November 5, 2021

By Brooke Lillard lillard@redistrictingfoundation.org

North Carolina Voters Challenge Gerrymandered Congressional Map with Support of National Redistricting Foundation

Washington, D.C. -- In a submission today to the Wake County Superior Court, North Carolina voters supported by the National Redistricting Foundation (NRF) are asking the court to strike down the newly-enacted congressional map as a partisan gerrymander in violation of the Free Elections, Equal Protection, Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Assembly Clauses of the North Carolina Constitution.  

The filing seeks to supplement the complaint in Harper v. Lewis, which in 2019 successfully achieved a preliminary injunction against the General Assembly’s 2016 partisan gerrymander. In granting plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion in 2019, the court found that use of the gerrymandered 2016 districts in the 2020 elections would cause “the people of our State [to] lose the opportunity to participate in congressional elections conducted freely and honestly to ascertain, fairly and truthfully, the will of the people.” That risk is equally acute with the just-passed 2021 map  -- and North Carolinians should not be forced again to vote in unconstitutional districts. 

The full supplemental complaint is available here; related filings can be found here.

“The congressional map passed yesterday in North Carolina is the epitome of partisan gerrymandering, and very plainly violates the state constitution,” said Marina Jenkins, Director of Litigation and Policy for the NRF. “North Carolinians may have gotten a new map, but they got the same sorry story of districts that crack and pack communities in order to bake in artificial bias in favor of Republicans. North Carolina is a highly competitive state for both parties, and yet more than 70 percent of the congressional districts in the gerrymandered map would be safe Republican seats. North Carolinians deserve a new, fair congressional map that accurately reflects the people and competitive nature of the state.”  

The congressional map is an intentional, extreme partisan gerrymander that dilutes Democratic votes and prevents Democratic voters from electing candidates of their choice. In 2019, the court ruled a map favoring Republicans with ten of thirteen seats would be an extreme partisan gerrymander in violation of the North Carolina Constitution and now, again, the legislature has drawn a similarly extreme 10-3-1 gerrymander, locking in the same manufactured advantage for Republicans that was rejected by the court in 2019.

The most populous and diverse counties in the state such as Mecklenburg County (which includes Charlotte), Wake County (which includes Raleigh), and Guilford County (which includes Greensboro and High Point), were each split into multiple congressional districts. Wake County has a population of around 1.1 million -- or enough for about one and a half congressional districts -- but was divided into three separate districts to dilute the power of voters residing there. 

North Carolina is gaining a congressional seat due to its population growth of the past decade, the majority of which occurred in metro Charlotte and the Research Triangle area, according to  Census data. Rather than reflecting North Carolina’s population, however, the recently passed map anchors the new congressional district in rural Cleveland County, which saw only a small increase in population according to the data. This county also happens to be the home of Republican House Speaker, Tim Moore, who is reportedly rumored to be considering a run for U.S. Congress. 

“Beyond the obvious, common-sense recognition that this 10-3-1 map is nothing more than an effort by state Republicans to revive their 10-3 gerrymander from 2016, mapping simulations show that the 2021 Plan is extraordinarily abnormal when considered against the universe of possible maps -- indicating an intentional, extreme gerrymander,” continued Jenkins. “This is not a fair map and NRF is proud to support the North Carolina voters challenging it in court.”

###