Chaotic, but Not a Game Changer

by | Feb 8, 2016 | Carolina Strategic Analysis, Features, NC Politics, Race, US House | 16 comments

So congressional districts 1 and 12 have been deemed illegal racial gerrymanders by a federal court. The court found that race, not politics, predominated in the drawing of those two districts, dispelling the fiction that the General Assembly didn’t know what they were doing. They knew exactly what they were doing. As far as race in redistricting goes, the line of thought is that it should never, never be used, except when it absolutely should. It’s a difficult balance to achieve and hopefully the Supreme Court will clarify it soon.

As for the practical effects of the ruling, you can be sure that a stay will be issued and we’re going to have these districts going into November. Filing has ended, absentee ballots have already been cast, candidates are in the midst of campaigning. That train has already left the station.

Now, for those who wish to see substantial change in the state’s congressional map: I don’t see that happening, to say the least. If the legislature does redraw the maps, they will probably go for minimal change. That means CD 1 in the Northeast loses its ugly tentacles (which were added only because Democrats complained, I might add) while probably adding more liberal, urban whites. CD 12 will probably bypass Forsyth County and take in more white precincts in Greensboro and Charlotte.

Most likely, we’ll see several districts shift very slightly to the left, which would be a win for Democrats. Overall, though, even if this ruling stands, this is not the game-changer that NC progressives have been hoping for. On the other hand, a ruling that affects the legislative districts might net the party several seats. That wouldn’t be a game-changer either, but the almost impossibly high bar of winning a majority would become a little lower.

16 Comments

  1. Elliott

    I think the difference here has to do with “packing” rather than “minority / majority.” Where is the line between creating an opportunity for a political voice for historically discriminated against citizens and packing so many of these same minorities into two districts that there is no opportunity for a voice in any other districts. They appear to crossed that line.

  2. Lee Mortimer

    “You can be sure that a stay will be issued and we’re going to have these districts going into November.” — John Wynne

    Not quite so fast, John. Chief Justice John Roberts has asked the plaintiffs to submit their reasons why elections should not be held in the current districts and gave them until Feb 16 — three days before the lower court said the redrawing must be completed. That doesn’t sound like a slam-dunk for issuing a stake by the Supreme Court.

  3. David Scott

    Technically, Gerrymandering is illegal, in the United States, per Karcher v. Daggett (1983) and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

    • David Scott

      I stand corrected.

  4. Tom

    The courts ordered Virginia and Florida to re-district – in election cycles but not as close to the primary – and the states have complied. Would not be certain that the court, aware of the calendar when it rendered its decision, will grant a stay. Probably, but not certain. This happened before, of course, and we had a whole new filing period in NC and postponed the election until July. While the decision involves only two districts, no way a solution would not involve many – perhaps all – of the other districts. And if the GA went to a commision, computerized map as the other states have, every district in the state would be involved.

  5. Anonagain

    I don’t think Mr. Wynne ever responds to comments, but I’d like to hear him defend the fact that we have 10 Republican representatives and 3 Democrats in a state that is pretty well evenly divided. How can that reflect the will of the people?

    • TY Thompson

      It complies with the will of the people because there are only a few districts in North Carolina where Republicans outnumber Democrats. Take the 7th district, Democrat voters outnumber Republican voters by 43%-33%. Or the 13th district (40% Dem to 35% Rep). Or Richard Hudson’s 8th district where Dems outnumber Reps by a whopping 46-33%. Thomas Mills should romp there. Democrats also outnumber Republicans in districts 2,3, and 6 as well. So it’s not like Democrats couldn’t take over these districts if they were united and had a compelling message for the Unaffiliateds in these districts. All this crying over gerrymandering is a tempest in a teapot.

      • Mooser

        But voter registration doesn’t tell the whole story, and I suspect you know that. There are still many old-time Southern Democrats who don’t vote for Democratic candidates, ever. It’s a strange thing to me. Many of the old-time Dixiecrats eventually switched to the Republicans, but there are a lot who didn’t, because to many people party affiliation is like a religion, and it cuts deep. It would be better to look at the Partisan Voting Index. Also, there are many unaffiliated voters who are reliably Republican voters – they just don’t want the label.

        • TY Thompson

          True. These districts aren’t so much full of Republican voters but voters who vote Republican. My point was that districts will always favor the Party that controls the legislature after the start of a new decade, thus arguments of “unfairness” are problematic. Notice how Democrat-drawn districts didn’t stop 2010 from happening. It’ll happen again to the Reps.

          • Mooser

            There is such a thing as spreading yourself too thin, and the Republicans may find themselves victims of “demographic creep,” especially in districts near Raleigh or Charlotte. However, the Democrats have a much bigger hole to dig out of than the Republicans had in 2010.

    • delow241

      Hard for me to admit, but many of the dems in this state are actually somewhat conservative so they wind up voting that way. Hence two R senators, and a long history of going for R presidents before our current occupant stimulated the typically dormant black vote.

  6. David Scott

    Mr. Wynne, isn’t gerrymandering by definition illegal, regardless of which party is guilty? If the Republican Party was the minority as it was for 150 years, wouldn’t you be in favor of impartial and non-partisan redistricting? Let’s rise above this partisan BS and do what is best for NC for a change!

    • Smills

      I don’t think gerrymandering is always illegal, but it is always sleazy. The federal courts are saying that gerrymandering based on race is illegal, but not necessarily if it is just to cram a bunch of Ds or Rs into a single district.

      • delow241

        Isn’t your scenario exactly the same as what happened with the Mel Watt 12th district that spanned from Charlotte to Greensboro, selectively picking almost all the black districts along the way. I believe that the courts drew it specifically using race…..I guess what is good for the goose is not good for the gander if it does not further the progresso cause any longer.

        • delow241

          You should research the old 12th district. It was packed to achieve a black representative. If that is not racial concerns, I don’t know what is. The only difference between then and now is that the legislature drew these districts while the courts drew the original 12th. Both of the purposes were to satisfy the same goals.

    • John Wynne

      Partisan gerrymandering is totally permissible. This is what the state argued to defend the 12th district – that they designed it to be super-Democratic. Racial gerrymandering is illegal unless there’s a very good reason for it.

Related Posts

GET UPDATES

Get the latest posts from PoliticsNC delivered right to your inbox!

You have Successfully Subscribed!