US House Redistricting: West Virginia

[MilesC56]

Miles: Yea, a theres a chance of that. You guys can have Shelley Moore Capito's seat, as long as I can have McKinley
BRTD: Good point

Well, Mike Oliverio is a friend of mine, so I kinda wanna see McKinley defeated

I do think the WV-02 on the most recent map could easily flip without Capito though.

[krazen1211]

Rahall doesn't seem to want to share the wealth. Manchin/Raese shows that the 3rd district has all the straight ticket Democrats. As long as you maintain that district, it won't be easy to win either of the other 2.

[I'm JewCon in name only.]

Miles: Yea, a theres a chance of that. You guys can have Shelley Moore Capito's seat, as long as I can have McKinley
BRTD: Good point

Well, Mike Oliverio is a friend of mine, so I kinda wanna see McKinley defeated

I do think the WV-02 on the most recent map could easily flip without Capito though.

Ah I gotcha

[Vasall des Midas]

Rahall doesn't seem to want to share the wealth.

No surprise there. -_-

[krazen1211]

The state got its map back.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WV_REDISTRICTING_WVOL-?SITE=WVHUN&SECTION=news&TEMPLATE=hddefault&CTIME=2012-01-20-12-11-19


West Virginia can run its congressional races with the redistricting map recently struck down by a panel of federal judges, after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed Friday to stay the ruling.

[Vasall des Midas]

Stayed? So that means in this case... what, exactly? The Feds will hear the case, but the state map is used for 2012?

[timothyinMD]

That's a shame.  I was hoping they'd have a new map.  The one the legislature passed is just silly looking.

[Bacon King]

Stayed? So that means in this case... what, exactly? The Feds will hear the case, but the state map is used for 2012?

That appears to be the case, as far as I can tell.

[jimrtex]

Stayed? So that means in this case... what, exactly? The Feds will hear the case, but the state map is used for 2012?

It means the federal district court went off the deep end simply because they wanted to quote Bob Dylan in a decision, and the Supreme Court is trying to curb the use of the courts as a weapon in redistricting.

There is no real harm if West Virginia uses districts quite similar to what they have been using for the past 10 years and only have a 0.8% deviation.

The SCOTUS will eventually rule whether "practicable" is a synonym for "devoid of common sense".

[muon2]

Stayed? So that means in this case... what, exactly? The Feds will hear the case, but the state map is used for 2012?

It means the federal district court went off the deep end simply because they wanted to quote Bob Dylan in a decision, and the Supreme Court is trying to curb the use of the courts as a weapon in redistricting.

There is no real harm if West Virginia uses districts quite similar to what they have been using for the past 10 years and only have a 0.8% deviation.

The SCOTUS will eventually rule whether "practicable" is a synonym for "devoid of common sense".

They seem to be moving back towards some population latitude when the state makes a case for a neutral consistent factor like county lines. I've found the argument for any precision beyond 0.5% deviation largely meaningless. Analysis of typical mobility shows that 0.5% deviation is consistent wit the change in a congressional district population in April 2010 and November 2012. In science classes we teach that one should not use more precision than the data warrants. After two and a half years the precision of the map drawn to a single person is irrelevant with its first use in a general election.

That being said, I do think the state erred in using a map with the deviation they did when many others with whole counties were available that were within the 0.5% mark. They should at least have had better justification of why they would pass over those other alternatives.

[krazen1211]

Stayed? So that means in this case... what, exactly? The Feds will hear the case, but the state map is used for 2012?

It means the federal district court went off the deep end simply because they wanted to quote Bob Dylan in a decision, and the Supreme Court is trying to curb the use of the courts as a weapon in redistricting.

There is no real harm if West Virginia uses districts quite similar to what they have been using for the past 10 years and only have a 0.8% deviation.

The SCOTUS will eventually rule whether "practicable" is a synonym for "devoid of common sense".

They seem to be moving back towards some population latitude when the state makes a case for a neutral consistent factor like county lines. I've found the argument for any precision beyond 0.5% deviation largely meaningless. Analysis of typical mobility shows that 0.5% deviation is consistent wit the change in a congressional district population in April 2010 and November 2012. In science classes we teach that one should not use more precision than the data warrants. After two and a half years the precision of the map drawn to a single person is irrelevant with its first use in a general election.

That being said, I do think the state erred in using a map with the deviation they did when many others with whole counties were available that were within the 0.5% mark. They should at least have had better justification of why they would pass over those other alternatives.

Keeping incumbents in separate districts and keeping the districts the same seems like justification enough.

[muon2]

Stayed? So that means in this case... what, exactly? The Feds will hear the case, but the state map is used for 2012?

It means the federal district court went off the deep end simply because they wanted to quote Bob Dylan in a decision, and the Supreme Court is trying to curb the use of the courts as a weapon in redistricting.

There is no real harm if West Virginia uses districts quite similar to what they have been using for the past 10 years and only have a 0.8% deviation.

The SCOTUS will eventually rule whether "practicable" is a synonym for "devoid of common sense".

They seem to be moving back towards some population latitude when the state makes a case for a neutral consistent factor like county lines. I've found the argument for any precision beyond 0.5% deviation largely meaningless. Analysis of typical mobility shows that 0.5% deviation is consistent wit the change in a congressional district population in April 2010 and November 2012. In science classes we teach that one should not use more precision than the data warrants. After two and a half years the precision of the map drawn to a single person is irrelevant with its first use in a general election.

That being said, I do think the state erred in using a map with the deviation they did when many others with whole counties were available that were within the 0.5% mark. They should at least have had better justification of why they would pass over those other alternatives.

Keeping incumbents in separate districts and keeping the districts the same seems like justification enough.

Many other options kept incumbents separate. The districts were similar, but not the same. The state never really rebutted the objections from the eastern panhandle that they had the most growth, not reflected in the plan.

[Vasall des Midas]

In science classes we teach that one should not use more precision than the data warrants. After two and a half years the precision of the map drawn to a single person is irrelevant with its first use in a general election.

Well yeah. Frankly anything below 5% is pretty sick imho. Making districts as even as possible was a weapon against reasonably drawn maps and for gerrymandering, and nothing else really.

If you want to address the issue of America's massive and fast population shifts, the answer is redistrict more often...  although you are going against the founder's will to an unusually express degree with that.

[jimrtex]

In science classes we teach that one should not use more precision than the data warrants. After two and a half years the precision of the map drawn to a single person is irrelevant with its first use in a general election.

Well yeah. Frankly anything below 5% is pretty sick imho. Making districts as even as possible was a weapon against reasonably drawn maps and for gerrymandering, and nothing else really.

If you want to address the issue of America's massive and fast population shifts, the answer is redistrict more often...  although you are going against the founder's will to an unusually express degree with that.

How so?  When Congress was considering the first apportionment, they added language that would have resulted in another census.  It didn't make it into the final version.  The every 10 years is a maximum, not a minimum.

And since there is more change within states than among states more frequent districting makes sense.  Many states had provisions in their constitution for mid-decennial censuses in order to have more up to date districts.

[jimrtex]

It means the federal district court went off the deep end simply because they wanted to quote Bob Dylan in a decision, and the Supreme Court is trying to curb the use of the courts as a weapon in redistricting.

There is no real harm if West Virginia uses districts quite similar to what they have been using for the past 10 years and only have a 0.8% deviation.

The SCOTUS will eventually rule whether "practicable" is a synonym for "devoid of common sense".

They seem to be moving back towards some population latitude when the state makes a case for a neutral consistent factor like county lines. I've found the argument for any precision beyond 0.5% deviation largely meaningless. Analysis of typical mobility shows that 0.5% deviation is consistent wit the change in a congressional district population in April 2010 and November 2012. In science classes we teach that one should not use more precision than the data warrants. After two and a half years the precision of the map drawn to a single person is irrelevant with its first use in a general election.

That being said, I do think the state erred in using a map with the deviation they did when many others with whole counties were available that were within the 0.5% mark. They should at least have had better justification of why they would pass over those other alternatives.

Keeping incumbents in separate districts and keeping the districts the same seems like justification enough.

Many other options kept incumbents separate. The districts were similar, but not the same. The state never really rebutted the objections from the eastern panhandle that they had the most growth, not reflected in the plan.

They moved one county (which incidentally was the furthest from the Eastern Panhandle) and has about 9 times the population of the deviation (ie they reduced the deviation by 90%).

There is no reason that a federal court should be interpreting a state constitution.

[Vasall des Midas]

In science classes we teach that one should not use more precision than the data warrants. After two and a half years the precision of the map drawn to a single person is irrelevant with its first use in a general election.

Well yeah. Frankly anything below 5% is pretty sick imho. Making districts as even as possible was a weapon against reasonably drawn maps and for gerrymandering, and nothing else really.

If you want to address the issue of America's massive and fast population shifts, the answer is redistrict more often...  although you are going against the founder's will to an unusually express degree with that.

How so?  When Congress was considering the first apportionment, they added language that would have resulted in another census.  It didn't make it into the final version.  The every 10 years is a maximum, not a minimum.

Is it? I didn't know that.

And since there is more change within states than among states more frequent districting makes sense. 

That was not always the case though.

Eh. If it were all up to me, I'd set some target range - say 15% deviation maximum - and redistrict whenever my data suggest a district is in urgent danger of violating it (or when the feds decide to allocate me a new district).
And I'd try to have some very accurate data on what people consider their legal primary residence (with the definition broadly up to them as long as they have only one)... preferrably some form of compulsory registration.
But it's not, so all of this is neither here nor there.

[jimrtex]

Eh. If it were all up to me, I'd set some target range - say 15% deviation maximum - and redistrict whenever my data suggest a district is in urgent danger of violating it (or when the feds decide to allocate me a new district).
And I'd try to have some very accurate data on what people consider their legal primary residence (with the definition broadly up to them as long as they have only one)... preferrably some form of compulsory registration.
But it's not, so all of this is neither here nor there.

That is the basic approach taken in Australia.  Whenever a state's apportionment changes, there is a redistribution.  Apportionment of divisions (Aussie for "riding") is based on population (estimates), while delineation of the divisions is based on enrollment - which is compulsory.  This of course gives them excellent small scale data.

There is also a redistribution if more than 1/3 of the divisions for a state are out of wack by more than 10%, or if it has been 7 years since the last redistribution.

When they do the redistribution, it is so that 3.5 years out, that divisions will be within 3.5%, so faster growing areas are deliberately underpopulated, and slower growth or declining areas are overpopulated.  If the full redistribution period is used and the projections accurate, the areas spend some times underpopulated and some times overpopulated.

[muon2]

I see that the jurisdictional statement of the appeal to SCOTUS was filed last week.

That got me looking at the alternatives proposed by plaintiff Cooper. Plan 4 was one cited by the court with a single county split, but plans 1, 2, and 3 were earlier submissions to the Senate redistricting committee. They are all referenced in the table at the end of the linked document, and none have any county splits. Moreover, Cooper 3 has a smaller variance (+113, +2, -116) than even Lewis' plan (+277, +2, -280). Sorry, Lewis.

[Vasall des Midas]

Woah. That third is hilarious. Nick Rahall ought to like it though.

[jimrtex]

Woah. That third is hilarious. Nick Rahall ought to like it though.

It looks like a dinosaur.

[krazen1211]

That 3rd is a great pack I think.

[Torie]

Why on earth would SCOTUS take this case, particularly since it would not be heard and decided this year, which means a redraw for the next election, and all over basically nothing (there is hardly a pressing need to find if a population deviation of more than a few people but less than 1% is Constitutional)?  I don't think so.

[Vasall des Midas]

Because they need to take it if they want to overrule the lower court (which did find a pressing need, for whatever bizarro reasons)? They can't just stay the lower court's decision indefinitely, can they?

[Torie]

Because they need to take it if they want to overrule the lower court (which did find a pressing need, for whatever bizarro reasons)? They can't just stay the lower court's decision indefinitely, can they?

Oh SCOTUS stayed the appellate court decision?

Yes, indeed it did. So I guess that is the equivalent of granting cert. I very much doubt SCOTUS is going to fly speck the state law, or try to decide if a lower population deviance is appropriate given the alternatives, etc. They may just hold that deviations of less than 0.5% or whatever are Constitutional if there is some reasonable reason for it under state law, like not splitting counties, or precincts, or whatever, and defer to the state courts as to whether the map comported with state law. I just can't see them evaluating a bunch of maps.  So I suspect the map the legislature drew will be upheld, since the grounds it was bounced was only based on the equality of population issue. My guess is that SCOTUS will hardly even look at the maps.

The WV Supreme Court itself deferred to the state legislature on the legislative districts, refusing to involve itself as to whether other maps better implemented the state law.

[muon2]

Because they need to take it if they want to overrule the lower court (which did find a pressing need, for whatever bizarro reasons)? They can't just stay the lower court's decision indefinitely, can they?

Oh SCOTUS stayed the appellate court decision?

Yes, indeed it did. So I guess that is the equivalent of granting cert. I very much doubt SCOTUS is going to fly speck the state law, or try to decide if a lower population deviance is appropriate given the alternatives, etc. They may just hold that deviations of less than 0.5% or whatever are Constitutional if there is some reasonable reason for it under state law, like not splitting counties, or precincts, or whatever, and defer to the state courts as to whether the map comported with state law. I just can't see them evaluating a bunch of maps.  So I suspect the map the legislature drew will be upheld, since the grounds it was bounced was only based on the equality of population issue. My guess is that SCOTUS will hardly even look at the maps.

The WV Supreme Court itself deferred to the state legislature on the legislative districts, refusing to involve itself as to whether other maps better implemented the state law.

One question they may engage in is whether a whole county plan with a range of 0.79% should stand when there are many alternative plans with whole counties and significantly less deviation (like 0.04% in Cooper 3). The state will argue that their plan also preserved the maximum number of counties because it shifted only one county. Does that state interest justify the larger deviation?