More chatter about a Dem redraw of CD lines in CA if SCOTUS tanks AZ commission

[Skill and Chance]

The other possibility, of course, is that there may be some interesting ballot measures in the very next election. Gerrymandering might become fashionable

You mean making the 49 60% Obama districts map a 2016/18 proposition of its own?  That would be hilarious, but I have to think it would never pass.  Then again, Maryland voters upheld their map by a wide margin in a 2012 referendum.

More likely would be new initiative in both states for Washington style commissions where the state legislature picks all of the members, but they are evenly split by party, and they have to make a deal. 

This all assumes that the Court doesn't strike down the entire initiative/referendum process on anything related to redistricting, of course.

What I mean is that framing could be important. If the SCOTUS decision in AZ case is framed as partisan, then the partisan political response is possible - probably, in fact. At present Dems increasingly feel (correctly or not) that they are being screwed by the gerrymanders in Republican-controlled state. That CA (the largest state, and the one they have control of) actively prohibits gerrymanders, might start looking as stupidity, rather than virtue. And the state has a sufficient Dem preponderance that, who knows, abolishing the virtuous stupidity might actually pass.

Even in a scenario where Prop 20 was to do all 53 seats CA-AL, it was somehow upheld in court, and Dems swept in 2012, the House would still have been 219R/216D.  Now, a lot more could have gotten done in 2013 in that world which may have made Obama more popular, but that shows how entrenched the House GOP is.  A map that flips 5 more seats in CA would matter only if one of the big state GOP gerrymanders backfires (probably VA or PA).  Speaking of which, I wonder if Fair Districts Florida is now also at risk and we end up with a 21R/6D map there?  I would think it's safe because it just imposes rules and the legislature still draws?   

[Sbane]

  We will probably ended up with indictments of several additional Democratic legislators. 

Uhh...what?

[jimrtex]

There will also be a decision that the districting standards added by Proposition 20 in 2010 are also valid. 

Not lawfully.  You have just explained the motivation for the legislative decisions, which is clearly illegal.

It is quite possible to make several CA districts difficult for Republicans without making OBVIOUS violations of Prop. 20. That some guy on the Atlas made those statements will not be relevant

Presumably you (as the legislature surrogate) are going to seek a declaratory judgment that Proposition 11 (2008) and Proposition (2010) as they apply to congressional districting are null.   How long will that take?

Proposition 11 (2008) set new substantive standards for congressional districting, while leaving actual line drawing in the hands of the legislature.  In that sense, it is similar to the redistricting procedures in California.  If the courts in California were to overturn Proposition 11 as applied to congressional districting, you will have a conflict with another appeals court.  The Supreme Court will want to weigh in to refine the meaning of their decision in the Arizona case.

Proposition 11 (2008) also set new procedural rules for how the legislature conducts congressional redistricting, including coordination with the redistricting commission.  It also provided a more open process than the legislature is accustomed to.  In particular it does not permit communication with legislators outside public hearings.  But if you challenge these rules, and they are overturned, you are again in conflict with the Florida decisions.

Proposition 20 (2010) took congressional districting out of the hands of the legislature.  It also set a new substantive standard, outlawing political gerrymandering.  What was notable was about Proposition 11 was that it forbade political gerrymandering for legislative districting, but not for congressional districting.

At the end of the day, you will get a concession that only the legislature can draw congressional districts, but that standards for how that is done can be set in the constitution.  This will be a decision that Kennedy and Roberts will be happy to approve.  Kennedy in particular will like the nuance.

You are now too late to do redistricting for 2016.

Realizing this, you only challenge the body doing the redistricting, implicitly agreeing that all the other standards are applicable.

The commission plan is made a public submission.

Do you plan to draw a completely new map?  Or are you only going to make changes to a few districts?

When the California Supreme Court takes up the case, the plaintiffs are going to have a very well documented plan to compare against yours.

When you are being deposed, will you have to testify: "Juan Valdez?  Is he a congressman?  Denwho?"

And you are still going to lose the referendum.

[Brittain33]

I'm grabbing the popcorn. This is heating up.

[Skill and Chance]

There will also be a decision that the districting standards added by Proposition 20 in 2010 are also valid. 

Not lawfully.  You have just explained the motivation for the legislative decisions, which is clearly illegal.

It is quite possible to make several CA districts difficult for Republicans without making OBVIOUS violations of Prop. 20. That some guy on the Atlas made those statements will not be relevant

Presumably you (as the legislature surrogate) are going to seek a declaratory judgment that Proposition 11 (2008) and Proposition (2010) as they apply to congressional districting are null.   How long will that take?

Proposition 11 (2008) set new substantive standards for congressional districting, while leaving actual line drawing in the hands of the legislature.  In that sense, it is similar to the redistricting procedures in California.  If the courts in California were to overturn Proposition 11 as applied to congressional districting, you will have a conflict with another appeals court.  The Supreme Court will want to weigh in to refine the meaning of their decision in the Arizona case.

Proposition 11 (2008) also set new procedural rules for how the legislature conducts congressional redistricting, including coordination with the redistricting commission.  It also provided a more open process than the legislature is accustomed to.  In particular it does not permit communication with legislators outside public hearings.  But if you challenge these rules, and they are overturned, you are again in conflict with the Florida decisions.

Proposition 20 (2010) took congressional districting out of the hands of the legislature.  It also set a new substantive standard, outlawing political gerrymandering.  What was notable was about Proposition 11 was that it forbade political gerrymandering for legislative districting, but not for congressional districting.

At the end of the day, you will get a concession that only the legislature can draw congressional districts, but that standards for how that is done can be set in the constitution.  This will be a decision that Kennedy and Roberts will be happy to approve.  Kennedy in particular will like the nuance.

You are now too late to do redistricting for 2016.

Realizing this, you only challenge the body doing the redistricting, implicitly agreeing that all the other standards are applicable.

The commission plan is made a public submission.

Do you plan to draw a completely new map?  Or are you only going to make changes to a few districts?

When the California Supreme Court takes up the case, the plaintiffs are going to have a very well documented plan to compare against yours.

When you are being deposed, will you have to testify: "Juan Valdez?  Is he a congressman?  Denwho?"

And you are still going to lose the referendum.

What if the ruling is that the referendum/initiative as applied to redistricting is null and void nationwide?  Presumably almost every commission in the country falls, except maybe IA/NJ/NY because the legislature explicitly asked for the commission.

[ag]

When you are being deposed, will you have to testify: "Juan Valdez?  Is he a congressman?  Denwho?"

And you are still going to lose the referendum.

Yes, I will, and you know it full well. And, BTW, I would not be so sure about the referendum. Especially, after the new AZ boundaries come out.

[jimrtex]

The Alabama SCOTUS case focused on racial gerrymandering to avoid a reduction in black percentages (retrogression under the now defunct Section 5) that were far in excess of 50% BVAP (the prime district in question was over 70% BVAP). I think it still good practice to try to hit 50% BVAP via racial gerrymandering if the black areas included within a CD are reasonably contiguous. The odds are very low any court would view that as racial gerrymandering for purposes of diluting black influence in other CD's. It is probably further reasonable to take into account population trends going out over 10 years that can be documented as likely to occur.

This is the North Carolina Supreme Court decision in Dickson v. Rucho.   The SCOTUS has just granted certiori, vacated the decision, and remanded the case back to the North Carolina Supreme Court, to try to apply the SCOTUS reason in the Alabama case.

There are 70% BVAP districts in Alabama, but these weren't really the ones at issue.  There are counties in the Black Belt that are 70% BVAP where you can draw whole county districts that are 70% BVAP.  In 2001 the Democratic-controlled legislature had deliberately underpopulated the BVAP districts.  This was done as part of political gerrymander.  In general, majority BVAP areas have poorer job prospects, so they lose population or don't gain as much.  They may also have an increase in BVAP% (18 YO whites go away to college, and then move to Birmingham, Atlanta, etc., and the older population dies off).

When the Republican-controlled legislature drew the districts they set a lower permitted deviation.  This meant that the existing VRA districts had to be expanded, not only to make up population, but for slower growth.  The legislature also maintained the existing BVAP of the districts.

And in the expansion, the lines did not follow other redistricting principles in order to keep the BVAP from dropping, which had been at a number far in excess of 50% BVAP, correct?  There was no district in play here where the figure was barely above 50% BVAP was there, that needed to be gerrymandered to keep it at that percentage was there?

I took a look at the SCOTUS opinion, and you are right about the Montgomery County district (SD-26).   It was around 75%.  The SCOTUS was duped.  Montgomery (city) is in the northern part of the county.  The white population is generally to the east of the central part of the city, with the black areas to the west, but somewhat wrapping around to the north and south.

The northern boundary of the county is the meandering Alabama River.  The southern boundary is straight lines, bounding a largely rural area (most of the growth in the area is north of the river in Autauga and Elmore counties.

SD-26 as configured in 2001 is an intricately drawn district wrapping around the white population, and following the northern boundary along the Alabama River.   It then has the sparsely populated rectangle in the southern part of the county attached to it.  The SCOTUS saw the goblet rather than the face.  SD-25 is the white area surrounded on three sides, connected to a portion of Elmore County.

Under the 2011 plan, SD-26 nibbles away at the whiter area of Montgomery city, to make up its deficit of 16,000.  But the rural area in the southern part of the county is switched to CD-25 to connect to Crenshaw County.  The connection to the whiter area is moved to the east.

SCOTUS opinion - See map on page 30

The plaintiffs propose moving SD-25 entirely in to Montgomery County, meanwhile SD-26 would be augmented with Lowndes County and Autauga County (minus a cutout of the Montgomery suburbs in the SE Corner).  The BVAP would drop from 75% to 57%.   I suspect that if you compare the cores of the districts, the plan passed by the legislature does a better job of maintaining it.

The Supreme Court also used net change of population.  If you add 4000 white persons in one area, and remove 4500 white persons in another, you have made a net change of -500.  This would imply 100%+ of the change was black persons.

Based on the 2010 Census, the 28 majority-black House districts had an average of 38,410 persons.  The 77 majority-white House districts had an average of 48.107 persons (25% more persons).  The quota was 45,521,

Based on the 2010 Census, the 8 majority-black Senate districts had a population of 115,466 persons.  The 27 majority-white senate districts had an average of 142,815 (23.7% greater).  The quota was 136,563.

The black-majority districts were grossly underpopulated, because they had been underpopulated by the Democrats in 2001, and they had grown less or even lost population.

The plan passed by the legislature enabled about 108,000 additional black persons who did not have the ability to elect the senator of their choice before 2011, to have the ability to elect their senator of choice.  The alternative proposed by the plaintiffs would disable about 65,000 black persons.

Alabama appears not to use a consistent definition of VTD, but the lawsuit uses it interchangeably with election precinct.  For example, "Anniston" is a VTD with 40,000 persons.  In other cases, it appears that the names of VTDs are made from multiple voting locations, connected by slashes.

Some maps of interest:

2001 Senate Districts

This is the 2001 map.

2011 Senate Districts

This is the 2011 map.  While it appears that the 2011 map cuts more county boundaries, it might not.  The 2011 presentation emphasizes county boundaries.  The 2001 map gives more emphasis to districts since you will see the large solid areas rather than the details of the boundaries.

Note that in Jefferson County, there are three senate districts within the county and five that overlap in both maps.  Part of the complaint is based on the process for approving county-specific legislation.   Alabama counties have weak legislative powers, with most legislation done by the legislature.  Such legislation must be passed by a majority of both houses, just like any other legislation.  As a matter of tradition, legislators defer to the delegations from the county involved.  The legislature also has committees organized by county to consider the legislation for their county.  So the 5 senators from the districts that overlap the boundaries may dominate legislation for the area.

Incidentally, the Alabama Constitution hasn't been changed since Reynolds v Sims.

This is the map proposed in 2015.

2015 Proposed Senate/Dems Find Religion

Notice the cute trick in Mobile Bay.  I suspect that this was not the map they would have proposed in 2011, nor even in litigation.   That is, it is tailored for the remand.

In Jefferson County, the three majority-black districts (18, 19, and 20) become slightly more black under this map.  But the two other districts that were drawn in the county are only 14% and 6% white.  So in what sense are SD-18, 19, and 20 racial gerrymanders?

SD-23 and SD-28 in the Black Belt are made less black as they are made whole counties.   SD-28 drops from around 60% to just below 50%.

The main difference is that SD-25 is made 45% BVAP, compared to 25% under the current map.  In addition, SD-9 in Madison County (Huntsville) is made 45% BVAP.  Currently there are no districts that are close to that in the area, and the plaintiffs are not challenging the districts.  It fails the Gingles test.

PS This is of interest to Hudson:

Tabular Data - illustrates calculation of deviation in a conventional equal-population single member plan

Note that the deviation is calculated as a numeric difference from the quota (136,564).  The range of deviation (6494, -6492) or a total of 12,986 is somewhat meaningless.  It would (should) be negligible if these were congressional districts, and it would be extremely large for most city councils.  The total range is twice the population of Hudson.

Instead the relative deviation is calculated.   In Roxbury Taxpayers, the judges using-bozomath calculated deviation as the difference between the percentage share of population and percentage share of weighted vote.  But this is meaningless because the percentage shares are dependent on the size of the legislative body.  Wyoming has about 0.2% of the US population, but we wouldn't think it OK if Wyoming had 5% of the representatives (21 or 22).

On the other hand, on a 5-member village council, where the average district should have 20% of the population, a district with 21% or 22% of the population might be OK.

[jimrtex]

What if the ruling is that the referendum/initiative as applied to redistricting is null and void nationwide?  Presumably almost every commission in the country falls, except maybe IA/NJ/NY because the legislature explicitly asked for the commission.

You mean congressional redistricting.  In your scenario, the Florida legislature will redistrict congressional districts.

[Skill and Chance]

What if the ruling is that the referendum/initiative as applied to redistricting is null and void nationwide?  Presumably almost every commission in the country falls, except maybe IA/NJ/NY because the legislature explicitly asked for the commission.

You mean congressional redistricting.  In your scenario, the Florida legislature will redistrict congressional districts.

Yes, I understand that only congressional redistricting is at stake.  The broadest possible ruling would be that any ballot measure that regulates congressional redistricting in any way is unconstitutional and no body other than the legislature can ever have any role in setting congressional lines.  That would take down every commission in the country plus Fair Districts Florida and the Michigan rules. 

I don't think many of us expect it to be that broad, though.  More likely is a ruling that any referendum/initiative that delegates the process somewhere other than the legislature is invalid (only AZ and CA fall) or that plus the legislature itself can't delegate the power (then IA/ID/NJ/NY/WA fall as well).  Under either of those scenarios, the Florida and Michigan rules would stay in effect because the legislature still draws, right?

[jimrtex]

What if the ruling is that the referendum/initiative as applied to redistricting is null and void nationwide?  Presumably almost every commission in the country falls, except maybe IA/NJ/NY because the legislature explicitly asked for the commission.

You mean congressional redistricting.  In your scenario, the Florida legislature will redistrict congressional districts.

Yes, I understand that only congressional redistricting is at stake.  The broadest possible ruling would be that any ballot measure that regulates congressional redistricting in any way is unconstitutional and no body other than the legislature can ever have any role in setting congressional lines.  That would take down every commission in the country plus Fair Districts Florida and the Michigan rules. 

I don't think many of us expect it to be that broad, though.  More likely is a ruling that any referendum/initiative that delegates the process somewhere other than the legislature is invalid (only AZ and CA fall) or that plus the legislature itself can't delegate the power (then IA/ID/NJ/NY/WA fall as well).  Under either of those scenarios, the Florida and Michigan rules would stay in effect because the legislature still draws, right?

Iowa does not have a commission.  An agency of the legislature proposes districts which the legislature may reject (and in the past have rejected).  In which case the agency must propose an alternative.

The Michigan legislature creating the redistricting standards in statute.  There is a footnote in the statutes that in 2001, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the legislature is not bound by those standards.  So apparently, the 2000 congressional districts (passed in the form of law) contradicted the 1999 statutes.

The Florida standards for congressional districts were challenged in court, both by the legislature and Corrine Brown and Mario Diaz-Balart.  I think technically the lawsuits are still alive, but in any case could be refiled if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Arizona legislature.  The SCOTUS is not going to address the issue of Florida in June.  The current maps are still being challenged on the basis that the legislature did not follow the process in the congressional districts.

They can rule, "in the past we've ruled that the term "legislature" could encompass popular or gubernatorial veto, or even resolution by state courts when the legislature fails to legislate.  Since these provisions are imposed by the People through the state constitution, the People can lock the legislature in a dark room, and let some other body pass laws."

Or they can rule, "in the past we've ruled that the term "legislature" could encompass popular or gubernatorial veto, or even resolution by state courts when the legislature fails to legislate.  But what Arizona has done goes so far beyond that, it is inconceivable that the Founders had contemplated."

The justices in the first group will then say that the decision by the (5:4) majority will lead to ongoing litigation over what constraints the People may place on congressional redistricting.  The majority will explain that their job is not to reduce litigation, but to interpret the Constiitution.

You will get a 5:4 decision because Justice Kennedy likes the nuance.

The Florida case will then be appealed to the SCOTUS.  Justice Kennedy will side with the Florida constitution setting standards for districts.

California can fall back to Proposition 11 in 2008, which left congressional redistricting in the hands of the legislature, while setting standards for congressional districts and procedural details.  The key issue to be litigated is whether the ban on political gerrymandering added as part of Proposition 20 in 2010 is severable from the removal of the legislature.   That will take further litigation.

You may get a decision that a state constitution may bar political gerrymandering, but the way that was implemented in California was too entangled with the removal of the legislature from congressional redistricting.  In that case, you simply pass a new initiative barring political gerrymandering, while leaving congressional redistricting in the hands of the legislature.

The situation in California is so complicated that it won't be resolved this decade.  And it might be that the Democrats in California decide to attack Top 2 rather than congressional redistricting.