Florida's redistricting was a complete Success in EVERY regard

[Nyvin]

Clinton won 13 districts to Trump's 14,  which almost precisely reflects the statewide vote (as close as you possibly can),  and the old congressional district map had Trump winning 16 districts to Clinton's 11.  

But even taking it a step further,  despite some saying Orlando would elect "two white liberals" due to how the districts were drawn....Val Demings (African American) was elected to FL-10 and Darren Soto (Puerto Rican) was elected to FL-9.

AND to top it all off, FL-9 elected another African American, Al Lawson, with ease.   Which proves that the north-south district was never needed to begin with.

Every single positive outcome that the plaintiff's said would happen did...and every negative outcome the FL Republicans (and some blue avatars here) said would happen ....didn't at all.

How can this possibly not be used in future court rulings to show how much partisan gerrymandering inhibits the free speech of voters?

[Nyvin]

\
How can this possibly not be used in future court rulings to show how much partisan gerrymandering inhibits the free speech of voters?

Because only a tortured reading of "free speech" interprets it as being relevant to the issue of drawing electoral boundaries?  

I'm anti-gerrymandering but I'm also against redefining constitutional terminology for the sake of winning a political argument.

Okay, do you believe Corporations are people and money is speech via Citizens United?   Because that's another national precedent set by the Supreme Court.

[Nyvin]

FL-13 and FL-7 flipped.

That would go along with this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Nyvin]

California and Maryland next please.

California is already fair,  if anything Republicans are over represented currently (going by Hillary's numbers).    A GOP gerrymander isn't "fair" just because it's the most common type of map in the country.

Maryland's map was mostly drawn for incumbent protection,  but if it means fair maps throughout the rest of the country I say the Dems gladly give away that 1 western seat.

[Nyvin]

\
How can this possibly not be used in future court rulings to show how much partisan gerrymandering inhibits the free speech of voters?

Because only a tortured reading of "free speech" interprets it as being relevant to the issue of drawing electoral boundaries?  

I'm anti-gerrymandering but I'm also against redefining constitutional terminology for the sake of winning a political argument.

Okay, do you believe Corporations are people and money is speech via Citizens United?   Because that's another national precedent set by the Supreme Court.

The majority opinion in Citizens United never said corporations are people. The closest it came is probably this quote "Corporations, like individuals, do not have monolithic views." The idea that you reference is better attributed to comments made by Justice Stevens in dissent, though he doesn't exactly say that either - he says that corporate speech should be distinguished from individual speech, "In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant." The statement that money is speech is not from Citizens United other than it quotes from Buckley v Valeo (1976). It amazes me still that this meme continues to flourish.

Of course they don't come out into the open and declare corporations people or money as speech....the entire premise of the ruling relies on corporations having first amendment rights to begin with (which is largely what Steven's dissent is saying).   That's how the corporations are people "meme" is true.

In fact it's become truer than ever nowadays with the Hobby Lobby ruling and other "Corporation's civil rights" arguments ever since.   The Roberts court really goes out of it's way too look out for those poor little guys.  

[Nyvin]

People like to call out odd shaped districts like MD-3, MD-7, IL-4, or IL-7 as partisan gerrymandering...but it really isn't at all, it's usually done either for grouping people together (hispanics and blacks) or just silly incumbent protection districts.   Neither of which really helps the "democrats" as whole in any meaningful way.

I've seen Republicans call out IL-4 more times than I can count, but no matter how you draw that district I completely guarantee you it will still be heavily Democratic.

[Nyvin]

People like to call out odd shaped districts like MD-3, MD-7, IL-4, or IL-7 as partisan gerrymandering...but it really isn't at all, it's usually done either for grouping people together (hispanics and blacks) or just silly incumbent protection districts.   Neither of which really helps the "democrats" as whole in any meaningful way.

I've seen Republicans call out IL-4 more times than I can count, but no matter how you draw that district I completely guarantee you it will still be heavily Democratic.

Correct. IL-4 and 7 are legacies of the 1991 map to accommodate botha Latino and black CD on the west side of Chicago. They could have been drawn differently this cycle and looked less gerrymandered, but the incumbents preferred districts that were substantially the same as they have had for 20 years.  IL-1 and 2 were gerrymandered much further out to accommodate incumbents as well, since 3 black-majority CDs were no longer required under the VRA. The significant Dem gerrymanders were IL-5, 8 and 11 with Pub packs into IL-6 and 14.

I completely disagree that making a dem pack district (in the range of D+37 or so) in southern Chicago would be a fair map, and if IL-6 and IL-14 are GOP pack districts they sure didn't pack them all that good.