House committee approves Senate Bill 249 to redraw NC congressional Districts 1 and 3 after hour of public comment

The House Select Committee on Redistricting voted 10-7 to give a favorable report to Senate Bill 249, sending the measure to the Rules Committee after roughly an hour of public comment and more than 10,900 written submissions to the committee portal.

The bill would redraw only North Carolina’s 1st and 3rd congressional districts. Committee members who sponsored and defended the plan said it was drawn to increase Republican performance in eastern North Carolina and that racial data was not used in the drawing. Opponents — including current and former elected officials, civil-rights organizations and dozens of public commenters at the hearing — said the changes would dilute Black voting strength in longstanding majority-Black communities and described the mid-decade redraw as partisan gerrymandering.

Senator Hise, who presented the plan to the committee, said the “motivation behind this draw was to produce a new map that will bring an additional Republican seat to North Carolina’s congressional delegation,” and described the development as a response to redistricting actions in other states. He told the committee the plan alters only CD-1 and CD-3, moving Beaufort, Carteret, Craven, Dare, Hyde and Pamlico counties into CD-1 and moving Greene, Lenoir, Wayne and Wilson into CD-3; it also splits Onslow County (moving 4,853 people from one district to another in a Swansboro precinct) to balance population. Hise said the map would have increased the 2024 presidential vote in CD-1 from an estimated 51% for Trump to 55% and reduced CD-3 from 60% to 56% in his party’s modeling, and that the result “should perform to elect 11 Republicans.”

Representative Jones, chair of the House select committee, said the House consultant worked under instructions that prohibited use of racial data and required work on legislative equipment at the Raleigh complex; Jones said the House ultimately adopted the senate-drawn map for committee consideration. Jones told members the bill would be on the House floor for a final vote the next day.

Opponents in the room and speakers from organizations including Democracy Out Loud, NC Counts Coalition, Common Cause and the North Carolina Association of Educators framed the plan as a deliberate effort to reduce the influence of Black voters in eastern and northeastern North Carolina. Former U.S. Rep. Eva Clayton, who testified during the public comment period, said the redraw “strips indeed the majority black counties from the First Congressional District and bury them in a heavily Republican area” and called the change “an act of gerrymandering.”

Multiple public speakers cited the large volume of written comments — the committee was told the portal contained 10,997 submissions — and urged members to read them and to let voters, not legislators, decide by referendum. Others raised legal and fiscal concerns: Representative Harrison and several speakers noted ongoing litigation over congressional maps and that the state has spent about $22,512,000 on redistricting-related litigation since 2011, a figure that was read into the record during the hearing.

Committee debate that followed public comment echoed those divisions. Several members said the existing map and the proposed map are both subject to successful Voting Rights Act and constitutional challenges; others defended the sponsors’ stated criteria: contiguity, population equality, keeping counties and municipalities whole where feasible, and not using racial data. Senator Hise told the committee his work on the map was done with legislative staff and counsel present and that no other lawmakers contributed to the final line-drawing decisions.

On the motion to give Senate Bill 249 a favorable report and refer it to Rules, Representative Jones moved the motion. The roll call recorded 10 votes in favor and 7 against. Members recorded as voting yes were: Dixon; Echeverria; Gillespie; Humphrey; Neil Jackson; Miller; Rhine; Carson Smith; Jones (chair); and Blackwell (chair votes yes). Members recorded as voting no were: Ball; Carney; Du; Harrison; Francis Jackson; Reeves; and Willingham. The committee chair announced the motion passed 10-7 and adjourned the committee.

The bill now moves to the Rules Committee; Representative Jones said the House floor would consider the measure on the following day. No further amendments or programmatic appropriations were adopted in the committee; the motion recorded was a favorable report with referral to Rules.

Proponents and opponents both flagged likely next steps: proponents argued the plan meets traditional redistricting criteria and improves partisan outcomes described in sponsor testimony; opponents signaled legal challenges and public campaigns against the plan, and many urged that redistricting be resolved through broader public input or a statewide referendum rather than a mid-decade legislative redraw.