N.C. congressional elections may be scrambled by ruling
RALEIGH, N.C. — It wasn’t surprising when a panel of federal judges struck down North Carolina’s congressional map, saying Republican state legislators went too far using political data to preserve GOP-held seats. But their suggested timetable to fix the problem startled.
The judges this week raised the possibility of redrawing the districts by mid-September so they could be used in November elections, or at least before the next session of Congress is seated in January. Late congressional elections could bring huge attention to these races if the party that controls the U.S. House hasn’t been settled.
Republican state legislative leaders said Tuesday a quick redraw of 13 congressional districts would lead to “unmitigated chaos and irreparable voter confusion.” But the state Democratic Party says voters “should not have to suffer through yet another election” with unconstitutional districts. Some previous boundaries approved in 2011 were struck down more than four years later as racial gerrymanders.
The three-judge panel asked the parties in the lawsuits — election advocacy groups, Democrats, Republican mapmakers and the state elections board — to say by Friday whether the 2016 maps should be used again. They also want to know whether the GOPdominated General Assembly should get another crack at redrawing the maps, potentially by mid-September.
The panel also intends to hire an outside expert to draw an alternative plan as a backup contingency. They’ve asked the parties for suggestions for a “special master” by Wednesday.
U.S. Circuit Judge Jim Wynn suggested primaries for redrawn seats could be held in November, with a general election before Congress convenes. Or there could be only a general election, presumably with any number of candidates affiliated with multiple parties running for each seat.
Republican legislative leaders say they would ask the Supreme Court to block any lower-court decision requiring a new map be drawn so elections could be held under them now.
With eight justices at present, a 4-4 split would mean the lower court ruling would stand.