In North Carolina, the legislature is attempting to justify a map with a 10-3 split, which does not reasonably reflect statewide voter preference, based on an alleged state interest in political advantage. For reasons I discuss at length in my article, I do not believe partisan advantage is a legitimate state interest. (Can the State itself be said to have an interest in electing Democrats or Republicans? Could the State proffer an interest in “partisan advantage,” rather than “preventing voter fraud” or “electoral integrity,” to justify voter identification laws in court?)
In fact, if any redistricting plan were to tee up this issue, North Carolina’s proposed map would seem to be it. Under the subtle header “Partisan Advantage,” the State’s Joint Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting adopted districting criteria that expressly state: “The partisan makeup of the congressional delegation under the enacted plan is 10 Republicans and 3 Democrats. The Committee shall make reasonable efforts . . . to maintain the current partisan makeup of North Carolina’s congressional delegation.” Even more pointedly, the criteria state that “[d]ivision of counties shall only be made for reasons of equalizing population, consideration of incumbency and political impact.”