Thus, residents of District 10A have a voting power roughly five times greater than residents of District 10C, four and a half times greater than residents of District 10B, and four times greater than residents of District 10D. 363 N.C. 518, 527, 681 S.E.2d 759, 766 (2009).

363 N.C. 518, 527, 681 S.E.2d 759, 766 (2009).

This redistricting authority is subject to limitations contained in the North Carolina Constitution, including both in the provisions allocating the initial redistricting responsibility to the General Assembly and in other provisions which have been interpreted by this Court to be applicable to the redistricting process. See, e.g., Stephenson, 355 N.C. 354; Blankenship v. Bartlett, 363 N.C. 518 (2009). Additionally, the General Assembly must comply with all applicable provisions of federal law, including federal one-person-one-vote requirements and the Voting Rights Act, under Article I, sections 3 and 5 of the North Carolina Constitution.

This redistricting authority is subject to limitations contained in the North Carolina Constitution, including both in the provisions allocating the initial redistricting responsibility to the General Assembly and in other provisions which have been interpreted by this Court to be applicable to the redistricting process. See, e.g. , Stephenson , 355 N.C. 354, 562 S.E.2d 377;Blankenship v. Bartlett , 363 N.C. 518, 681 S.E.2d 759 (2009). Additionally, the General Assembly must comply with all applicable provisions of federal law, including federal one-person-one-vote requirements and the Voting Rights Act, under Article I, sections 3 and 5 of the North Carolina Constitution.

This redistricting authority is subject to limitations contained in the North Carolina Constitution, including both in the provisions allocating the initial redistricting responsibility to the General Assembly and in other provisions which have been interpreted by this Court to be applicable to the redistricting process. See, e.g., Stephenson, 355 N.C. 354; Blankenship v. Bartlett, 363 N.C. 518 (2009). Additionally, the General Assembly must comply with all applicable provisions of federal law, including federal one-person-one-vote requirements and the Voting Rights Act, under Article I, sections 3 and 5 of the North Carolina Constitution.

In essence, "[e]qual protection requires that all persons similarly situated be treated alike." Blankenship v. Bartlett , 363 N.C. 518, 521, 681 S.E.2d 759, 762 (2009) (quoting Richardson v. N.C. Dep't of Corr. , 345 N.C. 128, 134, 478 S.E.2d 501, 505 (1996) ). This Court's analysis of our Constitution's Equal Protection Clause has "generally follow[ed] the analysis of the Supreme Court of the United States in interpreting the corresponding federal clause."Id. at 522, 681 S.E.2d at 762.

Accordingly, "[t]his Court's analysis of the State Constitution's Equal Protection Clause generally follows the analysis of the Supreme Court of the United States in interpreting the corresponding federal clause." Blankenship v. Bartlett , 363 N.C. 518, 522, 681 S.E.2d 759, 762 (2009). "However, in the construction of the provision of the State Constitution, the meaning given by the Supreme Court of the United States to even an identical term in the Constitution of the United States is, though highly persuasive, not binding upon this Court.

Accordingly, we hold that alternative education decisions for students who receive long-term suspensions are reviewed under the state constitutional standard of intermediate scrutiny. See, e.g.,Blankenship v. Bartlett, 363 N.C. 518, 524, 681 S.E.2d 759, 764 (2009) (applying intermediate scrutiny to state constitutional challenge). Under the state intermediate scrutiny standard, school administrators must articulate an important or significant reason for denying students access to alternative education; however, the reasons supporting their decisions do not need to be compelling.

The right to vote is a fundamental right, preservative of all other rights. Blankenship v. Bartlett, 363 N.C. 518, 522, 681 S.E.2d 759 (2009) ; see alsoReynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 562, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964). If the right to vote is undermined, it renders illusory all "[o]ther rights, even the most basic."

In addition to their federal constitutional one person, one vote claim, Plaintiffs brought a similar North Carolina state claim. Under the North Carolina Constitution, “[t]he right to vote on equal terms in representative elections—a one-person, one-vote standard—is a fundamental right.” Blankenship v. Bartlett , 363 N.C. 518, 681 S.E.2d 759, 762–63 (2009). A North Carolina analysis of the state's “Equal Protection Clause generally follows the analysis of the Supreme Court of the United States in interpreting the corresponding federal clause.”