For those wondering how redistricting is going.

Linc · Feb 20, 2022

Numbers; USAF brat starting primary school right after Sputnik; thankful for the math from them now a retired Chem/Physics teacher;

Check the perimeter to area ratios for CDs, along with their shapes. That’s all you need to know. I would be dishonest if I didn’t call GOP CDs ‘nazified gerrymandered apartheid’.

Since the GOP does have an enormous advantage in legalized fascism, spare me the both-sides shit. Maybe the old like me will see the end result if there’s a political Heaven.

Perotista · Feb 20, 2022

Linc said:
Numbers; USAF brat starting primary school right after Sputnik; thankful for the math from them now a retired Chem/Physics teacher;

Check the perimeter to area ratios for CDs, along with their shapes. That’s all you need to know. I would be dishonest if I didn’t call GOP CDs ‘nazified gerrymandered apartheid’.

Since the GOP does have an enormous advantage in legalized fascism, spare me the both-sides shit. Maybe the old like me will see the end result if there’s a political Heaven.

If you’re talking about majority minority districts, those have been court ordered for quite a while. It goes back to the passage of the voting rights act. If not, you lost me.

mrjurrs · Feb 28, 2022

Perotista said:
PART I STATES COMPLETED REDISTRICTING

42 states have completed their redistricting, 8 more remaining. The democrats have a 14-seat gerrymandering edge so far. 11 new Democratic districts added, minus 3 Republican districts. We now have 337 newly drawn districts; 98 districts remain to be redrawn.

Out of the 337 newly drawn districts, there are 34 competitive, switchable districts. Currently held by 22 Democrats and 12 Republicans. Safe seats as of 20 Feb 2022, 162 Democratic, 141 Republican.

The below listed states are in litigation over their new maps. How these lawsuits turnout will probably change the above listed safe and competitive seats. Listed also is which state legislature drew the maps being challenged.

Georgia – Republican legislature

Maryland – Democratic legislature

Nevada – Democratic legislature

New Mexico – Democratic legislature

New York – Democratic legislature

Texas – Republican legislature

_____________________________________________________________________________________

PART II Safe Seat/Competitive seat watch

As of 20 Feb, the Democrats have 162 safe seats to 141 safe Republican seats. A 21-seat Democratic advantage. There are 8 states remaining who haven’t completed their redistricting which will change the above.

The importance of safe seats is that they let you know how many seats from the competitive column a party must win to gain control of the House. As of today, the democrats need 56 more seats to reach the magic number of 218. The Republicans need 77. It remains to be seen how many safe seats each of the 8 remaining states add to each party’s safe seat column. The 8 remaining states are New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri and Wisconsin.

In short to remain in control of the House, the Democrats need 56 seats above their safe seat number. The Republicans need 77 above their safe seat number to take control of the house. 34 seats are in the competitive/switchable column, 22 Democratic, 12 Republican along with 98 more districts to be redrawn in which to obtain those seats from.

With 42 states in the books, it’s far from a guarantee that the Republicans regain control of the house. With Republican states of Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, Louisiana and Missouri left, those states will certainly narrow the 21-seat safe seat margin the Democrats have today, if not overtake it. There are also the swing states of New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin left. No Democratic states. I’ll update this as the pending states complete their redistricting.

Remember, the NC map was rejected by a court. I doubt we will see much more than a 1 seat difference in that state.

Perotista · Feb 28, 2022

mrjurrs said:
Remember, the NC map was rejected by a court. I doubt we will see much more than a 1 seat difference in that state.

North Carolina gained a seat from 13 to 14 due to the 2020 census. North Carolina supreme court redrew their second map, approved which has 6 Democratic districts, 7 Republican and 1 competitive. Under North Carolina old map, it was 8 republican districts, 5 democratic, 0 competitive. The map rejected by the North Carolina supreme court had 9 Republican districts, 4 democratic and 1 competitive.

The change from the rejected map to the one approved and drawn by North Carolina’s supreme court was an addition of 2 democratic district with a loss of 2 Republican. One has to remember Ohio’s original map was also rejected by state’s supreme court. The Democrats has made out like a fat rat in the redistricting/gerrymandering wars. Here’s some examples.

Illinois added 3 democratic seats, eliminate 2 GOP seats and 1 competitive seat

New Jersey added 3 democratic seats, eliminated 1 GOP seats and 2 competitive seats.

New York added 3 democratic 3 seats, eliminated 3 Republican seats and 1 competitive seat. New York lost a seat due to the 2020 census.

Oregon added 2 Democratic seats, eliminated 2 competitive seats.

mrjurrs · Mar 1, 2022

Perotista said:
North Carolina gained a seat from 13 to 14 due to the 2020 census. North Carolina supreme court redrew their second map, approved which has 6 Democratic districts, 7 Republican and 1 competitive. Under North Carolina old map, it was 8 republican districts, 5 democratic, 0 competitive. The map rejected by the North Carolina supreme court had 9 Republican districts, 4 democratic and 1 competitive.

The change from the rejected map to the one approved and drawn by North Carolina’s supreme court was an addition of 2 democratic district with a loss of 2 Republican. One has to remember Ohio’s original map was also rejected by state’s supreme court. The Democrats has made out like a fat rat in the redistricting/gerrymandering wars. Here’s some examples.

Illinois added 3 democratic seats, eliminate 2 GOP seats and 1 competitive seat

New Jersey added 3 democratic seats, eliminated 1 GOP seats and 2 competitive seats.

New York added 3 democratic 3 seats, eliminated 3 Republican seats and 1 competitive seat. New York lost a seat due to the 2020 census.

Oregon added 2 Democratic seats, eliminated 2 competitive seats.

Imo, the goal of every district should be a competitive district. I understand that that would not be possible in all cases.

Both R's and D's gerrymander. But R's are just unable to control themselves. The reality that R redistricting regularly gets tossed for racial gerrymandering shows where that party lives.

Perotista · Mar 1, 2022

mrjurrs said:
Imo, the goal of every district should be a competitive district. I understand that that would not be possible in all cases.

Both R's and D's gerrymander. But R's are just unable to control themselves. The reality that R redistricting regularly gets tossed for racial gerrymandering shows where that party lives.

A lot of that racial gerrymandering in the past has been done via a federal government court order. For some reason, the courts have taken a sentence out of the VRA that stated that the black vote wouldn’t be diminished to mean creating majority black and later majority minority districts.

The fact is in a couple of states, the republican legislatures wanted to eliminate some of these majority black districts has resulted in their maps being ruled unconstitutional. Under the old maps, I haven’t had a chance to go over the racial breakdowns of the new maps. Under the old maps you had 29 majority black districts, more than 50% black. 30 majority Hispanic districts, more than 50% Hispanic and 1 majority Asian district. Most of these federal court ordered.

Question here, is placing most of the black and minority voters into their majority minority districts diminishing their vote or enhancing it? Or would spacing them around the state into different districts be diminishing or enhancing the voting power of minorities? I know the federal courts decided on the former as enhancing the minority vote by placing as many as possible into their own racial district. I’m not so sure. Georgia had to redraw their maps per a federal court order after the 2010 census 3 times due to not having enough majority black districts. The lawsuit against Georgia this time is the same, not enough majority black districts. So, we have federal court imposed segregated voting districts based on one sentence of the VRA, basically one word, diminish. What’s your take?

mrjurrs · Mar 1, 2022

Perotista said:
A lot of that racial gerrymandering in the past has been done via a federal government court order. For some reason, the courts have taken a sentence out of the VRA that stated that the black vote wouldn’t be diminished to mean creating majority black and later majority minority districts.

The fact is in a couple of states, the republican legislatures wanted to eliminate some of these majority black districts has resulted in their maps being ruled unconstitutional. Under the old maps, I haven’t had a chance to go over the racial breakdowns of the new maps. Under the old maps you had 29 majority black districts, more than 50% black. 30 majority Hispanic districts, more than 50% Hispanic and 1 majority Asian district. Most of these federal court ordered.

Question here, is placing most of the black and minority voters into their majority minority districts diminishing their vote or enhancing it? Or would spacing them around the state into different districts be diminishing or enhancing the voting power of minorities? I know the federal courts decided on the former as enhancing the minority vote by placing as many as possible into their own racial district. I’m not so sure. Georgia had to redraw their maps per a federal court order after the 2010 census 3 times due to not having enough majority black districts. The lawsuit against Georgia this time is the same, not enough majority black districts. So, we have federal court imposed segregated voting districts based on one sentence of the VRA, basically one word, diminish. What’s your take?

Incorrect interpretation. The court orders came after that redistricting was found to be based on race. Racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional, partisan gerrymandering is not. Unfortunately, the pandemic and the administration in charge screwed up the 2020 census, I wouldn't mind following the 1920 process...no reapportionment.

Imo, time to use nationally what we use in CA. An independent commission.

Perotista · Mar 1, 2022

mrjurrs said:
Incorrect interpretation. The court orders came after that redistricting was found to be based on race. Racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional, partisan gerrymandering is not. Unfortunately, the pandemic and the administration in charge screwed up the 2020 census, I wouldn't mind following the 1920 process...no reapportionment.

Imo, time to use nationally what we use in CA. An independent commission.

Okay, explain why to me the federal courts ordered more majority black districts in Georgia? If that isn't racial gerrymandering, Basically the federal court ruled since Georgia had roughly 35% black population, 5 of the 14 districts must be majority black. I think you got it reversed. The court orders came when the court determined we didn't have enough black majority districts.

mrjurrs · Mar 1, 2022

Perotista said:
Okay, explain why to me the federal courts ordered more majority black districts in Georgia? If that isn't racial gerrymandering, Basically the federal court ruled since Georgia had roughly 35% black population, 5 of the 14 districts must be majority black. I think you got it reversed. The court orders came when the court determined we didn't have enough black majority districts.

I believe your description of the ruling is overly simplistic. The lack of minority majority districts resulted in the court ruling the map turned in was unacceptable. I'm unclear how you can call maps that under represent a group being forced to be redrawn to approximate race numbers is racial gerrymandering.

"Unconstitutional racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to dilute the voting power of racial minority groups. In the context of redistricting, federal law prohibits racial gerrymandering. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandates that no "standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color."

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42482.pdf

Perotista · Mar 1, 2022

mrjurrs said:
I believe your description of the ruling is overly simplistic. The lack of minority majority districts resulted in the court ruling the map turned in was unacceptable. I'm unclear how you can call maps that under represent a group being forced to be redrawn to approximate race numbers is racial gerrymandering.

"Unconstitutional racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to dilute the voting power of racial minority groups. In the context of redistricting, federal law prohibits racial gerrymandering. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandates that no "standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color."

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42482.pdf

Okay, back to my original question. Is putting as many blacks as possible into a single district enhancing or diluting their voting influence? Yes, it guarantees a black will be elected. But doesn’t for example using Georgia, you will have 5 majority black districts, the federal court approved of Georgia’s new map today. The remaining 9 will be majority white with limited number of blacks as the 5 majority black districts have limited number of whites. Which guarantees 9 white republicans and 5 black democrats in a state where Republicans and Democrats are divided evenly. Biden winning Georgia in 2020 and we elected 2 democratic senators in Jan 2021 senate runoff pretty much proves that.

What the court approved certainly diluted blacks voting power statewide limiting that power to 5 districts. I suppose one can say it also diluted whites voting power in those 5 districts but enhanced it in the other 9 districts. Or did it enhanced the black voting power by placing most blacks into 5 districts? Looking at what I perceive as the overall results of Georgia’s congressional delegation, spreading blacks evenly across the state instead of corralling them into 5 districts would probably lead to a 7-7 split between Republican and Democratic congressmen instead of 9-5 Republican. I don’t know the answer.

It is what it is. We’ll continue to place as many blacks into their majority black districts, we’ll continue to place as many Hispanics into majority Hispanic districts leaving most of the rest majority white. Although we don’t call them majority white districts. Maybe it’s just a matter of perspectives, what one thinks diluting or enhancing is achieved by placing as many of one race into one district as possible.

I would like to see a law that simply states leave as many counties whole as possible. I have much more in common with the all the people of my county regardless of gender, race, religion etc. than being in a district that runs for 150 miles from east of Atlanta to the Alabama border encompassing parts of 15 or more counties just so one race will be in the majority. I have and I doubt many in my county has much in common with those who live next to Alabama. They’re certainly not part of my community. Again, one can call this whatever one wants. Enhancing minority power or segregated congressional districts to satisfy a racial quota of at least 50% plus of one race or another.

mrjurrs · Mar 1, 2022

Perotista said:
Okay, back to my original question. Is putting as many blacks as possible into a single district enhancing or diluting their voting influence? Yes, it guarantees a black will be elected. But doesn’t for example using Georgia, you will have 5 majority black districts, the federal court approved of Georgia’s new map today. The remaining 9 will be majority white with limited number of blacks as the 5 majority black districts have limited number of whites. Which guarantees 9 white republicans and 5 black democrats in a state where Republicans and Democrats are divided evenly. Biden winning Georgia in 2020 and we elected 2 democratic senators in Jan 2021 senate runoff pretty much proves that.

What the court approved certainly diluted blacks voting power statewide limiting that power to 5 districts. I suppose one can say it also diluted whites voting power in those 5 districts but enhanced it in the other 9 districts. Or did it enhanced the black voting power by placing most blacks into 5 districts? Looking at what I perceive as the overall results of Georgia’s congressional delegation, spreading blacks evenly across the state instead of corralling them into 5 districts would probably lead to a 7-7 split between Republican and Democratic congressmen instead of 9-5 Republican. I don’t know the answer.

It is what it is. We’ll continue to place as many blacks into their majority black districts, we’ll continue to place as many Hispanics into majority Hispanic districts leaving most of the rest majority white. Although we don’t call them majority white districts. Maybe it’s just a matter of perspectives, what one thinks diluting or enhancing is achieved by placing as many of one race into one district as possible.

I would like to see a law that simply states leave as many counties whole as possible. I have much more in common with the all the people of my county regardless of gender, race, religion etc. than being in a district that runs for 150 miles from east of Atlanta to the Alabama border encompassing parts of 15 or more counties just so one race will be in the majority. I have and I doubt many in my county has much in common with those who live next to Alabama. They’re certainly not part of my community. Again, one can call this whatever one wants. Enhancing minority power or segregated congressional districts to satisfy a racial quota of at least 50% plus of one race or another.

I would quibble with the idea that a black majority district would necessarily elect a black person, but we could be sure that the Rep would vote in the interests of the district. At some point in the future I wish we would just have competitive districts everywhere. In the meantime, I think that creating minority majority districts at least gives them a chance at some representation.

Perotista · Mar 1, 2022

mrjurrs said:
I would quibble with the idea that a black majority district would necessarily elect a black person, but we could be sure that the Rep would vote in the interests of the district. At some point in the future I wish we would just have competitive districts everywhere. In the meantime, I think that creating minority majority districts at least gives them a chance at some representation.

I don’t and never have understood this obsession with race most folks have. Perhaps because I’ve been military all my life, 21 years active, 26 as a department of the army civilian. I happen to live in the country, but am part of one of the majority black congressional districts. David Scott is my representative, a good one in my opinion. I don’t see why or understand why it is or assumed in order to be represented a black must have a black representative, a Hispanic a Hispanic one, a white, a white one. That to me is idiotic. I’m perfectly happy with David Scott.

I’ve said that we all began as one race, out of Africa we went to the four corners of the earth. Due to evolution, climate, environment, etc. out of one we became many. Today, we’re global. Due to travel, immigration, GI’s doing what GI’s do, inter-racial marriages and a ton of other reasons, we are headed back to one race from whence we came.

Regardless, I still think piling as many of one race as possible into a congressional district is federal court ordered lawful segregation or lawful racial gerrymandering by the courts. Now you never answered the question, does this enhance or dilute minority voting strength? I have no problem with it, it is what it is and it isn’t going to change. I’m one happy camper to live where I do and have the congressman I prefer.

We’re back to dilute or enhance, aren’t we?

mrjurrs · Mar 2, 2022

Perotista said:
I don’t and never have understood this obsession with race most folks have. Perhaps because I’ve been military all my life, 21 years active, 26 as a department of the army civilian. I happen to live in the country, but am part of one of the majority black congressional districts. David Scott is my representative, a good one in my opinion. I don’t see why or understand why it is or assumed in order to be represented a black must have a black representative, a Hispanic a Hispanic one, a white, a white one. That to me is idiotic. I’m perfectly happy with David Scott.

I’ve said that we all began as one race, out of Africa we went to the four corners of the earth. Due to evolution, climate, environment, etc. out of one we became many. Today, we’re global. Due to travel, immigration, GI’s doing what GI’s do, inter-racial marriages and a ton of other reasons, we are headed back to one race from whence we came.

Regardless, I still think piling as many of one race as possible into a congressional district is federal court ordered lawful segregation or lawful racial gerrymandering by the courts. Now you never answered the question, does this enhance or dilute minority voting strength? I have no problem with it, it is what it is and it isn’t going to change. I’m one happy camper to live where I do and have the congressman I prefer.

We’re back to dilute or enhance, aren’t we?

There is one race, the human race. Do you feel brown people have been well served by the history of our elections? Just guessing, but I'll bet dollars to donuts that the dominant group drawing these maps are white males, and they draw them to maintain their power base, not to enhance the democratic process. By guaranteeing some representation to minorities I believe it enhances minority voting strength.

Do you feel affirmative action enhances or dilutes opportunities for minorities?

Perotista · Mar 2, 2022

mrjurrs said:
There is one race, the human race. Do you feel brown people have been well served by the history of our elections? Just guessing, but I'll bet dollars to donuts that the dominant group drawing these maps are white males, and they draw them to maintain their power base, not to enhance the democratic process. By guaranteeing some representation to minorities I believe it enhances minority voting strength.

Do you feel affirmative action enhances or dilutes opportunities for minorities?

I’ve had no problems with affirmative action. If you believe putting one race into a small number of districts enhances their voting power, that fine. Maybe, maybe not. But I do think when you look at the big picture, Republican vs. Democrat, that it dilutes the overall voting strength of the Democrats. You have Black democrats winning their majority black districts 80-20 while republicans are winning their districts 55-45 or something akin to that. Averages.

I suppose I’m looking at this different from you. I see 5 majority black districts in Georgia. 5 districts the democratic candidate is going to win around 80-90% of the vote in those districts. I also see the remaining 9 districts where the republican candidate on average wins those 9 districts with around 55% of the vote. Results, an evenly split 50-50 vote among Republicans and Democrats, but a 9-5 edge in congressional seats for the Republicans.

The reason the court bought off on Georgia’s new map is those 5 majority black districts represents 35% of Georgia’s total congressional seats. The black population in Georgia is roughly 35%. A perfect match. Had Georgia drawn only 3 or 4 majority black congressional districts. The federal court would have ruled the map unconstitutional and made Georgia redraw their map. Whether you like it or not, we do have racial gerrymandering ordered by the federal courts. At least here in Georgia. It boils down to what one’s view the meaning of the word diminish is. Or perhaps it’s that black voting power is enhanced, but Democratic Party voting power diminished by majority black districts. I don’t know.

mrjurrs · Mar 2, 2022

Perotista said:
I’ve had no problems with affirmative action. If you believe putting one race into a small number of districts enhances their voting power, that fine. Maybe, maybe not. But I do think when you look at the big picture, Republican vs. Democrat, that it dilutes the overall voting strength of the Democrats. You have Black democrats winning their majority black districts 80-20 while republicans are winning their districts 55-45 or something akin to that. Averages.

I suppose I’m looking at this different from you. I see 5 majority black districts in Georgia. 5 districts the democratic candidate is going to win around 80-90% of the vote in those districts. I also see the remaining 9 districts where the republican candidate on average wins those 9 districts with around 55% of the vote. Results, an evenly split 50-50 vote among Republicans and Democrats, but a 9-5 edge in congressional seats for the Republicans.

The reason the court bought off on Georgia’s new map is those 5 majority black districts represents 35% of Georgia’s total congressional seats. The black population in Georgia is roughly 35%. A perfect match. Had Georgia drawn only 3 or 4 majority black congressional districts. The federal court would have ruled the map unconstitutional and made Georgia redraw their map. Whether you like it or not, we do have racial gerrymandering ordered by the federal courts. At least here in Georgia. It boils down to what one’s view the meaning of the word diminish is. Or perhaps it’s that black voting power is enhanced, but Democratic Party voting power diminished by majority black districts. I don’t know.

I appreciate your point. I would counter that what is happening today is the result of inequities in our history, and that maybe after some census in the future we won't have to follow this path to reapportionment. I'd love to see the feds pass a law that directs the states to create competitive congressional districts. If they can create these districts today, we could certainly create competitive districts.

Perotista · Mar 2, 2022

mrjurrs said:
I appreciate your point. I would counter that what is happening today is the result of inequities in our history, and that maybe after some census in the future we won't have to follow this path to reapportionment. I'd love to see the feds pass a law that directs the states to create competitive congressional districts. If they can create these districts today, we could certainly create competitive districts.
View attachment 67377853

I agree. As I stated before, districts should keep as many counties as whole as possible and be as compact as possible. Another solution, probably unconstitutional would be for the parties to list their candidates for congress, using Georgia again as an example. 1-14. Then the voters of Georgia or whatever state could vote for a slate or party. Once the vote total is in, if the Democrats received 55% of the vote to the Republicans 45%, the first 8 listed Democratic candidates on their list or slate would be elected to congress. The first 6 of the republicans also would go to congress. There would be no need for racial or any other type of gerrymandering.

We used to, a long time ago have multi-member districts for our state legislature. I lived in Clayton county at the time, the population there gave us 3 state representatives. Everyone in the county voted for three of the six listed. The top 3 vote receivers becoming state legislatures. The federal courts ruled that multi-member districts were unconstitutional due to it violating the one man, one vote principle. We had to go to single member districts back then. The county commission was done the same way. I never understood how multi-member districts violated the one man, one vote principle. But it was what it was. You just voted for 3 of the 6 when it came to the state legislature candidates. In the U.S. house races, you would vote for 14 of the 28. Either way, by list, slate or multi-member, you’d eliminate gerrymandering.

mrjurrs · Mar 2, 2022

Perotista said:
I agree. As I stated before, districts should keep as many counties as whole as possible and be as compact as possible. Another solution, probably unconstitutional would be for the parties to list their candidates for congress, using Georgia again as an example. 1-14. Then the voters of Georgia or whatever state could vote for a slate or party. Once the vote total is in, if the Democrats received 55% of the vote to the Republicans 45%, the first 8 listed Democratic candidates on their list or slate would be elected to congress. The first 6 of the republicans also would go to congress. There would be no need for racial or any other type of gerrymandering.

We used to, a long time ago have multi-member districts for our state legislature. I lived in Clayton county at the time, the population there gave us 3 state representatives. Everyone in the county voted for three of the six listed. The top 3 vote receivers becoming state legislatures. The federal courts ruled that multi-member districts were unconstitutional due to it violating the one man, one vote principle. We had to go to single member districts back then. The county commission was done the same way. I never understood how multi-member districts violated the one man, one vote principle. But it was what it was. You just voted for 3 of the 6 when it came to the state legislature candidates. In the U.S. house races, you would vote for 14 of the 28. Either way, by list, slate or multi-member, you’d eliminate gerrymandering.

That's an interesting solution. I am a proponent for ranked choice voting, so I'd definitely be willing to give your system a try.

Regarding multi member districts? Another example of 'that's why America can't have nice things'.
"As the Supreme Court began invalidating malapportioned districting schemes, at-large elections were seen as a viable alternative to the increasingly problematic task of creating equipopulous districts. Another factor that added to the popularity of this electoral system was the Voting Rights Act of 1965. No secret was made of the South's disapproval of racial minority enfranchisement, nor was the dilutionary impact of the general ticket considered confidential. As a result, many Southern states began implementing this system for their own legislative elections in an effort to offset the reestablished black vote."

The 1967 Single-Member District Mandate

archive.fairvote.org

For those wondering how redistricting is going.

NIMBY