NC: CDs 1 & 12 struck down

[Torie]

In about a 100 pages of droning on, the bottom line is that apparently the court defines as racial packing any erose, non compact district that has a BVAP in excess of that required for the CD to be performing, as opposed to being materially in excess of 50% (the two CD's challenged were barely in excess of 50%). So that is a change in the law of SCOTUS as understood, and thus upsets the apple cart. And it means that in drawing erose minority CD's, a detailed evidentiary record as to what is performing would need to be developed, which would be quite the nightmare. So it will be interesting to see what SCOTUS does with this departure, and whether it stays the decision, which is already interfering with absentee voting, which has begun. I suspect for this one, a stay will be issued, given that, and given the apparent departure from what is understood as existing law.

[Torie]

If this interpretation becomes law, it is going to be a hard standard to meet due to a lack of data. In many states, particularly those recently covered by section 5, districts were routinely either brought over 50% BVAP, or left well below it. That means there will be few examples in those states of districts with BVAPs in the 40s. Without actual results in competitive districts there will be a lot of work for statisticians who have the software for ecological inference and other models designed to estimate crossover voting strength for a minority bloc.

Yes, it would be a mess. And the end result, is that you just look for Democratic precincts, and ignore race data, to draw your gerrymander, and then it is not race driven. The trick is to make an extra effort to find some white liberal precincts. There are a few of those in downtown Richmond for example. Just make sure those are in your erose Dem pack district, in a CD that happens to still be heavily black, and your evidentiary record is nicely buttressed, and you should be good to go. These judges were just not very perspicacious, since black precincts and heavily Democratic ones, are almost co-extensive. Most of this is probably just a one shot deal anyway, all arising out of the confusion about Section 5, that has now been clarified.

[Torie]

Your text is a bit dense, but the court had no problem with political gerrymanders. It was all about reaching out to pack black voters into a district, when not needed to get a performing minority district. The court found there was enough that the packing was not just about the packing of Democrats, but blacks. And that Pubs of course would have no problem with packing Democrats, but went the black packing route due to confusion over Section 5. As I said, there is very little difference between the two, which is where the court ignored that the emperor has no clothes. My tentative view is that the opinion is largely a mess, and a leading indicator that an opinion is a mess, is when it comes on for a hundred pages.

[Torie]

Your text is a bit dense, but the court had no problem with political gerrymanders. It was all about reaching out to pack black voters into a district, when not needed to get a performing minority district. The court found there was enough that the packing was not just about the packing of Democrats, but blacks. And that Pubs of course would have no problem with packing Democrats, but went the black packing route due to confusion over Section 5. As I said, there is very little difference between the two, which is where the court ignored that the emperor has no clothes. My tentative view is that the opinion is largely a mess, and a leading indicator that an opinion is a mess, is when it comes on for a hundred pages.

But could this be a leading indicator of a desire to drop section 2 districts below 50% to preserve compactness/allow more of them to be drawn in areas where the minority group still has practical control of the seat at <50% population?

Beyond the administrative nightmare, it is a red herring, because partisan gerrymandering and black packing are almost the same. So just seek out Dem precincts. If they happen to be black, where that is beside the point. The court was focused on that, the intent to find blacks rather than Democrats (a by product of the Section 5 syndrome). So sure, SCOTUS might rule, that any partisan gerrymander, that also as a by product happens to packs blacks more than is needed for a performing district, without any specific intent to do so, is illegal, I highly doubt SCOTUS will go there.

[Torie]

That Research Triangle area Dem sink CD is just so cute. And Muon2 would not characterize what is going on there as a bridge chop, because he's a stubborn cuss.