Weekend's tops

It's been a busy weekend down Charlotte way. Eric Frazier reports the Charlotte Mecklenberg NAACP has requested investigative help from the Secretary of State's office to examine the group's finances.  The group isn't clear on what happened to a few thousand dollars raised by its annual Ashanti Dinner. According to Frazier, the missing money has exposed a rift within the organization itself - those who want to keep the investigation within the NAACP itself, and those who want to go outside for assistance.

Also in the Char-O, Mark Johnson and Chris Kirkpatrick profile the plight of the Queen City's gentlemen's (club) gentleman, Mohammed Jenatian.  With one foot in the world of adult entertainment and the other in the world of Charlotte boosterism, Jenatian became something of a money man in the political scene. But now, with the state and the feds taking a closer look at donors to former Speaker Jim Black, Jenatian's wondering where it all went wrong.  Interesting stuff.

As I posted last night, the NC Association of Educators has thrown its support for governor in '08 behind a politician who hasn't yet publicly admitted she's running - Lieutenant Governor Bev Perdue.  The N&O's Rob Christensen has more details, while over at the Winston-Salem Journal, Paul O'Connor wonders whether the NCAE endorsement is worth all the fuss.

Friday late edition

In what's arguably the most important political story of the month (year?), the state Supreme Court ruled Friday afternoon that the '09 legislature needs to redraw House District 18, currently represented by Dem Thomas Wright.

Friday's ruling comes out of a 2004 lawsuit, Pender County v Bartlett, filed by then-Pender County Commissioners who objected to the way the district was gerrymandered over two counties.  State constitutional law includes something called the Whole County Provision - that is, when possible, state legislative districts should avoid crossing county lines, so the voters in a county can be assured their legislators will act in *their* best interest, not their neighbors.

Supporters of the district's current construction point to the 1965 Federal Voting Rights Act.  Section 2 requires that some districts be drawn in a way that would allow a minority candidate to win if that's what minority voters want.  (While the whole state isn't subject to the VRA, 40 counties are, thanks to intimidation (and worse) of black voters during the Jim Crow era.)

The trouble is that House 18, as drawn, isn't *majority* African American - it's only about 40%.  Amicis filed by civil rights groups say 40% is enough to comply with the VRA these days.  But conservatives say, no, it's not - and if you're going to gerrymander on account of the VRA, you'd better come up with a majority-minority district. 

Friday's 4-2 decision essentially agrees with the conservative interpretation. To boil it down, the SupCo ruled that if you're going to create a VRA gerrymandered district, it has to do what the VRA requires, which on the face of it would require a majority bloc of minority voters - and close enough isn't good enough. Otherwise, the high court ruled, state lawmakers must abide by the Whole County Provision in drawing districts. 

So they ordered the legislature to redraw House 18 - but not till 2009. In their decision, the justices said the legislature won't come back till May, by which time primary candidates would likely be campaigning on the basis of the district's current boundaries.

All of which is to say that 2009 is likely to be a lively year.  While the SupCo decision specifically addressed only House 18, redrawing that district will affect all the surrounding districts - and House 18 is by no means the only district drawn based on guidelines that Friday's decision clarified or changed, depending on which side you're on. 

The legislature is already slated to redraw maps in 2011, when 2010 census data becomes available. So House 18 could be a taste of what's to come.  On the other hand, this case could (and some say, will) move up to the US Supreme Court, which could put the whole issue on ice till 2011 anyway.

The other big local story...

...didn't even happen here. Not on paper, anyway.  But it's got the whole blogosphere talking.

Former NC statehouse reporter/Pulitzer-winning critic Michael Skube appeared in the LA Times last weekend with a column denouncing blogs as "noise" that's detrimental to journalism.  You can read it here.  But in essence, Skube, who now teaches journalism at Elon, says blogs are leading news reporters toward opinion at the cost of good old-fashioned in-depth reporting.

As if that wasn't enough to raise bloggers' hackles, Skube's column name-checked some big ones, including Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, very possibly the meanest political investigative reporting machine on the block these days, blog or not. 

Until recently at least, Skube hasn't exactly been a blog connoisseur. When he ran a similar column in the Greensboro News & Record back in Dec. 2005 (and not available online), he admitted to Greensboro writer/blogger Ed Cone he'd spent little or no time reading the sort of blogs his column dismissed.

Looks like that hasn't changed much.  TPM's Josh Marshall emailed Skube about last week's column. Marshall says Skube replied:

"I didn't put your name into the piece and haven't spent any time on your site. So to that extent I'm happy to give you benefit of the doubt ..."

Turns out the LAT editorial staff added some examples of blogs to Skube's column.  LAT Editorial Editor Jim Newton says his staff added the names with Skube's permission.

As you might imagine, reaction has been swift and strongly worded.  The LAT ran a "Blowback" column by NYU Professor Jay Rosen the following day.  At DailyKos, Rosen was even more combative, calling on Skube to retire.  Over at TPM, Josh Marshall had plenty to say, too, none of it conciliatory. Here in NC, Skube told Greensboro's Lanita WIthers, "I said what I want to say."

I've heard the arguments on blogging vis-a-vis reporting made often and well by both sides, so I'm not taking a position there.  But it seems to me if you're going to sign your name to a critique, you probably ought to know what you're critiquing.  Especially if you're teaching the next generation of journalists.

Comments? Drop me a line.