Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 07, 2019, 04:35:35 pm
News: 2020 U.S. Senate Predictions are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
  US House Redistricting: Missouri
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 Print
Author Topic: US House Redistricting: Missouri  (Read 18542 times)
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,477


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 21, 2010, 12:57:27 pm »
« edited: December 24, 2010, 12:07:07 am by muon2 »

So who is the biggest loser of today's numbers?  I nominate Russ Carnahan.  

Is redistricting controlled by the Republicans?
Logged
dpmapper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 316
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 21, 2010, 01:07:25 pm »
« Edited: December 24, 2010, 12:07:21 am by muon2 »

Not exactly, the gov is a Dem but the Republicans have a veto-proof majority in the State Senate and almost that in the House.  African-Americans will want to make sure Clay keeps his district (MO-01) majority black, and the only way that happens is if Carnahan's district gets chopped up.  His house will be put in MO-01, for sure, and given that white Dems have little leverage (given that black legislators can join in the veto override) and that MO-01 needs to pack as many blacks as it possibly can in order to get to 50% (I've tried drawing it; you can barely get to 50%) it probably won't be a fair fight in his new district.  
Logged
RBH
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,173


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 21, 2010, 01:51:53 pm »
« Edited: December 24, 2010, 12:07:52 am by muon2 »

African-Americans will want to make sure Clay keeps his district (MO-01) majority black

It's not majority black right now.

But at the same time, it's at least 3-1 Dem in bad years. So I'm pretty freaking sure that it doesn't have to be majority black to be won by Clay.

Of course, there are some Dems who got treats from the Republican leadership and might vote to move the plan, but are they willing to override a veto too?
Logged
dpmapper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 316
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 21, 2010, 02:47:57 pm »
« Edited: December 24, 2010, 12:08:14 am by muon2 »


It's not majority black right now.

But at the same time, it's at least 3-1 Dem in bad years. So I'm pretty freaking sure that it doesn't have to be majority black to be won by Clay.

Of course, there are some Dems who got treats from the Republican leadership and might vote to move the plan, but are they willing to override a veto too?

49.8%, close enough; that's about as high as I can get the new and expanded MO-01 without getting too crazy with the boundaries.  I doubt that the black pols are eager to see that number dip too much, not because they're afraid the seat will go to a Republican, but because they want to guarantee that an African-American wins the Dem primary, particularly when the seat becomes open.  This is the same racial politics that happen pretty much everywhere; is there any particular reason that Missouri is different?  

Re: the veto threat, I think the trick for the Republicans is to make a map that will get black votes (keep Clay and Cleaver safe, with black pluralities if not majorities), but not be so blatantly partisan as to back Nixon into a corner wherein he would be forced to veto it.  In that situation he might decide that it's not worth fighting an override battle just for an extra percentage point or two.  
Logged
RBH
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,173


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 21, 2010, 03:12:24 pm »
« Edited: December 24, 2010, 12:08:30 am by muon2 »


It's not majority black right now.

But at the same time, it's at least 3-1 Dem in bad years. So I'm pretty freaking sure that it doesn't have to be majority black to be won by Clay.

Of course, there are some Dems who got treats from the Republican leadership and might vote to move the plan, but are they willing to override a veto too?

49.8%, close enough; that's about as high as I can get the new and expanded MO-01 without getting too crazy with the boundaries.  I doubt that the black pols are eager to see that number dip too much, not because they're afraid the seat will go to a Republican, but because they want to guarantee that an African-American wins the Dem primary, particularly when the seat becomes open.  This is the same racial politics that happen pretty much everywhere; is there any particular reason that Missouri is different?  

Re: the veto threat, I think the trick for the Republicans is to make a map that will get black votes (keep Clay and Cleaver safe, with black pluralities if not majorities), but not be so blatantly partisan as to back Nixon into a corner wherein he would be forced to veto it.  In that situation he might decide that it's not worth fighting an override battle just for an extra percentage point or two.  

6-2 or 5-3 is not a fight over a percentage point or two.

6-2 is not proportional for Missouri, even if it was red.
Logged
dpmapper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 316
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 21, 2010, 03:30:09 pm »
« Edited: December 24, 2010, 12:08:49 am by muon2 »


It's not majority black right now.

But at the same time, it's at least 3-1 Dem in bad years. So I'm pretty freaking sure that it doesn't have to be majority black to be won by Clay.

Of course, there are some Dems who got treats from the Republican leadership and might vote to move the plan, but are they willing to override a veto too?

49.8%, close enough; that's about as high as I can get the new and expanded MO-01 without getting too crazy with the boundaries.  I doubt that the black pols are eager to see that number dip too much, not because they're afraid the seat will go to a Republican, but because they want to guarantee that an African-American wins the Dem primary, particularly when the seat becomes open.  This is the same racial politics that happen pretty much everywhere; is there any particular reason that Missouri is different?  

Re: the veto threat, I think the trick for the Republicans is to make a map that will get black votes (keep Clay and Cleaver safe, with black pluralities if not majorities), but not be so blatantly partisan as to back Nixon into a corner wherein he would be forced to veto it.  In that situation he might decide that it's not worth fighting an override battle just for an extra percentage point or two.  

6-2 or 5-3 is not a fight over a percentage point or two.

6-2 is not proportional for Missouri, even if it was red.

It's not proportional as it stands, and that's not a Republican map.  It will never be proportional as long as blacks demand to have 'their' districts, and as long as Dems continue to pack themselves into urban areas.  Sorry to burst your bubble.  
Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,468


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 24, 2010, 04:53:33 pm »

Since I'm in MO for Christmas, I took a stab at a map. The districts are equal within 25 based on the DRA estimates, and CD 1 stays majority black. CD 5 stays solidly Dem, the cores of CD 3 and 9 are combined with roughly equal parts from each old district. Other incumbents should have secure GOP districts. Perhaps, if there is a compromise between the legislature and governor, it might be along these lines.

Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,758
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 24, 2010, 06:35:10 pm »

Why not just put all of the city into one district?
Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,468


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 24, 2010, 10:40:45 pm »

Why not just put all of the city into one district?

Based on the estimates, that would drop the black percentage below 50%. With the big increase in size due to the loss of a district, it just barely exceeds 50% as I drew it.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,758
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 26, 2010, 07:25:31 am »

Put it in the 2nd district then. That 3rd is disgusting.
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58,245
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 26, 2010, 07:33:19 am »

Put it in the 2nd district then. That 3rd is disgusting.
That would probably make Akin very vulnerable (though no goner), ie, be a compromise rather than an R drawn "compromise".
Which means we might just get lucky and see it put in the first where it belongs.
Logged
JohnnyLongtorso
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,798


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: December 26, 2010, 09:07:12 am »

MO-01 as drawn in 2000 is just below 50% black, so I don't think it's protected by VRA.
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58,245
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 26, 2010, 09:36:28 am »

MO-01 as drawn in 2000 is just below 50% black, so I don't think it's protected by VRA.
Not this again.
Logged
JohnnyLongtorso
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,798


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: December 26, 2010, 10:01:11 am »

Well, I'm getting tired of people clutching their pearls about "it must be majority-black!!!!".
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58,245
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 26, 2010, 10:09:05 am »

It is protected by the VRA because it can be safely expected to be represented by the candidate of choice of its Black residents. That means it needs to remain that way. 50% has nothing to do with anything.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,672


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 26, 2010, 10:33:56 am »

It is protected by the VRA because it can be safely expected to be represented by the candidate of choice of its Black residents. That means it needs to remain that way. 50% has nothing to do with anything.

True, but that also means that drawing it to be 45% black probably works fine.
Logged
JohnnyLongtorso
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,798


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 26, 2010, 04:38:47 pm »
« Edited: December 26, 2010, 04:44:54 pm by JohnnyLongtorso »

I doubt the Republicans would put Carnahan's portion of St. Louis County into the former MO-09; it would be safer for them to put it into MO-08, since the district is more Republican and Emerson is extremely well-liked for whatever reason.

Here's what I came up with:

State:



St. Louis area:



- MO-01 is 49% black, takes in all of St. Louis now.
- MO-02 takes in some parts of St. Louis County from MO-01 and MO-03, and adds a few of the heavily-Republican counties to the west to compensate.
- MO-03 is parts of the former MO-09, MO-08, and MO-03. Luetkemeyer would go here.
- MO-04 adds Columbia and some counties to the northeast and southeast; probably makes it somewhat more Democratic, but the Democrats aren't getting that district back.
- MO-05 is all of Jackson County and a bit of the suburbs north of Kansas City.
- MO-06 stretches across the north third of the state now. MO-07
- MO-07 is pretty much the same.
- MO-08 takes in the St. Louis County part of MO-03, but should remain pretty Republican.

At a guess, I'd say MO-01 is about 75-25 Dem, MO-05 about 60-40 Dem, and the remaining districts about 60-40 Republican.

Edit: Did a rough calculation of MO-04, it would be 57-43 McCain.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,468


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: December 27, 2010, 12:14:46 am »

It is protected by the VRA because it can be safely expected to be represented by the candidate of choice of its Black residents. That means it needs to remain that way. 50% has nothing to do with anything.

True, but that also means that drawing it to be 45% black probably works fine.

The problem is with challenges, and who drew the map. A map drawn by Dems to favor them would be less likely to be challenged if a district is only 45% black, especially if the reason was to help improve the performance of a neighboring district. Also, before Bartlett last year, minority districts less than 50% were OK. Now they are permitted, but don't qualify as a section 2 district.

If the map is drawn by the GOP to favor them, a challenge from the Dems could easily be based on a failure to create a majority-minority district when such a district could exist. That's a key to a challenge under Gingles, and the GOP is more likely to avoid that challenge by scrupulously making the districts over 50%. Since the GOP legislature is drawing the map to send to the Gov, I assume they would want to avoid a subsequent challenge in federal court from an external group.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,468


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 27, 2010, 12:40:27 am »

Put it in the 2nd district then. That 3rd is disgusting.

I don't think the legislature would do that. I put together the 2008 presidential vote for St Louis County. That plus st Louis city make up just under 2 CDs in the remap. Without St Charles to offset the Dem vote, I don't see the legislature putting out a new CD 2 that's basically just St Louis County with part of the city and only a bit outside the county.

Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,468


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: December 27, 2010, 01:14:47 am »

I doubt the Republicans would put Carnahan's portion of St. Louis County into the former MO-09; it would be safer for them to put it into MO-08, since the district is more Republican and Emerson is extremely well-liked for whatever reason.

Here's what I came up with:

State:



St. Louis area:



- MO-01 is 49% black, takes in all of St. Louis now.
- MO-02 takes in some parts of St. Louis County from MO-01 and MO-03, and adds a few of the heavily-Republican counties to the west to compensate.
- MO-03 is parts of the former MO-09, MO-08, and MO-03. Luetkemeyer would go here.
- MO-04 adds Columbia and some counties to the northeast and southeast; probably makes it somewhat more Democratic, but the Democrats aren't getting that district back.
- MO-05 is all of Jackson County and a bit of the suburbs north of Kansas City.
- MO-06 stretches across the north third of the state now. MO-07
- MO-07 is pretty much the same.
- MO-08 takes in the St. Louis County part of MO-03, but should remain pretty Republican.

At a guess, I'd say MO-01 is about 75-25 Dem, MO-05 about 60-40 Dem, and the remaining districts about 60-40 Republican.

Edit: Did a rough calculation of MO-04, it would be 57-43 McCain.

It's an interesting alternative to my version combining CDs 3 and 9. It looks like you've put more heavily Dem areas (70% D) from St Louis county than the city wards (60% D) that I kept out of CD 1. My rough estimate is that your CD 2 would be 52% R in 2008 and CD 8 would be 54% R. I had my CD 2 up to 55% and CD 3 at 54% R.
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58,245
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: January 10, 2011, 10:47:56 am »

Yeah, I drew it just right now too. It's incredibly hard to get CD-1 over 50%, but it's possible.



50.18%, and yeah, that southwestern spike ends in two Black-majority precincts. The next nearest one is in Jefferson City.

I see that Johnny gave Luetkemeyer a basically completely new district. That may well be what it takes to dislodge Carnahan; I had that intention but didn't have that much imagination, and now suppose that I've really eliminated Akin, not Carnahan, so i won't bother posting the whole thing.
Logged
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,376


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: January 26, 2011, 07:22:18 pm »

This is what I came up with:




Basically Akin gets Maryland Heights, Clayton, and Creve Coeuer.

Emerson gets Jefferson thru Lumay, and the red counties down the Mississippi river.

University City and all of St. Louis goes to Clay.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,672


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: January 26, 2011, 09:36:30 pm »

It is protected by the VRA because it can be safely expected to be represented by the candidate of choice of its Black residents. That means it needs to remain that way. 50% has nothing to do with anything.

True, but that also means that drawing it to be 45% black probably works fine.

The problem is with challenges, and who drew the map. A map drawn by Dems to favor them would be less likely to be challenged if a district is only 45% black, especially if the reason was to help improve the performance of a neighboring district. Also, before Bartlett last year, minority districts less than 50% were OK. Now they are permitted, but don't qualify as a section 2 district.

If the map is drawn by the GOP to favor them, a challenge from the Dems could easily be based on a failure to create a majority-minority district when such a district could exist. That's a key to a challenge under Gingles, and the GOP is more likely to avoid that challenge by scrupulously making the districts over 50%. Since the GOP legislature is drawing the map to send to the Gov, I assume they would want to avoid a subsequent challenge in federal court from an external group.

Yes, but the GOP has a readily available argument that a 50% black VAP district simply isn't possible. Which it isn't. So the point is moot. (Lewis above drew a 50% black seat, but it presumably does not meet 50% VAP, and no seat could.)
Logged
DINO Tom
jdb
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,793
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: January 27, 2011, 09:22:20 am »

Can't Nixon just veto any map that eliminates a Democratic seat?
Logged
JohnnyLongtorso
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,798


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: January 27, 2011, 09:26:36 am »

Can't Nixon just veto any map that eliminates a Democratic seat?

The Republicans are 3 votes shy of a veto-proof majority in the House, and have one in the Senate. All they need to do is peel off a few Democrats, which they're expected to do by placating the African-Americans through keeping Cleaver safe and maintaining the black population in Clay's district.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC