Branch v. Guilford Cnty. Bd. of Elections
| Decision Date | 14 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 1:12CV111.,1:12CV111. |
| Citation | 858 F.Supp.2d 516 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina |
| Parties | NAACP–GREENSBORO BRANCH, Myra Ann Slone, and R. Steve Bowden, Plaintiffs, v. The GUILFORD COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, Thom Tillis in his official capacity as Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives; Philip E. Berger in his official capacity as President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate; and the State of North Carolina, Defendants. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Anita S. Earls, Christopher A. Brook, Southern Coalition for Social Justice, Durham, NC, for Plaintiffs.
John Mark Payne, Greensboro, NC, Susan Kelly Nichols, Alexander McClure Peters, N.C. Dept. of Justice, Thomas A. Farr, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Raleigh, NC, for Defendants.
On February 7, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 12), seeking an interim remedy for alleged constitutional infirmities in North Carolina Session Law 2011–407 (“SL 2011–407”). Plaintiffs filed a brief in support of this motion (Doc. 13), Defendants filed a brief in opposition (Doc. 20), and Plaintiffs filed a reply brief (Doc. 23). The parties appeared before this court on February 17, 2012, to present oral argument. At that hearing, the parties fully addressed the merits of Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 12), and this court granted Plaintiffs' motion and stated that a memorandum opinion was forthcoming. This memorandum opinion sets forth the court's reasoning for granting Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. On February 24, 2012, this court entered an order (Doc. 36) setting forth an interim remedy, which is also described below.1
On July 28, 2011, the North Carolina General Assembly passed SL 2011–407, reducing the Guilford County Board of Commissioners from eleven to nine members and redrawing the district lines of Guilford County. See generally SL 2011–407. NAACP–Greensboro Branch, Myra Ann Slone, and R. Steve Bowden (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against the Guilford County Board of Elections, Thom Tillis, in his official capacity as Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, Philip E. Berger, in his official capacity as President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate, and the State of North Carolina (“Defendants”) alleging that SL 2011–407 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution (Compl. (Doc. 1) at 7) and of Article I, § 19 of the North Carolina Constitution ( id. at 8).
Plaintiffs filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) (Doc. 9), a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 12), and a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 14). Plaintiffs requested that this court issue the TRO prior to the opening of the filing period for elections for the Guilford County Board of Commissioners, which was scheduled to occur on February 13, 2012. (Pls.' Mem. Supp. Mot. TRO (Doc. 10) at 1.) Because this court did not find that Plaintiffs would be irreparably harmed by delaying any ruling until the issues could be fully briefed, this court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for a TRO without prejudice. After reviewing the parties' briefs (Docs. 13, 20, and 23), this court heard oral argument regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction on February 17, 2012, and found preliminary relief to be warranted. This memorandum opinion more fully sets out this court's rationale for granting Plaintiffs' motion and for its decision as to an appropriate remedy.
Article VII, § 1 of the North Carolina Constitution states,
The General Assembly shall provide for the organization and government and the fixing of boundaries of counties, cities and towns, and other governmental subdivisions, and, except as otherwise prohibited by this Constitution, may give such powers and duties to counties, cities and towns, and other governmental subdivisions as it may deem advisable.
Accordingly, any power held by a county government exists solely by permission of the legislature and may be revoked by the General Assembly at any time. The North Carolina Supreme Court has noted that counties are “subject practically to the unlimited control of the legislature, unless restricted by constitutional provision” and that county commissioners have “no vested property or contract right to the office to which they had been elected of which they could not be deprived by the legislature.” O'Neal v. Jennette, 190 N.C. 96, 99, 129 S.E. 184, 185–86 (1925); see also Ramsey v. Rollins, 246 N.C. 647, 651, 100 S.E.2d 55, 57 (1957); Comm'rs of Dare Cnty. v. Comm'rs of Currituck Cnty., 95 N.C. 189, 192 (1886) ().
From 1991 to 2011, elections for the Guilford County Board of Commissioners were governed by North Carolina Session Law 1991–136 (“SL 1991–136”).2 Under this session law, the Board of Commissioners consisted of eleven members, nine commissioners from single-member districts and two at-large commissioners. See SL 1991–136, § 1.(a). According to all of the parties, after the 2010 census, the General Assembly determined that the Guilford County district lines needed to be redrawn to account for changes in population distribution. The General Assembly then passed North Carolina Session Law 2011–172 (“SL 2011–172”), which repealed SL 1991–136, shrank the Board from eleven to nine commissioners, and granted authority to the Board of Commissioners to create a redistricting plan that met certain outlined requirements. See SL 2011–172. A little over a month later, however, the General Assembly adopted SL 2011–407, which repealed SL 1991–136, as reenacted by SL 1993–521, and SL 2011–172. Only Section 3 of SL 2011–407 is applicable to Guilford County and challenged in this case. It states, in part,3 as follows:
SECTION 3.(a) Chapter 136, Session Laws of 1991, as reenacted by Section 1 of Chapter 521, Session Laws of 1993, is repealed.
SECTION 3.(b) Chapter 172, Session Laws of 2011, is repealed.
SECTION 3.(c) Effective on the first Monday of December 2012, the Board of Commissioners of Guilford County shall consist of nine members. The members shall be elected on a partisan basis at the time of the regular county primary and general elections. One member shall be elected from each of eight single-member districts established under subsection (f) of this section. One member shall be elected at large from within the entirety of Guilford County.
SECTION 3.(d) In 2012 and quadrennially thereafter, members for Districts 4, 5, 7, and 8 shall be elected for four-year terms. In 2014 and quadrennially thereafter, members for Districts 1, 2, 3, and 6 and the at-large member shall be elected for four-year terms.
SECTION 3.(e) The qualified voters of each district shall elect the member of the board for that district. Candidates must reside in the district for which they seek to be elected.
SECTION 3.(g) Following the return of the 2020 census, and each census thereafter, the Guilford County Board of Commissioners may revise the election districts.
SECTION 3.(h) Notwithstanding Part 4 of Article 4 of Chapter 153A of the General Statutes, the structure of the Guilford County Board of Commissioners shall not be altered under that Part prior to July 1, 2017.
SECTION 3.(i) The Guilford County Commissioners shall submit the changes required by this act to the U.S. Department of Justice pursuant to section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
SL 2011–407 creates a Guilford County Board of Commissioners comprised of eight commissioners from single-member districts and one at-large commissioner. 4 Under a single-member district electoral scheme, constituents are represented by a single commissioner whom they can hold directly accountable. See Stephenson v. Bartlett, 355 N.C. 354, 379–80, 562 S.E.2d 377, 394–95 (2002). The benefits of such a scheme have been recognized at both the state and federal level, indeed, “federal law expressly requires that states use single-member districts in reapportioning their congressional representation.” Id. at 377 n. 5, 562 S.E.2d 377 ().
Additionally, like SL 2011–172, SL 2011–407 reduces the Board of Commissioners from eleven to nine members. Unlike SL 2011–172, however, it repeals the Board's authority to redraw the district lines and instead explicitly establishes the district lines itself. See SL 2011–407, § 3.(b) and § 3.(f). Section 3.(c) states:
Effective on the first Monday of December 2012, the Board of Commissioners of Guilford County shall consist of nine members. The members shall be elected on a partisan basis at the time of the regular county primary and general elections. One member shall be elected from each of eight single-member districts established under subsection (f) of this section. One member shall be elected at large from within the entirety of Guilford County.
The Guilford County Board of Commissioners currently consists of eleven members whose terms expire as follows:
+--------------------------------------+
¦District 1:¦Bruce Davis ¦(2014)¦
+-----------+-------------------+------¦
¦District 2:¦Ben Bencini ¦(2014)¦
+-----------+-------------------+------¦
¦District 3:¦Linda Shaw ¦(2014)¦
+-----------+-------------------+------¦
¦District 4:¦Kirk Perkins ¦(2012)¦
+-----------+-------------------+------¦
¦District 5:¦Billy Yow ¦(2012)¦
+-----------+-------------------+------¦
¦District 6:¦Kay Cashion ¦(2014)¦
+-----------+-------------------+------¦
¦District 7:¦Mike Winstead ¦(2012)¦
+-----------+-------------------+------¦
¦District 8:¦Melvin Alston ¦(2012)¦
+-----------+-------------------+------¦
¦District 9:¦Carolyn Coleman ¦(2014)¦...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wash. Post v. McManus
...equitable considerations might counsel against enjoining an unconstitutional statute, see NAACP-Greensboro Branch v. Guilford Cty. Bd. of Elections , 858 F.Supp.2d 516, 526-27 (M.D.N.C. 2012), it is generally recognized that upholding constitutional rights is preferable to allowing a state ......