2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Louisiana

[Skill and Chance]

We're getting Shreveport to BR LFG!!!!

Legitimately has long been my preferred option for a second AA seat for years cause you are following the river. A clear COI compared to the L or the BR octopus. Also in this situation, protects the Speaker by yanking out the uber-AA precincts like how LA-02 does now with BR. Though once it was announced that they were looking at screwing Graves, I explored the options and found that the diagonal actually made the most sense if you want that outcome and a 50%+1 VAP seat. Obviously, compared to how it's drawn by the legislator, it can be neater, and IMO the GOP seats should be neater to prevent compactness allegations:

How can this district be constitutional when 2010's VA-03 was unconstitutional?  This is just ridiculous.  The almost-all BR version preferred by the lower house looks so much better and likely meets the VRA standard.

I am not unsympathetic to this argument but idk who would sue.

A Baton Rouge Dem who lost the primary to a Shreveport Dem?

[Skill and Chance]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

https://twitter.com/umichvoter/status/1748132861868130592

Not totally shocked as it's more purely urbanized than the L district and I believe it has legit culturally liberal parts of Baton Rouge in it.

[Skill and Chance]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

https://twitter.com/umichvoter/status/1748132861868130592

Not totally shocked as it's more purely urbanized than the L district and I believe it has legit culturally liberal parts of Baton Rouge in it.

Yep. The big rural areas won't count for much in practice, here.

It does help ensure it holds for the decade as an opportunity district (no AL-02 risk), so that's good. 

[Skill and Chance]

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1755725527229305028?t=rfqvpv2ACHkGCNkrn...

Several things:

This is separate from the congressional suit in it's entirely.

The plaintiffs alledged that an appropriate 1/3 of seats should be majority minority.
 
This will likely be fought much harder than the congressional plans, given whose jobs are at stake, and this is only the first court decision on the issue.

In the context of a safe state, the veto override threshold is likely all that matters.  Wouldn't making exactly 1/3 of the seats as ironclad Dem as possible be optimal for GOP policy goals in the long run?  Unless there are other state constitutional restrictions that would prevent them from distributing R voters evenly between the other 2/3rds of the seats?

[Skill and Chance]

Seems extremely likely this gets Purcelled away and they use the legislature's new map at least for 2024.  The longer term question is whether SCOTUS rules that VRA Section 2 no longer applies to redistricting (perhaps this comes back up in the 2031 mapping cycle?).  That would be an earthquake.

[Skill and Chance]

as no doubt mentioned in other parts of the forum, the Supreme Court says "use the 2024 map for at least 2024" without saying much about using it in 2026

Notably the liberals want the process to  have moved forward,  and the conservatives stuck to the purcell rule. Well, if nothing else,  the court stuck to the principle they set in 2021/2 even when the shoe is on the other partisans foot.

With this, the congressional maps are basically in place for November.  Even if the court rules for the plaintiffs in SC, they agreed to a potenial delay of relief after the deadlines there earlier.

Good.  It's reasonable to defer to legislative intent when things are against a deadline like this.