The chatter about the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday concerning North Carolina’s redistricting is largely much ado about nothing. That hasn’t stopped progressives from celebrating, but it’s time to throw cold water on their hopes.
Some have suggested that the Court has “thrown out” the GOP-drawn legislative districts. That’s not accurate, and the Court hasn’t ruled one way or the other on the validity of the maps. Instead, the Court is simply saying that the current rationale for the maps no longer applies, and are asking the NC Supreme Court to make a new ruling in light of their decision in the Alabama case. It’s possible the GOP-controlled Supreme Court will come up with another rationale in defense of the maps. The best defense would be that the districts were drawn for partisan, not racial, reasons. In that case, the districts stay the same.
Because redistricting law is notoriously complicated, I’m not going to venture much further into the legal side of things. I think the likeliest outcome, though, is that a few of the more egregiously drawn districts will be struck down as racial gerrymanders, requiring the General Assembly to make some alterations. The result will be minimal changes in the district configurations. Such changes will almost certainly benefit Democrats and make a few districts more competitive than they are under the current maps, but any significant change in the legislative maps is very unlikely.
If the General Assembly is forced to go back to the drawing board, this will probably intensify calls for nonpartisan redistricting. The legislature isn’t likely to throw Democrats a bone. Instead, they’ll argue that the district maps are perfectly fine the way they are, with a few exceptions which will require only slight alterations. Why substantially reshuffle the districts in the middle of the decade and risk voter chaos and confusion?
The bottom line: as a result of the Court’s decision yesterday, the chances of the Democrats pulling off the near-impossible and taking back the General Assembly this decade has increased, very slightly. We don’t know if the present maps will even require change at all, but the chance of that happening is much higher than it was two months ago. It’s a small victory, but they’ll take it.
John Wynne is the “conservative voice” at PoliticsNC, where he also provides polling analysis and commentary on legislative campaigns. When not writing about politics, he enjoys gardening and listening to opera. Contact: johncwynne@gmail.com.
It seems to me that the only chaos and confusion is in your missive. As to much ado about nothing? If that is the case you certainly sucked up a lot of white space about nouthing. And dude…it is much ado if it gives Berger a pain in the backside.
“…risk voter chaos and confusion.” I cannot really believe you uttered the same silly statements made by so many these days when something wrong, aka gerrymandered districts, needs to be fixed. Nobody on the right worried about that when they did it last time. Although this problem of treating the population as if they are stupid afflicts both sides of the aisle, the Republicans have honed it to an art form in recent years.
They certainly had no problem substantially shifting Wake County in the middle of the decade. This can impact that effort because going from At-Large where two African Americans won, and they have chance to win/influence seven to being packed into one or two districts definitely dilutes their strength.
That was the right thing to do (maybe, and depending on who you’re talking to) BEFORE the 2014 Election and BEFORE they lost. It’s longtime tradition to draw the maps after you win an election, but it’s immoral to do so after an electoral loss for obvious reasons. And because Wake County isn’t one of the 40 Counties subject to the Civil rights act, creating distinct Commissioner districts is even more bad optics.
John, sometimes the mixed messages in your blogs are so extreme that it’s hard to make any sense of them at all…..
Your headline says “Much Ado About Nothing.” But then you say “I think the likeliest outcome, though, is that a few of the more egregiously drawn districts will be struck down as racial gerrymanders, requiring the General Assembly to make some alterations. The result will be minimal changes in the district configurations.”
But then you say: “Such changes will almost certainly benefit Democrats and make a few districts more competitive….”
But then you say: “but any significant change in the legislative maps is very unlikely.”
Jeez, me thinx you couldn’t waffle back and forth in your point-making if you tried.
Then, you give us even greater mental meandering with “We don’t know if the present maps will even require change at all, but the chance of that happening is much higher than it was two months ago….”.
Finally, you pose a strange and maddening question when you write “Why substantially reshuffle the districts in the middle of the decade and risk voter chaos and confusion?” Really? Why do you even ask? You had just finished answering that question yourself when you labeled some districts likely “racial gerrymanders”! But let me answer your question with one of my own: WHY NOT fix the districts if their configurations are disenfranchising voters, silencing their voices, and wholly negating voting pluralities??
Dear Liberally, Please note that the article was written by John Wynne, a Republican. I made the same misinterpretation earlier this year. I contacted John, a Democrat, and he explained that he had asked Wynne to join the blog in order to provide a (fair and) “balanced” point of view. This is the source of much confusion, and unhappily, I am not aware of any right-wing Republicans who embrace this principle. Wynne may be correct in his assessment, but as a Republican, we would never expect him to admit otherwise.
Glad I read your comment. I, too, missed who the author was. Thanks.
Tom Hill:
Not sure what you are talking about.
I addressed my post to John Wynne, the Republican. From my very first reading, I saw that he was the author. I was under no misunderstanding that it was written by anyone else but John Wynne, the Republican.
And who exactly is the “John, a Democrat” you refer to? My understanding is that it was Thomas Mills, the Dem and the politicsnc.com blog leader, who invited John Wynne, the Republican, to be a blogger.
“”The best defense would be that the districts were drawn for partisan..reasons.”
Which is allowable under the law.
Legislator’s Guide to NC Legislative and Congressional Redistricting (pg. 10):
“The U.S. Supreme Court has said that partisan gerrymanders are allowable..The N.C. Supreme Court noted the role of politics in Stephenson I, stating that the General Assembly may consider partisan advantage and incumbency protection in the application of its discretionary redistricting decisions, but it must do so in conformity with the State Constitution.” Stephenson I, 355 N.C. 354, 371.
http://ncleg.net/GIS/Download/Maps_Reports/2011RedistrictingGuide.pdf