MARGARET DICKSON: Gerrymandering -- a real cliffhanger!

ALERT! This column deals with gerrymandering, a topic that has been described as everything you hated about high school civics.

Admittedly, it is not as titillating as reading about porn stars and Donald Trump. Gerrymandering refers to the drawing of elective districts for offices from Congress down to county and municipal positions to benefit individual candidates, political parties, or both. It has been with us since the earliest days of our nation and has been practiced by both Democrats and Republicans and the parties that preceded them.

Feeling sleepy?

I understand, but make no mistake. Gerrymandering affects all of us, rendering some of our votes meaningless and electing members of Congress and legislators of one party when members of the opposite party actually received more votes. It cheapens the sacred “one person, one vote” premise Americans hold dear.  Redistricting, which has meant gerrymandering in recent election cycles, occurs after every Census to distribute changing populations relatively equally for the coming decade, and lawsuits almost always follow.

The latest round of lawsuits began in 2011 and is still going strong. In the interest of full disclosure, I am the lead plaintiff in one of the several suits, which has been to the U.S. Supreme Court twice and to the North Carolina Supreme Court not once, not twice, but three times—so far!

Since 2011, rulings in the phalanx of redistricting lawsuits in both state and federal courts have addressed gerrymandering based on race. Both state and federal courts have {{a href=blogpost-2"}}uniformly and repeatedly said racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional.{{/a}}

Ruling Jan. 9, the federal judges said gerrymandering of Congressional districts based on partisan politics is also unconstitutional. No, no, said the judges, the party in charge of redistricting—in North Carolina’s case last time around the Republicans—may not gerrymander for gross partisan advantage.

State Rep. David Lewis, a Republican from Harnett County, had justified the partisan gerrymandering to House colleagues saying: “I propose we draw the maps to give a partisan advantage to 10 Republicans and three Democrats, because I do not believe it is possible to draw maps with 11 Republicans and two Democrats.”

The judges did not buy that position, however, marking the first time partisan gerrymandering has been struck down in North Carolina. While racial gerrymandering has long been deemed unconstitutional — though legislators still try it from time to time -- courts have rarely dealt with partisan gerrymandering. That legal void has left room for the practice and allowed legislators like Lewis to feel comfortable announcing such plans out loud and in public.

As Bob Dylan famously sang: “The times they are a’ changing.”

Advances in computer software now allow slicing and dicing of voting districts in ways not imaginable even a decade ago, much less in pre-computer days. These advances make gerrymandering, including partisan gerrymandering, a mere click away, and the high court is clearly concerned.

North Carolina, like most states, tasks the state legislature with Congressional and legislative redistricting, a practice which allows those who benefit from the system to control the system. Think the fox guarding the hen house. You and I can do little to combat gerrymandering of any sort except vote for candidates for the General Assembly who support a bipartisan redistricting system.

North Carolina has held three election cycles—2012, 2014, and 2016—with Congressional and legislative districts that have been found unconstitutional, but legal appeals continue even as the next Census and subsequent redistricting loom.

This makes no sense to voters, repelling us instead of attracting us to our voting places. Gerrymandering in all its forms damages our democracy.  The US Supreme Court and other federal courts are turning their attention to its highly partisan incarnation.

Stay tuned.