The N.C. Supreme Court ordered lawmakers Friday to revise a nearly four-year-old election map for state House districts after ruling that Pender County was improperly carved up among two House districts.

In a 4-2 decision, the court said that lawmakers violated a provision in the state constitution intended to keep counties from being broken up among multiple legislative districts. The provision is meant to ensure that counties have more of a voice in the state legislature.

Pender County had sued to overturn the redistricting, but it gave up the fight after a lower court sided with the legislature. Then, two former county commissioners and a current one continued the legal battle and won at the state's highest court.

"Now, everybody in the county will have one legislator speaking for them," said Trey Thurman, a former Pender County lawyer who represented the former and current commissioners.

It's not clear whether the decision will shake up many House districts or just lead to some tweaking in and around Pender County in southeastern North Carolina. Changing the dynamics of one district can sometimes create a domino effect.

"Anytime that you mess with the numbers you impact a greater area," said Gary Bartlett, the State Board of Elections director. "So I think ... it should impact some of those local areas."

Lawmakers had generally abided by the whole county provision after earlier redistricting plans were overturned by the courts.

In the latest decision, the Supreme Court said that lawmakers would not have to address the issue until the 2010 elections. That could mean the court order would affect only one election, because lawmakers will have to come up with a new redistricting plan for the entire state for the 2012 election after the next census.

Pender County was split among two districts so lawmakers could create another House district that was more likely to elect a black representative. The federal Voting Rights Act, which supersedes the state constitution, requires states to come up with election districts that do not dilute minority voting power.

The suit centered on House District 18, which takes in roughly two-thirds of Pender County and a northern slice of New Hanover County. Its registered voters are majority Democrat and 35 percent black.

Voters have elected Rep. Thomas Wright, a Wilmington Democrat who is black, to the district in the previous two elections.

The court found that Wright's district did not meet the requirements of the Voting Rights Act, because it does not have a majority black population. Therefore lawmakers had to follow the whole county provision.

Chief Supreme Court Justice Sarah Parker and Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson dissented from the decision, written by Justice Robert H. Edmunds Jr. Justice Robin Hudson did not take part.

Anita Earls, director of advocacy for the Center for Civil Rights, said the decision could affect some rural counties with significant minority populations after the 2010 redistricting.

Because the case centers on the state court's interpretation of a federal law, Earls said, it could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has not yet ruled on that particular issue.

"It's possible for minority voters to be empowered and to elect candidates of their choice even if they're less than 50 percent of a district," she said. "They can often win in districts that are 40 or 45 percent African-American."

Dr. William J. Barber, president of the North Carolina NAACP, contended that the state should appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. He said that given the history of the area, including the Wilmington race riots of 1898, the state should take a more active role in empowering minority voters in the region.

"We believe that those counties should have been covered under the Voting Rights Act in the first place," he said.

Get $150+ in coupons in every Sunday N&O. Click here for convenient home delivery.