DOCSLIB.ORG

Supreme Court of the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supreme Court of the United States No. _______ In The Supreme Court of the United States -------------------------- ♦ --------------------------- MARGARET DICKSON, et al., Petitioners, v. ROBERT RUCHO, et al., Respondents. -------------------------- ♦ -------------------------- ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA -------------------------- ♦ -------------------------- PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI -------------------------- ♦ -------------------------- Walter Dellinger Anita S. Earls Danielle Gray Counsel of Record Anton Metlitsky Allison J. Riggs O’MELVENY & MEYERS LLP George Eppsteiner 1625 Eye Street, N.W. SOUTHERN COALITION Washington, D.C. 20005 FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE (202) 383-5300 1415 Highway 54, Suite 101 [email protected] Durham, North Carolina 27707 [email protected] (919) 323-3380 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Petitioners Counsel for Petitioners NAACP, et al. Dated: January 16, 2015 (Counsel Continued Inside Cover) THE LEX GROUPDC ♦ 1825 K Street, N.W. ♦ Suite 103 ♦ Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 955-0001 ♦ (800) 856-4419 ♦ Fax: (202) 955-0022 ♦ www.thelexgroup.com No. _______ Edwin M. Speas, Jr. John W. O’Hale Caroline P. Mackie POYNER SPRUILL LLP Post Office Box 1801 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 783-6400 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Petitioners Dickson, et al. Adam Stein TIN FULTON WALKER & OWEN, PLLC 312 West Franklin Street Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516 (919) 240-7089 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioners NAACP, et al. THE LEX GROUPDC ♦ 1825 K Street, N.W. ♦ Suite 103 ♦ Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 955-0001 ♦ (800) 856-4419 ♦ Fax: (202) 955-0022 ♦ www.thelexgroup.com i QUESTIONS PRESENTED It is undisputed that in drawing legislative and congressional redistricting plans in 2011, the North Carolina General Assembly employed two race-based criteria as “safe harbors” and explicitly refused to consider any alternative plan that did not meet those criteria. The two criteria were: a racial proportionality goal for the number of majority-black districts that must be drawn in each plan and a requirement that each such district must have greater than 50% black voting age population. Plaintiffs challenged some of the resulting individual districts as racially gerrymandered. A divided North Carolina Supreme Court upheld the districts on the grounds that they legitimately were drawn to inoculate the plans from challenge under the Voting Rights Act, despite this Court’s precedents holding that the Voting Rights Act compels neither racial proportionality nor majority-black districts where black voters are already electing candidates of their choice. The questions presented are: 1. Can an explicit policy of racial balancing and race-based line drawing be justified under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by an incorrect view of the requirements of the federal Voting Rights Act? 2. Are race-based districts drawn as a safe harbor subject to strict scrutiny and required to use race no more than necessary to comply with the Voting Rights Act properly interpreted? ii LIST OF PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW The Petitioners in the Dickson civil action are Margaret Dickson; Alicia Chisolm; Ethel Clark; Matthew A. McClean; Melissa Lee Rollizo; C. David Gantt; Valeria Truitt; Alice Graham Underhill; Armin Jancis; Rebecca Judge; Zettie Williams; Tracey Burns-Vann; Lawrence Campbell; Robinson O. Everett, Jr.; Linda Garrou; Hayes McNeill; Jim Shaw; Sidney E. Dunston; Alma Adams; R. Steve Bowden; Jason Edward Coley; Karl Bertrand Fields; Pamlyn Stubbs; Don Vaughan; Bob Etheridge; George Graham, Jr.; Thomas M. Chumley; Aisha Dew; Geneal Gregory; Vilma Leake; Rodney W. Moore; Brenda Martin Stevenson; Jane Whitley; I.T. (“Tim”) Valentine; Lois Watkins; Richard Joyner; Melvin C. McLawhorn; Randall S. Jones; Bobby Charles Townsend; Albert Kirby; Terrence Williams; Norman C. Camp; Mary F. Poole; Stephen T. Smith; Philip A. Baddour; and Douglas A. Wilson. The Petitioners in the NAACP civil action are the North Carolina State Conference of Branches of the NAACP; League of Women Voters of North Carolina; Democracy North Carolina; North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute; Reva McNair; Matthew Davis; Tressie Stanton; Anne Wilson; Sharon Hightower; Kay Brandon; Goldie Wells; Gray Newman; Yvonne Stafford; Robert Dawkins; Sara Stohler; Hugh Stohler; Octavia Rainey; Charles Hodge; Marshall Hardy; Martha Gardenhight; Ben Taylor; Keith Rivers; Romallus O. Murphy; Carl White; Rosa Brodie; Herman Lewis; Clarence Albert; Evester Bailey; Albert Brown; Benjamin Lanier; iii Gilbert Vaughn; Avie Lester; Theodore Muchiteni; William Hobbs; Jimmie Ray Hawkins; Horace P. Bullock; Roberta Waddle; Christina Davis-McCoy; James Oliver Williams; Margaret Speed; Larry Laverne Brooks; Carolyn S. Allen; Walter Rogers Sr.; Shawn Meachem; Mary Green Bonaparte; Samuel Love; Courtney Patterson; Willie O. Sinclair; Cardes Henry Brown Jr.; and Jane Stephens. The Respondents in the Dickson civil action are Robert Rucho, in his official capacity only as the Chairman of the North Carolina Senate Redistricting Committee; David Lewis, in his official capacity only as the Chairman of the North Carolina House of Representatives Redistricting Committee; Nelson Dollar, in his official capacity only as the Co- Chairman of the North Carolina House of Representatives Redistricting Committee; Jerry Dockham, in his official capacity only as the Co- Chairman of the North Carolina House of Representatives Redistricting Committee; Philip E. Berger, in his official capacity only as the President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate; Thom Tillis, in his official capacity only as the Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives; The State Board of Elections; and The State of North Carolina. The Respondents in the NAACP civil action are The State of North Carolina; The North Carolina State Board of Elections; Thom Tillis, in his official capacity as Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives; and Philip E. Berger, in his official capacity as President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate. iv CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Rule 29.6, petitioners who are non-governmental non-profit corporations state that no parent or publicly held company owns 10% or more of their stock or interest. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED ........................................ i LIST OF PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW ....................................................................... ii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ........... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................. v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... ix PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ................ 1 OPINIONS BELOW ................................................... 1 JURISDICTION ......................................................... 1 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED......................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 3 STATEMENT .............................................................. 9 A. The 2011 Redistricting Process in North Carolina ............................................ 9 B. Number and Composition of Majority-Black Districts in the Enacted Legislative Plans ........................ 13 vi C. Record of Past Electoral Success of Black Candidates ...................................... 15 D. Geographic Compactness ......................... 15 E. Specific Examples of Districts Enacted in 2011 ........................................ 16 F. Trial Court’s Opinion ............................... 23 G. Opinion of the North Carolina Supreme Court ......................................... 25 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ....... 28 I. THE NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT’S HOLDING THAT RACIAL PROPORTIONALITY AND RACIAL POPULATION TARGETS ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE SAFE HARBORS OPENS THE FLOOD GATES FOR INCREASED RACE-BASED REDISTRICTING. .................................... 31 II. THE NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT’S DECISION SETS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT EVISCERATING STRICT SCRUTINY REVIEW. ............... 36 vii III. ALLOWING RACIALLY- SEGREGATING DISTRICTS TO STAND WOULD BE MANIFESTLY UNJUST.................................................... 40 IV. THE COURT SHOULD RESOLVE THIS CASE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE ................................................ 42 CONCLUSION ......................................................... 44 APPENDIX: Opinion of The Supreme Court of North Carolina entered December 19, 2014 ........................... 1a Judgment and Memorandum of Decision of The General Court of Justice Superior Court Division of Wake County entered July 8, 2013 ..................................... 87a Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10304 ............................................ 316a Maps of the Challenged Plans: House VRA Districts .................................. 319a Lewis Dollar Dockham 4 (enacted plan) ............................................. 320a House Fair and Legal (amendment defeated) ............................... 321a viii Senate VRA Districts ................................. 322a Rucho Senate 2 (enacted plan) .................. 323a Senate Fair and Legal (amendment defeated) ............................... 324a Number of Majority-Black Legislative Districts in North Carolina, 1992 to 2011 ...... 325a Comparison of the Percentage Black Voting Age Population in Each of The Individual
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ch 5 NC Legislature.Indd
    The State Legislature The General Assembly is the oldest governmental body in North Carolina. According to tradition, a “legislative assembly of free holders” met for the first time around 1666. No documentary proof, however, exists proving that this assembly actually met. Provisions for a representative assembly in Proprietary North Carolina can be traced to the Concessions and Agreements, adopted in 1665, which called for an unicameral body composed of the governor, his council and twelve delegates selected annually to sit as a legislature. This system of representation prevailed until 1670, when Albemarle County was divided into three precincts. Berkeley Precinct, Carteret Precinct and Shaftsbury Precinct were apparently each allowed five representatives. Around 1682, four new precincts were created from the original three as the colony’s population grew and the frontier moved westward. The new precincts were usually allotted two representatives, although some were granted more. Beginning with the Assembly of 1723, several of the larger, more important towns were allowed to elect their own representatives. Edenton was the first town granted this privilege, followed by Bath, New Bern, Wilmington, Brunswick, Halifax, Campbellton (Fayetteville), Salisbury, Hillsborough and Tarborough. Around 1735 Albemarle and Bath Counties were dissolved and the precincts became counties. The unicameral legislature continued until around 1697, when a bicameral form was adopted. The governor or chief executive at the time, and his council constituted the upper house. The lower house, the House of Burgesses, was composed of representatives elected from the colony’s various precincts. The lower house could adopt its own rules of procedure and elect its own speaker and other officers.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................................... iii INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................ 2 ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................................. 5 I. Legislative Defendants Must Provide the Information Requested in the Second Set of Interrogatories ............................................................................................................. 5 II. In the Alternative, or if Legislative Defendants Do Not Provide The Home Addresses By March 1, the Court Should Bar Legislative Defendants From Defending the 2017 Plans on the Basis of Any Incumbency Theory................................. 7 III. The Court Should Award Fees and Expenses and Other Appropriate Relief ..................... 8 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .................................................................................................. 11 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Cloer v. Smith , 132 N.C. App. 569, 512 S.E.2d 779 (1999)............................................................................ 7 F. E. Davis
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Report of the NORTH CAROLINA EQUAL ACCESS to JUSTICE COMMISSION
    The Initial Report of the NORTH CAROLINA EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE COMMISSION MAY 2008 Table of Contents Acknowledgements . 4 Letter from the Chief Justice . 5 Preface: Real People, Real Injustice . 6 Executive Summary . 8 I. History of the Commission . 10 II. Accomplishments of the Commission to Date . 14 III. The Equal Access to Justice Summit . 17 IV. Initiatives in Other States . 43 V. Moving Forward . 49 VI. Commission Priorities . 52 Appendix I: Members of the Original Commission . 53 Appendix II: Original Order Establishing and Charging the Commission . 54 Appendix III: Resolution of the North Carolina Equal Access to Justice Commission Regarding Essential Funding for Indigent Civil Legal Services . 58 Appendix IV: Presentation by Keynote Speaker, Gene Nichol, then President of William & Mary University and Former Dean of UNC Law School . 60 Appendix V: “Why is Access to Justice Important?”—Opening Address by Thomas Lambeth, Former Director of the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation . 64 Appendix VI: Executive Summary of the ABA Resolution on Providing Counsel as a Matter of Right at Public Expense to Certain Low-Income Persons . 67 Appendix VII: Report to the ABA House of Delegates from the Task Force on Civil Access to Justice and Others Recommending Adopting the Resolution . 68 Appendix VIII: Access to Justice Resource Links on the Web . 84 Appendix IX: Summary of North Carolina Organizations Providing Legal Assistance to Low-Income People . 85 Appendix X: Summit Agenda . 87 Notes . 88 Acknowledgements The Initial Report of the North Carolina Equal Access to Justice Commission was written by Commission members Ken Schorr, Executive Director of Legal Services of Southern Piedmont, and Carol Spruill, Senior Lecturing Fellow and Associate Dean for Public Interest and Pro Bono at Duke Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • Elected Officials
    FEDERAL STATE ECRETARY OF TATE PRESIDENT NC GOVERNOR NC S S Joseph R. Biden (Dem) – 2024 Roy Cooper (Dem) – 2024 Elaine Marshall (Dem) – 2024 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. 20301 Mail Service Center PO Box 29622 Washington DC 20500 Raleigh NC 27699-0301 Raleigh NC 27626-0622 (202) 456-1414 (919) 814-2000 (919) 814-5400 www.secretary.state.nc.us www.whitehouse.gov governor.nc.gov UP OF UBLIC NSTRUCTION VICE-PRESIDENT NC LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR NC S . P I Kamala Harris (Dem) – 2024 Mark Robinson (Rep) – 2024 Catherine Truitt (Rep) – 2024 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. 20401 Mail Service Center 6301 Mail Service Center Washington DC 20500 Raleigh NC 27699-0401 Raleigh, NC 27699-6301 (202) 456-1414 (919) 814-3684 (984) 236-2100 www.ncpublicschools.org www.whitehouse.gov ltgov.nc.gov REASURER NC ATTORNEY GENERAL NC T US SENATE Josh Stein (Dem) – 2024 Dale R. Folwell (Rep) – 2024 Richard Burr (Rep) – 2022 9001 Mail Service Center 3200 Atlantic Ave. 217 Russell Senate Office Building Raleigh NC 27699-9001 Raleigh, NC 27604 Washington DC 20510 (919) 716-6400 (919) 814-4000 (202) 224-3154 www.ncdoj.gov www.nctreasurer.com www.burr.senate.gov NC AUDITOR ENERAL SSEMBLY Thom Tillis (Rep) – 2026 Beth A. Wood (Dem) – 2024 NC G A 113 Dirksen Senate Office Building, 20601 Mail Service Center Legislative Building Washington DC 20510 Raleigh NC 27699-0600 16 W Jones St.. Raleigh NC 27601 (202) 224-6342 (919) 807-7500 (919) 733-4111 www.tillis.senate.gov www.ncauditor.net www.ncleg.net ENATE NC COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE NC S US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Steve Troxler (Rep) – 2024 Senate District 5 st 1 District 1001 Mail Service Center Don Davis (Dem) – 2022 G.
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes of 04-16-01 Board of Commissioners' Meeting (Adopted) D3;15= (No Respons
    Minutes of 04-16-01 Board of Commissioners' meeting (Adopted)D3;15= (No Respons... Page 1 of 16 Close Response Minutes of 04-16-01 Board of Commissioners' meeting (Adopted) Gwendolyn I Reynolds on 04/16/2001 at 08:28 PM Category: Board Minutes WAKE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MINUTES April 16, 2001 The Wake County Board of Commissioners met in regular session Monday, April 16, 2001, at 2:00 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Room, 7th Floor, Wake County Courthouse, Raleigh, North Carolina. Members present were Commissioners Linda D. Coleman, Herbert H. Council, Kenneth M. Gardner, Vernon Malone, Betty O. Mangum, Betty Lou Ward, and Chairman Michael A. Weeks. Others attending were the County Manager, David C. Cooke; the County Attorney, Mr. Michael R. Ferrell; and the Clerk to the Board, Mrs. Gwendolyn I. Reynolds. Chairman Weeks called the meeting to order. ***************** PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ****************** INVOCATION Chairman Weeks offered the invocation. ****************** APPROVAL OF AGENDA Upon motion of Commissioner Ward, seconded by Commissioner Mangum, the Board unanimously approved the agenda of as published. ******************* MINUTES Upon motion of Commissioner Mangum, seconded by Commissioner Coleman, the Board unanimously approved the minutes of April 2, 2001. ***************** CUSTOMER SERVICE RECOGNITION County Manager David Cooke was recognized to present Customer Service Awards to http://lnweb02.co.wake.nc.us/WEB/ISPBBFYI.NSF/25131843a57689b88525655a006fd950... 5/7/2010 Minutes of 04-16-01 Board of Commissioners' meeting (Adopted)D3;15= (No Respons... Page 2 of 16 County employees. The County program was initiated to recognize those employees who go above and beyond in serving the customers and taxpayers.
    [Show full text]
  • 2009 N. C. HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATION by COUNTY COUNTY DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES Alamance...63
    North Carolina General Assembly HOUSE PRINCIPAL CLERK'S OFFICE Tel: (919)733-7760 Fax: (919)715-2881 2009 N. C. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPRESENTATION BY COUNTY COUNTY DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES Alamance...................... 63..................... Alice L. Bordsen ...................................... 64..................... Dan W. Ingle*** Alexander ..................... 88..................... Ray Warren Alleghany ..................... 90..................... Sarah Stevens Anson ........................... 69..................... Pryor Gibson Ashe.............................. 93..................... Cullie M. Tarleton Avery............................ 84..................... Phillip Frye Beaufort........................ 6....................... Arthur Williams Bertie ............................ 5....................... Annie W. Mobley Bladen........................... 22..................... William D. Brisson Brunswick..................... 17..................... Frank Iler**** ...................................... 20..................... Dewey L. Hill Buncombe..................... 114................... Susan C. Fisher ...................................... 115................... Patsy Keever******** ...................................... 116................... Jane Whilden Burke ............................ 85..................... Mitch Gillespie ...................................... 86..................... Hugh Blackwell Cabarrus........................ 82..................... Jeff Barnhart .....................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Election Flyer
    PAMLICO COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY Candidate Roster Tess Judge NC House, District 6 for General Election I am running because the November 6, 2018 people of our District deserve a tireless representative who will listen, and be responsive to Ginger Garner their concerns and will provide NC Senate, District 2 timely constituent services. I have the experience and passion to As a native North Carolinian be an effective voice in Raleigh. The people of Northeastern North and 20-year resident of Carteret Carolina deserve to have more educational opportunities, more County, Ms. Garner is ready to serve access to health care and more money in their pockets. For more District 2 in the North Carolina Senate information visit tessjudge.com. and initiate common sense con- versations based on moderate core Anita Earls values and bipartisan action and partnership. North NC Supreme Court Carolinians deserve a fiscally responsible government Anita Earls is a civil rights attorney committed to balancing a budget, supporting sustainable with 30 years’ experience litigating job creation, protecting our coast and fishing industry, and voting rights and other civil rights investing in education, new technology, and infrastructure cases in partnership with community to ensure a prosperous future for coastal North Carolinians based organizations. She was the in Carteret, Craven, and Pamlico counties. For more info founder and Executive Director of the visit gingergarnernc.com. Southern Coalition for Social Justice, a non-profit legal advocacy organization Sally Truitt Belangia in Durham, North Carolina. Anita previously has served on the North Carolina State Board of Board of Commissioners Elections and the North Carolina Equal Access to Justice I am a native of Pamlico County Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • The Racial Justice Act and the Long Struggle with Race and the Death Penalty in North Carolina*
    MOSTELLER&KOTCH.PTD2 9/18/10 12:07 PM THE RACIAL JUSTICE ACT AND THE LONG STRUGGLE WITH RACE AND THE DEATH PENALTY IN NORTH CAROLINA* SETH KOTCH & ROBERT P. MOSTELLER** In August 2009, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the Racial Justice Act (“RJA”), which commands that no person shall be executed “pursuant to any judgment that was sought or obtained on the basis of race.” One of the most significant features of the RJA is its use of statistical evidence to determine whether the race of defendants or victims played a significant role in death penalty decisions by prosecutors and jurors and in the prosecutor’s exercise of peremptory challenges. The RJA commits North Carolina courts to ensuring that race does not significantly affect death sentences. This Article examines the RJA and North Carolina’s long struggle with race and the death penalty. The first part traces the history of race and the death penalty in the state, showing that racial prejudice exerted a consistent, strong, and pernicious influence on the imposition and disposition of death sentences. From colonial times into the 1960s, the overwhelming majority of those executed were African American, and although most victims and perpetrators of crime are of the same race, the overwhelming majority of victims in cases where executions took place were white. Hundreds of African Americans have been executed for a variety of crimes against white victims, including scores of African American men executed for rape. However, just four whites have been executed for crimes against African American victims, all murders. * © 2010 Seth Kotch & Robert P.
    [Show full text]
  • Ÿþm I C R O S O F T W O R
    NORTH CAROLINA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE Office of Archives and History Department of Cultural Resources NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES Rochester Heights Historic District Raleigh, Wake County, WA4581, Listed 12/7/2011 Nomination by Sybil Argintar Photographs by Sybil Argintar, August 2010 Calloway Drive Doby Circle 513 Bailey Drive Historic District Map NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Rev. 10-90) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES REGISTRATION FORM This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the information requested. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Name of property________________________________________________________________________________ historic name __Rochester Heights Historic District________________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • To the User | NCCPPR
    Search this Site North Carolina Center for Public Policy Research ...Your source for nonpartisan research & analysis Home › NC Legislature › Citizens' Guide to the 2011-2012 N.C. Legislature Citizens' Guide to the 2011-2012 N.C. Legislature To The User How to Use the Citizens' Guide to the Legislature The North Carolina Senate Profiles of NC Senators The North Carolina House of Representatives Profiles of NC Representatives Legislative Session Information Rankings of Legislators' Effectiveness, Attendance, Roll Call Participation, and Most Influential Lobbyists Click Here To Take A Video Tour of the Online Guide Trends in the North Carolina General Assembly N.C. Center for Public Policy Donate Now » Join Now » Research Support our work, and thereby Become a part of th 5 W. Hargett St., Suite 01 North Carolina citizens, by Stay informed on th P.O. Box 430 donating through the Network policy development Raleigh, NC 27602 for Good, a donation site for world. nonprofit groups. 919-832-2839 919-832-2847 Search this Site North Carolina Center for Public Policy Research ...Your source for nonpartisan research & analysis Home › NC Legislature › Citizens' Guide to the 2011-2012 N.C. Legislature › To The User To The User An informed electorate is the essence of democratic government, but more than a general understanding of important issues is required if government is to fully serve the public’s interests. Informed citizens must also know something about the men and women elected to serve them as legislators. This guide has been prepared to acquaint the people of North Carolina with their state Senators and Representatives.
    [Show full text]
  • When African-Americans Were Republicans in North Carolina, the Target of Suppressive Laws Was Black Republicans. Now That They
    When African-Americans Were Republicans in North Carolina, The Target of Suppressive Laws Was Black Republicans. Now That They Are Democrats, The Target Is Black Democrats. The Constant Is Race. A Report for League of Women Voters v. North Carolina By J. Morgan Kousser Table of Contents Section Title Page Number I. Aims and Methods 3 II. Abstract of Findings 3 III. Credentials 6 IV. A Short History of Racial Discrimination in North Carolina Politics A. The First Disfranchisement 8 B. Election Laws and White Supremacy in the Post-Civil War South 8 C. The Legacy of White Political Supremacy Hung on Longer in North Carolina than in Other States of the “Rim South” 13 V. Democratizing North Carolina Election Law and Increasing Turnout, 1995-2009 A. What Provoked H.B. 589? The Effects of Changes in Election Laws Before 2010 17 B. The Intent and Effect of Election Laws Must Be Judged by their Context 1. The First Early Voting Bill, 1993 23 2. No-Excuse Absentee Voting, 1995-97 24 3. Early Voting Launched, 1999-2001 25 4. An Instructive Incident and Out-of-Precinct Voting, 2005 27 5. A Fair and Open Process: Same-Day Registration, 2007 30 6. Bipartisan Consensus on 16-17-Year-Old-Preregistration, 2009 33 VI. Voter ID and the Restriction of Early Voting: The Preview, 2011 A. Constraints 34 B. In the Wings 34 C. Center Stage: Voter ID 35 VII. H.B. 589 Before and After Shelby County A. Process Reveals Intention 37 B. Facts 1. The Extent of Fraud 39 2.
    [Show full text]
  • “The Only Clear Limitation on Improper Districting Practices”: Using One
    RIGGS FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 4/14/2017 7:41 PM “THE ONLY CLEAR LIMITATION ON IMPROPER DISTRICTING PRACTICES”: USING THE ONE- PERSON, ONE-VOTE PRINCIPLE TO COMBAT PARTISAN GERRYMANDERING ∗ ALLISON J. RIGGS ANITA S. EARLS INTRODUCTION In 2013 and 2015, the North Carolina General Assembly, controlled by a Republican supermajority, passed local bills restructuring Wake County’s Board of Education and Board of County Commissioners, respectively. These bills were passed over the loud objection of the majority of the Wake County delegation and, indeed, the vast majority of the county’s voters. Wake County, home to the capital city of Raleigh and part of the state’s Research Triangle Park, has long been a progressive bastion in the state, with Democratic registration significantly outnumbering Republican registration in the county, and Democratic candidates regularly outperforming Republican candidates. With carefully manipulated district lines, those local bills would have ensured Republican control of both boards, despite the strong Democratic leaning in the county. Critically, in such a heavily Democratic county, the only way that the General Assembly could achieve such a drastic partisan skew was to overpopulate the Democratic-leaning districts and underpopulate the Republican-leaning districts, right up to what the legislature treated as a ten percent total deviation safe harbor. But the Supreme Court’s Copyright © 2017 Allison J. Riggs and Anita S. Earls. ∗ Anita Earls is the Executive Director of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice in Durham, North Carolina. Allison Riggs is a senior attorney at the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, specializing in voting rights. The authors of this article served as counsel for the organizational and individual plaintiffs in the Wake County cases discussed in this article.
    [Show full text]