NEWS & COMMENTARY Redistricting hearings: Partisans suggest non-partisan process

Democrats would deprive voters of the right to determine who does the redistricting



If the Legislative Redistricting Committee hoped to get specific suggestions for improving the proposed Senate and House districts they were sorely disappointed. What they got was Democrat Talking Points and a few map tweaks from Republicans.



A standing-room-only crowd was present at Beaufort County Community College Tuesday (8-22-17) for a public hearing on the proposed legislative districts now being considered for adoption by September 1. The meeting lasted over four hours and as is typical of such things, many of the speakers said essentially the same thing.



Our reporter concluded that the speakers could be roughly divided into two groups: Those who trumpeted the Democrat Talking Points and a few Republicans who focused on the reconfiguration of certain districts on the proposed map. The most prevalent on point suggestion was to change the First and Third Senatorial districts back more like they are at the present time. It was proposed to put Beaufort County back in the First District, aligned with Dare and other adjoining tidewater counties and move Gates, Hertford and Washington counties to the Third District to balance the populations in a reconfiguration of the two districts.



The current proposed map puts Beaufort in a district that stretches all the way to the Virginia line, and as far west as Vance county. Keith Kidwell, Chair of the Beaufort County Republican Party pointed out to those who were ranting about "gerrymandering" that this proposed Third District is the worst example of gerrymandering on the map.



There was also a suggestion to move Pamlico back into the House district that includes neighboring Craven rather than leave Pamlico in a district that extends through Hyde, Dare and Currituck to the Virginia line.



The Beaufort Better Government Committee spoke in favor of the Beaufort GOP's suggested tweaks.



The most prevalent comments were related not to the maps specifically, but to the process that was used by the Redistricting Committee in developing the maps. Those criticism focused on what speaker after speaker referred to as "gerrymandering," or configuring the maps for the partisan advantage of the party in power. The remedy several suggested was to appoint a "non-partisan" commission to draw the maps. When it was suggested that the Democrats had not used such a process when they controlled the majority in the Legislature, the only defense heard was: "two wrongs don't make a right "



But Steve Rader, who spoke in support of the current process but in favor of moving Beaufort back to the First District, pointed out that in states where appointed commissions had been used that the process was still partisan as much, if not more so, than having the Legislature do it. Rader pointedly rebutted the often repeated contention of those espousing the Democrat Talking Points that the process was "unconstitutional" by pointing out that the constitution provides for the elected legislators to draw the maps rather than a non-elected appointed committee. He also pointed out that redistricting is a legislative issue and the courts should honor the constitutional separation of powers doctrine in reviewing the maps.



Another of the most prevalent criticisms was that the public had not had enough time or data to assess the maps. Perhaps this is why so few speakers focused on map configuration issues and more on the committee's process.



The NAACP was well represented and most of those speakers parroted the Democrat Party mantra that the maps are unconstitutional because they are being produced by legislators who were elected by an unconstitutionally elected legislature. These comments ignored the fact that the court case which found some districts unconstitutional because of the role race played in those configurations, did not find the other districts unconstitutional thus refuting the argument that the Legislature could not legitimately do the job.



In the end it came down to essentially two positions: The process is bad and some districts need to be tweaked. Which side each speaker took seemed to be driven by whose ox was being gored.



Commentary



We found the arguments of those espousing the Democrat Talking Points to be disingenuous. They argued for a non-partisan process which the Democrats rejected when they were drawing the maps.



They argued that the process was unconstitutional yet advocated taking the redistricting power away from elected officials and putting it into the hands of political appointees who would not be accountable to the people.



We did agree that their points about the process were largely correct, even in criticizing the format of the public hearings, but the lack of time and data were obviously true and may explain why those opposing the proposed maps did not offer many specific tweaks to the configuration.



When it was all said and done we felt the speakers from Beaufort made the strongest points about putting Beaufort back in Senate District One and moving Washington, Gates and Hertford back to the Third District. The Beaufort GOP offered several tweaks that would more closely conform to the adopted criteria the Redistricting Committee gave to the Mapmakers. For that reason, the proposed changes Beaufort offered should be made by the Committee. If the Legislative Redistricting Committee hoped to get specific suggestions for improving the proposed Senate and House districts they were sorely disappointed. What they got was Democrat Talking Points and a few map tweaks from Republicans.A standing-room-only crowd was present at Beaufort County Community College Tuesday (8-22-17) for a public hearing on the proposed legislative districts now being considered for adoption by September 1. The meeting lasted over four hours and as is typical of such things, many of the speakers said essentially the same thing.Our reporter concluded that the speakers could be roughly divided into two groups: Those who trumpeted the Democrat Talking Points and a few Republicans who focused on the reconfiguration of certain districts on the proposed map. The most prevalent on point suggestion was to change the First and Third Senatorial districts back more like they are at the present time. It was proposed to put Beaufort County back in the First District, aligned with Dare and other adjoining tidewater counties and move Gates, Hertford and Washington counties to the Third District to balance the populations in a reconfiguration of the two districts.The current proposed map puts Beaufort in a district that stretches all the way to the Virginia line, and as far west as Vance county. Keith Kidwell, Chair of the Beaufort County Republican Party pointed out to those who were ranting about "gerrymandering" that this proposed Third District is the worst example of gerrymandering on the map.There was also a suggestion to move Pamlico back into the House district that includes neighboring Craven rather than leave Pamlico in a district that extends through Hyde, Dare and Currituck to the Virginia line.The Beaufort Better Government Committee spoke in favor of the Beaufort GOP's suggested tweaks.The most prevalent comments were related not to the maps specifically, but to the process that was used by the Redistricting Committee in developing the maps. Those criticism focused on what speaker after speaker referred to as "gerrymandering," or configuring the maps for the partisan advantage of the party in power. The remedy several suggested was to appoint a "non-partisan" commission to draw the maps. When it was suggested that the Democrats had not used such a process when they controlled the majority in the Legislature, the only defense heard was: "two wrongs don't make a right "But Steve Rader, who spoke in support of the current process but in favor of moving Beaufort back to the First District, pointed out that in states where appointed commissions had been used that the process was still partisan as much, if not more so, than having the Legislature do it. Rader pointedly rebutted the often repeated contention of those espousing the Democrat Talking Points that the process was "unconstitutional" by pointing out that the constitution provides for the elected legislators to draw the maps rather than a non-elected appointed committee. He also pointed out that redistricting is a legislative issue and the courts should honor the constitutional separation of powers doctrine in reviewing the maps.Another of the most prevalent criticisms was that the public had not had enough time or data to assess the maps. Perhaps this is why so few speakers focused on map configuration issues and more on the committee's process.The NAACP was well represented and most of those speakers parroted the Democrat Party mantra that the maps are unconstitutional because they are being produced by legislators who were elected by an unconstitutionally elected legislature. These comments ignored the fact that the court case which found some districts unconstitutional because of the role race played in those configurations, did not find the other districts unconstitutional thus refuting the argument that the Legislature could not legitimately do the job.In the end it came down to essentially two positions: The process is bad and some districts need to be tweaked. Which side each speaker took seemed to be driven by whose ox was being gored.

Print Email Comment Share