2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Alabama

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

It seems like strategically, the AL GOP should've made a map a light D or even tossup mostly rural black belt seat they would hope shifts right long term. There's ways they could've gotten to at least 46% black while keeping the seat very winnable for them. Basically make a map as favorable as possible that might have a fighting chance at a legal challenge

Instead, any court map is likely to be a pretty solid 5-2 map with the 2 seats being majority black or close to it.

That kind of district would likely not stand and end up in another round of court challenges. You *can* draw a district just like that in southern Georgia, for example, but republicans didn’t try cause the VRA doesn’t work that way.

[Spectator]

Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

It seems like strategically, the AL GOP should've made a map a light D or even tossup mostly rural black belt seat they would hope shifts right long term. There's ways they could've gotten to at least 46% black while keeping the seat very winnable for them. Basically make a map as favorable as possible that might have a fighting chance at a legal challenge

Instead, any court map is likely to be a pretty solid 5-2 map with the 2 seats being majority black or close to it.

That kind of district would likely not stand and end up in another round of court challenges. You *can* draw a district just like that in southern Georgia, for example, but republicans didn’t try cause the VRA doesn’t work that way.

GA-02 isn’t really shifting right though. Democrats keep doing better in Albany, Columbus, and Macon than even in the Obama years. That’s keeping the rightward rural shift at bay To the point where I don’t think GA-02 will ever flip barring a Dem turnout collapse in the cities.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

It seems like strategically, the AL GOP should've made a map a light D or even tossup mostly rural black belt seat they would hope shifts right long term. There's ways they could've gotten to at least 46% black while keeping the seat very winnable for them. Basically make a map as favorable as possible that might have a fighting chance at a legal challenge

Instead, any court map is likely to be a pretty solid 5-2 map with the 2 seats being majority black or close to it.

That kind of district would likely not stand and end up in another round of court challenges. You *can* draw a district just like that in southern Georgia, for example, but republicans didn’t try cause the VRA doesn’t work that way.

GA-02 isn’t really shifting right though. Democrats keep doing better in Albany, Columbus, and Macon than even in the Obama years. That’s keeping the rightward rural shift at bay To the point where I don’t think GA-02 will ever flip barring a Dem turnout collapse in the cities.

GA is very likely to get another CD in 2030. A 15th CD will make GA-02 already harder for Rs than it is already, as it will have to become less rural and thus more Democratic in the long-term.

[Minnesota Mike]

https://twitter.com/RepEngland70/status/1681057044219015169

[Oryxslayer]

Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

It seems like strategically, the AL GOP should've made a map a light D or even tossup mostly rural black belt seat they would hope shifts right long term. There's ways they could've gotten to at least 46% black while keeping the seat very winnable for them. Basically make a map as favorable as possible that might have a fighting chance at a legal challenge

Instead, any court map is likely to be a pretty solid 5-2 map with the 2 seats being majority black or close to it.

That kind of district would likely not stand and end up in another round of court challenges. You *can* draw a district just like that in southern Georgia, for example, but republicans didn’t try cause the VRA doesn’t work that way.

Perpetual reminder that section 2 of the VRA is not a order to draw majority African American districts,  but to draw districts that can reliability elect said candidates. Which is why court scrutiny never has yet OKed a 50% but Trump+1 style map, but has approved 40% districts in Northern states.

I'm fairly sure the weakest map the plaintiffs wouldn't have raised a fuss about and see the state squander this first chance is weirdly their own plan.

[politicallefty]

Perpetual reminder that section 2 of the VRA is not a order to draw majority African American districts,  but to draw districts that can reliability elect said candidates. Which is why court scrutiny never has yet OKed a 50% but Trump+1 style map, but has approved 40% districts in Northern states.

I'm fairly sure the weakest map the plaintiffs wouldn't have raised a fuss about and see the state squander this first chance is weirdly their own plan.

Wouldn't it be more precise to say that the intention is to draw districts that can reliably elect candidates of choice? The example that comes to mind is TN-09. Memphis is clearly protected by Section 2, but I don't think the VRA has any issue with the black majority choosing a white Jew to be its Member of Congress. In fact, I vaguely remember a pretty anti-Semitic campaign against him sometime early in his tenure that went down in flames. In any event, my point is that it's clear that Steven Cohen is the individual that the black majority of TN-09 has chosen.

I also have to note that once again, after all the complaints about the left attacking the courts, it is those on the right that are ignoring orders.

[politicallefty]

Perpetual reminder that section 2 of the VRA is not a order to draw majority African American districts,  but to draw districts that can reliability elect said candidates. Which is why court scrutiny never has yet OKed a 50% but Trump+1 style map, but has approved 40% districts in Northern states.

I'm fairly sure the weakest map the plaintiffs wouldn't have raised a fuss about and see the state squander this first chance is weirdly their own plan.

Wouldn't it be more precise to say that the intention is to draw districts that can reliably elect candidates of choice? The example that comes to mind is TN-09. Memphis is clearly protected by Section 2, but I don't think the VRA has any issue with the black majority choosing a white Jew to be its Member of Congress. In fact, I vaguely remember a pretty anti-Semitic campaign against him sometime early in his tenure that went down in flames. Anyway, my point is that it's clear that Steven Cohen is the individual that the black majority of TN-09 has chosen.

I also have to note that once again, after all the complaints about the left attacking the courts, it is those on the right that are ignoring orders.

[Oryxslayer]

Perpetual reminder that section 2 of the VRA is not a order to draw majority African American districts,  but to draw districts that can reliability elect said candidates. Which is why court scrutiny never has yet OKed a 50% but Trump+1 style map, but has approved 40% districts in Northern states.

I'm fairly sure the weakest map the plaintiffs wouldn't have raised a fuss about and see the state squander this first chance is weirdly their own plan.

Wouldn't it be more precise to say that the intention is to draw districts that can reliably elect candidates of choice? The example that comes to mind is TN-09. Memphis is clearly protected by Section 2, but I don't think the VRA has any issue with the black majority choosing a white Jew to be its Member of Congress. In fact, I vaguely remember a pretty anti-Semitic campaign against him sometime early in his tenure that went down in flames. In any event, my point is that it's clear that Steven Cohen is the individual that the black majority of TN-09 has chosen.

I also have to note that once again, after all the complaints about the left attacking the courts, it is those on the right that are ignoring orders.

Yes, candidate of choice would be the better term. My mistake. In the south that is often another Person of Color, but not always. In other areas cross-community shared interests often lead to candidates of choice not being from the expected dominant demographic. Sri Thanadar was the candidate of choice by plurality in 2022 for example, thanks to his prior base as a state Legislator in Detroit, though we have yet to see if that stands in a potential future head-to-head. Tlaib meanwhile was not initially the candidate of choice for Black Voters and won through mainly her districts other groups until recently.

Candidate of choice is additionally a incredibly important term in Racial Gerrymandering for minority plaintiffs, because said candidate are more likely to not be from the dominant group. Establishing racially polarized voting exists within the community in favor of said candidate is therefore a key part of said suits.

[cvparty]

I didn't make a submission when they were taking them, but just for fun this would've been mine (idk all the VRA stipulations stuff but my main criteria is COI+compactness more than race+partisanship, so no tentacles and splitting metropolitan areas):
6 is 41% black and Biden +12; 7 is 46% black and Biden +6, so pretty similar to districts like NC-01 and GA-02

An alternate variation could put Bullock and Macon into 7 for a safer district (Biden +10ish) that includes all the state's majority-black counties, at the expense of 2 having a weirder shape

[patzer]

It occurs to me that if one accepts the insane apparent Republican logic of "a district that's competitive enough that Democrats would sometimes win is enough to count as a minority opportunity district", then by that logic it would be quite easy to make three such districts in Alabama

[Oryxslayer]

I feel like these should just be posted here for posterity's sake, when we end up here again in 4-6 weeks, and some people are wondering why:

[Oryxslayer]

Also, the State Senate surprisingly passed its own map even though the House passed Pringle's. I say surprising because this was the first map shown off in committee on Monday, and was not advanced by the GOP senators there as a secondary motion. They voted to recommend Pringle's, so I still suspect that wins out of the two, but if it doesn't,  the Special Master punt becomes even more obvious.

If they do get into heated debate, it will be very funny since it's all performance for their internal factions and not going to matter. It will be even funnier if neither chamber votes up the others map and the special session has no products.

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1681799385636655106?t=vjj4k0WKMPlZwXBPD...

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/s0phistry/status/1681840087519182848?t=rzYhkuR3L_UaHGFrUAJW7...

Oh here's another funny thing. If one respects the city's boundaries as they stand today, does that count as a locality chop since the borders are set to expand? This occurred apparently cause Mobile was taking steps to punish free riders on city services in suburban areas. This will make mobile the second largest city in the state, and gets slightly Whiter and less Dem favoring. Also will require redrawing the precincts (census blocks as well) even without a redistricting lol.

[Torie]

Perpetual reminder that section 2 of the VRA is not a order to draw majority African American districts,  but to draw districts that can reliability elect said candidates. Which is why court scrutiny never has yet OKed a 50% but Trump+1 style map, but has approved 40% districts in Northern states.

I'm fairly sure the weakest map the plaintiffs wouldn't have raised a fuss about and see the state squander this first chance is weirdly their own plan.

Wouldn't it be more precise to say that the intention is to draw districts that can reliably elect candidates of choice? The example that comes to mind is TN-09. Memphis is clearly protected by Section 2, but I don't think the VRA has any issue with the black majority choosing a white Jew to be its Member of Congress. In fact, I vaguely remember a pretty anti-Semitic campaign against him sometime early in his tenure that went down in flames. Anyway, my point is that it's clear that Steven Cohen is the individual that the black majority of TN-09 has chosen.

I also have to note that once again, after all the complaints about the left attacking the courts, it is those on the right that are ignoring orders.

The rule of thumb that I use, is that the CD needs to be reliably Dem, with a majority of the voters in a Dem primary being black. If enough whites will vote for a black, the VRA does not apply at all. In almost all places now, white Dems will be open to voting for a minority person.


One thing the Pubs won't do is draw a reliably Dem Jefferson County CD, which is what neutral redistrcting principles would demand. No, they want such a CD to suck up a lot of rural black counties, so that the second CD is not reliably Dem.

[Oryxslayer]

Perpetual reminder that section 2 of the VRA is not a order to draw majority African American districts,  but to draw districts that can reliability elect said candidates. Which is why court scrutiny never has yet OKed a 50% but Trump+1 style map, but has approved 40% districts in Northern states.

I'm fairly sure the weakest map the plaintiffs wouldn't have raised a fuss about and see the state squander this first chance is weirdly their own plan.

Wouldn't it be more precise to say that the intention is to draw districts that can reliably elect candidates of choice? The example that comes to mind is TN-09. Memphis is clearly protected by Section 2, but I don't think the VRA has any issue with the black majority choosing a white Jew to be its Member of Congress. In fact, I vaguely remember a pretty anti-Semitic campaign against him sometime early in his tenure that went down in flames. Anyway, my point is that it's clear that Steven Cohen is the individual that the black majority of TN-09 has chosen.

I also have to note that once again, after all the complaints about the left attacking the courts, it is those on the right that are ignoring orders.

The rule of thumb that I use, is that the CD needs to be reliably Dem, with a majority of the voters in a Dem primary being black. If enough whites will vote for a black, the VRA does not apply at all. In almost all places now, white Dems will be open to voting for a minority person.


One thing the Pubs won't do is draw a reliably Dem Jefferson County CD, which is what neutral redistrcting principles would demand. No, they want such a CD to suck up a lot of rural black counties, so that the second CD is not reliably Dem.

They also want to cut Jefferson cause Hoover, Vestavia Hills, and Mountain Brook are all desirable turf. The cynic says the reason certain Dems were pushing for a district with all of Jefferson is cause they saw an opportunity to seize them without suffering too many partisan consequences. I wouldn't be surprised if the special master cuts Jefferson and puts the suburbs with Shelby out of COI reasons - several of them including Hoover cross the county line - meaning the most compact option is all of Tuscaloosa + majority of Jefferson.

[Torie]

Perpetual reminder that section 2 of the VRA is not a order to draw majority African American districts,  but to draw districts that can reliability elect said candidates. Which is why court scrutiny never has yet OKed a 50% but Trump+1 style map, but has approved 40% districts in Northern states.

I'm fairly sure the weakest map the plaintiffs wouldn't have raised a fuss about and see the state squander this first chance is weirdly their own plan.

Wouldn't it be more precise to say that the intention is to draw districts that can reliably elect candidates of choice? The example that comes to mind is TN-09. Memphis is clearly protected by Section 2, but I don't think the VRA has any issue with the black majority choosing a white Jew to be its Member of Congress. In fact, I vaguely remember a pretty anti-Semitic campaign against him sometime early in his tenure that went down in flames. Anyway, my point is that it's clear that Steven Cohen is the individual that the black majority of TN-09 has chosen.

I also have to note that once again, after all the complaints about the left attacking the courts, it is those on the right that are ignoring orders.

The rule of thumb that I use, is that the CD needs to be reliably Dem, with a majority of the voters in a Dem primary being black. If enough whites will vote for a black, the VRA does not apply at all. In almost all places now, white Dems will be open to voting for a minority person.


One thing the Pubs won't do is draw a reliably Dem Jefferson County CD, which is what neutral redistrcting principles would demand. No, they want such a CD to suck up a lot of rural black counties, so that the second CD is not reliably Dem.

They also want to cut Jefferson cause Hoover, Vestavia Hills, and Mountain Brook are all desirable turf. The cynic says the reason certain Dems were pushing for a district with all of Jefferson is cause they saw an opportunity to seize them without suffering too many partisan consequences. I wouldn't be surprised if the special master cuts Jefferson and puts the suburbs with Shelby out of COI reasons - several of them including Hoover cross the county line - meaning the most compact option is all of Tuscaloosa + majority of Jefferson.

Here is your idea while keeping the Gulf whole. I wonder if AL-02 would fly with the courts. It is on the cusp. Only in AL is a 46% BVAP CD marginal politically.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/4d010995-c597-4ac2-b2c1-836f42ec0500

And here is a special master map that does more county chops, but has a  AL-02 rural black performing CD with smooth contours, that still keeps the Gulf coast together.  

https://davesredistricting.org/join/e00395de-624a-4632-a820-7cb73abe1981

[Ferguson97]

I think they're confused, that wasn't a suggestion.


https://twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/status/1682383060619218944

[GALeftist]

I assumed this was a punt, but are they high on their own supply here? What is the point of this fight between the House and Senate over which non compliant map they pass? If they’re not willing to draw a proper VRA district then it doesn’t matter if they pass either (or no) plan. If they don’t want to draw out an incumbent surely it would be better to pass *any* map so that you have plausible deniability. What’s going on here? Do they really think either of these maps would pass muster?

[Torie]

I assumed this was a punt, but are they high on their own supply here? What is the point of this fight between the House and Senate over which non compliant map they pass? If they’re not willing to draw a proper VRA district then it doesn’t matter if they pass either (or no) plan. If they don’t want to draw out an incumbent surely it would be better to pass *any* map so that you have plausible deniability. What’s going on here? Do they really think either of these maps would pass muster?

All the world is a stage, all sound and fury signifying nothing. That is your answer. The failure to draw two black performing (not necessarily majority black but black performing) CD's, is sending a message to Justice Roberts to go F himself.  There was speculation above that what the Pubs really want is to get out of the kitchen heat, and away from the conflicting demands of their base and donor class, and each other, by punting to a special master. That speculation seems perspicacious now.

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/erindavisnews/status/1682440552627810304?t=1yPBEgUojuftCgV8N...


Here's the map that came out of conference. Let's see if it passes the chambers.

Beyond it being a true punt to court to seize authority, similar to the Senate's map rather than Pringle's, the real surprise is how much changes happen to the northern republican districts.  Including district 5, which wasn't touched in previous plans and seemingly would only be under a special master.

[Agafin]

So what happens if after the 2030 census, Alabama loses a seat? Obviously republicans would nuke the second black seat, but my question is, would that go against the SC ruling of would it be compliant in that case? This is assuming that the black population doesn't change much. At that point the question would be whether black people are entitled to 33% of the seats with only 25% of the population.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

So what happens if after the 2030 census, Alabama loses a seat? Obviously republicans would nuke the second black seat, but my question is, would that go against the SC ruling of would it be compliant in that case? This is assuming that the black population doesn't change much. At that point the question would be whether black people are entitled to 33% of the seats with only 25% of the population.

For what it's worth...it is possible to have two majority black seats with 6 seats.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/33d62575-40f0-49a4-a659-686e507bede3

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

So what happens if after the 2030 census, Alabama loses a seat? Obviously republicans would nuke the second black seat, but my question is, would that go against the SC ruling of would it be compliant in that case? This is assuming that the black population doesn't change much. At that point the question would be whether black people are entitled to 33% of the seats with only 25% of the population.

Probably this whole process repeats itself. Worth noting that representation is *not* based on proportionality but if there is a concentrated and functioning minority area that is large enough to be a congressional seat (in glazing over but that’s the gist). If Alabama looses a seat (which is unlikely imo) they still would likely be required to have two black seats as the urban blacks are entitled to a seat and the rural blacks are too.

[Death of a Salesman]

So what happens if after the 2030 census, Alabama loses a seat? Obviously republicans would nuke the second black seat, but my question is, would that go against the SC ruling of would it be compliant in that case? This is assuming that the black population doesn't change much. At that point the question would be whether black people are entitled to 33% of the seats with only 25% of the population.

For what it's worth...it is possible to have two majority black seats with 6 seats.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/33d62575-40f0-49a4-a659-686e507bede3

The 6th is not majority-black on that map. The 2nd is barely majority black VAP and may not be majority black VAP by 2030.

[Oryxslayer]

So what happens if after the 2030 census, Alabama loses a seat? Obviously republicans would nuke the second black seat, but my question is, would that go against the SC ruling of would it be compliant in that case? This is assuming that the black population doesn't change much. At that point the question would be whether black people are entitled to 33% of the seats with only 25% of the population.

For what it's worth...it is possible to have two majority black seats with 6 seats.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/33d62575-40f0-49a4-a659-686e507bede3

The 6th is not majority-black on that map. The 2nd is barely majority black VAP and may not be majority black VAP by 2030.

I thought participating in this thread would have taught people that a performing district for the candidate of choice  does not need to be over 50% for the single specific minority group, and it varies based on the turnout and rpv in a region, but here we are.