[BLANK_AUDIO] I'd like to bring the joint select committee and congressional redistricting committee to order for a few moments would everybody please take their seats. We're going to have about a 10 or 15 minute break to get some papers printed up and ready to go for sitting as part of our agenda. But what we will do first is identify sergeant at arms that are here today and we've got from the house side we've got Reggie Seals, Marvin Lee, David Laten and Terry McCraw and then Then we've got senate sergeant in arms Jim Hamilton, Ed Kessler, Pearl Roche. These folks help us make this meeting organized and run efficiently and we wouldn't be able to do a good job without them. I appreciate everybody yesterday coming out and helping us accomplish our public hearing. We heard a lot of good thoughts and advice and I hope that you've taken some time to read the public comments that came over the Internet, so that we can be able to talk about this subject matter from an intelligent level. And representative Lewis and I want to again, remark about the fact that the staff has done a remarkable job for us in putting together yesterday's public hearing, and this meeting. And the IT folks were miracle workers in trying to coordinate six sites This past rally to do a good job and allow us to be able to reach out across the state with this public hearing that was yesterday, and it was successful and we're thrilled that they could do such a good job for us. All right, the first point and I'm gonna have Mr [UNKNOWN] cCerk do a roll call, and would you just, as your name is mentioned, please recognize it, or if we hear quiet we know that you're not here. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Senator Sanderson. >> Present. >> Senator Brown. >> Here. [INAUDIBLE]. Senator Clark. >> Present. >> Senator Harrington. >> Here. >> Senator Hise. >> Here. >> Senator Lee. >> Here. >> Senator McKissick. >> Here. >> Senator Smith. >> Here. >> Senator Smith-Ingram. >> Here. >> Senator Wells. >> Here. >> Senator Blue. >> Here. >> Senator Ford. Ford, Senator Wade, Senator Barefoot, Senator Randleman. >> Here. >> Senator Jackson. >> Here. >> Representative Lewis. >> Here. >> Representative Jones. >> Here. >> Representative Hager. >> Here. >> Representative Stevens. >> Here. >> Representative Hurley. >> Representative Stan >> Here >> Representative Jordan >> Here >> Representative Johnson >> Here >> Representative Brawley >> Present >> Representative Harpshaw/g >> Here >> Representative Davis >> Here >> Representative McGrady >> Here >> Representative Mcshaw >> Here>> Representative Cothan/ g >> Here >> Representative Haines >> Here >> Representative Moore >> Here Here. >> Representative Farmer Butterfield >> Here >> Representative Dickson >> Here >> Okay, representative Pearly >> Here>> Okay, thank you. And I think my name was omitted So I might just mention the fact that I am here >> Here, yes sorry >> [LAUGH] >> Despite a long day yesterday All right, we've got some work to do today. We have just about 15 minutes and may I ask you to just stay at ease for about 15 minutes and then we will begin the meeting and have the folded agenda before us. Representative Louise do you have any other thoughts or comments you would like to share? Okay then just at ease for about 10 to 15 minutes, thank you [BLANK_AUDIO] We'll prove maps going back I think to 92 If I'm not mistaken spend a few minutes taking a look at that and see from it's beginning on to the latest maps of what has transpired I think it would be very educational. Thank you [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO]
[SOUND] All right, let's call this a joint select committee on redistricting back into order. You have a copy of the agenda before you. And there's just one correction on the agenda, when on this right quadrant under senate it had Harry Warren, it should be Senator Harry Brown, so fix that. Okay, well yesterday we had a chance to have a public hearing and I think each of you knows that the general assembly based on the Harris case, there was an opinion given by the three judge panel and we are responding to that, we still believe that the maps that are presently enacted are fair, legal and constitutional. as has been validated by five different bodies including the Justice Department, including a three judge panel, including the supreme court on three occasions and so under the circumstances we are taking precaution and we anticipate some reaction from the supreme court on the motion for stay, which will allow the election to continue forward and then allow the court case to continue on it's normal course. Which would be, in my judgment a better way to go since the election has already been started and we would not want to disenfranchise the voters in any manner. That being said we're are going to begin our agenda. Representative Louis would you have any comments at this time? No. Okay the we're gonna go on to the second, which is discussion of the criteria of the 2006 theme, contingent Congressional maps and what these are a criteria as to how these maps should be drawn to try to meet the requirements imposed by the court and also remain within the legal limits of the law. Representative Lewis. >> Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the joint select committee on congressional redistricting and members of the public, I too would like to offer a brief historical perspective of what brings us here today. In 2011 after the release of the census, this general assembly set out to create fair and legal congressional districts. In doing so, the 2011 process included an unprecedented number of public hearings. 36 scheduled before the release of the maps, seven after the release of our original proposed districts, ten dedicated to receiving public comments on the release of the entire plan, and an additional ten after the release of our respective proposals for the legislative districts. Additionally, we provided easy public access for public comment via the North Carolina general assembly website and invited additional written comments to both e-mail and the US postal service. Senator Rucho and I think the thousands of citizens who exercise their rights to offer comments and that said of public hearings or submit written comments. All of those comments were reviewed by the chairs and preserved as a permanent record of citizen input on these important task. We also took back then the unprecedented step of providing the leadership of the minority. Parties in the house and the senate and the legislative black focused specialized computer hardware and software in their respective offices along with stuff support which was available to all members. The 2011 general assembly did ultimately adopt redisticting plans as I recall Lassy along party lines, is unfortunately so many items here are decided. For purposes of my discussion today I will referrer to the 2011 plans as the enacted plans. The enacted congressional redisticting plan of 2011 was first precleared by the United States department of Justice five of the voting rights act. The enacted congressional redistricting plan was then challenged in state courts through what is know as the Dickson versus Rucho case. The plan was affirmed by three judge panel and by the North Carolina Supreme Court. The enacted congressional redistricting plan has been used to to elect members of the US house of representatives in 2012, and
2014 and is also seen citizen files for election in each of the 13 districts these year. Further voting has began and we are informed by the state board of election that more than 16000 citizens have already requested you to vote by mail. Unfortunately the enacted plan was challenged again in what is known as the Harris versus McCrory case. In that decision, in which we respectfully disagree with the three judge panel, it was found that the 1st congressional district in the 12 congressional districts or racial gerrymanders and they ordered new maps be drawn by February 19th and that the election for US House not be held under the current maps. While as Chairman Rucho said we are confident that a stay of this decision which interrupts an election already in progress would Will be granted and in the inactive map will often be upheld on appeal. We are all required to begin the process of drawing a 2016 contingent Congressional map. I reiterate the laws of 2011 plan was dictated by the Cromatty/g and stricken decisions of the US Supreme Court we will move forward to establish a plan based on the Harris opinion. This process began with the appointment of this joint select committee and continued yesterday with public hearings held in six locations across the state Forward, to establish a plan based on the [UNKNOWN] opinion. This process began with the appointment of this joint select committee and continued yesterday with public hearings held in six locations across the state with more than each of you you know what counts, Mr. Chairman, through your direction I would like to submit to the committee a series of proposals to establish criteria for the drawing of the 2016 contingent congressional map. >> Yes Sir. Jaime Louis you can begin and go through the rotation as you plan. >> Mr Chairman, I'd like staff to distribute the 2016 congressional, pardon me, the 2016 contingent congressional plan for [INAUDIBLE] beginning with equal population to the members. [BLANK_AUDIO] Sergeant in arms will be passing this out and we're going to take our time,read it thoroughly, and then representative Lewis will explain it, and then we'll debate each of them as we move forward. [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [COUGH] [BLANK_AUDIO] Has everyone received a copy of the first one? And they're not in any order as far as priorities or anything. They're just going to be set forward. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Okay. Hang on. [BLANK_AUDIO] And this first one is called Equal Population [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] All right. Does everyone have a copy? Now let's be clear ladies and gentlemen, in the audience the members of the committee will be participating with in this meeting. I know we have another members that have come here within Christian. We're delighted to have them and recognize that every member that is here can submit a reimbursement form but the people that are on the committee will be the ones participating in today's business activity of committee meeting. All right, representative Louis first one. >> Mr. Chairman, as I explained this one I would request that the Sergeant at Arms go ahead and distribute the second one which is entitled Continuity Mr. Chairman, the first criteria i would urge the committee to adopt is that each district should be of equal population.
This pretty self explanatory this is in line with the one person one vote, it simply says as members can read the number of persons in each Congressional district shall be as nearly equal as practical as determined as the most recent censors which should be the 2010 censors, Mr. Chairman I move the adoption of this criteria [BLANK_AUDIO] Are you waiting for a second? >> I've got a motion from Representative Louis to move forward with adoption of this first equal population, and Representative Stevens thank you discussion ladies and gentlemen. All right, I see none, all in favor of the adoption of the equal population. I'll go back, we are gonna go ahead and we're gonna do is call vote on this, and so in saying we are gonna have a roll call from the clerk on equal population, please identify or just say I or nay please, and Mr. Rubiest. >> Senator Rucho? >> I. >> Chairman Louis? >> I >> Representative Jones. >> I. >> Representative Bradley. >> I. >> Representative Chatham. Representative Davis. >> I. >> Representative Palmer Butterflied. >> I. >> Please speak up please. >> Representative Heinz. >> I. >> Representative [UNKNOWN] >> I. >> Representative Curly. >> I. >> Representative Jackson. >> I. >> Representative Johnson. >> I. >> Representative Jordan. >> I. >> Representative McGrady. >> I. >> Representative [UNKNOWN] >> No. >> Representative Moore. >> I. >> Representative Stem/g. >> I. >> Representative Stevens. >> I. Representative Dickson. Okay. >> You do have Senator [UNKNOWN] is here now. >> Yeah, okay. >> Okay. >> Senator [UNKNOWN] >> I. >> Senator Barefoot/g >> I. >> Senator Blue. >> I. >> Senator Brown. >> I >> Senator Clarke. >> .I >> Senator Ford. Senator Harrington. >> I. >> Senator Heiss. >> I. >> Senator Jackson. >> I. >> Senator Lee >> I >> Senator McKissick, >> I Senator Randleman, Senator Sanderson, Senator Smith, Senator Smith-Ingram, Senator Wade, Senator Wells. >> Okay. >> Good. >> Right. >> Only one neigh. >> Okay. Laddies and gentlemen we have had the row vote and there was just one negative. So the first criteria is establishing equal population has passed. All right, representative Louis. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, thee next criteria I propose committee adopt is accountability simply says that-. >> Mr. Chairman we don't have copies of it yet. >> Please repeat that again. >> I did not have a copy and perhaps I'm sitting a little out of the way for people. >> Okay, sergeant at arms, would someone please get the continuity criteria? [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] Mr. Chairman if you would please as a chair, I would respectfully request the next criteria on $10 for his political data if that could be distributed to the community perhaps to save a little time. >> Okay, that's fine [UNKNOWN] would you distribute the the third criteria which is political data, Representative Louis, would you want staff to read this while the specifics they presented or do you prefer to do it yourself. >> Mr. Chairman are you trying to say I can't say contiguity? >> [LAUGH] >> That is a mouth full I agree with you All right we have the full raw star would you please read this first or the second on contiguity. >> Contiguity, Congressional district shall be comprised on contiguous territory, contiguity by water is sufficient. >> Representative Louis >> Members, this is a standard redistricting practice and I would move the adoption of the criteria by the committee. >> All right, senator Blue. >>A question of representative Louis does this contemplate single
point, collegiality and water? >> Senator Blue, thank you for that question, let me be clear that it does not and I will be opposed to any form of single point kind of guilty has been ruled as not a legal form of map making in the past. >> Does it contemplate any minimal distance on the water that is used to determine that geographical areas are contiguous. >> Senator Blue, I don't believe it contemplates the Atlantic ocean but as you know sir we have beautiful sounds in our state that is community and so I can't give you an exact definition of how much water is too much water. >> Last point, follow up doesn't contemplate the point in the Cape Verde river in one of your counties is currently used as basis for connecting geographically parts of the fourth convectional district. >> Senator Blue I appreciate that inquiry, I would point out that there's an island there so there's actually land in the middle of the Cape Verde that is that point that you're referring to what I would I have to say, that I do not believe that is the intent of this [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Senator Smith, did you have a question? No. Okay. Any additional questions or comments on the contiguity criteria. Seeing none. All right Rubis would you do a roll call again? >> Representative Louis. >> I. >> Representative Jones. >> I. >> Representative Bradley. >> I. >> Representative Coltham. >> I. >> Representative Davis. >> I. >> Representative Barbara Butterflied. >> I. >> Representative Hager. >> I. >> Representative James. >> I. >> Representative [INAUDIBLE] >> I. >> Representative Harley. >> Representative Hurley. >> I. >> Representative Johnson. >> I. >> Representative Jackson. >> I. >> Representative Johnson. >> I. >> Representative Jordan. >> I. >> Representative Mcgrady. >> I. >> Representative Michelle. >> I. >> Representative [INAUDIBLE] >> I. >> Representative Stam. >> I. >> Representative Stevens. >> I. >> Senator Russo. >> I. >> Senator [INAUDIBLE] >> I. >> Senator Barefoot. >> I. >> Senator Blue. >> I. >> Senator Brown. >> I. >> Senator Clarke. >> I. >> Senator Harrington. >> I. >> Senator Rice. >> I. >> Senator Jackson. >> I. >> Senator Lee. >> I. >> Senator McKissick. >> I. >> Senator Sanderson. >> I. >> Senator Smith. >> I. >> Senator Smithington. >> I. >> Senator Waddel. >> I. >> Senator Wayne Senator Wells. >> I >> Yes. >> All right. Members if the committee, the criteria counting duty passed unanimously, was adopted unanimously. Governor Louis, you got political data before you and you would like the next criteria sent out to the members. >> Mr. Chairman if we could let's do political data and then we'll move on to the next one. Let's not distribute this. >> All right, so you wanna just take care of that Miss [UNKNOWN] would you read the one on political data please? >> Political data. The only data other than population data to be used to construct congressional districts shall be election results and state wide contests since 2008 not including the last two presidential contests Data identifying the race of the individuals [UNKNOWN] shall not be used in the construction or consideration of districts in the 2016 contingent Congressional plans. Voting districts referred to as VTDs should be split only when necessary to comply with zero deviation population requirements set forth above in order to ensure integrity of political data. [SOUND] >> All right, representative Louis that is before the committee. >> Mr. Chairman - >> Let him explain it please. >> I believe it explains itself I'll be happy to - >> All right. Questions senator Bloom. >> Yeah this might be one for the staff Mr. Chairman. >> All right staff. >> The second full paragraph. Can you restrict, and I think I know where you're trying to go to but can you restrict the use of race in drawing two districts in question and be in conformity with the Voting Rights Act, as a court enunciated in its decision of several weeks ago.
>> Representative Louis you wanna respond to that? >> Mr. Chairman thank you, [UNKNOWN] I appreciate that inquiry, it is Is, my understanding in reading of the opinion that race is not to be a factor in drawing the districts. Adoption of this criteria would mean that the ISD staff with general [UNKNOWN] would be instructed to establish computers and I believe it's what is first called maptitude and the staff would be instructed not to include race as a field that could be used to draw districts. I'll go ahead and say respectfully that race was not considered when the general assembly Past the 12th District of the inactive plan will the court still question it's use. This would contemplate that that data would not be available to map makers who make maps to comply with the Harris order follow up. >> You're saying that not withstanding all the jurisprudence in this area. At least that I've seen in the last 25, 30 years. That you're gonna draw minority districts without taking into account whether the minorities are in the minority districts. >> Senator Blu, I believe the Harris opinion found that there was no racially polarized voting in this state and therefore the race of the voters should not be considered. My proposal would be that we use political data Data only and do not use race to draw congressional districts. >> One last follow up. >> I long for the day just like you do Representative Louise, When we can do that. And I hope it's sooner rather than later. But I don't think its wise to spit in the eyes Of three Federal judges who controlled the fate of where we're gonna go with redistricting. And I understand what you're trying to do here, but I think it's an insult to their intelligence to take this approach and I think that they will show you the ultimate power of a Federal judiciary that's existed since 1802 In Marbury vs. Madison, if you do this. >> Respectfully sir it would never be my intend to offend or to question the dignity of the office of the Federal Judge and if anything I've said hitherto has done that I apologize. However it is my understanding That when we drew the enacted plan we applied the [INAUDIBLE AUDIO] decisions as best we knew how to do and draw in the first we did not use race when we drew the twelfth. The court has found to be racial jury [UNKNOWN], it would be, they also found based on My reading of the opinion, which is certainly not to spit in their faces trying to read what they said that there's not racially polarized voting/g. If that isn't the case, then race should not be a factor. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Smith Ingram, representative Smith Ingram. >> I'm sorry -- >> Thank you. >> Before I do that, senator McKissick got me first. Please Senator Mckissick. >> Sure. The thing that I'm deeply concerned about is that the Voting Rights Act in the Courts has historically communicated that i's appropriate to use race in drawing congressional districts and I don't understand why Why we would abandon it as a criteria. From what I understand from reading the most recent mistake/g in Harry versus Mcllory, what they were concerned about was the fact that it was a predominant consideration so there were some over-concentration of African American voters because majority minority districts were Created. And I think that's what I understood to be the finding, the creation of these majority, minority districts when historically the first and twelve districts could have let a candidate of choice without being a majority, minority district, I think it will be a misreading of the case to say that race cannot be used as a consideration Senator McKissick as always I appreciate your counsel. I would reiterate that in drawing of the 12th race was not a considered factor. In drawing of the first, we attempted to comply with the Cromartie and Strickland cases, which we believed called for And still believe called for, if a district is drawn under the Voting Rights Act to be a majority, minority district that it contain a majority of minorities, the court has found that racially polarized voting does not exist to the extent to do that.
During the trial which I know Senator Blue attended I don't remember who else was there, there was various testimony offer from the stand of how much minority population is enough, the judges were well aware that, that conversation had gone on from the stand, they offered no guidance into how much minority population should Should be used. Therefore I simply say we draw the maps without using minority, without using any race considerations, that way the federal court will be clear that in the construction of districts that we did not use racial considerations if it's not even a factor selected on the computer. >> Follow up. >> So how would you propose, that you comply with the requirements in Voting Rights Act which, basically indicate that you should create districts that allow minorities to elect their candidate of choice if race is not an appropriate consideration. I don't know how is that I don't know how you accomplish that objective without having it, certainly notice the predominant consideration, I would agree that cannot be done and should not be done but I'm trying to understand bow you do that or otherwise if you completely eliminate race as a criteria that you look at in grafting the maps And then secondly and this cues a little bit. Why would we not want consider the - >> Which question, is this your first question>> Yeah, first question >> Okay >> At Representative Louise, thank you sir >> Senator I believe that my earlier Answer that and I have great deal of respect for you and i understand that you are an attorney, I'm not an attorney. It's my reading of the case that the court has found that there was not racially polarized [INAUDIBLE AUDIO] which is the trigger point to draw a VRA district therefore if that is not the case then we believe the enacted maps should stand as they are. If we're going to redraw the maps with the [INAUDIBLE AUDIO] order that says it's not racially polarized And we believe that race should be a consideration gone [INAUDIBLE AUDIO]. >> Follow up Mr. Chair. >> Follow up >> Why would we not here want to consider the election results in the 2008 and 2012 presidential election. Is there a specific reason. reason we want to exclude those specific election results and include other potential election results within that same general time frame. Is their the thing obvious we had and African american running for president in those two election cycles. Don't recall which pages it's owned but in the Harris opinion one of the judges wrote that using the 2008 Obama become the [INAUDIBLE AUDIO] was really a code for trying to us black plus white. So we simply say we exclude, we take that off the [INAUDIBLE AUDIO] we can use all the other one And I would suggest that we keep- >> Follow up. >> Well, yep. Thank you Mr chairman I would suggest that there is nothing improper in considering those particular races within a greater context of all races that we might have used as benchmarks for consideration for performance of districts, or how they might vote. But I think to eliminate those specifically would be an inappropriate criteria. I would have to go back to the [UNKNOWN] I think things can be used as code in combination with other actions that are taken like, drawing majority, minority districts, we kept saying race was not a factor. And it was done for political reasons. I think within the greater context, perhaps the court might have heeded that way, but if you'd have identified discreetly this as being one parameter among many, I don't think that that would be inappropriate to consider. I find it fine, I don't think we need to go in there an split these precincts. I think splitting the precincts would probably code word for understanding that you could segregate voters out based on races. Well, so I mean, I have no problem to not go in there and splitting these precincts, and I think keeping the voters population districts as whole as possible is a good component but I would be opposed to the elimination and the consideration of 2008 and 2012 presidential data as well as any other racial data that would be provide in the normal data package is that for many, many years have always been used by this General Assembly and draw this conventional districts.
Thank you Sir. >> Mr. Chairman,- >> Yes Sir. >> I believe that was a statement to which I'll just respond I respectfully disagree with the gentleman [INAUDIBLE]. >> All right thank you. Senator Simthingrum. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. In regards to the proposed criteria as it relates to the voting district send a split one of the concerns that resonated across the state as I'm showing in the hearings then as we talk to constituents particularly in the finger counties congressional district 1 there is a concern about precincts being split and a lot of voter confusion because of split counties and split precincts. Do you think the language in the last sentence goes far All enough to help us alleviate that problem and not have that issue as we move towards drawing new maps? >> Senator I thank you for that question, I would say that as I have maintained all along I believe that voters are sophisticated enough that split political districts do not cause confusion but to the extent that we cannot split them we shouldn't so I do think the senate goes far enough in saying the only reason you would want to split the VTD or a voting district is to help with the zero population requirement that this committee has already dubbed. >> Follow up. >> Follow up. >> So I can assume from what you are saying, that the only reason we had split counties and split precincts in the previous plan, is because we were trying to meet the mandate of the zero Zero deviation. >> No ma'am, that's not at all what I said. And what this is, is in drawing the map, this contingent plan that we're talking about is that the VTD should be split only when necessary to comply with the zero deviation require from us. I was not at all speaking about the inactive map in which I'm certain that some precedes involving districts were split for political purposes .>> Last follow up Mr. chair. >> Last follow up. >> Just a statement. I understand that our voters across the state are very sophisticated, however their was a lot of confusion created with the split counties and the split precincts. As we are moving forward we need to be careful. >> I got representative Stan. >> Yes I'd like I like this criteria it's very principled and it's principles that I have had for example the senate minority leader state publicly many times let's not consider race anymore we are passed that. >> Okay representative Michelle. >> Yes Mr, Chairman I'm having a problem not at any time race. If I recall Mr. Louis and I'm reading from the opinion. It says that here that this does not mean that race can ever play a role in redistricting Legislators are all most always cognizant of race when drawing district lines and simply being aware of race poses no constitutional violation. And what they are saying to you is that you still can use race in the mater. That you cannot make it to predominant factor and that's the way. hurried and I think that this. >> Representative Louis. >> Representative Michele thank you for that. My response for that would be that not being aware of race means that you could have been motivated by race. May I follow up? >> Follow up representative Mitchell, >> What did you say just now? >> Sir I believe you read from the opinion that don't have for me that in which the judges said being aware of race does not necessarily mean that race is predominant factor. It doesn't require and if that's not what you've read understand that you have the opinion. And I don't. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> What they're saying is it can not be a predominant factor Mr. Lewis. But you can use race. >> Representative Michelle/g I think what what Representative Luis/g is saying is that you can use race But it doesn't require you to use race. >> It says you can use race but it must not be the predominant factor. >> Mr. Chairman I would say can use does not mean must use. Therefore I would move the adoption of this criteria. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> I've got Representaive Hager/g please
>> Thank you Mr. chairman. Representative Louis I wanna commend you on the when you said only necessary when you said only necessary when you split districts and districts and precincts, I come from a district in the precinct prior to this map. My precincts was split and we worked it out. like said I appreciate it was there but his criteria does help that situation and prior to this maps we saw that with the previous maps in [INAUDIBLE] county so thank you very much. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> I'm sorry I've got Senator Blue, excuse me. >> Just commence the motion to adapt that has been made Mr. Chairman I agree totally with the representatives stand as I told Representative Louise there are places in this state where settling ace and redrawing districts is inappropriate under the voting rights, under the 14th amendment. There are places in this state where the voting rights Act require that race be considered to some degree to ensure that based on history that minorities can elect people of their choice We know that these three judge panel has the power of it's own to draw districts and we can play these games with them. I thought that as a body from the stand point of letting the legislator the reason that we audit that at least require that. If the [UNKNOWN] if reversing these districts send it back to the legislature to have an opportunity or a shot at fixing it is because it was felt that the legislature could fix it. But I can assure you that if you go without doing this then those three gentlemen are going to draw districts for you maybe that's what you want, if that's what you want I will vote with you on this amendment. But I think that it's transparent the game that you're trying to play. Some of us do strongly believe that we should move away from using race in making any decision in American life but we also believe that you comply with the law until we get to that point. And I think that you are aware of the fact just as I am take this blind approach you're in direct violation of section two of the voting rights Act. And just to say that to you I'm going to vote against this proposal, you'll probably withdraw it Given the debate but I'm gonna vote against because I think that it's showing disrespect, for the laws that exist, and disrespect for this three judge Federal District Court. >> Representative Louis. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, I'm gonna retaliate my earlier comments to you sir. That in no way has anything that I have said had the intent, and I hope not the effect of causing any offence to any member of the Federal Judiciary. I would retaliate, the only way to make sure that race is not the predominant factor is to make sure it's not a factor, when the maps are being considered. This court, will be one step further, with the utmost respect to the court. This court, was shown that race was not a factor that was considered in drawing of the 12, but they still found that it was a factor. This way we make sure that in fact, it is not. Members of the committee senator McKissick. >> Representative Louis are you aware of any racially a pororizing voting study we should have been conducted since the 2010 census occurred. Senator Mckisinc/g respectfully I'll direct the redistrcitng tab on the general assembly website, I believe there are some studies listed there, certainly there are numerous studies that are referenced in the various law suits. I know the General Assembly did commission a study on racially polarized [UNKNOWN]. I do not believe the [UNKNOWN] admitted or considered it. >> Follow up Mr. chair. >> Follow up Is it not possible to go back and find that data which is reasonably correct, since it was done since 2010 to examine the racially polarized voting patterns throughout the state because different parts of the states are different. Urban areas are different characteristics and their is more coalition politics of the parts of our estate racially polarized voting pattern are present and continue to exist. I would suggest that we go back and look at those studies. Analysed them and use those studies as part of the data base that
would be used to move forward and drawing this districts any reason we cannot do that. >. Respectfully sir I may agree with you but the court does not. Respectfully disagree on that. >> Noted. >> Senator Clark. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. With regard to the language on the voting districts in here would it not be appropriate to separate that and have it stand alone as its own criteria. I don't understand the rationale for including it and criteria by political data. >> I've seen to appreciate that question frankly we could have had an additional criteria I preferred to let it stay as it is [BLANK_AUDIO] Excuse me, representative Louis you make a motion to adopt political data, criteria? >> I do Mr. - >> All right. >> Second. >> Representative McGrady any additional discussion? Alright seen we are done. Mr. Clerk can you being the role call. >> Luis. >> I. >> Jones. >> I. >> Bradly. >> I. >> Chatham? >> I. >> Davis? >> I. >> Butterflied? >> I. >> Hedger? >> I. >> Heinz? >> I. Hadester? >> I. >> Holey? >> I. >> Jackson? >> I. >> Charleson? >> I. >> Jordan? >> I. >> Mcgredy? >> I. >> Mitchel. >> No. >> Moore. >> No. >> Stam? >> I. >> Stephens? >> I. >> Rutcho? >> I. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> I. >> Barefoot >> I Blue? >> No. >> Brown? >> I. >> Clark? >> No. >> Harrington? >> I. >> Hise? >> I. >> Jackson? >> I. >> Lee? >> Aye. >> McKissick? >> No. >> Randleman? >> Aye. >> Sanderson? >> I. >> Smith? >> No. >> Smith-Ingram? >> Nay. >> Wells? >> I. What have you got? >> [INAUDIBLE] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] 11 out of 34 names. >> 11 out of 34 names, okay. [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] Okay the result of that is 23 Is, 11 Nos, and two were not present. Okay representative Representative Luis. >> Mr. Chairman with your permission I would ask the sergeant at arms to distribute the criteria labeled partisan advantage if you could direct the staff to read that and I would be happy to speak on it. Mrs. [UNKNOWN] would you read the one on partisan advantage. >> Partisan advantage. The partisan make up congressional delegation under the inactive plan is ten Republicans and three Democrats the committee shall make reasonable efforts for it to construct districts and the 2016 contingent congressional plan to maintain the current partisan make up of North Carolina congressional delegation. >> Representative Luis to explain. >> Mr. Chairman the explanation of this Is recently sampled as we're all allowed to consider political data in the drawing of the maps, I would propose that to the extent possible, the map drawers create a map which is perhaps likely to elect ten Republicans and three Democrats.I acknowledge freely that this would be Political gerrymander which is not against the law >> All right, members of the committee any questions? Senator Blue >> Just wanted to know Mr. Chairman this is a point of order since you got my friend of the rules in the committee up there, what are the rules under which this committee is operating House of Senate and if it is an neither,
where do they come from? but if it's a senate, as a Neizer, prohibited to in committee votes. [BLANK_AUDIO] The chairs agreed we'd operate under the house rules and I can tell you I wasn't here for that but they did. >> [LAUGH] >> All right, Representative Senator Bloom. >> One follow up >> Could I have your attention. >> Since I'm not familiar with the house rules anymore, there is a permitted abstention in the eyes those under the house rules, isn't that? >> Mr. Chairman. >> representative [UNKNOWN] if you can respond to that question. >> i could, there is no such rule under house rules now or when Senator Blue was the speaker of the house. >> Senator Blue did you get your answer? >> [LAUGH] >> Good. thank you. >> [LAUGH] Okay, members of the committee let's pay close attention to this. Senator McKissick, [BLANK_AUDIO] And looking at this particular criteria, we've certainly partisan advantages under consideration but I din't know why based upon the number of Democratic registered voters, Republican registered voters, and unaffiliated voters in this state we would want to ever sit in a rain as a criteria for redistricting that we would only Only allow one party three seats in Congress and the other one ten in Congress when not very long ago, before 2010, we had seven Democrats and five Republicans. So I am trying to understand why you feel this would be fair reasonable and balanced in terms of voter registrations in the state as it is currently divided. >> Thank you for the question senator, I propose that we draw the maps to give a person advantage to 10 republicans and 3 democrats because I do not believe it's possible to draw a map And we had seven democrats and five republicans. So I'm trying to understand why you feel this would be fair, reasonable and balanced in terms of voter registration in the state as it is currently divided. >> Thank you for the question senator Democratic candidates had a higher number of total votes that it ended up with fewer seats were you aware of that factor? In drawing up this criteria >> I'm aware Senator, first of all thank you for the question. I'm aware that there are numerous examples especially in the thousands when the majority of seats went to a party that had the fewer votes, we elect our representatives based on the system of drawing districts and the people in those districts being enabled to vote. We do not elect a large I know you're all very much aware of that and we will this will maintain that system. >>Last follow up >> Follow up, last follow up >> I will simply say this if we were looking at a fair and reasonable division as a criteria moving forward, it wouldn't necessarily have to be an even division it could Obviously since majority, Republicans are a majority now, give republicans a slight edge. But to come up with a second imbalance in a split I think is highly inappropriate, its unfair, it does not recognize the way votes have been cast in this State as recently as 2012 Well it doesn't recognize the vision of registered voters in this state between the Democrats, Republicans and independent and it's really a matter of political gerrymandering in the worst sense of which we could do so, come up with something different, it could be five democratic seats And there's no reason why that couldn't be accomplished, it could be six Democratic seats still gives the Republicans the edge but to say you're gonna merge the lines and there are only three seats as a criteria let the voters decide. >> Well sir thank you for that comment certainly Certainly we look forward to receiving what I'm asking this committee to adopt is the maps that the Chairs will present to this committee as [INAUDIBLE] arriving from the court. Certainly the members of this committee that could maybe that don't feel this balance is appropriate and certainly [INAUDIBLE] maps
for consideration. >> Representative Louise. >> In the case of Senator [UNKNOWN] if you see some of the districts that tend to have a, by a larger voter turn out than others that could easily explain what senator Mcqsik/g described if correct. >> Yes I think that's a constant variable and if you have an area that has a lot of contested races those areas tend to produce more folks at the polls We don't wanna get into the the electro college but I can remember this debates have been going on since [INAUDIBLE] do you maximize or lack of a split term so pump up or boost those votes in certain area to try and create the larger cumulative total or do you fund, run and win, in the districts in which you live and our system has historically been laden. >> I'll have a follow up right there, senator McKenzie go ahead. >> It's simply this I think what voters want are more competitive districts. More competitive districts where they have a clear choice between a Republican, Democrat, and perhaps an unaffiliated candidate is running. But not ones that are gerrymanders to get one party against another, gets to clear partisan advantage more competitive districts I support completely but that means drawing the maps in a way where you are not from the offset setting the criteria that gives one party an unfair advantage. >> representative Louis? >> Mr. chairman the only thing that I can add is that we want to make clear that We to the extent are going to use political data in drawing this map it is to gain partisan advantage, on the map. I want that criteria to be clearly stated and understood. I have the utmost respect for those that do not agree with particular balance and I'll say, the gentleman from [INAUDIBLE] did not say this but we'll say that during the public comment yesterday, more than one speaker referred to, can't we just draw them where there's five this way or six that way? That is partisan gerrymandering if you're drawing five and seven or six, whatever it is, I'm making clear that our intent is to use the political data we have to our partisan advantage. >> Representative Mitchel? >> Yeah, Mr. chairman, if we were where you are today and we came up with this idea, you all would be jumping all over the place trying to dissuade us from that. First, you really wanna dissuade race from being put in, now you wanna make sure, that you keep your tender to your advantage, the same situation that got you in trouble before, and what you're telling us is, we want you to do this, and you vote for it, and this is the way it's gonna be, here in the report. >> Okay, that was no question, I don't think so unless you wanna respond to his comment Government. Okay I've got Representative Stam first >> Yes, I'd like to share a statistic that I haven't used in about years but I'll tell you why done that last redistricting by the up party/g in 2004 I did jump up and down because I saw it coming in the election for the house. [INAUDIBLE] 52% of the voters chosen were [INAUDIBLE] 44% are Democratic candidates and 4% Liberteian. well that should be a landslide for Republicans but it ended up that we were in the minority 57 to 63. The reason I stopped using those type of statistics is I realized it could be totally skewed by whoever happens to not have a candidate opposing that person that shows a huge advantage for example the Military base. They have much fewer voters than the population. In other words I'd say bogus statistic. So I don't use it anymore. >> Thank you, I've got representative Herger. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. I haven't been here long in the house I've become one of the senior members with my colleagues that came in in 2011 which I got to thinking, and I have the utmost respect for Senator Mckissick and
Representative Michell but if I beat my dog everyday for 4 or 5 years and I quit doing it the I told David to quit beating his dog, it is a little beat hypocritical wouldn't I? If you look at that map on the wall look at the 1992 map and look at district 10 and district 1, district 10 is my district now, and look at what we've done with district 10 since then, I mean it's amazing to me that we can argue that we shouldn't, that the folks have been here for a long time can argue that we shouldn't gerrymander this on political reasons and they are the same people that developed that map of District 1 and District 10 in 1992. >> Thank you, any additional questions? representative [UNKNOWN]. >> Thank you Mr. Chair can you be specific as to what constitutes partisan advantage, do we have to tie it to a number? >> [BLANK_AUDIO] No, mum but I well first of all thank you the quesion to perhaps expound our honor to be at, this would contemplate looking at the political data which which was an earlier criteria adopted by this committee and as you draw the lines, if you're trying to give a partisan an advantage, you would want to draw the lines so that more of the whole DTVs voted for the Republican on the ballot Then they did the demograph. How about you answer the question? >> I think that - >> Follow up >> Thank you, follow up. It answers about 50% of my question, if I could ask you another one maybe a different way, you threw out some numbers with that not be part of senate advantage? with eight five? >> Thank you for that question Senator. I would point out that indeed you would use political numbers to draw a partisan, to draw districts in which eight Republicans would win or five Democrats. I am saying to the extent that you can like a 10-3. >> Last follow up - >> Last follow up >> Just a statement. I am concerned that we are trying to mimick the outcome of the previous election that never Never existed for a very long time in North Carolina until this district was redrawn in 2011. The challenge here is, we are balancing where we are with where we have been historically but at the end of the day we are elected to come together, to work together, to serve the constituency and citizens of North Carolina. This is one of the concerns resonated yesterday and many of us have it here we are drawing these lines so that we get to pick our voters as opposed to them picking us. It is unfair it should not be perpetuated in this process and I will not be supporting this. >> Thank you. Representative Jones. >> Thank you Mr. Chair I appreciate I wanna say how much I have enjoyed this discussion about gerrymandering. You know that's the word that seems to me as someone who has lived in North Carolina for all my life and has really kind of Time to study the political process particularly over the last few decades, a word that was never really used until somehow the Republicans came to majority in 2010. This is where we are taking this little trip down memory lane for just a moment I remember things like multi member districts in North Carolina when we were drawing the legislature I thought stream opportunity that was to gerrymandering I saw it happen in my own area where we couldn't do single member districts we couldn't even do double member [INAUDIBLE] sometimes it had to be three or four member districts in order to for the political party in charge at the time which was the Democratic Party to gain a political advantage. So representative Louis, I appreciate your honesty as you come forward to and we explained that political gerrymandering I guess is what it is, but I just find it and it's very interesting to hear some of the comments coming from some of the avenues that we are hearing from today. We never had those comments for decades and decades and decades in North Carolina whether it was the media, whether it was the majority party whomever so I guess the process is what it is I'm glad that we have had some court decisions that have led to what I think is a lot less gerrymandering than what we had in prior decades, now we do have single member districts.
Now we do have where we don't just split counties in any possible way and we have the system and things like that so I really take offense when I hear those that say that somehow the political gerrymandering of today is greater than somehow it was years when anybody that goes back and studies the history knows that that's simply not the case and that's my comment and and I'll ask a question for you representative Louis, is it possible that people might choose to vote for a candidate that is a different political party and what their political affiliation is? >> Well, thank you for that question Representative Jones, of course it is we all offer ourselves and the voters in our districts decide if we best represent what they believe, the direction of the government should be and that's how they cast their votes so certainly a person is free to vote ever how they choose to vote. >> Well, that's what I think and I think regardless how you draw this districts. I come from an area where I can remember a time where voting for Democratic Party was extremely high, and that time has changed, and those votes have changed, a lot of people that I can tell don't necessarily vote for the same party that they registered and so I think We ought to respect the voters as individuals and whether they're registered Democrats, Republican, Liberitarian, unaffiliated, whatever. Recognize that they do have an opportunity to vote for any candidate that is on the ballot before them, and I appreciate your answer, I appreciate your honesty, and integrity, and going forward with the process. >> Thank you Representative Jones Senator Clerk. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman I'm having a difficulty understanding why I should agree to vote for maps to back-end partisan advance-ship that was achieved through the use of unconstitutional maps. Could you explain that to me Well to be clear sir we are proposing that the maps that are drawn now under this criteria which we have passed I [INAUDIBLE] will continue to move forward One of the goals in drawing the map will be to preserve the 10-3. With all due respect I've listened to this and we can of course continue to discuss this as long as the committee wants to. It's always sort of amazed me that if the map elects one side, the other side consider it Considers it a gerrymander and something bad, if it elects their side they consider it a work of art and good government, so this is saying that one of the goals will be to elect, to speak directly to your point, the goal Is to elect 10 Republicans and 3 Democrats. >> Thank you. Representative Louis there was a comment earlier about the districts the 13 districts that exists 10 presently Republican and 3 Democrat And under the circumstances could you explain a little bit about the make up of the Republican districts and who they are composed of and what is necessary for that, Republican to win an election. >> Thank you for the question Mr. Chairman. First of all, it Would be necessary to go back and review the stat packs and what not from 2011 districts which are online for anybody would like to do that. But to the best of my knowledge, Republicans hold no majority as far as voter registration in any of those districts. It's also Well, and it is firmly my belief that it's the responsibility of each of the political parties to nominate quality candidates who can appeal to the entire political spectrum, it was pointed out yesterday during the public hearing That the unaffiliated ranks in our states continue to grow. If you don't get a large percentage of the unaffiliated vote in most of our districts you're not going to win. And so I would say that you are required to have a good quality candidate that appeals to To the political expectations of the majority, the folks in that district. I can go back and we can go through some of the points. I actually maintain that the districts that we have now are largely
Competitive. I pointed out before that in the race for Attorney General, that Attorney General Cooper won nearly all these, we go back to the 2011 debate if you'd like to but I again maintain that you've got to put For a good candidate that can appeal to the majority of folks and that the majority of folks in these districts in the enacted plans are not registered republicans in fact to the best of my knowledge in all but perhaps one we are the minority in all their districts. >> Thank you, okay, Representative Jackson? >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, Senator Clark took one of my points that I was gonna make but part of my uneasiness with this is that it refers to the current congressional plan I think you could make reference to just say that you wanted to partisan advantage and maximize Republican members and I can agree with that I guess you have that opportunity. I would point out that your maps originally had a 9, 4, split and any reference to 10, 3 is not what your maps were. Your maps were nine, four split. What you've done is is taken out the 2012 election. But that's not my question. My question is are we gonna rank this criteria in any order. Because you've used words in this criteria like reasonable efforts. How would the math makers know what a reasonable effort he is in trying to come up with ten Republican districts. Will they be able to make a reasonable effort, that means they can now consider race, will they be able to make a reasonable effort that means that now they can consider 2008, 2012 elections, will they be able to split precincts as part of making a reasonable effort to make that ten three split. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Representative Jackson thank you for that series of questions. The answer to your question, the first part was, I'm sorry. >> Mr. Chairman I'm sorry. >> Go ahead, please. >> Could there be any type of ranking of this criteria? >> No is the answer, that's why this criteria being presented in the being discussed and debated individually. Drawing maps is largely a balancing act. We are trying to specify certain things that you cannot do. You asked about race, you cannot use that, and I apologize, I don't know anything you asked about, I'm sorry. >> Follow up Mr. chairman? >> Follow up. >> So it would be your contention then that making reasonable effort would not include violating any other criteria that we have passed. >> Absolutely. [INAUDIBLE] >> Mr. chairman? >> Yes. >> If there aren't any further questions I move adoption of the 2016 contingent congressional plan proposed criteria labelled partisan advantage. >> All right, representative Jones seconded it. All right, members of the committee there has been considerable discussion and if there's any additional thoughts this is your opportunity. Seeing none Mr Clerk please go through the roll. >> Louis >> I >> Jones >> I >> Brolly >> I >> Katham >> Davis >> I >> Farmer Butter field >> I >> Hagger >> I >> Heins >> Hudastar >> I >> Hurly >> I >> Jackson >> Johnson. >> I. >> Jordan. >> I. >> Mcgrady. >> I. >> Mitchell. >> No. >> Moore. >> No. >>Stam. >> I. >> Stevens. >> I. >> Rucho. >> I. >> Abudakar. >> I. >> Barefoot. >> I. >> Blue. >> No. >> Brown. >> I. >> Clark. >> No. >> Herrington. >> I. Heiss. >> I. >> Jackson. >> I. >> Lee. >> I. >> Mckissic. >> No. >> Randleman. >> I. >> Sanderson. >> I. >> Smith. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Smithingrum/g. >> Yes. >> Wells. >> I. >> [cough] [NOISE] >> [INAUDIBLE] 23 11 [BLANK_AUDIO] All right members of the committee, roll call on Patterson Advantage criteria was I 23, No's 11. We'll be going on to the next one and that is The 12th District,
would you Miss Trenton/g read this criteria please. >> 12th District, the current General Assembly inherited the configuration of the 12th District from past General Assemblies, this configuration was retained because the district had already been heavily litigated over the past two decades and ultimately approved by the courts. The Harris Court has criticized the shape of the 12th district sighting its serpentine nature. In light of this the committee [INAUDIBLE] districts in the contingent congressional plan that eliminate the current configuration of the 12th district. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Representative Louis would you explain the criteria under the 12th district heading? >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. This largely goes, I'll try to use my friend for Jackson's words has these criteria standing on their own that have to be considered together. What this is saying is that the map makers will make an effort to draw the 12th congressional district in a shape that the judges will not consider serpentine. is that conclude your explanation? >> Yes sir. >> Okay. Members of the committee. >> Mr. Chairman. >> Senator Blue. >> I want to commend representatives of the list. I agree that the 12th district ought to be contentious, it will ought to be compact as of all the other districts in the state and I think at this starting point for drawing constitutional maps will be to start for 12 district and make it come back and let it impact the other districts, I think differently about the first because I think the law requires it, I have no particular love for the shape of any of these strange districts. But if you're serious about creating a district that's compact, that's contiguous and covers a few counties as possible by not unreasonably splitting county lines, by not splitting county lines expect when necessary to comply with the population. I think it's a good idea. Members of the- >> [INAUDIBLE] >> I'm sorry go ahead. >> Mr.Chairman I just wanted to thank Senator Blue for his words. I'm glad that after two decades of drawing maps we found something we can agree on. All right members of the committee senator Mcquisk/g [BLANK_AUDIO] >> While I appreciate the fact that the twelve district has unusual shape and appearance. I am also aware that the fact that it's gone up before the supreme court And when I think of the fact that one other things that they we have to consider is communities of interest and community of interest is certainly something that is very verlic/g consideration in drawing congressional district. And i have had it stated in numerous occasions that The communities of interest tasked here is meet and satisfied with the shape being what it is today while it may appear serpentin/g or a little bit unusual I think it's possible to reconfigure the district perhaps to make it somewhat more compact But it links together significant cores of urban cards of our state along the main street which is now in a state 85 I was the main corra/g those urban areas are a link from charttlote/g go through to green spurls and back up area of our state so I would not want to abandon it, I'd want to perhaps reconfigure it, by keeping in mind the communities of interest that it ties together, major urban cores with populations that have similar interests and concerns, along with for making banking centers. I've heard before that that particular district had more banking headquarters than any congressional district in our country, and I rely upon that based on the sources of that data. So I would not abandon it, I'd simply try to reconfigure it, perhaps make it more compact, to respect the communities of interest that it does unify. >> Thank you, any additional questions? >> Let me first say, representative Louis you wanna make a comment to that? Representative James. >> Thank you Mr.
Chairman I think both the senators have excellent points. I agree especially with Senator Blue and his statement with regard to what we need to be looking at as a whole, as we consider what these districts look like. Certainly when it comes to democrats and I know we're trying to avoid The word trace here, but when it comes to folks who look like me, we want our voices heard everywhere. And so in that regard part of the way we do that is to put our communities together within our counties I think while we certainly don't have to abandon what the 12th is right now certainly we need to be looking at very strongly doing with Senator Blue suggesting so I will be supporting this thank you. >> Thank you. Member of the committee any additional questions or comments? Representative Louis you have a motion >> Mr. Chairman I move that the 2016 contingent Congressional plan propose criteria labelled 12th district be adopted. >> Seconded by Senator Abudacor/g, member of the committee you have this motion before any questions or comments? Prior to a roll call vote, seeing none Mr. Clerk would you go with the roll call please. >> Louis >> I >> Jones >> I >> Brolly >> I >> Kotham >> I >> Davis >> I >> Framer butter field >> I >> Hagger >> I >> Heins >> I >> Hundestor >> I >> Furly >> I >> Jackson >> I >> Johnson >> I >> Jordan >> I >> McGrady I >> [UNKNOWN] >> I. >> Moore. >> I. >> Stam. >> I. >> Stevens. >> I. >> Rucho. >> I. >> Apodaca. >> I. >> Barefoot. >> I. >> Blue. >> I. >> Brown. >> I. >> Clark. >> Aye. >> Harrington. >> Aye. >> Hise. >> Aye. >> Jackson. >> Aye. >> Lee. >> Aye. >> McKissick. >> No. Randleman >> Aye >> Sanderson >> Aye >> Smith >> Aye >> Smith Ingram >> Aye >> Wells >> I >> One No. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Members of the committee the roll call call vote on that, the criteria for 12th district adoption is 33 I and 1 no. All right, before we go on to the next criteria I'll make a statement to the committee that under the house rules there is a way of amending or submitting an amendment forward if you'll contact Miss Churchill on this she will assist you in doing so if you desire. All right that been said, representative Lewis. >> Before us is - >> [INAUDIBLE] >> All right. >> Miss Churchill would you read that ? Compactness. In light of the Harris Court's criticism of the compactness of the 1st and 12th districts the committee shall make reasonable efforts to construct districts in 2016 contingent congressional plan that improves the compactness of the current districts and keep more counties in DTVs whwhole as compared to the current inactive plan. Division of counties shall only be made for reasons of equalizing population, consideration of incumbency and political impact. Reasonable effort shall be made not to divide a county into more than two districts. >> Representative Lewis please explain the compactness criteria Thank you Mr. Chairman. To be clear trying to explain compactness is very difficult as I don't know that there is a hard and fast definition that I can offer to the committee. The way that I will interpret it is again trying to keep as many counties whole as possible, to split as fewer precincts as possible and again only do that to equalize population. I would point out, again going back to my friend Representative Jackson's question, these criterias kinda layer on each other and so I would urge the committee to adopt the guideline on compactness. >> Senator Bloom. >> Thank you, representative Lewis other than in three counties are there multiple incumbents. I know that there is more than one in Mekcenburg/g [BLANK_AUDIO]. There's only one in Wake I believe. There's only one in Wake so two counties. There may be two in Gilford.
Is there any other county with more than one incumbent? Senator Blue thank you for that question and candidly I don't believe so but I don't know that either. >> Follow up. >> So if the only place that you would worry about splitting a county to protect the incumbency would be Mecklenburg County County based on the current layout, I know there are several of those counties are that are split three or four different ways but I know in Wake county their is only one resident congress person although we have four districts here. And I think that the same is true of every other county except [UNKNOWN] with the exception of Gilfor, there may be two from Gilford. I'm not sure, but nevertheless, why should we split counties if you don't have too to protect the incumbents, why shouldn't we leave counties whole all over the state except where you have to split them because of population? Representative Louis. >> Thank you for that question senator Blue. My response would simply be that, considering where incumbents live and for lack of a better way to say it. The protection of incumbents has always been and accepted our political practice in drawing maps. These does not require us to do that it simply says that that could be one of the reasons that a county would be split. The most important of these is trying to establish that we wound split counties more than two times, and we've already passed the criteria that this re-irritates that the biggest reason that a county should be split is only to equalize the population between the districts. >> Follow up >> And I agree with that but I'm saying under the current scenario in effect I think that Mecklenburg is the only county that has two congress people. So you could split Mecklenburg any how because you gotta split it cuz it gotta over 1,700, 50,000 or whatever the number is people. You gotta split, Wake, you gotta split Mecklenburg the others could be made whole expect the population purposes. So why would you adopt Adopt criteria saying that you are not going to split counties except to protect the incumbents when you don't have incumbents to protect. And you ultimately say that you would split them for political impact which means that you can indiscriminate split counties however you want any how, If you determine what political impact is. Why would you say that and why would you put that provision in there, and that being said would you be wiling - >> One question let him answer this one first please >> It's part of the same question, that being said would you be willing to strike after the comma in the word population on the third from the bottom line the phrase is, consideration of incumbency and political impact. So there is a clear signal that you're not gonna split counties since you don't have to split them to protect incumbents, so you're not gonna split counties Counties except what you have to, to get to the one person one vote requirement >> Representative Louis, why don't you answer his first question first >> He asked too many questions, [BLANK_AUDIO] Senator Blue thank you for that series of inquires, I do apologize that I don't remember exactly what you asked do you need me to re-ask it? >> Let me just say that it is my intent to split as fewer counties as we possibly can and not to allow the counties to be divide more than two times of over arching goal of this as Representative Jackson I have had some contingent conversation all these criteria is kind of overlapped, on each other. I would agree with you that equalizing population is a mandatory reason that a county may have to be split. I would also say that it would be dishonest of me to say that political impact can't be considered in how you draw districts. I don't see any harm in leaving the words Consideration of incumbency because there is no requirement that the districts be drawn to
include the current seated [INAUDIBLE] It just allows for the consideration that they're in fact there >> One last follow up >> Last follow up >> Yeah If there is not incumbency then incumbents wont be considered and splitting districts and that can't be the reason for splitting it. I'm simply saying that when you say political impact you take away everything else, you put in that phrase and if we believe in keeping counties whole to the extent possible, especially smaller counties if we believe in that then all we got to do is say, we're only gonna split counties to equalize population. And I'm wondering why it's so critical that you say political impact since that phrase is loaded with all kinds of subjective determinations with the ability to totally disregard this earlier portion saying that you're not gonna split counties, or you're only gonna split counties to put them in the two districts. Because you don't say you won't split them but two times you said you'll make reasonable efforts not to. I'm saying why don't we have an absolute prohibition on splitting counties except when it's it's necessary to comply with one person one vote. >>Thank you for that question, Senator Blue my response to that would be that we will look forward to reviewing maps that you may submit that follow that criteria. I feel very comfortable that we may clear through this process of what our intents are and I would prefer that this criteria remain as it's written >> Thank you Representative Jones >> Thank you Mr.Chairman I just wanted to clarify the record that there are two congressmen that live in Guilford County Matt Walker of the 6th District and Alma Adams of the 12th District >> Okay, I've got Senator Smith >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the idea of compactness, I very much want to see the Precincts and Counties left whole. I would respectfully tell you that in 2011 there was a District drawn where I come but then it was drawn out. It was the District that I lived in and so the seventh Congressional District drew was changed to the eighth congressional district and the congress man McIntyre who is the incumbent was drawn out essential of his own district. And my concern is what Senator Blue has said, the idea of compactness this is great, but when we leave in this other phrase about incumbency we have taken away the other reason, the only reason that really should be the case and that is population. >> Senator I appreciate that again I would state that equalized as in population is definitely the required reason that a county may have to be split, this simply allows for consideration of incumbency and consideration of political impact. I don't see that that would interfere with us being able to use compactness in drawing the maps. >> Follow up. >> I just would point out that population was not the case in 2011 and my concern is that if we agree to this and keep this as incumbency political impact that that will end up trumping population and splitting counties and precincts. >> Thank you. Representative Lewis you wanna comment? You all set? Just a quick, is it a question for the chair Senator Lewis? Is it a requirement for a congressional candidate to live in the district they're running in? >> No A candidate for congress is not required to reside in the district in which they run. >> Okay thank you I've got representative Hager. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you I representative Louise for this particular because as I said earlier Rutherford County Prior to the Rucho-Lewis maps that we're under today, split Rutherford county between the 10th and the 11th, I have a Rufton/g to include Walter Dalton's house. So the question that I have for you is we won't split districts Depending on who we think may run for that Congressional district could that be correct? >> Yes sir that's correct.
>> Okay, all right I got the Senator McKissick. >> Let me ask you this Representative Lewis. The way this is drafted now what I'm seeing, this is a statement of aspirational goal but not a strict requirement. Is that correct or is that a misreading? Because it's one thing to aspire to accomplish these things which I support. It's another thing if you make it a litmus test So can you clarify that? >> Thank you for that question Senator Mckissick and let me say that this is an aspirational goal. >> In which case I embrace it.>> Okay, from the Chair Senator Mckissick, a question that representative Jackson asked earlier and when you talk about the criteria. Is it accurate to say that all of them are weighted at the same level and it's a matter of harmonising to try to get to a map that meets those criteria? [BLANK_AUDIO]. David I'm sorry Mr. Chairman. >> I'm sorry, from the chair, question. Based on what Representative Jackson asked earlier, all of these criteria are listed that's being submitted and voted upon, is it fair to say that the criteria established are not ranked as far priorities but are a matter of Of harmonizing until you can get a map that meets those criteria. >> That's correct sir, we're seeking aspirational harmony. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> [LAUGH] >> Okay, do you have a motion? >> Mr. Chariman I would move to move that the 2016 contingent Congressional plan propose criteria, labeled compactness be adopted by the committee. All right I have got representative Davis has seconded that motion. Members of the committee any questions, comments prior to roll cal vote. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> I wanted I wanted to ask about the hearings yesterday and how much impact they have on the criteria if any based on what you presenting today. >> Representative Louis >> Thank you for that inquiry representative. I would tell you many of the things stand out in my mind are do away with the 12. Keep counties whole, all of which we have addressed in this. So I would say that they had a great deal of impact on the criteria that you have before you. >> All set? Okay Yes, Representative Stevens. >> Thank you Mr. Chair and I just wanted to commend Representative Louis and perhaps answer some of the things some of the people are talking about. And I'd like to read I guess it's about one and a half paragraph of one of the most recent redistricting cases in March 2015. It says now consider the nature of those For those off setting, traditional race redisticting principle we've listed several including compactness, contiguity, respect for political subdivision or communities defined by actual shared interest. Incumbency protection and political affiliation. Those things that we've done. The next paragraph says but we've not listed equal. objectives and their is a reason for that admission. The reason is that equal population objectives do not appear on this list of traditional criteria is that equal population objectives play a major different role in the state redistricting process. The role is not a modern one. for dominant in ordinary since that word because the equal population goes on to talk about into voting rights districts, we really have to take a different focus on that, so I commend you for all of the criteria you've set forward it seems to comply with the most recent case law. >> Representative Louis? >> Yes sir. Mr Chairman >> All set, we've We've got a motion before us, that we approve of the criteria that was listed and was debated on compactness, we've had a second from representative Davis, Mr. Clark would you call the roll? >> Louis? >> I. >> Jones? >> I. >> Brawley? I. >> Gotham? Davis. >> Aye. >> Farmer-Butterfield. >> No. >> Hager. >> Aye. >> Hanes. >> Yes. >> Hardister. >> Aye. >> Hurley. >> Aye. >> Jackson. >> No. >> Johnson. >> Aye. >> Jordan. >> Aye. >> McGrady. >> Aye. >> Michaux. >> No. >> Moore. >> Yes. >> Stam. >> Yes. >> Stevens. Rucho >> I >> Abudakar/g >> I >> Airfoot/g >> I >> Blue >> No >>
Brown >> I >> clerk >> No >> Carington >> No >> Heiss >> I >> Jackson >> I >> Lee >> Aye >> Mckesick/g >> I >> Randalman >> I >> Sanderson >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Smith >> No >> Smith Ingram Willis? >> I. [BLANK_AUDIO] Members of the committee, the roll was taken, we have the Ayes 27, the Neighs seven, that was adopted. Okay everyone pay closer attention here, we have before us another criteria titled Incumbency, miss Churchill. >> Incumbency, candidates for congress are not required by law to reside in a district they seek to represent, however reasonable effort shall be made to ensure that incumbent members of congress are not paired with another incumbent in one of the new districts constructed in the 2016 contingent congressional plan. >> Mr. Chairman I have to call this the Senator Smith criteria and I move his adoption. All right. That was the explanation. >> Well this is also aspirational and attempting to harmonize that other criteria. >> All right, members of the committee, any questions or comments on the criteria before you dealing with incumbency, seeing nothing. Representative Louis has a motion that we approve, adopt the incompetency criteria, representative Brolly seconded, we have before us an additional Thoughts or questions ? if not we'll take a role Mr. Clerk >> Louis >> I >> Jones >> I >> Browly >> I >> Cotham/g >> [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Davis >>[BLANK_AUDIO] >> Farmer Butterfield/ g >> I >>Haiger >> I >> Haines I >> Artister >> I >> Perly, >> I >> Jackson >> I >> Johnson >> I >> Jordan >> I >> Mcgrady >> I>> Cho, >> I >> Moore,>> I >> Stan, >> I >> Stevens, >> I >> Rucchio. >> I. >> Abudakar, >> I >>Barefoot,>> Blue. Brown? >> Aye. >> Clark? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Harrington? >> Aye. >> Ice? >> Aye. >> Jackson? >> Aye. >> Lee? >> Aye. >> McKissick? >> Aye. >> Randleman? >> Aye. >> Sanderson? >> Aye. >> Smith? >> Aye. >> Smith Ingrum/g? Aye. >> Wells? >> Aye. [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [INAUDIBLE] >> All right. One second let me call the vote please. We had I 31, no 1, that criteria for incumbency has been adopted. >> All right. Question? Representative [UNKNOWN] excuse me, [UNKNOWN] did you have a question? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Okay. I thought I heard something from over there. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. Members. >> Okay let me see. A;; right I mentioned earlier that amendments are being submitted, are there any amendments that are going to be submitted All right, representative Blue. >> [CROSSTALK] >> I have one I had to change it after the adoption of one of the other amendments. I've given it to Erica earlier. >> All right it's being worked on? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I think Senator Heiss has a - >> Okay Senator Hise you have an amendment? >> NO I have a motion. >>Motion. One second. >> [INAUDIBLE] to be distributed. >> They need to have copies for distribution. [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] I'd like to have the committee stand
at ended this for a few moments while we have some copies made on the amendments, so a couple of minutes to break, thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] Get to your seats so we can get on to amendments and motions dealing with redistricting. Okay. David, >> [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] Members of the committee, I think you have on your, each of your desks a copy of an amendment submitted by Representative Paul Stem, amendment to political data criteria number three Representative Stem >> Yes it's just of technical, I kept reading that thing the way it read you could read it that you couldn't consider data from the 2008 election since it said since 2008. So this makes clear that yes you can consider 2008 and things forward >> All right you've explained it, is that a motion you're making ? >> I move the amendment >> Representative Louis >> Mr. Chairman if I could to the maker of the amendment, Representative Stem would the gentleman consider striking number three to make clear that these are in no particular order in other words it would say amendment to political data criteria >> Yes I do, whether spell criteria on or criteria I will >> All right so therefore the amendment that you having Strikes out where it just says amendment to political data and then you're striking out, excuse me political data criteria, you're striking out number three. >> We're striking out number three >> Just number three, member of the committee is that clear ? >> Mr. Chairman Who's calling me, so Representative Louis .>> I would support the gentleman's amendment >> All right Representative Stan has submitted amendment before you, and it's open for discussion members of the committee seeing none, Do you have roll call Mr. Clark. >> Louis, >> Aye. >> Jones, >> Aye. Rolly, >> Aye. Chatham, >> Aye
>> Davis, >> Aye. >> Batterfield Buck, firm Butterfield aye. Haggart? >> Aye. >> Haggart aye. Heins? >> In, aye. >> Heins aye. Hardister? >> Aye.>> Hardister aye. Harley? >> Aye. >> Harley aye. Jackson? >> Aye. >> Jackson aye. Johnson? >> Aye. >> Johnson aye. Jordan? >> Aye. >> Jordon aye. McGrady? >> Aye. >> McGrady aye. Mitchell? >> Aye. >> Mitchell aye. Moore? >> Aye. >> Moore aye. Stam? >> Aye. >> Stam I. Stevens? >> Aye. Steven's Aye. Rucho? >> Aye. Rucho Aye. Abudakiv? >> I. >> Abudakiv I. Fairfoot? >> Aye. >>Fairfoot Aye. Louis? >> No. >> Louis no. Brown? >> Aye. >> Brown Aye. Clerk? >> No. >> Clerk no. Harrington? Aye. >> Karenson, aye. Haist? >> Aye. >> Haist, aye. Jackson? >> Aye. >> Jackson, aye. Lee? >> Aye. >> Lee, aye. McKissick? >> No. >> McKissick, no. Randleman? >> Aye. >> Randleman, aye. Sanderson? >> Aye. >> Sanderson, aye. Smith? >> No. >> Smith, no. Smith-Ingram? >> No. >> Smith-Ingram, no. Wells? >>Aye. Aye. Four. >> Who knows- >> Yeah. >> That means 30. [BLANK_AUDIO] All right members of the committee, on the role call vote on Representative Stem's amendment dealing with, and it's titled, Amendment To Political Data Criteria. It is adopted 30 to 4. Okay, we'll go on to the next [INAUDIBLE_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] All right members you have an amendment coming out towards you. Compactness criteria [INAUDIBLE_AUDIO]. It's [INAUDIBLE_AUDIO] See it Davis. [BLANK_AUDIO] Alright. >> Mr. Chairman >> Yes sir, representative Blue- >> Would ->> Excuse me representative Louis, we need to have senator Blue explain his amendment. Go ahead >> I was wondering if Senator Blue will agree to attend to a technical fix despite the Number sign in the six. >> Okay, members of the committee on Representative Blue's amendment, the title will be amendment compactness criteria, you'll scratch number six, that will not be in there. All right. Senator Blue everyone has a copy of the amendment would you like to explain your amendment? >> I will. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, senators and house members present. What I'll try to do in this amendment is simply recognize the county as the most important governing unit following the state because they are extensions of the state. And to set foot clearly that we're only going to divide counties, when you're equalizing population although that's a federal requirement too and when you're complying with federal law. Something you gotta do you might as well admit that we have to comply with Federal law if Federal law is supreme. And so this is that we'll split counties only when you're trying to get down to zero deviation in population which we're gonna try to do [INAUDIBLE] and only when you're complying with the federal law regarding redistricting all of the other reasons that have been given would not be justification for splitting counties and I move the adoption of the amendment. >> Representative Louise. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you Senator blue for that explanation, let me be clear ladies and gentlemen, we of course are going to comply with federal law we would not be here while we're not attempting to comply with the federal, a federal decision issued by the courts, I would submit that this amendment is not necessary and should not be adopted because
Of course we are going, as Senator Blue has said of course we are going to comply with the federal law. As we've already had a pretty lengthy discussion that consideration the word consideration have incumbency and political impact may be considered it's not required to be considered and I have already said this for the record. that equalizing population is the most important reason that a county would be divided. I would respectfully ask for members to vote against this amendment. >> I got Representative Stam. >> And I would oppose the amendment and point out what may be obvious, Senator Blue as a minority leader is gonna be perfectly entitled to submit his own plan and nothing in what we've written would prohibit him from striking those two criteria from his maps. He doesn't need this amendment to do what he wants to do. >> Yes Senator Blue. >> Just a comment My cap disappeared and I'm not Superman anymore so I can't do a map in a day that takes into account all of the stuff that we have in this criteria. I was thinking we were narrowing the things that we were looking at it. I can't really look at all that I want to. >> Okay, you all set? Members of committee excuse me, Senator Heiss. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman this may be for just trying to get clarity on what this amendment would actually do. One of the outcomes of the last map is that one of the major urban areas in the state were represented by two congressmen that was coming in and something we saw,at least others that were coming in, would this amendment prohibit that type of decisions for those districts so that as that would be a political impact that's we are coming in that we could not make sure that urban areas were represented by two congress men? Okay, senator Blue would you please answer that question. >> I'd be happy to answer that, certainly not, as I said, the only two counties that absolutely would be guaranteed to be represented by two congress people would be Mackenberg and Wake since each of them has a population in excess of the 700 plus thousand that's necessary to draw a conventional district, if you started drawing a district toward an urban area then you could slit that urban area when you get to it, so that it's in two separate district, this would in no way prohibit having a two congress people from whichever urban areas other than Wake and Makenberg where you'll be guaranteed at least two where you could bring them in to one of the urban counties which could split up at one time, so you can get two from [INAUDIBLE], two from [INAUDIBLE, two from any of the counties including the smallest if you pair it with a much bigger population. Representative Louis comment? >> No sir, I would say the answer senator Blue gave is correct, as senator has his question I just again would not support the amendment as it's drafted for the reasons that I've already stated. >> All right, members of the community you've an amendment before you from senator Blue and the amendment is entitled amendment compactness criteria and the additional questions comments? Seeing non, the roll call Mr. Clark. >> Lewis. >> No. >> Lewis no, Jones. >> No. >> Jones no, Brawley. >> No. >> Brawley no, Cotham. >> Yes. >> Cotham yes, Davis. >> No. >> Davis no, Farmer-Butterflied. >> Yes. >> Farmer-Butterflied yes, Hager. >> No. >> Hager no, Hanes. >> Yes. >> Hanes yes, Hardister. Hedistar >> no >> Hedistar no >> Plurly >> no >> Purly no >> Jackson >> yes >> Jackson yes >> Johnson >> no >> Jordan >> no >> Jordan no>> McGrady >> no >> McGrady no >> Bishow >> Aye >> Bishow Aye >> Moore Aye. >> Moore aye, Stam. >> No. >> Stam no, Stevens. >> No. >> Stevens no, Rucho. >> No. >> Rucho no, Apodaca. >> No. >> Apodaca no, Barefoot. >> No. >> Barefoot no, Blue. >> Aye. >> Blue aye, Brown. >> No. >> Brown no, Clark. >> Aye. >> Clark aye, Aye >> Herington >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Herington no >> Heiss >> no >> Heiss no >> Jackson >> no >> Jackson no, Lee >> No >> Mckissic >> Aye >> Mckissic I, Randleman >> no > Randleman no, Sanderson >> no >> Sanderson no, Smith >> Aye >> Smith Aye, Smith Ingram
>> aye >> Smith Ingram aye, Wells >> Neigh. [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] All right members of the committee the roll call vote was Aye. Excuse me No 23, Aye 11. All right we have another one before us. for us and this one would be senator Erica, Smith Ingram's amendment on criteria. Yes Representative Louis. >> Would senator Smith Ingram agree to a technical amendment describe the number of sits. >> Yes. Thank you ma'am. On the members of the committee Senator Smith Ingram has agreed to a technical amendment that would strike the title and the title would read Amendment to compactness criteria. And that would be all it would say there. Okay I have senator Smith Ingram to present her amendment. >> Thank you Mr. chair. In light of our previous discussions in our effort to promote harmony you can have one part, two part , three part in this case this will add the full point harmony, and I'd ask staff that if there was needed a discussion about the actual language it came from, the federal case. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Mr. chairman? >> Representative Louis, comment? >> Yes sir, I appreciate the amendment and the sentiments expressed by the senator, I'd offer that it appears to me, that the language that's attempting to be added is somewhat vague and nebulous as I don't know that we have a defined way, actionable definition of what community of interest, or community of shared interests, so respectfully I'd ask the community to defeat this amendment. >> Members of the committee any questions or comments? We have a motion before us dealing with amendment to compact criteria submitted by Senator Erica Smith Ingram. You have that before you, single comments or questions Mr. Clark? Roll call please. >> Lewis. >> No. >> Lewis no, Jones? >> No. >> Jones no, [UNKNOWN] >> [UNKNOWN] no. Chatham? Chatham yes. Davis? >> No. >> Davis no. [INAUDIBLE] yes. Hager/g? >> No. >> Hager no, Heinz? >> Yes. >> Heinz yes. Hardester/g? No. >> Hardister, no. Harley? >> No. >> Harley, no. Jackson? >> Yes. >> Jackson, yes. Johnson? >> No. >> Johnson, no. Jordan? >>No. >> Jordan, no. McGrady? >> No. >> McGrady, no. Mitchell? >> Yes. >> Mitchell, yes. Moore? >> Yay. >> Moore, yay. Stan? >> No. >> Stan no. No Stevens >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Stevens no >> Ruocco>> Ruocco no >> Abudakar >> no >> Abidakar no >> Fairfot/g ?? >> no >> Fairfot no >> Lu >> yes >> Lu yes >> Brown >> no >> Brown no >> Clerk >> yes >> clerk yes >> Herington >> no >> Herington no Haist? >> No. >> Haist, no. Jackson? >> No. >> Jackson, no. Lee? Lee, no. McKissick? >> Yes. >> McKissick, yes. Randleman? >> No. >> Randleman, no. Sanderson? >> No. >> Sanderson, no. Smith? >> Aye. >> Smith, aye. Smith Ingram? >> Aye. >> Smith Ingram, aye. Wells? >> No. >> Wells, no.
[BLANK_AUDIO] [INAUDIBLE] 23, 11, 2 - >> 23 no, 11 yes. >> Yes. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> And through the committee on amendment to compactness criteria from Senator Erica Smith Ingram, the aye's 11, the no's 23 that amendment was not adopted. All right we have another one, I believe it's already at your desk and this one is Communities of Interest submitted by Senator Floyd Mckissick. Senator Mckissick would you like to explain your amendment? >> Sure. It is very straight forward it's not seeking to amend any other criteria, this would just be a criteria that is aspirational As many as the others, it does follow case law in terms of what is stated and what this is is that the committee will make reasonable efforts to respect political subdivisions, cities, towns, whatever, as well as communities as defined by accrued interests what I would like to do is recognize Cara as well as Eric perhaps to provide further clarification in terms of resisting case law I think we would be re-missed if we did not include this as one of the bench marks that we would seek to use in drawing the plans as we move forward I can't imagine why we would want to ignore communities who carry the interests or not respect political sub divisions other than counties, this is talking about other political sub divisions or towns that might be within this Congressional district We should also be respected to the extend that is possible and feasible to do so, not just counties, [INAUDIBLE] you could comment please. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Please identify yourself and respond to Senator [UNKNOWN] request if you can. >> I'm [INAUDIBLE] with the legislative analysis division. Senator Mckissick is referring to the last part of this amendment. the language has political subdivisions and communities to find the actual shared interest, this language though is used by the supreme court in the Miller V Johnson case from 1995 as part of a list of traditional race neutral district principals. >> All right Representative Louis. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you Senator for offering this additional criteria. As best I can understand it to the extent that is required by federal law, of course we're going to be Be mindful of that but as you and I had an aside conversation earlier I don't believe we have defined in this state at least what a community of interest is. I don't understand actually what actual shared interest means, so therefore I would have to ask the committee based on the vagueness of this terms to drop this additional quantity. >> Follow up Mr. Smith. >> Senator McKissick. >> Let me ask you this Representative Louise, so you have problems with that terminology that was used by the US Supreme Court, which I think is pretty clear in terms of directive but what is the objection to respecting political subdivisions? Because I would think that we would all want to do so with the cities, towns, and communities that we represent and they are used electively by the supreme court but if you've got problems with that you still got to follow it or you'll end up in litigation. I don't think any of us want to end up in litigation anymore we already are in this day. I don't know why? What's the objection to respecting political? >> Well sir to be clear as I pointed out when we adopted the compactness criteria is not our intent to, split. We are going through the best we can two keep as many counties and as many VTT's whole I will give you a direct example of why I think this is vague. We've already. heard from the gentleman from Wake, senator Blue we see I think correctly stated that a county is the most political sub due vision actually agree with that. Your city dome has [INAUDIBLE AUDIO] So when I say it's vague [INAUDIBLE_AUDIO] How do you know which interest you're going to
follow. I think we've done a good job in this committee in saying that we're going to keep as many counties, as many VTD holes as we can. >> Okay I've got representative Stam. >> Yeah. Yes I was about to make the same point. Carry his annex in the chatham. so under this it would give map makers an excuse to break the wake chatham line so they could keep carry together. Andrew/g if you could believe [INAUDIBLE] into White County. I don't how David Louis let him do that Map with this amendment map makers could despoil Wake county just to get a few more Republicans into iii county district. >> Mr. Chairman >> Representative Louis. >> For the record while I do not support senator McKissick's amendment Amendment I think anywhere Andrew can be shared is a positive thing - >> [LAUGH] >> Senator Mckissick >> I would simply say that we ought to try to respect these political subdivisions. I don't think with the current mood as general assembly we have to worry about 20 more annexations occurring for a while so Respecting political subdivision is a valid criteria regardless of what those political subdivisions might look like. So obviously I support it but certainly put my finger in the air and see the way this winds are blowing. >> Members of the committee any additional questions ? Senator >> Yes. Representative Louis I'm a little bit confused about your objection to the use of this language in as much as it relates to not having a definitive definition. Is it possible for staff to be able to comment on what is the definition used in North Carolina for communities of interest. As we've Applied it in the past. >> The chair will allow that, which staff member would like to define communities of interest >> I'm Carol [INAUDIBLE] staff attorney with legislative announces division. North Carolina has not adopted a definition of communities of interest. Follow up >> Follow up, as I recall Representative Stevens just read from I believe she was citing case law but it just seems that all of the other elements that you have already in the criteria are there with the exception of communities of interest and so I'm just concern about why you haven't adopted the other three And why you feel comfortable with that but not with the committees of interest. >> Representative Louis >> Well again thank you for that inquiry Senator, I would just say again that as we've never defined what a community of interest is in the example I try to use with Senator Mckissick how do you define is the city Durham more important community of interest than the citizens of Wake county. I don't think we've ever defined it, I certainly think that To the extend that it's not restricted from being used as the maps are prepared that. I think that's something the map drawers may wish to try and use but I don't understand it enough And I do wanna take this opportunity to respectfully let my friend from Durham know that, as I reminded him I'm not an attorney and in no way have I tried to disrespect or disregard any ruling from the US supreme court, nor from this federal track court, but I'm not prepared to stand before this committee today and say that I understand what this is trying to do therefore I'll continue to oppose this new criteria. >> Members of the committee from the chair representative Louis, I recognize and I think the community recognizes the full effort to keep counties whole, I think the counties are relatively stable in their borders but yet municipality and the town and the like with annexation, de-annexation of like is more variable, do you think that, that maybe one of the reasons for what could be adding confusion I think that's fair, I think that's a good indication of why I say this is vague and not really defined we got request from a member for the central staff to explain ho communities interest are defined in the state and they are not. So since there is not a definition they shouldn't be in the criteria.
>>Member of the committee we've had discussion on this issue we have an amendment before us submitted by senator Floyd McKissick. Dealing with communities of interest. Any additional questions comments seeing none. Mr. Clerk, a roll call please. Louis? >> No. >> Lewis, no. Johns? >> No. >> Johns, no. Brawley? >> No. >> Brawley, no. Cotham? >> Yes. >> Cotham, yes. Davis? >> No. >> Davis, no. Farmer-Butterfield? >> Yes. >> Farmer-Butterfield, yes. Haggart? >> No. >> Haggart, no. Heins? >> Yes. >> Heins, yes. Hardister? >> No. Haddison, no, Haley? >> No. >>Haley no. Jackson? >> Yes >> Jackson yes. Johnson? >> No. >> Johnson no. Jordan. >> No. >> Jordan no. Mcgrady >> No. >> Mcgrady no. Michelle? >> Aye >> Michelle aye. Moore? >> Aye >> Moore aye. Stem No >> Stem no. Stevens? >> Rucho? >> No. >> Rucho, no. Apodaca? >> No. >> Apodaca, no. Barefoot? >> No. >> Barefoot, no. Blue? >> Aye. >> Blue, aye. Brown? >> No. >> Brown, no. Clerk? >> Aye. >> Clerk, aye. Harrington? >> No. >> Harrington, no. Haas? >> No. >> Haas no, Jackson? >> No. >> Jackson no, Lee? >> Lee, no. [INAUDIBLE] >> I. >> [INAUDIBLE] I. >> Renderman? >> No. Renderman no. Sunderson? >> No.>> Sunderson no. >> Smith? >> I. >> Smith I. Smith Ingram? >> I. >> Smith Ingram I. >> Willis? >> No. >> Willis no [BLANK_AUDIO] Members of the committee, the result of the vote on Senator [INAUDIBLE] amendment dealing with communities of interest are 11, no 22, the motion is not adopted, members of the committee any additional amendments? Any motions? Senator Heiss? >> Excuse me Mr. Chairman, >> Yes sir. >> I just wanted to thank the members for they're indulgence this morning and I'm proud of the 2016 contingent congressional plan proposed criteria that we have adopted. I did want to say for the record that it is my intent that these be used in the drawing of the 2016 contingent Congressional plan in response to the lawsuit only. This is not an attempt to Establish any other long running criteria >> Okay Senator Heinz, you have a motion >> Thank you Mr. Chairman I have a written motion >> Okay has that been sent out to each member ? >> Sergeant at arms >> sergeant at arms distributing it. Let's take about a two or three minute break so everybody can read this motion. [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] Has everyone had an opportunity
to review senator Hiss's motion?Representative Jackson I think Mr Chairman, one question would be, the way this is worded- >> First, let me do this, if it's dealing with what's in there, I'm gonna give Senator Heiss a chance to explain. I was giving everybody a chance to review it. All right, everybody has it. Senator Heiss would you like to explain that motion, then we'll open it up for For discussion. >> Thank you Mr. chairman. Basically what this does is it consolidates the criteria we've already adopted and voted on into one piece and then directs the co-chairs to go through the process of developing the maps on the basis of those criteria and provide a sum of $25000 under the way we need to appropriate with approvals speaker. Those types of things in the Inter rum those are coming in and then allows the minority party to have access to the same funds and to draw maps under those criteria that they would establish. And also reascends that provided that supreme court issues Okay Representative Louis comment? >> Thank you Mr. Chairman and members. Just to be clear I hope we're going with this, as you know we're still optimistic that we'll receive the stay from the supreme court. If we do not receive the stay it would be the Chair's intent to bring a map before this committee for recommendation for introduction to a special session that would be held later this week. The Chairs would encourage in the For the goal of increased transparency that should other people have maps they'd like this community to consider that they get them prepared and submitted as well, but to be clear once the general assembly convenes there would also be an opportunity for maps to be presented to either the house or the senate redistricting committees when they meet. However the house rules and I believe the senate rules, I won't speak for the senate rules. But I know the house rules will require that any amendments that are offered to the plan that are submitted in fact they complete plans. In other words you would have to have all 13 districts drawn to, you would instead of trying to amend whatever plan that this committee will release you would have to in essence prepare and release a plan to compete with this plan. >> All right members of the committee Senator Blue, excuse me let me do this, representative Jackson asked, requested you had a question earlier go ahead please. >> My question I guess was directed to you as chairman or either Senator Heist I was just wondering if we could change the first sentence of paragraph three. The way you've got it written is that the co-chairs can each pick their map maker but our entire Caucus would have to do it, the members of this committee which means we have to stay together and vote and do things like that. And I would just ask that you consider substituting that and as minority leader of the Senate, Senator Blue make that choice for us and our entire [UNKNOWN] not be involved and have to make that decision Senator Heist do you have a thought or a comment or would you like to ponder that one a little bit? >> I don't see what's written as requiring that a voter operation for the men already caucus that's we are coming in will allow them to decide if they want to allow their leader to make that decision on his own I think that's within the way it's written here so I don't necessarily see that issue in the way its written but however the minority, members of the minority of this committee choose to select their [UNKNOWN] their concern >> Okay Senator Blue >> Took two questions, basically practical questions. I assume that the [UNKNOWN] have consulted with somebody who's available to be a consultant to draw maps, we haven't but I can assure you that anybody that you consult with normally isn't gonna do it at least not for us on contingent fee basis. And we don't know when there may be an order one way or the other on this day if the plaintiff has until mid afternoon to submit their papers. I don't know that the chief Justice is gonna do or when he's gonna do it. But practically speaking first we haven't consulted with anybody but secondly if you consult with somebody you got to promise them you're gonna pay them and this says you wont pay even if they work
for two or three days if a stay is granted. >> All right Representative Louis Mr. Chairman and Senator Blue if we need have the attorneys review this, we certainly can and correct any offending language I just wanted to state for the record that it is the intent of after having consulted with the speaker and the President that any map maker or engaged would be paid. Well I think that what the language is trying to say is that should stay be issued the maps would never be released, not that the person would not be paid for their time. We're not trying to get somebody to draw maps on a contingency fee we're having maps drawn contingent upon not getting to stay. I would be glad if you're concern about the way that the language is written to take a moment and have that defined but I did want state for the record that intent would be any map drawer that you would engage or the minority party would engage would be paid for their paid for their time. [BLANK_AUDIO] Senator Blue. >> Andrew has some language that will fix that. >> All right, senator Heiss. >> I just want to say I think they may be working on some clarification but the intent is drafted that work done while it was authorized to be done would be paid for but once the state came out or really came out that we would stop work at that point, wouldn't be paid for work done up to that point that was coming in but while the authorization exist, we would pay for those funds knowing we would get the chequ, out 24 hours. >> We will moment while we're studying some language if we may, while that's being looked at. Senator Blue did you have a second point that you were making? >> I did as a matter of fact. You have some experts hanging around who can do this map making that we might, could talk to we haven't engaged anybody. >> I think we probably gonna use the one that you are presently using now. >> Which one is that one? >> Whichever that is. >> Is their a capability within the stuff to do it Mr. chair? >. I'm sorry say it again. >> Is their a capability within the stuff to do a map making. Okay is their capability with in the staff of being able to draw maps as requested by the minority party. >> If their is a member of the General Assembly that would like a map drawn we would do so at their direction. However we will need. The instruction from that member how to assign all the geography of the state. >> Does that answer your question? >> Need instruction as to how to a sign what? >> No how to a sign. They can draw the map just give them the direction of how you want the districts to be drawn. drawn. >> Okay. >> Follow up? >> Yeah one follow up I'm trying to keep up with many alterations of the cases involving redistricting and I think that in that sense even those instructions now are considered. confidential is that correct? >> At this point of time any member of the General Assembly that makes a drafting or information request to any legislative employee. That drafting and information request is treated as confidential subject to legislative confidentiality,by that legislative employee. Upon a of any Congressional plan. The plans themselves and the drafting and information request related to that plan do become a public record. >> Okay, still working so would we just, oops. Excuse me. Senator Mckissick, we're working on the language so, >> Sure. I understand. This is a question for Erica to just give further clarification in terms of the stack packs of data that would be available would we have the same type of data that was available in 2011 as a basis for drawing plans. I know there was a discussion today about not considering race as a factor and things of that sort Will we still have available data packs that provide the statistics and data that we would have used in 2011? Would we draw in those districts? And if so is any of that data updated at this time as well?
>> Mr. Chair. As I understand Mr. Fry well Will need to correct me because he maintains our databases that there have been new changes to the 2011 databases. It still has the 2010 census data, it still has the federal administration data in it, it still has the election data in it. We still have the capability of running exactly the same reports off of that database >>Unless follow up, >> Follow up. >> I mean it, it is not a fair question perhaps but to what extent can we get reasonably quick turnaround considering the time frame that we are in I think iii is obviously we relied upon consultants and experts before, Mr David Harris, Mr [INAUDIBLE] But they are both attorneys engaged in private practice handling claims and to think that we can displace them this quickly and get them re-engaged in less than 24 hours notice is not perhaps a reasonable expectation, so I'm trying to see if we want to get this maps drawn, I think Senator Blue is in the right track we are going to need to rely upon in house resources perhaps supplement it by iii but are we going to be able to get a quick turnaround. >> Mr Jay if I might we will do our best we do have a limited number of people who have the knowledge to actually use the mapping software, but among ourselves once we know what the requests are we will try to efficiently meet all of the needs. >> Thank you. >> All right, Senator [UNKNOWN] any specifics, I mean you were talking about the stack packs and all that would you have any specific criteria that you want included in the stack pack? >> As long as we have the same stack packs that we had previously means that the demographic data in the political data that is available I think will probably be okay. I cannot think of any additional data that we would need as long as that is read only accessible we get pretty quick turnaround I am deeply concerned But since we did not learn about the availability of french consultants before today that tried to engage people who were deeply familiar with the challenging this way. >> I think what you reflect is what our concern is that we have a short window and we're all faced with that same tight timeline so I'm sure stuff as miss trechral said we do what's best to help you achieve your goal. >. Representative [BLANK_AUDIO] Chairman Louis. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, Senator Mcquisk just to be clear sir the criteria that would be available to the map maker that Senator Rucho and I employ will only be the criteria that this This committee has adopted the star packs as you would recall contain additional information for motion. That information obviously will be veheble at the end of the map drawing process. Just to be clear the map drawer Senator Rucho and I will contract with we'll have only access to the criteria that this community has adopted. >> Follow up. >> Yes follow up. Some of the critical language in here under bullet three we go down about five lines and talks about using the adopted criteria or any other criteria selected by the minority caucus, so if we want to use other criteria it might be consistent with the ruling in Harris verses Mccorry and we would contend that race can be used, it just can not be the predominant factor. I just wanna know that that data Will be available if we need to use and rely upon it in drafting constitutionally- >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Correct districts. Cuz that was not included in your criteria but this line work in this particular motion does give us as the minority [UNKNOWN] the right Like to use other criteria. >> Hold on a little I'll try to get you any. [BLANK_AUDIO] Our understanding, the chairs understanding is that, you know in drawing maps you can request any data that you feel that needs to be there to help you achieve what you believe is a map trying to resolve the issue dealing with the court decision. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Senator Blue. >> Yes, so that I can follow that point up. It's my understanding Ending and correct me that the database will have information about 2012, 2014 elections in addition to the data that was available at the time the original maps were drawn. That is they'll be current in the information that they'll have, is that right? Let's ask Mr Frie/g if he'll be kind enough to explain what is in the database, and of course it's based on the 2010 census, but election results you're asking about? >> Yes so, what I've got worked up for this round is there's of course, like we were talking about, all the old data's totally in place if it makes sense to use that for whoever wants it. And for the 2016 database, I've got total population, voting age population cuz that's the only thing that's not [INAUDIBLE] this election Right, and that there is just election day, there's 2008 general election, basically all the council of state contest, there's the 2010 general election US Senate, the 2012 general election, basically governor Council of state contest and then the 2014 US Senate. >> Does that help you? >> Did he say 2014 US Senate? 2014 congressional elections data? [BLANK_AUDIO] Mr. Fry. >> For the 2014, the database that I have now has just [INAUDIBLE] >> Could you repeat that again, we missed you with that. >> For the 2014 general election I've just got US Senate. Because there's a difference between like what data has been generally processed what data is sought of ready to go in a redistricting data base, that's kinda of a fare gap between those two things. So I do have information relating to other contests in 2014 but - >> So the data base will not have the location of current incumbent or anything like that >> Mr. Ray >> What we have is locations of current incumbent That a lot of them were updated as for the 2011 cycle so we need to double check if they're a few of them I was looking at them, we may need to double check on their addresses to see if they've moved. >> Senator Blue >> I'm just trying to make sure that whatever data is used by one is used and available by all. If we're basing it on the legislative computers on the legislative database. >> If I'm understanding this correctly any data that you need to have is going to be available as long as you give some request for it, I'm I correct? >> Well, certainly [LAUGH] I'm concerned about timeline about preparing. There's certain things to prepare and ready to go and if those things can be [CROSSTALK] >> Miss Rachel. >> I'm sorry [BLANK_AUDIO] Talking about the data, I think that would mystify this question. Okay. >> That's where we are. >> All right, still on, did we get the language? >> Yeah. >> Sorry. Yes, on a big picture issue here while they are working out the language I was minority leader during the Pender county redistrict thing, Speaker Hackney was the speaker, if I had been offered a deal like this I would go give Representative Lewis and Senator Rucho a big bear hug and thank you. >> [BLANK_AUDIO] Don't hug us [LAUGHTER] [LAUGH] Certainly no case associated with it. >> [LAUGH] Representative, Senator Blue, sorry. >> Yeah, I have a question of the chair but I guess you got a motion pending so - >> We got a motion. >> I'll wait until after the motion. >> Yeah, we've got a motion first. Senator Hays. >> Question is probably director for staff if and under this motion where it currently is, if the minority caucus is going to load additional information including things like race and other on to the start pack for the operations, do we have a sufficient wall of separation, say separate computer,
separate data base, separate That the co-chairs do not have access to that information, or the other committees cannot have access to that information, because it's inconsistent with the criteria that's established. So can we make sure that once those are loaded that they're not available if they're not part of the criteria for the co-chair's drawing? >> Mr Fry. Yes. I believe if the co-chairs/g are working on a plan, if they can work on that and follow the criteria separately, and for any reports they produce would just use that information. >> To follow up on what his question is, is there a clear wall, that we have to actually request that information before it's eligible for us to use, am I correct? I mean you talking the firewall- >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Word up. I wanna make sure that you don't have access to that information. Right, no there is a firewall This is not a central server - >> Are you okay Senator Heiss, Miss [UNKNOWN] are you okay? >> Mr. Chairman. >> Where I'm I? >> Mr. Chairman. >> Excuse me. >> I think perhaps we can summarize this by saying that all people who have access to all of the data this community has directed the chairs not to use some of it. So the computer on which this committee's map is drawn will only contain the criteria that was adopted by the committee, so to kind of get the gist of what Senator Blue was trying to ask he can have access to more stuff than we can not less. >> Okay. Representative- >> I just wanted to be clear on this. It says that you must drew your maps according to the criteria that this body has It also says that our group can use these criteria or any other criteria we deem necessary. is that correct? >> That's correct.>> Okay are we close Mr. Chairman. >> Yes sir representative. >> Could we deal with another matter while this is being prepared. >> Yes sir let's just displace this amendment if we can. Senator Hise while we are working on the language and representative Louis has another issues he would like to bring before us. >> Mr. chairman What I would like to do is offer a motion that the community direct the ISD to establish a computer and to populate the database of that computer. With only the information that is consistent with the criteria adopted by the community today and to ensure that the firewalls that the Fries/g spoke of are in place during the entire time that the map for this community is drawn. We have a motion before us. One second. Senator Apodaca. Representative Michelle. >> I was trying to get the gist of what his motion is. >> May I speak on my motion. >> Yes sir. >> Members the motion would direct ISD to establish a computer with the maptitude software that has only the criteria as to find and authorize by this committee. And it is on that computer that the chairs would work along with any consultant they would hire to produce a map to return back to this committee for review. What it's doing in essence is limiting the chairs to only the criteria that this community has adopted. While making sure not limit the minority party to have access to whatever they dim important to be able to fully participate in this process. >> Follow up. >> Follow up what about the firewall separating the two who let go. >> Thank you for that question representative Mittchel, I was trying to use the same language that Mr. Fry had what I'm, to be absolutely clear the only data the map drawers on behalf of this committee can have is the data that the criteria adopted by this committee allows. The firewall means that you won't be able, the map drawer won't have access to flip a switch and say well,
I really do wanna see what the 2008 Presidential race was. That will not be loaded on the computer that he has access to. >> Okay. Senator [UNKNOWN] >> Representative Lewis, get some clarification here, that we as the minority [UNKNOWN] want to look at the 2008 race But we wanna look at other variables other than those that were approved today. In the past we had our own computer available that also had Maptitude or whatever appropriate program was at that time, which we could utilize for crafting maps that were, met our criteria. So I'm just trying to determine if we will have a separate computer available to us that we can use that will give us the additional data that we might seek to use in preparing maps >> Senator Louis. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, Senator Mr. chairman if my motion is adopted, I will offer the identical motion for the minority party except that they are able to populate the data with whatever they want to populate it with. >> With that being said, I could support this, but I wanna make sure that the minority party does have their own computer populated with their own data and separate apart from the fields in some categories which have been identified as appropriate criteria today. >> Yes sir we're on the exact same page on that point. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Do you, any additional questions on >> Can we get that in writing? [LAUGH] >> Mr. Chairman. >> Yes sir. >> We do have a court reporter so pass before that could forward that to representative [UNKNOWN] he could read it. >> He'll get a copy of that. All right, we have a motion before us from representative Louis, it's been explained, it's been Debated any additional thoughts or questions on that before we move to adopt his motion. Mr. Clark if you'd be kind enough to call Louis,>> Aye. >> Louis aye. Jones? >> Jones, aye. Brawley? >> Aye. >> Brawley, aye. Cotham? >> No. >> Cotham, no. Davis? >> Aye. >> Davis, aye. Farmer-Butterfield? >> Mm-hm. >> Haggart? >> Aye. >> Haggart, aye. Heins? No? Heins, no. Hardister? >> Aye. >> Hardister, aye. Harley? >> Aye. Harley, aye. Jackson? >> No. >> Jackson, no. Johnson? >> Aye. >> Johnson, aye. Jordan? >> Aye. >> Jordan, aye. McGrady? >> Aye. >> McGrady aye, Mitchell? >> No. >> Mitchell, no. Moore? >> Nay. >> Moore, nay. Stem? >> Aye. >> Stem, aye. Stevens? Rucho >> Rucho aye. Abudaka >> aye. >> Abudaka aye. Hairfoot? >> aye>> Hairfoot, I. Blue? >> aye. >> Clark, Harington, Hais, Jackson, Aye. >> Jackson aye, Lee. >> Aye. >> Lee aye, McKissick. >> No. >> McKissick no, Randleman. >> Aye. >> Randleman aye, Sanderson. >> Aye. >> Sanderson aye, Smith. >> No. >> Smith no, Smith-Ingram. >> Nay. >> Smith-Ingram nay, Wells. >> Aye. >> Wells aye. [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] All right, members of the committee. The motion by representative Louis Requiring and asking that the computer that will be used by majority
party will only contain the criteria that's been established and voted upon today and that vote was I, 21, No, 11 so that passed Representative Louis? >> Mr. Chairman For motion. >> Motion. >> Mr. Chairman I move that the minority party be given access to a computer and whatever information they dim necessary to populate that computer in order to fully participate in this process. Further I move that the minority party members of this committee may caucs and designate that responsibility to one or more members and if they're not able to do that had their responsibiity would fall to Senator Blue. >> I'll second that. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> All right, the motion by Representative Louis seconded by Senator McCaskill was that for the minority party to have access to the computer and have all the information they deem necessary for them to participate in trying to achieve what was requested as a remedy for the three judge panel's decision. Any questions or comments? >> Yeah, I wanna know what the last part of that motion was that he made that was sort of [INAUDIBLE] >> Is that a question to representative Louis? >> Representative Louis. >> Representative so what I said was that the members of the minority party on this committee may caucus and elect members to direct the drawing of this maps on their behalf and if they are unable to do so, that the responsibility would be vested to Senator Blue. Do you have a follow up question? >> Yeah. You are vesting and telling us what to do. Is that what I'm hearing. >> [LAUGH] >> To repeat for the third time representative Mitchel the minority party members of this committee would caucus and designate members o members to act on their behalf and if they're unable to do so, that that responsibility would fall to Senator Blue. >> Mr. Chairman. >> Yes sir. >> Why don't you let us make that decision as to who it should fall to can we have staff maybe clarify what it means that the minority party can corcus and designate members if that's not allowing them to make decisions, could somebody explain exactly what language I'm not communicating? >> Okay Senator Apodaki you had a comment? >> Mr. Chairman inquiry to the chair. >> Yes sir. >> I'm somewhat confused I've got representative Jack ask this question about how they could nominate somebody, I thought this was what we were trying to fix. >> All right then you're then you're the one that's going to explain that to [LAUGH] to Representative Michelle, okay, all right. >> Motion is before us it's been seconded any additional questions or comments on representative Louis's motion. Louis- >> The clerk, roll call please. >> Louis? >> Aye. >> Louis, aye. >> [LAUGH] >> Jones? >> You need to think about it, ha? >> Aye. >> Johns, aye Brawley? >> Aye. >> Brawley, Aye. Cotham? >> Yes. >> Cotham, aye. Davis? >> Aye. >> Davis, aye. Farmer-Butterfield? >> Aye. >> Aye? [INAUDIBLE] >> Please speak loudly folks. >> Aye. >> Hager aye, Hanes. >> Aye. >> Hanes aye, Hardister. >> Aye. >> Hardister aye, Hurley. >> Aye. >> Hurley aye, Jackson. >> Aye. >> Jackson aye, Johnson. >> Aye. >> Johnson aye, Jordan. >> Aye. >> Jordan aye, McGrady. >> Aye. >> McGrady aye, Michaux. >> No. >> Michaux no, Moore ?>> Moore aye Stam?>> Aye >> Stam aye, Stevens? Rachel >> Rachel aye, Apodaca? >> Apodaca aye, Blue? >> Blue aye, Brown? >> Brown aye, Clerk >> Clerk aye, Arrington? Heist, Heist aye, Jackson,
Jackson aye, Lee, Lee aye, aye, Randolman, Randolman aye, Sanderson, Sanderson aye, Smith, Smith aye, Smithingram, Smithingram aye Wales [BLANK_AUDIO] Members of the committee after the roll call vote 32 aye and one no. So therefore that is has been settled. Senator Heist do we have language? >> I think we have two amendments. >> Two amendments all right. Are you going to present it or staff? >> I can present them I think staff is going to read the first one is to clarify payments made for Just pay attention here I know we are moving forward, go ahead please. >> The first is add some clarification for the allow payments for work performed prior to the state. >> The first amendment Miss churchill would you explain what that amendment says and what it does Yes Mr. Chair the amendment will be to the end to the last sentence of paragraph two and paragraph three considering heiss's motion it would remove the period at the end of that sentence, insert a semi colon and all of the following at the end of each sentence Provided however, this authorization shall permit compensation to be paid for any work performed prior to the issuance of such stay. >> Members of the committee, you have that before you? Are there any questions on that first amendment that has been put forward by Senator Senator Heist on trying to provide some clarity in what was brought up by Senator Blue. [BLANK_AUDIO] Representative Jackson. >> Thank you. Mr Chairman, will that amendment allow payment for services provided prior to the approval of this? [INAUDIBLE_AUDIO] No sir, I don't believe so. >> Thank you. >> Yep. Questions, any additional? Alright, we have an amendment before us that was read by staff and we'll ask the clerk to have a roll call vote on that please. >> Lewis. >> Aye. >> Lewis aye, Jones. >> Aye. >> Jones aye, Brawley. >> Aye. >> Brawley aye, Chatham. >> Aye. >> Chatham aye, Davis. >> Yes. >> Davis yes, Farmer-Butterflied. >> Yes. >> Farmer-Butterflied yes, Hager. >> Yes. >> Hager yes, Hanes. >> Yes. >> Hanes yes, Hardister. >> Aye. Aye. >> Hardister aye, Hurley. >> Aye. >> Hurley aye, Jackson. >> Yes. >> Jackson yes, Johnson. >> Aye. >> Johnson aye, Jordan. >> Aye. >> Jordan aye, McGrady. >> Aye. >> McGrady aye, Michaux. >> Aye. >> Michaux aye, Moore. >> Aye. >> Moore aye, Stam. >> Aye. >> Stam aye, Stevens. Rucho. >> Aye. >> Rucho aye, Apodaca. Aye. >> Apodaca aye, Barefoot. >> Aye. >> Barefoot aye, Blue. >> Aye. >> Blue aye, Brown. >> Aye. >> Brown aye, Clark. >> Aye. >> Clark aye, Harrington. >> Aye. >> Harrington aye, Hise. >> Aye. >> Hise aye, Jackson. >> Aye. >> Jackson aye, Lee. >> Aye. >> Lee aye, McKissick. >> Aye. >> McKissick aye, Randleman. Aye. Sanderson? >> Aye. >> Sanderson aye. Smith? >> Aye. >> Smith aye. Smith Ingrum/g? >> Aye. >> Smith Ingrum/g aye. Wells? >> Aye. >> Wells aye. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Members of the committee amendment one which was read by staff was agreed upon unanimously 33 to 0. Senator Heist amendment number two. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, this was some further consultation with Senator Blue and clarifies for alleged side of confidentiality amendment when that applies and applies once it's submitted to this committee and just specific language they can read. >> Miss Churchill could you read the clarifying language here please? >> Yes sir, in paragraph two this new sentence will be inserted at the following the first senates, the core chair shall control legislative confidentiality in drafting request or maps produced from this authority, unless and until presented to the committee in the co-chairs discretion, for paragraph three this senates will be inserted after the following of the first senates, the minority caucus is designated Senator Blue, shall control legislative confidentiality of any drafting
request or maps produced for this authority unless and until presented to the committee in senator's Blue discretion. >> Members of the committee you have that before you, any questions or comments, seeing none, Mr. Clerk would you do a roll call. >> Louis? >> Aye. Louis aye. Jones? >> aye. Jones aye. Brolly? >> I. Brolley I. Chatham? >> aye. >> Chatham aye. Davis? >> Yes. >> Davis Yes Hager. >> Yes. >> Hager yes, Hanes. >> Yes. >> Hanes yes, Hudster. >> Aye. >> Hudster aye, Hurley. >> Aye. >> Hurley aye, Jackson. >> Yes. >> Jackson yes, Johnson. >> Aye. >> Johnson aye, Jordan. >> Aye. >> Jordan aye, McGrady. >> Aye. >> McGrady aye, Michaux. >> Yes. >> Michaux yes, Moore. >> Aye. >> Moore aye, Stem? Stem. >> Aye. >> Stem aye, Rucho. >> Aye. >> Rucho aye, Apodaca. >> Aye. >> Apodaca aye, Barefoot. >> Aye. >> Barefoot aye, Blue. >> Aye. >> Blue aye, Brown. >> Aye. >> Brown aye, Clark. >> Aye. >> Clark aye, Harrington. >> Aye. >> Harrington aye, Heist. >> Aye. >> Heist aye, Jackson. >> Aye. >> Jackson aye, Lee. Lee aye, McKissick. >> Aye. >> McKissick aye, Randleman. >> Aye. >> Randleman aye, Sanderson. >> Aye. >> Sanderson aye, Smith. >> Aye. >> Smith aye, Smith-Ingram. >> Aye. >> Smith-Ingram aye, Wells. >> Aye. >> Wells aye. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Members of the committee, the roll call vote was 33 aye, 0 neigh. Now what you have before you is a motion set forth by Senator Heist, which has been amended now it's before you for any further discussion or questions and if their none then we will take a vote to adopt. Senator Heist's motion, That's for questions see you then Mr.Clark. >> Louis,>> aye >> Louis aye. Jones? aye. >> Jones, aye. Brawly? aye. >> Brawley aye. Chatham? aye. >> Chatham, aye. Davis? >> aye. >> Davis yes, Butterflied? no. >> Butterflied no. Heger? >> aye. >> Heger aye, Heins? >> No. >> Heins no, Hadister? >> aye. >> Hadiser aye. McCarly? >> aye. >> McCarly aye. Jackson,? >> no. >> Jackson no. Johnson? >> aye >> Johnson aye, Jordan? aye >> Jordan aye, Mcgrady? >> aye. >> Mcgrady aye. Mitchel? >> No. >> Mitchel no. Moore? >> aye. >> Moore aye, Stan? no.>> Stan no. Rucho? >> aye >> Rucho aye, Abudaka? >> aye. >> Abudaka aye, Barefoot? >> aye. >> Barefoot aye. Loo? >> no. >> Loo no, Brown? >> Brown aye, Clark? >> no. >> Clark no, Harrington? aye >> Harrington aye Heist. >> Aye. >> Heist aye, Jackson. >> Aye. >> Jackson aye, Lee. >> Aye. >> Lee aye, McKissick. >> No. >> McKissick no, Randleman. >> Aye. >> Randleman aye, Sanderson. >> Aye. >> Sanderson aye, Smith. >> No. >> Smith no, Smith-Ingram. >> No. >> Smith-Ingram no, Wells. >> Aye. >> Wells aye. [BLANK _AUDIO] [BLANK AUDIO] [BLANK AUDIO] [LAUGH] Okay members of the committee when that motion was up for adoption as amended we have 22 I and 11 no. So I believe that we have concluded our business for today, >> Just to request Mr Chair, >> Senator Blue. >> As I prepare to do this, could you have the clerk make available to me his roll call votes on for these items and it's all official mum. >> That can be done.
Okay, senator Blue requests that he gets a copy of the roll call vote, thank you. Before we finish up let me just make it clear now that we have criteria established and understanding that there's access to computers and the necessary resources to accomplish that, I'm sure that the map draws will do their job, come forward with the map, we will possibly have a meeting tomorrow, the chairs will allow you notice, we are going to need to give the map writers drawers a chance to do their work, we are also waiting for the decision buy the supreme court on the motion for stay to allow that election to take place in an orderly manner without any voter dysfunction, so, we will let you know at what time tomorrow whether we will be meeting tomorrow. >> Mr. Chair. >> Sir. >> What would the earliest we, could we block out the morning for real work, other work. >> I think to give sufficient time for map drawers to work I think we would be looking at earliest would be one o'clock. Okay? >> Members of the committee any questions on what was discussed? You all know what we've got, so stay tuned and thank you for your quick response. Meeting [SOUND] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK-AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO]