One thing that's clear from the plaintiffs opening statement - this case is, if anything, *stronger* than the one against the legislative districts
.@mel_bough is actually live tweeting this. I'll probably just be making comments here and there
Legislative defendants seem to now be saying that the court can't know what gerrymandering really is... When they just issued a ruling against it in another case less than 2 months ago? 🤔
Now they just brought up that a lot of money has already been spent on Congressional races, as if that should mean something to us?
The disingenuousness dripping from every word of this opening statement is too much for me. There is no circumstance under which they would see this any challenge to their gerrymandered maps as legitimate.
Pretending that if plaintiffs had just done this or that they would find it completely reasonable even if they disagreed is just plain wrong. They would always clutch their pearls dramatically and act wronged and put upon.
According to them, making extra work for the State Board of Elections is a bridge too far - as if the legislature's own vagaries, imposing voter ID, limiting early voting etc. doesn't impose burdens.
Judge Ridgeway asks whether defendants feel that the extensive record created in Rucho is available to the court to expedite this process
Legislative defendants say that it is available but not sufficient for the case.
Ridgeway asks about what impacts defendants are worried about if the court delayed the elections.
Defendants say this is a problem because it will reduce voter turnout.
Defendants say this is a problem because it will reduce voter turnout.
(Legislative defendants seem to love doing things that reduce voter turnout though!)
Defendant intervenors are now up.
Again harping on reduced voter turnout caused by moving the election.
It's important to note that Congressional districts don't have the same residency requirements as state legislative districts. They just have to live in the state. So redrawing the lines won't disrupt any incumbent member's (or new challengers) ability to run in whatever district
Defendant intervenors are saying that the state court had no power to review Congressional districts unless that power is delegated to the court by the legislature in some way (what?!)
This is such a weird argument. Ridgeway notes that the Rucho decision doesn't say this.
This is such a stretch that it's sort of ridiculous.
Defendant intervenors (representing 3 Republican incumbents) want us to feel sorry for Virginia Foxx because she might have to represent a different district (or not represent one at all 🙏🏽)
NC DOJ (representing @NCSBE) is up. Their general counsel is also here to answer any questions about dates/timing
DOJ says the law is clear because of the previous case and a preliminary injunction is appropriate in this case
DOJ notes that NC law does provide for a second primary - a runoff - so if the primary for Congressional seats is moved back it could be aligned with that runoff election
Plaintiffs rebuttal - although defendants said that they do not concede that these maps are a partisan gerrymander, given the evidence of the statement of David Lewis and statements in a racial gerrymandering case, that statement is purely pro forma
Plaintiffs say that defendants have not identified a single fact of the case that's in any substantial dispute
Plaintiffs - the adopted criteria used to create the maps explicitly said that partisan advantage would be used to create a 10-3 split in the Congressional seats in favor of Republicans
