Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 20, 2014, 03:34:43 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
| | |-+  US House Redistricting: Nevada
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Print
Author Topic: US House Redistricting: Nevada  (Read 11925 times)
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26851
United States


View Profile
« Reply #150 on: October 06, 2011, 08:53:01 pm »
Ignore

But in its order, the Supreme Court called into question whether the governor has the power to veto the redistricting maps, setting up the possibility that the maps drawn by the Democrats could become law.

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).

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.
Logged

jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5523
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #151 on: October 07, 2011, 12:07:28 am »
Ignore

But in its order, the Supreme Court called into question whether the governor has the power to veto the redistricting maps, setting up the possibility that the maps drawn by the Democrats could become law.

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).

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.
Logged
I am stabbed by grace and slinging blood
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 70953
Sweden


View Profile
« Reply #152 on: October 07, 2011, 01:19:56 am »
Ignore

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

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.

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

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.

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.
Logged

Famous True Leftists:

BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2259
View Profile
« Reply #153 on: October 07, 2011, 10:07:41 am »
Ignore

But in its order, the Supreme Court called into question whether the governor has the power to veto the redistricting maps, setting up the possibility that the maps drawn by the Democrats could become law.

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).

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.

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

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5523
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #154 on: October 07, 2011, 01:15:33 pm »
Ignore

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.

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.
Logged
farewell
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58527
India


View Profile
« Reply #155 on: October 08, 2011, 04:55:32 am »
Ignore

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

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.

Wow 3 D seats and 1 swing seat? That's pretty bold.
Not really. That's 3 districts on the brink of lean Dem and safe Dem, and 1 safe Rep.
Logged

I may conceivably reconsider.

Knowing me it's more likely than not.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2259
View Profile
« Reply #156 on: October 08, 2011, 10:50:42 am »
Ignore

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

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.

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

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
farewell
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58527
India


View Profile
« Reply #157 on: October 08, 2011, 01:01:15 pm »
Ignore

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

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.

Wow 3 D seats and 1 swing seat? That's pretty bold.
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
Well, we both know what happened to that argument. Though no advertising in Vegas obviously didn't help either.
Quote
and, would be even more so after redistricting.
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.
Quote
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?
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.
Logged

I may conceivably reconsider.

Knowing me it's more likely than not.
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2259
View Profile
« Reply #158 on: October 08, 2011, 11:36:04 pm »
Ignore

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

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.

Wow 3 D seats and 1 swing seat? That's pretty bold.
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
Well, we both know what happened to that argument. Though no advertising in Vegas obviously didn't help either.
Quote
and, would be even more so after redistricting.
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.
Quote
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?
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.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
farewell
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58527
India


View Profile
« Reply #159 on: October 09, 2011, 03:47:49 am »
Ignore

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:

Logged

I may conceivably reconsider.

Knowing me it's more likely than not.
Gravis Marketing
brittain33
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12610


View Profile
« Reply #160 on: October 11, 2011, 05:10:54 pm »
Ignore

Feeble Democratic hopes crushed by victorious Republican hammer of righteousness.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/oct/11/democrats-present-redistricting-plan/
Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8097


View Profile
« Reply #161 on: October 12, 2011, 07:44:50 am »

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.



« Last Edit: October 13, 2011, 11:52:56 am by muon2 »Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
farewell
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58527
India


View Profile
« Reply #162 on: October 12, 2011, 09:42:43 am »
Ignore

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.
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.)

Logged

I may conceivably reconsider.

Knowing me it's more likely than not.
farewell
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58527
India


View Profile
« Reply #163 on: October 12, 2011, 09:46:03 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

I may conceivably reconsider.

Knowing me it's more likely than not.
JohnnyLongtorso
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6843


View Profile
« Reply #164 on: October 14, 2011, 08:49:45 pm »
Ignore

Court-drawn map released.

Las Vegas area:



Quote
The 1st Congressional District would cover urban Las Vegas. It would include 52 percent Democrats and 25 percent Republicans. It would have the highest percentage of Hispanics of any Nevada district, at 42.8 percent.

The 2nd Congressional District would cover Washoe County and Northern Nevada. That seat, held by Republican Mark Amodei, R-Carson City, would be 35 percent Democratic and 42 percent Republican.

The 3rd Congressional District, which is held by Heck, a Republican, would cover most of Southern Clark County and would be 40 percent Democratic and 37 percent Republican.

The 4th Congressional District would include the northern parts of Clark County, most of North Las Vegas and White Pine, Minderal, Esmerelda, Nye, Lincoln and part of Lyon County. It would have 46 percent Democrats and 33 percent Republicans.

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.
Logged
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5667


View Profile
« Reply #165 on: October 14, 2011, 09:46:28 pm »
Ignore

Hehe that's awesome. Outside shot at 3 districts depending on what kind of extremist comes out of the NV-4 primary.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2011, 09:52:44 pm by krazen1211 »Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8097


View Profile
« Reply #166 on: October 14, 2011, 11:54:43 pm »

Court-drawn map released.

Las Vegas area:



Quote
The 1st Congressional District would cover urban Las Vegas. It would include 52 percent Democrats and 25 percent Republicans. It would have the highest percentage of Hispanics of any Nevada district, at 42.8 percent.

The 2nd Congressional District would cover Washoe County and Northern Nevada. That seat, held by Republican Mark Amodei, R-Carson City, would be 35 percent Democratic and 42 percent Republican.

The 3rd Congressional District, which is held by Heck, a Republican, would cover most of Southern Clark County and would be 40 percent Democratic and 37 percent Republican.

The 4th Congressional District would include the northern parts of Clark County, most of North Las Vegas and White Pine, Minderal, Esmerelda, Nye, Lincoln and part of Lyon County. It would have 46 percent Democrats and 33 percent Republicans.

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.

I read the report, 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.
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
farewell
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58527
India


View Profile
« Reply #167 on: October 15, 2011, 03:39:26 am »
Ignore

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.)
Logged

I may conceivably reconsider.

Knowing me it's more likely than not.
Joe Republic
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29570
United States


View Profile
« Reply #168 on: October 15, 2011, 03:42:18 am »
Ignore

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

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.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2011, 04:05:15 am by Joe Republic »Logged
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2259
View Profile
« Reply #169 on: October 15, 2011, 09:55:37 am »
Ignore

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

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.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13225


View Profile
« Reply #170 on: October 15, 2011, 10:32:49 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged
I am stabbed by grace and slinging blood
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 70953
Sweden


View Profile
« Reply #171 on: October 15, 2011, 11:12:47 am »
Ignore

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

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.
Logged

Famous True Leftists:

farewell
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58527
India


View Profile
« Reply #172 on: October 15, 2011, 11:14:26 am »
Ignore

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

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"? Smiley
Logged

I may conceivably reconsider.

Knowing me it's more likely than not.
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5667


View Profile
« Reply #173 on: October 15, 2011, 11:38:43 am »
Ignore

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.

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.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8097


View Profile
« Reply #174 on: October 15, 2011, 11:46:01 am »

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.)

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.

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.
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines