|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 10, 2020, 05:00:18 am
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
  2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Louisiana
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: 2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Louisiana  (Read 2195 times)
Skill and Chance
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,217
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: January 06, 2020, 05:56:01 pm »

It occurs to me that Justice Thomas is basically a sure vote to strike the current version of LA-02 or a 2021 district resembling it if he gets the opportunity, so I do think there will be separate NOLA and BR districts one way or another.  The 5th circuit likely makes a sweeping ruling that the VRA does not apply to redistricting at all, this gets appealed to SCOTUS, and then Roberts and Kavanaugh narrow it.

However, if the end result is VRA doesn't apply to redistricting at all and JBE's veto holds, LA gets a 4R/2D map, but AL/MS/SC/TN/MO would then all have free reign to draw a clean GOP sweep if they wanted to.  The total number of Dem districts in Texas and Florida could plausibly be cut in half if drawn aggressively using CVAP and state courts look the other way.  On the other hand, Maryland would easily be a Dem sweep and Virginia could draw a hard 8D/3R if they wanted too.

I also wonder if this would lead to a test case with a state legislature voting to elect its congressional delegation at large?  I think national Dems would push California, New York, and Illinois (CA and NY have commissions, but IDK could they just not give the commission anything to draw?) to try that in VRA doesn't apply to redistricting world.  The Texas and Georgia GOP could try the same, but I think they would decide it was unwise to do that after 2018.     

Only Alabama would be a sure goner, Mississippi is only a +15 Trump state and I doubt they would cut it up perfectly when you have parochial concerns.
TN is in a nice little corner and its super D so Cohen should be safe,
Lacy Clay is in a similar situation and Missouri needs atleast 1 D sink to avoid a dummymander
SC- i mean its Trump +15 and the R's just lost SC 1 so why would they want to risk a dummymander here especially when upstate won't represent low country.

Can't talk about Florida or Texas.
Yeah AL is the obvious one where the black seat could be cut up if that's allowed.  MS could get away with it.  TN and SC would be risky (due to political geography and TN will already be cracking Nashville and SC-1 needs shoring up) and MO is out of the question.  As for FL, maybe the northern fl AA seat could go.  Crack Jacksonville.  In TX, eliminating a majority minority seat wouldn't be smart, but TX gop could increase Hispanic percentages in some seats to 90% which could really help in southern texas. 

Would TX R's try to elect all its seats at large if it had the option?  Not as much of a slam dunk as CA/NY/IL anymore, but the odds would still favor a Republican sweep 6-8 out of 10 years, right?
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 597
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.00, S: 4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: January 06, 2020, 06:33:34 pm »

It occurs to me that Justice Thomas is basically a sure vote to strike the current version of LA-02 or a 2021 district resembling it if he gets the opportunity, so I do think there will be separate NOLA and BR districts one way or another.  The 5th circuit likely makes a sweeping ruling that the VRA does not apply to redistricting at all, this gets appealed to SCOTUS, and then Roberts and Kavanaugh narrow it.

However, if the end result is VRA doesn't apply to redistricting at all and JBE's veto holds, LA gets a 4R/2D map, but AL/MS/SC/TN/MO would then all have free reign to draw a clean GOP sweep if they wanted to.  The total number of Dem districts in Texas and Florida could plausibly be cut in half if drawn aggressively using CVAP and state courts look the other way.  On the other hand, Maryland would easily be a Dem sweep and Virginia could draw a hard 8D/3R if they wanted too.

I also wonder if this would lead to a test case with a state legislature voting to elect its congressional delegation at large?  I think national Dems would push California, New York, and Illinois (CA and NY have commissions, but IDK could they just not give the commission anything to draw?) to try that in VRA doesn't apply to redistricting world.  The Texas and Georgia GOP could try the same, but I think they would decide it was unwise to do that after 2018.     

Only Alabama would be a sure goner, Mississippi is only a +15 Trump state and I doubt they would cut it up perfectly when you have parochial concerns.
TN is in a nice little corner and its super D so Cohen should be safe,
Lacy Clay is in a similar situation and Missouri needs atleast 1 D sink to avoid a dummymander
SC- i mean its Trump +15 and the R's just lost SC 1 so why would they want to risk a dummymander here especially when upstate won't represent low country.

Can't talk about Florida or Texas.
Yeah AL is the obvious one where the black seat could be cut up if that's allowed.  MS could get away with it.  TN and SC would be risky (due to political geography and TN will already be cracking Nashville and SC-1 needs shoring up) and MO is out of the question.  As for FL, maybe the northern fl AA seat could go.  Crack Jacksonville.  In TX, eliminating a majority minority seat wouldn't be smart, but TX gop could increase Hispanic percentages in some seats to 90% which could really help in southern texas. 

Would TX R's try to elect all its seats at large if it had the option?  Not as much of a slam dunk as CA/NY/IL anymore, but the odds would still favor a Republican sweep 6-8 out of 10 years, right?
That would be a huge mistake, could MASSIVELY backfire, considering how TX is trending.  It would be a good idea in: UT, NE, OK, LA, MS, AL, TN, SC, KY, IN, and MO.  For Texas, it would be smart to use a combo of smds and mmds.  Create 4 multi member districts that elect their representatives proportionally, 1 district along the mexican border (5 reresentatives) 1 district from urban San Antonio to urban Austin (3 represenatives), 1 district containing the blue parts of DFW (4 representatives) and 1 district with the blue parts of Houston (4 represenatives).  The remainder of the state is divides into 23 single member districts, all of which are Republican.  BUT the delegation wouldn't be 23-16.  Republicans would win 3-5 seats in the multi member districts meaning Texas would get a 26-13 delegation at worst or a 28-11 delegation at best. 
Logged
Skill and Chance
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,217
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: January 06, 2020, 10:16:54 pm »

It occurs to me that Justice Thomas is basically a sure vote to strike the current version of LA-02 or a 2021 district resembling it if he gets the opportunity, so I do think there will be separate NOLA and BR districts one way or another.  The 5th circuit likely makes a sweeping ruling that the VRA does not apply to redistricting at all, this gets appealed to SCOTUS, and then Roberts and Kavanaugh narrow it.

However, if the end result is VRA doesn't apply to redistricting at all and JBE's veto holds, LA gets a 4R/2D map, but AL/MS/SC/TN/MO would then all have free reign to draw a clean GOP sweep if they wanted to.  The total number of Dem districts in Texas and Florida could plausibly be cut in half if drawn aggressively using CVAP and state courts look the other way.  On the other hand, Maryland would easily be a Dem sweep and Virginia could draw a hard 8D/3R if they wanted too.

I also wonder if this would lead to a test case with a state legislature voting to elect its congressional delegation at large?  I think national Dems would push California, New York, and Illinois (CA and NY have commissions, but IDK could they just not give the commission anything to draw?) to try that in VRA doesn't apply to redistricting world.  The Texas and Georgia GOP could try the same, but I think they would decide it was unwise to do that after 2018.     

Only Alabama would be a sure goner, Mississippi is only a +15 Trump state and I doubt they would cut it up perfectly when you have parochial concerns.
TN is in a nice little corner and its super D so Cohen should be safe,
Lacy Clay is in a similar situation and Missouri needs atleast 1 D sink to avoid a dummymander
SC- i mean its Trump +15 and the R's just lost SC 1 so why would they want to risk a dummymander here especially when upstate won't represent low country.

Can't talk about Florida or Texas.
Yeah AL is the obvious one where the black seat could be cut up if that's allowed.  MS could get away with it.  TN and SC would be risky (due to political geography and TN will already be cracking Nashville and SC-1 needs shoring up) and MO is out of the question.  As for FL, maybe the northern fl AA seat could go.  Crack Jacksonville.  In TX, eliminating a majority minority seat wouldn't be smart, but TX gop could increase Hispanic percentages in some seats to 90% which could really help in southern texas. 

Would TX R's try to elect all its seats at large if it had the option?  Not as much of a slam dunk as CA/NY/IL anymore, but the odds would still favor a Republican sweep 6-8 out of 10 years, right?

Hmmm... states with one party control where that party could safely gain seats from holding at large US House elections, shaded by # of seats gained (30% = 1 seat, 90% in CA = 7 seats, etc.)



It's a clear net benefit for Democrats despite currently holding more vulnerable seats nationwide, as between CA, NY, and IL, they would be nearly guaranteed to flip 18 seats.  They could also confidently flip another 5 between WA and NJ.  Republicans have Ohio, where they could flip 4, and then several scattered 1-2 seat opportunities, mainly in the South/border states. 

So it looks like D+26 vs. R+17 for net D+9, and if you think VA and CO are safe-ish for Dems going forward (giving R's Ohio probably means we should give D's at least one of VA/CO), they could pick up another 7 seats just by making those 2 states go at large for a net D+16.  So long as Texas doesn't go back to it's 2004 habits or the 2016 Rust Belt states become safe R, allowing at-large elections would create a clear structural Dem advantage in the House.

But this is really about Louisiana, where JBE would still be able to veto the at-large proposal and keep single member districts.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,217
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: January 13, 2020, 05:52:16 pm »

Important update: In a surprise move, the Louisiana House of Representatives just elected a new speaker with support from all 35 Democrats, both independents and a group of 23 renegade moderate Republicans.  This means de facto coalition control of the chamber for the next 4 years and therefore a stronger Dem hand in redistricting.  This also presumably ends any possibility of 2 Dems or Indies switching to create a Republican supermajority.
Logged
Pro-Life Single Issue Voter
ExtremeRepublican
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,634


Political Matrix
E: 8.39, S: 7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: January 13, 2020, 07:17:09 pm »

It occurs to me that Justice Thomas is basically a sure vote to strike the current version of LA-02 or a 2021 district resembling it if he gets the opportunity, so I do think there will be separate NOLA and BR districts one way or another.  The 5th circuit likely makes a sweeping ruling that the VRA does not apply to redistricting at all, this gets appealed to SCOTUS, and then Roberts and Kavanaugh narrow it.

However, if the end result is VRA doesn't apply to redistricting at all and JBE's veto holds, LA gets a 4R/2D map, but AL/MS/SC/TN/MO would then all have free reign to draw a clean GOP sweep if they wanted to.  The total number of Dem districts in Texas and Florida could plausibly be cut in half if drawn aggressively using CVAP and state courts look the other way.  On the other hand, Maryland would easily be a Dem sweep and Virginia could draw a hard 8D/3R if they wanted too.

I also wonder if this would lead to a test case with a state legislature voting to elect its congressional delegation at large?  I think national Dems would push California, New York, and Illinois (CA and NY have commissions, but IDK could they just not give the commission anything to draw?) to try that in VRA doesn't apply to redistricting world.  The Texas and Georgia GOP could try the same, but I think they would decide it was unwise to do that after 2018.     

Only Alabama would be a sure goner, Mississippi is only a +15 Trump state and I doubt they would cut it up perfectly when you have parochial concerns.
TN is in a nice little corner and its super D so Cohen should be safe,
Lacy Clay is in a similar situation and Missouri needs atleast 1 D sink to avoid a dummymander
SC- i mean its Trump +15 and the R's just lost SC 1 so why would they want to risk a dummymander here especially when upstate won't represent low country.

Can't talk about Florida or Texas.

It looks really ugly, but you can draw a safe 9-0 R map in Tennessee.
Logged
Oryxslayer
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,001


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: January 13, 2020, 08:01:36 pm »

Important update: In a surprise move, the Louisiana House of Representatives just elected a new speaker with support from all 35 Democrats, both independents and a group of 23 renegade moderate Republicans.  This means de facto coalition control of the chamber for the next 4 years and therefore a stronger Dem hand in redistricting.  This also presumably ends any possibility of 2 Dems or Indies switching to create a Republican supermajority.

I wouldn't say moderate, maybe 'traditional' is a better word. Historically, the LA house elected the Governors nominee for speaker similar to a French style of politics. This was done even if the parties divided on control of the executive and the legislature. This tradition ended  in 2015 with the election of Barras. The people who backed Schexnayder have been described as those who have historically been able to work across factions in the past (who possess various ideologies), a term that should not be confused with moderates. His election should be seen as a slight return to the older traditions, not a total coup.

However, it is correct that the end conclusion that this makes LA increasingly likely to head into the 2021 with divided powers in regards to redistricting. More committee powers means less ability to ignore the dems. The situation also increases the chance a 'corrupt bargain' emerges where one side trades powers over one map for powers  over another - but this is in no way guaranteed.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,217
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: January 13, 2020, 08:32:52 pm »
« Edited: January 13, 2020, 08:36:37 pm by Skill and Chance »

Important update: In a surprise move, the Louisiana House of Representatives just elected a new speaker with support from all 35 Democrats, both independents and a group of 23 renegade moderate Republicans.  This means de facto coalition control of the chamber for the next 4 years and therefore a stronger Dem hand in redistricting.  This also presumably ends any possibility of 2 Dems or Indies switching to create a Republican supermajority.

I wouldn't say moderate, maybe 'traditional' is a better word. Historically, the LA house elected the Governors nominee for speaker similar to a French style of politics. This was done even if the parties divided on control of the executive and the legislature. This tradition ended  in 2015 with the election of Barras. The people who backed Schexnayder have been described as those who have historically been able to work across factions in the past (who possess various ideologies), a term that should not be confused with moderates. His election should be seen as a slight return to the older traditions, not a total coup.

However, it is correct that the end conclusion that this makes LA increasingly likely to head into the 2021 with divided powers in regards to redistricting. More committee powers means less ability to ignore the dems. The situation also increases the chance a 'corrupt bargain' emerges where one side trades powers over one map for powers  over another - but this is in no way guaranteed.

State legislative Dems really let Jindal pick Republican Speakers both times.  Wow.

I could easily see an offer to let the incumbent Dems draw all of their own seats and maybe make some of the R seats not in the ruling coalition more competitiive or create new minority opportunity seats in exchange for supplying the veto override for the state senate's 5R/1D congressional map.  Remember, Dems have more to lose in the state legislature if it goes to court because the state supreme court (partisan elected R majority) draws the maps.  It's a very similar dynamic to VA 2011, where Dems knew they didn't have a prayer of holding the state senate on a court-drawn map.

I would expect VRA suits regarding the congressional map to continue either way.  It's conceivable a 5/1 NOLA-BR district map passed by veto override gets thrown out mid-decade like the VA maps, especially if Roberts or someone more liberal is still the SCOTUS swing vote. 
Logged
Mr.Phips
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,901


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: January 14, 2020, 03:31:24 pm »

Important update: In a surprise move, the Louisiana House of Representatives just elected a new speaker with support from all 35 Democrats, both independents and a group of 23 renegade moderate Republicans.  This means de facto coalition control of the chamber for the next 4 years and therefore a stronger Dem hand in redistricting.  This also presumably ends any possibility of 2 Dems or Indies switching to create a Republican supermajority.

I wouldn't say moderate, maybe 'traditional' is a better word. Historically, the LA house elected the Governors nominee for speaker similar to a French style of politics. This was done even if the parties divided on control of the executive and the legislature. This tradition ended  in 2015 with the election of Barras. The people who backed Schexnayder have been described as those who have historically been able to work across factions in the past (who possess various ideologies), a term that should not be confused with moderates. His election should be seen as a slight return to the older traditions, not a total coup.

However, it is correct that the end conclusion that this makes LA increasingly likely to head into the 2021 with divided powers in regards to redistricting. More committee powers means less ability to ignore the dems. The situation also increases the chance a 'corrupt bargain' emerges where one side trades powers over one map for powers  over another - but this is in no way guaranteed.

State legislative Dems really let Jindal pick Republican Speakers both times.  Wow.

I could easily see an offer to let the incumbent Dems draw all of their own seats and maybe make some of the R seats not in the ruling coalition more competitiive or create new minority opportunity seats in exchange for supplying the veto override for the state senate's 5R/1D congressional map.  Remember, Dems have more to lose in the state legislature if it goes to court because the state supreme court (partisan elected R majority) draws the maps.  It's a very similar dynamic to VA 2011, where Dems knew they didn't have a prayer of holding the state senate on a court-drawn map.

I would expect VRA suits regarding the congressional map to continue either way.  It's conceivable a 5/1 NOLA-BR district map passed by veto override gets thrown out mid-decade like the VA maps, especially if Roberts or someone more liberal is still the SCOTUS swing vote. 

There are very few Dems left in the legislature who are not in safe districts.
Logged
Oryxslayer
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,001


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: February 26, 2020, 04:10:06 pm »



As expected, Ralph Abraham is retiring after his failed gubernatorial run. The 5th either could get a true freshman who is easily thrown aside, or it could get a legislative ladder climber with allies in Baton Rouge. If no serious legislators end up running it would be a sign of everyone's expectations regarding redistricting.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines