Drawing Dem-Friendly Congressional Districts in North Carolina Isn’t as Easy as You Think | News
News
INDY Week's news blog

Archives | RSS

Friday, January 26, 2018

Drawing Dem-Friendly Congressional Districts in North Carolina Isn’t as Easy as You Think

Posted by on Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:44 AM

This post is excerpted from the INDY’s morning newsletter, Primer. To read this morning’s edition in full, click here. To get all the day’s local and national headlines and insights delivered straight to your inbox, sign up here.

Yesterday, the website FiveThirtyEight released a really killer tool that enables you to get a good sense of how gerrymandering actually works—and doesn’t. In essence, “The Atlas of Redistricting” allows you to see what congressional districts would look like if: drawn to favor Republicans; drawn to favor Democrats; drawn to match the state’s electorate; drawn to promote competitive elections; drawn to maximize the number of majority-minority districts; drawn to make district shapes compact; and drawn to make districts compact while following county borders. Nationally, depending on how you work it, you can more or less guarantee Republicans anywhere from 184 to 263 seats, and Democrats anywhere from 171 to 250 seats. But I was more interested in how this would look in North Carolina. Here’s what I found:

Current districts: 10 R, 3 D, no competitive.
click to enlarge nc_current_maps.png
Gerrymandered Republican districts: 10 R, 3 D, no competitive.
click to enlarge nc_gerrymandered_r.png
Gerrymandered Democratic districts: 8 D, 5 R, no competitive.
click to enlarge nc_gerrymandered_d.png
Match districts to electorate: 7 R, 4 D, 2 competitive (both of which Democrats would be favored to win).
click to enlarge nc_match_to_electorate.png
Highly competitive elections: 3 R, 0 D, 10 competitive (4 of which Democrats would be favored to win).
click to enlarge nc_highly_competitive.png
Maximize majority-minority districts: 8 R, 4 D, 1 competitive (Dems favored).
click to enlarge nc_majority_minority.png
Compact districts drawn by algorithm: 6 R, 2 D, 5 competitive (Dems favored in 2, Republicans in 1, the other 2 tossups).
click to enlarge nc_compact.png
Compact districts that follow county borders: 8 R, 4 D, 1 competitive (Dem favored).
click to enlarge nc_compact_county_borders.png
  • As FiveThirtyEight explains: “All of the hand-drawn maps [all except the current maps and the one devised by algorithm] follow two simple rules: Each district must be contiguous, meaning that all parts of the district touch each other, by water or by land. And each district must be within 1,000 residents of the state’s ‘ideal’ district population—the total population in 2010 divided by the number of districts—to satisfy the legal requirement that districts be equally populous.”
WHAT IT MEANS: Of course the GOP-gerrymandered map has the same net result as the one we have now; the districts were explicitly gerrymandered to benefit Republicans, as the recent court case illustrated. (The question is only whether this is illegal.) But here’s the more interesting thing: in only one of the above scenarios—districts specifically gerrymandered to benefit Democrats—can Democrats expect to enjoy a majority of the congressional delegation. This, despite the fact that we are, on the whole, a purple state. The biggest reason for this is that Democrats tend to group in metros, while Republicans’ strength is the in suburban and rural areas. So, if you’re trying to keep districts compact, you naturally stuff big Democratic majorities into urban areas, leaving Republicans safe outside of them. This is more or less what the GOP legislature did, except on steroids, which is why a court found those districts unconstitutional (the court’s order for new districts was stayed by the Supreme Court).
  • The point is, even if North Carolina had an independent redistricting commission—which we should—Republicans would probably come out ahead, just not as far ahead.

Tags: , , , ,

Pin It

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

INDY Week publishes all kinds of comments, but we don't publish everything.

  • Comments that are not contributing to the conversation will be removed.
  • Comments that include ad hominem attacks will also be removed.
  • Please do not copy and paste the full text of a press release.

Permitted HTML:
  • To create paragraphs in your comment, type <p> at the start of a paragraph and </p> at the end of each paragraph.
  • To create bold text, type <b>bolded text</b> (please note the closing tag, </b>).
  • To create italicized text, type <i>italicized text</i> (please note the closing tag, </i>).
  • Proper web addresses will automatically become links.

Latest in News



Twitter Activity

Comments

Sarah, Beg to differ. HT

http://www.womennc.org/un-csw-fellowship/2…

WomenNC proudly announces its 2017-18 CSW Fellows!

We …

by Harris Tweed on Women of Color Are "Particularly Burdened" by Gentrification in Durham (News)

Harris Tweed, the Capstone program is a UNC program. Thanks for reading!

https://publicpolicy.unc.edu/academics/exp…

by swillets on Women of Color Are "Particularly Burdened" by Gentrification in Durham (News)

Most Read

Most Recent Comments

Sarah, Beg to differ. HT

http://www.womennc.org/un-csw-fellowship/2…

WomenNC proudly announces its 2017-18 CSW Fellows!

We …

by Harris Tweed on Women of Color Are "Particularly Burdened" by Gentrification in Durham (News)

Harris Tweed, the Capstone program is a UNC program. Thanks for reading!

https://publicpolicy.unc.edu/academics/exp…

by swillets on Women of Color Are "Particularly Burdened" by Gentrification in Durham (News)

Sounds like hitting the accelerator on gentrification and push out. More hand outs for developers.

by M 1 on The Opportunity Zone Tax Incentive Is Supposed to Help Distressed Areas. See Which Parts of Durham Are Up for It. (News)

Capstone Fellows are part of http://WomenNC.org, a 501c3 non-profit. They do not appear to be UNC Fellowships …

by Harris Tweed on Women of Color Are "Particularly Burdened" by Gentrification in Durham (News)

© 2018 Indy Week • 320 E. Chapel Hill St., Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation