## Facts

- Federal courts previously held that North Carolina’s legislative map contained unconstitutional racial gerrymanders, affecting a substantial number of legislators elected under that plan.
- While seated under the unconstitutional districting plan, the General Assembly voted (by the required three-fifths supermajorities) to submit six proposed constitutional amendments to voters.
- Two proposed amendments are central: (1) a state income tax rate cap of 7% and (2) a voter identification requirement for voting.
- In the November 2018 election, voters ratified both amendments, and they were added to the state constitution.
- The North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP sued, alleging that a legislature elected from unconstitutional racial gerrymanders lacked authority to initiate constitutional amendments.
- The trial court agreed and invalidated both amendments; legislative leaders appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a General Assembly elected from districts judicially determined to be unconstitutional racial gerrymanders has constitutional authority to initiate constitutional amendments.
2. If the legislature’s authority is limited, what standard and remedy apply to amendments already approved by statewide referendum.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that the state constitution can limit a legislature’s authority to initiate constitutional amendments when the legislature’s composition is substantially tainted by unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.
- The Court rejected the trial court’s blanket invalidation of the tax-cap and voter-ID amendments as overbroad.
- The Court reversed in part and remanded for a focused, fact-intensive inquiry into whether, and to what extent, each challenged amendment was tainted and what remedy is appropriate in light of voter ratification.

## Legal Principles

- Popular sovereignty principles in the state constitution permit judicial constraints on a legislature’s power to initiate constitutional change when that legislature’s composition is substantially compromised by unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.
- Legislators elected from unconstitutional districts may be treated as de facto officers for many governmental acts, but proposing constitutional amendments can warrant closer scrutiny because it concerns allocation of sovereign authority.
- Constitutional amendments are distinct from ordinary legislation; courts may assess whether the amendment-initiating process was sufficiently legitimate to justify placing proposed amendments before voters.
- Remedies are not automatic; courts must conduct a fact-specific analysis that accounts for (a) the connection between the unconstitutional gerrymander and the amendment process and (b) the countervailing weight of statewide voter ratification.

## Conclusion

The court recognized constitutional limits on a racially gerrymandered legislature’s authority to initiate amendments but required a tailored, amendment-by-amendment analysis rather than categorical invalidation of voter-ratified constitutional changes, and it remanded for further proceedings consistent with that approach.


N.C. State Conf. of the NAACP v. Moore, 876 S.E.2d 513 (N.C. 2022)