US House Redistricting: North Carolina

[DrScholl]

The goal really is to get rid of any white legislator who is not a Republican and that is discrimination. It may be legal, but it's certainly not fair and Democrats really need to start shouting it from the rooftops.

[krazen1211]

The goal really is to get rid of any white legislator who is not a Republican and that is discrimination. It may be legal, but it's certainly not fair and Democrats really need to start shouting it from the rooftops.

Talk about sour grapes.

[DrScholl]

Talk about sour grapes.

I'm not calling for entire courts to be impeached or claiming other ideas, so, no. Just telling it like it is.

[minionofmidas]

In case anyone was wondering, here's how the NC maps discriminate against women.

Lol! That surely explains the safe seats for Foxx, Myrick, and Ellmers, right? Incidentally they went after 4 males.

Yes, the NC maps discriminate against men. I call sexism. Remember that we are a minority.

[Miles]

The goal really is to get rid of any white legislator who is not a Republican and that is discrimination.

Thats the Republicans' strategy in most of the south

[nclib]

In case anyone was wondering, here's how the NC maps discriminate against women.

I just got back from a talk where this was raised (not that specific video, but the general point). I know they targeted as many white Democrats as they could, but it is clear that they were more aggressive towards Democratic women.

On the bright side, a speaker indicated that we will likely have non-partisan redistricting in 2020.

Lol! That surely explains the safe seats for Foxx, Myrick, and Ellmers, right? Incidentally they went after 4 males.

We're referring to the state legislature. The only reason that didn't go after any Democratic Congresswomen here, is that there weren't any.

[krazen1211]

In case anyone was wondering, here's how the NC maps discriminate against women.

I just got back from a talk where this was raised (not that specific video, but the general point). I know they targeted as many white Democrats as they could, but it is clear that they were more aggressive towards Democratic women.

On the bright side, a speaker indicated that we will likely have non-partisan redistricting in 2020.

Lol! That surely explains the safe seats for Foxx, Myrick, and Ellmers, right? Incidentally they went after 4 males.

We're referring to the state legislature. The only reason that didn't go after any Democratic Congresswomen here, is that there weren't any.

How amusing to exclude things that disprove this silliness.

Your party has had a century for put nonpartisan redistricting in.

[Miles]

Lol! That surely explains the safe seats for Foxx, Myrick, and Ellmers, right? Incidentally they went after 4 males.

We're referring to the state legislature. The only reason that didn't go after any Democratic Congresswomen here, is that there weren't any.

Actually, I'd argue that the Congressional map isn't particularly kind to females either. Both Myrick and Foxx get less safe districts. The new NC-02 only has 25% of its old territory; while its safer for Ellmers, 75% of the electorate being new is almost bordering on an open-seat contest.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How did Myrick get less safe? It went from 54% to 55%, didn't it?

[BigSkyBob]

How did Myrick get less safe? It went from 54% to 55%, didn't it?

Minor details such as facts should never get in the way of a good story.

[Miles]

How did Myrick get less safe? It went from 54% to 55%, didn't it?

Minor details such as facts should never get in the way of a good story.

And in this case, they don't.

'Other way. Myrick goes from 54.6% to 54.1%.

[Mr.Phips]

While possible to draw, I doubt that such a district in either Louisiana or Alabama could have been upheld.
South Carolina is a different matter, actually. Though they would have to be quite tentaclish in which rural precincts to include or exclude, the two Black districts to draw there would have been far more logically composed than the one they actually drew.
Of course, Dems were okay with it because the two seats might have been lost in a 2010clone style wave...

The two seats would likely be around 53% black and in the high 50's for Obama.  I could see these two seats being held to the low 50's in a year like 2010, but I doubt Democrats would have lost them even in 2010. 

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

The goal really is to get rid of any white legislator who is not a Republican and that is discrimination.

Thats the Republicans' strategy in most of the south country

Fixed.

[muon2]

While possible to draw, I doubt that such a district in either Louisiana or Alabama could have been upheld.
South Carolina is a different matter, actually. Though they would have to be quite tentaclish in which rural precincts to include or exclude, the two Black districts to draw there would have been far more logically composed than the one they actually drew.
Of course, Dems were okay with it because the two seats might have been lost in a 2010clone style wave...

The two seats would likely be around 53% black and in the high 50's for Obama.  I could see these two seats being held to the low 50's in a year like 2010, but I doubt Democrats would have lost them even in 2010. 

A black-majority seat in that area would be about 62%-64% for Obama. I posted an SC map with 2 black majority districts last June and the tentacles aren't particularly extreme. I don't think there's any chance they would have been lost in a 2010-style wave barring bad candidates.

[minionofmidas]

Well, James Clyburn thinks differently.

[krazen1211]

Well, James Clyburn thinks differently.

The new South Carolina map is certainly quite a doozy. It's cleaner, packs Clyburn better, adds a new GOP district, strengthens Scott and Wilson, and better maintains communities by moving Beaufort out of the Lexington district.

[Miles]

While possible to draw, I doubt that such a district in either Louisiana or Alabama could have been upheld.
South Carolina is a different matter, actually. Though they would have to be quite tentaclish in which rural precincts to include or exclude, the two Black districts to draw there would have been far more logically composed than the one they actually drew.
Of course, Dems were okay with it because the two seats might have been lost in a 2010clone style wave...

The two seats would likely be around 53% black and in the high 50's for Obama.  I could see these two seats being held to the low 50's in a year like 2010, but I doubt Democrats would have lost them even in 2010. 

2 VRA seats in Alabama seems pretty doable.

[minionofmidas]

While possible to draw, I doubt that such a district in either Louisiana or Alabama could have been upheld.
South Carolina is a different matter, actually. Though they would have to be quite tentaclish in which rural precincts to include or exclude, the two Black districts to draw there would have been far more logically composed than the one they actually drew.
Of course, Dems were okay with it because the two seats might have been lost in a 2010clone style wave...

The two seats would likely be around 53% black and in the high 50's for Obama.  I could see these two seats being held to the low 50's in a year like 2010, but I doubt Democrats would have lost them even in 2010. 

2 VRA seats in Alabama seems pretty doable.

Hm-mmm. It would probably not have been struck if the state had done it on its own accord. But court-mandate that Mobile Bay crosser?

I also drew a map, for my own viewing amusement, that kept the Black district at rural Black Belt + Montgomery, with a politically marginal Birmingham seat. Of course, here the issue is with the second district's successor seat, which needs to connect areas north and south of the eastern part of the Black Belt via a thin connector along the Georgia line.

[Miles]

This redistricting session was, by far, the most expensive in NC history.

North Carolina taxpayers have shelled out $695,000 in the past year for outside legal help on the state’s new voting maps – four times what they paid in the previous redistricting cycle from 2001 to 2010 – and the bill is still growing.

[BigSkyBob]

This redistricting session was, by far, the most expensive in NC history.

North Carolina taxpayers have shelled out $695,000 in the past year for outside legal help on the state’s new voting maps – four times what they paid in the previous redistricting cycle from 2001 to 2010 – and the bill is still growing.

And, if the Democrats, and Democratic organizations had chose not to sue, what would the legal bill been then?

Loser pays has a certain appeal.

[muon2]

This redistricting session was, by far, the most expensive in NC history.

North Carolina taxpayers have shelled out $695,000 in the past year for outside legal help on the state’s new voting maps – four times what they paid in the previous redistricting cycle from 2001 to 2010 – and the bill is still growing.

IL established a fixed budget for both sides before the 2010 elections.

[Miles]

This redistricting session was, by far, the most expensive in NC history.

North Carolina taxpayers have shelled out $695,000 in the past year for outside legal help on the state’s new voting maps – four times what they paid in the previous redistricting cycle from 2001 to 2010 – and the bill is still growing.

And, if the Democrats, and Democratic organizations had chose not to sue, what would the legal bill been then?

Loser pays has a certain appeal.

I know you're quite eager to vilify the Dems here, but in the past, Democrats used private funding to defend their maps in court.

[BigSkyBob]

This redistricting session was, by far, the most expensive in NC history.

North Carolina taxpayers have shelled out $695,000 in the past year for outside legal help on the state’s new voting maps – four times what they paid in the previous redistricting cycle from 2001 to 2010 – and the bill is still growing.

And, if the Democrats, and Democratic organizations had chose not to sue, what would the legal bill been then?

Loser pays has a certain appeal.

I know you're quite eager to vilify the Dems here, but in the past, Democrats used private funding to defend their maps in court.

Um, in the past the Democrats lost in court. The Republican won in court. The Democrats didn't obey the VRA, the Republicans did.

The added costs to the state rest squarely on those filing frivilous lawsuits.

[Miles]

House Bill 606, a bipartisan bill that creates an independent redistricting process, seems to be gaining steam.

I emailed my Representative, Charles Jeter, a conservative Republican who represents a swingy district, and I was pleasantly surprised to find out that he supports it.

[windjammer]

Why would the Republicans back this initiative? The governor can't control redistricting and it will be really difficult for the democrats to retake the state senate and the state house!