Redistricting

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, I was a waiter. For seven years. Before PCs. Back in the age of LPs and carbon paper. I remember one customer who, after he'd signed his credit card receipt and I handed him his copy, asked me to give him the carbons (back then we used carbon paper).

I must have had a puzzled look on my face because he asked if I knew why he wanted them. I didn't. He explained that it was because criminals sometimes go dumpster diving for carbons to steal credit card numbers. Huh? It would never have occurred to me, I said. That's because you don't have a criminal mind, he replied. Maybe for the first time it dawned on me that it takes a certain bent of mind to turn one's creativity to criminal mischief.

All that is preface to Ari Berman's new Nation  essay, "How the GOP Is Resegregating the South." In their vanity, some liberals like to think of themselves as more intelligent and creative than their conservative counterparts, but Berman shows just how creatively Republicans of a certain bent have twisted the Voting Rights Act to renovate their Southern Strategy and dilute minority influence -- by packing as many minority voters into as few congressional districts as possible.

In virtually every state in the South, at the Congressional and state level, Republicans—to protect and expand their gains in 2010—have increased the number of minority voters in majority-minority districts represented overwhelmingly by black Democrats while diluting the minority vote in swing or crossover districts held by white Democrats.

Including November outcomes, a lot remains uncertain in this election season, and redistricting accounts for a lot of it: who is in, who is out, who can run, who can vote and vote where. Much of the rhetoric and legislation from the Republican side has a retrograde feel to it. In the wake of Democratic gains in 2006 and 2008, and the economic collapse in 2008, the Republican strategy seems to be one, enormous rearguard action to forestall the inevitable as demographic reality slowly seeps in, one last, desperate culture war counteroffensive before the end. Emblematic of that is the open reemergence of the Southern Strategy, in rhetoric, legislation and redistricting. There will be more on Republican redistricting to come, but first some observations about the flavor of the Republican primaries.

An in-depth and excellent look at the GOP's redistricting strategy, written by Ari Berman at The Nation.

The use of race in redistricting is just one part of a broader racial strategy used by Southern Republicans to not only make it more difficult for minorities to vote and to limit their electoral influence but to pass draconian anti-immigration laws, end integrated busing, drug-test welfare recipients and curb the ability of death-row inmates to challenge convictions based on racial bias ... The new Southern Strategy, it turns out, isn’t very different from the old one.

The best email received today on the case involving the Republican voter suppression plan redistricting scheme.
______________________________________________________

The political law practice group of Bailey & Dixon, LLP made the following observations regarding the consolidated redistricting lawsuits (Dickson v. Rucho and NAACP v State) in Wake County Superior Court today:

The 3-judge panel in Superior Court voted to let the NC’s two big redistricting lawsuits go forward on most of their causes of action.

The State had moved to dismiss all claims in the cases of Dickson v. Rucho and NAACP v State. The judges dismissed the motion with regard to most of the claims.

The Dickson suit was brought by a collection individual plaintiffs, many of them current and former Democratic officeholders. Their counsel is Poyner & Spruill, lead by Eddie Speas. The NAACP suit was brought by several nonprofit groups, including Democracy North Carolina and the Southern Coalition for Social Justice. Their attorneys include Anita Earls, Adam Stein, and Irv Joyner.

Together, the two lawsuits alleged 37 claims. Of those, the court dismissed 15 and allowed 22 to proceed. But the 37 claims are better understood if grouped into a few big categories.

The court dismissed the following categories of claims:

1990s Statutes Against Precinct Splitting. The court dismissed claims in both suits that splitting precincts violated two statutes enacted in the 1990s to prohibit splitting precincts in the drawing of legislative and congressional districts. Those statutes, GS 120-2.2 and 163-261.2, were denied Voting Rights Act preclearance back then, but the plaintiffs argued that the statutes are still good law in the 60 counties not covered by Section 5 of the VRA. The judges didn’t buy that.

The “Good of the Whole.” The court dismissed claims in both suits that unnecessarily splitting precincts, municipalities, and other communities of interest were violations of Article I, Sec. 2 of the State Constitution. That provision says “all government of right originates from the people, is founded on their will only, and is instituted for the good of the whole.” The NAACP suit alleged that the unnecessary splitting and the non-compact districts were the product of excessive partisanship. The Dickson suit did not frame its “good of the whole” argument in quite that way. Dickson specifically said removing Asheville from the 11th congressional district was a “good of the whole” violation. But regardless of how it was framed, the “good of the whole” argument was another one the judges didn’t buy.

Arbitrary and Capricious. The court dismissed claims in Dickson that splitting precincts, towns, etc., violated Article I, Section 19 of the State Constitution by depriving plaintiffs of their rights without due process (in State constitutional terms without “the law of the land”) and because such splits were done arbitrarily and capriciously without bearing a rational relationship to a valid objective. However, the judges let stand another set of claims in Dickson that sounds similar. Those claims are discussed below.

The court did not dismiss – that is, allowed to go forward – the following categories of claims:

Racial Classifications. The court let stand claims in both suits that using race without justification to divide voters in districts and split precincts violated provisions of both US and State Constitutions. The NAACP suit treated this more nearly as a Shaw v. Reno claim than did Dickson. In NAACP, the racial classifications were pled as a violation of the Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution and of Article I, Sec. 19, of the State Constitution and Shaw is mentioned. Dickson cites the 14th Amendment and Article I, Sec. 19, as the violated provisions without highlighting either Equal Protection or Shaw in the same way. The judges spared the racial classification claims in both lawsuits, letting them go forward. They affect both legislative and congressional plans.

Whole County Provision. The court let stand claims in both suits that the number of counties split in the House and Senate plans violated the provisions of Article II, Secs. 3 and 5, of the State Constitution saying that counties cannot be divided in the drawing of House and Senate districts. Those provisions were interpreted by the State Supreme Court in its 2002 Stephenson v. Bartlett decision. In oral argument, the plaintiffs argued that the enacted plans split more counties –without compelling state interest –than alternative plans, and therefore violated the Whole County Provision. The State argued that Stephenson measured compliance not by the number of split counties but by the number of groupings of counties. That will probably be a key argument going forward in the case. This affects only legislative, not congressional, plans.

Abridging the Right to Vote. The court let stand two claims (appearing only in Dickson) that excessive splitting of precincts in House and Senate plans abridges the right of people over 18 to vote without compelling reasons narrowly tailored. The State constitutional provisions cited are Article VI, Sec. 1, (Right to Vote) and Article I, Sec. 19 (no denial of rights without the Law of the Land). These are the claims mentioned above as similar to claims that the court dismissed. In Dickson they are claims only against the Senate and House plans, not the congressional.

I originally posted this diary at DailyKos, but James asked me to cross-post here, and I'm more than happy to comply. I just purged a few errors from the diary that DailyKos users pointed out.

Let's start with a short discussion of how North Carolina Politics worked: Then as now, both Republicans and Democrats had a strong presence in the state. Throughout the 80s, Republicans carried the state on a Presidential level, although Jimmy Carter came close in his national landslide loss to Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Dear Friend,
 
The GOP wants our redistricting lawsuit dismissed…thrown out!  And, after the shenanigans they pulled in the dead of night last night our cause is even more important than ever.
 
On January 12th, a three-judge panel in Wake County will hear a motion -- supported by the Republican leadership in the General Assembly -- to dismiss the litigation challenging the GOP gerrymandered legislative and congressional districts in North Carolina.
 
Help us fight this attempt to keep us from having our day in court.

Give today at https://secure.piryx.com/donate/81VbeqC7/The-Democracy-Project-II/ncredi...

There is no question that we have the law on our side and have the evidence to show that these illegally drawn maps are not in the best interest of the people of North Carolina.
 

Untangling the hugest political hairball of all.

It sounded to my layman’s ears that the judges wanted to get a better sense of how well or badly the case might go for the plaintiffs before they made a decision on how drastically to intervene in this year’s election schedule.

Less than a year is left until the 2012 national election, and nonbelievers in democracy are taking no chances. Right now, North Carolina is one of twenty-one states that have passed or are trying to pass legislation to close the early voting period. Many in the NC General Assembly are still trying to pass a bill that would add North Carolina to the auspicious list of states that require a voter ID to combat nonexistent voter fraud. In every state where this legislation is present, the goal is the same: to make voting more difficult.

Just the tip of a big, ugly iceberg.

As many of you know, the state legislature took it upon itself to ram through its own map for Mecklenburg County commission districts. The reason? Republicans on a citizens' commission were upset that one of the maps under consideration would have split the towns in the southeastern part of the county into two districts.

Whatever you may think about what the citizen board was considering, this strongarm act by the legislature is yet more proof North Carolina needs to bring local government into the 21st century. Specifically, we need local home rule.