VRA Standards for Redistricting

[BigSkyBob]

We are talking about what the courts would decide 

I was talking about your claim that two Hispanic VAP majorities districts were not possible in Illinois.

You were wrong.


Now, instead of admitting your error, you are trying to change the subject.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps, if you consider "Hispanics" to be a single group. If you realize the facts about Illinois are that there is a natural community of Mexicans that have been "cracked" several ways to deny them the opportunity to elect the candidate of their choice, the law is not on your side.

[BigSkyBob]

Actually, in Alabama, you can get 2 districts that are probably about the same percentages and well over 50% VAP at that. Black VRA districts are very different than Hispanic ones, that's well established.

Oh, it's "well established" in districts that consist of a mix of citizen Whites, and immigrant Hispanics, such as in rural Texas. It isn't "well established" in areas such as Chicago with multiracial districts, immigrant communities in the other races, and, White liberal residents whom believe that White males are morally suspect. "Depends on the particular district" seems to be a much better answer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They are precisely comparable in that partisans are trying to overturn elections and critical legislative intent, as well as their compliance with the "And retrogressing one district to create a very thin majority one isn't going to go over either." standard. Which I might add was proposed by the equally nonserious Veasey map in Texas with both black and hispanic districts in Dallas and the Valley with the swoop and swerve districts that cross between Dallas and Tarrant County.

They are different because of the different voting patterns of blacks and Hispanics. A 50% Hispanic VAP district is fairly likely not to nominate the preferred Hispanic candidate in the primary or (in some areas, not in Chicago obviously) not elect the preferred Hispanic candidate in the general. A 50% black VAP seat will almost always elect the preferred black candidate in the primary and general.

That is a truism if you ignore facts that are inconvenient to your case.  Earl Hillard won in a 65% Black district. He was defeated by a coalition of White Democrats and a minority of Black primary voters when the district was regressed to just over 50% Black. Cynthia McKinney and Billy McKinney were taken out by the same demographics. I'd be really interested in Butterfield's support among the races in his first primary. How many counterexamples must be stated before the rule isn't considered  "almost always?"

[BigSkyBob]

They are different because of the different voting patterns of blacks and Hispanics. A 50% Hispanic VAP district is fairly likely not to nominate the preferred Hispanic candidate in the primary or (in some areas, not in Chicago obviously) not elect the preferred Hispanic candidate in the general. A 50% black VAP seat will almost always elect the preferred black candidate in the primary and general.

In this case, with this incumbent, this blurb isn't likely to be true.

It isn't true given the dynamics of the Chicago machine either. As you noted, the incumbent would be Hispanic. A White liberal could try to take him out in the primary, but, the result could easily be that Hispanics could try to retaliate by targeting White liberals in Hispanic majority districts such as Speaker Madigan and Alderman Burke. Do you think that those incumbents would want that hornet's nest stirred?  It seems that such a challenge would not only face the demographics of the district, but, the entire weight of the Chicago political machine.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[BigSkyBob]

They are different because of the different voting patterns of blacks and Hispanics. A 50% Hispanic VAP district is fairly likely not to nominate the preferred Hispanic candidate in the primary or (in some areas, not in Chicago obviously) not elect the preferred Hispanic candidate in the general. A 50% black VAP seat will almost always elect the preferred black candidate in the primary and general.

In this case, with this incumbent, this blurb isn't likely to be true. More importantly, its not true at the legislative level where more districts with adequate Hispanic CVAP could have been created, but of course, were not.

The VRA does not consider incumbents. 

I think this is  rather fantastic claim. If some legislature, essentially, shuffled minority districts with [bare] minority districts requiring those incumbents to run in radically different districts [with the same bare minority majorities] I'm sure it would be slapped down in the courts as violating the VRA.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[BigSkyBob]

Actually, in Alabama, you can get 2 districts that are probably about the same percentages and well over 50% VAP at that. Black VRA districts are very different than Hispanic ones, that's well established.

Oh, it's "well established" in districts that consist of a mix of citizen Whites, and immigrant Hispanics, such as in rural Texas. It isn't "well established" in areas such as Chicago with multiracial districts, immigrant communities in the other races, and, White liberal residents whom believe that White males are morally suspect. "Depends on the particular district" seems to be a much better answer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They are precisely comparable in that partisans are trying to overturn elections and critical legislative intent, as well as their compliance with the "And retrogressing one district to create a very thin majority one isn't going to go over either." standard. Which I might add was proposed by the equally nonserious Veasey map in Texas with both black and hispanic districts in Dallas and the Valley with the swoop and swerve districts that cross between Dallas and Tarrant County.

They are different because of the different voting patterns of blacks and Hispanics. A 50% Hispanic VAP district is fairly likely not to nominate the preferred Hispanic candidate in the primary or (in some areas, not in Chicago obviously) not elect the preferred Hispanic candidate in the general. A 50% black VAP seat will almost always elect the preferred black candidate in the primary and general.

That is a truism if you ignore facts that are inconvenient to your case.  Earl Hillard won in a 65% Black district. He was defeated by a coalition of White Democrats and a minority of Black primary voters when the district was regressed to just over 50% Black. Cynthia McKinney and Billy McKinney were taken out by the same demographics. I'd be really interested in Butterfield's support among the races in his first primary. How many counterexamples must be stated before the rule isn't considered  "almost always?"

I was speaking generally. You will notice "almost always". Certainly occasionally incumbents lose even in VRA seats, Hilliard being an example. Of course, this can also happen in very packed black VRA seats--think Jefferson and Cao. The point is that it happens rarely enough to be confined to specific circumstances. Hilliard lost, but thereafter the elected candidate was always the preferred candidate of black voters. Clearly, then, the result was not from the district necessarily but from the circumstances surrounding the election.

You're just disagreeing for the sake of disagreement. I'm done.

1) If you meant "generally," then you should have said "generally," and not "almost always" which has a different semantic meaning.

2) Your speculations about my motives are false and self-serving. My motive is clear enough: a number of Democrat partisans, as well as posters here, have been very pious about the necessity of a VRA district electing "the preferred candidate of the targeted minority," and have claimed that this will happen in slight majority Black districts because the Democratic nominee will usually be Black [never mind PA-1, TN-9, not to mention the debate about Butterfield] and that Democratic nominee will usually win.

Well, if you are really going to be pious about electing "the preferred candiate" of the targeted minority, then  it not enough that the Democrat wins the general, but, rather, that the Democratic nominee is the prefered nominee of the targeted minority.  By that standard, slight Black majority districts simply are not efficient for the alleged VRA purpose, even if they are efficient for electing as many Democrats as possible. For a large number of Democrats, and posters here, partisan advantage comes before intellectual consistency.

[BigSkyBob]

Didn't Justice Kennedy in the Bonilla case have some dictum suggesting that if you hit 50% VAP for a minority, that is enough even if not enough to elect a candidate of the minority's choice?  Or am I confused and just having a senior moment?

He indicated that 50% VAP was insufficient in the Bonilla district, but he did suggest that 50% CVAP might have sufficed, and remarked that both sides considered citizenship to be relevant. However, Kennedy also notes that CVAP majorities do not alone define an opportunity district.

I would say that then he was wrong. If the minority votes for its preferred candidate at a rate greater than the rest vote for another candidate the minority candidate should win. That is, if the targeted minority feels more strongly than the rest of the district they will win. That is a completely fair standard.

[BigSkyBob]

Cohen is the preferred candidate of the Black community of Memphis. Anybody who doesn't understand that - white Republicans on the internet and a certain minority segment of the Memphis Black political caste - is quite the idiot.

As others have already noted here, Cohen won due to factionalism within the Memphis Black community [between the Ford and Herndon factions.] That Cohen has entrenched himself as the incumbent, and factionalism has persisted doesn't whitewash what happened.


However, I am willing to further test the premise. There is a proposal for a 60%+ Black district that stretches into Jackson county. Draw it, and let's see.

In any case, what happened in Memphis is further proof that 40% districts are not efficient for nominating Black nominees.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

An observation that is evident at a glance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Regardless of his merits, or demerits, as a Congressman, the reality is that a White man won in a district that was slight Black majority. So much for the contention that a 40% Black district ought to be considered safe for a Black nominee.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just evidence that the party nomination process ought to be challenged under the VRA.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is (once you've drawn districts based on voter registration rather than population). But it's not what the law says, and it's certainly not how the law is interpreted.
[/quote]

It is completely consistant with the text of the VRA.

[BigSkyBob]

After some research, Hilliard's 90s district was 70% Black (on total population, in 2000) and, like the post 2010 edition, included the Black parts of Montgomery.

Which only goes to prove my point. In a 70% Black district Hillard won, while he lost in 2002 when his district was regressed to slightly above 50%.

[BigSkyBob]

As far as Hilliard-Davis in Alabama was concerned, if it was 62% black (perhaps VAP 58%-59%?), and blacks registered 90% Dem and whites registered 50% Dem (prob. an overstatement), that would put (at least) 71% of primary voters in AL-7 being black. Even if whites voted overwhelmingly for Davis, that would put (again at least, likely much more) 30% of blacks for Davis. So in any case blacks did not vote as a bloc in the primary.

If, by the logic offered concerning the VRA, Hilliary won 70% of the Black vote, he was the preferred candidate of Blacks. He lost, so, the "preferred" candidate of Blacks lost. Either that is important, or it isn't. What is hypocritical is to say it is important in the general, but not in the primary.