The wheels of justice turn . . . slowly
The year was 2001. The city was High Point. An election had been delayed. So, it turns out, would be a thorough explanation of exactly why.
Residents of Guilford County's second city will remember that while everyone else was going to the polls to elect city councils that year, High Point voters stayed home. At the time, I was the High Point city government reporter stuck covering the non-election. We were searching for some answers to what I thought were really simple questions. Now, 42 months later, we might have some.
For the full story, take trip in the way-back machine curtsey of your friends and mine at the U.S. Justice Department.
The Backstory
In 2001, High Point was redrawing its city council district boundaries. Pretty much all muncipalities were after the 2001 Census, which showed some pretty big population shifts.
With a new plan nearing completion, Council Member Ron Wilkins thought the lines might diminish African American representation on the council. He and others complained to the U.S. Justice Department.
High Point, like many other places in North Carolina, is governed by federal voting rights laws that require the feds to sign off anytime governments changes rules or boundaries with respect to elections. This is in large part to avoid election systems that make it hard for minorities to get elected, an artifact of the civil rights era.
The upshot: the city's council elections were delayed until the Justice Department could sort out whether or not the new boundaries were legal. The Justice Department ruled in favor of the city in late 2001. That would have put the city elections on for May, 2002.
But by that time the General Assembly had gotten into its own redistricting dispute. That ended up delaying High Point's elections even further. (Council members elected in late 2002 ended up serving about half the two-year term they would have.)
How this came crashing back
During all these delays, we wanted some answers from the Justice Department about what they were looking at, what specifically bugged them about High Point's plan, etc. . . The lawyers there were always very nice and polite on the phone but less than forthcoming with the inside poop.
So just as the department was about to clear the boundaries, I sent a Freedom of Information Request letter asking for documentation regarding the feds' review of the High Point districts. My hope was to write a relatively timely piece explaining to voters what specific issues the Justice Department's lawyers were looking at.
Sometime in 2002, I heard back with an offer of some data that I already had - not helpful. By the time I was going to make any headway, a new council had been elected and I had long since decided to stop banging my head against that particular brick wall.
Flash forward to today, when my colleague Nate DeGraff calls me up asking about a package I had just received from the Justice Department. Three-and-a-half years later, they have acceded to my request for information . . . mostly.
They've forked over 381 pages of documents related to the case. Another 90 pages of other material were redacted pursuant, I'm guessing, mostly to a section of the federal code that exempts "attorney work product."
Even though the issue is way out of date and I've moved on to three different assignments since then, I'm keen on taking a look at what they sent me. (That requires a trip back to the Greensboro mother ship from our digs out here in Raleigh.) I'll report back if I find anything cool.
And I guess we can't say the wheels of justice aren't turning, they're just going really slow.
Due to recent automated spamming attacks on our blogs, we are temporarily requiring commenters to authenticate themselves via TypeKey® before posting comments to any News & Record blog in order to prevent denials of service. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience.