EG's State Senate Thread (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 31, 2024, 05:50:03 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 100% pro-life no matter what)
  EG's State Senate Thread (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: EG's State Senate Thread  (Read 12355 times)
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,817
Marshall Islands


« on: March 02, 2014, 11:10:45 PM »


The Hawaii constitution requires apportionment of senators and representatives among the 4 island groups.  Canoe districts are not legal.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,817
Marshall Islands


« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2014, 10:12:07 AM »


The Hawaii constitution requires apportionment of senators and representatives among the 4 island groups.  Canoe districts are not legal.

I see... I suppose I could fix it, but I would have some big deviations. Doesn't really change anything politically. Pretty much what I would do is:

1. 1st district entirely on Kauai
2. 20th district take over the two little islands  in Maui County
3. 23rd and 25th districts (both to minimize deviation) take over leftover 22nd district area in Hawaii County.
This was recently approved by the 9th Circuit, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.  The deviation caused by the whole island group apportionment was somewhat of a secondary issue.   The main issue was Hawaii basing its legislative apportionment on permanent residents, excluding military personnel and their dependents who are not from Hawaii (for tax purposes), as well as out-of-state students.

Before 2000, Hawaii had what were referred to as canoe districts, as those drawing the lines had decided like you, that the Supreme Court would never accept an alternative basis to census population, as well as such large deviation.

In 2000, adjustments for the military were made, but it appears that this was done in order to reduce the amount of deviation.  Almost all the military are on Oahu, and the change would make enough difference to make the apportionment for the neighbor islands more acceptable.

In 2010, initially only a small adjustment was made, excluding military personnel living in barracks.  This was challenged, and the Hawaii Supreme Court overturned it as a violation of the state constitution.  The reapportionment commission then did a more extensive adjustment, which was based on military pay records, which record where state taxes are paid, as well as state of enlistment, and also have number of dependents.  Hawaii then adjusted the census block populations.  Just over 100,000 were whacked from the apportionment data (quite large compared to the 1.3 million total).

The primary effect was to give a 4rd whole senate seat to the island of Hawaii, at the expense of Oahu, as well as changes to the Oahu districts since the military population is concentrated in the western part of the island around Pearl Harbor.

While Kauai has an oversized senate district, it has 3 undersized house districts.

The takeaway may be that community of interest may override simplistic notions of population equality, at least in Hawaii where the islands are separated by 100s of miles of international water, and are not contiguous even in a legal sense. 
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,817
Marshall Islands


« Reply #2 on: September 08, 2015, 09:00:39 PM »

At large voting is very different, because with polarized voting, it is a recipe for shutting out the minority entirely. And there is no good policy reason for it. There is a good policy reason for neutral line drawing, and the cases where it screws the minority will be rare, and even then, only at the margins when it comes to proportionality.
In Mobile, the city commission exercised both executive and legislative authority. It was replaced by a mayor-city council system.

I think a reasonable VRA case can be made in Hudson, because of its multi-member districts. The ward with the greatest black population is oversized, and it splits a census block with a large concentration of blacks. It's not going to matter that boundary was set 150 years ago.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,817
Marshall Islands


« Reply #3 on: September 08, 2015, 09:03:30 PM »

Texas:

Houston Close-Up:



11: 74.4% Obama, 25.6% McCain = Safe D
12: 76.9% Obama, 23.1% McCain = Safe D
13: 59.8% Obama, 40.2% McCain = Likely D
14: 61.6% McCain, 38.4% Obama = Safe R
15: 72.5% McCain, 27.5% Obama = Safe R
16: 65.3% McCain, 34.7% Obama = Safe R
17: 65.6% McCain, 34.4% Obama = Safe R

You eliminated a Hispanic opportunity district.

Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,817
Marshall Islands


« Reply #4 on: September 09, 2015, 10:49:53 AM »

At large voting is very different, because with polarized voting, it is a recipe for shutting out the minority entirely. And there is no good policy reason for it. There is a good policy reason for neutral line drawing, and the cases where it screws the minority will be rare, and even then, only at the margins when it comes to proportionality.
In Mobile, the city commission exercised both executive and legislative authority. It was replaced by a mayor-city council system.

I think a reasonable VRA case can be made in Hudson, because of its multi-member districts. The ward with the greatest black population is oversized, and it splits a census block with a large concentration of blacks. It's not going to matter that boundary was set 150 years ago.

There is no way to draw a 50% BVAP ward. In fact, I don't recall a single census block that was 50% BVAP. So no, the VRA is not subject to being triggered.
You only have to be able to draw a single aldermanic district (1/10 or 1/11) of the total population. Hudson is using an oversized multi-member district as a device to deny the right to vote.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,817
Marshall Islands


« Reply #5 on: September 09, 2015, 06:03:23 PM »

I think a reasonable VRA case can be made in Hudson, because of its multi-member districts. The ward with the greatest black population is oversized, and it splits a census block with a large concentration of blacks. It's not going to matter that boundary was set 150 years ago.

There is no way to draw a 50% BVAP ward. In fact, I don't recall a single census block that was 50% BVAP. So no, the VRA is not subject to being triggered.
You only have to be able to draw a single aldermanic district (1/10 or 1/11) of the total population. Hudson is using an oversized multi-member district as a device to deny the right to vote.

I doubt it, but I would tend to doubt there is any case law about making districts smaller, as opposed to a typical number. Anyway, at the moment, there are 3 blacks and 1 Bangledeshi out of the 10 council members elected by district. So the representation is in fact reasonably proportional.
Multi-member districts are no different than at-large elections.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.035 seconds with 13 queries.