Google Ads


Site Stats

LA, MS, NJ, VA: Population by CD for First Four States

by: DavidNYC

Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 3:17 AM EST


As devoted Swingnuts are aware by now, the Census Bureau has produced its first batch of redistricting-level data. Because Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey and Virginia all have state-level elections this year, they get bumped to the head of the line. So that means we now know the current population of each congressional district as presently drawn. While the Census Bureau didn't exactly make this data available in the most accessible format, the greasemonkeys down in the Skunkworks at SSP Labs have crunched the numbers, and here's what they look like. Note that the "Deviation" column means how far off each current district is from the new ideal (and in the case of LA and NJ, we divided by their new seat totals of 6 and 12 respectively):

District Population Deviation
LA-01 686,961 (68,601)
LA-02 493,352 (262,210)
LA-03 637,371 (118,191)
LA-04 667,109 (88,453)
LA-05 644,296 (111,266)
LA-06 727,498 (28,064)
LA-07 676,785 (78,777)
Total: 4,533,372

District Population Deviation
MS-01 788,095 46,271
MS-02 668,263 (73,561)
MS-03 756,924 15,100
MS-04 754,015 12,191
Total: 2,967,297

District Population Deviation
NJ-01 669,169 (63,489)
NJ-02 692,205 (40,453)
NJ-03 680,341 (52,317)
NJ-04 724,596 (8,062)
NJ-05 666,551 (66,107)
NJ-06 668,806 (63,852)
NJ-07 672,885 (59,773)
NJ-08 660,424 (72,234)
NJ-09 661,379 (71,279)
NJ-10 634,343 (98,315)
NJ-11 674,349 (58,309)
NJ-12 701,881 (30,777)
NJ-13 684,965 (47,693)
Total: 8,791,894

District Population Deviation
VA-01 786,237 58,871
VA-02 646,184 (81,182)
VA-03 663,390 (63,976)
VA-04 738,639 11,273
VA-05 685,859 (41,507)
VA-06 704,056 (23,310)
VA-07 757,917 30,551
VA-08 701,010 (26,356)
VA-09 656,200 (71,166)
VA-10 869,437 142,071
VA-11 792,095 64,729
Total: 8,001,024
DavidNYC :: LA, MS, NJ, VA: Population by CD for First Four States
Tags: , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

LA, MS, NJ, VA: Population by CD for First Four States | 95 comments
AA districts just ate it . . .
LA-2, NJ-10, MS-2, VA-3

All but VA-3 are the worse in keeping up with population gains, and in VA's case, VA-2 shares some similar land areas to VA-3. That's just . . . sad. Means larger dem vote sink holes in all 4 states (forgone conclusion in LA and NJ).

So strange . . .

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26

In the DD, they said
that with the net growth in MS, it was AA by an 8:1 ratio.

And with NJ-10, it was 57.7% AA.  It won't take anything crazy to keep it majority-minority.

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

[ Parent ]
That data on MS
http://m.clarionledger.com/app...

The new numbers also show the state's white population grew by 8,585, while the black population increased by almost eight times that amount: 64,576.


Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
Makes you wonder
what will happen if the voting habits of the black population stays the same but, because it's more spread out, changes the results of state and local elections. It's not clear, from what I've heard, if habits change because of a push from new voters that influence the outcomes, but if that is a possibility, perhaps the Democratic party isn't done at the state level.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
and LA-02
Hellooo, Hurricane Katrina.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
Well, we all saw that one coming
It's just . . . interesting, that 3 of the 4 AA districts were hit the hardest, and #4 was #2 out of 11 in the state, and not by too much.

I'm not concerned about any of them not remaining AA districts; but this does bring up a good question about MS, if the AA community is growing at 8x the white population, how come the AA district is the one that needs more residents?

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26

[ Parent ]
I think
it's been more spread out.

More info:

Hinds, the state's largest county, saw a 2.2 percent decrease in population since 2000, for a total count of 245,285.

Hinds County lost 23,815 white residents, but gained 16,073 black residents.

DeSoto County, the state's fastest-growing county, gained 54,053 residents. The increase was almost evenly divided among white and black residents: 24,490 white; 23,050 black.



Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
However
DeSoto County, the fact that growth was evenly split is impressive given that the county was ~12% AA as of the 2000 Census.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
Memphisites moving there, I'd guess
That's one of the trends that has accelerated over the past decade.  The Black middle class is increasingly comfortable moving into previously lily white suburbs.

28, Unenrolled, MA-08
[ Parent ]
Sorry, I didn't see your comment before I added mine.

[ Parent ]
DeSoto County is in the Memphis suburbs
Both whites and blacks are leaving Memphis.
[ Parent ]
The schools are a failure
in the city of Memphis.  Oh there are exceptions but the school board is ultra political and they do the weirdest t things.  Even, as noted, middle class blacks are fleeing the city for Memphis suburbs or TN surburbs or MS suburbs.

There has been some noticeable gentrification in downtown Memphis and the city schools built a brand new elementary school downtown to capture these kids.  The school was built and was zoned to accomdate all the white students downtown plus AA kids in nearby homes.  It was looking to be 70% white and 30%AA to reflect the population in downtown.

In the spring before the school was to open as enrollment forms were going out the schoolboard a school built for white kids was a bad idea and divided up the school zones to split the white community downtown three ways.  The New school was to 30% white and 70%AA while the other white kids would be in 95% Black schools.  

This last minute change meant that 90% of the white kids went to private schools.  The school board the next year undid the mess but its too late  as the new school is operating at 30% capacity.  Once people choose other schools you are reluctant to change and lose your spot plus who knows the next time the school board will go crazy.

It used to be white flight but now  white singles and retirees are moving to downtown & midtown while black families are moving east & south.  

I think I read somewhere a similar pattern is occuring in DC as the AA population % is actually shrinking there?

[ Parent ]
Isn't that happening in every gentrifying metro area?
I get the vague impression that it's leading to more integration all over the country, but don't have a sense of the data.
[ Parent ]
I think to an extent its happening everywhere
We have seen retiree housing for years.  They move to places where schools are not a big deal.  They want climate or low taxes or leisure stuff.  We see retirees flocking to  college towns for instance.

Yet we are seeing more urban singles or couples moving downtown.  They don't need  schools in a similar way to retirees.  They bring their own voting patterns which are different from couples with kids.

My main point its not white flight anymore as much as its family flight and one group is going one way and the other group going in the oppisite direction.

[ Parent ]
I'm a living example of family flight......
As a bachelor I lived on Capitol Hill in D.C., for 11 years.  Then I got engaged and moved in with who is now my wife, in her house in Mount Pleasant, still in D.C.  Then we had a daughter and then a son, and just before the son was born my wife convinced me then was the time to sell and move to the 'burbs.

And it was nothing unexpected, we always agreed that we would move to the 'burbs before our daughter started kindergarten.

Public schools matter greatly.  You pay taxes for them already, and unless you've got money to burn for private school tuition or you're otherwise willing to bite the financial bullet, you're going to move where your kids can attend good public schools.

And yes the black population of D.C. has plummeted as a percentage of the total, indeed I was stunned to learn for the first time late last year that it was down around 55% or so.  D.C. was two-thirds black and only about 30% white when I moved there in 1993, and now it's approaching or at 40% white.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
That's the same where I live (Somerville, MA)
At least in the yuppified parts of town.  You see a lot of people in their 20s and couples with young children, but once they get to be school age the numbers drop dramatically.

I grew up in in an urban school system and felt that I received a very good education.  However, my city (Berkeley, CA) regularly voted extra taxes to pay for its schools and had the presence of the University.  In fact many kids from neighboring cites, especially Oakland and Richmond, would fake Berkeley residency.  There were a lot of things that I learned growing up in large diverse schools that I would have missed if my family had fled to suburbs, perhaps most importantly being comfortable in multi-racial environments.  I get uncomfortable when there are too many white people :)  Boston could use much improvement in this regard.  It's far far more segregated than where I grew up.

28, Unenrolled, MA-08

[ Parent ]
I care about diversity for my kids, but they should get it in Fairfax County......
McLean is whiter than much of the county, but still with plenty of minorities.

I was a brown kid in virtually all-white schools growing up in central Iowa in the 70s and 80s, so I imagine what I see in my kids' schools will look like a downright rainbow in comparison.

Interestingly the new census data shows that Asians are 18% of the county, compared to 10% Hispanic and 9% black.  Not a lot of places in America where Asians are the biggest nonwhite bloc.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
Kinda shows...
The days for using the VRA to ensure black-majority seats are numbered.

This round of redistricting, a bunch of seats, particularly in the north, will just barely scrape through, like MO-1, NJ-10, OH-11, NY-6, etc.

By 2020, it may be impossible to draw more in the North than two in NYC, two in Chicago, one in Detroit, one in Philly, and two in Maryland (if you call that the north).  And it doesn't seem likely that any new districts will be added in the South (possibly one in Metro Atlanta).  

So the point arises that if majority-black districts were drawn to ensure black voices were heard in the electoral process, but the population is now growing integrated enough the number of seats are decreasing even as the percentage of the population remains static - is this the best method for the modern era?  

[ Parent ]
Who's going to vote to end it?
The Republicans love it because it allows them to dump Democrats into deep-blue districts, and the CBC will fight to the death to keep their uber-safe districts.
[ Parent ]
I'm guessing...
the courts will, since they've been chipping away at it off and on anyway.  
[ Parent ]
VA-03 isn't 2nd in terms of population loss
You missed the WeVA district.
[ Parent ]
I dare the Republicans to try to draw a 9-2 map of VA
VA-10 and VA-11 both need to lose a shitton of people. If they lose their outer areas, they become more Democratic, and if they lose their inner areas, where will those Dem voters go? they can't all be packed into VA-08. In addition, the Republicans have to worry about VA-02 and 04 (Obama districts), 01 and 05 (barely McCain) and 07 (mediocre Republican performance in 2010). Packing more voters into VA-03 might help, but it won't be enough for a map that lopsided in a state that went 52-46 for Obama.

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/
VA
RRH did a great map on securing a very solid 8-3 map, key points were "fixing" VA-3 by putting some very out of place precincts from VA-1, 2 & 4 into Scott's district and splitting Arlington to make VA-8 minority majority (48% white). I could see the GOP legislature pushing congressional redistricting to '12 in hopes of winning the state Senate and then packing every Dem voter they can into the 8th & 3rd. This wouldn't make the 11th a GOP district, probably a true toss-up swing, but would also make the 10th a swing district too (and maybe even lean D when Wolf eventually retires).

The RRH map makes more sense if the legislature is wanting to secure their house seat advantage for the next decade, but a more agressive map may be possible if they are willing to take on more risk in the 10th (and 1st or 7th depending on who gets what in PW county) or are making different assumptions obout voting patterns and population growth is Loudoun & PW counties than what has happened the last 10 years...

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke

[ Parent ]
Lol
an 8-3 map would either make VA-11 another Dem vote sink or it would scream dummymander. Do you mind linking to the RRH map? VA-10 is already swing or even lean D once Wolf retires, if you make it more Democratic it's lean to likely.

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/
[ Parent ]
Nevermind, saw it downthread
it's a good map although Cantor is still vulnerable and VA-10 is still vulnerable once Wolf retires.

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/
[ Parent ]
LA 3 & 5
I know everyone saw LA-2 coming - but did people expect those 2 districts to be that size? I'm increasingly curious what the LA lines will look like.
LA-03 isn't a suprise
It's right by the New Orleans and the coast and probably got decently thrashed by Katrina.  I'm not sure how LA-5 was affected by Katrina given its much larger geographic size.  Although lots of the rural parts of the country are losing people despite the population growth that is occurring overall.
[ Parent ]
No big surprises here
as these numbers seem about in line. Real quick comments on each state.

LA-house of pain for GOP as they have to eliminate a seat and keep the others GOP.  The logical person out is Freshman landrey.  Just my guess.

MS-the big population gain was in North MS.  The two Memphis suburban counties had big gains.  I don't think that chances much in the state.

NJ-Northern NJ grew slower then middle and south jersey.  Logically NJ9 or NJ10 should be carved up as the state moves Southward.  This being NJ the state's lost district will probably be in the middle.

VA-Its a move to the North for VA.  The only surprise to me is that VA8 is short of people.  I did not see that.  I think we see a protect all incumbents map in VA.  Just my guess.  

I'm not that surprised by VA-8
It's already quite dense, so the new housing is going up in the 10th and 11th districts, not there. The 8th still grew, just slower than the rest of the state.

28, Unenrolled, MA-08
[ Parent ]
VA-08
The reason the population hasn't grown is because it is so narrow where the district is and it is EXPENSIVE as heck to live here (unfortunately I know all too well having purchased a condo in 2009). Essentially the life cycle seems to work in that you move to Arlington/Alexandria when you first move here to be close to the city and when you are ready to buy a house you move out to Loudoun/Fairfax/PW County. Though lately many tech companies are building their headquarters out in Loudon (like AOL, Oracle's East Coast Operations, etc.) so people just move out that way anyway now. Moran doesn't have to worry though. If he keeps Arlington or Alexandria that should be enough to keep his district safe. At this point the VA GOP knows that VA-08 is his until he retires or is primaried which only means another young Democrat replaces him. L

28, Male, Democrat VA-08  
[ Parent ]
NoVa
The population of Alexandria, Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William and the incorporated towns are almost precisely what you need for 3 districts.

9-2 is not in the cards.

[ Parent ]
PS
They will be doing good to avoid 7-4 in my view.
[ Parent ]
That should say Arlington
The population of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William counties, along with the incorporated towns they envelop, is almost exactly 3 districts.
[ Parent ]
3 out of 5 though
If it were up to me I'd split Arlington to make the 8th & 11th firmly D (and the 8th miniority majority, thus defelcting the most likely court/DoJ problems). That would eat up Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax counties and parts of Loudoun or PW. The rest is split between the 10th, 1st & 7th. Cantor would have to take on new territory here, but it would allow all 3 districts to stay R+5 or better and thus make Wolf's district lean GOP even when he retires.

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke
[ Parent ]
You're right
But they will have to figure out what to do with the fact that Wolf lives in northern Fairfax County.
[ Parent ]
Tendrals
I think the eventual 10th will reach in to take in McLean and Wolf's home (Vienna area?) while avoiding Fairfax City, Manassas, etc.

There are still a ton of GOP voters in Fairfax County who can be traded for the more dem leaning areas of PW & Loudoun County (I bet the new 8th will reach all the way to Dulles to take in the whole tech corridor).

The end result will probably leave CD borders looking like meshing gears connecting the 8th/11th with the 10th/7th/1st

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke

[ Parent ]
The 10th already takes in McLean, I live in McLean and am in VA-10 and...
...several neighboring McLean precincts also are in VA-10.

I'm in Chain Bridge (301), with Chesterbrook, Langley, Churchill, and I think Salona all in VA-10.  Only west McLean isn't in VA-10.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
...and upon closer examination, even more McLean precincts in VA-10......
Very little of McLean isn't in VA-10.  The Dulles Toll Road is the boundary for most of the way, and most McLean residents are east/north of the Toll Road.  West and South of the Toll Road is mostly commercial.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10
[ Parent ]
General question for y'all NoVas
Which one of y'all gonna run for Moran's seat when he retires in 2020?
[ Parent ]
Wolf already lives out of district
so that isn't such a big deal.

30, male, MI-11 (previously VA-08). Evangelical, postconservative, green.
[ Parent ]
Wolf is in his district, just barely
I don't want to post his address, but he lives right around the border of VA-10. A lot of people are fooled because his home is in Vienna and almost all of Vienna is outside of the district, but that is because his home is in an area that technically has a Vienna address but is really in an area I would describe as McLean.

Male, VA-08
[ Parent ]
Do you know which voting district he lives in?
I don't remember why, but I was under the impression that he lived in the Mantua district, just east of Fairfax City.

30, male, MI-11 (previously VA-08). Evangelical, postconservative, green.
[ Parent ]
Cantor won an unimpressive victory in 2010
If 2012 is a good D year, or even if it's neutral, the Dems would be wise to target him.

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/
[ Parent ]
Joyzee
I think the basic assumption in New Jersey was that Holt would get thrown in with Lance, but looking at these numbers it will be seriously tough to do that, the Newark area (6, 8-10 & 13th CDs) basically lost 1/2 a CD worth of ppl(353k total), each district will need to be about 730k.

The obvious target would be the 6th (which is already a mess), but something tells me that no one messes with Frank Pallone...

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke

That's what I thought from the start...
I mean, I you can definitely put both Lance and Holt in the same district (since they live right down 31 from each other), but there's going to be a ton of people that one or the other represent that are going to have to go into another district.  I don't see how they wouldn't just try to run there.  The NE seats will have to expand, so they are going to eat into the Dem leaning areas of the 6th/7th/12th anyway.  So the look of the merged 7th/12th would be more Republican.  And you can save Pallone, but is he still going to have all of those Dem strongholds that pulled him through?  He lost Monmouth against a hard right-winger, and he hadn't lost his home county in many cycles, if ever.  Those Northern areas were supposed to be gravy when they were added 10 years ago, but he really did need them last time.
[ Parent ]
NJ
Since the population loss is in the northern part of the state, and Payne's, Sires' and Rothman's districts will need to expand, maybe Pascrell and Garrett will be thrown into a fair fight district.  
[ Parent ]
Kerry as Secretary of State?
According to the Boston Globe Kerry is "running" for Secretary of State;

http://www.boston.com/bostongl...

Only really intersting thing here is that some top Dems in MA might pass on taking on Brown if they thought the Kerry seat might soon be vacant...

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke

I must say
I'm very disappointed. We've had final census numbers for these states for hours and there are no maps posted yet. What's wrong with you people?!

32, M, MI-6, Iconoclastic Leftist
They'd have to be updated on the app first.

[ Parent ]
As a northern virginian
The first thing I notice here is that population growthvin NoVA is even more than I expected. I had thought that VA-11 was going to be just slightly (10-20,000) over population, but it turned out to be even more. This could make it harder to take out Connolly. Going for a real 9-2 map would have been colossally stupid, but they might have been aiming to make it easier for Pat Herrity to win a primary vs Keith Fimian by adding in more of PW county. This becomes harder with these #'s. Also, VA-08 is less underpopulated than estimates I have seen which said it was going to be 60,000 or so. That will hurt efforts to shore up VA-10, as shifting blue precinccts from the 10th to the 8th was one of the main ways for doing that.

Male, VA-08
Agreed
This is what they did at RRH, basically split Arlington to pack every available Dem in NoVa into two seats (1 of which would be minority majority - about 48% White I believe). That allows VA-1/7/10 to split up PW, Loudoun & the GOP portions of Fairfax between them.

Here is the map;

http://www.redracinghorses.com...


"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke

[ Parent ]
Is RRH kinda the Republican version of SSP?


21, Male, Democrat, MD-02 (home/registered), MD-05 (college)
[ Parent ]
That's EXACTLY what it is


"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke
[ Parent ]
Yes
It was founded by 5 Republican commenters from this site. We launched about 2 weeks ago. Democrats are always welcome to come and take a look at "how the other half thinks" or play devil's advocate in the comments.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08
[ Parent ]
Link to the RRH site
Would you mind giving us the address to the RRH site, as I'm really interested in taking a look at the perspectives there.  Thanks!

31, Asian male, Dem-tilting Independent, MS-02

31, Independent, MS-02 (Hometown FL-19)

[ Parent ]
...
http://redracinghorses.com

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)
[ Parent ]
I have to admit
That move making VA-08 majority minority so it is VRA protected against future  Democratic unpacking is pretty genius.  

Male, VA-08
[ Parent ]
LA-02
I could easily see the Louisiana state legislature trying to combine part of Baton Rouge.  I'm not sure about the VRA compliance of such a district.  Given the quarter of a million deficit in LA-02 that is prime for more Dem packing.
eh
Trying to combine New Orleans with part of Baton Rouge.  That makes more sense :)
[ Parent ]
Can't make it that far
Too many people in the way. The Louisiana numbers are actually not that far off from the DRA estimates, with one notable exception that there are actually more people in the area between New Orleans & Baton Rouge.

You cannot reasonably string a district from N.O. to Baton Rouge.

[ Parent ]
What are you talking about?
I just sketched this out in five minutes; I drew the existing LA-02, then stretched it up to Baton Rouge. Unless there's some provision against splitting counties (which is overridden by VRA anyway), I don't see how there's going to be a problem drawing a New Orleans-Baton Rouge district.


[ Parent ]
Perhaps
I could be wrong. So, I don't have time to do this right now, but:

1) Is it majority-minority?

2) Is it a racial gerrymander?

In other words, is it reasonably close to the most compact majority-minority district you can draw (to satisfy the VRA) without bypassing white concentrations to scoop up minority populations (which would violate Shaw v Reno).

I can look at it myself this afternoon, if you want me to venture a better opinion for what that's worth.

[ Parent ]
62% black
When drawn, LA-02 was 64% black, so it maintains the majority-minority status without much erosion.  
[ Parent ]
62% AA
is actually about what he current LA2 is.  Because of the huge population loss in NOLA you have to expand out to keep the AA% the same in LA2.

The move to Baton Rogue is logical.

Lets be clear the DOJ and courts have approached a district like yours over and over again.  If the state legislators and Governor does it the courts have approved this type of district in FL & NC.  The courts have said that "racial gerrymanders are not required" but legislative bodies have been granted super wide leeway in drawing their congressional seats in whatever lines they want. Hey look at PA, FL  & MD.  This district is compact compared to those.  

[ Parent ]
Leeway
Legislative bodies have been granted super wide leeway to draw political gerrymanders. They've been granted minimal leeway to draw racial gerrymanders.

Do you understand the difference, or not?

[ Parent ]
That is a misreading, IMO,
of the last court ruling on VRA.

VRA does not require "racial gerrymandering" which means federal courts will not require states to do "racial gerrmanders" under VRA. VRA does not require "racial gerrymanders". That I completely understand.

What the courts have allowed is that legislative bodies can draw congressional and legislative seats in what ever manner they want to.  For example look at Florida, Maryland, Pennslyvania and Illinois.  The state legislative bodies, IMO, have almost no limitations on how they draw legislative or congressional districts.  Baker V Carr and retrogression issues for VRA are about it.

One more time.

VRA does not "require racial gerrymanders"

Legislative bodies can gerrymandered districts based on either race or creed or poltical party.  Look at the current maps!!!

LA has one minority majority seat based in NOLA and as long there is still one minority majority seat in LA the GOP will be just fine on VRA matters.  

What they are not required to do under VRA is to draw a second one.  No court, based on current precedence, will force them to do it.  Now if they want to draw it that's fine.  They can do pretty much anything in redistricting maps.  The difference is one is legislative imperative.  The do not have to is a limit on judical moves.  Courts will not require a racial gerrymander.

[ Parent ]
I see
Clearly then, your answer is "or not"...

Here is what your fellow Republicans in North Carolina think.

North Carolina

Impermissible Consideration of Race:

The General Assembly and its redistricting plans are also subject to lawsuits if considerations of race impermissibly dominate the redistricting process. This may occur when non-compact majority-minority districts are drawn in such a manner that traditional redistricting principles, such as compactness, contiguity, respect for political subdivisions or communities of interest, are substantially ignored. Where the Voting Rights Act threshold factors exist, a majority-minority district may be justified if it is tailored to address the threshold factors. These rules come from Shaw v. Reno, another landmark US Supreme Court case arising from North Carolina in the 1990s. Obviously, abiding by both sets of rules regarding race can be a challenge.

Let me know if that fails to get through to you, so I can then post the much lengthier explanation provided by your fellow Republicans of the Florida legislature. I'll warn you, that version is several pages, however. Reading it will take much longer than your average FOX News segment.

[ Parent ]
I do not see a single reference
in the North Carolina information that is in conflict with anything I said.  Not a thing.

1. The creation of a district from New Orleans to Baton Rogue would lead to a creation of a district that is 62%-the current LA2 is 62%.  In fact just about the only way to avoid retrogression is to draw the district that way.
To do a New Orleans St BernardJefferson-Plaqueinces district would be creating a minority minority seat and would be retrogression.  To keep it close to 60% you need to draw a seat towards Baton Rogue.

2. I said that VRA does not require that new minority majority seats be created.  I don't back off that.  Clearly current court rulings do not require that. You do not have to create new racially gerrymandered seats but you can legislatively protect old ones to avoid retrogression.  

3. I said that legislative bodies have a wide berth in creating seats.  I see nothing in the NC stature that disputes that.  I repeat my point.  Look at the maps of PA MD & IL.  Wide berth.  

Again I do not see one thing I read that was in conflict with I said. I think the law and statures are quite clear.  You can draw congressional districts , like what are in NC now, to protect seats from retrogression.  Plain and simple.  Plus the creation of new seats through racial gerrymanders are not required. I just repeated what was in the NC standards for redistricting.  That's exactly what my point is.

[ Parent ]
Yup
I do not see a single reference in the North Carolina information that is in conflict with anything I said.  Not a thing.  

Of course you don't.  

[ Parent ]
Nope I looked at it again
and I don't see a single conflict.  The map linking New Orleans and Baton Rogue is clearly allowable under retrogression rules.  If current lines in NC & FL are allowed under retrogression the map suggested for LA2 certainly passes that  test.

[ Parent ]
NC-12
The NC GOP has made it clear that they intend to get rid of the current NC-12 lines. By no stretch have they ever suggested that it could be justified under the VRA to avoid retrogression. To the contrary, their view (as is obvious in the multiple legal challenges) is that the NC-12 lines cannot be justified under the VRA in the first instance.

Debating this issue with you is a pointless waste of time. I'm done.

[ Parent ]
My last post to you on this
Since I did promise as much, here is what the Florida legislature says on the topic (which I realized is excerpted from the National Council of State Legislatures Guide to Redistricting). It directly addresses the retrogression issue.

Racial Gerrymandering

Introduction

"[R]acial gerrymander-the deliberate and arbitrary distortion of district boundaries ... for [racial] purposes." Racial gerrymandering exists where race for its own sake and not other redistricting principles is the legislature's dominant and controlling rationale in drawing its district lines and the legislature subordinates traditional race neutral districting principles to racial considerations.

The racial gerrymander is not a new phenomenon. It was first used to circumvent application of the 15th Amendment and perpetuate racial discrimination in the South after the Civil War. As early as the 1870s, minorities in Mississippi were packed into a single district to limit their representation in Congress. In 1960, the boundary of the city of Tuskeegee, Ala., was redefined "from a square to an uncouth twenty-eight-sided figure" to exclude only Blacks from the city.

During the redistricting rounds following the 1990 decennial census, racial gerrymandering made an about-face. It was used to increase minority representation, not limit it. Several states-including Georgia, Louisiana and North Carolina-believed they had an obligation to maximize the number of minority districts, especially after the Voting Rights Section of the Department of Justice refused to preclear initial plans from those states on the ground that alternative proposals had been presented that included additional minority districts. State legislators responded to these rejections by adopting new plans that created additional minority districts. The Justice Department precleared the new plans.

In several states, suits were filed in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of the new redistricting plans on the ground that they violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The first of the suits to reach the Supreme Court was Shaw v. Reno, challenging the North Carolina congressional plan. Justice O'Connor, in the opening sentence of the Court opinion, wrote: "This case involves two of the most complex and sensitive issues this Court has faced in recent years: the meaning of the constitutional 'right' to vote and the propriety of race-based state legislation designed to benefit members of historically disadvantaged racial minority groups."

The Supreme Court, painfully aware of the history of racial discrimination, had recognized in earlier cases the necessity of considering the effects of a redistricting scheme on a minority group in order to protect the members of the group from plans that would have a discriminatory purpose or have the effect of reducing minority voting strength-protections guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. In order to balance these competing constitutional guarantees, the Court had held that "the Fourteenth Amendment requires state legislation that expressly distinguishes among citizens because of their race to be narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest." This "race-based districting" demands close judicial scrutiny.

The Supreme Court rendered opinions in several cases involving racial gerrymandering challenges to state redistricting efforts in the wake of the 1990 census, including Shaw v. Reno, United States v. Hays, Miller v. Johnson, Bush v. Vera, Shaw v. Hunt (Shaw II), Lawyer v. Dept. of Justice, Hunt v. Cromartie and Easley v. Cromartie. In its opinions in those cases, the court attempted to balance the competing constitutional guarantees that: 1) no state shall purposefully discriminate against any individual on the basis of race; and 2) members of a minority group shall be free from discrimination in the electoral process. In balancing the constitutional guarantees, the Court set forth procedures to follow in evaluating racial gerrymander challenges to redistricting plans.

A plaintiff challenging the constitutionality of a redistricting plan on racial grounds must have standing and must prove that the plan was racially gerrymandered. Once the plaintiff proves that a district was racially gerrymandered, the Court, applying strict scrutiny, must determine whether the state had a compelling governmental interest in creating the majority-minority district and whether the district was narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

...

Proof of Racial Gerrymander

Consideration of race. Although the Supreme Court has held several redistricting plans unconstitutional because of racial gerrymandering, the Court has made it clear that race-conscious redistricting is not always unconstitutional. "[T]his Court never has held that race-conscious state decision making is impermissible in all circumstances."

The Court has said that, if a minority district were created through a process that adhered to traditional districting principles such as compactness, contiguity, respect for political subdivisions, and maintaining communities of interest, or other race-neutral criteria such as incumbent protection, the plan would not be found to purposefully distinguish between voters on the basis of race and would not be held unconstitutional.

A reapportionment statute typically does not classify persons at all; it classifies tracts of land, or addresses. Moreover, redistricting differs from other kinds of state decision making in that the legislature always is aware of race when it draws district lines, just as it is aware of age, economic status, religious and political persuasion, and a variety of other demographic factors. That sort of race consciousness does not lead inevitably to impermissible discrimination.

As the Court said in Miller v. Johnson:

The courts, in assessing the sufficiency of a challenge to a districting plan, must be sensitive to the complex interplay of forces that enter a legislature's redistricting calculus. Redistricting legislatures will, for example, almost always be aware of racial demographics; but it does not follow that race predominates in the redistricting process ... . '[D]iscriminatory purpose' ... implies more than intent as volition or intent as awareness of consequences. It implies that the decision maker ... selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part 'because of,' not merely 'in spite of,' its adverse effects ... ." The distinction between being aware of racial considerations and being motivated by them may be difficult to make. This evidentiary difficulty, together with the sensitive nature of redistricting and the presumption of good faith that must be accorded legislative enactments, requires courts to exercise extraordinary caution in adjudicating claims that a state has drawn district lines on the basis of race. The plaintiff's burden is to show, either through circumstantial evidence of a district's shape and demographics or more direct evidence going to legislative purpose, that race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district. To make this showing, a plaintiff must prove that the legislature subordinated traditional race-neutral districting principles, including but not limited to compactness, contiguity, respect for political subdivisions or communities defined by actual shared interests, to racial considerations. Where these or other race-neutral considerations are the basis for redistricting legislation, and are not subordinated to race, a state can "defeat a claim that a district has been gerrymandered on racial lines."

Race the dominant motive. In Bush v. Vera, the Court stated that, "[f]or strict scrutiny to apply, the plaintiffs must prove that other, legitimate districting principles were 'subordinated' to race." "[R]ace must be 'the predominant factor motivating the legislature's [redistricting] decision.'"

Three principal categories of evidence are used to determine whether legitimate districting principles were subordinated to race: 1) district shape and demographics, 2) testimony and correspondence directly stating the legislative motives for drawing the plan, and 3) the nature of the redistricting data used by the legislature.

Bizarre shape. The shapes of the minority districts have played an important part in the Supreme Court's decisions. "[R]eapportionment is one area in which appearances do matter." A significant part of the evidence the Court relied on to find racial gerrymandering in Shaw II, Miller and Bush was the irregular shape of the constructed districts, along with demographic data. The Court held that "redistricting legislation that is so bizarre on its face that it is 'unexplainable on grounds other than race,' ... demands the same close scrutiny that we give other state laws that classify citizens by race." "The plaintiff's burden is to show, either through evidence of a district's shape and demographics or more direct evidence going to legislative purpose, that race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district."

Testimony and correspondence. The second category of evidence the courts consider is direct evidence of the legislature's motive. Testimony of state officials, legislators and key staff involved in the drafting process played a significant role in the courts' findings in Shaw II, Bush and Miller. In addition, testimony received by the legislature in public hearings and alternative plans presented during the redistricting process will be evaluated to determine legislative motive. Last, the courts will consider the state's preclearance submission under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and other documents and testimony concerning the submission-including letters to and from the Department of Justice-to determine the state's motives behind the plan.

Use of racial data. The third category of evidence considered by the court is the type and detail of data used by the state. The court has recognized the power redistricters have "to manipulate district lines on computer maps, on which racial and other socioeconomic data were superimposed." When racial data is available at the most detailed block level, and other data such as party registration, past voting statistics, and other socioeconomic data is only available at the much higher precinct ("Voting Tally District") or tract level, a red flag is raised.

The use of sophisticated technology and detailed information in the drawing of majority minority districts is no more objectionable than it is in the drawing of majority majority districts. But ... the direct evidence of racial considerations, coupled with the fact that the computer program used was significantly more sophisticated with respect to race than with respect to other demographic data, provides substantial evidence that it was race that led to the neglect of traditional districting criteria ... .

Consideration of race in order to achieve a partisan objective. In Easeley v. Cromartie, its final decision concerning the 1990s round of congressional redistricting for North Carolina, the Supreme Court expanded on its rule that, where racial and partisan motives intertwine, race must not predominate. The Court said the lower court ruled erroneously that race predominated where the legislature put Black voters into a district to make it more Democratic. Voter registration data by party was available, as was voter registration by race. The Supreme Court said the lower court should have taken into account evidence that Black Democrats were more reliable in voting for Democratic candidates than White Democrats. It could be concluded that the predominant motivation for drawing the district was to make a more reliable Democratic district by increasing its percentage of the more reliable Democratic voters, i.e., the Black ones.

In a case such as this one where majority-minority districts (or the approximate equivalent) are at issue and where racial identification correlates highly with political affiliation, the party attacking the legislatively drawn boundaries must show at the least that the legislature could have achieved its legitimate political objectives in alternative ways that are comparably consistent with traditional districting principles. That party must also show that those districting alternatives would have brought about significantly greater racial balance.

Strict Scrutiny

Compelling state interest. Once the court determines that traditional redistricting principles were subordinated to race and that race was the predominant factor used in redistricting, the court, applying strict scrutiny, must determine whether the state has a compelling interest in creating a majority-minority district using race as a predominant factor.

Just what is a compelling state interest that justifies classifying citizens on the basis of race in redistricting legislation? A common thread that runs through the racial gerrymandering cases is the assertion that a state has a compelling governmental interest in eradicating the effects of past discrimination and in complying with the requirements of sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Remedying past discrimination. In order for its interest in remedying past or present discrimination to be a compelling state interest, a state must satisfy two conditions: First, the state "must identify that discrimination, public or private, with some specificity before they may use race-conscious relief." "Second, the institution that makes the racial distinction must have had a 'strong basis in evidence' to conclude that remedial action was necessary, 'before it embarks on an affirmative-action program.'"

Complying with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A claimed violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act could provide the compelling governmental interest the state needs to create a race-based district. "To prevail on such a claim, a plaintiff must prove that the minority group is 'sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district;' that the minority group 'is politically cohesive;' and that 'the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it ... usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate.'"

A majority-minority district created to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act would not necessarily be a racially gerrymandered district. The minority group must be geographically compact in order for Section 2 requirements to apply. If a compact district were drawn with the minority group a majority of the voting age population in the district, the district would not be a racial gerrymander.

Complying with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The third assertion of a compelling state interest is compliance with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court, after lengthy consideration of the role the
Department of Justice played in these cases, made it clear that the test for Section 5, as decided in Beer v. United States, was nonretrogression, not maximization of minority districts as urged by the Department of Justice. "We do not accept the contention that the State has a compelling interest in complying with whatever preclearance mandates the Justice Department issues." "There is no indication Congress intended such a farreaching application of Section 5, so we reject the Justice Department's interpretation of the statute and avoid the constitutional problems that interpretation raises."

Narrowly tailored. When a state asserts it has a compelling governmental interest in creating a race-based district, the court will apply "strict scrutiny" to determine whether the plan is narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling governmental interest. A state "must show not only that its redistricting plan was in pursuit of a compelling state interest, but also that its districting legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve [that] compelling interest."

When a compelling state interest exists, "the legislative action must, at a minimum, remedy the anticipated violation or achieve compliance to be narrowly tailored." On the other hand, any state action based on race must not go too far. As the Court said in Shaw I, "A reapportionment plan would not be narrowly tailored to the goal of avoiding retrogression if the State went beyond what was reasonably necessary to avoid retrogression."


[ Parent ]
There statement is not
inconsistent with what I said.  I don't want to cover the same ground again but here goes.

1. State legislative bodies have been given a wide latitude as to how to deal with redistricting.  I say look again at the current maps of MD, PA, NC, TX, FL, OH, TX and IL. Yes they have to comply with Baker V Carr and the various VRA statues and Cases.  Yet they have been given a wide berth to draw districts in whatever manner they desire.  The key point is that legislative bodies have drawn maps to accomplish a political and not a "racial purpose".  At least that is what they claim in courts.  No legislative body defends its actions based "racial gerrymandering".  State legislative bodies say they are acting to enforce VRA's retrogression provisions  and that they are doing it a poltical way just as redistricting has been done politically since 1789. Political motivation is not an invalid motive for redistricting.  

2. There is nothing inconsistent with what I said about  the VRA rules  or the NC guildlines in reference to redrawing NC12. That seat is 44% white now and there are 380K (my estimate AA's & hispanics) minorities in Mecklenburg county.  You could come close to 44% white in just the Charlotte area but you could also make a move to Robeson county.  Either move could justified under Retrogression provisions.  There is no need to do the Winston Salem & Greensboro NC12 move.  That is the wide berth legislative bodies are given that I discussed.  That move would not be a racial gerrymander but rather it would be a retrogression move and it would avoid splitting AA communities to dilute their votes.  

I get your point that you think my views of VRA favors the republicans.  They did not write VRA and they certainly did not think the courts would take this path in their rulings.  Retrogression rules seem to leave in place the justification for keeping maps the same in many states which helps the GOP.  Yet the courts also been clear that the creation of new minority majority seats is also not required.  I would be the 1st to say that this process favors the GOP in many states but laws often have unintended consequences.  I post here what I think will the likeliest redistricting process for 2012 will be and what the legislative bodies and courts will do.  The likeliest outcome, in my opinion, is that the courts will allow wide berth to state legislators in drawing seats.  I do not believe that he current surpreme court & court of appeals will be micromanaging legislative & congressional maps from Maine to HI.  

[ Parent ]
Let's agree on this
There is room for disagreement of interpretation in the VRA. Lots of room! Let's also agree that I should not have gotten so testy. I was in a rather negative mood yesterday for reasons that had nothing really to do with you or this debate.

Here's what frustrates me in these VRA discussions, and I intend to dispense with the following issues immediately..

#1) In many cases, the discussion strikes me as fixating on issues that are pointless. From a practical standpoint, it is obviously pointless to have an intense debate about hypothetical districts or maps that the redistricting authority in question will never pass anyhow. I realize there are people who enjoy hypothetical debates but I'm not one of them. Not because they can't be interesting, but because I don't have the time for them right now. Which brings me to,

#2) There's a reason why I haven't engaged in forum debates of any kind in years, and haven't engaged in forum political debates since even longer than that. Once people stake a position they tend to hold to it no matter what is said, and often far beyond the degree to which they actually care or even the degree to which they held the view in the first place. I get the drive to win, but I get really irked (with myself) when I look up and realize I've just spent hours arguing some trivial sidepoint that is of no great consequence and that I hardly care about in the first place. And, that brings me to,

#3) Most importantly, I keep finding myself maneuvered into the position of debating the limits of VRA caselaw when: a) I think very few legislatures have any desire to 'push the envelope' on the matter; b) I think the cases from the 90s do not reflect the current stance of the Supreme Court; d) I have no idea how the Obama DOJ will apply it, which is a critical unknown factor; and d) I personally think the VRA is largely unconstitutional on its face (as applied to redistricting), and have thought so for many years.

So, to make the long story short, I need to work on avoiding those debates that are only going to leave me frustrated and I need to extricate myself sooner when I find myself getting drawn into them regardless.

And so, that really is my final word on the matter except for the fact that I still need to finish & post my California VRA map, which will be the last map I intend to post before Dave's app incorporates actual Census figures. Hopefully I can get that up before the weekend is out, then hopefully we can have a civil VRA debate to hold us over until we have real numbers and actual maps to work with.

[ Parent ]
I agree with your post.
I try to always frame my points with the thought that it is my opinion.  I think this is how legal matters will play out based on past rulings of the VRA. I can't be 100% of certain of that.  We could have two justices on the surpreme court drop dead or retire and things could change one way or the other dramatically.  I might add we have four justices who have not through an entire round of redistricting cases.  I might add that justices have reversed directions on this issue several times over the last twenty years.  I like to say here that if you think you are sure, and this includes myself, what will happen in redistricting don't be.  There are shocks and surprises in this process every ten years.  

We have two starkly different views on how redistricting will go this year and I suspect we cannot reconcile them.  I think we will see how this plays out very quickly.

[ Parent ]
Racial gerrymander may not be OK
I think Roguemapper is claiming that even legislatures are procedurally barred from an explicitly racial gerrymander.  

That doesn't mean they can't draw one; just that they have to justify it on some other basis, such as a partisan gerrymander.

[ Parent ]
That map looks good to me
That might be better for democrats then NOLA-Jefferson plus rural AA's
[ Parent ]
That goes without saying
It packs minorities very well, so of course it looks good to you. The relevant question is whether it looks legal.

My superficial opinion is that it does not, but I have a meeting at 1:30 that I urgently need to get to so I don't have time to really look at it in detail right now. In part, that means looking at the actual census numbers.

As I mentioned, one notable exception to Dave's app is that the regions between New Orleans & Baton Rouge has a higher than projected population. This district may well be reaching too far (i.e., overpopulated).

That's leaving aside the legality of it.

[ Parent ]
RM
I get the idea  that we could not agree that the At Large map for Vermont looked  okay.  

I personally think the GOP will go 5R-1D in LA and yes LA1 will be packed with minority voters.  You can do it and stay out of Baton Rogue but I think it would at least  get to Ascension Parish. LA map will be ugly but it seems like that's in keeping with politics down there.


[ Parent ]
Actually
The Louisiana maps are not very ugly at all on the congressional level. The ugly ones were the ones that were struck down as unconstitutional racial gerrymanders, much as this one surely would be if justified on those grounds.
[ Parent ]
VRA
In some of the talk about the possible South Carolina maps there's been chatter that the Justice Dept. might well call for a second majority minority district there. Are people in Louisiana discussing that as a possibility? I mean if the proportion of the African-American population didn't fall much as the state's overal population declined, and since this is the first time a Democrats have been in charge at Justice during a redistricting period like this, well, I am just wondering what the chances are that Louisiana might be ordered to create a second such district.
[ Parent ]
OK
Sorry for being very rushed earlier, but I had a very important meeting to get to at 1:30 and was too preoccupied to think about this in more than a half-ass way.

1) The current LA-02 district is a majority-minority district that is clearly protected by the VRA.

2) A failure to preserve a minority-majority LA-02 district will all but surely result in failing to gain preclearance on retrogression grounds.

3) The district that you have drawn here cannot possibly be justified on VRA grounds. On that basis, it would be a clearly unconstitutional racial gerrymander per Shaw v Reno. If you have the NC-12 district in mind that is of very similar appearance, then that was explicitly struck down for that reason. The current NC-12 district was defended in court as a political gerrymander.

4) The Louisiana legislature may be able to draw this district and defend it as a political gerrymander, but that leaves unsatisfied the VRA requirement that LA-02 be preserved as a majority-minority district if possible.

5) So, you're back to square one. If you can draw a compact majority-minority LA-02, then it must be drawn. There is virtually no doubt that you can draw such a district.

6) Ergo, there is no chance that said district could reach all the way to Baton Rouge, because that requires a non-compact blatant racial or political gerrymander as you've drawn here.

7) If you cannot draw a compact majority-minority LA-02 district, then there is no longer a requirement to draw said district according to Bartlett v Strickland.

8) You might then be able to pull off this district, but that must be justified under purely political principles (i.e., voting behavior).

9) And, therefore, that also requires that you cannot draw a compact minority-majority district based in Baton Rouge and parts westward.

10) Good luck.

I'm sure we'll be able to revisit this again once the Census figures are incorporated into Dave's app.

[ Parent ]
For what it's worth
This New Orleans to Baton Rouge move is not what the LA GOP appears to be contemplating: U.S. Rep. Jeff Landry at odds with delegation on redistricting guidelines.
[ Parent ]
VA-02
   I'm pretty surprised how badly this southeast Virginia district did compared to the rest of the state. Worse even than the Appalachian district! So it's going to have to expand, and it surrounded almost entirely by Black areas. And Randy Forbes in VA-04 will need those white areas to stay afloat. Will VA-02 then become a fair-fight district?

24, Male, GA-05
A way out
VA-02 can easily expand north and up the peninsula to take in Republican areas that are part of VA-1.  
[ Parent ]
Easy Out
Even if they don't want to move the 2nd into Forbes territory south of Norfolk & Richmond, it's a waterborne district so they don't even have to go up the peninsula, they could jump across the bay anywhere they want to fill population out of the 1st, lord knows getting from the Eastern Shore to that part of the district would be a world class pain-in-the-ass, unless Rigell gets himself a boat of course...

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke
[ Parent ]
The Eastern Shore used to be part of VA-01
It was only moved to VA-02 in 2000. So it wouldn't be any worse than before the current map.
[ Parent ]
Doubt it
There is still a lot of AA areas in the 2nd that will need to go into the 3rd, which is also very underpopulated. You can run the 2nd up the peninsula along the 1st district (Wittman wants to keep the bulk of the non-AA portions of Newport News) to grab some population, the district will also need to move SW into the 4th. The 4th in turn will need to expand NW around Richmond, those suburbs are heavily GOP and some have suggested using them to shore up the 5th district, but I think it's far more likely the 5th (and 9th) will move North into Roanoke (9th) and Lynchburg (5th) providing plenty of new GOP voters for Hurt without endangering Goodlatte's 6th (which BTW also has to keep part of Roanoke since he and Griffith both live there).

The 4th & 5th moving North means that Eric Cantor's 7th will have to take in a lot of the Prince William county areas Wittman will vacate, but his district can take a fair number of voters and his position in the leadership should protect him AND make him the logical choice to "take one for the team" as it were. This will shore up all the downstate GOPers, but still leave the question of how to protect Wolf's district while shedding voters, Goodlatte can take some of the very NW corner counties around Winchester, but carving up Loudoun, Prince William & Fairfax county to secure the 10th will be a very tough job (not even counting having to fight it out with the Dem majority in the State Senate, assuming they still have the majority when the Congressional Map is drawn - which looks to be AFTER this November's election...)

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke

[ Parent ]
There are
a few white areas of Norfolk and Portsmouth that are currently in VA-03. If you move those areas into the surrounding districts, that can take care of a little more than half the population difference in the 2nd. If you combine those white areas with some 40% white or so areas you can fill up the population hole in the 2nd w/o changing the partisanahip too much. Of couse I usually use the white areas of Portsmouth to make up for VA-03 drawing Petersburg and part of hopewell from the 4th when I draw maps of that area.

Male, VA-08
[ Parent ]
There is something wrong with that data.
Hard to believe VA-02 shrunk more than VA-09.  If you look at the results down to the state legislative level, you'll see that the Delegate and Senate districts encompassing the Northern Neck are also suspiciously woefully underpopulated.
[ Parent ]
Yes, but...
the Northern Neck underpopulation in the 1st district is offset by significant growth in the Stafford/Spotsylvania/PW parts of that district.

This is straight from Census, so "wrong" or not, it's what's going to be used.

[ Parent ]
I do think the Census may have gotten it wrong.
Delegate District 100 (which is 30,000 people short) and Senate District 6 (50,000 people short) both lost twice as many people as the next smallest districts -- including those in Southwest and Southside.  Perhaps the naval base, which is in all of these districts, was counted differently than it should have been.  Those are pretty big losses for an area without a significant event triggering population loss.
[ Parent ]
It's not that it shrunk
outside of the Eastern Shore, anyway, it's that the population growth is flat in the biggest parts of the district. Virginia Beach's more rural parts are protected from development by a "green line", while Norfolk is essentially out of land to develop on (outside of some redevelopment or small condo projects). The growth in Hampton Roads is happening in Chesapeake and Suffolk, as well as Isle of Wight, York, and James City Counties.
[ Parent ]
I just posted this above, but
the Census numbers do seem abnormally off.  Lynwood Lewis (D-100) is nearly 30,000 people short.  The next smallest district is Will Morefield in Southwest, about 14,000 people off.  

Likewise, Ralph Northam in SD-06 is almost 50,000 short.  The next smallest district is John Miller in Southwest, about 29,000 people short.

Maybe I'm wrong, but something seems off in the Norfolk/NN area.

[ Parent ]
Pardon me...
I meant Puckett, not Miller.
[ Parent ]
LA, MS, NJ, VA: Population by CD for First Four States | 95 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