2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Alabama

[Oryxslayer]

This effectively concludes Alabama redistricting for this cycle. When there is a merits case a new thread, in a different subsection, will be warranted.

[Greedo punched first]

Looks like a 7-0 map eventually.

[Torie]

Welp so much for that.

With LA soon to follow with the same issue, SCOTUS really does need to clarify Gingles, and sooner rather than later. The status quo can no longer stand. So this does not surprise me. I think what SCOTUS will end up doing exactly is much harder to predict. This is a tough issue for jurisprudence to tackle.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Welp so much for that.

With LA soon to follow with the same issue, SCOTUS really does need to clarify Gingles, and sooner rather than later. The status quo can no longer stand. So this does not surprise me. I think what SCOTUS will end up doing exactly is much harder to predict. This is a tough issue for jurisprudence to tackle.

Ye I think everyone on Atlas can agree Gingles and the VRA when it comes to redistricting is terribly outdated and vague.

I worry however the court will just flat out get rid of it all together. I believe what we need are more specific and quantifiable rules and tests.

[GALeftist]

Anyway, where's IndyRep for the novel length explanation of how radical and lockstep liberal justices are? Because it sure seems like there are at least five and possibly six votes on the Supreme Court to legalize literal Jim Crow racial gerrymandering.

Jim crow is not drawing an arm into Mobile Alabama .

I mean, you read the court order. That did not seem like a court that liked VRA districts at all to me.

[lfromnj]

Anyway, where's IndyRep for the novel length explanation of how radical and lockstep liberal justices are? Because it sure seems like there are at least five and possibly six votes on the Supreme Court to legalize literal Jim Crow racial gerrymandering.

Jim crow is not drawing an arm into Mobile Alabama .

I mean, you read the court order. That did not seem like a court that liked VRA districts at all to me.

Either way they may be ideologically lockstep but it isn't really a partisan move.

[Pollster]

Plot twist: newfound radical liberal John Roberts uses this case to overturn Shelby County v. Holder.

[Antonio the Sixth]

F**k it.

I take back every reservation I had about Democratic gerrymandering. Democrats should go f**king nuclear on the GOP at every opportunity.

These people will stop at nothing. Either they go, or democracy goes.

[Torie]

Welp so much for that.

With LA soon to follow with the same issue, SCOTUS really does need to clarify Gingles, and sooner rather than later. The status quo can no longer stand. So this does not surprise me. I think what SCOTUS will end up doing exactly is much harder to predict. This is a tough issue for jurisprudence to tackle.

Ye I think everyone on Atlas can agree Gingles and the VRA when it comes to redistricting is terribly outdated and vague.

I worry however the court will just flat out get rid of it all together. I believe what we need are more specific and quantifiable rules and tests.

I tend to doubt it will be gutted entirely. I suspect SCOTUS will clarify/tighten the compact element. Here is a squib story on the stay:

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/593174-supreme-court-halts-order-requiring-alabama-to-redraw-congressional

My guess is that the court will find one Gingles CD because it can be drawn taking in the black belt without covering white real estate to take in black urban neighborhoods (see below). They also might not like the twin prongs* going over white real estate to Mobile and Birmingham as a gerrymandered black pack not necessary to be performing that is in the existing map.




*Oh my bad, there is no prong into Mobile. So it is the matter of the gerrymandered prong into black Jefferson County that pushes up the BVAP to 55% as a black pack (which excess 5% due to the extra erosity is not necessary to be black performing. I think that is an issue where the existing map has some vulnerability.

Existing map that is the subject of the litigation:

https://davesredistricting.org/join/b1cfc3f6-27df-498d-a147-0664d75fea88

[lfromnj]

Welp so much for that.

With LA soon to follow with the same issue, SCOTUS really does need to clarify Gingles, and sooner rather than later. The status quo can no longer stand. So this does not surprise me. I think what SCOTUS will end up doing exactly is much harder to predict. This is a tough issue for jurisprudence to tackle.

Ye I think everyone on Atlas can agree Gingles and the VRA when it comes to redistricting is terribly outdated and vague.

I worry however the court will just flat out get rid of it all together. I believe what we need are more specific and quantifiable rules and tests.

I tend to doubt it will be gutted entirely. I suspect SCOTUS will clarify/tighten the compact element. Here is a squib story on the stay:

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/593174-supreme-court-halts-order-requiring-alabama-to-redraw-congressional

My guess is that the court will find one Gingles CD because it can be drawn taking in the black belt without covering white real estate to take in black urban neighborhoods (see below). They also might not like the twin prongs going over white real estate to Mobile and Birmingham as a gerrymandered black pack not necessary to be performing that is in the existing map.

By the way Torie what do you think happens if Rs sued California for many of its minority seats?
They can't exactly claim its a partisan gerrymander.

[Greedo punched first]

I believe I’m right. A 7-0 map would probably be allowed under this SCOTUS. RIP US democracy, which will never ever come back.

[Torie]

Welp so much for that.

With LA soon to follow with the same issue, SCOTUS really does need to clarify Gingles, and sooner rather than later. The status quo can no longer stand. So this does not surprise me. I think what SCOTUS will end up doing exactly is much harder to predict. This is a tough issue for jurisprudence to tackle.

Ye I think everyone on Atlas can agree Gingles and the VRA when it comes to redistricting is terribly outdated and vague.

I worry however the court will just flat out get rid of it all together. I believe what we need are more specific and quantifiable rules and tests.

I tend to doubt it will be gutted entirely. I suspect SCOTUS will clarify/tighten the compact element. Here is a squib story on the stay:

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/593174-supreme-court-halts-order-requiring-alabama-to-redraw-congressional

My guess is that the court will find one Gingles CD because it can be drawn taking in the black belt without covering white real estate to take in black urban neighborhoods (see below). They also might not like the twin prongs going over white real estate to Mobile and Birmingham as a gerrymandered black pack not necessary to be performing that is in the existing map.

By the way Torie what do you think happens if Rs sued California for many of its minority seats?
They can't exactly claim its a partisan gerrymander.

What exactly would be the gravamen of the Pub VRA claim in CA?

[Greedo punched first]

The current SCOTUS actually managed to make John Roberts look like a noble advocate of voting rights. This means we’re completely f****d forever and US democracy dies and never comes back. Eat Arby’s.

https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/1490834631041728521?cxt=HHwWkoC-odeMwbApAA...

[lfromnj]

Welp so much for that.

With LA soon to follow with the same issue, SCOTUS really does need to clarify Gingles, and sooner rather than later. The status quo can no longer stand. So this does not surprise me. I think what SCOTUS will end up doing exactly is much harder to predict. This is a tough issue for jurisprudence to tackle.

Ye I think everyone on Atlas can agree Gingles and the VRA when it comes to redistricting is terribly outdated and vague.

I worry however the court will just flat out get rid of it all together. I believe what we need are more specific and quantifiable rules and tests.

I tend to doubt it will be gutted entirely. I suspect SCOTUS will clarify/tighten the compact element. Here is a squib story on the stay:

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/593174-supreme-court-halts-order-requiring-alabama-to-redraw-congressional

My guess is that the court will find one Gingles CD because it can be drawn taking in the black belt without covering white real estate to take in black urban neighborhoods (see below). They also might not like the twin prongs going over white real estate to Mobile and Birmingham as a gerrymandered black pack not necessary to be performing that is in the existing map.

By the way Torie what do you think happens if Rs sued California for many of its minority seats?
They can't exactly claim its a partisan gerrymander.

What exactly would be the gravamen of the Pub VRA claim in CA?

A predominant focus on partisanship race by Ms sadwani.

[Torie]

Welp so much for that.

With LA soon to follow with the same issue, SCOTUS really does need to clarify Gingles, and sooner rather than later. The status quo can no longer stand. So this does not surprise me. I think what SCOTUS will end up doing exactly is much harder to predict. This is a tough issue for jurisprudence to tackle.

Ye I think everyone on Atlas can agree Gingles and the VRA when it comes to redistricting is terribly outdated and vague.

I worry however the court will just flat out get rid of it all together. I believe what we need are more specific and quantifiable rules and tests.

I tend to doubt it will be gutted entirely. I suspect SCOTUS will clarify/tighten the compact element. Here is a squib story on the stay:

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/593174-supreme-court-halts-order-requiring-alabama-to-redraw-congressional

My guess is that the court will find one Gingles CD because it can be drawn taking in the black belt without covering white real estate to take in black urban neighborhoods (see below). They also might not like the twin prongs going over white real estate to Mobile and Birmingham as a gerrymandered black pack not necessary to be performing that is in the existing map.

By the way Torie what do you think happens if Rs sued California for many of its minority seats?
They can't exactly claim its a partisan gerrymander.

What exactly would be the gravamen of the Pub VRA claim in CA?

A predominant focus on partisanship race by Ms sadwani.

1. Does it prejudice a minority?
2. Would the lines be different is the erosity/chops were searching for Dems rather than say Hispanics?  

I think that you are saying that it was a Dem gerrymander (not kosher under CA law perhaps), that was "packaged" for PR purposes as a minority opportunity CD or a non Gingles required majority minority CD. That almost certainly is not illegal under the VRA absent the minority being prejudiced.  

[Tekken_Guy]

Is 7-0 dead at least?

[ProgressiveModerate]

Is 7-0 dead at least?

For now the 2022 map is def the old 6-1 map.

[Tekken_Guy]

Is 7-0 dead at least?

For now the 2022 map is def the old 6-1 map.

Is it at least dead for the decade?

[lfromnj]

Welp so much for that.

With LA soon to follow with the same issue, SCOTUS really does need to clarify Gingles, and sooner rather than later. The status quo can no longer stand. So this does not surprise me. I think what SCOTUS will end up doing exactly is much harder to predict. This is a tough issue for jurisprudence to tackle.

Ye I think everyone on Atlas can agree Gingles and the VRA when it comes to redistricting is terribly outdated and vague.

I worry however the court will just flat out get rid of it all together. I believe what we need are more specific and quantifiable rules and tests.

I tend to doubt it will be gutted entirely. I suspect SCOTUS will clarify/tighten the compact element. Here is a squib story on the stay:

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/593174-supreme-court-halts-order-requiring-alabama-to-redraw-congressional

My guess is that the court will find one Gingles CD because it can be drawn taking in the black belt without covering white real estate to take in black urban neighborhoods (see below). They also might not like the twin prongs going over white real estate to Mobile and Birmingham as a gerrymandered black pack not necessary to be performing that is in the existing map.

By the way Torie what do you think happens if Rs sued California for many of its minority seats?
They can't exactly claim its a partisan gerrymander.

What exactly would be the gravamen of the Pub VRA claim in CA?

A predominant focus on partisanship race by Ms sadwani.

1. Does it prejudice a minority?
2. Would the lines be different is the erosity/chops were searching for Dems rather than say Hispanics?  

I think that you are saying that it was a Dem gerrymander (not kosher under CA law perhaps), that was "packaged" for PR purposes as a minority opportunity CD or a non Gingles required majority minority CD. That almost certainly is not illegal under the VRA absent the minority being prejudiced.  

Techniy not VRA but a 14th amendment violation with a predominant focus on race. IIRC this was a theory used by the CO commision to persuade the Colorado Supreme Court that if race was too big a focus SCOTUS could get involved.

[Greedo punched first]

Is 7-0 dead at least?

For now the 2022 map is def the old 6-1 map.

Is it at least dead for the decade?

lots of hyperbole and dooming removed

[Virginiá]

lots of hyperbole and dooming removed

Can you please stop? Create a thread for this somewhere else if that's what you believe, but flooding the redistricting threads with apocalyptic dooming because of a stay is not helpful to anything.

[UncleSam]

Jesus christ I knew Atlas Dems were delusional but the notion that you have to gerrymander on the basis of race over any reasonable map-drawing principle is insane. Any reasonable computer-generated map has one black district. That's what is fair in AL. To argue otherwise is to argue in favor of gerrymandering, something so many Dems on here pay lip service to but have no interest in actually fighting if it would in any way harm the Democratic party.

[GALeftist]

Jesus christ I knew Atlas Dems were delusional but the notion that you have to gerrymander on the basis of race over any reasonable map-drawing principle is insane. Any reasonable computer-generated map has one black district. That's what is fair in AL. To argue otherwise is to argue in favor of gerrymandering, something so many Dems on here pay lip service to but have no interest in actually fighting if it would in any way harm the Democratic party.

I truly do not understand the sudden obsession with computer drawn maps on here. Not only is it dumb, it's very selectively applied. No one is advocating computer drawn maps in California or Texas for obvious reasons.

[Greedo punched first]

I believe the current cycle will keep it at 6-1.

[UncleSam]

Jesus christ I knew Atlas Dems were delusional but the notion that you have to gerrymander on the basis of race over any reasonable map-drawing principle is insane. Any reasonable computer-generated map has one black district. That's what is fair in AL. To argue otherwise is to argue in favor of gerrymandering, something so many Dems on here pay lip service to but have no interest in actually fighting if it would in any way harm the Democratic party.

I truly do not understand the sudden obsession with computer drawn maps on here. Not only is it dumb, it's very selectively applied. No one is advocating computer drawn maps in California or Texas for obvious reasons.

Firstly, none of this is an argument. It's just calling an idea 'dumb' with no explanation and saying that 'no one is advocating for X' as a reply to a post...advocating for X.

Secondly and as previously mentioned, I am absolutely advocating for computer-drawn maps in every state. California and Texas both have egregious gerrymanders. I'd think a reasonable starting point in a bipartisan compromise would be enforcing the only possible truly unbiased map onto those two states. The computers do not have any skin in the game, and humans clearly cannot be trusted to come up with anything 'fair' because everyone has some agenda or other.

Just draw the cleanest possible lines then let the chips fall where they may. Any other solution will introduce bias in one direction or the other and we can finally be rid of the scourge upon our democracy that is redistricting.