NC judges set redistricting hearing next month

RALEIGH -- Judges hearing redistricting lawsuits declined Monday to order a fast-track trial sought by those challenging the new boundaries for North Carolina legislative and congressional seats, but they set a key hearing date for next month.

A three-judge panel set a scheduling order to consider together the two lawsuits – one filed by Democratic elected leaders and the other by voting and civil rights advocacy groups – that accuse legislators of drawing lines that harm black citizens and will confuse voters. Republican mapmakers and state attorneys defend the maps as lawful.

The judges rejected the request of the attorneys who sued and who requested the combined cases go to trial Feb. 2. The lawyers argued their schedule would bring less disruption to the 2012 elections. The candidate filing period begins Feb. 13.

One of the judges called the request an “extraordinary timetable” during a court hearing late last week. The hearing was first for this round of the once-a-decade mapping based on U.S. census population totals.

Monday’s six-page order set another hearing tentatively set for Jan. 12 to listen to a motion by the state and Legislature to ask the cases be thrown out because they lack merit. The motion to dismiss was filed late Monday.

The panel – Superior Court judges Paul Ridgeway of Wake County, Alma Hinton of Halifax County and Joseph Crosswhite of Iredell County – gave no explanation in Monday’s order for its decision. The judges also didn’t give much of a roadmap beyond the dismissal hearing.

Although the court declined to use the fast-track schedule, the date of the dismissal motion hearing means the case is still moving at a brisk pace, said Eddie Speas, an attorney representing the Democratic officials and voters.

Speas said Monday his clients will evaluate other options for swift rulings on the constitutionality of the new boundaries. They don’t want the maps used in next year’s elections. The order doesn’t prevent them from asking the judges to block the maps’ use while the case is litigated through what’s called a preliminary injunction.

Attorneys for the state defending the maps have said several months of evidence gathering were needed to hear the case because the two lawsuits involved 96 plaintiffs who have raised more than 1,000 allegations. They said any trial ruling upholding or rejecting the maps would likely be appealed, so a primary delay was possible with or without the accelerated schedule.

Speas countered that the lawsuits aren’t that complex and make simple arguments.

The consolidated lawsuit alleges the lines create more majority-black districts than is required by law, which in turn reduce the overall electoral power of black voters. The lines also are illegal because they crossed too many county boundaries and split hundreds of voting precincts, the plaintiffs said.

The state also filed written responses late Monday to the November lawsuits. It argued that those who sued are using legal theories that ignore state and U.S. Supreme Court rulings over the past decade on how boundaries must be drawn while ensuring black voters can elect the candidates of their choice.

The people who sued are unhappy because the maps don’t favor more Democratic candidates, the responses said.

“Plaintiffs want the court to improperly order the state to eliminate majority African-American districts in order to create more districts that will elect candidates from the political party supported by plaintiffs,” attorneys for the state and legislative leaders wrote.