FL: Rereredistricting

[jimrtex]

The Florida Supreme Court has thrown out Corrine Brown's district, Jolly's and Cantor's in Tampa Bay, and several in South Florida as violating the redistricting amendment.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/florida-supreme-court-orders-new-congressional-map-with-eight-districts-to/2236734

Interestingly, they're saying that FL-5 should be redrawn as east-west rather than north-south. I guess the compromise to clean up Orlando and Sanford lines didn't go far enough.

Is FLOTUS still packed with result oriented Dems? I mean, that final decision of theirs after SCOTUS b slapped them in Bush v. Gore, was well ... just amazing.

3 of the justices were appointed by Lawton Chiles.   4 were appointed by Charlie Crist.

In 2000, 6 of the justices had been appointed by Chiles, and 1 by Bob Graham.  In Florida, Supreme Court justices are appointed by the governor, and then face a retention election at the next general election, and every 6 years thereafter.  Justices must retire if they will reach 70 in the first half of their last term (ie 66y10m or older at the time of a November retention election).

CJ Pariente, and JJ Lewis and Quince, were appointed at the end of Chiles term of office, and faced the first retention in November 2000.  They had all been retained with 72% of the vote at that election.  They were all retained in 2006 and 2012.  They all must retire at the end of this term (but after the end of Rick Scott's term).  Pariente wrote the redistricting decision, which Quince signed on to.  Lewis concurred in the result, but did not sign on to the opinion.

Jeb Bush was able to appoint two justices, who were retained in 2004, but both resigned in 2008.  Two of Chiles' appointments were forced to retired.  This permitted Charlie Crist to appoint four justices, all who were retained in 2010.  These justices split 2:2 on the redistricting decision.

In the 2010, there was some differentiation among the 4 justices:

J Canady   68% (to retain)
J Polston   66%
J Perry      62%
J Labarga  59%

This is quite atypical for retention elections due to: (1) the low percentage to retain, and (2) the variation.   Typically it appears that voters simply vote to retain all justices on the ballot, or vote to get rid of all of them.   Voters really don't know how the justices have ruled as individuals.  If SCOTUS justices faced retention elections, X% would vote against all 9.  There would be some who would vote against the liberal justices and some that would vote against the conservative justices, and some would vote based on race for Sotamoyer or Thomas, and on sex for Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg.

The retention support has been declining.  Canady's support at 68% was about what justices had been getting.  The support for Labarga and Perry was the worst ever (no justice has ever been voted out).  Canady and Polston were the two justices who dissented in the redistricting decision.  Canady is a former congressman, serving 8 years and leaving to comply with personal term-limits pledge.  He was Governor Jeb Bush's chief counsel.

[jimrtex]

The court order forces FL-13 to be entirely within Pinellas which forces FL-12 to shift and cover more of north Pinellas. It forces FL-14 entirely within Hillsborough with adjustments to FL-15 and 17. The retreat of FL-5 to the north creates the likelihood that FL-10 becomes a district taking up all of Orlando with other high-minority suburbs. In my version it ends up 40.9% WVAP, 23.2% BVAP, 29.1% HVAP and 65.6% Obama 08. That forces corresponding changes to all the adjacent CDs with FL-7 picking up more of Orange and northern Lake, FL-9 picking up much of the old FL-10 in Polk and Orange, and FL-11 picking up most of Lake.

What is FL-09's political composition?

In 2008 it was 54.2/45.8 for Obama which is equivalent to D+0.5 or a toss up. The shape assumes no change to FL-8 (R+9) and minimal changes to FL-17 (R+10), but if those are reworked by the legislature then FL-9 is likely to end up more Pub.

So it becomes very hard to avoid 2 Obama seats in the Orlando area now, fascinating.  I wonder if the FLSC would go for the 4 way split of Orange, though.  Is it possible to split Orange only 2 or 3 ways and still have a majority-minority district?

The opinion did not care about the Orange splits, and didn't even find that FL-10 needed to be redrawn. Of course it has to be anyway, and I assume the FL legislature will make it a minority opportunity district as a Dem vote sink. The part of 8 in Orange isn't very big and could easily chop elsewhere.

Does a plan that double spans counties comply with the Florida constitutional requirement for compact districts and where feasible, utilization of political boundaries?

Can the split of Columbia be avoided?  What about 8/15 and Hillsborough/Polk, and 8/9 Orange/Polk.

[jimrtex]

Okeechobee is in FL-17 and Indian River is in FL-8, unchanged from the current map. The default DRA colors when captured in a screen shot don't distinguish well between FL-8 and 17. I noticed it after it was posted, so I made FL-17 bluer for the map of south FL.

Putting all of Columbia in FL-5 drops BVAP below 40%, and the rationale for a district able to elect a black candidate of choice is weaker.

Is district 5 whether Jax to Orlando or Jax to Tallahassee required under the Florida Constitution or permissible under the US Constitution? (see in particular the district court's decision in Virginia, where the excessive county splits were one of the primary reasons for rejecting the Virginia plan).

[jimrtex]

Okeechobee is in FL-17 and Indian River is in FL-8, unchanged from the current map. The default DRA colors when captured in a screen shot don't distinguish well between FL-8 and 17. I noticed it after it was posted, so I made FL-17 bluer for the map of south FL.

Putting all of Columbia in FL-5 drops BVAP below 40%, and the rationale for a district able to elect a black candidate of choice is weaker.

Is district 5 whether Jax to Orlando or Jax to Tallahassee required under the Florida Constitution or permissible under the US Constitution? (see in particular the district court's decision in Virginia, where the excessive county splits were one of the primary reasons for rejecting the Virginia plan).

The FL SC decision identifies FL-5 as a district that violates some of the 2nd-tier constitutional rules to create a district able to elect the candidate of choice of the black minority. It finds that an east-west orientation meets that goal within the FL constitution better than a north-south orientation and specifically orders that change. The minority language cited in the FL constitution as a 1st-tier requirement is

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In light of VA I don't know if it would be federally required, but the FL court was basing it on their interpretation of the FL Constitution.

If a compact district can not be drawn, how can the result of a failure to draw such a district deny or abridge a racial minority the equal opportunity to participate in the political process?

[jimrtex]

It would be great if you would just post the kmz or doj file for your plan. It would be interesting to know what the partisan election numbers are for every district. I notice that you added the liberal Gainesville area to Gwen Graham's district so partisan election data would be particularly interesting there.

They are using Dave's Redistricting App (DRA).

DRA does have the ability to export lists of VTDs to a csv file. They could send you the csv file to convert.

This article describes how to convert that csv file into shapefiles, and into kmz files

I have not yet found documentation for the doj format. I have requested information about the format from the USDOJ.

[jimrtex]

Not that Corrine Brown will get her seat back, but I think she has a case against FL-05. Chopping Tallahassee that way gives her an opening. Granted, it would make FL-05 less black, but if she just wants to lash out, there are grounds now I think.

The Florida NAACP was an intervening defendant in the appeal to the Florida Supreme Court.  We could still see a federal VRA challenge.

The Florida NAACP was also a sponsor of this lawsuit on a stick measure in the first place.  At the time, Brown got James Clyburn who was head of the Congressional Black Caucus at the time to complain to the national NAACP that their Florida branch was going to cost her seat by sponsoring the measure.

[jimrtex]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tp4InZCDMrwOery63f5F-EhU8-JDENFMITvI0tniun0/htmlview?pli=1&sle=true#gid=284402054

They really wanted to kill Graham politically.

Couldn't Graham run in FL-5?

[jimrtex]

FLOTUS

Florida Of The United States?

It must have been coined during Bush v. Gore, suggesting it had usurped the SCOTUS or something. It doesn't make much sense does it? 

Ordinarily it is referred to as SCOFLA, with an obvious pronunciation.

[jimrtex]

Wait, why are Republicans "letting this happen"?

There was an interesting deposition by the person who had been doing redistricting for the past 25 years. In 2010, he entered into a retirement deal with the Florida Retirement System where he could work for exactly 5 more years, and draw retirement and pay or some such. If he worked at all past that he would have had forfeited much of it. So anyhow his retirement was absolutely final on July 1, 2015.

There were also strict rules on disclosure. If someone had proposed the map preferred by the LWV, they would have had to explain where they got it from. If the legislature adopted the map, then the SCOFLA would infer that it had been the legislative intent to impose its political motivations.

There are now two federal lawsuits. One by Corrine Brown based on the VRA, and the dismantling of the 5th district.  Another by two GOP county chairs that claim the Florida constitution as interpreted by the SCOFLA prevents them from exercising their 1st Amendment right to communicate with the legislature.

[jimrtex]

Wait, why are Republicans "letting this happen"?

There was an interesting deposition by the person who had been doing redistricting for the past 25 years. In 2010, he entered into a retirement deal with the Florida Retirement System where he could work for exactly 5 more years, and draw retirement and pay or some such. If he worked at all past that he would have had forfeited much of it. So anyhow his retirement was absolutely final on July 1, 2015.

There were also strict rules on disclosure. If someone had proposed the map preferred by the LWV, they would have had to explain where they got it from. If the legislature adopted the map, then the SCOFLA would infer that it had been the legislative intent to impose its political motivations.

There are now two federal lawsuits. One by Corrine Brown based on the VRA, and the dismantling of the 5th district.  Another by two GOP county chairs that claim the Florida constitution as interpreted by the SCOFLA prevents them from exercising their 1st Amendment right to communicate with the legislature.

What is the significance of the retirement issue? The Corrine lawsuit is ludicrous on its face. I don't see how the 1st amendment claim would impact the maps. I assume any court finding a 1st amendment violation would just sever that bit from the overall provision.

The retirement issue may be significant in the House and Senate being unable to come to an agreement.

The Brown lawsuit claims that the St.John's river provides a basis for a community of interest. A Jacksonville-Tallahassee district is an exercise in rounding up enough black voters to elect a representative of choice. It chops counties merely to exclude white voters, it forces FL-2 to skip around Tallahassee and extend further east. It is inexplicable other than race.

The basis of the SCOFLA decision was that the intent of the congressional map was to elect more Republicans and/or particular Republicans. They inferred that this was the intent of the legislature because of the indirect influence of Republican operatives over the map.

If a Republican county chairman submits a map, or comments on a map, it may or may not be their intent to cause the plan to elect more Republicans or particular Republicans. The legislature runs a risk of being influenced by the citizen, and having his intent imputed as the legislature's intent by the SCOFLA. This has a chilling effect on the political speech of the plaintiffs, who may simply forgo speaking, or couching their expression in terms that may cause the legislature to not understand what they are saying.

The only way to sever this abridgment of political speech is to eliminate the intent provision from the Florida constitution. It does not matter whether the League of Women Voters, and the voters of Florida thought that it was a good idea to muzzle free speech or not.

If the intent provision is severed, then the entire basis of the SCOFLA decision is eliminated.

[jimrtex]

Slightly off topic, but is there any litigation on the state legislature maps?

The legislature will "meet" in October to draw a new senate map.

[jimrtex]

This process shows one problem with the FL amendment. Like other states there are specific criteria that must be achieved. However, FL both requires that the map be drawn and voted on by the legislature, but bars making political decisions in drawing the map. It was the use of political decisions that the court used to toss the map. Other states either take the action away from the legislature in a commission (CA), allow political bias (MI), or leave the legislature with a simple up or down vote (IA).

The legislature is an inherently political body, and in a bicameral system there are two such bodies. In FL, even through the Pubs have both chambers, they can't negotiate on the map since that would entail political discussions and would get the map tossed again. They need to work like IA and have an agreed group draw the map for both chambers and then give the chambers an up or down vote on the map. If it goes down then the group draws another map based on the criteria and criteria-related comments from the rejecting chamber. That would avoid the problem of each chamber having their own preferred map, since the second (or third) map wouldn't be known until the first is rejected.

There was a proposed bill in Florida that would set up a commission, that would propose maps which the legislature would then have an up or down vote on. It was submitted in the special session, but wasn't heard.

The Florida Constitution requires legislative maps to be passed in the '2' year following the census. If the legislature fails to do so, the SCOFLA will. In addition legislative maps are subject to review by the SCOFLA. This older procedure was intended to force the legislature to redistrict. In the past, the SCOFLA would check that the districts were contiguous and that the populations were roughly equal and approve the plan. With the new standards, the SCOFLA had to consider whether the legislative plans complied with them. The SCOFLA rejected a few senate districts, which were redrawn and approved by the SCOFLA. It appeared generally that the SCOFLA was just providing guidance on using highways, or splitting cities or towns.

There is no provision for review of congressional districts by the SCOFLA, so there was no way to challenge them except through an ordinary lawsuit, and this may have been delayed until after Section 4 of the VRA was overturned. The Florida trial court applied the standards that the SCOFLA had developed. In addition, through discovery it was found that the Republican operatives had influenced the process. The district court ordered the legislature to fix the congressional map, which they did. Since it was immediately before the 2014 election, the new map was not used. The SCOFLA then overturned the decision of the trial court and order more extensive modifications based on a map developed by the Democratic party.

[jimrtex]

Non one could try to draw an "independent" map?

The judge can draw his own map, or adopt the maps proposed by the League of Women Voters/Common Cause/National Council of La Raza.

That map was developed National Democratic Redistricting Trust and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Note: the National Council of La Raza is no longer a party to the state.

[jimrtex]

I don't agree, because just because you listen to folks, does not mean your work product is a function of partisan intent. Here, irrespective of the babblings of SCOFLA, that partisan intent can be inferred from the map itself (the skip over to St. Petersburg, and the Johns River CD were clearly drawn for partisan reasons). SCOFLA was just unnecessarily gilding the lily. There is no other reasonable explanation. I agree that chopping Leon County may well be Unconstitutional (ironically because there is no partisan basis to do so, just a race basis - the adjacent CD will be Pub in all events). The fix however is simply not to chop it, as in my map - not to draw the Johns River CD which is not required under the VRA or the Constitution under any stretch of the imagination.

The federal lawsuit is based on the interpretation of the Florida constitution by the SCOFLA.

A federal court is not going to consider the SCOFLA's opinion as babbling.

In a better world there would be a district entirely in Duval County.

[jimrtex]

I don't agree, because just because you listen to folks, does not mean your work product is a function of partisan intent. Here, irrespective of the babblings of SCOFLA, that partisan intent can be inferred from the map itself (the skip over to St. Petersburg, and the Johns River CD were clearly drawn for partisan reasons). SCOFLA was just unnecessarily gilding the lily. There is no other reasonable explanation. I agree that chopping Leon County may well be Unconstitutional (ironically because there is no partisan basis to do so, just a race basis - the adjacent CD will be Pub in all events). The fix however is simply not to chop it, as in my map - not to draw the Johns River CD which is not required under the VRA or the Constitution under any stretch of the imagination.

The federal lawsuit is based on the interpretation of the Florida constitution by the SCOFLA.

A federal court is not going to consider the SCOFLA's opinion as babbling.

In a better world there would be a district entirely in Duval County.

Well maybe the Florida constitution requires a CD in north Florida that elects a black. And nixing the St. Johns River CD in lieu of one near the Georgia state line seems like a reasonable interpretation because it can be done with less chops, and less erosty. But the federal Constitution which trumps the one in Florida will not countenance the chop of Leon County. So Corrine wins that battle, but loses the war, because she won't get her CD back. What she will get is a Florida CD with some more Leon County whites in it.

"districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice"

Compactness is secondary tier, but the north-south district is more compact.

[jimrtex]

Seriously, when a new map will be adopted?

The SCOFLA relinquished the case for 100 days (until October 22), in which time the legislature was expected to adopt a new plan; plaintiffs would be given a chance to respond, and the trial court would  recommend to the SCOFLA whether or not the new plan was constitutional. The trial court set a deadline for the legislature to act, for briefs to be filed, and a trial to be held on September 25.

On August 24, the Florida House filed a motion with the SCOFLA asking that they modify their relinquishment order to permit the trial court to create a provisional plan, that would include 60 days for plans to be submitted. The House argued that the SCOFLA's original relinquishment order precludes consideration of alternative plans.

The Senate responded that they saw no need to change the SCOFLA's order, that it was flexible enough. The trial court judge asked the SCOFLA for advice on how to proceed. The SCOFLA then told the Senate to file a new response given the trial court's not knowing how to proceed. The plaintiffs have suggested that the SCOFLA should draw the districts, since they now have the redistricting software to do so; or if the SCOFLA orders the trial court to draw the map that it do so on an expedited basis, based on the plans proposed by the House and Senate in the recent failed special session.

The plaintiffs also argue that the adopted plan should be final. They cite the Colorado case (Salazar) noting that the courts may have a role in creating a plan. But they probably are not aware that the basis of the SCOCOLO decision was its (novel) interpretation of a provision in the Colorado Constitution setting the time for congressional redistricting. There is no equivalent provision in the Florida Constitution.

The SCOFLA has yet to speak on the matter (the last filing was on Thursday). I would expect that they will order the trial court to draw a map, so that they can review it. It seems to absurd (to me) that the body who is doing final review of the map is itself drawing the map.

Also in October, the legislature will meet in special session to redraw the senate districts.

[jimrtex]

The FL Sup Court has ruled that the trial judge (Lewis) should select either the House or the Senate plan.  They also have the option of passing a compromise map.

I take it that means both the House and Senate plans are compliant with the SCOFLA opinion.

Not necessarily.

Docket for Florida congressional redistricting

The latest flurry of motions began at the end of August.

The SCOFLA had relinquished the case for 100 days (until October 17) to the trial court, during which time the legislature would create a map, and the trial court would make a recommendation to the SCOFLA whether the plan was acceptable or not. It was the trial court that set the deadline for the legislature to enact a plan, with the idea of giving the plaintiffs time to comment, and the trial court a chance to write his opinion.

After the legislature failed to enact a plan, the House asked the SCOFLA to change its terms of relinquishment by having the trial court draw a map, but also making it clear that such a map was interim or provisional. The Senate said they thought the trial court could muddle along. The trial court asked what it should do, and the SCOFLA asked the Senate what they thought should happen given the trial court said they couldn't muddle along without further instruction. The plaintiffs wanted the SCOFLA to draw a map, since they were familiar with the redistricting software, and besides it would avoid the annoyance of having a public process.

The SCOFLA is saying that the trial court should consider the House and Senate plans, plus any proposed amendments, and then make his recommendation. So they are trying to preserve the legislative initiative in drawing the map, but could end up with the trial court finishing up the maps.

The SCOFLA also said that if the legislature happened to come up with a plan and pass it before the hearing by the trial court, that should be the one considered by the trial court. Apparently, there has been a compromise map that has been informally considered. The legislature will also be in special session in October to draw a new senate map.

The SCOFLA also rejected the notion that the map would be interim or provisional. The minority of the SCOFLA said that they would not have made a ruling on the issue. The SCOFLA may be treating opinions by the SCOTUS that state courts might be part of the redistricting process too expansively. In Colorado, the state supreme court had ruled that under (a novel interpretation of) the Colorado Constitution, that the legislature had only one opportunity to redistrict, and after that failed, the court imposed plan was final. But there is nothing in the Florida Constitution about congressional districting other than the rules for the districts. The SCOFLA would have to make something up.

[jimrtex]

I was looking at the stats on the linked map and continue to be amused at the strange but not uncommon counting that is done for city and county splits. The count all districts that are in counties that are split. There is no benefit for a district entirely within a county and a double penalty for any chop of a county or city too small for a single district. The double count occurs since counties entirely within a district are not counted, but the moment the county is chopped it counts for two. Subsequent chops only increase the count by one each, so it is distinctly non-linear penalizing the first chop.

Who devised the counting system?  Does it reflect any court decisions, or even any conscious policy decisions, or an interpretation of the Florida Constitution.

[jimrtex]

I was looking at the stats on the linked map and continue to be amused at the strange but not uncommon counting that is done for city and county splits. The count all districts that are in counties that are split. There is no benefit for a district entirely within a county and a double penalty for any chop of a county or city too small for a single district. The double count occurs since counties entirely within a district are not counted, but the moment the county is chopped it counts for two. Subsequent chops only increase the count by one each, so it is distinctly non-linear penalizing the first chop.

Who devised the counting system?  Does it reflect any court decisions, or even any conscious policy decisions, or an interpretation of the Florida Constitution.

"(b) Unless compliance with the standards in this subsection conflicts with the standards in subsection 1(a) or with federal law, districts shall be as nearly equal in population as is practicable; districts shall be compact; and districts shall, where feasible, utilize existing political and geographical boundaries."

Note: I substituted the language from the Constitution. I couldn't tell whether yours was a paraphrase or from some other language.

There has to be an implied "boundary" after the last instance of "district". That is:

(1) population equality is a characteristic of the area within the district;
(2) utilization of political boundaries is a characteristic of the district boundaries; and
(3) compactness is a composite of the area within the district and the boundaries (or at least the overall extent of those boundaries) depending on the measure used.

Each district that chops a county (or city) is not utilizing the political boundary. So dividing a small er county has two non-utilizations.

But if a district is entirely within a county, it is non-feasible to use the county boundary for the entire district boundary. And it is also non-feasible for one other district boundary. But since it is non-feasible to not cut the county, there shouldn't be a penalty for not placing a district wholly within the county. And this might be the preferred solution if it avoided cutting other counties.

If a city boundary crosses a county boundary, it is not feasible to follow both. The county boundary was established first, and should be given priority. That is a district boundary along a county boundary that cuts a city does not count. If the boundary follows the city boundary, then it cuts the county.

There is no distinction between county and city boundaries in the constitution so a cut within a county that also cuts a city, should be evaluated for both.

The minimum number of districts needed to cover a city or county is:

coverage = ceil( population/quota)

A county-district intersection (CDI) is the area within a single county and single district. The number of county-district intersections for a county (NCDI) is the count of CDI for the county.

If (NCDI = coverage) no penalty.
Otherwise the penalty is: NCDI - coverage + 1.

Tier 2 criteria have no priority. That is, avoiding splitting of counties is of equal importance with practicable population equality. Based on Tennant congressional districts do not have to have strict population equality if the variation is justified by other legitimate state priorities. Respect for county and city boundaries is clearly one such criteria.

[jimrtex]

The circuit court started its hearing on the various plans.  They were shown on the Florida Channel.

Florida Channel - Video Library

9/24/2015 (part one)

Representative Daniel Webster (FL-10) sought to intervene based on a claim that the plan would disfavor an incumbent. This was denied on grounds of being too late.

There is a rumor that Webster will move to FL-7, John Mica will move to FL-6, and Ron DeSantis will run for the US Senate.

The plaintiffs then sought to curb questions about who helped them draw their plans. The reason the SCOFLA overturned the plan was that they found evidence of intent to assist Republicans. It appears someone was feeding their map-drawers early version of plans. They would then submit a plan from the "public". Often-times a district from one of these plans would be incorporated into a final map. In describing the new plan, there would a narrative about a district being like a district from Public Plan 123. So it would give the appearance that the senate was simply being responsive to public suggestions, and there could be a plausible non-partisan explanation. SCOFLA inferred legislative intent  based on the intent of those attempting to influence the legislature.

It was also determined that the DCCC was influential in drawing the maps for the Romo plaintiffs, including the east-west configuration of FL-5. As the SCOFLA dissent noted, the plaintiffs had used the judicial process to impose their intent on the map.

The League of Women Voters (LWV) plaintiffs used Strategic Telemetry for assistance. You may recall that Strategic Telemetry was the mapping consultant that Colleen Mathis and the two Democratic members in Arizona had hired, even though Strategic Telemetry had zero redistricting experience. Instead Strategic Telemetry's expertise was in targeting political campaigns. They only had Democratic clients. IOW, their business was identifying Democratic voters.

When the redistricting ballot issue was proposed, there apparently was discussion about whether the ballot title correctly indicated whether the partisan intent provision applied to only to the legislature, or also to the courts, and it was decided that it also applied to the courts.

Since the SCOFLA will be drawing the final map (the circuit court is charged with making a recommendation), there is a legitimate concern that their decision may indirectly reflect the partisan  intent of the litigants.

The plaintiffs argued that since the base plan that is being considered is the House plan (9071), and they are only proposing modifications, their past machinations are irrelevant.

Judge Lewis left it open for now (it was a motion in limine by the the plaintiffs). The SCOFLA had originally ordered the circuit court to consider the map that would presumably be produced by a special session of the legislature, and make a recommendation on whether it should be adopted. Had the legislature enacted a plan, then the trial would be about their plan only, and not past proposals by the plaintiffs.

But after the special session adjourned without passing a plan, the SCOFLA told the circuit court to consider the senate and house maps, and maps produced by the plaintiffs. So now the circuit court will be recommending a map - and not recommending whether the legislature-produced map should be adopted.

The rest of Part 1 was the opening statements.

The SCOFLA had objections to 8 districts:

FL-5 which they ordered be drawn east-west.
FL-13, 14 with a concern about crossing Tampa Bay.
FL-21,22 concerns about compactness.
FL-25 splitting Hendry County.
FL-26,27 splitting Homestead.

The LWV plaintiffs only object to 26,27. The Romo (Democratic) plaintiffs object to 26,27 and 21,22. The plaintiffs are OK with FL-5; 13; 14; and 25.

The Florida NAACP is also a party. They were originally a plaintiff, but have switched sides to support a N-S alignment of FL-5. Since Florida has accepted the E-W alignment, that puts them against everyone. Their lawyer spoke only briefly, and have not been active.

Ironically, the Florida NAACP was a sponsor of the redistricting measure. Corrine Brown got James Clyburn to complain to the national NAACP about their Florida branch to no avail. When campaigning for the measure, the sponsors were careful to only cite non-VRA districts as being ugly, but I suspect that most voters thought they were getting rid of FL-5 and the crazy lines in South Florida.

Recently, a Republican representative from Nassau County was recorded as saying that the key to getting rid of Brown would be to include as many prisons as possible in the district. But the east-west alignment was drawn by Romo (Democratic) plaintiffs, and the legislative map-drawers plucked it whole as a starting point. The Romo plaintiffs had map-drawing assistance from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Caucus (DCCC). Maybe Debbie Wasserman Schultz wants to get rid of Brown.

SCOFLA was concerned about the non-compactness of FL-21 and 22, and said that the legislature could consider switching to north-south split, rather than the east-west split.

The House did produce a north-south split. After the map was released it was discovered that Ted Deutch and Lois Frankel had been paired (not two remarkable given that if you rotate a split 90 degrees, there is a 50/50 chance of a pairing, and perhaps even higher if the split had been arranged to permit two neighbors to be elected, or if two neighbors had been elected because of the split.

It would have been illegal to deliberately pair the two. But it is probably also illegal to deliberately unpair them. So the Romo plaintiffs are arguing that there is a community of interest among the beach communities, and among those further inland. When the redistricting proposals were first made, the legislature put forward an alternative that would include community of interest. IIRC, the courts rejected the legislature's proposal as too confusing. So community of interest was deliberately not included. This makes it a third tier consideration, below compactness. And since the SCOFLA rejected the two districts because of non-compactness, I suspect that much better compactness will defeat somewhat improved compactness.

SCOFLA rejected FL-26 and FL-27 because it split Homestead. It was not so much the split of Homestead per se, but rather that it had been done to keep FL-26 as a Republican district. The House map drawers tried putting Homestead in both districts, and then adjusted the population following a highway. Both pairs of plaintiffs are complaining that it made FL-26 more Republican. There is also a possible issue of whether FL-26 would be a performing Hispanic VRA district.

The LWV plaintiffs have proposed 3 maps, one is a complete redraw of 20-27, and twomaps that change 26 and 27.

The House and Senate have different attorneys, and the Senate attorney will argue for their map based on it reducing splits of Hillsborough. They might also argue for the compromise map that was created after the special session adjourned.

The attorney for the LWV plaintiffs is very loud and argumentative. His style might work better in a civil trial before a jury, where he was making a populist argument for a victim injured by "big business", who not only can afford a $bazillion judgment, but should be monetarily punished. The judge appears to be very calm and good humored. Perhaps he can ignore the theatrics. The House lawyer was very calm, and thorough.

[jimrtex]

9/24/2015 Part 2

House Attorney questions Jason Poreda, Staff Director of Joint Committee on Redistricting.

Poreda was one of the three map drawers, and he had the mouse about 95% of the time.

He described how they were isolated, including going so far as to re-key the doors, with only two keys.

He confirmed that they did no political analysis except necessary to comply with the VRA.

Also neither set of plaintiffs submitted a map, though there were about a dozen public submission.

He then explained the process by which 26 and 27 were drawn. They started by putting Homestead in both districts. They chose to put it in 26 since that gave the best convex-hull compactness. If Homestead were in 27, it would stick out from the southern tip. They then took the previous boundary and came up the Florida Turnpike until they got enough population.

When doing this, they only had Total Population turned on. He had know knowledge of the demographics of the area that was moved into FL-27, which turns out to be three areas that are predominately black. The effect was to keep FL-26 Republican, despite including all of Homestead.

[jimrtex]

9/24/2015 Part 3

Jason Poreda continues to testify. He was being quested by the House attorney, so it was a friendly questioning. Alot of it Poreda talking, and occasionally telling the attorney who was "questioning him" to move forward or backwards a slide. The attorney would enter in when there were some points he wanted to make. The overall theme would be to show that Poreda and the two other staff map-drawers had complete control of the process. In drawing the maps, they had saved all drafts, and made a report of their thinking at each decision point. If you want a complete explanation of the House plan, listen to this part.

The testimony lasts an hour and a half. Poreda says that other presentations he had given to legislators after drawing the maps had been longer and in more detail. He either has complete command of the material, or was well rehearsed, and had helped set up the slide presentation, or both.

The map-makers had drawn the various districts that SCOFLA had questioned in isolation, and then placed the surrounding districts. They were generally trying to maintain the other districts, making adjustments as needed.

Maps and supporting data for House Plan 9071

26/27 This was their first map, which just had the two districts. They emphasized that both districts were minority performing, and the decision was made to include Homestead in FL-26 was based on compactness, after determining that both districts remained Hispanic performing.

Under questioning, Poreda noted that no alternative plan had been submitted by the LWV. After the plan had been released, the LWV sent a letter complaining about the split. Poreda said he was aware of the letter, but had not seen it. He said he would not have responded since partisan considerations violate the Florida Constitution. The original split of Homestead had been made with partisan intent, and that was why the SCOFLA had highlighted the districts.

Presumably the LWV would have had to couch their letter with an inference that they map should have removed the partisan effect - but that could be just as illegal. The area moved into FL-26 is right in the fork of the Florida Turnpike and US-1.

13/14 (and 12)

The SCOFLA had criticized FL-14 crossing Tampa Bay to St. Petersburg. So the map drawers started at the southern tip of Pinellas and went northward until they had enough population. They said that this required the split of Clearwater. It also drew FL-12 further south into Pinellas. Keeping all of Pasco in FL-12, meant only a small part of Hillsborough was needed in FL-12. The original version had this along the Pinellas-Hillsborough line, and it was sort of a pointed shape. The final version was made quite a bit later and essentially smooths the juniction of the three counties.

They first tried locking FL-15 and FL-17 in their current configuration, but this left FL-14 non-minority performing (after loss of the black areas in St. Petersubrg). So they pulled FL-14 further north, which put all of Tampa in the district, and made it minority-performing.

20/25

The SCOFLA had criticized the splitting of Hendry County. While the extension of FL-20 to the west picks up Bell Glade, I suspect it is mainly to boost the compactness score, which would otherwise be ghastly. FL-25 is really a cross-peninsula district. I would wouldn't go cross-peninsula until further north where it could be done over several districts.

In the House map, FL-25 is 440K in Miami-Dade, 51K in Broward, and 166K in Collier, plus Hendry. It splits Collier in half (166K in FL-25, 155K in Collier) and sticks it in a Miami-based district.

Anyhow, putting all of Hendry in FL-25 makes it more "compact" since if looks like a big rectangle, with a smaller rectangle to the southeast. 70% of the population is on the very tip of that southeastern rectangle.

Because the east coast populated portions of FL-25 and FL-20 are not adjacent, this required the transfer of the compensating population to be through FL-23.

21/22

The SCOFLA had criticized the noncompactness of 21/22. They decided that they could not improve the compactness significantly with the current N/S division. So they switched to an E/W split, with a jog that keeps Boca Raton whole. FL-24 is a black majority district and was not changed. FL-23 was only changed to transfer population between FL-20 and FL-25, on the tip of its western inland portion.

FL-18 and FL-19 were left unchanged, which gave them a south Florida map for FL-18 through FL-27.

5

They took FL-5 from the Romo (Democratic) plan. Note the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee drew this map.

10

With the removal of FL-5 from the Orlando area, it left a vacuum for minority voters. They created a minority-majority district in Orange County, but it was not particularly compact. They tried some other configurations. One starting from the western edge was compact, but did not quite have a minority Democratic majority. They played with the boundary a bit and found a district that did, and was compact.

1, 2, 3, 4, and 6

These were fitted around FL-5. FL-1 in the panhandle is unchanged. The mapmakers considered using the Democratic map for FL-2, which included a hook to Union and Bradford, but instead added an area in Alachua, because this fit with a particularly compact FL-3. FL-4 which wraps around FL-5 in Jacksonville was directed south into St. Johns, instead of towards the west. FL-6 was pushed south a bit.

Remainder: 7, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, 17

With a map across the northern part of the state, plus 12, 13, and 14, and 10, the other districts could be fitted between and around them. FL-8 is the same as the enacted plan. FL-7 is Seminole plus part of Orange. This meant the remnant of Orange would go with Osceola and into Polk would be FL-9.
Fl-11 fills in from the north, making FL-15 a compact I-4 district, albeit made up of parts of three counties. The counties in the area (Marion, Lake, Orange, Polk, Hillsborough) are all divided.

The compact enacted FL-16 was initially used, but FL-17 wrapped around it on both north and south. The southern and eastern part of Tampa Bay are part of Hillsborough County, all the way to the Gulf of Mexico, giving an appearance of long point if the area east of the bay is in the same district. A better map could probably be drawn by ignoring this area (offshore islands could be linked by contiguity threads). Instead FL-16 was shifted northward, with FL-17 coming in from the south.

There was quite a bit of experimentation with rotating districts around FL-10. I suppose the purpose of this testimony was to show that the House plan was better than the senate alternative, and also that Fl-26/27 and 21/22 were consistent with considerations elsewhere.

Poreda also prepared on behalf members, two other maps, one which would have kept the current 20/21; and the other which would have retained the enacted map (defied the SCOFLA).

Poreda was also asked about CP-1 the LWV plan that would have redrawn FL-20 to FL-27 (see House redistricting site above). He was asked if the LWV had submitted their plan to the legislature (No). He was also asked if they had considered a configuration for FL-20 like that in the LWV map. He said they had early on, but rejected it because it added a 3rd peninsula. The Judge was confused, and Poreda showed him on the map. I'm not sure if the 3rd peninsula is the one that comes into Miami-Dade south of FL-23, or the split tongue on the current southern peninsula in Palm Beach. Poreda said they had considered it early on, but had decided that since the current FL-20 is so ugly, this would simply make it worse. That is even though the legislature did not have an opportunity to consider the LWV proposal, since the LWV failled to submit, the legislative mapdrawers had drawn something similar.

After the Senate had sent over their counter-proposal, Poreda had made some minor adjustments to eliminate 4 city splits (I'm guessing the Senate was promoting their alternative as having fewer city splits). I don't think that this improved map was ever implemented.

[jimrtex]

I listened to some of the final argument.

1. The House and Senate counsel as to CD 26 and 27 pounded hard, and I think effectively, that the odds of electing an Hispanic in CD 26 would be diminished, because the district moves 2 points to the Dems, and the Hispanics do not have the ability to nominate an Hispanic in the Dem primary, unless the Dem party realizes that it has to, for that candidate to win the General. With the district leaning Dem, that incentive is degraded, increasing the odds that a white or black Dem will be dominated, who then will win the General over the Hispanic Pub. Therefore there is illegal retrogression in the ability of Hispanics to elect a candidate of their choice.

2. As to CD 21 and 22, the Court almost certainly will go with a horizontal configuration. The north south approach was based on eliminating the pairing of the two incumbent Dems in the same CD, but that is only illegal if there was some design to do the pairing, as opposed to the pairing happening by virtue of enhancing compactness per SCOFLA's ruling. There was no evidence of such design, so concluding that compactness needs to be ignored to eliminate the pairing, is a misapplication of the law, and one done by a Harvard professor to boot.

3. The second Senate map seems to have the best metrics, and counsel for the Senate was effective that it is irrelevant what the Hispanic percentage is in CD-09 because it is not per SCOFLA's ruling a minority opportunity district. However, that map was never passed by the Senate, and at the end counsel for the Senate said he had no preference between the two Senate maps, which was a mistake, because the first Senate map has poorer metrics.

4. My prediction is that the court will adopt the second senate map, or the House map, based on whether he wants to go with the best product, or the map that was cleaner from a  procedural standpoint, which would be the House map. At stake from a partisan standpoint is whether CD-09 becomes a somewhat competitive district, as it would under the second Senate map, or a safe Dem CD, as it would be under the House map.

The LWV plaintiffs are not contesting 20/21. They are nominally neutral, though I suspect the LWV itself is listed first to hide motive. The ACLU is another member of the coalition. Considering that this was supposed to be a public process, they never participated in the public process beyond parading around demanding that the legislature "show them the maps". By using litigation, they could hide their intent behind attorney-client privilege.

The Romo plaintiffs are clearly representing the Democratic Party. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee drew their map for the first phase. Their complaint on 26/27 is clearly partisan motivated, but they somehow have to convince the judge that the legislature had done the pairing for partisan reasons.

Frankel was the mayor of West Palm Beach so she presumably would run in the northern district. Deutch lives in West Boca Raton. The northward notch in FL-22 in the House map is to place all of Boca Raton in FL-22, so he can't live very far outside FL-22, and its not like a Democrat is not going to win both districts.

At the end of Poreda's testimony, the Judge questioned him. He suggested that there was a difference between a "best plan" and a "compliant plan". The original remand order from SCOFLA was for the circuit court to evaluate a map that it was anticipated that the legislature would pass. The circuit court would then make a recommendation to the trial court. If that had been done, the circuit court would primarily be concerned with compliance.

After the legislature adjourned, Judge Lewis asked the SCOFLA what he should do. The SCOFLA issued a new order, telling him to in effect to make a plan based on input from the house, senate, and the plaintiffs. In that case, the "best plan" might be his metric. The order from the SCOFLA also said that if the legislature would did eventually pass a plan by their original deadline, that Judge Lewis should go back to the original plan of evaluating the plan from the legislature.

The legislature has a special session in October to redo the senate plan. Conceivably, the legislature could pass a congressional map at that time. There is nothing in the Florida Constitution that specifies the procedure for passing a congressional map (there is for legislative maps). So the legislature could pass their plan, and Judge Lewis would have to make a recommendation on its compliance.

If the legislature passed the House plan, it could be argued that they did to intentionally pair Frankel and Deutch, and to make FL-26 more Republican. But every legislator who voted against the plan would be voting to not pair the two, and to make FL-26 more Democratic. Intent is an impossible standard to apply.

When Podera was testifying, Judge Lewis, asked him about FL-5. Podera, and perhaps everyone else, was surprised by the question. The map drawn by the DCCC for the Romo plaintiffs was intended as an examplar to prove that FL-5 could be drawn in an east-west fashion. But since the SCOFLA dictated an east-west alignment everyone assumed it had to be that configuration.

Is it possible to keep Leon County whole, and have a functioning black minority district?

[jimrtex]

9/24/2015 Part 4 (first hour)

Missing sound for first 6 minutes plus.

Jason Poreda continued to testify, this time under cross-examination.

The LWV lawyer with the really bad haircut (BHL) kept trying to get Poreda to say that he knew that FL-26 was more Republican. "So you knew that ...". And Poreda would once again explain that he had turned off partisanship when drawing the map. BHL would then project a report on a screen that would show the black percentage in the district (under 10%), and say "so you knew ...", and the judge would say that he didn't think Poreda could read the table from the witness stand, so the particular item would be magnified on the screen, and then a chart for another plan would be shown. And the the BHL would say "so you knew this increased the black percentage".

BHL then couldn't understand that if Homestead was placed in FL-26, that you would have to move the boundary elsewhere to the west, and if Homestead was placed in FL-27 that the boundary would be moved to to the west.

BHL then asked if the mapmakers had considered streaming their sessions.

The attorney for the Romo (Democratic) plaintiffs who are mainly concerned about 21/22 asked about community of interest (eg beach cities vs inland). This had been rejected in the proceedings on the original senate map, when a split of the panhandle had been overturned. Any community of interest is subordinate to compactness. Since there is no evidence that the map-drawers were aware of the pairing of Deutch and Frankel, the Romo plaintiffs were left flailing with the SCOFLA saying that the legislature might consider a north-south split.

On redirect, Poreda was asked about whether affirmative partisan fairness was required, and the response was that it would violate the Florida constitution since it would be an intent to have a particular partisan result.

And finally the judge questioned Poreda.

He emphasized that his role now was to produce a "best plan" rather than determining whether the legislature's plan was compliant with the Florida constitution (since there was no enacted plan). Poreda stated that he thought the LWV map CP-1 did not produce a Hispanic-performing FL-26.

The judge also asked Poreda about FL-5. You might recall that the judge had originally required FL-5 to be widened out in its N-S configuration. That decision was overturned by the SCOFLA. The judge is from Tallahassee, and it is conceivable that he does not like the split of Leon County.

[jimrtex]

"Their complaint on 26/27 is clearly partisan motivated, but they somehow have to convince the judge that the legislature had done the pairing for partisan reasons."

What gave you the impression that the judge thought the pairing was for partisan reasons? In my view, it clearly wasn't. In fact there is no evidence that staff knew the residences of the incumbent Congresspersons.

21/22 is the pairing of Frankel and Deutch in Palm Beach/Broward. The LWV plaintiffs are not challenging that. Only the Romo plaintiffs are, and they are clearly aligned with the Democratic Party.

The concern of the Romo plaintiffs is the pairing. That is, they are the ones who want to draw the districts to favor the incumbents. What they are faced with is convincing the judge is that they are the one's with a pure motive. But there is no evidence of that. I think their lawyer knows that they have no case.

I suspect that if the judge undid the pairing, he would be violating the constitution. What would be his intent in doing so?

A FL-05 that kept Leon County whole would be performing in my view. A clear majority of the Dem primary voters would still be black. The Judge would show a lot of chutzpah however in making Leon whole, given that the district was not contested in court. And given that it was not contested, nobody pointed out that there is a SCOTUS decision that racial gerrymandering plus erosity not done for partisan reasons is not Constitutional, and that clearly is what FL-05 is in my view. Maybe the Judge will find that decision on his own if he gets motivated enough.

The judge is charged with coming up with a map based from various inputs. The hearing is being conducted somewhat as if the various parties were challenging the House plan, but it is actually Judge Terry gathering information. The Bad Haircut Lawyer (BHL) objected to the House lawyer asking a House map-drawer about CP-1. Judge Lewis told him he could object, but that he (Lewis) would ask him the same questions.

The Florida NAACP is also a party. They were originally part of LWV party, but split over FL-5. They are now a plaintiff-intervenor. On the first day of the hearing they declined to participate. The last time it was their opportunity to cross-examine a witness, the judge asked their lawyer if she could stand, to make sure they were there. They may have filed briefs, but I have not gone looking for those.

An open letter to Judge Terry Lewis

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With respect to redistricting, minority voting provisions and good-government provisions (non-partisanship, respect for political boundaries, compactness, etc) are antithetical.

The House map drawers (Poreda and Takacs) were quizzed extensively on 26/27. They were aware that the districts (particularly FL-26) were competitive, and would have been aware of why Homestead had been split in the original map. They had checked that FL-26 would be performing for a Hispanic Democrat. But when they changed the line, they do not appear to be aware that they might not have had to be concerned about FL-26 electing a Hispanic Democrat. They only had a population target showing on their screen.

When Homestead was placed in FL-26, they had to add population to FL-27, the western district. The enacted boundary went up US-1 for a while. So they went up the triangular area between the Florida Turnpike and US-1, and once they got enough population they went east to US-1.

The LWV in their map went up US-1, and then jogged back to the west to the Florida Turnpike.

The compactness measures are not particularly useful, though that is what they made their decision on. FL-26 includes Monroe County (Florida Keys plus the largely unpopulated mainland on the Gulf coast). This obliterates any significance of the boundary between FL-26 and FL-27. But when Homestead is added to FL-27 it represents an extrusion on the southwestern tip of a much smaller district. It is that which causes the difference in compactness. I wonder if Muon has an objective way to determine the better split, once Homestead is placed in FL-26.