Joseph Ax

(Reuters] – One of the many lawsuits which could impact who controls Congress following this year’s midterm election is a legal fight over North Carolina’s newly drawn congressional maps.

Lawyers for Democratic voters and advocacy groups told a trio of state Superior Court judges in Raleigh on Thursday that the map, which the Republican-controlled legislature approved in November, effectively deprives Democratic voters of representation by ensuring Republicans will win a majority of seats under almost any circumstance.

However, a Republican lawmaker argued redistricting was legal and transparent and that courts could not determine when partisan considerations had crossed the line.

After the conclusion of Thursday’s four-day trial, judges will likely issue a ruling by Tuesday.

According to electoral analysts, Republicans are likely to win at most 10 of 14 state congressional seats. This is despite North Carolina being a heavily divided swing state. Republicans hold 8 of 13 congressional districts. However, the state is currently gaining a seat because of increased population.

To regain control of the U.S. House of Representatives where Democrats hold an edge of 221-212, Republicans will need to win just a few seats, including vacant, in November’s elections.

U.S. law demands that every ten years states redraw their congressional districts using data from U.S. Census in order to adjust for changes in population. The maps are drawn by many states, and lawmakers have the authority to do so. This can result in gerrymandering which is when one party uses district lines to consolidate its power.

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University reports that there are at most 12 lawsuits pending challenging congressional maps in at minimum six states (Texas, Ohio, Georgia).

Plaintiffs from North Carolina, including the North Carolina League of Conservation Voters, claim that the map is racially discriminatory as well as illegally partisan and in violation of state constitution. New maps are also needed for the state legislature districts.

The plaintiffs’ experts testified that the Republican-drawn map of the Congress was not comparable to the thousands of computer-generated maps.

Elisabeth Theodore (a lawyer representing some of the plaintiffs in the voting rights case) stated that “this is the most extreme Republican-gerrymander possible.” This map was deliberately created to disregard the votes of voters.

Phil Strach (an attorney for Republican legislators) argued that any map should favor Republicans since Democratic voters cluster in cities. He also asked if courts were allowed to participate in the analysis requested by the plaintiffs.

What is the boundary between permissible or impermissible political considerations in drawing a map? He said. “The reality is, this is an unanswerable query.”

In order to permit the proceeding, North Carolina’s primary elections were moved from March to May by the state Supreme Court. No matter what the final decision is, it will most likely be decided by the Supreme Court after appealing.