Gingles gets a road test in Illinois

[Torie]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-illinois-legislative-redistricting-challenges-20211209-osoz3fthqjh67ovhn5vi3nymaa-story.html

This lawsuit involves state legislative lines. It seems that a number of presumably compact majority Hispanic districts were not drawn in Chicagoland  that could have been, and a black district was not drawn down in east St. Louis. That has caused everybody to sue everybody else. The Hispanics (MALDEF) think they got the short end of the stick to prop up black incumbents (maybe white Dem ones too, I don't know), the blacks downstate allege they lost the game of musical chairs in order to properly care and feed a bunch of white Dems that were otherwise under stress, and the Pubs agree with both the upstate Hispanics and the downstate blacks, although the defendant map drawers assert the Pubs don't really give a damn about either, but do care about the dominoes that will fall with the creation of more Hispanic seats, because that would bleach out and make more Pub some seats that would become within their reach here and there in the hinterlands of Chicagoland. Ditto about integrating more the delegation downstate. Or something like that. I don't think the words "bleach out" were used. 

The Dem map drawers defense? Racial block voting is just so yesterday in Illinois, Hispanics are perfectly happy with and vote for black representatives, and thus it's time to put the VRA on ignore in the state. Gingles is just not triggered. Not sure how plausible that is down in the East St. Louis area in particular, but whatever.

Anyway, the Federal Court of Appeals after the hearing said that they had a migraine, and took it all under submission, but in the meantime that they would be pleased to get more briefs, a lot more briefs. So it may take a few more weeks. And then maybe it will go in banc (the whole gang does it all over again, not just a troika thereof), and then who knows, maybe it will go to SCOTUS, if the high court feels the need to flesh out what racial block voting means statistically as a Gingles trigger. Or maybe SCOTUS might want to revamp Gingles, or kill it off. So many possibilities, and so little time - in this case, literally.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

America's national pasttime is getting a lawyer to file a lawsuit. So this isn't surprising.

[muon2]

The Dems history is quite good at maintaining minority voting results even when their numbers were cut. They were successful with more modest dilutions 10 years ago. However, most of that was due to the iron hand of former Speaker and state party chair Madigan. He was a master at making sure his candidate won, and that included candidates that were designed to satisfy various minority voting blocs. He's gone now, and No one knows if anyone can duplicate his success at managing power, and most close observers would say not. The first test, for his replacement at the head of the party, was a total mess.

[jimrtex]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-illinois-legislative-redistricting-challenges-20211209-osoz3fthqjh67ovhn5vi3nymaa-story.html

This lawsuit involves state legislative lines. It seems that a number of presumably compact majority Hispanic districts were not drawn in Chicagoland  that could have been, and a black district was not drawn down in east St. Louis. That has caused everybody to sue everybody else. The Hispanics (MALDEF) think they got the short end of the stick to prop up black incumbents (maybe white Dem ones too, I don't know), the blacks downstate allege they lost the game of musical chairs in order to properly care and feed a bunch of white Dems that were otherwise under stress, and the Pubs agree with both the upstate Hispanics and the downstate blacks, although the defendant map drawers assert the Pubs don't really give a damn about either, but do care about the dominoes that will fall with the creation of more Hispanic seats, because that would bleach out and make more Pub some seats that would become within their reach here and there in the hinterlands of Chicagoland. Ditto about integrating more the delegation downstate. Or something like that. I don't think the words "bleach out" were used. 

The Dem map drawers defense? Racial block voting is just so yesterday in Illinois, Hispanics are perfectly happy with and vote for black representatives, and thus it's time to put the VRA on ignore in the state. Gingles is just not triggered. Not sure how plausible that is down in the East St. Louis area in particular, but whatever.

Anyway, the Federal Court of Appeals after the hearing said that they had a migraine, and took it all under submission, but in the meantime that they would be pleased to get more briefs, a lot more briefs. So it may take a few more weeks. And then maybe it will go in banc (the whole gang does it all over again, not just a troika thereof), and then who knows, maybe it will go to SCOTUS, if the high court feels the need to flesh out what racial block voting means statistically as a Gingles trigger. Or maybe SCOTUS might want to revamp Gingles, or kill it off. So many possibilities, and so little time - in this case, literally.

Federal law requires legislative redistricting cases based on constitutional claims be heard by a 3-judge panel. The case is randomly assigned to a district court judge, who then typically requests that the Chief Judge of the Appeals Court assign a three-judge panel to the case. There is some discretion to discourage frivolous cases being assigned a three judge panel, but the SCOTUS has sometimes overturned those decisions.

The panel in this case is formed by Robert Dow, Jr. district judge in Illinois, Northern District; another district judge in the circuit, Jon De Guilio, chief federal district judge Indiana, Northern District; and Michael Brennan, appellate judge from the 7th Circuit, who formerly originally served as state judge in Wisconsin.

I think the theory is to avoid home cooking in redistricting cases. I'm not sure whether it is an accident that the panel is likely to be more favorable to Republicans or not. Diane Sykes who is chief judge of the 7th Circuit (since 2020) has a conservative reputation and was considered for replacing Sandra Day O'Connor. Brennan is a Trump appointee who Tammy Baldwin tried to block, and Ron Johnson praised and was confirmed on a 49:47 vote.

You read "three judge panel" and interpreted this to mean "appeals court", but it is not. Any appeal would be to the SCOTUS, who must take the case, they don't have discretion over cert.

In Texas, the case filed by Holder/Elias tried to argue they were making a statutory argument rather than a constitutional argument and shouldn't have a 3-judge panel and shouldn't be consolidated. I don't understand how a case based on the VRA can be considered not to be based on the 14th and 15th Amendments. Anyhow the argument was rejected and the case has been consolidated.

There may be forum shopping. In Texas, redistricting cases have been heard in Eastern, Southern, and Western districts.

In Illinois, you could clearly sue in Springfield (central district of Illinois). The ESL plaintiffs could have sued in the southern district. The first case filed was when the legislature drew its map based on ACS estimates and it was filed in Chicago.

There are three cases which are being heard together. So it is actually MALDEF, NAACP, and the Republicans filing severally.

In Texas, nine cases have been consolidated. In Illinois it appears that it is simply just a matter of the hearings for three cases being held jointly. This is more efficient since you only have three judges, and you don't risk conflicting remediation or decisions on similar issues.

I looked at the East Saint Louis case (1:21-cv-05512) filed by the NAACP (actually the downstate branch).

In Chicago, senate districts are drawn as long skinny districts snaking out from Chicago. These are then split lengthwise so that the two nested House districts are twins demographically and politically. There may be an inner city bias based on higher population density, incumbency, and political machines, with areas further out simply serving as population for equal protection legal compliance.

In the ESL case, it appears that a different strategy has been used. The population in the area east of East Saint Louis may only be able to support three Democratic House district as relatively slow growth has required districts to expand, and whites in this historically Democratic area have trended to be more Republican, due to disaffection with Chicago-domination, lessening over time of Southern roots (southern Illinois was settled by folks from Kentucky who migrated west and crossed into Indiana and Illinois due the southwestardly flow of the Ohio River).

Since house districts must nest inside senate districts, this means that one of the house districts will be in a different senate district, and you might have to concede a Republican seat in that senate district. As you expand the three-district area outward you take in more Republican territory.

So imagine HD-112, HD-113, and HD-114 arranged North-to-South. HD-113 and HD-114 form SD-57. HD-112 and HD-111 form SD-56, and the D's are going to concede HD-111. On the 2011 boundaries, HD-112 and SD-56 are barely Democratic, and HD-111 barely Republican. If they are extended outward they might all flip.

So instead HD-112 and SD-56 were pushed into HD-113 and SD-57; HD-113 expanded into HD-114; and HD-114 taking in Republican areas.

HD-114 is the district at issue here. It includes East St. Louis which is 95% Democratic, and similar percentage of blacks. East St. Louis has dropped in population from 82K in 1950, to 18K in 2020, so the district loops around HD-113, and ends up in 2020, being a 57%-43% Democratic district.

HD-113 has a lower percentage of blacks than HD-114, but is more Democratic.

HD-114 dropped from 43% black to 37% black between 2010 and 2020 census, and the legislative plan drops it further to 34%. HD-113 increased from 25% black to 31% black between 2010 and 2020. This remains the same under the legislative plan as black voters from the current HD-113 are moved to HD-112 to be replaced by black voters from HD-114. Given current trends HD-114 might flip by 2010.

The remedial plan proposed by the NAACP plaintiffs would draw HD-114 directly eastward from East Saint Louis and bump the black population up to 48%. The state defendants note that this would pair the black Democrat with a popular white Democrat who has a $1.4 million dollar war chest (I don't know how popular he is, but he is the second longest serving representative. That may simply mean that the seat came open at an opportune time. I suspect the black Democrat wins a primary. HD-113 would gather up much of the remainder of HD-114 and might flip.

The Republican remedial plan is similar in form.

The NAACP plaintiffs are arguing that the reason for the changes are racially based, because similar numbers of black voters were moved from HD-113 to HD-112 as were moved from HD-114 to HD-113. But clearly the changes were politically motivated.

If the Gingles conditions apply, then it would seem reasonable that if black voters move from one district to an adjacent district the map should follow, and not instead add a bunch of remote white voters.

[Torie]

Plaintiffs lost. I have not yet worked enough of the cast to ascertain the basis, but Gingles is run through its paces. I guess if the plaintiffs still think they have a case, it goes to SCOTUS which will have to hear it if Jimrtex is correct on the procedural rules of the road.


https://s3.amazonaws.com/jnswire/jns-media/d0/0b/11658107/mcconchie_v_welch_decision_12-30-21.pdf

It is kind of a bizarre decision. The Hispanics lose because there is a lack of evidence of racial block voting to defeat them (maybe the case will come back if evidence comes up that it does per subsequent elections with Madigan gone is a surmise of mine). The blacks downstate lose because diluting their vote down to a tossup race is OK, and there is insufficient evidence going forward that the seat will be worse than a tossup for  them. While blacks may be leaving over time, voting by the Dems has been made easier, so black turnout may rise going forward.  The court worked hard to find the Dem black dilution in East St. Louis legal. And then a lot of stuff about the effect of incumbency and the like.

The case may well come back if there are some black versus Hispanic primaries that are hotly contested where the Hispanic loses because the Dem machine loses its effectiveness to dictate who runs and who wins.

I have not yet read the whole thing. It's not that well written, and has a circumlocutious writing style, and goes on and on and on for 63 pages. But I have read enough for one day.

I guess the main takeaway is that maybe you need to wait for an actual election to test out the effects rather than infer them or extrapolate, at least where what will happen is not obvious. And what is obvious is rarer when it comes to inter-racial Dem primaries, where partisan loyalties that are far more predictable are not in play.

[jimrtex]

Plaintiffs lost. I have not yet worked enough of the cast to ascertain the basis, but Gingles is run through its paces. I guess if the plaintiffs still think they have a case, it goes to SCOTUS which will have to hear it if Jimrtex is correct on the procedural rules of the road.

This gives a good description of procedure. I don't know why Congress has retained the procedure.

Why Only Some Redistricting Cases Get Three-Judge Courts

Note that the SCOTUS does not have to hear appeals, they can simply affirm or overturn the district court decision.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/jnswire/jns-media/d0/0b/11658107/mcconchie_v_welch_decision_12-30-21.pdf

It is kind of a bizarre decision. The Hispanics lose because there is a lack of evidence of racial block voting to defeat them (maybe the case will come back if evidence comes up that it does per subsequent elections with Madigan gone is a surmise of mine). The blacks downstate lose because diluting their vote down to a tossup race is OK, and there is insufficient evidence going forward that the seat will be worse than a tossup for  them. While blacks may be leaving over time, voting by the Dems has been made easier, so black turnout may rise going forward.  The court worked hard to find the Dem black dilution in East St. Louis legal. And then a lot of stuff about the effect of incumbency and the like.

The case may well come back if there are some black versus Hispanic primaries that are hotly contested where the Hispanic loses because the Dem machine loses its effectiveness to dictate who runs and who wins.

I have not yet read the whole thing. It's not that well written, and has a circumlocutious writing style, and goes on and on and on for 63 pages. But I have read enough for one day.

I guess the main takeaway is that maybe you need to wait for an actual election to test out the effects rather than infer them or extrapolate, at least where what will happen is not obvious. And what is obvious is rarer when it comes to inter-racial Dem primaries, where partisan loyalties that are far more predictable are not in play.

The Gingles preconditions are:

(1) Reasonably compact district(s) can be drawn where the minority-group forms a majority. The SCOTUS has since clarified that they mean the voting population. In the Illinois case, the defendants argued that the 7th Circuit has always used VAP instead of CVAP (or more particularly HCVAP). The court ignored this - they didn't even have to point out it was laughably meritless. They chided the NAACP ESL plaintiffs for using VAP.

I think the map drawn by the legislature had used HVAP in the Chicagoland seats. But in any case the plaintiffs demonstrated that they could draw maps with majority CVAP populations. Tables are included in the decision.

(2) The minority votes cohesively. The defendants conceded this is true. Depending on the circumstances this might require looking at primaries.

In TX-33, Marc Veasey is likely not the candidate of choice of the Hispanic voters. But he would argue that once he had won the primary in 2012 he has worked assiduously for all his constituents and he has won them over, and he is now supported by a coalition of voters. Texas will argue that Hispanic voters no longer vote cohesively.

(3) The majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to defeat the minority's candidate of choice. This is where the plaintiffs lost. This requires empirical proof based on past elections.

This gets tricky and likely results in cherry-picking elections. Who is the candidate of choice of Hispanic voters, which is not necessarily the Hispanic candidate. Did a candidate win because he the incumbent who secured cross-over votes, or because he had a (D) next to his name.

Once plaintiffs satisfy the Gingles prerequisite conditions, the court examines the totality of circumstances, including the "Senate factors". Just because a majority-minority district could be drawn and bloc voting by the majority prevents minority representation doesn't necessarily imply discriminatory effect (The VRA does not require discriminatory intent, only effect).

In the Illinois case, it was not necessary for the court to rule on the totality of circumstances including the Senate factors, but they went ahead and did so (it might be useful on appeal in case the SCOTUS would overturn on the interpretation of the Gingles prerequisites.

The Gingles test was devised in the context of multi-member districts (in particular the North Carolina legislature) which employed multi-member districts with up to eight members. So think of a city where the city council is elected at large, with five members, and a black population of 20%. It would likely be impossible to elect a black leader, but it would probably be pretty easy to draw a district that encompassed much of the black population in a single district - let's say 70% of the black population in a 70% black district, with the remainder dispersed throughout the city (average of 7.5%, ranging up to 20% and down to 1%).

It was a pretty easy test to apply and resulted in dividing the large county delegations into districts, and eventually to elimination of all multi-member districts throughout the state.

But it is harder to apply to single districts, particularly if trying to maximize the number of (D) districts. If a district is 80% black it will elect the candidate favored by black voters. If we split it between two districts that are each 45% (possible if the added area to get to two districts worth of population) they will likely election two candidates favored by black voters, particularly if it is a partisan election and they form an overwhelming share of the Democratic primary vote.

So have you cracked the black community, or avoided packing it?



This is a recent case from Rockland County, where a school district was ordered to conduct district elections under Section 2 of the VRA. I found the actual circumstances interesting.

Clerveaux v. East Ramapo Central School District, No. 20-1668 (2d Cir. 2021)

Incidentally rather the CVAP they used Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding (BISG) to infer race of voters. The Census Bureau publishes a file of surname-race relationships. From this you can give a probablity that a Mr. Lee is black, white, or Asian. If you also know where Mr. Lee lives, you can give a more precise estimate. Census CVAP data does not match up with electoral data particularly in smaller jurisdictions.

The school district paid $5.5 million to the plaintiff's lawyers. I don't know how much they paid to their own.

And incidentally since this was not the New York legislature, litigation was conventional, with the trial before a single district judge, and an appeal to a circuit court. The decision I linked to was the 2nd Court of Appeals affirming the decision. This was before a 3-judge panel. The first appeal would likely have been for an en banc hearing before going to the SCOTUS.

VRA litigation is messy. As you know, you can't assign black students to Booker T. Washington, and white students to George Washington. This may be true even if the assignment is based on attendance boundaries even if those boundaries were drawn on some objective basis such as minimizing bus routes.

But even though you can't base the decision on race, you have to be cognizant of race.

Alabama and North Carolina carefully maximized the number of black voters assigned to certain legislative districts so arguably they could participate in "their communities" choice of representation only to have those assignments be rejected by the SCOTUS.


I came across this web seminar by NYSAC (New York State Association of Counties)

County Redistricting and Weighted Voting Systems (Youtube)

There is less on weighted voting than I had hoped by the title. Anyhow they mentioned that Dr. Papayanopoulos had died, but not by name. A couple of the webinar presenters were associated with the Benjamin Center at SUNY New Paltz and indicated they could help for a fee but suggested the local community college could do it for free.

There was also a mention of a new statute Chapter 516 in the MHRL (A229) which purports to set new criteria for redistricting counties. One of the presenters thought it violated the home rule provisions of the New York Constitution which as you know are quite expansive.

[David Hume]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-illinois-legislative-redistricting-challenges-20211209-osoz3fthqjh67ovhn5vi3nymaa-story.html

This lawsuit involves state legislative lines. It seems that a number of presumably compact majority Hispanic districts were not drawn in Chicagoland  that could have been, and a black district was not drawn down in east St. Louis. That has caused everybody to sue everybody else. The Hispanics (MALDEF) think they got the short end of the stick to prop up black incumbents (maybe white Dem ones too, I don't know), the blacks downstate allege they lost the game of musical chairs in order to properly care and feed a bunch of white Dems that were otherwise under stress, and the Pubs agree with both the upstate Hispanics and the downstate blacks, although the defendant map drawers assert the Pubs don't really give a damn about either, but do care about the dominoes that will fall with the creation of more Hispanic seats, because that would bleach out and make more Pub some seats that would become within their reach here and there in the hinterlands of Chicagoland. Ditto about integrating more the delegation downstate. Or something like that. I don't think the words "bleach out" were used. 

The Dem map drawers defense? Racial block voting is just so yesterday in Illinois, Hispanics are perfectly happy with and vote for black representatives, and thus it's time to put the VRA on ignore in the state. Gingles is just not triggered. Not sure how plausible that is down in the East St. Louis area in particular, but whatever.

Anyway, the Federal Court of Appeals after the hearing said that they had a migraine, and took it all under submission, but in the meantime that they would be pleased to get more briefs, a lot more briefs. So it may take a few more weeks. And then maybe it will go in banc (the whole gang does it all over again, not just a troika thereof), and then who knows, maybe it will go to SCOTUS, if the high court feels the need to flesh out what racial block voting means statistically as a Gingles trigger. Or maybe SCOTUS might want to revamp Gingles, or kill it off. So many possibilities, and so little time - in this case, literally.

Actually, Is IL-04 really a VRA seat? Based on Dem's arguments in this case the racially polarized voting is not clear.

[David Hume]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-illinois-legislative-redistricting-challenges-20211209-osoz3fthqjh67ovhn5vi3nymaa-story.html

This lawsuit involves state legislative lines. It seems that a number of presumably compact majority Hispanic districts were not drawn in Chicagoland  that could have been, and a black district was not drawn down in east St. Louis. That has caused everybody to sue everybody else. The Hispanics (MALDEF) think they got the short end of the stick to prop up black incumbents (maybe white Dem ones too, I don't know), the blacks downstate allege they lost the game of musical chairs in order to properly care and feed a bunch of white Dems that were otherwise under stress, and the Pubs agree with both the upstate Hispanics and the downstate blacks, although the defendant map drawers assert the Pubs don't really give a damn about either, but do care about the dominoes that will fall with the creation of more Hispanic seats, because that would bleach out and make more Pub some seats that would become within their reach here and there in the hinterlands of Chicagoland. Ditto about integrating more the delegation downstate. Or something like that. I don't think the words "bleach out" were used. 

The Dem map drawers defense? Racial block voting is just so yesterday in Illinois, Hispanics are perfectly happy with and vote for black representatives, and thus it's time to put the VRA on ignore in the state. Gingles is just not triggered. Not sure how plausible that is down in the East St. Louis area in particular, but whatever.

Anyway, the Federal Court of Appeals after the hearing said that they had a migraine, and took it all under submission, but in the meantime that they would be pleased to get more briefs, a lot more briefs. So it may take a few more weeks. And then maybe it will go in banc (the whole gang does it all over again, not just a troika thereof), and then who knows, maybe it will go to SCOTUS, if the high court feels the need to flesh out what racial block voting means statistically as a Gingles trigger. Or maybe SCOTUS might want to revamp Gingles, or kill it off. So many possibilities, and so little time - in this case, literally.

Federal law requires legislative redistricting cases based on constitutional claims be heard by a 3-judge panel. The case is randomly assigned to a district court judge, who then typically requests that the Chief Judge of the Appeals Court assign a three-judge panel to the case. There is some discretion to discourage frivolous cases being assigned a three judge panel, but the SCOTUS has sometimes overturned those decisions.

The panel in this case is formed by Robert Dow, Jr. district judge in Illinois, Northern District; another district judge in the circuit, Jon De Guilio, chief federal district judge Indiana, Northern District; and Michael Brennan, appellate judge from the 7th Circuit, who formerly originally served as state judge in Wisconsin.

I think the theory is to avoid home cooking in redistricting cases. I'm not sure whether it is an accident that the panel is likely to be more favorable to Republicans or not. Diane Sykes who is chief judge of the 7th Circuit (since 2020) has a conservative reputation and was considered for replacing Sandra Day O'Connor. Brennan is a Trump appointee who Tammy Baldwin tried to block, and Ron Johnson praised and was confirmed on a 49:47 vote.

You read "three judge panel" and interpreted this to mean "appeals court", but it is not. Any appeal would be to the SCOTUS, who must take the case, they don't have discretion over cert.

In Texas, the case filed by Holder/Elias tried to argue they were making a statutory argument rather than a constitutional argument and shouldn't have a 3-judge panel and shouldn't be consolidated. I don't understand how a case based on the VRA can be considered not to be based on the 14th and 15th Amendments. Anyhow the argument was rejected and the case has been consolidated.

There may be forum shopping. In Texas, redistricting cases have been heard in Eastern, Southern, and Western districts.

In Illinois, you could clearly sue in Springfield (central district of Illinois). The ESL plaintiffs could have sued in the southern district. The first case filed was when the legislature drew its map based on ACS estimates and it was filed in Chicago.

There are three cases which are being heard together. So it is actually MALDEF, NAACP, and the Republicans filing severally.

In Texas, nine cases have been consolidated. In Illinois it appears that it is simply just a matter of the hearings for three cases being held jointly. This is more efficient since you only have three judges, and you don't risk conflicting remediation or decisions on similar issues.

I looked at the East Saint Louis case (1:21-cv-05512) filed by the NAACP (actually the downstate branch).

In Chicago, senate districts are drawn as long skinny districts snaking out from Chicago. These are then split lengthwise so that the two nested House districts are twins demographically and politically. There may be an inner city bias based on higher population density, incumbency, and political machines, with areas further out simply serving as population for equal protection legal compliance.

In the ESL case, it appears that a different strategy has been used. The population in the area east of East Saint Louis may only be able to support three Democratic House district as relatively slow growth has required districts to expand, and whites in this historically Democratic area have trended to be more Republican, due to disaffection with Chicago-domination, lessening over time of Southern roots (southern Illinois was settled by folks from Kentucky who migrated west and crossed into Indiana and Illinois due the southwestardly flow of the Ohio River).

Since house districts must nest inside senate districts, this means that one of the house districts will be in a different senate district, and you might have to concede a Republican seat in that senate district. As you expand the three-district area outward you take in more Republican territory.

So imagine HD-112, HD-113, and HD-114 arranged North-to-South. HD-113 and HD-114 form SD-57. HD-112 and HD-111 form SD-56, and the D's are going to concede HD-111. On the 2011 boundaries, HD-112 and SD-56 are barely Democratic, and HD-111 barely Republican. If they are extended outward they might all flip.

So instead HD-112 and SD-56 were pushed into HD-113 and SD-57; HD-113 expanded into HD-114; and HD-114 taking in Republican areas.

HD-114 is the district at issue here. It includes East St. Louis which is 95% Democratic, and similar percentage of blacks. East St. Louis has dropped in population from 82K in 1950, to 18K in 2020, so the district loops around HD-113, and ends up in 2020, being a 57%-43% Democratic district.

HD-113 has a lower percentage of blacks than HD-114, but is more Democratic.

HD-114 dropped from 43% black to 37% black between 2010 and 2020 census, and the legislative plan drops it further to 34%. HD-113 increased from 25% black to 31% black between 2010 and 2020. This remains the same under the legislative plan as black voters from the current HD-113 are moved to HD-112 to be replaced by black voters from HD-114. Given current trends HD-114 might flip by 2010.

The remedial plan proposed by the NAACP plaintiffs would draw HD-114 directly eastward from East Saint Louis and bump the black population up to 48%. The state defendants note that this would pair the black Democrat with a popular white Democrat who has a $1.4 million dollar war chest (I don't know how popular he is, but he is the second longest serving representative. That may simply mean that the seat came open at an opportune time. I suspect the black Democrat wins a primary. HD-113 would gather up much of the remainder of HD-114 and might flip.

The Republican remedial plan is similar in form.

The NAACP plaintiffs are arguing that the reason for the changes are racially based, because similar numbers of black voters were moved from HD-113 to HD-112 as were moved from HD-114 to HD-113. But clearly the changes were politically motivated.

If the Gingles conditions apply, then it would seem reasonable that if black voters move from one district to an adjacent district the map should follow, and not instead add a bunch of remote white voters.

To be fair, the 7th circuit has 8 R and 3 D appointed judges, so highly likely to have a R circuit judge. The district judge is 1 R 1D. The R judge is from IL, who can be blocked by the two D senators if too partisan. The D judge is from IN, and recommended by the D senator at that time. Overall not a bad deal for D, since they could easily get 3 solid R partisan judges, or 2 solid R partisan judges and one D partisan judge.

[David Hume]

Plaintiffs lost. I have not yet worked enough of the cast to ascertain the basis, but Gingles is run through its paces. I guess if the plaintiffs still think they have a case, it goes to SCOTUS which will have to hear it if Jimrtex is correct on the procedural rules of the road.


https://s3.amazonaws.com/jnswire/jns-media/d0/0b/11658107/mcconchie_v_welch_decision_12-30-21.pdf

It is kind of a bizarre decision. The Hispanics lose because there is a lack of evidence of racial block voting to defeat them (maybe the case will come back if evidence comes up that it does per subsequent elections with Madigan gone is a surmise of mine). The blacks downstate lose because diluting their vote down to a tossup race is OK, and there is insufficient evidence going forward that the seat will be worse than a tossup for  them. While blacks may be leaving over time, voting by the Dems has been made easier, so black turnout may rise going forward.  The court worked hard to find the Dem black dilution in East St. Louis legal. And then a lot of stuff about the effect of incumbency and the like.

Diluting their vote down to a tossup race is OK? If SC accept this position, does this mean VRA seats in AL, GA, etc can also be diluted to toss-up? This would be a huge blow to D.

[Torie]

Plaintiffs lost. I have not yet worked enough of the cast to ascertain the basis, but Gingles is run through its paces. I guess if the plaintiffs still think they have a case, it goes to SCOTUS which will have to hear it if Jimrtex is correct on the procedural rules of the road.


https://s3.amazonaws.com/jnswire/jns-media/d0/0b/11658107/mcconchie_v_welch_decision_12-30-21.pdf

It is kind of a bizarre decision. The Hispanics lose because there is a lack of evidence of racial block voting to defeat them (maybe the case will come back if evidence comes up that it does per subsequent elections with Madigan gone is a surmise of mine). The blacks downstate lose because diluting their vote down to a tossup race is OK, and there is insufficient evidence going forward that the seat will be worse than a tossup for  them. While blacks may be leaving over time, voting by the Dems has been made easier, so black turnout may rise going forward.  The court worked hard to find the Dem black dilution in East St. Louis legal. And then a lot of stuff about the effect of incumbency and the like.

Diluting their vote down to a tossup race is OK? If SC accept this position, does this mean VRA seats in AL, GA, etc can also be diluted to toss-up? This would be a huge blow to D.

I don't recall the facts anymore, but I think it was in the context of a Dem primary.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The holding of Gingles:

The inquiry into the existence of vote dilution caused by submergence in a multimember district is district specific. A successful claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires evidence that an affected minority group is sufficiently large to elect a representative of its choice, that the minority group is politically cohesive, and white majority voters cast their ballots sufficiently as a bloc to usually defeat the preferred candidates of the minority group.

The bold part is key. That's not true in Chicagoland or the St. Louis suburbs. As long as these districts still elect Democrats it doesn't matter if they're black or Hispanic majority.