Case Summary

Under North Carolina’s 1991 legislative redistricting plan, District 18 was drawn as a majority-minority district in order to satisfy § 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act (“VRA”). When the State redrew its districts in 2003, District 18’s Black-voting-age-population (“BVAP”) had dropped to below 50% so, in an effort to comply with § 2, the State split Pender County to create a new District 18 with a BVAP of 39.36% that included white (majority) voters with sufficiently similar voting preferences to Black (minority) voters such that minority voters could still elect their candidate of choice. Pender County, along with various North Carolina voters, filed a state lawsuit against various state officials alleging the 2003 plan violated the North Carolina Constitution’s mandatory “Whole County Provision” for legislative redistricting.

  • The Wake County Superior Court upheld the plan finding that Pender County was required to be split in order to comply with § 2 of the VRA. Plaintiffs appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court.
  • The N.C. Supreme Court reversed, holding that a district must contain a majority of minority voters in order to be protected under § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and District 18 was not a majority-minority district protected by § 2. Defendants appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • SCOTUS heard oral arguments on October 14, 2008.
  • On March 9, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the North Carolina Supreme Court decision, stating that § 2 of the VRA does not require state officials to create a district wherein minority voters can elect their candidates of choice if it isn’t possible to draw one wherein the racial minority makes up at least 50% of the voting-age population. The Court explained that a “crossover district,” where a minority group makes up less than a majority of the voting-age population but is large enough to elect the candidate of their choice with support from majority-voters who support the same candidates, cannot satisfy the Thornburg v. Gingles precondition, which requires minority voters to have less opportunity than others to elect representatives of their choice. To afford minority voters additional support to elect their candidates of choice when they couldn’t do so based on their votes alone would be to impermissibly grant them special protections not authorized under the VRA.

Significance: In order to satisfy the Thornburg v. Gingles precondition relating to "compactness" for Section 2 purposes, the minority group must be able to be drawn into a district where their group makes up more than 50% of the voting age population therein.

Case Library

Superior Court of North Carolina, Wake County - 04-CVS-06966 [formerly Pender County v. Bartlett]

Supreme Court of North Carolina - No. 103A06 [361 N.C. 491 (N.C. 2007)]

U.S. Supreme Court - No. 07-689 [556 U.S. 1 (2009)]