US House Redistricting: Florida

[So the Heroes Fall]

Well as long as Grayson can get elected in the 27th I'm fine with that.

[MilesC56]

Well as long as Grayson can get elected in the 27th I'm fine with that.

[Gravis Marketing]

There's no way the 3rd will be tossed if the legislature won't do it, I'm afraid.

Can you elaborate as to why not? I thought it wasn't VRA protected, and without that, it surely violates Fair Districts.

[MilesC56]

FL22 is now 56% Obama. West would probably be gone under this map.

[Bacon King]

There's no way the 3rd will be tossed if the legislature won't do it, I'm afraid.

Can you elaborate as to why not? I thought it wasn't VRA protected, and without that, it surely violates Fair Districts.

The Fair Districts Amendment has its own VRA-type language, though, that explicitly takes precedent over compactness requirements.

(a) No apportionment plan or 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.
(b) Unless compliance with the standards in this subsection conflicts with the standards in subsection 1(a) 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.
(c) The order in which the standards within subsections 1(a) and (b) of this section are set forth shall not be read to establish any priority of one standard over the other within that subsection.

Note the bolded parts. If it goes to court and the legislature justifies the 3rd district by arguing that it was necessary to prevent the "abridging of equal opportunity for racial minorities to elect representatives of their choice," then the compactness requirements would be thrown out the window for that district.

[krazen1211]

Lawsuit time! The most likely result probably being the best too, that abomination being tossed a court-drawn map put in its place.

Though at least even under that Allen West is probably still toast and the Democrats could take FL-27 (though it'd have to be with someone other than Alan Grayson...which alone is enough reason to fight to get it tossed.)

27 is a safe Democratic seat. It might still not end up as drawn - that 8th tendril is difficult to defend.
The only other part I would think problematic is 10/11.
There's no way the 3rd will be tossed if the legislature won't do it, I'm afraid.
Somewhere seen it claimed that West's new district is 55% Obama - not enough to doom him, but not favored against a strong challenger. The 16th is apparently also going to be highly swingy.

The more problematic jut seems to be 11 into Manatee County. I can't quite eyeball it but it appears to be there.

[jimrtex]

Here we go. The State Senate's Congressional draft.

Is 21 a Collier or a Dade district?

It is pretty cool that 3 can be widened or not so that the other districts are nice whole counties.

[jimrtex]

There's no way the 3rd will be tossed if the legislature won't do it, I'm afraid.

Can you elaborate as to why not? I thought it wasn't VRA protected, and without that, it surely violates Fair Districts.

The Redistricting Litigation And Lawyer Enrichment Amendment to the Florida Constitution provides a separate state provision for racial gerrymandering.

[krazen1211]

http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/VR-FL-0151-0005.pdf

Page 42-44.



Prior litigation upholding the existing FL-03.

[Verily]

http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/VR-FL-0151-0005.pdf

Page 42-44.



Prior litigation upholding the existing FL-03.

Pre-FRA and thus irrelevant, although the court may not throw it out anyway.

[So the Heroes Fall]

There's no way the 3rd will be tossed if the legislature won't do it, I'm afraid.

Can you elaborate as to why not? I thought it wasn't VRA protected, and without that, it surely violates Fair Districts.

The Fair Districts Amendment has its own VRA-type language, though, that explicitly takes precedent over compactness requirements.

(a) No apportionment plan or 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.
(b) Unless compliance with the standards in this subsection conflicts with the standards in subsection 1(a) 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.
(c) The order in which the standards within subsections 1(a) and (b) of this section are set forth shall not be read to establish any priority of one standard over the other within that subsection.

Note the bolded parts. If it goes to court and the legislature justifies the 3rd district by arguing that it was necessary to prevent the "abridging of equal opportunity for racial minorities to elect representatives of their choice," then the compactness requirements would be thrown out the window for that district.

I have a tough time seeing the FL-10/11 split being protected by that though, resulting in that being tossed.

West's seat if 56% Obama probably will vote closer to a 53% Obama district as Obama overran a bit among some demographics in that area and it tends to favor GOP candidates a little more on downballot races, but that might still be too strong for West. They're probably hoping for another Republican to eventually win it. So if we get that and FL-27 and the GOP get the new seat in FL-26 it's overall D+2 with the R seats unchanged, though FL-10 could certainly flip too if not upheld. In fact even the current district would be competitive without Young, who has to go sometime.

[jimrtex]

There's no way the 3rd will be tossed if the legislature won't do it, I'm afraid.

Can you elaborate as to why not? I thought it wasn't VRA protected, and without that, it surely violates Fair Districts.

The Fair Districts Amendment has its own VRA-type language, though, that explicitly takes precedent over compactness requirements.

(a) No apportionment plan or 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.
(b) Unless compliance with the standards in this subsection conflicts with the standards in subsection 1(a) 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.
(c) The order in which the standards within subsections 1(a) and (b) of this section are set forth shall not be read to establish any priority of one standard over the other within that subsection.

Note the bolded parts. If it goes to court and the legislature justifies the 3rd district by arguing that it was necessary to prevent the "abridging of equal opportunity for racial minorities to elect representatives of their choice," then the compactness requirements would be thrown out the window for that district.

I have a tough time seeing the FL-10/11 split being protected by that though, resulting in that being tossed.

West's seat if 56% Obama probably will vote closer to a 53% Obama district as Obama overran a bit among some demographics in that area and it tends to favor GOP candidates a little more on downballot races, but that might still be too strong for West. They're probably hoping for another Republican to eventually win it. So if we get that and FL-27 and the GOP get the new seat in FL-26 it's overall D+2 with the R seats unchanged, though FL-10 could certainly flip too if not upheld. In fact even the current district would be competitive without Young, who has to go sometime.

What is your problem with 11?

There is road connectivity between Tampa and St Petersburg; Tampa and Bradenton; and St Petersburg and Bradenton.  The district is compact, and it has a substantial minority population.

[Devils30]

FL-27 should elect a hispanic Dem, although Alan Grayson might be able to win the primary there. This map appears to end Allen West's career, the guy is a bit crazy and probably would have had a tough fight anyway. Kerry likely won 53-54% in FL-22 so West is fighting an uphill battle. FL-25 could also be competitive b/c Rivera's ethics issues and it went from a small McCain win to slight Obama. The 16th can go Dem in a wave year but Rooney is fairly well-liked and will hold it despite being 51-52% Obama barring a tsunami year for Dems.

[Vasall des Midas]

There's no way the 3rd will be tossed if the legislature won't do it, I'm afraid.

Can you elaborate as to why not? I thought it wasn't VRA protected, and without that, it surely violates Fair Districts.

Just because the state once created it for reasons (officially) other than VRA doesn't mean it'll make that claim this time. Besides, what's been pointed out about FDA.

Technically, of course, the issue is with FL 9 and 11 rather than 10 and 11. The 10th would have to be changed to rectify it though.
Unnecessary double county split with very very poor excuses beyond political gerrymandering. Certainly does reduce compactness.
And yeah, they jutted into Manatee as well. I don't need to verify that on a map with better color choices - I know a Manatee and Sarasota district needs to shed a tiny bit of territory, and they drew it well into Charlotte. Again, very easily avoidable, by switching around areas with the 12th, which btw is an exceedingly odd district - something does need to give around there, though.

I would like to share this document; take note especially of which options it does not pursue.

[Gravis Marketing]

There is road connectivity between Tampa and St Petersburg; Tampa and Bradenton; and St Petersburg and Bradenton.  

If I'm reading the map correctly, you have to take different routes northbound and southbound to establish connectivity between the southern portion and the rest of the district. The gerrymandered finger heading south to scoop up Dem voters gets very narrow and the state senate's maps shows the boundary separating northbound and southbound lanes on the few roads in the connector.

Similarly, you can go north from Bradenton and stay within the district, but going south, the other lane of the highway is in a different district. So if you start in Bradenton and head north, the district is contiguous by road and such, but not the other direction.

[Vasall des Midas]

One thing to consider re FL3 is of course that if the Orlando area had two urban focused districts, they could both be coalition districts. And the urban Jacksonville district that would then probably result would be barely over 50% Anglo.

The proposed 3rd district is 49.96% Black VAP, btw. (Including Black Hispanics, of which Orlando has a few. Most of them in the 27th, though, apparently.)
The 27th is plurality Anglo VAP.

[Vasall des Midas]

e.g.



1st 45% Anglo, 27% Black, 20% Hispanic (DRA figures o/c), 49-25-18 on VAP, 59.4% Obama
2nd 40, 10, 44 (44, 9, 41), 61.0% Obama
3rd 68, 9, 17 (71, 9, 16), 49.8% Obama, would be safe Republican.

[jimrtex]

Technically, of course, the issue is with FL 9 and 11 rather than 10 and 11. The 10th would have to be changed to rectify it though.
Unnecessary double county split with very very poor excuses beyond political gerrymandering. Certainly does reduce compactness.
And yeah, they jutted into Manatee as well. I don't need to verify that on a map with better color choices - I know a Manatee and Sarasota district needs to shed a tiny bit of territory, and they drew it well into Charlotte. Again, very easily avoidable, by switching around areas with the 12th, which btw is an exceedingly odd district - something does need to give around there, though.

I would like to share this document; take note especially of which options it does not pursue.

Placing one or more districts entirely in a county and having parts of 2 districts extending into other counties does not always respect county boundaries in the best way possible.  States like Ohio and Texas have formal provisions for drawing lines like you suggest, and they don't always work so well.  It seems like a good idea, but it isn't necessarily so.

Let's imagine the districts were drawn in the way you appear to want.  You slide the Pinellas peninsular district to the tip.  You have to then have the next district overlap in Hillsborough and probably chop an arbitrary piece of Tampa.  You still end up with an extra piece of Hilsborough.

And remember, the Florida Constitution says that racial gerrymandering is more important than compactness or recognizing political boundaries.

[Vasall des Midas]

Technically, of course, the issue is with FL 9 and 11 rather than 10 and 11. The 10th would have to be changed to rectify it though.
Unnecessary double county split with very very poor excuses beyond political gerrymandering. Certainly does reduce compactness.
And yeah, they jutted into Manatee as well. I don't need to verify that on a map with better color choices - I know a Manatee and Sarasota district needs to shed a tiny bit of territory, and they drew it well into Charlotte. Again, very easily avoidable, by switching around areas with the 12th, which btw is an exceedingly odd district - something does need to give around there, though.

I would like to share this document; take note especially of which options it does not pursue.

Placing one or more districts entirely in a county and having parts of 2 districts extending into other counties does not always respect county boundaries in the best way possible.  States like Ohio and Texas have formal provisions for drawing lines like you suggest, and they don't always work so well.  It seems like a good idea, but it isn't necessarily so.

That's why they need an exception clause (or just be not formulated as absolute commands in the first place.) Political gerrymandering is not a valid exception.

Let's imagine the districts were drawn in the way you appear to want.  You slide the Pinellas peninsular district to the tip.  You have to then have the next district overlap in Hillsborough and probably chop an arbitrary piece of Tampa.  You still end up with an extra piece of Hilsborough.

You're chopping fewer arbitrary pieces of Tampa if you don't draw the Tampa district into St Petersburg and Bradenton for no good reason.

And remember, the Florida Constitution says that racial gerrymandering is more important than compactness or recognizing political boundaries.
[/quote]True... but not at issue here. This is not a minority-opportunity district under any sane standard - considerably less so than either of the two Orlando districts I drew above (and the Jacksonville district that goes with them), say. This is a 50-25-25 White-Black-Hispanic district.

[Vasall des Midas]

And a purely Tampa district, with some minor attention to racial breakdowns, comes out 49% Anglo anyways. (More Hispanics and fewer Blacks though.)

[BigSkyBob]

Section 21. Standards for establishing legislative district boundaries
In establishing Legislative district boundaries:

(1) No apportionment plan or 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.

Let's see. If every incumbent receives a favorable district, that favoring incumbents. But, if some incumbent receives a less favorable district, that's disfavoring a particular incumbent! And, what is "[dis]favoring an incumbent?" In 99% of the cases, it is [dis]favoring his political party. In the vast majority of cases adding more Republicans helps a Republican incumbent, while a Democrat is best favored by adding Democrats to his district.

New districts would have to be swing districts, else the new district "favors" some party. That is unless new minority districts can be drawn, then, that district can "favor" the candidate of choice of that minority.

But, if we consider "plans" rather than individual districts, we have meta-level claims about overall "partisan fairness," whatever that means. That seems to mean electing more Democrats, which requires redrawing the districts of some Republicans so they are more likely to lose, which is, itself, another violation!

The amendment wasn't designed to reform redistricting. It was designed to spawn litigation with the purpose of moving redistricting to the Courts.

The only way it seems possible to meet the standard is to draw districts so that every Republican incumbent has a slightly less Republican district, [presumably excluding West and Riveria whom would be "disfavored" by any shift at all towards the Democrats] and every Democrat incumbent a slightly less Democratic district, but, not so much that they are seriously jeopardized. Of course, this would have to be done without even calculating the partisan effects of the maps!
 

[Bacon King]

Section 21. Standards for establishing legislative district boundaries
In establishing Legislative district boundaries:

(1) No apportionment plan or 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.

Let's see. If every incumbent receives a favorable district, that favoring incumbents. But, if some incumbent receives a less favorable district, that's disfavoring a particular incumbent! And, what is "[dis]favoring an incumbent?" In 99% of the cases, it is [dis]favoring his political party. In the vast majority of cases adding more Republicans helps a Republican incumbent, while a Democrat is best favored by adding Democrats to his district.

New districts would have to be swing districts, else the new district "favors" some party. That is unless new minority districts can be drawn, then, that district can "favor" the candidate of choice of that minority.

But, if we consider "plans" rather than individual districts, we have meta-level claims about overall "partisan fairness," whatever that means. That seems to mean electing more Democrats, which requires redrawing the districts of some Republicans so they are more likely to lose, which is, itself, another violation!

The amendment wasn't designed to reform redistricting. It was designed to spawn litigation with the purpose of moving redistricting to the Courts.

The only way it seems possible to meet the standard is to draw districts so that every Republican incumbent has a slightly less Republican district, [presumably excluding West and Riveria whom would be "disfavored" by any shift at all towards the Democrats] and every Democrat incumbent a slightly less Democratic district, but, not so much that they are seriously jeopardized. Of course, this would have to be done without even calculating the partisan effects of the maps!
 

Note that it doesn't say that districts can't favor incumbents, but that they can't be drawn with the intent to do so. And determining intent for something like this is, of course, extremely difficult and litigious- moreso than even what you've mentioned.

I haven't done any research on the amendment's background so I don't know if you're correct regarding its designed purpose (I wouldn't be surprised, rather, if the amendment's backers were just a bunch of well-intentioned idiots) but given how badly that amendment is written, I think you're right regarding the end result. I don't see how the Florida Supreme Court won't end up drawing the map.

[krazen1211]

http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/VR-FL-0151-0005.pdf

Page 42-44.



Prior litigation upholding the existing FL-03.

Pre-FRA and thus irrelevant, although the court may not throw it out anyway.

The findings of fact are still in place. Those include that FL-03 is compact, complies with traditional redistricting principles, and is not drawn primarily on race.

[krazen1211]

Just because the state once created it for reasons (officially) other than VRA doesn't mean it'll make that claim this time.

I'm not sure where this idea came from.

Prior court opinion states that FL-03 was drawn in 2002 as a black performing district and that such was intentional, and that such was fully consistent with a legal plan.

[Bacon King]

Just because the state once created it for reasons (officially) other than VRA doesn't mean it'll make that claim this time.

I'm not sure where this idea came from.

Prior court opinion states that FL-03 was drawn in 2002 as a black performing district and that such was intentional, and that such was fully consistent with a legal plan.

Doesn't mean there won't be a lawsuit about it! First, that was from a case in federal court regarding the VRA, whereas any new lawsuit will be in state court over the racial minority standards of the FDA- which might end up with a very different interpretation. Someone could make the case that the district was drawn with the intent to help an incumbent or political party, the prevention of which under the FRA is of equal importance to ensuring minority representation. Also note that the amendment's wording even seems to suggest that not favoring incumbents is more important than all Federal law.

Yeah... this stuff is definitely going to court.