Actually it was yesterday--Eric the Blue is not a daily--that a 3-judge panel unanimously rejected the North Carolina congressional map prepared by the state's Republican-controlled General Assembly. The background to the case is interesting and a little depressing, too.
Let's begin in 2010, which was both a census year and an election year. In its state election, North Carolina Republicans won a majority of seats in the General Assembly for the first time since 1870. Since it was also a census year, one of the first tasks for the new legislature was the creation of a congressional map that comported with data from the recent census. North Carolina was to have 13 congressional districts, and the Republicans in the statehouse set about drawing new district lines in a way that would ensure their party had an advantage. They were without question very successful, for in the 2012 congressional election, the first conducted with the new map, Republicans won 9 out of the 13 seats despite carrying just 49 percent of the statewide vote. So, 49% of the vote, 69% of the seats in the House of Representatives. Two years later, they increased their share of the statewide vote to 54% and were awarded with a tenth seat. The gap between the Republican share of the vote and the Republican share of seats in the state's congressional delegation therefore went from 20 (49/69) to 23 (54/77). It is not for nothing that the title of a recent book on this general topic took as its title Ratf**ked: The True Story Behind the Secret Plan to Steal America's Democracy, reviewed here.
There was trouble ahead, however. A lawsuit claiming that the Republicans' carefully drawn map had the effect, and probably the intent, of diluting the voting power of African Americans by packing them into as few districts as possible was decided in favor of the plaintiffs. The evident logic behind the decision is a little odd, inasmuch as it seemed to accept the proposition that it is okay to ratf**ck Democrats. But ratf**cking African-Americans, who are of course overwhelmingly Democratic, was deemed incompatible with the Constitution's guaranty of equal protection.
The Republicans, still enjoying a majority in the General Assembly, had a double pronged response to the court ruling. First, they appealed the decision to the US Supreme Court. Second, they created a remedial map that would serve during the pendency of their appeal. By "remedial" I do not mean to suggest that they were in any way repentant. State Rep. David Lewis, the Republican who oversaw the creation of the remedial map, bluntly asserted that it was drawn "to give a partisan advantage to 10 Republicans and 3 Democrats because I do not believe it's possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and 2 Democrats." The new map, then, was to be just as advantageous for Republicans without relying in any obvious way on racial demographics. The mapping software is these days very sophisticated and they succeeded again. In 2016, the Supreme Court rejected their appeal, but, in the first election conducted with the remedial map, Republicans retained their 10-3 advantage in the state's delegation to the House of Representatives. The overall election result in the state was somewhat mixed. Republican candidates for US House won 10 of 13 seats but only 53 percent of the aggregate vote. Trump carried the state by about 4 percent, and, in an extremely close race for governor, the Democratic candidate won by around 10,000 votes.
It was this remedial map that was yesterday thrown out by the unanimous decision of the 3-judge panel. Rep. Lewis's statement about the goal of the map was quoted in the verdict that rejected it as blatantly partisan. At trial, a mathematician testified that, of all possible ways of dividing North Carolina into 13 districts of equal population, only a fraction of 1 percent yielded a 10-3 partisan advantage to Republicans.
The panel's judgment directs that, if the General Assembly fails to draw a fair map by January 24, a "special master" will be assigned to devise one. State Democrats feel confident that, under a fair map, they will pick up at least two and more likely three or even four additional seats in North Carolina, which would be a good start on the 24 needed nationwide to wrest control of the House of Representatives from Trump's appeasers. It's more likely, however, that North Carolina Republicans will again appeal to the Supreme Court, where they now have Neil Gorsuch in their corner. Such a move would probably preserve the status quo while the appeal was pending, thereby boosting Republican prospects in the approaching midterm election. For more on gerrymandering, including an incisive analysis of its future at the Supreme Court, see Zachary Roth, here.
Comments