(bright music) - [Announcer] This is a production of PBS Charlotte.

- Tonight on "Unspun," the fight over political maps has become one of the most consequential battles in politics.

The maps can have a huge influence on who gets elected.

Gerrymandering has been a part of American politics for generations.

But if politicians are allowed to pick their voters by remapping districts, what happens to accountability?

In today's America, welcome to the spin game.

Believe me, I know.

I'm Pat McCrory.

When I was governor and mayor, I played the spin game.

I was played by the spin game, but aren't we all done being spun?

Let's take the spin out of the world we're in, here on "Unspun."

(dramatic music) Good evening.

I'm Pat McCrory.

Every 10 years, we redraw political districts to reflect changes in population.

At least that's the theory.

But in reality, drawing those lines can become a political power game.

Move a county here, split a neighborhood there, put just the right voters into just the right district, and suddenly, the map can help determine the outcome before the first ballot is ever cast.

After a long legal fight, North Carolina adopted a new congressional map in 2025 for the 2026 elections.

In fact, 10 states have recently redrawn their congressional maps outside the normal cycle.

So where is the line between legitimate political redistricting and manipulating the map to protect political power?

My guest today is Rory Riley Topping, a legal and political analyst and co-author of "Draw the Line in Ohio," a new book that uses Ohio's battle over redistricting to explain how gerrymandering actually works, and why it matters well beyond one state.

Rory, welcome to "Unspun."

- Thanks so much for having me.

I'm glad to be here with you today.

- It's kind of interesting.

You're a real expert on gerrymandering, not just in Ohio, but throughout the country.

But one thing that I've learned from you is that North Carolina actually has a long history of gerrymandering, and maybe set the history books on how to do it right, or maybe how to do it wrong.

Tell us some about that history in North Carolina.

- I'm glad you started there, because I think the history here is really interesting.

And most people think of gerrymandering as being named after former Massachusetts governor, Elbridge Gerry.

That's where the word gerrymandering comes from.

But over 100 years before that, the provincial governor of North Carolina, a man named Lord Burrington, who was a really kind of hothead of a personality, he manipulated county lines to try to stay in power.

Now, he was ultimately sent back to England, because people were unhappy with his political behavior.

But I say, I feel like he put a curse on the Tar Heel state and the Supreme Court keeps getting sucked into it.

Obviously, two very influential Supreme Court cases about gerrymandering, Rucho v. Common Cause, and Moore v. Harper both had their origins in the state of North Carolina.

So I think when you look at the history, you realize that the act of gerrymandering actually predates the word gerrymandering.

And that's something that I think is really interesting that a lot of people aren't aware of.

- I wasn't aware of that, and I don't know if I'm proud of that regarding the history of North Carolina.

But tell us briefly about those two Supreme Court cases that have had such a big impact on our entire political system.

- Sure.

Well, Rucho v. Common Cause, which came out in 2018, that really changed the landscape of how we look at partisan gerrymandering.

For years, the Supreme Court has really struggled with this issue because they've said it's a political issue.

Back in 1946, there was a case called Colegrove v. Green, where Justice Felix Frankfurter referred to gerrymandering as "a political thicket," and he warned the court not to wander into it.

But obviously, we had a line of cases throughout the 1960s, where the court did just that.

And then in 2018, the court said that partisan gerrymandering was a non-justiciable issue because it was too hard for federal courts like the Supreme Court to really determine what was going on there.

Now, I don't know personally if I buy that argument, but that is the supreme law of the land.

And so we've seen, as a result of that, an increase in the importance of state courts.

We've seen a lot of fights over elections for state court judges, because now, these decisions over maps are being decided primarily by state courts.

Now, Moore v. Harper, the other case that we referenced, that involved something called the independent state legislature theory, where state legislatures said that maps shouldn't be subject to judicial review at all, that state legislatures should have absolute independent authority here.

Now, the Supreme Court did reject that doctrine, which I think was probably the right decision.

Obviously, we have a tripartite government and our checks and balances are very important, but really interesting for citizens of North Carolina that two of the most major decisions on this topic both originated here.

- I think one of, Bob Rucho, I think was one of those cases and he was a Mecklenburg representative at the time.

- That's correct, yes.

- So his name's in a Supreme Court case.

I ended up suing him later on, and the state legislature on powers, separation of power.

So how ironic that all this history right here in North Carolina.

I hear both parties blame the other party for gerrymandering.

From a historical perspective, is one party more guilty than another party regarding gerrymandering?

And how far back does this go, regarding political parties in America?

- Well, as we've seen historically, this goes back for hundreds of years.

So what we've seen when you look at the history is that both parties will gerrymander when given the chance.

And what we typically see as a pattern is the party in power is against reform, whereas the party out of power is opposed to reform.

So when power switches hands, we see both parties will do it when they have the opportunity to do it.

When you look back at our recent congressional history, people forget Democrats controlled the US House of Representatives for almost 40 years from the 1950s to the 1990s, until the Gingrich Revolution of 1994, which switched everything.

And now we've since that time, had this kind of ping-ponging back and forth over control of Congress.

Now, people will say Republicans are more guilty of it right now, but we've seen Democrats are likewise retaliating and fighting back.

So again, I think when you look at it, both what we're seeing today, as well as throughout history, any party will gerrymander when given the chance because this is all about power.

And that's really what the parties care about.

- Well, I hate to say it.

I've been involved in gerrymandering as a mayor, because for a brief moment in history, Republicans controlled the city council by one vote and I was a Republican mayor, and we are in charge of gerrymandering the city council districts.

Now, since we've gone and before that, the Democrats have been gerrymandering the local election.

So most people think this is mainly about the federal and state races, but isn't it true that city, counties, and even school board elections are impacted by gerrymandering?

Most people don't talk about that.

- That's absolutely true.

And I think that that gets at a bigger issue in that local politics are really important.

And many of the things that impact your daily life are decided by your local politicians, like your city council members, like your local school board.

And people on those boards are likewise concerned with power.

And so yes, I think that people need to focus more generally on their local politics, and pay attention to these things.

It's very easy to get distracted by what's going on with Washington.

But again, issues that control your schools, your roads, a lot of those are decided locally, and people need to be more focused on local politics to pay attention to these things.

I can give a recent example.

The town that I live in recently redistricted its school districts and I attended a lot of the meetings, and was really disappointed.

I mean, I counted at one meeting there were six people there for a school district that involves hundreds of students.

And the way that the maps were finally drawn, I have to drive by one elementary school to get to the elementary school that my son actually goes to.

And so to me, that's kind of an example of gerrymandering in my own backyard.

And so it's frustrating, but it just drives home the point that when given the opportunity, people will do what they can to manipulate outcomes to get what they want.

And as citizens, as voters, we have to use our voice to call them out on this behavior, whether it's happening locally, or nationally.

We should put a stop to it everywhere.

- So it's kind of ironic that we used to only manipulate the districts every 10 years when the census is completed.

But now that precedent has stopped, because now it could be every year or two years or five years, including right here in North Carolina.

And now we're seeing it in Texas, California, by the Democrats, Republicans in Texas.

The list goes on and on, where the rules have broken even more, just in the last three years.

Why is that?

And is there an end to that?

From now on, are we going to be redistricting all the time?

- Well, I certainly hope we're not going to be redistricting all the time.

And that's part of why we wrote "Draw the Line in Ohio," because we want to show people what's going on behind the scenes and make them mad enough that they want to put a stop to it.

I think you know as a politician yourself, that for rules to have true impact, they have to have some certainty around them.

People aren't going to be inclined to follow rules that are changing every year, every two years.

And that's in part why the census is typically conducted every 10 years, because that's enough of a time to calculate when populations change.

And then there's certainty around those districts for the five intervening elections.

Now, when we're doing this every two years, that creates distrust with the system.

And I think that there's enough distrust in our politics already.

It's really not helpful to create more distrust by saying we're just going to keep changing the rules until we get the outcome that we want.

Now, there are some solutions on the table.

There are some professors who have suggested maybe a presumption that mid-decade redistricting is illegal.

It's being done with partisan intent.

But this is a situation that I think that as citizens, as voters, we need to keep talking about, because again, as we've seen, it's going to keep getting worse.

This is very much a race to the bottom, and we do need to put a stop to it.

So I think having conversations like this is a first step towards doing that.

- So I want you to repeat the title of your book, example of gerrymandering in Ohio.

What's your conclusion in this book?

Is there an answer to stop gerrymandering?

I haven't figured one out.

I've been a member of a commission to stop gerrymandering and we are going to have an independent commission, but then the politicians nominate the commission.

- So the name of our book is "Draw The Line in Ohio: How One State's Fight for Fair Maps Explains Gerrymandering in America."

And it comes out on September 15, which is only a few weeks away.

But if there was a simple answer to solving gerrymandering, I think we would've done it by now, and we wouldn't find ourselves in this situation.

Now, I think any solution has to be multifaceted, and there are a lot of proposals that are on the table.

When it comes to the federal level in Congress, there are people who talk about uncapping the house.

When districts are smaller, it's harder to manipulate those boundaries.

That's one option that's on the table.

In the book, we interviewed an Ohio State Supreme Court justice who made the suggestion that instead of an independent commission, we have a system akin to jury duty, where everyday citizens are selected for this civic duty, this task, and they would have less incentives to manipulate boundaries the way people who are politically involved would.

So there are all sorts of things on the table, and this book is designed to show you what's going on behind the scenes, and get you mad enough to do something about it.

Not to propose a specific solution, but to make you feel like you have skin in the game, because you do, everyone in this country does.

And to look at some of these solutions.

I think this requires an all hands on deck analysis for how we put a stop to this.

And even if there's an idea that is proposed by someone that maybe you disagree with politically, it's an opportunity to say, "Well, let's engage.

Let's deliberate these ideas."

Because I think at the end of the day, the status quo is unacceptable.

- In the remaining 30 seconds, AI, now it's back in my day, we had a tough time drawing these maps, because we basically did it by looking at census books.

Now you can do it pushing a button on a computer and it won't be as transparent.

We pretend transparency, but it didn't happen.

What's the future of AI doing this?

And again, in about 30 seconds.

- Sure.

I think AI is going to play a huge role in the future.

Like with any data, it's a question of who is controlling the data, and that's the ultimate question.

So that'll be very important.

I think that we need to continue having these conversations about AI and the entire process.

- Maybe AI will be the solution instead of the problem, down the road.

Who knows?

- We shall see.

- Rory, thank you very much.

And best of luck with your book, too.

- Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

- Thank you.

(dramatic music) All right.

The "Unspun Countdown" starts right now.

The "Unspun Countdown," the five truths about gerrymandering.

The five truths about gerrymandering.

Let's start off with number five.

Both parties, both parties are guilty at the federal, state, and local level.

I'll give you an example.

In North Carolina, North Carolina legislators now dominated the whole political structure of gerrymandering for almost 15 years now.

And boy, did they take advantage of it.

The state legislature and the federal congressional offices are totally in favor of the Republicans.

But at the local level, city and county, even the school board controlled by the Democrats, they make sure, through their own gerrymandering, that the Democrats retain control of Mecklenburg County.

Oh, you can repeat this story in every county in North Carolina.

And number four, it protects incumbents, especially incumbents of the majority party.

Let me tell you how bad it can get.

If the incumbent sees a very tough competitor, they'll move the competitor's home outside of the district, and then they'll complain that that person doesn't even belong in the district, although they're allowed to still run.

They'll do commercials saying, "You see, they don't even live in our district!"

And they're the ones who drew the house outside the district.

An amazing game.

Number three, it protects the majority party, although this isn't always guaranteed.

In fact, this year, the Republican legislature redrew district one, congressional district one in the eastern part of North Carolina to basically defeat Don Davis, a Democrat.

But guess what?

Don Davis may still win because so many independents now have moved to that area of the state from across the nation.

It might surprise the Republicans that they'll lose a seat that they thought would guaranteed flip.

And number two, it guarantees non-competitive general elections.

The sad commentary is about 90% of elections now at the local, state, and federal level are over by the primary because everyone's gerrymandered so well, or so badly.

And number one, there's no end in sight for the end of gerrymandering.

I hate to say it, I hate gerrymandering.

But I don't know how we're ever going to get rid of it, because even if we have an independent commission, guess who appoints the independent commission?

The majority party, politicians.

Some things never change.

(dramatic music) Time now for our "One-on-One" segment.

Welcome back, Tony Mecia, the editor of the Charlotte Ledger.

Tony, great to have you.

- Great to be here.

Thanks, governor.

Interesting conversation on redistricting and gerrymandering.

I got to ask you, before you were a politician, you were a basketball referee, and it makes me think of being fair.

Is it possible to have fair lines drawn, to have people set aside their biases, and actually do what's right?

- I don't think it is, as long as the politicians nominate the people, or do the drawing themselves.

And everyone says, "We'll do an independent commission."

But who assigns the independent commission?

The politicians?

And they understand power.

They're going to nominate people they know that's going to do what they want.

- Yeah, are we asking a lot of politicians to say, "Hey, set aside your political party, set aside your political ambitions, and just draw some fair lines."

- Have you heard of the word hypocrisy?

It's all about power, and once you get into office, you're told you better retain the power for our party, and that's why I think the two-party system is failing America right now.

- Is this an issue that animates the public?

Is the public interested in this issue?

I mean, it doesn't seem to be the sexiest issue of all time, but it's so important to how we're governed.

- I don't think it's understood, and it's not understood why it can't be corrected.

And it's just now a way of life, and they go, "Oh, that's more of the crooked politicians, rigging our elections."

And it actually, the term rigging our elections is overused.

This is rigging the elections.

There's no doubt about it.

- Any hope here?

Is there anything that can be done?

Your guest brought up a few ideas of things.

- Well, every person who talks about correcting gerrymander used to do it themselves, or when they gained power, start doing it again, and break their promise.

It's kind of like term limits.

Everyone's for term limits until they get elected.

- Got it.

I want to switch gears a little bit to some of the current events.

We had a a Senate race in South Carolina, a special primary where Darline Graham, the sister of the late Senator Lindsey Graham, defeated Ralph Norman, congressman from the Rock Hill area.

Any take on that race?

- Well, Graham was actually behind the polls two weeks ago for the runoff, but Trump came in and saved the day, and it shows still not as powerful it was when he endorsed my opponent in 2022, Ted Budd, who's now a US Senator, mainly because of that endorsement.

That endorsement again worked.

He came and campaigned in South Carolina and got over the edge.

And Ralph Norman's probably in shock today, because his polling probably showed him winning this race.

Darline also went negative against Norman, and they used the Rock Hill football connection with the Panthers to do just that, which was kind of interesting regarding a regional perspective.

- Why did Trump get involved in that race for Graham, given that she doesn't really have any experience?

She had a gaffe in a debate, where she said she didn't really know very much about national security in a question about Taiwan.

Why would Trump get involved in that?

- The only thing I could say, one of the few things Trump actually had a personal relationship and loyalty with Lindsey Graham.

I never figured how Graham did that.

He's one of the few people who could be critical of Donald Trump, and yet have the loyalty of Donald Trump.

He's one of the few exceptions in America right now regarding politicians, and Trump followed through on that loyalty.

- And just in the last few moments that we have, we've got a North Carolina Senate race, Roy Cooper against Michael Whatley.

Where do you see that here at the end of August?

Where is that shaping up?

What's that looking like?

- Cooper's way ahead in the money, way ahead in the polls.

Whatley, it's going to be interesting.

Will Trump give some of that Trump Super PAC money, which is over $100 million, will he give it to Whatley?

At least some of it, since he's handpicked Whatley to run against Cooper.

That's going to be an interesting thing.

Watley's going to have to bring up Cooper's negatives.

Cooper is like, "What do you put on the frying pan that doesn't stick?"

- Teflon?

- Teflon.

Cooper's a Teflon politician like I've never seen before since he's been attorney general over 20 years ago.

Nothing sticks to him.

And Whatley's got to get something to stick to him.

He's going on crime.

What's interesting to me if a political scientist, neither Whatley or Cooper are talking about anything related to the US Senate.

Cooper has a commercial saying, "I'm going to stop the insurance companies from ripping you off."

Well, it's really a state issue regarding insurance company.

He was governor for eight years, Attorney General for 16 years.

Really, in the US Senate, can you do much about insurance companies?

And Whatley's talking about crime.

Does the US Senate really have much to do about crime?

In the remaining minute, what do you think's the big issue coming up in this race?

I want your opinion from a media standpoint.

- I don't know how you, I mean, they're obviously going to want to talk about different things.

If I'm Cooper and I'm way ahead, I'd probably just play it safe, and talk about mama and apple pie, right?

- What are the readers wanting?

What are your readers wanting from the Charlotte Ledger?

- It's all over the board.

I mean, I do think you hear a lot, I think in Charlotte now, you do hear a lot about crime and is uptown safe, and was the light rail safe?

I think people care about a lot of these bread and butter issues, it's the economy - - That's really a city and state issue.

- Yeah.

I mean, it's the economy of stupid, right?

- Right.

- It's some of that.

It's like, do I have more money coming into... What's going on with prices of things?

So I think economic issues, politicians always like to talk about these hot button social issues, but I think people vote on the economic issues.

- [Pat] They will pivot soon.

Tony, thank you very much.

- Thank you.

(dramatic music) - In his farewell address in 1796, President George Washington warned us about the dangers of political parties.

He predicted that party factions would put party loyalty above the national interest.

Check.

He warned they would divide Americans against each other and distract us from actual governing.

Check.

He warned that political hostility could lead to riots and insurrection.

Check.

That it would allow politicians to seize more power for themselves.

Check.

And perhaps most importantly, he warned that political parties could invite foreign influence and corruption.

Checkmate.

President Washington wrote those words more than 200 years ago, and somehow, they sound like they could have been written yesterday.

You may be surprised to know, I registered as a Democrat when I was 18 years old.

I changed Republican because I wanted to vote for Ronald Reagan.

I'm still a Republican, but I'm also someone who helped lead the No Labels movement because I believed, and I still believe, that Americans deserve an alternative to two political parties that too often, put winning ahead of governing.

No Labels didn't get off the ground, but the problem that created it hasn't gone away.

Both parties are failing our country.

Washington has become increasingly focused on power, money, and winning the next election, instead of solving the problems that affect the next generation.

Gerrymandering, like we've talked about today, is a perfect example of that.

President Washington warned us about this.

His predictions were correct.

He wasn't arguing that Americans should never disagree.

He understood disagreement as part of democracy.

His warning was about something much more dangerous.

Political loyalty becoming more important than the country.

President Washington said the alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, is itself a frightful despotism.

Despotism is a form of government where a single leader holds absolute unchecked power over the people.

That's a pretty strong word from the father of our country.

Maybe we should start listening.

It's time for voters to demand more from our party leaders.

Put the country first, and put governing ahead of campaigning.

After two years of "Unspun," that's really what this show has been about.

Cutting through the partisan spin, and asking whether we're still capable of putting the country ahead of the party.

I believe we are, but it's going to take all of us to do it.

Well, that's the truth as I see it, and as we proudly close our second year of "Unspun," thanks for watching.

(upbeat music) (upbeat music continues) - [Announcer] A production of PBS Charlotte.