Judges: North Carolina's GOP-gerrymandered map is unconstitutional, may have to be redrawn
CLOSE
A three-judge panel found Republicans gerrymandered voter districts in North Carolina, drawing border lines with “excessive partisanship.”
USA TODAY
RALEIGH -Â Federal judges on Monday affirmed their earlier decision striking North Carolina’s congressional districts as unconstitutional because Republicans drew them with excessive partisanship.
Acting under an order of the U.S. Supreme Court to re-examine the case, the three-judge panel ruled again in favor of election advocacy groups and Democrats who had sued to challenge the boundaries drawn in 2016.
The Greensboro-based court also raised the possibility of directing the GOP-dominated legislature to redraw the maps by mid-September so they could be in effect for the fall elections or getting an outside expert to do so. The printing of ballots has been delayed while other fall election matters are in court.
“In such circumstances, we decline to rule out the possibility that the state should be enjoined from conducting any further congressional elections using the 2016 plan,” U.S. Circuit Judge Jim Wynn wrote in the majority opinion. He asked lawyers in the case to weigh in by Friday about what should happen next.
When would new maps be ready?
Any decision demanding new maps for this cycle likely would risk confusion among voters and be appealed by the Republican legislative leaders being sued.
May primaries were held, and general election candidates are raising money and campaigning in the current districts while approaching a midterm election in which control of the House is at stake. Even the plaintiffs, in their news releases praising the ruling, said they anticipated the Supreme Court would hear appeals during its session starting in October, meaning any new maps probably wouldn’t be used until the 2020 cycle.
The groups and individuals that sued alleged GOP mapmakers manipulated the lines of the state’s 13 districts in 2016 using political data to ensure Republicans retained a 10-3 majority within the delegation.
The same judges in January deemed the map an illegal partisan gerrymander that violated constitutional protections of Democratic voters. But the Supreme Court, which had ruled against plaintiffs in a redistricting case in Wisconsin, asked them to take a second look in June.
Ruling: Districts were gerrymandered
The sides in the case then filed briefs and provided new evidence. In Monday’s order covering almost 300 pages, Wynn wrote that at least one plaintiff registered to vote in each of the 13 districts has legal standing to challenge their district — meeting a key element of the justices’ ruling in the Wisconsin case. In each case, the opinion reads, the voter offered evidence showing the district had been twisted so that the person’s vote carried less weight compared to another hypothetical district that hadn’t been packed or split for partisan results.
The U.S. Constitution “does not allow elected officials to enact laws that distort the marketplace of political ideas so as to intentionally favor certain political beliefs, parties, or candidates and disfavor others,” Wynn wrote.
Wynn, District Judge Earl Britt and District Judge William Osteen agreed again that the 2016 redistricting plan violated the U.S. Constitution’s equal-protection provision. They also ruled that it violated provisions requiring states to be in charge of congressional elections because it dictated electoral outcomes. Osteen, in a separate opinion, disagreed with decisions by Wynn and Britt that the map also violated the First Amendment rights of Democrats to freedom of speech and of association.
More: Where’s the outrage over felons’ voting rights?
Berger’s office says ruling causes ‘chaos’
Attorneys for GOP mapmakers had argued the three-judge panel should dismiss the lawsuits because the plaintiffs’ evidence was statewide in nature, not district by district.
Republican Senate leader Phil Berger’s office focused Monday night on Wynn for “outrageous election meddling” that could affect which party wins the House majority this year. “The decision throws North Carolina into chaos causing maximum voter confusion, and suggests that a court can deny North Carolina citizens their right to vote in November,” said Pat Ryan, a Berger spokesman.
Bob Phillips, executive director of Common Cause North Carolina, called the ruling a historic win for voters, and a significant step towards finally ending gerrymandering.”
The map was redrawn in 2016 because other federal courts determined two districts originally drawn in 2011 were illegal because of excessive racial bias. Wynn noted the decadelong challenges.
“We continue to lament that North Carolina voters now have been deprived of a constitutional congressional districting plan — and, therefore, constitutional representation in Congress — for six years and three election cycles,” he wrote.
Posted!
1 of 211
2 of 211
3 of 211
4 of 211
5 of 211
6 of 211
7 of 211
8 of 211
9 of 211
10 of 211
11 of 211
12 of 211
13 of 211
14 of 211
15 of 211
16 of 211
17 of 211
18 of 211
19 of 211
20 of 211
21 of 211
22 of 211
23 of 211
24 of 211
25 of 211
26 of 211
27 of 211
28 of 211
29 of 211
30 of 211
31 of 211
32 of 211
33 of 211
34 of 211
35 of 211
36 of 211
37 of 211
38 of 211
39 of 211
40 of 211
41 of 211
42 of 211
43 of 211
44 of 211
45 of 211
46 of 211
47 of 211
48 of 211
49 of 211
50 of 211
51 of 211
52 of 211
53 of 211
54 of 211
55 of 211
56 of 211
57 of 211
58 of 211
59 of 211
60 of 211
61 of 211
62 of 211
63 of 211
64 of 211
65 of 211
66 of 211
67 of 211
68 of 211
69 of 211
70 of 211
71 of 211
72 of 211
73 of 211
74 of 211
75 of 211
76 of 211
77 of 211
78 of 211
79 of 211
80 of 211
81 of 211
82 of 211
83 of 211
84 of 211
85 of 211
86 of 211
87 of 211
88 of 211
89 of 211
90 of 211
91 of 211
92 of 211
93 of 211
94 of 211
95 of 211
96 of 211
97 of 211
98 of 211
99 of 211
100 of 211
101 of 211
102 of 211
103 of 211
104 of 211
105 of 211
106 of 211
107 of 211
108 of 211
109 of 211
110 of 211
111 of 211
112 of 211
113 of 211
114 of 211
115 of 211
116 of 211
117 of 211
118 of 211
119 of 211
120 of 211
121 of 211
122 of 211
123 of 211
124 of 211
125 of 211
126 of 211
127 of 211
128 of 211
129 of 211
130 of 211
131 of 211
132 of 211
133 of 211
134 of 211
135 of 211
136 of 211
137 of 211
138 of 211
139 of 211
140 of 211
141 of 211
142 of 211
143 of 211
144 of 211
145 of 211
146 of 211
147 of 211
148 of 211
149 of 211
150 of 211
151 of 211
152 of 211
153 of 211
154 of 211
155 of 211
156 of 211
157 of 211
158 of 211
159 of 211
160 of 211
161 of 211
162 of 211
163 of 211
164 of 211
165 of 211
166 of 211
167 of 211
168 of 211
169 of 211
170 of 211
171 of 211
172 of 211
173 of 211
174 of 211
175 of 211
176 of 211
177 of 211
178 of 211
179 of 211
180 of 211
181 of 211
182 of 211
183 of 211
184 of 211
185 of 211
186 of 211
187 of 211
188 of 211
189 of 211
190 of 211
191 of 211
192 of 211
193 of 211
194 of 211
195 of 211
196 of 211
197 of 211
198 of 211
199 of 211
200 of 211
201 of 211
202 of 211
203 of 211
204 of 211
205 of 211
206 of 211
207 of 211
208 of 211
209 of 211
210 of 211
211 of 211
Â