US House Redistricting: North Carolina

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The Republican dominance of redistricting is just amazing this year.

Democrats have acted like idiots during this redistricting cycle; quite a contrast to the aggressive Republicans...its so frustrating for me.

Come, come now. There's both IL and MD for the Ds.

Even in Maryland they could've passed a solid 8-0 map and didn't. 

[Sbane]

Anyone know the partisan numbers for the new districts? Seems like Democrats are down to 3 seats and maybe Shuler can hold on to his?

[krazen1211]

They were kind enough to provide the entire dataset here.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gis/randr07/District_Plans/PlanPage_DB_2011.asp?Plan=Rucho-Lewis_Congress_3&Body=Congress



Of the 10 districts, Aaron Burr's weakest performance I believe was 59-39. McCain got at least 55% in each of the 10 districts in 2008, and George W. Bush got at least 60% in 2004.

[DrScholl]

It's impressive that Aaron Burr got elected to anything after he shot Alexander Hamilton.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Oops!

http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/redistricting_glitch_affects_nearly_500000_voters

The "glitch" in the GOP-drawn redistricting maps means 475,867 voters were not assigned to a state House, Senate or congressional district, legislative staff revealed Monday, as lawmakers reconvened for a special session to pass legislation to fix the problem.
Upon questioning from Democrats, legislative staff acknowledged that the problem would not have existed if Republicans didn't split precincts when drawing the maps. Republicans didn't dispute the issue, pivoting to label the issue as a computer glitch.

The number of voters affected is likely less than legislative staff suggested because some of the missing areas overlap, but the total number of voters that were double counted couldn't be quantified.

As drawn now, the maps are unconstitutional because the unassigned areas left incongruous districts. Legislation expected to hit the House and Senate floors at 3 p.m. will fix the problem, Republican lawmakers said. From there, the "curative legislation" will be sent to the U.S. Department of Justice, which gave an initial nod to the maps last week.
An official at the State Board of Elections discovered the problem in late October when trying to assign voters to Wake County judicial districts.

House Democratic leader Joe Hackney argues that the legislature can't just fix the redistricting legislation like an ordinary state law. Because the constitution allows redistricting once a decade after the new census numbers, a judge would need to declare the maps unconstitutional before Republicans can fix the holes.

[minionofmidas]

Wait... they precleared that? Lol.

[Torie]

A court will let the legislature fix this technical error. You can bank on it. Man this redistricting game is  like a football game with no penalties for unnecessary roughness.  Half the players end up in the hospital.

[minionofmidas]

A court will let the legislature fix this technical error. You can bank on it.

Oh, I do suppose so. It's just, you know, funny. I mean, wtf do they have preclearance for?

[krazen1211]

A court will let the legislature fix this technical error. You can bank on it.

Oh, I do suppose so. It's just, you know, funny. I mean, wtf do they have preclearance for?

Apparently, Texas.


Joe Hackney is making the hail mary argument.

[Miles]

A court will let the legislature fix this technical error. You can bank on it.

Oh, I do suppose so. It's just, you know, funny. I mean, wtf do they have preclearance for?

Apparently, Texas.


Joe Hackney is making the hail mary argument.

Holder has really pissed me off by punting on NC, SC and LA.

We better end up with a court-drawn Texas, or something, for the sheer lack of effort tthe DOJ has invested in the other states.

[Mr.Phips]

A court will let the legislature fix this technical error. You can bank on it.

Oh, I do suppose so. It's just, you know, funny. I mean, wtf do they have preclearance for?

Apparently, Texas.


Joe Hackney is making the hail mary argument.

Holder has really pissed me off by punting on NC, SC and LA.

We better end up with a court-drawn Texas, or something, for the sheer lack of effort tthe DOJ has invested in the other states.

Holder should have pushed for the creation of another black majority district in AL, SC, and LA.  It could easily be done. 

[Miles]

A court will let the legislature fix this technical error. You can bank on it.

Oh, I do suppose so. It's just, you know, funny. I mean, wtf do they have preclearance for?

Apparently, Texas.


Joe Hackney is making the hail mary argument.

Holder has really pissed me off by punting on NC, SC and LA.

We better end up with a court-drawn Texas, or something, for the sheer lack of effort tthe DOJ has invested in the other states.

Holder should have pushed for the creation of another black majority district in AL, SC, and LA.  It could easily be done. 

No! Quite the contrary. The 1st is good enough. The Republicans already tried to pack as many blacks into the 12th as they could without violating the Shaw ruling.

[Mr.Phips]

A court will let the legislature fix this technical error. You can bank on it.

Oh, I do suppose so. It's just, you know, funny. I mean, wtf do they have preclearance for?

Apparently, Texas.


Joe Hackney is making the hail mary argument.

Holder has really pissed me off by punting on NC, SC and LA.

We better end up with a court-drawn Texas, or something, for the sheer lack of effort tthe DOJ has invested in the other states.

Holder should have pushed for the creation of another black majority district in AL, SC, and LA.  It could easily be done. 

No! Quite the contrary. The 1st is good enough. The Republicans already tried to pack as many blacks into the 12th as they could without violating the Shaw ruling.

No, what the DOJ should be doing is requiring the creation of as many black majority districts as possible in these VRA states.  By having a bunch of 50%-55% black districts, it makes it much more difficult for Republicans to vote-sink. 

[Miles]

A court will let the legislature fix this technical error. You can bank on it.

Oh, I do suppose so. It's just, you know, funny. I mean, wtf do they have preclearance for?

Apparently, Texas.


Joe Hackney is making the hail mary argument.

Holder has really pissed me off by punting on NC, SC and LA.

We better end up with a court-drawn Texas, or something, for the sheer lack of effort tthe DOJ has invested in the other states.

Holder should have pushed for the creation of another black majority district in AL, SC, and LA.  It could easily be done.  

No! Quite the contrary. The 1st is good enough. The Republicans already tried to pack as many blacks into the 12th as they could without violating the Shaw ruling.

No, what the DOJ should be doing is requiring the creation of as many black majority districts as possible in these VRA states.  By having a bunch of 50%-55% black districts, it makes it much more difficult for Republicans to vote-sink.  

NC doesn't have statewide VRA coverage under Section V like LA, AL or SC.

For instance, making Mel Watt's district greater than 50% black VAP would be illegal.

[jimrtex]

A court will let the legislature fix this technical error. You can bank on it.

Oh, I do suppose so. It's just, you know, funny. I mean, wtf do they have preclearance for?

Apparently, Texas.


Joe Hackney is making the hail mary argument.

Holder has really pissed me off by punting on NC, SC and LA.

We better end up with a court-drawn Texas, or something, for the sheer lack of effort tthe DOJ has invested in the other states.

Holder should have pushed for the creation of another black majority district in AL, SC, and LA.  It could easily be done.  

No! Quite the contrary. The 1st is good enough. The Republicans already tried to pack as many blacks into the 12th as they could without violating the Shaw ruling.

No, what the DOJ should be doing is requiring the creation of as many black majority districts as possible in these VRA states.  By having a bunch of 50%-55% black districts, it makes it much more difficult for Republicans to vote-sink.  

NC doesn't have statewide VRA coverage under Section V like LA, AL or SC.

For instance, making Mel Watt's district greater than 50% black VAP would be illegal.

It is covered by Section 2.

[BigSkyBob]

A court will let the legislature fix this technical error. You can bank on it.

Oh, I do suppose so. It's just, you know, funny. I mean, wtf do they have preclearance for?

Apparently, Texas.


Joe Hackney is making the hail mary argument.

Holder has really pissed me off by punting on NC, SC and LA.

We better end up with a court-drawn Texas, or something, for the sheer lack of effort tthe DOJ has invested in the other states.

Holder should have pushed for the creation of another black majority district in AL, SC, and LA.  It could easily be done.  

No! Quite the contrary. The 1st is good enough. The Republicans already tried to pack as many blacks into the 12th as they could without violating the Shaw ruling.

No, what the DOJ should be doing is requiring the creation of as many black majority districts as possible in these VRA states.  By having a bunch of 50%-55% black districts, it makes it much more difficult for Republicans to vote-sink.  

NC doesn't have statewide VRA coverage under Section V like LA, AL or SC.

For instance, making Mel Watt's district greater than 50% black VAP would be illegal.

No. It would be A-OK if it was sufficiently compact.

[Miles]

A court will let the legislature fix this technical error. You can bank on it.

Oh, I do suppose so. It's just, you know, funny. I mean, wtf do they have preclearance for?

Apparently, Texas.


Joe Hackney is making the hail mary argument.

Holder has really pissed me off by punting on NC, SC and LA.

We better end up with a court-drawn Texas, or something, for the sheer lack of effort tthe DOJ has invested in the other states.

Holder should have pushed for the creation of another black majority district in AL, SC, and LA.  It could easily be done.  

No! Quite the contrary. The 1st is good enough. The Republicans already tried to pack as many blacks into the 12th as they could without violating the Shaw ruling.

No, what the DOJ should be doing is requiring the creation of as many black majority districts as possible in these VRA states.  By having a bunch of 50%-55% black districts, it makes it much more difficult for Republicans to vote-sink.  

NC doesn't have statewide VRA coverage under Section V like LA, AL or SC.

For instance, making Mel Watt's district greater than 50% black VAP would be illegal.

No. It would be A-OK if it was sufficiently compact.

Then, would you care to draw me a "sufficiently compact" NC-12 with >50% black VAP?

Put up or shut up.

[BigSkyBob]

A court will let the legislature fix this technical error. You can bank on it.

Oh, I do suppose so. It's just, you know, funny. I mean, wtf do they have preclearance for?

Apparently, Texas.


Joe Hackney is making the hail mary argument.

Holder has really pissed me off by punting on NC, SC and LA.

We better end up with a court-drawn Texas, or something, for the sheer lack of effort tthe DOJ has invested in the other states.

Holder should have pushed for the creation of another black majority district in AL, SC, and LA.  It could easily be done.  

No! Quite the contrary. The 1st is good enough. The Republicans already tried to pack as many blacks into the 12th as they could without violating the Shaw ruling.

No, what the DOJ should be doing is requiring the creation of as many black majority districts as possible in these VRA states.  By having a bunch of 50%-55% black districts, it makes it much more difficult for Republicans to vote-sink.  

NC doesn't have statewide VRA coverage under Section V like LA, AL or SC.

For instance, making Mel Watt's district greater than 50% black VAP would be illegal.

No. It would be A-OK if it was sufficiently compact.

Then, would you care to draw me a "sufficiently compact" NC-12 with >50% black VAP?

Put up or shut up.

1) That simply isn't your claim. You claimed that it would be illegal to create a 50% BVAP 12th district. That simply isn't the law. All we know is that the old 12th was struck down. It was about 60% BVAP and not compact.
2) The existing 12th is 49% Black. It would seem trivially easy to boost that percentage by 1% without changing its current shape significantly.  That would not violate the VRA.  The GOP choice to not change the BVAP so as to have the freedom to extend towards Greensboro without creating any confusion with the previous incarnation of the 12th that was struck down, or so some have speculated.

[Miles]

1) That simply isn't your claim. You claimed that it would be illegal to create a 50% BVAP 12th district. That simply isn't the law. All we know is that the old 12th was struck down. It was about 60% BVAP and not compact.
2) The existing 12th is 49% Black. It would seem trivially easy to boost that percentage by 1% without changing its current shape significantly.  That would not violate the VRA.  The GOP choice to not change the BVAP so as to have the freedom to extend towards Greensboro without creating any confusion with the previous incarnation of the 12th that was struck down, or so some have speculated.

1)...and it would likely be struck down again.

2) Which 12th are we talking about, BS? The 12th on Rucho-Lewis 3 is 49.6% black VAP; Rucho could have easily made it over 50% with precinct-splitting.  The existing 12th is only like 44%.

[BigSkyBob]

1) That simply isn't your claim. You claimed that it would be illegal to create a 50% BVAP 12th district. That simply isn't the law. All we know is that the old 12th was struck down. It was about 60% BVAP and not compact.
2) The existing 12th is 49% Black. It would seem trivially easy to boost that percentage by 1% without changing its current shape significantly.  That would not violate the VRA.  The GOP choice to not change the BVAP so as to have the freedom to extend towards Greensboro without creating any confusion with the previous incarnation of the 12th that was struck down, or so some have speculated.

1)...and it would likely be struck down again.

2) Which 12th are we talking about, BS? The 12th on Rucho-Lewis 3 is 49.6% black VAP; Rucho could have easily made it over 50% with precinct-splitting.  The existing 12th is only like 44%.

Sorry, the current district cracked the previous iteration that was just under 50% BVAP. Adhering to the previously upheld district it probably wouldn't be too difficult to draw a 50% BVAP district that could be upheld. The GOP chose not to test that premise to avoid litigation altogether [and, extend into both Winston-Salem and Greensboro without replicating a previous district].

[Miles]

1) That simply isn't your claim. You claimed that it would be illegal to create a 50% BVAP 12th district. That simply isn't the law. All we know is that the old 12th was struck down. It was about 60% BVAP and not compact.
2) The existing 12th is 49% Black. It would seem trivially easy to boost that percentage by 1% without changing its current shape significantly.  That would not violate the VRA.  The GOP choice to not change the BVAP so as to have the freedom to extend towards Greensboro without creating any confusion with the previous incarnation of the 12th that was struck down, or so some have speculated.

1)...and it would likely be struck down again.

2) Which 12th are we talking about, BS? The 12th on Rucho-Lewis 3 is 49.6% black VAP; Rucho could have easily made it over 50% with precinct-splitting.  The existing 12th is only like 44%.

Sorry, the current district cracked the previous iteration that was just under 50% BVAP. Adhering to the previously upheld district it probably wouldn't be too difficult to draw a 50% BVAP district that could be upheld. The GOP chose not to test that premise to avoid litigation altogether [and, extend into both Winston-Salem and Greensboro without replicating a previous district].

Okay. 'Lets call it a night and end on a cordial note

[minionofmidas]

While possible to draw, I doubt that such a district in either Louisiana or Alabama could have been upheld.
South Carolina is a different matter, actually. Though they would have to be quite tentaclish in which rural precincts to include or exclude, the two Black districts to draw there would have been far more logically composed than the one they actually drew.
Of course, Dems were okay with it because the two seats might have been lost in a 2010clone style wave...

[Miles]

In case anyone was wondering, here's how the NC maps discriminate against women.

[BigSkyBob]

In case anyone was wondering, here's how the NC maps discriminate against women.

The map "discriminates" against Democrats, as the Illinois and Arizona maps "discriminates" against Republicans. Since the GOP added minority seats in there, the Democrats couldn't play the race card. Predictably enough, they are playing the "sexism" card.

[krazen1211]

In case anyone was wondering, here's how the NC maps discriminate against women.

Lol! That surely explains the safe seats for Foxx, Myrick, and Ellmers, right? Incidentally they went after 4 males.