Congressional redistricting--Democrats are like the pot calling the kettle black | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer.

    We never cease to be amazed at how hypocritical liberals are. And that includes our friends down the street at the Washington Daily News, or more precisely, Jonathan Clayborne. The most recent exhibit was Jonathan's recent article on congressional redistricting, leading with an exclamation by the Honorable G. K. Butterfield, lamenting, and predicting, the illegality of "packing electoral districts" and "disenfranchising minorities." Puh-leaz Judge.

    That of which Jonathan whines is the newly released, Republican created Congressional districting map. It exasperates Jonathan and Rep. Butterfield because it favors Republicans and relegates Democrats to....well, where Democrats have relegated Republicans for low these many years.

    We'll save you the rebuttals by the numbers. But trust this: The GOP drawn map is nowhere near and contorted as the previous Democrat maps. And while one can agree that it will change the balance of seats in the congressional delegation, if Jonathan had done his homework he would have discovered that the distribution of seats is much closer to the distribution of both registered voters and actual voters (which includes the unaffiliated) than was the previous Democrat-drawn maps.

    But the greater hyprocracy comes with Rep. Butterfield's protestations of "packing" and "diluting." Those are two operative terms in the application of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The VRA is nothing but a discriminatory (the most significant section (V) does not apply equally to all jurisdictions) affirmative action scheme that was an attempt to correct an obvious wrong that exited in the 1960's that has long been ameliorated. Witness two facts: Barack Obama and G. K. Butterfield.
North Carolina Congressional Redistricting, July 5, 2011
    It would take way too much space and too many words to fully explain this, but the irony of the laments about the VRA-dictated districts is that the real debate once the General Assembly adopts its maps will be over what is a "minority district."

    Simply stated, a minority district, according to the VRA, is a district in which minorities are assured of the ability to elect candidates of their choice. The theory is that if you draw districts strictly according to population and as compact as the one-person/one-vote principle would allow there may not be any, or hardly any, "minority" districts. So the VRA requires that the lines be gerrymandered to insure the electability of at least as many minorities as a mythical proportion as previously existed. So the Republicans had to start with maps that afforded that affirmative action. And Mr. Butterfield is a direct beneficiary of that affirmative action. His is one of two "guaranteed" minority districts.

    But the problem is that many blacks in other parts of the state are scattered among many white residents. So we have "swing" districts. That is, a district that could go either minority or majority. The question is--and what will be debated and likely taken all the way to the U. S. Supreme Court--is just how many minorities does it take to afford a reasonable chance of minorities being able to elect "candidates of their choice." Not "vote for" candidates of their choice, mind you; but elect candidates of their choice.

    Would a simple majority of minority residents in a district afford that possibility? No, because minorities don't register to vote nor vote as much proportionately as do whites. Time was when that was caused by discrimination, such as poll taxes, literacy tests etc. But because a disproportionately larger number of blacks don't register or actually vote, to make a "safe" district one has to "pack" those districts with more than a simple majority. Used to be that the requisite number was computed to be in the 60%'s. Now it is lower. But get this. It is lower because whites tend to be less polarized in their voting than are blacks. That is, more whites vote for more black candidates than blacks who vote for white candidates when there is a choice between black and white candidates.

    Think about that for a minute now, to appreciate the hypocrisy of Mr. Butterfield's position. The only rational justification for continuing the VRA today is that blacks will not vote for whites (if they have a choice) enough to make the VRA unnecessary.

    The VRA was enacted because blacks were discriminated against in being able to register to, and actually, vote. That has been eliminated. But because blacks continue to vote along racial lines more than whites, and more whites now vote for blacks, the proportion of blacks in a district needs to be less to insure that blacks can elect candidates of their choice. And this is what Rep. Butterfield is complaining of.

    Tell us Mr. Butterfield, just what proportion of residents need to be black in a district (yours) before you consider it a "safe" district?

    And if you're interested, we'll tell you how he will have to answer that question: It depends on how many Democrat voters (actual voters) there are in the district. So yes indeed, it is a partisan political thing and Mr. Butterfield knows that, even if Jonathan does not.

    So if Mr. Butterfield really wants to be fair and if he really is sincere when he contends "packing" (putting more blacks in a district that are necessary to elect black candidates) or diluting the black vote (putting blacks in districts which are likely to elect white candidates) then we humbly suggest he should retract his recent vote extending the Voting Rights Act. And explain whether he supports Limited Voting or not.

    Indeed, if Rep. Butterfield is honest he will now introduce, work for (including convincing Attorney General Eric Holder and his boss (we mean Barack Obama) to support outlawing racial "packing." And we would suggest Jonathan ask Mr. Butterfield, the next time he interviews him about voting issues, why he will not work to outlaw packing.

    And once having done that, let's ask Rep. Butterfield if he will agree to drawing the districts this way the next time: Start in the corner of the state (Currituck County) and draw concentric circles until we add enough counties to obtain the requisite number of residents. Then do the same for his district, moving west along the Virginia border to pick up half the population needed and south until the remainder are procured. Come on now Mr. Butterfield. Will you agree to that?