2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Alabama

[It’s so Joever]

I just drew a nice AL map that has two 50%+ BCVAP CD's that does not even look particularly ugly. The best scenario for the news this afternoon is for MN to retain an 8th seat I think. AL retaining a 7th CD will most likely mean a second minority performing CD, by the time SCOTUS does its thing at least, assuming it does not reverse Gingles.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/457311a7-6b54-4fd1-a906-4102125c7082

I still don’t understand why the Obama DOJ didn’t push for a 2nd VRA district here.

I suspect the numbers were not there to draw two "compact" 50%+ BCVAP districts that had no overlapping territory at the time (e.g., before the 2019 CVAP data was put into the DRA, it was a very close case whether Gingles triggered a second black performing CD). It may also be that the contours of the Gingles parameters had not been as clarified by SCOTUS as they are now. If the data base the Court uses matches the current data base in the DRA, either the Pubs are going to lose this case, or SCOTUS is going to modify Gingles. The districts are clearly sufficiently compact. Heck, the map does not even entail an extra county chop.

I think the current SCOTUS is more likely to end VRA Section 2 redistricting requirements entirely than it is to force the adoption of this map in AL.  Dems would be smarter to wait for 2031 and hope their position on SCOTUS has improved by then.

You think SCOTUS would allow this map that I drew, where all seven districts are safe R, and Terri Sewell gets replaced by a white Republican in AL-07?

SCOTUS would allow poll taxes if they get the opportunity.

[It’s so Joever]

Jesus christ I knew Atlas Dems were delusional but the notion that you have to gerrymander on the basis of race over any reasonable map-drawing principle is insane. Any reasonable computer-generated map has one black district. That's what is fair in AL. To argue otherwise is to argue in favor of gerrymandering, something so many Dems on here pay lip service to but have no interest in actually fighting if it would in any way harm the Democratic party.

I truly do not understand the sudden obsession with computer drawn maps on here. Not only is it dumb, it's very selectively applied. No one is advocating computer drawn maps in California or Texas for obvious reasons.

...sure we are? I can go back and find receipts, but I've been arguing for computer-drawn maps for every state on this forum since 2012-2013 or thereabouts.

Computer drawn districts are the worst idea on redistricting reform ever. I can’t believe people still buy into it.

[It’s so Joever]

If Congress wants the Gingles test to be part of the VRA they should define the terms explicitly. Is a district concrete if it rips apart counties on a racial basis? Is it compact if you have to don SCUBA gear to travel throughout the district?

Yes, Alabama certainly wouldn’t want the feds to come in and divide up counties and county institutions by race, that would never fly in the close-knit family atmosphere in multi-racial counties.

Especially when “ripping apart” a county means giving the black voters of that county a chance to elect a representative to Congress… how un-genteel.

Why should federal judges be drawing district boundaries?

Should representatives be chosen by racial communities without any regard to residence?

Explain your reasoning.

*shrug* what you describe as “ripping apart a county” is giving the African-American residents of that county political representation for the first time in a very long time, if at all. I’m more concerned about the rights of African-Americans of Alabama than the feelings of a set of lines on a map used to preserve a monopoly on power for the racial majority. We don’t have to agree on that.

If you had racially segregated electorates then blacks in Huntsville, Alabama would have voting rights as well.

Soo....the Bosnia solution?

[It’s so Joever]

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.

Courts should not disturb legislative redistricting unless the sole reasonable explanation for the proposed map is racial discrimination.  I don't think plaintiffs demonstrated that in this case, and the Legislature made the race-neutral case that keeping Alabama's Gulf coast whole was important from a COI perspective.  That is believable and reasonable enough and follows traditional redistricting criteria. 

The plaintiff's maps are crazy looking.  They score lower on measures of compactness than the Legislature's maps, and they split very clear communities of interest that the Alabama Legislature has kept united for decades. 

I doubt you actually believe what you are saying. We both know your “COI” argument is ridiculous in a state where politics and culture largely is racially polarized. You are advocating for splitting up a community of interest, not for keeping one together.

This was a partisan decision as is your support. Just be honest.