April 26, 2026 Story by: Publisher
North Carolina legislative leaders are pushing back against a federal court challenge to two northeastern state Senate districts, urging the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reject claims that the maps unlawfully discriminate against Black voters.
The dispute centers on Senate Districts 1 and 2, which have already been upheld by a trial court and used in recent elections. Plaintiffs, including two Black voters, argue the districts dilute minority voting strength in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but lawmakers contend the maps comply with both state and federal law.
Two black voters, state Rep. Rodney Pierce, D-Halifax, and Moses Matthews are appealing the trial court decision. A new brief Monday, April 20 from state legislative leaders responded to the appeal.
“In the past 30 years, every court to adjudicate a race-related redistricting case in northeastern North Carolina held that majority-Black districts are unnecessary and, when purposefully created, impermissible,” lawmakers’ lawyers wrote. “These districts can upend the county groupings required by the North Carolina Constitution and trigger strict scrutiny under the U.S. Constitution. Not one North Carolina district in decades has satisfied that standard. Dozens have failed.”
The case follows a broader pattern of redistricting litigation in the state, where courts have weighed competing claims of racial vote dilution against arguments that race-based districting itself may be unconstitutional. With the appeal now before the federal courts, the outcome could further define how voting rights protections and redistricting principles are applied in northeastern North Carolina ahead of future elections.
“Plaintiffs (the two voters who brought this suit) came to court in 2023 with the improbable view that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) requires the General Assembly to depart from the State’s county-grouping formula to create a race-based majority-Black district in North Carolina’s ‘Black Belt.'”
Background
The legal battle over North Carolina’s electoral map has reached a critical juncture as the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals begins reviewing a high-stakes challenge to state Senate districts in the northeastern “Black Belt.”
In an order filed Dec. 22, the 4th Circuit declined an en banc hearing after no judge requested a poll of the court, maintaining the standard three-judge panel assignment. Under a separate scheduling order, the petitioner’s opening brief must be filed by Feb. 2, with the response following on March 2. The court has not yet set a date for oral arguments.
A federal judge upheld North Carolina’s state Senate map in September 2025, rejecting arguments that Republican lawmakers had drawn district lines to weaken the political influence of Black voters.
A February brief from Pierce and Matthews cited a landmark 1986 US Supreme Court redistricting decision.
“For four decades following Thornburg v. Gingles, … Black voters in northeastern North Carolina’s Black Belt counties were able to elect candidates of their choice to the state Senate,” the plaintiffs’ lawyers wrote. “But North Carolina’s 2023 Senate map cracks this contiguous, majority-Black region across four districts, leaving Black voters in Senate Districts 1 and 2 with no realistic opportunity to elect their candidates of choice. Under well-settled law recently reaffirmed in Allen v. Milligan [in 2023], this violates § 2 of the Voting Rights Act.”
The Core Conflict: “Cracking” vs. Coalition
The lawsuit, led by plaintiffs Rodney Pierce and Moses Matthews, alleges that the 2023 redistricting plan violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
The plaintiffs argue that the map “cracks” a cohesive Black community across two districts, leaving each with roughly a 30% Black voting-age population. By splitting this population, they contend, Black voters are stripped of their ability to elect a “candidate of choice” in a region where voting remains intensely polarized along racial lines.
The State’s Defense: Republican legislative leaders and the state’s defense team argue that the map is legally sound. They point to recent election results—including the success of Black candidates in districts without a Black majority—as evidence that North Carolina has moved past the era where “race-based districting” is a legal necessity.
A Recent Procedural Blow for Plaintiffs
In late December 2025, the full 4th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a brief but significant order. The court denied a petition for an “initial en banc” hearing.
- What this means: Instead of all 15 eligible judges hearing the case at once, the appeal will follow the standard procedure of being decided by a three-judge panel.
- The Significance: Plaintiffs had pushed for the full court to hear the case immediately, citing its “exceptional importance” and the tight timeline of the 2026 elections. The denial by the full court—notably with no judge even requesting a poll on the matter—is seen as a procedural win for the state.
The Lower Court Ruling
U.S. District Judge James C. Dever III — a George W. Bush appointee — concluded that the configuration did not violate the Voting Rights Act. In his 126-page opinion, Dever declined to order the legislature to create a majority-Black Senate district, stating that doing so would require “the odious practice of sorting voters by race.”
“Due in part to societal progress on race and due in part to the VRA, North Carolina is a very different state politically and socially than it was in 1965 or 1982. Black voters in northeast North Carolina and throughout North Carolina have elected candidates of their choice (both white and black) with remarkable frequency and success for decades. Black elected officials in North Carolina are at or near-parity with their share of the statewide population.”
He concluded that Black voters in the northeast are capable of forming successful coalitions with other voters, making a mandatory majority-Black district unnecessary under current Supreme Court precedents.
Timeline and What’s at Stake
With the en banc request denied, the case is moving on an expedited briefing schedule:
- Opening Briefs: Filed in early February 2026.
- Response Briefs: Due by March 2, 2026.
- Oral Arguments: Yet to be scheduled, but expected this spring.
If the 4th Circuit panel reverses Judge Dever’s decision, the General Assembly could be forced to redraw the Senate map for the northeastern part of the state mid-decade. If the ruling stands, the current boundaries for Districts 1 and 2 will likely remain in place through the 2030 census.
Source: The Carolina Journal
