N.C. Supreme Court Hands Republicans Election-Law Victories, Citing Judicial Restraint
The North Carolina supreme court released a trio of opinions Friday that defer to the state’s general assembly on matters of election law, handing Republicans a victory prior to the 2024 election cycle.
At the turn of this year, two new justices joined the state’s high court, flipping the balance of power to a majority of Republican-appointed justices. In February, the court decided to rehear gerrymandering and voter-identification cases decided by the court’s previous iteration in December. The two Democratic justices lamented the decision to reopen the cases, saying it stood against more than 200 years of court history in which rehearings have been exceedingly rare.
The redistricting case, in particular, will give state Republicans the opportunity to rework the congressional map for next year’s election. Last year’s map saw North Carolina send a split delegation to Washington: seven Republicans and seven Democrats.
In that case, Harper v. Hall, Chief Justice Paul Newby wrote for the five-justice majority, explaining that the North Carolina Constitution expressly assigns redistricting authority to the general assembly subject to specific limitations, of which partisan gerrymandering is not one.
“There is no judicially manageable standard by which to adjudicate partisan gerrymandering claims. Courts are not intended to meddle in policy matters,” wrote Newby. “In its decision today, the Court returns to its tradition of honoring the constitutional roles assigned to each branch.”
“The people have the authority to alter their foundational document, not this Court. The people alone have the final say,” Newby added, referring to the assembly’s accountability to voters.
Justice Anita Earls, joined by Justice Michael Morgan, dissented, writing that “the majority strips millions of voters of this state of their fundamental, constitutional rights and delivers on the threat that ‘our decisions are fleeting, and our precedent is only as enduring as the terms of the justices who sit on the bench.'”
In Holmes v. Moore, the second case decided 5-2, Justice Phil Berger Jr. once again deferred to the acts of the legislature on behalf of North Carolinians.
“The people of North Carolina overwhelmingly support voter identification and other efforts to promote greater integrity and confidence in our elections. Subjective tests and judicial sleight of hand have systematically thwarted the will of the people and the intent of the legislature. But no court exists for the vindication of political interests, and judges exceed constitutional boundaries when they act as a super-legislature,” wrote Berger. “We recommit to that fundamental principle and begin the process of returning the judiciary to its rightful place as ‘the least dangerous’ branch.”
Berger explained that the plaintiffs failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the voter-identification law was enacted with discriminatory intent or that it produced a meaningfully disparate impact along racial lines.
In December, the court’s 4-3 majority struck down the voter-ID law for “being infected with racial bias.” Morgan wrote in dissent on Friday, joined by Earls, that the majority is acting to shield “the state legislature from scrutiny for invidious discriminatory intent.”
Finally, in Community Success Initiative v. Moore, Justice Trey Allen writing for the majority overruled a trial court decision on when the voting rights of convicted felons can be restored.
“It is not unconstitutional to insist that felons pay their debt to society as a condition of participating in the electoral process,” wrote Allen. “The General Assembly did not engage in racial discrimination or otherwise violate the North Carolina Constitution by requiring individuals with felony convictions to complete their sentences — including probation, parole, or post-release supervision — before they regain the right to vote.”
Morgan and Earls dissented once more.
The decision in the redistricting case also calls into question the future of a gerrymandering case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, Moore v. Harper, in which the “independent state legislature theory” is being assessed. The high court was using the North Carolina case as the basis for its review, but Friday’s ruling from the state court saw that decision vacated.
“If the North Carolina Supreme Court decides that the state constitution contains no such limits, its decision would effectively moot the federal Elections Clause issue in this case: There would be no need to decide whether the Elections Clause prevents state courts from enforcing particular types of state-law requirements in a case where the state courts have found that no such state-law requirements exist,” explained Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar in guidance to the high court in March, asserting the Supreme Court would no longer have a role to play.
On the other hand, counsel for the petitioners David Thompson wrote that “nothing the North Carolina Supreme Court does on rehearing can turn back time and rerun the 2022 congressional election on a map other than that written by the North Carolina court.”
“The North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision to rehear Harper v. Hall . . . has no effect on this Court’s continued jurisdiction,” Thompson added.
