2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: South Carolina

[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.

[ProgressiveModerate]

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.

Another benefit to suing SC-02 (assuming it's a D-aligned group) is that it forces SC-01 to be more of a "white pack", which in turn actually makes SC-01 a bit swingier at just Trump + 5.

I understand the argument here is about racial sorting and not VRA, but the little arm up into Columbia is arguably equally as offensive as the Charleston arm. Honestly, blacks are just poorly distributed in South Carolina that reguardless of whether SC-01 or SC-02 was sued, you'd still need racial sorting elsewhere to achieve SC-06.

[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)

[ProgressiveModerate]

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)

I see, I appreciate the explanation here. Def agree with the point that if you're forced to keep Charleston whole while also keeping SC-06 black functioning, there is very little you can do other than trade a few suburban precincts here or there. I'm curious to see how they deal with Beaufort County since if you only do a Charleston -Dorchester- Berkeley district, it becomes "trapped" and is too white and populous to want to be added to SC-06. If you have SC-01 take in Beaufort though, then SC-06 has to take in a bunch of white conservative Charleston suburbs. Does SC-07 have to reach down and pick up those suburbs?

[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

[patzer]

Trying to minimize county splits and maximize compactness while keeping the 6th functionally black performing, here's one option

1st is Trump+1.8 in 2016, Biden+3.9 in 2020

[ProgressiveModerate]

Tried to do a map with the "square" seat suggested by Orxyslayer. It makes SC-01 25% black Biden + 4 seat, so def an influence/opportunity seat, but it makes it really hard to deal with 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. In this map 6 is majority black and fixes it's county splitting issues, but this might go beyond the scope of what the court would want to do to intervene. Here it forced an awkward wrap-around district 5; the alternating was the split Greenville down the middle.

My guess is any remedy map forces SC-06 to take in more if not all of Richmond County.

Not that's it really relevant but the district 3 in this map (purple) is actually a single-digit Trump seat; prolly cause it's over 30% black.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Here's a map that causes fewer changes overall but has a very notable impact on 6 (which is still Safe D and 47% black). The court prolly doesn't want to mess with SC-06 this much.

[ProgressiveModerate]

This one does a good job at remedying the problem and only really impacts 1, 2, and 6 in a notable way. 2 is kinda cursed here though, but remedying the racial sorting would be the courts priority so it might not matter.

Note 6 is majority black here.

Of all the maps I've posted so far this is my favorite because there's only significant changes between 3 districts and 6 doesn't change *that* much but actually increases it's black population from the old map.

[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.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

So I have a trove of SC maps being that its my home state. I pulled up a few ones for examples.



This one, SC 2020 F, The 6th (contains Florence) does not reach into Charleston and its plurality black. The5th (contains Camden) is just under 40% black and voted for Biden by over ten points. The first was about 5 points for Biden. Maybe in an extreme red wave all three could flip, but it'd be surprised if they did.



This one, SC 2020 C, has two majority minority seats, and I'd expect them to elect black representatives regularly as it is the back bone of the democratic electorate. Personally, I really like the 7th (Charleston) and 6th (Columbia) on this map. The 6th contains most of the I-20 corridor and the 7th has a lot of deeply rural minority areas. I also played around with it and it’s fairly easy to make the GSP wrap around a Spartanburg based seat.  ... just don't look at the 5th...

Personally I have no idea if either of these appease the plantiffs but I like them.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

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.

[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.

[politicallefty]

You can listen to the live oral arguments Wednesday morning, which can reveal what the Justices are thinking about. Even then, you sometimes don't know how things are going to go. Obviously, Milligan was a complete surprise. I think most of us were expecting a gutting of Section 2. I haven't been optimistic with this SC case, so I'll be interested to listen to the oral arguments myself.

[Stuart98]

Split minimizing map:


6th is only majority black by total population rather than BVAP here but it should be acceptable.

Better version that doesn't care about county splits (6th is majority BVAP in this version):

[Spectator]

The 1st probably becomes a legitimate tossup if SCOTUS rules for the plaintiffs

[Roll Roons]

The 1st probably becomes a legitimate tossup if SCOTUS rules for the plaintiffs

And if it is, something makes me think the NRCC won't be chomping at the bit to bail Mace out.

[Gass3268]

The 1st probably becomes a legitimate tossup if SCOTUS rules for the plaintiffs

And if it is, something makes me think the NRCC won't be chomping at the bit to bail Mace out.

Nope, but Mace also will do everything to make people think she's the second coming of liberal Rockefeller Republicans if necessary.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

The 1st probably becomes a legitimate tossup if SCOTUS rules for the plaintiffs

And if it is, something makes me think the NRCC won't be chomping at the bit to bail Mace out.

Nope, but Mace also will do everything to make people think she's the second coming of liberal Rockefeller Republicans if necessary.

I doubt that’d play well. In South Carolina republicans are largely evangelical social issue absolutists while democrats are minorities (mostly blacks) and a moderately sized minority of left leaning whites. I don’t see how acting “moderate” would appeal to many.

Also a lot of us don’t like New York as a concept so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[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.

[wbrocks67]

Are we expected to get a decision today?

[Skill and Chance]

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

[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.