Likely next US districts after 2020

[DrScholl]

Using the words "stolen" and "thieves" when it comes to how these districts are drawn is really silly. The districts belong to the voters as a whole and are not owned by the parties. Besides, you can't steal something that amounts to invisible lines that can't even be seen off of paper.

[krazen1211]

The Senate has 40 members, it was a 21-19 vote.

Considering even Obama won Virginia by about 4 points, I hardly call the Democrats winning a whole 4 of 11 seats "stealing".    More like unpack African Americans from one dem vote sink.

That is not at all what happened! It's right there in the article.

Watkins, who is retiring this year, also voted with Democrats to end the session. Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam broke the ensuing 20-20 tie.

Normally, it should be the legislature that passes a map. And they did in early 2012, with the support of many Democrats such as Gerry Connolly. And your courts and judges then enacted something close to M. Locke's plan which could not even pass the legislature.

I will point out this article from February 2012, written by a liberal, that complained that the legislature enacted a certain map and instead insisted on a map like the one proposed by M. Locke. So basically the court enacted a plan proposed by activist liberals.


I give the thieves credit. Live and die by the sword.

Maybe the Courts enacted the map because *gasp* it better represents the interests of the people of Virginia?  Maybe the court picked the more fair map?   Crazy thought huh? 

I'm sure you think an 8-3 map in a state the Democrats consistently win is "fair"

Well, no. The Court enacted a map because the legislature didn't, because the Democrats adjourned the legislature on or around August 17, 2015, and because the special master was a very biased very bad man from the University of Irvine. This very bad special master wasn't even from Virginia! At least that's what they told us.

I would be very careful, if I were you, before I ran to unelected rogue judges to enact maps based on, uh, the interest of the people or "fairness", rather than the law and precedent at hand. Trump is coming, and Trump's judges are coming.....

But, if you choose to be like Chris Coons, and blast the filibuster, well, you might be stuck and singing this video.

How could this happen to me?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

stop entertaining trolls please

[jimrtex]

How about NC and VA?  Is 11R/3D viable in NC, or will the legislature have to concede the new seat?  I would presume 8R/3D is no longer viable in VA with what is happening in Richmond and outer NOVA.  If it meets court standards, Republicans would probably want to draw the second black opportunity seat from Richmond to Woodbridge along I-95 to shore up VA-10 and VA-07.

Of course not. Another 8/3 map could and would have been drawn if the Democrats had not adjourned the special session to do so this year. First order of business if a Republican is elected in 2017 would be to take back the stolen 4th district. The 2001 iteration of the 3rd and 4th districts were already cleared by the 4th circuit court in 2004.

They didn't adjourn a special session () the map was struck down by the courts, and then the VA legislature couldn't draw a map (due to GOP incompetence, not the dems...) and the courts ended up drawing the maps.

The special session met, and some story was concocted about McAuliffe making a recess appointment, they flipped one senator, and the Democratic Lieutenant Governor broke a tie for the Senate to adjourn.

The board of elections was the formal defendant. It declined to submit a map, and then endorsed the plan drawn by the special master, who went way out of bounds.

[jimrtex]

What happened? Virginia Democrats, and a single cuckservative, ended the special session! So when you say the VA legislature could not draw a map, it is because Democrats made it so by a 21-20 vote.

The Senate has 40 members, it was a 21-19 vote.

The vote to adjourn was 20-20, the Lieutenant Governor broke the tie.

[jimrtex]

And then 4th circuit judges appointed special masters to redraw the 3rd district, and while they did that, they stole the 4th district.

Maybe the Courts enacted the map because *gasp* it better represents the interests of the people of Virginia?  Maybe the court picked the more fair map?   Crazy thought huh? 

It is certainly not the job of a federal court to represent the interests of the people of Virginia.

They have a legislature for that.

[Nyvin]

How about NC and VA?  Is 11R/3D viable in NC, or will the legislature have to concede the new seat?  I would presume 8R/3D is no longer viable in VA with what is happening in Richmond and outer NOVA.  If it meets court standards, Republicans would probably want to draw the second black opportunity seat from Richmond to Woodbridge along I-95 to shore up VA-10 and VA-07.

Of course not. Another 8/3 map could and would have been drawn if the Democrats had not adjourned the special session to do so this year. First order of business if a Republican is elected in 2017 would be to take back the stolen 4th district. The 2001 iteration of the 3rd and 4th districts were already cleared by the 4th circuit court in 2004.

They didn't adjourn a special session () the map was struck down by the courts, and then the VA legislature couldn't draw a map (due to GOP incompetence, not the dems...) and the courts ended up drawing the maps.

The special session met, and some story was concocted about McAuliffe making a recess appointment, they flipped one senator, and the Democratic Lieutenant Governor broke a tie for the Senate to adjourn.

The board of elections was the formal defendant. It declined to submit a map, and then endorsed the plan drawn by the special master, who went way out of bounds.

What happened? Virginia Democrats, and a single cuckservative, ended the special session! So when you say the VA legislature could not draw a map, it is because Democrats made it so by a 21-20 vote.

The Senate has 40 members, it was a 21-19 vote.

The vote to adjourn was 20-20, the Lieutenant Governor broke the tie.

Gee, thanks for rehashing everything that's already been said.  Does that make you feel better little child?  Grow up.

And then 4th circuit judges appointed special masters to redraw the 3rd district, and while they did that, they stole the 4th district.

Maybe the Courts enacted the map because *gasp* it better represents the interests of the people of Virginia?  Maybe the court picked the more fair map?   Crazy thought huh?  

It is certainly not the job of a federal court to represent the interests of the people of Virginia.

They have a legislature for that.

Yeah,  just let the Republicans pack all the African Americans into one  district.   Who need the VRA?  Let's just go back to Jim Crow.

[Brittain33]

It is certainly not the job of a federal court to represent the interests of the people of Virginia.

They have a legislature for that.

Mildred Loving might disagree with you on that one, Jim.

[krazen1211]

Yeah,  just let the Republicans pack all the African Americans into one  district.   Who need the VRA?  Let's just go back to Jim Crow.

What is this malarkey?


The VA-03 district as designed in 1991, mainly by Democrats, had a black VAP of over 61%. The VA-03 district as designed in the 2001 plan had a black VAP of about 53% by the time 2011 rolled around. The VA-03 district  in the 2012 redistricting plan had a black VAP of 56.3%, which is really not much more than 53%. And that district had to add population. But in doing so, they didn't even take it close to the Democrats own figure.

In 2012, the legislature naturally had an interest in drawing an appropriate district to gain S5 preclearance, and they tried to do so. Why would they not?

Any map that results in more Democrats winning more seats than the previous map = Dem gerrymander.

Well, no. It is completely odd to describe a map as a particular type of gerrymander based on who won the seats rather than who drew the map. The Arkansas congressional districts are a Democratic gerrymander, as they were drawn by Democrats. Just like this current Virginia congressional districting plan.

[muon2]

Fighting over what the various sides motives were in a section 5 state hardly matters now that section 4 was cleared out. That decision in Shelby County v Holder was decided by the 5 conservative justices alone, so one can't place that on the liberals. As soon as that decision was made, it is all about section 2. Whether a state drew a map to comply with the unconstitutional application of section 5 doesn't matter. The question is what section 2 requires to make sure that minorities have the opportunity to elect their candidates of choice.

The new VA map elected two candidates of choice for the black minority, which makes up 19% of the population - 2/11 in terms of CDs. Arguably the new map satisfies the VRA requirements better than the old map. It's hard to blame the Dems for taking advantage of a conservative SCOTUS decision and forcing the change to their benefit.

Going forward to 2020 the same scrutiny of section 2 will need to apply to maps produced by either party.

[Nyvin]

Yeah,  just let the Republicans pack all the African Americans into one  district.   Who need the VRA?  Let's just go back to Jim Crow.

What is this malarkey?


The VA-03 district as designed in 1991, mainly by Democrats, had a black VAP of over 61%. The VA-03 district as designed in the 2001 plan had a black VAP of about 53% by the time 2011 rolled around. The VA-03 district  in the 2012 redistricting plan had a black VAP of 56.3%, which is really not much more than 53%. And that district had to add population. But in doing so, they didn't even take it close to the Democrats own figure.

In 2012, the legislature naturally had an interest in drawing an appropriate district to gain S5 preclearance, and they tried to do so. Why would they not?

It was argued before the courts that it didn't properly represent the African American community, and the Republicans lost.    Republicans drew the congressional map and they intentionally increase the BVAP in VA-3, which was clearly not needed.

Well, no. It is completely odd to describe a map as a particular type of gerrymander based on who won the seats rather than who drew the map. The Arkansas congressional districts are a Democratic gerrymander, as they were drawn by Democrats. Just like this current Virginia congressional districting plan.

Well that would make every map everywhere a  gerrymander thus rendering the term pretty much useless.   Unless there is a district map drawn somewhere that has absolutely no partisan influence whatsoever (pretty much impossible, since even court drawn maps don't count).

[krazen1211]

Fighting over what the various sides motives were in a section 5 state hardly matters now that section 4 was cleared out. That decision in Shelby County v Holder was decided by the 5 conservative justices alone, so one can't place that on the liberals. As soon as that decision was made, it is all about section 2. Whether a state drew a map to comply with the unconstitutional application of section 5 doesn't matter. The question is what section 2 requires to make sure that minorities have the opportunity to elect their candidates of choice.

The new VA map elected two candidates of choice for the black minority, which makes up 19% of the population - 2/11 in terms of CDs. Arguably the new map satisfies the VRA requirements better than the old map. It's hard to blame the Dems for taking advantage of a conservative SCOTUS decision and forcing the change to their benefit.

Going forward to 2020 the same scrutiny of section 2 will need to apply to maps produced by either party.

This is very true. If anything, the blame should go to Cuccinelli for blowing the 2013 election.

But, this can be fixed. If we win the 2017 election I propose immediately bringing back my map.

image upload

[Nyvin]

Fighting over what the various sides motives were in a section 5 state hardly matters now that section 4 was cleared out. That decision in Shelby County v Holder was decided by the 5 conservative justices alone, so one can't place that on the liberals. As soon as that decision was made, it is all about section 2. Whether a state drew a map to comply with the unconstitutional application of section 5 doesn't matter. The question is what section 2 requires to make sure that minorities have the opportunity to elect their candidates of choice.

The new VA map elected two candidates of choice for the black minority, which makes up 19% of the population - 2/11 in terms of CDs. Arguably the new map satisfies the VRA requirements better than the old map. It's hard to blame the Dems for taking advantage of a conservative SCOTUS decision and forcing the change to their benefit.

Going forward to 2020 the same scrutiny of section 2 will need to apply to maps produced by either party.

This is very true. If anything, the blame should go to Cuccinelli for blowing the 2013 election.

But, this can be fixed. If we win the 2017 election I propose immediately bringing back my map.

image upload

African Americans are nearly 20% of the state and with the current map elect the candidate of their choice in 18% of the districts.   Your map would allow them the candidate of their choice in 9% of districts.

Why do you want to deny them representation in the state?

[krazen1211]

Fighting over what the various sides motives were in a section 5 state hardly matters now that section 4 was cleared out. That decision in Shelby County v Holder was decided by the 5 conservative justices alone, so one can't place that on the liberals. As soon as that decision was made, it is all about section 2. Whether a state drew a map to comply with the unconstitutional application of section 5 doesn't matter. The question is what section 2 requires to make sure that minorities have the opportunity to elect their candidates of choice.

The new VA map elected two candidates of choice for the black minority, which makes up 19% of the population - 2/11 in terms of CDs. Arguably the new map satisfies the VRA requirements better than the old map. It's hard to blame the Dems for taking advantage of a conservative SCOTUS decision and forcing the change to their benefit.

Going forward to 2020 the same scrutiny of section 2 will need to apply to maps produced by either party.

This is very true. If anything, the blame should go to Cuccinelli for blowing the 2013 election.

But, this can be fixed. If we win the 2017 election I propose immediately bringing back my map.

image upload

African Americans are nearly 20% of the state and with the current map elect the candidate of their choice in 18% of the districts.   Your map would allow them the candidate of their choice in 9% of districts.

Why do you want to deny them representation in the state?

I have no interest in any nonsensical proportionality standard of representation or this current fake map offered by unelected professors from Irvine.

The 4th circuit court, as you noted, took issue with the fact that there was an increase in the black VAP of the 3rd district from 53% to 56.3%. It did not say that the state of Virginia should draw a 3rd and 4th district of the Democrats choosing and thus artificially inflate the Democrats' representation in the US Congress. In fact, a district very similar to my 3rd district was already upheld by the 4th circuit in 2004. I merely started with that district and added the remainder of Richmond.

So, I offer a much better map with fair and balanced districts that has a black VAP in the 3rd district of 52%. My map is intended to offer a good suggestion to the legislature to improve their 2012 Congressional districts.

[muon2]

Fighting over what the various sides motives were in a section 5 state hardly matters now that section 4 was cleared out. That decision in Shelby County v Holder was decided by the 5 conservative justices alone, so one can't place that on the liberals. As soon as that decision was made, it is all about section 2. Whether a state drew a map to comply with the unconstitutional application of section 5 doesn't matter. The question is what section 2 requires to make sure that minorities have the opportunity to elect their candidates of choice.

The new VA map elected two candidates of choice for the black minority, which makes up 19% of the population - 2/11 in terms of CDs. Arguably the new map satisfies the VRA requirements better than the old map. It's hard to blame the Dems for taking advantage of a conservative SCOTUS decision and forcing the change to their benefit.

Going forward to 2020 the same scrutiny of section 2 will need to apply to maps produced by either party.

This is very true. If anything, the blame should go to Cuccinelli for blowing the 2013 election.

But, this can be fixed. If we win the 2017 election I propose immediately bringing back my map.

image upload

African Americans are nearly 20% of the state and with the current map elect the candidate of their choice in 18% of the districts.   Your map would allow them the candidate of their choice in 9% of districts.

Why do you want to deny them representation in the state?

I have no interest in any nonsensical proportionality standard of representation or this current fake map offered by unelected professors from Irvine.

The 4th circuit court, as you noted, took issue with the fact that there was an increase in the black VAP of the 3rd district from 53% to 56.3%. It did not say that the state of Virginia should draw a 3rd and 4th district of the Democrats choosing and thus artificially inflate the Democrats' representation in the US Congress. In fact, a district very similar to my 3rd district was already upheld by the 4th circuit in 2004. I merely started with that district and added the remainder of Richmond.

So, I offer a much better map with fair and balanced districts that has a black VAP in the 3rd district of 52%. My map is intended to offer a good suggestion to the legislature to improve their 2012 Congressional districts.

You may not be interested in a proportionality standard, but it is a factor the court must consider. Here's the text from Johnson v deGrandy (1994).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your map would certainly be challenged, and the 2016 results would be presented as evidence that a map that has better proportionality is possible. The burden of proof would shift to the defense of your map. What are the compelling state interests that recommend it over the current map (fewer splits, more compact, etc.)?

[jimrtex]

It is certainly not the job of a federal court to represent the interests of the people of Virginia.

They have a legislature for that.

Mildred Loving might disagree with you on that one, Jim.

Nyvin is the one who is making the argument in favor of discrimination on the basis of race.

But you seem to be focusing on the state rather than the issue of redistricting. I will rephrase my statement:

It is certainly not the job of a federal court to represent the interests of the people of Virginia, or any other State, in the matter of redistricting. They each have legislatures to do that.

See Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25 (1993) and Perry v Perez 565 U.S. _____ (2012)

[jimrtex]

It was argued before the courts that it didn't properly represent the African American community, and the Republicans lost.

What do you mean by the word "community"?

Provide some examples.

[krazen1211]

You may not be interested in a proportionality standard, but it is a factor the court must consider. Here's the text from Johnson v deGrandy (1994).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your map would certainly be challenged, and the 2016 results would be presented as evidence that a map that has better proportionality is possible. The burden of proof would shift to the defense of your map. What are the compelling state interests that recommend it over the current map (fewer splits, more compact, etc.)?

Some interests that may be considered are:

1. Protection of incumbents like Mr. Connolly who desired changes to their districts.
2. Creating more compact iterations of many districts as compared to the legislature's 2012 map, which had a 5th district traversing the entire state north-south.
3. It is the province of the legislature and not an unelected professor from Irvine to draw districts, as even the 4th circuit said in this case.

I would also point out that this particular line of complaints could also be used against the Virginia state Senate map, as it was drawn to have 5 majority black districts out of 40 rather than 6 in the Republican minority's (at the time) proposed map.

It would be sheer madness if any legislature were to preemptively fret over any such possible challenge to any particular set of maps. If your position holds true individuals are free to challenge in the 4th circuit.

[muon2]

You may not be interested in a proportionality standard, but it is a factor the court must consider. Here's the text from Johnson v deGrandy (1994).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your map would certainly be challenged, and the 2016 results would be presented as evidence that a map that has better proportionality is possible. The burden of proof would shift to the defense of your map. What are the compelling state interests that recommend it over the current map (fewer splits, more compact, etc.)?

Some interests that may be considered are:

1. Protection of incumbents like Mr. Connolly who desired changes to their districts.
2. Creating more compact iterations of many districts as compared to the legislature's 2012 map, which had a 5th district traversing the entire state north-south.
3. It is the province of the legislature and not an unelected professor from Irvine to draw districts, as even the 4th circuit said in this case.

I would also point out that this particular line of complaints could also be used against the Virginia state Senate map, as it was drawn to have 5 majority black districts out of 40 rather than 6 in the Republican minority's (at the time) proposed map.

It would be sheer madness if any legislature were to preemptively fret over any such possible challenge to any particular set of maps. If your position holds true individuals are free to challenge in the 4th circuit.

Every legislative caucus in charge of a map is very cognizant of the potential legal challenges to the map. To the extent possible they try to draw the map in a way that minimizes those challenges, especially challenges in federal court. That mean recognizing changes in legal precedent since the previous round of redistricting. Caucuses generally hire expert legal counsel to get it right and have the map stand up in court. It's hardly madness, just common legal practice. VA had that expertise in 2011, but it was based on coverage under VRA section 5 and the non-retrogression clause. When that went away, so did the justification for their map.

Anyone with standing can bring a case based on the VRA. If no one brings a case then the map is presumed valid, but hoping no one will challenge doesn't excuse a legislature from trying to comport with the law. As for the authority to redraw, if the court rejects a map as invalid it's up to the legislature to amend it and bring it into compliance. If the legislature refuses to amend the plan as ordered the court can take matters into its own hands.

In the case of the VA map, I would think that a plan that significantly reduced county splits for VA-3 would be the best defense. Excess county splits and unusual river connections were factors the court pointed to as a sign of racial gerrymandering, so it would be best to address those arguments as part of the compelling state interest. But a map that might have survived a challenge in 2012 may not now because of changing facts and precedents, that's why a new legislative plan now has to react to recent decisions and the results of the 2016 election.

[BuckeyeNut]

I'm probably being overly optimistic, but it seems like the Republicans are going to have to lose a seat in Ohio. All the incumbent Democrats seem safe, and if we get lucky, we'll finally get a Democratic seat in Hamilton County. It's going to split it up and not look monstrous.

Though shame hasn't stopped gerrymanders before.

[Torie]

Fighting over what the various sides motives were in a section 5 state hardly matters now that section 4 was cleared out. That decision in Shelby County v Holder was decided by the 5 conservative justices alone, so one can't place that on the liberals. As soon as that decision was made, it is all about section 2. Whether a state drew a map to comply with the unconstitutional application of section 5 doesn't matter. The question is what section 2 requires to make sure that minorities have the opportunity to elect their candidates of choice.

The new VA map elected two candidates of choice for the black minority, which makes up 19% of the population - 2/11 in terms of CDs. Arguably the new map satisfies the VRA requirements better than the old map. It's hard to blame the Dems for taking advantage of a conservative SCOTUS decision and forcing the change to their benefit.

Going forward to 2020 the same scrutiny of section 2 will need to apply to maps produced by either party.

This is very true. If anything, the blame should go to Cuccinelli for blowing the 2013 election.

But, this can be fixed. If we win the 2017 election I propose immediately bringing back my map.

image upload

African Americans are nearly 20% of the state and with the current map elect the candidate of their choice in 18% of the districts.   Your map would allow them the candidate of their choice in 9% of districts.

Why do you want to deny them representation in the state?

I have no interest in any nonsensical proportionality standard of representation or this current fake map offered by unelected professors from Irvine.

The 4th circuit court, as you noted, took issue with the fact that there was an increase in the black VAP of the 3rd district from 53% to 56.3%. It did not say that the state of Virginia should draw a 3rd and 4th district of the Democrats choosing and thus artificially inflate the Democrats' representation in the US Congress. In fact, a district very similar to my 3rd district was already upheld by the 4th circuit in 2004. I merely started with that district and added the remainder of Richmond.

So, I offer a much better map with fair and balanced districts that has a black VAP in the 3rd district of 52%. My map is intended to offer a good suggestion to the legislature to improve their 2012 Congressional districts.

You may not be interested in a proportionality standard, but it is a factor the court must consider. Here's the text from Johnson v deGrandy (1994).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your map would certainly be challenged, and the 2016 results would be presented as evidence that a map that has better proportionality is possible. The burden of proof would shift to the defense of your map. What are the compelling state interests that recommend it over the current map (fewer splits, more compact, etc.)?

Do you have any idea whether a lack of proportionality would be a significant legal risk, if Muon2 rules or other good redistricting metrics were otherwise followed, and CD's which did have a contiguous 50% BVAP population were drawn? Is the court tanking maps solely on the basis of proportionality a new thing, and what are the odds that SCOTUS will go there?

[muon2]

Proportionality doesn't come into play often, and when it does it is usually used as a factor in evaluating whether a section 2 violation may have occurred. If a map comes under strict scrutiny due to a section 2 claim, then adherence to neutral criteria would presumably weigh in favor of the state's map showing a compelling state interest.

What has changed in this decade is the relaxation of the 50% BVAP standard. 50% BVAP is indicative of the need to provide a minority district. The district itself need not have 50% BVAP if it can be shown to be likely to elect the preferred representative of the black minority.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Any Oregon maps?

[Torie]

Proportionality doesn't come into play often, and when it does it is usually used as a factor in evaluating whether a section 2 violation may have occurred. If a map comes under strict scrutiny due to a section 2 claim, then adherence to neutral criteria would presumably weigh in favor of the state's map showing a compelling state interest.

What has changed in this decade is the relaxation of the 50% BVAP standard. 50% BVAP is indicative of the need to provide a minority district. The district itself need not have 50% BVAP if it can be shown to be likely to elect the preferred representative of the black minority.

But if the map otherwise adheres to good line drawing metrics, is it legal to blow off a minority district that is short of 50% BVAP? Sure it is legal to draw such a district (at least where the minority population is contiguous, and probably even if not, as long as there is not another way to have one more minority CD, as opposed to an alternative way that does use the contiguous minority population), and probably more often than not would be good policy to draw such a district. SCOTUS has not so ruled, and is it clear that any lower court has so ruled?

[Nyvin]

I'm probably being overly optimistic, but it seems like the Republicans are going to have to lose a seat in Ohio. All the incumbent Democrats seem safe, and if we get lucky, we'll finally get a Democratic seat in Hamilton County. It's going to split it up and not look monstrous.

Though shame hasn't stopped gerrymanders before.

Also Ohio has a bipartisan commission that draws the districts now.  Although it's really a half-assed redistricting reform, it is something.   

If they draw OH-9 "normal" and draw Hamilton county's district "normal" then I think there's at least some chance of a 5th Dem seat.