US House Redistricting: West Virginia

[BigSkyBob]

The judges' order says that the constitution doesn't prohibit splitting counties. I can't copy-paste from it, but it's here, specifically pages 12 and 13. So they may require them to split counties to achieve perfect population equality.

That is quite a stretch for a Federal Judge to tell a state what the meaning of their Constitution is.

[Vasall des Midas]

Maximum deviation is defined as from the ideal, or from largest to smallest seat? I think this is the most balanced map we've had in the thread, anyhow:

[Fuzzybigfoot]

I wish we could get partisan data for West Virginia. 

[Vasall des Midas]

As long as you're not splitting counties... you can fairly easily calculate them yourself.

[krazen1211]

http://www.dailymail.com/News/201201040033

The Cooper plan looks really solid for McKinley.

[Vasall des Midas]

It also has the same second district as my map!

[nclib]

Since the maps won't be able to preserve the status quo, it would be good for the WV-DEMS to use this as an excuse to make a more difficult CD for McKinley or Capito, presumably the former. With Rahall's CD intact, they wouldn't have much to lose.

[So the Heroes Fall]

I have to agree with the decision, the population deviancy on the current map is far too high to be sustained and it's entirely possible to get a more equal one without county splits.

Lewis's map above though is pretty weird with the third district which is clearly not a community of interest.

[Vasall des Midas]

Nah, it's two of them slapped together. Which is still much better than most congressional districts in the US.

[muon2]

The Cooper plan splits only one county, Taylor, to achieve nearly mathematical equality. I've looked and I think that Lewis' plan is the minimum deviation with no county splits. I've made a smaller version of the map to compare with my options with greater deviation.



One question for the WV legislature is what map a federal panel would impose. I wouldn't rule out Lewis' plan in that case. The state has shown a strong policy interest in keeping counties whole, and Lewis' deviation is well within the acceptable limits when there is other compelling state interest. Also the state hasn't objected to a combination of the Panhandle and Charleston, so I see no reason why there would be an objection to the linking the Panhandle with Beckley instead.

[muon2]

I took a quick look at the PVI's for Lewis' map. They are R+8, R+7, and R+9 respectively. That's probably about as bad as it gets for the Dems. If they are worried about a court imposed map, then this has to be part of their worries.

Compare that to something like my option B that kept the south together in one district; the PVIs are then R+10, R+9 and R+5. Rahall's current district is R+6, and I doubt he'd want to go to R+9 when he could stay the same or do better by his party in the legislature.

[Vasall des Midas]

The heart of the Southern coal country does stay together in that map, of course (because it was actually purpose-drawn to ) and the South would be completely dominant in Dem primaries in that district. While R candidates are more likely to be from the Eastern Panhandle. Rahall wouldn't like it but should actually be fine absent a massive wave.

[MilesC56]

http://www.dailymail.com/News/201201040033

The Cooper plan looks really solid for McKinley.

Yep. Manchin only won that CD1 by 50-46; I think the current CD1 is was about the same as his statewide 53-44.

[Vasall des Midas]

If you compare the Cooper plan to my map, it's pretty clear that it's intended to protect McKinley and Rahall. It's a map aimed at 1-1-1 with the Republicans having an entrenched incumbent in the wouldbe swing seat, so really 2-1 R.

[muon2]

If you compare the Cooper plan to my map, it's pretty clear that it's intended to protect McKinley and Rahall. It's a map aimed at 1-1-1 with the Republicans having an entrenched incumbent in the wouldbe swing seat, so really 2-1 R.

But I think your map today is at best a 1-0-2 with incumbents to make it 2-1 R, and over the decade it becomes 3-0 R as the GOP develops a bench.

[jimrtex]

The judges' order says that the constitution doesn't prohibit splitting counties. I can't copy-paste from it, but it's here, specifically pages 12 and 13. So they may require them to split counties to achieve perfect population equality.

That is quite a stretch for a Federal Judge to tell a state what the meaning of their Constitution is.

The court did a rather extreme parsing of the WV Constitution.

The constitution says that congressional districts

"For the election of representatives to Congress, the state shall be divided into districts, corresponding in number with the representatives to which it may be entitled; which districts shall be formed of contiguous counties, and be compact. Each district shall contain, as nearly as may be, an equal number of population, to be determined according to the rule prescribed in the constitution of the United States."

For senate districts it says:

"For the election of senators, the state shall be divided into twelve senatorial districts, which number shall not be diminished, but may be increased as hereinafter provided. Every district shall elect two senators, but, where the district is composed of more than one county, both shall not be chosen from the same county. The districts shall be compact, formed of contiguous territory, bounded by county lines, and, as nearly as practicable, equal in population, to be ascertained by the census of the United States. After every such census, the Legislature shall alter the senatorial districts, so far as may be necessary to make them conform to the foregoing provision."

The court decided that because the constitution specified "county lines" for the senate, that the founders intent was to distinguish the rules for the senate from that for Congress.  A simpler explanation is that because of the distribution rules (senators must live in different counties, though there are no subdistricts), that a different construction was specified.

It is truly bizarre to think that a provision that was in the 1863 Constitution and absolutely followed for the past 150 years, is just a custom.

I think the judges simply wanted to quote Bob Dylan in an opinion.

[jimrtex]

One question for the WV legislature is what map a federal panel would impose. I wouldn't rule out Lewis' plan in that case. The state has shown a strong policy interest in keeping counties whole, and Lewis' deviation is well within the acceptable limits when there is other compelling state interest. Also the state hasn't objected to a combination of the Panhandle and Charleston, so I see no reason why there would be an objection to the linking the Panhandle with Beckley instead.

The opinion said that they would likely impose either the "perfect plan" (ie zero deviation plan) or Cooper 4.

The court considered whether the district was compact, but declined to make a decision because they had already decided that there was too much population decision.  Nonetheless, they noted that it was almost 300 miles between Charleston and Martinsburg, the county seats of the (now) two most populous counties.

The original plaintiffs are the Jefferson County board of commissioners; who likely weren't that overly concerned about a 0.5% overpopulation of their district.  The intervenor plaintiff was from Kanawha County, who argued that he had a separate interest from that of the Jefferson County plaintiffs.

[krazen1211]

http://www.wvmetronews.com/news.cfm?func=displayfullstory&storyid=50351

But on Monday, the state Senate was hard at work on an alternative called "the more perfect plan." The map would put the Eastern Panhandle, the Northern Panhandle and connecting counties into District 1.

District 2 would go from Marion County in the north, Kanawha County in the south and Wood County in the west.

District 3 would encompass southern West Virginia.




Perhaps this, based on the above, if they decide not to split counties. Deviation of 1441.




Otherwise, this is being thrown around and splits 2 counties.

http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-01/289779220-15172344.pdf

[muon2]

http://www.wvmetronews.com/news.cfm?func=displayfullstory&storyid=50351

But on Monday, the state Senate was hard at work on an alternative called "the more perfect plan." The map would put the Eastern Panhandle, the Northern Panhandle and connecting counties into District 1.

District 2 would go from Marion County in the north, Kanawha County in the south and Wood County in the west.

District 3 would encompass southern West Virginia.




Perhaps this, based on the above, if they decide not to split counties. Deviation of 1441.




Otherwise, this is being thrown around and splits 2 counties.

http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-01/289779220-15172344.pdf

Given what the court said, they'll have to split counties if they want a map like this. Both of my maps, and certainly Lewis' map, are whole county plans with smaller deviations. They court cited the ability to draw whole county plans with less deviation as a reason to strike down the passed map.

[I'm JewCon in name only.]

has anyone made a GOP friendly map? I'm trying to do one. Hard to do it without partisan data...

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

has anyone made a GOP friendly map? I'm trying to do one. Hard to do it without partisan data...

The most recent map posted on this thread looks pretty damn GOP friendly to me. It's a real shame that a Democratic trifecta is going to be wasted like this.

[MilesC56]

I hate to say this, but I think WV will be 2-1 R in 2012.

Oh well, other than the House delegation, Republicans don't have anything in WV.

[So the Heroes Fall]

has anyone made a GOP friendly map? I'm trying to do one. Hard to do it without partisan data...

You don't need partisan data if you're not splitting counties.

[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

[Vasall des Midas]

It kind of depends how you define a GOP-friendly map. Does McKinley need some moderate shoring up if he's not to remain a fluke (I think he does)? How many Democrats and how much new territory can Moore take (quite a bit, clearly, though there are limits to it)? What would it take to endanger Nick Rahall (is it even theoretically possible to do so as long as the southern coal country remains undivided, and ready to vote as parochially as it did in the gubernatorial election)? All of these are sort-of open questions on which the answer of what a GOP-friendly map is depends. If you think McKinley has settled in very nicely and there are limits to Rahall's capacity even with the southern coal intact, my map is very GOP-friendly. If you think neither of these things, it's very Dem-friendly.