Brown seeks to stop redistricting in court; says it dilutes minority voting

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: The Orlando Sentinel

Implying that a secret, racist agenda may be in play to eliminate Congressional districts drawn to represent black voters, U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown, D-Jacksonville, filed a federal lawsuit Thursday to stop Florida's redistricting effort.

On Wednesday the Florida Senate released a proposed map that would redraw many of Florida's 27 Congressional districts to comply with an order from the Florida Supreme Court. That order came following a lawsuit that charged the state's 2011 redistricting map had been gerrymandered, drawn to assure that certain seats would always be won by one party or another.

Brown's district would be most affected under the proposed map. And her district was specifically cited for change in the Florida Supreme Court order. The new proposal would lop off District 5's snake-like appendage that meanders from Jacksonville south to Orange County, taking in black communities along the way. Instead, the map proposes District 5 stretch due west from Jacksonville to Tallahassee.

She would no longer represent Central Florida, and, specifically, would no longer represent the predominantly black neighborhoods of Central Florida.

Read more: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/political-pulse/os-brown-sues-to-stop-florida-redistricting-20150806-post.html

[pinto]

1. Redistricting after a census ought to be done by an independent body, imo.

It's a two way street. The best approach is a non-partisan body specifically called to set districts according to the census count.

[CincyDem]

3. Agree that it's a two way street, but...

...every time there's a "two way street" that can cut both ways, it doesn't because it seems that democrats don't approach the rules with the same bad intentions that republicans do. Seems like republicans would eat their young to win and democrats often seem to get "pragmatic" and not push the limits.

[pinto]

4. Yeah...Repubs have been working this scam all the way up and down state offices.

Knocked down nationally they took a state, district, county, local approach to get in the back door. We Dems overlooked what's now become obvious.

[CincyDem]

6. yep- good point

And it's the reason we hear so much right wing clap-trap about "state's rights".

[Big_Mike]

10. No, gotta give props to the guys here in Cali

When the independent commission for re-redistricting was being formed, we got a very strong, Dem leaning company in as our lead agency in setting up the districts. Caught the rethugs napping, and got districts VERY friendly to dems. It is how we were able to have filibuster proof majorities for the first few years for Jerry Brown.

[murielm99]

7. This is not as simple as we might wish.

We can't draw districts that dilute minority representation. Blacks and Hispanics are entitled to representatives who support their interests. The census count may not line up exactly. Minorities can be excluded from representation by having their districts redrawn so they they are actually parts of other districts.

The voting rights act also says that they must have representation.

It might be easy in places like Iowa, which has a lower population and fewer minorities. And before any Iowans get mad at me, I know. Iowa has minorities.

Many areas are undergoing demographic shifts. It is getting harder to keep up with those shifts. Ten years is a long time to wait before making changes. Of course, that is what we do. But things are changing rapidly in many areas. Very rapidly.

[Igel]

8. It's one of the aspects of voting law that I can't quite sort out.

In Texas, you see, it was evil to draw lines a certain way. The reason given officially was to make safe (D) and safe (R) districts, but given the high correlation between white (R) and non-white (D) the resulting gerrymandering was seen as segregating minority districts illegally. You couldn't group them into safe districts.

Part of the issue is a disparity in voting rates. If a district is 55% Latino and 45% white, most of those actually voting are likely to be white. Grouping Latinos into districts that were 70 or 80% Latino was a no-no.

At the same time, you have to produce districts to ensure that people are pretty much guaranteed that the winner will like them. That means you have to group them and not dilute their vote, taking, say, a district that's 70 or 80% Latino and redistributing them into districts that aren't safe Latino districts.


It strikes me that there's a very, very fine racially-balanced quote-based line that has to be observed, grouping ethnic groups into districts that ensure they get a majority but not such a large majority that it means they're less likely to win in nearby districts.

Often the line is determined by who brings suit; it's never determined by who doesn't bring a suit. So if an advocacy group thinks that they could do better by claiming dilution of votes, they can do that; if in the same situation an advocacy group thinks they could do better by claiming district packing, they can do that. In Texas it's just going to get worse.

Worse, intent doesn't matter in the least. All that matters is the effect or the likely impact. A computer algorithm that works perfectly fine in one state might be deemed racist in another state for packing districts and racist in another state for diluting minority votes, not because the algorithm has any intent whatsoever but because of the impact it has in the desired racial distribution of the outcome of free elections.

[captainarizona]

2. A good thing gone bad

While drawing districts to ensure african-american representation sounds good it is very easy to abuse. In pennsylvania the republicans drew districts that were over 90% african american so in 2012 democrats got 100,000 more votes for congress yet republicans won 11 house seats to 5. Nationally that year democrats got 1,000,000 more votes for congress but lost the house because of gerrymandering. It does not do any good to have a black congressperson if it gives control of house to republicans.

[Amishman]

5. redistricting should be by algorithm, to generate the solution with the most compact districts

whatever solution has the least miles of district borders and gives all districts the same population should be the solution used. Yes, after each census the map would end up completely different but to me that is a positive as it would make career incumbents more difficult.

[bemildred]

9. +1. I like it. nt