# Redistricting for the US House and the US state legislatures

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
Brand New Congress on Twitter: "Gerrymandering is bipartisan. BNC candidate @ImaniOakleyNJ10 wrote in a blog for us last month about the efforts of Democratic lawmakers in New Jersey to break up historic Black communities to protect white incumbents. (link)" / Twitter
noting
They call it redistricting. We call it voter suppression. – Imani Oakley – Brand New Congress
From the beginning, our campaign for New Jersey’s 10th Congressional District has focused on New Jersey’s ballot design and how the political machine here uses it to stay in power.

But instead of being ashamed, the establishment has doubled down on its losing strategy of dirty tricks and moderate politics. Now they’re trying to use the redistricting process to surgically cut me out of the district by moving my historically Black neighborhood from the majority-minority 10th to the majority white 11th district.

This type of backroom political maneuvering is gross for many reasons — not least because redistricting is supposed to make our democracy more representative, not less.
Imani Oakley for Congress on Twitter: "Update: we won " / Twitter

It is evident that Democrats are plenty guilty of gerrymandering.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
That does not make the Republicans any less guilty, of course.

Brand New Congress on Twitter: "Just last week, BNC candidate @OdessaKellyTN faced the same thing from the @TNGOP and their plan to break up the 5th district (Nashville) into 3 separate gerrymandered districts -- all to dilute the power of the increasingly diverse community of Nashville. (link)" / Twitter
noting
Welcome to the New Jim Crow – Odessa Kelly – Brand New Congress
For over 200 years, the city of Nashville, Tennessee has existed within a single congressional district with one member of Congress representing the city.

Over the years our city has grown more diverse, but our representatives have not.

That’s why I launched my campaign for Congress to represent this district, and I’m proud to have the support of Brand New Congress.

But last week we learned that Republicans in the Tennessee legislature are planning to break up Nashville into THREE districts in the new Congressional maps.

The Tennessee GOP is showing us exactly what happens when white supremacists are given the power and tools to destroy our democracy. Dividing up Nashville is an intentional attempt to dilute the voices of Black and Brown voters in Tennessee and destroy a progressive, Democratic stronghold in our state.

It’s no coincidence that when the first openly gay Black woman is mounting the most serious challenge to win this district, they want to break it up.

So we are fighting back.

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor
Certainly, this year the Democrats are going for broke, in New Mexico, New Jersey, but not California. In general, many bluer states have limits on Gerrymandering.

But Ohio?! That map was obscene as far as gerrymandering goes. And the GOP has been having issues with the courts and gerrymandering in other states like North Carolina.

Gerrymandering is ugly and it is making Congress static. We need some sort of Constitutional Amendment to address gerrymandering, but the Dems and GOP would never bite... well, the Dems might, but only if the GOP does... and they won't.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
Kansas now has a proposed map. In fact, five proposed maps, with named "Ad Astra", "Bluestem", "Buffalo 2", "Sunflower", and "Unity".

Kansas: June 1, 2022 - Deadline for congressional candidates to file (therefore map should be set by this date)

From least favorable to most favorable: Ad Astra, Sunflower, Unity, (Bluestem, Buffalo 2)

They differ in how much Kansas City is split up, with AA being the most split, and the BB pair being the least split.

-

In Connecticut, court-appointed master Nathaniel Persily has issued two new maps. "Now that Persily’s proposal is public, people can submit proposed changes until Jan. 24. The justices will then hold a public hearing on Jan. 27."

In Kentucky, Gov. Andy Beshear vetoed the legislature's map. But the legislature has enough votes to override that veto.

Tennessee Republicans have proposed maps that split up Nashville, creating districts that contain parts of that city and the surrounding countryside, thus making them Republican. This gerrymandering has provoked a lot of protest.

Minnesota's and Wisconsin's redistricting are now in the courts, and Pennsylvania's redistricting looks like it will soon join them.

Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Washington State look ready to go.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
Kentucky now has a map. The state legislature overrode Governor Beshears's veto of it. This map is much like the existing one, with Louisville strongly Democratic and the rest of the state strongly Republican.

With Kansas getting maps, Louisiana became the only state without a proposed map.

In Missouri, the State House has approved a map that's not much different from the existing map.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
Mississippi now has a map. It's not much different from the old map.

Kansas continues its tradition of creative names for its maps. It has set aside maps "Ad Astra", "United", "Meadowlark 5", "Meadowlark 6", and it still considers "Bluestem", "Buffalo 2", "Sunflower", "Ad Astra 2", "Mushroom Rock 2", "Prairie Dog".

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
South Carolina now has a map. It's not much different from the old map, though SC-01 is a bit more Republican. It contains Charleston and some nearby coastline.

Alabama's proposed map is being litigated over, because it has only one pro-Democratic district instead of two. Several other states' maps are being litigated over, and some other states may join them from their governor and legislature being at loggerheads: Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and maybe Kansas.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
Hawaii now has a map. It is almost identical to the state's earlier map, with HI-01 being the Honolulu area and HI-02 being the rest of the state.

Has some recent tweets on the redistricting of New York State. The national party wants to gerrymander the state's 26 Congressional districts into D-R 23-3. The legislature wants a 22-4 map, setting aside the redistricting commission's efforts. That commission's Democratic and Republican members were at loggerheads, releasing competing maps.

From 538, the previously proposed maps were D-C-R 17-3-6 (18-8), 15-3-8 (17-9), 18-3-5 (18-8), 17-3-6 (18-8)
C = competitive (R+5 to D+5). The most recent one is 20-2-4 (22-4).

New York’s Proposed Congressional Map Is Heavily Biased Toward Democrats. Will It Pass? | FiveThirtyEight
I had previously calculated that redistricting alone would hand Republicans two new House seats (give or take) in the 2022 midterms, while Democrats would roughly stand pat. (This is before accounting for the likely Republican-leaning national political environment.) Add this map to the mix, though, and Democrats would be poised to gain about three seats nationally and Republicans would be poised to lose around two
Then noting how two Republicans are now vulnerable in NY-01 and NY-11, and how an upstate Republican-leaning district has been eliminated, forcing Claudia Tenney and Tom Reed together in the new NY-23.
In general, though, New York Democrats were ruthlessly efficient at drawing this map. The Cook Political Report’s Dave Wasserman found only a few places where the map could be tweaked to shore up Democrats, and even then, the potential gains were minimal. The map was also cleverly designed to minimize the risk that any light-blue districts could fall to Republicans in a red-wave election. The two Democrats who represent the two most vulnerable districts under this map (the two highly-competitive-but-Democratic-tilting seats) are Reps. Antonio Delgado and Sean Patrick Maloney. Delgado was one of House Democrats’ strongest incumbents in 2020, running 10 percentage points ahead of Biden, while Maloney is the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and therefore will have access to googobs (a technical term) of money. The next-most competitive districts, the 1st and 11th, are probably too blue for Republicans to win under normal conditions, though it would be possible in a very pro-Republican year.
Even so, this map may not survive the state legislature, and the Republicans may sue about it, claiming in court that the map is gerrymandered.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
Louisiana now has some proposed maps. They are split between one and two Democratic districts out of a total of six.

That state is the last state to get proposed maps, so the counts are 29 states with new maps, 15 states with proposed maps, and 6 one-district states.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State | FiveThirtyEight

New York lawmakers approve new congressional districts favoring Democrats - syracuse.com
The New York Assembly voted 103-45 to approve new congressional district maps that favor Democrats on Wednesday, Feb. 2, 2022. Republicans plan to challenge the redistricting plan in court. (AP Photo/Hans Pennink, Pool)AP
By Mark Weiner | mweiner@syracuse.com

New York lawmakers voted Wednesday to approve new congressional district maps that would give Democrats an advantage in 22 of the state’s 26 House districts for the next decade.

The Assembly passed the redistricting bill 103-45 Wednesday afternoon. The state Senate followed later in the day, approving the new congressional districts 43-20 in a vote along party lines.

The bill now heads to Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul for her signature.

A coalition of good-government groups had asked state lawmakers to hold public hearings on the proposed maps, which were first made public late Sunday. But Democrats in the Assembly and Senate said there was no time to delay because the new districts need to be in place by the beginning of March.

Republicans promised to challenge the maps in court, claiming the Democratic majorities in the state Assembly and Senate used their power to draw new district lines that give Democrats a strong partisan edge.
Welcome to the club, NY Republicans.

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor
Yeah, Gerrymandering is crap. For Republicans to complain about it is the utter peak of hypocrisy.

For this, we actually do need a Constitutional Amendment, but how to require redistricting without Gerrymandering probably isn't the easiest to put into words.

#### Gospel

##### Warning Level 9999
Yeah, Gerrymandering is crap. For Republicans to complain about it is the utter peak of hypocrisy.

For this, we actually do need a Constitutional Amendment, but how to require redistricting without Gerrymandering probably isn't the easiest to put into words.

If

A) American's spend the same amount of energy they do on Facebook, Twitter & Instagram, on working directly with their urban, suburban & rural neighbors.

we can

B) Remove the need for districts altogether.

Instead, we go with the method of voting based on what amounts to news presented through Hollywood squares to unlock that "I voted button" that is as useful as an Xbox/PlayStation achievement unlocked notification. This whole let your elected officials do as they please after you've voted them in is bullshit and needs to stop. Folks should be working with their neighbors & voting on their local budgets, development (EVERYTHING). Officials should be our talking heads; not a bunch of paid employees on a TV or streaming service. There would be no need for "districts" to play a role in voting if we'd pull our heads out of our asses.

But I'm just a rambling low IQ, one check away from being a broke black dude ranting on a forum I somehow became a big fan of.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
There is a simple solution.

Proportional representation.

Why doesn't anyone ever talk about that? I sometimes feel like I'm the only one who knows about it.

There are several ways to do it, and if anyone wants, I will explain them here.

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor
There is a simple solution.

Proportional representation.

Why doesn't anyone ever talk about that? I sometimes feel like I'm the only one who knows about it.

There are several ways to do it, and if anyone wants, I will explain them here.
It'd require an even large Constitutional Amendment! And while there is only a snowball chance in hell of the Anti-Gerrymandering Amendment, there is only a tiny fraction of a percent chance of the snowball in hell chance for changing how we elect Representatives.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
There is a simple solution.

Proportional representation.

Why doesn't anyone ever talk about that? I sometimes feel like I'm the only one who knows about it.

There are several ways to do it, and if anyone wants, I will explain them here.
It'd require an even large Constitutional Amendment! And while there is only a snowball chance in hell of the Anti-Gerrymandering Amendment, there is only a tiny fraction of a percent chance of the snowball in hell chance for changing how we elect Representatives.

##### Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
The Nebraska Legislature overcame the filibuster in approving a push for a convention of states to amend the U.S. Constitution, becoming the 17th state to do so.

State lawmakers passed a legislative resolution, LR14, in a 32-11 vote Friday, according to the Unicameral Update.

A convention of states is outlined in Article V of the Constitution, according to The National Consitution Center. It is used to bypass Congress to amend the Constitution, but has never been used. A state's call for amendments can only be considered after approval by two-thirds of its Legislature. With Nebraska's call, the U.S. is halfway to getting the 34 states required for a convention, the Associated Press reported.

In the resolution, the Nebraska Legislature, like other states, proposes amendments that will "impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress."

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
There is a simple solution.

Proportional representation.

Why doesn't anyone ever talk about that? I sometimes feel like I'm the only one who knows about it.

There are several ways to do it, and if anyone wants, I will explain them here.

That gives even more power to political parties, I don't think that's a good thing anymore.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
There is a simple solution.

Proportional representation.

Why doesn't anyone ever talk about that? I sometimes feel like I'm the only one who knows about it.

There are several ways to do it, and if anyone wants, I will explain them here.

That gives even more power to political parties, I don't think that's a good thing anymore.
The US Founders didn't want political parties, to the extent that they expressed opinions on that subject. But they ended up splitting up into parties in George Washington's first term.

That aside, there are nonpartisan forms of PR, forms that do not explicitly involve parties. In particular, single transferable vote, a multiseat extension of instant runoff voting. STV works like IRV with the addition that the ballots that contribute to victories are downweighted or else partially removed from the count. This is what makes STV proportional, because not doing such downweighting would make it degenerate into general ticket, voting for an entire slate of candidates in single-seat fashion. That is true in general of extending single-seat methods into multiseat elections.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
New York now has a map, its rather gerrymandered one that has D 22 - R 4.

Both Jamaal Bowman NY-16 and Mondaire Jones NY-17 have districts that extend well into upstate NY in narrow strips, and I suspect that that is to move NY-18 closer to NYC. Their 538 partisan scores are D+36, D+10, and D+3, and for the previous map, D+49, D+17, 0. In that map, NY-16 had been N Bronx and nearby upstate NY, and NY-17 had extended further northward, though not as much as NY-16 and NY-17 do now.

She's running for NY-03:
Melanie D'Arrigo for NY3 on Twitter: "By the looks of it, the next Representative for #NY3 will need a boat to serve all constituents.
Below is my statement on the alleged new congressional maps for #NY3

Northern Long Island and eastern Bronx and nearby upstate NY.
By the looks of it, the next Representative for New York's Third Congressional District will need a boat to cross the Long Island Sound to serve all constituents.

We cannot stay silent as we watch the state legislature float a map that extreme gerrymanders our district. The new proposal would take our district from currently containing three counties to soon containing five, including just slivers from the Bronx and Westchester that are separated from the rest by the Long Island Sound. iS How is this fair to the people who live in any of these counties? All of the voters at stake deserve real representation, not to be used as political pawns.

I was born and raised here on Long Island. I am raising my family here on Long Island. I have been organizing and fighting for working families on Long Island throughout my entire career.

I will bring that same determination and commitment to any configuration of the district, but I stand by the principle that voters should choose their representatives. The folks in Albany have currently got this backwards.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
Several of the maps are being litigated over. Because of the Voting Rights Act, racial gerrymanders are illegal, but the Supreme Court decided that partisan gerrymanders aren't -- they leave it to Congress and the states to decide. So that has made it easier to strike down some maps than others.

Gerrymandering lawsuit: NC districts ruled unconstitutional | Raleigh News & Observer
The maps, drawn by Republican lawmakers late last year, would have given GOP candidates a sizable advantage in elections throughout the next decade. Republican leaders argued in favor of the maps in court, saying redistricting is an inherently political process and that courts shouldn’t get involved by banning partisan gerrymandering.

The Supreme Court, which has a Democratic majority, disagreed.

The ruling divided the court along party lines. All three Republican justices dissented and said they would have allowed the maps to stand. But all four Democratic justices joined in the majority opinion, which struck down the maps for both the N.C. General Assembly and North Carolina’s 14 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The justices ruled that the maps were skewed so far to the right that they violated the state constitution — specifically that they “are unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt under the free elections clause, the equal protection clause, the free speech clause and the freedom of assembly clause of North Carolina’s constitution.”

Redistricting: Ohio Supreme Court strikes down congressional map

Top Ohio court strikes down state's gerrymandered congressional map- POLITICO - "The state Supreme Court ruled Republicans in Columbus had stacked the deck against Democrats in redistricting, in violation of the state constitution."
Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor was, once again, a key vote in the 4-3 decision to reject the map, which could have given Republicans as much as a 12-3 advantage in a state that voted for President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump, twice.

That violated language overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2018 to prevent a map that unduly favored one party or its incumbents.

"When the dealer stacks the deck in advance, the house usually wins," wrote Justice Michael Donnelly in the court's opinion.

Now, Ohio lawmakers will be sent back to the drawing board to craft a new map within 30 days. If they can't reach a solution, the Ohio Redistricting Commission – a panel of statewide elected officials and state lawmakers – will have 30 days to do so. Mapmakers face a tight turnaround because candidates must file paperwork to run by March 4.

Ohio Redistricting Commission asks supreme court to put new maps into place anyway | WOSU News
Groups that sued over the first set of maps – and won when the court said they were unconstitutionally gerrymandered – have challenged these latest maps.

The commission has asked the court to uphold the maps Republicans on the panel approved on January 22. If the justices can’t decide by February 11, they asked for the newly drawn maps to be put into place anyway through the November election.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
A court caught Republicans discriminating against Black voters – here’s how | Alabama | The Guardian
Under the new districts, Black people make up 25% of the Alabama’s population, but comprise a majority in just one of the state’s seven districts.

In late January, a panel of three federal judges issued a 225-page opinion explaining how the state was discriminating against Black voters.

“Black voters have less opportunity than other Alabamians to elect candidates of their choice to Congress,” the panel wrote. The judges gave Alabama 14 days to come up with a new plan and said the state had to draw two districts where Black voters comprise a majority.
Then showing how it happens. The current map has one black-majority district, in the western part of the state, but in the eastern part, the black population is divided among two districts.

Alabama’s New Electoral Lines are Racially Gerrymandered — Here’s Why

Supreme Court could act soon on Alabama racial gerrymandering dispute | TheHill
The central question is whether the mismatch between Alabama’s Black population and its disproportionately low representation in the U.S. House violates the law. Despite Black Alabamians accounting for around 27 percent of the state’s population, the voting map drawn by the GOP-held legislature following the 2020 census gives Black voters control of only 14 percent of the state’s congressional delegation, or one in seven Alabama seats in the U.S House.

Challengers to the new map brought suits in federal court alleging that the new voting districts reflected “a decades long pattern of the white-controlled Alabama Legislature” drawing maps that “discriminate against Black voters to maintain power” in violation of federal law and constitutional protections.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member

Think this court will actually do it's job?

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
Supreme Court, in 5-4 Vote, Restores Alabama’s Congressional Voting Map - The New York Times
A special three-judge court had ordered lawmakers to redraw the lines, saying Black voters “have less opportunity” than other Alabamians to elect their favored candidates.

...
The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court’s three liberal members in dissent.

The Supreme Court’s brief order, which included no reasoning, was provisional, staying a lower court’s decision while the case moves forward. The justices said they would hear Alabama’s appeal of the lower court’s ruling, but they did not say when.

...
If the court follows its usual practices, it will schedule arguments in the Alabama case for the fall and issue a decision months later, meaning that the 2022 election would be conducted using the challenged map.

Alabama has seven congressional districts and its voting-age population is about 27 percent Black. In the challenged map, Black voters are in the majority in one district. The lower court, relying on the Voting Rights Act, had ordered the State Legislature to create a second district in which Black voters could elect a representative of their choice.

Brett Kavanaugh, with Samuel Alito:
... “the stay order does not make or signal any change to voting rights law.” It was necessary, he wrote, because the lower court had acted too soon before a coming election.

“When an election is close at hand, the rules of the road must be clear and settled,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote. “Late judicial tinkering with election laws can lead to disruption and to unanticipated and unfair consequences for candidates, political parties and voters, among others.”

John Roberts's dissent:
... the lower court in the Alabama case had “properly applied existing law in an extensive opinion with no apparent errors for our correction.”

Still, he wrote, the Supreme Court’s precedents “have engendered considerable disagreement and uncertainty regarding the nature and contours of a vote dilution claim.”

The correct solution, the chief justice wrote, would have been to agree to hear the state’s appeal — but not to grant a stay in the meantime.

“The practical effect of this approach,” he wrote, “would be that the 2022 election would take place in accord with the judgment of the district court, but subsequent elections would be governed by this court’s decision on review.”

Elena Kagan's dissent:
“It does a disservice to the district court, which meticulously applied this court’s longstanding voting-rights precedent,” she wrote. “And most of all, it does a disservice to Black Alabamians who under that precedent have had their electoral power diminished — in violation of a law this court once knew to buttress all of American democracy.”

She added that the lower court had acted well before the next primary election, in late May, and the general election, in November.

“Alabama is not entitled to keep violating Black Alabamians’ voting rights just because the court’s order came down in the first month of an election year,” she wrote.
So unless the Supreme Court moves very quickly by its standards, the state's 6-1 map will be used in this year's election, with a revised map being used in 2024 and later.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
Tennessee now has a map.

Memphis has a majority-Democratic district, while Nashville is split between three majority-Republican districts.

The score: 31 have new maps, 13 have proposed maps, and 6 have one district.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
How N.Y. Democrats Are Leading a ‘Master Class’ in Gerrymandering - The New York Times - Feb 2
Many of the party’s operatives and voters were less bashful in their support of gerrymandering, arguing that Democrats could not afford to take the high road when Republicans have shown no similar inclination.

Both parties have weaponized redistricting for years in the larger battle for control of the House of Representatives, but Republicans recently have been more effective in doing so, based on their control of large states like Texas and Florida, and the decision by liberal bastions like California to adopt nonpartisan redistricting commissions to handle the process.

...
In New York, the redistricting cycle began, perhaps naïvely, in the hopes that a bipartisan outside commission — approved by voters in 2014 — would deliver a balanced, common-sense map.

Instead, the commission stuck to party lines and was unable to reach consensus last month, kicking control of the process back to the State Legislature, where Democrats have amassed rare supermajorities in recent years. Those majorities, plus control of the governorship, gave them the power for the first time in decades to draw maps as they saw fit.

Democratic leaders swiftly released their own maps in a matter of days, forgoing any public hearings and largely keeping even their own members in the dark about the new lines until they became public.

Wednesday’s vote fell mostly along party lines, as Democrats limited defections to narrowly pass the map in the Assembly, 103 to 45, and the Senate, 43 to 20.

The Legislature planned to proceed as soon as Thursday to pass state legislative maps drawn by Democrats divvying up State Senate and Assembly districts. Most notably, they were expected to help solidify Democrats’ hold of the State Senate in an election year when Republicans are trying to reclaim a chamber they controlled for all but three years between the mid-1940s and 2019.
Republicans plan to sue about the new maps.
Republicans were not the only group alarmed by the new maps. The process has infuriated good-governance groups that had pleaded with Democratic Party leaders to hold hearings.

And an influential coalition of groups that advocate for Black, Latino and Asian New Yorkers, known as the UNITY Map Coalition, accused mapmakers of “haphazardly” dividing Black and brown voters while ignoring the priorities of those communities.

“Many of the districts are contorted in incoherent ways that are not necessary, breaking apart communities and disenfranchising voters,” they wrote.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
Melanie D'Arrigo is running for the NY-03 House seat, and she grumbles about how gerrymandered her district now is.

Melanie D'Arrigo for NY3 on Twitter: "By the looks of it, the next Representative for #NY3 will need a boat to serve all constituents.
Below is my statement on the alleged new congressional maps for #NY3

"By the looks of it, the next Representative for New York's Third Congressional District will need a boat to cross the Long Island Sound to serve all constituents.

"We cannot stay silent as we watch the state legislature float a map that extreme gerrymanders our district. The new proposal would take our district from currently containing three counties to soon containing five, including just slivers from the Bronx and Westchester that are separated from the rest by the Long Island Sound. How is this fair to the people who live in any of these counties? All of the voters at stake deserve real representation, not to be used as political pawns.

I was born and raised here on Long Island. I am raising my family here on Long Island. I have been organizing and fighting for working families on Long Island throughout my entire career.

will bring that same determination and commitment to any configuration of the district, but I stand by the principle that voters should choose their representatives. The folks in Albany have currently got this backwards."
Why was it gerrymandered like that? It's still mostly northern Long Island, but it has a strip on the east shore of the Bronx and Westchester County up to the border with Connecticut.

Also running for NY-03 is State Senator Alessandra Biaggi, another progressive candidate, and one who got into the NY State Senate in 2018 by defeating a long-time incumbent conservative Democrat, much like AOC's victory that year.

How does she fit in?

RRH Elections on Twitter: "Alessandra Biaggi (D) the granddaughter of a Democratic Congressman who pled guilty to bribery & corruption will run for the open Long Island based Biden +14 #NY03 seat she gerrymandered across 5 counties & the Long Island Sound to include her home in Westchester." / Twitter
then
RRH Elections on Twitter: "Worth noting that Alessandra Biaggi was on the NY state Senate redistricting committee. The reason the open #NY03 snakes through 5 counties & crosses the Long Island sound to lump Westchester into a LI district is because Biaggi lives in Pelham & she drew this seat for herself. (pic link)" / Twitter

So it looks like she got NY-03 that Bronx-Westchester strip so it would include her home and a bit of her State Senate district.

She might have run against Bronxites or Westchesterites AOC or Jamaal Bowman or Mondaire Jones or Ritchie Torres, but she wanted virgin territory for progressives.

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor
Supreme Court, in 5-4 Vote, Restores Alabama’s Congressional Voting Map - The New York Times
A special three-judge court had ordered lawmakers to redraw the lines, saying Black voters “have less opportunity” than other Alabamians to elect their favored candidates.

...
The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court’s three liberal members in dissent.

The Supreme Court’s brief order, which included no reasoning, was provisional, staying a lower court’s decision while the case moves forward. The justices said they would hear Alabama’s appeal of the lower court’s ruling, but they did not say when.

...
If the court follows its usual practices, it will schedule arguments in the Alabama case for the fall and issue a decision months later, meaning that the 2022 election would be conducted using the challenged map.

Alabama has seven congressional districts and its voting-age population is about 27 percent Black. In the challenged map, Black voters are in the majority in one district. The lower court, relying on the Voting Rights Act, had ordered the State Legislature to create a second district in which Black voters could elect a representative of their choice.

Brett Kavanaugh, with Samuel Alito:
... “the stay order does not make or signal any change to voting rights law.” It was necessary, he wrote, because the lower court had acted too soon before a coming election.

“When an election is close at hand, the rules of the road must be clear and settled,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote. “Late judicial tinkering with election laws can lead to disruption and to unanticipated and unfair consequences for candidates, political parties and voters, among others.”

John Roberts's dissent:
... the lower court in the Alabama case had “properly applied existing law in an extensive opinion with no apparent errors for our correction.”

Still, he wrote, the Supreme Court’s precedents “have engendered considerable disagreement and uncertainty regarding the nature and contours of a vote dilution claim.”

The correct solution, the chief justice wrote, would have been to agree to hear the state’s appeal — but not to grant a stay in the meantime.

“The practical effect of this approach,” he wrote, “would be that the 2022 election would take place in accord with the judgment of the district court, but subsequent elections would be governed by this court’s decision on review.”

Elena Kagan's dissent:
“It does a disservice to the district court, which meticulously applied this court’s longstanding voting-rights precedent,” she wrote. “And most of all, it does a disservice to Black Alabamians who under that precedent have had their electoral power diminished — in violation of a law this court once knew to buttress all of American democracy.”

She added that the lower court had acted well before the next primary election, in late May, and the general election, in November.

“Alabama is not entitled to keep violating Black Alabamians’ voting rights just because the court’s order came down in the first month of an election year,” she wrote.
So unless the Supreme Court moves very quickly by its standards, the state's 6-1 map will be used in this year's election, with a revised map being used in 2024 and later.
5 Far Right Conservative Justices say "Put in under the rug"
1 Strongly Right Conservative Justice says "I want to gut the Voting Rights Act more"
3 Liberal Justices say "WTF?!"

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
Let's see about the remaining states. Here are the dates of last update in 538:

CT: Jan 18 -- FL: Jan 20 -- KS: Feb 8 -- LA: Feb 4 -- MN: Dec 15 last year -- MO: Jan 20 -- NC: Feb 7 -- NH: Jan 5 -- OH: Jan 14 -- PA: Feb 8 -- RI: Jan 13 -- WA: Feb 3 -- WI: Dec 6 last year

In Kansas,
On Feb. 3, Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed a congressional map passed by the state legislature that would endanger the reelection prospects of Rep. Sharice Davids, Kansas’s only Democratic member of Congress. Republicans in the legislature quickly vowed to override Kelly’s veto, but their first attempt on Feb. 7 came up three votes short in the state Senate. Republicans aren’t giving up yet, however, and are still trying to whip the necessary two-thirds majority to their side. As a result, the map’s fate is genuinely unclear.
and in Pennsylvania,
Commonwealth Court judge Patricia McCullough has recommended the congressional map approved by the Republican-controlled state legislature to the Democratic-majority Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which is currently working to finalize the state’s congressional redistricting process. On Feb. 2, the state Supreme Court instructed the lower court, which had previously been tasked with picking a final map, to create a report recommending a new map for the state Supreme Court to rule on in the coming weeks. Parties in the case have until Feb. 14 to object before oral hearings on Feb. 18.
But in Washington,
The Washington state House voted on Feb. 2 to approve the congressional map drawn by the state’s bipartisan redistricting commission, with a few minor tweaks. The map will now move to the state Senate, which has until Feb. 8 to approve the changes.
Connecticut and Rhode Ialsnd aren't as far along, but their new maps are not much different from their old maps, and they have had relatively little drama llama.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
In Missouri,
Starting Monday and stretching into Tuesday morning, conservatives in the Missouri state Senate staged a filibuster to prevent the passage of a congressional map approved by the state House last month.
For districts MO-01 (St. Louis, Cori Bush's district), MO-05 (Kansas City), and MO-02 (STL suburbs):

The old map has D+56, D+12, R+12
The House map has D+53, D+19, R+13
... However, conservatives have loudly protested such a breakdown, which they see as “giving away one to two congressional seats to Nancy Pelosi and the congressional Democrats.” As an alternative, they proposed a 7-1 Republican map that would have dismantled the Democratic-held 5th District around Kansas City, but that amendment failed in a vote on Feb. 8.

Discussion is now focusing on a compromise map that would keep Kansas City’s blue district intact but put the 2nd District comfortably out of Democrats’ reach. For their part, Democrats have also proposed their own amendment to the House’s plan.
2nd (D) amendment: D+51, D+19, R+11
3rd (R) amendment: D+51, D+19, R+20

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
Washington State now has a map. It is somewhat different from the previous map. East of the Seattle-Portland line, district boundaries moved westward, meaning that the state's population became more concentrated in its western big cities: Seattle, Tacoma, their suburbs, and Portland's northern suburbs. WA-02 now extends eastward near the state's northern border, and WA-01 shrunk from there to a thin strip east of Seattle.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
Kansas now has a map. Though Democratic Governor Laura Kelly vetoed that map, the Republicans in the legislature overrode that veto. As a result, KS-03 includes less of Kansas City and more of the countryside to the south of that city, making its go from D+4 to R+3 and endangering the re-election prospects of the only Democrat in that state's Congressional delegation: Sharice Davids.

By last update:
WI: Dec 6 last year -- MN: Dec 15 last year -- NH: Jan 5 -- RI: Jan 13 -- CT: Jan 18 -- FL: Jan 20 -- NC: Feb 7 -- MO: Feb 8 -- OH: Feb 8 -- PA: Feb 8 -- LA: Feb 9

Ohio's mapmaking is now in the redistricting commission again, since the legislature refused to come up with a less pro-Republican map.

Louisiana's proposed maps are being proposed by its legislature, which is Republican-dominated. They have little difference from the existing one, which is R 5, D 1. Democratic Governor John Bel Edwards may veto that map, wanting two black-majority districts instead of only one, as do Democrats in the state legislature.

Staff member

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
Seems like the US Senate Democrats ought to do that with Senator Ben Ray Luján, who is currently in the hospital with a stroke. They ought to move him to a hospital in the DC area, then bring him in whenever it's time for a vote.

Connecticut now has a map, if one is to believe the new-map display in What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State | FiveThirtyEight I say that because the descriptive text has not been updated for either that page or the state's page.

It goes from +21, +3, +14, +22, +3 to +21, +3, +12, +23, +3 with only minor changes in district boundaries.

#### Tigers!

##### Veteran Member
Yeah, Gerrymandering is crap. For Republicans to complain about it is the utter peak of hypocrisy.

For this, we actually do need a Constitutional Amendment, but how to require redistricting without Gerrymandering probably isn't the easiest to put into words.
Base your districts solely upon population i.e N voters per district +-%N variance.
Do not use skin colour, language, past voting, future voting intentions etc. as the basis.
Surely you septics could manage that?
Easier to do and less prone to challenges that your current dog's breakfast

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor
Yeah, Gerrymandering is crap. For Republicans to complain about it is the utter peak of hypocrisy.

For this, we actually do need a Constitutional Amendment, but how to require redistricting without Gerrymandering probably isn't the easiest to put into words.
Base your districts solely upon population i.e N voters per district +-%N variance.
Do not use skin colour, language, past voting, future voting intentions etc. as the basis.
Surely you septics could manage that?
Easier to do and less prone to challenges that your current dog's breakfast
While it technically could be done, to be done everywhere would require a Constitutional Amendment (read it ain't never happening!).

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
538 has updaed its main redistricting page to mention Connecticut's map, but that stage's map has not been updated.

Florida's politicians are working out a compromise between the State Senate and Governor Ron DeSantis.

The existing map is Democratic 8 competitive 5 Republican 14, or for short D 8, C 5, R 14. Resolving the competitive ones gives D 11, R 16.

Democratic State Senator Shevrin Jones proposes a map that's D 8, C 6, R 14, resolved to D 11, E 1, R 16

The governor proposes a map that's D 8, C 3, R 17, resolved to D 9, R 19

The State House proposes a compromise map, a map that's D 8, C 5, R 15, resolved to D 9, E 1, R 18

E = even partisanship. I'm using 538's partisanship estimates.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) / Twitter "U.S. House editor of the nonpartisan @CookPolitical Report w/ @AmyEWalter. Nerd for maps, data, ski slopes & trad tunes. Has seen enough."

Dave Wasserman on Twitter: "New: after FL Supreme Court declines DeSantis request, state House Rs unveil a map that could be either 18R-10D or 19R-9D (up from 16R-11D now). But it leaves #FL05 Rep. Al Lawson's (D) seat intact, and is short of the 20R-8D gerrymander DeSantis proposed." / Twitter

Back to 538, it updated its Connecticut page with "The Connecticut Supreme Court approved the state’s congressional map on Feb. 10 after a long and drawn-out process."

#### Tigers!

##### Veteran Member
Yeah, Gerrymandering is crap. For Republicans to complain about it is the utter peak of hypocrisy.

For this, we actually do need a Constitutional Amendment, but how to require redistricting without Gerrymandering probably isn't the easiest to put into words.
Base your districts solely upon population i.e N voters per district +-%N variance.
Do not use skin colour, language, past voting, future voting intentions etc. as the basis.
Surely you septics could manage that?
Easier to do and less prone to challenges that your current dog's breakfast
While it technically could be done, to be done everywhere would require a Constitutional Amendment (read it ain't never happening!).
I keep reading on these threads that Democrats constantly ask for a better (more consistent, less interference etc.) system of electorate generation. So why does not one of the states that is controlled by Democrats actually try a purely numeric scheme? They could perform a competitive, controlled test against the other versions to see who is the fairest in the land.
Or is that just too hard?

#### Tigers!

##### Veteran Member
That is certainly a complicated way of saying "Base your districts solely upon population i.e N voters per district +-%N variance."
No wonder nobody will take it up. You are baffled the punters with bull dust.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
Brian Olson's BDistricting software uses great-circle distance, though it requires calculating trigonometric functions.

$$\cos d = \sin b_1 \sin b_2 + \cos b_1 \cos b_2 \cos (l_2 - l_1)$$

angular distance d from latitudes b and longitudes l for points 1 and 2. This formula has accuracy problems for close points, so the "haversine formula" is often used:

$$\text{hav}\, d = \text{hav} (b2 - b1) + \cos b_1 \cos b_2 \text{hav} (l_2 - l_1)$$

where the haversine function is

$$\text{hav}\, a = (1 - \cos a)/2 = \sin^2 (a/2)$$

So one needs 4 trig functions, 1 square root, and 1 inverse-trig function per evaluation.

One can eliminate 2 of the trig-function calculations by precalculating cosines of latitudes, and one can eliminate all of them by precalculating direction vectors and then using vector algebra. One still needs an inverse-trig function for calculating the distance, though one can use a Padé-approximant rational-function approximation for it. One will still need a square root, however.

For unit vectors n1 and n2, d is

$$\cos d = {\vec n_1} \cdot {\vec n_2}$$

$$\sin (d/2) = \frac12 |\vec n_1 - \vec n_2|$$

The vectors themselves are

$$\vec n = \{ \cos b \cos l , \cos b \sin l , \sin b \}$$

requiring only 4 trig functions each, though one can use trig identities and square roots to get it down to 2 trig functions and 2 square roots.

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor
Yeah, Gerrymandering is crap. For Republicans to complain about it is the utter peak of hypocrisy.

For this, we actually do need a Constitutional Amendment, but how to require redistricting without Gerrymandering probably isn't the easiest to put into words.
Base your districts solely upon population i.e N voters per district +-%N variance.
Do not use skin colour, language, past voting, future voting intentions etc. as the basis.
Surely you septics could manage that?
Easier to do and less prone to challenges that your current dog's breakfast
While it technically could be done, to be done everywhere would require a Constitutional Amendment (read it ain't never happening!).
I keep reading on these threads that Democrats constantly ask for a better (more consistent, less interference etc.) system of electorate generation. So why does not one of the states that is controlled by Democrats actually try a purely numeric scheme?
Up to this year, some Democrat controlled states have non-partisan boards manage redistricting, like California and Colorado., and when I say like, I mean, that is about it. If California was like Texas, California would have many more Democrats. This year, any sense of non-partisan redistricting was tossed out the window as the GOP aggressively weeds out Democrat seats in states like Ohio and the Dems are playing the game all out too, except where not allowed by law.
They could perform a competitive, controlled test against the other versions to see who is the fairest in the land.
Or is that just too hard?
That is what should be done, but our democracy really appears to be past the point of no return for dissolution of two party rule. It'd be hard for the Dems to play by fairer rules, only to be usurped by the GOP. We see this in the House of Representatives, where the Democrats can win by a notably larger percentage of the popular vote, but manage to get fewer seat majorities.

So the Dems are across the board gerrymandering like the GOP has, though the GOP has really stretched it in places like Ohio, where they are trying to make Ohio look like Kansas. Heck, the GOP floated gerrymandering the electoral college by splitting purple state EV's by candidate's percentage of vote, making it nearly impossible for the Dems to win. But at least that plan failed.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
Back to 538.
What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State | FiveThirtyEight

Minnesota now has a map. Its borders are not much different, and its partisan composition almost identical.

No other updates in the last few days, though Rhode Island's map looks ready to go. Just like Hawaii and Connecticut for some months.

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor
Ohio continues to be a clusterfuck. The commission isn't even going to bother to try and care. The Supreme Court said no more deadlines, so it is hard to tell what the next step is.

I like how Gov. Dewine agreed the process must move forward, but that the current heavily gerrymandered map isn't gerrymandered enough... I'm sorry, they said "The biggest hurdle remains that Ohio’s political geography does not match the proportionality of recent statewide votes."

That sounds right, but what they actually mean is that the GOP having only 75% of the US House seats isn't fair.

#### Tigers!

##### Veteran Member
Ohio continues to be a clusterfuck. The commission isn't even going to bother to try and care. The Supreme Court said no more deadlines, so it is hard to tell what the next step is.

I like how Gov. Dewine agreed the process must move forward, but that the current heavily gerrymandered map isn't gerrymandered enough... I'm sorry, they said "The biggest hurdle remains that Ohio’s political geography does not match the proportionality of recent statewide votes."

That sounds right, but what they actually mean is that the GOP having only 75% of the US House seats isn't fair.
Unlike you stop allowing past voting patterns to affect the future composition of electorates you will just go round and round.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor

WhoD++D+D0RR+R++
D>=15D>=5D>=10 (even)R>=1R>=5R>=15
Old Map53302311
FL Senate62312212
FL House62113312
FL Gov 162102413
FL Gov 262002612

Governor Ron DeSantis, of course. DeSatan, DeathSentence, ...

For a more fine-grained comparison, I should collect all the partisanship scores and then compare their distributions.

#### Tigers!

##### Veteran Member
It would be very nice for you if you did not have to do all this mucking around. Think of the hours you would save.

Your work is appreciated even if I think you septics are very stupid in some things.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
Rhode Island now has a map. It is nearly identical to the previous map, and it has a nearly identical partisan composition.

RI also seems to be the last of the states without a lot of controversy over its maps.

Most recent updates at 538: WI last year Dec 16 - NH Jan 5 - MO, OH, PA Feb 8 - LA Feb 10 - FL Feb 15 - NC Feb 18

Of these maps, MO's map seems the most likely to be signed into law by the governor without much further controversy. LA's governor might veto the legislature's map, and NH has no updates more recent than the State House passing the map and sending it to the State Senate. Of the remaining five states, in FL, PA, and WI, the governor and the legislature are at loggerheads, and in NC, OH, PA, and WI, the courts are involved.

New Hampshire redistricting update: Senate approves maps - for the state legislature. Nothing on the Congressional map.

The battle to control Congress comes to N.H., sparking charges of gerrymandering | WBUR News

#### TV and credit cards

##### Veteran Member
Ohio Governor Goes to Prison for Contempt of Court.

Maybe. I figured all along they would just run out the clock. But what now? Sonny boy is on the court but he is just one vote. For now.

The GOP commission members said during the meeting that they could not find a way to draw maps that complied with all the redistricting provisions of the constitution, while also complying with the rules the supreme court had given in their majority opinion invalidating the previous maps. Mainly, the GOP said they couldn’t hit the target of 54-46 partisan breakdown asked for by the court justices, a number based on statewide voter preferences over the last 10 years.
While my first thought was, “can’t or won’t?”, I think perhaps it is “can’t”. That there may be some psychological disorder that is creating such distress among the Republican members of the ORC that they actually can’t create a map that satisfies the constitutional requirement and the Supreme Court. At least that’d be my argument to fight the contempt charge.