Court rules N.C. legislative district plan unconstitutional
By SCOTT MOONEYHAM, Associated Press Writer
April 30, 2002 4:46 pm
Posted on 04/30/2002 2:25:02 PM PDT by Constitution Day
Court rules N.C. legislative district plan unconstitutional
By SCOTT MOONEYHAM, Associated Press Writer
April 30, 2002 4:46 pm
RALEIGH -- The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that new state House and Senate district plans violate the state constitution, but refused to back large multi-member districts proposed as a remedy.
The court, in a 4-2-1 decision, found that new legislative districts approved last year by the General Assembly violate a provision of the constitution that prohibits counties from being split.
However, the court's majority said a remedy -- large, multi-member districts -- proposed by the Republicans legislators who challenged the plan would violate federal protections for minority voters and proportional representation.
Chief Justice I. Beverly Lake III, writing for the majority, said other provisions in the state constitution also would prohibit the solution proposed by the Republican plaintiffs.
"In our view, use of both single-member and multimember districts within the same redistricting plan violates the equal protection clause of the state Constitution ... unless it is established that inclusion of multimember districts advances a compelling state interest," Lake wrote.
The justices ordered a lower court to hold an expedited hearing on whether it will be feasible to allow the General Assembly the first opportunity of rewriting the maps.
The ruling said the lawmakers should be given first crack at rewriting the maps if doing so won't disrupt the timing of the general election in November. If that isn't the case, the justices said, the trial court is authorized to seek and adopt temporary plans for use this year.
The ruling effectively could do away with multimember legislative districts in the state. But it would also require lawmakers to draw single-member districts within county lines where practical.
Lake and three of the four other Republicans on the court made up the majority. Two Democrats -- Sarah Parker and G.K. Butterfield -- dissented.
Republican Justice Bob Orr agreed that the new districts approved at the behest of Democratic leaders in the Legislature are unconstitutional, but disagreed with some of the majority's findings. He also said their remedy, forcing a single member district in counties whose population would allow one House or Senate member, goes too far.
Parker and Butterfield said a 1982 federal court ruling had shown that the whole-county provision is essentially unenforceable. In their dissents, they cited the Voting Rights Act and requirements for proportional representation as reasons the provision can't be enforced.
The new House plan divides 70 of North Carolina's 100 counties to form 112 districts. The Senate map divides 51 counties to establish 46 districts.
Republicans legislators claim Democrats ignored the provision of the state constitution to give themselves an advantage in upcoming elections.
The ruling Tuesday will give the General Assembly an opportunity to redraw districts before another election is held. But the case is also remanded back to a lower court judge to settle other issues.
If the General Assembly does not redraw the districts, Superior Court Judge Knox Jenkins could order his own map for the upcoming elections.
The Supreme Court decision will require that counties be divided into single-member districts, crossing county lines only to protect minority voting strength in the 40 counties covered under the Voting Rights Act or to balance district population totals. The General Assembly could only draw multimember districts if it can show a "compelling state interest" to Jenkins.
The lawsuit resulted in an indefinite delay in the May 7 primary. The state Board of Elections and legislative leaders will now have to decide how to proceed and when to reschedule the primary.
URL for this article: http://www.heraldsun.com/state/6-222433.html
© Copyright 2002. All rights reserved. All material on heraldsun.com is copyrighted by The Durham Herald Company and may not be reproduced or redistributed in any medium except as provided in the site's Terms of Use.
How exactly do they protect "minority voting strength"? If an inner city has say 10,000 residents do they lump that in with a couple of suburbs which would have a population roughly equal to 10,000?
Lawmakers say they must make the time.
An even bigger bummer is that the GOP isn't all that much better, at least in Pa. (But I'm never voting for a Dem.)
We rural folks have absolutely no say whatsoever.
We here in NC need to adopt Georgia's former County Unit System. Too bad the US Supreme Ct. found it violated the "One Man - One Vote" provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
I think that's been their argument for some time!
I know there are "target" population numbers that you have to get close to for each district, but how strict does it need to be? Just split the big counties into small districts (as opposed to the large multi-member districts) and let the small counties stand alone. The numbers are never going to be perfect anyway. One county may have a better ratio than the next, but that's always going to be the case. That's why we redraw the maps.
The only wrench in this type of simple plan is the "minority majority" district requirement. That's a Constitutional (State and Federal) abomination in itself.
JWinNC
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.