Click here to live chat with one of our writers between 9am-5pm CST.
Redistricting in North Carolina
From Ballotpedia
| North Carolina | |
 | |
| General Information | |
| Process: | Legislative Authority (Governor cannot veto) |
| Deadline: | January 2012 |
| Total Seats to be Drawn | |
| Congress: | 13 |
| State Senate: | 50 |
| State House: | 120 |
| Other States Redistricting Pages | |
| Alabama · Alaska · Arizona · Arkansas · California · Colorado · Connecticut · Delaware · Florida · Georgia · Hawaii · Idaho · Illinois · Indiana · Iowa · Kansas · Kentucky · Louisiana · Maine · Maryland · Massachusetts · Michigan · Minnesota · Mississippi · Missouri · Montana · Nebraska · Nevada · New Hampshire · New Jersey · New Mexico · New York · North Carolina · North Dakota · Ohio · Oklahoma · Oregon · Pennsylvania · Rhode Island · South Carolina · South Dakota · Tennessee · Texas · Utah · Vermont · Virginia · Washington · West Virginia · Wisconsin · Wyoming | |
North Carolina did not gain or lose any seats following the 2010 Census. The state's population grew to 9.54 million residents, an increase of 18.5 percent.[1]
According to a report in the Washington Post political blog "The Fix," North Carolina is home one of the top ten redistricting battles in the nation, ranking third on the list. Illinois was ranked first.[2]
Process
In North Carolina, the State Legislature is responsible for redistricting. North Carolina is one of 16 states whose maps must receive approval from the U.S. Justice Department under the Voting Rights Act.
Leadership
North Carolina is one of 17 states where Republicans control redistricting in 2011, and, of those 17, it is the only state where Democrats hold the majority of Congressional seats.[3]
Although North Carolina will not gain or lose any seats in 2011, districts will have to be redrawn to reflect population shifts. Growth in the counties containing the metro areas of Raleigh, Wilmington and Charlotte outpaced more rural counties.[4]
Ran Coble of the North Carolina Center for Public Policy Research summed up the task ahead for the legislature, stating, "The final plan has got to satisfy the U.S. Supreme Court on one person, one vote and not deviating more than about 5 percent. It's got to satisfy the Justice Department on not discriminating against minority voters. It's got to satisfy the State Supreme Court on following county lines as much as possible and so that's why I say it's a really difficult job."[5]
Senator Bob Rucho is chair of the Senate's redistricting efforts. Rucho said he will create "fair and legal districts."[6]
Rep. David Lewis, Sr., Senior Chairman of the House Redistricting Committee, has said that he is aiming to have maps for U.S. House and state House seats drafted by the week of May 16. Final maps, Lewis estimates, will come in early to mid-June.[7]
Senate
The North Carolina Senate Redistricting Committee meets upon the call of Chairman Rucho.[8] Membership as of April 1 is as follows:[9]
|
|
|
Dannelly resigns
The day after the redistricting panel's first meeting on March 30, Charlie Smith Dannelly (D) resigned citing scheduling conflicts. At the meeting, Senate Minority Leader Nesbitt attempted to swap two of the current Democrats on the committee for Dan Clodfelter and Dan Blue, both veterans of redistricting, but Chairman Rucho refused.[10]
House
The House Redistricting Committee meets upon the call of the Chairmen. Rep. Jerry Dockham stated, “We’ve gained quite a few people since the last Census. That could lead to possibly some different districts being drawn. We’ll try to make it compact, so people know where the lines are and know who their representatives are.” He said he hopes to have maps done by mid-May.[11] Membership of the committee is as follows:[12]
|
|
|
Independent (1) |
Public hearings
The Joint House and Senate Redistricting Committee will hold several public meetings across the state to gather public input on redistricting. The schedule of meetings and online comment forms can be found on North Carolina's redistricting website. Attendees can also sign up to speak at the meetings by registering online.
Census results
On March 1, 2011, the Census Bureau shipped North Carolina's local census data to the governor and legislative leaders. This data will guide redistricting for state and local offices. The data is publicly available for download. [13] Overall, the data shows population and political power consolidating in urban areas. The 2010 ideal district population is 79,500 for state House districts, 190,710 for Senate districts, and 733,499 for Congressional seats.[14]
Districts with most growth
The 9th Congressional district, which includes parts of Mecklenburg, Gaston, and Union counties, grew by nearly 38%, the most of any congressional district. In the North Carolina State Senate, District 35 grew by nearly 57%. The district includes Union County and part of Mecklenburg County. State House District 68, also located in Union County, grew by 99%, the most of any district in the chamber.[15] Union County is located southeast of Charlotte and is home to several Charlotte suburbs.
City/County population changes
These tables show the change in population for the five largest cities and counties in North Carolina from 2000-2010.[16]
|
|
Congressional Maps
This table shows the top 5 Congressional districts that deviate from the 2010 ideal district population of 733,499.[17]
| Top Five Districts Deviating from Ideal Population | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| District | 2010 Population | Deviation from Ideal | Percent from Ideal |
| 9 | 852,377 | 118,878 | 16.2% |
| 1 | 635,936 | -97,563 | -13.3% |
| 4 | 826,870 | 93,379 | 12.7% |
| 10 | 689,468 | -44,031 | -6.0% |
| 5 | 693,414 | -40,085 | -5.5% |
7th district
One possible change to the state's Congressional districts might be to redraw lines to increase the election prospects of Republican Ilario Pantano. Pantano ran for the 7th district seat against Democratic Rep. Mike McIntyre in 2010, but lost by 8 points. He has already announced he would be running for the seat again in 2012.[18]
David Wasserman of The Cook Political Report suggested that Republicans may choose to forgo defeating McIntyre and move African-American voters from neighboring districts into McIntyre’s, thus helping Republicans in those districts. Another possibility, according to Wasserman, would be to move McIntyre’s home base and other strongly Democratic areas out of the 7th District to diffuse the Democrat's power. However, he also added, "I don’t see how Pantano can win thanks to redistricting alone. He has to make up a lot of ground from 2010, and he’ll have a less favorable electorate in 2012.”[19]
9th district
The 9th district, represented by Sue Myrick (R-Charlotte), grew by 38%, more than any other district. It is possible that legislators would transfer Republican voters from her district to the 8th, a swing district.[15]
13th District
According to a report in the Washington Post, North Carolina Rep. Brad Miller (D) is one of the most likely Congressmen to become a victim of redistricting. He was ranked number 2 on the list. Miller's district is already oddly gerrymandered to favor Democrats, so it will be an obvious target for Republican lawmakers. [20]
New majority-minority district
Republicans are said to be considering a plan to create a new majority-minority district, the third in the state. This process could also result in an increase in the safety and number of Republicans in Congress. Critics say that the move would be an effort to concentrate minority voters and, thus, reduce their power. The new district would be centered in Fayetteville-based Cumberland County.[21][22]
US Congressman Patrick McHenry (R) further stoked the controversy by declaring in an interview with Politico that a new minority-majority district was likely and that Republicans would "pick up three seats under any fair and legal map." However, Senate Redistricting Chairman Bob Rucho (R) distanced himself from the remarks, stating that McHenry doesn't speak for state redistricting leaders.[23]
Top 20 gerrymandered districts
North Carolina's 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 12th Congressional districts were featured in a Slate publication titled, "The Most Gerrymandered Congressional Districts." There were 20 districts featured from across the country.[24]
Lawmakers may seek to avoid DOJ review
Although North Carolina's Congressional and legislative maps are usually reviewed by the Department of Justice, the state may attempt to sidestep DOJ review. As an alternative to Justice Department review, the Voting Rights Act permits states to file a declaratory judgement action in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. A panel of judges would then review the maps.
Included the state budget bill, is a provision which permits the state to take this alternate route to approval. The move is intended to avoid what state Republicans believe is a biased Obama-appointed DOJ.[25]
Proposed Congressional maps released
On July 1, the North Carolina General Assembly released a proposed map of the state's thirteen Congressional seats. The Republican-drafted plan redraws the state's legislative districts to conform with 2010 Census data. Overall, the plan is expected to net the GOP between three and four seats in the 2012 general election. Specifically, the plan significantly weakens Democratic Congressmen Brad Miller (District 13), Heath Shuler (District 11), and Larry Kissell (District 8). Rep. Mike McIntyre's (D) District 7 seat was also weakened under the new map. Executive director of the State Democratic Party Jay Parmley called the proposal "Republican greed."[26] In addition, the NAACP and other opponents argue that the new Voting Rights Act districts unfairly pack black and Democratic voters in order to weaken their representation. The NAACP has since threatened a lawsuit, calling the plan "regressive" and "shameful."[27][28][29][30] The 12th District is the most likely target for litigation.[31] Rep. McIntyre called the plan "disappointing."[32]
In a joint statement, Republican redistricting leaders Sen. Bob Rucho and Rep. David Lewis contend that the plan "fully complies with applicable federal and state law" and "will establish Congressional districts that are fair to North Carolina voters." Revisions to the plan may be released the weekend of July 15.[33]
| North Carolina GOP Congressional Redistricting Proposal | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Shuler considering retirement
Rumors are circulating that Rep. Heath Shuler (D) might retire and accept a position as Athletic Director at the University of Tennessee. Shuler's US House district was significantly weakened under the proposed Congressional redistricting plan. Shuler is a retired NFL quarterback and former star of the University of Tennessee.[1] According to the 2008 presidential vote, Shuler's new district is the most Republican in the state with 59% of its voters supporting John McCain.[2]
Revised Congressional maps released
On July 19, the North Carolina GOP released a revised version of its Congressional redistricting maps. Overall, the map is seen as significantly worse for the state's Congressional Democrats. Unlike the previous plan which weakened four Democratic districts but kept incumbents within their original districts, the new draft pairs four Democrats in two districts. Specifically, the plan pairs Reps. Larry Kissell (D) and Mike McIntyre (D) in the strongly-Republican 8th District. The plan also pairs Rep. Brad Miller (D) and Rep. David Price (D) in Price's District 4. Miller, who still lives near his old district (13), does not plan challenge Price. McIntyre could return to his old District 7, but its Democratic base has been weakened. Notably, Rep. Sanford Bishop (D), who won a close race in 2010, was bolstered under the plan. His District 2 seat picked up Democratic voters as surrounding districts were weakened.[3]
Opponents call the plan gerrymandering, but Republican redistricting leaders Sen. Bob Rucho and Rep. David Lewis contest this claim, noting that Attorney General Roy Cooper would have won in each of the new districts.[2] Rucho and Lewis' press release on the plan can be found here.
| North Carolina GOP Congressional Revised Redistricting Proposal | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Senate approves Congressional maps
On July 25, the North Carolina State Senate has approved plans for Congressional redistricting. The approved plan is an amended version of the recently revised congressional Congressional proposal. The redistricting bill, SB 453, was approved 27-19.[1] The latest draft has drawn criticism from the New Hanover County Republican Party over the shape of District 3. Chair Rhonda Amoroso argues that the latest revisions divide too many communities and fail to maintain the district's unifying identity as a "coastal district." She advised the legislature to reshape District 3 based on the first draft of the Congressional map.[2] The local Democratic and Libertarian party chairs have also come out in opposition to the plan.[3]
| North Carolina GOP Congressional Redistricting Plan, Senate-approved | ||
|---|---|---|
|
General Assembly approves maps
On July 27, the General Assembly gave final approval to the state's Congressional maps. The plan, a slightly modified version of the Senate-approved plan, passed the House 68-51. The Senate concurred a few hours later, approving the plan 28-17. Gov. Beverly Perdue (D) does not have veto power over the maps. Opponents repeated charges of minority-packing and partisan gerrymandering. The bill was enacted as Session Law 2011-403.[1]
| North Carolina Congressional Redistricting Plan | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Plans submitted for pre-clearance
On Friday, September 2, North Carolina officials submitted the state's redistricting maps for pre-clearance under the Voting Rights Act. The act requires that certain states submit their redistricting maps to the Department of Justice for approval in order to prevent the marginalization of minority voters. The act alternatively allows states to submit their maps to the US District Court for DC for approval. North Carolina officials submitted the maps to both the DOJ and the District Court in order to better ensure approval.[1] District 12 is seen as the most likely target of federal objections. A lawsuit over the district is likely. US Rep. Mel Watt (D-12) and the NAACP have questioned the legality of the new maps. Damon Circosta, of the N.C. Center for Voter Education, called a lawsuit "inevitable."[2]
Department of Justice gives approval
On November 1, the U.S. Department of Justice pre-approved North Carolina's congressional and legislative maps in accordance with the Voting Rights Act. Despite the approval, multiple lawsuits have been filed over aspects of the plan. See "Legal issues" below for coverage of these lawsuits.[3]
Legislative Maps
New Hanover County
New Hanover County has seen its population jump by 42,360 since 2000. Its current total of 202,667 is about 12,000 residents over the ideal Senate district population of 190,710. According to the North Carolina Supreme Court no state legislative district can have a deviation of more than 5% from the ideal. The new total puts New Hanover 6% over. Currently in the county in its entirety is represented by Sen. Thom Goolsby (R). He said he is not worried about himself, stating, "My interest is only in seeing that constitutional districts that represent the common interests of the people in those areas are drawn."[4]
Republicans draft VRA districts
On June 17, Republicans released a redistricting proposal for the Voting Rights Act districts in the North Carolina General Assembly. The plan creates 24 majority-minority districts in the House and 10 in the State Senate. Together these districts contain around 50% of the state's African-American population. Currently, 18 African-Americans serve in the House and 10 serve in the State Senate. Although the plan could increase the number of minorities serving in the General Assembly, an NAACP attorney accused lawmakers of packing blacks into fewer districts to reduce their broader influence. Moving black voters from existing districts to neighboring VRA districts may also have the effect of undermining the voting base of several Democratic incumbents. However, Bob Rucho (R), chair of the Senate Redistricting Committee, argues that lawmakers have a responsibility to empower minorities to choose their own candidates by creating more majority-minority districts.[5][6] A press release explaining the proposed districts can be found here.
| North Carolina VRA Redistricting Proposal | ||
|---|---|---|
|
VRA criticism
Some groups have criticized the Republican maps that would create more majority-minority districts. Bob Hall, executive director of Democracy North Carolina, said the Republicans are attempting to weaken the Democratic Party in some districts by packing heavy concentrations of Democratic-leaning citizens into majority-minority districts.
Senator Dan Blue (D) said his initial impression is that Republicans are illegally "packing" minority voters.[1]
Full plans delayed
Following the release of the Voting Rights Act districts, lawmakers decided to push back the full release of the state’s legislative maps from July 1 to July 11.[2] On July 11, the plans were delayed another day. The release is currently expected on July 12.[3]
Legislative plans released
On July 12, Republicans in both chambers released state-level redistricting plans. While details are still emerging, the plans appear to favor urban areas and the Republican party. Wake and Mecklenburg counties, each with five senators, would have a strong influence in the legislature. The State Senate maps pair eight incumbents in four districts. Two of these pairings pit Republican and Democratic incumbents--in each case favoring the GOP. The two remaining pairings, join GOP incumbents.[4] Overall, the plan appears to pair or relocate 19 Democrats and 19 Republicans.[5] In a statement released along with the maps, Republican redistricting leaders Sen. Bob Rucho and Rep. David Lewis explain that the maps eliminate one of the controversial VRA districts in response to public criticism. However, they defend the maps as a whole, arguing that charges of "packing" black residents are unfounded.
| North Carolina GOP Legislative Redistricting Proposal | ||
|---|---|---|
|
House and Senate approve respective plans
On July 25, each chamber of the North Carolina General Assembly approved redistricting plans for its own districts. The North Carolina House of Representatives approved a revised version of the house maps released on July 12. The State Senate also approved a revised plan. The house plan, HB 937, passed 68-59. The senate plan, SB 455, was approved 27-18.[1]
| North Carolina GOP House, Senate Redistricting Plans |
|---|
 This map shows the first draft of the North Carolina House of Representatives districts. |
 This map shows the second draft of the North Carolina House of Representatives districts. |
 This map shows the first draft of the North Carolina State Senate districts. |
 This map shows the second draft of the North Carolina State Senate districts. |
General Assembly approves maps
On July 27, the General Assembly gave final approval to the state's legislative maps. The House plan, an amended version of the House-approved plan, passed the Senate 38-19. The House concurred a few hours later, approving the plan 66-53. Concerning the State Senate maps, the House concurred 67-52 with the Senate version passed on July 25. Gov. Beverly Perdue (D) does not have veto power over the maps. Opponents repeated charges of minority-packing and partisan gerrymandering. The bill was enacted as Session Law 2011-404. [1]
Using a method developed by Charlie Cook, Catawba College Professor Michael Bitzer calculated the political make-up of the finalized districts. Using the presidential vote in 2004 and 2008, he divided seats into "likely," "lean," and "toss-up." In the House, Bitzer found that 36 of the new districts are likely Republican wins while 30 are likely Democratic wins. In addition, he found that 37 seats lean Republican while only six seats lean Democrat. Overall, 11 House seats are toss-ups. In the State Senate, Bitzer identified 14 districts that are likely wins for each party. However, he identified 17 seats that lean Republican while only two seats lean Democrat. There are three Senate toss-ups.[2]
| North Carolina Legislative Redistricting Plan | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Plans submitted for pre-clearance
On Friday, September 2, North Carolina officials submitted the state's redistricting maps for pre-clearance under the Voting Rights Act. The act requires that certain states submit their redistricting maps to the Department of Justice for approval in order to prevent the marginalization of minority voters. The act alternatively allows states to submit their maps to the US District Court for DC for approval. North Carolina officials submitted the maps to both the DOJ and the District Court in order to better ensure approval.[1] US House District 12 is seen as the most likely target of federal objections. A lawsuit over the district is likely. US Rep. Mel Watt (D-12) and the NAACP have questioned the legality of the new maps. Damon Circosta, of the N.C. Center for Voter Education, called a lawsuit "inevitable."[2]
Department of Justice gives approval
On November 1, the U.S. Department of Justice pre-approved North Carolina's congressional and legislative maps in accordance with the Voting Rights Act. Despite the approval, multiple lawsuits have been filed over aspects of the plan. See "Legal issues" below for coverage of these lawsuits.[3]
Legal issues
Democrats challenge redistricting maps
On November 4, state Democrats filed suit against North Carolina's congressional and legislative redistricting plans in Wake County Superior Court. Arguing that the maps violate both the State and U.S. Constitutions, Democrats contend that the maps illegally pack black voters into a few districts and weaken their political clout. In addition, plaintiffs point to the contorted shape of the new districts and high number of split precincts as evidence of gerrymandering. In the 113-page filing, several of the most problematic districts are named: Senate Districts 19 and 21; House Districts 42, 43, and 45; and U.S. Congressional District 4. Republican and House Redistricting Committee Chair David Lewis, Sr. called the charges false but unsurprising. GOP leaders point to DOJ approval as proof of the maps' legality.[4]
Community groups file suit
On November 4, four community groups joined together in opposition to North Carolina's legislative and congressional maps, filing suit over the new plans in Wake County Superior Court. Much like the Democratic Party lawsuit, the groups argue that the maps pack black voters and senselessly split precincts.[5]
Lawsuits consolidated, timeline adopted
The two challenges to North Carolina's new district lines have been consolidated into a single case to be heard by a special three-judge panel. After a dispute over the timeline with attorneys for the state, the court is considering an expedited timeline under which the case should decided by mid-February. Attorney's for the state argued that the panel should not make a hasty decision. The consolidated lawsuit argues that the new plans marginalize minority voters by packing them into meandering minority-minority districts. The state cites DOJ approval of the maps as proof of their legality.[6]
Faster timeline rejected by court
On Monday, December 19, a panel hearing the challenges to North Carolina's redistricting maps declined to fast-track the case, siding with attorneys for the state. One of the judges for the case called the expedited timetable "extraordinary." The plaintiffs, state Democrats and minority groups, worry that delay will force the state to use the new maps in 2012. The state's attorneys argued that the plaintiff's legal arguments were a veiled attempt to achieve partisan aims. Whether or not the new maps are used, observers expect the state's primary to be delayed if the case goes to trial. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for January 12.[7][8]
Section 5 upheld in local ballots case
The US District Court for the District of Columbia has rejected a challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The section requires US DOJ pre-approval of elections laws in states with a history of racial discrimination. The lawsuit was filed by North Carolina Rep. Stephen LaRoque (R) and several Kinston residents over a plan to adopt non-partisan ballots. Section 5 also requires DOJ pre-approval of redistricting legislation. LaRoque plans to appeal the decision.[9]
Judges keep primary date intact
On January 20, the three-judge panel hearing the congressional redistricting challenge, refused to delay the North Carolina primary. The plaintiffs--including state Democrats, the NAACP, and advocacy groups--argue that the new map constitutes racial gerrymandering and contains too many split counties. In addition, they argue that the new precincts will create long lines and confuse voters. However, the judge found that delaying the primary would not help resolve these concerns, but noted that the decision shouldn't be interpreted as a rejection of the plaintiffs' arguments.[10]
- The panel's decision can be found here.
Panel says lawsuits can proceed
On Monday, January 6, a three-judge Superior Court panel ruled that the lawsuits against the North Carolina redistricting maps can proceed. The state had asked for the two lawsuits to be entirely dismissed, but the judges ultimately retained more than half of the 37 claims made by plaintiffs. The consolidated cases were originally filed by state Democrats, the NAACP, and community groups.[11]
Meanwhile, allegations of gender bias in the NC redistricting effort have surfaced after analysis showed that female Democrats were more likely to be targeted under the map than either Democratic males or Republicans of either gender. More broadly, the maps appear to have triggered a number of Democratic retirements--so far, one senator and 10 representatives have decided not to seek re-election to their present office (2 are seeking higher office). Republican lawmakers have denied any intentional gender bias in the maps, calling them both legal and fair.[12][13]
Oral arguments scheduled
This Friday, April 20, a three-judge state panel will hear arguments in a challenge of North Carolina's new legislative and congressional districts. The suit was filed by the state Democratic Party, the NAACP, and other advocacy groups. They contend that the maps reduce minority voting power.
Public meetings
WBTV report on April 11, 2011 about the coming redistricting process. |
The first joint meeting of the House and Senate redistricting committees took place on Wednesday, March 30. The main emphasis was expected to be on how state and federal laws, as well as court rulings, restrict how districts are drawn.[14] However, House members were in the midst of a floor debate on state employee health insurance and did not attend. Senate Democrats criticized Republicans, arguing they are stacking the deck. Minority Leader Martin Nesbitt (D) said two members with previous redistricting experience were not allowed to serve on the committee, showing the GOP does not want a fair process.[15]
A series of public hearings began in April.[16] At a meeting on April 28, several citizens criticized the Senate redistricting committee for not providing any proposed maps to comment on. Following the meeting Sen. Andrew Brock (R) said new maps have not yet been drawn.[17] Similar sentiments were echoed at an April 30 meeting of the House committee. Despite four counties participating in the meeting via teleconference, only 11 people spoke. Voter Martin Oakes stated, "If you repeat the process when we have maps ... you will, of course, need an auditorium, not a small room."[18] The last public hearing was held on May 9, with the committee's proposal expected at the end of May.[19]
Senate Redistricting Committee Chairman Bob Rucho (R) has since announced a meeting to follow the release of the maps. The public hearing will be located in Raleigh with satellite feeds to four locations around the state. Rucho said that the meeting will allow residents to comment on an actual plan.[20]
Citizen Activism
North Carolinians for Redistricting Reform
On March 30 a coalition of nonprofit organizations announced the formation of North Carolinians for Redistricting Reform. The group seeks to keep redistricting open, fair, and transparent. They are advocating for a constitutional amendment to go before voters in the 2012 election which would establish an independent redistricting commission.[21]
Partisan Registration by District
Congressional Districts in November 2010
| Partisan Registration and Representation by Congressional District, 2010[22] | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Congressional District | Republicans | Democrats | Unaffiliated | District Total | Party Advantage* | 111th Congress | 112th Congress | |
| 1 (Rocky Mount) | 68,175 | 277,107 | 64,111 | 409,393 | 306.46% Democratic | |||
| 2 (Raleigh) | 122,167 | 221,503 | 93,006 | 436,676 | 81.31% Democratic | |||
| 3 (Greenville) | 157,413 | 186,487 | 111,848 | 455,748 | 18.47% Democratic | |||
| 4 (Chapel Hill/Durham) | 148,798 | 262,335 | 163,285 | 574,418 | 76.30% Democratic | |||
| 5 (Statesville/Mount Airy) | 199,228 | 155,175 | 105,301 | 459,704 | 28.39% Republican | |||
| 6 (Asheboro) | 209,898 | 155,057 | 112,793 | 477,748 | 35.37% Republican | |||
| 7 (Wilmington) | 135,546 | 233,005 | 109,778 | 487,329 | 71.90% Democratic | |||
| 8 (Concord/Albemarle) | 118,472 | 212,046 | 99,192 | 429,710 | 78.98% Democratic | |||
| 9 (Mount Holly/Matthews) | 224,949 | 192,310 | 154,443 | 571,702 | 16.97% Republican | |||
| 10 (Morganton/Shelby) | 182,866 | 154,074 | 106,772 | 443,712 | 18.69% Republican | |||
| 11 (Asheville) | 164,610 | 198,905 | 142,520 | 506,035 | 20.83% Democratic | |||
| 12 (Winston-Salem/Charlotte) | 98,629 | 269,187 | 93,370 | 461,186 | 172.93% Democratic | |||
| 13 (Greensboro) | 121,756 | 243,462 | 111,943 | 477,161 | 99.96% Democratic | |||
| State Totals | 1,954,491 | 2,765,429 | 1,469,771 | 6,189,691 | 41.49% Democratic | 8 D, 5 R | 7 D, 6 R | |
| *The partisan registration advantage was computed as the gap between the two major parties in registered voters. For example, a 50% Democratic advantage would mean that there are 50% more Democrats than Republicans in the district. | ||||||||
Independent commission
In 2009, Republicans introduced legislation to create an independent commission in charge of redistricting. At the time, the legislature was controlled by Democrats, who thwarted the measure. After the 2010 elections, the Republicans gained majorities in the state senate and state house.[23] After the election, governor Beverly Perdue (D) urged the new legislators to create an independent bipartisan commission.[24] The governor has no legal authority in redistricting.[25]
Senator Rucho, who is chairing the senate's redistricting efforts, said he is skeptical that any redistricting commission would be truly independent. "There's always politics involved, one way or another," he said.[26]
Timing
Some proponents of redistricting reform have come out against creating an independent commission in 2011, arguing that there is not enough time to do it properly. John Hood, President of the John Locke Foundation, said lawmakers should take the time to do it correctly by presenting the voters with a constitutional amendment in 2012 that would create a commission system. He explains:"To create a true commission system would require amending the state’s constitution, which currently allocates sole redistricting authority to elected lawmakers. To set up some kind of commission-lite by statute would invite chaos, delay, and likely litigation. Keep in mind that every step has to be approved by the U.S. Justice Department, and that lawmakers could still reject a statutory commission’s maps and start over if they didn’t like them."[27]
Legislation
State Senator Eleanor Kinnaird (D) introduced a bill, HB 591, to create an independent redistricting commission. Regarding the proposal, she stated, "It could be done quite quickly; there's no reason it couldn't be done. All you have to do is put in the bill who is appointing the commission and then it's just appointed." [28] Representative John Blust (R), has also introduced HB 783 to create an independent commission.
House Bill 824, modeled on Iowa's redistricting commission, was introduced in the House on April 7. Via state statute, the bill would shift the responsibility for redistricting to professional staffers. Iowa state Representatives Peter Cownie (R) and Vicki Lensing (D) took part in a press conference via Skype in order to advocate for the legislation.[29][30]
House approves redistricting reform
On June 9, the North Carolina House approved House Bill 824 which fundamentally restructures the state's redistricting process. Modeled after Iowa, the proposed law shifts responsiblity for redistricting from the state legislature to staff in the Legislative Services Office. Once drafted by the office, the plan would proceed to the legislature for a simple up or down vote. The bill passed the House by a 88-27 margin and now proceeds to the State Senate. If approved, the law would not take effect until after the 2020 census.[31]
County level
Dare County
On February 21, 2011, about a dozen tea partyers demonstrated in front of of the Dare County administration building, asking officials to change how representation is apportioned. The demonstrators argue that residents of Roanoke Island and the mainland have disproportionately more power than residents of the northern towns of Duck, Southern Shores, Kitty Hawk, Kill Devil Hills and Nags Head.
The population of the county has grown from under 23,000 in 1990 to nearly 34,300 in 2009, yet there has been no change in apportionment since 1992.[32]
History
The 1835 North Carolina Constitution provided for a House of Representatives of 120 members elected by counties. Each county was guaranteed 1 representative, with extra seats going to those with the largest populations. The 1868 state constitution established that senators be elected from districts of equal population, with boundaries altered following each federal census. The legislature adhered to these constitutional principles until 1920.
Conflicts arose in the early 20th century between small and large counties as well as between parties. These factors led to no new maps being drawn to keep up with shifting populations in the 1930s and 1950s, with only minor changes made in 1941.
In 1961, the legislature succeeded in redrawing congressional and state house districts, but failed at state Senate districts. The legislature failed again to redistrict the Senate in 1963 and a special session was called to deal with the issue. In January 1964 voters were presented with a referendum that would have reduced the house to 100 members and increase the Senate 70 members. It was rejected. By the time the Supreme Court decided Reynolds v. Sims in 1964, the state legislature was grossly malapportioned.
In 1965, the legislature passed a resolution asking Congress to call a constitutional convention in order to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution allowing states with a bicameral legislature to apportion one of the the chambers by factors other than population. The same year attorney Renn Drum, Jr. filed suit challenging the constitutionality of North Carolina's legislative and congressional redistricting procedures. In late 1965 the U.S. district court ruled that the state's legislative and congressional districts did not comply with representative equality.
The legislature struggled to comply with the court order and found many of its efforts unapproved. Interim plans were devised for the 1968 and 1970 elections. When redistricting came about again in 1971, 39 counties in the state were guaranteed to be reviewed under the 1965 voting rights act. The legislature was able to establish congressional redistricting plans nearing population equality with an average deviation from the district population norm of 1.01%. State legislative district plans also achieved near population equality, with an average deviation of 3.17%.[33]
2001 redistricting
Deviation from "Ideal Districts"
| 2000 Population Deviation[34] | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Office | Percentage | ||||||
| Congressional Districts | 0.00% | ||||||
| State House Districts | 9.98% | ||||||
| State Senate Districts | 9.96% | ||||||
| Under federal law, districts may vary from an 'Ideal District' by up to 10%, though the lowest number achievable is preferred. 'Ideal Districts' are computed through simple division of the number of seats for any office into the population at the time of the Census. | |||||||
Lawsuits related to the 2000 Census
There were a number of lawsuits related to the North Carolina 2000 census redistricting process, including Bartlett v. Strickland, which made it to the U.S. Supreme Court.[35]
- Stephenson v. Bartlett, No. 1 CV 02885 (Superior Court, Johnston Co., Feb. 20, 2002) : On February 15, 2002, four days after the Justice Department told the State that its House and Senate district plans met the requirements of the Voting Rights Act, a state court ruled that the plans violated a provision of the state constitution that requires counties to be kept whole when drawing state legislative districts. The court requested the parties to submit a proposed deadline for the General Assembly to redraw the districts and offered to draw a remedial plan for the 2002 election if the deadline was not met or if so directed by the appellate court.
- Stephenson v. Bartlett, No. 94P02 (N.C. Feb. 26, 2002) : Without lifting the stay of the Superior Court order holding the North Carolina State House and Senate plans enacted in 2001 to be unconstitutional by dividing too many counties, the North Carolina Supreme Court ordered an expedited appeal schedule.
- Stephenson v. Bartlett (Stephenson I), No. 94PA02, 355 N.C. 354, 562 S.E.2d 377 (Apr. 30, 2002), stay denied 535 U.S. 1301 (May 17, 2002) (Rehnquist, Circuit Justice, in chambers) : The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the superior court holding that North Carolina State Senate and State House plans were unconstitutional because of a state constitutional provision saying that no counties could be divided, but said that the no-divided-counties provision has limited applicability. The district court was ordered to hold an expedited hearing on whether the General Assembly was capable of redrawing the districts in time for the 2002 election. If not, the district court was authorized to impose a temporary plan of its own for use in the 2002 election, subject to being precleared.
- Stephenson v. Bartlett, No. 1 CV 02885 (Superior Court, Johnston Co., May 31, 2002) : After the General Assembly enacted new House and Senate plans on May 17, Superior Court Judge Knox V. Jenkins threw them out and drew his own.
- Stephenson v. Bartlett, No. 94PA02 (N.C. June 4, 2002) : The North Carolina Supreme Court denied the State’s request to stay enforcement of the Superior Court’s order and a motion to expedite hearing the State’s appeal.
- Board of Elections v. United States, No. 02-1174 (D.D.C. June 27, 2002) : The complaint sought preclearance for both the North Carolina Supreme Court decision of April 30, 2002 in the Stephenson case and the interim plans adopted by the Superior Court. A three-judge panel said that the federal court in two pending cases in the Eastern District of North Carolina would have authority to grant relief. The court noted that the Department of Justice would have a decision on the Section 5 submittals of the Stephenson case and the Jenkins plan by the week of July 8, 2002.
- Sample v Jenkins, No. 20-CV-383 , (E.D. N.C. July 2, 2002) : A three-judge court unanimously denied the State’s motion for a preliminary injunction to conduct the 2002 state legislative election under the precleared legislatively-enacted 2001 plan, rather than the interim state court ordered plan. On July 12, 2002, the Department of Justice precleared both the new interpretation of the North Carolina constitutional requirement to preserve whole counties announced in the Stephenson decision and the new legislative districts drawn by Judge Jenkins.
- Stephenson v. Bartlett (Stephenson II), No. 94PA02-2, 357 N.C. 301, 582 S.E.2d 247 (July 16, 2003) : On July 16, 2003, the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court holding both Senate and House plans invalid.
- Stephenson v. Bartlett, 358 N.C. 219, 595 S.E.2d 112 (Apr. 22, 2004) : On November 25, 2003, along with the new legislative redistricting plan it enacted in compliance with the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision of July 16, 2003, the General Assembly enacted a new law that any action involving redistricting lies exclusively with the Superior Court, Wake County and that legal challenges to legislative redistricting plans must be heard by a three-judge panel appointed by the Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court. If a court were to find a redistricting plan flawed, the General Assembly would have to be given an opportunity to correct any defects before the court imposed a substitute plan. Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the law. The North Carolina Supreme Court upheld the law.
- Pender County v. Bartlett, No. 103A06, 361 N.C. 491, 649 S.E.2d 364 (Aug. 24, 2007), aff’d sub nom. Bartlett v. Strickland, No. 07-689 (Mar. 9, 2009) : The 2003 General Assembly legislative redistricting plan was challenged by Pender County, which was divided between House Districts 16 and 18. A three-judge panel decided that dividing Pender County was required by § 2 of the Voting Rights Act. On appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed.
- Bartlett v. Strickland, No. 07-689 (Mar. 9, 2009) : On appeal, a 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court. In an opinion by Justice Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, the Court held that § 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not require creation of a district in which a minority population has a fair opportunity to elect a representative of its choice if the minority would constitute less than a majority of the voting age population in the district.
Constitutional explanation
The North Carolina Constitution provides authority to the Legislature for apportionment of Senators in Section 3 of Article II and for apportionment of Representatives in Section 5.
See also
- State Legislative and Congressional Redistricting after the 2010 Census
- State-by-state redistricting procedures
- Redistricting Committee, North Carolina State Senate
External links
- North Carolina General Assembly - 2011 Redistricting
- North Carolinians for Redistricting Reform
- News Observer, "Districts that reach beyond politics," January 6, 2010 Editorial in support of an independent commission
- Winston-Salem Journal, "Redistricting reforms," January 10, 2011 Editorial against creating an independent commission in 2011
References
- ↑ WNCT, "NC Redistricting Plans Filed With Lawyers, Court," September 2, 2011
- ↑ Charlotte Observer, "Fight on voting districts likely headed to court," July 6, 2011
- ↑ WFMY News 2, "Dept. Of Justice Pre-Approves NC's Senate, House, Congressional Redistricting Maps," November 1, 2011
- ↑ N.C. Democrats sue over redistricting; Margaret Dickson is lead plaintiff, "N.C. Democrats sue over redistricting; Margaret Dickson is lead plaintiff," November 4, 2011
- ↑ WRAL, "Another NC redistricting lawsuit filed in Raleigh," November 4, 2011
- ↑ Daily Comet, "NC redistricting hearing to focus on speed of case," December 5, 2011
- ↑ Myrtle Beach online, "NC judges set redistricting hearing next month," Dec. 19, 2011
- ↑ Ballot Access News, "North Carolina Redistricting Lawsuit Might Force a Later Primary, and Later Petition Deadlines for Independent Candidates," December 19th, 2011
- ↑ The Republic, "Federal judge rejects GOP lawmaker's lawsuit challenging key section of Voting Rights Act," December 23, 2011
- ↑ WRAL, "Judges refuse to delay NC primary," January 20, 2012
- ↑ The Charlotte Post, "N.C. remap lawsuit gets judicial OK," February 9, 2012
- ↑ The News-Observer, "Exodus from legislature grows," February 3 2012
- ↑ WRAL.com, "Lewis: Map bias accusations 'absurd'," February 9, 2012
- ↑ WLOS, "Redistricting getting under way at NC Legislature," March 30, 2011
- ↑ WLOS, "1st redistricting meeting goes on without NC House," March 30, 2011
- ↑ Charlotte Observer "GOP ready to redraw N.C.'s political map," March 26, 2011
- ↑ Winston-Salem Journal "Residents criticize Senate committee for not providing redistricting maps," April 29, 2011
- ↑ Charlotte Observer, "Redistricting hearing draws small crowd," May 1, 2011
- ↑ Daily Tar Heel, "General Assembly redistricting set to finish in May," April 27, 2011
- ↑ Charlotte Observer, "Rucho: Voters will get a say on district maps," May 18, 2011
- ↑ Mountain Xpress, "Coalition pushes for independent redistricting commission," March 30, 2011
- ↑ NC State Board of Elections, "Registered Voter Reports - US Congressional District by County and Precinct," October 18, 2010
- ↑ Fay Observer, "Drawing: GOP should stand by its redistricting proposal," December 9, 2010
- ↑ Charlotte Observer "Perdue: Let's depoliticize redistricting," December 16, 2010
- ↑ News-Record, "Perdue proposes session limits, redistricting commission," December 15, 2010
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedrucho - ↑ Carolina Journal, "A Plan for Redistricting Reform," December 21, 2010
- ↑ Independent Weekly, "Republicans to wield their power through redistricting," January 26, 2011
- ↑ News and Observer, "Bill aims for fair districts," April 10, 2011
- ↑ Des Moines Register, "North Carolina wants to be like Iowa," April 13, 2011
- ↑ North Carolinians for Redistricting Reform, "Redistricting Reform Moves Forward After Vote in N.C. House," June 9, 2011
- ↑ Virginian-Pilot, "Tea party calls for Dare County redistricting," February 27, 2011
- ↑ Policy Archive, "Reapportionment Politics: The History of Redistricting in the 50 States," Rose Institute of State and Local Government, January 1981 (pg.238-246)
- ↑ National Conference of State Legislatures, “Redistricting 2000 Population Deviation Table”, accessed February 1, 2011
- ↑ Minnesota State Senate "2000 Redistricting Case Summaries"
| ||||||||||
