Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Redistricting in North Carolina after the 2010 census

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Public Policy Logo-one line.pngin North Carolina

Note: Redistricting takes place every 10 years after completion of the United States Census. The information here pertains to the 2010 redistricting process. For information on more recent redistricting developments, see this article.


Redistricting in North Carolina
Election Policy on Ballotpedia Logo.png
General information
Partisan control:
Republican
Process:
Legislative Authority (Governor cannot veto)
Deadline:
January 2012
Total seats
Congress:
13
State Senate:
50
State House:
120

This article details the timeline of redistricting events in North Carolina following the 2010 census. It also provides contextual information about the redistricting process and census information.

North Carolina did not gain or lose any seats following the 2010 Census. The state's population grew to 9.54 million residents, an increase of 18.5 percent.[1]

Process

See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures

During the 2010 redistricting cycle, the North Carolina Legislature was responsible for redistricting. North Carolina was 1 of 16 states whose maps required approval from the U.S. Justice Department under the Voting Rights Act.

The North Carolina Constitution provided authority to the Legislature for apportionment of Senators in Section 3 of Article II and for apportionment of Representatives in Section 5.

Leadership

Senate

The North Carolina Senate Redistricting Committee met upon the call of Chairman Rucho.[2] Membership as of April 1, 2011, was as follows:[3]

Republican Party Republicans (10)

Democratic Party Democrats (4)

March 2011: Dannelly resigns

The day after the redistricting panel's first meeting on March 30, 2011, Charlie Smith Dannelly (D) resigned citing scheduling conflicts. At the meeting, Senate Minority Leader Nesbitt attempted to swap two of the current Democrats on the committee for Dan Clodfelter and Dan Blue, both veterans of redistricting, but Chairman Rucho refused.[4]

House

The House Redistricting Committee met upon the call of the Chairmen. Rep. Jerry Dockham stated, “We’ve gained quite a few people since the last Census. That could lead to possibly some different districts being drawn. We’ll try to make it compact, so people know where the lines are and know who their representatives are.” He said he hoped to have maps done by mid-May 2011.[5] Membership of the committee was as follows:[6]

Republican PartyRepublicans (23)

Democratic PartyDemocrats (19)

Independent (1)

Census results

On March 1, 2011, the Census Bureau shipped North Carolina's local census data to the governor and legislative leaders. This data guided redistricting for state and local offices. The data was publicly available for download.[7] The 2010 ideal district population was 79,500 for state House districts, 190,710 for Senate districts, and 733,499 for Congressional seats.[8]

City/county population changes

These tables show the change in population for the five largest cities and counties in North Carolina from 2000-2010.[9]

City 2000 Population 2010 Population Percent change
Charlotte 540,828 731,424 35.2%
Raleigh 276,093 403,892 46.3%
Greensboro 223,891 269,666 20.4%
Winston-Salem 185,776 229,617 23.6%
Durham 187,035 229,617 22.1%
County 2000 Population 2010 Population Percent Change
Mecklenburg 695,454 919,628 32.2%
Wake 627,846 900,993 43.5%
Guilford 421,048 488,406 16.0%
Forsyth 306,067 350,670 14.6%
Cumberland 302,963 319,431 5.4%

Congressional redistricting

Figure 1: This map shows North Carolina's Congressional Districts after the 2000 census.

July 2011: Proposed Congressional maps released

On July 1, 2011, the General Assembly of North Carolina released a proposed map of the state's 13 Congressional seats. According to WCNC, the plan was expected to net the GOP between three and four seats in the 2012 general election by weakening Democratic Congressmen Brad Miller (District 13), Heath Shuler (District 11), Larry Kissell (District 8), and Mike McIntyre's (District 7) seats.[10] In addition, the NAACP and other opponents argued that the new Voting Rights Act districts unfairly packed black and Democratic voters in order to weaken their representation. The NAACP threatened a lawsuit, calling the plan regressive.[11][12][13][14]

In a joint statement, Republican redistricting leaders Sen. Bob Rucho and Rep. David Lewis argued that the plan complied with federal and state law and would establish Congressional districts that were fair to North Carolina voters.[15]

 North Carolina GOP Congressional Redistricting Proposal 

July 2011: Revised Congressional maps released

On July 19, 2011, Republicans released a revised version of its Congressional redistricting maps. Local media characterized the new maps as significantly worse for the state's congressional Democrats. Unlike the previous plan, which weakened four Democratic districts but kept incumbents within their original districts, the new draft paired four Democrats in two districts. The plan paired Reps. Larry Kissell (D) and Mike McIntyre (D) in the 8th District and Reps. Brad Miller (D) and David Price (D) in Price's current district.[16]

Opponents called the plan gerrymandering, but Republican redistricting leaders Rucho and Lewis disputed this claim, noting that Attorney General Roy Cooper (D) would have won in each of the new districts.[17] Rucho and Lewis' press release on the plan can be found here.

 North Carolina GOP Congressional Revised Redistricting Proposal 
  • This map shows the first draft of North Carolina's Congressional Districts.

    This map shows the first draft of North Carolina's Congressional Districts.

  • This map shows the second draft of North Carolina's Congressional Districts.

    This map shows the second draft of North Carolina's Congressional Districts.

July 2011: Senate approves Congressional maps

On July 25, 2011, the North Carolina State Senate approved plans for Congressional redistricting. The approved plan was an amended version of the revised congressional Congressional proposal. The redistricting bill, SB 453, was approved 27-19.[18] The latest draft drew criticism from the New Hanover County Republican Party over the shape of District 3. Chair Rhonda Amoroso argued that the latest revisions divided too many communities and failed to maintain the district's unifying identity as a coastal district. She advised the legislature to reshape District 3 based on the first draft of the Congressional map.[19] The District 3 Democratic and Libertarian party chairs also came out in opposition to the plan.[20]

 North Carolina GOP Congressional Redistricting Plan, Senate-approved 
  • This map shows the second draft of North Carolina's Congressional Districts.

    This map shows the second draft of North Carolina's Congressional Districts.

  • This map shows the revised second draft as passed by the State Senate.

    This map shows the revised second draft as passed by the State Senate.

July 2011: General Assembly approves maps

On July 27, 2011, the General Assembly gave final approval to the state's Congressional maps. The plan, a modified version of the Senate-approved plan, passed the House 68-51. The Senate concurred a few hours later, approving the plan 28-17. Gov. Beverly Perdue (D) did not have veto power over the maps. The bill was enacted as Session Law 2011-403.[21]

 North Carolina Congressional Redistricting Plan 
  • This map shows the revised second draft as passed by the State Senate.

    This map shows the revised second draft as passed by the State Senate.

  • This map shows the final, approved version.

    This map shows the final, approved version.

September 2011: Plans submitted for pre-clearance

On September 2, 2011, North Carolina officials submitted the state's redistricting maps for pre-clearance under the Voting Rights Act. The act required that certain states submit their redistricting maps to the Department of Justice for approval in order to prevent the marginalization of minority voters. The act alternatively allows states to submit their maps to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for approval. North Carolina officials submitted the maps to both the DOJ and the District Court.[22] Rep. Mel Watt (D-12) and the NAACP questioned the legality of the new maps. Damon Circosta, of the N.C. Center for Voter Education, believed a lawsuit was very likely.[23]

November 2011: DOJ gives approval

On November 1, 2011, the DOJ pre-approved North Carolina's congressional and legislative maps in accordance with the Voting Rights Act.[24]

Legislative redistricting

June 2011: Republicans draft VRA districts

On June 17, 2011, Republicans released a redistricting proposal for the Voting Rights Act districts in the General Assembly of North Carolina. The plan created 24 majority-minority districts in the North Carolina House of Representatives and 10 in the North Carolina State Senate. Together these districts contained around 50% of the state's African-American population. At the time, 18 African-Americans served in the house and 10 served in the senate. An NAACP attorney accused lawmakers of packing blacks into fewer districts to reduce their broader influence, alleging that moving black voters from existing districts to neighboring VRA districts also threatened the effect of undermining the voting base of several Democratic incumbents. Bob Rucho (R), chair of the Senate Redistricting Committee, argued that lawmakers had a responsibility to empower minorities to choose their own candidates by creating more majority-minority districts.[25][26] A press release explaining the proposed districts can be found here.

 North Carolina VRA Redistricting Proposal 
  • VRA districts in the NC House.

    VRA districts in the NC House.

  • VRA districts in the NC State Senate.

    VRA districts in the NC State Senate.

July 2011: Legislative plans released

On July 12, 2011, Republicans in both chambers released state-level redistricting plans. The senate maps paired eight incumbents in four districts. Two of these pairings pitted Republican and Democratic incumbents. The two remaining pairings were of Republican incumbents.[27] The plan paired or relocate 19 Democrats and 19 Republicans.[28] In a statement released along with the maps, Republican redistricting leaders Sen. Bob Rucho and Rep. David Lewis explained that the maps eliminated one of the VRA districts in response to public criticism. However, they defended the maps as a whole, arguing that charges of packing Black residents were unfounded.

 North Carolina GOP Legislative Redistricting Proposal 

July 2011: House and Senate approve respective plans

On July 25, 2011, each chamber of the General Assembly of North Carolina approved redistricting plans for its own districts. The North Carolina House of Representatives approved a revised version of the maps released on July 12. The North Carolina State Senate also approved a revised plan. The House plan, HB 937, passed 68-59. The Senate plan, SB 455, passed 27-18.[29]

 North Carolina GOP House, Senate Redistricting Plans 

July 2011: General Assembly approves maps

On July 27, 2011, the General Assembly gave final approval to the state's legislative maps. The House plan, an amended version of the approved plan, passed the Senate 38-19. The House concurred a few hours later, approving the plan 66-53. Concerning the Senate maps, the House concurred 67-52 with the Senate version passed on July 25. Gov. Beverly Perdue (D) did not have veto power over the maps. The bill was enacted as Session Law 2011-404.[30]

Using a method developed by Charlie Cook, Catawba College Professor Michael Bitzer calculated the political make-up of the finalized districts. Using the presidential vote in 2004 and 2008, he divided seats into likely, lean, and toss-up. In the House, Bitzer said that 36 of the new districts were likely Republican wins while 30 were likely Democratic wins. He said that 37 seats leaned Republican while six seats leaned Democrat and 11 were toss-ups. In the Senate, Bitzer identified 14 districts that were likely wins for each party, 17 seats that leaned Republican, two seats that leaned Democrat and three that were toss-ups.[31]

 North Carolina Legislative Redistricting Plan 

September 2011: Plans submitted for pre-clearance

On September 2, 2011, North Carolina officials submitted the state's redistricting maps for pre-clearance under the Voting Rights Act. The act required that certain states submit their redistricting maps to the Department of Justice for approval in order to prevent the marginalization of minority voters. The act alternatively allowed states to submit their maps to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for approval. North Carolina officials submitted the maps to both the DOJ and the District Court.[32]

November 2011: DOJ gives approval

On November 1, 2011, the DOJ pre-approved North Carolina's congressional and legislative maps in accordance with the Voting Rights Act.[33]

Legal issues

November 2011: Democrats challenge redistricting maps

On November 4, 2011, state Democrats filed suit against North Carolina's congressional and legislative redistricting plans in Wake County Superior Court. Arguing that the maps violated both the state and U.S. Constitutions, Democrats contended that the maps illegally packed black voters into a few districts and weaken their political clout. In addition, plaintiffs argued the contorted shape of the new districts and high number of split precincts were evidence of gerrymandering. In the 113-page filing, several districts were named: Senate Districts 19 and 21; House Districts 42, 43, and 45; and U.S. Congressional District 4. Republican and House Redistricting Committee Chair David Lewis, Sr. called the charges false but unsurprising. Republican leaders pointed to DOJ approval as proof of the maps' legality.[34]

November 2011: Community groups file suit

On November 4, 2011, four community groups joined together in opposition to North Carolina's legislative and congressional maps, filing suit over the new plans in Wake County Superior Court. Much like the Democratic Party lawsuit, the groups argued that the maps packed black voters and senselessly split precincts.[35]

December 2011: Lawsuits consolidated, timeline adopted

The two challenges to North Carolina's new district lines were consolidated into a single case to be heard by a special three-judge panel. After a dispute over the timeline with attorneys for the state, the court considered an expedited timeline under which the case would be decided by mid-February. Attorneys for the state argued that the panel should not make a hasty decision. The consolidated lawsuit argued that the new plans marginalized minority voters by packing them into meandering minority-minority districts. The state cited DOJ approval of the maps as proof of their legality.[36]

December 2011: Faster timeline rejected by court

On December 19, 2011, a panel hearing the challenges to North Carolina's redistricting maps declined to fast-track the case, siding with attorneys for the state. The plaintiffs, state Democrats and minority groups, said they worried that delay would force the state to use the new maps in 2012. The state's attorneys argued that the plaintiff's legal arguments were a veiled attempt to achieve partisan aims. Whether or not the new maps were used, observers expected the state's primary to be delayed if the case went to trial. The next hearing in the case was scheduled for January 12, 2012.[37][38]

December 2011: Section 5 upheld in local ballots case

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia rejected a challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The section required US DOJ pre-approval of elections laws in states with a history of racial discrimination. The lawsuit was filed by North Carolina Rep. Stephen LaRoque (R) and several Kinston residents over a plan to adopt nonpartisan ballots. Section 5 also required DOJ pre-approval of redistricting legislation. LaRoque planned to appeal the decision.[39]

January 2012: Judges keep primary date intact

On January 20, 2012, the three-judge panel hearing the congressional redistricting challenge refused to delay the North Carolina primary. The plaintiffs argued that the new map constituted racial gerrymandering, contained too many split counties, and the new precincts would create long lines and confuse voters. The judge ruled that delaying the primary would not help resolve these concerns, but noted that the decision should not be interpreted as a rejection of the plaintiffs' arguments.[40]

  • The panel's decision can be found here.

January 2012: Panel says lawsuits can proceed

On January 6, 2012, the three-judge Superior Court panel ruled that the lawsuits against the North Carolina redistricting maps could proceed. The state had asked for the two lawsuits to be entirely dismissed, but the judges ultimately retained more than half of the 37 claims made by plaintiffs.[41]

April 2012: Oral arguments scheduled

On April 20, 2012, a three-judge state panel heard arguments in a challenge of North Carolina's new legislative and congressional districts. The court ruled the maps could be used in the 2012 elections.

February 2013: New lawsuit

Arguments were made on February 25, 2013, in a redistricting trial challenging the congressional and legislative maps in North Carolina.[42]

Democratic voters and advocates who filed the suit asked a federal three-judge panel to declare the maps unconstitutional. Attorneys argued that legislators illegally packed African-American voters into districts while failing to keep counties whole. Defendants said that the maps were approved by the United States Department of Justice, as required by the Voting Rights Act.[42]

Partisan Registration by District

2012

The table below shows the voter registration difference by party in each district as of May 2012.[43]

Partisan voter registration
Congressional District District Total Democrats Republicans Other Advantage Party advantage* Change in advantage*
District 1 478,708 330,336 65,986 82,386 Democratic 400.62% 94.15%
District 2 453,968 166,167 162,729 125,072 Democratic 2.11% -79.20%
District 3 472,239 193,964 148,532 129,473 Democratic 30.59% 12.12%
District 4 494,054 266,090 89,795 138,169 Democratic 196.33% 120.03%
District 5 489,344 168,010 201,498 119,836 Republican 19.93% -8.46%
District 6 498,027 202,423 178,066 117,538 Democratic 13.68% 49.05%
District 7 477,394 199,374 159,557 118,463 Democratic 24.95% -46.95%
District 8 450,771 201,071 149,211 100,489 Democratic 34.76% -44.23%
District 9 526,568 163,529 207,577 155,462 Republican 26.94% 9.96%
District 10 487,558 185,172 172,812 129,574 Democratic 7.15% 25.84%
District 11 511,513 177,436 190,030 144,047 Republican 7.10% 27.93%
District 12 456,283 287,786 71,586 96,911 Democratic 302.01% 129.09%
District 13 500,534 194,165 178,571 127,798 Democratic 8.73% -91.23%
Statewide 6,296,961 2,735,523 1,975,950 1,585,218 Democratic 38.44% -2.95%
* Party advantage is the percentage gap between the two major parties in registered voters. Change in advantage is the spread in difference of party advantage between 2010 and 2012 based on the congressional district number only.

2010

Congressional Districts in November 2010

Partisan registration and representation by Congressional district, 2010[44]
Congressional District District Total Democrats Republicans Unaffiliated Party Advantage* 111th Congress 112th Congress
1 (Rocky Mount) 409,393 277,107 68,175 64,111 306.46% Democratic Democratic Democratic
2 (Raleigh) 436,676 221,503 122,167 93,006 81.31% Democratic Democratic Republican
3 (Greenville) 455,748 186,487 157,413 111,848 18.47% Democratic Republican Republican
4 (Chapel Hill/Durham) 574,418 262,335 148,798 163,285 76.30% Democratic Democratic Democratic
5 (Statesville/Mount Airy) 459,704 155,175 199,228 105,301 28.39% Republican Republican Republican
6 (Asheboro) 477,748 155,057 209,898 112,793 35.37% Republican Republican Republican
7 (Wilmington) 478,329 233,005 135,546 109,778 71.90% Democratic Democratic Democratic
8 (Concord/Albemarle) 429,710 212,046 118,472 99,192 78.98% Democratic Democratic Democratic
9 (Mount Holly/Matthews) 571,702 192,310 224,949 154,443 16.97% Republican Republican Republican
10 (Morganton/Shelby) 443,712 154,074 182,866 106,772 18.69% Republican Republican Republican
11 (Asheville) 506,035 198,905 164,610 142,520 20.83% Democratic Democratic Democratic
12 (Winston-Salem/Charlotte) 461,186 269,187 98,629 93,370 172.93% Democratic Democratic Democratic
13 (Greensboro) 477,161 243,462 121,756 111,943 99.96% Democratic Democratic Democratic
State Totals 6,181,522 2,760,653 1,952,507 1,468,362 41.39% Democratic 8 D, 5 R 7 D, 6 R
*The partisan registration advantage was computed as the gap between the two major parties in registered voters. For example, a 50% Democratic advantage would mean that there are 50% more Democrats than Republicans in the district.

History

The 1835 North Carolina Constitution provided for a House of Representatives of 120 members elected by counties. Each county was guaranteed one representative, with extra seats going to those with the largest populations. The 1868 state constitution established that senators be elected from districts of equal population, with boundaries altered following each federal census. The legislature adhered to these constitutional principles until 1920.

Conflicts arose in the early 20th century between small and large counties as well as between parties. These factors led to no new maps being drawn to keep up with shifting populations in the 1930s and 1950s, with only minor changes made in 1941.

In 1961, the legislature succeeded in redrawing congressional and state House districts, but failed to redraw state Senate districts. The legislature failed again to redistrict the Senate in 1963 and a special session was called to deal with the issue. In January 1964, voters were presented with a referendum that would have reduced the House to 100 members and increase the Senate 70 members. It was rejected. By the time the United States Supreme Court decided Reynolds v. Sims in 1964, the state legislature was malapportioned.

In 1965, the legislature passed a resolution asking Congress to call a constitutional convention in order to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution allowing states with a bicameral legislature to apportion one of the chambers by factors other than population. The same year, attorney Renn Drum, Jr. filed suit challenging the constitutionality of North Carolina's legislative and congressional redistricting procedures. In late 1965, the U.S. district court ruled that the state's legislative and congressional districts did not comply with representative equality.

Interim plans were devised for the 1968 and 1970 elections. When redistricting came about again in 1971, 39 counties in the state were guaranteed to be reviewed under the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The legislature was able to establish congressional redistricting plans nearing population equality with an average deviation from the district population norm of 1.01%. State legislative district plans also achieved near population equality, with an average deviation of 3.17%.[45]

2001 redistricting

Deviation from Ideal Districts

2000 Population deviation[46]
Office Percentage
Congressional Districts 0.00%
State House Districts 9.98%
State Senate Districts 9.96%
Under federal law, districts may vary from an Ideal District by up to 10%, though the lowest number achievable is preferred. Ideal Districts are computed through simple division of the number of seats for any office into the population at the time of the Census.

Lawsuits related to the 2000 Census

There were a number of lawsuits related to the North Carolina 2000 census redistricting process, including Bartlett v. Strickland, which made it to the U.S. Supreme Court.[47]

  • Stephenson v. Bartlett, No. 1 CV 02885 (Superior Court, Johnston Co., Feb. 20, 2002) : On February 15, 2002, four days after the Justice Department told the State that its House and Senate district plans met the requirements of the Voting Rights Act, a state court ruled that the plans violated a provision of the state constitution that requires counties to be kept whole when drawing state legislative districts. The court requested the parties to submit a proposed deadline for the General Assembly to redraw the districts and offered to draw a remedial plan for the 2002 election if the deadline was not met or if so directed by the appellate court.
  • Stephenson v. Bartlett, No. 94P02 (N.C. Feb. 26, 2002) : Without lifting the stay of the Superior Court order holding the North Carolina State House and Senate plans enacted in 2001 to be unconstitutional by dividing too many counties, the North Carolina Supreme Court ordered an expedited appeal schedule.
  • Stephenson v. Bartlett (Stephenson I), No. 94PA02, 355 N.C. 354, 562 S.E.2d 377 (Apr. 30, 2002), stay denied 535 U.S. 1301 (May 17, 2002) (Rehnquist, Circuit Justice, in chambers) : The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the superior court holding that state Senate and state House plans were unconstitutional because of a state constitutional provision saying that no counties could be divided, but said that the no-divided-counties provision had limited applicability. The district court was ordered to hold an expedited hearing on whether the General Assembly was capable of redrawing the districts in time for the 2002 election. If not, the district court was authorized to impose a temporary plan of its own for use in the 2002 election, subject to pre-clearance.
  • Stephenson v. Bartlett, No. 1 CV 02885 (Superior Court, Johnston Co., May 31, 2002) : After the General Assembly enacted new House and Senate plans on May 17, Superior Court Judge Knox V. Jenkins threw them out and drew his own.
  • Stephenson v. Bartlett, No. 94PA02 (N.C. June 4, 2002) : The North Carolina Supreme Court denied the State’s request to stay enforcement of the Superior Court’s order and a motion to expedite hearing the State’s appeal.
  • Board of Elections v. United States, No. 02-1174 (D.D.C. June 27, 2002) : The complaint sought pre-clearance for both the North Carolina Supreme Court decision of April 30, 2002, in the Stephenson case and the interim plans adopted by the Superior Court. A three-judge panel said that the federal court in two pending cases in the Eastern District of North Carolina would have authority to grant relief. The court noted that the Department of Justice would have a decision on the Section 5 submissions of the Stephenson case and the Jenkins plan by the week of July 8, 2002.
  • Sample v Jenkins, No. 20-CV-383 , (E.D. N.C. July 2, 2002) : A three-judge court unanimously denied the State’s motion for a preliminary injunction to conduct the 2002 state legislative election under the precleared legislatively-enacted 2001 plan, rather than the interim state court ordered plan. On July 12, 2002, the Department of Justice precleared both the new interpretation of the North Carolina constitutional requirement to preserve whole counties announced in the Stephenson decision and the new legislative districts drawn by Judge Jenkins.
  • Stephenson v. Bartlett (Stephenson II), No. 94PA02-2, 357 N.C. 301, 582 S.E.2d 247 (July 16, 2003) : On July 16, 2003, the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court holding both Senate and House plans invalid.
  • Stephenson v. Bartlett, 358 N.C. 219, 595 S.E.2d 112 (Apr. 22, 2004) : On November 25, 2003, along with the new legislative redistricting plan it enacted in compliance with the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision of July 16, 2003, the General Assembly enacted a new law that any action involving redistricting lies exclusively with the Superior Court, Wake County and that legal challenges to legislative redistricting plans must be heard by a three-judge panel appointed by the Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court. If a court were to find a redistricting plan flawed, the General Assembly would have to be given an opportunity to correct any defects before the court imposed a substitute plan. Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the law. The North Carolina Supreme Court upheld the law.
  • Pender County v. Bartlett, No. 103A06, 361 N.C. 491, 649 S.E.2d 364 (Aug. 24, 2007), aff’d sub nom. Bartlett v. Strickland, No. 07-689 (Mar. 9, 2009) : The 2003 General Assembly legislative redistricting plan was challenged by Pender County, which was divided between House Districts 16 and 18. A three-judge panel decided that dividing Pender County was required by § 2 of the Voting Rights Act. On appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed.
  • Bartlett v. Strickland, No. 07-689 (Mar. 9, 2009) : On appeal, a 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court. In an opinion by Justice Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, the Court held that § 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not require creation of a district in which a minority population has a fair opportunity to elect a representative of its choice if the minority would constitute less than a majority of the voting age population in the district.

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Hickory Record, "Census 2010: N.C. gains population, no new House seats," December 21, 2010
  2. ↑ ENC Today, "Redistricting committee hopes to be done by June," March 30, 2011
  3. ↑ General Assembly of North Carolina, "Senate standing committee on redistricting," accessed February 11, 2011
  4. ↑ Charlotte Observer, "Dannelly resigns from redistricting panel," March 31, 2011 (dead link)
  5. ↑ The Dispatch, "Dockham to help lead GOP as they draw new district maps," February 18, 2011
  6. ↑ General Assembly of North Carolina, "House standing committee on redistricting," accessed February 16, 2011
  7. ↑ PR Newswire, "Census Bureau Ships Local 2010 Census Data to North Carolina," March 1, 2011
  8. ↑ News Record, "Piedmont to win, rural areas lose in N.C. remapping," March 7, 2011
  9. ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "North Carolina Custom tables 2010," accessed March 2, 2011
  10. ↑ WCNC, "New NC maps would likely add GOP seats in Congress," July 2, 2011
  11. ↑ WRAL, "NAACP threatens suit over Congressional redistricting plan," July 7, 2011
  12. ↑ Carolina Journal, "Miller, Shuler, and Kissell Biggest Losers in New Congressional Maps," July 01, 2011
  13. ↑ The American Spectator, "N.C.’s Redistricting Maps Could 'Off' Four Dems," July 5, 2011
  14. ↑ Indyweek.com, "Cracked, stacked and packed: Initial redistricting maps met with skepticism and dismay," June 29, 2011
  15. ↑ News-Record, "Updated congressional district lines possible this weekend," July 15, 2011
  16. ↑ WRAL, "GOP unveils draft map of NC congressional districts," July 1, 2011
  17. ↑ National Journal, "Revised N.C. Map Even Worse For Democrats," July 19, 2011
  18. ↑ Pilot Online, "N.C. lawmakers OK redistricting for 3 sets of maps," July 25, 2011
  19. ↑ Star News Online, "NHC GOP releases statement on redistricting," July 25, 2011
  20. ↑ Star News Online, "Political foes unite to oppose new redistricting map," July 25, 2011
  21. ↑ News-Observer, "Protests are vehement, but N.C. lawmakers approve districts," July 28, 2011
  22. ↑ WNCT, "NC Redistricting Plans Filed With Lawyers, Court," September 2, 2011
  23. ↑ Charlotte Observer, "Fight on voting districts likely headed to court," July 6, 2011
  24. ↑ WFMY News 2, "Dept. Of Justice Pre-Approves NC's Senate, House, Congressional Redistricting Maps," November 1, 2011
  25. ↑ Charlotte Observer, "Race is key to flap over GOP's plan for 3 dozen new N.C. districts," June 24, 2011 (dead link)
  26. ↑ Fay Observer, "Editorial: Mapped - GOP's districts may not pass DOJ muster," October 2, 2011
  27. ↑ News Observer, "GOP state legislators release proposed Senate and House redistricting maps," July 12, 2011
  28. ↑ Carolina Journal, "It's a Republican Gerrymander," July 14
  29. ↑ Pilot Online, "N.C. lawmakers OK redistricting for 3 sets of maps," July 25, 2011
  30. ↑ News-Observer, "Protests are vehement, but N.C. lawmakers approve districts," july 28, 2011
  31. ↑ Salisbury, "The impact of redistricting on N.C. legislative seats," July 31, 2011
  32. ↑ WNCT, "NC Redistricting Plans Filed With Lawyers, Court," September 2, 2011
  33. ↑ WFMY News 2, "Dept. Of Justice Pre-Approves NC's Senate, House, Congressional Redistricting Maps," November 1, 2011
  34. ↑ N.C. Democrats sue over redistricting; Margaret Dickson is lead plaintiff, "N.C. Democrats sue over redistricting; Margaret Dickson is lead plaintiff," November 4, 2011 (dead link)
  35. ↑ WRAL, "Another NC redistricting lawsuit filed in Raleigh," November 4, 2011
  36. ↑ Daily Comet, "NC redistricting hearing to focus on speed of case," December 5, 2011 (dead link)
  37. ↑ Myrtle Beach online, "NC judges set redistricting hearing next month," Dec. 19, 2011
  38. ↑ Ballot Access News, "North Carolina Redistricting Lawsuit Might Force a Later Primary, and Later Petition Deadlines for Independent Candidates," December 19th, 2011
  39. ↑ The Republic, "Federal judge rejects GOP lawmaker's lawsuit challenging key section of Voting Rights Act," December 23, 2011
  40. ↑ WRAL, "Judges refuse to delay NC primary," January 20, 2012
  41. ↑ The Charlotte Post, "N.C. remap lawsuit gets judicial OK," February 9, 2012
  42. ↑ 42.0 42.1 WRAL "Judges hear arguments over NC district maps," February 25, 2013
  43. ↑ NC State Board of Elections, "US Congressional Districts by County and Precinct," May 11, 2012
  44. ↑ NC State Board of Elections, "Registered Voter Reports - US Congressional District by County and Precinct," October 18, 2010
  45. ↑ Policy Archive, "Reapportionment Politics: The History of Redistricting in the 50 States," Rose Institute of State and Local Government, January 1981 (pg.238-246)
  46. ↑ National Conference of State Legislatures, “Redistricting 2000 Population Deviation Table”," accessed February 1, 2011
  47. ↑ Minnesota State Senate, "2000 Redistricting Case Summaries"
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Redistricting_in_North_Carolina_after_the_2010_census&oldid=8576714"