US House Redistricting: Nevada

[DrScholl]

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.

[DrScholl]

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.

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.

[DrScholl]

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.

[DrScholl]

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.

[DrScholl]

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.

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.

[DrScholl]

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

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.

[DrScholl]

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.

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.

[DrScholl]

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.

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.