 |
| https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/north-carolina |
North Carolina sends 10 Republican representatives to 3 Democratic ones, despite being a purple state. You might have already guessed from the title as to why this has been possible.
North Carolina's gerrymandered maps have been addressed in the past: a 2017 Supreme Court case ruled their maps unconstitutional on the grounds that they had been drawn along racial lines. However, as congressional maps are drawn by the state legislature, these maps were simply redrawn with a blatant partisan advantage in mind. In a 2016 House hearing, Republican state Rep. Dave Lewis said: “I propose that we draw the maps to give a partisan advantage to 10 Republicans and three Democrats because I do not believe it’s possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats.”
This brings us to the present day, where a federal court ruled last week that these redrawn congressional maps were unconstitutional. This is huge as this decision was the first time a court has ruled that a congressional map is unconstitutional because of partisan gerrymandering. Gerrymandered states, such as Texas and Pennsylvania, could follow suit, leading to a lot of changes in the House. However, don't expect these changes to show up in time for the 2018 midterms. The congressional districts in North Carolina won't be redrawn for 2018 midterms with less than two months before elections, and state legislators have already filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. If the conservative Trump nominee Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed, this case may be overturned.
Sources:
1 comment:
It is quite surprising to see that even a state that appears to have an equal amount of Republicans and Democrats can have its districts redrawn to lean heavily in favor of the republicans. In terms of policymaking, this was good for the Republicans it strengthened Republican influence in the House and the process of making policy.
However, I do find it ridiculous that political parties are willing to so far as to strategically divide up a piece of land in order to get the right votes from the right people. Especially when the state is supposed to be a purple state, there should ideally be close to an equal number of Democratic and Republican representatives elected.
I have a question: on what basis did the Supreme Court rule partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional, and why wasn't it done earlier?
Post a Comment