North Carolina State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Tim Moore and Philip Berger

Summary

The Supreme Court of North Carolina considered whether a General Assembly substantially composed of legislators elected from unconstitutionally racially gerrymandered districts had authority to propose constitutional amendments. The court held that the North Carolina Constitution imposes limits on that authority under the circumstances, but concluded that the trial court’s categorical invalidation of the challenged amendments was too broad. The court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for consideration of whether invalidation was necessary after balancing the equities.

Holdings

1. The challenge to the authority of legislators elected through unconstitutional racial gerrymandering to initiate the constitutional-amendment process is justiciable and is not a purely political question.
2. Legislators elected as a result of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering were not de jure officers, but they were de facto officers whose ordinary legislative acts are presumptively valid and not subject to collateral attack.
3. The de facto officer doctrine does not automatically shield acts initiating constitutional amendments when legislators elected through unconstitutional racial gerrymandering could have been decisive in the vote.
4. When legislators elected through unconstitutional gerrymandering could have been decisive in passing an amendment proposal, the court must determine whether there is a substantial risk that the amendment will immunize legislators from democratic accountability, perpetuate exclusion of a category of voters from the political process, or intentionally discriminate against a category of citizens also targeted in the gerrymandering process. If any factor is present, the amendment must be invalidated; otherwise, the amendment must remain in place.
5. Subsequent majority approval by voters does not cure a constitutional defect in the legislative process for submitting an amendment to the electorate.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the challenge to the authority of legislators elected from unconstitutionally racially gerrymandered districts to initiate constitutional amendments presented a justiciable controversy.
2. Whether legislators elected from districts conclusively determined to be unconstitutional racial gerrymanders retained authority to initiate the constitutional-amendment process under Article XIII, section 4 of the North Carolina Constitution.
3. Whether the de facto officer doctrine automatically shields constitutional-amendment proposals enacted by such legislators from collateral review after the gerrymandering violation was established.
4. What factors a trial court must consider in deciding whether to invalidate constitutional amendments proposed by a legislature whose members included legislators elected through unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded