US House Redistricting: Florida

[Mississippi Political Freak]

And how about a Tallahassee to Gainesville district?

[krazen1211]

The St. Petersburg, Tampa connection would probably be a violation, there's no logical reason to do so other than partisanship and the amendments prohibit that. The only reason it's drawn like that is to protect Young and it's borderline racial gerrymandering at that.

Of course there is. You have to make that county crossing anyway somewhere, and the other option splits Clearwater in half.

There's no reason why splitting Clearwater is better than splitting St. Petersburg.

Here is a map of the Clearwater municipal borders; it is clear that the map that was posted a couple pages back does not adhere to them.

http://www.clearwater-fl.com/services/gis.asp

[DrScholl]

Of course there is. You have to make that county crossing anyway somewhere, and the other option splits Clearwater in half.

There's no reason why splitting Clearwater is better than splitting St. Petersburg.

Here is a map of the Clearwater municipal borders; it is clear that the map that was posted a couple pages back does not adhere to them.

http://www.clearwater-fl.com/services/gis.asp

You can fit most of Clearwater in with St. Petersburg, some precincts won't fit, but from the standpoint of compactness, it keeps Pinellas County from be divided up too much and that's one of the goals of the amendments.

[krazen1211]

Of course there is. You have to make that county crossing anyway somewhere, and the other option splits Clearwater in half.

There's no reason why splitting Clearwater is better than splitting St. Petersburg.

Here is a map of the Clearwater municipal borders; it is clear that the map that was posted a couple pages back does not adhere to them.

http://www.clearwater-fl.com/services/gis.asp

You can fit most of Clearwater in with St. Petersburg, some precincts won't fit, but from the standpoint of compactness, it keeps Pinellas County from be divided up too much and that's one of the goals of the amendments.

That doesn't make any sense. Pinellas is split 2 ways regardless and Hillsborough is split 3 ways regardless. There is no need to put another district in either county.

'Compactness' has never been seriously litigated. Heck, even Illinois has a compactness standard and look at that map. Or the New Jersey legislative map which splits Somerset county at least 6 ways and has 1 district zig zag through 4 counties.

In addition, Clearwater is the Pinellas County seat and it certainly does not make much sense to split the county seat in a Pinellas district.

[DrScholl]

You can fit most of Clearwater in with St. Petersburg, some precincts won't fit, but from the standpoint of compactness, it keeps Pinellas County from be divided up too much and that's one of the goals of the amendments.

That doesn't make any sense. Pinellas is split 2 ways regardless and Hillsborough is split 3 ways regardless. There is no need to put another district in either county.

'Compactness' has never been seriously litigated. Heck, even Illinois has a compactness standard and look at that map. Or the New Jersey legislative map which splits Somerset county at least 6 ways and has 1 district zig zag through 4 counties.

In addition, Clearwater is the Pinellas County seat and it certainly does not make much sense to split the county seat in a Pinellas district.
[/quote]

It makes perfect sense. If you bring the Tampa district into St. Petersberg just to keep FL-10 Republican, then you're going to end up with three district in Pinellas County, when there should only be two.

Other states have nothing to do with this, the amendments in Florida are very clear and county splitting is supposed to be kept at minimum and population doesn't dictate that Pinellas be split three ways. There is not point to it other than partisanship.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

A Jacksonville-Tallahassee district may not stand up, being only plurality, the VRA is not always applied to such seats and it would be an obvious racial gerrymander. Depending on how you maneuver, you can get an Obama district or a McCain one completely within Duval County, down to about R+1.

The VRA doesn't work like that. Brown's current seat was only black plurality when it was first drawn in 1992 and there was no court order or anything. At the time the Democrats controlled the redistricting though they had many Dixiecrats in their ranks and many Dixiecrats in north Florida congressional districts. The Republicans wanted to open up some districts by drawing this seat to get the blacks all in one district. They were backed by Brown and some other black state legislators and thus were able to force the district in the new map. Basically it's a Dem pack seat that just happens to have blacks as the Democrats who are being packed (though there's also Gainesville liberals).

What would be a VRA violation would be splitting up the black parts of Jacksonville into separate districts to dilute them and get them into all Republican seats. Which is why the Republicans would probably prefer the pack route, which also would get Tallahassee out of a now swing district too.

And how about a Tallahassee to Gainesville district?

The Democrats would draw a district like that if they were controlling the gerrymandering. Don't see it happening any other way.

[DrScholl]

A Jacksonville-Tallahassee district may not stand up, being only plurality, the VRA is not always applied to such seats and it would be an obvious racial gerrymander. Depending on how you maneuver, you can get an Obama district or a McCain one completely within Duval County, down to about R+1.

The VRA doesn't work like that. Brown's current seat was only black plurality when it was first drawn in 1992 and there was no court order or anything. At the time the Democrats controlled the redistricting though they had many Dixiecrats in their ranks and many Dixiecrats in north Florida congressional districts. The Republicans wanted to open up some districts by drawing this seat to get the blacks all in one district. They were backed by Brown and some other black state legislators and thus were able to force the district in the new map. Basically it's a Dem pack seat that just happens to have blacks as the Democrats who are being packed (though there's also Gainesville liberals).

What would be a VRA violation would be splitting up the black parts of Jacksonville into separate districts to dilute them and get them into all Republican seats. Which is why the Republicans would probably prefer the pack route, which also would get Tallahassee out of a now swing district too.

I do know why the district was created and that is was never really a VRA seat. My point was that a seat like that cannot be drawn under the amendments and it really can't be protected by the VRA, since it would only be plurality black or maybe not even that. I do know the VRA works and plurality districts aren't really seen as being protected under it by the courts.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

One thing I think the Republicans have realized though is that trying to deny the Democrats any seats in Orlando can't be anything but a dummymander, even without the fair districts requirements. The current map sort of reflects this even, while the current FL-08 is a gerrymandered monstrosity it still voted for Obama and is a bad fit for Webster against anyone but Grayson. Webster needs a far safer district and you can't draw one without endangering other incumbents or having a Dem pack seat in metro Orlando. The chutzpa of the Florida Republicans is part of the reason I hate the state, but even they have to realize you can't draw all Republican districts in an area that voted for Obama by double digits.

[krazen1211]

It makes perfect sense. If you bring the Tampa district into St. Petersberg just to keep FL-10 Republican, then you're going to end up with three district in Pinellas County, when there should only be two.

Other states have nothing to do with this, the amendments in Florida are very clear and county splitting is supposed to be kept at minimum and population doesn't dictate that Pinellas be split three ways. There is not point to it other than partisanship.

What on earth is the 3rd district?

You have 1 district for all of Pinellas and the most GOP part of St. Petersburg (still voted for Obama 50.3%), and the other district for the rest of St. Petersburg and Tampa and a few inner suburbs. You can fit a remaining district in the rest of Hillsborough County.




The only issue is that it cuts Bilirakis out of his house, but he will have to move rather than yield the 10th district, which Bill Young wants for his son now that Jr. is 25.

[DrScholl]

What on earth is the 3rd district?

You have 1 district for all of Pinellas and the most GOP part of St. Petersburg (still voted for Obama 50.3%), and the other district for the rest of St. Petersburg and Tampa and a few inner suburbs. You can fit a remaining district in the rest of Hillsborough County.




The only issue is that it cuts Bilirakis out of his house, but he will have to move rather than yield the 10th district, which Bill Young wants for his son now that Jr. is 25.

I was assuming you were talking about maintaining the current gerrymander. Anyway, that district is barely conterminous and it doesn't really make sense for any reason other than partisanship, which is not a valid reason under the amendments.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Is Bill Young's son seriously only 25? He would've had to be in his 50s when he had him.

That district doesn't even have a bridge connection. That's the sort of thing the Republicans can try and end up getting their whole map tossed out in court.

[krazen1211]

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/local/article448561.ece

I think he was born in 85. Curious how he didn't hand the seat down in 2010, perhaps that wasn't his intention after all.

I guess I missed the Gandy Bridge by a precinct. Easily fixable.

[minionofmidas]

And how about a Tallahassee to Gainesville district?

The Democrats would draw a district like that if they were controlling the gerrymandering. Don't see it happening any other way.

Maybe if Allen Boyd had somehow barely survived 2010 and a bipartisan incumbent protection plan a la California2000 was happening.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/local/article448561.ece

I think he was born in 85. Curious how he didn't hand the seat down in 2010, perhaps that wasn't his intention after all.

I guess I missed the Gandy Bridge by a precinct. Easily fixable.

Four.
Seriously. It's dead. What they'll do is tamper with the lines a bit so that the wholly Pinellas district is only 54.5% Obama and not 56.0% as it could be, and hope Bill Young can hold it for a while yet.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

And how about a Tallahassee to Gainesville district?

The Democrats would draw a district like that if they were controlling the gerrymandering. Don't see it happening any other way.

Maybe if Allen Boyd had somehow barely survived 2010 and a bipartisan incumbent protection plan a la California2000 was happening.

I don't think Boyd would want that seat. Remember, he was almost primaried in the current seat in 2010 despite it being obvious there would be no chance whatsoever of holding it without hiim. Add in Gainesville and he'd be more dead in the water than Orrin Hatch.

[whaeffner1]

I'd like to mention to all of you talking about where members of congress have their houses in relation to districts, that in Florida, you DO NOT have to live in your district to run for it.  I could live in Jacksonville and run for a seat in Miami.  I know this because I'm from Florida and I know several examples of elected officials not living in their districts.

[Bacon King]

I'd like to mention to all of you talking about where members of congress have their houses in relation to districts, that in Florida, you DO NOT have to live in your district to run for it.  I could live in Jacksonville and run for a seat in Miami.  I know this because I'm from Florida and I know several examples of elected officials not living in their districts.

No state can legally require a candidate to live in a Congressional district to run for it. The Constitution says that the only requirements for serving in the House of Representatives are a. being 25 years old, b. being a US citizen for 7 years, and c. "inhabiting" the state you're elected from at the time you're elected. It's the same reason that state laws on Congressional term limits were ruled unconstitutional. Still, though, most Congressmen prefer to live in (or at least maintain their non-DC residence in) their own districts, for a number of reasons.

[whaeffner1]

I'd like to mention to all of you talking about where members of congress have their houses in relation to districts, that in Florida, you DO NOT have to live in your district to run for it.  I could live in Jacksonville and run for a seat in Miami.  I know this because I'm from Florida and I know several examples of elected officials not living in their districts.

No state can legally require a candidate to live in a Congressional district to run for it. The Constitution says that the only requirements for serving in the House of Representatives are a. being 25 years old, b. being a US citizen for 7 years, and c. "inhabiting" the state you're elected from at the time you're elected. It's the same reason that state laws on Congressional term limits were ruled unconstitutional. Still, though, most Congressmen prefer to live in (or at least maintain their non-DC residence in) their own districts, for a number of reasons.

In South Florida, Allen West doesn't live in his serpentine district.  But I'm sure glad that he is my representative.

[Linus Van Pelt]

Diaz-Balart and Brown have lost their ridiculous lawsuit claiming that a law that explicitly requires district boundaries to respect the VRA violates the VRA.

[Padfoot]

Diaz-Balart and Brown have lost their ridiculous lawsuit claiming that a law that explicitly requires district boundaries to respect the VRA violates the VRA.

This quote right here is particularly disgusting:

"The people of Florida never had the power to do anything with respect to congressional redistricting"

Anyone who honestly believes that the people of the US don't have the right to establish completely reasonable rules regarding the redistricting process doesn't really believe in representative democracy.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Diaz-Balart and Brown have lost their ridiculous lawsuit claiming that a law that explicitly requires district boundaries to respect the VRA violates the VRA.

That means GOOD RIDDANCE Brown and in her place the return of a true progressive hero....

ALAN GRAYSON ALAN GRAYSON ALAN GRAYSON ALAN GRAYSON ALAN GRAYSON ALAN GRAYSON ALAN GRAYSON ALAN GRAYSON ALAN GRAYSON ALAN GRAYSON ALAN GRAYSON ALAN GRAYSON ALAN GRAYSON ALAN GRAYSON ALAN GRAYSON ALAN GRAYSON ALAN GRAYSON ALAN GRAYSON!

[jimrtex]

Diaz-Balart and Brown have lost their ridiculous lawsuit claiming that a law that explicitly requires district boundaries to respect the VRA violates the VRA.

This quote right here is particularly disgusting:

"The people of Florida never had the power to do anything with respect to congressional redistricting"

Anyone who honestly believes that the people of the US don't have the right to establish completely reasonable rules regarding the redistricting process doesn't really believe in representative democracy.

See Justice Stevens dissent in California Democratic Party v Jones in Part II.

In a representative democracy, why is there a need for the People to legislate directly, bypassing their representatives?  That doesn't seem to be consistent with a belief in representative democracy.

[Miles]

Amen, BRTD!

[minionofmidas]

Diaz-Balart and Brown have lost their ridiculous lawsuit claiming that a law that explicitly requires district boundaries to respect the VRA violates the VRA.

This quote right here is particularly disgusting:

"The people of Florida never had the power to do anything with respect to congressional redistricting"

Anyone who honestly believes that the people of the US don't have the right to establish completely reasonable rules regarding the redistricting process doesn't really believe in representative democracy.

See Justice Stevens dissent in California Democratic Party v Jones in Part II.

In a representative democracy, why is there a need for the People to legislate directly, bypassing their representatives?  That doesn't seem to be consistent with a belief in representative democracy.

Highlighted for contrast. They are very different statements. (Also, it's a dissent. Oh, and the answer is obvious: Because of gerrymandering. )

[jimrtex]

Diaz-Balart and Brown have lost their ridiculous lawsuit claiming that a law that explicitly requires district boundaries to respect the VRA violates the VRA.

This quote right here is particularly disgusting:

"The people of Florida never had the power to do anything with respect to congressional redistricting"

Anyone who honestly believes that the people of the US don't have the right to establish completely reasonable rules regarding the redistricting process doesn't really believe in representative democracy.

See Justice Stevens dissent in California Democratic Party v Jones in Part II.

In a representative democracy, why is there a need for the People to legislate directly, bypassing their representatives?  That doesn't seem to be consistent with a belief in representative democracy.

Highlighted for contrast. They are very different statements. (Also, it's a dissent. Oh, and the answer is obvious: Because of gerrymandering. )

As you may have noticed, none of the litigants raised the issue of the use of the initiative.  Judges ordinarily won't rule based on issues not raised in the trial briefs.  And the other judges probably wanted to rule on the juicier details of the case (1st Amendment political associational rights is a lot more fun to argue than cogs and gears procedural issues).

In another related case, Tashjian, the issue of whether a state had to use the same electorate for congressional primaries as they used for legislative primaries was raised.  This was based on a 1940s decision that the primary was part of an election.  The case outlawed the white primary, and was one of the first cases won by Thurgood Marshall.  Justice Marshall wrote the majority opinion in Tashjian, and so was forced to acknowledge that primaries were elections.  He then wandered in circles explaining why that didn't apply to the present case.  When a Nebraska Attorney General read the opinion, he said he thought it applied to Nebraska, but that no one could be sure until a court ruled on the issue.  The rest of the Marshall opinion then dealt with 1st Amendment issues.

Justice Stevens wrote a dissent that the legislative/congressional conflict meant that the 1st Amendment issues were moot.  Justice Scalia concurred with the Stevens dissent.  But then he went on to argue the 1st Amendment issues in his own dissent.   (ie Scalia had lost the argument on 1st Amendment issues, and decided to try to derail the court on the procedural issue).

So Stevens was trying to provoke future litigants to raise the issue of the initiative process, and since he was dissenting on the 1st Amendment issue he went ahead and added it in.  Justice Ginsberg concurred in the 1st Amendment issue, but didn't join the initiative issue part of the dissent.  This doesn't mean that she didn't agree with Stevens, but simply that she didn't think the issue was relevant to that case.  Similarly, we don't know whether or not the other justices agreed with Stevens or not.

So it is clearly not a settled issue.  The closest relevant cases dealt with procedural aspects of the legislation process.  In one, the Supreme Court ruled that a gubernatorial veto meant that the legislature had not legislated - had not provided manner regulations.  In another case, there had been a referendum on a congressional redistricting plan, which the Supreme Court upheld.  But in Florida, the People were providing the content of legislation and not just involved in process.

The judge in Florida clearly didn't understand that nuance.

And there have been cases where administrative actions by the executive branch have been overturned because they were "legislating".

If one believes in representative democracy, what do they believe?   Fundamentally doesn't it mean that one believes that the government should be formed by representatives elected by the People, who then act on behalf of the People?

Hopefully, the case will get appealed.

[lowtech redneck]

With a Republican-appointed court, the Florida GOP probably has enough wiggle-room within the regulations to limit Democratic gains to (at most) nine 'reasonably safe' (at least 55.0%) seats and one swing district that leans slightly Democratic (as well about ten swing districts that lean Republican); if Bill Young chooses to run in a 'natural' St. Petersburg seat (about 56.3% Democrat), then there is a reasonable chance that he would win.  Barring a nationwide landslide, the best-case scenario for the Republicans therefore seems to be 19-8.

The VRA will enable at leat three hispanic seats (including one Democratic coastal district) and one black seat centered around Miami-Dade, and its likely that the gerrymandered Alcee Hastings seat will be protected as well.  Interestingly, it seems that the Republicans would probably do better with an Orlando vote sink than they would with a majority-black Corrine Brown district (at least it seems that way within the limitations of DRA), as the latter seems to produce two extra Democratic-leaning swing districts.

I wonder if the VRA will protect Corrine Brown's extreme gerrymander?