Breaking News
Investing Pro 0
🙌 It's Here: the Only Stock Screener You'll Ever Need Get Started

North Carolina's top court hears redistricting case with national implications

Published Mar 14, 2023 06:04AM ET Updated Mar 14, 2023 09:35PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This article has already been saved in your Saved Items
 
© Reuters

By Joseph Ax

(Reuters) -North Carolina Republicans on Tuesday urged the state's high court to reverse course and permit lawmakers to draw politically advantageous legislative districts, an outcome that would boost the party's chances of holding onto its tenuous majority in the U.S. House of Representatives next year.

The hearing in Raleigh took place after the state Supreme Court's conservative justices agreed to reconsider a 2022 ruling that found partisan redistricting, or gerrymandering, was unlawful under the state constitution.

That ruling, issued by what was then a Democratic-majority court, invalidated a Republican-drawn map that would likely have secured 11 of the state's 14 congressional seats for Republicans. Instead, Democrats and Republicans split the seats evenly in November's elections under a court-approved map.

In the same elections, Republicans flipped two Democratic seats on the court, installing a 5-2 conservative majority that weeks later made the extremely unusual decision to rehear the redistricting case. Legal experts have said the move suggests the court intends to throw out the earlier ruling.

Tuesday's hearing offered little evidence to the contrary. Several conservative justices appeared sympathetic to the Republicans' arguments, while the court's two Democrats expressed skepticism.

Phillip Strach, a lawyer for Republican lawmakers, said the power to oversee redistricting resides in the legislature, not the courts.

"Just to be clear, you're saying ... that the legislature has free rein to enact legislative districts that give extreme advantage to one political party," said Justice Anita Earls, a Democrat.

"This court does not have the power to address that issue," Strach replied.

Lali Madduri, a lawyer for the voting rights groups who challenged the original maps, said allowing extreme partisan redistricting would essentially disenfranchise supporters of the opposing party.

"The ultimate standard here is whether the voters have substantially equal voting power," she said.

While a reversal would aid Republicans' quest to maintain their U.S. House majority, it could doom a separate Republican-backed effort to convince the U.S. Supreme Court to grant state legislatures sweeping new powers over federal elections.

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

The theory holds that it is unconstitutional for state courts to review lawmakers' actions regarding federal elections and would give legislators unfettered authority over voting rules and redistricting.

Democrats have warned that doing so would invite new restrictions that would threaten fair elections, while Republicans say it would corral activist state courts that are undermining legislative power.

The Supreme Court's conservative justices appeared to agree during oral arguments in December. But after the North Carolina court's decision to rehear the case, the U.S. Supreme Court asked the various parties in the case to weigh in on whether the court still has jurisdiction over the matter.

If the justices decide they no longer have jurisdiction, they could dismiss the case without issuing a ruling.

North Carolina's top court hears redistricting case with national implications
 

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.
Comments (3)
Mark Grube
Mark Grube Mar 14, 2023 10:14PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
elections have consequences
Brad Albright
Brad Albright Mar 14, 2023 9:42AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
What a charade.
gab nea
gab nea Mar 14, 2023 7:36AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
the courts are legislating from the bench again!
 
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