Testimony, yesterday by an attorney who worked with Democrats on drawing legislative districts in 2017, revealed the hypocrisy of the Democratic plaintiffs in Common Cause v. Lewis, a case on North Carolina legislative districts being heard in Wake County Superior Court.
Bill Gilkeson, a former staff attorney with the General Assembly currently working with the law firm Bailey & Dixon, worked with Democrats to draw legislative districts in 2017 in the wake of the North Carolina v Covington decision that threw out some legislative maps based on racial gerrymandering. Gilkenson’s testimony was recorded as part of WRAL’s coverage of the trial. I have transcribed and time marked several sections of his testimony below.
Were the maps Bill Gilkeson drew for the Democrats done so in public using government computers?
- (13:05) Questioner: When you were drawing the initial drafts of the Covington [2017] House and Senate maps, where were you physically located?
- Gilkeson: “For the most part in the offices of Nexus strategies.”
So, the center for Democrats’ map-drawing effort was Nexus Strategies, a Democratic political consulting firm (co-founder Scott Falmlen was executive director of the North Carolina Democratic Party from 1999 to 2005). Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a left-leaning organization that generally targets Republicans, reported that Nexus Strategies “shares an address, suite number, and phone number” with Moving NC Forward, an organization it considers to be a “shadow governance” concern in the Gov. Roy Cooper administration.
Who had access to the legislative district maps Gilkeson drew?
- (15:00) Questioner: After drawing a first draft of the Covington [2017] House and Senate maps, you met with certain Democratic legislators regarding those drafts, didn’t you?
- Gilkeson: I met with certain legislators during the process, I not sure if it was directly after the first draft…
- Questioner: When you met with them, though, you did have draft maps that you could share with them, is that correct?
- Gilkeson: Yes.
- Questioner: So, on the House side, in terms of House Democratic legislators, you met with Rep. Darren Jackson.
- Gilkeson: Yes
- Questioner: And he is the minority leader of the House Democratic Caucus, is that right?
- Gilkeson: Yes
- Questioner: And you met with nearly the entire Wake County House Democratic delegation, is that right?
- Gilkeson: Yes
- Questioner: And you met with most of the Mecklenburg County House Democratic delegation, didn’t you?
- Gilkeson: Yes
- Questioner: And, in all, you met with most of the House Democratic delegation at the end of the day, right?
- Gilkeson: Yes
- Questioner: Now, on the senate side, you met with Senator Dan Blue, is that correct?
- Gilkeson: Yes
- Questioner: In all, you met with almost every Democratic Senator in this process, is that right?
- Gilkeson: Yes
- Questioner: Now, when you met with these Democratic legislators about the Covington [2017] House and Senate maps, where did these meeting occur physically?
- Gilkeson: Some of them occurred on the phone, but the ones that were in person occurred physically at the office of Nexus Strategies.
- Questioner: Were members of the public invited to these meetings?
- Gilkeson: “No. [Pause] I… let me change that. I don’t know.”
- Questioner: Did you invite any members of the media to come hear these discussions?
- Gilkeson: “I don’t remember doing so.”
There was no transparency in the process that went into drawing the maps the Democrats wanted to use for General Assembly districts. It was conducted entirely in secret.
What was discussed during those private meetings between Gilkeson and Democratic legislators?
- (18:10) Questioner: You’d show them [Democratic legislators] draft versions of their districts when you met with them, is that right?
- Gilkeson: “Yes.”
- Questioner: And you would allow them to provide input on those districts, is that correct?
- Gilkeson: “Yes.”
- Questioner: You would talk to them about how they wanted their district drawn, right?
- Gilkeson: “I would listen.”
- Questioner: OK. And, sometimes, you accepted that input and changed districts as a result, is that right?
- Gilkeson: I think I’m getting into… I think answering that would be a process answer that would go into privilege [an attorney-client privilege that Gilkeson has with several individuals (but not state legislators)]…
- Questioner: So, you would discuss, generally, with the legislators whether they could be elected in the district that you had drawn in that particular map, is that right?
- Gilkeson: That is a topic that did come up.
- Questioner: OK. And another topic that did come up where the racial statistics of certain of these districts, is that correct?
- Gilkeson: Sometimes.
- Questioner: Which would include what we refer to as the BVAP – the black voting age population – levels of the district, is that right?
- Gilkeson: Yes
In later testimony, Gilkeson admitted to specifically talking with individual Democratic legislators about how they would fare politically in new districts being considered in 2017, including black voting-age population. So, Democrats were considering the very things -partisanship and race – that they accused Republicans of considering when looking at legislative district maps.
Of course, the maps drawn for Democrats by Bill Gilkeson were not the official maps drawn for the General Assembly; however, the maps on the computer files of the late Dr. Thomas Hofeller on his personal computer were not the official maps drawn for the General Assembly either, despite claims on the left. Democrats, it seems, were engaging in the very partisan gerrymandering that they claim to abhor.
Bill Gilkeson’s testimony underscores the emptiness of the claims by the plaintiffs in Common Cause v Lewis.
