FL: Rereredistricting

[muon2]

Is there a link to the opinion?

Found it on the FL megathread.

[muon2]

It looks like wholesale changes in the northern and central districts will be difficult to avoid given the directed changes to FL-5, 13 and 14. FL-3 will get pushed well to the east probably picking up Putnam and most of Marion counties as FL-2 will have to come to the doorstep of Gainesville as it gives up most of Leon and other counties on the GA border. FL-4 may have to chop into FL-6 depending on how FL-3 is configured. The effects of FL-3 and 4 on FL-6 could then push it to take up Deltona from FL-7.

Here's how the north might look under that scenario.

[muon2]

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

[muon2]

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

What is FL-09's political composition?

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

[muon2]

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

What is FL-09's political composition?

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

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

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

[muon2]

The opinion requires changes for 5 CDs in south FL, but it looks like one could accommodate all of the required changes without changing the political leanings of any of the CDs.

The Court recommends, but does not require a different split of FL-21 and 22. Even going with the revised split, FL-22 is still a competitive D+3 or 4 CD as it is in the current configuration. FL-25 has to pick up all of Hendry, but shifting some population with FL-23 keeps all the districts largely the same. FL-26 and 27 must not split Homestead, but with shifts across US-1 to keep more communities whole, the result is that both CDs keep the same R+1 or 2 lean.

In this plan I made the required adjustments without respect to the political leanings, but they still were essentially unchanged. FL-20 is 47.1% BVAP, FL-24 is 50.8% BVAP, and FL 25,26, 27 are all between 69% and 74% HVAP.

[muon2]

It looks like wholesale changes in the northern and central districts will be difficult to avoid given the directed changes to FL-5, 13 and 14. FL-3 will get pushed well to the east probably picking up Putnam and most of Marion counties as FL-2 will have to come to the doorstep of Gainesville as it gives up most of Leon and other counties on the GA border. FL-4 may have to chop into FL-6 depending on how FL-3 is configured. The effects of FL-3 and 4 on FL-6 could then push it to take up Deltona from FL-7.

Here's how the north might look under that scenario.

What would be the political breakdown of that new FL-3? I know the FL Rs have long attempted to split or otherwise minimize the influence of Gainesville and even smaller towns like Palatka - does one that largely contains both have any potential for a Dem pickup?

I think the Pubs worry too much about population centers like that. Even with Gainsville, Ocala, and Palatka that is still a R+8 district. So even if the Pubs are worried about a Graham, that FL-3 is 2 points more Pub than the current FL-2.

It's the same crazy fear that got them into to trouble in S. FL in the current suit. As my map shows they didn't have to expose themselves to the charge of political gerrymandering there and still have the same result. Yet by trying to squeeze out every last advantage it made the record clear to the FL SC and helped lead them to rule against more than just FL-5.

[muon2]

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

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

[muon2]

So in the end, are FL democrats going to pick up new seats?

That's a politics question, not a redistricting one. The answer is "yes, probably, but it's the Florida Democratic Party we're talking about so maybe not."

It's hard to see a compliant plan that doesn't at least give the Dems a seat for Orlando. St Pete is going to be a potential seat for the Dems to pick up as well. Beyond that, probably not much.


In the other direction FL-2 will become hard R due to the rearrangement of FL-5.

[muon2]

FL-13 (FL-14 by extension) was always the district that bothered me the most in Florida. It was a blatant partisan gerrymander and an obvious violation of the Florida Constitution. Alex Sink would've easily won the special election for a FL-13 that included all of St. Petersburg. There's absolutely no reason why there shouldn't be separate Tampa and St. Petersburg districts, as I've noted and made maps of in the past. Is there any reason you chose not to have FL-15 take the (non-FL-12/FL-14) remainder of Hillsborough County to avoid an addition county split?

This plan was based on minimal changes to comply with the court. I didn't change the FL-15/17 split much at all. There are certainly variations that make greater changes in Hillsborough and Polk, but I don't know if the legislature will have a taste for that, though it may come into play for political reasons.

[muon2]

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

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

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

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[muon2]

The FL Constitution lays out its principles for redistricting in two tiers. There is no precedence within a tier, but tier 1 principles are superior to tier 2 principles.

Tier 1
Plan and districts shall not be drawn with political intent
Districts shall provide for minorities to elect their candidates of choice
Districts shall be contiguous

Tier 2
Districts shall be as nearly equal in population as practicable
Districts shall be compact
Districts shall use existing political and geographic boundaries

The FL SC found that both parties in the suit had a plan that included a FL-5 district designed to meet the tier 1 principle for minority representation, and then decided between the two based on tier 1 political intent and tier 2 compactness and political boundaries. They didn't consider a plan with compact districts but no minority district since none were part of the case. I read that as saying that a  minority district able to elect a candidate of choice need not meet the best application of tier 2. It doesn't say whether a minority district FL-5 would be required in the face of a pure tier 2 plan.

[muon2]

Here are the political and demographic breakdowns for all of my versions of the new CDs. Since I used DRA there are only 2008 pres votes and no independent candidates. The PVI is calculated as the Obama% minus 53.7% and rounded to a whole number (negative numbers are R+). Demographics show VAP populations over 20%).

FL-1: R+21 (W 77.6%)
FL-2: R+20 (W 78.4%)
FL-3: R+8 (W 73.8%)
FL-4: R+19 (W 76.6%)
FL-5: D+11 (W 49.2%, B 41.0%)
FL-6: R+3 (W 79.8%)
FL-7: R+5 (W 69.7%)
FL-8: R+9 (W 80.4%)
FL-9: D+1 (W 54.0%, H 29.0%)
FL-10: D+12 (W 40.9%, B 23.2%, H 29.1%)
FL-11: R+10 (W 83.1%)
FL-12: R+6 (W 84.8%)
FL-13: D+3 (W 77.8%)
FL-14: D+7 (W 50.1%, H 27.2%)
FL-15: R+8 (W 69.2%)
FL-16: R+5 (W 83.5%)
FL-17: R+10 (W 75.1%)
FL-18: R+2 (W 74.6%)
FL-19: R+11 (W 77.2%)
FL-20: D+28 (W 29.9%, B 47.1%)
FL-21: D+10 (W 66.7%)
FL-22: D+4 (W 69.5%)
FL-23: D+8 (W 48.9%, H 37.0%)
FL-24: D+33 (B 50.8%, H 33.6%)
FL-25: R+9 (W 21.2%, H 70.8%)
FL-26: R+4 (H 69.6%)
FL-27: R+4 (H 73.6%)

[muon2]

is it possible to get the Corrine seat compliant by just going Jacksonville to Tallahassee? or could they have to go into Gainesville to scoop some extra people?

The Court specifically references the LWV proposed district, which does not include any of Gainesville, as an appropriate alternative solution for the district.

Can you really get a majority African American district with just Tallahassee and Jacksonville though?   I tried on DRA and I couldn't get past 46%,  I know the numbers have probably changed since then but it seems really hard to get 50% African American without Gainesville.   I know Corrinne Brown will go nuts if it isn't.  

The court opinion specifically said that the district does not need 50% BVAP if it can otherwise elect the candidate of choice of the black minority. The was testimony that 60+% BVAP of the primary and 60+% D in the general would be sufficient.

[muon2]

That peninsula into Ocala will not pass the FL constitution. The wrap of FL-10 around FL-5 and the FL-5 finger into Sanford in the RL map have been cited by the court as failing tier-2 requirements. Can you justify it?

[muon2]

Torie, What happens to Indian River county in your plan? Doesn't that create a chain reaction to the south or cause other linkage changes to the west?


I think this would be an easier sell to the FLSC. There is minimal impact to the districts of So FL. It reduces chops in Polk and Hillsborough and the chop in Osceola is exactly the city of Poinciana. The whole county area that includes my FL 7,8,9,10 less Poinciana is 1205 people over population. Under the FL constitutional tiers (population equality and political boundaries are of equal importance) and SCOTUS WV decision that should be an acceptable population deviation.



BTW
CD 7 is R+5
CD 10 is R+4

[muon2]

Torie, What happens to Indian River county in your plan? Doesn't that create a chain reaction to the south or cause other linkage changes to the west?


I think this would be an easier sell to the FLSC. There is minimal impact to the districts of So FL. It reduces chops in Polk and Hillsborough and the chop in Osceola is exactly the city of Poinciana. The whole county area that includes my FL 7,8,9,10 less Poinciana is 1205 people over population. Under the FL constitutional tiers (population equality and political boundaries are of equal importance) and SCOTUS WV decision that should be an acceptable population deviation.



BTW
CD 7 is R+5
CD 10 is R+4

Look at the Wasserman map. It seemed to not have any problems that popped out at me down south. Yes, it may have made some changes, but that should not necessarily be a deal killer, if it makes for a better map overall, based on chops and erosity. I think a quad chop of Orange should be avoided if possible.

Florida law requires precise population equality if I recall correctly, so forget WV.

Florida law uses the exact language that SCOUTS used "equal as nearly practicable". The FLSC made a point of citing decisions since 2011 such as the one for Section 4, and noted that the map should comport with current SCOTUS decisions. Tier two specifically puts population equality on an equal footing as maintaining political boundaries, so I do think that unequal districts would be acceptable if applied as part of the tier two standards. Tell me if you read the FL decision differently.

I'm not sure I wouldn't challenge Wasserman's plan on the basis of partisan intent. FLSC made it abundantly clear that if there was any sign of partisan intent, then it would give no deference to the legislative plan. I read that as a warning that it would draw it's own plan if the GA didn't play nice.

[muon2]

It's quite obvious there is partisan intent if you split up the hispanic majority-minority currently in FL-9 and make it a African American and Hispanic mixed district like both of yours are.    I don't see how the FLSC could possibly look past that.    

There isn't much reason to change FL-9 beyond just creating a different vote sink for the Democrats,  FL-10 can easily take up the absence of FL-5 in Orange.

That is the 64,000,000 dollar question of course, as I just posted above. The minority packing is of a contiguous area, makes for a compact CD, and it the only way to elect a minority, although that would not be guaranteed, but if Hispanics are willing to vote for a black to some extent in a Dem primary, or blacks an Hispanic to some extent, it will happen. Having two Dem CD's means electing two white liberals, and shutting out a minority congressperson.  What percentage of Hispanics in Orlando are black, and what percent of the Dem primary voters in a minority packed CD will be black? And can one use updated census figures for this evidentiary exercise, is another important question. And again, what is the downside to the Pubs of at least trying to go there, rather than throwing in the towel?

In my initial offering I put FL-10 into Orlando and made minimal changes to FL-9 to both comply with the FL Constitution's requirement to provide minority opportunity districts and avoid partisan intent - the tier 1 requirements. Language from FL suggests that this goes beyond the required VRA districts, and follows the option made available in Bartlett v Strickland. I don't think estimated data can be considered so the only whole state data set is from 2010.

[muon2]

Torie, it looks like you have chosen to ignore the court's recommendation regarding FL-21 and 22.
It's easy to remove the excess chop, so is there a reason you opted against that?

[muon2]

It looks like the Senate map has eliminated one county chop compared to the House plan.

[muon2]

Rep. Jose Oliva has proposed an amendment to move 11 further into Lake, with 9 & 17 pushed further into Polk, and the three-district split of Hillsborough (and, consequently, the two-district split of Sarasota) being restored.

I assume you mean 4-district split of Hillsborough and you just left off the piece of FL-12. With that split, it still looks like the Senate map has fewer county chops in central FL.

Chop count (add one in each county to get the number of fragments instead of chops)
House-12: Pinellas-1, Sarasota-1, Hillsborough-3, Polk-2, Lake-2, Orange-3.
Senate-11: Pinellas-1, Manatee-1, Hillsborough-2, Polk-2, Lake-2, Orange-3.

[muon2]

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

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

[muon2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It splits more county lines too though.

Technically county chops aren't as relevant as we typically use them on this board. The FL amendment just specifies as a tier 2 requirement that districts shall use political and geographic boundaries. To me that means a county chop that otherwise follows a river or highway is still using an appropriate boundary. Similarly a plan that follows municipal lines is as good as one that follows county lines.

[muon2]

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

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

[muon2]

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