Another Partisan Gerrymandering Attempt
This time: North Carolina
Via the AP: North Carolina GOP announce plans to vote on new House map amid nationwide redistricting battle.
North Carolina Republican legislative leaders announced plans Monday to vote next week on redrawing the state’s U.S. House district map, taking up President Donald Trump’s call to secure more GOP seats nationwide and resist rival moves by Democrats.
[…]
North Carolina Republicans created a map in 2023 that resulted in GOP candidates winning 10 of the state’s 14 U.S. House seats in 2024. That compared to a 7-7 seat split between Democrats and the GOP under the map used in 2022.
If we look at presidential elections, North Carolina is a majority Republican state, but not deeply red.
Here’s the presidential run-down for the last three cycles (Republican candidate listed first, Democratic candidate second).
2016: 49.83%-46.17% (R+3.66)
2020: 49.93%-48.59% (R+1.34)
2024: 50.86%-47.65% (R+3.21)
But it should be noted that the state elected a Democratic governor in 2024 by a wide margin (54.9%-40.1%, D+14.8–although, granted, the R candidate was a loon).
The previous governor was also a Democrat. Roy Cropper won in 2020 by +4.5 and in 2016 by +0.22.
I will not indulge in a deeper dive than this, but it should be more than clear that the state’s partisan makeup is close to even. As such, maps that produced a 7-7 split of the 14 House seats sound democratically reasonable and reasonable to me. 10-4 is a representational abomination, and 11-3 would be even worse.
As such, pronouncements like the following are utter nonsense.
Trump “earned a clear mandate from the voters of North Carolina and the rest of the country, and we intend to defend it by drawing an additional Republican Congressional seat,” House Speaker Destin Hall said in the release. Trump has won North Carolina’s electoral votes all three times that he’s been on the presidential ballot.
Trump won a comfortable, yet close, victory in North Carolina. The notion that this entitles him to more House seats because of a “clear mandate” is undemocratic.
Let’s just be clear that all of this is an attempt to skew electoral outcomes in a way that is not representative of the people of the state of North Carolina.
The Supreme Court made a grave error in allowing partisan gerrymandering to be legally acceptable. From a constitutional perspective, I would argue it violates the notion of equal protection under the law. Moreover, it clearly vitiates a core assumption of representational democracy, which assumes that voters have a reasonable chance of their votes being treated as equally as possible by the system. Gerrymandering of this type utterly undercuts basic notions of representation. Further, it takes away the possibility of a real democratic feedback loop.
As I have written multiple times, I have deep theoretical and practical problems with single-seat districts. But if we are going to have them, the standard for assessing maps should be how well they represent the state’s partisan breakdown. Compactness and other shape-based criteria are pointless and have little-to-no democratic salience. But above all else, the notion that majorities can redraw boundaries to enhance their power should be anathema to representative democracy. And it is a cruel joke to then say that the remedy is electoral politics.
It would be quite obviously a problem if the Big 10 could dictate that all of its home teams started all games with 35 points on the board and then argue that the visiting team’s remedy would be the play better ball.
BTW, I know that some Democratic states are likewise skewed in their representative outcomes. That, too, is an affront to representative democracy. Fix it all, I say.
I do fear that we are now in a situation in which states will engage in an ongoing, anti-democratic escalation. I wrote about that here (as well as why I would reluctantly vote to engage in this warfare in CA, were I a resident).
John Roberts was nominated by W back before Lenny and the Federalists took over judge recruiting for Trump. But he’s proving to be as much a partisan hack as the rest of the gang, just a little smoother than Thomas or Alito. Honest “Originalism” might not be a problem, but the FS, with malice aforethought, designed Originalism as a tool for dishonesty and they’re using it as such.
Speculative example: one Caleb Nelson, described as a well respected and oft cited Originalist scholar, has opined that an Originalist analysis shows that Congress can make appointments independent of the prez. This is before the Court in Trump v Slaughter about firing an FTC commissioner. Any bets how Roberts and the Federalists will decide?
But Roberts et al are ignoring the most basic and necessary precedent in Constitutional law – the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
As much as John Roberts is willing to sign on to the unitary executive crap, he is smart enough to know that, taken to its logical conclusion, the UE theory removes the need for both Congress and the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court. That’s why it is nothing less than shocking to see Congress cede its powers (oversight, taxation, legislation) to Trump, and some federal district and appellate judges, AND the Supreme Court, rubber stamping Trump’s power grabs (by refusing to issue TROs on egregiously unconstitutional actions). The guardrails that the Founders put in place (remember – the Originalist crowd claims to be channeling the Founders) are not working because they only work if Congress and the judiciary take their oath of office seriously.
I don’t know who studies or decides that mandering a district will yield x result, but I am wondering if there is any risk that this backfires? Also, if CA is the only state fighting back, then the only logical conclusion I can come to is that the American people have lost faith in our system of government, and collectively want a dictatorship weather they know it or not. They may look at China subconsciously and think “that country is progressing way faster than the US because our teams can’t work together”. Its a shame, because I believe when our teams work together the US wins at everything.
@HelloWorld: There is apparently quite sophisticated software available to state legislators to analyze the effects of any redistricting plan. Using it also allows them to claim they’re not looking at race, which is, so far, prohibited by the Voting Rights Act, only historic voting patterns.
But yes, there is a risk of backfire. If they settle for pretty good they can lump all the
Blackshistorically Dem voters into one or a few districts, leaving the rest safe. In a five district state maybe their vote share is: 20, 70, 70, 70,70. If they’re greedier, they need to spread them over numerous districts, leaving thinner margins, maybe: 55, 55, 55, 65, 70. If the electorate shifts, they can suffer an upset. I believe the Poli Sci term of art is “dummymander”.It seems like it’s time to invoke the Judge Gen Principle: repeal the constitution and replace it with a clearer, more inclusive, more detailed, more flexible one.
The chances of that happening, barring a breakup of the country or some other form of collapse, are between zero and negative infinity.
How can the NC legislature pass a bill to redistrict if the Governor is a Democrat who could simply not sign the legislation. Do the Republicans have a veto proof legislation?
Chief Justice John Roberts has been as much a wrecking ball to accepted legal and civic norms as Trump has been.
The Roberts Court has bequeathed us the Citizens United, Shelby County, Dobbs, and the aptly neamed Trump v. United decisions. Shelby eviscerated the Voting Rights Act which greenlighted various Red State voter supression actions, which took us to a decision wherein The Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering is okay.
@Rick DeMent: NC governor lack the power to veto district maps. Here’s a run-down
@HelloWorld: The number of states where seats can be found is limited and a lot of Dem states have nonpartisan commissions which make redrawing maps close to impossible (if not impossible) to change them legally.
It’s become a common argument from MAGA Republicans that members of the House are there to represent their state, not a district. Thus if a state went for Trump with a 55% vote, every House member ought to be a Republican to reflect the will of the state’s voters.
This is known as “MAGAlogic”.