Civil War in Raleigh
Just when you thought you'd heard it all...
Just when you thought you'd heard it all, comes the latest escalation in the war between Democrats and Republicans and the constitutional conflict between the legislative and judicial branches in Raleigh.
Whether this will hasten the day when voters may actually go to the polls and vote in a primary is unknown, but the details of this confrontation are both entertaining and appalling.
When last we heard from Johnston Superior Court Judge Knox V. Jenkins, he had just imposed new legislative redistricting plans that would make elections more competitive than they have been in years. Many regard this as good. But Democrats reject the notion that Judge Jenkins had any business making elections competitive.
Nor do many Democrats accept the theory that Judge Jenkins had the authority to impose his own plans after the N.C. Supreme Court ruled the legislature's earlier plans unconstitutional. The Supreme Court outlined several criteria for drawing districts and said if legislators couldn't comply with his timetable, Judge Jenkins could "seek ... and adopt temporary or interim remedial plans" for legislative elections and then seek approval from the U.S. Justice Department.
The legislature did create new redistricting plans and present them to the judge. He reviewed them and then imposed his own plans -- including a Senate plan based largely on a Republican map. Democrats complained that the judicial branch of government exceeded its authority by drawing plans, a duty reserved by the N.C. Constitution for the legislature. They say what we're witnessing is a historic constitutional confrontation between the legislative and judicial branches.
Now the Democrats have escalated this confrontation on two fronts:
• In a Senate budget financing plan aimed primarily at dealing with the state's funding problems, Democrats cut in half the number of law clerks that Supreme Court justices can hire. And they redrew Judge Jenkins' judicial district by merging it with an adjacent district -- in effect demoting Judge Jenkins from senior resident Superior Court judge. These moves save money -- and anger Republicans.
• Since the plans include some districts covered by the federal Voting Rights Act, they must pass federal review before going into effect. The State Board of Elections voted 4-1 in an emergency meeting Wednesday to ask a three-judge federal court in Washington, D.C., to review Judge Jenkins' plans and the state Supreme Court's ruling. The practical effect of this is to have three judges, perhaps including Democrats, doing the reviewing, rather than Republican lawyers in President Bush's Justice Department.
Those without a partisan dog in this fight may be inclined to view it as a petty snit between constantly warring political factions. Democrats have been gerrymandering Republicans out of power since Moses was in third grade, and Republicans have been using the courts to try to get it back.
What's worrisome is whether all this back-and-forth is diminishing public confidence in the courts' ability to deliver justice and the legislature's ability to deliver essential services. Both sides should take a deep breath and reconsider what they're doing, and why.
Maybe I'm not yet fully awake, but it looks like the Observer is more sympathetic to the Republican position in the redistricting battle. Of course, they did revert to form in the last paragraph when they imply that the legislature's primary function is "to deliver essential services."
CD