Roy Cooper's Redistricting Hypocrisy

Former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D)’s evolving views on political gerrymandering reveal a hypocritical inconsistency typical for Democrats. When they have the advantage in state legislatures, they support partisan gerrymandering—but when Republicans gain the advantage, they suddenly become good government reformers in favor of independent redistricting commissions.

In the 1990s, as a state senator, Cooper championed partisan redistricting to preserve parity in his state’s congressional caucus. As governor, he supported independent commissions to draw district lines, citing technological advancements as the catalyst for his change of heart. Critics, however, see a simpler explanation—Republicans dominate the legislature, giving them the advantage to redraw lines in a way that benefits their party. This obvious hypocrisy shows how Democrats tout alleged bipartisan, civic-minded reforms when they lack the numbers to exercise raw political power.

(READ MORE: Democrats Plan to Racially Redline Voting Districts in Virginia’s Largest City)

Gerrymandering Was Great When It Helped Democrats

In 1996, in Shaw v. Hunt, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down North Carolina’s 12th Congressional District as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. As chair of the Senate Redistricting Committee, Cooper led the effort to revise the map. At this time, Democrats held the Senate, and he viewed partisan control as perfectly acceptable. 

Republicans, who controlled the House from 1995 to 1998, forced a compromise, but Cooper's Senate position helped him ensure the map favored the status quo, which was the best Democrats could expect. He explicitly rejected calls for an independent redistricting commission, as highlighted in a 1997 editorial from the Greensboro News and Record. 

"The voters in 1996 decided that the state's congressional delegation should be divided between six Democrats and six Republicans,” he stated. “I don't believe we should use court-ordered redistricting to alter that result." 

Senate Democrats worked with the Republican-controlled House to produce a new plan that maintained the equal partisan split in the state's U.S. House delegation. This approach replaced the racial gerrymander with a political one to protect incumbents and partisan equilibrium. The revised 12th District, while more compact, still drew scrutiny for its "bizarre configuration," as noted by U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. 

In April 1998, however, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the 12th District an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, finding the lines "facially race-driven" despite claims they were motivated by politics. North Carolina appealed, and in 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the state in a 5-4 decision in Hunt v. Cromartie. 

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote: "The evidence... does not show that racial considerations predominated in the drawing of District 12's boundaries. That is because race in this case correlates closely with political behavior." This ruling vindicated Cooper's strategy of political gerrymandering.

Now That It Helps Republicans, Modern Technology Makes It Evil

In the following decade, Cooper's tune changed dramatically. Republicans gained full control of the legislature in 2010, enacting aggressive gerrymanders in 2011 to cement their dominance of the state’s congressional delegation. By 2014, as attorney general and a gubernatorial hopeful, Cooper began promoting nonpartisan redistricting. 

He told the Wake Democratic Men’s Club that Democrats should advocate for an independent commission, because, “[Gerrymandering] has never been as technologically diabolical as it is now... able to go household by household." 

Apparently, modern technology, not a Republican controlled legislature, suddenly made gerrymandering a bad thing.

In a 2024 interview, Cooper reiterated his support for nonpartisan reform, stating: "Independent redistricting commissions in other states work. We have to try to find a way to do that... We need more purple districts." 

When pressed on his past opposition, he doubled down on technology as the differentiator: "Sure. But now, redistricting is so technologically diabolical. They can predict so much better how areas are going to vote, and they have used it to the utmost." 

This explanation rings hollow. Republicans, like Senate Majority Leader Harry Brown in 2017, blasted Cooper for his hypocrisy, pointing to the "irregular shapes" of 1990s districts he helped craft and accusing him of selective outrage. Conservative commentator Pete Kaliner reminded readers that Cooper "opposed an independent commission to draw maps, even going to the U.S. Supreme Court to protect his racially gerrymandered maps.”

Cooper’s flip-flopping on a nonpartisan redistricting commission mirrors that of his Democrats neighbors to the north. Virginia Democrats overwhelmingly voted for an independent redistricting commission when Republicans controlled the state’s legislature. They finally got what they wanted but when they flipped the legislature, the state’s Democrat Party adopted a resolution opposing it. 

Cooper's legacy on redistricting highlights a broader hypocrisy and dishonesty among Democrats—gerrymandering as a power grab when they have the tools to use it but appeals to high-minded, nonpartisan independence when they don’t. Although technology has indeed amplified gerrymandering’s precision, elected officials of the majority party should not shy away from crafting congressional districts to their liking—provided the districts are somewhat contiguous.

(READ MORE: North Carolina Elections Just Got a Lot Better)