Wright et al v. State of North Carolina et al
ORDER GRANTING 27 Wake County Board of Elections' Motion to Dismiss; GRANTING 29 State of North Carolina's Motion to Dismiss; and DENYING AS FUTILE 33 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend. Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in their entirety, and the clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the file. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 3/14/2014. (Fisher, M.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CALLA WRIGHT, et al.,
THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, and
THE WAKE COUNTY BOARD OF
This matter is before the Court on defendant State ofNorth Carolina's motion to dismiss
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(l) [DE 29], defendant Wake County Board of
Elections' motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) [DE 27], and
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a). The motions are ripe for adjudication. For the reasons stated herein, defendant State of
North Carolina's motion to dismiss is GRANTED, defendant Wake County Board of Elections'
motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and plaintiffs motion to amend is DENIED AS FUTILE.
Thirteen individual citizens of Wake County, North Carolina and two associations of
citizens initiated this action by filing, through counsel, a complaint on August 22, 2013. The
complaint asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for defendants' alleged violation of plaintiffs'
equal protection rights under both the United States and North Carolina Constitutions resulting
from the North Carolina General Assembly's enactment of S.L. 2013-110, a local bill
implementing a new redistricting plan for electing members of the Wake County School Board.
Plaintiffs' complaint seeks relief in the form of a declaratory judgment and a preliminary,
mandatory injunction requiring the defendants to conduct lawful elections for the Wake County
Board of Education using an election method and districting system which complies with the
requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, § 19
of the North Carolina Constitution.
THIS COURT'S JURISDICTION OVER THE STATE.
The State of North Carolina has moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)( 1), claiming that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the State in this case because
the State has immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. [DE
29]. It is firmly established in Supreme Court precedent that "a State may not be sued in federal
court by one of its own citizens." California v. Deep Sea Research, 523 U.S. 491, 501 (1998);
see also Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890). Plaintiff named the State as a defendant with the
hope that the state would consent to federal jurisdiction and waive its immunity. [DE 35 at 21];
Lapides v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Syst. of Ga., 535 U.S. 613, 619 (2002). However, as the
State has raised Eleventh Amendment immunity as a defense, plaintiffs agree that their claim
cannot proceed against the state. [DE 35 at 21]; [DE 33]. This Court lacks jurisdiction over the
State here and therefore defendant State ofNorth Carolina's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(b)(I) is granted.
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO AMEND.
Recognizing that the State has Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit here, plaintiffs
seek to amend their complaint by dropping the State as a defendant and adding North Carolina
Governor Patrick McCrory, North Carolina Senate President Pro Tern Phil Berger, and North
Carolina House Speaker Thorn Tillis as defendants in their official capacities. [DE 33].
Under FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a), "a party may amend the party's pleadings only by leave of
court or by written consent of the parties; and leave to amend a complaint shall be freely given
when justice so requires." "[L]eave to amend a pleading should be denied only when the
amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the
moving party, or the amendment would have been futile." Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426
(4th Cir. 2006) (en bane) (citations and quotations omitted). A proposed amendment is futile
when "it advances a claim or defense that is legally insufficient on its face." Joyner v. Abbott
Labs., 674 F. Supp. 185, 190 (E.D.N.C. 1987). In this instance, plaintiffs' amendment would be
Courts have consistently permitted suits against state actors as a way of enjoining a state
from unconstitutional action. Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 159-60 (1908). However, "[i]n
making an officer of the State a party defendant in a suit to enjoin the enforcement of an act
alleged to be unconstitutional it is plain that such officer must have some connection with the
enforcement of the act." Id at 157. Here, as in Fitts v. McGhee, none of the individual parties
named in the proposed amended complaint "have been charged by law with any special duty" in
connection with SessionLaw2013-110. 172 U.S. 516,529 (1899).
In North Carolina, the State Board of Elections has general supervision over elections in
the state. N.C. Gen. Stat.§ 162-22(a). The State Board of Elections appoints all members ofthe
county boards of elections and advises them as to the proper methods of conducting elections.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-22(c). The county boards of elections oversee the elections occurring in
their counties. N.C. Gen. Stat.§ 163-33. It is clear from this review of North Carolina law that
the enforcement of Session Law 2013-110 falls to the Wake County Board of Elections. No
enforcement power of the law resides within the Governor, the House Speaker, or the Senate
President Pro Tern. To enjoin the implementation of this law, the Court would need only to issue
an injunction against the Wake County Board of Elections. No other parties are involved with the
implementation and enforcement of Session Law 2013-110 and therefore no other parties are
proper defendants to this suit even under the Ex Parte Young doctrine.
Plaintiffs claim that if the State officers are not part of this suit in their official capacities,
there is no mechanism to force a constitutionally valid districting plan to be created in the event
the implementation of Session Law 2013-110 is enjoined. However, North Carolina has
provisions for such an instance that would ensure valid elections could be held. In the event any
State election law or form of election of any local board of education is held unconstitutional or
invalid by a federal court, the State Board of Elections has authority to make "reasonable interim
rules and regulations with respect to the pending primary or election as it deems advisable." N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 163-22.2. Further, the local board of education is not to revise district boundaries
after the General Assembly has ratified an act establishing district boundaries until a new federal
census is taken "except that the board may make an earlier revision of district boundaries ... if it
must do so to comply with a court order." N.C. Gen. Stat.§ 115C-37(i).
Because the Governor, House Speaker, and Senate President Pro Tern are not proper
parties in this suit, an amendment that casts them as defendants would be futile. Accordingly,
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint is denied.
DEFENDANTS' 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS.
Defendant Wake County Board of Education has moved to dismiss under FED. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be
granted challenges the legal sufficiency of a plaintiffs complaint. Francis v. Giacomelli, 588
F .3d 186, 192 (4th Cir. 2009). When ruling on the motion, the court "must accept as true all of
the factual allegations contained in the complaint." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94
(2007) (citing Bell At!. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007)). Although complete and
detailed factual allegations are not required, "a plaintiffs obligation to provide the 'grounds' of
his 'entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555
(citations omitted). "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Similarly, a court need not accept as true a plaintiffs "unwarranted
inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments." Eastern Shore Mkts. v. JD. Assocs. Ltd.,
213 F.3d 175, 180 (4th Cir. 2000). A trial court is "not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion
couched as a factual allegation." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Accordingly, to survive a Rule
12(b)( 6) motion, a complaint must contain facts sufficient "to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level" and to satisfy the court that the claim is "plausible on its face." Id. at 555, 570.
Defendants argue that plaintiffs' complaint fails to state a claim for which relief may be
granted for two reasons. First, they argue that the population deviations between the challenged
districts are de minimis under both United States Supreme Court and North Carolina Supreme
Court precedent. Second, they argue that plaintiffs' complaint states a claim for political
gerrymandering which is a nonjusticiable political question.
Fourteenth Amendment Claim.
In Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), and their
progeny, the Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
to the United States Constitution requires that districts for the United States House of
Representatives and for state legislatures must achieve some measure of population equality. The
Supreme Court has also made clear that the one person, one vote rule also applies to local
government districts. Avery v. Midland Cnty., 390 U.S. 474,480-81 (1968). The one person, one
vote requirement does not require absolute equality of population between legislative or local
government districts. Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835, 842-43 (1983).
[M]inor deviations from mathematical equality among state legislative districts
are insufficient to make out a prima facie case of invidious discrimination under
the Fourteenth Amendment so as to require justification by the State. Our
decisions have established, as a general matter, that an apportionment plan with a
maximum population deviation under 10% falls within this category of minor
deviations. A plan with larger disparities in population, however, creates a prima
facie case of discrimination and therefore must be justified by the State.
Id (citations and quotations omitted). The Fourth Circuit has held that
[t]he 10% de minimis threshold recognized in Brown does not completely insulate
a state's districting plan from attack of any type. Instead, that level serves as the
determining point for allocating the burden of proof in a one person, one vote
case .... [I]f the maximum deviation is less than 10%, the population disparity is
considered de minimis and the plaintiff cannot rely on it alone to prove invidious
discrimination or arbitrariness. To survive summary judgment, the plaintiff would
have to produce further evidence to show that the apportionment process had a
"taint of arbitrariness or discrimination." Roman v. Sincock, 377 U.S. [695,] 710
[(1964)]. In other words, for deviations below 10%, the state is entitled to a
presumption that the apportionment plan was the result of an "honest and good
faith effort to construct districts . . . as nearly of equal size as is practicable."
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. at 577. However this is a rebuttable presumption.
Daly v. Hunt, 93 F.3d 1212, 1220 (4th Cir. 1996). Here the plaintiffs allege that the maximum
deviation of the numbered districts is 7.11% and that the maximum deviation of the lettered
districts is 9.8%. [DE 1 ~ 53-54]. Accordingly, plaintiffs have failed to state a prima facie case
for a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's one person, one vote requirement. Therefore, in
order to rebut the presumption of constitutionality and to survive a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs
must allege facts showing that the population deviations here are tainted by arbitrariness or
discrimination. Sincock, 377 U.S. at 710.
Plaintiffs fail to do so. Plaintiffs allege that defendants have drawn districts designed to
further one political party's advantage by purposeful deviations between urban and rural areas
and pairings of Democratic incumbents. [DE 1 ,-r 66]. They also allege that the numbered districts
in Session Law 2013-110 are visually and mathematically less compact than the districts in the
2011 plan. [/d.]. Finally, plaintiffs allege that the plan disregards precincts, as the new districts
split twenty-one unique precincts in Wake County, while the 2011 plan only split eleven. [/d.].
First, the Court notes that the differences in population disparities between the old 2011
plan and new Session Law 2013-110 plan are of no consequence. The Supreme Court has
expressly rejected the argument that the possibility of drafting a "better" plan alone is sufficient
to establish a violation of the one person, one vote requirement.
We think that appellees' showing of numerical deviations from population
equality among the Senate and House districts in this case failed to make out a
prima facie violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, whether those deviations are considered alone or in combination
with the additional fact that another plan could be conceived with lower
deviations among the State's legislative districts.
Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735, 740-41 (1973). This is especially so here because the new
plan differs in substance from the old plan in that it consists of seven districts and two super
districts for which each voter has two votes whereas the old plan had nine districts for which
each voter had one vote. It might be expected that the new system would have different
population disparities than the old, and the fact that the new disparities are larger than the old
disparities but still less than 10% is insufficient to suggest a "taint of arbitrariness or
discrimination." Sincock 377 U.S. at 710.
The remainder of plaintiffs' alleged facts state a political gerrymandering claim.
Although plaintiffs dress the claim in the language of a one person, one vote claim, it is actually
not so. Because the Supreme Court found political gerrymandering claims to be nonjusticiable in
Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004), plaintiffs have not stated a claim upon which relief may
be granted and their claim must be dismissed.
All of the factors which plaintiffs say point to taint of arbitrariness or discrimination lead
back to politics. Plaintiffs allege a favoritism of rural areas of the county over urban areas and
they allege the targeting of democratic incumbents by the placement of three democratic
incumbents into two republican leaning districts with republican incumbents. However, plaintiffs
admit that the end result is political advantage. [DE 35 at 15-16]. Plaintiffs do not argue that the
population deviations are a result of discrimination on the basis of race or some other suspect
classification. They claim only an impermissible political bias.
Plaintiffs argue that this political advantage is not a traditional legitimate state interest or
redistricting factor, and is therefore evidence that Session Law 2013-110 is tainted by
arbitrariness and discrimination in its redistricting scheme. "The problem with this analysis is
that it assumes 'politics as usual' is not itself a 'traditional' redistricting criterion." Cox v. Larios,
542 U.S. 947, 952 (2004) (Scalia, J. dissenting) (emphasis in original). In Vieth, all but one
Justice agreed that it is a traditional criterion and is constitutional as long as it does not go too
far. 541 U.S. at 285-86 (plurality opinion); id., at 307 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment); id.,
at 344 (Souter, J., dissenting); id., at 355 (Breyer, J., dissenting). "The reality is that districting
inevitably has and is intended to have substantial political consequences." Gaffney, 412 U.S. at
A political gerrymander is, loosely, the creation of electoral districts that ignore traditional redistricting criteria
solely for the sake of partisan advantage. Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267,272-73 (2004).
Plaintiffs attempt to bolster their argument with the Supreme Court's summary
affirmance in Larios, 542 U.S. 947. They argue that the facts of this case are virtually the same
as the facts in Larios v. Cox, 300 F. Supp. 2d 1320, 1340-41 (N.D. Ga. 2004) summarily
affirmed by Larios, 542 U.S. 947. In Larios, the district court found that the population
deviations were not created in response to a compelling state interest, but rather, "[t]he twin
goals of regional favoritism and protection of Democratic incumbents led to the underpopulation
and overpopulation of certain districts." 300 F. Supp. 2d 1320 at 1334. The court held that these
population deviations violated the equal protection clause and that the case did not present a
question of political gerrymandering. !d. at 1334, 1351.
However, Larios is different from this case. Larios dealt with state-wide elections
whereas this case deals only with Wake County. The broad geographic differences found within
a state are not found within one county. The Larios court also found widespread targeting of
republican incumbents and protection of democratic incumbents. 300 F. Supp. 2d at 1329-30. In
Larios, fifty-nine incumbents were placed in a district with another incumbent. !d. Out of these
fifty-nine, forty-seven were republicans. !d. In the case before this Court, five incumbents were
placed in districts with another incumbent and only three of those five are democrats. There is
significant difference in scale between the facts here and the facts in Larios. It was plainly
apparent in Larios that republican incumbents were being targeted, whereas here the targets are
less clear. It cannot be said that Larios squarely address the question the Court is faced with here.
To claim impermissible political bias is to claim political gerrymandering. To claim
political gerrymandering is to raise a claim that is nonjusticiable. Vieth, 541 U.S. at 281.
Plaintiffs' attempt to dress a political gerrymandering claim in one person, one vote clothing fails
to state a claim for which this Court may grant relief. Accordingly plaintiffs' complaint must be
North Carolina Constitutional Claim.
The right to vote on equal terms is a fundamental right under Article I, § 19 of the
Constitution of North Carolina. Northampton Cnty. Drainage District No. One v. Bailey, 392
S.E.2d 352, 355 (N.C. 1990). Plaintiffs allege the same supporting facts for their North Carolina
Constitutional claim as for their United States Constitutional claim. They allege that citizens
voting in overpopulated districts have a vote which is weighed less than those who vote in
underpopulated districts, depriving them of the right to vote on equal terms. They further allege
that geographic favoritism and targeting of incumbents do not rise to the level of a compelling
state interest. These allegations are really those of impermissible political bias?
The de minimis deviation rule announced by the North Carolina Supreme Court differs
slightly from that adopted by the United States Supreme Court. North Carolina has a plus or
minus 5% deviation requirement. Stephenson v. Bartlett, 562 S.E.2d 377, 397 (N.C. 2002). North
Carolina adopted this standard in order to fulfill the "obligation to ensure that [a State
redistricting principle] complies with federal law." Id at 396. As in federal law, Stephenson does
not mean that a deviation of less than 5% cannot be challenged. Population deviations that
weaken the vote of one citizen at the expense of another must be justified by compliance with
state and federal redistricting principles. Stephenson, 562 S.E.2d at 396-97. Here all of the
deviations alleged by plaintiffs are less than North Carolina's 5% rule. The greatest deviations
for the numbered districts are +3.63% and -4.19% and for the lettered districts are+ 4.9% and4.9%. [DE 1 ~ 54-55]. Plaintiffs allege that these deviations are not justified by compliance with
Discussed supra Part liLA.
state and federal redistricting principles, and, therefore, even though the population deviations
are less than five percent, they still violate the North Carolina Constitution.
Although defendants are not protected because the deviations here are less than +/- 5%,
plaintiffs' factual allegations amount to a claim of impermissible political bias which is a claim
of political gerrymandering. 3 Although the Court has found no North Carolina case law which
supports a finding that such a claim is nonjusticiable, the Court is unable to consider the claim.
The Supreme Court found that political gerrymandering claims were nonjusticiable because no
judicially discernible and manageable standards for adjudicating them exist. Vieth, 541 U.S. at
281. Because the facts alleged are the same and the basic political gerrymandering claim is the
same for both plaintiffs' federal and state claims, the fact that there are no judicially discernible
and manageable standards for adjudicating the federal political gerrymandering claim means that
this Court also has no judicially discernible and manageable standards that it can apply to the
state political gerrymandering claim. Accordingly, plaintiffs' state constitutional claim is a
nonjusticiable one in this Court. Therefore, plaintiffs' state claim must be dismissed as failing to
state a claim because a nonjusticiable claim is not one upon which relief may be granted.
Discussed supra Part liLA.
For the foregoing reasons, defendant State ofNorth Carolina's motion to dismiss [DE 29]
is GRANTED, plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend [DE 33] is DENIED AS FUTILE, and
defendant Wake County Board of Elections' motion to dismiss [DE 27] is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs' claims are DISMISSED in their entirety. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment
accordingly and close the file.
_j:t_ day of March, 2014.
T RRENCE W. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?