The North Carolina House on Oct. 22 approved a mid‑decade congressional redistricting plan, Senate Committee Substitute Senate Bill 249, that leaves 12 of 14 districts unchanged and redraws only U.S. House Districts 1 and 3.

Representative Bridal Jones, sponsor of the measure, told members the plan followed written standards set by the General Assembly and said racial data was not used in drawing the map. "From day 1, we established clear, written standards for how this map would be drawn," Jones said on the floor, noting the work was done using equipment at the legislative complex and with a consultant.

Supporters said the new map will increase the Republican vote share in District 1 and could change North Carolina's congressional delegation balance. "The new congressional map improves Republican political strength in Eastern North Carolina and will bring in an additional Republican seat to North Carolina's congressional delegation," Jones said.

Opponents called the measure a partisan power grab that splits communities and dilutes historically Black voting strength. Representative Pittman, who represents Wilson County, said the change "weaponizes my community" and opposed the bill. Representative Mori said the map amounted to "map warfare" started elsewhere and warned it carved up the Eastern Black Belt, risking dilution of Black and Latino voters and potential litigation.

Other members argued the process provided inadequate time for public review and for legally required analyses. Representative Harrison cited the short time between publication and debate and said public comment was overwhelmingly opposed; members on the floor reported thousands of submitted comments. Representatives cited the Allen v. Milligan U.S. Supreme Court decision and said Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act required analysis to assess whether minority voters could still elect a candidate of choice.

After extended debate and unsuccessful attempts to amend the plan, the House adopted motions to proceed. On second reading the clerk recorded a roll call of 66 in favor and 48 opposed. The bill then passed third reading by voice vote and was ordered engrossed and sent on for enrollment.

Members noted public protests in the chamber and several representatives raised constitutional objections following passage. Multiple speakers characterized the decision as politically motivated; sponsors said the plan followed objective standards written by the General Assembly.

Votes at a glance: second reading — 66 yes, 48 no; third reading — voice vote in favor. The House recorded formal protest statements under Article II, Section 18 of the state constitution after the vote.

The map will now follow the enrollment process required by the General Assembly and be prepared for whatever next steps the legislative or legal process may require.