Redistricting Gridlock Leads to Calls for Independent Process | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's note: This post was created by the staff for the Carolina Journal, John Hood Publisher.

States with nonpartisan redistricting process haven't eluded lengthy litigation

    Plaintiffs in a lawsuit that convinced a panel of federal judges to toss out North Carolina's legislative redistricting maps want new districts drawn during a special session in January 2017.

    The plaintiffs' proposal is just that at this point. There's no guarantee federal courts will order the General Assembly to convene a special session for redistricting. Even so, new maps will have to be drawn next year, barring further intervention by appellate courts.

    For decades, North Carolina has been at the forefront of redistricting litigation.


    "It just feels like North Carolina is a battleground state when it comes to redistricting," said Wendy Underhill, program director for redistricting and elections at the National Conference of State Legislatures. "You do have a litigious history."

    Unlike North Carolina, where the General Assembly draws legislative and congressional districts with no input from the governor, a handful of other states farm out their redistricting duties to bipartisan or nonpartisan entities.

    Seven states use an alternative method for drawing congressional maps while 13 states use those methods for legislative maps, Underhill said. "Each one is different," she said.

    One state - Iowa - directs its nonpartisan legislative staff to draw maps.

    Jane Pinsky, director of the N.C. Coalition for Lobbying and Government Reform, is a long-time advocate of redistricting reform in North Carolina. She's encouraged the General Assembly to adopt a plan similar to Iowa's.

    "In Iowa the staff draws [the district map], a citizens' commission gets input, and then the legislators have to vote it up or down."

    The Iowa law doesn't allow the staff to consider the voters' political party, incumbency, previous election results, or demographic data other than head counts - other than what is required by federal law - when establishing districts.

    It also requires the congressional and legislative districts to "be of compact and contiguous territory."

    After the nonpartisan staff draws the maps, the Iowa legislature has an up-or-down vote on the maps. Only technical amendments are allowed.

    If the legislature does not approve a map or the governor vetoes it, the nonpartisan staff starts over and submits a second plan. Again, the legislature gets an up-or-down vote.

    If the second plan is rejected by the legislature or vetoed by the governor, the nonpartisan staff draws a third map. Unlike the previous two maps, the third map can be amended by the legislature.

    Arizona has a five-member Independent Redistricting Commission. Two Republicans and two Democrats are appointed by the caucus leaders from the state's legislature. Those members appoint a fifth member, who is not from the two major parties, said Colleen Mathis, the independent member and chairwoman of the Arizona commission.

    Arizona's commission resulted from a voter-initiated constitutional amendment that was approved in 2000.

    The amendment says the commission can't consider incumbency or pre-existing districts. Every 10 years, the commission has to start from scratch.

    "It's like an Etch-a-Sketch," Mathis said. "It's shaken clean. There's no remnant of the previous map."

    Unlike Iowa, Arizona does take partisan demographics into account because competitiveness is a requirement. "It's actually rooted in the proposition," Mathis said. "When competitiveness is one of the criteria, you can't just pay lip service to it."

    "Unfortunately, it doesn't remove litigation from the process," Mathis said, noting that a number of lawsuits still get filed.

    North Carolina legislators have filed bills establishing some sort of nonpartisan or bipartisan redistricting commission for decades. But none have become law.

    The chairman of the House Redistricting Commission, Rep. David Lewis, R-Harnett, said he doesn't think it's possible to come up with a nonpartisan commission.

    "It is as absurd as thinking the judiciary is nonpartisan," Lewis said. "You can't get judges that are nonpartisan. How are you going to get some kind of independent citizen commission that cares nothing about politics and get them to draw the districts?"

    In what he called a "blunt" assessment, Lewis said, "Those that advocate for a nonpartisan redistricting are doing it because they think it will be to their partisan advantage to do so."

    Pinsky agrees that there is no perfect redistricting system. "We're getting to the point where we have the perfect imperfect system," she said.