If the two seats can be kept

minority-majority (i.e., black + hispanic) they are probably OK under the VRA. I don't think this exact situation has yet arisen, though.  

---

by: andgarden @ Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 03:18:55 AM UTC

The full racial stats are for the first map are

MI-13 (Clarke, salmon)

Total: W 42.5, B 50.3, H 2.5, A 2.0, N 0.3, O 2.4
VAP: W 44.3, W 49.5, H 2.2, A 1.9, N 0.3, O 1.9

MI-14 (Conyers, brown)

Total: W 36.5, B 50.6, H 9.1, A 1.3, N 0.3, O 2.1
VAP: W 39.6, B 49.6, H 7.6, A 1.4, N 0.4, O 1.5

So you think they'd hold up under the coalition theory?

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

---

by: borodino21 @ Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 04:00:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, probably

As a general principle, demographic reality is not retrogression. There might be a case for creating just one black majority district and one coalition district, but I think that would likely be worse. I am almost sure that you couldn't use the new census numbers to simply eliminate one of the VRA districts.  

---

by: andgarden @ Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 04:05:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

However, what I can't tell from your description

is whether you attempting to keep both above 50% black VAP by crossing county lines as needed. The VRA will supersede the state requirements to require this if the districts are otherwise reasonably compact.  

---

by: andgarden @ Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 04:06:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm sorry you found my description ambigious

This one really just focuses on the two Detroit districts. In contrast to the first map, you're looking at two true majority African-American districts. MI-13 (salmon) is 53.0% African American on both measures. MI-14 (brown) is 56.5% African American by total population, 54.6% African American by VAP.

So, to reiterate, Map 2 crosses the county lines to make both Detroit-based districts 53%/54% African American by VAP. They look reasonably compact to me.

Map 1 doesn't cross county lines with the Detroit districts, and ends up with the racial breakdowns list in the comment a few up from here.

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

---

by: borodino21 @ Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 04:11:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's just a reading fail on my part

Hmm, this is kind of a hard one. I don't think that the VRA requires you to choose option #2 over option #1, but there is an argument to be made that it does.

It's all very context specific, so Dems and Reps will have to pick their poison.  

---

by: andgarden @ Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 05:14:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Context specific is right

"Totality of the circumstances" is the proper jargon, I believe.

If you're right, and the VRA allows #1, I think it's a reasonably good map for the Republicans.

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

---

by: borodino21 @ Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 05:50:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think the most relevant context

is the degree of racial polarization in voting. And that would likely have to be adduced at trial.

I think in 2011 there are only a handful of places in the deep south where a 49% black VAP isn't high enough to guarantee black voters a (better than) even chance of electing the representative of their choice.

Here's the caution: that view, which was very much mainstream, might be weakened by Bartlett v. Strickland. The dissenting opinions argue for context. The majority adopts a bright line. The caveat to that caveat is that the opinion does not purport to touch coalition districts. . .

---

by: andgarden @ Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 06:20:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Durnit!

I just saw that I accidentally swapped the districts in the first map. Clarke's 13th is colored brown and Conyer's 14th is colored salmon.

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

---

by: borodino21 @ Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 04:06:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

interesting

I drew both Detroit districts crossing 8 Mile, with Conyers' district looking much like your second map (but with Inkster) and Clarke's picking up Warren. On the state map, Benzie, Leelanau, and Grand Traverse are in MI4 and everything else off the map is in MI1.

I let Camp keep his current district basically intact. I don't think they would strengthen Benishek at his expense. I gave Dingell basically his old downriver district which I renumbered 12. Like you, I drew a "Joe College" blue sink from Washtenaw to Ingham. McCotter's district ends up about the same. My MI9 (where Levin lives, but Peters doesn't) is likely more red now with Lapeer, Port Huron, and some of northern Oakland. MI6 is strange, going almost to Lake Erie, but I think Upton could still win it.

41, Ind, CA-05

---

by: sacman701 @ Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 06:16:07 AM UTC

Super creative!

What are the VRA stats by VAP for your two Detroit districts?

I won't have time until Monday to do this, but your MI-09 is such an interesting idea that I think I'm going to manually calculate its PVI. If that's a Republican district, that would greatly enhance this map's viability as a serious GOP proposal. (Although it's got the double-crossing issue in spades: 4 & 5 share Bay and Gennesse; 7 & 8 share Ingham and Jackson.)

I'd be worried about Miller. I'm pretty sure that's a significantly less Republican district.

Any commentary on your decision to cut out Walberg?

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

---

by: borodino21 @ Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 06:30:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'd have to think Miller would be a goner with Flint

---

by: Andrew @ Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 12:34:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

wait, Miller is the cyan one and Peters still did get eliminated

Is that correct?  (This is why I hesitated to say anything because I don't know MI that well.)  And then you are even weakening Kildee, damn.

---

by: Andrew @ Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 12:36:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, Miller's pink

She lives in Harrison Township, which is that bump into Lake St. Clair. She's been weakened, having lost the very Republican exurb/rural counties of Lapeer and Sanilac, while gaining swingy-to-Democratic southern tier cities in Macomb County.

Peters is eliminated, at least by residency. He lives in Bloomfield Hills, which is towards the northern end of olive brown District 14.

The cyan district would be Levin by residency, but he's hardly represented any of it under the current map. (I think he might have represented some of it in the past.) The only sources of Democratic strength in this district are his home city of Royal Oak and some of its immediate neighbors, the city of Auburn Hills immediately north of the tip of this map's MI-14, and the city of Port Huron on the far northeastern of this district. It might not be winnable for him -- that why I want to calculate the PVI for it eventually.

And yes, Kildee is weakened, but I don't think it's fatal. He still has Flint, Saginaw, and Bay City.

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

---

by: borodino21 @ Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 13:42:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

thanks

MI13: 35.5 white, 54.1 black, 5.9 Hispanic, 2.6 Asian
MI14: 38.2 white, 55.7 black, 2.6 Hispanic, 1.5 Asian

My MI4 and MI5 share Bay and Saginaw, but that's true under the current map also.

There wasn't really any way to make a district for Walberg with both Detroit districts moving north.  I couldn't make MI8 fill all the empty space in Oakland, Lapeer, and St Claireven if I started it in Livingston and moved east, and I couldn't move MI5 east without screwing the chair of the Ways and Means committee. So I had to do a reconstituted MI9 which pushed MI8 west. With Dingell picking up all that vacated southside space, either Rogers or Walberg would have to eat Ann Arbor, which would be instant doom for either of them. If Rogers gets it, Walberg still has a dicey district. If the new Joe College blue sink takes it, Rogers gets a safe seat.

41, Ind, CA-05

---

by: sacman701 @ Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 15:12:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Miller

Macomb on the whole is close to dead even, maybe tilt D at most. But without Warren and the other areas I threw into MI13, I think the remainder is tilt R or even lean R and I think it would take a very strong Dem candidate in a good year to beat Miller.

41, Ind, CA-05

---

by: sacman701 @ Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 15:26:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the info

I appreciate you reasoning re: Walberg.

My MI4 and MI5 share Bay and Saginaw, but that's true under the current map also.

Saginaw is split between MI-04 and MI-05, but Bay is split between MI-01 and MI-05.

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

---

by: borodino21 @ Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 23:11:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There is some question that the double move into oakland county

from Wayne county would fly under Michigan rules.

That being said I can be talked into the Wayne County move or a move into Oakland county depending on which would be best for the GOP.

CD10 would be just the bottom third of St Claire (66K) plus 640K from MacComb.  The most democratic 200K of South MacComb could be attached to Wayne county's CD1. There are some AA's in south MacComb-either way CD1 has wayne areas in the south anyway.

CD12 would be 706K in Oakland county (including Pontiac).  This solves the Pontiac problem by putting Levin & Peters in the same district.

Wayne county now has 1.82 million plus 200K (from MacComb) to play around with.  Attach 300K(in northern part) to Oakland county for McCotter.  Then attach 300K in SW & middle to Washtenaw for Dingell.  

These are rounded.  McCotter would get 406K from Oakland. While Rogers would get 100K Oakland, Livingston, Ingham, Shiasasee and whatnot.  

The rest of the map would just fall into place.

---

by: rdelbov @ Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 00:33:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Great Map work

I like your original map the best.  Walberg might struggle a bit but I like it from a GOP standpoint.  

I have also seen the  over Sagninaw and East to the Thumb for Camp here in earlier maps.  I like that variation as well.  8 mile road  is such a barrier, for the races, there are not a lot of AA's in MacComb county so the move of CD1 or CD13 in there does not seem to work.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 17:29:53 PM UTC

I am responding to my own post but

after thinking about it for several hours.  I think the Washtenaw and Ingham seat is a great idea for the GOP.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 22:33:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

One point is certain

The VRA always overrides state law (and even more so state 'tradition') whenever necessary in order to meet the requirements of the federal law. Were that not the case then the VRA would be meaningless, because states that did not want to comply would always be able to draft state provisions to contravene the VRA provisions.

---

by: roguemapper @ Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 23:46:46 PM UTC

Not at all implying otherwise

But the exact limits of the VRA - and VRA jurisprudence - are unclear. Especially on a point that's going to be pretty common throughout the Rust Belt this cycle -- to what lengths must a state go to maintain a majority-specific-minority district as demographics change? Andgarden seems to think that coalition districts should fly. What do you think, in this context?

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

---

by: borodino21 @ Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 00:51:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

My view

Is that coalition districts will not fly. Legal precedent clearly favors districts where a single minority group makes up the majority, and coalition districts are a poor substitute at best. Where a minority group is compact enough that a district can be drawn wherein that minority group constitutes a majority, then said district must be drawn. I don't think it's even a close call in this case. Michigan will be required to disregard the arbitrary placement of county lines.

---

by: roguemapper @ Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 02:14:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm . . . unconvinced

but I would like to see the cite you have in mind for the hierarchy of VRA districts.  

---

by: andgarden @ Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 02:29:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

OK then

Justice Kennedy appears to recognize the hierarchy of VRA districts in Bartlett v Strickland as follows (emphasis added):

The present case involves an intermediate type of district-a so-called crossover district. Like an influence district, a crossover district is one in which minority voters make up less than a majority of the voting-age population. But in a crossover district, the minority population, at least potentially, is large enough to elect the candidate of its choice with help from voters who are members of the majority and who cross over to support the minority's preferred candidate. 361 N. C., at 501-502, 649 S. E. 2d, at 371 (case below). This Court has referred sometimes to crossover districts as "coalitional" districts, in recognition of the necessary coalition between minority and crossover majority voters. See Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U. S. 461, 483 (2003) ; see also Pildes, Is Voting Rights Law Now at War with Itself? Social Science and Voting Rights in the 2000s, 80 N. C. L. Rev. 1517, 1539 (2002) (hereinafter Pildes). But that term risks confusion with coalition-district claims in which two minority groups form a coalition to elect the candidate of the coalition's choice. See, e.g., Nixon v. Kent County, 76 F. 3d 1381, 1393 (CA6 1996) (en banc). We do not address that type of coalition district here. The petitioners in the present case (the state officials who were the defendants in the trial court) argue that §2 requires a crossover district, in which minority voters might be able to persuade some members of the majority to cross over and join with them.

The 6th Circuit en banc ruling that Justice Kennedy references, Nixon v Kent County, reached this conclusion (emphasis added):

Passage of the Voting Rights Act heightened federal judicial involvement in apportionment. Miller v. Johnson , 115 S. Ct. 2475, 2501 (1995)(Ginsburg, J., dissenting). The fact remains, however, that "reapportionment is primarily the duty and responsibility of the State through its legislature or other body," Chapman v. Meier , 420 U.S. 1, 27 (1975), as allocated by the Constitution, Miller , 115 S. Ct. at 2500 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting)(citing U.S. Const., art. I, § 2); Growe , 113 S. Ct. at 1081), and federal judicial review represents a "serious intrusion" on that function. Id. at 2487. Plaintiffs' and the NAACP's "broad" construction rationale masks their addition to the statute of a fundamentally different kind of protection never contemplated by Congress, and one which risks running afoul of the express prohibition against proportional representation in § 2. A "broad" construction, the Supreme Court's language makes clear, should only be employed to give effect to Congress' remedial purpose, not our own. The language of the Voting Rights Act does not support a conclusion that coalition suits are part of Congress' remedial purpose and, as previously discussed, there are compelling reasons to believe that they are not.

For these reasons, we REVERSE the district court's decision and REMAND for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

This case, which coincidentally originated in Michigan, was not then appealed to the Supreme Court. In short, it held that multiple minority groups could not be combined into a single class, at least not by mere fact of their common non-majority status alone and Justice Kennedy clearly indicates that the Supreme Court still reserves judgment on that question.

Meanwhile, this is what the NAACP Legal Defense Fund says on the matter:

What types of electoral districts impact minority opportunities to elect a candidate of choice?

Majority-Minority Districts: A majority-minority district is one in which racial or language minorities form a majority (at least 50% or more) of the voter eligible population. The definition of eligible voter population varies by state and can include factors such as age (over 18) and U.S. citizenship.

Minority-Coalition Districts: A minority-coalition district is a type of majority-minority district in which two or more minority groups combine to form a majority in a district. Thus, a district that is 25% African-American, 20% Latino and 6% Asian American is a majority-minority district, but it is not a majority African-American, majority- Latino, or majority-Asian American district. In most jurisdictions, when two or more minority groups form a coalition that collectively meets the Thornburg v. Gingles requirements, the coalition may be able to seek relief under Section 2 if officials fail to create a minority-coalition district. The Supreme Court has not addressed this issue.

Crossover Districts: A crossover district is one in which minorities do not form a numerical majority but still reliably control the outcome of the election with some non-minority voters "crossing over" to vote with the minority group. While states can and should consider creating crossover districts, the Supreme Court in 2009 held that the Voting Rights Act does not require their creation.

Influence Districts: An influence district is one that includes a large number of minority voters but fewer than would allow voters from the minority group to control the result of the election when voting as a bloc. The number or proportion necessary to allow a minority group to influence or shape an election outcome is determined by a review of past elections in your particular area - there is no "magic number." In the case of influence districts, a sizable minority group can be said to be able to "influence" the outcomes of elections, but not control them.

Officials should proceed carefully to ensure that they are not altering a district that provides minority voters with a real opportunity to elect candidates of their choice in a way that would render it a mere influence district. Influence districts can be found to dilute minority voting strength if they are put in place to replace effective majority-minority districts.

The key, of course, is in the 2nd Gingles requirement that the minority group have a history of political cohesiveness or voting as a group. Until very recent times, this was rarely the case between different minority groups, and it is still not the case in a significant number of areas. Whether it's the case in Detroit is not something I can answer.

---

by: roguemapper @ Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 03:27:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think the 6th Circuit is on crack

for the very reasons the dissenters in Bartlett v Strickland identified. That view of the VRA could strip several districts in Texas, New York, California, and elsewhere from protection merely because, e.g., blacks and hispanics are not segregated from one-another.  

---

by: andgarden @ Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 03:35:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well

To be sure, I did not say that I agree with the 6th Circuit nor, more importantly, that I think the Supreme Court would agree with the 6th Circuit. What I'm saying is that districts in which a single minority group can form a majority are clearly preferred. The districts that have been mentioned in Texas, New York, and California are not in areas where a single minority group can form a compact majority district on its own. These Detroit districts are.

---

by: roguemapper @ Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 03:42:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

BTW

Let me give you a hypothetical example that might illustrate the point. Until the past decade or so, Asians in California tended to vote even more Republican than whites did. So, in 1992, by example, only 39% of Asians voted for Clinton whereas 42% of whites, 65% of Latinos, and 83% of blacks voted for Clinton.

Do you think that a 25% AA; 20% Asian; 10% Latino; 45% White district in 1992 California featuring these voting stats would've qualified as a protected majority-minority seat? If so, then by what rationale?

---

by: roguemapper @ Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 03:59:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

As you said, only if you could demonstrate

that the voters of one minority would routinely vote for the other minority's candidate of choice. It's the argument that lost the day in Bartlett, but it's surely right. Section II of Souter's dissent captures my point of view.  Just replace every instance of "crossover" with "coalition."  

---

by: andgarden @ Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 04:09:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And one more thing

Which is a legal point worth considering, since the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals covers Michigan, the Nixon v Kent County decision is controlling precedent for Michigan until such time as the Supreme Court states otherwise, notwithstanding the amount of crack involved.

---

by: roguemapper @ Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 04:10:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Punctuation serves a purpose....

To be clear, this should be its own sentence:

Since the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals covers Michigan, the Nixon v Kent County decision is controlling precedent for Michigan until such time as the Supreme Court states otherwise, notwithstanding the amount of crack involved.

The Republicans could of course choose to disregard that and take their chances on the Supreme Court. I guess we'll see. If they did, then it'd be somewhat short-sighted since a ruling in support of minority-coalition districts would function to the detriment of Republicans in most areas.

---

by: roguemapper @ Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 04:16:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have a feeling that the VRA

is going to get a whole new evaluation this cycle.

---

by: andgarden @ Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 04:23:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have enjoyed reading this discussion of VRA

and appreciate the tone of it.  I for one think the key decision is this whole matter will be what the republicans do in MI.  

I personally think the GOP will perserve the two seats with over 50% AA. I believe they will gather up every available AA voter and if the decline in AA% is modest no lawsuit would stand to force the GOP to draw a finger from Detroit to say Pontiac. That would conflict not only with state law but more importantly conflict Shaw & similar rulings.  

I also personally think that they will see a good bit of leeway giving to legislators this year because of the precedences set in 2001-2002.  The courts were unwilling in that cycle to examine very many maps on a case by case basis.  I might add the issues raised in Michigan are not unique to this state.  I can see the same issues being raised in maps that are being prepared right now in VA, MS and LA.  One reason the courts have deferred on these issues is that you need to have one consistent standard if you are going to start to decide issues like this. I might add in MS you have see AA legislators vote for a map that does not maximize the number of AA legislators, rather creates more coalition seats, because it helps the Democratic party.  I don't see the DOJ suing to block that type of map and then saying a map in Michigan with 47%AA was unconstitutional.  

That's why I see legislative disgression at play in 2011-2012 but generally speaking I believe the GOP & democrats will attempt to draw the maximize number of majority minority seats.  I don't see that trend slowing.  I see new seats in numerous this state.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 12:29:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Switching states

I'm then wondering about the Houston area seats. TX-09 and TX-18 are currently both plurality African American. So far as I can tell, it's pretty easy to refashion TX-18 into a majority-African-American district, although that would obviously drop the African American percentage in TX-09. Should the VRA (and VRA jurisprudence) be understood to require that TX-18 be made majority African American at TX-09's expense?

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

---

by: borodino21 @ Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 20:05:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Probably not

So far as I can tell, you cannot make a majority-AA district in the Houston metro area without something very much akin to the TX-18 seat of the 90s that was struck down in Bush v Vera. In other words, it would not be a compact district; it would be a clear racial gerrymander prohibited by Shaw v Reno.

In the above Detroit maps we're talking about nice, neat, blocky, compact districts. The only issue is that they happen to cross county lines, and that is well-established to be a virtually irrelevant factor when it comes to meeting the requirements of the VRA.

---

by: roguemapper @ Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 20:39:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

PS

But, I should add, if you could make a compact majority-minority African-American district in the Houston metro area then I would certainly think that would be preferred, if not outright required. One majority-AA TX-18 and one minority-coalition TX-09 district would surely be preferable from a VRA standpoint than would be two minority-coalition districts. Now, if you actually had to give up the minority-coalition TX-09 district (as opposed to just dropping the AA percentage) in order to make TX-18 majority-AA, then that might be a dicier proposition.

---

by: roguemapper @ Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 20:48:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

From my still unpublished Texas map

That looks cleaner than the Bush v Vera-era district to me, although not as clean as square Midwestern geography, of course. Racial numbers are VAP.

Thoughts?

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

---

by: borodino21 @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 02:24:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I stand corrected

If that's all it takes, then yes, I can think of no reason why this wouldn't be preferred over maintaining two coalition districts. In fact, I think there would surely be a lawsuit if the Texas legislature fails to create a majority-AA district when it's this easy to do so.

And, I see no Shaw problems with this mapping scheme.

---

by: roguemapper @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 03:14:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ok, then how about this one?

Here's a map with a similar scheme, but drawn with the 2000 block group data on Dave's App -- that is, this could be the map now. (VAP numbers aren't available in the App for the last Census, so it's not directly comparable.)

Teal is 52.4% Hispanic, Cyan is 50.6% Hispanic, Pink is 56.4% black, and Cornflower has 34.4% white as its plurality (2 pts more than its Hispanic percentage.)

A truly majority black district appears to have been possible in 2000. Why isn't it in place?

If the answer is that the two majority-Hispanic districts aren't Hispanic enough, then there's this:

Which combines the most Hispanic parts of each to make a Gray district that's 63.3% Hispanic (total pop).

(To reiterate something I've said elsewhere, I respect your opinions when it comes to VRA jurisprudence. I'm not trying to challenge you, I'm trying to understand it's application better.)

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

---

by: borodino21 @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 04:55:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just looked at the current map again

And discovered that my Gray district is essentially the existing TX-29.  

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

---

by: borodino21 @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 04:58:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I should also add

that the lawsuits in the wake of the 2003 redistricting revolved primarily around the question of purpose rather than impact, following the legal precedents at the time, which the 2006 revision of the VRA has supposedly preempted. Moreover, the supposed 'bright line' of 50% that was supposedly established by Bartlett was not yet part of the jurisprudence.

And I say "supposedly" because who really knows (this side of Anthony Kennedy) how all that will play out before this current redistricting cycle settles down over the next couple years.

---

by: roguemapper @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 06:07:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The very short answer

is that the citizen voting age population of TX-18 was 49.8% African-American, and the district court that heard the challenge ruled that this was close enough.

The challengers also failed to provide a Gingles analysis to support the contention that TX-18 should have an outright African American majority, with a separate majority-Latino district, and so that was a crucial weakness in the vote dilution lawsuit.

As I've said before, the courts will not take action of their own accord. A suit must be filed, and the filing must include the required elements, and if there's an adverse ruling then an appeal must be filed, also with the required elements.

I should also note that the question of citizenship has not been fully litigated either. The Supreme Court has not directly addressed the issue.

---

by: roguemapper @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 05:58:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks!

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

---

by: borodino21 @ Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 07:00:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The congressional lines for TX9 & TX18

are horrible but one reason they are so bad is TX29. The lines for TX29 were drawn to make it a minority majority seat for hispanics.  I might add that TX9 & TX18 each have 35% hispanic populations so should be accomdated the AA community or hispanic community?

---

by: rdelbov @ Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 23:53:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure

It seems obvious that Charlie Rangel's, Maxine Waters's, or Sheila Jackson Lee's districts are VRA-protected, yet all of those cases are cases where no racial group makes up a majority. I believe there is little to no legal precedent on this circumstance. The court has ruled that districts where minorities form a coalition with liberal whites are not VRA-protected, but that is a different question from cases where two minority groups make up a majority.  

Male, VA-08

---

by: drobertson @ Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 02:29:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

FWIW, you could theoretically draw 3 majority-minority districts

14th (olive): 49.8% white, 42.8% black
13th (salmon): 49.6% white, 41.3% black
12th (cornflower blue): 35.1% white, 53.7% black, 6.6% hispanic

Almost certainly illegal, but possible.

Male, VA-08

---

by: drobertson @ Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 02:23:56 AM UTC