2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Kansas

[lfromnj]

Surprised they cleared the hurdle.

Yeah at first it seemed confusing to have the 1st take in Lawrence but it really makes sense on second go. Taking in Wyandotte means you have to take in 250k non rural areas if you include Leavenworth county. Lawrence is a much smaller 90k. Taking in 250k non rural areas means you to persuade like 11 or 12 state reps in Western Kansas. Taking in Lawrence just means 3 or 4 have to be done. Well crafted gerrymander considering the various parochial interests of Kansas representatives. Likely all for naught in the end.

[Mr.Phips]

If only Dems had won a couple more seats in the state house in 2020….

[Torie]

Surprised they cleared the hurdle.

Yeah at first it seemed confusing to have the 1st take in Lawrence but it really makes sense on second go. Taking in Wyandotte means you have to take in 250k non rural areas if you include Leavenworth county. Lawrence is a much smaller 90k. Taking in 250k non rural areas means you to persuade like 11 or 12 state reps in Western Kansas. Taking in Lawrence just means 3 or 4 have to be done. Well crafted gerrymander considering the various parochial interests of Kansas representatives. Likely all for naught in the end.

What would be the grounds for the court to toss the Pubmander?

[Schiff for Senate]

I hope this map gets litigated. It deserves to suffer the fate of OH and NC. KS GOP is one of the most idiotic, spineless state parties in existence.

Thank god for the KS Supreme Court.

Honestly, though, that's what I find most bewildering.
If any outsider saw all of the drama that went down, they'd think it was a very powerful/effective gerrymander, but it really doesn't even do anything (it's not like it totally cracks up KS03 or something). It might give them KS03 for two or maybe four years, but the trends and the fact that it's a Biden district make me think it's about 50-50 in 2022 and is gone for the GOP thereafter. As Minnesota Mike said:

After all this drama Davids probably still wins.

Surprised they cleared the hurdle.

Yeah at first it seemed confusing to have the 1st take in Lawrence but it really makes sense on second go. Taking in Wyandotte means you have to take in 250k non rural areas if you include Leavenworth county. Lawrence is a much smaller 90k. Taking in 250k non rural areas means you to persuade like 11 or 12 state reps in Western Kansas. Taking in Lawrence just means 3 or 4 have to be done. Well crafted gerrymander considering the various parochial interests of Kansas representatives. Likely all for naught in the end.

What would be the grounds for the court to toss the Pubmander?

I think Democrats should just relax. The map is somewhat gerrymandered but it's not like it'll help the GOP whatsoever in the long run - maybe it fetches them 4-0 in 2022 but that's about it. Instead be worried about and/or file lawsuits in places like TN and GA.







My hot take about KS is that despite all the noise and controversy and KY's is being appluaded as a non-gerrymander/fair map because it didn't crack Lousiville, KS' map will do less to actually help the GOP in practice in the long run than KY's. Because KS03, as I've said, might flip in 2022 - and even that's iffy - and is gone for the GOP after that, while the old KY06 was Democrats' long-term opportunity to get a 4-2 in KY. Now obviously the GOP could've been much worse but they still did slightly redden the 6th / shore up Barr, since they removed Frankfort from the district and put it in a totally random western district. If you want to cry foul about gerrymandering in a K state with a GOP legislative supermajority but a Democratic governor, do so about KY, not KS. The two reasons I think people are letting the KYGOP off the hook and getting so hung up about KS is because KS is what will have more tangible effects in 2022 and deviates from the status quo while KY's has no obvious short term effects and does not, and also (somewhat related to the previous point) people had really low expectations about what was going to happen in KY with the Louisville split and whatnot, and they were probably so relieved it didn't happen that they overlooked much more subtle gerrymandering down in Frankfort.

[GALeftist]

Surprised they cleared the hurdle.

Yeah at first it seemed confusing to have the 1st take in Lawrence but it really makes sense on second go. Taking in Wyandotte means you have to take in 250k non rural areas if you include Leavenworth county. Lawrence is a much smaller 90k. Taking in 250k non rural areas means you to persuade like 11 or 12 state reps in Western Kansas. Taking in Lawrence just means 3 or 4 have to be done. Well crafted gerrymander considering the various parochial interests of Kansas representatives. Likely all for naught in the end.

What would be the grounds for the court to toss the Pubmander?

Similar to North Carolina, Kansas has provisions establishing equal protection, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc. which if you strech you could see how that would justify striking down a partisan gerrymander.

[Torie]

Surprised they cleared the hurdle.

Yeah at first it seemed confusing to have the 1st take in Lawrence but it really makes sense on second go. Taking in Wyandotte means you have to take in 250k non rural areas if you include Leavenworth county. Lawrence is a much smaller 90k. Taking in 250k non rural areas means you to persuade like 11 or 12 state reps in Western Kansas. Taking in Lawrence just means 3 or 4 have to be done. Well crafted gerrymander considering the various parochial interests of Kansas representatives. Likely all for naught in the end.

What would be the grounds for the court to toss the Pubmander?

Similar to North Carolina, Kansas has provisions establishing equal protection, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc. which if you strech you could see how that would justify striking down a partisan gerrymander.

Thanks. And why does one assume the KS high court is as activist and partisan as the NC high court?

I just googled it and it seems that NYS also has an equal protection clause. How interesting.

https://law.justia.com/constitution/new-york/article-i/section-11/

The takeaway from this is that state high courts are going hard partisan (or making it more obvious) and damaging their reputations. And that is a more worrisome development than the most outrageous of gerrymanders. When courts go down the drain, we don't have much left.

[Schiff for Senate]

Surprised they cleared the hurdle.

Yeah at first it seemed confusing to have the 1st take in Lawrence but it really makes sense on second go. Taking in Wyandotte means you have to take in 250k non rural areas if you include Leavenworth county. Lawrence is a much smaller 90k. Taking in 250k non rural areas means you to persuade like 11 or 12 state reps in Western Kansas. Taking in Lawrence just means 3 or 4 have to be done. Well crafted gerrymander considering the various parochial interests of Kansas representatives. Likely all for naught in the end.

What would be the grounds for the court to toss the Pubmander?

Similar to North Carolina, Kansas has provisions establishing equal protection, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc. which if you strech you could see how that would justify striking down a partisan gerrymander.

Thanks. And why does one assume the KS high court is as activist and partisan as the NC high court?

It won't be. Let's face it, SCONC is inherently more partisan than the KS Supreme Court. You elect justices and they have partisan affiliations. It's never a good idea to inject more partisanship into courts than their already is, and when you're actually electing them and they're obviously identified with the GOP or Democrats, expect party-line decisions similar to legislative votes and expect all decisions to be partisan. KS's Supreme Court isn't nearly as wild or partisan as NC's; also, NC had a very blatant gerrymander whereas KS', as I already said, does little in 2022 and absolutely nothing later in the decade. I wouldn't lose any sleep over KS, though, because of just how tame a gerrymander it is.

[Schiff for Senate]

Surprised they cleared the hurdle.

Yeah at first it seemed confusing to have the 1st take in Lawrence but it really makes sense on second go. Taking in Wyandotte means you have to take in 250k non rural areas if you include Leavenworth county. Lawrence is a much smaller 90k. Taking in 250k non rural areas means you to persuade like 11 or 12 state reps in Western Kansas. Taking in Lawrence just means 3 or 4 have to be done. Well crafted gerrymander considering the various parochial interests of Kansas representatives. Likely all for naught in the end.

What would be the grounds for the court to toss the Pubmander?

Similar to North Carolina, Kansas has provisions establishing equal protection, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc. which if you strech you could see how that would justify striking down a partisan gerrymander.

Thanks. And why does one assume the KS high court is as activist and partisan as the NC high court?

I just googled it and it seems that NYS also has an equal protection clause. How interesting.

https://law.justia.com/constitution/new-york/article-i/section-11/

The takeaway from this is that state high courts are going hard partisan (or making it more obvious) and damaging their reputations. And that is a more worrisome development than the most outrageous of gerrymanders. When courts go down the drain, we don't have much left.

Shame. I always genuinely thought courts would be less partisan / more decent than that. My question is then, are you elected to the NY Supreme Court or appointed? Your answer may explain a lot, because as I said in my previous post, courts were judges are elected (such as the North Carolina Supreme Court) are inherently partisan.

[GALeftist]

Surprised they cleared the hurdle.

Yeah at first it seemed confusing to have the 1st take in Lawrence but it really makes sense on second go. Taking in Wyandotte means you have to take in 250k non rural areas if you include Leavenworth county. Lawrence is a much smaller 90k. Taking in 250k non rural areas means you to persuade like 11 or 12 state reps in Western Kansas. Taking in Lawrence just means 3 or 4 have to be done. Well crafted gerrymander considering the various parochial interests of Kansas representatives. Likely all for naught in the end.

What would be the grounds for the court to toss the Pubmander?

Similar to North Carolina, Kansas has provisions establishing equal protection, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc. which if you strech you could see how that would justify striking down a partisan gerrymander.

Thanks. And why does one assume the KS high court is as activist and partisan as the NC high court?

I just googled it and it seems that NYS also has an equal protection clause. How interesting.

https://law.justia.com/constitution/new-york/article-i/section-11/

The takeaway from this is that state high courts are going hard partisan (or making it more obvious) and damaging their reputations. And that is a more worrisome development than the most outrageous of gerrymanders. When courts go down the drain, we don't have much left.

I somewhat agree that the surging partisanship of state courts is a bad development (although this issue obviously pales in comparison to what's currently happening in the Supreme Court), but be that as it may, I have a hard time seeing the KSSC letting this stand.

[Virginiá]

Honestly, I wonder if this particular map is even worth suing over. It could easily elect a Democrat again in 2024, given trends and its existing lean. Having the KSSC strike it down could embolden the legislature to go nuclear on the court, as we've seen in other states with GOP legislatures (Pennsylvania being a recent example), and that would not be a good thing for anyone. Granted, the KSGOP might not have the votes to do anything, it's still worth considering.

[Torie]

Surprised they cleared the hurdle.

Yeah at first it seemed confusing to have the 1st take in Lawrence but it really makes sense on second go. Taking in Wyandotte means you have to take in 250k non rural areas if you include Leavenworth county. Lawrence is a much smaller 90k. Taking in 250k non rural areas means you to persuade like 11 or 12 state reps in Western Kansas. Taking in Lawrence just means 3 or 4 have to be done. Well crafted gerrymander considering the various parochial interests of Kansas representatives. Likely all for naught in the end.

What would be the grounds for the court to toss the Pubmander?

Similar to North Carolina, Kansas has provisions establishing equal protection, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc. which if you strech you could see how that would justify striking down a partisan gerrymander.

Thanks. And why does one assume the KS high court is as activist and partisan as the NC high court?

I just googled it and it seems that NYS also has an equal protection clause. How interesting.

https://law.justia.com/constitution/new-york/article-i/section-11/

The takeaway from this is that state high courts are going hard partisan (or making it more obvious) and damaging their reputations. And that is a more worrisome development than the most outrageous of gerrymanders. When courts go down the drain, we don't have much left.

I somewhat agree that the surging partisanship of state courts is a bad development (although this issue obviously pales in comparison to what's currently happening in the Supreme Court), but be that as it may, I have a hard time seeing the KSSC letting this stand.

What will really be terrible is if the KS and NC maps go down the tubes, while the NYS map is upheld by the NYS high court, under the same language, plus more specific language about not unduly favoring one party. And this issue is getting publicity. 538 had a discussion about the state courts going hack.

[lfromnj]

Surprised they cleared the hurdle.

Yeah at first it seemed confusing to have the 1st take in Lawrence but it really makes sense on second go. Taking in Wyandotte means you have to take in 250k non rural areas if you include Leavenworth county. Lawrence is a much smaller 90k. Taking in 250k non rural areas means you to persuade like 11 or 12 state reps in Western Kansas. Taking in Lawrence just means 3 or 4 have to be done. Well crafted gerrymander considering the various parochial interests of Kansas representatives. Likely all for naught in the end.

What would be the grounds for the court to toss the Pubmander?

Similar to North Carolina, Kansas has provisions establishing equal protection, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc. which if you strech you could see how that would justify striking down a partisan gerrymander.

Thanks. And why does one assume the KS high court is as activist and partisan as the NC high court?

I just googled it and it seems that NYS also has an equal protection clause. How interesting.

https://law.justia.com/constitution/new-york/article-i/section-11/

The takeaway from this is that state high courts are going hard partisan (or making it more obvious) and damaging their reputations. And that is a more worrisome development than the most outrageous of gerrymanders. When courts go down the drain, we don't have much left.

I somewhat agree that the surging partisanship of state courts is a bad development (although this issue obviously pales in comparison to what's currently happening in the Supreme Court), but be that as it may, I have a hard time seeing the KSSC letting this stand.

SCOTUS/Federal courts are and do remain relatively non partisan over redistricting. It just seems partisan now but their ideology has not flipped, just national circumstances and who these lawsuits benefit. Conservatives on SCOTUS were non interventionist when the RNC supported gerrymandering lawsuits in the 1980s while liberals were interventionist back then even as Democrats supported gerrymandering more. Conservatives on SCOTUS struck down the HW bush racial gerrymanders of the 1990s while liberals wanted to keep them. The SCOTUS case on Rucho is controversial but it is extremely unfair to say that SCOTUS were being partisan hacks when they made their decision.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/478/109/
Quote from Davis v Bandemer which was Indiana Democrats suing over a GOP gerrymander but national Republicans supported Indiana Democrats. The final decision was relatively mixed as the more liberal justices back then said gerrymandering was a justiciable claim but let the Indiana map stand as they couldn't find a standard back then either. The conservatives however said partisan gerrymandering should be legal in any circumstance.

JUSTICE O'CONNOR, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE REHNQUIST, concluding that the partisan gerrymandering claims of major political parties raise a nonjusticiable political question, would reverse the District Court's judgment on the grounds that appellees' claim is nonjusticiable. The Equal Protection Clause does not supply judicially manageable standards for resolving purely political gerrymandering claims, and does not confer group rights to an equal share of political power. Racial gerrymandering claims are justiciable because of the greater warrant the Equal Protection Clause gives the federal courts to intervene for protection against racial discrimination, and because of the stronger nexus between individual rights and group interests that is present in the case of a discrete and insular racial group. But members of the major political parties cannot claim that they are vulnerable to exclusion from the political process, and it has not been established that there is a need or a constitutional basis for judicial intervention to resolve political gerrymandering claims. The costs of judicial intervention will be severe, and such intervention requires courts to make policy choices that are not of a kind suited for judicial discretion. Nor is there any clear stopping point to prevent the gradual evolution of a requirement of roughly proportional representation for every cohesive political group. Accordingly, political gerrymandering claims present a nonjusticiable political question. Pp. 478 U. S. 144-155.

[Devils30]

What was the 2020 presidential result in KS-3?

[Roll Roons]

What was the 2020 presidential result in KS-3?

I think it was like Biden +4. Could very well go R in 2022, but JoCo is increasingly... not good for the GOP.

[Minnesota Mike]

What was the 2020 presidential result in KS-3?

I think it was like Biden +4. Could very well go R in 2022, but JoCo is increasingly... not good for the GOP.

Biden won the district by 4, Bollier by 4, Kelly by 15. KS-03 becomes more competitive but IMHO still leans Dem.

[Nyvin]

Surprised they cleared the hurdle.

Yeah at first it seemed confusing to have the 1st take in Lawrence but it really makes sense on second go. Taking in Wyandotte means you have to take in 250k non rural areas if you include Leavenworth county. Lawrence is a much smaller 90k. Taking in 250k non rural areas means you to persuade like 11 or 12 state reps in Western Kansas. Taking in Lawrence just means 3 or 4 have to be done. Well crafted gerrymander considering the various parochial interests of Kansas representatives. Likely all for naught in the end.

What would be the grounds for the court to toss the Pubmander?

Similar to North Carolina, Kansas has provisions establishing equal protection, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc. which if you strech you could see how that would justify striking down a partisan gerrymander.

Thanks. And why does one assume the KS high court is as activist and partisan as the NC high court?

I just googled it and it seems that NYS also has an equal protection clause. How interesting.

https://law.justia.com/constitution/new-york/article-i/section-11/

The takeaway from this is that state high courts are going hard partisan (or making it more obvious) and damaging their reputations. And that is a more worrisome development than the most outrageous of gerrymanders. When courts go down the drain, we don't have much left.

Or maybe it's becoming an established judicial precedent nationally that elections should not be manipulated by legislator's map drawing and people deserve elections that are free from such taint.

[lfromnj]

Surprised they cleared the hurdle.

Yeah at first it seemed confusing to have the 1st take in Lawrence but it really makes sense on second go. Taking in Wyandotte means you have to take in 250k non rural areas if you include Leavenworth county. Lawrence is a much smaller 90k. Taking in 250k non rural areas means you to persuade like 11 or 12 state reps in Western Kansas. Taking in Lawrence just means 3 or 4 have to be done. Well crafted gerrymander considering the various parochial interests of Kansas representatives. Likely all for naught in the end.

What would be the grounds for the court to toss the Pubmander?

Similar to North Carolina, Kansas has provisions establishing equal protection, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc. which if you strech you could see how that would justify striking down a partisan gerrymander.

Thanks. And why does one assume the KS high court is as activist and partisan as the NC high court?

I just googled it and it seems that NYS also has an equal protection clause. How interesting.

https://law.justia.com/constitution/new-york/article-i/section-11/

The takeaway from this is that state high courts are going hard partisan (or making it more obvious) and damaging their reputations. And that is a more worrisome development than the most outrageous of gerrymanders. When courts go down the drain, we don't have much left.

Or maybe it's becoming an established judicial precedent nationally that elections should not be manipulated by legislator's map drawing and people deserve elections that are free from such taint.

lol we all know if these maps were drawn by Democrats, liberal state courts wouldn't strike them down.(I do believe liberals on SCOTUS are consistent just like conservatives and would strike them down)

PA's opinion even cited computer simulations as the key proof of the 2010 map being a gerrymander but under the same simulations their final map in 2018 was nearly just an extreme of a gerrymander albeit in the opposite direction. So what exactly is their standard of a gerrymander?  Yes PA's 2018 map isn't actually as much of a gerrymander as the 2010 map but by their own standard they did not strike down gerrymandering but instead replaced an extreme gerrymander with a milder one in the opposite direction.

[Nyvin]

lol we all know if these maps were drawn by Democrats, liberal state courts wouldn't strike them down.(I do believe liberals on SCOTUS are consistent just like conservatives and would strike them down)

PA's opinion even cited computer simulations as the key proof of the 2010 map being a gerrymander but under the same simulations their final map in 2018 was nearly just an extreme of a gerrymander albeit in the opposite direction. So what exactly is their standard of a gerrymander?

They put a higher priority on proportionality,  which IMO is the best way to give a map legitimacy.

Proportionality is the only real way to prove that voters can translate their votes into seats at the correct amounts.

[Sol]

Is a proportionate map legitimate if it ends up favoring one party as time passes?

[Nyvin]

Is a proportionate map legitimate if it ends up favoring one party as time passes?

Yes, because the map wasn't drawn maliciously to give those biases, or at the very least the party has to be doing good with the public over time to produce those biases.

[Devils30]

KS-3 will have a D+4 PVI by 2028....I'm a little surprised the GOP went through all this to make the seat still very winnable for Dems.

[omar04]

FWIW Wasserman drew a 4-0 map almost a year ago but had his reservations on its practicality.

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1375509779284566017

[White Cloud]

FWIW Wasserman drew a 4-0 map almost a year ago but had his reservations on its practicality.

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1375509779284566017

What's ironic to me is that this map, which is so much better for the Republicans than the Ad Astra 2 map, actually looks less gerrymandered than the Ad Astra 2 map. In Wasserman's map, the districts look like solid blocks of contiguous territory. The 2nd district in particular is a lot more cohesive in Wasserman's map than in the Ad Astra 2 map. The 2nd district in the Ad Astra 2 map is hideous, the way it snakes around Lawrence and other parts of eastern Kansas to avoid the 1st and 3rd districts.

The only eyebrow-raising thing in Wasserman's map is the extension of the 1st district all the way to the Missouri border. But in many ways, that's not as much of a stretch as one might think. Kansans already refer to the 1st district as the "Big First". So it being the only district that goes from border to border makes sense, in a way.

[Sestak]

Surprised they cleared the hurdle.

Yeah at first it seemed confusing to have the 1st take in Lawrence but it really makes sense on second go. Taking in Wyandotte means you have to take in 250k non rural areas if you include Leavenworth county. Lawrence is a much smaller 90k. Taking in 250k non rural areas means you to persuade like 11 or 12 state reps in Western Kansas. Taking in Lawrence just means 3 or 4 have to be done. Well crafted gerrymander considering the various parochial interests of Kansas representatives. Likely all for naught in the end.

What would be the grounds for the court to toss the Pubmander?

Similar to North Carolina, Kansas has provisions establishing equal protection, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc. which if you strech you could see how that would justify striking down a partisan gerrymander.

Thanks. And why does one assume the KS high court is as activist and partisan as the NC high court?

I just googled it and it seems that NYS also has an equal protection clause. How interesting.

https://law.justia.com/constitution/new-york/article-i/section-11/

The takeaway from this is that state high courts are going hard partisan (or making it more obvious) and damaging their reputations. And that is a more worrisome development than the most outrageous of gerrymanders. When courts go down the drain, we don't have much left.

Or maybe it's becoming an established judicial precedent nationally that elections should not be manipulated by legislator's map drawing and people deserve elections that are free from such taint.

lol we all know if these maps were drawn by Democrats, liberal state courts wouldn't strike them down.(I do believe liberals on SCOTUS are consistent just like conservatives and would strike them down)

PA's opinion even cited computer simulations as the key proof of the 2010 map being a gerrymander but under the same simulations their final map in 2018 was nearly just an extreme of a gerrymander albeit in the opposite direction. So what exactly is their standard of a gerrymander?  Yes PA's 2018 map isn't actually as much of a gerrymander as the 2010 map but by their own standard they did not strike down gerrymandering but instead replaced an extreme gerrymander with a milder one in the opposite direction.

I think this is incorrect? The MGGG report submitted to them at least showed the original (and new proposed) legislature maps were several standard deviations (like 2-3) away from ‘similar maps’. They don’t have the new maps on their 2018 report but I remember going to a talk by Moon Duchin in 2018 or 19 where she talked about it. I thought it came out to something like 1 standard deviation favoring Dems, maybe 1.5? Still not unbiased but statistically it’s way better than the old plan. (Ofc by far the fairest plan proposed under their analysis was Wolf’s plan which came out to favor GOP by less than one SD).

[Tekken_Guy]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/281928ef-d1ae-49ec-8c66-902c1e5e3212

Kansas honestly should have gone with this map. It leaves a KS-03 that Biden only won by 1,000 votes.