US House Redistricting: Alabama

[muon2]

The Alabama map with updated census figures.

Not much to say; the urban Birmingham districts contract a bit and the rural southern ones expand a bit.




By VAP CD-7 is 64.8% black. CD-1 is 24.5%, CD-2 is 28.1%. The rest are in the teens.

One could accuse that map of packing the blacks in CD-7. I did the following map back in '09 with estimates, but a quick check of the 2010 data shows that basic idea still works. With 2010 data one can make CD-2 51.4% black VAP and CD-7 53.5% black.

[muon2]

The Alabama map with updated census figures.

Not much to say; the urban Birmingham districts contract a bit and the rural southern ones expand a bit.

By VAP CD-7 is 64.8% black. CD-1 is 24.5%, CD-2 is 28.1%. The rest are in the teens.

One could accuse that map of packing the blacks in CD-7. I did the following map back in '09 with estimates, but a quick check of the 2010 data shows that basic idea still works. With 2010 data one can make CD-2 51.4% black VAP and CD-7 53.5% black.

I'm sure they could, but I doubt they get anywhere. I would expect the Alabama redistricters to draw this kind of map I made.

It goes to my same argument I made yesterday on the LA thread. An aggressive DoJ could try to challenge mapmakers in R-controlled states by demanding better minority representation. AL is 26% black, and 2/7 is 28.5% so two districts is in better proportion to the state's black population than one district.

[muon2]

The Obama DOJ better deny preclearance to this map.  You could very easily create a second black majority district here. 

Hopefully the DOJ will force another majority-minority seat.

^^^^

I agree, but AL is only 26% black.

The DOJ would be better off forcing 2 VRA districts in LA and SC. Those states would be more worth the effort.

This is an interesting legal problem. The black voting age population is 24.9% of the state's total, which is equivalent to 1.74 house seats. It's also true that one could certainly draw two-black majority seats in AL. It's not clear whether one must draw two.

The SCOTUS has ruled that if a state creates a number of districts where the minority has control of the district that is roughly proportional to the fraction of the voting age population, then there is no obligation to create additional minority seats. The issue here is what constitutes rough proportionality for a fractional number of districts. Rounding 1.74 to the nearest number gives two seats, but an argument can easily be made that 1 is the nearest whole number that doesn't exceed 1.74, since the decision said that the state didn't have to exceed their standard. Rough is just not a precise term, and the court clearly wanted it that way to avoid the creation of a safe harbor for state redistricting.

[muon2]

I thought I would look to see how well a district could be drawn in AL with whole counties that would elect a black candidate of choice. Technically the courts have interpreted the VRA to set a 50% threshold to qualify for relief, but have only said that the district should be able to elect the candidate of choice for the minority group. In IL the East St Louis state house district was just drawn with under 50% BVAP, even though a district over 50% could have been drawn.

I started with a whole county district within 0.5% of the ideal population as CD 2. The constraint of the southern population required a path along the eastern edge, which limited the district to 46.0% BVAP. White VAP is at 49.7%, and I suspect this district would elect the candidate of choice for the black minority.

To draw the rest of the map, I used whole counties except for a split of Jefferson, since I found that at least one county needed to be split to maintain districts within 0.5% of the ideal population. The split I used created a second opportunity for blacks in CD 7 which would be 43.6% BVAP.

[muon2]

Does anyone think the Justice Department will approve these maps? 

Based on the softball approach to redistricting that the DoJ has taken so far, probably so.

1) First of all, the DoJ has played hardball witness Texas. Since the other maps have complied with the VRA, there has been no basis for an objection.

2) Any serious attempt to play hardball is apt to be meet with a giant judicial bitchslap from the Supreme Court that would not only overrule the DOJ in that case, but might strike down the VRA itself. Notice how the DoJ slinked away in Kingston NC, I think it was.

They could have drawn additional VRA seats in SC, LA and possibly AL.

TX chose to go to the DC circuit while the others went through DOJ first. It sure looks like DOJ thought retaining its position as the first choice for states was more important than seeing minorities get a chance to be represented proportionally to their numbers.