Is gerrymandering constitutional?

[Rookie Yinzer]

Racial gerrymandering on the part of the GOP is disgusting.

[muon2]

I don't understand how you could game it under your rules. You need to find cities split between counties that involve a county that can be chopped and still get a top score, and then that it makes a partisan difference. Where in Ohio would one find such opportunities under your rules?

It's not as simple as one county and one city. The preference allowed me to rotate a whole string of counties and I could use the whole city preference rule to avoid any penalty.

I believe the city of Columbus crosses into Fairfield and Delaware Counties.

But that's not how you game the system. You game it by splitting up a city like Cleveland into 2 CDs, instead of the more rational move keeping the city whole and splitting a smaller municipality.

Cleveland is not a great example since Cuyahoga is subject to the VRA. Keeping Cleveland whole prevents the creation of a CD where the black minority can elect their candidate of choice.

[cinyc]

I don't understand how you could game it under your rules. You need to find cities split between counties that involve a county that can be chopped and still get a top score, and then that it makes a partisan difference. Where in Ohio would one find such opportunities under your rules?

It's not as simple as one county and one city. The preference allowed me to rotate a whole string of counties and I could use the whole city preference rule to avoid any penalty.

I believe the city of Columbus crosses into Fairfield and Delaware Counties.

But that's not how you game the system. You game it by splitting up a city like Cleveland into 2 CDs, instead of the more rational move keeping the city whole and splitting a smaller municipality.

Cleveland is not a great example since Cuyahoga is subject to the VRA. Keeping Cleveland whole prevents the creation of a CD where the black minority can elect their candidate of choice.

I think the Cleveland-Akron VRA district is on very shaky grounds (it crosses metro lines, for starters, and is likely losing BVAP, like much of Northeastern Ohio is losing VAP). The mapmakers may choose to keep it, but it might not be strictly necessary after the next census - if it even was this time around. It might not even be possible to draw a black majority district in NE Ohio after 2020.

[muon2]

I don't understand how you could game it under your rules. You need to find cities split between counties that involve a county that can be chopped and still get a top score, and then that it makes a partisan difference. Where in Ohio would one find such opportunities under your rules?

It's not as simple as one county and one city. The preference allowed me to rotate a whole string of counties and I could use the whole city preference rule to avoid any penalty.

I believe the city of Columbus crosses into Fairfield and Delaware Counties.

But that's not how you game the system. You game it by splitting up a city like Cleveland into 2 CDs, instead of the more rational move keeping the city whole and splitting a smaller municipality.

Cleveland is not a great example since Cuyahoga is subject to the VRA. Keeping Cleveland whole prevents the creation of a CD where the black minority can elect their candidate of choice.

I think the Cleveland-Akron VRA district is on very shaky grounds (it crosses metro lines, for starters, and is likely losing BVAP, like much of Northeastern Ohio is losing VAP). The mapmakers may choose to keep it, but it might not be strictly necessary after the next census - if it even was this time around. It might not even be possible to draw a black majority district in NE Ohio after 2020.

One of the directions the courts are going is to recognize that though a 50%+ district could be drawn, it may not need to be drawn to comply with the VRA. The Cleveland-Akron in 2010 is 50%+, but legal observers in OH in 2010 thought that a 48% BVAP in Cuyahoga alone would elect the black candidate of choice and thus meet VRA requirements. The thought wasn't tested in OH, but is was in IL. In the state legislative map in 2011 the 7th Circuit found that a district in the high 40% range in E St Louis met the VRA requirements and the 50%+1 district wasn't required even though it was possible.

[Torie]

I don't understand how you could game it under your rules. You need to find cities split between counties that involve a county that can be chopped and still get a top score, and then that it makes a partisan difference. Where in Ohio would one find such opportunities under your rules?

I believe the city of Columbus crosses into Fairfield and Delaware Counties.

But that's not how you game the system. You game it by splitting up a city like Cleveland into 2 CDs, instead of the more rational move keeping the city whole and splitting a smaller municipality.

But then you have a macro-chop of a city, and your erosity score tanks, and the map is tossed. Both counties and municipalities are subject to the macro-chop penalty regime.

[Torie]

I don't understand how you could game it under your rules. You need to find cities split between counties that involve a county that can be chopped and still get a top score, and then that it makes a partisan difference. Where in Ohio would one find such opportunities under your rules?

It's not as simple as one county and one city. The preference allowed me to rotate a whole string of counties and I could use the whole city preference rule to avoid any penalty.

I believe the city of Columbus crosses into Fairfield and Delaware Counties.

But that's not how you game the system. You game it by splitting up a city like Cleveland into 2 CDs, instead of the more rational move keeping the city whole and splitting a smaller municipality.

Cleveland is not a great example since Cuyahoga is subject to the VRA. Keeping Cleveland whole prevents the creation of a CD where the black minority can elect their candidate of choice.

I would have to see the example, and then decide if the result is bad. I really cannot envision it. Just to be clear, not chopping counties still has priority. It is just that if there are the same number of chops, then the map that avoids chopping a city because the two counties that the subject city is in are in the same rather than different CD's, prevails. Using the word "gaming" seems tendentious to me.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

I don't know, but it should not be.

[muon2]

I don't understand how you could game it under your rules. You need to find cities split between counties that involve a county that can be chopped and still get a top score, and then that it makes a partisan difference. Where in Ohio would one find such opportunities under your rules?

It's not as simple as one county and one city. The preference allowed me to rotate a whole string of counties and I could use the whole city preference rule to avoid any penalty.

I believe the city of Columbus crosses into Fairfield and Delaware Counties.

But that's not how you game the system. You game it by splitting up a city like Cleveland into 2 CDs, instead of the more rational move keeping the city whole and splitting a smaller municipality.

Cleveland is not a great example since Cuyahoga is subject to the VRA. Keeping Cleveland whole prevents the creation of a CD where the black minority can elect their candidate of choice.

I would have to see the example, and then decide if the result is bad. I really cannot envision it. Just to be clear, not chopping counties still has priority. It is just that if there are the same number of chops, then the map that avoids chopping a city because the two counties that the subject city is in are in the same rather than different CD's, prevails. Using the word "gaming" seems tendentious to me.

Unfortunately the OH competition web site was taken down. The best illustration I could make would be to show you the top finishers and show how the competition's city preference rule allowed one to selectively gerrymander districts by a point or so. Understanding that effect allowed one to win in way based solely on that understanding. From what I could tell that was not the intent those designing the challenge. I wouldn't have thought that was a particularly tendentious use of the word gaming, which of course starts with negative connotations anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

- Oxford Dictionaries by way of Bing Translator

[Torie]

I don't understand how you could game it under your rules. You need to find cities split between counties that involve a county that can be chopped and still get a top score, and then that it makes a partisan difference. Where in Ohio would one find such opportunities under your rules?

It's not as simple as one county and one city. The preference allowed me to rotate a whole string of counties and I could use the whole city preference rule to avoid any penalty.

I believe the city of Columbus crosses into Fairfield and Delaware Counties.

But that's not how you game the system. You game it by splitting up a city like Cleveland into 2 CDs, instead of the more rational move keeping the city whole and splitting a smaller municipality.

Cleveland is not a great example since Cuyahoga is subject to the VRA. Keeping Cleveland whole prevents the creation of a CD where the black minority can elect their candidate of choice.

I think the Cleveland-Akron VRA district is on very shaky grounds (it crosses metro lines, for starters, and is likely losing BVAP, like much of Northeastern Ohio is losing VAP). The mapmakers may choose to keep it, but it might not be strictly necessary after the next census - if it even was this time around. It might not even be possible to draw a black majority district in NE Ohio after 2020.

One of the directions the courts are going is to recognize that though a 50%+ district could be drawn, it may not need to be drawn to comply with the VRA. The Cleveland-Akron in 2010 is 50%+, but legal observers in OH in 2010 thought that a 48% BVAP in Cuyahoga alone would elect the black candidate of choice and thus meet VRA requirements. The thought wasn't tested in OH, but is was in IL. In the state legislative map in 2011 the 7th Circuit found that a district in the high 40% range in E St Louis met the VRA requirements and the 50%+1 district wasn't required even though it was possible.

I think the point is that a good case could be made that there is no contiguous minority territory that is 50% BVAP that would mandate that a VRA district be drawn (which could as drawn be somewhat less than 50% BVAP and still comply with the VRA). In reality of course, a black performing district will be drawn most probably for political reasons. And after the next census, it might not be possible to drawn any 50% BVAP CD in the Cleveland area, even if it travels to inner city Akron.

[muon2]

I don't understand how you could game it under your rules. You need to find cities split between counties that involve a county that can be chopped and still get a top score, and then that it makes a partisan difference. Where in Ohio would one find such opportunities under your rules?

It's not as simple as one county and one city. The preference allowed me to rotate a whole string of counties and I could use the whole city preference rule to avoid any penalty.

I believe the city of Columbus crosses into Fairfield and Delaware Counties.

But that's not how you game the system. You game it by splitting up a city like Cleveland into 2 CDs, instead of the more rational move keeping the city whole and splitting a smaller municipality.

Cleveland is not a great example since Cuyahoga is subject to the VRA. Keeping Cleveland whole prevents the creation of a CD where the black minority can elect their candidate of choice.

I think the Cleveland-Akron VRA district is on very shaky grounds (it crosses metro lines, for starters, and is likely losing BVAP, like much of Northeastern Ohio is losing VAP). The mapmakers may choose to keep it, but it might not be strictly necessary after the next census - if it even was this time around. It might not even be possible to draw a black majority district in NE Ohio after 2020.

One of the directions the courts are going is to recognize that though a 50%+ district could be drawn, it may not need to be drawn to comply with the VRA. The Cleveland-Akron in 2010 is 50%+, but legal observers in OH in 2010 thought that a 48% BVAP in Cuyahoga alone would elect the black candidate of choice and thus meet VRA requirements. The thought wasn't tested in OH, but is was in IL. In the state legislative map in 2011 the 7th Circuit found that a district in the high 40% range in E St Louis met the VRA requirements and the 50%+1 district wasn't required even though it was possible.

I think the point is that a good case could be made that there is no contiguous minority territory that is 50% BVAP that would mandate that a VRA district be drawn (which could as drawn be somewhat less than 50% BVAP and still comply with the VRA). In reality of course, a black performing district will be drawn most probably for political reasons. And after the next census, it might not be possible to drawn any 50% BVAP CD in the Cleveland area, even if it travels to inner city Akron.

We agree that there should be a standard of contiguity for minority areas, but the court hasn't accepted that. The best they've said is that you can't link communities hundreds of miles away that share no interests. I suspect that the court would find that Cuyahoga and Summit are adjacent and that's good enough to require a VRA district, even if the minority areas are separated. I also suspect that if OH loses a seat, then it won't be possible to meet the Gingles threshold in that area as the district population will be too large.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I also suspect that if OH loses a seat, then it won't be possible to meet the Gingles threshold in that area as the district population will be too large.

This is why we need a larger House of Representatives. Yes there will be more representatives overall, but having 1/675 is better than having 0/435 if you are an African-American in Cleveland.

It is also harder to drown out inconvenient demographics with smaller districts, which has been one thing that has facilitated gerrymandering especially in the rust belt and other areas that have lost districts. You have to take those districts further out and include more people. Which can either drowned out the previous dominant demographics in those districts or use the dominant demographics in those districts to neuter precincts being added and keep them out of districts that might be made more competitive with their presence.

You saw the latter with the expansion of ILL-01 and ILL-02 in the last drawing, which was one of many factors that "helped" the gerrymandering of that state. The former has occurred in many of the Republican maps in the Midwest, including Michigan, Ohio, and PA.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think the supposed Bill of Rights violations are all dubious, but I kind of agree with Muon's take that it violates the guarantee of republican government in IV.4.

I would agree with IV.4 but only as far as the lower houses or "more numerous" houses in the various state legislature is concerned. I have long thought that Reynolds v. Simms was wrongly applied to the "state legislatures as a whole". The US Constitution reserves for the Federal government, a republican form of a gov't which contains a Senate based on one state one vote, then guarantees a "republican form of gov't" to the states. It is therefore ridiculous to apply the 14th Amendment in such a fashion that states the ability to model itself in a fashion after the US Constitution.

To me, it only makes sense if the Warren Court's majority in that case expected at some point for the US Senate to be altered or abolished at some point in the future, or at the very least treated it as a inconvenient, arcane aspect of the constitution that would at some point be dealt with.