Thread by @DemocracyDocket

⚖️The Supreme Court of North Carolina is now hearing arguments over the state's new legislative and congressional redistricting maps. Follow along for live updates.

📺Stream the proceedings here:

Find the case filings here👇

Harper v. Hall: democracydocket.com/cases/north-ca…

NCLCV v. Hall: democracydocket.com/cases/north-ca…

HARPER: "The North Carolina Constitution establishes a democracy in which all political power is derived from the people and must be founded upon their will...Central to this democratic form of government are free and fair elections in which all citizens have equal voting power."

HARPER: "But in a partisan gerrymander, the leaders already in power manipulate the district lines to subvert the will of the people. They classify voters on the basis of their political beliefs and then systematically sort the minority party's voters into districts..."

"...to minimize their electoral influence. The intent and effect is to predetermine the outcome of elections and entrench the majority party in power, regardless of how the people vote."

HARPER: "The trial court in this case denounced this practice as incompatible with democratic principles and an abuse of power by the General Assembly worthy of ridicule, derision and disdain. Those are the trial court's words, and they're true no matter which party does it. "

"The trial court's unanimous and extensive factual findings are a powerful indictment of these maps. And those findings are not clearly erroneous. Based on a mountain of evidence, the trial court found that the maps were drawn both intentionally and effectively to maximize..."

"...Republican advantage to ensure Republican dominance in North Carolina's congressional delegation and to guarantee Republican majorities or supermajorities in both chambers of the General Assembly for the next decade."

Chief Justice Newby asks how experts measured partisanship in the enacted maps. Plaintiffs explain that experts used data from statewide elections to measure partisanship in districts, and "that's consistent with the uniform practice of political scientists across the country."

Plaintiffs say that expert analyses show that "these maps were intentionally drawn to maximize Republican advantage & they have the effect of...predetermining election outcomes to ensure that Republicans win more seats...then they would win under virtually any nonpartisan map."

Chief Justice Newby asks if any expert analysis went back to the 2012 elections. NCLCV says that their expert analyzed 52 elections going back to 2012 and found that in 12 of those elections, Democrats won the majority of statewide votes. 1/2

If you applied the contested district maps to those 12 election results when the majority of votes cast were for Dems, it would still result in a majority of GOP seats every time in each statehouse chamber and the congressional delegation, pointing to a partisan gerrymander. 2/2

Justice Ervin: "What did the trial court find with respect to the consistency with which the neutral criteria were actually applied?"

NCLCV: "The trial court found that those neutral criteria were not consistently applied [across the maps]..."

...The congressional map, for example, splits more counties than necessary and it does so precisely to split voters for Democrats in the states' three largest counties."

Justice Ervin: Is partisan gerrymandering a proxy for "racially discriminatory intent?"

Common Cause: "Our experts explained how a desire to partisan discriminate...in NC...is an incentive to engage in racial discrimination because it is so widely known how Black voters vote."

Justice Ervin: Do the Stephenson criteria apply only to Section 5 districts of the VRA or Section 2 districts as well?

Common Cause: "It includes Section 2, which is the only applicable part of the Voting Rights Act still here in North Carolina."

Anyway, #RestoreTheVRA.

It is now the defendants' turn to present their argument in support of the maps.

Republican lawmakers argue that "the General Assembly is allowed to draw districts for partisan advantage" and that there is no clear standard "between what partisan intent and lean is allowed and what partisan intent and lean is not allowed."

Justice Morgan: SCOTUS says "excessive partisanship in districts leads to results that are incompatible with democratic principles." Does this not demonstrate that this case is justiciable in terms of our state constitution under the free elections clause?

Defendants argue that there is not a standard that defines what is an "extreme" partisan gerrymandering or not: "The question here before this court is where does it pass from permissible political effect to impermissible?"

Defendants push back on the plaintiffs' experts, arguing that even though the expert analysis shows that the Republican-drawn enacted maps are a 99.999% outlier of North Carolina's political geography, maybe the analysis just "doesn't work."

Defendants argue that the court would be acting "legislatively" if they created a standard about partisan gerrymandering. Justice Ervin pushes back, asking "Is your contention that anytime the court enunciates a legal standard for the first time it is impermissibly legislating?"

Defendants respond to Justice Ervin, saying, "No, Your Honor, not at all."

Defendants: "We don't know if [the maps are] giving more power to Republicans or Democrats unless we know what the line is — if there's a line between what's permissible and impermissible and if something is extreme or nonextreme."

Basically, how much gerrymandering is too much?

Defendants argue that the court shouldn't strike down the maps because if they do, people will think that the court is a "partisan actor" and the court "has an obligation to protect the reputation of the court."

Plaintiffs: "The court really is the only check [of gerrymandering] here. Elections can't provide a check, the governor can't provide a check, amendments aren't available and it will only get worse if this court gives the General Assembly a blank check [to gerrymander]."

Plaintiffs: "This court's interpretation of the free elections clause and the consent of the government is sufficient textual basis for this court to say maps that are not only extreme in what they produce but are in highly non-responsive..."1/2

"...do not allow the consent of the governed...These [enacted maps] are gross, constant, partisan gerrymanders." 2/2

That wraps up arguments in the North Carolina Supreme Court about the constitutionality of the state's enacted legislative and congressional maps.

We'll keep you updated about any news in this case.

Subscribe to Democracy Docket's free newsletter to get the latest on redistricting sent to your email each week.👇 democracydocket.com/subscribe-redi…