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