Harper v. Hall

• Docket Number: 413PA21
• Decision Date: 16 December 2022
• Citation: 383 N.C. 89,881 S.E.2d 156
• Parties: Rebecca HARPER; Amy Clare Oseroff; Donald Rumph; John Anthony Balla ; Richard R. Crews; Lily Nicole Quick; Gettys Cohen, Jr. ; Shawn Rush; Jackson Thomas Dunn, Jr.; Mark S. Peters; Kathleen Barnes; Virginia Walters Brien; and David Dwight Brown v. Representative Destin HALL, in his official capacity as Chair of the House Standing Committee on Redistricting; Senator Warren Daniel, in his official capacity as Co-Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Redistricting and Elections; Senator Ralph Hise, in his official capacity as Co-Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Redistricting and Elections; Senator Paul Newton, in his official capacity as Co-Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Redistricting and Elections; Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, Timothy K. Moore; President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate, Philip E. Berger; the North Carolina State Board of Elections; and Damon Circosta, in his official capacity North Carolina League of Conservation Voters, Inc.; Henry M. Michaux, Jr.; Dandrielle Lewis; Timothy Chartier; Talia Fernós; Katherine Newhall; R. Jason Parsley; Edna Scott; Roberta Scott; Yvette Roberts; Jereann King Johnson; Reverend Reginald Wells; Yarbrough Williams, Jr.; Reverend Deloris L. Jerman; Viola Ryals Figueroa; and Cosmos George v. Representative Destin Hall, in his official capacity as Chair of the House Standing Committee on Redistricting; Senator Warren DanieL, in his official capacity as Co-Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Redistricting and Elections; Senator Ralph E. Hise, Jr., in his official capacity as Co-Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Redistricting and Elections; Senator Paul Newton, in his official capacity as Co-Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Redistricting and Elections; Representative Timothy K. Moore, in his official capacity as Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives; Senator Philip E. Berger, in his official capacity as President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate; The State of North Carolina; the North Carolina State Board of Elections; Damon Circosta, in his official capacity as Chairman of the North Carolina State Board of Elections; Stella Anderson, in her official capacity as Secretary of the North Carolina State Board of Elections; Jeff Carmon III, in his official capacity as Member of the North Carolina State Board of Elections; Stacy Eggers IV, in his official capacity as Member of the North Carolina State Board of Elections; Tommy Tucker, in his official capacity as Member of the North Carolina State Board of Elections; and Karen Brinson Bell, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

383 N.C. 89

881 S.E.2d 156

Rebecca HARPER; Amy Clare Oseroff; Donald Rumph; John Anthony Balla ; Richard R. Crews; Lily Nicole Quick; Gettys Cohen, Jr. ; Shawn Rush; Jackson Thomas Dunn, Jr.; Mark S. Peters; Kathleen Barnes; Virginia Walters Brien; and David Dwight Brown

v.Representative Destin HALL, in his official capacity as Chair of the House Standing Committee on Redistricting; Senator Warren Daniel, in his official capacity as Co-Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Redistricting and Elections; Senator Ralph Hise, in his official capacity as Co-Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Redistricting and Elections; Senator Paul Newton, in his official capacity as Co-Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Redistricting and Elections; Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, Timothy K. Moore; President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate, Philip E. Berger; the North Carolina State Board of Elections; and Damon Circosta, in his official capacity

North Carolina League of Conservation Voters, Inc.; Henry M. Michaux, Jr.; Dandrielle Lewis; Timothy Chartier; Talia Fernós; Katherine Newhall; R. Jason Parsley; Edna Scott; Roberta Scott; Yvette Roberts; Jereann King Johnson; Reverend Reginald Wells; Yarbrough Williams, Jr.; Reverend Deloris L. Jerman; Viola Ryals Figueroa; and Cosmos George

v.Representative Destin Hall, in his official capacity as Chair of the House Standing Committee on Redistricting; Senator Warren DanieL, in his official capacity as Co-Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Redistricting and Elections; Senator Ralph E. Hise, Jr., in his official capacity as Co-Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Redistricting and Elections; Senator Paul Newton, in his official capacity as Co-Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Redistricting and Elections; Representative Timothy K. Moore, in his official capacity as Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives; Senator Philip E. Berger, in his official capacity as President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate; The State of North Carolina; the North Carolina State Board of Elections; Damon Circosta, in his official capacity as Chairman of the North Carolina State Board of Elections; Stella Anderson, in her official capacity as Secretary of the North Carolina State Board of Elections; Jeff Carmon III, in his official capacity as Member of the North Carolina State Board of Elections; Stacy Eggers IV, in his official capacity as Member of the North Carolina State Board of Elections; Tommy Tucker, in his official capacity as Member of the North Carolina State Board of Elections; and Karen Brinson Bell, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections

No. 413PA21

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed December 16, 2022

Patterson Harkavy LLP, by Burton Craige, Raleigh, Narendra K. Ghosh, Chapel Hill, and Paul E. Smith, Chapel Hill; Elias Law Group LLP, by Lalitha D. Madduri, Jacob D. Shelly, Graham W. White, and Abha Khanna ; and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, by Elisabeth S. Theodore, R. Stanton Jones, and Samuel F. Callahan, for Harper Plaintiffs.

Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A., by John R. Wester, Charlotte, Adam K. Doerr, Charlotte, Stephen D. Feldman, Raleigh, and Erik R. Zimmerman, Chapel Hill; and Jenner & Block LLP, by Sam Hirsch, Jessica Ring Amunson, Karthik K. Reddy, and Urja Mittal, for Plaintiff North Carolina League of Conservation Voters.

Southern Coalition for Social Justice, by Allison J. Riggs, Hilary H. Klein, Mitchell Brown, Katelin Kaiser, Jeffrey Loperfido, and Noor Taj; and Hogel

Lovells US LLP, by J. Tom Boer and Olivia T. Molodanof, for Plaintiff Common Cause.

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, by Phillip J. Strach, Raleigh, Thomas A. Farr, Raleigh, John Branch, Raleigh, and Alyssa M. Riggins ; and Baker & Hostetler LLP, by E. Mark Braden and Katherine L. McKnight, for Legislative Defendants.

North Carolina Department of Justice, by Amar Majmundar, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Terence Steed, Special Deputy Attorney General, Mary Carla Babb, Special Deputy Attorney General, and Stephanie Brennan, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State Defendants.

HUDSON, Justice.

¶ 1 The foundational democratic principles of equality and popular sovereignty enshrined in our Constitution's Declaration of Rights vest in the people of this state the fundamental right to vote on equal terms. N.C. Const. art. I, §§ 1 (equality and rights of persons), 2 (sovereignty of the people), 10 (free elections), 12 (freedom of assembly), 14 (freedom of speech), 19 (equal protection of the laws); see Harper v. Hall , 380 N.C. 317, 2022-NCSC-17, ¶ 158–59, 868 S.E.2d 499 (summarizing these principles and rights). This fundamental right "encompasses the opportunity to aggregate one's vote with likeminded citizens to elect a governing majority of elected officials who reflect those citizens’ views." Harper , ¶ 160. Put differently, it requires that "voters of all political parties [have] substantially equal opportunity to translate votes into seats." Id. ¶ 163. Therefore, when a districting plan systematically makes it harder for individuals of one political party to elect a governing majority than individuals of another party of equal size based upon that partisanship, it deprives a voter of his or her fundamental right to equal voting power. Id. "[S]uch a plan is subject to strict scrutiny and is unconstitutional unless the General Assembly can demonstrate that the plan is ‘narrowly tailored to advance a compelling governmental interest.’ " Id. ¶ 161 (citing Stephenson v. Bartlett , 355 N.C. 354, 377, 562 S.E.2d 377 (2002) ).

¶ 2 In accordance with these principles, on 4 February 2022, this Court struck down the General Assembly's 2021 Congressional Map, State Senate Map, and State House Map as unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders that failed strict scrutiny. See generally Harper , 2022-NCSC-17, 868 S.E.2d 499. In doing so, we noted a few potential statistical measures that could be used by the General Assembly and reviewing courts in determining whether redistricting plans demonstrate "a significant likelihood ... [of] giv[ing] the voters of all political parties substantially equal opportunity to translate votes into seats across the plan." Id. ¶ 163. However, we expressly declined to "identify an exhaustive set of metrics or precise mathematical thresholds which conclusively demonstrate or disprove the existence of an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander." Id. Rather than relying on certain measures dispositively, we emphasized that ultimately "[w]hat matters here ... is that each voter's vote carries roughly the same weight when drawing a redistricting plan that translates votes into seats in a legislative body." Id. ¶ 169.

¶ 3 This was neither accident nor oversight. An individual statistical measure standing alone, though helpful, is not dispositive of constitutional compliance. Rather, it constitutes one datapoint within a broader constellation of principles that a court may consider in reaching its ultimate constitutional determination: whether the proposed maps uphold or violate the fundamental right of all voters to vote on equal terms. Id. ¶¶ 163–69.

¶ 4 After determining that the 2021 Maps failed strict scrutiny, this Court gave the General Assembly the opportunity to submit remedial maps in accordance with N.C.G.S. § 120-2.4(a). Id. ¶ 178. We remanded the case to the trial court to oversee and assess the constitutionality of those remedial maps. Id. ¶ 223.

¶ 5 On 23 February 2022, the trial court issued its remedial order assessing the General Assembly's remedial maps. Therein, the trial court rejected the General Assembly's Remedial Congressional Plan but approved its Remedial House Plan and Remedial Senate Plan. The parties appealed each of these rulings to this Court.

¶ 6 Now, this Court must review the alignment of the trial court's remedial order with the foundational principles established in Harper . We determine that the trial court properly concluded that the Remedial Congressional Plan fell short of constitutional standards and that the Remedial House Plan met constitutional standards. These conclusions of law were supported by adequate factual findings, which were in turn supported by competent evidence. However, we hold that the trial court erred in its approval of the Remedial Senate Plan. Unlike the trial court's conclusions regarding the other plans, the trial court's conclusion of law regarding the Remedial Senate Plan lacked adequate factual findings supported by competent evidence. Indeed, the evidence dictates the opposite finding and conclusion. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's rejection of the Remedial Congressional Plan, affirm the trial court's approval of the Remedial House Plan, and reverse the trial court's approval of the Remedial Senate Plan.

¶ 7 In accordance N.C.G.S. § 120-2.4(a1), we now remand this case to the trial court to oversee the creation and adoption of a Modified Remedial Senate Plan that modifies Legislative Defendants’ Remedial Senate Plan only to the extent necessary to achieve constitutional compliance. See N.C.G.S. § 120-2.4(a1) (2021).

¶ 8 In so doing, we expressly and emphatically reaffirm the fundamental right of citizens to vote on equal terms enshrined within our Constitution's Declaration of Rights, and this Court's constitutional responsibility and authority to assess legislative compliance therewith. See Corum v. Univ. of N.C. , 330 N.C. 761, 783, 413 S.E.2d 276 (1992) ("It is the state judiciary that has the responsibility to protect the state constitutional rights of the citizens; this obligation to protect the fundamental rights of individuals is as old as the State."). These principles are—and must remain—the enduring bedrock of our sacred system of democratic governance, and may be neither subordinated nor subverted for the sake of passing political expediency.

I. Factual and Procedural...