Impressive

If nothing else, it'd keep the courts busy for a while. lol

---

by: roguemapper @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 05:15:58 AM UTC

Great work

I love it. I don't know the state well but i don't see a problem. Bravo.

18, Dem, PA-7

---

by: Warning_Crazy @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 05:39:11 AM UTC

Yuck

Excellent map that truly shows what kind of damage a GOP gerrymander can do to the Democratic reps in North Carolina.

24, male, Democrat, VA-06 (currently in Italy), went to school in VA-05

---

by: GeoffreyVS @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 11:27:04 AM UTC

Very Impressive

Nice work.

---

by: armand @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 13:58:19 PM UTC

yes its a great map. A stunning map and a great

example of what computer technology can do.

I might add that I don't think this map violates Section II of VRA or state law in NC.  If the Democrats, or for that matter the GOP, wanted to draw this map it would pass every legal test that I know of it.  It clearly does not dilute the minority vote   and NC law does not forbid all these crossing county lines.

I might under that under previous court rulings, like Shaw V Reno, racial gerrymandering is not required. So no federal court would order the state to put this map in place.  The state legislators, however, could pass this map.  This map clearly does not violate any state or federal law and therefore would be acceptable.  If the state of NC wanted to draw this map it clearly has a  legitmate political purpose and  would stand up in the face of any court challenge.  

I might add, however, that there is zero chance that this map or anything like it be draw by the GOP in NC.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 14:57:42 PM UTC

The chance this map survives court

is pretty frightening to think about.  The only district I thought was guaranteed to be struck down was the 4th considering it ignores obviously closer Democratic territory for further away minority Democrats, but then again I'm not an expert on VRA law and Shaw v. Reno.

NC-06/NC-04

---

by: sawolf @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 15:36:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Looking at this map

reminds me that the following districts have passed DOJ scrunity and have survived court review in several cases.

VA3
NC12
IL4
FL3
FL23
AZ1
NY12
MD4
MD7

and those are just some of  the VRA seats that are wild looking.  You can look at IL17, the map of PA, NC, MD, FL plus other states and clearly see that anything goes.  Political gerrymandering is certainly alive and well.  

This map for NC does not violate Section II, Baker V Carr or anything state law.  If they pass it this map is ready to go and would by no means be the worse map out there.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 15:46:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I give it 0%

This map would be struck down instantly under Shaw v Reno, which you still seem to misunderstand. Shaw v Reno does not require anything, per se. Shaw v Reno prohibits racial gerrymandering. To be even more precise, at the risk of losing you, Shaw v Reno subjects racial gerrymanders to strict scrutiny, and then imposes two requirements for a racial gerrymander to be acceptable:

1) It must be justified by a "compelling state interest" of some kind (political gerrymanders are not a "compelling state interest" by the way).

2) It must be "narrowly tailored" to meet that "compelling state interest" - in other words, the racial gerrymander goes no further than the minimum required to satisfy the "compelling state interest" in question (i.e., to meet VRA requirements).

So, what you should be saying, if that's the argument you think you're trying to make, is: 'I don't think this map would be prohibited under Shaw v Reno.' And then, preferably, you would actually have an argument to back that up aside from your inchoate feelings about it.

You are also regressing once again in this statement: "The state legislators, however, could pass this map."

Shaw v Reno prohibits legislators from passing a racial gerrymander that fails to be narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest.

In short, if Shaw v Reno does not prohibit this map, then Shaw v Reno doesn't prohibit anything, and we now quite well that this is not true.

---

by: roguemapper @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 16:23:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The gist of Shaw is clearly

that racial gerrymandering is not required.  Shaw and its  companion cases struck down maps that were a result of DOJ & court ordered construction following the 1990 census.

Shaw does not require racial gerrymandering. Shaw does not forbid racial gerrymandering.  Shaw does not forbid the drawing of racially gerrymandered maps if there is a compelling political purpose.  Any legislative act by a legislative body is assumed to have a political purpose so this maps are just fine.

Your point, RM, is that no racial gerrymandering is allowed under Shaw.  There is no legal basis for your statement on that point.  None. Absolutely none.  

I listed all the districts above that are clearly racial gerrymanders.  I could list dozens more.  All of these racial gerrymanders were justified by their states because they had legitmate political purposes.

So  you are now saying that the maps draw in 2001 for the states of New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Michigan, Illinois, Missouri, Louisiana, Texas, Arizona and California are unconstitutional?  All of these maps clearly have seats that racially gerrymandered and all of them passed constitution muster for the last ten years.  

I might add that the above map for NC is certainly no worse then some of them.  The above map does not dilute, does violate Baker V Carr and is okay with NC state law.  

RM if you would like take a look at the current NC map.  Can you honestly tell me that the current map is not a racial gerrymander?  The current map is clearly a racially gerrymandered map. No one can deny it.  If the current map is okay the map above is clearly okay as well. I might add that the current map survived DOJ and judicial review.

I think under your reading of the law you want every current congressional district in the South overturned.  If the current maps in FL-NC are okay then this one is also fine.

---

by: rdelbov @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 17:04:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Right...

The gist of Shaw is clearly that racial gerrymandering is not required.

If "not required" is a euphemism for 'prohibited unless they are narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest' then this statement is true. If "not required" means 'not required' then this is false. Racial gerrymandering can be, and frequently is, required wherever the Gingles factors are present.

Shaw and its  companion cases struck down maps that were a result of DOJ & court ordered construction following the 1990 census.

Every map struck down by Shaw was enacted by a legislature. Some of these were DOJ or court-ordered; most were not.

Shaw does not require racial gerrymandering.

If "not require" is a euphemist for 'prohibits ... unless narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest' then this is true. Otherwise, it is not (see above).

Shaw does not forbid racial gerrymandering.

Yes, it does, except when narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest. If you think otherwise, then you are wrong.

Shaw does not forbid the drawing of racially gerrymandered maps if there is a compelling political purpose.

Of course it does. There is no "compelling political purpose" that can survive strict scrutiny - if by "political" you mean "partisan" that is. If by "political" you mean something other than how the term is ordinarily used - to mean "partisan" - then I don't know what you're talking about.

Any legislative act by a legislative body is assumed to have a political purpose so this maps are just fine.

This is false. As explained above. If it's not yet clear to you, then perhaps you should reread it until it is, and bookmark to refer back to the next time you have the impulse to think otherwise.

Your point, RM, is that no racial gerrymandering is allowed under Shaw.  

No, it's not. My point, quite clearly, is that racial gerrymandering is prohibited except when narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest. Indeed, racial gerrymandering can be required if it is the only way to meet a compelling state interest - as is the case in virtually all VRA districts, by example.

There is no legal basis for your statement on that point.  None. Absolutely none.

Of course there isn't, which is why I didn't make the statement to begin with, your lack of reading comprehension notwithstanding.

I listed all the districts above that are clearly racial gerrymanders.

Most have been struck down as racial gerrymanders and been redrawn to be narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest. The remainder were upheld as narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest in the first place.

I could list dozens more.  All of these racial gerrymanders were justified by their states because they had legitmate political purposes.

This is false, unless you mean "political purposes" in some sense other than the ordinary way that the term is understood by normal most people - which is as interchangeable with "partisan" purposes. If you mean the term in the ordinary sense, then this is false. If you mean it in some other sense, then you need to provide your unique definition of the term.

So  you are now saying that the maps draw in 2001 for the states of New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Michigan, Illinois, Missouri, Louisiana, Texas, Arizona and California are unconstitutional?  All of these maps clearly have seats that racially gerrymandered and all of them passed constitution muster for the last ten years.

 

Of course not. What I am saying is that Shaw v Reno prohibits racial gerrymanders except where narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest (such as drawing VRA seats). In all these cases, seats which did not meet this requirement were struck down - this includes New York, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, and Texas. In some cases, these were redrawn to be narrowly tailored to meet compelling state interests; in other cases, the state was unable to do so and they were abandoned. In two cases, seats were redrawn using voter returns exclusively and were upheld as political gerrymanders (albeit controversially). In the remaining cases, where seats were litigated they were upheld as being narrowly tailored to meet compelling state interests (i.e., meeting VRA requirements) in the first place.

I might add that the above map for NC is certainly no worse then some of them.

It's not, except that these racial gerrymanders aren't narrowly tailored to meet compelling state interests - which in the case of North Carolina have been extensively litigated and therefore clearly defined and so are hardly subject to serious debate.

The above map does not dilute, does violate Baker V Carr and is okay with NC state law.

The above map is a blatant racial gerrymander. That's the issue at hand. The rest is irrelevant for the discussion at hand. Now, if the NC GOP can manage to produce the above map while verifiably documenting that they did not consult racial data at all in the process, then I'll be impressed, and that might fly. Otherwise, the issue at hand is the boundaries of permissibility for racial gerrymanders.

RM if you would like take a look at the current NC map.  Can you honestly tell me that the current map is not a racial gerrymander?  The current map is clearly a racially gerrymandered map. No one can deny it.

 

Of course it is. The NC-01 district was explicitly ruled a racial gerrymander, the first version was struck down, and the current version was upheld as being narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest.

Let me also add that I'm pleased you've abandoned your baseless assertion from the other thread that NC-01 was a "political creation" rather than a racial gerrymander to meet VRA requirements.

As for NC-12, it was upheld in Hunt v Cromartie as a political gerrymander. Some people, including myself, find that ruling to be tendentious to the extreme, but that's beside the point.

If a five-justice majority of the current Supreme Court could be persuaded that the map above was created entirely without the use of racial data as O'Connor was persuaded with regard to the final NC-12 version, then that's a different story. I personally don't see any way that could be possible. You cannot create the NC-04 and NC-07 districts in that map using a rationale based purely on voter behavior. At least, I don't see how.

I think under your reading of the law you want every current congressional district in the South overturned.

I think that's nonsense. In fact, I think it sounds like you came up with that statement entirely under the PIOYA principle.

If the current maps in FL-NC are okay then this one is also fine.

This map has no meaningful resemblance to the current maps in Florida or North Carolina. That said, perhaps I'm missing something. If you want to elaborate on how you think the current Florida or North Carolina maps would justify this one, then feel free to elaborate and we can then actually discuss your rationale. If, on the other hand, you're just talking about your feelings again, then that's not the kind of discussion I'm inclined to have.

---

by: roguemapper @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 18:11:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

RM you have added one final review for

every map from 2001 up to the present.  Its your test that of whether this map is a racial gerrymander or not.  The above map is clearly no more outrageous then the current map in either Florida or North Carolina or Maryland.  You can say its worse but I say its the same.  I hope as the maps are draw this year the DOJ and surpreme court can count on your judgement or maybe they will count on mine?  You can call a map an outrageous gerrymander and then I will counter that its no worse then NC, FL, or MD was in 2001. Because you and I plus others disagree as to what a racial gerrymander is that's why Shaw was decided.  No racial gerrymanders are required and therefore the court does not have to define what a racial gerrymander is?  They do not have to rely on your sharp eye and keen judgement as to what a racial gerrymander is. The court does not define it and yes in Shaw they do not require it.

You dance around again the basic premise of Shaw.  Here it is one more time.

The Basic premise of Shaw is that no racial gerrymandering is required.  Period.

I go back to 2001.  The maps of NC, FL, MD, AZ, IL, NJ , NY plus other states clearly have seats that are  racial gerrymanders.  Period end of story.  The idea that the current map is so much worse then some of them is not what Shaw is about.  Shaw does not give three classes of racial gerrymanders

1. Not too bad (NC1)
2. kinda out there but okay (NC12)
3. Outrageous per RM(the map above for NC)

Shaw says that racial gerrymanders are not reguired and places no limitations on state legislatures other then Section II reporting and complaince.  So Shaw allows states to do whatever they want within the limits of Section II(VRA), bakerV carr plus state laws.  

Shaw was intended to give the states the freedom to draw lines as long as Section II and Baker was complied with.  Thats it.  Anything else goes.  Look at the maps for all the states that I mentioned.  They are all legit and they have politically driven gerrymanders that involve democrats/republicans plus white brown and black voters.  

The map above for NC is clearly okay.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 19:38:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Shaw

The basic premise of Shaw is that racial gerrymanders are prohibited unless they are narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest.

If your reasoning leads you to a different conclusion then it is obviously erroneous and I see no need to bother reading it, because the basic premise of Shaw is not under any dispute except in your mind.

And, to be sure you didn't lose track, here it is again:

The basic premise of Shaw is that racial gerrymanders are prohibited unless they are narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest.

---

by: roguemapper @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 00:53:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

RM

I guess every single map that was draw in 2001-2002 was "narrowly tailored to a meet a compelling state interest". Every map I described clearly had racial gerrymanders in them.  As I said in another post the court assumes that drawing a map for partisan political purposes-ie to try  elect a republican, to elect a democrat , to advance the political interest of your own party is obviousily a compelling  state interest.  I mentioned in NC the D's drew a map to re-elect Mel Watts. Protecting a political incumbent is clearly a narrow state interest.  The desire to divide Hopi & Apache indians is a state interest.  Insuring that AA's in Orlando and Jacksonville have the same US representative is a compelling state interest.

The DOJ reviewed every map in 2001 in VRA states, they all have racial gerrymanders in them, so its clear that drawing a seat to either help or hurt either the democrat or republican party is clearly "a compelling state interest".  In fact other then breaking state redistricting laws, or BakerVCarr or section II violations I can't think of anything that is not a "compelling state interest"

The barn door labeled "compelling state interest" is wide enough to cover the maps for all 57 states.

So can we that Shaw does not require  racial redistricting? I agree 100%.

So I will even agree that Shaw outlaws racial redistricting unless there is a compelling state interest.  Naturally let me list a few compelling state interests.

1. Create seats for incumbents
2. wipe out incumbents to create open seats
3. Advance the political interest of political parties
4. Connect cities say Orlando & Jacksonvillebecause they have similar political & economic needs
5. Connect cities, say Winston Salem & Charlotte, with different economic needs as a congressional seat should reflect the state.

I could list thousands of these narrow compelling interests.  In the 2001-2002 cycle the DOJ and courts courts accepted "every narrow compelling interest" that was put forth by the states.  Every map passed the "Shaw" test.  In fact its harder to get a passport then passing a "Shaw" test.  

So let me go back this map on 9R-4D with 4 minority majority seats.  If they passed this map you easily justify it based on the compelling state interest of connecting various rural and urban areas together.  Or in some cases urban and surburban areas together.  Plus my party thinks its the best way to elect democrats.  This map does not violate Section II VRA, Baker V carr or any state laws.  The map is clearly legal as any twists or turns in it are clearly there just to meet a narrow but compelling state interest.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 01:24:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nope

I guess every single map that was draw in 2001-2002 was "narrowly tailored to a meet a compelling state interest".

You guess incorrectly. The Georgia maps were struck down per Shaw v Reno. I thought we covered this more than once?

Every map I described clearly had racial gerrymanders in them.

I believe we've discussed every seat you noted - none of which you've refuted. I'm not going to retread the same ground when you can easily go back and review our previous discussion.

The DOJ reviewed every map in 2001 in VRA states...

The DOJ in 2001 would not have been reviewing maps for Shaw violations. The Bush II DOJ was very non-interventionist anyhow, for political reasons. I feel no great purpose would be served in debating the 2001 DOJ since the 2011 DOJ is radically different. More importantly, the motivations and conclusions of the 2001 DOJ have no bearing on the question at hand: Which is the boundaries of permissibility in racial gerrymanders.

The barn door labeled "compelling state interest" is wide enough to cover the maps for all 57 states.

Your slip is showing...

So I will even agree that Shaw outlaws racial redistricting unless there is a compelling state interest.

Yay!! But, it also has to be narrowly tailored, just to be thorough.

Naturally let me list a few compelling state interests.

1. Create seats for incumbents
2. wipe out incumbents to create open seats
3. Advance the political interest of political parties
4. Connect cities say Orlando & Jacksonville because they have similar political & economic needs
5. Connect cities, say Winston Salem & Charlotte, with different economic needs as a congressional seat should reflect the state.

1. Incumbent protection is not a compelling state interest. It is a legitimate political purpose.

2. Wiping out incumbents to create open seats is certainly not a compelling state interest. It is a legitimate political purpose.

3. Advancing the political interest of political parties is certainly not a compelling state interest. It is a legitimate political purpose.

The reason why the distinction is important is because if the state claimed to have engaged in racial-based districting for any of these reasons the map would be instantly struck down. What the state can claim is that the racial composition of said districts was incidental to the political purpose - and then provide evidence to show that race was not used in crafting said districts (as Alabama successfully did in the 2000 cycle).

4 & 5. Connecting communities of interest is a traditional redistricting criterion. However, as the ruling which struck down the Texas mid-cycle redistricting clearly stated, you cannot presume that minority communities hundreds of miles apart have common interests merely because of their minority race or ethnicity. Add that map to the list of ones struck down in the 2000 cycle (granted, you did say 2001, and that was a 2003 map).

So let me go back this map on 9R-4D with 4 minority majority seats.  If they passed this map you easily justify it based on the compelling state interest of connecting various rural and urban areas together.  Or in some cases urban and surburban areas together.  Plus my party thinks its the best way to elect democrats.  This map does not violate Section II VRA, Baker V carr or any state laws.  The map is clearly legal as any twists or turns in it are clearly there just to meet a narrow but compelling state interest.

If the GOP can defend this map in court, then more power to them. Since the NC GOP is not stupid, I rather doubt they would try to do so. More importantly, the GOP can easily achieve the same ends without such a map (as many maps on Dave's app have demonstrated) so why on earth would they even want to try.

---

by: roguemapper @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 01:37:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let me just add that

The NC-04 I drew avoids heavily Democratic white areas around RTP to stretch all the way across Greensboro and High point for the express purpose of gaining additional minority democrats. Those closer, Democratic whites are still divided between either the 6th or 13th, which is where those further away minority voters would have been if this district weren't a racial gerrymander. Furthermore:

More importantly, the GOP can easily achieve the same ends without such a map (as many maps on Dave's app have demonstrated) so why on earth would they even want to try.

The whole point of this map was to produce a racial gerrymander so that it would be 9-4. You're quite correct that there are other 9-4 configurations which would mostly have the same effect without begging to be struck down on racial grounds.

NC-06/NC-04

---

by: sawolf @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 02:02:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Now we get to the gist of your points after

two months of argueing.

1. The Bush43 DOJ completely messed up in its oversight of redistricting.  It had a completely out of line view of Shaw.  The Bush DOJ did not have  the  idea that Shaw ruling should have snuffed out all racial gerrymandering.  Yup all racial redistricting should have been done away with except those justified by some sort of unknown compelling state interest.

2. For years I had the idea that Shaw only did not require districts to be racially gerrymandered.  Now it turns out with your reading of Shaw that racial gerrymanders need to be eliminated.  I take this means you agree that we have dozens of seats that clearly racially gerrymandered now but you believe that they are illegal or rather unconstitutional?  

Well I guess we will see. I have mentioned dozens of times that our current state and legislative maps all went through this DOJ review and nearly every map was judically reviewed for one reason or another.  The georgia map, if I recall correctly, was contested under several claims and was not ruled by the surpremes.  No map was overturned using your basis for Shaw.  

I might using your standard even splitting a town or county would be considered a "gerrymander".  If a seat is not compact and a town that could be kept whole is split thats the essence of a gerrymander.  That's an impossible standard.

Its clear to me, that Shaw, IMO was drawn to not require an act.  It did not forbid the act of racial gerrymandering because it would define what gerrymandering means?  I would contend that an Iowa type plan with no county splits would be the only possible plan not be a gerrymander.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 02:44:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, uh huh

I didn't say any of that, so I'm not going to bother with your tortured misreading of what I said, which is readily available for anyone to read above.

What's clear to me is that Shaw says what Shaw says, and so here it is from the syllabus of the ruling itself (emphasis added):

Held:

1. Appellants have stated a claim under the Equal Protection Clause by alleging that the reapportionment scheme is so irrational on its face that it can be understood only as an effort to segregate voters into separate districts on the basis of race, and that the separation lacks sufficient justification. Pp. 7-21.

(a) The District Court properly dismissed the claims against the federal appellees. Appellants' racial gerrymandering claims must be examined against the backdrop of this country's long history of racial discrimination in voting. Pp. 7-10.

(b) Classifications of citizens based solely on race are by their nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality, because they threaten to stigmatize persons by reason of their membership in a racial group and to incite racial hostility. Thus, state legislation that expressly distinguishes among citizens on account of race--whether it contains an explicit distinction or is "unexplainable on grounds other than race," Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266--must be narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest. See, e.g., Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Ed., 476 U.S. 267, 277-278 (plurality opinion). Redistricting legislation that is alleged to be so bizarre on its face that it is unexplainable on grounds other than race demands the same close scrutiny, regardless of the motivations underlying its adoption. See, e.g., Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339, 341. That it may be difficult to determine from the face of a single member districting plan that it makes such a distinction does not mean that a racial gerrymander, once established, should receive less scrutiny than other legislation classifying citizens by race. By perpetuating stereotypical notions about members of the same racial group--that they think alike, share the same political interests, and prefer the same candidates--a racial gerrymander may exacerbate the very patterns of racial bloc voting that majority minority districting is sometimes said to counteract. It also sends to elected representatives the message that their primary obligation is to represent only that group's members, rather than their constituency as a whole. Since the holding here makes it unnecessary to decide whether or how a reapportionment plan that, on its face, can be explained in nonracial terms successfully could be challenged, the Court expresses no view on whether the intentional creation of majority minority districts, without more, always gives rise to an equal protection claim. Pp. 10-17.

(c) The classification of citizens by race threatens special harms that are not present in this Court's vote dilution cases and thus warrants an analysis different from that used in assessing the validity of at large and multimember gerrymandering schemes. Inaddition, nothing in the Court's decisions compels the conclusion that racial and political gerrymanders are subject to the same constitutional scrutiny; in fact, this country's long and persistent history of racial discrimination in voting and the Court's Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence would seem to compel the opposite conclusion. Nor is there any support for the argument that racial gerrymandering poses no constitutional difficulties when the lines drawn favor the minority, since equal protection analysis is not dependent on the race of those burdened or benefited by a particular classification, Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 494 (plurality opinion). Finally, the highly fractured decision in UJO does not foreclose the claim recognized here, which is analytically distinct from the vote dilution claim made there. Pp. 18-21.

2. If, on remand, the allegations of a racial gerrymander are not contradicted, the District Court must determine whether the plan is narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest. A covered jurisdiction's interest in creating majority minority districts in order to comply with the nonretrogression rule under §5 of the Voting Rights Act does not give it carte blanche to engage in racial gerrymandering. The parties' arguments about whether the plan was necessary to avoid dilution of black voting strength in violation of §2 of the Act, and whether the State's interpretation of §2 is unconstitutional, were not developed below, and the issues remain open for consideration on remand. It is also unnecessary to decide at this stage of the litigation whether the plan advances a state interest distinct from the Act: eradicating the effects of past racial discrimination. Although the State argues that it had a strong basis for concluding that remedial action was warranted, only three Justices in UJO were prepared to say that States have a significant interest in minimizing the consequences of racial bloc voting apart from the Act's requirements and without regard for sound districting principles. Pp. 21-26.

3. The Court expresses no view on whether appellants successfully could have challenged a district such as that suggested by the Attorney General or whether their complaint stated a claim under other constitutional provisions. Pp. 26-27.

808 F. Supp. 461, reversed and remanded.

So far as I'm concerned, I'm done with this. I'm content to leave it to whoever is following this discussion to decided whether Shaw v Reno says what I claim it says - that racial gerrymanders are prohibited except where narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest - or whether it says whatever nonsense you claim it says.

---

by: roguemapper @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 03:42:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

RM

back to same point.  Round and round.

The court gave the ball back to the legislature in NC. What did they do? I ask you what did they do in 1994/1996?
You would assume from what you have said over and over again that NC legislators would do away with a seat that was racially gerrymandered.  Right?

Wrong.  This is the point that you cannot get around RM.  You are misreading the court holdings which were directing the federal court & DOJ not to require that the congressional maps, and by precedent, legislative maps to draw racially gerrymandered maps.

So what did NC do in 1996?  They drew a racially gerrymandered map.  Clearly NC12 that was used from 1994-2000 was clearly a racial gerrymander.  The state had dozens of "narrow compelling reasons" for doing so but that's one they did.  The state drew nearly the same map and it survived a court challenge because the state choose to do it. The district court upheld the new map but was clearly a near copy of the old map.  

I repeat my point about 2001-2002 redistricting.  The following states clearly has seats that are racially gerrymandered, ie draw in a gerrymandered way to elect black or hispanic candidates.

NY, NJ, MD, NC, VA, GA, FL, AL, MS, OH, MI, IL, LA, TX, AZ and CA.  

I might add all of their legislative maps have clear racial gerrymanders as well.   All of these maps passed DOJ approval and all of these maps are still in place.  There is no "Shaw" test.

The court order in Shaw was an order to the district court in NC ordering a review of the new congressional  map.  It ordered that court not to require a racially gerrymandered map for NC. The state legislators drew a map that was clearly racially gerrymandered but they justified in a variety of ways that satisfied the federal panel.  

Shaw did not create a review process for every federal court in the united states to determine if a state was racially gerrymandered or if there was a compelling interest in every state to justify its map.

You are misreading Shaw.  I have never heard of any "Shaw" review.  The justices in the Shaw case instructed the federal panel/judge in NC and that court only.

Is Shaw precedence?  You bet.  The 2001-2002 redistricting cycle clearly shows that while no racial gerrymandering was required there was no additional limits placed on legislators other then Section II compliance, Baker V Carr and state law.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 14:05:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

BTW

When was a district struck down in NY?  Was it just at the 2d Cir?  I missed it...

---

by: curiousgeorge @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 20:14:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't recall

a seat being overturned on Shaw from NY this time around.  There was the Texas case which Section II-dilution.

The Shaw, Miller and now Forrester set a very clear standard.  No racial gerrymandering is required under Section II.

The court did not define what its standards were for the following terms

1. Compact
2. Gerrymandering

It just said that no racial gerrymandering was required.

All kidding aside to do otherwise would set an impossible standard.  I don't expect anyone here to save the same standard for compactness or gerrymandering as  I do.  The surpreme court did not want to become the lord high court for looking at every single redistricting plan in the USA.  To do so would mean that a federal court would have to judge and come up with standards to look at every single redistricting map for all 50 states.  You cannot come up with a standard and yes judges will vary in what they see (think 9th circuit Versus DC or 4th circuit).  

Shaw, Miller and other cases have set the standard.  NO RACIAL GERRYMANDFERING is required.  The states can therefore draw maps that are okay as long as they comply with section II VRA, Baker V Carr and State law.

You and I do not have to argue over what a compact map is or whether its a gerrymander or not.  If the state draws and keeps the standards listed above the map is okay.  Look at all the current maps.  See any racial gerrymandered seats out there?  You bet and they were not required but legislators drew them.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 20:57:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

NY-12

Was struck down by a federal court in the 1997 Diaz v Silver case. The state chose to comply rather than appeal the case further. That's why it initially slipped my mind too, in the other thread.

---

by: roguemapper @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 00:49:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Two other quick things

You could draw a similar NC-4 based entirely on political, rather than racial concerns.  See, e.g., http://swingstateproject.com/d...

Also, why do you find the constitutionality of NC12 tendentious?  Race is clearly a factor, but not necessarily the predominate one; iirc it is white plurality . . .

---

by: curiousgeorge @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 20:18:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

NC-12

I will quote from the Hunt v Cromartie ruling itself:

This last-mentioned finding rested in turn upon five subsidiary determinations:

(1)  that "the legislators excluded many heavily-Democratic precincts from District 12, even when those precincts immediately border the Twelfth and would have established a far more compact district," id., at 25a; see also id., at 29a ("more heavily Democratic precincts ... were bypassed ... in favor of precincts with a higher African-American population");

(2)  that "[a]dditionally, Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Weber, showed time and again how race trumped party affiliation in the construction of the 12th District and how political explanations utterly failed to explain the composition of the district," id., at 26a;

(3)  that Dr. Peterson's testimony was " 'unreliable' and not relevant," id., at 27a (citing testimony of Dr. Weber);

(4)  that a legislative redistricting leader, Senator Roy Cooper, had alluded at the time of redistricting "to a need for 'racial and partisan' balance," ibid.; and

(5)  that the Senate's redistricting coordinator, Gerry Cohen, had sent Senator Cooper an e-mail reporting that Cooper had "moved Greensboro Black community into the 12th, and now need[ed] to take [about] 60,000 out of the 12th," App. 369; App. to Juris. Statement 27a-28a.

These are findings of fact, as affirmed in the same ruling as follows:

We also are aware that we review the District Court's findings only for "clear error." In applying this standard, we, like any reviewing court, will not reverse a lower court's finding of fact simply because we "would have decided the case differently." Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985). Rather, a reviewing court must ask whether "on the entire evidence," it is "left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948).

So, despite the fact that the legislature was compelled to create an I-85 district in the first place by the DOJ for racial reasons; despite the fact that the district that was upheld was essentially identical to several rejected versions of said district that had been clearly created because of racial reasons; and despite the fact that you could easily achieve the same political ends with a more compact district that then frees up substantial numbers of Democratic voters for other districts (this was, after all, a Democratic map), the Supreme Court basically goes on to dismiss these findings of fact - not to mention the common sense conclusion that such a district can only be explained by race-based line-drawing -  primarily on the basis of: Because they said they didn't do it.

Or, to quote the decision:

We can put the matter more generally as follows: In a case such as this one where majority-minority districts (or the approximate equivalent) are at issue and where racial identification correlates highly with political affiliation, the party attacking the legislatively drawn boundaries must show at the least that the legislature could have achieved its legitimate political objectives in alternative ways that are comparably consistent with traditional districting principles. That party must also show that those districting alternatives would have brought about significantly greater racial balance. Appellees failed to make any such showing here. We conclude that the District Court's contrary findings are clearly erroneous.

The NC-12 district is not consistent with any "traditional districting principles" whatsoever - except contiguity. Moreover, the Supreme Court, in 2001, was essentially ruling on a district that would soon no longer exist (the 1997 version of NC-12) and basing said ruling on the absence of evidence that the challengers had not previously been asked to provide - because they had prevailed on other grounds - said evidence being rather easy to provide had it been required (as any NC mapper using Dave's app could easily demonstrate), and rejecting a lower court's findings of fact largely on grounds entirely inconsistent with the previous series of rulings on this case.

---

by: roguemapper @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 00:43:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I am

shocked that Justice O'Connor would craft an ad hoc balancing test using factors no one had ever really though of before that were sometimes inconsistent with previous caselaw.  Shocked, I say . . .  

---

by: curiousgeorge @ Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 01:51:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nope

Shaw v. Reno was a map drawn by a legislature, over the objections of the Bush DOJ (which wanted NC12 to be drawn East-West, rather than North-South.  This map in question clearly goes beyond what is allowed; these are the ugliest districts I've seen since the 1992 Texas districts (also struck down as unconstitutional racial gerrymanders).

It is a fun thought experiment, though...

---

by: curiousgeorge @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 20:12:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Jeez! What an ugly map.

You might want to cross-post it to RRH. They'd appreciate it.

---

by: emilysdad @ Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 17:49:47 PM UTC

NC

You did a wonderful job with this map. Personally, I don't like it because many Dems are on their way out which means the GOP will likely go for it. The actual NC map will be a total mess in the end. I recall the 1990 map when Rep. Watt's new district followed I-85 (I believe) with the possibility of a car door being opened placing part of the vehicle in one district and the other part of the vehicle in another district. This eventually led to lawsuits and a redrawn district. Look for the same very things to happen again.

---

by: 06STS @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 23:27:33 PM UTC