2020 New York Redistricting

[ProgressiveModerate]

Hopefully Hochul doesn’t wait like a month to sign it. Seems like a lot of governors have been doing that

[Libertas Vel Mors]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/56a14294-4422-45ef-a50f-e89e69f45b01
Thoughts on this non-partisan NY CD map I made?

I like it other than the Borough Park-other Jewish communities split. Ideally there would be a solely South Brooklyn seat. Like this.

https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::52efeb58-18a3-465c-9f74-b98643bd5a32

Looking at that sort of arrangement gives me the thought that I should redraw the 11th and 9th to put Bensonhurst in the 9th while placing Sunset Park in the 11th.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/73e32e04-cbcd-472c-942f-6023fab6e208
Something like this.

That makes sense, yeah.

I think your biggest problem is combining the UWS with Harlem, which leaves that seat plurality white. Not going to be acceptable. You have to pair white parts of Manhattan with Brooklyn to preserve that minority seat.

I doubt the courts would strike it down, honestly. Especially since the seat is still 60%+ non-White VAP and it can be pretty plausibly argued that Harlem and Brooklyn are disparate communities versus Harlem and the UWS.

It's not a court issue, it's a political issue. The north Manhattan seat has to sufficiently minority that it's not going to elect a white politician. You *might* be able to get away with the UWS, but certainly nothing south of that. (Incidentally, all of Manhattan north of 59th St on the west side and of 96th St on the east side is exactly one district, which is almost too neat to be true.)

On the whole, this map eliminates a minority seat in northern Manhattan in favor of creating a white seat in Brooklyn, which is just not viable.

If it's a political issue then it's irrelevant because the point here is to draw a fair map. Plenty of parts of this map are not viable, like ending Delgado's district, but that doesn't matter because it's not the point of the exercise.

[Pericles]

So all the Senate Democrats voted for it?

[Schiff for Senate]

The NY gerrymander is perfection and is exactly what I would've done if I was the NY Democratic Party - I've even iterated this strategy in prior posts: to be safe, make Katko's seat (NY24) even bluer; shore up Delgado and S.P. Maloney (NY19 and NY18, respectively); eliminate a GOP-held seat; make the seat Zeldin is vacating (NY01) blue by adding blue areas and subtracting red ones, and make Garbarino's 2nd district a red sink of sorts; and lastly, make Malliotakis' 11th district a blue seat. This map is absolutely perfect and, along with IL (and MD, but MD is annoying because it already was a gerrymander, and the Democrats could've gone even further in making MD01 a blueish seat instead of just competitive), demonstrates that Democrats are finally playing hardball. Only thing to fear now is the map somehow not passing (pretty unlikely, I think), or it getting struck down like OH's and AL's maps were (pretty possible).

[Libertas Vel Mors]

The NY gerrymander is perfection and is exactly what I would've done if I was the NY Democratic Party - I've even iterated this strategy in prior posts: to be safe, make Katko's seat (NY24) even bluer; shore up Delgado and S.P. Maloney (NY19 and NY18, respectively); eliminate a GOP-held seat; make the seat Zeldin is vacating (NY01) blue by adding blue areas and subtracting red ones, and make Garbarino's 2nd district a red sink of sorts; and lastly, make Malliotakis' 11th district a blue seat. This map is absolutely perfect and, along with IL (and MD, but MD is annoying because it already was a gerrymander, and the Democrats could've gone even further in making MD01 a blueish seat instead of just competitive), demonstrates that Democrats are finally playing hardball. Only thing to fear now is the map somehow not passing (pretty unlikely, I think), or it getting struck down like OH's and AL's maps were (pretty possible).

Democrats have passed a gerrymander in every state where they controlled the redistricting process: Republicans have drawn fair maps in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Kentucky, and have gone for only slight gerrymanders in Indiana, South Carolina, and Alabama. It's not Democrats who aren't playing hardball.

[Schiff for Senate]

So all the Senate Democrats voted for it?

Looks like it. They have a 43-20 majority in the Senate, and the map passed 43-20 as well. Since I'm guessing no Republican would support a Democratic gerrymander, I suppose this was a perfect party-line vote.

The NY gerrymander is perfection and is exactly what I would've done if I was the NY Democratic Party - I've even iterated this strategy in prior posts: to be safe, make Katko's seat (NY24) even bluer; shore up Delgado and S.P. Maloney (NY19 and NY18, respectively); eliminate a GOP-held seat; make the seat Zeldin is vacating (NY01) blue by adding blue areas and subtracting red ones, and make Garbarino's 2nd district a red sink of sorts; and lastly, make Malliotakis' 11th district a blue seat. This map is absolutely perfect and, along with IL (and MD, but MD is annoying because it already was a gerrymander, and the Democrats could've gone even further in making MD01 a blueish seat instead of just competitive), demonstrates that Democrats are finally playing hardball. Only thing to fear now is the map somehow not passing (pretty unlikely, I think), or it getting struck down like OH's and AL's maps were (pretty possible).

Democrats have passed a gerrymander in every state where they controlled the redistricting process: Republicans have drawn fair maps in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Kentucky, and have gone for only slight gerrymanders in Indiana, South Carolina, and Alabama. It's not Democrats who aren't playing hardball.

You have very selectively chosen your states.

You ommit to mention TX (not that bad in technical terms because it was mainly incumbent protection, but down the road it insures a lot of GOP incumbents that were in competitive, and left-trending, turf), OH (so bad it's being redrawn!), your home state of NC (speaks for itself), GA (making GA06 solid red) and just recently, TN (completely cracking Nashville).

They also did pass light-ish gerrymanders in OK and UT, too.

They intend to gerrymander NH and change its boundaries - the boundaries have been mostly the same and respected since the late 1800s and there's not been any large population shift in NH to warrant the massive changes the NHGOP wants...the Democratic map, in contrast, is a fair, least-change map that shifts just one town over.

 AL's map is much worse than you describe it - a 5-2 map is easily possible, with one black seat and one Birmingham seat, and hopefully that's what's going to happen...what the GOP did was fragment Birmingham and put the black/liberal parts in AL07. They basically made AL07 a Democratic pack when a fair map would result in 5 solid GOP seats and 2 light blue seats. Nearby LA is also pretty egregious - it's very possible for 2 Democratic seats, one with New Orleans and one with Baton Rouge, but instead they created a Democratic sink that puts the blue parts of both cities in one district.

And I shouldn't need to remind you that last decade the GOP was even more potent, doing the rounds in PA, VA, NC, and FL (all four actually got overturned mid-decade, PA, VA and FL before the 2018 midterms and NC both befor the 2018 midterms and again before the 2020 elections) and to a lesser extent AL, TX and LA.

[Tintrlvr]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/56a14294-4422-45ef-a50f-e89e69f45b01
Thoughts on this non-partisan NY CD map I made?

I like it other than the Borough Park-other Jewish communities split. Ideally there would be a solely South Brooklyn seat. Like this.

https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::52efeb58-18a3-465c-9f74-b98643bd5a32

Looking at that sort of arrangement gives me the thought that I should redraw the 11th and 9th to put Bensonhurst in the 9th while placing Sunset Park in the 11th.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/73e32e04-cbcd-472c-942f-6023fab6e208
Something like this.

That makes sense, yeah.

I think your biggest problem is combining the UWS with Harlem, which leaves that seat plurality white. Not going to be acceptable. You have to pair white parts of Manhattan with Brooklyn to preserve that minority seat.

I doubt the courts would strike it down, honestly. Especially since the seat is still 60%+ non-White VAP and it can be pretty plausibly argued that Harlem and Brooklyn are disparate communities versus Harlem and the UWS.

It's not a court issue, it's a political issue. The north Manhattan seat has to sufficiently minority that it's not going to elect a white politician. You *might* be able to get away with the UWS, but certainly nothing south of that. (Incidentally, all of Manhattan north of 59th St on the west side and of 96th St on the east side is exactly one district, which is almost too neat to be true.)

On the whole, this map eliminates a minority seat in northern Manhattan in favor of creating a white seat in Brooklyn, which is just not viable.

If it's a political issue then it's irrelevant because the point here is to draw a fair map. Plenty of parts of this map are not viable, like ending Delgado's district, but that doesn't matter because it's not the point of the exercise.

But I think most people would contest that it couldn't possibly be a fair map if you're eliminating a minority seat in favor of a white seat, even if the minority seat isn't strictly mandated by law.

[Tintrlvr]

The NY gerrymander is perfection and is exactly what I would've done if I was the NY Democratic Party - I've even iterated this strategy in prior posts: to be safe, make Katko's seat (NY24) even bluer; shore up Delgado and S.P. Maloney (NY19 and NY18, respectively); eliminate a GOP-held seat; make the seat Zeldin is vacating (NY01) blue by adding blue areas and subtracting red ones, and make Garbarino's 2nd district a red sink of sorts; and lastly, make Malliotakis' 11th district a blue seat. This map is absolutely perfect and, along with IL (and MD, but MD is annoying because it already was a gerrymander, and the Democrats could've gone even further in making MD01 a blueish seat instead of just competitive), demonstrates that Democrats are finally playing hardball. Only thing to fear now is the map somehow not passing (pretty unlikely, I think), or it getting struck down like OH's and AL's maps were (pretty possible).

Democrats have passed a gerrymander in every state where they controlled the redistricting process: Republicans have drawn fair maps in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Kentucky, and have gone for only slight gerrymanders in Indiana, South Carolina, and Alabama. It's not Democrats who aren't playing hardball.

The bold are pretty clearly gerrymanders. Could they have been more aggressive? In the case of Kentucky, absolutely (not in the case of Arkansas, though, really). But that doesn't make the Kentucky map not a gerrymander, just less of one than they could have drawn.

Also the idea that South Carolina and Alabama are only "slight" gerrymanders is ridiculous. 6-1 maps in states that are split 55-44 and even 63-37 are not anything close to "slight" gerrymanders.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/56a14294-4422-45ef-a50f-e89e69f45b01
Thoughts on this non-partisan NY CD map I made?

I like it other than the Borough Park-other Jewish communities split. Ideally there would be a solely South Brooklyn seat. Like this.

https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::52efeb58-18a3-465c-9f74-b98643bd5a32

Looking at that sort of arrangement gives me the thought that I should redraw the 11th and 9th to put Bensonhurst in the 9th while placing Sunset Park in the 11th.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/73e32e04-cbcd-472c-942f-6023fab6e208
Something like this.

That makes sense, yeah.

I think your biggest problem is combining the UWS with Harlem, which leaves that seat plurality white. Not going to be acceptable. You have to pair white parts of Manhattan with Brooklyn to preserve that minority seat.

I doubt the courts would strike it down, honestly. Especially since the seat is still 60%+ non-White VAP and it can be pretty plausibly argued that Harlem and Brooklyn are disparate communities versus Harlem and the UWS.

It's not a court issue, it's a political issue. The north Manhattan seat has to sufficiently minority that it's not going to elect a white politician. You *might* be able to get away with the UWS, but certainly nothing south of that. (Incidentally, all of Manhattan north of 59th St on the west side and of 96th St on the east side is exactly one district, which is almost too neat to be true.)

On the whole, this map eliminates a minority seat in northern Manhattan in favor of creating a white seat in Brooklyn, which is just not viable.

If it's a political issue then it's irrelevant because the point here is to draw a fair map. Plenty of parts of this map are not viable, like ending Delgado's district, but that doesn't matter because it's not the point of the exercise.

But I think most people would contest that it couldn't possibly be a fair map if you're eliminating a minority seat in favor of a white seat, even if the minority seat isn't strictly mandated by law.

But a minority seat isn't being eliminated. The seat is still 60%+ non-White VAP -- it's only (barely) white plurality because of the large black and Hispanic populations.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

The NY gerrymander is perfection and is exactly what I would've done if I was the NY Democratic Party - I've even iterated this strategy in prior posts: to be safe, make Katko's seat (NY24) even bluer; shore up Delgado and S.P. Maloney (NY19 and NY18, respectively); eliminate a GOP-held seat; make the seat Zeldin is vacating (NY01) blue by adding blue areas and subtracting red ones, and make Garbarino's 2nd district a red sink of sorts; and lastly, make Malliotakis' 11th district a blue seat. This map is absolutely perfect and, along with IL (and MD, but MD is annoying because it already was a gerrymander, and the Democrats could've gone even further in making MD01 a blueish seat instead of just competitive), demonstrates that Democrats are finally playing hardball. Only thing to fear now is the map somehow not passing (pretty unlikely, I think), or it getting struck down like OH's and AL's maps were (pretty possible).

Democrats have passed a gerrymander in every state where they controlled the redistricting process: Republicans have drawn fair maps in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Kentucky, and have gone for only slight gerrymanders in Indiana, South Carolina, and Alabama. It's not Democrats who aren't playing hardball.

The bold are pretty clearly gerrymanders. Could they have been more aggressive? In the case of Kentucky, absolutely (not in the case of Arkansas, though, really). But that doesn't make the Kentucky map not a gerrymander, just less of one than they could have drawn.

Also the idea that South Carolina and Alabama are only "slight" gerrymanders is ridiculous. 6-1 maps in states that are split 55-44 and even 63-37 are not anything close to "slight" gerrymanders.

Arkansas continued a map drawn by Democrats in 2010. Just because you can draw a map that links the Delta to Little Rock does not mean that one should: keeping the Little Rock metro whole is a more natural community of interest. You're right on Kentucky: that should be moved to slight gerrymander (I was more focused on the not touching Louisville part). For Alabama and South Carolina, that's a consequence of the FPTP system, the VRA, and geography: it is impossible to draw more than 2 Dem seats in South Carolina because doing so would violate the VRA, and in Alabama a fair map would have a Black Belt district and a Birmingham district, but current law (pre the recent ruling, at least) interprets the Birmingham split as necessary.

Edit: Also, not the Alabama thread, but it's worth noting that a fair AL map doesn't necessarily go 5-2 either. Without either a Birmingham or a Mobile split, the 7th either has to take in Montgomery (force the 2nd out of the Wiregrass region) or take in redder rural areas to gain sufficent population. A fair map in Alabama could easily be 6-1-1, with a Biden +10ish Birmingham seat and a competitive rural seat.

[Schiff for Senate]

The NY gerrymander is perfection and is exactly what I would've done if I was the NY Democratic Party - I've even iterated this strategy in prior posts: to be safe, make Katko's seat (NY24) even bluer; shore up Delgado and S.P. Maloney (NY19 and NY18, respectively); eliminate a GOP-held seat; make the seat Zeldin is vacating (NY01) blue by adding blue areas and subtracting red ones, and make Garbarino's 2nd district a red sink of sorts; and lastly, make Malliotakis' 11th district a blue seat. This map is absolutely perfect and, along with IL (and MD, but MD is annoying because it already was a gerrymander, and the Democrats could've gone even further in making MD01 a blueish seat instead of just competitive), demonstrates that Democrats are finally playing hardball. Only thing to fear now is the map somehow not passing (pretty unlikely, I think), or it getting struck down like OH's and AL's maps were (pretty possible).

Democrats have passed a gerrymander in every state where they controlled the redistricting process: Republicans have drawn fair maps in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Kentucky, and have gone for only slight gerrymanders in Indiana, South Carolina, and Alabama. It's not Democrats who aren't playing hardball.

The bold are pretty clearly gerrymanders. Could they have been more aggressive? In the case of Kentucky, absolutely (not in the case of Arkansas, though, really). But that doesn't make the Kentucky map not a gerrymander, just less of one than they could have drawn.

Also the idea that South Carolina and Alabama are only "slight" gerrymanders is ridiculous. 6-1 maps in states that are split 55-44 and even 63-37 are not anything close to "slight" gerrymanders.

Kind of gree with AR since the Little Rock seat was reddened (not that I consider it too much of a gerrymander since it's a reddish seat anyway), but KY was actually a very light gerrymander (or maybe we jut had exceptionally low expectations of it and it just cleared that bar). Sure, they moved Frankfort from KY06, but that's not a big deal, honestly. The biggest concern in KY should be the district boundaries - they were made for incumbent protection, not to flip seats - because KY01 has pretty funky district likes to ensure that James Comer lives in it, and KY02 is similarly the way it is to keep Brett Guthrie in it.

EDIT: To be clear, though, I don't think a 3-1 map is fair for AR. Democrats have poor geography there but I think the current map is about fair once the northwestern district is made a bit more compact and population changes are accounted for. I don't like how they reddened the one competitive-ish seat - they should've left that about the same politically and changed it as little as possible - but honestly, connecting Little Rock to eastern AR is a Democratic gerrymander of sorts, since any truly fair and totally nonpartisan map would give Little Rock one compact seat.

[GALeftist]

So all the Senate Democrats voted for it?

Yeah, even Simcha Felder and Savino lmao. Felder got a good Senate district, which I suspect is all he cared about.

[Tintrlvr]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/56a14294-4422-45ef-a50f-e89e69f45b01
Thoughts on this non-partisan NY CD map I made?

I like it other than the Borough Park-other Jewish communities split. Ideally there would be a solely South Brooklyn seat. Like this.

https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::52efeb58-18a3-465c-9f74-b98643bd5a32

Looking at that sort of arrangement gives me the thought that I should redraw the 11th and 9th to put Bensonhurst in the 9th while placing Sunset Park in the 11th.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/73e32e04-cbcd-472c-942f-6023fab6e208
Something like this.

That makes sense, yeah.

I think your biggest problem is combining the UWS with Harlem, which leaves that seat plurality white. Not going to be acceptable. You have to pair white parts of Manhattan with Brooklyn to preserve that minority seat.

I doubt the courts would strike it down, honestly. Especially since the seat is still 60%+ non-White VAP and it can be pretty plausibly argued that Harlem and Brooklyn are disparate communities versus Harlem and the UWS.

It's not a court issue, it's a political issue. The north Manhattan seat has to sufficiently minority that it's not going to elect a white politician. You *might* be able to get away with the UWS, but certainly nothing south of that. (Incidentally, all of Manhattan north of 59th St on the west side and of 96th St on the east side is exactly one district, which is almost too neat to be true.)

On the whole, this map eliminates a minority seat in northern Manhattan in favor of creating a white seat in Brooklyn, which is just not viable.

If it's a political issue then it's irrelevant because the point here is to draw a fair map. Plenty of parts of this map are not viable, like ending Delgado's district, but that doesn't matter because it's not the point of the exercise.

But I think most people would contest that it couldn't possibly be a fair map if you're eliminating a minority seat in favor of a white seat, even if the minority seat isn't strictly mandated by law.

But a minority seat isn't being eliminated. The seat is still 60%+ non-White VAP -- it's only (barely) white plurality because of the large black and Hispanic populations.

In NYC that seat elects a white politician 10 times out of 10. You need to understand the local dynamics; a 40% white seat in NYC with splintered minority groups (especially when the main minority group is not black) is a white seat. These sorts of things are super contextual; you can't apply the same rule to every part of the country and expect it to work out.

[Tintrlvr]

The NY gerrymander is perfection and is exactly what I would've done if I was the NY Democratic Party - I've even iterated this strategy in prior posts: to be safe, make Katko's seat (NY24) even bluer; shore up Delgado and S.P. Maloney (NY19 and NY18, respectively); eliminate a GOP-held seat; make the seat Zeldin is vacating (NY01) blue by adding blue areas and subtracting red ones, and make Garbarino's 2nd district a red sink of sorts; and lastly, make Malliotakis' 11th district a blue seat. This map is absolutely perfect and, along with IL (and MD, but MD is annoying because it already was a gerrymander, and the Democrats could've gone even further in making MD01 a blueish seat instead of just competitive), demonstrates that Democrats are finally playing hardball. Only thing to fear now is the map somehow not passing (pretty unlikely, I think), or it getting struck down like OH's and AL's maps were (pretty possible).

Democrats have passed a gerrymander in every state where they controlled the redistricting process: Republicans have drawn fair maps in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Kentucky, and have gone for only slight gerrymanders in Indiana, South Carolina, and Alabama. It's not Democrats who aren't playing hardball.

The bold are pretty clearly gerrymanders. Could they have been more aggressive? In the case of Kentucky, absolutely (not in the case of Arkansas, though, really). But that doesn't make the Kentucky map not a gerrymander, just less of one than they could have drawn.

Also the idea that South Carolina and Alabama are only "slight" gerrymanders is ridiculous. 6-1 maps in states that are split 55-44 and even 63-37 are not anything close to "slight" gerrymanders.

Arkansas continued a map drawn by Democrats in 2010. Just because you can draw a map that links the Delta to Little Rock does not mean that one should: keeping the Little Rock metro whole is a more natural community of interest. You're right on Kentucky: that should be moved to slight gerrymander (I was more focused on the not touching Louisville part). For Alabama and South Carolina, that's a consequence of the FPTP system, the VRA, and geography: it is impossible to draw more than 2 Dem seats in South Carolina because doing so would violate the VRA, and in Alabama a fair map would have a Black Belt district and a Birmingham district, but current law (pre the recent ruling, at least) interprets the Birmingham split as necessary.

Edit: Also, not the Alabama thread, but it's worth noting that a fair AL map doesn't necessarily go 5-2 either. Without either a Birmingham or a Mobile split, the 7th either has to take in Montgomery (force the 2nd out of the Wiregrass region) or take in redder rural areas to gain sufficent population. A fair map in Alabama could easily be 6-1-1, with a Biden +10ish Birmingham seat and a competitive rural seat.

The fact that the AR map is roughly similar to what the AR Dems drew in 2010 in a completely different context is irrelevant (and frankly it was a gerrymander then, too, albeit a totally failed one).

It is not at all impossible to draw three Biden seats in SC while complying with the VRA; in fact, it is quite easy. In any event, that doesn't mean there should be only one super-safe Dem seat and other seats that are as packed with Republicans as they can be given the geography; the absolute worst case for Dems on a fair map would be a safe Black Belt seat, a Lean/Likely D Columbia-based seat and a Toss-up/Lean R Charleston-based seat. Is that what the SC Republicans drew? No. So it's a gerrymander.

"Current law" has never interpreted the split of Birmingham as necessary. No one ever forced the split of Birmingham to comply with the VRA; it was done specifically to pack in as many Democrats into a single black-majority seat. And your follow-up doesn't make sense at all; it's quite easy for the Black Belt seat to be Safe D and majority black (really you can draw around 55% black) without either Mobile or Birmingham; it's just the Birmingham seat that becomes potentially competitive but still Likely D. And that would clearly be the fair result considering communities of interest.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/56a14294-4422-45ef-a50f-e89e69f45b01
Thoughts on this non-partisan NY CD map I made?

I like it other than the Borough Park-other Jewish communities split. Ideally there would be a solely South Brooklyn seat. Like this.

https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::52efeb58-18a3-465c-9f74-b98643bd5a32

Looking at that sort of arrangement gives me the thought that I should redraw the 11th and 9th to put Bensonhurst in the 9th while placing Sunset Park in the 11th.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/73e32e04-cbcd-472c-942f-6023fab6e208
Something like this.

That makes sense, yeah.

I think your biggest problem is combining the UWS with Harlem, which leaves that seat plurality white. Not going to be acceptable. You have to pair white parts of Manhattan with Brooklyn to preserve that minority seat.

I doubt the courts would strike it down, honestly. Especially since the seat is still 60%+ non-White VAP and it can be pretty plausibly argued that Harlem and Brooklyn are disparate communities versus Harlem and the UWS.

It's not a court issue, it's a political issue. The north Manhattan seat has to sufficiently minority that it's not going to elect a white politician. You *might* be able to get away with the UWS, but certainly nothing south of that. (Incidentally, all of Manhattan north of 59th St on the west side and of 96th St on the east side is exactly one district, which is almost too neat to be true.)

On the whole, this map eliminates a minority seat in northern Manhattan in favor of creating a white seat in Brooklyn, which is just not viable.

If it's a political issue then it's irrelevant because the point here is to draw a fair map. Plenty of parts of this map are not viable, like ending Delgado's district, but that doesn't matter because it's not the point of the exercise.

But I think most people would contest that it couldn't possibly be a fair map if you're eliminating a minority seat in favor of a white seat, even if the minority seat isn't strictly mandated by law.

But a minority seat isn't being eliminated. The seat is still 60%+ non-White VAP -- it's only (barely) white plurality because of the large black and Hispanic populations.

In NYC that seat elects a white politician 10 times out of 10. You need to understand the local dynamics; a 40% white seat in NYC with splintered minority groups (especially when the main minority group is not black) is a white seat. These sorts of things are super contextual; you can't apply the same rule to every part of the country and expect it to work out.

Many of both the blacks and Hispanics in Harlem are of Dominican descent and under Rangel voted as a bloc: it seems likely that this district would re-elect Espillat. I admit to knowing as well as I would like the district politics of NYC, but it seems apparent to me that it's best to keep the seat Harlem based rather than to bring either it or another seat into the other boroughs.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

The NY gerrymander is perfection and is exactly what I would've done if I was the NY Democratic Party - I've even iterated this strategy in prior posts: to be safe, make Katko's seat (NY24) even bluer; shore up Delgado and S.P. Maloney (NY19 and NY18, respectively); eliminate a GOP-held seat; make the seat Zeldin is vacating (NY01) blue by adding blue areas and subtracting red ones, and make Garbarino's 2nd district a red sink of sorts; and lastly, make Malliotakis' 11th district a blue seat. This map is absolutely perfect and, along with IL (and MD, but MD is annoying because it already was a gerrymander, and the Democrats could've gone even further in making MD01 a blueish seat instead of just competitive), demonstrates that Democrats are finally playing hardball. Only thing to fear now is the map somehow not passing (pretty unlikely, I think), or it getting struck down like OH's and AL's maps were (pretty possible).

Democrats have passed a gerrymander in every state where they controlled the redistricting process: Republicans have drawn fair maps in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Kentucky, and have gone for only slight gerrymanders in Indiana, South Carolina, and Alabama. It's not Democrats who aren't playing hardball.

The bold are pretty clearly gerrymanders. Could they have been more aggressive? In the case of Kentucky, absolutely (not in the case of Arkansas, though, really). But that doesn't make the Kentucky map not a gerrymander, just less of one than they could have drawn.

Also the idea that South Carolina and Alabama are only "slight" gerrymanders is ridiculous. 6-1 maps in states that are split 55-44 and even 63-37 are not anything close to "slight" gerrymanders.

Arkansas continued a map drawn by Democrats in 2010. Just because you can draw a map that links the Delta to Little Rock does not mean that one should: keeping the Little Rock metro whole is a more natural community of interest. You're right on Kentucky: that should be moved to slight gerrymander (I was more focused on the not touching Louisville part). For Alabama and South Carolina, that's a consequence of the FPTP system, the VRA, and geography: it is impossible to draw more than 2 Dem seats in South Carolina because doing so would violate the VRA, and in Alabama a fair map would have a Black Belt district and a Birmingham district, but current law (pre the recent ruling, at least) interprets the Birmingham split as necessary.

Edit: Also, not the Alabama thread, but it's worth noting that a fair AL map doesn't necessarily go 5-2 either. Without either a Birmingham or a Mobile split, the 7th either has to take in Montgomery (force the 2nd out of the Wiregrass region) or take in redder rural areas to gain sufficent population. A fair map in Alabama could easily be 6-1-1, with a Biden +10ish Birmingham seat and a competitive rural seat.

The fact that the AR map is roughly similar to what the AR Dems drew in 2010 in a completely different context is irrelevant (and frankly it was a gerrymander then, too, albeit a totally failed one).

It is not at all impossible to draw three Biden seats in SC while complying with the VRA; in fact, it is quite easy. In any event, that doesn't mean there should be only one super-safe Dem seat and other seats that are as packed with Republicans as they can be given the geography; the absolute worst case for Dems on a fair map would be a safe Black Belt seat, a Lean/Likely D Columbia-based seat and a Toss-up/Lean R Charleston-based seat. Is that what the SC Republicans drew? No. So it's a gerrymander.

"Current law" has never interpreted the split of Birmingham as necessary. No one ever forced the split of Birmingham to comply with the VRA; it was done specifically to pack in as many Democrats into a single black-majority seat. And your follow-up doesn't make sense at all; it's quite easy for the Black Belt seat to be Safe D and majority black (really you can draw around 55% black) without either Mobile or Birmingham; it's just the Birmingham seat that becomes potentially competitive but still Likely D. And that would clearly be the fair result considering communities of interest.

1. It's not irrelevant to consider the legislature's choice to pass a least change map from a design drawn by Dems.

2. SC-06's rapidly falling black population makes it difficult without tendrils into Charleston/Columbia to keep the seat majority black, which in turn makes it difficult to draw blue seats in said areas. It may be possible (actually, I'm sure it is to draw a competitive seat in Charleston) but you can't draw lean/likely D seats in either place with said VRA requirement, and I mentioned the competitive seat above in my analysis of which SC was a slight gerrymander.

2. Either Mobile, Tuscaloosa, Birmingham must be split to assure a black majority district.
You can't draw a map that keeps those counties whole that also delivers a 55% black seat (unless you split Montgomery, but again, that's hardly a good map).

[lfromnj]

Charleston has its black population falling even further. There is literally no reason but partisanship to draw into Charleston. The black belt seat probably needs a tendril into Columbia if one wants a strictly safe seat but the SC map overall is a quite efficient gerrymander. Columbia does seem a bit more justifed for said tendril atleast because it does somewhat seem like a black belt city. The portion of SC06 in Charleston is only 45% black.

As I said earlier Augusta to Savanah seats are a gerrymander just like a Columbia to Charleston seat is.

3  Biden seats is probably what happens with a natural map. 2 Biden seats is what happens if one wants a Safe Black seat .


About Kentucky, its definetely a gerrymander although little partisan. Frankfort would probably reasonably seem it should go with Lexington on most maps from what I see but at the same time it isn't a required aspect. The Comer arm upto Frankfort is crazy however

[Sol]

Yeah IMO Arkansas is a fair map--it just so happens that the obvious way to draw the state also yields zero Democrats.

[lfromnj]

Yeah IMO Arkansas is a fair map--it just so happens that the obvious way to draw the state also yields zero Democrats.

What? The map splits Little Rock into 3. It's relatively small as most of Pulaski is still in 1 seat but still a gerrymander. Are you speaking about the 2010 map?

[Sol]

Yeah IMO Arkansas is a fair map--it just so happens that the obvious way to draw the state also yields zero Democrats.

What? The map splits Little Rock into 3. It's relatively small as most of Pulaski is still in 1 seat but still a gerrymander. Are you speaking about the 2010 map?

Oh, lol I didn't notice that at all. Yeah, the 2010 map is pretty decent though it can be improved.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

https://mobile.twitter.com/Thorongil16/status/1487932813055823873?cxt=HHwWgsC4vd...
Basically brooklyn progressive whites and then mixed ideological minorities and lastly moderate Dems in Staten island

This is good news for Brittney Ramos Debarros

https://twitter.com/britt4congress/status/1362407321121423362?s=21

She referred to herself as Afro-Latina!

ENDORSED

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/BenJ_Rosenblatt/status/1489293397974265860?s=20&t=Zcm5GP...

State Legislature maps pass by supermajorities, supermajorities that were larger than the party line in the Assembly.

[BoiseBoy]

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1489294014897700868?s=20&t=8ZD-I2ej... With how fast this is moving Hochul with sign either today or tomorrow I guess.

[Oryxslayer]

Hochul signs the maps.

[cinyc]

Hochul signs the maps.

John Faso brings the lawsuit. (Probably):

https://buffalonews.com/news/local/congressional-remap-faces-likely-legal-challenge/article_92985b14-8394-11ec-9a11-fbdecf756d06.html