US House Redistricting: Nevada

[BigSkyBob]

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.

Again, it will probably go to court, and, at this time, we don't know what will happen in court. The courts may very well choose to create a minority influence seat arouond Las Vegas.

[BigSkyBob]

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.

Again, it will probably go to court, and, at this time, we don't know what will happen in court. The courts may very well choose to create a minority influence seat around Las Vegas.

That doesn't even really hurt the Democrats though.  Aside from North Vegas, most of the LV area is lean Dem.  Even Drawing a Hispanic plurality district would leave plenty of Democrats left to keep at least one other seat safe.

That would be two-two, which is less than what the Democrats are targeting.

[BigSkyBob]

Krazen listen to me. Your assumption that white democrats don't want minorities put in their district isn't true. Do you by chance know of Bob Filner, Gene Green, or Steve Cohen? They all seem comfortable representing a district that is mostly minority.

I would be a tad problematic for them to express a concern that their districts had too many minorities in it.

[BigSkyBob]

Krazen listen to me. Your assumption that white democrats don't want minorities put in their district isn't true. Do you by chance know of Bob Filner, Gene Green, or Steve Cohen? They all seem comfortable representing a district that is mostly minority.

I would be a tad problematic for them to express a concern that their districts had too many minorities in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

You are using the argument by blatent assertion.

[BigSkyBob]

Krazen listen to me. Your assumption that white democrats don't want minorities put in their district isn't true. Do you by chance know of Bob Filner, Gene Green, or Steve Cohen? They all seem comfortable representing a district that is mostly minority.

I would be a tad problematic for them to express a concern that their districts had too many minorities in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

You are using the argument by blatent assertion.

Can you translate that in English please?

Everyone knows what a blatent assertion is. What you need to write is some explanation as to why you believe the "True Scotsman" fallacy has been uttered by someone here?

[BigSkyBob]

Krazen listen to me. Your assumption that white democrats don't want minorities put in their district isn't true. Do you by chance know of Bob Filner, Gene Green, or Steve Cohen? They all seem comfortable representing a district that is mostly minority.

I would be a tad problematic for them to express a concern that their districts had too many minorities in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

You are using the argument by blatent assertion.

Can you translate that in English please?

Everyone knows what a blatent assertion is. What you need to write is some explanation as to why you believe the "True Scotsman" fallacy has been uttered by someone here?

No, I don't know what a "blatent" is. Please, feel free to explain.

Stating the definition of "True Scotsman" fallacy doesn't imply that anyone has used that fallacy. If you have reason to believe that anyone has used that fallacy, feel free to state whom has used that fallacy, and how their logic conforms to definition of the "True Scotsman" fallacy.

[BigSkyBob]

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?

The law is alleged the same no matter whom is elected President.

[BigSkyBob]

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?

The law is alleged the same no matter whom is elected President.

Don't play dumb. Everyone knows that there was no way a Bush DOJ would push for more minority representation in the preclearance states while the Obama DOJ would.

The VRA act says what it says. If you can justify politicizing law enforcement that says something about you, not me.

[BigSkyBob]

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?

The law is alleged the same no matter whom is elected President.

Don't play dumb. Everyone knows that there was no way a Bush DOJ would push for more minority representation in the preclearance states while the Obama DOJ would.

The VRA act says what it says. If you can justify politicizing law enforcement that says something about you, not me.

Are you really that stupid or just very good at pretending to be?

Has naked patisanship so grossly distorted your reasoning, or are you just very good at pretending to be a partisan hack?

[BigSkyBob]

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?

The law is alleged the same no matter whom is elected President.

Don't play dumb. Everyone knows that there was no way a Bush DOJ would push for more minority representation in the preclearance states while the Obama DOJ would.

The VRA act says what it says. If you can justify politicizing law enforcement that says something about you, not me.

Who said anything about justifying it? The reality is that administrations usually enforce the VRA when it is politically to their benefit.  

That simply isn't true. Had that been the case, the Bush justice department would not have objected to the Bonilla district that would have reelected Bonilla, and, would have insisted on creating minority seats in certain states.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Democrats are pushing intrepretation that are neither supported by the text of the VRA, or the Constitution. The Constitution is clear, the Congress cannot by statutute mandate that the states favor any particular political party, and that is the essense of the Democratic "intrepretation" of the VRA.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That isn't even True, either. For instance, the Courts struck down racial gerrymandering more strongly than they ever ruled on partisan gerrymandering.

[BigSkyBob]

Has naked partisanship so grossly distorted your reasoning, or are you just very good at pretending to be a partisan hack?

Whoever answers a question with another question is either a fool or a liar (probably both).

Anybody whom has a principled objection to replying to a question with another question is either being highly disingenuous, or is a fool.

[BigSkyBob]

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?

[BigSkyBob]

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?

[BigSkyBob]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[BigSkyBob]

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.

[BigSkyBob]

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.

http://nvsos.gov/SOSElectionPages/voter-reg/2008/1108ncd.aspx


Heck's current district, in terms of active voters, is 43% Democrat and 36% Republican

Back in 2008, the only time a Democrat won it, this district was 44% Democrat and and 35% Republican.

And, the new district is 40% D 37% R.  That's an improvement in Republican registration.

[BigSkyBob]

Did you forget to read my last reply to you, B.S.? 

I'm rather mystified by that post, which I just read.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think the point is that you claimed that the district worsened for Heck. It didn't.