early look at gerrymanders in 2020

[krazen1211]

Florida can add 1-2 new seats for the GOP and also flip back FL-07 and FL-05. And Texas will be 3 new seats for the GOP! Georgia can be a new seat for the GOP! Just cut GA-02.

[krazen1211]

They can either get rid of OH-13 or OH-9...not both.    Cleaveland and Akron are too large for just 1 dem vote sink.   OH-9 has a large part of it's population in western Cuyahoga.

But yes, OH-13 is the most likely to go, but the good news is both Cincinnati and Columbus are both looking good for the Democrats in the future

Cuyahoga County Dems all can be shoved into 1 district in 2021 once the Akron leg is removed!

[krazen1211]

Thank you. I'm kinda new to this and i really dont understand the state by state laws of how the VRA has to be applied exactly

The Trumpification of the courts is going to have a big impact. Wouldn't be surprising to see Neil Gorsuch toss this silly Voting Rights Act into history's dustbin.

[krazen1211]

Another possibility that hasn't been discussed yet: If VRA influence on redistricting is weakened further, could big partisan states like CA, NY, IL, TX et. al just make all of their congressional elections at large?

At large districts were banned in 1967 and nobody seems to be challenging that.

[krazen1211]

Another possibility that hasn't been discussed yet: If VRA influence on redistricting is weakened further, could big partisan states like CA, NY, IL, TX et. al just make all of their congressional elections at large?

At large districts were banned in 1967 and nobody seems to be challenging that.

Interesting.  It would seem to be heavily advantageous for Dems to start lobbying for at-large districts given that they win a bunch of large states with 60%+ while the only safe place for the GOP to retaliate would be Texas and Ohio (and they may even regret TX-At-Large come 2028 or a 2030 GOP midterm.  It's also constitutionally ambiguous whether the President and the Senate would even have to approve something that only impacts the manner of US House elections if a House majority voted for the changes.

Well, yes, but the problem comes from the fact that white liberals would swoop in and take the districts and kick all the nonwhite liberals out.

And then there's the second problem of getting mediocrities like Maxine Waters to support something that is guaranteed to end their career.

The GOP would retaliate with selective multi member districting.

[krazen1211]

Another possibility that hasn't been discussed yet: If VRA influence on redistricting is weakened further, could big partisan states like CA, NY, IL, TX et. al just make all of their congressional elections at large?

At large districts were banned in 1967 and nobody seems to be challenging that.

Wasn't the VRA the reason why they were banned? If the VRA is gutted further, doesn't this ban become a moot point?

Well, yes and no. After the VRA was passed in 1965, some folks figured that the Democrats would switch to at large elections to keep electing white liberals instead of blacks. So the 1967 law came to be.

But the concept of requiring single member districts dates back to 1842 and long predates any VRA thing or even the 15th amendment. So there is no reason to link one to the other.

[krazen1211]

Then please tell us the maximum number of House seats the California Republican Party can realistically sustain, that is, what an optimal gerrymander for the Republicans there would look like. Such a thing wouldn't even come close to doubling the current number of GOP representatives in California, and far more of them would be at risk of going down in a Democratic wave as a result.

In 2010 the GOP won 19 districts as opposed to the 14 it has now.

The redistricting blew up Gallegy and Dreier's districts and screwed Bilbray and Miller by drawing them into Dem areas. Bono Mack's and maybe Lungren's district slid away from the GOP, but could be flipped back with slightly different lines.

So the GOP could easily have at least 4 more districts.