The U.S. Supreme Court made partisan gerrymandering a little harder in North Carolina Monday.

Its ruling in Cooper v. Harris found that two of the state’s congressional districts were drawn too much on the basis of race, rejecting the contention that Republican legislators were only trying to achieve political advantages for candidates of their party when they created the 1st and 12th districts in 2011. Writing for the court’s majority, Justice Elena Kagan connected the dots between party affiliation and race. This finding can have a significant impact on future redistrictings.

Kagan was joined in the majority by three fellow liberal justices and by conservative Clarence Thomas, who wrote a concurring opinion. Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts disagreed in regard to the 12th District. New Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the decision.

Republicans took control of the N.C. House and Senate in 2011, just in time for the post-census congressional and legislative redistricting. They increased the black voting-age population in the 1st District from 48.6 percent to 52.7 percent and in the 12th from 43.8 percent to 50.7 percent, claiming those actions were required by Voting Rights Act to assure the election of black representatives. Yet, black representatives had been easily elected before those changes. The real effect was to strip Democratic voters from adjacent districts, leaving them more likely to elect Republicans. Indeed, GOP candidates were able to win 10 of the state’s 13 U.S. House seats.

Following a legal challenge, a U.S. District Court panel struck down the 1st and 12th districts last year. The legislature quickly redrew the congressional map, and last year’s elections were held under new plans. Republicans again won 10 of 13. That plan faces another lawsuit, which will be argued in federal court in Greensboro next month.

Today’s ruling was groundbreaking in that it appears to contradict reasoning used by the Supreme Court to uphold the 12th District in an earlier ruling.

“This is not the treatment of precedent that state legislatures have the right to expect from this Court,” Alito wrote in a dissent. But what Alito said was upsetting precedent, Thomas called correcting an error.

While justices argue among themselves, the rest of us can hope Monday’s ruling will lead to fairer elections. Politically, North Carolina is a closely divided state. Yet, not one of the 13 U.S. House races last year was competitive. The districts are stacked — 10 favoring Republicans and three heavily tilted for Democrats. The court’s majority found the legislature used race as the primary factor in creating two of those districts. It also recognized the link between race and partisan politics.

Bob Phillips, executive director of Common Cause NC, a plaintiff in the case coming up, believes the court fashioned a legal bridge. “Partisan gerrymandering is just as wrong as racial gerrymandering,” he said Monday. His group supports nonpartisan redistricting. It’s past time to give that a try.

The Greensboro News & Record

https://www.yourdailyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/web1_editorialweb-20.jpg