Redistricting

by Nancy Kuivila and Laurel Voelker

A recent report from the League of Women Voters of Wake County (LWV-Wake) details the cost of unfair redistricting in the state and provides recommendations for a transparent map-drawing process.

$10.79 Million to Defend Redistricting

“The gerrymandering of voting maps in North Carolina has resulted in costly litigation over the last decade,” said LWV-Wake President Dianna Wynn. “The legislature must adopt a more impartial and transparent process for drawing maps before we move into the 2021 cycle of redistricting.” 
 

Redistricting litigation in NC is nothing new; over the last few decades, there have been numerous court challenges to unfair maps. Both political parties have been guilty of gerrymandering. What is it about redistricting that makes it so controversial? Like most things in politics, it’s complicated.

Redistricting Overview

Voting Districts

Why do we have voting districts? Districts allow voters to have their own representative in a larger body of elected officials. Voting by districts brings government closer to voters.

Examples of different types of districts include US House of Representatives (congressional), NC House and Senate (legislative), judicial, county commissioner, school board, and some city or town districts. Redistricting simply refers to the redrawing of voting maps to make districts roughly equal in population. This ensures the principle of one person, one vote. 

After every decennial census, voting districts are adjusted for equal population. For instance, after the 2010 census, districts were redrawn in 2011. After the 2020 census is complete, districts will be redrawn in 2021 and will be used in the 2022 election and all subsequent elections until 2032—unless of course they are declared unconstitutional and the court orders a redraw.

Redistricting and Reapportionment

After each census the 435 seats in the US House of Representatives are allocated to states based on population. This is reapportionment. NC currently has 13 US representatives. Because its growth is projected to be greater than other states, it is likely to gain another US representative. The North Carolina General Assembly (GA) draws US Congressional Districts; the governor has no veto power.

The GA also redraws NC Senate and House Districts. The number of representatives in the GA does not change, and includes 120 in the NC House and 50 in the NC Senate. State law requires that legislative districts be equal in population within a small margin of error and that they be made up of contiguous territory (that is, all parts of the district are in physical contact with some other part of the district). Growing areas will gain legislative seats while areas that are declining in population will lose them.

By law the GA must redraw congressional and legislative districts following each decennial census. Some local government entities must also redraw districts.

The NC State constitution prohibits mid-cycle redistricting except in cases where courts have declared those districts invalid. The redrawing of districts in North Carolina over the past 10 years resulted from just such court orders.

2021 Redistricting Timeline

As of now, the deadline for the Census Bureau to provide states with census data is July 31st, 2021. Districts need to be drawn in time for candidates to make decisions to run and file in the new districts by December 2021, for the 2022 primaries.  These dates are in flux as a result of COVID-19 and its impact on the census effort, but we do know that states will be getting the census data much later than in a normal year.

What Is Gerrymandering?

Gerrymandering is the process of drawing our voting maps to create an advantage for a political party or group.

Imagine that there are just two political parties, the Cats and the Dogs. Imagine further that you live in a state with five House of Representatives districts composed of 60% Dogs and 40% Cats. 

We will look at several possible redistricting plans. 

Plan 1: Two Cats and Three Dogs in the House

In the first plan, we end up with two Cats and three Dogs in the House. This reflects the population, and while Cats might not love the mapping, they would probably agree that it is fair.

Plan 2: Five Dogs and Zero Cats in the House

In the second plan we have five Dogs and no Cats in the House. The Cat population has been split among the five different districts and doesn’t have a majority in any of them. Even though Cats are 40% of the population, their views aren’t represented. This is an example of a common gerrymandering technique called cracking. It involves fragmenting a group into several districts so that they don’t have a majority anywhere.

Plan 3: Two Dogs and Three Cats in the House

Another classic gerrymandering technique, packing, involves concentrating a group into fewer districts. In this illustration Dogs end up with only two representatives although they make up 60% of the population.  The Dog voters have been packed into two districts and are unlikely to have any real influence in the others.

Partisan considerations are used to gerrymander in sometimes surprising ways. Incumbents of both parties have sometimes worked together to draw safe districts for themselves. Candidate addresses can be used in a number of different ways, for example to draw a strong challenger out of a specific district.

Past election results, down to the precinct level, are available and have been used to gerrymander with partisan intent. Gerrymandering usually results in districts with unique shapes.  This is North Carolina’s 12th congressional district from 1992, which the Washington Post called “political pornography.”

Lawsuit after Lawsuit

All those jagged district lines lead straight to the court room, and have kept us there for the majority of the past 40 years. This litigation is costly, both in terms of taxpayer money and time that legislators could be spending serving our state. As the League noted, our General Assembly spent 10.79 million dollars on litigation just in the past decade.

Gerrymandering based on race or targeting a specific racial group violates the US Constitution. The legality of partisan gerrymandering depends on a state’s constitution. In 2019 the Supreme Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering was non-justiciable, which means that the federal courts cannot rule on it. This leaves issues of partisan gerrymandering to state courts.

The NC Constitution, which was rewritten following the Civil War, contains stronger voter protections than the US Constitution. In 2019, NC Superior Court ruled that our state legislative districts show signs of “extreme partisan gerrymandering” which “is contrary to the fundamental right of North Carolina citizens to have elections conducted freely and honestly to ascertain, fairly and truthfully, the will of the people.” They ordered the legislature to redraw the maps using stricter nonpartisan criteria and a more transparent process. The General Assembly also redrew the Congressional maps as a response to an injunction by the same court.

Unfortunately, it is still unclear how the 2019 partisan gerrymandering ruling will affect the 2021 map-making process. For example, in 2019 the Court still allowed the General Assembly to use addresses of incumbents to redraw voting maps—this is partisan data. More importantly, the 2019 cases were not heard by the NC Supreme Court, which has the final say on the NC constitution. Without transparency and an impartial process, we can expect gerrymandering during the 2021 map-making process, regardless of which party is in the majority.

Transparency in Redistricting: LWV-Wake Recommendations

Given that our state has spent $10.79 million on redistricting litigation over the past decade, it is clear that we must invest in a transparent process for 2021.

LWV-Wake has been working on redistricting reform for decades and recently released “Transparency in Redistricting: Recommended Best Practices.” The report is based on the League’s observations of the redistricting process in 2019, an analysis of practices in other states, and a literature review. LWV-Wake recommends a transparent redistricting process that includes the following:

• Public meetings across the state with live-streaming and recording

• Public comment portal that is both visible to the public and requires that legislators be responsive to public comment

• Technology and practices allowing for meaningful observation of the process so that the public can easily follow and understand changes to voting maps

• A website that includes redistricting software, data, meeting notices, and other important information

• A public outreach campaign that includes soliciting public comments

LWV-Wake also recommends the state devote adequate time and funding to allow for a transparent redistricting process. The full text of “Transparency in Redistricting: Recommended Best Practices” is available at https://www.lwvwake.org/redistricting