US House Redistricting: Florida

[BigSkyBob]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's see. If every incumbent receives a favorable district, that favoring incumbents. But, if some incumbent receives a less favorable district, that's disfavoring a particular incumbent! And, what is "[dis]favoring an incumbent?" In 99% of the cases, it is [dis]favoring his political party. In the vast majority of cases adding more Republicans helps a Republican incumbent, while a Democrat is best favored by adding Democrats to his district.

New districts would have to be swing districts, else the new district "favors" some party. That is unless new minority districts can be drawn, then, that district can "favor" the candidate of choice of that minority.

But, if we consider "plans" rather than individual districts, we have meta-level claims about overall "partisan fairness," whatever that means. That seems to mean electing more Democrats, which requires redrawing the districts of some Republicans so they are more likely to lose, which is, itself, another violation!

The amendment wasn't designed to reform redistricting. It was designed to spawn litigation with the purpose of moving redistricting to the Courts.

The only way it seems possible to meet the standard is to draw districts so that every Republican incumbent has a slightly less Republican district, [presumably excluding West and Riveria whom would be "disfavored" by any shift at all towards the Democrats] and every Democrat incumbent a slightly less Democratic district, but, not so much that they are seriously jeopardized. Of course, this would have to be done without even calculating the partisan effects of the maps!
 

[BigSkyBob]

Just because the state once created it for reasons (officially) other than VRA doesn't mean it'll make that claim this time.

I'm not sure where this idea came from.

Prior court opinion states that FL-03 was drawn in 2002 as a black performing district and that such was intentional, and that such was fully consistent with a legal plan.

Doesn't mean there won't be a lawsuit about it! First, that was from a case in federal court regarding the VRA, whereas any new lawsuit will be in state court over the racial minority standards of the FDA- which might end up with a very different interpretation.

To the extent that the FDA language goes further than the VRA that could be litigated. If the FDA language is less expansive, the issue is moot until, and unless, the VRA is repealed/struck_down.

The FDA language seems to go further than the VRA in treating French-speaking Haitians as a distinct language group, rather than as generic "Blacks." I doubt there is a Haitian district to be drawn. Other than that, there isn't any there there.

[BigSkyBob]

Wait... haha, oh wow. I've just realized something here.

Hispanics are an ethnic minority, not a racial minority. If you recall, on the census forms this year, they even explicitly stated that "Hispanic origins are not a race." The census this year also didn't ask any data about language, so there's not even any simple quantitative way to determine anything about "language minorities."

Does this mean that Hispanics aren't covered under the FDA, unless they can figure out a way to accurately guestimate the number and locations of native Spanish speakers who speak English poorly enough to be considered a "language minority"?

Furthermore, wouldn't this mean that the state legislature somehow has to prove that "no incumbent or party was intended to benefit" from the heavily Republican and incumbent-friendly Cuban districts in Miami-Dade, since under the FRA that requirement has higher priority than abiding by the VRA?

The problem with the last claim is that it isn't true. Section 3) explicitly denies any prioritization.