2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Alabama

[GALeftist]

I'm not endorsing this, but I found this an interesting contrary take on what the SCOTUS ruling requires and what it doesn't:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/alabamas-new-district-map-adheres-to-the-justices-ruling-allen-v-milligan-court-14a00f29?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

Trash, and I suspect Mr. Shapiro knows it. His basic contention is that the new map should be allowed because it apparently keeps together both the Black Belt and the Gulf Coast. I would dispute this characterization, but it's fundamentally irrelevant to the dispute at hand in any case. The problem with the original map was not that it split the Black Belt; the problem was that it infringed on Black Alabamians' right, as defined in the VRA, to elect candidates of their choice (the VRA is silent on "communities of interest"). As such, since the map does not give those voters the ability to elect their candidates of choice, it doesn't pass muster.

The reason I say that I suspect Shapiro knows his argument is trash is because what I just outlined above isn't terribly complex, and Shapiro is, for all his faults, an intelligent man. No, I suspect the real reason for his piece is to help alleviate the cognitive dissonance of those conservatives who pivot effortlessly from righteous defense of the court's legitimacy re: affirmative action to outright contempt re: the Voting Rights Act.

[Nyvin]

SCOTUS already directly refuted the argument against splitting the Gulf Coast counties to keep any COI intact -

The Court finds unpersuasive the State’s argument that plaintiffs’
maps were not reasonably configured because they failed to keep to-
gether the Gulf Coast region. Even if that region is a traditional com-
munity of interest, the District Court found the evidence insufficient
to sustain Alabama’s argument that no legitimate reason could exist
to split it. Moreover, the District Court found that plaintiffs’ maps
were reasonably configured because they joined together a different
community of interest called the Black Belt—a community with a high
proportion of similarly situated black voters who share a lineal con-
nection to “the many enslaved people brought there to work in the an-
tebellum period.”

Also Mobile County is definitely not politically cohesive, especially not the black population, which would further go against the Gulf Coast COI argument.   Add the fact that the VRA has no language which prohibits splitting up generic and undefined COI's like the AL Gulf Coast.

[Torie]

I'm not endorsing this, but I found this an interesting contrary take on what the SCOTUS ruling requires and what it doesn't:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/alabamas-new-district-map-adheres-to-the-justices-ruling-allen-v-milligan-court-14a00f29?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

Trash, and I suspect Mr. Shapiro knows it. His basic contention is that the new map should be allowed because it apparently keeps together both the Black Belt and the Gulf Coast. I would dispute this characterization, but it's fundamentally irrelevant to the dispute at hand in any case. The problem with the original map was not that it split the Black Belt; the problem was that it infringed on Black Alabamians' right, as defined in the VRA, to elect candidates of their choice (the VRA is silent on "communities of interest"). As such, since the map does not give those voters the ability to elect their candidates of choice, it doesn't pass muster.

The reason I say that I suspect Shapiro knows his argument is trash is because what I just outlined above isn't terribly complex, and Shapiro is, for all his faults, an intelligent man. No, I suspect the real reason for his piece is to help alleviate the cognitive dissonance of those conservatives who pivot effortlessly from righteous defense of the court's legitimacy re: affirmative action to outright contempt re: the Voting Rights Act.

Here is my prose that parallels yours in many respects now that I actually read the article. The WSJ should be ashamed for publishing it.

Via twitter I actually got into the WSJ article. It’s an utter piece of sh*t, and that’s an understatement.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/alabamas-new-district-map-adheres-to-the-justices-ruling-allen-v-milligan-court-14a00f29?st=x7y20bf73lftd70

Here is the guy's brain fart:

“The Legislature went back to the drawing board with that guidance. Its new map answers the plaintiffs’ call to unite the Black Belt but also keeps the Gulf region together. It is thus superior to both of the dueling maps the Supreme Court considered, each of which broke up one community of interest. By respecting neutral principles, the new map produces districts that are fairer, more sensible and more competitive than they’ve been in decades. That satisfies both the Voting Rights Act and Constitution, even if it doesn’t satisfy Democrats.”



Yes, the author of this ludicrous statement that has no nexus to the actual law is one Ilya Shapiro, a hot head with no filter who got into difficultly when he wrote that Biden was going to pick an inferior black (e.g. Justice Jackson) for SCOTUS in lieu of something better. It sounds like a comment a banned Atlas poster would make.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/06/us/georgetown-ilya-shapiro.html

A Conservative Quits Georgetown’s Law School Amid Free Speech Fight

““Objectively best pick for Biden is Sri Srinivasan, who is solid prog & v smart,” he wrote. “Even has identity politics benefit of being first Asian (Indian) American. But alas doesn’t fit into the latest intersectionality hierarchy so we’ll get lesser black woman. Thank heaven for small favors?”

Anyway, Ilya what are you going to do when the Special Master actually unites the black belt as opposed to the Pub gerrymander which did anything but unite the black belt, but rather split it in two, while uniting the Gulf and hewing to neutral redistricting principles even though that is not the law, just to further embarrass you? Become Trump’s legal advisor? You really should. You’d fit right in. As I said, just pathetic.

Yes, if the special master draws this map, it is going to drive the lawless AL Pubs just nuts. Just do it!!  

https://davesredistricting.org/join/8755bb2b-2832-4283-9cff-b8ff3204cb37

[patzer]

Yes, if the special master draws this map, it is going to drive the lawless AL Pubs just nuts. Just do it!!  

https://davesredistricting.org/join/8755bb2b-2832-4283-9cff-b8ff3204cb37

If they were to do that, I expect they'd just include all of Jefferson plus a few precincts from Shelby in the urban Birmingham district- no need to include any of deep red rural Tuscaloosa.

[Torie]

Yes, if the special master draws this map, it is going to drive the lawless AL Pubs just nuts. Just do it!!  

https://davesredistricting.org/join/8755bb2b-2832-4283-9cff-b8ff3204cb37

If they were to do that, I expect they'd just include all of Jefferson plus a few precincts from Shelby in the urban Birmingham district- no need to include any of deep red rural Tuscaloosa.

It makes the map look pretty. Everything surrounding Birmingham and a few suburbs is heavily Pub, so it does not affect much the Dem margin for the CD.

[patzer]

Yes, if the special master draws this map, it is going to drive the lawless AL Pubs just nuts. Just do it!!  

https://davesredistricting.org/join/8755bb2b-2832-4283-9cff-b8ff3204cb37

If they were to do that, I expect they'd just include all of Jefferson plus a few precincts from Shelby in the urban Birmingham district- no need to include any of deep red rural Tuscaloosa.

It makes the map look pretty. Everything surrounding Birmingham and a few suburbs is heavily Pub, so it does not affect much the Dem margin for the CD.

Personal preference- I wouldn't personally consider including a few rural areas in a predominantly urban district for no reason to be pretty.

Also it would have a meaningful impact- your map is Biden+9 and Clinton+4 whereas the following would be Biden+16 and Clinton+9. That could well change the result in a low-turnout midterm where the Dems perform poorly.

[Torie]

Yes, if the special master draws this map, it is going to drive the lawless AL Pubs just nuts. Just do it!!  

https://davesredistricting.org/join/8755bb2b-2832-4283-9cff-b8ff3204cb37

If they were to do that, I expect they'd just include all of Jefferson plus a few precincts from Shelby in the urban Birmingham district- no need to include any of deep red rural Tuscaloosa.

It makes the map look pretty. Everything surrounding Birmingham and a few suburbs is heavily Pub, so it does not affect much the Dem margin for the CD.

Personal preference- I wouldn't personally consider including a few rural areas in a predominantly urban district for no reason to be pretty.

Also it would have a meaningful impact- your map is Biden+9 and Clinton+4 whereas the following would be Biden+16 and Clinton+9. That could well change the result in a low-turnout midterm where the Dems perform poorly.

Fair enough, but not pretty. Also the Dem trend is strong in Jefferson County. I am not worried personally about a Pub breakthrough. The Dem margin is consistent in all other recent races on the DRA.

Addendum: I went back to basics and just united Jefferson County and cities that cross the county lines. AL-01 was won by Biden by 10 points.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/97021c4a-0037-41ff-b9c8-1a6a45101c1c

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Yes, if the special master draws this map, it is going to drive the lawless AL Pubs just nuts. Just do it!! 

https://davesredistricting.org/join/8755bb2b-2832-4283-9cff-b8ff3204cb37

If they were to do that, I expect they'd just include all of Jefferson plus a few precincts from Shelby in the urban Birmingham district- no need to include any of deep red rural Tuscaloosa.

It makes the map look pretty. Everything surrounding Birmingham and a few suburbs is heavily Pub, so it does not affect much the Dem margin for the CD.

Personal preference- I wouldn't personally consider including a few rural areas in a predominantly urban district for no reason to be pretty.

Also it would have a meaningful impact- your map is Biden+9 and Clinton+4 whereas the following would be Biden+16 and Clinton+9. That could well change the result in a low-turnout midterm where the Dems perform poorly.

Kind of shocking that the Biden margin in a seat taking in so much of blood red exurbia would be so large.

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1686719886779699200?t=eOCsz5VfEPzKJRhhaNbidA&am...


https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1686722917143359489?t=XShhE6CUjQ-icwUsxn32wA&am...

Master incoming

[Nyvin]

David Ely will be the cartographer, he was the plaintiff's desired person for the role.

https://1819news.com/news/item/judges-choose-plaintiffs-recommended-cartographer-in-upcoming-alabama-redistricting-hearing

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1689040992903593984?t=qFlUUOwd1MyzZACCC...

Court Master now has a lawyer and a mapper, in addition to other state assistants.

[tschandler]

Was the functionally identical 2000 map also racist?  It's demographics are functionally identical.  And it was written by Democrats.

Or did Democrats become unelectable in the 2nd and 5th because politics became nationalized?

[GALeftist]

Was the functionally identical 2000 map also racist?  It's demographics are functionally identical.  And it was written by Democrats.

Or did Democrats become unelectable in the 2nd and 5th because politics became nationalized?

Whether or not Democrats are only pursuing legal action now because it is only now in their self-interest to do so has no bearing on whether the maps themselves are or were illegal/racist or not.

[Oryxslayer]

Was the functionally identical 2000 map also racist?  It's demographics are functionally identical.  And it was written by Democrats.

Or did Democrats become unelectable in the 2nd and 5th because politics became nationalized?

Whether or not Democrats are only pursuing legal action now because it is only now in their self-interest to do so has no bearing on whether the maps themselves are or were illegal/racist or not.

This.

But there also is important context. Alabamas 7th was initially drawn in the context of a different era. Horrible electoral participation among Rural African Americans often necessitated districts today that today would be laughed away as packs. The 2020 census additionally found that the states African American population is increasingly urban,  something that makes a second district easier to draw, especially with growing White crossover among urban residents.

However,  the biggest piece of context is the changed legal landscape.  In 2011 Alabama's maps had to pass preclearance from the Obama administration, which they did. Very hard to argue against after that.  Perhaps if Eric Holder knew the VRA preclearence formula would be tossed soon, or that politically the Southern White vote was going to be bedrock GOP for at least a generation,  he would have more actively went against such maps. But such are hypothetical situations.

In contrast to pre-2010, 2020s lawsuits are solely led by activist civil rights groups. They are looking at the situation as it is now, with the present masses of data. Which is why there are so many lawsuits nationwide,  cause these groups can cast wide nets. And they really only care about outcomes for minorities,  not partisanship.

[tschandler]

Basically y'all are proving what I said.  The maps are absolutely fine, Dems just want another seat because they can no longer win the 2nd or 5th.  

So they want another do nothing CBC rubber stamp like Sewell.
You know instead of the moderate they would have to run to make the 2nd and 5th competitive again. 

[ProgressiveModerate]

Basically y'all are proving what I said.  The maps are absolutely fine, Dems just want another seat because they can no longer win the 2nd or 5th.  

So they want another do nothing CBC rubber stamp like Sewell.
You know instead of the moderate they would have to run to make the 2nd and 5th competitive again. 

Alabama's black population has generally been increasing. Back in 2010, a VRA challenge couldn't really effectively be triggered because drawing 50% black seats was basically impossible within any reason. On the 2020 census, 2 majority black seats was possible.

I agree the VRA is imperfect, but it's what we have. If we had more national safeguards on the redistricting process to ensure groups couldn't be cracked to oblivion, then I think the VRA would no longer be needed. But because Republicans in congress have refused to even suggest any redistricting reform, the VRA is what we have.

[kwabbit]

Basically y'all are proving what I said.  The maps are absolutely fine, Dems just want another seat because they can no longer win the 2nd or 5th.  

So they want another do nothing CBC rubber stamp like Sewell.
You know instead of the moderate they would have to run to make the 2nd and 5th competitive again. 

Alabama's black population has generally been increasing. Back in 2010, a VRA challenge couldn't really effectively be triggered because drawing 50% black seats was basically impossible within any reason. On the 2020 census, 2 majority black seats was possible.

I agree the VRA is imperfect, but it's what we have. If we had more national safeguards on the redistricting process to ensure groups couldn't be cracked to oblivion, then I think the VRA would no longer be needed. But because Republicans in congress have refused to even suggest any redistricting reform, the VRA is what we have.

Your first point is false. Try it out in DRA; drawing two 50% Black seats was easier in 2010 because the Black Belt had a higher population. The Black population in Alabama has increased as a proportion of the VAP, but it has become more diffuse so seats are now harder to draw.

I don't know why legal challenges didn't succeed in 2010, but the reality is basically the same.

Two Black Seats Under 2010 Census

[tschandler]

Basically y'all are proving what I said.  The maps are absolutely fine, Dems just want another seat because they can no longer win the 2nd or 5th.  

So they want another do nothing CBC rubber stamp like Sewell.
You know instead of the moderate they would have to run to make the 2nd and 5th competitive again. 

Alabama's black population has generally been increasing. Back in 2010, a VRA challenge couldn't really effectively be triggered because drawing 50% black seats was basically impossible within any reason. On the 2020 census, 2 majority black seats was possible.

I agree the VRA is imperfect, but it's what we have. If we had more national safeguards on the redistricting process to ensure groups couldn't be cracked to oblivion, then I think the VRA would no longer be needed. But because Republicans in congress have refused to even suggest any redistricting reform, the VRA is what we have.

Your first point is false. Try it out in DRA; drawing two 50% Black seats was easier in 2010 because the Black Belt had a higher population. The Black population in Alabama has increased as a proportion of the VAP, but it has become more diffuse so seats are now harder to draw.

I don't know why legal challenges didn't succeed in 2010, but the reality is basically the same.

Two Black Seats Under 2010 Census

They didn't pursue it because they had the 2nd, 5th, and 7th already. 

[Tintrlvr]

Basically y'all are proving what I said.  The maps are absolutely fine, Dems just want another seat because they can no longer win the 2nd or 5th.  

So they want another do nothing CBC rubber stamp like Sewell.
You know instead of the moderate they would have to run to make the 2nd and 5th competitive again.  

Alabama's black population has generally been increasing. Back in 2010, a VRA challenge couldn't really effectively be triggered because drawing 50% black seats was basically impossible within any reason. On the 2020 census, 2 majority black seats was possible.

I agree the VRA is imperfect, but it's what we have. If we had more national safeguards on the redistricting process to ensure groups couldn't be cracked to oblivion, then I think the VRA would no longer be needed. But because Republicans in congress have refused to even suggest any redistricting reform, the VRA is what we have.

Your first point is false. Try it out in DRA; drawing two 50% Black seats was easier in 2010 because the Black Belt had a higher population. The Black population in Alabama has increased as a proportion of the VAP, but it has become more diffuse so seats are now harder to draw.

I don't know why legal challenges didn't succeed in 2010, but the reality is basically the same.

Two Black Seats Under 2010 Census

Reportedly the Obama administration did not challenge it in 2011 because they were worried the Supreme Court would throw out the entire VRA if they did (resulting in the abolition of the 7th as well).

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/erindavisnews/status/1691099797405765632?t=kqkNgoLl4WU-gkMSH...

Court hearing has begun. This thread has live updates from the courtroom.

[GALeftist]

Lol the judge is currently accusing Alabama of willfully defying the court. It's beyond Joever

[Minnesota Mike]

https://twitter.com/WarOnDumb/status/1691170563161473024

LOL. I would say things not looking good for the state.

[nclib]

LOL (but not surprising) the AL Repubs reasoning (or lack thereof) for defying the Court ruling. One does not need to be that familiar with Alabama, to know that a Trump +4 seat would rarely elect the black community's choice.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Lol the judge is currently accusing Alabama of willfully defying the court. It's beyond Joever

Courts are very well known for letting their authority get trampled on, obviously.

[Nyvin]

The most important thing is that the judges (literally all three) definitely don't seem to be willing to play ball with the state's desired game of having the plaintiffs start all over from scratch and then re-litigate everything again, prove gingles violations again, this time on the new map, etc.   

The judges all seemed very annoyed with the idea and the defense attorneys were definitely pushing in that direction.

The defense simply knows it can't win so the only thing they want now is delay, delay, delay, delay.