Senate committee approves mid‑decade congressional map that alters NC‑1 and NC‑3

Raleigh — The North Carolina Senate Elections Committee voted to report favorably on Senate Bill 249, a proposed committee substitute that would redraw parts of two Eastern North Carolina congressional districts, moving multiple counties between NC‑1 and NC‑3.

Sponsor Senator Hice, who presented the plan to the committee, said the redraw’s purpose was explicit: "Draw a new map that will bring an additional Republican seat to the North Carolina congressional delegation." He told the committee that the proposal changes only two of the state’s 14 districts: "The only districts that are changed in the new proposal are NC‑1 and NC‑3." He also said, "absolutely no racial data was used in the creation of this map."

The plan moves Green, Lenoir, Wayne and Wilson counties from District 1 into District 3 and moves Beaufort, Carteret, Craven, Dare, Hyde and Pamlico counties from District 3 into District 1. To balance population the plan shifts 4,853 people (2.4% of Onslow County’s 204,576 population under the 2020 census) by splitting the Swansboro precinct. The sponsor said the changes increase President Trump’s 2024 performance in NC‑1 from 51% to about 55% and reduce NC‑3 from about 60% to about 56%, and that the end result “should perform to elect 11 Republicans.”

Senator Hice also described compactness metrics the committee used, saying the draft improves both the REOC and Polsby‑Popper scores for the map overall and for NC‑1 and NC‑3 compared with the 2023 congressional plan.

Committee members asked a series of procedural and substantive questions about timing, public input, data sources and legal risk. Committee questions included when the map was drawn (the sponsor said drawing began the week of Oct. 13 and the proposal was posted to the committee website the prior Thursday), whether Democrats were involved (the sponsor said they were not), whether partisan performance data and incumbent addresses were used (the sponsor said election results and recent 2024 data were consulted and incumbents’ locations were available though not explicitly placed on the drafter’s maps), and whether outside consultants were paid from public funds (the sponsor said none were).

Multiple members pressed whether the mapmaker or committee had evidence that federal Voting Rights Act Section 2 preconditions applied; the sponsor replied repeatedly that no such evidence had been submitted to the committee and that the chairs chose not to use racial data "strictly to protect the state from lawsuits alleging illegal racial gerrymanders."

The committee allowed a public comment period that the chair limited to roughly one minute per speaker because of time constraints. More than 30 individuals and representatives of organizations registered to speak; most speakers opposed the mid‑decade redraw. Comments came from civic groups and individuals, including Democracy Out Loud, the League of Women Voters of North Carolina, ACLU of North Carolina and You Can Vote. Public commenters accused the plan of disenfranchising minority voters and urged the legislature to hold broader public hearings instead of moving ahead now. Representative comments included: "You were elected to serve the citizens of North Carolina, not Donald J. Trump," (Mark Swallow, Democracy Out Loud) and "This map in North Carolina puts Washington, D.C., over the people of North Carolina" (Rayna Walters Morgan, Democratic National Committee vice chair for civic engagement, speaking as a resident). The League of Women Voters told the committee it opposes mid‑decade redistricting "unless required by court order." Several individuals called the plan racist and pledged political opposition.

After public comment the committee considered motions. Senator Amy Gailey moved that the committee consider the proposed committee substitute; members voted by voice and the motion carried. Later, Senator Todd Johnson moved adoption of a committee report favorable to the proposed committee substitute (and unfavorable to the original bill); members again voted by voice. The chair announced, "The ayes have it, and the bill passes out of committee."

The committee record shows no roll‑call vote with named tallies in the transcript; both decisions were recorded as voice votes in committee. The sponsor indicated that, following committee action, the plan would proceed to further floor action in the General Assembly.

Background: the sponsor repeatedly framed the redraw as a political response to maps and political events elsewhere and said the General Assembly retains sole authority to pass legislative maps in North Carolina. The sponsor and several committee members referenced ongoing or recent litigation involving the current congressional map; the transcript referenced a federal challenge (identified in the hearing as "NAACP v. Burger" or similar language) and the sponsor said decisions from federal courts informed the committee’s choice not to use racial data. Several members and public commenters raised concerns that a mid‑decade redraw outside of court order would invite litigation and use public resources for defense.

What’s next: With the committee’s favorable report, the proposed committee substitute for Senate Bill 249 moves out of the Senate Elections Committee to the full Senate for further consideration and possible amendments. The sponsor said amendments remain possible on the floor and that the General Assembly as a whole will decide final adoption.