Archives

The good people at Common Cause NC will be holding a news conference in Charlotte today. This is from the announcement:

“Former Charlotte mayor Richard Vinroot, a Republican and former Raleigh mayor Charles Meeker, a Democrat will be announcing today their partnership in seeking to end gerrymandering in North Carolina.

Both mayors want politics taken out of the redistricting process and will be creating a new coalition called
North Carolinians to End Gerrymandering Now

When: News conference- noon (Thursday, May 8, 2014)
Where: Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson law office board room, suite 1900 101 N. Tryon Street, downtown Charlotte”

Let’s hope the event (and notably the presence of longtime conservative Republican Richard Vinroot) has the desired impact — especially on the conservative state senate which has blocked redistricting reform previously.

 

GerrymanderingNorth Carolina is a large and complicated state with a population approaching 10 million. Still, even the most unrepentant defenders of the the state’s gerrymandered political map will have to admit that the following fact borders on the absurd:

During next month’s primary election, there will be 3,069 different ballots. According to North Carolina General Assembly Senior Counsel Gerry Cohen, Iredell County — population 162,000 — will have 249. This is simply ridiculous.

Here’s an idea for combating voter “fraud” (and general chaos in North Carolina elections): Simplify our voting districts by doing away with gerrymandering and enacting non-partisan redistricting ASAP.

Thirteen Wake County residents and two community organizations today appealed the dismissal of their lawsuit challenging the redistricting of the Wake County Board of Education districts as violative of the one-person, one-vote requirements of the United States and North Carolina Constitutions. 

The individuals and groups contend that the legislature overpopulated their urban districts while leaving adjacent, more rural districts underpopulated – thus diluting the urban vote.

In his ruling in March, U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle found that the population disparities in the new districts did not reach levels necessary to support a challenge under one-person, one-vote provisions.

He also found that at its core the challenge to the new districts amounted to a claim of political gerrymandering which the courts will not consider:

All of the factors which plaintiffs say point to taint of arbitrariness or discrimination lead back to politics. Plaintiffs allege a favoritism of rural areas of the county over urban areas and they allege the targeting of democratic incumbents by the placement of three democratic incumbents into two republican leaning districts with republican incumbents. However, plaintiffs admit that the end result is political advantage. Plaintiffs do not argue that the population deviations are a result of discrimination on the basis of race or some other suspect classification. They claim only an impermissible political bias.

But the plaintiffs in the case disagree.

“The federal courts have made clear that favoring rural voters over urban voters, or favoring one political party over another are not legitimate justifications for deviations from the one-person, one-vote principle,” their attorney Anita Earls, Executive Director of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, said. “This case is not a partisan gerrymandering claim – it is a one-person, one-vote claim that must be taken seriously by all Wake County residents interested in fair elections.”

Read Judge Boyle’s order dismissing the complaint in Wright, et al. v. State of North Carolina et al. here.

 

In a ruling handed down yesterday, U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle dismissed a challenge to the 2013 redistricting of the Wake County School Board as violative of the one-person, one-vote requirements of the United States and North Carolina Constitutions.

A diverse group of plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in August contending that the legislature over-populated their newly drawn Wake County School Board districts, thus weakening their vote in contrast to voters in adjacent districts.

In his ruling, Boyle found that the population disparities in the new districts did not reach levels necessary to support a challenge under one-person, one-vote provisions.

Boyle also found that at its core the challenge to the new districts amounted to a claim of political gerrymandering which the courts will not consider:

All of the factors which plaintiffs say point to taint of arbitrariness or discrimination lead back to politics. Plaintiffs allege a favoritism of rural areas of the county over urban areas and they allege the targeting of democratic incumbents by the placement of three democratic incumbents into two republican leaning districts with republican incumbents. However, plaintiffs admit that the end result is political advantage. Plaintiffs do not argue that the population deviations are a result of discrimination on the basis of race or some other suspect classification. They claim only an impermissible political bias.

Read the full decision here.

This morning’s Wilmington Star-News makes the case yet again for doing away with North Carolina’s absurdly gerrymandered political maps and the embarrassingly partisan process that gave rise to them.

“When they rode into office in the 2010 elections, Republicans pledged to govern differently than their Democratic counterparts. If by different they meant that a different party would be employing the same old political tactics to retain power and shut out the minority, then yes, it’s different.

But it does not serve the voters, and that is who the system is supposed to represent. The voters – remember them?

There’s a better way, but Honorables of both parties have resisted. A truly bipartisan coalition is pushing for an independent redistricting commission to help reduce the influence of politics on the redistricting process. There is no way to eliminate it entirely, but we can at least remove the process one step from politicians who have a vested career interest in drawing districts that allow them, in effect, to choose their own electorate.”

Read the entire editorial by clicking here.