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

[Sbane]

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?

Mclintock, Nunes, McCarthy, Cook, Walters, Calvert and Hunter. Issa and Rohrbacher get the swing districts. I will try to post the numbers for each district and maybe a write up time permitting later on today.

[ag]

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?

Mclintock, Nunes, McCarthy, Cook, Walters, Calvert and Hunter. Issa and Rohrbacher get the swing districts. I will try to post the numbers for each district and maybe a write up time permitting later on today.

Beauty.

[Torie]

The odds the Dems will draw a map such as sbane's, and Brown will sign off on it, are vanishingly small. It just isn't done that way, and neither the electorate, nor the incumbent Dems, will stand for it. Until the program crashed, it is pretty realistic without upsetting the apple cart too much to hold the Pubs down to one seat in Norcal, flushing Denholm and combining the other two Pub seats up there. It does require a nasty chop of Santa Rosa and a traveling CD over Napa to do it however. Basically Santa Rosa chops up about half of one of those seats, and Matsui's CD would take down about a quarter (taking Yuba County and the Dem part of Nevada County, and the balance (mostly Placer County), would move into the Pub sink seat. Then CA-03, the Garamendi seat, could be used to help eviscerate the Denholm seat, taking in Marin, the southern part of Napa, Yolo County, and then move into the Denholm seat.

[ag]

The odds the Dems will draw a map such as sbane's, and Brown will sign off on it, are vanishingly small. It just isn't done that way, and neither the electorate, nor the incumbent Dems, will stand for it. Until the program crashed, it is pretty realistic without upsetting the apple cart too much to hold the Pubs down to one seat in Norcal, flushing Denholm and combining the other two Pub seats up there. It does require a nasty chop of Santa Rosa and a traveling CD over Napa to do it however. Basically Santa Rosa chops up about half of one of those seats, and Matsui's CD would take down about a quarter (taking Yuba County and the Dem part of Nevada County, and the balance (mostly Placer County), would move into the Pub sink seat. Then CA-03, the Garamendi seat, could be used to help eviscerate the Denholm seat, taking in Marin, the southern part of Napa, Yolo County, and then move into the Denholm seat.

Things are sometimes done in new ways. A court-prdered Republican gerrymander elsewhere would make a lot of people willing to try new things.

[jimrtex]

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.

Any legislation passed by the General Assembly is subject to a referendum, unless it gets a 2/3 majority in both houses.   Democrats won't have a 2/3 majority in either house after the 3 senate vacancies are filled.  And this assumes that Jerrymander Brown wants his legacy to be presiding over two gerrymanders 40 years apart, and doesn't veto the bill.

And I doubt that the General Assembly will swing into action without a court ruling specific to California.

Once the referendum petition is successful, the legislation is frozen.  Under the California Constitution, referendum are held at the next general election, and the legislature has conveniently redefined "general election" to mean election in November of even-numbered years.

The last time this happened, back in 1981, when Jerrymander Brown was the governor, Chief Justice Liberal Rose Bird, ruled that the legislative and congressional districts drawn by the legisilature, and were theoretically suspended because they were subject to referendum should be used for the 1982 elections.   But that  was because the 1970  congressional district maps had the wrong number of districts, and according to Liberal Rose Bird the 1970 legislative maps did not comply with OMOV.

But the California Supreme Court won't rule that the congressional maps drawn by the commission don't comply with OMOV.   And they certainly won't let the legislature draw new maps for the General Assembly.  So the November 2016 elections will be conducted on the current lines.

In the 1982 elections, the Democratic Jerrymander plans were defeated by a 63-65% majority.  But the General Assembly was elected on the lines that the voters rejected.  They came into office late in 1982, and re-enacted the same legislation that the voters had just rejected.  They also inserted an urgency clause (because they had obtained a 2/3 majority based on the voter-rejected districts), which prevents a referendum.   Jerrymander Brown who continued in office until 1983 signed the bill.

But the 2017 General Assembly, elected on the current district lines may not have a 2/3 Democratic supermajority.  And besides there will be another redistricting amendment approved in November 2016.  It has the following provisions:

(1) No urgency clause for redistricting measures.

(2) The redistricting commission will recommend a congressional map to the General Assembly, in 2017, and every subsequent year ending in -01.

(3) The General Assembly may adopt the recommended plan or draw their own.  If they draw their own, the two plans will be subject to a mandatory preferendum.  The General Assembly will meet in regional locations throughout the State (at least one for each five districts that their plan differs from that recommended by the commission).

[Sbane]

The odds the Dems will draw a map such as sbane's, and Brown will sign off on it, are vanishingly small. It just isn't done that way, and neither the electorate, nor the incumbent Dems, will stand for it. Until the program crashed, it is pretty realistic without upsetting the apple cart too much to hold the Pubs down to one seat in Norcal, flushing Denholm and combining the other two Pub seats up there. It does require a nasty chop of Santa Rosa and a traveling CD over Napa to do it however. Basically Santa Rosa chops up about half of one of those seats, and Matsui's CD would take down about a quarter (taking Yuba County and the Dem part of Nevada County, and the balance (mostly Placer County), would move into the Pub sink seat. Then CA-03, the Garamendi seat, could be used to help eviscerate the Denholm seat, taking in Marin, the southern part of Napa, Yolo County, and then move into the Denholm seat.

This map is going to be in the aftermath of a partisan decision by the Supreme Court (doubly so if they also mess with the ACA). The gloves will be off. I am absolutely incensed by the fact the Supreme Court would even think of getting rid of redistricting commissions so that AZ Republicans would have the right to gerrymander. I can only imagine how partisan Democrats feel. The new map would be drawn in an environment where the number one objective will be to F over Republicans, and all Democrats will be united behind that.

Also you say "it isn't done that way". Have you had a chance to look at the OH, PA and especially the NC map?

[windjammer]

http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2015/03/supreme-court-opens-the-door-to-a-democratic-gerrymander/
An interesting article!

[Sbane]

http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2015/03/supreme-court-opens-the-door-to-a-democratic-gerrymander/
An interesting article!

Denham should most certainly not have a safe Republican district. His district is possibly the easiest to flip. Overall this plan is just way, way too safe. For example, why should Democratic areas from Steve Knight's district be given to already safe Democratic districts? That's just retarded.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Torie's squeamishness about this is amusing given his enthusiasm wrt the gerrymandering possibilities of certain other states.

[dpmapper]

This map is going to be in the aftermath of a partisan decision by the Supreme Court (doubly so if they also mess with the ACA). The gloves will be off. I am absolutely incensed by the fact the Supreme Court would even think of getting rid of redistricting commissions so that AZ Republicans would have the right to gerrymander. I can only imagine how partisan Democrats feel. The new map would be drawn in an environment where the number one objective will be to F over Republicans, and all Democrats will be united behind that.

Also you say "it isn't done that way". Have you had a chance to look at the OH, PA and especially the NC map?

Strange that you assume it automatically has to be partisan.  It can't possibly be based on, you know, the text of the Constitution. 

If it also gives CA Dems the ability to gerrymander, wouldn't that make it biased in favor of Dems, anyway? 

[Antonio the Sixth]

Hey Torie, what does the map in your signature represent? Is it median income or per-capita GDP? If so, it's pretty interesting.

[Sbane]

This map is going to be in the aftermath of a partisan decision by the Supreme Court (doubly so if they also mess with the ACA). The gloves will be off. I am absolutely incensed by the fact the Supreme Court would even think of getting rid of redistricting commissions so that AZ Republicans would have the right to gerrymander. I can only imagine how partisan Democrats feel. The new map would be drawn in an environment where the number one objective will be to F over Republicans, and all Democrats will be united behind that.

Also you say "it isn't done that way". Have you had a chance to look at the OH, PA and especially the NC map?

Strange that you assume it automatically has to be partisan.  It can't possibly be based on, you know, the text of the Constitution. 

If it also gives CA Dems the ability to gerrymander, wouldn't that make it biased in favor of Dems, anyway? 

Why can the people not create redistricting commissions but they have the right to enact voter ID laws? Isn't that also included in the "times, places and manner" of holding elections?

This is a partisan lawsuit, similar to the latest ACA lawsuit, initiated by the Republican party of Arizona. It would be extremely naive to assume otherwise.

[krazen1211]

The Republican Party should promptly gerrymander Arizona into 8 Republican seats.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Hey Torie, what does the map in your signature represent? Is it median income or per-capita GDP? If so, it's pretty interesting.

I'll answer on Torie's behalf since I recognize the image: It's from an article published to The Upshot earlier this year called Where Are the Hardest Places to Live in the U.S.? (An unfortunate title, but I digress.)

The choropleth map is based on a ranking of all US counties by adult educational attainment, median household income, life expectancy, disability rate, and obesity rate - each equally weighted, IIRC.

Uh, yeah, that's a pretty weird concept.

[jimrtex]

Why can the people not create redistricting commissions but they have the right to enact voter ID laws? Isn't that also included in the "times, places and manner" of holding elections?

"times, places, and manner" applies to federal elections.   Or do you think that it was a generous grant by the Great White Fathers in Philadelphia to even let the States have their own government?

The People can create redistricting commissions for their State.  They can enact Voter ID laws for their own elections.   The SCOTUS has strongly indicated that States may require additional documentation of citizenship in order to register to vote in State elections.

[dpmapper]

Why can the people not create redistricting commissions but they have the right to enact voter ID laws? Isn't that also included in the "times, places and manner" of holding elections?

This is a partisan lawsuit, similar to the latest ACA lawsuit, initiated by the Republican party of Arizona. It would be extremely naive to assume otherwise.

If you're referring to the Indiana voter ID law that reached SCOTUS, that was initiated by the legislature. 

Just because partisans have interests in the outcome doesn't mean that the decision is therefore partisan. 

[ag]

Why can the people not create redistricting commissions but they have the right to enact voter ID laws? Isn't that also included in the "times, places and manner" of holding elections?

This is a partisan lawsuit, similar to the latest ACA lawsuit, initiated by the Republican party of Arizona. It would be extremely naive to assume otherwise.

If you're referring to the Indiana voter ID law that reached SCOTUS, that was initiated by the legislature. 

Just because partisans have interests in the outcome doesn't mean that the decision is therefore partisan. 

It will be viewed as partisan. And will be followed, most likely, by a partisan redistricting of AZ. At that point, it will be irrelevant, whether the Supreme Court decision was taken for purely legal or partisan considerations. There will be a very strong desire to say "F.ck you!" And a great opportunity to do that: completely legal, BTW, though, of course, partisan.

[ag]

In fact, I would make a further point. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that partisan gerrymandering is entirely constitutional. They are, of course, right on this. This is a problem with the constitution - but the Supreme Court is the wrong body to address that. The remedy should be legislative. The problem, of course, is, that whenever one of the parties has a power to implement a solution, it has no incentive to do so. In fact, "unilateral disarmament" in partisan states would result in quite horrible consequences for the party that decides to do so: it would be giving up its strongest weapon. This is, of course, why referendum has been the chosen tool for implementing reform here: it is extremely difficult to implement otherwise.

Now the Supreme Court is poised to block of that route. This, of course, makes banning gerrymandering even harder. In fact, it, really, leaves only one weapon available to the opponents of partisan gerrymanders: gerrymandering the political system to death. With modern gerrymandering techniques, as soon as one party comes to power in the state it can, basically, ensure its legislative dominance. Opponents of gerrymandering should encourage that. Draw the most ridiculously partisan maps. Make the system so unworkable - and so hated by the population - that the parties be forced to negotiate a proper constitutional reform on this. The good thing is, the Presidency and the Senate are not gerrymandered: so anti-gerrymandering politicians could still be elected at the federal level. If the outrage is strong enough, a constitutional ammendment would take care of this. But that outrage has to be provoked.

[Sbane]

Why can the people not create redistricting commissions but they have the right to enact voter ID laws? Isn't that also included in the "times, places and manner" of holding elections?

"times, places, and manner" applies to federal elections.   Or do you think that it was a generous grant by the Great White Fathers in Philadelphia to even let the States have their own government?

The People can create redistricting commissions for their State.  They can enact Voter ID laws for their own elections.   The SCOTUS has strongly indicated that States may require additional documentation of citizenship in order to register to vote in State elections.

So voter ID laws don't apply to Congressional and Presidential elections? What?

[ag]

What we have to understand is that gerrymandering IS a serious problem, irrespective of its constitutional permissibility. The founders could not foresee many things. For instance, they could not foresee the DRA. And DRA (and its "professional" analogues, of course) is a horrible tool. Whereas the old Mr. Gerry could make mistakes if he cut to finely, today these things could be done with increasingly horrid precision, pretty much destroying electoral accountability.

[Torie]

Well my attempt to jettison a Pub NorCal CD, other than Denholm's, in a map that is even remotely realistic, rather than some "fajita strip" fantasy, proved to be a spectacular failure. Maybe I am just not very good at Dem gerrymanders.  Sure if there were more of a twist, and the SF CD took in Marin, more might be done, but it just isn't going to happen. The Dem incumbents will not stand for pushing their CD's around willy nilly like that, for relatively modest gains.

In the map below, Denholm is blown away, and the least Dem PVI outside the two Pub vote sink CD's is 59.4% Obama. But my guess is that it just isn't going to happen. If the Dems do a new map, in Norcal, they will just move some precincts around to strengthen Bera in CA-07, and weaken Denholm in CA-10. In the rest of the state, it will be to take over the Antelope Valley CD, and strengthen Peters in CA-52. But given that the trends are going Bera's and Peter's way, and for the Dems in the Antelope Valley CD as well, as the white working class slowly fades away, and ditto the Valadio CD in the Kern County area, you know what? I suspect they will do absolutely nothing. The modest Dem gerrrymander that the Commission effected, plus the trends, have largely done the job. You all can write that down. Cheers.

[Torie]

The Republican Party should promptly gerrymander Arizona into 8 Republican seats.

The VRA gives the Dems two Hispanic seats, not one.

[krazen1211]

The Republican Party should promptly gerrymander Arizona into 8 Republican seats.

The VRA gives the Dems two Hispanic seats, not one.

For now, in theory. The state of Arizona (or another state) might choose to directly challenge Thornburg v Gingles and seek a repeal if they are victorious this year.

[Sbane]

That is such a weak gerrymander, Torie. You realize you are drawing a gerrymander, right? Seriously, go take another look at NC.

 My u-shaped district might be a little odd, but even that is not required to get rid of La Malfa. I got a little carried over there with minimal return, and would jettison it in a final map. And getting rid of Denham is oh so easy. Look at my map for an example. Just give him places like Gilroy, Morgan Hill and a small slice of San Jose. All the Bay Area reps represent basically the same areas they were before in my map. Also, you should not use McClintock's district to crack Stanislaus County. Nunes's district should be doing that.

Furthermore, the map I posted here is not the "fajita strips" map. That map would restrict the Republicans to like 5 seats.

[dpmapper]

What we have to understand is that gerrymandering IS a serious problem, irrespective of its constitutional permissibility. The founders could not foresee many things. For instance, they could not foresee the DRA. And DRA (and its "professional" analogues, of course) is a horrible tool. Whereas the old Mr. Gerry could make mistakes if he cut to finely, today these things could be done with increasingly horrid precision, pretty much destroying electoral accountability.

I understand all that.  But the Constitution is what it is; you don't ignore it just because you think that by doing so you are solving a problem.   Otherwise what is the point?