Full opinion text
ORDER JAMES C. DEVER III, Chief United States District Judge Plaintiffs, individual voters registered in Wake County, North Carolina and the Raleigh Wake Citizens Association (“RWCA”), an organization dedicated to the interests of African-Americans in Wake County, (collectively “plaintiffs”) challenge the North Carolina General Assembly’s (“General Assembly”) 2013 redistricting plan for electing the Wake County School Board (“2013 Wake County School Board Plan”) and the General Assembly’s 2015 redistricting plan for electing the Wake County Board of Commissioners (“2015 Wake County Commissioners Plan”). Plaintiffs contend that the 2013 Wake County School Board Plan and the 2015 Wake County Commissioners Plan violate the one person one vote principle in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, § 19 of the North Carolina Constitution. Plaintiffs concede that the maximum population deviation in the 2013 Wake County School Board Plan and the 2015 Wake County County Commissioners Plan is below 10% and concede that such a deviation is a “minor deviation” under governing Supreme Court precedent. Specifically, in both redistricting plans, the maximum population deviation in the seven single-member districts is 7.11% and in the two super districts is 9.8%. Nonetheless, plaintiffs contend that the two redistricting plans resulted from the General Assembly’s invidious discrimination, arbitrariness, or bad faith. As for the 2013 Wake County School Board Plan, plaintiffs contend that the plan resulted from the General Assembly’s partisan desire (1) to disadvantage incumbents on the non-partisan Wake County Board of Education (“Wake County Board of Education” or “Wake County School Board”) who are registered Democrats who support “progressive” education policies and (2) to favor suburban and rural voters over urban voters. As for the 2015 Wake County Commissioners Plan, plaintiffs contend that the plan resulted from the General Assembly’s partisan desire (1) to favor suburban and rural voters over urban voters and (2) to favor voters who favor Republican candidates over voters who favor Democratic candidates on the Wake County Board of Commissioners (“Wake County Commission”, or “County Commission”, or “Commission”). Plaintiffs also contend that the 2015 General Assembly racially gerrymandered District 4 in the 2015 Wake County Commissioners Plan and thereby violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Defendant Wake County Board of Elections (“defendant” or “Wake County Board of Elections”) is the local election board responsible for administering elections in Wake County, North Carolina, including elections for the Wake County Board of Education and the Wake County Board of Commissioners. The Wake County Board of Elections had nothing to do with the General Assembly’s decision to enact the 2013 Wake County School Board Plan or the 2015 Wake County Commissioners Plan, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has held that the Wake County Board of Elections is the proper defendant. See Wright v. North Carolina, 787 F.3d 256, 261-63 (4th Cir.2015). Moreover, although the Wake County Board of Elections does not take a position on whether the General Assembly should have adopted the 2013 Wake County School Board Plan or the 2015 Wake County Commissioners Plan, the Wake County Board of Elections has defended the constitutionality of the redistricting plans as a legal and institutional matter. On December 16-18, 2015, the court held a bench trial in this consolidated action. In their complaints and at the end of the trial, plaintiffs asked this court to declare the 2013 Wake County School Board Plan and the 2015 Wake County Commissioners Plan unconstitutional, to enjoin the Wake County Board of Elections from administering elections under either plan, to hold elections under a court-ordered remedial plan that adopts the redistricting plans in effect before the General Assembly enacted the 2013 and 2015 plans, and to give the General Assembly another opportunity to redistrict the Wake County School Board and Wake County Board of Commissioners consistent with the United States and North Carolina Constitutions. The court has reviewed the entire record and enters these findings of fact and conclusions of law. As explained below, the court concludes that the population deviations in the 2013 Wake County School Board Plan and the 2015 Wake County Commissioners Plan do not violate the one person one vote principle in the United States Constitution or North Carolina Constitution. The court finds that the General Assembly did not engage in invidious discrimination, act arbitrarily, or act in bad faith in enacting the 2013 Wake County School Board Plan or the 2015 Wake County Commissioners Plan. The court also finds that the 2015 General Assembly did not racially gerrymander District 4 in the 2015 Wake County Commissioners Plan and concludes that District 4 does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Because plaintiffs have not met their burden of proof, the court enters judgment for the Wake County Board of Elections and declines to enjoin the Wake County Board of Elections from administering elections under either the 2013 Wake County School Board Plan or the 2015 Wake County Commissioners Plan. I. The court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367(a). On August 22, 2013, thirteen individual plaintiffs and two associations filed the first of these two consolidated cases. See Wright v. North Carolina, No. 5:13-CV-607 [D.E. 1] Compl. (E.D.N.C.) (“Wright Compl.”). In Wright plaintiffs named the State of North Carolina and the Wake County Board of Elections as defendants. See id. Plaintiffs allege that the 2013 Wake County School Board Plan violates the one person one vote principle of the United States and North Carolina Constitutions. See id. ¶¶ 69-82. Essentially, plaintiffs allege that the “clear ... intent [of the 2013 Wake County School Board Plan is] to disfavor incumbents who are registered Democrats and support progressive education policies.” Id. ¶ 62. Plaintiffs also allege that the “only” goal the new plan accomplishes is to further “Republican interests” and advance “conservative” education policies. Id. ¶¶ 62, 66. Plaintiffs do not allege a racial gerrymandering claim concerning any district in the 2013 Wake County School Board Plan, including District 4 which is a majority African-American district. Plaintiffs request a declaratory judgment that the 2013 Wake County School Board Plan violates the one person one vote principle in the Equal Protection Clause of the United States and North Carolina Constitutions. See id. (prayer for relief). Plaintiffs also request preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining the Wake County Board of Elections from enforcing the 2013 Wake County School Board Plan. See id. Plaintiffs also request the court to adopt a court-ordered remedial plan and to permit the General Assembly the opportunity to promulgate a lawful method of electing the Wake County Board of Education. See id. Finally, plaintiffs request costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. See id. On November 4, 2013, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint in Wright for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See [D.E. 27, 29]; Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). On November 19, 2013, plaintiffs requested leave to tile an amended complaint in order to add as defendants, in their official capacities, North Carolina’s Governor, Speaker of the House, and President Pro Tempore of the Senate. See [D.E. 33]. On November 23, 2013, plaintiffs responded in opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss. See [D.E. 35], On March 17, 2014, the court dismissed the State of North Carolina as a defendant due to North Carolina’s Eleventh Amendment immunity, denied plaintiffs’ motion to amend to add the three defendants as futile, and granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Wright v. North Carolina, 975 F.Supp.2d 539, 542-47 (E.D.N.C.2014). Plaintiffs appealed. On May 27, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. See Wright, 787 F.3d at 259, 270. The Fourth Circuit held that the district court properly denied, as futile, plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint to add as defendants, in their official capacity, the Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore of the Senate. See id. at 261-63. The Fourth Circuit also held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Id. at 264-70. Judge Diana G. Motz dissented from the majority’s conclusion that plaintiffs plausibly alleged a one person one vote claim under the United States and North Carolina Constitutions. See id. at 270-73 (Motz. J., dissenting). On April 19, 2015, the RWCA and fourteen individual plaintiffs filed RWCA v. Barefoot No. 5:15-CV-156-D [D.E. 1] Compl. (E.D.N.C.), concerning the 2015 Wake County Commissioners Plan. On June 5, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming only the Wake County Board of Elections as the defendant. See RWCA Am. Compl. [D.E. 22] ¶¶ 81-94. Essentially, plaintiffs allege that the 2015 Wake County Commissioners Plan arbitrarily attempts to “give greater weight to the voting strength of rural and suburban voters in Wake County in elections for the Board of Commissioners, and to disadvantage urban voters,” and to “give disproportionate and unfair weight to the voting strength of voters who support Republican candidates compared to the voting strength of voters who support Democratic candidates, and to disadvantage Democratic voters.” RWCA Compl. ¶¶ 63-64. Plaintiffs contend that the 2015 Wake County Commissioners Plan violates the one person one vote principle of the United States Constitution and the North Carolina, Constitution. See id. ¶¶ 81-94. Plaintiffs also allege that District 4 in the 2015 Wake County Commissioners Plan (which is identical to District 4 in the 2013 Wake County School Board Plan and which the Wright plaintiffs do not challenge as a racial gerrymander) is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See id. ¶¶ 95-98. In RWCA, plaintiffs request a declaratory judgment that the 2015 Wake County Commissioners Plan violates the one person one vote principle of the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and North Carolina Constitutions and that District 4 in the 2015 Wake County Commissioners Plan constitutes a racial gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs also request preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining the Wake County Board of Elections from enforcing the 2015 Wake County Commissioners Plan, and that the court adopt a court-ordered remedial plan for the 2016 election and permit the General Assembly the opportunity to promulgate a lawful method of electing the Wake County Commission. See id. (prayer for relief). Plaintiffs also request costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. Id. On July 17, 2015, the Wright case and the RWCA case were reassigned to the undersigned. See [D.E. 27]. On October 1,2015, the court held a scheduling conference, consolidated Wright and RWCA, approved the parties’ joint discovery plan, and set an expedited trial date of December 16, 2015. See [D.E. 36]. On December 16-18, 2015, the court held a bench trial. See [P.E. 59, 61, 62], During the trial, the court received 481 exhibits, see Wright [D.E. 77], and heard testimony from 15 witnesses. See Wright [D.E. 78, 79]; RWCA [D.E. 59, 61, 62]. The witnesses were Reverend Dr. Earl C. Johnson (President of the RWCA), Senator Dan Blue, Plaintiff Amy Womble, Board of Education Member Bill Fletcher, Board of Education Member Christine Kushner, Anthony Fairfax, Representative Rosa Gill, Representative Darren Jackson, Pollster Thomas Jensen, Plaintiff Brian Fitzsimmons, Commissioner James West, Commissioner John Bums, Senator Josh Stein, Dr. Jowei Chen, and Janet Barnes (former President of the RWCA). Having reviewed the entire record, considered all of the testimony, read each exhibit, and assessed the credibility of the witnesses, the court enters these findings of feet and conclusions of law. See Fed. •R.Civ.P. 52(a). To the extent any finding of fact should be designated as a conclusion of law, it should be considered a conclusion of law. Similarly, to the extent any conclusion of law should be designated a finding of fact, it should be considered a finding of fact. II. A. Wake County includes the City of Raleigh and thirteen other municipalities, geographically distributed as follows: See Amended First Joint Stipulation of Facts (“Stipulations”) [D.E. 56] ¶ 1. In 2000, the population of Wake County was 627,846, and Wake County had 384,865 registered voters. Id. ¶2. In 2010, the population of Wake County was 900,993, and Wake County had 586,237 registered voters. Id. ¶ 3; Tr. Ex. 273. The Wake County School Board is nonpartisan. Although voters in Wake County elect the School Board in nine single-member districts, ballots do not designate the political party of any candidates for the School Board. See Tr. Ex. 438. Elections for the Wake County School Board historically have been held in October of odd-numbered years with any runoffs in November, and Board members are elected to four-year terms. See Tr. Exs. 58, 61, 62, 64, 66, 67, 444, 445; cf. Tr. Ex. 438. Wake County School Board members elected from 1999 through 2013 and their political party registrations are as follows: Year Name Political Party Registration 1999 Beverley Clark Democrat 1999 Rosa Gill Democrat 1999 Tom Oxholm Unaffiliated 1999 Susan Parry Democrat 1999 Wray Stephens Unaffiliated 2001 Bill Fletcher Republican 2001 Patti Head Republican 2001 Kathryn Quigg Democrat 2001 Amy White Republican 2003 Beverley Clark Democrat 2003 Rosa Gill Democrat 2003 Ron Margiotta Republican 2003 Carol Parker Republican 2003 Susan Party Democrat 2005 Eleanor Goettee Democrat 2005 Patti Head Republican 2005 Lori Millberg Democrat 2005 Horace Tart Republican 2007 Beverley Clark Democrat 2007 Rosa Gill Democrat 2007 Kevin Hill Unaffiliated 2007 Ron Margiotta Republican 2007 AnneMcLaurin Democrat 2009 DebraGoldman Republican 2009 Chris Malone Republican 2009 Deborah Prickett Republican 2009 John Tedesco Republican 2011 Susan Evans Democrat 2011 Kevin Hill Unaffiliated 2011 Christine Kushner Democrat 2011 Em Martin Democrat 2011 Keith Sutton Democrat 2013 Tom Benton Democrat 2013 Zora Felton Democrat 2013 Bill Fletcher Republican 2013 Monika Johnson-HosÜer Democrat Stipulations ¶ 7. In the 1999-2000 school year, the student population in the Wake County Public School System was 98,772. Id. 4. In 2010, the student population in the Wake County Public School System was 143,289. Id. ¶ 5. The growth in student population led to the need for school construction, year-round schools, and more magnet schools. The Wake County School Board is responsible for prioritizing school construction and school repair, but the Wake County Commission controls capital funding for such projects. The Wake County School Board has no taxing authority. Instead, it receives 100% of its capital budget from the Wake County Commission and about one-third of its total budget from the Wake County Commission. Thus, a natural political tension exists between the Wake County School Board and the Wake County Commission because the Wake County Commission has the power to tax and the School Board does not Moreover, the Wake County Commission has to determine spending priorities among requests not only from the School Board but also from other constituents seeking Wake County Commission funding for such projects as the county courthouse, the county jail, county libraries, county bike trails, county landfills, and county transit. The Wake County School Board also regulates student assignment and, in 2000, adopted a socioeconomic-diversity policy as part of its student-assignment policy. Under the socioeconomic-diversity component of the overall thirteen-factor student-assignment policy, the Wake County School Board moved away from being race-conscious in student assignment. Instead, as one of the thirteen factors to consider concerning student assignment, Wake County included an assessment of the socioeconomic status of a student. As for socioeconomic status, the Wake County School Board desired to have no more than 40% of the student body at any given school categorized as economically disadvantaged, as measured by the student’s eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch. The Wake County School Board also desired to have no more than 25% of students at one school scoring below grade level on statewide reading tests. As Wake County grew and more students enrolled in the Wake County School District, some parents became upset that their children were assigned to schools that were not geographically close to their residences and that their children sometimes had longer bus rides than they otherwise would have had if they had been assigned to schools closer to their residence. . Moreover, some parents became upset with where schools were built or how quickly schools were repaired. Education issues such as student assignment, school construction, and school repair do not divide along political party lines. Parents (regardless of whether they are voters or registered members of a political party) are concerned about where their children go to school, how their children get to school, what their children experience at school, and the consequences to their child and their family arising from student assignment. Parents and non-parents express concerns that they have about the Wake County Public School System to the Wake County School Board. After the 2010 census, the population deviations for the existing nine single-member districts of the Wake County School Board were as follows: District Ideal Actual Deviation Percentage Population Population Deviation 1. 100,110 111,884 11,774 11.76% 2. 100,110 115,915 15,805 15.79% 3. 100,110 106,036 5,926 5.92% 4. 100,110 96,953 -3,157 -3.15% 5. 100,110 87,055 -13,055 -13.04% 6. 100,110 71,910-28,200 -28.17% 7. 100,110 119,849 19,739 19.72% 8. 100,110 118,908 18,798 18.78% 9. 100,110 72,483 -27,627 -27.60% See Stipulations ¶ 8. After the 2010 census, pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 115C-37(i), the Wake County School Board redistricted the boundaries of its nine single-member districts. As part of that process, the Wake County School Board hired the Shanahan Law Group in 2011 to assist the Wake County School Board in drafting new district boundaries for the Board’s nine single-member districts. Id. ¶ 9. In May 2011, the Wake County School Board adopted nine single-member districts, effective for the fall 2011 elections. Id. ¶ 10. The boundaries for the nine single-member districts that the Wake County School Board adopted in the 2011 BOE Redistricting Plan are shown below: Id. ¶ 11 Population deviations m the nine single-member districts in the 2011 BOE Redistricting Plan are as follows: District Idea] Actual Deviation Percentage Population Population Deviation 1 100,110 99,676 -434 -0,43% 2 100,110 101*046 936 0.93% 3 100,110 100,880 770 0,77% 4 100,110 100,126 16 0.02% 5 100,110 99,419 -691 -0.69% 6 100,110 100,309 199 0.20% 7 100,110 99,294 -816 -0.82% 8 100,110 100,206 96 0.10% 9 100,110 100,037 -73 -0.07% See Tr. Ex. 43; Tr. Ex. 27 Fairfax Report Table 2. The 2011 BOE Redistricting Plan includes nine single-member electoral districts with a maximum population deviation of 1.75%. See Tr. Ex. 43. In the fall of 2011, elections were held in Wake County under the 2011 BOE Redistricting Plan. See Tr. Ex. 58. Approximately 12% of Wake County’s registered voters voted in the fall 2011 non-partisan School Board elections. See id. Kevin Hill (District 3), Keith Sutton (District 4), Jim Martin (District 5), Christine Kushner (District 6), and Susan Evans (District 8) were elected. See Stipulations ¶ 7. Sutton, Martin, Kushner, and Evans are all registered Democrats. See id. On March 13, 2013, Republican Senators Neal Hunt and Chad Barefoot of Wake County filed Senate Bill 325 in the North Carolina General Assembly. See id. ¶ 12. Senate Bill 325 proposed to change the method of electing the Wake County School Board. Senator Hunt stated that the goals of Senate Bill 325 included (1) allowing voters to elect two school board members as opposed to one school board member in order to improve School Board representation, and (2) moving School Board elections from odd-numbered years to even-numbered years to increase voter turnout. See, e.g., Tr. Ex. 1, p. 3. Senate Bill 325 restructures and redistricts the Wake County School Board using seven numbered (1-7) single-member districts and two lettered (A & B) single-member “super districts” that overlap the seven numbered districts. Stipulations ¶ 13. The 2013 Wake County School Board Plan includes one district (District 4 centered in southeast Raleigh) that includes a majority of registered voters who are African-American and covers a geographic area similar to the area covered by District 4 in the 2011 BOE Map. See Tr. Ex. 252. Specifically, District 4 has an African-American population of 54.26% and an African-American voting population of 53.54%. See id. A map of the seven numbered districts under Senate Bill 325 follows: Id. ¶ 14. A map of the two super districts (A & B) under Senate Bill 325 follows: Id. ¶ 15. Senate Bill 325 extends the term of office of those Board members elected in 2011 from four years to five years (i.e., service until December 2016). See Tr. Ex. 438. Senate Bill 325 provides that the four Board members elected in 2013 under the 2011 BOE Redistricting Plan will serve until December 2016. See id. Under Senate Bill 325, no elections are to be held for the Wake County Board of Education in 2015. See id. Senate Bill 325 provides that, beginning in 2016, voters will elect Board of Education members in all seven single-member districts every four years and members will serve four-year terms. See id. Senate Bill 325 provides that in 2016, voters will elect two Board of Education members in the two lettered districts to two-year terms. See id. Senate Bill 325 provides that, beginning in 2018, voters will elect Board of Education members from each of the two lettered districts every four years and members will serve four-year terms. See id. Population deviations in the seven numbered and two lettered districts under Senate Bill 325 as introduced were as follows: District Ideal Population Actual Population Deviation Percentage Deviation 1 128,713 132,263 3550 2.76% 2 128,713 123,315 -5398 -4.19% 3 128,713 133,391 4,678 3.63% 4 128,713 130,304 1,591 1,24% 5 128,713 128,952 239 0.19% 6 128,713 128,539 -174 -0.14% 7 128,713 124,229 -4,484 -3.48% A 450,497 472,585 22,088 4.90% B 450,497 428,408 -22,089 -4.90% See id. ¶ 17. On April 17, 2013, the Senate Redistricting Committee heard public comment on Senate Bill 325 and voted to report the bill to the full Senate for consideration. See id. ¶ 18. During the meeting, Senator Hunt explained that Senate Bill 325 did two things. Tr. Ex. 1, p. 3. First, “in several cases throughout Wake County, a parent may live in one school district and his child may go to school in another school district and the parent needs to be able to vote for the school board member that represents the school that his child attends. The bill would allow voters to vote for two school board members instead of one.” Id. Second, the bill “moves the election from odd years to even numbered years to increase voter turnout. The reason for that is the school board voting record over the past few years has been dismal because it is an off year.” Id. The Committee also discussed that the proposal for the Wake County School Board was similar to the model that the Durham County School Board used. Id. pp. 4-5. During the meeting, some people spoke in favor of Senate Bill 325 and some against it. See Tr. Ex. 2, pp. 1-41. The incumbent School Board opposed changing how its members were elected. See Tr. Ex. 437. On April 22, 2013, the Senate debated and passed Senate Bill 325. Stipulations ¶ 19. During the floor debate, Senator Hunt of Wake County spoke in favor of the bill and again expressed the same two purposes of the bill. See Tr. Ex. 3, pp. 2-3. Democratic Senator Josh Stein of Wake County and Democratic Senator Dan Blue of Wake County spoke against the bill. See id. pp. 3-23. The North Carolina Senate contains fifty members. Thirty-three Republicans voted in favor of Senate Bill 325, and seventeen Democrats voted against Senate Bill 325. See Stipulations 20. On May 29, 2013, the House Elections Committee heard public comment on Senate Bill 325 and voted to report a committee substitute bill to the full Senate for consideration. Id. ¶ 21. During the meeting, some people spoke in favor of the bill, and some people spoke against it. See Tr. Exs. 4, 250. Republican Representative Stam of Wake County spoke in support of the bill as a means to increase voter turnout for School Board elections. Representative Stam also stated that the bill sought to address the “feeling for a long time” that “if your child went to [school in] one district and you lived in another district, that you just weren’t being represented.” Tr. Ex. 250, p. 7. Senator Hunt also expressed the same concerns. See id. pp. 16-17. The House Elections Committee substitute bill to Senate Bill 325 did not change the district boundaries in the original bill. Stipulations ¶ 22. On June 10, 2013, the House debated and passed Senate Bill 325, with two amendments from Representative Stam. Id. ¶ 23. The two amendments adjusted the candidate filing period and slightly changed the district boundaries in the original bill. Id. ¶ 24. During the floor debate, Representative Stain spoke in support of the bill. Representative Stam noted that the Wake County School District was very large. See Tr. Ex. 5, p. 2. Representative Stand explained that the hill sought to do three main things. Id. p. 3. First, the bill sought to increase voter turnout by holding even-year elections. See id. Representative Stam noted that in recent odd-year School Board elections, Wake County had a “five, ten, or fifteen percent turnout.” Id. Second, Representative Stam explained that the bill extended the terms of School Board members elected in 2011 from four years to five years. See id. p. 4. Third, Representative Stam explained that, given the size of the Wake County School District, children were often assigned to a school in a School Board member’s district where a child’s parent or parents did not live and that parents sometimes found it difficult to get responsive representation from a Wake County School Board member where their child attended school. Id. By having two School Board members represent each person in Wake County, Representative Stam hoped that each parent in Wake County would have a School Board member who represented him or her and who each parent could contact if the parent had an issue concerning the Wake County School District. Id. p. 5. Representative Stam also explained his two amendments. Representative Stam explained that the first amendment changed the filing period at the suggestion of the Wake County Board of Elections so that the filing period for the non-partisan Wake County School Board would coincide with the filing period of the non-partisan Wake County Soil and Water Conservation District candidates. Id. p. 6. That amendment passed 113-0. Id. p. 7. Next, Representative Stam explained that the second amendment “put two members who are incumbents in districts that they have a decent chance of winning instead of putting them in a district that they can’t win or it would be difficult to win.” Id. p. 8. Thus, Representative Stain’s second amendment “was to maintain continuity on the School Board for two very highly respected members.” Id. The two members that Representative Stam referenced were Board Member Christine Kushner (a registered Democrat first elected in 2011) and Board Member Deborah Prickett (a registered Republican first elected in 2009). The amendment placed Kushner in District 6 and Prickett in District 7 under the 2013 Wake County School Board Plan. Democratic Representative Gill then spoke in favor of the second amendment. Id. pp.9-10. That amendment passed 112-0. Id. p. 10. During the House debate on Senate Bill 325, Democrats spoke against the bill and Republicans spoke in support. During the House debate on Senate Bill 325, proposed amendments from Democratic Representative Yvonne Holley (to add a referendum), Democratic Representative Darren Jackson (to add two at-large districts to the existing nine numbered districts), and Democratic Representative Rosa Gill (to make the two lettered districts at-large districts) were defeated in the House. See Stipulations ¶ 25. Likewise, during the House debate, Democrats spoke in favor of their amendments, and Republicans spoke against the Democratic amendments. See Tr. Ex. 5, pp. 10-51. The North Carolina House contains 120 members. Sixty-nine Republicans voted in favor of Senate Bill 325 on second reading, four Republicans voted against it, and two Republicans abstained. See Stipulations ¶ 28. Forty Democrats voted against Senate Bill 325. See id. Four Republicans and one Democrat were absent. See id. In 2013, all African-Americans in the North Carolina Senate and House were Democrats, and all African-American legislators voted against Senate Bill 325. See id. ¶ 29; Ans. to Wright Compl. [D.E. 30]. On June 13, 2013, Senate Bill 325 was ratified and chaptered as Session Law 2013-110. Stipulations ¶26; see Tr. Ex. 438, 481. Population deviations in the numbered and lettered districts under Senate Bill 325 as enacted were as follows: District Ideal Population Actual Population Deviation Percentage Deviation 1 128,713 128,190 -523 -0.41% 2 128,713 127,363 -1,350 -1.05% 3 128,713 133,391 4,678 3.63% 4 128,713 130,304 1,591 1,24% 5 128,713 126,742 -1,971 -1.53% 6 128,713 130,774 2,061, 1.60% 7 128,713 124,229 *4,484 -3.48% A 450,497 472,585 22,088 4.90% B 450,497 428,408 -22,089 -4.90% See Stipulations ¶ 27. The maximum population deviation for the seven single-member districts is 7.11% and for the two super districts is 9.8%. B. In 1981, the General Assembly established a system of partisan at-large elections for the Wake County Commission that included seven residency districts. See 1981 N.C. Sess. Laws, ch. 983. Under the law, a Wake County Commission candidate had to live in the residency district to be eligible to run, but each of the seven candidates for the Wake County Commission ran countywide and was elected countywide. See id. Once elected, a Commissioner served a four-year term. See id. Members of the Wake County Board of Commissioners elected from 2000 through 2014, and their political party registrations, are as follows: Name Year Political Party Registration Kenn Gardner 2000 Republican Vernon Malone 2000 Democrat Betty Lou Ward 2000 Democrat Joe Bryan 2002 Republican Herb Council 2002 Republican Tony Gurley 2002 Republican Phil Jeffries 2002 Republican Kenn Gardner 2004 Republican Betty Lou Ward 2004 Democrat Harold Webb 2004 Democrat Lindy Brown 2006 Democrat Joe Bryan 2006 Republican Paul Coble 2006 Republican Tony Gurley 2006 Republican Stan Norwalk 2008 Democrat Betty Lou Ward 2008 Democrat Harold Webb 2008 Democrat Joe Bryan 2010 Republican Paul Coble 2010 Republican Tony Gurley 2010 Republican Phil Matthews 2010 Republican Caroline Sullivan. 2012 Democrat Betty Lou Ward 2012 Democrat James West 2012 Democrat John Bums 2014 Democrat Matt Calabria 2014 Democrat Sig Hutchinson 2014 Democrat Jessica Holmes 2014 Democrat See Stipulations ¶ 30. From 2000 through November 2014, African-American candidates were elected to the Wake County Board of Commissioners by the following margins: Candidate Margin of Victory Year Vernon Malone 3.66% 2000 Harold Webb 5.24% 2004 Lmdy Brown 6.30% 2006 Harold Webb 17.32% 2008 James West (unopposed) 100.00% 2012 Jessica Holmes 12.70% 2014 Id. ¶ 31. After the 2010 census, pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 153A-22, the Wake County Board of Commissioners redistricted the boundaries of its seven residency districts in 2011. See Stipulations ¶ 33. Under a residency-district system, a candidate must live in the district from which the candidate wishes to run, but all voters in the jurisdiction may vote for all candidates. See, e.g., Dallas Cty. v. Reese, 421 U.S. 477, 477-81, 95 S.Ct. 1706, 44 L.Ed.2d 312 (1975) (per curiam); Dusch v. Davis, 387 U.S. 112, 115-17, 87 S.Ct. 1554, 18 L.Ed.2d 656 (1967). Residency districts need not have substantially equal population, and no one person one vote problem exists because all voters in the jurisdiction may vote for the same candidates. See, e.g., Reese, 421 U.S. at 479-81, 95 S.Ct. 1706. On March 4, 2015, Senator Chad Barefoot introduced Senate Bill 181 to change the method of electing the Wake County Board of Commissioners. See Stipulations ¶ 34. Senate Bill 181 redistricts the Wake County Board of Commissioners using seven numbered single-member districts and two lettered single-member super districts that overlap the seven numbered districts. Id. ¶ 35. Senate Bill 181 uses the same numbered and lettered districts contained in the 2013 Wake County School Board Plan. See id. ¶ 36. Under Senate Bill 181, in November 2016, a candidate from Districts 4, 5, and 6 will be elected under the 2011 BOCC Redistricting Plan and will serve a two-year term. See Tr. Ex. 6, p. 3. In the November 2016 election and every four years thereafter, two members must reside and run in the two super districts established and used in the 2013 Wake County School Board Plan. Id. Those elected in the two super districts in 2016 will serve four-year terms. Id. In the 2018 election and every four years thereafter, seven members must reside and run in the seven numbered districts established and used under the 2013 Wake County School Board Plan. Id.; Tr. Ex. 439. After the 2020 census, the Wake County Commission may redistrict. See Tr. Ex. 439. On March 5, 2015, the Senate Redistricting Committee held a non-voting meeting to hear public comment on Senate Bill 181. See Stipulations ¶ 37. During the meeting, Senator Barefoot explained that the purpose of Senate Bill 181 was “to increase representation and geographic diversity on the Wake County Board of Commissioners and to ensure every Wake County voter has a voice.” Tr. Ex. 7, p. 5. Senator Barefoot explained; Wake County is the state’s most populous county and is part of one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the country. Currently, the Commission is made up of seven members, five of which live within a 15-mile radius within the City of Raleigh. 75 percent of towns in Wake County don’t have a single representative on the County Commission. Keep in mind more than half of the residents of Wake County live outside of Raleigh. This bill gives my constituents and all Wake County residents a much needed voice within their county government Citizens from suburban and rural communities within Wake County, like my constituents in Wake Forest Rolesville, Knightdále, Zebulon, Wendell, Gamer, work hard and contribute greatly to our tax base, yet have virtually no representation on the Board, and that’s just not right. So what does this bill do? This bill increases representation on the Wake County Board of Commissioners from seven members to nine. One of the new member districts will represent the city and one of the new member districts will represent the county communities. The bill changes the current at-large election process to a residential election process to ensure geographical diversity on the Board. The bill also aligns the Wake County Commission Districts to the Wake County School Board Districts, which have been upheld by the courts, to provide for increased accountability and transparency between our elected officials. The current archaic system was developed over 30 years ago when Wake County’s population was only roughly 300,000 people. It requires candidates to run outrageously expensive campaigns countywide, limiting the pool of those who are financially able to run and forces our commissioners to serve almost 1 million constituents each, more than all the members of congress. This is a local office, but let me assure you there is nothing local about representing 1 million people. It is time to increase representation for the Wake County Commission for the citizens of Wake County. Id. pp. 5-7. On March 10, 2015, the Senate Redistricting Committee heard public comment on Senate Bill 181 and voted to report the bill to the full Senate for consideration. Stipulations ¶ 38. During the hearing, Senator Barefoot again stated that the “purpose of this bill is to increase representation and geographic diversity on the Wake County Board of Commissioners to insure that every Wake County voter has a voice.” Tr. Ex. 9, p. 54. Senator Barefoot then discussed communities of interest outside the City of Raleigh that he hoped would have a greater voice if the bill passed. See id. pp. 54-56. Senator Barefoot noted that Senate Bill 181 aligned the districts for the Wake County Commission with those already adopted in the 2013 Wake County School Board Plan, “which have been upheld by the Courts.” Id. p. 55 (referencing this court’s decision in Wright v. North Carolina, 975 F.Supp.2d 539 (E.D.N.C.2014)). During the hearings, some citizens spoke in favor of Senate Bill 181, and some spoke in opposition. Tr. Ex. 9, pp. 58-93. On March 11 and 12, 2015, the Senate debated and passed Senate Bill 181. See Stipulations ¶ 39. During the debate, Senator Barefoot again stated that the bill’s purpose was “to increase representation and geographic diversity and to insure that every Wake County voter has a voice.” Tr. Ex. 10, p. 2. Senator Barefoot noted the size and diversity of the communities of interest within Wake County but that five of the seven Wake County Commissioners lived in Raleigh. Id. ' Senator Barefoot explained that the bill sought to ensure better representation of communities of interest throughout Wake County. See id. pp. 2-4. Senator Barefoot also noted that sometimes running countywide meant that a Commissioner who did not win a majority of votes in his own residency district could still win the election due to the countywide vote. See id. pp. 4-5. Senator Barefoot made the analogy in support of electing Commissioners from single-member districts that the members of the General Assembly are not elected based on a statewide vote. Rather, voters within single-member districts elect General Assembly members. Id. p. 5. During the debate, Senator Blue asked Senator Barefoot about the maximum population deviation of 4.9% in Districts A and B, and Senator Barefoot responded that “[t]he purpose of this bill is not to open up the line drawing process.” Tr. Ex. 10, p. 25. Rather, the bill simply adopts the same structure and map “from the School Board bill that was passed two years ago by this body and has been upheld by the Courts.” Id. pp. 25-26. During debate on Senate Bill 181, a proposed amendment from Senator Stein of Wake County for a referendum was tabled in the Senate. Stipulations ¶ 40; Tr. Ex. 10, pp. 11-12. During the debate, Senator Stein spoke in opposition to the bill. See Tr. Ex. 10, pp. 6-21. Democratic Senator Floyd McKissick of Durham and Granville Counties also spoke in opposition. Id. pp. 28-38. Senator McKissick opined that the districts probably would result in the election of five Republican Commissioners and four Democratic Commissioners. See id. p. 30. Senator Blue also spoke in opposition to the bill. See id. pp. 34-46. Republican Senator Tom Apo-daca of Buncombe, Henderson, and Transylvania Counties spoke in favor of the bill. See id. pp. 46-48. As for individual Senate votes on Senate Bill 181 on second reading, 31 Republican Senators voted in favor, 16 Democratic Senators voted against, and 3 Republican Senators were absent. See Tr. Ex. 11; Stipulations ¶ 41. On March 31, 2015, the House Elections Committee heard public comment on Senate Bill 181 and voted to report the bill to the full House for consideration. See Stipulations ¶ 42. At the meeting, the Committee heard from some people who supported the bill and some who opposed it. See Tr. Ex. 12; Tr. Ex. 251, pp. 9-54. During the meeting, Senator Barefoot spoke in support of the bill. See Tr. Ex. 251, pp. 3-6, 57-58, 92. He described the communities of interest within rural and suburban Wake County and his hope that the bill would give a voice on the Wake County Commission to those communities of interest. See id. Representative Stam also spoke in favor of the bill, stating his support for having Commissioners elected from single-member districts, giving a voice on the Wake County Commission to communities of interest within rural and suburban Wake County, and using the same electoral districts for the School Board and County Commission to lower costs, lessen voter confusion, and avoid litigation. See id. pp. 6-8, 55-57, 67, 88, 94-95. During the debate, Representative Jackson and Representative Gill spoke in opposition to the bill. See id. pp. 59-66, 68-86. On April 1, 2015, the House debated and passed Senate Bill 181. Stipulations ¶43. During the debate, Representative Stam spoke in support of the bill. See Tr. Ex. 13. Representative Stam explained that the bill increased the Commission’s size from seven to nine members. Id. p. 3. He also explained that, in 2016, candidates for Districts 4, 5, and 6 under the 2011 BOCC Redistricting Plan would run under that plan and those elected would serve two-year terms. Id. Likewise, candidates for Districts A and B would run under the new plan in 2016, and those elected in Districts A and B would serve four-year terms. In 2018, all seven single-member districts would be up for election under the new plan, and those elected would serve four-year terms. See id. Representative Stam explained that Wake County has over 1,000,000 residents and spoke in support of having Commissioners elected in single-member districts instead of having Commissioners elected countywide. Id. pp. 3-4. He then explained: What Wake does is we have residential, districts where the seven Commissioners live, but they’re voted on countywide and I believe Representative Pendleton was the first person in 100 years from his party to be elected under that scenario back a few years ago when he was younger, but at large elections are just a bad idea unless it’s a small town or a small county because at large elections submerge the views of any kind of minority. • Whether it’s racial, gender, political, rural, urban, they’re just a bad idea, because they don’t give the representation close to the voters and frankly I have heard very little objection to the fact that ... this bill proposes district elections for Wake County. Id. p. 4. Representative Stam then explained the districts and said: [W]e didn’t become innovative, the drafters of the bill, Senator Barefoot, myself, Representative Pendleton. We said, let’s not be innovative[;] let’s just- do exactly the same districts that we have for our School Board. Id. pp. 4-5. Representative Stam explained that “there will be a line.” Id. p. 5. “[Pjeople will much more easily know who their representative is or is not.” Id. Moreover, “it will be much easier for the Board of Elections to administer” the 2015 Wake County Commissioners Plan because it is the same as the 2013 Wake County School Board Plan. Id. Representative Stam stated that he, Senator Barefoot, and Representative Pen-delton supported the 2015 Wake County Commissioners Plan because “these districts have already been approved one year ago by the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina ... as complying with the law.” Id. pp. 5-6. Representative Stam acknowledged the pending appeal, but did not believe that the appeal would be successful. Id. p. 6. Representative Stam also explained that “after the return of the next census the Wake County Board of Commissioners is free to go ahead and do its own redistricting.” Id. Representative Stam did not view the 2015 Wake County Commissioners Plan “as a permanent change.” Id. Representative Stam then again spoke in support of having candidates run in single-member districts instead of running county wide. Id. He noted that the ACLU’s website contained articles explaining why the ACLU “attack[s] at large districts all over the country.” Id. According to Representative Stam, the ACLU attacks at large districts because at-large districts “submerge all types of minorities whether they’re political, racial, or whatever.” Id. Representative Stam then discussed running countywide versus in a single-member district in Wake County. “It’s also the case that if you run countywide in a county like Wake, which has over a million people, which is more than the population of several of the states and is more than a congressional district, it is very expensive for each candidate.” Id. p. 7. “Going to direct elections means that a candidate can actually concentrate on one-seventh of the county and ... if they do direct mail, cut the expense by ... six-seventhfs]. Of course, T.V. will be the same, but the amount of money people can raise for County Commissioner races is not going to do much T.V. in this kind of media market, maybe a little radio.” Id. During the debate, Representative Gill (id. pp. 9-18),. Representative Martin (id. pp. 27-28), and Representative Holley (id. pp. 28-29) spoke in opposition to the bill. During the debate, the House defeated proposed amendments from Representative Gill (to substitute an alternative district map), Representative Jackson (to eliminate the two lettered districts or make them at-large and to move elections to even-numbered years), and Representative Martin (to add a referendum). See Stipulations ¶ 44; Tr. Ex. 12, pp. 3-6; Tr. Ex. 13, pp. 8-33. As for individual House members’ votes on Senate Bill 181 on second reading, 64 Republicans voted in favor, 2 Democrats voted in favor, 41 Democrats voted against, 5 Republicans voted against, 1 Unaffiliated voted against, 5 Republicans were absent, and 2 Democrats were absent. See Stipulations ¶ 45. In the 2015 General Assembly, all African-Americans in the North Carolina Senate and House were Democrats, and all African-American legislators voted against Senate Bill 181. See id. ¶ 46; compare RWCA Am. Compl. ¶ 69 with Ans. [D.E. 29] ¶ 69. On April 2, 2015, Senate Bill 181 was ratified and chaptered as Session Law 2015-4. Stipulations ¶ 47. Session Law 2015-4 increases the number of Wake County Commissioners from seven to nine. Session Law 2015-4 divides the county into seven single-member electoral districts designated numerically (1-7) and two regional districts designated by letters A and B. Session Law 2015-4 adopts the same seven single-member numbered electoral districts that are in the 2013 Wake County School Board Plan and also adopts the same two lettered districts that are in the 2013 Wake County School Board Plan. See Tr. Ex. 439, Session Law 2015-4 provides that, beginning in 2016, voters will elect the Wake County Board of Commissioners from the two lettered districts every four years. Id. Session Law 2015-4 provides that, beginning in 2018, voters will elect the Wake County Board of Commissioners from each of the seven single-member districts every four years. Id. Finally, Session Law 2015-4 provides that the structure of the Wake County Board of Commissioners shall not be altered until after the return of the 2020 census. Id. III. A. Redistricting state legislative entities is a core, sovereign legislative responsibility which federal courts should make every effort not to preempt. See, e.g., Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74, 101, 117 S.Ct. 1925, 138 L.Ed.2d 285 (1997); Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 915, 115 S.Ct. 2475, 132 L.Ed.2d 762 (1995); Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U.S. 146, 156-57, 113 S.Ct. 1149, 122 L.Ed.2d 500 (1993); Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U.S. 535, 539, 98 S.Ct. 2493, 57 L.Ed.2d 411 (1978); Chapman v. Meier, 420 U.S. 1, 27, 95 S.Ct. 751, 42 L.Ed.2d 766 (1975). “Electoral districting is a most difficult subject for legislatures, and so the States must have discretion to exercise the political judgment necessary to balance competing interests.” Miller, 515 U.S. at 915, 115 S.Ct. 2475. State policies and preferences are for a state’s elected representatives to decide, and unless the state legislature’s policies and preferences violate the United States Constitution, federal courts have no authority to interfere. See, e.g., White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783, 794-95, 93 S.Ct. 2348, 37 L.Ed.2d 335 (1973). Until 1962, the Supreme Court largely deemed state reapportionment and redistricting issues to be nonjusticiable political questions. See, e.g., Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549, 552-56, 66 S.Ct. 1198, 90 L.Ed. 1432 (1946). In 1962, however, the Supreme Court decided Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 187-88, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962), and held that a federal court had jurisdiction to consider a Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause challenge to the apportionment of the Tennessee legislature and that the Equal Protection Clause includes a one person one vote principle. In 1964, in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964), the Supreme Court expounded on the one person one vote principle and rejected the malapor-tionment of the Alabama legislature, which continued to have members of its House and Senate elected based on the redistricting plans derived from the 1900 census and the 1900 apportionment. The Supreme Court held that using the 1900 apportionment to allocate seats in the Alabama House and Senate violated the Equal Protection Clause due to the substantial population growth and population shifts that had occurred in Alabama since 1900. See id. at 568, 583-87, 84 S.Ct. 1362. For example, the Alabama Senate had 35 members, yet one Senator represented a Senate district with a population of 15,417 while another Senator represented a Senate district with a population of 634,864. See id. at 546, 84 S.Ct. 1362. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that state legislative districts “be apportioned on a population basis” and demands “substantial” population equality, not perfect equality. Id. at 577, 579, 84 S.Ct. 1362. The same principles apply to districts for electing subsidiary state government entities exercising “general governmental powers over the entire geographic area served by the body,” such as an elected Board of County Commissioners or an elected School Board. See, e.g., Hadley v. Junior Coll. Dist., 397 U.S. 50, 53, 56, 90 S.Ct. 791, 25 L.Ed.2d 45 (1970) (quotation omitted); Avery v. Midland Cty., 390 U.S. 474, 484-85, 88 S.Ct. 1114, 20 L.Ed.2d 45 (1968); Dusch, 387 U.S. at 114-15, 87 S.Ct. 1554. States must “make an honest and good faith effort to construct districts ... as nearly of equal population as is practicable,” but the Supreme Court realizes “that it is a practical impossibility to arrange legislative districts so that each one has an identical number of residents, or citizens, or voters. Mathematical exactness or precision is hardly a workable constitutional requirement.” Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 577, 84 S.Ct. 1362. The one person one vote principle applies to both congressional districts and state government districts, but the Supreme Court has adopted a much more stringent population-equality standard for congressional districts. As for congressional districts, the Supreme Court has interpreted Article I, § 2 of the Constitution to mandate that “as nearly as is practicable one [person’s] vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another’s.” Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 7-8, 84 S.Ct. 526, 11 L.Ed.2d 481 (1964). The Supreme Court’s “ ‘as nearly as practicable’ standard requires that the State make a good-faith effort to achieve precise mathematical equality” of the population 4 in each congressional district. See Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526, 530-31, 89 S.Ct. 1225, 22 L.Ed.2d 519 (1969) (emphasis added). “Unless population variances among congressional districts are shown to have resulted despite such [good-faith] effort, the State must justify each variance, no matter how small.” Id.; see Tennant v. Jefferson Cty. Common, — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 3, 5-8, 183 L.Ed.2d 660 (2012) (per curiam) (holding that West Virginia had justified the 0.79% maximum population deviation between West Virginia’s largest and smallest congressional districts); Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725, 728, 735-42, 103 S.Ct. 2653, 77 L.Ed.2d 133 (1983) (holding that New Jersey had not justified the 0.69% maximum population deviation between New Jersey’s largest and smallest congressional districts); Weiser, 412 U.S. at 785, 790-93, 93 S.Ct. 2348 (holding that Texas had not justified the 4.13% maximum population deviation between Texas’s largest and smallest congressional districts). In contrast to the strict population-equality standard that applies to the population of congressional districts, the Supreme Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment permits larger population deviations in state government districts than in congressional districts so long as the population deviations in state districts are based on “legitimate considerations incident to the effectuation of a rational state policy.” Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 579, 84 S.Ct. 1362; see Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835, 842-43, 103 S.Ct. 2690, 77 L.Ed.2d 214 (1983); Mahan v. Howell, 410 U.S. 315, 321-22, 93 S.Ct. 979, 35 L.Ed.2d 320 (1973). 1. As for the population-equality standard that applies to state government districts, the Supreme Court has made two principles clear. First, if the maximum population deviation in a state government redistricting plan is under 10%, such a deviation is considered a “minor deviation” and does not “substantially dilute the weight of individual votes in the larger districts so as to deprive individuals in these districts of fair and effective representation.” White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755, 764, 93 S.Ct. 2332, 37 L.Ed.2d 314 (1973); see Brown, 462 U.S. at 842-43, 103 S.Ct. 2690. Accordingly, a state has no obligation to justify such “minor deviations.” Brown, 462 U.S. at 842-43, 103 S.Ct. 2690 (“Our decisions have established, as a general matter, that an apportionment plan with a maximum population deviation under 10% falls within [the] category of minor deviations.”); Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735, 749, 93 S.Ct. 2321, 37 L.Ed.2d 298 (1973) (“We doubt that the Fourteenth Amendment requires repeated displacement of otherwise appropriate state decisionmaking in the name of essentially minor deviations from perfect census-population equality that no one, with confidence, can say will deprive any person of fair and effective representation in his state legislature.”); Regester, 412 U.S. at 764, 93 S.Ct. 2332 (same). Where the maximum population deviation in a state redistricting plan is under 10%, the Supreme Court presumes that the legislature’s plan resulted from an honest and good faith effort to construct districts as nearly of equal population as practical. See, e.g., Brown, 462 U.S. at 842, 103 S.Ct. 2690; Gaffney, 412 U.S. at 745, 749-51, 93 S.Ct. 2321; Regester, 412 U.S. at 763-64, 93 S.Ct. 2332; Daly, 93 F.3d at 1220. The Supreme Court adopted the presumption of good faith in order to avoid unwarranted federal intervention in state redistricting decisions. See, e.g., Brown, 462 U.S. at 842-43, 103 S.Ct. 2690; Gaffney, 412 U.S. at 748-51, 93 S.Ct. 2321: Regester, 412 U.S. at 761-64, 93 S.Ct. 2332. Consistent with this first principle concerning redistricting plans with maximum population deviations under 10%, the Supreme Court and lower courts consistently have upheld such plans, finding that such minor deviations do not violate the Equal Protection Clause. See, e.g., Gaffney, 412 U.S. at 750-51, 754, 93 S.Ct. 2321 (upholding reapportionment plan with 7.83% maximum population deviation); Regester, 412 U.S. at 761, 763-64, 93 S.Ct. 2332 (upholding reapportionment plan with 9.9% maximum population deviation); League of Women Voters of Chi v. City of Chi, 757 F.3d 722, 723-28 (7th Cir.2014) (upholding reapportionment plan with 8.7% maximum population deviation); Moore v. Itawamba Cty., 431 F.3d 257, 258-61 (5th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (upholding reapportionment plan with 9.38% maximum population deviation); Rodriguez v. Pataki, 308 F.Supp.2d 346, 365, 370-71 (S.D.N.Y.) (three-judge court) (upholding reapportionment plan with 9.78% maximum population deviation), summarily aff’d, 543 U.S. 997, 125 S.Ct. 627, 160 L.Ed.2d 454 (2004); Cecere v. Cty. of Nassau, 274 F.Supp.2d 308, 311, 318 (E.D.N.Y.2003) (upholding reapportionment plan with 8.94% maximum population deviation); Marylanders for Fair Representation, Inc. v. Schaefer, 849 F.Supp. 1022, 1033-36 (D.Md.1994) (three-judge court) (per curiam) (upholding reapportionment plan with 9.84% maximum population deviation); Holloway v. Hechler, 817 F.Supp. 617, 623-24 (S.D.W.Va.1992) (three-judge court) (upholding reapportionment plans with 9.97% maximum population deviation), summarily aff’d, 507 U.S. 956, 113 S.Ct. 1378, 122 L.Ed.2d 754 (1993); Fund for Accurate & Informed Representation, Inc. v. Weprin, 796 F.Supp. 662, 668 (N.D.N.Y.) (upholding reapportionment plan with 9.43% maximum population deviation), summarily aff’d, 506 U.S. 1017, 113 S.Ct. 650, 121 L.Ed.2d 577 (1992). But see Larios v. Cox, 300 F.Supp.2d 1320, 1339-53 (N.D.Ga.) (three-judge court) (per curiam) (invalidating reapportionment plan with 9.98% maximum population deviation), summarily aff’d, 542 U.S. 947, 124 S.Ct. 2806, 159 L.Ed.2d 831 (2004). 2. Second, if the maximum population deviation in a state government redistricting plan exceeds 10%, then the plan “creates a prima facie case of discrimination and therefore must be justified by the State.” Brown, 462 U.S. at 842-43, 103 S.Ct. 2690. In order to justify a maximum population deviation above 10%, the state must (1) articulate a rational state policy that justifies the population deviation; (2) explain how the redistricting plan “may reasonably be said to advance” the rational state policy; and (3) demonstrate that the resulting maximum population deviation does not “exceed constitutional limits.” Mahan, 410 U.S. at 328, 93 S.Ct. 979; see Voinovich, 507 U.S. at 161-62, 113 S.Ct. 1149; Brown, 462 U.S. at 842-43, 103 S.Ct. 2690; Swann v. Adams, 385 U.S. 440, 446, 87 S.Ct. 569, 17 L.Ed.2d 501 (1967). Thus, pursuant to this second principle, the Supreme Court and lower courts have upheld redistricting plans where the maximum population deviation exceeded 10%, the state properly justified the population deviation, and the population deviation was within acceptable constitutional limits. See, e.g., Mahan, 410 U.S. at 319, 321-22, 326-28, 93 S.Ct. 979 (holding that Virginia had properly justified a 16.4% maximum population deviation between Virginia’s most-populated state delegate district and least-populated state delegate district based on Virginia’s adherence to a state policy of respecting county lines in fashioning state delegate districts); Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182, 184-87, 91 S.Ct. 1904, 29 L.Ed.2d 399 (1971) (holding