So now we find out that Jonathan Clayborne and our friends at the WDN have "concerns" about the construct of the proposed House District 9. Nonetheless, Jonathan says: "The proposed territory, House District 9, is one legislative leaders drew as they sought to craft majority-minority districts and comply with the federal Voting Rights Act." So we would ask our friends at the WDN: What is there to be concerned about in complying with the federal Voting Rights Act? Come now. Tell us what you have against the Voting Rights Act? Is that piece of legislation, and specifically its most recent extension, something the WDN is "concerned" about? In fact, did not the WDN support President Bush's signing of the bill to extend Section 5 of the VRA in 2006 for an additional 25 years?
Jonathan's hypocrisy shines bright as he says: "Critics of the plan say it doesn't meet the voting-rights test because it wouldn't give Beaufort County's black candidates a reasonable opportunity to win election in a district that belongs mostly to Pitt County." Note that he does not name the "critics." Note also that he does not disclose to the reader that there is nothing in the VRA or any other law that mandates one county having a "reasonable opportunity to win election in a district that..." presumably is made up of one's own county. If that's the law, we're sure some other counties in North Carolina, including Pitt, will be glad to learn that.
The fact is that electoral districts are drawn, under the VRA, based on two criteria: Race and population (a.k.a the "one person-one vote" concept).
District 9 as a "safe minority district" was drawn first, before the majority districts were drawn. The proposed district contains a majority of black residents. The reason it is constructed that way is to gerrymander it in favor of securing enough minorities to allow minorities a reasonable opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. To do that, the computer found the highest concentration of minorities the closest distance to the largest section of the district and as it turns out, that concentration is located in Washington. The algorithm the computer program uses (to make it comply with the VRA) is that it then expanded the district boundaries until it obtained the requisite number of residents sufficient to meet the one-person/one-vote criteria. Just that simple.
So again, what is there to be concerned about?
Jonathan leads his article with the fact that the Elections Director of Beaufort County, Kellie Hopkins, has written a letter to Rep. Bill Cook, R-Beaufort, expressing concern about "splitting precincts." Perhaps this too is Jonathan's "concern" or the concern of the unnamed "critics."
But wait. Don't we already split precincts? Certainly we do, when in fact it is necessary to comply with the Voting Rights Act. Note the configuration of School Board District 2, which runs all the way from the Pamlico County line at Hobucken through every precinct south of the river to within a couple of miles of Pitt County. And District 3 looks like a Rorschach inkblot as well. We have to ask: "Where were Jonathan's and Ms. Hopkins' 'concerns' for all these years while those districts have existed?" And Ms. Hopkins may recall a debacle caused by her office's officials once in the Edward precinct when voters were given the ballots for one school board district when they should have been given the ballots for the other, resulting in a special election with the winner of that special election getting just a handful of votes and less than the losing candidate in original election.
North Carolina State House Redistricting Plan in 2010 election
Yes, split precincts create problems, but it is not just in House District 9 that they do so.
It seems to us like the WDN is whining about spilled milk they did not clean up in years past, when their chosen map drawers wreaked havoc with split precincts. Not a word do we recall hearing either from the WDN or "critics," including the Democrat staff and members of the Elections Board.
So let us tell you what's really going on here. Ms. Hopkins is a registered Democrat. She has to be because she works for a Democrat board of elections. The chair of that board and Ms. Hopkins, as well as the WDN and its "critics" don't like proposed House District 9 because it favors Republicans more than it does Democrats. Just that simple. It puts many Democrats in a Democrat district with Democrats in Pitt County and it leaves Beaufort County predominately Republican. And we suspect that is what "concerns" the WDN and its "critics."
But for those who are interested in the arcane art of mapping, the configuration of District 9 is the most compact it could practically be and obtain compliance with the VRA and still meet the one-person/one-vote requirement while pulling out the smallest territory from Beaufort. As for Ms. Hopkins' expressed concern about the splits that contain only a handful of people, she is well within her domain to suggest those "orphans" be cleaned up to prevent the problem she mentions. But that is exactly what the public comment process is intended to do and one would assume such will be corrected without hers rising to the level a "major concern," as she puts it.
And if you want to get right down to the nitty-gritty, it is Rep. Edith Warren, D-Pitt who has the most legitimate "major concern" here. Unless changed, her days in the General Assembly are likely numbered and she will most likely be replaced by a black person, quite possibly one from Beaufort County and then Beaufort will have two votes in the House rather than just one.
Finally, we note that in the same article that the WDN acknowledges that the reason District 9 was so configured was to provide a safe minority district, Jonathan also says: "A Daily News analysis recently showed there is no statistical reason to divide the existing House District 6." Well, do tell. If that is true, it means that District 9 would then be out of compliance with the VRA and the one-person/one-vote requirement. Jonathan may not see a "statistical reason" but the folks in Raleigh aren't afforded that ignorance.
So what we have here is either: Hypocrisy on the part of the WDN with respect to the VRA or a rather ignorant "analysis." We suspect both.
We suspect the WDN supports the VRA when it helps Democrats but not when it helps Republicans, and ignorance as exhibited by the next sentence in their article, which says: "As things stand, the district falls within a plus-or-minus 5 percent window in terms of population change since the 2000 census." That's not the criteria used to comply with the one-person/one-vote requirement. The legal requirement is no more than a 5% deviation (or variance) from the average of all districts based not on the 2000 census, but on the 2010 census. For those interested, you divide the total population of the state by the number of seats (120) and each district must be within 5% plus or minus of that number. District 6 (as currently configured) had 70,385 residents in 2000 and 82,016 in 2010, or an increase of 11,631 or 16.5%. But the only operative number is the ideal number per district which is 79,462. So District 6 with 2,554 more than ideal is well within the 5%. But District 9 had 67,385 in 2000 and 88,399 in 2010 putting it 11.2% overpopulated in 2010 and thus illegal under the one-person/one-vote criteria. District 9 therefore has to be changed. And that is why neighboring Beaufort is impacted and the VRA is why the particular area of Beaufort was selected...to maintain a safe minority district to avoid "retrogression" under the VRA.
Now you know the truth, not the Democrat spin from the WDN.
Delma Blinson also writes the "Teacher's Desk" column for our friend in the local publishing business: The Beaufort Observer. His concentration is in the area of his expertise - the education of our youth. He is a former teacher, principal, superintendent and university professor.
