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.

House | February 19, 2016 | Chamber | House Redistricting Committee

Full MP3 Audio File

[BLANK_AUDIO] The house committee on redistricting will come to order members will please take there seats and welcome our visitors to the gallery. [BLANK_AUDIO] Members as always the chair would like to begin by thanking our sergeant arms staff for their assistance and say another room and in facilitating this meeting, they are ready seals Marvin Lee, David Lynchman, Barry Moore, Young [UNKNOWN], John Brandon. We appreciate your hard work and we thank Thank you for being with us today. Members as waspreviously announced, we are going to a period of public comment on the redistricting maps, the contingent plan that was passed over to us from the senate, as the chair announced last night, it's our intention to take public comment and then begin the committee review of the maps. It was announced that we would take that we would begin the committee deliberation after the public comment or ten o'clock, whichever came first. The chair is aware of only one citizen thus far that has signed up to speak however in difference to making sure that we can proceed The input the public may want to offer the Chair is going to declare that any members of public that arrives to the sign of speaks prior to 9:30 will also extend the opportunity to address the committee. With that said, the chairs please to welcome for his remarks Mr Blake Tedder, Mr Tedder if you would sir the sergeant arms will assist you to the microphone we welcome you to the house committee on redistricting and you have the floor for up to three minutes sir. >> My name is Blake Tedder, I'm a private citizen from Hillsborough, North Carolina and I'm really sorry to say that there is not more of your constituents here this morning and I feel that maybe because they don't feel like their voice will matter in this point of the process it is my opinion, my statements are scribbled so I'm going to try to read them as well as I can as a young person I look up to this body the Senate to bear in my remarks and I believe that each of you is in this for the right reason, to give voice to the people and to your ideas about the future of North Carolina and our prosperity. and what we are doing here in this state,I love democracy, I love the plurality of ideas that we can share. I love good discourse. I'm really disappointed though over the last couple of days, I have not had good discourse. I heard on the senate floor, three strong democrats and others yesterday. Senator Stein, Senator McKissic and Senator Bryant, they said some really wonderful things about fairness, equality, constitutionality in these maps. And it inspired me, it made me feel great about this process and what I From what I heard back from Senator Rucho and others was obviously defensive, but it was also protective and it was saying that we're placating the courts here. That's what we're doing, and that's what it was about, it seemed. We're placating the courts, we're self preserving our our office, our power, but there wasn't really mention of the citizens and what we're doing, and I heard that from the democrats yesterday. And I wanna say to this body and to the media that yesterday, I declared myself an unaffiliated voter because I'm disappointed in this system. I'm disappointed in a lot of these maps maps I've seen. 1992 map is a mess, and the current maps are a mess. So with that I just want to implore to you all today, I don't know if you can, but why not extend an olive branch? Why not consider the history and legacy of this moment? Why continue the eye for an eye philosophy of this body, its the

democrats and the republicans. Why not be on the right side of history? Why just play cake court rulings? Why be nasty and divisive? Why not take the high road and why not be bold and prove the the Republican leadership is Truly the desires of we the people. Make the elections fair. The elections have to be fair, and fair districts are vital to that. so thank you for hearing my comments. >> Thanks. Members the chair's not aware of any other individual that signed up them to speak. However, as previously announced we are gonna stand at ease for about 10 minutes and see if further speakers arrive. [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] Your attention? Members of the Chair can I have your attention? We're gonna continue to wait to wait for a few moment to see if additional speakers arrive, but I though we could deal with a bit of housekeeping that may make our proceedings go faster. Members, will you look and see if all of you have in front of you a packet of material that is entitled, Senate Bill 2, Second Edition 2016 Contingent Congressional Plan Corrected? [COUGH] And if you do, wold you please turn to what I would consider to be the third page? It's actually the Actually the back of the second printed page, the heading on that page reads, election results 2008 General AG, AD,CA. Does everyone see that page? Members, would you also look look for just a moment and see if you have at your desk a document entitled, 2016 Redistricting Database Field Key. If you do, members, I wanted to point out to you for your convenience. The reports that you have the system that generates these reports, generates them using a series of alphanumeric codes. So I thought it would be perhaps helpful to go through. If you will notice on the page I asked you to turn to on the big report, that starts out election Election results 2008 general AG, AD, CA. Notice the first column says district this is pretty obvious that this refers to the 13th Congressional Districts as drawn in the plan. But you'll notice right beside that is a code and the code is EL008G_AG_D, Please note that this corresponds to the key that was also passed out, where it says EL, that means election, 08 that's the year, _AG that's the candidate. So that would correspond here to the democratic nominee Cooper and then of course that's what the _D means. So as you look at this page you can tell that in the first District the total votes, the all votes cast for the attorney general nominee of the Democrats is 265,043 which equates to that third column which means he received 79.47% If you look at forth column you'll notice it says the same thing ELO8G_AG but then it says _R. This refers that this was the republican nominee named Chromley/g. If you look down to make sure all This report the same way Chromley/g received all votes 68,477 votes or next column 20.53% and that the total votes cast in that elections was 333,517. Members if you Does anyone have any questions about how read this chart would it be helpful if we went through and inserted the names for you now

I just don't want to have to be candid with you stop during my presentation to do this as I've had to do twice before. >> Representative Mitchell. >> Mr Chairman I think you went over this Just the other day when we had the hearing my whole as I said to you before my problem right now though is that looking at this elections, you are following here the criteria that was set out while race was not to become a fact in this. And you don't have anything in here indicating racial breakdown of this particular races. >> No sir, you are correct. So members if everybody is comfortable with how to read this chart then the chair will not go through the rather pain staking process of trying to add names into this. The chair has Or has officially directed the staff though if these charts were ever copied again to take a [UNKNOWN] and to write the name of the individual on top of this print out so that we don't have to do this again. The chair will now ask the Sergeant At Arms of any other member of the public has sort the opportunity to speak The Sergeant At Arms indicates no other member of the public has sort to speak therefore we are going to move in to the committee of review of this bill, Representative Jones is here and the chair will yield the chair to The chair apologizes. The clerk will call the robe. [SOUND] Chairman Louis. [BLANK_AUDIO] Representative Jones, Representative Browley. >> Present. Representative Kotham. Representative Davis? Representative Farmer Butterfield? >> Here. >> Representative Hagger. >> Here. >> Representative Heins? >> Here. >> Representative Hardister? >> Here. >> Representative Hurley? Representative Jackson? Representative Johnson? Representative Jordan >> Here >> Representative McGrady >> Here >>Representative Michaux >> Here >> Representative Moore >> Representative Stam >> Here >> Representative Stam >> Here >> Representative Stevens >> Here >> Representative Dickson >> Here. [BLANK_AUDIO] Members, prior to beginning the Chair would like to extend the courtesy of our gallery to students that are visiting today from the long Leaf School of the Arts in Raleigh if you would stand we would love to welcome you to our committee. >> [APPLAUSE] [APPLAUSE] >> At this time, the Chair is going to yield the chair to Vice Chairman Jones. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Good morning members of the committee. Senate Bill Two is now before us representative Louis should recognize to present the Bill [BLANK_AUDIO] >> [BLANK_AUDIO] Thank you Mr. Chairman and good morning members. I appreciate all of you taking time to be here today to consider the Senate Bill Two which is now before us. Members I just want Wanna state for the record i realized some of you have heard these remarks before, but on February 16th, then Joint select committee that is appointed to deal with congressional redistricting met and adopted seven criteria to be used in drawing the 2016 contingent Congressional Redistricting map [BLANK_AUDIO] A map was produced using those criteria and while I will of course take questions from committee at the direction the Chair, of course through the criteria and to discuss generally how this map addresses each of these. Equal population, all the districts were drawn with either 733,499 people or 733,498 total people This is as equal as practical and in accordance with Federal Law. Contiguity.

All of the areas in every district are composed of contiguous territory. Political data. The staff report shows which election results were used in building this districts. Race was not considered, and was not present on this reports. Partisan advantage, we believe this map will produce an opportunity to elect ten Republican members congress. But make no mistake this is a weaker map, than the enacted plans in that respect the 12th District, the map does away with the serpentine 12th district, dating back to 1992. Compactness, only 13 counties in 13 BTDs were split in this map, in accordance with the criteria, more whole counties, and more whole precincts are the best indicators of compactness that we believe to be available. Incumbency, only two incumbents reside in the same congressional district, or in our province or double bunks, one Republican and one Democrat. They are, Representative Price and Representative Holding. Both reside in the proposed geographic area of the fourth congressional district. Mr. Chairman I realize many of the members in this room have set through the select committee, many also joined yesterday to listen into senate discuss this bill, so in the interest of time and in your direction, I'll yield to all inquiries. >> Thank you Representative Louis, representative Mitchel you're recognized. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, I have as you might imagine a series of questions. Representative Louis, first you left out, you didn't mention the other criteria by race not being a factor in this and that is a part of the criteria that was used in drawing these maps, is that not true? >> Yes sir, Representative [UNKNOWN] I feel to say that in the area our political data, the staff part that you have shows what election results were used, race was not considered and is not present in these reports. >> Representative if you'd get through the chair, follow up. >> Yes sir, I do have follow up. Representative Louis, in drawing this districts, first of all let me ask you. [BLANK_AUDIO] Was any attention paid to whether or not this maps what you've drawn have addressed the problem of vote dillusion? >> Thank you for the question representative iii the criteria that was used in drawing the map are the criteria that I listed earlier in our discussion however [BLANK_AUDIO] based on a series of questions that were before the senate redistricting committee and also during the joint redistricting committee and also conversations that I've had with you, I would like on that one subject or on the Subject of race in general to submit for the record of the committee the expert report by Dr Allan Jade Lynchman this is a report that was prepared for our end pardon me the Dickson versus Rucho case and I believe that this was an expert witness hired by the claimants so Mr chairman I will submit this for the record. >> Thank you representative Louis iii >> Yes sir you are now submitting that to this committee. and you have not submitted it to us before >> Representative Mitchell, I have been very clear that we did not use rays in drawing this maps. I have not looked in the ratio data. I merely submitted a report that the Democrats have challenged the maps before, paid for For the follow up? >> Yes sir, I've got several follow ups be. The contention is not including race from what I understand the

reason that you didn't include race was because it's your feeling that the decision that came out of the Harris case said we could not use race, am I correct in that? >> Representative thank you for that question. As I've said before this committee and before you, you know that I am not an attorney. However I believe that the entire decision from the Harris case has been available to all of the members and as such I'd like to also make sure that that is a part of the permanent record Mr. Chairman. >> It has been noted. >> Thank you sir. And It is our understanding of this decision Representative that the court has found that there was not racial polarized vacuity which is a requirement in order to consider race in drawing the maps. So, again race was not considered in the preparation of these maps. >> Follow up Representative Mitchell. >> Yes. Are you aware of the fact that the court in its ruling indicated that their ruling does not mean that race can never play a role in redistricting? And that the legislatures must always be confident in a race when drawing district lands. Are you aware of it being a part of that decision? >> Thank you for the question Representative. What I am aware of is based on our reading of the opinion, of the court Yet that rationally polarized per hooding did not exist. Therefore, that would be one of the triggers that will require race to be used and we did not use race in drawing this maps >> Representative Mitchell follow up- >> Yes. Then your understanding of that indicates that because it's said there was no polarization in there is that what you're telling us? That the district that was drawn before show no racial polarization? >> Representative Mitchell in reading of this case and you may have it before you I have some notes but I don't have the actual case. That is as I have tried to explain before our understanding of the decision is that race should not be a fact Be a factor in the drawing of these lines and therefore raise is not one of the criteria that was used in drawing this maps. >> Follow up. >> Yes I have follow up. Let me move to another point because this point was also raised in the Harris case and that is the matter of one vote one person on the section two of the Voting Rights Act if you've read that I don't l know what your lawyers have told you about that. But I think section 2 of VRA says that you have to follow the 14th amendment and allow for a one vote one person, was this taken into consideration when the maps were drawn? >> Thank you for the question Representative as you recall, we adopted criteria and one of the criteria that was adopted was in fact that we should have equal population All of the districts were drawn with either 733, 499 total persons for 733, 498 total person. This is as equal as practical and I believe is in course with Federal law. >> Follow up. >> Yes and moving a little bit further on that point by not including race and section 2 of the voting rights also indicates that minorities and particular the African-Americans must live in districts or be in district where they have the choice of electing their representative, have a chance to do that. Was that taken into consideration when you drew these maps? >> Representative thank you for the question as you recall, this committee adopted the criteria that would be used in drawing the maps. Over it in my opening remarks would be happy to do it again. >> [CROSSTALK] >> Follow up. Is the joint contention then that what you have drawn does infact allow African-Americans in this state to elect person of their

choice ? >> Representative has out stated during the joint select committee we all debated various criteria that should be used. The criteria that the joint select committee used that were adopted and used in drawing these maps were the following. Equal population, contiguity, political and data. Partisan advantage, 12 district, compactness and incumbency. >> Follow up Representative Michaux. >> That being the case Mr. Chairman and not considering race, how can you assure us then Number one, if you don't consider race that you are following 14th amendment, in terms of one vote, one person, and how can you assure us that the African-American Community under that criteria that you had initiated and under the court decision, that African Americans in this state will have an opportunity to elect persons of their choice? >> Thank you for that question Representative. To be clear we believed and still believe that the enacted map and for the record when I refer to the enacted map I'm referring to the 2009 re-districting plan addressed the concerns that to the best of our ability. When the contingent map was prepared we believed that the consideration of race was not going to be allowed by this court and so we did not consider race in drawing these maps. >> Follow up Representative I'll grant you another follow up. Follow up. >> Thank you sir. Forgive me for trying to illicit this information but you know what I'm after I think. If you in fact drew this maps without regard to race. How can they be basically constitutional following section two of the Voting Rights Act and following 14th Amendment, how can you think that these maps will be considered constitutional when you have not considered in your drawings a significant portion of the population? >> Well. Thank you for your question. It is my understanding of the Harris decision that racially polarized voting was not in North Carolina, that's one of the criteria that are required to consider race, therefore we did not consider race when drawing this maps. >> I'm gonna leave that. Some coupe more follow ups around this okay these go with two more and I would like to get some other people a chance way in and we'll come back after that. [INAUDIBLE] hours. >> [CROSSTALK] >> Who drew this map? >> The maps were drawn at the direction of the chairs. The. The exact map draws name is Tom Hoffman >> So Dr. Hoffman did draw this map? >> Yes sir. >> All right, my last question. >> Last follow up. >> Last follow up on this round, was he drawn here in North Carolina, or was he drawn. Was it drawn in Washington? >> It was most certainly drawn here in North Carolina. >> Representative Jackson you're recognized. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, Representative Mitchell stored some of my questions, I think we all agree we want the Federal Court to be able to. Act as quick as possible and an attempt to clarify some of the things that we were asking the Senate yesterday I just had a few questions on that, you said Dr. Hofiler drew this new map, and it was certainly drawn in North Carolina is that correct? >> Yes sir. >> Follow up. >> Follow up. Was it drawn on the legislative computer or. A private computer when it was originally drawn. >> Representative Jackson. [COUGH] >> In an attempt to comply with court order and with all due respect what I believe to be a very compact time schedule. The Chairs met with our [INAUDIBLE] Consultant I've already told the Representative from Durham it was Dr. Hoffler and I am certain that Dr. Hoffler worked on his own computer in drafting the concepts that we discussed. He then brought the concept to the general assembly, loaded the concepts on, and made additional changes and criteria on the state computer so the answer would be, to your question would be both.

>> For the follow up. >> And do you know when. When he brought that to the legislature and loaded it onto the computer. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Representative let me go inside my notes, I believe it would have been on the 16th of this month, which I think would've been. Have been Tuesday, I apologize my calender's not pulling up. >> [LAUGH] >> [UNKNOWN] >> And would it be fair to say that he originally drew a version of this map on this private computer prior to this committee. Making and voting on the criteria to be used earlier this week. >> I'm certain that he drew various concepts on his computer. >> Thank you. Okay Representative Davis. >> Thank you Mr.Chairman, a question for Representative Lewis from me. First of all Representative Lewis, I wanna thank you for your leadership. [UNKNOWN] been hard work in this endeavor, also your transparency and your honestly in answering the questions that will be imposed to you during these committee hearings. My question would be, were there any changes to the map that we looked at before the senate reviewed it? And are now, in other words did the Senate change. And making changes to that map. It is so if you could please explain what they are. >> Yes Sir, thank you. The senate amended the map in accordance with the rules and the exact nature of the Amendment [COUGH] pardon me, was based on all. Older information we had, the Chairs had mistakenly placed the residences of Representative Adams and Representative Walker, both in the 13th district. That was not the Chair's intent, therefore the Chairs instructed Dr. Hoffer, frankly, to make. Make necessary changes, the exact nature of those changes, I would be happy to try to get for you. But a summary of it would be that two whole precincts and one partial precinct were moved to make sure that Representative Adams and Representative Walker no longer reside in the same congressional seat. That is the only change that was made from when the committee reviewed the map. >> Thank you Representative Lewis, thank you Mr. Chairman >> Thank you, Representative Haggerty you're recognized. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, I have a question to the real sponsor, and I just quick statement, you know I hold a Engineering degree, and with degree in. The dynamics of metallurgy, and I deal with things that stay pretty much the same everyday but i'm learning from representative Joe that the law is a little bit more fluid and changes from day to day it seems like. I've got a question for ya, is it your understanding that the three threshold conditions from the Thornburg Gingle case that the third one is. And is the white majority must regularly vote as a block to defeat the minority supporting candidate. Is that correct? Is that the way we understand that? >> Representative Hager, I appreciate your question, since you are an engineer and i'm a farmer so i'll have to say that I'm . I'm almost certain that's correct but I don't have any information before me. >> Thank you, follow up. >> Follow up, It's more of a statement and I wanna aid a little bit in representative Lewis's statement. I've looked up the case which is the Harris McCurry case which is 100 pages long and outlined some things in it I think representative Lewis was talking about. And if you go to page 53, in the report, I think it's the Gregory majority opinion about midways to the first paragraph, it says the failure to establish either one of the deals back to the fatal to the [INAUDIBLE] and if you flip over to page 55 Start at the second paragraph, there's a thing that's contained there, something about evidence that is also your concern to expert reports of found existence of racial polarized voting in North Carolina. These journalists report saying well o not constitute a strong base in evidence that the wide variety of votes is obliged to the defeat the minorities preferred candidates of choice in District One And then you flip over to page 56, about middle way through the second paragraph, the white majority did not vote as a block to defeat African Americans of choice. In fact, precisely opposite occurred in these two districts, different crossover voting by white voters supporting the African American candidate. I think Representative Louis, that's what you were referring to To find a mistake. Am I missing something on that? >> Mr. Chairman, before you answers, could I raise the point of order that he's practiced in law without a license? [LAUGH] >> I think Mr. Chair- >> Really [INAUDIBLE] allow [UNKNOWN] Lewis to respond. >> I think I said the other day that any good engineer can make a good lawyer.

Mr Chairman, in response to the Representative, I would make the following statements. First is, I do believe he has accurately read the record as he reflected. Second, I would reiterate to the committee that the joint select committee established a criteria by which This map was drawn, and those were the criteria by which is drawn and those are the criteria by which the committee should judge the marriage to the map. >> Further discussion further debate. >> Nobody else can I- >> Representative Michel are you seeking recognition? You're recognized for question. >> Thank you. Chairman Lewis, lemme ask you this, when was work started on the maps, on this map? >> Representative Michelle I will tell you that in an attempt to comply with the Harris decision which I believe came out at 6 O'clock on a Friday night, I think it was Friday the 6th sometime that following week Chairman Rucho and I met with our consultant to talk about if we were going to be mandated to draw new maps, we're not going to be successful in our attempt to receive a stay, what we might be able to do to comply, that was the week after the decision came by, I don't recall the exact date Follow up. >> Yes, there have been some automation by some people on your side over here that work was being done on this maps prior to the criteria being adopted by this body, is that true? >> I'd say sir, that our conceptual maps before you was drawn based on the criteria adopted by this committee. >> Is there a follow up? >> I might just have a statement if you don't mind Mr. Chairman. >> Do you recognize for your statement Representative Mitchel? >> I'm glad to hear Representative Hager there reading from the decision because there are so many other things The other thing is that he left out on reading his decision, meeting from the decision for necessary idea that race should not be used as a fact worth not what this court said. This court has said it that it can be used. But it doesn't have to be the pro-dominant factor in this situation. The second statement Is that you have still used race as a pro-dominant factor but not using rays at all. What you've done is you've over extended yourself and the situation by not using using race and by not understanding the fact that there's a whole lot of voter dilution in here, there's a There's a whole lot of the fact that African Americans under that dilution theory will not have an opportunity to elect officer of their own choice. All of that is rampant within what is now being proposed to this body to act on, but the main thing is that race is still an under current in this whole thing that you have tried to oviate and take out. So what I'm saying to you is that we will probably be back here if the court doesn't decide to do it themselves. >> Thank you sir. Representative Stan, you are recognized. >> Yes. I wonder if representative Jackson would yield for- >> Representative Jackson is a gentleman Gentleman yield? >> Yes sir. >> Representative Stern. >> Representative Jackson, this may be irrelevant but I wanna just complete the record there. Two days ago when we met as a joint select committee and we passed the motion allowing both the minority party to hire a consultant up to 25000 5000, you asked whether that would include work that had been done previously and the answer was no. The question is, do you know if the minority caucus or you or Representative Mitchel or Senator Blue had consulted with anyone to work on a map before Wednesday? [BLANK_AUDIO] Representative Jackson you recognize to answer the question. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. Representative Stem, I did ask that question about any fees cuz I was concerned that the majority had already engaged the map maker who had drawn a map and that we were doing a bit of reverse engineering And had drawn the map in light and then came over the criteria and so I wanted to make it clear on the record, that that, what we were voting on was would not pay for any of that work that had been done. It would only be paid for that time going forward. However, after that meeting it was made clear to both the the minority leaders and both chambers,

the House and the Senate, that that was a mistake, what was said, and that either party was allowed to use that $25000 to pay for any work that had been done on maps prior to their passage this week this week. As far as minority caucus has done, to my knowledge, the first indication that we had that would be provided by adopting to stand any public funds, was when we sold that handout and to my knowledge, no work had been done with any map maker prior to that offer being made and then it And at that point, it was discussed whether we had time to turn around the map in 24 hours and it was decided that we would not do so. >> Mr. Chairman? >> Representative Louis. >> May I ask the gentleman from Wake a question? >> Does the gentleman yield? >> Certainly. >> Representative Louis. >> Representative Jackson Were you aware that the three judge panel in the Harris case had offered a ruling where they challenged the Constitutional [INAUDIBLE] of the enacted maps that ruling came out on February the 6th? Yes sir. I remember being notified that evening of the decision. >> May I ask- >> Follow up. [BLANK_AUDIO] Do you yield? >> Yes sir. >> Thank you Representative Jackson. Thank you Mr. Chair. Assuming that the US The maps for the U.S House of Representatives cannot be used in the March 25th primary as the court decision said, what is the remedy to that? [BLANK_AUDIO] >> I am sorry, can I ask you to repeat your question? >> Representative Lewis. >> [INAUDIBLE] Clear. Assuming that the ruling in the Harris case is upheld and that the inactive plan cannot be used in the March 15th Primary. With the remedies to that not be to produce another map. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Representative Stan, did you have a follow up? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> I'm sorry. Representative Jackson are you- >> I will accept to answer that. >> Representative Jackson, you recognize that I am sorry. >> Having not been the expert that many of you are on redistricting, I believe our state law requires us to be given at least two weeks to redraw the map. There is been a lot of testimony this week about how we've only They've been given two weeks to redraw and things of that nature but I believe that it's actually a State Law it requires and that the Federal precedent is that legislative bodies be given an opportunity to redraw before the court step in. If the legislature failed to act by today, I guess that 5 o'clock, close of business court, I believe the federal court would have they could draw the maps themselves, they could appoint a special master that had been recently done in Virginia which of course is part of the four circuit and had them draw it as well would be my understanding of the possibility. >> May I ask another question Mr chairman. >> Follow up the any yields? >> And representative Jackson, please understand we respect I'm not asking you to speak anything you don't have personal knowledge of. I'm simply asking you is it not a logical. [BLANK_AUDIO] Is it not a logical query that someone on the Democratic party Party was alerted the fact that new maps would possibly need to be drawn and submitted by today so it is not at least a reasonable belief that work somewhere in Washington or Hillsborough street or wherever the work was done was probably commenced and again I'm not asking you to speak anything which we don't have personal knowledge I'm just asking you is that not a rational belief, that based on the court decision that we're seeing that the Democrats had prevailed in court, that the Democrats will start working on maps? >> Representative Jackson. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. [LAUGH] Let me address that publicly, one is I am sure that there were probably 169 members of the general assembly that started drawing with some of these maps in their own mind about how they'd like their congressional district to look. I am sure that the individual members of congress started doing that but to my knowledge Knowledge, the Democratic caucus on either side did not start to draw the maps, cuz we didn't know what the criteria would be established for instance, t was decided that the Tuesday convening of this committee that you had to produce an entire state map of all 13 congressional districts in order to put forth in the amendments this morning.

There might have been members who thought that we were just gonna redraw the first and the 12th then a few districts around there that were need to be done. I have no idea that work started or not. I anticipated somebody in DC looked at thee maps five years ago and said if we Ever get a redraw this is what we push for. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Representative Steven you're recognized. >> Thank you. I do believe I probably have a series of questions but Representative Lewis, just going to what Representative Jackson said. I f one of our objectives was sort of do Away with the serpentine shape of 12 as suggested by the court. Do you know how many districts, how many counties 12 went through to begin with? [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Representative Steven that's certainly a very logical question. I apologize set off the top of my head I cannot remember the exact number of counties that the 12 went through. >> Follow up. >> Indeed. Basically I think Representative Hager/g was just telling me that the 12 touched every district but the- >> First [INAUDIBLE] >> The 12 of them first touched every district but the 11th and the 7th. So redistricting, we're looking at those to maps, we're gonna affect everything but the 7th and the 11th. Is that correct? >> Representative Louis? >> Thank you, let me answer that as accurately as accurately I can It is a logical belief that if you redraw lines in one area, what you really talking about is assigning voters to voting districts. As a voting district changes in one place, it almost certainly will have to change in another or you can maintain the one person, one vote so again I wanted to reiterate that that is the reason this committee adopted the criteria that it did and has produced this contingent congressional map. >> Follow up. >> Thank you and the Harris court specifically said that the shape of that district was persuasive circumstantial evidence that race for it's own sake cannot other controlling principles was there dominant and controlling rationale that the Serpentine District that has being dubbed the least geographic compact district in the nation needed to be fixed. >> I believe that is a correct reading of what they wrote, I'd point out that as I've said in previous committee meetings, we as the Republican majority inherited that map from our previous general assembly dating back I believe to the early 90s and we largely kept the district as a largely Democratic district, hoping to forestall o to insulate the state from losses, guess we weren't successful on that front. >> Follow up. >> Follow up. >> And in fact District 12 has been a subject of multiple litigation and gone all the way to Supreme court back and been found to be constitutionally legal is that correct? >> Yes ma'am and that's largely why we kept it. >> Follow up. >> Thank you and as to drawing each of this districts did you take it not account the factor of equal population? >> Yes Ma'am >> Follow up. >> And in drawing each if this districts did you take into account the principle of contiguity? >> Yes ma'am. >> Follow up. >> And did you take into account in drawing each of this districts the political data? >> yes ma'am. Follow up. >> And in doing these districts did you take into account partisan advantage? >> Yes Ma'am. >> Follow up. >> Thank you and taking into account the 12th district did you do away with the serpentine format that the courts complained about? >> Yes ma'am. >. Follow up. >> Thank you and taking into account compactness did you do that particularly I guess to district 12? I mean district one? >> Yes ma'am compactness was a factor. >> Follow up. >> And did you take into account incumbency? >> Yes ma'am as directed by this committee. >> Follow up. >> Yes sir Yes sir and did the senate make the change to try to deal with the one bad issue of incumbency that we had and that was with Miss Adams making sure she was a separate district with Mr Walker? >> The senate did correct that because it was fairly easy correction to make unfortunately. the situation in forth is not a easy correction to make because of where the residence of Representative [INAUDIBLE AUDIO]

>> Thank you Representative Stevens, Representative Farmer Butter-field you're recognized. >> Thank you Mr chair I wanted to ask whether or not the legislative staff Assisted with the map drawing at all and and if so how I know that yo said Hofler/g did it. >> Well thank you for that question representative, I don't know exactly how to answer what nature of help you mean certainly the ISD staff was Was very active with providing the computer, and the printers and what not that this committee authorized the general assembly police authorized, Dr. Hoffier/g have access to the one area that he was assigned to work I think we might have given him some coffee. >> Is there a follow up? >> Follow up. Anything imported. >> Well, thank you for that question I would say that all that is important. >> Follow up. Yes ma'am, yes sir. >> Follow up. >> To avoid convolution, was the map that was drawn of the new congressional district, drawn prior to approval of the criterion and prior to the public hearing Hearings be adjourned on Monday. >> I think it would not be possible for me to know what Dr. Hoffler/g had drawn, I think there were a lot of conceptual ideas, the map that you have before you is drawn based on the criteria adopted by the committee. >> Ladies and gentlemen further discussion, further debate, okay, Representative Stan. >> Three quick points, not a question, first of all while I think the enacted map follows what the law was when we drew it to start with, this map actually is a lot prettier. A lot more compact, it's prettier. Second point, the minority complains about our interpretation of the Haris Decision, we will find out I guess whether the Haris Region three judge court meant what it said in its opinion or did not mean what it said in its opinion. My third point is I'll say an accusation, but it's not an accusation of criminality or immorality or anything like that, but if the minority really did not think about working on any map, or do any work with any map, from February 5th I believe it would than until Tuesday and interject that with the house of the minority, I would no trouble at all getting non partisan staff to prepare maps for me, then I would accuse the minority of political negligence if you can't find a staff person in research division to help you with the map. >> Representative Michelle. >> Chairman, I just have one I have a couple of comments on that and number one is, Mr. Stam/g, you don't know what we've done. That's number one. So what you saying to me is just completely and totally out of order. Number two, is that if we did have any thing, why would we give it to you when you created the mess to start with? And not give it to the courts. So I mean that's- >> Mr. Chairman? >> So to accuse us of anything at all when you don't know what we've done or anything like that is simply just out of character and totally wrong. >> Mr. Chairman?- >> Representative Stam/g I would like you to respond. >> Does Representative Michelle yield for a question? >> yeah. Does the gentleman yield? >> Yes, gladly. >> He yields. >> Representative Michelle I asked Representative Jackson this question, he didn't know the answer. Did you consult before Tuesday with a map drawer, either privately or here at the General Assembly before Tuesday to To try to get a map drawn? >> Very generally as I can say it, Representative Stam/g, that's none of your business. >> [LAUGH] >> Sir, a follow up question? >> Representative Stam/g, you're recognized. >> Do I take it that the answer is yes you did? >> You can take it whatever the answer is. You know better than May I follow up? I'm sorry Mr. Chairman. I got a little bit thrown off right there but may I- >> Representative

Michelle you're recognized. >> Thank you. That's what you get when you get two folks who have Law Degrees. >> [LAUGH] >> Amen. But anyway, Representative Louis is it your contention that political gerrymandering cures racial gerrymandering? [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Well thank you for that question representative, for the opportunity Duty to try to explain that you know it's always amazed me I know we have a group of students here today and the name of the school implies that they understand art, it just always amaze me that if from an individuals political point of view they like the outcome of map producing they think the map is a good map that looks good if they don't they think it's gerrymandering mess so I would say to you that the criteria that was used to draw this map were the following equal population, continuity, political data, partisan advantage, doing away with serpentine time nature of the 12th district and compactness and incumbency. >> Follow up? >> Follow up >> But no racial data or anything was used to do that respectfully sir I've already answered that and race was not used in the drawing of this in fact I think my exact words were race was not considered and is not present on the reports. >> The reason I, I'm sorry Mr chairman may I, the reason I do that is because you keep repeating the same thing over and over again, that's why I'm repeating my question over and over again. Let me make one final - >> One final fellow, Representative Mitchel. >> In the matter retrogression. Would retrogression considered in this? And the reason I ask that is because we now have two congress persons of color and the way you have drawn this map basically knocks out one of those persons of color. Retrogression included in it? >> Thank you for that question, Representative Mitchel. I've often found that if you can't get the answer you want you continue to ask the question. Let me reiterate the factors used in drawing this map if I could Could. They are equal population, contiguity, political data, partisan advantage, doing away with the serpentine nature of the 12 districts, compactness and incumbency. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify that. >> Thank you, Representative Farmer Betterfield you're recognized. >> I think that Representative Michel pretty much covered what I was gonna say. >> Thank you very much. Private discussion, for the debate with Representative Jackson. - >> Thank you Mr. Chairman >> I had a follow up of. What's the gentleman's name who drew the map again? >> Doctor Tom Huffler >> Doctor Huffler. Is Doctor Huffler ->> [NOISE] >> Is Doctor Huffler still In North Carolina, and if so will he be made available to this committee to answer some of the questions that you cannot answer for us today? >> Representative Jackson I don't know where Dr. Huffler is at the moment, and I would not contemplate as he was a consultant for Chairman Rucho and myself that he would be available to the committee, also we're not seek to get the consultants that may or may not have produced such a fiery response from representative Michel, to appear before the committee to share that information that they may or may not have produced In the two weeks since they knew they were gonna have to produce it. >> Just let for the record let the chair state their is going to be a vote here shortly, and we're not gonna wait for Dr. Hopper to come from wherever he may be. Representative Davis you're recognized. >> Thank you Mr.chairman, a comment if I may. I've been listening To the debate, and I'm really disappointed in the attitude of the minority party, representative Michel. It's like you've set up a double standard. The minority party wants transparency from the majority party, you want truthful answers to the questions you've asked today, which representative Louis But yet when the majority party asks you questions is not about business. And I don't think you can have it both ways sir, I think it would really be very beneficial to all involved if the minority party would be as honest and transparency as the majority party has been in this proceedings. And I really think it's very unfortunate I don't think it's very fruitful for this discussion. >> Representative Michel you are recognized to just to respond representative. >> I'm sorry you take offence at that representative Davis.

But the fact of the matter is, we did not create this mess and we should not be exerted responsibility coming to you. You never ask us for our help to start with, so why should we come in now and try to help you get out of the hole that you dug? That's all that I am saying. Now whatever you call it, however you wanna look at it, I can't help that. But that's where I'm I'm coming from. And the fact of the matter is that, courts are now involved. And anything we have to say, we will say it to the courts, because you will not respect basically anything that we say on anything that we have done, since you've had control. You don't ask us for anything. Let me give you a prime example if I can. >> Briefly. >> Yes. >> Please. >> When we were in charge, every time we had a board of government election, we came to you and asked you, who do you want on? Who of your Party do you want on that board. And we always granted you that. We have never been granted the same type of recognition that we gave you all. So yes, however you want to characterize it, I stand by. >> Thank you Representative Michel, the chair will Will recognize Representative Hager, the chair will make a statement and then the chair will recognize Representative Lewis for a motion. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, see if Representative Michel would yield for a question. >> Does the gentleman yield? >> Yes. Representative Hager. >> Representative Michel do you know if the minority party is planning to smither/g in any invoices or reimbursement for anything associated with map drawing. >> I don't have any ideas that I have not talked about yet. >> Thank you. >> Chair will wave his statement and Representative Lewis will give you the last word in your recognized formation. >> Mr. Chairman and members, I do just want again, thank you for your participation in this. I do just wanna state for those who maybe were not here during the joint select committee, that it was the intention of the chairs and the members and certainly the speaker's office and the [UNKNOWN] office to empower and provide the resources Is necessary for all members to fully be able to participate. It is dishonest to say that partisan politics don't play a big part in everything that we do up here, but it is also dishonest to say that a legitimate effort wasn't made to make sure that all members that wanted to fully participate and engage in this process and to try to offer solutions as opposed to simply organizing and rallying around talking points to attack the solutions that are proposed. I'm certain that a good effort was made to empower that and to allow that level of participation. I do hope that as we move forward, I hope that the court will recognize that we have to the best of our understanding Understanding complied with a decision that they have asked us to do, we have done that by an open committee in which the members were allowed, which votes were recorded, drafted criteria that we felt complied with that decision. And that is what brings us to have senate Built to by force. I do appreciate the remarks that were made that the shapes of the map are prettier. I think in fact they are. I would state again for the record that we are still hopeful that a stay will be issued by the US Supreme court because we're very concerned about the confusion that's caused by stopping an election that's underway. We heard yesterday that over 23,000 ballots have already been mailed out that do contain the race for the US house of representatives. And finally I would just wanna say for the record I was Again on the floor, while we are still on an uncertain time, it is very important for anybody that receives a ballot to fully exercise their right and go ahead and vote for the US House of representative on the ballot that is there. If in fact those races don't count, no harm no foul- >> [COUGH] >> That if you do not vote then you're missing your opportunity to register the candidate of your choice should the stay be granted. Mr.

Chairman would I be recognized for a motion >> Representative Lewis you're recognized. >> Mr. Chairman I move that the house committee on redistricting give a favorable report to senate bill two. >> Representative Lewis has properly moved that we give a favorable report to senate bill two, those in favor will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The clerk will call thevote. >> Representative Representative Louis >> I >> Representative Jones >> I >> Representative Brawley >> I >> Representative Chatham >> Nay >> Representative Davis >> I >> Representative Former Battlefield/g >> I >> Representative Hager >> I >> Representative Hanes >> Nay >> Representative Adista/g >> I >> Representative Harley >> I >> Representative Representative Jackson. >> Aye. >> Representative Johnson. >> Aye! >> Representative Jordan. >> Aye! >> Representative McGrady/g. >> Aye! >> Representative Michel. >> No! >> Representative Moor. >> No. >> Representative Stan. >> Aye! >>Representative Stevens. >> Aye. [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] With 12 votes in the affirmative and six in the negative, the motion carries Senate Bill 2 has given a favorable report and this committee is adjourned. Thank you ladies and gentlemen. [COUGH]