Could a White VRA district ever have to be drawn?

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

In say, MS in 2060, where the state is majority non-white and the legislature is also majority non-white but a compact white majority district can be drawn, would this have to happen under the VRA?

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

To illustrate, I will present two different MS redistricting plans for the 2060s Map.



This map is the Democratic plan. It's clean, doesn't split any counties, and probably locks Republicans out of winning a seat in a D+8 state.

District 1 is the northern third of the state. It's 42% white and 47% black, 47% white and 47.4% black in VAP, went for the Democratic Presidential nominee in 2060 (a good Democratic year) by 20 points, and has a D+7 PVI.

District 2 is the middle third of the state. It's 30% white and 61% black, 34% white and 61% in VAP, went for the Democratic Presidential nominee by 33 points, and has a D+16 PVI. Clearly safely D.

District 3 is the kicker. It's cleanly drawn but probably locks out Republicans. It's 45% white and 40% black and 51% white to 41% black in VAP, so it could be called a white VRA district. However, it also went for the Democratic Presidential nominee by 9 points and is a D+1 district. It probably votes against white voter's candidate of choice, leaving a minority that is 39% of the state and 44% of the Voting Age Population with 0 districts.



And this map is the VRA plan proposed by the Republican minority in the legislature.

District 1 moves slightly to the left. It is 38% white and 53% black, and 42% white to 53% black in VAP. The Democratic presidential nominee carried it by 28 points. It is now a D+12 PVI district. There's an essentially 0% chance that a Republican could win this.

District 2 changes in shape but not partisanship. It is 30% white and 61% black, 34% white to 61% black in VAP, went for the Democratic Presidential nominee by 34 points, and is a D+16 PVI district.

District 3, then, becomes an ugly gerrymander aimed at giving Republicans one fairly safe district. It is 49% white and 35% black, 55% white to 36% black in VAP, went for the Republican Presidential nominee by 2 points, and is a R+4 PVI district. It isn't quite safe, but it's pretty close.

Is the second map required under the VRA?

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

White voters definitely aren't a politically cohesive group in the nation at large, but in MS in particular they are. They vote nearly 90-10 Republican and could become more polarized if MS becomes majority-black.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

To illustrate, I will present two different MS redistricting plans for the 2060s Map.



This map is the Democratic plan. It's clean, doesn't split any counties, and probably locks Republicans out of winning a seat in a D+8 state.

District 1 is the northern third of the state. It's 42% white and 47% black, 47% white and 47.4% black in VAP, went for the Democratic Presidential nominee in 2060 (a good Democratic year) by 20 points, and has a D+7 PVI.

District 2 is the middle third of the state. It's 30% white and 61% black, 34% white and 61% in VAP, went for the Democratic Presidential nominee by 33 points, and has a D+16 PVI. Clearly safely D.

District 3 is the kicker. It's cleanly drawn but probably locks out Republicans. It's 45% white and 40% black and 51% white to 41% black in VAP, so it could be called a white VRA district. However, it also went for the Democratic Presidential nominee by 9 points and is a D+1 district. It probably votes against white voter's candidate of choice, leaving a minority that is 39% of the state and 44% of the Voting Age Population with 0 districts.



And this map is the VRA plan proposed by the Republican minority in the legislature.

District 1 moves slightly to the left. It is 38% white and 53% black, and 42% white to 53% black in VAP. The Democratic presidential nominee carried it by 28 points. It is now a D+12 PVI district. There's an essentially 0% chance that a Republican could win this.

District 2 changes in shape but not partisanship. It is 30% white and 61% black, 34% white to 61% black in VAP, went for the Democratic Presidential nominee by 34 points, and is a D+16 PVI district.

District 3, then, becomes an ugly gerrymander aimed at giving Republicans one fairly safe district. It is 49% white and 35% black, 55% white to 36% black in VAP, went for the Republican Presidential nominee by 2 points, and is a R+4 PVI district. It isn't quite safe, but it's pretty close.

Is the second map required under the VRA?

where are u getting the pvis? or are you assuming blacks stay uniformly democratic for the next 40 years

The numbers assume similar partisanship, yes.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Is there anywhere besides Mississippi where this might be a possibility? Louisiana maybe? California someday?

Trying to think of the present and not the future, some candidates may include

New Mexico: 56% Hispanic (white and non white), 28% Non Hispanic white. Interestingly all 3 congressional seats are reported as at least plurality white, so I imagine they are also counting hispanic whites? Would those count towards VRA purposes?

Hawaii: It's 39% asian, 24% mixed, 25% white apparently as of now. Could you draw a majority, or even plurality white seat in Hawaii?

California: In theory it should have them already right? It's 39% Hispanic and 38% non Hispanic white. Or would Hispanics need to be a majority instead of a plurality for VRA districts to be required?

Looking at territories, there are some who might have to for their territorial/state legislatures (I imagine all would be at large seats except PR). Puerto Rico is what, 90% hispanic? So it certainly isn't getting a VRA seat (and even if it were, it would probably be for black Puerto Ricans)

The US Virgin Islands are 76% black, 16% white, 18% hispanic. So depending on the size of the legislature, maybe 1 white and 1 hispanic seat might be necessary?

Guam is 7% white, American Samoa is 1% white and the Mariana islands are 2% white, so they certainly aren't getting any white VRA seats.

DC might need VRA seats for the city council (or if it becomes a state, the legislature)

So, TL;DR: New Mexico seems like the most promising candidate in the short run. In the long run, Mississippi and maybe California?

It's unlikely that any southeastern state could be sued over this, because their legislatures are majority-white and there isn't a large racial gap. It's completely plausible that white candidates could be elected in majority-hispanic districts (for instance, Jim Costa and Zoe Lofgren).

There are a couple prerequisites for this to happen.
1. The state must be majority a specific race or ethnicity.
2. The state must have a large white minority.
3. Both ethnicities must practice racial bloc voting consistently so a white candidate can't be elected in a majority nonwhite district and vice-versa.
4. The legislature must be consistently majority non-white.

New Mexico has a small racial voting gap and a majority-white legislature, so no VRA seat is required.

Hawaii has a negative racial voting gap and a very weird legislature, so no VRA seat is required.

California has a small racial voting gap and a majority-white legislature, so no VRA seat is required.

These conditions don't seem possible in the Southwest because Southwest whites are relatively Democratic and D-trending. The Deep South is the only place with the level of racial polarization and consistent ethnic identity for this to be plausible.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

White voters currently vote to the left of non-white voters in much of Hawaii.