Opinion: 581 U.S. 486 (2017)
HOLDING: In determining an appropriate remedy for racially gerrymandered legislative districts, courts must give careful case-specific consideration of all equitable factors. When considering whether to order a special election, such considerations include the severity and nature of the particular constitutional violation, the extent of the likely disruption to the ordinary processes of governance if early elections are imposed, and the need to act with proper judicial restraint when intruding on state sovereignty.
The North Carolina General Assembly redrew state legislative districts in 2011 to account for population changes revealed by the 2010 census. In 2015, several North Carolina plaintiffs brought an action in the Middle District of North Carolina alleging that 28 majority-black districts in the redrawn plan were unconstitutionally gerrymandered. In August 2016, the District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, determining that race was the predominant factor in the design of the challenged districts and that the use of race did not comply with the requirements of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The District Court did not require the districts to be redrawn before the then-upcoming November 2016 election but did require the General Assembly to redraw them before holding any future elections.
Three weeks after the November 2016 election, the District Court issued another remedial order which shortened the term of any legislator elected in 2016 to one year rather than the regular two. These legislators would then be replaced through a special election in the fall of 2017, with those legislators also serving a one-year term. The District Court justified this order by saying that, “[w]hile special elections have costs, those costs pale in comparison to the injury caused by allowing citizens to continue to be represented by legislators elected pursuant to a racial gerrymander.”
North Carolina appealed to the Supreme Court, which issued a per curiam opinion vacating the District Court’s order. (“Per curiam” is a Latin term meaning “for the court.” Unlike in a typical opinion, the justice who writes a per curiam opinion is not identified. Per curiam opinions are often issued in cases decided without oral argument or on an expedited basis.) The Supreme Court held that district courts must undertake an equitable weighing process when granting relief in redistricting cases. Considerations in these cases might include the severity and nature of the constitutional violation, the extent of disruption to ordinary processes of governance for shifted elections, and the need to act with proper judicial restraint when intruding on state sovereignty.
By only stating that the costs of the special elections “pale in comparison” to the injuries to the citizens, the Supreme Court found that the District Court did not engage in the necessary weighing process. Instead, the District Court’s reasoning seemed to justify special elections in every racial-gerrymandering case, which goes against the careful weighing required by the Supreme Court. Because the District Court did not adequately handle the concerns on both sides of the issue, the Supreme Court vacated the remedial order and remanded the case.