FL: Rereredistricting

[jimrtex]

Wait, why are Republicans "letting this happen"?

There was an interesting deposition by the person who had been doing redistricting for the past 25 years. In 2010, he entered into a retirement deal with the Florida Retirement System where he could work for exactly 5 more years, and draw retirement and pay or some such. If he worked at all past that he would have had forfeited much of it. So anyhow his retirement was absolutely final on July 1, 2015.

There were also strict rules on disclosure. If someone had proposed the map preferred by the LWV, they would have had to explain where they got it from. If the legislature adopted the map, then the SCOFLA would infer that it had been the legislative intent to impose its political motivations.

There are now two federal lawsuits. One by Corrine Brown based on the VRA, and the dismantling of the 5th district.  Another by two GOP county chairs that claim the Florida constitution as interpreted by the SCOFLA prevents them from exercising their 1st Amendment right to communicate with the legislature.

[Torie]

Wait, why are Republicans "letting this happen"?

There was an interesting deposition by the person who had been doing redistricting for the past 25 years. In 2010, he entered into a retirement deal with the Florida Retirement System where he could work for exactly 5 more years, and draw retirement and pay or some such. If he worked at all past that he would have had forfeited much of it. So anyhow his retirement was absolutely final on July 1, 2015.

There were also strict rules on disclosure. If someone had proposed the map preferred by the LWV, they would have had to explain where they got it from. If the legislature adopted the map, then the SCOFLA would infer that it had been the legislative intent to impose its political motivations.

There are now two federal lawsuits. One by Corrine Brown based on the VRA, and the dismantling of the 5th district.  Another by two GOP county chairs that claim the Florida constitution as interpreted by the SCOFLA prevents them from exercising their 1st Amendment right to communicate with the legislature.

What is the significance of the retirement issue? The Corrine lawsuit is ludicrous on its face. I don't see how the 1st amendment claim would impact the maps. I assume any court finding a 1st amendment violation would just sever that bit from the overall provision.

[Nyvin]

Wait, why are Republicans "letting this happen"?

There was an interesting deposition by the person who had been doing redistricting for the past 25 years. In 2010, he entered into a retirement deal with the Florida Retirement System where he could work for exactly 5 more years, and draw retirement and pay or some such. If he worked at all past that he would have had forfeited much of it. So anyhow his retirement was absolutely final on July 1, 2015.

There were also strict rules on disclosure. If someone had proposed the map preferred by the LWV, they would have had to explain where they got it from. If the legislature adopted the map, then the SCOFLA would infer that it had been the legislative intent to impose its political motivations.

There are now two federal lawsuits. One by Corrine Brown based on the VRA, and the dismantling of the 5th district.  Another by two GOP county chairs that claim the Florida constitution as interpreted by the SCOFLA prevents them from exercising their 1st Amendment right to communicate with the legislature.

The 1st amendment argument is idiotic.....they can still say whatever they want, no one is preventing them from stating things, it just has to be in public view.   There is absolutely zero chance of that lawsuit going anywhere.

[windjammer]

Non one could try to draw an "independent" map?

[windjammer]

Non one could try to draw an "independent" map?

The judge can draw his own map, or adopt the maps proposed by the League of Women Voters/Common Cause/National Council of La Raza.

Any analysis of the League of Women Voters map?

[jimrtex]

Wait, why are Republicans "letting this happen"?

There was an interesting deposition by the person who had been doing redistricting for the past 25 years. In 2010, he entered into a retirement deal with the Florida Retirement System where he could work for exactly 5 more years, and draw retirement and pay or some such. If he worked at all past that he would have had forfeited much of it. So anyhow his retirement was absolutely final on July 1, 2015.

There were also strict rules on disclosure. If someone had proposed the map preferred by the LWV, they would have had to explain where they got it from. If the legislature adopted the map, then the SCOFLA would infer that it had been the legislative intent to impose its political motivations.

There are now two federal lawsuits. One by Corrine Brown based on the VRA, and the dismantling of the 5th district.  Another by two GOP county chairs that claim the Florida constitution as interpreted by the SCOFLA prevents them from exercising their 1st Amendment right to communicate with the legislature.

What is the significance of the retirement issue? The Corrine lawsuit is ludicrous on its face. I don't see how the 1st amendment claim would impact the maps. I assume any court finding a 1st amendment violation would just sever that bit from the overall provision.

The retirement issue may be significant in the House and Senate being unable to come to an agreement.

The Brown lawsuit claims that the St.John's river provides a basis for a community of interest. A Jacksonville-Tallahassee district is an exercise in rounding up enough black voters to elect a representative of choice. It chops counties merely to exclude white voters, it forces FL-2 to skip around Tallahassee and extend further east. It is inexplicable other than race.

The basis of the SCOFLA decision was that the intent of the congressional map was to elect more Republicans and/or particular Republicans. They inferred that this was the intent of the legislature because of the indirect influence of Republican operatives over the map.

If a Republican county chairman submits a map, or comments on a map, it may or may not be their intent to cause the plan to elect more Republicans or particular Republicans. The legislature runs a risk of being influenced by the citizen, and having his intent imputed as the legislature's intent by the SCOFLA. This has a chilling effect on the political speech of the plaintiffs, who may simply forgo speaking, or couching their expression in terms that may cause the legislature to not understand what they are saying.

The only way to sever this abridgment of political speech is to eliminate the intent provision from the Florida constitution. It does not matter whether the League of Women Voters, and the voters of Florida thought that it was a good idea to muzzle free speech or not.

If the intent provision is severed, then the entire basis of the SCOFLA decision is eliminated.

[jimrtex]

Slightly off topic, but is there any litigation on the state legislature maps?

The legislature will "meet" in October to draw a new senate map.

[Torie]

I don't agree, because just because you listen to folks, does not mean your work product is a function of partisan intent. Here, irrespective of the babblings of SCOFLA, that partisan intent can be inferred from the map itself (the skip over to St. Petersburg, and the Johns River CD were clearly drawn for partisan reasons). SCOFLA was just unnecessarily gilding the lily. There is no other reasonable explanation. I agree that chopping Leon County may well be Unconstitutional (ironically because there is no partisan basis to do so, just a race basis - the adjacent CD will be Pub in all events). The fix however is simply not to chop it, as in my map - not to draw the Johns River CD which is not required under the VRA or the Constitution under any stretch of the imagination.

[jimrtex]

This process shows one problem with the FL amendment. Like other states there are specific criteria that must be achieved. However, FL both requires that the map be drawn and voted on by the legislature, but bars making political decisions in drawing the map. It was the use of political decisions that the court used to toss the map. Other states either take the action away from the legislature in a commission (CA), allow political bias (MI), or leave the legislature with a simple up or down vote (IA).

The legislature is an inherently political body, and in a bicameral system there are two such bodies. In FL, even through the Pubs have both chambers, they can't negotiate on the map since that would entail political discussions and would get the map tossed again. They need to work like IA and have an agreed group draw the map for both chambers and then give the chambers an up or down vote on the map. If it goes down then the group draws another map based on the criteria and criteria-related comments from the rejecting chamber. That would avoid the problem of each chamber having their own preferred map, since the second (or third) map wouldn't be known until the first is rejected.

There was a proposed bill in Florida that would set up a commission, that would propose maps which the legislature would then have an up or down vote on. It was submitted in the special session, but wasn't heard.

The Florida Constitution requires legislative maps to be passed in the '2' year following the census. If the legislature fails to do so, the SCOFLA will. In addition legislative maps are subject to review by the SCOFLA. This older procedure was intended to force the legislature to redistrict. In the past, the SCOFLA would check that the districts were contiguous and that the populations were roughly equal and approve the plan. With the new standards, the SCOFLA had to consider whether the legislative plans complied with them. The SCOFLA rejected a few senate districts, which were redrawn and approved by the SCOFLA. It appeared generally that the SCOFLA was just providing guidance on using highways, or splitting cities or towns.

There is no provision for review of congressional districts by the SCOFLA, so there was no way to challenge them except through an ordinary lawsuit, and this may have been delayed until after Section 4 of the VRA was overturned. The Florida trial court applied the standards that the SCOFLA had developed. In addition, through discovery it was found that the Republican operatives had influenced the process. The district court ordered the legislature to fix the congressional map, which they did. Since it was immediately before the 2014 election, the new map was not used. The SCOFLA then overturned the decision of the trial court and order more extensive modifications based on a map developed by the Democratic party.

[jimrtex]

Non one could try to draw an "independent" map?

The judge can draw his own map, or adopt the maps proposed by the League of Women Voters/Common Cause/National Council of La Raza.

That map was developed National Democratic Redistricting Trust and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Note: the National Council of La Raza is no longer a party to the state.

[jimrtex]

I don't agree, because just because you listen to folks, does not mean your work product is a function of partisan intent. Here, irrespective of the babblings of SCOFLA, that partisan intent can be inferred from the map itself (the skip over to St. Petersburg, and the Johns River CD were clearly drawn for partisan reasons). SCOFLA was just unnecessarily gilding the lily. There is no other reasonable explanation. I agree that chopping Leon County may well be Unconstitutional (ironically because there is no partisan basis to do so, just a race basis - the adjacent CD will be Pub in all events). The fix however is simply not to chop it, as in my map - not to draw the Johns River CD which is not required under the VRA or the Constitution under any stretch of the imagination.

The federal lawsuit is based on the interpretation of the Florida constitution by the SCOFLA.

A federal court is not going to consider the SCOFLA's opinion as babbling.

In a better world there would be a district entirely in Duval County.

[Torie]

I don't agree, because just because you listen to folks, does not mean your work product is a function of partisan intent. Here, irrespective of the babblings of SCOFLA, that partisan intent can be inferred from the map itself (the skip over to St. Petersburg, and the Johns River CD were clearly drawn for partisan reasons). SCOFLA was just unnecessarily gilding the lily. There is no other reasonable explanation. I agree that chopping Leon County may well be Unconstitutional (ironically because there is no partisan basis to do so, just a race basis - the adjacent CD will be Pub in all events). The fix however is simply not to chop it, as in my map - not to draw the Johns River CD which is not required under the VRA or the Constitution under any stretch of the imagination.

The federal lawsuit is based on the interpretation of the Florida constitution by the SCOFLA.

A federal court is not going to consider the SCOFLA's opinion as babbling.

In a better world there would be a district entirely in Duval County.

Well maybe the Florida constitution requires a CD in north Florida that elects a black. And nixing the St. Johns River CD in lieu of one near the Georgia state line seems like a reasonable interpretation because it can be done with less chops, and less erosty. But the federal Constitution which trumps the one in Florida will not countenance the chop of Leon County. So Corrine wins that battle, but loses the war, because she won't get her CD back. What she will get is a Florida CD with some more Leon County whites in it.

[jimrtex]

I don't agree, because just because you listen to folks, does not mean your work product is a function of partisan intent. Here, irrespective of the babblings of SCOFLA, that partisan intent can be inferred from the map itself (the skip over to St. Petersburg, and the Johns River CD were clearly drawn for partisan reasons). SCOFLA was just unnecessarily gilding the lily. There is no other reasonable explanation. I agree that chopping Leon County may well be Unconstitutional (ironically because there is no partisan basis to do so, just a race basis - the adjacent CD will be Pub in all events). The fix however is simply not to chop it, as in my map - not to draw the Johns River CD which is not required under the VRA or the Constitution under any stretch of the imagination.

The federal lawsuit is based on the interpretation of the Florida constitution by the SCOFLA.

A federal court is not going to consider the SCOFLA's opinion as babbling.

In a better world there would be a district entirely in Duval County.

Well maybe the Florida constitution requires a CD in north Florida that elects a black. And nixing the St. Johns River CD in lieu of one near the Georgia state line seems like a reasonable interpretation because it can be done with less chops, and less erosty. But the federal Constitution which trumps the one in Florida will not countenance the chop of Leon County. So Corrine wins that battle, but loses the war, because she won't get her CD back. What she will get is a Florida CD with some more Leon County whites in it.

"districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice"

Compactness is secondary tier, but the north-south district is more compact.

[Nyvin]

I don't agree, because just because you listen to folks, does not mean your work product is a function of partisan intent. Here, irrespective of the babblings of SCOFLA, that partisan intent can be inferred from the map itself (the skip over to St. Petersburg, and the Johns River CD were clearly drawn for partisan reasons). SCOFLA was just unnecessarily gilding the lily. There is no other reasonable explanation. I agree that chopping Leon County may well be Unconstitutional (ironically because there is no partisan basis to do so, just a race basis - the adjacent CD will be Pub in all events). The fix however is simply not to chop it, as in my map - not to draw the Johns River CD which is not required under the VRA or the Constitution under any stretch of the imagination.

The federal lawsuit is based on the interpretation of the Florida constitution by the SCOFLA.

A federal court is not going to consider the SCOFLA's opinion as babbling.

In a better world there would be a district entirely in Duval County.

Well maybe the Florida constitution requires a CD in north Florida that elects a black. And nixing the St. Johns River CD in lieu of one near the Georgia state line seems like a reasonable interpretation because it can be done with less chops, and less erosty. But the federal Constitution which trumps the one in Florida will not countenance the chop of Leon County. So Corrine wins that battle, but loses the war, because she won't get her CD back. What she will get is a Florida CD with some more Leon County whites in it.

"districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice"

Compactness is secondary tier, but the north-south district is more compact.

It splits more county lines too though.

[windjammer]

I absolutely understand nothing about what you're saying.

[muon2]

I don't agree, because just because you listen to folks, does not mean your work product is a function of partisan intent. Here, irrespective of the babblings of SCOFLA, that partisan intent can be inferred from the map itself (the skip over to St. Petersburg, and the Johns River CD were clearly drawn for partisan reasons). SCOFLA was just unnecessarily gilding the lily. There is no other reasonable explanation. I agree that chopping Leon County may well be Unconstitutional (ironically because there is no partisan basis to do so, just a race basis - the adjacent CD will be Pub in all events). The fix however is simply not to chop it, as in my map - not to draw the Johns River CD which is not required under the VRA or the Constitution under any stretch of the imagination.

The federal lawsuit is based on the interpretation of the Florida constitution by the SCOFLA.

A federal court is not going to consider the SCOFLA's opinion as babbling.

In a better world there would be a district entirely in Duval County.

Well maybe the Florida constitution requires a CD in north Florida that elects a black. And nixing the St. Johns River CD in lieu of one near the Georgia state line seems like a reasonable interpretation because it can be done with less chops, and less erosty. But the federal Constitution which trumps the one in Florida will not countenance the chop of Leon County. So Corrine wins that battle, but loses the war, because she won't get her CD back. What she will get is a Florida CD with some more Leon County whites in it.

"districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice"

Compactness is secondary tier, but the north-south district is more compact.

It splits more county lines too though.

Technically county chops aren't as relevant as we typically use them on this board. The FL amendment just specifies as a tier 2 requirement that districts shall use political and geographic boundaries. To me that means a county chop that otherwise follows a river or highway is still using an appropriate boundary. Similarly a plan that follows municipal lines is as good as one that follows county lines.

[Torie]

I don't agree, because just because you listen to folks, does not mean your work product is a function of partisan intent. Here, irrespective of the babblings of SCOFLA, that partisan intent can be inferred from the map itself (the skip over to St. Petersburg, and the Johns River CD were clearly drawn for partisan reasons). SCOFLA was just unnecessarily gilding the lily. There is no other reasonable explanation. I agree that chopping Leon County may well be Unconstitutional (ironically because there is no partisan basis to do so, just a race basis - the adjacent CD will be Pub in all events). The fix however is simply not to chop it, as in my map - not to draw the Johns River CD which is not required under the VRA or the Constitution under any stretch of the imagination.

The federal lawsuit is based on the interpretation of the Florida constitution by the SCOFLA.

A federal court is not going to consider the SCOFLA's opinion as babbling.

In a better world there would be a district entirely in Duval County.

Well maybe the Florida constitution requires a CD in north Florida that elects a black. And nixing the St. Johns River CD in lieu of one near the Georgia state line seems like a reasonable interpretation because it can be done with less chops, and less erosty. But the federal Constitution which trumps the one in Florida will not countenance the chop of Leon County. So Corrine wins that battle, but loses the war, because she won't get her CD back. What she will get is a Florida CD with some more Leon County whites in it.

"districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice"

Compactness is secondary tier, but the north-south district is more compact.

OK, but the CD's folks are drawing next to the Georgia border will elect a black (at least blacks will be a majority of the electorate in the closed Dem primary), and do so without chopping Leon County I might add. So I think it clear that the St. Johns River CD was done for partisan reasons.

[windjammer]

Could the anti gerrymandering amendment be invalidated by the federal supreme court?

[Torie]

Could the anti gerrymandering amendment be invalidated by the federal supreme court?

No. It is within the provenance of the states to do what they want, as long as it does not screw minorities per the US Constitution, or the VRA statute, and honors the one person, one vote, rule.

[windjammer]

Could the anti gerrymandering amendment be invalidated by the federal supreme court?

No. It is within the provenance of the states to do what they want, as long as it does not screw minorities per the US Constitution, or the VRA statute, and honors the one person, one vote, rule.

Thank your for your quick reponse, my favorite republican lawyer .

[Torie]

Could the anti gerrymandering amendment be invalidated by the federal supreme court?

No. It is within the provenance of the states to do what they want, as long as it does not screw minorities per the US Constitution, or the VRA statute, and honors the one person, one vote, rule.

Thank your for your quick reponse, my favorite republican lawyer .

Thank you. I am a registered Democrat now however.

[windjammer]

Could the anti gerrymandering amendment be invalidated by the federal supreme court?

No. It is within the provenance of the states to do what they want, as long as it does not screw minorities per the US Constitution, or the VRA statute, and honors the one person, one vote, rule.

Thank your for your quick reponse, my favorite republican lawyer .

Thank you. I am a registered Democrat now however.

Wait, this is serious? I thought that was a joke like Lief being a republican.

[Nyvin]

Could the anti gerrymandering amendment be invalidated by the federal supreme court?

No. It is within the provenance of the states to do what they want, as long as it does not screw minorities per the US Constitution, or the VRA statute, and honors the one person, one vote, rule.

States also have to abide by the Uniform Congressional District Act.   Of course nothing in the FL Fair Districts Amendment goes against that law at all.   

Which by the way....why don't we ever hear of lawsuits against states for not making congressional districts "Reasonably Compact Territory" like the law states they need to?   

[Torie]

Could the anti gerrymandering amendment be invalidated by the federal supreme court?

No. It is within the provenance of the states to do what they want, as long as it does not screw minorities per the US Constitution, or the VRA statute, and honors the one person, one vote, rule.

Thank your for your quick reponse, my favorite republican lawyer .

Thank you. I am a registered Democrat now however.

Wait, this is serious? I thought that was a joke like Lief being a republican.

No, I really am. It's about local politics. The local Pubs here are toxic (among other things, they have trouble following the law, and thus I plan to sue over a series of issues in due course to remind them they can't get away with being lawless anymore), and screw Hudson every chance they get to boot.

[Torie]

Could the anti gerrymandering amendment be invalidated by the federal supreme court?

No. It is within the provenance of the states to do what they want, as long as it does not screw minorities per the US Constitution, or the VRA statute, and honors the one person, one vote, rule.

States also have to abide by the Uniform Congressional District Act.   Of course nothing in the FL Fair Districts Amendment goes against that law at all.   

Which by the way....why don't we ever hear of lawsuits against states for not making congressional districts "Reasonably Compact Territory" like the law states they need to?   

I know of no federal law requiring such compactness. SCOTUS does interpret the Constitution as prohibiting erose CD's based on racial reasons, unless 1) they help the minority and the gerrymandering, ironically enough, is for partisan rather than racial reasons, or 2) screw the minority due to racial packing (they have an excess of the minority, more than 50% VAP), and are both erose and chop political jurisdictions.