2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Alabama

[Former President tack50]

Yeah, a pure 6-0 map would be an R gerrymander regardless. Not a particularly hard or ugly gerrymander, but still one. A fair non-VRA map for Alabama would probably look something like this?



AL-01: R+16 (35D-65R composite 2012-2016)
AL-02: R+3, 44% black (49D-51R composite 2012-2016)
AL-03: R+16 (36D-64R composite 2012-2016)
AL-04: R+31 (21D-79R composite 2012-2016)
AL-05: R+19, (33D-67R composite 2012-2016)
AL-06: R+4, 38% black, (47D-53R composite 2012-2016)

So basically you get a map that is 4 Safe R, 1 Likely R and 1 tossup/tilt R?

I wonder how many seats would Dems have won in 2018 under this map; District 2 in particular must be extremely polarized and inelastic. Plus I am sure you could easily move district 2 from tilt R to tilt D just by swapping a few places around; or to make the 6th easier for Dems to win by taking another of the suburban counties?

[Former President tack50]

What would a fair VRA map look like?

Bumping a dead thread to answer this question

IMO, this really depends on what you think the threshold for VRA compliance would be. In any case, this is a possible fair map that also tries to comply with the VRA



https://davesredistricting.org/join/8c0f7b60-7eff-42b7-b7e4-a2b4eda4af84

AL-01: R+18, 66R-34D composite
AL-02: D+5, 56D-44R composite (49% white, 45% black)
AL-03: R+2, 50R-50D composite (49% white, 46% black)
AL-04: R+21, 70R-30D composite
AL-05: R+18, 66R-34D composite
AL-06: R+34, 82R-18D composite

The 2nd district would be intended to be the VRA district. It is reasonably safe for the Democrats, although not completely safe. It is also 53% white by CVAP, but the white voters are just depolarized enough that hypothetically the black choice candidate would win? Not sure if this would pass

The 3rd district is intended as a black belt district that is competitive. It is so competitive in fact, that the 2012-2016 composite has it being won by the Republicans by only 35 votes. Elections here sure would be fun

If the 2nd district does not pass the VRA requirements, you can make it more black (and by extension more dem) by including more of the black belt, at the cost of making the 3rd less competitive.

4R-1D-1S looks fair to me.

[Former President tack50]

Infact as me and tack showed It isn't really possible for a reasonable compact map to have 1 VRA seat. However a VRA seat is still required in Alabama but its absurd to call an arm into Birmingham a gerrymander but then demand it should go into Mobile.

On paper I suppose you could do an arm into Mobile for the VRA seat (making it safe D), then a swingy Birmingham seat like the one I drew.

But I suppose that is probably a Dem gerrymander (Though I think you could do 2 safe D seats, so it isn't even a good D gerrymander)

[Former President tack50]

Ok, here is my best attempt at doing a map that fulfills all of the following:

1) Has a black VRA seat
2) Has a compact Birmingham seat
3) Does not split Mobile

It is just barely possible, though the result is rather ugly (and the VRA district is still somewhat marginal, though it should be "good enough")



AL-01: R+18
AL-02: D+5 (51% Black CVAP)
AL-03: R+21
AL-04: R+34
AL-05: R+18
AL-06: R+4

So yeah, I suppose a map like that is just barely possible. It is also extremely ugly, in particular the 2 tentacles in the green district. And they are necessary in order to take the black areas outside the black belt (or at least, the less white areas)

[Former President tack50]

If Alabama keeps its 7 districts, the most likely scenario is a "least change" map I'd say. Perhaps the 7th district (the VRA one) drops some of the black belt in favour of D trending Birmingham suburbs if those exist?:



https://davesredistricting.org/join/7fe8cbcd-64eb-437b-8df1-eb76d30f2788

I think all incumbents would live inside their districts in this map. The 2nd district here might arguably not look safe enough, but it's still 60-40 in the 2012/16 composite and R+11. If needed I guess Rs can use slightly worse lines to get it above 60% or whatever they think they need.

This map also probably doubles as a fair map to be honest, except in a fair map I imagine the boundaries of 2 and 3 would be moved around to be slightly less ugly.

[Former President tack50]

You can drop the bulk of Tuscaloosa there, and gobble up more of the Black Belt/Montgomery instead. Tuscaloosa is still reliably Republican.

Wouldn't that result in black packing? I guess it can still be avoided but still. I also didn't want to cut Tuscaloosa if I could avoid it; in order to still keep COIs to the extent that the VRA allows. (The non-VRA map would instead have a Birmingham district but that's obviously illegal)

Of course in an actual map I guess that would be likely to happen in order to make the 2nd district safer (not like it would matter much in practice); 60-40 and R+11 should still be plenty safe.

[Former President tack50]

Why is everyone doing a bastardized thing in Mobile? There is no way such a horrible split is required right? Even if you want 2 black districts you can do much better than that



In this map, district 2 is an easy black majority district. Technically only 49.7% black by CVAP, but more than enough to elect a black Democrat (56-44 composite, D+4)

District 5 is a white majority district that however would be very likely to elect a black democrat under a "black voters + token white liberals" weird coalition. It is 52-45 white by CVAP (49-46 white by total population) and D+3, 55-45 D composite

Hell, even if you think that is not enough, I'd argue splitting Huntsville is the better option to get a 2nd black district?

[Former President tack50]

To be honest, I would argue that under a strict reading of the "compactness" criteria; Alabama should not have a black district mandated. If you need to split Mobile or split Birmingham to get such a district, that is not a compact district

[Former President tack50]

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1436349572926873603

My variation: https://davesredistricting.org/join/89eb86fc-e69b-4792-92ce-51307de75a10

50.1% & 50.6% BVAP; Biden +26 & Biden +14, respectively.

Would this be mandatory to do? I've always thought that splitting Mobile was a big no?

[Former President tack50]

I also did this thing back in the day for 7 districts, which is a lot cleaner but I don't think the 5th in here would qualify?

Why is everyone doing a bastardized thing in Mobile? There is no way such a horrible split is required right? Even if you want 2 black districts you can do much better than that



In this map, district 2 is an easy black majority district. Technically only 49.7% black by CVAP, but more than enough to elect a black Democrat (56-44 composite, D+4)

District 5 is a white majority district that however would be very likely to elect a black democrat under a "black voters + token white liberals" weird coalition. It is 52-45 white by CVAP (49-46 white by total population) and D+3, 55-45 D composite

Hell, even if you think that is not enough, I'd argue splitting Huntsville is the better option to get a 2nd black district?

[Former President tack50]

Putting Mobile in a Black Belt district is an adbomindation

Yeah, I agree with this. I don't think that is a compact community that would deserve a seat? Not to mention the possible land conectivity issues?

[Former President tack50]

I’m not sure why it’s so egregious to put Mobile in a Black Belt seat but not Birmingham? If anything, voting patterns are more racially polarized in Mobile than they are in Bham.

Really (at least in my opinion) it comes down to the location of Mobile within the state. Mobile is in the southwesternmost corner and doing a VRA district there forces a very ugly district that on top of that also forces you to depend on water conectivity.

Meanwhile, Birmingham is in the centre of the state, so it is easy to split and it does not look all that bad.

Perhaps that is not a good rationale from a judicial point of view, but still it is not aesthetically pleasing

[Former President tack50]

Anyways I will self-quote my old self on what imo should happen given that now 2 black districts are required. I sadly don't have the map link but still. Also it might not be good enough anyways

Why is everyone doing a bastardized thing in Mobile? There is no way such a horrible split is required right? Even if you want 2 black districts you can do much better than that



In this map, district 2 is an easy black majority district. Technically only 49.7% black by CVAP, but more than enough to elect a black Democrat (56-44 composite, D+4)

District 5 is a white majority district that however would be very likely to elect a black democrat under a "black voters + token white liberals" weird coalition. It is 52-45 white by CVAP (49-46 white by total population) and D+3, 55-45 D composite

Assuming it is a legal map (I will admit district 5 is iffy), this is what it should ideally look like

[Former President tack50]

Your primary complaint with an arm to Mobile was that it would be ugly, and yet you promote this map as somehow being better? 

If anything, a Mobile arm makes more sense from a COI perspective in addition to performing better on Black % of the electorate. In general the rural areas along the Mobile River are fairly similar if slightly less Black than the main “belt”. Economically, the agricultural output of the region was shipped along the Tombigbee and Mobile rivers down to the port at Mobile; today there’s still a similar economic connection between these two regions. Birmingham, meanwhile, is surrounded by deep red (and white) rural areas, some industrial exurbs that have a high Black population, as well as wealthy white suburbs that developed in the mid-20th century. The economy there is much more self-contained.

In short, agricultural and exporter interests do align in the Black Belt and Mobile, whereas the Belt and Birmingham do not share such economic interests. Bringing in Talladega at least does give a second potential Democrat district, but it is unnecessary in a sense, since the areas it must take in between Bham and Talladega are heavily white and heavily Republican, diluting the potential ability of the Black community to elect the candidate of their choice.

The issue with the Mobile arm is entirely invented without a true reason. Aesthetics, as you’ve demonstrated with your map, clearly don’t actually matter. And the “corner” issue is also a bit ridiculous, as for example, Hampton Roads in Virginia exhibits the same “issue” but no one serious advocates for the dissolution of VA-04. 

Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess

For some reason, I still do think that the map I drew is genuinely better than the proposals from before that split Mobile. (not like that one is pretty, it definitely is not, but it seems less bad to me) There's something about the "leftovers" 2nd district that just means to my head it is wrong; even if it is probably a factually better combination of COIs. You can probably fix all of the issues at the cost of having a potentially non-performing map I suppose (like the map patzer just posted would show?)

I don't find the Virginia comparison accurate since it does not have the water contiguity issue; plus I think the issue is resolved in the new map anyways?

[Former President tack50]

Anyways, after quite a bit of trying, I finally managed to get a map with a Mobile split and 2 black districts that doesn't give me the weird, borderline OCD issues

Ugly as hell, but I guess so is going to be any map. The population distribution and geography really make it hard. Every time you seem close to a solution a district ends up way under/over populated or the populations just don't match



https://davesredistricting.org/join/f95c6b0b-1fd9-42fc-ab28-396c8b8355c1

District 7 is 45.8% black, 45.7% White CVAP and Biden+27
District 1 is 49% black, 43.8% white CVAP and Biden+15

I still can't fully explain what makes this better than the previous proposals (I want to say it's the water contiguity issue but still not fully sure) but anyways. This is going to be subjective I suppose

[Former President tack50]

Which 5-2 map is better?

Both a pretty bad, IMO, but Map #2 has cleaner lines all round so I say that one.  Any thoughts on the map I did?

   

 

Probably the best map I've seen so far

[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