Battle over North Carolina voting maps underway
RALEIGH (WTVD) -- A U.S. Supreme Court ruling has brought foes over how North Carolina congressional and General Assembly boundaries were drawn back to North Carolina's highest court.
The state's justices heard arguments Monday in redistricting lawsuits filed nearly four years ago by Democratic voters and civil rights and election advocacy groups.
The plaintiffs began with an aggressive presentation - challenging the voting districts designed by the Republican-led General Assembly by saying it created a voting map that places minority voters at a disadvantage.
"The Voting Rights Act asks what is necessary for African-Americans to elect their candidate of choice," NAACP Attorney Anita Earls said. "And that is why this case needs to be remanded, because the legislature asked the wrong legal question."
The state contends the maps are intended to provide voting opportunities, not restrictions.
"The NAACP and counsel for the NAACP recommended to the legislature that there be a majority black House district in Durham County, and this is a fact the plaintiffs don't want to talk about at this stage," said Tom Farr with the North Carolina Attorney General's Office.
The maps were upheld by a three-judge panel, followed by a majority on the state Supreme Court last December. But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in April a second look was needed after a separate Alabama redistricting decision.
"If we put black voters off here, that'll be the Democrats. If we put white voters here, that'll be more Republicans," NAACP Attorney Bob Hall said outside Monday's hearing. "They consistently did this over and over again, thinking this would help their political advantage by being extreme racial, using a racial segregation tool. That's why this is predominant use of race."
The stakes of the case remain high. The maps have helped Republicans extend control of the Legislature and hold 10 of the state's 13 congressional seats.
"It's important for this court to take a look at this very closely, because it would be of great benefit to the federal court to know what this court's interpretation is," Farr said.
Plaintiffs would prefer hearing from these justices sooner than later, however, there's no timetable for a ruling.
