Jordan Green has a good article that explores the thinking of the county commissioners regarding the task of redistricting. Let us recall that the current district seats are heavily gerrymandered to favor local Democrats.
What is the bottom line?
Kirk Perkins and Skip Alston want to minimize the amount of reassignment. That would, of course, tend to preserve the gerrymandered districts. Democrats would continue to get the advantage systematically and by design. At this point, we do not know how many Democratic fellow commissioners will be allied with them on this point.
But this means you already have at least two out of eleven commissioners who are philosophically against fixing the problem. They are both Democrats.
If we are going to reverse the Democratic gerrymandering, the districts need to be changed significantly. Alston and Perkins are standing against that possibility in order to help themselves, and to help their party retain control.
Let's recall the big fuss that was made by local Democratic activists and their accomplices in the media one month ago when it was suspected that Republicans on the Greensboro City Council were engaged in gerrymandering.
We need to see the media make a big fuss over the prospect of Democrats on the Board of County Commissioners maneuvering to preserve their gerrymandering. Preserving a gerrymandered condition is ethically just as noxious as creating one.
The media needs to shine a huge, blinding, persistent, scorning spotlight on these self-interested Democrats just as they did in the case of City Council Republicans. Is it going to happen?
Add Coleman to the list of those who don't want the districts to change. During one of her "phoned in" attendances at the meeting, she emphasized her desire to see as little change in the composition of districts as possible, saying she'd like to see just a few precincts shifted from one district to another...
Posted by: Guilford Girl | May 26, 2011 at 06:41 PM
How would you like to see map drawn, Joe?
Posted by: Jordan Green | May 26, 2011 at 07:00 PM
Guilford Girl, if Coleman also takes that position, then we have at least 3 Democrats on the Board of County Commissioners who want to retain the current state of gerrymandering.
Many folks are making noises that it is desirable to cause as little change as possible, and that should be almost our main criterion for redistricting. I really don't accept that premise. It is a self-serving position intended to help Democrats retain control. We need to fix the previous gerrymandering, and we need to do whatever it takes to do so. That is the most important criterion.
Jordan, as your illustrations demonstrate, reducing the size of the board might necessarily produce more compact districts, because it would require a shake-up anyway. Let's say we reduce the size of the board. That would be a positive step. Then we could draw district lines that are compact, with reasonably regular boundaries. We should draw them in compliance with the Voting Rights Act, and in a manner that avoids meeting the legal definition of retrogression.
But I do not think we need to exceed by far the requirements of the VRA; nor do I believe that we need to take measures to avoid retrogression that turn out to be more than is required. We need to be legal, but we don't need to go overboard.
I think we need good, objective advice on what is required-- and I don't think we can rely on the Southern Coalition for Social Justice to provide that advice, because it has obvious political biases. I am not sure if we can rely on county staff to provide unbiased advice on these questions.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | May 26, 2011 at 09:10 PM
one precinct that needs to be together is to have pg 1 and pg 2 together into one district . It is assinine to split pleasant garden into 2 districts
Posted by: triadwatch | May 27, 2011 at 12:42 AM
also looking at the gis map it seems that we have boundary lines going through the back of houses. This should never happen they need to use boundaries of streets as where the lines need to be.
Posted by: triadwatch | May 27, 2011 at 12:53 AM
Good to hear your thoughts on what an ideal map would look like, Joe, and I note your support for maintaining compliance with the Voting Rights Act. As to whether the county commission "should exceed by far the requirements of the VRA" or not, the primary criterion for avoiding retrogression is not reducing the percentage of minority voters in a minority majority district, from what I understand. Going in the other direction can be problematic for all concerned, too. If you were to increase the minority population in one or more Greensboro majority minority districts from say, 70 percent to 90 percent, you would effectively be diluting minority influence in adjacent districts. That would tend to help Republican candidates overall and hurt Democratic candidates. The GOP is being criticized for this very thing in contemplating creating a third minority influence district to pack Democratic leaning voters into a few districts and give Republicans the run of the rest. So I doubt if you would find too many people advocating for taking the Voting Rights Act to the extreme rather than a balanced approach.
Posted by: Jordan Green | May 27, 2011 at 09:31 AM
Jordan, you make some good points.
I think we really need an objective, definitive source of information on what constitutes retrogression according to the law. People can say whatever they want; but I suspect there is an objective, systematic way of looking at the issue under the law.
Of course, if we were to reduce the number of district seats, then the districts would be completely new, and the issue of retrogression would not be as big an issue in the eyes of the law, at least in my opinion. I don't think federal law would require us to keep 11 seats when no other county in North Carolina has such a large board. That would just seem to exceed reasonableness.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | May 27, 2011 at 11:30 AM
I am posting the following on behalf of Jordan Green, who is having difficulty submitting comments here:
"I've read some guidance from the Justice Department on what constitutes retrogression. If you have a more objective source, please direct me to it.
"Re: whether reducing the size of the board would be retrogressive, going down to six districts has many, many attributes to recommend it — and I don't need to rehash them here — but the minority population in the High Point majority minority district would be significantly reduced in a 6-district plan."
Posted by: Joe Guarino | May 27, 2011 at 02:41 PM
Again, Jordan, the districts would all be necessarily different if we went down to six districts. You cannot compare the High Point majority minority district within the current, larger board with a theoretical High Point district that is one among six. That would be an apples and oranges comparison. I just think it would exceed the limits of reasonableness for the Justice Dept. to maintain that Guilford County must maintain a larger board than any other county in NC.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | May 27, 2011 at 02:47 PM
big news today 6-7-2011 from binker
http://www.news-record.com/blog/53964/entry/119911#nrcBlk_ArtComments
Posted by: triadwatch | June 07, 2011 at 09:58 PM
If anyone wants to support this - GET to RALEIGH tomorrow - contact AL BOULDIN at Guilford GOP - they are going to Raleigh to support this Bill tomorrow at 8 am - but you can go a llittle later.
Posted by: axelskater | June 07, 2011 at 11:14 PM
This is potentially a big deal. Let's hope it passes.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | June 07, 2011 at 11:31 PM