Nov. 17, 2003
Redistricting Redux
By J. Barlow Herget
RALEIGH - Maybe the third time will be the charm for state legislators who are trying to draw new election districts for themselves.
Most folks don't pay attention to this process, and in many ways it's the ultimate insider's game. Redistricting is the act of drawing the boundaries of the districts that legislators and congressmen represent. That doesn't sound very controversial, but consider what this means: handpicking which voters they want or don't want in their districts.
But other than the districts having the same population (to ensure equal representation), there were few controls on how they had to be drawn. And with all the different ways possible to divide a state into 120 House or 50 Senate Districts you can bet that the Democrats, who controlled both chambers of our state legislature for almost a century, found ways to do it that protected the traditional tilt for Democratic candidates.
The state Constitution gives redistricting authority to the legislature, not the governor or the courts, but the courts have been able to rule on whether legislators have followed required state and federal guidelines While the courts have now required protections to guard against districts that are, for example, violations of the Voting Rights Act or that discriminate against minorities, courts in the past have judged that politics can be played legally in the redistricting process. The system doesn't have to be fair to be legal.
Drawing lines to favor one side or another, which is called "gerrymandering" has been considered "politics as usual" by the courts and has been practiced by both parties. It has become "extreme politics" in Texas where Republicans, radically tossed out the existing legislative districts for ones that gave them huge advantages. The Democrats responded by literally running for the border, blocking the vote while hiding out in Oklahoma. Who says politics is boring?
While our state leaders aren't yet holing up with Pedro at the I-95 South of the Border, North Carolina hasn't exactly been a shining example of the right way to draw districts.
If you were to pick up a text book about law suits affecting redistricting, you'd be astonished by how many national cases actually originated here in the Tarheel state.
After the Democratic legislature drew new district lines in 2001, surprise, surprise, Republican plaintiffs challenged the new districts over state constitutional requirements, and NC Supreme Court agreed, on a party line vote, that the districts did not follow state law. The Court ordered the legislators in 2002 to try again and to make districts conform to county and historic boundaries as much as possible.
So, with Democrats still in control, legislators returned to the map room and produced Plan No. 2. The justices rejected that plan, too, and they ruled there was no time to draw a Plan 3. They ordered Superior Court Judge Knox Jenkins of Johnston County to devise a plan and his map, that looked a lot like one that had been offered up by the Republicans and rejected by the Democrats was used in the 2002 election.
Legislators will return to Raleigh during the week of Thanksgiving to produce Plan 3.
But the leaders of each chamber already have their plans ready, and the House and Senate have, rumor has it, already agreed to approve the other’s plan, so don’t expect there to be any delays or much debate.
Meanwhile, critics such as Robinson and the NC Center for Voter Education have proposed an alternative to the present, contentious system. They call for an "Independent Redistricting Commission" to do the job.
Sen. Hamilton Horton, R-Forsyth, and Sen. Ellie Kinnaird, D-Orange, have led the movement and have filed legislation to establish a commission. Such a body should reduce the current pressures that incumbent and partisan legislators put on redistricting plans. Commission members also would be expected to be more sensitive to the "communities of interest" that bind districts rather than splitting neighborhood and towns to satisfy political wishes.
Critics such as Chris Heagarty of the NC Center for Voter Education say that not only is the existing process expensive and time-consuming, but that it results in a less informed electorate. The lack of stability in the process means that voters are less likely to know who the candidates are, while candidates must delay their campaigns until they find out who will be voting for them. An independent commission would bring a level of certainty, he says, that would benefit voters and candidates.
Other states have adopted such commissions, and their record has been good enough for North Carolinians to examine the question. The test, as Robinson concedes, is in appointing an independent commission that lives up to its name. After all, it will be politicians who appoint commission members, and it is unrealistic to think that appointees will be heedless of their patrons’ politics. Of course, Heagarty argues, any reform would likely be better than the process we've got. No independent commission has ever run for the border.
Barlow Herget is a former member of the Raleigh city council and contributor to "The North Carolina Century."
3933 Arrow Dr.
Suite 101
Raleigh, N.C. 27612
877.258.6837 (toll free)