1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. S.E.2d
  4. 582 S.E.2d
  5. 582 S.E.2d 247 (2003)
 

STEPHENSON v. BARTLETT

No. 94PA02-2.

582 S.E.2d 247 (2003)

357 N.C. 301

Ashley STEPHENSON, individually, and as a resident and registered voter of Beaufort County, North Carolina; Leo Daughtry, individually, and as Representative for the 95th District, North Carolina House of Representatives; Patrick Ballantine, individually, and as Senator for the 4th District, North Carolina Senate; ART POPE, individually, and as Representative for the 61st District, North Carolina House of Representatives; and Bill Cobey, individually, and as Chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party and on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. Gary O. BARTLETT, as Executive Director of the State Board of Elections; Larry Leake, Robert B. Cordle, Genevieve C. Sims, Lorraine G. Shinn, and Charles Winfree, as members of the State Board of Elections; James B. Black, as Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives; Marc Basnight, as President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate; Michael Easley, as Governor of the State of North Carolina; and Roy Cooper, as Attorney General of the State of North Carolina.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 16, 2003.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Haynsworth Baldwin Johnson & Greaves, LLC by Thomas A. Farr and Phillip J. Strach, Cary; Maupin Taylor & Ellis, P.A. by James C. Dever, III and Terence D. Friedman, Raleigh; and Hunter Higgins Miles Elam & Benjamin by Robert N. Hunter, Jr., Greensboro, for plaintiff-appellees.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General by Edwin M. Speas, Jr., Chief Deputy Attorney General, and Tiare B. Smiley, Norma S. Harrell, Alexander McC. Peters, and Susan K. Nichols, Special Deputy Attorneys General, for defendant-appellants.

Robert P. Quinn, M.D., amicus curiae.

LAKE, Chief Justice.

The sole issue presently before this Court in this case is whether the trial court correctly determined that the General Assembly's 2002 revised redistricting plans are unconstitutional. After careful review, we conclude the trial court ruled correctly, and we therefore affirm.

The procedural history of this case is reported in detail in Stephenson v. Bartlett, 355 N.C. 354, 358-60,

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases