Reply With Quote
The Ohio case was dirty as it gets, pure contumaciousness and foot dragging.
To piggyback on Will Hunting 's https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=297153 thread
Not as many states up this time, but it's still relevant that a handful of states are in court and under legislation and could still be overturned and we could get new maps in certain states for 2024 to 2030.
North Carolina is the most obvious one given the state supreme court flipped (and the Democrats have about half the seats at present and that can easily change due to redistricting) but on the flipside Ohio could still possibly change their maps depending on a final ruling that was never finalized; a state like Illinois and/or Florida could be ruled a partisan gerrymander by the SCOTUS; Michigan's map violated the VRA in and around Detroit, and there's a chance the SCOTUS could completely throw out the VRA pertaining to U.S. house maps at some point in 2023, likely netting the GOP possibility of drawing out Democrat seats in certain majority-black districts in the Deep South if the case is still in litigation.
We'll see.
The Ohio case was dirty as it gets, pure contumaciousness and foot dragging.
Will Hunting
Is this what you meant by "drawing out Cincinnati"? It still leaves the seat vulnerable in a blue wave environment, but it's about Trump +7 nonetheless... (as is district 7 which includes all of Lake County and all the Cuyahoga suburbs around district 11 which is all of Cleveland and the innermost bluest suburbs)
Complies with all the following anti-gerrymandering Ohio cons ution rules:
-Every district must be entirely contained within a county, or contain at least one whole county.
-The largest city in every county must not be cracked, with the exception of Columbus, due to its population being larger than a district.
-Each county may only be cracked into 2 districts maximum, with the exception of Franklin County which can be cracked no more than 3 ways.
-Each district cannot share counties with the same district more than 2 times (to prevent "snake" districts)
-Each district must be contiguous and as even as possible in population.
No, there's a better way to draw it, and for the love of god turn off county lines and precinct lines when you're screenshotting a congressional map like thatWill Hunting
Is this what you meant by "drawing out Cincinnati"? It still leaves the seat vulnerable in a blue wave environment, but it's about Trump +7 nonetheless... (as is district 7 which includes all of Lake County and all the Cuyahoga suburbs around district 11 which is all of Cleveland and the innermost bluest suburbs)
Complies with all the following anti-gerrymandering Ohio cons ution rules:
-Every district must be entirely contained within a county, or contain at least one whole county.
-The largest city in every county must not be cracked, with the exception of Columbus, due to its population being larger than a district.
-Each county may only be cracked into 2 districts maximum, with the exception of Franklin County which can be cracked no more than 3 ways.
-Each district cannot share counties with the same district more than 2 times (to prevent "snake" districts)
-Each district must be contiguous and as even as possible in population.
This is what the western half of the state looks like with a maxed out gerrymander. Don't feel like drawing the Eastern half but you get the point. The Cincinnati district is Trump +11, which is enough to make it pretty unwinnable outside of a 2008-level blue wave election.
Last edited by Will Hunting; 12-25-2022 at 09:25 AM.
That's a good map and not actually ridiculous looking, though my main concern in that instance would be shoring up OH-10 as Dayton is sprawling and growing and there's a huge hipster, music, and gay scene there. That area is getting farther left than say the northern Columbus suburbs. The votes may not reflect that yet, but the experience and the people sure do.This is what the western half of the state looks like with a maxed out gerrymander. Don't feel like drawing the Eastern half but you get the point. The Cincinnati district is Trump +11, which is enough to make it pretty unwinnable outside of a 2008-level blue wave election.
Your OH-10 would be blue or close to it by 2026 imo or in a blue wave type of instance.
I suppose the way around it would be to figure out how to draw all of Dayton and the southern part of Montgomery county between Dayton and Warren county, probably into OH-15. Since OH-10 including all of Springfield (not a huge blue city or anything, but decent sized biggest city of its county and close to 50/50 partisan) helps make your OH-12 redder despite ingesting a large dose of Columbus proper.
SCOTUS should force redraw Illinois IMO. I mean, seriously, Pritzker/Duckworth won by 12.0% on the nose, 55-43%. And you're going to tell me that the congressional delegation in IL should be 14 out of 17 (83%) Democrat? What a scam...
The Ohio rules should be forcefully applied to Illinois and every other state, IMO.
Snake districts should be illegal.
Give DeSantis some credit in FL, at least he drew a clean map, even if he took out a VRA district but that was a snake district regardless. Pritzker's map is snakes and ladders while DeSantis's map is neat shapes and whole counties. There's a difference.
Pie in the sky atm
The population at the time of the founding was around 30M I think. We have over 10 times that much now.
~3.9 million in 1790
"neat shapes and whole counties" what a crock of
The DeSantis map violates the Ohio rules in countless way
Ohio rule - counties can't be split more than 3 ways
Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Orange, and Polk are all split 4 ways...Dade and Broward are excusable but there's absolutely no reason Orange or Polk need to be split 4 ways
Ohio rule - every district should be contained entirely within 1 county or contain an entire county
FL districts 5, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24 & 26 violate this rule. The idea that the Florida map does a good job at containing whole counties in districts is re ed, it splits counties left and right for completely partisan reasons
Ohio rule - If a city is big enough to contain more than one district, the redistricting body must attempt to include a significant portion of that city in one district
This rule applies to Jacksonville and the Florida map almost split Jacksonville's population exactly in half (Jacksonville has 950k people and 460k people were put in FL04 while 490k people were put in FL 05); there's an obvious way to draw a Jacksonville district contained entirely within Duval County and it obviously wasn't attempted
Ohio rule - if the biggest city in a county is smaller than one district but has more than 100,000 people, it may not be split
Florida map splits St. Petersburg, Tampa, Orlando, West Palm Beach, Ft. Lauderdale, Miami & Lakeland
Last edited by Will Hunting; 02-04-2023 at 10:51 AM.
New York politics is gnarly
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...ghts-dare.htmlA three-judge district court—which included two Trump appointees—found that this map violated the Voting Rights Act by denying minority voters an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. In June, the Supreme Court agreed, with Roberts and Kavanaugh joining the three liberal justices to uphold the district court’s ruling.
I believe it, and as an alumni I approve of it. Lot of dumb mindless hippies there. Especially those that choose to reside on campus past freshman year. All the conservative kids are moving out to apartments or greek life houses after freshman year.
The voting age should be raised to 25. That precinct is probably closer to 60-40 D if you do that. Virtually all of the older, conservative, non trad students live off campus.
People are too stupid to vote under that age, especially in today's modern era. In 1789, eighteen made sense, since college wasn't particularly a thing back then and people were grown-ups much younger and lived shorter lives. Today, absolutely not.
They didn't rule on Section II specifically though of the VRA, which still has the potential to be thrown out. If it does, expect status quo at minimum and in a couple cases even further gerrymandering to the right, not the left.
That's exactly what they ruled on.
The issue presented is whether the districting plan adopted by the State of Alabama for its 2022 congressional elections likely violated §2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U. S. C. §10301.
Held: The Court affirms the District Court’s determination that plaintiffs demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on their claim that HB1 violates §2.
SCOTUS opinion here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1086_1co6.pdf
Yes, they ruled that Alabama's longstanding map violated section II which is stupid because that's the map that's been in place for over a decade and the in bents have been in there a long time, but that's not what I'm getting at.
What I'm trying to say is that there is a separate ongoing legal case with Louisiana being the plaintiff that is trying to throw out section II altogether claiming that it is both archaic and uncons utional (14A I believe, could be slightly off with that one) to be forced to draw US congressional districts based on race/skin color. SCOTUS is hearing that case, and if they overturn THAT, then THAT supercedes the Alabama ruling from last month because, while it did violate a then-negated rule, since the rule is negated, then not just Louisiana but also Alabama and any map currently in litigation would be free to be re-drawn by the state legislature without consideration of the then-overturned Section II rule.
It's a coin flip chance that Louisiana wins the case, but if they do, considering the Democrats challenged it so hard, expect the GOP to go as radical as possible. While you probably can't draw out the Democrat district in Louisiana due to geography, you certainly can in Alabama. Georgia and SC are also in litigation and while you can easily draw out GA-02, though it's a fairly respected long time in bent, drawing out the Democrat in SC probably wouldn't happen due to geography. NC gerrymander is going to happen and Dem in bents are going down. However their early proposals don't draw out NC-01 Don Davis. I wonder if it's because this district is section II protected or simply because they are okay with the guy.
Florida drew out a section II district last year (albeit a snake district) and it mostly went under the radar. Based DeSantis actually drew the map himself.
On the bright side for Dems, a negation of section II of the VRA means the Dems don't have to redraw (or can even re-draw more favorable, to solidify their fragile in bents' seats for example) the maps in Michigan and Pennsylvania, since both states have Democrat majorities in the state legislatures and Democrat governors to not veto. The VRA concern was especially an issue in Detroit metro and the nearby I-75 corridor up to Flint, where black communities were cracked in order to solidify Democrat seats in the area, and Pittsburgh, where two Democrat seats instead of the more natural one were created from cracking Pittsburgh and its black-majority eastern suburbs.
They're not stupid, they simply can't rule on things that are not in front of them. Given that ruling, the notion that Section II is going anywhere is patently absurd.
And ultimately, what you arguing for is what's generally been the slow but steady downfall of the GOP, tbh. The need to grossly gerrymander is a tacit admission that your ideas can't get traction. THAT's the actual problem, not the temporary patchwork.
M_M gets the facts wrong again, all wishcasting.
Drawing districts based on race IS gerrymandering and inherently racist. That's what the left fails to understand.
While I would argue that the original map is a bit of a gerrymander because you're cracking Montgomery, the new proposed map argues that it keeps communities of interest together by keeping all of Montgomery County (including all of Montgomery city itself) together in District 2. This results in a very purple District 2, because you have Montgomery County with about 40% of the population of the district that votes like Fulton County Georgia and is strong black-majority. . But it's drawn together with a bunch of rural counties which vote red by dictator margins and is 60% of the population of the district. The newly created district 2 overall is 43% black, 41% white non-hispanic, 16% other/mixed, and thus black-plurality and thus should be allowed to stand. The 50% threshold is racist and re ed.
So it's a toss up seat but the in bent (R) should have an advantage in all but the bluest of blue wave years because they're an in bent and well-funded and the Alabama GOP is well-funded and competent for the most part, outside of the Roy Moore fiasco they've been solid.
DeSantis seldom wins in court.
https://jaxtrib.org/2023/09/02/flori...-black-voters/A state judge struck down North Florida’s congressional districts Saturday, rebuffing Gov. Ron DeSantis’ open defiance of anti-gerrymandering protections, finding the governor’s map illegally reduced Black voters’ electoral power.
DeSantis had wagered the state’s Fair Districts Amendment against the U.S. Cons ution, arguing mandatory protections for Black voters violated the Equal Protection Clause; Second Judicial Circuit Judge J. Lee Marsh flatly rejected that gamble, rendering a decision that could reverberate from the halls of Tallahassee to the streets of Jacksonville, paving the way for a new, Democratic district where Jacksonville’s Black voters have more influence.
Marsh refused to bite on DeSantis’ claim that the state’s Fair Districts Amendment violated the U.S. Cons ution, saying DeSantis’ secretary of state and the Legislature didn’t even have standing to make such an argument.
“The Secretary can point to no case finding the non-diminishment language of the Fair Districts Amendment, nor the comparable Section 5 language of the Voting Rights Act, to violate the Equal Protection provision of the 14th Amendment,” Marsh wrote.
Later, he continued, “The judicial branch alone has the power to declare what the law is, including whether the Florida Cons ution’s provisions are themselves uncons utional.”
Marsh’s ruling was limited to North Florida after plaintiffs abandoned claims that other districts also violated the state cons ution.
Redistricting cases in Louisiana and Alabama coming soon, new maps likely to be drawn.
Alabama ing around, ignoring court orders.
Shelby County (Alabama) vs Holder, re the preclearance requirement: "There is no denying, however, that the conditions that originally justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
