Fair elections, later

Published February 14, 2015

Editorial by Greensboro News-Record, February 13, 2014.

If the legislature can’t set partisan politics aside now, how about 15 years from now?

Better late than never.

Recognizing that Senate Republicans won’t willingly give up power anytime soon, Sen. Jeff Jackson (D-Mecklenburg) introduced a measure that would create an independent redistricting commission — in 2030.

Jackson faces long odds. Senate leader Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) recently told the Associated Press: “I don’t see an independent redistricting commission or any of the proposals that have been floated as improving on the system that we have now.”

Berger did support independent redistricting when his party was in the minority. His view changed when Republicans took over the House and Senate in 2010. The next year, they drew legislative and congressional districts that gave their party insurmountable advantages. They want to do the same in 2021.

Gerrymandering produces lopsided election outcomes. Scores of legislators win without opposition. Others face token resistance. Voters don’t have meaningful choices, and elected officials don’t have to appeal to diverse constituencies or work across the partisan aisle. That doesn’t lead to good government.

Fair-minded representatives know that. So it’s heartening to see a bipartisan group of House members, including Greensboro Republican Jon Hardister, support a fair redistricting process that is likely to gather significant support in their chamber.

The House passed a nonpartisan redistricting plan in 2011, but it died in the Senate without a vote. In 2013, more than 60 House members backed a similar bill, but it never came up for a vote because it faced certain defeat in the Senate.

The legislature redraws districts every 10 years, after the national census is completed. The next time will be 2021. “Both parties always expect to be in power by the time the next redistricting rolls around,” Jackson told the News & Record last week. That’s the argument for waiting another decade to hand the redistricting job to an independent commission — and locking that plan in place with an amendment to the state constitution.

North Carolina is changing. Population is thinning in rural areas where many Republican senators live and massing in urban areas, which tend to be more Democratic. By 2031, it may no longer be possible to draw a majority of districts that skew toward Republicans. GOP senators might be wise to make a deal now that gives Republicans a level playing field in the future. Otherwise, Democrats may win the 2030 elections, then resume the partisan gerrymandering they practiced (though not perfectly) before losing power in 2010.

Older Republican leaders should listen to their younger members, like Hardister, whose careers will depend on outreach to more diverse constituencies.

Before last fall’s election, Hardister, 31, said fair redistricting “is about good government. It’s about giving more power to the people.”

February 14, 2015 at 10:33 am
Norm Kelly says:

'Democrats may win the 2030 elections, then resume the partisan gerrymandering they practiced (though not perfectly)'. What a major understatement! Must have appeared in a 'news' paper! 'Not perfectly' means that the demon redistricting plan was THROWN out by the courts. Which is NOT what happened when Republicans redrew districts in the most recent cycle. Actually, what's happened is that ALL the courts have accepted the Republican drawn districts. The only ones who oppose the Republican-drawn districts are the extremists and racists. Eric the duck Holder, a consummate racist, doesn't like the districts. The Rev buffet slayer Barber, also a major racist, doesn't like the districts either. But the courts find that the districts are legal, follow existing law. And even though the courts have decided the districts are legal, the extreme racists are continuing their lawsuits. What happened to the idea of 'settled law'? When Republicans rightly opposed the decision that gay marriage was legal even though it was against the will of the majority of voters, every lib out there, including the AG who is required to uphold & defend state law, said that we couldn't buck 'settled law'! What's the diff now? The diff is that extreme libs & racists don't like THIS particular court decision, so it's not considered 'settled law'.

That's part 1 of the response to this post.

Part 2: you first. Once again, where were libs the last time taking gerry out of the process came up? We know the extreme liberals in the NC Legislature opposed taking gerry out of the process when they were in the majority. We know extreme liberal members of the Legislature didn't care about gerry until they were put in the minority BY VOTERS! Suddenly, extreme liberal members are looking to remove gerry from the process. Is it because their policies have been rejected by voters and the only way they can get back in power is to try to remove gerry?

I believe Jeff Jackson has the right idea, he's on the correct path. Probably doesn't know he's also on the RIGHT path, since demons have no concept of being RIGHT; they are completely dedicated to their left-wing religion. (right-wing, not correct!) Jeff is making a proposal that's the most sound thing to come from extreme liberal, agenda driven politicians in a long time. Don't make the change after the next census cycle. Wait until the following census cycle. In other words, Jeff is accepting the 'you first' attitude, which is what extreme liberal pols should do. Show voters you are serious about removing gerry from the process. If extreme liberal pols really want to put power/control back in the hands of LEGAL voters, which is not something they espouse, then prove it by getting behind a FUTURE plan of removing gerry. By pushing it out past the 2030 census cycle, Jeff is admitting that nobody knows who will be in power then, so it won't be a partisan decision to remove gerry. So far, the party in power has resisted throwing gerry overboard. The only way to know that extreme liberal pols are serious is to make sure the change happens at a future date where nobody can assume how the situation will stand.

I think the majority of voters and legislators should get behind Jeff and pass his proposal. At least this shows ONE extreme liberal pol who is serious about getting rid of gerry! What a breath of fresh air from the demoncrat party! Let's see if any other liberal demoncrats are serious. I shan't hold my breath!