North Carolina v. Convington

Background

In 2011 North Carolina redrew its state legislative districts. In May 2015 several registered North Carolina voters sued, saying 28 newly drawn majority-black districts were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders. The federal trial court agreed in August 2016 and later ordered the legislature to redraw the map. After a 2016 election, the trial court further shortened terms for legislators from affected districts, suspended a one-year residency requirement, and required special elections in 2017 so new representatives would serve truncated terms.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court reviewed whether the trial court’s remedial orders were appropriate. The high Court said a trial court must carefully weigh equitable considerations—what relief is necessary, fair, and workable—before ordering shortened terms and special elections. Because the lower court’s discussion of those balancing factors was cursory and conclusory, the Supreme Court concluded the remedial order could not stand. The Court vacated that order and sent the case back for the lower court to perform a full, case-specific equitable analysis, listing relevant factors such as the seriousness of the violation and the likely disruption to ordinary government processes.

Real world impact

For now, the trial court’s plan to shorten terms and hold special elections cannot proceed until the lower court reconsiders the remedy using a careful equity analysis. The Court separately affirmed the trial court’s finding that the map was a racial gerrymander, so the merits ruling remains in place while the proper remedy is worked out. Lawmakers, affected voters, and election planners in the challenged districts will be directly affected as courts reconsider how and when to fix the map.