Talk Elections

NV will be getting a new seat.  The basic idea with a GOP governor and a Dem legislature will probably be to make Heck a lot safer while creating a new heavily Democratic district in Clark County.  Thoughts?  The northern seat would also contract and become more Reno-centered.  So there would be 2 more or less safe D seats and 2 more or less safe R seats (depending of course on Sharron Angle's plans for 2012).

This is what I came up with for Nevada:

()
()

The blue district is 52% white, 12% black, 9% Asian, 24% Hispanic.
The red district is 35% white, 11% black, 6% Asian, 45% Hispanic.
The other two districts are 71% white.

I'm not sure which one Shelley Berkeley would run in and which one would be open. The red district is split off from parts of NV-01 and NV-03. NV-02 moves a little bit to the Democrats; Obama probably won there by a few thousand votes (not really sure what could be done to make it any safer; Republicans shouldn't have that much trouble holding it with anyone who isn't Sharron Angle). NV-03 probably becomes the most Republican district in the state.

I knew the outer Clark district would extend into rural Nevada, but I wouldn't have guessed it would be that far.

To be fair, there are around 12 people living in the non-Clark parts of the district.

Well yeah, but there are only 17 people in the whole of Nevada outside of Clark, Pahrump, Washoe, Carson, Douglas and Lyon - what I'd call the inhabitated parts of the state.

There's actually about 100k people in the non-Clark parts of that seat if I remember my maps right. Those super-sparsely populated counties ironically might have the highest per capita rate of prostitutes in the US (then again I imagine most of the prostitutes there live in either Reno or Vegas.)

I chose to split Elko county rather than Churchill county in the north. In the south I tried to keep much of CD 3 intact only dropping the parts on the west side of Las Vegas to new CD 4. I improved the Hispanic influence in CD 1 to 49%. All districts are with 100 of the ideal population using the estimates.

()

()

Edit: I've updated the maps to reflect the comments. CD 1 improves to just under 50% Hispanic. Black and other D-leaning areas in Clark were shifted to CD 4 to create a likely 2-2 plan.

She lives in the blue district (Summerlin), but she's likely running for Senate anyway.

That CD4 is a monstrosity.

The problem with this map (from the standpoint that the Legislature is Democratic) is that it creates a 3-1 split in favor of the GOP. I think it far more likely that they'll end up with something like JohnnyLongtorso drew. They'll draw a second urban district in Clark County, and shore up Heck with rural Republicans.

It is possible to (barely) get the Hispanic district to 50%, but when you take VAP into account, it might not hold water. It is likely that a "Hispanic Opportunity" district will be created, however.

Yeah, there's no way the Democratic-controlled legislature is going to draw a new district like that. The deal with Sandoval is almost certainly going to be giving Heck a solid R seat while drawing a new lean/solid-D seat. And they're not going to be able to draw a Hispanic-majority seat, given that the Hispanic population is too spread out among Clark County. Maybe in 2020, but not this time.

The comments made sense so I adjusted my initial post accordingly. I shifted the black and D-leaning areas in LV to CD 4. In the north CD 4 I made the Elko parts over 1/3 Hispanic, and the picked a large NA population in Churchill. That should make it one that Berkley can hold (less than 1/6 the district is outside of Clark). I also improved the Hispanic fraction in CD 1 to a fraction under 50%. I expect that with block level mapping both CD's would improve in their expected direction.


I expect that we disagree on aesthetics. I don't like districts that totally surround one or more other districts, and I try to avoid them.

When was the last time that a congressional district did that?

Nevada did in the 90s and Utah almost did.

Nevada Republicans in the legislature released their proposed map:

()

Here's the PDF verison (http://www.nevadarepublicanlegislators.com/images/Congress_Statewide.pdf) if you want to zoom in.

It's rather similar to the map I posted up at the top of the thread.

That's fair.  As Nevada is neither 75% Republican, nor 75% Democrat, I think a 2-2 map is good

How risky would a hypothetical 3-1 map for Democrats be?  Would such a map get into VRA trouble?

Do we have a zoomed-in map of the Las Vegas area? That looks like a 2-1-1 map (2 D seats in Las Vegas, one R seat in the Vegas suburbs and the bush, one toss-up seat for Reno-Elko), but it's hard to tell without knowing exactly which parts of Vegas are in which seat.

It won't get past the governor's desk, so... and such a map would have to have two Clark County-to-Reno districts, otherwise a Republican northern district and Republican exurban Clark district draw themselves.

I'm talking hypothetically.

Angle would have beat Reid 53-47 in the new CD2 (with no third parties factored in). I cut the totals from Douglas and Lyon counties in half, so I'm a bit off. Still, its gonna be a real swing distinct.

Here are all the map pdfs:

http://www.nevadarepublicanlegislators.com/

PDF file (http://www.nevadarepublicanlegislators.com/images/Congress_Clark.pdf)

Joe Heck gets to keep the 3rd district.

One of the two comically gerrymandered Democratic districts is majority Hispanic, which has already prompted one Latino group to call the plan "an absolute assault".

A district like that is safe for a Heller type conservative but not a teabagger Steve King type.

These are the numbers for the Republican proposal:

District   GOP%   DEM%   HVAP%   BVAP%   Total Hispanic%
CD 01   32.0%   45.5%   17.7%   9.9%   20.6%
CD 02   42.8%   35.7%   16.6%   1.9%   20.4%
CD 03   40.8%   37.5%   12.2%   5.5%   14.4%
CD 04   20.8%   57.8%   44.3%   14.2%   50.7%

I'm not sure if the D/R numbers are registered voters or what.

Looks like it.

It's not possible to simply split LV in 3?

Why are Hispanic groups pissed about a majority Hispanic district?

Being barely majority Hispanic hardly guarantees a Hispanic representative somewhere like Las Vegas, so I figure they'd rather have two seats where Hispanics are the key Democratic primary voting bloc (~35% Hispanic) rather than only one.

I don't know about the VRA, but a 3-1 map would be suicide imho.

Pretty sure a 2-1-1 map, with the northern seat the swingy one (but still a slight Republican tilt) would be very easy to draw. And would be what I'd do as a Democrat in full control.

In regards to Sharron Angle's candidacy in NV-2, am I correct that none of the redrawn districts will be conservative as the current NV-2? Though I imagine if she wins the special, that may give her an advantage in 2012.

I would presume that is correct to an extent, the district that ends up anchored on the portions of Clark County outside of Las Vegas will probably be the most conservative district, as it will take in numerous rural counties, but even then will be less conservative. The rural counties being in separate districts changes the game somewhat.

The current NV-02 is R+5. The new one under that map is about R+2. NV-03 will probably end up about R+5 under that map, maybe a few points more, but it'll belong to Heck, no way can Angle carpetbag there.

Good, the new map will be harder than the current map for Angle (or other ultra-right Republican) to win, even if the partisan balance isn't any better (or worse). Do the rural counties have to be split up, or is this just what the NV legislators are proposing? I realize a CD with all the rural counties would have to take in Reno, assuming no Clark-to-Reno gerrymander. Also, is Clark outside of Vegas really that conservative? IIRC, there's some unincorporated areas that vote heavily Democratic.

Look at what unincorporated Clark county includes:

()

I think you basically have to. Clark County has about 2.9 districts worth of population, which means it has to grab a few of the rural counties, while the Washoe district grabs the rest.

Yes, but northwest Nevada doesn't need to be split, and in this map it (marginally) is.

I can see why the Republicans are trying to be so conciliatory. I've just tried to draw a McCain district in Nevada, and it is not easy. I finally got one to 50-48 McCain, which leaves the two Las Vegas-area seats safe (about 64% Obama each). The Reno seat is about a 1-point margin for Obama.

Here it is:

()
()

NV-01 (blue) - 64.3 Obama, 33.7 McCain
NV-02 (green) - 49.4 Obama, 48.3 McCain
NV-03 (purple) - 50.1 McCain, 47.8 Obama
NV-04 (red) - 64.5 Obama, 33.2 McCain

Putting all of Clark's Hispanics wouldn't make the new district instantly competitive, either. I got a 68% Obama, 43% Hispanic VAP district and a 58% Obama district out of Clark, with NV-03 reduced to a 50-47 Obama margin.

Surely the margin in the purple district can be improved a bit by trading some of the more marginal areas in the south for Elko County?

I guess you could dump Pahrump into NV-02, but that would make NV-02 better for the Democrats. Plus then all four districts would be in the Las Vegas media market.

Here's my first attempt at NV with the partisan data.

I tried to keep as many counties whole as possible; other than Clark, I took 1 precinct out of Nye.
In any case, it has 2 Safe Dem districts, an even district and one marginally Republican. I'd say this would be a pretty good compromise map.

Statewide:
()

Clark County:
()

CD1: (Blue-Titus?):
- 61.6 Obama/ 36.3 McCain
- PVI: D+11

CD2: (Pink-TBD)
- 50.0 Obama/ 47.6 McCain
- PVI: EVEN

CD3: (Purple-Heck)
- 49.4 McCain/ 48.5 Obama
- PVI: R+1

CD4: (Red-Open)
- 64.1 Obama/ 33.8 McCain
- PVI: D+13

The Democrats have released their map:

()

()

---

As you would expect, it's a 3-1 map.  The 1st is D+16, the 2nd is R+7, the 3rd is D+8 (lol) and the 4th is D+10.

It's... um... "optimistic".

Those partisan figures can't be right, Joe. Clark County as a whole is only D+5.

*shrug*  That's what Ralston says.

I wonder if it's registration numbers, not PVI. The Republican version of NV-2 has a 7 point registration edge for Republicans and this is functionally the same district. I also recall that in 2002, voter registration numbers were the key factor in how NV-3 was drawn.

They are registration numbers.

I did my best to draw it in DRA:

NV-01 - 59-39 Obama
NV-02 - 49-48 Obama
NV-03 - 56-42 Obama
NV-04 - 57-41 Obama

I... don't think that's going to fly with the governor.

I don't like this map for obivous reasons but that's one of the best partisan redistricting maps I've seen :O

Another thing Dems need to keep in mind about aiming for a 3-1 delegation (probably moot since Governor would veto) is that it would give a very Republican (by NV standards) NV-2 that would likely elect Angle.

Not really; NV-02 is pretty much impossible to shift more than a percent or two, because it's dominated by Washoe County.

No . . . In fact, It's close to impossible to create a district based around Reno that even barely voted for McCain without at least 1 Reno-Vegas gerrymander.  NV-2 is basically hemmed in by the Population distribution of Nevada, and can't really go anywhere.  Its almost certainly going to get at least a point or two more Democratic than it currently is.

Also, Angle isn't going to get elected anywhere.  PPP did a poll of it, and found that she would lose a primary against Heller in NV-2 84-8.  She only even get 12% of Tea Partiers.  People there aren't exactly happy she blew what should have been an easy win, and aren't inclined to do it again.

From what I have seen, the most Republican seat most likely has to be in the Clark county suburbs and exurbs, plus hooker counties district. Unless you do some weird crap with splitting LV three ways to try for a 4-0 Dem gerrymander. I would think that risky though.

Someone draw me a map with three Republican Reno-to-empty-to-Las-Vegas districts and a hardpacked most-Dem-possible seat in Vegas, please. :D

Toyed around in DRA for a little bit and at best I can get a very awful GOP dummymander. I got the super Dem pack up to 72% Obama, and the three Reno to Las Vegas districts all around Obama +4.

So three competitive districts. I endorse such a plan. :D

SURPRISE!

Sandoval vetoes Democrats' map. (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/may/14/gov-sandoval-vetoes-democrats-redistricting-maps/)

Excuse me while I pick myself up off the floor.

It's pretty stupid that Sandoval cited VRA violation against Hispanics as one if his reasons for the veto.  Was he not paying attention when the GOP brought out their map and several Hispanic groups angrily shot it down?  He could have just left it at a rejection of the Dems' overreaching for a 3-1 map and we wouldn't have thought any less of him.

Why would sandoval care what dem leaning hispanic groups think?

I think he wanted to make his opposition sound more legitimate, but it's still clear he wants every Hispanic voter packed so the GOP can have a shot at 2-2 or even 3-1. That's obviously not going to have though.

Again, it will probably go to court, and, at this time, we don't know what will happen in court. The courts may very well choose to create a minority influence seat arouond Las Vegas.

That doesn't even really hurt the Democrats though.  Aside from North Vegas, most of the LV area is lean Dem.  Even Drawing a Hispanic plurality district would leave plenty of Democrats left to keep at least one other seat safe.

All 2-2 maps are not equivalent. They want districts to elect white liberals, not hispanics.

Yes, Hispanic groups want to make sure Hispanics aren't elected and thus oppose a Hispanic-packed district which probably wouldn't even elect a Hispanic rep anyway (We're talking about 42% Hispanic and Hispanics have lower turnout...)

The Democrats would just rather have two >60% Obama districts than a district in the mid to high sixties for Obama and one in the high fifties (probably wouldn't be competitive, but why take chances?)

Yeah I plugged it into DRA and played with some numbers, you'd end up with an about D+4 seat, a D+15 seat, an R+3 seat and an R+5 seat roughly. The Democrats would obviously prefer two D+9 or 10 seats.

There aren't enough Hispanics who vote in Nevada to elect a Hispanic consistently even on a maximal pack of the Hispanic vote.

That would be two-two, which is less than what the Democrats are targeting.

No guarantee, no, but as nj democrats said, population growth will increase that number and give a Hispanic a chance.

In practice minority democrats don't often get elected in white liberal districts. So you know what you're getting in the BTRD plan.

LOL funny to say that considering who my rep is.

I don't even support the Democrats' dummymander anyway. Get two safe Dem seats around Las Vegas and two GOP-leaning seats in the rest of the state. Which is probably what we're getting anyway.

Ellison, I presume? Yeah I think he is one of a very small list of minorities that sit in a white liberal district. Contrast that to people like Scott, West, Herrera, Austria, where white conservatives elect minorities.

In practice Hispanic democrats need Hispanics to get elected. I guess the Nevada democrats want them to keep voting dem but also to shut then out.

we are not racists in the sense that we don't want minority politicians. Someone like Raul Grijalva or John Lewis is indistinguishable from a white liberal in their voting record. The problem are people like Eddie Bernice Johnson or Corrine Brown. Corrine Brown is an idiot who wants the fair redistricting thing passed so she won't lose re-election. She fails to realize that the kochers are using her so all the surrounding districts are republican. In 1991, you had two moderately democrat districts in Dallas. Unfortunately Eddie Bernice Johnson, who was a senator in Austin back then, got selfish and drew a hyper democratic district for herself and got rid of all the good precincts from Martin Frost and John Bryant's districts.

I'm not really going to adopt krazen's framework for defining various categories as white liberals and conservatives and how they behave, but I will say that by this standard, in the 2008 Congressional elections "white conservatives" elected exactly zero African-Americans and zero Hispanics who weren't Cuban-Americans in predominantly Cuban districts. This is at least one fewer than a caucus composed solely of the Democrat he's throwing out as an exception.

She realizes that obviously and she is using them. She wants her seat. That is her job. She is not a nerd on the web drawing maps, this is her real life and keeping her job is her self interest.

Krazen's obsession with proving that "white liberals" are the REAL racists is getting pretty pathetic.

Nunes is a cochair of the CHC and of course was elected in 2008. Austria too.

No, I think she understands this quite well and doesn't care. I'm sure both Brown and Johnson looked at reality like I do and realized they're extremely unlikely to beat a white liberal in a primary without stacking the deck in their favor, without being stellar politicians, which they are not.

This is idiotic. Neither is in remote danger in a primary in a "fair" district from a white liberal. However, Corrine Brown, in particular, would be in danger in a general election in a fair district (although a competent Democrat would not be), while Eddie Bernice Johnson would probably lose to a competent black politician in the primary.

The fact that millions of white liberals voted for Obama over Clinton or Edwards in 2008, or even that millions live in diverse districts and regularly vote for minority congressmen, is less significant than the fact that Republicans in a district with .2% of the country's population voted for a Filipino-American rep with the first name "Steve" and a last name that's the same as a European country. White liberals are the racists, even though almost all of them have voted for minority officials at some point or another. The vast majority of w.c.s don't live in the few districts that keep getting referenced by our friend as redeeming an entire country.

This is nonsense on stilts.

Look it's pretty obvious why the Democrats oppose the minority-packed district, because it'd be a Dem pack seat and would leave the other Las Vegas district relatively marginal and only about one or two points more Democratic than Heck's current seat (I've ran the numbers.) If you want to blather about how all white liberals (and Hispanic groups) are terrified of a seat being slightly more likely to elect a Hispanic than an identical-voting white Democrat you can but you aren't proving anything. It might also be taken a bit more seriously if not from someone who argues that only academic results of white students should be taken into account when comparing school districts.

Actually it's pretty clear why the Hispanic groups would oppose the pack too besides partisanship, a decently split Vegas gives them two seats that have a decent chance of electing a Hispanic Democrat vs. one seat that has a chance but no guarantee and one seat with little chance at all. The Nevada Democrats in general obviously care only about electing Democrats, it seems pretty silly that such a Hispanic-represented party in the legislature is supposedly full of people screaming "NO NO NO HISPANIC REP CAN BE ELECTED, WE MUST ELECT ONLY WHITE LIBERALS AND ABSOLUTELY NO ONE ELSE!" with basically no logic behind it. Of course the Democrats proposed a stupid plan that doesn't really accomplish this either, if you want to criticize the party go ahead and do it for that.

Clearly, you have much more confidence in their electoral prowess than they do. Cleaver too, which is why, if the SSP crowd is correct, he desired his peculiarly shaped district at the expense of Carnahan. You're not paying attention to what these people actually do and say.

But of course, in their own world, they're blacks first and Democrats second, and they aren't willing to gamble with their own money as you are. Keep in mind of course they want to keep the seat safe not only for themselves but their successor blacks as well.

Actually, that's not what I said at all. I actually said that people from states like California, DC, and Wisconsin like to compare apples to oranges, and that they do an extremely poor job in educating minority students, both of which are true by the facts. In order to hide this some seek the apples to oranges comparison.

And decent chance my a$$. The new maps have a whopping 19.3% Hispanic VAP in CD-04. How many Hispanic Democratic reps have been elected in the past 200 years from such a seat? You already know the answer....


Truthfully its not even difficult to give Hispanics a plurality in 1 district while leaving the other at over 60% Obama. Simply put Enterprise, Spring Valley, most of North Las Vegas, and the blacks in Vegas itself in 1 district, and the Hispanics in the other.

I really doubt that any conservative, especially one like krazen gives a darn about minorities getting elected to office, they'd prefer them not to get elected. Since it seems that that person wants to imply that white Democrats are racist, it's only fair that the same implication be made about Republicans. Republicans don't want minorities in their districts and when throw fits if they get too many.

You mean like Brad Sherman did post 2000 California redistricting?


You can look at all the safe Democratic districts in the nation, look at the racial balance, and guess the race of the rep with over 90% accuracy. Republicans are afraid that too many minorities will vote them out of office in a general election. What are white liberals like Brad Sherman afraid of?

A racial primary? Seriously, things like that are factors in these decisions. Your attempt to label white Democrats as racist is a real failure. If anything, attempts to pack every minority voter possible into one district is what is really racist, it marginalizes their votes.

Good! You've finally figured out the obvious from decades of Democratic primaries, and what the result of neatly cracking the Hispanic community of Nevada is going to be, and what type of politician will be elected in the new NV-1 and NV-4.

Saying "Of course Texas schools perform worse than Wisconsin ones, they have no blacks" is quite different from this.


Colorado Senate. Also CO-03.

Can you explain why Hispanic groups would oppose this beyond "They're Dem hack groups."? Because while that may be true, that still gives them no motivation to prefer to have whites elected over Hispanics and deliberately support blocking the election of minorities. And of course the fact that white liberals helped nominate Obama is completely ignored...


Uh, you can't pack Hispanics and leave most of North Las Vegas in the other seat because that's where many Hispanics are. You also can't draw such a district without wrapping around the heavily Republican sprawl in the NW part of the LV metro. If it's possible go ahead and prove me wrong by drawing the map.

I have never once heard of a white Democrat complaining about more minorities being added to their district, unless it was part of a blatant GOP power grab (like the DeLay-mander.) I should note most minorities seem to take the same position as white liberals here, one black Texas State Rep supported DeLay's redraw because it would result in a new black rep. His predominately black constituents primaried him out next election.

According to Jon Ralston, the Democrats' second map addressed Sandoval's concerns... by putting all the Hispanics into Heck's district.

Ha. Hilarious!

Heck wouldn't have to worry though, he can just run in the new NV-04.

In Nevada's case, the Democrats did not want to pack their base voters into one seat, it wasn't about getting a white candidate elected. In states like California, it's mostly about the primary, because there are plenty of Democrats to go around, the only concern is about party factions.

Why? Because they're Democrats first and Hispanics second, unlike St. Louis Blacks, so they do as they are told. It's only hackish when they constantly flipflop this viewpoint depending on which state you're looking at.

You have to crack minorities to get 3 districts anyway, but not to get 2. Here is my map.

() (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/28/nevadavegas.png/)


Red is 40.0% VAP Hispanic, and 66% Obama. Blue is 63% Obama. You could increase the Hispanic percentage in Red by splitting both Spring Valley (the corner with Hispanics in it) and Paradise (the southern part with Asians), but I left both intact as best as the app could do.

Looks to be about a 60/60/54% Obama map between the 3 Clark districts. That random tongue into Paradise of course reduces the Hispanic percentage in CD-3.

Of course I think they split every city/town in Clark.

Krazen listen to me. Your assumption that white democrats don't want minorities put in their district isn't true. Do you by chance know of Bob Filner, Gene Green, or Steve Cohen? They all seem comfortable representing a district that is mostly minority.

I would be a tad problematic for them to express a concern that their districts had too many minorities in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)

I'm curious as to what kind of Hispanic seat is possible to draw with 5 seats. Presuming continuing population and Hispanic growth in Nevada, is one very likely post 2020?

Though the data is from 2000, this should give you a rough idea of the racial distribution in the city:

() (http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4982012964/sizes/o/in/photostream/)

Each dot is 25 people.  Red = white; blue = black; yellow = Hispanic; green = Asian

(click on it for the larger source image)

You are using the argument by blatent assertion.

Can you translate that in English please?

Everyone knows what a blatent assertion is. What you need to write is some explanation as to why you believe the "True Scotsman" fallacy has been uttered by someone here?

No, I don't know what a "blatent" is. Please, feel free to explain.

Stating the definition of "True Scotsman" fallacy doesn't imply that anyone has used that fallacy. If you have reason to believe that anyone has used that fallacy, feel free to state whom has used that fallacy, and how their logic conforms to definition of the "True Scotsman" fallacy.

Ignoring the useless flamewar going on here... the Nevada Latino Redistricting Coalition has decided to release their own map [pdf (http://media.lasvegassun.com/media/pdfs/blogs/documents/2011/05/20/Congressional_Map.pdf)], which hilariously puts Joe Heck into a 41% Hispanic district, with a 49-28 Democratic registration advantage.

(Ralston points out that it's shaped like a donkey, appropriately enough.  I'd say it's more of a piñata.)

I can't wait for silly season to be over and we get to see what map we'll actually have for the next ten years.

Splitting Henderson is going to be a no-go, although Heck could probably win a district with that map anyway.

That said, I drew a very similar map above. That should settle the debate as to what the Hispanic community wants, and its not 4 <32% districts

I disagree with both of these statements.  You could be right on your second point if we assume that Heck would run in a district he doesn't live in, based on that map.

Moot point anyway.  These 'official' maps are a pointless waste of time.  A bit like arguing on the internet about it, I suppose.

And I'm sure you'll be just as vocal about the need for a second minority-majority district in South Carolina, Virginia, and Alabama ::)

Not at all. I believe in retribution for decades of Democratic gerrymandering in the south. They get 1 district.

Interesting, the shift from using "white conservatives" and "white liberals" to party here. Which term do you think better describes the Democrats who controlled state government in the south for most of the last century?

Depends on the issue I suppose. Democrats in the South obviously supported modern day white liberal hero Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his social engineering in absurd numbers, and of course supported the creation of Medicare in 1965 while men like Goldwater and Reagan were opposed. They exhibited many non-conservative fiscal tendencies to this day;  a lot of the ancestrally Democratic generally poor areas love their pork.

It would certainly be fair to describe them as white conservatives though on many social issues, especially at the state level. And of course, what I said earlier is true; they wanted to elect their own and not blacks. There weren't too many blacks in the House until the 1990 redistricting, and most of those were from the North.

Modern day minority conservatives however are quite different from modern day minority liberals. They have to be. In order to get elected they have to win the support of a majority of whites. Tim Scott of course had to defeat a prominent white conservative in order to get his seat; as did the others.

Then your entire argument is moot, you can't argue for a packed district in Nevada that won't even get to 50% and against ones in southern states that will cross the threshold of 50%. The Justice Department is not going to see it like that, they'd never argue for a plurality district.

My point exactly!

That's your territory, champ, only in reverse. That's why California has so few Hispanic districts, and New Jersey just dissolved theirs on the state level, and why some white liberals still whine about Texas, which of course already has 7 Hispanic districts.

I am very consistent; I believe in the legislative process in all states. No serious people in the South want to create such districts you propose. It's you people who want different rules across the board.

Arguing for a less than 50% VAP packed district in Nevada, while opposing one where it will be greater than 50% is extremely inconsistent.  What is consistent is that when a minority-majority packed district benefits Republicans you say that Democrats oppose it b/c they're evil racist liberals (and ignore the fact that they oppose it NOT b/c of race, but b/c the district is part of a pro-Republican gerrymander).  However, when it benefits Democrats, then you say that Republicans shouldn't create more minority-majority districts b/c it won't lead to their strongest map.   

You can't create that many more Hispanic districts in California, it's just about maxed out at this point, unless you want to get into precinct-wide gerrymanders, which would ultimately hurt Republicans, but it is very unnecessary since you can draw compact Hispanic districts without much trouble.

You state that no serious people want more VRA districts in certain southern states, but the fact is that these issues may still be raised by the Justice Department. You stated yourself that there should be no more majority black districts in the south because of retribution toward Democrats. That's a huge double standard.

Not at all. The last bit isn't fact at all; I already posted a Nevada map to the contrary that does not involve the racial splitting of  every single municipality that you keep proposing. Admittedly, the Republican proposed map doesn't give the Democrats 2 safe districts, but such a map is obviously possible.

Democrats like the Sherman/Bermans have a history of opposing Hispanic districts specifically because of race, in their own words, not mine. Ultimately they can obviously do what they want to do and pass districts to elect white liberals and not Hispanics; I can merely point out the truth.

Republicans control the trifecta throughout the South because of the policies of the Democratic party. If they want a say they should do what Mr. Sandoval did and win the governor's mansion. Otherwise, nobody cares.

So if Republicans wanted to have the DOJ approve their maps in states like Texas, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama, they should have won the Presidency like Obama did b/c otherwise no one cares?

At least 3 are easily possible: the 28th, the 35th, and 37th with some territory swapping in Los Angeles County.

As for the rest, you can play the may/should/would game, but its obvious by looking at the actual maps that such isn't considered serious by the actual mapdrawers. All they have to do is look at the New Jersey map where the 4 Oranges are intentionally cracked and separated to get some ideas.

That would have been ideal, certainly, but your baseless hypothetical obviously is not a serious concern.

The 28th is actually already majority Hispanic, CA-35 is a Black influence district and CA-37 is mainly geographic. Anyway, Hispanic voters in California are distributed out enough where they have influence, they don't want over packed districts.

My point is necessarily rather or not these maps will be considered, but that you can't argue for a plurality VRA district in one place and then oppose districts that go over the 50% threshold in another, it is hypocrisy.

The law is alleged the same no matter whom is elected President.

Don't play dumb. Everyone knows that there was no way a Bush DOJ would push for more minority representation in the preclearance states while the Obama DOJ would.

The VRA act says what it says. If you can justify politicizing law enforcement that says something about you, not me.

Are you really that stupid or just very good at pretending to be?

Who said anything about justifying it? The reality is that administrations usually enforce the VRA when it is politically to their benefit. The text of the VRA is ambiguous enough to support it, and the Supreme Court decisions on the issue intentionally allow them to do it. There is no clear and obvious text in the VRA to forbid this, either; at the least, there are multiple possible readings, and the Supreme Court has been reluctant, even reticent, to choose among them.

Has naked patisanship so grossly distorted your reasoning, or are you just very good at pretending to be a partisan hack?

Whoever answers a question with another question is either a fool or a liar (probably both).

That simply isn't true. Had that been the case, the Bush justice department would not have objected to the Bonilla district that would have reelected Bonilla, and, would have insisted on creating minority seats in certain states.



The Democrats are pushing intrepretation that are neither supported by the text of the VRA, or the Constitution. The Constitution is clear, the Congress cannot by statutute mandate that the states favor any particular political party, and that is the essense of the Democratic "intrepretation" of the VRA.





That isn't even True, either. For instance, the Courts struck down racial gerrymandering more strongly than they ever ruled on partisan gerrymandering.

Anybody whom has a principled objection to replying to a question with another question is either being highly disingenuous, or is a fool.

You've not come here to make friends, have you?

His only friend serves him quite well.

()

http://www.lvrj.com/news/sandoval-vetoes-democrats-second-redistricting-bill-122914058.html


Sandoval vetoes Democrats' new redistricting bill

CARSON CITY -- For the second time in less than a month, Gov. Brian Sandoval on Tuesday vetoed Assembly Bill 566, the Democrats' proposal for redrawing legislative and congressional district boundaries.




Maybe they can draw Heck a reasonable district now.

Or they could be aiming force it into the courts.

Which doesn't really make sense, seeing as there are only a handful of ways to draw the map anyway.

Seriously, just give us a 2-2 map and be done with it.

Why should they? It's not as if it could potentially end up worse than 2-2 if it goes to the court. (Okay, so I suppose it could end up 1-2-1 with the two being D leans... that then fall due to a wave election and/or weakass candidate selection.)

Heck would be an incumbent in 1 of the 2 Dem leans. I think both fall around 54-55% Obama or so.

In any case, gone to court.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/redistricting-appears-dead-in-nevada-legislature-123198738.html

Heller is going to have to win 3 of the 4 districts anyway to win statewide.

Heck lives in Henderson, which can't fit anywhere besides the district that'd reach into rural Nevada. There'd be no reason for him to not run in that seat anyway. There's going to be two seats based around inner Las Vegas no matter what, and getting either one to be a swing seat would require some actual gerrymandering. But that's exactly what the Republicans were trying to push through a Dem-controlled legislature.

It's certainly possible to fit the district in with the southern/eastern areas of Clark County (Sunrise Manor, Paradise), while the new district goes from western/northern Clark into the rurals. Both districts end up being somewhat swingy.

I think your outcome is more likely though. At least unless the court wants to draw the 30% Hispanic b*tch districts that the Democrats either rail about or embrace.

What is a court likely to do here? There seems to be one natural CD 2 that includes the I80 corridor across the northern third of the state. CD 3 would also seem well defined in southern Clark including Henderson, Enterprise, and Paradise. CD 4 is presumably the central third of the state along US 50 plus northern and western Clark reaching into Las Vegas.

Dealing with the minority population is the wild card here. Do they try to insure a strong Hispanic CD 1 at over 50% of the total population? They could boost it with additional minorities to reduce the white population and insure a likelihood of  minority control of the primary. This would reduce the Dem edge in the other Clark districts as the chance of Hispanic success increases.

Well, the current CD-1 is North Las Vegas, Downtown Las Vegas, Northern Paradise, and some random (Republican) peripheral areas in Northwest Clark County. As long as you don't split up the core of the current CD-1, and instead chop off the peripheral areas, you end up with a reasonably packed CD-1 at somewhere between 65-70% Obama. Not quite as efficient as the GOP map that sliced through municipalities, but close, and much closer to the GOP map than the Dem map.

Then you end up with 2 districts that sum to 55% Obama. Either you put Henderson with the Republican Northwest Clark and the rurals (the 2-2 plan), or you put Henderson wtih Paradise, Spring Valley, and Enterprise (the 1-1-2 plan). Neither option looks bad for the GOP.

That was not why Ron Wilson was primaried.  And those Blacks who were supposedly voting against Wilson because he had voted for the redistricting, voted for Al Edwards against Chris Bell in the same primary 2:1.

In 2001, the NAACP lobbied the court for a 2nd Black district in Houston.  The court which had been hand-picked by the Democrats praised the effort, but said that it was out of their capacity as a federal court, and said that they should lobby the legislature.

In the remedial phase of the 2006 redistricting trial, the NAACP entered a brief.  It can be summarized as:

(1) We don't like what happened to Martin Frost, and Supreme Court shouldn't have ruled the way it did;
(2) We don't care about South Texas; and
(3) About Houston we are content.  I did think it was a little over the top to include a video clip of a Happy Dance in a legal brief.

I doubt that any Black Democrats from Houston were upset about the district other than  Garnet Coleman.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/hearing-set-on-legality-of-creating-hispanic-congressional-district-126735353.html

A state district court judge on Wednesday said he would hold a Sept. 19 hearing to determine whether Hispanics merit a congressional district with a majority Latino population before ordering a special "masters panel" to draw Nevada's new electoral maps.

Judge James Russell also named three members of the special panel: Alan Glover, the Carson City clerk-recorder; Las Vegas attorney Thomas Sheets and Robert Erickson, a former research director at the Legislative Counsel Bureau who handled past rounds of redistricting in Nevada.





One should mention how Democrats typically whine about Hispanics being 30% bitches, when in fact the Democratic map turns them into a quartet of 30% bitches.

my California map i'm working on has two districts that are 85-90% hispanic.

Well, we've been waiting for the courts to do something about redistricting... and they've certainly done something. (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/oct/05/legislative-leaders-consider-resuming-redistrictin/)

What were the D maps again? 2-1-1 (D/R/Swing) or 3-1?

This looks like it was from the first map they passed:

Wow 3 D seats and 1 swing seat? That's pretty bold.

The state constitution is that vague eh? LOL. You know I really hate state constitutions. They suck and are mischievous, and unleash the robes to make law using texts copied and pasted from the federal version, and then give them whole new meanings. One man's equal protection is another man's political agenda. I'd get rid of them all - yes all. I'm serious. Into the bust bin they go! But then the whole idea of state's rights kind of sucks too. I am just not on the Pubbie boat on that one - at all.

The order tells the Secretary of State to address the issue.

The constitution provides that the legislature apportion the state by passing a law.  The veto power is part of the Article 4.  Legislative department.  And says that any bill shall be presented to the governor who before it becomes a law must sign it (or let it become law without signature).

The legislature presented a "bill" to the governor.  They did not pass a law, which they are incompetent to do, without either the assent or acquiescence of the governor (or perhaps the connivance of the judiciary).

NV-2 went narrowly for Obama, but there's plenty of evidence from the last several elections that it's too R to be a swing seat for Congress.

The text says the apportionment shall be "by passing a law," not presenting a bill to the Governor that becomes law. I don't get it. "Passing" is a rather powerful verb here.

It is actually pretty weird.  If you go to the Nevada Supreme Court web page

http://www.nevadajudiciary.us/index.php/supremecourt

And click on high profile cases you will find the emergency petition and then the Supreme Court's order.

Miller v. Dist. Ct. (Guy) (Docket No. 59322)

Miller is the Nevada Secretary of State

After the legislature's plans were vetoed, some citizens filed in a Nevada district court to have maps drawn.  The district court said that they would decide various legal issues, in particular which Hispanics should be considered (CVAP, VAP, etc.), before turning the case over to the special masters.

Instead, the district court turned it over to the special masters.

Miller is asking the Supreme Court to order the district court to rule on the legal issues before turning it over to the special masters.  He didn't raise the issue directly whether the district court could draw a map, but rather about how they went about it.

It is the Supreme Court asking for briefing on whether there is even a need to draw a map (ie since the legislature passed a bill, did they provide an apportionment?  The section that was quoted in the Supreme Court order dealt with legislative apportionment, there is nothing in the constitution about congressional districting.)   The other questions were whether the district court had the authority to draw a map - or whether they should have sought other remedies such as ordering a special election, or ordering at large elections.

The two California cases were after Ronald Reagan had vetoed the redistricting bills in California.  For congressional districts, the California Supreme Court ordered the map drawn by the legislature to be used, since it had enough congressional districts; and for the legislature, the old map was used, since that was deemed better than trying to draw one from scratch.

Carson City is not a very big town, so maybe the Supreme Court was getting fidgety about the uppity district court judge, or maybe they had met the Secretary of State at the barber shop or cafe, and urged him to file suit, and they could expand on it.

Went for McCain by like 17 votes. I think it was the closest seat in the country. Not much different from this district obviously.

But the GOP probably would have at least a 40% chance of 2-2 with those districts considering Obama overperformed in Nevada 2008. Which is still better for the Democrats than an almost set in stone 2-2.

Since the State Supreme Court is seated in Carson City, why would the Supremes have anything against Carson City?

They wouldn't have anything against Carson City per se.  They might resent a local judge taking over the case and perhaps messing it up, which they know will eventually be appealed to them.

Carson City only has 55,000 people, so those associated with the state government are going to form a major clique, and there may be a little bit of friction with the locals.

The Supreme Court could not possibly be unaware that Nevada has not been redistricted.  So they might have been talking about it.

If you read Miller's petition and then read the order, they're very much inviting arguments on issues that Miller didn't raise.  So why isn't it plausible that they suggested to Miller that he file the petition and they would take it from there.

Not really. That's 3 districts on the brink of lean Dem and safe Dem, and 1 safe Rep.

Has there been a massive reconsideration of the Northern district? I seem to remember reading that the seat was attainable to the Democrats, not "safe Republican," and, would be even more so after redistricting.

A seven percent uniform swing leaves the numbers

+13 D
+6 R
+7D
+9D

Would you care to explain why +6R is "safe" for the Republicans while +7,+9 and +13D are merely nearly "safe" for the Democrats?

Well, we both know what happened to that argument. Though no advertising in Vegas obviously didn't help either. Well, it's not drawn to be most-Dem-favorable-possible in that map. Quite the opposite. Not that the effect is going to be major.
Okay, so the first district is definitely "safe".
I may have been exaggerating slightly to counterweigh the effect of the misrepresentation in the post I was replying to, you know.

Surely, you know whether you exaggerated or not.

It's not as if there's any factual disagreement here, so I really have no idea what you're on about. It's a gerry. What's important is which areas in continuously built-up LV are excluded from the two districts there, of course:

()

Feeble Democratic hopes crushed by victorious Republican hammer of righteousness.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/oct/11/democrats-present-redistricting-plan/

I've concluded that a district with over 50% HVAP is not possible. Given the Bartlett decision, I don't know that any section 2 claim is possible, regardless of bloc voting analysis. So I'm not sure why there is so much focus on the voting behavior if the first prong of the Gingles test can't be satisfied.

I did get a 50.2% total population majority-Hispanic CD-1 with DRA. But I would describe it as a coalition district rather than a VRA majority district. I drew CD-2 to follow the I-80 corridor, and then divided CD-3 (51.4% D) and CD-4 (49.9% D) to make two highly competitive districts as measured by the DRA average, so the plan is 1R - 1D - 2 swing.

()

Here's the enlargement of the Las Vegas area to show CD 1. The VAP ethnic mix is 32.7% White, 13.8% Black, 44.2% Hispanic, 6.8% Asian.

()

Because Sandoval doesn't have any other arguments (despite the obvious, and quite reasonable, one that it takes a fat gerrymander to make a 3-1 map, of course.)

That article sounds like the Dems just jiggled the first and fourth' areas from their original plan around... and switched the numbers 3 and 4. In other words, still a 3-1 gerry.

Court-drawn map released (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/oct/14/court-releases-congressional-district-maps/).

Las Vegas area:

()


Someone on DKE drew it up in DRA and got these numbers:

NV-01: Obama 64.5, McCain 33.0, Dem 64.4, Rep 35.6
NV-02: Obama 49.5, McCain 48.2, Dem 45.3, Rep 54.7
NV-03: Obama 53.6, McCain 44.5, Dem 49.7, Rep 50.3
NV-04: Obama 56.1, McCain 41.7, Dem 54.0, Rep. 46.0

It's unclear how final this map is.

Hehe that's awesome. Outside shot at 3 districts depending on what kind of extremist comes out of the NV-4 primary.

I read the report (http://www.nevadanewsbureau.com/wp-content/uploads/Special-Masters-Report-1-9.pdf), and I don't think the Masters always followed their own descriptions. I like the four general areas they set up, which aren't so different than my post, and they do keep the northern CD-2 down to one split county (Lyon). However, CD-1 doesn't really fit their goals set forth in the report.

Here's the summary of their objectives:

1. Do not irregularly shape districts by arbitrary or non-arbitrary distortion.
2. Do not unnecessarily divide current political subdivisions to the extent practicable.
3. Do not divide groups of common social, economic, cultural, or language to the extent practicable.
4. Draw districts to be as compact and regularly shaped as possible.
5. Avoid creating contests between incumbents.

What I see in CD-1 is a district that is very rectangular, but ignores political boundaries apparently cutting up a number of Vegas suburbs without necessity. The boundary between CD-1 and CD-4 also cuts right through the heart of the Latino community in North Las Vegas. It certainly doesn't look like points 2 and 3 were followed to the extent practicable.

Into Lyon County? Seriously? Anybody got a map of the split?
They seem to have valued compact-look-at-first-glance over all other criteria. (You'd pretty much have to to come up with a map that doesn't have the two-fillings donut, but they went well beyond that.)

I've no idea who the GOP will put up there, but yeah, probably an extremist.  Steven Horsford will be the Democratic candidate there, and will do fine in this district with a 13pt registration advantage.

John Oceguera would pick NV-1, and who knows where Dina Titus will go.  Probably a rematch with Heck, now that his district will have more Democrats than Republicans.

Reality check, Heck's new district improves Republican performance over his previous district.

Overall not bad. If they made the 1st a little less safe Democrat, and the 3rd slightly more competitive, it would have been perfect. But still, Heck can't go crazy in that district, and neither can the Dem who will probablly win in the 4th.

Uh, it is far more likely that map elects 3 Democrats than 3 Republicans. Especially if you want to talk about nominating extremists, something the Nevada Democratic Party isn't exactly known for and the Nevada GOP obviously doesn't mind doing.

Are you aware of the meaning of the phrase "outside shot"? :)

Given that Steven Horsford wants to run in the 4th, I wonder if he tries to engineer changes to this map to move the rural areas into the 3rd.

The Lyon split is very reasonable. There is a natural divide due to a ridge between Yerington and Silver Spring. The state map is on page 15 of this document (http://ccapps.org/districtcourt/11%20OC%2000042%201B-p0001%20-%20p0015.pdf).

I was surprised that they included the other criteria in the form that they did, when the rectangular box for CD-1 clearly took precedence.

My mistake, B.S.  Although, a district Obama theoretically won by 9 points and has a notional GOP registration advantage of 0.6 points is not exactly stable ground for Joe Heck.

How do you propose he does that?

Simply pass a map that tweaks the court master's boundaries.

Under what circumstances would he do that to weaken the 3rd rather than unpack the 1st? Other than in order to help Republicans, of course.

I presume that Sandoval would still have to sign such a map in order to overrule the court master. Now that they have seen the court map they might be more amendable to a bipartisan map, especially as the court map is not great for them.

I'm still not sure how the Democrats felt they would claim 3 districts.

http://nvsos.gov/SOSElectionPages/voter-reg/2008/1108ncd.aspx


Heck's current district, in terms of active voters, is 43% Democrat and 36% Republican

Back in 2008, the only time a Democrat won it, this district was 44% Democrat and and 35% Republican.

And, the new district is 40% D 37% R.  That's an improvement in Republican registration.

Did you forget to read my last reply to you, B.S.?  By making Heck's district fractionally more GOP friendly, do you believe he is now safe or something?

I think safe R is going to be hard to assess. Assume the district was redrawn to put the 74 K people outside of Clark in CD 3 instead CD 4, and then CD 4 wrapped around to get more Ds from CD 3. This version of CD 3 still votes for Obama by 52 - 46, and is only 51.5 R - 48.5 D on the DRA average. 

I'm rather mystified by that post, which I just read.


I think the point is that you claimed that the district worsened for Heck. It didn't.

The existence of that natural divide was the reason why I asked the question. :)

Since I don't see a picture up already, here's the statewide map:

()

Had to be done.

()

1st 71.2% Obama, 47.5% Hispanic (41.2% VAP)
3rd 53.7% Obama, 60.6% White
4th 52.4% Obama, 58.1% White

Boundary of 4th and 2nd matches special masters map.

What are the Presidential results in the Clark portion of the proposed NV-4? I assume this is the vast majority of the CD population. Why is this more Democratic than NV-3? Probably race, but is there any other factor here?

Just compare with my Dem pack just above. Quite a bit of it ends up in the 4th.

my district freed itself from some of the rurals. I'm happy.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/0f6ce3e4-5df2-484c-8bd3-2a8348807065

Tried my hand at a non-partisan NV State Senate map that focuses on COI, compactness, and minroity rights.

I got a 14D-7R breakdown on 2020 Pres numbers (and most other elections) despite the state only being narrowly D. The median seat is Biden + 12 district 3 which is the whiter half of Reno.

I still find it amazing how D leaning Hispanic Las Vegas seats have turnouts of 20-30%, and it's really something Dems must focus on to pull the state their way.

This also partially explains the extreme geography bias in the state; R seats having higher turnout means more votes are wasted in them. If you equalize turnout across all districts on this map adjusted for VAP, you get a Biden + 6 victory. If you do so across precincts you get Biden + 11(!)

In the RGV, the thesis was that low propensity to vote Hispanics are more Pub than high propensity ones, and thus the surge in turnout in the RGV in 2020 also moved the numbers to the Pubs.

That's certainly what I hope happened rather than some kind of backlash. I don't know if the results of the TX-34 special disprove that notion or not though.

Feel like you can't use TX-34 to really prove anything other than RGV is a very unreliable region when it comes to turnout and that a Republican CAN win in the right circumstnaces.

I think what makes Las Vegas different from RGV is several thing:

Firstly these are urban Hispanic's we're talking about; we've yet to see a case outside of Cubans in Florida where the GOP has outright won urban Hispanics.

Secondly, Las Vegas also has large Asian, Black, educated and uneducated white folks as well. A universal swing to the extreme right is very difficult unless Dems are collapsing amongst all these groups whereas in the RGV there's really nothing to cancel out Hispanics shift right.

Also the Northeast corner of Las Vegas is blue enough that significantly higher turnout would more than offset a small shift right, simillar to what we saw in some parts of Harris County in 2020. This is also the region that has the worst turnout overall.

Las Vegas had a big problem with covid restrictions due to the nature of its economy. And of course the workers who were affected the most, who tended to be Hispanic, had a problem with those restrictions. That might explain the trend towards the Republicans in 2020.

The pandemic itself definitely made the 2020 election a little murky when it comes to what we can, or cannot, discern from its results in some parts of the country.