Would you accept this AZ map as a compromise, or urge your team fight on?

[Sbane]

You make no sense. First of all the Tuscon district is not the 7th, its the 8th (as in my map). Now that we have decided on that, can you draw me a district that is about 60% Hispanic, and 54% VAP Hispanic without picking up those areas west of Phoenix? If you can't, I don't see how you even follow the VRA. Pretty sure that is pretty up there on the criteria. You drew a GOP map, just admit it. You will feel better.

An unbiased commissioner will do exactly what I have said. Unless you have a weird definition of the word "unbiased". Typical lawyers.

[Sbane]

Here's the Tucson cut by the way: clean as a whistle. Good luck playing with it, and keeping it pretty, and meeting the VRA.

What are the Hispanic standards for the VRA in AZ. Your CD 2 is at 50.1% if I'm reading it correctly, which would come under fire in many jurisdictions as too dilute. Just dropping La Paz from the existing CD 7 puts it above that. With some manipulation of the current CD-7/4 boundary and moving CD 4 into west Mesa, I can get two districts with HVAPs of 58-59%. Wouldn't a court find that a better fit for the VRA?

The VRA does not require more than 50.1%, and after the VRA is met, the balance of the law is driven by other criteria. There is no retrogression. To get AZ-02 to a higher Hispanic percentage requires it going into the Phoenix metro area.  I don't think that comports with the law's parameters very well, and I doubt a court would do that. I did the best I could to get the Hispanic percentage maximized in AZ-02 while avoiding Phoenix (or creating erosity in Tucson for the sole purpose of getting the Dem percentage up, which I don't think a court will do or should do).  To get AZ-02 a lot more Dem, requires dumping quite heavily Hispanic precincts in Tucson into it with AZ-02 making up the lost Hispanics in Phoenix. If the Dems demand that, as a Pubbie I would litigate.

Well anyway, I did round up a few Dem votes here. Not bad! I do think there is a real risk the Dems will get a worse deal if they reject this one. Yes I do. We shall see what happens. It should be interesting. 

This is even more ridiculous. You were the one going around picking up 70% white precincts and putting it in the Hispanic district for fun. And you accuse Dems of doing the opposite. You think my map does that? You really need to go back and look at the Tuscon area a bit more closely.

This is absolutely ludicrous what is going on here. Maybe the Dems should retaliate in California. You seem to think the California map isn't "fair" either, but you ain't seen nothing yet!

[Sbane]

This is basically all the Hispanic districts in Tuscon. If a second Hispanic district needs to be made, it needs to be done where the Hispanics actually live!

[timothyinMD]

I like mine better.  This commission bullsh**t it just ridiculous

[Torie]

Yes, and thus the AZ-02 CD goes to Yuma to comport with the VRA. It does not need to go to Phoenix as well as a wandering gypsy just to get its Dem percentage up. I know it sucks sbane. I feel your pain.  Get the AZ law rewritten.

[Torie]

You make no sense. First of all the Tuscon district is not the 7th, its the 8th (as in my map). Now that we have decided on that, can you draw me a district that is about 60% Hispanic, and 54% VAP Hispanic without picking up those areas west of Phoenix? If you can't, I don't see how you even follow the VRA. Pretty sure that is pretty up there on the criteria. You drew a GOP map, just admit it. You will feel better.

An unbiased commissioner will do exactly what I have said. Unless you have a weird definition of the word "unbiased". Typical lawyers.

The VRA does not require a more than 50% Hispanic CD for AZ-02, and once it is met, other legal criteria under the AZ law take over, with compactness and communities of interest being paramount. You cannot traduce those criteria either to up the Hispanic percentage, nor to up the Dem percentage - unless of course you are a lawless Dem hack.

[muon2]

What are the Hispanic standards for the VRA in AZ. Your CD 2 is at 50.1% if I'm reading it correctly, which would come under fire in many jurisdictions as too dilute. Just dropping La Paz from the existing CD 7 puts it above that. With some manipulation of the current CD-7/4 boundary and moving CD 4 into west Mesa, I can get two districts with HVAPs of 58-59%. Wouldn't a court find that a better fit for the VRA?

The VRA does not require more than 50.1%, and after the VRA is met, the balance of the law is driven by other criteria. There is no retrogression. To get AZ-02 to a higher Hispanic percentage requires it going into the Phoenix metro area.  I don't think that comports with the law's parameters very well, and I doubt a court would do that. I did the best I could to get the Hispanic percentage maximized in AZ-02 while avoiding Phoenix (or creating erosity in Tucson for the sole purpose of getting the Dem percentage up, which I don't think a court will do or should do).  To get AZ-02 a lot more Dem, requires dumping quite heavily Hispanic precincts in Tucson into it with AZ-02 making up the lost Hispanics in Phoenix. If the Dems demand that, as a Pubbie I would litigate.

Well anyway, I did round up a few Dem votes here. Not bad! I do think there is a real risk the Dems will get a worse deal if they reject this one. Yes I do. We shall see what happens. It should be interesting. 

The VRA requires that where conditions warrant there are districts where minority has the opportunity to elect the candidate of choice. It does not establish a 50%+1 standard, and the SCOTUS has refused to set that as a safe harbor. They did set 50%+1 within a compact area as a necessary condition to make a claim under the VRA. That threshold is met, but beyond that it doesn't describe the district.

What is beyond that, is that one goes to the totality of circumstances, and that includes an assessment of the ability of the Latinos to elect candidates of choice in a district. I am not as confident as you that a court would take such a hard cutoff and conclude that the district meets the VRA.

[Sbane]

Yes, and thus the AZ-02 CD goes to Yuma to comport with the VRA. It does not need to go to Phoenix as well as a wandering gypsy just to get its Dem percentage up. I know it sucks sbane. I feel your pain.  Get the AZ law rewritten.

It doesn't go to Phoenix to get it's Dem percentage up lol. It does that by taking in white liberals in Tuscon! Completely unacceptable, and it shouldn't be drawn by a commission. Tuscon should get it's own district. And it's funny how your district does pick up some areas west of Phoenix, but not more. You are just picking and choosing your debate points. You should completely get it out Maricopa then, and perhaps pick up the extra voters in Pinal. Our disagreement is over how many people it should be able to pick up in Phoenix? Look, you were trying to make a map favorable to the GOP, and you should admit that. If this map is fair, then so was Mathis's map. You know that, right?

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If 50% plus one within a compact area is a necessary condition to make a claim under the VRA, and such a CD already exists, then the claim fails it seems to me, absent retrogression. Sure, if one within a compact area can draw a CD with a higher percentage, and that is deemed necessary to elect an Hispanic, and there is no retrogression, that may well be a grey area, although Justice Kennedy seemed to embrace the 50% safe harbor in his opinion in the Bonilla CD case in Texas as I recall. But that is a moot point here, since within a compact area, AZ-02 cannot be made more Hispanic. 50.6% is it, per my revised map. There is nothing left.

[Torie]

Yes, and thus the AZ-02 CD goes to Yuma to comport with the VRA. It does not need to go to Phoenix as well as a wandering gypsy just to get its Dem percentage up. I know it sucks sbane. I feel your pain.  Get the AZ law rewritten.

It doesn't go to Phoenix to get it's Dem percentage up lol. It does that by taking in white liberals in Tuscon! Completely unacceptable, and it shouldn't be drawn by a commission. Tuscon should get it's own district.

AZ-02 goes to Phoenix to grab Hispanics, so that it can afford to hand over to AZ-01 in Tucson some liberal precincts with significant Hispanic minorities, without dropping below 50% Hispanic VAP. So yes, in effect it does go to Phoenix for purely Dem partisan reasons, thereby violating the AZ law in my opinion.

No, my AZ-02 does not go into the Phoenix metro area. It just wings it, and does the minimum necessary to meet the VRA, thereby minimizing its wandering around trashing the AZ law's paramount parameters after the VRA is met. Heck, absent the VRA, AZ-02 would not be going to either Yuma or the dusty sand towns south of the Phoenix metro area. In my view, the AZ law mandates that one do only the minimum necessary to meet the VRA in order to otherwise preserve its other loadstars. And no, I don't view this map as one drawn by a Pubbie to max the Pubs agenda. I view it as a map a non partisan court would draw. I know you disagree. Fine. That is why we litigate!  

[krazen1211]

The 7th here is 54.5% VAP, and it doesn't go into Phoenix or Glendale. It does take in the suburbs on the west side of Phoenix, but it has to for it to be a real Hispanic district. It also goes in and takes in the Hispanic areas of Pinal county and gets rid of the non Hispanic areas around Yuma. I didn't even catch how low the Hispanic % was in your 2nd Hispanic district. That map is certainly unacceptable.

And your Tucson cut is pretty hilarious as well. It includes some precincts that are like 70% white, but had another characteristic that would make them "appropriate" to put in the mustachioed man's district as you saw it.

You think a court will grab Hispanics west of Phoenix to put in the Tucson CD, so that it can pick up more white liberals in Tucson. I deliberately did not do that (and you have to do that to get the Dem percentage up in AZ-01), because I don't think a court will do that, nor an unbiased commissioner. So if that is your demand, we litigate. No deal!    Krazen's marginal CD looks good, and it does avoid splitting Glendale, and is certainly an option. Something has to be split however.

Below is a slightly revised map of Tucson, which drops the GOP percentage in AZ-01 by 20 basis points down to 52.7% McCain. I discovered Flowering Wells, which is close to 30% Hispanic, and marginal, and put it in AZ-02, which allowed adding 3 liberal white precincts to AZ-01 (the ones right on top of the University of Arizona of course).  The only liberal precincts still in AZ-02 which are under 25% Hispanic are in red and yellow, which the yellow being between 20%-25% Hispanic, and the red ones being between 15%-20% Hispanic. There are no other more Hispanic precincts  to put into AZ-02 which are within reach, so that AZ-01 can suck up more of the red precincts. None - at least none that I could find.

So the VRA creates a wall against the Dems getting what they want in Tucson, unless you cause AZ-02 to go into the Hispanic suburbs west of Phoenix. No deal! The Pubs should litigate against that tooth and nail in my opinion. I don't think it comports with the AZ law, cutting back AZ-02's footprint in Tucson and creating a Phoenix area salient for purely partisan reasons. There is nothing compact or community of interest related about that. It makes AZ-02 more like a wandering gypsy. I suspect the Pubbie friendly AZ Supremes will be listening to this line of reasoning very closely on this one.

Splitting vs nonsplitting Glendale doesn't change the Obama % of the Pastor district. Basically the areas of Glendale closest to Phoenix are ~55-60% Obama, as are similar precincts just to the east in Phoenix itself.

Currently the white liberal population of Tucson (ie the 70% white 80% Obama precincts) are split between 2 districts. They should likely be put into 1.

[Sbane]

Haha, I win.

[Sbane]

Yes, and thus the AZ-02 CD goes to Yuma to comport with the VRA. It does not need to go to Phoenix as well as a wandering gypsy just to get its Dem percentage up. I know it sucks sbane. I feel your pain.  Get the AZ law rewritten.

It doesn't go to Phoenix to get it's Dem percentage up lol. It does that by taking in white liberals in Tuscon! Completely unacceptable, and it shouldn't be drawn by a commission. Tuscon should get it's own district.

AZ-02 goes to Phoenix to grab Hispanics, so that it can afford to hand over to AZ-01 in Tucson some liberal precincts with significant Hispanic minorities, without dropping below 50% Hispanic VAP. So yes, in effect it does go to Phoenix for purely Dem partisan reasons, thereby violating the AZ law in my opinion.

No, my AZ-02 does not go into the Phoenix metro area. It just wings it, and does the minimum necessary to meet the VRA, thereby minimizing its wandering around trashing the AZ law's paramount parameters after the VRA is met. Heck, absent the VRA, AZ-02 would not be going to either Yuma or the dusty sand towns south of the Phoenix metro area. In my view, the AZ law mandates that one do only the minimum necessary to meet the VRA in order to otherwise preserve its other loadstars. And no, I don't view this map as one drawn by a Pubbie to max the Pubs agenda. I view it as a map a non partisan court would draw. I know you disagree. Fine. That is why we litigate! 

No, the way I look at it, you do as much as you can to pick up as many white liberal precincts in Tuscon so you can send the 8th (as i numbered it) into the desert and the mountains to pick up Republicans. And as my map above shows, you can just pick up all of the Casa Grande area, and give a map more favorable to Hispanics. Your map just tries to ensure a Republican will be elected in Tuscon, and that is not what the law is intended for.

BTW, the above map is 52.5% VAP Hispanic as it is quite hard to read. And the 8th remains about a 2 point Mccain district. Now I wonder what sort of silly excuses you will find to say why Casa Grande shouldn't be put in a district with Tuscon. You're a good lawyer. I would hire you.

[muon2]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If 50% plus one within a compact area is a necessary condition to make a claim under the VRA, and such a CD already exists, then the claim fails it seems to me, absent retrogression. Sure, if one within a compact area can draw a CD with a higher percentage, and that is deemed necessary to elect an Hispanic, and there is no retrogression, that may well be a grey area, although Justice Kennedy seemed to embrace the 50% safe harbor in his opinion in the Bonilla CD case in Texas as I recall. But that is a moot point here, since within a compact area, AZ-02 cannot be made more Hispanic. 50.6% is it, per my revised map. There is nothing left.

I would not assume that only one CD is required to be able to elect Latinos as candidates of choice. Latinos make up 25% of the VAP which is greater than 2/9. The onus would likely be on the state to show that if there were not two districts where a Latino could not be elected as a candidate of choice, it is because there was either no way to do it or there was a compelling state interest in not doing it.

Noncompactness for a VRA district is permitted if that is the only way to achieve it. That was the principle, accepted by the courts, that has guided the construction of IL-4 for the last two decades.

[Torie]

OK, here is the map that puts all the white liberals in AZ-01.  It is more erose for partisan reasons.  I am not sure a court would go there, but maybe, and given the McCain number, perhaps it is not a deal killer to avoid litigation.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If 50% plus one within a compact area is a necessary condition to make a claim under the VRA, and such a CD already exists, then the claim fails it seems to me, absent retrogression. Sure, if one within a compact area can draw a CD with a higher percentage, and that is deemed necessary to elect an Hispanic, and there is no retrogression, that may well be a grey area, although Justice Kennedy seemed to embrace the 50% safe harbor in his opinion in the Bonilla CD case in Texas as I recall. But that is a moot point here, since within a compact area, AZ-02 cannot be made more Hispanic. 50.6% is it, per my revised map. There is nothing left.

I would not assume that only one CD is required to be able to elect Latinos as candidates of choice. Latinos make up 25% of the VAP which is greater than 2/9. The onus would likely be on the state to show that if there were not two districts where a Latino could not be elected as a candidate of choice, it is because there was either no way to do it or there was a compelling state interest in not doing it.

Noncompactness for a VRA district is permitted if that is the only way to achieve it. That was the principle, accepted by the courts, that has guided the construction of IL-4 for the last two decades.

Did SCOTUS ever embrace that formula, where you look at statewide percentages, and to meet them, communities of interest and compactness and so forth go out the window even after the 50% threshold is met? Is it clear that 50.6% is not enough for AZ-02 even though it now elects an Hispanic with a lower Hispanic percentage?

[krazen1211]

Here's my newest shot.




AZ-4 and AZ-7 are 55+% VAP Hispanic.
AZ-8 is 49.7% McCain, 49.2% Obama.
AZ-5 is 51.4% McCain, 47.3% Obama.
AZ-1 is 54.7% McCain. 44.0% Obama.

Both AZ-1 and AZ-5 are comparable to current districts which have been competitive. AZ-8 probably isn't. New district AZ-9 is safe GOP obviously, as are 2, 3, 6.

The Democrats have an outside shot at 5 districts while the GOP has an outside shot at 7.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Democrats can compete in at least 4 or 5 districts and win in at least 3. It's the best we're getting in what is a Republican state, so we may as well accept it.

[muon2]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If 50% plus one within a compact area is a necessary condition to make a claim under the VRA, and such a CD already exists, then the claim fails it seems to me, absent retrogression. Sure, if one within a compact area can draw a CD with a higher percentage, and that is deemed necessary to elect an Hispanic, and there is no retrogression, that may well be a grey area, although Justice Kennedy seemed to embrace the 50% safe harbor in his opinion in the Bonilla CD case in Texas as I recall. But that is a moot point here, since within a compact area, AZ-02 cannot be made more Hispanic. 50.6% is it, per my revised map. There is nothing left.

I would not assume that only one CD is required to be able to elect Latinos as candidates of choice. Latinos make up 25% of the VAP which is greater than 2/9. The onus would likely be on the state to show that if there were not two districts where a Latino could not be elected as a candidate of choice, it is because there was either no way to do it or there was a compelling state interest in not doing it.

Noncompactness for a VRA district is permitted if that is the only way to achieve it. That was the principle, accepted by the courts, that has guided the construction of IL-4 for the last two decades.

Did SCOTUS ever embrace that formula, where you look at statewide percentages, and to meet them, communities of interest and compactness and so forth go out the window even after the 50% threshold is met? Is it clear that 50.6% is not enough for AZ-02 even though it now elects an Hispanic with a lower Hispanic percentage?

In De Grandy SCOTUS said that if there is not a rough proportionality of districts statewide compared to the fraction of the VAP, then a section 2 claim against the state can go forward. Those districts must be judged from the totality of the circumstances as to whether they may elect candidates of choice.

In LULAC v. Perry SCOTUS said that it isn't the candidate's surname that indicates whether a district performs for the minority. Instead, one must look at the voting behavior of both the minority and the white majority as to their preferences, and then determine whether the district is likely to elect the preferred candidate of the minority.

[Torie]

I guess I had better read De Grandy. It is your understanding muon2 that De Grandy throws communities of interest and compactness out the window, or is it a mush and unclear?  As to the surname bit, the incumbent down there was the choice of Hispanics. So Lulac is met it seems to me. Am I missing something?

[muon2]

I guess I had better read Lulac.  As to the surname bit, the incumbent down there was the choice of Hispanics. So De Grandy is met it seems to me. Am I missing something?

Unfortunately these cases usually come down to statistical analysis of precinct voting patterns on down ballot races. Partisan mapmakers often err on the side of the cautious to keep the court out. O'Connor would have liked to bar overtly partisan maps, but found them to be non-justiciable. Some observers feel that Kennedy feels the same way, but is willing to use other means to attack partisan maps, for instance in the use of the VRA in LULAC.

[minionofmidas]

And your Tucson cut is pretty hilarious as well. It includes some precincts that are like 70% white, but had another characteristic that would make them "appropriate" to put in the mustachioed man's district as you saw it.

The really fun part is that mustachio man lvery much wants at least some of them in there.

[Torie]

And your Tucson cut is pretty hilarious as well. It includes some precincts that are like 70% white, but had another characteristic that would make them "appropriate" to put in the mustachioed man's district as you saw it.

The really fun part is that mustachio man lvery much wants at least some of them in there.

Quite. Now that you mention it, in my little Dem gerry above to give AZ-01 all of those white liberals, AZ-02 ends up like , when it currently is like .  The mustachio man in his new CD would have been hung on with about a 1% margin in 2010

 .  

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Here's my newest shot.




AZ-4 and AZ-7 are 55+% VAP Hispanic.
AZ-8 is 49.7% McCain, 49.2% Obama.
AZ-5 is 51.4% McCain, 47.3% Obama.
AZ-1 is 54.7% McCain. 44.0% Obama.

Both AZ-1 and AZ-5 are comparable to current districts which have been competitive. AZ-8 probably isn't. New district AZ-9 is safe GOP obviously, as are 2, 3, 6.

The Democrats have an outside shot at 5 districts while the GOP has an outside shot at 7.

I'd consider accepting this as a compromise, unless I was from Flagstaff.

[minionofmidas]

Giffords' as the most R of the three marginals... 51.2% McCain. 1st is down to 50.1%. That's pretty much the ideal version for Democrats. And makes sense in Pinal and Cochise. (It's 48% White, 24% Native, 24% Hispanic... majority White VAP though.) 8th is 50.0% McCain. 3rd is 59% Obama, 56% Hispanic VAP. 7th is 65% Obama. At 56.5% McCain, the 6th is less Republican than the other three safe seats - it still includes those East Central White Phoenix Dems that Torie wants to give to Pastor and the Commission wants to give to the "marginal" Maricopa district.