Official US 2010 Census Results

[cinyc]

Yeah, it might have been something irregular though. Or just something about the time people's contracts expired and where they were from exactly.
Or perhaps more likely just a minor change to residency rules (I think there was one... anyways there was a new more detailed leaflet on what constitutes residency) that affected these places.

Perhaps workers are longer working 2-weeks on, 2-weeks off with vacation, but something that makes them be in Prudhoe for 183 days or more.  

The big winner from all this will be HD-40.  It's just 1.35% short of the 2010 ideal HD population and, unlike most Bush areas, won't need to pick up much new territory.  

Southeast Alaska got absolutely hammered, at least relative to the rest of the state and
perhaps even in absolute terms.  HDs 1-5 now only have the population for about 4.2 districts.  If you exclude Yakutat, the whole panhandle pretty much neatly fits in 4 districts.  Mat-Su is entitled to 5 seats and  Anchorage about 16.5.

I might make some Alaska maps tomorrow if I have time.

[cinyc]

Florida, Georgia and Kentucky were released today.

Florida
All but two of Florida's counties grew in the past decade: Pinellas (St. Petersburg/Clearwater; -0.5%), which lost almost 5,000 residents, and Monroe, a.k.a. the Florida Keys, which lost 8.2% of its population.   Growth elsewhere was generally pretty solid, with a few exceptions.  The fastest-growing counties were Flagler (Palm Coast) in North Florida, nestled between Daytona Beach and Jacksonville and Sumter in the central part of the state, northwest of Orlando and northeast of Tampa.  Sumter County is home to the Villages, Florida's friendliest hometown for active snowbird retirees.  Both counties are not in the top 20.  Without downloading more data, all I can say is that they grew from 60-92%.
16.

Among the top 20 counties, the big three Miami metro counties, Miami-Dade (+10.8%), Broward (+7.7%) and Palm Beach (+16.7%) lagged the state as a whole (+17.6%).  Growth in the Tampa Bay-area counties was mixed.  Hillsborough (Tampa; 23.1%) grew faster than the state, while Pinellas (-0.5%), on the far side of Tampa Bay shrunk and the far-flung northern exurbs in Pasco County (+34.8%) grew faster than most.  On the south side of the bay, Bradenton's county, Manatee (+22.3%) outpaced the state while Sarasota County (+16.4%) slightly lagged. And the Orlando area clearly shined: Orange County (Orlando) blossomed by 27.8%, while its Lake County (+41.1%) suburbs and exurbs grew even more rapidly.   Polk County (+24.4%), along the I-4 corridor in between Tampa and Orlando, also experienced healthy growth.  But Orlando's northeastern suburbs and exurbs in Seminole County (+15.8%) grew slightly more slowly than the rest of the state.   Osceola County,(Kissimmee), which includes part of the Disney World complex, also experienced very rapid growth (30 to 59.9%), but still isn't among Florida's top 20 counties.  In the Jacksonville area, Duval County (Jacksonville; 11.1) grew more slowly than the state, which might be offset by very rapid growth (30 to 59.9%) in suburban/exurban areas immediately to the south of Duval in, Clay and St. Johns (St. Augustine) counties.  Both counties are too small to be in the top 20.

Outside of the major metros, mid-Atlantic coast St. Lucie County (Fort Pierce/Port St. Lucie; 44.2%) was the fastest-growing county of the top 20.   The Daytona Beach area/Voluisa County (+11.6%) and Space Coast/Brevard County (+14.1%) lagged the state, while the Ocala Area/Marion County (+28.0%) grew faster than it.  And Southwest Florida's main counties, Lee (Fort Myers; +40.3%) and Collier (Naples; +27.9%) boomed despite the housing bust.   Pensacola-area growth was extremely weak, with Escambia County (+1.1%) barely growing.   Other panhandle counties, especially Walton and Wakulla, may have fared better - but they are too small to be in the top 20.

Hillsborough and Orange Counties are now home to over 1,000,000 residents.  Orange County gained the most new residents - almost 250,000, closely followed by Miami-Dade and Hillsborough.

On the municipal level, the most rapid growth among the top 20 cities was in Port St. Lucie (+85.4%), adding over 75,000 new residents.  Only Jacksonville (+11.7%), Florida's largest city, added more new residents the past decade.  Other big gainers included the Broward County suburb of Miramar (+67.8%), Southwest Florida's Cape Coral (+50.9%) and the college town of Gainesville (+30.3%).   Palm Bay (+29.9%), Orlando (+28.2%), Pompano Beach, Broward County (+27.7%), West Palm Beach (+21.7%) and Tallahassee (+20.4%) all grew more rapidly than the state.  St. Petersburg (-1.4%) and Clearwater (-1.0%) in Tampa Bay's Pinnelas County and Hialeah, Miami-Dade County (-0.8%) lost population.  Tampa (+10.6%), Miami (+10.2%) and Fort Lauderdale (+8.6%) grew, but lagged the state as a whole.

Florida's non-Hispanic white population grew by just 4.1%.  Its Hispanic population increased by 57.4%.  As a result, the non-Hispanic white share of the population dropped from 65.4% to 57.9%, while Hispanics grew from 16.8% to 22.5%.  Florida's non-Hispanic Asian population grew even more rapidly than its Hispanic population - 70.1%, albeit from a much lower base.  Its non-Hispanic black population grew 25.9%.

Georgia
As expected, the fastest-growing Georgia counties are largely second-ring suburbs and exurbs of Atlanta far outside of the I-285 Perimeter.  Northeast-exurban Forsyth County lead the pack, growing by 78.4%.  Although Forsyth is becoming more diverse as it grows, it is still 85% white (before taking into account Hispanic status).  The county has more than double the number of Asians as African Americans, and about as Hispanics as members of both of those groups combined.  Northwest-exurban Paulding County was next, growing by 74.3%.  Paulding was closely followed by Southeast exurban Henry County (+70.9%), as the Atlanta metro sprawled further up and down the I-75 corridor.  North-exurban Cherokee County (+51.1%), West-exurban Douglas (+43.6%), and Southwest-exurban Coweta (+42.7%) also posted impressive growth rates.  But the most impressive growth occurred in Northeast-suburban Gwinnett County.  Gwinnett grew by 36.9%, picking up over 216,000 new residents - more people than live in all but the top 6 counties of the state.  It leaped past its inner-ring suburban neighbor, DeKalb County, which grew at an anemic 3.9% rate, to become the second-largest county in the state.  Unlike Forsyth, Gwinnett is racially diverse - 53% white, 24% black and 11% Asian (before taking into account Hispanic status).  20% of Gwinnett is Hispanic - higher than any other large county in the Atlanta Metro other than its immediate northeast neighboring county, Hall (+29.0%).   Carroll County, on the Alabama border the far western Atlanta exurbs, grew by 26.7%.   And even more further-flung exurban counties like Newton and Barrow grew by over 50%, but are still too small to crack the top 20.  And counties neighboring the currently fastest-growing counties also grew rapidly.

The core counties of the Atlanta metro - Fulton (Atlanta; +12.8%), DeKalb, Cobb (Marietta; +13.2%) and Clayton (+9.6%) by the Atlanta Airport all grew more slowly than the state as a whole (+18.3%).

Outside of the Atlanta Metro, Augusta-suburban Columbia (+38.9%) and Houston County (+26.3%), south of Macon, home to Warner-Robbins and its air force base, were the only top-20 counties that grew faster than the state.  Augusta's county, Richmond (+0.4%), Macon's county, Bibb (1.1%), and Columbus' county, Muscogee (+1.9%) were flat.  Clarke County (+15.0%), home of Athens and the University of Georgia, grew slightly more slowly than the rest of the state.  A number of Southwestern Georgia's counties lost population, while a handful of smaller counties neighboring Savannah and Brunswick's home counties grew by more than 25%.

On the municipal level, Atlanta grew by just 0.8%, but is still more than double the size of Augusta-Richmond (+0.4%), its closest, equally stagnant rival.   In fact, many of Georgia's older cities didn't grow much or even lost population.  East Point, near the Atlanta Airport, lost 14.9% of its population.  Macon lost more residents than East Point but only 6.1% of its population.  Marietta, Cobb County lost 3.7%.  Columbus (+1.9%), Savannah (+3.6%) and Rome (+3.8%) posted anemic growth.   Alpharetta (+65.1%), a rich Fulton County suburb grew fastest among the top 20, followed by Dunwoody, Gwinnett County (+41.0%), Warner Robbins (+36.1%), Gainesville, Hall County (+32.2%) and Smyrna, Cobb County (+25.1%).  Valdosta (+24.7%) in Southern Georgia also grew - though, as with Smyrna, it is unclear to me whether some of that growth was due to annexation.

Georgia's non-Hispanic white population increased by 5.6%, dropping to 55.9%.  Its Hispanic population almost doubled (+96.1%) to 8.8%, as did its non-Hispanic Asian population (+81.7%).  Non-Hispanic African American growth outpaced the state, too, growing by 24.8%.  Georgia is now 30.0% non-Hispanic black.  VAP is 28.8%.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

FL-03, Corrine Brown's gerrymandered monstrosity, is now majority-black.

[Padfoot]

Is it possible that there will be 6 majority Hispanic districts?  22.5% of 27 is just over 6 seats.  I'm thinking there will have to be 4 Hispanic districts in the Miami area but I'm not sure that Hispanics are densely populated enough outside of that area to get a 5th or 6th seat elsewhere in the state.

[Brittain33]

If you divide Florida along the southern border of districts 5, 8, and 24, that neatly divides the excess population for two districts between either half of the state.

It looks like one new district in central Florida, not far from (but not near) Orlando, and perhaps a Gulf Coast district that sends 16 and 25 back to the Atlantic Ocean or moves 13 up a little bit to the north.

Or maybe a new D district is created in Orlando and Webster still has a district nearby he can represent when they clean up the mess of the old gerrymander to put FL-24 in there. 

[cinyc]

Is it possible that there will be 6 majority Hispanic districts?  22.5% of 27 is just over 6 seats.  I'm thinking there will have to be 4 Hispanic districts in the Miami area but I'm not sure that Hispanics are densely populated enough outside of that area to get a 5th or 6th seat elsewhere in the state.

Orange plus Polk plus Hillsborough Counties in the I-4 corridor contain about as many Hispanics as would be necessary for one full 100% Hispanic district - before taking into account VAP.  I have no idea whether Central Florida's Hispanics are concentrated enough to draw a district.  Probably not - but it might be possible.

[cinyc]

Kentucky
How did we all miss the story of Louisville's phenomenal growth?  The city grew by 189.2%.... by creating a metro government with Jefferson County in the past decade.  Jefferson County itself grew by 6.8%, a little bit more slowly than Kentucky as a whole (+7.4%).   It picked up over 47,000 new residents, more than any other county in the state.

Kentucky's real more rapid growth was largely in the outer areas of the Louisville, Lexington and Cincinnati metros.  Scott County (Georgetown; 42.7%), home of Toyota's largest plant outside of Japan, grew fastest among the top 20 counties.  It is immediately north of Lexington.  Scott was followed by the county where people land when they fly into "Cincinnati", Boone County (+38.2%), which picked up the second-most new residents.    Northeast Louisville-suburban Oldham County (+30.6%) was next, followed in the three metros by Jessamine County (+24.4%), south of Lexington, and Louisville south-suburban Bullitt County (+21.4%).  In the Lexington area, both Madison County (+17.0%), southeast of Lexington and Lexington's Fayette County (+13.5%) experienced double-digit growth.  

Outside of the metros, Warren County (+23.0%), home of Bowling Green, Western Kentucky University and every Corvette ever made, Hardin County (+12.1%), home of Elizabethtown and the gold that may or may not be in Fort Knox, and Southeastern Kentucky's Pulaski (Somerset; +12.2%) and Laurel counties (London; +11.6%) also experienced double-digit growth.  The rest of Southeastern Kentucky wasn't so lucky. Many counties in Appalachian Kentucky lost population, for example, among the state's top 20, Pike (Pikeville; -5.4%) and Boyd (Ashland; -0.4%) both lost population.  Out west, Paducah's McCracken County (+0.1%) and Owensboro's Daviess County (+5.6%) grew more slowly than the state.

On the municipal level, Louisville/Jefferson (+189.2%) consolidated its way into becoming the largest city in the state, passing Lexington-Fayette, which grew by 13.5%.  Cincinnati-suburban Independence (+65.2%) grew the fastest among the others, followed by Toyota's Georgetown (+60.9%), Lexington-area Nicholasville (+42.4%), Cincinnati-suburban Florence (+27.2%), Bowling Green (+17.8%) and Lexington-area Richmond (+15.5%).  Six of Kentucky's top 20 cities lost population: the state capital of Frankfort (-8.0%), Cincinnati-area Covington (-6.3%), Paducah (-4.9%), Ashland (-1.4%), Radcliff (-1.2%), adjacent to Fort Knox, and Louisville suburb Jeffersontown (-0.1%) - though I'm confused as to how it exists if Louisville and Jefferson County consolidated.

Kentucky's non-Hispanic white population increased by 3.8%.  Its Hispanic population more than doubled (+121.6%), albeit to only 3.1% from a relatively small base.  Kentucky's non-Hispanic Asian population grew by 64.6%.  Its non-Hispanic African-American population grew by 13.4%, increasing from 7.3% to 7.7%.  Over half of the state's African American population lives in two cities: Louisville/Jefferson and Lexington-Fayette.
---------
The remaining states will be released next week: Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina and West Virginia.  We'll also get data for D.C. and Puerto Rico.  Census will beat the April 1 deadline.

[Linus Van Pelt]

Something quite weird happened with the city of Atlanta - the estimated growth for the decade is so wildly off it makes me wonder: was there a secession to form a new municipality in the last couple of years?

2000 census - 416,474

2001 estimate - 430,684
2002 estimate - 442,538
2003 estimate - 456,919
2004 estimate - 468,725
2005 estimate - 483,108
2006 estimate - 498,496
2007 estimate - 520,368
2008 estimate - 537,958

2010 census - 420,003

[Nhoj]

Something quite weird happened with the city of Atlanta - the estimated growth for the decade is so wildly off it makes me wonder: was there a secession to form a new municipality in the last couple of years?

2000 census - 416,474

2001 estimate - 430,684
2002 estimate - 442,538
2003 estimate - 456,919
2004 estimate - 468,725
2005 estimate - 483,108
2006 estimate - 498,496
2007 estimate - 520,368
2008 estimate - 537,958

2010 census - 420,003

Over estimating by a 100k in a city the size of atlanta does seem a bit much.

[cinyc]

Something quite weird happened with the city of Atlanta - the estimated growth for the decade is so wildly off it makes me wonder: was there a secession to form a new municipality in the last couple of years?

2000 census - 416,474

2001 estimate - 430,684
2002 estimate - 442,538
2003 estimate - 456,919
2004 estimate - 468,725
2005 estimate - 483,108
2006 estimate - 498,496
2007 estimate - 520,368
2008 estimate - 537,958

2010 census - 420,003

I don't think so.  Some previously unincorporated areas in North Fulton County did incorporate, but they weren't within city limits.

It sounds like the same type of problem Census had with Omaha's estimates.  A lot of unincorporated Fulton and DeKalb counties has or had Atlanta zip codes.  I wonder if that's screwing up the estimates.

FWIW, the 2009 ACS estimate pegged Atlanta's population 50% black, 43% white (including Hispanics).  It's actually about 54% black, 38% white.  They got the 5% Hispanic part right.

It's still a growth in the relative white percentage from 2000 - 33% to 38%.  Given that the city was otherwise stagnant, its black population must be falling.

[cinyc]

One other note on the Atlanta area, from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In other words, there is white flight from the closer-in suburbs to both Atlanta and the more far-flung counties of the metro.

[memphis]

One other note on the Atlanta area, from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In other words, there is white flight from the closer-in suburbs to both Atlanta and the more far-flung counties of the metro.

Same thing going on here. Pretty much all the suburban areas that were white middle class neighborhoods a few decades ago are now heavily black with a small white minority that is "stuck" living there. Most whites there have moved further out. Wealthy white inner city neighborhoods are still white and wealthy with no signs that's going to change. Some have gotten even fancier with teardowns and McMansions popping up.  Plus there's all the new condos downtown. 

[minionofmidas]

Phoenix' inner white areas shrunk and were 10% below estimates. That may also be a similar phenomenon.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

FL-03, Corrine Brown's gerrymandered monstrosity, is now majority-black.

So does that give it VRA protection then?

[minionofmidas]

FL-03, Corrine Brown's gerrymandered monstrosity, is now majority-black.

So does that give it VRA protection then?

Minority populations have VRA protection. Districts don't. Ever. Please don't perpetuate that fallacy ever again. The Black population in Northeast Florida is and remains VRA protected, whether the old version of the seat is over or under 50% VAP Black is quite irrelevant.

[jimrtex]

FL-03, Corrine Brown's gerrymandered monstrosity, is now majority-black.

So does that give it VRA protection then?

Minority populations have VRA protection. Districts don't. Ever. Please don't perpetuate that fallacy ever again. The Black population in Northeast Florida is and remains VRA protected, whether the old version of the seat is over or under 50% VAP Black is quite irrelevant.

I don't think Brown's lawsuit has been dismissed has it?

[jimrtex]

Something quite weird happened with the city of Atlanta - the estimated growth for the decade is so wildly off it makes me wonder: was there a secession to form a new municipality in the last couple of years?

2000 census - 416,474

2001 estimate - 430,684
2002 estimate - 442,538
2003 estimate - 456,919
2004 estimate - 468,725
2005 estimate - 483,108
2006 estimate - 498,496
2007 estimate - 520,368
2008 estimate - 537,958

2010 census - 420,003

I don't think so.  Some previously unincorporated areas in North Fulton County did incorporate, but they weren't within city limits.

It sounds like the same type of problem Census had with Omaha's estimates.  A lot of unincorporated Fulton and DeKalb counties has or had Atlanta zip codes.  I wonder if that's screwing up the estimates.

FWIW, the 2009 ACS estimate pegged Atlanta's population 50% black, 43% white (including Hispanics).  It's actually about 54% black, 38% white.  They got the 5% Hispanic part right.

It's still a growth in the relative white percentage from 2000 - 33% to 38%.  Given that the city was otherwise stagnant, its black population must be falling.

It looks like the 2009 ACS might have been bad.  The 2006, 2007, 2008 ACS were showing modest growth, but were lagging the estimates (note 2005 ACS did not include group quarters, so areas with colleges (dorms), prisons, and nursing homes will be low in that).

All of a sudden the 2009 ACS jumped, so that the 2005-2009 ACS is higher than all but 2009.  And it also produced a jump in the 3-year ACS (I assume that the Census Bureau compensated for the missing group quarters from 2005, eg so that 2005-2009 is based on 4 years of group quarters, and 5 years of households).

I tried to compare census tract from 2005-2009 ACS to the 2010 census, but it was pretty messy.  I ended up using census tracts from DeKalb and Fulton counties, and consolidating on the base tract number.  This produces some super core-tracts in high growth areas where the tracts have been subdivided.  But if the low number tracts that haven't been divided are the same, the ACS was way higher (50% in some cases).

If you throw out the 2009 ACS, and the estimates, the census is not that much lower.

By the way, the Consolidated Statistical Area for Atlanta is now a GA-AL area.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

FL-03, Corrine Brown's gerrymandered monstrosity, is now majority-black.

So does that give it VRA protection then?

Minority populations have VRA protection. Districts don't. Ever. Please don't perpetuate that fallacy ever again. The Black population in Northeast Florida is and remains VRA protected, whether the old version of the seat is over or under 50% VAP Black is quite irrelevant.

Really? Do you think I am that stupid. I think its legitimate expectation for you not assume that I don't understand what the hell is supposed to be protected by the VRA.   The clear fact is the VRA is used constantly to indeed protect districts and even congressmen that "technically" shouldn't be. My question was meant to find out whether that will effect how her district is treated in regards to the new Florida redistricting requirements. I don't give a damn what fallacy it perpetuates, if people are stupid enough to 1) not know its intended purpose, and 2) make an assumption of its purpose based on a simple one line question, they are frankly too damn stupid to be involved in redistricting anyway. So no, I won't make questions overly complex to avoid "perpetuating a fallacy". Are the GOP Reps who owe their existance to the VRA packing of Dem voters a "fallacy"? Are congress people like Brown, a fallacy? No. I'll leave education about the VRA's purpose to PBS, it isn't my job, and certainly is on topic as far as this board is concerned. It is a mere appendage, of an extention, of a sub category of this board, and then only in relation to its effects on the extention.  

[minionofmidas]

FL-03, Corrine Brown's gerrymandered monstrosity, is now majority-black.

So does that give it VRA protection then?

Minority populations have VRA protection. Districts don't. Ever. Please don't perpetuate that fallacy ever again. The Black population in Northeast Florida is and remains VRA protected, whether the old version of the seat is over or under 50% VAP Black is quite irrelevant.

Really? Do you think I am that stupid.

I didn't use to, but I just learned something new. You indeed seem to be.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

FL-03, Corrine Brown's gerrymandered monstrosity, is now majority-black.

So does that give it VRA protection then?

Minority populations have VRA protection. Districts don't. Ever. Please don't perpetuate that fallacy ever again. The Black population in Northeast Florida is and remains VRA protected, whether the old version of the seat is over or under 50% VAP Black is quite irrelevant.

Really? Do you think I am that stupid.

I didn't use to, but I just learned something new. You indeed seem to be.

Somehow I doubt that is he case, but whatever.

I wanted to know whether or not FL-03 could be continued closer to "as is" as result of this revelation. I didn't expect to receive a condescending lecture on the purpose of the VRA. And such a response will not be taken lightly, especially when it is being responded to by me at such a late hour.  In terms of redistricting only (god forbid if I don't include this you will claim I am not aware of other protections granted to minorities as far as the right to vote, etc), while it is suppose to protect people and groups from being unfairly targetted in redistricting, the practical application of the VRA is to protect house seats and to protect their occupants. Clearly that is what Corrine Brown thinks. Its horrible and disgusting of course, but then again so are the really aggresive gerrymanders being drawn on this board. Are they suppose to come with disclaimers about how they are wrong and violate the principle of democracy? 

I shouldn't have to write this whole damn paragraph to acknowledge the obvious truth that anybody should know by default, just to not get reated like garbage by you, Lewis, for asking a simple question. 

As for me, I didn't learn anything about you that I didn't know two years ago.


Anyway, I got what I was looking for (though not on here), and am finished. There is no sense trying to change the mind of someone that made it up a long time ago.

[minionofmidas]

Clearly that is what Corrine Brown thinks.

Oh, quite. Then again, she's an idiot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Meh, I only find it horrible and disgusting when people pretend them not to be such. Or when people do it in real life, of course. Or don't use their powers as lawmakers to make it impossible for the next round of redistricting, as all of them could have.

I'm a little bewildered now as to what, exactly, you actually meant by your original post that sparked this little lovefest of ours. Whether the populations to draw a seat much like her old one that would reelect her exist, without having to head to Tallahassee like some maps predicted?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Clearly that is what Corrine Brown thinks.

Oh, quite. Then again, she's an idiot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Meh, I only find it horrible and disgusting when people pretend them not to be such. Or when people do it in real life, of course. Or don't use their powers as lawmakers to make it impossible for the next round of redistricting, as all of them could have.

I'm a little bewildered now as to what, exactly, you actually meant by your original post that sparked this little lovefest of ours. Whether the populations to draw a seat much like her old one that would reelect her exist, without having to head to Tallahassee like some maps predicted?

Aren't most congresspeople?

Well if I were the Governor of Florida I would stop it, but clearly I am not Rick Scott.

Which is worse under the Florida law basically? Tallahassee or Orlando. If the VRA requires a seat in that neck of the woods to be majority African American, which is more in line with the Florida redistricting law. That is basically what I was asking but was too tired, to lazy, and too sick to write that out and I figured you people had all read the Florida board and thus would know atleast what I knew that some maps had the Tallahassee route while others were just a compact Jacksonville seat (which is definately not majority AA), and  the "likely" interpretations of the VRA out of the Roberts court.

[jimrtex]

Clearly that is what Corrine Brown thinks.

Oh, quite. Then again, she's an idiot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Meh, I only find it horrible and disgusting when people pretend them not to be such. Or when people do it in real life, of course. Or don't use their powers as lawmakers to make it impossible for the next round of redistricting, as all of them could have.

I'm a little bewildered now as to what, exactly, you actually meant by your original post that sparked this little lovefest of ours. Whether the populations to draw a seat much like her old one that would reelect her exist, without having to head to Tallahassee like some maps predicted?

As I understand the argument of Corrine Brown's (and Diaz-Bahlart) lawsuit, it is that the power of incumbency that permits the protected minority voters to actualize their opportunity to elect their candidate of choice (eg if the representative can choose their voters, the voters can't choose the representative).  Since the initiatives forbid taking into account incumbency, but only race, it may result in effective protection of the right of black people to vote.

Before the election, James Clyburn acting on behalf of the Black Democrat Caucus, wrote the national NAACP trying to get them to rein in the Florida NAACP which was supporting the initiatives.

There was a lawsuit trying to force the State of Florida to submit the initiatives to the USDOJ for pre-clearance.  It had been submitted in the last days of the Crist administration, and then withdrawn under Scott.  I'm not sure where that stands now.

[minionofmidas]

Interesting. Never looked at that closely.
I would have assumed that the bill does indeed require preclearance. I would have assumed that it had already received preclearance.
Of course, in practice a constituency at least somewhat like Brown's current one always was going to happen in practice unless literally impossible, which I never presumed to be the case...

[jimrtex]

Interesting. Never looked at that closely.
I would have assumed that the bill does indeed require preclearance. I would have assumed that it had already received preclearance.
Of course, in practice a constituency at least somewhat like Brown's current one always was going to happen in practice unless literally impossible, which I never presumed to be the case...

This is from last week:

http://americansforredistrictingreform.org/FLTampaTribuneNomovementfromScottonanti-gerrymanderingamendments3-14-11.htm

Crist's SOS had filed for preclearance in December, then Scott's SOS withdrew it in January, and the Florida NAACP, League of Women Voters filed suit in February to force Florida to resubmit it for pre-clearance.  Scott and SOS Browning got permission to have until the end of the month to file their reply (supposedly with the consent of the plaintiffs, who issued their press release on the same day).

The article is misleading about California.  California had already pre-cleared their redistricting commission after it was approved in November 2008.  The November 2010 measure simply extended it to congressional redistricting, plus clarified the term "community of interest".  Also California's measure simply requires compliance with the VRA, which would happen even if the measure didn't say anything.

In the Corrinne Brown and Mario Diaz-Ballart suit, claiming that the Florida initiative violates the VRA because it forbids incumbent protection, the court has just granted intervenor status to several parties.  The ACLU, Florida NAACP, Democracia Ahora as defendant intervenors, and the Florida House of Representatives as a plaintiff intervenor.  In addition, 5 state legislators have intervened as defendant intervenors, claiming that they are potential congressional candidates, as well as legislators who will be drawing the maps.

I read the actual text of the initiatives.  They forbid a plan that would favor or disfavor an incumbent.  They do not forbid a plan that would favor or disfavor any other potential candidate (eg an ambitious legislator who hopes to carve out a new congressional district for themselves)  So the 5 intervening legislators seem to be saying that they may be harmed by not being able to draw a plan favorable to themselves.