Dickson v. Rucho

Decision Date19 December 2014
Docket NumberNo. 201PA12–2.,201PA12–2.
Citation367 N.C. 542,766 S.E.2d 238
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
Parties Margaret DICKSON, Alicia Chisolm, Ethel Clark, Matthew A. McLean, Melissa Lee Rollizo, C. David Gantt, Valeria Truitt, Alice Graham Underhill, Armin Jancis, Rebecca Judge, Zettie Williams, Tracey Burns–Vann, Lawrence Campbell, Robinson O. Everett, Jr., Linda Garrou, Hayes McNeill, Jim Shaw, Sidney E. Dunston, Alma Adams, R. Steve Bowden, Jason Edward Coley, Karl Bertrand Fields, Pamlyn Stubbs, Don Vaughan, Bob Etheridge, George Graham, Jr., Thomas Chumley, Aisha Dew, Geneal Gregory, Vilma Leake, Rodney W. Moore, Brenda Martin Stevenson, Jane Whitley, I.T. ("Tim") Valentine, Lois Watkins, Richard Joyner, Melvin C. McLawhorn, Randall S. Jones, Bobby Charles Townsend, Albert Kirby, Terrence Williams, Norman C. Camp, Mary F. Poole, Stephen T. Smith, Philip A. Baddour, and Douglas A. Wilson v. Robert RUCHO, in his official capacity only as the Chairman of the North Carolina Senate Redistricting Committee COMMITTEE; David Lewis, in his official capacity only as the Chairman of the North Carolina Hoiuse of Representatives Redistricting Committee; Nelson Dollar, in his official capacity only as the Co–Chairman of the North Carolina House of Representatives Redistricting Committee; Jerry Dockham, in his official capacity only as the Co–Chairman of the North Carolina House of Representatives Redistricting Committee; Philip E. Berger, in his official capacity only as the President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate; Thom Tillis, in his official capacity only as the Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives; The State Board of Elections; and The State of North Carolina. North Carolina State Conference of Branches of the NAACP, League of Women Voters of North Carolina Carolina, Democracy North Carolina, North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute, Reva McNair, Matthew Davis, Tressie Stanton, Anne Wilson, Sharon Hightower, Kay Brandon, Goldie Wells, Gray Newman, Yvonne Stafford, Robert Dawkins, Sara Stohler, Hugh Stohler, Octavia Rainey, Charles Hodge, Marshall Hardy, Martha Gardenhight, Ben Taylor, Keith Rivers, Romallus O. Murphy, Carl White, Rosa Brodie, Herman Lewis, Clarence Albert, Evester Bailey, Albert Brown, Benjamin Lanier, Gilbert Vaughn, Avie Lester, Theodore Muchiteni, William Hobbs, Jimmie Ray Hawkins, Horace P. Bullock, Roberta Waddle, Christina Davis–McCoy, James Oliver Williams, Margaret Speed, Larry Laverne Brooks, Carolyn S. Allen, Walter Rogers, Sr., Shawn Meachem, Mary Green Bonaparte, Samuel Love, Courtney Patterson, Willie O. Sinclair, Cardes Henry Brown, Jr., and Jane Stephens v. The State of North Carolina; The North Carolina State Board of Elections, Thom Tillis, in his official capcity as Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives; and Philip E. Berger, in his official capacity as President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate.

Poyner Spruill LLP, Raleigh, by Edwin M. Speas, Jr., John W. O'Hale, and Caroline P. Mackie, for Dickson plaintiff-appellants; and Southern Coalition for Social Justice, by Anita S. Earls and Allison Riggs, and Tin Fulton Walker & Owen, PLLC, by Adam Stein, for NC NAACP plaintiff-appellants.

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Raleigh, by Thomas A. Farr and Phillip J. Strach, for legislative defendant-appellees; and Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Alexander McC. Peters, Special Deputy Attorney General, for all defendant-appellees.

Jenner & Block LLP, by Paul M. Smith, pro hac vice, Jessica Ring Amunson, pro hac vice, and Michelle R. Singer, pro hac vice; and Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP, by Mark Anderson Finkelstein and Matthew Nis Leerberg, for Election Law Professors Guy–Uriel Charles, Gilda R. Daniels, Lani Guinier, Samuel Issacharoff, Justin Levitt, Janai S. Nelson, Spencer Overton, Richard H. Pildes, and Franita Tolson, amici curiae.

H. Jefferson Powell for North Carolina Law Professors Michael Curtis, Walter Dellinger, William P. Marshall, and H. Jefferson Powell, amici curiae.

Terry Smith, pro hac vice, and Ferguson, Chambers & Sumter, P.A., by Geraldine Sumter, for North Carolina Legislative Black Caucus, amicus curiae.

EDMUNDS, Justice.

Following the 2010 Decennial Census, the General Assembly of North Carolina enacted redistricting plans for the North Carolina Senate and House of Representatives, and for the North Carolina districts for the United States House of Representatives. Plaintiffs challenge the legality of these plans, arguing that they violate the constitutions of the United States and of North Carolina, controlling federal statutes, and applicable decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of North Carolina. The three-judge panel reviewing the plans unanimously concluded that the General Assembly applied traditional and permissible redistricting principles to achieve partisan advantage and that no constitutional violations resulted. After a careful and exhaustive review of the record in this case and the pertinent law, we conclude that, as to the twenty-six districts deliberately drawn to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, the trial court erred when it applied strict scrutiny prematurely. However, plaintiffs were not prejudiced because even if strict scrutiny is not appropriate, these districts survive this most demanding level of review. As to the remaining challenged districts, we affirm the ruling of the trial court.

I. Procedural Background

The Constitution of North Carolina requires decennial redistricting of the North Carolina Senate and North Carolina House of Representatives, subject to several specific requirements. The General Assembly is directed to revise the districts and apportion Representatives and Senators among those districts. N.C. Const. art. II, §§ 3, 5. Similarly, consistent with the requirements of the Constitution of the United States, the General Assembly establishes North Carolina's districts for the United States House of Representatives after every decennial census. U.S. Const. art. I, §§ 2, 4; 2 U.S.C. §§ 2a, 2c (2012).

Following the census conducted with a date of 1 April 2010, leaders of the North Carolina House of Representatives and the North Carolina Senate independently appointed redistricting committees. Each committee was responsible for recommending a plan applicable to its own chamber, while the two committees jointly were charged with preparing a redistricting plan for the United States House of Representatives North Carolina districts. These committees sought information and suggestions from numerous sources, including the North Carolina Legislative Black Caucus and the North Carolina delegation to the United States Congress. In addition, these committees solicited input from various constituencies; invited public comment and conducted public hearings in multiple counties, including twenty-four of the forty counties then covered by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (hereinafter "the Voting Rights Act" or "VRA");1 heard both lay and expert testimony regarding such matters as racially polarized voting; solicited and received advice from the University of North Carolina School of Government; commissioned reports from independent experts to fill gaps in the evidence; and considered written submissions.

The General Assembly convened on 25 July 2011 to deliberate the redistricting plans drawn by the House and Senate committees. That same day, alternative maps were submitted by leaders of the Democratic Party and by the Legislative Black Caucus. On 27 July, the General Assembly ratified the 2011 North Carolina Senate redistricting plan and the 2011 plan for the federal House of Representatives districts. On 28 July, the General Assembly ratified the 2011 North Carolina House of Representatives redistricting plan. On 2 September 2011, the three plans were submitted to the United States Department of Justice for preclearance under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and preclearance was received on 1 November 2011.2 Also on 2 September, a suit seeking preclearance was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. That action was dismissed on 8 November 2011.

On 3 November 2011, Margaret Dickson and forty-five other registered voters filed a complaint, seeking to have the three redistricting plans declared invalid on both constitutional and statutory grounds. These plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on 12 December 2011. On 4 November 2011, the North Carolina State Conference of Branches of the NAACP joined by three organizations and forty-six individuals filed a complaint seeking similar relief. These plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on 9 December 2011. Following the filing of the original complaints, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of North Carolina appointed a panel of three superior court judges to hear these actions, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 1267.1. On 19 December 2011, the three-judge panel ("the trial court") consolidated both cases for all purposes.

On 6 February 2012, the trial court allowed in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on 5 October 2012, and defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on 10 December 2012. The trial court heard arguments on these motions on 25 and 26 February 2013.

While a ruling on the motions for summary judgment was pending, the trial court issued an order determining that genuine issues of material fact existed as to two issues that could not be resolved by summary judgment. Accordingly, the court ordered a trial on these two issues, which it identified as:

A. Assuming application of a strict scrutiny standard and, in considering whether the Enacted Plans were narrowly tailored, was each challenged Voting Rights Act ("VRA") district drawn in a place where a remedy or potential remedy for racially polarized voting was reasonable for purposes of preclearance or protection of the State from vote
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Harper v. Hall
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 14 Febrero 2022
    ...377 (2002) ( Stephenson I ), Stephenson v. Bartlett , 357 N.C. 301, 582 S.E.2d 247 (2003) ( Stephenson II ), Dickson v. Rucho , 367 N.C. 542, 766 S.E.2d 238 (2014) ( Dickson I ) and Dickson v. Rucho , 368 N.C. 608, 781 S.E.2d 460 (2015) ( Dickson II ). Within county groupings, county lines ......
  • Covington v. North Carolina
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
    • 21 Enero 2018
    ...to unconstitutional racial gerrymanders, in violation of the North Carolina and United States Constitutions. See Dickson v. Rucho , 367 N.C. 542, 766 S.E.2d 238 (2014), vacated , ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 1843, 191 L.Ed.2d 719 (2015) (mem.). A divided Supreme Court of North Carolina held tha......
  • Harper v. Hall
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 14 Febrero 2022
    ... ... We will not ... abdicate this duty by "condemn[ing] complaints about ... districting to echo into a void." Rucho v. Common ... Cause , 139 S.Ct. 2484, 2507 (2019). Today, we hold that ... the enacted maps violate several rights guaranteed to the ... people by ... 354, 562 S.E.2d 377 (2002) ( Stephenson I ), ... Stephenson v. Bartlett , 357 N.C. 301, 582 S.E.2d 247 ... (2003) ( Stephenson II ), Dickson v. Rucho , ... 367 N.C. 542, 766 S.E.2d 238 (2014) ( Dickson I ) and ... Dickson v. Rucho , 368 N.C. 481, 781 S.E.2d 460 ... (2015) ( Dickson II ... ...
  • Covington v. North Carolina, 1:15CV399
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
    • 19 Septiembre 2017
    ...gerrymanders, in violation of the North Carolina and United States Constitutions. See Harris, 159 F.Supp.3d 600 ; Dickson v. Rucho, 367 N.C. 542, 766 S.E.2d 238 (2014), vacated, ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 1843, 191 L.Ed.2d 719 (2015) (mem.). A separate panel of this Court concluded that the t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT