Feb 12, 2025 Story by: Editor
RALEIGH, N.C. (CN) — A trial challenging the 2023 North Carolina Senate map on grounds of racial gerrymandering commenced in Raleigh.
The lawsuit, brought by two Black voters who claim their electoral influence has been diminished due to gerrymandering, moved directly to witness questioning as both plaintiffs took the stand in the morning. The court session bypassed opening arguments.
The legal challenge focuses on two state Senate districts in northeastern North Carolina, an area known as the “Black Belt.”
North Carolina has eight counties where Black residents make up the majority of the population, all situated in the eastern part of the state. Under the new legislative map enacted in 2023, these counties were divided into four state Senate districts. The plaintiffs argue that two of these districts were intentionally split to weaken Black voters’ influence by shifting them into predominantly white districts, reducing their ability to elect candidates of their choice.
During Monday’s proceedings, expert witnesses for the plaintiffs contended that political polarization alone does not fully explain the racial disparities in voter preferences across the contested districts.
“There is a stark difference between Black and white in each county in the Black Belt, and it doesn’t seem to be improving,” former U.S. Representative G. K. Butterfield testified, emphasizing the existence of racially polarized voting in the northeastern part of the state. “I think there is some political polarization but that doesn’t fully explore it.”
Butterfield further noted that Black voters in the region prioritize public education and voting rights, aligning them more closely with Democratic candidates.
Although Black residents constitute only 21% of North Carolina’s eligible voters, they form the majority in counties like Bertie, Hertford, Edgecombe, Northampton, and Halifax—all part of the Black Belt—where more than 50% of the electorate is Black.
Expert witnesses also supported the argument that Black-preferred candidates stand little chance of winning in the disputed Senate districts.
“It is entirely improbable that an African American is going to win in either of these districts given the Black voting population in these districts,” said Senator Dan Blue, asserting that the new map had effectively “cracked” existing Black voting blocs by dispersing them into different electoral districts.
Moses Matthews, one of the plaintiffs, criticized the state Legislature for failing to address the needs of northeastern Black residents. He pointed to delays in Medicaid expansion and insufficient efforts to address healthcare inequalities.
“I wanted to be a voice to the legislative body. I want the legislative body to be composed of voices who want the best for northeastern North Carolina,” Matthews said, adding that he hopes to elect representatives who align with his values.
Rodney Pierce, another plaintiff who recently secured a seat in the state House, stressed that Black Belt voters tend to support candidates advocating for expanded voting access, improved public education, and environmental protections. According to him, this preference explains why Black voters in the disputed districts overwhelmingly support Democratic candidates.
During cross-examinations, attorneys for the legislative defendants pushed back on claims that the Senate map prevents Black-preferred candidates from winning in Districts 1 and 2.
“You are only challenging the district in which a Republican represents you, is that correct?” asked attorney Cassie Holt, representing the Republican legislative leadership. Holt pointed out that Democrats had won congressional and House races in Pierce’s district.
Senator Blue described racially polarized voting as “undeniably present” in northeastern North Carolina and questioned whether redistricting could comply with the Voting Rights Act—which ensures equal opportunities for all voters to elect their preferred candidates—without considering racial demographics. The state Senate has maintained that it did not take racial data into account when drafting the 2023 map.
The legislative defendants, in their legal filings, argued that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that Black voters are politically cohesive or that the electoral process is unfairly restrictive toward minorities. They did not present any expert witnesses on Monday.
The plaintiffs are seeking a revised electoral map that would establish a minority opportunity district within the Black Belt counties. Initially, they had requested the courts to prevent the 2024 elections from proceeding under the contested map, but the Fourth Circuit Court ruled against them, citing late filing and insufficient evidence to warrant immediate redistricting.
If the defendants succeed, the current Senate map will remain in place for the 2026, 2028, and 2030 elections before the next redistricting cycle.
The case is one of several lawsuits challenging various electoral maps passed at the same time, including disputes over congressional and state House and Senate district boundaries.
U.S. District Court Judge James C. Dever III, appointed by former President George W. Bush, presided over proceedings. Source: Courthouse News Service
