2020 Census and Redistricting Thread: Florida

[_.]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/de08607c-4346-44af-b0ed-0190a4643aa7
This is an effort at a GOP-mander that doesn't fall afoul of the Fair Districts Amendment.
16 seats that at least lean-likely GOP in a neutral year, and 2 tossups in Miami-Dade.

This is quite a nice map. I like it.

Analyzing this realistically, to me this scenario looks relatively OK for Florida Democrats, compared to many of the other possibilities. Overall I find it unlikely though that this will occur. In fact, I'd think that Miami retaining a sixth Democratic sink is more likely than a Jacksonville Democratic seat or a Pinellas tossup seat (both of which I consider realistic possibilities).

Also, I must give props for your VRA Hispanic seat in Orlando

[Torie]

Here is the actual law that I thought I would put up that constrains a Pubmander.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Here is the actual law that I thought I would put up that constrains a Pubmander.

The issue is that these types of laws are pretty vague. What is “compact” at what point does a given map “favor” one political party over another. The GOP controlled state SC prolly has a pretty loose interpretation of this law and therefore it’s more idealistic. Now if there was a specific thing that said the district borders must be at most % of the area or only X counties can be split, then we’d been having a different discussion. But things that say general “muh compact” “muh fair” won’t prevent anything

[Torie]

Here is the actual law that I thought I would put up that constrains a Pubmander.

The issue is that these types of laws are pretty vague. What is “compact” at what point does a given map “favor” one political party over another. The GOP controlled state SC prolly has a pretty loose interpretation of this law and therefore it’s more idealistic. Now if there was a specific thing that said the district borders must be at most % of the area or only X counties can be split, then we’d been having a different discussion. But things that say general “muh compact” “muh fair” won’t prevent anything

As I have said many times before, I have more faith in the courts than that, even partisan courts. I think that for an obviously partisan reason, a map makes additional county chops, or significant city chops, or makes a map significantly more erose, is very vulnerable to being struck down under the Florida law. For example, if FL-14 is going to cross the bay , it had better take in the entirety of St. Petersburg, and eliminate a county chop elsewhere or greatly mitigate it, or make some CD materially more compact. A line change that benefits the Pubs, while also adding some other negative factor as described above, has no talking points to go to the court with. The Pub case in such event has no clothes, and the court is quite unlikely to ignore that fact the way the emperor's subjects did when the he was in his birthday suit. I am not changing my mind of this one. Color me obtuse or stubborn if you must. I won't mind too much.


That said, I Pubbed up Tim's TX-13 by a grand total of 30 basis points. My talking point? Keep the cities united! I lost a muni chop, and even though the erosity is a tad greater, that is a damn good talking point - in fact it should be a winner! Aren't I wonderful?  

A masochist can go through Tim's map with a fine tooth comb, and try to find other ways to Pub it up, that have similar talking points available. But it won't be FL-13. I tried and it was a fail. No talking points to do something more major were there to be had, unless of course I just lack the perspicacity to discern it, but I don't think so in this case. If I had found an avenue, I would have shared it. Of course!

[Mr.Phips]

Here is the actual law that I thought I would put up that constrains a Pubmander.

The issue is that these types of laws are pretty vague. What is “compact” at what point does a given map “favor” one political party over another. The GOP controlled state SC prolly has a pretty loose interpretation of this law and therefore it’s more idealistic. Now if there was a specific thing that said the district borders must be at most % of the area or only X counties can be split, then we’d been having a different discussion. But things that say general “muh compact” “muh fair” won’t prevent anything

As I have said many times before, I have more faith in the courts than that, even partisan courts. I think that for an obviously partisan reason, a map makes additional county chops, or significant city chops, or makes a map significantly more erose, is very vulnerable to being struck down under the Florida law. For example, if FL-14 is going to cross the bay , it had better take in the entirety of St. Petersburg, and eliminate a county chop elsewhere or greatly mitigate it, or make some CD materially more compact. A line change that benefits the Pubs, while also adding some other negative factor as described above, has no talking points to go to the court with. The Pub case in such event has no clothes, and the court is quite unlikely to ignore that fact the way the emperor's subjects did when the he was in his birthday suit. I am not changing my mind of this one. Color me obtuse or stubborn if you must. I won't mind too much.


That said, I Pubbed up Tim's TX-13 by a grand total of 30 basis points. My talking point? Keep the cities united! I lost a muni chop, and even though the erosity is a tad greater, that is a damn good talking point - in fact it should be a winner! Aren't I wonderful?  

A masochist can go through Tim's map with a fine tooth comb, and try to find other ways to Pub it up, that have similar talking points available. But it won't be FL-13. I tried and it was a fail. No talking points to do something more major were there to be had, unless of course I just lack the perspicacity to discern it, but I don't think so in this case. If I had found an avenue, I would have shared it. Of course!

You think redrawing FL-07 to just connect Seminole to a chunk of Volusia (rather than Orange) would be vulnerable to litigation?

[ProgressiveModerate]

Here is the actual law that I thought I would put up that constrains a Pubmander.

The issue is that these types of laws are pretty vague. What is “compact” at what point does a given map “favor” one political party over another. The GOP controlled state SC prolly has a pretty loose interpretation of this law and therefore it’s more idealistic. Now if there was a specific thing that said the district borders must be at most % of the area or only X counties can be split, then we’d been having a different discussion. But things that say general “muh compact” “muh fair” won’t prevent anything

As I have said many times before, I have more faith in the courts than that, even partisan courts. I think that for an obviously partisan reason, a map makes additional county chops, or significant city chops, or makes a map significantly more erose, is very vulnerable to being struck down under the Florida law. For example, if FL-14 is going to cross the bay , it had better take in the entirety of St. Petersburg, and eliminate a county chop elsewhere or greatly mitigate it, or make some CD materially more compact. A line change that benefits the Pubs, while also adding some other negative factor as described above, has no talking points to go to the court with. The Pub case in such event has no clothes, and the court is quite unlikely to ignore that fact the way the emperor's subjects did when the he was in his birthday suit. I am not changing my mind of this one. Color me obtuse or stubborn if you must. I won't mind too much.


That said, I Pubbed up Tim's TX-13 by a grand total of 30 basis points. My talking point? Keep the cities united! I lost a muni chop, and even though the erosity is a tad greater, that is a damn good talking point - in fact it should be a winner! Aren't I wonderful?  

A masochist can go through Tim's map with a fine tooth comb, and try to find other ways to Pub it up, that have similar talking points available. But it won't be FL-13. I tried and it was a fail. No talking points to do something more major were there to be had, unless of course I just lack the perspicacity to discern it, but I don't think so in this case. If I had found an avenue, I would have shared it. Of course!

Fair enough. With FL-13, what I do is make one entirely Pinellas based CD, and the leftovers “just happen” to be FL-14. I really do hope you’re right that the courts will enforce the law, to help mitigate the gerrymander a bit.

[Nyvin]

Fair enough. With FL-13, what I do is make one entirely Pinellas based CD, and the leftovers “just happen” to be FL-14. I really do hope you’re right that the courts will enforce the law, to help mitigate the gerrymander a bit.

That requires splitting St Pete though,  Pinellas is about ~70k short of it's own district without St Pete. 

[Torie]

Here is the actual law that I thought I would put up that constrains a Pubmander.

The issue is that these types of laws are pretty vague. What is “compact” at what point does a given map “favor” one political party over another. The GOP controlled state SC prolly has a pretty loose interpretation of this law and therefore it’s more idealistic. Now if there was a specific thing that said the district borders must be at most % of the area or only X counties can be split, then we’d been having a different discussion. But things that say general “muh compact” “muh fair” won’t prevent anything

As I have said many times before, I have more faith in the courts than that, even partisan courts. I think that for an obviously partisan reason, a map makes additional county chops, or significant city chops, or makes a map significantly more erose, is very vulnerable to being struck down under the Florida law. For example, if FL-14 is going to cross the bay , it had better take in the entirety of St. Petersburg, and eliminate a county chop elsewhere or greatly mitigate it, or make some CD materially more compact. A line change that benefits the Pubs, while also adding some other negative factor as described above, has no talking points to go to the court with. The Pub case in such event has no clothes, and the court is quite unlikely to ignore that fact the way the emperor's subjects did when the he was in his birthday suit. I am not changing my mind of this one. Color me obtuse or stubborn if you must. I won't mind too much.


That said, I Pubbed up Tim's TX-13 by a grand total of 30 basis points. My talking point? Keep the cities united! I lost a muni chop, and even though the erosity is a tad greater, that is a damn good talking point - in fact it should be a winner! Aren't I wonderful?  

A masochist can go through Tim's map with a fine tooth comb, and try to find other ways to Pub it up, that have similar talking points available. But it won't be FL-13. I tried and it was a fail. No talking points to do something more major were there to be had, unless of course I just lack the perspicacity to discern it, but I don't think so in this case. If I had found an avenue, I would have shared it. Of course!

You think redrawing FL-07 to just connect Seminole to a chunk of Volusia (rather than Orange) would be vulnerable to litigation?

I would have to examine the map with some care to opine. But I explained the metrics. The trick is to find more than one reasonable option giving respect to the metrics, and then pick the most Pub friendly one. I did that in NYS in reverse, for the Dems, who control the pencil there.

[Torie]

Here is the actual law that I thought I would put up that constrains a Pubmander.

The issue is that these types of laws are pretty vague. What is “compact” at what point does a given map “favor” one political party over another. The GOP controlled state SC prolly has a pretty loose interpretation of this law and therefore it’s more idealistic. Now if there was a specific thing that said the district borders must be at most % of the area or only X counties can be split, then we’d been having a different discussion. But things that say general “muh compact” “muh fair” won’t prevent anything

As I have said many times before, I have more faith in the courts than that, even partisan courts. I think that for an obviously partisan reason, a map makes additional county chops, or significant city chops, or makes a map significantly more erose, is very vulnerable to being struck down under the Florida law. For example, if FL-14 is going to cross the bay , it had better take in the entirety of St. Petersburg, and eliminate a county chop elsewhere or greatly mitigate it, or make some CD materially more compact. A line change that benefits the Pubs, while also adding some other negative factor as described above, has no talking points to go to the court with. The Pub case in such event has no clothes, and the court is quite unlikely to ignore that fact the way the emperor's subjects did when the he was in his birthday suit. I am not changing my mind of this one. Color me obtuse or stubborn if you must. I won't mind too much.


That said, I Pubbed up Tim's TX-13 by a grand total of 30 basis points. My talking point? Keep the cities united! I lost a muni chop, and even though the erosity is a tad greater, that is a damn good talking point - in fact it should be a winner! Aren't I wonderful?  

A masochist can go through Tim's map with a fine tooth comb, and try to find other ways to Pub it up, that have similar talking points available. But it won't be FL-13. I tried and it was a fail. No talking points to do something more major were there to be had, unless of course I just lack the perspicacity to discern it, but I don't think so in this case. If I had found an avenue, I would have shared it. Of course!

Fair enough. With FL-13, what I do is make one entirely Pinellas based CD, and the leftovers “just happen” to be FL-14. I really do hope you’re right that the courts will enforce the law, to help mitigate the gerrymander a bit.

The problem with that is that you generate an extra, and major, muni chop, without any offsetting benefit. St. Pete just has too many residents,  a most unfortunate inconvenience for the Pubs. Even if its population fit the Pub agenda as you described it, just what is the benefit of crossing the bay other than partisan reasons? Is there some other benefit elsewhere as a plus to justify it?

[ProgressiveModerate]

Here is the actual law that I thought I would put up that constrains a Pubmander.

The issue is that these types of laws are pretty vague. What is “compact” at what point does a given map “favor” one political party over another. The GOP controlled state SC prolly has a pretty loose interpretation of this law and therefore it’s more idealistic. Now if there was a specific thing that said the district borders must be at most % of the area or only X counties can be split, then we’d been having a different discussion. But things that say general “muh compact” “muh fair” won’t prevent anything

As I have said many times before, I have more faith in the courts than that, even partisan courts. I think that for an obviously partisan reason, a map makes additional county chops, or significant city chops, or makes a map significantly more erose, is very vulnerable to being struck down under the Florida law. For example, if FL-14 is going to cross the bay , it had better take in the entirety of St. Petersburg, and eliminate a county chop elsewhere or greatly mitigate it, or make some CD materially more compact. A line change that benefits the Pubs, while also adding some other negative factor as described above, has no talking points to go to the court with. The Pub case in such event has no clothes, and the court is quite unlikely to ignore that fact the way the emperor's subjects did when the he was in his birthday suit. I am not changing my mind of this one. Color me obtuse or stubborn if you must. I won't mind too much.


That said, I Pubbed up Tim's TX-13 by a grand total of 30 basis points. My talking point? Keep the cities united! I lost a muni chop, and even though the erosity is a tad greater, that is a damn good talking point - in fact it should be a winner! Aren't I wonderful?  

A masochist can go through Tim's map with a fine tooth comb, and try to find other ways to Pub it up, that have similar talking points available. But it won't be FL-13. I tried and it was a fail. No talking points to do something more major were there to be had, unless of course I just lack the perspicacity to discern it, but I don't think so in this case. If I had found an avenue, I would have shared it. Of course!

Fair enough. With FL-13, what I do is make one entirely Pinellas based CD, and the leftovers “just happen” to be FL-14. I really do hope you’re right that the courts will enforce the law, to help mitigate the gerrymander a bit.

The problem with that is that you generate an extra, and major, muni chop, without any offsetting benefit. St. Pete just has too many residents,  a most unfortunate inconvenience for the Pubs. Even if its population fit the Pub agenda as you described it, just what is the benefit of crossing the bay other than partisan reasons? Is there some other benefit elsewhere as a plus to justify it?

Only idea I can come up with is to keep Pinellas to 1 county chop, and have one reasonably high minority majority seat with a mild black influence, but that’s about it

[Torie]

Here is the actual law that I thought I would put up that constrains a Pubmander.

The issue is that these types of laws are pretty vague. What is “compact” at what point does a given map “favor” one political party over another. The GOP controlled state SC prolly has a pretty loose interpretation of this law and therefore it’s more idealistic. Now if there was a specific thing that said the district borders must be at most % of the area or only X counties can be split, then we’d been having a different discussion. But things that say general “muh compact” “muh fair” won’t prevent anything

As I have said many times before, I have more faith in the courts than that, even partisan courts. I think that for an obviously partisan reason, a map makes additional county chops, or significant city chops, or makes a map significantly more erose, is very vulnerable to being struck down under the Florida law. For example, if FL-14 is going to cross the bay , it had better take in the entirety of St. Petersburg, and eliminate a county chop elsewhere or greatly mitigate it, or make some CD materially more compact. A line change that benefits the Pubs, while also adding some other negative factor as described above, has no talking points to go to the court with. The Pub case in such event has no clothes, and the court is quite unlikely to ignore that fact the way the emperor's subjects did when the he was in his birthday suit. I am not changing my mind of this one. Color me obtuse or stubborn if you must. I won't mind too much.


That said, I Pubbed up Tim's TX-13 by a grand total of 30 basis points. My talking point? Keep the cities united! I lost a muni chop, and even though the erosity is a tad greater, that is a damn good talking point - in fact it should be a winner! Aren't I wonderful?  

A masochist can go through Tim's map with a fine tooth comb, and try to find other ways to Pub it up, that have similar talking points available. But it won't be FL-13. I tried and it was a fail. No talking points to do something more major were there to be had, unless of course I just lack the perspicacity to discern it, but I don't think so in this case. If I had found an avenue, I would have shared it. Of course!

Fair enough. With FL-13, what I do is make one entirely Pinellas based CD, and the leftovers “just happen” to be FL-14. I really do hope you’re right that the courts will enforce the law, to help mitigate the gerrymander a bit.

The problem with that is that you generate an extra, and major, muni chop, without any offsetting benefit. St. Pete just has too many residents,  a most unfortunate inconvenience for the Pubs. Even if its population fit the Pub agenda as you described it, just what is the benefit of crossing the bay other than partisan reasons? Is there some other benefit elsewhere as a plus to justify it?

Only idea I can come up with is to keep Pinellas to 1 county chop, and have one reasonably high minority majority seat with a mild black influence, but that’s about it

Yes that is the best argument, well done. But I don't think that will fly, unless the FLST channels its more hackish impulses.

[Donerail]

Reminder that Rep. Gus Bilirakis lives in Palm Harbor, and is a member of a minority ethnic group based in north Pinellas so would be very displeased were he to be drawn out. Have to maintain that north county split, as a practical matter if not a legal one.

[Torie]

I took Tim’s outstanding legal Pubmander and did a Beautify, Equify, Unify to it (BEU), and amazingly it also just happened to Pubify the map a bit. Imagine that? A BEUP! That donut hole in Duval in particular just HAD to go! And Unify those cities! Yes! Nothing here that breaks the sound barrier of course. Tim did his homework.

That said, instead of projecting the Dems get 10 seats in 2022, I am moving them down to 9 as a projection for the moment. It could go as low as 8.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/086607bd-651e-4fdf-9783-eca50d016e59

[_.]

I redid my hardline Republican gerrymander of Florida using the 2020 census results.
This is (and I'm very confident in this) 100% as far as Republicans can go.

Image Link

The Population Deviation is 0.01%, and it reflects the 2020 Census.

21/100 on Dave's Proportionality Index
59/100 on the Compactness Index
24/100 on County Splitting
78/100 on the Minority Representation index
22/100 on Dave's competitiveness index

The map above shows results from the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election.

Check it out here and see county and municipality boundaries.


Partisan Breakdown by Election

2016 U.S. Senate Election in Florida: 20R to 8D

2016 U.S. Presidential Election in Florida: 18R to 10D

2018 Florida Attorney General Election: 20R to 8D

2018 U.S. Senate Election in Florida: 19R to 9D

2018 Florida Gubernatorial Election: 19R to 9D

2020 U.S. Presidential Election in Florida: 20R to 8D


This map makes use of two Hispanic 80%+ majority districts in South Florida and one Hispanic majority district in the Orlando area. That serves the major risk to this map (along with Pinellas and Jacksonville) as being pretty blatant Hispanic packing, not because of the high percentages of Latinos, but because there are only 2 Latino majority districts in the Miami area configured in such a way that the third Latino majority district (something very, very easy to draw) does not exist.

It also has two Black majority districts in Southeast Florida by population (50.4% and 50.0%). They are the North Dade-South Broward District and the North Broward-Palm Beach District). They are only plurality Black by Voting-Age population, though.

There's actually a ton more I can say about this map, but I'm too lazy to write it down.

One thing though I will say is that I'll be so shocked if Seminole County isn't split with the Western part of Seminole being combined with The Villages.

I just had a moment of epiphany when I stumbled upon that, it felt like a stroke of genius. No doubt the Republicans will find a way to realize it too. It just makes the Orlando area completely invulnerable to ever get a third Democratic district. Even if Western Seminole diversifies and blues, then Sumter County and the Villages are growing just as fast and are a very high-turnout group! If that fails, Florida probably fell blue a long time before that though.

Also, this map just shows the difficulty it takes to make a 20R - 8D map without probably violating some VRA rule with lack of Hispanic-majority districts. I see 19R - 9D, 18R - 10D as far more likely and think even 17R - 11D is back on the table.

The sixth Southeast Florida D district will probably be granted, the Pinellas District has a good chance of staying, and the Jacksonville district, while unlikely, remains a realistic possibility.


Opinions?

[David Hume]

I redid my hardline Republican gerrymander of Florida using the 2020 census results.
This is (and I'm very confident in this) 100% as far as Republicans can go.

Image Link

The Population Deviation is 0.01%, and it reflects the 2020 Census.

21/100 on Dave's Proportionality Index
59/100 on the Compactness Index
24/100 on County Splitting
78/100 on the Minority Representation index
22/100 on Dave's competitiveness index

The map above shows results from the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election.

Check it out here and see county and municipality boundaries.


Partisan Breakdown by Election

2016 U.S. Senate Election in Florida: 20R to 8D

2016 U.S. Presidential Election in Florida: 18R to 10D

2018 Florida Attorney General Election: 20R to 8D

2018 U.S. Senate Election in Florida: 19R to 9D

2018 Florida Gubernatorial Election: 19R to 9D

2020 U.S. Presidential Election in Florida: 20R to 8D


This map makes use of two Hispanic 80%+ majority districts in South Florida and one Hispanic majority district in the Orlando area. That serves the major risk to this map (along with Pinellas and Jacksonville) as being pretty blatant Hispanic packing, not because of the high percentages of Latinos, but because there are only 2 Latino majority districts in the Miami area configured in such a way that the third Latino majority district (something very, very easy to draw) does not exist.

It also has two Black majority districts in Southeast Florida by population (50.4% and 50.0%). They are the North Dade-South Broward District and the North Broward-Palm Beach District). They are only plurality Black by Voting-Age population, though.

There's actually a ton more I can say about this map, but I'm too lazy to write it down.

One thing though I will say is that I'll be so shocked if Seminole County isn't split with the Western part of Seminole being combined with The Villages.

I just had a moment of epiphany when I stumbled upon that, it felt like a stroke of genius. No doubt the Republicans will find a way to realize it too. It just makes the Orlando area completely invulnerable to ever get a third Democratic district. Even if Western Seminole diversifies and blues, then Sumter County and the Villages are growing just as fast and are a very high-turnout group! If that fails, Florida probably fell blue a long time before that though.

Also, this map just shows the difficulty it takes to make a 20R - 8D map without probably violating some VRA rule with lack of Hispanic-majority districts. I see 19R - 9D, 18R - 10D as far more likely and think even 17R - 11D is back on the table.

The sixth Southeast Florida D district will probably be granted, the Pinellas District has a good chance of staying, and the Jacksonville district, while unlikely, remains a realistic possibility.


Opinions?

Great job!

This map will be sued for violating of VRA for sure. Not sure if FLGOP want to risk it. One good thing for them is 11th circuit is pretty partisan. I don't think SC will grant cert, since Roberts wants to avoid controversy, and he hates VRA since the beginning of his career. This means the case my end up decided at 11th circuit en banc, with a likely vote on party line .

[Torie]

I redid my hardline Republican gerrymander of Florida using the 2020 census results.
This is (and I'm very confident in this) 100% as far as Republicans can go.

Image Link

The Population Deviation is 0.01%, and it reflects the 2020 Census.

21/100 on Dave's Proportionality Index
59/100 on the Compactness Index
24/100 on County Splitting
78/100 on the Minority Representation index
22/100 on Dave's competitiveness index

The map above shows results from the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election.

Check it out here and see county and municipality boundaries.


Partisan Breakdown by Election

2016 U.S. Senate Election in Florida: 20R to 8D

2016 U.S. Presidential Election in Florida: 18R to 10D

2018 Florida Attorney General Election: 20R to 8D

2018 U.S. Senate Election in Florida: 19R to 9D

2018 Florida Gubernatorial Election: 19R to 9D

2020 U.S. Presidential Election in Florida: 20R to 8D


This map makes use of two Hispanic 80%+ majority districts in South Florida and one Hispanic majority district in the Orlando area. That serves the major risk to this map (along with Pinellas and Jacksonville) as being pretty blatant Hispanic packing, not because of the high percentages of Latinos, but because there are only 2 Latino majority districts in the Miami area configured in such a way that the third Latino majority district (something very, very easy to draw) does not exist.

It also has two Black majority districts in Southeast Florida by population (50.4% and 50.0%). They are the North Dade-South Broward District and the North Broward-Palm Beach District). They are only plurality Black by Voting-Age population, though.

There's actually a ton more I can say about this map, but I'm too lazy to write it down.

One thing though I will say is that I'll be so shocked if Seminole County isn't split with the Western part of Seminole being combined with The Villages.

I just had a moment of epiphany when I stumbled upon that, it felt like a stroke of genius. No doubt the Republicans will find a way to realize it too. It just makes the Orlando area completely invulnerable to ever get a third Democratic district. Even if Western Seminole diversifies and blues, then Sumter County and the Villages are growing just as fast and are a very high-turnout group! If that fails, Florida probably fell blue a long time before that though.

Also, this map just shows the difficulty it takes to make a 20R - 8D map without probably violating some VRA rule with lack of Hispanic-majority districts. I see 19R - 9D, 18R - 10D as far more likely and think even 17R - 11D is back on the table.

The sixth Southeast Florida D district will probably be granted, the Pinellas District has a good chance of staying, and the Jacksonville district, while unlikely, remains a realistic possibility.


Opinions?

Wow! No [An] intent to favor one party or blow off county and muni lines in contravention of the law in evidence anywhere.

The portion of the map that wins the silver is screenshot below. What wins the gold? Bisecting the black neighborhoods of Jacksonville into two districts, almost down the middle of course. Yes!  



Absent the inconvenience of Florida law, excellent job of course. If you turn off the county lines, the map actually looks pretty almost, particularly given that the DRA color graphics cover lots of ocean water, thereby fattening up the prong images, as in that tan blob in the image above.

[Donerail]

As I have said many times before, I have more faith in the courts than that, even partisan courts. I think that for an obviously partisan reason, a map makes additional county chops, or significant city chops, or makes a map significantly more erose, is very vulnerable to being struck down under the Florida law. For example, if FL-14 is going to cross the bay , it had better take in the entirety of St. Petersburg, and eliminate a county chop elsewhere or greatly mitigate it, or make some CD materially more compact. A line change that benefits the Pubs, while also adding some other negative factor as described above, has no talking points to go to the court with. The Pub case in such event has no clothes, and the court is quite unlikely to ignore that fact the way the emperor's subjects did when the he was in his birthday suit. I am not changing my mind of this one. Color me obtuse or stubborn if you must. I won't mind too much.

I believe your talking point will not be county chops or material compactness but physical connection. The old FL-14 relied solely on water connections to take in south St. Pete; it should be possible (though maybe more trouble than it's worth, haven't run the numbers) to draw a FL-14 that includes the Gandy and Howard Frankland bridges between Tampa and St. Pete.

Is that a bullsh**t distinction? Sure, but it's exactly the type of fine-grained distinction that I could imagine this court (which, remember, has been remade almost entirely by DeSantis and Scott) buying. HD-70, also a Pinellas seat, relies on the same logic to go down to Sarasota and has not been successfully challenged.

[Torie]

As I have said many times before, I have more faith in the courts than that, even partisan courts. I think that for an obviously partisan reason, a map makes additional county chops, or significant city chops, or makes a map significantly more erose, is very vulnerable to being struck down under the Florida law. For example, if FL-14 is going to cross the bay , it had better take in the entirety of St. Petersburg, and eliminate a county chop elsewhere or greatly mitigate it, or make some CD materially more compact. A line change that benefits the Pubs, while also adding some other negative factor as described above, has no talking points to go to the court with. The Pub case in such event has no clothes, and the court is quite unlikely to ignore that fact the way the emperor's subjects did when the he was in his birthday suit. I am not changing my mind of this one. Color me obtuse or stubborn if you must. I won't mind too much.

I believe your talking point will not be county chops or material compactness but physical connection. The old FL-14 relied solely on water connections to take in south St. Pete; it should be possible (though maybe more trouble than it's worth, haven't run the numbers) to draw a FL-14 that includes the Gandy and Howard Frankland bridges between Tampa and St. Pete.

Is that a bullsh**t distinction? Sure, but it's exactly the type of fine-grained distinction that I could imagine this court (which, remember, has been remade almost entirely by DeSantis and Scott) buying. HD-70, also a Pinellas seat, relies on the same logic to go down to Sarasota and has not been successfully challenged.

When you say "not successfully challenged," was the Florida law that bans favoring one party and respecting jurisdictional lines on the books at the time? The point is not so much bridges, but more having a rationale other than just a partisan one, for the way the lines are drawn.

If the Pubs do a St. Pete chop, the odds are 100% that it will end up in Court, and if the FLST upholds it, then yes, that would be a disgrace, and the Court Pub members exposed as utter  hacks with no redeeming virtue whatsoever.

[Donerail]

As I have said many times before, I have more faith in the courts than that, even partisan courts. I think that for an obviously partisan reason, a map makes additional county chops, or significant city chops, or makes a map significantly more erose, is very vulnerable to being struck down under the Florida law. For example, if FL-14 is going to cross the bay , it had better take in the entirety of St. Petersburg, and eliminate a county chop elsewhere or greatly mitigate it, or make some CD materially more compact. A line change that benefits the Pubs, while also adding some other negative factor as described above, has no talking points to go to the court with. The Pub case in such event has no clothes, and the court is quite unlikely to ignore that fact the way the emperor's subjects did when the he was in his birthday suit. I am not changing my mind of this one. Color me obtuse or stubborn if you must. I won't mind too much.

I believe your talking point will not be county chops or material compactness but physical connection. The old FL-14 relied solely on water connections to take in south St. Pete; it should be possible (though maybe more trouble than it's worth, haven't run the numbers) to draw a FL-14 that includes the Gandy and Howard Frankland bridges between Tampa and St. Pete.

Is that a bullsh**t distinction? Sure, but it's exactly the type of fine-grained distinction that I could imagine this court (which, remember, has been remade almost entirely by DeSantis and Scott) buying. HD-70, also a Pinellas seat, relies on the same logic to go down to Sarasota and has not been successfully challenged.

When you say "not successfully challenged," was the Florida law that bans favoring one party and respecting jurisdictional lines on the books at the time? The point is not so much bridges, but more having a rationale other than just a partisan one, for the way the lines are drawn.

If the Pubs do a St. Pete chop, the odds are 100% that it will end up in Court, and if the FLST upholds it, then yes, that would be a disgrace, and the Court Pub members exposed as utter  hacks with no redeeming virtue whatsoever.

Yes, Florida's "Fair Districts" Amendments (Amendments 5 & 6) were adopted in 2010, and the Court relied on it to strike down some of the Senate districts in that cycle. The Court rejected the FDP's challenge to District 70 (which, to be fair, is able to fulfill some VRA requirements by using the Skyway), and, while they found illegal partisan bias in some state senate districts, their ruling didn't extend to District 22, which included parts of St. Pete and south Tampa (via the Gandy and the Howard Frankland).

[Devils30]

Do wwe think 19-9 or 20-8 is most likely? I would probably draw a 19-9 if I was Rs, shore up FL 26, 27 and make the new 18th red while eliminating Crist and one of Demings/Murphy. Maybe make 5 a Duval only Democratic pack.

[Mr.Phips]

Do wwe think 19-9 or 20-8 is most likely? I would probably draw a 19-9 if I was Rs, shore up FL 26, 27 and make the new 18th red while eliminating Crist and one of Demings/Murphy. Maybe make 5 a Duval only Democratic pack.

I’d think 19-9.  Getting rid of FL-05 is probably a bridge too far even for the DeSantis court. 

[Devils30]

Do wwe think 19-9 or 20-8 is most likely? I would probably draw a 19-9 if I was Rs, shore up FL 26, 27 and make the new 18th red while eliminating Crist and one of Demings/Murphy. Maybe make 5 a Duval only Democratic pack.

I’d think 19-9.  Getting rid of FL-05 is probably a bridge too far even for the DeSantis court. 

The Duval Dem sink really makes sense on all ends. Gives a clean map while taking away adverse trends for GOP in the area.

[Thunder98 🇮🇱 🤝 🇵🇸]

Here's my 20-8 R FL map. FL-28 and FL-27 are won by Trump by 1% and 2% respectively. The Tampa and FL Metro districts are not as clean as Abdullah's map, but it gets the job done for the GOP if they pursue a map like this in someway.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/19b9da27-58b4-405a-950f-0294ba7659fd

[_.]

I think having a sixth Southeast Florida D district is much more likely than a Duval County district or Pinellas County district (both of which remain very possible).

If you have only five Metro Miami D districts, this results in some pretty insane fajitas, Hispanic packing (meaning that you can only have two Hispanic-majority seats, which are both some 80% - 90% Latino, and if you want to avoid that, you'll have to split Collier County), so that makes it much easier to litigate than many other R gerrymanders. If you want to avoid the litigation, then the districts much get far, far closer for Republicans, essentially becoming unpredictable tossups.
Even the smallest snapback among West Dade Cubans and Venezuelans in 2022 or 2024 would result in a bloodbath for the GOP congressionally if that were to occur.

None of this will matter, though, if the Florida Democrats field somebody like Shalala, who could lose even in a Democratic district

[Devils30]

Here's my 20-8 R FL map. FL-28 and FL-27 are won by Trump by 1% and 2% respectively. The Tampa and FL Metro districts are not as clean as Abdullah's map, but it gets the job done for the GOP if they pursue a map like this in someway.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/19b9da27-58b4-405a-950f-0294ba7659fd

That clearly violates the law, the language of the amendment states pretty clearly that they have to keep towns, counties intact.