Since 2012, Republicans in North Carolina have used extreme partisan gerrymandering to redraw election maps in ways that dilute the votes of Democratic voters for partisan gain.

Though North Carolina is fairly evenly divided between Democratic and Republican voters, Republicans in the state legislature have drawn maps that will ensure they win a large majority of seats in U.S. Congress and both chambers of the state legislature.

They have used their majorities – and General Assembly supermajorities – to implement conservative policies that undermine basic democratic principles in North Carolina. They have used their majorities to implement conservative policies that undermine basic democratic principles in North Carolina, including weakening voting rights and shifting power from the executive and judicial branches to the legislature. Their supermajorities have allowed these extreme Republicans to overrule Governor Cooper’s vetoes of their anti-democratic laws.

In 2022, in the case of Harper v. Hall(1), the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that extreme partisan gerrymandering – creating these unfair election maps for their political advantage – subverts the people’s will and violates the state constitution's guarantee of free elections. The Court emphasized that free elections are the foundation of a democratic society. Partisan gerrymandering goes against the sacred principle of one person, one vote. After the Harper v. Hall decision, for the first time in a decade, North Carolina conducted elections under relatively fair maps, leading to an evenly split Congressional delegation: 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans.

However, following the 2022 election, which resulted in a Republican majority on the North Carolina Supreme Court, Republican Chief Justice Newby and his GOP colleagues recalled Harper v. Hall – just seven weeks after the case was decided – and reversed the earlier decision (along with two other cases related to voting rights). This unprecedented move opened the door for the Republican-controlled state legislature to engage in even more extreme partisan gerrymandering. The new Republican majority on the court essentially ruled that any amount of partisan gerrymandering was allowable.(2) Unsurprisingly, the GOP-controlled state legislature soon adopted some of the most egregiously gerrymandered maps in U.S. history for the 2024 elections.

The reversal of the original Harper decision marks a departure from over 200 years of judicial precedent in North Carolina that cautions appellate courts in most instances to follow their earlier decisions. This rule – called the doctrine of stare decisis – emphasizes the importance of consistency and predictability in the law. Traditionally, the North Carolina Supreme Court has been known for following this important doctrine.(3)

But over the past few years, the Newby Court has frequently disregarded or overruled earlier decisions. In her powerful dissent in State v. Blagg (2021), Justice Anita Earls expressed concern over this shift, noting that it goes against the court’s historical respect for precedent. She emphasized that the doctrine of stare decisis is essential for ensuring justice and fairness in the legal system.(4)

But in no case are the political motivations driving the new Republican majority on our Supreme Court more evident than in its most recent Harper v. Hall decision, overturning the prohibition of extreme partisan gerrymandering. Justice Earls, in her fiery dissent, pointed out the alarming implications of this decision, stating, "In a single blow, the majority strips millions of voters of this state of their fundamental, constitutional rights." She further criticized the majority for distorting the law to serve the interests of the legislative defendants – the people draw maps to give Republicans a grossly unfair advantage – calling it a "shameful manipulation of fundamental principles of our democracy and the rule of law."

Justice Earls concluded her dissent with a message of hope, expressing confidence that the abuses committed by the majority would eventually be recognized and corrected: "I have no doubt that day will come."

The path to fair maps

How do we stop the right-wing takeover of our courts and protecting the rights of all North Carolinians? We have an opportunity to take back our state courts by 2028 – before new maps are drawn for the next decade. This is North Carolina’s one big shot at fair maps.

The first step is to win our statewide court races in November, chipping away at the GOP’s majorities. This year, there is one seat on the State Supreme Court and three seats on the N.C. Court of Appeals up for election. All of these seats have eight-year terms, so the stakes for each race are high – and each win will have long-term effects.

We have outstanding Democratic candidates for these races – Justice Allison Riggs is seeking a full term on the Supreme Court, Judge Carolyn Thompson is defending her seat on the Court of Appeals, and Ed Eldred and Martin Moore are looking to flip two Court of Appeals seats.

With courts that will protect voting rights, we can stop extreme partisan gerrymandering, get fair maps, and restore democracy in North Carolina.

How you can help

There are many ways to get involved in helping to elect these critical candidates this fall.

Support the candidates directly. Our statewide judicial candidates need donations and volunteer power. Connect with the campaigns directly through the links above or donate to the N.C. Democratic Party’s Judicial Coordinated Campaign.
Learn about our state courts and become a trusted messenger. On Wednesday, Sept. 11, join a Democratic Party virtual event, Taking Back the Courts 101: a crash course for volunteers and voters.
Take part in the Democrats’ Judicial Day of Action on Saturday, September 21 – canvasses will be launched across the state!
Volunteer with or donate to FLIP NC! We have lit drop opportunities no matter where you are in the state.
Talk to everyone you know about voting the full ballot! We must draw attention to these critical races that many voters skip. In 2020, the number of voters who turned out but didn’t vote in the statewide judicial races was greater than the vote margin in every single one of those contests, so it’s critical that we let voters know about these elections and why they matter.

Footnotes

1 380 N.C. 317 (Feb. 14, 2022)

2 Harper v. Hall, 384 N.C. 292 (2023)

3 “[T]his Court has never overruled its decisions lightly. No court has been more faithful to stare decisis.” (State v. Lynch, 334 N.C. 402, 410 (1993). “This Court has always attached great importance to the doctrine of stare decisis, both out of respect for the opinions of our predecessors and because it promotes stability in the law and uniformity in its application.” Wiles v. Welparnel Construction Co. 295 N.C. 81, 85 (1978)).

4 This manner of deciding cases is out of step with our traditional respect for precedent. The doctrine of stare decisis, commonly called the "doctrine of precedents," has been firmly established in the law . . . It means that we should adhere to decided cases and settled principles, and not disturb matters which have been established by judicial determination. The precedent thus made should serve as a rule for future guidance in deciding anal[o]gous cases . . . This is not only a sensible, but a just, principle, and a contrary rule would manifestly be inequitable. . . . We have repeatedly said that the weightiest reasons make it the duty of the court to adhere to its decisions.”