## Facts

- After the 2020 census, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted new redistricting plans for the U.S. House of Representatives and for the North Carolina House and Senate.
- Individual voters and nonprofit organizational plaintiffs filed consolidated actions alleging the plans were extreme partisan gerrymanders.
- Plaintiffs alleged the plans subordinated neutral redistricting criteria to create durable partisan advantage, diluting certain voters’ electoral power based on political affiliation.
- Plaintiffs brought claims under multiple provisions of the North Carolina Constitution, including the Free Elections Clause, the Law of the Land/Equal Protection guarantee, and protections for speech, assembly, and political association.
- After an expedited trial, a three-judge trial court found the plans resulted from intentional pro-Republican partisan redistricting but denied relief on the ground that partisan gerrymandering claims were nonjusticiable political questions.
- Plaintiffs took a direct appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for remedial map-drawing and judicial review; in later remedial proceedings, the trial court adopted remedial legislative plans and rejected the General Assembly’s remedial congressional plan, which the Supreme Court largely affirmed in a subsequent opinion.

## Issues

1. Whether claims of extreme partisan gerrymandering under the North Carolina Constitution present nonjusticiable political questions.
2. Whether the 2021 congressional, House, and Senate plans violated state constitutional guarantees of free elections, equal protection/law of the land, and speech, assembly, and political association by intentionally and effectively diluting votes on partisan grounds.
3. What constitutional standard governs extreme partisan gerrymandering claims under the North Carolina Constitution.
4. What remedial authority state courts have to enjoin unconstitutional maps, review remedial plans, and approve substitute plans when necessary.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment that partisan gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable and held such claims are justiciable under the North Carolina Constitution.
- The Court held the 2021 congressional, House, and Senate plans were unconstitutional because they were drawn with intent to favor Republican voters and disfavor Democratic voters and had that effect.
- The Court applied strict scrutiny, concluding the plans burdened fundamental rights and were not narrowly tailored to any compelling governmental interest.
- The Court remanded for remedial proceedings, authorizing judicial enforcement through deadlines, review of remedial maps, and interim relief if constitutionally compliant plans were not produced.
- In the subsequent remedial decision, the Court held the trial court properly rejected the General Assembly’s remedial congressional plan and accepted the remedial House and Senate plans.

## Legal Principles

- State courts may adjudicate extreme partisan gerrymandering claims under state constitutional provisions protecting free elections, equal protection/law of the land, and political expression and association.
- The Free Elections Clause protects each voter’s right to substantially equal voting power and forbids intentional vote dilution through districting that entrenches partisan control.
- Extreme partisan gerrymanders that intentionally and effectively burden fundamental voting and associational rights are subject to strict scrutiny.
- Partisan advantage and political entrenchment are not compelling interests that can justify intentional dilution of votes based on party affiliation.
- Courts may rely on record evidence, including statistical and simulation analyses, to determine whether enacted maps are extreme partisan outliers inconsistent with neutral criteria.
- When maps are unconstitutional, courts may enjoin their use, require remedial plans on a schedule, review proposed remedies for compliance, and impose or approve interim plans if necessary to protect constitutional rights.

## Conclusion

The North Carolina Supreme Court held that extreme partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable under the state constitution, invalidated the 2021 congressional and legislative maps under strict scrutiny, and confirmed that courts may oversee and, if needed, implement remedies to ensure constitutionally compliant districts.


Harper v. Hall, 380 N.C. 317 (N.C. 2022)