Talk Elections

()

Northern end cropped.

Grey district is new. Lopping all of Horry off CD-1 was my starting point... after that I had to rummage around for white or at least >60% Black areas on the Black side of the current CD1/CD6 divide, but I found enough. All incumbents remain in their seat (if we count Duncan's phony registration address; he actually lives in Greenville.) This kinda forced a three-way split of Columbia:

()

I *think* all white-majority districts should "usually" be safe for Republicans. Race is CD1 69-24, CD2 65-27, CD3 77-18, CD4 70-20, CD5 71-24, CD6 38-58, CD7 66-27. If you know the state better than me (not that hard) and beg to disagree and have an idea how to rectify things, just say so.
Might be possible to draw an alternative map based on a Greenville-Spartanburg split, as the current district is getting quite urban in this iteration. Scott is from Charleston, so removing that end from CD1 is probably not an option. Wilson lives in the western suburbs of Columbia, so, again, yeah.

Wilson will not like splitting up Lexington County.  He'd be vulnerable to a primary challenge if he loses half of his base county.  People here think the GOP will be able to get away with providing for only a single minority-majority district, and they really have nothing to lose by trying.  If they get overruled and have a court-drawn plan with two minority-majority districts, it certainly will be a 5 GOP 2 Dem delegation no matter how it is drawn.

There are a fair number of white liberals in Columbia and Charleston, so I'd make sure the districts that include them have a larger white majority.  CD7 in particular seems like it might be borderline. 

That is actually a really clean looking map. I've drawn something similar myself.

Yeah, I remember that. It was actually part of the reason why I drew South Carolina. And after this, I think I'm fairly confident they'll get through with it. One might try looking what a 2 Black seats map would look like... I have a feeling it would have to be hideous.

As to the Wilson objection (though after his 2010 GE showing, the Assembly just might feel that getting rid of him would be a good thing)... well he didn't lose that much of Lexington. It would be possible to draw the other seats into Aiken instead for an even uglier map. He lost the white areas on the east side of Columbia though... if these were an indispensable part of his primary base then he has a problem. One that's insoluble in *this* setup - might require drawing the grey district all along the state line from Horry to Mulvaney's home in Lancaster, give Wilson a district that stretches north from Columbia, and have the southwestern seat be the open seat?

There are a lot of 2-VRA district maps buried in the Dave's Redistricting App thread the results aren't that bad, especially when people weren't trying to protect Spratt. The African American population is largely in the southeastern 2/3 of the state, so if you make use of Charleston for one district and Columbia for the other and append rural areas, while having R districts running along the NC and GA borders, it works very well.

()

Gives Joe Wilson a seat that will elect a Columbia Republican. As a special bonus, Jeff Duncan gets to choose where he really wants to live as both seats are free of other incumbents.

There was a debate on this last year. I offered a couple of alternatives to create a new black CD.

()


Idea here was to split Spratt's old territory and otherwise maintain the existing map.

CD-1: 73% white, 20% black
CD-2: 66% white, 20% black
CD-3: 76% white, 19% black
CD-4: 69% white, 21% black
CD-5: 67% white, 27% black
CD-6: 38% white, 56% black
CD-7: 67% white, 27% black

For those who want to follow the official process here are the websites for the two subcommittees that will be handling redistricting:

http://redistricting.schouse.gov (http://redistricting.schouse.gov)

http://redistricting.scsenate.gov (http://redistricting.scsenate.gov)

Incidentally, the Senate subcommittee does tell you how to go about making a submission if you want to.  Warning, a file from Dave's Redistricting App will not be sufficient.  You'll need access to GIS software, as they expect an ASCII file that lists for each of the 181,908 census blocks which district it is assigned to.

That would put both Mulvaney and Spratt as well into SC-7.

In an attempt to spread the GOP strength in the northwest, I tried the following:

()

Shoving a tendril from Duncan's district into Columbia (to take a few blacks, plus what I assume would be the most liberal white neighborhoods around USC) allows Clyburn to take more of Charleston's blacks from Scott.  Mulvaney seems like a decent fellow, so I'm guessing he's more amenable to the rest of Columbia's moderate white voters than Joe Wilson is.  Instead of Columbia, Wilson soaks up some blacks downstate.  The grey seat is the open seat, perfect for a Myrtle Beach Republican. 

I think you set up Wilson to lose a primary to Duncan.

That CD-1 looks somewhat marginal. I know though that the Hilton Head Republicans want to get out of Wilson's Lexington based district.

() (http://img705.imageshack.us/i/southcarolinar.png/)


This configuration unfortunately maintains Beaufort in Wilson's Lexington County based district; I'm trying to think of a way around it.

It's not at all difficult to add a second (relatively) compact African American VRA district in South Carolina. The map below has two districts with an outright majority Non-White Hispanic Single-Race African American VAP:

(I apparently can't post images because I don't have 20 posts, but you can look at the map/statistics on Swing State Project)

As a consequence of adding a second African American VRA district, all 5 incumbent Republicans are made very safe. The main beneficiaries of this are Joe Wilson and Mick Mulvaney - the African American %s in their districts decline considerably. Jim Clyburn would probably run in the 6th District, since he lives in Columbia, and the 7th District would almost certainly elect another African American Democrat.

The two African American VRA districts meet a very high legal population % threshold - it is by no means settled that a majority African American VAP is actually legally required, but this map meets even that standard. White Non-Hispanics are only 43% of the total population in each district.

The two African American VRA districts could be made more compact if any or all of the following are true:

1) Hispanic African Americans are allowed to count towards the African American %.
2) Multi-Racial people who are part African American are allowed to count towards the African American %.
3) African Americans only have to be a majority of the total population, rather than the VAP.
4) African Americans only have to be a plurality of the district.
5) All minority groups combined count towards VRA status, and all that is necessary is that the White Non-Hispanic population

I will be surprised if the DOJ or a group like the NAACP does not sue to force a second such district to be created under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act/the Gingles test.

Here's the map Matt was talking about:
()

()

Not the most horrible gerrymander I've ever seen, but one that might leave SC with a 7-0 GOP delegation in an election such as we had in 2010.  Could well stay 6-1 if this map or a similar one were to put Tim Scott into the 7th district.  Far too clever for its own good.

It looks like it might be, but I shoved basically every black precinct in Charleston/North Charleston into Clyburn's district, and there's room to put some liberal white areas in there too.  (I don't know which ones those are, but I have some white downtown Charleston precincts in Clyburn's right now.  Switch them around if they are the wrong ones.)   A significant number of these areas are in CD-01 currently. 

Berkeley and Dorchester have also had their black areas removed, so the remaining parts are pretty hyper GOP.  The only Dem areas left are the Geechees along the coast, and who knows, maybe Tim Scott might appeal to them more than a white Charleston liberal.  

I tried running the numbers on Scott's district in my map.  It's kind of hard because SC lists absentee ballots separately from their precincts, and there are a sizable number of them.  Using a conservative estimate of them, I have Scott's district at 55.22 McCain.  This is probably low since I assumed that absentee ballots ran roughly in the same proportion as each precinct, but they actually go quite a bit more Dem than the in-person ballots.  

So Scott should be quite safe this way, and you could easily make him a point or two safer if you want to soften the grey district a bit.  

Solid.

From what I've read, my map might be problematic because of Kershaw. They don't want Shaheen in the new district, so Kershaw has to go in the 5th, and Georgetown in the 7th.

So your post 11 map is dead on.

The other unresolved question is what happens to Greenville/Spartanburg county. Neither wants to be split, but 1 of them has to be if they remain together, and you can't attach Spartanburg to the 5th unless Gowdy is willing to move.

According to the newly added partisan figures in DRA, my 1st is 58.6 McCain.  The app's numbers are (on average) 2.7% redder than the real numbers due to the lack of absentee ballots, so figure about 56% for the true total.  It should be safe for Tim Scott.  

I'll repost the map:
()

Other numbers for my map, before the absentee adjustment:
CD2 (orange, Joe Wilson): 61.8% McCain
CD3 (purple, Duncan): 62.2%
CD4 (red, Gowdy): 61.6%
CD5 (yellow, Mulvaney): 60.4%
CD6 (teal, Clyburn): 68.4% Obama, 57.2% VAP black
CD7 (grey, open): 59.3% McCain.

So the balance is pretty good; Mulvaney shouldn't mind getting parts of Columbia at all, given that, overall, his district goes from 53% McCain to about 57-58%.  Duncan's district is hurt the most by taking in parts of Columbia but he is still in the reddest district of them all.  

SC maps are out. Basically as predicted.

http://www.thestate.com/2011/05/19/1824510/suggested-horry-anchors-new-congressional.html
http://redistricting.schouse.gov/CongressionalPlanDistrictMaps.html

Both Greenville and Spartanburg were whining about not being split....well, 1 of them had to be. So it was Greenville, as Gowdy is from Spartanburg.

Hopefully the DOJ will push for a second Minority-Majority district.

It'll be up for a challenge I'm sure.  While it takes a horrible gerrymander to do it, it is possible to draw two minority majority districts.

Here is a horrible gerrymander I've worked on, that does provide for two majority-minority districts.  While it can likely be improved on, it does show that it is doable.
()

CD	Pop	Dev	%W All	%B All	%W 18+	%B 18+	%Rep	%Dem
1	661,272	+506	75.5	14.8	78.3	14.6	65.4	34.6
2	661,383	+617	75.9	16.8	78.1	15.9	66.3	33.7
3	660,894	+128	75.5	15.8	78.0	14.8	66.0	34.0
4	661,498	+732	76.6	14.1	78.8	13.6	68.7	31.3
5	660,016	-750	69.2	23.2	71.8	21.9	62.7	37.3
6	660,204	-562	39.9	52.8	42.7	50.9	38.1	61.9
7	660,097	-669	35.8	56.2	38.8	54.1	33.2	66.8

The Democrats actually are somewhat happy with those proposed maps. Nobody seems to be comtemplating such a monstrosity.

Clyburn just released his own 6-1 map.

http://www.redracinghorses.com/diary/472/political-roundup-for-may-18-2011

Clyburn realizes that he's safer with just 1 Maj-Min district. Also, given the heavy gerrymandering required to get 2 Maj-Min districts, getting it will be problematic, nd likely to do more long-term harm for a little short term harm.

How risky is that 1st district for the Republicans?  I'm assuming it is reasonably safe right now but isn't that area trending Dem?

It's about 56% McCain or so, I believe, and should be fine for the decade. A good number of the white liberals should end up in the Clyburn district. The 7th is actually weaker at about 54% McCain, but Horry County is growing faster than the Pee Dee.

Actually, since the state has two black representatives you can make an argument that Blacks aren't actually under-represented under a 6-1 plan.  Its the same reason why Georgia only has 2 Black-Majority districts despite deserving 4--the state has 4 Black Congressmen.

The VRA is about minority voters electing a candidate of their choice, not tailoring districts that will guarantee the election of a minority. SC-1 doesn't qualify under that criteria, even if it is represented by an African-American, but that logic it would had to have been converted to a minority-majority district just because of who was elected to represent it.

Some minor tweaks, and we are off.

http://redistricting.schouse.gov/CongressionalPlan/Sub-Committee%20Approved%20Changes%205-26-2011%20Map.tif

The VRA act was about stopping the "cracking" of minorities so that no minority was elected.

The VRA wasn't about redistricting at all (except by implication). It's all VRA-related case law.

The ACLU has set down a marker announcing they intend to sue.
(link - The State (http://www.thestate.com/2011/06/08/1850381/aclu-sc-could-create-more-minority.html))


In other news, the two redistricting committees met jointly yesterday and approved the plans each had already made.  They should get approved later this month when the General Assembly comes back for a few days to override the Governor's line item vetoes of parts of the budget.

(One year Sanford was so piqued at the GA for always overriding his budget vetoes, he only did one line item veto, but it was of the entire budget. ;D )

What is needed is ugly, but not anywhere near that ugly.

()

Columbia seat 52.4-40.3 Black total, 50.3-43.2 VAP, 62.5 Obama
Charleston seat 52.3-41.0 Black total, 50.3-43.9 VAP, 59.8 Obama - and thus actually the most marginal district in this map, as the southwestern seat is 59.9 McCain. The Blackest of the white seats is the eastern one, at 20.1.

I was just idly wondering... it obviously wouldn't fly in real life... but since our argument here is "SC is over 2/7th Black and thus must draw two Black-opportunity districts if it can also be shown to have the areas necessary to drawing two majority-Black VAP districts to at least arguably represent reasonable communities of interest"... and any two Black districts map will rely on one district of Charleston Blacks plus rural/smalltown Blacks in the state's south-central portion and one of Columbia Blacks plus rural/smalltown Blacks in the state's central portion... wouldn't it actually make far more sense, CoI wise, to draw one wholly rural/smalltown Black seat and one urban Black seat that's in two noncontiguous parts, half in Columbia and half in Charleston? ;D

I admit I was going for maximum minority stuffing.


Not really. The divide between the low country and the rest of the state is far more significant than urban/rural as far as CoI.

Is that why you drew the areas by the Savannah River into the Columbia seat? It makes the map very ugly. Where exactly would you say the Low Country ends?

At its core, the Low Country is the seven counties of Beaufort, Berkeley, Charleston, Colleton, Dorchester, Hampton, and Jasper.  More broadly I'd include the whole coastal plain between the Savannah and Santee Rivers, which adds Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Orangeburg and most of Calhoun.

The Pee Dee region shares some similarity with the Low Country.

However my choice of where to split the 6th and 7th CDs was because of a desire to avoid splitting counties if possible.  If one were willing to accept a split of Orangeburg county, then swapping Allendale, Barnwell, and Bamberg for eastern Orangeburg makes more sense from a CoI and media market POV.

I'm sick of this disgraceful, race based gerrymandering.  That section of the VRA must be stricken.  It's archaic.   The notion that minorities must have their own "majority" seats is inherently biased, racist and segregationist

That's right, Democrats took about 3/7th of the SC vote, so they should by right get about 3/7th of seats. Right? :P

Ah, right, that explains my partisan figures per district. They did seem a bit off...

Just for hilarity's sake, I'll attempt to draw one (correcting for the figures issue, so I'll be content with McCain by less than 5.)

()

Didn't draw the R parts.
Green district is 50.5-48.4 McCain on app figures, which translates to approximately 51.0-47.9 Obama in real life. Yellow district is 49.7-49.1 Obama even in the app. Both are 56% White (total, 59% in VAP) - you'll notice yellow has the white dem bits of Charleston. As an added bonus, the grey district is over 60% Obama (59.8% in the app) and has a barest of Black pluralities, though not in VAP.
Obviously it's possible - probably not particularly hard - to draw four rl Obama districts. Though they wouldn't look as pretty, I reckon.

The point here is: the uglyness of the above two black democratic seats maps is due only to their having to reach an unnaturally high threshold of Black population, thanks to the way Republicans on the SC have interpreted the VRA. Two Black Democratic (defining a white man whose primary and general electorate is Black-dominated as a Black Democrat) representatives from SC would occur naturally on any not gerrymandered map, unless all the White Liberals decide to vote for the Republican over the Black.
(The three seats wouldn't - fptp even with fair districts doesn't provide for fair representation of political minorities unless they're highly concentrated, and my split of Charleston here is quite unnatural.)

A.  Dems didn't get 3/7th of the vote.

B. It doesn't work that way

Kid, I think it's time to leave your laptop and pick up a math book.

http://www.thestate.com/2011/06/15/1859409/house-signs-off-on-plan-to-redraw.html


Dick Harpootlian, chairman of the S.C. Democratic Party, said the party or a group of Democrats will challenge the proposed new maps in court, contending they create too many majority minority districts.


The gist of the lawsuit, he said, would be to encourage the U.S. Justice Department to approve a S.C. plan that moves African-American voters out of majority-black districts to other districts, giving them more sway over who is elected.




LOL, what a bunch of hacks! They say the opposite in so many other states, and for that matter, in the same state for the Congressional map.

ACLU liberals are whining that the Senate map creates too FEW minority districts. Shrug.

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/SC-Dems-call-GOP-district-electoral-apartheid-1424667.php

South Carolina senators with a 33-0 vote gave the Senate's redistricting plan a key second reading with a final vote expected Thursday. That plan includes nine majority black districts instead of the 11 pushed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which also has threatened legal action.

I just spent 45 minutes trying to gerrymander 2.5 Democratic seats in SC  (The result is 2 lean Dem, 2 toss-up, 3 GOP, ftr), but don't know how to post the results. How do I post them?

PS: yes, Dave's Redistricting App, and yes, I've never done this before. The result looks fittingly horrendous :)

3/7 = 42.86%

Obama = 44.90%

2010 Democratic Congressional Candidates = 41.91%

Vincent Sheheen (2010 Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate) = 47.73%

Sure did. More than that. (Okay, so I'm specifically talking of Barack Obama in 2008. Not going to look up the congressional total for each and every year. Especially seeing as the state had 1.5 non-joke contests in both 2008 and 2010.) Of course not. But you know what it was in reference to (though I suppose you weren't being serious in using that as a defence of your own NY gerrymander either.)

Lolwut?

For your reading comprehension:

Obviously this map does not conform to the VRA in any way - if anything, it might be conceivable if the VRA were overturned and Dems had control of redistricting (though they'd make the southern seats more erose to shore them up a bit). And how likely is that, exactly?
The part about refers to a map not posted - a cleaner-looking version of the two black seats map. These would still be Black enough to elect what I called Black Democrats (though not Bobby Rush or Cynthia McKinney, obviously. Oh, and on rereading, my wording was a bit unclear: I meant to include Steve Cohen or even John Barrow with the Black Democrats because they have much the same electoral coalition as Black Democrats. Basically, I was saying the districts would elect a Sanford Bishop / GK Butterfield / Artur Davis type or possibly a John Barrow type.). They wouldn't be over 50% Black VAP is all. The 50% thingy in case law creeps in due to the need to demonstrate to a court that SC (arguably; according to current case law) must draw the two seats. If South Carolina had a commission for these things that was forced to interpret the VRA in good faith, it would draw two such seats.

So they're saying Blacks are overpacked - seems to me like that's exactly what they're saying about the Congressional map in the same state. (Guilty as charged on being a bunch of hacks and saying the opposite in some other states, of course!)

---

And now, for comic relief again. An attempt at a "colorblind" but otherwise "fair" map of South Carolina - something a British boundary commission might have come up with (except with very little leeway for deviation, as common in US congressional districts. Maximum deviation here is 177). And like a British boundary commission's map, this is a first draft - details would be likely to change after a hearing with people on the ground.

()

Charleston (blue) Charleston, Berkeley and Dorchester Counties - the three counties to be partly in the Charleston built-up area - are barely too large for one constituency. Using a uniform correction, McCain barely edged Obama here. However, as it's almost exactly made from three counties, we can just use the actual figures, and the lead was 1.odd% in real life. Guess the gap between absentee and in-person votes was smaller in Charleston than elsewhere in the state.

South Carolina South West (green) takes in the remainder of the low country and some adjoining country to the north. Uniform correction makes this McCain by 2.3 or so.

Pee Dee (purple) Based on Horry, with its (blacker and less Republican) hinterland. McCain by 5 or so.

Columbia (red) Richland and Lexington are too small for one district, but not by much. Obama by 3 or so.

Rock Hill & South Carolina North East (yellow) Bit unfortunate design, but not much choice (see also next para.) McCain by 4 or so.

Spartanburg & Greenville South (cyan) Doesn't actually take in any part of Greenville proper (if precinct names can be trusted). Still, had to split the Greenville metro. The alternatives like drawing a donut around Greenville County or a donut around just the urban cores of Greenville and Spartanburg or including Anderson in the green district and anything at all removed from the Savannah in other districts are all worse. Very safe Republican (almost 60% McCain).

Greenville North & Anderson (grey) Even safer - 64.odd% McCain.

Now... the issue with this map (which I drew without looking at the race or election figures) is... every seat is at least 56% White. That's because the semi-solid belt of rural Black settlement is split between four constituencies. Which obviously doesn't fly if race is any consideration at all - nvm the only specially legally protected consideration as in the US right now.
Oh, and instead of a 5-2 map, I came out with more of a 3-0-4 map. Lol.

And, I worked it out for myself:


()
SC as a whole, bear in mind that the underlying assumption is that the app has a structural GOP bias of about 2,5% , as someone said in this very thread. It's entirely possible that I'm mistaken, in whcih case this map won't be too sweet for the Dems.

CD1: McCain 50,5 - Obama 48,0 TOSS-UP
CD2: McCain 43,7 - Obama 55,3 LEAN/SOLID Dem
CD3: McCain 70,6 - Obama 27,7 SOLID Rep
CD4: McCain 67,9 - Obama 30,8 SOLID Rep
CD5: McCain 48,8 - Obama 50,0 T0SS-UP/ LEAN Dem
CD6: McCain 50,3 - Obama 48,6 TOSS-UP
CD7: McCain 61,1 - Obama 37,6 SOLID GOP

Again, if there should turn out to be no structural GOP-advantage due to something with absentee ballots/abstention/..., this map wouldn't be too hot. That said, i have to say that what started as an attempt at a Dem Gerrymander, actually finished as quite a fair map. In a good year the Dems can win 4 seats, in a bad year none at all.

Oh, and a zoom-in of the North Chareston area, which is quite badly mangled, I'm afraid.
()

And, while the map may look horrible, all seats are geographicaly consistent; Anyone could go anywhere in their district without having to leave it.

You can easily test that claim with the app (just look at the blank map, click on unassigned and let it show you the election stats). I did. :)

You do realize the reasons those laws exist is because in the districts were previously drawn to race bait gerrymander and dilute minority votes as much as possible right??

Think of how Austin is being split into five districts to limit the voting power of Austin liberals as much as possible, well that is exactly how it use to be with areas that had large minority populations.  Split them up as much as possible to dilute any possible voting power they have.

2010 Democrat House candidates got 40.09%

537,323 out of 1,340,189 = 40.09%

http://www.enr-scvotes.org/SC/19077/40477/en/summary.html

I assumed you referred to the congressional number. If you're talking about '08 Obama, yes he got 44.9% or whatever.    Under that logic, 36% of the Massachusetts vote went to McCain.  Where are our 3 house seats from Massachusetts?

()

Here's a version of the last map where race was taken into account as one of many factors. Max deviation 366. Purple district is majority Black, plurality Black VAP. Getting it to majority Black VAP requires really ugly stuff on the eastern edge and/or entering the Charleston or Columbia built-up areas.

()

Politically speaking it's 4-1-2, with the Charleston (& points west) marginally Republican and the Columbia seat marginally Democratic.

And because I was unhappy with Kershaw County in that one...

()

Aiken town has been racially split. Still doesn't take purple over 50% Black VAP. Maximum Deviation has been gotten down to 97, though.

As much as I admire what you've done to Joe Wilson, neither plan would never pass the General assembly because of that.

Congressional redistricting debate splinters Senate

(link - The State (http://www.thestate.com/2011/06/24/1871645/congressional-redistricting-debate.html))


As mentioned later in the article, the GOP will do its best to find a plan to agree to so as to avoid having a three-judge Federal panel draw the lines and possibly giving the Democrats the chance to elect a second Representative.

The Senate will resume debate on redistricting on Monday.

I wonder if part of the public fight stems from a private recognition that any 6-1 plan will be vulnerable to a challenge. Black statewide VAP is 26.3%, which is equivalent to 1.84 congressional districts. The standard is "rough proportionality", but there's no clear guidance as to whether 1 district is roughly proportional to 1.84. Perhaps the lawyers internally are suggesting that it would be unlikely to be viewed that way.

It would be bad politically to have the SC GOP appear to give away their new seat to the Dems. If there is no agreement and federal judges give that seat away, then perhaps the political blame is on the judges, not the SC Senate.

Doubtful.  Clyburn had already given the SC GOP the political cover they needed to pass a 6-1 plan which would as a side effect ensure he has a super-safe district to run in for the next decade.  To the degree that politics rather than regional pride is involved, it is more likely due to internal GOP differences than VRA worries.  The upstate is a bastion of social conservatives while the midlands and coast is more fiscal conservative/libertarian in nature. If the new 7th district contains Horry County then it will be significantly less socially conservative than it would be if it did not.  In other words, without Horry the 7th would be likely to elect someone like DeMint and with Horry it would be likely to elect someone like Graham.

I'm pretty sure the Constitution says nothing of dividing congressional districts according to race.  Enough said.

The 15th Amendment to the Constitution bars voting discrimination on account of race and gives Congress the power to enact laws to enforce the amendment. It gave Congress broad power as part of the Reconstruction Acts. In some ways the Reconstruction Amendments were among the broadest grants of power to Congress within the Constitution.

Drawing districts very much affects the power of an individual's vote; the art of gerrymandering is to minimize the potency of your opponents' votes while maximizing your sides' potency at the ballot. So discrimination in redistricting is akin to discrimination in voting. In 1965 the Voting Rights Act became law, and was promptly challenged in court. SCOTUS ruled that the VRA was a proper exercise of the power granted by the 15th Amendment.

So, I would conclude that the Constitution specifically granted Congress the power to require race as a factor in drawing districts.

I drew a plan that might result if the process is handled by a special master assigned by the court should there be no agreement. I take as assumptions that the court directs that 2 districts be drawn with majority black VAP, and that the cores of the 5 white-majority districts be maintained when possible. In this map all districts are within 100 of the ideal population and CD 6 and 7 are 50.2% and 50.1% black VAP respectively.

()

Substitute "Hispanic" for "Black," and "California" for "South Carolina" and you have about 20 "Hispanic" VRA districts. Good Luck drawing that many seats. The reality is that Hispanics are fairly dispersed in California, and Blacks are fairly dispersed in the South, including South Carolina.

Strict proportionality would provide 17.54 districts in CA based on 33.1% Hispanic VAP. Last year I posted a CA map (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=97085.780) that met that standard with 18 Hispanic-majority districts. However, as has been noted in the IL thread, a 50% VAP generally will not be sufficient for Hispanics to elect a candidate of choice. If one uses a 60% standard, then one would roughly expect 5/6 the number of districts, or 14.6 districts out of 53. That same map has 15 districts meeting that threshold.

I would conclude that the minority populations are not so dispersed as to prevent reasonable districts from being drawn.

Ooh, pretty good. That's a map you could take the state to court with.

:)

Senate passes surprise plan
Beaufort would anchor new congressional district

The State (http://www.thestate.com/2011/06/29/1878351/senate-passes-surprise-plan.html)

It's so hard to imagine these goings on in SC. It is inconceivable to think that a split among Dems in IL would result in a rogue group banding with the GOP to pass an alternate plan.

Then again, maybe I should be prepared to submit my credentials to the federal court in SC. ;)

We saw the same in Louisiana. Regional morons; in the end they will fall in line.

I can believe it.  A couple decades we had a similar squabble over reapportioning the General Assembly. The then minority Republicans and Black Democrats worked together to pass a plans that created more GOP districts and more Black majority districts. It worked, but with a couple of white Democrats who switched parties, the Republicans took control of the Assembly and have never relinquished it since. Ooops!

I don't think any three-judge panel plan is likely to create two safe Democratic seats, maybe one safe Dem and one lean Dem seat, but as I posted earlier, for most Republicans, this is about which Republican will be elected from the 7th district, especially since the area the 7th covers will determine who can run and what type of Republican will be likely to win. I haven't checked, but I'm willing to bet that some Republican State Senator from Beaufort County is hoping to run for Congress in 2012.

It still strikes me as quite dangerous, since I don't think the state GOP could seriously rule out a judicial requirement to create two black-majority districts. This could be a costly gamble at the national level.

The way population trends are going right now, a plan with two minority-barely majority districts could end up being a 7-0 GOP plan by the end of the decade.  Why do you think Clyburn hasn't been pushing for minority majority districts?

General Assembly has set July 26th as the date they'll come back for a special session and try to finish up redistricting.

Did he use diagonal lines across whole pages, or go line by line?

in the spirit of compromise between Horry and Beaufort, a map that will make them happy and anger the department of Justice

()()

()
()

SC1: 69.5W/22B, 61/38 McCain (was 57/42 McCain)
SC2: 69W/23B, 61/37 McCain (was 54/45 McCain)
SC3: 75.5W/18B, 66/32 McCain (was 64/35 McCain)
SC4: 70W/19B, 63/35.5 McCain (was 60/38 McCain)
SC5: 68W/24B, 59/39 McCain (was 53/46 McCain)
SC6: 30W/62B, 73/26 Obama (was 64/35 Obama)
SC7: 66W/24B, 57/42 McCain

Trying to outdo the hideous visual of Eastern NC in the 2002-2010 map? ;)

You've angered the county that must not be named, for it is very Republican and very large, by splitting it.

another quasi-legal map.. putting the 7 largest counties in separate districts

()
()

SC1: 75W/14.5B, 66/32.5 McCain, 67/33 Rep
SC2: 39W/54B, 65/34 Obama, 65/35 Dem
SC3: 64W/27B, 53/45 McCain, 56.5/43.5 Rep
SC4: 71W/21B, 61/38 McCain, 63/37 Rep
SC5: 66W/27B, 59/40 McCain, 60/39 Rep
SC6: 65W/25B, 61/38 McCain, 62/38 Rep
SC7: 68W/26B, 62/37 McCain, 62/38 Rep

Other than I'd split Anderson instead of Laurens and try to get at least one of Chesterfield, Cherokee, Fairfield, or Newberry counties be whole, and straighten out the Wilson/Clyburn district line that looks like a doable 1 MM district map.

Senate, as I predicted, just fell in line behind the house plan that creates a 6-1 majority.

http://www.thestate.com/2011/07/26/1912392/senate-oks-pee-dee-horry-congressional.html

Not quite, as they did have to tweak the House plan to get it passed, but it does add a Horry-centric 7th district.

Here's link to the amended plan the House passed this morning:

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/php/amendments.php?KEY=22629

If anyone is interested in figuring out what they changed or drawing up the final version, I'll gladly let them have that pleasure.  I'm interested, but not enough to do the work myself.

You have a map?

http://www.gtowntimes.com/local/House-and-Senate-reach-compromise-on-redistricting--Georgetown-in-7th-District2011-07-27T04-30-31

At least we won't have to worry about a useless third round of Rob Miller v. Joe Wilson, since Rob now lives in the 1st District.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/DOJ-Approves-New-South-Carolina-Map-209888-1.html

Precleared.

Based on this:

I've been working on South Carolina redistricting. It has a competitive 1st district.
()

Opinions? Thoughts?