EG's State Senate Thread

[Nyvin]

20/38 = 52.6% R. The current makeup is 27-11 R (seriously, the Michigan Dems might be as bad as the Florida D's. I have 13 Safe D districts. How is 11 even possible?)

Vote-wise they do fine,  they're just overwhelmingly concentrated in the Detroit area and the State GOP gerrymandered the heck out of the map.


2014 State Senate election in Michigan:
Democrats: 1,483,927 (49.23%)
Republicans: 1,527,343 (50.67%)

A victory of only 1.44% in votes turned into winning 71% of the seats.    I think in the House they won the majority of the votes, but still nowhere near a majority.

[ElectionsGuy]

As of tonight, I have just finished California which means now I simply need to post all of them.

20/38 = 52.6% R. The current makeup is 27-11 R (seriously, the Michigan Dems might be as bad as the Florida D's. I have 13 Safe D districts. How is 11 even possible?)

Vote-wise they do fine,  they're just overwhelmingly concentrated in the Detroit area and the State GOP gerrymandered the heck out of the map.


2014 State Senate election in Michigan:
Democrats: 1,483,927 (49.23%)
Republicans: 1,527,343 (50.67%)

A victory of only 1.44% in votes turned into winning 71% of the seats.    I think in the House they won the majority of the votes, but still nowhere near a majority.

Thanks. Michigan for sure is a natural gerrymander, but there's no way they could get down to 11 without manipulated districts. I noticed that Democrats even won a plurality of votes in the 2014 house races statewide.

[ElectionsGuy]

Ohio:



9: 65.0% McCain, 33.1% Obama = Safe R
14: 52.3% Obama, 46.1% McCain = Toss-Up
15: 57.6% McCain, 40.5% Obama = Safe R
16: 57.1% McCain, 40.8% Obama = Safe R
17: 58.0% McCain, 39.9% Obama = Safe R
18: 51.5% McCain, 46.3% Obama = Likely R
20: 57.9% McCain, 40.3% Obama = Safe R
23: 49.2% Obama, 49.0% McCain = Lean R
29: 56.7% McCain, 41.0% Obama = Safe R
30: 50.3% McCain, 47.5% Obama = Likely R
31: 51.8% McCain, 45.7% Obama = Likely R

Cincinnati/Dayton Close-Up:



1: 72.6% Obama, 26.4% McCain = Safe D
2: 57.9% McCain, 41.1% Obama = Safe R
3: 64.6% McCain, 34.3% Obama = Safe R
4: 62.0% McCain, 36.6% Obama = Safe R
5: 61.3% Obama, 37.3% McCain = Safe D
6: 64.6% McCain, 34.3% Obama = Safe R
7: 55.9% McCain, 42.4% Obama = Safe R

Columbus Close-Up:



8: 74.1% Obama, 24.7% McCain = Safe D
10: 63.9% Obama, 34.8% McCain = Safe D
11: 55.3% McCain, 43.6% Obama = Safe R
12: 52.6% McCain, 46.1% Obama = Likely R

Toledo Close-Up:



13: 70.3% Obama, 28.1% McCain = Safe D

Cleveland Close-Up:



19: 84.8% Obama, 14.3% McCain = Safe D
21: 81.7% Obama, 17.5% McCain = Safe D
22: 56.4% Obama, 42.1% McCain = Likely D
28: 50.3% Obama, 48.5% McCain = Toss-Up

Northeastern Ohio:



24: 65.3% Obama, 32.5% McCain = Safe D
25: 56.9% Obama, 41.3% McCain = Likely D
26: 64.4% Obama, 34.3% McCain = Safe D
27: 53.0% McCain, 45.7% Obama = Likely R
32: 53.3% McCain, 44.8% Obama = Likely R
33: 55.4% Obama, 42.5% McCain = Likely D

20/33 = 60.6% R. The current makeup is 23-10 R.

[ElectionsGuy]

Illinois:



3: 51.4% McCain, 46.6% Obama = Safe R
4: 53.6% McCain, 44.8% Obama = Safe R
5: 54.5% McCain, 43.5% Obama = Safe R
6: 51.6% Obama, 46.8% McCain = Likely R
7: 56.3% Obama, 41.8% McCain = Toss-Up
8: 52.1% McCain, 46.3% Obama = Safe R
9: 51.0% McCain, 47.3% Obama = Safe R
10: 53.7% McCain, 44.5% Obama = Safe R
11: 54.4% McCain, 44.0% Obama = Safe R
12: 56.7% Obama, 41.7% McCain = Toss-Up
13: 53.7% McCain, 44.5% Obama = Safe R
14: 50.9% McCain, 47.5% Obama = Safe R
15: 50.5% McCain, 47.8% Obama = Safe R
16: 58.6% Obama, 40.1% McCain = Lean D
18: 49.3% Obama, 48.9% McCain = Likely R
19: 54.9% Obama, 43.5% McCain = Lean R
58: 55.8% Obama, 42.5% McCain = Lean R

St Louis Suburbs Close-Up:



1: 64.6% Obama, 34.1% McCain = Safe D
2: 56.3% Obama, 42.0% McCain = Toss-Up

Chicago Inner Close-Up:



21: 80.3% Obama, 19.0% McCain = Safe D
22: 88.1% Obama, 11.3% McCain = Safe D
23: 95.6% Obama, 4.1% McCain = Safe D
24: 97.1% Obama, 2.7% McCain = Safe D
25: 83.3% Obama, 15.9% McCain = Safe D
26: 96.7% Obama, 2.9% McCain = Safe D
27: 85.8% Obama, 12.9% McCain = Safe D
28: 77.5% Obama, 21.4% McCain = Safe D
29: 97.6% Obama, 2.2% McCain = Safe D
30: 84.9% Obama, 13.9% McCain = Safe D
31: 79.9% Obama, 18.7% McCain = Safe D
32: 82.4% Obama, 16.3% McCain = Safe D
33: 82.1% Obama, 16.4% McCain = Safe D
34: 65.3% Obama, 33.2% McCain = Safe D
35: 73.0% Obama, 25.9% McCain = Safe D
36: 49.8% McCain, 49.1% Obama = Likely R
37: 57.5% Obama, 41.1% McCain = Lean D
38: 79.5% Obama, 19.3% McCain = Safe D
39: 64.2% Obama, 34.6% McCain = Safe D
40: 66.0% Obama, 33.0% McCain = Safe D
41: 60.5% Obama, 38.5% McCain = Likely D
42: 58.4% Obama, 40.4% McCain = Lean D
43: 60.3% Obama, 38.5% McCain = Likely D
44: 54.6% Obama, 44.3% McCain = Toss-Up
45: 58.0% Obama, 40.6% McCain = Lean D
46: 53.2% Obama, 45.4% McCain = Lean R
47: 53.8% Obama, 44.8% McCain = Lean R
48: 53.6% Obama, 45.2% McCain = Lean R
49: 61.6% Obama, 37.2% McCain = Likely D
50: 58.5% Obama, 40.5% McCain = Lean D

Chicago Outer Close-Up:



17: 58.4% Obama, 39.8% McCain = Likely D
20: 49.5% Obama, 49.1% McCain = Likely R
51: 63.3% Obama, 35.4% McCain = Safe D
52: 56.2% Obama, 42.4% McCain = Toss-Up
53: 62.2% Obama, 36.9% McCain = Safe D
54: 64.3% Obama, 34.6% McCain = Safe D
55: 54.7% Obama, 44.0% McCain = Toss-Up
56: 52.2% Obama, 46.3% McCain = Lean R
57: 50.7% Obama, 47.7% McCain = Likely R
59: 51.1% Obama, 47.8% McCain = Likely R

35.5/59 = 60.2% D. The current makeup is 39-20 D. The 2008 numbers here are TERRIBLE, especially downstate, so I had to go more with my gut than anything else for some of these. Muon, are these ratings OK?

[ElectionsGuy]

Pennsylvania:



1: 59.9% Obama, 38.9% McCain = Safe D
7: 50.3% Obama, 48.4% McCain = Likely R
9: 50.8% McCain, 47.9% Obama = Likely R
10: 51.7% McCain, 46.7% Obama = Likely R
11: 62.7% McCain, 36.1% Obama = Safe R
12: 55.6% McCain, 43.2% Obama = Safe R
13: 65.9% McCain, 32.9% Obama = Safe R
14: 53.3% McCain, 45.2% Obama = Safe R
16: 66.8% McCain, 31.9% Obama = Safe R
18: 60.0% McCain, 38.9% Obama = Safe R
20: 58.1% McCain, 40.3% Obama = Safe R
21: 51.9% Obama, 46.9% McCain = Lean R
22: 60.1% McCain, 38.6% Obama = Safe R
45: 49.3% Obama, 49.2% McCain = Lean R
46: 62.3% Obama, 36.8% McCain = Safe D
47: 55.6% McCain, 43.0% Obama = Safe R
48: 54.5% McCain, 43.9% Obama = Safe R
49: 53.7% Obama, 45.2% McCain = Lean D
50: 52.7% Obama, 46.2% McCain = Toss-Up

Pittsburgh Close-Up:



2: 73.7% Obama, 25.3% McCain = Safe D
3: 68.5% Obama, 30.6% McCain = Safe D
4: 54.3% McCain, 44.9% Obama = Safe R
5: 49.9% Obama, 49.2% McCain = Lean R
6: 51.8% McCain, 47.2% Obama = Likely R
8: 56.8% McCain, 42.2% Obama = Safe R

Philadelphia Close-Up:



23: 73.8% Obama, 25.2% McCain = Safe D
24: 94.5% Obama, 5.2% McCain = Safe D
25: 90.9% Obama, 8.7% McCain = Safe D
26: 96.1% Obama, 3.6% McCain = Safe D
27: 81.2% Obama, 18.2% McCain = Safe D
28: 56.2% Obama, 42.7% McCain = Likely D
29: 60.1% Obama, 38.6% McCain = Safe D
31: 66.8% Obama, 32.5% McCain = Safe D
32: 60.0% Obama, 39.2% McCain = Safe D
34: 65.0% Obama, 34.1% McCain = Safe D
35: 58.9% Obama, 40.0% McCain = Likely D

Southeastern Pennsylvania:



15: 55.0% Obama, 44.0% McCain = Likely D
17: 56.8% McCain, 42.1% Obama = Safe R
19: 52.7% McCain, 46.2% Obama = Likely R
30: 50.3% Obama, 48.8% McCain = Lean R
33: 49.5% McCain, 49.4% Obama = Lean R
36: 52.4% Obama, 46.8% McCain = Toss-Up
37: 52.4% Obama, 46.7% McCain = Toss-Up
38: 64.8% McCain, 34.3% Obama = Safe R
39: 54.9% Obama, 44.3% McCain = Lean D
40: 52.6% Obama, 46.3% McCain = Toss-Up
41: 59.2% Obama, 39.6% McCain = Likely D
42: 57.1% McCain, 41.7% Obama = Safe R
43: 60.4% Obama, 38.3% McCain = Safe D
44: 56.5% Obama, 42.2% McCain = Likely D

27/50 = 54.0% R. The current makeup is 30-20 R.

[muon2]

Illinois:



3: 51.4% McCain, 46.6% Obama = Safe R
4: 53.6% McCain, 44.8% Obama = Safe R
5: 54.5% McCain, 43.5% Obama = Safe R
6: 51.6% Obama, 46.8% McCain = Likely R
7: 56.3% Obama, 41.8% McCain = Toss-Up
8: 52.1% McCain, 46.3% Obama = Safe R
9: 51.0% McCain, 47.3% Obama = Safe R
10: 53.7% McCain, 44.5% Obama = Safe R
11: 54.4% McCain, 44.0% Obama = Safe R
12: 56.7% Obama, 41.7% McCain = Lean D
13: 53.7% McCain, 44.5% Obama = Safe R
14: 50.9% McCain, 47.5% Obama = Safe R
15: 50.5% McCain, 47.8% Obama = Safe R
16: 58.6% Obama, 40.1% McCain = Likely D
18: 49.3% Obama, 48.9% McCain = Likely R
19: 54.9% Obama, 43.5% McCain = Toss-Up
58: 55.8% Obama, 42.5% McCain = Toss-Up

12 is Peoria county and is a good bellwether, Toss-up.
16 was just won by a Pub in 2014, Lean-D is a better call.
18 this is safe R.
19 & 58 are likely R. The Dems couldn't do anything to gerrymander a lean D seat out of this area or they would have.

The Dems gerrymandered a seat out of 3 and 5 with a perfect conservative Dem to hold it. They did the same with parts of 11 and 13, though both house seats are Pub and the incumbent is not running next year. They also manufactured a seat out of 6, 8, and 10. They linked 7 to Danville to keep it out of the toss-up category.

The St Louis suburbs (Metro East as it's known here) is reasonable.

Can you post the VAP% for the inner and outer Chicago seats?

[ElectionsGuy]

All racial categories over 10%:

20: 84% White
21: 52% Black, 37% White
22: 62% Black, 22% White, 14% Hispanic
23: 72% Black, 16% Hispanic, 10% White
24: 91% Black
25: 58% Hispanic, 20% Black, 19% White
26: 78% Black, 11% White
27: 73% Hispanic, 12% White, 10% Black
28: 59% White, 18% Asian, 14% Black
29: 79% Black, 11% Hispanic
30: 67% Hispanic, 24% White
31: 74% White, 16% Hispanic
32: 52% White, 17% Hispanic, 14% Black, 14% Asian
33: 56% White, 25% Hispanic
34: 67% White, 22% Hispanic
35: 65% White, 18% Asian
36: 86% White
37: 78% White, 12% Hispanic
38: 48% Hispanic, 38% White, 10% Black
39: 66% White, 16% Hispanic, 14% Black
40: 60% White, 26% Hispanic, 10% Black
41: 79% White, 12% Asian
42: 74% White, 14% Asian
43: 69% White, 14% Asian, 14% Hispanic
44: 66% White, 16% Hispanic, 14% Asian
45: 65% White, 20% Hispanic, 11% Asian
46: 80% White
47: 78% White, 10% Asian
48: 74% White, 12% Hispanic
49: 62% White, 20% Hispanic, 14% Black
50: 65% White, 15% Hispanic, 10% Black
51: 48% White, 37% Hispanic
52: 64% White, 26% Hispanic
53: 78% White
54: 47% White, 30% Hispanic, 15% Black
55: 78% White, 14% Hispanic
56: 88% White
57: 83% White, 13% Hispanic
59: 83% White

[muon2]

That 91% black SD is going to be a target for litigation as illegal packing, and I only count 6 SD that are majority black. Currently there are 9 Chicago area seats that elect black Senators. Most observers would say that anything less than 8 SDs where the black population can elect a candidate of choice is going to run into challenges.

You only have 3 majority and 1 plurality Hispanic SDs. There are 4 current seats, though many think a fifth should have been drawn. 59% HVAP is seen as a minimum to avoid dilution charges, though the fifth seat could possibly be under that.

[ElectionsGuy]

That 91% black SD is going to be a target for litigation as illegal packing, and I only count 6 SD that are majority black. Currently there are 9 Chicago area seats that elect black Senators. Most observers would say that anything less than 8 SDs where the black population can elect a candidate of choice is going to run into challenges.

You only have 3 majority and 1 plurality Hispanic SDs. There are 4 current seats, though many think a fifth should have been drawn. 59% HVAP is seen as a minimum to avoid dilution charges, though the fifth seat could possibly be under that.

I don't get it. Some of the downstate districts are over 90% white, is that "illegal packing" too? Black people happen to live around other black people, there's nothing I can do about that and I want the districts to look neat with no obscure gerrymanders. And the whole idea of a democracy is for everyone to elect a candidate of their choice, not just a particular race or group. People can elect whoever they want, I think these quotas just make drawing districts harder than it needs to be.

[Sol]

That 91% black SD is going to be a target for litigation as illegal packing, and I only count 6 SD that are majority black. Currently there are 9 Chicago area seats that elect black Senators. Most observers would say that anything less than 8 SDs where the black population can elect a candidate of choice is going to run into challenges.

You only have 3 majority and 1 plurality Hispanic SDs. There are 4 current seats, though many think a fifth should have been drawn. 59% HVAP is seen as a minimum to avoid dilution charges, though the fifth seat could possibly be under that.

I don't get it. Some of the downstate districts are over 90% white, is that "illegal packing" too? Black people happen to live around other black people, there's nothing I can do about that and I want the districts to look neat with no obscure gerrymanders. And the whole idea of a democracy is for everyone to elect a candidate of their choice, not just a particular race or group. People can elect whoever they want, I think these quotas just make drawing districts harder than it needs to be.

Well, that's fine. The problem is of course that that would be found illegal in a court of law.

[Republican Michigander]

20/38 = 52.6% R. The current makeup is 27-11 R (seriously, the Michigan Dems might be as bad as the Florida D's. I have 13 Safe D districts. How is 11 even possible?)

APOL rules limit county and municipal breaks
Self-packing of dems into certain communities - goes with APOL.
R's winning ALL the tossups.

The current (actual) map I rated for 2014 as 16 Safe R, 11 safe D, 6 lean R, and 5 tossups.
Safe D - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 18, 23, 27 (11)
Lean D - None.
Tossup - 7, 17, 20, 32, 34.  (5)
Lean R - 24, 25, 29, 31, 36, 38. (6)
Safe R - 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 26, 28, 30, 33, 37,    (16)

The 7th was a tough fight, but there's a slight GOP leaning on paper. The 20th District (solely in Kalamazoo County) surprised me. On paper, the GOP has no business winning it when both sides have strong candidates. The 34th is fairly strongly dem at the top of the ticket with Muskegon County. The 17th is trending towards the R's downticket, but both sides had a good candidate. The 32nd district was an open seat with a good R candidate and a city/suburban/rural clash involved with the city of Saginaw.

The dems really didn't contest the 24th (swing on paper), 29th (City of Grand Rapids - tossup on paper) 31st (with Bay City - moving towards the right), 38th (UP - moving towards the right). They had a good candidate for the 25th which was otherwise safe. The 36th would have been a tossup 20 years ago, but is probably a strong R lean these days.

Of the safe seats, the 10th, 14th, and 33rd shouldn't be safe on paper. It was due to candidate quality (on both sides)

In other words, the R's ran the table. Candidate quality may have put two more or so into tossup category, but I think term limits factored into strategy.

[muon2]

That 91% black SD is going to be a target for litigation as illegal packing, and I only count 6 SD that are majority black. Currently there are 9 Chicago area seats that elect black Senators. Most observers would say that anything less than 8 SDs where the black population can elect a candidate of choice is going to run into challenges.

You only have 3 majority and 1 plurality Hispanic SDs. There are 4 current seats, though many think a fifth should have been drawn. 59% HVAP is seen as a minimum to avoid dilution charges, though the fifth seat could possibly be under that.

I don't get it. Some of the downstate districts are over 90% white, is that "illegal packing" too? Black people happen to live around other black people, there's nothing I can do about that and I want the districts to look neat with no obscure gerrymanders. And the whole idea of a democracy is for everyone to elect a candidate of their choice, not just a particular race or group. People can elect whoever they want, I think these quotas just make drawing districts harder than it needs to be.

If it was boxed in by other minority districts you might be able to make a case for it, but the district to the west is white, so it is possible to make two districts that will both elect the black population's candidate of choice. Congressional IL-4 has survived decades of challenge despite the bizarre shape because it is constrained by the black CDs. Without that constraint it would be forced to a far more compact shape.

[Torie]

That 91% black SD is going to be a target for litigation as illegal packing, and I only count 6 SD that are majority black. Currently there are 9 Chicago area seats that elect black Senators. Most observers would say that anything less than 8 SDs where the black population can elect a candidate of choice is going to run into challenges.

You only have 3 majority and 1 plurality Hispanic SDs. There are 4 current seats, though many think a fifth should have been drawn. 59% HVAP is seen as a minimum to avoid dilution charges, though the fifth seat could possibly be under that.

I don't get it. Some of the downstate districts are over 90% white, is that "illegal packing" too? Black people happen to live around other black people, there's nothing I can do about that and I want the districts to look neat with no obscure gerrymanders. And the whole idea of a democracy is for everyone to elect a candidate of their choice, not just a particular race or group. People can elect whoever they want, I think these quotas just make drawing districts harder than it needs to be.

If it was boxed in by other minority districts you might be able to make a case for it, but the district to the west is white, so it is possible to make two districts that will both elect the black population's candidate of choice. Congressional IL-4 has survived decades of challenge despite the bizarre shape because it is constrained by the black CDs. Without that constraint it would be forced to a far more compact shape.

Is it clear it's illegal packing if the lines as drawn of the "packed" CD otherwise hew to defensible redistricting principles (hewing to jurisdictional lines other than perhaps gerrymandered ward lines), such as county town lines and/or have a compact shape that fits in with nicely with the lines of the adjacent districts in the area?  Is there any case which has so held? Although not applicable here, suppose there were a city that was 90% black. Do you have to chop it in half if it will create two districts that have a majority minority VAP population?  I ask because the map lines you questioned as to their VRA legality seem clean enough, and unless there is a chop to lose by generating another black district, I am not sure I see a violation. This would be particularly true if creating another black CD did generate more chops, or more erosity. As I understand it, packing is only illegal if the map does not otherwise follow good district line drawing principles. Granted, political realities may dictate more black districts, but that is another matter.

Anyway, I ran the drill for SD's on the south end of Cook County, and came up with the below (not that the Dems would ever draw such a map because the green SD to the west is Pub leaning, and we can't have that).  Alas I didn't come up with a 90% BVAP CD, but I came reasonably close. Do you think there is a packing rap against that slate blue SD west of Hyde Park?  



And the chartreuse SD numbers are below. Is that supposed to be the 8th black SD (assuming two black SD's can reasonably be drawn without undue manipulation of the lines on the west side of Chicago)? Do the lines need to be made more erose to get the BVAP up for the chartreuse SD? Suppose, as may be the case here, there is a map that gets the BVAP up for this SD that is about the same in erosity? Does that answer turn on whether the manipulation without much additional erosity can theoretically get the BVAP up to 50%, even if a lower percentage would elect a black candidate?



For example, here is another iteration, that looks about as good as the first map, and gets the chartreuse SD up about 3% in BVAP, which may be enough to make the difference between electing a black candidate or not (doubtful actually, because much of that BVAP increase is offset by a lower low turnout HVAP percentage and higher high turnout white percentage when it comes to the BVAP percentage actually voting in Dem primaries), but it's still far short of 50% BVAP. Must it legally be drawn? I would suggest not. If one could hit 50% BVAP, it's a closer case, and might well go the other way.



Again, is there a case that holds that a map that otherwise hews to good neutral criteria needs to change to increase the number of minority representatives in a zone, because that neutral criteria has some districts packed, thereby at the periphery of the zone having a district that does not have enough minority VAP to elect a minority candidate? Within and near a minority zone, does one need to go the chop and/or erosity route to get there (we know that between minority zones that we do not, but how about with respect to one zone)?  It's relatively easy to parse legally when looking at the first minority district to be drawn in a zone, but when we are in a multiple minority district scenario in such a zone, it seems to me that things get a lot more complicated legally in a hurry.

Lawyers love to play with hypotheticals. Who knew?  

[muon2]

There are cases where sound principles like county lines were overruled because they amounted to cracking the black minority vote. I don't know why they wouldn't do the same for a case of packing. Here's SCOTUS in Johnson v DeGrandy (1994).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In DeGrandy SCOTUS found that one does not need to maximize the number of minority districts. They held that

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most plans involving areas with multiple minority districts look at the proportionality question. What you are raising is whether the court would except less than rough proportionality if there are other redistricting principles followed. In this case, it looks the principles are more one of following one's eye to nice shapes. I'm not convinced that would stand up.

I'm also concerned that the chartreuse district takes in a heavily Latino area. The 7th circuits has approved plans with strange shapes in that area to separate the black and Latino areas. If a plan is not providing for both minorities to have sufficient representation, then that can be a problem, too.

[Torie]

I don't think any of your legal citations resolve the legal questions that I posed. As to practice, it is one thing as to what courts allow - quite another as to what courts demand. Are map messes required to generate extra minority districts in a zone?

As to the issue of that chartreuse district having an Hispanic zone, the problem is the black wall around the Hispanic zone. So yes, see below, one can generate two Hispanic districts in the zone rather than one (barely at 59% HVAP each, and that required that chop into Lyons Township (Summit) by the dark pink Hispanic SD to get there), but the result is a erose map mess. And I only have seven black districts. You think a court will demand a map that has eight SD's? Based on what case?  I strongly doubt it absent appellate authority to the contrary.

Indeed, absent that erose mess as to the 7th black SD, even the 7th SD is problematical. The 7th black SD basically connects two separate black zones, and has to crawl snake like around the perimeters of the Hispanic zone (plus an Asian and white zone near downtown that one of the Hispanic SD's needed to take in to get to the right population, without eating into heavily black precincts). Which raises another interesting question. If a black district can reasonably be drawn, except that it cannot in order to generate a district for another minority, must one then go erose to save the minority district otherwise being sacrificed? Or does one only need to decide to generate a district a district for one minority or the other but not both? Any on point cases on that one? I tend to doubt it.  Even if the answer is yes, one must go erose, does that obtain, where as here, the ensuing erose 7th black SD connects two non contiguous black zones?  

Where or where is a case demanding race based gerrymanders violating good line drawing principles, particularly in order to generate additional districts beyond the first one in a minority zone? That is the question.

I suspect what you are used to is what politics demands, vis a vis what the courts will allow. My questions lie elsewhere. I am not even sure jurisdictional chops are required to squeeze out more minority districts, and certainly probably not if there is not a 50% VAP district in play.

In short, we need more litigation! I need to be Governor of all 50 states, and veto a bunch of maps, to get all these interesting questions thrashed out in court. I suspect when done, it will be clear, that no racial gerrymanders are required by law. None, nada, zip. That clearly seems to be the direction SCOTUS is going. They are getting tired of all of this BS. Sure, draw minority districts where drawing them comport with neutral principles, even if other maps also so comporting, would not, but that is about it. The two parties, out of mutual self interest, are conspiring to make it seem as if racial gerrymanders are required by law, when they are not. It's time to strip from their bag of tricks the ersatz legal excuse to the extent it enables them. Rather, they should just be honest, and admit, that they do racial gerrymanders, because they can (to the maximum extent allowed by law in some instances). We should start by suing over the FL-05 CD that was drawn by staff, to get rid of that Leon County split. Pity I don't live in Leon County.



This map btw chops the Hyde Park hood in Chicago, which if governor, I would never tolerate (go chop Bridgeport, go chop the dead mayor Dailey's house, do whatever, but don't chop Hyde Park), but I digress.

[muon2]

You are the lawyer, but every legal expert in redistricting I've interacted with has advised that unless you have concurrence from the minority groups in question then one should aim for rough proportionality or be prepared to show why it is impossible. The key is whether accepted neutral mapping principles can limit a minority group's ability to fairly participate in the political process. Principles that have the effect of denying fair participation I think would be held unconstitutional based on 20 years of the aforementioned advice.

Here's what I would offer for south and west Cook for EG. All districts are within 1000 of the quota. I follow political lines to the extent possible and seek reasonable divisions elsewhere. There are 8 BVAP majority SDs (1-8) and 5 HVAP majority SDs (9-13). The crossover into SE DuPage could be avoided with some ugly gerrymandering of SD 7 into the southside along I-90/94 to keep it over 50% BVAP.

SD 11 is a lower HVAP at 55.8% than I would like, but it is completely outside Chicago while SD 9 and 10 which stay within the city limits. If challenged it would be easy to split the city line and bring all three over 59%. SD 13 is also under 59% (55.7%) but a second NW side Latino district at 59% requires extreme erosity including a finger into NE DuPage.

[Torie]

Where is the case that says, absent minority concurrence, it needs to be "impossible?" Your map has lots and lots of chops. Sure, it's legal, but is it legally required? That, again, is the point. Absent any case law, that addresses the precise points I am making, color me skeptical. Sure, the "experts" might say to be legally safe, because the law is unclear, do x and y, but that is entirely a different matter. To suggest without any legal authority, that a certain path is probably legally dictated, needs to be questioned. I am questioning it. Maybe you should print out this thread, and ask one of your legal experts, if he has any case law, preferably in the form of a memo, to suggest that my point of view is not well taken.

One other point. It is one thing, if a map follows no neutral principles, to question it, if minorities don't get the max, quite another to challenge a map which does. Illinois is a cesspool, so I can see a court saying since you have no credibility at all, don't screw with minorities. If you chopped and erosed for a bunch of white Dem hacks, you had better chop and erose for non white ones as well, in other words.

Make sense?  Be skeptical of these so called legal experts! They need to show where the beef is. I often find much of what I read to be superficial, and overly conclusory, but that is just me.

Oh, out of curiosity, what are the minority SD's, and what are the VAP's? I must admit that I am amazed even with your chop city map (but not grotesquely rose) that you managed to bag so many minority SD's, that presumably are 50% BVAP, or 59% HVAP (absent the one you say is but 55% HVAP). If some of the black SD's are below 50% BVAP, surely you agree that they are not legally required, correct?

[muon2]

Where is the case that says, absent minority concurrence, it needs to be "impossible?" Your map has lots and lots of chops. Sure, it's legal, but is it legally required? That, again, is the point. Absent any case law, that addresses the precise points I am making, color me skeptical. Sure, the "experts" might say to be legally safe, because the law is unclear, do x and y, but that is entirely a different matter. To suggest without any legal authority, that a certain path is probably legally dictated, needs to be questioned. I am questioning it. Maybe you should print out this thread, and ask one of your legal experts, if he has any case law, preferably in the form of a memo, to suggest that my point of view is not well taken.

One other point. It is one thing, if a map follows no neutral principles, to question it, if minorities don't get the max, quite another to challenge a map which does. Illinois is a cesspool, so I can see a court saying since you have no credibility at all, don't screw with minorities. If you chopped and erosed for a bunch of white Dem hacks, you had better chop and erose for non white ones as well, in other words.

Make sense?

I'm not sure it does make sense. The DeGrandy case made it clear that minorities do not get the max and that there was no section 2 violation because rough proportionality existed in the plan. It's true that DeGrandy does not mandate rough proportionality, but what you are not addressing is the edict that one must determine "whether minority voters have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice." I don't see how one can sweep that away with neutral mapping principles.

Actually the Dem plan in IL arguably did mess with minorities. The Latinos were shorted and the blacks were given extra seats but at sub 50% BVAP. However since this was all to gain Dem seats, when the Pubs challenged the plan and the Court saw the major minority advocacy groups were either with the Dems or on the sidelines, they took that as a factor that minority voters had adequate opportunity with the plan.

[Torie]

You quoted nothing in the case that one must violate neutral mapping principles to get there, assuming the map in its totality hews to neutral mapping principles. If a map is gerrymandered, I can see a court finding that minorities must get their share of the spoils. If a map does follow neutral principles, to claim a minority is discriminated against is a huge stretch.  

I glanced at the DeGrandy decision. I would first note that Seuter's chat about past discrimination, sounds more like Section 5 rather than Section 2. I don't think SCOTUS would write that way today. Second, it was about internal lines within Dade County. There was nothing written about internal subdivision chops within Dade County, and I doubt any defense was offered that the alleged unequal treatment was based on neutral principles to minimize chops. If something is not argued, because the facts don't support it, then the Court tends to miss pointing out the result might vary depending on that point. To the extent the vague statement of law means something, it is but dictum, because the facts were were discussing, were not not before the court, much less argued. Since then SCOTOS has shown increasing hostility to racial gerrymanders, and certainly to mandating them, if maps are drawn in good faith.

Again, is there any case anywhere, where a map drawn in accordance with neutral principles, was found illegal because there were not enough minority districts drawn? One, just one? That is the case that we need to read, or one with such facts that went the other way. The rest is largely noise at the present time in my view.

[muon2]

You quoted nothing in the case that one must violate neutral mapping principles to get there, assuming the map in its totality hews to neutral mapping principles. If a map is gerrymandered, I can see a court finding that minorities must get their share of the spoils. If a map does follow neutral principles, to claim a minority is discriminated against is a huge stretch.  

We will then have to disagree on the meaning of "determining whether minority voters have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice," as the standard for a section 2 violation when viewing the plan in its totality. For me if a neutrally drawn map fails to give minorities "their share of the spoils," then they have been denied the opportunity required by the VRA. Congress specifically amended the VRA in 1982 to respond to the Mobile v Bolden decision (1980) and prohibit practices that had discriminatory effect, not just discriminatory intent.

[Torie]

You quoted nothing in the case that one must violate neutral mapping principles to get there, assuming the map in its totality hews to neutral mapping principles. If a map is gerrymandered, I can see a court finding that minorities must get their share of the spoils. If a map does follow neutral principles, to claim a minority is discriminated against is a huge stretch.  

We will then have to disagree on the meaning of "determining whether minority voters have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice," as the standard for a section 2 violation when viewing the plan in its totality.

We disagree that at the present time, those words mean that neutral line principles must be violated to achieve an equal share of the spoils, and that only be violating neutral line drawing principles, and achieving such equal share of the spoils, can one effect avoiding a minority having "less opportunity" to "elect members of their choice," because that is what those vague words demand. Absent facts testing what those vague words mean involving the need to violate neutral line drawing principles, we don't have much at all. So yes, we disagree, as to what the law actually demands at the present time. At a minimum, the law on this point is uncertain, rather than probable as to your interpretation. The odds that your interpretation is correct are even lower if non contiguous minority zones are in play. Thanks for the discussion.

It's interesting that we only got into this firefight, because smaller jurisdictions were in play. CD's are so relatively huge, that what we disagree about typically does not come into play. It only would typically if a given minority zone in a metro area had close to a half CD in play, with the rounding up or down, depending on just how choppy and erose the lines were, and whether the map overall hewed to neutral principles.

In response to your codicil, is there anything in the amended statute suggesting that one can find discriminatory effect if neutral line drawing principles are followed? Has that ever been litigated? I keep asking that question. My point of view, my instinct, is that absent something more on point, with facts more on point (what really matters to lawyers is rulings versus fact patterns, not sweeping statements of a general rule, that can be interpreted a host of ways, and was written not really thinking about other fact patterns), if there are multiple maps choices following neutral principles, than one needs to go with the version that maxes minority districts ( at least until the spoils get proportional to population percentages, however that is defined). But that is the extent of it. I would love to argue this before SCOTUS as the rule they should adopt, to get rid of all of this confusion and gaming. It's just awful. It's time to end it.

[muon2]

While you were writing I added a note to my post about discriminatory effect in the VRA, though I'm not sure that would sway you.

[Torie]

While you were writing I added a note to my post about discriminatory effect in the VRA, though I'm not sure that would sway you.

I responded above by adding text to my post. Look at the actual facts and the holding based thereon, analogize to the facts to get within the holding, or distinguish the facts to get a different holding, that is the way lawyers think and argue, and this is the way Courts distinguish cases from prior holdings, based on different facts. Lawyers, at  least the good ones,  rely far less on vague sweeping statements of legal rules, as to their application to fact patterns not argued at the time, and not thought about by the Court as a result. They work with fact patterns and holdings based thereon, and analogize and distinguish. And that is why the legal profession loves hypotheticals. It helps to define the ultimate perimeters of where each legal outcome obtains.

[ElectionsGuy]

Northern Florida:



1: 64.8% McCain, 35.2% Obama = Safe R
2: 71.6% McCain, 28.4% Obama = Safe R
3: 55.8% Obama, 44.2% McCain = Likely D
29: 55.3% McCain, 44.7% Obama = Safe R
36: 52.8% Obama, 47.2% McCain = Toss-Up
38: 67.2% McCain, 32.8% Obama = Safe R
39: 57.2% McCain, 42.8% Obama = Safe R
40: 52.5% McCain, 47.5% Obama = Likely R

Jacksonville Close-Up:



34: 60.7% Obama, 39.3% McCain = Safe D
35: 65.1% McCain, 34.9% Obama = Safe R

Central Florida:



22: 57.5% Obama, 42.5% McCain = Likely D
23: 50.1% Obama, 49.9% McCain = Lean R
24: 64.7% Obama, 35.3% McCain = Safe D
25: 53.7% McCain, 46.3% Obama = Likely R
26: 52.2% McCain, 47.8% Obama = Likely R
27: 55.1% McCain, 44.9% Obama = Safe R
28: 59.1% Obama, 40.9% McCain = Safe D
30: 59.3% Obama, 40.7% McCain = Safe D
31: 61.2% Obama, 38.8% McCain = Safe D
32: 51.3% McCain, 48.7% Obama = Lean R
33: 51.2% McCain, 48.8% Obama = Lean R
37: 56.7% McCain, 43.3% Obama = Safe R

Southern Florida:



16: 59.7% McCain, 40.3% Obama = Safe R
17: 55.1% McCain, 44.9% Obama = Safe R
18: 50.9% McCain, 49.1% Obama = Lean R
19: 53.8% McCain, 46.2% Obama = Likely R
20: 53.6% McCain, 46.4% Obama = Likely R
21: 51.2% McCain, 48.8% Obama = Lean R

Southeastern Florida:



4: 61.1% Obama, 38.9% McCain = Safe D
5: 58.7% McCain, 41.3% Obama = Likely R
6: 61.4% McCain, 38.6% Obama = Safe R
7: 56.7% Obama, 43.3% McCain = Safe D
8: 76.7% Obama, 23.3% McCain = Safe D
9: 78.7% Obama, 21.3% McCain = Safe D
10: 61.5% Obama, 38.5% McCain = Safe D
11: 73.7% Obama, 26.3% McCain = Safe D
12: 64.3% Obama, 35.7% McCain = Safe D
13: 62.2% Obama, 37.8% McCain = Safe D
14: 63.5% Obama, 36.5% McCain = Safe D
15: 59.2% Obama, 40.8% McCain = Likely D

22.5/40 = 56.3% R. The current makeup is 26-14 R.

[ElectionsGuy]

Upstate New York:



2: 49.7% Obama, 48.6% McCain = Lean R
4: 55.9% McCain, 42.5% Obama = Safe R
5: 53.6% McCain, 44.6% Obama = Safe R
6: 49.9% McCain, 48.7% Obama = Likely R
8: 50.2% McCain, 48.4% Obama = Likely R
10: 52.5% McCain, 46.1% Obama = Safe R
11: 58.0% Obama, 40.2% McCain = Safe D
12: 52.1% Obama, 46.0% McCain = Toss-Up
14: 49.4% McCain, 48.9% Obama = Lean R
15: 56.8% Obama, 41.6% McCain = Likely D
16: 51.4% McCain, 46.8% Obama = Likely R
17: 51.1% McCain, 46.9% Obama = Likely R
18: 49.7% Obama, 48.5% McCain = Lean R
20: 51.9% Obama, 46.4% McCain = Toss-Up
21: 57.3% Obama, 41.1% McCain = Likely D

Buffalo Close-Up:



1: 77.6% Obama, 20.9% McCain = Safe D
3: 54.7% Obama, 43.8% McCain = Lean D

Rochester Close-Up:



7: 73.6% Obama, 25.1% McCain = Safe D

Syracuse Close-Up:



9: 63.6% Obama, 34.6% McCain = Safe D

Albany Close-Up:



13: 65.6% Obama, 32.5% McCain = Safe D
19: 53.0% Obama, 45.0% McCain = Toss-Up

Northern NYC Suburbs:



22: 54.3% Obama, 44.6% McCain = Lean D
23: 50.7% McCain, 48.4% Obama = Likely R
24: 53.3% Obama, 45.7% McCain = Toss-Up
25: 56.9% Obama, 42.4% McCain = Likely D
26: 65.9% Obama, 33.4% McCain = Safe D
27: 65.3% Obama, 33.8% McCain = Safe D

Long Island:



28: 53.7% Obama, 45.3% McCain = Lean D
29: 51.7% Obama, 47.3% McCain = Toss-Up
30: 51.0% McCain, 48.0% Obama = Lean R
31: 55.7% Obama, 43.4% McCain = Likely D
32: 52.5% Obama, 46.7% McCain = Toss-Up
34: 54.4% Obama, 44.8% McCain = Lean D
35: 53.3% McCain, 45.8% Obama = Likely R
36: 69.4% Obama, 30.0% McCain = Safe D
37: 50.2% Obama, 49.1% McCain = Lean R

Most of NYC:



33: 61.2% McCain, 38.1% Obama = Safe R
38: 63.6% Obama, 35.8% McCain = Safe D
39: 97.2% Obama, 2.7% McCain = Safe D
40: 64.2% Obama, 35.0% McCain = Safe D
41: 66.8% Obama, 32.3% McCain = Safe D
42: 53.2% Obama, 46.0% McCain = Lean D
43: 68.0% McCain, 31.4% Obama = Safe R
44: 76.3% Obama, 23.3% McCain = Safe D
45: 70.8% Obama, 28.5% McCain = Safe D
46: 70.9% Obama, 28.3% McCain = Safe D
47: 95.7% Obama, 4.2% McCain = Safe D
48: 79.2% Obama, 19.9% McCain = Safe D
49: 79.3% Obama, 19.7% McCain = Safe D
50: 67.3% Obama, 31.9% McCain = Safe D
51: 84.8% Obama, 14.8% McCain = Safe D
52: 98.1% Obama, 1.6% McCain = Safe D
53: 87.8% Obama, 11.3% McCain = Safe D
54: 85.3% Obama, 13.9% McCain = Safe D
55: 85.6% Obama, 13.3% McCain = Safe D
56: 86.2% Obama, 12.9% McCain = Safe D
57: 84.4% Obama, 15.0% McCain = Safe D
58: 94.4% Obama, 5.0% McCain = Safe D
60: 95.6% Obama, 4.2% McCain = Safe D
62: 85.8% Obama, 13.7% McCain = Safe D
63: 94.6% Obama, 5.2% McCain = Safe D

Northern NYC:



59: 84.6% Obama, 14.6% McCain = Safe D
61: 81.7% Obama, 17.9% McCain = Safe D

44/63 = 69.8% D. The current makeup is 32-31 R. Looks like the D's in New York, similar to Indiana and Michigan, are confined to their safe zones.