The Supreme Court's landmark ruling that federal judges are powerless to police political gerrymandering is not going to be the final word on the matter from an American courthouse.
Opening arguments were heard Monday in a state court lawsuit challenging the work of North Carolina's aggressive Republican mapmakers, the same folks whose work on congressional districts survived a high court challenge in Washington just three weeks ago.
But this time, the plaintiffs (led by Common Cause) are challenging the boundaries of state legislative districts — alleging they abridge North Carolina's constitutional rights to freedom of assembly and equal protection and so should be tossed out, even if they can no longer be challenged as violating the U.S. Constitution.
"Republicans in the General Assembly have manipulated the district lines to guarantee that their party will control both the state House and the state Senate, regardless of how people vote," attorney Stanton Jones declared as what's expected to be a two-week civil trial got underway before a panel of three state judges in Superior Court in Raleigh. "This attack on representative democracy and voting rights is fundamentally unfair."
The attorney for the Republican legislative leaders, Phillip Strach, countered that plaintiffs were seeking to be rescued by "judicial fiat" from the normal consequences of electoral, legislative and even demographic processes, including that Democrats tend to cluster in cities and so don't compete in many suburbs or rural areas.
"This lawsuit is not about protecting democracy," Strach said. "It is a full-frontal assault on democracy."
Challenges like this one are sure to become more common in light of the Supreme Court's ruling three weeks ago, in which the five conservative justice agreed that federal courts have no role in addressing even the most dramatically partisan gerrymanders — those drawn by the party in power in order to stack the deck disproportionally against the other party, even when voter behavior makes plain the desire for an allocation of seats that's closer to even.
Republicans, who have benefitted much more from partisan gerrymandering in this decade, are on alert for the potential their efforts will eventually get undone by these state court challenges.
Former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has taken the lead in combatting this strategy as chairman of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, which will coordinate the party's redistricting strategy after the 2020 census. After the Supreme Court decision he warned members of his party against resting easy. "Now, more than ever, we need all Republicans to join us or we will find ourselves gerrymandered into perpetual minorities by liberal state supreme courts," he wrote on Twitter.
Challenges similar to the new one in North Carolina have been filed in Michigan, Ohio, Georgia, Texas, Louisiana, Connecticut, Mississippi, Alabama and Maryland. But none has yet gone to trial.
One such challenge, however, has already produced an enormously consequential victory for opponents of partisan mapmaking, and for Democrats. Last year, in one of the biggest purple states in the nation, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declared that the state's constitution was violated by a map drawn by GOP legislators to assure that 12 of the state's 18 congressional districts would be filled by Republicans. Under the new map ordered by the court, the state elected nine House members from each party in the 2018 midterm.
But in North Carolina, even though Republican legislative candidates received less than half the overall vote, district-by-district results yielded a 10-seat advantage for the GOP in the state House and a seven-seat edge in the state Senate.
The trial over the those maps will feature many of the same arguments that permeated the litigation that challenged the state's congressional map, with has reliably led to wins for Republicans in 10 of the 13 districts. One important thing will be different, however: The plaintiffs will be able to present evidence from the files of the late Tom Hofeller, a GOP gerrymandering wizard who helped the North Carolina mapmakers in maximizing their partisan advantage.
The plaintiffs are particularly optimistic about their chances because, no matter what the trial verdict, the case looks destined for final disposition at the Supreme Court of North Carolina, where judges elected as Democrats hold six of the seven seats. Although the new case is just about state legislative seats, a ruling that they violate the state constitution could be applied to the congressional districts in time for the redistricting after the 2020 census, when North Carolina is likely to be awarded a 14th house seat because of its population growth.
U.S. President Donald Trump boards Air Force One on August 14, 2026 at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. Trump is traveling to Long Island to tour law enforcement facilities in Nassau County and rally support for local Republican candidates ahead of the upcoming midterm elections
Travel Far Enough, You Meet Yourself
Is it possible that our President has simply not traveled enough?
Born and raised in Queens and attending Fordham University in the Bronx, Donald Trump has no record of traveling outside New York until he was over 20, when he transferred to a college in the neighboring state of Pennsylvania. Were his formative years amiss, then, in his learning about other places and other people?
Is his view akin to the famous New Yorker cover by Saul Steinberg, an illustration of the United States with New York City as the epicenter of the country and the Hudson River the border of the known world? We can now at least add Washington, D.C., and Mar-a-Lago to the map of “the realm.”
Our President has now traveled some, but what we recommend is another kind of travel. Not a state-sponsored trip or a venture to scout locations for future Trump Towers. This would be a genuine travel experience, enriching and eye-opening, showcasing other cultures and ways of living.
It will extend far beyond viewing military parades, hobnobbing with such “understanding” world leaders as Kim Jong Un, or taking tea with the King.
WHERE, then, should the President go? As Elon Musk’s Starship spacecraft is not yet ready to take passengers to Mars, perhaps he could explore our own vast country?
Maybe he could travel to “flyover country,” the farming states, where his ying-yanging tariffs and trade restrictions have played havoc with rural economies. Or possibly to California, number one in homeless U. S. citizens, and while there, regale homeless veterans (approximately 32,500 nationwide) with tales of his brave exploits invading and bombing foreign countries.
Or he might tour the Great Lakes, and rename the other four?
WHEN should he go? This will be tough, as he is very busy building his ballroom and renaming bodies of water.
How about a trip in early November, around the midterm elections? Despite the long-discredited accusation of widespread voter fraud, it would be reassuring to know he might be so caught up divvying out ladles of soup in a soup kitchen somewhere that he wouldn’t remember to deploy the military for “election security.”
HOW will he travel? He should definitely not take his Qatari-donated, newly renovated 747, especially after last time, when he had to be smuggled off clandestinely in a catering truck. It’s unlikely any traveling companions, like the Secretary of State or of the Treasury, are going to fall for the ruse a second time. Besides, we may need those people. No more decoys!
Perhaps the President could fly commercially, although this likely would expose him to undue suffering. Without gold bathroom fixtures and maple wood floors, the trip will be no “Luxury Experience.” If only he still had his “Trump Shuttle,” bought with a massive loan he later defaulted on, saying then, “I’m smart. I got out at a good time.”
Considering the potential pitfalls, maybe it’s best the President travel incognito, disguised perhaps as an elderly woman wearing a lot of bronzer.
Wherever, whenever, however: our President needs a vacation.
Moreover, we need a vacation from him.
If the President refuses our travel suggestions, here’s another idea:
Let’s get him a pet! He has never owned a pet. As we know with our children, pets teach essential life lessons: compassion and empathy; they instill a sense of responsibility. There is a well-established connection between those who can care for a pet and those who can care for people.
So, which pet should we choose? A puppy? A kitten? A boa constrictor?
Imagine, the President may even decide he likes having a pet. After all, what is more obedient than a well-trained dog, besides possibly the Cabinet? And what is more docile than a sweet kitten, other than plausibly the Supreme Court?
The President may even become more mellow with a pet afoot and less likely to slap tariffs on our allies, or attempt to annex our neighbors, or bully our Congress. (Realizing, of course, a bully requires active participation from the bullied to maintain his status.)
Maybe we should do both: get the President a pet and devise a travel plan for him. (Do you think we could possibly convince him to leave his phone at home?)
Let’s go for it! After all:
Travel far enough, you meet yourself. (David Mitchell)
And for our President, that would likely be the most profound discovery of all.
Amy Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."