RALEIGH, N.C. —The fate of North Carolina's political districts is yet again in the hands of the judicial system. Over the next few days, a trio of state court judges will decide whether the legislature's newest set of maps is a good enough replacement for the previous ones, recently ruled unconstitutional.
States are only supposed to draw new political districts once every 10 years, after each new Census. But because the legislature has lost so many gerrymandering lawsuits recently, this would be North Carolina's fourth version of congressional maps — and fifth version of state legislative districts — in just the last six years.
Lawmakers passed the newest maps late last week, in a mix of votes that were sometimes bipartisan and sometimes fiercely divided along party lines. Analysis from recent election results show the maps will likely still be Republican-leaning, but less so than the old maps, and could give Democrats more chances to win.
"With good candidates and good messages, either party can win the majority under this remedial map," Republican redistricting leader Sen. Paul Newton said Thursday.
A key complaint against the old maps was that even if Democrats were to win the statewide vote by several percentage points, Republicans would still keep the majority in the state legislature, and maybe even a veto-proof supermajority, in addition to still winning the vast majority of seats in the state's congressional delegation.
The N.C. Supreme Court agreed that such lopsided partisan skews violated the state constitution, writing that under the maps the legislature had originally approved, "some people's votes matter more than others."
GOP lawmakers angrily disagreed with the ruling — which was 4-3 along party lines in the Democratic majority Supreme Court — but lawmakers followed the court's orders and redrew new maps for the court to consider.
What's next?
The maps won't go straight to the Supreme Court, but first to the Republican-majority trial court that had initially ruled in favor of the legislature in the gerrymandering case.
Before the end of this week, the court should have decided if the legislature's replacement maps pass muster or if they will go with another option. Helping them in that task will be three "special masters" picked to work as outside experts, to help the judges review the maps and possibly even draw their own.
Instead of picking technical experts as special masters, like redistricting consultants or academics, the court picked three former judges — Tom Ross, who is also the former president of the UNC System, and former Supreme Court Justices Bob Edmunds and Bob Orr. Ross is a Democrat, Edmunds is a Republican, and Orr is a former Republican who's now unaffiliated, having quit the party in protest last year.
The judges hearing the case have three options, although whatever decision they make can be appealed to the Supreme Court. They can:
—Pick the legislature's maps.
—Pick maps proposed by challengers in the case.
—Ask the "special masters" to draw their own maps.
More competitive seats
The old, unconstitutional maps would have given Republicans a 10-4 or 11-3 advantage in the state's 14 U.S. House of Representatives seats, more or less regardless of how people actually voted. Even if Democrats won a majority of the statewide vote, Republicans would still likely win 10 of the 14 seats.
Under the new maps, it's still possible for Republicans to win a 10-4 advantage. But on the other hand, it would also now be possible for Democrats to win an 8-6 advantage of their own, if they win a majority of the votes.
That's because instead of having 10 safe Republican seats, the new maps would have six safe Republican seats, four safe Democratic seats and four competitive seats. Senate leader Phil Berger and House Speaker Tim Moore, the legislature's top Republican leaders, both said they wanted as many competitive districts as possible in the redraw — while also acknowledging that in certain areas of the state it's simply not possible to force competitiveness.
"You won't draw a Republican House district in Durham County," Moore said. "If you can show me how to draw a Republican district entirely in Durham County, you can pick the prize. You can't do it. Conversely, you cannot draw a single Democratic district entirely within Randolph County. Because that's not how those folks vote."
Democrats, however, were not pleased that Republicans could still win as many as 10 of the 14 congressional seats, even if some of the races might become competitive. They also said the maps still split up too many counties and precincts.
"What we have is essentially a gateway to a gerrymander," Democratic Sen. Ben Clark of Hoke County said.
Not just maps for Congress
In addition to making the new U.S. House map more competitive, the maps for the state legislature would remain Republican-leaning but also would no longer make it virtually impossible for Democrats to win a majority if that's what most people voted for.
Reaction on the left was mixed. Democrats mostly voted for the N.C. House maps, which passed 115-5, but the N.C. Senate maps were more controversial and passed purely along party lines.
In the state Senate maps, GOP leaders said, 23 of the 50 districts would have voted for Democratic Attorney General Josh Stein if they had existed in 2020 when Stein won a highly competitive statewide race that year, with 50.1% of the vote. And 25 of the districts would've voted for Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper in 2020.
The math was slightly more in Democrats' favor in the new N.C. House maps. GOP leaders said 62 of the 120 districts would've voted for Cooper in 2020, while at the same time 63 of the 120 also voted for Republican President Donald Trump — showing there are several competitive districts where people might vote Republican in some races but Democratic in others.
Republicans grudgingly approve
Moore said Thursday he didn't think either side liked the maps, since Democrats wanted more and Republicans didn't want to redo the maps at all.
But the court gave them specific tests to use to determine if maps would be constitutional, he said, and he believes the maps pass those tests and should be approved by the court.
"I liked the initial map we passed," Moore said. "I thought they should've been constitutional. They were good districts. But the court changed the law, and with the new parameters that they laid out, these districts that we passed — state House, state Senate and Congress — all meet those metrics."
How we got here: A timeline
2010: For the first time in over a century, Republicans win control of the legislature in the Tea Party wave. The same year, a new Census is held, thus giving the GOP control of redistricting for the next decade.
2011: Republicans pass racially gerrymandered maps to favor their party, which are ultimately ruled unconstitutional in 2016.
2016-19: Under court orders to fix the racial gerrymandering in the 2011 maps, GOP leaders draw different maps that lead to similarly lopsided results. Those new maps are also ruled unconstitutional, and forced to be redrawn again in time for the 2020 elections.
2020: Under new court-approved maps, Republicans keep their majority in the state legislature — and in a new Census year, which gives the GOP control over another decade of redistricting.
2021: GOP lawmakers approve new maps that give their party a similarly lopsided advantage as the various versions of the maps ruled unconstitutional in the previous decade. They are quickly sued, not for racial gerrymandering, but for partisan gerrymandering.
2022: At trial, a Republican-majority court panel rules that partisan gerrymandering does not violate the state constitution. But the Democratic-majority N.C. Supreme Court overturns that ruling, and finds that partisan gerrymandering can violate the state constitution. The justices throw out the maps in early February, and order a fast-tracked process for the legislature to draw new maps.
