One person, one vote: SCOTUS to tell us what it means
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 03:21:17 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)
  One person, one vote: SCOTUS to tell us what it means
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: One person, one vote: SCOTUS to tell us what it means  (Read 6970 times)
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
« on: May 26, 2015, 01:11:18 PM »
« edited: May 26, 2015, 01:43:38 PM by Torie »

SCOTUS just granted cert to hear Evenwel v Abbott. The issue is whether the count should be 1) residents, which is how the count is done now, 2) just eligible voters or CVAP (citizens of voting age population, or 3) states can choose either one for redistricting purposes (raising an issue as to how the census bureau will do the counts).

Obviously the ruling could have huge partisan implications, maybe forcing the consolidation of many majority minority CD's, particularly Hispanic ones (lots of non voting age kids, lots of non citizens), but also to a marginal extent, black ones (black population percentage higher than BVAP percentage by a couple of percent typically because of more kids), while calving off more Pub CD's in a form of mitosis.

Frankly I am amazed SCOTUS agreed to take this case.

I am putting this thread here, because this is the epicenter of the Atlas obsession with district population counts. Without the counts, we have nothing to work with, and are out of business! Tongue
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 26, 2015, 01:38:47 PM »

Hasn't it been residents from the beginning with the only exception being slaves, who were counted as 3/5ths?
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 26, 2015, 01:40:36 PM »

Wow.  For a redistricting technicality, this has the potential to be the most partisan SCOTUS ruling in a long time.  It doesn't impact apportionment, right?  Just districting within states?  With VRA 5 gone, this could be an absolute disaster for minority voting rights.  Depending on just how bad it looks on that front, I could even see a Democratic president's DOJ going Andrew Jackson on this in 2021.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 26, 2015, 01:41:45 PM »
« Edited: May 26, 2015, 01:44:51 PM by Skill and Chance »

Hasn't it been residents from the beginning with the only exception being slaves, who were counted as 3/5ths?

For apportionment, yes.  For districting within states, it was whatever the legislature wanted.  The CA state senate was one-county-one-vote until the mid 1960's.  Random mountain counties could cancel out L.A.

It does seem fairest, to a first order, to have an equal number of votes or potential votes in each district.  The philosophical argument is very strong.  Although one could argue many non-citizens are potential voters through naturalization within the following decade.
Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 26, 2015, 01:44:15 PM »

If a person is 16 at the time of the census, he would then be essentially disenfranchised for the first 8 years after he becomes a voter. I'd be very surprised if the court doesn't shoot this case down.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 26, 2015, 01:45:47 PM »

If a person is 16 at the time of the census, he would then be essentially disenfranchised for the first 8 years after he becomes a voter. I'd be very surprised if the court doesn't shoot this case down.

It's easy enough to create a CVAP+citizens age 8-18 metric to resolve that, right?
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 #6 on: May 26, 2015, 01:53:43 PM »

If a person is 16 at the time of the census, he would then be essentially disenfranchised for the first 8 years after he becomes a voter. I'd be very surprised if the court doesn't shoot this case down.

It's easy enough to create a CVAP+citizens age 8-18 metric to resolve that, right?

The idea of a census is a snapshot in time, and not a projection into the future. The obverse of not counting kids too young to vote, is that we count old folks who will die during the ensuing 10 years, which one could claim is another form of "disenfranchisement" of those still living.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 26, 2015, 02:02:45 PM »

If a person is 16 at the time of the census, he would then be essentially disenfranchised for the first 8 years after he becomes a voter. I'd be very surprised if the court doesn't shoot this case down.

It's easy enough to create a CVAP+citizens age 8-18 metric to resolve that, right?

The idea of a census is a snapshot in time, and not a projection into the future. The obverse of not counting kids too young to vote, is that we count old folks who will die during the ensuing 10 years, which one could claim is another form of "disenfranchisement" of those still living.

I'm unconvinced.  Post-1900, there's reasonable certainty that an 8 year old will live to be 18 and become an eligible voter.   We don't have any comparable level of confidence in whether a 70 year old today will or will not live until 2021 or 2031.
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 #8 on: May 26, 2015, 02:22:00 PM »

If a person is 16 at the time of the census, he would then be essentially disenfranchised for the first 8 years after he becomes a voter. I'd be very surprised if the court doesn't shoot this case down.

It's easy enough to create a CVAP+citizens age 8-18 metric to resolve that, right?

The idea of a census is a snapshot in time, and not a projection into the future. The obverse of not counting kids too young to vote, is that we count old folks who will die during the ensuing 10 years, which one could claim is another form of "disenfranchisement" of those still living.

I'm unconvinced.  Post-1900, there's reasonable certainty that an 8 year old will live to be 18 and become an eligible voter.   We don't have any comparable level of confidence in whether a 70 year old today will or will not live until 2021 or 2031.

OK, but that is not how the census works, and I very much doubt the issue you brought up will be a factor which the court considers, or that it will even be argued, or was argued, in the briefs. Heck, another example is that we know some districts are gaining population rapidly and others losing population. We don't project for that either.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 26, 2015, 03:15:09 PM »

If a person is 16 at the time of the census, he would then be essentially disenfranchised for the first 8 years after he becomes a voter. I'd be very surprised if the court doesn't shoot this case down.

It's easy enough to create a CVAP+citizens age 8-18 metric to resolve that, right?

The idea of a census is a snapshot in time, and not a projection into the future. The obverse of not counting kids too young to vote, is that we count old folks who will die during the ensuing 10 years, which one could claim is another form of "disenfranchisement" of those still living.

I'm unconvinced.  Post-1900, there's reasonable certainty that an 8 year old will live to be 18 and become an eligible voter.   We don't have any comparable level of confidence in whether a 70 year old today will or will not live until 2021 or 2031.
Likely as not, those between 8 and 18 will be living in a different district.   Your concerns can be addressed by using a system like Australia where a redistribution is triggered when the number of electors per district is too far out of line.
Logged
CountryClassSF
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,530


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 26, 2015, 07:20:41 PM »

Good. I think it should apply to Electoral votes too. Eligible voters only should determine the population and the benefits thereof.  Entire Census Bureau should be shaken up.  State of TX should refuse to defend case.

Australia system though has one glaring difference - compulsory voting
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 26, 2015, 07:55:50 PM »

Good. I think it should apply to Electoral votes too. Eligible voters only should determine the population and the benefits thereof.  Entire Census Bureau should be shaken up.  State of TX should refuse to defend case.

Australia system though has one glaring difference - compulsory voting

I would strongly support that if the "compulsion" was a stiff reverse poll tax on non-voters.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 26, 2015, 09:48:03 PM »
« Edited: May 27, 2015, 01:26:52 AM by Skill and Chance »

Good. I think it should apply to Electoral votes too. Eligible voters only should determine the population and the benefits thereof.  Entire Census Bureau should be shaken up.  State of TX should refuse to defend case.

Australia system though has one glaring difference - compulsory voting

I would strongly support that if the "compulsion" was a stiff reverse poll tax on non-voters.

You realize this would kill the poor right?

I realize it would hit them disproportionately, but it reflects the reality that the poor are also hurt the most when they don't vote.  If Elon Musk chooses not to vote, there's still a million other ways he can massively influence the political process.  If a citizen day laborer chooses not to vote, how else will his/her voice ever be heard?  If you can't make election day a national holiday, then make it explicitly worth a day of unpaid leave at the median income.  It's also very likely constitutional after NFIB v. Sebelius.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 26, 2015, 10:58:17 PM »
« Edited: May 26, 2015, 11:01:06 PM by Lief 🐋 »

I'm not a big fan of "one person one vote", but if we're going to adhere to it as strictly as the Court has said we must, it should obviously be based on total population and not just actual voters.

Of course the Roberts Court has consistently shown a vitriolic, almost cartoon-villainish hatred of minorities and minority voting rights, so I wouldn't be surprised to see yet another nakedly partisan opinion handed down on this.
Logged
KingSweden
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,227
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 26, 2015, 11:18:09 PM »

What do our legal experts think the result here would be?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 26, 2015, 11:58:24 PM »

What do our legal experts think the result here would be?

Who knows?  I think people are overlooking the possibility that the court took the case to explicitly set the standard as a person is a person, even if they are ineligible to be a voter, but I don't think we'll have idea of what they are thinking until at least oral arguments. If I had to guess, it would be to establish a standard of redistricting according to the apportionment population living there, but might allow for states to use a different definition of what counts as apportionment population for state or local districts than what is used for Federal apportionment.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 27, 2015, 05:20:15 AM »

Honestly, CVAP is the correct answer here. It makes no sense to base redistricting on people who are not allowed to vote (this should also be true for reapportionment purposes).

Regardless, the whole idea of mandated majority-minority districts, regardless of compactness and cohesiveness of communities, has been an utter failure for the US political system.
Logged
KingSweden
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,227
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 27, 2015, 08:54:18 AM »

What do our legal experts think the result here would be?

Who knows?  I think people are overlooking the possibility that the court took the case to explicitly set the standard as a person is a person, even if they are ineligible to be a voter, but I don't think we'll have idea of what they are thinking until at least oral arguments. If I had to guess, it would be to establish a standard of redistricting according to the apportionment population living there, but might allow for states to use a different definition of what counts as apportionment population for state or local districts than what is used for Federal apportionment.

That's my thinking too, but I needed reassurance that I wasn't nuts after making the mistake of reading Daily Kos' diary on the matter. I need to stop making the mistake of wading into those comments sections Tongue
Logged
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 27, 2015, 10:25:50 AM »

Honestly, CVAP is the correct answer here. It makes no sense to base redistricting on people who are not allowed to vote (this should also be true for reapportionment purposes).

Regardless, the whole idea of mandated majority-minority districts, regardless of compactness and cohesiveness of communities, has been an utter failure for the US political system.

Switching to CVAP would be a bonanza for the Republican Party, you know.  And even besides that it would be morally suspect: even if immigrants and children cannot yet vote, they are still full human beings deserving of consideration, and are still affected by this policies of those who do vote.  (Mind you I would like to see the franchise expanded to 16-year-olds, green card holders, felons, etc.  That so many residents of America cannot have a say in its governance is the real problem here, and switching to CVAP is the exact wrong tack to take.)

One man, one vote, based on total population, is a moral imperative.  The Roberts court better not engage in a naked partisan power grab and tear it to shreds.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 27, 2015, 11:34:17 AM »

Switching to CVAP would be a bonanza for the Republican Party, you know. And even besides that it would be morally suspect: even if immigrants and children cannot yet vote, they are still full human beings deserving of consideration, and are still affected by this policies of those who do vote.

Counting minors and noncitizens for redistricting purposes does not give them a vote. It just gives more electoral power to the adult citizens who live near them, at the expense of those who live further away. While I agree that these categories deserve a voice, the solution is to expand the electorate in the ways you suggested, not to distort the principle of equal representation.

And I tend to ignore the partisan implications when discussing electoral regulations. I'm not going to scold Republicans for rigging the system just to condone it when Democrats do the same thing.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: May 27, 2015, 11:57:47 AM »

Switching to CVAP would be a bonanza for the Republican Party, you know. And even besides that it would be morally suspect: even if immigrants and children cannot yet vote, they are still full human beings deserving of consideration, and are still affected by this policies of those who do vote.

Counting minors and noncitizens for redistricting purposes does not give them a vote. It just gives more electoral power to the adult citizens who live near them, at the expense of those who live further away. While I agree that these categories deserve a voice, the solution is to expand the electorate in the ways you suggested, not to distort the principle of equal representation.

And I tend to ignore the partisan implications when discussing electoral regulations. I'm not going to scold Republicans for rigging the system just to condone it when Democrats do the same thing.

You make a very good point.  CVAP does feel philosophically right for assigning equal sized districts.  But there is also the fact that the US system privileges rural voters in presidential elections and privileges them to the extreme in senate elections.  The current districting rules produce one of the only urban advantages in our whole system.  So I question reforming it without reforming the senate and electoral college simultaneously.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: May 27, 2015, 12:27:50 PM »

Switching to CVAP would be a bonanza for the Republican Party, you know. And even besides that it would be morally suspect: even if immigrants and children cannot yet vote, they are still full human beings deserving of consideration, and are still affected by this policies of those who do vote.

Counting minors and noncitizens for redistricting purposes does not give them a vote. It just gives more electoral power to the adult citizens who live near them, at the expense of those who live further away. While I agree that these categories deserve a voice, the solution is to expand the electorate in the ways you suggested, not to distort the principle of equal representation.

And I tend to ignore the partisan implications when discussing electoral regulations. I'm not going to scold Republicans for rigging the system just to condone it when Democrats do the same thing.

But as noted before, there are ways that minors and noncitizens can become voters, through the natural process of aging and through naturalization. My question would be whether using total population tends to better keep district populations stable over the 10 years of their existence than would using CVAP or some other metric that excludes people not eligible at the time of the census.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: May 27, 2015, 12:28:43 PM »

Switching to CVAP would be a bonanza for the Republican Party, you know. And even besides that it would be morally suspect: even if immigrants and children cannot yet vote, they are still full human beings deserving of consideration, and are still affected by this policies of those who do vote.

Counting minors and noncitizens for redistricting purposes does not give them a vote. It just gives more electoral power to the adult citizens who live near them, at the expense of those who live further away. While I agree that these categories deserve a voice, the solution is to expand the electorate in the ways you suggested, not to distort the principle of equal representation.

And I tend to ignore the partisan implications when discussing electoral regulations. I'm not going to scold Republicans for rigging the system just to condone it when Democrats do the same thing.

You make a very good point.  CVAP does feel philosophically right for assigning equal sized districts.  But there is also the fact that the US system privileges rural voters in presidential elections and privileges them to the extreme in senate elections.  The current districting rules produce one of the only urban advantages in our whole system.  So I question reforming it without reforming the senate and electoral college simultaneously.

The urban advantage in House districts isn't as clear cut as you're saying, I don't think. Coupled with single-member districts rather than multi-member districts, it's not much of an advantage at all.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: May 27, 2015, 02:29:53 PM »

What do our legal experts think the result here would be?
Who knows?  I think people are overlooking the possibility that the court took the case to explicitly set the standard as a person is a person, even if they are ineligible to be a voter, but I don't think we'll have idea of what they are thinking until at least oral arguments. If I had to guess, it would be to establish a standard of redistricting according to the apportionment population living there, but might allow for states to use a different definition of what counts as apportionment population for state or local districts than what is used for Federal apportionment.

In Burns v Richardson, upheld use of CR(esident)VAP in Hawaii.

"Neither in Reynolds v. Sims nor in any other decision has this Court suggested that the States are required to include aliens, transients, short-term or temporary residents, or persons denied the vote for conviction of crime, in the apportionment base by which their legislators are distributed and against which compliance with the Equal Protection Clause is to be measured.  The decision to include or exclude any such group involves choices about the nature of representation with which we have been shown no constitutionally founded reason to interfere. Unless a choice is one the Constitution forbids, cf., e. g., Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 , the resulting apportionment base offends no constitutional bar, and compliance with the rule established in Reynolds v. Sims is to be measured thereby."

In that decision, the SCOTUS went on to say that the use of registered voters was not a permitted constitutional base, other than as an interim solution for an impending election.  They also pointed out that in a companion case to Reynolds v Sims from New York had used citizen population as the population base. 

When New York grafted its redistricting commission onto its existing apportionment law, it edited out the use of citizen population (which had been ignored, and of course would have had huge effect in New York).

The Texas Constitution, until 2006, provided for use of "qualified voters" as the base for the Texas Senate.  It was removed as part of an omnibus amendment to remove archaic and obsolete language from the constitution.  It was quite likely that they were going after the provision that said senate districts could not divide counties, and decided to chop out an unused provision.  In previous redistricting cycles, legislators had been given the advice that "qualified voters" could be used, but the legislators had to prepared to provide a method of defining and counting qualified voters.  The census conveniently does not ask a citizen population, out of concern that it would discourage participation by non-citizens.

Hawaii uses permanent resident population, based on a somewhat crude estimate.  They use military pay records, which permit military personnel to have several addresses associated with them - where they are based and paid; where they pay state income taxes, and where they entered the service.  Texas and Florida have a particularly high share of the military who choose them for tax purposes.  Hawaii must then adjust population for small areas.  It also adjusts the student population.  For public universities this is based on students paying out-of-state tuition.  For private universities it is based on their mailing address (and requires cooperation by the university).  Of course, military personnel and students who are eligible (18 YO and citizens) may vote in Hawaii, even though they might not be counted.

The SCOTUS is going to have to reconcile it being discretionary by the states, and the underlying principles of 'Reynolds v Sims' and 'Wesberry v Sanders'.

It is unlikely that they will say, "Justice Harlan was right, there is no equal protection right to suffrage,  however there is to representation."

But they said in 'Wesberry v Sanders' that if representatives were elected at large, we would never consider weighing the value of a vote based on where a voter resides.  Why can we do so when we place the voters in separate districts?

And the disparity is so huge that it can not be considered de minimis, or that census data is insufficiently accurate.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: May 27, 2015, 04:00:00 PM »
« Edited: May 28, 2015, 09:12:59 AM by jimrtex »

If applied to Congress, and using a 10% safe harbor, 23 states would be suspect.

The following is based on CVAP vs total population using the 5-year ACS (2009-13).  This ignores any population growth.

Oldest district NY-12 (Manhattan-Queens-Brooklyn, East Side, Long Island City, Astoria, Greenpoint) 88.5% over 18.
Youngest district TX-33 (Dallas-Fort Worth, minority opportunity)

Highest CVAP/VAP OH-6 (Ohio River), WV-3 (southern), KY-5 (southeastern) 99.5 of adults are citizens.  These districts are almost cojoint in Huntington metropolitan area.  Huntington is in WV-3, Ironton is in OH-6, and KY-5 stops just south of Ashland.
Lowest CVAP/VAP CA-34, Downtown LA, 61.3% are citizens.

Most disenfranchised CVAP/total FL-11 (Ocala, The Villages, Spring Hill) 81.3% of population is adult citizens,.
Most overrepresented CVAP/total CA-40 (East LA, Huntington Park, Downey).  42.9% of population is adult citizens.

Disparity by state: Ratio of CVAP/total between most overrepresented district to most disenfranchised.

Arizona 48.4% AZ-7 (Phoenix) 49.8%, AZ-2 (Tucson-Southeast) 74.0%.

California 78.5% CA-40 (East LA, Huntington Park, Downey) 42.9%, CA-1 (northern) 76.6%.

Colorado 15.6% CO-6 (Eastern suburban, Aurora, Centennial) 65.6%, Northern (Boulder, Fort Collins) 75.8%.  Note - this illustrates problem with using population 8-18.

Connecticut 21.1% CT-4 (Southwest, Stamford-Bridgeport) 63.5%, CT-2 (eastern, New London) 76.9%

Florida 43.7% FL-27 (Miami and points south) 56.6% FL-11 (Ocala, The Villages, Spring Hill)

Georgia 23.3% GA-7 (northern suburbs, Cumming, Lawrenceville, Norcross) 59.6%, GA-12 73.5%.

Illinois 52.6% IL-4 (earmuffs) 50.4%, IL-15 (downstate, southeast) 76.9%

Indiana 11.9% IN-7 (Indianapolis) 68.1%, IN-8 (southwest, Evansville, Terre Haute) 76.2%

Maryland 15.7% MD-4 (Prince Georges) 66.0%, MD-1 (Eastern Shore, northern Baltimore suburbs) 76.3%

Massachusetts 14.9% MA-7 (Boston, Cambridge, etc.) 67.1%, MA-9 Southeast (Fall River, New Bedford, Plymouth, Cape Cod) 77.0%

Michigan 11.5% MI-11 (Outer northwest suburbs Detroit) 71.8%, MI-1 (UP, northern LP) 80.0%

Nevada 19.6% NV-1 (Las Vegas) 60.0%, NV-3 (southern suburbs, Henderson) 71.7%

New Jersey 38.0% NJ-8 (Opposite NYC, Hoboken, Union City) 55.0%, NJ-3 (NE Philadelphia suburbs, Burlington) 76.0%

New York 47.1% NY-15 (southern Bronx) 53.4%, NY-19 (mid-Hudson, Torie-town) 78.5%

North Carolina 19.6% NC-12 (I-85, Charlotte to Greensboro) 64.8%, NC-11 (Appalachians) 77.6%.

Ohio 12.4% OH-3 (Columbus) 69.5%, OH-13 (Youngstown, Akron) 78.1%

Oregon 11.9% OR-1 (Portland) 69.2%, OR-4 (Eugene, Corvallis) 77.4%

Pennsylvania 15.2% PA-1 (Philadelphia along Delaware) 69.3%, PA-14 (Pittsburgh) 79.8%

Tennessee 10.3% TN-9 (Memphis) 70.3%, TN-1 (eastern tip) 77.6%

Texas 71.2%  TX-33 (Dallas-Fort Worth minority opportunity) 43.6%, TX-21 (San Antonio-Austin) 74.7%

Virginia 27.8% VA-11 (Mid Fairfax) 62.4%, VA-9 (79.8%) Western tip.

Washington 31.5%  WA-4 (Central, Yakima, Tri-Cities) 58.9%, WA-6 (Tacoma, Bremerton, Olympic Peninsula) 77.5%

Wisconsin 11.9% WI-4 (Milwaukee) 69.6%, WI-3 (southwest, Eau Claire, La Crosse) 77.9%
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« 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 0.068 seconds with 12 queries.