Grading redistricting reform proposals part 1: substantive principles

• Six redistricting reform proposals have been proposed in the NC General Assembly
• Most of the bills adhere reasonably well to substantive principles of redistricting reform
• One bill stands above the rest due to its proposed redistricting reforms to the NC constitution

Political observers ranging from the conservative John Locke Foundation to the liberal NC Policy Watch have called for the General Assembly to pass some form of redistricting reform in the weeks after the Common Cause v. Lewis ruling on partisan gerrymandering. In a previous article, Civitas reviewed six principles that should guide any redistricting reform proposal. In this article, six redistricting reform bills will be graded on their adherence to three “substantive principles” that should guide redistricting reform no matter who is drawing the districts.

Each principle is briefly summarized below and the six redistricting commission bills are assigned a letter grade that most Americans are familiar with as to how well each adheres to those principles: “A” represents strong adherence to the principle (including in the form of positive amendments to the NC constitution), “B” represents strong statutory adherence to the principle, “C” represents no significant change from current law or an otherwise mediocre adherence to the principle, “D” represents weak adherence to the principle, and “F” represents a complete failure to adhere to the principle (including in the form of negative amendments to the NC constitution).

The following bills will be reviewed:

• H69 (Nonpartisan Redistricting Commission)
• H140 (The FAIR Act)
• H574/S641 (Fix Our Democracy)
• H648 (NC FAIR State & Congressional Districts Act)
• H827 (N.C. Citizens Redistricting Commission)
• S673 (N.C. Citizens Redistricting Commission: Yes, it is the same name.)

The three procedural principles will be addressed in part two.

1. Do not retreat from current constitutional requirements on redistricting. Those requirements are a roughly equal population of districts, contiguousness, not dividing counties (subject to equal population requirement), and only drawing districts once every 10 years. There are also federal requirements tied to the 14th Amendment and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Of those requirements, only the “whole county” requirement appears to be under contention and will be the focus here.

• H69 does not include a constitutional amendment. So it neither undercuts nor provides greater support for the current requirements. Grade: C
• H140 strengthens the “whole county” provision of the state constitution by incorporating the county grouping system devised in Stephenson v. Bartlett into the NC Constitution. Grade: A
• H574/S641 weakens the whole county requirement in the constitution, replacing it with a “goal of minimizing the number of split counties, municipalities, and other communities of interest.” The bill gives lip service to the requirement by statute, but the “whole county” requirement mentioned in the statute would no longer exist if the constitutional amendment proposed in the bill passes. Grade: F
• H648 neither undercuts nor provides greater support for the current requirements. Grade: C
• H827 neither undercuts nor provides greater support for the current requirements. Grade: C
• As with H574/S641, S673 weakens the whole county requirement in the constitution, replacing it with a “goal of minimizing the number of split counties, municipalities, and other communities of interest.” It mentions the “whole county” requirement in the statute, but that requirement would no longer exist if the constitutional amendment proposed in the bill passes. Grade: F

2. Legislative districts are about their local communities, not the state. Those drawing districts should consider the communities to be represented by those districts. Statewide measures should not be considered. Prioritizing local communities implies a reasonable attempt to make districts compact.

• H69 bans the use of partisan data by statute, which effectively prevents the use of statewide measures to shape districts. The bill also states that electoral districts “shall be reasonably compact in form.” Grade: B
• H140 bans the use of partisan data by constitutional amendment, which effectively prevents the use of statewide measures to shape districts. It also amends the constitution so that electoral districts “shall be as reasonably compact as practicable.” Grade: A
• H574/S641 bans the use of partisan data by statute, which effectively prevents the use of statewide measures to shape districts. “The goal of compactness” is added to the NC Constitution. Grade: B
• H648 bans the use of partisan data by statute, which effectively prevents the use of statewide measures to shape districts. Electoral districts “shall be reasonably compact.” Grade: B
• H827 bans the use of electoral results or “political considerations” (undefined) by statute, which would probably prevent the use of statewide measures to shape districts. The bill also mandates compactness “to the extent practicable.” Grade: C
• S673 bans the use of partisan data by statute, which effectively prevents the use of statewide measures to shape districts. It also requires that districts be “reasonably compact in form.” Grade: B

3. The use of partisan data should be either consistently allowed or consistently banned, preferably banned. Partisan data includes voter registration and past election results. No position is taken on the use of the location of incumbents’ residences.

• H69 bans by statute the use of voter registration, past election results, or the location of incumbents’ residences to draw districts. Grade: B
• H140 bans by constitutional amendment the use of voter registration, past election results, the location of incumbents’ residences, or any other data “which could identify with reasonable certainty the voting tendencies of any group of citizens” to draw districts. Grade: A
• H574/S641 bans the use of voter registration, past election results, or the location of incumbents’ residences to draw districts. Grade: B
• H648 bans by statute the use of voter registration, past election results, the location of incumbents’ residences, or any other data “which could identify with reasonable certainty the voting tendencies of any group of citizens” to draw districts. Grade: B
• H827 bans by statute the use of past election results, “political considerations,” or incumbency to draw districts. However, “political considerations” is a vague term and is not defined in the bill. Grade: C
• S673 bans by statute the use of voter registration, past election results, demographic information or the location of incumbents’ residences to draw districts. Grade: B

On substantive principles, one bill stands out

While most bills range from good to mediocre on their adherence to substantive principles of redistricting reform, H140 (The FAIR Act) stands clearly above the rest. It strengthens the whole-county provision of the NC Constitution by incorporating the county grouping system from a 2002 anti-gerrymandering ruling (Stephenson v Bartlett) into the constitution. It also locks a ban on using partisan data and a requirement for compactness into the constitution, protecting bipartisan redistricting reform from being gutted by temporary legislative majorities.

H69 and H648 also require compactness and ban the use of partisan data, but only by statute. The other bills suffer from various deficiencies and are not worth consideration given that there are better choices available.

The second article in this series will address how well each bill adheres to redistricting procedural principles.