In win for Republicans, North Carolina court allows partisan
gerrymandering
Send a link to a friend
[April 29, 2023]
By Joseph Ax
(Reuters) -North Carolina's highest court on Friday ruled that state law
does not bar lawmakers from drawing congressional and state legislative
maps for partisan benefit, boosting Republicans' odds next year of
maintaining their narrow majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The decision - divided along party lines - appears to clear the way for
the Republican-controlled legislature to craft new, political
advantageous maps for the 2024 elections, which could net them as many
as four additional U.S. House seats.
Republicans currently control the 435-member House by a narrow nine-seat
margin.
Friday's ruling vacated the court's previous decision, issued barely
more than a year ago when Democratic judges controlled the court, that
had found partisan gerrymandering violated the state constitution.
After the court threw out a Republican-drawn map, the two parties split
the state's 14 seats evenly in November under a court-approved map.
In the same election, Republicans flipped two Democratic seats on the
North Carolina Supreme Court, securing a 5-2 conservative majority. In
February, the new majority agreed to rehear the redistricting case at
the request of Republican lawmakers, an extraordinarily rare move in the
court's history.
In a 146-page opinion on Friday, Chief Justice Paul Newby noted that the
U.S. Supreme Court had also found that federal courts have no
jurisdiction to address partisan gerrymandering.
"Our constitution expressly assigns the redistricting authority to the
General Assembly subject to explicit limitations in the text," Newby
wrote for the majority. "Those limitations do not address partisan
gerrymandering."
In a scathing dissent, Justice Anita Earls, a Democrat, accused the
court's Republicans of pursuing their own political agenda at the
expense of voters' rights, calling it one of the court's "darkest
moments."
"Today, the Court shows that its own will is more powerful than the
voices of North Carolina's voters," she wrote.
'WORST DECISION EVER'
Voting rights groups decried the decision as an attack on democracy
itself.
[to top of second column]
|
Voters line up a few minutes before the
polls close during the 2022 U.S. midterm elections in Durham, North
Carolina, U.S., November 8, 2022. REUTERS/Jonathan Drake
"I think it's the worst decision the North Carolina Supreme Court
perhaps has ever made," Bob Phillips, executive director of Common
Cause North Carolina, told reporters.
In a statement, Phil Berger, the Republican leader in the North
Carolina Senate, said the ruling affirmed "that our constitution
cannot be exploited to fit the political whims of left-wing
Democrats."
In a separate decision, the court's conservative judges also upheld
a Republican-backed voter identification law that the court's
previous Democratic majority had struck down as racially
discriminatory.
Friday's ruling also calls into question whether the U.S. Supreme
Court will issue a decision in one of the year's most important
cases.
North Carolina Republicans had appealed last year's redistricting
decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, where they advanced a
once-fringe legal theory that has gained traction in conservative
legal circles: the independent state legislature doctrine.
Under the theory, state courts have no authority to review
lawmakers' actions regarding federal elections, including
redistricting and voting rules.
Democrats have warned that adopting the theory would allow
Republicans to enact new restrictions that undermine fair elections,
while Republicans contend it would rein in state judges intent on
usurping lawmakers' power.
When the North Carolina court agreed to rehear the case, however,
the U.S. Supreme Court asked for additional briefing from the
parties about whether it still had legal jurisdiction over the
matter.
Now that the North Carolina court has vacated the decision that
formed the basis for the U.S. Supreme Court's review, the U.S.
Supreme Court may conclude it no longer has a role to play in
resolving the matter.
(Reporting by Joseph AxEditing by Bill Berkrot and Aurora Ellis)
[© 2023 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. |