early look at gerrymanders in 2020

[jimrtex]

Which district in West Virginia likely gets eliminated: Mooney's, Jenkins', or McKinley's?

By default, Mooney's (probably). It's sandwhiched between the other two CDs.

Especially if the WV leg decides to stick to the rationale that was successful in Tennant v Jefferson County. In that case they defended a whole county plan that minimized the number of people shifted between districts. If they apply that to 2020 and a reduction of one seat, they would divvy up the counties in WV-2 between the other 2 CDs and not shift anyone between CD 1 and 3.

I think you may have misspelled rationalization.

But there is really no choice but to start with dividing up WV-2. And geographically it makes more sense putting the eastern panhandle with WV-1, and Charleston with WV-2.

It appears to be a balanced split putting everything east of Lewis, plus Wirt and Calhoun in WV-1. You could then do some swapping, such as Jackson for Randolph. The current representatives are about as being in the extreme corners of the state as you can get (Wheeling, Huntington, and Charles Town (Jefferson County)). The congressional results look like Idaho got a 3rd seat.

I think the only radical change would be create a river seat that includes Huntington and Wheeling, and keep Charleston with the eastern panhandle.

Quite odd background for Alex Mooney (WV-2). He was Maryland GOP chair and also a Maryland senator until 2011.

[jimrtex]

Eliminate the Texas fajita strips, all of the Rio Grande delta can be held in 2 districts, add suburban GOP seats

Tx - Fajita strips are required by VRA, so illegal.

They are not compact and split communities of interest. The only explanation for them is to assign persons to electoral districts on the basis of race.

[jimrtex]

Here's a version of OR I drew from neutral principles. It's an anti-gerrymander, but I'm curious to get an opinion from NOVA Green.



I projected the counties to 2020 from the 2016 estimates. As drawn here are the percent population deviations for the Beaverton and Salem CDs are less than 0.5% and wouldn't need any adjustment. The other CDs are all within 2.3% of the quota, and need minimal shifts to bring them to practicably equal. For example shifting all of the Warm Springs IR into the Gresham-Pendleton CD and the area north of Sexton Mtn Pass into the Eugene CD would be enough to probably meet standards for population equality.

It meets reasonable standards already. They are as equal as practicable using counties.

It is bozo logic that representatives elected from such districts would not be "chosen (...) by the people of [Oregon]"

[jimrtex]

Another possibility that hasn't been discussed yet: If VRA influence on redistricting is weakened further, could big partisan states like CA, NY, IL, TX et. al just make all of their congressional elections at large?

At large districts were banned in 1967 and nobody seems to be challenging that.

Wasn't the VRA the reason why they were banned? If the VRA is gutted further, doesn't this ban become a moot point?

No.

It wasn't until later that the bizarre idea that voting is a collective right was developed.

Federal statute since the 1840s required election from single-member districts, but there were exceptions following the census reapportionment when the number of representatives changed.

If a state gained representatives, the additional representatives could be elected at large "until" (wink, wink) the state was redistricted. If a state lost representatives, it could elect all of them at large, until redistricting. It is actually more complicated since it is based on the number of districts. A state could gain a representative, and elect him at-large for a decade, and then lose a representative and continue to use the old districts.  See 2 USC § 2a(c).

Following Wesberry v Sanders, congressional districts were challenged across the country (at that time NO state with districts were within a 10% range). Federal courts were proposing as a remedy that elections be held at large (i.e. you can't use these districts, but the people have a right to representation, and there is this statute that provides for at-large elections in certain cases, and a federal judge has no authority to dictate legislation).

In reaction, Congress passed 2 USC § 2c, which provides for single-member district in all cases. The exception was to permit New Mexico and Hawaii to conduct at-large elections one last time in 1968. Hawaii did, New Mexico did not as it was divided into two districts.

As one might expect, Congress did not repeal 2 USC § 2a(c), but it was always assumed that it had been superseded by 2 USC § 2c. But following the 2000 Census when Mississippi lost its 5th Representative, it failed to redistrict. Some low-level court (I think like a J.P. Court) determined it had authority to draw districts, and there was dispute as to whether this was true. Eventually, the SCOTUS ruled that 2 USC § 2a(c) was still valid under certain obscure circumstances (I think there is a supposition that Congress knows what they are doing).

[jimrtex]

Something that hasn't been mentioned yet is that during the next reapportionment, a future congress could use Section 2 of the 14th Amendment to strip CDs (and EVs) from states like NC and TX that have been successfully sued for having voting laws that are too restrictive.  They could penalize these states in the next reapportionment by the differential between turnout there vs. turnout in other states (perhaps compared to the states that have automatic voter registration and/or universal vote-by-mail?).

Where are the representatives and senators for this future hypothetical Congress elected from?

[jimrtex]

Here's a version of OR I drew from neutral principles. It's an anti-gerrymander, but I'm curious to get an opinion from NOVA Green.



I projected the counties to 2020 from the 2016 estimates. As drawn here are the percent population deviations for the Beaverton and Salem CDs are less than 0.5% and wouldn't need any adjustment. The other CDs are all within 2.3% of the quota, and need minimal shifts to bring them to practicably equal. For example shifting all of the Warm Springs IR into the Gresham-Pendleton CD and the area north of Sexton Mtn Pass into the Eugene CD would be enough to probably meet standards for population equality.

It meets reasonable standards already. They are as equal as practicable using counties.

It is bozo logic that representatives elected from such districts would not be "chosen (...) by the people of [Oregon]"

As soon as SCOTUS determines that "as equal as practicable" is the same as "substantially equal" then I'll entertain the notion that a 10% range on CDs is acceptable. Until then I will assume that SCOTUS intends that the phrases be different and that "as equal as practicable" requires a stricter numerical standard than 10%. I use 1% for CDs since a range close to that has recently been upheld.

They are not the same, and the SCOTUS has said there is NO de minimis threshold for "as equal as practicable".  You would have told me before Tennant that 1% was too much.

The phrase "as equal as practicable" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, and as Justice Harlan pointed out in his Wesberry v. Sanders dissent, the majority opinion does not define the term. At the time of the decision, no state with districts was within a 10% deviation range.

The majority apparently plucked it out of an old federal reapportionment statute. At the time it was statute, states constructed their congressional districts from counties, except in the very largest counties.

Who is going to sue, who has standing? Jefferson County was not concerned about the population deviation. They didn't want to be in a district with Charleston.

You can remove most of the deviation from your map by shifting Grant and Wheeler to the Columbia River district.

Anyhow, here is a new idea. Shift Grant and Wheeler to the Columbia River district, and then make certain counties optional representation areas, where voters may choose their congressional district.

8.6% of Josephine voters would choose to be placed in the district to the north. If too many or too few volunteered, they would be chosen by lot. Similarly, 0.5% of Linn voters could choose, as could 7.3% of Tillamook voters, and 15.6% of Multnomah voters.

What happens if you keep Washington and Multnomah together for just beyond two districts, and then put Clackamas with Deschutes (Bend)?