Redistricting Case Affects Voters and Politicians

By J. Barlow Herget
Published: Apr. 15, 2002

RALEIGH - Former Supreme Court Justice Willis Wichard, now dean at the Wiggins School of Law at Campbell University, tells an instructive story about redistricting.

Just like those of the 2001 General Assembly, the legislators of Wichard’s tale were required to redraw the map for legislative districts to reflect population changes of the previous decade. A certain North Carolina state legislator whose nickname was "Chalky" pleaded with his House colleagues not to change his district. One of Chalky’s friends stood up and moved that the map be sent back to committee. "We can’t do this to ol’ Chalky," he argued.

Later, when Speaker of the House Pat Taylor saw the friend storming out of the redistricting committee, Taylor asked if Chalky’s district had been saved. "To hell with Chalky," fumed the friend, "he’s messin’ with my district now!"

Wichard’s tale, told as true, underlines that redistricting is always about politics and always directed by incumbents. That is true today as the state wrestles with its 2001 redistricting plan. Indeed, Democratic majorities in the state Senate and House drew up the plan, which was adopted largely along party lines. That plan has been challenged by Republicans and was declared flawed by Superior Court Judge Knox Jenkins. It is now at the state Supreme Court, which held a hearing on the case April 4.

Whichard, also a legislator who experienced the 1971 redistricting, believes that you can’t take politics out of the process. And the courts seldom dispute that view. Even now, in what is considered a very partisan lawsuit, Republicans challenge the current plan on constitutional issues rather than complain about Democratic politicking. (In Virginia, the shoe is on the other foot. There, it’s the Democrats who are suing against a Republican-drawn plan.)

One person with long experience in challenging redistricting plans is Robinson Everett, a Durham attorney who also teaches at Duke Law School. He challenged a congressional district in 1966 and challenged the 12th District after the 1991 redistricting. He has filed separately against the current 2001 plan, noting that it is an "obvious gerrymander."

He says, "I have an aversion to gerrymander of whatever type," arguing that they favor incumbents. "With these wild districts, it1s hard for any [challenger] to mount a campaign without expense," he says. Such districts, he believes, also make a more cynical voter who sees a stacked deck for incumbents who hardly need favors.

For Everett, independent redistricting commissions "are the best solution."

His veteran’s guess is that the high court will flunk the current plan and ask the legislature to produce another. Recalling that "Charlotte Observer" Reporter Jim Morrill once drew up a plan that "made very good sense" in about three hours, Everett thinks the legislature could do the same "in two or three weeks."

Former Chief Justice Burley Mitchell agrees that redistricting clearly is a legislative function. He says that until the Supreme Court rules, however, "nobody knows what quite to do." He’s talking about candidates and their supporters, and he knows what it’s like to campaign, having run successfully for the Chief Justice1s position and earlier, for Attorney General. And no matter what the Court rules, the postponement of the May 7 Primary Election has had an impact.

"All are out raising money as hard as they can," he says. "I don't know if it has had any effect on contributions. [In the legislative races] no one is even certain who their opponents will be. It’s taken the air out of campaigning."

Robert Spearman, a Raleigh attorney with Parker, Poe, Adams and Bernstein, thinks more than air is going. Spearman was chairman of the State Elections Board between 1981-85, and cannot recall when North Carolina’s primary wasn’t in May.

"We have a situation where we thought we were having a primary, and now, it1s in the courts. Once you begin moving elections from an anticipated date, you have a serious drop in turnout," he says. "One thing that everybody needs to be concerned about is what are we going to end up with as to citizen participation and citizen choice?"

You can waste hours theorizing on which candidate the delay helps or hurts. Those such as U.S. Senate, appellate court candidates and county sheriffs and commissioners are not affected by redistricting. But they must wait like the others for a primary date.

Campaign fund raising will be stretched out as will be the campaign schedule.

The troubles make it all the more important that districts be drawn with the voters’ interests, if not first, then equal to that of the politicians.