A federal court should not block its decision to use a special master’s legislative districts because lawmakers’ legal arguments are groundless and unlikely to prevail on appeal, according to a new filing.
A three-judge panel decided last week that Stanford law professor Nathaniel Persily’s redrawing of nine legislative districts would be enacted for the 2018 elections instead of the General Assembly’s maps. Lawmakers immediately requested a stay, citing their intent to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The plaintiffs in the racial gerrymandering case responded Tuesday and told the court that lawmakers were again trying to delay, which would result in further harm to voters.
“Further, when balancing the equities, it is clear that granting the stay would only serve to prolong and exacerbate the constitutional harms from which Plaintiffs have suffered for the better part of the decade,” the response states. “In contrast, the slight administrative inconvenience of implementing a handful of new districts in time for the opening of the filing period — but nearly five months before the regularly scheduled primary election — cannot justify subjecting North Carolinians to yet another election under unconstitutional maps.”
A response was also filed Tuesday on behalf of the state and the Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement.
“The State takes no position on the Motion, but it believes that a swift decision on a remedy
would advance the public interest,” the document states.
You can read both motions below.