• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Redistricting for the US House and the US state legislatures

Court rejects GOP redistricting plans in NC, Pennsylvania | AP News
The justices provided no explanation for their actions, as is common in emergency applications on what is known as the “shadow docket.”

While the high court did not stop the state court-ordered plans from being used in this year’s elections, four conservative justices indicated they want it to confront the issue that could dramatically limit the power of state courts over federal elections in the future. The Republicans argued that state courts lack the authority to second-guess legislatures’ decisions about the conduct of elections for Congress and the presidency.
Click to expand...
Miscellaneous Order (03/07/2022) - 21a455_5if6.pdf - Samuel Alito
Miscellaneous Order (03/07/2022) - 21a455_5if6.pdf - Brett Kavanaugh
from
Opinions Relating to Orders - 2021 (March: this year)

BK agreed with SA in wanting to revisit the issue of state-legislature supremacy, but he thought that now was too late to do so with the elections soon to be underway.

Looks like they may decide that about whichever other gerrymandering cases make it into their court this year.

Supreme Court Allows Court-Imposed Voting Maps in North Carolina and Pennsylvania - The New York Times
Still, the court’s three most conservative members — Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch — said they would have blocked the North Carolina map because it was likely that the State Supreme Court had violated the Constitution in overriding the State Legislature.

“There must be some limit on the authority of state courts to countermand actions taken by state legislatures when they are prescribing rules for the conduct of federal elections,” Justice Alito wrote.
Click to expand...
That makes SA, CT, NG, and BK willing to review the issue.
 
From US Constitution Article I Section 4,
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.
Click to expand...
Some people are arguing that that means that state legislatures are the only ones with the authority to decide on Congressional districts, and not any other parts of state governments: not governors, and not courts.

This is the "independent state legislature doctrine" - The Independent State Legislature Doctrine, Federal Elections, and State Constitutions | Published in Georgia Law Review

Of the SC's current Justices, SA, NG, BK, and CT seem sympathetic to this odd doctrine.
 
Why Redistricting May Lead to a More Balanced U.S. Congress - The New York Times
Despite the persistence of partisan gerrymandering, between 216 and 219 congressional districts, out of the 435 nationwide, appear likely to tilt toward the Democrats, according to a New York Times analysis based on recent presidential election results. An identical 216 to 219 districts appear likely to tilt toward Republicans, if the maps enacted so far withstand legal challenges. To reach a majority, a party needs to secure 218 districts.
Click to expand...
So it's 216 each with 3 tossups.
The relatively fair map is something of an accident. Democrats and Republicans again drew extreme gerrymanders with twisting and turning district lines, denying many communities representation in Congress. Dozens of incumbents were shielded from serious challenges. The number of competitive districts declined.

But, unlike in previous cycles, both parties’ extreme gerrymanders have effectively canceled each other out — in no small part because Democratic lawmakers went to greater lengths to maximize their advantage. And more states are having maps drawn by courts or by nonpartisan and bipartisan commissions than in previous decades, reducing the number of districts drawn to intentionally advantage one party.
Click to expand...
FL, LA, MO, and NH still don't have maps, while GA, KS, KY, MD, MI, NC, NJ, NM, NV, NY, PA, SC, TX, WI are in litigation over their approved maps. Source: 538

From the NYT, how much the R's were ahead:

1992: 23, 1996: 18, 2000:13, 2004: 20, 2008: 13, 2012: 23, 2016: 20, 2020: 11, 2022 (projected): 1

The Republican advantage of the 218th seat, relative to the national popular vote:

2012: +5.7, 2015: +5.5, 2016: +5.9, 2018: +4.6, 2019: +4.0, 2020: +2.0, 2022: +0.6


From 538, the previous map was 148, 33, 46, 52, 156 (strong D, weak D, tossup, weak R, strong R). Adding up the D's and R's gives 181, 46, 208.

The maps so far are 136, 45, 33, 31, 146 with 44 districts to go: 181, 33, 177.

The remaining states are: NH 0, 1, 0, 1, 0 and LA 1, 0, 0, 0, 5 and MO 2, 0, 0, 0, 6 and FL 5, 3, 5, 3, 12 (State House Republicans) with a total of 8, 4, 5, 4, 23 -- NH 2, 0, 2 - LA 1, 0, 5 - MO 2, 0, 6 - FL 8, 5, 15 - Total 12, 5, 27

Adding to those already done gives 144, 49, 38, 35, 169 -- 193, 38, 204
 
lpetrich will need to use CTRL+Z, Ohio Supreme Court tosses out state map (which likely means U.S. House as well). Vote again was 4-3, which Republican Chief Justice siding with the 3 Democrats. The other three Republicans were all like "butz we needz to have electionz!" and "you can'tz have power grabz".
article said:
The rejected maps could have given the GOP a 54-45 advantage in the Ohio House and an 18-15 edge in the Senate. Those numbers matched the statewide voting preferences of Ohioans, which averaged 54% for Republican statewide candidates and 46% for Democratic ones during the past decade.

But Democrats and voting rights activists argued that Republicans crafted maps that appeared proportional but in reality were anything but. The maps passed without Democratic support, which meant they could only last four years.

Stanford University professor Jonathan Rodden, who analyzed the maps for groups suing over them, wrote that the GOP created "a very hard ceiling" on the number of districts Democrats could win – even in a strong Democratic year.

Republicans contended that Democrats and those suing over the maps were moving the goalposts. At first, those suing complained about the number of Democratic districts that fell below 51%. When mapmakers fixed that problem, Democrats took issue with districts that fell below 52%.
Click to expand...
 
Yes indeed. Several accepted maps are under litigation: AR, GA, KS, KY, MD, MI, NC, NJ, NM, NV, NY, PA, SC, TX, WI.

In Louisiana, Governor John Bel Edwards vetoed the legislature's Congressional map, saying that it would fail the Voting Rights Act's standards, because it has only one black-majority district out of 6 districts despite that state being 1/3 black. He is a Democrat, and the state legislature is Republican-dominated. Though the map passed with a majority, it is doubtful that the legislature can get the 2/3 fraction needed to override the governor's veto. So this map will end up in the courts.

In New Hampshire, the state senate has passed the state house's map, but Governor Chris Sununu intends to veto it.

Not much new in Florida or Missouri.
 
Yesterday, as I write this, NH Gov Chris Sununu vetoed his state's legislature's map. His preferred map is one where the state's two districts have almost even partisanship. But he also accepted new maps for the state legislature.

Not much new elsewhere.
 
The most fascinating thing about gerrymandering, to me, is how blatant the party leaders are about it. It's not even a secret, sitting politicians will look you in the eyes, shrug, and go "well they do it too...." I mean Jesus, they could at least have the common courtesy to lie to us about it! When McConnell blocked the For the People Act from going to vote, he was of course asked why. Rather than explaining the blindlingly obvious with some half-assed justification, he just gave (what for a dyspepsic turtle amounts to) a shit-eating grin to the camera, and said "Because I get to decide what we vote on."

Democracy! :rolleyes:
 
Judge strikes down Maryland’s congressional map as unconstitutional - because it was gerrymandered
noting
SKM_558e22032510100 - Memorandum-Opinion-032522-SIGNED.pdf
Friday’s ruling in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court by Senior Judge Lynne A. Battaglia says the General Assembly’s congressional map “fails constitutional muster” in various ways.

Battaglia ordered the General Assembly — which is still in session until April 11 — to create a new map by March 30. Then, a hearing on the new map will be held in court on April 1 at 9 a.m.
Click to expand...
noting
SKM_558e22032510101 - Declaratory-Judgment-Permanent-Injunction-and-Order-of-Remand-032522-SIGNED.pdf
 
lpetrich said:
In Louisiana, Governor John Bel Edwards vetoed the legislature's Congressional map, saying that it would fail the Voting Rights Act's standards, because it has only one black-majority district out of 6 districts despite that state being 1/3 black.
Click to expand...
Non-gerrymandered districts are not necessarily going to follow overall population shares. Take a hypothetical where population was evenly distributed. Then it would be impossible to get even one majority black district.

What JBE wants is a gerrymander the way his party benefits. Instead, districts should be drawn up based on objective standards such as compactness and not based of effecting any particular outcome. Note that race is not the only think one could base district lines on - religion, incomes, education levels etc. Should then lines be drawn to make sure that if x% of population is of group X, then x% of districts must be majority X? That would not be practical and I do not see why race should be singled out.

All that said, fairest outcome would be to abandon the idea of single member districts and do proportional representation on a state or regional bases, since some states would be too small for effective proportional representation. They should then be joined to one or more neighboring states for purposes of Congressional representation.
 
It’d be nice if the courts would find likewise in each of the grossly gerrymandered states.
 
Derec said:
lpetrich said:
In Louisiana, Governor John Bel Edwards vetoed the legislature's Congressional map, saying that it would fail the Voting Rights Act's standards, because it has only one black-majority district out of 6 districts despite that state being 1/3 black.
Click to expand...
Non-gerrymandered districts are not necessarily going to follow overall population shares. Take a hypothetical where population was evenly distributed. Then it would be impossible to get even one majority black district.

What JBE wants is a gerrymander the way his party benefits. Instead, districts should be drawn up based on objective standards such as compactness and not based of effecting any particular outcome. Note that race is not the only think one could base district lines on - religion, incomes, education levels etc. Should then lines be drawn to make sure that if x% of population is of group X, then x% of districts must be majority X? That would not be practical and I do not see why race should be singled out.

All that said, fairest outcome would be to abandon the idea of single member districts and do proportional representation on a state or regional bases, since some states would be too small for effective proportional representation. They should then be joined to one or more neighboring states for purposes of Congressional representation.
Click to expand...
The only determination of an electorate or district should be numeric i.e. each electorate will have N voters, +-%N. When you add religion, incomes, education levels, skin colour etc. you are inviting gerrymandering.
 
New York gets the smackdown.
article said:
A New York judge has blocked the state's new congressional map, which would have given Democrats the advantage in 22 of the state's 26 congressional seats, from going into effect for violating the state's constitution.
Click to expand...
New York is pretty blue, but not Massachusetts Blue, where the rural areas actually vote more for Dems than the suburban!

What isn't fair is that Maryland and New York are being held in check...ish, and Texas and Florida are going gerrymander crazy.
 
Louisiana now has a map. It is R 5 D 1, like the previous map, and its D district is identical to the previous map's D district, a narrow strip that includes New Orleans and Baton Rouge. Outside that strip, the boundaries shifted somewhat, but the districts didn't become completely reorganized.

That was from the state legislature overriding Governor Bel Edwards's veto.

JH's link fully titled: New York judge blocks 'unconstitutionally drawn' congressional map | CNN Politics

Judge Patrick McAllister ruled Thursday that the map “was unconstitutionally drawn with political bias” by the Democratic-controlled legislature and created no competitive seats. The state legislature has until April 11 to pass a new map and submit it to the court for review, and McAllister further stated that the map had to receive “bipartisan support.”

However, under New York law, the order would be automatically stayed upon appeal, meaning it’s still not clear if the legislature will need to redraw the map before the June primary.
Click to expand...
The state's Democratic Party plans to appeal this decision, and if the map needs to be redrawn again, then NY's primaries could be moved from June 28 to as far ahead as August 23.
 
FL Gov Ron DeSantis has vetoed the legislature's proposed maps.
Special session called for Florida redistricting
At an event announcing a new federal lawsuit against the U.S. government over a public transportation mask mandate, Gov. Ron DeSantis also said he had vetoed the current version of the legislature’s redistricting maps, and would call for a special legislative session on the topic Tuesday afternoon. The governor had already promised to veto the plan twice in the past month.

...
In a joint statement, Florida Senate President Wilton Simpson and House Speaker Chris Sprowls told lawmakers to be prepared to return to Tallahassee April 19 through April 22 to handle the state’s congressional maps before the coming elections in November.
Click to expand...
 
Derec said:
Non-gerrymandered districts are not necessarily going to follow overall population shares. Take a hypothetical where population was evenly distributed. Then it would be impossible to get even one majority black district.

What JBE wants is a gerrymander the way his party benefits. Instead, districts should be drawn up based on objective standards such as compactness and not based of effecting any particular outcome. Note that race is not the only think one could base district lines on - religion, incomes, education levels etc. Should then lines be drawn to make sure that if x% of population is of group X, then x% of districts must be majority X? That would not be practical and I do not see why race should be singled out.

All that said, fairest outcome would be to abandon the idea of single member districts and do proportional representation on a state or regional bases, since some states would be too small for effective proportional representation. They should then be joined to one or more neighboring states for purposes of Congressional representation.
Click to expand...
This is almost all correct! Single-member districts should be abandoned, or at least restricted to a subset of the legislature with other seats chosen via a party-list system.

Whatever excuses are offered for racial districting, the real focus is usually D vs R in the U.S.

By the way, it is a misconception that if R's have 60% of the vote, they should win 60% of the districts. In fact, without deliberate gerrymandering, they "should" win MORE than 60% of the districts ! (I don't know any simple model to predict the number. I'll volunteer to find the actual U.S. numbers if someone supplies links to useful election-result pages.)

How does one even define or quantify "gerrymandering"? Given a state with 11 seats and split 51% R / 49% D, we "should" have 6 Rs and 5 Ds. But with gerrymandering it is possible to get the number of R seats as large as 11, or as small as 1 ! If districts are completely random (e.g. based on SocSec numbers as seriously(!) proposed on one message board) whichever party has 51% will get EVERY seat! (Take a refresher course in statistics if you don't believe this.)

One test I've seen proposed to detect gerrymandering is that, without deliberate gerrymandering, the median district should have a R/D ratio approximately equal to the overall R/D ratio. In our examples (51-49 and 60-40), that means 5 of the 11 districts should have MORE than 51% (or 60%) R, and five of the districts should have LESS than 51% (or 60%) R.

Compact districts were very logical in the olden days when many citizens did not own a horse-and-buggy. But nowadays, it's just noise to prevent certain obvious gerrymanders. And smart data analysts would be able to gerrymander WITH compact-looking districts.
 
Maryland now has a revised new map, one more Republican-friendly than the original new map.

How Maryland's 8 districts fared:
  • Original: +54, +53, +34, +32, +32, +26, +16, -28
  • New #1: +62, +48, +40, +24, +16, +12, +11, -8
  • New #2: +75, +55, +53, +28, +14, +11, -1, -25
The old one had grotesquely complicated district boundaries, the first new one was somewhat of an improvement, and the second new one is much better.

Turning to Missouri, its House and Senate are at loggerheads over which map to use, and turning to Florida, Gov. DeSantis and the legislature are still deadlocked.
 
FL Legislature prepares to consider DeSantis' new congressional map; redistricting suit advances - Florida Phoenix - "Little appetite among Democrats to boycott next week’s special session"
Gov. Ron DeSantis produced a proposal for redrawing Florida’s congressional districts on Wednesday — and, as he had promised, it eliminates what he considers to be a “racially gerrymandered” district in North Florida.

That means Florida likely will lose at least one Black member of its congressional delegation. The district at risk is CD 5, which closely resembles the existing CD 3 held by Al Lawson of Tallahassee, which runs for 200 miles from Jacksonville to Gadsden County.

Instead, the governor is proposing two new districts in the Jacksonville region, according to a memo by DeSantis’ general counsel, Ryan Newman. The proposal also adjusts the congressional districts in and around the Tampa region as well as the Orlando region, according to the memo.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, in New Hampshire,
Dave Wasserman on Twitter: "New: NH Supreme Court intends to appoint a special master, Stanford Prof. Nate Persily, to draw a new congressional map *if* the GOP legislature & Gov. Chris Sununu (R) can't agree on a plan by late May. (link)" / Twitter
noting
nh-sup-ct.pdf

Courts sometimes appoint special masters to do various tasks for them.

More broadly, though NH is a small, two-district state, redistricting is contentious there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom