Returning to his role as a civil rights attorney, the former NCCU chancellor takes the redistricting battle to the state Supreme Court.

Chambers called the 1968 redistricting provision “unconstitutional.” (Photo: Rashaun Rucker/Echo Photo Editor)

Debate began last week in the state Supreme Court on whether an amendment to the state Constitution that prohibits the splitting of counties to create voting districts is enforceable.

Lawyers representing the state NAACP and Republican leaders disagreed on whether the clause, adopted in 1968, was initially drafted to prevent blacks from winning elections.

Former N.C. Central chancellor and renowned civil rights attorney Julius Chambers, argued for the state NAACP.

“We should reject this provision because its purpose and effect is to discriminate against African Americans because of their race and color," said Chambers in a recent News & Observer article.

Lawyers representing the Republicans, however, argue that splitting counties to form districts is illegal gerrymandering. According to the article, their position is that the boundaries approved by the Democratic-controlled General Assembly favor Democratic candidates and split more counties than required to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act.

“This case is about power,” said Thomas Farr, a Raleigh lawyer representing the Republicans in the News & Observer article. “It is about money. It is about how schools are funded. It is about where the roads are built. And it is about who the people are who make those decisions.

“The question we are facing is: Do we have a system where the voters pick their representatives or the representatives pick the voters they want to guarantee their re-election?”

According to the article, Greensboro lawyer Robert N. Hunter, who filed a “friend of the court” brief for the Republicans' position, said none of the plans would dismantle the districts where black residents are in the majority.

Hunter suggested that counties be combined and not split to form even districts.

According to the N&O, Chambers said that honoring the provision would allow single-member African-American districts to be surrounded by large multi-member, mostly white districts. This, according to Chambers, would result in fewer choices for black voters.

“You're telling black voters ‘I'm going to give you one person to vote for,’” Chambers said. “You're telling white voters: ‘I'm going to give you eight people to vote for.’”

According to the N&O, one Republican sample map shows Wake County with a single-member, black-majority district of about 68,500 people surrounded by an eight-member House district with about 560,000 people.

The sample map, drawn to comply with the federal mandate of “one person, one vote” without splitting counties, also included large multi-member districts that would elect as many as 10 House members and five senators, the N&O article said.

“If the court were to allow the plaintiffs to revive this provision, we would have a little black district in a sea of white districts and the appearance would be unconstitutional and impractical,” said Chambers.

According to Chambers, it had been assumed that the provision was ineffective and unenforceable.

“The main issue is whether you can enforce this clause and comply with the Voting Rights Act,” said Chambers. “You have to establish majority and minority districts to accommodate the ‘one person, one vote’ requirement.”

This case is drawing attention because its outcome could determine which party controls the General Assembly, according to the N&O.

Republicans say that accepting the districts drawn by the Democratic-controlled General Assembly will give Democrats a better chance of controlling the state House.

According to Chambers, honoring the provision would affect metropolitan areas such as Greensboro, Raleigh, and Charlotte.

“This plan would adversely affect blacks,” said Chambers. “That’s why I’m involved in this particular proceeding.”