Google Ads


Site Stats

Arkansas Redistricting: Can It Be Done?

by: SaoMagnifico

Thu Mar 10, 2011 at 7:59 AM EST


There has evidently been some discussion of drawing a minority-majority district in Arkansas to give the Democrats a buffer against an 0-4 Republican sweep.

My criteria for making this map was:

1. There must be a minority-majority district, no matter how hideous.
2. Rep. Ross must have a district he could potentially retain.
3. Rep. Griffin cannot be allowed to have a safe district to himself.

I'm not going to go district-by-district, mostly because I'm already up past my bedtime. But we have an open seat here, and it's something new and blue. It's also 49% white, 44% black, and although it goes up to majority-white when you VAP it, most Democratic primary voters will probably be black, and it's diverse enough to be a solid Democratic district.

As for Ross and Griffin, they get to square off over my hideous reincarnation of AR-04, which includes a hefty portion of Pulaski County and has a PVI probably not too far off the current R+7 version. But I'm just eyeballing it, and I've never even been to Arkansas, so someone should correct me if I'm wrong.

Rep. Womack gets to sit pretty in AR-03, and Rep. Crawford should be quite comfortable in AR-02, a.k.a. the Jolly Green Giant.
SaoMagnifico :: Arkansas Redistricting: Can It Be Done?
Tags: , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Arkansas Redistricting: Can It Be Done? | 104 comments
Shaw v. Reno
I do wonder if there's a way to draw such a district that doesn't run afoul of Shaw v. Reno.  
Doubt it
But I can see a reasonable defense being assembled pointing out that Arkansas doesn't exactly have a storied tradition in recent political history of having African American representation in its congressional delegation proportionate to the black share of its population. Rather than dividing the black community and diluting its voters in districts that will continue to elect conservative white men, a district in which a candidate who is preferred by nonwhite voters can win election should be drawn. It's not a racial gerrymander because it actually increases the number of seats that could plausibly be elected by a candidate preferred by nonwhite voters from zero to one. Etc.

I don't have much of a legal background, so I don't know what the courts would have to say about it, but I think the argument is there to be made.

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

[ Parent ]
Yeah
Oops -- The point of Shaw and its progeny is that you can't have obviously race-based maps.  Obviously they are still done in other states, but usually there is a grand bargain worked out not to challenge the map (ie, Illinois).  Shaw and its progeny don't say you can't do minority-majority maps, but when it is obvious that race is the primary motivator behind the map, there's a risk it will be struck down.

This is the reason NC only has one minority majority district.

[ Parent ]
I don't think this map
is going to happen but it also does not run afoul of "Shaw V Reno".

Yes this map is clearly a "racial gerrymander"-one cannot deny that.  The DOJ would not have any success in going to court to force the state, under VRA, to do a map like this.

The key point in "Shaw V Reno" in my opinion is the creation of court mandated seats that cleary racial gerrymanders. "Shaw V Reno" does not require courts to create seats that racial gerrymanders.  

There is a whole other question or matter relating to what legislative bodies can do.  The courts have allowed legislators to create whatever seats they want without hardly any limits as long as state & federal laws are complied with.  Look at the current maps of TX, GA, MD, PA, CA, IL, NC and FL.  All of these maps are post "Shaw V Reno" maps-they all have seats that are clearly  racial gerrymanders and they all past muster.  Several of them of no worse then the map above.  There is no federal ruling that forbids legislators from drawing maps that gerrymander for any reasons except dilution (under section 2 VRA).  

There is no judicial requirement to draw racially gerrymandered seats but legislators can still gerrymander all they want.  If AR democrats want this map they can probably have it unless the state court overturns it for splitting too many counties.  

[ Parent ]
Perhaps
This district could be considered "narrowly tailored" to meet VRA requirements. But, more importantly, the Arkansas legislature could simply argue that they drew the district for partisan purposes and that should be enough.

I do want to correct one bit of misinformation, however: Shaw v Reno applies equally whether the legislature or a court draws the maps. In fact, every single district that was overruled by the Supreme Court under Shaw v Reno was a district drawn by a legislature.

The misinformation that Shaw v Reno applies specifically, or even primarily, to court-drawn maps is simply blatantly false no matter how many times it gets repeated.

[ Parent ]
RM How do you
reconcile then all the maps for

IL
PA
FL
GA
NC
LA
NY
TX
VA???

These maps are all clearly racial gerrymanders and they are all drawn post Reno-Shaw.  I don't believe I am lying or telling lies about "Reno/Shaw".  All of these maps were drawn after "Reno-Shaw" were decided and they all are clearly racial gerrymanders. They all passed DOJ and Judicial review.  How exactly am I lying when I say that Shaw/Reno does not apply to legislative maps.  Show me one map since Reno/Shaw that has been done by a legislative body and has been overturned based on RENO-SHAW.

As a matter of fact I don't believe the federal courts, and Reno/Shaw is a federal case, has ruled that any gerrymander is bad.  RENO-SHAW said a racial gerrymander was not required-that's very different then saying as in IL, TX, MI, NY and FL that legislative bodies cannot draw any type of gerrymander that they want.  

SHAW-RENO forbids  Federal courts from to ordering   the creation of seats that racial gerrymanders.

SHAW-RENO does not forbid legislative bodies from the creation of racial gerrmandered seats.  SHAW-RENO does give  legislative bodies  any limitations on redistricting at all.  Legislative bodies are only limited by Section 2's dilution rules which were not addressed by Shaw-Reno.


[ Parent ]
No
That is not what Shaw says at all.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/sup...

[ Parent ]
The facts are not in doubt
They are in dispute, because you refuse to accept them, but they are not in doubt, except in your mind.

Shaw v Reno applies equally to legislatures as it does to the courts. In fact, they apply particularly to legislatures because a court would be highly unlikely to draw a district in violation of Shaw v Reno.

In any case..

IL: The IL-04 district was ruled to be "narrowly tailored" to meet VRA requirements notwithstanding that it's a racial gerrymander subject to strict scrutiny in accordance to Shaw v Reno.

PA: There are no racial gerrymanders in Pennsylvania.

FL: The FL-03 seat as originally drawn by the legislature for VRA purposes was struck down per Shaw v Reno. The current district was drawn ostensibly for partisan reasons. No other seat has been litigated in federal court, including FL-16 - the one you presumably have in mind.

GA: The 2001 legislative maps were struck down per Shaw v Reno and redrawn. There are no racial gerrymanders in the congressional maps.

NC: Since Shaw v Reno struck down North Carolina seats it's rather obvious how it applies. Go read the ruling if in doubt; and then read Hunt v Cromartie if still in doubt.

LA: There are no racial gerrymanders in Lousiana - because the seat that was in violation was struck down per Shaw v Reno.

NY: There are no racial gerrymanders in New York.

TX: Several seats were struck down in Texas per Shaw v Reno. They were redrawn to be compliant.

VA: The VA-03 district that preceded the current one was struck down per Shaw v Reno. It was redrawn to be compliant but not litigated in its current form.

These maps have either been ruled compliant or they do not include racial gerrymanders as defined by Shaw v Reno or questionable districts have not been litigated.

I don't believe I am lying or telling lies about "Reno/Shaw".  

Whether you believe it or not, that's what you're doing, and so you should consider stopping. The 14th Amendment applies equally to the legislatures and the courts.

[ Parent ]
Bingo on Florida comment-I could not have phrased it better.

Okay guys what it comes down to is this.   Every legislative map is done for "political" purposes.  They can draw  any legislative map, that does not violate dilution section II, and its political and  okay.  That's my point.  Legislative maps that are drawn for political and not racial purposes.  SHAW-RENO does not apply when legislative bodies are drawing maps.  That's because the courts naturally assume all legislative maps have a political reason behind them.

Racial gerrymanders are not required under RENO-SHAW

Legislative bodies can draw maps anyway they want. unless they do  violate section II,  as all of their creations can be deemed "Political". Shaw-Reno only dealt with VRA matters and not districts created for political purposes.  Naturally every  congressional or legislative map that is drawn by a legislature & approved by a Governor is assumed to be political.  Even a map draw by a body in AZ is assumed to be a political decision.

SHAW-RENO does not address the creation of seats that are done for political purposes.  The AR map above is not required under VRA but they could draw it if they made that political decision.

[ Parent ]
OK
I'm not interested in arguing semantics. If it makes you feel better to word it that way then more power to you.

Shaw v Reno applies equally to the legislatures as it does to the courts, regardless.

The more interesting question is whether the current Supreme Court would uphold a district like NC-12 as a partisan gerrymander. In my view, the answer is no. Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas are already on record in that regard, and I see no reason to think that Alito and Roberts wouldn't be right there with them.

This will be the first round of redistricting post Shaw v Reno without O'Connor on the Supreme Court. I think the right-wing quintet would jump so fast to get rid of her 'totality of circumstances' nonsense that they might get whiplash. lol

[ Parent ]
I can agree with 100% or I can disagree with you 100%
It really does not matter.  

1. Okay I agree with you 100%. Shaw V Reed applies to all maps irregardless as to whether courts or legislators draw them.  No racial gerrymanders are required.  Naturally every legislative body in America includes in their maps the phrase "we are not drawing any racial gerrymandered districts as when we pack all the minorities that we can into a seat its being done for political reasons.  Race does not make one bit as we packing democrats into this seat irregardless of race".  

2. Okay I do  disagree with you.  Shaw V Reno does not apply to legislatively drawn seat as they are political decisions that are under the Purview of courts.  As long as legislative bodies do not violate Baker V Carr or Section II VRA they can do whatever they want to because redistricting is a political process.

Either way I contend that Arkansas legislators can draw this nasty map. As I said AR can draw that nasty map from takes people from Pulaski county to the Delta  County and then meanders all around gathering up liberal democratic voters.  They all to happen be AA but the purpose is not to draw a racially gerrymandered seat but the idea is to make a political map with set political purposes.  This map does not violate Baker V Carr & certainly does not dilute the AA vote so its a good map

[ Parent ]
It does matter
1. When a legislature files a redistricting plan for preclearance with the DOJ, it has to include a rationale for its mapping decisions. The requirement for VRA compliance must be consistent with Shaw v Reno. For the preclearance states at least, the legislatures cannot simply wave their hands and repeat the "political reasons" mantra. They must explicitly state how they meet VRA requirements or why they cannot do so. Moreover, the Holder DOJ has issued its preclearance guidelines that provide for comparative maps to be drawn by the Civil Rights Division (this is quite different from the 2001 Bush DOJ rules). If these maps substantively improve the position of minorities by comparison to the state legislature's map, then said map will be denied preclearance.

2. Okay I do  disagree with you.  Shaw V Reno does not apply to legislatively drawn seat as they are political decisions that are under the Purview of courts.  As long as legislative bodies do not violate Baker V Carr or Section II VRA they can do whatever they want to because redistricting is a political process.

Shaw v Reno applies equally to legislatures and the courts. That is a given.

Baker v Carr is irrelevant until such time as the Supreme Court issues acual guideposts for impermissible political gerrymanders.

Legislatures also have to comply with Section V of the VRA, and more importantly, compliance with Section II and Section V of the VRA means compliance with a whole array of court rulings, one of which is Shaw v Reno, but the more important of which is Thornburg v Gingles.

What it all amounts to is that legislatures patently, self-evidently, and unmistakably cannot "do whatever they want" as has been underscored in the most emphatic terms by the multiple, routine, and wide-ranging instances in which courts have overruled legislative maps.

Either way I contend that Arkansas legislators can draw this nasty map.

They probably can, but I can't imagine why they'd want to deal with the inevitable lawsuits and the doubtful outcome when they can achieve the same ends without drawing this nasty map.

[ Parent ]
Why are we having this fight?
I linked the case.  Shaw v Reno involves a map drawn by the NC legislature, not a court.  The Court found it an unconstitutional gerrymander.  Case cerrado.

Didn't know that about the new Holder DOJ guidelines, btw.  Is that really copacetic now under [Georgia v. Ashcroft(?)]?  Seems like going beyond stopping retrogression there.

[ Parent ]
It's what we do
I have this fight with rdelbov at least every other week. I'm not sure why he can't accept reality on this. The reason why I'm willing to continue revisiting the topic - over and over and over - is because I don't want to see anyone misled about it. It's annoying, yes, but someone's gotta do it....

As for Georgia v Ashcroft, the 2006 extension of the Voting Rights Act specifically included language designed to reverse the Supreme Court's holding in that case. The Department of Justice guidelines are designed to enact the new provisions of the VRA that prohibit changes that would have discriminatory effect, regardless of intent.

Here it is if you're interested: DOJ Guidance Concerning Redistricting Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

[ Parent ]
Well
How did that language make it through in the 109th?

I'm not a VRA expert, but reading those guidelines, I'm not sure they say this.  My (admittedly quick) read was that the alternative maps are drawn only for when a state claims it can't avoid a retrogression.  But retrogression still requires a worsening of the minority pops' situation vis-a-vis the benchmark (ie the previous map).  Maybe that's what you were saying all along, but I read your post to suggest that Holder was getting ready to force LA to do 2 VRA districts, not 1, if it could draw that map (which it can).

I suspect this is all academic, because I can't imagine that many VRA jurisdictions will be submitting their map to the DOJ this time.  But who knows.

[ Parent ]
Why wouldn't he?
As you said, it's rather easy to draw 2 VRA districts in Lousiana. In fact, with Louisiana dropping to six seats and with the population loss in New Orleans due to Katrina, it's now far easier to draw a majority-black seat anchored by Baton Rouge than it is to draw one anchored by New Orleans. The following map includes such a seat, with a second majority-minority seat anchored by New Orleans. So, why wouldn't Section 2 require drawing this map?


[ Parent ]
Section 2 might
But section 5 wouldn't.
[ Parent ]
I meant to say Section 5
The 2006 revision added the following:

(b) Any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting that has the purpose of or will have the effect of diminishing the ability of any citizens of the United States on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b (f)(2) of this title, to elect their preferred candidates of choice denies or abridges the right to vote within the meaning of subsection (a) of this section.

[ Parent ]
Louisiana & Section 5
Let me try to be even more clear about what I'm saying with regard to Louisiana & preclearance. There is no serious doubt in my view that Louisiana can be required under the 'non-retrogression' standard to maintain a majority-black seat. There is also no way to maintain an African American percentage of LA-02 at least equal to that of the previously enacted plan. Therefore, Louisiana can be required to take steps to compensate for that to the extent that is legal and viable.

In short, I am not saying that Lousiana can be required to create two majority-minority districts under Section 5 (though likely under Section 2, in my view). What I'm saying is that Louisiana can be required to maintain one majority-black district, and that it is far easier to do so in a compact manner that doesn't run afoul of Shaw v Reno with a district anchored in Baton Rouge and parts westward rather than in New Orleans.

The second minority-majority district (but not majority-black district) anchored in New Orleans would be a collateral by-product of that.

Now, it's undeniable that the DOJ cannot make a Shaw v Reno finding as part of the preclearance process, so how far Lousiana is willing to take a risk in that regard is up to the state legislature. Since the original NC-12 district that was struck down in Shaw v Reno was done so precisely because it was possible to draw a more compact alternative in Mecklenburg County and the immediate environs (as presented in district court and alluded to in the Supreme Court ruling) then clearly a similar New Orleans to Baton Rouge district would be highly at risk if a map such as mine were presented as an alternative.

[ Parent ]
The above map
is a beautiful map and obviousily does include two minority majority seats.

Naturally the Baton Rogue seat would be considered a racial gerrymander, IMO,  because of the way the cites of  Baton Rogue Alexandria and Lafayette are split along racial lines.  That's essense of a gerrymander when you split towns  or coutnies along racial or political lines for the purpose of acheiving either a racial or political goal.

My point all along has been that the creation of a map like yours by the Louisiana legislatures would be allowable.  Its clearly a racial gerrymander as communities, towns and neighborhoods that miles apart from eachother divided (roughly) between black and white.  The white voters are put on side in three communities and the black voters from three areas are put in the circle.  Its the essense of a district drawn for racial reasons.

Yes the state legislators could draw this map. There is nothing preventing them from drawing this map.

I might add, however, that Reno V Shaw is clear that racial gerrymanders are not required so IMO no court would order this map to be the basis for congressional elections.  My basis for that assertion is that your map is clearly a racial gerrymander.  

[ Parent ]
Yes, and no
It's obviously a racial gerrymander, but it's as narrowly tailored as possible to achieve the purpose at hand. As stated by Shaw v Reno:

Today we hold only that appellants have stated a claim under the Equal Protection Clause by alleging that the North Carolina General Assembly adopted a reapportionment scheme so irrational on its face that it can be understood only as an effort to segregate voters into separate voting districts because of their race, and that the separation lacks sufficient justification. If the allegation of racial gerrymandering remains uncontradicted, the District Court further must determine whether the North Carolina plan is narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest.

None of that changes the fact that Shaw v Reno applies equally to the legislatures and the courts, as is self-evident from the long list of districts passed by legislatures that have been struck down by Shaw v Reno.

If you can identify a more narrowly tailored solution to maintaining a majority-black district in Louisiana, then by all means.

I might add, however, that Reno V Shaw is clear that racial gerrymanders are not required so IMO no court would order this map to be the basis for congressional elections.

Not under Shaw v Reno, no. That would seem to go without saying, since Shaw v Reno is about what cannot be drawn, not what must be drawn.

Under Thornburg v Gingles, on the other hand, I guess we shall see.

[ Parent ]
I agree that
Shaw V Reno applies to legislatures as well as courts.  Its just by the very nature of the phrase " not required to"  places no barriers to state legislators in drawing congressional or legislative maps. Its not reguired to engage in the drawing of maps that create racial gerrymandered districts.  

Yet if they want to draw a district like the one you did they can do it.  Its clearly a racial gerrymander but, as I said before, if they want to do to advance some political purpose that's fine.  Not required do clearly does not mean "not able to" as we have several dozen seats that clearly racial gerrymandered creations right now.  

The only limitations legislative bodies have are "One man one vote", section II VRA and various state laws that affect redistricting.  Shaw V Reno tells them what they are not required to do but does restrict what they can do except for the enforcing the VRA section II limits.  Shaw is not to be used as  a reason to dilute.

This is one reason why I harp on cities like Denver, Las Vegas, San Diego and San Jose where minority communities were clearly split in 2001 and  they should not be split in 2011 if Section II is enforced.  

[ Parent ]
BTW
Something like the district below is reportedly what is under actual consideration by the Louisiana legislature: Basically taking the African American neighborhoods of New Orleans & Baton Rouge and joining them by following the Mississippi River. So, if the legislature does end up passing a map like this, I guess we will swiftly get an answer as to what:

a) The DOJ thinks of Shaw v Reno.

b) What the current Supreme Court thinks of Shaw v Reno (and the legislature's leeway thereof).


[ Parent ]
Well we certainly won't hear about Shaw v. Reno . . .
The Attorney General may not interpose an objection to a redistricting plan on the grounds that it violates the one-person one-vote principle, on the grounds that it violates Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), or on the grounds that it violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
[ Parent ]
Doh!
That part slipped my mind, so thanks for pointing it out. The DOJ can file suit separately, of course, though I think it's more likely that a citizen-initiated lawsuit would be the preferred route (that's generally the case).

What's interesting, however, is that Louisiana cannot meet the 'non-retrogression' benchmark without drawing a district that would be highly questionable under Shaw v Reno. That was the point I was clumsily trying to make above. If LA-02 can no longer be drawn to be majority-black as anchored by New Orleans, then the plan can be denied preclearance on that basis alone. There are then three options:

1) Draw a compact majority-black seat based in Baton Rouge.

2) Draw a non-compact majority-black seat winding from New Orleans to Baton Rouge, and hope that the Supreme Court finds it "narrowly tailored" to meet a "compelling state purpose" (doubtful, in light of Bartlett).

3) Challenge the constitutionality of Section 5 altogether (though Georgia is the most likely candidate for this) and then go from there..

[ Parent ]
Yeah
That was the same language that tripped me up re the section 5 claim.  Didn't realize that he technically isn't making a section 2 claim, since section 2 is now incorporated into 5.

Stepping up preclearance supervision is an interesting gambit, given the makeup of SCOTUS right now.  Crazy that Section 5, a host of section 2 questions, and the individual mandate could be decided in a single session of the Court.  

That additional language re section 2 further reinforces my view that very few of these states will seek DOJ preclearance.

[ Parent ]
BTW
Do you know why NH has VRA jurisdictions?  Never been able to figure that one out.
[ Parent ]
New Hampshire had literacy tests
Albeit unenforced at the time that the Voting Rights Act was renewed, they were still on the books and had been there from an early time when they were put into law because of immigrants who didn't speak English, mainly French. Why Pinkham's Grant, which has 0 population is covered is beyond understanding, though. It's a clearly a nominal application of the act.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.
[ Parent ]
Yes
Because for some ridiculous reason New Hampshire used a literacy test for voter qualification as of November 1, 1968. These were the jurisdictions that either had less than 50% of eligible voters registered or that had less than 50% of eligible voters cast ballots in the November 1968 election. Therefore, the Section 5 preclearance threshold applied even though the state had a 99.4% white population at the time with no evidence of any kind of racial discrimination in the administration of elections.

The state's been bitching about it ever since. LOL

[ Parent ]
Hasn't the Supreme Court
ruled that rights related to redistricting are individual and not collective?  Thus, moving the district to Baton Rouge wouldn't do anything to ameliorate the issues with the lack of a VRA district based in New Orleans.  

Also, I don't think the use of race in the New Orleans-Baton Rouge district would be narrowly tailored for two reasons: it packs black voters and a majority black district can be drawn based in New Orleans without including Baton Rouge.

This leads to my prediction that there will be 2 majority black districts: a Baton Rouge based one as a result of section 2 and a New Orleans based one from Section 5.

Do you think this is right?

26, Male, Democrat, VA-08

[ Parent ]
Gingles
Hasn't the Supreme Court ruled that rights related to redistricting are individual and not collective?  Thus, moving the district to Baton Rouge wouldn't do anything to ameliorate the issues with the lack of a VRA district based in New Orleans.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but the short answer to the question is that the Supreme Court has ruled that majority-minority districts must be drawn wherever the Gingles criteria have been met:

1) a minority group must be sufficiently large and geographically compact to comprise a majority of the district;

2) the minority group must be politically cohesive (it must demonstrate a pattern of voting for the same candidates); and,

3) white voters vote sufficiently as a bloc usually to defeat the minority group's preferred candidate.

In short, I think quite clearly that this would now require two VRA districts in Louisiana. With seven seats, you could not draw two districts that were sufficiently compact; with six seats you clearly can do so.

The question is how you get there from here. By all accounts, the Louisiana legislature will not do this willingly (which is precisely the very reason for the existence of the VRA). So, if it is to happen, it will have to be ordered within the preclearance process or consequent separate action by the courts.

Also, I don't think the use of race in the New Orleans-Baton Rouge district would be narrowly tailored for two reasons: it packs black voters and a majority black district can be drawn based in New Orleans without including Baton Rouge.

I completely agree that a New Orleans to Baton Rouge district would be struck down as a racial gerrymander that is not narrowly tailored. The Louisiana legislature is reportedly considering such a district in any event. That said, they might very well be willing to take their chances anyhow.

The thing is: The Lousiana GOP has nothing to lose. At worse, their map will be struck down and two Democratic seats will be required. There is no risk that a court-drawn map will result in three Democratic seats. So, it makes sense for them to draw a map with one ultra-packed Democratic seat and roll the dice rather than draw what would be a worse-case scenario map for them to begin with.

There is an argument they can make that may be upheld in court: Whereas you can easily get a compact 50%+ majority-black seat in Baton Rouge (the yellow seat on my map is 52.7% black) you can only get one that is about 60% black by drawing the New Orleans to Baton Rouge district. The current LA-02 district is 59% black. So, they can argue that they must draw this district in order to avoid retrogression.

However, my reading of the Bartlett v Strickland ruling tells me that the Supreme Court would reject this argument.

This leads to my prediction that there will be 2 majority black districts: a Baton Rouge based one as a result of section 2 and a New Orleans based one from Section 5.

Do you think this is right?

 

To go back to what you said above, it's very difficult to draw two majority-black seats (as opposed to two majority-minority seats, one of which is majority-black). So, I'm inclined to disagree with you as regards New Orleans.

The green LA-02 New Orleans based district on my map is only 44.6% black (and 44.2% white) by voting age population. There isn't any way to move a significant number of additional majority-black districts into this seat except by following the Mississippi River up to Baton Rouge.

So, the first question is by what rationale the DOJ might intervene. The answer to that is obvious: If the Louisiana legislature cannot draw a district that has a minimum black percentage equal to that of the previously enacted map, then it's well-established that the DOJ (or the DC Circuit) can intervene aggressively within the Section 5 preclearance process.

The second question is then what is required by Section 2, and that much seems obvious to me at least in the Gingles criteria. To make the long story short: A majority-black seat anchored in Baton Rouge and a majority-minority seat anchored in New Orleans.

So, to conclude this somewhat rambling post, in my view I think Louisiana will ultimately be required to draw two majority-minority seats. How we get there from here (or by what rationale they might not be required to do so) will be interesting to see.

I'm not totally sure I answered your question. lol

[ Parent ]
I think I clearly understand
your points and I hope you understand mine.  I can't claim to be lucid a writer as you as I always enjoy your clarity.

Let me recap my thinking one more time on Shaw & Gingles as it relates to your LA map.

1. Its clearly a racial gerrymander as the cities of Alexandria, Lafayette and Baton Rogue are divided in apartheid fashion with whites on one side and blacks on the other.  Its clearly not required under Shaw V Reno.
You have three cities that have never been redistricted together in LA before with the sole purpose of creating a black majority seat.  Clearly not required under Shaw.

2. Gingles?  You gave a stunning defination of "compact" the other day.  It was so concise.  I wish you would requote but the gist of it was that compact meant that most concise space was used and alternatives  to that  would enlarge the space would render it noncompact.  Your map of LA is clearly not compact.  Baton Rogue Parrish is divided as are the other three main cities/parrishes.  Its nowhere near compact but rather is clearly the oppisite of compact.  In fact clearly the only way minority majority status is reached is by racially dividing the three main areas of the seat into noncompact units.  

Can a seat be gerrymandered and compact?  If you divide a Parrish in half, like Baton Rogue and put half in a one CD and the other half in another its clearly not compact.  Its clearly a gerrymander.  A seat can't be compact and also be a gerrymander at the same time.

I can see why now you said the other day that NY12 is not a racially gerrymandered seat.  I think you want to use Gingles and you want to define compact in a very different way then I do.  I believe Gingles applies to North Boston and say Cambridge--or Las Vegas and Henderson or Denver & Adams county.  Cities that are right next to eachother where you could draw a compact seat.  Dividing three cities in LA that are hundreds of miles apart or two cities in AL (Montgomery & Mobile)  that are hundreds of miles apart are not reguired under Gingles.  They are not compact under Gingles. They are clearly racial gerrymanders that are not required under Gingles and are not required  by Shaw.

 

[ Parent ]
Sufficiently compact
The legal definition of compact is not bypassing neighboring precincts in order to reach more distant precincts.

In any case, the Gingles criteria do not require that a minority population be as compact as possible, since that is rarely (if ever) the case, but rather that it be "sufficiently" compact.

In any case, I'd suggest you revisit the NC-01 district below. The Supreme Court has ruled explicitly that this district was "narrowly tailored" to meet Section 2 requirements. It was originally designed to create a 52% African American district.

Since the Louisiana district that I've created is far more compact than this one, and achieves the identical purpose, it is clearly not a prohibited racial gerrymander under Shaw v Reno as applied to date.

If you have a problem with the vagueness of that terminology, then I understand, but I didn't make the rules.


[ Parent ]
New York
I actually didn't think of NY-12 and that was an oversight on my part. Now that you point it out, I don't disagree with you. I would point out, however, that NY-12 is far less egregious than IL-04, so I imagine if it were litigated there is little reason to think it would not be upheld along similar reasoning (at least, had it been litigated twelve years ago).

To be sure, the current New York maps were clearly drawn to protect incumbents. As such, the lines are somewhat more of a political gerrymander, not a racial gerrymander per se. NY-12 was basically (re)drawn to keep Nydia Velázquez in office. The current NY-12 seat is in fact more compact than the court-drawn seat of 1991 that was an explicit Latino gerrymander.

I guess it's a matter of semantics, ultimately, since the current NY-12 essentially perpetuates the ethnic gerrymander of the previous NY-12. I have no real issue with conceding that New York includes racial gerrymanders, but to whatever extent it does, they were 'grandfathered' in from a court-drawn map that preceded Shaw v Reno.

[ Parent ]
The tunnel of political
gerrymandering as opposed to racial gerrymandering is getting pretty wide. It looks like any truck or even supertanker can get through that tunnel.

Since my view is that political gerrymandering is okay as long you do not violate Baker V Carr, various state laws and Section II VRA.  I do not have a problem with NY12.  Its clearly, however, the type of racial gerrymander that would never be required under Shaw.

I disagree with on NC1 being compact under Gingles.  NC1 was not settled on Gingles.  In fact NC redistricting cases made clear that racial gerrymandering was not required.  The current map of NC1 that you are showing is in fact a political creation and not a Gingles creation.  

Shaw is post Gingles and is clearly precedence.  Racial gerrymanders are not required under VRA.  The concept that a seat might met the three Gingles rules and be required, if its a racial gerrymander does not hold water.  The courts are not going to be ruling case by case what "suffiecently compact" means.  Precedence is Shaw-no racial gerrymanders are reguired.

This is why Shaw came about so you and I don't have to argue what compactness means.  

[ Parent ]
Well
We aren't arguing about what compactness means. We're arguing about what amounts to sufficient compactness. Your post didn't address that aside from the false statement that NC-01 is merely a "political" creation. NC-01 was last upheld as being narrowly tailored for VRA purposes. The North Carolina legislature explicitly created the district as a reaction to Thornburg v Gingles, which was of course also a North Carolina case, and so you are obviously mistaken.
[ Parent ]
BTW
This is how the North Carolina General Assembly interprets the requirements of Thornburg v Gingles and Shaw v Reno, which were both North Carolina cases:

Consideration of Minorities:

The Voting Rights Act and court cases decided under it forbid drawing districts that dilute minority voting strength. For the 40 counties in North Carolina covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, this means avoiding "retrogression," or worsening the position of racial minorities with respect to the effective exercise of their voting rights. All 100 counties are subject to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which may require drawing districts which contain a majority minority population if three threshold conditions are present: 1) a minority group is large enough and lives closely enough together so that a relatively compact district in which the group constitutes a majority can be drawn, 2) the minority group has a history of political cohesiveness or voting as a group, and 3) the white majority has a history of voting as a group sufficient to allow it to usually defeat the minority group's preferred candidate. The totality of circumstances, including a past history of discrimination that continues to affect the exercise of a minority group's right to vote, must also be taken into consideration. These rules come from Thornburg v. Gingles, a landmark US Supreme Court Voting Rights Act case arising from North Carolina in the 1980s.

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.


[ Parent ]
Might I add
The tunnel of political gerrymandering as opposed to racial gerrymandering is getting pretty wide.

That tunnel is obviously wide enough to include NC-12. Let me also clarify a point. I am not saying that NY-12 can only be defended as a political gerrymander. I was merely explaining why I didn't think of it as a racial gerrymander to begin with: Because the 2002 New York maps were drawn as a political incumbent-protection plan designed to eliminated one Democrat and one Republican.

Now, with that out of the way, I've actually gone back and looked up the legal history of the NY-12 district.

The original district from the Nineties is below. That district was overturned per Shaw v Reno.

The federal court ruling actually stated: "While incumbency took priority over all other traditional criteria in the creation of the districts, nevertheless it was at all times secondary to race." Moreover, the Court stated with regard to Section 2 and Gingles: "No one looking at a map of the 12th district could reasonably suggest that the district contains a geographically compact population of any race." The court also rejected a Section 5 argument because this was an entirely new minority-majority seat.

The NY legislature then drew a seat virtually identical to the current seat, and it has not been litigated further in court. Whether it would be upheld today in its current form (which will soon be moot, anyhow) is an open question in my view.

[ Parent ]
One more thing
It's entirely an open question whether a district that was previously found to be "narrowly tailored" with regard to Shaw v Reno might later be found to no longer be "narrowly tailored" due to changing circumstances. In short, there hasn't been enough time and enough cycles of redistricting for such a lawsuit to be litigated. But, in my view, there's an excellent chance that if a lawsuit were brought today against IL-04, by example, then it would likely be struck down because it's now easy to achieve the same ends without the 'earmuff' district.
[ Parent ]
One last go at Shaw V Reno
and I appreciate your post as I do the one below this entry I am keying.  I don't time to respond to two posts.  I have enjoyed the conversation but let respond by retracing the history of NC redistricting.

Step one: the legislative bodies in NC created a congressional map with one AA majority seat (numbered #1) in East part of state.

Step two: DOJ would not preclear map and no court would overturn that step.  So the legislators under duress created NC12.

Step Three: there was a series of court actions and eventually the Surpreme court overturned the map that was draw under duress in Reno V Shaw. The gist of the court ruling was that VRA did require the creation of maps that involved racial gerrymandering.

Step Four: the legislators in NC are now  not under duress now.  They do not have to draw a 1-85 district linking Charlotte , Greensboro and Winston-Salem.  For whatever reason,  mostly because AA legislators love Mel Watt,  they draw a new map linking Charlotte, Winston Salem & Greensboro.

Step Five:  This map survives a series of court battles as the State of NC was using its legitmate desire to keep Mel Watt a congressman and not race in drawing the new NC12.  They could have draw a different map but choose, more or less, to draw the same map for poltical reasons.

NC1 in 1991 was a political creation.  NC12 in 1993/1994 was a political creation.  Poltical creations in redistricting are okay as long as Baker V Carr is not violated, various state laws are followed and Section II of VRA is followed. That's it.  

In 2001-2002 cycle we had the 1st post Shaw series of redistricting.  The DOJ and courts took as precedence the gist of Shaw's rulings that racial gerrymanders were not reguired.  Did we see a lot of maps with racial gerrymanders?  You bet but  they were draw either by legislators or partisan/nonpartisan commissions.  Not a single lawsuit trying to force the creation of additional minority majority seats was successful.  Near complete deference was given to legislative bodies.  Several cases were successful under Section II but no additional seats were created.  

That's where, IMO, we  stand now.  The only basis for underurning a map, based on Reno, is saying that a district was not drawn as a racial gerrymander.  That gives a state defending its map two huge advantages.  1. what is a gerrymander? obviousily any map that splits any city or county is a gerrymander-an attempt to get advantage in simple words. 2. plus obviousily if you are suing to create a minority majority seat its clearly about race.  Its a slam bang winner for states and thats why nothing happened in 2001-2002 because Reno clearly does not require states to do racial gerrymanders.  

So you ccan do section II dilution but a case based on Reno means you want to overturn Reno.  You can't win on the substance of Reno by wiggling around the words "race" or "gerrymander".  You can overturn Reno or try Section II.

Let state again that legislative maps can be allowed as long as they conform to Baker, State laws and Section II.  

[ Parent ]
OK
I don't really have much issue with most of that; at least, not enough to warrant debate.

That is, except for where you slip this in:

NC1 in 1991 was a political creation.

It is still a false statement that NC-01 is merely a "political" creation. NC-01 was last upheld as being narrowly tailored for VRA purposes. The North Carolina legislature explicitly created the district as a reaction to Thornburg v Gingles, which was of course also a North Carolina case, and so you are obviously mistaken.

In fact, you could say that NC-01 is therefore the most Gingles seat of all, and the North Carolina legislature has never defended it as anything but.

[ Parent ]
You did answer it
What I was referring to in my first point was this passage from Shaw v. Hunt:

"[A] majority of the District Court agreed, 861 F. Supp., at 454-454, n. 50, that once a legislature has a strong basis in evidence for concluding that a §2 violation exists in the State, it may draw a majority minority district anywhere, even if the district is in no way coincident with the compact Gingles district, as long as racially polarized voting exists where the district is ultimately drawn. Tr. of Oral Arg. 50-51, 54-56.

"We find this position singularly unpersuasive. We do not see how a district so drawn would avoid §2 liability. If a §2 violation is proven for a particular area, it flows from the fact that individuals in this area "have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice." 42 U.S.C. § 1973(b). The vote dilution injuries suffered by these persons are not remedied by creating a safe majority black district somewhere else in the State."

Btw, its not too hard to draw what I would consider a compactish second majority black VAP district (CD 2 and 6).

Photobucket

26, Male, Democrat, VA-08

[ Parent ]
A map like that one would satisfy most
Assuming that another VRA district comes into existence, a map like that satisfies most of the regional concerns that may come up. Cassidy might try his luck in that 6th, but he would likely set his sight on something else.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.
[ Parent ]
VAP
I was referring only to voting age population when I said that. My recreation of your map tells me that LA-02 has a 47.6% black VAP and LA-06 has a 51.9% black VAP. Does this sound about right?

If so, then I would say that this may not be enough of an improvement on my figures to warrant the less compact districting.

Stretching a district from Baton Rouge to Monroe when one can achieve essentially the same ends going no further away than Alexandria strikes me as dubious. Likewise, my LA-02 district doesn't leave the shores of Lake Pontchartrain; yours takes it all the way over to Lafayette.

But, the important point is the same: It's easy to draw two VRA seats in Louisiana and I see no reason to think that it would not therefore be required by Section 2. We're in full agreement on that.

And, yes, I now see clearly what you're saying about whether drawing a minority-majority district in one locale absolves the legislature from drawing or maintaining one in another locale. We're clearly on the same page with that as well.

What threw me was the 'individual' vs 'collective' part; I wasn't sure what you meant by that. I get it now.

[ Parent ]
Here is a close-up
Using the 2010 census data, Dave's App says CD 2 is 50.6% over 18 and 53.5% black overall.  Not sure what balance they will decide to strike between compactness and maintaining the 2nd as majority black.

Photobucket

26, Male, Democrat, VA-08

[ Parent ]
Very nice
I stand corrected!

For added compactness, you can easily add that southern part of St Martin Parish without changing the racial composition. It's less than 1500 people, but "appearances do matter" to quote Shaw v Reno.

If two outright majority-black VAP districts can be drawn then I'd say that's preferable from a VRA standpoint.

[ Parent ]
Let me add
I think the Louisiana legislature could certainly choose to meet the requirements with your map. It's just not the map that I would present in court if I were filing a Section 2 challenge. For a court case, I would want the most compact minority-majority districts possible. If the legislature's map were struck down then they could of course choose to address the matter with whatever alternative did not violate Shaw v Reno.
[ Parent ]
No, you did answer it.
Thanks. I replied to you below.

26, Male, Democrat, VA-08
[ Parent ]
I take your points and I often say you could be right
and you could be.  

Second point 1st-Yes the Holder DOJ could take a different approach to the Ashcroft DOJ.  Just saying those AG names speaks volumes about the changes in DC but predecence carries alot of weight in these Judicial matters.  From the Surpreme court to district court to DOJ these plans passed muster in 2001.  I might add in NC, AL and LA democratic legislators with lots of AA votes passed these plans that clearly racial gerrymanders.  Whatever explanation they had carried passed muster.  I might that several citizen inspired lawsuits went nowhere on Shaw grounds.  The precedent from the 2001. The DOJ can try but I think the courts  will hold with precedent and let the legislative bodies draw their gerrymanders as they have since 1812.  

1st point as to reporting to DOJ as regards to Shaw & VRA in particular.  Obviousily no one will say "we gerrymandered this seat in violation of Shaw V Reno and hope no one notices".  They will focus avoiding dilution and using the wide latititude that the courts have granted them in drawing seats.  I might add democrats in NC, AL, GA and MS drew bizarre legislative and congressional maps in 2001 so this sort of reporting is bipartisan.  You state your intent was to comply with section II and past maps.  Plus you naturally thrown in that you did within the framework of poltical redistricting process.  IMO Shaw does not take  away the political leeway to make political drawings of maps.  Its also clear that since past maps were drawn in such a manner by republicans and democrats you can't say it puts the protected community at risk as AA legislators are drawing these maps in some cases.

I also question whether the DOJ will sue to undo IL4 or NY12 or FL3. I will believe that when I see it.  Even if they did this court will not define "gerrymander"

[ Parent ]
2001
The Georgia legislative maps were struck down in 2004 per Shaw v Reno. There is every reason to think that the congressional maps would've been struck down as well, except that part of the case was rendered moot by the re-redistricting of 2003.

The Mississippi congressional maps were court-drawn. The Mississippi legislative maps were not litigated except for one state senate district - and it was a rather bizarre challenge by black voters who were contesting the boundaries of a majority-minority district because they had been drawn out of it. That case is so out of the norm that I won't even bother getting into it.

The 2001 North Carolina legislative maps were overturned by the courts and redrawn. The congressional maps were obviously drawn as a direct continuance of the 1990s maps - insofar as NC-01 and NC-12 are concerned. Obviously, then, the litigation of the 90s established the compliance of those districts. In other words, the first version of NC-01 was redrawn and the second version was found to be "narrowly tailored"; the first and second versions of NC-12 were rejected, and the third version was (absurdly) found to be drawn without regard to race.

As for Alabama, the challenges were rejected because the legislature provided evidence in court that they based their districting purely on recent election returns and actual voter behavior. The fact that the location of black voters happened to correlate highly with the location of Democratic votes was incidental. That was, of course, the exact same rationale as that upheld in Hunt v Cromartie (for NC-12).

[ Parent ]
You see not the racial Gerrymanders with political purposes in PA and NY.

I see a pretty republican racial Gerrymander when I see a black seat with 95% Obama.
[ Parent ]
Oh I see
 racial gerrymanders in NY or GA or IL or NC or FL or TX.  I am not sure what others see but I see them.

I clearly see that racial gerrymanders were clearly done  in NY--look at NY12.  Look at IL4.  Look at TX18 & TX29.  All of these seats are crafted to place minorities in certain seats and keep them out of the seats next to them.  They are all very clearly gerrymanders.

My point is that Shaw V Reno only deals with judicially drawn districts or districts that judges order legislative bodies to draw.  

There is no limits placed on what legislative bodies can do.  If a legislative body draws it the assumption is that its a political decision and Reno V Shaw does not deal with political decisions.  Poltitical bodies can draw whatever seats they want as long as they do not violate Baker V Carr or Section II (dilution) or other applicable court rulings.  


[ Parent ]
BTW
My point is that Shaw V Reno only deals with judicially drawn districts or districts that judges order legislative bodies to draw.

Your point is wrong. Every district that has ever been struck down by Shaw v Reno has been drawn by a legislative body, and I can't think of any of them that were due to judicial order.

There is no limits placed on what legislative bodies can do.

This is of course quite false. Ridiculously so, in fact. So much so that it's ridiculous to even have to reply to it.

[ Parent ]
The NYC districts are not a Republican gerrymander
If anything, the districts within New York are a Democratic gerrymander, as a compact South Brooklyn district would be less Democratic than Anthony Weiner's seat. As it is, most of the dark red precincts in South Brooklyn (and there are some that are 80% McCain) are diluted in NY-08, NY-10, and NY-11: the exact same districts you accuse of packing Democrats. NY-10 and NY-11 are over 90% Obama for the same reason TX-13 is R+28, because they are compact seats in overwhelmingly partisan areas.  

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08
[ Parent ]
I think I show you a democratic Gerrymander of NY state

It would be very different.

The current map of New York is not a extreme republican Gerrymander, but still has a lot of details what come from the old republican Gerrymanders, and this is one.

A district with 85%+ Obama votes is sign of republican Gerrymanders. It is a racial Gerrymander with political purposes (of concentrating the democratic votes in few districts to leave less democratic vote for the rest).

A republican district in Staten Island is other sign of a republican Gerrymander, and there are more. Can you make it worse? Surely, but tell me not we have a democratic Gerrymander in New York, because this is not true.

[ Parent ]
I agree that upstate is gerrymandered for Republicans
But NYC is not. The districts there are all compacts, expect for the 12th, which is gerrymandered for racial purposes. NY-13 (the Staten Island district) is not a gerrymander at all; it keeps the island in one district and connects it to the part of Brooklyn that is geographically and culturally closest to it. That is a perfect example of a fair, compact district.

It is impossible to draw a reasonable-looking black majority district in central Brooklyn that is not an 85%+ Obama district, because that is how people in central Brooklyn vote. You have it in your head for some reason that Bed-Stuy needs to be connected by a spaghetti strip to suburbs in Long Island for the map to be anything other than a "gerrymander," but that is just ridiculous.  

And I do stand by my point that the heavily Republican portions of South Brooklyn are intentionally divided amongst NY-08, NY-10, and NY-11 to keep them out of Weiner's district: check the colored election map on the DRA if you don't believe me. If South Brooklyn was drawn into a compact district, NY-07 would be less safe for Anthony Weiner.

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

[ Parent ]
Just this is the basis of the old republican Gerrymander of NY

To take the Upstate, NYC and Long Island as separate parts.

If you assume the Upstate have a republican map, you must assume the same for the rest of the state. And I accept you can find still some detail for change that would favore more still to the republicans like you tell for Brooklyn. But the map as a whole, is clearly unbalanced toward the republicans.

You tell me we have not a republican Gerrymander inside NYC, but the basis of the old republican Gerrymanders in this state is to cut the chance of have districts taking part of New York City and part of Long Island or part of the upstate.

This is the detail that a democratic redistricting of the entire state must break.

Other detail. Why you can not divide Staten Island in more districts but you can divide every other county in the state? Only by republican political interest. It is a merit to divide not Staten Island? I think not. I think it is a republican interest from old time.

I dislike to talk about the forms of the districts or about the compactness for assuming we have a Gerrymander or not. That favore to the republicans. The geography and the structure of the democratic vote (more urban) help to the republicans doing nicer Gerrymanders, but for me there are the same Gerrymanders with the same political purpose.

As example, surely you would tell North Carolina has a bad democratic Gerrymander, but I would tell you the numbers mean the democratic Gerrymander of Georgia is more unbalanced still toward the democratic side. And is nicer. Would you tell Georgia map is not a democratic Gerrymander and North Carolina map yes? I would tell both are democratic Gerrymanders.

And following the same criteria, about New York, at this point I would tell you the next:

The current congressional map of New York is more republican Gerrymandered than the current congressional map of Texas.

Older Gerrymander, true, but more Gerrymander than DeLay's map for Texas. The map of DeLay was more agressive and find a fast change, but still if we compare, the map for New York is more unbalanced toward the republicans than the map for Texas even after DeLay's Gerrymander.

You can not take the result of the redistricting process for a state looking to the changes between the 2002 and the 2012 maps. Despite you have agressive bids for change the things in one state, the maps keep a lot of details from older redistricting process. If you look to my map of New York you will see a revolution. If you want to make the same extreme republican Gerrymander for the entire state of New York, you would need to do few changes from the current map.

[ Parent ]
Georgia
This is what a Democratic gerrymander of Georgia looks like:

This is not:


[ Parent ]
Hey abgin
I tried emailing you but hadn't heard back. Did you ever receive the babkas I sent you?
[ Parent ]
Hi David

I was missing your comment. I have little free time these days. Still I receive not, but I receive a email telling they are in the way. I explain you more by email. Thanks :)
[ Parent ]
NY's current districts
New York's current districts were voted on in 2002 very quickly without maps made!  I would say the many of the legislators did not know what they were voting on except on what they knew: the areas around their own districts.

That said, NYC seems to have racial gerrymanders, not political ones.  It's rather easy to draw two Republican districts in NYC, and 6 racial districts.  Only one of the five (NY-12) looks ugly.  The rest look rather compact, not even gerrymanders.  Those are NY-6, 9, 10, 15, and 16.  Comparing the view of upstate, with plenty of gerrymanders (e.g., NY-20, 22, 23, 24, 28), NY-12 doesn't look like a gerrymander.

[ Parent ]
Many times the republican Gerrymanders look not ugly

but are Gerrymanders.

I think to concentrate all this democratic vote in few districts decades ago has a political purpose (to leave less democratic vote for the rest of districts). It was a need for the republicans.

Taking the current map you can draw few better things for the republicans, but you can draw a lot of improvements for the democrats.

[ Parent ]
It looks like it would be a problem with the court
It takes in almost every majority black precinct in the state and still has a VAP that is majority white, that would clearly be a problem.

You could draw a Little Rock, Pine Bluff, Delta district that hit about 38% Black that may elect a black candidate. An influence district is the best that could be done.

Photobucket

That said, it may not be as difficult as it appears for a black candidate to win a seat that's not majority black. Ron Sheffield, the 2002 Dem Lt. Governor candidate managed to win some ancestrally Democratic areas that aren't heavily black, but got only 40% statewide because he lost Pulaski badly.

Photobucket

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

[ Parent ]
Hmm
I think if you acceded to county-splitting (and it sounds like that will happen in Arkansas this time), you could do better than 38% black. The real difficulty is drawing a solid seat for a black Democrat without cutting off Rep. Ross at the knees.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
That's correct
You can get to slightly over 40% VAP if you split counties and extend further out, I was experimenting with an influence district that was as compact as possible. If Democrats can pull off extracting Fayetteville in AR-4 , they might be able to save Ross and get a suitable district for a black Democrat by carving up Griffin's seat, but it's a hard task.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.
[ Parent ]
I think this is the right point

Just a district under 50% white.

It is possible to draw a district with more african-american than whites, but I think it would not be necessary.

It would be very interesting also add to the democratic districts the most democratic areas of Washington county. That would give better rating to the red district (if I'm not wrong AR-04).

Arkansas + VRA? I think not.
Why are you trying to elect a black Democrat? Its not going happen without some change of the demographics done naturally not by doing a gerrymander. The districts aren't going to change much. Arkansas isn't going to be VRA protected, so why even try?
Because I can
And because a recent news update mentioned that it's an actual option being discussed by the Arkansas State Legislature.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
You know, this gets really old really fast
and even more so since your Republican gerrymander of Oregon is obviously not being enacted anytime soon. It's really rude to throw cold water on other people's maps, but especially when you make unrealistic maps too.

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 ]
Your map is a 3-1.
Ross lives in the Black Majority District (Does he not live in Hope?) but you combined all of the areas Ross did bad in or won by very little.  

28, Liberal Democrat, CA-26
No, he lives in Prescott, IIRC
But thanks for the info.

Is there any quick and dirty way to extrapolate how black a district in Arkansas would need to be in order to make sure a candidate who unified the African American community would be the Democratic nominee?

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

[ Parent ]
Hmmm
Could probably do it from AR-02, although the dynamic among rural voters might be different than among urban voters ...
[ Parent ]
Almost certainly would be
It's really just a function of white party identification and black voter turnout vs. white voter turnout in Arkansas Democratic primaries, if you assume ~85% of African American voters are registered Democrats...

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
Only 85%? :-)
I was in a hurry and unclear.  My thought was that you could look at the numbers in AR-02, look at the primary numbers from '02, and get a sense of what the minimum you could have would be.  Though you'd probably need to adjust upwards for rural areas.
[ Parent ]
A very rough extrapolation from those results...
In that primary, Jim B. Baker won a share of the vote approximately equivalent to 150% the proportion of African Americans in the district (27.63% of the vote, 19.4% black district).

That suggests a candidate with strong black support would be favored to win the Democratic primary in...about a 35% black district, actually. 38% black would probably be acceptable.

Worth mentioning then-Rep. Snyder was an incumbent when Baker ran against him in 2002, of course, and 2002 didn't amount to much of a "change" election.

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

[ Parent ]
There is probably no way to create a 40% or more black district.
Ross will insist that his district be 25-35ish and will also demand that he get Pine Bluff.

28, Liberal Democrat, CA-26
[ Parent ]
There is
The green district on this map is 45% black, with a 42% black voting age population. It's not even all that weird looking.


[ Parent ]
Looks pretty good, actually
What's the black population of AR-04 there?

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
AR-04
The red district (AR-04) is 8% black, 7% VAP.

The blue district (AR-01) is 6% black, 6% VAP.

The purple district (AR-03) is 13% black, 10% VAP.

[ Parent ]
Rep. Ross would throw a hell of a tantrum...
But if that's not a concern for the legislature, I'm totally fine with throwing him under the bus. I won't trade a Democrat who votes like a Republican for a Republican who votes like a Republican, but I'll trade a Democrat who votes like a Republican for a Democrat who votes like a Democrat quite happily, all other things being equal.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
The goal should be two 30% Black districts, one for Ross, and one to make Griffin have a competitive race/lose.
nt

28, Liberal Democrat, CA-26
[ Parent ]
That's impossible, but you can get close
The two 30% black districts, that is. The following is about as good as it gets: AR-02 is 28% & AR-04 is 27%.

This AR-01 is a mere 4% black, which underscores that this is as good as it gets.

However, it's all but certain to achieve the political goals of re-electing Ross & giving Griffin at least a competitive race.


[ Parent ]
AR-02 and AR-04 would have african american majorities in the primaries

If you prove for create a minority-majority district in Arkansas with aproximately D+5 rating, and you see it is not possible, this group would accept it.

But if it is possible to create this type of district, and you create not it, then you have here some danger for the white candidates in the primaries of AR-04 and AR-02. This is real, we see a democratic african american candidate in AR-02 in 2010.

The democrats from Arkansas must begin to think in the african american population as the group what will dominate the primaries in districts like your AR-02 and AR-04, and even like the group what will dominate the primaries for statewide level.

If the democrats lose the chance of do it now, the african americans will not forget it, and this can be a very divisive issue for the democrats from Arkansas for long time.

I would bid.

[ Parent ]
Based on my extrapolation, they would not...
But they wouldn't be far off. I think Rep. Ross, as the incumbent, would be fine in his district; a black nominee is entirely possible in an AR-02 like this, of course, though I wouldn't say it's a foregone conclusion.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
What you are saying makes no sense at all.
It will be a long time before African Americans dominate the primaries. In most states in the South, even those that have stopped voting for white local Democrats, people are still registered as Democrat.

And African Americans make up 15% of the population. That's 449,051 people.If you jumbled ALL the African Americans into a district, you would have a 61% black district. This is logically, speaking, not possible. Trying to weed out certain precincts "just for them" disrupts local concerns (remember legislators whether Republican or Democrat have a strong relationship with the Arkansas small towns), and is a way to automatically surrender three other seats. It IS possible to create a 2-2 map. Why would you do that, when you have very other places to gain a seat? Since when do we go through parts of 30 counties to create a district?

28, Liberal Democrat, CA-26

[ Parent ]
You can see AR-02 2010

The african american wins the primary and many people tell she was unelectable. It is a real fact.

About the statewide races surely your are right.

[ Parent ]
If you are saying that Joyce Elliot was unelectable because
she was an African American in a white district (I still don't know what you are saying), that's not true. It's because she was a liberal... and liberals don't go well anywhere in Arkansas.

28, Liberal Democrat, CA-26
[ Parent ]
I have no doubt that in a state like Arkansas...
A racial element to the way voters break in races like that may be present. But I think you're quite right. An Artur Davis, a Rep. Sanford Bishop, or a Democratic version of Rep. Tim Scott would probably do fine, much better than Elliot did.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
I mean you have one african american winning the primary

and defeating the white moderate to conservative candidate. Even, being liberal. This is the fact that I wish to emphasize.
[ Parent ]
That is a work of art
Nicely done. And I would not be remotely surprised to see a map like this end up on Gov. Beebe's desk.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
That works
It distributes the black population between two districts more and that may be a legitimate compromise with black legislators.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.
[ Parent ]
I might add
This map has the side-benefit of splitting only three counties.
[ Parent ]
BTW
The variance on this map from optimal population is as follows.

Blue: +183
Green: -77
Purple: -179
Red: +71

[ Parent ]
Those are some impressively low variances
I usually consider +/- 999 good enough for congressional maps using Dave's App. Obviously not good enough for a truly legal map, but good enough for the application's power. What's your usual standard?

I'll eventually be posting a Texas "fair districts" map. (The mapping is complete, I just haven't felt like doing the write-up.) Amongst other things, it features this no-county split, zero-deviation (ie, exactly at ideal population) district:



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

[ Parent ]
Very nice
I strive for +/- 500 in my maps, though I'll settle for +/-999 if I have to. I've only posted one map that included a district with a four-digit variance, and that was my last California map where the CA-22 district was exactly +1000.
[ Parent ]
Alabama map
Since discussion has already branched off into Louisiana, I hope you won't mind if post an Alabama map here, SaoMagnifico. I don't think it's worth a stand-alone diary.

A second VRA district for Alabama is something we've been talking about for a while. But I don't remember seeing any maps done for it since the 2010 data came out.


With apologies for the fact that I didn't bother to make the colors correspond with the existing district designations.

The gold district is 55.6% African American by total population, 52.6% by VAP. The grey district is 53.1% African American by total population, 50.4% by VAP. Teal is the next most African-American district at ~22%. Blue and Green are at ~15%. Purple is at ~10%, and Red is at ~8%.

The map has a grand total of 5 county splits, with a variance of -795 (Teal) to +997 (grey). Montgomery is the only incorporated locality that's intentionally split. I think, but of course am not sure, that if I were working with more granular units than precincts it would be the only one split.

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

Looks very good
I take it I won't be the only one seriously, seriously disappointed if the Obama administration doesn't do everything in its power to force new VRA seats in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, Florida, and Texas.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
Thanks!
I don't know how much the administration can really do, but it would be nice to see them try. My list would have included Virginia instead of Florida. Which is to say that I have an idea where new VRA seats ought to go in the states you listed plus Virginia, but minus Florida.

Where do you would want to see a new VRA seat(s?) in Florida?

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

[ Parent ]
Not sure actually
I've never really taken a good crack at Florida. Stands to reason it's due for another VRA seat though, considering sectors of growth and all that. I might be wrong.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
It turns out that the answer is Orlando
which I (re)discovered by looking over my own Florida diary from a month ago.

When I asked you the question, I was thinking about how the increasing the number of seats and the Fair Districts law made Brown's and Hasting's seat seem less tenable to me. But I completely spaced on the fact that a compact majority-minority Orlando district is now feasible.

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

[ Parent ]
Oh, very good then
I knew I'd heard Florida needs a new VRA seat, but I couldn't remember how or where.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
Thanks for posting this map
and yes its clearly a second majority minority seat. Yes it clearly also proves my point about Shaw V Reno and what is required under that law.

1. The state of Alabama could easily draw this map and have it accepted by DOJ & Federal courts.  It does not violate Baker V Carr, Alabama law or VRA. Its a fablous map and if the state legislators and Gov decided to draw this map it would have the purpose, political purpose, of having the delegation of AL reflect the population of the state.  There would likely be two AA congressman from AL and the democrats would certainly be happy about that.

2. On the other hand its clearly a racial gerrymander as the cities of Mobile & Montgomery, hundred plus miles apart,are divided up along racial lines in a horrid gerrymander.  This map is clearly a racial gerrymander as the two largest cities in on divided out between black and white populations.  You only two split counties but those counties split like this was South Africa and not South Alabama.  Communities and cities are divided out white on one side and black on the other.  The purpose is clearly a racial gerrymander and under Shaw V Reno this short of cross state racial division is not required.  Just splitting two counties, 100 miles away, does not make it any less of a racial gerrymander. The courts will not order the state of Alabama to do this.  "Racial gerrymanders are not reguired under VRA" and yes this is clearly a racial gerrymander as the two major counties, a hundred miles apart are split down racial lines.

If the GOP wanted to do this fine but IMO its clearly a racial gerrymander and courts will not order it done.  

[ Parent ]
The chair of the Arkansas Legislative Black Caucus doesn't seem to be leaning toward this
This is what he had to say.

"I know there's been a lot of reports that say we're out for a Black district, but we're just 15% of the population," says Steele. "All of that population is pretty well spread throughout the state. It's almost impossible to have a 'majority-minority' district. That's really not the goal of the caucus. If an African-American campaigns and wins fine. If a non-African-American campaigns and wins and goes to Washington and votes our interest, we'll still be in a better situation. That's our No. 1 issue."

http://www.thecitywire.com/ind...

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

Thanks for the update
Rogue's map with the two ~30% black districts is looking quite, quite plausible.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
Arkansas Redistricting: Can It Be Done? | 104 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