A solution to gerrymandering in North Carolina
As Americans go to the ballot box every two years, they walk in with a sense of trust in their vote, that it will count as it was designated to by our Founding Fathers. Although each vote, no matter which district, has the same power, it is easily manipulated at the hands of state government today through the process of gerrymandering, which is done by drawing congressional districts in way to help a certain party win more seats. This type of political disruption has become increasingly relevant in the past 6–10 years, in fact, certain races have been so heavily gerrymandered that in some states a political party “could win more than half the vote and still walk away with a minority of the congressional seats” (Lapowsky). The impact that it exerts is not entailed to a single party or group; rather, it affects Democrats and Republicans through altering the representation of certain districts by electing congressmen and women that don’t reflect the views of their constituents. Although gerrymandering is an issue in North Carolina that allows for a political group to draw congressional maps to favor their party, this can be solved by creating an independent redistricting commission tailored to drawing fair congressional maps.
As elections are becoming increasingly more competitive, politicians are crafting new methods to help their party gain a congressional advantage. This has been expressed through efforts of gerrymandering by state Republicans who have created congressional maps favoring their party. The blatant intent of this partisan gerrymandering can be clearly seen in this quote by a leading Republican State Representative of North Carolina, David Lewis, who pushed the state legislature into drawing these gerrymandered maps. Lewis says, “I propose that we draw the maps to give a partisan advantage to 10 Republicans and 3 Democrats, because I do not believe it’s possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and 2 Democrats” (Morrill 3). Not only does this show the intent of gerrymandering taking place, but it also shows the representative saying this at a public meeting, expressing the fact that this is not a secret to the Republicans and is certainly not one to the general public either. It also indicates that this partisan redistricting is simply driven through the intent of politicians and not through random irregularities when drawing these districts.
While this practice seems relatively insignificant at first glance, in reality it is a process that is abused by high-ranking political officials who essentially get to draw maps to help their party win more seats statewide, even if it didn’t win the proportional percentage of the total vote. The effect of this is undoubtedly seen both statistically and democratically in North Carolina as the proportionality of votes and seats don’t match up as they should. The New York Times analyzes, “Democrats in North Carolina earned 48.3 percent of the total vote cast in House races but appeared to win only three seats; Republicans had 50.4 percent of the vote and won 10 seats” (Astor and Lai). The visible discrepancy between the total percentage of the vote and the number of seats is eye-opening, signaling the insulation that the state legislature creates by essentially picking which districts they would like to win using gerrymandered maps. In fact, “A 2017 Brennan Center for Justice report found that up to 17 Republicans in Congress owed their seats to ‘extreme partisan bias’ in district maps” (Moon 4). The accountability of the politicians is also diminished when creating these unfair maps, making it definitive that one will win their Congressional seat. By having inaccurate representation in the House of Representatives, major legislation concerning immigration and even an impeachment could be prevented or acted upon without the wanting of constituents in certain states and districts.
Across the country, the power of the state legislature is used to implement elements of gerrymandering as it is also done in North Carolina. As in many other states, the state government is in charge of redrawing congressional maps every 10 years, seeming to be the ones most qualified to do so. The boundaries in North Carolina were most recently drawn by the legislature in 2016, but a year later, a lawsuit by Democrats disrupted their map, claiming that gerrymandering was taking place and that it was done specifically by state legislature. The judges asserted in their ruling, “It runs afoul of the Government’s constitutional duty to treat its voters as standing in the same position, regardless of their political beliefs or party affiliation. That is precisely what the Republican-controlled North Carolina General Assembly sought to do here” (Scott). This official ruling by a judge proves that gerrymandering is taking place in North Carolina and that it was done solely to gain political and congressional advantage. Moreover, it leads to the fact that partisanship is a key issue within this larger problem, and for gerrymandering to be abated, the state legislature must no longer be able to control the redistricting of congressional maps.
The act of partisan redistricting is not a one-time issue for North Carolina, it is a recurring one. Two years prior to the court’s ruling on politically motivated gerrymandering, it ruled that the state had racially gerrymandered certain districts to help split the predominantly liberal African-American vote share. The court discovered statements from members of legislature who essentially crafted these districts in which “black voters in the general region were almost four times more likely than white voters to live in District 12 . . . enough evidence to constitute a racial gerrymander” (Newkirk). This shows that the latest partisan redistricting was not the first time that the legislature tried to illegally gain more votes and that it was not a random occurrence, but one that has persisted even during the 2018 Midterm election. Coupled with this, an incredulous “voter-ID law passed by the legislature targeted African Americans with ‘almost surgical precision’” (Holder 17). By creating a plethora of issues for the state, it further expresses the fact that this is an incessant problem for North Carolina and one that needs solutions not only for the present, but also for the future.
Although the political makeup of the North Carolina state legislature cannot be changed, the rules regarding who draws congressional districts can be. Through significant public support, independent commissions can be implemented in North Carolina to help end partisan gerrymandering and prevent it in the future. These commissions would consist of 20 well-qualified individuals who have not run for public office in the past three state elections, have not been convicted of political crimes, are not lobbyists, elected officials, relatives of elected officials, and have not donated more than $3,000 to a political campaign in the past four years. To help flourish neutrality and candor, the 20 members would be made up of seven Democrats, seven Republicans, and seven Independents.
To begin drafting officials into this commission, the State Auditor would create an open application process for North Carolina residents to apply. Those that choose to apply would likely include former mayors, governors, and political officials. A small pool of 5,000 applicants would be finalized and thoroughly screened, along with requiring “essays and letters of recommendation” (Citizens Redistricting Commission). Next, a total of 50 highly qualified individuals would be chosen from the larger pool to be debated on in the state legislature. After further vetting and scrutiny, the 50 individuals would be narrowed down to 20 who would be a part of the final commission. Each group (Democrats, Republicans, and Independents) would vote for a leader to represent them to the whole commission, helping to lessen disagreement within the various groups. Furthermore, all meetings would be live-streamed on the internet and transcripts would be released for the public to view, vital steps to take when ensuring transparency to citizens.
However, before it begins to function, there must be a way to get it to a vote to later become a law. The first step in this process would be to enact a statewide petition that would get a significant amount of signatures to put forth a referendum vote during a presidential or midterm election. Various polls taken throughout the state of North Carolina suggest that voters are very lenient toward redistricting reform regardless of their political background. In fact, a public policy survey by the prestigious Duke University “found nearly 60 percent of North Carolina voters would favor an independent system of redistricting” (Kemp and Warner). These statistics indicate that if this proposal was brought to a petition or even a referendum, then it could potentially pass the 50% threshold and allow for independent redistricting to become a law. Subsequently, the residents of North Carolina could vote for this proposition to allow for a redistricting commission to take over the map-drawing process.
Independent commissions have been established in 14 states nationwide, including California where it began in a grassroots movement in the late 2000’s, leading to a statewide vote in which it was approved. By instituting these new measures similar to those I have proposed in North Carolina, it has lead to more competition and fairness among a notoriously Democratic state. Michael Li of the Brennan Center for Justice explained that initiating independent commissions has lead to a more diverse representation, a sentiment of the wide-ranging background of people living in California. Li explains, “California adopted a commission for the most recent map-drawing process, and it’s a large, demographically complicated state . . . the result is much more competition, districts that produce more wins by women, people of color . . . they’re drawn much more fairly” (Li). By creating maps that are drawn using commissions like in California, more states can help elect people that are meant to be representing that certain area and are not there due to gerrymandering. Along with reasonable representation, more competition begins to take place, allowing for those who might not have had a chance before to now be able to run on an equal playing field with their opponent. Despite no secret mathematical algorithm existing, it shows that former political individuals can draw neutral and competitive maps while working together, in spite of their disagreements on broader and more divisive issues.
After suffering from gerrymandering-related issues like California, Arizona also created an independent commission in 2000. Although it was one of the first states in the country to do so, it saw real results that showed exactly why and how independent redistricting would work. According to analysis by the Federal Election Commission, “the 2001 and 2011 maps drawn by independent commission in Arizona produced some of the most competitive races in the country. In 2014, two Arizona congressional districts were among 29 nationwide where the race was decided by less than 5 percent of the vote” (Gringlas). This statistical evidence shows combative efforts to gerrymandering being put into play and having effects on congressional races, exemplifying how much a change in redistricting has had on Arizona. Through putting these commissions to work, districts can begin to see the results that Arizona did, also leading to more people voting, knowing that the process is fair.
The competitive outcomes from these races will not only affect who gets elected, but also how Congressmen and women present themselves in Washington. By drawing fair congressional maps, the competitiveness of races will rise and candidates that are elected will be forced to see both sides of the aisle, knowing that they will also be representing the large amount of people that did not vote for them. Rodolfo Espino, a professor of Political Science at Arizona State University, explains, “If you’re from a competitive district, you’re incentive is, ‘I have to appeal to voters’ issues and concerns across the aisle,’ and that’s going to translate into their behavior when they go to the Hill” (Gringlas). Since the winning candidate will see the political diversity within their district, they will have to work with those across the aisle when they get to work in Washington. As well as having impacts on Capitol Hill, decisions about redistricting can enter the realms on a national level, even being able to “thwart Republican President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda” (Herskovitz). These imperative decisions on North Carolina’s future can have implications trailing to the country’s highest office, expressing the magnitude to which it can impact foreign and domestic policy.
The state of North Carolina has been proven to be scattered with ongoing disagreements and various court rulings that show blatant gerrymandering. Other options such as mathematical algorithms or a statewide vote do not guarantee the fair process that Carolina residents deserve. Partisan legislators have also expressed the fact that they simply cannot handle drawing fair and neutral maps, which leads to why an independent third party is needed in the process of redrawing maps. Considering the past and current political situations in North Carolina, I believe the best way to control current gerrymandering and to prevent it in the future would be to implement an Independent Commission consisting of 20 individuals who are highly qualified and capable of drawing fair congressional maps.
Although gerrymandering is a problem in North Carolina that allows for politicians to draw partisan political districts, this can be solved by instituting independent commissions who will draw fair congressional maps to be used in elections. The blatant misuse of power in the state legislature has led to unfair representation for the people of North Carolina, essentially skewing the proportionality of the vote and seat percentage. This issue has not been temporary, rather it has been recurring throughout recent years in ways that range all the way to racial discrimination. Nevertheless, independent commissions must be put into place in North Carolina to ensure that fair congressional districts will be drawn, in turn, leading to reasonable representation for constituents. Through combatting gerrymandering, the people of North Carolina will have their voices heard on pressing issues facing our country today and in the future, regardless of what district they live in.
