US House Redistricting: Nevada

[krazen1211]

Good, the new map will be harder than the current map for Angle (or other ultra-right Republican) to win, even if the partisan balance isn't any better (or worse). Do the rural counties have to be split up, or is this just what the NV legislators are proposing? I realize a CD with all the rural counties would have to take in Reno, assuming no Clark-to-Reno gerrymander. Also, is Clark outside of Vegas really that conservative? IIRC, there's some unincorporated areas that vote heavily Democratic.

I think you basically have to. Clark County has about 2.9 districts worth of population, which means it has to grab a few of the rural counties, while the Washoe district grabs the rest.

[krazen1211]

Why would sandoval care what dem leaning hispanic groups think?

[krazen1211]

All 2-2 maps are not equivalent. They want districts to elect white liberals, not hispanics.

[krazen1211]

All 2-2 maps are not equivalent. They want districts to elect white liberals, not hispanics.

There aren't enough Hispanics who vote in Nevada to elect a Hispanic consistently even on a maximal pack of the Hispanic vote.

No guarantee, no, but as nj democrats said, population growth will increase that number and give a Hispanic a chance.

In practice minority democrats don't often get elected in white liberal districts. So you know what you're getting in the BTRD plan.

[krazen1211]

Ellison, I presume? Yeah I think he is one of a very small list of minorities that sit in a white liberal district. Contrast that to people like Scott, West, Herrera, Austria, where white conservatives elect minorities.

In practice Hispanic democrats need Hispanics to get elected. I guess the Nevada democrats want them to keep voting dem but also to shut then out.

[krazen1211]

I'm not really going to adopt krazen's framework for defining various categories as white liberals and conservatives and how they behave, but I will say that by this standard, in the 2008 Congressional elections "white conservatives" elected exactly zero African-Americans and zero Hispanics who weren't Cuban-Americans in predominantly Cuban districts. This is at least one fewer than a caucus composed solely of the Democrat he's throwing out as an exception.

Nunes is a cochair of the CHC and of course was elected in 2008. Austria too.

[krazen1211]

we are not racists in the sense that we don't want minority politicians. Someone like Raul Grijalva or John Lewis is indistinguishable from a white liberal in their voting record. The problem are people like Eddie Bernice Johnson or Corrine Brown. Corrine Brown is an idiot who wants the fair redistricting thing passed so she won't lose re-election. She fails to realize that the kochers are using her so all the surrounding districts are republican. In 1991, you had two moderately democrat districts in Dallas. Unfortunately Eddie Bernice Johnson, who was a senator in Austin back then, got selfish and drew a hyper democratic district for herself and got rid of all the good precincts from Martin Frost and John Bryant's districts.

No, I think she understands this quite well and doesn't care. I'm sure both Brown and Johnson looked at reality like I do and realized they're extremely unlikely to beat a white liberal in a primary without stacking the deck in their favor, without being stellar politicians, which they are not.

[krazen1211]

we are not racists in the sense that we don't want minority politicians. Someone like Raul Grijalva or John Lewis is indistinguishable from a white liberal in their voting record. The problem are people like Eddie Bernice Johnson or Corrine Brown. Corrine Brown is an idiot who wants the fair redistricting thing passed so she won't lose re-election. She fails to realize that the kochers are using her so all the surrounding districts are republican. In 1991, you had two moderately democrat districts in Dallas. Unfortunately Eddie Bernice Johnson, who was a senator in Austin back then, got selfish and drew a hyper democratic district for herself and got rid of all the good precincts from Martin Frost and John Bryant's districts.

No, I think she understands this quite well and doesn't care. I'm sure both Brown and Johnson looked at reality like I do and realized they're extremely unlikely to beat a white liberal in a primary without stacking the deck in their favor, without being stellar politicians, which they are not.

This is idiotic. Neither is in remote danger in a primary in a "fair" district from a white liberal. However, Corrine Brown, in particular, would be in danger in a general election in a fair district (although a competent Democrat would not be), while Eddie Bernice Johnson would probably lose to a competent black politician in the primary.

Clearly, you have much more confidence in their electoral prowess than they do. Cleaver too, which is why, if the SSP crowd is correct, he desired his peculiarly shaped district at the expense of Carnahan. You're not paying attention to what these people actually do and say.

But of course, in their own world, they're blacks first and Democrats second, and they aren't willing to gamble with their own money as you are. Keep in mind of course they want to keep the seat safe not only for themselves but their successor blacks as well.

[krazen1211]

Look it's pretty obvious why the Democrats oppose the minority-packed district, because it'd be a Dem pack seat and would leave the other Las Vegas district relatively marginal and only about one or two points more Democratic than Heck's current seat (I've ran the numbers.) If you want to blather about how all white liberals (and Hispanic groups) are terrified of a seat being slightly more likely to elect a Hispanic than an identical-voting white Democrat you can but you aren't proving anything. It might also be taken a bit more seriously if not from someone who argues that only academic results of white students should be taken into account when comparing school districts.

Actually it's pretty clear why the Hispanic groups would oppose the pack too besides partisanship, a decently split Vegas gives them two seats that have a decent chance of electing a Hispanic Democrat vs. one seat that has a chance but no guarantee and one seat with little chance at all. The Nevada Democrats in general obviously care only about electing Democrats, it seems pretty silly that such a Hispanic-represented party in the legislature is supposedly full of people screaming "NO NO NO HISPANIC REP CAN BE ELECTED, WE MUST ELECT ONLY WHITE LIBERALS AND ABSOLUTELY NO ONE ELSE!" with basically no logic behind it. Of course the Democrats proposed a stupid plan that doesn't really accomplish this either, if you want to criticize the party go ahead and do it for that.

Actually, that's not what I said at all. I actually said that people from states like California, DC, and Wisconsin like to compare apples to oranges, and that they do an extremely poor job in educating minority students, both of which are true by the facts. In order to hide this some seek the apples to oranges comparison.

And decent chance my a$$. The new maps have a whopping 19.3% Hispanic VAP in CD-04. How many Hispanic Democratic reps have been elected in the past 200 years from such a seat? You already know the answer....


Truthfully its not even difficult to give Hispanics a plurality in 1 district while leaving the other at over 60% Obama. Simply put Enterprise, Spring Valley, most of North Las Vegas, and the blacks in Vegas itself in 1 district, and the Hispanics in the other.

[krazen1211]

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.

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?

[krazen1211]

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.

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.

[krazen1211]

Actually, that's not what I said at all. I actually said that people from states like California, DC, and Wisconsin like to compare apples to oranges, and that they do an extremely poor job in educating minority students, both of which are true by the facts. In order to hide this some seek the apples to oranges comparison.

Saying "Of course Texas schools perform worse than Wisconsin ones, they have no blacks" is quite different from this.

And decent chance my a$$. The new maps have a whopping 19.3% Hispanic VAP in CD-04. How many Hispanic Democratic reps have been elected in the past 200 years from such a seat? You already know the answer....

Colorado Senate. Also CO-03.

Can you explain why Hispanic groups would oppose this beyond "They're Dem hack groups."? Because while that may be true, that still gives them no motivation to prefer to have whites elected over Hispanics and deliberately support blocking the election of minorities. And of course the fact that white liberals helped nominate Obama is completely ignored...

Truthfully its not even difficult to give Hispanics a plurality in 1 district while leaving the other at over 60% Obama. Simply put Enterprise, Spring Valley, most of North Las Vegas, and the blacks in Vegas itself in 1 district, and the Hispanics in the other.

Uh, you can't pack Hispanics and leave most of North Las Vegas in the other seat because that's where many Hispanics are. You also can't draw such a district without wrapping around the heavily Republican sprawl in the NW part of the LV metro. If it's possible go ahead and prove me wrong by drawing the map.

I have never once heard of a white Democrat complaining about more minorities being added to their district, unless it was part of a blatant GOP power grab (like the DeLay-mander.) I should note most minorities seem to take the same position as white liberals here, one black Texas State Rep supported DeLay's redraw because it would result in a new black rep. His predominately black constituents primaried him out next election.

Why? Because they're Democrats first and Hispanics second, unlike St. Louis Blacks, so they do as they are told. It's only hackish when they constantly flipflop this viewpoint depending on which state you're looking at.

You have to crack minorities to get 3 districts anyway, but not to get 2. Here is my map.




Red is 40.0% VAP Hispanic, and 66% Obama. Blue is 63% Obama. You could increase the Hispanic percentage in Red by splitting both Spring Valley (the corner with Hispanics in it) and Paradise (the southern part with Asians), but I left both intact as best as the app could do.

[krazen1211]

According to Jon Ralston, the Democrats' second map addressed Sandoval's concerns... by putting all the Hispanics into Heck's district.

Looks to be about a 60/60/54% Obama map between the 3 Clark districts. That random tongue into Paradise of course reduces the Hispanic percentage in CD-3.

Of course I think they split every city/town in Clark.

[krazen1211]

Ignoring the useless flamewar going on here... the Nevada Latino Redistricting Coalition has decided to release their own map [pdf], which hilariously puts Joe Heck into a 41% Hispanic district, with a 49-28 Democratic registration advantage.

(Ralston points out that it's shaped like a donkey, appropriately enough.  I'd say it's more of a piñata.)

I can't wait for silly season to be over and we get to see what map we'll actually have for the next ten years.

Splitting Henderson is going to be a no-go, although Heck could probably win a district with that map anyway.

That said, I drew a very similar map above. That should settle the debate as to what the Hispanic community wants, and its not 4 <32% districts

[krazen1211]

And I'm sure you'll be just as vocal about the need for a second minority-majority district in South Carolina, Virginia, and Alabama

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

[krazen1211]

And I'm sure you'll be just as vocal about the need for a second minority-majority district in South Carolina, Virginia, and Alabama

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

Interesting, the shift from using "white conservatives" and "white liberals" to party here. Which term do you think better describes the Democrats who controlled state government in the south for most of the last century?

Depends on the issue I suppose. Democrats in the South obviously supported modern day white liberal hero Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his social engineering in absurd numbers, and of course supported the creation of Medicare in 1965 while men like Goldwater and Reagan were opposed. They exhibited many non-conservative fiscal tendencies to this day;  a lot of the ancestrally Democratic generally poor areas love their pork.

It would certainly be fair to describe them as white conservatives though on many social issues, especially at the state level. And of course, what I said earlier is true; they wanted to elect their own and not blacks. There weren't too many blacks in the House until the 1990 redistricting, and most of those were from the North.

Modern day minority conservatives however are quite different from modern day minority liberals. They have to be. In order to get elected they have to win the support of a majority of whites. Tim Scott of course had to defeat a prominent white conservative in order to get his seat; as did the others.

[krazen1211]

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.

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.

[krazen1211]

Arguing for a less than 50% VAP packed district in Nevada, while opposing one where it will be greater than 50% is extremely inconsistent.  What is consistent is that when a minority-majority packed district benefits Republicans you say that Democrats oppose it b/c they're evil racist liberals (and ignore the fact that they oppose it NOT b/c of race, but b/c the district is part of a pro-Republican gerrymander).  However, when it benefits Democrats, then you say that Republicans shouldn't create more minority-majority districts b/c it won't lead to their strongest map.   

Not at all. The last bit isn't fact at all; I already posted a Nevada map to the contrary that does not involve the racial splitting of  every single municipality that you keep proposing. Admittedly, the Republican proposed map doesn't give the Democrats 2 safe districts, but such a map is obviously possible.

Democrats like the Sherman/Bermans have a history of opposing Hispanic districts specifically because of race, in their own words, not mine. Ultimately they can obviously do what they want to do and pass districts to elect white liberals and not Hispanics; I can merely point out the truth.

Republicans control the trifecta throughout the South because of the policies of the Democratic party. If they want a say they should do what Mr. Sandoval did and win the governor's mansion. Otherwise, nobody cares.

[krazen1211]

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.

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.

[krazen1211]

Arguing for a less than 50% VAP packed district in Nevada, while opposing one where it will be greater than 50% is extremely inconsistent.  What is consistent is that when a minority-majority packed district benefits Republicans you say that Democrats oppose it b/c they're evil racist liberals (and ignore the fact that they oppose it NOT b/c of race, but b/c the district is part of a pro-Republican gerrymander).  However, when it benefits Democrats, then you say that Republicans shouldn't create more minority-majority districts b/c it won't lead to their strongest map.   

Not at all. The last bit isn't fact at all; I already posted a Nevada map to the contrary that does not involve the racial splitting of  every single municipality that you keep proposing. Admittedly, the Republican proposed map doesn't give the Democrats 2 safe districts, but such a map is obviously possible.

Democrats like the Sherman/Bermans have a history of opposing Hispanic districts specifically because of race, in their own words, not mine. Ultimately they can obviously do what they want to do and pass districts to elect white liberals and not Hispanics; I can merely point out the truth.

Republicans control the trifecta throughout the South because of the policies of the Democratic party. If they want a say they should do what Mr. Sandoval did and win the governor's mansion. Otherwise, nobody cares.

So if Republicans wanted to have the DOJ approve their maps in states like Texas, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama, they should have won the Presidency like Obama did b/c otherwise no one cares?

That would have been ideal, certainly, but your baseless hypothetical obviously is not a serious concern.

[krazen1211]

http://www.lvrj.com/news/sandoval-vetoes-democrats-second-redistricting-bill-122914058.html


Sandoval vetoes Democrats' new redistricting bill

CARSON CITY -- For the second time in less than a month, Gov. Brian Sandoval on Tuesday vetoed Assembly Bill 566, the Democrats' proposal for redrawing legislative and congressional district boundaries.




Maybe they can draw Heck a reasonable district now.

[krazen1211]

Why should they? It's not as if it could potentially end up worse than 2-2 if it goes to the court. (Okay, so I suppose it could end up 1-2-1 with the two being D leans... that then fall due to a wave election and/or weakass candidate selection.)

Heck would be an incumbent in 1 of the 2 Dem leans. I think both fall around 54-55% Obama or so.

In any case, gone to court.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/redistricting-appears-dead-in-nevada-legislature-123198738.html

Heller is going to have to win 3 of the 4 districts anyway to win statewide.

[krazen1211]

Heck lives in Henderson, which can't fit anywhere besides the district that'd reach into rural Nevada. There'd be no reason for him to not run in that seat anyway. There's going to be two seats based around inner Las Vegas no matter what, and getting either one to be a swing seat would require some actual gerrymandering. But that's exactly what the Republicans were trying to push through a Dem-controlled legislature.

It's certainly possible to fit the district in with the southern/eastern areas of Clark County (Sunrise Manor, Paradise), while the new district goes from western/northern Clark into the rurals. Both districts end up being somewhat swingy.

I think your outcome is more likely though. At least unless the court wants to draw the 30% Hispanic b*tch districts that the Democrats either rail about or embrace.

[krazen1211]

What is a court likely to do here? There seems to be one natural CD 2 that includes the I80 corridor across the northern third of the state. CD 3 would also seem well defined in southern Clark including Henderson, Enterprise, and Paradise. CD 4 is presumably the central third of the state along US 50 plus northern and western Clark reaching into Las Vegas.

Dealing with the minority population is the wild card here. Do they try to insure a strong Hispanic CD 1 at over 50% of the total population? They could boost it with additional minorities to reduce the white population and insure a likelihood of  minority control of the primary. This would reduce the Dem edge in the other Clark districts as the chance of Hispanic success increases.

Well, the current CD-1 is North Las Vegas, Downtown Las Vegas, Northern Paradise, and some random (Republican) peripheral areas in Northwest Clark County. As long as you don't split up the core of the current CD-1, and instead chop off the peripheral areas, you end up with a reasonably packed CD-1 at somewhere between 65-70% Obama. Not quite as efficient as the GOP map that sliced through municipalities, but close, and much closer to the GOP map than the Dem map.

Then you end up with 2 districts that sum to 55% Obama. Either you put Henderson with the Republican Northwest Clark and the rurals (the 2-2 plan), or you put Henderson wtih Paradise, Spring Valley, and Enterprise (the 1-1-2 plan). Neither option looks bad for the GOP.

[krazen1211]

http://www.lvrj.com/news/hearing-set-on-legality-of-creating-hispanic-congressional-district-126735353.html

A state district court judge on Wednesday said he would hold a Sept. 19 hearing to determine whether Hispanics merit a congressional district with a majority Latino population before ordering a special "masters panel" to draw Nevada's new electoral maps.

Judge James Russell also named three members of the special panel: Alan Glover, the Carson City clerk-recorder; Las Vegas attorney Thomas Sheets and Robert Erickson, a former research director at the Legislative Counsel Bureau who handled past rounds of redistricting in Nevada.





One should mention how Democrats typically whine about Hispanics being 30% bitches, when in fact the Democratic map turns them into a quartet of 30% bitches.