NC NAACP v. Moore, et. al

NCAJ filed an amicus brief in the North Carolina Supreme Court in support of the North Carolina State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (“NAACP”). The trial court had determined that legislation proposing constitutional amendments meant to entrench the political party in power was void because (a) the General Assembly proposing it was the result of illegal racial gerrymandering and (b) without that illegal racial gerrymandering, the legislature would never have met the constitutionally-required threshold to propose a constitutional amendment. The Court of Appeals reversed, with a dissent by Judge Reuben Young, and the NAACP appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court.

NCAJ’s amicus brief focused on two things. First, it is basic Constitutional law that for every Constitutional violation there must be a remedy. Corum v. University of North Carolina, 330 N.C. 761, 782- 83, 413 S.E.2d 276, 289-90, cert. denied, 506 U.S. 985, 113 S.Ct. 493, 121 L.Ed.2d 431 (1992). Covington v. North Carolina, 316 F.R.D. 117 (M.D.N.C. 2016) perfected the violation when it found that the General Assembly was the product of illegal racial gerrymandering. There must be a remedy for the constitutional amendments that were a direct result of that violation. Second, a history of discrimination made these particular amendments especially harmful to Black North Carolinians. The North Carolina Supreme Court has a duty to invalidate the General Assembly’s unconstitutional abuse of power and to ensure that no further General Assembly feels emboldened to attempt a similar abuse of its perceived power. The very purpose of the Declaration of Rights contained within the North Carolina Constitution is to ensure that the violation of these rights is never permitted by anyone who might be invested under the Constitution with the powers of the State, and that the People of this State may seek remedy from the Court when an arm of the State violates these rights. Corum, 330 N.C. at 782-83, 413 S.E.2d at 289-90; Craig ex rel. Craig v. New Hanover Cty. Bd. of Educ., 363 N.C. 334, 338–39, 678 S.E.2d 351, 355 (2009). To fail to protect these rights now is to set a precedent that does nothing less than incentivize this type of unlawful and politically motivated foul play power grab.