Racial gerrymandering in North Carolina can still be challenged, but only in federal court and only under two theories: the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Recent decisions from both the North Carolina Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court have narrowed the path considerably, and the congressional map that will govern the 2026 elections is already in litigation under the new, tougher standards.
What Counts as a Racial Gerrymander
The constitutional test traces back to Shaw v. Reno, the 1993 case that arose from North Carolina’s own District 12, a majority-Black district that stretched roughly 160 miles along Interstate 85 and in places was no wider than the highway itself.1Justia. Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 Shaw held that voters can bring an equal protection claim when a district’s shape is so irrational that it can only be understood as an effort to separate people by race.
Two years later, Miller v. Johnson supplied the evidentiary standard courts still apply. A challenger must prove race was the “predominant factor” in placing voters inside or outside a district, meaning the legislature subordinated traditional criteria like compactness, contiguity, and respect for political boundaries to racial considerations.2Justia. Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 If a court finds race predominated, it applies strict scrutiny, and the state must prove its use of race was narrowly tailored to a compelling interest such as Voting Rights Act compliance.3Constitution Annotated. Amdt14.S1.8.6.6 Racial Vote Dilution and Racial Gerrymandering Most states that lose at this stage lose because they cannot show the compelling interest or the narrow tailoring.
The Voting Rights Act Bind
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, codified at 52 U.S.C. ยง 10301, prohibits any voting practice that results in the denial of the right to vote on account of race.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 USC 10301 – Denial or Abridgement of Right to Vote on Account of Race or Color Under the framework set out in Thornburg v. Gingles, a case that also originated in North Carolina, Section 2 sometimes requires the legislature to draw a district where a geographically compact, politically cohesive minority group has a realistic chance to elect its preferred candidate when white voters bloc-vote against that candidate.5Justia. Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30
That obligation creates the tension at the heart of North Carolina’s redistricting fights. Draw a majority-minority district and you invite a Shaw-type racial gerrymandering suit. Decline to draw one and you invite a Section 2 vote-dilution suit. The state’s mapmakers have been caught between those two risks for three decades.
Why Preclearance No Longer Protects Challengers
Before 2013, 40 of North Carolina’s 100 counties were covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which required federal approval of any voting changes before they could take effect. Because statewide maps touch covered counties, the entire state’s redistricting plans were effectively subject to federal preclearance.6Department of Justice. Jurisdictions Previously Covered By Section 5 Shelby County v. Holder ended that in 2013. The consequence is that discriminatory maps can no longer be blocked before an election; the only remedy is a lawsuit filed after the maps are in use, and voters often cast ballots under contested lines while cases work through the courts.
Why State Court Is No Longer a Venue
For about a year, state court offered a separate path. In Harper v. Hall (2022), the North Carolina Supreme Court held that extreme partisan gerrymandering violated the state constitution and struck down the 2021 legislative maps. After the 2022 elections changed the court’s composition, the new majority granted rehearing and, on April 28, 2023, overruled the prior decision. The court held partisan gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable political questions under the state constitution and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice.7Justia Law. Harper v. Hall, No. 413PA21-2
That reversal matters for racial gerrymandering cases even though those claims live in federal court. Partisanship and race are tightly correlated in North Carolina because Black voters overwhelmingly support one party. When plaintiffs can’t argue partisan gerrymandering anywhere, every challenge to a map drawn for partisan advantage has to be reframed as a racial claim, and the state can defend by saying the lines were drawn for partisan reasons the courts no longer police.
The Alexander Decision Raised the Federal Bar
On May 23, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP. The case involved South Carolina’s congressional map, but the rule applies to racial gerrymandering challenges nationwide.8Justia. Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, No. 22-807
Alexander held that when race and partisan affiliation are highly correlated, plaintiffs who lack strong direct evidence of racial intent must produce an alternative map. That map has to show a rational legislature pursuing the same partisan goals would have drawn districts with greater racial balance. Without one, courts should draw an adverse inference against the challengers, and the ruling says it becomes “difficult for plaintiffs to defeat the starting presumption that the legislature acted in good faith.”8Justia. Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, No. 22-807
In practice this means plaintiffs have to reverse-engineer the legislature’s partisan strategy, build a map that produces equivalent partisan results, and then show the enacted map departs from that benchmark in ways only explainable by race. That requires expert mapmakers, computing resources, and granular political data. For North Carolina, where race and party overlap heavily, Alexander converts what used to be a hard case into a very hard one.
How the Maps Get Drawn in the First Place
The General Assembly has sole authority over redistricting and redraws congressional, state senate, and state house districts after each decennial census.9North Carolina General Assembly. Legislative and Congressional Redistricting Redistricting bills bypass the governor entirely. Article II, Section 22 of the state constitution provides that bills revising senate, house, or congressional districts, when they contain no other subject matter, become law after three readings in each chamber and the signatures of the presiding officers.10North Carolina General Assembly. North Carolina Constitution – Article II, Section 22 There is no gubernatorial veto on a redistricting bill. The majority party controls the maps outright.
One state constitutional constraint does apply. The Whole County Provision in Article II, Sections 3 and 5 forbids dividing a county in forming a senate or house district, with splits allowed only when federal law requires them.11North Carolina General Assembly. North Carolina Constitution – Article II A county split that no federal law compelled can itself be used as evidence that race drove the line.
The Maps in Effect for 2026
Two things happened in late 2025 that set the stage for next year’s elections. First, a three-judge federal panel in Williams v. Hall upheld the state’s 2023 house, senate, and congressional maps in November 2025, rejecting Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment racial gerrymandering claims. The case was dismissed in January 2026. Second, the legislature enacted Senate Bill 249 in October 2025, redrawing congressional districts for the 2026 elections.12North Carolina General Assembly. Senate Bill 249 / SL 2025-95 – Realign Congressional Districts 2025
The new congressional map is already being challenged. Plaintiffs in NC NAACP v. Berger filed a supplemental complaint in October 2025 alleging the 2025 redraw was designed to punish Black voters in the state’s historic Black Belt region for how they voted in 2024. The three-judge panel denied a preliminary injunction in November 2025, so the new map will be used for the 2026 elections while litigation continues. The candidate filing period ran from December 1 through December 19, 2025, with candidates filing under the new boundaries.
What Residents Can Do During a Redistricting Cycle
The General Assembly maintains an online comment portal for proposed maps, and redistricting committees have historically held in-person hearings around the state during the drawing process. The window is often short. Maps can move from committee proposal to floor vote in days, so residents who want to be heard need to track committee schedules and submit comments early in the cycle rather than waiting for a final version to appear.
Taken together, the picture for anyone considering a racial gerrymandering claim in North Carolina is this: state court is closed to partisan arguments, federal court demands an alternative map to disentangle race from party, preclearance is gone, and the legislature draws the maps without a veto. The Fourteenth Amendment and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act are still live tools, and cases are still being filed, but the cost and difficulty of winning one is higher than it has been at any point since Shaw v. Reno was decided.