2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: South Carolina

[Oryxslayer]

Yeah the GOP is in a difficult situation regarding SC01. The entire state south-east of Columbia has a democratic geographic advantage. This advantage is solidified by Myrtle Beach having it's own incumbent who would like keep a seat dominated by the GOp parts of Florence+Horry. The present SC01 is therefore trapped between a rock - the VRA seat, and a hard place - the ocean. This leaves the GOP with four options regarding the seat:

1) Charleston is too dangerous to be kept whole. Horry+Republican half of Florence+Marion+Georgetown take in as much of their side of Charleston and her suburbs as they can. Then the rest gets sent to Beaufort then up through the Belt to Aiken. This doesn't necessary improve the partisanship of either seat for the GOP, but the reorientation makes both base vote dominated by polarized Whites and AAs, rather than waffle-y suburbs.

2) Keep the same seat, but just get more picky. Drop a number of the blue precincts in Charleston into the the 6th, and pull in some red precincts from her neighbors. This scenario would make everyone's borders a lot worse. There's no guarantee though if the 1st would remain Safe R, and this is essentially the GOP banking on Cunningham being a one-off.

3) Screw the wishes of Rice, Charleston Needs a GOP anchor. This option would be far easier to sell if Cunningham holds on, and there is no GOP rep in Charleston to scream that they are getting drawn away. The AA seat now leaves Charleston from the left rather than the right. It would be very much a Twin Cities seat, rather than a Belt+cities seat. Florence would be pulled out of the 7th. Beaufort would be thrown in one of the north seats via a arm along the border.

In all three of the above scenarios, the inland CD's would have to get more 'strippy' as they head down to the belt to take in more AAs. This is because the 6th in both scenarios would be expected to take in more voters in Charleston than she is dropping elsewhere. The GOP desperately wants that 6-1 after all.

4) In the event Cunningham holds on, and the GOP cannot find a way to square the circle in a way that is acceptable to all interests and can survive a court challenge, there is always the concession. This could occur in the form of a GOP-leaning battleground seat, or they could draw a second AA seat that kills Cunningham off in the primary. I should stress though that this is the last case scenario, and will not occur unless 1 through 3 fail to satisfy GOP politicos. It is only an option because SC is a horrible state to map because of the population distribution and polarization between the Coast, Belt, and Highlands.

[Oryxslayer]

Do they want to get a white Democrat elected?

Yeah if they really wish to concede a seat they could have made it like 40% AA. Maybe one of the other reasons is to pull Cunningham out of the Gov race.

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1486434116153315338?s=20

Senate Amendment 1 passes House.

[Oryxslayer]

14th Amendment Racial gerrymandering case scheduled to be before the Supreme Court October 11.

[Oryxslayer]

It's one thing to get a victory on statutory interpretation. It's quite another to get one based on the 14th Amendment. They're two completely different things.

14th Amendment racial gerrymandering claims going before this court will be in interesting debate, because on paper they are arguably exactly what they want from redistricting. The basis of such a claim is "improper use of race during the redistricting process," after accounting for VRA seats and the like. This historically has meant all groups, including Whites, can bring suits over improper use.

While the name of the claim is racial gerrymandering, it might better be called gerrymandering by race. Proof of such a claim begins with the map as passed, and using it as evidence when compared to prior maps or legally defined borders like counties or cities.  How much did a district change, to what extent, and is there a clear racial angle. To this end, Whites arguably have better success at claims of racial gerrymandering than minority groups. For example, the three big minority congressional racial gerrymandering claims so far are: SC with removal of AA voters from SC-01 into a already performing African American district, GA with GA-06 being a 99.99% ideal district by population after the 2020 census but was radically redrawn and bleached, and AR-02 with targeted cracking of Little Rock and Pulaski County.

I don't know where people got the idea that the suit against SC desires the state to draw a second 50% BVAP seat, that is nowhere in their complaint and it isn't the plaintiffs purpose. IMO, if the geography worked out like in AL, it would be a Section 2 VRA claim not a argument about how voters were sorted based on race when adjacent to SC-06. Arguably the desired relief is a restoration of multiracial community unity as much as possible, at least in relation to the coast, Richland, and Sumter.

By contrast, during the 90s and 00s White groups more or less pointed at the shape of the lines and got maps undone. Though the Dems of those times drew abhorrent minority districts specifically because said districts were surrounded by GOP whites, the areas where there were Dem whites didn't get said access seats initially unless forced.

The relief for said claims is also a lot more nebulous. In the three claims above brought by minority voters, the desired relief is obvious and that is on purpose. Too much leeway in this matter and the implemented outcome will achieve only the narrow rather than wider purpose. The desired relief is also often times not a majority-minority seat, like Section 2 VRA claims.

So in theory racial gerrymandering claims start race-blind, and seek to correct for racially motivated practices, which aligns with the courts conservative idealists. In practice though the GOP fully controls the south right now where such claims are most viable, so it is minorities bring them. I am only aware of a failed legislative GOP claim in downstate Illinois and a failing one in Washington State this decade brought by whites. Obviously such tools would be desirable for Whites if things start spinning out of control in Texas and Georgia. But the court once again will find itself deciding between something that at the present benefits liberals, but in the past and future would facilitate their race-blind ideal.

[Oryxslayer]

I absolutely get what you're saying. I just don't see it flying with this Court. Milligan happened in the context of Alabama, one of the most racially polarized states in the country. The only real alternative to that decision would be to render Section 2 of the VRA a nullity. If the Court struck down Section 2, the Democratic Party would easily declare open warfare on the Supreme Court.

(Btw, please don't mistake my brevity for not reading or considering everything you said. I just cannot see this Court striking down Congressional maps on 14th Amendment grounds. Not even Wesberry was based on the 14th Amendment.)

All I'm saying is that it's going to be interesting - someone in an Amicus brief is going to bring up racial blindness in redistricting outside of section 2 VRA and College Admissions.


Also, I'm fairly confident Cooper v. Harris (NC 2016) was the last time Racial Gerrymandering went up to the court and that produced weird coalitions - though the  plaintiffs made the mistake of desiring expansive rather than specific remedies so the map went from 10-3 to...10-3. Quote from Wikipedia:

On May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court delivered judgment in favor of Harris, voting 5–3 to affirm the judgment of the district court. Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the Court, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Clarence Thomas. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, issued an opinion concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part, arguing that District 12 was constitutional. Neil Gorsuch did not take part in the case, which was argued before he was confirmed to the Supreme Court.

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1711454918144348457

How long would it take for SCOTUS to make a decision?

LETS GO!!!

For reference, this was decided to be heard months ago in July, now is just the hearing. Which in theory will lead to an opinion in time for there to be a consensus on the legality of the maps before the SC congressional primaries. Reminder that NC went to the supreme court in 2016 for the same issue and it's remap delayed the primaries. So there is precent even if a remap is required but the court sits on this until spring.

Now the NC point here is crucial. This is not Alabama or Louisiana with Section 2 VRA. This is a racial gerrymandering case with the legal justification in the 14th Amendment. This means that the remedy is not additional majority-minority seats, or even minority access. The trajectory of these suits goes that the mapping party (both historically) abused racial demographics and treated the communities significantly differently. One gets abused to the point of the maps clearly failing the smell test, not just RPV and other statistical analysis. The remedy is equitable treatment, often requiring no more than minimum necessary county and community cuts, and not cuts to specific communities. Obviously the NC case is an example of this failing, cause when you go to wide against the whole map, and don't specifically get a special master, the controlling party can produce the same outcomes with different tricks.

One other thing: the majority coalitions could be a bit different the Alabama. Thomas for example has always sided with the plaintiffs in racial gerrymandering cases, cause they align with his ideology. He says no race whatsoever in mapping, which means no VRA seats, but also no unequal treatment and carveouts for one group. However, things have changed for him personally since last ruling on racial gerrymandering, so whether he stays the line is something to look for in the Wednesday trial.

So what is the desired remedy in this case? No cuts beyond what is necessary when creating SC-01. Especially to the Charleston region. This would almost certainly create a new Biden won seat, or if not a super-marginal. They additionally asked for no or at least no super large and clearly racially sorted cuts to Richland, Sumter, and Orangeburg. This however was not found in their favor in the previous court, but the Supreme Court may change that if a majority decides to agree with the plaintiffs in totality.

So is this case based on the 14th Amendment Equal Protection rather than VRA? This case is probably somewhat of a tossup in front of SCOTUS; we saw a majority to uphold Milligan but 14th Amendment Redistricting cases tend to be a bit more abstract which a Conservative learning Court may not like, plus in SC it's harder to draw 2 black districts (hence why VRA doesn't apply).

See above about Thomas. If the court rules for the plaintiffs I thinks its probably Milligan majority with Thomas, maybe without Kav. If not, its all Conservatives maybe without Thomas.

[Oryxslayer]

Part of what I'm a bit confused about here is why didn't the plantiffs sue SC-02 (as opposed to SC-01)? An opportunity district based around Columbia would be more reliable at sending a black rep to Congress, both in primary and GE, since the best you can do with a Charleston based district is a bit over 20% black and swingy topline. In the map above, the Columbia based seat is 36% black and Biden + 12.

Because most of the time you cannot direct the court to your desired district with racial gerrymandering suits. The point of racial gerrymandering as a argument is not to send more minority reps to congress like the VRA. It is to correct for using race improperly and treating groups differently in redistricting. Only now with suburban diversification, and GOP in full control of the south, has the line been advanced more by minority plaintiffs to keep diverse regions with the rest of a city.

Pointing out what is wrong through Racial gerrymandering suits, just gets the court to say that it is wrong and needs to be corrected. What happens to a community after it is made whole and fixed is up to whoever has the pen. And given RPV, and where the counties are currently placed in districts (courts don't like massive changes unless necessary), Richland and Columbia wouldn't get united even if a special master did the work. This suit actually does challenge District 2's cuts into Orangeburg and Richland, but given how the districts are drawn now, its painfully obvious that the remedy would be to unite the counties in district 6.

The additional focus on district 1 is because this is a situation where the plaintiffs technically can direct to the court to their desired district. District 1's location in the narrow part of the state, between the Black Belt  and Georgia, means the number of remedial options decrease dramatically when you force Charleston to be whole. And that option will likely be to the plaintiffs benefit, unlike NC drawing a 10-3 map after their 10-3 map got sued.


(Also your map would never be selected to remedy a racial gerrymandering suit cause of what District 6 has to do, but that is beyond the point of this post)

[Oryxslayer]

SNIP

The two obvious cores for the 1st district if Charleston has to be kept whole or almost entirely whole (6 county cuts total statewide is the minimum for 0 dev): Charleston+Dorchester+Berkeley with SC-02 coming into Beaufort, or Charleston+Dorchester+Colleton+Beaufort with the SC-07 getting Berkely. Both are 60K above OMOV, so a cut is needed, and you can obviously cut deeper if another (Black Belt) county is added on. Both groups are 50-48 Biden, and that marginality can't be done away with if Charleston city can't remain a obvious 'arm in' gerrymander. There are obviously more intriguing options, for example the 'square' below that cuts Charleston county but not the city and the county sensibly along the river - see below - but those are the big two.



To conclude this, there are obviously other remedies available, such as creating that second AA access seat, but the following essential part of racial gerrymandering suits usually leads to minimizing county cuts (and following COIs if Master Map) while obviously making sure and VRA seats maintain accessibility:

The Legislature also subordinated traditional
race-neutral redistricting principles, including but not limited to, compactness, respecting county
and municipal boundaries, and respecting communities of actual shared interests

[Oryxslayer]

Interesting that you played around, in a couple of unique ways, but I'm sure its now clear how it's easier to get a second dem seat with the minimal strict guidelines (that might be hypothesized from the court compared to Section 2 VRA) out of SC-01 than any other seat.

But that all requires the court to rule for the plaintiffs. Which we don't know yet how they will lean. The people to watch would be Kav, Roberts, (if they stay by their past action in Milligan against totally upending the political cart) and Thomas (if he's still remains a likely plaintiff vote on these issues). And unlike Section 2 and Alabama, there is seemingly a wider range of outcomes in how far and in what direction a opinion could go.

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1711454918144348457

How long would it take for SCOTUS to make a decision?

LETS GO!!!

Listen I'll take any shred of hope I can get. Even the possibility at a competitive seat is a lot better then the last ten years of guaranteed 6-1 we've had.

I'd agree,  but I personally wouldn't cheer until we see the court transcripts and live testimony.  Cause while in theory the courts Milligan actions should transfer to a similar shutdown of Louisianas stalling, we don't know yet if it will when the issue is Racial Gerrymandering not the VRA.  Though I'm personally optimistic cause the courts themselves created this theory,  initially to clamp down on VRA district abuse.

[Oryxslayer]

Oral arguments in 30 minutes. This is the precedent and why the case is before the court:

Then in 2017 the court seemed to have a light-bulb moment: It didn’t matter. In an opinion in Cooper v. Harris by Justice Elena Kagan, notably joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court ruled that when it comes to racial gerrymandering, “the sorting of voters on the grounds of their race remains suspect even if race is meant to function as a proxy for other (including political) characteristics.” In short, neither sorting voters by race for racial reasons nor sorting them by race for reasons of partisan gerrymandering is permissible.

What South Carolina wants is for this precedent to be tossed, and the prior defense of "we are sorting by partisanship, not race, it's just coincidence the two align" to once again hold water.

Why I personally am more favorable to the plaintiffs here is also summarized neatly by Li in the preceeding paragraph.  Basically,  returning to this is not seemingly what Roberts wants the courts to have to do, see the partisan gerrymandering cases of 2020.

In 2016, former Justice Stephen Breyer bemoaned in one oral argument that racial gerrymandering cases required the court to spend “the entire term reviewing 5,000-page records” in order to decide, sometimes precinct by precinct, whether it was race or politics that drove lawmakers’ decisions about drawing a district. Justice Samuel Alito agreed, calling the court’s racial gerrymandering jurisprudence “very, very complicated” and “an invitation to litigation.”

But thing will be clearer shortly,  so we will all see.

https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1712087939562307819?t=eVq23WTVMuNbibu9b0CuBQ&am...

[Oryxslayer]

Kagan and Sotomayer currently probingly questioning John Gore representing the legislative defendants. Asking why they are here, and what legal errors there were in the lower courts findings, in his opinion, and why? In particular, why the lower court said they were using race as a proxy and that was wrong.

Gore says some experts on the plaintiffs side are wrong/flawed. Alito seems to accept (unsurprisingly) with his case way, Kagan less so (also unsurprisingly). Kagan quotes from said experts.

Jackson asking why defense witnesses are different from plaintiff ones.

[Oryxslayer]

Leah Aden from the LDF plaintiffs is now presenting their side of the case.
 
Aden defends the attack from the state that their experts are strong, notably that the Cooper (NC) experts affirm their findings.


Conservatives asking Aden why there is no alternative map produced by experts as comparative evidence by experts. Defense says they have clearer and stronger evidence through discovery.

Defense notes through a question from Jackson that the State did not say they did this for partisanship until the lower trial. Also that in discovery they found that the state's map program only had racial data and the 2020 election results, the state elections agency who has much more, says nothing else was used.

Alito, in keeping with the defense side, grills Aden on the credibility of their experts. Says partisanship should be assumed as a defense.

Sotomayor is accepting of the experts (unsurprisingly), but asks about their goals.

Kavanaugh now asking about the divergences between the publicly stated goals of the legislature (Berkeley, CD-06 have some of Charleston) diverge from the results.

[Oryxslayer]

Are we expected to get a decision today?

I don't think the court has ever turned around something so low-rung that fast. I think only the emergency stuff like Bush v Gore gets a very quick fasttrack.

No, the expectation is January with maybe a order requested by the plaintiffs like in Cooper (NC) delaying the congressional primaries if the mapping goes on to long.

But what we are listening to is whether the court already has a preference for one side.

So apparently Roberts and Thomas both made comments strongly in favor of South Carolina.  This one is probably over. 

Thomas has been mostly silent, though I think he said stuff at the start against the defense which I missed.

[Oryxslayer]

Second lawyer Flynn for solicitor General arguing on behalf of the Federal Government.  

Thomas questioned on the standards of Arlington Heightsand wanted a specific statement how they apply here.

Alito asks her the same questions he asked before over the experts and their evidence.

Kagan confronts her with with the argument that the state didn't try to maintain the prior BVAP while increasing GOP partisanship. Asks why race would be used as the proxy since the court ruled in favor of legal partisan gerrymandering in 2020. Flynn says the state had minimal data, and the two are highly correlated in the south.

Thomas gets a statement from her that they do believe race should have no part in redistricting under the 14th amendment, except when the overriding data necessitates VRA compliance. But the VRA isn't truly necessary here. Which kinda fits into his worldview.

Kav and Gorsech asks how the defense of playing politics isn't correct. She says the district court found that the political data was not enough. Kav asking what if the political data was enough, defense says one election would not be enough for a true functional analysis. Also that reaching a goal through race, no matter what it is, is illegal.

Barrett speaking (for the first time?) mentions that racial gerrymandering requires high standards on the parts of the plaintiffs and starts with the presumption of innocence "good faith standard" on the part of the state body. Asks about clear error measurement, so is there is an expert report that considered all factors, like political data, contiguity, compactness etc. Parties argued that different experts considered different factors.

[Oryxslayer]

SC's closing rebuttal focuses on the lack of an alternative map and their belief that the experts are incorrect, blurring the lines between partisan and racial gerrymandering.

[Oryxslayer]

Would we say after today this case is lean South Carolina, since it sounds like none of the Conservatives other than maybe Thomas said things mostly in favor of South Carolina?

Obv though there can always be surprises (see Milligan)

https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1712143281511883054?s=20

I would say there are four votes for the plaintiffs between the Liberals and Thomas, who didn't seem to have changed from Cooper (NC 2016), and two votes for the State in Alito and Gorsuch. Barrett may be also with the State but she said very little. Which is a bigger window than in Alabama, but it could lead to a interesting opinion if the court upholds the lower court ruling for the plaintiffs by a wide margin.

[Oryxslayer]

Well the result is the same no matter who you think came out better: we wait a few months to see the decision. All reporting on Milligan was against the plaintiffs, and that came down in a positive manner.

[Oryxslayer]

Alito was FERVENTLY against the plaintiffs, to the point that one would think he's a defendant in the case.  I mean, holy crap, the anger in his voice could be heard sometimes.

This should be the takeaway and why its rather muddy about who is favored and where loyalties stand. This was the Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan show. And Alito did most of the conservative action for the state at every point. Maybe he speaks for more, maybe he was trying to convince them. The rest had minimal to say, especially Barrett.

[Oryxslayer]

Is there any reason the plantiffs didn't provide any sort of "alternative maps"? That seems to be a very discussed topic in the oral arguments.

it's not really required for racial gerrymandering cases, though may be when the proof is less clear cut, at least from the plaintiffs perspective. And thats a standard set by stuff like Cooper.

it is a required burden for section 2 VRA cases. Which should tell you why Alito liked taking about it, cause while it is not immediately relevant, it could be made relevant and sounds relevant, and of course its something the plaintiffs can't easily rebut.

[Oryxslayer]

Supreme Court with a Ideological-Line opinion affirming SC's map, but not really changing the racial gerrymandering law. Basically just critiqued on the alternative-map requirement.


With that the 2024 redistricting cycle is over for congressional lines.

[Oryxslayer]

Supreme Court with a Ideological-Line opinion affirming SC's map, but not really changing the racial gerrymandering law. Basically just critiqued on the alternative-map requirement.


With that the 2024 redistricting cycle is over for congressional lines.

This looks to me like it could be more significant?  The Alito opinion seems to embrace a greater degree of deference to the legislature's partisan redistricting goals, basically placing a burden on the plaintiffs to show a map that resolves the racial gerrymander without altering the overall partisan balance of the map (i.e. no additional Dem seats vs. what the legislature intended) in order to prevail?  
However, I believe this is a 14th Amendment racial gerrymandering lawsuit process, and there is a distinct VRA Section 2 lawsuit process to achieve proportionality, which the court viewed more favorably last year in Milligan even at the expense of eliminating an R seat intended by the legislature.

Yes, this is a entirely separate beast from section 2 VRA.

If you have actually followed these type of cases, you know that it doesn't really matter what type of map evidence is required. A good suit provides a litany of it. It's never implemented. The remedial process is it's own thing, and that is more or less down to judges. So from my view nothing really changes: it doesn't matter how many hoops you have to jump through if the panel you are arguing before is ideologically against or for you. Their preconceived opinions now just have new citations.