Supreme Court Strikes Down VA House Maps

[KingSweden]

6 in the opinion, Alito and Thomas concur partially. Big news if SCOTUS is consolidating around standards for districting reform

[Gass3268]

I think Kennedy is getting sick of the gerrymandering games. Fingers crossed on the Wisconsin case.

[dpmapper]

Incorrect headline here.  One district out of the 12 in question is deemed legitimate, the other 11 are not "struck down" but remanded back to district court for further study. 

[Gass3268]

Incorrect headline here.  One district out of the 12 in question is deemed legitimate, the other 11 are not "struck down" but remanded back to district court for further study. 

Where they will in all likelihood be struck down.

[Tintrlvr]

Incorrect headline here.  One district out of the 12 in question is deemed legitimate, the other 11 are not "struck down" but remanded back to district court for further study.  

Not quite. 1/12 was previously ruled unconstitutional by the district court. The Supreme Court upheld that part of the ruling and ordered the district court to revisit the other 11/12 because it applied the wrong standard when it found them constitutional.

[Torie]

This seems just a part of the cleanup of section 5, where you don't need a high BVAP to avoid the DOJ hammer. The issue that is open is just how much one can pack, if it is otherwise based on good redistricting principles, and there is not another 50%+ minority CD that goes away due to the packing, or perhaps a lower than 50% minority CD that is still performing for the minority group. I am not sure SCOTUS knows either.

Gerrymandering that causes packing is definitely a no-no now however, even if its not about blacks being black, but about blacks being Democrats.

[dpmapper]

Incorrect headline here.  One district out of the 12 in question is deemed legitimate, the other 11 are not "struck down" but remanded back to district court for further study.  

Not quite. 1/12 was previously ruled unconstitutional by the district court. The Supreme Court upheld that part of the ruling and ordered the district court to revisit the other 11/12 because it applied the wrong standard when it found them constitutional.

From SCOTUS opinion: "As to the remaining district, District 75, the [district] court found that race did predominate, but that the lines were constitutional because the legislature’s use of race was narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest.   ...   Held: .... [T]he record here supports the State’s conclusion that this was an instance where a 55% BVAP was necessary for black voters
to have a functional working majority."

[muon2]

The way I read the decision, this sets the stage for a two-pronged approach to minority districts in the next cycle. Prong 1 is Gingles with its three point test, particularly that there is a voting age majority of a single minority in a reasonably compact area that could form a district. That uses a very specific numeric target to establish the need for a VRA district. Prong 2 is the decision today, which when coupled with the VA CD case makes it clear that any use of a numerical standard for a district should be unique to that district and justified by factors like turnout and the extent of bloc voting among whites. Basically it says stay away from numerical standards, but test a proposed VRA district to see that the minority could elect their preferred candidate.

So a universal numerical test cannot be used to draw minority districts, even though such a test must be employed to determine if they are necessary.

[jimrtex]

The way I read the decision, this sets the stage for a two-pronged approach to minority districts in the next cycle. Prong 1 is Gingles with its three point test, particularly that there is a voting age majority of a single minority in a reasonably compact area that could form a district. That uses a very specific numeric target to establish the need for a VRA district. Prong 2 is the decision today, which when coupled with the VA CD case makes it clear that any use of a numerical standard for a district should be unique to that district and justified by factors like turnout and the extent of bloc voting among whites. Basically it says stay away from numerical standards, but test a proposed VRA district to see that the minority could elect their preferred candidate.

So a universal numerical test cannot be used to draw minority districts, even though such a test must be employed to determine if they are necessary.

So my Milwaukee districts are legal?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Glorious news! I really hope this is the beginning of the end for at least the most egregious forms of gerrymandering.

[muon2]

Glorious news! I really hope this is the beginning of the end for at least the most egregious forms of gerrymandering.

Though I would note that they didn't strike down any districts, and they upheld the district with the most gerrymandered shape. They just ordered the district court to assess whether race was a predominant factor in 11 districts and if so, apply strict scrutiny as to how they were drawn.

[muon2]

The way I read the decision, this sets the stage for a two-pronged approach to minority districts in the next cycle. Prong 1 is Gingles with its three point test, particularly that there is a voting age majority of a single minority in a reasonably compact area that could form a district. That uses a very specific numeric target to establish the need for a VRA district. Prong 2 is the decision today, which when coupled with the VA CD case makes it clear that any use of a numerical standard for a district should be unique to that district and justified by factors like turnout and the extent of bloc voting among whites. Basically it says stay away from numerical standards, but test a proposed VRA district to see that the minority could elect their preferred candidate.

So a universal numerical test cannot be used to draw minority districts, even though such a test must be employed to determine if they are necessary.

So my Milwaukee districts are legal?

Not necessarily. IIRC you had a district packed at over 90% BVAP and two under 50%. You would at a minimum have to show that the low BVAP districts would be able to elect the preferred candidate of the black community. You would probably also have to show that splitting that the packed district doesn't deny blacks of an appropriate opportunity to elect looking at the totality of the plan. It might be done, but I think most mappers would simplify their task by redividing the black northside population.