COVINGTON et al v. THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA et al
Filing
140
ORDER signed by Judge James A. Wynn, Jr., Judge Thomas D. Schroeder, and Judge Catherine C. Eagles on 11/29/2016 re: Special Session of 2017. The defendants shall file new maps with the court within 7 days of passage. Within 7 days of passage the defendants shall file the documents as setout in this order. Plaintiffs may file any objections within 7 days of the filing of the redistricting plan with the court and defendants may respond 7 days thereafter. If the state fails to redistrict by March 15, 2017, Plaintiffs may file a proposed redistricting plan no later than March 17, 2017. The State of North Carolina shall hold special primary and general elections in the fall of 2017 as setout. (Coyne, Michelle) (Main Document 140 replaced on 11/30/2016 to reflect proper signature line for Judge Eagles.) (Powell, Gloria).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SANDRA LITTLE COVINGTON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:15-CV-399
ORDER
With
individual
this
lawsuit,
North
filed
in
Carolina
May
2015,
citizens,
the
plaintiffs,
challenged
the
constitutionality of nine state Senate districts and nineteen
state House of Representatives districts “as racial gerrymanders
in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
¶ 1, ECF No. 11.
First Am. Compl.
In an opinion filed on August 11, 2016, this
Court held that the challenged House and Senate Districts as drawn
in 2011 were unconstitutional and, without imposing a deadline,
directed the legislature to draw new districts.
Mem. Op., ECF No.
123; Order and J., ECF No. 125.
Because the Court’s Order finding racial gerrymandering was
entered on the eve of the November 2016 regular election, the Court
determined
that
the
2016
unconstitutional districts.
election
should
proceed
under
the
Mem. Op., 160-63, ECF No. 123.
The
Court enjoined the defendants from conducting any elections using
1
the unconstitutional districts after November 2016.
Mem. Op., ECF
No. 123; Order and J., ECF No. 125.
The plaintiffs ask the Court to establish a deadline of
January
25,
2017,
for
the
legislature
to
pass
legislation
establishing new districts and to order a special election in 2017
using those districts, while the defendants ask the Court to allow
the
legislators
elected
in
the
unconstitutional
districts
to
continue to hold office until 2018. The Court ordered supplemental
briefing, Order, ECF No. 124, which is now complete.
The Court earlier concluded that the challenged districts
violate the equal protection rights of the plaintiffs and other
voters and that the plaintiffs are “entitled to swift injunctive
relief.”
to
Mem. Op. 163, ECF No. 123.
shorten
elections,
the
and
term
alter
of
existing
the
The Court has the authority
legislators,
residency
order
requirements
for
special
those
elections, because “[i]t is fundamental that state limitations—
whether constitutional, statutory or decisional—cannot bar or
delay relief required by the federal constitution.”
Butterworth
v. Dempsey, 237 F. Supp. 302, 306 (D. Conn. 1965) (per curiam);
see also Smith v. Beasley, 946 F. Supp. 1174, 1212-13 (D.S.C.
1996).
While special elections have costs, those costs pale in
comparison to the injury caused by allowing citizens to continue
to be represented by legislators elected pursuant to a racial
2
gerrymander.
The
Court
recognizes
that
special
elections
typically do not have the same level of voter turnout as regularly
scheduled elections, but it appears that a special election here
could be held at the same time as many municipal elections, which
should increase turnout and reduce costs.
A special election in
the fall of 2017 is an appropriate remedy.
The plaintiffs contend that the deadline for the General
Assembly to draw remedial districts should be January 25, 2017.
Mem. in Supp. of Pls.’ Mot. for Additional Relief 2, ECF No. 133.
The defendants contend that the deadline should be May 1, 2017.
Defs.’ Mem. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for Additional Relief 2, ECF
No. 136.
To the extent that the defendants’ argument is based on the
fact that the plaintiffs’ proposed schedule would only give the
State two weeks to draw new districts, we reject that argument.
This Court’s order finding the current districts unconstitutional
was entered on August 15, 2016, and the State has already had over
three
months
to
work
on
a
redistricting
plan.
Nothing
has
prevented the State from holding hearings, commissioning studies,
developing evidence, and asking experts to draw proposed new
districts over this three month period.
Indeed, nothing prevented
the current legislature from complying with the Court’s order to
redistrict.
3
Nevertheless, the current legislature has apparently decided
not to redistrict and to leave that task to the legislators just
elected under the unconstitutional racial gerrymander, who will
come into office in mid-January 2017.
11.1.
See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 120-
Although the new legislature might ordinarily be able to
accomplish redistricting in two weeks, we are sensitive to the
defendants’ concern that the large number of districts found to be
racial gerrymanders will render the redistricting process somewhat
more time-consuming.
That being said, the State’s proposed schedule does not build
in any time for the Court to make changes should the State’s new
districts be inadequate to remedy the constitutional violation.
Under the State’s proposed schedule, the State will have some eight
and a half months to redistrict, the plaintiffs will then have
seven days to review the new districts and object, and the Court
will
have
only
a
few
days
to
review
the
districts
and
any
objections before the Board of Elections needs to begin the work
necessary to hold elections in the fall.
The Court concludes that March 15, 2017, is a reasonable
deadline for allowing the State the opportunity to draw new
districts.
This gives the State a total of seven months from the
time the districts were held to be unconstitutional, which is
longer than it took the 2011 legislature to redistrict the entire
state;
even
if
all
the
work
is
4
done
by
the
newly
elected
legislature, they will have some six weeks to accomplish the task.
This schedule also will allow the Court enough time to consider
whether the State has remedied its unconstitutional gerrymander
and to act if it does not.
Finally, the plaintiffs ask that the defendants provide the
Court and the plaintiffs with the information needed to evaluate
the constitutionality of the new districts.
Additional Relief, ECF No. 132 ¶ 3.
objected.
See Pls.’ Mot. for
The defendants have not
See Defs.’ Mem. in Opp’n, ECF No. 136.
It is ORDERED that:
1. The General Assembly of the State of North Carolina is
given the opportunity to draw new House and Senate district
plans for North Carolina House Districts 5, 7, 12, 21, 24,
29, 31, 32, 33, 38, 42, 43, 48, 57, 58, 60, 99, 102, and
107; and Senate Districts 4, 5, 14, 20, 21, 28, 32, 38,
and 40, through and until 5 p.m. on March 15, 2017.
The
defendants shall file the new maps with the Court within
seven days of passage.
2. Within seven days of passage, the defendants also shall
file:
a. transcripts
of
all
committee
hearings
and
floor
debates;
b. the “stat pack” for the enacted plans;
c. a description of the process the General Assembly
5
followed in enacting the new plans, including the
identity of all participants involved in the process;
d. the criteria the General Assembly applied in drawing
the districts in the new plans, including the extent
to which race was a factor in drawing any district in
which
the
black
voting-age
population
(BVAP)
is
greater than 50%; and
e. as to any district intentionally drawn with a BVAP
greater than 50%, the factual basis upon which the
General Assembly concluded that the VRA obligated it
to draw the district at greater than 50% BVAP.
3. The plaintiffs may file any objections within seven days
of the filing of the redistricting plan with the Court.
The defendants may respond seven days thereafter.
4. If the State fails to redistrict by March 15, 2017, the
plaintiffs may file a proposed redistricting plan no later
than March 17, 2017.
5. The term of any legislator elected in 2016 and serving in
a House or Senate district modified by the General Assembly
under the redistricting plan shall be shortened to one
year.
6. Any citizen having established their residence in a House
or Senate district modified by the General Assembly under
the redistricting plan as of the closing day of the filing
6
period for the 2017 special election in that district shall
be qualified to serve as Senator or Representative if
elected to that office notwithstanding the requirement of
Sections 6 and 7 of Article II of the North Carolina
Constitution,
which
provides
that
each
Senator
and
Representative, at the time of their election, shall have
resided “in the district for which he is chosen for one
year immediately preceding his election.”
7. The State of North Carolina shall hold special primary and
general elections in the fall of 2017, for the purpose of
electing new legislators in these districts and such other
districts
which
Paragraph 1.
are
redrawn
in
order
to
comply
with
The primary shall be held in late August or
early September and the general election shall be held in
early November, the specific dates to be determined by the
legislature or, should the legislature fail to act, by this
Court. Legislators so elected shall take office on January
2, 2017, and each legislator shall serve a one year term.
This 29th day of November, 2016.
/s/ James A. Wynn, Jr.
/s/ Thomas D. Schroeder
/s/ Catherine C. Eagles
7
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?