FL: Rereredistricting

[windjammer]

Seriously, when a new map will be adopted?

[jimrtex]

Seriously, when a new map will be adopted?

The SCOFLA relinquished the case for 100 days (until October 22), in which time the legislature was expected to adopt a new plan; plaintiffs would be given a chance to respond, and the trial court would  recommend to the SCOFLA whether or not the new plan was constitutional. The trial court set a deadline for the legislature to act, for briefs to be filed, and a trial to be held on September 25.

On August 24, the Florida House filed a motion with the SCOFLA asking that they modify their relinquishment order to permit the trial court to create a provisional plan, that would include 60 days for plans to be submitted. The House argued that the SCOFLA's original relinquishment order precludes consideration of alternative plans.

The Senate responded that they saw no need to change the SCOFLA's order, that it was flexible enough. The trial court judge asked the SCOFLA for advice on how to proceed. The SCOFLA then told the Senate to file a new response given the trial court's not knowing how to proceed. The plaintiffs have suggested that the SCOFLA should draw the districts, since they now have the redistricting software to do so; or if the SCOFLA orders the trial court to draw the map that it do so on an expedited basis, based on the plans proposed by the House and Senate in the recent failed special session.

The plaintiffs also argue that the adopted plan should be final. They cite the Colorado case (Salazar) noting that the courts may have a role in creating a plan. But they probably are not aware that the basis of the SCOCOLO decision was its (novel) interpretation of a provision in the Colorado Constitution setting the time for congressional redistricting. There is no equivalent provision in the Florida Constitution.

The SCOFLA has yet to speak on the matter (the last filing was on Thursday). I would expect that they will order the trial court to draw a map, so that they can review it. It seems to absurd (to me) that the body who is doing final review of the map is itself drawing the map.

Also in October, the legislature will meet in special session to redraw the senate districts.

[edtorres04]

The FL Sup Court has ruled that the trial judge (Lewis) should select either the House or the Senate plan.  They also have the option of passing a compromise map.

[muon2]

The FL Sup Court has ruled that the trial judge (Lewis) should select either the House or the Senate plan.  They also have the option of passing a compromise map.

I take it that means both the House and Senate plans are compliant with the SCOFLA opinion.

[JerryArkansas]

The FL Sup Court has ruled that the trial judge (Lewis) should select either the House or the Senate plan.  They also have the option of passing a compromise map.

We'll it is more complicated than that.  They should pass a house or senate map, but are not required too, any map proposed by either chamber during the session could be passed.  Also both house and senate have to argue why their map is better.

[jimrtex]

The FL Sup Court has ruled that the trial judge (Lewis) should select either the House or the Senate plan.  They also have the option of passing a compromise map.

I take it that means both the House and Senate plans are compliant with the SCOFLA opinion.

Not necessarily.

Docket for Florida congressional redistricting

The latest flurry of motions began at the end of August.

The SCOFLA had relinquished the case for 100 days (until October 17) to the trial court, during which time the legislature would create a map, and the trial court would make a recommendation to the SCOFLA whether the plan was acceptable or not. It was the trial court that set the deadline for the legislature to enact a plan, with the idea of giving the plaintiffs time to comment, and the trial court a chance to write his opinion.

After the legislature failed to enact a plan, the House asked the SCOFLA to change its terms of relinquishment by having the trial court draw a map, but also making it clear that such a map was interim or provisional. The Senate said they thought the trial court could muddle along. The trial court asked what it should do, and the SCOFLA asked the Senate what they thought should happen given the trial court said they couldn't muddle along without further instruction. The plaintiffs wanted the SCOFLA to draw a map, since they were familiar with the redistricting software, and besides it would avoid the annoyance of having a public process.

The SCOFLA is saying that the trial court should consider the House and Senate plans, plus any proposed amendments, and then make his recommendation. So they are trying to preserve the legislative initiative in drawing the map, but could end up with the trial court finishing up the maps.

The SCOFLA also said that if the legislature happened to come up with a plan and pass it before the hearing by the trial court, that should be the one considered by the trial court. Apparently, there has been a compromise map that has been informally considered. The legislature will also be in special session in October to draw a new senate map.

The SCOFLA also rejected the notion that the map would be interim or provisional. The minority of the SCOFLA said that they would not have made a ruling on the issue. The SCOFLA may be treating opinions by the SCOTUS that state courts might be part of the redistricting process too expansively. In Colorado, the state supreme court had ruled that under (a novel interpretation of) the Colorado Constitution, that the legislature had only one opportunity to redistrict, and after that failed, the court imposed plan was final. But there is nothing in the Florida Constitution about congressional districting other than the rules for the districts. The SCOFLA would have to make something up.

[Torie]

The latest pawn move is that Senator Galvano instructed staff to come up with a map with certain parameters intended to accommodate the concerns of both the Senate and the House, and staff came up with this. The House leader on redistricting thinks it has potential. It most certainly does from a Pub partisan standpoint. FL-09 on the map per my calculations has about a dead even PVI (46% McCain). So if this map flies, the Dems pick up FL-10, lose FL-02, are favored to win FL-13, and FL-09 is a tossup, so the Pubs either break even, or lose one seat out of the whole thing.

[Nyvin]

The latest pawn move is that Senator Galvano instructed staff to come up with a map with certain parameters intended to accommodate the concerns of both the Senate and the House, and staff came up with this. The House leader on redistricting thinks it has potential. It most certainly does from a Pub partisan standpoint. FL-09 on the map per my calculations has about a dead even PVI (46% McCain). So if this map flies, the Dems pick up FL-10, lose FL-02, are favored to win FL-13, and FL-09 is a tossup, so the Pubs either break even, or lose one seat out of the whole thing.

If FL-9 was a swing seat in the 2008 election....then by now it's almost for sure going to lean Dem with the mass influx of Puerto Ricans to the area, especially Osceola County. 

[windjammer]

The latest pawn move is that Senator Galvano instructed staff to come up with a map with certain parameters intended to accommodate the concerns of both the Senate and the House, and staff came up with this. The House leader on redistricting thinks it has potential. It most certainly does from a Pub partisan standpoint. FL-09 on the map per my calculations has about a dead even PVI (46% McCain). So if this map flies, the Dems pick up FL-10, lose FL-02, are favored to win FL-13, and FL-09 is a tossup, so the Pubs either break even, or lose one seat out of the whole thing.

Torie, do you have any FL governor and 2012 results for this district?

[muon2]

I was looking at the stats on the linked map and continue to be amused at the strange but not uncommon counting that is done for city and county splits. The count all districts that are in counties that are split. There is no benefit for a district entirely within a county and a double penalty for any chop of a county or city too small for a single district. The double count occurs since counties entirely within a district are not counted, but the moment the county is chopped it counts for two. Subsequent chops only increase the count by one each, so it is distinctly non-linear penalizing the first chop.

[Torie]

The latest pawn move is that Senator Galvano instructed staff to come up with a map with certain parameters intended to accommodate the concerns of both the Senate and the House, and staff came up with this. The House leader on redistricting thinks it has potential. It most certainly does from a Pub partisan standpoint. FL-09 on the map per my calculations has about a dead even PVI (46% McCain). So if this map flies, the Dems pick up FL-10, lose FL-02, are favored to win FL-13, and FL-09 is a tossup, so the Pubs either break even, or lose one seat out of the whole thing.

Torie, do you have any FL governor and 2012 results for this district?

No, sorry. But if you look at the swing and trend county map for Florida in 2012, you will see most of the counties in the proposed FL-09 swung to Romney but trended to Obama 2012. So my guess is that the FL-09 as drawn on the map moved about 1 point in PVI to the Dems, making it about a 1.5% Dem PVI CD. Of course, the 23% or so of the CD in Orange County may have moved differently than the county as a whole, but I suspect the variance will not be very large. It was about as Democratic as the county as a whole, albeit more Hispanic and less black.

[Torie]

I was looking at the stats on the linked map and continue to be amused at the strange but not uncommon counting that is done for city and county splits. The count all districts that are in counties that are split. There is no benefit for a district entirely within a county and a double penalty for any chop of a county or city too small for a single district. The double count occurs since counties entirely within a district are not counted, but the moment the county is chopped it counts for two. Subsequent chops only increase the count by one each, so it is distinctly non-linear penalizing the first chop.

So in theory there is no penalty for a chopped county that miraculously does not also chop some internal subdivision? I think the assumption is that if a county is chopped, then a subdivision will be chopped, and thus the double count of the first internal subdivision count, is really counting one point for the county chop, and a second point for the internal subdivision chop. That seems sort of reasonable I guess. Your/our system is to just allow one internal subdivision chop, with no additional penalty, and test where it is by an erosity test (if I understand the system, which is always a big if). They have their own erosity test, which I must say does tend to make for pretty CD's. I would not reject it out of hand actually. It seems to work well.

[muon2]

I was looking at the stats on the linked map and continue to be amused at the strange but not uncommon counting that is done for city and county splits. The count all districts that are in counties that are split. There is no benefit for a district entirely within a county and a double penalty for any chop of a county or city too small for a single district. The double count occurs since counties entirely within a district are not counted, but the moment the county is chopped it counts for two. Subsequent chops only increase the count by one each, so it is distinctly non-linear penalizing the first chop.

So in theory there is no penalty for a chopped county that miraculously does not also chop some internal subdivision? I think the assumption is that if a county is chopped, then a subdivision will be chopped, and thus the double count of the first internal subdivision count, is really counting one point for the county chop, and a second point for the internal subdivision chop. That seems sort of reasonable I guess. Your/our system is to just allow one internal subdivision chop, with no additional penalty, and test where it is by an erosity test (if I understand the system, which is always a big if). They have their own erosity test, which I must say does tend to make for pretty CD's. I would not reject it out of hand actually. It seems to work well.

They treat counties and munis as independent variables since munis can overlap counties. The score a re tabulated for each type separately. I can use counties to illustrate the effect of their system which counts fragments. I will use the newly linked map as an illustration with the fragment and chop counts.

Marion 3:2
Citrus 0:0
fragments 3, chops 2

If CD 2 chopped into Citrus instead of Marion and CD 3 and 11 split Marion between them we would have the following.

Marion 2:1
Citrus 2:1
fragments 4, chops 2

The fragment count increased without changing the chop count. This is the double penalty I spoke about: the first chop into a county counts 2 points. It forces a plan to favor multichopping a county when possible. We had a lengthy thread debate on this a few years ago leading to our current definition of chops. The consensus was that each additional chop should count the same whether it was in an already chopped county or in an unchopped county.

The FL plans include a number of separate standard measures of compactness. They each have known weaknesses, so I assume that they list multiple measures so that a plan that might exploit one measure's weakness would show poorly on other measures. The result is that there is no rule, but guidance to hopefully unmask gerrymandering.

[Torie]

Thanks for the explanation. It appears appear the map games the system, and explains the quad chops of Hillsborough and Orange, and  the tri chops of Lake, Polk and Marian in the more northern part of the state. Personally, absent some real offsetting benefit, I try to avoid multiple chops of a county where reasonably possible, because I think it unfair to gang bang any county like that. Rather than a bonus for multiple chops, I would prefer a penalty personally.

At least the map seems to avoid traveling chops outside those generated by minority influence CD's under federal or state law. Perhaps that is an understood policy in Florida.

I still think FL-05 with traveling chops is vulnerable under SCOTUS law, because it is an erose racial gerrymander not needed for partisan reasons. There is a SCOTUS case that dealt with that issue. Someone in Leon County might have a good lawsuit, forcing the map to change to make eliminate the Leon County chop. That map change however would cause the map to go in the opposite direction from the direction Corrine Brown wants it to go, suggesting that perhaps her lawsuit might backfire for her (particularly if someone files an "amicus" brief in her case which really is anything but for Corrine).

I suppose since her old district would be legal under federal law, because it does have a partisan reason, that if the federal court requires the uniting of Leon County, then SCOFLAW might say OK, that results in the BVAP being too low if all of Leon County is united, so to comport with Florida law while not violating federal law, we are back to her old district. That is highly unlikely however it seems to me, since even a redrawn FL-05 will still have a majority of voters in the Dem primary that are black, and would unravel much of what SCOFLAW was trying to do.

State and federal law when it comes to minority districts is always endlessly fascinating. It is what makes this game so much more fun and challenging, and, as you note,  so much harder for computers just to do it all, leaving humans out of the process.

[jimrtex]

I was looking at the stats on the linked map and continue to be amused at the strange but not uncommon counting that is done for city and county splits. The count all districts that are in counties that are split. There is no benefit for a district entirely within a county and a double penalty for any chop of a county or city too small for a single district. The double count occurs since counties entirely within a district are not counted, but the moment the county is chopped it counts for two. Subsequent chops only increase the count by one each, so it is distinctly non-linear penalizing the first chop.

Who devised the counting system?  Does it reflect any court decisions, or even any conscious policy decisions, or an interpretation of the Florida Constitution.

[jimrtex]

I was looking at the stats on the linked map and continue to be amused at the strange but not uncommon counting that is done for city and county splits. The count all districts that are in counties that are split. There is no benefit for a district entirely within a county and a double penalty for any chop of a county or city too small for a single district. The double count occurs since counties entirely within a district are not counted, but the moment the county is chopped it counts for two. Subsequent chops only increase the count by one each, so it is distinctly non-linear penalizing the first chop.

Who devised the counting system?  Does it reflect any court decisions, or even any conscious policy decisions, or an interpretation of the Florida Constitution.

"(b) Unless compliance with the standards in this subsection conflicts with the standards in subsection 1(a) or with federal law, districts shall be as nearly equal in population as is practicable; districts shall be compact; and districts shall, where feasible, utilize existing political and geographical boundaries."

Note: I substituted the language from the Constitution. I couldn't tell whether yours was a paraphrase or from some other language.

There has to be an implied "boundary" after the last instance of "district". That is:

(1) population equality is a characteristic of the area within the district;
(2) utilization of political boundaries is a characteristic of the district boundaries; and
(3) compactness is a composite of the area within the district and the boundaries (or at least the overall extent of those boundaries) depending on the measure used.

Each district that chops a county (or city) is not utilizing the political boundary. So dividing a small er county has two non-utilizations.

But if a district is entirely within a county, it is non-feasible to use the county boundary for the entire district boundary. And it is also non-feasible for one other district boundary. But since it is non-feasible to not cut the county, there shouldn't be a penalty for not placing a district wholly within the county. And this might be the preferred solution if it avoided cutting other counties.

If a city boundary crosses a county boundary, it is not feasible to follow both. The county boundary was established first, and should be given priority. That is a district boundary along a county boundary that cuts a city does not count. If the boundary follows the city boundary, then it cuts the county.

There is no distinction between county and city boundaries in the constitution so a cut within a county that also cuts a city, should be evaluated for both.

The minimum number of districts needed to cover a city or county is:

coverage = ceil( population/quota)

A county-district intersection (CDI) is the area within a single county and single district. The number of county-district intersections for a county (NCDI) is the count of CDI for the county.

If (NCDI = coverage) no penalty.
Otherwise the penalty is: NCDI - coverage + 1.

Tier 2 criteria have no priority. That is, avoiding splitting of counties is of equal importance with practicable population equality. Based on Tennant congressional districts do not have to have strict population equality if the variation is justified by other legitimate state priorities. Respect for county and city boundaries is clearly one such criteria.

[jimrtex]

The circuit court started its hearing on the various plans.  They were shown on the Florida Channel.

Florida Channel - Video Library

9/24/2015 (part one)

Representative Daniel Webster (FL-10) sought to intervene based on a claim that the plan would disfavor an incumbent. This was denied on grounds of being too late.

There is a rumor that Webster will move to FL-7, John Mica will move to FL-6, and Ron DeSantis will run for the US Senate.

The plaintiffs then sought to curb questions about who helped them draw their plans. The reason the SCOFLA overturned the plan was that they found evidence of intent to assist Republicans. It appears someone was feeding their map-drawers early version of plans. They would then submit a plan from the "public". Often-times a district from one of these plans would be incorporated into a final map. In describing the new plan, there would a narrative about a district being like a district from Public Plan 123. So it would give the appearance that the senate was simply being responsive to public suggestions, and there could be a plausible non-partisan explanation. SCOFLA inferred legislative intent  based on the intent of those attempting to influence the legislature.

It was also determined that the DCCC was influential in drawing the maps for the Romo plaintiffs, including the east-west configuration of FL-5. As the SCOFLA dissent noted, the plaintiffs had used the judicial process to impose their intent on the map.

The League of Women Voters (LWV) plaintiffs used Strategic Telemetry for assistance. You may recall that Strategic Telemetry was the mapping consultant that Colleen Mathis and the two Democratic members in Arizona had hired, even though Strategic Telemetry had zero redistricting experience. Instead Strategic Telemetry's expertise was in targeting political campaigns. They only had Democratic clients. IOW, their business was identifying Democratic voters.

When the redistricting ballot issue was proposed, there apparently was discussion about whether the ballot title correctly indicated whether the partisan intent provision applied to only to the legislature, or also to the courts, and it was decided that it also applied to the courts.

Since the SCOFLA will be drawing the final map (the circuit court is charged with making a recommendation), there is a legitimate concern that their decision may indirectly reflect the partisan  intent of the litigants.

The plaintiffs argued that since the base plan that is being considered is the House plan (9071), and they are only proposing modifications, their past machinations are irrelevant.

Judge Lewis left it open for now (it was a motion in limine by the the plaintiffs). The SCOFLA had originally ordered the circuit court to consider the map that would presumably be produced by a special session of the legislature, and make a recommendation on whether it should be adopted. Had the legislature enacted a plan, then the trial would be about their plan only, and not past proposals by the plaintiffs.

But after the special session adjourned without passing a plan, the SCOFLA told the circuit court to consider the senate and house maps, and maps produced by the plaintiffs. So now the circuit court will be recommending a map - and not recommending whether the legislature-produced map should be adopted.

The rest of Part 1 was the opening statements.

The SCOFLA had objections to 8 districts:

FL-5 which they ordered be drawn east-west.
FL-13, 14 with a concern about crossing Tampa Bay.
FL-21,22 concerns about compactness.
FL-25 splitting Hendry County.
FL-26,27 splitting Homestead.

The LWV plaintiffs only object to 26,27. The Romo (Democratic) plaintiffs object to 26,27 and 21,22. The plaintiffs are OK with FL-5; 13; 14; and 25.

The Florida NAACP is also a party. They were originally a plaintiff, but have switched sides to support a N-S alignment of FL-5. Since Florida has accepted the E-W alignment, that puts them against everyone. Their lawyer spoke only briefly, and have not been active.

Ironically, the Florida NAACP was a sponsor of the redistricting measure. Corrine Brown got James Clyburn to complain to the national NAACP about their Florida branch to no avail. When campaigning for the measure, the sponsors were careful to only cite non-VRA districts as being ugly, but I suspect that most voters thought they were getting rid of FL-5 and the crazy lines in South Florida.

Recently, a Republican representative from Nassau County was recorded as saying that the key to getting rid of Brown would be to include as many prisons as possible in the district. But the east-west alignment was drawn by Romo (Democratic) plaintiffs, and the legislative map-drawers plucked it whole as a starting point. The Romo plaintiffs had map-drawing assistance from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Caucus (DCCC). Maybe Debbie Wasserman Schultz wants to get rid of Brown.

SCOFLA was concerned about the non-compactness of FL-21 and 22, and said that the legislature could consider switching to north-south split, rather than the east-west split.

The House did produce a north-south split. After the map was released it was discovered that Ted Deutch and Lois Frankel had been paired (not two remarkable given that if you rotate a split 90 degrees, there is a 50/50 chance of a pairing, and perhaps even higher if the split had been arranged to permit two neighbors to be elected, or if two neighbors had been elected because of the split.

It would have been illegal to deliberately pair the two. But it is probably also illegal to deliberately unpair them. So the Romo plaintiffs are arguing that there is a community of interest among the beach communities, and among those further inland. When the redistricting proposals were first made, the legislature put forward an alternative that would include community of interest. IIRC, the courts rejected the legislature's proposal as too confusing. So community of interest was deliberately not included. This makes it a third tier consideration, below compactness. And since the SCOFLA rejected the two districts because of non-compactness, I suspect that much better compactness will defeat somewhat improved compactness.

SCOFLA rejected FL-26 and FL-27 because it split Homestead. It was not so much the split of Homestead per se, but rather that it had been done to keep FL-26 as a Republican district. The House map drawers tried putting Homestead in both districts, and then adjusted the population following a highway. Both pairs of plaintiffs are complaining that it made FL-26 more Republican. There is also a possible issue of whether FL-26 would be a performing Hispanic VRA district.

The LWV plaintiffs have proposed 3 maps, one is a complete redraw of 20-27, and twomaps that change 26 and 27.

The House and Senate have different attorneys, and the Senate attorney will argue for their map based on it reducing splits of Hillsborough. They might also argue for the compromise map that was created after the special session adjourned.

The attorney for the LWV plaintiffs is very loud and argumentative. His style might work better in a civil trial before a jury, where he was making a populist argument for a victim injured by "big business", who not only can afford a $bazillion judgment, but should be monetarily punished. The judge appears to be very calm and good humored. Perhaps he can ignore the theatrics. The House lawyer was very calm, and thorough.

[jimrtex]

9/24/2015 Part 2

House Attorney questions Jason Poreda, Staff Director of Joint Committee on Redistricting.

Poreda was one of the three map drawers, and he had the mouse about 95% of the time.

He described how they were isolated, including going so far as to re-key the doors, with only two keys.

He confirmed that they did no political analysis except necessary to comply with the VRA.

Also neither set of plaintiffs submitted a map, though there were about a dozen public submission.

He then explained the process by which 26 and 27 were drawn. They started by putting Homestead in both districts. They chose to put it in 26 since that gave the best convex-hull compactness. If Homestead were in 27, it would stick out from the southern tip. They then took the previous boundary and came up the Florida Turnpike until they got enough population.

When doing this, they only had Total Population turned on. He had know knowledge of the demographics of the area that was moved into FL-27, which turns out to be three areas that are predominately black. The effect was to keep FL-26 Republican, despite including all of Homestead.

[Nyvin]

9/24/2015 Part 2

House Attorney questions Jason Poreda, Staff Director of Joint Committee on Redistricting.

Poreda was one of the three map drawers, and he had the mouse about 95% of the time.

He described how they were isolated, including going so far as to re-key the doors, with only two keys.

He confirmed that they did no political analysis except necessary to comply with the VRA.

Also neither set of plaintiffs submitted a map, though there were about a dozen public submission.

He then explained the process by which 26 and 27 were drawn. They started by putting Homestead in both districts. They chose to put it in 26 since that gave the best convex-hull compactness. If Homestead were in 27, it would stick out from the southern tip. They then took the previous boundary and came up the Florida Turnpike until they got enough population.

When doing this, they only had Total Population turned on. He had know knowledge of the demographics of the area that was moved into FL-27, which turns out to be three areas that are predominately black. The effect was to keep FL-26 Republican, despite including all of Homestead.

That kinda smells like a BS story toward the end, but what else is he supposed to say I guess.

[jimrtex]

9/24/2015 Part 3

Jason Poreda continues to testify. He was being quested by the House attorney, so it was a friendly questioning. Alot of it Poreda talking, and occasionally telling the attorney who was "questioning him" to move forward or backwards a slide. The attorney would enter in when there were some points he wanted to make. The overall theme would be to show that Poreda and the two other staff map-drawers had complete control of the process. In drawing the maps, they had saved all drafts, and made a report of their thinking at each decision point. If you want a complete explanation of the House plan, listen to this part.

The testimony lasts an hour and a half. Poreda says that other presentations he had given to legislators after drawing the maps had been longer and in more detail. He either has complete command of the material, or was well rehearsed, and had helped set up the slide presentation, or both.

The map-makers had drawn the various districts that SCOFLA had questioned in isolation, and then placed the surrounding districts. They were generally trying to maintain the other districts, making adjustments as needed.

Maps and supporting data for House Plan 9071

26/27 This was their first map, which just had the two districts. They emphasized that both districts were minority performing, and the decision was made to include Homestead in FL-26 was based on compactness, after determining that both districts remained Hispanic performing.

Under questioning, Poreda noted that no alternative plan had been submitted by the LWV. After the plan had been released, the LWV sent a letter complaining about the split. Poreda said he was aware of the letter, but had not seen it. He said he would not have responded since partisan considerations violate the Florida Constitution. The original split of Homestead had been made with partisan intent, and that was why the SCOFLA had highlighted the districts.

Presumably the LWV would have had to couch their letter with an inference that they map should have removed the partisan effect - but that could be just as illegal. The area moved into FL-26 is right in the fork of the Florida Turnpike and US-1.

13/14 (and 12)

The SCOFLA had criticized FL-14 crossing Tampa Bay to St. Petersburg. So the map drawers started at the southern tip of Pinellas and went northward until they had enough population. They said that this required the split of Clearwater. It also drew FL-12 further south into Pinellas. Keeping all of Pasco in FL-12, meant only a small part of Hillsborough was needed in FL-12. The original version had this along the Pinellas-Hillsborough line, and it was sort of a pointed shape. The final version was made quite a bit later and essentially smooths the juniction of the three counties.

They first tried locking FL-15 and FL-17 in their current configuration, but this left FL-14 non-minority performing (after loss of the black areas in St. Petersubrg). So they pulled FL-14 further north, which put all of Tampa in the district, and made it minority-performing.

20/25

The SCOFLA had criticized the splitting of Hendry County. While the extension of FL-20 to the west picks up Bell Glade, I suspect it is mainly to boost the compactness score, which would otherwise be ghastly. FL-25 is really a cross-peninsula district. I would wouldn't go cross-peninsula until further north where it could be done over several districts.

In the House map, FL-25 is 440K in Miami-Dade, 51K in Broward, and 166K in Collier, plus Hendry. It splits Collier in half (166K in FL-25, 155K in Collier) and sticks it in a Miami-based district.

Anyhow, putting all of Hendry in FL-25 makes it more "compact" since if looks like a big rectangle, with a smaller rectangle to the southeast. 70% of the population is on the very tip of that southeastern rectangle.

Because the east coast populated portions of FL-25 and FL-20 are not adjacent, this required the transfer of the compensating population to be through FL-23.

21/22

The SCOFLA had criticized the noncompactness of 21/22. They decided that they could not improve the compactness significantly with the current N/S division. So they switched to an E/W split, with a jog that keeps Boca Raton whole. FL-24 is a black majority district and was not changed. FL-23 was only changed to transfer population between FL-20 and FL-25, on the tip of its western inland portion.

FL-18 and FL-19 were left unchanged, which gave them a south Florida map for FL-18 through FL-27.

5

They took FL-5 from the Romo (Democratic) plan. Note the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee drew this map.

10

With the removal of FL-5 from the Orlando area, it left a vacuum for minority voters. They created a minority-majority district in Orange County, but it was not particularly compact. They tried some other configurations. One starting from the western edge was compact, but did not quite have a minority Democratic majority. They played with the boundary a bit and found a district that did, and was compact.

1, 2, 3, 4, and 6

These were fitted around FL-5. FL-1 in the panhandle is unchanged. The mapmakers considered using the Democratic map for FL-2, which included a hook to Union and Bradford, but instead added an area in Alachua, because this fit with a particularly compact FL-3. FL-4 which wraps around FL-5 in Jacksonville was directed south into St. Johns, instead of towards the west. FL-6 was pushed south a bit.

Remainder: 7, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, 17

With a map across the northern part of the state, plus 12, 13, and 14, and 10, the other districts could be fitted between and around them. FL-8 is the same as the enacted plan. FL-7 is Seminole plus part of Orange. This meant the remnant of Orange would go with Osceola and into Polk would be FL-9.
Fl-11 fills in from the north, making FL-15 a compact I-4 district, albeit made up of parts of three counties. The counties in the area (Marion, Lake, Orange, Polk, Hillsborough) are all divided.

The compact enacted FL-16 was initially used, but FL-17 wrapped around it on both north and south. The southern and eastern part of Tampa Bay are part of Hillsborough County, all the way to the Gulf of Mexico, giving an appearance of long point if the area east of the bay is in the same district. A better map could probably be drawn by ignoring this area (offshore islands could be linked by contiguity threads). Instead FL-16 was shifted northward, with FL-17 coming in from the south.

There was quite a bit of experimentation with rotating districts around FL-10. I suppose the purpose of this testimony was to show that the House plan was better than the senate alternative, and also that Fl-26/27 and 21/22 were consistent with considerations elsewhere.

Poreda also prepared on behalf members, two other maps, one which would have kept the current 20/21; and the other which would have retained the enacted map (defied the SCOFLA).

Poreda was also asked about CP-1 the LWV plan that would have redrawn FL-20 to FL-27 (see House redistricting site above). He was asked if the LWV had submitted their plan to the legislature (No). He was also asked if they had considered a configuration for FL-20 like that in the LWV map. He said they had early on, but rejected it because it added a 3rd peninsula. The Judge was confused, and Poreda showed him on the map. I'm not sure if the 3rd peninsula is the one that comes into Miami-Dade south of FL-23, or the split tongue on the current southern peninsula in Palm Beach. Poreda said they had considered it early on, but had decided that since the current FL-20 is so ugly, this would simply make it worse. That is even though the legislature did not have an opportunity to consider the LWV proposal, since the LWV failled to submit, the legislative mapdrawers had drawn something similar.

After the Senate had sent over their counter-proposal, Poreda had made some minor adjustments to eliminate 4 city splits (I'm guessing the Senate was promoting their alternative as having fewer city splits). I don't think that this improved map was ever implemented.

[Torie]

I listened to some of the final argument.

1. The House and Senate counsel as to CD 26 and 27 pounded hard, and I think effectively, that the odds of electing an Hispanic in CD 26 would be diminished, because the district moves 2 points to the Dems, and the Hispanics do not have the ability to nominate an Hispanic in the Dem primary, unless the Dem party realizes that it has to, for that candidate to win the General. With the district leaning Dem, that incentive is degraded, increasing the odds that a white or black Dem will be dominated, who then will win the General over the Hispanic Pub. Therefore there is illegal retrogression in the ability of Hispanics to elect a candidate of their choice.

2. As to CD 21 and 22, the Court almost certainly will go with a horizontal configuration. The north south approach was based on eliminating the pairing of the two incumbent Dems in the same CD, but that is only illegal if there was some design to do the pairing, as opposed to the pairing happening by virtue of enhancing compactness per SCOFLA's ruling. There was no evidence of such design, so concluding that compactness needs to be ignored to eliminate the pairing, is a misapplication of the law, and one done by a Harvard professor to boot.

3. The second Senate map seems to have the best metrics, and counsel for the Senate was effective that it is irrelevant what the Hispanic percentage is in CD-09 because it is not per SCOFLA's ruling a minority opportunity district. However, that map was never passed by the Senate, and at the end counsel for the Senate said he had no preference between the two Senate maps, which was a mistake, because the first Senate map has poorer metrics.

4. My prediction is that the court will adopt the second senate map, or the House map, based on whether he wants to go with the best product, or the map that was cleaner from a  procedural standpoint, which would be the House map. At stake from a partisan standpoint is whether CD-09 becomes a somewhat competitive district, as it would under the second Senate map, or a safe Dem CD, as it would be under the House map.

[Nyvin]

The first Senate map is the cleanest map, and also gives the Hispanics in FL-9 the best representation.   

The House Map isn't all that much different though.    I really believe FL-9 will actually end up being a safe Dem seat regardless since there is such a massive influx of Puerto Ricans into the area, so it's really moot which map is chosen in the end.   Going off the 2010 Census does have it's limitations.

[Torie]

The first Senate map is the cleanest map, and also gives the Hispanics in FL-9 the best representation.   

The House Map isn't all that much different though.    I really believe FL-9 will actually end up being a safe Dem seat regardless since there is such a massive influx of Puerto Ricans into the area, so it's really moot which map is chosen in the end.   Going off the 2010 Census does have it's limitations.

The second senate map has better metrics.

[Nyvin]

I listened to some of the final argument.

1. The House and Senate counsel as to CD 26 and 27 pounded hard, and I think effectively, that the odds of electing an Hispanic in CD 26 would be diminished, because the district moves 2 points to the Dems, and the Hispanics do not have the ability to nominate an Hispanic in the Dem primary, unless the Dem party realizes that it has to, for that candidate to win the General. With the district leaning Dem, that incentive is degraded, increasing the odds that a white or black Dem will be dominated, who then will win the General over the Hispanic Pub. Therefore there is illegal retrogression in the ability of Hispanics to elect a candidate of their choice.

That's kinda putting a spin on it.   The hispanic vote in FL-26 is pretty evenly divided, the district voted 54% Obama in 2012 and is 68% hispanic (mostly Cuban).    Neither the Democratic Primary "or" the GOP primary can give the ability to nominate a hispanic (for sure).   

The idea that since the Democrats "can't" nominate a hispanic makes the redistricting moves illegal is screwy because it just assumes the GOP "can".    The only thing they have to base that assumption off of is the incumbent. 

[Nyvin]

The first Senate map is the cleanest map, and also gives the Hispanics in FL-9 the best representation.   

The House Map isn't all that much different though.    I really believe FL-9 will actually end up being a safe Dem seat regardless since there is such a massive influx of Puerto Ricans into the area, so it's really moot which map is chosen in the end.   Going off the 2010 Census does have it's limitations.

The second senate map has better metrics.

As in county chops?   What would the metrics be?