State Legislature Redistricting

[BigSkyBob]

But they're taking the gambles in the wrong places. They did some pretty clever and downright evil things in northern and western Minnesota (Putting Bemidji in a McCain House seat is the most notable example), but the way they drew southern Minnesota gives the impression that they seem to expect every election to have the same turnout figures as 2010. A lot of it seems like attempts to target certain incumbents by basically carving up the district, without taking into account that they haven't exactly eliminated any friendly district. They seem to have targeted Kory Kath in this manner without realizing that the two new seats split from his old are both MORE Democratic than his current seat.

The most obvious example is 22A. It's clear they're trying to target current 26B incumbent Patti Fritz who barely held on in 2010 by cutting her hometown of Faribault in half. This makes sense, as does running the western half up to the exurbs. But the eastern half is ran up to the college town of Northfield, resulting in a seat that gave Obama about 10 points more than Fritz's current seat. And this seat is also more Democratic than the current 25B which narrowly elected a Republican in 2010 and includes Northfield now. Now I can understand the GOP realizing they can't really shore that guy up and have to just let the chips falls where they are for a Republican from Northfield, but the result is a Dem pack district for no real reason. And they've added this seat to Mike Parry's Senate district as stated before. Kath could easily get elected in 22B, 22A is the most Democratic seat south of the Twin Cities and together the Senate seat is Dem-leaning. So you probably end up with a DFL trifecta in a region where that really shouldn't happen under a GOP gerrymander all because of a very clumsy half-assed attempt to eliminate two DFL incumbents who'll both probably survive anyway AND flip the Senate seat to boot.

Then there's 21B. This is an obvious attempt to shore up the Republican in the current 27A, who narrowly won only because certain types didn't turn out in Freeborn county and the DFL foolishly nominated someone from Mower County to run in that seat. The seat has gone from about 57% to about 54% Obama which is probably the best that can be done for a district containing all of Freeborn County. But for some reason they separated it from Mower County, putting the latter in a Senate district with those two other counties that should easily re-elect Dan Sparks, and giving Freeborn to what's basically Julie Rosen's current seat, flipping it to an Obama district. So they're endangering Rosen without making Sparks really all that vulnerable. I think they're also trying to shore up State Senator Jerry Miller by removing those two south eastern counties and giving him more conservative territory to the north and east of Winona. But that's not a guarantee as that's still not enough to full cancel out Winona especially in an election where the college kids actually turn out, which 2010 was not. So they could go from 2 out of 3 State Senators among those 3 seats to 0 quite easily. Dumb dumb dumb.

Why exactly, should I assume that you are more intelligent than the consensus of the Republican caucus was?

[BigSkyBob]

But they're taking the gambles in the wrong places. They did some pretty clever and downright evil things in northern and western Minnesota (Putting Bemidji in a McCain House seat is the most notable example), but the way they drew southern Minnesota gives the impression that they seem to expect every election to have the same turnout figures as 2010. A lot of it seems like attempts to target certain incumbents by basically carving up the district, without taking into account that they haven't exactly eliminated any friendly district. They seem to have targeted Kory Kath in this manner without realizing that the two new seats split from his old are both MORE Democratic than his current seat.

The most obvious example is 22A. It's clear they're trying to target current 26B incumbent Patti Fritz who barely held on in 2010 by cutting her hometown of Faribault in half. This makes sense, as does running the western half up to the exurbs. But the eastern half is ran up to the college town of Northfield, resulting in a seat that gave Obama about 10 points more than Fritz's current seat. And this seat is also more Democratic than the current 25B which narrowly elected a Republican in 2010 and includes Northfield now. Now I can understand the GOP realizing they can't really shore that guy up and have to just let the chips falls where they are for a Republican from Northfield, but the result is a Dem pack district for no real reason. And they've added this seat to Mike Parry's Senate district as stated before. Kath could easily get elected in 22B, 22A is the most Democratic seat south of the Twin Cities and together the Senate seat is Dem-leaning. So you probably end up with a DFL trifecta in a region where that really shouldn't happen under a GOP gerrymander all because of a very clumsy half-assed attempt to eliminate two DFL incumbents who'll both probably survive anyway AND flip the Senate seat to boot.

Then there's 21B. This is an obvious attempt to shore up the Republican in the current 27A, who narrowly won only because certain types didn't turn out in Freeborn county and the DFL foolishly nominated someone from Mower County to run in that seat. The seat has gone from about 57% to about 54% Obama which is probably the best that can be done for a district containing all of Freeborn County. But for some reason they separated it from Mower County, putting the latter in a Senate district with those two other counties that should easily re-elect Dan Sparks, and giving Freeborn to what's basically Julie Rosen's current seat, flipping it to an Obama district. So they're endangering Rosen without making Sparks really all that vulnerable. I think they're also trying to shore up State Senator Jerry Miller by removing those two south eastern counties and giving him more conservative territory to the north and east of Winona. But that's not a guarantee as that's still not enough to full cancel out Winona especially in an election where the college kids actually turn out, which 2010 was not. So they could go from 2 out of 3 State Senators among those 3 seats to 0 quite easily. Dumb dumb dumb.

Why exactly, should I assume that you are more intelligent than the consensus of the Republican caucus was?

You seriously think gerrymanderers are always intelligent then? LOL. I'm just plugging the numbers and reporting on the results. 

No, you simply have not done that. You have seized upon a talking point, namely, this is a dummymander, and have shaded the map to reenforce your talking point.


If this really were a dummymander you would be encouraging Dayton to sign the bill.
You are not. What is an objective observer to make of these facts?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[BigSkyBob]

Somehow I don't think the main factor in which Dayton will sign it or not is what I tell him.

Dayton won't sign it because it screws over some individual Democrats who'll be lobbying him not to. As I said, it does target some areas well, but some of the other moves are just dumb and I could see it failing if all Democrats vote against it along with endangered Republicans.

I'm not commenting on whether, or not, Dayton, will support the map, though if it truly is a dummymander he ought sign the bill. I am commenting on your position. Again, if you truly believe that this is a dummymander, why aren't you supporting the passage of this bill?


The par assumption to make is that you are opposing this bill precisely because it does benefit the Republicans.

[BigSkyBob]

Here's the map of the Illinois House proposal. It's quite a masterwork of spaghetti-strand districts.

Here's another example of Democratic hypocrisy in action.  Due to split control the map went to the coin flip in 1980, 1990, and 2000.  The Democrats won the flip in 1980 and 2000. In 1990, the Republicans won the coin flip, and proceeded to draw a map that favored the Republicans.

The Democratically controlled State Supreme Court found that legislative districts must be compact, and ordered the districts redrawn. The Republicans were forced to square up the districts to their detriment.


These districts are less compact that the Illinois Supreme Court struck down as unacceptable.


In a raw exercise of partisan hypocrisy, that same Court will let this map through without comment.


On the upside, the districts, effectively, won't last ten years. When Illinois inevitably goes into receivership,  Court appointed overseers, not legislators, will run the show.

[BigSkyBob]

On the upside, the districts, effectively, won't last ten years. When Illinois inevitably goes into receivership,  Court appointed overseers, not legislators, will run the show.

Aside from anything else, lease cite the lawe that would allow this to happen (that is that courts may appoint overseers instead of state legislators and that such legislators would have the power to draw districts) )))

You missed my point. After the overseers take charge, it won't matter whether tweedle-dee or tweedle-are wins any particular seat. Voters will choice legislators, and the overseer will set policy.

[BigSkyBob]

You missed my point. After the overseers take charge, it won't matter whether tweedle-dee or tweedle-are wins any particular seat. Voters will choice legislators, and the overseer will set policy.

And now find a law that would allow appointment of such an overseer. It's not a municipality - it's a state. It can go bankrupt, but it is still a state - it's sovereign. You may lock it out of the financial markets, but you can't strip the legislature and the governor of their constitutional powers.

Anyway, any reason to believe Illinois goes bankrupt before, say Texas? Arguably, IL is more willing to tax to pay it off - and that's, in the end, what determines whether state debts get paid. Honestly, I'd be more scared if I held TX debt these days.

Bankruptcy is a federal matter, so talk about "state sovereignty" is irrelevent inasmuch as the Federal Constitution grants federal bankruptcy courts powers that don't answer to any state's Constitution.

If you think being locked out the credit markets are their only concern, may I suggest that a bankruptcy judge may seize  any, or all, tax revenues and/or assets of the state of Illinois for some undetermined length of time. Sure, elected representatives will retain the power to rename highways, or outlaw spitting on the street. But, the power of the purse, will rest elsewhere.

P.S. Illinois has consistently been rated the state with the worse finanacial condition, even worse than California.

[BigSkyBob]

You missed my point. After the overseers take charge, it won't matter whether tweedle-dee or tweedle-are wins any particular seat. Voters will choice legislators, and the overseer will set policy.

And now find a law that would allow appointment of such an overseer. It's not a municipality - it's a state. It can go bankrupt, but it is still a state - it's sovereign. You may lock it out of the financial markets, but you can't strip the legislature and the governor of their constitutional powers.

Anyway, any reason to believe Illinois goes bankrupt before, say Texas? Arguably, IL is more willing to tax to pay it off - and that's, in the end, what determines whether state debts get paid. Honestly, I'd be more scared if I held TX debt these days.

Bankruptcy is a federal matter, so talk about "state sovereignty" is irrelevent inasmuch as the Federal Constitution grants federal bankruptcy courts powers that don't answer to any state's Constitution.

If you think being locked out the credit markets are their only concern, may I suggest that a bankruptcy judge may seize  any, or all, tax revenues and/or assets of the state of Illinois for some undetermined length of time. Sure, elected representatives will retain the power to rename highways, or outlaw spitting on the street. But, the power of the purse, will rest elsewhere.

P.S. Illinois has consistently been rated the state with the worse finanacial condition, even worse than California.

Any Federal Judge stupid enough to try to enforce that would find themselves smacked down by the Supreme Court. Any attempt to enforce a legal receivership against a state would run smack into a Constitutional Crisis on a scale not seen since the civil war, especially if the state ordered employees not to comply with instructions from the court.

If the overseer tried to fire them you would end up with thousands of lawsuits many targeted at the overseer personally, including ones filed in a sure to be highly hostile state courts.

Even assuming the overseer won out, as soon as the state passed out of receivership you would end up with a collosal mess as the voters would promptly send in a state government of the opinion that the whole exercise had been illegal and everything implemented void.

Basically no sane Judge would ever order it, and no sane individual would ever take the job of overseer. This is not to say that someone motivated out of ambition or sheer malevolence would not, but I suspect you would end up with a poorly qualified ideologue since no one else would take the job. And that would further guarantee disaster.

Here is a reality check: bankruptcy exists to balance the needs of debtors and creditors in a way that is considered  fair and just. Claiming "state sovereignty" aren't going to go very far. Creditors have the right to recovery, and that is especially true of the pleged collateral, which for a general obligation bond is the future stream of tax revenue.

So, yes, a federal bankruptcy judge will take the case because it is his job.

[BigSkyBob]

You missed my point. After the overseers take charge, it won't matter whether tweedle-dee or tweedle-are wins any particular seat. Voters will choice legislators, and the overseer will set policy.

And now find a law that would allow appointment of such an overseer. It's not a municipality - it's a state. It can go bankrupt, but it is still a state - it's sovereign. You may lock it out of the financial markets, but you can't strip the legislature and the governor of their constitutional powers.

Anyway, any reason to believe Illinois goes bankrupt before, say Texas? Arguably, IL is more willing to tax to pay it off - and that's, in the end, what determines whether state debts get paid. Honestly, I'd be more scared if I held TX debt these days.

Bankruptcy is a federal matter, so talk about "state sovereignty" is irrelevent inasmuch as the Federal Constitution grants federal bankruptcy courts powers that don't answer to any state's Constitution.

If you think being locked out the credit markets are their only concern, may I suggest that a bankruptcy judge may seize  any, or all, tax revenues and/or assets of the state of Illinois for some undetermined length of time. Sure, elected representatives will retain the power to rename highways, or outlaw spitting on the street. But, the power of the purse, will rest elsewhere.

P.S. Illinois has consistently been rated the state with the worse finanacial condition, even worse than California.

Any Federal Judge stupid enough to try to enforce that would find themselves smacked down by the Supreme Court. Any attempt to enforce a legal receivership against a state would run smack into a Constitutional Crisis on a scale not seen since the civil war, especially if the state ordered employees not to comply with instructions from the court.

If the overseer tried to fire them you would end up with thousands of lawsuits many targeted at the overseer personally, including ones filed in a sure to be highly hostile state courts.

Even assuming the overseer won out, as soon as the state passed out of receivership you would end up with a collosal mess as the voters would promptly send in a state government of the opinion that the whole exercise had been illegal and everything implemented void.

Basically no sane Judge would ever order it, and no sane individual would ever take the job of overseer. This is not to say that someone motivated out of ambition or sheer malevolence would not, but I suspect you would end up with a poorly qualified ideologue since no one else would take the job. And that would further guarantee disaster.

Here is a reality check: bankruptcy exists to balance the needs of debtors and creditors in a way that is considered  fair and just. Claiming "state sovereignty" aren't going to go very far. Creditors have the right to recovery, and that is especially true of the pleged collateral, which for a general obligation bond is the future stream of tax revenue.

So, yes, a federal bankruptcy judge will take the case because it is his job.

US Judicial Theory recognizes the concept of "Political Questions" which can not be resolved through a simple appeal to the legal basis of the situation but must take into account the political nature of a case as well. A state declaring bankruptcy would be a "Political Question" because while a federal bankruptcy judge could try and claim that it was simply an issue issue of finances and bankruptcy laws, it really wouldn't be.

There is a fundamental contradiction between claiming that the "political question" can be taken into account, and your claim that a bankruptcy judge cannot take the case and balance out the "political question" with every other financial question.

I would find it amazing if all 49 other states didn't file briefs concerning the "political question" that amount to, "On the political question, if you rule Illinois can stiff its creditors with impunity, you are not only freezing Illinois out of the credit market, but, you are freezing out us as well."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The system of bankruptcy is in the Federal Constitution which is not bound by State Constitutions.

[BigSkyBob]

I would find it amazing if all 49 other states didn't file briefs concerning the "political question"

I would find it a lot more amazing if the other 49 states AND the federal government wouldn't side w/ the state of Illinois )

Not to say that I believe an actual default by the state is likely - at least by a state that has amply demonstrated political willingness to raise taxes. I would, honestly, be a lot more concerned about, say, the state of Texas )

Why do claim that states that pay their bills would side with the position that the alleged collateral that allows them to obtain significantly lower rates than unsecured credit isn't collectable?

[BigSkyBob]

I would find it amazing if all 49 other states didn't file briefs concerning the "political question"

I would find it a lot more amazing if the other 49 states AND the federal government wouldn't side w/ the state of Illinois )

Not to say that I believe an actual default by the state is likely - at least by a state that has amply demonstrated political willingness to raise taxes. I would, honestly, be a lot more concerned about, say, the state of Texas )

Why do claim that states that pay their bills would side with the position that the alleged collateral that allows them to obtain significantly lower rates than unsecured credit isn't collectable?

Because briefs are filed not by states but by elected politicians, and the precedence set by a federal court overthrowing a locally elected state government is not something any of them would sign on to.

It is a simple question of whether, or not, the rest of the state what their GOB treated as secured, or unsecured, debt. Elected politicians understand the consequences of being frozen out of the credit market as much as anyone else. Supporting the notion that the pledged collateral is forfeited in default is not "overthrowing" a government.  That same government freely chose to pledge the collateral, and is bound by that decision. They certainly took the benefits of pledging collateral, namely significantly lower rates.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[BigSkyBob]

http://media.mlive.com/elections_impact/photo/senate-statewide-newjpg-0b52e03e92c3102b.jpg

Proposed State Senate map reveiled.

[BigSkyBob]

So you are proposing two majority black seats, which is exactly what the status quo is. Except one happens to be more black than the other which doesn't mean much. The most likely representative from a 60% black VAP district is a black Democrats. Same with a 50% black VAP district. Hell even the case with a 45% black VAP district.

The second district is easily explainable in that it sounds designed to take in Republican or marginal areas and prevent a possible swing district.

So, Democratic partisan considerations come first, and, the interests of Blacks are secondary.

I think that is the jest of Krazen's point: the VRA is being abused by Democratic partisans to further Democratic partisan interests nominally in the name of Black interest, but, only to the extent that Black interest is firmly in line with Democratic interest. When push comes to shove, Black interest is told to take a back seat.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[BigSkyBob]

Actually, from what I've heard, the Delaware Senate plan doles out favors to the Senate President's friends and allies (there are a couple of Republicans who are given safe seats, while two others are put in tougher seats). Not everything is some grand racist white liberal conspiracy.

What a minute, redistricting is a conspiracy. That is a given. The only question is whether, or not, that conspiracy is effectively, if not intentionally, racist. The numbers suggest that it is.

[BigSkyBob]

Actually, from what I've heard, the Delaware Senate plan doles out favors to the Senate President's friends and allies (there are a couple of Republicans who are given safe seats, while two others are put in tougher seats). Not everything is some grand racist white liberal conspiracy.

And that's exactly what happened in the San Fernando Valley too (where the districts were actually drawn by one of the current reps' brothers form what I understand.) Considering how patronistic and machine-based New Jersey politics are that's likely what happened there.

The funny thing though is this type of blatant nepotism and all that is worthy of criticism as well, so why even go on the ridiculous racist angle?

Well, in Texas, the GOP is furthering GOP interest. The response by the Democrats has been accusations of "racism."  Either the charge of "racism" is based on intent, or results. Regardless  of which of the two options you choose, you should apply it equally to both parties.

[BigSkyBob]

To be fair, the main reason the LA GOP increased the number of black majority districts was to give all their new party switchers whiter districts.

I have no doubt that GOP partisan interest and maximizing the number of Black seats align. Pointing your finger at the GOP doesn't excuse the Democrats for trying to minimizing the number of Black seats because that is what is in Democratic interest. Such blatant partisanship makes Democratic claims about the moral imperative to create a second Black seat in Lousianna ring hallow.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since the Lousianna Speaker of the House stated that this is the first time for preclearance of the original map, that's a pretty safe bet.

[BigSkyBob]

To be fair, the main reason the LA GOP increased the number of black majority districts was to give all their new party switchers whiter districts.

I have no doubt that GOP partisan interest and maximizing the number of Black seats align. Pointing your finger at the GOP doesn't excuse the Democrats for trying to minimizing the number of Black seats because that is what is in Democratic interest. Such blatant partisanship makes Democratic claims about the moral imperative to create a second Black seat in Lousianna ring hallow.

Of course. Both sides of the aisle are blatant hypocrites, especially on regarding the "principles of redistricting" (for lack of a better term).

Whether, one, both or neither  political party is more consistent in one question. Whether one, both, or neither political party is better on creating VRA districts is another question. On the second question, the  facts indicate that the GOP has done a much better job, regardless of motivation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since the Lousianna Speaker of the House stated that this is the first time for preclearance of the original map, that's a pretty safe bet.
[/quote]

Thanks for the info; I thought that was the case but didn't know for certain.
[/quote]

Well, I read that fact in the link Krazen provided.

[BigSkyBob]

Are these the new Ohio legislative maps?

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/reshape/GA/mann-dirossi-senate.pdf

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/reshape/GA/mann-dirossi-senate.pdf

[BigSkyBob]

Proposed Missouri State Senate districts:


http://oa.mo.gov/bp/redistricting/documents/Senate%20Apportionment%20Map%208.5x11%20Statewide.pdf


Proposed Missouri State House districts:

http://oa.mo.gov/bp/redistricting/documents/House%20Apportionment%20Plan%208.5x11%20Statewide.pdf

For detailed maps:

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/s_default.asp?id=maps

[BigSkyBob]

Proposed Tennessee state Senate maps:

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/senate/redist/Plan%20H%20StMap.pdf

Regional insert maps here:

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/senate/redist/redistricting.html

[BigSkyBob]

Proposed New York Legislative Districts:



http://www.latfor.state.ny.us/maps/

[BigSkyBob]

I hope Cuomo vetoes that mess.

I hope that if he does, the Assembly and Senate make a deal to override the veto.  Neither body really wants to roll the dice and get a court-drawn map that puts incumbents in danger.

Both maps are poster children for partisan Gerrymandering.  They did quite the job of carving up cities for partisan ends.

I could see the State Assembly signing onto the project, possibily, but, some Senate Democrats also will have to sign onto the project. What is their risk-reward ratio in a court-drawn map?