North Carolina Congressional Map Ruled Unconstitutionally Gerrymandered

North Carolina Congressional Map Ruled Unconstitutionally Gerrymandered

By ALAN BLINDERJAN. 9, 2018

A panel of federal judges struck down North Carolina’s congressional map on Tuesday, declaring it unconstitutionally gerrymandered and demanding that the Republican-controlled General Assembly redraw district lines before this year’s midterm elections.

The ruling was the first time that a federal court had blocked a congressional map because the judges believed it to be a partisan gerrymander, and it deepened the political chaos that has enveloped North Carolina in recent years.

“We agree with plaintiffs that a wealth of evidence proves the General Assembly’s intent to ‘subordinate’ the interests of non-Republican voters and ‘entrench’ Republican domination of the state’s congressional delegation,” Judge James A. Wynn Jr. wrote in a 191-page opinion that another judge joined in full.

Later in the ruling, Judge Wynn, an appointee of President Barack Obama, added that the judges believed that Republicans in the Legislature had been “motivated by invidious partisan intent.”

Although the judges said that the state could not conduct its 2018 congressional elections with the existing map, they said they would allow the General Assembly to try again.

The judges gave lawmakers until Jan. 24 to propose a “remedial plan,” but cautioned that the court would begin preparations to issue a map of its own if it found the new district lines deficient.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/09/us/north-carolina-gerrymander.html
--------

For context:

It doesn't look so bad to me. Ten of the twelve are pretty geographically concentrated.

Of course not.

I don't understand. How is this different from the other two times Federal judges found it unconstitutional?

"I propose that we draw the maps to give a partisan advantage to 10 Republicans and three Democrats because I do not believe it's possible to draw a map with eleven Republicans and two Democrats," Rep. David Lewis reportedly said at the time.

Uh... you know we can hear you right?

Oh, I get it. This is the third time judges said it was unconstitutional. but the first two time were because of race. This time it was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.

That's a perfect example of Packing and Cracking you idiot.

Judges should have just done it for them.

Of course it doesn't look bad to you. You are our village idiot. We pretty much assumed you would be cool with it. Don't worry, bigger minds than Arkansas school teachers are on the problem.

I have to agree. This isn't a classroom. If they cannot do it in an acceptable way then the judges should do it. You already know they tried to draw it to give an unfair advantage. Sending them back to try and sneak it by you better next time seems a bit silly to me. If the judges don't have time they should contract a neutral firm to do it and then just take the cost out of the pay for the state legislators. Maybe then the next time the state legislators want to do a unacceptable job they will think twice because they lose their own money.

This post makes sense if we assume that Dayton is color blind.

https://www.healthline.com/health/diabetes/blurry-vision

While I agree with you in principle, I don't think that would be constitutional.

It's happened in multiple states. In fact I believe in 3 or 4 they got so fed up that it is the standard method.

I stand correct, then.

(or technically, sit)

One of the big problems is the Voting Rights Act and how it legally requires minority majority districts. In many states (such as the south or the desert southwest) this almost requires packing and cracking in order to achieve. 538 has a series on gerrymandering which you should probably listen to.

All except the 12th & 4th districts are fairly well concentrated.

This post makes sense if we assume that Dayton is color blind.

I can see it fine. The 1st district has extensions but as a rule in mostly concentrated.

Congressional districts are always going to look weird from a strictly visual perspective because by law districts have to be as close to equal population as possible. Thus they are drawn based on where people live. And I'll give you a clue people don't move to an area in order to make things look nice on a meaningless graphic.

Good.

Personally, I think districts should be drawn by computer. Of course, that could also lead to some very weird looking districts, but at least they'd be nonpartisan.

Once again, what about the Voting Rights Act? Like it or not one of the results of drawing districts as geographically simple and compact as possible would almost certainly that fewer members of minority groups would be elected to congress.

The thinking being that white people still vastly outnumber any one particular minority group and that whites are less likely to vote for a candidate from a minority group.

This isn't about white candidates vs. minority candidates. It's about people who vote Democrat vs people who vote Republican.

My point is that the courts have mandated that congressional districts be drawn in a manner to make it highly likely that a minority candidate will win the congressional race in that district. This means what IIRC is called "supermajority minority" districts. That is IIRC again to ensure a black candidate wins the election then the district has to have something like 60% African American voters.

Given the tendency of African American voters (and Hispanics) to vote Democratic this naturally leads to a serious dilution of Democratic voting strength in other districts.

Drawing districts to favor certain groups is every bit as racist as drawing districts to disenfranchise certain groups. In both cases, people are being excluded based on trivial and meaningless attributes like skin color or political preference. Having districts drawn by algorithm concerned only with population and geography is the only unbiased way to do it.

Or in other words, we won't achieve a colorblind society until we stop making adjustments based on color.

I don't disagree. But you do know that when they draw congressional districts they normally try to group people in neighborhoods and communities as much as possible on the not unreasonable belief that neighbors will tend to have common beliefs and interests.

To do strictly by computer and you end up with stuff like people with nothing but a yard fence between them being in separate congressional districts.

And simple demographics dictate some gerrymandering in order to get population equal.

I generally agree. But then the problem becomes a partisan fight over how the parameters are established in designing the program. And there will necessarily have to be human review which can bring partisanship back into it.

For what it's worth, California had an independent commission that re-drew districts, and did so quite effectively. It not only required support from all sides, but it mostly received that support (save for outliers). It's not perfect but it's closer.

What happens if they just go through and do the election with an unconstitutional map? Are the winners seated anyway? Do they have to repeat the election?

No, that is not what gerrymandering means.

Depends on what you told it.

For instance WA requires that districts adhere to existing political boundaries when possible.

So the vast majority of district lines follow County lines, but when they can't they follow city lines and in one place where they can't do that (Seattle) the line follows district lines.

On the contrary, you need a colorblind society in order to stop making decisions based on colour. Until you have that, eschewing adjustments just boils down to avoiding bandaging the hurt for fear of disadvantaging the opponent.