Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Rucho v. League of Women Voters of North Carolina that no fair test exists for courts to determine when partisan gerrymandering has gone too far.

“Today’s decision is devastating to the voters in North Carolina who have lived with unconstitutional districts in the last four federal elections,” said Janet Hoy, co-president of the League of Women Voters of North Carolina and a named plaintiff in the case. “While we were hopeful that the Court would set a standard to address extreme gerrymandering cases like ours, we will continue to work on getting fair maps for North Carolinians through other means.”

In arguments, the League proposed a three-prong vote dilution test for determining when a partisan gerrymander has gone too far: clearly identifiable partisan intent on a per-district basis; with an effect that is district specific; and no legitimate purpose by a legislature.

The high court has yet to vote that an election map drawn for blatant partisan advantage is unconstitutional. Justices have continually reasoned that elected officials are expected to joust for power in that fashion, while courts should be reluctant to intercede.

Rucho v. League of Women Voters of North Carolina was consolidated with Rucho v. Common Cause, a companion challenge to the North Carolina legislature, as well as Benisek v. Lamone, a redistricting case out of Maryland.

Although the supreme court had not yet ruled against these types of gerrymandering cases, the plaintiffs were hoping this time things would be different. In relatively “purple” North Carolina, where President Barack Obama won in 2008 but lost in 2012, Republicans drew themselves a 10-3 advantage in Congress. In more liberal Maryland, Democrats gave their party a disproportionate, 7-1 majority.

What do you think about the high court’s decision? 

Charlotte has just become the first city in America to adopt an independent immigration compact.

The Charlotte Compact on Immigration was unanimously signed at this past Monday’s heated city council meeting.

Our city leaders hope that our new compact will continue the immigration conversation and strengthen the communication gap among Charlotte residents with questionable immigration statuses.

The language of the document was left purposefully vague so as not to be challenged by North Carolina’s Republican-led legislature.

The compact specifically addresses 5 points:

1. FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY

2. STRENGTHENING OUR ECONOMY AND WORKFORCE

3. FAMILIES

4. LAW ENFORCEMENT

5. COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP

Our city’s new compact was largely inspired by the United Nation’s much more comprehensive global migration compact.

In 2018, The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration was signed by 193 member-states, including the US. The compact was nonbinding, but it marked the first comprehensive effort to address human mobility at the global level, extending human rights and development goals to often ignored people groups, while upholding the ability of each separate country to enforce its own laws.

Just a few months later, the United States became the first member state to leave the compact, arguing that the compact interfered with sovereign law enforcement actions.

City leaders now hope that Charlotte will become a forerunner for many other cities to develop their own internal immigration compacts to improve laws and policies regarding immigrants and disenfranchised people groups.

Yesterday afternoon, several hundred protestors (most from a group called ‘Love Life Charlotte‘) gathered in opposition of an amendment to Charlotte’s noise ordinance. Despite the protests, signs, and speeches, the city council decided to pass it.

The amendment adds 150-foot ‘noise buffers’ around all schools, houses of worship, or medical facilities (including abortion clinics) during open hours.

The following is a video from last night’s city council meeting, with the discussion about the amendment starting at about 1:04:00 into the video;

The new revisions specificaly restricts any “amplified sound” that may disturb activity within a school, house of worship, or medical building.

The effort to amend the noise ordinance comes after years of controversy over prayer walks that frequently occur outside of ‘A Preferred Women’s Health Center of Charlotte’ on Latrobe Dr. (Charlotte’s busiest abortion clinic).

Supporters of the new amendment say that patients to the center were being harassed by protestors, while opponents of the changes say their free speech will be restricted.

What are your thoughts on the new noise ordinance amendment?