Almost 170 municipal elected officials from across North Carolina have added their names to North Carolinians to End Gerrymandering Now, an effort spearheaded by former mayors Richard Vinroot of Charlotte and Charles Meeker of Raleigh.
In all, 168 municipal leaders representing 109 different municipalities so far have joined Vinroot and Meeker to encourage lawmakers in the General Assembly to enact a nonpartisan redistricting process.
In addition to the local officials supporting redistricting reform, 63 members of the N.C. House have sponsored House Bill 92 – a proposal that would take the power of drawing congressional and legislative voting maps out of the hands of partisan lawmakers and give it to nonpartisan legislative staff, beginning with the next round of redistricting in 2021.
“We are so pleased to see this effort we started grow to almost 170 leaders from both parties across the state,” said former Charlotte Mayor Richard Vinroot. “This groundswell of support highlights how important this issue is to a wide range of communities and how eager our fellow municipal leaders are to see a redistricting system that is fair to voters, not just politicians.”
“This growing list of leaders represents all corners of North Carolina from our biggest cities to our smallest towns,” former Raleigh Mayor Charles Meeker said. “I am honored to be a part of this growing movement to finally ensure that every vote is equal and every voter has a voice on Election Day.”
North Carolina’s current redistricting process ensures that whichever party is in control of the legislature can draw new districts to favor their party, which reduces competition and leads to greater political polarization. Both major parties in the state have been guilty of gerrymandering and since 1992 an average of 43 percent of legislative races have had only one candidate on the ballot.
“The municipal leaders on this list reflect the diversity of North Carolina and we’re excited to see them all united to take the politics out of redistricting,” said Bob Phillips, executive director of the nonpartisan Common Cause North Carolina. “They have a unique understanding of how gerrymandering divides communities and stifles competition at the ballot box, robbing too many voters of any real voice in our democracy.”
While House Bill 92, the redistricting reform measure, enjoys support from a majority of N.C. House members, it has yet to be heard in the General Assembly.
See the full list of local elected officials who have signed on to the effort to end gerrymandering in North Carolina.
Today’s US Supreme Court action, sending the lawsuit over North Carolina’s 2011redistricting back to the
North Carolina Supreme Court, sends a clear signal that North Carolina needs a new redistricting process.
There have been about thirty judicial interventions in North Carolina redistricting in the last 35 years.
“It is time for North Carolina to have a nonpartisan system that creates fair,impartial districts. It is also
time for North Carolina to have a redistricting system that does not require court involvement, special
sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly, and elections to be delayed. All of these have
happened in the last three decades“ said Jane Pinsky, Driector of the North Carolina Coalition for Lobbying
and Government Reform.
Pinsky continued“ We urge the North Carolina General Assembly to take action on legislation that would create a
nonpartisan system like the one in House Bill 92, Nonpartisan Redistricting, based on legislation passed by
the North Carolina House in the past. It is time to end this long saga and move forward.”
The North Carolina Coalition for Lobbying and Government Reform has been working to create a fair
impartial nonpartisan redistricting system in North Carolina since 2006. The Coalition works to make
government more open, accessible, transparent and accountable to the people of North Carolina.
907 Glenwood Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27615
From the Wall Street Journal
Bill Mundell And Charles Munger Jr.
More than 200 years ago, at the Massachusetts convention to debate ratifying the U.S. Constitution, state representative Theophilus Parsons emphasized the need for a remedy if “a state legislature” were to “make an unequal and partial division of the state into districts for the election of representatives.” But although the Framers responded by providing for federal regulation of elections in the new Constitution, the problem of gerrymandering persists.
Courts and legislatures struggled to address gerrymandering for decades, but it was not until 2011 that one state, Arizona, successfully used a ballot initiative to create an independent commission to draw district lines for Congress. Now the Arizona state legislature is suing to invalidate the lines drawn that year, arguing that the U.S. Constitution requires that the state legislature draw those lines. On March 2, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in this lawsuit.
We in California have a strong interest in this court case. That’s because California used the ballot to go even further than Arizona and barred the legislature from directly selecting the members of the commission. We, together with three former governors of California and the Chamber of Commerce, filed an amicus brief that among other things demonstrates that the dangers inherent in this lawsuit extend well beyond Arizona and California.
A broad decision from the high court eliminating any regulation of the “manner” of federal elections not made by state legislators could not only invalidate fair redistricting in other states that use independent commissions but also threaten important existing reforms that were first accomplished by ballot measure, such as permanent voter registration and all-mail balloting.
The principal issue before the court is: What does the Elections Clause of the Constitution mean? It says, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations . . .”
The Arizona legislature argues that “Legislature” may only mean the specific group of elected members sitting in the state capitol. But the dictionary known to the Framers, by Dr. Samuel Johnson, defined legislature as “the power that makes laws.” So did Noah Webster, when he wrote his 1806 dictionary.
For the past century, some states have used the initiative and referendum as “the power that makes laws” on a broad range of subjects. In spite of the fact that state legislatures have historically misused their power to redistrict, the Arizona legislature insists that the citizens of Arizona should not be allowed to use the initiative to create a commission to draw new lines.
We will never be certain of how the Framers would have defined “Legislature,” because the initiative was unknown in 1787. But we do know their views on federalism and fair elections.
The authors of the Federalist Papers contemplated that Congress would serve as a backstop in case the state legislatures abused their power to regulate elections to cripple the nascent federal legislature. Hence that second line in the Elections Clause, giving Congress the power to pass its own laws that would override state rules. Had Congress been displeased with the use of new alternative political structures to carry out redistricting, it could have mandated that redistricting be done solely by the legislators.
But Congress never did so. In fact, a later Congress acted to further clarify the vision of the Framers by considering the changed landscape and explicitly giving the states freedom to act in accordance with their own laws. In 1911 Congress changed the relevant law, which had referred to redistricting by “the legislature of such State” to provide that the redistricting should be done by a state “in the manner provided by the laws thereof.”
This was done after a floor discussion of the then-new phenomenon of the statewide initiative, first adopted in 1898 in South Dakota, and some mention of nonpartisan commissions. It would now be up to the states to choose the means to accomplish their duties.
And yet today we have the remarkable irony of state legislators arguing that the clause intended to give Congress the power to prevent gerrymandering instead forbids a state from preventing it.
The commissions recently used in California and Arizona may have their flaws. But those could be fixed before meeting again in six years time. Already, they have proven to be far more open, transparent and responsive to diverse groups than the alternative—legislators meeting in a backroom and producing new maps. And like it or not, commissions produced many more competitive seats in 2012 and 2014 than had been seen in the past.
There should never again be a situation like that in California in the decade of the 2000s where, in a state with 53 House seats, there was a change of party exactly once in 265 House races. “We the people” deserve better.
Mr. Mundell is the former chairman of Californians for Fair Redistricting and was the executive producer of the 2010 feature documentary “Gerrymandering.” Mr. Munger is the proponent of California Proposition 20, which put the drawing of California’s 53 congressional districts into the hands of an independent commission.
Search Washington Wire
A bipartisan majority of N.C. House members are sponsoring a bill to end gerrymandering in North Carolina.
In all, 63 lawmakers have lent their names to House Bill 92 – the largest number of sponsors for a redistricting reform measure ever in the state.
The proposal would take the power of drawing congressional and legislative voting maps out of the hands of partisan lawmakers and give it to nonpartisan legislative staff, beginning with the next round of redistricting in 2021.
“Redistricting reform is an idea whose time has come,” said House Speaker Pro Tem Paul Stam, a Wake County Republican and one of the chief authors of the bill. “This is an insurance policy to protect each party from gerrymandering.”
Under North Carolina’s longstanding system, whichever party controls the legislature also controls redistricting. For decades, the result has been voting maps that heavily favor one party or the other and reduce competition at the ballot box.
Since 1992, an average of 43 percent of legislative races have had only one candidate on the ballot. And just 8 percent of last year’s legislative races were truly competitive, being decided by 5 percentage points or less.
“Gerrymandering undermines voter confidence in our election system,” Democratic Minority Leader Larry Hall of Durham said. “I am proud to be working with this bipartisan coalition to ensure citizens have a real voice in their government.”
Sponsors of the legislation include not only longtime lawmakers like Stam — who first filed a redistricting reform bill 26 years ago — but also five freshman Republican legislators.
“At a time when there is so much polarization in politics, it’s powerful to see Republicans and Democrats from across our state working together to end gerrymandering in North Carolina,” said Bob Phillips, executive director of the nonpartisan Common Cause North Carolina. “This bill is a great step forward in protecting the right of citizens to choose their representatives.”
A 2013 poll commissioned by the nonpartisan N.C. Center for Voter Education found 70 percent of North Carolina voters in favor of creating an impartial redistricting process, including 73 percent of Republicans, 69 percent of Democrats and 69 percent of independents.
House Bill 92 (Nonpartisan Redistricting Commission) was introduced Monday night – despite cold, snow and nasty weather.
The next step is to get House members to co-sponsor (publicly put their name on) the bill.
And we need YOUR help. Please call your member in the N.C. House of Representatives TODAY and ask them to sign on to the bill. You can call 919-733-4111 and they will direct your call to the right person.
House members must sign on by 5 p.m. tomorrow, so please do it NOW.
Legislature divided on redistricting
Last updated: February 06. 2015 4:11PM – 477 Views
By William R. Toler – firstname.lastname@example.org
Richmond County Daily Journal
ROCKINGHAM — Some state lawmakers are joining together in a bipartisan effort to limit legislative control over redistricting.
A House bill introduced Wednesday calls for an amendment to the state Constitution that would establish an independent redistricting commission to determine districts starting in 2030.
The commission would propose three plans to the General Assembly for the election of state House and Senate members and U.S. representatives. If legislators fail to act within 120 days, the commission would adopt one of the three plans.
The bill sets up a nine-person commission with two members chosen by the chief justice of the state Supreme Court, three by the governor and the remaining four by the leadership in both houses.
Membership on the commission would be limited to those who had not held or ran for a public office four years prior to being appointed and prohibited from holding public office for four years after leaving.
Rep. Ken Goodman, D-Richmond, said he is “solidly in favor of that, 100 percent” and intends to sign on as a co-sponsor.
Goodman said he has supported similar attempts in the past.
“It absolutely would create better government if we could get that done,” he said.
“It’s ridiculous when you really think about it for my district to be parts of five counties,” he added. “It would make more sense to keep counties whole.”
Aside from Richmond, Goodman’s district includes portions of Hoke, Scotland, Montgomery and Robeson counties.
“I’m glad to represent these folks,” he said. However, Goodman said with being spread out so far, “It’s hard to be where you need to be…it’s really unfair to those voters.”
Speaker Pro-tempore Rep. Paul Stam, a Wake County Republican, said now would be the best time to consider the change ahead of the 2020 census.
“This is not about the current maps,” Stam said at a news conference Tuesday. “The idea is that in constructing districts, the people with the most at stake are probably (the) ones who shouldn’t be doing the details.”
While Democrats and the Republicans in the House seem to agree, the Senate remains the main hurdle.
A redistricting overhaul bill passed the House in 2011, but stalled in the Senate.
Goodman said although he supports the plan, he’s not optimistic about its passing.
Senate Rules Chairman Tom Apodaca, R-Henderson, told the Associated Press that any House bill would not move forward in his chamber.
Sen. Bob Rucho, R-Mecklenberg, who helped draw the last boundaries, said the commission is “unnecessary.”
“It’s rare that people abdicate power,” Goodman said. “If they don’t want it to happen, it won’t happen.”
Freshman Sen. Tom McInnis, R-Richmond, seems more willing to entertain the notion than the Senate leadership, but his overall sentiment is the same.
“I will gladly review whatever proposal the House sends over, but I have serious concerns about the independence and objectivity of so-called ‘independent’ redistricting efforts,” he said in a statement to the Daily Journal on Thursday.
“I think it should be left as-is because the North Carolina Supreme Court has upheld that the redistricting maps passed by the General Assembly in 2011 do meet state and federal standards,” he continued. “Furthermore, the 25th Senate District is competitive due to the fact that both political parties have won elections.”
In his syndicated newspaper column this week, John Locke Foundation chairman John Hood wrote how “the redistricting drama here in North Carolina is itself full of contrasts and inversions.”
“During the 1990s and 2000s, when Democrats were in control of the General Assembly, they rejected repeated calls for changing the way North Carolina drew its congressional and legislative districts by arguing that they were just following the rules of a game they did not invent,” wrote Hood.
“After the 2010 elections gave control of the General Assembly to the Republicans, they proceeded to draw the congressional and legislative maps,” he continued. “Although compliant with state and federal law, the resulting districts clearly gave GOP candidates an edge in achieving majorities of North Carolina’s legislative and congressional seats.”
Even Gov. Pat McCrory has expressed concerns over gerrymandering.
“I think the gerrymandered districts where we have no competition in the general election makes all of our jobs difficult, especially the executive branch,” McCrory said in a November interview with WFAE radio in Charlotte. “I have to represent the whole state. Legislators, both Republican and Democrat, tend to now represent a more monolithic population.”
To show that redistricting reform is a nonpartisan issue, two former mayors from opposite parties collaborated on a December op-ed in The Charlotte Observer.
Richard Vinroot, a Republican and former mayor of Charlotte, joined with Democrat and former Raleigh mayor Charles Meeker to lobby the General Assembly for reforming legislation in 2015.
“It is understandable that when each party gains control, they draw the maps to protect themselves and their side,” the pair wrote. “But that process is not good for the people of North Carolina and the future of our great state.
“As former mayors of North Carolina’s two largest cities, we know how important it is to have a government that fairly represents the people, and in which voters have confidence. And we believe that the way we have drawn maps in North Carolina for the past five decades or longer has undermined citizens’ confidence in our government, created highly partisan legislative districts and caused gridlock.”
The two former mayors said they support a plan that is based on the way maps have been drawn in Iowa for the past 35 years.
“They cannot be drawn based on the political makeup of districts, past voter turnout or other partisan factors,” they wrote. “Instead, the maps are drawn by professionals, reviewed by citizens and then approved or disapproved by the legislature in a timely fashion.”
Hood wrote that he’s been a longtime supporter of redistricting reform, but isn’t “wedded” to any particular model.
“I’m sure redistricting reformers would welcome any of a wide range of alternatives as long as it is based on the principle that neutral rules should be our means and competitive elections our end,” he wrote.
Mirroring Goodman’s sentiments, he concluded, “I know that convincing lawmakers to give up power over the electoral maps won’t be easy. Still, it’s the right thing to do.”
Reach reporter William R. Toler at 910-817-2675.