NC Supreme Court Hears Arguments Regarding Two State Constitutional Amendments
The North Carolina General Assembly’s approval of two constitutional amendments may be deemed illegitimate due to significant gerrymandering within the state. Source: AP Photo
Amid significant deliberation over political maps drawn by the state’s Republican Party, the NC Supreme Court faces another consequential case. On Valentine’s Day, the court heard oral arguments regarding the credibility of two state constitutional amendments passed by the electorate in 2018. The authorization of these provisions would firstly require that citizens show an acceptable form of identification when voting and secondly, cap the income tax rate at 7%, rather than the current maximum rate of 10%.
The NAACP, the plaintiff in this suit, claims the approval of the referendum for the two amendments should be nullified by virtue of gerrymandered districts comprising the seats in the General Assembly. Republicans have held dominion over the state legislature since 2010, yet proponents of repealing the amendments argue the GOP could only gain this power through unfair elections. A federal court ruled in 2016 that almost thirty of the state’s legislative districts were products of racial gerrymandering by the Republican majority at the time and blatantly violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. North Carolina’s questionable reputation of voter suppression has led the NAACP to scrutinize the legislature’s actions to guarantee constituents are afforded equal electoral power. Kym Hunter, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, insists that the GOP’s “attempt to allow a racially gerrymandered supermajority to lock-in their narrow agenda should be forcefully rejected.”
On the other hand, North Carolina’s Republican party counters the NAACP by declaring this an “institutional attack” and contending that it should not diminish the legislative sovereignty of the General Assembly. The lead attorney for the defendant, Martin Warf, further claims that the courts lack jurisdiction for this case because it is inherently a political question to determine whether the legislature is popularly elected. Moreover, the defendants questioned whether the plaintiffs' rationale would establish a dangerous precedent since a victory for the NAACP could justify the voiding of all actions taken by the legislature during this period. “The General Assembly never lost its authority to act,” Warf asserts.
The process for amending the state constitution in North Carolina is quite arduous; it might take months, even years, for a new amendment to achieve ratification. Firstly, a member of either chamber of the General Assembly must present the amendment during session and call for a vote. Then, the proposition is subject to a three-fifths vote in both houses in order to receive a place on the upcoming ballot. If the legislature reaches the three-fifths requirement, the amendment is authorized to appear on the ballot for the next statewide election. Subsequently, if a simple majority of the electorate votes “yes,” the proposal is codified into law. After being approved by the legislature in 2018, the voter I.D. amendment received 55% approval, and the income tax cap amendment received 57% approval.
State courts initially nullified the two amendments in February 2019 based on “racially-biased districts,” however, a North Carolina appeals court overturned the decision in September 2020. The majority justified their verdict by noting that “if there was a loss of popular sovereignty by our General Assembly, then all the laws passed by that body would be subject to attack,” the same argument fueling the defendants' case.
To add another layer of complexity, the two-year delay in reaching the NC Supreme Court arises out of concerns from the NAACP. They advocated for the recusal of two justices due to conflicts of interest. Senator Phil Berger, a lead member of the defense, is the father of Justice Phil Berger Jr., who presides over the NC Supreme Court. Furthermore, former state senator Justice Tamara Barringer voted affirmatively for the passage of the two amendments in 2018. Ultimately, the decision was left to the justices to recuse themselves or not; both determined it was appropriate to remain on the case.
Despite the current Republican stronghold in the General Assembly, the classification of North Carolina as a purple state means profound reform, such as these two amendments, is immensely sparse. Thus, their survival and successful implementation are of the utmost importance for the GOP with the 2022 election on the horizon. Fresh off a string of losses in court, a victory for Republicans would undoubtedly bolster their odds of gains this November. On the other side of the aisle, Democrats might also benefit from a win, with state figureheads like Governor Roy Cooper voicing their support for the NAACP.
A ruling favoring the NAACP would have considerable implications on both a state and federal level and necessitate a reevaluation of current political systems. Historically, gerrymandering has pervaded both state and nation political spheres. Therefore, if the state Supreme Court determines defective political maps can void certain pieces of legislation, it seems likely other state officials — maybe even those on a federal level — will follow suit in questioning the legitimacy of their own laws. No matter your partisan preferences, in this case, it’s nevertheless imperative to assess the ramifications of gerrymandering in the United States and how manipulated districts can corrupt the integrity of American political processes.