2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Alabama

[lfromnj]

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.

I wouldn't say it makes perfect sense either as a computer drawn map based on compactness would likely split the black belt in 2 which is terrible . I don't think Uncle Sam is arguing for one either but merely just to show what might occur if a map is drawn race blind.

edit: I didn't read his reply right before me.

[IAMCANADIAN]

Logical stay, the 7th district has been a legal district for over 20 years but suddenly not with no new legislation it needs to be changed?

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Ye I think everyone on Atlas can agree Gingles and the VRA when it comes to redistricting is terribly outdated and vague.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

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.

"Predominant focus on race" is too vague for me to understand as what precisely the legal claim is. As to the black pack of the existing map, an exacerbating factor is a gratuitous chop into Montgomery County to black pack more. The map below might be the fix that gets the map out of legal trouble. The grey lines are the lines of the existing map that are changed.



https://davesredistricting.org/join/90c90063-62dc-4080-aad3-88757891300e

[lfromnj]

But while the District Court cannot be faulted for its application of Gingles, it is fair to say that Gingles and its
2 MERRILL v. MILLIGAN
ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting
progeny have engendered considerable disagreement and
uncertainty regarding the nature and contours of a vote dilution claim. See Gingles, 478 U. S., at 97 (O’Connor, J.,
concurring in judgment) (characterizing the Court’s approach at the outset as “inconsistent with . . . §2’s disclaimer of a right to proportional representation”); Johnson
v. De Grandy, 512 U. S. 997, 1028 (1994) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (warning that
“placing undue emphasis upon proportionality risks defeating the goals underlying the Voting Rights Act”); Gonzalez
v. Aurora, 535 F. 3d 594, 597 (CA7 2008) (Easterbrook, J.)
(referring to section 2’s “famously elliptical” language). See
also J. Chen & N. Stephanopoulos, The Race-Blind Future
of Voting Rights, 130 Yale L. J. 862, 871 (2021) (describing
section 2 vote dilution doctrine as “an area of law notorious
for its many unsolved puzzles”); C. Elmendorf, Making
Sense of Section 2: Of Biased Votes, Unconstitutional Elections, and Common Law Statutes, 160 U. Pa. L. Rev. 377,
389 (2012) (noting the lack of any “authoritative resolution
of the basic questions one would need to answer to make
sense of the results test”).
In order to resolve the wide range of uncertainties arising
under Gingles, I would note probable jurisdiction in Milligan and grant certiorari before judgment in Caster, setting
the cases for argument next Term. But I would not grant a
stay. As noted, the analysis below seems correct as Gingles
is presently applied, and in my view the District Court’s
analysis should therefore control the upcoming election.
The practical effect of this approach would be that the 2022
election would take place in accord with the judgment of the
District Court, but subsequent elections would be governed
by this Court’s decision on review

Quoting Robert's dissent. I would probably say Elias was doing an own goal but considering the NC GOP was willing to draw out NC01 a fight was coming up pretty soon either way. If the NC GOP wasn't the NC GOP I think it would have been dumb to upset the status quo here.

[Torie]

" As the court explained, the plaintiffs’ proposed plans “have nearly zero population deviation, in- clude only contiguous districts, include districts that are at least as geographically compact as those in [Alabama’s] Plan, respect traditional boundaries and subdivisions at least as much as [Alabama’s] Plan, protect important com- munities of interest, [and] protect incumbents where possi- ble.” App. 173."

The above is from the Kagan dissent and raises a new aspect of the elements of compactness to the effect that if the map enacted is more erose that the hypothetical map that generates the 50% minority districts triggering Gingles (two such districts here), then the map drawers basically estopped to play the  non compact card. That doesn't really make sense to me. The district hypothetically drawn as a 50% minority district as a potential  Gingles trigger CD, should be deemed compact or not first, and if it is, you draw two performing districts, and if not, then you can do whatever you want.

The Kagan approaches basically holds that anything is compact if the actual map drawn is less, and perhaps comes close to saying that anything is compact if what is drawn does not hew to neutral redistricting tools. And that means that Jefferson County should not be split. If Jefferson it is not split, it might still not be black performing,  if otherwise drawn to add Pubs outside the county, but in this instance, any district that has all of Jefferson will be at least  narrowly Dem.

Roberts without saying why, says he thinks the two CD's the plaintiffs drew were compact, but the law might need to change. The 5 justices granting the stay, offer no opinion one way or the other on compactness, and see no reason to assess the probabilities, and merely focus on their opinion that it is too late in the cycle to come up with new districts that potentially would last just for one election. Granted it is easier to find the disruption is just not worth it, when you think there is a strong chance the map will be upheld. It is easier to go avoid the disruption route is you think the map will end up being upheld as is, is at least say 35%, then if you think it is less than say 20% (Roberts in contrast perhaps thinking that it is no more than 50%, the usual starting point to deny a stay).

Anyway, we are getting a preview over the battle of what compact means which may be the key battle, or not, if the court wants more systemic changes rather than changes at the margins.

[Vosem]

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.

...sure we are? I can go back and find receipts, but I've been arguing for computer-drawn maps for every state on this forum since 2012-2013 or thereabouts.

[jimrtex]

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.

The Gingles test is not in the VRA.

If Congress wants the Gingles test to be part of the VRA they should define the terms explicitly. Is a district concrete if it rips apart counties on a racial basis? Is it compact if you have to don SCUBA gear to travel throughout the district?

[Brittain33]

If Congress wants the Gingles test to be part of the VRA they should define the terms explicitly. Is a district concrete if it rips apart counties on a racial basis? Is it compact if you have to don SCUBA gear to travel throughout the district?

Yes, Alabama certainly wouldn’t want the feds to come in and divide up counties and county institutions by race, that would never fly in the close-knit family atmosphere in multi-racial counties.

Especially when “ripping apart” a county means giving the black voters of that county a chance to elect a representative to Congress… how un-genteel.

[jimrtex]

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

The 2011 AL-7 was underpopulated by 53K, and 60% BVAP (which likely increased during the decade, due to whites leaving black-majority areas). The map drawn by the 2021 legislature decreased it to 55%. In effect as you expand the district outward you have to take in whiter areas.

[jimrtex]

" As the court explained, the plaintiffs’ proposed plans “have nearly zero population deviation, in- clude only contiguous districts, include districts that are at least as geographically compact as those in [Alabama’s] Plan, respect traditional boundaries and subdivisions at least as much as [Alabama’s] Plan, protect important com- munities of interest, [and] protect incumbents where possi- ble.” App. 173."

The above is from the Kagan dissent and raises a new aspect of the elements of compactness to the effect that if the map enacted is more erose that the hypothetical map that generates the 50% minority districts triggering Gingles (two such districts here), then the map drawers basically estopped to play the  non compact card. That doesn't really make sense to me. The district hypothetically drawn as a 50% minority district as a potential  Gingles trigger CD, should be deemed compact or not first, and if it is, you draw two performing districts, and if not, then you can do whatever you want.

The Kagan approaches basically holds that anything is compact if the actual map drawn is less, and perhaps comes close to saying that anything is compact if what is drawn does not hew to neutral redistricting tools. And that means that Jefferson County should not be split. If Jefferson it is not split, it might still not be black performing,  if otherwise drawn to add Pubs outside the county, but in this instance, any district that has all of Jefferson will be at least  narrowly Dem.

Roberts without saying why, says he thinks the two CD's the plaintiffs drew were compact, but the law might need to change. The 5 justices granting the stay, offer no opinion one way or the other on compactness, and see no reason to assess the probabilities, and merely focus on their opinion that it is too late in the cycle to come up with new districts that potentially would last just for one election. Granted it is easier to find the disruption is just not worth it, when you think there is a strong chance the map will be upheld. It is easier to go avoid the disruption route is you think the map will end up being upheld as is, is at least say 35%, then if you think it is less than say 20% (Roberts in contrast perhaps thinking that it is no more than 50%, the usual starting point to deny a stay).

Anyway, we are getting a preview over the battle of what compact means which may be the key battle, or not, if the court wants more systemic changes rather than changes at the margins.

The plaintiffs experts used mathematical measures of compactness. One of them noted that one could "travel" throughout AL-1. As a lawyer you appreciate that you can't deceive the court, but that you can say things in a way that the judge or jury will infer the same thing. In this case, the travel would have to be by boat or swimming across Mobile Bay. He didn't mention that you could travel throughout any of the other districts.

Kagan's dissent said in essence that the the plaintiffs had proven their case before the trial court and there was no reason for a stay. She had prejudged the evidence.

The court majority couldn't come right out and say that the state had proved their case, so they chose a way that would allow them to review the case.

The 1990s district was drawn by a federal judge. If you compare to the 1980s map, it was probably a least change map.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama's_congressional_districts

[jimrtex]

If Congress wants the Gingles test to be part of the VRA they should define the terms explicitly. Is a district concrete if it rips apart counties on a racial basis? Is it compact if you have to don SCUBA gear to travel throughout the district?

Yes, Alabama certainly wouldn’t want the feds to come in and divide up counties and county institutions by race, that would never fly in the close-knit family atmosphere in multi-racial counties.

Especially when “ripping apart” a county means giving the black voters of that county a chance to elect a representative to Congress… how un-genteel.

Why should federal judges be drawing district boundaries?

Should representatives be chosen by racial communities without any regard to residence?

Explain your reasoning.

[Brittain33]

If Congress wants the Gingles test to be part of the VRA they should define the terms explicitly. Is a district concrete if it rips apart counties on a racial basis? Is it compact if you have to don SCUBA gear to travel throughout the district?

Yes, Alabama certainly wouldn’t want the feds to come in and divide up counties and county institutions by race, that would never fly in the close-knit family atmosphere in multi-racial counties.

Especially when “ripping apart” a county means giving the black voters of that county a chance to elect a representative to Congress… how un-genteel.

Why should federal judges be drawing district boundaries?

Should representatives be chosen by racial communities without any regard to residence?

Explain your reasoning.

*shrug* what you describe as “ripping apart a county” is giving the African-American residents of that county political representation for the first time in a very long time, if at all. I’m more concerned about the rights of African-Americans of Alabama than the feelings of a set of lines on a map used to preserve a monopoly on power for the racial majority. We don’t have to agree on that.

[jimrtex]

If Congress wants the Gingles test to be part of the VRA they should define the terms explicitly. Is a district concrete if it rips apart counties on a racial basis? Is it compact if you have to don SCUBA gear to travel throughout the district?

Yes, Alabama certainly wouldn’t want the feds to come in and divide up counties and county institutions by race, that would never fly in the close-knit family atmosphere in multi-racial counties.

Especially when “ripping apart” a county means giving the black voters of that county a chance to elect a representative to Congress… how un-genteel.

Why should federal judges be drawing district boundaries?

Should representatives be chosen by racial communities without any regard to residence?

Explain your reasoning.

*shrug* what you describe as “ripping apart a county” is giving the African-American residents of that county political representation for the first time in a very long time, if at all. I’m more concerned about the rights of African-Americans of Alabama than the feelings of a set of lines on a map used to preserve a monopoly on power for the racial majority. We don’t have to agree on that.

If you had racially segregated electorates then blacks in Huntsville, Alabama would have voting rights as well.

[jimrtex]

Here is a fair map. It does not split counties. It splits the Birmingham UCC, which is larger than a district. It keeps the Montgomery UCC whole.

The districts containing three of the largest cities are relatively compact: Huntsville, Birmingham, and Mobile. Montgomery is placed in the sparsely populated Black Belt.

Standard deviation 1.39%.

Two competitive seats, five Republican.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/5a8afdbd-4782-4836-8de5-949ad536975f

[It’s so Joever]

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.

...sure we are? I can go back and find receipts, but I've been arguing for computer-drawn maps for every state on this forum since 2012-2013 or thereabouts.

Computer drawn districts are the worst idea on redistricting reform ever. I can’t believe people still buy into it.

[Boobs]

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.

...sure we are? I can go back and find receipts, but I've been arguing for computer-drawn maps for every state on this forum since 2012-2013 or thereabouts.

Computer drawn districts are the worst idea on redistricting reform ever. I can’t believe people still buy into it.

Look at the poster advocating for them. A notorious idiot.

[Brittain33]

If Congress wants the Gingles test to be part of the VRA they should define the terms explicitly. Is a district concrete if it rips apart counties on a racial basis? Is it compact if you have to don SCUBA gear to travel throughout the district?

Yes, Alabama certainly wouldn’t want the feds to come in and divide up counties and county institutions by race, that would never fly in the close-knit family atmosphere in multi-racial counties.

Especially when “ripping apart” a county means giving the black voters of that county a chance to elect a representative to Congress… how un-genteel.

Why should federal judges be drawing district boundaries?

Should representatives be chosen by racial communities without any regard to residence?

Explain your reasoning.

*shrug* what you describe as “ripping apart a county” is giving the African-American residents of that county political representation for the first time in a very long time, if at all. I’m more concerned about the rights of African-Americans of Alabama than the feelings of a set of lines on a map used to preserve a monopoly on power for the racial majority. We don’t have to agree on that.

If you had racially segregated electorates then blacks in Huntsville, Alabama would have voting rights as well.

Multi-member districts or proportional representation would also achieve that goal, but for practical reasons aren’t likely.

[It’s so Joever]

If Congress wants the Gingles test to be part of the VRA they should define the terms explicitly. Is a district concrete if it rips apart counties on a racial basis? Is it compact if you have to don SCUBA gear to travel throughout the district?

Yes, Alabama certainly wouldn’t want the feds to come in and divide up counties and county institutions by race, that would never fly in the close-knit family atmosphere in multi-racial counties.

Especially when “ripping apart” a county means giving the black voters of that county a chance to elect a representative to Congress… how un-genteel.

Why should federal judges be drawing district boundaries?

Should representatives be chosen by racial communities without any regard to residence?

Explain your reasoning.

*shrug* what you describe as “ripping apart a county” is giving the African-American residents of that county political representation for the first time in a very long time, if at all. I’m more concerned about the rights of African-Americans of Alabama than the feelings of a set of lines on a map used to preserve a monopoly on power for the racial majority. We don’t have to agree on that.

If you had racially segregated electorates then blacks in Huntsville, Alabama would have voting rights as well.

Soo....the Bosnia solution?

[Former President tack50]

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.

...sure we are? I can go back and find receipts, but I've been arguing for computer-drawn maps for every state on this forum since 2012-2013 or thereabouts.

Computer drawn districts are the worst idea on redistricting reform ever. I can’t believe people still buy into it.

Why are computer drawn districts so bad? Admittedly they are going to be artificial and not ideal; but they are still going to beat gerrymandered maps

[Former President tack50]

If Congress wants the Gingles test to be part of the VRA they should define the terms explicitly. Is a district concrete if it rips apart counties on a racial basis? Is it compact if you have to don SCUBA gear to travel throughout the district?

Yes, Alabama certainly wouldn’t want the feds to come in and divide up counties and county institutions by race, that would never fly in the close-knit family atmosphere in multi-racial counties.

Especially when “ripping apart” a county means giving the black voters of that county a chance to elect a representative to Congress… how un-genteel.

Why should federal judges be drawing district boundaries?

Should representatives be chosen by racial communities without any regard to residence?

Explain your reasoning.

*shrug* what you describe as “ripping apart a county” is giving the African-American residents of that county political representation for the first time in a very long time, if at all. I’m more concerned about the rights of African-Americans of Alabama than the feelings of a set of lines on a map used to preserve a monopoly on power for the racial majority. We don’t have to agree on that.

If you had racially segregated electorates then blacks in Huntsville, Alabama would have voting rights as well.

Multi-member districts or proportional representation would also achieve that goal, but for practical reasons aren’t likely.

Idk if I expressed it before, but forcing demographic representation under FPTP and single member districts is a completely inadequate solution. The point of FPTP is after all to represent geographic communities.

There is a reason why places with deep ethnic problems use proportional representation, and in some cases even separate voter rolls. The comparison Forumlurker drew to Bosnia might be more accurate than one thinks

[jimrtex]

Here is a fair map. It does not split counties. It splits the Birmingham UCC, which is larger than a district. It keeps the Montgomery UCC whole.

The districts containing three of the largest cities are relatively compact: Huntsville, Birmingham, and Mobile. Montgomery is placed in the sparsely populated Black Belt.

Standard deviation 1.39%.

Two competitive seats, five Republican.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/5a8afdbd-4782-4836-8de5-949ad536975f

[Greedo punched first]

My 7R-0D map.

[Greedo punched first]

Alabama soon gets a 7-0 map.

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1536727430681227264?cxt=HHwWgMDT5ZndxtMqAAAA

[ProgressiveModerate]

Alabama soon gets a 7-0 map.

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1536727430681227264?cxt=HHwWgMDT5ZndxtMqAAAA

From a partisanship perspective, AL and GA are likely the only 2 states this really affects. IL Dems now theoretically could go 16-1 by stretching the South Side, but that ain’t happening.

Place where it likely has a bigger impact is R state legislatures where they are often forced to cede D leaning black seats.

Still though, wouldn’t this just give Dems more fluidity in states they control because their states are more diverse?

Also right before the midterms seems like a bad timing for a favorable ruling to the gop since it doesn’t really affect much on their side but gives Dems a great attack against them to motivate voters.


Personally I agree VRA is obsolete, but it needs to be modified, not abolished. Things such as fajitas and bacon stripping minority communities isn’t right (as the VRA sometimes promotes). However, minority seats should be encouraged or required when a compact did stuff with very clear mathematical metrics is possible.

[Greedo punched first]

Alabama soon gets a 7-0 map.

From a partisanship perspective, AL and GA are likely the only 2 states this really affects. IL Dems now theoretically could go 16-1 by stretching the South Side, but that ain’t happening.

Place where it likely has a bigger impact is R state legislatures where they are often forced to cede D leaning black seats.

Still though, wouldn’t this just give Dems more fluidity in states they control because their states are more diverse?

Also right before the midterms seems like a bad timing for a favorable ruling to the gop since it doesn’t really affect much on their side but gives Dems a great attack against them to motivate voters.


Personally I agree VRA is obsolete, but it needs to be modified, not abolished. Things such as fajitas and bacon stripping minority communities isn’t right (as the VRA sometimes promotes). However, minority seats should be encouraged or required when a compact did stuff with very clear mathematical metrics is possible.

What about Mississippi?