NC: CDs 1 & 12 struck down
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 12:24:43 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)
  NC: CDs 1 & 12 struck down
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Author Topic: NC: CDs 1 & 12 struck down  (Read 6241 times)
Miles
MilesC56
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,324
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 05, 2016, 06:52:33 PM »

Here's the ruling. The three-judge Middle NC USDC struck down CD1 and CD12 as racial gerrymanders.
Logged
Fuzzybigfoot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,211
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 05, 2016, 06:59:46 PM »

Awesome!
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 05, 2016, 10:21:36 PM »

Finally, some justice.
Logged
15 Down, 35 To Go
ExtremeRepublican
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,669


Political Matrix
E: 7.35, S: 5.57


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 05, 2016, 10:30:39 PM »

Just out of curiosity, whose nominees are these judges?
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,600
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 05, 2016, 10:39:02 PM »

Just out of curiosity, whose nominees are these judges?

Roger Gregory got a recess appointment by Clinton, but he was nominated by Bush afterwards (and confirmed 93-1, only Trent Lott objecting due to resess appointment). He is black and was one the judge that stuck down gay marriage ban on circuit.

Max Cogburn Jr. was nominated by Obama, confirmed unanimously. He is the one that stuck down the NC gay marriage ban amendment.

The dissident for the 12th district, William Osteen Jr. was nominated by Bush Jr. to replace his father William Osteen Sr.
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 #5 on: February 05, 2016, 11:29:13 PM »

Fantastic news!

I kinda wish Krazen was still here just to see his reaction. Grin
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 06, 2016, 06:31:22 AM »

What will likely happen?
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 06, 2016, 06:34:59 AM »

Apparently, it's not going to change anything: http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/5/1480735/-North-Carolina-s-congressional-map-gets-struck-down-in-court-but-Democrats-shouldn-t-get-hopes-up
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: February 06, 2016, 09:18:40 AM »

In about a 100 pages of droning on, the bottom line is that apparently the court defines as racial packing any erose, non compact district that has a BVAP in excess of that required for the CD to be performing, as opposed to being materially in excess of 50% (the two CD's challenged were barely in excess of 50%). So that is a change in the law of SCOTUS as understood, and thus upsets the apple cart. And it means that in drawing erose minority CD's, a detailed evidentiary record as to what is performing would need to be developed, which would be quite the nightmare. So it will be interesting to see what SCOTUS does with this departure, and whether it stays the decision, which is already interfering with absentee voting, which has begun. I suspect for this one, a stay will be issued, given that, and given the apparent departure from what is understood as existing law.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 06, 2016, 09:38:47 AM »

If this interpretation becomes law, it is going to be a hard standard to meet due to a lack of data. In many states, particularly those recently covered by section 5, districts were routinely either brought over 50% BVAP, or left well below it. That means there will be few examples in those states of districts with BVAPs in the 40s. Without actual results in competitive districts there will be a lot of work for statisticians who have the software for ecological inference and other models designed to estimate crossover voting strength for a minority bloc.
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 06, 2016, 09:49:16 AM »

If this interpretation becomes law, it is going to be a hard standard to meet due to a lack of data. In many states, particularly those recently covered by section 5, districts were routinely either brought over 50% BVAP, or left well below it. That means there will be few examples in those states of districts with BVAPs in the 40s. Without actual results in competitive districts there will be a lot of work for statisticians who have the software for ecological inference and other models designed to estimate crossover voting strength for a minority bloc.

Yes, it would be a mess. And the end result, is that you just look for Democratic precincts, and ignore race data, to draw your gerrymander, and then it is not race driven. The trick is to make an extra effort to find some white liberal precincts. There are a few of those in downtown Richmond for example. Just make sure those are in your erose Dem pack district, in a CD that happens to still be heavily black, and your evidentiary record is nicely buttressed, and you should be good to go. These judges were just not very perspicacious, since black precincts and heavily Democratic ones, are almost co-extensive. Most of this is probably just a one shot deal anyway, all arising out of the confusion about Section 5, that has now been clarified.
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 #11 on: February 06, 2016, 06:24:11 PM »

Your text is a bit dense, but the court had no problem with political gerrymanders. It was all about reaching out to pack black voters into a district, when not needed to get a performing minority district. The court found there was enough that the packing was not just about the packing of Democrats, but blacks. And that Pubs of course would have no problem with packing Democrats, but went the black packing route due to confusion over Section 5. As I said, there is very little difference between the two, which is where the court ignored that the emperor has no clothes. My tentative view is that the opinion is largely a mess, and a leading indicator that an opinion is a mess, is when it comes on for a hundred pages.
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 06, 2016, 07:02:48 PM »

Your text is a bit dense, but the court had no problem with political gerrymanders. It was all about reaching out to pack black voters into a district, when not needed to get a performing minority district. The court found there was enough that the packing was not just about the packing of Democrats, but blacks. And that Pubs of course would have no problem with packing Democrats, but went the black packing route due to confusion over Section 5. As I said, there is very little difference between the two, which is where the court ignored that the emperor has no clothes. My tentative view is that the opinion is largely a mess, and a leading indicator that an opinion is a mess, is when it comes on for a hundred pages.

But could this be a leading indicator of a desire to drop section 2 districts below 50% to preserve compactness/allow more of them to be drawn in areas where the minority group still has practical control of the seat at <50% population?

Beyond the administrative nightmare, it is a red herring, because partisan gerrymandering and black packing are almost the same. So just seek out Dem precincts. If they happen to be black, where that is beside the point. The court was focused on that, the intent to find blacks rather than Democrats (a by product of the Section 5 syndrome). So sure, SCOTUS might rule, that any partisan gerrymander, that also as a by product happens to packs blacks more than is needed for a performing district, without any specific intent to do so, is illegal, I highly doubt SCOTUS will go there.
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 06, 2016, 09:53:44 PM »

This ruling and others like it around the country seem to suggest the entire Judicial system in the country is shifting against partisan gerrymandering....largely following rising public opinion against the same issue.

...which is absolutely fantastic.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: February 08, 2016, 02:17:03 AM »

Oh good CD-12 looked horrible on a congressional map. CD-1 it doesn't make a difference the district would be heavily Dem without any gerrymandering.
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: February 15, 2016, 09:39:04 PM »

With SCOTUS likely deadlocked 4-4 on a stay and the lower court denying, the NC legislature should be obligated to redraw this week, right?

I can't imagine the NC legislature getting out of this now.

Also to note that the Virginia redistricting map seems set in stone now.
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: February 16, 2016, 07:35:24 PM »
« Edited: February 16, 2016, 07:36:58 PM by Nyvin »

Just for fun I made a map that redraws both NC-1 and NC-12.   Of course the chances of anything remotely resembling this actually being enacted is practically nothing.  

Still though...it was interesting how easy it is to make NC-1 a BVAP plurality without going into Durham county at all, and barely touching Wake.    

Beyond that it's really just giving Charlotte and Greensboro/Winston-Salem their own districts (wow, what a crazy concept!!).    NC-12 is still a minority coalition district (which again is pretty simple to draw in Mecklenburg Co by itself...).





The Democrats only really pick up 2 seats (NC-6 and NC-13) since I doubt NC-7 is still competitive anymore.    8-5 is a heck of an improvement over 10-3 though.




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


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: February 16, 2016, 09:49:36 PM »

Obama won your CD-7 53.3%-45.4% (160,221-136,258) in 2012. So I imagine a Democrat could totally take that back.
Logged
Miles
MilesC56
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,324
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: February 16, 2016, 10:59:33 PM »

^ Yeah, Brunswick County doesn't vote for any Democrats anymore, but Robeson and Cumberland outweigh it (and both swung to Obama in 2012).
Logged
Miles
MilesC56
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,324
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: February 16, 2016, 11:12:32 PM »

^ From what I'm hearing, any Democratic gains will be minimal.
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 #20 on: February 16, 2016, 11:54:27 PM »


Well then, we'll see if they get too cute for the district court/4th circuit...

I don't get why the court didn't give them instructions. Surely they knew this would happen. I mean for gods sake, what was the point then of that whole lawsuit?
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: February 17, 2016, 12:44:11 AM »
« Edited: February 17, 2016, 11:11:00 AM by Nyvin »

There isn't any realistic hope to expect anything to come out of this to help democrats.     There is literally no check to Republican power in the state, and thanks to gerrymandering it's most likely going to stay that way.

How great, to fix gerrymandering you first need to undo the gerrymandering....a perfect catch-22.
Logged
Miles
MilesC56
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,324
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: February 17, 2016, 08:06:52 PM »
« Edited: February 17, 2016, 08:09:56 PM by Miles »

And we have a map:


Logged
RBH
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,210


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: February 17, 2016, 08:13:15 PM »

So, Pittenger lives in 9, but I don't know if 9 is the Dem vote sink or if it's 12. Alma Adams goes into the green 13th (she's from Greensboro). Then they pair Holding and Ellmers in CD2.

So, there'll be an open seat for the Dems, 2 Rs going up against each other, and a Dem incumbent in the 13th that might not fare well?
Logged
Miles
MilesC56
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,324
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: February 17, 2016, 08:18:15 PM »

^ 12 is the Dem sink. 9 has all of Union County, which is basically a Republican anchor.

The new 13th is basically an open seat. Ellmers and Holding probably both run in CD2.

Yeah, I'm not sure what Adams does, as she's from Greensboro.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4  
« 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 0.054 seconds with 12 queries.