Elections – Municipal – Constitutional – Equal Protection – One Person, One Vote — Redistricting

City of Greensboro v. Guilford County Board of Elections (Lawyers Weekly No. 003-009-17, 27 pp.) (Catherine Eagles, J.) 1:15-cv-00559; M.D.N.C.

Holding: Where the General Assembly redistricted the City of Greensboro’s city council seats, and where the only discernible legislative motivation was to increase the weight of votes of Republican-leaning voters and to decrease the weight of votes of Democratic-leaning voters, the redistricting plan violates the equal protection rights of Greensboro voters.

Summary judgment for plaintiffs.

No one has substantively defended the constitutionality of 2015 Session Law 138 (the Act). The Guilford County Board of Elections acknowledges that it is a necessary party; however, it believes that its duty is to fairly and impartially administer whatever election laws validly apply, not to determine whether those laws are constitutional or to advocate on behalf of the state.

The Act redistricted Greensboro City Council seats so that the districts went from having only a 3.86 percent maximum population deviation to having a 8.24 percent maximum population deviation. Under the Act, 86 percent of all Republican voters were in districts that are underpopulated while only 57 percent of Democratic voters were in an underpopulated district. Credible evidence shows that this partisan skew resulted from an intent to significantly favor Republican voters.

The evidence in this case is quite similar to the evidence in Raleigh Wake Citizens Association v. Wake County Board of Elections, 827 F.3d 333 (4th Cir. 2016).

In both cases, the North Carolina legislature redrew districts for a local government entity using a plan with a maximum population deviation between eight and ten percent.

In both cases, the legislature redistricted the local entities through a “truncated” legislative process without soliciting input from the affected parties or the local delegations.

In both cases, there was a pattern of overpopulation in Democratic-leaning districts and under-population in Republican-leaning districts.

In both cases, credible computer simulation evidence showed that the partisan benefits from the redistricting were “completely outside the range of outcomes that are possible under a nonpartisan districting process that creates equally populated districts” and follows traditional criteria.

In both cases, the General Assembly did not come to court to defend its redistricting.

This is not a case where it is difficult to discern legislative motivation. As in RWCA, all of the credible evidence points in one direction: a “skewed, unequal redistricting” intentionally designed to create a partisan advantage by increasing the weight of votes of Republican-leaning voters and decreasing the weight of votes of Democratic-leaning voters. This evidence is unchallenged and uncontroverted.

On this record, as in RWCA, the evidence compels a decision for the plaintiffs: The districting plan in the Act violates the equal protection rights of the plaintiffs and all Greensboro voters.

Defendant is enjoined from enforcing the Act.