Meet the New Maps, Same as the Old Maps?
Understanding The Attempt to Squeeze Another Republican Seat out of NCs Congressional Delegation
On October 13, North Carolina Speaker of the House Destin Hall and President Pro-Tempore of the Senate Phil Berger announced their plan to redistrict North Carolina’s congressional map. In their accompanying joint statement, Speaker Hall said, in part “President Trump earned a clear mandate from the voters of North Carolina and the rest of the country, and we intend to defend it by drawing an additional Republican congressional seat.” Currently the delegation is 10 Republicans & 4 Democrats; Representative Hall and Senator Berger seem to be indicating that they’re aiming for an 11-3 map.
Why 11-3?
Why not be more aggressive? Why not try for a map with 12 Republicans and two Democrats? Or 13 Republicans, and one Democrat? The short answer is that it would be damn near impossible to pull-off. I searched Dave’s Redistricting1 published maps to see what folks had put out there. I found one 12-2 map (shout-out to map creator--username: lionfootballl).
The problems with our friend lionfootballl’s 12-2 map are: (1). It has population deviations greater than 1,000--far exceeding previously established criteria in North Carolina; (2) it has the potential to create a “dummymander”, where in a good year for Democrats, the Republican districts are drawn too competitively & therefore the map runs the risks of backfiring (more on that later).
So, they’re going for one seat, whose seat will it be? There’s little doubt that they intend to reshape North Carolina’s first congressional district, currently held by 2nd term Democrat Don Davis. North Carolina’s 1st district is considered by many (including the gold-standard Cook Political Report) to be the only toss-up district in North Carolina and perhaps the only competitive district in the entire Southeast. See below for a graph showing the Trump vote share in 2020 and the Republican vote share in 2024 in North Carolina’s current congressional districts. As you can see, NC-1 is the only district that’s anywhere close to 50% on either metric.
Democratic Representative Davis won NC-1 by less than two percentage points in 2024; in the same year, President Trump won it by around 3 percentage points. Joe Biden won NC-1 in 2020 & Senator Budd (R) won it in 2022. It doesn’t get much more competitive than that. There’s even an argument to be made that if it were not for Libertarian Tom Bailey (who did not live in the district), Davis might have lost & none of this would be happening.2
Given the competitive nature of the district, it wouldn’t take much to shift NC-1 in a Republican direction. Further, it’s adjacent to two Republican strongholds—NC-3 and NC-13. Either NC-3 or NC-13 could easily exchange some Republican voters for some Democratic voters without endangering the Republican incumbents (In 2024, Murphy won NC-3 77%-23% and Knott won NC-13 59%-41%).
The targeting of NC-1 likely has nothing to do w/ the incumbent Democrat Don Davis himself. Indeed, judging by vibes and news stories, or by his DW-Nominate score (a measure of congressional ideology visualized below), Davis is a fairly moderate Democrat (more conservative than 84% of Democrats in the 119th Congress). The goal simply to get a Republican in that seat. Full stop.
What is the Democratic Governor’s Role in All of This?
The General Assembly is controlled by Republicans in both chambers. But, why can’t the NC Governor (Democrat Josh Stein) simply veto that bill & keep NC1- competitive?
As the News and Observer’s Kyle Ingram noted, unlike many other states, the NC Governor doesn’t have the power to veto redistricting maps. That “narrowly tailored veto” was sponsored by none other than former Democratic Governor and current Senate candidate Roy Cooper (article from Rocky Mount Telegram from 1995 clipped ⤵️).3
Why Are They Being So Clear About the Partisan Aims?
You may be wondering why the Republicans are being so explicit here. They’re saying that they want to redraw the congressional lines with the express purpose of getting another Republican seat.4 The answer, I believe, is because they believe it may actually benefit them in the inevitable court fight.
Once passed, this map will be immediately challenged in court. And, given the racially diverse nature of Northeastern North Carolina, the challenge is likely to center around race with the challengers arguing that the new maps dilute the black vote & deny African Americans from electing a candidate of their choice.
If all of this goes down as expected, the legislative defendants will argue the goal of their maps is not about race, it’s about partisanship. Namely: they want more Republicans in office.
The US Supreme Court has said they may not be wild about partisan gerrymandering, but it’s outside of their purview & the majority on the current iteration of the North Carolina Supreme Court has made it clear that partisan claims are unlikely to get far with them, either. Partisan gerrymandering claims are likely DOA, at least for the time being.
So, a challenge based on partisanship is unlikely to be successful, whereas one based on race might be more likely gain a favorable ear by the courts. Which is why it’s not only ok, but maybe even beneficial for the Republican mapmakers to say that part out-loud.
To make matters even better for Republican redistricting success, a federal judge recently ruled against challengers in a racial gerrymandering claim on state legislative districts in the same area of the state as NC-1. According to North Carolina journalist Bryan Anderson, the court ruled that “the complaint hadn’t proved Black voters were being racially discriminated against, let alone meriting a redrawing of the map to create a majority-black Senate district.”
And, the US Supreme Court heard the Callois case out of Louisiana that, depending on the outcome, might make Section 2 claims of racial vote dilution, such as the kind that are likely to arise in a challenge of NC-1, moot.
What About This Dummymander Stuff?
So, what are the risks? The very nature of gerrymandering creates safe districts, so if there’s a public opinion backlash, legislators themselves will be insulated--at least at the congressional level. So, what about this “dummymander” stuff?
A “dummymander” is a term coined by political scientists Bernard Grofman & Thomas Brunell in a book chapter: According to Grofman and Brunell, “A dummymander is a gerrymander by one party that, over the course of the decade, benefits the other party & actually looks as if it was designed by that party rather than the party in power”
Because everything in redistricting seems to come back to North Carolina, it’s worth noting that their chapter cites North Carolina’s Democratically drawn redistricting in the 1990s as a classic dummymander. But, even though it’s locally relevant, I think the odds of a dummymander here are low for two reasons.
First, the whole idea of a dummymander (as originally conceived) is that changes occur *over time* that fundamentally change the electoral math. A mid-decade redistricting draw doesn’t allow much time for change (this map will only hold for 3 cycles--max).
Second, the chapter was published in 2005--before both the 2012 and 2022 redistricting cycles. Since then, (1) voting patterns have become more predictable & ingrained, (2) the measures & mapping software are better & more accessible, making it possible to be more precise.
So, What Might The New Map Look Like?
Obviously there’s no way to know for sure what the proposed map will look like until it is revealed, but one possibility is that the Republicans in the General Assembly might rehabilitate an old map, such as the one contained in Senate Bill 756 from the last round of redistricting. That map would have created 11 Republican and three Democratic Districts.5 The most competitive Republican seat under this map held by Republicans would be NC-11, which, according to the partisan metrics used by Dave’s Redistricting, would still have a 54%-44% Republican advantage.6
So, this map would, (1) likely not slice things too thin and create a dummymander, (2) sort Don Davis into the Republican stronghold of the the third congressional district, and (3) achieve the 11-3 map that that the Republican majority is after.
What’s The Timing?
The General Assembly is indicating that they will meet the week of October 20 to pass new maps. There’s no way to know for certain, but I would expect lawsuits within days, if not hours of the map’s passage.
Similarly, we have no way to know when the Callais decision will be released, but a recent New York Times analysis by Nate Cohen suggests it may not be until next summer. If that’s the case, we might expect *another* round of mid-decade redistricting after the 2026 election—although if NC-1 has already been altered, that 2026 redistricting may not affect North Carolina.
Oh, and there’s still another case pending on the current maps about the first congressional district.
Just in case the timing wasn’t confusing enough, North Carolina has a relatively early candidate filing period (Dec. 1-Dec. 19, 2025) compared to most other states—meaning that the timetable for all of this is fairly compressed. But, as we’ve seen in past redistricting litigation, filing periods can and have been altered if a court mandates it.
Clear as mud, huh?
Dave’s Redistricting is a poorly named, free, and very helpful app that allows people to—witout many technical mapping skills—draw legislative districts. The redistricting nerds, of course, knew all of this. For the rest of the folks reading this, yes, there are redisticting nerds.
See my chapter in the forthcoming Roads to Congress 2024 book for more on the context of those results.
For more, see See Anatomy of a Purple State, Chapters 12 & 13. Also see Brian Anderson’s piece in the Assembly: “Cooper’s Veto Predicament” and Jeremy Marvovich’s “Why Can’t North Carolina’s Governor Veto a Redistricting Bill?”
And, of course, saying that this is in response to California’s plan to gerrymander. Which they claim is in response to Texas’ mid-decade gerrymander. Which they claim is in response to Democratic gerrymandering elsewhere. And so on. Ad infinitum.
Under this map, Don Davis would reside in district 3. It’s important to remember, though, that members of Congress do *not* have to live in their districts. They can run anywhere in the state. Members of the Geeneral Assembly, on the other hand, do have to live in their districts.
Hat tip to Stephen Wolf for the link to the DRA map.