2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Louisiana

[ProgressiveModerate]

My attempt at creating a state Senate fair map. I am almost completely sure I didn't include enough VRA districts but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Interestingly my map ended with many competitive districts despite Louisiana being a very inelastic state



https://davesredistricting.org/join/f289c3a9-53e5-42c4-b1b1-26a0b68e92af

There should be 9 Safe D districts, 6 competitive districts and 24 Safe R districts.

Tipping point districts are district 7 (Trump+24, R+16; Located western Jefferson parish and northeastern St. Charles parish) and district 18 (covers south Baton Rouge and a tiny bit of Iberville parish)

After the veto session we just had, I’m wondering what’s the most Republican you can get the State House and State Senate… Republicans have a veto proof majority if they can keep all of their votes, but I wonder if new maps can stack it even further in our legislature, like 80-25 in the House and 30-9 in the Senate

Republicans are actually 2 seats short of a veto proof majority in the state House. However there are also 3 independents who caucus with neither party.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Made 2 black majority districts.

Making a New-Orleans majority black district that doesn't touch Baton Rouge got a bit harder after the census, but making a Baton-Rouge based black district got a bit easier.

[ProgressiveModerate]

One thing that’s interesting is we might actually end up with a pretty fair Louisiana House map and Dems might be able to continue to deny the GOP a supermajority.

According to my calculations, Dems actually have a pretty decent geography advantage in the state, mostly thanks to white rurals “hyper packing” and black areas being lower turnout. Combine that with VRA, and you get a bunch of 60ish% Dem districts and 80% R districts. It’s actually pretty easy to make a relatively compact LA House map on 2020 numbers where Biden outright wins a majority of seats.

Am I saying Dems will outright win a majority under the new maps. Def not. However, I do think they will be given a good 40% of the seats or so and have no less of a viable path to a majority than in a state like Ohio or even Wisconsin which is weird to think about.

At first I didn't believe it.
But lo and behold...
https://davesredistricting.org/join/9ec3a530-2366-437b-9bea-014fbf0d2edd
Only 50 Trump districts, out of 105.

Nice job! It's def a suprising example of pretty extreme favorable geography

[ProgressiveModerate]

Are we going to see a trend where Democrats increasingly have geographical advantages in the Deep South?

Yes, with the possible exception of GA because almost all the Dems are within 50 miles of Atlanta, but even there the majority-white rural areas are now extreme R packs, so it’s starting to even out.

Even in Georgia there’s still a lot of deep blue pockets outside the growing Atlanta bubble. It’s easy to draw two Safe Democrat non-ATL seats with the current GA-02 and a Savannah to Augusta seat. On top of that, you can draw a blue-tilting district with Athens, plus the rural black belt counties east of Macon and drawing all the way to pick up parts of Gwinnett County that GA-07 has left over.

Yes, I looked into it since making that post, and GA is not actually a slam dunk for R's geographically like say WI or MI.  It's only a bare advantage.  

Ye according to my calculations, GA’s geography bias is R + 1.52. States like WI and MI have a geography bias above R + 10. I think another big difference between GA and a lot of southern states is the fact Atlanta metro actually has pretty decent turnout, alongside the fact at least downtown is a Dem hyper-pack

[ProgressiveModerate]

Seems like all plans so far make a Baton-Rouge based swingy-Dem leaning seat. Are any of these plans actually official plans though proposed by the legistlature?

NAACP Plan3 is pretty ridiculous as it tries to connect Baton Rouge with Shreveport to create a Black Majority district

[ProgressiveModerate]

I feel like there's several options here.

First is JBE and the legislature gridlock forcing a court-drawn map. While the LA supreme court leans right, I think they'd have to be very hackish to keep the LA-02 snake and abide by a very strict definition of least change. I think they either moderately keep the snake in place or just hire special masters and completely scrap the current map, in which case at the very least you'd get a swingy Baton - Rouge seat that is black opportunity if not majority. Seems like a seat that connects Lafayette, Alexandria, and maybe to Monroe and Bastrop is more likely than one that stretches all the way to get the black areas of Shrevport.

Important to remember here that LA-02 doesn't actually take in all that much of Baton - Rouge (~100k), just the bluest parts, meaning pretty much any "fattening" of the snake on it's Orleans end in a district that is already pretty close to ideal population as is will pull it out of Baton-Rouge very quickly.

The second option is JBE and the Leg reach a compromise map, which would probably make Baton-Rouge based seat swingy and black-plurality but stops short of being outright majority

The third option is Rs gerry by getting a conservative Dem or one of the Independents on board. This would be quite a narrow tightrope to walk as you'd need all Rs on board too but given how partisan Louisiana politics are, especially on the Republican side, it certaintly wouldn't be impossible. Maybe they give someone in the Legistlature the district of their dreams in exchange for their vote on a 5-1 map.

Will def be interesting to see how this plays out; I feel both 5-1 and 4-2 are possibilities.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Even a 53% black district is very possible.

The real thing is in order to make LA-05 majority black, LA-02 will probably become 49% black or smtg, possibly be condensed almost just to New Orleans, but would obviously remain safe D and black functioning.

I still think Dems have a slightly better argument for a 2nd black district here than AL, but for a variety of reasons it seems less likely than not to happen.

[ProgressiveModerate]

The Louisiana map has been overturned by federal court and in the opinion it sounds like they specifically say there’s still time to make a new map.

However there’s a good chance we end up with a simillar thing that happened in Alabama whee the ruling gets stayed though the 2nd black district has a slightly stronger case in Louisiana.

Reguardless of whether you think Louisiana should get a 2nd black seat, the original map is clearly gerrymanders and absolutely horrendous visually.

Also a reminder given turnout dynamics a 2nd black seat likely will be competitive/D leaning but certainly not a slam dunk for Dems, simillar to GA-02 ig where’s its right around 50% and picks up quite a few Dem leaning cities after crossing through a lot of rurals

[ProgressiveModerate]

Actually, pending whatever further attenuation or evisceration SCOTUS has in mind for it,  under the current iteration of the VRA (as opposed to some interpretation of a state law ala Florida), I think that while there is a violation of the VRA in Alabama, because it looks to me that two "compact" 50% BVAP CD's can be drawn, that is not the case in LA. Two* such compact CD's cannot be drawn in LA (a CD combining the black areas of Baton Rouge and Shreveport is not compact).* So I think the trial court decision** is clearly wrong, and will be stayed if not reversed in very short order by the federal appellate court.***

https://davesredistricting.org/join/8bfa1863-ed2e-466e-9d9f-90b35e656962

*Actually it is even a challenge to draw such a compact 50% BVAP CD in the NO area, but in the end it can be done, barely, if one accepts that water is good enough for contiguity.

**Did the trial court decision even grapple with the compact issue?

***The unpacking of LA-02 (allegedly 70% black) is another issue, and may well have merit, in particular  since it must combine the black areas of Baton Rouge and NO to get to such a high percentage when such a combination is not needed to get to 50% BVAP, much less a performing black CD.

You don’t have to go to Shreveport but it partially depends if you believe a black functioning district is sufficient since 48% is a ton easier than 50%

I agree it likely gets stayed or overturned or whatever by the 5th circuit but LA-02 is a pretty blatant pack, especially since Baton Rouge blacks population is growing, so there’s a small chance they eliminate the snake while still only keeping 1 black majority (and hence Dem seat)

[ProgressiveModerate]

One thing I'm curious about is why does it seem like LA and AR rural black voters turn out at much lower rates than those in AL, MS, and GA?

[ProgressiveModerate]

Do you all seriously think SCOTUS won't shut this down? LOL. The only map with any chance of getting better for us is FL

Not to mention you still have to worry about mid-decade redistricting by R's in your state if they flip the state Supreme Court this year.

And if Rs win the SC in IL. Or PA later in the decade lol. The list is endless

PA isn't even possible till 2026 barring suprise deaths and an R trifecta, and even then, overturning the current map wouldn't necessarily lead to a gerrymander. Also one of the Rs was appointed by Woof and is relatively moderate.

IL is def a greater concern for Dems and obv NC is almost certain to go back to being an R gerry.

Ohio really depends on if Dems get a commission on the ballot in 2024 (which would likely pass). Worst case it is a 13R-2D map, thoguh the rules make a truly maximal gerrymander tricky.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Do you all seriously think SCOTUS won't shut this down? LOL. The only map with any chance of getting better for us is FL

Not to mention you still have to worry about mid-decade redistricting by R's in your state if they flip the state Supreme Court this year.

And if Rs win the SC in IL. Or PA later in the decade lol. The list is endless

PA isn't even possible till 2026 barring suprise deaths and an R trifecta, and even then, overturning the current map wouldn't necessarily lead to a gerrymander. Also one of the Rs was appointed by Woof and is relatively moderate.

IL is def a greater concern for Dems and obv NC is almost certain to go back to being an R gerry.

Ohio really depends on if Dems get a commission on the ballot in 2024 (which would likely pass). Worst case it is a 13R-2D map, thoguh the rules make a truly maximal gerrymander tricky.

I am amazed how you can manage to do your homework (which I am confident that you do) and keep up with all this lacunae with such facility. Well done. What is going to  happen when "lust" consumes you? No, you do not need  to, and indeed, should not answer, that question!  

Tbf school is pretty much coming to an end so there's not much work, and plus I'm autistic hence don't have many friends, at least that I see irl reguarly, which is time consuming for a lot of people.

Also I'd say generally I'm a pretty efficient person when it comes to work, at least compared to a lot of folks my age.

I think another reason you may think I may keep up more than I do is I have a decent memory, so a lot of times I only need to read some electoral fact once or twice to get it engrained.

The specific reasons ik the court compositions decently well is because i did a project on it back in June or smtg last year

I did make this tonight though

[ProgressiveModerate]

Could there be an argument that any 50%+ BVAP LA-02 violates neutral redistricting principles given in a nonracially drawn compact and fair map, the New Orleans area would just get it's own dedicated seat rather than attaching black rurals to boost black population? Honestly for the GOP no matter what happens with VRA New Orleans is likely too hard to politically crack down the middle given balancing a bunch of Trump + 17 seats is bound to make someone upset.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Is there any chance it won't become legal to crack New Orleans?

It's already legal to crack New Orleans.

However I'm assuming you mean New Orlean's black population. It'd likely take the most extreme outcome by the court of gutting the VRA alltogether which is unlikely thouhg certainly not impossible given the balance of the court.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Is there any chance it won't become legal to crack New Orleans?

It's already legal to crack New Orleans.

However I'm assuming you mean New Orlean's black population. It'd likely take the most extreme outcome by the court of gutting the VRA alltogether which is unlikely thouhg certainly not impossible given the balance of the court.

Unlikely, really?

Firstly, it'd be terrible optics on the courts part especially right before the election. Gerrymandering and voting rights tends to be a winning issue for Dems so if the justices are really hacksih would they really want to potentially cost the GOP? Furthermore, while elimination of the VRA would help the GOP in the South it could help Dems unpack in other places.

Secondly, the question being debated is what qualifies as a VRA district, not really if the VRA is flat out illegal. That'd be quite the step on the courts part.

Thirdly, even if VRA was overturned it's unlikely the GOP would go 6-0 in LA just cause LA isn't a super deep red state. The more likely implications would be a 7-0 AL and the elimination of GA-02. However, if Dems wanted to they could stetch the South Side of Chicago further South and the Nevada gerrymandering case would be moot. If states like Republican states normally without middecade redistricting (TX, GA, AL) are given permission to mid-decade redistrict, so would Dem states and people seem to forget that, especially since they tend to be more diverse on average and hence VRA plays a bigger role in shaping the maps.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Could there be an argument that any 50%+ BVAP LA-02 violates neutral redistricting principles given in a nonracially drawn compact and fair map, the New Orleans area would just get it's own dedicated seat rather than attaching black rurals to boost black population? Honestly for the GOP no matter what happens with VRA New Orleans is likely too hard to politically crack down the middle given balancing a bunch of Trump + 17 seats is bound to make someone upset.

That is another issue that is not entirely clear. Is a 50% BVAP CD but no more a safe harbor if sufficiently compact to trigger Gingles, or is one obligated to follow neutral redistricting principles that have a lower BVAP percentage, so long as it is black performing? The legal answer is probably the former safe harbor one, but I think there is some doubt. As a matter of policy, one should of course try to hew to neutral redistricting  as much as one can while preserving a minority performing CD that is Gingles protected. I think it is pretty clear at the moment that the compact standard for Gingles is looser than the one used for purposes of neutral redistricting principles. The issue is how much looser. One hopes SCOTUS will elaborate.

Exactly. I feel like there's ways to go about it that are better than others, and as tricky as it may be, I'd really be happy with the SCOTUS if they come up with some sort of purely mathematical benchmark even if it otherwise loosens things up a bit.

Also I'd argue the arbitrary strandard for 50% black districts by default violates fair redistricting principles cause ina truly natural map, you should have some 40% black seats and some 60% black seats; not just a bunch of 50% black seats and then a bunch of whiter seats.

Like I kinda feel like black communities should as much as possible be left whole, but aiming for a specific 50% standard doesn't make sense when some of those seats would've already been perfoming at 30% black and others would still be iffy at 50%.

Inherently too, just aiming for black functioning districts eliminates political competition in primaries as well. In fair maps, shouldn't all races ahve opportunities to expand or shrink their coalition if that makes sense rather then deadlock 2 black reps and 4 white representatives for example

[ProgressiveModerate]

Could there be an argument that any 50%+ BVAP LA-02 violates neutral redistricting principles given in a nonracially drawn compact and fair map, the New Orleans area would just get it's own dedicated seat rather than attaching black rurals to boost black population? Honestly for the GOP no matter what happens with VRA New Orleans is likely too hard to politically crack down the middle given balancing a bunch of Trump + 17 seats is bound to make someone upset.

That is another issue that is not entirely clear. Is a 50% BVAP CD but no more a safe harbor if sufficiently compact to trigger Gingles, or is one obligated to follow neutral redistricting principles that have a lower BVAP percentage, so long as it is black performing? The legal answer is probably the former safe harbor one, but I think there is some doubt. As a matter of policy, one should of course try to hew to neutral redistricting  as much as one can while preserving a minority performing CD that is Gingles protected. I think it is pretty clear at the moment that the compact standard for Gingles is looser than the one used for purposes of neutral redistricting principles. The issue is how much looser. One hopes SCOTUS will elaborate.

Exactly. I feel like there's ways to go about it that are better than others, and as tricky as it may be, I'd really be happy with the SCOTUS if they come up with some sort of purely mathematical benchmark even if it otherwise loosens things up a bit.

Also I'd argue the arbitrary strandard for 50% black districts by default violates fair redistricting principles cause ina truly natural map, you should have some 40% black seats and some 60% black seats; not just a bunch of 50% black seats and then a bunch of whiter seats.

Like I kinda feel like black communities should as much as possible be left whole, but aiming for a specific 50% standard doesn't make sense when some of those seats would've already been perfoming at 30% black and others would still be iffy at 50%.

Inherently too, just aiming for black functioning districts eliminates political competition in primaries as well. In fair maps, shouldn't all races ahve opportunities to expand or shrink their coalition if that makes sense rather then deadlock 2 black reps and 4 white representatives for example

As an intellectual [a masturbatory] exercise, I pretended as to dividing the real estate between LA-01 and LA-02, I would forget about everything except compactness, chops (parish and municipal), and beauty.

I came up with the below. Is LA-02 black performing? Yes, I think so to at least close to a reasonable doubt. Is LA-01 still rock solid Pub? Yes? Will it ever be drawn? No. Part of the reason is that some of the whites placed in LA-02 in this iteration are some of the most virulent racists in the US. It has issues as to soft COI issues as I refer to them, and I am a pretty hard liner when it comes to blowing off soft COI claims.  

Btw, LA has no land contiguity requirement for darn good reasons!  

https://davesredistricting.org/join/bc9408f5-7d21-4cd6-bbe9-f4425e68ec06

That's also part of the problem too. There really can't be any rule between "racist" and "nonracist" whites for obvious reasons, though one can argue "racist" whites help make LA-02  amore reliable black functioning seat cause they most likely vote in the R primary.

Also just in general in the South, most "whites" are racist in the sense they don't share the same political interests as black folks. There are very few liberal whites in the South generally so no matter what a district will either be a black pack or include whites who vote opposite to how blacks vote.

[ProgressiveModerate]

That seems a reasonable decision, and would simply require election from single-member districts. Single member districts had already been ordered in Texas by White v Regester.

Worth mentioning that multi-member districts are fine, just not majoritarian ones.

Precisely which ones would be legal, you think?

MD Legistlature had quite a few iirc.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Could there be an argument that any 50%+ BVAP LA-02 violates neutral redistricting principles given in a nonracially drawn compact and fair map, the New Orleans area would just get it's own dedicated seat rather than attaching black rurals to boost black population? Honestly for the GOP no matter what happens with VRA New Orleans is likely too hard to politically crack down the middle given balancing a bunch of Trump + 17 seats is bound to make someone upset.

That is another issue that is not entirely clear. Is a 50% BVAP CD but no more a safe harbor if sufficiently compact to trigger Gingles, or is one obligated to follow neutral redistricting principles that have a lower BVAP percentage, so long as it is black performing? The legal answer is probably the former safe harbor one, but I think there is some doubt. As a matter of policy, one should of course try to hew to neutral redistricting  as much as one can while preserving a minority performing CD that is Gingles protected. I think it is pretty clear at the moment that the compact standard for Gingles is looser than the one used for purposes of neutral redistricting principles. The issue is how much looser. One hopes SCOTUS will elaborate.

Exactly. I feel like there's ways to go about it that are better than others, and as tricky as it may be, I'd really be happy with the SCOTUS if they come up with some sort of purely mathematical benchmark even if it otherwise loosens things up a bit.

Also I'd argue the arbitrary strandard for 50% black districts by default violates fair redistricting principles cause ina truly natural map, you should have some 40% black seats and some 60% black seats; not just a bunch of 50% black seats and then a bunch of whiter seats.

Like I kinda feel like black communities should as much as possible be left whole, but aiming for a specific 50% standard doesn't make sense when some of those seats would've already been perfoming at 30% black and others would still be iffy at 50%.

Inherently too, just aiming for black functioning districts eliminates political competition in primaries as well. In fair maps, shouldn't all races ahve opportunities to expand or shrink their coalition if that makes sense rather then deadlock 2 black reps and 4 white representatives for example

As I know that you understand, under current law as "explained" by SCOTUS, there is nothing illegal about a 35% BVAP black performing district, nor for that matter a 60% BVAP district, if the latter hews to neutral redistricting principles (putting aside whether the legal result differs per Gingles, if the 60% BVAP CD precludes another black performing CD, that would itself be deemed triggered by Gingles as sufficiently compact.

There's nothing illegal about it ye, but ig what I'm saying is that the 50% standard seems to be the only standard actually upheld.

Take Alabama for instance. The current 6-1 map isn't fair from a racial standpoint because the other 6 districts almost perfectly crack the black community between them'

However, a 5-2 map also isn't fair because one really has to go pretty far out of their way to draw both districts to be 50%, hence violating neutral principles.

In a case like this, it shouldn't be an all or nothing where either you draw a 2nd black seat or don't; draw a black opportunity seat, perhaps based around Birmingham and a rural black seat that is over 50% black. This would be the best compromise in between.

This is obviously pretty idealistic of me, but ig what I'm saying is the trigger shouldn't be 50% or approaching 50% nor should the trigger be finite.

You can make a simillar argument in LA; the current map splits the black votes not in LA-02 evenly between the remaining district rather than make an effort to consolidate them, even though you could argue a 2nd black LA district violates neutral principles.

A state with a good map would be MS where a good chunk of the remaining black population is consolidated into MS-03 even though a 2nd black district obviously isn't warranted and MS-03 obviously isn't a black functioning nor black opportunity seat. There are no real objectable split of black voters in the state without being ridiculous with tendrils to grab black communities

[ProgressiveModerate]

For instance in this slight modification of the map Republicans passed, AL-07 stays as a safely black district that abides to relative neutral principles, but AL-02 is consolidates a lot of the black population not taken in creating an opportunity that would most years still most likely elect a white R (Trump + 9 seat, 40% black), rather than splitting the black community into a bunch of 30% black seats where they literally have no influence.

There's no reason not to consildate black voters into AL-02 even if the seat doesn't perform other than for partisan reasons.

[ProgressiveModerate]

For instance in this slight modification of the map Republicans passed, AL-07 stays as a safely black district that abides to relative neutral principles, but AL-02 is consolidates a lot of the black population not taken in creating an opportunity that would most years still most likely elect a white R (Trump + 9 seat, 40% black), rather than splitting the black community into a bunch of 30% black seats where they literally have no influence.

There's no reason not to consildate black voters into AL-02 even if the seat doesn't perform other than for partisan reasons.

For purposes of proportionality, should minorities be treated differently as a matter of law, such that where hewing to neutral metrics affords some options in design, one should go for the solution that moves towards proportionality? That is what you did with your 40% BVAP CD.

This is not about proportionality rather seat distribution.

The current AL map has 1 50%+ black district and a bunch of below 30% black districts. That is an unnatural distribution of seats cause you have a cluster of low black pop seats and an outlier. A fair map should see a variety of black seat %s.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Converting an "unnatural distribution" into some legal standard is problematic, and in some cases, in my opinion, counterproductive, such as using declination to put lipstick on the pig of doing soft gerrymandering that moves away from proportionality where there is a "natural" party packing, e.g. in large inner cities.

I have come to the firm opinion that you just follow neutral redistricting principles, and where there are reasonable almost as equally good options subject to that constraint, you move towards the one that is closer to proportionality. So your suggestion does move to proportionality, and the lines do I think if you minimized chops hew to neutral principles, so I like what you did, but I think it should apply to partisan proportionality in general, and not just for minority proportionality, so thus my question.

Firstly, I would say natural party packing can be accounted for by looking at the distribution of how precincts vote on a more granular level. In NY for instance, you have a massive share of precincts that are Biden + 80-90 or whatever, and hence a bunch of hyper D NYC seats makes sense. This adds a whole other layer of complication though idk if the courts can really deal with and write into law.

This is what's so hard about this case, and what is neutral redistricting principles isn't even very well defined. Look how differently all the Independent commissions went about drawing maps, even though they all follow different sets of supposedly neutral principles.

One question ig I have is if for VRA, one must abide to "neutral redistricting principles" when dealing with minority communities, doesn't that pretty much end extreme partisan gerrymandering in any state heavily impacted by VRA districts, since partisan gerrymanders almost always chop up clear communities of colour that would otherwise be left whole when following neutral principles, or make VRA districts far more complicated than they need to be (see TX-33, TX-35, NJ-08). Technically all 3 districts function as minority districts but don't have to be so complex to do so.

Texas is one place where a loosening of VRA could actually be problematic for Rs because if a 2nd Alabama or Louisiana district is considered illegal racial gerrymandering, then isn't TX-37, TX-33, the whole Houston config, or the fajitas? All these districts twist and turn to get to a certain minority % while being very uncompact and unnatural districts, especially when there are clear alternatives that are far more compact (2 Hispanic seats in Bexar, a Hidalgo based district, a more "quadranted" Houston, ect). In all these cases the GOP did not move towards the more reasonable option in drawing the map.

Another underrated possiblity where this could have an impact is Cali where the commission clearly tried very very hard to create minority districts, though the fact the map was drawn by a commission gives it a better face than Texas's which is clearly just gerrymandered and bad overall.

My guess is what the supreme court will do will just lower the standard for what qualifies as a minority district, not neccessarily force a minority district to be particularly compact or coherently. So a minority district CAN violate neutral redistricting principles, just the trigger is based on neutral redistricting principles. This would both spare the GOP from creating 2nd black districts in AL or LA, but also ensure TX map stays more or less legal.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Honestly, this map is miles better than pretty much all the proposed maps by the Dems orginially which really tried to secure the 2nd district to be safe D and hence safe Black at the expense of compactness. This map feels close to what an Atlas user might draw. Yes it still has a few minor annoying parts but overall that's pretty close to the best map you can get if you want a 2nd VRA seat.

Honestly though those black %s on both seats are pretty impressive so they still have a few % to clean the map up if needed.

[ProgressiveModerate]

My DRA transcription of the map. The Master explicitly went out of the way in his report to not cut VTDs, which is why the map is not zero'ed out like usual with congressional stuff. That said, it is a advisory plaintiff plan and not meant to be final. To this end there are some improvements to be made, like removing the Vernon cut and improving the EBR and Tangipahoa cuts. 

The map passed by the legislature also did not split VTD's. The deviation in both plans is under 100.

In the mid-decade litigation over the legislative maps in Alabama it was found that many VTD's had been divided on racial lines. This was found to be race sorting. It probably is not worth the risk of litigating over a half dozen precincts split to achieve perfect equality.

Of course they should use whole counties unless necessary to get below 5% deviation.

This is the map proposed by the plaintiffs. A master is someone appointed by a court.

One underrated factor though is that Louisiana precincts are generally significantly smaller than Alabama's, especially in urban communities where one is likely to have significant black population.

I do agree whenever precicnt splits become excessive whatever the reason may be (unless one is following city lines), the map tends to be an unnecessarily bad and complex map.

I'm still amazed at how many precincts the Cali Commission split pretty randomly throughout it's map drawing; another reason why the map is so sloppy.

[ProgressiveModerate]

In the 2019 elections, Republicans in the Louisiana House came up just two seats short of a veto-proof majority (luckily for Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards, who had just narrowly won re-election that year).  With redistricting settled at least at the state level, if not for congressional districts, does anyone see them winning in 2023 the magical 70 seats they need to implement their agenda regardless of who wins the governor's mansion?  

In the state Senate, Rs locked in a supermajority more or less by ceding 11 seats to Dems.

In the state house, the 2020 Pres breakdown is 72-33 with few competaive seats so a supermajority is def obtainable for the GOP. Redistricting was actually used as a bargaining tactic on the GOP’s part to try and veto override. A few of the depopulating rural blacks esta could be problematic for Dems by the end of the decade (or sooner). If Dems want to break the R supermajority (which seems to be the default), they’re path would have to run through 3 Trump + 10ish suburban Baton Rouge seats and 1 close Trump seat in New Orleans. After that they don’t have many opportunities. I’d say barring rural comsevadems maling a comeback, the gop should hold the supermajority narrowly most of the time

This is likely the end of LA Dems having any power