Official 2021 Redistricting Thread

[Thread]

What Republicans refuse to acknowledge is that prior to 2010, gerrymandering was very disorganized and localized, it was largely done to protect in bents more than to tilt the balance of power towards one party, and there wasn’t technology that made it so you could gerrymander with complete precision.

Project REDMAP in 2010 and 2011 was a national, coordinated effort by the GOP to gerrymander liberals into as few districts as possible and make it so the congressional map was insanely tilted to the right. It was also done using technology that wasn’t available in any prior cycle that made gerrymandering more effective. In essence, it raised the stakes on gerrymandering in ways Democrats never did in years when they controlled most of the state legislatures.

The Republicans pretending it was Democrats who created a gerrymandering arms race are, as usual, not acting in good faith.

Nonsense. When your side ran it/gerrymandering it was a respected ins ution, a higher calling,,,as you had the whole GD thing to yourselves...you side was there for your side and our side/RINO's were there for your side. Then Trump busted Clinton and we got wise,,,Trump made the RINO's either cut and run, OR, carve up the maps to aid and abet our side. That was it...CNN/MSM now took the new tact of casting gerrymandering down with the sodomites, it's now akin to sex trafficking.

Just wait though, once President Trump is disposed of (once and for all) that exact same CNN/MSM will once and again prop gerrymandering up as the aforementioned respected ins ution, a higher calling as you kick our brains in again with it.

"...and now you know...the rest of the story."

[Will Hunting]

Nonsense. When your side ran it/gerrymandering it was a respected ins ution, a higher calling,,,as you had the whole GD thing to yourselves...you side was there for your side and our side/RINO's were there for your side. Then Trump busted Clinton and we got wise,,,Trump made the RINO's either cut and run, OR, carve up the maps to aid and abet our side. That was it...CNN/MSM now took the new tact of casting gerrymandering down with the sodomites, it's now akin to sex trafficking.

Just wait though, once President Trump is disposed of (once and for all) that exact same CNN/MSM will once and again prop gerrymandering up as the aforementioned respected ins ution, a higher calling as you kick our brains in again with it.

"...and now you know...the rest of the story."

You're just making stuff up. Trump beat Clinton in 2016; project REDMAP occurred in 2010-2011 and it was a GOP operation to gerrymander in ways Democrats never had before. The GOP didn't start gerrymandering with Trump; that's incoherent non-sense.

No one ever said gerrymandering was a "respected ins ution", it just didn't get news coverage prior to 2010 because 1) it was never done at the coordinated, precise levels the GOP did it in 2010, and 2) prior to the Roberts Court, SCOTUS had acted as a check against gerrymandering and found that it violated the equal protection clause.

If you're going to reply to this, please do so with facts, not incoherent MAGAboomer mumbo jumbo.

[Will Hunting]

In case there's any doubt.

The GOP taking gerrymandering to a level Democrats never had before started 5+ years before the emergence of Trump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP

[Thread]

You're just making stuff up. Trump beat Clinton in 2016; project REDMAP occurred in 2010-2011 and it was a GOP operation to gerrymander in ways Democrats never had before. The GOP didn't start gerrymandering with Trump; that's incoherent non-sense.

No one ever said gerrymandering was a "respected ins ution", it just didn't get news coverage prior to 2010 because 1) it was never done at the coordinated, precise levels the GOP did it in 2010, and 2) prior to the Roberts Court, SCOTUS had acted as a check against gerrymandering and found that it violated the equal protection clause.

If you're going to reply to this, please do so with facts, not incoherent MAGAboomer mumbo jumbo.

I'll agree to disagree. I stated my case and I stand by it.

[Millennial_Messiah]

Every state should get a Michigan or Colorado esque map. Ditching the stupid VRA completely and creating indepedent commisions using the Michigan map and its principles as staré decisis would go a long way.

And no, ditching the VRA in such a case wouldn't necessarily just hurt the Democrats. It would still create a safe blue seat in safe red states in say, the Mississippi Delta. The point is to keep like communities together, not so much by race but by location etc.

[Will Hunting]

Every state should get a Michigan or Colorado esque map. Ditching the stupid VRA completely and creating indepedent commisions using the Michigan map and its principles as staré decisis would go a long way.

And no, ditching the VRA in such a case wouldn't necessarily just hurt the Democrats. It would still create a safe blue seat in safe red states in say, the Mississippi Delta. The point is to keep like communities together, not so much by race but by location etc.

This would be far and away the best solution and I agree about the VRA. It shouldn't just be race based, redistricting should primarily be communities-of-interest based. That would inherently factor in race, but it would also factor in stuff like making sure the Russian immigrant/Orthodox Jewish communities in South Brooklyn get fair representation.

The Michigan commission did the best job of giving the most weight to communities of interest while also weighing partisan fairness but not to the point of ridiculousness where it created monstrosity districts.

Unfortunately a federal commission mandate would be uncons utional; congress would need to be more creative. What I would do is mandate the creation of a Michigan-like commission in each state to create maps WITHOUT seizing power from the state legislatures but also giving private citizens a right to sue to the extent that the state legislatures adopt maps that are different from the commission maps. That way you're not technically violating the cons utional rule that state legislatures are the bodies that draw and pass the maps; you're just hamstringing their ability to run wild.

[Will Hunting]

I'll agree to disagree. I stated my case and I stand by it.

If anything, the GOP has gotten worse at gerrymandering since Trump. They've lost control of the state supreme court in MI, PA, NC and OH, the WI supreme court is also less partisan, and the judges he appointed in Alabama ruled in favor of giving the Dems another seat.

The pre-Trump 2010 GOP is exponentially better at gerrymandering than the post-Trump 2020 GOP is.

[Will Hunting]

So Alabama starts drawing its new map today, and SCOTUS still hasn't issued an order on its stay request.

We should be expect a hostile 5-4 decision if it's taking this long. IMO Clarence Thomas sides with the libs (he's been friendly on VRA redistricting cases before), with Gorsuch or Kavanaugh as the deciding vote.

[Winehole23]

If anything, the GOP has gotten worse at gerrymandering since Trump. They've lost control of the state supreme court in MI, PA, NC and OH, the WI supreme court is also less partisan, and the judges he appointed in Alabama ruled in favor of giving the Dems another seat.

The pre-Trump 2010 GOP is exponentially better at gerrymandering than the post-Trump 2020 GOP is.

Texas's 2003 midstream redistricting says hi.

[Will Hunting]

Texas's 2003 midstream redistricting says hi.

Ah yeah forgot about that. If I recall, they somehow got SCOTEX to rule that since the 2000 map was drawn via Federal Court order, the 2003 redistricting didn't count as a mid-decade redraw since the state leg never drew it in the first place.

Total bull

[Millennial_Messiah]

Texas's 2003 midstream redistricting says hi.

isn't that what caused the Texas Dems to all protest by going to Ardmore Oklahoma and having a party there thus shutting down the texas legislature?

This would be far and away the best solution and I agree about the VRA. It shouldn't just be race based, redistricting should primarily be communities-of-interest based. That would inherently factor in race, but it would also factor in stuff like making sure the Russian immigrant/Orthodox Jewish communities in South Brooklyn get fair representation.

The Michigan commission did the best job of giving the most weight to communities of interest while also weighing partisan fairness but not to the point of ridiculousness where it created monstrosity districts.

Unfortunately a federal commission mandate would be uncons utional; congress would need to be more creative. What I would do is mandate the creation of a Michigan-like commission in each state to create maps WITHOUT seizing power from the state legislatures but also giving private citizens a right to sue to the extent that the state legislatures adopt maps that are different from the commission maps. That way you're not technically violating the cons utional rule that state legislatures are the bodies that draw and pass the maps; you're just hamstringing their ability to run wild.

I just like the Michigan map because nowhere important is cracked at all and every reasonably large/important city or suburban area gets to be the centerpiece of a district. Obviously the UP isn't populous enough for a whole district so it gets lumped in with rural north MI all the way down to the Traverse City area.

The nature of these compe ive seats means the in bents, outside of the inner Detroit districts and a couple ruby red ones up north, actually have to try hard to win re-election and bust their ass instead of sitting on their ass and getting it handed to them like Pelosi or pick any member of the Squad or pick any member of any R + 30 type district.

I live part time in the new MI-03 district and Meijer is a popular name there. I think the fact that he's a centrist will go a long way there. There's a decent amount of Trumpers that might try, and fail, to primary him out, and it will be Meijer against a Dem and both the vast majority of the Trumpers and a decent amount of Dems will remember where they get their groceries and drugs and vote and re-elect Meijer. The Meijer name is extremely popular in Grand Rapids/Muskegon. D+3 or D+9 be damned, Meijer wins re-election. Frederik Meijer is a god there (it's a fairly atheistic, stoner, Dutch-heavy population compared to the rest of the USA) and Peter Meijer is his grandson.

[Will Hunting]

I just like the Michigan map because nowhere important is cracked at all and every reasonably large/important city or suburban area gets to be the centerpiece of a district. Obviously the UP isn't populous enough for a whole district so it gets lumped in with rural north MI all the way down to the Traverse City area.

The nature of these compe ive seats means the in bents, outside of the inner Detroit districts and a couple ruby red ones up north, actually have to try hard to win re-election and bust their ass instead of sitting on their ass and getting it handed to them like Pelosi or pick any member of the Squad or pick any member of any R + 30 type district.

I live part time in the new MI-03 district and Meijer is a popular name there. I think the fact that he's a centrist will go a long way there. There's a decent amount of Trumpers that might try, and fail, to primary him out, and it will be Meijer against a Dem and both the vast majority of the Trumpers and a decent amount of Dems will remember where they get their groceries and drugs and vote and re-elect Meijer. The Meijer name is extremely popular in Grand Rapids/Muskegon. D+3 or D+9 be damned, Meijer wins re-election. Frederik Meijer is a god there (it's a fairly atheistic, stoner, Dutch-heavy population compared to the rest of the USA) and Peter Meijer is his grandson.

It's not just you, all the experts are also saying that Michigan drew the best and most fair map this cycle. The worst districts in terms of fair representation are the +-10 to 15% districts because they're not compe ive but 40+% of their voters are still from the minority party, and Michigan didn't draw any of those. It drew 4 safe districts for each side and 5 districts that either side can win depending on the environment.

I think Meijer wins in '22 unless some MAGA idiot primaries him, beyond that it's a question of how the district trends. It trended hard left from '16 to '20, if that continues then the Meijer name is only worth so much in a year that's favorable to Dems.

Long term I think...
- the Flint/Bay City district trends right and the Dems lose it when Kildee retires
- the Lansing district trends left. If Slotkin holds that seat in '22 despite it being an R year, then she's got it for the rest of the decade
- the Macomb County district is a wildcard. Obama won Macomb, the Trump walloped Hillary there, then it trended left in '20. Idk how it trends long term, it seems different from the other Detroit suburbs that have consistently trended left
- the Kalamazoo district could be compe ive with someone other than Upton, but he's entrenched enough such that he's not losing

[Millennial_Messiah]

It's not just you, all the experts are also saying that Michigan drew the best and most fair map this cycle. The worst districts in terms of fair representation are the +-10 to 15% districts because they're not compe ive but 40+% of their voters are still from the minority party, and Michigan didn't draw any of those. It drew 4 safe districts for each side and 5 districts that either side can win depending on the environment.

I think Meijer wins in '22 unless some MAGA idiot primaries him, beyond that it's a question of how the district trends. It trended hard left from '16 to '20, if that continues then the Meijer name is only worth so much in a year that's favorable to Dems.

Long term I think...
- the Flint/Bay City district trends right and the Dems lose it when Kildee retires
- the Lansing district trends left. If Slotkin holds that seat in '22 despite it being an R year, then she's got it for the rest of the decade
- the Macomb County district is a wildcard. Obama won Macomb, the Trump walloped Hillary there, then it trended left in '20. Idk how it trends long term, it seems different from the other Detroit suburbs that have consistently trended left
- the Kalamazoo district could be compe ive with someone other than Upton, but he's entrenched enough such that he's not losing

Huizenga is winning that primary in the district south of MI-03, over Upton. Macomb is going to be a lean to likely R seat. I see the Flint/Bay City district going red in 2022 and beyond regardless of who's in bent. You may be right about the Lansing district. As for MI-03. I agree primarying Meijer would be stupid. People aren't really for the most part hard right or hard left in Grand Rapids and Muskegon. They like to enjoy the outdoors, smoke pot, and shoot guns. Amsterdam esque culture. Not particularly religious people although there are a few churches they are I would say significantly lower religious than the rest of the USA. They are quite family oriented there and it's not a particularly woke culture there. It's got a WOW-Wisconsin vibe and they turned away from Trump in 2020 because it's Trump but they might flip back hard for a different candidate like Desantis. Don't forget. 70-80% of those that voted for Biden, or didn't vote for Trump in any case, in MI-03 got the majority of their groceries and drugs at Meijer and live by the name. We'll see.

[Will Hunting]

Huizenga is winning that primary in the district south of MI-03, over Upton. Macomb is going to be a lean to likely R seat. I see the Flint/Bay City district going red in 2022 and beyond regardless of who's in bent. You may be right about the Lansing district. As for MI-03. I agree primarying Meijer would be stupid. People aren't really for the most part hard right or hard left in Grand Rapids and Muskegon. They like to enjoy the outdoors, smoke pot, and shoot guns. Amsterdam esque culture. Not particularly religious people although there are a few churches they are I would say significantly lower religious than the rest of the USA. They are quite family oriented there and it's not a particularly woke culture there. It's got a WOW-Wisconsin vibe and they turned away from Trump in 2020 because it's Trump but they might flip back hard for a different candidate like Desantis. Don't forget. 70-80% of those that voted for Biden, or didn't vote for Trump in any case, in MI-03 got the majority of their groceries and drugs at Meijer and live by the name. We'll see.

Kildee ran 10 points ahead of Biden in 2020 and won it by 13%. It only got 2% redder in redistricting, so it's basically a Kildee +11% district. It would take a massive wave election to knock him out, the biggest issue being it'd require massive turnout from the WWC voters in his district that are very unlikely unless Trump is on the ballot.

[Millennial_Messiah]

Kildee ran 10 points ahead of Biden in 2020 and won it by 13%. It only got 2% redder in redistricting, so it's basically a Kildee +11% district. It would take a massive wave election to knock him out, the biggest issue being it'd require massive turnout from the WWC voters in his district that are very unlikely unless Trump is on the ballot.

polarization is going to knock out a bunch of people on both sides that are "popular in bents". contra example, Larry Hogan assuming he runs for Senate in MD, he will lose. The only exception is if they're a complete DINO/RINO like a Phil Scott in Vermont situation. The WWC voters across Michigan will absolutely turn out in 2022 because Whitmer is on the ballot and she is their bitter enemy. And she will lose, likely by a "lean" margin.

[Will Hunting]

polarization is going to knock out a bunch of people on both sides that are "popular in bents". contra example, Larry Hogan assuming he runs for Senate in MD, he will lose. The only exception is if they're a complete DINO/RINO like a Phil Scott in Vermont situation. The WWC voters across Michigan will absolutely turn out in 2022 because Whitmer is on the ballot and she is their bitter enemy. And she will lose, likely by a "lean" margin.

Yeah Larry Hogan is a stupid comparison. No he'd lose, he'd be running in a Biden +30 state, and governors never get the cross ballot support when they run for senate. Kildee is running for the same position he already won in, and midterm elections are almost always less polarized than presidential elections.

Kildee won the district by 35% the last time the Republicans had a wave election (2014); it hasn't shifted right THAT much since then.

[Thread]

If anything, the GOP has gotten worse at gerrymandering since Trump. They've lost control of the state supreme court in MI, PA, NC and OH, the WI supreme court is also less partisan, and the judges he appointed in Alabama ruled in favor of giving the Dems another seat.

The pre-Trump 2010 GOP is exponentially better at gerrymandering than the post-Trump 2020 GOP is.

...yes, plagued by RINO's. Sure, your side loves that arrangement, Will. That is played off well on MSM/CNN...to keep non RINO's sated while our house is burning. Before Trump nobody saw how the sausage, aka gerrymandering was made. MSM/CNN just published the results in a low tone to keep everybody in their respective lane. Trump gets in there, blows the whistle on the RINO's and now it's storm across the spectrum. Good. Excellent. It was either gonna be the storm it is now, or, the same old with our RINO's complicit to our ruination. One or the other, no other choice. So, we're better off this way. The curtain has been drawn aside and everybody is exposed, at least till our gov't, your side &&& our RINO's neutralize President Trump.

[Will Hunting]

...yes, plagued by RINO's. Sure, your side loves that arrangement, Will. That is played off well on MSM/CNN...to keep non RINO's sated while our house is burning. Before Trump nobody saw how the sausage, aka gerrymandering was made. MSM/CNN just published the results in a low tone to keep everybody in their respective lane. Trump gets in there, blows the whistle on the RINO's and now it's storm across the spectrum. Good. Excellent. It was either gonna be the storm it is now, or, the same old with our RINO's complicit to our ruination. One or the other, no other choice. So, we're better off this way. The curtain has been drawn aside and everybody is exposed, at least till our gov't, your side &&& our RINO's neutralize President Trump.

Again "Before Trump nobody saw how the sausage, aka gerrymandering was made" is just objectively untrue. Project REDMAP was literally the best and most well organized gerrymandering plan ever pulled off in American history, and it happened 5 years before Trump ever even ran for president.

Read this if you don't believe me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP

This redistricting cycle, notwithstanding involvement from Trump that didn't exist 10 years ago, the GOP has had much less of a stranglehold over the redistricting process than they had for the 2010 redistricting. It's just objective fact.

[Millennial_Messiah]

Yeah Larry Hogan is a stupid comparison. No he'd lose, he'd be running in a Biden +30 state, and governors never get the cross ballot support when they run for senate. Kildee is running for the same position he already won in, and midterm elections are almost always less polarized than presidential elections.

Kildee won the district by 35% the last time the Republicans had a wave election (2014); it hasn't shifted right THAT much since then.

Ted Cruz won by 17 in a lean-Dem environment year in 2012 and then only 1.2% in a ruby red state for senator because of a solid-Dem wave environment year in 2018. It happens.

As for Whitmer... sure she'll run up the score in Oakland and Washtenaw county upper middle class work from home voters who were largely unaffected by the shutdowns and mandates and doubled gas prices. The WWC and rural vote will vote in droves and break in roughly Youngkin Virginia numbers in those northern / rural counties. Which will ultimately be her demise this November. She'll lose like 50.4-47.7 ish

This redistricting cycle, notwithstanding involvement from Trump that didn't exist 10 years ago, the GOP has had much less of a stranglehold over the redistricting process than they had for the 2010 redistricting. It's just objective fact.

Yes, and primarily because of the courts being left of what they were in 2010. Lots of Obama appointed judges from 2010-2016 in lower courts but as you've referred to in past, Trump appointees aren't always siding with the GOP solidly either

[Will Hunting]

Yes, and primarily because of the courts being left of what they were in 2010. Lots of Obama appointed judges from 2010-2016 in lower courts but as you've referred to in past, Trump appointees aren't always siding with the GOP solidly either

Na that's not it, has nothing to do with Obama appointments. There was a concerted effort by Dems to win control of state courts that began around 2015, and since then we picked up seats in pretty much all the important states. It happened to work out extremely well for us after SCOTUS basically ruled in Abbott v. Perez that state courts are where you should bring redistricting lawsuits, not federal courts.

All the Dem court victories for redistricting have been in state court, not federal court.

[Will Hunting]

5-4 ruling, with Roberts joining the liberals in dissent, that Alabama's 6-1 map is upheld.

Sucks but not unexpected.

[Thread]

5-4 ruling, with Roberts joining the liberals in dissent, that Alabama's 6-1 map is upheld.

Sucks but not unexpected.

Roberts was always a RINO/Conservative In Name Only (CINO) on that court, and a pure SOB. That's how our side s up on the SC appointment and a pert lesson in how MSM/CNN in particular sells it to (us), especially the (us) who don't pay attention, unlike me. Me? I know precisely where the bear s in the buckwheat, but a lot of Republicans don't. They just sop up the white wash that CNN/MSM lays down..."Oh, that das ly Roberts, he's the ultimate swing vote." My ass. All a smokescreen. See, your side, Will, works on a 24 hour a day clock, keeping watch on everything. Our side? We don't do that, we trust like a pack-a-fools, and your side watches and when we let our guard down you amble in and steal something from us.

[Will Hunting]

Roberts was always a RINO/Conservative In Name Only (CINO) on that court, and a pure SOB. That's how our side s up on the SC appointment and a pert lesson in how MSM/CNN in particular sells it to (us), especially the (us) who don't pay attention, unlike me. Me? I know precisely where the bear s in the buckwheat, but a lot of Republicans don't. They just sop up the white wash that CNN/MSM lays down..."Oh, that das ly Roberts, he's the ultimate swing vote." My ass. All a smokescreen. See, your side, Will, works on a 24 hour a day clock, keeping watch on everything. Our side? We don't do that, we trust like a pack-a-fools, and your side watches and when we let our guard down you amble in and steal something from us.

Roberts is usually rock solid for ya'll on Voting Rights stuff though. I agree he's a RINO on social issues, but on voting rights John Roberts has been solid red. That's the part of this ruling that surprises me, Thomas and Gorsuch are the two conservative judges who've been slippery on other voting rights lawsuits...up until this case, Roberts was as solid red as Scalia on voting rights/redistricting.

I should caveat this that Roberts' dissent didn't address the merits of the argument, he just said he wouldn't have stayed the lower court ruling.

[Millennial_Messiah]

Tennessee has officially been moved from "in litigation" to Approved. The map is final. Nashville has been cracked and not a damn thing to do about it.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...aps/tennessee/

Roberts is usually rock solid for ya'll on Voting Rights stuff though. I agree he's a RINO on social issues, but on voting rights John Roberts has been solid red. That's the part of this ruling that surprises me, Thomas and Gorsuch are the two conservative judges who've been slippery on other voting rights lawsuits...up until this case, Roberts was as solid red as Scalia on voting rights/redistricting.

I should caveat this that Roberts' dissent didn't address the merits of the argument, he just said he wouldn't have stayed the lower court ruling.

Funny, I always thought of Roberts to be right wing on social issues (e.g.: he voted against gay marriage) but liberal fiscally and on bureaucratic type issues like pushing Obamacare through with the individual mandate citing the individual mandate as a fair tax, which funnily enough is the only part of the original ACA that no longer exists.

5-4 ruling, with Roberts joining the liberals in dissent, that Alabama's 6-1 map is upheld.

Sucks but not unexpected.

Good. Maryland gets their 6-1 D and Alabama gets their 6-1 R.

But what does the Alabama SCOTUS ruling mean for staré decisis in other states? NC? Buehler?

[Will Hunting]

Tennessee has officially been moved from "in litigation" to Approved. The map is final. Nashville has been cracked and not a damn thing to do about it.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...aps/tennessee/



Funny, I always thought of Roberts to be right wing on social issues (e.g.: he voted against gay marriage) but liberal fiscally and on bureaucratic type issues like pushing Obamacare through with the individual mandate citing the individual mandate as a fair tax, which funnily enough is the only part of the original ACA that no longer exists.


Good. Maryland gets their 6-1 D and Alabama gets their 6-1 R.

But what does the Alabama SCOTUS ruling mean for staré decisis in other states? NC? Buehler?

Again you don't understand the difference between federal and state court. The Alabama case was just a stay order being granted. It wasn't even an opinion on the merits but even if it was, it means absolutely nothing for NC. The Alabama case was about the VRA, the NC case is about the NC State Cons ution.