Your Public Square Disclosing what is True, what is Real
State: New Election Maps Would Cause Confusion, Add Costs
Publisher's note: The author of this post is Dan Way, who is an associate editor for the Carolina Journal, John Hood Publisher.
RALEIGH If a three-judge federal court panel does not freeze its order to redraw a new congressional election map by Feb. 19 the result would be voter confusion, inability to protect the integrity of the electoral process, suppressed voter and candidate turnout, and more than $12 million of increased taxpayer expenses, according to an affidavit filed Monday by the State Board of Elections.
The panel ruled Friday that race was the primary factor in the composition of North Carolina's 1st and 12th Congressional Districts, violating the federal Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. A longtime election observer and former member of the Federal Elections Commission questions the validity of the court's decision, saying the overwhelming tendency in recent decades of black voters to support Democratic candidates makes it difficult for courts to isolate partisan politics from race in redistricting challenges.
The affidavit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, was written by Kim Strach, executive director of the State Board of Elections. The state is fighting the court's order in an attempt to hold March 15 primary as scheduled. That election now includes not only congressional contests, but also a bond referendum and preliminary votes for U.S. Senate, Council of State, the General Assembly, and other races.
Even "slight changes" to jurisdictional boundaries and election dates "can trigger complex and interwoven statutory requirements and involve nonobvious logistical burdens and costs borne by North Carolina's 100 counties," Strach wrote in her affidavit.
"Based on my experience at this agency for more than 15 years, I believe there is no scenario under which ballots for the March primary can be reprinted to remove the names of congressional candidates without compromising safeguards needed to ensure the administrative integrity of the election," Strach wrote.
Strach's affidavit accompanied an emergency motion filed by the state's attorneys to stay the court's decision. They want the three-judge panel to modify the injunction forcing new districts to be drawn and approved before congressional elections in those districts can be held. (Strach's husband is one of the attorneys representing the state.)
Due to "the exigent nature of the circumstances" that the 2016 primary election is already under way, and the General Assembly is not in session, the state's lawyers "request a ruling on this motion [Monday]" so that relief could be sought in the Supreme Court, according to the motion.
The court's order requiring a new congressional plan by Feb. 19 and barring any congressional elections until a new plan is in place "is likely to cause significant voter confusion and irreparable harm to the citizens of North Carolina and the election process that is already under way," the state's lawyers said in their filing.
Two separate three-judge panels "reviewed substantially the same record and yet reached opposite conclusion on the merits of the same claims involving the same congressional districts," the state's motion said.
Citing numerous Supreme Court precedents overturning lower courts' orders for statewide redistricting plans "at the later stages of an election cycle," the state's motion said it expects the decision in this case to be reversed as well.
"In every one of those cases the Supreme Court came down and said, 'We're not going to have changes in election procedures right before an election, particularly when it's already under way when absentee ballots went out,'" said Hans Von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
"It's hard for me to believe that the court would issue this decision only a month before the March 15 primary," he said.
"This is a problem today with the Voting Rights Act," which was passed to stop racial discrimination in voting, said Von Spakovsky, who previously was a U.S. Justice Department attorney helping to enforce the Voting Rights Act. He also spent two years on the Federal Election Commission.
"Back in 1965 that meant keeping people out of polls, keeping them from registering. That kind of thing is not going on anymore, at all, anywhere in the country," he said.
"But today the Voting Rights Act is being used as a way, basically, to help the Democratic Party. It's been used for political purposes," Von Spakovsky said.
In recent elections, 90 percent or more of black Americans have voted for Democratic candidates, he said. So redistricting in a minority area becomes magnified for, say, Republican legislators looking for partisan re-election advantages even if they pay "absolutely no attention to the race of the residents," Von Spakovsky said.
"I don't think the courts are doing a very good job of distinguishing between politics and actual racial discrimination," he said.
The 1st and 12th Congressional Districts are "outrageously gerrymandered, but look, that's been going on since the first Congress," and courts generally respect a maxim of to-the-victor-goes-the-spoils on political parties in the majority getting to draw election maps to their advantage, Von Spakovsky said.
In her affidavit, Strach listed numerous reasons she opposes redrawing congressional districts and changing election dates. Most significantly, as of Feb. 7, 8,621 absentee ballots had been mailed, 903 of those went outside the United States, and 431 ballots already had been cast.
More than 4,500 unique ballot styles will be used in the March primary. Reprogramming, printing, proofreading and entering the changes into the public reporting tool "at this late juncture would not allow for the testing time we believe is important to ensure the tool fully and accurately reports results," Strach said.
Counties would all have to reassign jurisdictional boundaries in the state election information management system. That would require changes to ballot coding, and "runs a risk that voters receive an incorrect ballot style" containing contests in which the voter is not eligible to vote, Strach said.
Holding a second primary for congressional races would cost counties an extra $9.5 million, and more than $2 million for one-stop voting. The state would incur unspecified costs in addition to that, Strach said.
Training, hiring staff, securing polling locations, holding public meetings, issuing public notices, and educating voters all would be affected by a new congressional election date. More than 4.3 million copies of the 2016 Primary Election Voter Guide have been mailed, and that could confuse voters of deadlines and election daters if a separate congressional election is held.
"Decreased awareness of an election can suppress the number of individuals who would have otherwise participated, and may narrow the demographic of those who do ultimately vote. Each could affect electoral outcomes," Strach wrote.
"Last-minute changes to congressional districts can result in the pool of participating candidates changing," Strach wrote. Potential candidates may forgo an election if they have to prepare, campaign, and raise money in a new district, she said.
Go Back
Board of Elections, attorneys ask court to allow March 15 primary to move forward as scheduled
RALEIGH If a three-judge federal court panel does not freeze its order to redraw a new congressional election map by Feb. 19 the result would be voter confusion, inability to protect the integrity of the electoral process, suppressed voter and candidate turnout, and more than $12 million of increased taxpayer expenses, according to an affidavit filed Monday by the State Board of Elections.
The panel ruled Friday that race was the primary factor in the composition of North Carolina's 1st and 12th Congressional Districts, violating the federal Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. A longtime election observer and former member of the Federal Elections Commission questions the validity of the court's decision, saying the overwhelming tendency in recent decades of black voters to support Democratic candidates makes it difficult for courts to isolate partisan politics from race in redistricting challenges.
The affidavit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, was written by Kim Strach, executive director of the State Board of Elections. The state is fighting the court's order in an attempt to hold March 15 primary as scheduled. That election now includes not only congressional contests, but also a bond referendum and preliminary votes for U.S. Senate, Council of State, the General Assembly, and other races.
Even "slight changes" to jurisdictional boundaries and election dates "can trigger complex and interwoven statutory requirements and involve nonobvious logistical burdens and costs borne by North Carolina's 100 counties," Strach wrote in her affidavit.
"Based on my experience at this agency for more than 15 years, I believe there is no scenario under which ballots for the March primary can be reprinted to remove the names of congressional candidates without compromising safeguards needed to ensure the administrative integrity of the election," Strach wrote.
Strach's affidavit accompanied an emergency motion filed by the state's attorneys to stay the court's decision. They want the three-judge panel to modify the injunction forcing new districts to be drawn and approved before congressional elections in those districts can be held. (Strach's husband is one of the attorneys representing the state.)
Due to "the exigent nature of the circumstances" that the 2016 primary election is already under way, and the General Assembly is not in session, the state's lawyers "request a ruling on this motion [Monday]" so that relief could be sought in the Supreme Court, according to the motion.
The court's order requiring a new congressional plan by Feb. 19 and barring any congressional elections until a new plan is in place "is likely to cause significant voter confusion and irreparable harm to the citizens of North Carolina and the election process that is already under way," the state's lawyers said in their filing.
Two separate three-judge panels "reviewed substantially the same record and yet reached opposite conclusion on the merits of the same claims involving the same congressional districts," the state's motion said.
Citing numerous Supreme Court precedents overturning lower courts' orders for statewide redistricting plans "at the later stages of an election cycle," the state's motion said it expects the decision in this case to be reversed as well.
"In every one of those cases the Supreme Court came down and said, 'We're not going to have changes in election procedures right before an election, particularly when it's already under way when absentee ballots went out,'" said Hans Von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
"It's hard for me to believe that the court would issue this decision only a month before the March 15 primary," he said.
"This is a problem today with the Voting Rights Act," which was passed to stop racial discrimination in voting, said Von Spakovsky, who previously was a U.S. Justice Department attorney helping to enforce the Voting Rights Act. He also spent two years on the Federal Election Commission.
"Back in 1965 that meant keeping people out of polls, keeping them from registering. That kind of thing is not going on anymore, at all, anywhere in the country," he said.
"But today the Voting Rights Act is being used as a way, basically, to help the Democratic Party. It's been used for political purposes," Von Spakovsky said.
In recent elections, 90 percent or more of black Americans have voted for Democratic candidates, he said. So redistricting in a minority area becomes magnified for, say, Republican legislators looking for partisan re-election advantages even if they pay "absolutely no attention to the race of the residents," Von Spakovsky said.
"I don't think the courts are doing a very good job of distinguishing between politics and actual racial discrimination," he said.
The 1st and 12th Congressional Districts are "outrageously gerrymandered, but look, that's been going on since the first Congress," and courts generally respect a maxim of to-the-victor-goes-the-spoils on political parties in the majority getting to draw election maps to their advantage, Von Spakovsky said.
In her affidavit, Strach listed numerous reasons she opposes redrawing congressional districts and changing election dates. Most significantly, as of Feb. 7, 8,621 absentee ballots had been mailed, 903 of those went outside the United States, and 431 ballots already had been cast.
More than 4,500 unique ballot styles will be used in the March primary. Reprogramming, printing, proofreading and entering the changes into the public reporting tool "at this late juncture would not allow for the testing time we believe is important to ensure the tool fully and accurately reports results," Strach said.
Counties would all have to reassign jurisdictional boundaries in the state election information management system. That would require changes to ballot coding, and "runs a risk that voters receive an incorrect ballot style" containing contests in which the voter is not eligible to vote, Strach said.
Holding a second primary for congressional races would cost counties an extra $9.5 million, and more than $2 million for one-stop voting. The state would incur unspecified costs in addition to that, Strach said.
Training, hiring staff, securing polling locations, holding public meetings, issuing public notices, and educating voters all would be affected by a new congressional election date. More than 4.3 million copies of the 2016 Primary Election Voter Guide have been mailed, and that could confuse voters of deadlines and election daters if a separate congressional election is held.
"Decreased awareness of an election can suppress the number of individuals who would have otherwise participated, and may narrow the demographic of those who do ultimately vote. Each could affect electoral outcomes," Strach wrote.
"Last-minute changes to congressional districts can result in the pool of participating candidates changing," Strach wrote. Potential candidates may forgo an election if they have to prepare, campaign, and raise money in a new district, she said.
| North Carolina’s Broadband Office Launches New Website | Statewide, Government, State and Federal | Oversight Committee Splits Over State Employee Benefits |
Home
Contact
About
Service Rates
Privacy Policy
Follow on Facebook
Subscribe to Newsletters
Rss Feed
Keywords
Eastern NC Now & ENC NOW © Copyright 1998-2024 All Rights Reserved.
