Legislative Issues
Supreme Court tosses out
new legislative district maps
State
officials are deciding whether to appeal the N.C.
Supreme Court’s 5-2 ruling that new legislative
districts adopted by the General Assembly last fall
violate the state constitution’s ban on dividing
counties into different legislative districts. The high
court’s April 30 decision was a major victory for the
state Republican
Party, which contended the Democratic-controlled House
and Senate gerrymandered districts lines to the best
advantage of Democratic candidates.
However, the court dismissed the GOP’s proposed
solution of folding several counties into large,
multi-member legislative districts. The court said that,
to the extent possible, all legislative seats should be
apportioned into single-member districts.
The Supreme Court sent the case back to Johnston County
Superior Court Judge Knox V. Jenkins Jr. to determine
whether the General Assembly has enough time to draw new
maps to be used in the November elections or whether he
should have them drawn. House Speaker Jim
Black (D-Mecklenburg) said he will consult with several
legislative leaders over the next few days and could
have acceptable new legislative maps drawn by the time
the General Assembly convenes May 28 for its
budget-adjusting short session.
In its 48-page decision, the court ruled that the maps
violate Article II, sections 3 and 5 of the N.C.
Constitution, the so-called “Whole County
Provisions” which states that "no county shall be
divided in the formation" of a Senate or House
district. The provision was added to the constitution in
a 1968 referendum but has largely been ignored in recent
years. The redistricting plan
adopted by the legislature last fall divides 51 of 100
counties into different Senate districts and 70 counties
into different House districts.
The opinion was written by Chief Justice I. Beverly Lake
Jr. Joining him on the constitutional issue were the
three other Republicans, Associate Justices Mark D.
Martin, Robert Edmunds, and George L. Wainwright Jr.
Associate Justice Robert F. Orr, also a Republican,
wrote a separate opinion, concurring with the majority
in part and dissenting in part. "This
court should not attempt to micromanage the legislative
function of drawing new districts," Orr said.
Associate Justices G.K. Butterfield and Sarah Parker,
both Democrats, wrote dissenting opinions. Both said
that the Whole County Provisions were unenforceable in
light of the federal Voting Rights Act, which controls
the redistricting process in 40 counties to protect
minority voters. That was the argument made by attorneys
representing the state. Butterfield also wrote that the
court's remedy imposed too many redistricting rules on
the legislature.
The ruling calls for new maps with single-member
districts, wherever practical. It sets out several
criteria for drawing legislative districts that would
have the "whole counties provision" in the
state constitution enforced as much as possible and
still comply with "one-person, one-vote."
The ruling does not resolve
the question of when legislative and congressional
primary elections will be held. The May 7 primaries were
postponed indefinitely pending a ruling by the court. |
Excerpts from the
N.C. Supreme Court’s
ruling on redistricting:
 The 2001 legislative
redistricting maps violate Article II, Sections 3(3) and
5(3), of the North Carolina Constitution, the so-called
“Whole County Provisions” added in a 1968 referendum
requiring that, to the extent possible, counties should
not be divided into different legislative districts.
The Whole County
Provisions (WCP) remain valid and binding upon the
General Assembly during the redistricting and
reapportionment process “except to the extent that
they are preempted by federal law or inconsistent with
other state constitutional guarantees.”
The WCP should not be
"rendered a legal nullity if (their) beneficial
purposes can be preserved consistent with federal law
and reconciled with other state constitutional
guarantees.” The redistricting plans violate the WCP
for reasons unrelated to compliance with the federal
Voting Rights Act.
Since the General
Assembly stopped complying with the WCP, legislative
districts have been increasingly gerrymandered to a
degree inviting widespread contempt and ridicule. The
majority opinion quotes an article from the Wall Street
Journal which said "elections in many semifree
Third World nations routinely offer more choices than
many North Carolina residents will have" under the
2001 legislative redistricting plans.” Also quoted was
an article in The Economist which said, "In a
normal democracy, voters choose their representatives.
In America, it is rapidly becoming the other way around
. . .North Carolina (has been) long notorious for
outrageous reapportionment."
The U.S. District
Court erred when it ruled, in a case brought after the
1980 legislative redistricting, that Forsyth County
could properly be split into different legislative
districts even though it was not covered by the Voting
Rights Act. That case was brought by several Forsyth
County residents, including Jack Cavanagh who was later
elected mayor of Winston-Salem.
Consistent with the
opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court that multi-member
districts have been used to dilute the voting strength
of racial minorities, the majority holds that the use of
both single-member and multi-member districts within the
same redistricting plan violates the Equal Protection
Clause of the state Constitution “unless it is
established that the inclusion of multi-member districts
within such plan advances a compelling state
interest.”
The General Assembly
should be afforded the first opportunity to enact new
legislative redistricting plans for use in the fall
elections, “provided such can be done without
disruption to the timing of the 2002 general
election.” The trial court will conduct a hearing on
an expedited basis to determine whether the General
Assembly has sufficient time to enact such plans. If
not, the trial court should proceed to develop interim
plans for use in the 2002 election cycle and the General
Assembly shall adopt permanent plans in the 2003
session. |
