FL: Rereredistricting

[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.

As in county chops?   What would the metrics be?

County and muni chops and erosity (compactness) measurements. The second Senate map had one less county chop and one more muni chop than the House map, and its compactness score was about equal.

[muon2]

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?

County and muni chops and erosity (compactness) measurements. The second Senate map had one less county chop and one more muni chop than the House map, and its compactness score was about equal.

Though keep in mind their metric measures fragments not chops. As I noted earlier that can create some unexpected choices in map-making, particularly favoring placing as many chops as one can in one county, rather than spreading them out among multiple counties.

[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.

As in county chops?   What would the metrics be?

County and muni chops and erosity (compactness) measurements. The second Senate map had one less county chop and one more muni chop than the House map, and its compactness score was about equal.

Though keep in mind their metric measures fragments not chops. As I noted earlier that can create some unexpected choices in map-making, particularly favoring placing as many chops as one can in one county, rather than spreading them out among multiple counties.

Yes, but their counting method appears to be their entire known universe, so that is what is in play. The second senate map probably does not get credit for converting the quad chop of Hillsborough into a trichop as a result.

[jimrtex]

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.

The LWV plaintiffs are not contesting 20/21. They are nominally neutral, though I suspect the LWV itself is listed first to hide motive. The ACLU is another member of the coalition. Considering that this was supposed to be a public process, they never participated in the public process beyond parading around demanding that the legislature "show them the maps". By using litigation, they could hide their intent behind attorney-client privilege.

The Romo plaintiffs are clearly representing the Democratic Party. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee drew their map for the first phase. Their complaint on 26/27 is clearly partisan motivated, but they somehow have to convince the judge that the legislature had done the pairing for partisan reasons.

Frankel was the mayor of West Palm Beach so she presumably would run in the northern district. Deutch lives in West Boca Raton. The northward notch in FL-22 in the House map is to place all of Boca Raton in FL-22, so he can't live very far outside FL-22, and its not like a Democrat is not going to win both districts.

At the end of Poreda's testimony, the Judge questioned him. He suggested that there was a difference between a "best plan" and a "compliant plan". The original remand order from SCOFLA was for the circuit court to evaluate a map that it was anticipated that the legislature would pass. The circuit court would then make a recommendation to the trial court. If that had been done, the circuit court would primarily be concerned with compliance.

After the legislature adjourned, Judge Lewis asked the SCOFLA what he should do. The SCOFLA issued a new order, telling him to in effect to make a plan based on input from the house, senate, and the plaintiffs. In that case, the "best plan" might be his metric. The order from the SCOFLA also said that if the legislature would did eventually pass a plan by their original deadline, that Judge Lewis should go back to the original plan of evaluating the plan from the legislature.

The legislature has a special session in October to redo the senate plan. Conceivably, the legislature could pass a congressional map at that time. There is nothing in the Florida Constitution that specifies the procedure for passing a congressional map (there is for legislative maps). So the legislature could pass their plan, and Judge Lewis would have to make a recommendation on its compliance.

If the legislature passed the House plan, it could be argued that they did to intentionally pair Frankel and Deutch, and to make FL-26 more Republican. But every legislator who voted against the plan would be voting to not pair the two, and to make FL-26 more Democratic. Intent is an impossible standard to apply.

When Podera was testifying, Judge Lewis, asked him about FL-5. Podera, and perhaps everyone else, was surprised by the question. The map drawn by the DCCC for the Romo plaintiffs was intended as an examplar to prove that FL-5 could be drawn in an east-west fashion. But since the SCOFLA dictated an east-west alignment everyone assumed it had to be that configuration.

Is it possible to keep Leon County whole, and have a functioning black minority district?

[jimrtex]

9/24/2015 Part 4 (first hour)

Missing sound for first 6 minutes plus.

Jason Poreda continued to testify, this time under cross-examination.

The LWV lawyer with the really bad haircut (BHL) kept trying to get Poreda to say that he knew that FL-26 was more Republican. "So you knew that ...". And Poreda would once again explain that he had turned off partisanship when drawing the map. BHL would then project a report on a screen that would show the black percentage in the district (under 10%), and say "so you knew ...", and the judge would say that he didn't think Poreda could read the table from the witness stand, so the particular item would be magnified on the screen, and then a chart for another plan would be shown. And the the BHL would say "so you knew this increased the black percentage".

BHL then couldn't understand that if Homestead was placed in FL-26, that you would have to move the boundary elsewhere to the west, and if Homestead was placed in FL-27 that the boundary would be moved to to the west.

BHL then asked if the mapmakers had considered streaming their sessions.

The attorney for the Romo (Democratic) plaintiffs who are mainly concerned about 21/22 asked about community of interest (eg beach cities vs inland). This had been rejected in the proceedings on the original senate map, when a split of the panhandle had been overturned. Any community of interest is subordinate to compactness. Since there is no evidence that the map-drawers were aware of the pairing of Deutch and Frankel, the Romo plaintiffs were left flailing with the SCOFLA saying that the legislature might consider a north-south split.

On redirect, Poreda was asked about whether affirmative partisan fairness was required, and the response was that it would violate the Florida constitution since it would be an intent to have a particular partisan result.

And finally the judge questioned Poreda.

He emphasized that his role now was to produce a "best plan" rather than determining whether the legislature's plan was compliant with the Florida constitution (since there was no enacted plan). Poreda stated that he thought the LWV map CP-1 did not produce a Hispanic-performing FL-26.

The judge also asked Poreda about FL-5. You might recall that the judge had originally required FL-5 to be widened out in its N-S configuration. That decision was overturned by the SCOFLA. The judge is from Tallahassee, and it is conceivable that he does not like the split of Leon County.

[Torie]

"Their complaint on 26/27 is clearly partisan motivated, but they somehow have to convince the judge that the legislature had done the pairing for partisan reasons."

What gave you the impression that the judge thought the pairing was for partisan reasons? In my view, it clearly wasn't. In fact there is no evidence that staff knew the residences of the incumbent Congresspersons.

A FL-05 that kept Leon County whole would be performing in my view. A clear majority of the Dem primary voters would still be black. The Judge would show a lot of chutzpah however in making Leon whole, given that the district was not contested in court. And given that it was not contested, nobody pointed out that there is a SCOTUS decision that racial gerrymandering plus erosity not done for partisan reasons is not Constitutional, and that clearly is what FL-05 is in my view. Maybe the Judge will find that decision on his own if he gets motivated enough.

The FL-26 and 27 thing, highlighting the intersection of how the Florida Constitution can actually mandate taking into consideration partisan performance was interesting. What was not brought out, is that I don't think staff was considering partisan performance  at all, but compactness. But the House and Senate lawyers seized on the partisan issue, with considerably effectiveness I thought.

[muon2]

"Their complaint on 26/27 is clearly partisan motivated, but they somehow have to convince the judge that the legislature had done the pairing for partisan reasons."

What gave you the impression that the judge thought the pairing was for partisan reasons? In my view, it clearly wasn't. In fact there is no evidence that staff knew the residences of the incumbent Congresspersons.

A FL-05 that kept Leon County whole would be performing in my view. A clear majority of the Dem primary voters would still be black. The Judge would show a lot of chutzpah however in making Leon whole, given that the district was not contested in court. And given that it was not contested, nobody pointed out that there is a SCOTUS decision that racial gerrymandering plus erosity not done for partisan reasons is not Constitutional, and that clearly is what FL-05 is in my view. Maybe the Judge will find that decision on his own if he gets motivated enough.

I didn't see that there was evidence presented to the judge that a sub 50% BVAP district would be performing. I agree that it would be, but absent any evidence as to the floor to maintain performance, I'm not sure how the judge goes that direction.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To me this highlights a problem with all commissions given a mandate to ignore partisan factors. Constructing minority districts inherently uses partisan data since the VRA is based on the ability to elect, which usually requires a partisan primary. CA avoids this in principle with their top-two system, but I won't be surprised if some group at some point does a statistical analysis based of the party label there and ends up showing that partisan factors matter for minority performance. Even non-minority districts can be impacted by the contradiction in partisan data usage if they are in close proximity to minority districts.

[Torie]

I am sure that the evidence that FL-05 was performing was in the trial briefs. It certainly is in the data generated from the maps in the proposed configuration, which would show that the Dem primary vote is way over 50%, thus allowing for some erosion. It's perfectly obvious that it is, given all the chat about partisan primary racial numbers. But maybe the Judge doesn't get it. If he did, why didn't he simply ask? Granted, the business about primary data came up later in the trial after the Judge had asked about FL-05, vis a vis Fl-26 and 27. Frankly, the judge did not strike me as all that bright.

[Torie]

I am sure that the evidence that FL-05 was performing was in the trial briefs. It certainly is in the data generated from the maps in the proposed configuration, which would show that the Dem primary vote is way over 50%, thus allowing for some erosion. It's perfectly obvious that it is, given all the chat about partisan primary racial numbers. But maybe the Judge doesn't get it. If he did, why didn't he simply ask? Granted, the business about primary data came up later in the trial after the Judge had asked about FL-05, vis a vis Fl-26 and 27. Frankly, the judge did not strike me as all that bright.

[muon2]

But once one drops below 50% BVAP one has to show where the floor for performance is in FL-05. It looks like that was where some of the questioning about FL-26 was directed - where is the floor for Hispanic performance? The answer was that the LWV map dropped below the necessary level, and because of citizenship and different minority groups, some analysis was needed. The FL-05 district is over 50% BVAP so there is a presumption of satisfaction without providing partisan analysis.

[Torie]

But once one drops below 50% BVAP one has to show where the floor for performance is in FL-05. It looks like that was where some of the questioning about FL-26 was directed - where is the floor for Hispanic performance? The answer was that the LWV map dropped below the necessary level, and because of citizenship and different minority groups, some analysis was needed. The FL-05 district is over 50% BVAP so there is a presumption of satisfaction without providing partisan analysis.

Under any map moving the 5th CD to where SCOFLA wanted, the 5th CD is below 50% BVAP. That is not the issue. The issue is the percentage of black voters in the Dem primary, in a district where the Dem will certainly win in the General election. You can keep Leon County whole and still be at about 60% BVAP in the Dem primary. Since I know you understand this, I really don't follow your point very well. And as I said before, irrespective of the BVAP percentage, I don't think per SCOTUS chopping Leon is Constitutional. The CD then becomes an illicit racial gerrymander. The chop of Leon goes a bridge too far.

[muon2]

My bad. I thought they had pushed the BVAP over 50 in FL-5 but I see they set it at 45.11%. I still don't know how low one could push BVAP and still get minority performance. I think that is a factor in determining the constitutionality.

[jimrtex]

"Their complaint on 26/27 is clearly partisan motivated, but they somehow have to convince the judge that the legislature had done the pairing for partisan reasons."

What gave you the impression that the judge thought the pairing was for partisan reasons? In my view, it clearly wasn't. In fact there is no evidence that staff knew the residences of the incumbent Congresspersons.

21/22 is the pairing of Frankel and Deutch in Palm Beach/Broward. The LWV plaintiffs are not challenging that. Only the Romo plaintiffs are, and they are clearly aligned with the Democratic Party.

The concern of the Romo plaintiffs is the pairing. That is, they are the ones who want to draw the districts to favor the incumbents. What they are faced with is convincing the judge is that they are the one's with a pure motive. But there is no evidence of that. I think their lawyer knows that they have no case.

I suspect that if the judge undid the pairing, he would be violating the constitution. What would be his intent in doing so?

A FL-05 that kept Leon County whole would be performing in my view. A clear majority of the Dem primary voters would still be black. The Judge would show a lot of chutzpah however in making Leon whole, given that the district was not contested in court. And given that it was not contested, nobody pointed out that there is a SCOTUS decision that racial gerrymandering plus erosity not done for partisan reasons is not Constitutional, and that clearly is what FL-05 is in my view. Maybe the Judge will find that decision on his own if he gets motivated enough.

The judge is charged with coming up with a map based from various inputs. The hearing is being conducted somewhat as if the various parties were challenging the House plan, but it is actually Judge Terry gathering information. The Bad Haircut Lawyer (BHL) objected to the House lawyer asking a House map-drawer about CP-1. Judge Lewis told him he could object, but that he (Lewis) would ask him the same questions.

The Florida NAACP is also a party. They were originally part of LWV party, but split over FL-5. They are now a plaintiff-intervenor. On the first day of the hearing they declined to participate. The last time it was their opportunity to cross-examine a witness, the judge asked their lawyer if she could stand, to make sure they were there. They may have filed briefs, but I have not gone looking for those.

An open letter to Judge Terry Lewis

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With respect to redistricting, minority voting provisions and good-government provisions (non-partisanship, respect for political boundaries, compactness, etc) are antithetical.

The House map drawers (Poreda and Takacs) were quizzed extensively on 26/27. They were aware that the districts (particularly FL-26) were competitive, and would have been aware of why Homestead had been split in the original map. They had checked that FL-26 would be performing for a Hispanic Democrat. But when they changed the line, they do not appear to be aware that they might not have had to be concerned about FL-26 electing a Hispanic Democrat. They only had a population target showing on their screen.

When Homestead was placed in FL-26, they had to add population to FL-27, the western district. The enacted boundary went up US-1 for a while. So they went up the triangular area between the Florida Turnpike and US-1, and once they got enough population they went east to US-1.

The LWV in their map went up US-1, and then jogged back to the west to the Florida Turnpike.

The compactness measures are not particularly useful, though that is what they made their decision on. FL-26 includes Monroe County (Florida Keys plus the largely unpopulated mainland on the Gulf coast). This obliterates any significance of the boundary between FL-26 and FL-27. But when Homestead is added to FL-27 it represents an extrusion on the southwestern tip of a much smaller district. It is that which causes the difference in compactness. I wonder if Muon has an objective way to determine the better split, once Homestead is placed in FL-26.

[jimrtex]

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?

County and muni chops and erosity (compactness) measurements. The second Senate map had one less county chop and one more muni chop than the House map, and its compactness score was about equal.

The extra city chop was on a city that spanned a county line.

[Torie]

My bad. I thought they had pushed the BVAP over 50 in FL-5 but I see they set it at 45.11%. I still don't know how low one could push BVAP and still get minority performance. I think that is a factor in determining the constitutionality.

If blacks are a majority in a Dem primary, in a heavily Dem district, how could it not be performing?

[jimrtex]

9/24/2015 Part 4 (after 1:15)

This was the testimony of Jeff Takacs, one of the House map-drawers. The "c" is not pronounced, but he makes up by pronouncing the "w" in 'drawing'. He was more nervous than Poreda, who knew every district and county name, as well as the size of the shifted populations.

26/27 Made sure both drafts were Hispanic-performing for all four districts (both districts, both Homestead configurations). Population was equalized, using only population turned on. FL-27 was more compact in version that placed Homestead in FL-26.

Note: The compactness really had nothing to do with where the boundary was adjusted, but simply that Homestead is an extrusion on the southeast tip of FL-27. I'm not sure if there is a way to objectively draw a better map, which in this case would be based on better utilization of major road - now that there is awareness of the partisan question.

21/22 The SCOFLA in their opinion had included a House draft/plan from 2012 that had used a north-south split.

Takacs thought that the house plan was better than the senate plan - because the senate plan had not used a consistent methodology. The senate appeared only to be concerned about fragments in Hillsborough, and not throughout central Florida (Marion, Lake, Polk, etc.).

He thought that the senate compromise, 9066, had a problem because of its J-shape of FL-17. This is caused by keeping Sarasota whole, and the Manatee panhandle. He was also concerned that FL-16 had taken the unpopulated tail of Tampa Bay in Hillsborough County. But the House draft had done the same thing - when they shifted FL-16 northward.

Takacs was then questioned by the senate attorney (he had also questioned Poreda, but that was missing the audio). The attorney was mainly getting in the record what the differences in the house and senate plans were. (eg J-shape of FL-17 due to following county line; extra city split due to city spanning county line, so one less county line split should be given more credit.

There was quite a bit of discussion about the difference between: county splits; split counties; and whole districts within a county. Since Takacs had participated in the House drawing in 2012, he was probably more attuned to whole districts within a county. Since House districts are quite a bit smaller, it is ordinary to have multiple districts in a county (and the law in Ohio and Texas is to pack whole districts into larger counties). But at a congressional district size, Pinellas, Hillsborough, and Orange only have enough population for one whole district. He also wanted to know why the map-drawing was not transcribed. He had not seen the letter from the LWV complaining about 26/27, and wouldn't have acted anyway, since it was demanding partisan results.

Takacs was then questioned by Bad Haircut Lawyer (BHL) for the LWV. He pushed on the SCOFLA demanding that Homestead being whole because of the partisan intent in splitting it. He also wanted to know why the mapmaking had not been transcribed.

The Romo (Democratic) lawyer wanted to know whether the original congressional map had been precleared, and what data had been sent to the USDOJ, and how the USDOJ made their determinations.

IMO, Eric Holder was AG at the time, so presumably it was a political decision.

[jimrtex]

Leon County - Cases of Statewide Interest

Scroll down to "2012 CA 000412: ROMO, RENE vs SCOTT, RICK" and click on it to expand it. The latest jamboree starts in September 2015.

This is the SCOFLA's orders for Judge Lewis.

SCOFLA relinquishment order

The plaintiffs were invited to prepare alternatives for the legislative special session, but failed to do so, instead they only filed their plans in court in September, including a disclosure of who had done their map drawing. The Florida House requested discovery on the likely Democratically-tainted plans.

Motion to Permit Discovery

The SCOFLA denied the motion.

[muon2]

My bad. I thought they had pushed the BVAP over 50 in FL-5 but I see they set it at 45.11%. I still don't know how low one could push BVAP and still get minority performance. I think that is a factor in determining the constitutionality.

If blacks are a majority in a Dem primary, in a heavily Dem district, how could it not be performing?

Normally this is determined through a statistical analysis of precinct voting, or by the evidence that a candidate of choice has consistently won at a certain BVAP. Neither apply here to my knowledge.

[Torie]

My bad. I thought they had pushed the BVAP over 50 in FL-5 but I see they set it at 45.11%. I still don't know how low one could push BVAP and still get minority performance. I think that is a factor in determining the constitutionality.

If blacks are a majority in a Dem primary, in a heavily Dem district, how could it not be performing?

Normally this is determined through a statistical analysis of precinct voting, or by the evidence that a candidate of choice has consistently won at a certain BVAP. Neither apply here to my knowledge.

Is this some assertion that there is some probability a significant percentage of black Dems, would not vote for the black Dem in a Dem primary in N. Florida, and in this case, in an open seat?  On that one, I think one can take almost Judicial Notice of.

[muon2]

My bad. I thought they had pushed the BVAP over 50 in FL-5 but I see they set it at 45.11%. I still don't know how low one could push BVAP and still get minority performance. I think that is a factor in determining the constitutionality.

If blacks are a majority in a Dem primary, in a heavily Dem district, how could it not be performing?

Normally this is determined through a statistical analysis of precinct voting, or by the evidence that a candidate of choice has consistently won at a certain BVAP. Neither apply here to my knowledge.

Is this some assertion that there is some probability a significant percentage of black Dems, would not vote for the black Dem in a Dem primary in N. Florida, and in this case, in an open seat?  On that one, I think one can take almost Judicial Notice of.

No, it's saying that there are standards that are typically followed. If it's based on percentage control in the primary then that evidence is presented to the court and is used in the findings. We can intuit the likely outcome from our knowledge, but I don't expect a judge to do that.

[jimrtex]

9/25/2015 Part 1

Testimony was by Senator Tom Lee, who is from Hillsborough County, was Senate President from 2004-6, and a member of the Senate Redistricting Committee.

He was the primary instigator of the senate version of the map. The Senate attorney led him through the process.

His concern was that Hillsborough not be split up, including a district that stretched to Okeechobee County. He also wanted to work with a senator from Manatee County to restore FL-16 as a Manatee-Sarasota district. In addition, a black senator from Tampa wanted to improve FL-14 performance as a minority opportunity district (ie the current representative, Kathy Castor, is white).

He then went through the evolution of senate maps:
9042: restored FL-14 as Manatee-Sarasota. Pretty much a unilateral map.
9046 and 9048 initial attempts pulled FL-9 westward and rather non-compact.
9054 brought FL-15 mostly into eastern Hillsborough, and returned FL-16 as Manatee-Sarasota. It did not address the Tampa senator's concerns,  but AFAIK, FL-14 is the same as the base map.

After this map was released, it was discovered that FL-15 representative, Dennis Ross, had been drawn out of the district (H must live in Polk County).

9054 was passed by the senate. After incorporating some small changes from the House it became 9062.

The House attorney gave him maps showing his senate district and the proposed FL-15 and identified where he lived. He also asked about whether Hillsborough county was only one of two counties in the state with a district of its own, plus most of another - but Hillsborough is the second most populous county, so this is not really meaningful.

The House attorney also asked him about 9066 which is the Galvano compromise. The senate attorney objected since 9066 had not been asked about on direct, and the judge said that the House attorney could call Sen. Lee as a witness if he wanted to ask about 9066.

None of the plaintiff attorney's questioned Sen. Lee. Apparently, they are indifferent to the differences between the Senate and House maps.

On redirect, the senate attorney asked Lee whether the insinuation that he wanted to run from Congress were true. The house attorney objected to the characterization of his question about where Sen. Lee lived with respect to his senate district and a proposed congressional district as implying that Sen. Lee was planning to run for Congress (but why else would you show the two maps). In any case, the objection was sustained. The senate attorney then asked Sen.Lee if he was planning on running for Congress, and he said no.

[Torie]

Assuming FL-05 as drawn is Unconstitutional as a racial gerrymander, or at least generates chops that are unnecessary for the CD to elect a black (which is certainly the case), and given that the scoring system used rewards concentrating multiple chops in single counties, I wonder if the map below is the cat's meow. It trichops Lake and Columbia Counties to game the scoring system for chop counts. And FL-10 is equally as minority performing as the versions that are in the maps submitted to the court. Maybe I should have figured out how to intervene in the case. The Judge would have lapped up my FL-05 like a very thirsty man after having crossed the desert in a camel ala Lawrence of Arabia.



And although not legally required, it does get the Hispanic population up a bit in FL-09, while leaving the CD pretty safely Dem, making Mr. Isbell (who also would love my FL-05) and the Dems happy on that front, leaving them with just the FL-26 and FL-27 issue to bitch about, which issue I suspect they are going to lose on.

[windjammer]

Assuming FL-05 as drawn is Unconstitutional as a racial gerrymander, or at least generates chops that are unnecessary for the CD to elect a black (which is certainly the case), and given that the scoring system used rewards concentrating multiple chops in single counties, I wonder if the map below is the cat's meow. It trichops Lake and Columbia Counties to game the scoring system for chop counts. And FL-10 is equally as minority performing as the versions that are in the maps submitted to the court. Maybe I should have figured out how to intervene in the case. The Judge would have lapped up my FL-05 like a very thirsty man after having crossed the desert in a camel ala Lawrence of Arabia.



And although not legally required, it does get the Hispanic population up a bit in FL-09, while leaving the CD pretty safely Dem, making Mr. Isbell (who also would love my FL-05) and the Dems happy on that front, leaving them with just the FL-26 and FL-27 issue to bitch about, which issue I suspect they are going to lose on.

Wait, now TORIE draws maps that would favor the democrats more than the statut quo? What's going on?

[Torie]

I'm always fair and balanced - except when I'm not.

This is all a legal exercise here, following the cases, that weird Florida law, and that weird scoring system used in Florida, that gives you two penalty points for the first chop of a county, and one point for each additional chop, so more counties being multi chopped, in exchange for more counties not being chopped at all, gets you a better score, e.g., it's better to have one tri-chopped county, that two bi-chopped counties. Their erosity scoring also tends to favor more my kind of "artistic" map, with nice clean lines, and rectangles, more than Muon2's road cut system, and super penalties for macro chops into counties. So I am in my element here.

[jimrtex]

I'm always fair and balanced - except when I'm not.

This is all a legal exercise here, following the cases, that weird Florida law, and that weird scoring system used in Florida, that gives you two penalty points for the first chop of a county, and one point for each additional chop, so more counties being multi chopped, in exchange for more counties not being chopped at all, gets you a better score, e.g., it's better to have one tri-chopped county, that two bi-chopped counties. Their erosity scoring also tends to favor more my kind of "artistic" map, with nice clean lines, and rectangles, more than Muon2's road cut system, and super penalties for macro chops into counties. So I am in my element here.

I don't think Florida has a count system.

"respects political boundaries" (paraphrase) is a subjective criteria. It may be that they are focusing on the number of chopped counties, and it happens that many of the larger counties are multi-chopped.