North Carolina 2020 Redistricting

[Idaho Conservative]

And I'll say again

Hr1 needs to be passed. I don't care if Biden has to sign an executive order, that way no one will gerrymander. This is insanity and has to stop.  The legislatures have shown they are not capable of drawing fair districts. I dont like when dems do it either, I know you have to fight fire with fire but it needs to stop nationwide.

would it survive SCOTUS?

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

And I'll say again

Hr1 needs to be passed. I don't care if Biden has to sign an executive order, that way no one will gerrymander. This is insanity and has to stop.  The legislatures have shown they are not capable of drawing fair districts. I dont like when dems do it either, I know you have to fight fire with fire but it needs to stop nationwide.

would it survive SCOTUS?

I doubt it lol Thats why I'm hoping we win the senate so we could pass it legislatively

[Vern]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/f73cd568-9517-4d09-9023-06ddd4ed2ec9

This is my map.

[Idaho Conservative]

And I'll say again

Hr1 needs to be passed. I don't care if Biden has to sign an executive order, that way no one will gerrymander. This is insanity and has to stop.  The legislatures have shown they are not capable of drawing fair districts. I dont like when dems do it either, I know you have to fight fire with fire but it needs to stop nationwide.

would it survive SCOTUS?

I doubt it lol Thats why I'm hoping we win the senate so we could pass it legislatively

That doesn't mean it would hold up.  The constitution doesn't say much on how elections are held, there is a solid originalist argument against HR1

[lfromnj]

And I'll say again

Hr1 needs to be passed. I don't care if Biden has to sign an executive order, that way no one will gerrymander. This is insanity and has to stop.  The legislatures have shown they are not capable of drawing fair districts. I dont like when dems do it either, I know you have to fight fire with fire but it needs to stop nationwide.

would it survive SCOTUS?

I doubt it lol Thats why I'm hoping we win the senate so we could pass it legislatively

That doesn't mean it would hold up.  The constitution doesn't say much on how elections are held, there is a solid originalist argument against HR1

It literally says congress may make regulations and I'm pretty sure Ruching v Common cause directs congress to make those regulations.

[Idaho Conservative]

And I'll say again

Hr1 needs to be passed. I don't care if Biden has to sign an executive order, that way no one will gerrymander. This is insanity and has to stop.  The legislatures have shown they are not capable of drawing fair districts. I dont like when dems do it either, I know you have to fight fire with fire but it needs to stop nationwide.

would it survive SCOTUS?

I doubt it lol Thats why I'm hoping we win the senate so we could pass it legislatively

That doesn't mean it would hold up.  The constitution doesn't say much on how elections are held, there is a solid originalist argument against HR1

It literally says congress may make regulations and I'm pretty sure Ruching v Common cause directs congress to make those regulations.

where?

[MaxQue]

And I'll say again

Hr1 needs to be passed. I don't care if Biden has to sign an executive order, that way no one will gerrymander. This is insanity and has to stop.  The legislatures have shown they are not capable of drawing fair districts. I dont like when dems do it either, I know you have to fight fire with fire but it needs to stop nationwide.

would it survive SCOTUS?

I doubt it lol Thats why I'm hoping we win the senate so we could pass it legislatively

That doesn't mean it would hold up.  The constitution doesn't say much on how elections are held, there is a solid originalist argument against HR1

It literally says congress may make regulations and I'm pretty sure Ruching v Common cause directs congress to make those regulations.

where?

It's actually a core point of the right-wing appelants. Courts have no power over redistricting, because that's a power vested in Congress only by the Elections Clause. The court didn't agree with the part about courts, but noted that the Congress had power to do various things related to elections, like VRA, the single-member seat mandate, abolishing literacy tests for voting...

One of the last sections of the judgement literaly states that the Congress has power to regulate gerrymanderers.

As noted, the Framers gave Congress the power to do something about partisan gerrymandering in the Elections Clause. The first bill introduced in the 116th Congress would require States to create 15-member independent commissions to draw congressional districts and would establish certain redistricting criteria, including protection for communities of interest, and ban partisan gerrymandering. H. R. 1, 116th Cong., 1st Sess., §§2401, 2411 (2019).

Dozens of other bills have been introduced to limit reliance on political considerations in redistricting. In 2010, H. R. 6250 would have required States to follow standards of compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions in redistricting. It also would have prohibited the establishment of congressional districts “with the major purpose of diluting the voting strength of any person, or group, including any political party,” except when necessary to comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. H. R. 6250, 111th Cong., 2d Sess., §2 (referred to committee).

Another example is the Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act, which was introduced in 2005 and has been reintroduced in every Congress since. That bill would require every State to establish an independent commission to adopt redistricting plans. The bill also set forth criteria for the independent commissions to use, such as compactness, contiguity, and population equality. It would prohibit consideration of voting history, political party affiliation, or incumbent Representative’s residence. H. R. 2642, 109th Cong., 1st Sess., §4 (referred to subcommittee).

We express no view on any of these pending proposals. We simply note that the avenue for reform established by the Framers, and used by Congress in the past, remains open.

[Skill and Chance]

What's the restrictions on mid decade redistricting if any?

Tbh not sure, if they draw a 10-4 in the beginning maybe they won't take the move of mid decade redistricting for 1 congressional seat that slightly weakens others. If there aren't any restrictions but the D court imposes some 6D map or something I would expect them to do it.

A mid decade redraw would be illegal for the state legislative maps unless court-ordered, but there are no restrictions for redrawing the congressional map mid decade.

[Mr.Phips]

What's the restrictions on mid decade redistricting if any?

Tbh not sure, if they draw a 10-4 in the beginning maybe they won't take the move of mid decade redistricting for 1 congressional seat that slightly weakens others. If there aren't any restrictions but the D court imposes some 6D map or something I would expect them to do it.

A mid decade redraw would be illegal for the state legislative maps unless court-ordered, but there are no restrictions for redrawing the congressional map mid decade.

Is there a window as to where maps for Congress can be drawn without being subject to veto?  After a certain date, would the maps be subject to veto?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What's the restrictions on mid decade redistricting if any?

Tbh not sure, if they draw a 10-4 in the beginning maybe they won't take the move of mid decade redistricting for 1 congressional seat that slightly weakens others. If there aren't any restrictions but the D court imposes some 6D map or something I would expect them to do it.

A mid decade redraw would be illegal for the state legislative maps unless court-ordered, but there are no restrictions for redrawing the congressional map mid decade.

Is there a window as to where maps for Congress can be drawn without being subject to veto?  After a certain date, would the maps be subject to veto?

There is no veto on maps period because until the 1980's/early 1990s, there was no veto at all in NC for the Governor. This was because after the 1890s, it was seen as plausible for Republicans to get the Governorship, but highly unlikely to ever flip the legislature.

In the 1980s, Reagan had carried a Republican into the Governorship and though they decided to create the veto power for the first time under this state's constitution, it did not apply to redistricting maps at all.

That is partially why NC Republicans felt so embolden to strip power from the Governor as this state has a long tradition of legislative supremacy and a weak Governor.

[Vern]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/f73cd568-9517-4d09-9023-06ddd4ed2ec9

This is my map.

What you guys think of this map?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/f73cd568-9517-4d09-9023-06ddd4ed2ec9

This is my map.

What you guys think of this map?

Its not bad, though the 8th being stretched out so long and paralleling the 7th gives me the current 7th/8th/9th vibes.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

What you guys think of this map?

What did the Sandhills do to deserve such treatment?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/f73cd568-9517-4d09-9023-06ddd4ed2ec9

This is my map.

What you guys think of this map?

what's the partisan data on that Fayetteville district?

[Vern]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/f73cd568-9517-4d09-9023-06ddd4ed2ec9

This is my map.

What you guys think of this map?

what's the partisan data on that Fayetteville district?

50-48 Democrat. But it will be more democratic now since New Hanover swing toward the Democrats in 2020.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/f73cd568-9517-4d09-9023-06ddd4ed2ec9

Quick question: how do you export a DRA file to make a nice shaded map like the one I quoted?

[palandio]

Relatively similar proposal to Vern's, but with some differences in the Southeast (sorry for not changing the district numbers):


1: Clinton +11.2
2: Trump +5.6
3: Trump +22.6
4: Clinton + 27.1
5: Trump +43.9
6: Clinton +31.8
7: Trump +19.0
8: Trump +10.8
9: Clinton +4.2
10: Trump +36.3
11: Trump +12.6
12: Clinton +43.5
13: Clinton + 24.3
14: Trump +42.5

This can of course be seen as a Democratic trendymander: The 2nd and 8th swung towards Biden and I'm not sure whether they went for Biden or Trump. The 11th swung towards Biden, but Trump still won it by a couple of points. The 9th on the other hand swung towards Trump and I'm not sure if Fayetteville kept it in Biden's column or if it went for Trump.

Hence overall: 5 Safe R, 1 Lean to Likely R, 3 Toss-ups, 5 Safe D.

[Vern]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/f73cd568-9517-4d09-9023-06ddd4ed2ec9

Quick question: how do you export a DRA file to make a nice shaded map like the one I quoted?

There is now a button in DRA program that you can shade it like that.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I discovered last night you can make the brush strokes bigger in DRA, where has this been all my 2010s.

[Tekken_Guy]

Relatively similar proposal to Vern's, but with some differences in the Southeast (sorry for not changing the district numbers):


1: Clinton +11.2
2: Trump +5.6
3: Trump +22.6
4: Clinton + 27.1
5: Trump +43.9
6: Clinton +31.8
7: Trump +19.0
8: Trump +10.8
9: Clinton +4.2
10: Trump +36.3
11: Trump +12.6
12: Clinton +43.5
13: Clinton + 24.3
14: Trump +42.5

This can of course be seen as a Democratic trendymander: The 2nd and 8th swung towards Biden and I'm not sure whether they went for Biden or Trump. The 11th swung towards Biden, but Trump still won it by a couple of points. The 9th on the other hand swung towards Trump and I'm not sure if Fayetteville kept it in Biden's column or if it went for Trump.

Hence overall: 5 Safe R, 1 Lean to Likely R, 3 Toss-ups, 5 Safe D.

This is a good map. The only problem is the double-bunking of Bishop and Hudson may not go over well in the legislature.

Also, I'm not sure if Murphy and Rouzer would be happy being switched around. Wilmington is Rouzer's base and he may not want to give it up even though he doesn't live near it. Same with the Outer Banks and Murphy.

[palandio]

Relatively similar proposal to Vern's, but with some differences in the Southeast (sorry for not changing the district numbers):


1: Clinton +11.2
2: Trump +5.6
3: Trump +22.6
4: Clinton + 27.1
5: Trump +43.9
6: Clinton +31.8
7: Trump +19.0
8: Trump +10.8
9: Clinton +4.2
10: Trump +36.3
11: Trump +12.6
12: Clinton +43.5
13: Clinton + 24.3
14: Trump +42.5

This can of course be seen as a Democratic trendymander: The 2nd and 8th swung towards Biden and I'm not sure whether they went for Biden or Trump. The 11th swung towards Biden, but Trump still won it by a couple of points. The 9th on the other hand swung towards Trump and I'm not sure if Fayetteville kept it in Biden's column or if it went for Trump.

Hence overall: 5 Safe R, 1 Lean to Likely R, 3 Toss-ups, 5 Safe D.

This is a good map. The only problem is the double-bunking of Bishop and Hudson may not go over well in the legislature.

Also, I'm not sure if Murphy and Rouzer would be happy being switched around. Wilmington is Rouzer's base and he may not want to give it up even though he doesn't live near it. Same with the Outer Banks and Murphy.

The problem with Bishop and Hudson (and Budd) is that they all live so far in the West that there are six Republicans to the West of Winston-Salem. Adding two Democrats on the way in Charlotte and Greensboro/Winston-Salem you get eight districts which, depending on how you draw the lines, end somewhere at the height of Chapel Hill or Fayetteville. Which means that, if you want to accomodate Bishop, Hudson and Budd, you will always end up with those ugly eastwards-stretching stripes. Either that or you screw one of them. You are of course right that the legislature would not like my plan.

I don't see the problem with Murphy and Rouzer. Rouzer would run in my Wilmington-based 3rd, Murphy would run in my 7th. I think that there are valid arguments both for dividing the 3rd and 7th East-West and for dividing them North-South. I went for North-South because I wanted to keep the densely inhabitated Southern shore all in one district and because I think that if the compactness measure is how long two random citizens in a district need to reach each other, then the North-South layout is actually more compact.

[S019]

My unpopular opinion is that the 5-2 court becoming a 4-3 one doesn't change much here, I'd expect all D seats to be preserved and probably one additional D seat (likely in the Sandhills) on a map handed down from the court.

This is a rough idea of what they could do: https://davesredistricting.org/join/ec2e10ca-645b-43d7-87d4-20241b263810, the county borders on this map obviously need to be cleaned up, but I don't have the luxury of splitting precincts for population equivalency (so I need to awkwardly pick up precincts to get population equivalency), while the drawers will (also this makes the new seat a tossup seat spanning multiple metros, which is an approach I don't think they'll take, but then again this is a rough idea)

[palandio]

My unpopular opinion is that the 5-2 court becoming a 4-3 one doesn't change much here, I'd expect all D seats to be preserved and probably one additional D seat (likely in the Sandhills) on a map handed down from the court.

This is a rough idea of what they could do: https://davesredistricting.org/join/ec2e10ca-645b-43d7-87d4-20241b263810, the county borders on this map obviously need to be cleaned up, but I don't have the luxury of splitting precincts for population equivalency (so I need to awkwardly pick up precincts to get population equivalency), while the drawers will (also this makes the new seat a tossup seat spanning multiple metros, which is an approach I don't think they'll take, but then again this is a rough idea)

So the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 12th would be safe D.
The ugly 14th is a tossup, difficult to say if it trended R or D.
The 9th is a tilt D tossup, but trending R.
The 8th is lean R, but you used 2010 population numbers and due population growth in the Charlotte metro the 8th and 12th would fit into Mecklenburg, Union and Cabarrus with even a couple of precincts left. In that case your 8th would lose some R-leaning areas.
The 11th is likely R.
The 3rd, 5th, 7th, 10th, 13th are safe R.

The bottomline depends a bit on where the 8th lands with 2020 population numbers, but I would say
5 safe R, 1 likely R, 3 tossups, 5 safe D

[lfromnj]

My unpopular opinion is that the 5-2 court becoming a 4-3 one doesn't change much here, I'd expect all D seats to be preserved and probably one additional D seat (likely in the Sandhills) on a map handed down from the court.

This is a rough idea of what they could do: https://davesredistricting.org/join/ec2e10ca-645b-43d7-87d4-20241b263810, the county borders on this map obviously need to be cleaned up, but I don't have the luxury of splitting precincts for population equivalency (so I need to awkwardly pick up precincts to get population equivalency), while the drawers will (also this makes the new seat a tossup seat spanning multiple metros, which is an approach I don't think they'll take, but then again this is a rough idea)

It was 6-1, now its 4-3, what else changed is the lower courts are now like 10-5 GOP and the chief justice can choose the lower court panels. Its very easy to hold up the case for a few months for redistricting litigation.

[Idaho Conservative]

They should try for an incumbent protection 9-5 map.  Base it off the current one, except Butterfield gets a bit of Raleigh which makes him totally safe.  It would be a tilt R map, not anything egregious like before.