Written by: Sam Garrett
In October 2023, the North Carolina General Assembly approved SB 759, An Act to Establish Election Districts for the Watauga County Board of Commissioners, with votes of 28-18 in the Senate and 64-40 in the House. In June 2024, lawmakers approved SB 912, Elections Changes for Watauga Ed & County Bds, with votes of 30-19 in the Senate and 75-39 in the House. No democrats supported SB 759 in 2023 and seven House democrats supported SB 912 in 2024.
In 2025, the Watauga County Voting Rights Task Force and Common Cause sought an injunction to block the five new single-member election districts the General Assembly approved. Watauga County Board of Elections responded in December. On January 16, 2026, US District Judge Matthew Orso issued a 17-page order explaining why he rejected the request.
In the order, Judge Orso stated the following (excerpts):
Plaintiffs raise federal constitutional challenges to the North Carolina General Assembly’s changes to how Watauga County elects its Board of Commissioners and Board of Education.
In response to S.B. 759, the Democrat-controlled Watauga County Board of Commissioners adopted a resolution on June 18, 2024 …The vote was 3-2, along party lines.
Nine days after the Board of Commissioners approved the resolution, the General Assembly responded by enacting Senate Bill 912…the members of the Watauga County Board of Education would be elected from the same districts enacted in S.B. 759 for the Board of Commissioners.
Approximately a year later, on October 1, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this action… The lawsuit alleges violations of the Equal Protection Clause involving malapportionment and disfavored treatment of certain Watauga County voters and multiple violations of the First Amendment.
The Court’s understanding of the evidence presented to date is that the Republican-controlled General Assembly passed S.B. 759 to create electoral districts favoring Republicans. In response, the Democrat-controlled Watauga County Board of Commissioners attempted to undue the General Assembly’s action by passing a resolution enabling a referendum to redraw the districts in favor of Democrats. The Republican-controlled General Assembly responded by passing S.B. 912, which delays the effective date of any referendum, so as to nullify its effect, thus preserving S.B. 759’s Republican-favored districts. At bottom, S.B. 912’s changes to the effective date of any Watauga County referendum is part and parcel of S.B. 759’s partisan redistricting.
Judge Orso’s Conclusion in it’s entirety:
This case reflects a partisan political struggle between county- and state-level interests. The Republican-controlled state legislature passed a partisan redistricting measure impacting a county’s Democrat-controlled board of commissioners and how they are elected. Those Democratic commissioners then passed a resolution and won a local referendum, aiming to preserve their own political power – and that of their party. The Republican-controlled state legislature then responded with a bill to nullify the county Democrats’ efforts. While the Court need not decide the merits of this case at the preliminary injunction stage, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood that their claims belong in federal court or that they would otherwise succeed on the merits. Mandatory preliminary injunctions are “warranted only in the most extraordinary circumstances.” Taylor v. Freeman, 34 F.3d 266, 270 n.2 (4th Cir. 1994). This case does not meet the standard.
You must be logged in to post a comment.