US House Redistricting: Nevada

[Verily]

I knew the outer Clark district would extend into rural Nevada, but I wouldn't have guessed it would be that far.

To be fair, there are around 12 people living in the non-Clark parts of the district.

[Verily]

Do we have a zoomed-in map of the Las Vegas area? That looks like a 2-1-1 map (2 D seats in Las Vegas, one R seat in the Vegas suburbs and the bush, one toss-up seat for Reno-Elko), but it's hard to tell without knowing exactly which parts of Vegas are in which seat.

[Verily]

Do we have a zoomed-in map of the Las Vegas area? That looks like a 2-1-1 map (2 D seats in Las Vegas, one R seat in the Vegas suburbs and the bush, one toss-up seat for Reno-Elko), but it's hard to tell without knowing exactly which parts of Vegas are in which seat.

PDF file

Joe Heck gets to keep the 3rd district.

One of the two comically gerrymandered Democratic districts is majority Hispanic, which has already prompted one Latino group to call the plan "an absolute assault".

Why are Hispanic groups pissed about a majority Hispanic district?

Being barely majority Hispanic hardly guarantees a Hispanic representative somewhere like Las Vegas, so I figure they'd rather have two seats where Hispanics are the key Democratic primary voting bloc (~35% Hispanic) rather than only one.

[Verily]

Those partisan figures can't be right, Joe. Clark County as a whole is only D+5.

[Verily]

All 2-2 maps are not equivalent. They want districts to elect white liberals, not hispanics.

There aren't enough Hispanics who vote in Nevada to elect a Hispanic consistently even on a maximal pack of the Hispanic vote.

[Verily]

we are not racists in the sense that we don't want minority politicians. Someone like Raul Grijalva or John Lewis is indistinguishable from a white liberal in their voting record. The problem are people like Eddie Bernice Johnson or Corrine Brown. Corrine Brown is an idiot who wants the fair redistricting thing passed so she won't lose re-election. She fails to realize that the kochers are using her so all the surrounding districts are republican. In 1991, you had two moderately democrat districts in Dallas. Unfortunately Eddie Bernice Johnson, who was a senator in Austin back then, got selfish and drew a hyper democratic district for herself and got rid of all the good precincts from Martin Frost and John Bryant's districts.

No, I think she understands this quite well and doesn't care. I'm sure both Brown and Johnson looked at reality like I do and realized they're extremely unlikely to beat a white liberal in a primary without stacking the deck in their favor, without being stellar politicians, which they are not.

This is idiotic. Neither is in remote danger in a primary in a "fair" district from a white liberal. However, Corrine Brown, in particular, would be in danger in a general election in a fair district (although a competent Democrat would not be), while Eddie Bernice Johnson would probably lose to a competent black politician in the primary.

[Verily]

Arguing for a less than 50% VAP packed district in Nevada, while opposing one where it will be greater than 50% is extremely inconsistent.  What is consistent is that when a minority-majority packed district benefits Republicans you say that Democrats oppose it b/c they're evil racist liberals (and ignore the fact that they oppose it NOT b/c of race, but b/c the district is part of a pro-Republican gerrymander).  However, when it benefits Democrats, then you say that Republicans shouldn't create more minority-majority districts b/c it won't lead to their strongest map.   

Not at all. The last bit isn't fact at all; I already posted a Nevada map to the contrary that does not involve the racial splitting of  every single municipality that you keep proposing. Admittedly, the Republican proposed map doesn't give the Democrats 2 safe districts, but such a map is obviously possible.

Democrats like the Sherman/Bermans have a history of opposing Hispanic districts specifically because of race, in their own words, not mine. Ultimately they can obviously do what they want to do and pass districts to elect white liberals and not Hispanics; I can merely point out the truth.

Republicans control the trifecta throughout the South because of the policies of the Democratic party. If they want a say they should do what Mr. Sandoval did and win the governor's mansion. Otherwise, nobody cares.

So if Republicans wanted to have the DOJ approve their maps in states like Texas, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama, they should have won the Presidency like Obama did b/c otherwise no one cares?

The law is alleged the same no matter whom is elected President.

Don't play dumb. Everyone knows that there was no way a Bush DOJ would push for more minority representation in the preclearance states while the Obama DOJ would.

[Verily]

Arguing for a less than 50% VAP packed district in Nevada, while opposing one where it will be greater than 50% is extremely inconsistent.  What is consistent is that when a minority-majority packed district benefits Republicans you say that Democrats oppose it b/c they're evil racist liberals (and ignore the fact that they oppose it NOT b/c of race, but b/c the district is part of a pro-Republican gerrymander).  However, when it benefits Democrats, then you say that Republicans shouldn't create more minority-majority districts b/c it won't lead to their strongest map.   

Not at all. The last bit isn't fact at all; I already posted a Nevada map to the contrary that does not involve the racial splitting of  every single municipality that you keep proposing. Admittedly, the Republican proposed map doesn't give the Democrats 2 safe districts, but such a map is obviously possible.

Democrats like the Sherman/Bermans have a history of opposing Hispanic districts specifically because of race, in their own words, not mine. Ultimately they can obviously do what they want to do and pass districts to elect white liberals and not Hispanics; I can merely point out the truth.

Republicans control the trifecta throughout the South because of the policies of the Democratic party. If they want a say they should do what Mr. Sandoval did and win the governor's mansion. Otherwise, nobody cares.

So if Republicans wanted to have the DOJ approve their maps in states like Texas, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama, they should have won the Presidency like Obama did b/c otherwise no one cares?

The law is alleged the same no matter whom is elected President.

Don't play dumb. Everyone knows that there was no way a Bush DOJ would push for more minority representation in the preclearance states while the Obama DOJ would.

The VRA act says what it says. If you can justify politicizing law enforcement that says something about you, not me.

Who said anything about justifying it? The reality is that administrations usually enforce the VRA when it is politically to their benefit. The text of the VRA is ambiguous enough to support it, and the Supreme Court decisions on the issue intentionally allow them to do it. There is no clear and obvious text in the VRA to forbid this, either; at the least, there are multiple possible readings, and the Supreme Court has been reluctant, even reticent, to choose among them.

[Verily]

Which doesn't really make sense, seeing as there are only a handful of ways to draw the map anyway.