RALEIGH, N.C. — Legal briefs filed Friday by plaintiffs’ attorneys in 哈珀诉霍尔 和 霍姆斯诉摩尔 responded to North Carolina Republican lawmakers’ unprecedented efforts to undermine the state Supreme Court’s landmark rulings against discriminatory gerrymandering and voter ID through rehearings of these decisions.

The briefs address the very same arguments by the legislators that the Court rejected mere months ago and highlight how legislative defendants have lodged poorly veiled attempts in each matter to have a second, unfettered bite at the apple following the Court’s change in composition this year. As noted by Associate Justice Anita Earls, the decision to rehear these two matters is a “radical break with 205 years of history” and exceedingly rare: just two cases had previously been granted rehearing in the past 30 years.

哈珀 is a case brought by Common Cause North Carolina after lawmakers partisan gerrymandered legislative and Congressional maps to give Republicans an edge at the disproportionate expense of Black voters. Holmes held North Carolina’s 2018 voter ID law (S.B. 824), approved by a Republican-led supermajority in a lame-duck session, was racially motivated.

Read the 哈珀诉霍尔 brief here.

Read the 霍姆斯诉摩尔 brief here.

在 Harper, Legislative Defendants have not only asked for rehearing of the December 2022 remedial order in that matter, but have also taken the further unprecedented step of asking this Court to overrule a decision from February 2022, Harper I, that is long past the time for rehearing under applicable court rules.

But as set forth in Plaintiffs’ supplemental briefing, Legislative Defendants “have not discovered additional historical materials elucidating the application of the contested constitutional provisions. Nor have they identified any argument that the Court failed to consider—and refute—in its 223-paragraph Harper I opinion. There is no exception to the rule of stare decisis when a court changes composition. Indeed, if anything, the rule [which states that courts will stand by precedent when making decisions] applies even more strongly in such situations.”

Common Cause is represented in 哈珀 by Southern Coalition for Social Justice and pro bono co-counsel Hogan Lovells.

“Just last year, the state Supreme Court set a clear precedent that partisan gerrymandering violates the constitutionally protected freedoms of North Carolinians,” said 北卡罗来纳州共同事业组织执行董事鲍勃·菲利普斯. “Since that landmark ruling against illegal gerrymandering, the facts of our case have not changed. Our Constitution has not changed. It would be a radical departure from legal norms for a new majority on the court to suddenly upend that established precedent at the cynical request of partisan politicians. Such a reversal could cause lasting damage to public trust in the impartiality of justice.”

在 Holmes, the state’s high court already decided in December to strike down lawmakers’ most recent iteration of a photo voter ID law as an unconstitutional measure passed in part to discriminate against African American voters.

“Abandoning that ruling now would require this Court to err, either by adopting an incorrect interpretation of [the controlling legal standard] or by usurping the trial court’s function and disregarding its amply supported factual findings,” the Holmes brief states. “Withdrawing the 16 December Opinion would also show that the value and durability of the Court’s precedents depends on little more than the composition of its membership, signaling to the citizens of North Carolina that the Court’s rulings will endure only as long as the next election cycle.”

That case was originally filed by Southern Coalition for Social Justice and pro bono co-counsel from Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, in December 2018.

“To preserve the impartiality of the judiciary and the People’s faith in its judgements, it is imperative that the Court adhere to its prior rulings and reject this political gambit by legislative leadership,” said 南方社会正义联盟投票权临时首席法律顾问 Jeff Loperfido.

The plaintiffs in Holmes also filed motions to disqualify Justice Phil Berger Jr. 和 Justice Tamara Barringer under the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct — the former due to the fact that his father, Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger, is a defendant in the matter and repeatedly voted in favor of S.B. 824, and the latter due to her personally serving in the legislature at the time of the passage of S.B. 824 and also voting repeatedly in favor of the challenged bill.

The North Carolina Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in 哈珀 at 12:45 p.m. March 14 and in Holmes at 12:45 p.m. March 15.

媒体联系人：
布莱恩·华纳，共同事业 | bwarner@commoncause.org | 919-836-0027
梅丽莎·博顿，SCSJ | melissa@scsj.org | 830-481-6901

北卡罗来纳州共同事业 是一个无党派的草根组织，致力于维护美国民主的核心价值观。我们致力于创建服务于公众利益的开放、诚实和负责任的政府；促进所有人的平等权利、机会和代表权；并赋予所有人在政治进程中发出声音的权力。

南方社会正义联盟成立于 2007 年，与南方有色人种社区和经济弱势社区合作，通过法律倡导、研究、组织和传播相结合的方式，捍卫和推进他们的政治、社会和经济权利。了解更多信息，请访问 南方联盟 并关注我们的工作 叽叽喳喳, Facebook， 和 Instagram.