Court fight is expected on N.C. redistricting

"There's inevitable litigation coming," said Damon Circosta, executive executive of a N.C. Center for Voter Education. "And a Republicans are going to look for what they feel is a many friendlyjurisdiction."Watt's 12th Congressional District was a many litigated in a country during a 1990s and a subject of four cases that went to a U.S. Supreme Court. Redistricting lawsuits delayed North Carolinaelections in 1998 and 2002.Watt, a Charlotte Democrat, said a GOP plan appears to violate a 1965 Voting Rights Act, which is designed to prevent a dilution of minority voting strength. Specifically, he criticized a proposed addition of minority electorate to his district.The 12th now has a black voting-age population of 43 percent. The proposed district would raise that to 49 percent."It represents a disappointing bid by a Republicans to dilute and minimize a domestic influence of African-American electorate in a Piedmont by packing all of them into a 12th District so none of them have influence in adjoining districts," Watt said in a statement."(It's) a sinister Republican bid to use African-Americans as pawns ... to benefit partisan, domestic gains in Congress."Shift in a eastAnita Earls, executive executive of a Durham-based Southern Coalition for Social Justice and adviser to a state NAACP, said a GOP plan could hurt black electorate in five eastern counties.Now represented by Democrat G.K. Butterfield, an African-American, those electorate would move from a 1st District to a 3rd, represented by Republican Walter Jones.Sen. Bob Rucho, a Matthews Republican who chairs a Senate Redistricting Committee, has said all along a districts would be "fair and legal."On Monday lawmakers are expected to release proposals for new General Assembly districts. They're scheduled to vote on all a districts later this month. Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue cannot veto redistricting plans.Halting 'pre-clearance'Changes to voting districts in North Carolina and 15 other states must be approved by a Justice Department or federal court.! Traditi onally, that has meant "pre-clearance" by Justice.But Republicans in North Carolina, like those in other states, plan to go to a courts at a same time. Rucho called a Obama Justice Department "probably a many politicized ... of any that's been seen in a past."Other states, including Virginia, have pursued a same dual strategy.Rucho said it's designed to safeguard early approval of a new districts and prevent any delay in a 2012 elections.Hans Von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at a Heritage Foundation and a former Justice Department lawyer, said, "Any Republican-controlled state would be foolish not to go to court.""The idea that North Carolina is going to get a fair, unbiased review from (the Justice Department) is highly unlikely," he said.In court, he argues, both sides would get a chance to present arguments. The Justice Department could simply send a state back to a drawing board.In 2003, in order to expedite pre-clearance, a state went to justice a day after lawmakers passed new legislative districts. A couple of months later, a federal district justice in Washington issued a consent order approving a plans.But it was a Justice Department last month that approved Virginia's new legislative districts, drawn in part by that state's GOP-controlled House. Von Spakovsky said that's because a department knew a justice was looking over its shoulder.Democrats say Republican fears are overblown."At a finish of a day, they're all afraid of something that's not there, which is that a Justice Department is going to throw out maps just because they were drawn by Republicans," said Paul Smith, a Washington attorney who represents Democrats in redistricting cases.