Redistricting or gerrymandering? N.C. dispute embodies national debate

States around the country are embroiled in legal battles over voting requirements, district lines, and the rules governing elections. But few exemplify this heated battle as much as North Carolina.

Corey Lowenstein/The News & Observer/AP
North Carolina State Senators Dan Soucek, left, and Brent Jackson, right, review historical maps of the state on Feb. 16 in Raleigh, N.C.

North Carolina remains locked in a tense legal battle over legislative redistricting that could have far-reaching consequences in the state’s upcoming congressional primary.

States around the country are embroiled in legal battles over voting requirements, district lines, and the rules governing elections. But few exemplify this heated battle as much as North Carolina, where the state legislature redrew congressional districts last month after a federal court ruled that race played too large a role in previous lines.

Democrats and Republicans are evenly matched in North Carolina and major elections are often settled by a handful of votes. Nonetheless, under the 2011 maps drawn by the legislature, Republicans control 10 of the 13 congressional seats.

The plaintiffs who challenged the previous lines are now accusing Republican legislators of redrawing them to favor the GOP and weaken minority voting power. On Thursday, the plaintiffs’ lawyers called on the federal court to rework the boundaries itself.

For their part, state attorneys have urged the three-judge panel to let the new boundaries approved by lawmakers last month stand for the June 7 primary. They said in a written argument that no gerrymandering occurred and that race was not the predominant factor in drawing any of the districts.

The new "congressional plan follows traditional redistricting criteria more faithfully than any prior congressional plan in North Carolina in at least 25 years," the lawyers wrote in the court filing. "The new plan is not a gerrymander of any kind: the map speaks for itself."

The difference between redistricting and gerrymandering is a matter of intent. Redistricting is a federally governed process designed to ensure that congressional districts adequately reflect the shifts in population distribution. Gerrymandering refers to the use of the redistricting process to unfairly disenfranchise specific groups of people.

North Carolina has been marred in controversy surrounding the drawing of its congressional district lines for years. The current debate was ignited Feb. 5, when a federal court in Greensboro threw out the majority black 1st and 12th districts and ordered new lines within two weeks.

The state’s General Assembly complied and delayed next week's congressional primary elections until June 7.

GOP legislative leaders say they drew the new maps without any considerations for racial demographics. Yet their critics say the Republican lawmakers misconstrued what the court said, arguing that race must still be taken into consideration to ensure the power of minority voters isn't diluted.

The court has yet to announce how it plans to proceed: whether it will accept the newly drawn boundaries or decide to draw them itself. Candidate filing under the new maps is scheduled to begin March 16.

This report includes material from The Associated Press.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.