2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: New Jersey

[lfromnj]

I have to say, I don't know about the merits of this particular case, but the whole process is in need a serious overhaul. Give NJ a real nonpartisan commission, like in CA or MI.

NJs map is probably cleaner than CA, more fair  and actually more transparent in its relative honesty by John Wallace than Sara Sadhwani.

Atleast NJ has received proper media criticism.

[Virginiá]

I get that for Illinois, where there are no laws being abused or defied. That is not the case in NJ and NY, where the legal process was gamed and abused, and the law defied (the NY CD map being utterly outrageous). Where the Pub were in control, and constrained by law, putting aside DeSantis, they respected the law in Florida (with a friendly court to boot), and did pretty well in Ohio. And then there is NC where a Dem court thinks the state copying and pasting of the federal equal protection clause outlaws Pubmanders, which is an abuse of judicial power imo.

Yeah, I mean, I'm not going to lie, I necessarily don't like the pressure redistricting has put on state courts to essentially conjure up legal theories or flat out go full-hack and just side with their party no matter what. That is not a good way for the judicial system to operate. We shouldn't cheer on hack judges whose rulings are influenced by partisan politics.

Not that many of us haven't done that at times, but when you really think about it outside of the sports-like mentality of elections and redistricting, it's terrible for society.

[Virginiá]

NJs map is probably cleaner than CA, more fair  and actually more transparent in its relative honesty by John Wallace than Sara Sadhwani.

Atleast NJ has received proper media criticism.

I'm not going to merge this with the CA discussion I recently split off since it at least has a connection to NJ redistricting, but everyone, please confine any California or non-NJ talk to the appropriate thread (which is not this one).

[Brittain33]

NJ wasn’t gamed, really, or more to the point, it’s inevitable it will be gamed. It just has a bad process that leaves one party the winner and the Dems were a little more careless about it this time than Republicans were last time. As long as there is a tiebreaker, there will be a crappy outcome in NJ. Either one side wins or you get uncompetitive incumbent protection.

[Tekken_Guy]

The GOP needs to get its own Marc Elias. It seems like the Dems win every redistricting lawsuit and the GOP wins none.

They do have their own Marc Elias. It’s called the Supreme Court of the United States.

[Mr.Phips]

The GOP needs to get its own Marc Elias. It seems like the Dems win every redistricting lawsuit and the GOP wins none.

They do have their own Marc Elias. It’s called the Supreme Court of the United States.

They will not hear redistricting cases.

[Brittain33]

The GOP needs to get its own Marc Elias. It seems like the Dems win every redistricting lawsuit and the GOP wins none.

They do have their own Marc Elias. It’s called the Supreme Court of the United States.

They will not hear redistricting cases.

Let’s see what they do with Alabama before deciding if they are completely disinterested. (Acknowledging we are not going to discuss that specific case in this non-Alabama thread.)

[Torie]

NJ wasn’t gamed, really, it just has a bad process that leaves one party the winner and the Dems were a little more careless about it this time than Republicans were last time. As long as there is a tiebreaker, there will be a crappy outcome in NJ. Either one side wins or you get uncompetitive incumbent protection.

Wallace did not follow the law, so I disagree. He also it appears gamed the system by leaking, directly or indirectly,  the Pub map to the Dems.

The takeaway for me is that redistricting laws need very tight parameters, and I think VA points the way as how best to break the tie - each party subject to judicial confirmation makes nominations, and the two experts draw the map under instructions to try to compromise out their differences, and write a report explaining their choices.

Oh here is a link to the text of the decision. I find it unpersuasive, but maybe the law is so bad given the lack of the need to have a record and so forth that there is no effective remedy to the tie breaker going rogue.

https://newjerseyglobe.com/redistricing/n-j-supreme-court-dismisses-gop-lawsuit-on-congressional-redistricting/
 

[Tekken_Guy]

The GOP needs to get its own Marc Elias. It seems like the Dems win every redistricting lawsuit and the GOP wins none.

They do have their own Marc Elias. It’s called the Supreme Court of the United States.

They will not hear redistricting cases.

Yes. So most redistricting cases just die on the steps of the court.

[Ferguson97]

Anyone who supports a gerrymander and says "Well if Republicans supported fair maps we wouldn't have to do this" obviously does not care about a fair redistricting process in the first place.

I don't agree with this at all. Democrats do support a fair process, there's just no reason for them to unilaterally disarm.

[kwabbit]

Anyone who supports a gerrymander and says "Well if Republicans supported fair maps we wouldn't have to do this" obviously does not care about a fair redistricting process in the first place.

I don't agree with this at all. Democrats do support a fair process, there's just no reason for them to unilaterally disarm.

If you support Democratic gerrymandering, then you do not support a fair process. Either you support a fair process, in which you would oppose all gerrymanders, or you support a fair process only when it benefits Democrats and support gerrymandering only when it benefits Democrats.

Supporting fair maps in GOP states and gerrymanders in Dem states just means that you're being a partisan hack. Any thinking that arrives at a different conclusion is delusional.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Anyone who supports a gerrymander and says "Well if Republicans supported fair maps we wouldn't have to do this" obviously does not care about a fair redistricting process in the first place.

I don't agree with this at all. Democrats do support a fair process, there's just no reason for them to unilaterally disarm.

If you support Democratic gerrymandering, then you do not support a fair process. Either you support a fair process, in which you would oppose all gerrymanders, or you support a fair process only when it benefits Democrats and support gerrymandering only when it benefits Democrats.

Supporting fair maps in GOP states and gerrymanders in Dem states just means that you're being a partisan hack. Any thinking that arrives at a different conclusion is delusional.

I support a national ban on partisan gerrymandering, but until that happens, Democrats should gerrymander the hell out of everywhere they can whenever they can using any and all means at their disposal.  There's nothing inconsistent about opposing unilateral disarmament.

[Schiff for Senate]

Anyone who supports a gerrymander and says "Well if Republicans supported fair maps we wouldn't have to do this" obviously does not care about a fair redistricting process in the first place.

I don't agree with this at all. Democrats do support a fair process, there's just no reason for them to unilaterally disarm.

If you support Democratic gerrymandering, then you do not support a fair process. Either you support a fair process, in which you would oppose all gerrymanders, or you support a fair process only when it benefits Democrats and support gerrymandering only when it benefits Democrats.

Supporting fair maps in GOP states and gerrymanders in Dem states just means that you're being a partisan hack. Any thinking that arrives at a different conclusion is delusional.

I support a national ban on partisan gerrymandering, but until that happens, Democrats should gerrymander the hell out of everywhere they can whenever they can using any and all means at their disposal.  There's nothing inconsistent about opposing unilateral disarmament.

I 100% agree with you on this. It's very sad that in this cycle every Democratic-controlled state passed a gerrymander of some sort and most or all GOP-controlled states did the same. I would much prefer it if independent commissions drew the maps instead. But since the GOP is uninterested in ending gerrymandering on their part, I think Democrats are justified in firing back.

[Vern]

My question is, what is a fair map?

[Brittain33]

My question is, what is a fair map?

That is the question, isn’t it? I think it has to be proportional to statewide results (within reason, this gets hard in unbalanced states), adhere to the VRA, be responsive to swings in the electorate from year to year. and pay some deference to political and demographic lines. Ultimately I would judge a map by whether it enables a responsive and representative democratic government.

[Brittain33]

For the reasons above, this is why I consider Michigan the gold standard, with Arizona a runner-up.

New Jersey is not.

[Torie]

My question is, what is a fair map?

That is the question, isn’t it? I think it has to be proportional to statewide results (within reason, this gets hard in unbalanced states), adhere to the VRA, be responsive to swings in the electorate from year to year. and pay some deference to political and demographic lines. Ultimately I would judge a map by whether it enables a responsive and representative democratic government.

You do realize that nationwide that gives the Dems an advantage right? That is because CA and NY are so heavily skewed to the Dems with IL headed that way, and on a smaller scale MA. In that regard,  Muon2 will tell you that proportionality is not linear, but exponential, so you take the percentage for the majority party over 50% and double it, to get the percentage split.

The "gold standard" state, MI, had to gerrymander n favor of the Dems, particularly for the legislative seats, to get to proportionality. The Grand Rapids seat is also a clear gerrymander in favor of the Dems. Myself, I prefer following neutral metrics, with proportionality only in play where there are two reasonable choices.  It also seems that when one party has the trifecta plus the court, particularly the Dems, the whole system breaks down, even with a commission, so there do need to be very tight rules, and a tie breaker mechanism like VA.

I am not optimistic about the future of redistricting. And with partisans in control in most places, the number of competitive seats is diminished, so both parties nominate and elect people that are more politically extreme than the majority of voters would prefer. The more extreme half of each party rules the roost, so basically the nation can be ruled by the most extreme 25% of the electorate.  The system is broken.

I appreciate your posts by the way, even if I typically disagree with them. 

[Brittain33]

You do realize that nationwide that gives the Dems an advantage right?

I don’t see why that should necessarily be true because of the situation in some of the larger states. There are a number of mid-sized and smaller states where this advantages Republicans, and there are more of them. Beyond that we get the issue that there is a slight Democratic majority in the country so a system favoring proportionality would favor Dems. And also that, given the situation you describe, it may favor Dems but the alternative (legislative rules) would favor Dems even more strongly because of California.

Come to think of it, if California had proportionality as a criteria, its commission would have made different decisions about Devin Nunes's seat and perhaps elsewhere that would have increased R numbers.

Virginia, you may need to split this thread again.

[Torie]

You do realize that nationwide that gives the Dems an advantage right?

I don’t see why that should necessarily be true because of the situation in some of the larger states. There are a number of mid-sized and smaller states where this advantages Republicans, and there are more of them. Beyond that we get the issue that there is a slight Democratic majority in the country so a system favoring proportionality would favor Dems. And also that, given the situation you describe, it may favor Dems but the alternative (legislative rules) would favor Dems even more strongly because of California.

I am just saying what you propose nationwide gives the Dems more than their proportionate share. Other schemes give the Dems more of an excess than yours does.

I have posted this before, but when I write the new US Constitution, we are going to a parliamentary system, probably like the German one, where there are individual seats, but then seats are awarded to achieve proportionality based on the national vote.

In the meantime, I favor the Muon2 rules, where proportionality is a tie breaker between maps that otherwise score pretty equally. The amount of discretion would be minimized, because drawing the lines brings out the worst of the hack in our sadly flawed species.

[lfromnj]

I think Brittain33 is being honest here but national Democrats goals are Pr or efficiency gap in MI and PA and Wi but in states like CA minority seats come foremost. We would never see the south Brooklyn seat because it it probably takes away the north Manhattan seat even though a south Brooklyn seat is both great on COI grounds and great for partisan responsiveness

[Torie]

I think Brittain33 is being honest here but national Democrats goals are Pr or efficiency gap in MI and PA and Wi but in states like CA minority seats come foremost. We would never see the south Brooklyn seat because it it probably takes away the north Manhattan seat even though a south Brooklyn seat is both great on COI grounds and great for partisan responsiveness

Based on a "challenge" by Sol, who opined that it seemed difficult to unite Woke White Park Slope with similar hoods in Manhattan, without messing up minority CD's and so forth, I drew a COI map that I think did the job, which just using neutral redistricting metrics and hewing to COI's, turns out to be pretty much of a Pub wet dream, but hey it gives them a proportionate share using the proper metric (1- ((.6076-.5) x 2) +.5) x 26 = 7.4048 seats).

https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::fe817ecb-ce7f-405e-8a00-6e2fcc802294

How did I do? 

[Oryxslayer]

I think Brittain33 is being honest here but national Democrats goals are Pr or efficiency gap in MI and PA and Wi but in states like CA minority seats come foremost. We would never see the south Brooklyn seat because it it probably takes away the north Manhattan seat even though a south Brooklyn seat is both great on COI grounds and great for partisan responsiveness

Based on a "challenge" by Sol, who opined that it seemed difficult to unite Woke White Park Slope with similar hoods in Manhattan, without messing up minority CD's and so forth, I drew a COI map that I think did the job, which just using neutral redistricting metrics and hewing to COI's, turns out to be pretty much of a Pub wet dream, but hey it gives them a proportionate share using the proper metric (1- ((.6076-.5) x 2) +.5) x 26 = 7.4048 seats).

https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::fe817ecb-ce7f-405e-8a00-6e2fcc802294

How did I do? 

Unrelated and tangential, but I'm surprised nobody has yet said your NY-11 needs to be nuked from orbit

[Torie]

I think Brittain33 is being honest here but national Democrats goals are Pr or efficiency gap in MI and PA and Wi but in states like CA minority seats come foremost. We would never see the south Brooklyn seat because it it probably takes away the north Manhattan seat even though a south Brooklyn seat is both great on COI grounds and great for partisan responsiveness

Based on a "challenge" by Sol, who opined that it seemed difficult to unite Woke White Park Slope with similar hoods in Manhattan, without messing up minority CD's and so forth, I drew a COI map that I think did the job, which just using neutral redistricting metrics and hewing to COI's, turns out to be pretty much of a Pub wet dream, but hey it gives them a proportionate share using the proper metric (1- ((.6076-.5) x 2) +.5) x 26 = 7.4048 seats).

https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::fe817ecb-ce7f-405e-8a00-6e2fcc802294

How did I do? 

Unrelated and tangential, but I'm surprised nobody has yet said your NY-11 needs to be nuked from orbit

COI my dear. That was the only way to pick up some more non-woke white people (Hispanics are an acceptable substitute if not needed for an Hispanic CD, along with Arabs* (lumping them in as Asians with the Chinese is a thought crime). To the south was water, to the west was NJ, to the north was a wall of persons of color and woke whites, so it was go east young man. And it was beautiful, and it was good, and there was great rejoicing.

*Have to keep the Arabs out of the orthodox Jewish CD of course.

[Sol]

I think Brittain33 is being honest here but national Democrats goals are Pr or efficiency gap in MI and PA and Wi but in states like CA minority seats come foremost. We would never see the south Brooklyn seat because it it probably takes away the north Manhattan seat even though a south Brooklyn seat is both great on COI grounds and great for partisan responsiveness

Based on a "challenge" by Sol, who opined that it seemed difficult to unite Woke White Park Slope with similar hoods in Manhattan, without messing up minority CD's and so forth, I drew a COI map that I think did the job, which just using neutral redistricting metrics and hewing to COI's, turns out to be pretty much of a Pub wet dream, but hey it gives them a proportionate share using the proper metric (1- ((.6076-.5) x 2) +.5) x 26 = 7.4048 seats).

https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::fe817ecb-ce7f-405e-8a00-6e2fcc802294

How did I do? 

FWIW, I've come around on a Republican Southern Brooklyn seat.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I think Brittain33 is being honest here but national Democrats goals are Pr or efficiency gap in MI and PA and Wi but in states like CA minority seats come foremost. We would never see the south Brooklyn seat because it it probably takes away the north Manhattan seat even though a south Brooklyn seat is both great on COI grounds and great for partisan responsiveness

Based on a "challenge" by Sol, who opined that it seemed difficult to unite Woke White Park Slope with similar hoods in Manhattan, without messing up minority CD's and so forth, I drew a COI map that I think did the job, which just using neutral redistricting metrics and hewing to COI's, turns out to be pretty much of a Pub wet dream, but hey it gives them a proportionate share using the proper metric (1- ((.6076-.5) x 2) +.5) x 26 = 7.4048 seats).

https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::fe817ecb-ce7f-405e-8a00-6e2fcc802294

How did I do? 

FWIW, I've come around on a Republican Southern Brooklyn seat.

Why?  There’s no good reason to make one.