US House Redistricting: North Carolina

[BigSkyBob]

my hope is that the majorities are spread so thin that a 1974-like election occurs again something this decade so krazen will go into a corner and cry like a five year old.

Well, it is my "hope" as well. The last map had, ,maybe, three competitive seats [barring drunken assaults of filming cameramen.] If the new map has ten, then so much the better! If all ten GOP members face the threat of having to listen to the folks back home, or be sacked, so much the better!

[BigSkyBob]

Uh, what exactly can you do in Georgia besides weakening Barrow? Not much opportunity there to be aggressive.

Depends on what they want to do with the Bishop district. I suggest adding the remainder of Muskogee County.

Plus there's the local level maps.

VRA. 4/14 = 28%; GA is 30% black. They will need a fourth black-majority district. Either Barrow's district is turned into a black majority one or, more likely, Bishop gets saved. (Alternatively, the Republicans could draw an Atlanta-to-Macon district and rip apart Bishop's seat, but I don't see why they'd prefer that to shoring up Bishop.)

That's a load of nonsense as shown by the last Democratic Georgia map.

The Georgia legislature may try for three black seats, but they will lose in the courts, and it won't even be a close question. The black population is greater now than it was in 2000. 4/13 is 31%, while the black population in 2000 was 29%. 4/14 is 28%, and the black population is 30%.

The 2000 map didn't dilute the black vote in SW Georgia to the point of being unable to elect their preferred candidate, anyway.

Post hoc ergo proctor hoc. Empirically, the district didn't regress. That is not to say that the district could have regressed. If the incumbent had retired, or the 2010 GOP candidate had done slightly better the district very well may have regressed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[BigSkyBob]

A court will let the legislature fix this technical error. You can bank on it.

Oh, I do suppose so. It's just, you know, funny. I mean, wtf do they have preclearance for?

Apparently, Texas.


Joe Hackney is making the hail mary argument.

Holder has really pissed me off by punting on NC, SC and LA.

We better end up with a court-drawn Texas, or something, for the sheer lack of effort tthe DOJ has invested in the other states.

Holder should have pushed for the creation of another black majority district in AL, SC, and LA.  It could easily be done.  

No! Quite the contrary. The 1st is good enough. The Republicans already tried to pack as many blacks into the 12th as they could without violating the Shaw ruling.

No, what the DOJ should be doing is requiring the creation of as many black majority districts as possible in these VRA states.  By having a bunch of 50%-55% black districts, it makes it much more difficult for Republicans to vote-sink.  

NC doesn't have statewide VRA coverage under Section V like LA, AL or SC.

For instance, making Mel Watt's district greater than 50% black VAP would be illegal.

No. It would be A-OK if it was sufficiently compact.

[BigSkyBob]

A court will let the legislature fix this technical error. You can bank on it.

Oh, I do suppose so. It's just, you know, funny. I mean, wtf do they have preclearance for?

Apparently, Texas.


Joe Hackney is making the hail mary argument.

Holder has really pissed me off by punting on NC, SC and LA.

We better end up with a court-drawn Texas, or something, for the sheer lack of effort tthe DOJ has invested in the other states.

Holder should have pushed for the creation of another black majority district in AL, SC, and LA.  It could easily be done.  

No! Quite the contrary. The 1st is good enough. The Republicans already tried to pack as many blacks into the 12th as they could without violating the Shaw ruling.

No, what the DOJ should be doing is requiring the creation of as many black majority districts as possible in these VRA states.  By having a bunch of 50%-55% black districts, it makes it much more difficult for Republicans to vote-sink.  

NC doesn't have statewide VRA coverage under Section V like LA, AL or SC.

For instance, making Mel Watt's district greater than 50% black VAP would be illegal.

No. It would be A-OK if it was sufficiently compact.

Then, would you care to draw me a "sufficiently compact" NC-12 with >50% black VAP?

Put up or shut up.

1) That simply isn't your claim. You claimed that it would be illegal to create a 50% BVAP 12th district. That simply isn't the law. All we know is that the old 12th was struck down. It was about 60% BVAP and not compact.
2) The existing 12th is 49% Black. It would seem trivially easy to boost that percentage by 1% without changing its current shape significantly.  That would not violate the VRA.  The GOP choice to not change the BVAP so as to have the freedom to extend towards Greensboro without creating any confusion with the previous incarnation of the 12th that was struck down, or so some have speculated.

[BigSkyBob]

1) That simply isn't your claim. You claimed that it would be illegal to create a 50% BVAP 12th district. That simply isn't the law. All we know is that the old 12th was struck down. It was about 60% BVAP and not compact.
2) The existing 12th is 49% Black. It would seem trivially easy to boost that percentage by 1% without changing its current shape significantly.  That would not violate the VRA.  The GOP choice to not change the BVAP so as to have the freedom to extend towards Greensboro without creating any confusion with the previous incarnation of the 12th that was struck down, or so some have speculated.

1)...and it would likely be struck down again.

2) Which 12th are we talking about, BS? The 12th on Rucho-Lewis 3 is 49.6% black VAP; Rucho could have easily made it over 50% with precinct-splitting.  The existing 12th is only like 44%.

Sorry, the current district cracked the previous iteration that was just under 50% BVAP. Adhering to the previously upheld district it probably wouldn't be too difficult to draw a 50% BVAP district that could be upheld. The GOP chose not to test that premise to avoid litigation altogether [and, extend into both Winston-Salem and Greensboro without replicating a previous district].

[BigSkyBob]

In case anyone was wondering, here's how the NC maps discriminate against women.

The map "discriminates" against Democrats, as the Illinois and Arizona maps "discriminates" against Republicans. Since the GOP added minority seats in there, the Democrats couldn't play the race card. Predictably enough, they are playing the "sexism" card.

[BigSkyBob]

How did Myrick get less safe? It went from 54% to 55%, didn't it?

Minor details such as facts should never get in the way of a good story.

[BigSkyBob]

This redistricting session was, by far, the most expensive in NC history.

North Carolina taxpayers have shelled out $695,000 in the past year for outside legal help on the state’s new voting maps – four times what they paid in the previous redistricting cycle from 2001 to 2010 – and the bill is still growing.

And, if the Democrats, and Democratic organizations had chose not to sue, what would the legal bill been then?

Loser pays has a certain appeal.

[BigSkyBob]

This redistricting session was, by far, the most expensive in NC history.

North Carolina taxpayers have shelled out $695,000 in the past year for outside legal help on the state’s new voting maps – four times what they paid in the previous redistricting cycle from 2001 to 2010 – and the bill is still growing.

And, if the Democrats, and Democratic organizations had chose not to sue, what would the legal bill been then?

Loser pays has a certain appeal.

I know you're quite eager to vilify the Dems here, but in the past, Democrats used private funding to defend their maps in court.

Um, in the past the Democrats lost in court. The Republican won in court. The Democrats didn't obey the VRA, the Republicans did.

The added costs to the state rest squarely on those filing frivilous lawsuits.