North Carolina Assembly approves revised maps after court order

The North Carolina General Assembly approved revised legislative redistricting maps Thursday after the first version was thrown out by the state’s Supreme Court.

The court ruled on Feb. 4 that legislative maps approved in November were unconstitutional because they gave Republicans a political advantage.

Supreme Court justices gave lawmakers until 5 p.m. Friday to redraw the maps that dictate the voting districts for the next decade. House Speaker Tim Moore, R-Cleveland, said the maps would be submitted to the court early Friday.

A judicial panel must approve the maps by noon on Feb. 23. The filing deadline for the state’s May primary elections is the following day.

The General Assembly must reconstruct district maps for the Legislature and Congress every 10 years, corresponding with the release of U.S. Census data. Voting rights groups had sued the state over the previous maps, claiming that they were gerrymandered for partisan advantage. It was not the first lawsuit the state faced for its voting maps. District maps had to be redrawn in 2016 for racial gerrymandering and in 2019 for partisan gerrymandering.

The Senate approved its new districts, 26-19, Thursday, and the House gave the Senate maps a 67-52 nod.

The Senate maps have six districts that are most likely Republican, four that are most likely Democratic and four that could swing either way. Sen. Paul Newton, R-Cabarrus, said the map exceeds the mean-median score prescribed by the court, and it addresses all of the districts in the case.

“We did address every single district cited in the trial court’s opinion,” Newton said. “In many of these districts were changed substantially. Some were changed slightly, but all were changed, and every single district that was changed was moved in the Democrats favor.”

Sen. Jay Chaudhuri, D-Wake, said the process in the Senate was not bipartisan, and he believes the maps are still partisan gerrymandered. Senate Democrats filed 18 amendments to modify the maps.

Sen. Michael Garrett, D-Guilford, proposed an alternative map to change how Guilford County is split. The revised map would put him against fellow Democratic Sen. Gladys Robinson. Garrett said it would end his political career because he would not run against his colleague.

Republicans tabled all of the amendments, including Garrett’s map.

The House approved its revised map, 115-5, Wednesday, and it cleared the Senate, 41-3.

The House map splits six districts and leans 49.91 percent Republican and 48.57 percent Democrat, according to a legislative report. The map resulted from a bipartisan compromise, but Democrats still took issue with how minority-majority district Wayne County was drawn. The map splits the county into two voting districts. Democrats argue that voters there should be able to select the candidate of their choice under the Voting Rights Act. House Redistricting Chair Rep. Destin Hall, R-Caldwell, said the court ruled the state was not required to draw any Voting Rights Act districts.

Republicans said the congressional map also exceeds the mean-median score recommended by the court.

The 2020 census showed the state’s population grew by more than 888,000 residents. Lawmakers had to create a new congressional district as a result.

The Senate approved the new congressional district map 25-19. It cleared the House, 66-53.

“This map will make North Carolina home to four additional highly-competitive congressional districts. We believe the map is constitutional,” Sen. Warren Daniel, R-Burke. “We believe it is fair to all candidates, voters and political parties in our state. It follows the court’s order, and it will reflect the will of the people.”

Sen. Ben Clark, D-Hoke, proposed an amendment reducing the number of county splits in the map. The proposed map splits 14. Clark proposed splitting 13 counties, which the Senate rejected.

House Democrats who opposed the Congressional map said it separates communities of interest. Rep. Zack Hawkins, D-Durham, put forth a map that he said redistricting analysts said do not lean either way. The amendment was rejected.

Related Content