2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Alabama

[Libertas Vel Mors]

If the Republican caucus on the Supreme Court decides to throw out Section 2, I wonder how many African-American representatives will be left in the Deep South. Alabama, Mississippi, maybe South Carolina could go to all white-community choices (who are mostly going to be white, but you occasionally get a Tim Scott who is the candidate of the white community’s choice). There’s a limit to what Georgia can do in Atlanta, and I guess Memphis is too large and wrongly positioned to make sure only white voters get representation there.

Sc literally has a left trending Trump +8 and Trump +9 district. The state is Trump +11.  MS could risk it but I highly doubt they go for it as no one will take Jackson or the Delta. The SE  district is too dense to really crack.
AL is probably the closest to possible but I doubt they go for it.

Louisiana could go for it by numbers in 24 but New Orleans is too concentrated .
I think Texas would probably be more aggressive in the valley  and maybe East Houston but no black seats would be cut. Obviously the valley seats would likely still be selected by hispanics voting in the Republican primary who then are probably a  majority of R votes in the general as well.

Not sure what FL does .
NC is also there although NC01 is already relatively weak at biden +6. The charlotte seat is staying of course.
On the rest of the country. Nothing really changes in the NE as most minority seats are compact as is now. Maybe NY Democrats nuke the last LI seat but I think incumbent concerns win out there.

In the midwest minority seats are a bunch of Chicago land partisan gerrymanders, Milwaukee seat is drawn in any scenario and isn't really VRA.  Columbus/Indianapolis seats stay and are similar to Milwaukee. Detroit congressional seats should stay. Cleveland seat has to recede from Akron anyway and stays. Missouri 1st obviously stays.
Only other state with significant minority population is California/Nevada and this could be interesting if SCOTUS goes on the 14th amendment. The Central Valley districts IMO already have a decent case for being struck down at SCOTUS. They are a partisan gerrymander but unfortunately for Sara Sadhwani she can't admit that in court. Nevada is fine. I guess in Arizona the Tucson-Phoenix-Cochise, Yuma VRA seat might be on shaky grounds. A redraw of AZ with no VRA seat required for AZ02. A redraw based on that would give Rs a much better 2nd Tucson seat but hurt them a bit in Phoenix.

Yeah, but SC-06 is only 57% black, so while there will definitely still be a Dem SC pack it could be reduced to below 50% black if Republicans replace 60-40 Dem rural black areas with more liberal white areas. Something like this (https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::7c0fbffd-a978-41b9-8858-ebb25e8113d6) where the 1st is Trump +10 and the 2nd +15 but the 6th is only 48% BVAP and 50% black.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

It's interesting, I don't remember hearing Del Tachi lamenting the split of New Orleans by LA-02, despite having strong connections to the area as well. Well, who knows why one split bugs him and one doesn't!

It’s interesting, what would make someone take completely opposing positions just because that’s how you favor the interests of white voters in New Orleans (by intervening so they don’t get outvoted by African-Americans) and the interests of white voters in Mobile (by letting them outvote African-Americans)?

Or, alternate answer, one can have different standards for a court-imposed map that should theoretically represent fair redistricting principles and at the very least be reticent to interfere in something rightfully drawn by legislatures, and the map drawn by a legislature. You could just as easily point out that Del Tachi isn't complaining about the gerrymandered split of Chicago by Illinois Democrats.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

I've still yet to see any coherent logic as to why Mobile is absolutely sacrosanct and can not ever be split but it's perfectly fine for the current map to split Birmingham.

It's interesting, I don't remember hearing Del Tachi lamenting the split of New Orleans by LA-02, despite having strong connections to the area as well. Well, who knows why one split bugs him and one doesn't!

It’s interesting, what would make someone take completely opposing positions just because that’s how you favor the interests of white voters in New Orleans (by intervening so they don’t get outvoted by African-Americans) and the interests of white voters in Mobile (by letting them outvote African-Americans)?

Or, alternate answer, one can have different standards for a court-imposed map that should theoretically represent fair redistricting principles and at the very least be reticent to interfere in something rightfully drawn by legislatures, and the map drawn by a legislature. You could just as easily point out that Del Tachi isn't complaining about the gerrymandered split of Chicago by Illinois Democrats.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

I've still yet to see any coherent logic as to why Mobile is absolutely sacrosanct and can not ever be split but it's perfectly fine for the current map to split Birmingham.

It's interesting, I don't remember hearing Del Tachi lamenting the split of New Orleans by LA-02, despite having strong connections to the area as well. Well, who knows why one split bugs him and one doesn't!

It’s interesting, what would make someone take completely opposing positions just because that’s how you favor the interests of white voters in New Orleans (by intervening so they don’t get outvoted by African-Americans) and the interests of white voters in Mobile (by letting them outvote African-Americans)?

Or, alternate answer, one can have different standards for a court-imposed map that should theoretically represent fair redistricting principles and at the very least be reticent to interfere in something rightfully drawn by legislatures, and the map drawn by a legislature. You could just as easily point out that Del Tachi isn't complaining about the gerrymandered split of Chicago by Illinois Democrats.

That only makes sense under ISL weirdness that the Supreme Court just specifically rejected.

Not at all true, one can believe the courts have the legal right to intervene in certain circumstances (as granted by Congress) and also hold them to a higher standard than elected legislatures (in fact, arguably the whole reason the courts are ever granted this power is specifically because Congress expected them to adhere to such a standard), and desire them to be reticent in exercising that power.