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

[Torie]

Nothing really of any great moment, as opposed to speculation, in this article.  I strongly doubt it will happen myself. It is not as if the Dems are in the hunt to take over the House anyway.

[Torie]

"If they go ahead and pass a redistricting plan there will be a referendum on it."

Why is that necessarily so?

[Torie]

Great explanation above Jimtex. Thanks so much.

[Torie]

Great explanation above Jimtex. Thanks so much.

That's all true regarding the referendum process.  It's worth noting that AZ also has the referendum and a state supreme court that seems highly sympathetic to the commission.  Shouldn't we expect AZ Dems to pursue the same strategy as the CA GOP if commissions are struck down?

The CA referendum passed law has language cleverly enmeshing the legislature, such that it might be distinguished to the AZ to the extent it does not, for purposes of whether the new referendum itself might be struck down.

[Torie]

How were the 5 independent pool choices selected, and just how did that pool get to be so biased?

[Torie]

To me, it sounds like the legislature has a more explicit role in AZ than in CA.  They get to directly pick 80% of the commission.  Also, doesn't any legal challenge carry the risk of a court ruling that there is no legal map and no time left, therefore 2016 has to be done at-large?  That would likely mean a Republican sweep of AZ or a (more consequential) Democratic sweep of CA. 

A Court would not order an at large election, and an at large election would itself raise VRA and Constitutional issues since minority candidates would be at risk. A court would just allow the current CD's to be used for one more election, if there is not time to put another map in place. Conceivably, it could order a delay in the primary date to accommodate a new map as well.

[Torie]

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.

[Torie]

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?