Georgia 2020 Redistricting Discussion

[Idaho Conservative]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/345f09d8-6559-4bf9-8705-3b570ddc4546
Here's the best bet for GA GOP.  4 black plurality districts in Atlanta, 10 white majority safe R districts.  The least safe red district is Trump+16, but it's downstate.  Inelastic.  Both suburban Northern Atlanta districts are about Trump+30.  It isn't beautiful, but isn't nearly as bad as MD or the 2012 NC map. 

[Idaho Conservative]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/345f09d8-6559-4bf9-8705-3b570ddc4546
Here's the best bet for GA GOP.  4 black plurality districts in Atlanta, 10 white majority safe R districts.  The least safe red district is Trump+16, but it's downstate.  Inelastic.  Both suburban Northern Atlanta districts are about Trump+30.  It isn't beautiful, but isn't nearly as bad as MD or the 2012 NC map. 

Why do your GA-4 and GA-7 look like that?

To fulfill the VRA, I made 4 black districts to be safe.  I needed to crack the diverse and white dem areas and but them with black areas in the urban core to increase the number of black districts in Atl to make up for GA-2 being cracked.

[Idaho Conservative]

This thread is proof that SCOTUS should have never touched the VRA. 

shouldn't have required minority districts?

[Idaho Conservative]

TLDR for this thread: The GAGOP can draw 10 Safe R districts. There's no incentive for them not to. The only remaining question is whether it's Bishop that gets cut and McBath packed, or vice versa.

There, are we done?

packing mcbath is by far the smarter choice, considering trends in atl.  Bishop's seat isn't vra protected, but a 4th aa district should be drawn in atl to preempt any challenges.  ga-6 could get an african plurality if it takes in some of atlanta and loses white conservative areas

[Idaho Conservative]

Bishop's seat isn't vra protected, but a 4th aa district should be drawn in atl to preempt any challenges.

1. where is this idea coming from that the 2nd District isn't protected by the VRA? Because it absolutely is.

2. That is not at all how the Voting Rights Act works, for so many different reasons

It was created as a D vote sink by the legislature, not court order, and it is not majority black.  But in the case a court interprets the vra to require a 4th aa seat in Georgia, a 4th aa district in Atlanta would satisfy that.  A 10-4 map is doable, as long as all 4 d seats are in Atlanta.  pack all of the bluest precincts into 4 districts, then crack any blue/purple areas left. 

[Idaho Conservative]

Bishop's seat isn't vra protected, but a 4th aa district should be drawn in atl to preempt any challenges.

1. where is this idea coming from that the 2nd District isn't protected by the VRA? Because it absolutely is.

2. That is not at all how the Voting Rights Act works, for so many different reasons

It was created as a D vote sink by the legislature, not court order, and it is not majority black.  But in the case a court interprets the vra to require a 4th aa seat in Georgia, a 4th aa district in Atlanta would satisfy that.  A 10-4 map is doable, as long as all 4 d seats are in Atlanta.  pack all of the bluest precincts into 4 districts, then crack any blue/purple areas left.  

So, leaving aside whether or not this would be VRA compatible, remember this map is supposed to hold until 2030. Is the GA GOP really reckless enough to assume that this map you're proposing will hold? It'd involve a lot of cracking of the ATL suburbs just so that whatever can't be fed into the D districts are split up, but those suburbs are growing at lightspeed.

this map holds until 2030: https://davesredistricting.org/join/27ac753b-33e0-40f1-8acc-6fb947deb3ee
if they wanna be even more careful, they could do this: https://davesredistricting.org/join/781485f1-efa6-4aad-b355-2976a15a9f3b
but a 10-4 is very possible, if done carefully.  we're talking precinct-by-precinct precision and no regard for anything other than partisanship.  It's ugly, but very doable.

[Idaho Conservative]

Bishop's seat isn't vra protected, but a 4th aa district should be drawn in atl to preempt any challenges.

1. where is this idea coming from that the 2nd District isn't protected by the VRA? Because it absolutely is.

2. That is not at all how the Voting Rights Act works, for so many different reasons

It was created as a D vote sink by the legislature, not court order, and it is not majority black.  But in the case a court interprets the vra to require a 4th aa seat in Georgia, a 4th aa district in Atlanta would satisfy that.  A 10-4 map is doable, as long as all 4 d seats are in Atlanta.  pack all of the bluest precincts into 4 districts, then crack any blue/purple areas left. 

So, leaving aside whether or not this would be VRA compatible, remember this map is supposed to hold until 2030. Is the GA GOP really reckless enough to assume that this map you're proposing will hold? It'd involve a lot of cracking of the ATL suburbs just so that whatever can't be fed into the D districts are split up, but those suburbs are growing at lightspeed.

this map holds until 2030: https://davesredistricting.org/join/27ac753b-33e0-40f1-8acc-6fb947deb3ee
if they wanna be even more careful, they could do this: https://davesredistricting.org/join/781485f1-efa6-4aad-b355-2976a15a9f3b
but a 10-4 is very possible, if done carefully.  we're talking precinct-by-precinct precision and no regard for anything other than partisanship.  It's ugly, but very doable.

I've already explained why these maps wouldn't be constitutional but I want to compliment you here because these are very skillfully drawn maps! Would you happen to have the 2016 results for these districts?

my reading of that map is that its a defacto 9-5, with the 10th flipping in all certainty (tons of McCain-Clinton territory). However the GOP would find it really hard to lose any other seats.

My second map would likely be 9-5, but I made it so one Clinton seat would be vulnerable in a wave election.  If a Dem wins in 2020, a McCain/Clinton district in northern Atlanta would absolutely be competitive in 2022.  Especially since it's majority white. 

[Idaho Conservative]

It was created as a D vote sink by the legislature, not court order, and it is not majority black.  But in the case a court interprets the vra to require a 4th aa seat in Georgia, a 4th aa district in Atlanta would satisfy that.  A 10-4 map is doable, as long as all 4 d seats are in Atlanta.  pack all of the bluest precincts into 4 districts, then crack any blue/purple areas left.  

Respectfully, you are incredibly misinformed about the Voting Rights Act. The stated intent behind its creation is irrelevant, whether it was created by the legislature or the judiciary is irrelevant, and whether the district itself is majority black is irrelevant (although, for the record, it is absolutely majority black). What matters is that it passes all three elements of the Gingles test. That alone makes it a protected minority district and therefore its elimination would be an unconstitutional retrogression of minority representation

In addition, there's literally no example anywhere in VRA case law that works the way you're describing. Minority districts aren't suddenly required just because of the minority population of the entire state is above some arbitrary threshold (if it did, for example, Louisiana would absolutely warrant a second black-majority district) and you can't just remove a minority district from one portion of a state and add one to another part of the state if the minority group in the former area still passes the Gingles test. It's not about the racial breakdown of the state as a whole, it's about specific communities of specific minority groups. The most obvious example here is Miller v. Johnson, which directly and explicitly says that for the purposes of the Voting Rights Act, black people in Atlanta aren't members of the same minority community as blacks downstate (in the case itself, Augusta + Savannah). They're different communities of interest, so you can't remove a district from one and give it to the other if the group you're taking the district from still warrants its own district

Well then, don't eliminate Bishop's seat, just move a lot of it into Atlanta, keeping a bit in the black belt.  There is good justification for this, black populations are shrinking in rural areas but growing in Atlanta.  In the long term, Republicans should get try to get the court to make a ruling where it's unconstitutional for map makers to even access racial demographic data.  Redistricting should be color blind.  They already struck down part of the VRA.  The evidence for why this should happen is the fact majority white electorates elected blacks like Tim Scott, Antonio Delgado, and Mia Love as well as Hispanics like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.  Majority minority districts simply aren't necessary for minorities to be elected anymore.  

[Idaho Conservative]

Well then, don't eliminate Bishop's seat, just move a lot of it into Atlanta, keeping a bit in the black belt.

Respectfully, did you even read what you're responding to?

As I literally just said, Miller v. Johnson specifically ruled that urban Atlanta and the rural black belt are not the same community of interest, and therefore a district that stretches to combine the two is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Like Brittain33 said, if you do that then it stops representing the will of the district's rural voters even though the nominally remain represented by it.

There is good justification for this, black populations are shrinking in rural areas but growing in Atlanta.

Using the most recent available local level census estimates, it remains trivially easy to draw a compact and normally-shaped majority black district in SW GA -- in fact, it's even easier to draw now than it was during the 2010 redistricting! I drew a 51% black district using 2016 estimate only splitting one county.

Because such a district can be drawn, the conditions of the Gingles test are still met, therefore it's constitutionally mandatory to draw a district that can be reasonably expected to elect that specific minority community's candidate of choice.

In the long term, Republicans should get try to get the court to make a ruling where it's unconstitutional for map makers to even access racial demographic data.  Redistricting should be color blind.  They already struck down part of the VRA.

That would be an insane ruling and contrary even to basic expectations of judicial precedent.

Only a single element of the Voting Rights Act has actually been overturned: the specific formula to determine which jurisdictions are required to do preclearance, and that was only made unconstitutional because the formula was based on data that was over half a century out of date. Literally the only reason the VRA has become less prominent since Shelby County v Holder is because Congress has thus far declined to pass any new/updated formula. Preclearance will almost certainly be back the next time Democrats control both chambers of Congress, and it will be perfectly constitutional when they bring it back.

The evidence for why this should happen is the fact majority white electorates elected blacks like Tim Scott, Antonio Delgado, and Mia Love as well as Hispanics like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.  Majority minority districts simply aren't necessary for minorities to be elected anymore.  

EastAnglianLefty is correct here.

Tim Scott is black but he is not the candidate of choice of any black community. Likewise, Steve Cohen is the candidate of choice of the black community of Memphis even though he's white.



edit: this got posted after I started typing

However one can make the argument that the belt no longer has the concentration of AA voters needed to have an opportunity district. I tend to disagree, but it is an argument that can be made if the GOP moves against Bishop. The counties down here are not flipping red because AA voters are now considering the GOP, they.are flipping because the AA pop is shrinking faster than the white pop. We are only a few years away from the Georgian belt being just the urban counties and a straggler or two. A district that goes from Albany to Augusta isn't compact  But the AA pop is concentrating hard into the Atlanta metro. Since the state AA pop is overall growing, a fact magnified by the shrinking belt, that is the ideal place for a new AA seat.

As I said above, it's still very easy to draw a black-majority district covering Albany, Macon, and Columbus.  The African American population is declining in that area, sure, but the white population is shrinking just as quickly.

Also there's definitely not enough population to warrant a fourth black majority seat in the Atlanta metro, attempting to force one would be an unconstitutional racial gerrymander

Miller v Johnson wasn't about coi's, it actually struck down a gerrymander that benefited blacks.  A district can include both rural GA and Atlanta, as long as it is not as messy as the one in the case where  it was just blatantly racial.  

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.  

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.  While I certainly won't convince you the requirement needs to go, you aren't the one needing the convincing, just 5 judges on the court do.  The fact a majority minority  districts are clearly no longer needed for minority candidates to win is a great case against interpreting section 2 to require such districts.  The whole "minority candidate of choice" thing was just created so the court didn't have to be explicitly racial.  Thornburgv Gingles happened because of the simple fact black people weren't getting elected in the region of America where a majority of them reside.  But that's no longer the case.  I understand Atlas leftists won't be convinced, but the conservative court could be.  The argument against what I'm saying is that more minorities are elected because of Thornburg, and eliminating that would reverse the trend of minorities getting elected.  That was the argument used in favor of keeping preclearance too, look how that went. 

[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". 

[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.

[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. 

[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

[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.

[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. 

[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. 

[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. 

[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

[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

[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.

[Idaho Conservative]

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

https://davesredistricting.org/join/ff94e92e-dccf-4c8f-a4da-d883ec0e9b2f

Here's a map of five Safe/Likely D seats all based in Atlanta that include 3 VRA Black districts, a majority-White Dem district (59% Obama, 61% White), and a Maj-Min district based in Gwinnett.

COI's not very intact though.

I guess that would be how a fair map would look like? (Plus GA-02 outside Atlanta in terms of Dem seats)

A "fair" map is probably 9-5 GOP with 4 Black districts (3 in Atlanta, 1 in SWGA) and the Gwinnett Maj-Min district.  I can't see a White Atlanta district being created.    For proportionality I think you need two Republican-leaning districts based in the North ATL suburbs, and a majority-White Dem seat in Atlanta pretty much precludes this.  While you can draw a majority-White Dem seat in Atlanta, you have to pick up a lot of currently Republican suburbs or majority-Black urban precincts to get it up to population - so White, liberal Atlantans aren't really numerous enough to demand their own district just yet.  The current GA-06 is probably shifted north and sheds some of its more Democratic precincts to the Maj-Min districts in ATL/Gwinnett.

I think a 10-4 has too much dummymander potential from having to crack fast-growing Atlanta suburbs too much, so the GA-GOP would do best to avoid that.  And, as has been discussed to death in this thread, a Black pack in SWGA shores up South Georgia and preempts a VRA challenge.   

A 10-4 map wouldn't be a dummymander as long as all 4 dem seats are in Atlanta.  If the courts struck down the cracking of GA-2, at worst you get a 9-5, which they have now.