Virginia 2020 County Projection Map

[Oryxslayer]

Whats the 2012/16 PVIs int hose districts? I still think the BVAP is to low, but eh.

[muon2]

The courts will probably not look favorably on a Dem gerrymander that cracks the black population of SE VA. As the recent congressional case and subsequent election show, a district does not have to be 50% to elect the black candidate of choice, but it can't be too low that it would likely elect a white Dem. A rough guide is probably to check that the black population is a substantial majority of the Dem vote in the primary.

Gingles test requires 50% BVAP in a compact area. The reason the court intervened was because VA-3 was not compact. But a district that stretches from Chesapeake to Richmond, while skipping through Chesterfield is not compact. A court would also look askance at the splitting of the current VA-3. And trying to create 3 Democratic districts in SE Virginia looks like a dummymander.

The court has found that though 50% in a compact area is necessary to trigger Gingles, the district that is drawn does not need 50%. The district only has to be able to elect the candidate of choice of the minority. Under that interpretation, there's a lot more wiggle room for mappers, though the burden is on a mapper to show that a sub 50% district can perform to elect a candidate of choice. In VA that depends on how well the minority can control the Dem primary and have enough crossover white Dem votes to prevail in the general election.

You can't get to 50% in a compact area in SE Virginia, and if Dems can win in a 40% BVAP district, you don't have racially polarized voting.

We don't know how SCOTUS views this since there was no standing when Personhubullah came before them. However, the district court clearly expected the newly drawn VA-3 to maintain the ability to elect the candidate of the black minority. This is from their Jan 2016 order to proceed with the map of the special master.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The phrase used by the district court clearly indicates that they believed that section 2 of the VRA could potentially be applied to VA-3. Later in the same opinion they recognize that they were not asked to take up a section 2 challenge to the map, but they did state that the adopted plan of the special master was selected and approved in order to withstand a potential section 2 challenge following the logic in McDaniel v Sanchez (1981).

[muon2]

Whats the 2012/16 PVIs int hose districts? I still think the BVAP is to low, but eh.

If you track down the opinion I cite above, you'll see that the special master found that both his drawn VA-3 and VA-4 could be expected to elect the candidate of choice of the black minority. The current VA-4 was just over 40% BVAP in 2010.

[jimrtex]

To rebut the silly notion that those maps I posted are "racial gerrymanders", here's why the old VA-03 was struck down:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/court-throws-out-virginia-congressional-map/2014/10/07/97fb866a-4e56-11e4-8c24-487e92bc997b_story.html?utm_term=.e28ce83385a8

It's just wishful thinking to think that a court is going to object to two 40% black seats out of concern for racial gerrymandering. If anything, the courts will approve those maps with flying colors because they're designed to elect two black Democrats. And probably a 3rd black Democrat in VA-02.

The Washington Post article is not accurate.

Of course the Democrats could buy an expert to claim that it was part of a political gerrymander.

The expert witness had written a scholarly article claiming that Virginia was a clever 8:3 gerrymander. When he was an expert in the court case, he claimed that race predominated.

[muon2]

The courts will probably not look favorably on a Dem gerrymander that cracks the black population of SE VA. As the recent congressional case and subsequent election show, a district does not have to be 50% to elect the black candidate of choice, but it can't be too low that it would likely elect a white Dem. A rough guide is probably to check that the black population is a substantial majority of the Dem vote in the primary.

Gingles test requires 50% BVAP in a compact area. The reason the court intervened was because VA-3 was not compact. But a district that stretches from Chesapeake to Richmond, while skipping through Chesterfield is not compact. A court would also look askance at the splitting of the current VA-3. And trying to create 3 Democratic districts in SE Virginia looks like a dummymander.

The court has found that though 50% in a compact area is necessary to trigger Gingles, the district that is drawn does not need 50%. The district only has to be able to elect the candidate of choice of the minority. Under that interpretation, there's a lot more wiggle room for mappers, though the burden is on a mapper to show that a sub 50% district can perform to elect a candidate of choice. In VA that depends on how well the minority can control the Dem primary and have enough crossover white Dem votes to prevail in the general election.

You can't get to 50% in a compact area in SE Virginia, and if Dems can win in a 40% BVAP district, you don't have racially polarized voting.

Actually using 2010 data one can make a 51% BVAP district that is at least as compact as the current NC-1 and doesn't go into Richmond at all. Link the Hampton Roads to Petersburg through the rural counties south of the James.

Racially polarized voting can still occur even when there is a fraction of the white majority that votes for the candidate preferred by the minority population. As long as the white majority would usually defeat the black candidate of choice then Gingles is satisfied. Witness on both sides tend to run detailed statistical analyses (such as ecological inference) to show the existence or non-existence of bloc voting. My observation is that in areas with a significant black majority these analyses tend to be equivalent to testing whether the whites in the area under consideration are majority Pub or Dem. If they are majority Pub, then the conclusion is in favor of polarized voting.

[jimrtex]

The courts will probably not look favorably on a Dem gerrymander that cracks the black population of SE VA. As the recent congressional case and subsequent election show, a district does not have to be 50% to elect the black candidate of choice, but it can't be too low that it would likely elect a white Dem. A rough guide is probably to check that the black population is a substantial majority of the Dem vote in the primary.

Gingles test requires 50% BVAP in a compact area. The reason the court intervened was because VA-3 was not compact. But a district that stretches from Chesapeake to Richmond, while skipping through Chesterfield is not compact. A court would also look askance at the splitting of the current VA-3. And trying to create 3 Democratic districts in SE Virginia looks like a dummymander.

The court has found that though 50% in a compact area is necessary to trigger Gingles, the district that is drawn does not need 50%. The district only has to be able to elect the candidate of choice of the minority. Under that interpretation, there's a lot more wiggle room for mappers, though the burden is on a mapper to show that a sub 50% district can perform to elect a candidate of choice. In VA that depends on how well the minority can control the Dem primary and have enough crossover white Dem votes to prevail in the general election.

You can't get to 50% in a compact area in SE Virginia, and if Dems can win in a 40% BVAP district, you don't have racially polarized voting.

We don't know how SCOTUS views this since there was no standing when Personhubullah came before them. However, the district court clearly expected the newly drawn VA-3 to maintain the ability to elect the candidate of the black minority. This is from their Jan 2016 order to proceed with the map of the special master.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The phrase used by the district court clearly indicates that they believed that section 2 of the VRA could potentially be applied to VA-3. Later in the same opinion they recognize that they were not asked to take up a section 2 challenge to the map, but they did state that the adopted plan of the special master was selected and approved in order to withstand a potential section 2 challenge following the logic in McDaniel v Sanchez (1981).

Virginia had claimed they had packed VA-3 in order to get Section 5 preclearance (this may in fact be true, since Eric Holder's USDOJ can be presumed to be biased.) While the USDOJ never "approved" a map, but rather "did not interpose an objection". But in a popular view, it would appear that Virginia received "approval". It was not until after Shelby County that Personhuballah was filed. The fundamental finding was that the legislature had gone beyond what was necessary to avoid retrogression.

They concluded that Grofman's plan would comply with Section 5, even though this was no longer required, nor necessary for a federal court, but simply because it was consistent with a legitimate state policy when the map had been drawn.

I think you are misinterpreting what they are saying about Section 2. First they said that any court-approved plan should comply with federal law, including Section 2. But they said that the special masters plan for VA-4 would survive a Section 2 challenge because the fact that it was a performing district at 40% BVAP demonstrated that there was not bloc voting sufficient to deny the election of the black voter's candidate of choice. That is, the Gingles conditions do not exist, and there is no need for a Section 2 district, rather than VA-4 is such a district.

[Oryxslayer]

Here is my Dem gerrymander that I drew earlier. The first scenario has the fourth be over 50% Black, while the second has it and the third both in the mid forties. The beauty of the map is fourth eating up southside, acting as a Black opportunity and a Rural R pact at the same time. It effectively dismembers the fifth and giving dems a excuse to put Charlottesville to use. It also allows dems to go crazy in the Tidewater, since VA-04 and VA-03 have switch Black vote strength. The extra third in Nova is used as part of a redrawn seventh, which goes from PW down to Charlottesville, and then into White Richmond. Nova is horribly disfigured in order to keep dem incumbents in their districts. I also tried to keep VA-11 below 50% white, similar to the current district. In both scenarios, it is 48% white. VA - 02 could probably become more democratic, though any moves in that direction would lower the black population of the fourth, which at the time, I was uncomfortable dropping to low. So I guess you can say these maps are 6 D, 4 R, 1 D leaning Tossup, though more aggressive lines in the Tidewater could have solidified VA - 02.

Obviously when I am cutting a county, I am assuming that growth is evenly dispersed, a faulty assumption at best. However, it is too time consuming and impossible to find data of local divisions, so this is the best we can do right now.



VA - 01: R+11.5
VA - 02: D+1.4
VA - 03: D+8.9, 41.5% Black, 40.2% BVAP
VA - 04: D+13.1, 50.2% Black, 48.4% BVAP
VA - 05: R+11.3
VA - 06: R+15
VA - 07: D+5.4
VA - 08: D+15.6
VA - 09: R+19.9
VA - 10: D+11.6
VA - 11: D+12.3, 48% White



VA - 01: R+11.4
VA - 02: D+1.4
VA - 03: D+10.3, 44% Black, 42.6% BVAP
VA - 04: D+11.6, 48% Black, 46.4% BVAP
VA - 05: R+12.2
VA - 06: R+14.6
VA - 07: D+5.2
VA - 08: D+13.9
VA - 09: R+19.5
VA - 10: D+8.9
VA - 11: D+18, 48% White

Now I was going to move onto a fair map, however knowing now that I could get away with lower BVAP district, I may see if I can draw an even more aggressive map and try for a AA fair 8-3...

[jimrtex]

Whats the 2012/16 PVIs int hose districts? I still think the BVAP is to low, but eh.

If you track down the opinion I cite above, you'll see that the special master found that both his drawn VA-3 and VA-4 could be expected to elect the candidate of choice of the black minority. The current VA-4 was just over 40% BVAP in 2010.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My emphasis. The court did not consider whether the first condition could be met.

[muon2]

Whats the 2012/16 PVIs int hose districts? I still think the BVAP is to low, but eh.

If you track down the opinion I cite above, you'll see that the special master found that both his drawn VA-3 and VA-4 could be expected to elect the candidate of choice of the black minority. The current VA-4 was just over 40% BVAP in 2010.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My emphasis. The court did not consider whether the first condition could be met.

Correct. But my own analysis is that it is possible to meet the first condition. Also, I was not suggesting that VA-04 is required, only that VA-03 is required under the VRA.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

If Democrats do not gerrymander at least 8-3 in 2021, I would be angry.

[Oryxslayer]

This would be 7 Safe D, 1 Leans D, 3 Safe R map.

Districts 3 & 4 are about 40% black and would probably elect a black Democrat.

The yellow district in the middle is the leans D seat, and believe it or not, it looks like Hillary barely did a little better than Obama there by widening his margins in Albemarle/Charlottesville.

What is this, a congressional map for ants?

[jimrtex]

Whats the 2012/16 PVIs int hose districts? I still think the BVAP is to low, but eh.

If you track down the opinion I cite above, you'll see that the special master found that both his drawn VA-3 and VA-4 could be expected to elect the candidate of choice of the black minority. The current VA-4 was just over 40% BVAP in 2010.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My emphasis. The court did not consider whether the first condition could be met.

Correct. But my own analysis is that it is possible to meet the first condition. Also, I was not suggesting that VA-04 is required, only that VA-03 is required under the VRA.

The court said that the new VA-3 complied with Section 5, but indicated that is no longer a requirement, but something that should be done because it was a requirement when the legislature created the district, and was the legislature's rationale for making it 55% BVAP. The fundamental finding was that Virginia violated the 14th Amendment when attempting to comply with federal statute. In previous decades litigation over VA-3, it has been suggested that the district was not required in order to comply with Section 2.

[jimrtex]

The courts will probably not look favorably on a Dem gerrymander that cracks the black population of SE VA. As the recent congressional case and subsequent election show, a district does not have to be 50% to elect the black candidate of choice, but it can't be too low that it would likely elect a white Dem. A rough guide is probably to check that the black population is a substantial majority of the Dem vote in the primary.

Gingles test requires 50% BVAP in a compact area. The reason the court intervened was because VA-3 was not compact. But a district that stretches from Chesapeake to Richmond, while skipping through Chesterfield is not compact. A court would also look askance at the splitting of the current VA-3. And trying to create 3 Democratic districts in SE Virginia looks like a dummymander.

The court has found that though 50% in a compact area is necessary to trigger Gingles, the district that is drawn does not need 50%. The district only has to be able to elect the candidate of choice of the minority. Under that interpretation, there's a lot more wiggle room for mappers, though the burden is on a mapper to show that a sub 50% district can perform to elect a candidate of choice. In VA that depends on how well the minority can control the Dem primary and have enough crossover white Dem votes to prevail in the general election.

You can't get to 50% in a compact area in SE Virginia, and if Dems can win in a 40% BVAP district, you don't have racially polarized voting.

Actually using 2010 data one can make a 51% BVAP district that is at least as compact as the current NC-1 and doesn't go into Richmond at all. Link the Hampton Roads to Petersburg through the rural counties south of the James.

Racially polarized voting can still occur even when there is a fraction of the white majority that votes for the candidate preferred by the minority population. As long as the white majority would usually defeat the black candidate of choice then Gingles is satisfied. Witness on both sides tend to run detailed statistical analyses (such as ecological inference) to show the existence or non-existence of bloc voting. My observation is that in areas with a significant black majority these analyses tend to be equivalent to testing whether the whites in the area under consideration are majority Pub or Dem. If they are majority Pub, then the conclusion is in favor of polarized voting.

The current NC-1 is not a Section 2 district, because bloc voting does not exist, and the old NC-1 was decidedly not compact.

The Gingles test was poorly formulated, or is misapplied to cases where single-member districts are already being drawn, particularly of the size of congressional districts.

It violates the 14th Amendment to recognize the "black community" in forming districts, because that is assigning voters to districts on the basis of race. Otherwise, the solution would be to have racially segregated electorates. Virginia could have 7 white districts, 2 black districts, 1 Hispanic district, and 1 Asian and other district.

[Brittain33]

What a load of horse crap. We all know the only reason Va-03 was 55% black from 2011-16 was because it was designed to pack in all the Dem voters in SE VA

Jim chooses his words very carefully. The word "rationale" does not require they be sincere in their justification, and Jim does not feel obligated to point out any reasons not explicitly cited by the Republican majority.

[Nyvin]

What a load of horse crap. We all know the only reason Va-03 was 55% black from 2011-16 was because it was designed to pack in all the Dem voters in SE VA

Especially considering the current districts both elected Black representatives easily.    Drawing two Dem seats in southeast VA was always stupidly easy,  they really had to contort the districts to make VA-4  a GOP seat.

[Oryxslayer]

I'm inspired to draw a 9-2 Virginia now. Don't think it's possible? I'm going to draw 6 NOVA bacon strips and keep VA-2, 3 and 4. 7-1-3 is way too generous to Republicans.

And I could draw a 27-0 map of NY with bacon strips from the city. Doesn't make it all that practical. Something like that belongs i. Kamilas thread.

[muon2]

I'm inspired to draw a 9-2 Virginia now. Don't think it's possible? I'm going to draw 6 NOVA bacon strips and keep VA-2, 3 and 4. 7-1-3 is way too generous to Republicans.

And I could draw a 27-0 map of NY with bacon strips from the city. Doesn't make it all that practical. Something like that belongs i. Kamilas thread.

Not just is it impractical, the public hates it, too. In IL there has been wide bipartisan support for neutral redistricting. It has only been officials with the party in power and party hacks who want to continue to bet that they can win the cycle before redistricting and exercise maximum party control. Even in IL it's not just Dems, but there are plenty of county-level Pubs who enjoy the majority in their jurisdictions. Neither side wants to give up that edge once they have it.

[jimrtex]

What a load of horse crap. We all know the only reason Va-03 was 55% black from 2011-16 was because it was designed to pack in all the Dem voters in SE VA

Jim chooses his words very carefully. The word "rationale" does not require they be sincere in their justification, and Jim does not feel obligated to point out any reasons not explicitly cited by the Republican majority.

If VA-3 had not been created following the 1990 census it is unlikely that Bobby Scott would be in Congress. He had run in 1986, and lost with 46% of the vote.

The USDOJ forced the creation of VA-3 in 1992 (the first version was overturned in 1996, because it had a BVAP of 60%). The court ruled that the State had not proven that polarized bloc voting was sufficient to prevent the election of the black candidate of choice. The court also state that the existence of a minority majority "in a geographically compact area" was "doubtful at best."

The new district first used in 1998 was just over 50% BVAP, and secured USDOJ Section 5 preclearance.

Following the 2000 Census, VA-4 was challenged in district court because the BVAP had been reduced from 40% to 34%. The district court ruled that Section 2 of the VRA did not require the creation of coalition districts and dismissed the complaint.

Following the 2010 Census, Virginia was confronted with a hostile and partisan USDOJ. States all over the South increased the black percentage of districts in order to secure administrative preclearance (Texas did not, and we are still in court for the past 6 years).

While Democrats in the legislature suggested that the current map was an 8:3 partisan gerrymander, as did scholarly articles, the Republicans said it was incumbent protection and compliance with Section 5. The plan was precleared by the Eric Holder USDOJ. It was not until after Shelby County that the Personhuballah lawsuit was launched.

If blacks in general are given an opportunity to elect their candidate of choice, isn't it reasonable to maximize their opportunity of individual black voters to participate in that election?

[jimrtex]

What a load of horse crap. We all know the only reason Va-03 was 55% black from 2011-16 was because it was designed to pack in all the Dem voters in SE VA

Especially considering the current districts both elected Black representatives easily.    Drawing two Dem seats in southeast VA was always stupidly easy,  they really had to contort the districts to make VA-4  a GOP seat.

What's the black percentages of VA-03 and VA-04 now? I don't think the wiki page for VA-04 is right since it's 62% white and 33% black. But in any case, VA-03 and VA-04 would still very easily elect McEachin and Scott in 40% black seats like in my maps while still ensuring VA-02 is safe D. That's precisely what I think the Virginia Democratic Party will do when they get the chance.

From 2016 ACS. White, Black, Asian, and Other (AIAN, NHOPI, Other, and 2 or more races) are Non-Hispanic. Hispanic includes all Hispanics regardless of race.

VA-01  W67%; B15%; A3%; O5%; H9%.
VA-02  W62%; B20%; A5%; O5%; H8%.
VA-03  W42%; B45%; A3%; O4%; H6%.
VA-04  W49%; B41%; A2%; O3%; H5%.
VA-05  W73%; B20%; A2%; O2%; H3%.
VA-06  W79%; B11%; A2%; O3%; H5%.
VA-07  W67%; B17%; A5%; O3%; H7%.
VA-08  W52%; B14%; A11%; O4%; H19%.
VA-09  W90%; B5%; A1%; O2%; H2%.
VA-10  W61%; B7%; A14%; O5%; H14%.
VA-11  W46%; B13%; A19%; O4%; H18%.

[jimrtex]

What nonsense is this.

You should not assume my responses are to you alone.

[Nyvin]

If VA-3 had not been created following the 1990 census it is unlikely that Bobby Scott would be in Congress. He had run in 1986, and lost with 46% of the vote.

The USDOJ forced the creation of VA-3 in 1992 (the first version was overturned in 1996, because it had a BVAP of 60%). The court ruled that the State had not proven that polarized bloc voting was sufficient to prevent the election of the black candidate of choice. The court also state that the existence of a minority majority "in a geographically compact area" was "doubtful at best."

Following the 2010 Census, Virginia was confronted with a hostile and partisan USDOJ. States all over the South increased the black percentage of districts in order to secure administrative preclearance (Texas did not, and we are still in court for the past 6 years).

If blacks in general are given an opportunity to elect their candidate of choice, isn't it reasonable to maximize their opportunity of individual black voters to participate in that election?

The Republicans were the ones in 2010 to try to pack Blacks into as few districts as humanly possible....and you call the Holder DOJ "hostile and partisan"....wow.

You deserve every bit of scorn you receive for being nothing more than a partisan hack that spews false Republican propaganda.    Try being objective and fact based for a change!

[jimrtex]

If VA-3 had not been created following the 1990 census it is unlikely that Bobby Scott would be in Congress. He had run in 1986, and lost with 46% of the vote.

The USDOJ forced the creation of VA-3 in 1992 (the first version was overturned in 1996, because it had a BVAP of 60%). The court ruled that the State had not proven that polarized bloc voting was sufficient to prevent the election of the black candidate of choice. The court also state that the existence of a minority majority "in a geographically compact area" was "doubtful at best."

Following the 2010 Census, Virginia was confronted with a hostile and partisan USDOJ. States all over the South increased the black percentage of districts in order to secure administrative preclearance (Texas did not, and we are still in court for the past 6 years).

If blacks in general are given an opportunity to elect their candidate of choice, isn't it reasonable to maximize their opportunity of individual black voters to participate in that election?

The Republicans were the ones in 2010 to try to pack Blacks into as few districts as humanly possible....and you call the Holder DOJ "hostile and partisan"....wow.

You deserve every bit of scorn you receive for being nothing more than a partisan hack that spews false Republican propaganda.    Try being objective and fact based for a change!

It was Eric Holder who blocked the switch in elections in Kinston, NC from partisan to non-partisan, claiming that blacks would not have the "opportunity to choose" their candidate without the Democratic label.

Originally the case was blocked, because the city of Kinston had to propose making the change (which the voters had approved by initiative) and the city council decided not to pursue the change in how they were elected.

Just before it was about to be considered by the SCOTUS as a challenge to Section 5, the USDOJ withdrew their objection citing "new data".

Under Section 5, a state had to prove non-retrogression. The state would have to send a bunch of data. The USDOJ might ask for more data.

"VA-3 was 53% BVAP and Bobby Scott was elected, and with a new district that is 56% BVAP, he should continue to be elected." and you would attach tons of evidence that Bobby Scott was the black candidate of choice. The USDOJ would interpose no objection.

If you are the lawyer for a state, or city, or business, your job is to keep them out of court. Court cases are expensive, and outcomes are unpredictable. It is prudent to redistrict in a manner that the USDOJ won't reject. Even if the USDOJ is capricious, it will take years to prove it in court.

[Torie]

Here is my little effort. It should be amusing to see what contortions are administered as NOVA is bacon striped and a black performing CD is jettisoned to squeeze out a couple of more Dem CD's in a map that by then SCOTUS will have very probably held to be illegal. Have fun. In the real world, the Dems are going to have to content themselves with a 6D-5R map, and if the Pubs have their way, a 6R-5D map. The joy out of gerrymanders is just not going to be what it used to be. Sad, not!

[Nyvin]

Here is my little effort. It should be amusing to see what contortions are administered as NOVA is bacon striped and a black performing CD is jettisoned to squeeze out a couple of more Dem CD's in a map that by then SCOTUS will have very probably held to be illegal. Have fun. In the real world, the Dems are going to have to content themselves with a 6D-5R map, and if the Pubs have their way, a 6R-5D map. The joy out of gerrymanders is just not going to be what it used to be. Sad, not!

What justification is there to run VA-10 all the way down to Charlottesville?   There aren't even any highways running that route.   

Also VA-7 is already just about a swing district as it is,  you don't need to take BVAP away from VA-4 to make it a Dem seat in 2020,  just add Charlottesville to it and take away the rural GOP parts from it.   The dems most certainly do not have to contend with a 6-5 map,  that's just silly,  VA-10 can be a NOVA safe seat without Charlottesville easily.   

Your map borderlines on a R Gerrymander.

[jimrtex]

Here is my little effort. It should be amusing to see what contortions are administered as NOVA is bacon striped and a black performing CD is jettisoned to squeeze out a couple of more Dem CD's in a map that by then SCOTUS will have very probably held to be illegal. Have fun. In the real world, the Dems are going to have to content themselves with a 6D-5R map, and if the Pubs have their way, a 6R-5D map. The joy out of gerrymanders is just not going to be what it used to be. Sad, not!

This demonstrates that the concept of competitive districts is a myth.

I think you should put the northern cape (Accomack and Northampton) in VA-1.