Whose line is it anyway?
Addressing North Carolina’s perpetual redistricting and gerrymanders
by Jenn Arsenault Alexander
Do the current electoral districts in North Carolina accurately represent its citizens? Do they safeguard the voices of minorities or create safe havens for those in power? How do we balance the goals of competitive elections with proportional representation?
On November 15, 2019, North Carolina lawmakers—for the second time that year—approved a new map of legislative districts. (This time for congressional districts; the N.C. General Assembly (NCGA) approved new maps for state senate and house districts in September). Typically, NCGA redraws districts only after the decennial census. It accounts for population changes and ensures legislators represent approximately the same number of people.
The costs of redistricting are part of the cost of running government when restricted to such natural adjustments, but cross into wasteful spending of time and resources when done to twist partisan advantage. More frequent redistricting can hinder the constituent/legislator relationship when voters frequently find themselves in a new district, lumped in with different neighbors and a new incumbent legislator. Constituents may find it harder to hold their legislators accountable. Overlaps between redistricting, filing deadlines and primary elections can also disrupt the election process.
Yet, the courts have ordered the General Assembly to redraw maps several times this decade for both congressional districts and state senate and house districts. The central issue is gerrymandering – drawing districts to reduce the voting power of specific groups either through excessive concentration in a single district or fracturing into multiple districts. Earlier cases dealt with racial gerrymanders, which are unconstitutional under the civil rights era Voting Rights Act. In 2019, state courts ordered legislators to re-draw districts with partisan gerrymanders.
Until now, both the Democrat and Republican parties have considered partisan gerrymandering a privilege that comes with having a legislative majority. But when North Carolinians continue to vote rather evenly between the 2 major parties, yet one party gains a super majority, something is very wrong. What, though, is specifically wrong? How can we quantify district characteristics, such as compactness, that are subjective? Is it appropriate to judge possible gerrymanders by the margin of candidates’ victories every time?
Without a set standard to judge the tipping point of when a gerrymander becomes excessive, the U.S. Supreme Court continues to refuse to set precedent on the matter. This June in Rucho v Common Cause, the Court decided that federal courts lack the authority to consider the constitutionality of extreme partisan gerrymanders. However, a three-judge N.C. Superior Court panel found the partisan gerrymanders of several GA districts in violation of the state constitution. In September legislators began redrawing GA districts and, after a separate lawsuit, redrew all congressional representative districts in November.
Shifting from multi-member to single-member districts incentivized gerrymandering
While manipulating the system to gain power is nothing new, extreme gerrymandering in North Carolina is relatively recent. Prior to 1986, N.C. was divided into several multi-member districts (MMD), which meant fewer district outlines to fight over and generally a more diverse constituency. For example, rather than splitting Durham into 3 districts (each with a representative), Durham could be a single district with 3 representatives. But as long as each voter has 3 equally-weighted votes and 3 majority-party candidates, the majority party could easily win every seat. It’s possible that voters who vote straight ticket for single winner representation could choose split ticket when presented with a multi-winner scenario, but that’s not what happened in the 1980’s.
In the 1986 case Thornburg v Gingles the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) unanimously decided that 6 MMDs and 1 single-member district (SMD) in North Carolina diluted African American votes. N.C. has utilized SMDs ever since as a means of ensuring at least some minority representation (Legally, N.C. could still use MMDs for state districts, but federal law requires SMD for congressional representatives). Some districts, known as majority-minority districts, include enough racial minority voters to influence the outcome of an election for that district. Their creation aims to prevent dilution of minority votes in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act.
However, SMDs incentivize gerrymandering. Lawmakers take what could be 5 majority-minority districts and group them into 2 or 3 hyper-concentrated minority districts. SMDs are easier to secure for certain political parties or incumbents than MMDs because you only have to loop around certain neighborhoods, not entire towns.
Should N.C. take redistricting out of the hands of the General Assembly?
The state’s many iterations of gerrymanders underscore the political motivations of legislators of both parties. The current redistricting system supports a culture which flouts ethics for as long as possible until the courts order redress, at which point legislators move the needle as little as possible. Half the time, this back and forth ends with the courts appointing a special master to draw the maps instead. Even when the GA solicited bipartisan input for the 2019 maps, the resulting districts protected incumbents. Theoretically, legislators are capable of creating fair maps – they just routinely don’t.
Public outcry over partisan gerrymandering has increased pressure to remove redistricting power from legislators and place it in the hands of a redistricting commission. Nationally, commissions vary in number of members, how they are appointed, and how much power they are given. Redistricting commissions have strong public support and generally create better district maps than those created by legislatures. ‘Better’ is evaluated on districts having about the same number of people, contiguous and compact boundaries, preserving existing boundaries like county lines, and political competitiveness.
But research published this year concludes that redistricting commissions do not consistently fix partisan gerrymandering. The power and makeup of a commission matters, and so does the state’s response to it. Without legislative authority, a redistricting commission ultimately advises the legislature, which can decide whether to adopt or greatly amend the new map. There is no set standard to judge gerrymanders and no formula for commission members to follow that ensures representative districts.
If not redistricting commissions, then what?
North Carolina could implement ranked choice voting (RCV) for all or some of its elections. Instituting RCV increases access for third party candidates, disrupting gerrymanders that rely on the 2 party system. Winners have the broadest support base so there are no ‘spoiler’ candidates. RCV is gaining traction nationwide, with 25 states utilizing it for presidential nominations or military/overseas voting. Exit polls from Maine, the first state to implement RCV for state-wide elections, show voters hold a favorable opinion of the policy and its ease of use.
Returning to MMD for state districts, but this time with ranked choice voting, is another option. Many states, not just North Carolina, moved away from multi-member districts in decades following the civil rights movement. Yet, when combined with RCV, this policy virtually eliminates gerrymandering while safeguarding minority representation. Larger districts mean fewer outlines to fight over and it’s harder to draw gerrymanders that are still compact. Meanwhile, incorporating RCV allows for competitive elections that result in proportional outcomes, so that voters will have a representative they chose, even if that politician received the second or third most votes.
Still, redistricting commissions are the only option making headway in the General Assembly. Every legislative session since 1995 has included at least one bill for a redistricting commission with little momentum. But with the 2020 election looming competitively, those in power now seem willing to compromise – if only to protect themselves should they be in the minority in 2021. On October 24, 2019 the N.C. House finally held a committee hearing for the idea, discussing three of the five redistricting commission bills introduced this session. There’s still crickets for reform among N.C. Senate leadership, but it’s a start.
The best path forward for North Carolina is unclear. The theoretical best policy (multi-member districts with RCV) may be the least politically feasible, while the most popular reform (redistricting commission) can only solve gerrymandering on its own if we get the implementation details correct. What is crystal clear, both to policy nerds and to 80% of North Carolinians, is that change is absolutely, immediately necessary.
First-year MPP Jenn Arsenault Alexander is currently a research assistant at Duke’s Center for Advanced Hindsight and serves on the steering committee of NC MomsRising. Her background is in public and environmental health and has previously worked with the NC Justice Center, Rape Crisis of Cumberland County, and the Georgia Aquarium. Jenn is a military spouse and mom of 2 kids (and 5 furkids).
