Georgia 2020 Redistricting Discussion

[Brittain33]

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

Better yet, a mod can send all of Idaho Conservative’s posts predicated on a complete revamp of Voting Rights law to the What Ifs? board where he can set up whatever scenario he wants. I agree that it’s messing up the Georgia discussion.

[voice_of_resistance]

yeah, GA-02 is trending rightward, but fairly slowly. if you look at where the population is growing in the district, it's in the urban portions (Columbus/Macon). rural whites won't perhaps vote for someone like Stacey Abrams, but a new Sanford Bishop, maybe Jason Carter or some other moderate AA Dem, would do quite well. And just because the rural AA population is decreasing doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all anymore. It's still quite sizeable, to the point where as long as the VRA exists in its current form, which I don't think even this Supreme Court would touch, they can't baconmander the current GA-02 with GA-08, so they are better off keeping it there as a way to pack Dem voters in southwest GA.

[voice_of_resistance]

Also like 90 percent of what Idaho Conservative has said is either illegal already or would get struck down in court as illegal.

[Idaho Conservative]

Also like 90 percent of what Idaho Conservative has said is either illegal already or would get struck down in court as illegal.

With the rightward move of the federal judiciary, I wouldn't be so sure......

[Idaho Conservative]

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 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

You are the uninformed one.  The voting rights act doesn't create any specific rules for redistricting.  The results test was interpreted to create the Gingles Test, but that isn't part of the law.  Liberal judges have taken FAR more liberty in twisting the meaning of laws than I'm suggesting.  Section 2 does not even have to apply to redistricting at all. 

As for OC, the white community of OC does vote consistently republican and the non white community voted as a bloc to defeat the white candidates of choice.  This has not happened enough to really make a case for such a district, but it might.  It is disgusting you favor special districts for POC in majority white states but oppose those districts for white minorities in majority POC states.  It is very clear why your side is intent on opening the borders, it's all about power. 

[Skill and Chance]

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.

There was also Joseph Cao in the 2010 runoff for LA-02, although that was a very exceptional situation and he is not white. 

However, increasing urban/rural polarization is clearly impacting minority communities as well (see NC-09), and it's not unreasonable to wonder if Republicans could compete well in some substantially rural VRA districts (e.g. GA-02, MS-02, a VRA district on a 6 seat AL map, one or more seats in South Texas on a 39 CD TX map, the plurality-black rural state house district in VA that nearly flipped last year, etc.) by the end of this decade. 

[EastAnglianLefty]

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.

There was also Joseph Cao in the 2010 runoff for LA-02, although that was a very exceptional situation and he is not white. 

However, increasing urban/rural polarization is clearly impacting minority communities as well (see NC-09), and it's not unreasonable to wonder if Republicans could compete well in some substantially rural VRA districts (e.g. GA-02, MS-02, a VRA district on a 6 seat AL map, one or more seats in South Texas on a 39 CD TX map, the plurality-black rural state house district in VA that nearly flipped last year, etc.) by the end of this decade. 

I'm not sure what the voting behaviour of the Lumbee tells us about the voting behaviour of black-majority seats.

[Skill and Chance]

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.

There was also Joseph Cao in the 2010 runoff for LA-02, although that was a very exceptional situation and he is not white. 

However, increasing urban/rural polarization is clearly impacting minority communities as well (see NC-09), and it's not unreasonable to wonder if Republicans could compete well in some substantially rural VRA districts (e.g. GA-02, MS-02, a VRA district on a 6 seat AL map, one or more seats in South Texas on a 39 CD TX map, the plurality-black rural state house district in VA that nearly flipped last year, etc.) by the end of this decade. 

I'm not sure what the voting behaviour of the Lumbee tells us about the voting behaviour of black-majority seats.

The other rural counties with significant black populations also swung notably right vs. their recent history.

[Skill and Chance]

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 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

You are the uninformed one.  The voting rights act doesn't create any specific rules for redistricting.  The results test was interpreted to create the Gingles Test, but that isn't part of the law.  Liberal judges have taken FAR more liberty in twisting the meaning of laws than I'm suggesting.  Section 2 does not even have to apply to redistricting at all. 

As for OC, the white community of OC does vote consistently republican and the non white community voted as a bloc to defeat the white candidates of choice.  This has not happened enough to really make a case for such a district, but it might.  It is disgusting you favor special districts for POC in majority white states but oppose those districts for white minorities in majority POC states.  It is very clear why your side is intent on opening the borders, it's all about power. 

John Roberts has written opinions striking down districts as racial gerrymanders.  He just takes a narrower view of it than the Dem appointees.  There is no way he's signing on to a "VRA 2 does not apply to redistricting" blanket ruling.  Also given how Kavanaugh handled the case last year on racial bias in jury selection, writing the opinion upholding a historical decision that a trial is invalid if jurors are struck based on race (admittedly a different issue, but the concept is similar to racial gerrymandering), I don't think he's in play to sign on to that kind of opinion either. 

I imagine there will be some states that try to push the limits next time, but I would be very surprised if it's any of the places where Democrats came close to winning statewide in 2018.  Brian Kemp only won by 1.4% and his behavior on other policy issues suggests he knows he is on thin ice in 2022.  In Texas and Florida, better-than-Clinton results with Hispanic voters put Cruz, DeSantis, and Scott over the line statewide.  The statewide GOP won't want to sign off on anything so aggressive as to compromise their gains with that community.  Democrats may have become competitive "just in time" to prevent radical gerrymanders in some of the largest GOP leaning states.

Something like AL trying to eliminate the VRA district when they lose a seat and then take it to SCOTUS is much more plausible as an aggressive redistricting move, because they have basically nothing to fear from a statewide backlash.   

[Idaho Conservative]

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 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

You are the uninformed one.  The voting rights act doesn't create any specific rules for redistricting.  The results test was interpreted to create the Gingles Test, but that isn't part of the law.  Liberal judges have taken FAR more liberty in twisting the meaning of laws than I'm suggesting.  Section 2 does not even have to apply to redistricting at all. 

As for OC, the white community of OC does vote consistently republican and the non white community voted as a bloc to defeat the white candidates of choice.  This has not happened enough to really make a case for such a district, but it might.  It is disgusting you favor special districts for POC in majority white states but oppose those districts for white minorities in majority POC states.  It is very clear why your side is intent on opening the borders, it's all about power. 

John Roberts has written opinions striking down districts as racial gerrymanders.  He just takes a narrower view of it than the Dem appointees.  There is no way he's signing on to a "VRA 2 does not apply to redistricting" blanket ruling.  Also given how Kavanaugh handled the case last year on racial bias in jury selection, writing the opinion upholding a historical decision that a trial is invalid if jurors are struck based on race (admittedly a different issue, but the concept is similar to racial gerrymandering), I don't think he's in play to sign on to that kind of opinion either. 

I imagine there will be some states that try to push the limits next time, but I would be very surprised if it's any of the places where Democrats came close to winning statewide in 2018.  Brian Kemp only won by 1.4% and his behavior on other policy issues suggests he knows he is on thin ice in 2022.  In Texas and Florida, better-than-Clinton results with Hispanic voters put Cruz, DeSantis, and Scott over the line statewide.  The statewide GOP won't want to sign off on anything so aggressive as to compromise their gains with that community.  Democrats may have become competitive "just in time" to prevent radical gerrymanders in some of the largest GOP leaning states.

Something like AL trying to eliminate the VRA district when they lose a seat and then take it to SCOTUS is much more plausible as an aggressive redistricting move, because they have basically nothing to fear from a statewide backlash.   

In terms of GA, it is possible Kemp plays it safe and draws a 9-5 map.  Packing the blue parts of GA-6 and GA-7 into a 4th blue Atl district and making the rest of the seats titanium R.   But I think there will be a attempt to cut up Bishop's seat.  As for FL, the GOP usually draws lines pretty friendly to latinos, since many of those districts are winnable like in south fl.  I predict the FL gop will draw only 2 dem seats in orlando, that's for sure.  As for other changes i'm unsure.  no potential changes would be likely to specifically target latinos.  In Texas the gop can't really afford to eliminate any latino seats even if they could legally, it would jeopardize their incumbents.  Likely an incumbent protection map.    You may well be right Roberts wouldn't strike down the requirements entirely.  It would be interesting to see what the court would allow.  In my opinion, a good achievable goal for the gop would to get a ruling to allow compact hispanic districts in south TX. 

[AustralianSwingVoter]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/f320c87d-0c0f-4ee8-ae06-bd4eb4b95aed
A Georgian Experiment. The Second helps pack Atlanta while still being a SW VRA seat.
1 - R+8.62, Trump+15.1
2 - D+15.93, Clinton+35.2, (51.3% Black)
3 - R+16.36, Trump+27.5
4 - D+33.32, Clinton+70.6, (54.0% Black)
5 - D+31.47, Clinton+67.4, (54.3% Black)
6 - R+20.88, Tump+29.2
7 - R+21.92, Trump+41.8
8 - R+9.38, Trump+18.1
9 - R+20.95, Trump+33.5
10 - R+18.16, Trump+33.7
11 - R+19.72, Trump+29.3
12 - R+9.03, Trump+18.4
13 - D+24.20, Clinton+52.9, (54.2% Black)
14 - R+18.34, Trump+30.5

[Idaho Conservative]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/f320c87d-0c0f-4ee8-ae06-bd4eb4b95aed
A Georgian Experiment. The Second helps pack Atlanta while still being a SW VRA seat.
1 - R+8.62, Trump+15.1
2 - D+15.93, Clinton+35.2, (51.3% Black)
3 - R+16.36, Trump+27.5
4 - D+33.32, Clinton+70.6, (54.0% Black)
5 - D+31.47, Clinton+67.4, (54.3% Black)
6 - R+20.88, Tump+29.2
7 - R+21.92, Trump+41.8
8 - R+9.38, Trump+18.1
9 - R+20.95, Trump+33.5
10 - R+18.16, Trump+33.7
11 - R+19.72, Trump+29.3
12 - R+9.03, Trump+18.4
13 - D+24.20, Clinton+52.9, (54.2% Black)
14 - R+18.34, Trump+30.5

wow nice map.  not only 10-4, but the 10 will hold.  In fact, GA6 and the successor to GA7 are actually safer than their current iterations in 2012.  suburban swings are mitigated by including exurban/rural areas and most of the suburban gop voters left aren't moderate, since most of the suburban moderates already vote blue post trump.  The only complaint is the districts don't look pretty, but that ain't the GA GOP's #1 objective. 

[Idaho Conservative]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/6466157b-5f21-4a5b-bfb0-4bbbe8d34230
here's a 9-5 if the GA GOP is feeling bearish

[Skill and Chance]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/f320c87d-0c0f-4ee8-ae06-bd4eb4b95aed
A Georgian Experiment. The Second helps pack Atlanta while still being a SW VRA seat.
1 - R+8.62, Trump+15.1
2 - D+15.93, Clinton+35.2, (51.3% Black)
3 - R+16.36, Trump+27.5
4 - D+33.32, Clinton+70.6, (54.0% Black)
5 - D+31.47, Clinton+67.4, (54.3% Black)
6 - R+20.88, Tump+29.2
7 - R+21.92, Trump+41.8
8 - R+9.38, Trump+18.1
9 - R+20.95, Trump+33.5
10 - R+18.16, Trump+33.7
11 - R+19.72, Trump+29.3
12 - R+9.03, Trump+18.4
13 - D+24.20, Clinton+52.9, (54.2% Black)
14 - R+18.34, Trump+30.5

That GA-02 is definitely going to fail the 2012 NC-01/VA-03 test, and while the VA-03 case reached SCOTTUS during the 4-4 deadlock in 2016, Roberts concurred in striking down the 2012 version of NC-01 as a racial gerrymander.  The better bet for getting a 10-4 map upheld should be just explicitly moving the 4th VRA seat to Atlanta than trying to connect the current GA-02 to it. 

[Idaho Conservative]

That GA-02 is definitely going to fail the 2012 NC-01/VA-03 test, and while the VA-03 case reached SCOTTUS during the 4-4 deadlock in 2016, Roberts concurred in striking down the 2012 version of NC-01 as a racial gerrymander.  The better bet for getting a 10-4 map upheld should be just explicitly moving the 4th VRA seat to Atlanta than trying to connect the current GA-02 to it. 
[/quote]

That GA 2 is barely 50% black, not a pack

[Lisa's voting Biden]

A 6-8 DEM gerrymander map:

https://davesredistricting.org/join/a82eae1f-50ee-4771-ace0-b20be61ba3dc

CD-01: Clinton +14.3, minority-majority
CD-02: Clinton +9.1, minority-majority
CD-03: Clinton +15.9, minority-majority
CD-04: Trump +44.3
CD-05: Trump +39
CD-06: Clinton +20.1, minority-majority
CD-07: Clinton +63.9, minority-majority
CD-08: Trump +47.5
CD-09: Trump +50.6
CD-10: Trump +26.6
CD-11: Clinton +34.1, minority-majority
CD-12: Clinton +10.4, minority-majority
CD-13: Clinton +23.2
CD-14: Trump +62.2

[Skill and Chance]

A 6-8 DEM gerrymander map:

https://davesredistricting.org/join/a82eae1f-50ee-4771-ace0-b20be61ba3dc

CD-01: Clinton +14.3, minority-majority
CD-02: Clinton +9.1, minority-majority
CD-03: Clinton +15.9, minority-majority
CD-04: Trump +44.3
CD-05: Trump +39
CD-06: Clinton +20.1, minority-majority
CD-07: Clinton +63.9, minority-majority
CD-08: Trump +47.5
CD-09: Trump +50.6
CD-10: Trump +26.6
CD-11: Clinton +34.1, minority-majority
CD-12: Clinton +10.4, minority-majority
CD-13: Clinton +23.2
CD-14: Trump +62.2

This CD-03 would be at risk of being struck down for the 2012 NC-01/VA-03 reason.

[Tintrlvr]

A 6-8 DEM gerrymander map:

https://davesredistricting.org/join/a82eae1f-50ee-4771-ace0-b20be61ba3dc

CD-01: Clinton +14.3, minority-majority
CD-02: Clinton +9.1, minority-majority
CD-03: Clinton +15.9, minority-majority
CD-04: Trump +44.3
CD-05: Trump +39
CD-06: Clinton +20.1, minority-majority
CD-07: Clinton +63.9, minority-majority
CD-08: Trump +47.5
CD-09: Trump +50.6
CD-10: Trump +26.6
CD-11: Clinton +34.1, minority-majority
CD-12: Clinton +10.4, minority-majority
CD-13: Clinton +23.2
CD-14: Trump +62.2

Doesn't need to be nearly so messy if you accept that a district in north Fulton/Gwinnett voted solidly for McCain and Romney but is Lean D now (much more than current GA-06, it's about Clinton+4) and rocketing leftward. The below is also an 8D-6R map with 7 minority-majority districts.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/78f679e4-1a4d-4cc4-bf82-7460181bb30b

[AustralianSwingVoter]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/f320c87d-0c0f-4ee8-ae06-bd4eb4b95aed
A Georgian Experiment. The Second helps pack Atlanta while still being a SW VRA seat.
1 - R+8.62, Trump+15.1
2 - D+15.93, Clinton+35.2, (51.3% Black)
3 - R+16.36, Trump+27.5
4 - D+33.32, Clinton+70.6, (54.0% Black)
5 - D+31.47, Clinton+67.4, (54.3% Black)
6 - R+20.88, Tump+29.2
7 - R+21.92, Trump+41.8
8 - R+9.38, Trump+18.1
9 - R+20.95, Trump+33.5
10 - R+18.16, Trump+33.7
11 - R+19.72, Trump+29.3
12 - R+9.03, Trump+18.4
13 - D+24.20, Clinton+52.9, (54.2% Black)
14 - R+18.34, Trump+30.5

That GA-02 is definitely going to fail the 2012 NC-01/VA-03 test, and while the VA-03 case reached SCOTTUS during the 4-4 deadlock in 2016, Roberts concurred in striking down the 2012 version of NC-01 as a racial gerrymander.  The better bet for getting a 10-4 map upheld should be just explicitly moving the 4th VRA seat to Atlanta than trying to connect the current GA-02 to it. 

VA-3 was about 57% Black and qualified as a Black pack.
Meanwhile my GA-02 is actually (slightly) less black than the current GA-02, so there's absolutely no reason to think the courts would strike it down. The arm to Atlanta is a partisan gerrymander, taking in white suburban Dems in Gwinett, not a racial gerrymander packing black voters.

[Oryxslayer]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/f320c87d-0c0f-4ee8-ae06-bd4eb4b95aed
A Georgian Experiment. The Second helps pack Atlanta while still being a SW VRA seat.
1 - R+8.62, Trump+15.1
2 - D+15.93, Clinton+35.2, (51.3% Black)
3 - R+16.36, Trump+27.5
4 - D+33.32, Clinton+70.6, (54.0% Black)
5 - D+31.47, Clinton+67.4, (54.3% Black)
6 - R+20.88, Tump+29.2
7 - R+21.92, Trump+41.8
8 - R+9.38, Trump+18.1
9 - R+20.95, Trump+33.5
10 - R+18.16, Trump+33.7
11 - R+19.72, Trump+29.3
12 - R+9.03, Trump+18.4
13 - D+24.20, Clinton+52.9, (54.2% Black)
14 - R+18.34, Trump+30.5

That GA-02 is definitely going to fail the 2012 NC-01/VA-03 test, and while the VA-03 case reached SCOTTUS during the 4-4 deadlock in 2016, Roberts concurred in striking down the 2012 version of NC-01 as a racial gerrymander.  The better bet for getting a 10-4 map upheld should be just explicitly moving the 4th VRA seat to Atlanta than trying to connect the current GA-02 to it. 

VA-3 was about 57% Black and qualified as a Black pack.
Meanwhile my GA-02 is actually (slightly) less black than the current GA-02, so there's absolutely no reason to think the courts would strike it down. The arm to Atlanta is a partisan gerrymander, taking in white suburban Dems in Gwinett, not a racial gerrymander packing black voters.

It's a argument over the reasonability of such a seat, not over it's BVAP. Remember, there have been  some fairly extreme AA districts drawn throughout the VRA's history, mainly in LA or NC. In both cases, the courts found that the AA communities were to distant to demand a VRA seat. In the case of LA, the squiggle along the northern border of the state was destroyed the 90s. At the time AA's needed a high AA% to get elected over dixiecrats, and such a seat was deemed impossible to create outside of NOLA. So, dixiecrats smugly used the northern AA's to make more competitive seats for white dixiecrats. NC is more recent, with both the 13th and the 1st get remapped mid-decade. Both seats went to extreme lengths to pack AA's, and the court found that the same results were achievable with more compact seats.

One has to remember that GA went through something similar 15 years ago when they tried to abuse AA voters democratic loyalty to it's maximum possible extent.



Essentially, what would happen in your map is something similar. It would be challenged on the basis of the first Gingles test rule: The racial or language minority group "is sufficiently numerous and compact to form a majority in a single-member district." Your seat would violate to compact part of that rule, and the lawyers would bring forward evidence that you could get similar results  with a more compact belt-focused seat. They would probably win considering the precedent set by NC-13, which would be turned to in the case of such a seat.

[Idaho Conservative]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/f320c87d-0c0f-4ee8-ae06-bd4eb4b95aed
A Georgian Experiment. The Second helps pack Atlanta while still being a SW VRA seat.
1 - R+8.62, Trump+15.1
2 - D+15.93, Clinton+35.2, (51.3% Black)
3 - R+16.36, Trump+27.5
4 - D+33.32, Clinton+70.6, (54.0% Black)
5 - D+31.47, Clinton+67.4, (54.3% Black)
6 - R+20.88, Tump+29.2
7 - R+21.92, Trump+41.8
8 - R+9.38, Trump+18.1
9 - R+20.95, Trump+33.5
10 - R+18.16, Trump+33.7
11 - R+19.72, Trump+29.3
12 - R+9.03, Trump+18.4
13 - D+24.20, Clinton+52.9, (54.2% Black)
14 - R+18.34, Trump+30.5

That GA-02 is definitely going to fail the 2012 NC-01/VA-03 test, and while the VA-03 case reached SCOTTUS during the 4-4 deadlock in 2016, Roberts concurred in striking down the 2012 version of NC-01 as a racial gerrymander.  The better bet for getting a 10-4 map upheld should be just explicitly moving the 4th VRA seat to Atlanta than trying to connect the current GA-02 to it. 

VA-3 was about 57% Black and qualified as a Black pack.
Meanwhile my GA-02 is actually (slightly) less black than the current GA-02, so there's absolutely no reason to think the courts would strike it down. The arm to Atlanta is a partisan gerrymander, taking in white suburban Dems in Gwinett, not a racial gerrymander packing black voters.

It's a argument over the reasonability of such a seat, not over it's BVAP. Remember, there have been  some fairly extreme AA districts drawn throughout the VRA's history, mainly in LA or NC. In both cases, the courts found that the AA communities were to distant to demand a VRA seat. In the case of LA, the squiggle along the northern border of the state was destroyed the 90s. At the time AA's needed a high AA% to get elected over dixiecrats, and such a seat was deemed impossible to create outside of NOLA. So, dixiecrats smugly used the northern AA's to make more competitive seats for white dixiecrats. NC is more recent, with both the 13th and the 1st get remapped mid-decade. Both seats went to extreme lengths to pack AA's, and the court found that the same results were achievable with more compact seats.

One has to remember that GA went through something similar 15 years ago when they tried to abuse AA voters democratic loyalty to it's maximum possible extent.



Essentially, what would happen in your map is something similar. It would be challenged on the basis of the first Gingles test rule: The racial or language minority group "is sufficiently numerous and compact to form a majority in a single-member district." Your seat would violate to compact part of that rule, and the lawyers would bring forward evidence that you could get similar results  with a more compact belt-focused seat. They would probably win considering the precedent set by NC-13, which would be turned to in the case of such a seat.

It's interesting how the court's requirements are so convoluted.  You can't draw color blind districts, yet can't use race TOO much.  Then there's the whole race vs partisan gerrymander debate.  Today the GOP has little incentive to use race, party data is more efficient.  But for Dems there is a bigger incentive to use it.  For example a white dem likely wouldn't want a majority black seat, there are exceptions.

[CityByTheValley]

davesredistricting (dot) org/join/c525b473-7f0a-408a-9dc7-255111fc3641

CD-01: (majority minority) Obama +13.8, Clinton +25.8, Suburban Atlanta (DeKalb, Fulton, Gwinnett)
CD-02: McCain +17.6, Trump +5.4, Suburban Atlanta (Cobb, DeKalb, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett)
CD-03: McCain +40.0, Trump +35.1, Exurban Atlanta (DeKalb, Forsyth, Gwinnett, North Georgia)
CD-04: McCain +27.7, Trump +33.0, Northeastern Georgia
CD-05: (majority minority) Obama +42.9, Clinton +44.5, Southeastern Suburban and Exurban Atlanta (DeKalb, Gwinnett, Newton, Rockdale, Walton)
CD-06: (majority minority) Obama +29.2, Clinton +34.0, Southern Suburban and Exurban Atlanta (Clayton, Fayette, Fulton, Henry, Spalding)
CD-07: (majority minority) Obama +56.2, Clinton +59.4, Atlanta and Western Suburbs (Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fulton)
CD-08: McCain +26.6, Trump +23.4, Northwestern Suburban and Exurban Atlanta (Bartow, Cherokee, Cobb)
CD-09: McCain +45.1, Trump +56.1, Northwestern Georgia
CD-10: McCain +35.0, Trump +38.1, Western Suburban and Exurban Atlanta (Carroll, Coweta, Douglas, Fayette, Western Georgia)
CD-11: McCain +27.0, Trump +31.3, Central Georgia
CD-12: Obama +6.9, Clinton +4.0, Eastern Georgia
CD-13: McCain +25.2, Trump +34.9, Southern Georgia
CD-14 (majority minority): Obama +22.6, Clinton +15.8, Southwestern Georgia

8 of 14 districts associated with Atlanta in some way, with Democrats winning a total of 6 districts to Republicans' 8. However, 7 districts moved toward Clinton, with CD-02, based in the wealthiest parts of the Atlanta region, almost certain to become a swing district in the future, moving 12.2 points toward Democrats, the largest shift toward either party of any district in Georgia. Thus, this map will likely result in a 7-7 D-R spread in the future, signifying Georgia's status as a swing state. Districts 1,5,6,7, and 14 are minority majority with 5,6,7 and 14 being majority black in terms of voting age population as well.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/d6cf2d99-f0ed-477f-be41-016398a086eb
1 - R+9.20, 56.7% Trump
2 - D+14.52, 63.5% Clinton, (56.9% Black)
3 - R+17.01, 63.3% Trump
4 - D+30.84, 81.4% Clinton, (56.5% Black)
5 - D+33.93, 84.6% Clinton, (53.0% Black)
6 - R+18.18, 63.5% Tump
7 - R+20.25, 62.2% Trump
8 - R+13.9, 62.7% Trump
9 - R+19.89, 62.7% Trump
10 - R+18.57, 63.3 Trump
11 - R+19.98, 63.1% Trump
12 - R+8.99, 57.7% Trump
13 - D+28.20, 79.0% Clinton, (57.8% Black)
14 - R+20.42, 68.0% Trump

If the Georgia GOP decides to stick with the current arrangement of D packs rather than moving the 2nd to Atlanta and hoping the Courts don't complain, one would imagine something like this would suffice as a rock solid gerrymander. And in case anyone complains about VRA, all 4 seats are less black than the current 3 Atlanta seats, all of which are around 60% black.

[Former President tack50]

Given how no one has drawn a white Dem district (is one even possible?); the number of Dem seats equals the number of black seats

So now the question is:

1: Can GA-02 be dismantled? Can it be brought to Atlanta or other black areas of the state?
2: How many black majority districts are needed in the Atlanta area?

Once you answer those 2 questions you can start drawing. The VRA essencially means Georgia will have a court designed map in practice as 11-3 is impossible.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Given how no one has drawn a white Dem district (is one even possible?); the number of Dem seats equals the number of black seats

So now the question is:

1: Can GA-02 be dismantled? Can it be brought to Atlanta or other black areas of the state?
2: How many black majority districts are needed in the Atlanta area?

Once you answer those 2 questions you can start drawing. The VRA essencially means Georgia will have a court designed map in practice as 11-3 is impossible.

GA-6 was 60% white as of the last census. That will have changed, of course, but it's still comfortably white-plurality so your premise is wrong.