A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for


Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

Senate | February 18, 2016 | Chamber | Senate Redistricting, Part Two

Full MP3 Audio File

[BLANK] With that senators we are going to move right into the calendar for today. Senate bill two the clerk would read. [BLANK] Senate Bill 2. An act to realign the congressional district as recommended by the joint select committee on congressional redistricting to comply with the court order in [INAUDIBLE_AUDIO]. >> Senator Rucho is recognized to explain the bill. >> Thank you Mr. President and members of the senate The senate bill two second edition 2016 contingent congressional plan corrected is before the body for adoption. We have had an extensive debate Debate in the redistricting I believe 400 members of the senate had a chance to participate listen in some way to understand exactly what is going on. This contingent congressional play in is coming before this body because after the justice department approve the maps after a three judge panel approve them as being fair legal in the constitution, after the North Carolina supreme court on three occasions proved them as being fair, legal, and constitutional The three judge panel in Queens borough from the middle district found that there were problems at least in their opinion regarding those maps dealing with constitutionality of CD1 and CD We may not agree with their opinion but we are complying with what the court asks us to do and each of you received information today and also what's on your desk dealing with the criteria that was established By the Joint Housing Senate committee on redistricting. You have the list of all of the criteria that was used and that actually represents what we felt was the best way us to draw a map that would achieve what the court was concerned Worried about. >> The map before you has 13 divided counties and if you remember correctly during the discussion, that is the lowest in recent history in going back almost 30 years. As far as dividing counties because we felt the county was really that cold body that needed to be preserved whenever possible except maybe when you have to balance the population as is required by Federal law and that was achieved and that again is And is one of the criteria that we had in doing so. It also has the least amount of split BTDs going back to the point where BTDs became part of the determination when that, Maps were drawn, it was precincts back a number of years ago and now the BTDs are the way they're being registered. The map before you is, I'm just trying to find a couple of things here if I may, The map before you [BLANK_AUDIO] maintains the 13 districts and you can see they ate again, very compact, the 12 district which had been criticized for many many years was convinced that In Nebranka/g county so that the issue of and all of the ridicule that we received from that district that we inherited over many many years has been corrected in this map. The court decided that the unconstitutionality issue of those two districts is because what they considered race being predominantly used, we disagreed with that and yet we still complying with the court because that's the authority that we're working with Working with.

All the other criteria that was established have been met on this map, again trying to be sure that the best map can be put forward. Today before you, is what we are here to do. Determine whether you believe or we believe or whatever that this map is something that will move forward in the redistricting plan so that an election can take place on March the 15th, which is something that we all hope can be done and Mr. President, under that circumstance, I will stop hear and respond to questions that I might be able to answer. I would see if Mr. Woodcox would be in the room to join me in the In case there are some technical questions that I may not be able to address directly. >> Thank you senator and just as a reminder kind of a house keeping note before we move forward are related to amendments. I'm not gonna read the rules, but 36.2 if everybody would just go back and refer to 36.2 again as the types of amendments that will. be allowed based on the rules that were adopted this morning for this process and we will adhere to that strictly today so just a hose keeping measure. Thank you senator Rucho. Do we have any discussion or debate? [BLANK_AUDIO]Senator Bryan for what purpose do you rise? >> I have a question for senator Rucho. >> Senator Rucho do you yield for a question. Question? >> Yes sir. Senator Russo. We will show in some areas within a redistricting plan. In some people's minds you have winners and losers because of people who get moved and people who get included and all of that. And so in my area there is a lot of concern about Transparency as it relates to the criteria applied and trusting that. So with that in mind, I have a question and that question is, was the consultant you all used previously Thomas Hofeller, was he involved in any way with these maps? And when and where were they initially drawn? And were any public funds involved in the process of the initial drawing of these maps? Sort of a three Part question. >> Which one? Can we do one question at a time if you- >> Sir yes. Senator Brown Rodgers start with one and we'll just keep kinda work our way through them here. So - >> First question, excuse me. >> Senator sorry, go ahead you have the floor. >> First question is, was Mr. Thomas Hofell/g, I think I'm pronouncing that correctly. Who would chose, I think previously involved in any way Way with these new maps? That's the first question. >> Mr. President, may I ask a couple of questions for clarification, if I may? >> Senator Brian will you yield for a question from senator Richard? >> So I can get some clarity before I answer my question. >> Yes sir. >> Okay, just few questions if i may. Representative Brian, excuse me. >> I've been talking with too many house members. >> Once a representative always a representative. >> Yes ma'am. I understand that, sorry. In drawing and you asking questions of me and in drawing, maps, may I ask, did you in the minority party have people working on your behalf in drawing any maps. >> No. Not at all. >> We had people working on our behalf advising us about what could possibly be done, follow up we did, yeah. >> Senator Brian, do you yield for Follow up. >> Did the people that you had advised, are they from Washington or North Carolina and did they get funded by the unions or George Soros or any of that other kind of activity that they have come from those. >> I do not know the answer to that question. I can't answer that for you, alright? And- >> Senator can I ask you another question? >> [CROSSTALK] >> Senator [UNKNOWN] do you yield for a follow up question? >> I will yield for a follow up as long as I get all mine answered to. >> We will get there senator. [LAUGH] >> Thank you. And again, given the opportunity as we all were in a very short time frame given by us and the court you get 14 days and the first day you get notice as Friday night at 6 O'clock and you don't do Saturday and Sunday. So within the time frame as we did the minority party go out And have any effort in having any maps drawn and have them submitted in equal times especially since there was revenues to be able to

pay for that. >> I'm not able to speak for that I'm not the leader so I didn't have I'm not privy to all what was done I iii know the part That I was involved in which was just the discussion of what might be possible, the time it would take the complications involved for the payoff of getting it done and it seemed a difficult task from what I could determine but the ultimate decision making about all of that I wasn't preview to Senator Blue follow up >> Senator Brian do you [INAUDIBLE] >> Yes. >> Senator Blue or Senator McKissick and or some of the house members then will probably more privileged know all of the information as to they went out searching consultants and getting information like that. Would they be better answering the questions as to what who funded this [INAUDIBLE] for the unions? >> Senator Blue would know more about that than I would. >> Thank you I will answer your question. >> Thank you you want me to start over. >> Senator Richard. >> At some point I would love to. To ask those questions to Senator Blue, Senator McKissick, but in answering the question we too went ahead and consulted with Dr. Huffler to give us the options as to what time frame he would do the work in and also And the short period of time, how were we going to accomplish this tasks since the court really gave us 11 days to get this done and we also tried to be sure that it was done in a very transparent manner as you asked, and actually when you had requested that we get into, County, I think we were able to achieve that thanks to you, good work and we had a public hearing on Monday both in Rolly and six counties, or six locations outside so it was a huge transparent effort. I wish you were there to spend seven hours with us so we could really have enjoyed all, that friendship time together. But under the circumstances yes, Dr. Huffler/g was consulted and one point there was an agreement to produce a map that we can be able to get the court So we meet our obligation of the court. >> Okay. And so when and where- >> Senator do you yield for another question. Senator Richard do you? >> Yes I do. >> Okay, Senator? >> For when and where were the maps initially drawn, and were public funds involved in that process? >> My understanding of it is that when When we consulted with Dr. Hofler and of course consulted with our attorneys to make sure that we had the best answer to be able to comply with the court since not like you, accomplished lawyer, I'm just really a dentist, and the, We did talk with the experts and we were able to f find a plan to do it and in doing so, that's how we actually got the criteria established which is why and how Dr. Hofler was able to draw maps that are, what we had before. When we'll follow up. >> Senator Richard do you? >> Yes I do. >> So at what point or when were the maps transferred to our legislative system? >> When the, just ask the question, hold on a second [BLANK_AUDIO] We just asked Dr. Huffler to follow the criteria in trying to meet the requirements and [INAUDIBLE] With all sincerity Senator Brian, this map that's before you is what we consider an answer to what the court asked us to do, and I urge you members of the back row, members of the majority party to look at This map and base it on it's merits and the merits that you have before you are why you have a map that looks the best and if you remember being in the room over there they had from 1982 forward. All of those maps were addressing all of the different iterations over the years, the 12th district First district and all the others so why would I say to you in concluding my answer that it's time for you and the other members to just look at the merit of this map and the time for questioning on this

issues as you all know as Senator Blue and Senator McKissick, we may have another five years We take this into court, or you all take this to court given the chance so that their would be plenty of opportunities to do depositions and witness in front of the court and answering all of these questions that you are addressing. So the real issue is let's go ahead and focus on this map and decide if this. Is the map is we wanna go ahead and meet the obligation of the court and I think that probably that probably finishes my answers thank you. Mr president I think I just a follow up if I can because I dint get an answer to my last question. >> Senator Rucho do you yield? >> No sir >> Senator Rucho does not yield. Senator Bryan. You project to speak to the bill senator Bryan. >> Well I just wanna say I guess so. I have made this remarks. It concerning to me since I cant get an answer to the question about when the data was imported into our computers and give a sense to that process. Then who is accountable for the criteria. And what loopholes their might be have been with the criteria being honored still is an issue as he would like us to just accept what's going on and make the best of it. I hear him but our constituent is a much bigger issue than that. And so I think it's still a question about how much we can trust the honoring of this criteria given that we don't know more information about this process, but thank you. >> Any further discussion or debate. Senator McKissk what purpose do you rise? >> To see if senator Rucho would yield for a question. >> Senator Senator Rucho, do you yield? >> Yes sir Senator McKissick. >> Senator Rucho, I assume your consultant had a database that covered all of the fields that would have been covered back in 2011 for evaluating a new potential. This whole congressional district math. Would that not be correct? >> Senator McKissick. >> As I discussed with Senator Brian, it's very simple. The criteria that representative Luis and I gave to our math producer is the ones that they were told to use and there's nothing in there that included included race or party affiliation or anything other than what's on the criteria and you're at the committee meeting and the joint committee, we've discussed it, you hammered it, a lot of questions, you got your answers, you actually requested, Beyond what we wanted because we felt race should not have been part of this based on the decision by the court, but you wanted the information on race and the racial demographics and the like and that's your privilege and we actually worked with the staff to make sure you got everything you wanted. Not much else to say about that Quick follow up, Mr president, if I could? >> Senator Richard do you yield? >> Yes. >> Do you know if before the adoption of the criteria if your consultant had already began making maps without knowing that those criteria would be adopted? >> Well, to say Say that, I think it's simple to say that there's always criteria when you establish that, let me just say to you, it's like any bill in the legislature. When you submitted a bill, you already have it planned out where you have privilege, privacy, and the like, and you're thinking about what you want to put in the bill We think about what we would like to see and in the same manner as you do and in doing so, you go ahead and you say, we wanted to be drawn, the whole counties which we actually got only 87 whole counties which was the best it's ever been. We didn't wanna cut any, divide any If ETBs is our fewest possible so that we can at least do it based on trying to maintain the zero deviation. And the basic criteria that would be there, that you would discuss and I'm sure, as a matter of fact, it may be a great time for me to ask you some questions about who your map drawers were and who funded it But in essence we had a discussion with him and make sure that he fully understands what his limitations were and in doing so you know as well as I do this thing goes criteria that's what he was told to do and that's what I'm sure he did. >> Follow Mr President. >> Senator Richard. Sir >> Very brief follow ups Senator Ruto, so it's possible before those criteria were adopted if he had the traditional categories that were available under the 2011 stack bag that might have included

race or high affiliations and a number of other parameters that they, is it possible That he begun drawing early maps taking into consideration those factors before the criteria were adopted >> [INAUDIBLE] >> inquire the chair please. >> Senator [UNKNOWN]. >> Mr President are we talking about this map or we are talking about how we draw maps to what Imaginary maps may have been done, or who may have done what when or where or are we voting on this map today as presented. >> Thank you Senator I would recommend that we keep our focus on the map that we keep specifically on that bill the question we can follow up go ahead and finish the question and Senator Ruto if you'd like to answer Answer it feel free. >> I'm not sure how to say it any clearer the answer was simple the criteria that was there was what was given to the iii they were told that this is all you live with and this is all you work with in drawing this map, what part of that you might not Where maybe you are not understanding it, the criteria was established and that is the criteria that was followed. I understand your statement and >> Senator Mackincy would you like to speak to the bill. >> Yes. >> Senator Mackincy you have the floor. >> The thing that gives me some concern and that is the Stand two weeks there are outside consultants being involved in drawing maps and while I understand that this criteria were indeed put before the joint committee on the house in the senate members dealing with this particular reconsideration and drawing of the congressional district maps that Perhaps the consultant wasn't completely bound by the criteria that was established and that in my mind opens up the contextual/g for race as well as party affiliations and other parameters to have considered perhaps from being drawn even though by the time they were in Imported into the database of the state system to provide us with the map here today, it would have been potentially sanitized so to speak. Now why do I ask these questions for a couple reasons, if you go back to the Harris versus McGory case, the thing that the court emphasized specifically was that Was that they were extremely concerned about the packing and stacking of District 1 and District 12, and when I say packing and stacking, it's the over concentration of African-American voters into those particular districts. And the court was concerned about it because it was was unconstitutional, it was unconstitutional because these were the majority minority districts. Neither of these districts had been the majority minority districts in the past. These districts had been allowed in the past to elect candidates of choice without having to be majority minority districts and that's what the voting rights act requires, and it still requires that, well there is a certainly questions about the applicability of section 5 at this time, section 2 of that voting rights still remain standing law, and you require to and looking at the creation of this districts, to think about how you can enable minorities to elect the candidate of choice. If race is not considered as a factor and I'm being told it was not considered as a factor in the drawing in this districts, then you have the potential to dilute the political Political strength of that minority. The thing that quote [INAUDIBLE] specifically was that being a predominant consideration they never said race cannot be considered that would be complete misreading of that court case and what we've done is from one occasion. Using it as a predominant consideration in creating, majority - minority districts to just the opposite, just the reverse without understanding the Voting Rights Act and what the court actually said. It said no packing, no stacking, no over populating these districts with minorities. And if you go back to the history of these districts and you looked at the way they were formed. And you looked at the way they were drawn. They didn't have to be majority - minority districts. >> Mr. President. >> Senator Ruccho on what purpose do you rise? >> Inquiry of the chair. Are we talking about this map? Or are we talking about maps of the past and the criteria that was established to count those in. I mean this map is clearly delineated as to what was followed with the criteria so I'm not sure I understand why- >> Thank you Senator

Rucho. Senator Mcessick, I think your comments are generally germane but if you will keep them to this map specifically when you are making comments if you would direct your comments to the map that's before us today and the Senate Bill too, thank you. >> [INAUDIBLE] Mr. President my comments are [INAUDIBLE]. They are [INAUDIBLE] because they relate specifically to the map before us and whether it is compliant With the Voting Rights Act today as it stands they will just compliant with the court's decision, the quote never stated in it's position [INAUDIBLE] that you should not consider race but it has been ignored as a factor in drawing up these districts. So we've gone from one extreme to the absolute other In violation of the voting rights act. More importantly one of the things which gives me concern is that we now have among the criteria that was adopted, this idea of partisan advantage and certainly the party with the majority has a right to exercise some reasonable degree of discretion in redrawing these districts, but I think the articulation in the criteria that we adopted that says the person who make up the congressional delegation under the indicted plan is ten Republicans and three Democrats the committee should make reasonable efforts to construct Instruct districts in the 2016 contingent Congressional plan to maintain this make over [BLANK_AUDIO] Pattison Jerry Mandarin and it's worse. What voters' mistake was are competitive history but regardless of One if a Democrat or Republican or affiliated they have chance to compete on American not when political jury is used to give an unfair balance, an advantage to one party over the other and particularly we look at the traditional history going Right here in North Carolina we go back to 2012, total votes of Democrats running for congress versus the votes to republicans will be fine is that Democrats and those democratic candidates running for congress got iii more votes that republicans they ended up with three sits and Republicans got ten and what do we know back before all this redistricting occurred we had seven democrats who were part of our congressional delegation [INAUDIBLE] >> Alright Senator McKissick now we are not iii any longer so let's keep your comments please focused on the bill that's in front of us thank you. I think the bill in front of us, and the map in front of us gives me serious reasons for concern. Because I don't believe it's compliant with the court's decision by not considering a race at all and I don't believe it's consistent with the voting rights act. More importantly when I look at the map And I think about the impact upon the 12th congressional district. One thing that I do know is that we dint consider it, a part of our consideration and criteria where the communities of interest that would be considered. Community of interest is a standard that's been adopted by the united states supreme court. Like failing to consider that and include it as part of our criteria. It perhaps eliminated the capacity to create districts that would've combined cities and communities in a way that it could have been best represented. That gives me deep concern. I look at Congresswoman Alma Adams - >> Mr. President >> and the district key had>> Senator Rich for what purpose do you arise >> Would Senator Mckissick yield to a question ? >> Senator Mckissick do you yield >> Yes I will >> Senator Mckissick I know I've read the opinion two or three times and of course I'm not a big attorney like yourself but where is it in that Opinion did ever say that you must use race as the criteria? [BLANK_AUDIO] What it says in the- >> No, no. My question where is it in the opinion that it says you must use race? >> I never stated that. I never stated that. I said that basically what the opinion required Was the redrawing of these maps for these congressional districts because African Americans voters had been packed into district one and in district 12 and that by packing those African American voters into those districts it was unconstitutional, and that the voting rights act Required one in drawing maps to consider how you could draft maps to allow minorities, to elect candidates of choice regardless of the race that that candidate could be. >> Senator McKissick, would we offer follow up? >> Sure.

>> Senator McKissick, in abiding by the Voting Rights Act which I believe we did in this map, now this is what we're talking about. The court was clear in saying that in their opinion, racial polarized voting did not exist and in that fact, we complied with the Voting Rights Act just as we did on this map right here. Did we not? >> You never conducted conducted a racially polarized voting study. That was when conducted from what I understand back in 2011 is not been adequately evaluated or considered, one thing that we can appropriate to have done was to accurate conducted a racially polarized voting study to have seen what parts the state where it was a significant factor in what parts where it was Force the state where it may not have been. What it basically what it could have indicated to you that perhaps an intensely urban areas of this state, there is racial coloration building between blacks, whites and the other groups to come forth with a cohesive political block to elect the candidate of choice. Without a racially polarized voting study done, you might not be able to identify those parts of state within the congressional districts that are being crafted that would have specifically identified where you needed to take race into consideration while you might have been able. >> Follow up please. >> You need to allow me to complete my explanation before interrupting me, to have identified the specific areas where you needed it to go in and create suspicion Voting blocks of minority voters to allow them to elect candidates of choice. >> Follow up. >> Senator McKissick are you in for a follow up? >> Yes. Senator McKissik in reading the opinion and talking about the jingles case and all that stuff, is it not accurate that the court Court said that there was no evidence of racially polarized voting. Did they not clearly state that in the opinion? >> That is not what I saw in that opinion. >> Then you might need to read it again. >> Senator McKissick, you have the floor to finish your time if you'd like. >> Sure and I guess it's is a good point to directors all to we all know today we are in the state of North Carolina the fortunes of this state were racial relations were excellent, there were all multiracial coalitions that come together to help elect candidates of choice regardless of race. but unfortunately, there are still portions of us today. We don't live in a color blind society, where race is a predominant factor in people deciding who they select as a candidate and who they vote for. We need to be cognizant of that fact, we need to recognize that fact. And in fact, what the Voting Rights Act did was to identify 40 counties in this state where they had is to record voting practices that were discriminatory what African American voters, that's why they were subject to section five. While section five today has to be re-visited by Congress and Congress Congress is at a stalemate. Section two continues to exist and involves strong force, teeth and validity. We need to understand that if we want to give voters of this state a choice, first, we need to have voting districts established, congressional districts established where we can have competitive races between Republicans and Democrats and we also need to take race into a factor in drawing these districts. It should not. It should never be the predominant factor and predominant thing that should control what we do, but we need to understand that within a local Counties and communities and within these districts that are being crafted. That the voting rights act requires us to be caught/g into those factors and to try give those voters within those districts a potential to elect a candidate of choice. Unfortunately the maps we have here today May potentially eliminate some of the problems identified by the court because they are no longer majority-minority districts. But they open themselves up to a significant challenge based upon the fact that this articulated criteria for giving oneselves Partisan advantage maybe completely over the top and is likely to leading to continue litigation for years to come I ask that those of you who can open mind to look at this map and vote against it. >> Senator Heiss [UNKNOWN] your purpose iii. >> Senator Mckissick Absolutely. >> Senator Mckissik I'm a little confused on two directions here I think this court has ruled that a majority minority district 50% plus one is a predominant use of race you are saying that we still have to create districts where minorities can Choose a candidate,

can the elect candidate they're choosing. What is the percentage in your mind that satisfies both of these criterion? >> There's not a magical number Senator Haines/g that's why the racially polarized voting studies are so important and an integral part of this map drawing processing it should have been utilized significantly back in 2011 Because what's right and wrong or chapel hill may not be the same number in some other community in our state, it's not a bright line test, it's not an exact number that one can identify, it maybe 45% in place. It maybe 35 But what you wanna attempt to do is to look at those historical voting trends and patterns and what has been established historically in terms of trying to identify what is right. Is it a challenge? Absolutely. Is it something that's not easy to wrap your arms around? I'd be the first to acknowledge that but I also say that doesn't mean because it's a challenge that you should not try, follow the law of the land. >> Senator McKissick do you yield for follow up? >> Sure, so but given the situation we are in and a court ruling and a two week period to conduct these. Do you believe there is any manner other than not considering race that we do not place ourselves in a position for a court to rule that race was the predominant factor in drawing these districts? >> I think there were other possibilities, yes, one could look at map, That had been approved through the justice department in the past before those districts recrafted as a majority minority districts and use it particularly as a bench mark that's a guide post. I'm not saying that it's a bright line test, but we know that if these majority minority, districts have put up over 50% or too much. Perhaps, in the past some, some of those other maps that might have been drawn that would have been approved by the justice department might show a reasonable range of venerability to determining what might be valid >> Mr. President [CROSSTALK] >> Yes sir. >> Senator Ruso I know we've been here quite a while but did not the justice department, the Obama justice department approve these maps? >> They have approved the inacted maps that is correct. >> Okay, thank you. Mr. President. >> Senator Stein for what purpose do you arise? >> To speak on the bill. >> Senator Stein you have the floor to speak to the bill. >> Thank you Mr. President, members of the Senate as we all know last week the three-judge Federal Panel ruled that the 2011 maps were unconstitutional because they alluded the votes of African-Americans and it impacted their ability to elect candidates of their choice because then mechanically put a majority of them enter two congressional districts, the first and the 12th. I agree with Senator McKissick's analysis that this effort suffers from the same infirmity as the last which is there has been no analysis of racially polarized voting. So we don't know under section two whether these districts are good or not. I have been dealing with one constitutional problem and racial [UNKNOWN] that was on the last map. What you all have done squarely put this map with another constitutional problem and that's a political gerrymandering. The committee chair said that they drew these maps to maximize the number of Republicans elected to Congress. When asked why he supported massive/g would yield ten Republican congressmen and three Democratic Congressmen, Chairman Louis said it was because he couldn't draw one to produce 11 Republicans. His goal was to maximize the number of Republicans elected to Congress. First political gerrymandering is unconstitutional and is subject to court review. The case Senator Mayton/g is Davis versus Bandemer . That is the precedent, and it remains the precedent on political gerrymandering cases. Even Justice Collier holds that political gerrymandering is unconstitutional. He just differs in that case was the Vieth/g case, he differs in that he says those cases Constitutional are not appropriate for court review. But in that case the Vieth case he [INAUDIBLE_AUDIO].There were five justices including justice Kennedy who held that Davis Bandemer still good law and the political gerymandering cases all can be unconstitutional and it would be appropriate for court to determine

and set a standard for what is a n unconstitutional political gerrymander. [BLANK_AUDIO] Just two months ago another three-judge federal panel just like the one here in North Carolina ruled that a Wisconsin plan would not be litigation to block Wisconsin plan could go forward asserting a political gerrymander case in Wisconsin. And of course one of the most prominent cases upholding a gerrymandering case happened here in North Carolina the plaintiff was the Republican Party of North Carolina and they successful stood to change the way in which Jury court judges were elected in our state. This brazen gerrymander undermines our democracy. The voters have a constitutional right to have their votes mean something, yet this map wastes hundreds of thousands of votes of North Carolina citizens simply because of what party they are affiliated with. It is a slap in the face to those voters. It was drawn with the declared purpose of electing ten republican congresspeople. That's 77%of our congressional delegation. - >> President Senator Rachel for what purpose do you arise? >> Would Senator Stein yield for questions? >> Senator Stein do you yield? >> I would be happy to when I finish with my remarks. >> Senator Stein you have the floor. >> Thank you very much. Our state is a 50-50 state by almost all measures. And the Of every United States senator election in the entire country of the last 25 years concluded that North Carolina is the most politically competitive state in the nation. In 2008, we were the state that most narrowly went for the president and 2012, we were the state that most narrowly went against the president [BLANK_AUDIO] In 2012 of all votes cast in that election for congress 51% went for a democratic candidate. 49% went for a Republican candidate. We have 13 Congress people. You would think it would be seven Democrats six Republicans maybe six Democrats seven Republicans. That's what happens when you have a 50-50 vote. In 2012 the results were nine Republicans and four Democrats. So I wanna underline that fact. In 2012 more More people in North Carolina voted for a Democrat representing them in congress and yet only 31% of the representatives were Democrats. A minority of North Carolinian's voted for a Republican and they got 69% of the representation in our delegation. This is simply a subversion Version of democracy in 2014 Republican candidates did a little better 52% of all votes went for Republican 48% went for Democrat yet the outcome was even more outrageous because 77% , 10 of the 13 of the congressional representatives were Republican We are a 50 50 state and yet our congressional delegation is three to one Republican to Democrat. And please do not say this is how it has always been done because that's not true. The last district thing was 2002 and that election that was the first election after the last round of redistricting. And that election 54% of North Carolinian's have cast a vote for a Republican member of congress 46% voted for Democratic, you know what the split was, 54% of our delegation was Republican and 46% was Democratic. That is a perfect, nearly perfect congruence Of votes and representation and yes what's supposed to happen in a democracy, the shear votes should yield the same share of representation. This Jerry Mander boils down to self preservation without representation. The only savings Of this map is it represents partisan abuse of such scale that the supreme court can use it to create a standard for determining what constitutes a non- constitutional Jerry Mander. Friends we live in North Carolina, not North Korea. Voters should choose their representatives not the other around because this Jerry Mander does preciously the opposite I urge you to vote no on this map. senator Brown for what purpose do you rise? >> Speak briefly. >> Senator Brown you have the floor. >> Thank you Mr. president. Senator Stan I appreciate your commentary of this and I know I have

your opinion like all of us. And but part of this map if you've look at it, if you go back to 2008 and look at the attorney general was raise in North Carolina. The attorney general who is a democrat that won that race when On every single district on this map. Every single one of them. I don't think there is a race in North Carolina that all the republicans could possibly win all these races in North Carolina it doesn't happen. And for you to say how Jury mannered this map is When a Democrat could win every single district makes absolutely no sense. If it was that Jury [INAUDIBLE AUDIO] how could that possibly be so. It makes no sense. if you look at the maps and we had the maps over while in the meeting room. And just saw what they looked like for many years, at least we finally got a map that I think may make sense when you look at it. If you got 13 counties that are divided, least ever, you got 13 precincts basically that are divided I think the least ever. Senator Mackicy/g you talked about the vagueness of what Senator Heiss/g asked you, if it's not 51%, is it 48%, is it 40%, nobody can give you that answer so how do you draw a map on something that vague I don't think you can. Because if you go from that scenario, then you'll never draw a map that's good. It will be impossible because it's an interpretation of what an individual thinks, and I'm not sure you'll ever get every individual to think that it's 51, or 49, or 40, or whatever it may be you know we can have that debate, whatever. You'll never decide it. It's impossible to decide cuz its vagueness. I think with what the ruling and they came down from the court. They gave us guidance from trying to draw this map. I think the best effort was done to do that in a short period of time. And I think those guidelines were as clear as May Wiked could determining and I think we tried to abide by those guidelines to draw this map. I just don't know how you can talk about how gerrymander they are when the Democrat running for a key office would have won Want every single district on this map. That argument makes no sense. Absolutely no sense to say that. And I just think, I think we're sitting here arguing over something that's just not true. And I think most people in this state, because most of these counties are kept whole, Well, we had 87 whole counties now of who they're voting for. I think that's a win for the State and I think it's the most ever so I think that should be something we should be proud of. I know we all have our opinions on this map but I think this is a pretty darn good job done in a short period of time and I just think the [INAUDIBLE AUDIO] is based on facts. And these are competitive districts now. And I think that's what it is, there is one of the state and I think that's what you get with this map. >> Mr president >> Senator Rucho for what purpose do you rise? Did have a question for senator Stein. >> Senator Stein do you yield for a question? Yes sir. >> Senator Stein wants you to believe that political gerrymandering is illegal and unconstitutional but I think a simple question to answer to that is the CD 12 which has been in place for a number of years actually put together by our minority party The back row in establishing CD 12, Senator Stein and going through all the litigation it did go through. The Supreme Court ended up saying that CD 12 was put together and allowed because it was a political gerrymandering and therefore illegal. So how do you say that the Supreme Court said that political gerrymandering is illegal and unconstitutional? >> Because, I think you're misunderstanding what a political gerrymander is. It is absolutely appropriate to take race into account when districting Redistricting so long as you don't make it the predominant factor. Then it becomes a racial gerrymander.Similarly it is appropriate or acceptable to take into account partisan performance when redistricting. Unless you take it to it's fullest and it becomes a political . gerrymander and at that point becomes unconstitutional. What We've heard is that these maps were drawn to maximize the number of republicans who were elected,

which tells us was the predominant factor in its drawing and, therefore constitutes a political gerrymander difference. >> Senator Smith in group four purpose your rise. >> Thank you Mr. President To see if Senator Rucho will yield to a logistics question. >> Senator Rucho do you yield for a question? >> Yes Ma'am. >. You're aware of the sites that were selected for the public hearings and with congregational district one being one of the districts that would have been most impacted or the at least courts [INAUDIBLE AUDIO] to save it there are questionable Formation of that congressional district. Why was there only one public hearing site in congressional district one which originally represented some 24 counties 1,300 and x miles long in distance if you drive around the district? Thank you for that question. You weren't here at the time we initially had redistricting where we put together, I would probably say seven or eight public hearings many of them coming out of District one and getting all the information and all of the opinions of the people over there. So it isn't Like we neglected them at all. We reached out and achieved that. On this time we were given 14 days to actually have a public hearing and to have the necessary joint committee to be able to come up with a map to meet the criteria. The court gave us 14 days. Well that's Look at it. Three of them were the weekend so we really never had it. So we had 11 days to do that. And in doing so we reached out across the state. We reached out whenever available, we were able to take care of Senator Bryan concern cause she was able to do it. I know you had a concern and, unfortunately the Technology was not there and available for that to be done. We've made every effort to do so and I applaud our general assembly staff and our IT people. We had six locations across the state to reach out to the public plus the fact we opened up the internet to allow for comments and I don't remember how many [BLANK_AUDIO] 80 pages of comments plus the public hearings on all coming from across the state including CD1. So under the circumstances we did the very best we could do with the minimum time we had to achieve public input we had Plenty of opportunity to discuss the criteria at our weekly meetings we arranged the time, we discussed it again today, we made every effort to reach out there. You may be disappointed with it, I'm sure there're people that are disappointed elsewhere in the state to not have a chance maybe, we tried in Guilford County which is Again Cd 12 at that point unfortunately they got caught in the storm that was the one that we had to cancel because of the weather. Every efforts been made and I have no apologies for not being able to do it. We reached out as best we could because the court only gave us basically 11 days to accomplish this task in addition to the fact that we have to get the map Done by no later than tomorrow. >> Follow up>> Sir Richard yield. >> Okay. >> There were several people who commented during the public hearings and we never did receive an answer, but did we ever ascertain why race was one of the questions asked during the sign in of the Constituents across the state? >> It was the same questionnaire that was done on the very first time, it was done then no one asked the question then. It was the same, the staff was just basically used the same there was nothing other than what was done in the past. [BLANK_AUDIO] Just a comment. Thank you. I do have grave concerns. >> I'm sorry senator you want to speak to the bill? >> May I speak to the bill. >> You have the floor senator. >> The first major concern, I condemn that my colleague senator Angela R Bryant for working feverishly to get Halifax county included and that was close to some of the Counties but not the predominant number of counties in congressional district one, Senator Don Davis also attempted to secure East Carolina and I myself all to one but when the announcement came out on a Friday and late on a Friday, we all scrambled to try to touch base with our community college presidents so fourth and so on. But I think it was just poor foresight or poor planning. You only had two weeks but this has been a litigation and we knew full well that we would be faced with this and if we could have gotten those other sights I don't see why we dint get an additional sight. In congressional district one. It takes away the transparency for. Constituent and then for those to fight the weather and fight the roads and show up, only to be insulted as if their race was a consideration and what interest in their presence being there.

I would like to know why race was a factor, I hope staff can give that to us. Just because we did something before doesn't Give us a reason to do it again I can imagine why that was a question on the sign up, but in speaking in the bill and the outcome of the map. I do have some concerns on a post analysis. Serving on the redistricting committee I heard the criteria I know the criteria that was voted on but was their any post analysis. Or The maps were constructed was their going back and looking at maybe the potential outcome and the effect and impact that it would have on the voters across North Carolina. I had two specific questions to know one in general but as we deliberate maybe we should think about that in the back of our minds. Once the maps were produced in the Redistricting had been done, to what extent would members of the minority group have been elected to public office in these particular jurisdictions that we have remapped all 13. And a final question to consider which is a post analysis that should have been done. By us and making this decision is the exclusion of members of a minority group from the candidates slaining process. And I say that in particular for the new congressional district 13 as mapped out and I do have concerns about the way congressional district 12 was Is treated and all of the districts surrounding I think that this was a hasty process to not understand that we are doing the best that we can but at the end of the day I don't think that the best that we can do is the best that we owe people of North Carolina. We should vote this map down [INAUDIBLE] >> Mr. President i'll speak briefly on the bill. You know it's amazing- >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Thank you Mr. President. It's amazing to hear democrats talk about political gerrymandering and that it's unconstitutional. It's been done since we had constitutional government and you all wrote the book on it. Your predecessors wrote the book on it, [BLANK_AUDIO] it's called If You Win, You Draw The Maps. And I don't believe that's ever going to change, now the only way that you would approve any map we drew you can go on with all of this arguments and Item would be for Senator McKissick, Senator Blue, Senator Stan, to go down there and draw the maps, you are to hire yourselves out, you know everything about drawing a map, you drew some real good ones some of you did back in the day when we sat on the back row and watched it. I would simply ask you that you know any legislature of any political party that has ever drawn maps, district maps of any kind, state, federal, whatever that's not used political, reasons for drawing a map. We're been told 65 voting rights we've got have minority majority districts and then we're told you can;t use race, then we're told we don't know what number will work go ahead and draw some more. That's what we're told, you're not gonna like any map we draw, no way we can do it That when you go derailing about the constitutional issue of political map-making, folks there's never been a legislature that's not done that in the history of man, never. >> Senator Pate, for what purpose do you arise? >> Ask Senator Rucho to yield for questions? >> Senator Rucho do you yield? Yield? [BLANK_AUDIO]>> Yes sir. >> Senator Rucho we held some public hearings earlier in the week, that's correct I believe? >> We had public hearings on Monday, I think there were six locations plus Raleigh and to further help Senator Smith-Ingram, I just remembered the fact that the question about race was optional. And I know people there are people in Wilmington and elsewhere that said, I choose not to participate to do that. So there was no obligation to actually fill that out. >> Okay, no problem. >> Go ahead. >> That's not my concern, I'm wondering now. So you Question. >> Senator Rick how do you yield? If the criteria for doing the maps were they developed prior to the public hearings? >> The criteria that were to draw the map that would be necessary to meet the requirements Means of the [BLANK_AUDIO] court. The three judges panel has been looked at by of course our consultants and our attorneys that were helping us make sure that we knew the

proper way to answer the concerns of the court, so of course we were looking at The issues that were necessary for us since we were only given 11 days because we really didn't have anything more than that to try to find out what they wanted because that doesn't matter is the court said it was unconstitutional but never told you why it was really unconstitutional. It never told you how What you needed to do to fix it and that's one of the reasons why as Senator Brown colluded to and Senator Heist talking about the fact that if 50% plus one is illegal, is 42 or 31 or any there was no like as to be able to say what is the number that you need to achieve to try to help that out. There was no time to do racial polarized studies as Senator McKissick alluded to because we had 11 days to get this done, okay. It took us six months the last time to get this done and we have 11 days to try to get this done. So in reality we needed to get advice and we got advice as soon as we found out that there was indeed a problem with the courts. And the funny thing about it, all the courts in North Carolina said they were fair, legal and constitutional. And the one federal court decided for whatever reason that they didn't agree with what the courts in North Carolina said. >> Senator Rucho do you yield? >> Yes. >> Let me narrow my question a little bit more. What's the criteria to maintain political advantage provided to the map makers prior to the public hearing. >> Repeat that again I couldn't hear you. >> What's the criteria to maintain political advantage the Republican Party provided to the map makers prior to the public hearing. >> Well, we looked at the previous map which was drawn following the voting rights act and all the other things that needed to be addressed the way The supreme court had told us to do and that is how we did the other map, this one was found unconstitutional. What we were doing is saying okay, political gerrymandering is not illegal despite what Senator Stein says and CD 12 is a political gerrymandering that was approved by the supreme court Supreme court, so there is nothing wrong with political gerrymandering. I won't accept that as being a criticism. >> I didn't say anything was wrong with it I'm just trying to determine whether or not one of the criteria provided to the map makers was to maintain political advantage and was that done par to the public hearing? >> To answer your question So you go ahead senate. >> To answer your question, we wanted to achieve the same goals that were available, that were achieved on the previous map, on this new map and to clearly achieve we had 13 screaming 10, 3 and we said 10, 3 will be the appropriate way to go in this one too. I guess I should take that for a yes. >> Senator do you wanna speak to the bill or do you wanna ask another question? >> Will the senator yield for another question? >> Senator Rucho do you yield? >> Yes. >> Okay. Well you're proud of the fact that a lot of folks did respond online as a part of the hearing is that correct? >> I'm sorry say it again please. >> You're some are boastful to the fact that we provided the opportunity for citizens to respond to the perfect hearing online, that we actually use the comments that they provided to us, are you aware that in those comments we see there are about 381 comments and about 150 of them spoke against gerrymandering, so on what basis am I to believe that we actually listen to our citizens when they told us that political advantages for the republican party was not one of their concerns. >> Well, I think you may have missed it senator Clerk, they said that we want to keep counties whole, we put a map that has never been better as far as the whole counties, they said that they don't wanna have VTV's split so it would erotic and have less than what will be respectable, and this is what I would consider respectable mapping, and it also achieved the fact that we wanted wanted to, the 13th, we did the 13, excuse me 10, 3 because that was what previous maps said, so those are the reasons why, I mean those are some of the examples that we did, one other thing, they didn't like the shape of the 12th district and we fixed it, and so we listened to the people out there and in my understanding having read them and listening for six hours as you did over that debate and that hearing. You know many of the people spoke on both sides of the issue. Some of them were happy with the old map, some of them weren't happy.

They were critical of the 12th district, we fixed the 12th district, we have whole counties, we have whole [UNKNOWN] wherever. we could, we have zero population as a federal requirement. We achieve everything that was necessary to meet the requirements of the court to the best of our ability and that's what we did. >> Thank you. Senator Clerk speak to the [INAUDIBLE] you have the floor senator. >> Clearly, there are There're problems here to me, it appears as though we did not seriously take into consideration our citizens view point. I can look at the online submissions right here, I see 381 submissions, 151 instances in which people spoke against political gerrymander. Yet we do it anyway we probably establish the criteria before we even ask them to speak? Which would be bad enough mad even worse if we establish such criteria after they have spoken. A lot of the comments that have just been made were really not the point I was trying to drive home, because even during the public hearing I asked a question, I still did not, that I did not get an answer to then. And I'm not sure anyone can provide an answer to me now and that is why should I support these maps that contain a ten, three partisan advantage and they were disadvantage was achieved based upon maps that were deemed to be unconstitutional, it makes no sense to me it sounds like insanity, I cannot do it and I will not do it. >> Senator [INAUDIBLE] of what purpose you rise? >> See if senator Rucho yield. >> Senator Rucho do you yield for a question? >> Yes sir, senator [INAUDIBLE]. >> Sentor Rucho is it a fact that this map was actually completed, drawn and voted on around 2 o'clock today, thank you. >> Senator Davis [INAUDIBLE]. >> Mr. President I would like to see if Senator McKissick/g will yield for a question. >> Senator McKissick.g do you yield? [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Sure, absolutely. >> Thanks Senator. I was contemplating who to ask the question cuz I typically listen but I've heard a couple times It being said that we weren't quite sure upon looking at the opinion that there was any guidance provided by the court if I understood that correctly and I think I heard it in different settings. My question to you is what in your opinion is drawing lines that is predominantly factored using the race. >> What that would have meant to is using race to create this majority minority districts where the districts were specifically designed, that have high concentrations of African-American voters, there was an excess of 50%, and these districts, historically, had not had African-American at that level of concentration. So the court was deeply concerned about the over-concentration of African-American voters in those districts and And decided in it's opinion that race had been a predominant factor into drawing those district boundaries. >> Okay. >> Well, may I ask a follow up question? >> Senator McKissick do you yield? >> Sure. When you said a selling perhaps or a quarter You know I'm listening to you summoning queries in terms of what is a set number. Is that something that you think would think- >> Mr. President? Inquiry of the chair. Why do questioning is dealing with this not this map, but something else totally different? Why is that relevant to what we talking We're talking about the marriage of this map and getting a map so that the state of North Carolina can go ahead and have an election if the supreme court doesn't agree on the motion to stay. >> I'll say again that the general direction is jermaine but let's focus our Attention on the bill that's before us and the map that's drawn before us and let's not completely be theoretical in our conversations here. So we can direct it specifically, speaking specifics towards the map that's in front of us then I will consider that [UNKNOWN]. SO you may continue senator. >> Okay, thank you Mr. President. I'll back up and go a different Direction cuz I've heard a lot of discussion too about when Democrats were in office and so forth. You know that there was political Jerry Mandering, my only question to you and I selected you to answer these questions today not just because you're my sit mate but I think you're the longest serving

Least Democrat around here but my question is to your knowledge did the Democrats ever adopt a criteria that was the finest partisan as managed. >> Senator this is exactly what I'm getting at, this is not Jermaine at this point if you'll focus specifically on the map that's in front of us Then your questions can be dromained/g to that map but now we are talking. >> Mr President may I ask a question of the chair? >> Please Senator. >> If this map contains potentially or a criteria that was set that we use to establish the map would that not be If you speak specifically to the map that would be Jamaine/g yes so focus on this bill and this map that is in front of us even in your questioning so I think you have a question for Senator McKissick so if you want to speak to the bill then you can do that as well and then we'll talk about the Jamaines/g of that but right now you were asking a question so if you'll please continue with your questions to Senator McKissick And allow him to answer. >> Okay, when it comes to partisan advantage I have never seen articulated in a set of criteria language that specifically stated partisan advantage I've not ever seen that. Ever stated as written criteria at any point in time, nor as criteria which we fused that was not articulated. I think that if we'd look at this new issue that's before us now, a distinct identification in written criteria voted on by a committee of partial advantage and a specific map Being driven by that partisan advantage, I think it opens up a floodgate of litigation that's likely to come, and this is gonna be before the courts for a long, long time. It's unfortunate because I think it was an opportunity to draw a new map. I suppose the one that's before us That did not embed Partisan advantage and an unfair advantage to one political party when this [INAUDIBLE] about 50-50. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO] Senator Jackson what purpose do you rise? >> Speak Senator Jackson, you have the floor. >> Until a few years ago, transportation funding in our state was a game of inside politics. Road money was often funneled to certain districts for reasons that had nothing to do with actual transportation needs. Then Senator Harrington, Senator Rabin, Representative Tobett, Representative Brawley came together and did the State a great service. They put in place a new system. It elevated simple fairness over partisan politics. The strategic transportation investors bill was a generational of peace of legislation. It brought both sides together to take the politics out of transportation funding, our state is better for it. Even Though the majority party finally had the power to be the ones playing politics with that part of money, you decided to leave a legacy instead. I bet none of you regret that choice. I bet that's one of the pieces of legislation you are most proud of. [BLANK_AUDIO] Partisan redistricting needs It's the end. No one can honestly defend, drawing maps for the express purpose of favoring one political party. And we know the map is politically gerrymander because Representative Luis told us so. Debating whether this map is politically gerrymandered is like debating the moon landing. It Happened as my good friend Senator Tillman once said it's called if you win you draw the map. Although I'll accept his challenge to name a state anywhere that has solved this problem. Arizona, California, Hawaii Idaho, Montana, New Jersey, Washington, Alaska, Atkinson, Colorado, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania. It can be done. Look I'm not ignoring The fact that my party abused it's power over you. None of us are surprised by your vengeance. >> Mr. President? >> Senator Rucho for what purpose do you rise? >> Inquiry of the chair. >> Senator Rucho. >> We talked about roads, we talked about other things, what does that have to do with this map? >> Senator [UNKNOWN] defend Senator Jackson. Again focus on the bill. Thank you so far you've been pretty germane here so keep going and please keep it focused on the map and the bill. >> Just like with transportation funding this is an opportunity to leave a legacy of simple fairness and common decency that will outlast all of us.

If you bring an end To partisan redistricting it will be an act of political courage unlike any this state has seen in a long time. Independent redistricting is the type of legislation that gets politicians into heaven. That may alter the course for some of us. It's a demonstration of truly selfless service. It's proof that we're all Here for the right reasons. We could do it today. We could shock the state. We could restore confidence in our elections and set an example for the nation in how both sides can come- >> Senator Jackson now you're straying a bit. [LAUGH] So let's focus on the bill at hand if you have comments related to the bill And comments related to the map please direct them there. We've had a lot of comments, a lot of discussion here but we're drifting . What you're speaking about is not this bill currently keep it focused on this bill >> This Bill was produced by a flawed process. This bill should be denied by This chamber because it was allowed to be produced through a thoroughly partisan process. No system of redistricting is perfect but ours wins the prize for absolute worst. We are living with an open acknowledgement that we draw the map to favor one party, this map. In a few Years that's going to seem about as strange and sad as Jim Crow was to seen to us now. The process that produced this map is not going to age well. By the time it is finally put to rest, public opinion on the matter will be harsh and unanimous. Be the ones who finished partisan redistricting. In a moment I'm going to offer an amendment that would allow us to do that. I feel confident in predicting that this amendment has less than a 50% chance of becoming law today. >> [LAUGH] >> I think that's a safe statement. I'm not doing this to be a burden, Or hold things is up I'm doing this to remind people that there is a solution to this problem. Our democracy is very sick and there's good medicine on the shelf. If not this amendment if not today, then know that I stand ready to work with any member of this chamber on stepping out of this dark corner of our democracy. With that I would like to submit an amendment. And then I yield the floor to Senator Apodaca. >> Present forth your amendment. [LAUGH] Senator I don't think you need to yield to Senator Apodaca because the court in their own rules today Rule 36.2 this amendment would be ineligible. So it's an ineligible amendment and that we won't be bringing that forward, any other discussion or debate. [CROSSTALK] What purpose do you rise? >> To speak on the bill. >> Senator Smith you have the floor to speak to the bill. I just would like to point out to this body that in the course of six years my home county of Robeson will have been in three different congressional districts. For years we had been in district seven. In the 2011 redistricting Most of Robeson County was moved out of the 7th district in an effort of political gerrymandering to remove congressman McIntyre's home and base of support from the 7th district. And we were placed in the 8th district. Now with this map we will be moved To the 9th District. I've heard from a number of residents of Robeson County that are not happy about this, find it confusing and do not understand why we have to change districts so often. So I just wanted to let this body know that that is the case with This map, we will have been in three districts, in six years. >> Senator Tart for what purpose do you rise? >> To ask Senator Rucho a question. >> Senator Rucho do you yield? >> Yes Sir. >> Senator Rucho, was the court's ruling that District 1 and District 12 are unconstitutional [INAUDIBLE] Senator Tad, the court did say that District 1 and District 12 were unconstitutional. >> Yes >> Follow on question. >> Senator [UNKNOWN] >> Sir. >> Did the court give us any direction to change the composition of the North Carolina depth congressional delegation? The delegation of the district. >> The delegation the composition, how many Democrats, how many Republicans they required it to be. >> No sir. >> May I speak on the bill. >> Senator [INAUDIBLE] you have the floor speak to the bill. >> This is just a simple reminder for everybody in the chamber. We are going to lay off scope And this comes back to Senator Parks

comments, the court said we have two districts that are basically Jerry Mandard, they didn't say we need to change composition of the delegation in due respect we have a very limited scope and a very limited time frame and that's the fixed district one and district 12. I just Googled the Gerrymandering the term, those two districts appear right at the beginning, look at the current maps, they are crazy. What did this the current maps do in the work of this work committee both parties, it is fixed clearly district one and district 12 are compact the address that we do and is the delegation whether we like it or not in the same composition of 10 to 3. We can debate and go on about what redistricting should be, how it should be comprised going forward, how we are going to draw maps in the future. That's not the task at hand. The task is fix two district, get on with it, submit it back to the court and complete our work, I suggest just that's what this maps do right now, they are not perfect but they address the courts directly, thank you. >> Mr. president? >> Senator Smith thank you, for a purpose your rise. >> To see if senator Stine was here for a question. >> Senator Stine do you? >> I do. >> Senator Stine listening to the debate I got a little bit confused because like Senator Senator Rucho, I am not an attorney and you explained it well so much earlier but I've read the case and I read the opinion and it appears that the maps were rejected because they could not meet the high standard of strict scrutiny. If these maps right here were submitted, could you explain to me do you think as presented and as withdrawn, what they did with they meet districts scrutiny, the race was not the predominant factor. >> Mr. President. >> Senator [INAUDIBLE]. >> I can't speak to that, I can't get the mind of the judges. [BLANK_AUDIO]. Senator Robinson for To speak to the bill. >> Senator Robinson you have the floor. >> Thank you Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen I certainly don't want to waste asking questions again but I would not be representative of going of Gilford county in if I were not able to talk with the citizens of my area who unfortunately because of the snow and ice could not get there to make their comments and I know some deeds in those ends, I won't blame you for the whether because you don't have that much power however when we look at this map we know that this map is clearly an act of racial and partisan parking, and we talked about that before. We know that in the 13th district where you talk about not not [UNKNOWN] Franchising people where congress woman Alma Adams is placed in the new map their is only 21% African Americans in that district and she was overwhelmingly elected by African Americans and Democrats Democrats in the 12th district. The other issue here is that in the new district 13 any African American or democrat can't be elected so that is partisan packing and that is disenfranchising a group of people because of how the African Americans and I've looked at that 13, it is most of my district and how it is lump[ed in with most republican areas all around and which it makes it virtually impossible to elect another African American, another Democrat and African American Angelo [LAUGH]. This to me while you are talking about maintaining and certainly you can maintain the three and the ten however, but when you are taking. one incumbent and you targeting that one incumbent and that incumbent is only the second African American woman elected from the state since it begun to elect African Americans after iii construction and then make it almost virtually impossible to elect another either Democrat or African American in that area then this marks in the face of equal protection of the law. I'm not surprised of course by this actions is a cultural racial inequality has been deepened on this side It sends me higher but you think that this is how we operate in Riley and it is controlled

iii by male gerrymandering, this is a sad day for me to women. across the state in terms of equal protection and fairness and even sadder in terms of a growing majority of minorities in the state of North Carolina who should be able to expect that they could elect their representatives. Senator Brown for what purpose do you rise? >> Just quickly respond to Senator Robinson's comments. >> Senator Brown you have the floor to speak a second time. >> Senator Robinson I was looking at district 13, I guess it was let's see, you've come out seen in district 13 In the 2012 election both our treasurer Janet Cowell who was a Democrat won that district. And also our superintendent of public instruction Jane Atkinson won that district. So I'm not sure that you'd look at the numbers to be able to make that argument because in that case two women both Democrats won that particular district so I think it's a very competitive district and I think a district and a Democrat can win and a woman obviously can win, so I just felt like you need to look at those numbers because it is really a competitive district Senator Alice what question did you ask? >> I am not sure whether Senator Brown answered the question or just making a comment >> I think he was just speaking the second time - >> Just a friendly comment. >> Would you like to speak for the second time? >> Yes. What I - >> Clear the floor senator. >> Thank you Senator Brown for that but I do acknowledge that the numbers that are on the page that I read said 21%. And we know that that is a difficult place. Now on the other side if I were to run, excuse me Mr. President, I'd expect your support. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Any further discussion or debate? Hearing none Senator Bagger/g for what purpose do you rise?>> Present to speak to the bill. >> Senator Bagger/g you have the flour. >> Thank you Mr. president. I hesitated because I dint know if the minority leader was the one to speak. This has been interesting to say the least and I think one of the challenges that folks on the back row have is that the guarded decision they really like the result but they're not really too crazy about the rationale that got them that result because you see the three judge panel was pretty clear that race should not be used as a factor. In fact, at the beginning of the decision the court made clear that by quoting some other cases, that by assigning voters to certain districts based on the color of their skin states risk entangling and the offensive and dimming assumption that voters of a particular race because of their race, think a like share the same political interest and will prefer the same candidates at the poles. And so the court was telling us at that point. But we should avoid that and so moving further along that line the court had one problem in getting to the result that it wanted and that problem was restricting case and so the maps that were drawn in 2011 were drawn because of the criteria that was required based on case law, a firm redistricting case in particular but the court found which is really an interesting thing because most of the discussion has been about whether race was a factor and then we got into the discussion where the politics was a factor but the courts specifically found that, the court concludes that section two did not require the defendant to create a majority, minority district in convectional district one, the court also found the court finds that the defendants failed to show the third jiggles factor that the legislature had a strong basis in evidence of racially polarized voting in congressional district one significant enough that the white majority routinely votes as a plot to defeat the minority candidate for chores. So in other words what the court found was, there was no racially-polarized voting in congressional district one. Now it's been said that the reason they didn't find it is because

there was no study done. Well my experience has been that if a court feels it needs evidence about something and feels that something is is necessary, they send the case back or they defer a ruling for that evidence to be presented to them. So the court felt like that it had sufficient evidence to make a decision and to make a decision that there was no racially-polarized voting. Now at that point the question becomes well what do you do? How do you draw the maps? And so what was done in this case is that criteria were drawn up. Now some folks have wanted to concentrate on one of the criteria but the reality is that these maps were drawn to the criteria. And so the criteria, and I'll just read from the list, you've all seen them. Equal population, so the maps have to have equal population in the districts. [BLANK_AUDIO] Contiguity. [LAUGH] I apologize for my inability to pronounce certain words, political data, partisan advantage., the 12 district, the courts specifically found that the maker or the visual of the 12 district was something that's trouble the court and wanted something done about that, a lot of folks have complained about the 12 districts, compactness and inconstancy, those are all legitimate criteria for this legislature to take into account in drawing districts, because of the courts finding of no racially polarized voting . It was determined that race should not be a factor in drawing the districts. And that's why the districts were drawn as they were drawn. And they were drawn to harmonize all of these factors. I have no question that if the goal the goal had been to maximize political advantage. That you could have drawn with the technology that's available today. You could have drawn an 112 or maybe even a 121 map. But it would have been god all for looking. And it would not have been this. I can almost assure you that if you wanna Goggle, Jerrymander, this is not a map that would come up. Because it's compact it doesn't split very many counties. Doesn't split very many districts. It doesn't have a bunch a bunch of squiggly lines, it follows natural boundaries. It is a map that in the definition that most North Carolinian use for gerrymandering Which is a map that has a bunch of squiggly lines and looks like a salamander, remember gerrymander comes from a term that came out of Massachusetts where someone drew a map for themselves. His name was Gerry something and somebody said it looks like a salamander and they said no, it's a gerrymander So it was the visual aspect that was the problem. And it's the visual aspect that I think most people, most Northern Carolinians, most people have a difficulty with. [BLANK_AUDIO] Members, this court has put this legislature in a difficult position with reference to timing has put us in a difficult position with reference to the instructions it's given us. And the reason we're in this position is because the court has come up with a result. That's a political result. And that's why the folks on the back row are happy with it Versus the political result that they wanted but the rationale does not necessarily mean that the maps come out politically the way the democratic party would like for them to come out. There are legal precedence that need to be followed. We have taken the appropriate Criteria that the courts have allowed in the past. We've harmonized those criteria and that criteria has resulted in this map. Which I think complies with courts decision. Complies with the decision of the previous courts and is a map that you should feel very comfortable voting Acknowledge you to do so. >> Any further discussion or debate? Hearing none, question for the senate is the passage of senate bill 2 on its second reading.

All in favor will vote aye, opposed will vote no, five seconds will be allowed for the voting, clerk will record the vote. [BLANK_AUDIO] Two having voted in the affirmative, and 15 in the negative senate bill 2 passes its second reading, and will be read a third time. [BLANK_AUDIO] Be read a third time. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> North Carolina general assembly enacts. >> Any further discussion or debate? Hearing none, all in favor of the passage of senate bill 2 on its third reading will vote aye, opposed will vote no. Five seconds will be allowed for the voting. Clerk will record the vote. [BLANK_AUDIO] Aye. 32 Having voted in the affirmative, and And 15 in the negatives bill two passes its third reading, and it will be sent to the house. That wraps up our calendar today, do we have any notices or announcements? >> Mr President. >> Senator [UNKNOWN] What purpose do you rise? >> We need to send special messenger please? >> So ordered. Senator [UNKNOWN] What purpose do you rise/? >> Thank you Mr President, more of a personal privilege. >> Senator [UNKNOWN] you have the floor. I wanna thank my good friend Robert Rucco/g for his hard work, and his committee, and our staff people that have done a tremendous job on this in a short time. But I've been thinking, we do need a term with mandering in it. And my good friend Senator Brock/g, I'm still in this with him, he didn't Wanna say it, we do need to use a new term. Rachel Manderin/g, these districts are short, fat, and compact. >> [LAUGH] >> Senator Smith what purpose do you rise/g? [LAUGH] Senator smith you have the floor for a moment personal Privilege. >> Okay, thank you Mr. President. I have the privilege of being a seat-mate of Senator Mike Woodard. Senator Woodard has been a tremendous help to me this year as a newbie in this body. Answering questions, giving advice. Basically For being a great mentor and I appreciate it very much and would like to thank him for that. This Saturday is Senator Walter's birthday, and I would hope that all of you would join me in wishing him in advance, a very happy birthday Saturday. >> Happy birthday Senator [APPLAUSE] >> Senator Gunn for what purpose do you arise? >> Mine is a personal matter >> Senator Gunn, you have the floor. >> I just wanted to let this body know, I know we have a lot of discussions sometimes we don't agree on everything. But one thing we've always been great about is supporting each other and especially when somebody Is a little down on their luck. And I just wanted to give you an update on Senator Tom McInnis, I talked to him before surgery and after. His break is a real break, he fell getting out of the shower and literally broke the ball off of the shoulder in half and then the The bone splintered, and he has had a pretty difficult surgery on Tuesday, and it went well, he's got a steel plate and 12 screws in his shoulder. So he's gonna be on demand for quite sometime, we'll tell you, when good news is Is obvious all the shoulder surgery, and some of the drugs, anesthesia, and everything he's on has not in anyway stopped his conversation. He was rather jovial today as he always is, but if you think about it you might just want to drop him or give him a little call he's got a little ways to go for For he recovers/g, and just wanna give everybody an update. >> Senator [UNKNOWN] what is the purpose of your rise/g? >> To make an announcement. >> Senator [UNKNOWN] you have the floor. >> First of all, Jerry I would never ever say that publicly about Bob. >> I would. >> I would like to announce that on February 2nd, Andrea and I welcomed our third child, a boy, Turner Ward/g [INAUDIBLE] seven pounds five ounces, and he's one of the pride and joys of our life, but my wife texted me while we were in session, and since we've been here today, he's learnt how to walk, talk, and drive a car. >> [LAUGH] >> So, it's time to go home. >> [LAUGH] [INAUDIBLE] >> [APPLAUSE] >>. Is there any further business come for the senate not the chair recognize senator Burger formation. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, I move to that the senate do now adjourn subject to the standard stipulations set forth in senate rule 24.1, following of bills, the recede of committed reports to committees, ratification of bills and recede of house messages to reconvene tomorrow Friday at 9:30 AM, the motion is the senator now adjourn subject the stipulation state of our senator Burger,

to reconvene Friday February 19th at 9:30 AM seconded by senator [INAUDIBLE] in favor say I no, the I's have it, senate stands adjourned. [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [LAUGH] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [LAUGH] [BLANK_AUDIO]