US House Redistricting: North Carolina

[minionofmidas]

Oh look, isn't this nice. Another lawsuit challenging CDs 1 and 12.

The mapmakers relied on section 5 for their districts. Section 5 was overturned as far as applicability to NC after the maps were drawn and survived a challenge. Is the map now subject to a section 2 challenge having tried to meet the law as it existed at the time?

Apparently the answer to your last sentence is yes and the answer to your second-to-last sentence is technically no - it survived the first court, the case is still technically pending before the state SC however.

[jimrtex]

Oh look, isn't this nice. Another lawsuit challenging CDs 1 and 12.

The mapmakers relied on section 5 for their districts. Section 5 was overturned as far as applicability to NC after the maps were drawn and survived a challenge. Is the map now subject to a section 2 challenge having tried to meet the law as it existed at the time?

"The length of the district’s perimeter, according to the lawsuit, is 1,319 miles – 'almost precisely the distance from Chapel Hill to Austin, Texas.'"

I read this part as distance from Chappell Hill to Austin, Texas, and thought it can't be more than 100 miles (99.3 miles actually).  1319/100 = 4.19 pi, which is fairly close to 4 pi, the ratio of the circumference of circle squared to its area of a circle.   So how can they call this district non-compact?

[krazen1211]

Oh look, isn't this nice. Another lawsuit challenging CDs 1 and 12.

The mapmakers relied on section 5 for their districts. Section 5 was overturned as far as applicability to NC after the maps were drawn and survived a challenge. Is the map now subject to a section 2 challenge having tried to meet the law as it existed at the time?

Well, it did not 'try' to meet the law; it succeeded in meeting the law. The map was given section V preclearance by the Justice Department.


Their simultaneous complains are quite amusing, though. While complaining that district 1 departs from the prior court drawn and court litigated version of the district, they seem to want to dismantle district 12, which of course cleanly resembles the prior district.

[krazen1211]

Oh look, isn't this nice. Another lawsuit challenging CDs 1 and 12.

The mapmakers relied on section 5 for their districts. Section 5 was overturned as far as applicability to NC after the maps were drawn and survived a challenge. Is the map now subject to a section 2 challenge having tried to meet the law as it existed at the time?

"The length of the district’s perimeter, according to the lawsuit, is 1,319 miles – 'almost precisely the distance from Chapel Hill to Austin, Texas.'"

I read this part as distance from Chappell Hill to Austin, Texas, and thought it can't be more than 100 miles (99.3 miles actually).  1319/100 = 4.19 pi, which is fairly close to 4 pi, the ratio of the circumference of circle squared to its area of a circle.   So how can they call this district non-compact?

The first Rucho Lewis plan had a much smaller perimeter for District 1. It was redrawn, due to the complaints of Democrats.

[minionofmidas]

Yep; the issue was with Durham but not Raleigh being a covered jurisdiction under section 5 IIRC, which made the original plan's adding Raleigh's Black parts to the first district appear riskier in court than the second plan's adding Durham's instead. The chain redrawings necessary to keep everything as safe or safer (or so they thought, McIntyre proving them wrong later) made the map, not just of the first district, look worse.

[krazen1211]

Yep; the issue was with Durham but not Raleigh being a covered jurisdiction under section 5 IIRC, which made the original plan's adding Raleigh's Black parts to the first district appear riskier in court than the second plan's adding Durham's instead. The chain redrawings necessary to keep everything as safe or safer (or so they thought, McIntyre proving them wrong later) made the map, not just of the first district, look worse.

I actually lean the opposite way. The first version of the 7th looks easier for McIntyre than the second, although perhaps not for Pantano. But he probably would have won either way, at least in 2012. There are 4 more cracks at it.

The complaints were that random odd black precincts in places like Goldsboro were removed from the 1st. So, they simply redrew the 1st district, and rotated all the GOP districts accordingly.

[minionofmidas]

The complaints were that random odd black precincts in places like Goldsboro were removed from the 1st. So, they simply redrew the 1st district, and rotated all the GOP districts accordingly.

Well, obviously. Adding a whole Black portion of a city to the district, even though it needed to gain population, required skimming some precincts off. Because many of the White precincts are unreachable due to contiguity requirements, that included 50-50ish precincts in already split towns. Swapping Raleigh for Durham I guess meant fewer new urban Blacks (and thus fewer precincts removed) as well, tho' I'd really have to look that up.

[Miles]

The first Rucho Lewis plan had a much smaller perimeter for District 1. It was redrawn, due to the complaints of Democrats.

Yeah, shame on the Democrats for complaining that the original version retrogressed out of several Section 5 counties

[Miles]

Even with the updated version of CD1, they could have given McIntyre a district stretching to Carteret County. The 13th would be slightly worse for Republicans though, 53.5-46.5 McCain vs. 54.1-45 for the actual one.

 

[Sol]

There's actually a way to draw a whole county district 7. Unfortunately, it screws up the rest of the map.

If this challenge succeeds, 1 won't be majority-minority anymore, right?

[Miles]

There's actually a way to draw a whole county district 7. Unfortunately, it screws up the rest of the map.

Yeah. Its basically my version minus Bladen, Carteret and Cumberland Counties but it would take in all of Robeson.  

[Sol]

There's actually a way to draw a whole county district 7. Unfortunately, it screws up the rest of the map.

Yeah. Its basically my version minus Bladen, Carteret and Cumberland Counties but it would take in all of Robeson.  

Wait, really?! What I've been drawing is:
-Columbus
-Brunswick
-Hanover
-Pender
-Onslow
-Carteret
-Jones
-Duplin

There are also a lot of ways to draw whole county district 8s.

[Miles]

Wait, really?! What I've been drawing is:
-Columbus
-Brunswick
-Hanover
-Pender
-Onslow
-Carteret
-Jones
-Duplin

There are also a lot of ways to draw whole county district 8s.

Your plan is better in terms of deviations; your's is -187, mine is -1146:



You could make CD7 and CD8 whole with your plan:

[Sol]

Wait, really?! What I've been drawing is:
-Columbus
-Brunswick
-Hanover
-Pender
-Onslow
-Carteret
-Jones
-Duplin

There are also a lot of ways to draw whole county district 8s.

Your plan is better in terms of deviations; your's is -187, mine is -1146:

It really messes up district 3 though.

[Miles]

Yeah; I don't like what it does to CD3. This is my opinion, but I always like to keep Craven and Carteret counties in the same district.

[Sol]

Yeah; I don't like what it does to CD3. This is my opinion, but I always like to keep Craven and Carteret counties in the same district.

Yeah. I think you even have to put CD3 into Johnston County a little bit, depending on how you do CD1.

Oh, btw, I typically try to put Cumberland, Robeson, Scotland, and Hoke in CD 8. Splitting those from each other is extremely undesirable. Thus, you pretty much have to put Bladen in CD8 if you want whole counties.

[Miles]

Yeah; I don't like what it does to CD3. This is my opinion, but I always like to keep Craven and Carteret counties in the same district.

Yeah. I think you even have to put CD3 into Johnston County a little bit, depending on how you do CD1.

Oh, btw, I typically try to put Cumberland, Robeson, Scotland, and Hoke in CD 8. Splitting those from each other is extremely undesirable. Thus, you pretty much have to put Bladen in CD8 if you want whole counties.

I agree that Hoke, Scotland and Cumberland should be together (along with Anson and Richmond), but Robeson in CD8? Its been in the district with Brunswick/New Hanover Counties for at least the last century. Robeson belongs in CD7, IMO.

[Sol]

Yeah; I don't like what it does to CD3. This is my opinion, but I always like to keep Craven and Carteret counties in the same district.

Yeah. I think you even have to put CD3 into Johnston County a little bit, depending on how you do CD1.

Oh, btw, I typically try to put Cumberland, Robeson, Scotland, and Hoke in CD 8. Splitting those from each other is extremely undesirable. Thus, you pretty much have to put Bladen in CD8 if you want whole counties.

I agree that Hoke, Scotland and Cumberland should be together (along with Anson and Richmond), but Robeson in CD8? Its been in the district with Brunswick/New Hanover Counties for at least the last century. Robeson belongs in CD7, IMO.

IMO, Robeson has to be with Hoke and Scotland- there are significant Lumbee communities in both of those. And Hoke is part of the same UCC as Cumberland. So you have to put them all in the same CD. And you can't really put Fayetteville in with Wilmington in a very pleasing way.

Thus, IMO, any fair map has to put Robeson in CD8.

[Miles]

IMO, Robeson has to be with Hoke and Scotland- there are significant Lumbee communities in both of those. And Hoke is part of the same UCC as Cumberland. So you have to put them all in the same CD. And you can't really put Fayetteville in with Wilmington in a very pleasing way.

Thus, IMO, any fair map has to put Robeson in CD8.

This is the fair map that we came up with a while back:



If it could work with the other districts, something like this would be nice:



Still, even there, you're starting to encroach on Charlotte/the Piedmont. I think being in a district near the coast would be better geographically.

[Sol]

You could make CD7 and CD8 whole with your plan:

You can also take CD8 into Harnett instead of Moore, or into Stanly and Montgomery.

I definitely like your fair map. But I think Hoke and Robeson really do need to be in the same district. There's definite VRA issues if they aren't. And if CD8 has Hoke, Robeson, and Cumberland, it has to have Bladen if you want a whole county map.

[Miles]

You can also take CD8 into Harnett instead of Moore, or into Stanly and Montgomery.

I definitely like your fair map. But I think Hoke and Robeson really do need to be in the same district. There's definite VRA issues if they aren't. And if CD8 has Hoke, Robeson, and Cumberland, it has to have Bladen if you want a whole county map.

Keeping all the other districts in my fair map intact, the 'quick fix' between 7 and 8 would look something like this:



8 has most of Fayetteville. Since the most of the peripheral precincts around Fayetteville are very large, you could probably split them to give all of Fayetteville to 8 and put the rest of the county in 7.

[muon2]

Using a fair map theory of urban county clusters, Cumberland and Hoke should be entirely within the same district except for microchops. By that measure, I definitely like this version better.

You could make CD7 and CD8 whole with your plan:

[Sol]

Using a fair map theory of urban county clusters, Cumberland and Hoke should be entirely within the same district except for microchops. By that measure, I definitely like this version better.

You could make CD7 and CD8 whole with your plan:

The issue with that is that it messes around with the map as a whole. It really screws up CD3, which, depending on how CD1 is drawn, may be forced into the Raleigh suburbs in Johnston and Franklin Counties.

[Miles]

Under that scenario, you could give Johnston/Sampson Counties to CD3 instead of having it reach up to Franklin/Granville Counties:

[muon2]

Under that scenario, you could give Johnston/Sampson Counties to CD3 instead of having it reach up to Franklin/Granville Counties:

Better still why not have CD 1 go into Raleigh as well as Durham and eliminate all those fingers into CD 3? This one reduces county chops to 7.