Yesterday, the legislature passed a Congressional map that gives Democrats four safe seats, Republicans six safe seats, and four that are somewhat competitive. Of the competitive districts, Biden won one and Trump won three, but Roy Cooper won all four. According to Dallas Woodhouse, Thom Tillis won two and lost two, as did Josh Stein. Mark Robinson won all four. I think it’s a pretty good map.
Democrats, for the most part, panned the map. It splits up the Triad and divides 13 counties. Certainly some communities of interest are split and some counties have little in common with other counties in the same district. Overall, though, the competitiveness of the map makes it attractive.
I wish the districts gave Democrats the 6-4 advantage, but Republicans get to draw them because elections have consequences. Still, having four competitive districts will give both parties a chance to have a majority of Congressional seats. Also, by the end of the decade, at least two to the districts will probably be trending toward the Democrats unless Republicans take a more moderate approach toward governing.
In a bad year for Democrats, they may well end up with only four seats. While that’s pretty egregious in a state that splits pretty close to even, they could well end up with eight seats with the right political environment. I’ll take those odds.
Democrats who are upset with the map want the court to draw better districts. That’s not a bet I would take. Back in 2018, the courts drew districts that gave Democrats five seats and Republicans eight with what turned out to be no other competitive districts. I would rather take four and compete for four more than settle. The court is not going to “give” Democrats a seven-seven split.
The court found that the maps Republicans drew in November were extreme gerrymanders. While this map may be gerrymandered, it’s not extreme in historical context. It’s pretty standard fare. In my lifetime, we have never had Congressional districts that didn’t split communities of interest and, again, by historical standards, these are pretty compact districts. Maybe we’re heading to new standards, but I fear that Democrats are letting the perfect get in the way of the good.
More importantly, competitive districts, not compactness or communities of interest, are the key to moving past the polarization that’s afflicted the country. We need far more races where candidates are forced to vie for the support of swing voters, most of whom are more moderate than the base of either party. That’s how we find the middle again. Instead of a bunch of races where the most significant ideological debate is in primaries pulling candidates to the far right or far left, we need races where candidates have to find the balancing act of appealing to voters across a broad spectrum.
Redistricting is an inherently messy and political process. The method we have chosen to use to determine districts may be the worst system possible, but it’s the one we’ have. The courts aren’t going to force a redistricting commission on the state. Only the legislature can do that. Until we have a legislature with the political will to change our system of redrawing districts, we’re stuck with this one. Take what you can get.
Thomas Mills is the founder and publisher of PoliticsNC.com. Before beginning PoliticsNC, Thomas spent twenty years as a political and public affairs consultant. Learn more >
I agree that it is a good map. Not perfect, but as good as one can probably expect from the current legislature. Competitive districts are far better than safe ones.
Plus, with a potential change in the court’s composition next year, it’s probably not wise to encourage the idea that the Supreme Court should always fine-tune districts. Broad oversight, yes. But let’s not invite more tinkering next year.
I’m with you Thomas. I think this is a pretty good map. It is far far better than some in the past. The most obvious negative I see is that we may end up with an all White representation. And in a state that is 22% Black and nearly 30% non-white, that’s troublesome.
Great piece here. The fact is there is no “free lunch” in these redistricting issues. If competitive is the goal, communities of interest and some compactness are lost. You simply can’t have both in many cases. Having more competitive districts raises the roof for each party, but lowers the floor
Funny how competitiveness has a tendency create “A Rooster One Day and A Feather Duster the Next”
Yes, the maps are competitive and not bad for Democrats. But they are terrible for some communities and NC as a whole. It turns the Triad into a pizza with no real representation. Not everything is about pure partisan politics.
It is, however, a great map for Valerie Foushee. And probably an even better map for the Democrats as the decade progresses.as 6, 8, and 13 will certainly become more Democratic over time. Good map for Cawthorn and Moore. Terrible map for Graham, Manning and Clark.
Well said, Thomas: “More importantly, competitive districts, not compactness or communities of interest, are the key to moving past the polarization that’s afflicted the country. We need far more races where candidates are forced to vie for the support of swing voters, most of whom are more moderate than the base of either party. That’s how we find the middle again. Instead of a bunch of races where the most significant ideological debate is in primaries pulling candidates to the far right or far left, we need races where candidates have to find the balancing act of appealing to voters across a broad spectrum.”