Per SCOTUS, initiative created redistricting commissions may be l'histoire
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:36:52 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Per SCOTUS, initiative created redistricting commissions may be l'histoire
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7
Author Topic: Per SCOTUS, initiative created redistricting commissions may be l'histoire  (Read 15492 times)
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: March 05, 2015, 05:50:10 PM »

Hey Torie, what does the map in your signature represent? Is it median income or per-capita GDP? If so, it's pretty interesting.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: March 05, 2015, 05:51:07 PM »

On second look, restricting Republicans to just 10 seats in California won't be so hard to do. And even Jerry Brown won't stop the greedy democrats in the legislature if the SCOTUS delivers such a decision on party line.

What's the fourth seat?

There are so many things that could be done. Think very ugly. For instance, 1 and 4 could be merged, the rest cut into pieces and attached to coastal areas. I mean, by shifting 3 a bit south, you could both strengthen it and bring up 5 - tonnes of spare Dems there and in 2.  Meanwhile, Matsui´s district could be used to strengthen Bera - no problem there. So, choose between La Malfa and McClintock, if you like. Denham, of course, would go fast, and getting rid of Valadao will not be difficult either. Knight should be doable, no? So, 4 should work easily. The question is, can one do 7 or 8?

Where are the Dem areas around the Valadao CD?

I just drew a district in that area which is 75% Hispanic and Obama won by 20 points in 2008. And Costa has a 19 point Obama 2008 district, which is 2 points higher than what he has now. Both districts are entirely within the Central Valley.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: March 05, 2015, 06:17:42 PM »

BTW, the one I would REALLY like to get rid of is Rohrabacher. Is there a good way of doing that?

The map I am currently drawing gives him a district that voted for Obama by 11 points in 2008 (and Loretta Sanchez gets a 68% Hispanic district), although Brown lost by 7 in 2010. It's a swing seat, with a slight D lean. Of course he might just jump to the adjacent seat and take on Mimi Walters in the primary.

And I totally forgot about Valadao. There are about 4-5 easy pickups for the Democrats.

That is, if you are soft. If you choose to be brutal, you can eliminate both LaMalfa and McClintock. I mean, cut Santa Rosa and Sacramento into strips. No VRA issues there. Some Dem incumbents would object, of course. But brutal is brutal.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: March 05, 2015, 07:03:16 PM »

BTW, the one I would REALLY like to get rid of is Rohrabacher. Is there a good way of doing that?

The map I am currently drawing gives him a district that voted for Obama by 11 points in 2008 (and Loretta Sanchez gets a 68% Hispanic district), although Brown lost by 7 in 2010. It's a swing seat, with a slight D lean. Of course he might just jump to the adjacent seat and take on Mimi Walters in the primary.

And I totally forgot about Valadao. There are about 4-5 easy pickups for the Democrats.

You are draining Hispanic percentages. That's the problem. Where is Valadao going to pick up more Democrats?  The Dems will pick up that seat anyway in time, and immediately if he vacates. It's trending Dem fast.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: March 05, 2015, 07:42:04 PM »

BTW, the one I would REALLY like to get rid of is Rohrabacher. Is there a good way of doing that?

The map I am currently drawing gives him a district that voted for Obama by 11 points in 2008 (and Loretta Sanchez gets a 68% Hispanic district), although Brown lost by 7 in 2010. It's a swing seat, with a slight D lean. Of course he might just jump to the adjacent seat and take on Mimi Walters in the primary.

And I totally forgot about Valadao. There are about 4-5 easy pickups for the Democrats.

You are draining Hispanic percentages. That's the problem. Where is Valadao going to pick up more Democrats?  The Dems will pick up that seat anyway in time, and immediately if he vacates. It's trending Dem fast.

Do not forget that Hispanic percentages are growing. And there is no shortage of Hispanic voters even now: there are literally millions of them in districts where they are just behind whites. In fact, it would be possible to make new majority Hispanic districts for some of the Rep incumbents.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: March 05, 2015, 08:21:10 PM »

Torie, really, I don't see how CA republicans wouldn't be decimated Tongue.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: March 05, 2015, 09:05:00 PM »
« Edited: March 05, 2015, 09:13:03 PM by Sbane »

BTW, the one I would REALLY like to get rid of is Rohrabacher. Is there a good way of doing that?

The map I am currently drawing gives him a district that voted for Obama by 11 points in 2008 (and Loretta Sanchez gets a 68% Hispanic district), although Brown lost by 7 in 2010. It's a swing seat, with a slight D lean. Of course he might just jump to the adjacent seat and take on Mimi Walters in the primary.

And I totally forgot about Valadao. There are about 4-5 easy pickups for the Democrats.

You are draining Hispanic percentages. That's the problem. Where is Valadao going to pick up more Democrats?  The Dems will pick up that seat anyway in time, and immediately if he vacates. It's trending Dem fast.

Draining Hispanic percentages? If you are talking about including Pomona in CA-39, CA-35 is not that adversely affected by it. The Hispanic percentage in CA-35 is at 62% and it is a solid Democratic district along with a CA-31 that is a couple points more Democratic than the current district. CA-31 is 50% Hispanic.

As for Valadao's district, it is very easy to draw a Democratic district there as long as you avoid most of Tulare and Kings County. You basically put all the small farming towns in Fresno County plus Hispanics in Kern County and a sliver of south Fresno together and you have a solid Democratic district.

Overall, I got 44-7-2. One of those swing districts is Issa's. So he will not be coming back to Congress. A Republican can win in that district, but not Darrel Issa.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: March 05, 2015, 09:15:53 PM »

BTW, the one I would REALLY like to get rid of is Rohrabacher. Is there a good way of doing that?

The map I am currently drawing gives him a district that voted for Obama by 11 points in 2008 (and Loretta Sanchez gets a 68% Hispanic district), although Brown lost by 7 in 2010. It's a swing seat, with a slight D lean. Of course he might just jump to the adjacent seat and take on Mimi Walters in the primary.

And I totally forgot about Valadao. There are about 4-5 easy pickups for the Democrats.

You are draining Hispanic percentages. That's the problem. Where is Valadao going to pick up more Democrats?  The Dems will pick up that seat anyway in time, and immediately if he vacates. It's trending Dem fast.

Draining Hispanic percentages? If you are talking about including Pomona in CA-39, CA-35 is not that adversely affected by it. The Hispanic percentage in CA-35 is at 62% and it is a solid Democratic district along with a CA-31 that is a couple points more Democratic than the current district. CA-31 is 50% Hispanic.

As for Valadao's district, it is very easy to draw a Democratic district there as long as you avoid most of Tulare and Kings County. You basically put all the small farming towns in Fresno County plus Hispanics in Kern County and a sliver of south Fresno together and you have a solid Democratic district.

Overall, I got 44-7-2. One of those swing districts is Issa's. So he will not be coming back to Congress. A Republican can win in that district, but not Darrel Issa.

Can you show the map?
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: March 05, 2015, 10:13:41 PM »

Here is Orange County:


San Diego:
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: March 05, 2015, 10:15:37 PM »

LA Area:
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: March 05, 2015, 10:16:52 PM »

Central California:
Logged
Linus Van Pelt
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,144


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: March 05, 2015, 10:23:47 PM »

Most democracies have independent commissions that are put in place by the legislature without any citizen ballot initiatives. So this issue ought, in principle, to be irrelevant. I know, of course, that the reality is different.

The idea that "the Legislature" should be interpreted to include a citizen referendum seems very dubious. In the original constitution, prior to the 17th amendment, the House is described with the following text:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

while the Senate is described thus:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It seems pretty clear that the authors distinguished "the People" from "the Legislature". That's why the 17th amendment was needed.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: March 05, 2015, 10:48:35 PM »

When will the General Assembly draw the gerrymander?
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: March 05, 2015, 10:56:45 PM »

Ugly. But so is life.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: March 05, 2015, 11:18:00 PM »

When you are drawing those DRA maps for a Dem gerry, I would ignore the 2008 pres numbers. The Dems would certainly want to be no worse than Brown in 2010 to protect against midterm defeats.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: March 05, 2015, 11:34:03 PM »

Most democracies have independent commissions that are put in place by the legislature without any citizen ballot initiatives. So this issue ought, in principle, to be irrelevant. I know, of course, that the reality is different.

The idea that "the Legislature" should be interpreted to include a citizen referendum seems very dubious. In the original constitution, prior to the 17th amendment, the House is described with the following text:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

while the Senate is described thus:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It seems pretty clear that the authors distinguished "the People" from "the Legislature". That's why the 17th amendment was needed.
In the early 20th Century, the SCOTUS made a distinction between "Legislature" meaning the body; and "Legislature" meaning the legislative process.  In particular, they ruled against popular election of senators, and popular ratification of constitutional amendments.  These were not powers delegated to the States, which might then delegate them to the People.  And they were not powers retained by the States, because there would be no senators or constitutional amendment without the US Constitution.

But they did make a distinction with regard to legislation regarding time, place, and manner regulation of Congress; and manner regulation for the appointment of presidential electors.  The legislative process, the manner in which they make laws, is entirely up to each individual State.  So "passing a law", might include passage in both houses, and certain timing requirements, and might be subject to a gubernatorial or popular veto (referendum).  The two particular cases where they upheld a veto of a redistricting plan were Hildebrant (popular veto) and Smiley (gubernatorial veto).  But those two instances were auxiliary to the Legislature legislating.

The lawyers for the Arizona redistricting commission are arguing that "legislative power" could mean whatever the State (constitution) says it is.  But when Seth Waxman was making an argument that Hildebrant and Smiley were precedental, Justice Breyer told him he didn't think it was helping his case, but that he was free to continue to argue it.

This suggests that Breyer would be willing to flap his wings and not rely on precedent but go off interpreting the Constitution do novo.  But that will lose Justice Kennedy.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: March 06, 2015, 01:29:38 AM »

When you are drawing those DRA maps for a Dem gerry, I would ignore the 2008 pres numbers. The Dems would certainly want to be no worse than Brown in 2010 to protect against midterm defeats.

2010 was not a mere midterm, but a BIG Republican victory year. Even then many House incumbents performed reasonably well: they were incumbents. Depends on what the objective is: if it is to build a firewall, you may be right. But if the objective is to win most seats most of the time, one can take certain risks: and hope that incumbents would know their districts.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: March 06, 2015, 03:45:22 AM »

When you are drawing those DRA maps for a Dem gerry, I would ignore the 2008 pres numbers. The Dems would certainly want to be no worse than Brown in 2010 to protect against midterm defeats.

2010 was not a mere midterm, but a BIG Republican victory year. Even then many House incumbents performed reasonably well: they were incumbents. Depends on what the objective is: if it is to build a firewall, you may be right. But if the objective is to win most seats most of the time, one can take certain risks: and hope that incumbents would know their districts.

IL in 2011 was a good example of two maps drawn with different data sets. The state house map was based on mid-term election data in 2010 and the supermajority gains in 2012 were held in 2014 with no losses, despite a big win for the Pubs for Gov. OTOH the congressional map was designed for the big win assuming 2012 would repeat 2008 in the state. The goal was 13 of 18 seats, but that gamble did not pay off and after 2014 the Dems only have 10 seats. That's less than they could have had if they played it like the legislative map and had drawn 11 safe seats.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: March 06, 2015, 07:04:53 AM »

When you are drawing those DRA maps for a Dem gerry, I would ignore the 2008 pres numbers. The Dems would certainly want to be no worse than Brown in 2010 to protect against midterm defeats.

All of the Democratic districts are Brown 2010 districts. The two swing districts are Obama/Whitman districts although Obama won both districts in 2012 and Brown won them in 2014.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: March 06, 2015, 07:06:36 AM »

How many seats would the democrats get with this map?
Would the majority leader be in trouble?
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: March 06, 2015, 07:22:06 AM »

When you are drawing those DRA maps for a Dem gerry, I would ignore the 2008 pres numbers. The Dems would certainly want to be no worse than Brown in 2010 to protect against midterm defeats.

All of the Democratic districts are Brown 2010 districts. The two swing districts are Obama/Whitman districts although Obama won both districts in 2012 and Brown won them in 2014.

It was worth stating since the one district in your maps that had numbers (CD 48), was an Obama/Whitman district.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: March 06, 2015, 07:31:12 AM »

How many seats would the democrats get with this map?
Would the majority leader be in trouble?

7 would be the max meaning they would lose 7 seats. Factor in a loss of 2 seats in AZ, and you have a net loss of 5. If we give the two swing districts to the Republicans, that is still a gain of 5 districts in CA for the Democrats.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: March 06, 2015, 07:32:46 AM »

How many seats would the democrats get with this map?
Would the majority leader be in trouble?

7 would be the max meaning they would lose 7 seats. Factor in a loss of 2 seats in AZ, and you have a net loss of 5. If we give the two swing districts to the Republicans, that is still a gain of 5 districts in CA for the Democrats.
Do you believe the democrats would be able to draw an even more anti republican map?
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: March 06, 2015, 07:50:42 AM »

How many seats would the democrats get with this map?
Would the majority leader be in trouble?

7 would be the max meaning they would lose 7 seats. Factor in a loss of 2 seats in AZ, and you have a net loss of 5. If we give the two swing districts to the Republicans, that is still a gain of 5 districts in CA for the Democrats.
Do you believe the democrats would be able to draw an even more anti republican map?

It's possible but it gets hard to draw strong enough Hispanic districts at that point and the seats start to become vulnerable in waves. I made sure to strengthen most of the current swing districts, if only by a couple points. Trying to get an additional seat is likely not worth it.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: March 06, 2015, 08:59:38 AM »

How many seats would the democrats get with this map?
Would the majority leader be in trouble?

7 would be the max meaning they would lose 7 seats. Factor in a loss of 2 seats in AZ, and you have a net loss of 5. If we give the two swing districts to the Republicans, that is still a gain of 5 districts in CA for the Democrats.
Do you believe the democrats would be able to draw an even more anti republican map?

It's possible but it gets hard to draw strong enough Hispanic districts at that point and the seats start to become vulnerable in waves. I made sure to strengthen most of the current swing districts, if only by a couple points. Trying to get an additional seat is likely not worth it.

So, who survives?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.056 seconds with 13 queries.