STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE ...
Electronically Filed
2021-11-18 15:43:23
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
COUNTY OF WAKE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
Docket No. ___________
REBECCA HARPER; AMY CLARE
OSEROFF; DONALD RUMPH; JOHN
ANTHONY BALLA; RICHARD R. CREWS;
LILY NICOLE QUICK; GETTYS COHEN
JR.; SHAWN RUSH; JACKSON THOMAS
DUNN, JR.; MARK S. PETERS; KATHLEEN
BARNES; VIRGINIA WALTERS BRIEN;
DAVID DWIGHT BROWN,
COMPLAINT
O
M
(Three-Judge Court Pursuant to
N.C. Gen. Stat. ¡ì 1-267.1)
C
KE
T.
C
Plaintiffs,
R
ET
R
IE
VE
D
FR
O
M
D
C
O
EM
REPRESENTATIVE DESTIN HALL, IN
HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHAIR OF
THE HOUSE STANDING COMMITTEE
ON REDISTRICTING; SENATOR
WARREN DANIEL, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS CO-CHAIR OF THE
SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON
REDISTRICTING AND ELECTIONS;
SENATOR RALPH HISE, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CO-CHAIR OF
THE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE
ON REDISTRICTING AND ELECTIONS;
SENATOR PAUL NEWTON, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CO-CHAIR OF
THE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE
ON REDISTRICTING AND ELECTIONS;
SPEAKER OF THE NORTH CAROLINA
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
TIMOTHY K. MOORE; PRESIDENT PRO
TEMPORE OF THE NORTH CAROLINA
SENATE PHILIP E. BERGER; THE
NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF
ELECTIONS; DAMON CIRCOSTA, IN
HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
CHAIRMAN OF THE NORTH
R
AC
YD
O
v.
M
CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF
ELECTIONS; STELLA ANDERSON, IN
HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
SECRETARY OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF
ELECTIONS; JEFF CARMON III, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF
THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE
BOARD OF ELECTIONS; STACY
EGGERS IV, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE
NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF
ELECTIONS; TOMMY TUCKER, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF
THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE
BOARD OF ELECTIONS,
R
ET
R
IE
VE
D
FR
O
M
D
EM
O
C
R
AC
YD
O
C
KE
T.
C
O
Defendants.
Plaintiffs, complaining of Defendants, say and allege:
INTRODUCTION
1.
Partisan gerrymandering, where partisan mapmakers manipulate district
boundaries from behind a computer to maximize their own party¡¯s advantage and guarantee the
outcome of elections before anyone casts a ballot, is incompatible with ¡°North Carolinians¡¯
fundamental rights guaranteed by the North Carolina Constitution.¡± Order on Inj. Relief, Harper
v. Lewis, No. 19-CVS-012667 (¡°Harper I¡±), at 15. It violates the Free Elections Clause¡¯s
guarantee that elections shall be ¡°conducted freely and honestly to ascertain, fairly and truthfully,
C
O
M
the will of the people.¡± Id. at 7 (citing Common Cause v. Lewis, 18-CVS-014001, slip op. at 298-
YD
O
C
KE
T.
307). It ¡°runs afoul of the North Carolina Constitution¡¯s guarantee that no person shall be denied
R
AC
the equal protection of the laws.¡± Id. at 8 (citing Common Cause v. Lewis, 18-CVS-014001, slip
EM
O
C
op. at 307-17). And it is irreconcilable with the ¡°important guarantees in the North Carolina
O
M
D
Constitution of the freedom of speech and the right of the people in our State to assemble
VE
D
FR
together to consult for their common good, to instruct their representatives, and to apply to the
ET
R
IE
General Assembly for redress of grievances.¡± Id. at 10-11 (citing Common Cause v. Lewis, 18-
R
CVS-014001, slip op. at 317-31).
2.
In 2019, a three-judge panel of this Court held in Harper I that the same Plaintiffs
here were likely to prevail on the merits of their claims that North Carolina¡¯s ¡°2016
congressional districts are extreme partisan gerrymanders in violation of the North Carolina
Constitution¡¯s Free Elections Clause, Art. I, ¡ì 10; Equal Protection Clause, Art. I, ¡ì 19; and
Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly Clauses, Art. I, ¡ì¡ì 12 & 14.¡± Id. at 14. The Court
enjoined the Legislative Defendants and State Board Defendants from administering the 2020
primary and general elections for Congress using these unconstitutional districts, which were
intentionally designed to entrench a partisan advantage of 10 Republicans and 3 Democrats in
1
this closely divided state. Id. at 13. It later directed that North Carolina¡¯s 2020 congressional
elections be conducted under a remedial map enacted just weeks before the December 2, 2019
candidate filing period. Order Lifting Inj., Harper I, at 1.
3.
Following the 2020 decennial census, from which North Carolina gained an
additional congressional seat, Legislative Defendants recently enacted a new congressional map.
But rather than adhere to the Harper I Court¡¯s admonition that extreme partisan gerrymanders
unconstitutionally deprive millions of North Carolinians of fundamental rights, Legislative
Defendants enacted another extreme and brazen partisan gerrymander. Like the 2016
C
O
M
congressional map (the ¡°2016 Plan¡±), the new districts enacted this year (the ¡°2021 Plan¡±) will
While Legislative Defendants did not so openly admit to enacting an extreme
R
AC
4.
YD
O
C
KE
T.
entrench an overwhelming partisan advantage for Republicans.
EM
O
C
partisan gerrymander this time, the results speak for themselves: The 2021 Plan flagrantly dilutes
FR
O
M
D
Democratic votes in large part by trisecting each of the three most heavily Democratic counties
R
ET
R
IE
VE
D
in the state¡ªWake, Guilford, and Mecklenburg.
5.
The 2021 Plan packs North Carolina¡¯s Democratic strongholds in Raleigh,
Durham and Cary combined, and Charlotte into three congressional districts. And it cracks the
State¡¯s remaining Democratic voters across the remaining districts to ensure an overwhelming
2
majority of safe Republican seats. The result is as intended: A map that produces 10 safe
Republican seats, 3 safe Democratic seats, and 1 competitive district.
6.
As the Harper I Court explained in invalidating the 2016 Plan, extreme partisan
gerrymandering ¡°entrench[es] politicians¡¯ power,¡± ¡°evince[s] a fundamental distrust of voters by
serving the self-interest of political parties over the public good,¡± and ¡°dilute[s] and devalue[s]
votes of some citizens compared to others¡± in violation of the North Carolina Constitution. Order
on Inj. Relief, Harper I, at 7. The new map, like its 2016 predecessor, violates the fundamental
constitutional rights of North Carolinians. It should meet the same fate as the unconstitutional
C
O
M
2016 Plan, and Plaintiffs will promptly file a motion for a preliminary injunction. This Court
YD
O
C
KE
T.
should enjoin use of the 2021 Plan immediately, enjoin any further intentional dilution of the
R
AC
voting power of citizens based on their political views or party affiliation, and order a new,
D
Plaintiffs here, who are also the plaintiffs in Harper I, have filed a motion in
FR
O
M
7.
EM
O
C
constitutional map for use in the 2022 primary and general elections.
VE
D
Harper I seeking leave under Rule 15(d) to file a supplemental complaint challenging the 2021
R
ET
R
IE
Plan on the same grounds set forth in this Complaint. The motion for leave has not been acted
upon by the Harper I Court, which is presently composed of only a single judge (due to one
retirement and one recusal), and Legislative Defendants have taken the position that Plaintiffs¡¯
claims against the 2021 Plan should be filed in a new case. While Plaintiffs believe that their
proposed supplemental complaint in Harper I should be allowed, they are commencing this
action in light of the fast-approaching candidate filing period to ensure that some three-judge
trial court will timely adjudicate their constitutional claims, including their forthcoming motion
for a preliminary injunction.
3
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- 2016 congressional districts zip codes miami dade county
- 2016 congressional primary voter turnout and share by
- accuracy of medical testing
- map the meal gap 2018 feeding america
- map the meal gap 2016 feeding america
- congressional fact sheet march 2016
- official results total votes reported by counties for 2016
- inventory of owned and leased properties iolp
- state of north carolina in the general court of justice
- state of alabama
Related searches
- importance of writing skills in the workplace
- state of south carolina unclaimed property
- name of different countries in the world
- definition of team player in the workplace
- benefits of using technology in the classroom
- bureau of land management in the news
- state of south carolina education
- kentucky court of justice dockets
- state of south carolina dmv forms
- state of north carolina employees salary
- state of north carolina business lookup
- all of north carolina craigslist