In redistricting, algorithms can’t replace communities

Once again, North Carolinians have been excluded from the redistricting process. This time, in Congressional redistricting, proceedings took place largely behind closed doors. Citizens were limited to one public hearing with little advance notice. The result: a Congressional map that is expected to elect eight Republicans and five Democrats, even if the statewide vote is evenly split. On Monday a state court allowed that map to be used for primaries to take place next March, to avoid further delays.

The Joint Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting did allow an Internet log, which members of the public used to express their concerns. “Why does Pitt County and literally the city of Greenville have to be cut in half?,” asked an observer. Another wrote “This is a remarkably non-transparent process!” One wrote of the 9th District, which joins parts of Mecklenburg, Robeson, and the Sandhills region, “some of these districts look very similar to problem districts from the current map.”

Such strange splits, which ensconce incumbents of both parties and lock in partisan inequity, are unsurprising, given the closed nature of the process. To quote state Sen. Jerry Tillman during floor debate, the process was “set up to be partisan.”

Defenders of the plan point out that some partisanship may arise from the natural patterns of population variation. This is no excuse. In the last 12 years, the same geography has led to maps that have elected anywhere from eight Democrats and five Republicans to the current partisan gerrymander of 10 Republicans and three Democrats. In other words, a five-seat swing, over one-third of North Carolina’s delegation, arose not from voter sentiment but from a redistricter’s computer. Somewhere in the middle are plans like the one from state Sen. Ben Clark, which would elect seven Republicans and six Democrats.

It may be tempting to take the process away from humans and assign it to a computer program. But programs are only as fair as what they are told to do. Experts who testified in this case drew maps by computer algorithm, focusing on features such as county boundaries. On average, their programs produced Republican-favoring delegations — much like the one that was passed by the General Assembly.

Both legislators and algorithms can do better. Federal law allows redistricters to honor “communities of interest,” defined as groups of people who share similar interests, and who may be affected in special ways by legislation. These interests can be racial, ethnic, religious, social, cultural, or economic. Across the nation, more than 20 states explicitly consider communities of interest when drawing state legislative districts, congressional districts, or both.

Citizens play a key role in telling legislators about communities of interest, but they need a way to do so efficiently. North Carolina legislators should not only invite public input, but allow the input to be digital in nature. Citizens can use new online tools available for 2021 redistricting: Nonpartisan groups such as the Princeton Gerrymandering Project and Tufts’s Metric Geometry and Gerrymandering Group are developing easy ways for citizens to draw and upload their communities. Properly used, a database of many communities can dilute the partisanship that dominated this month’s process — and leave legislators with no excuse for ignoring their constituents.

The last decade saw an unprecedented wave of partisan redistricting, enabled by advances in redistricting software. Now, civic technologists across the nation can fight fire with fire, leveling the playing field by helping reformers. In this way, engaged citizens can cast sunshine on the next round of redistricting — and ensure fair districts for all Carolinians.

This story was originally published December 2, 2019 at 11:22 AM.