Civil rights groups challenge new North Carolina maps
A major federal trial in North Carolina has ended, and civil rights groups say the new congressional maps could silence Black voters. They believe the 2023 redistricting plan weakens the power of Black communities to elect leaders of their choice.
The case, brought by groups like the NC NAACP and Common Cause, claims that Republican lawmakers split Black voters across districts. Their lawyers argue the maps are not just partisan, but racially unfair. The trial ended Wednesday in Winston-Salem, but a decision won’t come until August.
Black voters see less power in new districts
Lawyers for the plaintiffs said that in 2022, Black voters had a real chance to influence 6.2 out of 14 congressional races. Under the 2023 maps, that number dropped to just 3.8. They say this is clear evidence that Black voters were packed and cracked into districts where their votes no longer matter as much.
In areas like Guilford and Mecklenburg counties, districts were redrawn in ways that split up Black voters. For example, the once-strong 6th and 14th districts saw key Black communities moved to different districts.
“The 2023 plan is worse than the 2022 plan on every metric,” said Lali Madduri, a lawyer for Black and Latino voters.
1st District’s legacy at risk
One of the most alarming changes, civil rights lawyers say, involves North Carolina’s 1st Congressional District. The new map removes Pitt County and parts of Greenville, both with large Black populations. Instead, the district now includes more white-majority coastal areas.
This is the same district where, in 1992, Eva Clayton was elected. She was the first Black person to represent North Carolina in Congress since 1898. Now, the seat’s future as a voice for Black voters could be in danger.
Senators defend maps as political, not racial
Republican lawmakers say race wasn’t a factor. They say the new maps aim to favor their party—not hurt Black voters. Senator Ralph Hise, who helped draw the maps, said he focused on political trends, not race.
Their lawyer, Katherine McKnight, said using race would have created legal risks. “It doesn’t make sense they would use race and invite liability when they can use partisanship,” she told the court.
Experts clash on data and motive
Both sides brought in redistricting experts. One expert, Jonathan Rodden of Stanford University, said race still played a role, even after adjusting for political data. He pointed out patterns that showed Black voters were more likely to be shifted out of competitive districts.
Rodden said, “I can’t tell you what people were thinking in drawing these districts. I’m just trying to explain that data.”
The opposing expert, Sean Trende, said Rodden’s methods were flawed. He argued that there was no solid proof of racial bias in how the lines were drawn.
What’s next for North Carolina voters?
Judges Thomas Schroeder, Richard Myers II, and Allison Rushing, all appointed by Republican presidents, will now decide the case. Until then, many are left wondering if the gains made since Eva Clayton’s historic win will be protected or rolled back.
