The Supreme Court has temporarily sided with North Carolina State officials, allowing the borders of congressional districts, which have become controversial, to remain in place. The court blocked a decision by a lower court which required that North Carolina create new congressional maps by the end of the month while a case is being appealed to the Supreme Court.
A three-judge U.S. District Court panel had found that North Carolina state officials enacted the plan to redraw congressional maps “with the intent of discriminating against voters who favored non-Republican candidates.” Attorneys for the state argued that a stay in this case is justified because the lower court only gave them fourteen days to redraw the maps. They argued the short timeline would prove disruptive to North Carolina’s upcoming statewide elections.
“Prohibiting the State from using the duly enacted districting map that governed its last election cycle on the eve of the commencement of the 2018 election cycle is not just practically disruptive, but represents a grave and irreparable sovereign injury,” attorney for the state Paul Clement said.
Common Cause, an advocacy group which challenged the maps on the basis of discrimination criticized the higher court’s decision as well as the motives of state officials to seek a stay. “Applicants pay lip service to concerns such as State sovereignty and administrative inconvenience. But their true motive is as plain as day: the Republican contingent of the legislature wants to enjoy the fruits of their grossly unconstitutional actions for yet another election cycle. That is not a proper reason to seek a stay, let alone grant one,” a statement by the group’s attorneys read.
But clement says a stay in this case is warranted because there are already two cases before the Supreme Court challenging gerrymandering which were brought in Wisconsin and Maryland. Those cases could set a new standard for determining when the drawing of congressional maps to give one party an advantage over another crosses the line into unconstitutionality.