2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Louisiana

[Skill and Chance]

Hmmm... if this ends up in state court, the (partisan, elected, 5R/2D) Louisiana Supreme Court = Republicans win.  If it ends up in federal court, it gets appealed to the 5th Circuit, which also basically = Republicans win.  If it then gets appealed to SCOTUS, it's clear at this point that 3 SCOTUS Justices (Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch) are ready to strike down the requirement for VRA districts entirely.
 Roberts has clearly favored easing other VRA restrictions on states in the recent past.  They would need one of Roberts or Kavanaugh to back a requirement for a 2nd VRA district or to overturn the LA Supreme Court's adoption of Republican maps. 

I'm not actually seeing a much cause for Dem optimism here unless they have flipped SCOTUS by the time it gets there?  Maybe Edwards makes a deal where he will just sign whatever the GOP draws for the state leg if they send him a congressional map with 2 VRA districts?     

 

[Skill and Chance]

Hmmm... if this ends up in state court, the (partisan, elected, 5R/2D) Louisiana Supreme Court = Republicans win.  If it ends up in federal court, it gets appealed to the 5th Circuit, which also basically = Republicans win.  If it then gets appealed to SCOTUS, it's clear at this point that 3 SCOTUS Justices (Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch) are ready to strike down the requirement for VRA districts entirely.
 Roberts has clearly favored easing other VRA restrictions on states in the recent past.  They would need one of Roberts or Kavanaugh to back a requirement for a 2nd VRA district or to overturn the LA Supreme Court's adoption of Republican maps. 

I'm not actually seeing a much cause for Dem optimism here unless they have flipped SCOTUS by the time it gets there?  Maybe Edwards makes a deal where he will just sign whatever the GOP draws for the state leg if they send him a congressional map with 2 VRA districts?     

 

Also didn't the US Supreme Court basically ruled recently that when it comes to redistricting, state supreme courts have the final say?   

If it's under state law (as in PA and NC), yes.  They just reinforced that last year by refusing to take up the PA legislature's appeal of the new CD map imposed by the PA Supreme Court.  But any challenges in Louisiana will be based on the VRA, which is inherently federal, so I don't think the CD map ends up at the LA Supreme Court at all, and the LA Supreme Court's choice for the legislative maps could be appealed to SCOTUS on VRA grounds.  Again, though, the VRA plaintiffs would need at least one of Roberts and Kavanaugh when it gets there, possibly both. 

Edit: Roberts did rule against the 2012 version of the NC-01 VRA district in Cooper v. Harris, which is similar to the argument for needing to take LA-02 into Baton Rouge.  So he is a plausible vote for VRA plaintiffs against a CD map with NOLA and Baton Rouge in the same VRA district.  However, I think there is basically no chance of getting 5 SCOTUS votes to prevent the LA Supreme Court from adopting its preferred state legislative plan.

[Skill and Chance]

If I was JBE I would request the GOP a map like this
https://twitter.com/TwentyOneCity/status/1196174528444956672

Why?
Its a compromise map first of all
2nd of all it includes his home parish so he could run here.

Anything like that would be blatant gerrymandering.

Yes, that is dumb.  LA Dems will need to argue explicitly for a 2nd VRA protected district throughout the process.  That 1. gives federal courts a reason to intervene and bypass/overrule the R dominated LA Supreme Court 2. has the potential to create a precedent locking the 2nd VRA district in for future rounds of congressional redistricting even when Dems have no partisan say.

[Skill and Chance]

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.     

[Skill and Chance]

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?

[Skill and Chance]

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.

[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.

[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. 

[Skill and Chance]

How likely is it that a 4-2 map is actually drawn? How much leverage does JBE have in the redistricting process?

So the GOP just sends it to the courts. Most likely we get a district resembling something like Arkansas 2nd.

So most likely JBE vetoes a 5 Safe R-1 Safe D maps, which throws it to the courts, who draw 4 Safe R-1 Lean/Likely R-1 Safe D?

Thats if the GOP doesn't overrides in exchange for legislative or other stuff

Does the GOP have the votes to override? I thought they were a couple seats shy

They don't because of 2 independents, one of whom is a rural socon/fisclib and potentially flippable.  However, the other one is from New Orleans and votes left of JBE himself and they need both to override a veto.  So it's basically a sure thing that the redistricting veto will be sustained unless there is a deal with some of the Democrats. 

It's theoretically possible that Republicans make a deal for a second Dem congressional seat in order to draw the state legislative districts as they see fit, but under the state constitution, the legislative maps go directly to the 5R/2D partisan elected state supreme court to break the deadlock after JBE vetoes.  So it's overwhelmingly likely the state supreme court just adopts the GOP legislative maps. 

If they can get the congressional map into federal court, it gets more interesting, as Roberts and Thomas are both plausible votes against a NOLA to BR LA-02, and Kavanaugh and Barrett haven't decided a racial gerrymandering case yet. 

[Skill and Chance]

Nonpartisan map with only one VRA district. Such a map is possible because Democrats have just enough seats in the state legislature to allow Edwards to veto a bad map.

Would Edwards himself run in this LA-06?  He seems like the perfect candidate for it.

*He'd have to wait until 2024, but there's no way a Deep South Trump seat is flipping for Generic D in the 2022 midterm. 

[Skill and Chance]

Nonpartisan map with only one VRA district. Such a map is possible because Democrats have just enough seats in the state legislature to allow Edwards to veto a bad map.

Would Edwards himself run in this LA-06?  He seems like the perfect candidate for it.

*He'd have to wait until 2024, but there's no way a Deep South Trump seat is flipping for Generic D in the 2022 midterm. 

He’s dead

I think that the poster is refer to John Bel Edwards, the incumbent Governor, not Edwin Edwards, the now deceased comically corrupt ex-Governor.

Doesn’t John Bel Edwards live in LA-1 on this map?

IDK- this map splits his home Parish between LA-01 and LA-06.

[Skill and Chance]

Edwards came from Amite, which is in my LA-06.

i keep on saying: the only D who can win in LA other than the VRA house district is Edwards, and he shouldn't waste his time on a House seat when he can challenge for Cassidy's seat in 2026

Maybe, but this only makes sense if the president in 2026 is a Republican.  He could have a nearly sure thing lined up in 2024 if he's willing to go to the House. 

[Skill and Chance]

One thing that’s interesting is we might actually end up with a pretty fair Louisiana House map and Dems might be able to continue to deny the GOP a supermajority.

According to my calculations, Dems actually have a pretty decent geography advantage in the state, mostly thanks to white rurals “hyper packing” and black areas being lower turnout. Combine that with VRA, and you get a bunch of 60ish% Dem districts and 80% R districts. It’s actually pretty easy to make a relatively compact LA House map on 2020 numbers where Biden outright wins a majority of seats.

Am I saying Dems will outright win a majority under the new maps. Def not. However, I do think they will be given a good 40% of the seats or so and have no less of a viable path to a majority than in a state like Ohio or even Wisconsin which is weird to think about.

At first I didn't believe it.
But lo and behold...
https://davesredistricting.org/join/9ec3a530-2366-437b-9bea-014fbf0d2edd
Only 50 Trump districts, out of 105.

Nice job! It's def a suprising example of pretty extreme favorable geography

Holy crap.  LA Dems need to find 10+ JBE wannabes ASAP.

[Skill and Chance]

Are we going to see a trend where Democrats increasingly have geographical advantages in the Deep South?

Yes, with the possible exception of GA because almost all the Dems are within 50 miles of Atlanta, but even there the majority-white rural areas are now extreme R packs, so it’s starting to even out.

[Skill and Chance]

BTW didn't Louisiana just propose/pass an amendment to change the size (and by necessity change the districts) of the state supreme court from 7 to 9 justices?  I believe this was a bipartisan affair and one of the goals was to have 3 black-majority districts instead of the current 1? 

[Skill and Chance]

BTW didn't Louisiana just propose/pass an amendment to change the size (and by necessity change the districts) of the state supreme court from 7 to 9 justices?  I believe this was a bipartisan affair and one of the goals was to have 3 black-majority districts instead of the current 1? 

I think it failed in the house. Also I think 9 seats only gives 2 black majority really regarding an Orleans and Baton Rouge seat.

Yes, confirmed it failed. 

The current LA Supreme Court is 5R/1D/1I(former rural D).

[Skill and Chance]

Are we going to see a trend where Democrats increasingly have geographical advantages in the Deep South?

Yes, with the possible exception of GA because almost all the Dems are within 50 miles of Atlanta, but even there the majority-white rural areas are now extreme R packs, so it’s starting to even out.

Even in Georgia there’s still a lot of deep blue pockets outside the growing Atlanta bubble. It’s easy to draw two Safe Democrat non-ATL seats with the current GA-02 and a Savannah to Augusta seat. On top of that, you can draw a blue-tilting district with Athens, plus the rural black belt counties east of Macon and drawing all the way to pick up parts of Gwinnett County that GA-07 has left over.

Yes, I looked into it since making that post, and GA is not actually a slam dunk for R's geographically like say WI or MI.  It's only a bare advantage. 

[Skill and Chance]

https://twitter.com/BlakePater/status/1493280747913887755

Wow, that's interesting and unexpected.

[Skill and Chance]

A Biden +10 majority-black VAP district in the Deep South would be incredibly inelastic.  I'm not buying the argument that Letlow could win that.  This is not at all equivalent to Youngkin winning Virginia.

[Skill and Chance]

https://twitter.com/DemocracyDocket/status/1715082394691059961
Wait, so basically district court schedules hearing -> circuit court cancels hearing -> supreme court declines to cancel cancellation -> presumably district court schedules another hearing? What's to prevent this from repeating ad infinitum until Purcell becomes relevant?

FWIW this order has no noted dissents and a Justice Jackson concurrence emphasizing that she expects the litigation to be resolved before 2024 Purcell issues.  So this isn't a 6/3 or 5/4 issue where they lost Kavanaugh on some technical difference from the Alabama case.

[Skill and Chance]

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1740515521056084374?t=CuheOwVuvuLdlNNMU...

So it's been going in the background,  but there is a lawsuit against the court for not having 2 AA districts.  There is also just a general desire to bring the districts closer to OMOV, since Katrina created 150k+ pop deviations since the last time this got redrawn. The court wants both to be addressed here, seemingly proposing it's own map, (supposedly included but nobody right now has a visual copy) to be adopted without changes, that does both which has majority approval. Notable since that got 4/6 conservatives to sign on.

If the leg does take it up, they will either show deference to the court like in past sessions and just pass their stuff, or go the partisan route and fix the population deviation but not the access issues.

Wow.

[Skill and Chance]

The absurdity of protecting Letlow because she is the only woman in the delegation. Not that it much matters to me which Republican gets the cut but that really is an example of identity politics that serves no purpose.

It’s just an excuse to cut Graves, who is a political enemy of Landry’s

It's most certainly an excuse, it's just weird seeing Republicans vocally support what is essentially affirmative action when they spend so much time railing against it.

On race/ethnicity, yes, but this cut differently.  Many Republicans (particularly Southern Republicans) believe women and men are fundamentally different and ideally should be treated more differently than current culture allows.

[Skill and Chance]

They also appear to be abolishing the famous jungle primary in favor of closed R/D primaries in March and a GE decided by a traditional plurality without a runoff.  Wow.

[Skill and Chance]

They also appear to be abolishing the famous jungle primary in favor of closed R/D primaries in March and a GE decided by a traditional plurality without a runoff.  Wow.

Good. The jungle primary is stupid.

It's questionable, but having runoff is smart.  Whenever democracies get commandeered by crazy people, it's usually by a plurality.

[Skill and Chance]

We're getting Shreveport to BR LFG!!!!

Legitimately has long been my preferred option for a second AA seat for years cause you are following the river. A clear COI compared to the L or the BR octopus. Also in this situation, protects the Speaker by yanking out the uber-AA precincts like how LA-02 does now with BR. Though once it was announced that they were looking at screwing Graves, I explored the options and found that the diagonal actually made the most sense if you want that outcome and a 50%+1 VAP seat. Obviously, compared to how it's drawn by the legislator, it can be neater, and IMO the GOP seats should be neater to prevent compactness allegations:

How can this district be constitutional when 2010's VA-03 was unconstitutional?  This is just ridiculous.  The almost-all BR version preferred by the lower house looks so much better and likely meets the VRA standard.