The latest hot topic in the world of North Carolina politics is sadly, even maddeningly, familiar. Republican leaders of the General Assembly plan once again to redraw the state’s U.S. House district map as they seek to increase their party’s already lopsided edge in the state’s congressional delegation.
Even one additional seat – bringing the GOP total to 11 versus the Democrats’ three, in a state where overall vote totals are much more evenly divided – could be a big deal. Just ask President Trump, who has triggered a wave of Republican redistricting to try to protect his party’s ultra-narrow House majority and his own grip on power.
October 20 is when legislators are set to reconvene in Raleigh with redistricting high on the agenda. Perhaps they’ll even take another whack at resolving disputes between House and Senate Republicans that have left the state without a budget nearly four months into the fiscal year. But this is a legislature, and a party, whose preoccupation is clear, and it’s not the budget. It’s gaming the rules for voting and elections to keep them in the driver’s seat no matter what.
It happens that Oct. 20 also will mark the start of a trial putting a flagrant example of that preoccupation to the test. The trial, to be held in federal district court in Winston-Salem, stems from a challenge by voting rights advocates to a bill enacted into law in 2023.
According to the plaintiffs – Democracy North Carolina, the North Carolina Black Alliance and the state chapter of the League of Women Voters – the law that began as Senate Bill 747 intentionally discriminates against young voters, in violation of the 26th Amendment guaranteeing the right to vote to citizens 18 or older.
Beyond that, it allegedly infringes on the right to vote more generally with its tightening of rules for registration during early-voting periods. Votes could be thrown out after they were cast, the plaintiffs argue, and without the affected voters having a fair chance to sort out any registration issues.
In their briefs and other filings, lawyers for the plaintiffs shine a harsh light on Republican legislators’ dealings with the party’s so-called election integrity activists – folks whose aim seems to be not only to ensure that elections are honest, but also that voting opportunities are restricted in ways that work in Republicans’ favor.
Evidence gathered by the plaintiffs in support of their lawsuit suggests deep involvement by a group calling itself the N.C. Election Integrity Team and by North Carolina-based attorney Cleta Mitchell, founder of the Election Integrity Network. Mitchell is well-connected to the Trump regime; she joined the notorious post-election phone call in which the president-elect urged Georgia officials to “find” enough votes to reverse his loss there.
College voters snubbed
In meetings with legislators as S.B. 747 was being drafted, Mitchell is said to have made a strong case against so-called same-day registration, by which voters can both register and cast their ballots on the same trip to the polls. That voting method has appealed to younger, more transient voters and in particular to college students, who Republicans have tended to view as an unhelpful demographic for their candidates.
As quoted by the plaintiffs in a filing as they sought to keep their lawsuit alive while legislators tried to have it dismissed, Mitchell complained about how Democrats had used same-day registration and other techniques to help college students vote.
“The easier you can make it for their demographics to be able to participate, that’s more votes for the Democrats,” she was quoted as saying in reference to college students, who can just “roll out of bed, vote, and get back into bed.” Perhaps the kindest rejoinder to that observation would be, “So what?”
For his part, Jim Womack of Sanford, head of the N.C. Election Integrity Network, had similar views regarding college students, according to the same filing. “He noted the limited ‘attention span’ of ‘young voters’ who are ‘social butterflies’ and are motivated to vote at the last minute by ‘beer drinking buddies or college student friends,’ ” the plaintiffs asserted. With an attitude like that, no wonder Womack joined Mitchell in urging lawmakers to raise the bar for same-day registrants – even with the 26th Amendment staring them in the face.
The actual degree to which S.B. 747 was shaped by the influence of Mitchell and Womack with their anti-youth voting agenda remains a matter of dispute, concluded U.S. District Judge Thomas D. Schroeder. Mitchell’s own attorneys assert that she had “no role” in crafting the bill’s same-day registration features. That such a dispute exists is a key reason why Schroeder on July 21 ruled that the voting advocates’ lawsuit should proceed to trial instead of being tossed.
Since then, The News & Observer of Raleigh reported, the judge agreed with the plaintiffs that Mitchell has been dodging service of a subpoena requiring her to appear at the trial. He approved service via mail and email, rather than only in person. It seems fair to say that a reluctance to testify under oath doesn’t make her version of events more convincing.
Lines of influence
When legislators gather in Raleigh as the trial gets under way, we can imagine that ears will remain cocked in the direction of Winston-Salem. That’s while they take care of the nasty bit of map-drawing business assigned them, directly or not, by Donald Trump.
At Trump’s bidding Texas led the way, as its legislature short-circuited the normal once-a-decade redistricting cycle to approve a map likely to result in a five-seat Republican gain.
California’s legislature, urged on by Gov. Gavin Newsom, answered with a redistricting scheme that could swing five seats toward the Democrats. That proposal, however, must gain approval in a statewide referendum.
North Carolina House Speaker Destin Hall calls the plan backed by him and Senate President Phil Berger a response to Newsom, a favorite bogeyman in Republican circles. He doesn’t bother to note that the Tar Heel public won’t have a say. Neither will Democratic Gov. Josh Stein, who isn’t allowed to use his veto pen on redistricting bills.
As to whether Berger, who faces an unusually competitive primary campaign next spring, is pushing the remap to win Trump’s endorsement, the Senate boss acts shocked that anyone would suggest such a thing. Color us unshocked.
The redistricting gambit is expected to focus on the 1st District, covering several northeastern counties. It’s the only district where the 2024 election yielded a close race, won by moderate Democrat Don Davis of Snow Hill. Giving that district a more Republican tilt, however, likely would mean diluting the GOP advantage elsewhere, including districts represented by Greg Murphy of Greenville and Brad Knott of Raleigh.
What’s a sure bet is that voting rights advocates who have made North Carolina ground zero for anti-gerrymandering lawsuits will beat another path to the courthouse if the congressional map is refashioned. They could argue that by making the 1st District lean Republican, legislators would be discriminating against the sizable African-American population in the state’s northeast – voters who helped elect Rep. Davis, who is Black.
That kind of discrimination is a no-no under federal law – although the U.S. Supreme Court may be on the cusp of weakening the rule as it applies to the drawing of voting districts. Yes, the high court too has been prone to giving President Trump what he wants. And a free hand in gerrymandering congressional districts six ways from Sunday is high on his wish list.
