Likely next US districts after 2020

[muon2]

We do a detailed thread on this every year when new estimates are released. The next release of state estimates will be later this month. Until then, here is my work from the 2015 release.

Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2015 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 5 and a quarter year period between the Census and the estimate. I then applied the annual growth rate to the 2010 reapportionment population to get the 2020 projection. This accounts for the extra overseas population used in reapportionment but not for redistricting. Ten years is a long stretch for a simple model like this, but here are the projected changes.

AL -1
AZ +1
CA +1
CO +1
FL +1
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
WV -1

There a number of changes since my projections last year. AL is down, AZ is up, OR is up and VA isn't up. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are CA-53, TX-39, OR-6, CA-54, and AZ-10 (#435).
The next five in line are FL-29, AL-7, VA-12, NY-27, MT-2.

[muon2]

I have a great, innovative, never before thought of idea for congressional redistricting.

Require districts to make geographic sense!

You mean, just follow the muon rules.

[muon2]

Fighting over what the various sides motives were in a section 5 state hardly matters now that section 4 was cleared out. That decision in Shelby County v Holder was decided by the 5 conservative justices alone, so one can't place that on the liberals. As soon as that decision was made, it is all about section 2. Whether a state drew a map to comply with the unconstitutional application of section 5 doesn't matter. The question is what section 2 requires to make sure that minorities have the opportunity to elect their candidates of choice.

The new VA map elected two candidates of choice for the black minority, which makes up 19% of the population - 2/11 in terms of CDs. Arguably the new map satisfies the VRA requirements better than the old map. It's hard to blame the Dems for taking advantage of a conservative SCOTUS decision and forcing the change to their benefit.

Going forward to 2020 the same scrutiny of section 2 will need to apply to maps produced by either party.

[muon2]

Fighting over what the various sides motives were in a section 5 state hardly matters now that section 4 was cleared out. That decision in Shelby County v Holder was decided by the 5 conservative justices alone, so one can't place that on the liberals. As soon as that decision was made, it is all about section 2. Whether a state drew a map to comply with the unconstitutional application of section 5 doesn't matter. The question is what section 2 requires to make sure that minorities have the opportunity to elect their candidates of choice.

The new VA map elected two candidates of choice for the black minority, which makes up 19% of the population - 2/11 in terms of CDs. Arguably the new map satisfies the VRA requirements better than the old map. It's hard to blame the Dems for taking advantage of a conservative SCOTUS decision and forcing the change to their benefit.

Going forward to 2020 the same scrutiny of section 2 will need to apply to maps produced by either party.

This is very true. If anything, the blame should go to Cuccinelli for blowing the 2013 election.

But, this can be fixed. If we win the 2017 election I propose immediately bringing back my map.

image upload

African Americans are nearly 20% of the state and with the current map elect the candidate of their choice in 18% of the districts.   Your map would allow them the candidate of their choice in 9% of districts.

Why do you want to deny them representation in the state?

I have no interest in any nonsensical proportionality standard of representation or this current fake map offered by unelected professors from Irvine.

The 4th circuit court, as you noted, took issue with the fact that there was an increase in the black VAP of the 3rd district from 53% to 56.3%. It did not say that the state of Virginia should draw a 3rd and 4th district of the Democrats choosing and thus artificially inflate the Democrats' representation in the US Congress. In fact, a district very similar to my 3rd district was already upheld by the 4th circuit in 2004. I merely started with that district and added the remainder of Richmond.

So, I offer a much better map with fair and balanced districts that has a black VAP in the 3rd district of 52%. My map is intended to offer a good suggestion to the legislature to improve their 2012 Congressional districts.

You may not be interested in a proportionality standard, but it is a factor the court must consider. Here's the text from Johnson v deGrandy (1994).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your map would certainly be challenged, and the 2016 results would be presented as evidence that a map that has better proportionality is possible. The burden of proof would shift to the defense of your map. What are the compelling state interests that recommend it over the current map (fewer splits, more compact, etc.)?

[muon2]

You may not be interested in a proportionality standard, but it is a factor the court must consider. Here's the text from Johnson v deGrandy (1994).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your map would certainly be challenged, and the 2016 results would be presented as evidence that a map that has better proportionality is possible. The burden of proof would shift to the defense of your map. What are the compelling state interests that recommend it over the current map (fewer splits, more compact, etc.)?

Some interests that may be considered are:

1. Protection of incumbents like Mr. Connolly who desired changes to their districts.
2. Creating more compact iterations of many districts as compared to the legislature's 2012 map, which had a 5th district traversing the entire state north-south.
3. It is the province of the legislature and not an unelected professor from Irvine to draw districts, as even the 4th circuit said in this case.

I would also point out that this particular line of complaints could also be used against the Virginia state Senate map, as it was drawn to have 5 majority black districts out of 40 rather than 6 in the Republican minority's (at the time) proposed map.

It would be sheer madness if any legislature were to preemptively fret over any such possible challenge to any particular set of maps. If your position holds true individuals are free to challenge in the 4th circuit.

Every legislative caucus in charge of a map is very cognizant of the potential legal challenges to the map. To the extent possible they try to draw the map in a way that minimizes those challenges, especially challenges in federal court. That mean recognizing changes in legal precedent since the previous round of redistricting. Caucuses generally hire expert legal counsel to get it right and have the map stand up in court. It's hardly madness, just common legal practice. VA had that expertise in 2011, but it was based on coverage under VRA section 5 and the non-retrogression clause. When that went away, so did the justification for their map.

Anyone with standing can bring a case based on the VRA. If no one brings a case then the map is presumed valid, but hoping no one will challenge doesn't excuse a legislature from trying to comport with the law. As for the authority to redraw, if the court rejects a map as invalid it's up to the legislature to amend it and bring it into compliance. If the legislature refuses to amend the plan as ordered the court can take matters into its own hands.

In the case of the VA map, I would think that a plan that significantly reduced county splits for VA-3 would be the best defense. Excess county splits and unusual river connections were factors the court pointed to as a sign of racial gerrymandering, so it would be best to address those arguments as part of the compelling state interest. But a map that might have survived a challenge in 2012 may not now because of changing facts and precedents, that's why a new legislative plan now has to react to recent decisions and the results of the 2016 election.

[muon2]

Proportionality doesn't come into play often, and when it does it is usually used as a factor in evaluating whether a section 2 violation may have occurred. If a map comes under strict scrutiny due to a section 2 claim, then adherence to neutral criteria would presumably weigh in favor of the state's map showing a compelling state interest.

What has changed in this decade is the relaxation of the 50% BVAP standard. 50% BVAP is indicative of the need to provide a minority district. The district itself need not have 50% BVAP if it can be shown to be likely to elect the preferred representative of the black minority.

[muon2]

Proportionality doesn't come into play often, and when it does it is usually used as a factor in evaluating whether a section 2 violation may have occurred. If a map comes under strict scrutiny due to a section 2 claim, then adherence to neutral criteria would presumably weigh in favor of the state's map showing a compelling state interest.

What has changed in this decade is the relaxation of the 50% BVAP standard. 50% BVAP is indicative of the need to provide a minority district. The district itself need not have 50% BVAP if it can be shown to be likely to elect the preferred representative of the black minority.

But if the map otherwise adheres to good line drawing metrics, is it legal to blow off a minority district that is short of 50% BVAP? Sure it is legal to draw such a district (at least where the minority population is contiguous, and probably even if not, as long as there is not another way to have one more minority CD, as opposed to an alternative way that does use the contiguous minority population), and probably more often than not would be good policy to draw such a district. SCOTUS has not so ruled, and is it clear that any lower court has so ruled?

I would normally think so. At a conference last summer, it was clear that the national Dem strategy is to use the courts to try to force the formation of sub-50% BVAP districts to maximize their overall delegation. The Pubs haven't realized that their only defense may be using strict neutral standards. As is generally the case with the majority party, they don't want to recognize change and simply hope to preserve a successful status quo.

[muon2]

I'm probably being overly optimistic, but it seems like the Republicans are going to have to lose a seat in Ohio. All the incumbent Democrats seem safe, and if we get lucky, we'll finally get a Democratic seat in Hamilton County. It's going to split it up and not look monstrous.

Though shame hasn't stopped gerrymanders before.

Also Ohio has a bipartisan commission that draws the districts now.  Although it's really a half-assed redistricting reform, it is something.   

If they draw OH-9 "normal" and draw Hamilton county's district "normal" then I think there's at least some chance of a 5th Dem seat.

Ohio has a bipartisan commission for state legislature districts, not for congressional districts.

I believe it does for congressional districts also, starting in 2020. As I recall, for whatever reason, the bill that put the commission in place applied only to the state legislature for 2010 and deferred its application to congressional districts until 2020.

It doesn't. Need a second referendum for all that.

I thought the legislature could assign Congressional maps to the commission by statute if they wanted.