Source: http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2017/05/23/assessing-supreme-courts-gerrymandering-decision/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 00:49:29+00:00

Document:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that the North Carolina GOP drew unconstitutionally racially gerrymandered congressional districts, but what does it mean and where do lawmakers go from here?
Cooper v. Harris, formerly known as McCrory v. Harris, concerns the state’s redrawing of two congressional districts after the 2010 census, District 1 – comprised of towns including Durham, Greenville, Elizabeth City, Henderson, Roanoke Rapids, Rocky Mount, Goldsboro and New Bern – and District 12 – comprised of portions of Charlotte, Winston-Salem, Greensboro, Lexington, Salisbury, Concord and High Point.
Before redistricting, neither district had a majority black voting-age population but both consistently elected the candidates preferred by most African-American voters, according to the Supreme Court opinion.
The state reconfigured District 1 by increasing its black voting-age population from 48.6 percent to 52.7 percent and increasing the same population in District 12 from 43.8 percent to 50.7 percent.
Registered voters in those districts sued the state alleging racial gerrymanders. A lower court held that the congressional districts were in fact unconstitutionally drawn and forced the state to redraw the maps last year – a decision affirmed Monday by the Supreme Court.
The opinion was a 5-3 ruling, with new conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch not participating. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the 79-page document and, surprisingly, Justice Clarence Thomas joined the majority. Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Anthony Kennedy and Justice Samuel Alito dissented in part.
What does the Supreme Court ruling mean?
Broadly speaking, the ruling creates the precedent that race cannot be used to draw district lines and has the potential to affect other gerrymandering cases in North Carolina.
Anita Earls, executive director of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice.
There are two other racial gerrymandering cases pending at the Supreme Court level, Dickson v. Rucho, which deals with legislative and congressional district maps, and North Carolina v. Covington, which deals with legislative maps.
The ruling also has the potential to affect case, not just in North Carolina, but across the South.
“Second, the majority largely ignores this explanation, as did the court below, and instead adopts the most damning interpretation of all available evidence,” he added.
Kagan pointed out that District 12 has been before the high court five times. She said the evidence offered at trial supports the conclusion that race, not politics, accounted for the district’s reconfiguration.
“And no error of law infected that judgment: Contrary to North Carolina’s view, the District Court had no call to dismiss this challenge just because the plaintiffs did not proffer an alternative design for District 12 as circumstantial evidence of the legislature’s intent,” she added.
The state already drew new congressional district maps in response to the lower court’s ruling in Cooper v. Harris, which will be used in the 2018 elections. Had the Supreme Court not ruled the way it did, those new maps would have reverted back to the maps in question.
The new maps, however, are also under fire, not for racial gerrymandering, but for partisan gerrymandering. Common Cause v. Rucho and League of Women Voters v. Rucho are both challenges to the state’s remedial congressional maps and will be heard in June.
How the courts come down on partisan gerrymandering will have an impact on how the state moves forward in terms of redrawing maps and or holding special elections based on new maps.
Common Cause Executive Director Bob Phillips applauded the Supreme Court for its affirmation that racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional but said “sadly,” legislators responded with partisan gerrymandering.
What have been the parties’ reactions to Monday’s ruling?
NC GOP Chairman Robin Hayes said the party’s position continues to be the same as the Obama Justice Department on the issue, which pre-cleared the districts as fair and legal.
Hayes said the courts have put legislatures in an impossible situation “with their constantly changing standards.” He also pointed out that the ruling does not impact the current congressional map (which is being challenged for partisan gerrymandering) that Republicans believe is also fair and legal.
Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger’s spokeswoman Amy Auth said Berger has the utmost respect for the Supreme Court but echoed Hayes’ sentiments that it is challenging to keep up with the changing rules.
Like Hayes, Auth also quoted from Alito’s dissent.
“In 2016, North Carolina drew a new compact Congressional map without considering race, and voters should know the Congressional representatives elected under that map last November will continue to serve their current districts,” Auth added.
NC Democratic Party Chairman Wayne Goodwin told the News & Observer that the state’s congressional maps have frequently been used as an example of some of the most gerrymandered maps in the country.
“Republicans in the General Assembly have constantly discriminated against African Americans and we hope to see an election cycle with the fair maps our state deserves,” he said.
Gov. Roy Cooper commended the Supreme Court for its decision.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.