The North Carolina Supreme Court initially ruled partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable under the state constitution, Harper v. Hall, 868 S.E.2d 499, 551 (N.C. 2022) (“Harper I”), only to reverse itself after a judicial election changed the court’s composition, Harper v. Hall, 886 S.E.2d 393, 416 (N.C. 2023) (“Harper II”). In that latter decision, the court concluded that partisan gerrymandering claims present nonjusticiable political questions, offering three reasons. First, “[u]nder the North Carolina Constitution, redistricting is explicitly and exclusively committed to the [state legislature] by the text of the constitution.” Harper II, S.E.2d at 416. This means that North Carolina courts can only adjudicate state redistricting claims when the plaintiff alleges that the legislature violated the constitutional provisions underlying that commitment. Id. at 422. Those provisions, however, do not restrict the legislature’s power to “consider partisan advantage” when drawing maps. Id. at 420 (citation omitted). Second, echoing Rucho’s interpretation of the federal constitution, the North Carolina Constitution does not contain “judicially discoverable and manageable standard[s]” for adjudicating partisan gerrymandering claims. Id. at 422. Third, and along similar lines, adjudicating partisan gerrymandering claims would require the court to make “a host of ‘policy determination[s] of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion.’” Id. at 428 (quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962)).