RALEIGH — Democrats crowed during the recent redistricting debate that Republican mapmakers packed more black voters together into new districts — leaving other districts much more amenable to GOP candidates.
Republicans responded: “We’re just following the law.”
Were Democrats right? Republicans? Yes.
To understand Republican motivations to create more so-called “majority-minority” election districts in the North Carolina House and Senate, one must dig deep into state history. All the way back to 2009.
In that not-so-distant age, court cases stemming from the state’s last redistricting process in 2001 reached their final stage. The U.S. Supreme Court ended that litigation with its decision in Bartlett v. Strickland.
The case started with a dispute over N.C. House districts in Pender County. The implications of the high court’s decision in the case have a direct bearing on the Republican-led redistricting process that just concluded with votes to approve new election maps for 2012.
When Pender County first brought suit, its commissioners objected to the then-Democratic General Assembly’s decision to split Pender into two House districts. Both districts included portions of Pender and New Hanover counties, so it would have been possible for two Wilmington-area lawmakers to represent Pender County despite Pender having a large enough population for a single district represented by a Pender County resident.
Specific objections focused on District 18, which Democratic mapmakers crafted as a Voting Rights Act district designed to help black voters elect a representative of their choosing. The majority of registered voters were Democrats, but less than 40 percent of those voters were black.
The N.C. Supreme Court rejected the district by a 4-2 vote in August 2007. State Supreme Court justices found that the district did not meet VRA requirements because it did not have a majority-black population. The state should not have counted District 18 as a VRA district, so mapmakers should have followed another court-ordered criterion blocking the unnecessary splitting of counties.
Nearly two years later, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed. Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the 5-4 decision spelling out the requirement that a VRA district must have a minority population of at least 50 percent.
Earlier court rulings have forced North Carolina election mapmakers to try to create VRA districts whenever possible. Because of those rulings and the Strickland case, the new Republican-led General Assembly is left with the following scenario: Follow the law, and watch the likelihood of electing more GOP representatives increase.
No one can say GOP mapmakers have shirked the courts’ guidelines on protecting VRA districts. Nine of the districts in the original 2011 Senate map qualified as majority-minority districts, while black and Hispanic voters together made up a majority in a 10th district. The state has seven black senators now. The 2011 House plan originally created 23 majority-minority districts, setting up a chance to increase the Legislative Black Caucus’ House membership by one-third.
The flip side of a higher number of majority-minority districts is a higher number of other districts where Republicans have a better chance to win.
So, yes, Republicans are packing more black voters together — to the GOP’s advantage — and Republican mapmakers are following the law.
If there’s a problem, it’s the law. Packaging voters together to comply with the Voting Rights Act makes no sense in 2011. Democratic critics of the Republican maps have pointed out that black candidates can win in North Carolina today without making up a majority of the voting population.
Yes, they can. And the sooner North Carolina is free of harmful, artificial VRA districts, the better the situation for black voters, black candidates, and every North Carolinian.
Mitch Kokai is an associate editor of Carolina Journal.