Majority Non-College White VRA Section 2 Districts?

[Skill and Chance]

If Trump supporters started demanding these districts be drawn wherever possible in 2021 and courts started requiring it, what would these districts look like under the existing VRA section 2 rules?  What if the standard was instead raised to 60% or 65% non-college white CVAP to account for turnout disparities as with Hispanic VRA seats?

[muon2]

The key is that the minority be given the opportunity to elect a candidate of choice. Turnout is only a factor if it is due to voter suppression. Citizenship and age do matter, since only adult citizens can vote and exercise that opportunity.

[Torie]

The key is that the minority be given the opportunity to elect a candidate of choice. Turnout is only a factor if it is due to voter suppression. Citizenship and age do matter, since only adult citizens can vote and exercise that opportunity.

Which is why some Pubs win from time to time in Hispanic VRA districts. They may be 50%+ HCVAP, but Hispanic turnout is lower than other ethnic groups in the CD's.

[Skill and Chance]

The key is that the minority be given the opportunity to elect a candidate of choice. Turnout is only a factor if it is due to voter suppression. Citizenship and age do matter, since only adult citizens can vote and exercise that opportunity.

Which is why some Pubs win from time to time in Hispanic VRA districts. They may be 50%+ HCVAP, but Hispanic turnout is lower than other ethnic groups in the CD's.

I am not familiar with the precise legal rules surrounding Hispanic VRA districts, but I seem to recall that a statistic called Spanish surname voter registration is used in Texas and possibly elsewhere and that it has to exceed a certain percentage of the district in order for VRA Section 2 to be satisfied. 

Regardless of the detailed legal issues surrounding turnout disparities, I am interested in what a mandate for 50%+1 non-college white opportunity districts operating under the same rules and requirements as African-American opportunity districts drawn this decade would look like?  In practice, I think it would mean certain districts have to be kept as rural as possible in states with large metro areas?  For example, would a (likely Trump-won) district connecting the mill towns in eastern MA be actionable under the same standard that required today's TX-33?  Would this mean a bunch of rural districts in states like CA and TX would have to shed outer suburbs and expand geographically while neighboring districts either contract into the cities or expand to take in more suburban territory with the urban core?  If it were a strong requirement, I imagine the net partisan effect would be GOP gains in the Northeast and Dem gains in the South?

An interesting alternative to consider would be a Section 2 mandate for 50%+1 Evangelical Christian districts, although that seems much less likely to happen as 1. I don't believe VRA Section 2 has ever been applied to a religion in that way and 2. Evangelical political groups could have lobbied for the Bush administration to use preclearance to pressure states to draw Evangelical VRA districts in 2001, but they never did.

[All Along The Watchtower]

^How would an "Evangelical Christian district" even be possible without blatantly violating the Establishment Clause? (assuming, of course, that you could even calculate the number of people who fit into such a category, or that that calculation wouldn't be based on an incredibly arbitrary and politically (and frankly, racially) loaded definition that would be dubious at best as a truly objective measure.)

[muon2]

The key is that the minority be given the opportunity to elect a candidate of choice. Turnout is only a factor if it is due to voter suppression. Citizenship and age do matter, since only adult citizens can vote and exercise that opportunity.

Which is why some Pubs win from time to time in Hispanic VRA districts. They may be 50%+ HCVAP, but Hispanic turnout is lower than other ethnic groups in the CD's.

I am not familiar with the precise legal rules surrounding Hispanic VRA districts, but I seem to recall that a statistic called Spanish surname voter registration is used in Texas and possibly elsewhere and that it has to exceed a certain percentage of the district in order for VRA Section 2 to be satisfied. 

TX uses Spanish Surname Registered Voters (SSRV) as a replacement for HCVAP. Citizenship data isn't part of the decennial census, and is based on a statistical sample. SSRV is presumed to be as valid as HCVAP.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To be a mandate it has to be driven by law. The VRA can't provide that for educational attainment, since it only covers discrimination based on race, color, or membership in a designated language minority (American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Natives or Spanish). So the nature of any change to the law to create such a mandate would likely influence the impact.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Evangelical Christian districts are literally impossible because that information isn't collected by the Census.

[RI]

Evangelical Christian districts are literally impossible because that information isn't collected by the Census.

I'm sure that would change if the Supreme Court mandated such districts.

[muon2]

Evangelical Christian districts are literally impossible because that information isn't collected by the Census.

I'm sure that would change if the Supreme Court mandated such districts.

I suspect the religion clause of the 1st amendment would prevent that. There's a reason why the US Census doesn't ask religious affiliation when we ask so many other personal details about family, home and work.

[krazen1211]

I am not familiar with the precise legal rules surrounding Hispanic VRA districts, but I seem to recall that a statistic called Spanish surname voter registration is used in Texas and possibly elsewhere and that it has to exceed a certain percentage of the district in order for VRA Section 2 to be satisfied.  

Regardless of the detailed legal issues surrounding turnout disparities, I am interested in what a mandate for 50%+1 non-college white opportunity districts operating under the same rules and requirements as African-American opportunity districts drawn this decade would look like?  In practice, I think it would mean certain districts have to be kept as rural as possible in states with large metro areas?  For example, would a (likely Trump-won) district connecting the mill towns in eastern MA be actionable under the same standard that required today's TX-33?  Would this mean a bunch of rural districts in states like CA and TX would have to shed outer suburbs and expand geographically while neighboring districts either contract into the cities or expand to take in more suburban territory with the urban core?  If it were a strong requirement, I imagine the net partisan effect would be GOP gains in the Northeast and Dem gains in the South?

An interesting alternative to consider would be a Section 2 mandate for 50%+1 Evangelical Christian districts, although that seems much less likely to happen as 1. I don't believe VRA Section 2 has ever been applied to a religion in that way and 2. Evangelical political groups could have lobbied for the Bush administration to use preclearance to pressure states to draw Evangelical VRA districts in 2001, but they never did.

TX-33 isn't and wasn't required. It was described as 'just a district' by the court. It is a stolen district and should not exist!

[RI]

Evangelical Christian districts are literally impossible because that information isn't collected by the Census.

I'm sure that would change if the Supreme Court mandated such districts.

I suspect the religion clause of the 1st amendment would prevent that. There's a reason why the US Census doesn't ask religious affiliation when we ask so many other personal details about family, home and work.

I don't see how it would violate a strict reading of the First Amendment. The First Amendment specifically says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" but asking about religion would not require Congress to pass a law; it can be done entirely through internal Department of Commerce processes.