Sorry I never answered this, it doesn't vary state by state. Longstanding SCOTUS precedent that you don't need to live in your actual district, so even if a state tried making a law that you had to live in the district you're running in, it'd be uncons utional.
Yup, wait until the SCONC flips from blue to red in 2022 and the NC GOP is going to go scorched earth in drawing the 2024-2030 map. Something like 12-2 and I wouldn't blame them.
& it's not really that hard. Pack the blue precincts of Charlotte together and the bluest areas of RTP together and gerrymander around those two. NC is red enough you can find twelve R+7 or better districts around 2 extremely blue districts in CHA and RTP. I'll do a NC gerrymander tonight
Last edited by Millennial_Messiah; 03-07-2022 at 08:17 PM.
You think fighting "fire with fire" in IL/NY/CA etc. is fair but fighting fire with ice in OH/NC/PA etc. is also fair? Double standards and you know it. Revenge for 2010 is bull and you know it.We're gonna get proportional maps in OH, NC and FL regardless
Sucks getting a taste of your own gerrymandering medicine
We’re playing the same game y’all are playing. It’s not about revenge, it’s about power.
If you don’t like it, support a federal gerrymandering ban.
At this point the Republican party has gone full on fascist, as your posts so readily demonstrate. You look the other way for autocrats and full on crony capitalism.
Look how well that worked out for Russia. https://www.politico.eu/article/russ...tion-quagmire/
As ed up as jerrymandering is, it erodes your fascist party's power at the federal level.
Why do you tolerate crony capitalism in your leaders?
The difference is that the Democrats have the ace in the hole of having state court majorities and/or advantages and use it as a trump card every time in all but the very reddest states like Tennessee. In the purple-red states the left wing state courts have been bailing out the Dems every single time while in the blue or purple-blue states the Republicans have no chance anyway because of there being a Democrat governor and/or legislature. The state courts thing has become a cheat code for the Democrats this cycle.
Race Number Percentage White (non-Hispanic) 347,363 39.72% Black or African American (non-Hispanic) 284,206 32.5% Native American 2,177 0.25% Asian 61,420 7.02% Pacific Islander 427 0.05% Other/Mixed 36,282 4.15% Hispanic or Latino 142,704 16.32%
(With all the recent dramatic growth in tech jobs and migration of young people of all races, especially whites, Hispanics and Asians/India Indians in the past 10-15 years to Charlotte (think: Bank of America, Wells Fargo, many other banking & finance giants located in CHA), blacks are no longer en led to a VRA-protected Charlotte-based district.)
If NC votes out their democrat court majority in a red wave year in 2022, which I don't doubt they will, don't be surprised if the NC GOP passes a spiteful, filthy, all-out disgusting, reverse-Pritzkermander revenge map like this:
Interestingly enough my NC-09 and NC-04, the R+3 and R+4 districts respectively, are trending to the right. What's trending blue? My NC-01 and NC-02, though I'd say that my NC-03 (R+7), NC-06 (R+8), and/or NC-13 (R+7) could be a little iffy in the event of a blue wave year... either way GOP gets a strong majority and a strong counter to IL/NY.
Most years, under any non-blue-wave-environment, it's a pretty solid 12-2 map.
Last edited by Millennial_Messiah; 03-08-2022 at 02:38 PM.
The only "purple red" states where Dems have been bailed out by a state supreme court is North Carolina and Ohio...literally just two states. You're just hyper-focusing on those states because you have a conservative victimhood complex but you're ignoring the purple-red states (Florida, Texas) and flat out purple states (Georgia, Wisconsin) where the GOP essentially has full control of the process.
If the GOP was actually as handicapped by redistricting as you're pretending it is, then it would have wanted a federal ban. The reason the GOP doesn't want a federal ban is because it still benefits more from gerrymandering than Democrats do, it's just not as lopsided of an effect as it was in 2010.
Elections have consequences. Democrats made a concerted effort to start winning state supreme court elections around 2015 and as a result picked up control of the supreme court in NC, PA, MI and OH. That's not a cheat code; it's no different than how the GOP focused on winning state leg control in 2010 for a redistricting advantage.
Basically you're just butthurt that Democrats beat the GOP at their own game by pouring resources into winning important court elections that have major redistricting ramifications. The re ed part is that the state supreme courts aren't drawing unfair maps, they're putting proportional maps in place that are similar to what you would expect from an independent commission. It makes no sense that you're more offended by a state supreme court imposing a fair map than you are by a state legislature imposing a hyper-gerrymandered map.
The GOP is going to pass the exact same map it would have passed before. The veiled threats about how the GOP might take the gloves off if the Democrats don't let them do whatever they want are hilarious and stupid. After 2010, it's pretty clear the GOP is going to gerrymander as much as possible whenever it has the power to, particularly the North Carolina GOP which is known for its ruthlessness.
You're also ignoring the states that have full Dem control (Washington, Virginia, Colorado and California) where the Dems disarming themselves probably costed us 10 seats in congress. Name me one instance where the GOP disarmed itself (and no, Missouri choosing not to crack KC because of selfish in bents isn't the MO GOP disarming itself).
if you think the NC GOP would ever draw that map. They'd much rather create a Charlotte sink district than make 4-5 more districts that are compe ive. The NC GOP's map that the court overturned is the same map it'll use if the NC GOP wins control of the NCSC in 2022. There's no downside to the Dems using power while they have it. You're also wrong about Charlotte; any district that's majority-minority, even if non-hispanic whites have a plurality, has some level of VRA protection. North Carolina is also a 4th circuit state where the circuit judges are very friendly to Dems in VRA lawsuits; they would need to rely on SCOTUS to gut the VRA in order for them to dissect Charlotte, and it's just not worth it.
Last edited by Will Hunting; 03-08-2022 at 03:30 PM.
If the GOP actually had full control in Georgia, they'd get rid of that re ed Southwest Georgia tilt-(D) district.The only "purple red" states where Dems have been bailed out by a state supreme court is North Carolina and Ohio...literally just two states. You're just hyper-focusing on those states because you have a conservative victimhood complex but you're ignoring the purple-red states (Florida, Texas) and flat out purple states (Georgia, Wisconsin) where the GOP essentially has full control of the process.
If the GOP was actually as handicapped by redistricting as you're pretending it is, then it would have wanted a federal ban. The reason the GOP doesn't want a federal ban is because it still benefits more from gerrymandering than Democrats do, it's just not as lopsided of an effect as it was in 2010.
Elections have consequences. Democrats made a concerted effort to start winning state supreme court elections around 2015 and as a result picked up control of the supreme court in NC, PA, MI and OH. That's not a cheat code; it's no different than how the GOP focused on winning state leg control in 2010 for a redistricting advantage.
Basically you're just butthurt that Democrats beat the GOP at their own game by pouring resources into winning important court elections that have major redistricting ramifications. The re ed part is that the state supreme courts aren't drawing unfair maps, they're putting proportional maps in place that are similar to what you would expect from an independent commission. It makes no sense that you're more offended by a state supreme court imposing a fair map than you are by a state legislature imposing a hyper-gerrymandered map.
The GOP is going to pass the exact same map it would have passed before. The veiled threats about how the GOP might take the gloves off if the Democrats don't let them do whatever they want are hilarious and stupid. After 2010, it's pretty clear the GOP is going to gerrymander as much as possible whenever it has the power to, particularly the North Carolina GOP which is known for its ruthlessness.
You're also ignoring the states that have full Dem control (Washington, Virginia, Colorado and California) where the Dems disarming themselves probably costed us 10 seats in congress. Name me one instance where the GOP disarmed itself (and no, Missouri choosing not to crack KC because of selfish in bents isn't the MO GOP disarming itself).
Wisconsin has both a Dem court system AND Governor, at least for now. Evers' map is more of a Dem gerrymander than the other proposal which was much smoother and kept more communities together compared to Evers's map.
California already has a hugely disproportional advantage in house seats for the Dems compared to their popular vote advantage. Not sure what you're asking for there.
Florida and Texas aren't even bad for the Dems unless DeSantis gets one of his maps through but that's going to be tough.
I will draw a new map in NC that's straight up 11-3 with no compe ive seats. The Dems can have Charlotte.
How does the GOP not have full control in Georgia? Be specific. The fact they aren't cracking a majority black VRA-protected district isn't an argument that there isn't full GOP control
Wisconsin's supreme court has a 4-3 conservative majority. The swing vote was literally Scott Walker's redistricting lawyer in 2010...you have no idea what you're talking about if you think the Wisconsin Supreme Court has a Dem majority
That's largely just due to the GOP having geography in CA. A state leg could easily draw a 49-3 map in CA that's fully compliant with federal and state law.
The GOP already did that so don't waste your time, it drew a 10-3-1 map (the 1 compe ive seat is VRA protected, otherwise they'd have made it red).
Like I said, the NC GOP is going to go balls to the wall regardless of what Democrats do.
Let's face it, Blexas was a pipe dream that peaked in 2018 and is dying and swinging back red, especially on the backs of Hispanic voters and also conservative whites fleeing CA and similar states for a better/cheaper/less taxed life in Texas. I see Tarrant County flipping back red as well as the majority of the RGV flipping red for the first time. Austin is forever blue but getting maxed-out, SA is trending red as well as the Houston suburbs. Blexas is dead. The maps give the Democrats a ton of safe seats and while it's not proportional to 2020, we all know 2020 was a flukishly blue year nationwide due to we all know what (covid) - ergo lots of mail in ballots and boomers (AZ, too) blaming the in bent even if they regret not voting for Trump now. 2016 is a better example especially in states with high older populations. IMO, 2024 will look a lot more like 2004 in Texas than 2020 or even 2016.
The GOP already did that so don't waste your time, it drew a 10-3-1 map (the 1 compe ive seat is VRA protected, otherwise they'd have made it red).
Like I said, the NC GOP is going to go balls to the wall regardless of what Democrats do.
As for NC: I see them drawing something like this
10-3-1 but really 11-3 because they're going to make that rural black belt district in the east/northeast redder like I did.
Also you never responded to my Illinois map, Will Hunting. Fair?
I think it's fair but it'd get sued under the VRA, there's too much black population packed into district 4; there should be 3 majority or plurality black districts in Chicagoland.
None of this is an argument that Texas isn't gerrymandered.
I guess you can mish-mash 4 and 5 to make it VRA compliant then, basically trade a few precincts here and there to get that black plurality in district 4. Wouldn't be particularly hard since they are already adjacent. I just made 5 the South Side of Chicago in the spirit of "keeping communities together" -- you get a 72 percent Black district that pretty much gives the south side a leader of their own and would ensure that the congressperson of that district is likely black as well. It's easy enough to take 4 percent out of it though and make blacks the majority in district 4 and reduce the district 5 to 68 percent Black, which gives blacks 3 plurality district including 1 district where they're the super majority on the south side, district 5. But it would involve splitting a few communities.
No way in though you should ever get a blue seat downstate though. I could just imagine Pritzker last fall in a random corner of one of his luxury Hyatt offices with a mountain of food on one side of the desk and a computer on the other and stuffing his face full of french fries while smirking about how he can draw random precincts in a narrow curvy line from East St Louis all the way to Champaign through Springfield and get a D+6 district that would somehow be legal in Illinois but never legal in a more fair state like Ohio.
It will most likely be around R+20 in 2022 for governor and then somewhere between R+10 and R+17 in 2024 for POTUS and Senate, depending on the national environment. I didn't say it would be full blown Dubya margins in Texas, I just said "closer to 2004 than 2020".None of this is an argument that Texas isn't gerrymandered.
Florida will also be close to R+10 in 2024 for POTUS and Senate. New Mexico will be interesting and AZ is almost certain to flip back to red side of purple. Wisconsin will go from purple to purple-red. Minnesota is purple-blue but Duluth (98% white and mainly WWC) is gradually trending red about 2-3% per cycle; if it pulls a Youngstown Ohio the state could actually flip despite the blue stronghold in and around in the Twin Cities. I think New Hampshire will remain on the blue side of purple. The only purple states that I think continue to trend blue are Virginia (purple-blue to Illinois-blue), Georgia (could still be purple in 2024 and go either way but is long term trending bluer) and also, Colorado is going full-Oregon...Latinos are getting priced out there and moving south and east and soon it will be D+15 type state like Oregon dominated by white stoners and would be a few high end universities away from becoming Massachusetts.
Last edited by Millennial_Messiah; 03-09-2022 at 01:51 PM.
Abbott wins by less than 20% you kill yourself. Abbott wins by more than 20% I kill myself. Deal?
The margin will in the range of 15-25 %, so 20 percent +/- 5.
Abbott wins by less than 20% you kill yourself. Abbott wins by more than 20% I kill myself. Deal?
Nobody is killing themself over a f--king political race.
If the TX Democrats / DNC had ran a stronger and much more moderate Democrat for Texas governor that campaigned on fixing the energy grid and not "yes we'll take away your guns" and focused on making good on the failed promises that Abbott made and never kept, like removing the Social Security windfall from teachers earning teacher pension, they would actually make the race compe ive. Beta Male O'Rourke is a twice-failed candidate and is just terrible overall aside from his cult following. It will be a blowout.
The irony is that TX Dems needed a candidate like Henry Cuellar to win the governorship but Cuellar is in jeopardy of losing his own house seat in the runoff and if he loses that runoff in May to his Squad-wannabe opponent, the Democrats are toast in that district.
Cassy Garcia (TX-23; she has a runoff in May but is strongly favored to win it, her GOP opponent is white), Monica De La Cruz (TX-15), and Mayra Flores (TX-34) are all strong conservative Latina challenger candidates. I predict they will all flip the 3 RGV districts, particularly if Cuellar loses his TX-23 runoff to squadite Cisneros. If Cuellar holds on to his runoff, I give him the slight edge over Garcia (the weakest of the 3 GOP Latina conservatives in the RGV) even in a red wave year since Cuellar has a proven moderate track record.
Also bold but somewhat realistic prediction by me: both Bexar County, Texas and Miami-Dade County, Florida will vote move from "Safe D" to "Tilt D" or redder in 2022. SA in particular is taking a pretty hard right. Mexicans are very price-elastic consumers, they aren't stupid and they know why gas has shot up in the span of one year from under $2 to $4.
Last edited by Millennial_Messiah; 03-09-2022 at 04:19 PM.
4 / 6 scotus right-wing judges appear to be ready to say legislative Independence is not fringe bul but cons utional which allows state legislators to escape any and all oversight which includes unrestricted redistricting and choosing the electors independent of what the citizens vote for
...perhaps, but I pray you're mistaken, bouts.
https://twitter.com/DavidNir/status/1506670824656355329Six weeks ago, in early February, SCOTUS stayed a ruling ordering Alabama to redraw its congressional map because it was too close to the election. Now, in late March, it's ordering Wisconsin to redraw its legislative maps
from Vladeck's thread
I’m old enough to remember that many, many years ago (3.5 years to be exact), the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts didn’t have jurisdiction in gerrymandering cases.
That won't affect the outcome except in a blue wave year it should be 6-2. Bizarre they did that one in WI but not in NC where Republicans were actually drawn out.
Also, I made this. Fair map for Missouri that they should consider:
Does not violate VRA because KC Metro is not black enough.
7-1 edge and all 7 safe (R) seats of R+22 and greater. Cori Bush keeps her extremely safe seat at D+57. Would be nice to see.
The SC ruling was only for the state leg districts, Evers' congressional maps were upheld.
It's still a completely bull ruling that has no real basis, but it doesn't touch the congressional maps.
it may give insight about where the SC is at one Section 2 of the VRA -- they just overturned the legislative maps as an inappropriate use of race without a full hearing or a written opinion. Using peremptory emergency rulings to change the law along partisan lines is fascistic bull .
Yup, doesn't overturn the Wisconsin US house map
honestly though, the other one made more sense from a geographic sense in terms of keeping communities together and drawing more reasonably looking shapes.
Missouri fair map (noted above)
OREGON Fair Map (Solid 3-3) - note it's cool how the I-5 corridor area gets its own district, OR-05!!
This was an easy one to do because there's no VRA stuff in Oregon.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
