‘They lost at the ballot box under maps their own analysis proves were fair, and they’re now trying to convince a court to hand them a majority they couldn’t win for themselves…’
(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) A trial in North Carolina over partisan gerrymandering revealed that hypocrites on the Left who are challenging the current electoral map had, in fact, used big data to try to clinch their own victory through court-forced redistricting.
However, it left open the possibility that state courts could use their own constitutional bylaws to forcibly redraw districts they deemed to favor one political party—even if the courts themselves were blatantly partisan.
Democrats, who already in 2017 had forced the GOP state legislature in North Carolina to redraw what it claimed were racially biased districts, brought both federal and a state-level cases challenging the previously-approved redrawn districts after they failed to change the outcome of the 2018 election.
While the Democrats in that election were able to undo GOP super-majorities in the NC state legislature, they could not secure an outright majority, instead demanding that the unfairly “partisan” maps must again be redrawn.
But in the course of discovery for the state-level case, it was revealed that the Democrats not only thought they would win the last election, they had a deep-data analysis of every voter to back it up.
According to GOP state Sen. Ralph Hise, one of the Republican legislators who is fighting the left-wing activists, the Left spent thousands of dollars to keep this data secret and waited until only after the election results to begin complaining.
“The Democrats analyzed the 2017 maps, which showed they could win Democratic majorities,” Hise said in a press release.
“They successfully kept this information secret—until now,” he said. “They lost at the ballot box under maps their own analysis proves were fair, and they’re now trying to convince a court to hand them a majority they couldn’t win for themselves.”
The so-called ‘support scores’ drew on data purchased from a group called Break the Majority.
That information culled not only past voting habits but also consumer spending and other habits to form a somewhat accurate profile of how each voter in the district might lean.
Although Democrats have cried foul at Republicans’ reliance on big data in elections—for example, their claims that the Facebook profile information gathered by the nonpartisan Cambridge Analytica and purchased prior to the 2016 election constituted a privacy breach—they have surreptitiously done the same.
The effort has national implications as former Attorney General Eric Holder and his National Democratic Redistricting Committee lead the charge to “sue till blue” by asking left-leaning courts to redraw GOP districts across the country.
The NDRC—which recently merged with former President Barack Obama’s campaign arm, Organizing for Action, believed to have some of the most sophisticated voter-profile databases around—has declared a dozen vulnerable red-leaning states to be in its cross-hairs prior to the 2020 election.
Those elections, in turn, will determine the legislative makeup that will oversee the next round of redistricting.
This means that despite a federal Supreme Court ruling against them, left-wing activists may use the state courts—along with their immense financial resources and databases—to sway state legislatures, which will then legally redraw the U.S. congressional districts in their favor.
“For too long, the Democratic Party has failed to focus on the state and local elections that impact the lives of American citizens on a day-to-day basis and determine who has a seat at the redistricting table,” Holder wrote in a recent op-ed for The Washington Post.
“Democrats must invest in—and win—state and local elections in 2019 and 2020 to make sure that Republicans do not retain total control in the remaining states and manipulate the process again during 2021 redistricting,” Holder wrote.
North Carolina state Sen. Phil Berger—another of the GOP legislators fighting the state court case to re-redraw the districts—was among those who condemned Holder’s brazen political ambitions.
“That’s not democracy. It’s judicial usurpation of democracy,” Berger said. “Mr. Holder wants to repeat this across any state where he can promote a liberal judicial majority if he can’t elect a liberal Legislature or Governor.”