Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

A grade for West Virginia's map, just in time for the primary

Opinion

West Virginia redistricting map

A state legislator reviews the proposed congressional district map submitted by Gorrell.

Perry Bennett

Gorrell is an advocate for the deaf, a former Republican Party election statistician, and a longtime congressional aide.

In March, a map accompanying an article in The Fulcrum showed West Virginia with a finalized congressional map. As a longtime opponent of partisan gerrymandering, I feel obligated to step in where purportedly unbiased analysts have failed to review West Virginia’s new district lines.

Since Oct. 26, 2021, I have periodically monitored the Redistricting Report Card to learn which grade the Princeton Gerrymandering Project gives West Virginia. The PGP identifies and rates each state's congressional redistricting plans based on partisan fairness, competitiveness and geography.

But the Redistricting Report Card shows West Virginia as one of five states without draft maps even though, on Oct. 22, Gov. Jim Justice signed bills establishing legislative and congressional maps that will be in place until the 2032 election cycle. West Virginia became the fifth state to complete congressional redistricting, and that was six months ago.


As tracked by All About Redistricting, West Virginia is not among 16 states that face pending lawsuits related to approved congressional maps.

I find it mysterious that West Virginia has not been scored yet, despite having only two congressional districts for the next decade. The map is simply drawn, posssibly because the state Constitution requires that congressional districts be compact and contiguous, as well as preserve county lines.

The PGP has not scored any congressional maps since March 18 and it is crystal clear the group will not score West Virginia, which is holding its primary today. So I, as a sixth-generation West Virginian, have to volunteer to analyze the West congressional map based on the PCP methodology for The Fulcrum’s readers.

County Splits: A+

The joint redistricting committee decided to keep counties intact for the 2020 election cycle. Historically, West Virginia had never divided a county between two or more congressional districts. The committee’s decision was supported by the 2012 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Tennant v. Jefferson County Commission.

Geographic Features: A-

The question on creating the two congressional districts was whether to divide the state north-south, east-west, or northwest-southeast.

West Virginia is almost entirely mountainous. In fact, West Virginia has more mountainous land per square mile than any other state. Also, it has flat strips that lie along the major rivers.

Minority Composition: A+

West Virginia must meet two federal requirements for drawing congressional districts, including compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (prohibited discrimination based on race). As Owens Brown, a state senator and president of the West Virginia NAACP, told a joint redistricting committee on Aug. 24, 2021: “There is a heavy population of minorities in the southern part of the state. … That’s what we hope will happen.”

And it came to pass, as a result, 26 of 27 counties identified in the NCAAP’s proposal were incorporated into the southern district of the new congressional map.

Partisan Fairness: Incomplete

While redistricting in many other states is a hyperpartisan exercise, West Virginia has no problem with partisan fairness.

A veteran Democratic strategist, James Carville, told Vox on Jan. 27, "Understand that [Sen.] Joe Manchin is a Roman Catholic Democrat in a state where not a single county has voted Democrat [for president] since 2008. I repeat: not a single county has voted Democrat since 2008.”

When you drive through the Mountain State today, all you see would be hundreds of Trump signs and a few obscene Biden signs. Therefore, it is incomplete in grading.

Compactness: A+

The state is also required to draw congressional districts that are approximately equal in population and compact. The Senate Redistricting Committee compiled with the state code for “compactness” by selecting the a map with a deviation of 0.17 percent.

On the other side of the gold-domed capitol, the House Redistricting Committee adopted the map with a deviation of 0.09 percent.

The difference between the two maps was the handling of two counties. The Senate had Ritchie County in the southern district and Pendleton County in the northern district, and the House map flipped that.

The Senate agreed to the House map due to more compactness and minor deviation.

Competitiveness: Incomplete

As the state became heavily Republican, Manchin was the only Democrat in West Virginia's congressional delegation or holding statewide office in 2021.

There is a fascinating Republican primary race in the new 2nd district, where Rep. David McKinley of the old 1st district and Rep. Alex Mooney of the old 2nd district are facing off. This matchup is one of five House races involving two incumbents in the same district.

Communities of Interest: C+

Testifying before the joint committee on Sep. 17, I exclaimed, “I am a little disappointed that West Virginia is one of 23 states that does not have criteria for preserving communities of interest.” I proposed keeping gas-producing communities together, as well as coal-producing communities and others with solid economic links, to better serve those interests.

My proposed map would divide the state northwest-southeast. The adopted map happens to be a north-south shape, so it has split my “communities of interest” map into halves. Therefore, I am giving a C+.

Litigation?

West Virginia Mountaineers are always free while all five bordering states are entangled in the redistricting litigation.

“The people of West Virginia are a proud and independent people — typical of the best in American life,” John F. Kennedy said during a campaign stop in Charleston on Apr. 20, 1960.


Read More

A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia is on its way to be the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the U.S. closer to electing presidents by the national popular vote.

Getty Images, EyeWolf

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all (WTA) regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

With Virginia's adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, collectively holding 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less