RALEIGH, N.C. – In a significant decision with far-reaching implications for the 2024 election cycle, North Carolina’s highest court has ruled that the state can proceed with a new congressional map drawn by Republican lawmakers. The ruling, issued on December 8, 2023, effectively overturns a prior decision that had declared partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional under the state constitution, paving the way for a map expected to significantly bolster Republican representation in Washington.
Background: A Decades-Long Battle Over Redistricting
North Carolina has long been a focal point in the national debate over gerrymandering, a practice where political districts are drawn to favor one party over another. The state's evenly split electorate and highly competitive political landscape have made its congressional and legislative maps particularly contentious, leading to a near-constant cycle of legal challenges and redrawn boundaries over the past two decades.
Decades of Gerrymandering Battles
The roots of North Carolina's redistricting saga stretch back decades, characterized by both Democratic and Republican attempts to maximize their electoral advantage. Following each decennial census, the party in power has typically sought to craft maps that solidify its control, leading to a series of lawsuits alleging unconstitutional racial or partisan gerrymandering. Federal courts, in particular, have repeatedly intervened, striking down maps on racial grounds, finding that lawmakers had unconstitutionally concentrated minority voters or diluted their voting power. These federal rulings often led to court-ordered redrawing processes or legislative revisions, but the underlying partisan motivations frequently remained a subject of dispute.
The 2020 Census and Initial Map Drawing
The 2020 Census presented the state with an additional congressional seat, increasing its delegation from 13 to 14 representatives. This added seat intensified the stakes for the redistricting process following the release of the new population data. In late 2021, the Republican-controlled General Assembly drew new congressional and state legislative maps. The congressional map proposed by the legislature was projected by independent analyses to create 10 Republican-leaning districts, 3 Democratic-leaning districts, and 1 highly competitive district, a significant shift from the then-existing 7-6 Republican-Democratic split. This projection immediately drew sharp criticism from Democrats and voting rights groups, who argued it was an extreme partisan gerrymander designed to entrench Republican power.
State Supreme Court’s Initial Intervention
The 2021 Republican-drawn maps faced swift legal challenges. A coalition of voters and advocacy groups, including the North Carolina League of Conservation Voters and Common Cause, filed lawsuits arguing that the maps violated the state's constitution. Specifically, they contended that the maps infringed upon the "free elections clause," the "equal protection clause," and the "freedom of speech and assembly clauses" of the North Carolina Constitution by creating districts that were intentionally and excessively biased in favor of one political party.
In February 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court, then with a 4-3 Democratic majority, agreed with the challengers. In the landmark case of *Harper v. Hall*, the court issued a groundbreaking ruling, declaring that partisan gerrymandering was indeed unconstitutional under the state's charter. The majority opinion asserted that the state constitution's provisions guarantee the right of citizens to vote in free and fair elections, and that maps drawn with extreme partisan intent undermine this fundamental right. The court found that the legislature’s maps were "unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt" and ordered them redrawn. This decision marked a significant victory for anti-gerrymandering advocates and set a precedent that North Carolina's judiciary could intervene to prevent partisan manipulation of district lines.
Following this ruling, a panel of three superior court judges, acting under the Supreme Court's directive, adopted an interim congressional map for the 2022 elections. This court-drawn map resulted in a 7-7 split in the state's congressional delegation, reflecting the state's nearly even partisan lean.
The “Independent State Legislature Theory” Interlude
While the state-level battle over partisan gerrymandering unfolded, the North Carolina case also became central to a national legal controversy involving the "independent state legislature theory" (ISLT). The Republican lawmakers, after their maps were struck down by the state Supreme Court, appealed their case to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the state judiciary had no authority to review or alter congressional maps drawn by the state legislature. They contended that the U.S. Constitution's Elections Clause grants state legislatures exclusive authority over federal election rules, including redistricting, without oversight from state courts.
This theory, if adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court, would have severely curtailed the power of state courts to review election laws and maps, potentially insulating partisan gerrymanders from state-level judicial challenges. The case, *Moore v. Harper*, attracted significant national attention and concern from voting rights advocates. However, in June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court largely rejected the most extreme interpretations of the ISLT, affirming that state courts do have the power to review legislative actions concerning federal elections, including congressional redistricting, under state constitutional law. This federal ruling effectively sent the issue back to North Carolina's state courts for final resolution, but by then, the composition of the state's judiciary had dramatically changed.
Shifting Judicial Landscape
The 2022 midterm elections proved pivotal for the North Carolina Supreme Court. Two seats held by Democratic justices were up for election. Republicans successfully flipped both seats, shifting the court's balance from a 4-3 Democratic majority to a 5-2 Republican majority. This change in judicial composition immediately raised questions about the future of the *Harper v. Hall* precedent and the state's approach to redistricting. With a new Republican majority, the court was seen as likely to revisit previous rulings that had been unfavorable to Republican legislative efforts.
Key Developments: The Reversal and Approval
The new Republican majority on the North Carolina Supreme Court quickly signaled its intent to re-examine the precedent set by the previous court. This led to a rehearing of the redistricting case and the eventual reversal of the *Harper v. Hall* decision.
The New Republican Majority and Rehearing
In April 2023, just months after the new Republican majority took their seats, the North Carolina Supreme Court, in an unusual move, granted a motion to rehear the *Harper v. Hall* case. This decision was met with strong criticism from Democrats and voting rights groups, who argued that it undermined judicial stability and was a politically motivated attempt to reverse a settled legal precedent. The court's decision to revisit a case so soon after a major ruling was widely interpreted as an effort to undo the previous court's prohibition on partisan gerrymandering.
Arguments for Reversal
During the rehearing process, Republican lawmakers and their allies argued that the state Supreme Court had overstepped its constitutional authority in 2022 by striking down maps based on partisan gerrymandering. Their primary arguments centered on several points:
1. Judicial Restraint: They contended that the court should exercise judicial restraint and defer to the legislature's role in drawing district lines, as redistricting is primarily a political function. They argued that the previous court had improperly substituted its judgment for that of the elected representatives.
2. Lack of Clear Standards: Critics of the *Harper v. Hall* ruling argued that the "free elections clause" and other state constitutional provisions cited by the previous court did not provide clear, judicially manageable standards for determining what constitutes unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering. They claimed that without such standards, any judicial intervention would be arbitrary and subjective, essentially allowing judges to pick winners and losers in political contests.
3. Separation of Powers: They emphasized the separation of powers doctrine, asserting that the judiciary should not intrude into legislative matters unless there is a clear violation of explicit constitutional provisions. They argued that the previous court's ruling blurred the lines between the legislative and judicial branches.
4. No Explicit Ban on Partisan Gerrymandering: Proponents of the Republican-drawn map argued that the North Carolina Constitution does not explicitly prohibit partisan gerrymandering. While it guarantees "free elections," they contended that this clause does not extend to preventing districts drawn with political considerations in mind, as long as they comply with other constitutional requirements like population equality and racial fairness.
The Majority Opinion’s Rationale
On December 8, 2023, the North Carolina Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision, sided with the Republican lawmakers. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Phil Berger Jr., explicitly reversed the 2022 *Harper v. Hall* ruling. The core of the majority's reasoning rested on the principle of judicial restraint and the argument that partisan gerrymandering claims are non-justiciable under the state constitution.
The majority opinion stated that the "free elections clause" of the North Carolina Constitution does not empower the judiciary to second-guess the legislature's policy judgments in drawing district lines based on partisan considerations. It argued that the state constitution "does not contain judicially manageable standards by which to adjudicate partisan gerrymandering claims." The court concluded that such claims are inherently political questions best left to the legislative branch and the voters, rather than the courts.
Furthermore, the majority opinion asserted that the court's role is to interpret the constitution, not to create new rights or impose policy preferences that are not explicitly enumerated. By reversing the previous decision, the court effectively removed partisan gerrymandering as a basis for challenging redistricting maps in state courts, allowing the legislature broad discretion in drawing district boundaries for political advantage.
Dissenting Voices
The two dissenting justices, Anita Earls and Michael Morgan (who has since retired), vehemently criticized the majority's decision. Justice Earls, in her dissent, argued that the majority had engaged in "judicial activism of the highest order" by overturning a recent and well-reasoned precedent. She contended that the previous *Harper v. Hall* ruling correctly interpreted the "free elections clause" to prohibit extreme partisan gerrymandering, which she described as a direct assault on the fundamental right to vote and the principle of popular sovereignty.
The dissent emphasized that the state constitution's guarantee of free elections is meaningless if the electoral map itself is rigged to predetermine outcomes. They argued that the majority's decision effectively gives the legislature a "blank check" to manipulate electoral districts for partisan gain, thereby disenfranchising voters and undermining democratic principles. Justice Earls also highlighted the damage to judicial legitimacy when a court so quickly reverses its own precedent based on a change in its political composition.
The Approved Map’s Specifics
With the court's ruling, the new congressional map drawn by the Republican-controlled legislature in October 2023 was given the green light for the 2024 elections. This map significantly alters the electoral landscape compared to the court-drawn map used in 2022.
The new map is projected to create 10 districts that strongly favor Republicans, 3 districts that strongly favor Democrats, and only 1 highly competitive district. This represents a substantial shift from the 7-7 split under the previous court-drawn map. For example, the map redraws several key districts:
District 1: Currently represented by a Democrat, this eastern North Carolina district is redrawn to be significantly more Republican-leaning, likely endangering the incumbent.
* District 6: Currently a Democratic-leaning district in the Greensboro/Winston-Salem area, it is redrawn to incorporate more Republican-leaning rural areas, making it a strong Republican seat.
* District 13: A competitive district in the Raleigh exurbs, it is shifted to be a much safer Republican seat.
* District 14: The new district created after the 2020 Census, located in the Charlotte area, is also drawn to be a more Republican-friendly district.
These changes are designed to maximize Republican electoral success, potentially flipping several seats from Democratic to Republican control and solidifying the Republican majority in the state's congressional delegation.
Impact: Reshaping North Carolina’s Political Landscape
The North Carolina Supreme Court's decision to allow the Republican-drawn congressional map will have profound and immediate consequences for the state's political landscape, affecting everything from individual races to national power dynamics.
Congressional Delegation Shift
The most direct impact of the new map will be on the partisan composition of North Carolina's 14-member delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives. Under the previous court-drawn map, the delegation was evenly split, with 7 Republicans and 7 Democrats. The newly approved map is widely expected to result in a 10-4 Republican majority, or potentially even 11-3 in a strong Republican year.
This shift means that at least two, and possibly three, currently Democratic-held seats are now considered highly vulnerable or outright unwinnable for Democrats. Incumbent Democratic representatives in districts like NC-01 (Eastern NC) and NC-06 (Triad region) will face significantly tougher re-election battles, if they choose to run in their redrawn districts. Some incumbents may even face the difficult decision of retiring or moving to challenge another incumbent in a more favorable district. Conversely, Republican challengers will find themselves in much stronger positions in these newly drawn districts.
Voter Impact and Representation
For millions of North Carolina voters, the new map will fundamentally alter their representation. Many voters will find themselves in new congressional districts, represented by different individuals, and potentially with a different partisan lean than their previous district. This can lead to a sense of disenfranchisement, particularly for voters whose communities are split or whose votes feel less impactful due to district lines designed to dilute their influence.
In districts that become overwhelmingly safe for one party, general elections can become less competitive, effectively moving the real electoral contest to the primary elections. This can lead to the election of more ideologically extreme candidates, as they cater to a narrower, more partisan primary electorate, rather than appealing to a broader general election constituency. Voters in these safe districts may feel their general election vote has less meaning, as the outcome is largely predetermined.
Political Party Strategies
Both the Republican and Democratic parties will need to significantly adjust their strategies for the 2024 elections in North Carolina.
Republicans: The new map provides a substantial advantage for Republicans, allowing them to focus resources on defending their newly fortified seats and potentially targeting the remaining Democratic-held districts. Their strategy will likely involve consolidating support in the redrawn districts and leveraging the favorable boundaries to secure a larger majority.
* Democrats: Democrats face an uphill battle. Their strategy will involve identifying the few remaining competitive districts, mobilizing their base in the three safe Democratic districts, and potentially investing heavily in grassroots efforts to overcome the gerrymandered lines in districts that are now lean-Republican. They will also likely continue to emphasize the unfairness of the map to rally voter enthusiasm and fundraising. The party may also focus more on state legislative and gubernatorial races, hoping to regain power that could influence future redistricting.
Campaign Finance Implications
The shift in district competitiveness will also influence campaign finance. In districts that become safe for one party, fundraising for general elections may decrease as the outcome is less in doubt. However, primary elections in these safe districts could see increased fundraising as candidates vie for the nomination that almost guarantees a seat in Congress.
Conversely, the few remaining competitive districts will likely become hotbeds for national campaign spending, attracting significant financial investment from both parties and outside groups seeking to influence the outcome. This can lead to an influx of dark money and super PAC spending, further intensifying the political environment.
National Political Landscape
North Carolina is a crucial swing state, and its congressional delegation plays a significant role in the national balance of power in the U.S. House of Representatives. The expected shift of two or three seats from Democratic to Republican control in North Carolina could be instrumental in determining which party controls the House after the 2024 elections.
Given the narrow margins in Congress, a reliable two- or three-seat gain from North Carolina is a substantial advantage for Republicans. This outcome could help the Republican Party maintain or expand its majority, impacting legislative priorities, committee assignments, and the overall national political agenda. It underscores the importance of state-level redistricting battles in shaping federal policy.
Precedent for Other States
The North Carolina Supreme Court's ruling, particularly its reversal of a precedent that found partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional, could have ripple effects in other states. While the U.S. Supreme Court has largely left partisan gerrymandering challenges to state courts, this decision demonstrates that state court compositions and interpretations of state constitutions can dramatically change the legal landscape.
Other states with similar constitutional clauses or ongoing redistricting litigation may look to North Carolina's example. The ruling could embolden legislatures in states with conservative judicial majorities to draw more aggressive partisan maps, confident that state courts will not intervene. Conversely, it might intensify efforts by voting rights advocates in other states to push for independent redistricting commissions or more explicit constitutional amendments to prohibit partisan gerrymandering.
What Next: Elections, Challenges, and Broader Implications
With the legal question of the congressional map settled for the immediate future, attention now turns to the practical implications for the upcoming elections and the broader political environment.
Upcoming Elections
The approved Republican-drawn map will be in effect for the 2024 primary and general elections.
Candidate Filing Period: The candidate filing period for the 2024 elections, including congressional seats, typically occurs in December. Candidates will now file under the new district lines, which will force many to make strategic decisions about which district to run in, potentially leading to incumbent-on-incumbent primaries or retirements.
* Primary Elections: North Carolina's primary elections are scheduled for March 5, 2024. This early primary date means candidates have a relatively short window to campaign and introduce themselves to voters in potentially new districts. The primary will be critical in the newly safe partisan districts, as winning the primary will be tantamount to winning the general election.
* General Election: The general election on November 5, 2024, will be the ultimate test of the new map's impact. Voters will cast their ballots for U.S. House representatives under the new district boundaries, which are projected to deliver a significant Republican majority.
Potential Further Legal Challenges
While the North Carolina Supreme Court has closed the door on state-level partisan gerrymandering claims, the new map is not entirely immune to future legal challenges.
Racial Gerrymandering: Opponents of the map could still pursue federal lawsuits alleging racial gerrymandering. If plaintiffs can demonstrate that the map intentionally discriminates against minority voters by diluting their voting power, or by packing them into a few districts, it could violate the Voting Rights Act or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Such challenges are complex and require robust statistical and ethnographic evidence.
* Federal Court Review: Although the U.S. Supreme Court largely rejected the independent state legislature theory in *Moore v. Harper*, it still affirmed that state courts have a role in reviewing state election laws. However, the current ruling by the North Carolina Supreme Court explicitly states that partisan gerrymandering is non-justiciable under the state constitution. Any federal challenge would need to focus on federal constitutional or statutory grounds, not state constitutional claims related to partisan fairness.
Legislative Responses
The North Carolina General Assembly, particularly its Republican majority, is unlikely to proactively change the newly approved congressional map, given that it was drawn to their advantage and has now been upheld by the state's highest court. However, the ongoing debate around redistricting may spur other legislative actions.
Future Redistricting: Barring successful federal challenges, the current map will likely remain in place until the next decennial census in 2030, unless the legislature chooses to redraw it for other reasons (e.g., population shifts within the state that necessitate minor adjustments, though this is less likely for congressional maps mid-decade).
* Constitutional Amendments: Advocates for fair maps might attempt to push for a state constitutional amendment that explicitly prohibits partisan gerrymandering or establishes an independent redistricting commission. Such an effort would require significant bipartisan support or a strong public referendum campaign, which is a high bar in a politically divided state.
Public Reaction and Activism
The ruling is expected to galvanize both supporters and opponents of partisan redistricting.
Voting Rights Groups: Organizations advocating for voting rights and fair elections will likely intensify their efforts to educate voters about the new districts, encourage voter registration, and mobilize turnout, particularly in the few remaining competitive districts. They may also focus on advocating for federal redistricting reform or state-level constitutional changes.
* Grassroots Activism: The decision could fuel grassroots activism, with calls for protests, town halls, and increased engagement in local and state elections to elect officials who support redistricting reform.
* Political Polarization: The ruling is likely to further entrench political polarization in North Carolina, as one party benefits significantly at the expense of the other, leading to increased distrust in the electoral process among those who feel their votes are being systematically diluted.
Broader Implications for Redistricting Reform
North Carolina's journey through multiple redistricting cycles, court interventions, and judicial reversals highlights the ongoing national struggle over how political power is allocated through district lines. The state's latest ruling reinforces the reality that without clear federal standards or explicit state constitutional prohibitions with judicially manageable standards, partisan gerrymandering will continue to be a dominant feature of American politics wherever one party controls both the legislature and the judiciary.
The North Carolina decision serves as a stark reminder of the critical role of state supreme courts in defining the boundaries of political fairness. As the nation approaches another consequential election, the outcome in North Carolina will be closely watched as a bellwether for the future of democratic representation in a deeply divided country.
