Hard to believe Senate Republicans are trying again to vote on the nomination of Thomas Farr as a federal judge in NC. Farr's represented the NC legislature in not 1, not 2, but 3 challenges to the state’s 2011 congressional and legislative redistricting. Here’s how that went:
In 2016-17, Farr represented NC in Covington v. NC, a challenge to the state’s 2011 legislative redistricting alleging each of NC’s 19 state House districts & 9 state Senate districts constituted a racial gerrymander violating the Equal Protection Clause. brennancenter.org/legal-work/nor…
In Covington v. NC, Farr argued that race was not the primary factor used in the redistricting. And even if it was, Farr argued the NC legislature’s use of race was reasonably necessary to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The trial court rejected this argument.
In their rejection, the court held the districts unconstitutional, citing “copious statewide evidence” that “race was the predominant criterion in drawing all of the challenged districts.” The decision was later affirmed by the Supreme Court. brennancenter.org/sites/default/…
In 2014, Farr represented NC in Dickson v. Rucho, a case in which both the legislative and the congressional plans in the state’s 2011 redistricting were challenged as impermissible racial gerrymanders.
In his arguments, Farr dismissed the challenges as politically motivated and argued that NC had a compelling interest “in preemptively factoring race into its redistricting process” to avoid liability under the Voting Rights Act.
Although the NC Supreme Court agreed with Farr, the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately vacated the state court’s judgment. They remanded the decision in light of Harris v. McCrory/Cooper v. Harris. What did this decision say?
In Harris v. McCrory, yet another challenge to NC’s 2011 redistricting plan, the plaintiffs alleged that the NC legislature violated the 14th Amendment when it used race as the predominant consideration with respect to two congressional districts redrawn after the 2010 census.
Farr argued that plaintiffs had “failed to demonstrate that race was the ‘predominant factor’ used by the General Assembly in drawing” the two congressional districts. A U.S. District Court rejected Farr’s arguments.
The court held that “race predominated in both” congressional districts and that the 2011 redistricting “affected North Carolina citizens' fundamental right to vote, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.” leagle.com/decision/infdc…
Farr appealed to the United States Supreme Court which also rejected his arguments and affirmed the District Court’s ruling. scotusblog.com/case-files/cas…
Thomas Farr must not be confirmed to a lifetime appointment as a Federal Judge in North Carolina. It’s hard to believe President Trump nominated him, and it’s even harder to believe the Senate Republicans are considering it again.
