In an order entered on July 31, 2017, this Court gave the General Assembly until September 1, 2017, "to enact new House and Senate districting plans remedying the constitutional deficiencies" with the districts found unconstitutional in this Court's August 2016 opinion and order. Covington v. North Carolina (Covington III ), 267 F.Supp.3d 664, 668 (M.D.N.C. 2017). This Court advised that it would extend this deadline until September 15, 2017, if the General Assembly made certain showings regarding the public nature of its redistricting process.
The Covington action, which involved a challenge to redistricting plans enacted by the General Assembly in 2011 as unconstitutional racial gerrymanders under federal law, has a long history that we need not recite here. See, e.g. , Covington v. North Carolina , 316 F.R.D. 117, 124 (M.D.N.C. 2016) (invalidating 28 challenged districts and concluding that the General Assembly "failed to demonstrate that their predominant use of race was reasonably necessary to further a compelling state interest"), aff’d ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 2211, 198 L.Ed.2d 655 (2017) ; Covington v. North Carolina , 267 F. Supp. 3d 664, 667 (M.D.N.C. 2017) (ordering the General Assembly to enact new districts that would "cure the unconstitutional racial gerrymanders in the 2011 districting plans"); Covington v. North Carolina , 283 F. Supp. 3d 410, 446–47 (M.D.N.C. 2018) (approving court-appointed special master’s redistricting plans, sustaining objections made under the North Carolina’s ban on mid-decade redistricting, and declining to address the objection whether "the 2017 Plans are unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders"), affirming in part and reversing in part , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2548, 2555, 201 L.Ed.2d 993 (2018) (affirming the approval of the special master’s plans and noting that "[o]nce the District Court had ensured that the racial gerrymanders at issue in this case were remedied, its proper role in North Carolina’s legislative districting process was at an end"). On December 17, 2018, three days after removal, Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to remand.
Given the potential for confusion and the need to effectuate the Court-ordered remedy without disruption to the upcoming election, the Court will exercise its equitable power to waive the 183-Day Requirement for any candidate seeking to qualify to run for the office of City Council member representing district 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, or 14 in the March 2023 election. See Larios v. Cox, 305 F.Supp.2d 1335, 1342-43 (N.D.Ga. 2004); see also Covington v. North Carolina, 267 F.Supp.3d 664, 668 (M.D. N.C. 2017). The waiver will pertain only to the 183-day timeframe.
SeeCovington v. North Carolina , 316 F.R.D. 117, 124 (M.D.N.C. 2016), aff'd ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 2211, 198 L.Ed.2d 655 (2017). The court ordered the maps to be redrawn, and, after a delay, new versions were implemented in time for the 2018 elections.SeeCovington v. North Carolina , 267 F. Supp. 3d 664, 668 (M.D.N.C. 2017). The Republican party retained majorities in both chambers under the new maps, but lost its supermajorities.
In an order issued on July 31, 2017, this Court declined to adopt Legislative Defendants' proposed schedule and, instead, ordered that the General Assembly enact remedial maps no later than September 1, 2017. Covington v. North Carolina (Covington III ), 267 F.Supp.3d. 664, 2017 WL 3254098, at *3 (M.D.N.C. 2017). The order further set forth that this Court would extend this deadline to September 15, 2017, provided that the General Assembly made certain showings regarding the public nature of its redistricting process.
Id. (citing Covington v. State , 267 F. Supp. 3d 664, 665 (2017) ). But these cases, to the extent they are relevant, speak to the potential merits of the plaintiff's arguments or the factors a court might weigh when entering a remedial order—none of these cases in any way support the notion that the type of claim plaintiff has brought is nonjusticiable in state court.
Nor does Covington II stand for the principle, as defendant-appellants contend, that by not ordering a special election, the Covington II court approved of the legislature. SeeCovington v. North Carolina , 267 F. Supp. 3d 664 (2017) ( Covington II ). A special election, as found in Covington II , is a special intrusion into the ordinary proceedings of the legislature and the state.