Merrill v Milligan
ProgressiveModerate:
Quote from: Torie on October 05, 2022, 03:18:35 PM
And that is precisely the point. As long as you don't gerrymander to screw minorities, there is not much in play anymore when it comes to requiring race based line drawing under Gingles. That is why given that context, it is probably going to be trimmed back in an opinion written by Alito. The main issue is what SCOTUS does with the black pack district. The major defense of the damn thing is least change. That doesn't cut it with me.
So racial sorting is still allowed, just not required?
Torie:
Quote from: ProgressiveModerate on October 05, 2022, 03:38:03 PM
Quote from: Torie on October 05, 2022, 03:18:35 PM
And that is precisely the point. As long as you don't gerrymander to screw minorities, there is not much in play anymore when it comes to requiring race based line drawing under Gingles. That is why given that context, it is probably going to be trimmed back in an opinion written by Alito. The main issue is what SCOTUS does with the black pack district. The major defense of the damn thing is least change. That doesn't cut it with me.
So racial sorting is still allowed, just not required?
The court is not going to reach that question. But I would think that the answer is yes, at least within the confines of proportionality.
One thing that you miss with your map is that you need two black majority CD's to be in the hunt to trigger two minority performing CD's under the existing Gingles parameters. Obviously, having two performing black CD's as opposed to majority black CD's makes for much prettier maps, but that is legally irrelevant.
jimrtex:
Quote from: Torie on October 05, 2022, 07:50:30 AM
Well the point of my map is an elaboration on the Sandra Day O'Connor theme. Race based line drawing is no longer a necessary evil. Drawing a map hewing to neutral redistricting principles while ignoring race does not really change the equation that much. That is what I did when I drew the map - I was color blind. Yes, it does cost a black performing seat at the moment, but that might not long endure. Rural black seats are less and less in play. It is urban black seats where the action is. So your honors, a safe harbor from Gingles should be carved out for maps that hew to neutral redistricting principles. One should not gerrymander to either favor or harm a race or ethnic group. The concept of color blind is back. First for redistricting, and then for affirmative action. Color coding has outlived its shelf life.
That is the argument I would make for AL. Gingles in AL clearly does require the drawing of a second black CD under current law in my opinion, unlike in Louisiana. So the case needs to be made to change what is under the Gingles hood.
Class dismissed. Thanks PM for the oral argument commentary.
Here is a good discussion of what happened during oral argument. Kavanaugh seem troubled by the map AL drew. It did not look compact to him. It does not to me either. It was something of an erose black pack. So I would vote to jettison that map. It is not a race neutral map hewing to accepted redistricting principles. But AL need not draw plaintiff's map either. It itself is something of a racial gerrymander.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/10/4/23387283/supreme-court-merrill-milligan-alabama-racial-gerrymandering-voting-rights-act
And here is the AL map triptic, the existing map in all of its ugliness, and the map I drew with two black Gingles CD's, which is also a fail, and then the most beautiful Torie amicus map.
Singleton Amicus Brief
The Singleton plaintiffs argued before the district court that the legislature plan was drawn with racial intent, particularly because of the division of Jefferson and Montgomery counties. Because they were making a claim under the constitution and not the VRA, they were not consolidated in the case before the SCOTUS. Conceivably the SCOTUS could remand the case back to the district court to rule on the constitutional issues.
The no-county split map is midway through the brief.
ProgressiveModerate:
Quote from: jimrtex on October 05, 2022, 05:43:07 PM
Quote from: Torie on October 05, 2022, 07:50:30 AM
Well the point of my map is an elaboration on the Sandra Day O'Connor theme. Race based line drawing is no longer a necessary evil. Drawing a map hewing to neutral redistricting principles while ignoring race does not really change the equation that much. That is what I did when I drew the map - I was color blind. Yes, it does cost a black performing seat at the moment, but that might not long endure. Rural black seats are less and less in play. It is urban black seats where the action is. So your honors, a safe harbor from Gingles should be carved out for maps that hew to neutral redistricting principles. One should not gerrymander to either favor or harm a race or ethnic group. The concept of color blind is back. First for redistricting, and then for affirmative action. Color coding has outlived its shelf life.
That is the argument I would make for AL. Gingles in AL clearly does require the drawing of a second black CD under current law in my opinion, unlike in Louisiana. So the case needs to be made to change what is under the Gingles hood.
Class dismissed. Thanks PM for the oral argument commentary.
Here is a good discussion of what happened during oral argument. Kavanaugh seem troubled by the map AL drew. It did not look compact to him. It does not to me either. It was something of an erose black pack. So I would vote to jettison that map. It is not a race neutral map hewing to accepted redistricting principles. But AL need not draw plaintiff's map either. It itself is something of a racial gerrymander.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/10/4/23387283/supreme-court-merrill-milligan-alabama-racial-gerrymandering-voting-rights-act
And here is the AL map triptic, the existing map in all of its ugliness, and the map I drew with two black Gingles CD's, which is also a fail, and then the most beautiful Torie amicus map.
Singleton Amicus Brief
The Singleton plaintiffs argued before the district court that the legislature plan was drawn with racial intent, particularly because of the division of Jefferson and Montgomery counties. Because they were making a claim under the constitution and not the VRA, they were not consolidated in the case before the SCOTUS. Conceivably the SCOTUS could remand the case back to the district court to rule on the constitutional issues.
The no-county split map is midway through the brief.
The whole county argument only works if you have counties of relatively low population which is true in some parts of Alabama but that AL-06 is just crazy.
Infact nationally the only whole county districts are at large, WV, and IA. Yes you don't want excessive county splits but a lot of times counties are just way too big and also pretty arbitrary.
Torie:
Here is another reading the tea leaves from the oral argument.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/04/high-court-race-neutral-voting-rights-act-00060270
My surmise is that the Alito opinion will hold that it is impossible to draw two black districts in any reasonable looking map, and in order to trigger Gingles one must have in hand a reasonable looking map. The precise definition of what is reasonable can be further fleshed out in subsequent cases, but the maps presented by Plaintiff are not reasonable, and it is clear that no computer could produce a map that is reasonable. Among other things Mobile must have a nasty chop, and Jefferson County must be sliced and diced.
We shall see.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page