New Virginia U.S House maps
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 10:12:53 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  New Virginia U.S House maps
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: New Virginia U.S House maps  (Read 2511 times)
136or142
Adam T
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,434
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 08, 2016, 12:26:40 PM »

http://atr.rollcall.com/judges-select-new-virginia-congressional-map/?dcz=
Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 08, 2016, 01:01:13 PM »

Sabato moves VA-04 (Randy Forbes, R) to Likely D. Ouch.

And as Kyle Kondik added, that's probably being generous to R's. 61% Obama is not a seat Republicans should have a chance at, especially not Randy Forbes.
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2016, 01:22:31 PM »
« Edited: January 08, 2016, 01:36:29 PM by Nyvin »

Sabato moves VA-04 (Randy Forbes, R) to Likely D. Ouch.

And as Kyle Kondik added, that's probably being generous to R's. 61% Obama is not a seat Republicans should have a chance at, especially not Randy Forbes.

VA-4 is completely safe D.....100% certain.     Forbes is hyper-conservative and there's a huge swath of potential Dem candidates in the Richmond area to pick from.

Likely D is very much an exaggeration.   

edit-  Then again, the "Likely" is probably depending on the SCOTUS's decision regarding the case.    I find it unlikely they'd flip the entire process on it's head after all this and have everything start over from scratch, but who knows I guess.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 08, 2016, 01:49:38 PM »

I find it unlikely they'd flip the entire process on it's head after all this and have everything start over from scratch, but who knows I guess.

The problem I see here is that they already agreed to hear the appeal before these maps were set, so it's easy to see them putting a stay on the maps while they hear the case, as they could ultimately decide the plaintiffs had no standing (?) to challenge the map. If they did hold the map, then no matter what, I can't see the map being used in 2016 even if they ruled in the plaintiff's favor. There would be no time for anyone to do anything. How can a candidate run a campaign for their primary if they don't even know who their constituents are yet? Not to mention the primary is held, I think, before the decision is expected and the filing deadline is in March.

Either way, I'm really hoping that SCOTUS does not hold back the map. The current map is clearly rigged and citizens of Virginia have already been subjected to this corruption for 2 cycles now. A 3rd cycle under maps found unconstitutional would be unbelievably unfair.
Logged
JMT
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,104


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 08, 2016, 04:52:26 PM »

If Forbes' district stays this democratic, he may not run for reelection and instead run for governor in 2017 or senate in 2018. No sense in running in a district he is almost certain to lose.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 25, 2016, 05:28:40 PM »

Rothenberg, after some delay, moves Forbes from Safe R to Safe D.
http://rothenberggonzales.com/state/virginia
Logged
Fuzzybigfoot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,211
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 29, 2016, 05:56:54 PM »

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 #7 on: January 31, 2016, 09:00:43 AM »

SCOTUS will have oral argument on whether the new VA stands in late March.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 31, 2016, 06:15:17 PM »

SCOTUS will have oral argument on whether the new VA stands in late March.

I wonder why SCOTUS hasn't decided whether the new map will be on hold until they make their decision on the GOP's appeal. They should have moved on that already. They can't really plan to risk throwing the map out if they rule the plaintiffs had no standing, in June, can they? They would have to do a quickie primary all over again. It would be chaos.

Logged
Gass3268
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 01, 2016, 03:28:18 PM »

US Supreme Court rejected Virginia Republican members' request to stay federal judges' congressional map
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 #10 on: February 01, 2016, 04:15:19 PM »
« Edited: February 01, 2016, 05:31:26 PM by Torie »


Awesome, big win for Southern black voting rights in a questionable time!  I read this as strong signal that Kennedy wants to uphold the packing violation and therefore the new map, like he did in the surprise Alabama case last spring.

Or it may mean, that SCOTUS thinks they can issue a ruling in time for the mid June deadline for printing ballots.

Kennedy may well find a packing problem, because there is, but the problem with the replacement map, is that it is not a least change map. One can unpack with just a few line jiggles, not mass map destruction. The lower court decided to try to go for a map that was more akin to a good government, non gerrymandered map, and that in my opinion does not comport with the law. Gerrymanders are still Constitutional.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 05, 2016, 03:17:01 PM »

Forbes won by 60% when Obama narrowly carried the district in 2008.  This will be a very difficult  for him to win this new district, but whether it is Safe D depends on whom they put up against him.
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 #12 on: February 08, 2016, 11:48:09 AM »

Forbes won by 60% when Obama narrowly carried the district in 2008.  This will be a very difficult  for him to win this new district, but whether it is Safe D depends on whom they put up against him.

Rigell is retiring, so Forbes is likely to run in the 50% McCain VA-02 if this map sticks.  However, he's probably the worst person they could run in an R+3 suburban seat in a presidential year between carpetbagging and his loudly anti-gay history.  Democrats would face only token opposition in VA-04.

Also, judicial precedent that requires drawing SEVA with 2 black opportunity districts, similar to the requirement of 3 Hispanic districts in the Rio Grande Valley, would basically force a 3rd D-PVI district in NOVA after 2021.

There is no such judicial precedent. There is no way to draw a 50% BVAP CD in Virginia that is compact. There is a way to draw compact Hispanic districts in the Rio Grande Valley that are 50% HCVAP, so those are required under the VRA.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 08, 2016, 02:27:29 PM »

Is there really any reasonable justification for a 50% VAP requirement? It should really be the bare minimum required to elect candidates of their choice, and it's pretty clear it can be done with a lot less - At least, depending on the region and the rate at which other racial groups in that region vote Democratic.
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 #14 on: February 08, 2016, 03:03:48 PM »

Is there really any reasonable justification for a 50% VAP requirement? It should really be the bare minimum required to elect candidates of their choice, and it's pretty clear it can be done with a lot less - At least, depending on the region and the rate at which other racial groups in that region vote Democratic.

The 50% rule triggers the needs for a CD that will elect a candidate of the minority's choice. The actual district drawn need not be at 50%, as long as it will be performing for the minority group. But if you don't hit the 50% threshold as to the potential for a "compact" 50% minority VAP CD, then there is no requirement to draw any minority performing district at all, even though one could be drawn. So it is two step process.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« 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 0.037 seconds with 11 queries.