Thread by @lekhashupeck

So, there's this mockery of a public hearing - but what about the proposed redistricting criteria themselves? Well, you can watch our training here:

But if you missed that / don't have time to watch, I'll walk through the criteria in this thread:

First of all, here's a link to the document containing all of the proposed criteria: ncleg.gov/documentsites/…

The chairs might have told you they're the same as in 2019, but they're actually quite different and much, much more vague.

I'm going to skip over Equal Population, Contiguity, and Counties, Groupings, and Traversals because those are all mandated specifically by the constitution or court precedent and are therefore always the same.

Racial Data.
Data identifying the race of individuals or voters shall not be used in the construction or consideration of districts in the 2021 Congressional, House and Senate plans.

This in essence means that racial data will not be loaded into the software legislators use to draw maps.

However, we know from the initial committee meeting that legislators are allowed to import files from elsewhere - I don't know what the mechanism will be to ensure that those files werent' made using racial data or if that is even possible.

Furthermore, just because racial data is not uploaded into the software does not mean that legislators don't have a natural awareness of the racial makeup of precincts, at least in their own districts.

I would honestly be surprised if they didn't - they run for election after all!

Also, the Voting Rights Act provides for the creation of districts where minority voters are able to elect candidates of their choice if certain conditions are met.

How are we supposed to comply with the VRA if we refuse to even look at racial data? I think we all know from our daily lives that "colorblindness" does not do anything to solve racial inequities

Ok, let's move on: VTDs. Voting districts (“VTDs”) should be split only when necessary.

(VTDs are basically the Census' version of precincts, FYI)

This criterion says that VTDs should be split only "when necessary" but it doesn't specify when it might actually be necessary - that could mean "almost never" or it could mean "whenever we feel like it"

We just don't know.

This is a theme we'll see over and over again in these criteria - vague to the point of not constraining map drawers at all (at least not in any way I can see)

Next: Compactness. The Committees shall make reasonable efforts to draw legislative districts
in the 2021 Congressional, House and Senate plans that are compact.

In doing so, the
Committee may use as a guide the minimum Reock (“dispersion”) and Polsby-Popper
(“perimeter”) scores

identified by Richard H. Pildes and Richard G. Neimi in Expressive
Harms, "Bizarre Districts," and Voting Rights: Evaluating Election-District Appearances
After Shaw v. Reno, 92 Mich. L. Rev. 483 (1993).

Whew - that was a long one!

This criterion raises a few questions for me.

Why, along with citing that academic paper, do they not explicitly name the minimum compactness scores that "the Committee may use as a guide"??

Y'all know what a redistricting nerd I am but that is a 106 page paper and I have not yet had time to find out where exactly those minimum scores are detailed.

Regardless, whatever minimum scores are listed there only "may be used as a guide" - so they also may not be used as a guide?

So there is actually no concrete standard for compactness in this criterion at all?

Alright, now Municipal Boundaries. The Committees may consider municipal boundaries when drawing districts in the 2021 Congressional, House and Senate plans.

Again that language - "may consider" which necessarily implies "may NOT consider" - this is another criterion that holds them to nothing.

Eg, they could split Greensboro 100 times and it would not technically violate this criterion.

In fact there is so little constraint in these criteria - they are effectively not rules at all - that you could split Greensboro 100 times and not technically violate any of these criteria.

Next criterion: Election Data. Partisan considerations and election results data shall not be used in the drawing of districts in the 2021 Congressional, House and Senate plans.

This is the same as racial data - it won't be uploaded into the software. They're trying to twist "partisan data won't be uploaded into the software" into "partisan advantage won't be built into the maps."

Those are not equivalent statements.

Now to Member Residence: Member residence may be considered in the formation of legislative and congressional districts.

This might be my favorite. I think they realized that explicitly saying "Incumbent Protection" didn't look great, so now we have this weird, mealy-mouthed "Member Residence" instead

However I could be wrong. Maybe it's not about incumbent protection. After all is just says member addresses "may be considered" - that could mean anything from "Incumbent Protection" to "purposefully targeting incumbents we don't like"

I think "Incumbent Protection" is more likely, but with our #NCGA as it is who really knows??

Finally, Community Consideration. So long as a plan complies with the foregoing criteria, local knowledge of the character of communities and connections between communities may be considered in the formation of legislative and congressional districts.

This one just makes me sad. It's the very last, which means it's the lowest priority. And yet it's the only one that even raises the possibility of considering the kinds of things that come up in public comments - the things real, regular people want for th eir communities.