There are obvious wild cards

in the redistricting process-especially with VRA. The two big wild cards in the 2010 cycle will the Obama Justice department and the Surpreme court.

1. In the last two redistricting cycles Sandra Day-more or less-set the standards for districts.  What will the new lineup do?  The Liberal justices will tend to look for minority districts while the conservative justices (broadly speaking) defer to legislatively drawn seats.  

2. What will the civil rights wing of DOJ do?  In Florida if they defer to state law and not contest Prop 20/22 which supposely is race neutral. How can they contest legislatevely drawn districts that are race neutral?  The DOJ can't go to court to force second AA seats in SC & AL but allow Florida to draw lines without considering Race.  

I have no particular insight as to what the GOP will do in SC but here's my general sense of what their lines will be. Joe Wilson-ironically needs to be made more secure.  A lot of the growth has been coastal or Greenville/Peidmont area.  So without drawing maps I suspect we see Wilson lose his part of Richland county plus he will snag a little rural part of the 6th plus the rest of Aiken and a piece of Edgewood.

The new GOP seat will take Wesstern Richland-the western part of the current 5th plus 150K left over from the 4th.

The 5th will slide down to take Horry- while the 6th & 1st remain mostly the same except for Horry being gone.

This is a general configuration.  I defer to the map makers.

I might add that Tim Scott-the AA GOP congressman from Charleston is almost wolfbane in any VRA discussion in SC.  His very presence says to the courts & DOJ that your old ideas that white folks will not vote for AA candidates is old school.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 15:02:41 PM UTC

The VRA is designed to ensure

that minority voters can elect candidates of their choice. Not to ensure that minority candidates can win. Unless you can demonstrate that Tom Scott won a majority of the black vote (I very much doubt that he did), he is irrelevant.  

---

by: andgarden @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 15:22:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the way I read the law ...

under VRA, the DOJ not only "should" but "must" draw additional minority-majority districts IF they can be drawn in a compact way ...

thus in states like Louisiana and South Carolina which are around 1/3 black the creation of an additional minority-majority district is essentially required (again, IF it can be drawn in a compact way) ... ofcourse, yes I see Court fights over this and resistance from the GOP -- realizing that in states like LA & SC the creation of these additional seats is tantamount to added Democratic reps. ...

nevertheless, I certainly hope the Obama DOJ pushes HARD on this in VRA-covered states.

---

by: silver spring @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 16:00:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

phrasing ...

I should have phrased the first part -- DOJ must ensure additional A-A seats are drawn under VRA (not actually drawing them) ...

---

by: silver spring @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 16:03:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

section 2, btw, is the relevant ...

part that talks about vote dilution when drawing lines ... thus the DOJ can EASILY interpret the presence of just one seat (out of 6 or 7) in states like LA & SC (which are 1/3 black) as vote dilution ...

re. your #2 above, except for a few counties, FL is not covered, so not a relevant point.

---

by: silver spring @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 16:31:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Florida amendment is not "race neutral"

Here is the relevant text of Amendment 6:

Districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice

http://www.fairdistrictsflorid...

Amendment 6 specifically addresses and protects the rights of racial minorities.  The resulting districts may not be favorable to particular incumbents, but that is another matter.

In South Carolina, where 77% of whites voted against the African American Democratic presidential nominee, the creation of a sufficient number of VRA congressional districts is the only way to prevent the effective disenfranchisement of AA voters.  According to the 2009 census update, 28.3% of the residents of South Carolina were African American.  Two VRA seats out of seven would be 28.6%.

There is absolutely no inconsistency in protecting the rights of racial minorities by supporting:
a) Amendment 6 in Florida
b) An additional VRA district in South Carolina

---

by: DCal @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 20:25:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I attempted a map with two VRA districts in South Carolina

I couldn't get it compact at all. You did a good job of keep them both compact.

I think the First District would end up being a problem long term for Republicans. Charleston County is trending Democratic, Sheheen won it by three points in the Gubernatorial this year. Even when the African-American precincts are in another district, you still have trend, which is why Linda Ketner did so well in 2008. Pairing it with Beaufort County makes it weaker than the current version, because Beaufort isn't as strongly GOP as Horry, which is what keeps SC-1 safe for Republicans. I don't know if the Republicans would gamble with the seat like this.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.

---

by: DrPhillips @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 15:55:46 PM UTC

DOJ will not be drawing any districts under VRA

There are three sources of congressional lines

1. Legislative bodies

2. State courts

3. Federal courts

I am no constitutional lawyer but you have to show me in the law where the DOJ "must" draw additional majority minority seats. You give the impression that the DOJ has the power to impose its views in this matter when in fact its just another interested party and while it has the job of preclearing its views on the matter carry (in the court of law) the same weight of the state.

The DOJ can advocate the creation of additional seats or seat and must pre clear but the drawing of seats is left to either federal or state courts.  In VRA matters the lawsuit may start in state but eventually ends up in Federal courts.  

I might add that in the last cycle of cases the courts deferred to legislative bodies more often then not.  I also believe that the courts will look for consistent application of VRA matters within the total number of states.  I might also add that voting pattens and the election of minority candidates in minority/majority  districts have been discussed in  court rulings.  I don't think its insignificant that say Bishop in GA2 has won election in a 47%AA district or that Scott has won election in a 30%AA district.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 16:41:09 PM UTC

Gingles still applies

To establish a Section 2 violation, the plaintiffs must prove by a preponderance of the evidence three elements, often referred to as the " Gingles preconditions":

(1) [T]he racial group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district; (2) the racial group is politically cohesive; and (3) the majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate.

However, this is indeed a very complicated area of law. Georgia v. Ashcroft sort of supports your position, but the 2006 renewal of the VRA may have overruled the part of that case you rely on (I can't quite tell), and in any case it is hard to argue that a Republican plan packing black voters into one district would improve their chances of meaningfully influencing the results in other districts.

---

by: andgarden @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 18:28:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I already corrected myself re. this ..

in comment above re. "phrasing" ... but maybe should correct in body of diary too .. DOJ's job is nevertheless to make sure that the plans are drawn in a way where minority vote is not diluted in VRA-covered jurisdictions ...

---

by: silver spring @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 19:05:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

re. Bishop ..

he BARELY won in that 47% AA district ...

re. Scott, like a previous person said here, it's kind of irrelevant b/c VRA deals w/ minorities voting for candidate "of their choice" and it's ludicrous to think Scott got any sort of significant percentage of the black vote ..

I agree that all this will likely result in a fight, as there indeed may not be any clear line rules on this w/o Court intervention, and there's several approaches legislatures, polit. parties, DOJ, etc. can take .. my point is that the Obama DOJ can and should be a lot more aggressive re. this than let's say a GOP admin. would be right now(though, ironically the Bush I admin. was initially aggressive in 1992 in this respect -- though for somewhat different reasons) ..

---

by: silver spring @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 19:17:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's the problem

It might be the case--and it's difficult to figure out what Congress did in 2006--that Bossier II prevents the DOJ from refusing preclearance to a plan that violates Section II of the VRA other than by causing retrogression. Other Section II violations might need to be vindicated in court.  

---

by: andgarden @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 19:32:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It'd be political suicide for President Obama to not push VRA

Great way to piss off congressional Democrats and the minority voters who propelled him into office because they thought he'd stand up for their interests.

I think he'll direct Atty. Gen. Holder and the DoJ to get tough on states in the South and Southwest to draw minority-majority districts where reasonably possible.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

---

by: SaoMagnifico @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 18:46:36 PM UTC

Ponder this point on Scott

and the matter of local interests.

1. The GOP draws a district for Scott that includes all of Charleston County (he is only missing a small 60%AA spot now of that county)plus the mostly GOP parts of Berkley & Dorchester plus the Coastal parts of Georgetown.  Then enough of Horry (probably 80K or so) to get to equal population standards

2. With of all of Charleston minus the Horry part the district is about 22% AA and will be a 60% Bush (based on 2004 votes) district.  That should be safe GOP unless its a wave year.

3. Unfortunely without the 100K of AA's in Charleston its impossible to get to 55% minority  in the second minority district for SC.  The GOP could argue that Charleston needs to stay intact to provide an electoral home base for AA Scott.  You draw a nice safe republican district for someone in the Charleston area but you remove over 1/2 of Scott's voters.  So as I said earlier you make the courts decide to decimate one AA congressman's seat to create another AA seat for someone else.  

You cannot predict what the courts will do.  By my math the current estimates for SC is 28.2% AA which is still less then 2/7's of the state's population.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 19:50:36 PM UTC

Please try to address the following issue:

The point of the VRA is NOT to promote the election of minority candidates. Rather, the point is to protect the interests of minority VOTERS. In that context, unless you can demonstrate that Scott is the preferred candidate of minority voters, his election has fuckall* to do with satisfying Section II of the VRA.

The fact that Henry Bonilla is himself Hispanic did not save the reconfigured TX-23 from being thrown out. He was not the preferred candidate of Hispanic voters.

*Pardon my French.  

---

by: andgarden @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 20:01:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

To argue that South Carolina does not warrant

two VRA districts because the AA population is 28.2% and 2/7 = 28.57% (a difference of 0.37%) is somewhat bizarre.

---

by: DCal @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 21:49:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There were a variety of issues

involved in the adjustment of lines by the court of appeals in TX.  Some of the points related to 55% hispanic population and in the case of the lines for TX25 there was a question of how far from Austin TX much of the district was.

The court did not address the political party that congressman Bonilla belonged to.  In fact more of Bonilla's home area of Bexar county was added to the district.  It made the district more hispanic and democratic but Bonilla's home area was perserved.  My contention that perserving Scott's home area would be right in line with that court ruling.

The court in the Texas case was very aware of home area of each congressman involved.  Ironically it helped Doggett but hurt Bonilla.  I still contend that courts may very well take into Scott's race and where his home area is.

I also acknowledge your points and that you could be very correct.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 20:39:18 PM UTC

Look at the case on remand

The Circuit panel acknowledges that the 23rd was made impermissibly less Hispanic to promote the fortunes of Republican Bonilla. If he had been the choice of Hispanic voters, this would not have been necessary.  

---

by: andgarden @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 21:32:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As far as what the purpose of the VRA

is that's a matter of dispute.  Is the purpose to pack minorities into districts to elect one democrat when splitting AA populations might elect two democrats?  Which plan looks after the interest of the minority voter?

Does the VRA say 55%?  If you can create a 55% district must you?  

I know what the law says but its roadmap with all sorts of judicial precedence floating around.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 20:50:12 PM UTC

Please respond to individual comments

by clicking the "reply" link. It's hard to tell which comment you are responding to when you post at the bottom.

As for what you've written here and above: it seems to me that you've acknowledged my point: the key is that minority voters much have a fair opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice. If the black Republican Congressman is not such a candidate, then he is of no help to the plan.

---

by: andgarden @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 21:24:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

there is no doubt

that the interest of the minority voter is of paramount concern  in the VRA.  The question is when the rubber meets the road what does that mean?  

In redistricting NJ legislative districts (not a VRA state) the redistricting board (voting along partisan lines with the nonpartisan person being the deciding vote) created minority influenced seats instead of minority majority seats.  That lead to more democratic seats but the number of minority office holders was not maximized.

The pattern in VRA states has been to mandate a creation of some or least one minority/majority seats but there has been no certain statistical formula for how many in each state.  

There is no precedence that directly covers my point on Scott so call it a hunch if it comes to court that it will be considered.  I do note that previous court ordered plans did take into incumbency -not in an absolute way its just funny how congressman did not have to move and most ended up with 75% of their seats.

Its clear to me that the GOP will not create a second AA/democratic seat in SC.  They easily create a sixth GOP seat and protect all five incumbents.  I outlined the basic plan and there are other ways to do it.

What is not all together clear is whether SC "must" create a second AA seat.  Alabama with 26% AA could have come close to a second seat in 2000 redistricting.  It was not ordered to and nor do I remember any discussion of it.  NC & VA are close to needing a third and second AA majority seat and courts did had consider it.  I go back to my point that courts have given wide leeway to legislatively drawn seats.  I do note that there is uncertainty because of new justices on the higher court.  I note that while in the 1990 cycle new AA majority seats were created by court action in the 2000 cycle none were created by court action.

---

by: rdelbov @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 22:05:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Justice Department might mandate it

This will be the first time that Justice Department in a Democratic Administration will be doing VRA pre-clearance.

South Carolina has a lot of African-American voters in the 5th District, gaining a seat means that all those African-American voters will have more of a impact a Republican held district, so the GOP might not be able to take the new seat and keep all the others safe. Even if they could pull that off, the court would get involved, because it could constitute dilution.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.

---

by: DrPhillips @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 22:23:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Justice Department does not get

the final say. In fact, it probably cannot refuse preclearance on any basis other than retrogression.

In all probability, black voters in South Carolina will have to sue the state and allege a VRA § 2 violation.  

---

by: andgarden @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 22:33:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not the final say, but if the map is really out there, it might not be cleared

The Republicans might have to concede that at least one of their districts will be over 30% African-American just to avoid a battle over the map.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.

---

by: DrPhillips @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 22:40:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The only reason the DOJ can refuse preclearance

is if the new map has a retrogressive effect. Packing more black voters into one district might arguably do that with respect to the other districts. The problem is that the other districts in the state are not "opportunity" districts at all. I think the evidence shows that in an overwhelming majority of elections, black voters lack relevant influence except in Jim Clyburn's district. If white voters supported Democrats by about 10% more, it would be a totally different story (not to mention different political environment).

---

by: andgarden @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 22:48:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's a good treatise

link.

---

by: andgarden @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 23:37:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

wow ...

the shape of some of those 1992 TX districts is unbelievable ... TX-29 looks like a chalk drawing of a rider falling off a bucking bronco !

---

by: silver spring @ Sun Nov 28, 2010 at 00:38:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The more I read about this

The more I think we missed an opportunity last year to Federalize redistricting (the Constitution allows Congress to do this).

---

by: andgarden @ Sun Nov 28, 2010 at 00:43:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good read

Back then, some of the districts were very poorly drawn because the regulations were so new.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.

---

by: DrPhillips @ Sun Nov 28, 2010 at 01:39:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's one reason

I suggested splitting the 5th district for creating the new GOP seat.  You can detach Western York plus the western part of the district then snake down to Horry.  

This district would minority the rural counties that are heavily AA and could be kept 32% or so AA and not pose a huge risk to the republican freshman.

The problem for the GOP is obviousily Wilson and he will want to ditch Richland county.  The problem with Wilson is not AA but rather the state workers plus the university influence in western Richland. So detaching Western Richland and creating a new GOP seat with leftovers from CD4 & CD5 seems obvious to me.

If the courts order a second AA majority seat would that bother the GOP?  One could suggest that five heavily GOP seats in SC where you never have to spend a dime defending them is not a bad outcome.  You would have 5 guys or gals who could spend 50% of their fundraising time on others.  

I suggest, however, that for many reasons the courts are unlikely to set that precedence.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 22:46:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The New Jersey case is effectively overruled

by Bartlett v. Strickland. VRA § 2 requires map drawers to violate single-county rules in creating compact minority-majority districts, but not in creating influence districts.

Almost every case hinges on the question of whether minority voters are being denied the opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice. The closest case there is to supporting the idea that Congressman Scott would be relevant is Georgia v. Ashcroft. But in that case, the evidence overwhelmingly showed that creating influence districts enhanced the ability of minority voters to participate in the political process. That's would clearly not be the case in a Republican gerrymander, where the goal would be to crack and pack minority voters in order to reduce their influence.  

---

by: andgarden @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 22:32:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I find it interesting ...

that in your comment on NC you said that "NC cries out for a 3rd Minority seat" even though the AA percentage in NC is several points short of 3/13 while in this SC posting you argue against a 2nd AA seat even though the AA percentage in SC is just a tiny sliver short of 2/7 (if at all ?) ...

It's obvious to anyone relatively familiar w/ this issue and how it affects the South that a 3rd AA seat in NC is likely to be detrimental to the Democratic party, while in SC the opposite is true ... therefore, you're clearly coming at this from a "pro-GOP" perspective .. which is your right, but a perspective which you may nevertheless want to share while posting on this "pro-Democratic" (big "D") site ...

---

by: silver spring @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 22:38:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

should have explained ...

better .. re. detrimental -- in that a 3rd seat in NC would just pack all the AA into one area, making every other district around GOP (so detrimental to overall Democratic prospects) and ofcourse this is what the new GOP-controlled legislature may want to try  .. while in SC the opposite is true -- there just aren't as many whites there who vote Dem. (big drop-off from NC, and perhaps one of the defining differences of "Deep South" from rest of South that was discussed in another diary a few days back) so if a 2nd AA seat is not created and there's just one AA seat in SC, all the surrounding seats will STILL vote GOP, so, as far as Dem. prospects are concerned, 2nd AA seat is the only way to increase Dem. representation (none of what I'm saying here, ofcourse, deals with the issue of fairness in terms of increasing AA representation -- which is a more important issue overall ... I'll admit that I'm looking at it from a partisan perspective myself)

---

by: silver spring @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 22:52:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

NC is only 21% AA

which is close to 3/13 as SC is 28% or close to 2/7.

Here's the difference.  Western NC is heavily white.  In the Smokey mountain 11th its only 4%AA--the 10th is 9%--the 5th-even counting Winston Salem's AA in the 12th is only 8% AA.

So if you exclude those three seats the % of AA is well over 3/13--closer to 3/10.  

No district in SC is under 20% AA right now

---

by: rdelbov @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 23:29:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh that's cute

If you exclude the parts of the state that heavily white, you're left with a state that's more nonwhite than before?

So, I take it that by your logic, you'd accept that Alabama needs a new majority black district, given that three districts in the state are just as white as North Carolina (AL-04 is 5% black, AL-05 is 17% black, and AL-06 is 11% black).

Oh and don't forget about Louisiana, with LA-01 at 16% black, it means that you have to create at least one more majority-black district to compensate for the whiteness of that district!.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

---

by: DGM @ Sun Nov 28, 2010 at 00:19:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

great point

I would contend, however, that there are large numbers of AA voters in the eastern part of the 8th district-western part of the 7th and in downtown Raleigh (in the 2nd and 13th) that could be weaved together in a compact fashion to create a third AA seat.  

In LA & AL the compact creation of 2nd AA majority would be very hard to do.  

I would do a new AA majority seat by taking all of scotland, Hoke, Robeson, Bladen, the AA part of Fayette (some 140K/90K AA) plus the western part of Harnet then do a corridor into downtown Raleigh for the other half of the district.  There is 160KAA there plus the 90 from cumberland. If you count the Lumbees as AA(they vote like AA's) you can get close  to 55%.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Sun Nov 28, 2010 at 01:03:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And why do these districts have to be 55% black?

Once you get past 50.1% (a majority), the number simply becomes arbitrary. Besides which, it's a little bit disingenuous to say that the reason why Alabama and Louisiana shouldn't have another majority-black district in each is because it basically won't look pretty. If the goal is increased representation for black voters, then that's a necessary sacrifice (and, it's worth mentioning, your standard is highly arbitrary anyways, that South Carolina doesn't have any districts that are under 20% black doesn't change the fact that the set-up is meant to dilute black voters in all of the districts that aren't part of Jim Clyburn's district).

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

---

by: DGM @ Sun Nov 28, 2010 at 01:23:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

OK, just to review ...

you are advocating:
- Maintaining only one VRA district in South Carolina (to the advantage of Republicans)
- Maintaining only one VRA district in Alabama (to the advantage of Republicans)
- Maintaining only one VRA district in Louisiana (to the advantage of Republicans)
- Adding a new VRA district in North Carolina (to the advantage of Republicans)

---

by: DCal @ Sun Nov 28, 2010 at 01:51:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

AL & LA

"In LA & AL the compact creation of 2nd AA majority would be very hard to do."

no, not really:

 

link: http://www.swingstateproject.c...

the yellow and green districts are both AA-majority ... I imagine AL would be just as easy to do ..

---

by: silver spring @ Sun Nov 28, 2010 at 02:31:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Damn it silver spring, introducing reasonable variables is not tolerated here!

How dare you prove that it's perfectly simple to draw 2 VRA districts in Louisiana, you should be ashamed of yourself! :P

Seriously though, very nice!

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

---

by: DGM @ Sun Nov 28, 2010 at 02:51:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here is a 2 VRA district map for Alabama

done by TheUnknown285:

http://www.swingstateproject.c...

---

by: DCal @ Sun Nov 28, 2010 at 02:52:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Looks pretty decent

Fits in fairly easily there. A second VRA district in Alabama would have to be something that followed the Black Belt counties almost exactly, while dipping into Mobile to help anchor population.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.

---

by: DrPhillips @ Sun Nov 28, 2010 at 02:52:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

An open question in my mind

is why nobody filed a Section II suit 10 years ago to require this seat.

I think perhaps that the Republican judiciary might have viewed your 6th as a racial gerrymander.  

---

by: andgarden @ Sun Nov 28, 2010 at 03:11:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's a nifty map

well done.

I still remember the 1992 district that went from BR. up to Monroe and then over to Shreveport--had to be the nastiest looking  seat of all time.

A good ole Southern boy when dislodged from a position that cannot be defended.  He must move on  to the  next line of defense.  Fairly nifty compact additional majority/minority seats could have been created in 2000 in AL-LA  heck for that matter SC in 2000?  Or least they could have come pretty darn close (pardon my French).  

Why  did they not do it?  Democrats even controled redistricting in AL in 2000.  Why did VRA not force them to create Majority/minority seats.  I am fairly certain that three majority/minority seats could have created in NC in 2002-the logic of this post is that if a majority minority seat can be created it "must" be.

My fallback position is that the ability to draw a certain number of majority minority seats does not mean it must be done.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Sun Nov 28, 2010 at 03:24:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

My reading of the VRA and the case law

supports the proposition that if a reasonably compact minority-majority seat that would allow minority voters to elect a representative of their choice can be drawn, it must be. The practical reality appears to be that for a variety of reasons, this is not always forced. Most likely the reasons are

1) political; and

2) prudential, viz., the Republican-dominated Federal judiciary will tend to view any newly-proposed (especially by §2 suit) VRA seat as being a racial gerrymander, no matter how compact.  

---

by: andgarden @ Sun Nov 28, 2010 at 03:35:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's not an unreasonable observation

and lets me be clear that VRA and its application have been widely inconsistent.  There are several reasons for this and yes politics have an impact plus the constitutional division of power-states rights(has that word been used here before)  plus other judicial principles that over rule VRA in some ways.

1. As noted VRA can say "must" all it want but the DOJ cannot draw congressional lines in SC or anyother state.  That "must" ultimately will land in Federal court and courts have reconcile the VRA "Must" with precedence like Baker V Carr among other things.  VRA does not spell out exactly what it wants in every instance so you got precedence and equal protection clauses.  If you sue to "must" in SC how about AL?  

2. State law has always ruled in redistricting until the 1960s and deference is still given.  In 2000 the state of NC-AL-LA-GA drew its own districts and democrats did them.  Black legislators in many cases help to draw the lines.  In AL if black legislators drew only one AA majority seat why would the DOJ or some federal judge question those lines?  So naturally a federal judge -say in MS or SC will end up drawing lines along the same path that legislators in other VRA states came up with.  So in recent history many federal judges just came fairly close to what one or the other state legislative body had come up with.  They referee so to speak as opposed to going out on a limb.

3.  So precedence and consistency will rule in 2010 IMO.  I suspect we will see partisan lines drawn in NC SC GA Al TX.  They will look similar in many ways to previous lines.  We will probably see similar lines in LA & MS-other then a seat will be lost in one state.  The DOJ will prescreen and that is a wildcard but they better be prepared to be consistent approach to it.  There are legislative and congressional lines to be drawn.  Forcing the maximum number of congressional seats in SC might end up eliminating every white democratic legislator in that state too.  (probably not many of them anyway but that precedence could be set for 10 states including VA)

great discussion on this subject and let me say that if anyone is 100% certain about anything to do with redistricting--don't be.  30 years of looking at this stuff has taught me that there are always surprises in this process-maybe not every state but somewhere there will surprises.

---

by: rdelbov @ Sun Nov 28, 2010 at 04:07:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Appalachia.

I know this thread is about redistricting South Carolina, but I have to say looking at that map, its still pretty amazing for all the talk about Obama's problems with Appalachian voters that a higher percentage of whites voted for Obama in West Virginia then in states he won like Virginia and North Carolina, and almost as many as voted for him in Florida.

MI-06 (home), MI-02 (college)

20, Democrat, Male, MI-06 (Home), MI-02 (College)

---

by: koolbens @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 22:42:53 PM UTC

WV is very union-heavy.

Also, Obama ran on the whole concept of "clean coal" being one part of our energy future.  Once president, Obama has more strongly enforced pollution standards, making coal states fume.  "Clean coal" was a part of the comprehensive energy bill, but that bill became DOA for partisan reasons.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 22:47:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Even if the election were held today,

Obama would win a considerably higher percentage of the white vote in West Virginia than in Alabama or South Carolina.  

---

by: andgarden @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 22:50:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sure

But there are almost no blacks in WV to increase his overall statewide percentage)))

---

by: smoltchanov @ Sun Nov 28, 2010 at 06:50:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Clean Coal.

While I agree with you that Obama hasn't made himself any friends in Appalachia since he took office, I don't think anyone in Appalachia bought the clean coal rhetoric since Obama did worse in pretty much every every of Appalachia but some areas of eastern Tennessee and western North Carolina then Kerry and Gore. Union membership is probably a better answer. Does anyone know if Obama performed better with older whites (who were more likely to have been union members and remember the golden age of unionization in the  late 40's, early 50's then coal miners now) then he did whites 45-55 in Appalachia? I wouldn't be surprised if he did; I know that in places like Montana and North Dakota he did better with some older whites then in traditional Democratic areas in the Rust Belt and the Southeast in coal producing areas, especially older women.

MI-06 (home), MI-02 (college)

20, Democrat, Male, MI-06 (Home), MI-02 (College)

---

by: koolbens @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 23:11:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

winning 41% of the white vote in WV doesn't do you much good

because there are hardly any black people in WV. meanwhile winning 39% of the white vote in VA or 35% in NC is all you need.

26, male, Dem, NJ-12

---

by: duffman @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 22:54:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Florida.

For Virginia and North Carolina, you also have the fact that almost all of Obama's white votes probably came from areas like the western Virginian Appalachian panhandle and Northern Virginia, and in North Carolina from Charlotte and the mountainous west. I'm amazed Obama was able to win Florida with so little of the white vote, since even after winning Hispanics and pretty much all AA, Democratic numbers dropped like a rock in the Panhandle and he didn't do that great in central Florida. Has any Democrat running statewide won Florida with such a low percentage of the white vote as he did; I'd bet Betty Castor won a higher percentage against Mel Martinez in 2004 while losing.

MI-06 (home), MI-02 (college)

20, Democrat, Male, MI-06 (Home), MI-02 (College)

---

by: koolbens @ Sat Nov 27, 2010 at 23:22:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Districts 3 and 4

I noticed this about your maps, though this is a tangent.  

You moved Greenville and Southern Greenville County from District #4 to District #3.  Right now, hard right Republicans win by 2-1 margins in both districts, I think because Republican politics in this part of SC is especially hardline and the Dem party here is moribund.  But in moving Greenville to #3, are you concentrating the state's hardest right wing voters into just one district?

---

by: Inkan1969 @ Tue Nov 30, 2010 at 16:15:39 PM UTC

Some of those exit poll numbers

seem hard to believe mathematically. Obama won 56% of the white vote in Maryland? He won 90%+, of course, among the 30%+ of the state which is black. How does that get him to 62%? Similarly, in 20%+ black Delaware, I can't believe that Obama could only get 62% total if he got 55% of the white vote. I'm sorry but I wonder if these are about as reliable as the exit poll showing AAs as 26% of the NC 2004 electorate.  

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/

---

by: sapelcovits @ Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 11:17:07 AM UTC