Legal, but not fair or democratic

by | Dec 21, 2015 | Editor's Blog, Redistricting | 17 comments

Today is the end of the filing period to run for office in North Carolina in 2016. Dozens of legislative seats will be uncontested and only a handful of districts will even be competitive. And the GOP is patting itself on the back because the North Carolina Supreme Court upheld their redistricting again.

Just because the courts say its legal doesn’t make it good for democracy or for our state. The judges said the legislative mapmakers stayed within the guidelines of law. The decision was 4-3 along party lines. Not a ringing endorsement.

Sen. Bob Rucho and Rep. David Lewis, the architects of the districts, said the districts are “fair and legal.” They maybe legal according to the Supreme Court, but they aren’t fair. Fair would be if the state’s districts reflected the will of the voters. In 2014, Republicans received a little more than 50% of the vote but maintained veto proof majorities in both houses. In 2012, voters cast 51% of the votes for Democrats in Congressional elections and ended up in a 9-4 minority. That’s not fair. That’s rigged.

Republicans like to argue that Democrats did the same thing when they were in the majority. That’s a tired argument coming from people who ran on a platform of reforming government and making it more transparent. The old maxim two wrongs don’t make a right applies here.

The answer would be redistricting reform that would allow an independent commission to draw districts. Before he was Senate President Pro-tem, that’s what Phil Berger supported. Now that he’s got power, he’s more interested in protecting his majority than listening to the will of the people.

The party that claims competition makes everything better, doesn’t want competition in elections. The losers are the people of North Carolina. The only debate is between the ideologues and the pragmatists in the Republican Party. So much for a market place of ideas.

17 Comments

  1. Smartysmom

    Like some one (famous) said, democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep discussing the dinner menu.. If the Dems didn’t do it when they could, how stupid was that?!?

    • David Scott

      Live by the sword and die by it. When the Democrat Party regains the majority, I hope we improve on our past failings related to gerrymandering. If not, we shouldn’t complain.

  2. davidbteague

    Legal but not fair nor democratic. But is CERTAINLY IS REPUBLICAN.

  3. Lee Mortimer

    The Supreme Court may in the near future make a definitive ruling on whether partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional. Two case are currently winding their way through the courts and may finally settle the question.

    One case is from Wisconsin (challenging the Republican legislature): Whit­ford v. Nich­ol; http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/92066/just-how-much-gerrymandering-is-unconstitutional-wisconsin-plaintiffs-want-supreme-court-rule?mref=mostread

    And a second is from Maryland (challenging the Democratic legislature): Shapiro v. McManus; https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/2015/12/08/190bd7c0-9dbe-11e5-8728-1af6af208198_story.html

    • Ebrun

      I understand why Democrats want to change the winner-take-all rules in Congressional and state legislative elections to allocating seats based on the proportion of the total vote received by each party in each district. The result would be more Democrats and fewer Republicans elected to Congress and state legislatures than under the current winner- takes-all system.

      The same “reform” could also be applied to the Electoral College, where the winner-takes-all rules apply to states and, in a few instances, Congressional districts. As an alternative, the Presidential candidates would receive a share of each state’s electoral votes in proportion to their total share of the actual vote within the state.

      At the present time, most knowledgable political analysts believe the Democrats have a slight advantage with respect to the Electoral college. So I doubt they’ll propose any “reforms” along those lines. In today’s partisan politics, “reform” usually results in an advantage to those proposing the reform.

      • Lee Mortimer

        You’re right in pointing out that Democrats now hold the advantage in the electoral college. Analyst Nate Silver projected that Mitt Romney needed to win the popular vote by 3 percentage points in order to overcome Pres. Obama’s advantage in the electoral college:

        http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/as-nation-and-parties-change-republicans-are-at-an-electoral-college-disadvantage/

        But you’re dead wrong in claiming Democrats won’t propose reforming the electoral college. In fact, the 10 states and District of Columbia that have now enacted the National Popular Vote Plan are all Democrat-controlled. NPV would assure the candidate who wins the popular vote wins the presidency.

        http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

        Some Republicans are also warming to the idea. Last year, the Oklahoma Senate passed NPV by a 28-18 margin. The late Sen. Fred Thompson was campaigning for NPV, and Newt Gingrich has also written and spoken in favor of the reform.

  4. Dwight Willis

    Back in the day when the courts were truly the 3rd independent branch of government this decision would have been a “legal” one. However, now that the courts are merely an extension of the partisan legislature there is no longer an independent 3rd branch of government and this decision is just another partisan vote. Our philosophy of “one man/one vote” has been gerrymandered away. What a sad loss for the citizens of North Carolina and to democracy and freedom.

    • Ebrun

      The state courts may be an extension of partisan voters or even political parties, but the NCGA has no role in which judges are elected. Judicial vacancies are filled by Gubernatorial appointment.

  5. George Greene

    The assertion that the districts are legal went 4-3 along party lines. If Thomas Mills is going to agree with the 4-person Republican majority then his opinion, too, is dimsissbale as partisan B.S.

    • Ebrun

      Why don’t you run for a seat on the NC Supreme Court when the next judicial elections are held. Then you could help the Democrat justices overturn the Court’s recent decision and help put the Democrats back in control of the state. Otherwise, your legal opinions are not worth much.

      • cosmicjanitor

        The primary qualifications for any jurist on any bench are impartial objectivity and a thorough knowledge of the law. To be otherwise renders any applicant unfit to serve. As such, your reference to ‘Democratic justices’ is absurd on its face. Mr. Greene makes a valid point, the GOP has corrupted the courts, as well as the NC. districts, in its efforts to wield unchallengeable power and deny the will of the people.

        • Ebrun

          In a non political world you would be correct, but the primary qualification for NC state court judges is winning a judicial election. In effect, the voters decide if a judicial candidate has “a thorough knowledge of the law.” And given the partisan impact of many court decisions, it would appear that impartially is not a major consideration in many voters minds.

  6. George Greene

    Just because Republcans on the Supreme Court are fools does not mean you should be one,too. These maps ARE NOT legal. They violate both the Voting Rights Act AND the 14th amendment. If the maps are not “fair” then THAT IS A VIOLATION OF THE 14th AMENDENT ALL BY ITSELF because the 14th amendment SAYS that the state may not deny the *EQUAL* protection of the laws, and these lines are enacted by law and they are currently NOT protecting either black people OR DEMOCRATS equally! While it may be “legal” to under-protect Democrats, it is sure as HELL NOT illegal to under-protect BLACK people, and the Voting Rights Act is very explicit about that, AS IS THE 15TH amendment when the particular protection is VOTING!!

  7. David Scott

    I can only hope that Democrats, when they finally regain the majority in the legislature, will have the wisdom and the moral backbone to redistrict NC using geographic and objective criteria versus political and ideological ones. This will show what the Democrat Party is all about.

    • Big D in the Original Dallas

      Don’t get your hopes up.

      • David Scott

        Hope springs eternal. If the Democrats don’t do it, they shouldn’t complain.

        • George Greene

          Democrats DIDN’T do it. That is just a bunch of B.S. The worst map we ever drew was 8-5 and we needed luck to get the 8th. This map IS 10-3. WE *NEVER* DID ANYthing THIS bad!! The difference in degree DOES become a difference in kind when it’s this extreme. And the legislative lines are even uglier.

          But the fish rots from the head — the actual issue is the U.S. Supreme Court, not the state one. One of the ugliest federal cases (Strickland v. Bartlett) came out of southeastern NC, where the U.S. Supreme Court falsely misinterpreted the Voting Rights Act to mean that protecting black people electorally meant ghettoizing them with other black people, as opposed to allowing them to vote with white Democrats. They just pulled a number (50%) out of a hat — while simultaneously trying to say that you couldn’t take race “too much” into account in drawing districts. Sandra Day O’Connor alone changed her mind on this 3 times.

Related Posts

GET UPDATES

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

You have Successfully Subscribed!