The NPR Politics Podcast - Roundup: GOP Boosts Power By Gerrymandering North Carolina

Episode Date: October 27, 2023

Drawing congressional and statehouse districts in a way that solidifies a party's political power is a primary driver of the country's extreme, hyper-partisan political environment. Here's how the fight over new maps in Georgia and North Carolina is expected to reshape national politics.This episode: campaign correspondent Sarah McCammon, Georgia Public Broadcasting reporter Stephen Fowler, voting correspondent Ashley Lopez, and senior political editor and correspondent Ron Elving.The podcast is produced by Casey Morell and Elena Moore. Our editor is Eric McDaniel. Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Unlock access to this and other bonus content by supporting The NPR Politics Podcast+. Sign up via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org. Connect:Email the show at [e-mail] the NPR Politics Podcast Facebook Group.Subscribe to the NPR Politics Newsletter.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Hey, this is Paula Wolf in Raleigh, North Carolina. I'm looking out my office window at the beautiful colors of fall. In Chicago, where I grew up, fall lasted about a minute before the cold wind and snow came. This podcast was recorded at 1.08 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 27, 2023. Okay, here's the show. I love fall. Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Sarah McCammon.

I cover the presidential campaign. And I'm Ron Elving, editor-correspondent. Today on the show, we'll be talking about court fights around congressional maps. And we're going to talk about two states, Georgia and North Carolina, where those fights are playing out. Joining us today is Stephen Fowler from Georgia Public Broadcasting. Hey, Stephen, good to have you with us. Always a pleasure. And we're going to start in Georgia, where a federal judge has ruled that the state must create a new majority black congressional district in Atlanta. I know this follows some similar rulings in Alabama and elsewhere. What's going on? So first we have to go back to 2021.

That's when Georgia signed these new maps into law during the redistricting process. And the Republican-controlled legislature created a map that changed Georgia's congressional delegation from having eight districts that generally elect Republicans and six that elect Democrats to nine Republican-leaning districts and five Democratic-leaning ones. They did so by changing the contours of Atlanta's northern suburbs and a district that's held by Lucy McBath. She's a Democrat, a black woman, and made that district a very overwhelmingly Republican-heavy district. And so ultimately, she ran in a different district and won. But that's how we got the changes to Georgia's congressional maps. And there have been lawsuits over the maps, specifically the congressional maps and the state legislative maps. But for the congressional maps, there was the argument that Georgia's black voting population was nototing Rights Act and lawmakers have to go back to the drawing board and add a new majority black congressional

district based in Atlanta's western suburbs where there's been a huge explosion in population growth and specifically population growth driven by black residents. Right. I mean, these concerns have really come to a head because of some of the demographic changes in Georgia, right? Absolutely. So in the last decade, Georgia's population has grown by more than a million people. Most of that has been in the metropolitan Atlanta area, and most of that has been driven by non-white residents moving in. And so Georgia's demographics have changed. As you've probably noticed, Georgia's

politics has changed and it's become more democratic and is this purpley toss-up state. And the maps don't reflect that. And it's important to note the difference here when we talk about what this lawsuit did and what this lawsuit focused on. This wasn't about getting rid of a Democratic seat in Georgia's House delegation. This was about disenfranchising black voters. And Georgia has a history, one of several states that had to have federal preclearance of voting changes because of its discrimination towards black voters. And these were the first maps that were created after that preclearance no longer applied to Georgia. And this map is about disenfranchising Black

voters in Georgia, not necessarily disenfranchising Democratic voters in Georgia, even though one of the elements of this is that Black voters do overwhelmingly support Democratic candidates. Right. And Ron, as Stephen just mentioned, Georgia has a history of partisan gerrymandering thatingrich who was the only Republican in the Georgia House delegation. But after there was a court case called Shaw versus Reno that brought the Supreme Court to ban racial gerrymandering or apply it in these kinds of cases, they really redrew that map in Georgia. Suddenly there were two or three Democratic seats that were taken by African Americans. And the entirety of the rest of the state was represented by white Republicans. So they went from having just one Republican to having a heavy majority of Republicans

and having them all be white males. So that was... Which seems counterintuitive, right? It does indeed. And of course, at the time, it was all about race. But at the same time, it was not all about race because the partisan implications of that were that the Democrats lost an enormous number of seats just in Georgia alone. And that happened in a year, 1994, when the Republicans took their first majority of House seats from the South since the Reconstruction era. And they've had that majority ever since and largely because of these maps that concentrated the black vote and therefore largely the Democratic vote in as few districts as possible. So fast forward to today, the federal court, Stephen, as you said, has said that Georgia has to redraw the lines and soon before the 2024 election. What's likely to happen next? again, has already set a special legislative session date for November 29th, just after Thanksgiving. Now, at the same time, we do expect that the state is going to appeal this decision and try to get it stayed and say, no, you don't have to draw the new maps. Some of the arguments

is that, yes, this is not disenfranchising voters. The state also says, you know, it's added more districts and, you know, this is just where people live because, you know, when you draw these maps, Sarah, it's also about compactness and shape and there's more than just a simple single factor that goes into drawing these maps. And it's something that's very complicated. You can't just go in and change the boundary lines of one district without affecting everything around it. So it's going to take some time to figuratively and literally go back to the drawing board. And what are the political implications of this change, both for Georgia and maybe for

national politics? Well, for the Georgia perspective, there's already been jockeying behind the scenes of people positioning themselves to maybe run if there's a new district created or to think about what they might have to do if new boundary lines might put them in a different district. And so there's a lot of angst in the congressional delegation and their campaign staff figuring out what the lines are going to look like and what that means for their future. Now, this is one new majority black congressional district based west of Atlanta. What this doesn't necessarily mean, Sarah, is one more Democratic seat and one less Republican seat. And that may be a little bit surprising, but think about it this way. very specific lawsuit, under this very specific order and ruling, I want you to create this one

specific thing without eliminating any other existing opportunity districts or districts where there are already majority black districts or other majority minority districts in place. But given Georgia's changing demographics and given how you have to manipulate all of the boundaries, it could be possible that Republicans draw a map that meets the court's requirement, but still gives the same nine, five Republican advantage outcome and not have any other legal challenges to it. And before we move on to North Carolina, where something similar has been going on, Stephen, how likely is this issue in Georgia to be resolved before next year's election?

Well, you know, it is possible because the judge did give this timeline and did allude to what happened in Alabama, where there was a violation found of the Voting Rights Act that had a smaller black growth and smaller changes in demographics. And that was upheld and went through the process. So it is possible that Georgia will comply the first time or the appeal will be exhausted and comply the first time and not have to go through multiple, multiple rounds of map making. The key deadline here in Georgia is March of 2024, which is when candidates have to qualify for office. So it's not a lot of time, but it's not exactly a quick turnaround either. Let's take a quick break.

Stephen, stay with us. When we get back, Ashley Lopez will join us to talk about the fight in North Carolina. And we're back. Joining us now is Ashley Lopez, who covers voting for NPR. Hey, Ashley. Hey there. You've been reporting on redistricting and maps in North Carolina. What's been going on there? Yeah. So, I mean, this week, Republican

lawmakers in North Carolina approved new state house and congressional maps. And they drew maps, interesting, that potentially give Republicans at least three more seats in Congress. I should note, like during the last election, North Carolina's 14 congressional districts were divvied up evenly. So like seven seats that favor Republicans and seven seats that favor Democrats. And according to some analysts, these new maps that they passed this week give the GOP like 10 favorable seats and Democrats three seats with maybe one competitive seat. And if you know anything about North Carolina politics, this is actually a pretty significant advantage for Republicans, considering that North Carolina is actually pretty evenly split politically. So what led to this?

Well, it's something that happened during the 2022 election, the last election cycle, which is that the North Carolina Supreme Court became more conservative. And the court decided to revisit and reverse a past decision on the issue of partisan gerrymandering and basically gave lawmakers the go-ahead to partake in some partisan gerrymandering, which is, you know, redrawing the maps according to, you know, sort of like political interests specifically. And so that's what lawmakers did. They used this go-ahead as a invitation to redraw the maps, and that's where we are now. And Ron, this has been before the Supreme Court, and what they've said is that federal courts can't

and should not get involved in partisan gerrymandering, but of course, that racial gerrymandering is not allowed. Remind us of the history here. If you go all the way back to Shaw v. Reno in 1993, the Supreme Court got into racial gerrymandering with both feet and changed the country, essentially changed the southern states dramatically and changed the party that dominated the House of Representatives. So that they were willing to do, but when they were presented with the prospect of actually determining maps on the basis of partisan redistricting, throwing that out, even though it could be egregious in many cases, the court backed off.

They didn't want to draw 50 state maps, or at least those for all those states that have more than one congressional district. So they really weren't interested in taking that on. They know perfectly well that it's closely related to racial redistricting and gerrymandering, but they just didn't want it. But they did say that if state courts wanted to take it on, state Supreme Courts,

practically speaking, that would be okay. And we have seen that now in a number of states. It's pending in the state of Wisconsin. And Stephen, since we've been talking about Georgia, how did the federal court in this Georgia case think about that question of partisan versus racial gerrymandering? Well, Judge Jones was very, very clear in focusing specifically on the claims in front of him, which was that certain parts of the state that saw tremendous population growth, tremendous black population growth, did not have that same level of representation in it. And in the closing of this 516-page order, complete with a lot of data analysis and history and legal precedents and things, he wrote, the court reiterates that Georgia has made great strides since 1965, that was the Voting

Rights Act, towards equality in voting. However, the evidence before this court shows that Georgia has not reached the point where the political process has equal openness and equal opportunity for everyone. So even though partisan gerrymandering and racial gerrymandering in Southern states like Georgia and in other states go hand in hand, for this particular case, in this particular moment, there's really this distinction about who doesn't have access to the same representation and why. And so unlike some of the other cases and some of the other states where there's more blatant partisan gerrymandering, this is specifically about disenfranchising black voters in parts of a state that has seen a huge populational demographic shift because of them. And Ashley, what about North Carolina, another southern state that has its own, you know, challenging history? This has been a problem for Republican lawmakers in the South for a while now,

which is that, and a lot of this has to do with the fact that a lot of population growth, particularly in the South, has been happening among communities of color. So when you are trying to, you know, even if the outright goal is a partisan gerrymander, right, to create more seats for your particular party, doing that without, like, folding in, you know, the reality that people of color make up a bigger part of your populace, you know, creating more political advantages for those communities, which obviously in these cases, like Republicans in their legislatures don't want to do, creates a situation where there at least is the argument

for like racial animus as they draw lines. Even if Republicans were to outright say this was purely to garner more power for my particular party, and it has nothing to do with race. And, you know, I think this is going to continue to be a problem for Republicans because, you know, year after year, population growth continues to be in these demographics that Republicans are struggling with politically. And I think that's what's going to happen. That's what's happening in North Carolina as well. And folks have told me that, you know, the only way to find, you know, some evidence for. And that's going to be, you know, that's going to be the next step for what happens in North Carolina is,

can you find an argument for that? And, you know, will a court hear it? Stephen Fowler from Georgia Public Broadcasting, it's been so good to have you with us. Thanks so much. Thank you. Time now for a break. When we come back, Can't Let It Go. And we're back. It's time for Can't Let It Go. And we're back. It's time for Can't Let It Go, the part of the show where we talk about the things we just can't stop thinking about, politics or otherwise. And for that, we're going to start with Ron Elving. I can't stop talking about the connection between politics and baseball. It's time for the World Series once again. And it was not that long ago we used to say

that after the World Series was over in October, as it always was, then it was time to talk about politics. Is there an election next month? And that's when people would really start to pay attention to, say, the presidential election. We are really in another place now. And maybe baseball is a little less important. Maybe politics has gotten a little too important. But the World Series and that connection to baseball is maybe a little strained in our time. But one thing that's fascinating to me is we've got two wildcard teams, that is two teams that made it into the playoff with lesser records, didn't win their division, mating now in the World Series. And a lot of people are saying, gosh, has that ever happened before? The truth is, it has happened before. In 2002 and again in 2014,

both of the teams in the World Series had not won their division and had to get in by beating the division winners and clawing their way in as wild cards. But this year, we've got the Arizona Diamondbacks who are there with just 84 wins. Now, out of 162 games, that's just barely over winning half your games. It's 52%, 51.9 because baseball people like those little decimal points.

And the Texas Rangers are relatively lofty at 90 wins. But there were lots of teams in baseball, several teams in baseball, but did lots better during the regular season. So this is a little unusual. And in a political sense, it's, let's just say, a nice bouquet to Doug Burgum and all the other people out there thinking they don't have a chance. Hang in there, Doug. You never know. You might make it in as a wildcard. Yeah, it's all about the underdogs. Yeah. You know, Ron, I just want to bail on politics and talk about sports with you. I'm not a sports fan. And I used to think, honestly, that sports was like a little frivolous, like it doesn't really matter. But that's actually exactly why

I wish now today I were a sports fan, because I need something to think about that isn't like existential, you know? This truly is the great value of sports. And I have known people in my life who would say things like, well, could you stop talking about politics and talk about something that really matters? And they meant sports. And often at this time of year, they meant either the Boston Red Sox or the Chicago Cubs. But let me just say, whatever sport you choose, if it gives you real relief from thinking about the state of the world, go for it. Sarah, what can't you let go of this week? I have a historical event for old millennials, I suppose. As you've probably heard, Britney Spears is promoting her new memoir.

And related to that, the course of history could have been very different, apparently, because as we learned in Britney's memoir, there's a not-too-distant parallel universe in which she was cast as the lead role in The Notebook, which, of course, is the iconic romance film, particularly for my generation. So Brittany auditioned for that role. And this week, the Daily Mail released a clip of her audition tape, which you can probably find very easily online. It is an emotional performance. I'm looking now. Yeah.

I mean, she tears up. She cries. You feel the tension of the moment. And, you know, the film's casting director, Matthew Barry, told the Daily Mail that the production team was blown away by Brittany's performance, that it was actually a tough call. Wow. Of course, that role ultimately went to actress Rachel McAdams, who did a wonderful job as well. But just think about how things could have been different. I am really mad at all of my social media algorithms that I have not seen that video. Like I will have to spend now after we've wrapped this up a lot of time digging into this because I am very interested

in this. Although I cannot, I can't imagine the like chemistry between Ryan Gosling and Britney Spears that it would rival him and Rachel McAdams because I think they were dating for a while after that movie, but who knows? I mean, that film is iconic for a reason. So good. So, so good. All right, Ashley, what's yours? What I can't let go of this week is this article in the New York Times about couples who get married at the Stanley Hotel in Colorado. And if that name rings a bell, that's because this hotel

is the hotel that inspired Stephen King to write The Shining. So as you can imagine, couples in the article reported that it's tough to get people to RSVP to their like particular destination wedding because it's like too spooky for them. And this article is so great. There's so many great details in this, but I particularly like a quote from a bride who said she chose this venue because she wanted her wedding to feel like, quote, an elegant Victorian funeral. I figured this would be a good time to remind people that even though, you know, we're in the peak of spooky season,

there are people among us who have adopted spookiness as a lifestyle. And I love them for it these are like definitely my people it's so fun I actually stayed at that hotel once when I was a kid really you know I grew up in Kansas City and my family used to like our favorite vacation was to drive all the way across Kansas which is you know I love Kansas but it's monotonous drive to Colorado and then we stayed at that hotel and you, you know, I didn't think about it as spooky. It's old, but I guess it is kind of spooky. It's also beautiful. There wasn't, like, a bunch of blood

rushing out of, like, doors. You didn't see two young girls who looked a lot alike? Little blue dresses. If they show up as bridesmaids, I just don't want to be at that wedding. That's where we're going to leave it for today. Our executive producer is Mithoni Muturi. Eric McDaniel is our editor.

Our producers are Elena Moore and Casey Morrell. Thanks to Christian Def Callimer, Lexi Schapitel, and Jung Yoon Han. I'm Sarah McCammon. I cover the presidential campaign. I'm Ashley Lopez. I cover voting. And I'm Ron Elving, editor-correspondent. Thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.