that the General Assembly could apply in redistricting, such as, partisan advantage, incumbency protection, and communities of interest. It ultimately found that the 2001 legislative redistricting plans violated the “whole-county provisions” of the state constitution. 51 of 100 counties were divided by the senate redistricting plan and 70 of 100 counties were divided by the house redistricting plan. Whole-county provisions of the state constitution require the formation of single-member districts in legislative redistricting plans, and the boundaries of such single-member districts generally may not cross county lines. The court invoked the state constitution’s equal protection clause to hold that “the right to vote on equal terms is a fundamental right” and that each North Carolinian had the right to “substantially equal voting power.” The court’s holding relied on its findings in 1990 case, Northampton County Drainage Dist. Number One v. Bailey, in which the court reiterated that “the right to vote on equal terms is a fundamental right.” The court’s interpretation of the state equal protection clause varied from the federal Equal Protection clause, which does not subject multi-member districts to strict scrutiny—as the court did in this case—granting North Carolinians greater protection of voting than the U.S. Constitution.

In Blankenship, the North Carolina Supreme Court again interpreted the state equal protection clause to afford greater protection to voters. At issue were districts for elected judgeships, in which voters in a new district had four to five times more voting power than North Carolinians in other districts. Recognizing the tension in electing judges as representatives, while not representing people, the court held “that the right to vote in superior court elections on substantially equal terms is a quasi-fundamental right which is subject to a heightened level of scrutiny.” The court cemented the “right to vote on equal terms” and one person, one-vote in North Carolina, even though federal courts have held the one-person, one-vote standard of the federal Equal Protections clause is inapplicable to state judicial elections.

In Harper, the court applied the principles of Stephenson, Bartlett, and its jurisprudence, spanning to its very beginnings, to hold that excessive partisan gerrymandering does not conform to the state constitution. The ISL theory challenges the court’s ability to uphold its interpretation and application of North Carolina law. While the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Rucho v. Common Cause that partisan gerrymandering claims are non-justiciable, the North Carolina Supreme Court has historically conferred greater protections of North Carolinians’ voting rights, and the Court further endorsed its role in 2018 via Rucho. Four years later, Moore’s petition to the U.S. Supreme Court to strip the state high court of its ability to uphold “a right to vote on equal terms” and find partisan gerrymandered maps unconstitutional will be heard this term, in one of the most consequential cases for democracy and representative government, not only for North Carolina, but for every state in the Union.

Discrimination in Washington State Redistricting

Election Law Society · December 5, 2022 ·

By Megan Bodenhamer

Washington State has rather progressive and cutting-edge voting and election laws. For example, Washington State was one of the pioneers for statewide mail-in voting, long before the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, voter turnout in the state is consistently above the national average. Washington State also has one of the nation’s few bi-partisan redistricting committees. However, despite these policies—that, on the surface, may seem modern and equitable—there are problems plaguing Washington State’s elections that are far from idyllic. Specifically, Washington State has faced many allegations of voting discrimination against its Latino population.

On January 19th of this year, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington alleging intentional discrimination against Latino voters by the Washington State Legislature and the Washington State Redistricting Commission. The UCLA Voting Rights Project, the Campaign Legal Center, and residents of Yakima (hereafter “Plaintiffs”) filed the lawsuit against the Washington State Secretary of State, the Speaker of the Washington State House of Representatives, and the Majority Leader of the Washington State Senate. The Plaintiffs allegethat “[t]he Washington State Redistricting Commission . . . selected redistricting plans for Washington’s state legislative districts that dilute Hispanic and/or Latino voters’ ability to elect candidates of choice.” The allegations arise out of Yakima, Franklin, Adams, and Grant counties. The lawsuit alleges that the Washington State Redistricting Commission intentionally “cracked” these Latino populations and mixed them with a heavily white population, thus diluting their votes. Lines were drawn through the City of Yakima cutting across the areas where Latino populations live, while still including blocs of white voters that often vote against Latino-preferred candidates. Further exacerbating the problem, Latino voters in the included area have a low turnout rate, while those excluded have a higher rate. This case has not yet been tried, but it will certainly be a pivotal decision for the longevity of the newly created districts in Washington.

Gerrymandering is not the only place where Latino voters in Washington State face challenges. Due to its long-time mail-in voting system, Washington State employs a signature matching system to deter voter fraud. Unfortunately, in high-Hispanic counties, Latinos were four times more likely to have their mail-in ballots rejected for signature issues. As a result of these signature denial disparities, the League of United Latin American Citizens and the Latino Community Fund of Washington have filed suit against Benton, Chelan, and Yakima counties for violating the 14th and 15th Amendments. The lawsuit claims that the signature-matching policies are flawed because they are subject to the discretion of local election workers and have inconsistent results over time, harming Latino voters in Washington State.

However, there has also been successful litigation in Washington to defend Latino rights. In 2022, the UCLA Voting Rights Project settled a claim against Franklin County under the Washington Voting Rights Act, a recently passed state provision. Franklin County admitted fault in the settlement, conceding that they were in violation of the Act. Franklin County previously had an at-large voting system where a Latino-preferred candidate had never won. Under the settlement, Franklin County Commissioner elections will be required to use single-member districts beginning in 2024. While this may be a win for Latino voters in Franklin County, there is much work to be done in other counties, across the state of Washington, and across the United States.

So What if the Ohio Supreme Court Found the Ohio Congressional-District Plan Unconstitutional?

Election Law Society · October 14, 2022 ·

By Darian Kanouff

On July 19, 2022, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled (in a 4-3 split) that a remedial congressional-district plan, adopted on March 2, 2022, violated Article XIX, Section 1(C)(3)(a) of the Ohio Constitution. This decision follows the court’s previous finding that the originally adopted congressional-district plan was also unconstitutional. Despite this ruling, a new plan has not been created, seemingly also in violation of the Ohio Constitution.

The General Assembly passed the first congressional-district plan in November 2021. The Supreme Court of Ohio held on January 14, 2022, that the plan violated the state constitution’s provisions that a redistricting plan may not “unduly favor[] or disfavor[] a political party or its incumbents” or “unduly split governmental units,” since the plan “unduly favored the Republican Party and disfavored the Democratic Party” and “unduly split Hamilton, Cuyahoga, and Summit Counties.” Under this plan, despite receiving merely 53% of the popular vote in recent elections, Republicans were likely to win 80% of the seats (12 out of 15). The court ordered, pursuant to the Ohio Constitution, that the General Assembly pass a new constitutionally-compliant plan within thirty days, and if the legislative body failed to do so, that the Ohio Redistricting Commission pass a plan within thirty days of the General Assembly’s failure. Because the General Assembly failed to pass a plan within 30 days, the responsibility fell to the Ohio Redistricting Commission, which passed the second congressional-district plan on March 2.

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the March 2 plan also violated Article XIX, Section 1(C)(3)(a) of the Ohio Constitution (i.e. that the plan “unduly favored the Republican Party and disfavored the Democratic Party”). Specifically, the court found that the petitioners proved the constitutional violation “beyond a reasonable doubt” through comparative analyses and other metrics that demonstrated that the plan “packed” and “cracked” Democratic voters, turning “districts that would otherwise be strongly Democratic-leaning [into] competitive or Republican-leaning districts.” The court found that the “best-case scenario” under the March 2 plan would result in the Democratic party winning 4 of the 15 seats (27% of the seats), noting that the plan is “only slightly less favorable to the Republican Party . . . than the original plan.” The court ordered the same remedy as before, pursuant to the Ohio Constitution: that the General Assembly pass a constitutionally-compliant plan within thirty days, and if it does not, that the Ohio Redistricting Commission pass a constitutionally-compliant plan within thirty days of the General Assembly’s failure.

Thirty days after the court’s order on July 19, the General Assembly had not created a new plan; this time, however, the Ohio Redistricting Commission did not take up the task. Why not? The Ohio House Speaker, a former Ohio Supreme Court Justice, Bob Cupp, believes that the General Assembly has actually not missed its court-imposed deadline. He claims that because “congressional redistricting includes elements of U.S. Constitutional and federal law,” the legislative leaders have the option of appealing the state court’s decision to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States provide that an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States must be filed within ninety days of a state high court’s final judgment and the Ohio Constitution provides that the thirty day clock for redistricting begins on the last day on which an appeal could have been filed. Thus, he argues that the General Assembly has thirty days to create a new map beginning on October 17 (the purported deadline for appealing the case to SCOTUS). The legal director for the ACLU of Ohio, Freda Levenson, disagrees that the case is appealable to the Supreme Court of the United States. She asserts that “[b]ecause the [Supreme Court of Ohio]’s order to draw a new map ruled purely on matters of Ohio law, it is not appealable in federal court.”

While no action has been filed challenging the General Assembly’s and the Ohio Redistricting Commission’s failure to adopt a new plan within thirty and sixty days, respectively, all eyes are on the General Assembly as the supposed October 17 deadline approaches for the Ohio legislative leaders to appeal their case to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Voting rights groups and other organizations are distressed by the Republican Party’s supposed usurpation of the redistricting process, as it is in direct contrast with the Ohioans’ demonstrated preference for limiting partisan gerrymandering (more than 70% of Ohio voters voted to approve the 2018 amendment containing the constitutional provisions at issue here). However, because the Ohio Constitution’s only remedy for such violations is voiding the unconstitutional plan and requiring the General Assembly or Commission to create a new one, the Republican party had the option to “run down the clock,” resulting in the unconstitutional March 2 plan being used in the May primaries and the upcoming November election. “Running down the clock” could have another potential benefit to the Republican party: the executive director for the League of Women Voters of Ohio, Jen Miller, thinks the Republican party may be elongating this process to wait and see if the state supreme court justices elected this November will be more sympathetic to the party’s positions on line drawing.

Those disappointed in what has happened are considering further amendment to the state constitution. Among the considerations are an independent redistricting commission (as opposed to the current partisan commission, which consists of the Governor, the Auditor, the Secretary of State, and individuals appointed by the majority and minority leaders of the state legislature) or stronger checks and balances among the government branches. However, such bolstered amendments may not achieve what their proponents hope for if the independent state legislature theory (a theory which purports that all parts of the election process, including redistricting, fall solely under the purview of the state legislature, and are not subject to interference from the other branches) is adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States this term in Moore v. Harper.

Alabama Battles Over Redistricting

Election Law Society · March 18, 2022 ·

By: Shelly Vallone

The Alabama Senate gave final approval for a redistricting plan of Alabama’s congressional districts on November 3, 2021 after Governor Kay Ivey commenced a special reapportionment session on October 28, 2021 to complete the mandatory redrawing of Congressional, State House of Representatives, State Senate, and State Board of Education districts after the 2020 Census. The Senate mostly maintained the status quo, notably preserving the state’s only majority-black Congressional district without adding another. Ahead of the plan’s approval, Alabama state Senators Rodger Smitherman and Bobby Singleton, along with four Alabama voters, filed suit on September 27, 2021, in the United States District Court Northern District of Alabama Southern Division, asking the Court to declare the current districting plan unconstitutional and allow the legislature to remedy the violations ahead of the 2022 elections.

In their amended complaint, filed the day after the Senate’s approval, the plaintiffs argue the plan “was drafted by incumbent members of Alabama’s Congressional delegation to maintain their current districts with only those changes necessary to equalize populations.” The plaintiffs also stress the urgency of their claim in light of the fast-approaching 2022 elections. Candidates seeking nomination in a party primary must file a declaration of candidacy with the state party chairman by January 28, 2022. Therefore, the plaintiffs asked the Court to conduct a final hearing before the end of 2021 to settle whether the plan constitutes a racial gerrymander before the primary elections in May 2022.

Did Texas House Members Violate the Texas Open Meetings Act When Redistricting?

Election Law Society · March 16, 2022 ·

By: Sarah Depew

On October 18, 2021, the Mexican American Legislative Caucus (MALC), the largest and oldest Latino legislative caucus in the nation, issued a public statement on their Twitter account stating that they filed a petition for deposition in order to investigate a possible violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act. More specifically, the public statement raised concerns about the possibility of secret communications and decision-making in Texas’ redistricting process.