NC: CDs 1 & 12 struck down

[Nyvin]

With the Triad booming and the northeast facing population decline, I find it most likely that they'll just insert NC-1 more into Wake and Durham to make it more of a Dem sink.    This is especially true now that "race isn't a factor".     

It's probably possible to make a 11-3 map, although some of the districts would be kinda risky.

[Sol]

With the Triad booming and the northeast facing population decline, I find it most likely that they'll just insert NC-1 more into Wake and Durham to make it more of a Dem sink.    This is especially true now that "race isn't a factor".     

It's probably possible to make a 11-3 map, although some of the districts would be kinda risky.

The triad is not exactly booming, at least not relative to Charlotte or the Triangle.

[nclib]

And we have a map:

Wow. Not what I would have thought. NC-13 is totally different. Did someone say the legislature doesn't like George Holding? How come?

Most of the Republican districts move a bit Democratic, but probably not enough to matter. NC-13 is before and after the least GOP Republican district.

Wonder what Holding and Adams will do.

[/]

Can't Adams still technically run in her old district?

[Nyvin]

With the Triad booming and the northeast facing population decline, I find it most likely that they'll just insert NC-1 more into Wake and Durham to make it more of a Dem sink.    This is especially true now that "race isn't a factor".     

It's probably possible to make a 11-3 map, although some of the districts would be kinda risky.

The triad is not exactly booming, at least not relative to Charlotte or the Triangle.

Oh I see I have my terms mixed up....

[Timothy87]

I love this map. It's clean and a lot like my design for NC. A Mecklenburg seat is long overdue and Democrats can whine all they want but karma's a b*tch. They sliced and diced the state to suit them in 2001.

I'd have corrected the Buncombe county split though. I don't like it.

Lastly, incumbents should not be a factor in drawing district lines. I don't give a damn that Holding and Adams aren't in their district anymore. Districts don't belong to any Congressmen

[Nyvin]

I love this map. It's clean and a lot like my design for NC. A Mecklenburg seat is long overdue and Democrats can whine all they want but karma's a b*tch. They sliced and diced the state to suit them in 2001.

I'd have corrected the Buncombe county split though. I don't like it.

Lastly, incumbents should not be a factor in drawing district lines. I don't give a damn that Holding and Adams aren't in their district anymore. Districts don't belong to any Congressmen

I agree with the Mecklenburg seat (I had it in my map).   Greensboro and Winston-Salem should have their own district as well though,  same with Durham and Chapel Hill (with parts of Raleigh).    I would think any good government map would draw those urban seats without much trouble.   It's just partisan games not to make them.

I knew going into this NC-10 and NC-11 would be the only districts left mostly unchanged.

[jimrtex]

Wonder what Holding and Adams will do.

HB 2 is the bill that sets the schedule for the special primary. It passed the House on 2nd&3rd reading on Thursday evening. I suspect it was pretty much a party line vote, and with many representatives missing.

HB 2 is contingent on the SCOTUS not staying the district court's order before March 15. That is, the March 15 primary will continue. If the SCOTUS stays, then HB 2 is moot. If the SCOTUS does not stay, then the March 15 results for congressional elections will be discarded (they will not be certified and ballots will not be public record).

The congressional primary will be June 7, and there will be no 2nd primary (runoff). I assume that June 7 is the scheduled day for a 2nd runoff. So there won't be another election day. It is likely that the elections on June 7 will be more widespread than they would have been,

Presidential electors will be chosen based on the current congressional districts (NC requires an elector from each CD, and 2 statewide). Since the presidential primary will go on, the current congressional districts will be used for delegate selection.

The filing deadline will be March 16 to 25, and current filers will get a refund. If a candidate is nominated on both March 15 (for some office other than congress) and June 7 for Congress, they get to choose which office they will appear on the general election ballot. This may give incumbent legislators a free shot at a run for Congress.

A proposed amendment would have move the presidential primary to June 21. It was easily defeated.

BTW, none of the current candidates for NC-12 are from Charlotte. A more interesting announcement for one of them was on a GoFundMe site :

"I am an RF engineer but the media has forced me in the last month to run for office to politically shut Mr Donald Trump's mouth..he speaks some truth but I have a load of truth coming right back at him and am pretty much against most of the ideals he is for. I will use my 1st amendment right to blast his prejudice of my hispanic people, musIims, and other minorities. I am affiliated with the Democratic party. I started from the bottom and any money I have made is honest money but it costs about 1 million to run a campaign. I already paid 1,750 to register."

[jimrtex]

The recent filings in the federal case were kind of interesting.

The North Carolina Supreme Court had recently upheld the congressional and legislative districts (this was the second time, as the SCOTUS had ordered them to review the case after the Alabama decision). The defendants in the federal case were seeking to depose the plaintiffs in the federal case.

They are pursuing a claim that the federal case is the same as the state case, and barred by res judicata. The plaintiff lawyers are claiming that the plaintiff voters are different between the two cases, and that the lawyers are acting under the direction of their clients. There appears to be some evidence that at least some of the plaintiffs in the federal case were recruited by plaintiffs (or their lawyers) in the state case, and that they had not seen the federal complaint until after it had been filed.

[Miles]

The SCOTUS refused to stay the case. These are the new maps.

[jimrtex]

The SCOTUS refused to stay the case. These are the new maps.

Will the plaintiffs challenge the new maps?

Adams says that she still intends to run in CD-12. Any chance that Watt would run? Otherwise, possible candidates would be three black former mayors of Charlotte (Gantt - may be too old), Foxx, and Cannon (too convicted). Any black legislators?

[Miles]

^ State Sen. Malcolm Graham gave up his Senate seat to run for NC-12 in 2014. He carried the Mecklenburg part of the district pretty easily.

[/]

^ State Sen. Malcolm Graham gave up his Senate seat to run for NC-12 in 2014. He carried the Mecklenburg part of the district pretty easily.

Oh, wow. I would have assumed that she's popular throughout the district. I guess it depends then upon whether she gets any primary challengers from the area. Do you have any information on the candidate filing deadline?

[politicallefty]

The SCOTUS refused to stay the case. These are the new maps.

Not surprising, as I'm quite sure the Rule of Four only applies to a writ of cert (with a stay requiring a majority). I think that new map will remain, at least under the current Court (and certainly at least for this year's election). If the plaintiffs really wanted to be bold, they could argue at the Fourth Circuit for a justiciable standard to restrict partisan redistricting. If a fifth liberal justice is eventually confirmed to replace Justice Scalia, I do expect the Supreme Court to take up partisan redistricting and rule for standards restricting the practice.

[Nyvin]

The SCOTUS refused to stay the case. These are the new maps.

Not surprising, as I'm quite sure the Rule of Four only applies to a writ of cert (with a stay requiring a majority). I think that new map will remain, at least under the current Court (and certainly at least for this year's election). If the plaintiffs really wanted to be bold, they could argue at the Fourth Circuit for a justiciable standard to restrict partisan redistricting. If a fifth liberal justice is eventually confirmed to replace Justice Scalia, I do expect the Supreme Court to take up partisan redistricting and rule for standards restricting the practice.

Yep,   we're witnessing a  national judicial shift on partisan redistricting.    The days of gerrymandering are numbered.

[Miles]

Do you have any information on the candidate filing deadline?

According to Politics1, the Congressional filing deadline is March 25.

[nclib]

Holding (NC-13) will challenge Ellmers in (NC-2).

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/under-the-dome/article61330577.html

[jimrtex]

The SCOTUS refused to stay the case. These are the new maps.

Not surprising, as I'm quite sure the Rule of Four only applies to a writ of cert (with a stay requiring a majority). I think that new map will remain, at least under the current Court (and certainly at least for this year's election). If the plaintiffs really wanted to be bold, they could argue at the Fourth Circuit for a justiciable standard to restrict partisan redistricting. If a fifth liberal justice is eventually confirmed to replace Justice Scalia, I do expect the Supreme Court to take up partisan redistricting and rule for standards restricting the practice.

Congressional and legislative redistricting cases do not go to the circuit courts, they go directly to the SCOTUS. If this were not true, North Carolina would have sought the stay from the 4th Circuit.

The case goes back to the district court.

The plaintiffs can argue that the new plan does not remedy their claim that race predominated. When you have districts with 45% BVAP and 38% BVAP, such a claim is laughable. You can't add new claims after a case has already been decided.

Are the plaintiffs now going to argue that the dissent was right about NC-12?

If the court had only ruled against NC-1, the legislature would have just chopped some fingers off to reduce the BVAP some, and likely limited the changes to NC-1 and NC-3.

[politicallefty]

The SCOTUS refused to stay the case. These are the new maps.

Not surprising, as I'm quite sure the Rule of Four only applies to a writ of cert (with a stay requiring a majority). I think that new map will remain, at least under the current Court (and certainly at least for this year's election). If the plaintiffs really wanted to be bold, they could argue at the Fourth Circuit for a justiciable standard to restrict partisan redistricting. If a fifth liberal justice is eventually confirmed to replace Justice Scalia, I do expect the Supreme Court to take up partisan redistricting and rule for standards restricting the practice.

Congressional and legislative redistricting cases do not go to the circuit courts, they go directly to the SCOTUS. If this were not true, North Carolina would have sought the stay from the 4th Circuit.

The case goes back to the district court.

The plaintiffs can argue that the new plan does not remedy their claim that race predominated. When you have districts with 45% BVAP and 38% BVAP, such a claim is laughable. You can't add new claims after a case has already been decided.

Are the plaintiffs now going to argue that the dissent was right about NC-12?

If the court had only ruled against NC-1, the legislature would have just chopped some fingers off to reduce the BVAP some, and likely limited the changes to NC-1 and NC-3.

I've never heard that myself. Any lawsuit with regards to the Constitution or federal law start at the district courts, not SCOTUS. The Fourth Circuit is the intermediary between those two. I don't think any district court will have much relevance. I mention the Fourth Circuit as a whole in light of its strong liberal tilt and the current eight justice SCOTUS. If the Fourth Circuit were to rule on account of partisan influence, the result will stand in light of the new balance. If a liberal majority takes hold, I would expect SCOTUS itself to set any new standards. I think that unless a Republican assumes the Presidency next year, partisan redistricting is quite likely nearing its demise (and not a moment too soon).

[Virginiá]

I've never heard that myself. Any lawsuit with regards to the Constitution or federal law start at the district courts, not SCOTUS. The Fourth Circuit is the intermediary between those two. I don't think any district court will have much relevance. I mention the Fourth Circuit as a whole in light of its strong liberal tilt and the current eight justice SCOTUS. If the Fourth Circuit were to rule on account of partisan influence, the result will stand in light of the new balance. If a liberal majority takes hold, I would expect SCOTUS itself to set any new standards. I think that unless a Republican assumes the Presidency next year, partisan redistricting is quite likely nearing its demise (and not a moment too soon).

Well as I understand it, the case is initially heard by a federal district court judge to see if there is any merit to the claim, and is referred to a 3 judge panel in that district to be resolved, and any appeals immediately go to the SCOTUS. I imagine this was done so issues were resolved both quickly and fairly.

Also, in regards to gerrymandering's future - The Maryland case I think is being viewed as a potential case to bring about a reliable test (I believe it proposes using popular vote v seats won as a rule) - This might be sufficient for a while at least. However.. I think part of the problem right now is not even a reliable test, but rather courts proceeding far too slowly and/or tolerating nonsense by the defendants. For instance, why is taking the Texas case so long that a new map won't be in place until at least 2018? There is no reasonable justification for that. Either the courts are screwing up unintentionally or intentionally, or the process is too cumbersome, but it doesn't take that many years to resolve a rigged map. Why did the federal court in Virginia even bother punting the issue back to the legislature to draw new maps? The court should always redraw the map(s) themselves if found to be gerrymandered - You can't trust the legislature to do this.

So I think this is going to be a continuing issue that will be unaffected by any potential tests they come up with. The courts need a mandate to resolve cases within 1 - 1.5 years (and to rush it, if possible, if an election year is coming up) and to not give the legislature a chance to fix a map they rigged in the first place - It wastes a lot of time for a bad result that can easily be foreseen.

[jimrtex]

The SCOTUS refused to stay the case. These are the new maps.

Not surprising, as I'm quite sure the Rule of Four only applies to a writ of cert (with a stay requiring a majority). I think that new map will remain, at least under the current Court (and certainly at least for this year's election). If the plaintiffs really wanted to be bold, they could argue at the Fourth Circuit for a justiciable standard to restrict partisan redistricting. If a fifth liberal justice is eventually confirmed to replace Justice Scalia, I do expect the Supreme Court to take up partisan redistricting and rule for standards restricting the practice.

Congressional and legislative redistricting cases do not go to the circuit courts, they go directly to the SCOTUS. If this were not true, North Carolina would have sought the stay from the 4th Circuit.

The case goes back to the district court.

The plaintiffs can argue that the new plan does not remedy their claim that race predominated. When you have districts with 45% BVAP and 38% BVAP, such a claim is laughable. You can't add new claims after a case has already been decided.

Are the plaintiffs now going to argue that the dissent was right about NC-12?

If the court had only ruled against NC-1, the legislature would have just chopped some fingers off to reduce the BVAP some, and likely limited the changes to NC-1 and NC-3.

I've never heard that myself. Any lawsuit with regards to the Constitution or federal law start at the district courts, not SCOTUS. The Fourth Circuit is the intermediary between those two. I don't think any district court will have much relevance. I mention the Fourth Circuit as a whole in light of its strong liberal tilt and the current eight justice SCOTUS. If the Fourth Circuit were to rule on account of partisan influence, the result will stand in light of the new balance. If a liberal majority takes hold, I would expect SCOTUS itself to set any new standards. I think that unless a Republican assumes the Presidency next year, partisan redistricting is quite likely nearing its demise (and not a moment too soon).

See 28 USC § 1253 and 28 USC 28 § 2284(a).

You may be confused because the case in North Carolina was heard by a 3-judge panel, and the author of the majority opinion is a 4th Circuit judge.

When an apportionment cases is filed in district court (in this case the  Middle District of North Carolina), the district court judge asks the appeals court to appoint a 3-judge panel (it is mandatory that the judge and appeals court do so, "ask" is just a nice way to phrase it. See Shapiro v McManus).

The 3-judge panel is this case was:

Roger Gregory - 4th  Circuit
Max Cogburn - Western District of North Carolina
William Osteen, Jr. - Middle District of North Carolina, Chief Judge.

Osteen was the dissent with regard to NC-12.

North Carolina filed their appeal to the SCOTUS earlier this month. Also, on Friday North Carolina informed the district court that they had completed the remedial legislative map.

I doubt that the plaintiffs have much of a case against the new map.

You are naive about partisan redistricting. The decision by the SCOFLA was a partisan decision itself.

[Vern]

I believe the right type of Democrat could win both 13 and 6, IMO.  I am looking at the bill and it looks like CD6 has a lot of the eastern side of Greensboro in it, and that area is mostly black. i am adding up all the numbers now to see how Bev did in 2008 in CD6.

[Vern]

Well, I did it and its some interesting results! Bev won the parts of Guilford county in CD6. The results for the CD6 Guilford was: 55-42 for Bev. The overall results for CD6 in 2008 were: 47%-49% for McCrory.

Edit: Upon looking, the old CD6 in 2008 was won by McCrory 58.7% to 38%. That's almost a 10% increase for the Democrats. So it is possible that a Democrat could win the new CD 6

[Miles]

^ The legislature's data actually has Perdue winning CD6 by 1%, but McCrory won CD13 by 2%. That said, I think Perdue has appeal in the VA border counties, Rockingham especially, that will be hard to replicate in non-wave years.


The plaintiffs have until Monday to file any objections they have with the new map.

[Vern]

^ The legislature's data actually has Perdue winning CD6 by 1%, but McCrory won CD13 by 2%. That said, I think Perdue has appeal in the VA border counties, Rockingham especially, that will be hard to replicate in non-wave years.


The plaintiffs have until Monday to file any objections they have with the new map.

I wonder where my count was off..