US House Redistricting: North Carolina

[BigSkyBob]

I don't think the GOP will mind keeping McIntyre.  The most important vote that might be upcoming will be the one to repeal Obamacare (assuming Obama loses in 2012, which from a conservative policy point of view, you may as well assume, since if he doesn't, everything [and I mean everything] is pretty much shot), and McIntyre's with them on that.  Shuler and Kissell aren't. 

The decision to target, or protect McIntyre will be simply a question of whether, or not, the Republicans find it in their advantage to target both Kissel and McIntyre, or create a single dumping district for McIntryre. The GOP leadership isn't as stupid as you believe that they are.

I have read a tremendous amount of partisan denial about what is going to happen in North Carolina. Here are the facts: 9-4-Shuler isn't even a challenge. 10-3-Shuler is a technical exercise And, 11-2-Shuler might just be possible. The reason is simple enough:  the GOP consistently carries the White vote in North Carolina by large margins. Even eliminating  Shuler is just an exercise in baconmandering.

It is more of question of will they do it rather than if they can do it. In the 1992 redistricting, the GOP proposed a Black district linking Charlotte, and Wilmington. Drawing the same district would eliminate Kissell, and McIntyre.  Expanding the first into Durham and Raleigh--no need to pack Whites in the East-- and Miller into Democratic areas of the Triad and Chapel Hill finishes the trick.

There are obstacles to such a map. Current Republican Congressmen will want safer districts. The DOJ may very well try to argue electing Republicans is denying Blacks the right to a Democratic majority delegation. [They'll have tremendous hypocrisy issues trying to rationalize their demand to pack Blacks in Virginia, while opposing packing in North Carolina, but, consistency has always been for the other guys.] Individual members of the legislature will have their preferences, and no one will want to be associated with convoluted maps.

I have no illusions that what will happen in Illiniois will be very painful for the GOP. The Democratic folks here shouldn't have any illusions about NC.

[BigSkyBob]

Not that I'm surprised McHenry is being a partisan ass, but Democrats would be entitled to at least 5 seats under a "fair" map: a black-majority northeastern seat, a Charlotte seat, a Winston-Salem/Greensboro seat, a Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill seat, and a seat in south central NC, around Fayetteville. And that's not counting Shuler.

The notion that "fairness" requires a "Winston-Salem/Greensboro" seat is a joke. Objective redistricting starting at the West and moving East clearly links Winston-Salem with counties to the West, and Greensboro with counties to North, South or East. Blacks simply aren't the majority in the Northeast so "fairness" clearly does not call for a majority Black piece of spaghetti in the East. If "fairness" calls for a Black-majority seat in Eastern North Carolina, then "fairness" dictates that it include Blacks in Durham, and/or Wake county. Again, objective redistricting starting in the East and moving West splits "South-central" North Carolina around Fayetteville.

[BigSkyBob]

Not that I'm surprised McHenry is being a partisan ass, but Democrats would be entitled to at least 5 seats under a "fair" map: a black-majority northeastern seat, a Charlotte seat, a Winston-Salem/Greensboro seat, a Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill seat, and a seat in south central NC, around Fayetteville. And that's not counting Shuler.

The notion that "fairness" requires a "Winston-Salem/Greensboro" seat is a joke. Objective redistricting starting at the West and moving East clearly links Winston-Salem with counties to the West, and Greensboro with counties to North, South or East. Blacks simply aren't the majority in the Northeast so "fairness" clearly does not call for a majority Black piece of spaghetti in the East. If "fairness" calls for a Black-majority seat in Eastern North Carolina, then "fairness" dictates that it include Blacks in Durham, and/or Wake county. Again, objective redistricting starting in the East and moving West splits "South-central" North Carolina around Fayetteville.

[

This seems pretty damn reasonable to me.

I have no doubt that partisan gerrymandering in your favor seems "reasonable" to you. Nor do I doubt that partisan gerrymander in your favor seem "fair" to you. Nor, do I doubt that partisan gerrymandering in your favor seems "objective" to you.

You have expanded a Charlotte surburban district way east to Moore county just to avoid including Northern suburbs that would result in the Northern areas including Winston-Salem.  A person using objective redistricting criteria would never include such a finger. It is a partisan results-driven  exercise.

Likewise, having a district wrap around Greensboro  is partisan-driven gerrymandering. Why objectivity demands pairing Winston-Salem and part of Greensboro in the Triad rather than Winston-Salem, Davidson County and Highpoint [Where you can pair two whole counties] is an exercise in rationalization at best, and an absurdity at worse.

In the East we see the same gerrymandering passed off as objectivity. Instead of creating a coastal district that expands inland, or a Southern tier district, you try to create a Southern tier district that excludes the Republican areas along the tier, but expands Northward to find Democrats, and a coastal district that won't expand to the next county in the South, but, expands way to the West in its Northern reaches.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, a West-to-East sweep would not have bypassed Highpoint as your map did.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here is a bit of reality for you: the district regressed! If you are going to dip into Durham and Raleigh, a 58% Black VAP population is a more appropriate minimum target, while a 65% Black population would result in Blacks selecting "the candidate of their choice" in the next election.

[BigSkyBob]

This is an "extreme" GOP gerrymander:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/51954263@N03/5700757617/

[BigSkyBob]

That snake district actually helps Republicans.

I have to agree. I mean, If you get rid of the snake you'll have to give the Dems a Charlotte seat AND a Winston-Salem / Greensboro / High Point seat.

I have tried getting rid of the snake numerous times and it helps the Dems everytime.

Run the snake East to Chapel Hill and Durham rather than South to Charlotte. Charlotte snakes to Lumberton/Fayetteville, the First takes East Raleigh, and there you have 10-3 GOP.

[BigSkyBob]

There were other splits that were undone that you forgot to mention.

The existing map splits Mecklenberg, and I think even Charlotte, 3 ways. This map splits them 2 ways.

The existing map dives CD-1 all the way down to Craven County as well as other numerous tentacles. The new map shrinks and eliminates the tentacles.

The existing map splits Raleigh between 3 Congressional districts. Looking at the new map, it appears to split Raleigh only 2 ways.

The existing map splits Rutherford and Gaston County. The new map does not.

Mecklenburg has already been addressed.

The new map does indeed shrink NC-01's tentacles, but at the expense of an additional split in Wake County.

I can't really tell about the city of Raleigh just from the map.

The existing map does indeed split Rutherford and Gaston Counties where the new map does not, but now you're splitting hairs. There will (in most states) always be split counties, if only to conform to population equality, which is why I avoided criticizing the counties that are split only two ways in the new map. 

This last part by you just isn't true. Buncombe  is split into exactly two districts. You yelled "Bloody murder!" about that split.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[BigSkyBob]

McHenry isn't going to want his district's margin cut from 63-36 to 54-45.

Bad call!

[BigSkyBob]

how the hell does someone win by 8 points yet win only 5 districts. Take this to the DOJ please.

On what basis are you going to take it to the DOJ?

[BigSkyBob]

Agreed. Its a masterpiece of Republican gerrymandering and minority packing.

According to the numbers posted here, the First district goes from 50.5% Black to 52% Black. The essential difference is not that Blacks are "packed," but, rather, that Blacks are paired with White Democrats rather than White Republicans. You might not like that fact, but, the fact that you don't like the partisan outcome doesn't give you the right to grossly mischaracterize the change in Black percentage. [ The 12th, likewise, has about the same Black percentage, hardly a "pack," as the First, and is similiar to the district two maps ago before the Democrats regressed the Black majority for partisan advantage.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[BigSkyBob]

There were other splits that were undone that you forgot to mention.

The existing map splits Mecklenberg, and I think even Charlotte, 3 ways. This map splits them 2 ways.

The existing map dives CD-1 all the way down to Craven County as well as other numerous tentacles. The new map shrinks and eliminates the tentacles.

The existing map splits Raleigh between 3 Congressional districts. Looking at the new map, it appears to split Raleigh only 2 ways.

The existing map splits Rutherford and Gaston County. The new map does not.

Mecklenburg has already been addressed.

The new map does indeed shrink NC-01's tentacles, but at the expense of an additional split in Wake County.

I can't really tell about the city of Raleigh just from the map.

The existing map does indeed split Rutherford and Gaston Counties where the new map does not, but now you're splitting hairs. There will (in most states) always be split counties, if only to conform to population equality, which is why I avoided criticizing the counties that are split only two ways in the new map.  

This last part by you just isn't true. Buncombe  is split into exactly two districts. You yelled "Bloody murder!" about that split.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know I'm ignoring you, but I feel I should respond here. I made a special exception for Buncombe County, and the city of Asheville in particular, because it is the largest county (and city) in that region, and has formed the core of a district in that area probably for as long as North Carolina has been a state.

So you don't object to splitting the absolute minimal number of counties necessary unless you have your ad hoc reasons. Well, other people will have ad hoc reasons for defending various county lines, or groupings of counties.  


I object morally to the claim that if a county must be split, it is a  smaller, rural county that must be split. Avery has a much right to be whole as Buncombe.

[BigSkyBob]

You might not like that fact, but, the fact that you don't like the partisan outcome doesn't give you the right to grossly mischaracterize the change in Black percentage.

Fine...its a masterpiece of Democratic packing.

...happy!!?

Yes, I am happy that you spoke accurately; and, yes, it is a very efficient packing of Democrats.

[BigSkyBob]

If that 4th district is not the the ugliest non-VRA district in the history of the world, then I don't know what is. Still, I have to admit, one shoestring isn't good for anything. You have to have two to be able to tie your shoes.

Perhaps, you have engaged in a bit rhetorical excess.

May I suggest that you consider the current Illinois 17th district, which is , actually, in contention for "the ugliest non-VRA district in the history of the world."

http://www.nationalatlas.gov/printable/printableViewer-cd.html?imgF=images/preview/congdist/IL17_110.gif&imgW=750&imgH=452

[BigSkyBob]

in the next big dem wave election, hopefully this would be a dummymander

Its not likely to be.  Dummymanders usually involve spreading your voters too thin across multiple districts, and of the 10 Republican-leaning ones, I think they're all more Republican than any seat the Democrats currently hold in NC.  Even if Ellmers and Foxx lose, their seats will almost certainly be picked up by the Republicans again later on, simply because Democrats usually can't hold on to 55% McCain districts for very long.

Either way, the map is almost guaranteed to see a net Republican gain in seats, so in that way it's highly unlikely to wind up backfiring on the Republicans any time soon.

There really is only 1 place this can backfire, potentially: District 7 and 8, where the GOP went for both but could have split the difference and just take 1 and yielded the other.

Of course, we saw the same tradeoffs with the Illinois map where they went greedy.

If the Republican candidates lose both district it is because they made their defeats the old-fashioned way, they earned them!

[BigSkyBob]

in the next big dem wave election, hopefully this would be a dummymander

Its not likely to be.  Dummymanders usually involve spreading your voters too thin across multiple districts, and of the 10 Republican-leaning ones, I think they're all more Republican than any seat the Democrats currently hold in NC.  Even if Ellmers and Foxx lose, their seats will almost certainly be picked up by the Republicans again later on, simply because Democrats usually can't hold on to 55% McCain districts for very long.

Either way, the map is almost guaranteed to see a net Republican gain in seats, so in that way it's highly unlikely to wind up backfiring on the Republicans any time soon.

There really is only 1 place this can backfire, potentially: District 7 and 8, where the GOP went for both but could have split the difference and just take 1 and yielded the other.

Of course, we saw the same tradeoffs with the Illinois map where they went greedy.

I have to say that I commend you for advocating at RRH cleaning up the lines by reducing the splits in Mecklenburg, and Alamance. The pour-salt-into-the-ground crowd eggs on the legislators to act ever more egregiously, [aided by DRA.] It was nice to read a voice for restraint.

[BigSkyBob]

McHenry about 57-42 McCain.

The new 4th isn't even close to being another VRA district. I have it as 51% white, 29% black. Its just a Democratic vote sink thats roughly 70% Obama.

I projecting it at 69.6% Obama 29.6% McCain.

I'll take issue with the claim that isn't "even close to being another VRA district."  I reasonably expect Price to retire within the decade, and due to the inclusion of Duke, UNC, and, I believe, NCST, I don't think it is unreasonable to believe that a "person of color [other than peach]"  will win within the decade.

I have read lecture after lecture about how a 40% Black district is allegedly VRA compliant since it is probable that such a district would nominate a Black Democrat in the primary and that that Black Democrat would win the general. Why not 29% if it is probable to nominate a Black Democrat whom is likely to win the general [given the particular circumstances of that district?]

[BigSkyBob]

McHenry about 57-42 McCain.

The new 4th isn't even close to being another VRA district. I have it as 51% white, 29% black. Its just a Democratic vote sink thats roughly 70% Obama.

I projecting it at 69.6% Obama 29.6% McCain.

I'll take issue with the claim that isn't "even close to being another VRA district."  I reasonably expect Price to retire within the decade, and due to the inclusion of Duke, UNC, and, I believe, NCST, I don't think it is unreasonable to believe that a "person of color [other than peach]"  will win within the decade.

I have read lecture after lecture about how a 40% Black district is allegedly VRA compliant since it is probable that such a district would nominate a Black Democrat in the primary and that that Black Democrat would win the general. Why not 29% if it is probable to nominate a Black Democrat whom is likely to win the general?

The track record of such districts is heavily in the favor of whites. Don't kid yourself and pretend otherwise.

Given the fact that Ron Dellums won in such a Black minority, University dominated district it is not unreasonable to believe that such a coalition could form in the Triangle. The Black Obama beat the White Clinton badly in university dominated counties. That, too is part of the track record. Villification of Whites is a staple of modern campus life. It creates quirky political outcomes.

[BigSkyBob]

McHenry about 57-42 McCain.

The new 4th isn't even close to being another VRA district. I have it as 51% white, 29% black. Its just a Democratic vote sink that's roughly 70% Obama.

I projecting it at 69.6% Obama 29.6% McCain.

I'll take issue with the claim that isn't "even close to being another VRA district."  I reasonably expect Price to retire within the decade, and due to the inclusion of Duke, UNC, and, I believe, NCST, I don't think it is unreasonable to believe that a "person of color [other than peach]"  will win within the decade.

I have read lecture after lecture about how a 40% Black district is allegedly VRA compliant since it is probable that such a district would nominate a Black Democrat in the primary and that that Black Democrat would win the general. Why not 29% if it is probable to nominate a Black Democrat whom is likely to win the general?

The track record of such districts is heavily in the favor of whites. Don't kid yourself and pretend otherwise.

Given the fact that Ron Dellums won in such a Black minority, University dominated district it is not unreasonable to believe that such a coalition could form in the Triangle. The Black Obama beat the White Clinton badly in university dominated counties. That, too is part of the track record. Vilification of Whites is a staple of modern campus life. It creates quirky political outcomes.

If its going to happen, it certainly has a better chance of happening in that district than other portions of the south.  However, it has nothing to do vilification of whites are any of that right wing nonsense. 

You don't exactly buttress your claims about the lack of animosity towards Whites among the left by having as your tag the symbol of an anti-White racist organization that murdered police officers!

Imagine the outrage that would ensue had the clinched fist been the symbol of a White racist organization in the sixties that murdered police officers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[BigSkyBob]

McHenry about 57-42 McCain.

The new 4th isn't even close to being another VRA district. I have it as 51% white, 29% black. Its just a Democratic vote sink that's roughly 70% Obama.

I projecting it at 69.6% Obama 29.6% McCain.

I'll take issue with the claim that isn't "even close to being another VRA district."  I reasonably expect Price to retire within the decade, and due to the inclusion of Duke, UNC, and, I believe, NCST, I don't think it is unreasonable to believe that a "person of color [other than peach]"  will win within the decade.

I have read lecture after lecture about how a 40% Black district is allegedly VRA compliant since it is probable that such a district would nominate a Black Democrat in the primary and that that Black Democrat would win the general. Why not 29% if it is probable to nominate a Black Democrat whom is likely to win the general?

The track record of such districts is heavily in the favor of whites. Don't kid yourself and pretend otherwise.

Given the fact that Ron Dellums won in such a Black minority, University dominated district it is not unreasonable to believe that such a coalition could form in the Triangle. The Black Obama beat the White Clinton badly in university dominated counties. That, too is part of the track record. Vilification of Whites is a staple of modern campus life. It creates quirky political outcomes.

If its going to happen, it certainly has a better chance of happening in that district than other portions of the south.  However, it has nothing to do vilification of whites are any of that right wing nonsense.

You don't exactly buttress your claims about the lack of animosity towards Whites among the left by having as your tag the symbol of an anti-White racist organization that murdered police officers!

Imagine the outrage that would ensue had the clinched fist been the symbol of a White racist organization in the sixties that murdered police officers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The symbol in my sig is to support the Unions in Wisconsin being attacked by Walker & Koch.....

I have no doubt that the 60's symbol of anti-White racism, and murder of police officiers is being used in alleged support of the "Unions of Wisconsin."

This merely places upon "the Unions of Wisconsin" the obligation to dissassociate itself, and denounce, the use of a symbol of an organization that hated Whites, and murdered police officiers. You would think that would be a no-brainer for police unions.


P.S. Mention of "Koch[sic]" are merely the manifestation of the Alinski's rule that any dispute must be personalized. A target must be selected and villified.

The reality is that the only mention of "Koch" I have read in Wisconsin is that someone called Walker claiming to be one of the Koch brothers. Since Walker didn't recognize that the caller was  not one of the brothers, that strongly indicates Walker hadn't even met the Koch brothers before the budget repair bill.

[BigSkyBob]

Although this map has a clear Republican bent to it and the current Democratic congressmen are probably SOL I feel like this map has the potential to give the GOP some heartburn down the road.  If the overall Democratic trend in the state holds up and the Democrats continue to pursue North Carolina at the presidential level I think some of those districts that are now 55% McCain might be more like 50-50 districts in 2016.

And, if the Republican trend reasserts itself, and at the Presidential level the Republicans regain their historic advantage, these districts could be 59-41 Republican by 2016.

[BigSkyBob]

And, if the Republican trend reasserts itself, and at the Presidential level the Republicans regain their historic advantage, these districts could be 59-41 Republican by 2016.

Republican trend lol

Feel free to compare the number of GOP state legislators in North Carolina compare to forty years ago. The long term trend has been clear enough. Whether there has been an acceleration of that trend towards the GOP in 2010, a leveling off of that trend, a reversal of that trend, or a blip in the last several years is a matter of speculation.

[BigSkyBob]

And, if the Republican trend reasserts itself, and at the Presidential level the Republicans regain their historic advantage, these districts could be 59-41 Republican by 2016.

Republican trend lol

Feel free to compare the number of GOP state legislators in North Carolina compare to forty years ago. The long term trend has been clear enough. Whether there has been an acceleration of that trend towards the GOP in 2010, a leveling off of that trend, a reversal of that trend, or a blip in the last several years is a matter of speculation.

Both chambers of the legislature are Republican because turnout last year among Democrats was horrendous.

Then again, previous to 2010 both chambers were Democratic due to gerrymandering, and depressed GOP turnout in 2006, and 2008.

[BigSkyBob]

Then again, previous to 2010 both chambers were Democratic due to gerrymandering, and depressed GOP turnout in 2006, and 2008.

To be perfectly honest with you, I'm trying to remain cordial, but it does frustrate me when you seem to think your own understanding of NC politics is more informed or of greater value than that of an actual resident.

To be entirely honest with you, I find your attempts to argue from the authority of your own address to be a particular egregious fallacy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If I did that, which I haven't, I would merely be doing what you did concerning Demorcats in the last decade. They gerrymandered the legislative and Congressional districts, and reaped the benefits. That wasn't a sign of a Democratic trend.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, it doesn't matter which was worse, Republican turnout 2006 and 2008, or Demcoratic turnout in 2010. What does matter is that you equated depressed Republican turnout in 2006 and 2008 with a Democratic trend in the state, while denying that increased Republican turnout and depressed Democratic turnout in 2010 was not indicative of an underlying partsian trend. That's not a consistent position.

[BigSkyBob]

House of Representative Plan:

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gis/randr07/District_Plans/PlanPage_DB_2011.asp?Plan=Lewis-Dollar-Dockham_1&Body=House

[BigSkyBob]

The map at the link below is one of the most interesting maps I have seen:

http://www.carolinapoliticsonline.com/2011/07/04/fair-districts/

[The mapmaker embraces the absurdities of so-called "libertarianism."]

[BigSkyBob]

North Carolina maps.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gis/randr07/District_Plans/PlanPage_DB_2011.asp?Plan=Rucho_Senate_1&Body=Senate


33 districts that McCain won.
2 districts between 50-53% Obama.

15 districts above 59% Obama.

House of Representative Plan:

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gis/randr07/District_Plans/PlanPage_DB_2011.asp?Plan=Lewis-Dollar-Dockham_1&Body=House

-----------------------------------------------------

What's the likelihood that the Justice Department will approve these maps?  Also, when is the congressional redistricting map coming out? 

North Carolina is not subject to preclearance. (A bunch of its counties are, but I think that only applies to redistricting by the county governments, not redistricting by the state government.)

Umm, yes it is. The DOJ rejected the "Fountain fishhook" once.