Official 2021 Redistricting Thread

[Millennial_Messiah]

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.

You're right about NC and Ohio. I guess what I meant to say was that because of the SCOTUS staré decisis that they could gut that particular "proportional minority" section of the VRA meaning that the federal courts and state courts are not going to overturn X-1 (R) maps in Louisiana, Mississippi, (Alabama), Tennessee, South Carolina, etc. It could mean that the GOP in MO will possibly be aggressive with cracking Kansas City since MO is completely GOP controlled, legislature and court, and basically the Alabama SCOTUS ruling means the feds would strike down any opposing counsel trying to stop it. (Only St. Louis would be VRA protected. It would be wise of the GOP to crack the St. Louis western suburbs into two districts, though.) It means the currently proposed Georgia map will likely pass if the state legislature and state courts don't throw it out, or if the state court throws it out strictly on "not enough VRA protected seats" means. (NC was different; the state court ruled that the state cons ution had a clause on fair partisan representation, not VRA.) It means that Texas could have done less gerrymandering (i.e. weird-looking districts) to get the same results (24-11-3 ish) while not necessarily being a net benefit for the GOP it could have kept more communities together without literally drawing districts resembling dragons and s all over the map.

[Will Hunting]

You're right about NC and Ohio. I guess what I meant to say was that because of the SCOTUS staré decisis that they could gut that particular "proportional minority" section of the VRA meaning that the federal courts and state courts are not going to overturn X-1 (R) maps in Louisiana, Mississippi, (Alabama), Tennessee, South Carolina, etc. It could mean that the GOP in MO will possibly be aggressive with cracking Kansas City since MO is completely GOP controlled, legislature and court, and basically the Alabama SCOTUS ruling means the feds would strike down any opposing counsel trying to stop it. (Only St. Louis would be VRA protected. It would be wise of the GOP to crack the St. Louis western suburbs into two districts, though.) It means the currently proposed Georgia map will likely pass if the state legislature and state courts don't throw it out, or if the state court throws it out strictly on "not enough VRA protected seats" means. (NC was different; the state court ruled that the state cons ution had a clause on fair partisan representation, not VRA.) It means that Texas could have done less gerrymandering (i.e. weird-looking districts) to get the same results (24-11-3 ish) while not necessarily being a net benefit for the GOP it could have kept more communities together without literally drawing districts resembling dragons and s all over the map.

Alabama was a unique situation in that it was the only state where you could easily draw another relatively compact majority black district. Even if SCOTUS ruled the other way, it wouldn't have mattered. Also keep in mind, this AL ruling is just about whether a stay should be granted, SCOTUS hasn't ruled on the merits yet but for the sake of argument if it did...

-The current Georgia map already passed, and the VRA lawsuit in Georgia was always a stretch, there's no clearcut way to draw another black majority district in GA the way there is in AL (I'm not even sure what the basis of a VRA lawsuit in GA is).
-In South Carolina it's similar, the way black people in SC are spread out makes it very hard to create a 2nd black opportunity district. SC is more of a partisan gerrymander than a racial gerrymander, so there's no real remedy under the VRA.
-As I said before about TN, there's no basis for a VRA lawsuit about Nashville even if the AL ruling was fully resolved in favor of the Dems. Davidson County is only 26% black and it's majority white; there's nowhere near enough minority voters there to argue that a VRA opportunity district is warranted. It's a partisan gerrymander, not a racial one.
-Louisiana is the closest thing there is to another Alabama situation but I the black population there isn't as compact as it is in Alabama, but more importantly it's a fifth circuit state, so it's never going to get a favorable lower court ruling the way the Alabama VRA suit did.
-In MO the decision not to crack Kansas City won't be impacted by this. They might still end up doing it, but it won't be VRA related. The reason they haven't cracked KC is because of selfish in bents who don't want to absorb blue areas into their district. Personally I don't understand why the state legislators give a about what in bents want, if I was a state legislator I would create as many districts for my party as possible and would tell selfish in bents to off and retire if going from a D +30 to a D +20 district is so traumatizing for them.
-I'm not familiar with the basis of the DOJ's VRA lawsuit in Texas, but I don't expect it to go anywhere.

A state court is never going to rule on the VRA so I'm not sure what you're talking about with the state court throwing a map out for not having VRA protected seats. The VRA is a federal law, any lawsuit bringing a cause of action under the VRA needs to be brought in federal court. If a plaintiff tried suing under the VRA in state court because it's a state where the state court is more liberal, the defendant would just have it removed to federal court as the proper venue.

[Millennial_Messiah]

Alabama was a unique situation in that it was the only state where you could easily draw another relatively compact majority black district. Even if SCOTUS ruled the other way, it wouldn't have mattered. Also keep in mind, this AL ruling is just about whether a stay should be granted, SCOTUS hasn't ruled on the merits yet but for the sake of argument if it did...

-The current Georgia map already passed, and the VRA lawsuit in Georgia was always a stretch, there's no clearcut way to draw another black majority district in GA the way there is in AL (I'm not even sure what the basis of a VRA lawsuit in GA is).
-In South Carolina it's similar, the way black people in SC are spread out makes it very hard to create a 2nd black opportunity district. SC is more of a partisan gerrymander than a racial gerrymander, so there's no real remedy under the VRA.
-As I said before about TN, there's no basis for a VRA lawsuit about Nashville even if the AL ruling was fully resolved in favor of the Dems. Davidson County is only 26% black and it's majority white; there's nowhere near enough minority voters there to argue that a VRA opportunity district is warranted. It's a partisan gerrymander, not a racial one.
-Louisiana is the closest thing there is to another Alabama situation but I the black population there isn't as compact as it is in Alabama, but more importantly it's a fifth circuit state, so it's never going to get a favorable lower court ruling the way the Alabama VRA suit did.
-In MO the decision not to crack Kansas City won't be impacted by this. They might still end up doing it, but it won't be VRA related. The reason they haven't cracked KC is because of selfish in bents who don't want to absorb blue areas into their district. Personally I don't understand why the state legislators give a about what in bents want, if I was a state legislator I would create as many districts for my party as possible and would tell selfish in bents to off and retire if going from a D +30 to a D +20 district is so traumatizing for them.
-I'm not familiar with the basis of the DOJ's VRA lawsuit in Texas, but I don't expect it to go anywhere.

A state court is never going to rule on the VRA so I'm not sure what you're talking about with the state court throwing a map out for not having VRA protected seats. The VRA is a federal law, any lawsuit bringing a cause of action under the VRA needs to be brought in federal court. If a plaintiff tried suing under the VRA in state court because it's a state where the state court is more liberal, the defendant would just have it removed to federal court as the proper venue.

Good analysis overall

I know VRA is a 1965 federal law not state, but for example it's why Mitch McConnell rejected the idea of cracking Louisville in KY 3-4 different ways to create all red districts. He knew even if it held up in state court it might be rejected in federal by the VRA.

Kansas City area like Nashville isn't black enough and Tennessee provides a good blue print there. Obviously 10 years ago this wouldn't have been possible because Missouri was too blue-dog Dem like Iowa and Wisconsin back then, but now it is. You're right about the selfish in bents though. I don't think though that cracking a non-VRA-protected metro 3 or 4 ways all of a sudden is a dummymander though, even in a wave year. It's a smart gerrymander and that's that. Pritzker did it in Illinois, Hochul did it in New York, the GOP did it in Tennessee, the GOP should do it in Missouri. It sucks, but it is what it is.

The Democrats will still likely gain about 3-4 net positive seats in this redistricting cycle but it probably won't matter until 2026 in terms of the House majority. For example, the New Mexico "dummymander" could net the GOP 2 out of 3 seats the next 2 cycles, and then they get replaced by Democrats in 2026. Similar for Nevada. Similar for Michigan's swing districts. Etc.

[Will Hunting]

Good analysis overall

I know VRA is a 1965 federal law not state, but for example it's why Mitch McConnell rejected the idea of cracking Louisville in KY 3-4 different ways to create all red districts. He knew even if it held up in state court it might be rejected in federal by the VRA.

Kansas City area like Nashville isn't black enough and Tennessee provides a good blue print there. Obviously 10 years ago this wouldn't have been possible because Missouri was too blue-dog Dem like Iowa and Wisconsin back then, but now it is. You're right about the selfish in bents though. I don't think though that cracking a non-VRA-protected metro 3 or 4 ways all of a sudden is a dummymander though, even in a wave year. It's a smart gerrymander and that's that. Pritzker did it in Illinois, Hochul did it in New York, the GOP did it in Tennessee, the GOP should do it in Missouri. It sucks, but it is what it is.

The Democrats will still likely gain about 3-4 net positive seats in this redistricting cycle but it probably won't matter until 2026 in terms of the House majority. For example, the New Mexico "dummymander" could net the GOP 2 out of 3 seats the next 2 cycles, and then they get replaced by Democrats in 2026. Similar for Nevada. Similar for Michigan's swing districts. Etc.

That had nothing to do with why McConnell didn't want Louisville cracked at all. There'd be absolutely no basis for a VRA lawsuit if Louisville gets cracked. Jefferson county is 60+% white and <25% black. The Louisville district has no protection under the VRA; McConnell was said keep Louisville together because he's from there and thinks Louisville should have its own seats, even if there was a way to chop it up. My guess is he also wanted to play the bad guy so the house reps in neighboring districts who didn't want to absorb Louisville wouldn't have to worry about it.

You're grossly overestimating how much of an impact the VRA has on redistricting.

[Millennial_Messiah]

That had nothing to do with why McConnell didn't want Louisville cracked at all. There'd be absolutely no basis for a VRA lawsuit if Louisville gets cracked. Jefferson county is 60+% white and <25% black. The Louisville district has no protection under the VRA; McConnell was said keep Louisville together because he's from there and thinks Louisville should have its own seats, even if there was a way to chop it up. My guess is he also wanted to play the bad guy so the house reps in neighboring districts who didn't want to absorb Louisville wouldn't have to worry about it.

You're grossly overestimating how much of an impact the VRA has on redistricting.

Oh there's definitely ways to make Kentucky all red, you crack Louisville 3-4 times without dummymandering. You make sure Lexington is pooled in with large swaths of rural hick eastern Kentucky. It's not particularly hard.

The only reason the Pritzker Illinois sort of dummymander of cracking Chicago all those directions actually works in the Democrats' favor is because the suburbs are vast and generally very blue just as the city is. That kind of map would have been a (R) majority map in 1990 for instance, since the Chicago suburbs were so much redder back then.


Missouri would be another easy state to make 7-1 (R) without dummymandering. The 4th (R+37), 6th (R+41), and 8th (R+62!) district all get an even third of that KC blue district, you call the old 8th district the new 5th district, and you make the new 8th district out of parts of the old 4th and old 8th district down to the boot heel.

You can still end up with 7 (R + 25 or better) safe (R) seats in Missouri that way. Of course you're not going to touch STL or Memphis in TN for multiple reasons... (a) it violates the VRA and (b), more importantly, it would be a pretty obvious dummymander.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...e_amendment_3/

[Will Hunting]

Oh there's definitely ways to make Kentucky all red, you crack Louisville 3-4 times without dummymandering. You make sure Lexington is pooled in with large swaths of rural hick eastern Kentucky. It's not particularly hard.

The only reason the Pritzker Illinois sort of dummymander of cracking Chicago all those directions actually works in the Democrats' favor is because the suburbs are vast and generally very blue just as the city is. That kind of map would have been a (R) majority map in 1990 for instance, since the Chicago suburbs were so much redder back then.


Missouri would be another easy state to make 7-1 (R) without dummymandering. The 4th (R+37), 6th (R+41), and 8th (R+62!) district all get an even third of that KC blue district, you call the old 8th district the new 5th district, and you make the new 8th district out of parts of the old 4th and old 8th district down to the boot heel.

You can still end up with 7 (R + 25 or better) safe (R) seats in Missouri that way. Of course you're not going to touch STL or Memphis in TN for multiple reasons... (a) it violates the VRA and (b), more importantly, it would be a pretty obvious dummymander.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...e_amendment_3/

I didn't say there wasn't a way to make Kentucky all red. McConnell didn't want them to crack Louisville though for various reasons, most of which weren't really political. He has a soft spot for Louisville because he's from there so he cares about the city having representation, and he more or less owns the KY GOP so if he says don't crack Louisville, the state leg is going to listen to him.

Again I'm not sure what you're saying. Missouri would be an easy 7-1 gerrymander and Indiana would have also been an easy 8-1 gerrymander by cracking Gary, but the challenge in both instances are selfish in bents / state legislators not wanting to face backlash from a completely ed up looking map. It has absolutely nothing to do with the VRA though; Cleaver's KC seat isn't VRA protected. If it was really the VRA preventing a 7-1 map in MO, the state leg would simply pass the 7-1 map and force Democrats to sue over it, but the reason they don't is because keeping KC intact has absolutely nothing to do with the VRA.

Even in Illinois, the Pritzkermander wasn't as effective as it could have been because Bobby Rush ed and moaned about his district going from D+45 to D+40. They could have moved some of the deep blue precincts in his district to IL-06 to make IL-06 a much safer seat, but they didn't because he threw a hissyfit. Of course after doing that he ing retired, so like you and I have been saying, letting selfish in bents dictate redistricting is just really stupid.

Also in NY, the DCCC & Mark Elias submitted a proposal for NY-11 to go into Manhattan rather than Brooklyn which would have made it a totally safe D seat, but fat Jerry Nadler became grumpy about having to give some of his district up even though he's probably close to retirement and still would have been safe.

Prior to 2010, gerrymandering was largely done to protect in bents and it didn't play THAT big of a role. Project REDMAP is when completely carving up a state to create additional seats for one party really became a thing.

[Will Hunting]

This list has all the districts with VRA protections and implications.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...onal_districts

The districts you're complaining about the GOP not cracking (KC, Louisville, etc.) don't have and have never had VRA protections.

[Will Hunting]

Damn I didn't realize that the 6-1 Alabama map was originally pre-cleared by the DOJ in 2011 (when Holder was AG).

That's definitely where this case was lost; can't really expect SCOTUS to be MORE progressive than Eric Holder's justice department.

[boutons_deux]

SCotus augments their Bona fides as extreme right-wing racists

lifelong racist Roberts hides with the progressives to protect his personal Legacy

[Millennial_Messiah]

Damn I didn't realize that the 6-1 Alabama map was originally pre-cleared by the DOJ in 2011 (when Holder was AG).

That's definitely where this case was lost; can't really expect SCOTUS to be MORE progressive than Eric Holder's justice department.

By that logic, can't they just make only one majority black district in say, Georgia and call it a day? Just an example

SCotus augments their Bona fides does extreme right-wing racists

lifelong racist Roberts hides with the progressives to protect his personal Legacy

You're just a biased extremist. No use dealing with you. Same for the Qanon'ers

This list has all the districts with VRA protections and implications.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...onal_districts

The districts you're complaining about the GOP not cracking (KC, Louisville, etc.) don't have and have never had VRA protections.

Okay, so yeah Indiana should have cracked up the NW blue district and McConnell was wrong. I also have no earthly in' idea as to why Omaha wasn't cracked. That one is the most meaningful because it factors into presidential elections, too.

[Will Hunting]

By that logic, can't they just make only one majority black district in say, Georgia and call it a day? Just an example

Well no....GA has a lot more black people than Alabama does, and the black population in GA is very compact. There's easily enough black people in southwest GA for 1 blackbelt district + enough black people in the ATL area for 3 black VRA districts. IMO the VRA actually hurts Democrats in GA though so the GOP would never even try to crack 1 of the 4 VRA districts, it more or less requires that the ATL area gets drawn with the bluest precincts packed into 3 VRA districts.

Okay, so yeah Indiana should have cracked up the NW blue district and McConnell was wrong. I also have no earthly in' idea as to why Omaha wasn't cracked. That one is the most meaningful because it factors into presidential elections, too.

Omaha wasn't cracked but they definitely made it redder than a compact Omaha district would be. It's Biden +6 RN with a lot of ancestral down ballot Republicans, and a compact Omaha district would be closer to Biden +9-10%. In that case they were worried about a dummymander; NE-01 is only a Trump +14 districts with a lot of areas that shifted hard left from '16 to '20; they didn't want to create 2 Omaha districts that are winnable for Dems in a wave year, plus Don Bacon is an overperformer and should easily hold a Biden +6 seat.

It's not exactly gonna become a blue state, but I've actually met the head of the Nebraska Dems and she's very sharp. Knows how to win rural voters better than your usual incompetent state party chair and has definitely made inroads with Omaha + the Omaha suburbs. It made sense not to give her a second compe ive district.

Whatever McConnell's reason for not cracking Louisville was (I doubt it really was the reason he gave about muh sweet Louisville), I'm sure it made sense. One common denominator is the cities that weren't cracked (KC, Gary, Louisville, Omaha, etc.) are all on a state border, which just makes them geographically harder to crack than cities like Nashville, OKC & SLC that are surrounded by red areas in all 4 directions. You usually want to slice a blue county like that into 3 districts to avoid a dummymander, and when it's on a state border there's no way to do that without it looking like an "extreme gerrymander" which even the Roberts Court says could still be actionable in federal court.

[Will Hunting]

SCotus augments their Bona fides as extreme right-wing racists

lifelong racist Roberts hides with the progressives to protect his personal Legacy

Roberts didn't even rule on the merits; he just said a stay wasn't warranted.

Chances are, Roberts and one of the other conservatives switch places when the case it fully heard on the merits to make it seem like there's actual deliberation and minds can be changed.

[Millennial_Messiah]

Well no....GA has a lot more black people than Alabama does, and the black population in GA is very compact. There's easily enough black people in southwest GA for 1 blackbelt district + enough black people in the ATL area for 3 black VRA districts. IMO the VRA actually hurts Democrats in GA though so the GOP would never even try to crack 1 of the 4 VRA districts, it more or less requires that the ATL area gets drawn with the bluest precincts packed into 3 VRA districts.



Omaha wasn't cracked but they definitely made it redder than a compact Omaha district would be. It's Biden +6 RN with a lot of ancestral down ballot Republicans, and a compact Omaha district would be closer to Biden +9-10%. In that case they were worried about a dummymander; NE-01 is only a Trump +14 districts with a lot of areas that shifted hard left from '16 to '20; they didn't want to create 2 Omaha districts that are winnable for Dems in a wave year, plus Don Bacon is an overperformer and should easily hold a Biden +6 seat.

It's not exactly gonna become a blue state, but I've actually met the head of the Nebraska Dems and she's very sharp. Knows how to win rural voters better than your usual incompetent state party chair and has definitely made inroads with Omaha + the Omaha suburbs. It made sense not to give her a second compe ive district.

Whatever McConnell's reason for not cracking Louisville was (I doubt it really was the reason he gave about muh sweet Louisville), I'm sure it made sense. One common denominator is the cities that weren't cracked (KC, Gary, Louisville, Omaha, etc.) are all on a state border, which just makes them geographically harder to crack than cities like Nashville, OKC & SLC that are surrounded by red areas in all 4 directions. You usually want to slice a blue county like that into 3 districts to avoid a dummymander, and when it's on a state border there's no way to do that without it looking like an "extreme gerrymander" which even the Roberts Court says could still be actionable in federal court.

On GA, yes there are a lot of blacks in the Atlanta metro but for being the bluest county in the state, DeKalb County isn't as black as you think. Once you get past East Atlanta (within Atlanta city limit) it more or less resembles Washtenaw county Michigan. Huge university, bunch of suburban whites and yes a couple black majority towns like they have in Ypsilanti, MI. DeKalb also has a lot of non-black minorities like they have in Ann Arbor because of Emory University and Healthcare system being there. It's a pretty mixed bag. Not so sure you can't make an entire district on just that county alone and not necessarily a VRA one. Just random thoughts there.

As far as Omaha goes, the simplest solution is to draw roughly three horizontal maps in Nebraska from west to east with roughly equal population, giving each of NE-01, NE-02 and NE-03 an even chunk of Omaha while also cracking Lincoln a couple ways to be safe. No dummymander there. NE-03 is currently one of the reddest districts in the entire USA so you have a lot of play-doh to work with there. It wouldn't look like an "extreme gerrymander" in that case either, because it'd be 3 roughly proportional rectangles with only a few abnormalities in shape.

[Will Hunting]

On GA, yes there are a lot of blacks in the Atlanta metro but for being the bluest county in the state, DeKalb County isn't as black as you think. Once you get past East Atlanta (within Atlanta city limit) it more or less resembles Washtenaw county Michigan. Huge university, bunch of suburban whites and yes a couple black majority towns like they have in Ypsilanti, MI. DeKalb also has a lot of non-black minorities like they have in Ann Arbor because of Emory University and Healthcare system being there. It's a pretty mixed bag. Not so sure you can't make an entire district on just that county alone and not necessarily a VRA one. Just random thoughts there.

As far as Omaha goes, the simplest solution is to draw roughly three horizontal maps in Nebraska from west to east with roughly equal population, giving each of NE-01, NE-02 and NE-03 an even chunk of Omaha while also cracking Lincoln a couple ways to be safe. No dummymander there. NE-03 is currently one of the reddest districts in the entire USA so you have a lot of play-doh to work with there. It wouldn't look like an "extreme gerrymander" in that case either, because it'd be 3 roughly proportional rectangles with only a few abnormalities in shape.

I forgot to mention the Nebraska cons ution is weird with its rules around cloture, it basically gives the Democrats power to indefinitely filibuster any proposed legislation map. I think they actually proposed a map that splits Douglas County two ways and it got filibustered.

Even on top of that, if you were to slice Nebraska up perfectly, it'd make every district a Trump +18ish district. Sounds safe until you factor in how quickly rural Nebraska is losing population vs. the Omaha area adding population and trending blue. Couple that with how pissed off the in bents would be, the nightmare that election administration in Douglas County would be & the general public outrage that you'd have in and around Omaha if it got chopped up, it's pretty obvious why it didn't get split. It's easy to gerrymander areas with poor people and minorities that vote Democrat, gerrymandering a bunch of suburban wine moms who can flood congressional campaigns with small dollar donations is a different ball game.

[Thread]

I forgot to mention the Nebraska cons ution is weird with its rules around cloture, it basically gives the Democrats power to indefinitely filibuster any proposed legislation map. I think they actually proposed a map that splits Douglas County two ways and it got filibustered.

Even on top of that, if you were to slice Nebraska up perfectly, it'd make every district a Trump +18ish district. Sounds safe until you factor in how quickly rural Nebraska is losing population vs. the Omaha area adding population and trending blue. Couple that with how pissed off the in bents would be, the nightmare that election administration in Douglas County would be & the general public outrage that you'd have in and around Omaha if it got chopped up, it's pretty obvious why it didn't get split. It's easy to gerrymander areas with poor people and minorities that vote Democrat, gerrymandering a bunch of suburban wine moms who can flood congressional campaigns with small dollar donations is a different ball game.

Christ, that old load a has been dragged around for decades.

[Millennial_Messiah]

If Kansas had the votes to override a Laura Kelly veto, I have no idea why they didn't create 4 safe (R) seats by cracking the Kansas-side KC metro?

The GOP has done an absolutely stupid job this cycle in a lot of fronts.

[Will Hunting]

If Kansas had the votes to override a Laura Kelly veto, I have no idea why they didn't create 4 safe (R) seats by cracking the Kansas-side KC metro?

The GOP has done an absolutely stupid job this cycle in a lot of fronts.

Extremely partisan Dem state supreme court majority. There were 3 justices who waited Brownback out and retired once Kelly won, I think she's appointed like 5 of KS's 7 supreme court justices.

Also, once again, in bents don't want to absorb tons of blue areas, especially educated white suburbs in places like KS that are getting rapidly bluer.

[RandomGuy]

If Kansas had the votes to override a Laura Kelly veto, I have no idea why they didn't create 4 safe (R) seats by cracking the Kansas-side KC metro?

The GOP has done an absolutely stupid job this cycle in a lot of fronts.

Sooooo after all is said and done, Democrats have finished doing to the GOP, what the GOP has done for a decade.

... the howls of protest from Republicans in blue states rings a tad... hollow at this point.

Pick your cliche.

Hoist by their own pe .
Cooked in their own sauce.
et cetera.

Makes me wonder what happens when Democrats get some strategy to retake the judiciary from the Federalist society.

[boutons_deux]

Pennsylvania Supreme Court court picks national Dems’ map as new congressional plan

a map submitted by voters backed by a national group aligned with Democrats to be the commonwealth’s next congressional map.

the state Supreme Court ordered 4-3 that the map, known as the Carter plan, be adopted as soon as possible.

https://www.rawstory.com/bank/pennsylvania-supreme-court-court-picks-national-dems-map-as-new-congressional-plan/

[Will Hunting]

Dems got the map they wanted in PA, and it'll last for a full decade.

Dems also got the 7-7 map they wanted in NC, but that probably won't even last through 2024.

[Millennial_Messiah]

Dems got the map they wanted in PA, and it'll last for a full decade.

Dems also got the 7-7 map they wanted in NC, but that probably won't even last through 2024.

8-6 most likely in 2022, as that swing district (R+3) will swing red in a red wave year in 2022.

When (most likely, since it's a red wave year) the GOP retakes the NC state supreme court, they will Pritzkermander the state into oblivion before 2024, something like 12-2, and frankly I wouldn't blame them. Roy Cooper can't even override or veto it because he limited the power of the governor in terms of redistricting back in 1996. (Ohio will elect more solid Republicans to their supreme court and re-gerrymander their map by 2024 as well.)

This temporary 2022 NC (and likely Ohio) map will help mitigate the losses in the US House in 2022 for the Democrats for sure, but it will bite them in the ass long term including in 2024.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...orth-carolina/

"
While this map is a victory for Democrats, it could be a short-lived one. The remedial map is only in place for 2022, meaning a new map will need to come together before the 2024 election. And while the state Supreme Court currently has a narrow Democratic majority, Republicans could retake the court in 2022. Assuming they also hold onto their majorities in the state legislature, Republicans would then have a free hand to draw the map that will be used for the rest of the decade, as Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper has no veto power over redistricting legislation.
"

[Millennial_Messiah]

As for Pennsylvania, that Connor Lamb west-of-Pittsburgh district (he's running for senate) is going to flip red as the area is trending red and he was a strong in bent leaving and the trend in the northeast part of the state is red as well, so the long term equilibrium in PA is likely 10-7 (R).

[Millennial_Messiah]

GOP victorious in Ohio, passed basically the same gerrymandered map as before, still drawing out Marcy Kaptur in NW Ohio; will be valid until 2025, and by then the courts will inevitably be more right leaning because of the 2022 red wave and the 2024 lean-R or tilt-R environment, so even if 2026 is to be a blue wave election year it probably won't matter too much in that state.

The only good news for the Democrats is that Steve Chabot's Cincinnati district is still blue, as the court had ruled in the past that that city could not be cracked. Maybe he survives 2022 in a likely-R environment but loses in 2024 in a lean or tilt R environment, or at the very worst loses for sure in a potential likely-D environment in 2026 if the Ohio courts don't take a hard right wing turn before then.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...022-maps/ohio/ Will Hunting

[Will Hunting]

GOP victorious in Ohio, passed basically the same gerrymandered map as before, still drawing out Marcy Kaptur in NW Ohio; will be valid until 2025, and by then the courts will inevitably be more right leaning because of the 2022 red wave and the 2024 lean-R or tilt-R environment, so even if 2026 is to be a blue wave election year it probably won't matter too much in that state.

The only good news for the Democrats is that Steve Chabot's Cincinnati district is still blue, as the court had ruled in the past that that city could not be cracked. Maybe he survives 2022 in a likely-R environment but loses in 2024 in a lean or tilt R environment, or at the very worst loses for sure in a potential likely-D environment in 2026 if the Ohio courts don't take a hard right wing turn before then.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...022-maps/ohio/ Will Hunting

That map still needs the supreme court’s approval and there’s a less than 10% chance they sign off on it.

[Millennial_Messiah]

That map still needs the supreme court’s approval and there’s a less than 10% chance they sign off on it.

We'll see. The NC legislature appealed to the SCOTUS that the state court system shouldn't be allowed to override state legislatures. The SCOTUS is fresh off hearing and voting in favor of the Alabama GOP case. That NC case, if the SCOTUS were to rule in favor of the NC GOP, would be an enormous staré decisis going forward and a devastating blow to state courts and Democrats in general across many states, especially critical states, including Ohio, Florida (to an extent), and possibly the state legislature's case in PA as well, even though the PA map isn't really that bad.

It's crunch time in the redistricting cycle right now and the victor of the 2021 redistricting cycle will hinge on getting either Kavanaugh (likely) or Roberts (less likely) to join the 4 solid R's in the SCOTUS to rule in favor of the GOP in the North Carolina case.