Redistricting: NAACP files appeal to State Supreme Court

Redistricting: NAACP files appeal to State Supreme Court

Their notice of appeal comes two weeks after a panel of three Superior Court judges validated the legislative and congressional districts intended to be used through the 2020 elections. They had 30 days to decide whether to appeal to the N.C. Supreme Court.

The NAACP, Democrats and voter-rights organizations challenging the maps argue that they are racial gerrymanders designed to weaken the influence of black voters.

“They were a cynical use of race,” said Anita Earls, executive director of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice and one of the attorneys representing some of the plaintiffs.

Read more here:


SCSJ ‏@scsj

Update: SCSJ's Anita Earls is going to be on Hardball tonight talking about the Moral Mondays protests.

Hardball with Chris Matthews is on MSNBC at 5pm and 7pm
Update: Anita Earls' interview on Hardball was bumped for coverage of the royal baby.


This is Good News...

...and the NAACP is in the right, but unfortunately outside groups spent big money to ensure that the NC Supreme Court stayed under GOP control (non-partisan judicial races and judges are a nice sound bite but the reality is that banjo "tough but fair" ads were designed to ensure that the State Supreme Court affirms GOP interests).

"I will have a priority on building relationships with the minority caucus. I want to put substance behind those campaign speeches." -- Thom Tillis, Nov. 5, 2014

Onward to the courthouse for voting rights challenge

From NC Policy Watch via email:

The North Carolina NAACP and other groups have already vowed to fight the changes in court. Should the remaining proposals be enacted into law, they’ll likewise become the bases for additional litigation.

Contrary to public perception — including that of some lawmakers — last month’s ruling in Shelby County was not a free pass to enact discriminatory voting practices. The court there threw out the coverage formula used by Congress to identify jurisdictions required to have voting changes pre-cleared by the federal government.

Though the practical effect may have been to free up many previously-covered jurisdictions to enact voting changes without interference from the federal government (and change who is likely to challenge to such changes and the burden of proof they’ll face in court), the heart of the Act which prohibits discriminatory voting laws, Section 2, remains intact.

- See more at:

Martha Brock