Atlas Forum

General Politics => Political Geography & Demographics => Topic started by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on January 10, 2011, 12:56:04 am



Title: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on January 10, 2011, 12:56:04 am
I expect something like this. This map will obviously make Ben Chandler a lot safer:

(http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/4586/newky.jpg)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: dpmapper on January 10, 2011, 08:42:42 am
What incentive do Republicans have to agree to make Chandler safer?  I don't think any of their incumbents need help. 


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on January 10, 2011, 08:58:59 am
Certainly no reason to cede him a safe seat. He probably can have some positive corrections on the margins.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on January 10, 2011, 09:20:25 am
This is an adaptation of what I came up with a while back:

(http://i573.photobucket.com/albums/ss175/johnny_longtorso/ky.jpg)

Chandler's district is 51-48 McCain.

Republicans only have one third of the trifecta; Dems still have the State House and governorship. I don't see how they can successfully argue that the map should have 5 Republican districts. Maybe they get a favorable State Senate map in exchange or something.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: dpmapper on January 10, 2011, 09:42:59 am
Who drew the last map?  If it wasn't a GOP gerrymander then I think one can easily argue for a map that doesn't change much. 


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on January 10, 2011, 10:29:58 am
Same situation as now -- Dem governor, Dem House, Republican Senate. However, KY-06 was held by a Republican that time (Ernie Fletcher), and KY-04 by a Democrat (Ken Lucas).


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: jimrtex on January 10, 2011, 10:38:24 am
Who drew the last map?  If it wasn't a GOP gerrymander then I think one can easily argue for a map that doesn't change much. 
In the past, redistricting was done after the gubernatorial election.

It is likely that redistricting data will be too late for completing work in the 2011 regular session, and there may be no desire to blow up the session, since any plan is going to have to be passed by both houses.  You get a necessarily bipartisan interim committee to create a plan over the summer.

The next gubernatorial term begins in early December.

So does Beshear call a special session during the summer to try and push through a Democratic hack plan?  Does he announce that he is not going to run for re-election so that he can concentrate on pushing through a Democratic hack plan before he gets an appointment in the Obama administration?  Does he call a lame duck session next November?  If he loses, the senate simply stalls.  If he wins, there is no reason to rush it.

Kentucky has a pretty reasonable plan, with one district for the largest city, one surrounding the second largest, and another for the 3rd largest concentration of population.  If either house objects to a plan, they simply let the courts impose a plan which will make the fewest changes from the current plan.

The only real question then is whether Owensboro gets flipped in exchange for the area southeast of Bowling Green.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on January 10, 2011, 11:19:56 am
How exactly does he push through a "hack plan" (which a 4-2 map certainly is not) with a Republican Senate?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on January 10, 2011, 12:37:47 pm
Hal Rogers is 73, so Republicans may not mind having the 5th made safer. The PVI for that area is very misleading, especially with the 2008 election. Granted it would probably require Obama out of office, but Republicans aren't going to assume that won't happen.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Torie on January 10, 2011, 06:39:40 pm
I suppose here we have two issues. The first is whether the Pubbies think they will take it all in the 2011 election, and thus will stall and wait for the promise land. The second issue is assuming that they don't see that in the cards (taking everything), just how would a court draw the lines, which then becomes the "default" plan?  It would be against that backdrop, that the two parties would then bargain. And in that regard, it matters whether it ends up in federal or state court (and other than VRA challenges, I am confused in my mind, as a matter of legal procedure, just how and why these redistricting cases end up in federal court as opposed to state court, or visa versa. Does anyone know? Muon2 or Sam Spade)?

Federal versus state court matters, because if there is no map, the federal judges follow I think the least change rule, and try to make as few changes from the existing map for the prior decennial, as possible. State court judges however, for some reason follow no such rule, and just do their own thing. So whether a Kentucky map is drawn by a federal or state judge may matter, potentially a lot, although probably not in Kentucky's case. The existing map is pretty logical.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Verily on January 10, 2011, 07:04:22 pm
Federal versus state court matters, because if there is no map, the federal judges follow I think the least change rule, and try to make as few changes from the existing map for the prior decennial, as possible. State court judges however, for some reason follow no such rule, and just do their own thing. So whether a Kentucky map is drawn by a federal or state judge may matter, potentially a lot, although probably not in Kentucky's case. The existing map is pretty logical.

I would assume this is because federal judges view redistricting as an issue for the states and thus, when called upon to deal with it, feel they should make as few changes as possible so as to avoid impinging on states' rights, such as they are. State judges would, of course, have no such compunction.

Also, many state court judges are elected hacks.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on January 10, 2011, 07:17:45 pm
Yeah, unless it's a complaint based on federal law (like the VRA), redistricting cases would be filed in state court. Incidentally, are there any other significant federal laws regarding redistricting other than the VRA? I can't think of any offhand.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Torie on January 10, 2011, 07:36:55 pm
Yeah, unless it's a complaint based on federal law (like the VRA), redistricting cases would be filed in state court. Incidentally, are there any other significant federal laws regarding redistricting other than the VRA? I can't think of any offhand.

I think for some reason, a Texas case ended up in federal court in the 2001 cycle, not involving a VRA issue, but rather no map, but I could be wrong. Sam Spade would know.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Verily on January 10, 2011, 07:41:13 pm
Yeah, unless it's a complaint based on federal law (like the VRA), redistricting cases would be filed in state court. Incidentally, are there any other significant federal laws regarding redistricting other than the VRA? I can't think of any offhand.

I think for some reason, a Texas case ended up in federal court in the 2001 cycle, not involving a VRA issue, but rather no map, but I could be wrong. Sam Spade would know.

Plaintiff was registered to vote in Texas but was domiciled elsewhere (e.g., a college student from out of state)?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Torie on January 10, 2011, 08:07:34 pm
Yeah, unless it's a complaint based on federal law (like the VRA), redistricting cases would be filed in state court. Incidentally, are there any other significant federal laws regarding redistricting other than the VRA? I can't think of any offhand.

I think for some reason, a Texas case ended up in federal court in the 2001 cycle, not involving a VRA issue, but rather no map, but I could be wrong. Sam Spade would know.

Plaintiff was registered to vote in Texas but was domiciled elsewhere (e.g., a college student from out of state)?

Ah, diversity jurisdiction!  So, then perhaps it is a game of race to the courthouse, with if you want a state court, you find a domestic domicile, and if you want federal court, you find a foreign state domicile, to sue. Just how you can be registered in one state, and domiciled in another for diversity jurisdiction purposes, is an interesting question, now isn't it? 

I wonder if this is how it all works. Darn, I am just so ignorant sometimes, and find over time  that the universe of my ignorance just keeps expanding, just like the universe itself. Fancy that.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Torie on January 10, 2011, 09:07:58 pm
Well, if I were the judge drawing the plan, because for whatever reason, the parties cannot cut a deal (perhaps because one party or the other thinks they will control the process after the 2011 election, and it turns out not, and then they still can't get their act together), this is the map I would draw. CD-03 expands to take in the rest of Jefferson County (except for the far western corner (surprising that CD-03 did not expand outside of Jeffco this time, but it didn't, and in this case intra county splits when the census numbers come in, will for obvious reasons, not make a wit of difference), and then fill in the county splits, and then switch counties to the extent necessary between CD's, while making the lines look less erose, or not more so at least, and then do whatever county splits are necessary, to make the lines look less erose still. I did do one small county switch out, to round out KY-02. You can see by the shade variations, where I made line changes.

In short, next to nothing happens.

(http://i1099.photobucket.com/albums/g392/swdunn1/KY1-11-11nochangemap.jpg)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: jimrtex on January 10, 2011, 11:41:14 pm
How exactly does he push through a "hack plan" (which a 4-2 map certainly is not) with a Republican Senate?
He calls a special session in the summer and presents his hack plan to the public, saying that he wants to help Obama out by giving Chandler a more favorable district.  And uses it as the central theme of his re-election campaign.  Chandler appears along side him, and says, we just barely hung on in 2010.  I need to get some of the Republicans out of my district.  Obama flies down and uses his condescending lecturing tone to tell the voters that now is not the time to cling to their religion and congressional districts.  You're right, it won't happen.

The plan where he decides not to run in exchange for an administration position won't happen.  And if he were to lose the election, he wouldn't have any leverage in a lame duck session.

So the map approved drawn in a special session in December 2012.  Everyone in the legislature is going to be eager to get it done, because the filing deadline is early February for a May primary.  The House member will be eager to get their map approved, and the senators to get their map approved, so they're not interested in getting hung up over the congressional plan.

On the Senate plan, just keeping the current districts helps the Republicans.  In many cases what has happened is that rural districts needed so more people so the district was extended into the suburbs of Louisville, Cincinnati, or Lexington.  Since these are the furthest out suburbs, they are the most Republican areas in the state.  The rural districts might have been somewhat competitive, but there might not have been a strong Republican candidate.  But now there are a lot of Republican voters, some good candidates, and the rural Republicans might vote for him.

In the House, there have been a lot of cracking and packing of Republicans and some really ugly districts with odd appendages and isthmuses.  House districts are a little larger than 1/3 the size of Senate districts (38 senators, 100 representatives).  So if a senate district needs 20,000 persons, then the 3 house districts in the same area will need about 20,000 as well.  If you put all 20,000 in one house district that is 1/2 of a district.  But if you split the 20,000 among 3 districts, you have fractured the suburban area and may not be able to find a strong candidate.

The same thing happens with the city districts which stretch outward like toothpaste maintaining the original core, but with enough added population to pass one man, one vote, but not enough to change the political character of the district.  And then you pack the rest of the Republican voters.

It doesn't appear that there have to be any complete shifts of districts.  The rural and coal areas have already been depopulated, and there is not massive influx of people into Kentucky.  So you sort of slide districts a little bit toward Louisville and Lexington.  There is no reason to get rid of districts so you don't have a reason or opportunity to dismember the occasional Republican-held district.  They might have to flip a couple of seats to the Republicans in the suburbs, but they can stretch the seats a little more.  To radically redo the House you would need Republican control of both houses and the governor, and that is going to be hard to accomplish.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: jimrtex on January 11, 2011, 12:20:44 am
I suppose here we have two issues. The first is whether the Pubbies think they will take it all in the 2011 election, and thus will stall and wait for the promise land. The second issue is assuming that they don't see that in the cards (taking everything), just how would a court draw the lines, which then becomes the "default" plan?  It would be against that backdrop, that the two parties would then bargain. And in that regard, it matters whether it ends up in federal or state court (and other than VRA challenges, I am confused in my mind, as a matter of legal procedure, just how and why these redistricting cases end up in federal court as opposed to state court, or visa versa. Does anyone know? Muon2 or Sam Spade)?

Federal versus state court matters, because if there is no map, the federal judges follow I think the least change rule, and try to make as few changes from the existing map for the prior decennial, as possible. State court judges however, for some reason follow no such rule, and just do their own thing. So whether a Kentucky map is drawn by a federal or state judge may matter, potentially a lot, although probably not in Kentucky's case. The existing map is pretty logical.
Kentucky only elects the governor in 2011.  The legislature is elected in 2012.  The primary is in May, and the legislature will be finishing up about the time they get census data.  So it is likely that you get a joint interim committee drawing up the congressional map during the summer, and perhaps separate committees for the two houses.  Beshear could call a special sesson during the summer.  But there is no reason to risk a blowup in a special redistricting session in the middle of election campaign when you are trying to portray yourself as the leader of the state, rather than the leader of your party.

So the redistricting gets done during the winter just before the filing deadline for the legislature.  The legislature also has an incentive to get the redistricting done, because they don't want the uncertainty of a court decision, which also delays filing, and ends up with minimal changes.  If the senate plan goes to a court, the court would be inclined to go with a Republican plan, since there are structural advantages that the Republicans simply need to maintain.  If the house plan goes to a court, there is greater risk for Democrats, since a court might not be inclined to make misshapen districts even worse in order to maintain partisan advantage.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on January 11, 2011, 12:24:13 am
The GOP don't appear to have much of a good chance at taking out Beshear, so if I were a Republican Senate leader I'd agree to accept a favorable Senate map in exchange for strengthening Chandler.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: jimrtex on January 11, 2011, 09:19:14 am
And in that regard, it matters whether it ends up in federal or state court (and other than VRA challenges, I am confused in my mind, as a matter of legal procedure, just how and why these redistricting cases end up in federal court as opposed to state court, or visa versa. Does anyone know? Muon2 or Sam Spade)?
In Texas in 2001, it ended up in both federal and state court, and they actually held joint hearings.

As soon as the reapportionment was announced in 2000, the Democrats filed suit in federal court alleging that not only didn't Texas have 32 congressional districts, each of the existing 30 districts averaged 32/30 of the ideal population, and the legislature was unlikely to draw a legal plan since they hadn't for 4 decades in a row.  The court told them to cool their jets, but the case did ultimately end up in that district (Eastern).  The 1990s case was in the Southern district, and the Democrats did not like that decision.

The legislature met in 2001, and failed to draw congressional or legislative districts.  In Texas, if the legislature fails to redistrict itself, the Legislative Redistricting Board does so.  The LRB is comprised of various state officials (AG, Comptroller, Land Commissioner, Lt.Governor, and House Speaker).  In 2001 this meant 4 Republicans and 1 Democrat, Pete Laney the House Speaker).  The LRB then drew its legislative plans, submitted them to the DOJ for VRA preclearance, and then made some minor adjustments - see Bexar County house districts which look like a bunch of bananas.  The federal did court did end up with jurisdiction for the legislative districts but mainly just grumbled.

During the summer it became clear that the legislature was not going to be called into session, so a state district court in Travis County devised a plan, which was the most reasonable congressional plan drawn during the decade.  If that plan had stood, the federal court would likely just have reviewed it and let it stand.  But the judge said that he was going to make a few tweaks to address concerns of Speaker Laney.  Laney may have been smarting from the LRB hearings in the summer, or perhaps the Democratic party had told him that Texas had never had a fair plan, and now wasn't the time to start.  But when the state district judge announced his "minor tweaks" they turned out to be quite extensive.  The Texas Supreme Court overturned the district court decision (on due process grounds, after having hearings with all the interested parties, he had gone and negotiated a deal with one of them).

Del Rio v Perry (http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2001/oct/101901.htm)

The Texas Supreme Court then remanded the case to the district court, which didn't act, and at this point the federal court took over.  It ruled that the state district court had not produced a legal plan, and that there were no 32-district plans.  But it did use the 1996 30-district plan as reflecting past policy choices of the State.

2000s Redistricting (http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/redist/history_2000.html)

Federal versus state court matters, because if there is no map, the federal judges follow I think the least change rule, and try to make as few changes from the existing map for the prior decennial, as possible. State court judges however, for some reason follow no such rule, and just do their own thing. So whether a Kentucky map is drawn by a federal or state judge may matter, potentially a lot, although probably not in Kentucky's case. The existing map is pretty logical.
The federal court is expected to defer to the state courts.  I think the presumption is that the state courts are part of the process that the State has set out to take care of omissions by a state agency, whether this is implicit, as in Texas, or explicit as is the case in California.

The interest of the federal court is that the State not conduct an unconstitutional election.

See Growe v Emison.

In Texas, one of the issues was whether the AG represented the state, and could have his plan be the basis for the federal court, or whether the AG represented the legislature, which had not produced a plan.  Some of the dissents wanted to have the reasonable state court plan become the base plan for the federal court.

The federal court does not have authority to make policy decisions for a state.  They can only do enough to make an existing plan constitutional for the next election (2012).  Kentucky does have six congressional districts, that are all within about 10% of ideal population.

In Texas, there was never a valid 32-district plan, so the federal court drew a new plan, but did base it on the old 30-district plan as reflecting past policy choices, albeit of the 90s-era legislature.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on January 11, 2011, 09:53:41 am
How exactly does he push through a "hack plan" (which a 4-2 map certainly is not) with a Republican Senate?
He calls a special session in the summer and presents his hack plan to the public, saying that he wants to help Obama out by giving Chandler a more favorable district.  And uses it as the central theme of his re-election campaign.  Chandler appears along side him, and says, we just barely hung on in 2010.  I need to get some of the Republicans out of my district.  Obama flies down and uses his condescending lecturing tone to tell the voters that now is not the time to cling to their religion and congressional districts.  You're right, it won't happen.

You have a rich fantasy life.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Torie on January 11, 2011, 11:00:32 am
Thanks Jimrtex for that most extensive tour de horizon of the legal scuffles. The do it different in Texas don't they - on just about everything it seems. :)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: jimrtex on January 11, 2011, 01:41:57 pm
The GOP don't appear to have much of a good chance at taking out Beshear, so if I were a Republican Senate leader I'd agree to accept a favorable Senate map in exchange for strengthening Chandler.
The GOP doesn't have to do anything to get a favorable senate map.  Take a look at the existing house and senate maps.  In the case of the house look at the Louisville area.

The senate districts are of a large enough scale that they can be maintained by simply shifting people around.  So you have districts that kind of look like they are rural with 3 or 4 counties, but they will have one suburban county, which over time will become the dominant county.  So you end up with the suburban Republican vote well distributed over a bunch of districts, with sufficient clout that they can make the districts Republican.

The house districts are of a much smaller scale, so if you try to maintain incumbents you have to really have to have elongated districts.

So it will be the House Democrats who will be desperate for a legislative deal.  A court isn't going to radically redraw the congressional or senate map, there is a chance that it will happen for the House.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Bandit3 the Worker on January 15, 2011, 06:43:06 pm
Who drew the last map?  If it wasn't a GOP gerrymander then I think one can easily argue for a map that doesn't change much. 

It was a GOP gerrymander.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: nclib on January 15, 2011, 08:55:27 pm
I don't think KY 2000 was a GOP gerrymander or even an incumbent gerrymander. According to polidata.org these are the changes in the Gore/Bush numbers.

KY-1: 1% more GOP
KY-2: 1.4% more Dem
KY-3: 2.5% more GOP
KY-4: no change
KY-5: 0.6% more Dem
KY-6: 0.1% more Dem

Looks like there were very small changes, only to maintain population equality. KY-3 may have needed to expand, moreso than protecting Northup.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 15, 2011, 11:02:10 pm
They ought to draw a Western district, an Eastern district a Southern district, a Louisville district and then districts based around the Cincinnati suburbs and Lexington&etc respective made up from whatever else is left. Not in the interests of either party to draw that map, so it won't happen. Alas.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on January 15, 2011, 11:03:11 pm
They ought to draw a Western district, an Eastern district a Southern district, a Louisville district and then districts based around the Cincinnati suburbs and Lexington&etc respective made up from whatever else is left. Not in the interests of either party to draw that map, so it won't happen. Alas.

Isn't that basically the current map?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 15, 2011, 11:07:35 pm
They ought to draw a Western district, an Eastern district a Southern district, a Louisville district and then districts based around the Cincinnati suburbs and Lexington&etc respective made up from whatever else is left. Not in the interests of either party to draw that map, so it won't happen. Alas.

Isn't that basically the current map?

Oh no, not at all. Have a closer look:

(http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/img.php?year=2008&st=KY&type=map_cd&off=0&elect=0)

It's not a gerrymander, but it's completely illogical.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on January 15, 2011, 11:09:09 pm
Ah, I never noticed that weird appendage in the first.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: jimrtex on January 16, 2011, 12:25:51 am
Ah, I never noticed that weird appendage in the first.
It wraps around Bowling Green.  There are probably more people in Bowling Green than in the area to its east.  KY-1 also just barely comes up to Owensboro.  I suspect you might have ended up splitting either city.  Since KY-1 needs some more population, it might make sense to take Owensboro this time, and switch the area east of Bowling Green to KY-2.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 16, 2011, 10:19:40 am
Yeah, the logical thing to do would be to draw a district based on Bowling Green to an extent.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Miles on April 23, 2011, 12:08:11 pm
BUMP

Here's what I came up with yesterday.

Given the split redistricting control, I made very minor changes.

Basically, KY-02 trades out parts of 2 Paul counties (Scott and Lincoln) for 2 Conway counties (Bath and Montgomery).

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RedvkKj2NZ4/TbMHOsZ08sI/AAAAAAAACZM/AUSIXDJtd3g/s1600/kyredst.png)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on April 23, 2011, 12:14:56 pm
I don't think KY 2000 was a GOP gerrymander or even an incumbent gerrymander.
It preserved the 1990 map, which I'm not sure who drew it and how it was intended, but which certainly functioned as a GOP gerrymander from 94 on (until Chandler captured the sixth and dug in. Counting the continued presence of a Blue Dog in the 4th as an accident.) It splits the Dems' coal country strongholds.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Torie on April 24, 2011, 12:25:59 pm
Quote
It splits the Dems' [former] coal country strongholds.

Once upon a time, the coal mountain counties (Dem) dominated those mountain counties without (GOP). Those days are just so yesterday.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on April 24, 2011, 12:28:12 pm
It's not just that. The southern end of coal country has swung really, really, heavily to the GOP over the last decade. Like, really heavily. Like they've rediscovered their submerged GOP roots after 70 years.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: nclib on April 24, 2011, 01:42:26 pm
It's not just that. The southern end of coal country has swung really, really, heavily to the GOP over the last decade. Like, really heavily. Like they've rediscovered their submerged GOP roots after 70 years.

Have they swung nearly as strong in House/Senate races?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on April 24, 2011, 06:17:23 pm
(http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/img.php?type=map&year=2010&fips=21&st=KY&off=3&elect=0&class=3)

There's still enough Dem-friendly territory to constitute a non-Louisville district. The question is whether Chandler would *want* a safer district, given his conservadem tendencies.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Miles on April 24, 2011, 09:27:32 pm
I don't think Chandler would have to worry much about a challenge from the left. From what I can tell, most KY Democrats are still more conservative than the national party.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Miles on April 24, 2011, 09:40:37 pm
This is probably the safest Democratic district that could be drawn (outside of Louisville).

Actually, neither Hal Rogers nor Geoff Davis would live in that district. If the Legislature draws an incumbent-protection plan, we could see a district that looks like this for Chandler.

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rEm6UcRpjos/TbTeuFga5jI/AAAAAAAACZU/HgDW9x2x6hc/s1600/chandlersafe.png)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: dpmapper on April 24, 2011, 10:17:35 pm
Why would the GOP agree to help Chandler?  None of their Reps. are in any danger.  If I were them I'd just argue for status quo and/or compactness. 


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Miles on April 24, 2011, 10:38:54 pm
I was just putting that out there. I'm expecting a pretty status quo map.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on July 11, 2011, 01:44:21 pm
(http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/205_11_07_11_1_41_55.jpg)

*whistles innocently*


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Torie on July 11, 2011, 02:14:56 pm
Nice Dem Gerry there.  :)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on July 12, 2011, 03:19:47 am
Nice Dem Gerry there.  :)
Yep - the Green district was drawn as a max R pack based on the 1996 results map.

(http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/img.php?type=map&year=1996&fips=21&st=KY&off=0&elect=0)

Though *something somewhat like this map* is actually also what makes the most CoI sense... I'll need to find some better solution for the red district and especially for Fort Knox / Elizabethtown. There's a few too many people west of Frankfort (which I feel belongs with Lexington) and the Cinci burbs and a few too few to the east...


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Miles on October 26, 2011, 05:23:32 pm
Its sounds like the Legislature may actually pass an incumbent-protection map. (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_47/Kentucky-Democrat-May-Have-Advantage-in-Rematch-209729-1.html?pos=htmbtxt)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: JoeyJoeJoe on October 26, 2011, 08:11:16 pm
Last time, Republicans were trying to get Oldham County moved into the 3rd to help Anne Northup.  After Ken Lucas won relatively big in 1998, it was assumed  that he was pretty safe.  Only after Don Bell ran closer than expected in 2000 did Republicans think that they could get the 4th back.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on November 15, 2011, 06:41:59 pm
Kentucky House Dems have proposed a map:

(http://i670.photobucket.com/albums/vv66/Cameraman21/1001.jpg)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 15, 2011, 09:39:05 pm
lol


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Miles on November 15, 2011, 09:58:41 pm
...I don't get it.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 15, 2011, 10:00:51 pm
...I don't get it.

At a quick glance, it makes Chandler ever-so-slightly safer. It also makes the Whitfield and Rogers districts somewhat easier to target in the event of retirement and/or death.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Miles on November 15, 2011, 10:27:02 pm
...I don't get it.

At a quick glance, it makes Chandler ever-so-slightly safer. It also makes the Whitfield and Rogers districts somewhat easier to target in the event of retirement and/or death.

I guess I was expecting them to give Chandler more coal/eastern counties


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Torie on November 16, 2011, 12:34:01 am
Since almost nothing really needs to be changed, it would be interesting to ask the Dems why they got a bit more ambitious, since it won't happen unless the GOP agrees.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Bacon! 🔥 on November 16, 2011, 03:02:35 am
Since almost nothing really needs to be changed, it would be interesting to ask the Dems why they got a bit more ambitious, since it won't happen unless the GOP agrees.

Preemptive posturing, so they don't have to make any real concessions in the compromise map?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: muon2 on November 16, 2011, 08:22:38 am
This would be my neutral plan. No county is divided except Jefferson and the maximum deviation is 928 persons. Districts are compact and incumbents remain in their current districts.

(http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/256_16_11_11_8_19_51.jpg)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Torie on November 17, 2011, 12:05:06 pm
Muon2, you chopped KY-06 to pieces, but your switch out of Dem Franklin County for that grab bag of Dem counties in the east left the partisan balance about the same - 54% McCain of the two party vote as compared to the 55% it is now. I would assume however, that they will just end up with the existing map, which requires only very minor changes. Why would they do otherwise?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: muon2 on November 17, 2011, 01:38:27 pm
Muon2, you chopped KY-06 to pieces, but your switch out of Dem Franklin County for that grab bag of Dem counties in the east left the partisan balance about the same - 54% McCain of the two party vote as compared to the 55% it is now. I would assume however, that they will just end up with the existing map, which requires only very minor changes. Why would they do otherwise?

My KY-6 may seem chopped up, but it preserves 62% of the population in the district. I also would justify the rest of that district based on using the I-64 corridor east of Lexington.

My goal was compactness and whole counties with a small enough deviation that it could be justified based on the stated goals. Of course, I too expect that reality would indeed keep the map similar to the present version. This is merely what I would do. :)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Torie on November 17, 2011, 05:07:49 pm
It would appear that the Dems should be pleased that KY has 6 CD's, rather than 5. At 5, the geography vis a vis the population centers and regions (blue grass, mountains, burbs and two cities), seem to tend to screw them.  

(http://i1099.photobucket.com/albums/g392/swdunn1/Screenshot2011-11-17at20227PM.png)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on November 17, 2011, 06:10:35 pm
It would appear that the Dems should be pleased that KY has 6 CD's, rather than 5. At 5, the geography vis a vis the population centers and regions (blue grass, mountains, burbs and two cities, seem to tend to screw them.  

(http://i1099.photobucket.com/albums/g392/swdunn1/Screenshot2011-11-17at20227PM.png)

As a Democrat, I wouldn't just sit and watch as my party gets screwed out of both of its districts. The loss of the Louisville seat would be inevitable, but I'd fight tooth and nail to make sure the Lexington district goes east, not west.

Something like this:

(http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/1877/5districtkentucky.png)

Now, to be sure, that wouldn't put the Democrats in an ideal position, but it's certainly better than your iteration.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Torie on November 17, 2011, 11:06:15 pm
Your map is more erose and uglier than mine, Vazdul. A clear gerrymander! :P  I tried to just go with the flow, and see where it ended up. It is interesting that a state losing one seat, causes, if things go "naturally," one party losing two seats. Who knew?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Miles on November 18, 2011, 12:26:21 am
I could maybe see Grimes winning Torie's green district. Kinda depends; she'd have to hold strong in Lexington and not get blown out elsewhere.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on January 20, 2012, 06:43:50 am
Dems pass their map. (http://www.wfpl.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Redistricting-Maps.pdf)

Reps pass theirs. (http://bluegrasspolitics.bloginky.com/2012/01/18/house-and-senate-prepare-to-fight-over-kentuckys-congressional-map/)

Now they negotiate. Filing begins January 31st unless they change the law because they haven't passed a map yet.

As you can see, Reps agree to remove the silly little splinters into Louisville in favor of a reasonable split, helping Yarmuth. Both parties are mildly ambitious regarding the 6th. The Dem map also tries to make the 5th marginally interesting should Rogers retire (he's 74) - and only-just-about keeps his home in the district. And attempts to remove the inherited sillyness in Western Kentucky, apparently with little partisan motif.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Padfoot on January 21, 2012, 12:47:14 am
I don't understand what the deal is with the border between the 1st and 2nd in the GOP map/current map.  What's the reason for the 1st hooking underneath the 2nd.  Is it to keep incumbents in their districts or something.  I actually like the GOP map better except for that part.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on January 21, 2012, 05:40:36 am
I don't understand what the deal is with the border between the 1st and 2nd in the GOP map/current map.  What's the reason for the 1st hooking underneath the 2nd.  Is it to keep incumbents in their districts or something.  I actually like the GOP map better except for that part.
It's because that's what it's been since... uh... it gets worse with every census as the state's growth areas are elsewhere, but Owensboro has always (whatever time frame "always" is, here) been in the 2nd district and not in a district that !!!1!!!stretched to the Mississippi!!!1!!!omg!


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on January 21, 2012, 05:41:32 am
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/2b8b32eee01b4f26a5c4525c93c70a33/KY-XGR--Political-Redistricting/


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Kevinstat on January 28, 2012, 08:04:18 pm
I don't understand what the deal is with the border between the 1st and 2nd in the GOP map/current map.  What's the reason for the 1st hooking underneath the 2nd.  Is it to keep incumbents in their districts or something.  I actually like the GOP map better except for that part.

I believe that was done in 1991 when Kentucky lost it's seventh U.S. House seat.  The Democrats, whom I assume were in complete control back then, were probably thinking that the fouth district would be somewhat of a Republican vote sink (paradoxically it was the only Dem seat in the state at the end of the life of those lines), the fifth would be a tossup but fairly safe for a pork-spending incumbent after 1992, the first and second would continue to elect conservative Democrats (Tom Barlow messed that up by winning the 1992 KY-01 primary), the third district would remain a Democratic stronghold, and the R-held sixth district would likely be won back (that actually worked in the short term, and is working again now).  Obviously things didn't work out according to plan.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Miles on February 10, 2012, 04:22:20 pm
Here we have it. This is going to Beshear's desk.

(http://images.dailykos.com/i/user/73/Kentucky_new_congressional_map__large_.jpg)

Chandler would have won by between 6000 and 7000 votes in 2010.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on February 10, 2012, 04:33:30 pm
This is actually a pretty nice-looking map, relative to extremes of redistricting in this country.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on February 10, 2012, 06:46:01 pm
KY-01 is looking more and more like a snail with each passing redistricting.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Saturday's Cab Ride Home on February 11, 2012, 01:55:26 am
This is actually a pretty nice-looking map, relative to extremes of redistricting in this country.

District 1 is getting more and more ridiculous though especially since Davies County and Owensboro probably has more in common with the counties to its immediate west than what it's being paired with now.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on February 11, 2012, 08:39:35 am
http://www.kentucky.com/2012/02/10/2063378/senate-panel-approves-compromise.html#storylink=rss

Nice article.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on February 11, 2012, 08:49:27 am
The final district for Chandler is further east than what Dems originally proposed, and I think more Democratic as well. So I think it's safe to say that the changes to the first and fifth were intended and used largely as bargaining chips. And used well.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Miles on February 13, 2012, 04:23:48 pm
Some partisan numbers.

Overall, KY-06 shifts about 1.5% more Democratic.

Old:
McCain- 56.2%
McConnell- 49.3%

New:
McCain- 54.7%
McConnell- 48.3%


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Frodo on April 27, 2012, 10:41:48 pm
The Kentucky Supreme Court has struck down the legislative redistricting maps. (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120207/NEWS01/302070063/Kentucky-judge-strikes-down-legislative-remap-plan?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Home|s)

And here (http://media.kentucky.com/smedia/2012/04/26/11/19/fTTU3.So.79.pdf) is the ruling itself, for those curious enough to read it.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: muon2 on April 28, 2012, 08:04:21 am
The Kentucky Supreme Court has struck down the legislative redistricting maps. (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120426/NEWS0101/304260057/Kentucky-Supreme-Court-reiterates-redistricting-decision?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CLocal%20News)

And here (http://media.kentucky.com/smedia/2012/04/26/11/19/fTTU3.So.79.pdf) is the ruling itself, for those curious enough to read it.

If only they'd have used my methodology I've espoused on the CA wine country thread, they could have maximized subregions and guaranteed minimal splits while staying within the 5% limit. :)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Frodo on October 27, 2012, 09:25:32 pm
Let's suppose Republicans win complete control of the Kentucky legislature (and there's a good chance of this actually happening), in time for a do-over of redistricting of the legislature in accordance with the wishes of the state Supreme Court.

What would the maps look like for both houses?  


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Bandit3 the Worker on October 27, 2012, 09:30:09 pm
Let's suppose Republicans win complete control of the Kentucky legislature (and there's a good chance of this actually happening), in time for a do-over of redistricting of the legislature in accordance with the wishes of the state Supreme Court.

What would the maps look like for both houses?  

(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2150/2484774824_109f770cfb_z.jpg?zz=1)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Torie on April 16, 2013, 11:59:03 am
I got the mapping bug again this morning. My bad! Sorry.

KY won't be dropping down to five CD's in 2020 it seems, but if it did, I drew a couple of maps, with what I think are the two basic options - if done in a non partisan way.  I wonder which way the map makers would go. Combine Lexington with the Cincinnati burbs to reduce erosity, or keep Lexington in its own CD? Keeping Franklin County (Frankfort) with Lexington does not seem to be in the cards either way, in anything that would look non partisan (unless one were trying to draw swing CD's at the cost of erosity). Sorry Dems!

The Louisville CD has a GOP PVI based on 2008 numbers of about 0.7% - a true swing CD.  Granted by 2022 (actually more like 2032), it might not be. That is a loooong time away. :)

(http://i1099.photobucket.com/albums/g392/swdunn1/Screenshot2013-04-16at93154AM_zpsa4634f9e.png)[/URL]
(http://i1099.photobucket.com/albums/g392/swdunn1/Screenshot2013-04-16at92817AM_zpsac915659.png)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Mr.Phips on April 16, 2013, 05:16:03 pm
I got the mapping bug again this morning. My bad! Sorry.

KY won't be dropping down to five CD's in 2020 it seems, but if it did, I drew a couple of maps, with what I think are the two basic options - if done in a non partisan way.  I wonder which way the map makers would go. Combine Lexington with the Cincinnati burbs to reduce erosity, or keep Lexington in its own CD? Keeping Franklin County (Frankfurt) with Lexington does not seem to be in the cards either way, in anything that would look non partisan (unless one were trying to draw swing CD's at the cost of erosity). Sorry Dems!

The Louisville CD has a GOP PVI based on 2008 numbers of about 0.7% - a true swing CD.  Granted by 2022 (actually more like 2032), it might not be. That is a loooong time away. :)

(http://i1099.photobucket.com/albums/g392/swdunn1/Screenshot2013-04-16at93154AM_zpsa4634f9e.png)[/URL]
(http://i1099.photobucket.com/albums/g392/swdunn1/Screenshot2013-04-16at92817AM_zpsac915659.png)

An R+1 seat in Kentucky means pretty safe dem.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Torie on April 16, 2013, 08:32:19 pm
Perhaps, although Northrup held on for a long time. Be that as it may, out of curiosity, because it was so easy to calculate, based on the 2012 numbers, the PVI was - you guessed it - 0.0% on the button. Well it was 0.1% Pub, but given that one must excise about 5 or so hyper Pub precincts from either Oldham or Bullitt counties, I figure it's at absolute zero. So it does seem that in 10 or 20 years, it would indeed take a talented Pub to win it.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Mr.Phips on April 16, 2013, 08:38:48 pm
Perhaps, although Northrup held on for a long time. Be that as it may, out of curiosity, because it was so easy to calculate, based on the 2012 numbers, the PVI was - you guessed it - 0.0% on the button. Well it was 0.1% Pub, but given that one must excise about 5 or so hyper Pub precincts from either Oldham or Bullitt counties, I figure it's at absolute zero. So it does seem that in 10 or 20 years, it would indeed take a talented Pub to win it.

Northup was kind of a fluke.  She won in 1996 and was lucky to not have a really bad GOP year until she finally lost in 2006.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: muon2 on April 17, 2013, 09:12:01 am
Even with 6 CDs in 2020 there should be some shifts due to population loss or minimal change in much of the state. The growth is in the metro areas of the north and a pocket at Bowling Green. That should pull the large rural districts more to the north.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Bandit3 the Worker on April 17, 2013, 10:24:04 am
The GOP areas are essentially dying, with the exception of Boone County. The growth is in Louisville, Lexington, and Bowling Green.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on April 17, 2013, 12:02:56 pm
Perhaps, although Northrup held on for a long time. Be that as it may, out of curiosity, because it was so easy to calculate, based on the 2012 numbers, the PVI was - you guessed it - 0.0% on the button. Well it was 0.1% Pub, but given that one must excise about 5 or so hyper Pub precincts from either Oldham or Bullitt counties, I figure it's at absolute zero. So it does seem that in 10 or 20 years, it would indeed take a talented Pub to win it.

Northup was kind of a fluke.  She won in 1996 and was lucky to not have a really bad GOP year until she finally lost in 2006.
Northup also had a personal machine in the Black parts of Louisville.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Mr.Phips on April 21, 2013, 07:19:42 pm
Perhaps, although Northrup held on for a long time. Be that as it may, out of curiosity, because it was so easy to calculate, based on the 2012 numbers, the PVI was - you guessed it - 0.0% on the button. Well it was 0.1% Pub, but given that one must excise about 5 or so hyper Pub precincts from either Oldham or Bullitt counties, I figure it's at absolute zero. So it does seem that in 10 or 20 years, it would indeed take a talented Pub to win it.

Northup was kind of a fluke.  She won in 1996 and was lucky to not have a really bad GOP year until she finally lost in 2006.
Northup also had a personal machine in the Black parts of Louisville.

She certainly did.  This is what almost certainly made the difference in her narrow 2002 victory against Jack Conway. 


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: JerryArkansas on April 23, 2013, 03:44:36 pm
Here is KY with whole counties
(http://www.pictureshack.us/images/27700_Ky_full_state_no_county_splits.jpg)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: muon2 on April 24, 2013, 06:06:27 pm
Here is KY with whole counties
(http://www.pictureshack.us/images/27700_Ky_full_state_no_county_splits.jpg)

That seems kind of yucky. Why the strips splitting the Cinci suburbs?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Frodo on June 09, 2013, 12:38:33 am
This is from a couple of weeks ago, but thanks to a lawsuit filed by Northern Kentucky residents, legislators (even House Republicans) are finally moving to finish up redistricting:

Lawsuit Gets Lawmakers Moving on Redistricting (http://cincinnati.com/blogs/nkypolitics/2013/05/24/lawsuit-gets-lawmakers-moving-on-redistricting/)

05/24/13 at 1:04pm by Scott Wartman

As state leaders begin to respond to the federal lawsuit filed by 12 Northern Kentucky residents over redistricting, lawmakers remain optimistic they can reach a solution before November.

Federal Judge William Bertelsman has sent to the chief district judge the request for three-judge panel that could draw the political boundaries if lawmakers cannot.

All states must do redistricting every 10 years so political boundaries match population shifts reflected in the U.S. Census, and Kentucky is one of only two states–the other being Maine–that doesn’t have an approved map for its state legislative districts.

Calls for the General Assembly to complete redistricting have increased since April 26 when Northern Kentucky residents filed suit against most of state leadership to finish redistricting.

They want redistricting done before November so potential candidates for the 2014 election can meet the one-year residency requirements to live in a district. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a similar suit a few weeks later.

At stake for Northern Kentucky is additional representation in the General Assembly for Boone County, which gained population in the past 10 years by 38 percent.





Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Bandit3 the Worker on June 09, 2013, 09:54:30 am
There's 2 lawsuits - one by the Tea Party and the other by the ACLU. The ACLU seeks to have a panel of judges do the redistricting, but the Tea Party seeks to have the Tea Party do the redistricting. Because it's the Tea Party's birthright, don't ya know.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: jimrtex on June 09, 2013, 05:14:44 pm
There's 2 lawsuits - one by the Tea Party and the other by the ACLU. The ACLU seeks to have a panel of judges do the redistricting, but the Tea Party seeks to have the Tea Party do the redistricting. Because it's the Tea Party's birthright, don't ya know.
The two lawsuits are going to get combined, unless the ACLU suit is dismissed entirely.

You clearly have not read the original lawsuit. 

And if you think a federal court is going to unilaterally draw legislative districts, you are in LaLaLand.

Quote from: Greg Stumbo Speaker of the House of Representatives
There is nothing in the pending complaints that supports the federal court seizing control of the process and depriving the citizens of their right to act through the lawfully elected representatives.  This Court must recognize the right of the state to act through its elected representatives.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Bandit3 the Worker on June 09, 2013, 05:20:13 pm
And if you think a federal court is going to unilaterally draw legislative districts, you are in LaLaLand.

The panel of judges has already been selected.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: jimrtex on June 09, 2013, 08:15:30 pm
And if you think a federal court is going to unilaterally draw legislative districts, you are in LaLaLand.

The panel of judges has already been selected.
The panel of judges is the same as has been selected to hear the real case, the one which have apparently not read the filings for.

There is a scheduling conference for both cases on the 20th in the same courtroom in Lexington at 1 pm, with the same judges.  The cases will be merged, or the ACLU case will be dismissed.

Repeat: If you think a federal court is going to unilaterally draw legislative districts, you are in LaLaLand


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Bandit3 the Worker on June 09, 2013, 08:18:24 pm
There is a scheduling conference for both cases on the 20th in the same courtroom in Lexington at 1 pm, with the same judges.  The cases will be merged, or the ACLU case will be dismissed.

Then why wouldn't the Tea Party case be dismissed?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: jimrtex on June 09, 2013, 09:10:33 pm
There is a scheduling conference for both cases on the 20th in the same courtroom in Lexington at 1 pm, with the same judges.  The cases will be merged, or the ACLU case will be dismissed.

Then why wouldn't the Tea Party case be dismissed?

The lead plaintiff in the original case is the county clerk of Boone County.  They sued Beshear and the legislature to act.  It is only if they fail to pass a redistricting bill. that they asked that the court draw a map.  It is quite normal for a court to ask for input from the prevailing party if they are forced to craft a solution.

The case is pretty simple:

The Commonwealth is abridging the right to vote.  They gave Kentucky an opportunity to run one last election on unconstitutional boundaries, and they still haven't fixed the problem.  Kentucky is being put under a deadline to act.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Bandit3 the Worker on June 09, 2013, 09:12:32 pm
It still doesn't explain why the Tea Party's suit is more important than that of the ACLU.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: muon2 on June 09, 2013, 10:32:32 pm
It still doesn't explain why the Tea Party's suit is more important than that of the ACLU.

A suit challenging the failure of the state to comply with their constitutional duty should not be dismissed. Consolidation of the suits is reasonable, and the county clerk's suit (Tea Party as you describe it) is directly to the need of the state to act. If the court doesn't consolidate then the focus should go to the suit that is most directly on point, and that's the one from the county clerk.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Bandit3 the Worker on June 09, 2013, 10:33:51 pm
The county clerk is suing on behalf of the Tea Party.

The Tea Party tries to sue its way into office.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: jimrtex on June 10, 2013, 02:11:03 am
The county clerk is suing on behalf of the Tea Party.

The Tea Party tries to sue its way into office.

The governor now says he expects the issue will be resolved in a special session.   Before he had planned to wait until next January.

The ACLU filed two weeks after the suit in Covington, and left out the governor and the legislature.  The ACLU filed in a remote city that ordinary decent citizens rarely travel to.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Bandit3 the Worker on June 10, 2013, 10:29:30 am
The governor now says he expects the issue will be resolved in a special session.

The only people obstructing that are the Republicans who control the Kentucky Senate.

The Democratic-led Kentucky House has already approved a map. The GOP needs to get on board or get out of the way.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Frodo on August 12, 2013, 10:57:49 pm
From a few days ago:

Kentucky House Republicans offer redistricting plan ahead of special session (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20130808/NEWS01/308080032/Kentucky-House-Republicans-offer-redistricting-plan-ahead-special-session?nclick_check=1)

Written by Joseph Gerth
The Courier-Journal
Aug. 8, 2013


FRANKFORT, KY. — The state House Republican Caucus on Thursday introduced its own redistricting plan in an effort to head off a Democratic proposal they say could be punitive to the GOP.

The GOP House plan “is constitutional, is legal, and is fairer for all involved than any that we have seen recently,” said Minority Floor Leader Jeff Hoover, R-Jamestown.

Additionally, he said the plan would save the state $1.5 million because it doesn’t split as many precincts as past Democratic plans, which he said is expensive for county clerks, who administer elections.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: BigSkyBob on August 18, 2013, 12:08:49 am
Here is the Republican proposed Senate map:

(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wfpl/files/201308/Senate_map.jpg)


Apparently, there are no pairings in the map.

http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wfpl/files/201308/Senate_map.jpg


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: BigSkyBob on August 18, 2013, 12:21:18 am
The proposed Republican map can be found here:

http://media.kentucky.com/smedia/2013/08/08/17/14/iXt3C.So.79.pdf#storylink=relast


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: BigSkyBob on August 18, 2013, 12:34:29 am
The proposed Democratic House map:

(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wkms/files/201303/redistricting_map.jpg)



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Miles on August 18, 2013, 12:54:32 am
The Democratic House plan has eight pairings that affect both parties equally.

The House Republican leader seems to be warming up to it: (http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/08/16/3566384/house-leaders-to-unveil-redistricting.html)

Quote
"I'm pleased that Speaker Stumbo is, at least on its face, moving toward a fairer plan for redistricting," House GOP Floor Leader Jeff Hoover said in a statement Friday.

"While we haven't reviewed the details of his plan, which will we do before the start of the special session on Monday, at least on its face we believe this proposal is moving toward a better approach on redistricting."


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Bandit3 the Worker on August 18, 2013, 10:19:08 am
The House Republican leader seems to be warming up to it: (http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/08/16/3566384/house-leaders-to-unveil-redistricting.html)

That's because it is essentially a Republican plan.

Another day, another cave-in by the Kentucky Democratic Party.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: BigSkyBob on August 19, 2013, 12:26:38 am
The House Republican leader seems to be warming up to it: (http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/08/16/3566384/house-leaders-to-unveil-redistricting.html)

That's because it is essentially a Republican plan.

Another day, another cave-in by the Kentucky Democratic Party.

What real alternative did they have other than to lose in court?  When the courts decided not to defer to the legislature concerning the numbering of seats the GOP in the Senate lost much of the potential upside in passing an aggressive map. As a result, they have little incentive to enter into a deal with the House to rubber-stamp each others maps. Either the Democrats in the House were going to have to draw a map reasonably fair to its Republican members, or, they would have had to prepare to go to court. They could have gone to court to defend the notion that an impartial judge ought to pair a lot of Republicans and no Democrats while needlessly splitting counties in the process, but, apparently, they have decided to draw a map that conforms to allegedly "neutral" redistricting principles that is more favorable to themselves than other maps that also conform to those principles. By all means, consider that betrayal.

The Kentucky House is the last chamber in the South not to fall to the Republicans. The new map may very well be more favorable to them than the previous map. It now seems somewhat inevitable that the Kentucky House will join all their Southern peers.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Bandit3 the Worker on August 19, 2013, 12:32:42 am
It now seems somewhat inevitable that the Kentucky House will join all their Southern peers.

Only through dishonest elections. The type of thing the GOP is known for.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Frodo on August 21, 2013, 07:52:50 pm
The Kentucky House has passed the modified redistricting bill (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20130821/NEWS01/308210108/Kentucky-House-passes-redistricting-bill), and it is now on its way to the Senate for a vote on Friday.

How badly will Republicans be affected in the House?  It is currently split 55D:45R.   


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Bandit3 the Worker on August 21, 2013, 07:59:04 pm
How badly will Republicans be affected in the House?

Not that badly, but they're complaining about it anyway.

The map helps Joe Fischer by expanding his district to the southern edge of the county. He has to go.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Frodo on August 24, 2013, 04:21:51 pm
With Governor Steve Beshear's signature (http://www.kentucky.com/2013/08/23/2782342/senate-approves-legislative-redistricting.html), the redistricting plan is now law.  


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Torie on November 15, 2015, 12:49:50 pm
Given that the Pubs are quite likely to control the trifecta in KY in for the 2022 map, might they be tempted to go for a map like the one below? It uses the 2010 census numbers, but the necessary adjustments would not be too major, so this concept would likely still be in play.

(http://i1099.photobucket.com/albums/g392/swdunn1/Screen%20Shot%202015-11-15%20at%2012.39.19%20PM_zpsez3nzghf.png)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Bandit3 the Worker on November 15, 2015, 12:53:01 pm
Given that the Pubs are quite likely to control the trifecta in KY in for the 2022 map, might they be tempted to go for a map like the one below?

There'd be some constitutional issues that are pretty specific to Kentucky and rulings by the Kentucky Supreme Court.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Torie on November 15, 2015, 01:16:23 pm
Given that the Pubs are quite likely to control the trifecta in KY in for the 2022 map, might they be tempted to go for a map like the one below?

There'd be some constitutional issues that are pretty specific to Kentucky and rulings by the Kentucky Supreme Court.

What might those be?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Bandit3 the Worker on November 15, 2015, 01:22:34 pm
Given that the Pubs are quite likely to control the trifecta in KY in for the 2022 map, might they be tempted to go for a map like the one below?

There'd be some constitutional issues that are pretty specific to Kentucky and rulings by the Kentucky Supreme Court.

What might those be?

During the last redistricting, they said there were some guidelines that had to be followed. One of them was racial disparity. Blacks in Kentucky are more concentrated in Louisville, with very few in rural counties.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Torie on November 15, 2015, 01:25:27 pm
Given that the Pubs are quite likely to control the trifecta in KY in for the 2022 map, might they be tempted to go for a map like the one below?

There'd be some constitutional issues that are pretty specific to Kentucky and rulings by the Kentucky Supreme Court.

What might those be?

During the last redistricting, they said there were some guidelines that had to be followed. One of them was racial disparity. Blacks in Kentucky are more concentrated in Louisville, with very few in rural counties.

I would be most appreciative of a link discussing the above (I have trouble envisioning just what law the Court was referencing), but in any case, I was careful to keep the black community in Jeffco mostly in one district. In fact, I did the split in Jeffco first to accomplish that, and went from there.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Sol on November 15, 2015, 02:11:03 pm
Torie, how does your Blue district vote?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Kentucky
Post by: Torie on November 15, 2015, 02:28:23 pm
Torie, how does your Blue district vote?

The map above has a Pub PVI circa 2008 of about 5% Pub. The map below, which more faithfully does one's best to keep the black community together in Jeffco, without being unduly erose, has a Pub PVI of about 3.5%, with in this zero sum game, the magenta CD moving up the same amount to about 9.5% Pub PVI.  The next most "Dem" is the red CD which clocks in at about 12.5% Pub.

(http://i1099.photobucket.com/albums/g392/swdunn1/Screen%20Shot%202015-11-15%20at%202.22.00%20PM_zpsfokfnwcn.png)

And here's a psephological oddity. Is there some "edgy" art school there or something? Ah, and here's the answer (http://www.archlou.org/parishes/holy-cross-marion-co/). Does anybody here know more about the place? TJ?

(http://i1099.photobucket.com/albums/g392/swdunn1/Screen%20Shot%202015-11-15%20at%202.41.41%20PM_zpssegyvg8l.png)