Fact Check: Tweet about 'secret maps,' NC Republicans refusing to testify only half-true

In a tweet on Jan. 31, the account for state House Democrats wrote, "House Republicans admitted to secret maps and destruction of evidence... but (Sens. Paul Newton and Warren Danie)l refused to even give testimony. So the question is — what the hell was going on in the (Senate) that was so much WORSE than what was happening in the House?"

Paul Specht of WRAL joins WFAE's Marshall Terry to analyze those claims.

Marshall Terry: First, Paul, what's the context around this tweet that we need to know?

Paul Specht: The context, obviously, is that there is a redistricting case that has been going on for, gosh, a month now. And so this tweet was fired off in the middle of this saga. It was after the lower court case, but it was before the state Supreme Court struck down the legislature's new maps.

Terry: So, the part about the tweet that says Republican Sens. Paul Newton and Warren Daniel did not testify during the trial over redistricting, to be clear, that's the first trial you mentioned — the one that happened in Superior Court. Is it true they didn't testify?

Specht: It is true. So at this point, when the tweet was fired off, there had been a lower court case where a House Republican did acknowledge using concept maps, and the Republicans had previously said that this would be a transparent process — that they were drawing the lines in public. And so it was sort of a revelation when the House Republicans acknowledged that they were using these concept maps that many have referred to as secret. So, that part of the tweet is accurate.

But then when it segues into the part about Sens. Paul Newton and Warren Daniel refusing to testify, that's what got our attention. And it got a lot of other Republicans' attention, too, in part because the "secret maps" were on the House side. On the Senate side, there was no such admission.

And I know we're getting into the weeds a little bit here. There were different processes, and the leader of the redistricting committee on the Senate side acknowledged that he did testify in this lower court case. He's the colleague of Sens. Newton and Daniel, and he said, "Hey, we have a different process. I'm not aware of any secret maps. People knew the rules that all lines had to be drawn in public." But going back to your original question: Did Sens. Paul Newton and Senator Warren Daniel testify? No, they did not.

They asked the court for something called legislative privilege or legislative immunity, and that's a reference to a state law that protects certain parts of the lawmaking process — like, you send an email to your attorney and say, "Hey, if I introduced this bill, is it legal?" That's considered confidential. They asked for that same protection in this lower court case and the court granted it.

Terry: And is that unusual — them getting immunity from testifying in this case?

Specht: It's hard for me to say. In this case, Sens. Warren Daniel and Paul Newton, along with Senate leader Phil Berger and House Speaker Tim Moore, all requested this, and it was granted to each of them. They're not really special. That's another thing that stuck out to us in this tweet accusing them of not testifying. Newton and Daniel are co-chairs of the Senate's redistricting committee, but they're not the only ones who asked for this protection from testifying.

Terry: This tweet implies that Newton and Daniel not testifying shows that redistricting activity in the Senate was "worse than in the House." What does that mean, exactly?

Specht: We don't really know. We asked the person who controls the @NCHouseDems account. It's actually an account that's shared with the North Carolina Democratic Party organization and the North Carolina House caucus. The caucus leader is the one who controls this account. Her name is Amanda Eubanks. And we asked her, "What did you mean by 'refused to testify?'"

She said, "We're referring to legislative privilege." That's fine. That's fair. But then we asked her, "What do you mean by this part, that they're 'worse' — that the Senate is somehow worse?" And we didn't really get a straight answer there.

She says we may never know what was going on because Newton and Daniel weren't sworn in and asked to testify under oath. They're not necessarily doing anything wrong here when they accept that protection.

That's what it all boils down to here is it's fair for her and the @NCHouseDems account to point out Newton and Daniel did not testify. That's true. Is it fair for her to suggest that's evidence of wrongdoing? No, we don't have evidence of that.

Terry: And you already brought up the part about the tweet that says that House Republicans admitted to secret maps. But what about the part about destruction of evidence? Is that claim true?

Specht: That's a little tougher. We don't know for sure. We note that they have said the secret maps no longer exist and aren't available anymore. That could mean a number of things, and so at PolitiFact — and in court — you have to be very specific with what you say. There can be legal ramifications for if you say you destroyed evidence or not.

And so at this point, we don't know that they are destroyed, so that, too, is something that is a little misleading. Some people might jump to that conclusion like, "Oh, these maps no longer exist or are not available. That means they're destroyed."

When we were talking about this fact check, we thought, Well, maybe they weren't destroyed. Maybe they were left in a Google doc that has been deleted. Maybe there's some other way that they were just they're not around anymore. But we did not feel comfortable going out and accusing someone of destroying evidence.

Terry: So, how did you rate the claims in this tweet?

Specht: The main claim in this tweet that's questionable is that the two senators refused to give testimony, and we rated that half-true. The true part being they requested not to get put under deposition or under oath in trial, and they were granted that protection. That's fair to point out. But the way the tweet is framed — the rest of the context here that there were secret maps and then that their refusal indicates that something much worse was happening — that's too far. That's an exaggeration, because there's no proof that these two particular senators or anyone on the Senate side has done anything wrong or in bad faith.

I've seen some people point out that the last part of this tweet is a question, you know, saying, "Oh, the question is what was going on on the Senate side that was so much worse than the House?" Well, I don't really see that as a question. I still see that as an accusation.

Terry: All right, Paul, thank you.

Specht: Thank you.

These fact checks are a collaboration between PolitiFact and WRAL. You can hear them Wednesdays on WFAE's Morning Edition.

Copyright 2022 WFAE. To see more, visit WFAE.