Document: Cite as: 581 U. S. ____ (2017) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NORTH CAROLINA, ET AL. v. SANDRA LITTLE COVINGTON, ON APPEAL FROM DISTRICT FOR MIDDLE CAROLINA No. 16–1023. Decided June 5, 2017 PER CURIAM. The North Carolina General Assembly redrew state legislative districts in 2011 to account for population changes revealed by the 2010 census. In May 2015, several registered voters (here called plaintiffs) brought this action District Court Middle of Carolina, alleging that 28 majority- black new plan were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders. ruled plaintiffs August 2016, holding race was pre- dominant factor design each challenged district, and none use “supported a strong basis evidence narrowly tailored comply with [the Voting Rights Act].” 316 F. R. D. 117, 176 (MDNC 2016).* court declined require time then-impending November 2016 election, but ordered redraw map before holds any future elections body. See App. Juris. Statement 148–149. Three weeks after additional relief. addition setting March deadline Assembly’s drawing districts, “[t]he term legislator elected 2016” from district later —————— * By separate order, we have summarily affirmed Court’s ruling on merits plaintiffs’ racial-gerrymandering claims. 16–649, post, p. ___. 2 COVINGTON modified remedial “shall be shortened one year” (rather than regular two). Id., at 203. Those legislators would then replaced ones, chosen court-ordered special fall 2017. those elections, too, “serve year term.” 204. Finally, order make regime workable, also suspended provisions Constitu- tion requiring prospective reside within they may repre- sent it. id., 203 (citing N. C. Const., Art. II, §§6–7). To explain why these measures warranted, stated: “While costs, costs pale comparison injury caused allowing citizens continue represented pursuant gerrymander.” 200. appealed Court, granted stay pending appeal. 580 ___ (2017). State now contends “the should vacated simple rea- son failed meaningfully weigh equitable considerations.” 22. We share assessment vacate order. Relief redistricting cases is “‘fashioned light well-known principles equity.’” Reynolds Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 585 (1964). A therefore must undertake an “equitable weighing process” select fitting remedy legal violations it has identified, NAACP Hampton County Election Comm’n, 470 166, 183, n. 36 (1985), taking “‘what neces- sary, what fair, workable,’” New York Cathedral Academy, 434 125, 129 (1977). And context deciding whether truncate existing legisla- tors’ terms there much weigh. Although never addressed or when election proper 3 gerrymander, obvious considerations include severity nature particular constitutional violation, extent likely disruption ordi- nary processes governance if early are im- posed, need act judicial restraint intruding sovereignty. do not suggest anything about relative weight factors (or others), among matters generally expected consider its “balancing individual collective interests” stake. Swann Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. Ed., 402 1, 16 (1971). Rather undertaking such analysis case, balance equities only most cursory fashion. As noted above, simply announced “[w]hile costs,” unspecified “pale comparison” prospect will “represented That minimal reasoning appear justify every case—a result clearly odds our demand careful case-specific analysis. For reason, cannot confidence adequately grappled interests both sides question us. because discretion “was barely exercised here,” provides no meaningful even deferential review. Winter Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 7, 27 (2008). reasons, reme- dial remand case further proceedings consistent opinion. It so ordered.

Category: 1