Google Ads


Site Stats

AL/MS/LA/AR 7 VRA Seats

by: roguemapper

Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 8:30 PM EST


So, I've previously posted maps featuring 2 minority-majority seats in South Carolina and 6 minority-majority seats in Georgia. In the meantime, I've been working on maps designed to maximize majority-minority seats in the rest of the South (excluding Florida & Texas, for now).

I've decided to go ahead and post the maps that I've settled on for Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas below. I've managed to create 2 reasonably compact majority-minority seats for each state except Arkansas, where I've created 1 (more would be impossible). I haven't marked district numbers, but rather have marked the minority percentage on the relevant districts.

For the record, it seems impossible to create 2 minority-majority seats in Tennessee (at least not with any semblance of compactness). The Memphis area seat is as good as it gets.

Anyhow, the maps are after the fold!
roguemapper :: AL/MS/LA/AR 7 VRA Seats
For Alabama, one district is a Birmingham based seat and the other is a Mobile to Montgomery seat.

With Mississippi, one seat is a Jackson based seat and the other covers the rural Mississippi River valley.

In Louisiana, I have the New Orleans based seat (which obviously has to pick up substantial geographic area since the state is losing a seat) and the other pulls together Baton Rouge, Lafayette, and Alexandria.

Finally, for Arkansas, I have a district that covers minority communities in Little Rock, Pine Bluff, the southwest corner of the state, and along the Mississippi.

I have no idea what VRA interpretation the DOJ will pursue in this round of redistricting (much less the DC Circuit), but for what it's worth, these are the types of maps that I would propose for these states were it up to me. I think maximizing the number of (compact) minority-majority seats (particularly in the Deep South) is far preferable to the ultra-packed minority seats that currently predominate. And, I think it's more consistent with the objectives of the VRA.

Whether the DOJ sees things my way is another matter.
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

AL/MS/LA/AR 7 VRA Seats | 122 comments
You're great!
I personally think that a second seat in AL is the most needed of these.  The LA map is amazing.  No Z's needed here.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
Agree.
  But Louisiana needs a second VRA seat just as badly, it is 1/3 black.  

24, Male, GA-05
[ Parent ]
The thing about Louisiana and Mississippi
is that those 50% and change black districts would not be solid Democratic seats. I would be all for that, but a variety of groups (not least many black lawmakers) would likely be quite opposed.

I admit that it would be funny for LA to be forced to add another D-leaning seat--creating a net R - 2.  

Louisiana & Mississippi
So far as Louisiana is concerned, I don't see why black lawmakers could possibly be opposed. The 52% minority Baton-Rouge based district takes nothing away from the current LA-02 New Orleans district.

The New Orleans based seat that I've drawn is as majority-minority as you can keep it considering it has to expand to account for the state losing a seat. There is no way that you can stretch it into Baton Rouge to make it any more so because the in-between area (where the light blue LA-01 and the purple LA-03 seats come together on my map) is densely populated & heavily white.

So, it seems to me that the only issue with the Louisiana seat is whether it's compact enough to pass muster.

Now, with Mississippi, I can very well imagine that black lawmakers themselves might object to my map. For what it's worth, I actually drew an alternative map with even more solid minority-majority seats, but the districts are far less compact, and that's why I went with the one above.

In case anyone's interested, though, here it is:


[ Parent ]
With respect to LA, I should have said
that I think the New Orleans seat is no problem. The N. LA district would probably be hotly contested, however, and a reasonable person could ask whether there were would be enough minority voters to elect a candidate of choice.

MS would be interesting, and in my view absolutely worth the risk.  

[ Parent ]
I agree with you
I agree that the Baton Rouge based district would be hotly contested, and I can actually far more easily see it electing a Mitch Landrieu type candidate than a Cleo Fields type candidate.

Whatever the case may be, the DOJ Civil Rights Division has been attempting to get Louisiana a second majority-minority seat for three decades now, so I actually think that's where they are likely to be most aggressive out of these four states.

In Mississippi & Alabama, creating a second minority-majority seat significantly affects the current VRA seats, and that might be a big stumbling block. In Arkansas, there may be issues with compactness & it's also not a preclearance state (so it would take a court filing in the first instance).

When it comes to Louisiana, though, it's a preclearance state and, most importantly, the seat I've drawn has no impact on the only pre-existing VRA seat. It's a purely new minority-majority district in a state where the minority population is clearly under-represented.

Also, I think the actual census figures might very well reveal a higher minority percentage, but that's another matter. I don't think the ACS estimates fully capture the population shift from New Orleans to Baton Rouge since Katrina.

[ Parent ]
As an idle aside
It would be quite nice to see both Rodney Alexander & Bill Cassidy get the shaft.
[ Parent ]
Indeed

[ Parent ]
MS & AL
In my Mississippi map, Gregg Harper would be the odd Republican out (though I imagine he would surely contest the new Jackson-based seat).

My map would actually wreak havoc on the Alabama GOPers. I did not plan it that way (all I looked at was the race figures) but here's where they would end up:

Jo Bonner would end up in the Mobile-based minority-majority district (let's call it AL-02), though I imagine he could move back into AL-01 easily enough.

Martha Roby would be in the purple AL-03 district with very little of the territory she currently represents (just the northern suburbs of Montgomery).

Mike Rogers lives in Anniston, which would end up in the teal AL-06 district. The population core of that district are the Birmingham suburbs currently represented by Spence Baucus, except:

Spence Baucus lives in Vestavia Hills, and that would put him in the AL-04 district with Rob Aderholt.

Mo Brooks would be fine in Huntsville (AL-05).

And, for the record, my Arkansas map draws Mike Ross & Timothy Griffin into the same (red) district. I guess they could sort themselves out, but Mike Ross would probably be primaried easily in a minority-majority district (which would hardly be any great loss). He may well be better off running against Griffin in such a scenario (and I guess he'd be an improvement if he actually pulled it off).

[ Parent ]
Alabama
I imagine the AL GOP would draw the lines differently than I did to keep Baucus & Rogers in AL-06 & AL-03, so Martha Roby would most likely be the odd wingnut out.
[ Parent ]
RM
these are great maps.  I also do not know what the DOJ will do and am sure  as to whether we will see a change of policy on VRA creation of minority majority seats.

I am leery of the 52% map in MS.  In fact something tells me that in the 1980's or maybe 1990's there was a lawsuit that boosted the AA% for the Delta district to over 60%.  I think 52% is just too low for MS.  At least for judicial creation.  I might add that friends of Judge Pickering drew the 2002 map that is still in place.  So I don't look for many changes in this state.

Now 52% in AR is probably acceptable as there is no AA district.

AS I said not sure what DOJ will do and not sure if "Must create" will be the standard for 2012.  I leave that point to others.  I might add if this was 1991 these maps would be up and running.  

Alabama and Louisiana could definitely use another VRA district
Under Bush 41, there was a push for two VRA districts in Alabama, but obviously it didn't go through. I do think that the black population is spread out enough where another district makes sense.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.
Louisiana and Alabama
I definitely hope there is a push for the second minority-majority seats in those two states.
Arkansas
While you AR map is good for Dems in principle, it won't happen as AR dosen't allow splitting of counties in the drawing of it's CD's.

31, Independent, MS-02 (Hometown FL-19)
21st Century
Sadly for Arkansas tradition, they may have no choice but to begin splitting counties this time around.

It's unlikely that Arkansas will be able to stay within legal limits unless they split counties: Counties May Be Split During Redistricting.

But, I do agree with you that the desire to minimize splitting counties would no doubt be Arkansas' primary defense against any VRA challenge.

[ Parent ]
FWIW
You can create 50.5% minority-majority Arkansas district while splitting only 2 counties to stay within the 1% variance. I might add, however, that once you begin splitting counties, then the legal argument for anything less than precise equivalence "one-person, one-vote" (Reynolds v. Sims) is difficult to sustain.

In any case, here's the map:


[ Parent ]
I doubt the VRA will require it
For the main reasons that they haven't required it the past few cycles, and because a 52% minority district in these states is probably likely to not elect a black Democrat.  The Alabama map is the only one I think possible to be used.  Arkansas violates "no county splitting", is almost a racial gerrymander, and isn't really in the interest of either state party.

The other side of things is, does the GOP in the south think that white Democrats are done?  Prior to this cycle, there were 3 D seats in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Alabama; and Ds lost 2 seats in each state.  If the GOP wants to make sure there are no new white Democrats, they may be inclined to go all-out on minority districts.  Considering the R district being eliminated in MS was the one held by a Republican, that may not matter.

1981, 1991, 2001
The reason it wasn't done in 1981 is because the demographics did not support it.

It was certainly done in 1991, but in such a way that it was ruled unconstitutional by the courts.

The reason it wasn't done in 2001 is because the Justice Department was controlled by GWB appointees that did everything they could to neuter the Civil Rights Division.

None of the above reasons apply this time around.

[ Parent ]
With all of our push to create more VRA seats in the south
Is there any pushback from the right-wing blogsphere? What is their take, if any? (I've read the stuff on RRH suggesting "OK, we have to go at least this far to avoid court w/r/t these redistricting plans....")

I'd assume there are fears from the right-wing from an Eric Holder-led DoJ, but do not know the arguments (if any) they're making / prepping against the creation of additional VRA seats.

Seems to be mostly that the VRA doesn't "require" it...
But as far as I can tell, that's bunk. Then again, I'm not an expert on the law.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
I think people are massively overestimating
The willingness of the courts to interfere with legislative maps. While the DOJ of course can sue, its far from certain whether they will win any, much less a majority of these cases. Remember the only power the DOJ has is to deny pre-clearence, and that can be bypassed by going directly to the strongly right-leaning DC Circuit. If it looks like Holder is using the VRA as an attempt to circumvent the outcome of the 2010 elections in regards to line-drawing its almost certain the court will take a dim view of it.

This is because redistricting is in "legal" parlance, a "political" question. That means that significantly more deference at the federal appellate level will be shown to the states defending their maps than to the DOJ. The DOJ will be obligated to argue not why their proposals are better, but to prove why their is a compelling federal interest that requires the DC Circuit to circumvent the legislature. And the MS map for instance, with two districts in the mid-50s, will get the DOJ laughed out of court. Why? Because if the goal was to elect more African American congressman, its pretty likely to throw Benny Thompson, who is nil white support, out of his seat than it is to bring in a second AA member. It is a Democratic gerrymander masquerading under the VRA and few judges would see it as anything else.

For this reason the DOJ will probably be very cautious. The limits of any mandating is likely to be in Texas and the South-west. Messing with the southern maps unless actual retrogression is ongoing is likely to be a huge waste of money and time.

26 Right-leaning, Euro-Conservative, Anti-Tea Party Independent

[ Parent ]
I am glad you posted that
as I believe it sums up my views.  Here's two other points.

1. Current precedence is clearly not on "must draw minority majority maps" and folks maps will be rolling off the drawing board maps  in March 2011.  VRA policy-precleared or not precleared-will be evident in maps being drawn at congressional or legislative levels in less then 60 days.  There will not be one policy for minority majority seats in AL and another for IN or IL or wherever.  The very fact that maps are drawn and okayed under current rules will make any DOJ challenge or any other changes harder to enact.

2. I might add that while its clear that a second minority majority in SC AL & LA would clearly be democratic.  I read very little here about what the impact of minority majority seats in legislative & congressional maps in many other states.  When I suggest that IL would need to keep AA seats at 55% under VRA people shout out "republican gerrymander".  VRA is just not a tool to create democratic seats in southern states-it impacts FL TX NY IL and CA where it might help create GOP seats.  So be careful what you wish for and realize that it could cut both ways.


[ Parent ]
FL, TX, NY, IL, and CA
For what it's worth, my view is that the effects of the VRA in the above five states are as follows:

Florida: It hurts Democrats by packing them in a highly inefficient manner.

Texas: It helps Democrats everywhere that I can think of so long as Republicans draw the maps.

New York: It makes no partisan difference whatsoever.

Illinois: The Democratic legislature will keep majority-minority seats wherever they currently exist, with at least 55% minority VAP or whatever the current level if it's less than that, and any proposed maps that fail to do so are a fantasy.

California: No VRA modification of neutral redistricting criteria that I've seen or have been able to devise does anything but help Democrats.

[ Parent ]
RM
I see the possiablity of dramatic impacts in CA for VRA implications--either in seat creation or more likely seat perservation.

1. There is one seat minority majority seat in Bay Area and we are see another one Contra Costa Solano area. If you see a foothills seat in Contra Costa / Alameda foothills that could be a tossup seat with the GOP area of CD10 & CD11

2. There could easily be a minority majority seat draw in San Jose where currently seats are neatly divided out. The outer areas of current CD14-CD15-CD16 could end up being a tossup seat.

3. In the Central Valley you could see a seat go from Fresno(downtown) and then pick up the hispanic areas of Merced and Stanislaus and perhaps to Stockton.  This would create a heavily D seat but would hurt democrats currently in CD11-CD18-CD20

4. In San Diego the hispanic voters in San Diego, Chula Vista and National city are neatly divided between CD51 & CD53.  Putting them all in one 70% hispanic seat would hurt the re-election chances of Filner & Davis

5.The hispanic voters in CD27 CD 28 & CD29 which currently 36% 55% & 26% are neatly divided between these three seats plus they attach themselves to more anglo northern parts of the county.  You could easily combine the hispanic inner sections of these three districts to make a minority majority seat and put the Northern GOP areas in CD25.

6. CD's 32 CD38 CD39 can only maintain their current hispanic % & current level of white voters why excluding voters now in CD26 & CD42 in LA county.  The fact that retrogression will be not possible without jagged lines and excluding large blocs of populations creates the possiability of a second seat for the GOP in LA county.

7. There is the likelihood of yet another minority majority seat in south LA in general area of CD36 & CD37 if one anglo seat is chopped up or combined or if the GOP area in 46 is kept attached to Orange county.

Under the doctrine of "Must do it if you can do it" means you have to look to create seats if you can and at the same time you must preserve current seats at nearly the same level of hispanic & other minority voters.

I see a dramatic impact in CA especially as the redistricting commission has three hispanics and the GOP members might be included to create those seats as well.
 

[ Parent ]
Worth discussing
That's all very interesting analysis and worth discussing, but I'll defer until we have another California thread. I really have to get to work now and California is just way too time-intensive.

I'm saving your comments to a file so we can go over them whenever I get around to making another CA map, if you're still interested. I look forward to the debate.

[ Parent ]
That is fair enough and
I don't want to try to spell San Jaquin county correctly today.  There's another vowell in there somewhere.  
[ Parent ]
Rdelbov:
Your first example - a "foothills seat in Contra Costa / Alameda foothills that could be a tossup seat with the GOP area of CD10 & CD11" - is actually something I've drawn myself.

Are you thinking something like this?

Photobucket

http://mypolitikal.com/

[ Parent ]
Very nice example
But that's a 62% Obama district so I highly doubt that's what rdelbov has in mind. The version he's thinking of is the one filled with nonexistent imaginary Republicans.

I'd be very interested in seeing that too if you manage to draw it.

[ Parent ]
How did you get 62%?
(You're right, by the way.)

http://mypolitikal.com/
[ Parent ]
That map above comes really close to CD10
circa 1991(I found a map) other then it goes a little more North near that river.  

Its not that republican and I can't justify a move into Solano. I can't really tell where Sacramento & where Solano county begins and ends on this map.  I would push it up to the border but no further.  

[ Parent ]
I simply replicated your map
Discussing a GOP seat in the Bay Area is as pointless as discussing a second GOP seat in LA County. People are of course free to discuss whatever they want, but the time and effort would be better spent discussing things of actual consequence. Just my opinion.

There is no possible arrangement of Bay Area districts that produces a GOP seat, just as there is no possible arrangement of LA County districts that produces two GOP seats. Accept reality and move on (I don't mean you).

[ Parent ]
There are already two GOP seats in LA County
CA-25 (McKeon) and CA-26 (Drier.) Both go into other counties, but their population base is in Los Angeles County, which also makes up significant portions of CA-42 (Gary Miller) and CA-46 (Rohrabachar.)

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08
[ Parent ]
Poor Dreier
Sadly for Dreier, that's innacurate. His district is not an LA County seat but rather a Los Angeles/San Bernardino gerrymander with 57% of the population in LA and 43% of the population in SB.

And that 43% in San Bernardino is the difference between a 51% Obama district and a 58% Obama district.

[ Parent ]
Yup, 20-25 years seems
I'm pretty confident that Dreier is done. I would watch for him to make a Senate run, except. . .  
[ Parent ]
Oops, stupid autocomplete again!
Subject should just be "yup."
[ Parent ]
That's not a bad map
and I would have thought it would have been more like 58 or 60 %. CD10 was a 59% Bush district and with all that jagged stuff you would think the part of Contra Costa and Alameda in CD11 it would be 7% more GOP.  

The configuration that I would envision for this seat would be similar to CD10 under the 1991 map.  

That's similar to what I had in mind and I am clueless what Solano county's interior is like.  

[ Parent ]
I also wonder if this seat would be more
GOP if it went North to those suburbs towards that river as opposed western towards Miller's seat.  I fully admit to being clueless as to what area that is.  I under in that area the higher up you terrain wisethe more single family dwelling better views marginally more republican.

I don't know why Miller's seat does not have that little jag of area. I do know this.  If CD10 was 65% Obama with all of those little jags into CD8 you could ditch those little tenatacles then move in the good parts of CD11 in Alameda & Contra Costa county and come out ahead.

[ Parent ]
Those parts don't have many Republicans anymore
They vote more moderate than the more dense communities, but not enough to help the GOP. CA-11 was drawn as a Republican district, but it flipped. The only way you get a Republican district there is if you string together some Republican precincts in Alameda and Contra Costa, then stretch out into Lodi and the Republicans precincts in Sacramento County, plus Amador, which would be nothing but a gerrymander.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.
[ Parent ]
The northern suburbs in the gray area are not much different from the pink district.
Going west to east, they start 60-75% Obama (there are three precincts McCain barely wins). Then there's a big chunk of missing precincts. Then it's a large pack of 70-80% Obama precincts. Then at the eastern end it's 45-70% Obama (McCain wins a few more precincts).

To be honest, we're looking at the Bay Area - one of the most Democratic parts of the entire country. It's the political equivalent of looking at Oklahoma or Utah; you're not going to find many Republicans here.

http://mypolitikal.com/

[ Parent ]
BTW
I'm actually close to finishing another California map based on the newer ACS estimates. I haven't done the LA districts yet, and I still need to do a general review to see where I can push up the minority percentage, but my preliminary guess is that I'll end up with about 38 minority-majority districts - perhaps as many as 40.

As for the exact partisan effect, I can't reliably predict as of yet. It'll clearly help Democrats, but I'm unsure how much. I'll have to translate my ACS map into the version with partisan data, and that'll take a while.

[ Parent ]
And
It definitely includes an Asian majority CA-13 district.

I may lose a couple of bare majority-minority seats when boosting neighboring seats, so I think 36 majority-minority seats might be the final outcome. We'll find out!

If I had to guess right now, CA-11 might've turned into a GOP district (in exchange for safely Dem CA-18 & CA-20 districts) so Republicans might get to hang their hats on that. But, I haven't done the numbers yet. I'm just guessing.

[ Parent ]
51-48
I went ahead & did the partisan numbers for my latest CA-11 district: 51% Obama to 48% McCain. So, it looks to me like a 'toss-up', perhaps GOP lean. It's half in San Joaquin County & half in Stanislaus County with the more Latino parts of both counties in CA-18.


[ Parent ]
It helps in Texas
If the VRA were optional DFW would be completely cracked with districts from West Texas and CD-30 would no longer be a Dem district.  Houston would be further cracked with districts from East Texas and there may be one Democrat, maybe.  South Texas would be a bit more difficult to make Republican with West and East Texas districts being used to crack other metro areas.  Without the VRA Dems would have 3 or 4 seats in the state maximum.
[ Parent ]
I'm not so sure
I think TX-30 is an effective Democratic vote sink, so I think Republicans would have drawn it anyway. Dallas County went for Obama, and because it's so big, it stands to reason that there needs to be a Dem vote sink. I also think there would have to be at least two Dem vote sinks in Houston, one in El Paso, and one in Austin. The McAllen area is too populated to only have on district, so I think there would be two there as well.

NY-14, DC-AL (college) Distraught Mets fan
[ Parent ]
Dallas County is isolated
Dallas County is a very isolated Democratic County in the state.  It's surrounded by the very conservative West, East and Central Texas.  Since Texas went for McCain 55-44 it should by hypothetically possible to draw every district with a 55-44 margin, which would be R+12 for every district.  Completely cracking DFW would be easy without VRA.
[ Parent ]
R+9
R+9, not R+12
[ Parent ]
I personally think the GOP
is doing to a rope a dope plan in TX23 & TX27.  Farnethold is not  going to get special treatment as he is not perceived as the second coming of Tom DeLay.  So no new seat for him but TX27 will be draw in a similar fashion and perhaps just a slightly different mix of hispanic voters.  Not all hispanic population is created equal vote wise.  Either way TX27 will stay hispanic and if Farnethold survives he survives.  

Conseco looks just like the GOP needs to hold TX23. He is hispanic, has great roots in the district and has a ton of money.  The GOP will keep the hispanic vote the same and try to maximize the white vote to slide past VRA.  

Then Doggett will get every minority that is breathing in Travis county plus a few others in nearby rural counties.  That will not affect Doggett but it will be a minority majority seat.

Plus Green will even get more hispanics and very likely make even find himself in another seat. That seat is already VRA and will double secret VRA.

I then look for a hispanic seat in DFW area.  More of peace in the valley thing as several incumbents need some relief right now.  Two minority majority seats in this area make all the other seats that much stronger.

So the GOP will add two minority seats make two freshman sink or swimbeef the hispanic vote in TX29 and create three new seats for themselves.

I think the biggest potential impact for VRA in Texas is in legislative seats as the creationof minority majority legislative seats are turning white democrats into dinosaurs.  

[ Parent ]
I don't know
where these Houston-area Hispanics are coming from. Gene Green's district is probably already maxed out in terms of Hispanics.

FWIW, Farenthold will be protected. I think they'll split Corpus Christi:

Photobucket

NY-14, DC-AL (college) Distraught Mets fan

[ Parent ]
Yeah, it would look bad for the state GOP if they screw Farnethold
That is, unless he proves to be a disaster in office. The guy may be a little non-traditional, but as long as he pays his NRCC dues, votes the party line, and keeps up a good presence in his district, he'll be taken care of. The four new districts are likely to break down like this: GOP seat in exurban DFW, Dem seat in DFW, GOP seat in Houston, new district for Farenthold. The current TX-27 will become an open seat that is significantly more Democratic.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08
[ Parent ]
I disagree
about the exurban DFW seat. I think the GOP has to draw a new McAllen seat; there's just way too much Hispanic growth there.

Four new seats:
-GOP Houston seat
-GOP Corpus Christi to San Antonio (Farenthold)
-DEM McAllen seat
-DEM Dallas Hispanic seat

TX27 will be redrawn as is, removing Farenthold's home.

NY-14, DC-AL (college) Distraught Mets fan

[ Parent ]
I see what you mean
but here's my take on CD23-CD28-CD15-CD27. You could get another seat if you move CD20 a bit North. Plus CD27 loses alot of Nueces county for a new seat for Todd F.

I don't see that as state GOP just do not think Todd F. is a top gun keeper.  

So here's my take on South Texas

TX23 stays pretty much the same with exactly the same demographics.  Conseco is well thought but the future of the GOP in TX has to be hispanic outreach.  If Conseco can't do it who can?  

TX28 will lose a bit of Bexar county and will lose all of Guadolpe county.  That will be 140K and that will fix its population.

TX15 will lose its counties north of Corpus Christi.  Those counties are not very hispanic and are lightly populated.  That will make this seat more hispanic.

TX27 will stay about the same.  The GOP will really eyeball what parts of Cameron and Nueces county to keep in that seat.  Todd F. will not be accomdated.  He has 6 home staff people and will be an incumbent.  If he can't get some hispanic support he might be toast but he has 20 months to get it done.

Bonus  --TX25 will shrink into Travis county and a new seat will contain suburbs of Bexar (Guadalope county) rural parts of 15-rural parts of CD25 plus some of the rural parts of CD14 plus Victoria county.

[ Parent ]
California
While I'm at it, I just thought I'd add an additional California sidenote, since we debated this at such length previously (and will again, I'm sure).

I've done some partial maps using the more accurate ACS estimates as opposed to the figures that I used in my previous full-state maps. My preliminary assessment, for what that's worth, includes the following:

1) It's virtually impossible to avoid creating more majority-minority districts than were supposedly on my original map. For instance, CA-11, CA-22, and CA-51 become clear majority-minority districts with little, if any, modification.

2) It's much easier to maintain the Latino population in CA-18, CA-20, and CA-47 without going to exceptional lengths and with substantially more compact lines than in the current map.

3) You can probably create a compact majority-Asian district. That would be cool (and quite probable if it's doable).

Anyhow, just thought I'd throw that out there.

[ Parent ]
Where would this Asian-majority seat be?
My guess would be in the Monterey Park area of LA. It's possible you could also draw it in OC, though that would have to be a lot less compact, probably.

Male, VA-08
[ Parent ]
The Bay Area
Stretching from San Leandro in Alameda County to the northern parts of Santa Clara. It would look something like this (ignore the numbering):


[ Parent ]
PS
There are 'too many' Latinos in between the Asian communities in eastern LA. That's certainly not a bad thing per se, but it evidently prevents drawing a compact Asian majority district (at least so far as the data on Dave's app is concerned).

I've been planning to make another attempt in LA County, though, whenever I get around to doing another full California map. It may be doable if working with OC and San Bernardino, and if it is, then it could actually have a significant impact on the final map.

Though, to be sure, creating a second GOP seat in LA County won't be part of it. Nothing could conceivably have that impact.

[ Parent ]
Preclearance
There was a recent, extensive discussion on the legalities of preclearance and the VRA in this thread. I'm not inclined to replicate it here, but you might be interested in checking that out.

For the time-being, I will simply reiterate that the Supreme Court professed to have created a 'bright-line' Section 2 majority-minority rule in the 2009 Bartlett v Strickland ruling, as follows (emphasis added):

[T]he majority-minority rule relies on an objective, numerical test: Do minorities make up more than 50 percent of the voting-age population in the relevant geographic area? That rule provides straightforward guidance to courts and to those officials charged with drawing district lines to comply with §2. See LULAC, supra, at 485 (opinion of Souter, J.) (recognizing need for "clear-edged rule"). Where an election district could be drawn in which minority voters form a majority but such a district is not drawn, or where a majority-minority district is cracked by assigning some voters elsewhere, then-assuming the other Gingles factors are also satisfied-denial of the opportunity to elect a candidate of choice is a present and discernible wrong that is not subject to the high degree of speculation and prediction attendant upon the analysis of crossover claims. Not an arbitrary invention, the majority-minority rule has its foundation in principles of democratic governance. The special significance, in the democratic process, of a majority means it is a special wrong when a minority group has 50 percent or more of the voting population and could constitute a compact voting majority but, despite racially polarized bloc voting, that group is not put into a district.

So, the standard is not 55% or 65% or 'can Benny Thompson be reelected'. The standard is 50%, compactness, and the applicability of the Gingles criteria.

For the record, when this debate arose in 2001 (which resulted in the legislature rejecting three sets of maps, the issuance of competing state & federal court maps, the DOJ's silence on preclearance, and the Supreme Court's intervention) the in-state black legislative caucus was advocating a 55% majority-minority district for Thompson if that resulted in the creation of a second majority-minority district.

[ Parent ]
50% of eligible voters
Does Dave's demographics data give voting population, or "all population"?  This is why the "65% for hispanic districts" often holds, it's because more of them are non-citizens or under 18.

If Dave could get separate voting population demographic data in the app, that would be awesome beyond words.

I also think the statute is a bit unclear on when a second district must be created; interpreting it to require two 50%+1 districts over a compact 58% district and a 30% district would seem to be a perversion to me.  The ruling also seems vague on whether "all minorities" or "a single minority group" is relevant.

[ Parent ]
Citizenship & Minorities
Citizenship is a non-issue from a legal standpoint. It's been litigated before (the particular cases elude my recall at the moment) and the courts have ruled that the only thing that matters is the Census figure for adults over age 18. As we all know, the Census counts illegals the same as anyone else.

The Bartlett v Strickland ruling is very consistent in referring to the population of all minorities rather than any particular minority as being the relevant guidepost, and I am unaware of any legal interpretation that suggests otherwise.

The question of whether the VRA requires majority-Latino districts or majority-black districts versus majority-minority districts is not explicitly settled. However, the question of whether it requires proportionality is, and the answer is a resounding no.

In the past, attempts to argue in court that majority-minority districts must be tailored to particular minority groups versus minorities in general have been unsuccessful.

[ Parent ]
One more thing
I agree with this, and said as much above:

I also think the statute is a bit unclear on when a second district must be created;

On the following part, however, I disagree, and have explained why more than once:

interpreting it to require two 50%+1 districts over a compact 58% district and a 30% district would seem to be a perversion to me.

Well, more precisely, I think two 56% minority districts (as in my Alabama map) are quite obviously preferable to one 66% minority district.

Since my Louisiana and Arkansas maps create minority districts where there are none, with no impact on current minority districts, this argument is a non-issue in those cases.

With regard to Mississippi, one might very well argue that a 69% minority district is better than a 55% and 52% minority district. The state certainly would argue as much on retrogression grounds. All I can say is that (a) I disagree; and, far more importantly, (b) black lawmakers in the state are likely to disagree - as they did in 2001.

There is quite a strong argument to be made (and it's been frequently made) that packing minority voters into fewer districts versus creating more minority districts is discriminatory.

It's not an accident that Republicans who comment here are fervent believers in 65%+ minority districts....

[ Parent ]
That's one reason I often key on white population
In minority majority seats-especially hispanic seats any white population over 30% is often a sign that the majority of voters are white.  
[ Parent ]
Your analysis fails for black voters though
The black vote is always close to their share of the population in a given area (based on census data). It drops off, but only a little bit, "any white population over 30%" is not "often a sign that the majority of voters are white" in regards to black voters.

Politics and Other Random Topics

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

[ Parent ]
closer for sure and urban
slightly more then rural blacks if I remember correctly.  Or is it the other way around.

In fact in congressional elections there seems to be some interesting interplay as the AA vote seems to be a solid base for congressman like Filner & Green who have  large hispanic populations.  8 or 9% AA population  in a democratic primary is worth two or three times the same hispanic population %.

Is there competition between hispanic & AA voters for political spoils?  Sure since day one in the USA "to the victor belongs the spoils" is a political moto.

Ironically in 2001 in Texas there was a storm over the lines in DFW area when Martin Frost secured a safe seat for him instead of a minority majority seat for the hispanic community.  The current GOP map also does a nifty job of dividing out the hispanic community between CD's 24-26-32 in that area.  I think we will a hispanic seat in that area-ten years late but we will see it.


[ Parent ]
Arkansas
An interesting outcome of that map is that it would likely foreclose any chance of winning back AR-1 or AR-2 in a favorable political climate.  
No doubt
That did occur to me, but my self-assigned task in these exercises was not to draw "Democratic" maps but rather maps that maximized majority-minority seats. Whether it's preferable for Democrats to do so in any given state is a whole 'nother debate.

In fact, the 1991 cycle of redistricting challenges arose because of the Republican scheme at the DOJ to push white Democrats out of viability in the South via packing minorities as heavily as possible into as few districts as possible.

In 1995, the Supreme Court directly chastised and rejected the DOJ's 1991 "maximization" strategy because it subordinated all other districting principles and it was explicitly rescinded in 2001. But, the legal landscape has progressed significantly in the last 20 years, with at least a half dozen key rulings and a crucial 2006 revision of the VRA.

Whatever the case, it's worth noting that Arkansas is changing, and as it stands now it may require a really, really favorable political climate to again elect Democrats in AR-01 and AR-02 - especially so long as Republican incumbents are running for re-election.

[ Parent ]
Bravo!
This is really excellent work. I love that Alabama map, it is the best 2nd VRA seat map I've ever seen.

19, gay male, IL-7, MN 4 (college), Dem
I love your maps
Everything looks nicely evenly shaped, especially the Alabama one. It's too bad the plan is to have only one district Democratic. As for the Mississippi map, I'm a bit colorblind so I couldn't see if the district with 55% minority population was two different colors. Did you say that one district was based in Jackson, so it's really small?
What they plan
may contrast with the DOJ and AL is a preclearance state.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
How's this?
You didn't specify the type of color-blindness, but I assume it's yellow-green. If so, I think you should be able to see the following version clearly:


[ Parent ]
Oh that's much better!
Thank you. I see where you're going now with the Jackson based district. Not to sound creepy here, but I've been coming back to this post a few times already just to look at your maps. I really like these, just wish there was a legit way to have them up for consideration.
[ Parent ]
very interesting diary

I like.

Mississippi Maps
I think one could make the case for 2 VRA districts in LA or AL, and maybe even the case for one in AR. Depends on your preferences/reading of the VRA, etc. But two VRA districts in Mississippi is a perversion. In a district-based political system with four seats and a 60-40 split between majority group and minority group (D/R or Black/White--it's more or less the same thing in MS), the majority group is gonna get three seats, and the minority group one (at best, 4-0 is often a reasonable outcome too). 2-2 is a Democratic gerrymander, plain and simple. And that's fine if you're advocating partisan gerrymandering, but the purpose of the VRA is not to enable partisan gerrymandering, let alone MANDATE it.  
When you put that way
it certainly clarifies my thinking which was already on the No second seat for MS VRA side.

I might add that logic holds for 6/14 VRA seats for GA as well as a recent post outlined.  I know that was an exercise but it does show what you can do with maps.

I might add that retrogression-the erasing of minority majority seats seems to be as much of a no no as court mandated creation of new minority majority seats.  So I don't see a second seat  coming in SC AL or LA. I see where states are setting schedules for drawing maps as early as next month or soon as the data is available.  

The courts will loathe to rule in late 2010 or early 2011 and then have 20 state's legislative & congressional maps reviewed under a different standard.  

[ Parent ]
Well
Whatever one may think of the outcome, I followed the rules articulated by the Supreme Court (50%, compact, Gingles).

Why is it OK if in 49 states the guidelines result in lower than proportional representation for minorities but it's not OK if in 1 state they result in higher?

PS. 40% is closer to 50% than to 25%.

[ Parent ]
Proportional representation
Is not a part of American democracy. The Supreme Court has said so explicitly. If there is anything close to a standard against which group size/seat ratios should be compared, it is the so-called "cube rule".

Now I'm perfectly willing to accept that, given the historic disenfranchisement of minority voters, that the notion of proportionality should play at least an informal role in guiding VRA decisions. But if a plan is motivated purely by the VRA, and not by partisan politics, the number of seats should always be on the low side of proportional, and never on the high side of proportional.  

[ Parent ]
Proportional representation
is neither the goal nor the inevitable result of this map.  
[ Parent ]
I agree
I never said that was the goal of the map. I made the PR comment in response to someone who used that criterion to normatively justify the map.

I understand that these maps were designed based on the Gingles criteria. But to the best of my knowledge, the Gingles precedent in a context in which the number of VRA districts being demanded was IN EXCESS OF the number suggested by PR. I have a feeling that if a lower court pointed to Gingles and demanded that MS create 2 VRA seats or that GA create 6 VRA seats, the Sup Ct. would clarify the Gingles standard. And in hearing that case, the Court would surely focus on the normative issues that I raised.

[ Parent ]
Sorry---this one reads correctly
I never said that was the goal of the map. I made the PR comment in response to someone who used that criterion to normatively justify the map.

I understand that these maps were designed based on the Gingles criteria. But to the best of my knowledge, the Gingles precedent has never been tested in a context in which the number of VRA districts being demanded was IN EXCESS OF the number suggested by PR. I have a feeling that if a lower court pointed to Gingles and demanded that MS create 2 VRA seats or that GA create 6 VRA seats, the Sup Ct. would clarify the Gingles standard. And in hearing that case, the Court would surely focus on the normative issues that I raised.

[ Parent ]
So in other words
proportionality is irrelevant unless it gives Democrats "too many" seats? Pffft.
[ Parent ]
That's what you read into my post?
Bizarre. What I said was that I don't think the VRA should be used to, in effect, mandate Democratic gerrymanders. Do you? Do you think Republicans in Georgia should be forced to create 6 VRA districts? If so, I'd love to hear you make the philosophical case for it.  
[ Parent ]
The consequence
of spending 30 years of insisting that the VRA does not and cannot require proportional representation is that you cannot then insist that it does, in fact, require proportional representation when Republicans happen to get the short end of the stick.  
[ Parent ]
LOL
You're putting a whole lot of words, years, and party affiliations in my mouth. What's not in your post is any effort to respond to the perfectly reasonable question I posed. And by the way, symmetry does not equal justice, so even the extremely simplistic statement made in this post doesn't stand up to the slightest bit of a challenge.

And incidentally, you are misreading what I wrote. (This is your last "misread"--next time it just becomes outright intellectual dishonesty). I am not saying that proportional representation should be required. I am not saying that Democrats shouldn't be able to draw "extra" VRA districts if they so choose. I'm just saying that a number of VRA districts in excess of proportionality should never be required. I eagerly await your making the case that they should be.  

[ Parent ]
Why should white majority
districts "in excess of proportionality" have been allowed simply because they are compact?

You are, in fact, proposing to change the rules and standards just as it appears possible that blacks might once be over-represented in majority districts. There is simply no other way to read your argument than "not proportionality--unless it's for white people." That's not intellectual dishonesty. That's the fair implication of your position.  

[ Parent ]
I do agree with andgarden.
If, "...a number of VRA districts in excess of proportionality should never be required" then the flip-side is that whites will always be overrepresented as a percentage of their population in places where minorities have historically been discriminated against.

http://mypolitikal.com/
[ Parent ]
Bingo
Yes, that's how single-member district democracies work. Majorities, whether racial, partisan, policy, linguistic, religious, or whatever else, are overrepresented in legislatures. So giving proportional representation to a group is in fact OVER-representing that group, and giving that group MORE than proportional representation is REALLY OVER-representing that group. Proportional representation thus serves as a logical ceiling for minority representation which is guaranteed as a remedy for past injustices, but one could easily argue that even that ceiling is too high in some cases. If you're going to make the case that representation above proportionality is EVER justified, you need to come up with a creative argument (reparations?) that goes beyond the intent of the VRA.

[ Parent ]
I read this sentence twice
Majorities, whether racial, partisan, policy, linguistic, religious, or whatever else, are overrepresented in legislatures.

and I still have absolutely no idea what you mean by it. As for the rest, it follows from that very inexplicable premise.  

[ Parent ]
In and of itself, it's not too inexplicable
It's pretty straightforward majoritarianism. The question is why he's advancing the tyranny of the majority against a law that's specifically designed to defeat it.

30, male, MI-11 (previously VA-08). Evangelical, postconservative, green.
[ Parent ]
I understand the literal meaning
but I don't see what it has to do with the idea that only white voters should be protected from the overrepresentation of other groups.  
[ Parent ]
Designed to defeat it?
No, the VRA wasn't designed to combat majoritarianism. It was designed to combat discriminatory manipulation of the system. Not the same thing at all. If you don't believe me, try running computer simulations to create "random" districts (and go ahead, virus-scan for Jim Crow viruses before you start) and see what percentage of majority-minority seats are generated on average in these states. It will be well below proportional every time.  
[ Parent ]
Dude...
That is majoritarianism. Or a form thereof, at least. The majority denies proportionate representation to the minority; majority rules, quite literally. And the VRA absolutely was intended to combat that.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
You're conflating terms
Majoritarianism is a characteristic of democracies. It's one pole of a spectrum that defines two very different, but equally democratic, visions of democracy. Proportional representation tends to be associated with the other type of democracy, consensualism, but is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for defining a democracy's location on that spectrum.

The Jim Crow South was not an overly-majoritarian system--it wasn't democratic enough to qualify. The choice of whether to allow a minority group to participate in the system is not a subject of legitimate democratic debate, the way the choice of electoral systems is. When they used districting tricks in the South to disenfranchise blacks, it was mostly as a last resort--when poll taxes, literacy tests, intimidation, etc. didn't work. In other words, when there was actually a BLACK MAJORITY. So in fact, even if you were to classify the Jim Crow South as a democracy, it wasn't majoritarian even then, because it was the minority (whites) in these places that were tyrannical.    

The VRA was not intended to institute PR. The reason that PR sometimes serves as an important "smell test" benchmark for districting plans is because racial voting is so polarized and because racial residential patterns are so segregated. If not for those conditions, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. That's pretty much the essence of the Gingles criteria.  

[ Parent ]
But we're not talking about Jim Crow...
We're talking about state-based redistricting. There is no state in which there is a black majority; only in California, Texas, Hawaii, and New Mexico are whites anything other than an outright majority, and Texas is barely under the 50% mark. So, it is majoritarian, and minorities are not necessarily disenfranchised, but they are underrepresented.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
Okay
Can't disagree with that most of that. FPTP exaggerates numerical majorities, and in this country that usually means white voters. If you think that's a problem per se--if you think that neutrally applied rules are unjust if they have racially disparate effects--then you should advocate throwing out the entire American system and instituting PR. That's a perfectly coherent argument. What is not coherent is claiming that the VRA can be, was intended to be, or should be, used to achieve this end, or that proportional representation could ever be the appropriate benchmark for fairness in an FPTP system.  
[ Parent ]
I don't agree with that at all
I'm not suggesting we ditch our electoral system. I think most of us here, though, would say that if reasonably compact majority-minority districts can be drawn in proportion to a state's minority population, they should be drawn - and that the VRA stipulates that they should be drawn.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
That's only part of
what the surpreme and lower courts has ruled in VRA matters.  

1. The current courts  & previous DOJ went through a cycle of review of maps and a great deal of leeway was given to legislative bodies.  The current maps in every VRA state went through various reviews.  The only legislative map in this cycle that got knocked back on VRA matter was Texas 2003.  The courts changed TX23 from 55% hispanic to 65% hispanic.  That was a retrogression issue.  Plus TX25 was removed as a VRA seat because the hispanic population was spread out so far as to be deemed poliitcally ineffective. The other maps passed muster.

2. In the states that had federal courts draw them--in SC & MS no attempt was made to draw a second AA majority seat.  SC was 29.4% AA then and a second 50% AA seat could have been drawn but that would have reduced Clyburn's seat from 57% to 50%. The courts did not draw a second seat but rather modified passed legislative bills.  In MS the R plan was chosen and in SC the D plan was chosen.

Since then the court has even gone further in saying racial gerrymandering is not reguired under VRA.  I might add that splitting counties and cities is the essence of gerrmandering.  Yes the LA map is compact but it splits Baton Rogue along racial lines.  

[ Parent ]
Louisiana
LA-01 currently comes across Lake Pontchartrain to disembowel the white sections of New Orleans around Metairie so that LA-02 will be majority-minority. The courts are fine with that, so I hardly think they'll have a problem with my far-less atypical division of Baton Rouge - which actually divides the parish, not the city. The city limits of Baton Rouge proper lie wholly within the yellow majority-minority district on my map.

Nice try, though.

[ Parent ]
That was done by legislative action
in 2001.  The St Tammany to Meterie West NOLA has been a standard move for years in LA by legislative bodies.

The recent rulings on VRA have not required courts to create gerrymandered districts.  The legislative bodies in LA SC AL and MS can draw districts within their state rules and follow Baker V Carr.  They have the leeway to draw seats.  

None of these maps on this thread will be drawn by legislative bodies.  The only they happen is by federal court action and current precedence on VRA does not require racial gerrmanders.

They probably require perserving seats but not creating new ones.

Now in CA if the redistricting commission wants to create more minority majority seats thats fine.  Legislative bodies get deference but courts will not create seats.  

[ Parent ]
If the DOJ denies preclearance
Then one of two things will happen:

a) The legislature will produce a map that is not denied preclearance.

b) The legislature will fail to produce a map, in which case the courts are free to step in and produce a map as in Mississippi 2001 (see Branch v Smith).

If the issue is a voter-initiated court challenge, then Bartlett v Strickland is almost surely controlling.

[ Parent ]
Door # 3
Suit for declaratory judgement in the D.C. Circuit.  
[ Parent ]
True
But there is rather little chance of that in Louisiana. The Attorney General who would make that decision is a Democrat. Now, granted, Buddy Caldwell is not much of a Democrat, but I don't see him bypassing the routine DOJ submission process.

Since the legislature has split control, I don't see them ordering it either.

[ Parent ]
Not to mention
With the legislature under split control and a huge division amongst Republicans themselves on whether to eliminate a northern district or a southern district, there's an excellent chance that the Louisiana legislature will fail to produce maps in the first place.

Democrats certainly have no incentive that I can see to facilitate the process.

[ Parent ]
I think the Rs will have
complete control, but I agree that it's likely they won't agree on a map with great ease.

The real incentive for them is that if they don't make the choice of which R incumbent to sacrifice, a court might well choose two. :D

[ Parent ]
South Carolina
You cannot draw two compact majority-minority seats when dividing South Carolina six ways. You can certainly do so when dividing South Carolina seven ways. That's the difference between then and now.

Nice try, though.

[ Parent ]
Interestingly enough
The opposite is the case with Louisiana: When dividing the state seven ways, you cannot reach enough minority voters in the central part of the state to draw a compact majority-minority district. When dividing the state six ways, you evidently can.
[ Parent ]
Texas
The issue in Texas was that:

a) The voting age population of minorities in TX-23 was reduced to below a majority, and:

b) The new TX-25 district did not adequately provide a substitute (for various reasons not worth discussing here).

Neither issue is involved in any of the maps that I've drawn. The minority VAP does not drop below 50% in any current majority-minority seat, and we are not talking about substitutes per Georgia v Ashcroft; rather we are discussing wholly new, complementary VRA seats.

Nice try, though.

[ Parent ]
There will a variety of
processes that will unfold in several weeks & months

Various states will start drawing and approving their maps.  The DOJ will have to quickly decide, whether they are pre clearance states or not, to put out whatever their policy is on the creation of minority majority seats.  They can certainly go case by case but they risk facing the charge of unequal application of the law if they decide do one state one way and another state the other way.

Denying pre-clearance is a hassle but most states will get plans approved in time to appeal them to the courts.  If they do not get pre-cleared its off to federal court where I don't look for dramatic changes in the law.  The composition of the appeals court and surpreme court have remained stable.  

[ Parent ]
Unequal Application of the Law?
For VRA, discrimination matters.  The more hostile whites are to minority interests, the more minority districts are needed as a countermeasure.

I'm pretty confident that the DOJ could justify "special treatment" for states that once historically allowed slavery, had Jim Crow laws, have a history of vote supression, still have (legally unenforceable) Jim Crow laws on the books, etc.

[ Parent ]
Jim J
that's a fair point but guess what?  

SC and FL has just elected two AA's in congressional districts with that are overwhelmingly white.  How many congressman have been elected in IL or MI or OH or NY or MA in districts that are over 50% white?  

There are minorities who are governors in LA & SC plus Florida has a minority senator.  

Stat wise -based on % of hispanics in a state you are more likely to be a congressman in WA or ID if you are hispanic then CA?

So what gives on this Jim Crow business?  What's the new reality?  Today Southerners seem as willing or maybe more willing to elect  AA's then Northern folks.  

[ Parent ]
Reps. West and Scott...
Were not the preferred candidate of the African American community, and they did not receive substantial support from black voters.

The point of VRA is to allow minority voters to be able to select representatives of their choosing in proportion to their share of a state's population. It's not to have some illusion of black voters being represented by a token African American conservative who doesn't share the political views of 85+ percent of black voters in his district, state, or country.

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

[ Parent ]
My reference was
not to the purpose of the VRA but as to whether Southern states were bastions of Jim Crow or anti minority voting habits.  The previous poster suggested that based on past habits these states had to have special extra accomdations that Northern states did not need.

I pointed that Southern states are now showing a pattern of voting for minorities in GE.  In fact white folks in FL & SC elected AA's to congressional seats plus Rubio to a US senate seat.  It seems to be me there is a pattern of rejecting minority candidates in some Northern states that is not evident in Southern states.

I think this is one reason the justices are down on racial gerrymandering.  The voting patterns in the South and elsewhere are not based on Race but rather its based on party.  That's not Jim Crow that conservative versus liberal.

[ Parent ]
Hmm
Have you considered the degree to which conservatism vs liberalism is based on race?
[ Parent ]
No I have not.
There's an aspect of party loyalty in many voters that transcend liberal or conservative.  Some % of African Americans-I have seen this over 30%-describes themselves as moderate or conservative.  Yet +90% vote democratic.

Moderate or liberal republicans will vote GOP and likewise conservative or moderate democrats will vote democratic.  Particular candidates of the other party might be closer to their personal views but they still vote for their party.

I do note this that  white democrat  voters will vote for a black or hispanic democrat candidate.  Likewise white republicans will vote for a black or hispanic republican candidates.  In a GE the party label for the determing factor for the white republican or democrat.  There's some slippage but party is the key part and yes ideology plays a part.

Yet the only exception IMOto this rule is the AA voter.  They vote the party and race is a secondary factor to them.  They will vote for a white democrat over a black GOP candidate.  Therefore there is a direct relationship between the creation of a majority AA seat and the creation of a democratic seat.  The DOJ in 1971 to 1991 read into the VRA the idea that this was a proper remedy for years of white bloc voting but now the white voter population is willing to elect AA's to office but the determing factor is not race but party.  Likewise the black voter is focused as well on party.  So the courts have ruled that racial gerrymandering(read political gerrymandering) will not ordered by federal courts.

Mind you if legislative bodies gerrymander thats okay as its been okay since say 1810

[ Parent ]
Hmm... 30%of A-As are moderate/conservative
matches the R share of the African American vote in Presidential elections until '64.
[ Parent ]
people
self identify for a variety of reasons.  An AA woman might think that since she goes to church-does not drink and avoids foul language that she is a conservative.  Compared to hip hop & Rap or what not she is a conservative.  Yet she and Rapper Z vote the same and yet they are very different people.  

Yet I go back to my point and to an extent our President's recent win backs up my point.  The majority of us have gone beyond race as a factor in how we vote.  What was true in 1964 is not the truth right now.  

Its not race for the majority of people that determines how we vote but rather its party/ideology combination. Yup Steve Cohen gets +90% of black vote against a black republican while Tim Scott gets +80% of white vote compared to a white democrat.  

[ Parent ]
I'm curious
How is there "a pattern of rejecting minority candidates in some Northern states that is not evident in Southern states"? Do you mean minority candidates in Republican primaries, or minority candidates in Democratic primaries? Or perhaps minority candidates in general elections?

There are currently three Democratic African-American representatives in northern states from districts that are over 50% white -- Andre Carson , Gwen Moore and Keith Ellison. Charlie Rangel also represents a district that is far from 50% African-American, and the white population is only slightly smaller than the African-American population. Even on the Republican side, Connecticut elected a Republican African-American representative, Gary Franks, before even J.C. Watts and long before Tim Scott or Allen West. Illinois elected two Democratic African-American senators, Carol Mosely Braun and Barack Obama, and Massachusetts elected a Republican senator, Edward Brooke.

By contrast, southern states have elected only three African-American representatives from majority white districts -- J.C. Watts, Tim Scott and Allen West -- and only two are currently serving. All three were elected in big red waves, and Watts and Scott both received primary backing from Republican elites with a vested interest in recruiting minority candidates to help combat their public image as a group of white men. Surprise surprise, both were immediately pushed into leadership positions. West, for his part, was a bit of a fluke and likely will not make it through to the next congress. And there have been no modern African-American senators from the south.

So northern states currently have as many African-American representatives in 50%+ white districts as southern states have had in the entirety of the modern era, and the score on the senate side is 3-0. If you want to talk about Marco Rubio, there's also Bob Menendez. On the gubernatorial side, northern states have had two African-American governors -- Deval Patrick and David Paterson. Granted Paterson was never elected governor, but he won on a statewide ticket. Doug Wilder served as governor in Virginia, but -- shocker -- he was a Democrat. And Indian-Americans do not have the same place in American racial politics as African-Americans.

On top of all that, there are straight up fewer African-Americans in northern states, so the pool of candidates is smaller. Massachusetts is 6% African-American, New York is 15%. Meanwhile, South Carolina is 30%.

Even if you want to argue that southern states don't have a problem electing African-Americans, I don't think you can say there is a pattern of northern states rejecting minority candidates.

25, PA-10

[ Parent ]
I am serious and yet only
somewhat serious about those comments.  I think the whole idea of looking at behavior from the 1860's to 1960's and punishing the South through preclearance and other measures is outdated.  

As you noted there are very few examples period of AA or hispanics who represent non white majority seats.  There are several in the south & several outside of the south.

Its clear now, however, that voting patterns and behavior in the South-Midwest-Northeast and West are nearly the same.  The bad old days of literacy tests and what not are all over.  

My basic points IMO hold that is no difference in voting patterns between Southern  and non southern states that are based on race.  Its all based on party & ideology.  White folks in the South will vote for hispanics or Blacks if they are republican.  So the gerrymandering by race in the South has only one purpose and that's to elect democrats and I can't find that-nor can the courts-in the VRA.  

[ Parent ]
I think the VRA is actually pretty clear...
And what you're suggesting is that it's obsolete and should be repealed, thus completely denying the African American and Latino communities any sort of representation in states like Arizona and the Deep South, where white Republicans will generally have carte blanche to draw aggressive pro-Republican gerrymanders.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
I don't think its very
clear at all and over 45 year what the VRA means has been through various changes.

1. When the VRA was passed in 1964 we saw the 1st bit of new minority majority seats.  From Memory we saw one in Brooklyn-Cleveland-second Detriot seat-second Chicago?-St Louis and Cleveland.  In Northern cities where AA population was divided by democrats(in many cases) the courts ordered this racial gerrymander to be undone.  

2. With the lower level of voter partiicipation in the South the emphasis was on registering people to vote.  In the 1970 redistriction we did not see any court mandated minority majority seats being drawn but seats were done legislatively in TX NY CA and so forth.  Yes in 1970 John Mitchell was not the type to lead the DOJ an agressive seat creation but that's another matter.  There was always individuals who could have sued.

3. In 1980 the Reagan white house & DOJ pretty much did Nixon II.  The Burger court as in 1970 was not super aggressive in redistricting matters.  So far 20 years and no big move into minority majority seats.

4. In 1990 the Bush41 white house pushed minority majority seat creation.  The courts narrowly went along with it.  This was a huge break from 1970 & 1980.  Lots of minority majority seats were created.

5. In 2000 Bush 43 DOJ did standpat on minoritymajority seats.  Those that were created were protected but they did not push for more.  The courts have backed up that approach.

So the courts ruled in the early days were racial gerrymanders were clear in St Louis & Cleveland where black communities were split that was illgal.  I support that- those seats should stay protected.  What courts do not allow is a map like the MS or AR map here  that have been posted where racial gerrymandering is needed to make a district minority majority.  These districts cut towns and communities in half to create seats and the courts have not required that to occur.  If legislators do it fine but not the courts.

So I support the law and I think others here support what they think the law should be.  

[ Parent ]
Mississippi
My first Mississippi map above is no doubt the least problematic of the four in terms of "racial gerrymanders" as defined in Shaw v Reno. If you think otherwise, then quite frankly you don't know what you're talking about. Sorry.

If you're talking about the second one posted in comments then I agree with you, and said as much.

[ Parent ]
In the case of Mississippi, I'm inclined to agree...
The VRA doesn't seem to require it, so it's not likely to happen. It's a lot harder sell than requiring additional VRA districts in Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, South Carolina, and even Arizona.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
Awesome maps!
Just a side question...

I made a map for FL, but I cant figure out for the life of me how to make the pictures actually show up in my diary. I can get the links using photobucket or w/e, but idk how to make the picture show.

Help please? :) ty

21, Male, Gay, Dem, Born: AR-04 ;  Current Residence: FL-02

The code for images is
(img src="http://www.yourhost.com/yourimage.jpg")

except replace the parentheses () with carets <>.  

30, male, MI-11 (previously VA-08). Evangelical, postconservative, green.

[ Parent ]
Rougemapper
Can you send me a larger jpg of the Louisiana map? I have a friend on the LA Redistricting committee and I want him to see the map in detail.
AL/MS/LA/AR 7 VRA Seats | 122 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox