Republicans on California's commission report that they were satisfied with the fairness of the process. I have interviewed Republican commissioners on this matter.
The general tendency of total Congressional redistricting in 2002-2022 has favored Republicans. That was most extreme in 2012, and is reduced in 2022 - but still favors Republicans overall.
The commenter above attempted to repeat his falsehood, which was not constructive.
General note to all readers: a district-based system does not guarantee proportional representation. This is a common myth. It is the single wrongest belief about redistricting.
The new Texas gerrymander was craftily designed to be quite VRA proof. The new 35th district is still majority Hispanic while they were able to make the new 9th district in Houston majority-Hispanic, so that there's actually one more majority-Hispanic district than in the original gerrymander.
The only majority-minority district that was broken up was Dallas' 32nd.
Note that Trump's DOJ is undermining multiple 2022 TX Congressional districts on the grounds of race. That goes against current interpretations of Section 2 of the VRA.
Section 2 has never been about an explicit majority. Though I do think this Texas map increases the majority white districts from 22 to 24. So it is getting rid of coalition districts and creating more single population minority districts when it was the coalition aspect that created the district in the first place.
This has always been evolving law as courts and data got more sophisticated, but there are really good precedents why this map should be illegal.
A rude comment (now deleted) made the incorrect claim that Massachusetts is gerrymandered because its map exceeds proportionality by 3 seats. This idea is totally wrong. (If it were just proportionality, then random Internet commenters could do what we did in this post.)
In a system of districts, proportionality is not guaranteed. The reason is that 51% of the vote wins 100% of a seat. At that point it depends on the exact distribution of district voting tendencies. That is why the Electoral Innovation Lab's approaches were needed.
In the particular case of Massachusetts, Ruth Buck, Moon Duchin, and coauthors have proved through extensive mathematical simulation that it is impossible to draw even one Republican-leaning district because Republicans are too evenly distributed. The article: https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/elj.2018.0537
That said, if you really want proportionality, two things are required. First, an absolute requirement: multimember districts (with ranked-choice or single transferrable vote). Another way is to award extra seats to compensate, as they do in Germany. Second, it has to be done for an entire chamber, or else it is not globally fair. That means doing it nationally (for Congress) or for a whole state (for a legislature).
Indiana? GOP have manipulated everything here for years, to ensure GOP control. Even limiting elected positions, after they've been won by a democrat, to take all 'power' from a position that their former GOP incumbent had.
Sam. Journalist working on gerrymandering series. I've sent you a message to your FB messages with my cell and email. Would you mind reaching out? Cathleen O'Toole
These statements are inaccurate.
Republicans on California's commission report that they were satisfied with the fairness of the process. I have interviewed Republican commissioners on this matter.
The general tendency of total Congressional redistricting in 2002-2022 has favored Republicans. That was most extreme in 2012, and is reduced in 2022 - but still favors Republicans overall.
The commenter above attempted to repeat his falsehood, which was not constructive.
General note to all readers: a district-based system does not guarantee proportional representation. This is a common myth. It is the single wrongest belief about redistricting.
I don't want to be that guy, but:
The new Texas gerrymander was craftily designed to be quite VRA proof. The new 35th district is still majority Hispanic while they were able to make the new 9th district in Houston majority-Hispanic, so that there's actually one more majority-Hispanic district than in the original gerrymander.
The only majority-minority district that was broken up was Dallas' 32nd.
Useful, and thank you. Will examine and correct as needed.
Note that Trump's DOJ is undermining multiple 2022 TX Congressional districts on the grounds of race. That goes against current interpretations of Section 2 of the VRA.
Here is one claim, which I have linked from the post: https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/1131-1-Gonzales-plaintiffs-supplemental-complaint.pdf#page=2
Section 2 has never been about an explicit majority. Though I do think this Texas map increases the majority white districts from 22 to 24. So it is getting rid of coalition districts and creating more single population minority districts when it was the coalition aspect that created the district in the first place.
This has always been evolving law as courts and data got more sophisticated, but there are really good precedents why this map should be illegal.
California is responding to a fascist who called Texas and demanded the seats. California did no such thing. Losers gotta cheat and lie.
A rude comment (now deleted) made the incorrect claim that Massachusetts is gerrymandered because its map exceeds proportionality by 3 seats. This idea is totally wrong. (If it were just proportionality, then random Internet commenters could do what we did in this post.)
In a system of districts, proportionality is not guaranteed. The reason is that 51% of the vote wins 100% of a seat. At that point it depends on the exact distribution of district voting tendencies. That is why the Electoral Innovation Lab's approaches were needed.
In the particular case of Massachusetts, Ruth Buck, Moon Duchin, and coauthors have proved through extensive mathematical simulation that it is impossible to draw even one Republican-leaning district because Republicans are too evenly distributed. The article: https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/elj.2018.0537
That said, if you really want proportionality, two things are required. First, an absolute requirement: multimember districts (with ranked-choice or single transferrable vote). Another way is to award extra seats to compensate, as they do in Germany. Second, it has to be done for an entire chamber, or else it is not globally fair. That means doing it nationally (for Congress) or for a whole state (for a legislature).
Indiana? GOP have manipulated everything here for years, to ensure GOP control. Even limiting elected positions, after they've been won by a democrat, to take all 'power' from a position that their former GOP incumbent had.
That sounds terrible. However, the Congressional map is not particularly problematic from a partisan standpoint. A 7 Republican, 2 Democrat map is exactly what computer simulations would suggest is a party-neutral outcome. See the histogram here: https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/redistricting-report-card/?planId=recAzGi2OPAMTkXE8
Sam. Journalist working on gerrymandering series. I've sent you a message to your FB messages with my cell and email. Would you mind reaching out? Cathleen O'Toole
sswang at princeton dot edu