So, two questions - 1) at Alabama's PVI of R +15, if race were not considered, where would the Princeton "bow tie" type models put the expected distribution of 7 seats?
2) in districting, what is legal current thought - is it enough that black voters can elect democrats, or is the law usually interpreted as giving them the opportunity to elect black reps?
1) The principal technical evidence brought by the state of Alabama in the Milligan case was that in an ensemble simulation of maps drawn without regard for race, 0 or 1 black ability-to-elect (if I recall correctly, could have been majority-black) districts arose commonly, but not 2 such districts. They argued that the law demanded such a race-blind approach.
The lower court rejected this argument as being contrary to existing interpretations of the Voting Rights Act, and the Supreme Court agreed. They further found that this was a misuse of the simulation approach.
2) The law is complex, but let us just say that if a minority group favors Democrats very differently from the majority group they live near, then they should have a shot at representation. This can be done by drawing an ability-to-elect district (typically >40% black voting age population, BVAP) or a majority-BVAP district. In court, adjudication is complex but basically, the current doctrine is that race can be used as a factor in drawing a district, but it cannot be the predominating factor.
In a second technical standard endorsed by the Supreme Court, they found that computer simulation could be used to provide an existence proof of an ability-to-elect district that was also more compact than the district(s) being litigated. The use of single-district simulations in this way is an expansion of the use of simulations in racial gerrymandering cases.
So, I find it interesting that the court is acknowledging that "more compact" is a good thing - at least as a factor to be considered.
I understand that this is all VRA litigation, but the 14th Amendment lurks as well.
Do you think the needle has moved in favor of non-VRA plaintiffs who might argue that less compact districts are denying them the chance to elect a rep of their choice?
By this I mean that there was the anti-gerrymandering setback a few years ago where the court refused to get involved in non-race related gerrymandering. But now I see compactness come up - and as we all know these precedents tend to get built on - and if compactness is good for one thing, it might be good for others.
The Supreme Court has been emphasizing compactness more for some time. As we say in the podcast, the current decision turned in part on the fact that petitioners demonstrated that there was a map that was both more compact than the state of Alabama's map, and also had more Black ability-to-elect districts. This was done by computational search.
So, is x is a goal and it can be achieved with more compactness than the current choice that looks good.
Now .... merely stopping partisan gerrymandering seems out, but having district lines follow long-standing pre-existing lines (like county borders) might be a fresh avenue of attack ...
I also note that Nevada could easily draw a compact hispanic district rather than crack Las Vegas for Dem purposes, just as Utah could stop cracking Salt Lake for GOP purposes. I wonder if they are next ... Cracking cities seems suspect to me ...
Nice to have Prof. Grofman as a guest!
So, two questions - 1) at Alabama's PVI of R +15, if race were not considered, where would the Princeton "bow tie" type models put the expected distribution of 7 seats?
2) in districting, what is legal current thought - is it enough that black voters can elect democrats, or is the law usually interpreted as giving them the opportunity to elect black reps?
1) The principal technical evidence brought by the state of Alabama in the Milligan case was that in an ensemble simulation of maps drawn without regard for race, 0 or 1 black ability-to-elect (if I recall correctly, could have been majority-black) districts arose commonly, but not 2 such districts. They argued that the law demanded such a race-blind approach.
The lower court rejected this argument as being contrary to existing interpretations of the Voting Rights Act, and the Supreme Court agreed. They further found that this was a misuse of the simulation approach.
2) The law is complex, but let us just say that if a minority group favors Democrats very differently from the majority group they live near, then they should have a shot at representation. This can be done by drawing an ability-to-elect district (typically >40% black voting age population, BVAP) or a majority-BVAP district. In court, adjudication is complex but basically, the current doctrine is that race can be used as a factor in drawing a district, but it cannot be the predominating factor.
In a second technical standard endorsed by the Supreme Court, they found that computer simulation could be used to provide an existence proof of an ability-to-elect district that was also more compact than the district(s) being litigated. The use of single-district simulations in this way is an expansion of the use of simulations in racial gerrymandering cases.
Thanks!
So, I find it interesting that the court is acknowledging that "more compact" is a good thing - at least as a factor to be considered.
I understand that this is all VRA litigation, but the 14th Amendment lurks as well.
Do you think the needle has moved in favor of non-VRA plaintiffs who might argue that less compact districts are denying them the chance to elect a rep of their choice?
By this I mean that there was the anti-gerrymandering setback a few years ago where the court refused to get involved in non-race related gerrymandering. But now I see compactness come up - and as we all know these precedents tend to get built on - and if compactness is good for one thing, it might be good for others.
The Supreme Court has been emphasizing compactness more for some time. As we say in the podcast, the current decision turned in part on the fact that petitioners demonstrated that there was a map that was both more compact than the state of Alabama's map, and also had more Black ability-to-elect districts. This was done by computational search.
So, is x is a goal and it can be achieved with more compactness than the current choice that looks good.
Now .... merely stopping partisan gerrymandering seems out, but having district lines follow long-standing pre-existing lines (like county borders) might be a fresh avenue of attack ...
I also note that Nevada could easily draw a compact hispanic district rather than crack Las Vegas for Dem purposes, just as Utah could stop cracking Salt Lake for GOP purposes. I wonder if they are next ... Cracking cities seems suspect to me ...