Federal courts can't curb gerrymandering, but these pending NC bills might

But Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion also put a major emphasis on the responsibility of states to curb their own power to draw highly partisan district lines.

In the North Carolina General Assembly, there are no fewer than seven attempts to do just that – depending on how you count.

The competing measures feature a range of tactics aimed at reducing the influence of politics in the construction of voting district maps. Introduced by Republican and Democrats in both chambers, all of them seek to limit the role of partisan data in map-making and remove – at least to some extent – legislators from the process.

Some call for amendments to the North Carolina Constitution. Others seek those goals through changes in state law.

But with the Supreme Court decision now in the books – and the uncertainty of 2020 looming – the reform bills' time in legislative purgatory may be coming to an end.

"We are open to anything that is an improvement in the process," Rep. David Lewis, R-Harnett, the House's lead mapmaker, said during a press conference shortly after the Supreme Court decision.

On that, advocates seem to agree.

"We've reached a point where almost any change is better than what we already have," Jane Pinsky, director of the North Carolina Coalition for Lobbying and Government Reform, said.

Citizens or independent redistricting commissions, by design, take map-making out of the hands of lawmakers and empower a select group with the responsibility. Most of the bills now in the North Carolina legislature call for some kind of commission, but the following proposals don't require a state constitutional amendment to do it.

The devil, though, is in the details.

Where the bills differ is exactly how they go about creating the commissions and who can serve on them. But all of the measures seek to add transparency to redistricting by adding public hearings or including citizens in the process.

House Bill 69 would give legislators the power to vote up or down on a redistricting plan created by an 11-member redistricting commission, but it restricts the General Assembly's power to alter the plan.

The commission itself would be made up of four Democrats, four Republicans and three other voters not affiliated with either party.

By law, the commission would have to hold 21 public hearings through the map-making process.

If state lawmakers do vote the commission plan down, they have explain why publicly before giving the commission another shot.

House Bill 648 ups the number of commission members to 16, but five are non-voting "alternates." And while legislative leaders can choose eight of those voting members, those members choose the other three.

The commission doesn't draw the maps itself, instead leaving the task to a "special master" it has the power to hire for the purpose.

The General Assembly then has the final say, although it may amend the maps as it sees fit.

House Bill 827 also takes the special master route, forcing the commission to choose from a list of eligible mapmakers provided by the state auditor.

The proposal also adds extra input to the process of appointing its 15-member commission. Both parties from both houses get two appointments each, and the governor gets one. Once that group of nine is chosen, it chooses another six itself.

The group, which would be subject to open meetings law, would be required to hold 20 public hearings on its plans.

Enshrining something new into North Carolina's constitution requires the support of 60 percent of each legislative chamber before its placed on the ballot for the approval of a simple majority of voters.

But it means that, for better or worse, it's much harder for any political group in power to remove.

Some of these proposals also call for redistricting commissions or at least provide for the option.

House Bill 140 doesn't call for an independent commission outright, instead placing the process in the hands of nonpartisan legislative staff under the oversight of an advisory commission.

The legislature approves the maps themselves, while the advisory commission acts as the go-between for the map-makers, legislators and the public. The measure requires just three public hearings.

The bill has a number of high-profile backers, including the nonprofit advocacy group North Carolinians for Redistricting Reform. It's co-chaired by former University of North Carolina President Tom Ross and McGrady.

Although it's technically two bills, the Fix Our Democracy measure is identical in both the House and the Senate.

The proposal calls for a 15-member commission made up of five each of Democrats, Republicans and other party affiliations. Majority and minority leaders in each chamber get two appointments each, and that group chooses the final seven members.

The commission hires a special master to draw the maps from a list approved by the state auditor. Approving any map, however, requires a coalition of at least three voters from each constituency.

It has to hold 21 public meetings during the redistricting process.

Senate Bill 673 also has a 15-member commission. But it will be the final authority on the maps it creates, wresting all control from the legislature. That approval requires, again, a coalition of three votes from each party group.

It also features a more stringent process for selecting members, who must meet several criteria before they're appointed by party leadership in the General Assembly. Seven of the members are selected at random from a pre-cleared pool of voters.

The group is required to hold 20 public hearings, and if it's unable to come up with a plan, it has to hire a special master to do it.