Midterm Elections 2018

[Acymetric]

The court originally ruled the NC map unconstitutional back in January and ordered districts to be redrawn for the upcoming election. But the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the ruling pending review. In June, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling and remanded the case, directing the lower court to reconsider its ruling in light of guidelines the Supreme Court had outlined in a similar case from Wisconsin to determine which plaintiffs (if any) had legal standing to bring the challenge.

Yesterday's ruling was the district court's decision after the reconsideration ordered by the Supreme Court. Basically, this is the district court saying, "Yep, we double-checked, and our prior ruling is good, even under the new guidelines for determining legal standing."

So the district court can't really be faulted for waiting until now to rule. They originally ruled last January, in plenty of time to redraw districts before the November election. But the Supreme Court's stay, followed by its remand in June, put the ruling on hold. The district court got its new ruling out in about two months, which is pretty quick considering they had to allow for supplemental briefing and then write an opinion that adequately addresses all the relevant issues.

Can someone more legal-minded explain why the Supreme Court would "have the district court reconsider the ruling based on guidelines" rather than just apply the guidelines themselves and determine whether the ruling should stand based on them? Is it a workload thing? Politics thing? Other thing?

[rasputin]

Can someone more legal-minded explain why the Supreme Court would "have the district court reconsider the ruling based on guidelines" rather than just apply the guidelines themselves and determine whether the ruling should stand based on them? Is it a workload thing? Politics thing? Other thing?

The Supreme Court decides the cases that are in front of it. They decided the Wisconsin case, not the North Carolina case. It is not unusual for the Supremes to send a case back to an appellate court for reconsideration in light of another recent decision. That's what happened here.

[OldPhiKap]

Can someone more legal-minded explain why the Supreme Court would "have the district court reconsider the ruling based on guidelines" rather than just apply the guidelines themselves and determine whether the ruling should stand based on them? Is it a workload thing? Politics thing? Other thing?

Appellate courts typically review the factual record developed below, as opposed to making factual determinations itself. It is up to the lower court to take testimony and, in certain circumstances, weigh evidence and credibility of competing sources of information.

There are exceptions -- State boundaries come to mind, because the Supremes have original jurisdiction -- but those are rare.

[CameronBornAndBred]

The President of the United States publicly says that if the GOP loses the mid-terms, the results will end in violence.

Mr. Trump warned that if Republicans do not retain control of Congress, religious communities would lose all of the gains he had secured on their behalf.
“They will end everything immediately,” he said, apparently referring to Democrats. He added, again without being clear whom he was talking about: “They will overturn everything that we’ve done and they’ll do it quickly and violently. And violently. There’s violence. When you look at Antifa, and you look at some of these groups, these are violent people.”

Will remarks like these sway voters? It remains to be seen, of course, but that is a very bold thing to say.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/28/u...-election.html

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I wrote at least one public policy memo at Duke 20+ years ago about gerrymandering so I'm glad someone found my old floppy disks in a landfill and it has become topical again!

Both parties are guilty of gerrymandering. It is a very easy problem to solve (and there has been a lot of non-partisan academic research on solutions). Plot every person on a map. Do not attach any identifying characteristic (such as party, age, race, gender, etc). Use a computer to optimize the districts so that they are as compact and contiguous as possible. I think an undergrad comp sci major could do this. Problem solved. I cannot see any legitimate justification for gerrymandering.

[Indoor66]

Plot every person on a map. Do not attach any identifying characteristic (such as party, age, race, gender, etc). Use a computer to optimize the districts so that they are as compact and contiguous as possible. I think an undergrad comp sci major could do this. Problem solved. I cannot see any legitimate justification for gerrymandering.

I like your solution. As for justification, most politicians can justify anything. Just take a look at the U. S. Code!

[CameronBornAndBred]

Gillum pulls the upset win in Florida for the governor's race. That could impact the senate race in the dem's favor, I think. The black vote will likely have a higher turn out now, and that would probably impact the voting for Nelson as well since if you show up to vote for the gov, you will probably vote in the other races, too.

[dudog84]

The court originally ruled the NC map unconstitutional back in January and ordered districts to be redrawn for the upcoming election. But the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the ruling pending review. In June, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling and remanded the case, directing the lower court to reconsider its ruling in light of guidelines the Supreme Court had outlined in a similar case from Wisconsin to determine which plaintiffs (if any) had legal standing to bring the challenge.

Yesterday's ruling was the district court's decision after the reconsideration ordered by the Supreme Court. Basically, this is the district court saying, "Yep, we double-checked, and our prior ruling is good, even under the new guidelines for determining legal standing."

So the district court can't really be faulted for waiting until now to rule. They originally ruled last January, in plenty of time to redraw districts before the November election. But the Supreme Court's stay, followed by its remand in June, put the ruling on hold. The district court got its new ruling out in about two months, which is pretty quick considering they had to allow for supplemental briefing and then write an opinion that adequately addresses all the relevant issues.

Thanks for the info. I'd have to do some research (which I'm not inclined to do today), but weren't these districts drawn after the 2010 census? Why is this happening in 2018? In addition to Wisconsin and NC, I believe Pennsylvania had issues this year.

[JasonEvans]

Gillum pulls the upset win in Florida for the governor's race. That could impact the senate race in the dem's favor, I think. The black vote will likely have a higher turn out now, and that would probably impact the voting for Nelson as well since if you show up to vote for the gov, you will probably vote in the other races, too.

Gillum becomes the poster-child for the progressive movement, as Fla Gov is a much bigger deal than the House seat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is seeking. Gillum is campaigning on Medicare for All, Gun Control, and changing (sorta abolishing) ICE. If Gillum wins in purple Florida, it really strengthens the notion that a lefty Dem can win on a large stage... and not just in a solidly blue state. If Gillum loses, you can bet you will hear the "electability" argument being used in a big way against progressives in the 2020 Dem Presidential Race (which will have double-digit candidates, several of whom will be die-hard progressives).

--Jason "Put another way, what happens in Florida with the Gov race could go a long way toward determining who gets the Dem nod for President in 2020" Evans

[Troublemaker]

Gillum pulls the upset win in Florida for the governor's race. That could impact the senate race in the dem's favor, I think. The black vote will likely have a higher turn out now, and that would probably impact the voting for Nelson as well since if you show up to vote for the gov, you will probably vote in the other races, too.

Winning the Fla Governorship would be a major coup for the Bernie wing of the party.

[PackMan97]

I wrote at least one public policy memo at Duke 20+ years ago about gerrymandering so I'm glad someone found my old floppy disks in a landfill and it has become topical again!

Both parties are guilty of gerrymandering. It is a very easy problem to solve (and there has been a lot of non-partisan academic research on solutions). Plot every person on a map. Do not attach any identifying characteristic (such as party, age, race, gender, etc). Use a computer to optimize the districts so that they are as compact and contiguous as possible. I think an undergrad comp sci major could do this. Problem solved. I cannot see any legitimate justification for gerrymandering.

It seems to me that such a rule would create an unbalanced result. Democrats would be overrepresented in urban districts creating VERY safe districts and as a result Republics who favor rural and urban areas would be spread out over more districts with less safe districts, but more Republican majority districts. Obviously, I haven't studied the matter but most of NC's urban counties lean HEAVILY Democratic. Buncombe (Asheville is 1.6 D for every R), Guilford (Greensboro) is 1.8 D for every R, Durham is 4.5 D for every R, Mecklenburg (Charlotte) is 1.9 D for every R, Cumberland (Fayetteville) is 2 D for every R. Wake by comparison is a nice bipartisan 1.4 D for every R.

NC by comparison is 1.3 D for every R on the vote rolls. Now I know that the growing number of I's really throw a wrench in these types of problems, my gut just tells me that by optimizing for compactness likely yields packed D districts that are safe, but also leave few districts outside of the cities that Ds could win.

At the end of the day, I really think multi-member districts with some form of proportional voting is the way to go.

[gus]

Thanks for the info. I'd have to do some research (which I'm not inclined to do today), but weren't these districts drawn after the 2010 census? Why is this happening in 2018? In addition to Wisconsin and NC, I believe Pennsylvania had issues this year.

Here's the opinion, which has a lot of the history: https://electionlawblog.org/wp-conte...NC-Opinion.pdf

The 2010 redistricting was done explicitly in a way to ensure republicans held on to their legislative majority. It worked - despite only getting 49% of the vote, they won 69% of the congressional seats. People sued, and ultimately this radically gerrymandered district map was struck down by a federal court in 2016 -- hence the new attempt to redistrict. Of course, republicans had no interest in making the election fair at this point, so tried again to ensure that votes don't matter.

I propose that we draw the maps to give a partisan advantage to 10 Republicans and three Democrats, because I do not believe it’s possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats/

-David Lewis in 2016.

Again, it worked: Republicans got 53% of the vote, but 77% of the congressional seats.

Yes gerrymandering has always existed -- but it's now a science and very, very effective.

[dudog84]

And now Virginia wants to get in on the fun. Although this is more underhanded than loony. Using people's confidential info on classified CIA forms goes a bit beyond dirty tricks:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/28/u...gtype=Homepage

[IrishDevil]

It seems to me that such a rule would create an unbalanced result. Democrats would be overrepresented in urban districts creating VERY safe districts and as a result Republics who favor rural and urban areas would be spread out over more districts with less safe districts, but more Republican majority districts. Obviously, I haven't studied the matter but most of NC's urban counties lean HEAVILY Democratic. Buncombe (Asheville is 1.6 D for every R), Guilford (Greensboro) is 1.8 D for every R, Durham is 4.5 D for every R, Mecklenburg (Charlotte) is 1.9 D for every R, Cumberland (Fayetteville) is 2 D for every R. Wake by comparison is a nice bipartisan 1.4 D for every R.

NC by comparison is 1.3 D for every R on the vote rolls. Now I know that the growing number of I's really throw a wrench in these types of problems, my gut just tells me that by optimizing for compactness likely yields packed D districts that are safe, but also leave few districts outside of the cities that Ds could win.

At the end of the day, I really think multi-member districts with some form of proportional voting is the way to go.

Honest question here, as I am neither a politico, nor a pub pol memo writer, nor the beneficiary of a night at a holiday inn express: is the bolded an accurate statement of the goal of the districting process? Perhaps I am missing the emphasis in your statement - is the concern that the urban districts are "packed", that is, overpopulated in comparison to less densely populated suburban and rural districts? If "optimizing for compact and contiguous" does not account for population density, than your concern makes complete sense, Packman, as residents of dense districts would be underrepresented. If the emphasis in your post and the concern instead is safe vs. winnable districts for each party, however, that seems aimed at achieving a specific balance or outcome in the voting and does not seem in keeping with the idea of representative voting districts.

[gus]

It seems to me that such a rule would create an unbalanced result. Democrats would be overrepresented in urban districts creating VERY safe districts and as a result Republics who favor rural and urban areas would be spread out over more districts with less safe districts, but more Republican majority districts. Obviously, I haven't studied the matter but most of NC's urban counties lean HEAVILY Democratic. Buncombe (Asheville is 1.6 D for every R), Guilford (Greensboro) is 1.8 D for every R, Durham is 4.5 D for every R, Mecklenburg (Charlotte) is 1.9 D for every R, Cumberland (Fayetteville) is 2 D for every R. Wake by comparison is a nice bipartisan 1.4 D for every R.

NC by comparison is 1.3 D for every R on the vote rolls. Now I know that the growing number of I's really throw a wrench in these types of problems, my gut just tells me that by optimizing for compactness likely yields packed D districts that are safe, but also leave few districts outside of the cities that Ds could win.

At the end of the day, I really think multi-member districts with some form of proportional voting is the way to go.

Here's the election results by district:
https://www.nytimes.com/elections/re...north-carolina

The closest congressional election was a 57%-43% win by a Republican, in a district almost completely encircling (but not including) Raleigh. The closest Democratic win was 67%-33% win. I think having no competitive seats is a problem: it perpetuates a cycle of bitter partisanship that ensures further bitter partisanship. And it also makes discussions where elections are supposed to be treated like horse races a lot less interesting.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I think Florida is setting up to be more a referendum for/against Trump than it is about either candidate's personal values. The President made that it clearly is in his mind, anyway, with a tweet this morning.

In a morning tweet, Trump attacked Gillum as a “failed Socialist Mayor” and called him the “biggest dream” for Rep. Ron DeSantis, a Republican whose victory in Tuesday’s GOP primary was propelled by Trump’s endorsement over a more moderate opponent.

Trump alleged that Gillum, the mayor of Tallahassee, “has allowed crime & many other problems to flourish in his city,” adding: “This is not what Florida wants or needs!”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...it1?li=BBnb7Kz

[Indoor66]

Gillum is very unlikely to be elected in the general election in November.

[Bluedog]

Plot every person on a map. Do not attach any identifying characteristic (such as party, age, race, gender, etc). Use a computer to optimize the districts so that they are as compact and contiguous as possible. I think an undergrad comp sci major could do this. Problem solved. I cannot see any legitimate justification for gerrymandering.

I like your solution. As for justification, most politicians can justify anything. Just take a look at the U. S. Code!

One issue is that based on prior law, states MUST to consider race in their constituencies as they want black Americans to have representation. The issue is that that often leads to putting all black voters into a single district. So, the law that had a good intention might actually be counterproductive. It probably does produce more black congressmen, but might reduce the number of total Democrats (since that bloc overwhelmingly votes D). So, having a computer optimize the districts without regard to race might run afoul of the law.

[dudog84]

Gillum is very unlikely to be elected in the general election in November.

Bold prediction. How about some support for the statement?

[JasonEvans]

Gillum is very unlikely to be elected in the general election in November.

Considering the latest poll from just last month had DeSantis a whopping 3 points ahead of Gillum (39-36 with a heck of a lot of folks undecided) and given Florida's status as one of the closest of the purple states, I'd say your statement needs some serious explanation.