[EL] NC redistricting case decided

Thu Aug 11 14:25:59 PDT 2016

Why did they not truncate the next terms and order a special election in 
2017 using constitutional districts?
Redistricting needn't take two years.
   :-) dah

On 8/11/2016 1:43 PM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>
> Correction to my subject line: this case was decided by a three judge 
> court, not the 4^th 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 onAugust 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 ina 
> 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 
> gerrymanderingcases 
> <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’sQuick 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.]
>
> 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 inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Voting 
> Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>
>
[]
-- 
David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
david at holtzmanlaw.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160811/a229cb0d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1505 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160811/a229cb0d/attachment.png>