Editorial: Court's message; No more hyper-gerrymandering, pass non-partisan redistricting

CBC Editorial: Wednesday, Sept. 4, 2019; Editorial #8460
The following is the opinion of Capitol Broadcasting Company.

Three state judges – two Democrats and a Republican – delivered a sharp rebuke to North Carolina's legislative leadership in ruling their legislative redistricting scheme unconstitutional.

The three state Superior Court judges -- Paul Ridgeway of Wake County, Joseph Crosswhite of Iredell County and Alma Hinton of Halifax County -- were eloquent in their plain and direct language, explaining how the legislative leadership denied full participation to tens of thousands of North Carolina votes in their elections and denied millions of residents real representation and voices in the state legislature.

“The Court finds that in many election environments, it is the carefully crafted maps, and not the will of the voters, that dictate the election outcomes in a significant number of legislative districts and, ultimately, the majority control of the General Assembly,” the judges’ order said.

The judges offered very specific directions in directing legislators, by Sept. 18, to draw the new legislative districts for the 2020 election. Those include:

• No use of the old maps as a “starting point” for the development of legislative districts. It all starts with a blank slate.
• No “election data” such as voter registration or voting behavior, is permitted in the development of the new districts. Partisan considerations as well as intentional efforts to favor any candidate or political party is forbidden.
• The public MUST be aware and involved in the process, conducting “the entire remedial process in full public view.” The judges were most direct, specifically admonishing legislative leaders: “Given what transpired in 2017, the Court will prohibit Legislative Defendants and their agents from undertaking any steps to draw or revise the new districts outside of public view.”

While the legislature remains in session, it would be wise and prudent for the legislature to take up and pass the legislation that’s been filed to create a nonpartisan system for drawing legislative and congressional election districts. The judges’ opinion already provides good guidance for the criteria to direct such an independent non-partisan commission to use.

Do this now. So after the 2020 elections – no matter if it is the Republicans or Democrats who control the General Assembly – a non-partisan process and criteria for establishing legislative and congressional district lines will already be in place.

After almost a decade of resistance, Senate leader Phil Berger said he’d “respect the court's decision” He added it was time to “finally put this divisive battle behind us. Nearly a decade of relentless litigation has strained the legitimacy of this state’s institutions, and the relationship between its leaders, to the breaking point. It’s time to move on.”

In that spirit, Berger needs to lead the effort to put a non-partisan redistricting system into place now, before the current legislative session ends. The court has provided good criteria to develop legislation and laid out the need for openness and transparency in doing it. Get the job done.

Below are highlights from the opinion. You can read the full 357 pages – and it is well worth the time and effort – here.

HIGHLIGHTS

"It is not the province of the Court to pick political winners or losers. It is, however, most certainly the province of the Court to ensure that “future elections” in the “courts of public opinion” are ones that freely and truthfully express the will of the People. All elections shall be free—without that guarantee, there is no remedy or relief at all."

* * *

"The conclusions of this Court today reflect the unanimous and best efforts of the undersigned trial judges—each hailing from different geographic regions and each with differing ideological and political outlooks—to apply core constitutional principles to this complex and divisive topic."

* * *

"The General Assembly deployed this intent with surgical precision to carefully craft maps that grouped many voters into districts predominantly based upon partisan criteria by packing and cracking Democratic voters to dilute their collective voting strength."

* * *

"This Court, in exercising its duty of reviewing acts of other branches of government to ensure that those governmental acts comport with the rights of North Carolina citizens guaranteed by the North Carolina Constitution, concludes that the 2017 Enacted House and Senate Maps are significantly tainted in that they unconstitutionally deprive every citizen of the right to elections for members of the General Assembly conducted freely and honestly to ascertain, fairly and truthfully, the will of the People. The Court bases this on the inescapable conclusion that the 2017 Enacted Maps, as drawn, do not permit voters to freely choose their representative, but rather representatives are choosing voters based upon sophisticated partisan sorting. It is not the free will of the People that is fairly ascertained through extreme partisan gerrymandering. Rather, it is the carefully crafted will of the map drawer that predominates. This Court further concludes that the 2017 Enacted Maps are tainted by an unconstitutional deprivation of all citizens’ rights to equal protection of law, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly."

* * *

"The Court will require Legislative Defendants and their agents to conduct the entire remedial process in full public view. At a minimum, that would require all map drawing to occur at public hearings, with any relevant computer screen visible to legislators and public observers. Given what transpired in 2017, the Court will prohibit Legislative Defendants and their agents from undertaking any steps to draw or revise the new districts outside of public view."

* * *

"The evidence establishes that Dr. (Thomas) Hofeller drew the 2017 Plans very precisely to create as many “safe” Republican districts as possible, so that Republicans would maintain their supermajorities, or at least majorities even in a strong election year for Democrats."