VRA Standards for Redistricting

[DrScholl]

We are talking about what the courts would decide and the court isn't going to decide on anything that looks like that and may not even give Hispanics a choice, a district like that wouldn't elect a Hispanic. And retrogressing one district to create a very thin majority one isn't going to go over either. Check the law.

[krazen1211]

We are talking about what the courts would decide and the court isn't going to decide on anything that looks like that and may not even give Hispanics a choice, a district like that wouldn't elect a Hispanic. And retrogressing one district to create a very thin majority one isn't going to go over either. Check the law.

Amazing how liberals propose that exactly in numerous states such as Alabama. There are about 8 such posts in the Alabama thread.

But of course, its ok if you're a Democrat.

[DrScholl]

We are talking about what the courts would decide and the court isn't going to decide on anything that looks like that and may not even give Hispanics a choice, a district like that wouldn't elect a Hispanic. And retrogressing one district to create a very thin majority one isn't going to go over either. Check the law.

Amazing how liberals propose that exactly in numerous states such as Alabama. There are about 8 such posts in the Alabama thread.

But of course, its ok if you're a Democrat.

Actually, in Alabama, you can get 2 districts that are probably about the same percentages and well over 50% VAP at that. Black VRA districts are very different than Hispanic ones, that's well established.

People like you have railed against more VRA districts in Southern states that would take a seat away from Republicans, but yet advocate for them in other states where it benefits Republicans.

[BigSkyBob]

We are talking about what the courts would decide 

I was talking about your claim that two Hispanic VAP majorities districts were not possible in Illinois.

You were wrong.


Now, instead of admitting your error, you are trying to change the subject.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps, if you consider "Hispanics" to be a single group. If you realize the facts about Illinois are that there is a natural community of Mexicans that have been "cracked" several ways to deny them the opportunity to elect the candidate of their choice, the law is not on your side.

[DrScholl]

The 50% is such a barely there majority that it probably wouldn't give Hispanics an opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice. The better statement for me to make would have been it's not possible to create a second district that would give that opportunity, because that is correct. Frankly, I think the VRA is past it usefulness and the only federal standards on redistricting should be compactness, because that what really counts.

[krazen1211]

We are talking about what the courts would decide and the court isn't going to decide on anything that looks like that and may not even give Hispanics a choice, a district like that wouldn't elect a Hispanic. And retrogressing one district to create a very thin majority one isn't going to go over either. Check the law.

Amazing how liberals propose that exactly in numerous states such as Alabama. There are about 8 such posts in the Alabama thread.

But of course, its ok if you're a Democrat.

Actually, in Alabama, you can get 2 districts that are probably about the same percentages and well over 50% VAP at that. Black VRA districts are very different than Hispanic ones, that's well established.

People like you have railed against more VRA districts in Southern states that would take a seat away from Republicans, but yet advocate for them in other states where it benefits Republicans.

Lol! What a completely non serious proposal. Amazing how white liberals even ignore the NAACP standard that they prefer 55% black districts.

We are talking about what the courts would decide and the court isn't going to decide on anything that looks like that .

Thanks for confirming the original theory, though.

[Brittain33]

Actually, in Alabama, you can get 2 districts that are probably about the same percentages and well over 50% VAP at that. Black VRA districts are very different than Hispanic ones, that's well established.

Yes, the two situations aren't comparable.

[minionofmidas]

They are quite comparable. It's just that the Illinois case is weaker.

[krazen1211]

Actually, in Alabama, you can get 2 districts that are probably about the same percentages and well over 50% VAP at that. Black VRA districts are very different than Hispanic ones, that's well established.

Yes, the two situations aren't comparable.

They are precisely comparable in that partisans are trying to overturn elections and critical legislative intent, as well as their compliance with the "And retrogressing one district to create a very thin majority one isn't going to go over either." standard. Which I might add was proposed by the equally nonserious Veasey map in Texas with both black and hispanic districts in Dallas and the Valley with the swoop and swerve districts that cross between Dallas and Tarrant County.

[Verily]

Actually, in Alabama, you can get 2 districts that are probably about the same percentages and well over 50% VAP at that. Black VRA districts are very different than Hispanic ones, that's well established.

Yes, the two situations aren't comparable.

They are precisely comparable in that partisans are trying to overturn elections and critical legislative intent, as well as their compliance with the "And retrogressing one district to create a very thin majority one isn't going to go over either." standard. Which I might add was proposed by the equally nonserious Veasey map in Texas with both black and hispanic districts in Dallas and the Valley with the swoop and swerve districts that cross between Dallas and Tarrant County.

They are different because of the different voting patterns of blacks and Hispanics. A 50% Hispanic VAP district is fairly likely not to nominate the preferred Hispanic candidate in the primary or (in some areas, not in Chicago obviously) not elect the preferred Hispanic candidate in the general. A 50% black VAP seat will almost always elect the preferred black candidate in the primary and general.

[krazen1211]

They are different because of the different voting patterns of blacks and Hispanics. A 50% Hispanic VAP district is fairly likely not to nominate the preferred Hispanic candidate in the primary or (in some areas, not in Chicago obviously) not elect the preferred Hispanic candidate in the general. A 50% black VAP seat will almost always elect the preferred black candidate in the primary and general.

In this case, with this incumbent, this blurb isn't likely to be true. More importantly, its not true at the legislative level where more districts with adequate Hispanic CVAP could have been created, but of course, were not.

[Verily]

They are different because of the different voting patterns of blacks and Hispanics. A 50% Hispanic VAP district is fairly likely not to nominate the preferred Hispanic candidate in the primary or (in some areas, not in Chicago obviously) not elect the preferred Hispanic candidate in the general. A 50% black VAP seat will almost always elect the preferred black candidate in the primary and general.

In this case, with this incumbent, this blurb isn't likely to be true. More importantly, its not true at the legislative level where more districts with adequate Hispanic CVAP could have been created, but of course, were not.

The VRA does not consider incumbents. The question is not whether the current Hispanic incumbent would win renomination and reelection. The question is whether, in general, the preferred Hispanic candidate would be nominated and elected. In a 50% Hispanic VAP seat (and not a 50% Hispanic, 20% black, 15% white, 15% Asian type of seat--a 50% Hispanic, 43% white, 5% Asian, 2% black type of seat), it is fairly likely that the preferred Hispanic candidate will not be nominated.

State legislative seats, whatever. I'm not commenting on the state legislature as I don't know enough about it, and I doubt you know enough to comment seriously either. Also, it's off-topic for this thread.

[BigSkyBob]

Actually, in Alabama, you can get 2 districts that are probably about the same percentages and well over 50% VAP at that. Black VRA districts are very different than Hispanic ones, that's well established.

Oh, it's "well established" in districts that consist of a mix of citizen Whites, and immigrant Hispanics, such as in rural Texas. It isn't "well established" in areas such as Chicago with multiracial districts, immigrant communities in the other races, and, White liberal residents whom believe that White males are morally suspect. "Depends on the particular district" seems to be a much better answer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They are precisely comparable in that partisans are trying to overturn elections and critical legislative intent, as well as their compliance with the "And retrogressing one district to create a very thin majority one isn't going to go over either." standard. Which I might add was proposed by the equally nonserious Veasey map in Texas with both black and hispanic districts in Dallas and the Valley with the swoop and swerve districts that cross between Dallas and Tarrant County.

They are different because of the different voting patterns of blacks and Hispanics. A 50% Hispanic VAP district is fairly likely not to nominate the preferred Hispanic candidate in the primary or (in some areas, not in Chicago obviously) not elect the preferred Hispanic candidate in the general. A 50% black VAP seat will almost always elect the preferred black candidate in the primary and general.

That is a truism if you ignore facts that are inconvenient to your case.  Earl Hillard won in a 65% Black district. He was defeated by a coalition of White Democrats and a minority of Black primary voters when the district was regressed to just over 50% Black. Cynthia McKinney and Billy McKinney were taken out by the same demographics. I'd be really interested in Butterfield's support among the races in his first primary. How many counterexamples must be stated before the rule isn't considered  "almost always?"

[BigSkyBob]

They are different because of the different voting patterns of blacks and Hispanics. A 50% Hispanic VAP district is fairly likely not to nominate the preferred Hispanic candidate in the primary or (in some areas, not in Chicago obviously) not elect the preferred Hispanic candidate in the general. A 50% black VAP seat will almost always elect the preferred black candidate in the primary and general.

In this case, with this incumbent, this blurb isn't likely to be true.

It isn't true given the dynamics of the Chicago machine either. As you noted, the incumbent would be Hispanic. A White liberal could try to take him out in the primary, but, the result could easily be that Hispanics could try to retaliate by targeting White liberals in Hispanic majority districts such as Speaker Madigan and Alderman Burke. Do you think that those incumbents would want that hornet's nest stirred?  It seems that such a challenge would not only face the demographics of the district, but, the entire weight of the Chicago political machine.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[BigSkyBob]

They are different because of the different voting patterns of blacks and Hispanics. A 50% Hispanic VAP district is fairly likely not to nominate the preferred Hispanic candidate in the primary or (in some areas, not in Chicago obviously) not elect the preferred Hispanic candidate in the general. A 50% black VAP seat will almost always elect the preferred black candidate in the primary and general.

In this case, with this incumbent, this blurb isn't likely to be true. More importantly, its not true at the legislative level where more districts with adequate Hispanic CVAP could have been created, but of course, were not.

The VRA does not consider incumbents. 

I think this is  rather fantastic claim. If some legislature, essentially, shuffled minority districts with [bare] minority districts requiring those incumbents to run in radically different districts [with the same bare minority majorities] I'm sure it would be slapped down in the courts as violating the VRA.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[minionofmidas]

Actually, in Alabama, you can get 2 districts that are probably about the same percentages and well over 50% VAP at that. Black VRA districts are very different than Hispanic ones, that's well established.

Oh, it's "well established" in districts that consist of a mix of citizen Whites, and immigrant Hispanics, such as in rural Texas. It isn't "well established" in areas such as Chicago with multiracial districts, immigrant communities in the other races, and, White liberal residents whom believe that White males are morally suspect. "Depends on the particular district" seems to be a much better answer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They are precisely comparable in that partisans are trying to overturn elections and critical legislative intent, as well as their compliance with the "And retrogressing one district to create a very thin majority one isn't going to go over either." standard. Which I might add was proposed by the equally nonserious Veasey map in Texas with both black and hispanic districts in Dallas and the Valley with the swoop and swerve districts that cross between Dallas and Tarrant County.

They are different because of the different voting patterns of blacks and Hispanics. A 50% Hispanic VAP district is fairly likely not to nominate the preferred Hispanic candidate in the primary or (in some areas, not in Chicago obviously) not elect the preferred Hispanic candidate in the general. A 50% black VAP seat will almost always elect the preferred black candidate in the primary and general.

That is a truism if you ignore facts that are inconvenient to your case.  Earl Hillard won in a 65% Black district. He was defeated by a coalition of White Democrats and a minority of Black primary voters when the district was regressed to just over 50% Black.

62%. I'd like to see a map of that primary, too - I know Davis' appeal to donors ("help defeat a terrorist-loving antisemite" lololol) was entirely different from his ads in the district (generic better services stuff).

[minionofmidas]

After some research, Hilliard's 90s district was 70% Black (on total population, in 2000) and, like the post 2010 edition, included the Black parts of Montgomery.

[Verily]

Actually, in Alabama, you can get 2 districts that are probably about the same percentages and well over 50% VAP at that. Black VRA districts are very different than Hispanic ones, that's well established.

Oh, it's "well established" in districts that consist of a mix of citizen Whites, and immigrant Hispanics, such as in rural Texas. It isn't "well established" in areas such as Chicago with multiracial districts, immigrant communities in the other races, and, White liberal residents whom believe that White males are morally suspect. "Depends on the particular district" seems to be a much better answer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They are precisely comparable in that partisans are trying to overturn elections and critical legislative intent, as well as their compliance with the "And retrogressing one district to create a very thin majority one isn't going to go over either." standard. Which I might add was proposed by the equally nonserious Veasey map in Texas with both black and hispanic districts in Dallas and the Valley with the swoop and swerve districts that cross between Dallas and Tarrant County.

They are different because of the different voting patterns of blacks and Hispanics. A 50% Hispanic VAP district is fairly likely not to nominate the preferred Hispanic candidate in the primary or (in some areas, not in Chicago obviously) not elect the preferred Hispanic candidate in the general. A 50% black VAP seat will almost always elect the preferred black candidate in the primary and general.

That is a truism if you ignore facts that are inconvenient to your case.  Earl Hillard won in a 65% Black district. He was defeated by a coalition of White Democrats and a minority of Black primary voters when the district was regressed to just over 50% Black. Cynthia McKinney and Billy McKinney were taken out by the same demographics. I'd be really interested in Butterfield's support among the races in his first primary. How many counterexamples must be stated before the rule isn't considered  "almost always?"

I was speaking generally. You will notice "almost always". Certainly occasionally incumbents lose even in VRA seats, Hilliard being an example. Of course, this can also happen in very packed black VRA seats--think Jefferson and Cao. The point is that it happens rarely enough to be confined to specific circumstances. Hilliard lost, but thereafter the elected candidate was always the preferred candidate of black voters. Clearly, then, the result was not from the district necessarily but from the circumstances surrounding the election.

You're just disagreeing for the sake of disagreement. I'm done.

[minionofmidas]

Hilliard's district was not really less packed than Jefferson's, either - just less than before.

[Torie]

Didn't Justice Kennedy in the Bonilla case have some dictum suggesting that if you hit 50% VAP for a minority, that is enough even if not enough to elect a candidate of the minority's choice?  Or am I confused and just having a senior moment?

[minionofmidas]

Didn't Justice Kennedy in the Bonilla case have some dictum suggesting that if you hit 50% VAP for a minority, that is enough even if not enough to elect a candidate of the minority's choice? 

No. It always, always, always depends on the situation in question and the alternatives. There is never a dictum that level x is automatically fine. There never will be one. Claiming there should be one is so clearly against both letter and spirit of the act as to get you laughed out of every non-elected courtroom in the country (not to mention reveal your evil attentions).

Meh. It still bears occasional repetition. Even if the target is random.

[muon2]

Didn't Justice Kennedy in the Bonilla case have some dictum suggesting that if you hit 50% VAP for a minority, that is enough even if not enough to elect a candidate of the minority's choice?  Or am I confused and just having a senior moment?

He indicated that 50% VAP was insufficient in the Bonilla district, but he did suggest that 50% CVAP might have sufficed, and remarked that both sides considered citizenship to be relevant. However, Kennedy also notes that CVAP majorities do not alone define an opportunity district.

[minionofmidas]

...in that area. Where that and no higher is about what any reasonably drawn district will get you.

[BigSkyBob]

Actually, in Alabama, you can get 2 districts that are probably about the same percentages and well over 50% VAP at that. Black VRA districts are very different than Hispanic ones, that's well established.

Oh, it's "well established" in districts that consist of a mix of citizen Whites, and immigrant Hispanics, such as in rural Texas. It isn't "well established" in areas such as Chicago with multiracial districts, immigrant communities in the other races, and, White liberal residents whom believe that White males are morally suspect. "Depends on the particular district" seems to be a much better answer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They are precisely comparable in that partisans are trying to overturn elections and critical legislative intent, as well as their compliance with the "And retrogressing one district to create a very thin majority one isn't going to go over either." standard. Which I might add was proposed by the equally nonserious Veasey map in Texas with both black and hispanic districts in Dallas and the Valley with the swoop and swerve districts that cross between Dallas and Tarrant County.

They are different because of the different voting patterns of blacks and Hispanics. A 50% Hispanic VAP district is fairly likely not to nominate the preferred Hispanic candidate in the primary or (in some areas, not in Chicago obviously) not elect the preferred Hispanic candidate in the general. A 50% black VAP seat will almost always elect the preferred black candidate in the primary and general.

That is a truism if you ignore facts that are inconvenient to your case.  Earl Hillard won in a 65% Black district. He was defeated by a coalition of White Democrats and a minority of Black primary voters when the district was regressed to just over 50% Black. Cynthia McKinney and Billy McKinney were taken out by the same demographics. I'd be really interested in Butterfield's support among the races in his first primary. How many counterexamples must be stated before the rule isn't considered  "almost always?"

I was speaking generally. You will notice "almost always". Certainly occasionally incumbents lose even in VRA seats, Hilliard being an example. Of course, this can also happen in very packed black VRA seats--think Jefferson and Cao. The point is that it happens rarely enough to be confined to specific circumstances. Hilliard lost, but thereafter the elected candidate was always the preferred candidate of black voters. Clearly, then, the result was not from the district necessarily but from the circumstances surrounding the election.

You're just disagreeing for the sake of disagreement. I'm done.

1) If you meant "generally," then you should have said "generally," and not "almost always" which has a different semantic meaning.

2) Your speculations about my motives are false and self-serving. My motive is clear enough: a number of Democrat partisans, as well as posters here, have been very pious about the necessity of a VRA district electing "the preferred candidate of the targeted minority," and have claimed that this will happen in slight majority Black districts because the Democratic nominee will usually be Black [never mind PA-1, TN-9, not to mention the debate about Butterfield] and that Democratic nominee will usually win.

Well, if you are really going to be pious about electing "the preferred candiate" of the targeted minority, then  it not enough that the Democrat wins the general, but, rather, that the Democratic nominee is the prefered nominee of the targeted minority.  By that standard, slight Black majority districts simply are not efficient for the alleged VRA purpose, even if they are efficient for electing as many Democrats as possible. For a large number of Democrats, and posters here, partisan advantage comes before intellectual consistency.

[BigSkyBob]

Didn't Justice Kennedy in the Bonilla case have some dictum suggesting that if you hit 50% VAP for a minority, that is enough even if not enough to elect a candidate of the minority's choice?  Or am I confused and just having a senior moment?

He indicated that 50% VAP was insufficient in the Bonilla district, but he did suggest that 50% CVAP might have sufficed, and remarked that both sides considered citizenship to be relevant. However, Kennedy also notes that CVAP majorities do not alone define an opportunity district.

I would say that then he was wrong. If the minority votes for its preferred candidate at a rate greater than the rest vote for another candidate the minority candidate should win. That is, if the targeted minority feels more strongly than the rest of the district they will win. That is a completely fair standard.