4th Cir Opinion - Wake County Comm

7/25/2019 4th Cir Opinion - Wake County Comm.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/4th-cir-opinion-wake-county-comm 1/59

PUBLISHED

UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FOURTH CI RCUI T

No. 16-1270

RALEI GH WAKE CI TI ZENS ASSOCI ATI ON; J ANNET B. BARNES;BEVERLEY S. CLARK; WI LLI AM B. CLI FFORD; BRI AN FI TZSI MMONS;GREG FLYNN; DUSTI N MATTHEW I NGALLS; AMY T. LEE; ERWI NPORTMAN; SUSAN PORTMAN; J ANE ROGERS; BARBARA VANDENBERGH; J OHN G. VANDENBERGH; AMYGAYLE L. WOMBLE; PERRY WOODS,

Pl ai nt i f f s - Appel l ant s ,

v.

WAKE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTI ONS,

Def endant - Appel l ee,

and

CHAD BAREFOOT, i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y as Senator andpr i mary sponsor of SB 181; PHI LLI P E. BERGER, i n hi sof f i ci al capaci t y as Presi dent Pr o Tempor e of t he Nor t h

Car ol i na Senat e; TI M MOORE, i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y asSpeaker of t he Nor t h Car ol i na House of Repr esent at i ves,

Def endant s.

No. 16-1271

CALLA WRI GHT; WI LLI E J . BETHEL; AMY T. LEE; AMYGAYLE L.

WOMBLE; J OHN G. VANDENBERGH; BARBARA VANDENBERGH; AJ AMU G.DI LLAHUNT; ELAI NE E. DI LLAHUNT; LUCI NDA H. MACKETHAN;WI LLI AM B. CLI FFORD; ANN LONG CAMPBELL; GREG FLYNN; BEVERLEYS. CLARK; CONCERNED CI TI ZENS FOR AFRI CAN- AMERI CAN CHI LDREN,d/ b/ a Coal i t i on of Concer ned Ci t i zens f or Af r i can- Amer i canChi l dren; RALEI GH WAKE CI TI ZENS ASSOCI ATI ON,

Pl ai nt i f f s - Appel l ant s ,

Appeal: 16-1270 Doc: 51 Filed: 07/01/2016 Pg: 1 of 59



2

v.

WAKE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTI ONS,

Def endant - Appel l ee,

and

STATE OF NORTH CAROLI NA,

Def endant .

Appeal s f r om t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he East er nDi st r i ct of Nor t h Car ol i na, at Ral ei gh. J ames C. Dever I I I ,Chi ef Di st r i ct J udge. ( 5: 15- cv- 00156- D; 5: 13- cv- 00607- D)

Ar gued: May 9, 2016 Deci ded: J ul y 1, 2016

Bef or e MOTZ, GREGORY, and WYNN, Ci r cui t J udges.

Reversed and r emanded i n par t and af f i r med i n par t by publ i shedopi ni on. J udge Wynn wr ot e t he maj or i t y opi ni on, i n whi ch J udgeGr egor y j oi ned. J udge Motz wr ot e a di ssent i ng opi ni on.

ARGUED: Ani t a Sue Ear l s, Al l i son J ean Ri ggs, SOUTHERN COALI TI ONFOR SOCI AL J USTI CE, Dur ham, Nort h Car ol i na, f or Appel l ant s.Char l es Fost er Marshal l , I I I , BROOKS, PI ERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY& LEONARD, L. L. P. , Ral ei gh, Nor t h Car ol i na, f or Appel l ee. ON

BRIEF: George E. Eppst ei ner , SOUTHERN COALI TI ON FOR SOCI AL J USTI CE, Dur ham, Nor t h Car ol i na, f or Appel l ant s. Mat t hew B. Tynan, J essi ca Thal l er - Mor an, BROOKS, PI ERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY& LEONARD, L. L. P. , Ral ei gh, Nor t h Car ol i na, f or Appel l ee.




3

WYNN, Ci r cui t J udge:

The r i ght t o vot e i s “f undamental , ” and once t hat r i ght “i s

gr ant ed t o t he el ect orate, l i nes may not be dr awn whi ch are

i nconsi st ent wi t h t he Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause of t he Four t eent h

Amendment . ” Bush v. Gore, 531 U. S. 98, 104- 05 ( 2000) ( quot at i on

marks and ci t at i on omi t t ed) . “I t must be r emembered t hat ” t he

r i ght t o vot e “can be deni ed by a debasement or di l ut i on of t he

wei ght of a ci t i zen’ s vot e j ust as ef f ect i vel y as by whol l y

pr ohi bi t i ng t he f r ee exer ci se. ” I d. ( quot i ng Reynol ds v. Si ms,

377 U. S. 533, 555 ( 1964) ) .

I n t hese consol i dat ed cases, Pl ai nt i f f s, r egi st er ed vot er s

and ci vi c or gani zat i ons i n Wake Count y, Nor t h Car ol i na, cl ai m

t hat under t he t wo ( i dent i cal l y dr awn) r edi st r i ct i ng l aws t hey

chal l enge, some Wake Count y School Boar d and Wake Count y Boar d

of Count y Commi ssi oner s di st r i ct s have been over - popul ated,

whi l e ot her s have been under - popul at ed. Pl ai nt i f f s f ur t her

asser t t hat t hese di scr epanci es r esul t i n some vot es count i ng

mor e whi l e other s count l ess, and t hat t he di scr epanci es st em

f r om i l l egi t i mat e r edi st r i cti ng f actors. As expl ai ned bel ow, we

agr ee, hol d t hat Pl ai nt i f f s have pr oven t hei r st at e and f eder al

one per son, one vot e cl ai ms, and t her ef or e rever se.

Pl ai nt i f f s al so cl ai m t hat one di scr et e di str i ct was the

pr oduct of r aci al ger r ymander i ng. We hol d t hat t he di st r i ct




4

cour t di d not cl ear l y er r i n r ej ecti ng t hat cl ai m and t hus

af f i rm.

I .

I n t he year s l eadi ng up to 2013, t he Wake Count y School

Boar d ( “School Boar d”) consi st ed of ni ne member s el ect ed f r om

si ngl e- member di st r i ct s. Those di st r i ct s wer e subj ect t o change

ever y t en year s f ol l owi ng t he decenni al census.

I n 2010, t he census showed t hat Wake Count y’ s popul at i on

had gr own by 43. 51% over t he pr ecedi ng decade, causi ng the t hen-

exi st i ng di st r i ct i ng pl an t o have a maxi mum popul at i on devi at i on

of 47. 89%. 1 The School Boar d, at t hat t i me domi nat ed by

r egi st er ed Republ i cans, 2 redr ew i t s di str i ct s i n l i ght of t he

2010 census.

1 “[ C] our t s usual l y anal yze[ ] appor t i onment pl an[ s] i n t er msof t he maxi mum popul at i on devi at i on among t he di st r i ct s.Gener al l y, t o cal cul at e maxi mum devi at i on, t he cour t f i r stconst r ucts a hypot het i cal i deal di st r i ct by di vi di ng t he t ot alpopul at i on of t he pol i t i cal uni t ( e. g. , st at e or count y) by t het ot al number of r epr esent at i ves who serve t hat popul at i on. Then, t he cour t det er mi nes how much t he act ual popul at i on ofeach di str i ct var i es f r om t he popul at i on of t he i deal di st r i ct . Thi s devi at i on i s expressed as a percent age of t he i dealpopul at i on. Maxi mum devi at i on i s t he sum of t he absol ut e val ueof t he devi at i on of t he di st r i ct wi t h t he smal l est popul at i on

and t hat of t he di st r i ct wi t h t he l ar gest popul at i on. ” Dal y v.Hunt , 93 F. 3d 1212, 1215 n. 2 ( 4t h Ci r . 1996) .

2 Whi l e t he School Boar d i s nomi nal l y nonpar t i san, i t smember s are r out i nel y regi st er ed and af f i l i at ed wi t h t heDemocr at i c and Republ i can Par t i es, and uncont r over t ed t r i alt est i mony showed a hi gh l evel of par t i sanshi p i n “what ’ ssupposed t o be a nonpar t i san el ect i on. ” J . A. 234; see al so,( Cont i nued)




5

That ef f or t l ed t o a r edi st r i ct i ng pl an wi t h geogr aphi cal l y

compact di st r i ct s havi ng a maxi mum popul at i on devi at i on of 1. 75%

and no di st r i ct devi at i ng f r om t he i deal di st r i ct popul at i on by

even 1%. The f i r st el ect i on under t he new di st r i ct i ng, i n Fal l

2011, r esul t ed i n a School Boar d wi t h a Democrat i c maj or i t y.

I n 2013, t he Republ i can- cont r ol l ed Nor t h Car ol i na Gener al

Assembl y ( “Gener al Assembl y”) , over t he obj ect i on of a maj or i t y

of t he School Boar d and ever y Democrat i c and Af r i can- Amer i can

l egi sl at or i n t he Gener al Assembl y, passed a l ocal bi l l , Sessi on

Law 2013–110, maki ng numerous changes t o t he School Board’ s

method of sel ect i on. Among ot her t hi ngs, Sessi on Law 2013- 110

changed t he School Boar d’ s make- up f r om ni ne si ngl e- member

di st r i ct s t o seven si ngl e- member di st r i ct s and set l ess

geogr aphi cal l y compact boundar i es f or t hi s new set of di st r i ct s.

The maxi mum popul at i on devi at i on among t he new si ngl e- member

di st r i ct s swel l ed t o over 7%.

Addi t i onal l y, Sessi on Law 2013- 110 cr eated t wo “super

di st r i cts” t hat over l ai d t he si ngl e- member di st r i cts. J . A. 160.

One super di st r i ct f ormed a donut of out er , mor e r ur al ar eas of

t he count y, whi l e t he ot her f or med a donut hol e i n t he i nner ,

e. g. , J . A. 254 ( not i ng t hat such l ocal r aces have “become mor epar t i san- based” due t o “bl ock candi dat es, ” t he “pol i t i cal par t ymachi ne, ” and “money”) .




6

ur ban area. The maxi mum popul at i on devi at i on bet ween t he super

di st r i ct s exceeded even t hat of t he si ngl e- member di st r i ct s—j ust

shy of 10%. Sessi on Law 2013- 110 moved el ect i ons t o even-

number ed years, and l i mi t ed t he School Boar d’ s abi l i t y t o make

changes t o i t s met hod of el ect i on unt i l 2021.

I n August 2013, t hi r t een i ndi vi dual s and t wo ci vi c

or gani zat i ons f i l ed sui t i n t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or

t he East er n Di st r i ct of Nor t h Car ol i na, chal l engi ng t he

const i t ut i onal i t y of t he di st r i ct s t hat Sessi on Law 2013- 110

est abl i shed. The compl ai nt al l eged t hat t he pl an unevenl y

wei ght ed t he vot es of ci t i zens i n t he count y f or i mper mi ssi bl e

r easons, t her eby vi ol at i ng t he one- per son, one- vot e guar ant ees

of t he f eder al and st at e const i t ut i ons. I n Mar ch 2014, t he

di str i ct court di smi ssed Pl ai nt i f f s ’ sui t f or f ai l ur e t o stat e a

cl ai m. Wr i ght v. Nor t h Car ol i na, 975 F. Supp. 2d 539 ( E. D. N. C.

2014) . Pl ai nt i f f s appeal ed.

I n Apr i l 2015, whi l e Pl ai nt i f f s’ appeal was pendi ng bef or e

t hi s Cour t , t he Gener al Assembl y enacted Sessi on Law 2015- 4,

maki ng t he el ect oral syst em f or t he Wake Count y Boar d of Count y

Commi ssi oner s ( “Boar d of Count y Commi ssi oner s”) i dent i cal t o the

syst em i t had cr eat ed f or t he School Boar d wi t h Sessi on Law




7

2013- 110. 3 Wi t h Sessi on Law 2015- 4, t oo, t he General Assembl y

f or ced a l ocal bi l l on Wake Count y despi t e opposi t i on f r om t he

maj or i t y of t he Boar d of County Commi ssi oners, pol l ed Wake

Count y vot er s, near l y ever y Democr at i c st at e l egi sl at or , and

ever y Af r i can- Amer i can l egi sl at or i n the Gener al Assembl y.

Four t een i ndi vi dual s and a ci vi c or gani zat i on f i l ed sui t shor t l y

t her eaf t er , chal l engi ng t he Boar d of Count y Commi ssi oner s’

r edi st r i ct i ng pl an as vi ol at i ng t he one per son, one vot e

guar ant ees of t he st at e and f eder al const i t ut i ons.

I n Pl ai nt i f f s’ appeal f r om t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s Mar ch 2014

di smi ssal , t hi s Cour t , i n May 2015, hel d t hat “Pl ai nt i f f s’

al l egat i ons i n suppor t of t hei r cl ai m t hat [ Sessi on Law 2013-

110] vi ol at es t he one per son, one vot e pr i nci pl e suf f i ce t o

sur vi ve a mot i on t o di smi ss f or f ai l ur e t o st at e a cl ai m. ”

Wr i ght v. Nor t h Car ol i na, 787 F. 3d 256, 269 ( 4t h Ci r . 2015) . We

t her ef or e r ei nst at ed Pl ai nt i f f s’ compl ai nt agai nst t he Wake

Count y Boar d of El ect i ons.

On r emand, t he di st r i ct cour t consol i dat ed t he sui t s

chal l engi ng Sess i on Law 2013- 110 and Sess i on Law 2015- 4 and

expedi t ed di scover y. Di scover y was f ur t her l i mi t ed by t he st at e

3 Previ ousl y, member s of t he Board of County Commi ss i onerswer e el ect ed at - l ar ge, subj ect t o t he requi r ement t hat onemember had t o be el ect ed f r om each of t he count y’ s sevenr esi dency di str i ct s.




8

l egi sl at or s’ r ef usi ng Pl ai nt i f f s’ di scover y requests, cl ai mi ng

l egi s l at i ve pr i vi l ege. 4 I n December 2015, t he di st r i ct cour t

hel d a bench t r i al , i n whi ch Pl ai nt i f f s pr esent ed numer ous

wi t nesses, i ncl udi ng l egi sl at or s, ci t i zens, and exper t s, as wel l

as copi ous document ar y evi dence, wi t h 481 exhi bi t s i ncl udi ng:

exper t r eport s and support i ng data; school assi gnment maps;

campai gn f i nance r epor t s; r esul t s dat a f r om var i ous el ect i ons;

excer pt s of l egi sl at i ve t r anscr i pt s; and publ i c pol l i ng r esul t s.

By cont r ast , Def endant , t he Boar d of El ect i ons t hat admi ni st er s

el ect i ons wi t h no st ake i n t he “pol i t i cal i nt er est s of t he

Gener al Assembl y, ” Tr i al Tr . vol . I , 13: 24- 25, pr esent ed none of

i t s own. Def endant si mpl y cr oss- exami ned Pl ai nt i f f s’ wi t nesses

and made l egal ar gument .

Never t hel ess, t he di st r i ct cour t r ul ed f or Def endant .

Ral ei gh Wake Ci t i zens Ass’ n v. Wake Ct y. Bd. of El ect i ons, No.

5: 13- CV- 607- D, 2016 WL 1060378 ( E. D. N. C. Feb. 26, 2016) . The

di str i ct cour t di scr edi t ed ever y si ngl e one of Pl ai nt i f f s’

wi t nesses, f or exampl e as “anecdot al , ” i d. at *28- 29, and

“unhel pf ul , ” i d. at *32. I t went on t o hol d, among ot her

t hi ngs, t hat “i n or der t o pr ove a pr i ma f aci e case i n a one

4 Pur suant t o an agr eement bet ween Pl ai nt i f f s and par t i cul arl egi sl ator s, cer t ai n ext er nal communi cat i ons bet ween t hel egi sl at or s and t hi r d par t i es—but no i nt er nal communi cat i onsamongst t he l egi sl at ors—were pr oduced.




9

per son one vot e chal l enge, pl ai nt i f f s must at l east negat e t he

most common l egi t i mat e reasons t hat coul d expl ai n the

l egi sl at ur e’ s act i on. ” I d. at *22 ( quot at i on mar ks and

ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . The di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat Pl ai nt i f f s

f ai l ed t o meet t hi s and t he ot her r equi si t e bur dens. Pl ai nt i f f s

appeal ed.

I I .

On appeal , “‘ [ w] e r evi ew j udgment s r esul t i ng f r om a bench

t r i al under a mi xed st andar d of r evi ew: f act ual f i ndi ngs may be

r ever sed onl y i f cl ear l y er r oneous, whi l e concl usi ons of l aw ar e

exami ned de novo. ’ ” Nat ’ l Fed’ n of t he Bl i nd v. Lamone, 813

F. 3d 494, 502 ( 4t h Ci r . 2016) ( quot i ng Pl ast er er s’ Local Uni on

No. 96 Pensi on Pl an v. Pepper , 663 F. 3d 210, 215 ( 4t h Ci r .

2011) ) . Fi ndi ngs wi l l be deemed cl ear l y er r oneous i f , f or

exampl e, “even t hough t here i s some evi dence t o suppor t t he

f i ndi ng, t he r evi ewi ng cour t , on r evi ew of t he r ecor d, i s l ef t

wi t h a def i ni t e and f i r m convi ct i on t hat a mi st ake has been

made, ” or i f f i ndi ngs wer e made usi ng “i ncor r ect l egal

st andar ds. ” Consol . Coal Co. v. Local 1643, Uni t ed Mi ne Wor ker s

of Am. , 48 F. 3d 125, 128 ( 4t h Ci r . 1995) ( quotat i on marks and

ci t at i on omi t t ed) . “Of cour se, i f t he t r i al cour t bases i t s

f i ndi ngs upon a mi st aken i mpr essi on of appl i cabl e l egal

pr i nci pl es, t he r evi ewi ng cour t i s not bound by t he cl ear l y




10

er r oneous st andar d. ” I nwood Labs. , I nc. v. I ves Labs. , I nc. ,

456 U. S. 844, 855 n. 15 ( 1982) .

I I I .

Wi t h thei r pr i mar y ar gument on appeal , Pl ai nt i f f s cont end

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t appl i ed t he wr ong l egal st andar d f or

adj udi cat i ng t hei r one per son, one vot e cl ai m. For t he r easons

expl ai ned bel ow, we agr ee.

A.

The r i ght t o vot e i s “f undamental , ” and once t hat r i ght “i s

gr ant ed t o t he el ect orate, l i nes may not be dr awn whi ch are

i nconsi st ent wi t h t he Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause of t he Four t eent h

Amendment . ” Bush, 531 U. S. at 104- 05 ( quot at i on mar ks and

ci t at i on omi t t ed) . I ndeed, al l owi ng, t hr ough unequal

apport i onment amongst di st r i ct s, a vot e to be “wort h more i n one

di st r i ct t han i n anot her woul d . . . r un count er t o our

f undament al i deas of democrat i c gover nment . ” Reynol ds, 377 U. S.

at 563 ( quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i on omi t t ed) . Thi s requi r ement

t hat al l ci t i zens’ vot es be wei ght ed equal l y, known as t he one

per son, one vot e pr i nci pl e, appl i es not j ust t o the f eder al

government but al so t o st at e and l ocal government s—i ncl udi ng

school boar ds and count y gover ni ng bodi es. Aver y v. Mi dl and

Ct y. , 390 U. S. 474, 480 ( 1968) .

Cour t s have r ecogni zed t hat “[ m] athemat i cal exact ness or

pr eci si on i s har dl y a wor kabl e const i t ut i onal r equi r ement ” and




11

t hus do not r equi r e “i dent i cal number s” i n st at e and l ocal

gover nment di st r i ct s. Reynol ds, 377 U. S. at 577. Never t hel ess,

gover nment s must “make an honest and good f ai t h ef f or t ” t o

const r uct di st r i ct s as cl ose t o equal popul at i on “as i s

pr act i cabl e. ” I d. To assess what i s “pr act i cabl e, ” t he Supr eme

Cour t has al l owed some popul at i on devi at i on f or “l egi t i mat e

consi der at i ons” such as compact ness and cont i gui t y, t he

i nt egr i t y of pol i t i cal subdi vi si ons, and bal ance among pol i t i cal

par t i es. Har r i s v. Ar i z. I ndep. Redi st r i ct i ng Comm’ n, 136 S.

Ct . 1301, 1306 ( 2016) .

Gener al l y, a di st r i ct i ng pl an “wi t h a maxi mum popul at i on

devi at i on under 10% wi l l not , by itself, suppor t an equal

pr ot ect i on cl ai m. ” Wr i ght , 787 F. 3d at 264 ( quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed and emphasi s added) . Rat her , pl ai nt i f f s i n such cases

“must show t hat i t i s mor e pr obabl e t han not t hat a devi at i on of

l ess t han 10% r ef l ect s t he pr edomi nance of i l l egi t i mat e

r eappor t i onment f act or s r at her t han” l egi t i mat e consi der at i ons

such as compact ness or t he i nt egr i t y of pol i t i cal subdi vi si ons.

Har r i s, 136 S. Ct . at 1307.

I n Harr i s, t he Supr eme Cour t ’ s most r ecent , and arguabl y

most l uci d, pr onouncement as t o pl ai nt i f f s’ bur dens i n one

per son, one vot e cases bel ow t he 10% devi at i on t hr eshol d, t he

Cour t unani mousl y not ed t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s t her e had cl ai med

t hat t he pl an’ s devi at i ons f r om “absol ut e equal i t y of popul at i on




12

r ef l ect . . . pol i t i cal ef f or t s t o hel p t he Democr at i c par t y. ”

I d. Cr uci al l y, however , t he pl ai nt i f f s “f ai l ed t o pr ove t hi s

cl ai m. ” I d. I nst ead, “t he r ecor d b[ or e] out ” t hat t he

devi at i ons “pr edomi nant l y r ef l ect ed . . . ef f or t s t o achi eve

compl i ance wi t h t he f eder al Vot i ng Ri ght s Act , not t o secur e

pol i t i cal advant age f or one par t y. ” I d. I n ot her wor ds, t he

pl ai nt i f f s i n Har r i s f ounder ed not because t hei r one per son, one

vot e chal l enge f ai l ed as a mat t er of l aw, but because they di d

not must er t he evi dence needed t o show i t t o be

“mor e pr obabl e t han not t hat [ t he] devi at i on of l ess t han 10%

r ef l ect [ ed] t he pr edomi nance of i l l egi t i mat e r eappor t i onment

f act ors . ” I d.

By cont r ast , i n Lar i os v. Cox, t he pl ai nt i f f s succeeded i n

pr ovi ng t hei r one person, one vot e cl ai ms. 300 F. Supp. 2d 1320

( N. D. Ga. ) ( t hr ee- j udge panel ) , af f ’ d, 542 U. S. 947 ( 2004)

( mem. ) . I n Lar i os, a f eder al cour t st r uck down a Geor gi a

r edi st r i ct i ng pl an t hat di spr opor t i onat el y f avor ed Democr at s by

under - popul at i ng di st r i ct s i n t he ur ban At l ant a r egi on and t he

r ur al sout h—both Democrat i c st r onghol ds—whi l e over - popul at i ng

subur ban di st r i ct s wi t h Republ i can- l eani ng vot er s. The

r edi st r i ct i ng creat ed a maxi mum popul at i on devi at i on of 9. 98%

and di spropor t i onat el y pr ot ect ed Democr at i c i ncumbent s. I d. at

1328–31. The Supr eme Cour t ( wi t h onl y J ust i ce Scal i a




13

di ssent i ng) af f i r med t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s rej ecti on of t he

r edi st r i cti ng. Lar i os, 542 U. S. 947.

As t he Supr eme Cour t has expl ai ned, i n Lar i os, “t hose

at t acki ng t he pl an had shown t hat i t was more pr obabl e t han not

t hat t he use of i l l egi t i mat e f actor s si gni f i cant l y expl ai ned

devi at i ons f r om numer i cal equal i t y among di st r i ct s. ” Har r i s,

136 S. Ct . at 1310. The Supreme Cour t not ed t he “many exampl es

showi ng t hat popul at i on devi at i on as wel l as t he shape of many

di st r i cts di d not r esul t f r om any at t empt t o cr eat e di st r i cts

t hat wer e compact or cont i guous, or t o keep count i es whol e, or

t o pr eser ve t he cor es of pr i or di st r i ct s. ” I d. ( quot at i on mar ks

and ci t at i on omi t t ed) . The Supr eme Cour t cont r ast ed t he Lar i os

pl ai nt i f f s’ successf ul showi ng wi t h t hat of t he f ai l ed

pl ai nt i f f s i n Har r i s , s tat i ng “ [ i ] t i s appel l ant s ’ i nabi l i t y t o

show t hat t he pr esent pl an’ s devi at i ons and boundary shapes

r esul t f r om t he pr edomi nance of si mi l ar l y i l l egi t i mat e f actor s

t hat makes [ Lar i os] i napposi t e her e. ” I d.

Looki ng at Lar i os and Har r i s, we concl ude t hat , t o succeed

on t he mer i t s, pl ai nt i f f s i n one per son, one vot e cases wi t h

popul at i on devi at i ons bel ow 10% must show by a pr eponderance of

t he evi dence t hat i mpr oper consi der at i ons pr edomi nate i n

expl ai ni ng t he devi at i ons. Thi s i s j ust such a case, and t hat

l egal st andar d t her ef or e appl i es.

B.




14

1.

The l aw i n t hi s ar ea i s chal l engi ng. I n t he ear l i er

appeal of t hi s mat t er , we sought t o cl ar i f y some poi nt s t o ease

t he bur den on t he di st r i ct cour t . Nonet hel ess, t her e wer e

numerous i nst ances i n whi ch t he l aw we set out i n Wr i ght was not

adher ed t o. For exampl e, i n eval uat i ng Pl ai nt i f f s’ one per son,

one vot e cl ai m, t he di st r i ct cour t di d not pr oper l y char act er i ze

what Pl ai nt i f f s must show t o succeed. The di st r i ct cour t

st at ed, f or exampl e, t hat “i n or der t o pr ove a pr i ma f aci e case

i n a one per son one vot e chal l enge, pl ai nt i f f s must at l east

negat e t he most common l egi t i mat e reasons t hat coul d expl ai n t he

l egi sl at ur e’ s act i on. ” Ral ei gh Wake Ci t i zens Ass’ n, 2016 WL

1060378, at *22 ( quotat i on marks and ci t at i on omi t t ed) . The

di st r i ct cour t i ndi cat ed t hat “any concei vabl e l egi sl at i ve

pur pose i s suf f i ci ent ” t o suppor t t he r edi st r i ct i ng pl an and

t hat t hose “at t acki ng t he r at i onal i t y” t her eof “have t he bur den

t o [ negat e] ever y concei vabl e basi s whi ch mi ght suppor t i t . ”

I d. at 27 ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i on

omi t t ed) .

Cont r ar y t o t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s char act er i zat i on, what

Pl ai nt i f f s must act ual l y show t o succeed wi t h t hei r one per son,

one vot e cl ai ms i s t hat i t i s “mor e pr obabl e than not t hat a

devi at i on of l ess t han 10% r ef l ect s t he pr edomi nance of

i l l egi t i mat e r eappor t i onment f act or s. ” Har r i s, 136 S. Ct . at




15

1307. Thi s speci f i c, devi at i on- f ocused i nqui r y di f f er s mar kedl y

f r om t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s rat i onal - basi s revi ew of whet her a

r at i onal st at e pol i cy coul d expl ai n t he r edi st r i cti ng gener al l y.

2.

Fur t her , i n Wr i ght , we emphasi zed t he i mport ance of t he

Supr eme Cour t ’ s af f i r mance of Lar i os f or t hi s case. Thus, we

made i t cl ear t hat Lar i os was mor e t han a mere summar y

af f i r mance hol di ng l i t t l e sway. Ral ei gh Wake Ci t i zens Ass’ n,

2016 WL 1060378, at *18. I nst ead, wi t h Wr i ght , we set f or t h

pr ecedent bi ndi ng on t he di st r i ct cour t s of t hi s Ci r cui t maki ng

cl ear t hat Lar i os const i t ut es per suasi ve aut hor i t y gener al l y, as

wel l as anal ogous aut hor i t y i n t hi s concr et e case. Wr i ght , 787

F. 3d at 267. The di st r i ct cour t ’ s heavy emphasi s on J ust i ce

Scal i a’ s Lari os di ssent —an opi ni on wi t h no pr ecedent i al val ue—i s

t hus squar el y at odds wi t h Wr i ght . See, e. g. , Ral ei gh Wake

Ci t i zens Ass’ n, 2016 WL 1060378, at *18- 19 ( “Accordi ng to

J ust i ce Scal i a, ‘ pol i t i cs as usual ’ i s a ‘ t r adi t i onal

r edi str i ct i ng cr i t er i on, ’ and ‘ a const i t ut i onal one, ’ ” and

“‘ [ f ] er r et i ng out pol i t i cal mot i ves i n mi nut e popul at i on

devi at i ons seems t o me mor e l i kel y t o encour age pol i t i cal l y

mot i vat ed l i t i gat i on t han t o vi ndi cat e pol i t i cal r i ght s. ’ ”) .

Mor eover , t he di st r i ct cour t mi sappl i ed t he cor e pr i nci pl es

of Lar i os. The di st r i ct cour t st at ed, f or exampl e, t hat , i n

cont r ast t o Lar i os, Pl ai nt i f f s her e di d not pr ove “t hat t he




16

Gener al Assembl y di sr egar ded al l di st r i ct i ng pr i nci pl es i n

cr eat i ng t he 2013 Wake Count y School Boar d Pl an, or t hat t he

2013 Wake Count y School Boar d Pl an i s not r at i onal l y r el ated t o

a per mi ssi bl e, r at i onal st at e pol i cy of i mpr ovi ng School Boar d

r epr esent at i on. ” Ral ei gh Wake Ci t i zens Ass’ n, 2016 WL 1060378,

at *36. The di st r i ct cour t t hus concl uded t hat “unl i ke Lar i os,

pl ai nt i f f s have f ai l ed t o pr ove t hat t he 2013 Wake Count y School

Boar d Pl an r esul t ed f r om a desi r e t o f avor subur ban and r ur al

vot er s over ur ban vot er s. ” I d.

Cr uci al l y, nei t her t he t hr ee- j udge di st r i ct cour t i n

Lar i os, nor t he Supr eme Cour t i n af f i r mi ng and l at er di scussi ng

Lar i os, ever suggest ed t hat pl ai nt i f f s i n such cases need t o

show t hat “al l di st r i ct i ng pr i nci pl es” wer e “di sr egar ded. ” I d.

Fur t her , nei t her cour t f ocused on t he chal l enged r edi st r i ct i ng

pl ans as a whol e. I nst ead, t he f ocus, i n Lar i os as wel l as,

Harr i s, was whet her “deviation[s] of l ess than 10% r ef l ect[ ed]

t he predominance of illegitimate r eappor t i onment f act or s. ”

Har r i s, 136 S. Ct . at 1307 ( emphasi s added) ; Lar i os, 300 F.

Supp. 2d at 1338 ( hol di ng that “popul at i on deviations . . . not

suppor t ed by . . . legitimate interests . . . cannot wi t hst and

const i t ut i onal scrut i ny” ( emphasi s added) ) . I n Lar i os, t he

st at e l egi sl at ur e’ s at t empt t o pr i vi l ege r ur al and ur ban

Democrat s at t he expense of subur ban Republ i cans expl ai ned t he

devi at i ons i n popul at i on, not t he r edi st r i ct i ng pl an gener al l y,




17

di d not const i t ut e a l egi t i mat e appor t i onment f act or , and was

pr ohi bi t ed. Lar i os, 300 F. Supp. 2d at 1338.

3.

Addi t i onal l y, i n eval uat i ng t he evi dence Pl ai nt i f f s

pr of f er ed t o suppor t t hei r one per son, one vot e cl ai ms, t he

di st r i ct cour t i mpr oper l y di scount ed ever y si ngl e one of

Pl ai nt i f f s ’ f i f t een t r i al wi t nesses. For exampl e, i t

di scr edi t ed al l t he t est i f yi ng l egi sl at or s because of t hei r

“st r ong l egi sl at i ve opposi t i on t o t he 2013 Wake Count y School

Boar d Pl an. [ The per t i nent ] t est i mony at t r i al f i t s wi t hi n t he

l i ne of pr ecedent gi vi ng no wei ght t o st at ement s made by

opponent s of l egi sl at i on. ” Ral ei gh Wake Ci t i zens Ass’ n, 2016 WL

1060378, at *29.

The onl y anal ogous case i n t he pur por t ed “l i ne of

pr ecedent , ” Veasey v. Abbot t , 796 F. 3d 487 ( 5t h Ci r . 2015) , has

been vacat ed and i s t hus no l onger good l aw, 815 F. 3d 958 (5t h

Ci r . 2016) ( gr ant i ng rehear i ng en banc and vacat i ng the panel

opi ni on) . The ot her cases t he di st r i ct cour t ci t ed—cases

deal i ng wi t h st at ut or y i nt er pr et at i on—st and f or t he unr emarkabl e

and i napposi t e pr oposi t i on t hat cour t s usual l y do not “accor d

much wei ght t o t he st atement s of a bi l l ’ s opponent s [ when

i nt er pr et i ng t he wor ds of t he bi l l ] . The f ear s and doubt s of

t he opposi t i on ar e no aut hor i t at i ve gui de t o the const r uct i on of

l egi sl at i on. ” Shel l Oi l Co. v. I owa Dep’ t of Revenue, 488 U. S.




18

19, 29 ( 1988) ( quot at i on mar ks, ci t at i on, and br acket s omi t t ed)

( hol di ng t hat one passi ng r ef er ence t o pr eempt i on i n a speech by

an opponent of a l aw cannot pr oper l y gui de t he cour t ’ s

i nt er pr et at i on of t hat l aw) ; see al so Schwegmann Br os. v.

Cal ver t Di st i l l er s Cor p. , 341 U. S. 384, 394 ( 1951) ( not i ng t hat

“doubt s of t he opposi t i on” do not gui de “t he const r uct i on of

l egi sl at i on”) ; NLRB v. Fr ui t & Veget abl e Packer s & Warehousemen,

Local 760, 377 U. S. 58, 66 ( 1964) ( same) .

Thi s i s not a case about what a par t i cul ar wor d i n a

st at ut e means. Rat her , at t he hear t of t hi s case i s whet her

i l l egi t i mat e f act or s pr edomi nat ed t he Gener al Assembl y’ s

suppl ement al r edi st r i ct i ng of Wake Count y such t hat i l l egi t i mat e

f act or s expl ai n t he popul at i on devi at i ons i n t he r edi st r i ct i ng

pl an. Whi l e we r ecogni ze t hat a t r i al j udge gener al l y may

consi der “bi as or pr ej udi ce” when “assessi ng wi t ness

cr edi bi l i t y, ” Uni t ed St at es v. Muse, 83 F. 3d 672, 676- 77 ( 4t h

Ci r . 1996) , t he di st r i ct cour t di scr edi t ed cat egor i cal l y t he

l egi sl at or s’ t est i mony, even r egar di ng obj ect i ve f act s. Yet t he

di st r i ct cour t has ci t ed, and we see, no cont r ol l i ng pr ecedent

suggest i ng t hat t hei r t est i mony shoul d si mpl y have been

di scount ed whol esal e and “gi v[ en] no wei ght . ” Ral ei gh Wake

Ci t i zens Ass’ n, 2016 WL 1060378, at *29.

Si mi l ar l y, t he di st r i ct cour t compl et el y r ej ect ed as

“mat er i al l y f l awed and unhel pf ul , ” i d. at *32, t he anal ysi s of




19

Pl ai nt i f f s’ exper t Dr . J owei Chen, a pol i t i cal sci ence pr of essor

f r om t he Uni ver si t y of Mi chi gan. Upon cl oser i nspect i on,

however , i t i s t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s own anal ysi s of Dr . Chen’ s

anal ysi s t hat i s mat er i al l y f l awed.

Dr . Chen anal yzed whet her t he popul at i on devi at i ons i n t he

seven si ngl e- member di st r i ct pl ans and t he t wo super di st r i ct s

pl ans were mot i vat ed by a par t i san pur pose usi ng comput er

si mul at i on pr ogr ammi ng t echni ques t hat al l ow hi m t o gener at e

r andoml y a l ar ge number of al t er nat i ve r edi st r i ct i ng pl ans

cr eat ed subj ect t o t r adi t i onal r edi str i ct i ng cr i t er i a. The f our

t r adi t i onal r edi st r i cti ng cri t er i a Dr . Chen used wer e:

popul at i on equal i t y; keepi ng muni ci pal i t i es i nt act ; keepi ng

pr eci nct s whol e; and geogr aphi c compactness. Dr . Chen’ s

comput er si mul at i ons are based on t he l ogi c t hat i f a comput er

r andoml y dr aws f i ve hundr ed r edi st r i ct i ng pl ans f ol l owi ng

t r adi t i onal r edi st r i cti ng cri t er i a, and t he actual enacted pl ans

f al l compl et el y out si de t he r ange of what t he comput er has

dr awn, one can concl ude t hat t he t r adi t i onal cr i t er i a do not

expl ai n t hat enact ed pl an.

The comput er si mul at i ons l ed Dr . Chen t o j ust t hat

concl usi on: t hat t he “enact ed di st r i ct i ng pl ans cr eat e a

par t i san di st r i but i on of seat s f al l i ng compl et el y out si de t he

r ange of out comes t hat are possi bl e under a non- part i san

di st r i ct i ng pr ocess t hat creat es equal l y popul at ed di st r i ct s




20

whi l e maxi mi zi ng compact ness and pr eservi ng pr eci nct and

muni ci pal boundar i es. ” J . A. 768. Dr . Chen t hus concl uded “wi t h

ext r emel y hi gh st at i st i cal cer t ai nt y, beyond any sor t of doubt

her e” t hat “t he onl y way t o dr aw di st r i ct s as ext r eme i n

par t i sanshi p as t he l egi sl at ur e’ s B and A di st r i ct s i s t o use

popul at i on devi at i ons” t hat ar e hi gh. J . A. 463. I n ot her

wor ds, Dr . Chen t est i f i ed t hat he coul d concl ude wi t h cer t ai nt y

f r om hi s si mul at i ons t hat t he devi at i ons at i ssue her e ar e t he

r esul t of usi ng par t i sanshi p i n appor t i oni ng t he di st r i cts.

I n cri t i qui ng Dr . Chen’ s anal ysi s, t he di st r i ct cour t

sei zed on t he f act t hat cer t ai n cr i t er i a account ed f or i n t he

comput er si mul at i ons—such as set t i ng maxi mum popul at i on

devi at i on at 2% or l ess or “compl et el y . . . i gnor [ i ng]

part i sanshi p, ” Ral ei gh Wake Ci t i zens Ass’ n, 2016 WL 1060378, at

*30, ar e r equi r ed by nei t her st at e nor f eder al l aw. Thi s

cr i t i que mi sses t he poi nt : The poi nt i s not t hat t he si mul at ed

pl ans ar e l egal l y r equi r ed, but r at her t hat t hey hel p

demonst r ate what mi ght expl ai n t he popul at i on devi at i ons i n t he

enact ed pl an.

The di st r i ct cour t went on t o “f i nd[ ] t hat Dr . Chen’ s

si mul at i ons si mpl y show t hat ‘ bet t er ’ . . . r edi st r i cti ng pl ans

wer e possi bl e, but ‘ bet t er ’ pl ans do not equat e t o t he

unconst i t ut i onal i t y of t he 2013 Wake Count y School Boar d Pl an. ”

I d. Wi t h t hat f i ndi ng, t he di st r i ct cour t agai n mi ssed t he




21

poi nt : The i mpor t of Dr . Chen’ s s i mul at i ons was not t o pr oduce

bet t er pl ans, but r at her t o hol d sever al l egi t i mat e

apport i onment consi der at i ons const ant so t hat Dr . Chen coul d

assess whet her t he popul at i on devi at i ons i n t he chal l enged pl ans

coul d have been t he pr oduct of somet hi ng ot her t han par t i san

bi as. He concl uded “wi t h ext r emel y hi gh st at i st i cal cer t ai nt y,

beyond any sor t of doubt her e” t hat t hey coul d not have. J . A.

463. The di st r i ct cour t cl ear l y and r ever si bl y er r ed i n

r ej ect i ng Dr . Chen’ s exper t t est i mony. Easl ey v. Cr omar t i e, 532

U. S. 234 ( 2001) ( r ever si ng a t hr ee- j udge di st r i ct cour t panel i n

a r aci al ger r ymander i ng case i n whi ch t he di st r i ct cour t cl ear l y

er r ed i n r ej ect i ng exper t evi dence) .

4.

We coul d go on det ai l i ng t he er r or s i n t he opi ni on bel ow.

Suf f i ce i t t o say t hat t he l egal anal ysi s of what Pl ai nt i f f s

needed t o show as wel l as t he eval uat i on of t he evi dence

Pl ai nt i f f s pr of f er ed t o make t hat showi ng ar e f undament al l y

f l awed.

C.

1.

When, as her e, t he di st r i ct cour t appl i es t he wr ong

st andar ds, we t end t o remand t o al l ow “t he t r i er of f act t o re-

exami ne t he r ecor d” usi ng t he cor r ect s t andar ds. Kel l ey v. S.

Pac. Co. , 419 U. S. 318, 332 ( 1974) . However , when “t he r ecor d




22

per mi t s onl y one r esol ut i on of t he f act ual i ssue, ” Pul l man–

St andard v. Swi nt , 456 U. S. 273, 292 ( 1982) , r emand i s

unnecessary, and we may r ul e based on t he r ecord bef ore us.

Thus, f or exampl e, i n t he r ecent Cl ass v. Towson Uni ver si t y

opi ni on, t hi s Cour t , based on t he r ecor d bef or e i t , st r ai ght - out

r ever sed t he di st r i ct cour t , whi ch had appl i ed t he i ncor r ect

l egal st andar d f ol l owi ng a bench t r i al . 806 F. 3d 236 ( 4t h Ci r .

2015) . And i n Cr omart i e, 532 U. S. 234, t he Supr eme Cour t

out r i ght r ever sed a t hr ee- j udge di st r i ct cour t panel i n a r aci al

ger r ymander i ng case because, among ot her t hi ngs, t he di st r i ct

cour t had cl ear l y er r ed i n r ej ect i ng per t i nent exper t evi dence.

Li kewi se, her e, we deem r emand unnecessary. At t r i al , i n

addi t i on t o copi ous document ar y evi dence, Pl ai nt i f f s pr esent ed

f i f t een l i ve wi t nesses—t wo exper t s, f our l egi sl at or s, f our

count y el ected of f i ci al s, and f i ve pl ai nt i f f s and l ay wi t nesses. 5

These wi t nesses and documents present ed abundant suppor t f or

Pl ai nt i f f s’ one per son, one vot e cl ai ms wi t hi n t he ni ne- hour

t ot al t hat t he di str i ct cour t al l owed Pl ai nt i f f s f or pr esent i ng

t hei r case.

Def endant , by cont r ast , of f er ed not even one wi t ness.

I nst ead, Def endant expr essl y di scl ai med any st ake i n

5 The di str i ct cour t di d not deem any of Pl ai nt i f f s’wi t nesses t o be unt r ust wor t hy. Ral ei gh Wake Ci t i zens Ass’ n,2016 WL 1060378.




23

“r epr esent i ng t he pol i t i cal i nt er est s of t he Gener al Assembl y, ”

Tr i al Tr . vol . I , 13: 24- 25, and essent i al l y passed on def endi ng

t he Gener al Assembl y’ s r edi st r i ct i ng. Even t he l egi sl at i ve

pr oponent s of t he chal l enged r edi st r i ct i ng l aws r ef used t o

def end t hei r act i ons, i nst ead cl ai mi ng l egi sl at i ve i mmuni t y.

The r esul t i ng r ecor d, di scussed i n mor e detai l bel ow,

per mi t s onl y one r esol ut i on of Pl ai nt i f f s’ one per son, one vot e

cl ai ms: Pl ai nt i f f s have pr oven t hat i t i s mor e pr obabl e t han

not t hat t he popul at i on devi at i ons at i ssue her e r ef l ect t he

pr edomi nance of a i l l egi t i mat e r eappor t i onment f act or , Har r i s,

136 S. Ct . at 13—namel y an “i nt ent i onal ef f or t ” t o cr eat e “a

si gni f i cant . . . par t i san advant age, ” Lar i os, 542 U. S. at 947-

49 ( St evens, J . , concur r i ng) . I n ot her wor ds, Pl ai nt i f f s have

successf ul l y made t hei r case.

2.

Fi r st put t i ng t he chal l enged pl ans i n cont ext , t he evi dence

at t r i al showed that t hat Wake Count y’ s popul at i on gener al l y,

and t he over al l popul at i on devi at i on amongst t he School Boar d

di str i cts i n par t i cul ar , swel l ed si gni f i cant l y by t he t i me of

t he 2010 decenni al census. Accordi ngl y, t he School Boar d

r edr ew i t s el ect i on maps. The r esul t i ng 2011 r edi st r i ct i ng pl an

r educed maxi mum popul at i on devi at i on down t o 1. 75%, wi t h no

si ngl e di st r i ct devi at i on r eachi ng even 1% f r om t he i deal . The

di st r i ct s wer e “vet t ed” by count y resi dent s and t he member s of




24

t he School Boar d, and wer e consi der ed r el at i vel y compact ,

cont i guous, and r espect f ul of communi t i es of i nt er est . J . A.

210. The Boar d of Count y Commi ssi oners al so r edr ew i t s

r esi dency di st r i ct s af t er t he 2010 decenni al census.

Despi t e t he f act t he 2011 r edi st r i ct i ng had been shepher ded

by a “Republ i can School Boar d” and t hat a “Republ i can l awyer ”

had dr af t ed t he di st r i ct s, J . A. 420, t he 2011 el ect i ons, t he

f i r st admi ni st er ed under t he new pl an, r esul t ed i n a “shi f t [ ]

f r om t he Republ i cans t o t he Democrat s. ” J . A. 200. The

Republ i can- cont r ol l ed Gener al Assembl y t hen i nt er vened wi t h t he

r edi st r i cti ng pl ans t hat ar e t he subj ect of t hi s acti on.

Uncont r over t ed t est i mony and evi dence adduced at t r i al

showed t hat t he l egi sl at i ve pr ocess r el at i ng t o Sessi on Law

2013- 110 was t r uncat ed by, f or exampl e, not havi ng “communi t y

hear i ngs and par t i ci pat i on of t he af f ect ed par t i es, ” J . A. 211,

and f ai l i ng t o i ncor por at e “any of t he i deas t hat peopl e . . .

pr of f er ed, ” i d. , wi t hout even “di scussi ng i t amongst t he [Wake

Count y] del egat i on f i r st , ” a “st ar k depar t ur e” f r om common

pr act i ce, J . A. 419. As School Boar d Member Bi l l Fl et cher , a

r egi st er ed Republ i can, put i t , “not hi ng was di scussed. Ther e

was no opport uni t y t o pr ovi de i nput , t o have a debate or

di scussi on about di f f er ent el ect i on st r at egi es, i t was si mpl y

dr af t ed i n a bi l l and pr esent ed and passed wi t h l i t t l e

oppor t uni t y f or rat i onal t hought . ” J . A. 263.




25

3.

Movi ng on t o the showi ng Pl ai nt i f f s needed t o make on t hei r

one per son, one vot e cl ai ms, uncont r over t ed evi dence at t r i al

showed t hat t he devi at i ons resul t i ng f r om t he l at t er - day

r edi st r i ct i ng mor e l i kel y t han not r ef l ect ed t he pr edomi nance of

i l l egi t i mat e reappor t i onment f act or s.

Pl ai nt i f f s pr of f er ed uncont r over t ed evi dence of an

i l l egi t i mat e f act or pr edomi nat i ng i n t he skewed, unequal

r edi st r i ct i ng: an at t empt t o guar ant y Republ i can vi ct or y t hr ough

t he i nt ent i onal packi ng of Democrat i c di st r i ct s. Var i ous

wi t nesses t est i f i ed t hat “t he t r ue mot i vat i on[ ] ” f or t he

r edi st r i ct i ng was t o “ensur e Republ i can cont r ol . . . at t he

expense of Democrats. ” J . A. 364. The “r eal r eason” behi nd t he

r edi st r i ct i ng was “[ t ] o ensur e a Republ i can maj or i t y . . .

despi t e t he vot e t ot al s, ” J . A. 405, a “ki nd of puni t i ve and

r et r i but i ve ef f or t t o puni sh t he Democrats f or wi nni ng, ” J . A.

392.

Pl ai nt i f f s’ exper t Ant hony Fai r f ax anal yzed t he chal l enged

r edi st r i ct i ng pl ans and r epor t ed, among ot her t hi ngs, t hat

“[ t ] her e was a marked pat t er n of over popul at i on i n Democrat i c-

per f or mi ng di st r i ct s, and under popul at i on i n Republ i can-

per f or mi ng di st r i ct s. ” J . A. 805. And as Mr . Fai r f ax not ed i n

hi s t est i mony, “by over popul at i ng you obvi ousl y mi ni mi ze t he




26

Democr at i c per f or mance i n ot her di st r i ct s, ot her sur r oundi ng

di s t r i ct s . ” J . A. 305. 6

Pl ai nt i f f s’ second exper t , Dr . Chen, conduct ed an anal ysi s

showi ng that “[ t ] he Gener al Assembl y’ s enact ed di st r i ct i ng pl ans

creat e a par t i san di st r i but i on of seat s f al l i ng compl et el y

out si de t he range of out comes t hat are possi bl e under a non-

par t i san di st r i ct i ng pr ocess t hat creat es equal l y popul at ed

di st r i ct s whi l e maxi mi zi ng compact ness and pr eservi ng pr eci nct

and muni ci pal boundar i es. ” J . A. 768. I n ot her wor ds, as Dr .

Chen t est i f i ed at t r i al , “t he onl y way t o achi eve a di st r i ct i ng

pl an t hat al l owed f or such an ext r eme part i san Republ i can

cont r ol over f our di st r i ct s out of seven, t he onl y way t o creat e

such an ext r eme par t i san pl an was t o devi at e f r om popul at i on

equal i t y t o a gr eat ext ent . ” J . A. 466- 67.

6 The di st r i ct cour t di scount ed Mr . Fai r f ax’ s t est i mony j ustas i t di d ever y si ngl e one of Pl ai nt i f f s’ ot her wi t nesses. Andi n t he case of Mr . Fai r f ax, as wi t h t he ot her s, t he bases f ort hat di scount i ng f al l apar t upon car ef ul i nspect i on. Forexampl e, t he di st r i ct cour t f aul t ed Mr . Fai r f ax f or usi ngel ect i on r esul t s dat a, asser t i ng t hat he “f ai l ed t o anal yzevot er r egi st r at i on dat a i n Wake Count y. ” Ral ei gh Wake Ci t i zens

Ass’ n, 2016 WL 1060378, at *34. Yet i n f ocusi ng on el ect i onr esul t s i nst ead of r egi st r at i on dat a, Mr . Fai r f ax f ol l owedpr eci sel y what t he Supr eme Cour t has i nst r uct ed t hose anal yzi ngr edi st r i ct i ng pl ans t o do. See, e. g. , Cr omar t i e, 532 U. S. at239 ( not i ng i t s i nst r uct i on t hat cour t s shoul d l ook t o “dat ashowi ng how vot er s act ual l y behave, not dat a showi ng onl y howt hose vot er s ar e r egi st er ed”) .




27

The l egi sl at or s who hat ched t he r edi st r i ct i ng pl ans cl ai med

l egi sl at i ve i mmuni t y. Absent f r om t he r ecor d, t her ef or e, i s any

t r i al t est i mony conf i r mi ng ( or denyi ng) a par t i san mot i ve behi nd

t he r edi st r i cti ng and i t s devi at i ons. 7 The r ecor d does, however ,

cont ai n sever al e- mai l s i ncl udi ng t hi r d par t i es, t he onl y

cat egor y of e- mai l s Pl ai nt i f f s managed t o obt ai n, t hat i ndeed

suggest a par t i san mot i ve behi nd t he r edi st r i ct i ng and i t s

devi at i ons. For exampl e, t he Wake Count y Republ i can Par t y Chai r

exchanged sever al e- mai l s wi t h, and apparent l y met wi t h, key

l egi sl at or s i nvol ved i n t he r edi st r i ct i ng, wi t h a f ocus on “how

we woul d t ake 5 of t he 9 seat s. ” J . A. 1114.

We do not doubt t hat some amount of part i san pol i t i cs i s

par f or t he cour se i n r edi st r i ct i ng gener al l y. For exampl e, i n

Gaf f ney v. Cummi ngs, a case on whi ch t he di st r i ct cour t r el i ed

her e, t he Supr eme Cour t uphel d a redi st r i ct i ng pl an dr awn based

on par t i san consi der at i ons. 412 U. S. 735 ( 1973) . But t he f act s

i n and consequences of Gaf f ney di f f er markedl y and t el l i ngl y

7 Bot h t he di st r i ct cour t and Def endant make much ado of t headmi ssi ons t he l egi sl at or s made i n Lar i os, not i ng t he di r ectevi dence t hat l egi sl at or s pur posef ul l y skewed di st r i ctdevi at i ons al ong ur ban, subur ban, and r ur al di vi des t o achi eve

par t i san goal s. See, e. g. , Appel l ee’ s Br . at 41; Ral ei gh WakeCi t i zens Ass’ n, 2016 WL 1060378, at *18. Bot h Def endant and t hedi st r i ct cour t cont r ast t hose f acts wi t h t hi s case, wi t h i t sl ack of such di r ect evi dence. But her e, t he l ack of di r ectevi dence may have i t s r oot s i n t he l egi sl at or s’ avoi di ngdi scover y t hr ough cl ai ms of l egi sl at i ve i mmuni t y. Mor eover ,di r ect evi dence i s si mpl y not r equi r ed.




28

f r om t hose her e. I n Gaf f ney, a st at e l egi sl at ur e had dr af t ed a

r edi st r i ct i ng pl an f ol l owi ng a decenni al census; i n doi ng so, i t

f ol l owed a “pol i cy of ‘ pol i t i cal f ai r ness. ’ ” I d. at 738. The

pl an, whi ch exhi bi t ed l ess t han 2% over al l devi at i on i n t he

st at e senat e and l ess t han 8% over al l devi at i on i n t he st at e

house, sought “propor t i onal r epr esent at i on of t he t wo maj or

pol i t i cal par t i es. . . . [ T] he Boar d t ook i nt o account t he par t y

vot i ng r esul t s i n t he pr ecedi ng t hr ee st at ewi de el ect i ons, and,

on t hat basi s, cr eated what was t hought t o be a pr oport i onate

number of Republ i can and Democr at i c l egi sl at i ve seat s. ” I d.

I n t hi s case, by cont r ast , r at her t han seeki ng pr opor t i onal

r epr esent at i on of t he t wo mai n pol i t i cal par t i es, t he evi dence

shows t hat t he chal l enged pl ans under - popul ated Republ i can-

l eani ng di st r i ct s and over - popul at ed Democr at i c- l eani ng

di st r i ct s i n or der t o ger r ymander Republ i can vi ct or i es. 8 I n

ot her wor ds, t he chal l enged r edi st r i ct i ng her e subverts

8 The di st r i ct cour t pl ayed up t he f act t hat Di st r i ct 5 andDi st r i ct 6 const i t ut e except i ons t o t he r ul e t hat Democr at i c-l eani ng di st r i ct s wer e over - popul at ed and Republ i can- l eani ngdi st r i ct s wer e under - popul at ed. Ral ei gh Wake Ci t i zens Ass’ n,2016 WL 1060378, at *35. Accor di ng t o t he di st r i ct cour t ,

“[ t ] hi s evi dence bel i es a syst emat i c under - popul at i on ofdi st r i ct s t o har m i ncumbent s . . . who ar e r egi st er ed Democr at swho suppor t ‘ pr ogr essi ve’ educat i on pol i ci es. ” I d. What t heevi dence act ual l y bel i es i s t he t enuousness of t he di st r i ctcour t ’ s anal ysi s—because bot h Di st r i ct 5 and Di st r i ct 6 exhi bi tonl y negl i gi bl e devi at i ons f r om i deal popul at i on—bot h l ess t han0. 2%.




29

pol i t i cal f ai r ness and pr opor t i onal r epr esent at i on and

subl i mat es par t i san gamesmanshi p. Gaf f ney si mpl y cannot

r easonabl y be r ead as suppor t i ng t hat ; i f anyt hi ng, i t does t he

opposi t e. I ndeed, t he Supr eme Cour t suggest ed t hat par t i sanshi p

i s not a l egi t i mat e r eason t o wei ght some vot es more t han

ot her s, and t he Gaf f ney Cour t i t sel f under scor ed t hat

r edi st r i ct i ng so as t o “mi ni mi ze” t he “pol i t i cal st r engt h” of a

par t y or gr oup woul d be const i t ut i onal l y “vul ner abl e. ” I d. at

754.

Fur t her , t he Supr eme Cour t r ej ect ed j ust such part i san

devi at i on games i n Lar i os, 542 U. S. 947, i ndi cat i ng t hat “i f a

pl an cont ai ns any popul at i on devi at i ons, a cour t may deci de t hat

t he devi at i ons ar e caused by i mper mi ssi bl e part i sanshi p and

st r i ke t he pl an down . . . f or f ai l ur e t o compl y wi t h one

per son, one vot e. ” Samuel I ssacharof f & Pamel a S. Kar l an, Wher e

t o Dr aw t he Li ne?: J udi ci al Revi ew of Pol i t i cal Ger r ymander s,

153 U. Pa. L. Rev. 541, 567- 68 ( 2004) ; see Lar i os, 300 F. Supp.

2d at 1338 ( hol di ng t hat per t i nent “popul at i on devi at i ons” wer e

“not t he r esul t of an ef f or t t o f ur t her any l egi t i mat e” pol i cy

but wer e i nst ead “syst emat i cal l y and i nt ent i onal l y cr eat ed” t o

“protect Democrat i c i ncumbent s” and hol di ng t hat t hat di d not

“wi t hst and[ ] Equal Pr ot ect i on scrut i ny”) .

We r ecogni ze t hat t he Supr eme Cour t has not yet cl ar i f i ed

when exact l y par t i san consi der at i ons cross t he l i ne f r om




30

l egi t i mat e t o unl awf ul . See, e. g. , Har r i s v. McCr or y, No. 1: 13-

CV- 949, 2016 WL 3129213, at *2 ( M. D. N. C. J une 2, 2016) ( ci t i ng

Lar i os, 542 U. S. 947, f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat r edi st r i ct i ng

pl ans may be chal l enged “when part i san consi der at i ons go ‘ t oo

f ar , ’ ” whi l e ci t i ng Vi et h v. J ubel i r er , 541 U. S. 267 ( 2004) , f or

t he l ack of “j udi ci al l y di scer ni bl e and manageabl e st andar ds f or

adj udi cat i ng pol i t i cal ger r ymander i ng cl ai ms”) . Yet i t i s

i mpor t ant t o bear i n mi nd t hat onl y a pl ur al i t y ( i . e. , not a

cont r ol l i ng maj or i t y) of t he Supr eme Cour t has suggest ed t hat

par t i sanshi p- based r edi st r i ct i ng cl ai ms shoul d be consi der ed

nonj ust i ci abl e. 9 I d. And shor t l y af t er Vi et h, a near l y

unani mous Supr eme Cour t , i ncl udi ng t hr ee J ust i ces f r om t he Vi et h

pl ur al i t y, af f i r med Lar i os, i n whi ch t he l ower cour t st r uck down

a r edi st r i ct i ng pl an wi t h popul at i on devi at i ons under 10% as a

9 The di st r i ct cour t i ncor r ect l y suggest ed t hat “[ i ] n Vi et h,t he Supr eme Cour t r ej ect ed as nonj ust i ci abl e a pol i t i calgerr ymander i ng cl ai m. ” Ral ei gh Wake Ci t i zens Ass’ n 2016 WL1060378, at *19, n. 11. On t he cont r ary, as we noted i n Wr i ght ,

“a maj or i t y of t he ( Vi et h) Supr eme Cour t r ef used t o deempol i t i cal ger r ymander i ng cl ai ms t o be per se nonj ust i ci abl e.And t he Cour t has s i nce r ecogni zed as much. ” 787 F. 3d at 269( ci t i ng League of Uni t ed Lat i n Am. Ci t i zens v. Per r y, 548 U. S.399, 414 ( 2006) ( “A pl ur al i t y of t he Cour t i n Vi et h woul d havehel d [ pol i t i cal ger r ymander i ng] chal l enges t o be nonj ust i ci abl epol i t i cal quest i ons, but a maj or i t y decl i ned t o do so. ”) ) .




31

bl at ant and unl awf ul at t empt at par t i san f avor i t i sm. Lar i os,

542 U. S. 947. 10

4.

Not onl y di d t he uncont est ed r ecor d evi dence demonst r at e

t hat i l l egi t i mat e r eappor t i onment f act or s pr edomi nat ed,

r esul t i ng i n an over al l devi at i on of bar el y under 10%; t he

evi dence al so exposed t he st at ed r easons f or t he r edi st r i ct i ng

as pr et extual . For exampl e, one st at ed goal of t he School

Boar d’ s r edi st r i ct i ng was t o i ncr ease the al i gnment bet ween

ci t i zen’ s vot i ng di st r i cts and t hei r assi gned school s.

Uncont r over t ed t est i mony at t r i al i ndi cat ed t hat t he

r edi st r i ct i ng r esul t ed i n t he opposi t e, “mak[ i ng] al i gnment

wor se. ” J . A. 235. I ndeed, “[ j ] ust a per f ect downt own exampl e

i s Dani el s Mi ddl e School and Br ought on Hi gh School [ , whi ch] ar e

i n the same f eeder pat t er n, t hey wer e i n the same di st r i ct under

t he 2011 maps . . . but t hey wer e i n di f f er ent di st r i ct s under

t he [ new] map” chal l enged her e. J . A. 424. Fur t her , even i f

10 St at ed di f f er ent , “bar el y t wo mont hs [ af t er Vi et h] , t hr eeof t hose J ust i ces wer e par t of an ei ght - J ust i ce maj or i t y that

af f i r med t he j udgment i n Lar i os, a case i n whi ch t he l ower cour tst r uck down a pl an [ wi t h] r el at i vel y mi nuscul e popul at i ondevi at i ons . . . because t hey ref l ect ed ‘ bl at ant l y par t i san anddi scr i mi nat or y’ at t empt s t o pr ot ect Democr at i c i ncumbent s whi l eunder mi ni ng Republ i can- hel d seat s. As Si st er Mar i a says i n TheSound of Musi c, ‘ When t he Lor d cl oses a door , somewher e He opensa wi ndow. ’ ” I ssachar of f & Kar l an, 153 U. Pa. L. Rev. at 542.




32

i ncr eased al i gnment wer e i ndeed a goal , i t need not necessar i l y

have resul t ed i n popul at i on devi at i ons amongst t he di st r i ct s.

A second st at ed r at i onal e f or t he r edi st r i ct i ng debunked at

t r i al : r educi ng campai gn cost s. As t r i al t est i mony

demonst r at ed, “t he pr oponent s of t hi s l egi sl at i on sai d t hat t hey

were concerned about t he cost of campai gni ng and t hat t hese

di st r i ct s woul d make i t cheaper t o r un. . . . That i s ei t her

i naccur at e or decept i ve, because Wake County i s a medi a market

and i f you’ r e goi ng t o r un i n any of t hese wi despr ead di st r i ct s

her e or i f you’ r e goi ng t o r un al l i n t he ent i r e count y you ar e

st i l l goi ng t o be adver t i si ng i n the Ral ei gh/ Wake medi a mar ket ,

[ and] i t ’ s st i l l expensi ve. ” J . A. 395- 96. Fur t her , movi ng

down- bal l ot r aces l i ke those f or School Boar d member s t o even

year s t hat i ncl ude congr essi onal and pr esi dent i al r aces i s

“goi ng t o dr amat i cal l y i ncr ease t he cost s of r unni ng” i n t hose

el ect i ons, J . A. 420, even si mpl y f or candi dat es “t o have any

vi si bi l i t y i n a Pr esi dent i al el ect i on cycl e. ” J . A. 258. And,

agai n, not hi ng about t hi s st at ed r at i onal e, cost r educt i on,

expl ai ns t he popul at i on devi at i on amongst t he di st r i ct s.

Anot her st at ed goal of t he r edi st r i cti ng l egi sl at i on—

i ncr easi ng vot er t ur nout —al so has not hi ng t o do wi t h r e- dr awi ng

di st r i ct s, much l ess r e- dr awi ng t hem unequal l y. The di st r i ct

cour t not ed t hat “Pl ai nt i f f s do not di sput e t he ot her

l egi sl at i ve goal of i ncreasi ng vot er t ur nout by havi ng . . .




33

el ect i ons i n even- number ed year s. ” Ral ei gh Wake Ci t i zens Ass’ n,

2016 WL 1060378, at *27 n. 18. But t hey di d not need t o di spute

t hat goal , because i t has no l ogi cal connect i on t o, and does not

j ust i f y, r e- drawi ng di st r i ct s, much l ess di st r i ct s wi t h

popul at i on devi at i ons.

A f ur t her r at i onal e gi ven f or t he r edi st r i cti ng: al l owi ng

vot er s gr eat er repr esent at i on. Yet t he r edi st r i ct i ng of t he

Count y Commi ssi on ar guabl y r educed ci t i zens’ oppor t uni t y t o cast

vot es f or t hei r pr ef er r ed commi ssi oner s by movi ng away f r om an

al l at - l ar ge syst em. As t est i f i ed at t r i al , vot er s “had t he

abi l i t y to el ect al l seven member s . . . . As i t st ands wi t h t he

maps t hat were passed by t he House and t he Senat e, [ t hey] wi l l

be abl e t o exer ci se [ t hei r ] vot e on onl y t wo of t hose member s,

so wi t h ever y - - ever yt hi ng t hat I know about t he word

r epr esent at i on, t hat ’ s l ess. ” J . A. 387- 88. And agai n, not hi ng

about t hi s goal expl ai ns t he popul at i on devi at i ons of t he

di st r i ct s as dr awn.

Moreover , al t er nat i ves wer e suggest ed t hat woul d have

achi eved, even mor e ef f ect i vel y, t he st at ed r at i onal e of

i ncr eased r epr esent at i on wi t hout r esul t i ng i n such gr eat

popul at i on devi at i ons. For exampl e, Repr esent at i ve Dar r en

J ackson proposed an amendment t o cr eat e t wo pur el y at l ar ge

di st r i ct s i nst ead of t he donut and donut hol e di st r i ct s, whi l e

mai nt ai ni ng t he 2011 si ngl e- member di st r i ct s. Such a pl an woul d




34

have “accompl i sh[ed] bot h of t he Republ i cans’ st at ed goal s, t o

gi ve you more repr esent at i on on t he School Boar d and t o make

sure t hat you had a School Board member who repr esent ed your

chi l d’ s school , and i t accompl i shed bot h of t hose goal s. ” J . A.

354. That amendment , whi ch woul d have achi eved greater

r epr esent at i on on t he School Boar d, was r ej ect ed—yet more

evi dence t hat t he st at ed r at i onal es wer e pr et ext ual and f ai l t o

j ust i f y t he popul at i on devi at i ons i n t he chal l enged

redi st r i ct i ng.

The l egi sl at or s pushi ng t he r edi st r i ct i ng al so sought t o

gr ound i t i n admi ni st r at i ve ease, havi ng t he School Boar d and

Boar d of Count y Commi ssi oners f al l under t he same pl an. Agai n,

t hat goal i s whol l y unr el at ed t o, and pl ai nl y f ai l s t o j ust i f y,

t he devi at i ons i n popul at i on amongst t he di st r i ct s. Somewhat

r el at edl y, and cer t ai nl y br eat ht aki ngl y under t he ci r cumst ances,

t he Board of Count y Commi ssi oner s’ r edi st r i ct i ng was ost ensi bl y

i nt ended t o “avoi d l i t i gat i on. ” Ral ei gh Wake Ci t i zens Ass’ n,

2016 WL 1060378, at *37. Yet t he School Boar d r edi st r i ct i ng was

bei ng act i vel y l i t i gat ed and was i n f act pendi ng bef or e t hi s

Cour t at t hat t i me. The l i t i gat i on r at i onal e i s t hus ut t er l y

i r r at i onal and, f ur t her , has no l ogi cal connect i on t o t he

devi at i ons at i ssue.

Movi ng beyond t he pr et ext ual r at i onal es, t he r ecor d

evi dence demonst r at es t hat t r adi t i onal , l egi t i mat e appor t i onment




35

f actor s di d not pr edomi nat e. On t he cont r ar y, t he r edi st r i ct i ng

r esul t ed i n: “a t ot al of 31 [ spl i t ] pr eci nct s” ( as opposed t o 12

spl i t pr eci nct s under t he 2011 pl an) , J . A. 805; bi zar r el y shaped

di st r i ct s, i ncl udi ng “donut [ s] ” and “donut munchki n[ s] , ” J . A.

432, “crab cl aw[ s] ” and “pi ncer [ s] , ” J . A. 212; and obvi ousl y

non- compact di st r i ct s t hat make i t har der , f or exampl e, f or

School Board member s “t o have mor e det ai l ed knowl edge about

[ t hei r ] own di st r i ct s, ” J . A. 280. 11 I ndeed, Pl ai nt i f f s’ exper t

Dr . Chen consi der ed sever al t r adi t i onal , l egi t i mat e

r eappor t i onment cr i t er i a, i . e. , popul at i on equal i t y, communi t y

and pr eci nct boundar i es, and geogr aphi cal compact ness, and f ound

t hat t he r edi st r i cti ng “cr eat e[ d] a par t i san di st r i but i on of

seat s f al l i ng compl et el y out si de t he r ange of out comes t hat ar e

possi bl e under a nonpar t i san di st r i ct i ng pr ocess t hat cr eat es

equal l y popul ated di st r i ct s whi l e maxi mi zi ng compactness and

pr eser vi ng pr eci nct and muni ci pal boundar i es. ” J . A. 768.

Repr esent at i ve Rosa Gi l l al so pr oposed an al t er nat i ve

r edi st r i ct i ng dur i ng t he l egi sl at i ve pr ocess. Her pr oposal

demonst r at ed t hat i t was ent i r el y possi bl e t o meet al l of t he

st at ed r at i onal es f or t he skewed r edi st r i ct i ng—i ncl udi ng gi vi ng

vot er s t he opport uni t y t o el ect t wo school boar d member s,

11 No par t y has made an ar gument r egardi ng Vot i ng Ri ght s Actcompl i ance, al so r ecogni zed as a l egi t i mat e appor t i onmentf act or . We t her ef or e do not addr ess i t .




36

pr ovi di ng di st r i ct r epr esent at i on f or t he Count y Commi ssi oner s,

movi ng school boar d el ect i ons t o even numbered years t o i ncrease

t ur nout , r educi ng vot er conf usi on by usi ng t he same di st r i ct s

f or bot h the School Boar d and t he Boar d of Count y Commi ssi oners,

and r educi ng cost s—whi l e cr eat i ng onl y mi ni scul e devi at i ons.

Repr esent at i ve Gi l l ’ s pl an di vi ded no pr eci nct s and had over al l

devi at i ons i n t he si ngl e- member and super di st r i ct s of l ess t han

0. 5%. J . A. 795- 96.

The t r i al cour t di smi ssed t he evi dence of Representat i ve

Gi l l ’ s al t er nat i ve pl an because i t “si mpl y shows t hat ‘ bet t er ’

pl ans can be dr awn, but ‘ bet t er ’ pl ans do not equate to

unconst i t ut i onal i t y. ” Ral ei gh Wake Ci t i zens Ass’ n, 2016 WL

1060378, at *33. I n f act , what t he al t er nat i ve pl an shows i s

t hat l egi t i mat e consi der at i ons, i ncl udi ng t he st at ed r at i onal es

f or t he redi str i ct i ng, ut t er l y f ai l ed t o expl ai n or j ust i f y t he

hi gh l evel s of devi at i on i n t he enacted pl ans—because those

r at i onal es coul d have been accompl i shed by a pl an wi t h vi r t ual l y

no popul at i on devi at i ons.

5.

At t he end of t he day, when we revi ew t he evi dent i ary

r ecor d, we can r each onl y one concl usi on: t hat Pl ai nt i f f s, t he

onl y par t i es t o make t hei r case at t r i al , successf ul l y showed i t

t o be mor e pr obabl e t han not t hat t he devi at i ons at i ssue her e

r ef l ect t he pr edomi nance of an i l l egi t i mat e r eappor t i onment




37

f act or r at her t han l egi t i mat e consi der at i ons. Har r i s, 136 S.

Ct . at 1307. We r ecogni ze t hat , gener al l y, “at t acks on

devi at i ons under 10% wi l l succeed onl y rarel y, i n unusual

cases. ” I d. But af t er revi ewi ng t hi s mat t er cl osel y, and f or

t he reasons di scussed above, we ar e convi nced t hat t hese mi d-

decade, par t i san r edi st r i ct i ng pl ans const i t ut e j ust such an

unusual case. The di st r i ct cour t t her ef or e commi t t ed r ever si bl e

er r or i n gr ant i ng j udgment i n Def endant ’ s f avor .

6.

I n addi t i on t o i mpr oper par t i sanshi p, Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai med

i mpr oper r egi onal f avor i t i sm as an i l l egi t i mat e f act or behi nd

t he devi at i ons i n t he chal l enged r eapport i onment s. Because we

have al r eady rul ed i n Pl ai nt i f f s’ f avor based on par t i sanshi p,

we need not r each t hi s r el at ed but separate basi s. We

never t hel ess not e t hat “[ a] ci t i zen, a qual i f i ed vot er , i s no

mor e nor no l ess so because he l i ves i n t he ci t y or on t he f ar m.

Thi s i s t he cl ear and st r ong command of our Const i t ut i on’ s Equal

Pr ot ect i on Cl ause. ” Reynol ds, 377 U. S. at 568. Ther ef or e,

“[ i ] n Lar i os, a f eder al cour t st r uck down a [ st at e] l egi sl at i ve

r edi str i ct i ng pl an . . . . The pl ai nt i f f s ther e al l eged t hat t he

pl an . . . under - popul at [ ed] di st r i ct s i n t he ur ban At l ant a

r egi on and t he r ur al sout h- Geor gi a area—bot h Democr at i c

st r onghol ds—whi l e over - popul at i ng di st r i ct s wi t h Republ i can-

l eani ng vot er s. ” Wr i ght , 787 F. 3d at 266- 67. I n Wr i ght , we




38

l ef t no doubt t hat , as i n Lar i os, Pl ai nt i f f s her e cl ai m t hat “a

st at e l egi sl at ur e desi gned a r edi st r i ct i ng pl an wi t h a maxi mum

devi at i on i n popul at i on of j ust under 10%, desi gned t o pi t r ur al

and ur ban vot er s agai nst one anot her ” and t hat “[ e] ven i f Lar i os

does not cont r ol t hi s case . . . , we never t hel ess f i nd i t ” and

i t s rej ect i on of r egi onal f avor i t i sm as a basi s f or devi at i ng

f r om i deal popul at i on by such mar gi ns “per suasi ve. ” I d. at 267.

Mor eover , t he di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat “t he Gener al

Assembl y r at i onal l y consi der ed t he communi t i es of i nt er est

wi t hi n Wake County’ s ur ban areas and wi t hi n Wake Count y’ s r ur al

and subur ban ar eas i n adopt i ng” t he chal l enged redi st r i ct i ng

pl ans. Ral ei gh Wake Ci t i zens Ass’ n, 2016 WL 1060378, at *40.

But t he per t i nent i nqui r y i s not whet her i t was “r at i onal ” t o

“consi der ” communi t i es of i nt er est i n adopt i ng the pl ans

gener al l y; i nst ead, t he pr oper i nqui r y i s whet her t he

r edi st r i cti ng’ s devi at i ons mor e l i kel y than not r ef l ect t he

pr edomi nance of i l l egi t i mat e r eappor t i onment f act or s. Har r i s,

136 S. Ct . at 1307. The di st r i ct cour t pl ai nl y engaged t he

wr ong l egal st andar d i n i t s anal ysi s of t hi s f act or . But

because we r ul e on t he basi s of par t i sanshi p, we need go no

f ur t her of t he r egi onal f avor i t i sm i ssue.

D.

I n addi t i on t o t hei r f eder al const i t ut i onal one per son, one

vot e cl ai m, Pl ai nt i f f s br ought a si mi l ar Nor t h Car ol i na st at e




39

cl ai m. Under t he Nor t h Car ol i na Const i t ut i on, “[ t ] he r i ght t o

vot e on equal t er ms i n repr esent at i ve el ect i ons—a one- per son,

one- vot e st andar d—i s a f undament al r i ght . ” Bl ankenshi p v.

Bar t l et t , 681 S. E. 2d 759, 762–63 ( N. C. 2009) . A Nor t h Carol i na

anal ysi s of t he st at e’ s “Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause gener al l y

f ol l ows t he anal ysi s of t he Supr eme Cour t of t he Uni t ed St at es

i n i nt er pr et i ng t he cor r espondi ng f eder al cl ause. ” I d. at 762.

I f anyt hi ng, Nor t h Car ol i na’ s one per son, one vot e pr i nci pl e

appl i es wi t h even mor e f or ce t han i t s f eder al count er par t . See,

e. g. , i d. at 763 ( deemi ng t he one per son, one vot e pr i nci pl e

appl i cabl e i n Nor t h Car ol i na’ s el ect i on of super i or cour t j udges

even t hough “f eder al cour t s have ar t i cul at ed t hat t he ‘ one-

per son, one- vot e’ st andar d i s i nappl i cabl e t o st at e j udi ci al

el ect i ons”) ; St ephenson v. Bar t l et t , 562 S. E. 2d 377, 397 ( N. C.

2002) ( r equi r i ng l egi sl at i ve di st r i cts t o be wi t hi n pl us or

mi nus f i ve per cent of i deal popul at i on) . Accor di ngl y, f or t he

same r easons t hat Pl ai nt i f f s succeed wi t h t hei r f eder al cl ai m,

so, t oo, do they succeed wi t h t hei r Nor t h Car ol i na st at e one

per son, one vot e cl ai m.

I V.

I n addi t i on t o t hei r one per son, one vot e cl ai m, Pl ai nt i f f s

have al so br ought a r aci al ger r ymander i ng cl ai m r egar di ng t he




40

Boar d of Count y Commi ssi oner s’ Di st r i ct 4. 12 Pl ai nt i f f s cont end

t hat r ace pr edomi nat ed i n det er mi ni ng t he boundar i es, shape, and

composi t i on of t hat di st r i ct wi t hout nar r ow t ai l or i ng t o ser ve a

compel l i ng st at e i nt er est . As expl ai ned bel ow, t he di st r i ct

cour t di d not commi t cl ear er r or i n r ej ect i ng t hi s cl ai m.

A.

To successf ul l y chal l enge t he const i t ut i onal i t y of an

el ect or al di st r i ct under t he Equal Pr ot ecti on Cl ause, a

pl ai nt i f f must “show, ei t her t hr ough ci r cumst ant i al evi dence of

a di st r i ct ’ s shape and demogr aphi cs or more di r ect evi dence

goi ng t o l egi sl at i ve pur pose, t hat r ace was t he pr edomi nant

f act or mot i vat i ng t he l egi sl at ur e’ s deci si on t o pl ace a

si gni f i cant number of vot er s wi t hi n or wi t hout a par t i cul ar

di st r i ct . ” Al a. Legi sl at i ve Bl ack Caucus v. Al abama, 135 S. Ct .

1257, 1267 (2015) ( quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

Such a showi ng r equi r es pr oof t hat “t he l egi sl at ur e

subor di nat ed t r adi t i onal r ace- neut r al di str i ct i ng pr i nci pl es . .

. t o r aci al consi der at i ons. ” Mi l l er v. J ohnson, 515 U. S. 900,

916 ( 1995) . Tr adi t i onal race- neut r al pr i nci pl es i ncl ude

“compact ness, cont i gui t y, and r espect f or pol i t i cal subdi vi si ons

or communi t i es def i ned by act ual shar ed i nt er est s, ” i d. ,

12 Even t hough t he cor r espondi ng School Boar d di st r i ct i si dent i cal , Pl ai nt i f f s i n Wr i ght made no such cl ai m. We, l i ket he di st r i ct cour t , t her ef or e do not addr ess t hat i ssue.




41

i ncumbency pr ot ect i on, and pol i t i cal advant age, Bush v. Ver a,

517 U. S. 952, 964, 968 ( 1996) . And evi dence t hat such

t r adi t i onal pr i nci pl es t ook a back seat t o r aci al consi der at i ons

may i ncl ude di r ect and ci r cumst ant i al evi dence of l egi sl at i ve

i nt ent , i ndi cat i ons t hat a r aci al per cent age wi t hi n a gi ven

di st r i ct was non- negot i abl e, bi zar r e or non- compact di st r i ct

shapes, and di st r i ct l i nes t hat cut t hr ough t r adi t i onal

geogr aphi c boundar i es or el ect i on pr eci nct s. See, e. g. , Ver a,

517 U. S. at 970- 71; Mi l l er , 515 U. S. at 917- 18; Shaw v. Reno,

509 U. S. 630, 646–48 ( 1993) .

I f a pl ai nt i f f successf ul l y shows r aci al pr edomi nance i n

dr awi ng t he l i nes of a di st r i ct , t he cour t must appl y “st r i ct est

scrut i ny, ” Mi l l er , 515 U. S. at 915, t hat i s, i t must det er mi ne

whet her t he desi gn of t he chal l enged di st r i ct was narr owl y

t ai l or ed t o advance a compel l i ng st at e i nt er est —a bur den the

st ate must bear , Shaw v. Hunt , 517 U. S. 899, 908 ( 1996) . I f t he

answer t o t hat quest i on i s no, t he di st r i ct must be st r uck as

unconst i t ut i onal .

B.

I n cont r ast t o i t s one per son, one vot e anal ysi s, t he

di st r i ct cour t di d not mi scompr ehend t he appl i cabl e l aw.

Accordi ngl y, whi l e we were “not bound by t he cl ear l y er r oneous

st andard” r egardi ng t he one per son, one vot e f i ndi ngs, I nwood

Labs. , 456 U. S. at 855 n. 15, t he same cannot be sai d her e.




42

Her e, we must af f i r m i f “t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s account of t he

evi dence i s pl ausi bl e, ” even i f we ar e “convi nced that we woul d

have deci ded t he quest i on of f act di f f er ent l y. ” TFWS, I nc. v.

Fr anchot , 572 F. 3d 186, 196 ( 4t h Ci r . 2009) ( quotat i on marks and

ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

Whi l e we mi ght have deci ded t hi s mat t er di f f er ent l y i n t he

f i r st i nst ance, we cannot say t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s account

of t he evi dence i s not pl ausi bl e; i t i s. For exampl e, t he

di st r i ct cour t consi der ed l egi sl at or comment s i ndi cat i ng t hat

r ace was a consi der at i on i n t he r edi st r i ct i ng pr ocess, such as a

r epr esent at i ve’ s obser vat i on “t hat at - l ar ge el ect or al syst ems

submer ge t he vi ews of var i ous mi nor i t i es, ‘ whet her i t ’ s r aci al ,

gender , pol i t i cal , r ur al , ur ban or what ever . ’ ” Ral ei gh Wake

Ci t i zens Ass ’ n, 2016 WL 1060378, at *46. Whi l e such comment s

evi dence t he f act t hat r ace was a consi der at i on i n t he

r edi st r i cti ng pr ocess, doi ng so i s not unl awf ul . See, e. g. ,

Mi l l er , 515 U. S. at 916 ( “Redi st r i ct i ng l egi sl at ur es wi l l , f or

exampl e, al most al ways be aware of r aci al demogr aphi cs; but i t

does not f ol l ow t hat r ace pr edomi nat es i n t he redi st r i ct i ng

pr ocess. ”) . We cannot f aul t t he di st r i ct cour t f or det er mi ni ng

t hat t he comment s her e di d not const i t ut e di r ect evi dence that

r ace pr edomi nat ed i n t he dr awi ng of Di st r i ct 4, i . e. , of r aci al

gerr ymander i ng.




43

Fur t her , i n t he r aci al ger r ymander i ng cont ext , par t i san

advant age may be consi der ed a t r adi t i onal r edi st r i ct i ng

cr i t er i on, and evi dence t hat pol i t i cs was t he pr i mar y mot i vat i on

f or t he dr awi ng of a di st r i ct can def eat an al l egat i on t hat r ace

pr edomi nat ed. See, e. g. , Cr omar t i e, 532 U. S. at 257–58; Ver a,

517 U. S. at 968. The di st r i ct cour t r ecogni zed t hi s, not i ng

t hat t he f act t hat Di st r i ct 4 i s maj or i t y- mi nor i t y “al one does

not mean t hat t he General Assembl y r aci al l y gerr ymandered

Di st r i ct 4, ” Ral ei gh Wake Ci t i zens Ass’ n, 2016 WL 1060378, at

*47, and t hat evi dence suppor t s t he di st r i ct ’ s havi ng been dr awn

wi t h a f ocus on par t i sanshi p r at her t han r ace. For exampl e, i n

eval uat i ng t he exper t suppor t f or Pl ai nt i f f s’ r aci al

ger r ymander i ng cl ai m, t he di st r i ct cour t not ed t hat t he exper t ’ s

“par t i san neut r al ” anal ysi s di d not hel p answer t he quest i on of

whet her pol i t i cs or r ace l ed t o Di st r i ct 4’ s boundar i es. I d.

Her e, t oo, we cannot di sagr ee.

I n sum, even i f we mi ght have f ound ot her wi se i n t he f i r st

i nst ance, i t was not i mpl ausi bl e f or t he di st r i ct cour t t o

det er mi ne t hat Pl ai nt i f f s had f al l en shor t of pr ovi ng t hat

t r adi t i onal di st r i cti ng cri t er i a wer e subor di nat ed t o r ace i n

t he dr awi ng of Di st r i ct 4. Accor di ngl y, because t he di st r i ct

cour t ’ s anal ysi s of Pl ai nt i f f s’ r aci al ger r ymander i ng cl ai m i s

not cl ear l y er r oneous, we af f i r m on t hat i ssue.




44

V.

For t he r easons di scussed above, we r ever se t he di st r i ct

cour t ’ s j udgment i n Def endant ’ s f avor as t o Pl ai nt i f f s’ one

per son, one vot e cl ai ms. We r emand wi t h i nst r uct i ons to ent er

i mmedi at el y13 j udgment f or Pl ai nt i f f s, gr ant i ng bot h decl ar at or y

r el i ef and a per manent i nj unct i on, as t o t he one per son, one

vot e cl ai ms. However , we af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s j udgment

f or Def endant as t o Pl ai nt i f f s’ r aci al ger r ymander cl ai m.

REVERSED AND REMANDED I N PARTAND AFFI RMED I N PART

13 We see no r eason why the November 2016 el ect i ons shoul dpr oceed under t he unconst i t ut i onal pl ans we st r i ke down today.




DI ANA GRI BBON MOTZ, Ci r cui t J udge, di ssent i ng:

Wi t h r espect, I di ssent f r om t he maj or i t y’ s hol di ng t hat

t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n r ej ect i ng Pl ai nt i f f s’ equal

pr ot ect i on chal l enge t o twi n pr esumpt i vel y const i t ut i onal

r edi st r i cti ng pl ans. Pl ai nt i f f s’ one per son, one vot e cl ai m

r est s on t hei r cont ent i on t hat i mpr oper “par t i sanshi p” r ender ed

t he chal l enged r edi st r i ct i ng pl ans unconst i t ut i onal , even t hough

t hose pl ans have popul at i on devi at i ons of l ess t han 10%. 1 I f

such a cl ai m i s j ust i ci abl e, and i t i s not cl ear t hat i t i s , t he

showi ng necessary t o pr ove such a cl ai m i s ext r emel y demandi ng.

The Supr eme Cour t expl ai ned onl y a f ew weeks ago t hat such

chal l enges “wi l l succeed onl y r ar el y, i n unusual cases. ” Har r i s

v. Ar i z. I ndep. Redi st r i ct i ng Comm’ n, 136 S. Ct . 1301, 1307

( 2016) . The chal l enge her e, l i ke t hat i n Har r i s, i s not t hat

1 I n t hei r amended compl ai nt , Pl ai nt i f f s al so al l eged t hatt he pl ans i mper mi ssi bl y f avor ed r ur al vot er s over ur ban vot er s.At t r i al , however , t hey f ocused on assert edl y i mpr oper“par t i sanshi p” and pr oduced scant evi dence t hat t he St ate soughtt o advant age r ur al over urban vot er s. Pl ai nt i f f s di d not evenof f er evi dence as t o whi ch di st r i ct s t hey consi der ed “ur ban” or“rur al . ” Thei r exper t s t est i f i ed t hat asser t edl y i l l egi t i mat e“par t i san” mot i vat i ons, not r egi onal f avor i t i sm, pr edomi nat el ymot i vat ed t he chal l enged pl ans. Unsur pr i si ngl y, t he di st r i ct

cour t f ound t hat Pl ai nt i f f s “f ai l ed t o pr ove” t hat ei t her pl an“i mper mi ssi bl y f avor s subur ban and rur al vot er s over ur banvot er s or subst ant i al l y di l ut es t he i ndi vi dual vot i ng st r engt hof Wake Count y’ s ur ban vot er s. ” Ral ei gh Wake Ci t i zens Ass’ n v.Wake Ct y. Bd. of El ect i ons, No. 5: 15- CV- 156- D, 2016 WL 1060378,at *40 ( E. D. N. C. Feb. 26, 2016) . On appeal , Pl ai nt i f f s pr ovi deno basi s on whi ch t o di st ur b t hat f i ndi ng.




46

“unusual case. ” For t hi s r eason, I woul d af f i r m i n i t s ent i r et y

t he j udgment of t he di st r i ct cour t r ej ecti ng Pl ai nt i f f s’

chal l enges t o t he r edi st r i cti ng pl ans.

I .

The Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause r equi r es a St at e t o “make an

honest and good f ai t h ef f or t t o const r uct [ st at e l egi sl at i ve]

di st r i cts . . . as near l y of equal popul at i on as i s

pr act i cabl e. ” Reynol ds v. Si ms, 377 U. S. 533, 577 ( 1964) . But ,

t he Reynol ds Cour t i t sel f r ecogni zed t hat , i n det er mi ni ng what

i s “pr act i cabl e, ” t he Const i t ut i on per mi t s some devi at i ons f r om

per f ect popul at i on equal i t y when j ust i f i ed by “l egi t i mat e

consi der at i ons i nci dent t o t he ef f ect uat i on of a r at i onal st at e

pol i cy. ” I d. at 579; accor d Har r i s, 136 S. Ct . at 1306.

I n a l ong l i ne of cases deci ded i n t he wake of Reynol ds,

t he Cour t has hel d t hat di st r i ct s, l i ke t hose at i ssue her e,

wi t h a “maxi mum popul at i on devi at i on under 10%” are

pr esumpt i vel y const i t ut i onal . See, e. g. , Br own v. Thomson, 462

U. S. 835, 842 ( 1983) ; accor d Harr i s, 136 S. Ct . at 1307 and

cases ci t ed t her ei n. These “mi nor devi at i ons f r om mat hemat i cal

equal i t y do not , by t hemsel ves, make out a pr i ma f aci e case of

i nvi di ous di scr i mi nat i on under t he Four t eent h Amendment so as t o

r equi r e j ust i f i cat i on by t he St at e. ” Har r i s, 136 S. Ct . at 1307




47

( quot i ng Gaf f ney v. Cummi ngs, 412 U. S. 735, 745 ( 1973) )

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

I t was because of “t he i nher ent di f f i cul t y of measur i ng and

compar i ng f act or s t hat may l egi t i mat el y account f or smal l

devi at i ons f r om st r i ct mat hemat i cal equal i t y” t hat t he Supr eme

Cour t r ecent l y rei t er at ed t hat “at t acks on devi at i ons under 10%

wi l l succeed onl y r ar el y, i n unusual cases. ” Har r i s, 136 S. Ct .

at 1307. To pr evai l on such cl ai ms, t he Har r i s Cour t hel d t hat

a chal l enger “must show t hat i t i s more pr obabl e t han not t hat a

devi at i on of l ess t han 10% r ef l ect s t he pr edomi nance of

i l l egi t i mat e r eappor t i onment f act or s r at her t han t he ‘ l egi t i mat e

consi der at i ons’ ” t hat t he Cour t had i dent i f i ed i n pr evi ous

cases. I d.

I n ear l i er cases t he Supr eme Cour t had i dent i f i ed numer ous

“l egi t i mat e consi der at i ons” j ust i f yi ng a St at e’ s r eappor t i onment

pl an. Among t hem ar e a St at e’ s val i d i nt er est s i n: mai nt ai ni ng

t he compet i t i ve bal ance among pol i t i cal par t i es, Gaf f ney, 412

U. S. at 752- 53; accor d Har r i s, 136 S. Ct . at 1306, avoi di ng

cont est s between i ncumbent s as l ong as i ncumbent s of one par t y

ar e not f avor ed over t hose of another , Kar cher v. Dagget t , 462

U. S. 725, 740 ( 1983) , and r ecogni zi ng communi t i es of i nt er est ,

Evenwel v. Abbot t , 136 S. Ct . 1120, 1124 ( 2016) . I ndeed, i n

League of Uni t ed Lat i n Amer i can Ci t i zens v. Per r y, t he Supr eme

Cour t char act er i zed “avoi di ng t he pai r i ng of i ncumbent s” as a




48

“‘ neut r al ’ r edi st r i ct i ng st andar d[ ] ” and “mai nt ai ni ng

communi t i es of i nt er est ” as a “t r adi t i onal di st r i ct i ng

pr i nci pl e[ ] . ” 548 U. S. 399, 412 ( 2006) ( pl ur al i t y opi ni on)

( “LULAC”) ; I d. at 433 ( maj or i t y opi ni on) .

Thus, not wi t hst andi ng Pl ai nt i f f s’ appar ent bel i ef , t he

Cour t has expr essl y r ecogni zed t hat a r edi st r i ct i ng pl an can i n

t hese ways l egi t i mat el y t ake account of pol i t i cal

consi derat i ons. The Cour t has never suggest ed t hat doi ng so

const i t ut es r el i ance on an “i l l egi t i mat e reappor t i onment

f act or . ” Har r i s, 136 S. Ct . at 1307. Thi s appr oach necessar i l y

f ol l ows f r om the f act t hat “[p]ol i t i cs and pol i t i cal

consi derat i ons are i nseparabl e f rom di str i ct i ng and

appor t i onment ” and so “di st r i ct i ng i nevi t abl y has and i s

i nt ended t o have subst ant i al pol i t i cal consequences. ” Gaf f ney,

412 U. S. at 753.

I f t hose at t acki ng a r edi st r i ct i ng pl an pr ove t hat a St at e

has abused l egi t i mat e pol i t i cal consi der at i ons by syst emi cal l y

over - or under - popul at i ng di st r i ct s t o benef i t one par t y at t he

expense another , t hen t he chal l enger s may be abl e to pr evai l as

t hey di d i n Lar i os v. Cox, 300 F. Supp. 2d 1320, 1325 ( N. D.

Ga. ) , af f ’ d, 542 U. S. 947 ( 2004) ( mem. ) . Pl ai nt i f f s l ean

heavi l y on Lar i os. Thei r r el i ance i s mi spl aced.

Fi r st , Pl ai nt i f f s i gnor e t he ver y di f f er ent f act ual r ecor d

devel oped i n t hat case. I n Lar i os, t he chal l enged pl an pai r ed




49

i n t he same di st r i ct , and t hus pi t t ed agai nst each ot her , 37 of

t he 74 i ncumbent Republ i cans but onl y 9 of t he 105 i ncumbent

Democrat s. 300 F. Supp. 2d at 1326. I n Lar i os, Georgi a

l egi sl at or s admi t t ed bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t t hat t hey had

i nt ent i onal l y dr awn l egi sl at i ve di st r i ct s t o f avor i ncumbent s of

one par t y over t hose of t he ot her . I d. at 1325. Thus, i n

Lar i os, t he st at e l egi sl at or s conceded t hat t hey had not made

t he “good f ai t h ef f or t ” t o dr aw equal di st r i ct s t hat Reynol ds

r equi r es. The r ecor d i n t hi s case cont ai ns no such evi dence.

I n addi t i on t o i gnor i ng t he ver y di f f er ent evi dent i ar y

r ecor d i n Lar i os, Pl ai nt i f f s t ur n a bl i nd eye t o t he Cour t ’ s

subsequent t r eatment of t hat case. I n LULAC, t he Cour t

expl ai ned t hat Lar i os “does not gi ve cl ear gui dance” i n

“addr essi ng pol i t i cal mot i vat i on as a j ust i f i cat i on f or an

equal - pr ot ect i on vi ol at i on. ” 548 U. S. at 423 ( pl ur al i t y

opi ni on) . And i n Harr i s, t he unani mous Supr eme Cour t expr essl y

r eserved t he quest i on of whet her t he sor t of abusi ve

par t i sanshi p at i ssue i n Lar i os even const i t ut es “an

i l l egi t i mat e r edi st r i cti ng f actor. ” Har r i s, 136 S. Ct . at 1310. 2

2 Tel l i ngl y, t he Cour t has never addr essed t he al t er nat i vehol di ng by t he l ower cour t i n Lar i os i nval i dat i ng t he chal l engedpl ans on t he basi s of r egi onal f avor i t i sm. That al t er nat i vehol di ng has l i t t l e pr ecedent i al or per suasi ve val ue gi ven, ast he Supreme Cour t has expl ai ned, “a summary af f i r mance i s anaf f i r mance of t he j udgment onl y, ” not t he rat i onal e of t he l owercour t , whi ch “shoul d not be underst ood as br eaki ng new gr ound. ”( Cont i nued)




50

Despi t e Pl ai nt i f f s’ pr ot est at i ons t o t he cont r ar y, t he

f oundat i ons of Lar i os as per suasi ve aut hor i t y rest on shaky

gr ound.

Equal l y si gni f i cant l y, Pl ai nt i f f s t ake no not i ce of t he

hol di ng i n Har r i s t hat , even i f abusi ve par t i sanshi p di d

const i t ut e an i l l egi t i mat e f act or , t hose chal l engi ng t he

r edi st r i ct i ng pl an bef or e i t had “not car r i ed t hei r bur den. ”

I d. Thi s hol di ng i s par t i cul ar l y si gni f i cant gi ven t hat t he

Har r i s pl ai nt i f f s had made a much st r onger evi dent i ar y showi ng

t han Pl ai nt i f f s do her e. For exampl e, t he Har r i s pl ai nt i f f s

of f er ed di r ect evi dence of a Republ i can- l eani ng di st r i ct made

“mor e compet i t i ve” at t he r equest of a Democr at i c redi st r i ct i ng

commi ssi oner by “hyper packi ng Republ i cans i nt o ot her di st r i ct s. ”

I d. at 1309 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . The

r edi st r i ct i ng commi ssi on i n Har r i s had over popul at ed al most al l

t he Republ i can- l eani ng di st r i cts i n t he t hi r t y- di st r i ct pl an

whi l e under popul at i ng al most al l t he Democr at i c- l eani ng

Mandel v. Br adl ey, 432 U. S. 173, 176 ( 1977) . And i nval i dat i ng ar edi st r i ct i ng pl an because i t al l egedl y f avor s “rur al ” or“urban” vot er s woul d break new ground. The Supreme Cour t hasnever bef or e or af t er Lar i os suggest ed t hat consi der i ng t heur ban or r ur al char act er i st i cs of a di str i ct i s an i l l egi t i mat eappor t i onment f act or . I n f act , st at ement s i n sever al casessuggest t hat t hese ar e t he qui nt essent i al t ypes of communi t i esof i nt er est a St at e may consi der when r edi st r i ct i ng. See, e. g. ,Dusch v. Davi s, 387 U. S. 112, 117 ( 1967) .




51

di st r i ct s. I d. at 1309- 10. Even i n t he f ace of t hi s evi dence,

t he di st r i ct cour t di d not f i nd t he r edi st r i cti ng pl an

unconst i t ut i onal - - and t he Supr eme Cour t agr eed. I d. at 1309.

Fur t her mor e, i n expl ai ni ng i t s r ej ect i on of t he Har r i s

pl ai nt i f f s’ cl ai ms, t he Supr eme Cour t di st i ngui shed Lar i os i n

ways t hat appl y wi t h equal f or ce her e. The Har r i s Cour t hel d

t hat i n Lar i os, unl i ke i n t he case bef or e i t ( and unl i ke i n t he

case at hand) , “t he di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat t hose at t acki ng

t he pl an had shown” t hat no l egi t i mat e f act or s expl ai ned t he

devi at i ons i n t he pl an. I d. at 1310 ( emphasi s added) . The

Har r i s Cour t expl ai ned: “I t i s appel l ant s’ i nabi l i t y t o show”

t hat i l l egi t i mat e f act or s pr edomi nat ed “t hat makes [ Lar i os]

i napposi t e her e. ” I d. Thus t he Cour t emphasi zed and r e-

emphasi zed t hat t hose at t acki ng a pr esumpt i vel y const i t ut i onal

r edi st r i cti ng pl an, l i ke Pl ai nt i f f s her e, must pr ove t hat

i l l egi t i mat e f act or s pr edomi nat ed.

I n sum, even i f abusi ve par t i sanshi p cl ai ms are

j ust i ci abl e, and do pr ovi de t he basi s f or a one person, one vot e

cl ai m, Pl ai nt i f f s had t o pr ove at t r i al t hat t he St at e r el i ed on

t hi s consi der at i on i n r edi st r i cti ng, and t hat t hi s rel i ance t ook

pr ecedence over al l l egi t i mat e consi der at i ons, i ncl udi ng

mai nt ai ni ng pol i t i cal bal ance among pol i t i cal par t i es, avoi di ng

cont est s bet ween i ncumbent s of both par t i es, and r ecogni zi ng

communi t i es of i nt er est . The St at e, on t he other hand, di d not




52

need t o of f er any j ust i f i cat i on f or i t s pr esumpt i vel y

const i t ut i onal r edi str i ct i ng pl ans. See, e. g. , Har r i s, 136

S. Ct . at 1307.

A f ai r r evi ew of t he f act ual r ecor d seems t o me to

demonst r at e t hat , as i n Har r i s, Pl ai nt i f f s her e f ai l ed t o meet

t hei r bur den and so, as t he Supr eme Cour t di d i n Harr i s, we

shoul d af f i r m t he di str i ct cour t ’ s rej ect i on of t hei r chal l enge. 3

I I .

I n at t empt i ng t o meet t hei r subst ant i al bur den, Pl ai nt i f f s

pr i nci pal l y r el y on t he t r i al t est i mony of t hei r exper t ,

Dr . J owei Chen. On t he basi s of st at i st i cal model s t hat he had

cr eat ed, Dr . Chen opi ned t hat devi at i ons i n t he chal l enged

r edi st r i ct i ng pl ans wer e mot i vat ed ent i r el y by a desi r e t o

obt ai n “Republ i can par t i san cont r ol over f our of t he” seven

number ed di st r i ct s and over one of t he t wo l et t er ed super -

di st r i ct s. But , as t he di st r i ct cour t f ound, Dr . Chen’ s model

3 The di st r i ct cour t al so r ej ected Pl ai nt i f f s’ one per son,one vot e cl ai m under t he Nor t h Car ol i na Const i t ut i on. Because

Nor t h Car ol i na cour t s “gener al l y f ol l ow[ ] t he anal ysi s of t heSupr eme Cour t of t he Uni t ed St ates” when i nt er pr et i ng t heSt at e’ s cor r espondi ng Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause, I woul d af f i r mt he di st r i ct court ’ s f i ndi ng t hat Pl ai nt i f f s f ai l ed t o carr yt hei r bur den on t hei r st at e l aw cl ai ms f or t he same r easons t hatappl y t o t hei r f eder al cl ai ms. Bl ankenshi p v. Bar t l et t , 681S. E. 2d 759, 762 ( N. C. 2009) .




53

si mpl y does not pr ove ei t her concl usi on. Dr . Chen’ s anal ysi s

suf f ers f rom t wo cr i t i cal f l aws.

Fi r st , i n hi s model , Dr . Chen pegged t he maxi mum t ol er abl e

l evel of popul at i on devi at i on bet ween di st r i ct s at 2%. I n doi ng

so he hel d t he St ate t o a st andard not r equi r ed by l aw. Of

cour se, a St ate must make a “good f ai t h ef f or t ” t o dr aw equal

di st r i ct s. Reynol ds, 377 U. S. at 577. But neut r al f act or s may

cause popul at i on devi at i ons wel l above 10% wi t hout r unni ng af oul

of t he Const i t ut i on. See, e. g. , Mahan v. Howel l , 410 U. S. 315,

328 ( 1973) . Mor eover , Dr . Chen’ s ar bi t r ar y 2% t hr eshol d seems

par t i cul ar l y unwar r ant ed i n l i ght of t he Supr eme Cour t ’ s

r epeat ed char act er i zat i on of devi at i ons bel ow 10% as “mi nor ” and

i t s admoni t i on t hat such mi nor devi at i ons do not “subst ant i al l y

di l ut e t he wei ght of i ndi vi dual vot es i n t he l ar ger di st r i cts so

as t o depr i ve i ndi vi dual s i n t hese di st r i cts of f ai r and

ef f ect i ve r epr esent at i on. ” Whi t e v. Regest er , 412 U. S. 755, 764

( 1973) .

The second f at al f l aw i n Dr . Chen’ s anal ysi s i s hi s f ai l ure

t o l ook beyond what he consi der ed t o be t he onl y f our l egi t i mate

or “t r adi t i onal ” di str i ct i ng f act or s - - popul at i on equal i t y,

i nt act muni ci pal boundar i es, i nt act pr eci nct s, and geogr aphi c




54

compact ness. 4 Dr . Chen i gnor ed t he many apol i t i cal and pol i t i cal

f act or s St at es may consi der dur i ng r edi st r i ct i ng ( l i ke st r i ki ng

a compet i t i ve bal ance among pol i t i cal par t i es, avoi di ng cont est s

among i ncumbent s, and r ecogni zi ng communi t i es of i nt er est ) , even

i f pur sui ng t hese goal s causes mi nor popul at i on devi at i ons.

Thi s i s par t i cul ar l y t r oubl i ng because i t i s undi sput ed

t hat t wo of t he l egi t i mat e di st r i ct i ng f act or s Dr . Chen f ai l ed

t o consi der - - i ncumbency pr otect i on and gr oupi ng communi t i es of

i nt er est - - act ual l y mot i vat ed t he l egi sl at ur e her e. The

par t i es st i pul at ed t o t he accur acy of t r anscri pt s of t he

l egi sl at i ve debat e and t hose t r anscr i pt s r eveal t hat st at e

l egi sl at or s al t er ed t he di str i ct l i nes i n t he f i nal ver si on of

t he School Boar d r edi st r i ct i ng bi l l t o pr ot ect t wo i ncumbent s - -

one r egi st er ed Democrat and one r egi st er ed Republ i can. Fur t her ,

t he Democrat i c i ncumbent , Chr i st i ne Kushner , t est i f i ed at t r i al

t hat “Ms. Pr i cket t , who i s a r egi st er ed Republ i can, had been

pl aced i nt o a Democr at i c l eani ng di st r i ct , ” but “was moved out

4 Pl ai nt i f f s actual l y concede t he l i mi t ed r each ofDr . Chen’ s anal ysi s, not i ng that hi s anal ysi s “shows t hat t hepar t i sanshi p of t he enact ed di st r i ct s does not happen when

t r adi t i onal r edi str i ct i ng cr i t er i a ar e f ol l owed. ” SeePl ai nt i f f s’ Rep. Br . at 21 ( emphasi s added) . Of cour se, asexpl ai ned above, t he Supr eme Cour t has r epeat edl y r ecogni zednumer ous l egi t i mat e ‘ r edi st r i ct i ng cri t er i a’ ot her t han t hoset hat Dr . Chen consi der s “t r adi t i onal . ” And i n LULAC, 548 U. S.at 433, t he Cour t expr essl y i ncl uded “mai nt ai ni ng communi t i es ofi nt er est ” among “tr adi t i onal ” r edi str i ct i ng cr i t er i a.




55

of t hat di st r i ct and put i nt o a Republ i can l eani ng di st r i ct , and

I [ Ms. Kushner ] was swi t ched out of Di st r i ct 2 i nt o Di st r i ct 5, ”

whi ch she admi t t ed was a “mor e f avor abl e di st r i ct ” f or her .

Accommodat i ng t he l egi t i mate i nt er est i n pr otect i ng i ncumbent s

of both part i es had a demonst r abl e i mpact on t he popul at i on

devi at i ons acr oss f our of t he seven number ed di st r i ct s i n t he

pl an. Di st r i ct 1 swung f r om 2. 76% over popul at ed t o - 0. 41%

under popul at ed. Di st r i ct 2 swel l ed f r om - 4. 19% under popul at ed

t o j ust - 1. 05% under popul at ed. Di st r i ct 5 di pped f r om 0. 19%

over popul at ed t o - 1. 53% under popul at ed. Fi nal l y, Di st r i ct 6

gr ew f r om - 0. 14% under popul at ed t o 1. 6% over popul at ed.

Dr . Chen’ s model does not i n any way account f or t hese

popul at i on devi at i ons. As a r esul t , Dr . Chen’ s vi ew t hat

not hi ng but i mpr oper “par t i sanshi p” coul d expl ai n the popul at i on

devi at i ons i n t he t wi n r edi st r i ct i ng pl ans compl et el y i gnor es

t he undi sput ed i mpact t hat t he l egi sl at i ve ef f or t t o pr ot ect t he

t wo i ncumbent s had on t he pl ans. I n l i ght of t hat omi ssi on, I

cannot agr ee t hat t he di st r i ct cour t cl ear l y er r ed i n concl udi ng

t hat Dr . Chen’ s t est i mony di d not demonst r ate t hat t he

l egi sl at ur e devi at ed f r om popul at i on equal i t y onl y f or t he

pr edomi nant pur pose of cr eat i ng f our saf e Republ i can seat s out

of seven.

Dr . Chen commi t t ed t he same sor t of anal yt i c er r or i n

consi der i ng t he t wo l et t er ed super - di st r i ct s. One of t he st at ed




56

pur poses f or t he super - di st r i ct s was t o i mpr ove r epr esent at i on

f or vot er s i n r ur al ar eas. Wi t hout chal l engi ng t he St at e’ s

consi der at i on of communi t i es of i nt er est gener al l y, Pl ai nt i f f s

ar gue t hat “[ t ] her e i s no possi bl e way t hat [ t he st at ed]

r at i onal es expl ai n why Super Di st r i ct A needs t o be 44, 117

peopl e l ar ger t han Super Di st r i ct B. ” Pl ai nt i f f s’ Rep. Br . at

12. Accor di ng t o Dr . Chen, agai n i mpr oper “par t i sanshi p” i s t he

onl y expl anat i on.

And agai n, Dr . Chen’ s model does not support t hi s

concl usi on. To be sur e, t he St at e coul d have over popul at ed

Di st r i ct A, an ar ea of t he Count y t hat has hi st or i cal l y vot ed

f or Democr at i c candi dat es, t o i ncr ease a Republ i can candi dat e’ s

odds of wi nni ng i n Di st r i ct B. But t he St at e al so coul d have

devi at ed f r om popul at i on equal i t y t o gr oup mor e ur ban ar eas i n

Di st r i ct A based on t hei r shar ed i nt er est s. Thi s, af t er al l ,

was t he pur pose f or havi ng t he super - di st r i ct s i n t he f i r st

pl ace, and of cour se i t const i t ut es a cl ear l y val i d St at e

i nt er est . See Evenwel , 136 S. Ct . at 1124. Or t he St at e coul d

have had t he dual mot i vat i on t o accompl i sh both. Dr . Chen’ s

model t el l s us not hi ng about how gr oupi ng t oget her communi t i es

of i nt er est mot i vat ed t he l egi sl at ur e because i t a pr i or i

excl udes any consi der at i on of t hat l egi t i mat e redi st r i ct i ng

consi der at i on.




57

Pl ai nt i f f s’ r emai ni ng evi dence al so f al l s f ar shor t of

meet i ng t hei r bur den of pr ovi ng t hat i l l egi t i mat e par t i san

consi der at i ons pr edomi nat ed her e. Pl ai nt i f f s’ exper t Ant hony

Fai r f ax concl uded t hat t he l egi sl at ur e desi r ed t o “mi ni mi ze t he

Democr at i c per f or mance” i n cer t ai n di st r i ct s by over popul at i ng

t he “Democr at i c per f or mi ng di st r i ct s. ” That opi ni on r est s on

hi s vi ew t hat corr el at i on bet ween over popul at i on and Democrat i c

per f or mance i n t he di st r i ct s i n and of i t sel f demonst r at es

l egi sl at i ve i nt ent - - i . e. , t hat t he number s speak f or

t hemsel ves. The di st r i ct cour t concl uded t hat t hey do not .

The r ecor d here provi des no basi s f or hol di ng t hat f i ndi ng

cl ear l y er r oneous. Of t he f our di st r i ct s asser t edl y f avor abl e

or compet i t i ve f or Democr at s, t hr ee ar e over popul at ed. Of t he

f i ve di st r i ct s asser t edl y f avor abl e or compet i t i ve f or

Republ i cans, onl y t hree ar e under popul at ed by more t han 1%. One

of t hese t hr ee di st r i cts, Di st r i ct 2, i s under popul at ed by j ust

- 1. 05%. Thus, t he asser t ed cor r el at i on bet ween popul at i on and

Democr at i c per f or mance i s, t o say t he l east , mi ni mal . Thi s

mi ni mal cor r el at i on l i mi t s t he st r engt h of any i nf er ence t hat

can be dr awn. Cf . Har r i s, 136 S. Ct . at 1309- 10 ( r ef usi ng t o

i nf er pr edomi nance of i l l egi t i mat e par t i sanshi p over a t hi r t y-

di st r i ct pl an wher e ever y di st r i ct under popul at ed by mor e t han

1% ( ni ne t ot al ) f avor ed Democrat s and ever y di st r i ct

over popul at ed by mor e t han 1% ( t wel ve t ot al ) f avor ed




58

Republ i cans) . At t he ver y l east , t he di st r i ct cour t di d not

cl ear l y er r when i t decl i ned, as t he Supr eme Cour t di d i n Har r i s

i n t he f ace of st r onger evi dence, t o make an i nf er ence of

unconst i t ut i onal mot i vat i on.

Pl ai nt i f f s al so of f er ed t he l ay t est i mony of member s of t he

st at e l egi sl at ur e who opposed t he r edi st r i ct i ng pl ans. I agr ee

wi t h t he maj or i t y t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n cat egor i cal l y

r ej ecti ng t hi s t est i mony as i r r el evant . But , despi t e t hi s

er r or , t he t est i mony does not move t he needl e f ar on t he i ssue

of i nt ent of t hose vot i ng t o adopt t he r edi st r i ct i ng pl ans

because, t o a per son, Pl ai nt i f f s’ l ay wi t nesses di scl ai med any

knowl edge of t he sponsor s’ mot i vat i ons. 5

I n sum, f aced wi t h t he heavy bur den of pr ovi ng that

asser t edl y i l l egi t i mat e “par t i sanshi p” const i t ut ed t he

pr edomi nant mot i vat i on f or t he pr esumpt i vel y const i t ut i onal

r edi str i ct i ng pl ans, Pl ai nt i f f s f ai l ed t o of f er any evi dence

t rul y probat i ve of l egi s l at i ve i nt ent . Pl ai nt i f f s ’ expert s

t ender ed concl usi ons t hat t hei r anal yses coul d not suppor t .

5 More pr obat i ve are emai l s f r om Wake Count y Republ i canChai r woman Donna Wi l l i ams t o Republ i can member s of t he st at e

l egi sl atur e and School Boar d. Wi l l i ams expr essed concer n t hatt he pr oposed map woul d not be suf f i ci ent l y f avor abl e t oRepubl i cans t o per mi t t hem t o “t ake 5 of t he 9 seat s. ” However ,t he recor d does not cont ai n r equest s f or i nf or mat i on orr esponses f r om St at e of f i ci al s or any i ndi cat i on t hatMs. Wi l l i ams’ l obbyi ng ef f or t s had any ef f ect on t hel egi sl at i on.




Pl ai nt i f f s’ remai ni ng evi dence pr oved l i t t l e. The di st r i ct

cour t r ef used t o dr aw Pl ai nt i f f s’ pr ef er r ed i nf er ence. I n doi ng

so, t he cour t di d not cl ear l y er r . To t he cont r ar y, gi ven t he

weakness of Pl ai nt i f f s’ case, Def endant s woul d have had st r ong

gr ounds t o appeal had t he di st r i ct cour t r ul ed ot her wi se.

I woul d af f i r m t he j udgment of t he di st r i ct cour t i n i t s

ent i ret y.


Documents

4th Cir Opinion - Wake County Comm