NEWBY dissenting. I dissent from the decision of the Court which violates separation of powers by effectively placing responsibility for redistricting with the judicial branch, not the legislative branch as expressly provided in our constitution. As predicted by the Supreme Court of the United States, this Courts decision results in an “unprecedented expansion of judicial power.”
I'm struck by the yawning gap between his reality and ours regarding "the rights of others":
Recognizing special rights to one favored person or group invariably diminishes the rights of others.
[What? Does he mean that the order in Harper v. Hall has absolutely trampled on the rights of Berger Moore to create authoritarian government? The right to punish political opponents?]
Newby says a citizen, any citizen or group of critizens, can't challenge partisan gerrymandering through the courts. Simply can't. "[A] claim for partisan gerrymandering presents a nonjusticiable political question." Period. You cannot seek redress from being subjected, say, to seeing your county cut up and parceled out to dilute its political strength. Newby's Valentine message to "Dear Citizens," particularly of the Democratic stripe: You're shit outta luck.
[The Court's Democratic majority] seeks to support [statewide political proportionality in redistricting] with various provisions of our Declaration of Rights that are designed to protect individual and personal rights. Corum v. Univ. of N.C., 330 N.C. 761, 782, 413 S.E.2d 276, 289 (1992). In doing so, it magically transforms the protection of individual rights into the creation of a protected class for members of a political party, subjecting a redistricting plan to strict scrutiny review.