How Democrats Fooled California’s Redistricting Commission

[minionofmidas]

And Lewis here are the stats for the NW quadrant of my CA-33 - 54% HVAP - with 210,658 people. And notice I minimized muni chops to boot, which I always try to do, absent a good reason not to. With more chops, I could have got it higher.

So not that Hispanic really. Population very much on the upper end of the range into which I'd have cautiously guessed though, which may be a problem in trying to cautiously reduce the erosity.
If I were trying to defend your map, I'd say that the extra Hispanic CD packed high enough to elect an Hispanic, being possible, was necessary and the Black pack just happened naturally.

[minionofmidas]

Hey, my Riverside CD is over 50% HVAP - now - too, materially increasing the odds the it will elect an Anglo Dem in lieu of an Anglo Pub.  It won't be electing an Hispanic. God bless the VRA!  If Maldef wants more, they will have to go to court. When they lose, hopefully this sort of thing won't "have" to be done in the future.

Okay, I have to ask even though I think the answer is likely "no". (And if the reply seems to be an unsweated flat "no, I don't wanna try", you get the old problems of me not fully believing you!) Is there any way this district can be semi-reasonably connected with East Riverside - basically the old Imperial & Coachella & random points west concept, but without Imperial?

[muon2]

And Lewis here are the stats for the NW quadrant of my CA-33 - 54% HVAP - with 210,658 people. And notice I minimized muni chops to boot, which I always try to do, absent a good reason not to. With more chops, I could have got it higher.

So not that Hispanic really. Population very much on the upper end of the range into which I'd have cautiously guessed though, which may be a problem in trying to cautiously reduce the erosity.
If I were trying to defend your map, I'd say that the extra Hispanic CD packed high enough to elect an Hispanic, being possible, was necessary and the Black pack just happened naturally.

Is there some grouping of communities now in your CD 37 that have at least 54% HVAP. If so, the district could violate Shaw, since a significantly more compact version would also exist that could elect a candidate of choice.

[Torie]

Torie, I have an LA question on your CD 31 and 34. In the early copy you sent 31 had an HVAP of about 57% and 34 had over 75%. It looks like 31 will have to get over 60 or 61% HVAP to break 50% HCVAP. Did you look at a swap between 31 and 34 at any point?

I got it up to 58.2% HVAP.  You could do a swap, but it would make the map a lot uglier, and violate natural lines and communities of interest. Is this HCVP 50% thing an absolute law, even if it is clear the CD will elect an Hispanic of their choice?  And the latter is only a Section 5 standard, not a Section 2 standard, correct, and Section 5 does not obtain here, or am I still confused on that one?

I doubt that CA-33 can get 210,000 54% HVAP out of the far north end of CA-37, but it deserves study. I took a look at it briefly the other day. Frankly it won't make it much less erose, since then it goes rather north from Long Beach, rather than doing an L thing.  It is the Carson thing that makes it look erose. I am not sure at the end of the day, it will fit any better into a circle with the same diameter, and all of that fun stuff.

[minionofmidas]

Torie, I have an LA question on your CD 31 and 34. In the early copy you sent 31 had an HVAP of about 57% and 34 had over 75%. It looks like 31 will have to get over 60 or 61% HVAP to break 50% HCVAP. Did you look at a swap between 31 and 34 at any point?

I got it up to 58.2% HVAP.  You could do a swap, but it would make the map a lot uglier, and violate natural lines and communities of interest. Is this HCVP 50% thing an absolute law, even if it is clear the CD will elect an Hispanic of their choice?

God, no. Would be a bit silly given that no truly dependable data on the question even exist.
muon's looking at benchmarks for what no one could possibly sue against. But how can you know what figure that is if you can't even legally take incumbents / likely candidates into consideration? (Since clearly whether MALDEF would sue does depend on whether they think it's clear the CD will be dependably carried on Hispanic votes... and they can and do take potential candidates into account.) So if you think you can't take any risk and can't go against any of the internally inconsistent body of case law, you raise the threshold higher and higher, though only as long as it's possible to draw such a version that is reasonably compact, and this is as high as it's currently gone. (Cause I can totally see the SC raising it again and again, all to keep from either striking down the VRA or effectively court-ordering the retirements of three Texas Republican congressmen.)

[muon2]

Torie, I have an LA question on your CD 31 and 34. In the early copy you sent 31 had an HVAP of about 57% and 34 had over 75%. It looks like 31 will have to get over 60 or 61% HVAP to break 50% HCVAP. Did you look at a swap between 31 and 34 at any point?

I got it up to 58.2% HVAP.  You could do a swap, but it would make the map a lot uglier, and violate natural lines and communities of interest. Is this HCVP 50% thing an absolute law, even if it is clear the CD will elect an Hispanic of their choice?  And the latter is only a Section 5 standard, not a Section 2 standard, correct, and Section 5 does not obtain here, or am I still confused on that one?

I doubt that CA-33 can get 210,000 54% HVAP out of the far north end of CA-37, but it deserves study. I took a look at it briefly the other day. Frankly it won't make it much less erose, since then it goes rather north from Long Beach, rather than doing an L thing.  It is the Carson thing that makes it look erose. I am not sure at the end of the day, it will fit any better into a circle with the same diameter, and all of that fun stuff.

An HCVAP of 50% is what the 9th circuit has established to satisfy the first Gingles condition for a majority Latino population for section 2. That usually works out to from 60-65% HVAP depending on the part of LAC. I would guess that as the income goes up, the needed percent comes down.

I looked at the CA-33 neighbors, and I see a solution. CD-38 is overpacked, and it can give up the South Gate side in exchange for Norwalk and La Mirada and still exceed 73% HVAP. If you add South Gate, Bellflower and the part of Carson south of I-405 you can get a 68% HVAP district. It does force CD-37 west of the Harbor, but the result is two VRA-compliant districts.

Similarly, a swap between CDs 31 and 34 will be needed as well. CD 31 only needs to get to 60% if it picks up East LA.

Edit:

Here's a version that has a 73.8% HVAP district on the west and 68.3% HVAP on the east. That keeps Bellflower and Norwalk together if it makes more sense that way.

[minionofmidas]

Torie, I have an LA question on your CD 31 and 34. In the early copy you sent 31 had an HVAP of about 57% and 34 had over 75%. It looks like 31 will have to get over 60 or 61% HVAP to break 50% HCVAP. Did you look at a swap between 31 and 34 at any point?

I got it up to 58.2% HVAP.  You could do a swap, but it would make the map a lot uglier, and violate natural lines and communities of interest. Is this HCVP 50% thing an absolute law, even if it is clear the CD will elect an Hispanic of their choice?  And the latter is only a Section 5 standard, not a Section 2 standard, correct, and Section 5 does not obtain here, or am I still confused on that one?

I doubt that CA-33 can get 210,000 54% HVAP out of the far north end of CA-37, but it deserves study. I took a look at it briefly the other day. Frankly it won't make it much less erose, since then it goes rather north from Long Beach, rather than doing an L thing.  It is the Carson thing that makes it look erose. I am not sure at the end of the day, it will fit any better into a circle with the same diameter, and all of that fun stuff.

An HCVAP of 50% is what the 9th circuit has established to satisfy the first Gingles condition for a majority Latino population for section 2. That usually works out to from 60-65% HVAP depending on the part of LAC. I would guess that as the income goes up, the needed percent comes down.

It should come down as a) the non-Hispanic non-citizen percentage comes up b) the residence duration of the Hispanics there comes up - poor Hispanic pockets on the affluent outer edges of suburbia tend to have just about the lowest citizenship rates of all. Those are the people building those new houses.

[muon2]

Here's an updated map with all four south LAC Latino districts safely in compliance with section 2. I've drawn them for compactness, but Torie or sbane can say what pieces should be swapped.

East LA/Koreatown (yellow; goes up to the edge of Glendale and Pasadena): 64.5% HVAP
Downtown/South LA (green): 68.5% HVAP
South Gate/Paramount (peach): 75.3% HVAP
Downey/Norwalk (magenta): 67.5% HVAP.

[Torie]

Torie, I have an LA question on your CD 31 and 34. In the early copy you sent 31 had an HVAP of about 57% and 34 had over 75%. It looks like 31 will have to get over 60 or 61% HVAP to break 50% HCVAP. Did you look at a swap between 31 and 34 at any point?

I got it up to 58.2% HVAP.  You could do a swap, but it would make the map a lot uglier, and violate natural lines and communities of interest. Is this HCVP 50% thing an absolute law, even if it is clear the CD will elect an Hispanic of their choice?  And the latter is only a Section 5 standard, not a Section 2 standard, correct, and Section 5 does not obtain here, or am I still confused on that one?

I doubt that CA-33 can get 210,000 54% HVAP out of the far north end of CA-37, but it deserves study. I took a look at it briefly the other day. Frankly it won't make it much less erose, since then it goes rather north from Long Beach, rather than doing an L thing.  It is the Carson thing that makes it look erose. I am not sure at the end of the day, it will fit any better into a circle with the same diameter, and all of that fun stuff.

An HCVAP of 50% is what the 9th circuit has established to satisfy the first Gingles condition for a majority Latino population for section 2. That usually works out to from 60-65% HVAP depending on the part of LAC. I would guess that as the income goes up, the needed percent comes down.

I looked at the CA-33 neighbors, and I see a solution. CD-38 is overpacked, and it can give up the South Gate side in exchange for Norwalk and La Mirada and still exceed 73% HVAP. If you add South Gate, Bellflower and the part of Carson south of I-405 you can get a 68% HVAP district. It does force CD-37 west of the Harbor, but the result is two VRA-compliant districts.

Similarly, a swap between CDs 31 and 34 will be needed as well. CD 31 only needs to get to 60% if it picks up East LA.

Edit:

Here's a version that has a 73.8% HVAP district on the west and 68.3% HVAP on the east. That keeps Bellflower and Norwalk together if it makes more sense that way.

Is that 50% 9th circuit requirement an absolute one, or a safe harbor under Section 2?  What is the 9th Circuit case?   I guess I had better read it. I planned to review my map in this area anyway.

[muon2]

Torie, I have an LA question on your CD 31 and 34. In the early copy you sent 31 had an HVAP of about 57% and 34 had over 75%. It looks like 31 will have to get over 60 or 61% HVAP to break 50% HCVAP. Did you look at a swap between 31 and 34 at any point?

I got it up to 58.2% HVAP.  You could do a swap, but it would make the map a lot uglier, and violate natural lines and communities of interest. Is this HCVP 50% thing an absolute law, even if it is clear the CD will elect an Hispanic of their choice?  And the latter is only a Section 5 standard, not a Section 2 standard, correct, and Section 5 does not obtain here, or am I still confused on that one?

I doubt that CA-33 can get 210,000 54% HVAP out of the far north end of CA-37, but it deserves study. I took a look at it briefly the other day. Frankly it won't make it much less erose, since then it goes rather north from Long Beach, rather than doing an L thing.  It is the Carson thing that makes it look erose. I am not sure at the end of the day, it will fit any better into a circle with the same diameter, and all of that fun stuff.

An HCVAP of 50% is what the 9th circuit has established to satisfy the first Gingles condition for a majority Latino population for section 2. That usually works out to from 60-65% HVAP depending on the part of LAC. I would guess that as the income goes up, the needed percent comes down.

I looked at the CA-33 neighbors, and I see a solution. CD-38 is overpacked, and it can give up the South Gate side in exchange for Norwalk and La Mirada and still exceed 73% HVAP. If you add South Gate, Bellflower and the part of Carson south of I-405 you can get a 68% HVAP district. It does force CD-37 west of the Harbor, but the result is two VRA-compliant districts.

Similarly, a swap between CDs 31 and 34 will be needed as well. CD 31 only needs to get to 60% if it picks up East LA.

Edit:

Here's a version that has a 73.8% HVAP district on the west and 68.3% HVAP on the east. That keeps Bellflower and Norwalk together if it makes more sense that way.

Is that 50% 9th circuit requirement an absolute one, or a safe harbor under Section 2?  What is the 9th Circuit case?   I guess I had better read it. I planned to review my map in this area anyway.

Here's what the commission cited in their report:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Torie]

So under the 9th Circuit, if you can't get to a compact 50% HCVAP CD, you don't have to draw one at all? 

[muon2]

So under the 9th Circuit, if you can't get to a compact 50% HCVAP CD, you don't have to draw one at all? 

That's what I was trying to say when Lewis was pushing for the Imperial-Coachella district. The commission did not cite section 2 compliance for CD 51 in their narrative. I assume it was because it is not compact enough at 50% HCVAP under the LULAC standards for common interests. They drew it based on common interests due to lying along the border.

I think that's also why they didn't do anything in Riverside even though they found racially polarized voting there. To link Perris or Riverside to SanB or Indio was not compact in the commission's analysis, so no action was required.

I'll put the San Jose connection to Salinas in that category, too. In other jurisdictions that might be required, but the commission is interpreting the ninth circuit to say it is not.

If a section 2 suit comes out of this, I think it will be in part because the commission has taken such a narrow view of both the 50% CVAP rule along with the compactness standards. SCOTUS has not had to rule on HCVAP, so it's ripe for litigation.

But in LAC there are plenty of ways to get to 50% HCVAP. I have 6 districts that meet that threshold, and MALDEF drew six as well in their official submission. However, the commission only drew 5, leaving a sixth at 49% while an adjacent district has HCVAP over 73%. In one part of their report they claim the 49% district is to satisfy section 2, but later they do not mention it as a reason for that district. I would not have left that 1% on the table in their position.

They also drew no Asian majority district in LAC, though it's clearly possible. They identified an AD for the San Gabriel Valley, but weren't inclined to link it over the hills to the east to make a CD. That seems to be another example of what the commission thinks compact means for section 2. There are courts that would not accept that view when the minority group shares the same media market and are in the same county (cf IL-04).

The more I look at their work the more I think this will find it's way to SCOTUS.

[Torie]

What is the HVAP percentage again for the San Diego-Imperial and OC districts that translates into 50% HCVAP again?  And I take it, under the 9th Circuit, there is no need to draw a 50% HVAP CD in Riverside. Is that correct? 

[muon2]

What is the HVAP percentage again for the San Diego-Imperial and OC districts that translates into 50% HCVAP again?  And I take it, under the 9th Circuit, there is no need to draw a 50% HVAP CD in Riverside. Is that correct? 

The commission CD 51 has 63.9% HVAP and they get 51.0% HCVAP. The MALDEF district is very similar except for the Chula Vista addition and they have 63.5% HVAP and get 52.5% HCVAP. How can that be, you may ask, since they are virtually the same district? I suspect this goes to the heart of the estimation aspect of CVAP, which are not part of the Census but estimated from prior years' data. The Circuits don't agree on its applicability, and I suspect that SCOTUS may not like using a number that is so imprecise on a hard and fast benchmark like the 50% rule. Any way, I would say that 63% HVAP would get you over 50% HCVAP in either case.

I don't think I've seen a specific ruling by the 9th Circuit that would indicate no district need be drawn in Riverside. The commission has said it would use CVAP instead of VAP for the 50% rule because the 9th Circuit says to. The commission is also making a judgement about what type of area is compact enough so as to apply the 50% rule, and I don't see that coming from the 9th. I can't find where the commission defines what constitutes a compact area, but based on their actions it's more compact than I would choose.

In my map I'll split the difference in Riverside and make a CD at 50% HVAP to satisfy the narrow reading of Bartlett. But I'll consider it an opportunity district, recognizing that it lacks the higher standard of 50% CVAP. I won't make the link to Indio because I think that would be two communities too far apart like in the TX LULAC case. I won't link Riverside to SanB because I've used SanB in a different section 2 district that I created because of other consistently applied redistricting principles, though I would consider them to be close enough to be in a compact area.

[muon2]

Returning to my plan, I want to talk numbers in the south region. It was divided into three subregions: Bakersfield with Kern. Kings, and Tulare counties; LA county; and Socal with Mono, Inyo, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, San Diego, and Imperial. The Bakersfield region has about 28K too many people, LA county is short 22K, and Socal is short 6K. If I use eastern Kern to give up population to both subregions that are short I end up with a four-way split of Kern and no CD entirely within the county due to the VRA district.

That means I either put 28K into LA or into Socal from Kern. I wanted to add population to LA from the Chino Hills so it makes more sense to shift the 28K into Socal from Kern. That chop perfectly covers Ridgecrest in the NE corner, and results in the following map for the Bakersfield subregion. The VRA district is the one I generated earlier and is 65.4% HVAP.

[muon2]

The next part of the numbers saga of my algorithm brings me to the population shift between LA and San B counties. I need to have a net 22 K go to LA, which can be done with a fragment that size, or with a larger fragment and a piece of LA county attaching to SanB in return.

The natural piece to go to LA is the Chino Hills. It fits well with the Asian majority district stretching from the San Gabriel valley, and it's cut off from the rest of the county by the necessary VRA district based in Ontario. The total cut off fragment is about 75 K population so if I use all of it in LAC, then I need to swing 53 K from LAC back to San B. I found three choices for that 53 K: in the north, at Claremont, or at Pomona. The north option required an ugly chop into Lancaster/Palmdale and could be ruled out. Using Pomona left Claremont and its neighbors isolated by the Covina VRA district and could only be connected by the mountains or by chopping a bunch of towns to follow a road along the foothills. It turns out that without the Chino Hills fragment there is the exact population for 2 CDs south of the San Bernardino mountains, and if 53 K is added by jutting into Claremont, then 53 K from south of the mountains has to added to the Cd on the north side, and that isn't particularly attrractive if there s another alternative.

However OC needed 46 K to complete its CDs and that's not very different from 55 K. So the Chino Hills are split into two with one part going to LAC and the other to OC. But I don't have to link Victorville to a piece of San Bernardino.

An Ontario to San B district has 65.5% HVAP, leaving the foothills in the other district. The only thing left in San B is to complete the high desert district. Here I can use Blythe linked to Needles, plus Desert Hot Springs and nearby areas north of I-10 with a good link to Yucca Valley.

In Riverside it would be nice to make a district that exceeds 50% HCVAP, but I've used the likely areas in San B to link, and the Coachella Valley is too far with low HVAP areas in between. Instead I've made CD 42 an opportunity district with 54.7% HVAP. The connection to Corona is not pretty, but was needed to get over 50%. If there is another way to get 50% HVAP there, I'm open to suggestions. The other two districts also fit entirely within Riverside county.

[minionofmidas]

Here's an updated map with all four south LAC Latino districts safely in compliance with section 2. I've drawn them for compactness, but Torie or sbane can say what pieces should be swapped.

East LA/Koreatown (yellow; goes up to the edge of Glendale and Pasadena): 64.5% HVAP
Downtown/South LA (green): 68.5% HVAP
South Gate/Paramount (peach): 75.3% HVAP
Downey/Norwalk (magenta): 67.5% HVAP.

Wait, and what happens to the corridor here?

[muon2]

Here's an updated map with all four south LAC Latino districts safely in compliance with section 2. I've drawn them for compactness, but Torie or sbane can say what pieces should be swapped.

East LA/Koreatown (yellow; goes up to the edge of Glendale and Pasadena): 64.5% HVAP
Downtown/South LA (green): 68.5% HVAP
South Gate/Paramount (peach): 75.3% HVAP
Downey/Norwalk (magenta): 67.5% HVAP.

Wait, and what happens to the corridor here?

It has to be divided up between the other districts. In this map the Long Beach district is way short of population and could move west to pick up the corridor, or it could be given to the Torrance district and have the Long beach district encroach on the Palos Verdes area. Since it's not a VRA area, the mapper has choices.

In general the VRA will force a densely populated minority area (say 80-90%) to spread in multiple directions when multiple districts are required. There are other possibilities for those directions than in my map, such as going into OC and running east to the Anaheim district. The only direction off the table is northeast since that goes into the Asian majority district.

[minionofmidas]

The Long Beach district is the only undersized district?

[Torie]

Wait a minute.  The 50% HVAP rule that is an interpretation of Bartlett, rejected by the 9th circuit, which rejection the Commission sometimes followed, but not in Riverside.  Isn't that inconsistent?  Is there some case law, that you have to draw a 50% HVAP CD if it is compact enough, or a 50% HCVAP CD, if it is compact enough, whichever is greater?  One of course can speculate that the 9th Circuit is wrong, but for the moment it is governing law in CA.

The reason I ask, is that getting Riverside up to 50% HVAP violates other appropriate rules of redistricting in my view (at least in my map), and therefore, if no governing case law really supports the whichever is greater test, in my opinion, it is the Pubs job on the Commission to vote against a 50% HVAP CD in Riverside, if it creates more erosity, and hurts their cause, which it does here.

Yes, Lewis, if the Hispanic CD in LA County is to be moved west, that old CA-33 NW prong needs to go if at all possible. That is one of my goals. Hey, maybe it will bring the Beach Cities CD back into play - albeit remotely.

Mike, did you draw one more Hispanic CD in LA County now than I did (keeping CA-33 albeit elsewhere, and then drawing yet another from the northern part of CA-37?  Did you draw one more than the Commission did? If you drew two more, are they both 50% HCVAP - using the 63% HVAP proxy? What was the case again where you said it was 61.5% HVAP? Was that just in Fresno? Why was Fresno special again? 

[muon2]

Wait a minute.  The 50% HVAP rule that is an interpretation of Bartlett, rejected by the 9th circuit, which rejection the Commission sometimes followed, but not in Riverside.  Isn't that inconsistent?  Is there some case law, that you have to draw a 50% HVAP CD if it is compact enough, or a 50% HCVAP CD, if it is compact enough, whichever is greater? 

The reason I ask, is that getting Riverside up to 50% HVAP violates other appropriate rules of redistricting in my view (at least in my map), and therefore, if no governing case law really supports the whichever is greater test, in my opinion, it is the Pubs job on the Commission to vote against a 50% HVAP CD in Riverside, if it creates more erosity, and hurts their case, which is does here.

I don't know that the 50% HVAP rule has been considered by the 9th Circuit since Bartlett came down in 2009. Bartlett says VAP, but declined to say if CVAP is needed, because they didn't need to to decide the NC case. If I was a minority group that could have a 50% VAP district, but didn't get one, I'd be in court claiming Bartlett gives me standing to sue under section 2. I'd say that CVAP is fine to see how likely it is that the minority group could control the election (as in LULAC), but I should get an opportunity district in any case, even if below 50% CVAP. Bartlett says that the state may create of crossover district where some of the white majority join with the minority, and such districts may enhance minority voting rights.

[muon2]

The Long Beach district is the only undersized district?

The Black-plurality district was also slightly undersized in that map. Here's my embedding of those districts in a complete LA county map. This follows from my algorithm that placed 13 whole districts in the county, then tried to minimize municipal splits after satisfying the VRA. A 14th CD (32) adds only 22K from outside the county.

Here are the stats for the districts that would have a majority minority CVAP:
The VAPs for minority districts are as follows:
CD 26: 63.3% H
CD 29: 61.3% H
CD 31: 64.5% H
CD 32: 52.0% A
CD 33: 68.5% H
CD 34: 46.9% B
CD 35: 67.5% H
CD 36: 75.3% H
I note that one legal vulnerability is that the Black groups that testified did not want a majority-minority district and preferred to be split to maintain their opportunity for two districts, and the commission agreed with them. Despite their threats that a packed district could be a section 2 violation, I could find no basis for that claim, and preferred to keep the neighboring Latino districts comfortably above 50% CVAP where they could elect candidates of choice.

Here is a big picture map (CD 32 crosses into SanB but it doesn't show), and an enlargement with municipal lines (where CD 32 shows correctly).

[Torie]

Wait a minute.  The 50% HVAP rule that is an interpretation of Bartlett, rejected by the 9th circuit, which rejection the Commission sometimes followed, but not in Riverside.  Isn't that inconsistent?  Is there some case law, that you have to draw a 50% HVAP CD if it is compact enough, or a 50% HCVAP CD, if it is compact enough, whichever is greater? 

The reason I ask, is that getting Riverside up to 50% HVAP violates other appropriate rules of redistricting in my view (at least in my map), and therefore, if no governing case law really supports the whichever is greater test, in my opinion, it is the Pubs job on the Commission to vote against a 50% HVAP CD in Riverside, if it creates more erosity, and hurts their case, which is does here.

I don't know that the 50% HVAP rule has been considered by the 9th Circuit since Bartlett came down in 2009. Bartlett says VAP, but declined to say if CVAP is needed, because they didn't need to to decide the NC case. If I was a minority group that could have a 50% VAP district, but didn't get one, I'd be in court claiming Bartlett gives me standing to sue under section 2. I'd say that CVAP is fine to see how likely it is that the minority group could control the election (as in LULAC), but I should get an opportunity district in any case, even if below 50% CVAP. Bartlett says that the state may create of crossover district where some of the white majority join with the minority, and such districts may enhance minority voting rights.

"May" is not the same as "shall."  Sorry to keep bothering you Mike. I really need to read both cases myself. Does enhancing "minority voting rights" mean electing a white Democrat, because in Riverside, it is not going to be that white Dems help to elect a Dem Hispanic.

[Torie]

Lots of chops there with your Asian CD Mike.

[muon2]

Wait a minute.  The 50% HVAP rule that is an interpretation of Bartlett, rejected by the 9th circuit, which rejection the Commission sometimes followed, but not in Riverside.  Isn't that inconsistent?  Is there some case law, that you have to draw a 50% HVAP CD if it is compact enough, or a 50% HCVAP CD, if it is compact enough, whichever is greater? 

The reason I ask, is that getting Riverside up to 50% HVAP violates other appropriate rules of redistricting in my view (at least in my map), and therefore, if no governing case law really supports the whichever is greater test, in my opinion, it is the Pubs job on the Commission to vote against a 50% HVAP CD in Riverside, if it creates more erosity, and hurts their case, which is does here.

I don't know that the 50% HVAP rule has been considered by the 9th Circuit since Bartlett came down in 2009. Bartlett says VAP, but declined to say if CVAP is needed, because they didn't need to to decide the NC case. If I was a minority group that could have a 50% VAP district, but didn't get one, I'd be in court claiming Bartlett gives me standing to sue under section 2. I'd say that CVAP is fine to see how likely it is that the minority group could control the election (as in LULAC), but I should get an opportunity district in any case, even if below 50% CVAP. Bartlett says that the state may create of crossover district where some of the white majority join with the minority, and such districts may enhance minority voting rights.

"May" is not the same as "shall."  Sorry to keep bothering you Mike. I really need to read both cases myself. Does enhancing "minority voting rights" mean electing a white Democrat, because in Riverside, it is not going to be that white Dems help to elect a Dem Hispanic.

Here is the operative quote from Bartlett, it also appears in the commission report.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In my plan, I would note the creation of a >50% HVAP Riverside district as a mitigating factor that I did not make a majority CVAP district in Riverside, due to other rational redistricting principles. That may be the commission's thinking as well. In fact If you like the shape of their CD-41 better than my CD-42 I can swap to that shape.

I think that same language can be used to defend not splitting the Black population between two districts. It's clearly discretionary, and there is no other section 2 challenge related to that minority group.

Lots of chops there with your Asian CD Mike.

I wasn't particularly pleased with that part of the map, but I can shave the AVAP down in 32 somewhat and perhaps remove a chop, if you like.