banner
@NCCapitol

Voting map opponents ask to delay 2012 primary

Posted January 9, 2012

— Critics of the state's new GOP-drawn voting maps are asking a special judicial panel to delay the 2012 primary elections, according to court documents filed Friday. 

In November, a group of 45 North Carolina residents, including at least eight current and former lawmakers, filed a lawsuit in Wake County Superior Court to have the new maps thrown out. 

In Friday’s filing, the group says no election should be held under those maps until judges decide if they are legal. 

Lead plaintiff in the case is former Democratic lawmaker Margaret Dickson. She served four terms in the state House before being appointed to the Senate in 2010 to represent the 21st District (Bladen and Cumberland counties). She was defeated in the 2010 by Republican Wesley Meredith.

Other legislative plaintiffs include Democratic Sen. Linda Garrou, who was drawn out of her Forsyth County district; Guilford Democrats Senator Don Vaughn and Rep. Alma Adams; Democratic Charlotte Rep. Rodney Moore; former Democratic Rep. Alice Graham Underhill, also defeated in 2010; former House Democratic leader Phil Baddour; and former Democratic Congressmen Bob Etheridge and Tim Valentine.

Defendants in the suit are Republican lawmakers Senate Redistricting Chair Bob Rucho, House co-chairs David Lewis, Nelson Dollar and Jerry Dockham, Senate Leader Phil Berger and House Speaker Thom Tillis, along with the State Board of Elections and the state itself.

The lawsuit addresses all three new maps – House, Senate and congressional.

According to the lawsuit, the maps are flawed in three ways.

First, plaintiffs say, the new districts split more counties than is necessary, which they say is a violation of the state constitution as affirmed by a previous North Carolina Supreme Court ruling in a 2002 redistricting case, Stephenson v. Bartlett.

Second, they split too many precincts. According to the lawsuit, the House map splits 395 voting precincts, containing 1.86 million citizens, which amounts to 19.5 percent of the state’s entire population. The Senate maps splits 257 precincts, containing 1.33 million people. Alternative plans submitted by Democrats would have split only 129 precincts in the House and six in the Senate.

Third, the lawsuit says, the new maps “pack” higher numbers of minority voters into some districts to reduce their influence in surrounding areas. According to the plaintiffs, more than half the state’s African-American voters are packed into just three of the state’s 13 congressional districts, 10 of the 50 Senate districts and 25 of the 120 House districts.

Republican mapmakers say the Voting Rights Act requires them to create “majority-minority” districts (over 50 percent) wherever possible as a way to ensure minority voters can elect the candidate they choose. But Democrats say Republicans have twisted the intent of the law by adding minority voters to districts that already typically elect minority representation.

Most districts have at least two of the three problems above, the lawsuit contends.

The NAACP has said it will file its own lawsuit against the maps.

The primary is scheduled to take place May 8. The panel could decide on the request this week.

83 Comments

This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • Crumps Br0ther Jan 11, 12:17 p.m.

    Ok delay it, as long as we come to the agreement that people need to show ID to vote. Fair enough? You have to have ID to get a permit to panhandle now. If they can organize rides to the polling places on election day, then why can they not organize rides to get those people that need ID's an ID? Makes sense to me. Thats probably why they will never do it

  • acc_rules Jan 10, 12:26 p.m.

    Reason for changing voting lines?
    Because they are allowed to, just as the Dems have done it for decades. It's just the way it is.

  • whatusay Jan 10, 8:38 a.m.

    jimchaney.... do you have any idea for the reason to re-draw the voting lines??? I didn't think so.

  • DontLikeTheSocialistObama Jan 9, 7:57 p.m.

    Typical Democrat strategy.

    If you lose at the polling booth and the legislature, you use a liberal Democrat judge who legislates from the bench to get your way.

  • randalwjohns Jan 9, 6:52 p.m.

    I for one remain happy for the delay, seems in North Carolina that each party takes what ever opportunity to make any change that will enhance that parties opportunity to win more votes rather than on their own merits for performance. Rather a tragic model of democracy.

  • Rebelyell55 Jan 9, 6:46 p.m.

    Just more waste of our taxpayer dollars..... Find any reason under the sun for a challenge. We actually pay for these suits with our hard earned and overly taxed money? Let those whoe challenge these suits pay the cost!!!!!
    TITAN4X4
    Very good posting! I agree, if they want to bring on a suit, then they put up 80% of expected cost.

  • boneymaroney13 Jan 9, 6:41 p.m.

    Better hope Judge Howard "No Child Left Behind" Manning doesn't get this one. You know what he will do. Whatever the cry babies want!

  • boneymaroney13 Jan 9, 6:40 p.m.

    A bunch of crying, whinning socialists.

  • RKBA Jan 9, 6:38 p.m.

    "so my views would be supported by my elected officials, and now a judge, a single person can void the votes of thousands upon thousands of citizens of NC? Is that right? "

    No, but it IS a common abuse of the separation of powers between the judicial and legislative branch. It's happening altogether too often these days. Judicial activism , or legislating from the bench is a big favorite of liberal Dems. Just shop for a beholden judge and you're good!

  • josephlawrence43 Jan 9, 6:20 p.m.

    wwwwaaahhhh, wwwwaaaahhhh, wwwwwaaaaaah! Cant we hear the Demolibs just wailing, and the gnashing of teeth...As the illustrious leader once said" elections have consequences"..

More...