2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Alabama

[ProgressiveModerate]

It's a no-win for the GOP on whether AL loses a district. If it does, the GOP will have to cut one of their own districts. If not, Democrats can make the case for a second VRA district, though whether the lawsuit suceeds is an open question.

[ProgressiveModerate]

It's a no-win for the GOP on whether AL loses a district. If it does, the GOP will have to cut one of their own districts. If not, Democrats can make the case for a second VRA district, though whether the lawsuit suceeds is an open question.

Yes because splitting Mobile in half is totally going to fly by Thomas or the 11th circuit.

We'll see. Circuit courts tends to not be hyper-partisan, and there is a strong case for it. You don't even have to split Mobile City:



There is a road connectivity issue but an exception could be made as is the case with LA-1. Generally, VRA districts take precedent over county splits, city lines, and other traditional guidelines of drawing districts.

[ProgressiveModerate]

2 VRA districts are still possible, but in order to do so, you'd have to make a leg down to mobile and make a pretty long district 1 along the coast which could be argued isn't compact and therefore shouldn't be required. Seems likely we just end up with AL-7 as the only black district.

[ProgressiveModerate]

2 VRA districts are still possible, but in order to do so, you'd have to make a leg down to mobile and make a pretty long district 1 along the coast which could be argued isn't compact and therefore shouldn't be required. Seems likely we just end up with AL-7 as the only black district.

What’s the compactness rating on that map?

36; not great but not terrible. It's hard to tell from the original photo but I did that little trick to ensure AL-1 remained contiguous

[ProgressiveModerate]

Honestly chances are AL doesn't get a 2nd black district; it's possible but pretty unlikely. Louisiana is a much better bet for that.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Wait does this actually mean we could get a 5-2 Alabama.

Possibly a huge upset if true, though I imagine this isn’t the end of legal litigation

Notable how it was a uninaimous decision with 2 Trump judges siding with 2 black CDs. My guess is of this comes to fruition we end up with a Birmingham based CD that’s like 43% Black and a 50% black district that gets all the black communities outside Birmingham

[ProgressiveModerate]

If the courts Alabama ruling holds up on appeal wouldn't it set precedence that Louisiana should also have a 2nd AA seat?

And potentially South Carolina

Thing about SC is a 2nd black district is actually pretty hard just because of how black voters are distributed; a black opportunity seat based around Columbia and a slightly unpacked SC-6 is the best you can realistically get.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Weird to think about how Dems May get a better delegation out of ALABAMA than Wisconsin

[ProgressiveModerate]

It's funny reading through this thread and seeing everyone being deadset on either a 5-2 happening or not happening.

The reality is it's prolly a tossup right now, and depends upon what SCOTUS wants to do with it, though it def isn't a shoe-in case either way.

[ProgressiveModerate]

[ProgressiveModerate]

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.

I respectfully disagree strongly.

Firstly, the concept of "unpacking" hyper-minority districts isn't just something "activist" Dem courts came up with to make more Dem seats. It has been a slowly evolved precedent as creating reliable minority districts with a VAP close to but slightly under 50% has become more viable. It's a precedent which courts all across the ideological spectrum have contributed to, including this ruling from 2 Trump appointed justices in Alabama. The VA SC was controlled by Rs iirc at the time of the ruling (albiet pretty moderate).

Basically, the courts decided to place a higher emphasis on creating minority seats rather than meeting this magical 50% threshold as frankly it's often arbitrary.

In the case of NC, yes a 50% district could be drawn, but it was terribly uncompact and a just as functional seat with slightly under that could be drawn that better represented COIs.

Furthermore, I think Atlas forgets that by and large justices aren't redistricting or geography experts, they are people who study the law. For example, in this most recent Alabama ruling, the plaintiffs successfully proved that a reasonable looking 2nd black seat could be drawn; I really doubt most justices are sitting their thinking to themselves whether a split of Mobile is a problem because it isn't illegal and the case at hand has to do with whether a 2nd black district can be drawn, not if Mobile is split, especially since that then gets into highly subjective territory there is no right answer to. In Lousiana, the Baton Rouge based black seat can be drawn relatively compactly without crazy tendrils, and it isn't the Louisiana's Supreme Court's job to try and figure out how culturally connected Baton-Rouge and Alexandria are.

Pretty much, as like most people, these justices largely evaluate districts by visual compactness, VRA, and partisan leans of seats as it compares to statewide vote share (median seat test and such).

For instance, it's pretty hard to grasp the concept that direct proportionality of seats vs vote share isn't necessarily fair to anyone who isn't an expert on redistricting. Even some of the most liberal atlas users here prolly wouldn't have insisted on partisan proportional Ohio state legistlative maps if they were Marcy Kaptur, even though from the OHSC majority's perspective, proportional probably seems like it makes sense. Kaptur def isn't some far left liberal activists trying to help the Ohio Democratic Party.

So the problem isn't "activist" courts, but rather that these justices are understandably not inherently experts on this very complex subject.

I do think it's fair to say both parties have over the years attempted to use the VRA to their advantage, mainly with Rs using it to justify certain D packs such as OH-11 and Dems using it to insist they win a disproportionate number of seats, in particular in Southern States.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Even if SCOTUS stated a 7 0 was allowed why would Al go 7 0?
Who is going to take Birmingham and Montgomery ?

AL-04 has A LOT of votes to give. My guess is that it takes in a good chunk of Birmingham

Perhaps something like this:

[ProgressiveModerate]

A reminder the special masters start redrawing tomorrow

Seems like the SCOTUS has decided to not intervene, at least for now.

Interesting we may get 2 black seats AL but only 1 in LA.

I think this should go relatively fast as there’s only so many ways to draw 2 black seats and they only have to draw a 7 district CD map and not legistkative maps.

I think the GOP prolly shot themselves in the foot by not submitting a map because now some of their incumbents may very well get double-bunked

[ProgressiveModerate]

Interesting we may get 2 black seats AL but only 1 in LA.

If this redraw gets through in AL, wouldn't that set a precedent for a similar lawsuit in LA? If anything, the case would be stronger in LA given the higher Black population.

Theoretically yes but both states are different in terms of geography and stuff. Also LA Blacks are really bad at turning out (especially rural blacks) compared to AL do a 48% rural black district could actually be a tossup, which makes the case it’s not time to unpack LA black districts yet.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Alabama must have a final map for 2022 by the 11th. If SCOTUS does a last minute swoop (which seems increasing unlikely), things could get really scrambly and go into unprecedented territory.

For now it seems pretty likely the 2022 map will have 2 black seats, but whether the map survives the decade is another question

[ProgressiveModerate]

https://twitter.com/NapervillePol/status/1490780616773840897?s=20&t=chg92Ums...

[ProgressiveModerate]

Welp so much for that.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Welp so much for that.

With LA soon to follow with the same issue, SCOTUS really does need to clarify Gingles, and sooner rather than later. The status quo can no longer stand. So this does not surprise me. I think what SCOTUS will end up doing exactly is much harder to predict. This is a tough issue for jurisprudence to tackle.

Ye I think everyone on Atlas can agree Gingles and the VRA when it comes to redistricting is terribly outdated and vague.

I worry however the court will just flat out get rid of it all together. I believe what we need are more specific and quantifiable rules and tests.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Is 7-0 dead at least?

For now the 2022 map is def the old 6-1 map.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Alabama soon gets a 7-0 map.

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1536727430681227264?cxt=HHwWgMDT5ZndxtMqAAAA

From a partisanship perspective, AL and GA are likely the only 2 states this really affects. IL Dems now theoretically could go 16-1 by stretching the South Side, but that ain’t happening.

Place where it likely has a bigger impact is R state legislatures where they are often forced to cede D leaning black seats.

Still though, wouldn’t this just give Dems more fluidity in states they control because their states are more diverse?

Also right before the midterms seems like a bad timing for a favorable ruling to the gop since it doesn’t really affect much on their side but gives Dems a great attack against them to motivate voters.


Personally I agree VRA is obsolete, but it needs to be modified, not abolished. Things such as fajitas and bacon stripping minority communities isn’t right (as the VRA sometimes promotes). However, minority seats should be encouraged or required when a compact did stuff with very clear mathematical metrics is possible.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Also right before the midterms seems like a bad timing for a favorable ruling to the gop since it doesn’t really affect much on their side but gives Dems a great attack against them to motivate voters.

Indeed - if there’s anything that can motivate the average, not-already-super-involved-or-partisan voter to head to the polls and vote for Democrats, it’s Alabama's congressional map, especially amid soaring inflation, gas prices, rent, and crime rates.

Amazing how one can spin everything as bad news for the GOP, no matter how ludicrous the reasoning.

It would persuade very few voters but could give a slight boost to Dems turnout, especially college students and younger folks.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Also right before the midterms seems like a bad timing for a favorable ruling to the gop since it doesn’t really affect much on their side but gives Dems a great attack against them to motivate voters.

Indeed - if there’s anything that can motivate the average, not-already-super-involved-or-partisan voter to head to the polls and vote for Democrats, it’s Alabama's congressional map, especially amid soaring inflation, gas prices, rent, and crime rates.

Amazing how one can spin everything as bad news for the GOP, no matter how ludicrous the reasoning.

It would persuade very few voters but could give a slight boost to Dems turnout, especially college students and younger folks.

Which - even if true - will surely be the saving grace for Democratic candidates running in Alabama this year.

Georgia says hello

[ProgressiveModerate]

Will Republicans still try and be sneaky and try to include either super low turnout black communities/prisons with super red and high turnout white suburbs so one of the black seats is in practice a swing seat, or do they just do a straightforward 5-2 map to avoid further risk of legal action?

[ProgressiveModerate]

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

Since the case is only about how the VRA's problems with Alabama's map, I think making as few changes to the map as possible outside what is necessary to get a 2nd black district is the best way to go. If it were up to me, AL-04 and AL-05 would be drawn very differently, but they do not have to be changed to comply with the VRA and therefore shouldn't change. AL-03 and AL-06 might need to be slightly modified, but can retain their current nature.

I tend to think anything over about Biden + 10 should function fine as a black seat; firstly it's impossible to draw a purely or even mostly "rural" black belt district so rural blacks shifting right isn't the end of the world (and honestly their rightwards shift from 2008 era to now is a bit overrated imo). Ig it's simillar to how GA-02 while only Biden + 10 has always functioned just fine, and Bishop easily won in 2022. Because the district relies on cities like Columbus and Macon to remain functional, rural black counties rightwards shift has been mitigated. Any 2nd district in AL likely needs both Mobile and Montgomery.

It's funny to think after this, AL and maybe LA will prolly yield Democrats more favorable delegations than such as MO, IN, and WI (though WI map may change too).

[ProgressiveModerate]

I know it's not a new change, but what prompted them to push AL-04 to the Tennessee state line? I liked the old (pre-2023) AL-05.

I think that proposal would look a lot better if AL-03 and AL-06 swapped some territory.

That AL-02 looks like nearly a bare minimum effort. They can do better than that. If it's least change, I get it. Even so, that AL-06 is ugly.

Honestly I think we are predisposed to think new maps are "ugly" if they do anything too different. I thought many of this decades maps were "cursed" or "ugly" when they were first drawn when they were first drawn but have grown on me. On the flip side, looking back at last decades map, I find a lot of districts I never had an issue with to be ugly and weird.

I think this is where a lot of arbitrary redistricting rules come from (i.e. don't split Bucks County PA). If splitting Bucks County had been the norm for the past few redistricting cycles so that the denser and more industrial southeastern and more sparsely populated northwestern portions were kept seperate, having a whole County Bucks district would get a lot of backlash and would be seen as "ugly" and "cursed"