2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Alabama

[Nyvin]

In the event Trump wins, is it possible the Republicans go for 6-0?

That would be illegal.   AL-7 is a section 2 VRA district.  

Even with six districts you still easily need an AA majority seat.

[Nyvin]

Is getting 50% BVAP really needed anymore?   Especially in the Birmingham district the white suburbs have actually shifted pretty D in recent years.  

I think this Tuscaloosa+Birmingham district would perform perfectly fine, AA's would still dominate the D primary and it's plenty Dem enough.  Plus helps to separate urban blacks from rural blacks.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/4d1cefec-ba89-445c-8511-8f63869faaad



They should really push the lawsuit to get two districts, it's stupid obvious they can be made in the state without issue.

[Nyvin]

Is getting 50% BVAP really needed anymore?   Especially in the Birmingham district the white suburbs have actually shifted pretty D in recent years.  

I think this Tuscaloosa+Birmingham district would perform perfectly fine, AA's would still dominate the D primary and it's plenty Dem enough.  Plus helps to separate urban blacks from rural blacks.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/4d1cefec-ba89-445c-8511-8f63869faaad



They should really push the lawsuit to get two districts, it's stupid obvious they can be made in the state without issue.

Only a teeny tiny issue of splitting the Coastal city COI in half and creating a non contiguous district. Im sure Clarence Thomas will be eager to create this district.

Nope, I intentionally left the bridge in AL-1.

Edit - Actually if you put the "vast majority" of Mobile in the VRA district it kinda makes a better map,  the only reason for the Mobile split is to have the bridge for road connection to the rest of the county

https://davesredistricting.org/join/4d1cefec-ba89-445c-8511-8f63869faaad

[Nyvin]

Just for the Mobile-split-naysayers:



https://davesredistricting.org/join/3c9bd559-6259-4608-909d-4c2c7acb35c0


It's cleaner than the current map....

Two performing AA districts is 100% possible and should be required.   No excuses.

[Nyvin]

If SCOTUS upholds the decision that most likely intimidates Louisiana Republicans into allowing a second black district too, which would be amazing.

[Nyvin]

These are on page 60 of the court order -



It's the example maps provided by the plaintiffs.

[Nyvin]

I suppose I’m asking why, all else being equal (not factoring in SCOTUS taking things in a different direction), the precedent in Virginia which led to creating a second district doesn’t apply to what looks like a similar situation in Louisiana. Virginia didn’t require two 50% BVAP districts as a prerequisite to unpack the district and draw two performing districts.

Or put another way, are you arguing that hypothetically the current Supreme Court would have overturned the lower court decision in Virginia from some years ago because their views are different from the old court’s.

The VA Pubs believed that under the VRA, you needed to have a 50% BVAP CD. The same was true of the OH Pubs when they had the Cleveland CD go down to take in black Akron. That misconception of the law caused the court in VA to nix the CD the Pubs drew as race driven, and a black pack CD. Now the Pubs know better than to try to get up to 50% through gerrymandering. Instead you go after Dems, and pack them, and if Gingles has been triggered, you also make sure the CD is black performing. If Dems and blacks are co-extensive, you have a tricky situation about intent, and effect and so forth, but that is a rare situation on the ground. In all  events, you would not want to exclude all those white Dems in the Garden District and the French Quarter from a black CD in LA.

Another way to put it, is that the legal dance is very different now. I also think the current SCOTUS will  be parsimonious when it comes to deeming these wild looking CD's that take in very disparate black nodes far away from each other as being found "compact" for purposes of triggering Gingles.

Another complication is that many states have their own set of laws, and in places like NC, activist Dem courts have used generalized language in the state constitution that was copied and pasted from the federal one, to reach a very different legal result from SCOTUS. Since I as knee high to a grasshopper, I have been very hostile to the copy and paste practice. That just gives activist judges more power to effect their favored policy goals, unnecessarily.

Going from 10-3 in NC to 8-5 isn't unnecessarily,  it's a good precedent to establish.   It should be a Federal one IMO.   Unless you can come to a conclusion that getting ~48% of the vote while garnishing 23% of seats is a valid outcome that wasn't produced directly from map drawing.

[Nyvin]

I think the court will leave AL-4 and AL-5 untouched, and just do minimal changes to AL-3 and AL-6.   All the real changes will be between 1, 2, and 7 in the south.

Here's what I came up with, somewhat of a least change map I guess (or as close to one as possible) -



https://davesredistricting.org/join/c3aa1155-40cc-4845-9a2a-30678c997a05

[Nyvin]

This seems pretty good, if county splits are a thing the court cares about -

https://davesredistricting.org/join/40ec8a56-d78e-488f-a896-6fcdb1395002



Districts 4 and 5 still untouched

Each district afforded only 1 county split each

Both districts 2 and 7 are over 50% black in total population and VAP, and easily performing

Still keeps 3 and 6 mostly intact except some shifting south and eastwards

Barry Moore actually wouldn't be totally doomed in this, since he can easily primary Jerry Carl in AL-1, which has a lot of Moore's old territory.

The only thing I don't like is not having any road connection between Mobile County and the rest of AL-1, but sacrifices have to be made I guess.

[Nyvin]

https://twitter.com/DrewSav/status/1672424009177133056?s=20

I was correct, they favor a map with no changes to districts 4 and 5.

[Nyvin]

And you all thought the Dems might pick up a seat in AL out of all this litigation. Silly boys.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uQMqkLjKw1ghugljSU6N02yGbWRmMmPO/view

The part of this that tries to argue that there is no racialy polarized voting in Alabama is among the most frustratingly evil thing i've ever have to read. Seriously if you feel like giving yourself a headache go and read it.

Yeah, even the most partisan R court in the country would laugh at this, it just goes against any semblance of common sense, let alone legal analysis -

Alabama may also not have legally significant racially polarized voting any longer. Many southern states with similar histories and partisan splits as Alabama have elected minority candidates running for statewide offices.

[Nyvin]

The map labeled "COI" is revealed to be the map from chair Representative Pringle. It is also a punt to a special master.

That's a joke, that AL-2 wouldn't even be close to a performing VRA district.

[Nyvin]

A Trump+4,  42% black seat that isn't even black plurality is supposed to be an "opportunity" seat, yeah right.

[Nyvin]

Glad to see the AL-LEG sticking up for clear communities of interest!  Fight this one all the way back to the Supreme Court, boys! 

I'm being serious.  Kavanaugh's concurrence is quite clear that non-proportionality is ok if traditional redistricting criteria are followed (i.e., compactness, COIs, etc.)  The problem is that Alabama never advanced this argument in Milligan, instead arguing that Section 2 was unconstitutional in its entirety.  Kavanaugh didn't follow. 

Take another swing at it, argue the Legislature's map on its merits, and watch Kavanaugh reverse.  5-4 in favor of Alabama. 

This is really warping the court's wording.   There is no "non-proportionality is okay" doctrine, the 1982 law just states that a court can't rule on proportionality "exclusively".   There is a huge difference between the two.

If multiple maps can be drawn with traditional redistricting principals (court's words) that give the minority race the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice, then the official map has to provide the same level of opportunity as the example maps.   

What you're suggesting is that as long as there is minimum splits in counties/municipalities then the VRA Section 2 criteria is fulfilled, which is utter nonsense.

[Nyvin]

Racial statistics for the AKC Plan which, after a quick glance of the plans that were being considered, is my favorite one:

https://twitter.com/RepEngland70/status/1679997842922905601?s=20

That's actually the map I sent them, I posted here on page 20.   Does that mean I made it to the "finalist" list of theirs or something? lol

[Nyvin]

SCOTUS already directly refuted the argument against splitting the Gulf Coast counties to keep any COI intact -

The Court finds unpersuasive the State’s argument that plaintiffs’
maps were not reasonably configured because they failed to keep to-
gether the Gulf Coast region. Even if that region is a traditional com-
munity of interest, the District Court found the evidence insufficient
to sustain Alabama’s argument that no legitimate reason could exist
to split it. Moreover, the District Court found that plaintiffs’ maps
were reasonably configured because they joined together a different
community of interest called the Black Belt—a community with a high
proportion of similarly situated black voters who share a lineal con-
nection to “the many enslaved people brought there to work in the an-
tebellum period.”

Also Mobile County is definitely not politically cohesive, especially not the black population, which would further go against the Gulf Coast COI argument.   Add the fact that the VRA has no language which prohibits splitting up generic and undefined COI's like the AL Gulf Coast.

[Nyvin]

David Ely will be the cartographer, he was the plaintiff's desired person for the role.

https://1819news.com/news/item/judges-choose-plaintiffs-recommended-cartographer-in-upcoming-alabama-redistricting-hearing

[Nyvin]

The most important thing is that the judges (literally all three) definitely don't seem to be willing to play ball with the state's desired game of having the plaintiffs start all over from scratch and then re-litigate everything again, prove gingles violations again, this time on the new map, etc.   

The judges all seemed very annoyed with the idea and the defense attorneys were definitely pushing in that direction.

The defense simply knows it can't win so the only thing they want now is delay, delay, delay, delay.

[Nyvin]

https://twitter.com/DemocracyDocket/status/1699123860333797427

Lol

What could they possibly go over that wasn't reviewed in Allen v Milligan?

[Nyvin]

https://twitter.com/DemocracyDocket/status/1699123860333797427

Lol

What could they possibly go over that wasn't reviewed in Allen v Milligan?

The conservative cope du jour is that Kavanaugh's concurrence actually indicated that Alabama only lost because it didn't make a very specific argument that, while the federal government might once have had the authority to mandate consideration of race with respect to redistricting, it no longer has that authority because we solved racism. To be (excessively) fair, I suspect this is true on a long enough time scale; I think Kavanaugh probably does think that at some point in the future, perhaps the near future, VRA districts should be phased out. That said, this little two-step process plays out over the course of years, not months. Cert will be denied quickly imo.

I'm having an extremely difficult time seeing "Racism is Over in America" being a lie that SCOTUS would have the stomach for telling the country.   Even Kavanaugh wouldn't go that far, especially for a case regarding Alabama of all places.

[Nyvin]

If the proposed maps are racist then why wasn't the Dem drawn 2000 map?

This question is pointless anyway because it's a whataboutism which means absolutely nothing legally but here's the answer: because at that time it was still possible for some of the districts to elect conservadems which were also supported by black voters and thus did not weaken black voting rights. That is no longer the case. Things can change politically in 20 years you know.

It seems kinda silly that the inherent quality of representation available to Black communities depends on White people voting for Democrats, and especially very conservative Democrats at that!  "Black voting rights" =/= being represented by a Democrat. 

You are right, the argument is that black voters have a right to be represented by a person of their choice. It just so happens their choice is almost always a democrat.

No.  Your statement is still too totalizing.   No voter has a right to be represented by the person of their choice.  The VRA is that Black communities have the right to a fair shot at electing their preferred representation.  If there is a natural constituency of Black voters populous enough to create a performing district, then it should be protected but that is not the same as requiring disparate Black populations to be strategically cracked or packed together in order to create a proportional map (which is what the AL ruling is, both in argument and in effect.)

This was basically the entire premise of the court cases that were already decided (in favor of plaintiffs).   The decision said that Alabama's black population has the geography and population to have two black majority congressional districts that are "reasonably compact" and SCOTUS affirmed the ruling. 

Any judgements anyone here tries to make on it is going to be, in the end, just as arbitrary and analytical as what the court ruled, because the foundation they have to work with is itself so arbitrary to begin with.

[Nyvin]

If the proposed maps are racist then why wasn't the Dem drawn 2000 map?

This question is pointless anyway because it's a whataboutism which means absolutely nothing legally but here's the answer: because at that time it was still possible for some of the districts to elect conservadems which were also supported by black voters and thus did not weaken black voting rights. That is no longer the case. Things can change politically in 20 years you know.

It seems kinda silly that the inherent quality of representation available to Black communities depends on White people voting for Democrats, and especially very conservative Democrats at that!  "Black voting rights" =/= being represented by a Democrat. 

You are right, the argument is that black voters have a right to be represented by a person of their choice. It just so happens their choice is almost always a democrat.

No.  Your statement is still too totalizing.   No voter has a right to be represented by the person of their choice.  The VRA is that Black communities have the right to a fair shot at electing their preferred representation.  If there is a natural constituency of Black voters populous enough to create a performing district, then it should be protected but that is not the same as requiring disparate Black populations to be strategically cracked or packed together in order to create a proportional map (which is what the AL ruling is, both in argument and in effect.)

This was basically the entire premise of the court cases that were already decided (in favor of plaintiffs).   The decision said that Alabama's black population has the geography and population to have two black majority congressional districts that are "reasonably compact" and SCOTUS affirmed the ruling. 

Any judgements anyone here tries to make on it is going to be, in the end, just as arbitrary and analytical as what the court ruled, because the foundation they have to work with is itself so arbitrary to begin with.

Yes, and my position this whole time has been that SCOTUS' decision is egregiously wrong.  The dissenting opinion lays out quite clearly the mistakes made by the majority.  The Alabama Legislature is right to confuse, befuddle, and delay a wrongly-decided Supreme Court opinion.  Accepting this ruling too readily makes it look like good law, when it isn't. 

"Wrong" based on what?   Two black majority districts can be drawn with minimal county splits and zero municipality splits and are pretty compact and neat looking without any crazy tentacles or indentations.  That's what Gingles is at the end of the day (along with racially polarized voting in Alabama), nothing else.

[Nyvin]

The judges are definitely not entertaining the AL Republican's desires to delay the map drawing.

https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1701294354730565694

[Nyvin]

Any good map of Alabama would keep what is arguably it's most distinct geographic community whole.  I have still heard anyone articulate a single reason why the Legislature's map is an illegal racial gerrymander, except for some implicit appeal to proportionality (which the VRA doesn't require!)

Because it's possible to draw two black majority districts that follow "traditional redistricting principles" in the manner of county splits and being geographically compact.  

Since it's possible, the VRA requires it.   What else can there possibly be?  There literally isn't anything else to Section 2 other than that.  

The original map split up the Birmingham metro, does that mean that the AL-7 district shouldn't have been drawn?   LA-2 in Louisiana split up both Baton Rouge and New Orleans, should Louisiana not have any black majority districts?  

Why put the two gulf coast counties in Alabama on some special, royal platform and ignore what happens in other areas entirely?

[Nyvin]

You do not need math to understand how splitting a community hurts the quality of its representation.  An entire community voting as a bloc will always have more influence than one that is split.  That's the exact logic the VRA is built upon!   

Mobile County does not "Vote as a Bloc"