Gingles gets a road test in Illinois

[David Hume]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-illinois-legislative-redistricting-challenges-20211209-osoz3fthqjh67ovhn5vi3nymaa-story.html

This lawsuit involves state legislative lines. It seems that a number of presumably compact majority Hispanic districts were not drawn in Chicagoland  that could have been, and a black district was not drawn down in east St. Louis. That has caused everybody to sue everybody else. The Hispanics (MALDEF) think they got the short end of the stick to prop up black incumbents (maybe white Dem ones too, I don't know), the blacks downstate allege they lost the game of musical chairs in order to properly care and feed a bunch of white Dems that were otherwise under stress, and the Pubs agree with both the upstate Hispanics and the downstate blacks, although the defendant map drawers assert the Pubs don't really give a damn about either, but do care about the dominoes that will fall with the creation of more Hispanic seats, because that would bleach out and make more Pub some seats that would become within their reach here and there in the hinterlands of Chicagoland. Ditto about integrating more the delegation downstate. Or something like that. I don't think the words "bleach out" were used. 

The Dem map drawers defense? Racial block voting is just so yesterday in Illinois, Hispanics are perfectly happy with and vote for black representatives, and thus it's time to put the VRA on ignore in the state. Gingles is just not triggered. Not sure how plausible that is down in the East St. Louis area in particular, but whatever.

Anyway, the Federal Court of Appeals after the hearing said that they had a migraine, and took it all under submission, but in the meantime that they would be pleased to get more briefs, a lot more briefs. So it may take a few more weeks. And then maybe it will go in banc (the whole gang does it all over again, not just a troika thereof), and then who knows, maybe it will go to SCOTUS, if the high court feels the need to flesh out what racial block voting means statistically as a Gingles trigger. Or maybe SCOTUS might want to revamp Gingles, or kill it off. So many possibilities, and so little time - in this case, literally.

Actually, Is IL-04 really a VRA seat? Based on Dem's arguments in this case the racially polarized voting is not clear.

[David Hume]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-illinois-legislative-redistricting-challenges-20211209-osoz3fthqjh67ovhn5vi3nymaa-story.html

This lawsuit involves state legislative lines. It seems that a number of presumably compact majority Hispanic districts were not drawn in Chicagoland  that could have been, and a black district was not drawn down in east St. Louis. That has caused everybody to sue everybody else. The Hispanics (MALDEF) think they got the short end of the stick to prop up black incumbents (maybe white Dem ones too, I don't know), the blacks downstate allege they lost the game of musical chairs in order to properly care and feed a bunch of white Dems that were otherwise under stress, and the Pubs agree with both the upstate Hispanics and the downstate blacks, although the defendant map drawers assert the Pubs don't really give a damn about either, but do care about the dominoes that will fall with the creation of more Hispanic seats, because that would bleach out and make more Pub some seats that would become within their reach here and there in the hinterlands of Chicagoland. Ditto about integrating more the delegation downstate. Or something like that. I don't think the words "bleach out" were used. 

The Dem map drawers defense? Racial block voting is just so yesterday in Illinois, Hispanics are perfectly happy with and vote for black representatives, and thus it's time to put the VRA on ignore in the state. Gingles is just not triggered. Not sure how plausible that is down in the East St. Louis area in particular, but whatever.

Anyway, the Federal Court of Appeals after the hearing said that they had a migraine, and took it all under submission, but in the meantime that they would be pleased to get more briefs, a lot more briefs. So it may take a few more weeks. And then maybe it will go in banc (the whole gang does it all over again, not just a troika thereof), and then who knows, maybe it will go to SCOTUS, if the high court feels the need to flesh out what racial block voting means statistically as a Gingles trigger. Or maybe SCOTUS might want to revamp Gingles, or kill it off. So many possibilities, and so little time - in this case, literally.

Federal law requires legislative redistricting cases based on constitutional claims be heard by a 3-judge panel. The case is randomly assigned to a district court judge, who then typically requests that the Chief Judge of the Appeals Court assign a three-judge panel to the case. There is some discretion to discourage frivolous cases being assigned a three judge panel, but the SCOTUS has sometimes overturned those decisions.

The panel in this case is formed by Robert Dow, Jr. district judge in Illinois, Northern District; another district judge in the circuit, Jon De Guilio, chief federal district judge Indiana, Northern District; and Michael Brennan, appellate judge from the 7th Circuit, who formerly originally served as state judge in Wisconsin.

I think the theory is to avoid home cooking in redistricting cases. I'm not sure whether it is an accident that the panel is likely to be more favorable to Republicans or not. Diane Sykes who is chief judge of the 7th Circuit (since 2020) has a conservative reputation and was considered for replacing Sandra Day O'Connor. Brennan is a Trump appointee who Tammy Baldwin tried to block, and Ron Johnson praised and was confirmed on a 49:47 vote.

You read "three judge panel" and interpreted this to mean "appeals court", but it is not. Any appeal would be to the SCOTUS, who must take the case, they don't have discretion over cert.

In Texas, the case filed by Holder/Elias tried to argue they were making a statutory argument rather than a constitutional argument and shouldn't have a 3-judge panel and shouldn't be consolidated. I don't understand how a case based on the VRA can be considered not to be based on the 14th and 15th Amendments. Anyhow the argument was rejected and the case has been consolidated.

There may be forum shopping. In Texas, redistricting cases have been heard in Eastern, Southern, and Western districts.

In Illinois, you could clearly sue in Springfield (central district of Illinois). The ESL plaintiffs could have sued in the southern district. The first case filed was when the legislature drew its map based on ACS estimates and it was filed in Chicago.

There are three cases which are being heard together. So it is actually MALDEF, NAACP, and the Republicans filing severally.

In Texas, nine cases have been consolidated. In Illinois it appears that it is simply just a matter of the hearings for three cases being held jointly. This is more efficient since you only have three judges, and you don't risk conflicting remediation or decisions on similar issues.

I looked at the East Saint Louis case (1:21-cv-05512) filed by the NAACP (actually the downstate branch).

In Chicago, senate districts are drawn as long skinny districts snaking out from Chicago. These are then split lengthwise so that the two nested House districts are twins demographically and politically. There may be an inner city bias based on higher population density, incumbency, and political machines, with areas further out simply serving as population for equal protection legal compliance.

In the ESL case, it appears that a different strategy has been used. The population in the area east of East Saint Louis may only be able to support three Democratic House district as relatively slow growth has required districts to expand, and whites in this historically Democratic area have trended to be more Republican, due to disaffection with Chicago-domination, lessening over time of Southern roots (southern Illinois was settled by folks from Kentucky who migrated west and crossed into Indiana and Illinois due the southwestardly flow of the Ohio River).

Since house districts must nest inside senate districts, this means that one of the house districts will be in a different senate district, and you might have to concede a Republican seat in that senate district. As you expand the three-district area outward you take in more Republican territory.

So imagine HD-112, HD-113, and HD-114 arranged North-to-South. HD-113 and HD-114 form SD-57. HD-112 and HD-111 form SD-56, and the D's are going to concede HD-111. On the 2011 boundaries, HD-112 and SD-56 are barely Democratic, and HD-111 barely Republican. If they are extended outward they might all flip.

So instead HD-112 and SD-56 were pushed into HD-113 and SD-57; HD-113 expanded into HD-114; and HD-114 taking in Republican areas.

HD-114 is the district at issue here. It includes East St. Louis which is 95% Democratic, and similar percentage of blacks. East St. Louis has dropped in population from 82K in 1950, to 18K in 2020, so the district loops around HD-113, and ends up in 2020, being a 57%-43% Democratic district.

HD-113 has a lower percentage of blacks than HD-114, but is more Democratic.

HD-114 dropped from 43% black to 37% black between 2010 and 2020 census, and the legislative plan drops it further to 34%. HD-113 increased from 25% black to 31% black between 2010 and 2020. This remains the same under the legislative plan as black voters from the current HD-113 are moved to HD-112 to be replaced by black voters from HD-114. Given current trends HD-114 might flip by 2010.

The remedial plan proposed by the NAACP plaintiffs would draw HD-114 directly eastward from East Saint Louis and bump the black population up to 48%. The state defendants note that this would pair the black Democrat with a popular white Democrat who has a $1.4 million dollar war chest (I don't know how popular he is, but he is the second longest serving representative. That may simply mean that the seat came open at an opportune time. I suspect the black Democrat wins a primary. HD-113 would gather up much of the remainder of HD-114 and might flip.

The Republican remedial plan is similar in form.

The NAACP plaintiffs are arguing that the reason for the changes are racially based, because similar numbers of black voters were moved from HD-113 to HD-112 as were moved from HD-114 to HD-113. But clearly the changes were politically motivated.

If the Gingles conditions apply, then it would seem reasonable that if black voters move from one district to an adjacent district the map should follow, and not instead add a bunch of remote white voters.

To be fair, the 7th circuit has 8 R and 3 D appointed judges, so highly likely to have a R circuit judge. The district judge is 1 R 1D. The R judge is from IL, who can be blocked by the two D senators if too partisan. The D judge is from IN, and recommended by the D senator at that time. Overall not a bad deal for D, since they could easily get 3 solid R partisan judges, or 2 solid R partisan judges and one D partisan judge.

[David Hume]

Plaintiffs lost. I have not yet worked enough of the cast to ascertain the basis, but Gingles is run through its paces. I guess if the plaintiffs still think they have a case, it goes to SCOTUS which will have to hear it if Jimrtex is correct on the procedural rules of the road.


https://s3.amazonaws.com/jnswire/jns-media/d0/0b/11658107/mcconchie_v_welch_decision_12-30-21.pdf

It is kind of a bizarre decision. The Hispanics lose because there is a lack of evidence of racial block voting to defeat them (maybe the case will come back if evidence comes up that it does per subsequent elections with Madigan gone is a surmise of mine). The blacks downstate lose because diluting their vote down to a tossup race is OK, and there is insufficient evidence going forward that the seat will be worse than a tossup for  them. While blacks may be leaving over time, voting by the Dems has been made easier, so black turnout may rise going forward.  The court worked hard to find the Dem black dilution in East St. Louis legal. And then a lot of stuff about the effect of incumbency and the like.

Diluting their vote down to a tossup race is OK? If SC accept this position, does this mean VRA seats in AL, GA, etc can also be diluted to toss-up? This would be a huge blow to D.