how effective would a San Diego dempack be?

[muon2]

Are you splitting the connection to Imperial?

[muon2]

The map I posted in the wine country thread might be better for your goals without trying.



CA 53 is 65.5% HVAP and voted 59.5% for Brown, and it includes Imperial but none of SD city. CA 52 is SD city plus Coronado and voted 61.2% for Brown. The rest of SD city is in CD 50 which was 45.4% Brown, while the eastern suburbs are in CD 51 which was 38.3% Brown.

That's a pretty firm split of the districts between the two parties.

Edit: I think I read your OP backwards. I was thinking you wanted to insure two solid D and you were going the other way to one D.

[muon2]

Of course the other people who live in areas where Hispanics do in California tend not to be Republicans except for the Central Valley, where you'd run into some VRA issues trying to dilute the vote. I suppose there's lots of Hispanics in Orange County, but they're not in the same areas as the most solidly Republican ones.

Both Sanchez sisters could be eliminated, for example.

That would be extremely difficult with the VRA in place. But it may be possible to make the OC CD rather marginal.  The VRA is not the Pub's friend in CA, and in general when it comes to Hispanics. The Pubs would probably prefer the VRA be limited to blacks.

Well, you could probably attach Orange and maybe Placentia to Anaheim and split Santa Ana to make a marginal district. The question really is how Hispanic does it have to be without violating the VRA. BTW, a 50% HCVAP is impossible in OC. Too many recent immigrants/illegals.

It would take about 69% HVAP to exceed 50% HCVAP. However, if the CD was split and I was a Latino group, I'd take the case to SCOTUS. Even though the 9th Circuit uses CVAP, other circuits look at past electoral performance to determine the necessary minimum to elect candidates of choice. Clearly CA-47 has consistently elected a Latino candidate of choice, so I would put the question to SCOTUS to recognize that 50% HCVAP can be too demanding of a threshold.

[muon2]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some Circuits use a Section 5 standard in applying Section 2?

The 7th historically uses election data to show the ability of a minority to elect a candidate of choice in section 2 cases. They rejected a MALDEF claim in 2008 that would use a threshold of 65% VAP to model CVAP as arbitrary. In the 2011 IL congressional suit they referenced a benchmark of 59.2% HVAP as that was the number in 1991 IL-4 that has elected the candidate of choice for the last 20 years.

[muon2]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some Circuits use a Section 5 standard in applying Section 2?

The 7th historically uses election data to show the ability of a minority to elect a candidate of choice in section 2 cases. They rejected a MALDEF claim in 2008 that would use a threshold of 65% VAP to model CVAP as arbitrary. In the 2011 IL congressional suit they referenced a benchmark of 59.2% HVAP as that was the number in 1991 IL-4 that has elected the candidate of choice for the last 20 years.

So we have a circuit courts' trifecta: 50% CVAP, 50% VAP, and ala Section 5, a non bright line psephological analysis in lieu of a specific percentage hurdle. Do I have that right?

Yep. At conferences leading up to 2011 this was a frequent observation. The legal experts felt that it was one of the questions most likely to land in SCOTUS' lap.

[muon2]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some Circuits use a Section 5 standard in applying Section 2?

The 7th historically uses election data to show the ability of a minority to elect a candidate of choice in section 2 cases. They rejected a MALDEF claim in 2008 that would use a threshold of 65% VAP to model CVAP as arbitrary. In the 2011 IL congressional suit they referenced a benchmark of 59.2% HVAP as that was the number in 1991 IL-4 that has elected the candidate of choice for the last 20 years.

So we have a circuit courts' trifecta: 50% CVAP, 50% VAP, and ala Section 5, a non bright line psephological analysis in lieu of a specific percentage hurdle. Do I have that right?

And if the House were to be successful in deleting the ACS, then there can be no CVAP unless citizenship is asked on the short form in 2020. That would seem to put pro-immigrant groups in a real box, since the fear is that question would suppress responses from a population already prone to undercounts.