[EL] NC redistricting case decided

[Jon Sherman]

Interesting that Judge Schroeder, whose opinion was just reversed by 4th
Circuit, is part of this unanimous 3-judge court, and the decision is
written by Judge Wynn...one of the 4th Cir. judges who reversed him. I
haven't read this yet so don't know the evidence but will be interesting to
see what drives the conclusion that race was the predominant factor here,
when Judge Schroeder strained (for 485 pages) not to find racially
discriminatory intent in the VIVA case.


On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

> Correction to my subject line: this case was decided by a three judge
> court, not the 4th Circuit.
>
>
>
> Apologies.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *<law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf of Rick
> Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> *Date: *Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 12:02 PM
> *To: *Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject: *[EL] NC redistricting case decided by 4th Circuit; more news
>
>
> Breaking: 3-Judge Court Unanimously Rules NC State Districts
> Unconstitutional Racial Gerrymander <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85224>
>
> Posted on August 11, 2016 11:44 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85224>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> A unanimous 3-judge court (including the district court judge who recently
> upheld North Carolina’s strict voting law) has held in a 167-page opinion
> <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/covington.pdf> that
> challenged North Carolina legislative districts are unconstitutional racial
> gerrymanders and need to be redrawn.
>
> This ruling follows a familiar pattern in these racial gerrymandering
> cases: a Republican legislature draws district lines to give the party an
> advantage by packing minority voters into a smaller number of districts.
> The state defends itself by saying it had no choice, but it had to pack in
> order to comply with the Voting Rights Act. Plaintiffs sue, and say that
> the Voting Rights Act does not require this packing, and that in fact the
> legislatures made race the predominant factor in redistricting in violation
> of the prohibition on racial gerrymandering first set out in the 1993 case
> of Shaw v. Reno.
>
> The Supreme Court struck down Alabama districts on this basis in the Alabama
> Legislative Black Caucus case
> <http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/alabama-legislative-black-caucus-v-alabama/>,
> and there are already two
> <http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mccrory-v-harris/?wpmp_switcher=desktop>
>  racial gerrymandering cases
> <http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/bethune-hill-v-virginia-state-board-of-elections/?wpmp_switcher=desktop> the
> Supreme Court will hear in the next term, including one involving a similar
> claim as to North Carolina’s legislative districts. I presume the state
> will appeal this case too to the Supreme Court, and the Court will either
> agree to hear the case, or grant, vacate, and remand it after it decides
> the other cases.
>
> As to the timing of relief, the court excluded affecting the 2016
> elections for change but directed the following as to the remedy:
>
> *After careful consideration, and with much reluctance, we conclude that
> necessity demands such a result today. We decline to order injunctive
> relief to require the state of North Carolina to postpone its 2016 general
> elections, as we believe such a remedy would cause significant and undue
> disruption to North Carolina’s election process and create considerable
> confusion, inconvenience, and uncertainty among voters, candidates, and
> election officials. Instead, like other courts confronted with similarly
> difficult circumstances, we will allow the November 2016 elections to
> proceed as scheduled under the challenged plans, despite their
> unconstitutionality….*
>
> *Therefore, we hereby order the North Carolina General Assembly to draw
> remedial districts in their next legislative session to correct the
> constitutional deficiencies in the Enacted Plans. By separate order, we
> will direct the parties to file supplemental briefs on an appropriate
> deadline for such action by the legislature, on whether additional or other
> relief would be appropriate before the regularly scheduled elections in
> 2018, and, if so, the nature and schedule of that relief.*
>
>  To me the most interesting thing about these cases is how the racial
> gerrymandering tool, which started as a tool by conservatives to minimize
> the number of majority-minority districts, has become a tool to further
> minority voting rights and to limit Republican gerrymanders. (it is no
> surprise that Democrats’ lawyers from Perkins Coie are heavily involved in
> these cases).  I explore the morphing of the racial gerrymandering cause of
> action in Racial Gerrymandering’s Questionable Revival
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2601459>, 67*Alabama
> Law Review* 365 (2015). And just today I flagged Justin Levitt’s must
> read article on how Republicans suddenly found love for the Voting Rights
> Act—as an excuse to create more white, Republican districts. Check out
> Justin’s Quick and Dirty: The New Misreading of the Voting Rights Act
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2487426>, 43 Fla. St.
> U. L. Rev. 573 (2016).
>
> [This post has been updated.]
>
> [image: are]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85224&title=Breaking%3A%203-Judge%20Court%20Unanimously%20Rules%20NC%20State%20Districts%20Unconstitutional%20Racial%20Gerrymander&description=>
>
> Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Voting
> Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>
>
>
>
> “Assessing Elections with a Clear Eye; What the EPI Tells Us about
> Election Performance” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85222>
>
> Posted on August 11, 2016 11:27 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85222>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Charles Stewart
> <http://www.electionline.org/index.php/electionline-weekly> for
> Electionline Weekly:
>
> *On Tuesday, The Pew Charitable Trusts released the latest version of
> the Elections Performance Index
> <http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/multimedia/data-visualizations/2014/elections-performance-index> (EPI),
> its effort to take ideas proposed by Heather Gerken in The Democracy Index
> <http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8865.html> and turn them into flesh and
> blood (or at least electrons).*
>
> *The website captures what happened during the 2014 midterm election,
> adding to existing measures from 2008, 2010, and 2012, as well. Having data
> from a series of elections makes it possible to examine the process of
> change across time. Most importantly, now that the EPI has two midterm
> elections under its belt, it is possible to do an apples-to-apples
> comparison of each state with how it performed in successive midterm
> elections.*
>
> *The headline for this release — that the administration of elections in
> the U.S. continues to improve, slowly but surely — will certainly strike a
> discordant tone with many in the public, who have been fed a steady diet of
> stories claiming that American elections are rigged or vulnerable to
> hacking. Yet, the EPI points to a set of deeper truths about American
> elections that, one hopes, will gain the attention of the public,
> lawmakers, and election administrators once this election season is over.*
>
> [image: are]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85222&title=%26%238220%3BAssessing%20Elections%20with%20a%20Clear%20Eye%3B%20What%20the%20EPI%20Tells%20Us%20about%20Election%20Performance%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
>
>
>
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
>
>
>
>
> True the Vote Spokesperson Calls Blocking of NC Law, TX ID Softening “Very
> Minor Victories” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85219>
>
> Posted on August 11, 2016 10:54 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85219>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> And he doesn’t seem to understand
> <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/10/voting-rights-activists-anti-fraud-crusaders-clash/>that
> you can’t figure out how many people are deterred by voter id laws just by
> counting how many actually show up at the polls and cannot vote:
>
> [image: reen Shot 2016-08-11 at 10.53.37 AM]
> <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2016-08-11-at-10.53.37-AM.png>
>
> [image: are]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85219&title=True%20the%20Vote%20Spokesperson%20Calls%20Blocking%20of%20NC%20Law%2C%20TX%20ID%20Softening%20%26%238220%3BVery%20Minor%20Victories%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>
>
>
>
> “We All Thought the Voting Rights Act Was a Permanent Victory. We Were
> Wrong.” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85217>
>
> Posted on August 11, 2016 10:02 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=85217>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Charles Pierce
> <http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a47489/north-carolina-voter-suppression-local-level/>
>  at Esquire.
>
> [image: are]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D85217&title=%26%238220%3BWe%20All%20Thought%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20Was%20a%20Permanent%20Victory.%20We%20Were%20Wrong.%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Rick Hasen
>
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
>
> UC Irvine School of Law
>
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
>
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
>
> 949.824.3072 - office
>
> 949.824.0495 - fax
>
> rhasen at law.uci.edu
>
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
>
> http://electionlawblog.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>



-- 
Jon Sherman
Counsel
Fair Elections Legal Network <http://www.fairelectionsnetwork.com/>*
1825 K Street NW, Suite 450
Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: (202) 248-5346
jsherman at fairelectionsnetwork.com
www.fairelectionsnetwork.com
[image: Twitter] <https://twitter.com/fairerelections>[image: Facebook]
<https://www.facebook.com/FairElectionsLegalNetwork>
*The contents of this email should not be construed as legal advice.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160811/f434aadd/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 72091 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160811/f434aadd/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1505 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160811/f434aadd/attachment-0001.png>