NC: 12th Congressional District Seat Tricky Piece Of Redistricting Puzzle
With the newfound power of redistricting in their hands, North Carolina Republicans will likely seek to draw districts that give them a chance to win more congressional seats in future elections. Despite winning statewide congressional voting by a 55-45 percent margin, Democrats hold just a 7-6 edge in congressional seats. With the power to shape district maps at their disposal, Republicans should easily be able to reverse that margin, at minimum.
Nevertheless, redistricting has been a contentious process in the past, with a myriad of lawsuits resulting from the the Voting Rights Act (VRA).
While the intent of the law is to ensure that racial minorities have fair representation in Congress, along the way, it sometimes mitigates partisan gerrymandering. In practice, it prevents a bloc of minority voters concentrated in a geographic area from having their voting power diluted or spread across multiple congressional districts. Section 5 of the VRA means the General Assembly must “preclear” their redistricting plans with the U.S. Department of Justice.
The two districts in North Carolina subject to section 5 of the VRA are the 12th and 1st districts; the DOJ will have final say in deciding how these districts will be drawn.
These requirements first took place after the 1990 U.S. Census, which was followed by two African-American congressmen winning election in 1992, the first time in more than 90 years that an African-American represented North Carolina in Congress. The 12th district has been represented by Mel Watt since 1992; he’s won the seat capturing around 70 percent of the vote each time.
The original district, as drawn in 1992, was 64 percent African-American and spanned almost the entire length of the state, south to north. Parts of the district were very narrow, running along Interstate 85 to connect urban parts of the district around Charlotte to Durham, which is more than 150 miles away.
The Supreme Court in Shaw v. Hunt ruled the district unconstitutional in 1996, finding that the oddly-shaped district was drawn up for explicitly racial purposes in violation of the 14th Amendment. The lines of the district were tweaked to exclude parts of Durham in 1998.
In 2009, a U.S. Supreme Court case, Bartlett v. Strickland — involving North Carolina General Assembly districts — eliminated the consideration of “crossover voters” who vote with Minorities to elect a candidate of their choice in districts like the 12th.
The case is important because it establishes ground rules that will apply nationwide during the redrawing of Voting districts following the 2010 census. It could result in a reduction of Minority districts by encouraging district drafters to pack traditional Minority districts with more than 50 percent Minority voters, rather than aiming for widespread distribution across several Voting districts.
The decision comes in a case challenging the creation of North Carolina’s House District 18. State officials tasked with redrawing North Carolina’s voting map found themselves caught between two competing laws.
The VRA mandates that new districts may not be drawn in such a way as to dilute the existing political clout of minority voters in minority voting districts. But North Carolina has a law requiring that counties not be split up within voting districts.
State officials discovered that if they adhered to the “whole county provision” of state law, the Minority voting age population in District 18 would be reduced from 39 percent to 35 percent.
Concerned that the reduction would amount to Illegal minority vote dilution, the officials concluded that they were required to ignore the state’s whole county provision to avoid violating the federal voting rights law.
One of the affected counties filed suit, claiming the state law’s whole county provision should be upheld. The North Carolina Supreme Court agreed.
According to David T. Canon, professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, this ruling will make re-crafting the 12th district easier for Republicans. Canon says that after the Bartlett v. Strickland ruling, “The only thing that matters is the percentage of minority voters in the district.”
Republicans will be able to use redistricting techniques such as “packing” and “cracking” but would risk disapproval from the DOJ.
“Cracking” means dividing a district and moving its parts into several other districts in order to reduce the power of the minority voters, while “packing” would heavily concentrate Minority voters into one district. Canon thinks in order to meet DOJ approval, the 12th district, “would likely need to have somewhere between 45 and 55 percent minority voters.”
Once the 12th and 1st districts have been approved by the DOJ, Republicans can piece together the remaining districts in an effort to capture seats in 2012 currently held by Democrats.">with a myriad of lawsuits resulting from the the Voting Rights Act (VRA).
While the intent of the law is to ensure that racial minorities have fair representation in Congress, along the way, it sometimes mitigates partisan gerrymandering. In practice, it prevents a bloc of minority voters concentrated in a geographic area from having their voting power diluted or spread across multiple congressional districts. Section 5 of the VRA means the General Assembly must “preclear” their redistricting plans with the U.S. Department of Justice.
The two districts in North Carolina subject to section 5 of the VRA are the 12th and 1st districts; the DOJ will have final say in deciding how these districts will be drawn.
These requirements first took place after the 1990 U.S. Census, which was followed by two African-American congressmen winning election in 1992, the first time in more than 90 years that an African-American represented North Carolina in Congress. The 12th district has been represented by Mel Watt since 1992; he’s won the seat capturing around 70 percent of the vote each time.
The original district, as drawn in 1992, was 64 percent African-American and spanned almost the entire length of the state, south to north. Parts of the district were very narrow, running along Interstate 85 to connect urban parts of the district around Charlotte to Durham, which is more than 150 miles away.
The Supreme Court in Shaw v. Hunt ruled the district unconstitutional in 1996, finding that the oddly-shaped district was drawn up for explicitly racial purposes in violation of the 14th Amendment. The lines of the district were tweaked to exclude parts of Durham in 1998.
In 2009, a U.S. Supreme Court case, Bartlett v. Strickland — involving North Carolina General Assembly districts — eliminated the consideration of “crossover voters” who vote with minorities to elect a candidate of their choice in districts like the 12th.
The case is important because it establishes ground rules that will apply nationwide during the redrawing of voting districts following the 2010 census. It could result in a reduction of minority districts by encouraging district drafters to pack traditional minority districts with more than 50 percent minority voters, rather than aiming for widespread distribution across several voting districts.
The decision comes in a case challenging the creation of North Carolina’s House District 18. State officials tasked with redrawing North Carolina’s voting map found themselves caught between two competing laws.
The VRA mandates that new districts may not be drawn in such a way as to dilute the existing political clout of minority voters in minority voting districts. But North Carolina has a law requiring that counties not be split up within voting districts.
State officials discovered that if they adhered to the “whole county provision” of state law, the minority voting age population in District 18 would be reduced from 39 percent to 35 percent.
Concerned that the reduction would amount to illegal minority vote dilution, the officials concluded that they were required to ignore the state’s whole county provision to avoid violating the federal voting rights law.
One of the affected counties filed suit, claiming the state law’s whole county provision should be upheld. The North Carolina Supreme Court agreed.
According to David T. Canon, professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, this ruling will make re-crafting the 12th district easier for Republicans. Canon says that after the Bartlett v. Strickland ruling, “The only thing that matters is the percentage of minority voters in the district.”
Republicans will be able to use redistricting techniques such as “packing” and “cracking” but would risk disapproval from the DOJ. “Cracking” means dividing a district and moving its parts into several other districts in order to reduce the power of the minority voters, while “packing” would heavily concentrate minority voters into one district.
Canon thinks in order to meet DOJ approval, the 12th district, “would likely need to have somewhere between 45 and 55 percent minority voters.”
Once the 12th and 1st districts have been approved by the DOJ, Republicans can piece together the remaining districts in an effort to capture seats in 2012 currently held by Democrats.
US Supreme Court Holds To Narrow Interpretation Of The Voting Rights Act
The Federal Voting Rights Act does not authorize vote dilution lawsuits in voting districts in which a particular racial or ethnic group comprises less than 50 percent of the voting age population.
In a 5 to 4 decision announced on Monday, the US Supreme Court rejected a claim that so-called minority crossover districts qualify for protection under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). Instead, the court's conservative wing embraced a narrow view of the law.
Crossover districts are those in which a cohesive minority voting population can elect candidates of its choice by forming a coalition with cross-over votes from whites or other non-minority voters.
The case is important because it establishes ground rules that will apply nationwide during the redrawing of voting districts following the 2010 census. It could result in a reduction of minority districts by encouraging district drafters to pack traditional minority districts with more than 50 percent minority voters, rather than aiming for widespread distribution across several voting districts.
The decision comes in a case challenging the creation of North Carolina's House District 18. State officials tasked with redrawing North Carolina's voting map found themselves caught between two competing laws.
The VRA mandates that new districts may not be drawn in such a way as to dilute the existing political clout of minority voters in minority voting districts. But North Carolina has a law requiring that counties not be split up within voting districts.
State officials discovered that if they adhered to the "whole county provision" of state law, the minority voting age population in District 18 would be reduced from 39 percent to 35 percent.
Concerned that the reduction would amount to illegal minority vote dilution, the officials concluded that they were required to ignore the state's whole county provision to avoid violating the federal voting rights law.
One of the affected counties filed suit, claiming the state law's whole county provision should be upheld. The North Carolina Supreme Court agreed.
In affirming that decision, a plurality of the US Supreme Court ruled that the Voting Rights Act protects the voting clout of minority voters in districts in which minority voters comprise more than 50 percent of the voting age population.
"The rule provides straightforward guidance to courts and to those officials charged with drawing district lines to comply with Section 2 [of the VRA]," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in the plurality decision.
"We decline to depart from the uniform interpretation of Section 2 that has guided federal courts and state and local officials for more than 20 years," he said in the opinion.
"Minority groups in crossover districts cannot form a voting majority without crossover voters," Justice Kennedy wrote. "In those districts minority voters have the same opportunity to elect their candidate as any other political group with the same relative voting strength."
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito joined Kennedy's decision in full. Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia concurred in the judgment, but did not agree with the underlying reasoning.
In a dissent, Justice David Souter said the plurality was being unfaithful to the intent of the Voting Rights Act.
"Minority voters in districts with minority populations under 50 percent routinely elect representatives of their choice," he said. "The effects of the plurality's unwillingness to face this fact are disturbing by any measure and flatly at odds with the obvious purpose of the act."
Justice Souter added, "States will be required under the plurality's rule to pack black voters into additional majority-minority districts, contracting the number of districts where racial minorities are having success in transcending racial divisions in securing their preferred representation."
Justice Kennedy said that enforcing the VRA to protect minority voting clout in districts where minority voters did not constitute a majority would "grant special protection to a minority group's right to form political coalitions."
He added, "Section 2 does not impose on those who draw election districts a duty to give minority voters the most potential, or the best potential, to elect a candidate by attracting crossover voters." The law safeguards those who already possess the "potential to elect" favored representatives from losing that potential through vote dilution, he wrote.
In a dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the high court's decision "severely undermines" the aim of the act. "Today's decision returns the ball to Congress' court," she wrote. "The legislature has just cause to clarify beyond debate the appropriate reading of Section 2."
The case is Bartlett v. Strickland (07-689).
Supreme Court Limits Redistricting Provision Of Voting Rights Act
This week the US Supreme Court ruled on the scope of the minority vote dilution component (section 2) of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). In doing so the court interpreted the VRA to only protect the voting power of minority groups when they constitute a majority of the electorate in a legislative district. This ruling makes the requirements of section 2 significantly narrower then the defendant in the case, the chief elections official for the state of North Carolina, had believed it to be.
North Carolina had broken its own constitution's requirement that legislative districts respect county boundaries in order to avoid diminishing the concentration of African-American voters from 39% to 35% when redrawing a district in 2003. One of the now-split counties sued, resulting in this week's ruling.
Though the VRA speaks only generally of preventing the dilution of minority votes in order to preserve the ability of minorities to elect candidates of their own choosing, the court has now made clear that only districts with a majority of minority voters (a so called "majority-minority district") are protected from vote dilution. In North Carolina the district in question is a "coalition district" where minority voters are able to pick their choice of candidate only when joined in coalition with other voters.
The controlling opinion was written by Justice Kennedy in the conviction that courts need a clear rule for when section 2 applies to avoid what he views as the constitutionally suspect insertion of race into government decision making. While this decision is a loss for minority voting power and will likely lead to a greater number of minority "packed" districts, many Circuits Courts have previously adopted the Supreme Court's view, limiting the impact of this particular ruling.
The most positive aspect of the decision was a strong statement by Justice Kennedy that "racial discrimination and racially polarized voting are not ancient history." Court watchers almost unanimously viewed Justice Kennedy's forceful assertions about the continued problems of racism as a sign that the court in another coming voting rights case (which will almost assuredly see Kennedy casting another deciding vote) will likely uphold the power of the Department of Justice to "pre-clear" election law changes in jurisdictions with a history of disenfranchising minorities to make sure that they don't violate voting rights.
Mel Watt Most Liberal NC Rep, Most Gerrymandered District (12th)
So Mel Watt is North Carolina's most Liberal Congressional Rep.
Really?
I guess "Liberal" is the new buzz word for sorry, ineffective Democrats seeking to raise Campaign funds.
Isn't Mel Watt's 12th District the MOST gerrymandered Congressional District in the state? He's been in there WAY too long.
Mel ONLY caters to Wall Street and his Fraternity/ Sorority friends that's it!
Where do you think Self-Serving, Sneaky, Empty-hearted Mayors like Anthony Foxx spawned from? Politicians like Mel Watt.
Mel is an Incumbent who keeps the rest of his constituents (mainly African-Americans) within North Carolina's 12th District poor so they can never challenge him.
Thus he's basically useless.
Due to North Carolina's Racist history, there was definitely a time when Gerrymandered districts were necessary.
However Politicians like Mel Watt are now abusing the true intended purpose of Gerrymandering for their own personal gain.
They advocate and push Straight Ticket Voting from their poorest Constituents which allows them to remain in Public Office NOT to help, but to become personally Wealthy.
In fact Mel Watt is so crooked he introduced a watered down amendment in 2009 which would have granted Wall Street execs more power to be corrupt and play games with Taxpayer money.
Even Alan Grayson slammed Mel Watt's bill.
Too many Black Youth are dropping out of High School and NOT attending College because of Mel Watt's Selfishness and Greed.
Does Mel care? Don't count on it!
North Carolina, especially Charlotte deserves better.
We need fresh blood in Congress.
Time to go Mel! Bye-bye.
View Larger Map
Sources: Americanindependent.com, Christian Science Monitor, C-Span, McClatchy Newspapers, MSNBC, Southern Studies, WRAL, Youtube, Google Maps
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment