1966, One Man, One Vote[edit]
As was the case in other states where rural legislators hung on to power despite changes in state demographics, North Carolina eventually had to redefine its method of electing house members and to reapportion congressional seats, which was supposed to be done after every decennial census. At a time of civil rights legislation to end segregation (Civil Rights Act of 1964) and enforce the constitutional right to vote for African Americans and other minorities (Voting Rights Act of 1965), the US Supreme Court made rulings that resulted in corrections to state legislature representation and apportionment in several states.
Starting in 1966 (in the wake of Reynolds v. Sims, a US Supreme Court case establishing the principle of one man, one vote), members of the North Carolina State House were required to be elected from districts defined on the basis of roughly equal population, rather than from geographic counties. The county basis had resulted in a longstanding rural bias in the legislature. The new urban populations, including minorities and immigrants, were historically underrepresented in terms of legislative seats and funding, although the state's demographics and population had become increasingly urbanized. The court's ruling required changes also in other states with similar practices. The changes allowed full representation for the first time from some urban and more densely settled areas. It also meant that counties with low populations lost the chance to elect a resident member to the legislature for the first time in state history.
In the landmark Shelby County v. Holder case, Supreme Court judges invalidated sections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 thereby freeing individual states to "change their election laws without advance federal approval."[15][16][17] In August 12, 2013 Republican Governor Pat McCrory signed omnibus election law bill—House Bill 589[18] which added requirements for voting such as photo identification.[18] [19] In July 2016, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the restrictive election laws.[20]