Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

North Carolina Congressional Map Ruled Unconstitutionally Gerrymandered (nytimes.com)

Posted by msmash on from the closer-look dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report: A panel of federal judges struck down North Carolina's congressional map on Tuesday, condemning it as unconstitutional because Republicans had drawn the map seeking a political advantage (Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source). The ruling was the first time that a federal court had blocked a congressional map because of a partisan gerrymander, and it instantly endangered Republican seats in the coming elections. Judge James A. Wynn Jr., in a biting 191-page opinion, said that Republicans in North Carolina's Legislature had been "motivated by invidious partisan intent" as they carried out their obligation in 2016 to divide the state into 13 congressional districts, 10 of which are held by Republicans. The result, Judge Wynn wrote, violated the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. The ruling and its chief demand -- that the Republican-dominated Legislature create a new landscape of congressional districts by Jan. 24 -- infused new turmoil into the political chaos that has in recent years enveloped North Carolina. President Trump carried North Carolina in 2016, but the state elected a Democrat as its governor on the same day and in 2008 supported President Barack Obama.

10 of 409 comments (clear)

  1. Wow, really? by VitrosChemistryAnaly · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Purposely changing election maps in order to effectively disenfranchise citizens is unconstitutional? You've got to be kidding me.

    In all seriousness, I do hope that something like this will be implemented in its stead:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com...

    ...however, I'm not holding my breath.

    --
    "It's a tarp!" -- Dyslexic Admiral Ackbar
    1. Re:Wow, really? by imgod2u · · Score: 5, Informative

      The actual evidence they used (had you RTFA) is to measure the number of registered Democrats/Republicans in a State in aggregate and then compare it with congressional seats.

      It's not going to be exactly equal but you'd expect a State with 70% of the population as registered Democrats compared to 30% Republicans to roughly have a 7:3 (or 6:4, even 5:5) mix of elected Congress-people.

      Instead, NC has a heavy 10:3 ratio of Republican vs Democrat Congress-people. And it moved this way after the maps were redrawn after the 2010 census.

    2. Re:Wow, really? by imgod2u · · Score: 5, Informative

      So when it comes to Gerrymandering, most of the more "liberal" or even "purple" States have long had laws against it. Many (including CA) have independent councils that must have representatives from both parties in roughly equal proportion drawing the maps.

      Only a handful of States (which all happen to be battleground States for elections) have this kind of gerrymandering where the majority legislature controls the maps as well. And they almost all are Republican controlled.

      Democrats gerrymander too, don't get me wrong. But they haven't abused it to the extend like the Republicans in NC did. The State has 2.7M (as of 2016) registered Democrats and 2.0M registered Republicans. Yet has 10 R congressmen vs 3 D congressmen.

    3. Re:Wow, really? by VitrosChemistryAnaly · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I didn't bring up political parties, Obama or Trump. My objection to gerrymandering goes beyond my political beliefs.

      And just because this stuff has been going on for a long time doesn't make it right. Just because the party that I may support is directly benefitted doesn't make it right.

      This idea that the system is broken because it produced a result you don't agree with is even MORE dangerous to democracy than gerrymandering.

      The results with which I don't agree is that citizens are effectively disenfranchised regardless of who wins. And when did I ever say that I didn't support the party that directly gained from the redrawn districts?

      --
      "It's a tarp!" -- Dyslexic Admiral Ackbar
    4. Re:Wow, really? by Strider- · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Gerrymandering is one of the many reasons why I'm glad to live in a country where the establishment of electoral boundaries is done by a non-partisan organization, based on a set of rules and census data. The rules are basically:

      1) The riding must be as compact as possible
      2) Where reasonable, the boundaries should follow natural boundaries (rivers, bays, ravines, etc...) and/or major man-made boundaries (Major roads, highways, municipal borders, etc...)
      3) in urban centres, the boundaries should try and respect neighbourhood boundaries

      All in all, it actually works, and is part of the check and balances on the power of the politicians.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
  2. Automation by ThosLives · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How is this not automated? Should just be a computer program that does "find the N points such that each point is the closest point to exactly P/N people."

    That is, make a Voronoi diagram on population, not geometric distance.

    No politics involved at all, but probably people wouldn't like it...

    --
    "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
  3. Re:Gerrymandering? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Democrats won in nine of the 10 most-gerrymandered districts. But eight out of 10 of those districts were drawn by Republicans.

    That's how gerrymandering works. You don't create districts for your own party to win, you create single safe districts for the other party to win to "contain" the opposition votes in one district so they don't affect the others.

    For example, the most common type of gerrymandering in North Carolina is to put all the black voters into one district. By sacrificing that one district, you improve your chances in the five surrounding districts. This is from the article you cited:

    "Contrary to one popular misconception about the practice, the point of gerrymandering isn't to draw yourself a collection of overwhelmingly safe seats. Rather, it's to give your opponents a small number of safe seats, while drawing yourself a larger number of seats that are not quite as safe, but that you can expect to win comfortably. "

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  4. Plenty for nerds here by ferguson731 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For example, check out the work of Moon Duchin and the Matrix Geometry and Gerrymandering Group at Tufts: http://sites.tufts.edu/gerryma... Chronicle of Higher Ed profile: https://www.chronicle.com/arti... And other mathematicians also: http://www.ams.org/publication...

  5. Re:It benefitted the wrong party by Urist+McSlashdot · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yeah, that's why there's no legal challenges to Maryland's gerrymandering at all. Oh, wait...

    Supreme Court agrees to hear Maryland redistricting case

  6. The right to vote is a protected right by sjbe · · Score: 5, Informative

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but Political affiliation isn't a protect class.

    No but the right to vote and to have your vote count IS protected. Don't confuse the mechanism with the result. Gerrymandering doesn't just affect members of a given political party.

    To insist that the redistricting somehow represents the greater population is the usurpation of redistricting task by the courts.

    Not even slightly. Courts are the only (ostensibly) neutral party here and their job is to ensure that voters rights are not trod upon. I'm not a member of either the republicans or democrats but I live in a gerrymandered district and so my right to vote is de-facto disenfranchised if I happen to not like the ruling party's candidate. That is a perfect use for a court to protect people like me who otherwise would effectively lose their vote.