Ohio redistricting thread

[Nyvin]

FYI - Franklin + Delaware have a combined 2019 population of 1,525,933.   That's just 32,614 people short of two Congressional districts in Ohio.

On top of that both have been growing much faster than the state,  so the difference will likely shrink in the final census.

[Nyvin]

From my understanding of the text of the amendment, the only cities that can't technically be split are Cincinnati and Cleveland, since the prohibition on splitting cities with more than 100k appears to only apply to counties with a population of more than one CD for some reason. Columbus is the only city with a population greater than a CD, but it looks like it just needs to have a "significant portion" contained within one district (thankfully, because its boundaries are horrendous). Districts sharing the same two counties is only allowed for counties of more than 400k; the only two such counties that border each other are Cuyahoga and Summit. Additionally, none one of the three big counties need to have a CD based wholly within them, but the amendment states that each district must "attempt to include at least one whole county."

Anyway, I made a hypothetical GOP gerrymander with 2018 estimates that follows all of what I outlined above. I tried to be a bit stricter than necessary with the requirements (kept all >100k cities whole, for example). Probably wouldn't happen via the commission, but perhaps something like this could be passed as a 4-year map by majority vote if the redistricting process gets to that stage.


1: R+11
2: R+3
3: D+19
4: R+15
5: R+5
6: R+6
7: R+5
8: R+7
9: R+5
10: R+8
11: D+31
12: R+9
13: R+4
14: R+4
15: R+11

No 2016 numbers in DRA obviously, but the 13 R districts probably all voted for Trump at least somewhat comfortably. They wouldn't all be completely safe, but it seems sturdy enough to be a realistic option for an ambitious GOP legislature.

This wouldn't work for a four year plan (I don't think...?).   The restrictions that are put in place if they pass a 4 year map with a simple majority are this -

    the plan cannot unduly favor or disfavor a political party or incumbents;
    the plan cannot unduly divide counties, townships, or municipal corporations;
    legislators must attempt to draw districts that are compact; and
    legislators must provide a written justification of how the above three standards were met.

Pretty sure the second section about unduly dividing counties would apply heavily here (along with the third).  Of course it's Ohio Republicans so who knows.

Stuff like this attempting to get passed with 4 year maps and simple majorities is why it's so crucial for Democrats to win the OH Supreme Court this year.   That would make swatting down gerrymanders like this a breeze, legally speaking.

[Nyvin]

From my understanding of the text of the amendment, the only cities that can't technically be split are Cincinnati and Cleveland, since the prohibition on splitting cities with more than 100k appears to only apply to counties with a population of more than one CD for some reason. Columbus is the only city with a population greater than a CD, but it looks like it just needs to have a "significant portion" contained within one district (thankfully, because its boundaries are horrendous). Districts sharing the same two counties is only allowed for counties of more than 400k; the only two such counties that border each other are Cuyahoga and Summit. Additionally, none one of the three big counties need to have a CD based wholly within them, but the amendment states that each district must "attempt to include at least one whole county."

Anyway, I made a hypothetical GOP gerrymander with 2018 estimates that follows all of what I outlined above. I tried to be a bit stricter than necessary with the requirements (kept all >100k cities whole, for example). Probably wouldn't happen via the commission, but perhaps something like this could be passed as a 4-year map by majority vote if the redistricting process gets to that stage.


1: R+11
2: R+3
3: D+19
4: R+15
5: R+5
6: R+6
7: R+5
8: R+7
9: R+5
10: R+8
11: D+31
12: R+9
13: R+4
14: R+4
15: R+11

No 2016 numbers in DRA obviously, but the 13 R districts probably all voted for Trump at least somewhat comfortably. They wouldn't all be completely safe, but it seems sturdy enough to be a realistic option for an ambitious GOP legislature.

This wouldn't work for a four year plan (I don't think...?).   The restrictions that are put in place if they pass a 4 year map with a simple majority are this -

    the plan cannot unduly favor or disfavor a political party or incumbents;
    the plan cannot unduly divide counties, townships, or municipal corporations;
    legislators must attempt to draw districts that are compact; and
    legislators must provide a written justification of how the above three standards were met.

Pretty sure the second section about unduly dividing counties would apply heavily here (along with the third).  Of course it's Ohio Republicans so who knows.

Stuff like this attempting to get passed with 4 year maps and simple majorities is why it's so crucial for Democrats to win the OH Supreme Court this year.   That would make swatting down gerrymanders like this a breeze, legally speaking.

The problem is that there is no direction given by the amendment to define whether a map is sufficiently compact or non-partisan. So, outside of giving a court more obvious justification to throw out a map, these provisions are largely toothless. The guidelines allow 18 counties to be split once and five to be split twice; on this map, I count 13 counties split once and none split twice (I believe districts wholly within a county aren't counted as splits in the amendment's definition), so it pretty significantly clears the minimum requirements on that measure.

My point is that while the new guidelines will certainly make the maps cleaner, the objective criteria are not particularly restrictive, and the party in power still has plenty of leeway to draw favorable maps without technically violating any rules.

Definitely agree.  It's for sure a subpar redistricting reform,  probably one of the worst in the country.   I don't think it was wise for OH Democrats to agree to it in the first place.

It won't be totally worthless though, it does make gerrymandering "harder" than what they could do in 2010 at least.   It just leaves the legislature with way too much power and leeway.

[Nyvin]

In 2022, does Chabot retire or lose?

Again depends how they draw it, the Purple district there is R+3 and actually trending Republican due to the eastern portions and hes Safe even in a Trump midterm, if the GOP just concedes the seat then he would just retire. However if the GOP doesn't want the Ire and just agrees to clean in Hamilton they could also draw a district like this that would still Lean D but removes D black burbs rather than R exurbs and this would give him a fighting chance in a Biden midterm as its only D+1.9 PVI or probably around Clinton +7-8? . Would be doomed still in a Trump midterm.

OH-1 is definitely not trending R,   Romney won it by 9.5% and Trump only won it by 6.6%,  that's with Trump doing about 2% better nationally.

Warren and Hamilton counties both trended D.   Doesn't change much if you look at 2018 numbers either.

OH-2 is the district that's trending R due to the eastern exurbs/rurals (which are about 65% of the district)

[Nyvin]

Reminder that OH redistricting reform forbids cutting counties more than once unless they are the largest five - in which case they can be cut twice. You are also required to base a district out of those cities large enough to dominate said district (Columbus and Cleveland) and any county between 95% and 105% of a district needs to have a seat based in it (Cincinnati). I also think there are restrictions/bans on parallel cuts (two districts cutting two same counties), but the text is ambiguous in regards to them. There is also minor provisions regarding large locales and how they can't be cut if they are of a significant size, and how one should make an effort to keep them with their surroundings.

The reform is rather strict in it's guidelines, but is lax as far as the gerrymanders observe said guidelines.

That rule, along with the exception to splitting cities applying to only Cleveland and Cincinnati, sounds to me like some real packing and cracking garbage, with emphasis on the former.

Trust me, I know how Ohio Republicans think, and they are is every bit ruthless and shamefaced as their counterparts in North Carolina and Texas about blatant gerrymandering and thinking of any way they can get away with it to maximize their power.

I assure you that the mathematical equation prohibiting splitting cities of over 100,000 unless they're County can support multiple congressional districts is by no means coincidental, as opposed to explicitly planned when the language of this proposal was drafted.

Being able to pass a map with a simple majority was very much explicitly planned as well.

I'd say it's like 95% chance a 4 year map is what ends up getting passed next year, probably with only Republican votes.

[Nyvin]

According to the commission rules Cleveland can't be split,  and Cuyahoga county can be split up to two times.

I like the MI-13 district in that map though.

[Nyvin]

Considering Cincinnati can't be split either,  I'm starting to wonder if it's really possible for Republicans to gerrymander OH-1.

Since the city can't be split that means the 4 enclaves within it have to be included in OH-1 as well, and altogether their population is about 328K in 2018.   The D+22.63 PVI doesn't actually tell the whole story either since Clinton improved from Romney's numbers in 2012.   

Even if you just make a minimal connection to the eastern rural counties to make an R gerrymander, about the best you can get with whole counties is around R+2 (again, Cincinnati trended D from 2012 to 2016, so rural trend is probably close to cancelled out).   

By 2022 there's no real guarantee that R+2 will still have a Republican lean since Cincinnati is a growth hub and Clermont is the only county to the east growing.   

I actually think all this puts Republicans in a tough spot for OH-1. 

[Nyvin]

Considering Cincinnati can't be split either,  I'm starting to wonder if it's really possible for Republicans to gerrymander OH-1.

Since the city can't be split that means the 4 enclaves within it have to be included in OH-1 as well, and altogether their population is about 328K in 2018.   The D+22.63 PVI doesn't actually tell the whole story either since Clinton improved from Romney's numbers in 2012.  

Even if you just make a minimal connection to the eastern rural counties to make an R gerrymander, about the best you can get with whole counties is around R+2 (again, Cincinnati trended D from 2012 to 2016, so rural trend is probably close to cancelled out).    

By 2022 there's no real guarantee that R+2 will still have a Republican lean since Cincinnati is a growth hub and Clermont is the only county to the east growing.  

I actually think all this puts Republicans in a tough spot for OH-1.  

Did Cincinatti actually trend D? I feel like its more just the blood red burbs being much less red but still quite red? And Cincinatti the city only grew by like 1.9%, helps Ds a bit but not much

The eastern half of the city trended D pretty sharply.   Parts of the northwest trended R slightly.

[Nyvin]

Splitting Columbus east/west actually works out way better for building up an AA opportunity seat.   I could actually see them doing something like that in the commission.

As for the Cincy suburbs - I'm kinda in favor of a district made up of Butler + Warren + Greene.   I know Greene is more associated with Dayton, but it's still suburbia like Butler and Warren.   You can still make a great Dayton district with Miami and Clark (the 2019 population numbers work pretty good for this, it's very close).

[Nyvin]

Something like this would work




https://davesredistricting.org/join/6f2d40fb-07b2-4ce1-bfa7-27b78b8adac8

[Nyvin]

Yeah, if that OH-11 goes into Summit county that's not allowed either.   Districts need to be entirely within 1 county or contain 1 whole county, one of the two.

[Nyvin]

Here's a completely legal, minimal county split plan with mostly reasonable shapes that has 13 districts at a positive GOP PVI. 



Safe D: Cleveland (D+29, 48% black), Columbus (D+21)

Tossup: Toledo+NW (R+0.02), Akron (orange, R+0.18)

Tilt/Lean R: Youngstown/Canton (light green, R+4.25), western Cleveland suburbs (R+3.43), Cincinnati+eastern counties (blue, R+3.86), NE Ohio (R+3.96)

Likely R: Dayton (purple, R+6.85), north central (light blue, R+7.48)

Safe or Safe-ish: Cincinnati burbs (green, R+9), Columbus northern burbs (periwinkle, R+11), Columbus southern burbs (yellow, R+10.5), west central Ohio (pink,  R+19.5), southeast Ohio (teal, R+12.6)

Only issue is that some GOP incumbents are probably double bunked. 

Probably not major, but Franklin county can only be split twice and you have three splits in this map.

[Nyvin]

Looking a bit more deeply at the language of the redistricting measure, it seems to be designed not just to allow Republicans to keep gerrymandering (eg the fact that cross-cutting is only allowed between Cuyahoga and Summit makes me think they might keep OH-11's arm into Akron) but also to make Democratic gerrymanders more difficult.

Obviously it's deeply deeply unlikely that either the Ohio House or the Senate will flip (and if they do it's probably because Biden makes big inroads in demographics Democrats bombed with in 2016, making any scheme now less than useful.) But just for the sake of argument I tried to draw a gerrymander and found that both the requirement to keep Cleveland whole and the ban on cross-cuts makes drawing Democratic districts more difficult. The former hurts because it means that OH-11 has to take in too many white Democrats in west Cleveland to take significant numbers of white Republicans in NE Ohio, the latter because it's harder to grab blue cities without also having to take their ruby-red suburbs.

This was the best I could manage:

https://davesredistricting.org/join/ef954867-1844-405b-b0d4-1a7fd34a663c



9 districts have Democratic PVIs, but only two are wave-proof and three are realistically swing rather than Democratic seats. Columbus is chopped three ways and whilst OH-15 definitely takes the bulk of it, it's questionable whether you'd get away with splitting the remainder between two different seats. Undoing that probably makes OH-12 safer for Dems, but at the cost of OH-3 getting more Republican.

OH-1: D+4.28
OH-2: R+20.12
OH-3: D+2.43
OH-4: R+12.67
OH-5: R+21.07
OH-6: R+14.65
OH-7: R+13.41
OH-8: R+18.97
OH-9: D+4.45
OH-10: D+1.44
OH-11: D+25.92 (44.2% black by CVAP)
OH-12: D+1.95
OH-13: D+4.31
OH-14: D+3.05
OH-15: D+8.31 (26.2% black by CVAP)

Since there's no district entirely within the counties,  this map would split both Cuyahoga and Franklin three times and wouldn't be allowed (Max of 2 splits for the biggest five counties).

Also the arm into Summit from Cleaveland (current OH-11) wouldn't be allowed either.  A district needs to either be entirely within a county or contain 1 whole county.   The current OH-11 does neither.

[Nyvin]

Here's an attempt at a compliant 13-2 map I put together a couple days ago. I don't think the Ohio GOP would quite be willing to go this far as it results in a number of R+4 seats that could easily fall in a wave. The geography of it actually comes out quite clean except for Akron.

https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::62e01fe6-ea25-421b-b48c-8638e8381824

Why use 2010 numbers?

[Nyvin]

Clean 12-3 map.  A few red districts are competitive (east Cincinnati, Toledo, west Cuyahoga) and the Akron district is the only competitive Dem leaning district.  Over the decade, I expect the Toledo and west Cuyahoga districts to become safely republican, but east Cincinnati and Akron districts become more competitive.  
https://davesredistricting.org/join/6cc98b62-0126-4e4e-91b1-937118f5949c

You aren't allowed to split Cincinatti. Look earlier in the thread on how to gerrymander Cincinnati. There is literally only one path.

I'm pretty sure large cities can be split

Only Columbus can be split.   Keeping municipalities together is one of the strongest parts of the reform.

Plus this map just screams lawsuits about splitting up communities of interests and benefiting a political party.

[Nyvin]

https://rrhelections.com/index.php/2020/07/11/holy-toledo-a-legal-13-2-ohio/

RRH out with their 13-2 gerrymander of Ohio.

How is this legal given the state's guidelines about not cutting counties?

16 counties may be cut and 2 may be double cut. Pretty sure its legal. You have to split some counties no matter what.

Even if it is, the legal arguments in this map are next to nothing regarding not favoring a political party and not splitting up communities of interests etc.   If the court is anything but a hyper partisan Republican hack job it would get struck down.

[Nyvin]

https://rrhelections.com/index.php/2020/07/11/holy-toledo-a-legal-13-2-ohio/

RRH out with their 13-2 gerrymander of Ohio.

Real question -

If put before a judge, which map do you think they'd rule in favor of when considering the provisions within the reform?

https://twitter.com/PoliticsWolf/status/1282414594875551744

[Nyvin]

11-2-2 map
1: Chabot/Trump+21/safe R
2: Wenstrup/Trump+5/lean R
3: Beatty/Clinton+44/safe D
4: Jordan/Trump+36/safe R
5: Latta or Gibbs/Trump+15/safe R
6: Johnson/Trump+21/safe R
7: Ryan/Trump+2/lean D, tossup by 2024
8: Davidson/Trump+36/safe R
9: Kaptur or Latta/Trump+14/tossup if Kaptur runs, safe R if she doesn't
10: Turner/Trump+11/likely R
11: Fudge/Clinton+65/safe D
12: Balderson/Trump+24/safe R
13: Gonzalez/Trump+14/safe R
14: Joyce/Trump+11/likely R
15: Stivers/Trump+22/safe R
https://davesredistricting.org/join/02d2d295-0c22-4da9-917b-a228ca57994d
Compliant and relatively clean map.  While PVI numbers are close in a lot of the districts, Trump won 11/15 seats by a double digit margin.  Only 2 Clinton seats. 

Again, there's practically no legal argument favoring this kind of map.  There's no reason Meigs or Lawrence counties should be in the same district with the Columbus suburbs (or with Columbus itself),  or why Toledo should be paired with Darke county.

If put before a court this map would get struck down easily.  The other provisions in the reform aren't just there to look pretty.

[Nyvin]

here is my best attempt at a ~fair map~, it's 9-6 trump but probably 10-5 R in the 2020s

OH-01: Obama +8 | Obama +8 | Clinton +12
OH-02: McCain +28 | Romney +32 | Trump +33
OH-03: Obama +34 | Obama +39 | Clinton +36
OH-04: McCain +17 | Romney +20 | Trump +41
OH-05: Obama +21 | Obama +20 | Clinton +3
OH-06: McCain +3 | Romney +8 | Trump +38
OH-07: Obama +12 | Obama +8 | Trump +10
OH-08: McCain +26 | Romney +33 | Trump +51
OH-09: Obama +5 | Obama +2 | Trump +7
OH-10: Obama +2 | Obama +1 | Trump +6
OH-11: Obama +57 | Obama +61 | Clinton +54
OH-12: McCain +3 | Romney +5 | Clinton +6
OH-13: Obama +17 | Obama +17 | Trump +10
OH-14: Obama +8 | Obama +5 | Clinton +4
OH-15: McCain +19 | Romney +18 | Trump +42

This is actually a pretty good map. It keeps COIs rather intact, and it gives Democrats at least the opportunity to recover some seats if they can win him back Obama - Trump voters. If they can't, they probably don't deserve to pick up many more seats than this map allows. I would love to know what Sherrod Brown's numbers under this map were.

Can I also just say that, while occasionally throwing out the occasional Just for kicks extreme gerrymander Maps is one thing, to have folks like Idaho conservative, krazen back in the day, and others aggressively and repeatedly push for extreme gerrymander favoring their party like rrh does strikes me as a grotesquely tasteless middle finger towards democracy at best, and reading it on these threads at worse sounds like some type of political snuff porn.

The moderators on RRH will literally ban posters for posting Dem Gerrymanders, but then they'll congratulate people for their Republican gerrymanders.

[Nyvin]

11-2-2 map
1: Chabot/Trump+21/safe R
2: Wenstrup/Trump+5/lean R
3: Beatty/Clinton+44/safe D
4: Jordan/Trump+36/safe R
5: Latta or Gibbs/Trump+15/safe R
6: Johnson/Trump+21/safe R
7: Ryan/Trump+2/lean D, tossup by 2024
8: Davidson/Trump+36/safe R
9: Kaptur or Latta/Trump+14/tossup if Kaptur runs, safe R if she doesn't
10: Turner/Trump+11/likely R
11: Fudge/Clinton+65/safe D
12: Balderson/Trump+24/safe R
13: Gonzalez/Trump+14/safe R
14: Joyce/Trump+11/likely R
15: Stivers/Trump+22/safe R
https://davesredistricting.org/join/02d2d295-0c22-4da9-917b-a228ca57994d
Compliant and relatively clean map.  While PVI numbers are close in a lot of the districts, Trump won 11/15 seats by a double digit margin.  Only 2 Clinton seats.  

Again, there's practically no legal argument favoring this kind of map.  There's no reason Meigs or Lawrence counties should be in the same district with the Columbus suburbs (or with Columbus itself),  or why Toledo should be paired with Darke county.

If put before a court this map would get struck down easily.  The other provisions in the reform aren't just there to look pretty.

It would only be struck down by a dem court.  It follows the criteria.

It follows the numerical structures of the reform (mainly county and municipal splits).   Pretty much anything else that's written in the reform it rips to shreds though.

3. (a) The general assembly shall not pass a plan that unduly favors or disfavors a political party or its incumbents.

3. (c) Division (B)(2) of Section 2 of this article shall not apply to the plan. The general assembly shall attempt to draw districts that are compact.

3. (d) The general assembly shall include in the plan an explanation of the plan's compliance with divisions (F)(3)(a) to (c) of this section.

B. (2) Every congressional district shall be compact.

The map clearly throws 3a out the window, I don't see how any argument can be made that the districts are compact in anyway at all for sections 3c or B2.

Finally, I'd just love to see the OH GOP write up explanations on their decision to create said districts going from Columbus to Meigs or Toledo to Darke, and not include the Cininnati suburbs with Cincinnati to satisfy 3d.

[Nyvin]

Going by the 2019 pop estimates, Franklin + Delaware have about 1.95 districts between them, and they're both growing faster than the state so I'd expect that number to grow in the final census.

Even with just 1.95 districts, adding all of Union brings it well over 2,  so adding all of Union and all of Madison probably won't be needed.

[Nyvin]

Anyway cleaned up my earlier compromise map and shored up the swingier GOP seats.
Jordan has a 61% R seat and and overall the map is quite compact etc.




Also does pretty well on the pentagram.

I don't think the triple split of Franklin is allowed with OH-4.    All of the district has to be in one segment of the county.   That kinda creates a problem with only splitting Columbus once on the map.

[Nyvin]

Anyway cleaned up my earlier compromise map and shored up the swingier GOP seats.
Jordan has a 61% R seat and and overall the map is quite compact etc.




Also does pretty well on the pentagram.

I don't think the triple split of Franklin is allowed with OH-4.    All of the district has to be in one segment of the county.   That kinda creates a problem with only splitting Columbus once on the map.

Is there anything about that in the rulebook?
could you quote it for me?

This is on page five, article two, section 6 -

(6) If a congressional district includes only part of the territory of a particular county, the part
of that congressional district that lies in that particular county shall be contiguous within the
boundaries of the county.

[Nyvin]

Ok, here is my attempt at making a "high risk, high reward" R gerrymander that still complies with all the rules (I think; I am actually not sure if this is compliant). I did try to minimize county splits and what not; though there are still 11 cuts in counties smaller than 1 district which is quite a bit, but no county other than the one in Cleveland is split more than once; and I also kept Cleveland and Cincinnati whole. I am not sure if you need a 2nd majority black district though, so it may fail because of that instead (though that should not affect partisanship too much, if anything it would make the district even more of a pack)

This map can either be a masterful work if trends hold and what not (being a 12R-2D-1S map), or something that backfires spectacularly (being an 8D-7R map in a wave, or possibly even beyond that)



OH-01: R+9 (58R-42D composite).
OH-02: R+4 (52.5R-48.5D composite).
OH-03: D+18 (69D-31R composite; 33% Black).
OH-04: R+13 (61.5R-38.5D).
OH-05: R+5 (53R-47D composite)
OH-06: EVEN (52D-48R composite)
OH-07: R+7 (55.5R-44.5D composite)
OH-08: R+13 (62R-38D composite)
OH-09: R+8 (56.5R-43.5D composite)
OH-10: R+6 (54R-46D composite)
OH-11: D+31 (82D-18R composite); 48% black
OH-12: R+11 (60R-40D composite)
OH-13: R+5 (53R-47D composite)
OH-14: R+4 (52.5R-47.5D composite)
OH-15: R+7 (55R-45D composite)

https://davesredistricting.org/join/09085952-e483-4980-955c-8c8b0606a4ba

OH-6 doesn't have a whole county, and the double split OH-3 does to Trumbull wouldn't be allowed.

But beyond that, there's just no realistic way this map would withstand court scrutiny with the wording of the reform.

[Nyvin]

Ok, here is my attempt at making a "high risk, high reward" R gerrymander that still complies with all the rules (I think; I am actually not sure if this is compliant). I did try to minimize county splits and what not; though there are still 11 cuts in counties smaller than 1 district which is quite a bit, but no county other than the one in Cleveland is split more than once; and I also kept Cleveland and Cincinnati whole. I am not sure if you need a 2nd majority black district though, so it may fail because of that instead (though that should not affect partisanship too much, if anything it would make the district even more of a pack)

This map can either be a masterful work if trends hold and what not (being a 12R-2D-1S map), or something that backfires spectacularly (being an 8D-7R map in a wave, or possibly even beyond that)



OH-01: R+9 (58R-42D composite).
OH-02: R+4 (52.5R-48.5D composite).
OH-03: D+18 (69D-31R composite; 33% Black).
OH-04: R+13 (61.5R-38.5D).
OH-05: R+5 (53R-47D composite)
OH-06: EVEN (52D-48R composite)
OH-07: R+7 (55.5R-44.5D composite)
OH-08: R+13 (62R-38D composite)
OH-09: R+8 (56.5R-43.5D composite)
OH-10: R+6 (54R-46D composite)
OH-11: D+31 (82D-18R composite); 48% black
OH-12: R+11 (60R-40D composite)
OH-13: R+5 (53R-47D composite)
OH-14: R+4 (52.5R-47.5D composite)
OH-15: R+7 (55R-45D composite)

https://davesredistricting.org/join/09085952-e483-4980-955c-8c8b0606a4ba

OH-6 doesn't have a whole county, and the double split OH-3 does to Trumbull wouldn't be allowed.

But beyond that, there's just no realistic way this map would withstand court scrutiny with the wording of the reform.

There was also no realistic way for the NC supreme court to strike down the map but they made up something. Partisan court means partisan decisions.

Even worse, NC didn't have a 9 page state constitutional amendment in place specific to redistricting either.