N.C. League of Conservation Voters, Inc. v. Hall

CASE SUMMARY

On November 16, 2021, the N.C. League of Conservation Voters, Inc., and a group of N.C. voters and scientists filed a state lawsuit challenging the General Assembly’s enacted congressional and legislative plans as violating various provisions of the North Carolina Constitution. First, plaintiffs alleged the plans were pro-Republican partisan gerrymanders that violated the Free Elections, Equal Protection, Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Assembly Clauses. Second, they argued the plans diluted Black voters’ voting strength in violation of the Free Elections and Equal Protection Clauses. Finally, they argued the legislative redistricting plans violated the state constitution’s Whole County Provisions because they failed to comply with the North Carolina Supreme Court’s mandatory procedures by unnecessarily crossing county lines to form less compact, gerrymandered districts. They sought a judicial declaration the plans were unconstitutional, an injunction barring the plans from use in future elections and delaying candidate-filing periods, an order requiring the state to enact new, lawful remedial plans, and for the court to adopt the plaintiffs’ own remedial plan proposals if the state otherwise failed to enact their own.

On December 3, 2021, the superior court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction which the plaintiffs immediately appealed by filing a petition for writ of supersedeas or prohibition with the N.C. Court of Appeals. That same day, the superior court consolidated this case with another pending challenge to North Carolina’s congressional redistricting plan, Harper v. Hall.
On December 6, 2021, a N.C. Court of Appeals panel granted a temporary stay on the 2022 candidate-filing period but, later that day, the full Court of Appeals vacated the temporary stay and agreed to re-hear the plaintiffs’ petition en banc. Simultaneously, plaintiffs filed a petition seeking discretionary review from the N.C. Supreme Court.
On December 8, 2021, the N.C. Supreme Court issued an order preliminarily enjoining the 2022 candidate-filing period until a final judgment on the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims was issued, including appeals, and directed the superior court to hold proceedings and issue a decision by January 11, 2022.
On January 11, 2022, the superior court upheld the plans as valid on the grounds partisan gerrymandering claims were nonjusticiable political questions under the North Carolina Constitution, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s similar decision as to the U.S. Constitution in Rucho v. Common Cause. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ claims that the plans were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders, violated § 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act, and violated the North Carolina Constitution’s Whole County Provision. The plaintiffs appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court on January 12, 2022.
On February 4, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court struck down the congressional and legislative plans as partisan gerrymanders in violation of the state constitution’s Free Elections, Equal Protection, Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Assembly Clauses. The Court ordered the State to enact remedial plans and submit them to the superior court for review by February 18, 2022, along with an explanation of the data and method used in their creation. The State enacted new plans and submitted them to the superior court on February 18.
On February 23, the superior court approved the remedial legislative plans but rejected the remedial congressional plan on the grounds it failed to satisfy the partisan metrics laid out in the N.C. Supreme Court’s opinion. The court ordered the adoption of an interim congressional plan prepared by the court-appointed special masters for use in the 2022 elections.
Two days later, the defendants filed an emergency application for a stay pending a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which SCOTUS denied on March 7, 2022. On March 17, the defendants filed their full petition for a writ of certiorari with SCOTUS which argued that state courts lacked authority under the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause to reject a state legislature’s federal election rules and regulations and replace them with their own. SCOTUS granted certiorari on June 30, 2022.
Meanwhile, the North Carolina Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs’ request for expedited consideration and hearing of their remedial plan appeal and held oral arguments in October 2022. The U.S. Supreme Court held oral arguments in the defendants’ appeal on December 7, 2022.
On December 16, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s decision as to the remedial congressional and state House plans but reversed as to the state Senate plan, finding it also failed to satisfy the partisan metrics laid out in its opinion. The Court remanded the case back to the Superior Court with instructions to adopt a remedial state Senate plan.
On January 20, 2023, the legislative defendants filed a motion for rehearing with the North Carolina Supreme Court, which was granted on February 3, 2023. The case was reheard on March 14, 2023.
On April 28, 2023, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed its 2022 decision and held partisan gerrymandering claims were non-justiciable political questions under the North Carolina Constitution, vacated the superior court’s remedial orders, and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims. Having clarified that the state constitution does not place restrictions on the General Assembly’s partisan considerations when redistricting, the Court stated the General Assembly would be permitted to enact new congressional and legislative plans without any of the court’s prior imposed restrictions and criteria.
On June 27, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision holding that the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause does not vest state legislatures with exclusive and independent authority to set rules regarding federal elections. The Court explained that state courts can exercise judicial review over a state legislature’s federal election rules but they cannot go so far as to usurp the legislature’s constitutional authority to regulate federal elections. The Court declined, however, to decide whether North Carolina’s courts exceeded that limit in this case because that issue was not meaningfully presented to it.