To enshrine a system of racially polarized voting
The Supreme Court has put the kibosh on North Carolina’s attempt to sort voters by race.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that North Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature unlawfully relied on race when drawing two of the state’s congressional districts.
The decision continued a trend at the court, where justices have found that racial considerations improperly predominated in redistricting decisions by Republican-led legislatures in Virginia, Alabama and North Carolina. Some involved congressional districts, others legislative districts.
The states had contended their efforts were partisan attempts to protect their majorities, which the Supreme Court in the past has allowed, rather than attempts to diminish the impact of minority voters, which is forbidden.
But the justices declared North Carolina had relied too heavily on race in their efforts to “reshuffle,” in the words of Justice Elena Kagan, voters from one district to another. They were unanimous in rejecting one of the districts, and split 5 to 3 on the other.
Ari Berman wrote about racial redistricting in the Nation in 2012:
And it’s not just happening in North Carolina. In virtually every state in the South, at the Congressional and state level, Republicans—to protect and expand their gains in 2010—have increased the number of minority voters in majority-minority districts represented overwhelmingly by black Democrats while diluting the minority vote in swing or crossover districts held by white Democrats. “What’s uniform across the South is that Republicans are using race as a central basis in drawing districts for partisan advantage,” says Anita Earls, a prominent civil rights lawyer and executive director of the Durham-based Southern Coalition for Social Justice. “The bigger picture is to ultimately make the Democratic Party in the South be represented only by people of color.” The GOP’s long-term goal is to enshrine a system of racially polarized voting that will make it harder for Democrats to win races on local, state, federal and presidential levels. Four years after the election of Barack Obama, which offered the promise of a new day of postracial politics in states like North Carolina, Republicans are once again employing a Southern Strategy that would make Richard Nixon and Lee Atwater proud.
The consequences of redistricting in North Carolina—one of the most important swing states in the country—could determine who controls Congress and the presidency in 2012. Democrats hold seven of the state’s thirteen Congressional seats, but after redistricting they could control only three—the largest shift for Republicans at the Congressional level in any state this year. Though Obama won eight of the thirteen districts, under the new maps his vote would be contained in only three heavily Democratic districts—all of which would have voted 68 percent or higher for the president in 2008—while the rest of the districts would have favored John McCain by 55 percent or more. “GOP candidates could win just over half of the statewide vote for Congress and end up with 62 percent to 77 percent of the seats,” found John Hood, president of the conservative John Locke Foundation.
Did Trump win in North Carolina? Yes he did. We have racist gerrymandering in North Carolina to thank for this terrifying unhinged narcissist in the White House.
What is the connection between gerrymandering and Trump’s “victory”? The electoral college only cares about statewide vote totals. Is there a big picture I’m missing?
Ah, no, I’m the one who missed the big picture. Derp.
That parties have any influence whatever over districting is an obscene subversion of democracy. Canadian boundaries are drawn up by an independent commission, and one rarely hears any complaints about it. The US should really stop bleating about democracy and try being one for a change.
@Ben: It’s not a direct connection, but since gerrymandering affects state level representation it also allowed NC’s voter suppression efforts to go forward…
Steve @3, exactly. If anyone is interested, this is how we have done it since 1993…
http://www.elections.org.nz/events/electorate-boundary-review/about-electorate-boundary-review
People were starting to get sick of increasing partisanship in setting electoral boundaries. Four of the members are technical representatives from Government departments – long-term civil servants. Two are political appointees (one each from Government and Opposition) and the chairman is appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the Committee. When considering the Maori seats, the political appointees are swapped out for alternates with Maori heritage and the CEO of Te Puni Kōkiri ( a Government Department with a policy mandate related to all things Maori).
As a number of the Public service roles are appointed by the Government there is of course the potential for stacking the decks. Fortunately we have a good history of making these appointments after genuine cross-party consultation. For example, The Chief Electrol officer listed ion the link above has since resigned. Here is the Parliamentary debate regarding his successor…
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb_20161020_20161020_20
Democracy is a fragile, yet robust, thing. Provided the population want it and hold their elected officials to account, it is incredibly resilient. When the population become disillusioned, disempowered or ignorant, then politicians and corrupt civil servants can erode democracy frighteningly quickly. We’re seeing a lot of that at the moment.
See also John Oliver’s surprisingly nuanced take:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-4dIImaodQ
He makes an interesting point at 13:53, where a really weird boundary is drawn to put two democratic Latino communities into a single district… to separate them from an African-American democratic community. Not for partisan reasons – they’re both democratic – but to ensure that both communities have representatives serving their interests. Which is a good thing.
Steve Watson – that is also how Iowa does it. Why did Iowa manage to make that sensible decision, and everyone else not? Iowa is just as controlled by politicians, but somehow….