Editorials - 04/04/02

Redistricting is casting election in uncertain terms

Justices will hear arguments today (Thursday) from state Democrats and Republicans, with each side trying to make a case for their ideas on redistricting, a process the state Legislature must endure every 10 years to realign voting districts according to the most recent census information.

At issue is whether counties can be split into different legislative voting districts. Both sides agree that 40 counties, including Jackson, covered by the 1965 federal Voting Rights Act may be split. The Democrat-controlled Legislature based its redistricting map, which splits many counties, on a 1983 federal court decision that says if 40 counties can be subdivided to create districts that don't dilute minority voting strength, then the rest of the state's counties can be split if necessary.

But the state constitution says that counties cannot be split, and Republican leaders have seized on that provision to mount a court challenge of this year's redistricting plan.

It is especially ironic that these challengers, who would have the Legislature resolve some of these issues through the creation of sprawling multimember districts - some would include a larger geographical area than congressional districts - are some of the same politicians who opposed multimember districts during the last session.

Given the limitations placed on the Legislature by the Voting Rights Act, and acknowledging the fact that partisan politics determined the shape of the General Assembly's redrawn district maps, we think the plan under attack from disgruntled Republicans is about as good as it can be - especially for Jackson County.

Currently two state senators - one Republican and one Democrat - represent Jackson County, giving our citizens a strong and balanced voice in Raleigh. That is not likely to change under the Legislature's plan. But if the challengers prevail, those two districts may be combined, and Jackson could lose a veteran voice on the Senate floor.

With regard to the state House, Jackson would become part of a smaller, single-member district that would be compacted geographically.

The delayed primary is directly affecting our school board as members are elected at the time of the May primary and take office in July. Because of the delayed vote, one current member who did not choose to seek re-election will be forced to remain past the expiration of his term. Even if the Supreme Court gave a quick approval to the current plan, we couldn't get an election done by July.

If the primary is delayed until August or September, the compacted campaign time for the general election would make it difficult for the parties to get their message across and would favor incumbents and well-know candidates, which could especially impact the race for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Republican Jesse Helms.

With the already-delayed primary, candidates across the state are in limbo. Without a primary date, they can't plan advertising commitments or campaign strategies. And it is a well-known fact that voter turnout suffers any time an election date is changed.

While we don't know who will win in court, we know who will ultimately be the losers - the people of North Carolina.

Back to Archive: 04/04/02.