Virginia 2020 County Projection Map

[jimrtex]

Since the Democrats surged towards potential control of the Virginia House of Delegates last Tuesday, I have seen a number of discussions diverge into the question of 2020 Redistricting in the commonwealth. With no worse then a coin toss chance at a democratic trifecta from 2019 onwards, Democrats certainly would wish to know what they could do in a state like Virginia. With VPAP being a excellent resource, and census growth data, I whipped this together. Virginia currently does not look to gain a congressional district in 2020, so her districts would be slightly above the national average.

These are district populations projected from the 2016 ACS estimates.

1 Virginia          807
2 Virginia          757
3 Virginia          746
4 Virginia          786
5 Virginia          740
6 Virginia          771
7 Virginia          804
8 Virginia          817
9 Virginia          695
10 Virginia         887
11 Virginia         848

These are relative to projected quota of 787K for 2020.

1 Virginia          1.025
2 Virginia          0.962
3 Virginia          0.948
4 Virginia          0.999
5 Virginia          0.940
6 Virginia          0.980
7 Virginia          1.022
8 Virginia          1.037
9 Virginia          0.883
10 Virginia         1.127
11 Virginia         1.078

The 3 NoVA districts: VA-8, VA-10, VA-11 have a population equivalent to 3.242 districts.

VA-6 can take the remainder of the Shenadoah Valley. It doesn't make sense to extend VA-5 into the Washington area, so basically VA-1 gets pushed into the Washington area.

[jimrtex]

Since the Democrats surged towards potential control of the Virginia House of Delegates last Tuesday, I have seen a number of discussions diverge into the question of 2020 Redistricting in the commonwealth. With no worse then a coin toss chance at a democratic trifecta from 2019 onwards, Democrats certainly would wish to know what they could do in a state like Virginia. With VPAP being a excellent resource, and census growth data, I whipped this together. Virginia currently does not look to gain a congressional district in 2020, so her districts would be slightly above the national average.

These are district populations projected from the 2016 ACS estimates.

1 Virginia          807
2 Virginia          757
3 Virginia          746
4 Virginia          786
5 Virginia          740
6 Virginia          771
7 Virginia          804
8 Virginia          817
9 Virginia          695
10 Virginia         887
11 Virginia         848

These are relative to projected quota of 787K for 2020.

1 Virginia          1.025
2 Virginia          0.962
3 Virginia          0.948
4 Virginia          0.999
5 Virginia          0.940
6 Virginia          0.980
7 Virginia          1.022
8 Virginia          1.037
9 Virginia          0.883
10 Virginia         1.127
11 Virginia         1.078

The 3 NoVA districts: VA-8, VA-10, VA-11 have a population equivalent to 3.242 districts.

VA-6 can take the remainder of the Shenadoah Valley. It doesn't make sense to extend VA-5 into the Washington area, so basically VA-1 gets pushed into the Washington area.

The problem with this though is you are assuming a minimal change map.

The assumption that I made is that population change will continue to occur at the same rate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A Dem Gerrymander would want to flip VA-10 and hold VA-4. Black Democrats will want to maintain VA-3 and VA-4 as districts electing blacks. A GOP gerrymander would seek to shore up VA-10, and reflip VA-4.

Comstock won by 23K votes. 19K of that margin came from the Shenadoah Valley. A Dem gerrymander and a good government gerrymander would strip that from an overpopulated VA-10. Another 5K came from Prince William, that can also be stripped.

Pulling VA-1 further into the Nova area, pulls it out of the Richmond area. Hanover can be used via VA-7 to fill the deficits of VA-5 and VA-9.

If VA-1 has all of Fauquier, Prince William, and Stafford it is identifiable as a Nova district. If Virginia gets a 12th district in 2030, then the conversion can be completed.

[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.

[jimrtex]

Here's a baseline to think about. I took my county projections for 2020 and divided them into whole counties, such that only Fairfax is chopped and all the CDs are within 0.5% of the quota. I preserved two 40% BVAP (38%+ in 2010) CDs in SE VA. Where I had choices I chose the less erose option, and one could certainly swap a chop in Louisa to lower the erosity between my CD 5 and 7. CD 2 was kept with whole counties by using the Tangier Island ferry. The ferry's only seasonal so it only counts as a local connection and costs erosity, but avoids a chop.



CD 1: D+5
CD 2: D+3
CD 3: D+8
CD 4: D+12
CD 5: R+5
CD 6: R+15
CD 7: R+12
CD 8: D+21
CD 9: R+17
CD 10: R+5
CD 11: D+12

The Dems have a 6-5 advantage, which is what one would hope for in a neutral map given the slight D+1 lean for the state overall.

The Tangier Island ferry is not only seasonal, but doesn't run on Mondays during the Summer, except for Labor Day and Memorial Day. Further it is entirely in Accomack County, and looks like it uses a party boat.

I doubt Bobby Scott will want to give up Norfolk.

[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.

It's really not though. Three Democratic seats in SE Virginia is really easy, and maintaining VRA is no problem at all. If a Republican gerrymanders can draw the abominations they do now while still for the most part respecting VRA, Democratic gerrymanders certainly could. Maps are in this link, but frankly, I'm not a huge fan of the congressional map. It could be a lot neater and still result in 8-3 likely/safe Dem seats while respecting VRA:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/11/10/1711768/-Let-s-reflect-on-the-coming-nightmare-for-Virginia-Republicans

VA-3 in that map is a racial gerrymander.

[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.

[jimrtex]

VA-3 in that map is a racial gerrymander.

Well worse maps have gotten through and have gone years without court intervention. In any case, the above picture is probably what I imagine a smart Va dem Party will go for, though with the addendum of 4 NOVA districts instead of knee-capping themselves to just 3.

A VA-3 like that was just ruled unconstitutional a couple of years ago. There is no explanation other than race for that district.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

It depends on the state. VA could have two very competitive districts if so desired in a somewhat reasonable map.

2 of 11 is less than 20%.

[jimrtex]

What is the percentage of competitive CD's in the nation right now? About 10%?

Ballotpedia battleground districts

Somewhere around 10%