Last week, I wrote a piece urging Democrats to accept the Congressional maps drawn by Republicans in the legislature. My argument centered on the competitiveness of the districts. Four of the new districts would be highly competitive. That’s more contested seats than the state has seen at least 20 years.
People pushed back, arguing that the maps divided too many counties and split communities of interest. I believe that competitiveness should be the driving factor in the redistricting, followed by keeping counties whole, and, finally, maintaining communities of interests—and I have some reservations about communities of interest. It’s a vague term with no specific definitions. Following political boundaries, such municipal borders, makes more sense, though certainly there are exceptions.
I would argue that emphasizing communities of interest over competition adds to polarization. Today, too many people live in bubbles with little understanding of differing, yet valid, points of view. Maybe the newcomers in Apex or Fuquay-Varina need to better understand the concerns of farmers and small town residents in Clinton or Pink Hill and vice-versa. They might not have a lot in common socially or culturally, but they both live in the same state and are inherently connected by the economy as a whole. Sharing a Member of Congress might make them more open to compromise.
I like the recent maps because they will force candidates to compete in general elections, not just primaries. Maybe one way to reform redistricting is to require at least 30% of the districts to be competitive. No candidate for president could have gotten more than 52% of the vote and no candidate could have won by more than 3% in the most recent presidential election. Those districts would encourage spirited debate. Of course, we would also need to comply with the Voting Rights Act in parts of the state where it applies.
As I’ve said before, I believe our redistricting process is among the worst in the nation. The legislature has few checks or balances in drawing districts. The governor has no input and the majority party has no incentive to involve the minority party in the process. That puts the burden on the courts to become the only oversight in the process. That’s not healthy for our system of government. We need more rules and regulations in our redistricting procedures if we aren’t going to have a third party commissions draw maps. Requiring competitive districts is one way to do that.
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 >
0 Comments