sigh...

Once again, the NC-12 district is manifestly not a "VRA district" and nothing protects its current configuration. If you don't believe me, then perhaps you'll believe Sandra Day O'Connor:

For example, on remand North Carolina might claim that it adopted the revised plan in order to comply with the § 5 "nonretrogression" principle. Under that principle, a proposed voting change cannot be precleared if it will lead to "a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise." Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130, 141 (1976). In Beer, we held that a reapportionment plan that created one majority minority district where none existed before passed muster under § 5 because it improved the position of racial minorities. Id., at 141-142; see also Richmond v. United States, 422 U.S. 358, 370-371 (1975) (annexation that reduces percentage of blacks in population satisfies § 5 where post-annexation districts "fairly reflect" current black voting strength).

Although the Court concluded that the redistricting scheme at issue in Beer was nonretrogressive, it did not hold that the plan, for that reason, was immune from constitutional challenge. The Court expressly declined to reach that question. See 425 U. S., at 142, n. 14. Indeed, the Voting Rights Act and our case law make clear that a reapportionment plan that satisfies § 5 still may be enjoined as unconstitutional. See 42 U.S.C. § 1973c (neither a declaratory judgment by the District Court for the District of Columbia nor preclearance by the Attorney General "shall bar a subsequent action to enjoin enforcement" of new voting practice); Allen, 393 U. S., at 549-550 (after preclearance, "private parties may enjoin the enforcement of the new enactment . . . in traditional suits attacking its constitutionality"). Thus, we do not read Beer or any of our other § 5 cases to give covered jurisdictions carte blanche to engage in racial gerrymandering in the name of nonretrogression. 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. Our conclusion is supported by the plurality opinion in UJO, in which four Justices determined that New York's creation of additional majority minority districts was constitutional because the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that the State "did more than the Attorney General was authorized to require it to do under the nonretrogression principle of Beer." 430 U. S., at 162-163 (opinion of White, J., joined by Brennan, Blackmun, and Stevens, JJ.) (emphasis added).

Before us, the state appellees contend that the General Assembly's revised plan was necessary not to prevent retrogression, but to avoid dilution of black voting strength in violation of § 2, as construed in Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986). In Gingles the Court considered a multimember redistricting plan for the North Carolina State Legislature. The Court held that members of a racial minority group claiming § 2 vote dilution through the use of multimember districts must prove three threshold conditions: 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." Id., at 50-51. We have indicated that similar preconditions apply in §2 challenges to single member districts. See Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U. S., at __; Growe v. Emison, supra, at __ (slip op., at 14-15).

Appellants maintain that the General Assembly's revised plan could not have been required by § 2. They contend that the State's black population is too dispersed to support two geographically compact majority black districts, as the bizarre shape of District 12 demonstrates, and that there is no evidence of black political cohesion. They also contend that recent black electoral successes demonstrate the willingness of white voters in North Carolina to vote for black candidates. Appellants point out that blacks currently hold the positions of State Auditor, Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, and chair of the North Carolina State Board of Elections. They also point out that in 1990 a black candidate defeated a white opponent in the Democratic Party run off for a United States Senate seat before being defeated narrowly by the Republican incumbent in the general election. Appellants further argue that if § 2 did require adoption of North Carolina's revised plan, § 2 is to that extent unconstitutional. These arguments were not developed below, and the issues remain open for consideration on remand.

---

by: roguemapper @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:11:07 AM UTC

I appreciate the info...

But decidedly not your tone.

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

---

by: SaoMagnifico @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:49:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sorry

I didn't realize I had a tone in that post. Most of it was Sandra Day O'Connor's tone, and I don't much care for it either. lol

But I can see why my opening remark might come across as obnoxious, so sorry for that. It wasn't anything to do with you. It had more to do with the fact that I had just been saying the same thing in the other NC thread, my tiredness at the time, and my general annoyance that the same issue keeps popping up without fail despite the long series of court cases that have repeatedly affirmed that NC-12 is not required by the VRA.

If anything, I'd just like to see more variety in NC maps, and it seems every one I've seen is constrained by taking the current NC-01 and NC-12 as the starting premise. But, I'll definitely make a point of asking more politely in the future!

---

by: roguemapper @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 13:03:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Reading the opinion

I'm not sure it's quite as clear cut as you say.  The court didn't actually make a ruling about the district one way or the other.  Second, this district is a bit different that the one in that case; it is actually less gerrymandered, not using any touch point congruity.

26, Male, Democrat, VA-08

---

by: M Riles @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 18:08:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well

I picked out that particular Shaw v Reno ruling because it lays out the relevant guidelines most concisely:

1) The avoidance of Section 5 retrogression cannot justify a racial gerrymander that is not "narrowly tailored" for the purpose at hand.

2) Section 2 only applies in cases where the minority population is compact.

And Bartlett v Strickland establishes that where Section 2 does not require a majority-minority district in the first instance, Section 5 cannot require that one be maintained in the next.

---

by: roguemapper @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 18:29:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What I guess I'm getting at

is that there is no real standard I'm aware of that the Court has adopted for "compactness.:  I think a decent argument could be made that the 12th here is.  It is simply a diagonal line; it really doesn't look that weird to me.

26, Male, Democrat, VA-08

---

by: M Riles @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 21:23:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The thing about NC-12...

Is that Democrats want to keep it, because Rep. Watt will absolutely throw a fit if he has to take in a bunch of territory belonging to Rep. Myrick, and Republicans don't want to crack Greensboro between two or three Republican districts when they already have Watt helpfully scooping out the Democrat-rich precincts and they don't have to ruin a good thing.

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

---

by: SaoMagnifico @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 21:28:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with that point. Courts have been very clear that

"gerrymander" is not a curse word.  Current maps in CA, GA, NC, FL, MD and PA all survived court fights.  

The court also laid down the law that "no racial gerrymander is required under VRA" yet a federal panel drew the current South Carolina congressional map.  If CD6 is not a racial gerrymander what is?  So no racial gerrymander is required under VRA but like pornography the Surpreme court knows it when it when  sees it but has not defined what they mean by it.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 21:31:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

compactness

The legal definition of compactness is actually very well established: It is defined as not bypassing nearer populations in order to reach more distant populations.

---

by: roguemapper @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 22:47:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A cursory examination of distircts

Makes it pretty clear that isn't the standard federal courts are using regarding the VRA.


26, Male, Democrat, VA-08

---

by: M Riles @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 23:22:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, well

There are multiple criteria. Compactness is only one. The cardinal criterion, however, is that someone actually file suit and then carry through with it.. The courts don't intervene of their own initiative.

In any case, the original VA-03 district that was drawn in 1991 was challenged and struck down in Moon v Meadows as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The VA general assembly redrew four districts in an attempt to comply with the ruling. No further legal challenges were filed either then or in the 2000 round of redistricting and so the constitutionality of the current VA-03 is unlitigated.

The FL-16 district was challenged in state court but not in federal court, for whatever reason. It was upheld by the Florida Supreme Court in the 2002 Martinez v Bush ruling. For whatever reason, the plaintiffs did not choose to follow suit in federal court, and so we can only speculate what the federal courts would have to say about it.

As for the IL-04 'ear-muff' district, the Supreme Court found in PAC for Middle America v. State Board of Elections that racial considerations clearly predominated thereby subjecting it to strict scrutiny. To make the long story short, the lower courts on remand ruled that the district served a "compelling state interest" and that it was "narrowly tailored" to meet that interest in the only way possible. The Supreme Court summarily affirmed.

The Supreme Court has on four occasions explicitly rejected that latter argument in the case of NC-12.

---

by: roguemapper @ Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 00:06:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks

It just seems that its hard to say what a court will find sufficiently compact for section 2 if IL-4 satisfies strict scrutiny but NC-12 doesn't.  I'm guessing we'll see yet another suit, this time from black voters drawn out of the district this time under section 2.

A question: Does a state trying to avoid a suit under section 2 qualify as a compelling interest sufficient to survive strict scrutiny?


26, Male, Democrat, VA-08

---

by: M Riles @ Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 00:29:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No

A question: Does a state trying to avoid a suit under section 2 qualify as a compelling interest sufficient to survive strict scrutiny?

That much is abundantly clear. This was a routine defense of states in the mid-90s that drew their maps as a result of DOJ preclearance denial. It was uniformly rejected as a 'compelling state interest' of its own accord.

Leaving that aside, the reason why it can be hard to say what a court will find permissible in this regard is because all the key rulings were issued when O'Connor was on the Court. Since O'Connor lacked any discernably coherent doctrine of jurisprudence, and since she was routinely the swing vote, the jurisprudence that resulted is comparably incoherent.

But one thing that is not in doubt is that the NC-12 district in its current configuration was undeniably rejected as being required by the VRA. The final decision that allowed it in its current form hinged 100% on the question of whether the state legislature took race into account when drawing the district (versus merely looking at voting behavior).

---

by: roguemapper @ Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 00:40:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ok, thanks that makes sense

I forgot a bunch of this stuff even though I took a class on it 2 years ago.  I think we'll get more clarity this round of redistricting, as I'm guessing section 2 suits for second VRA districts in LA, AL, and SC are very likely

26, Male, Democrat, VA-08

---

by: M Riles @ Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 00:58:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let me say that I agree with your points on VRA.

That represents a backtrack for me.  I agree with you that retrogression does not protect bizzare seats like NC12 and some others that are clearly racial gerrymanders.

Now as to IL4 that seat along with NC12 plus the truely gerrymandered seats in FL, PA, MD, and Texas in the 2001 cycle were legislative creations.  The courts okayed maps like IL4 because our current Justices give wide berth to legislative redistricting maps.  They don't rule on gerrymandering.  So FL & NC & IL look okay to them.

So IL4 & NC12 plus other minority majority seats are not protected under VRA and are not subject to retrogression or are they are?  

In the case of IL4 you could draw a compact majority hispanic seat through the eastern portion of CD7.  You could also fill in needed minority voters for CD7 adding hispanic and black voters from CD5 & CD3.  That was a political decision.  So while IL4 is a not a protected CD as its clearly gerrymandered you could draw a compact hispanic seat but you might bother white incumbents in CD5 Or CD3.

In the case of NC12 there were nearly 100K minority voters in nearby Charlotte and surrounding counties.  The democrats made the decision to split the AA community in Mecklenburg county and do a bizzare tentacle to Winston salem & Greensboro in search of minority voters.  So retrogression does not protect NC12 but I might argue that splitting the AA vote in Charlotte should be a no no under VRA.

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 01:26:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's an open question

but here's the key point.  The seat right now is 56% minority with all those  twisty lines.  There are 450K minority voters in Mecklenburg and either Gaston or Cabarrus county.  You can get close to 56% with a Mecklenburg seat with a plunge to a surrounding county for another 30K minority voters.  There are 400K minority voters in Mecklenburg county alone.  So its clear it would still be VRA compliant without the lunge to Greensboro & Winston Salem.  

The extra miles  in this district,  in 2001, to Greensboro was not needed as the extra AA voters are right there in NC8.  In 2012 the GOP, I believe, will make this seat a VRA seat in a compact sense.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 18:36:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And really

Ultimately, I guess I'm being selfish. I just wish I could see ten different ways of dealing with the Democrats in the Triad, rather than ten different variations that all deal with them the same way: using NC-12.

It'd simply be nice to see all this brainpower and creativity applied to a greater range of possible mapping schemes. I really appreciate all the effort that gets put into making these maps, I'd just like to see what people would come up with if they don't automatically cut their options drastically under the assumption that the I-85 configuration of NC-12 is somehow VRA protected and must therefore be maintained.

But, I'll stop harping on it in other people's threads. I'll just have to reserve the harping for my own diaries. lol

---

by: roguemapper @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 18:38:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think you are right that the current

NC12 is not VRA protected due to its configuration.  I think that is your point that due to the outrageous gerrymander that NC12 is. That makes is a none protected VRA seat.  

I think a 50% plus minority majority seat is possible in Mecklenburg county now.  I could be wrong  on that but the raw numbers suggest it. I would a compact minority majority seat in Mecklenburg county would be required.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 19:25:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for posting this map

I too think we will see a more compact map and I also don't see a finger rolling into Ashville area.  

I spelled some ideas on a previous thread.  I do think your Orange/Durham /Wake county districts is nearly spot on.  Except I don't think Orange & Durham counties will be split as much.  I think the GOP will go mostly a try at 10-3 with just a moderate move on Shuler.  Move NC11 a few % to the right and hope for a better candidate in a future year.  

The D's seat will be Mecklenburg-NC4 & NC1.  That's my best guess right now.

---

by: rdelbov @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 13:42:12 PM UTC

The correct answer may be "none,"

but if you had to pick one or two of the current Republican House members from this state, who would you say is most vulnerable? Or maybe the better thing to ask is for you to rank them in order of vulnerability?

I ask because, while I have no doubt that the Republicans will do what they can to wring out every last bit of power from the map, I've seen the names of a few of the current office holders bandied about as being deserving of a challenge. Whether that's because a challenge could go somewhere or because they deserve to be booted out of office for being loathsome (I'm looking at you, Virginia Foxx) is unclear, but if the state as a whole is going to be getting friendlier to the Democrats, perhaps we can work on trying to knock off some incumbents, even if they come from very red districts.  

"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?

---

by: b.j. @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 18:06:13 PM UTC

Well under the current configuration..

In order of vulnerability
1. Ellmers
2. Myrick
3. Foxx
4. McHenry
5. Jones
6. Coble

If Ellmers had to run in the same district in 2012 she would be looking at a toss up at best. Myrick isn't really vulnerable but her district did shift a lot towards the Democrats from 2004 to 2008 and has seen explosive growth. Foxx is only considered vulnerable at all because she puts people off so easily and is just all around loony.  The other three are safe, but if McHenry's district is the one used to crack Ashville then he could potentially have problems.

NC-06/NC-04

---

by: sawolf @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 18:56:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

On this map...

I'd say Rep. Ellmers is definitely most vulnerable, as she is in the current map. Realistically, I don't think that will change, as she hasn't paid her dues and she lives in a pretty swingy part of the state. Giving her a naturally conservative district by drawing her into Rep. McIntyre's turf would certainly help her, but those people are also used to voting for a Blue Dog Democrat, and she'd certainly have to campaign.

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

---

by: SaoMagnifico @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 20:36:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think that's right

And's it's probably fair. Ellmers will get a better district by precinct-swapping with some of the current Dem districts, but they won't significantly weaken a more senior incumbent to make her bulletproof. Getting her out of an Obama district is probably the first priority for the legislature, but after that, she goes to the back of the line and the other 5 get the districts they want first.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08

---

by: MassGOP @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 22:49:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Partisan figures

As penance for coming across as a jerk earlier, I decided to calculate the Obama/McCain figures for the districts on your map. Here they are:

NC-01 (D-Butterfield): 61% Obama - 38% McCain
NC-02 (Open?): 38% Obama - 61% McCain
NC-03 (R-Jones): 39% Obama - 61% McCain
NC-04 (D-Price/Miller): 71% Obama - 28% McCain
NC-05 (R-Coble): 41% Obama - 58% McCain
NC-06 (R-Foxx): 45% Obama - 54% McCain
NC-07 (R-Ellmers): 44% Obama - 55% McCain
NC-08 (D-Kissell/McIntyre): 54% Obama - 45% McCain
NC-09 (R-Myrick): 46% Obama - 53% McCain
NC-10 (R-McHenry): 39% Obama - 59% McCain
NC-11 (D-Shuler): 44% Obama - 54% McCain
NC-12 (D-Watts): 75% Obama - 24% McCain
NC-13 (Open?): 49.65% Obama - 49.45% McCain

---

by: roguemapper @ Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 00:34:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So a Dem could win NC-13

in this configuration.  What I gather from all of this is that it is rather difficult to do an overwhelming R gerrymander in NC since all of the growth is concentrated in and around the cities.

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

---

by: LookingOver @ Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 00:39:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks!

I may have to play around with the lines for NC-13, see if I can't crack some of the swingy places in the western Research Triangle using some creative line-drawing with NC-05. Reps. Foxx and Myrick might not be thrilled about their districts either, but they should be able to hold them.

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

---

by: SaoMagnifico @ Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 00:52:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

NC-13

One thing you could do to improve that district for the GOP is give its parts of Durham and Orange counties to NC-02. Then you could move some of Chatham or Lee perhaps from 2 to 13.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08

---

by: MassGOP @ Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 02:14:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Foxx and Myrick

Sue Myrick seems reasonably popular, but she has a super-conservative voting record. I would think it would be an open question as to whether she could survive in a 53-46 McCain district, which is actually reasonably competitive, especially if it's heading in Democrats' direction.

And could Virginia Foxx really hold a district where Obama can win 45% of the vote? That would make her new district, what, R+8 or so, right? Shuler holds down a R+6 pretty easily, and McIntyre has a R+5, and Foxx's current district is R+15, and she doesn't really seem like she could handle a district that's too much tougher.

Granted, if Foxx or Myrick went down, I would see it as a Marilyn Musgrave situation where the winning Democrat would be hard-pressed to pull off a win against someone less toxic. The point is, I'm seeing some dummymander potential here. Anyone else?

Kansan by birth, Californian by choice, and Gay by the grace of God.

---

by: arealmlc @ Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 04:33:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I would tend to agree...

Although the power of incumbency and an abysmal Democratic bench should keep them in charge. A retirement from Rep. Foxx in particular wouldn't shock me, though.

I did update the map for Rep. Myrick's benefit, but I'm not sure what I can do for Foxx without conceding the need to draw a fifth Democratic district.

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

---

by: SaoMagnifico @ Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 04:49:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Without maintaining NC-12, I got a map like this

Granted, NC-1 here is a bit less black, I think it might pass the test based on compactness, if not, it could be tweaked. NC-1 goes from 62% Obama to 68%, while NC-4 drops just one point to 62% Obama. NC-2 and NC-3 are 55% McCain. NC-7 is 50% McCain, down from 52% (McIntyre loses some stronger Dem areas of Robeson, so he still has to work hard). NC-8 is 53% McCain. NC-13 is 54% McCain and it would be Coble's seat. I sunk Greensboro into an even PVI district, which would be a toss-up. NC-12 is contained to Mecklenberg and is 65% Obama, while NC-9 stretches out to Cleveland and Rutherford Counties, to become 57% McCain. NC-10 is the most gerrymandered district, becoming 57% McCain by taking on Asheville and NC-11 become 58% McCain. I hope I got everything right, it was such a long post, I may have made a typo or two.

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

---

by: DrPhillips @ Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 02:58:59 AM UTC

What about this one? 9-4, reasonably compact.

From left to right, roughly:

Green: McCain 59.5-Obama 39.3, Shuler.
Pink: McCain 55.5-Obama 43.2, McHenry
Gold: McCain 60.8-Obama 38.0, Foxx
Teal: McCain 54.6- Obama 44.4, Coble
Salmon (Greensboro) Obama 57.9- McCain 41.3, vacant
'Cornflower Blue' (NC-12) Obama 70.9-McCain 28.4, 56.5% minority non-VAP, but that's with 2008 estimates, and I guess the VAP effect and the strong Hispanic growth here (the seat is 13.2% Hispanic) cancel each other out. Maybe 55% minority VAP. Watt.
Light Blue: McCain 55.2- Obama 44.0, Myrick
'Slate Blue' (Fayetteville): McCain 54.9-Obama 44.3- Kissell
Grey: McCain 55.0- Obama 44.1- McIntyre
Green: McCain 55.7-Obama 43.4- Ellmers
Red: Obama 66.2- McCain 32.8, Miller, Price
Purple: McCain 55.2- Obama 44.0, Jones
Yellow: Obama 68.7, McCain 30.7, plurality Black, majority minority (42.3% White non-VAP, so I guess about 46% Black, 44% White VAP?), Butterfield.


18- Hamburg, Germany (non-US-citizen)

---

by: Twohundertseventy @ Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 04:56:07 AM UTC

Sadly....

that is the one of the best I've seen yet.

Now what does Roguemapper say since he has lots of local knowledge?

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

---

by: LookingOver @ Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 05:15:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just a short comment for Roguemapper-

I found the residences of every Congressman, except for Butterfield, and all of Wilson is in his district. So even though not all of Cherryville is in McHenry's or Lumberton in McIntyre's seat, their residences are.

Also, it would be interesting to see a map in which Shuler is drawn out of Waynesville (he lives slightly to its West). I tried to draw it that way, but that would have needed some major tweaking, as McHenry's district would have dropped to about 54.5% McCain when taking Waynesville in (Shuler's House's district would be 60%+ McCain),  and I didn't want to risk Shuler moving and giving McHenry a tight race even in an R+8 seat.

18- Hamburg, Germany (non-US-citizen)

---

by: Twohundertseventy @ Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 05:34:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Very effective

I actually agree this is the most effective map I've yet seen based on 2008 numbers. It's very much consistent with what I've been saying that the GOP will do. That is, four Democratic seats: Two minority vote sinks in Charlotte & the NE Coast, and two Democratic vote sinks in the Triangle/Triad.

There are several ways to go about doing that, and this is clearly one of them. I've generally focused more on maps that anchor a seat in Raleigh then place a seat from Durham to Greensboro, but this might be an even more effective way to achieving the same practical result.

I also like how Fayetteville and Asheville are kept intact yet Democratic voting strength is still effectively diluted in NC-11 and NC-07/NC-08. McIntyre might still hold on, but Kissell and Shuler would have virtually impossible districts.

An excellent map overall, from a Republican standpoint. The best Democrats might hope for is that the DOJ would deny preclearance, which is a possibility under this map (you can draw a majority AA seat in the NE part of the state, and several preclearance counties have shifted from NC-01 to majority-white Republican districts).

---

by: roguemapper @ Wed Mar 09, 2011 at 01:28:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'd have to agree

This might be the most effective 9-4 I've seen yet, and I drew a 9-4 with 4 majority minority districts just for the hell of it, but I can't post diaries yet until next week.  The only immediate problem I see with this is that Coble is representing a lot of new territory in a district that is not nearly as conservative as his present one, but maybe that would prompt him to finally call it quits. I suppose McIntyre could hold on if he gets lucky with a great year nationally and avoids a challenge from a top tier opponent, but Shuler is definitely done.

NC-06/NC-04

---

by: sawolf @ Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 06:01:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'd have to agree

This might be the most effective 9-4 I've seen yet, and I drew a 9-4 with 4 majority minority districts just for the hell of it, but I can't post diaries yet until next week.  The only immediate problem I see with this is that Coble is representing a lot of new territory in a district that is not nearly as conservative as his present one, but maybe that would prompt him to finally call it quits. I suppose McIntyre could hold on if he gets lucky with a great year nationally and avoids a challenge from a top tier opponent, but Shuler is definitely done.

NC-06/NC-04

---

by: sawolf @ Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 06:01:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Great map

I still thinking that it might be possible to finesse Winston-Salem & Greensboro for 10R-3D. One district in the Alamance-Cheatham Wake county area (NC13) might look tossup for a 9R3D-1 map but this map has 4

The arrangment  of 8th & 9th is as I see it.  The Charlotte suburbs, after you pack everything into NC12, will make NC9 & NC8 safe GOP seats.

Coble & Foxx's seats are so GOP in this map that you can swap up some areas, IMO, to create a tossup or lean GOP seat. Either way this is a great effort.

I might add you eliminate several county splits without making a huge difference.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 15:41:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Coble's seat isn't THAT Republican.

It's about R+8.5, and I didn't want to have Republican seats go beyond that, since SSP seems to think that R+4 seats are safely Democratic in NC.

It's true, I could let Foxx take in some of Winston and the vacant seat some of Foxx' territory, which would make this a 9-3-1, but since Foxx is the weakest politician on the R side, I wanted to give her an absolutely safe seat.

18- Hamburg, Germany (non-US-citizen)

---

by: Twohundertseventy @ Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 17:35:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You are probably right--Coble is stronger then his district

IMO.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 18:56:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

He probably will not serve until 2022 though

He is 79 now, who knows how much longer he will be in office. One thing I can see happening with Coble's district is Rockingham County (directly north of Guilford) being added so that GOP State Senate President Phil Berger (who represents all of Rockingham County and part of Guilford County in the state senate) can run for his seat when Coble retires.

---

by: possumtracker1991 @ Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 20:31:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]