A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers and activists are touting a bill that would take redistricting out of politicians’ hands and leave it up to legislative staff, a key reform that could lead to fewer judicial entanglements and more equitable elections.
The effort comes a week after General Assembly lawmakers began public committee meetings on redistricting, a hotly partisan task undertaken every decade after fresh census numbers are out. Republican sponsors say there isn’t enough time for redistricting reform for the current cycle, but they want the changes in place for the next round in 2020.
“This bill provides a framework that we can work with,” said Rep. David Lewis, R-Harnett, senior chairman of the House Redistricting Committee, at a press conference Tuesday morning (video here). “It’s the first step in a journey towards a completely bi-partisan and open redistricting process.”
House Bill 824, Nonpartisan Redistricting Process, would authorize nonpartisan staff in the Legislative Services Office to prepare and submit redrawn districts to the General Assembly for a straight up-or-down vote. That would be a significant change from the present system, in which lawmakers have sole discretion over how legislative and congressional districts are rendered.
If passed into law, H.B. 824 would prohibit legislators from modifying new maps submitted by nonpartisan staff. But if lawmakers voted down the plan three times in a row during a given round of redistricting, the process would revert to the current system.
The bill also creates a five-member advisory commission to make recommendations and hold public hearings. Republican and Democratic caucus leaders in the legislature would make the appointments.
Strange bedfellows
The idea is likely to gain traction this session — Lewis said he would bring up the bill in his committee for consideration — and has gained support from forces on both sides of the political spectrum.
Chris Fitzsimon, director of the liberal N.C. Policy Watch, and John Hood, president of the conservative John Locke Foundation (publisher of Carolina Journal), praised the bill Tuesday.
“We need to draw the district lines in a way that makes the most sense for voters, not the most sense for politicians,” Fitzsimon said.
Hood echoed those remarks by saying one chief goal of redistricting reform is to ensure that voters decide who is elected, not politicians. “The fundamental problem is when you have a large gap between the popular vote for Congress or the legislature and the actual number of seats won by each party,” Hood said.
No court fight?
In the past, the lawmaker-based approach to redistricting has lead to prolonged court battles. In fact, North Carolina has been the catalyst for several high-profile cases involving gerrymandered districts.
“I’m tired that we’re the nation’s leader in lawsuits over redistricting,” said Rep. Ray Rapp, D-Madison, a primary sponsor of H.B. 824. “Let’s do it right the first time. This legislation is the way to go about it.”
The proposed law is similar to a strategy in place in Iowa since 1980.
Political observers say it’s a laudable goal to extract politics from remapping, but there is no silver bullet that would nix all political influence from the equation. “It’s part of how democracy works,” said Raleigh-based political consultant John Davis. “You gain an advantage by winning a majority, and then you parlay that advantage into re-drawing the maps for another 10 years to the benefit of your party.”
Constitutional change
H.B. 824 isn’t the only redistricting reform proposal filed in the legislature this session. Another bill, sponsored by Republican Rep. John Blust of Guilford County, would create a nine-member commission responsible for drawing district boundaries beginning with the 2020 census.
Unlike H.B. 824, however, Blust’s bill would amend the state constitution. As a result, a three-fifths majority vote of the legislature would be required for passage, plus ratification by voters in 2012.
Although containing safeguards to reduce partisan influence, a cross-section of elected officials — the chief justice of the N.C. Supreme Court, governor, House speaker, Senate leader, and minority party leaders in both chambers — would have final say on who gets appointed to the commission.
Another provision aims to cut down on political wheeling and dealing by banning elected officials from serving on the commission until four years after they leave office, and prohibiting would-be candidates from running for office until four years after they leave the commission.
Not everyone is convinced that an independent commission would eliminate partisan influence, though. Andrew Taylor, a political science professor at N.C. State University, said that such a commission would still need political appointees to run it.
“Some principals are going to lead to better outcomes for Democrats and some principals are probably going to lead to better outcomes for Republicans,” he said.
David Bass is an associate editor of Carolina Journal.