Posted on 04/30/2002 8:42:00 PM PDT by Dallas
RALEIGH, N.C., April 30 (UPI) -- The North Carolina Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected state
House and Senate districts drawn last year by Democratic leaders
of the state Legislature, agreeing with Republican claims that
the remapping divided too many counties.
The court, in a split decision, ruled that the new maps
violated the "whole-county" provisions added to North Carolina's
state Constitution in 1968, which say the General Assembly
"may not divide counties in creating Senate and House of
Representative districts except to the extent necessary to comply
with federal law."
In ruling that the new districts were unconstitutional, the
Supreme Court said counties should be divided only when necessary
to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act and ensure "one-
person, one-vote." It also said single-member districts
should be used unless there is a "compelling state interest" for
a multimember district.
"Enforcement of the WCP (whole counties provision) will, in all
likelihood, foster improved voter morale, voter turnout, and
public respect for state government, and specifically, the
General Assembly, as an institution," said the court's majority
opinion written by Chief Justice I. Beverly Lake Jr.
The justices said Superior Court Judge Knox Jenkins Jr., who
originally handled the lawsuit, should conduct a hearing on
whether there is enough time for the Legislature to draw
new maps for this year's elections.
The lawsuit prompted state and local officials to delay primary
elections that had been scheduled for May 7.
"The General Assembly should be accorded the first opportunity
to draw the new plans if so doing will not disrupt the timing of
the 2002 general election," the state's high court said. But it added that the lower court could adopt "temporary or interim remedial plans" if the Legislature does not have enough time to act.
The court's decision, which could be appealed to the U.S.
Supreme Court, was split along party lines, with five Republican
justices in the majority and the two Democrats dissenting.
One of the two dissenters, Associate Justice Sarah Parker, said
she agreed that the "2001 legislative plans duly enacted by the
General Assembly are far from perfect, and are certainly not
aesthetically appealing," but she added that the majority
"exceeded its constitutional authority by amending the state
Constitution."
Copyright © 2002 United Press International
Here in Calif. Ellen Tauscher, another Liberal muilti millionaress, who decided politics was where she wanted to play, was punished for not supporting Nancy Pelosi. Her district was ripped apart, with some of the wealthy areas being taken away. She now has to grovel for votes from the farmers in the lowlands of Dixon. 40-50 miles from her previous area (which was about 25 miles tops in any direction.
Note, nothing against the good people of Dixon. But Ellen Tauscher is more comfortable with a glass of Montrachet and brie, then she is with some fine baby backs and a brew.
My guess is Dixon will never be honored with a vist from Ms. Tauschers Lincoln Navigator driving entourage.
The redistricting was then supervised by the court.
This time the plan was to save all incumbents. Which is of course BS (but also not surprising).
I like NC's plan where all districts must conatin whole counties (as much as practical).
Taushcer's district is divided into four counties, containing only ortions of each.
My County (Solano) is small and is split between three representatives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.