ALEIGH – Look out Friday for an expected ruling by the U.S. Justice Department on whether the interim legislative districts drawn up by Johnston Superior Court Judge Knox Jenkins comply with the federal Voting Rights Act in the 40 affected counties.

The word “normal” scarcely applies to the legal saga of North Carolina redistricting, but if there were a normal process, a favorable VRA preclearance by the federal government would signify the end. Assuming that the word from Washington is “yes,” it probably does mean an end to the Stephenson v. Bartlett case itself, as least until after the November elections. Remember that next year, whoever is elected to the General Assembly (first of all, pray for them, each and every one) will be charged with the task of redrawing the lines again. The Jenkins maps are only temporary.

Still, preclearance won’t necessarily end the larger legal and political struggle that has arisen from the dispute. Today, the state Democratic Party accused Republican Supreme Court Justice Bob Orr of violating judicial ethics by appearing at an Elizabeth Dole fundraiser and by saying nice things about Senate Minority Leader Patrick Ballentine. The charges seem spurious to me, though you are welcome to read more about them and draw your own conclusions (see http://www.herald-sun.com/state/6-246175.html).

What is undeniable, I think, is that the charges exist only because Democrats are furious that Orr and his colleagues ruled against them in the Stephenson redistricting case. Orr actually dissented from part of the GOP majority’s ruling, by the way, disagreeing with the remedy the Court ordered. He thinks Democrats overlooked that in picking him to go after, but I suspect that any position other than their own (rather odd) one would have constituted a “judicial coup” in their minds. They really feel like victims; it’s how they justify their actions, and those of their counterparts in the legislature who have used the state budget to retaliate against Republican judges and the court system.

Last point here: don’t let the news media get away with equating the 2001 legislative maps drawn by Democrats and the Jenkins maps that may be approved tomorrow. I’ve seen far too many editorials and even some news stories treat the Jenkins maps as a “Republican gerrymander” just as the 2001 maps were a “Democratic gerrymander.” That’s an abuse of the term. The Democratic plan virtually guaranteed the party’s control of both chambers for 10 years. The “Republican gerrymander” drawn by Jenkins’ outside experts guarantees competitive, close-to-the-wire elections for one year.

Neither the principle nor the result is the same. Let’s get the story straight.