US House Redistricting: Florida

[Verily]

Thing is the mass in the Everglades is also majority black.

Only just barely (exactly 50% black), total population 40,000. Drawing a district out there requires going through some heavily white areas. It is much easier to draw a black seat without taking in Belle Glade and environs. Try it.

[krazen1211]

Coalition districts (it's 49% black) don't get protected the way majority-black (or majority-Hispanic) districts do. This is why Corinne Brown is trying to challenge the fair districts law rather than waiting for the map to try and challenge it on VRA grounds.

But its still in the Republican's advantage to draw something like that anyway.  You effectively put all the Democrats in a compact Orlando district and a majority-black Jacksonville to Gainesville to Tallahassee district, and beyond that, all of North Florida is solid Republican across the board.

I have to figure the Democrats will be limited to 1 North Florida seat, 1 Orlando seat, 2 Tampa Bay seats, and the 5 seats in the Miami area. Or at least that will be the goal before the lawsuits start flying in every direction.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Most maps seem to have a new seat in the Dayton Beach area that would basically be a pure tossup. Kosmas actually lives in that area, she could probably make a comeback as the district isn't a gerrymandered monstrosity.

[jimrtex]

In establishing Congressional district boundaries:

(1) No apportionment plan or individual district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent; and districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice; and districts shall consist of contiguous territory.

(2) Unless compliance with the standards in this subsection conflicts with the standards in subsection (1) or with federal law, districts shall be as nearly equal in population as is practicable; districts shall be compact; and districts shall, where feasible, utilize existing political and geographical boundaries.

(3) The order in which the standards within sub-sections (1) and (2) of this section are set forth shall not be read to establish any priority of one standard over the other within that subsection.

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

In establishing Congressional district boundaries:

(1) No apportionment plan or individual district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent; and districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice; and districts shall consist of contiguous territory.

(2) Unless compliance with the standards in this subsection conflicts with the standards in subsection (1) or with federal law, districts shall be as nearly equal in population as is practicable; districts shall be compact; and districts shall, where feasible, utilize existing political and geographical boundaries.

(3) The order in which the standards within sub-sections (1) and (2) of this section are set forth shall not be read to establish any priority of one standard over the other within that subsection.

If a partisan gerrymander is subtle, and complies with sub-section (2), it would be hard to prove intent under sub-section (1).

[jimrtex]

In establishing Congressional district boundaries:

(1) No apportionment plan or individual district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent; and districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice; and districts shall consist of contiguous territory.

(2) Unless compliance with the standards in this subsection conflicts with the standards in subsection (1) or with federal law, districts shall be as nearly equal in population as is practicable; districts shall be compact; and districts shall, where feasible, utilize existing political and geographical boundaries.

(3) The order in which the standards within sub-sections (1) and (2) of this section are set forth shall not be read to establish any priority of one standard over the other within that subsection.

If a partisan gerrymander is subtle, and complies with sub-section (2), it would be hard to prove intent under sub-section (1).

Depends on what the standard of proof is.

[Sam Spade]

I suspect the intent burden is going to have to be set decently high, because at its heart, every district ever drawn is intended to "favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent". 

But then again, with the Florida Supreme Court, the answer will probably not make any sense.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Maybe they'll distinguish between direct and indirect?

[Torie]

I suspect the intent burden is going to have to be set decently high, because at its heart, every district ever drawn is intended to "favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent". 

But then again, with the Florida Supreme Court, the answer will probably not make any sense.

The Florida Supremes are really going to enjoy gutting the GOP plan with the language in the statute quoted above. It gives them a total hunting license, and I think the same  four liberal (and partisan) justices  are still on the Court who dealt with Bush v Gore. So how many seats does the GOP lose with a pretty non partisan plan I wonder?  Just the two new seats, or a couple of more?

[they don't love you like i love you]

Well FL-22 is without question gone.

[Sam Spade]

I suspect the intent burden is going to have to be set decently high, because at its heart, every district ever drawn is intended to "favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent". 

But then again, with the Florida Supreme Court, the answer will probably not make any sense.

The Florida Supremes are really going to enjoy gutting the GOP plan with the language in the statute quoted above. It gives them a total hunting license, and I think the same  four liberal (and partisan) justices  are still on the Court who dealt with Bush v Gore. So how many seats does the GOP lose with a pretty non partisan plan I wonder?  Just the two new seats, or a couple of more?

I tend to agree, henceforth the caveat.  You gotta know what you're dealing with. 

[Verily]

Well FL-22 is without question gone.

FL-10, too. No excuse for cutting out the black parts of St. Petersburg. Bill Young might be able to win the resulting D+5 or so seat, but he's old and will likely retire instead.

There will also have to be two Democratic seats drawn in the Orlando-Kissimmee area. One might be considered a replacement for Brown's seat (although there will also be a marginal or possibly lean D seat in Jacksonville), but the other will be totally new.

Those are the pretty much unavoidable losses for the GOP. There might be others.

[they don't love you like i love you]

I don't think the Orlando area will really be a loss, from what I've drawn while it's true that there will be obviously be a Dem district based around that could return ALAN GRAYSON (!!!!!!!!!!!!) it'll also have a new Republican district near it. That fundie woman-hating piece of sh!t Webster will probably stick around in a new seat.

[krazen1211]

Well FL-22 is without question gone.

FL-10, too. No excuse for cutting out the black parts of St. Petersburg. Bill Young might be able to win the resulting D+5 or so seat, but he's old and will likely retire instead.

There will also have to be two Democratic seats drawn in the Orlando-Kissimmee area. One might be considered a replacement for Brown's seat (although there will also be a marginal or possibly lean D seat in Jacksonville), but the other will be totally new.

Those are the pretty much unavoidable losses for the GOP. There might be others.

I see easily where 1 district comes in (and the GOP will want to draw that anyway). I don't see where the second fits or why they would draw it.

[Verily]

Well FL-22 is without question gone.

FL-10, too. No excuse for cutting out the black parts of St. Petersburg. Bill Young might be able to win the resulting D+5 or so seat, but he's old and will likely retire instead.

There will also have to be two Democratic seats drawn in the Orlando-Kissimmee area. One might be considered a replacement for Brown's seat (although there will also be a marginal or possibly lean D seat in Jacksonville), but the other will be totally new.

Those are the pretty much unavoidable losses for the GOP. There might be others.

I see easily where 1 district comes in (and the GOP will want to draw that anyway). I don't see where the second fits or why they would draw it.

Orange County alone is about a district and a half. Osceola County is around a third of a district. Both are exploding in population and trending hard towards the Democrats. Better for the GOP to put them together than to put them with one of the relatively marginal surrounding counties and risk the Democrats having four seats in the area instead of just two. (One problem is that the D area of Seminole County is at the northern end, away from Orange County, so it might not be easy to pack the Democrats into two seats in the area while meeting the fairness requirements.)

Remember that you also have Ds in Volusia and Flagler to dilute if you're a Republican drawing the map. It would be very hard to draw a map in central Florida that would pass court muster and also ensure only one D seat.

[dpmapper]

That fundie woman-hating piece of sh!t Webster will probably stick around in a new seat.

And the Tea Partiers are the ones being "uncivil".  Mmm-hmm. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I suspect the intent burden is going to have to be set decently high, because at its heart, every district ever drawn is intended to "favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent". 

But then again, with the Florida Supreme Court, the answer will probably not make any sense.

The Florida Supremes are really going to enjoy gutting the GOP plan with the language in the statute quoted above. It gives them a total hunting license, and I think the same  four liberal (and partisan) justices  are still on the Court who dealt with Bush v Gore. So how many seats does the GOP lose with a pretty non partisan plan I wonder?  Just the two new seats, or a couple of more?

Are you sure?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Florida

And the Chief Justice is a former Republican Congressman.

[Torie]

I suspect the intent burden is going to have to be set decently high, because at its heart, every district ever drawn is intended to "favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent". 

But then again, with the Florida Supreme Court, the answer will probably not make any sense.

The Florida Supremes are really going to enjoy gutting the GOP plan with the language in the statute quoted above. It gives them a total hunting license, and I think the same  four liberal (and partisan) justices  are still on the Court who dealt with Bush v Gore. So how many seats does the GOP lose with a pretty non partisan plan I wonder?  Just the two new seats, or a couple of more?

Are you sure?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Florida

And the Chief Justice is a former Republican Congressman.

Interesting. No, I was clearly behind the curve on that one. Thanks.

[DrScholl]

My best try at a fair map

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I suspect the intent burden is going to have to be set decently high, because at its heart, every district ever drawn is intended to "favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent". 

But then again, with the Florida Supreme Court, the answer will probably not make any sense.

The Florida Supremes are really going to enjoy gutting the GOP plan with the language in the statute quoted above. It gives them a total hunting license, and I think the same  four liberal (and partisan) justices  are still on the Court who dealt with Bush v Gore. So how many seats does the GOP lose with a pretty non partisan plan I wonder?  Just the two new seats, or a couple of more?

Are you sure?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Florida

And the Chief Justice is a former Republican Congressman.

Interesting. No, I was clearly behind the curve on that one. Thanks.

Florida has a 70 and your done rule with a tiny exception for partial terms with less then 1/2 remaining.  There has also been high turnover in the court in the last 10 years in general with many others resigning to "return to private practice", on top of the aged out people. Bottom line, Jeb and Chucky have had plenty of time to remake the court. It won't save FL-22 of course, but it likely means the scenario you laid out is less likely. Still I would advise that Scott and others not go to far. All four of them do have Crist as their appointer and one of them could easily play Anthony Kennedy on them. 

[muon2]

Florida used a publicly accessible tool for mapping 10 years ago, and they will do so again. Last week they updated their website, and provided a link to the mapping tool. The tool only has data from 10 years ago at present, but you can see how it works. Later this year the tool will be the official site for public submission of plans to the legislature.

[minionofmidas]

In establishing Congressional district boundaries:

(1) No apportionment plan or individual district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent

Does Michigan's law include any such language?

[Torie]

In establishing Congressional district boundaries:

(1) No apportionment plan or individual district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent

Does Michigan's law include any such language?

No. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/census-data-informs-florida-redistricting-plans/1158002

http://www.news-press.com/article/20110317/NEWS0107/110317057/Census-2010-District-map-gets-blueprint?odyssey=mod_sectionstories

[Mississippi Political Freak]

It's my turn as a former Florida resident.  I try to allow most major counties to have at least 1 district that's totally within them.  If circumstances do not allow this, I will then keep counties whole as much as possible out of my good government instincts.  The only major exceptions is in my FL-3, designed to allow the Dems to keep a foothold in North Florida, and in the areas where my new districts are located (more of that covered under my districts).  Each of the district will also have a deviation from the ideal population per district of 696,341 by less than 1000 people:

Overview- Northern half


Overview- Southern half


Panhandle and North Florida




Jacksonville Area



FL-1 (Rep. Jeff Miller, R- Chumuckla), Blue

This district now consists all four of the Panhandle's westernmost counties (Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa and Walton), but retreats from most of Washington County and about one-third of Holes County.  Safe Republican.

FL-2 (Rep. Steve Southerland, R-Panama City), Green

Now dips into Holmes and Washington County.  It also takes Levy County from FL-5 and FL-6 and gain most of rural Alachua County from FL-6.  On the other hand, it is largely removed from Gadsden County and the city of Tallahassee.  Likely Republican.
 
FL-3 (Rep. Corrine Brown, D-Jacksonville), Purple

This is the new North Florida Democratic vote sink, and one of the few really ugly gerrymander here.  It spans from Gadsden County through Tallahassee; with one arm extending to the black areas of Jacksonville and the other extending into the city of Gainesville.  These areas are the only Democratic bastions in otherwise heavily GOP North Florida, and I feel that compact districts containing Gainesville, Tallahassee and black areas of Jacksonville would be fairly to heavily Republican.  On the other hand, this incarnation allows the Democratic votes in the Orlando area to be freed up.  They will be in my FL-27.  Rep. Brown should still be fine in this 43% black district, although she may face primary challenge from Gainesville or Tallahassee candidates like former State Sen. Al Lawson, who had unsuccessfully primaried then-Rep. Allen Boyd last year.  Likely Democratic.

FL-4 (Rep. Ander Crenshaw, R-Jacksonville), Red

This district is now more focused at the Jacksonville area.  It takes most of Duval County that's not in FL-3 (minus a small southern sliver in FL-7), all of Nassau County and Northern half of Baker County.  The rural areas formerly attached to it are divided among FL-2, 3 and 6.  Safe Republican.

FL-6 (Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Ocala), Teal

It unites Marion County (Stearn's political base) with portions from the old FL-8, and also unites the very conservative Jacksonville suburb of Clay County with bits from the old FL-3.  These hubs are connected with a sliver of rural Alachua County.  It then extends South to take all of Sumter County and the Lady Lake (The Villages) portion of Lake County.  The real competition would be between a Clay County and a Marion County/The Villages Republican.  Safe Republican.

FL-7 (Rep. John Mica, R-Winter Park), Apple Green

While Rep. Mica's home of Winter Park is drawn out of this district, it retains significant portions of his current constituency at St. Johns and Flagler counties.  It now includes all of Putnam and most of Lake (minus the Lady Lake area) counties, with small slivers in Duval, Volusia and Seminole counties (with no significant population centers in the latter two) just for population purposes.  Should be fine for Mica as long as he is willing to move.  In an open-seat scenario, expect a vigorous GOP primary between a St. Augustine and a Lake County candidate.  Safe Republican.

My partisan count for the seats so far are 5R, 1D.

Central Florida districts (FL-5, 8-12, 15, 24 and 27) up next.