Georgia 2020 Redistricting Discussion

[Idaho Conservative]

As for the VRA, there is no guarantee preclearance will be back, unless Dems get close to 60 votes in the senate.  Republicans would be moronic to concede that without something in return, like nationwide voter id.  It's the era we live in.  

The VRA still exists--despite the absence of preclearance maps can still be struck down by the courts for violating the VRA.

The current VRA doesn't have any specific district requirements, the gingles test comes from the court, not congress.  The court wouldn't have to strike down the VRA, just overturn Thornburg v Gingles.  At that point, the court could develop a new standard, or simply strike down the use of race in redistricting altogether.

[Adam Griffin]

There's also a chance that Congress expands the House by 100 districts and implements MMDs, but that's not the world as it exists today - nor is it even likely based on current events and reality. If/once the courts begin deliberating on tangible changes to the VRA, then you might have a point to make in such a discussion (and believe me, there's plenty regarding the VRA that I think is either outdated or insufficient). However, this is about what happens in 2021 - the likelihood of a major change in either redistricting policies or the VRA between now and next year is small enough to completely dismiss such discussion presently.

[Sol]

As for candidates of choice, that's a very stupid metric to use, hard to calculate as well.  So minorities elected by white electorates don't count?  Absurd.  

I appreciate your perspective on this, but on the Forum we're either drawing maps for the world as it exists or is likely to exist, not the world which matches our own preferences. The metric of a community electing the candidate of its choice may seem "absurd" to you, but I think it's more absurd to consider Allen Keyes being elected by a rural white district to be a better reflection of African-American voting rights than Steve Cohen successfully winning primary after primary with African-American voter support. It's about the right of the voters, not the right of the representative him or herself.

I am arguing against the current standard.  Again, you are a leftist who I won't convince.  There is an excellent chance the Supreme Court might change the standard.  The current one basically segregates voters on the basis of race, and legally mandates a certain number of whites be placed into districts where THEIR candidate of choice won't win, like with the Texas "fajita strips".  

IIRC, the strict present interpretation of the VRA emerged under the first Bush administration's preclearance policies as a maneuver to advance Republican positions in the South--at the time there were many John Barrow types who won 30% black districts. Although the GOP has obviously grown in power down here since, there are many cases where "race-blind mapping" would be unfavorable. A fair map of SC drawn under present rules would still give you just Jim Clyburn (with maybe a Joe Cunnigham in a good D year) but under your proposal you'd probably have 2 or 3 Democratic districts.

The VRA may seem like a burdensome restriction to you when trying to gerrymander Georgia, but recognize that it can also dramatically help Republicans.

Personally I think that a notion of race-blind redistricting is both illogical (basically ever single metric used to draw districts by, whether fair or unfair, is impacted by race) and unethical. Recognizing that minority groups should be fairly represented in the political process shouldn't be partisan.

[Idaho Conservative]

As for candidates of choice, that's a very stupid metric to use, hard to calculate as well.  So minorities elected by white electorates don't count?  Absurd.  

I appreciate your perspective on this, but on the Forum we're either drawing maps for the world as it exists or is likely to exist, not the world which matches our own preferences. The metric of a community electing the candidate of its choice may seem "absurd" to you, but I think it's more absurd to consider Allen Keyes being elected by a rural white district to be a better reflection of African-American voting rights than Steve Cohen successfully winning primary after primary with African-American voter support. It's about the right of the voters, not the right of the representative him or herself.

I am arguing against the current standard.  Again, you are a leftist who I won't convince.  There is an excellent chance the Supreme Court might change the standard.  The current one basically segregates voters on the basis of race, and legally mandates a certain number of whites be placed into districts where THEIR candidate of choice won't win, like with the Texas "fajita strips".  

IIRC, the strict present interpretation of the VRA emerged under the first Bush administration's preclearance policies as a maneuver to advance Republican positions in the South--at the time there were many John Barrow types who won 30% black districts. Although the GOP has obviously grown in power down here since, there are many cases where "race-blind mapping" would be unfavorable. A fair map of SC drawn under present rules would still give you just Jim Clyburn (with maybe a Joe Cunnigham in a good D year) but under your proposal you'd probably have 2 or 3 Democratic districts.

The VRA may seem like a burdensome restriction to you when trying to gerrymander Georgia, but recognize that it can also dramatically help Republicans.

Personally I think that a notion of race-blind redistricting is both illogical (basically ever single metric used to draw districts by, whether fair or unfair, is impacted by race) and unethical. Recognizing that minority groups should be fairly represented in the political process shouldn't be partisan.

I didn't say partisan blind, just race blind.  There would likely be de facto majority minority seats in some southern states, because an interest in packing Dems would still exist.  SC isn't going to give Dems more districts if they lack VRA requirements.  The only way this would backfire on republicans is a place like IL, where the south side of Chicago could be cracked way more. 

[Tintrlvr]

As for candidates of choice, that's a very stupid metric to use, hard to calculate as well.  So minorities elected by white electorates don't count?  Absurd.  

I appreciate your perspective on this, but on the Forum we're either drawing maps for the world as it exists or is likely to exist, not the world which matches our own preferences. The metric of a community electing the candidate of its choice may seem "absurd" to you, but I think it's more absurd to consider Allen Keyes being elected by a rural white district to be a better reflection of African-American voting rights than Steve Cohen successfully winning primary after primary with African-American voter support. It's about the right of the voters, not the right of the representative him or herself.

Moreover, this is what the Supreme Court and other courts have said in the past regarding the VRA, so it's really a closed question. The VRA is designed to ensure the enfranchisement of voters, not the enfranchisement of politicians, so what's important to compliance with the VRA is whether racial minority voters are properly enfranchised (when it comes to redistricting, that means not being improperly diluted or otherwise reduced in their ability to fairly elect candidates of their choice), not whether politicians that are racial minorities are being elected.

[Oryxslayer]

There's also a chance that Congress expands the House by 100 districts and implements MMDs, but that's not the world as it exists today - nor is it even likely based on current events and reality. If/once the courts begin deliberating on tangible changes to the VRA, then you might have a point to make in such a discussion (and believe me, there's plenty regarding the VRA that I think is either outdated or insufficient). However, this is about what happens in 2021 - the likelihood of a major change in either redistricting policies or the VRA between now and next year is small enough to completely dismiss such discussion presently.

This is my perspective as well. If the VRA looks to be changed, then standards will be changed. At least for 2020 there isn't enough time for any major Redistricting changes other than ballot commission questions, so that is the only hypothetical that deserves exploration in specific states. The facts are the fact, the ink is dry.

This is also why I keep pushing against GA02. It's against every GOP instinct to leave such a district in place, so it's likely they find a way to do it for 2020, even if their map ends up thrown out four years later. With that in mind we should be exploring ways they can justify cutting the district, because they will be making those justifications  next year, no matter how flimsy. So far, the best justification that I have seen is the significantly expanding minority power in the AA boomtown (4/5 D ATL seats) and hoping that such a move can balance out the slashed belt seat.

[Sol]

As for candidates of choice, that's a very stupid metric to use, hard to calculate as well.  So minorities elected by white electorates don't count?  Absurd.  

I appreciate your perspective on this, but on the Forum we're either drawing maps for the world as it exists or is likely to exist, not the world which matches our own preferences. The metric of a community electing the candidate of its choice may seem "absurd" to you, but I think it's more absurd to consider Allen Keyes being elected by a rural white district to be a better reflection of African-American voting rights than Steve Cohen successfully winning primary after primary with African-American voter support. It's about the right of the voters, not the right of the representative him or herself.

I am arguing against the current standard.  Again, you are a leftist who I won't convince.  There is an excellent chance the Supreme Court might change the standard.  The current one basically segregates voters on the basis of race, and legally mandates a certain number of whites be placed into districts where THEIR candidate of choice won't win, like with the Texas "fajita strips".  

IIRC, the strict present interpretation of the VRA emerged under the first Bush administration's preclearance policies as a maneuver to advance Republican positions in the South--at the time there were many John Barrow types who won 30% black districts. Although the GOP has obviously grown in power down here since, there are many cases where "race-blind mapping" would be unfavorable. A fair map of SC drawn under present rules would still give you just Jim Clyburn (with maybe a Joe Cunnigham in a good D year) but under your proposal you'd probably have 2 or 3 Democratic districts.

The VRA may seem like a burdensome restriction to you when trying to gerrymander Georgia, but recognize that it can also dramatically help Republicans.

Personally I think that a notion of race-blind redistricting is both illogical (basically ever single metric used to draw districts by, whether fair or unfair, is impacted by race) and unethical. Recognizing that minority groups should be fairly represented in the political process shouldn't be partisan.

I didn't say partisan blind, just race blind.  There would likely be de facto majority minority seats in some southern states, because an interest in packing Dems would still exist.  SC isn't going to give Dems more districts if they lack VRA requirements.  The only way this would backfire on republicans is a place like IL, where the south side of Chicago could be cracked way more. 

Partisan redistricting cannot be race blind so long as there are observable tendencies in voting by race.

[Nyvin]

As for candidates of choice, that's a very stupid metric to use, hard to calculate as well.  So minorities elected by white electorates don't count?  Absurd.  

I appreciate your perspective on this, but on the Forum we're either drawing maps for the world as it exists or is likely to exist, not the world which matches our own preferences. The metric of a community electing the candidate of its choice may seem "absurd" to you, but I think it's more absurd to consider Allen Keyes being elected by a rural white district to be a better reflection of African-American voting rights than Steve Cohen successfully winning primary after primary with African-American voter support. It's about the right of the voters, not the right of the representative him or herself.

I am arguing against the current standard.  Again, you are a leftist who I won't convince.  There is an excellent chance the Supreme Court might change the standard.  The current one basically segregates voters on the basis of race, and legally mandates a certain number of whites be placed into districts where THEIR candidate of choice won't win, like with the Texas "fajita strips".  

IIRC, the strict present interpretation of the VRA emerged under the first Bush administration's preclearance policies as a maneuver to advance Republican positions in the South--at the time there were many John Barrow types who won 30% black districts. Although the GOP has obviously grown in power down here since, there are many cases where "race-blind mapping" would be unfavorable. A fair map of SC drawn under present rules would still give you just Jim Clyburn (with maybe a Joe Cunnigham in a good D year) but under your proposal you'd probably have 2 or 3 Democratic districts.

The VRA may seem like a burdensome restriction to you when trying to gerrymander Georgia, but recognize that it can also dramatically help Republicans.

Personally I think that a notion of race-blind redistricting is both illogical (basically ever single metric used to draw districts by, whether fair or unfair, is impacted by race) and unethical. Recognizing that minority groups should be fairly represented in the political process shouldn't be partisan.

I didn't say partisan blind, just race blind.  There would likely be de facto majority minority seats in some southern states, because an interest in packing Dems would still exist.  SC isn't going to give Dems more districts if they lack VRA requirements.  The only way this would backfire on republicans is a place like IL, where the south side of Chicago could be cracked way more.  

Over a dozen Republican maps were struck down for racial gerrymanders this decade alone.   If left to their own devices Republicans would draw as many districts to maximize the white vote and minimized the minority vote in every single state they control.  

"Race Blind" would only apply to not requiring VRA districts, you'd be a fool to think the Republican legislatures would be "race blind" in any sense of the word.   They'll find the data and then draw the maps based on that data,  even if it's behind closed doors (which it almost always is).

[Idaho Conservative]

As for candidates of choice, that's a very stupid metric to use, hard to calculate as well.  So minorities elected by white electorates don't count?  Absurd.  

I appreciate your perspective on this, but on the Forum we're either drawing maps for the world as it exists or is likely to exist, not the world which matches our own preferences. The metric of a community electing the candidate of its choice may seem "absurd" to you, but I think it's more absurd to consider Allen Keyes being elected by a rural white district to be a better reflection of African-American voting rights than Steve Cohen successfully winning primary after primary with African-American voter support. It's about the right of the voters, not the right of the representative him or herself.

I am arguing against the current standard.  Again, you are a leftist who I won't convince.  There is an excellent chance the Supreme Court might change the standard.  The current one basically segregates voters on the basis of race, and legally mandates a certain number of whites be placed into districts where THEIR candidate of choice won't win, like with the Texas "fajita strips".  

IIRC, the strict present interpretation of the VRA emerged under the first Bush administration's preclearance policies as a maneuver to advance Republican positions in the South--at the time there were many John Barrow types who won 30% black districts. Although the GOP has obviously grown in power down here since, there are many cases where "race-blind mapping" would be unfavorable. A fair map of SC drawn under present rules would still give you just Jim Clyburn (with maybe a Joe Cunnigham in a good D year) but under your proposal you'd probably have 2 or 3 Democratic districts.

The VRA may seem like a burdensome restriction to you when trying to gerrymander Georgia, but recognize that it can also dramatically help Republicans.

Personally I think that a notion of race-blind redistricting is both illogical (basically ever single metric used to draw districts by, whether fair or unfair, is impacted by race) and unethical. Recognizing that minority groups should be fairly represented in the political process shouldn't be partisan.

I didn't say partisan blind, just race blind.  There would likely be de facto majority minority seats in some southern states, because an interest in packing Dems would still exist.  SC isn't going to give Dems more districts if they lack VRA requirements.  The only way this would backfire on republicans is a place like IL, where the south side of Chicago could be cracked way more. 

Over a dozen Republican maps were struck down for racial gerrymanders this decade alone.   If left to their own devices Republicans would draw as many districts to maximize the white vote and minimized the minority vote in every single state they control. 

"Race Blind" would only apply to not requiring VRA districts, you'd be a fool to think the Republican legislatures would "race blind" in any sense of the word.   They'll find the data and then draw the maps based on that data,  even if it's behind closed doors (which it almost always is).

Racial gerrymandering isn't needed tho.  As a Republican, I don't care if Dem districts are represented by whites or non whites, as long as the number of Dem districts is the lowest it can be without threatening any R seats.  Why would a red legislature use racial data and risk it when partisan data will get you better maps? 

[Idaho Conservative]

As for candidates of choice, that's a very stupid metric to use, hard to calculate as well.  So minorities elected by white electorates don't count?  Absurd.  

I appreciate your perspective on this, but on the Forum we're either drawing maps for the world as it exists or is likely to exist, not the world which matches our own preferences. The metric of a community electing the candidate of its choice may seem "absurd" to you, but I think it's more absurd to consider Allen Keyes being elected by a rural white district to be a better reflection of African-American voting rights than Steve Cohen successfully winning primary after primary with African-American voter support. It's about the right of the voters, not the right of the representative him or herself.

I am arguing against the current standard.  Again, you are a leftist who I won't convince.  There is an excellent chance the Supreme Court might change the standard.  The current one basically segregates voters on the basis of race, and legally mandates a certain number of whites be placed into districts where THEIR candidate of choice won't win, like with the Texas "fajita strips".  

IIRC, the strict present interpretation of the VRA emerged under the first Bush administration's preclearance policies as a maneuver to advance Republican positions in the South--at the time there were many John Barrow types who won 30% black districts. Although the GOP has obviously grown in power down here since, there are many cases where "race-blind mapping" would be unfavorable. A fair map of SC drawn under present rules would still give you just Jim Clyburn (with maybe a Joe Cunnigham in a good D year) but under your proposal you'd probably have 2 or 3 Democratic districts.

The VRA may seem like a burdensome restriction to you when trying to gerrymander Georgia, but recognize that it can also dramatically help Republicans.

Personally I think that a notion of race-blind redistricting is both illogical (basically ever single metric used to draw districts by, whether fair or unfair, is impacted by race) and unethical. Recognizing that minority groups should be fairly represented in the political process shouldn't be partisan.

I didn't say partisan blind, just race blind.  There would likely be de facto majority minority seats in some southern states, because an interest in packing Dems would still exist.  SC isn't going to give Dems more districts if they lack VRA requirements.  The only way this would backfire on republicans is a place like IL, where the south side of Chicago could be cracked way more.  

Partisan redistricting cannot be race blind so long as there are observable tendencies in voting by race.

In every state there are voting tendencies by race, partisan gerrymandering still occurs that isn't considered racial because race isn't ruled as the motivating factor.  If you want to prove it is racial not partisan, try to find an example of white dem precincts being treated differently than minority dem precincts

[Bacon King]

Only thing I have to say to this is that you don't know the demo's of your state . I didn't even try that hard and I got four AA seats in Atlanta between 49% and 52% AA, more than enough to lock in the candidate of choice.

Note that I didn't say it couldn't be done; rather, I expressed my doubt as to its constitutionality. Admittedly these districts are less irregularly-shaped than I had imagined they would be, although it's worth noting that pre-2010 census estimates overestimated the black share of the population growth throughout the metro area, and I remain suspicious the same phenomenon is happening again ten years later. In fact, you could look ten years back on this very board and find posts I made at the time showing how easy it would be to draw four black majority districts in ATL, much as you're doing now

and regardless, even if the estimates are accurate and your map works per the actual 2020 census data, my gut still tells me that the courts could still possibly interpret it as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander - although such a concern is completely moot

[Bacon King]

Racial gerrymandering isn't needed tho.  As a Republican, I don't care if Dem districts are represented by whites or non whites, as long as the number of Dem districts is the lowest it can be without threatening any R seats.  Why would a red legislature use racial data and risk it when partisan data will get you better maps? 

I don't see any point in responding to the rest of your absurd and bad posts itt when other people are doing great work calling you out, but I'm obligated to point out that this isn't how gerrymandering works, in theory or in practice. The act of maximizing the number of Republican seats, would quite obviously also suppress minority representation. In practice it's not about "if the democratic districts are white or black" it's that a gerrymander maximizing the number of GOP districts in the deep south is obviously also going to be a gerrymander that maximizes the number of white districts at the expense of minority representation. And that's still the case even if the people drawing the map had super duper pinky promised for real that "they were only looking at partisan data and definitely weren't looking at racial data at all, it just happened to end up like that i swear"

[Brittain33]

There is an excellent chance the Supreme Court might change the standard.

Which court case are you following that you expect will make it to the Supreme Court and lead to this outcome?  

The current one basically segregates voters on the basis of race, and legally mandates a certain number of whites be placed into districts where THEIR candidate of choice won't win, like with the Texas "fajita strips". 

Yes, the history of the U.S. shows that white voters have generally not suffered from discrimination in exercising their right to vote on the basis of race that African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans have throughout history, so they aren't treated the same.

[Tintrlvr]

There is an excellent chance the Supreme Court might change the standard.

Which court case are you following that you expect will make it to the Supreme Court and lead to this outcome?  

The current one basically segregates voters on the basis of race, and legally mandates a certain number of whites be placed into districts where THEIR candidate of choice won't win, like with the Texas "fajita strips".  

Yes, the history of the U.S. shows that white voters have generally not suffered from discrimination in exercising their right to vote on the basis of race that African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans have throughout history, so they aren't treated the same.

It's also the case that white voters have a disproportionate number of districts in Texas where (non-Hispanic) white voters elect the candidate of their choice: all of the districts that elect Republicans, in particular, which constitute a majority of congressional districts in Texas while Texas is (much) less than majority non-Hispanic white (and less than majority non-Hispanic white even when only taking into account eligible voters I believe), as well at least a few Democratic districts where white voters vote Democratic, such as TX-35, so this complaint is utterly ridiculous.

The VRA does not require that all voters of all races be able to elect candidates of their choice; this is obviously not possible (at least, not without proportional representation). But it does require that reasonable accommodation be made to ensure that racial groups are not, in the aggregate, disproportionately prevented from reasonably being able to elect candidates of their choice. It isn't the case that white voters in Texas that form cohesive communities are in the aggregate unable to elect candidates of their choice, so the point is moot.

I do disagree with Brittain33 in that I think white voters are technically protected by the VRA as well, but I don't think there are any situations currently where white voters are disproportionately prevented from electing candidates of their choice. There are a variety of reasons for this: disproportionate presence of white politicians in the levers of power (even in areas that are minority-majority), the general propensity for white voters to turn out to vote at higher rates than other racial groups (so a minority white district often will still elect a candidate preferred by white voters) and the institutional structures of the parties and their respective redistricting goals.

[Idaho Conservative]

Racial gerrymandering isn't needed tho.  As a Republican, I don't care if Dem districts are represented by whites or non whites, as long as the number of Dem districts is the lowest it can be without threatening any R seats.  Why would a red legislature use racial data and risk it when partisan data will get you better maps? 

I don't see any point in responding to the rest of your absurd and bad posts itt when other people are doing great work calling you out, but I'm obligated to point out that this isn't how gerrymandering works, in theory or in practice. The act of maximizing the number of Republican seats, would quite obviously also suppress minority representation. In practice it's not about "if the democratic districts are white or black" it's that a gerrymander maximizing the number of GOP districts in the deep south is obviously also going to be a gerrymander that maximizes the number of white districts at the expense of minority representation. And that's still the case even if the people drawing the map had super duper pinky promised for real that "they were only looking at partisan data and definitely weren't looking at racial data at all, it just happened to end up like that i swear"

Well as it currently stands republicans can't draw away the black district in a state like AL, but if that part of the VRA is reinterpreted, there's little that could be done to protect those districts, since it could be argued the motivation us partisan.  Your pompous attitude isn't necessary, if your points held any water, you could stick with those.

[Idaho Conservative]

There is an excellent chance the Supreme Court might change the standard.

Which court case are you following that you expect will make it to the Supreme Court and lead to this outcome?  

The current one basically segregates voters on the basis of race, and legally mandates a certain number of whites be placed into districts where THEIR candidate of choice won't win, like with the Texas "fajita strips".  

Yes, the history of the U.S. shows that white voters have generally not suffered from discrimination in exercising their right to vote on the basis of race that African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans have throughout history, so they aren't treated the same.

It's also the case that white voters have a disproportionate number of districts in Texas where (non-Hispanic) white voters elect the candidate of their choice: all of the districts that elect Republicans, in particular, which constitute a majority of congressional districts in Texas while Texas is (much) less than majority non-Hispanic white (and less than majority non-Hispanic white even when only taking into account eligible voters I believe), as well at least a few Democratic districts where white voters vote Democratic, such as TX-35, so this complaint is utterly ridiculous.

The VRA does not require that all voters of all races be able to elect candidates of their choice; this is obviously not possible (at least, not without proportional representation). But it does require that reasonable accommodation be made to ensure that racial groups are not, in the aggregate, disproportionately prevented from reasonably being able to elect candidates of their choice. It isn't the case that white voters in Texas that form cohesive communities are in the aggregate unable to elect candidates of their choice, so the point is moot.

I do disagree with Brittain33 in that I think white voters are technically protected by the VRA as well, but I don't think there are any situations currently where white voters are disproportionately prevented from electing candidates of their choice. There are a variety of reasons for this: disproportionate presence of white politicians in the levers of power (even in areas that are minority-majority), the general propensity for white voters to turn out to vote at higher rates than other racial groups (so a minority white district often will still elect a candidate preferred by white voters) and the institutional structures of the parties and their respective redistricting goals.

TX-35 whites lean R, surprisingly.  The slice of Austin it has doesn't have too many whites. https://www.deviantart.com/reagentah/art/2016-Non-Hispanic-White-Vote-Map-by-C-District-770102062
As for whites being protected under the vra, the court has never ruled in favor of a white vra district, but that's an interesting idea.  Mass immigration as already made whites a minority in multiple states and will turn others soon.  Let's look at Orange County, I seriously doubt Cisneros, Porter, or Rouda would count as white preference candidates since they lost the white vote (maybe Levin too).  If SCOTUS keeps the district requirements in place Republicans could argue for a white VRA seat in OC, because non whites vote as a bloc to defeat the white candidate of choice.  This would be unprecedented, but there would be harm in trying.  It would be interesting to see if the left would change its position on the VRA if it actually protected everyone.  Soon the California electorate will be majority non white, you don't have to be brown to be a minority.

[Tintrlvr]

There is an excellent chance the Supreme Court might change the standard.

Which court case are you following that you expect will make it to the Supreme Court and lead to this outcome?  

The current one basically segregates voters on the basis of race, and legally mandates a certain number of whites be placed into districts where THEIR candidate of choice won't win, like with the Texas "fajita strips".  

Yes, the history of the U.S. shows that white voters have generally not suffered from discrimination in exercising their right to vote on the basis of race that African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans have throughout history, so they aren't treated the same.

It's also the case that white voters have a disproportionate number of districts in Texas where (non-Hispanic) white voters elect the candidate of their choice: all of the districts that elect Republicans, in particular, which constitute a majority of congressional districts in Texas while Texas is (much) less than majority non-Hispanic white (and less than majority non-Hispanic white even when only taking into account eligible voters I believe), as well at least a few Democratic districts where white voters vote Democratic, such as TX-35, so this complaint is utterly ridiculous.

The VRA does not require that all voters of all races be able to elect candidates of their choice; this is obviously not possible (at least, not without proportional representation). But it does require that reasonable accommodation be made to ensure that racial groups are not, in the aggregate, disproportionately prevented from reasonably being able to elect candidates of their choice. It isn't the case that white voters in Texas that form cohesive communities are in the aggregate unable to elect candidates of their choice, so the point is moot.

I do disagree with Brittain33 in that I think white voters are technically protected by the VRA as well, but I don't think there are any situations currently where white voters are disproportionately prevented from electing candidates of their choice. There are a variety of reasons for this: disproportionate presence of white politicians in the levers of power (even in areas that are minority-majority), the general propensity for white voters to turn out to vote at higher rates than other racial groups (so a minority white district often will still elect a candidate preferred by white voters) and the institutional structures of the parties and their respective redistricting goals.

TX-35 whites lean R, surprisingly.  The slice of Austin it has doesn't have too many whites. https://www.deviantart.com/reagentah/art/2016-Non-Hispanic-White-Vote-Map-by-C-District-770102062
As for whites being protected under the vra, the court has never ruled in favor of a white vra district, but that's an interesting idea.  Mass immigration as already made whites a minority in multiple states and will turn others soon.  Let's look at Orange County, I seriously doubt Cisneros, Porter, or Rouda would count as white preference candidates since they lost the white vote (maybe Levin too).  If SCOTUS keeps the district requirements in place Republicans could argue for a white VRA seat in OC, because non whites vote as a bloc to defeat the white candidate of choice.  This would be unprecedented, but there would be harm in trying.  It would be interesting to see if the left would change its position on the VRA if it actually protected everyone.  Soon the California electorate will be majority non white, you don't have to be brown to be a minority.

The main problem with arguing this in OC is that you need a solid community of interest. If you could point to a majority white area that was being cracked across multiple districts (or if white voters were being packed into one district), you might have a case, but that's clearly not true under the current map even though white voters lose out anyway; the problem is that white voters are scattered around the map (contrast the original point of discussion, southwestern Georgia, where black voters form a clear and compact community of interest). Moreover, it's clear that white voters are still in the driver's seat in both parties' primaries and that a large minority of white voters are still having their preferences expressed.

Part of the reason is that white voters outside of the Deep South are not especially strong in their partisan electoral preferences, which makes their interests that much weaker when looking to protect them in the VRA; it's concerning when 90% of black voters can't elect a candidate of their choice, but much less concerning or indicative of a disparate impact on white voters (and also, practically, much more difficult to resolve through district-drawing) when only 52% of white voters are losing out.

[Idaho Conservative]

There is an excellent chance the Supreme Court might change the standard.

Which court case are you following that you expect will make it to the Supreme Court and lead to this outcome?  

The current one basically segregates voters on the basis of race, and legally mandates a certain number of whites be placed into districts where THEIR candidate of choice won't win, like with the Texas "fajita strips".  

Yes, the history of the U.S. shows that white voters have generally not suffered from discrimination in exercising their right to vote on the basis of race that African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans have throughout history, so they aren't treated the same.

It's also the case that white voters have a disproportionate number of districts in Texas where (non-Hispanic) white voters elect the candidate of their choice: all of the districts that elect Republicans, in particular, which constitute a majority of congressional districts in Texas while Texas is (much) less than majority non-Hispanic white (and less than majority non-Hispanic white even when only taking into account eligible voters I believe), as well at least a few Democratic districts where white voters vote Democratic, such as TX-35, so this complaint is utterly ridiculous.

The VRA does not require that all voters of all races be able to elect candidates of their choice; this is obviously not possible (at least, not without proportional representation). But it does require that reasonable accommodation be made to ensure that racial groups are not, in the aggregate, disproportionately prevented from reasonably being able to elect candidates of their choice. It isn't the case that white voters in Texas that form cohesive communities are in the aggregate unable to elect candidates of their choice, so the point is moot.

I do disagree with Brittain33 in that I think white voters are technically protected by the VRA as well, but I don't think there are any situations currently where white voters are disproportionately prevented from electing candidates of their choice. There are a variety of reasons for this: disproportionate presence of white politicians in the levers of power (even in areas that are minority-majority), the general propensity for white voters to turn out to vote at higher rates than other racial groups (so a minority white district often will still elect a candidate preferred by white voters) and the institutional structures of the parties and their respective redistricting goals.

TX-35 whites lean R, surprisingly.  The slice of Austin it has doesn't have too many whites. https://www.deviantart.com/reagentah/art/2016-Non-Hispanic-White-Vote-Map-by-C-District-770102062
As for whites being protected under the vra, the court has never ruled in favor of a white vra district, but that's an interesting idea.  Mass immigration as already made whites a minority in multiple states and will turn others soon.  Let's look at Orange County, I seriously doubt Cisneros, Porter, or Rouda would count as white preference candidates since they lost the white vote (maybe Levin too).  If SCOTUS keeps the district requirements in place Republicans could argue for a white VRA seat in OC, because non whites vote as a bloc to defeat the white candidate of choice.  This would be unprecedented, but there would be harm in trying.  It would be interesting to see if the left would change its position on the VRA if it actually protected everyone.  Soon the California electorate will be majority non white, you don't have to be brown to be a minority.

The main problem with arguing this in OC is that you need a solid community of interest. If you could point to a majority white area that was being cracked across multiple districts (or if white voters were being packed into one district), you might have a case, but that's clearly not true under the current map even though white voters lose out anyway; the problem is that white voters are scattered around the map (contrast the original point of discussion, southwestern Georgia, where black voters form a clear and compact community of interest). Moreover, it's clear that white voters are still in the driver's seat in both parties' primaries and that a large minority of white voters are still having their preferences expressed.

Part of the reason is that white voters outside of the Deep South are not especially strong in their partisan electoral preferences, which makes their interests that much weaker when looking to protect them in the VRA; it's concerning when 90% of black voters can't elect a candidate of their choice, but much less concerning or indicative of a disparate impact on white voters (and also, practically, much more difficult to resolve through district-drawing) when only 52% of white voters are losing out.

But it passes the gingles test.  It is large enough and compact enough to make one maybe even 2 SMDs.  It is politically cohesive, OC whites consistently vote Republican.  As to the 3rd part, that's questionable.  Do non whites consistently vote to defeat the white candidate of choice?  That depends, they did in 2018.  If it keeps happening over and over then there would be a good case, it hinges on that. 

[Brittain33]

“Should white voters be protected by the VRA?” is potentially an interesting question, but if so it merits its own thread. Since it isn’t a factor in Georgia’s next redistricting it just serves to distract on this thread.

[Former President tack50]

Since some mentioned GA-02 (if kept with a similar composition) being a swing district by the end of the decade despite being a VRA plurality/majority black district, I now wonder if something similar has ever happened.

Has a white Republican (with ~10% black support presumably) ever won a VRA black district? GA-02 seems like it would be extremely inelastic and titanium D despite the low margins

[Tintrlvr]

Since some mentioned GA-02 (if kept with a similar composition) being a swing district by the end of the decade despite being a VRA plurality/majority black district, I now wonder if something similar has ever happened.

Has a white Republican (with ~10% black support presumably) ever won a VRA black district? GA-02 seems like it would be extremely inelastic and titanium D despite the low margins

He wasn’t white, but Anh Cao, who pretty clearly lost the black vote (by huge margins — Jefferson was getting 90+% of the vote in the heavily black precincts of NOLA) but won anyway by consolidating the non-black vote. Special circumstances, of course.

Edit: The ability for such a thing to happen has mainly to do with differential turnout. In urban VRA districts, the Republicans normally have no chance because the non-black voters in urban districts aren't monolithically Republican. On the other hand, unlike in rural VRA districts, in urban VRA districts the non-black voters on the whole often have much better turnout than the black voters, so there's more chance of the actual on-the-day electorate being majority non-black, and, if there is a perfect storm of all of the urban non-black voters voting for a Republican, as happened for Cao, they can win. In a rural VRA district, the significant turnout differential in the Republicans' (or, more specifically when comparing to urban VRA districts, non-black voters') favor does not exist as strongly, but, at the same time, in a rural VRA district (in the Deep South), the Republicans don't need extraordinary circumstances for the non-black vote to be 90% in their favor. It doesn't seem wildly implausible that the Republicans could win a VRA district GA-02 in a Democratic midterm in 2026 or 2030, or maybe even 2022, when Democratic turnout was down a bit and Republican turnout up a bit.

[Oryxslayer]

Since some mentioned GA-02 (if kept with a similar composition) being a swing district by the end of the decade despite being a VRA plurality/majority black district, I now wonder if something similar has ever happened.

Has a white Republican (with ~10% black support presumably) ever won a VRA black district? GA-02 seems like it would be extremely inelastic and titanium D despite the low margins

He wasn’t white, but Anh Cao, who pretty clearly lost the black vote (by huge margins — Jefferson was getting 90+% of the vote in the heavily black precincts of NOLA) but won anyway by consolidating the non-black vote. Special circumstances, of course.

Edit: The ability for such a thing to happen has mainly to do with differential turnout. In urban VRA districts, the Republicans normally have no chance because the non-black voters in urban districts aren't monolithically Republican. On the other hand, unlike in rural VRA districts, in urban VRA districts the non-black voters on the whole often have much better turnout than the black voters, so there's more chance of the actual on-the-day electorate being majority non-black, and, if there is a perfect storm of all of the urban non-black voters voting for a Republican, as happened for Cao, they can win. In a rural VRA district, the significant turnout differential in the Republicans' (or, more specifically when comparing to urban VRA districts, non-black voters') favor does not exist as strongly, but, at the same time, in a rural VRA district (in the Deep South), the Republicans don't need extraordinary circumstances for the non-black vote to be 90% in their favor. It doesn't seem wildly implausible that the Republicans could win a VRA district GA-02 in a Democratic midterm in 2026 or 2030, or maybe even 2022, when Democratic turnout was down a bit and Republican turnout up a bit.

The dropoff between Obama and Cao in regards to total votes was immense. Only 67K total votes in the congressional race, whereas the Obama/McCain vote total more was in line with the nation. So, like you said, perfect storm fueled by corruption that turned Dem voters away. This is type of election is an excellent indicator why there is no simple universal VRA standard. In some areas like MS AAs need to be packed for AA voters to safely express their voice, in others like urban TX and VA, 42% will suffice. The AAs did express their voice in 2008 by dropping off the race, signaling their disapproval of both candidates, a demonstration that the VRA seat worked as intended.

[Bacon King]

Since some mentioned GA-02 (if kept with a similar composition) being a swing district by the end of the decade despite being a VRA plurality/majority black district, I now wonder if something similar has ever happened.

Has a white Republican (with ~10% black support presumably) ever won a VRA black district? GA-02 seems like it would be extremely inelastic and titanium D despite the low margins

replace "black" with "hispanic" and you're basically describing TX-23. Will Hurd is a non-Hispanic Republican who has narrowly won three times against Hispanic Democrats even though the district is 68% Hispanic

Also with GA-2 specifically, the scenario you're describing actually almost happened in 2010, when Sanford Bishop held on by less than five thousand votes. I doubt it would happen in the upcoming decade, though, because honestly SW GA's white population is shrinking just as quickly as the black population.

[Bacon King]

Well as it currently stands republicans can't draw away the black district in a state like AL, but if that part of the VRA is reinterpreted, there's little that could be done to protect those districts, since it could be argued the motivation us partisan.  Your pompous attitude isn't necessary, if your points held any water, you could stick with those.

I apologize if I seem pompous at all to you, but your posts betray the fact that you are very poorly informed about the topic you're attempting to speak authoritatively about, and when I've attempted to explain it to you, instead of listening you are just doubling down and insisting your incorrect interpretation is the truth. It has honestly become incredibly frustrating.

Let me try to speak clearly here. Attempting to argue intent and motivation is meaningless because US Voting Rights law does not work that way. If redistricting creates an illegal racial gerrymander, then it is an illegal racial gerrymander because all that matters is OUTCOME.regardless of intent. And this isn't something the court can magically reinterpret anyway because it's the explicit word of the law! The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (as amended in 1982), Section 2, "Results Test". Look it up, if you want to keep insisting I'm wrong the burden of explaining yourself is on you.

But it passes the gingles test.  It is large enough and compact enough to make one maybe even 2 SMDs.  It is politically cohesive, OC whites consistently vote Republican.  As to the 3rd part, that's questionable.  Do non whites consistently vote to defeat the white candidate of choice?  That depends, they did in 2018.  If it keeps happening over and over then there would be a good case, it hinges on that. 

No, this is simply not true at all. Even if you assume whites were suddenly treated as a protected racial minority (they aren't, and shouldn't be) the white community of Orange County is absolutely not politically cohesive nor is there any racial bloc voting

[Bacon King]

instead of derailing this thread further what would you guys say to a thread on this board specifically about the Voting Rights Act and its impact on redistricting