How will 2020 Reapportionment affect the house?

[icemanj]

How will 2020 Reapportionment affect the house in each state? For the states that will probably be losing or gaining a district, will the lost/gained district be D or R, if everything remained more or less equal, (which it obviously won't)?

I haven't done any actual research as to where the most population is losing or growing, this is just off the top of my head. I used demography.cpc.unc.edu/2017/12/21/2020-congressional-reapportionment-an-update/ for reapportionment projections.

Losing a seat:
MN - I'm guessing most of the population is being lost in rural areas so probably -D
IL - very unsure on this one but I'm guessing overall a dem district would be cut. -D
MI - since it is pretty gerrymandered I think this would have to be an R cut. -R
OH- same as MI, I don't think a dem district could possibly be cut here. -R
WV - R cut unless Ojeda wins, then I'm not really sure. Gonna go with -R
PA - again similar to OH and MI but a little more unsure after the redrawing. Gonna go -R.
NY - I'm guessing most population loss is upstate but 26,25, and 20 still would be held roughly where they are. -R.
RI - both districts are D. -D
AL - hard to imagine removing the D seat. -R

-3 D, -6 R

gaining a seat:
OR - hard to see this being an R seat. +D
AZ - gonna guess that a new district will need to basically be another Phoenix suburban district. +R
CO - gonna guess most of the population growth is in D leaning areas. +D
NC - similar to CO, gonna guess most of the population growth is in D leaning areas. +D
FL - complex one but when all is said and done I'm guessing it will gain +1 D and +1 R.
TX - I'm guessing one more Dallas and one more Houston will be added, along with maybe a central Austin district because cracking it will start to backfire soon. Although it would make sense for there being a Hidalgo county-central district, maybe that would be carved more from the current 28/15/34. I'll say +2 D, +1 R.

+6 D, +3 R

Net +3 D

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

Oregon’s 6th House district probably won’t be a solid Dem gain. Western Oregon outside of Metro Portland is lean Dem at best.

[Strudelcutie4427]

Oregon’s 6th House district probably won’t be a solid Dem gain. Western Oregon outside of Metro Portland is lean Dem at best.

And on top of that there are already 2 even districts (4 and 5) so it’s hard to bleed it thinner without making 2 Ross up seats. It might be better to draw a R seat unless they opt for bacon stripping the hell out of portland

[Zaybay]

Heres how I see it, based on the states and numbers you used

Losing a seat:
MN - Its very likely the seat lost will represent the rural areas, and due to D control of the rurals, the seat lost would likely be D, of course, if any of the D reps were to retire, then these seats would become R, but Im doing these based on whos in here before the midterm -D
IL - Upstate is where the likely seat will be lost, and Dems have been making comebacks in the area, but the overall R tilt of the area means that the Ds at Springfield will likely take out an R seat by combining two upstate and having more seats orient Chicago. -R
MI - The state is heavily gerrymandered, and its already hard to get rid of a D seat as is. With the Likely D governor, the state will be more fair, but that doesnt change that it will need to be an R seat, probably in the rurals. -R
OH- Even worse than MI, and a tossup whether its a D governor. -R
WV - If Ojeda wins, this will be a D loss, but since the elections have no occurred, I will say -R
PA - With a D governor and a likely split legislature, a gerrymander will not be able to be pulled off, so the seat that is destroyed will likely be one in the center or west of the state, where growth has been even or negative. -R
NY - Upstate has been declining for a while now, and with a D legislature, an R seat will be gotten rid of, but then again, the whole region is very swingy, so R, but with uncertainty. -R
RI - Its impossible to get rid of a R seat -D
AL - Its impossible to get rid of a D seat -R
 -2D, -7R

gaining a seat:
OR - Now, Im not so sure on this one. While a D legislature should allow the seat to be D, it would be hard to do so. There are already so many neutral PVI seats and adding one could make another R. Ill forced, Ill say that its a D gain -D
AZ - AZ has a neutral commission, which means that there is no to little partisan influence. Most growth in AZ has been in Maricopa county, so it will either be a suburban R seat, or Urban D seat. Based on growth in the state, I would say its a tilt R seat, which is an R gain nonetheless. -R
CO - Most growth in the state is from the D Denver area, so its likely a D gain. -D
NC- This one is interesting. The state is heavily gerrymandered for Rs, but is seems that 2018 will break the supermajoirty. If this occurs, this will be a D seat, but if it doesnt, an R. -D
FL - Due to the fact that the growth is in both the north from Rs, and the south by Ds, I will say that the result will be one per. -D -R
TX - TX Rs will be in trouble with this growth, as its almost impossible to gerrymander such explosive D numbers. I would say that they would surrender 2 seats, but keep the 3rd. -2D -R

+6D +3R

Overall: D+4,R-4
This census will not be good for Republicans.

[krazen1211]

Texas is +3 r easily.

[Gass3268]

Heres how I see it, based on the states and numbers you used

Losing a seat:
MN - Its very likely the seat lost will represent the rural areas, and due to D control of the rurals, the seat lost would likely be D, of course, if any of the D reps were to retire, then these seats would become R, but Im doing these based on whos in here before the midterm -D
IL - Upstate is where the likely seat will be lost, and Dems have been making comebacks in the area, but the overall R tilt of the area means that the Ds at Springfield will likely take out an R seat by combining two upstate and having more seats orient Chicago. -R
MI - The state is heavily gerrymandered, and its already hard to get rid of a D seat as is. With the Likely D governor, the state will be more fair, but that doesnt change that it will need to be an R seat, probably in the rurals. -R
OH- Even worse than MI, and a tossup whether its a D governor. -R
WV - If Ojeda wins, this will be a D loss, but since the elections have no occurred, I will say -R
PA - With a D governor and a likely split legislature, a gerrymander will not be able to be pulled off, so the seat that is destroyed will likely be one in the center or west of the state, where growth has been even or negative. -R
NY - Upstate has been declining for a while now, and with a D legislature, an R seat will be gotten rid of, but then again, the whole region is very swingy, so R, but with uncertainty. -R
RI - Its impossible to get rid of a R seat -D
AL - Its impossible to get rid of a D seat -R
 -2D, -7R

gaining a seat:
OR - Now, Im not so sure on this one. While a D legislature should allow the seat to be D, it would be hard to do so. There are already so many neural PVI seats and adding one could make another R. Ill forced, Ill say that its a D gain -D
AZ - AZ has a neutral commission, which means that there is no to little partisan influence. Most growth in AZ has been in Maricopa county, so it will either be a suburban R seat, or Urban D seat. Based on growth in the state, I would say its a tilt R seat, which is an R gain nonetheless. -R
CO - Most growth in the state is from the D Denver area, so its likely a D gain. -D
NC- This one is interesting. The state is heavily gerrymandered for Rs, but is seems that 2018 will break the supermajoirty. If this occurs, this will be a D seat, but if it doesnt, an R. -D
FL - Due to the fact that the growth is in both the north from Rs, and the south by Ds, I will say that the result will be one per. -D -R
TX - TX Rs will be in trouble with this growth, as its almost impossible to gerrymander such explosive D numbers. I would say that they would surrender 2 seats, but keep the 3rd. -2D -R

+6D +3R

Overall: D+4,R-4
This census will not be good for Republicans.

Governor of North Carolina has no veto power regarding redistricting. Democrats would have to win back a chamber in the state legislature to stop any further gerrymandering or challenge the maps to the State Supreme Court that they are trying to pack.

[Zaybay]

Heres how I see it, based on the states and numbers you used

Losing a seat:
MN - Its very likely the seat lost will represent the rural areas, and due to D control of the rurals, the seat lost would likely be D, of course, if any of the D reps were to retire, then these seats would become R, but Im doing these based on whos in here before the midterm -D
IL - Upstate is where the likely seat will be lost, and Dems have been making comebacks in the area, but the overall R tilt of the area means that the Ds at Springfield will likely take out an R seat by combining two upstate and having more seats orient Chicago. -R
MI - The state is heavily gerrymandered, and its already hard to get rid of a D seat as is. With the Likely D governor, the state will be more fair, but that doesnt change that it will need to be an R seat, probably in the rurals. -R
OH- Even worse than MI, and a tossup whether its a D governor. -R
WV - If Ojeda wins, this will be a D loss, but since the elections have no occurred, I will say -R
PA - With a D governor and a likely split legislature, a gerrymander will not be able to be pulled off, so the seat that is destroyed will likely be one in the center or west of the state, where growth has been even or negative. -R
NY - Upstate has been declining for a while now, and with a D legislature, an R seat will be gotten rid of, but then again, the whole region is very swingy, so R, but with uncertainty. -R
RI - Its impossible to get rid of a R seat -D
AL - Its impossible to get rid of a D seat -R
 -2D, -7R

gaining a seat:
OR - Now, Im not so sure on this one. While a D legislature should allow the seat to be D, it would be hard to do so. There are already so many neural PVI seats and adding one could make another R. Ill forced, Ill say that its a D gain -D
AZ - AZ has a neutral commission, which means that there is no to little partisan influence. Most growth in AZ has been in Maricopa county, so it will either be a suburban R seat, or Urban D seat. Based on growth in the state, I would say its a tilt R seat, which is an R gain nonetheless. -R
CO - Most growth in the state is from the D Denver area, so its likely a D gain. -D
NC- This one is interesting. The state is heavily gerrymandered for Rs, but is seems that 2018 will break the supermajoirty. If this occurs, this will be a D seat, but if it doesnt, an R. -D
FL - Due to the fact that the growth is in both the north from Rs, and the south by Ds, I will say that the result will be one per. -D -R
TX - TX Rs will be in trouble with this growth, as its almost impossible to gerrymander such explosive D numbers. I would say that they would surrender 2 seats, but keep the 3rd. -2D -R

+6D +3R

Overall: D+4,R-4
This census will not be good for Republicans.

Governor of North Carolina has no veto power regarding redistricting. Democrats would have to win back a chamber in the state legislature to stop any further gerrymandering or challenge the maps to the State Supreme Court that they are trying to pack.

A break in the supermajority will allow greater powers to be given to the governor through the D controlled supreme court. And with the way the SC is going, with it likely being 5-2 D, its very likely that the state will have court issued maps. All of this depends on the breaking of the Supermajority.

Texas is +3 r easily.

I would love to know how that can be possible, but I doubt I will get an explanation.

[icemanj]

I didn't realize those 2 districts in Oregon were so even. I guess I'll switch my Illinois and Oregon predictions.

[Bidenworth2020]

Texas is +3 r easily.

that is pretty much impossible. looking at where growth is, they will at best be 2 lean r seats and a lean d seat.  and the suburbs are changing. both of those seats will be in serious trouble in any given election

[krazen1211]

Texas is +3 r easily.

that is pretty much impossible. looking at where growth is, they will at best be 2 lean r seats and a lean d seat.  and the suburbs are changing. both of those seats will be in serious trouble in any given election

What you actually mean is that you don't want it to happen. It is of course extremely easy.

There are numerous districts in Texas that voted strongly for President Trump and have an excess of Republicans to spread to other districts. As an example, TX-01, TX-04, TX-08, TX-11, TX-13, TX-19, and TX-36 all cast more than 70% of the vote for President Trump.

These districts can be relaxed a bit and form the cores of new districts with fresh gerrymandering. The Dem party is already heavily overrepresented in Texas and can simply be dumped into 8 or 9 seats. 2 in Dallas, 2 in Houston, 2 in Central Texas, and 3 along the border. A reckoning is coming!

[Lachi]

Texas is +3 r easily.

that is pretty much impossible. looking at where growth is, they will at best be 2 lean r seats and a lean d seat.  and the suburbs are changing. both of those seats will be in serious trouble in any given election

What you actually mean is that you don't want it to happen. It is of course extremely easy.

There are numerous districts in Texas that voted strongly for President Trump and have an excess of Republicans to spread to other districts. As an example, TX-01, TX-04, TX-08, TX-11, TX-13, TX-19, and TX-36 all cast more than 70% of the vote for President Trump.

These districts can be relaxed a bit and form the cores of new districts with fresh gerrymandering. The Dem party is already heavily overrepresented in Texas and can simply be dumped into 8 or 9 seats. 2 in Dallas, 2 in Houston, 2 in Central Texas, and 3 along the border. A reckoning is coming!

lol, ok, now try it without blatantly violating the VRA. You can't just get around thee things.

[cvparty]

i’m almost done making 2020 population data for DRA i can post them online if you guys want to play around with the estimates/try drawing yo own 2020s districts ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[Lachi]

i’m almost done making 2020 population data for DRA i can post them online if you guys want to play around with the estimates/try drawing yo own 2020s districts ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

ooh, that'd be nice.

[Zaybay]

i’m almost done making 2020 population data for DRA i can post them online if you guys want to play around with the estimates/try drawing yo own 2020s districts ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

thank you, really excited!

[Bidenworth2020]

Texas is +3 r easily.

that is pretty much impossible. looking at where growth is, they will at best be 2 lean r seats and a lean d seat.  and the suburbs are changing. both of those seats will be in serious trouble in any given election

What you actually mean is that you don't want it to happen. It is of course extremely easy.

There are numerous districts in Texas that voted strongly for President Trump and have an excess of Republicans to spread to other districts. As an example, TX-01, TX-04, TX-08, TX-11, TX-13, TX-19, and TX-36 all cast more than 70% of the vote for President Trump.

These districts can be relaxed a bit and form the cores of new districts with fresh gerrymandering. The Dem party is already heavily overrepresented in Texas and can simply be dumped into 8 or 9 seats. 2 in Dallas, 2 in Houston, 2 in Central Texas, and 3 along the border. A reckoning is coming!

the best I was able to do was flip hurds district and eliminate a Houston seat. it also makes a ton of other suburban Houston seats potentially competitive (R+4, R+3, R+7) I assume 2 of the 3 voted Clinton too. point is a Texas gerrymander that adds that many seats would likely end up being a dummymander by the end of the decade. The only safe flip is hurds seat, at R+9 and 59% Hispanic

[progressive85]

You can draw 6 districts in Oregon that are either safe D, leans D, barely D, or barely R.  You can make 3 tossup and the rest leans or likely D, but you have to split Portland up into many districts.  It's not the nicest map but there's a way to do it.

I think there should be an independent nonpartisan commission though and they'll probably make the map look nice and give the Republicans 2 districts where they are likely to win.  After all, 4 out of 6 is 67% of the state and Hillary barely got 50% here in 2016 so even that's disproportionate.

[junior chįmp]

Texas is +3 r easily.

that is pretty much impossible. looking at where growth is, they will at best be 2 lean r seats and a lean d seat.  and the suburbs are changing. both of those seats will be in serious trouble in any given election

What you actually mean is that you don't want it to happen. It is of course extremely easy.

There are numerous districts in Texas that voted strongly for President Trump and have an excess of Republicans to spread to other districts. As an example, TX-01, TX-04, TX-08, TX-11, TX-13, TX-19, and TX-36 all cast more than 70% of the vote for President Trump.

These districts can be relaxed a bit and form the cores of new districts with fresh gerrymandering. The Dem party is already heavily overrepresented in Texas and can simply be dumped into 8 or 9 seats. 2 in Dallas, 2 in Houston, 2 in Central Texas, and 3 along the border. A reckoning is coming!

lol, ok, now try it without blatantly violating the VRA. You can't just get around thee things.

Have you seen the new Supreme Court and the Jefferson Davis Sessions DOJ? Of course they’ll get away with it. Even if a Dem wins in 2020, a lot of the Sessions DOJ’s influence on the process will linger.

On the flip side, SCOTUS not caring about gerrymandering frees IL, MD, VA and co. to take a wrecking ball to their GOP delegation

Democrats need to repeal their independent commissions and get rid of as many Republican districts as possible. CA alone would be enough to guarantee a long-term hold in the House.

[Zaybay]

Texas is +3 r easily.

that is pretty much impossible. looking at where growth is, they will at best be 2 lean r seats and a lean d seat.  and the suburbs are changing. both of those seats will be in serious trouble in any given election

What you actually mean is that you don't want it to happen. It is of course extremely easy.

There are numerous districts in Texas that voted strongly for President Trump and have an excess of Republicans to spread to other districts. As an example, TX-01, TX-04, TX-08, TX-11, TX-13, TX-19, and TX-36 all cast more than 70% of the vote for President Trump.

These districts can be relaxed a bit and form the cores of new districts with fresh gerrymandering. The Dem party is already heavily overrepresented in Texas and can simply be dumped into 8 or 9 seats. 2 in Dallas, 2 in Houston, 2 in Central Texas, and 3 along the border. A reckoning is coming!

lol, ok, now try it without blatantly violating the VRA. You can't just get around thee things.

Have you seen the new Supreme Court and the Jefferson Davis Sessions DOJ? Of course they’ll get away with it. Even if a Dem wins in 2020, a lot of the Sessions DOJ’s influence on the process will linger.

On the flip side, SCOTUS not caring about gerrymandering frees IL, MD, VA and co. to take a wrecking ball to their GOP delegation

Democrats need to repeal their independent commissions and get rid of as many Republican districts as possible. CA alone would be enough to guarantee a long-term hold in the House.

Yeah. I say if Trump wins re-election Democrats use their supermajorities in CA and nuke the commission and draw a 52D-1R map for the lulz

Do it to own the Cons.

[junior chįmp]

Texas is +3 r easily.

that is pretty much impossible. looking at where growth is, they will at best be 2 lean r seats and a lean d seat.  and the suburbs are changing. both of those seats will be in serious trouble in any given election

What you actually mean is that you don't want it to happen. It is of course extremely easy.

There are numerous districts in Texas that voted strongly for President Trump and have an excess of Republicans to spread to other districts. As an example, TX-01, TX-04, TX-08, TX-11, TX-13, TX-19, and TX-36 all cast more than 70% of the vote for President Trump.

These districts can be relaxed a bit and form the cores of new districts with fresh gerrymandering. The Dem party is already heavily overrepresented in Texas and can simply be dumped into 8 or 9 seats. 2 in Dallas, 2 in Houston, 2 in Central Texas, and 3 along the border. A reckoning is coming!

lol, ok, now try it without blatantly violating the VRA. You can't just get around thee things.

Have you seen the new Supreme Court and the Jefferson Davis Sessions DOJ? Of course they’ll get away with it. Even if a Dem wins in 2020, a lot of the Sessions DOJ’s influence on the process will linger.

On the flip side, SCOTUS not caring about gerrymandering frees IL, MD, VA and co. to take a wrecking ball to their GOP delegation

Democrats need to repeal their independent commissions and get rid of as many Republican districts as possible. CA alone would be enough to guarantee a long-term hold in the House.

Yeah. I say if Trump wins re-election Democrats use their supermajorities in CA and nuke the commission and draw a 52D-1R map for the lulz

Do it to own the Cons.

I agree...every single state that has a Democrat trifecta needs to gerrymander as much as possible. Get rid of every single GOP seat as far as I'm concerned

We've played enough games with the GOP...they arent interested in bipartisanship

[krazen1211]

Texas is +3 r easily.

that is pretty much impossible. looking at where growth is, they will at best be 2 lean r seats and a lean d seat.  and the suburbs are changing. both of those seats will be in serious trouble in any given election

What you actually mean is that you don't want it to happen. It is of course extremely easy.

There are numerous districts in Texas that voted strongly for President Trump and have an excess of Republicans to spread to other districts. As an example, TX-01, TX-04, TX-08, TX-11, TX-13, TX-19, and TX-36 all cast more than 70% of the vote for President Trump.

These districts can be relaxed a bit and form the cores of new districts with fresh gerrymandering. The Dem party is already heavily overrepresented in Texas and can simply be dumped into 8 or 9 seats. 2 in Dallas, 2 in Houston, 2 in Central Texas, and 3 along the border. A reckoning is coming!

lol, ok, now try it without blatantly violating the VRA. You can't just get around thee things.

We already saw this movie. Wierdos spent most of this decade making nonsense claims about the Texas congressional districts. They kept losing bigly at the Supreme Court.

Oh well. You would think fellows would learn.

[krazen1211]

Texas is +3 r easily.

that is pretty much impossible. looking at where growth is, they will at best be 2 lean r seats and a lean d seat.  and the suburbs are changing. both of those seats will be in serious trouble in any given election

What you actually mean is that you don't want it to happen. It is of course extremely easy.

There are numerous districts in Texas that voted strongly for President Trump and have an excess of Republicans to spread to other districts. As an example, TX-01, TX-04, TX-08, TX-11, TX-13, TX-19, and TX-36 all cast more than 70% of the vote for President Trump.

These districts can be relaxed a bit and form the cores of new districts with fresh gerrymandering. The Dem party is already heavily overrepresented in Texas and can simply be dumped into 8 or 9 seats. 2 in Dallas, 2 in Houston, 2 in Central Texas, and 3 along the border. A reckoning is coming!

the best I was able to do was flip hurds district and eliminate a Houston seat. it also makes a ton of other suburban Houston seats potentially competitive (R+4, R+3, R+7) I assume 2 of the 3 voted Clinton too. point is a Texas gerrymander that adds that many seats would likely end up being a dummymander by the end of the decade. The only safe flip is hurds seat, at R+9 and 59% Hispanic

I suspect you're just not trying hard enough. You should split Montgomery County into 2 and attach to pieces of Harris County.

In addition, my suggestion would be to draw districts by CVAP and not by total population if you want a better idea of what will happen. The new Trumpified Census will enable to this option for states. So rotten boroughs will have to grow to the required size.

Silly prognostication aside, the Texas legislature has many members who want to add new Republican districts so that they can move up to Congress. So they will do that just as they did the last 2 cycles.

[Torie]

Krazen, I am well aware that SCOTUS has not yet ruled on whether or not a state can exclude non citizens from the count for purposes of redistricting. But here is the conundrum. Non citizens are counted for purposes or awarding House seats (and electoral votes) to a state. So to exclude non citizens for redistricting purposes would have the effect of awarding extra seats to Texas say because it has a relatively high percentage of non citizens, but then when it comes to doling those extra seats out that the non citizens secured for the state, suddenly they are boxed out from sharing the spoils, as if they were not there.

That is the legal weakness for the position that a state may exclude non citizens from the count, and I suspect a near fatal one. That would be the basis as to why I, if I were on SCOTUS, would vote to toss out any Texas law that effected what you want. So you should hope that I never get on SCOTUS!

(Note to Dead0 to check out how I used "effect" and "effected." )

[krazen1211]

I would love to know how that can be possible, but I doubt I will get an explanation.

Simple math.

President Trump only lost TX-29 by 60k votes. He won TX-08 by 140k votes. He won TX-36 by 120k votes. He won TX-14 by 60k votes. The voting surplus is inside the GOP districts in Southeast Texas and really all of Texas. Simply reorganize these districts and slight adjustments to the surrounding and you have 4 districts that easily perform for the GOP.

[krazen1211]

Krazen, I am well aware that SCOTUS has not yet ruled on whether or not a state can exclude non citizens from the count for purposes of redistricting. But here is the conundrum. Non citizens are counted for purposes or awarding House seats (and electoral votes) to a state. So to exclude non citizens for redistricting purposes would have the effect of awarding extra seats to Texas say because it has a relatively high percentage of non citizens, but then when it comes to doling those extra seats out that the non citizens secured for the state, suddenly they are boxed out from sharing the spoils, as if they were not there.

They are already boxed out from sharing the spoils by virtue of being ineligible to vote.

When you draw districts by population alone, you are not doling power to non-citizens. You are doling and amplifying power to citizens who happen to live in areas where non-citizens are, and who ended up sharing a district by sheer chance.

Evenwel v. Abbott did not rule out any redistricting by CVAP.


http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/04/opinion-analysis-leaving-a-constitutional-ideal-still-undefined/

Texas actually had wanted the Court to allow it to use a total population metric, but to go further and give the states explicit constitutional permission to map out districts with equal populations of voters.  The Obama administration also had wanted the Court to rule that the Constitution actually required total population as the starting point for redistricting.  Neither persuaded the Court to go take those further steps.


Justice Alito used his separate opinion to try to make it very clear — to legislatures and to lower courts — that the Court decision did, indeed, stop short of those added points.  He wrote: “Whether a state is permitted to use some measure other than total population is an important and sensitive question that we can consider if and when we have before us a state districting plan that, unlike the current Texas plan, uses something other than total population as the basis for equalizing the size of districts. . . .  For centuries, political theorists have debated the proper role of representatives, and political scientists have studied the conduct of legislators and the interests that they actually advance.”

Justice Thomas used his lengthy opinion to chastise the majority for even trying to figure out what “one person, one vote” should mean as a constitutional matter; in his view, the Court should leave such issues to the states to decide.   Under the Constitution, he wrote, a state “can use total population, eligible voters, or any other nondiscriminatory voter base.”





But the ACS and other methods provide imperfect methods to measure citizenship as compared to the Census. Eventually the state of New York will lose the Census case (well before 2020) and the new Census will provide the data for states to choose.


Your stated objection would of course not apply to state legislative districts in any case.

[Torie]

Shocking as this may be krazen, you did not change my mind when it comes to congressional redistricting. Your argument was well, weak. Non citizens just happen to be there but who cares, since they can't vote. That argument to the extent it is an argument should apply to both electoral votes and redistricting, or not apply to both, but going one way for one purpose, and another for another purpose, seems profoundly unfair and nonsensical to me.

I take your point about legislative seats. There we do not have the conundrum with which to wrestle.