Bartlett v. Stephenson
Headline: North Carolina redistricting: Court denies stay and leaves state court order requiring a new legislative map that preserves county lines when possible but must be precleared under federal voting law, affecting 2002 elections.
Holding: The Court denied North Carolina officials’ stay request, leaving the state court’s order that the 2001 map be replaced and any new map precleared under the Voting Rights Act before 2002 elections in place.
- Prevents using unprecleared districts in the 40 covered counties for 2002 elections.
- Requires new maps to preserve county lines when feasible while complying with federal voting law.
Summary
Background
North Carolina officials who run the State’s elections asked a single Justice to stop a state-court ruling that invalidated the State’s 2001 legislative redistricting plan. The Supreme Court of North Carolina found the plan violated the State Constitution’s “whole county provision,” affirmed an injunction against using the 2001 plan, and ordered a new plan be drawn. That court told the trial court to consider whether the legislature could draft a new plan or whether alternate plans should be solicited and adopted.
Reasoning
The central question here was whether to freeze the state court’s decision while the parties continue to fight. The single Justice (Chief Justice Rehnquist) denied the stay because the applicants did not meet the high threshold for such emergency relief. The opinion relied on the narrow scope of the dispute—largely about the meaning of a 1981 Justice Department letter—and noted the state court expressly required any new map for the 40 covered counties to be precleared under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act before elections.
Real world impact
As a result, elections may not be held in the covered counties under unprecleared districts for 2002. Any new map must try to preserve county lines when feasible but still comply with the Voting Rights Act and federal one-person-one-vote rules. This decision is an interim procedural ruling that keeps the state court’s remedial process in place and does not resolve all legal claims about the county rule.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?