Common Cause v. Lewis Complaint FILED Nov 13 2018

18CVOl4001
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
COUNTY OF WAKE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
Docket No. ~~-
COMMON CAUSE; NORTH CAROLINA

DEMOCRATIC PARTY; PAULA ANN CHAPMAN;
HOWARD DUBOSE; GEORGE DAVID GAUCK; JAMES
MACKIN NESBIT; DWIGHT JORDAN; JOSEPH
THOMAS GATES; MARK S. PETERS; PAMELA
MORTON; VIRGINIA WALTERS BRIEN; JOHN MARK
TURNER; LEON CHARLES SCHALLER; REBECCA
HARPER; LESLEY BROOK WISCHMANN; DAVID
DWIGHT BROWN; AMY CLARE OSEROFF; KRISTIN
PARKER JACKSON; JOHN BALLA; REBECCA
JOHNSON; AARON WOLFF; MARY ANN PEDEN-
COVIELLO; KAREN SUE HOLBROOK; KATHLEEN (Three-Judge Court Pursuant to
BARNES, N.C. Gen. Stat § 1-267.1)
Plaintiffs,
v.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID R. LEWIS, IN HIS

OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SENIOR CHAIRMAN OF
THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON
REDISTRICTING; SENATOR RALPH E. HISE, JR., IN
HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON REDISTRICTING;
SPEAKER OF THE NORTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES TIMOTHY K. MOORE;
PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA SENATE PHILIP E. BERGER; THE STATE
OF NORTH CAROLINA; THE NORTH CAROLINA
STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS
ENFORCEMENT; ANDY PENRY, CHAIRMAN OF THE
NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS
AND ETHICS ENFORCEMENT; JOSHUA MALCOLM,
VICE-CHAIR OF THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE
BOARD OF ELECTIONS & ETHICS ENFORCEMENT;
KEN RAYMOND, SECRETARY OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS & ETHICS
ENFORCEMENT; STELLA ANDERSON, MEMBER OF
THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF
ELECTIONS & ETHICS ENFORCEMENT; DAMON
CIRCOSTA, MEMBER OF THE NORTH CAROLINA
STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS & ETHICS
ENFORCEMENT; STACY “FOUR” EGGERS IV,
MEMBER OF THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD
OF ELECTIONS & ETHICS ENFORCEMENT; JAY
HEMPHILL, MEMBER OF THE NORTH CAROLINA
STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS & ETHICS
ENFORCEMENT; VALERIE JOHNSON, MEMBER OF
THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF
ELECTIONS & ETHICS ENFORCEMENT; JOHN
LEWIS, MEMBER OF THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE
BOARD OF ELECTIONS & ETHICS ENFORCEMENT,
Defendants.
Plaintiffs, complaining of Defendants, say and allege:
INTRODUCTION
1. Partisan gerrymandering is an existential threat to our democracy, and nowhere
more so than in North Carolina. Republicans in the North Carolina General Assembly have
egregiously rigged the state legislative district lines to guarantee that their party will control both
chambers of the General Assembly regardless of how the people of North Carolina vote. This
attack on representative democracy and North Carolinians’ voting rights is wrong. It violates the
North Carolina Constitution. And it needs to stop.
2. In 2011, as part of a national movement by the Republican Party to entrench itself
in power through redistricting, North Carolina Republicans’ mapmaker manipulated district
boundaries with surgical precision to maximize the political advantage of Republican voters and
minimize the representational rights of Democratic voters. And it worked. In the 2012, 2014,
and 2016 elections, Republicans won veto-proof super-majorities in both chambers of the
General Assembly despite winning only narrow majorities of the overall statewide vote.
3. In 2017, after federal courts struck down some of the 2011 districts as illegal
racial gerrymanders, Republicans redoubled their efforts to gerrymander the district lines on
partisan grounds. They instructed the same Republican mapmaker to use partisan data and prior
election results in drawing new districts. The results should outrage anyone who believes in
democracy. In both the state House and state Senate elections in 2018, Democratic candidates
won a majority of the statewide vote, but Republicans still won a substantial majority of seats in
each chamber. The maps are impervious to the will of the voters.
4. It gets worse. Because North Carolina is one of the few states in the country
where the Governor lacks power to veto redistricting legislation, the General Assembly alone
1
will control the next round of redistricting after the 2020 census. Accordingly, as things
currently stand, the Republican majorities in the General Assembly elected under the current
maps will have free reign to redraw both state legislative and congressional district lines for the
next decade. This perpetuates a vicious cycle in which representatives elected under one
gerrymander enact new gerrymanders both to maintain their control of the state legislature and to
rig congressional elections for ten more years. Only the intervention of the judiciary can break
this cycle and protect the constitutional rights of millions of North Carolinians.
5. The North Carolina Constitution prohibits partisan gerrymandering. This State’s
equal protection guarantees provide more robust protections for voting rights than the federal
constitution. Specifically, “[i]t is well settled in this State that the right to vote on equal terms is
a fundamental right.” Stephenson v. Bartlett, 562 S.E.2d 377, 394 (N.C. 2002). There is nothing
“equal” about the “terms” on which North Carolinians vote for candidates for the General
Assembly. North Carolina’s Constitution also commands that “all elections shall be free”—a
provision that has no counterpart in the federal constitution. Elections to the North Carolina
General Assembly are not “free” when the outcomes are predetermined by partisan actors sitting
behind a computer. And the North Carolina Constitution’s free speech and association
guarantees prohibit the General Assembly from burdening the speech and associational rights of
voters and organizations because the General Assembly disfavors their political views.
6. No matter how the U.S. Supreme Court resolves longstanding questions about
partisan gerrymandering under the federal constitution, North Carolina’s Constitution
independently secures the rights of North Carolina citizens. This State’s courts should not
hesitate to enforce North Carolina’s unique protections here. This Court should invalidate the
2017 Plans and order that new, fair maps be used for the 2020 elections.
2
PARTIES
A. Plaintiffs
7. Common Cause brings this action on its own behalf and on behalf of its members
who are registered voters in North Carolina whose votes have been diluted or nullified under the
districting plans enacted by the General Assembly in 2017 for the North Carolina House of
Representatives and North Carolina Senate (the “2017 Plans”). Common Cause is a non-profit
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the District of Columbia. It is a nonpartisan
democracy organization with over 1.2 million members and local organizations in 35 states,
including North Carolina. Common Cause has members in every North Carolina House and
Senate district. Since its founding by John Gardner in 1970, Common Cause has been dedicated
to fair elections and making government at all levels more representative, open, and responsive
to the interests of ordinary people. “For the past twenty-five years, Common Cause has been one
of the leading proponents of redistricting reform.” Jonathan Winburn, The Realities of
Redistricting p. 205 (2008). The 2017 Plans frustrate Common Cause’s mission to promote
participation in democracy and to ensure open, honest, and accountable government. The 2017
Plans burden Common Cause’s ability to convince voters in gerrymandered districts to vote in
state legislative elections and communicate with legislators. The 2017 Plans also burden
Common Cause’s ability to communicate effectively with legislators and to influence them to
enact laws that promote voting, participatory democracy, public funding of elections, and other
measures that encourage accountable government.
8. The North Carolina Democratic Party (“NCDP”) brings this action on its own
behalf and on behalf of its members who are registered voters in North Carolina whose votes
have been diluted or nullified as a result of the gerrymandering of the 2017 Plans. The NCDP is
a political party as defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-96. Its purposes are (i) to bring people
3
together to develop public policies and positions favorable to NCDP members and the public
generally, (ii) to identify candidates who will support and defend those policies and positions,
and (iii) to persuade voters to cast their ballots for those candidates. The NCDP has members in
every North Carolina House and Senate district. The partisan gerrymanders under the 2017
Plans discriminate against the NCDP’s members because of their past votes, their political views,
and their party affiliations. The gerrymanders also discriminate against the NCDP itself on the
basis of its viewpoints and affiliations, and the plans frustrate and burden NCDP’s ability to
achieve its essential purposes and to carry out its core functions, including registering voters,
attracting volunteers, raising money in gerrymandered districts, campaigning, turning out the
vote, and ultimately electing candidates who will pursue policies favorable to NCDP members
and the public generally in the North Carolina General Assembly. The NCDP must expend
additional funds and other resources than it would otherwise to combat the effects of the partisan
gerrymanders under the 2017 Plans, and even then, the 2017 Plans make it impossible for
Democrats to win a majority in either chamber of the legislature.
9. Plaintiff Paula Ann Chapman is a retired small business owner residing in
Charlotte, North Carolina, within House District 100 and Senate District 40. Ms. Chapman is a
registered Democrat who has consistently voted for Democratic candidates for the General
Assembly. House District 100 and Senate District 40 are both packed Democratic districts. In
2018, the Democratic candidate won these districts with over 70% and 75% of the vote.
10. Plaintiff Howard DuBose is a retired school teacher and Army veteran residing in
Hurdle Mills, North Carolina, within House District 2. Mr. DuBose is a registered Democrat
who has consistently voted for Democratic candidates for the General Assembly. Democratic
4
voters in House District 2 are cracked from Democratic voters in House District 32. In 2018, the
Republican candidate won House District 2 with roughly 55% of the vote.
11. Plaintiff George David Gauck is a retired software engineer residing in Southport,
North Carolina, within House District 17 and Senate District 8. Mr. Gauck is a registered
Democrat who has consistently voted for Democratic candidates for the General Assembly.
House District 17 is adjacent to the packed Democratic House District 18. In 2018, the
Republican candidate won House District 17 with over 63% of the vote. A heavily Democratic
area in Wilmington is extracted from Senate District 9 and placed in Senate District 8 to make
Senate District 9 as competitive as possible for Republicans. As a result, in 2018, Senate District
9 was a near tie, while Republicans won Senate District 8 by a comfortable margin.
12. Plaintiff James Mackin Nesbit is a retired kindergarten teacher residing in
Wilmington, North Carolina, within House District 19 and Senate District 9. Mr. Nesbit is a
Assembly. House District 19 borders the packed Democratic House District 18. The Republican
candidate has won every election in House District 19 since the 2011 redistricting, running
unopposed in 2014 and 2016. A heavily Democratic area in Wilmington is extracted from
Senate District 9 and placed in Senate District 8 to make Senate District 9 as competitive as
possible for Republicans. As a result, in 2018, the election in Senate District 9 was a near tie.
13. Plaintiff Dwight Jordan is a customer support professional residing in Nashville,
North Carolina, within House District 25 and Senate District 11. Mr. Jordan is a registered
Democrat who has consistently voted for Democratic candidates for the General Assembly.
House District 25 is a packed Democratic district that was constructed to ensure that neighboring
House District 7 would elect a Republican, which occurred in 2018. The county cluster
5
encompassing Senate District 11 cracks Democratic voters across its three districts (10, 11, and
12). In 2018, the Republican candidate won Senate District 11 with roughly 56% of the vote.
14. Plaintiff Joseph Thomas Gates is a former Colonel in the Air Force and a retired
information technology project manager residing in Weaverville, North Carolina, within Senate
District 49. Mr. Gates is registered as unaffiliated and has consistently voted for Democratic
candidates for the General Assembly. Senate District 49 is a packed Democratic district. In
2018, the Democratic candidate won Senate District 49 with over 63% of the vote.
15. Plaintiff Mark S. Peters is a retired physician assistant residing in Fletcher, North
Carolina, within Senate District 48. Mr. Peters is registered as unaffiliated and has consistently
voted for Democratic candidates for the General Assembly. Senate District 48 was drawn to
avoid the Democratic areas in and around Asheville to ensure that the district would lean
Republican. In 2018, the Republican candidate won Senate District 48 by roughly 13 points.
16. Plaintiff Pamela Morton is a retired professional in the financial industry residing
in Charlotte, North Carolina, within House District 100 and Senate District 37. Ms. Morton is a
2018, the Democratic candidates won these districts with over 70% and 78% of the vote.
17. Plaintiff Virginia Walters Brien is a sales manager residing in Charlotte, North
Carolina, within House District 102 and Senate District 37. Ms. Brien is a registered unaffiliated
who has consistently voted for Democratic candidates for the General Assembly. House District
102 and Senate District 37 are both packed Democratic districts. In 2018, the Democratic
candidates won these districts with over 83% and 78% of the vote.
6
18. Plaintiff John Mark Turner is a Navy veteran and a system administrator residing
in Raleigh, North Carolina, within House District 38 and Senate District 15. Mr. Turner is a
2018, the Democratic candidates won these districts with over 81% and 73% of the vote.
19. Plaintiff Leon Charles Schaller is a retired safety and fire protection engineer
residing in Burlington, North Carolina, within House District 64. Mr. Schaller is registered as an
unaffiliated voter but has consistently voted for Democratic candidates for the General
Assembly. The county cluster that contains House Districts 63 and 64 was not changed in the
2017 Plans and retains the same district lines enacted in 2011. In constructing the cluster, the
General Assembly cracked Democratic voters in Burlington across the two districts. Republican
candidates have won every election in House District 64 since the 2011 redistricting—with over
58% of the vote in 2012 and 2018, and running unopposed in 2014 and 2016.
20. Plaintiff Rebecca Harper is a real estate agent residing in Cary, North Carolina,
within House District 36 and Senate District 17. Ms. Harper is registered as a Democrat and has
consistently voted for Democratic candidates for the General Assembly. The General Assembly
packed several districts surrounding House District 36 with Democratic voters to make House
District 36 as Republican as possible. In 2018, the Democratic candidate won House District 36
with barely over 50% of the two-party vote. The General Assembly similarly packed several
districts surrounding Senate District 17 to make Senate District 17 as competitive for
Republicans as possible. In 2018, the Democratic candidate narrowly won Senate District 17.
21. Plaintiff Lesley Brook Wischmann is a semi-retired writer and historian residing
in Holly Ridge, North Carolina, within House District 15. Ms. Wischmann is registered as a
7
Democrat and has consistently voted for Democratic candidates for the General Assembly. The
General Assembly cracked Democratic voters across House Districts 14 and 15. In 2018, the
Republican candidate won House District 15 with roughly 66% of the vote.
22. Plaintiff David Dwight Brown is a semi-retired computer systems analyst residing
in Greensboro, North Carolina, within House District 58. Mr. Brown is a registered Democrat
58 is a packed Democratic district. In 2018, the Democratic candidate won House District 58
with over 76% of the vote.
23. Plaintiff Amy Clare Oseroff is a teacher residing in Greenville, North Carolina,
within House District 8. Ms. Oseroff is a registered Democrat who has consistently voted for
Democratic candidates for the General Assembly. The General Assembly packed Greenville’s
most heavily Democratic areas into House District 8 to create a strongly Democratic district,
ensuring that nearby House Districts 9 and 12 would favor Republicans. In 2018, the
Democratic candidate won House District 8 with over 64% of the vote.
24. Plaintiff Kristin Parker Jackson is a paralegal residing in Matthews, North
Carolina, within House District 103 and Senate District 39. Ms. Jackson is a registered
Democrat who has consistently voted for Democratic candidates for the General Assembly. The
General Assembly packed Democrats into the districts surrounding House District 103 to make
House District 103 as Republican-leaning as possible. In 2018, House District 103 was a virtual
tie. Senate District 39 is a Republican-leaning district that borders packed Democratic districts.
In 2018, the Republican candidate won Senate District 39 with roughly 53% of the vote.
25. Plaintiff John Balla is a digital marketing strategist residing in Raleigh, North
Carolina, within House District 34 and Senate District 16. Mr. Balla is a registered Democrat
8
who has consistently voted for Democratic candidates for the General Assembly in every
election since he moved to North Carolina. House District 34 and Senate District 16 are both
packed Democratic districts. In 2018, the Democratic candidates won both districts with over
65% of the vote.
26. Plaintiff Rebecca Johnson is a retired educator residing in Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, within House District 74 and Senate District 31. Ms. Johnson is a registered Democrat
74 adjoins two packed Democratic districts, allowing House District 74 to favor Republicans. In
2018, the Republican candidate won House District 74 with more than 54% of the vote. Senate
District 31—which cradles Senate District 32, a packed Democratic district—leans Republican.
In 2018, the Republican candidate won Senate District 31 with over 61% of the vote.
27. Plaintiff Aaron Wolff is a veterinarian residing in Holly Springs, North Carolina,
within House District 37 and Senate District 17. Mr. Wolff is a registered Democrat who has
consistently voted for Democratic candidates for the General Assembly. The General Assembly
packed as many Democrats as possible into the districts surrounding House District 37 and
Senate District 17 to make these districts as favorable to Republicans as possible. In 2018,
Democratic candidates won both districts with bare majorities.
28. Plaintiff Mary Ann Peden-Coviello is a writer and editor residing in Winston-
Salem, North Carolina, within House District 72 and Senate District 32. Ms. Peden-Coviello is a
Assembly. House District 72 is a packed Democratic district. In 2018, the Democratic candidate
won House District 72 with 79% of the vote. Senate District 32 is a packed Democratic district
9
that was drawn to ensure that neighboring Senate District 31 would elect a Republican. In 2018,
the Democratic candidate won Senate District 32 with 72% of the vote.
29. Plaintiff Kathleen Barnes is the owner of a small publishing company who resides
in Brevard, North Carolina, within House District 113 and Senate District 48. Ms. Barnes is a
registered Democrat and has consistently voted for Democratic candidates for the North Carolina
General Assembly. The Democrats who reside in House District 113, like Ms. Barnes, were
strategically placed in a different district from the Democratic voters around Hendersonville to
ensure that Republicans were favored in both districts. In the 2018 elections, the Republican
candidate won the House District 113 election with over 57% of the vote. Senate District 48 was
similarly cracked, splitting the Democratic voters in Brevard from the strong base of Democratic
voters in nearby Asheville so that Senate District 48 was Republican-leaning. In 2018, the
Republican candidate won Senate District 48 with over 56% of the vote.
30. Karen Sue Holbrook is a retired psychology professor residing in Southport,
North Carolina, within House District 17 and Senate District 8. Ms. Holbrook is a registered
Democrat who has consistently voted for Democratic candidates for the General Assembly. In
the county cluster containing House District 17, the General Assembly packed Democratic voters
into House District 18 to make House District 17 and the other districts in the cluster lean
Republican. In 2018, the Republican candidate won House District 17 with over 63% of the
vote. With respect to Senate District 8, a heavily Democratic area in Wilmington is extracted
from Senate District 9 and placed in Senate District 8 to make Senate District 9 as competitive as
possible for Republicans. As a result, in 2018, Senate District 9 was a near tie, while
Republicans won Senate District 8 with a comfortable margin.
10
B. Defendants
31. Defendant David R. Lewis is a member of the North Carolina House of
Representatives who represents House District 53. In 2017, Representative Lewis served as
Senior Chairman of the House Select Committee on Redistricting that oversaw the creation of
2017 Plans. Defendant Lewis is sued in his official capacity only.
32. Defendant Ralph E. Hise, Jr. is a member of the North Carolina Senate,
representing Senate District 39. In 2017, Senator Hise served as Chairman of the Senate
Committee on Redistricting that oversaw the creation of the 2017 Plans. Defendant Hise is sued
in his official capacity only.
33. Defendant Timothy K. Moore is the Speaker of the North Carolina House of
Representatives. Defendant Moore is sued in his official capacity only.
34. Defendant Philip E. Berger is the President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina
Senate. Defendant Berger is sued in his official capacity only.
35. Defendant the State of North Carolina has its capital in Raleigh, North Carolina.
36. Defendant North Carolina State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement is an
agency responsible for the regulation and administration of elections in North Carolina.
37. Defendant Andy Penry is the Chairman of the North Carolina State Board of
Elections and Ethics Enforcement. Mr. Penry is sued in his official capacity only.
38. Defendant Joshua Malcolm is the Vice Chair of the North Carolina State Board of
Elections and Ethics Enforcement. Mr. Malcolm is sued in his official capacity only.
39. Defendant Ken Raymond is the Secretary of the North Carolina State Board of
Elections and Ethics Enforcement. Mr. Raymond is sued in his official capacity only.
11
40. Defendant Stella Anderson is a member of the North Carolina State Board of
Elections and Ethics Enforcement. Ms. Anderson is sued in her official capacity only.
41. Defendant Damon Circosta is a member of the North Carolina State Board of
Elections and Ethics Enforcement. Mr. Circosta is sued in his official capacity only.
42. Defendant Stacy “Four” Eggers IV is a member of the North Carolina State Board
of Elections and Ethics Enforcement. Mr. Eggers is sued in his official capacity only.
43. Defendant Jay Hemphill is a member of the North Carolina State Board of
Elections and Ethics Enforcement. Mr. Hemphill is sued in his official capacity only.
44. Defendant Valerie Johnson is a member of the North Carolina State Board of
Elections and Ethics Enforcement. Ms. Johnson is sued in her official capacity only.
45. Defendant John Lewis is a member of the North Carolina State Board of Elections
and Ethics Enforcement. Mr. Lewis is sued in his official capacity only.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
46. This Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to Articles 26 and 26A of
Chapter 1 of the General Statutes.
47. Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-81.1, the exclusive venue for this action is the Wake
County Superior Court.
48. Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-267.1, a three-judge court must be convened because
this action challenges the validity of redistricting plans enacted by the General Assembly.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. National Republican Party Officials Target North Carolina For Partisan

Gerrymandering Prior to the 2010 Elections
49. In the years leading up to the 2010 decennial census, national Republican leaders
undertook a sophisticated and concerted effort to gain control of state governments in critical
12
swing states such as North Carolina. The Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC)
codenamed the plan “the REDistricting Majority Project” or “REDMAP.” REDMAP’s goal was
to “control[] the redistricting process in . . . states [that] would have the greatest impact on
determining how both state legislative and congressional district boundaries would be drawn”
after the 2010 census. The RSLC’s REDMAP website explained that fixing these district lines in
favor of Republicans would “solidify conservative policymaking at the state level and maintain a
Republican stronghold in the U.S. House of Representatives for the next decade.”
50. North Carolina was a key REDMAP “target state.” REDMAP aimed to flip both
chambers of the North Carolina General Assembly from Democratic to Republican control.
51. To spearhead its efforts in North Carolina, the RSLC enlisted the most influential
conservative donor in North Carolina, Art Pope. The RSLC and Pope targeted 22 races in the
North Carolina House and Senate. Pope helped create a new non-profit organization called
“Real Jobs NC” to finance spending on the races, and the RSLC donated $1.25 million to this
new group. Pope himself made significant contributions; in total, Pope, his family, and groups
backed by him spent $2.2 million on the 22 targeted races. This represented three-quarters of the
total spending by all independent groups in North Carolina on the 2010 state legislative races.
52. The money was well spent. Republicans won 18 of the 22 races the RSLC
targeted, giving Republicans control of both the House and Senate for the first time since 1870.
B. Republican Mapmakers Create the 2011 Plans from Party Headquarters
53. After taking control of both chambers of the General Assembly, Republicans set
out to redraw district lines to entrench Republicans in power. The RSLC’s President and CEO,
Chris Jankowski, sent a letter to officials in Republican-controlled states (including North
Carolina) offering the RSLC’s assistance with the upcoming redistricting. Jankowski explained
that the RSLC had “taken the initiative to retain a team of seasoned redistricting experts,” and
13
the RSLC would happily make this team “available to” the Republican state officials.
Jankowski noted that RSLC’s expert “redistricting team” was “led by Tom Hofeller,” who had
been the principal redistricting strategist for the Republican Party for decades.
54. Republicans leaders in the North Carolina General Assembly took Jankowski up
on his offer. The drawing of the new North Carolina House and Senate plans (the “2011 Plans”)
was not done by any committee or subcommittee of the General Assembly. Instead, it was
primarily done by four Republican Party operatives: (1) Hofeller; (2) John Morgan, another
national Republican mapmaker and longtime associate of Hofeller, (3) Dale Oldham, an attorney
who served as counsel to the Republican National Committee; and (4) Joel Raupe, a former aide
to several Republican representatives in the North Carolina Senate. A newly created shadow
organization known as “Fair and Legal Redistricting North Carolina” paid for Morgan’s and
Raupe’s work, while Hofeller was paid with a combination of state funds and money from the
RSLC’s non-profit arm the State Government Leadership Foundation.
55. Hofeller and his team worked out of the basement of the state Republican Party
headquarters on Hillsborough Street in Raleigh. They did not use a government computer to
create the new plans. Rather, they created the new plans using computers owned by the
Republican National Committee and software licensed by the state Republican Party.
56. The map-making process was shielded from public view. Only a small group of
individuals that included Hofeller’s team and Republican leaders in the General Assembly saw
the first drafts of the maps before they were publicly released in June 2011.
57. One person who was allowed to directly participate in the map-drawing process
was mega-donor Art Pope. Despite not being a practicing lawyer, Pope served as “pro bono”
counsel to the state legislature and met several times with Hofeller and his team at Republican
14
Party headquarters while they were working on the new plans. Pope even proposed specific
changes to certain districts.
58. Although Republicans drew their maps in secret, their intentions were clear as
day. Their goal was to maximize the number of seats Republicans would win in the General
Assembly through whatever means necessary.
59. Hofeller later admitted that, in creating the 2011 Plans, his team used past election
results in North Carolina to predict the “partisan voting behavior” of the new districts.
Republican leaders in the General Assembly likewise later admitted in court filings that
“[p]olitical considerations played a significant role in the enacted [2011] plans,” and that the
plans were “designed to ensure Republican majorities in the House and Senate.” Dickson v.
Rucho, No. 201PA12-3, 2015 WL 4456364, at *16, 55 (N.C. July 13, 2015). The Republican
leaders asserted that they were “perfectly free” to engage in partisan gerrymandering, and that
they had done just that in constructing the 2011 Plans. Dickson v. Rucho, No. 201PA12-2, 2013
WL 6710857, at *60 (N.C. Dec. 9, 2013).
C. Republicans Enact the 2011 Plans To Entrench Their Party’s Political Power
60. The General Assembly adopted the Hofeller-drawn plans in July 2011, designated
HB 937 and SB 45 respectively. Not a single Democrat in the General Assembly voted for either
plan, and only one Republican representative voted against them.
61. Shortly thereafter, legislators learned that certain census blocks were not assigned
to any district in the enacted plans. In November 2011, the General Assembly passed curative
House and Senate plans, designated HB 776 and SB 282 respectively, to add the previously
omitted blocks. No Democrat voted for either curative plan.
15
D. The 2011 Plans Gave Republicans Super-Majorities That Were Grossly
Disproportionate to Republicans’ Share of the Statewide Vote
62. The 2011 Plans achieved exactly the effect that Republicans in the General
Assembly intended. In the 2012 election, the parties’ vote shares for the North Carolina House
of Representatives were nearly evenly split across the state, with Democrats receiving 48.4% of
the two-party statewide vote. But Democrats won only 43 of 120 seats (36%). In other words,
Republicans won a veto-proof majority in the state House—64% of the seats (77 of 120)—
despite winning just a bare majority of the statewide vote. Further, because of the rigging of
district lines, 53 of the 120 House races were uncontested.
63. In the 2012 Senate elections, Democrats won nearly half of the statewide vote
(48.8%), but won only 18 of 50 seats (36%). Republicans thus won a veto-proof majority in the
Senate while winning only a tiny majority of the total statewide vote.
64. In 2014, Republican candidates for the House won 54.4% of the statewide vote,
and again won a super-majority of seats (74 of 120, or 61.6%). Over half of the House seats, 62
of 120, went uncontested in 2014.
65. In the 2014 Senate elections, Republicans won 54.3% of statewide vote and 68%
of the seats (34 of 50). There were 21 uncontested elections in the Senate in 2014, with
Republicans winning 12 uncontested districts and Democrats winning 9.
66. In 2016, Republicans again won 74 of 120 House seats, or 62%, this time with
52.6% of the statewide vote. Nearly half of all of the House seats were uncontested (59 of 120).
67. In the 2016 Senate elections, Republicans won 55.9% of the statewide vote and
70% of the seats (35 of 50). Republicans held 12 uncontested seats compared to 6 for
Democrats, for a total of 18 uncontested races.
68. The below charts summarizes the election results under the 2011 Plans:
16
House Senate
Year Republican Republican Republican Republican
Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of
Statewide Vote Seats Won Statewide Vote Seats Won
2012 51.6% 64.2% (77 of 120) 51.2% 64.0% (32 of 50)
2014 54.4% 61.6% (74 of 120) 54.3% 68.0% (34 of 50)
2016 52.6% 61.6% (74 of 120) 55.9% 70.0% (35 of 50)
E. A Federal Court Strikes Down Many Districts as Racially Gerrymandered
69. The 2011 Plans led to substantial litigation, including the federal lawsuit styled
Covington v. North Carolina, No. 1:15-CV-00399 (M.D.N.C.). In Covington, the plaintiffs
challenged 19 districts in the North Carolina House (5, 7, 12, 21, 24, 29, 31, 32, 33, 38, 42, 43,
48, 57, 58, 60, 99, 102, and 107) and 9 districts in the North Carolina Senate (4, 5, 14, 20, 21, 28,
32, 38, and 40). They alleged that race predominated in the drawing of these districts, in
violation of the federal Equal Protection Clause. In August 2016, the federal district court found
for the plaintiffs as to all of the challenged districts, but permitted the General Assembly to wait
until after the November 2016 elections to enact remedial plans. Covington v. North Carolina,
316 F.R.D. 176, 176-78 (M.D.N.C. 2016). The U.S. Supreme Court summarily affirmed this
decision. 137 S. Ct. 2211 (2017).
70. In a subsequent order, the district court gave the General Assembly a deadline of
September 1, 2017 to enact new House and Senate plans remedying the racial gerrymanders the
court had found. Covington v. North Carolina, 267 F. Supp. 3d 664 (M.D.N.C. 2017).
F. The General Assembly Enacts the 2017 Plans To Dilute the Voting Power of
Democratic Voters and Maximize the Political Advantage of Republicans
71. The General Assembly began developing new House and Senate plans in June
2017. On June 30, 2017, Senator Berger appointed 15 senators—10 Republicans and
5 Democrats—to the Senate Committee on Redistricting. Senator Hise was appointed Chair.
17
72. Also on June 30, 2017, Representative Moore appointed 41 House members—28
Republicans and 13 Democrats—to the House Select Committee on Redistricting.
Representative Lewis was appointed Senior Chair.
73. At a July 26, 2017 joint meeting of the House and Senate Redistricting
Committees, Representative Lewis and Senator Hise disclosed that Republican leadership would
again employ Dr. Hofeller to draw the new House and Senate plans. When Democratic Senator
Terry Van Duyn asked whether Hofeller would “be available to Democrats and maybe even the
Black Caucus to consult,” Representative Lewis answered “no.” Joint Comm. Hr’g, July 26,
2017, at 22-23. Representative Lewis explained that, “with the approval of the Speaker and the
President Pro Tem of the Senate,” “Dr. Hofeller is working as a consultant to the Chairs,” i.e., as
a consultant only to Representative Lewis and Senator Hise. Id. at 23.
74. In overseeing the 2016 redrawing of North Carolina’s congressional districts,
Representative Lewis had previously explained that Hofeller is “very fluent in being able to help
legislators translate their desires” into the district lines, and that Representative Lewis’ “desires”
are to elect as many Republicans as possible. Representative Lewis said about the newly created
congressional districts: “I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats. So I
drew this map in a way to help foster what I think is better for the country.”
75. On August 4, 2017, at another joint meeting of the House and Senate
Redistricting Committees, Representative Lewis and Senator Hise advised Committee members
that the Covington decision invalidating 28 districts on federal constitutional grounds had
rendered a large number of additional districts invalid under the Whole County Provision of the
North Carolina Constitution, and those districts would also have to be redrawn.
18
76. At this meeting, the Committees allowed 31 citizens to speak for two minutes
each about the manner in which the House and Senate maps should be redrawn. All speakers
urged the members to adopt fair maps free of partisan bias. The Committees ignored them.
77. At another joint meeting on August 10, 2017, the House and Senate Redistricting
Committees voted on criteria to purportedly govern the new plans.
78. Representative Lewis proposed as one criterion: “election data[:] political
consideration and election results data may be used in drawing up legislative districts in the 2017
House and Senate plans.” Joint Comm. Hr’g, Aug. 20, 2017, at 132. Representative Lewis
provided no further explanation or justification for this criterion in introducing it, stating only: “I
believe this is pretty self-explanatory, and I would urge members to adopt the criteria.” Id.
79. Democratic members repeatedly pressed Representative Lewis for details on how
Hofeller would use the elections data and for what purpose. Senator Clark asked, for instance:
“You’re going to collect the political data. What specifically would the Committee do with it?”
Id. at 135. Representative Lewis answered that “the Committee could look at the political data
as evidence to how, perhaps, votes have been cast in the past.” Id. When Senator Clark inquired
why the Committees would consider election results if not to predict future voting behavior,
Representative Lewis offered no substantive answer, stating only that “the consideration of
political data in terms of election results is an established districting criteria, and it’s one that I
propose that this committee use in drawing the map.” Id. at 141.
80. The House and Senate Committees adopted the “election data” criterion on a
party-line vote. Id. at 141-48. No Democrat on the Committees voted for the criterion, but all 32
Republican members of the Committees did. Id.
19
81. Representative Lewis disclosed that the specific election results that Hofeller
would use were the U.S. Senate election in 2010, the elections for President, Governor, and
Lieutenant Governor in 2012, the U.S. Senate election in 2014, and the elections for President,
U.S. Senate, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Attorney General in 2016. Id. at 137-38.
82. Senator Clark proposed an amendment that would prohibit the General Assembly
from seeking to maintain or establish a partisan advantage for any party in redrawing the plans.
Id. at 166-67. Representative Lewis opposed the amendment without explanation, stating only
that he “would not advocate for [its] passage.” Id. at 167. The Committees rejected Senator
Clark’s proposal on a straight party-line vote. Id. at 168-74.
83. As a further criterion, Representative Lewis proposed incumbency protection.
Specifically, he proposed that “reasonable efforts and political considerations may be used to
avoid pairing incumbent members of the House or Senate with another incumbent in legislative
districts drawn in 2017 House and Senate plans.” Id. at 119.
84. Representative Darren Jackson objected to protecting incumbents who were
elected under the unconstitutional prior maps. Id. at 120. Senator Van Duyn likewise stated that
new districts “should represent the voters and not elected officials,” and therefore she
“fundamentally believe[d] that incumbency should not be a criteria.” Id. at 123.
85. The House and Senate Committees adopted the incumbency-protection criterion
on a straight-party line vote. Id. at 125-32. All 32 Republican members of the Committees
voted in favor, and all 18 Democratic members voted against. Id.
86. The Committees also adopted as criteria, along straight party-line votes, that the
Committees would make “reasonable efforts” to split fewer precincts than under the 2011 Plans,
20
and that the Committees “may consider municipal boundaries” in drawing the new districts.
Covington, id. at 66, 79, 98-104, 112-19.
87. As a final criterion, Representative Lewis proposed that the Committees be
prohibited from considering racial data in drawing the new House and Senate plans. Covington,
ECF 184-9 at 148. Representative Lewis and other Republican leaders thus explicitly asserted
that no districts would be drawn with the goal of complying with Section 2 of the Voting Rights
Act. See id. at 157. Republican leaders added in a later court filing that, “[t]o the extent that any
district in the 2017 House and Senate redistricting plans exceed 50% BVAP, such a result was
naturally occurring and the General Assembly did not conclude that the Voting Rights Act
obligated it to draw any such district.” Covington, ECF No. 184 at 10.
88. The full criteria adopted by the Committees for the 2017 Plans read as follows:
Equal Population. The Committees shall use the 2010 federal decennial census
data as the sole basis of population for drawing legislative districts in the 2017
House and Senate plans. The number of persons in each legislative district shall
comply with the +/- 5 percent population deviation standard established by
Stephenson v. Bartlett, 355 N.C. 354, 562 S.E. 2d 377 (2002).
Contiguity. Legislative districts shall be comprised of contiguous territory.

Contiguity by water is sufficient.
County Groupings and Traversals. The Committees shall draw legislative districts
within county groupings as required by Stephenson v. Bartlett, 355 N.C. 354, 562
S.E. 2d 377 (2002) (Stephenson I), Stephenson v. Bartlett, 357 N.C. 301, 582
S.E.2d 247 (2003) (Stephenson II), Dickson v. Rucho, 367 N.C. 542, 766 S.E.2d
238 (2014) (Dickson I) and Dickson v. Rucho, 368 N.C. 481, 781 S.E.2d 460
(2015) (Dickson II). Within county groupings, county lines shall not be traversed
except as authorized by Stephenson I, Stephenson II, Dickson I, and Dickson II.
Compactness. The Committees shall make reasonable efforts to draw legislative

districts in the 2017 House and Senate plans that improve the compactness of the
current districts. In doing so, the Committees may use as a guide the minimum
Reock (“dispersion”) and Polsby-Popper (“perimeter”) scores identified by
Richard H. Pildes and Richard G. Neimi in Expressive Harms, “Bizarre
Districts,” and Voting Rights: Evaluating Election-District Appearances After
Shaw v. Reno, 92 Mich. L. Rev. 483 (1993).
21
Fewer Split Precincts. The Committees shall make reasonable efforts to draw
legislative districts in the 2017 House and Senate plans that split fewer precincts
than the current legislative redistricting plans.
Municipal Boundaries. The Committees may consider municipal boundaries when

drawing legislative districts in the 2017 House and Senate plans.
Incumbency Protection. Reasonable efforts and political considerations may be

used to avoid pairing incumbent members of the House or Senate with another
incumbent in legislative districts drawn in the 2017 House and Senate plans. The
Committees may make reasonable efforts to ensure voters have a reasonable
opportunity to elect non-paired incumbents of either party to a district in the 2017
House and Senate plans.
Election Data. Political considerations and election results data may be used in the
drawing of legislative districts in the 2017 House and Senate plans.
No Consideration of Racial Data. Data identifying the race of individuals or

voters shall not be used in the drawing of legislative districts in the 2017 House
and Senate plans.
Covington, ECF No. 184-37.
89. Republican leaders in the General Assembly “did not introduce any evidence
regarding what additional instructions, if any, Representative Lewis or Senator Hise provided to
Dr. Hofeller about the proper use and weighting of the various criteria.” Covington v. North
Carolina, 283 F. Supp. 3d 410, 418 (M.D.N.C. 2018). “Nor did they offer any evidence as to
how Dr. Hofeller weighted or ordered the criteria in drawing the proposed remedial maps, either
in general or as to any particular district.” Id.
90. As in 2011, no committee or subcommittee of the General Assembly participated
in drawing the new maps. Instead, Hofeller again drew the maps in secret, under the direction of
Representative Lewis and Senator Hise. Representative Lewis would admit that he “primarily . .
. directed how the [House] map was produced,” and that he, Hofeller, and Representative Nelson
22
Dollar were the only “three people” who had even “seen it prior to its public publication.” N.C.
House Floor Session Hr’g, Aug. 28, 2017, at 40.
91. And as in 2011, Hofeller did not use a government computer in creating the new
districts. On information and belief, he used a personal computer instead.
92. Representative Lewis and Senator Hise released the proposed House and Senate
plans on August 21, 2017.
93. At a Senate Redistricting Committee hearing three days later, Senate Van Duyn
asked Senator Hise how the prior elections data had been used in drawing the proposed maps.
Senator Hise admitted that they “did make partisan considerations when drawing particular
districts.” Senate Comm. Hr’g, Aug. 24, 2017, at 26.
94. Outside expert analyses confirmed that the proposed maps were gerrymandered to
favor Republicans. The Campaign Legal Center calculated the “efficiency gap” of the proposed
plans. The efficiency gap measures how efficiently a party’s voters are distributed across
districts. For each party, the efficiency gap calculates that party’s number of “wasted” votes,
defined as the number of votes cast for losing candidates of that party (as a measure of cracked
votes) plus the number of votes cast for winning candidates in excess of 50% (as a measure of
packed votes). The lower each of these numbers, the fewer wasted votes and the more likely a
party is to win additional seats. The efficiency gap equals the difference in the total wasted votes
between the two parties, divided by the total number of votes cast in the election. Using the
same elections data that the Committees used to develop the proposed maps, the Campaign Legal
Center calculated that the proposed House plan had an efficiency gap of 11.98% in Republicans’
favor, and the proposed Senate plan had an efficiency gap of 11.87% in Republicans’ favor.
23
Covington, ECF No. 187-3 at 2. The Campaign Legal Center explained that, “[b]y historical
standards, these are extraordinarily large figures, revealing an enormous Republican edge.” Id.
95. Other statistical analyses found the same. Dr. Gregory Herschlag, a professor of
mathematics at Duke University, created tens of thousands of alternative, non-partisan Senate
districting configurations within Wake, Mecklenburg, Cumberland, and Guilford Counties. Dr.
Herschlag created these simulated districting plans using the traditional districting criteria of
equal population, compactness, avoiding splitting precincts, and contiguity. Covington, ECF No.
187-3 at 10 ¶ 6. Dr. Herschlag then compared the expected outcomes under these simulated
districts with those under the Republican leaders’ proposed districts in the same counties. Dr.
Herschlag found that, using the votes cast in the 2012 and 2016 Presidential elections, the 2014
and 2016 U.S. Senate elections, the 2012 and 2014 U.S. House of Representatives elections, and
the 2016 Governor election to predict partisan outcomes, the Republicans leaders’ proposed
districts were more favorable to Republicans than 99.9% of the non-partisan simulations. Id.
¶ 12. Plaintiffs in this case will show that similar results hold across the state.
96. The extreme partisan bias of the proposed plans was also apparent from the
elections data that the House and Senate Redistricting Committees themselves released with the
proposals. The Committees provided data on the partisan breakdown of each proposed district
using the state and federal elections that the Committees considered in drawing the districts.
97. The chart below shows the number of House districts Republicans would be
expected to win under the Committees’ House plan when overlaying the results of each election
the General Assembly considered. These expected seats approximate the number of seats
Republicans actually won under the 2011 House plan (77 in 2012, 74 in 2014, and 74 in 2016).
24
Election Expected Republican Seats Under
Committees’ House Plan
2010 U.S. Senate 82
2012 Lieutenant Governor 74
2012 Governor 72
2012 President 78
2014 U.S. Senate 76
2016 Attorney General 77
2016 Governor 72
2016 U.S. Senate 79
2016 President 76
98. The following chart shows the number of Senate districts Republicans would be
expected to win under the Committees’ Senate plan when overlaying the results of each of the
elections that the General Assembly considered. These expected Republican seats approximate
the number of seats Republicans actually won under the 2011 Senate plan (which were 32, 34,
and 35 seats in 2012, 2014, and 2016 respectively).
Election Expected Republican Seats Under

Committees’ Senate Plan
2010 U.S. Senate 35
2012 Governor 33
2012 President 33
2014 U.S. Senate 33
2016 Attorney General 31
2016 Governor 32
2016 U.S. Senate 34
2016 President 33
99. Thus, for example, overlaying the results of the 2014 U.S. Senate election over
the Committees’ proposed districts, Republicans would win 76 of the 120 proposed House
districts and 33 of the 50 proposed Senate districts. Republicans would win these massive
landslides in both chambers even though the 2014 U.S. Senate election was nearly a tie
statewide—the Republican candidate won by only 1.5 percentage points.
25
100. Of the roughly 4,300 public comments received by the General Assembly about
the 2017 redistricting process, more than 99% reflected opposition to gerrymandering. For
example, the author of the first written comment submitted to the Committees said: “I strongly
encourage the North Carolina General Assembly to adopt new maps that are fair and open, that
avoid racial or partisan gerrymandering, and that allow voters to pick their political
representatives, not the other way around.” Other comments made the same plea.
101. But the Committees ignored the will of the people and forged ahead. On August
24, 2017, on a straight party-line vote, the Senate Redistricting Committee adopted the Senate
map crafted by Hofeller without modification. The next day, the House Redistricting Committee
adopted Hofeller’s proposed House plan without modification, also on a straight party-line vote.
102. On August 28, 2017, during a House floor debate on the proposed House map, an
amendment modifying some districts in Wake County was approved by a largely party-line vote.
103. On August 31, 2017, the General Assembly passed the House plan (designated
HB 927) and the Senate plan (designated SB 691), with a few minor modifications from the
versions passed by the Committees. No Democratic Senator voted in favor of either plan. The
sole Democratic member of the House who voted for the plans was Representative William
Brisson, who switched to become a Republican several months later.
104. The 2017 Plans passed by the General Assembly altered at least 106 of the 170
total House and Senate districts from the 2011 Plans. Covington, 283 F. Supp. 3d at 418.
G. The Covington Court Appoints a Special Master To Redraw Several Districts

in the 2017 Plans That Remained Racially Gerrymandered
105. The Covington plaintiffs objected to the new plans, arguing that the plans did not
cure the racial gerrymanders in two House districts (21 and 57) and two Senate districts (21 and
28). Covington, 283 F. Supp. 3d at 429. The court agreed. Id. at 429-42. The court further held
26
that the General Assembly’s changes to five House districts (36, 37, 40, 41, and 105) violated the
North Carolina Constitution’s prohibition on mid-decade redistricting. Id. at 443-45.
106. The Covington plaintiffs also stated that the new plans were blatant partisan
gerrymanders. But given the remedial stage of the case, the plaintiffs did not “raise any partisan
gerrymandering objections,” and the court “[did] not address whether the 2017 Plans are
unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders.” Covington, 283 F. Supp. 3d at 429 n.2.
107. The court appointed Dr. Nathaniel Persily as a Special Master to assist in
redrawing the districts for which the court had sustained the plaintiffs’ objections. To cure the
racially gerrymandered districts, the Special Master needed to adjust not only those districts, but
also certain districts adjoining them. In his recommended remedial plans submitted to the court
on December 1, 2017, the Special Master made material adjustments to House Districts 22, 59,
61, and 62 in redrawing House Districts 21 and 57, and made material adjustments to Senate
Districts 19, 24, and 27 in redrawing Senate Districts 21 and 28. Covington, ECF No. 220 at 30-
55. The court adopted the Special Master’s recommended changes to all of these districts.
108. The Special Master also restored the districts that the court had found were
redrawn in violation of the ban on mid-decade redistricting to the 2011 versions of those
districts. Covington, ECF No. 220 at 56-66. The court adopted these changes as well.
109. On June 28, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s adoption of
the Special Master’s remedial plans for House Districts 21 and 57 (and the relevant adjoining
districts) and Senate Districts 21 and 28 (and the relevant adjoining districts). North Carolina v.
Covington, 138 S. Ct. 2548, 2553-54 (2018). But the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the district
court’s adoption of the Special Master’s plans for the districts allegedly enacted in violation of
the mid-decade redistricting prohibition, finding that the district court had exceeded its remedial
27
authority in rejecting newly enacted districts on this basis. Id. at 2554-55. Plaintiffs do not
challenge in this case any district materially redrawn by the Special Master that remains in effect.
110. On February 17, 2018, the North Carolina State Conference of NAACP Branches
and other plaintiffs filed a new action in Wake County Superior Court challenging four of the
House Districts (36, 37, 40, and 41) allegedly redrawn in violation of the North Carolina
Constitution’s prohibition on mid-decade redistricting. N.C. State. Conf. of NAACP Branches v.
Lewis, 18 CVS 2322 (N.C. Super.). On November 2, 2018, the Superior Court granted summary
judgment to the plaintiffs and ordered the General Assembly to “remedy the identified defects
and enact a new Wake County House District map for use in the 2020 general election.”
H. The 2017 Plans Pack and Crack Plaintiffs and Other Democratic Voters To
Dilute Their Votes and Maximize the Political Advantage of Republicans
111. To maximize the number of Republican seats in the General Assembly, the 2017
Plans meticulously “pack” and “crack” Democratic voters. Packing and cracking are the two
primary means by which mapmakers carry out a partisan gerrymander. “Packing” involves
concentrating one party’s backers in a few districts that they will win by overwhelming margins
to minimize the party’s votes elsewhere. “Cracking” involves dividing a party’s supporters
among multiple districts so that they fall comfortably short of a majority in each district.
112. The sections below set forth some of the examples of packing and cracking of
Democratic voters in each of the 2017 Plans.
1. The 2017 House Plan Packs and Cracks Democratic Voters
House Districts 2 and 32
113. House Districts 2 and 32 are within a county cluster of Person, Granville, Vance,
and Warren Counties.
28
114. As shown in the image above, 1 in drawing the two districts within this cluster, the
General Assembly packed the Democratic voters in and around Oxford with the Democratic
voters in Henderson and in municipalities east of Henderson such as Warrenton and Norlina.
This packing made House District 32 an overwhelmingly Democratic district in order to ensure
that House District 2 would be a Republican-leaning district.
House Districts 4, 14, and 15
115. House Districts 4, 14, and 15 are within a county cluster containing Duplin and
Onslow Counties.
1
All precinct-level partisanship data in the images that follow are based on the precinct-level
election results from the 2014 U.S. Senate election in North Carolina.
29
116. The General Assembly split Jacksonville across House District 14 and 15,
cracking its Democratic voters across the two districts and placing its most Democratic precincts
in House District 15 with otherwise heavily Republican areas. The General Assembly also made
sure to keep Jacksonville’s Democratic voters in separate districts from the Democratic-leaning
cities of Warsaw and Kenansville. This cracking allowed all three districts to lean Republican.
30
117. House Districts 7 and 25 are within a county cluster of Franklin and Nash
Counties.
118. The General Assembly constructed this cluster to make sure that one of the two
districts, House District 7, would favor Republicans, rather than risk that both districts could
elect Democrats. To accomplish this, the General Assembly caused House District 7 to wrap
around the southwestern edge of House District 25, allowing House District 7 to pick up deep
red communities in southern Nash County.
House Districts 8, 9 and 12
119. House Districts 8, 9, and 12 are within a county cluster consisting of Pitt and
Lenoir Counties.
31
120. The General Assembly split Greenville nearly in half across separate districts in
this cluster, even though Greenville is the county seat of Pitt County and has a population that is
just slightly more than the target population for a single district. But the General Assembly
carefully placed Greenville’s most Democratic areas in House District 8, packing these
Democratic voters with others in the surrounding areas to create an overwhelmingly Democratic
district. The General Assembly placed the more moderate and Republican-leaning areas of
Greenville in House District 9 with other Republican areas, ensuring that this district would elect
a Republican. The General Assembly similarly constructed House District 12 to favor
Republicans by avoiding the Democratic precincts in and around Greenville.
32
House Districts 10, 26, 28, 51, and 53
121. House Districts 10, 26, 28, 51, and 53 are part of a seven-county cluster spanning
Greene, Wayne, Sampson, Bladen, Johnston, Harnett, and Lee Counties. This cluster also
includes House Districts 21 and 22, which were redrawn by the special master in Covington and
are not challenged in this case.
122. The General Assembly cracked the Democratic pockets of Johnston, Harnett, and
Lee Counties into four separate districts (House Districts 26, 28, 53, and 51), so that none of
these four districts would lean toward Democrats.
House Districts 11, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, and 49
123. House Districts 11, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41,and 49 are all located within
Wake County.
33
124. The General Assembly packed Democrats into House Districts 11, 33, 34, 38, 39,
and 49 in order to maximize the number of districts within Wake County that would be
competitive for Republicans. Based on the 2014 U.S. Senate results, for example, House
Districts 35, 36, 37, and 40 all favor Republicans. Under a non-partisan map, these districts
would be more Democratic-leaning.
125. House Districts 16, 46, and 47 are within a county cluster of Pender, Columbus,
and Robeson Counties.
34
126. The General Assembly split Lumberton across two separate districts in this
cluster. It placed the Democratic areas of Lumberton in House District 47 with other heavily
Democratic areas, while placing the more Republican parts of Lumberton into House District 46.
The General Assembly then cracked the Democratic voters of Whiteville (in House District 16)
from those in and around Chadbourn (just to the west of Whiteville in House District 46).
Through these choices, the General Assembly created two districts that moderately favor
Republicans using the statewide election results that the General Assembly considered (House
District 16 and 46) and one overwhelmingly Democratic district (House District 47).
House Districts 17, 18, 19, and 20
127. House Districts 17, 18, 19, and 20 are within a county cluster of New Hanover
and Brunswick Counties.
35
128. The General Assembly manipulated this county cluster to create one packed
Democratic district (House District 18) and three Republican-leaning districts (House Districts
17, 19, 20). The General Assembly split Wilmington across three different districts to
accomplish this feat. It placed Wilmington’s most Democratic areas in House District 18, where
these Democratic voters were joined with the Democratic voters in and around Leland, while
Wilmington’s more Republican-leaning and swing precincts were placed in House Districts 19
and 20. In 2018, Republican candidates won House Districts 17, 19, and 20 with 64%, 51%, and
53% of the two-party vote respectively.
129. House Districts 42, 43, 44, and 45 are all within Cumberland County.
36
130. The General Assembly placed almost all of the most Democratic areas of
Cumberland County into three of the four districts in this cluster, House District 42, 43, and 44.
The General Assembly packed these Democratic voters to create a Republican-leaning district in
Cumberland County, House District 45. Under a non-partisan map, this district would be more
Democratic-leaning.
131. House Districts 55, 68, and 69 are within a county cluster of Anson and Union
Counties.
37
132. The General Assembly cracked the Democratic voters throughout this cluster to
ensure that all three districts would favor Republicans. As part of this cracking, the General
Assembly split Monroe across the three districts, and split Monroe’s most Democratic areas
between House Districts 68 and 69.
133. House Districts 58, 59 and 60 are three of the six House districts within Guilford
County. The other three districts—House Districts 57, 61, and 62—were redrawn by the special
master in the federal Covington lawsuit and are not challenged in this case.2
2
The special master made minor changes to House District 59, but Plaintiffs challenge this
district in this case.
38
134. The General Assembly packed House Districts 58 and 60 with heavily
Democratic areas, enabling House District 59 to favor Republicans.
135. House Districts 63 and 64 are both located within Alamance County.
39
136. The General Assembly caused both House Districts 63 and 64 to favor
Republicans by cracking Burlington and its Democratic voters in half across the two districts.
House Districts 66, 67, 76, 77, 82, and 83
137. House Districts 66, 67, 76, 77, 82, and 83 are part of a county cluster that covers
Richmond, Montgomery, Stanly, Cabarrus, Rowan, and Davie Counties.
138. The General Assembly meticulously distributed the Democratic voters in these
counties across all five districts in the cluster, such that Republicans have majorities in all five
districts based on the statewide elections the General Assembly considered. For instance, the
General Assembly put Albemarle into House District 67, wasting the votes of Albemarle’s
40
Democratic voters in House District 67 to make House District 66 more competitive for
Republicans. The General Assembly wasted Salisbury’s Democratic votes in House District 76
by grouping the city with deep red areas. The General Assembly also cracked Concord in half
between House Districts 82 and 83, and it splintered Kannapolis and its Democratic voters into
three different districts (House Districts 77, 82, and 83).
House Districts 71, 72, 73, 74, and 75
139. House Districts 71, 72, 73, 74, and 75 are within a county cluster of Forsyth and
Yadkin Counties.
140. The General Assembly packed Democrats into House Districts 71 and 72 so that
the other three districts—House Districts 73, 74, and 75—would all favor Republicans. The
General Assembly split the City of Winston-Salem across all five districts in the cluster as part of
this scheme, even though Winston-Salem’s population could fit within just three districts.
41
House Districts 88, 92, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, and 107
141. House Districts 88, 92, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, and 107 are all
within Mecklenburg County.
142. Mecklenburg County is the pinnacle of packing. The General Assembly packed
as many Democratic voters as possible into seven Mecklenburg County districts (House Districts
88, 92, 99, 100, 101, 106, and 107), in order to create four districts in the county that are
competitive for Republicans (House Districts 98, 103, 104, and 105). Under a non-partisan map,
these districts would all be more Democratic-leaning.
143. House Districts 108, 109, 110, and 111 make up a county cluster of Gaston and
Cleveland Counties.
42
144. The General Assembly split the Democratic stronghold of Gastonia across three
different districts (House Districts 108, 109, and 110), and cut the Democratic city of Shelby in
half (in House Districts 110 and 111). The General Assembly similarly distributed the
Democratic voters north of Shelby across House District 110 and 111. The result of all of this
cracking is that all four districts in the cluster have comfortable Republican majorities: the
Republican vote share in all four districts is around 60% using the 2014 U.S. Senate results.
145. House Districts 113 and 117 are within a county cluster of Transylvania,
Henderson, and Polk Counties.
43
146. The General Assembly cracked the Democratic voters in and around
Hendersonville from the Democratic voters in and around Brevard, ensuring that both districts in
this cluster would elect Republicans.
2. The 2017 Senate Plan Packs and Cracks Democratic Voters
Senate Districts 8 and 9
147. Senate Districts 8 and 9 are within a county cluster of Bladen, Pender, Brunswick,
and New Hanover Counties.
44
Piece of
Wilmington
transferred to
Senate District 8
148. Although almost all of New Hanover County falls in Senate District 9, the
General Assembly appended a small, heavily Democratic piece of New Hanover County to
Senate District 8. Specifically, the General Assembly split off a small portion of Wilmington—
the “Wilmington Notch”—transferring thousands of voters in Wilmington’s most heavily
Democratic area from Senate District 9 to 8. The loss of these Democratic voters causes Senate
District 9 to lean Republican rather than Democratic using the 2014 U.S. Senate election results.
45
The Wilmington Notch
Senate Districts 10, 11, and 12
149. Senate Districts 10, 11, and 12 span a six-county cluster of Sampson, Duplin,
Johnston, Nash, Lee, and Harnett Counties.
46
150. The General Assembly cracked the Democratic areas of the six counties in this
cluster across the three districts that the cluster contains. For instance, the General Assembly
dispersed the Democratic voters in and around Rocky Mount, Clinton, and Sanford across Senate
Districts 10, 11, and 12, respectively. As a result, all three districts favor Republicans.
Senate Districts 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18
151. Senate Districts 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 are within a county cluster of Wake and
Franklin Counties.
152. The General Assembly packed as many Wake County Democrats as possible into
three districts within this cluster (Senate District 14, 15, and 16). This packing was done to make
Senate Districts 17 and 18 as Republican-leaning as possible.
153. To carry out this scheme, the General Assembly split Raleigh across four districts
(Senate District 14, 15, 16, and 18), even though Raleigh’s population could fit almost entirely
within two Senate districts. The General Assembly dissected Raleigh to put its only Republican-
47
leaning areas, in north and northwest Raleigh, in Senate District 18. Specifically, Senate District
18 grabs the Republican-leaning communities that surround three different Raleigh country
clubs—the North Ridge Country Club, the Wildwood Golf Club, and the Carolina Country Club.
Senate District 18
Country Clubs
48
154. To place these Republican areas in Senate District 18 while avoiding north
Raleigh’s Democratic areas, the General Assembly created a tentacle for Senate District 15 that
grabs north Raleigh’s Democratic voters. The General Assembly created this tentacle in Senate
District 15 via a narrow passageway containing no more than a Costco.
49
Senate District 15
Costco Passageway
50
155. Senate District 18, the “Country Club District,” performed as the General
Assembly hoped in the 2018 election: Republicans held onto it by a few percentage points.
Republicans managed to win a Wake County seat in the Senate despite the fact that Democrats
won every county-wide election in Wake County in 2018 by overwhelming majorities.
156. Senate Districts 31 and 32 are within a county cluster of Davie and Forsythe
Counties.
51
157. The General Assembly packed all of the most Democratic areas in and around
Winston-Salem into Senate District 32, so that Senate District 31 would favor Republicans.
Senate Districts 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41
158. Senate Districts 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41 are all located within Mecklenburg County.
52
159. The General Assembly packed as many Democrats as possible into Senate
Districts 37, 38, and 40, so as to create two Mecklenburg County districts—Senate Districts 39
and 41—that lean Republican based on the statewide elections the General Assembly considered.
160. The General Assembly had to go to particularly great lengths to make Senate
District 41 competitive for Republicans. The district begins north of Charlotte, then slices
through a thin stretch of land west of Charlotte, before curling back around to pick up
Republican-leaning areas south of Charlotte. To stitch together these disparate areas, Senate
District 41 at one point connects through a nature preserve and at another point the district is
held together only by the Arrowood train station.
53
Latta Plantation
Nature Preserve
Arrowood
train station
Senate District 41
Arrowood train station
54
Senate District 41
Latta Plantation Nature Preserve
161. The General Assembly manipulated Senate District 39 to be favorable to
Republicans. Despite the enormous Democratic wave in Mecklenburg County in 2018—with
Democrats winning every county-wide election by huge margins and sweeping the Mecklenburg
County Board of Commissioners races—Republicans managed to hold onto Senate District 39.
162. Senate Districts 48 and 49 are within a county cluster of Transylvania, Henderson,
and Buncombe Counties.
55
163. The General Assembly packed Democratic voters in and around Asheville into
Senate District 49. This packing ensured that Senate District 48 would elect a Republican.
3. The 2017 Plans Achieved Their Goal in the 2018 Election
164. The 2017 Plans’ cracking and packing of Democratic voters worked with
remarkable success in the 2018 elections. While the Democratic wave did flip some seats, it
could not overcome plans that were designed to guarantee Republicans majorities.
165. In the 2018 House elections, Democratic candidates won 51.1% of the two-party
statewide vote, but won only 54 of 120 seats (45%).3
166. In the 2018 Senate elections, Democratic candidates won 50.4% of the two-party
statewide vote, but won only 21 of 50 seats (42%).
3
These statistics are based on the results posted on the North Carolina Board of Election’s
website as of November 12, 2018.
56
I. The Partisan Gerrymandering of the 2017 Plans Causes Plaintiffs and Other
Democratic Voters To Be Entirely Shut Out of the Political Process
167. The effects of the gerrymander go beyond election results. In today’s state
legislatures—and particularly in North Carolina—Republican representatives are simply not
responsive to the views and interests of Democratic voters. Regardless of whether
gerrymandering has caused this increased partisanship, such extreme partisanship magnifies the
effects of partisan gerrymandering. When Democratic voters lose the ability to elect
representatives of their party as a result of partisan gerrymandering, those voters lose not only
electoral power, but also the ability to influence legislative outcomes—because Republican
representatives pay no heed to these voters’ views and interests once in office.
168. There is substantial evidence documenting the increasing polarization of state
legislatures, including ideological scores assigned to every state legislator in the country by
political scientists Drs. Nolan McCarty and Boris Shor. The chart below depicts the ideological
distribution of state legislators nationwide in 1996 and in 2016. Red reflects Republican
legislators and blue reflects Democratic legislators, with negative scores on the left of the x-axis
indicating a more liberal ideology and positive scores on the right on the x-axis indicating a more
conservative ideology. 4 The chart shows that today there are barely any state legislators across
the country who overlap ideologically—i.e., barely any Democratic and Republican legislators
who overlap in ideological score—and far less than in 1996. Instead, legislators from the parties
have grown farther apart, and Republicans legislators in particular have become much more
homogenous in ideology, coalescing around an ideological score of +1.
4
See State Polarization, 1996-2016, https://americanlegislatures.com/2017/07/20/state-
polarization-1996-2016/.
57
169. The North Carolina General Assembly is no exception to this trend. Political
scientists McCarty and Shor have developed ideological scores for every state legislator in the
country based on each legislator’s roll call voting behavior. These ideological scores range from
negative -3 to +3, with negative scores indicating more liberal ideological and positive scores a
more conservative one. The below chart shows the gap between the average ideological scores
of Republicans and Democrats in the North Carolina General Assembly. It shows that gap has
grown dramatically—increasing by more than 50%—over the last 20 years. 5
5
See Boris Shor & Nolan McCarty, Measuring American Legislatures,
https://americanlegislatures.com/category/polarization/.
58
Ideological Gap Between Republicans and Democrats in the
North Carolina General Assembly
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016
170. This increasing ideological gap reflects the fact that Republican legislators in the
North Carolina General Assembly have grown more and more conservative. The below chart
shows the average ideological scores of Republicans in the General Assembly over the last 20
years. It demonstrates how Republicans in the General Assembly vote in an increasingly more
conservative fashion, and thus are less likely to reflect the views of Democratic voters.
Average Ideology of Republicans in the

North Carolina General Assembly
1
0.95
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
0.6
1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016
59
171. The extreme polarization of Republicans in the General Assembly is further
evidenced by their near-uniform bloc voting behavior.
172. In the 2017-2018 Session, Republicans in the state Senate almost always voted
with a majority of other Republicans and virtually never crossed over to vote with the minority.
Every Republican Senator voted with a majority of Republicans over 95% of the time, and the
median Republican Senator voted with the Republican majority a stunning 99.2% of the time. 6
173. Likewise in the House, in the 2017-2018 Session, nearly every Republican in the
state House of Representatives voted with the Republican majority over 90% of the time, and the
median Republican in the House voted with the Republican majority 96.70% of the time.7
174. These statistics all illustrate that Republicans in the General Assembly do not
represent the views and interests of their Democratic constituents and almost never engage in
cross-over voting. Thus, when gerrymandering denies Democratic voters the ability to elect
representatives of their party, they also lose any chance of influencing legislative outcomes.
COUNT I
Violation of the North Carolina Constitution’s
Equal Protection Clause, Art. I, § 19
175. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all other paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
176. Article I, Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution provides in relevant part
that “[n]o person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws.”
6
See Senate Member Vote Statistics, 2017-2018 Session,
https://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/voteHistory/MemberVoteStatistics.pl?sSession=2017&sChambe
r=S.
7
See House Member Vote Statistics, 2017-2018 Session,
https://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/voteHistory/MemberVoteStatistics.pl?sSession=2017&sChambe
r=H.
60
177. North Carolina’s Equal Protection Clause affords broader protections to its
citizens in the voting rights context than the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection provisions. See
Stephenson v. Bartlett, 562 S.E.2d 377, 393-95 & n.6 (N.C. 2002); Blankenship v. Bartlett, 681
S.E.2d 759, 763 (N.C. 2009).
178. Irrespective of its federal counterpart, North Carolina’s Equal Protection Clause
protects the right to “substantially equal voting power.” Stephenson, 562 S.E.2d at 394. “It is
well settled in this State that the right to vote on equal terms is a fundamental right.” Id. at 393
(internal quotation marks omitted).
179. The 2017 Plans intentionally and impermissibly classify voters into districts on
the basis of their political affiliations and viewpoints. The intent and effect of these
classifications is to dilute the voting power of Democratic voters, to make it more difficult for
Democratic candidates to be elected across the state, and to render it virtually impossible for the
Democratic Party to achieve a majority of either chamber of the General Assembly. Defendants
can advance no compelling or even legitimate state interest to justify this discrimination.
180. The 2017 Plans’ intentional classification of, and discrimination against,
Democratic voters is plain. The Republican leaders of the House and Senate Redistricting
Committees explicitly used “political considerations and election results data” as a criterion in
creating the 2017 Plans, drew the maps in secret with a Republican mapmaker, and admitted that
they “did make partisan considerations when drawing particular districts.” Covington, ECF No.
184-17 at 26. The partisan composition of the districts based on recent results demonstrates that
the map was designed to ensure overwhelming Republican majorities in both chambers. The
General Assembly’s intent is also laid bare by the packing and cracking of individual Democratic
61
communities, as well as a host of statistical analyses and measures that will confirm the 2017
Plans necessarily reflect an intentional effort to disadvantage Democratic voters.
181. These efforts have produced discriminatory effects for Plaintiffs other Democratic
voters, including members of Common Cause and the NCDP. On a statewide basis, Democrats
receive far fewer state House and Senate seats than they would absent the gerrymanders. The
grossly disproportionate number of seats that Republicans have won and will continue to win in
the General Assembly relative to their share of the statewide vote cannot be explained or
justified by North Carolina’s geography or any legitimate redistricting criteria. Moreover,
because the gerrymanders guarantee that Republicans will hold a majority in the House and
Senate, Plaintiffs and other Democratic voters are unable to elect a legislature that will pass
legislation that reflects Democratic voters’ positions or policies. The 2017 Plans burden the
representational rights of Democratic voters individually and as a group and discriminate against
Democratic candidates and organizations individually and as a group.
182. Individual voters also experience discriminatory effects at the district level. For
those Plaintiffs and other Democratic voters who live in cracked communities and districts, their
voting power is diluted, and it is more difficult than it would be but-for the gerrymander for these
voters to elect candidates of their choice. And given the extreme partisanship of Republican
representatives in the General Assembly, these voters have no meaningful opportunity to
influence legislative outcomes when Republican candidates win their districts, because the
Republican representatives simply do not weigh their Democratic constituents’ interests and
policy preferences in deciding how to act. For those Plaintiffs and other Democratic voters,
including members of Common Cause and the NCDP, who live in packed Democratic districts,
the weight of their votes has been substantially diluted. Their votes have no marginal impact on
62
election outcomes, and representatives will be less responsive to their individual interests or
policy preferences. Accordingly, for all Plaintiffs and others Democratic voters whose votes are
diluted under the 2017 Plans, the 2017 Plans impermissibly deny these voters their fundamental
right to “vote on equal terms” with “equal voting power.” Stephenson, 562 S.E.2d at 393-94.
COUNT II
Violation of the North Constitution’s
Free Elections Clause, Art. I, § 5
184. Article I, Section 10 of the North Carolina Constitution, which has no counterpart
in the U.S. Constitution, provides that “All elections shall be free” (the “Free Elections Clause”).
185. North Carolina’s Free Elections Clause traces its roots to the 1689 English Bill of
Rights, which declared that “Elections of members of Parliament ought to be free.”
186. Numerous other states have constitutional provisions that trace to the same
provision of the 1689 English Bill of Rights, including Pennsylvania, which has a constitutional
provision requiring that all “elections shall be free and equal.” See League of Women Voters v.
Commonwealth, 178 A.3d 737, 793 (Pa. 2018). On February 7, 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court held that the partisan gerrymander of Pennsylvania’s congressional districts violated this
clause. The state high court held that Pennsylvania’s Free and Equal Elections Clause requires
that all voters “have an equal opportunity to translate their votes into representation,” and that
this requirement is violated where traditional districting criteria such as preserving political
subdivisions and compactness are “subordinated, in whole or in part, to extraneous
considerations such as gerrymandering for unfair partisan political advantage.” Id. at 814, 817.
187. North Carolina’s Free Elections Clause protects the rights of voters to at least the
same extent as Pennsylvania’s analogous provision.
63
188. The 2017 Plans violate the Free Elections Clause by denying Plaintiffs and other
Democratic voters, including members of Common Cause and the NCDP, an equal opportunity
to translate their votes into representation, and by providing an unfair partisan advantage to the
Republican Party and its candidates as a whole over the Democratic Party and its candidates as a
whole. The General Assembly’s violation of the Free Election Clause is evidenced by, inter alia,
its subordination of traditional districting criteria to illicit partisan motivations.
189. Elections under the 2017 Plans are anything but “free.” They are rigged to
predetermine electoral outcomes and guarantee one party control of the legislature, in violation
of Article I, § 5 of the North Carolina Constitution.
COUNT III
Violation of the North Constitution’s
Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly Clauses, Art. I, §§ 12 & 14
191. Article I, § 12 of the North Carolina Constitution provides in relevant part: “The
people have a right to assemble together to consult for their common good, to instruct their
representatives, and to apply to the General Assembly for redress of grievances.”
192. Article I, § 14 of the North Carolina Constitution provides in relevant part:
“Freedom of speech and of the press are two of the great bulwarks of liberty and therefore shall
never be restrained.”
193. North Carolina courts have recognized that Article I, Sections 12 and 14 may
afford broader protections than the federal First Amendment. Evans v. Cowan, 468 S.E.2d 575,
578, aff’d, 477 S.E.2d 926 (1996).
194. Article I, Sections 12 and 14 protect the right of voters to participate in the
political process, to express political views, to affiliate with or support a political party, and to
64
cast a vote. Voting for a candidate of one’s choice is core political speech and/or expressive
conduct protected by the North Carolina Constitution. Contributing money to, or spending
money in support of, a preferred candidate is core political speech and/or expressive conduct as
well. And leading, promoting, or affiliating with a political party to pursue certain policy
objectives is core political association protected by the North Carolina Constitution.
195. Irrespective of the U.S. Constitution, the 2017 Plans violate Article 1, Sections 12
and 14 of the North Carolina Constitution by intentionally burdening the protected speech and/or
expressive conduct of Plaintiffs and other Democratic voters, including members of Common
Cause and the NCDP, based on their identity, their viewpoints, and the content of their speech.
The 2017 Plans burden the speech and/or expressive conduct of Plaintiffs and other Democratic
voters by making their speech and/or expressive conduct—i.e., their votes—less effective. For
those Plaintiffs and other Democratic voters who live in cracked districts, the 2017 Plans
artificially make it more difficult (if not impossible) for their speech and/or expressive conduct to
succeed. And because of the polarization of Republicans in the General Assembly, these voters
will be unable to influence the legislative process, resulting in the complete suppression of their
political views. For those Plaintiffs and other Democratic voters who live in packed districts, the
2017 Plans artificially dilute the weight and impact of their speech and/or expressive conduct.
The General Assembly intentionally created these burdens because of disfavor for Plaintiffs and
other Democratic voters, their political views, and their party affiliations.
196. Irrespective of the U.S. Constitution, the 2017 Plans also violate Article 1,
Sections 12 and 14 of the North Carolina Constitution by burdening the protected speech and/or
expressive conduct of the NCDP. Because of the gerrymanders, the money the NCDP
contributes to or spends on Democratic candidates—and the messages conveyed through the
65
contributions and expenditures—are less effective and less able to succeed. The General
Assembly intentionally rendered the NCDP’s contributions and expenditures less effective
because of disagreement with the political viewpoints expressed through those contributions and
expenditures and disfavor for the candidates that the NCDP supports.
Sections 12 and 14 of the North Carolina Constitution by burdening the associational rights of
Plaintiffs. The 2017 Plans burden the ability of Plaintiffs and other Democratic voters, including
members of Common Cause and the NCDP, as well as the NCDP as an organization, to affiliate
and join together in a political party, to carry out the party’s activities, and to implement the
party’s policy preferences through legislative action. The 2017 Plans burden these associational
rights by, inter alia, making it more difficult for Plaintiffs and other Democratic voters, as well
as the NCDP, to register voters, attract volunteers, raise money in gerrymandered districts,
campaign, and turn out the vote, by reducing the total representation of the Democratic Party in
the General Assembly, and by making it virtually impossible for Democrats to constitute a
majority of either chamber of the General Assembly.
Sections 12 and 14 of the North Carolina Constitution by burdening the protected speech,
expressive conduct, and associational rights of Common Cause. The 2017 Plans burden
Common Cause’s ability to convince voters in gerrymandered districts to vote in state legislative
elections and to communicate with legislators. And because the 2017 Plans allow the General
Assembly to disregard the will of the public, the 2017 Plans’ burden Common Cause’s ability to
communicate effectively with legislators, to influence them to enact that promote voting,
participatory democracy, public funding of elections, and other measures that encourage
66
accountable government. The 2017 Plans similarly burden the associational rights of Common
Cause by frustrating its mission to promote participation in democracy and to ensure open,
honest, and accountable government.
199. Irrespective of the U.S. Constitution, the 2017 Plans also violate the North
Carolina Constitution’s prohibition against retaliation against individuals who exercise their
rights under Article I, Sections 12 and 14. See Feltman v. City of Wilson, 767 S.E.2d 615, 620
(N.C. App. 2014). The General Assembly expressly considered the prior protected conduct of
Plaintiffs and other Democratic voters, including members of Common Cause and NCDP, by
considering their voting histories and political party affiliations when placing these voters into
districts. The General Assembly did this to disadvantage individual Plaintiffs and other
Democratic voters because of their prior protected conduct, and this retaliation has diluted these
individuals’ votes in a way that would not have occurred but-for the retaliation. Id. Indeed,
many Plaintiffs and other Democratic voters who currently live in Republican state House or
Senate districts would live in districts that would be more likely to have, or would almost
definitely have, a Democratic representative but for the gerrymander. Moreover, but-for the
gerrymander, Plaintiffs and other Democratic voters would have an opportunity to elect a
majority of the state House and Senate, which would afford an opportunity to influence
legislation. The retaliation has also impermissibly burdened the associational rights of Plaintiffs
and the NCDP by making it more difficult for Democrats to register voters, recruit candidates,
attract volunteers, raise money, campaign, and turn out the vote, by reducing the total
representation of the Democratic Party in the General Assembly, and by making it virtually
impossible for Democrats to constitute a majority of either chamber of the General Assembly.
67
200. There is no legitimate state interest in discriminating and retaliating against
Plaintiffs because of their political viewpoints, voting histories, and affiliations. Nor can the
2017 Plans be explained or justified by North Carolina’s geography or any legitimate
redistricting criteria.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment
in their favor and against Defendant, and:
a. Declare that each of the 2017 Plans is unconstitutional and invalid because each
violates the rights of Plaintiffs and all Democratic voters in North Carolina under
the North Carolina Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, Art. I, § 19; Free
Elections Clause, Art. I, § 5; and Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly
Clauses, Art. I, §§ 12 & 14;
b. Enjoin Defendants, their agents, officers, and employees from administering,
preparing for, or moving forward with the 2020 primary and general elections for
the North Carolina General Assembly using the 2017 Plans;
c. Establish new state House and state Senate districting plans that comply with the
North Carolina Constitution, if the North Carolina General Assembly fails to
enact new state House and state Senate districting plans comporting with the
North Carolina Constitution in a timely manner;
d. Grant Plaintiffs such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
appropriate.
68
Dated: November 13,2018 Respectfully submitted,
POYNER SPRUILL LLP ARNOLD & PORTER

KAYE SCHOLERLLP
By:
Edwin M. Speas, If. By f.sia~~L~~ .
N.C. State Bar No. 4112 David P. Gersch* YWMlSSlOv\
Caroline P. Mackie Elisabeth S. Theodore*
N.C. State Bar No. 41512 Daniel F. Iacobson*
P.O. Box 1801 601 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Raleigh, NC 27602-1801 Washington, DC 20001-3743
(919) 783-6400 (202) 942-5000
espeas@poynerspruill.com stanton.jones@arnoldporter.com
Counsel for Common Cause, the

North Carolina Democratic Party, PERKINS COlE LLP
and the Individual Plaintiffs
By: t1~ ~. ~ [cPM ~l~

Marc E. Elias* ~vV\\S$'M
Aria C. Branch*
700 13th Street NW
Washington, DC 20005-3960
(202) 654-6200
melias@perkinscoie.com
Abha Khanna*
1201 Third Avenue
Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
(206) 359-8000
akhanna@perkinscoie.com
Counselfor Common Cause and the

Individual Plaintiffs
* Pro hac vice motions forthcoming
69
Appendix
Appendix A: North Carolina House of Representatives Districts
Appendix B: North Carolina Senate Districts

Common Cause v. Lewis Complaint FILED Nov 13 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Common Cause v. Lewis Complaint FILED Nov 13 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Common Cause v. Lewis Complaint FILED Nov 13 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

18CVOl4001

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE

COUNTY OF WAKE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION

Docket No. ~~-

COMMON CAUSE; NORTH CAROLINA

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID R. LEWIS, IN HIS

1. Partisan gerrymandering is an existential threat to our democracy, and nowhere

North Carolina Constitution. And it needs to stop.

2. In 2011, as part of a national movement by the Republican Party to entrench itself

in power through redistricting, North Carolina Republicans’ mapmaker manipulated district

5. The North Carolina Constitution prohibits partisan gerrymandering. This State’s

partisan gerrymandering under the federal constitution, North Carolina’s Constitution

of the leading proponents of redistricting reform.” Jonathan Winburn, The Realities of

measures that encourage accountable government.

Democrats to win a majority in either chamber of the legislature.

9. Plaintiff Paula Ann Chapman is a retired small business owner residing in

12. Plaintiff James Mackin Nesbit is a retired kindergarten teacher residing in

13. Plaintiff Dwight Jordan is a customer support professional residing in Nashville,

districts surrounding Senate District 17 to make Senate District 17 as competitive for

with over 76% of the vote.

24. Plaintiff Kristin Parker Jackson is a paralegal residing in Matthews, North

65% of the vote.

26. Plaintiff Rebecca Johnson is a retired educator residing in Winston-Salem, North

Senate District 17 to make these districts as favorable to Republicans as possible. In 2018,

Democratic candidates won both districts with bare majorities.

30. Karen Sue Holbrook is a retired psychology professor residing in Southport,

Republicans won Senate District 8 with a comfortable margin.

31. Defendant David R. Lewis is a member of the North Carolina House of

2017 Plans. Defendant Lewis is sued in his official capacity only.

in his official capacity only.

Representatives. Defendant Moore is sued in his official capacity only.

Senate. Defendant Berger is sued in his official capacity only.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Chapter 1 of the General Statutes.

County Superior Court.

A. National Republican Party Officials Target North Carolina For Partisan

B. Republican Mapmakers Create the 2011 Plans from Party Headquarters

Chris Jankowski, sent a letter to officials in Republican-controlled states (including North

RSLC’s non-profit arm the State Government Leadership Foundation.

changes to certain districts.

Assembly through whatever means necessary.

WL 6710857, at *60 (N.C. Dec. 9, 2013).

plan, and only one Republican representative voted against them.

omitted blocks. No Democrat voted for either curative plan.

district lines, 53 of the 120 House races were uncontested.

of 120, went uncontested in 2014.

Republicans winning 12 uncontested districts and Democrats winning 9.

Democrats, for a total of 18 uncontested races.

E. A Federal Court Strikes Down Many Districts as Racially Gerrymandered

Covington v. North Carolina, No. 1:15-CV-00399 (M.D.N.C.). In Covington, the plaintiffs

decision. 137 S. Ct. 2211 (2017).

Republicans and 13 Democrats—to the House Select Committee on Redistricting.

Representative Lewis was appointed Senior Chair.

a consultant only to Representative Lewis and Senator Hise. Id. at 23.

74. In overseeing the 2016 redrawing of North Carolina’s congressional districts,

congressional districts: “I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats. So I

Committees voted on criteria to purportedly govern the new plans.

78. Representative Lewis proposed as one criterion: “election data[:] political

Republican members of the Committees did. Id.

Clark’s proposal on a straight party-line vote. Id. at 168-74.