FL: Rereredistricting

[Torie]

The Alabama case was about packing I think, and VA-03 is in the process of being unpacked, so I don't see that case as relevant. What is relevant is that SCOTUS decision involving the Watts CD in NC, that was erose and chopped all over the place, and there was no need to draw it other than for racial reasons, including partisan ones. That is what makes FL-05 vulnerable in my view, and also the black CD in Palm Beach/Broward, unless and until drawing the CD that way does have partisan reasons, because the Frankel CD has become marginal again.

[SATW]

Depressing map. Carlos Curbelo has a promising career. I wonder if either Diaz-Balart or Ros-Lehtinen would retire in the near future so he can attempt a comeback. I love them both, but they've been in a long time and we need to keep up our florida bench to par for the future.

Gwen Graham's seat getting butchered is also a monstrosity. One of the best Dems in Washington atm

Love seeing Webster's seat get crushed, though. 

[jimrtex]

The Judge apparently accepted the House map, except for CD's 20-27, so the Dems get their more Dem Hispanic CD in South Florida, which would be hard for the Pubs to hold if anyone but the current incumbent was running for the Pubs. But she should hold it I would think.

Oh, it appears that the more Dem CD is FL-26, which if so, the Dems should pick up. So they should net two seats out of all of this. If the Pubs win FL-18 which is open, their total loss will be one, and they have an outside chance of picking up the now more Pub open Grayson seat if they get lucky, in which event it's a wash, and if they get really lucky, and hold the now more Dem FL-13, would actually pick up a seat. Odds are net they will lose 1-2 seats however net. I am not sure why the Judge picked the Dem map for the Hispanic seats, even if he did not believe the Dems would not nominate an Hispanic. The lines of the House map appear less erose to me. Granted, in my map, the lines are the least erose, but I digress.

Judge Lewis's Opinion

The legislature made a mistake by not passing a map. If they had done so, then Judge Lewis would have made his decision on whether the map was compliant with the Florida Constitution. His decision between the Senate and House maps was mainly based on the plaintiffs including the House map, which was the base map, plus the fact that the second senate plan had never been formally considered.

The House and Senate attorneys did not cross-examine Allan Lichtman, who was the LWV plaintiff's expert witness. Because the expert witnesses were from out of town, the parties agreed to simply accept their reports on direct. Lichtman was one of about 10 persons considered for the special master in the Virginia congressional redistricting case. Each of the parties rated the candidates. A lot of them ranked a few and said that they didn't know anything about the others. The Republican congressmen said that one, Lichtman, was totally unacceptable because he was a partisan hack.

But neither the House or Senate lawyers cross-examined Lichtman. So Judge Lewis essentially has to accept his testimony as being factual and credible.

The mapdrawer for the Romo plaintiffs was totally non-credible with regard to 21/22, claiming that Frankel and Deutch couldn't be paired because it disfavored them. The judge apparently didn't understand the cause of the pairing. Frankel was the mayor of West Palm Beach, and presumably still lives there. She represented the coastal district. Deutch lives in unincorporated West Boca Raton and represents the inland district. To avoid splitting Boca Raton, the new boundary jogs north around Boca Raton. This places West Boca Raton (and Deutch) in the northern district.

The judge picked CP-1 because it was more compact, nonwithstanding that most of the iimproved compactness was in 23, 24, and 25, and reducing the number of cities split by FL-20, the new FL-20 does not score low on compactness because hanging populated tentacles in 3 counties, on to 100s of square miles of swamp is mathematically "compact".

The judge also said that it would have been OK to look for a more compact boundary between 26 and 27 once it was pointed out that they had made 26 more Republican. He said that a legislator might have noticed that the a particular configuration was more favorable to Republicans, even though it had been drawn without the intent, but that it would then be the intent to favor Republicans by voting for it.

Intent is an unworkable standard.

The judge made a safe decision, given that he had already been overturned by the SCOFLA and the partisan makeup of the SCOFLA.

The legislature could conceivable draw their own map, but the SCOFLA has already signaled that they will interpret the Florida Constitution to block that.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

So that's it?

[jimrtex]

Doesn't the VRA require that a Section 2 district must allow the minority group to elect the candidate of its choice if the area has racially polarized voting? Why would electing a Hispanic Democrat meet that requirement any more than if, say, a SC seat were hypothetically gerrymandered to be 50% black and still elect Tim Scott. Or is the Cuban population sufficiently Democratic and/or dilute that this rule doesn't apply?

It was kind of hinted at that the Hispanic vote was not cohesive, because non-Cuban Hispanics are more likely to vote Democratic.

[Torie]

Doesn't the VRA require that a Section 2 district must allow the minority group to elect the candidate of its choice if the area has racially polarized voting? Why would electing a Hispanic Democrat meet that requirement any more than if, say, a SC seat were hypothetically gerrymandered to be 50% black and still elect Tim Scott. Or is the Cuban population sufficiently Democratic and/or dilute that this rule doesn't apply?

It was kind of hinted at that the Hispanic vote was not cohesive, because non-Cuban Hispanics are more likely to vote Democratic.

If the Hispanic Dem population were up to 50% in a Dem primary, then a failure of the Hispanics in that primary to be cohesive would not matter legally. But when the numbers fall below 50%, cohesiveness comes into play, along with evidence of cross racial or language group voting, both in the primary and in the General election. That is my sense of the lay of the land anyway.

Not that it matters a wit, but I just made my Florida map in the SE quadrant more "artistic." Isn't it just gorgeous? 

[Nyvin]

The only way this could get any better is if the Democrats found a way to kick Corrinne Brown to the curb in 2016.

[Torie]

The only way this could get any better is if the Democrats found a way to kick Corrinne Brown to the curb in 2016.

Her latest schtick is that even though about 63% of Dem primary voters in the redrawn FL-05 are black, the district is "non performing" for a black because so many of those blacks are in prison. Really, Corrine? That many have  been locked up lately? Is there a crime wave in Tallahassee and Jacksonville that has gone viral or something?

[windjammer]

The only way this could get any better is if the Democrats found a way to kick Corrinne Brown to the curb in 2016.

Her latest schtick is that even though about 63% of Dem primary voters in the redrawn FL-05 are black, the district is "non performing" for a black because so many of those blacks are in prison. Really, Corrine? That many have  been locked up lately? Is there a crime wave in Tallahassee and Jacksonville that has gone viral or something?

Well, she's dumb. Maybe she shoulkd hire you as her lawyer? You seem to believe this is unconstitutional for other reasons hmmmm.

[Torie]

The only way this could get any better is if the Democrats found a way to kick Corrinne Brown to the curb in 2016.

Her latest schtick is that even though about 63% of Dem primary voters in the redrawn FL-05 are black, the district is "non performing" for a black because so many of those blacks are in prison. Really, Corrine? That many have  been locked up lately? Is there a crime wave in Tallahassee and Jacksonville that has gone viral or something?

Well, she's dumb. Maybe she shoulkd hire you as her lawyer? You seem to believe this is unconstitutional for other reasons hmmmm.

The only problem is that my case involves making FL-05 whiter - not blacker.

[Flake]

wtf why is my district shared with brandon and lakeland

[ElectionsGuy]

Safe R pickup: 2
Lean R pickup: 18

Safe D pickup: 10
Likely D pickup: 13
Lean D pickup: 26

Toss-up: 7

We shouldn't expect much change in terms of changes in the balance of power, 1 or 2 D pickups most likely. Most of that map was fixing the Jacksonville, Tampa, and Orlando areas (so 2, 5, 10, 13 are completely different). The only one that surprised me was FL-15. That's a pretty big change from just the Lakeland area, now its up to the Lake County area. But man, Webster and Graham are absolutely SCREWED. Are they just going to retire, run for office later? Or get defeated inevitably? Curbelo looks like an underdog too.

[Miles]

^ Its been rumored that Mica may run in the open CD6, leaving CD7 for Webster. It would still be swingy, but Webster wouldn't be guaranteed to lose like he would in CD10.

Curbelo would have lost in 2014 under the new CD26 lines.

[ElectionsGuy]

^ Its been rumored that Mica may run in the open CD6, leaving CD7 for Webster. It would still be swingy, but Webster wouldn't be guaranteed to lose like he would in CD10.

Curbelo would have lost in 2014 under the new CD26 lines.

Ah, didn't even think of that. So at least part of the current 7th district is in the new 6th? That would be a very nice loophole to save his career.

Also, any chance Graham primaries Brown for FL-5? Seems that would be her only choice, especially if she has higher ambitions (namely Governor).

[Miles]

^ Mica would have to be a team player to relinquish Seminole County entirely, but he's represented almost all of the new CD6 at some point or another during his career.

[ElectionsGuy]

^ Its been rumored that Mica may run in the open CD6, leaving CD7 for Webster. It would still be swingy, but Webster wouldn't be guaranteed to lose like he would in CD10.

Curbelo would have lost in 2014 under the new CD26 lines.

Ah, didn't even think of that. So at least part of the current 7th district is in the new 6th? That would be a very nice loophole to save his career.

Also, any chance Graham primaries Brown for FL-5? Seems that would be her only choice, especially if she has higher ambitions (namely Governor).

FL and national Dems would be very wise to dissuade Graham from that at all costs.  If Corrine Brown loses to a white opponent in her first election under the new FL-05 lines, the odds of the new map being thrown out in a VRA lawsuit go up exponentially.  The ideal FL Dem scenario would be to get Graham into the 2016 senate race, then talk Murphy out of the senate race and get him to run for reelection in FL-18.  Maybe they offer him a free pass in the primary for governor or senator (if Nelson is retiring) in 2018?  Or Graham could just sit out 2016 and run for governor as a former congresswoman.  If Graham gets in the senate race while Murphy is still in, they could easily throw the primary to Grayson.

Why? Black districts can have white representatives, right? Steve Cohen is white in a black majority district.

[jimrtex]

There will be an entirely new map in 2022, and maybe a different case of characters on SCOFLA, and maybe better data on Hispanic voting habits to boot, as I noted above. I still think FL-05 and more likely than not, the black CD in Palm Beach-Froward are illegal under Federal law, but I digress. It's time for the next lawsuit!  A world without an ongoing lawsuit on redistricting, is a very boring world indeed. The more the merrier.

The federal lawsuit against FL-5 was stayed until it had actually been imposed by the SCOFLA. Conceivably, the Florida legislature could pass their own plan. It is a pretty weak rationale that congressional districts have to be in place for the presidential primary. The congressional primary is not until August.

But if they were to change the south Florida districts now, there would be a presumption of partisan intent. Conceivably, they could adopt the Galvano senate compromise.

The special session to redistrict the Florida Senate begins at mid-month. Traditionally, each house redistricts itself - but the House map was approved by the SCOFLA on a 7-0 map, but they had to redo the Senate map, and that was before the apparently tainted procedure in the Senate came to light.

"Somehow", outside Republican mapdrawers were getting preview maps. They would rework the maps and submit them as public maps by various "submitters", one who has testified that the never drew a map nor submitted one. Districts from these maps would then be incorporated into the Senate plan, and a narrative constructed that District X was from Public Plan 123 and it would have some Tier 1 or Tier 2 benefit.

The Senate is currently 26R:14R, 23R:5D outside southeast Florida, with the Democratic seats in Orlando (2), Tampa (1), Jacksonville (1), and Tallahassee (1).

There are two districts that cross Tampa Bay. You might be able to get two Democratic district, but it may come at the expense of the current 40% Black SD-19. When the senate started messing with the congressional districts, one of the players was the black senator from SD-19 who wanted to make FL-14 more likely to elect a black. Currently FL-14 is a Black-Hispanic "coalition" district that elects a white woman.

==========

The SCOTUS will hear two redistricting cases on December 8.

Evenwel, et al. v. Abbott, et al. 14-940, is the Texas case concerning use of CVAP versus population for apportionment. Many of the amicus briefs are arguing for representational equality over electoral equality.

Harris, et al. v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, et al. 14-232, is the case about the partisan mathismander of legislative districts.

2015-2016 Supreme Court Briefs

==========

The plaintiffs in Alabama have submitted their plans that conform to the legislature's standards for population deviation (1%) and not pair incumbents, while splitting fewer counties and VTD's, while packing fewer blacks. Their maps are quite effective in that they highlight the VTD's that were split on the edges of the black majority districts. There has not been a finding of discrimination. The SCOTUS said that the district court had not used the correct tests. So I think that the legislature will get a do-over, particularly since the next legislative election is not until 2018.

==========

Parties have been filing reply briefs in the Virginia congressional redistricting case. The Virginia congressmen note that the plaintiffs plan goes far beyond a remedial plan for VA-3, modifying three districts that don't even touch VA-3.

The plaintiffs repeat the error of their original brief in claiming that they did not split Portsmith (sic) and did not split Henrico, and in then very next sentence say that they split Henrico.

The remedial plan proposed by the Virginia delegation does far better than any other plan as far as maintaining the cores of the 2000s districts, so even if the court were to decided that there should be no deference to the 2010s plan, they should go beck to the 2000s.

A curious reply was entered by the Virginia Board of Elections, who are the formal defendants (they're enjoined from conducting a congressional election). They said they weren't going to present  a plan. I figured that as administrators of elections, all they cared about was to have the districts settled. But instead they say that there is no reason to maintain 50% BVAP in VA-3, and that functional analysis (aka racial titration) should be used, and the governor presented a wonderful plan. The adjournment of the legislature special session reeks.

[Torie]

"But instead they say that there is no reason to maintain 50% BVAP in VA-3, and that functional analysis (aka racial titration) should be used ... . "

That is not SCOTUS law. If a CD is not over 50% BVAP, there is no packing issue. So if the Court accepts the above, it will be ignoring SCOTUS law. I am not sure what SCOTUS would think if a court in correcting a federal violation, goes beyond what is needed to correct the violation, on the grounds of applying a metric that does not comport with federal law. Granted using the functional test is not illegal, it's just not legally required.

[jimrtex]

"But instead they say that there is no reason to maintain 50% BVAP in VA-3, and that functional analysis (aka racial titration) should be used ... . "

That is not SCOTUS law. If a CD is not over 50% BVAP, there is no packing issue. So if the Court accepts the above, it will be ignoring SCOTUS law. I am not sure what SCOTUS would think if a court in correcting a federal violation, goes beyond what is needed to correct the violation, on the grounds of applying a metric that does not comport with federal law. Granted using the functional test is not illegal, it's just not legally required.

Read Section V of the Alabama decision.

[Torie]

"The legislature could conceivable draw their own map, but the SCOFLA has already signaled that they will interpret the Florida Constitution to block that."

What language are they relying upon to preclude the legislature from trying again? Normally, court drawn maps don't count for the once per census rule.

[jimrtex]

"The legislature could conceivable draw their own map, but the SCOFLA has already signaled that they will interpret the Florida Constitution to block that."

What language are they relying upon to preclude the legislature from trying again? Normally, court drawn maps don't count for the once per census rule.

It depends if it is drawn by a federal court or not. Congress has manner regulation, which can override state law. Currently, Congress only directs that representative be elected from districts, plus the VRA.

The SCOTUS in Wesberry v Sanders has interpreted the Constitution to require nearly equal population for congressional districts. They based this on Article I, that representative be chosen by the people of the States, and if different groups of voters are choosing each of the representatives, that the people of the State can't be doing the choosing if there are different numbers. (the dissent noted that the majority was sweeping the issue of voters vs. population under the carpet. Since Article 1 requires that representatives be "chosen" by the people, this would seem to suggest that equality of the voters is imperative.).

A federal court can make a finding of population inequality or a violation of the VRA, and enjoin an election. But the SCOTUS has directed federal courts to defer to States, and if the State can remedy the problem, then the federal courts step aside. It is only when they fail to do so, that the federal courts may fashion a remedy - but that is only on a temporary basis.

The SCOTUS has interpreted "the legislature of a State", to mean "laws of the State", incorporating state judicial proceedings, redistricting commissions, etc. Following the 2000 census, the legislature failed to perform congressional redistricting, so a state district court did so. Everyone thought that this was for the 2002 election only. The legislature in 2003 drew new lines. The Colorado Supreme Court blocked this based on a novel interpretation of the State Constitution. The original constitution said that Colorado's single representative should be elected at large; but when Colorado was apportioned additional members, the legislature should draw congressional districts. That is, it was really a directive that representatives be elected by districts. During a routine cleanup, the portion of the constitution providing for when Colorado had only one representative was removed.

When the legislature redistricted in 2003, the Colorado Supreme Court interpreted "when" to mean the timing of the redistricting, rather than the condition that triggered election from districts. The supreme court determined that the state district court had acted in lieu of the legislature's failure to act, rather than merely to permit the 2002 election to occur.

Before 2010, the Florida Constitution said nothing with respect to congressional districting. The Florida Constitution did have (and does have) provisions for the procedure for legislative redistricting. In particular it required the legislature to redistrict in years ending in '2' and for the Florida Supreme Court to review that map. If the legislature failed to draw a legislative map, the Supreme Court would. This was to make sure that the legislature was reapportioned after each census, and that any redistricting case would not be heard by a venue-shopped lower court.

In 2010, voters added the functional requirements for legislative AND congressional districts, but did not modify the procedure. The legislature did house, senate, and congressional redistricting in 2012, and the SCOFLA reviewed the house and senate districts as was required, and interpreted the new functional requirements. They approved the House plan 7-0, but turned down the senate plan (it had too many split counties, had a mini-FL-5 hanging down from Jacksonville, didn't use major highways, and had some odd appendages in the Orlando area.

The legislature redid the senate map, and the court approved.

Later the congressional districts were challenged as not following the 2010 functional requirements. Judge Lewis found specific problems. The legislature held a special session to make changes, which Lewis approved. This was immediately before the 2014 election, and Lewis deferred use of the new districts until 2016. This summer, The SCOFLA overturned Lewis's decision as not going far enough.

They temporarily relinquished the case to Judge Lewis to make a recommendation as to whether the map that was anticipated that the special session of the legislature would enact complied with the Florida Constitution. After the legislature failed to pass a map, the SCOFLA modified the relinquishment orders such that Judge Lewis would cobble together a recommendation from maps considered by the legislature, submitted by the parties, etc.

The House specifically requested that any such plan be consider "temporary" or "interim" since it was only being imposed by the courts, because the legislature had not (yet) enacted a map. The SCOFLA turned down that request

SCOFLA relinquisment order

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Court has no such obligation. It only is required to ensure that an enacted map comply with the constitution, and if there is no such enacted map to provide a temporary map, until the legislature has an opportunity to enact one. The 2012 map was not done until spring, and the congressional primary is not until August. But I doubt the SCOFLA will see it that way.

The House of Representatives had asked to reopen discovery:

House motion seeking discovery

You might recall that Strategic Telemetry was the firm that the Arizona redistricting commission hired as its mapping consultant, and with whom Colleen Mathis had a few intimate weekend map-drawing activities. The SCOFLA denied discovery.

Briefs from the House and Senate are due with the SCOFLA this Friday.

[Nyvin]

So for the state Senate:

The Tampa district will get broken up (currently 77% Obama '12), and the Dems will pick up the St Petersburg seat, since that district next door is 50.2% Obama '12.      It even takes the same section of St Petersburg (the heavy black area...) that CD14 did in the current congressional map!    That one is definitely a no brainer.

In Orlando you can draw district 15 more Dem by shifting the Black-Hispanic district north of it,  since I doubt they'll touch the Hispanic majority district that's 69% Obama '12 to the east.   Not as sure on that though.

In Southeast FL you can break up district 39 which is currently 72% Dem (with multiple snake-like extensions),  and lower the BVAP in district 36 (currently 58.3% BVAP).     Those two changes will surely mix things up in that area quite a bit, hard to say what the Dems will get out of that though.    I'm thinking at least 1 of the 3 GOP seats in that area will flip though,  since they're all so marginal already.

[jimrtex]

So for the state Senate:

The Tampa district will get broken up (currently 77% Obama '12), and the Dems will pick up the St Petersburg seat, since that district next door is 50.2% Obama '12.      It even takes the same section of St Petersburg (the heavy black area...) that CD14 did in the current congressional map!    That one is definitely a no brainer.
[/url]
Senate districts are smaller, and you may be able to maintain a black opportunity district crossing Tampa Bay. FL-14 is a Hispanic-Black coalition district that elects a white congresswoman.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think they are protected seats.

[Nyvin]

Senate districts are smaller, and you may be able to maintain a black opportunity district crossing Tampa Bay. FL-14 is a Hispanic-Black coalition district that elects a white congresswoman.

It's false that you cannot have a black opportunity district without crossing the Tampa Bay,  the GOP is using old primary data to come up with that myth to protect the incumbent there.   ESPECIALLY considering the current senate seat isn't even black majority, it's just coalition.     It's incredibly easy to make a SD with under 50% WVAP.  

It'll get blown over like the congressional map did, and the Fair Districts amendment will win.

I think they are protected seats.

They're only protected to be hispanic majority.   CD-26 was a protected seat as well, in the new map, CP-1, it has a PVI of D+5.    

[Nyvin]

FL GOP is desperately trying to protect district 22's incumbent....every single draft keeps the St Petersburg chop across the bay....really lame!

http://www.brianamos.com/senatemaps/#

I really don't expect it to stand though,   it's easy to demonstrate it's not needed.