North Carolina Supreme Court Considers Lawsuit Over Right to ‘Fair’ Elections

RALEIGH, N.C. — North Carolina judges deciding whether a redistricting lawsuit asserting the state’s constitutional right to “fair” elections could go to trial questioned Thursday their ability to examine the boundaries of districts this way or to define what “equitable” means.

A panel of three trial judges listened to arguments on a motion by Republican legislative leaders to have the lawsuit filed against them by several constituents dismissed. The justices did not immediately rule from the bench, but two of them peppered the voters’ lead lawyer with questions about what specifically his clients were seeking.

The lawmakers’ lawyer said the lawsuit had already been short-circuited by a 2023 state Supreme Court ruling that judges did not have the authority to rule that redistricting maps were gerrymanders illegal supporters.

It is one of four lawsuits filed in North Carolina challenging boundaries drawn by the Republican-dominated General Assembly last fall for use in elections through 2030 that electorally favor Republicans . Three were filed in federal court alleging illegal racial gerrymandering. Two of those cases are expected to go to trial next year. In March, a federal appeals court sided with Republicans in a third lawsuit involving two state senatorial districts.

Bob Orr, a former Supreme Court justice representing voters, said this lawsuit takes a different approach than the one brought by Democrats and their allies that ultimately led to the high court’s declaration that redistricting was a question policy from which the judiciary was to remain outside, except for challenges on specific limitations. The justices also said lawmakers can take partisanship into account in mapping.

For the latest news, weather and traffic alerts from WCNC Charlotte, download the WCNC Charlotte mobile app and enable push notifications.

The lawsuit claims there is an implied unwritten right in the state constitution to fair elections, citing specific language in the constitution that elections “shall be held often” and that “all elections shall be free “. The state’s lawsuit wants several Congressional and General Assembly districts redrawn, claiming they are representative of lawmakers’ efforts to change lines in otherwise competitive districts in order to preordain election outcomes that will favor a camp – which is now the Republicans.

“What good are free elections if they are not fair? » » asked Orr. “What is the point of frequent elections if the results are predetermined and the value of citizens’ participation as voters in the election of public officials is a given before they even arrive at the polls?

Phil Strach, a lawyer for Republican legislative leaders, told the justices that the state Supreme Court’s April 2023 ruling puts an end to lawsuits like those considered Thursday, which he called “legal mumbo jumbo.” Elections in the state are already fair, Strach added.

“The state Supreme Court has closed the door on this court, which is the eye of the beholder on what is fair or not fair in a redistricting map,” Strach said in asking for its dismissal. “They slammed that door, and it should stay closed for good.”

Superior Court Judge Jeffery Foster of Pitt County asked Orr for a definition of “equitable.” Orr responded that it means fair, impartial and not excessively favoring one side or the other. Foster asked if it made more sense to simply hold a statewide referendum to change the state constitution and make it clear that elections must be fair. Referendums cannot take place without legislative approval.

Superior Court Judge Angela Puckett of Surry County questioned how fairness would be quantified, as Orr said it doesn’t mean all candidates in every legislative and congressional district have the same chance of winning.

“I just don’t understand what you’re asking,” Puckett asked. Orr, a former Republican gubernatorial candidate who is now an unaffiliated voter, responded that redistricting is a complicated process that would require collective evidence in a trial.

“Give us a chance to make our case,” Orr said.

Superior Court Judge Ashley Gore of Columbus County, the other panelist, as well as Foster and Puckett, are all registered Republicans. Chief Justice Paul Newby, a Republican who wrote the dominant opinion in the 2023 redistricting decision, chooses three-judge panels to hear such constitutional challenges like these.