A lawsuit filed on Nov. 20 by two voters in North Carolina is challenging a newly adopted Republican-drawn state Senate map, arguing that it “deprives” black voters of the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.
It names as defendants the North Carolina State Board of Elections (NCSBE); NCSBE Chair Alan Hirsch; NCSBE Secretary Jeff Carmon III; NCSBE members Stacy “Four” Eggers IV, Kevin N. Lewis, and Siobhan O’Duffy Millen; Philip E. Berger in his official capacity as president pro tem of the North Carolina Senate; and Timothy K. Moore in his official capacity as speaker of the North Carolina House.
Mr. Pierce and Mr. Matthews are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
The lawsuit specifically cites N.C. Senate District 2, which stretches more than 160 miles from the Virginia border down parts of the Atlantic coastline.
‘History of Discrimination’
“Despite having ample evidence of racially polarized voting and a history of discrimination in the ‘Black Belt counties’ of northeastern North Carolina, and an obligation under the Voting Rights Act to analyze that evidence before drawing districts, the North Carolina General Assembly adopted a Senate plan that unlawfully deprives Black voters of the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice,” the court filing reads.Black Belt counties in North Carolina, all located in the northeast part of the state, include Bertie, Hertford, Edgecombe, Northampton, and Halifax counties. Each of the counties has a black voting age population of more than 50 percent, according to the lawsuit, which cited 2020 census data.
“Senate District 2 in the 2023 enacted map is a majority-white district in which Black voters like Mr. Pierce do not have an opportunity to elect their preferred candidates,” the lawsuit states.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs further argue the new redistricting plan is “the most recent episode in North Carolina’s ‘long history of race discrimination generally and race-based vote suppression in particular.’”
“The Black population in North Carolina’s Black Belt counties is sufficiently numerous and geographically compact to form a majority-minority district. Voting in the region is also highly polarized along racial lines—Black voters there are politically cohesive, but white voters vote sufficiently as a bloc to usually defeat minority candidates of choice,” the lawsuit states.
“Nonetheless, SB 758 ‘cracks’ Black voters in the region across multiple districts, including Senate District 2. ... When considered against the totality of the circumstances, SB 758’s cracking of Black voters in this region dilutes their voting strength in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act,” lawyers wrote.
Republicans ‘Complied With the Law’
Lawyers for the two men are asking the court to block state officials from conducting future elections under the new map, noting that it was “feasible” for the General Assembly to create a majority-minority district for the Black Belt counties that was “compact, reasonably configured, and made up of whole counties.”Redrawing a new map to give Black voters in northeastern counties the opportunity to elect the candidate of their choice in 2024 would still meet the Voting Rights Act’s requirements while adhering to North Carolina’s redistricting criteria, the attorneys argue.
Republican redistricting leaders have maintained throughout the redistricting process that their plans are legal, noting that they did not use racial data in drawing the new districts.
“We have complied with the law in every way on these maps,” Republican state Rep. Destin Hall said during the redistricting debates in October. “Our overarching goal in the creation of this House plan was to create Republican-leaning districts where possible.”
Officials also approved new congressional and state House districts in October, although Monday’s lawsuit only challenges the state Senate map, not the congressional lines or the state House districts.
The Epoch Times has contacted the North Carolina Republican Party for further comment.
The lawsuit comes after a federal appeals court on Monday ruled that private individuals and groups cannot bring lawsuits under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
The 2–1 decision by a panel of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals based in St. Louis instead found that only the U.S. attorney general can enforce the law, meaning it is unclear what will become of Mr. Pierce and Mr. Matthews’ legal challenge, although Monday’s decision will likely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a separate emergency motion filed on Monday, Mr. Pierce and Mr. Matthews urged the court to expedite the decision on the preliminary injunction by Dec. 1, days before candidate filing is scheduled to begin for the 2024 elections.
