2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Alabama

[Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins]

AL-2 is Biden+10.8 on map 1, Biden+9.6 on map 2, and Biden+12.7 on map 3.

AL-7 is solid D on all three maps.

I really don't see how Letlow is still a contender for any of those then.

Letlow is the Lousiana  Congresswoman but agrred with your overall point that they all look to be safe D seats

[wbrocks67]

AL-2 is Biden+10.8 on map 1, Biden+9.6 on map 2, and Biden+12.7 on map 3.

AL-7 is solid D on all three maps.

I really don't see how Letlow is still a contender for any of those then.

Letlow is in Lousiana. AL-01 and 02 are held by 2020-elected Trumpists, both who live outside the district. Both will probably either run for district 1, or find some other office if they think they cannot win.

LMAO you are right! Total brain fart moment.

[GeorgiaModerate]

AL-2 is Biden+10.8 on map 1, Biden+9.6 on map 2, and Biden+12.7 on map 3.

AL-7 is solid D on all three maps.

I really don't see how Letlow is still a contender for any of those then.

Letlow is in Lousiana. AL-01 and 02 are held by 2020-elected Trumpists, both who live outside the district. Both will probably either run for district 1, or find some other office if they think they cannot win.

LMAO you are right! Total brain fart moment.

Well, you were right that Letlow isn't a contender for any of them.

[Stuart98]

Lol, there never was any grand plan the ALGOP had to save themselves,  they were just flailing about trying to find anything they could do to deny black voters congressional representation.

Get bitchslapped, Alabama Republicans.

[Epaminondas]

Radio silence on this from the conservative press so far.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Politics have went utterly insane.  Somehow maps that were fine when Democrats drew them are now racial gerrymandering.  And the solution to that is more racial gerrymandering?   

Because the Democrats don't want to reach the median voter in the 2nd or the 5th districts? 

Federal judges dictating politics is insane.  Similar maps were fine until Democrats couldn't reach the median voter in the state anymore. 

However, the best possible map is still one with an entirely Black Belt-based district (that doesn't split either Mobile or Montgomery) and then a  Birmingham-based district with reasonable opportunity to elect the local Black community's candidate of choice.

Perhaps your argument would at least merit consideration if the Alabama state legislature had drawn a map like that (especially if they had done so originally back in 2010-11 when drawing up the original maps).

But they did not. Certainly not on the first go around, and also not even on this go around.

And I think we all know why.


In any case, I would suggest that Republicans ought to spend less time trying to figure out how to make Black people's votes not count, and instead spend that time trying to figure out how to appeal to Black voters and win their votes.

The maps are functionally identical to the 2000 maps.  Those that were drawn by Democrats.

If the proposed maps are racist then why wasn't the Dem drawn 2000 map? 

Again what is wrong with a map that district by district is demographically consistent with the 2000 map? 

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?

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

And Del Tachi wept

[DrScholl]

Politics have went utterly insane.  Somehow maps that were fine when Democrats drew them are now racial gerrymandering.  And the solution to that is more racial gerrymandering?   

Because the Democrats don't want to reach the median voter in the 2nd or the 5th districts? 

If you knew history instead of just "EVERYONE HATES REPUBLICANS" logic you'd know that when VRA districts started being enforced in the 1992 elections that it disproportionately effected Southern Democrats who drew districts to keep White Democrats in office. The 7th district used to elected a White Democrat named Claude Harris Jr. and before that it was *gasps* Richard Shelby when he was still a Democrat.

Democrats trying to reach the median voter in the 5th or the old 2nd is pointless when they can push for a Black majority district that should have existed years ago. The Black population of Alabama is 26% which means that 1.8% of the congressional seats should be Black majority and with rounding that equals 2 seats.

[tschandler]

Politics have went utterly insane.  Somehow maps that were fine when Democrats drew them are now racial gerrymandering.  And the solution to that is more racial gerrymandering?   

Because the Democrats don't want to reach the median voter in the 2nd or the 5th districts? 

If you knew history instead of just "EVERYONE HATES REPUBLICANS" logic you'd know that when VRA districts started being enforced in the 1992 elections that it disproportionately effected Southern Democrats who drew districts to keep White Democrats in office. The 7th district used to elected a White Democrat named Claude Harris Jr. and before that it was *gasps* Richard Shelby when he was still a Democrat.

Democrats trying to reach the median voter in the 5th or the old 2nd is pointless when they can push for a Black majority district that should have existed years ago. The Black population of Alabama is 26% which means that 1.8% of the congressional seats should be Black majority and with rounding that equals 2 seats.

And the 2010 Map was completely fine (and identical demographics wise) to the legislature drawn map.  It was even approved by noted White Supremacist Eric Holder.

Progressives using Lawfare because they can't win the 2nd and 5th instead of you know running moderates. 

[DrScholl]

Politics have went utterly insane.  Somehow maps that were fine when Democrats drew them are now racial gerrymandering.  And the solution to that is more racial gerrymandering?   

Because the Democrats don't want to reach the median voter in the 2nd or the 5th districts? 

If you knew history instead of just "EVERYONE HATES REPUBLICANS" logic you'd know that when VRA districts started being enforced in the 1992 elections that it disproportionately effected Southern Democrats who drew districts to keep White Democrats in office. The 7th district used to elected a White Democrat named Claude Harris Jr. and before that it was *gasps* Richard Shelby when he was still a Democrat.

Democrats trying to reach the median voter in the 5th or the old 2nd is pointless when they can push for a Black majority district that should have existed years ago. The Black population of Alabama is 26% which means that 1.8% of the congressional seats should be Black majority and with rounding that equals 2 seats.

And the 2010 Map was completely fine (and identical demographics wise) to the legislature drawn map.  It was even approved by noted White Supremacist Eric Holder.

Progressives using Lawfare because they can't win the 2nd and 5th instead of you know running moderates. 

The 2010 map was unacceptable too, but the Obama Administration did a poor job at challenging maps that were racial gerrymanders. There should have been two Black majority districts a long time ago.

What is "Lawfare"? Conservatives stay making up new words to complain about things. A moderate Democrat isn't going to win either of those districts. But the lawsuit was about Black representation, not partisanship. Why can't Republicans run a moderate in the new 2nd district?

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

For the bajllionith time; just cause no one said anything doesn’t mean it was ok.

[tschandler]

For the bajllionith time; just cause no one said anything doesn’t mean it was ok.

It was perfectly fine until the Democrats lost control is what you are saying. 

[Oryxslayer]

Politics have went utterly insane.  Somehow maps that were fine when Democrats drew them are now racial gerrymandering.  And the solution to that is more racial gerrymandering?  

Because the Democrats don't want to reach the median voter in the 2nd or the 5th districts?  

If you knew history instead of just "EVERYONE HATES REPUBLICANS" logic you'd know that when VRA districts started being enforced in the 1992 elections that it disproportionately effected Southern Democrats who drew districts to keep White Democrats in office. The 7th district used to elected a White Democrat named Claude Harris Jr. and before that it was *gasps* Richard Shelby when he was still a Democrat.

Democrats trying to reach the median voter in the 5th or the old 2nd is pointless when they can push for a Black majority district that should have existed years ago. The Black population of Alabama is 26% which means that 1.8% of the congressional seats should be Black majority and with rounding that equals 2 seats.

And the 2010 Map was completely fine (and identical demographics wise) to the legislature drawn map.  It was even approved by noted White Supremacist Eric Holder.

Progressives using Lawfare because they can't win the 2nd and 5th instead of you know running moderates.  

The 2010 map was unacceptable too, but the Obama Administration did a poor job at challenging maps that were racial gerrymanders. There should have been two Black majority districts a long time ago.

What is "Lawfare"? Conservatives stay making up new words to complain about things. A moderate Democrat isn't going to win either of those districts. But the lawsuit was about Black representation, not partisanship. Why can't Republicans run a moderate in the new 2nd district?

Or an African American one. AL Republicans can therefore prove RPV isn't as strong as claimed by the plaintiffs if they can win significant numbers of Black voters.

When talking about VRA section 2, partisanship of results do not matter, only if the candidate of choice for a significantly sized community is electable. It literally would not matter if there was a White Dem in District 5.

The lawsuit would fail if District 2 at any point recently in a average election had a chance to elect a candidate of choice, even if the district was not majority-African American. The minority community dominated primary can team up with crossover White voters to elect their candidate. That's what happening in many districts today outside of the South.

It would similarly not matter if the partisan allegiances of Minority and White voters were reversed, as it happened in Miami-Dade during the 90s. The Intensity of RPV is what makes a section 2 claim viable against any map.

In fact 99% of Section 2 VRA claim lawsuits against maps at any level are only in south today, because the RPV justifying the creation of new access districts does not exist. The one exception is against Detroit and her immediately adjacent suburban towns and their state legislative districts, all of which favor the same party and behave as a coalition in the main election, but still demonstate RPV in the primary.

[Mr.Phips]

Politics have went utterly insane.  Somehow maps that were fine when Democrats drew them are now racial gerrymandering.  And the solution to that is more racial gerrymandering?   

Because the Democrats don't want to reach the median voter in the 2nd or the 5th districts? 

If you knew history instead of just "EVERYONE HATES REPUBLICANS" logic you'd know that when VRA districts started being enforced in the 1992 elections that it disproportionately effected Southern Democrats who drew districts to keep White Democrats in office. The 7th district used to elected a White Democrat named Claude Harris Jr. and before that it was *gasps* Richard Shelby when he was still a Democrat.

Democrats trying to reach the median voter in the 5th or the old 2nd is pointless when they can push for a Black majority district that should have existed years ago. The Black population of Alabama is 26% which means that 1.8% of the congressional seats should be Black majority and with rounding that equals 2 seats.

And the 2010 Map was completely fine (and identical demographics wise) to the legislature drawn map.  It was even approved by noted White Supremacist Eric Holder.

Progressives using Lawfare because they can't win the 2nd and 5th instead of you know running moderates. 

The 2010 map was unacceptable too, but the Obama Administration did a poor job at challenging maps that were racial gerrymanders. There should have been two Black majority districts a long time ago.

What is "Lawfare"? Conservatives stay making up new words to complain about things. A moderate Democrat isn't going to win either of those districts. But the lawsuit was about Black representation, not partisanship. Why can't Republicans run a moderate in the new 2nd district?

Yep the Obama DOJ should have refused to preclear the 2011 AL and LA maps and especially the GA map that basically eliminated the black opportunity GA-12.

[Horus]

Politics have went utterly insane.  Somehow maps that were fine when Democrats drew them are now racial gerrymandering.  And the solution to that is more racial gerrymandering?  

Because the Democrats don't want to reach the median voter in the 2nd or the 5th districts?  

If you knew history instead of just "EVERYONE HATES REPUBLICANS" logic you'd know that when VRA districts started being enforced in the 1992 elections that it disproportionately effected Southern Democrats who drew districts to keep White Democrats in office. The 7th district used to elected a White Democrat named Claude Harris Jr. and before that it was *gasps* Richard Shelby when he was still a Democrat.

Democrats trying to reach the median voter in the 5th or the old 2nd is pointless when they can push for a Black majority district that should have existed years ago. The Black population of Alabama is 26% which means that 1.8% of the congressional seats should be Black majority and with rounding that equals 2 seats.

And the 2010 Map was completely fine (and identical demographics wise) to the legislature drawn map.  It was even approved by noted White Supremacist Eric Holder.

Progressives using Lawfare because they can't win the 2nd and 5th instead of you know running moderates.  

The 2010 map was unacceptable too, but the Obama Administration did a poor job at challenging maps that were racial gerrymanders. There should have been two Black majority districts a long time ago.

What is "Lawfare"? Conservatives stay making up new words to complain about things. A moderate Democrat isn't going to win either of those districts. But the lawsuit was about Black representation, not partisanship. Why can't Republicans run a moderate in the new 2nd district?

Lawfare is basically when 1. Judges follow the law and 2. The law contradicts conservative delusion. The term really took off after 2020 when Trump went 1-96 in court.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

For the bajllionith time; just cause no one said anything doesn’t mean it was ok.

It was perfectly fine until the Democrats lost control is what you are saying. 

I quite literally said the opposite. It was wrong of democrats to not have brought suit in 2010.

[Sol]

There was some discussion about the DOJ forcing a second Black district in Alabama in 2010, but they decided to allow just one because of the concern that pushing too hard on these issues could lead to a court case overturning preclearance (which happened anyway). In any case it was a discussed issue at the time.

[Brittain33]

If they go with map #1, it’s possible for both representatives for Mobile to be from Dothan.

[Mr.Phips]

There was some discussion about the DOJ forcing a second Black district in Alabama in 2010, but they decided to allow just one because of the concern that pushing too hard on these issues could lead to a court case overturning preclearance (which happened anyway). In any case it was a discussed issue at the time.

What’s the point of having preclearance in the first place if you aren’t going to use it?

[Stuart98]

If they go with map #1, it’s possible for both representatives for Mobile to be from Dothan.

I don't think it's realistic, Dothan's going to be like 3.5% of the black belt seat (compared to Mobile being about a third of it) and about 15% of the gulf coast seat (compared to Mobile and Baldwin combining to about 58% of it).

Maps 1 and 3 are both fine, map 2 is dumb, the only reason to put 70% white Henry county in the black belt district is if you're also putting 60% black parts of Houston county in it.

[Brittain33]

If they go with map #1, it’s possible for both representatives for Mobile to be from Dothan.

I don't think it's realistic, Dothan's going to be like 3.5% of the black belt seat (compared to Mobile being about a third of it) and about 15% of the gulf coast seat (compared to Mobile and Baldwin combining to about 58% of it).

Maps 1 and 3 are both fine, map 2 is dumb, the only reason to put 70% white Henry county in the black belt district is if you're also putting 60% black parts of Houston county in it.

Oh, it’s definitely not going to happen, just riffing off an earlier comment.

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/DKElections/status/1707136401366761966?t=6UtiRZD0o4v86zbbPBm...

BTW,  what was only subtext during the past few months of negotiations becomes public.  Singleton wanted a Birmingham district to confine Sewell, so he could have the Belt to Himself. But his district almost to the exact borders remains in Al-07, so he is forced to make a desperate attempt.

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1707839715221668276?t=WkYmnf5yjyML-3l057i5dA&am...

Which is why it'll probably be map 1 or 3 (or neither and be something with minor tweaks after the hearings next week) cause those preform the best depending on how you measure it.

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1707909487145717832?t=LreB-QFYJTbuUwj1tkvqzQ&am...

The state will still fight in the future, the SoS suggested he might explore the viability of a Racial Gerrymandering suit, but it concedes this fight and seemingly understands that whatever happens next week will be used in 2024.

[Nyvin]

The plaintiffs prefer map 1 over map 3, why?   I would think the judges would prefer map 3 since it has 6 county splits instead of 7 like map 1.

All the plaintiffs object to using map 2.  The judges don't disagree, that one seems to be out.