Breaking News
Get 40% Off 0
Is NVDA a 🟢 buy or 🔴 sell? Unlock Now

In win for Republicans, North Carolina court allows partisan gerrymandering

Published Apr 28, 2023 01:53PM ET Updated Apr 28, 2023 05:46PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This article has already been saved in your Saved Items
 
© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: A girls colors an electoral map of the United States in either red or blue as returns are announced for the U.S. general election at Republican Governor Pat McCrory's election-night party in Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S. November 8, 2016. REU

By Joseph Ax

(Reuters) -North Carolina's highest court on Friday ruled that state law does not bar lawmakers from drawing congressional and state legislative maps for partisan benefit, boosting Republicans' odds next year of maintaining their narrow majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The decision - divided along party lines - appears to clear the way for the Republican-controlled legislature to craft new, political advantageous maps for the 2024 elections, which could net them as many as four additional U.S. House seats.

Republicans currently control the 435-member House by a narrow nine-seat margin.

Friday's ruling vacated the court's previous decision, issued barely more than a year ago when Democratic judges controlled the court, that had found partisan gerrymandering violated the state constitution.

After the court threw out a Republican-drawn map, the two parties split the state's 14 seats evenly in November under a court-approved map.

In the same election, Republicans flipped two Democratic seats on the North Carolina Supreme Court, securing a 5-2 conservative majority. In February, the new majority agreed to rehear the redistricting case at the request of Republican lawmakers, an extraordinarily rare move in the court's history.

In a 146-page opinion on Friday, Chief Justice Paul Newby noted that the U.S. Supreme Court had also found that federal courts have no jurisdiction to address partisan gerrymandering.

"Our constitution expressly assigns the redistricting authority to the General Assembly subject to explicit limitations in the text," Newby wrote for the majority. "Those limitations do not address partisan gerrymandering."

In a scathing dissent, Justice Anita Earls, a Democrat, accused the court's Republicans of pursuing their own political agenda at the expense of voters' rights, calling it one of the court's "darkest moments."

"Today, the Court shows that its own will is more powerful than the voices of North Carolina's voters," she wrote.

'WORST DECISION EVER'

Voting rights groups decried the decision as an attack on democracy itself.

"I think it's the worst decision the North Carolina Supreme Court perhaps has ever made," Bob Phillips, executive director of Common Cause North Carolina, told reporters.

In a statement, Phil Berger, the Republican leader in the North Carolina Senate, said the ruling affirmed "that our constitution cannot be exploited to fit the political whims of left-wing Democrats."

In a separate decision, the court's conservative judges also upheld a Republican-backed voter identification law that the court's previous Democratic majority had struck down as racially discriminatory.

Friday's ruling also calls into question whether the U.S. Supreme Court will issue a decision in one of the year's most important cases.

North Carolina Republicans had appealed last year's redistricting decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, where they advanced a once-fringe legal theory that has gained traction in conservative legal circles: the independent state legislature doctrine.

Under the theory, state courts have no authority to review lawmakers' actions regarding federal elections, including redistricting and voting rules.

Democrats have warned that adopting the theory would allow Republicans to enact new restrictions that undermine fair elections, while Republicans contend it would rein in state judges intent on usurping lawmakers' power.

When the North Carolina court agreed to rehear the case, however, the U.S. Supreme Court asked for additional briefing from the parties about whether it still had legal jurisdiction over the matter.

Now that the North Carolina court has vacated the decision that formed the basis for the U.S. Supreme Court's review, the U.S. Supreme Court may conclude it no longer has a role to play in resolving the matter.

In win for Republicans, North Carolina court allows partisan gerrymandering
 

Related Articles

Add a Comment

Comment Guidelines

We encourage you to use comments to engage with other users, share your perspective and ask questions of authors and each other. However, in order to maintain the high level of discourse we’ve all come to value and expect, please keep the following criteria in mind:  

  •            Enrich the conversation, don’t trash it.

  •           Stay focused and on track. Only post material that’s relevant to the topic being discussed. 

  •           Be respectful. Even negative opinions can be framed positively and diplomatically. Avoid profanity, slander or personal attacks directed at an author or another user. Racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination will not be tolerated.

  • Use standard writing style. Include punctuation and upper and lower cases. Comments that are written in all caps and contain excessive use of symbols will be removed.
  • NOTE: Spam and/or promotional messages and comments containing links will be removed. Phone numbers, email addresses, links to personal or business websites, Skype/Telegram/WhatsApp etc. addresses (including links to groups) will also be removed; self-promotional material or business-related solicitations or PR (ie, contact me for signals/advice etc.), and/or any other comment that contains personal contact specifcs or advertising will be removed as well. In addition, any of the above-mentioned violations may result in suspension of your account.
  • Doxxing. We do not allow any sharing of private or personal contact or other information about any individual or organization. This will result in immediate suspension of the commentor and his or her account.
  • Don’t monopolize the conversation. We appreciate passion and conviction, but we also strongly believe in giving everyone a chance to air their point of view. Therefore, in addition to civil interaction, we expect commenters to offer their opinions succinctly and thoughtfully, but not so repeatedly that others are annoyed or offended. If we receive complaints about individuals who take over a thread or forum, we reserve the right to ban them from the site, without recourse.
  • Only English comments will be allowed.
  • Any comment you publish, together with your investing.com profile, will be public on investing.com and may be indexed and available through third party search engines, such as Google.

Perpetrators of spam or abuse will be deleted from the site and prohibited from future registration at Investing.com’s discretion.

Write your thoughts here
 
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
 
Post
Post also to:
 
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
1000
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Thanks for your comment. Please note that all comments are pending until approved by our moderators. It may therefore take some time before it appears on our website.
 
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
 
Post
 
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
1000
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Add Chart to Comment
Confirm Block

Are you sure you want to block %USER_NAME%?

By doing so, you and %USER_NAME% will not be able to see any of each other's Investing.com's posts.

%USER_NAME% was successfully added to your Block List

Since you’ve just unblocked this person, you must wait 48 hours before renewing the block.

Report this comment

I feel that this comment is:

Comment flagged

Thank You!

Your report has been sent to our moderators for review
Continue with Google
or
Sign up with Email