Michigan: The urban-rural divide writ large

[Nyvin]

That Detroit gets 2 CDs instead of 1 is my major problem with the Muon2 rules.  If I were to re-write the rules, cities would have to remain intact if their population merits it, and breaking cities up would be considered a macro chop of the first order.  Why?  Keeping cities intact stops the problem in states like Illinois where Chicago has a disproportionate number of seats through bacon strip districts.  With a population of 689,000 Detroit doesn't deserve 2 seats in Congress.

A single district in Detroit would be like ~80% Black.   That wouldn't comply with the VRA.

[Nyvin]

I think the map is mostly just a pretty GOP gerrymander.   The state doesn't align east-west hardly anywhere and that's how most of the districts are drawn.   The interstates are mostly all North-South and that's how a lot of the current districts are drawn (MI-1 an obvious exception).

Also when you talk about "urban-rural divide" most of what you is try to mix them up rather than divide them,  Grand Rapids district going east instead of to Holland and Muskegon for example.    Also Monroe going to the same district as Kalamazoo and Flint being put into the same district as the Thumb counties.  

If you're goal was to create "urban" districts and "rural" districts then this map seems to go in the opposite direction.

[Nyvin]

Chops themselves are subjective and aren't used by many mapping regulations in the country.   Communities of interests and avoiding partisan interests (like vote sink districts in your MI-9) are a better alternative.   County/City lines are very often outdated and serve very little real purpose.

[Nyvin]

That Detroit gets 2 CDs instead of 1 is my major problem with the Muon2 rules.  If I were to re-write the rules, cities would have to remain intact if their population merits it, and breaking cities up would be considered a macro chop of the first order.  Why?  Keeping cities intact stops the problem in states like Illinois where Chicago has a disproportionate number of seats through bacon strip districts.  With a population of 689,000 Detroit doesn't deserve 2 seats in Congress.

A single district in Detroit would be like ~80% Black.   That wouldn't comply with the VRA.

If/when in the not-so-distant future the BVAP in SE Michigan falls below that which can support two CDs, the VRA won't be a barrier to the city Detroit getting the proportionate representation that it deserves, instead of the outsized representation that it doesn't.  Suburban interests deserve representation, too.

You still have the packing issue.  I am not sure there is an on point case on this. The precise legal issue is whether minority packing can be deemed legal where the rationale is that it keeps a subdivision whole, in this case Detroit.  In other words, say if Detroit were kept whole, the CBVAP of that CD is 70%, with the adjacent CD 15%, in lieu of say 50% CBVAP and 35%. In the context of a contiguous minority population crossing county or subdivision lines, even though it will entail additional chops, do you need to unpack a CD, in order to create a second adjacent CD with a substantial minority influence, that is the question. Maybe Muon2 has some knowledge on this matter. The law is in flux in this area. That much I know.

For the 2020 census, there probably will be enough contiguous blacks to still have 2 CD's able to elect candidates of their choice, perhaps 45% CBVAP in each CD. In that context, the odds are think are pretty high (at least more likely than not), that the courts will not be happy with a packed CD using the excuse that it keeps Detroit whole. That would certainly be the case, if it were possible to draw two 50% CBVAP CD's, but that will not be the case after the 2020 census. It will be closer to 45% CBVAP for each CD, maybe a tad higher, but not much.

The courts wouldn't just look at Detroit alone, there is also Black populations in places like Pontiac, Southfield, Oak Park, Inkster, River Rouge, etc.   Drawing two 50% BVAP districts in the greater Detroit area will continue to be easy as cake for the long term future. 

[Nyvin]

That Detroit gets 2 CDs instead of 1 is my major problem with the Muon2 rules.  If I were to re-write the rules, cities would have to remain intact if their population merits it, and breaking cities up would be considered a macro chop of the first order.  Why?  Keeping cities intact stops the problem in states like Illinois where Chicago has a disproportionate number of seats through bacon strip districts.  With a population of 689,000 Detroit doesn't deserve 2 seats in Congress.

A single district in Detroit would be like ~80% Black.   That wouldn't comply with the VRA.

If/when in the not-so-distant future the BVAP in SE Michigan falls below that which can support two CDs, the VRA won't be a barrier to the city Detroit getting the proportionate representation that it deserves, instead of the outsized representation that it doesn't.  Suburban interests deserve representation, too.

You still have the packing issue.  I am not sure there is an on point case on this. The precise legal issue is whether minority packing can be deemed legal where the rationale is that it keeps a subdivision whole, in this case Detroit.  In other words, say if Detroit were kept whole, the CBVAP of that CD is 70%, with the adjacent CD 15%, in lieu of say 50% CBVAP and 35%. In the context of a contiguous minority population crossing county or subdivision lines, even though it will entail additional chops, do you need to unpack a CD, in order to create a second adjacent CD with a substantial minority influence, that is the question. Maybe Muon2 has some knowledge on this matter. The law is in flux in this area. That much I know.

For the 2020 census, there probably will be enough contiguous blacks to still have 2 CD's able to elect candidates of their choice, perhaps 45% CBVAP in each CD. In that context, the odds are think are pretty high (at least more likely than not), that the courts will not be happy with a packed CD using the excuse that it keeps Detroit whole. That would certainly be the case, if it were possible to draw two 50% CBVAP CD's, but that will not be the case after the 2020 census. It will be closer to 45% CBVAP for each CD, maybe a tad higher, but not much.

I really don't understand how, in a 1 BVAP-majority district scenario, maximizing the number of people who are happy with their representative should be considered packing, but I admit that I am utterly baffled by much of the VRA-related jurisprudence.  If African-Americans want to be represented by an African-American in the Democratic primary and non-African Americans would prefer a different candidate, wouldn't it make more sense to maximize the number of African-Americans in that VRA district, not minimize them?

Given the state of current jurisprudence, you're probably right, though.  Even a facially neutral rule of keeping municipalities together would probably be overturned due to some contrived arguement about the rule having a discriminatory effect in extreme cases, like Detroit.

This is the exact same argument Republicans in courts make over and over and over again...

"We just wanted to cram as many Black people into that 1 district that we possibly could just so we could be sure they get the candidate they wanted!"

Neither you or them are fooling anyone,  you don't need anything above 50% BVAP for them to get the candidate of their choice.    It fails in courts over and over again but it's still tried time and time again anyway.