2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Louisiana

[Torie]

I don't see a court drawing a second Dem CD myself. Other than doing away with the black seat gerrymander, this is designed within reason to be a least change map.

[Torie]

My map has a high minority rights rating and proportionality rating. My VRA district is the most compact I was able to get with majority BCVAP.



Partisan composition.

Majority BVAP is not a legal requirement if a district is otherwise minority performing, and indeed could itself be illegal if deemed a gerrymandered CD which "minority packs," diluting minority influence in other districts to their detriment.

[Torie]

My map has a high minority rights rating and proportionality rating. My VRA district is the most compact I was able to get with majority BCVAP.
Partisan composition.

Majority BVAP is not a legal requirement if a district is otherwise minority performing, and indeed could itself be illegal if deemed a gerrymandered CD which "minority packs," diluting minority influence in other districts to their detriment.

No. I got a high minority rights rating on DRA. That should be good. I made sure to do so. My VRA district is 51.1% BCVAP. My Baton Rouge district is more Democratic than any of the GOP districts on the current real map. I made Garret Graves' district significantly more Democratic. I wasn't able to draw two vaguely compact performing districts.

Just to be clear, as I am sure that your appreciate, what the DRA "likes," and what the VRA law prescribes, are not co-extensive, and some things the DRA might like, may in fact cause one to run afoul of the VRA. In that regard, I question the legality if it were more or less replicated, of the current lines of the black performing CD in Louisiana. Combining two minority nodes in two different metro areas where not needed to create a minority performing CD, is quite problematical under the VRA law.

[Torie]

That is certainly a reasonable map which the Pubs will not be drawing.

[Torie]

That is certainly a reasonable map which the Pubs will not be drawing.

Ah, I took your initial map to be a fair one but I see now it was intended as a realistic Republican map.

I didn't actually parse whether there was another reasonable map that would make the Baton Rouge CD swing rather than lean R, and just drew what looked reasonable to me that could be defended as not a gerrymander designed to deprive a minority of a CD that would entail legal risk. When I saw that the Baton Rouge CD I drew was lean GOP, my thought was the Pubs should go for it, as the best option for them balancing off the electoral and legal risks.

Your map certainly would be one for the Dems to bring up in court, but I think the odds are low that a court would insist on it due to the lack of a compact 50% BCVAP trigger CD being in play, and because even if there were one, I tend to doubt a court would insist on such a gerrymander in lieu of a non gerrymandered CD. In any event, I would think the Pubs would rather litigate the matter, then just throw in the towel, and thus my previous comment to you.

I hope the above discursive set of words makes some sense!  

Below are two other iterations.

[Torie]

Yeah sorry, I'm in the habit of drawing maps as if they were drawn by a commission--my map is probably not too realistic, thought I think it's decent?

Sure it's decent, but Livingston County is really the suburbs of Baton Rouge, rather than exurbs of NO.

[Torie]

I don’t really see a second black performing CD as being in the cards if a court draws the map.

It certainly is not in a least change map: https://davesredistricting.org/join/e319ee0b-1f09-4e6b-867a-9d7c625371b4

And it still isn’t in a less least change map that gets rid of a potentially illegal black pack under the VRA. The less least change map gets the Dems within 10 points in the Baton Rouge CD, but no cigar: https://davesredistricting.org/join/ada627f0-6bff-42ea-b569-a314dbdd7971

[Torie]

Actually, pending whatever further attenuation or evisceration SCOTUS has in mind for it,  under the current iteration of the VRA (as opposed to some interpretation of a state law ala Florida), I think that while there is a violation of the VRA in Alabama, because it looks to me that two "compact" 50% BVAP CD's can be drawn, that is not the case in LA. Two* such compact CD's cannot be drawn in LA (a CD combining the black areas of Baton Rouge and Shreveport is not compact).* So I think the trial court decision** is clearly wrong, and will be stayed if not reversed in very short order by the federal appellate court.***

https://davesredistricting.org/join/8bfa1863-ed2e-466e-9d9f-90b35e656962

*Actually it is even a challenge to draw such a compact 50% BVAP CD in the NO area, but in the end it can be done, barely, if one accepts that water is good enough for contiguity.

**Did the trial court decision even grapple with the compact issue?

***The unpacking of LA-02 (allegedly 70% black) is another issue, and may well have merit, in particular  since it must combine the black areas of Baton Rouge and NO to get to such a high percentage when such a combination is not needed to get to 50% BVAP, much less a performing black CD.

[Torie]

Anyone have shapefiles or a link to a DRA version of the map passed by the legislature?

Does anyone have it? I can't import the block equivalency .txt that the legislature's website provides.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/42873bd9-ce68-4ee1-878e-be420dbf0ee3

[Torie]

The current map is a total mess, LA-1 uses water continuity to connect to the southeast and LA-6 is about as non-compact as you can get.


If LA-2 is allowed to go to like ~49.5 BVAP it's pretty easy to make a second black seat,  the LA-5 in this map actually isn't all that much changed from the current one other than going into Baton Rouge.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/cdc7e216-2e8b-4095-ba10-dd0d45a98e54

Your map is quite good and I don't know how I missed that solution. It certainly makes for a closer case as to whether your Baton Rouge based district that then runs up the river, is "compact." Well done.

[Torie]

Do you all seriously think SCOTUS won't shut this down? LOL. The only map with any chance of getting better for us is FL

Not to mention you still have to worry about mid-decade redistricting by R's in your state if they flip the state Supreme Court this year.

And if Rs win the SC in IL. Or PA later in the decade lol. The list is endless

PA isn't even possible till 2026 barring suprise deaths and an R trifecta, and even then, overturning the current map wouldn't necessarily lead to a gerrymander. Also one of the Rs was appointed by Woof and is relatively moderate.

IL is def a greater concern for Dems and obv NC is almost certain to go back to being an R gerry.

Ohio really depends on if Dems get a commission on the ballot in 2024 (which would likely pass). Worst case it is a 13R-2D map, thoguh the rules make a truly maximal gerrymander tricky.

I am amazed how you can manage to do your homework (which I am confident that you do) and keep up with all this lacunae with such facility. Well done. What is going to  happen when "lust" consumes you? No, you do not need  to, and indeed, should not answer, that question!  

[Torie]

Did Stern see another leaked opinion or something? Or is he clairvoyant? God the spam that is out there. I don't think the VRA will be gutted myself, but it may be narrowed, e.g., a district does drawn that violates neutral redistricting principles will not be considered compact to trigger Gingles, and a district that does violate neutral redistricting principles does if it packs minorities. We shall see.

[Torie]

Actually, pending whatever further attenuation or evisceration SCOTUS has in mind for it,  under the current iteration of the VRA (as opposed to some interpretation of a state law ala Florida), I think that while there is a violation of the VRA in Alabama, because it looks to me that two "compact" 50% BVAP CD's can be drawn, that is not the case in LA. Two* such compact CD's cannot be drawn in LA (a CD combining the black areas of Baton Rouge and Shreveport is not compact).* So I think the trial court decision** is clearly wrong, and will be stayed if not reversed in very short order by the federal appellate court.***

https://davesredistricting.org/join/8bfa1863-ed2e-466e-9d9f-90b35e656962

*Actually it is even a challenge to draw such a compact 50% BVAP CD in the NO area, but in the end it can be done, barely, if one accepts that water is good enough for contiguity.

**Did the trial court decision even grapple with the compact issue?

***The unpacking of LA-02 (allegedly 70% black) is another issue, and may well have merit, in particular  since it must combine the black areas of Baton Rouge and NO to get to such a high percentage when such a combination is not needed to get to 50% BVAP, much less a performing black CD.

The plaintiffs in the case provided alternatives with a district made up of northern Baton Rouge along with the Delta area and carefully drawn intrusions into Monroe, Alexandria, and Lafayette to get above 50% CVAP.

The interesting part of the case is that no constitutional claims were brought, and thus no three-judge panel. That is, there is no claim that the map violates the 14th or 15th Amendments, but rather violates a federal statute intended to enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments.

This also means that there is no direct appeal to the SCOTUS.

The VRA is a federal statute, so SCOTUS can take the case if it wants it after the appellate court makes a final judgement. I think the compact issue is a close one, with the definition of what compact means at the margins ambiguous. Is a district that does not look too bad visually but travels over white rural areas of some distance to take in the black neighborhoods, and only the black neighborhoods of three sizable cities from its Baton Rouge core, compact?

I suspect at some point SCOTUS if it keeps the Gingles concept will want a clearer definition. And perhaps the most likely "cleanup" would be that if one can draw a 50% BVAP CD that comports with neutral redistricting principles, then a performing black district must be drawn. The CD described above does not.  I think even in the academic world now, taking in pieces but not the whole of disparate cities not in the same metro area (disparate maybe meaning two, but certainly three or more) does not hew to neutral principles.

For example, if in the map below, LA-06 were 50% BVAP, then it must be drawn. A codical could be that if LA-06 as drawn that way, makes it impossible for LA-02 to be 50% BVAP, LA-02 must still be drawn as a minority performing CD. 

https://davesredistricting.org/join/4415fa63-dc85-4946-bcc2-6a572e7616e7

[Torie]

And here's the petition for cert

https://vhdshf2oms2wcnsvk7sdv3so.blob.core.windows.net/thearp-media/documents/Em._App._for_Admin._Stay_Stay_Pdg._Appeal_and_Writ_of_Cert._6.17.22.pdf

Thank you for the link. It is required reading for those who want to master a granular understanding of Gingles, unconstitutional racial gerrymandering, and the existing attendant ambiguities. The brief is extraordinarily well written in many places, while also disingenuous and misleading in others.

Aside from the merits of issuing a stay (probably meritorious, but not slam dunk for a reason not mentioned at all in the brief, to wit that the 59% BVAP erose LA-02 that was drawn by the legislature traveling up the river to take in black precincts and excluding white ones, is in and of itself most probably an illegal black pack racial gerrymander), to cut though all the sound and fury and obfuscation, three issues are presented that SCOTUS most urgently needs to resolve:

1. Under Gingles, what is the definition of a compact minority population?

2. Can a district be found compact while the minority population therein deemed not compact for purposes of applying the Gingles test?

3. Under what circumstances, if any, does drawing a district  that contains a compact  minority population under Gingles, constitute an unconstitutional racial gerrymander?

The resolution of the above questions would resolve the issue of whether, when a district that looks "compact," but fails to hew to neutral redistricting principles, and splits disparate counties and municipalities to include minority population nodes and exclude non minority populations therein, it 1) must be drawn if 50% minority VAP, or 2) cannot be drawn because it is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

It is rare to have a legal issue where it comes down to must or cannot, as opposed to may, but this is one of them.

[Torie]

If the Pubs were prudent and risk averse, in their special session they should revise their CD map to unpack their most probably illegally black packed LA-02, while hewing to neutral redistricting principles in the unwind. The map below does that. Just LA-01, LA-02, and LA-06 exchange precincts from the map the Pubs passed. The other three CD’s are not changed at all. The now compact and also perfectly parish nested LA-06 becomes considerably more marginal, but still safely Pub for the moment. That is what happen when blacks are unpacked with a polarized electorate. I made sure Steve Scalise in LA-01 still lives in his CD. I was wondering if he lived in the Garden District given the weird erose lines there, but he does not. He’s parked in Jefferson city in Jefferson Parish.



https://davesredistricting.org/join/e4105184-43d1-46bc-90f2-d04e0f4f696f

[Torie]

If the Pubs were prudent and risk averse, in their special session they should revise their CD map to unpack their most probably illegally black packed LA-02, while hewing to neutral redistricting principles in the unwind. The map below does that. Just LA-01, LA-02, and LA-06 exchange precincts from the map the Pubs passed. The other three CD’s are not changed at all. The now compact and also perfectly parish nested LA-06 becomes considerably more marginal, but still safely Pub for the moment. That is what happen when blacks are unpacked with a polarized electorate. I made sure Steve Scalise in LA-01 still lives in his CD. I was wondering if he lived in the Garden District given the weird erose lines there, but he does not. He’s parked in Jefferson city in Jefferson Parish.



https://davesredistricting.org/join/e4105184-43d1-46bc-90f2-d04e0f4f696f

Your map illustrates that blacks are widely dispersed in Louisiana, with BVAP in LA-3 24.6%; LA-4 33.8%, LA-5 32.9%, LA-6 34.2%. Only in a large city such as New Orleans or Baton Rouge can you gather enough blacks in a compact area that constitute a majority.

Your LA-2 has BVAP of 47.0% demonstrates what neither the State or the plaintiffs want to show that you can't draw a reasonable district with a majority BVAP in Louisiana.

Both the State and the plaintiffs have stipulated that LA-2 is a Gingles district. I think that it would be a mess to litigate.

The legislature adjourned the special session on Saturday. So the federal district court judge will impose her plan which will continue to be litigated.

This is the only bill that got through committee but was pulled after it was clear that it could not be passed.

SB 3 (PDF)

Scroll down to see demographics and maps.

I don't want to beat this drum until it has no sound, but you can get to the Gingles percentage for LA-02 without creating too much of a mess as to compactness, athough you do have to do quite a lot of jurisdiction splitting. Having said that, LA-02 may well not be  Gingles CD because the voting pattern is not that racially polarized in NO and Jefferson Parish. There are a significant number of loyal white Democrats.

[Torie]

Black packing via an erose county chopping CD is clearly illegal. You know it and I know it.

Here is an LA-02 that is 50% BVAP.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/c99928e7-deaf-4afe-9107-db79b7d97392

[Torie]

Black packing via an erose county chopping CD is clearly illegal. You know it and I know it.

Here is an LA-02 that is 50% BVAP.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/c99928e7-deaf-4afe-9107-db79b7d97392

What if Louisiana had 7 districts, with a target population of 665,396.

Start chopping from the west end. What does the BVAP increase to?

[Torie]

Could there be an argument that any 50%+ BVAP LA-02 violates neutral redistricting principles given in a nonracially drawn compact and fair map, the New Orleans area would just get it's own dedicated seat rather than attaching black rurals to boost black population? Honestly for the GOP no matter what happens with VRA New Orleans is likely too hard to politically crack down the middle given balancing a bunch of Trump + 17 seats is bound to make someone upset.

That is another issue that is not entirely clear. Is a 50% BVAP CD but no more a safe harbor if sufficiently compact to trigger Gingles, or is one obligated to follow neutral redistricting principles that have a lower BVAP percentage, so long as it is black performing? The legal answer is probably the former safe harbor one, but I think there is some doubt. As a matter of policy, one should of course try to hew to neutral redistricting  as much as one can while preserving a minority performing CD that is Gingles protected. I think it is pretty clear at the moment that the compact standard for Gingles is looser than the one used for purposes of neutral redistricting principles. The issue is how much looser. One hopes SCOTUS will elaborate.

[Torie]

Could there be an argument that any 50%+ BVAP LA-02 violates neutral redistricting principles given in a nonracially drawn compact and fair map, the New Orleans area would just get it's own dedicated seat rather than attaching black rurals to boost black population? Honestly for the GOP no matter what happens with VRA New Orleans is likely too hard to politically crack down the middle given balancing a bunch of Trump + 17 seats is bound to make someone upset.

That is another issue that is not entirely clear. Is a 50% BVAP CD but no more a safe harbor if sufficiently compact to trigger Gingles, or is one obligated to follow neutral redistricting principles that have a lower BVAP percentage, so long as it is black performing? The legal answer is probably the former safe harbor one, but I think there is some doubt. As a matter of policy, one should of course try to hew to neutral redistricting  as much as one can while preserving a minority performing CD that is Gingles protected. I think it is pretty clear at the moment that the compact standard for Gingles is looser than the one used for purposes of neutral redistricting principles. The issue is how much looser. One hopes SCOTUS will elaborate.

Exactly. I feel like there's ways to go about it that are better than others, and as tricky as it may be, I'd really be happy with the SCOTUS if they come up with some sort of purely mathematical benchmark even if it otherwise loosens things up a bit.

Also I'd argue the arbitrary strandard for 50% black districts by default violates fair redistricting principles cause ina truly natural map, you should have some 40% black seats and some 60% black seats; not just a bunch of 50% black seats and then a bunch of whiter seats.

Like I kinda feel like black communities should as much as possible be left whole, but aiming for a specific 50% standard doesn't make sense when some of those seats would've already been perfoming at 30% black and others would still be iffy at 50%.

Inherently too, just aiming for black functioning districts eliminates political competition in primaries as well. In fair maps, shouldn't all races ahve opportunities to expand or shrink their coalition if that makes sense rather then deadlock 2 black reps and 4 white representatives for example

As an intellectual [a masturbatory] exercise, I pretended as to dividing the real estate between LA-01 and LA-02, I would forget about everything except compactness, chops (parish and municipal), and beauty.

I came up with the below. Is LA-02 black performing? Yes, I think so to at least close to a reasonable doubt. Is LA-01 still rock solid Pub? Yes? Will it ever be drawn? No. Part of the reason is that some of the whites placed in LA-02 in this iteration are some of the most virulent racists in the US. It has issues as to soft COI issues as I refer to them, and I am a pretty hard liner when it comes to blowing off soft COI claims.  

Btw, LA has no land contiguity requirement for darn good reasons!  

https://davesredistricting.org/join/bc9408f5-7d21-4cd6-bbe9-f4425e68ec06

[Torie]

Could there be an argument that any 50%+ BVAP LA-02 violates neutral redistricting principles given in a nonracially drawn compact and fair map, the New Orleans area would just get it's own dedicated seat rather than attaching black rurals to boost black population? Honestly for the GOP no matter what happens with VRA New Orleans is likely too hard to politically crack down the middle given balancing a bunch of Trump + 17 seats is bound to make someone upset.

That is another issue that is not entirely clear. Is a 50% BVAP CD but no more a safe harbor if sufficiently compact to trigger Gingles, or is one obligated to follow neutral redistricting principles that have a lower BVAP percentage, so long as it is black performing? The legal answer is probably the former safe harbor one, but I think there is some doubt. As a matter of policy, one should of course try to hew to neutral redistricting  as much as one can while preserving a minority performing CD that is Gingles protected. I think it is pretty clear at the moment that the compact standard for Gingles is looser than the one used for purposes of neutral redistricting principles. The issue is how much looser. One hopes SCOTUS will elaborate.

Exactly. I feel like there's ways to go about it that are better than others, and as tricky as it may be, I'd really be happy with the SCOTUS if they come up with some sort of purely mathematical benchmark even if it otherwise loosens things up a bit.

Also I'd argue the arbitrary strandard for 50% black districts by default violates fair redistricting principles cause ina truly natural map, you should have some 40% black seats and some 60% black seats; not just a bunch of 50% black seats and then a bunch of whiter seats.

Like I kinda feel like black communities should as much as possible be left whole, but aiming for a specific 50% standard doesn't make sense when some of those seats would've already been perfoming at 30% black and others would still be iffy at 50%.

Inherently too, just aiming for black functioning districts eliminates political competition in primaries as well. In fair maps, shouldn't all races ahve opportunities to expand or shrink their coalition if that makes sense rather then deadlock 2 black reps and 4 white representatives for example

As I know that you understand, under current law as "explained" by SCOTUS, there is nothing illegal about a 35% BVAP black performing district, nor for that matter a 60% BVAP district, if the latter hews to neutral redistricting principles (putting aside whether the legal result differs per Gingles, if the 60% BVAP CD precludes another black performing CD, that would itself be deemed triggered by Gingles as sufficiently compact.

[Torie]

For instance in this slight modification of the map Republicans passed, AL-07 stays as a safely black district that abides to relative neutral principles, but AL-02 is consolidates a lot of the black population not taken in creating an opportunity that would most years still most likely elect a white R (Trump + 9 seat, 40% black), rather than splitting the black community into a bunch of 30% black seats where they literally have no influence.

There's no reason not to consildate black voters into AL-02 even if the seat doesn't perform other than for partisan reasons.

For purposes of proportionality, should minorities be treated differently as a matter of law, such that where hewing to neutral metrics affords some options in design, one should go for the solution that moves towards proportionality? That is what you did with your 40% BVAP CD.

[Torie]

Converting an "unnatural distribution" into some legal standard is problematic, and in some cases, in my opinion, counterproductive, such as using declination to put lipstick on the pig of doing soft gerrymandering that moves away from proportionality where there is a "natural" party packing, e.g. in large inner cities.

I have come to the firm opinion that you just follow neutral redistricting principles, and where there are reasonable almost as equally good options subject to that constraint, you move towards the one that is closer to proportionality. So your suggestion does move to proportionality, and the lines do I think if you minimized chops hew to neutral principles, so I like what you did, but I think it should apply to partisan proportionality in general, and not just for minority proportionality, so thus my question.

[Torie]

In her order denying AG Landry's motion for an "extension" (read: motion to stay), Chief Judge Dick notes that "the Supreme Court indicated that an immediate stay is not warranted by declining to enter an administrative stay upon receipt of the emergency application, instead ordering a briefing schedule."

the order

the supreme court not immediately entering an administrative stay

The opposition briefs are due today.

[Torie]

Anyone know when we’ll have a final map. This might be one final small W for Dems this cycle but we’ll see if the map survives the decade

https://lailluminator.com/2022/06/22/its-basically-a-race-3-courts-consider-future-of-louisianas-congressional-districts/