New Maps Rankle Old Majority

So the maps are out, and not surprisingly, so are the hecklers. The General Assembly recently released the legislative redistricting maps that will be in place for the next decade.  These maps have been met with  an understandable fury of protest by Democrats who will soon face Republican-drawn districts for the first time in modern NC history. Democrats  accuse  Republicans of using “divide and conquer” practices, and even include their well-worn scare tactic “resegregation” in their criticism, while similar cries of “politicians picking their constituents”[1] can be heard in local papers.

The fuss, however, is as the saying goes: “all sizzle and no steak.” From outward appearances, redistricting has followed legal guidelines to a “T,” with careful consideration given to preserving majority-minority districts stipulated under the Voting Rights Act. Furthermore, Democrat rhetoric looks curious in the context of the infamous history of gerrymandering they have themselves authored.

Yes, Democrats will likely suffer losses under the new Republican maps. Some estimates show a strong likelihood of Republicans picking up three U.S. Congressional seats in 2012. It is expected the Republicans will hold their majorities in the General Assembly. From a historical perspective, however, much of these gains arise from correcting years of gerrymandering against Republicans. As Politico put it, “Republicans were presented with the opportunity to unravel a map gerrymandered to maximize Democratic gains.”[2]

Historically, Democrats have shown themselves to be masterful abstract artists, drawing Rorschachian districts that span across the state in unintelligible hooks and arches. Their geographic abstractions gave birth to one of the most notorious and litigated districts in the country, the U.S. 12th Congressional District. Once described as “political pornography” in the Wall Street Journal, this district roughly spans the length and width of I-85 and has made several trips to the U.S. Supreme Court which once required the district to be redrawn.

According to the Journal article: “North Carolina’s 12th was a kind of in vitro offspring of an unromantic union: Father was the 1980s/1990s judicial and administrative decisions under the Voting Rights Act, and Mother was the partisan and personal politics that have traditionally been at redistricting’s core.”[3]

The 12th district is one example of many. During the 2010 election, voters cast their ballots 54 to 45 percent in favor of Republicans in congressional elections, yet Democrats emerged with more Congressional seats—an outcome that is curious at best. As Greensboro News & Record Editorial writer Doug Clark pointed out, clever district-drawing was the cause. “How could Democrats win seven House seats to only six for Republicans? In a word, through gerrymandering.”[4]

Elections in the General Assembly throughout the 2000’s have featured this same structural slant that has given Democrats a consistent advantage in Senate and House races. Most notably in 2006, House Republicans received over 50 percent of votes cast (with Democrats raking in 49 percent). Despite this, House Democrats wound up with 18 more seats than the GOP. Two years earlier, Republicans in the House received 52 percent of the votes cast (compared to 48 percent for Democrats), yet Democrats and Republicans each received 60 House seats. Likewise for the NC Senate races in 2004, Republicans received 2 percent less votes than Democrats, yet won 12 percent fewer seats. Such  a disconnect between votes and legislative seats is an unfortunate consequence of craftily-drawn districts designed for partisan advantage.

It is in light of this partisan history of redistricting that Democratic criticism seems peculiar. Standard redistricting practices during the Democrat glory days are now causing considerable heartburn for the new minority, who is learning how uncomfortable the shoe feels on the other foot.

The politics surrounding redistricting are undeniable, yet they are still fair and legal. Our democratically-elected representatives are our stewards at the helm. With the consent of the voting electorate of 2010, they will decide how and where voters will be grouped. “Elections have consequences,” President Obama once said, which is as true (if not ironic) as ever.  The flipside of that is: poor decisions create consequential elections. It is up to N.C. Republicans to draw fair lines that North Carolinians can accept and that reflect the diverse texture of our state.

This article was posted in Elections & Voting, Issues, Legislative Activity by Andrew Henson on July 19, 2011 at 2:03 PM.

© 2011 The Civitas Institute. Visit us on the web at
This article can be found at

Comments on this article

  • 1

    Andy Withers
    Andy Withers Jul 20, 2011 at 7:32

    I have lived in a North Raleigh since 1980. In all that time I have had, effectively, no representation in the Congress. David Price might be doing a fine job for snooty Chapel Hill and Duke liberals and for needful Durham blacks, but he sure as hell does not share my values. Where is the Voting Rights Act for conservatives? This law is as much an anachronism as the NAACP, neither of which has been needed for decades. I am delighted that (a) there is a Republican majority which has finally re-drawn the voting districts, and (b) they could do an effective job without any of the usual Democrat-style gerrymandering. Oh yes, and (c) this is all happening well before Nov 6, 2012.

  • 2

    Tom Glendinning
    Tom Glendinning Jul 20, 2011 at 9:26

    The Price is too high on previous districts.

  • 3

    jburgess Jul 23, 2011 at 14:50

    I am so glad that conservatives finally have a chance to be heard with the redrawing of district lines. Those who have felt disenfranchised in the last 10 years deserve their chance…and it won’t be to destroy the nation’s or state’s economy, but to help get people back to work. I am hoping for even more strength in the 2012 election. I think we will see it nationwide. I encourage everyone to get a Constitution and read it! It calls for limited national government and sovereign state governments. I’m tired of the national government under Progressive liberals trying to create an all-powerful central government. Like the Founders believed, I believe government is best which governs least.

1 Trackback on this article

Leave a Reply

Sorry, due to spammers you must have Javascript enabled to make comments.

Raleigh Web Design, WordPress & Web Development