Thread by @lekhashupeck

Here at joint House and Senate Redistricting for the discussion and vote on redistricting criteria #ncpol

Apparently there are a bunch of amendments that aren't yet ready for discussion, so the committee will go at ease until 9:15am

We're being pushed back until 10am. Apparently all amendments are from Dems - I'm actually a little bit surprised considering how vague / unfinished the proposed criteria seem.

Still here, still waiting 😪

House is on the schedule to convene at 11am, so I assume we will get pushed to the afternoon

Staff is passing out something to the members so we may hear some amendments soon after all?

Ok! We're back!

Rep. Hall is running this meeting and making sure we all know that everything is late because Democrats didn't have their amendments ready

Now Hall is praising the committee for choosing not to use partisan and racial data 🙄 when we all know that the way those criteria are written leaves a million loopholes to that

Not using the data in the software does not mean the outcomes will be fair

Hall also says that the order of the criteria does not imply any kind of ranking by priority - which is an even bigger mess but fits what seems to be the current MO - maximum vagueness and license

Hall says there will be a committee meeting next week to discuss the public hearing schedule

Hall also said the public can use the general portal to submit comments about the public hearing schedule

Hall says this is not actually a formal joint committee, so there will have to be two separate votes on each amendment - one for each house

Newton is addressing how county clusters will be chosen - and so far has not acknowledged the fact that there will be multiple optimum county clusters which all meet the Stephenson requirements

Newton says county groupings will be voted on separately at a later date

Newton says that there is not sufficient evidence of racially polarized voting for racial data to be relevant to redistricting

Sen. Blue points out that Stephenson says VRA districts need to be drawn first before clusters are chosen, and that choosing clusters before the requisite analysis is drawn leaves you open to the process being upturned if thar analysis is done later

Newton replies that because racial data was not used in 2019 it is necessarily still valid this year. Blue says that that was because the case was limited to particular districts wrt a particular gerrymandering issue

Blue reiterates that Stephenson says that VRA districts must be considered before county groupings are chosen. He gets brushed off by the chair.

The first amendment offered is to add a sentence that says "the committee will draw districts that comply with the Voting Rights Act" to the no racial data criterion

Sen. Clark takes up the same issue, as Blue, quoting Stephenson that VRA districts must be considered first.

The amendment passes.

We're not getting to see copies of the amendment text - staff says we can't get copies until after the meeting

Clark offers an amendment to the compactness criterion to add cut-edges analysis. Hall says that the chairs aren't familiar with that measure.

Sen. Marcus says that the committee should include newer more modern methods, and that if the chair is unfamiliar then we can pause and let him become familiar with them.

The amendment fails

Clark is offering an amendment to the contiguity criterion which adds language stating that point contiguity will not be permitted.

Chairs are asking the committee to adopt the amendment - it's part of the Stephenson ruling anyway so it doesn't change much.

The amendment passes

Rep. Reives offers an amendment referencing the free elections clause of the state constitution - this is one of the parts of the constitution that was used to rule extreme partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional

The Reives amendment says something about prohibiting partisan advantage. Hall says that they're already dealing with partisan gerrymandering is by not using partisan data and this would require partisan data.

Reives and Clark say that partisan data would only be used to analyze maps not to construct them. Amendment fails.

Reives offers an amendment that says that municipalities, counties, and VTDs will not be split in order to favor any candidates or parties

Seems like the Republican party line is that any use of partisan data, even for analysis, is inherently bad - basically their stance on racial data. Because it's a lot easier to hide and justify your gerrymanders when they can't be analyzed.

There was some confusion - Sen. Marcus got called for an amendment that turned out to be from Sen. Clark.

Clark's amendment is to delete the criterion that says Member Residence will be considered. Hall says this is a traditional redistricting criteria and it should stay.

Hall is not noting that this is not the traditional criteria of incumbent protection, just "member residence may be considered" - ie it could be used for targeting as well as protection with the way it is worded

Blue argues against its use for Congressional members because they don't have to live in their districts. Amendment fails.

Sen. Marcus offers an amendment that says the residence of members shall not be considered. Marcus says that public comments have made it clear that they don't want legislators to be able to draw districts that favor themselves.

Wait this only addresses Congressional residence, but allows it to be used to protect legislators from double bunking.

She does address the vague wording of the proposed criterion. But despite what she said the amendment would protect legislative incumbents

Reives asks when chair believes, under the current wording, residence may be considered. Hall basically says it could be used for whatever members want. So... Yep.

Marcus reiterates that the wording is vague enough that legislators would be treated differently, some protected, some not. Amendment fails.

Hall reads the next amendment which would replace the current member residence with the incumbency protection language from 2019. No legislator claims the amendment so it is put aside.

Clark withdraws an amendment on municipal boundaries.

Reives withdraws the next amendment as well.

Sen. Marcus proposes an amendment that would add a criterion thar would add analysis of the partisan outcome of maps after maps are proposed.

Same R line - knowing whether maps are fair is bad and partisan 🤷🏽‍♀️ Amendment fails.

Clark offers an amendment that would establish a priority order for the criteria. Sen. Daniel says they're not "prioritizing" criteria they're "harmonizing" them - ie they are actively choosing a free for all.

Marcus asks how they will decide when criteria conflict. Daniels says they will comply with state and federal laws??? That doesn't address the question.

Marcus tries again to explain the problem with no prioritization but we go straight to a vote and the amendment fails.

Sen. Blue offers an amendment that references the VRA - he's explaining that the state has spent millions - more than 50 million - defending maps that have been struck down

I can't tell what the exact language is because we're not allowed to have copies for some reason

Daniels says this amendment is irrelevant bc they already accepted an amendment that says they will comply with the Voting Rights Act.

Clark asks how we can comply with the Voting Rights Act when we don't use the racial data needed to comply with it. Daniels says if they're presented with evidence of racially polarized voting they'll deal with it then.

Clark asks whether the Stephenson requirement that VRA districts are drawn first doesn't make it incumbent on the NCGA to do that analysis itself.

Daniels is dismissive - Blue raises that he's not aware of any evidence that they're is no racially polarized voting in North Carolina

Newton says that we don't need to cite every piece of redistricting case law. Sen. Lowe (I believe) argues in favor of the amendment being accepted.

Rep. Hawkins asks Daniel how to address racial gerrymandering if it is found.

Chairs say that the Covington maps were fine without racial data so clearly there should be no problem 🙄

Amendment fails.

Rep. Hawkins proposes an amendment that addresses "Community Consideration" ie "Communities of interest"

This adds language that the committee "shall make reasonable efforts to preserve communities of interest" - references 2019 - and adds a definition of communities of interest

Again, the public can't see the text of any of these.

Hawkins says "2019 is the floor, not the ceiling"

Hall says that the current criteria already protects communities - it doesn't. It literally makes communities the lowest priority AND says you don't have to consider them if you don't want to.

Sen. Marcus makes the point that all of the public comment on criteria advocates for a community of interest criterion like this one. Also points out that the "may" language means it has no teeth as written.

Amendment fails

Clark proposes am amendment asking that VTDs only be split when in conflict with higher priority criteria. Daniel says there is no prioritization so this is irrelevant.

Amendment fails

Rep. Harrison purposes an amendment that would change the equal population standard for Congressional districts to +/- 150 people.

This is a redistricting issue that I'm actually not very familiar with - if someone could explain the legal status of something like this, I would truly appreciate it.

Hall says that zero deviation is the safest legal path and asks the committee to vote against.

Clark brings up differential privacy as the other reason for this criterion change.

Amendment fails.

It looks like there's one more amendment from Clark - on Counties, Groupings, and Traversals

The amendment would set up a procedure for choosing the county cluster map - that the committee would choose the maps which create the closest to zero population deviation in the districts.

It would also limit the number of county splits to 14, preserve communities of interest, and require that any Congressional districts that can fit inside a single county will be drawn within this county.

Daniel says that the amendment is inappropriate because county clusters will be chosen later and the current criterion is adequate.

Amendment fails

Rep Harrison is asking when there will be an opportunity to propose process elements like transparency. Hall says that since it will take 3 weeks (ridiculous!) for staff to process data there will be time for that.

Rep. Hawkins again asks the question of how the committee will act if there is evidence that a proposed map contains racial gerrymanders.

Clark brings up the Stephenson VRA districts requirement again and is ignored. Marcus tries to note the changes to the criteria that will show be voted on.

Staff is acting like getting county population is some mammoth task that they can't do anytime soon. This is shady as hell.

BTW Hall tried to act like the fact that one Republican and once Democratic amendment were adopted meant things were fair when Republicans only offered one amendment AND WROTE THE CRITERIA IN THE FIRST PLACE

Committee is adjourned