RALEIGH, N.C. (CN) — The Fourth Circuit heard arguments Thursday morning over North Carolina election maps that critics say are racially gerrymandered.
The underlying suit, filed by two Black North Carolina voters, argues that their votes were diluted when they were drawn into majority-white Senate districts during redistricting in October 2023. The want a court to force state lawmakers to redraw the maps.
Both voters live in North Carolina’s northeastern "Black Belt" — a term used for regions across the South with large Black populations. Among the defendants are the state board of elections and several top officials, including Philip Berger, Republican president pro tem of the state Senate, and Tim Moore, Republican speaker of the state House.
Previously, the plaintiffs had asked a federal court to prevent officials from using the maps in the upcoming November election.
Their request was denied in January by U.S. District Judge James Dever III, who said that an injunction would result in “voter confusion and chaos."
At issue is the question of whether Black voters in this region were illegally "cracked" — a term that refers to splitting a voting bloc into multiple electoral districts in order to dilute their voting power. Racial gerrymandering, including cracking, is illegal under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Arguing that they'd been illegally racially gerrymandered, the plaintiffs presented expert analysis showing that had these maps been used for the 2020 and 2022 elections, the candidate preferred by Black voters would have lost in all 27 statewide elections.
In court Thursday, Elisabeth Theodore, attorney for the plaintiffs, stressed that the racial polarization in the new maps is significant and indisputable.
“There is no evidence in the record that this racially polarized voting is caused by some preference on the basis of politics,” she said. She likewise argued that the plaintiffs had already shown that the maps violated the Voting Rights Act and that a lower court had not considered all the evidence.
Representing Berger and Moore, attorney Phillip Strach argued that lawmakers had not drawn new voting maps based on race and should not be forced to redraw them with race in mind, either.
He also argued that the redistricting process was inherently disruptive, especially with an election happening later this year.
In order to avoid disrupting the entire map, the plaintiffs in this case simply asked the court to redraw legislative boundaries within two disputed districts. But if the court ordered redistricting within just these two districts, Strach argued, “that would be the court micromanaging the legislature.”
Judge Harvie Wilkinson III, a Ronald Regan appointee, and Judge Allison Jones Rushing, a Donald Trump appointee, both raised concerns about disruption to neighboring Senate districts if lawmakers had to redraw the disputed districts.
“Districts are often like falling dominos,” Wilkinson warned.
Theodore pushed back, arguing that redistricting could occur without impacting other districts. Since the districts are not holding elections in March, she pointed out, no votes have been cast, nor have any absentee ballots been sent.
Wilkinson implied that the votes lost in the districts would cancel out, as North Carolina now has a Black lieutenant governor and a Black minority leader in the state Senate.
Besides, Theodore argued, one cannot defend illegal racial gerrymandering by simply arguing that it all balances out at the state level.
"You can't trade off the rights of Black voters in these districts because of the possibility that a Black voter somewhere else in the state may have an opportunity to elect a candidate of choice," she added. "This is an area where if you didn’t crack the Black Belt, Black voters would naturally have an opportunity to elect a candidate of choice.”
Judge Roger Gregory, a William Clinton appointee, seemed sympathetic to these arguments.
In court on Thursday, he pushed back on the idea that compelling new maps would be micromanaging — or that the Black voters are too late to seek an injunction before the 2024 elections.
“Is it micromanaging the legislature in terms of finding that you violated Section Two of the Voting Rights Act," or to say that " there must be a remedy that appropriately addressed that?” Gregory asked.
The Voting Rights Act "is considered to be one of the most important pieces of legislation ever passed in this country in terms of democracy and justice," he added. "No court has ever found it was micromanaged.”
Gregory also took issue with the idea that an injunction seeking new maps should be time-barred. That argument, he said, would set a dangerous precedent.
The defendants delayed creating the maps, he argued, and yet were now arguing the delay prevents any action by the courts.
“Justice delayed is justice denied,” Gregory said. He said it was the responsibility of federal courts to protect citizens — including by enforcing laws against racial gerrymanders.
Strach argued the plaintiffs hadn’t proved violations of the Voting Rights Act. “This is the state following state law,” he said.
Once again, Gregory expressed skepticism.
“So state law requires you to reduce the 42% Black voting population down to 30%?” he asked. “Your state constitution doesn’t trump federal law.”
By the end of the hearing on Thursday, the judges did not say when they would announce their decision.
This lawsuit is just one of several challenging the validity of North Carolina's latest voting maps. Two other lawsuits have challenged U.S. congressional maps and state Senate and House maps, respectively. A fourth suit, filed in late January, argues that North Carolina voters have a constitutional right to fair elections and that the new voting maps illegally factor in race, ethnicity and voting tendencies to give Republicans an unfair advantage.
Follow @SKHaulenbeek
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
New York ethics May 9, 2024 -
