MA-08

The Supreme Court stated quite clearly in Bartlett v Strickland (2009) that a majority-minority district wherein the minority population falls below 50% is no longer 'protected' by the VRA. Moreover, the Supreme Court stated just as clearly in LULAC v Perry (2006) that the VRA does not require the creation of 'influence' or 'coalition' districts (as is MA-08). Finally, the Supreme Court ruled quite clearly in Georgia v Ashcroft (2003) that a state legislature has the option whether to draw a smaller number of 'safe' minority-majority seats or a greater number of minority 'influence' seats.

In short, there is no reason that I can see to assume that a VRA lawsuit would be likely to succeed if Massachusetts fails to draw a minority-majority district for that mere fact alone.

---

by: roguemapper @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 19:46:17 PM UTC

To clarify

What the Supreme Court stated in Bartlett v Strickland is that a majority-minority district wherein the minority population falls below 50% due to population shifts does not then create a requirement that the state reformulate a majority-minority district.

---

by: roguemapper @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 19:53:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's not how I read Bartlett

It only says that you can't use the VRA as an excuse to ignore other standards and create a new "crossover"/influence district where previously there was none.

---

by: andgarden @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 19:59:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bartlett

Emphasis added:

Unlike any of the standards proposed to allow crossover-district claims, the majority-minority rule relies on an objective, numerical test: Do minorities make up more than 50 percent of the voting-age population in the relevant geographic area? That rule provides straightforward guidance to courts and to those officials charged with drawing district lines to comply with §2. See LULAC, supra, at 485 (opinion of Souter, J.) (recognizing need for "clear-edged rule"). Where an election district could be drawn in which minority voters form a majority but such a district is not drawn, or where a majority-minority district is cracked by assigning some voters elsewhere, then-assuming the other Gingles factors are also satisfied-denial of the opportunity to elect a candidate of choice is a present and discernible wrong that is not subject to the high degree of speculation and prediction attendant upon the analysis of crossover claims. Not an arbitrary invention, the majority-minority rule has its foundation in principles of democratic governance. The special significance, in the democratic process, of a majority means it is a special wrong when a minority group has 50 percent or more of the voting population and could constitute a compact voting majority but, despite racially polarized bloc voting, that group is not put into a district.

In short, you must have 50%+. If you have less, then the first Gingles criterion is unmet and there's no need to proceed further on those grounds (though there may be others).

It directly follows that if a district that was above 50% falls below 50% then it no longer meets the criteria.

Our holding also should not be interpreted to entrench majority-minority districts by statutory command, for that, too, could pose constitutional concerns. See Miller v. Johnson, supra; Shaw v. Reno, supra. States that wish to draw crossover districts are free to do so where no other prohibition exists. Majority-minority districts are only required if all three Gingles factors are met and if §2 applies based on a totality of the circumstances. In areas with substantial crossover voting it is unlikely that the plaintiffs would be able to establish the third Gingles precondition-bloc voting by majority voters. See supra, at 11. In those areas majority-minority districts would not be required in the first place; and in the exercise of lawful discretion States could draw crossover districts as they deemed appropriate. See Pildes 1567 ("Districts could still be designed in such places that encouraged coalitions across racial lines, but these districts would result from legislative choice, not ... obligation"). States can-and in proper cases should-defend against alleged §2 violations by pointing to crossover voting patterns and to effective crossover districts. Those can be evidence, for example, of diminished bloc voting under the third Gingles factor or of equal political opportunity under the §2 totality-of-the-circumstances analysis. And if there were a showing that a State intentionally drew district lines in order to destroy otherwise effective crossover districts, that would raise serious questions under both the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment s. See Reno v. Bossier Parish School Bd., 520 U. S. 471, 481-482 (1997) ; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 13-14. There is no evidence of discriminatory intent in this case, however. Our holding recognizes only that there is no support for the claim that §2can require the creation of crossover districts in the firstinstance.

In short, even if the first (and second) Gingles criterion is met, then you still have to establish the third Gingles criterion which is that white voters will vote as a bloc so as to prevent minority voters from electing the candidate of their choice. The likelihood of demonstrating that in Boston is not high in my view.

---

by: roguemapper @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 20:31:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Man, is this complicated

It seems to me that MA-8 clearly meets Gingels 1. It also clearly meets Gingels 2. And in local elections, you can demonstrate a case for Gingels 3. For example, in Cambridge, the vast majority of first-preference council votes for Denise Simmons come from Area 4. In Boston, look at the strong correlation between Tito Jackson and Ayanna Pressley votes by ward in the '09 at-large race. Also there is a strong correlation between votes for Murphy and Connolly. That seems to me to make something of a case for racially polarized voting.

This is way, way beyond my area of expertise and quite exhausting to think about - let's just agree to disagree... and I'd love to see your maps for a cracked MA-8 if you get the chance to draw 'em.

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)

---

by: shamlet @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 20:59:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What I am saying..

What I'm basically saying is that MA-08 is not sacrosanct as a majority-minority district (i.e., 50%+1). I'm saying that particularly if the district has fallen below 50% due to demographic shifts then Capuano's seat can be the one that's effectively eliminated. That doesn't mean that you chop up MA-08 into a half dozen pieces or that those voters vanish into the ether. Someone's going to get them.

If you divide MA-08 in half then one of the neighboring districts will end up around 45% minority (I just tried it) and what I'm saying is that this would not be a VRA problem, at least not in my view. If you divide it three or four ways then you may very well have a problem.

That's actually up in the air because Congress updated the VRA in 2006 to cover the effect of regression in light of the Supreme Court's Bossier Parish ruling that required intent. To my knowledge, that has not since been litigated (effect without intent), nor has it been squared away yet with other rulings based on the 14th Amendment.

---

by: roguemapper @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 21:28:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But it hasn't fallen under 50%

if the most recent census estimates are to be believed. And if you're only chopping up MA-8 into 2 pieces the only reasonable place to put those voters is with Lynch (Keating has too many people, even if you make the district thin in Plymouth, Frank would result in an absurd gerrymander of the South Coast, Markey would have to reach through Cambridge in an awkward way.)

So it's kind of silly in my mind to risk a lawsuit when the most likely end result is a plan with the same exact effect as my map II: Lynch is gone and a new (more liberal and probably from Boston) Democrat takes his place. In theory, they might be able to do it and have it pass muster with the courts, but there's no good reason to test it, at least not in the 2010 round of redistricting.

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)

---

by: shamlet @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 21:58:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

OK

I have no argument with that, and we have gotten way off track of your thread (though it's certainly appropriate to have a VRA discussion in a diary titled "Mass Confusion"). Moreover, I'm probably not communicating as well as I could be, and then there's also the question of interpretation. I will concede that I was probably too definitive in my initial phrasing.

So, to try and clear things up a bit, let me break it down like this.

There's the practical argument that you make here on whether it makes sense to dismantle MA-08. My answer to that is: It probably doesn't. There's no reason I can think of why there shouldn't be a district that covers the core of Boston, and said district will be very similar to Capuano's district.

Then, there's the hypothetical argument over whether you could dismantle MA-08 if you had a reason to do so, and to what extent you could do that. What I'm saying is this: The VRA does not require a 50% minority district in my view; a 45% minority district would be more than sufficient. Any less than that may be questionable, depending on why it turned out that way.

And, ultimately, what I'm saying is that if Capuano leaves his seat and the other nine representatives all run again, then his seat could be the one that is essentially eliminated (which is different from saying that his district is the one that's dismantled). How you would draw the lines and what districts they run in would mainly depend on where the incumbents live.

The lines would probably be so radically different that it would be meaningless to identify a given district as the dismantled one.

---

by: roguemapper @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 22:10:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agree on all counts

except maybe that a 50% minority district might be required - I think that would probably have to be tested in the courts, but you do make a good argument that it's not. In any case, it's not a particularly meaningful question in Massachusetts. (it is in Illinois and Maryland, for example, and that could be the foundation of a blockbuster Supreme Court case in the not-too-distant-future).

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)

---

by: shamlet @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 22:16:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can't Speak To Illinois

In Maryland, I don't think the Democratic party at this time is particularly interested in cutting out either one of the two black-majority CDs, as it's become something of a sensitive issue.

At the time MD was ordered to draw two of them, it was a boon for the GOP as they ended up with four seats out of eight for that entire cycle. (What's happened since then is that there are decent chunks of the state that would sometimes vote Republican then that are very reluctant do so in any election now.)  

36, M, Democrat, MD-03

---

by: Answer Guy @ Tue Jan 18, 2011 at 04:31:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Is it your view

that Bartlett foreclosed on retrogression claims? I very much doubt that. Therefore, I think it is plausible that MA could face a successful suit if it dismembered this district.  

---

by: andgarden @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 21:08:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, no

Retrogression is relevant under Section 5 and Massachusetts is not covered by Section 5.

Under Section 2 you would have to show discriminatory effect, in which case vote dilution is the obvious route, and to establish that you would need to apply the Gingles test.

Bartlett hinged on Section 2 in any event, but going back to Section 5, here's what the Supreme Court had to say in NAMUDNO v Holder (2009), emphasis added:

Held:
1. The historic accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act are undeniable, but the Act now raises serious constitutional concerns. The preclearance requirement represents an intrusion into areas of stateand local responsibility that is otherwise unfamiliar to our federal system... [T]he Act imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs. The Act also differentiates between the States in ways that may no longer be justified.

...

2. The Act must be interpreted to permit all political subdivisions,including the district, to seek to bail out from the preclearance requirements.

Clearly, Supreme Court jurisprudence is in a state of flux on the Section 5 front. In my view, it's highly unlikely that it will survive this cycle of redistricting without substantial legal modification.

---

by: roguemapper @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 21:44:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Whoops!

I removed the emphasis. It's all emphatic! LOL

---

by: roguemapper @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 21:46:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If I understand you correctly

Illinois and Maryland, as non-covered jurisdictions, are free to unpack their minority-majority districts, so long as voting patterns are not especially polarized.

I had previously understood it to be possible to make a retrogression claim under Section II. Can you say in particular why you think that isn't possible.  

---

by: andgarden @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 22:06:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Semantics

In my understanding, "retrogression" is the preclearance standard for Section 5. The Section 2 standard is "discriminatory effect" - which is applied under the three-prong Gingles test - and that most commonly takes the form of "vote dilution" based challenges. They may well look the same, but they're analyzed differently.

---

by: roguemapper @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 22:25:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If you're right

that Gingles is the only tool available outside of covered jurisdictions, then I think there is a strong chance that Illinois and Maryland have a much freer hand in unpacking than I had previously thought. Recent polarization in those places is probably insufficient to satisfy Gingles.

Hmm. . .

---

by: andgarden @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 22:58:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

IL & MD

I didn't address Illinois and Maryland directly, so let me give you my opinion on those.

The Supreme Court has said repeatedly that Section 2 challenges must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis that takes in the 'totality of circumstances' (an array of which have been identified). As such, it's very difficult to make a blanket statement about whether Illinois and Maryland are free to unpack their minority-majority districts.

That said, let's look at Gingles:

1) Clearly you can draw compact majority-minority districts in Maryland & Illinois. Now, in the latter case, there is the notorious 'earmuff' Latino district which is of questionable constitutionality (it was challenged, reached the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court sent it back to the lower courts, and the challenge was dropped before it was settled). But, regardless of that, there is no doubt that you could draw substantially the same number of majority-minority districts in a compact manner.

2) No one is likely to dispute that the minority population votes as a bloc with common interests.

3) So, the problem arises in assessing the question of whether the white population votes as a bloc so as to deprive the minority population of its ability to elect the representative of its choice.

My answer to that in the case of Chicago & the DC to Baltimore corridor is: No. As such, my answer to whether you could 'unpack' those districts is: Yes, to an extent. That is, if said unpacking resulted in districts wherein the minority vote was highly fractured or that placed the minority population into districts where the white population was substantially far removed and evidenced a pattern of voting contrary to that of the minority population, then the answer would be: No, you cannot do that.

Let me break this down differently: If you put the minority population in a district with a bunch of white liberals who evidence no problem voting for a minority candidate, then it's not a problem. If you put the minority population in a district with a bunch of backwoods rednecks (e.g., Republicans) who would never vote for a minority candidate, then it's a problem. Everything in between is subject to debate.

---

by: roguemapper @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 22:53:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My experience is

that racial polarization in IL and MD, even in the most conservative precincts, is still not as serious as in most parts of the south. I mean, consider the 1998 Senate race. There was polarization, yes, but CMB was still winning a significant percentage of the white vote. If she were not, she would have lost by a considerably larger margin.

It seems to me that the largest constraint on unpacking in IL and MD will be political.  

---

by: andgarden @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 23:04:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I should've expressed even more clearly

I basically agree with what you're saying about Illinois (and Maryland). For instance, if you're working with Chicago & the collar counties, I think that you can almost certainly unpack the Chicago districts with virtual impunity.

In my view, the problems will arise if you're, say, stringing a district from Lake Shore Drive to Decatur or from the DC border to the Eastern Shore - in place of one of the current minority-majority seats. In that case, one may very well be able to successfully challenge said district under the Gingles criteria.

From a practical standpoint, however, the only reason why the Illinois or Maryland legislature would want to unpack a minority-majority district to any degree would be to create a solidly Democratic coalition district. By definition, it's very unlikely that such a district would meet the Gingles criteria required for a successful VRA challenge. In short, there is no conceivable reason why the IL or MD legislatures would want to drop a district below 50% minority in such a way that the white majority could defeat the minority population's preferred candidate - because that would mean it'd be a Republican district.

The Section 5 'retrogression' preclearance standard is a much tougher threshold under which any diminishment of minority voting power is suspect. It doesn't apply to Illinois or Maryland in any case, and it's also worth noting that the NAMUDNO decision was an 8-1 ruling (with Justice Thomas as the only dissent - and he argued that Section 5 is already unconstitutional on its face).

---

by: roguemapper @ Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 08:36:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

BTW

It occurred that I should've posted a bit on the background of Bartlett v Strickland in order to clarify my original comments and the significance of the ruling.

The NC House district that was at issue in Bartlett was originally drawn in 1991 to be a majority-minority district as required by the VRA. By 2001, the minority population of the district had fallen below 50%. Consequently, the NC Assembly then attempted to reformulate a majority-minority H-18 district.

The NC Supreme Court rejected the first two attempts as a violation of the "Whole Counties" provision of the NC Constitution (that applies to legislative, but not congressional redistricting). The third attempt resulted in a 39% African American district that split two counties (Pender & New Hanover).

This district was again challenged by Pender County and eventually wound up in the NC Supreme Court which once again rejected the General Assembly's arguments that the VRA required drawing said district so as to have a "de facto" minority majority. The ruling stated that the VRA could not require the preemption of traditional state redistricting guidelines because a 50%+ minority district could not be drawn in a compact manner.

The case was then appealed up to the Supreme Court, which rejected (a) the argument that the VRA required the reformulation of a pre-existing majority-minority district if possible, and (b) the argument that the VRA required a "minority-opportunity" district if a majority-minority district could not be reformulated.

In doing so, the Supreme Court ruling established the 'bright-line' threshold of 50% as a mandatory precondition to invoking & satisfying VRA requirements.

So then, by direct extension, my initial comments were predicated on the prospect that MA-08 has fallen below 50% minority or, more precisely, that a compact 50% majority-minority MA-08 district can no longer be drawn once the state is subdivided 9 ways versus 10. If that's the case, Bartlett v Strickland would establish that the VRA does not require a majority-minority MA-08 district in the first instance, and so therefore the Massachusetts legislature can do just about whatever it wants.

If, on the other hand, a compact 50% majority-minority MA-08 district may still be drawn (as has been conjectured) then Section 2 of the VRA still kicks in, and whether you must draw said district then depends on the Gingles test.

---

by: roguemapper @ Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 18:06:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I didn't know about the history

of the district at issue in NC. I think that does change the way I read Bartlett.

How this shakes out across the country is going to be interesting, to say the least. The current jurisprudence is as incomprehensible and contradictory as I think it has ever been.  

---

by: andgarden @ Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 18:10:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yep, very interesting

I don't recall the exact wording, but the defense argued at the time that if the Supreme Court adopted the reasoning that it did, then it would substantially affect over half the minority seats in the nation.

That might've been typical lawyerly hyperbole, but in more concrete terms it will be very interesting to see what it means for North Carolina congressional redistricting. I think virtually everyone agrees that the NC-12 district is not protected in its current formulation anyhow, but the more interesting Bartlett issue is NC-01.

There's an excellent chance that the minority population of NC-01 has fallen below 50% or will do so once you equalize the districts (it's probably the slowest growing congressional district in the state). Before Bartlett, the assumption had been that you would have to approximate the current district as close as possible regardless. After Bartlett, that is much less clear, to say the least.

And, there's also the fact that the NC legislature has had little problem redrawing districts as required by legal rulings. What this means is that there's no obvious reason for the NC GOP to avoid pushing the boundaries of what they can do because if the courts or the DOJ object then the GOP legislature can just go back and redraw the lines accordingly.

---

by: roguemapper @ Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 18:56:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It seems pretty clear to me

that NC-01 is protected from retrogression--unless you take a maximalist approach to Shaw v. Reno.

NC-12 is trickier. While is it minority-majority in its current configuration, the map drawers swore up and down that it was politically motivated when drawn in 2001. But is it nevertheless protected by § 5?  

---

by: andgarden @ Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 19:45:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

NC

I think North Carolina is the likeliest test-case for both Section 2 and Section 5 of the VRA during this redistricting cycle, which is surely fitting considering NC produced Thornburg v Gingles, Shaw v Reno, and Bartlett v Strickland. Unless the GOP balks, which I think highly implausible, their maps will surely produce challenges on both fronts.

NC-12 is tricky for several reasons.

#1) As you said, the 2001 legislature insisted that the current district was drawn without regard to race, so it's difficult to now turn around and defend it on that basis. If you did, then a Shaw v Reno violation seems inescapable.

#2) Guilford County is the only county in the NC-12 district that's covered by Section 5. The obvious thing to do with it if you want to compact NC-12 into Charlotte is to attach the minority population of Greensboro to NC-04. The resulting district would be just as likely to elect a Democrat as is the current NC-12, however, said Democrat would be David Price - a white Democrat. So, would the fact that Guilford County minorities be represented by David Price versus Mel Watt qualify as retrogression under Section 5?

#3) You can easily draw a compact Charlotte based district that has the same minority population as the current NC-12. However, the minority population of Kannapolis, Salisbury, Lexington, Winston-Salem, and High Point would end up  scattered across as many as five congressional districts, 3-4 of which would be heavily Republican. Does this amount to discriminatory effect under Section 2 (surely it does) and if so how do you remedy that in light of Shaw v Reno?

Now, switching gears to NC-01, the first issue you have is that the district is already not a compact district. If that needs defining: It bypasses populations of closer geographic proximity to take in populations that are further removed. Then, you throw in the high probability that even in its current non-compact formulation NC-01 will drop below 50% minority after the new Census figures are applied. So, then:

#1) How do you square away Section 5 of the VRA with Bartlett v Strickland, let alone Shaw v Reno? If the GOP chose to, they could of course retain something like the current lines and argue that they are doing so for the political reasons (to pack Democrats), but let's say they don't. The only rationale by which you could then argue that NC-01 must continue to resemble the current district is that most of the counties are covered by Section 5 of the VRA. Yet, to avoid Section 5 "retrogression" you would undoubtedly have to create a racial gerrymander (remember, the GOP is saying they don't want to do it for political reasons). This places Section 5 in direct conflict with Shaw v Reno with regard to NC-01.

#2) Then, we have two Bartlett scenarios: (a) The district falls below 50% minority in any event; (b) a non-compact district above 50% minority can be drawn. If a vote dilution challenge is brought under either circumstance, which is very probable (again, unless the GOP balks) then this places Section 2 in direct conflict with Bartlett v Strickland. Let's look at each in turn:

(a) If you cannot draw a compact 50% minority-majority NC-01 district (you can't) then Bartlett states that there is no requirement to draw a majority-minority district in the first instance. Moreover, Bartlett states that the VRA cannot require the creation of "minority opportunity" district either. However, North Carolina is a far cry from Illinois or Maryland. There is virtually no doubt that dropping NC-01 from, say, 49% minority to 41% minority would have a 'discriminatory effect' under Section 2.

(b) Now, especially in the event that you can draw a (non-compact) NC-01 that is 50%+ minority and roughly resembles the current district, how can you argue that it would not have a discriminatory 'vote dilution' effect to do otherwise? This is especially true considering you would have no problem whatsoever in establishing the Gingles guideposts in the NC coastal plain areas at issue. Whatever the answer from the Supreme Court, it would inevitably set the boundaries between the reach of the VRA and the reach of Shaw v Reno (i.e., the 14th Amendment).

There is a route open to evading a definitive judgment, and that rests with the "totality of circumstances" formulation of past rulings. Whether the current Supreme Court (or, more precisely, Anthony Kennedy) is inclined to take that route won't be known until a case is heard.

---

by: roguemapper @ Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 20:42:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I thought I knew a lot about this,

but you obviously have a very sophisticated understanding of the issues at play. If it doesn't interfere with any professional obligations you have, I hope you will write a diary on the VRA implications to the redistricting landscape in 2011. I think you are probably better equipped to do so than anyone else at SSP.  

---

by: andgarden @ Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 21:29:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I've been toying with the idea

Especially when I've seen comments to the effect that the VRA is "settled law" when it's currently anything but.

I'll definitely give it some more thought about how to properly structure a VRA diary (hopefully better than my disjointed, scattered thread comments).

I think I should be able to get something worthy enough posted by next weekend. I have a very busy week ahead of me (and am procrastinating on work even as we type).

And, yes, this has been a topic of both personal and professional interest for me since two decades now.

I would certainly be interested to see a full-blown SSP discussion on the subject.

---

by: roguemapper @ Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 21:47:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

They say "write what you know,"

and I think that applies beyond fiction.

I might start with NC and build from there.  

---

by: andgarden @ Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 22:05:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

For the time being

I want to just note an aspect of the LULAC v Perry decision that may be applicable in California and Florida, to take two examples.

Part of the LULAC decision was a holding that the TX-25 district did not provide a substitute for the TX-23 district (per Georgia v Ashcroft) because TX-25 was designed to join together "disparate" Latino communities that were 300 miles apart. In short, LULAC held that the mere fact of common language/ethnicity was insufficient to create a 'community of interest' when other factors (e.g., geographic separation) did not suffice. LULAC declined to issue a ruling on the constitutionality of that TX-25 iteration per se, for the cop-out reason that modifying TX-23 to make it constitutional would inevitably alter the TX-25 lines as well.

Now, turning to California, you have for instance CA-18 which is designed to string together Latino communities from Stockton, Modesto, and Fresno - and also to fold in Merced County which is a Section 5 preclearance jurisdiction. Now, the distances involved are not as great (130 miles vs 300 miles) but the general principle is comparable.

In Florida, you have FL-03 which is designed to string together black communities as far as 150 miles apart in Jacksonville, Gainesville, Ocala, and Orlando (which itself replaced an altogether absurd FL-03 version that was struck down per Shaw v Reno). Again, the implicit LULAC holding that common race is insufficient of its own accord to create a "community of interest" may well be relevant.

Both districts may well be put in the spotlight now that referenda in the respective states have removed whatever partisan/political rationale might have been advanced in their justification. These are just two examples.

The final point I would add, for now, is to consider the possibility that several current districts of arguable constitutionality may persist for the mere fact that no one has seen fit to challenge them in court - at least not recently. It's worth noting, for instance, that the last time NC-01 and NC-12 were litigated (the Hunt v Cromartie round) that the 5-4 Supreme Court majority that sustained those versions included O'Connor but not Kennedy. At last hearing, NC-01 was sustained as being 'narrowly tailored' to satisfy Section 2 requirements even though it was declared a racial gerrymander. If these districts return to the Supreme Court on the flipside (that they should now be preserved to avoid Section 5 retrogression) it is quite arguable whether they would be retained.

Other districts around the nation are even more uncertain because they have not been litigated in the first place (or litigation was cut short or is significantly out of date). Off hand, CA-38, IL-04, and FL-23 come to mind.  

---

by: roguemapper @ Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 23:07:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Great points

FWIW, FL-03 is clearly drawn in its current iteration as a political concentration of Democrats. It would be otherwise indefensible (though it gave the Republicans good cover for their 2001 gerrymander).

---

by: andgarden @ Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 23:16:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Also

I should add, btw, that Shaw v Reno hinged on the 'maximization' strategy of the 1991 Bush I DOJ that was an application of Section 2 from the VRA. To my knowledge, the 'racial gerrymander' issue has not been definitively tested in the Supreme Court with regard to Section 5 of the VRA.

If 'retrogression' is a matter of strict scrutiny and if 'racial gerrymanders' are a matter of strict scrutiny, then which of those merits the stricter scrutiny?

And then, of course, you have the NAMUDNO case hanging out there which strongly implies that Section 5 is hanging by a constitutional thread in any event.

Both Bartlett and NAMUDNO were concluded too late in the previous cycle (2009) for their full ramifications to be litigated. Couple that with the untested fallout of the LULAC case and even unresolved aspects of Shaw, and we are certainly primed for a rather vigorous cycle of court activity relevant to redistricting.

Who knows, maybe some enterprising lawyer will even figure out a way to make a meaningful case out of Vieth v Jubelirer (the 2004 ruling which says partisan gerrymanders are justiciable, if only you could figure out a standard of adjudication). Not that would be really interesting.

---

by: roguemapper @ Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 21:29:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's clear what the standard

for a justiciable partisan gerrymander is: one that seriously offends Anthony Kennedy's sensibilities. He will craft his "standards" to fit such a case.  

---

by: andgarden @ Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 21:34:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

LOL

Sounds about right....

---

by: roguemapper @ Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 21:47:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ok, this is very, very confusing.

MA-8 is very slightly majority-minority - the minority population is very, very close to 50%. It's probably slightly above because I believe the aggregate college population is closer to the demographics of the nation at large, and more than 50% white. That raises an interesting question - is MMD status determined by voters, or by voting-age population, or by population eligible to vote, or...?

One thing is not in dispute: if you break MA-8 up all the seats will be massively white-majority. I think LULAC was due to the citizen or voting (not sure which one) population in district 23 being majority-white, which is not the case with MA-8.

Everything I've heard tells me "coalition" districts refer to coalitions of minorities and whites that combine to elect a representative. GA-12 would be an example of this. I've never heard anything about "coalitions" of minorities being distinct from single-minority-majority VRA districts. So by your logic districts like CA-37 and CA-35 aren't VRA protected? That doesn't sound right.

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)

---

by: shamlet @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 20:02:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"coalition" = 50%+ minority population

"crossover" = 50%+ white population with enough white voters voting for the preferred candidate of the minority voters to elect that candidate.

As to voting age vs. population, I think they consider both. Courts aren't entirely clear about this.  

---

by: andgarden @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 20:05:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

OK

If MA-08 is still slightly majority-minority (or, more precisely, if a slightly majority-minority district can still be drawn after dividing the state into 9 districts rather than 10) then it is at minimum advisable that the district be drawn. Whether it's required is much more debatable.

On the other hand, if the district has fallen below 50% minority (or if a compact 50% minority district cannot be drawn when dividing Massachusetts into 9 districts versus 10) then there is no requirement that the Massachusetts legislature go to extra lengths to reformulate a majority-minority district. To the contrary, they are likely to violate Shaw v Reno and/or Bush v Vera by doing so (Bush v Vera says that you cannot use race as a proxy for voting behavior).

Now, more specific to MA-08, if you did split the current district in half then the southern half would end up around 45% minority and overwhelmingly Democratic. There is no reason that I can see to think that such a district would fail to withstand a VRA challenge.

---

by: roguemapper @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 21:03:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Assuming that's the case

what good would it do? Lynch would still be gone from that district regardless, so it doesn't differ significantly from my map II. Markey and Frank might both be safer, but they're already safe. Also, if you tried to put Roxbury, Dorchester, and Mattapan (the southern half of MA-8) in with Keating you get a district that's 70 percent White. It seems to me either way it wouldn't be worth the hassle (Because there will be a lawsuit if that happens. Even if unsuccessful, it's a major pain to deal with.)

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)

---

by: shamlet @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 21:24:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Massively?

The interesting wrinkle here....all the existing VRA precedent cases discussed here revolve around either relatively straightforward White vs. Black or Anglo vs. Hispanic where at least some measure of racial polarization in the electorate has been exhibited.

The district that someone filing a lawsuit here would seek to force the courts to draw would in no way resemble any of those. Of the six (including "Other", which is of at least some relevance in Massachusetts because I think that's where the Cape Verdean community ends up being classified) groups that are generally recognized racial classifications, no one group other than Whites could possibly comprise more than 24% (in this case, Blacks, though outside of Boston proper, Hispanic is generally the largest minority) of the population of any minority-majority CD on their own. (Note: the most minority-heavy district I could draw in the state is about 41% White.) So you're talking about a "coalition" district to a much greater degree than before, and these different populations by and large live in different parts of the district and have identifiably different voting patterns if you look at anything other than straight R vs. D partisan elections.  

And the "whites vote in a bloc to stop the minority candidate from winning" scenario that usually gives rise to VRA issues is (at least arguably) not present here. Any precinct one could conceivably draw into a district in this part of the state, whatever its racial composition, gave at least a substantial share of their votes to elect an African-American for President and elect and re-elect an African-American Governor.

One could, I suppose, try to draw a set of districts designed to minimize minority influence in Massachusetts elections, by tying minority-heavy precincts to areas where minority candidates tend to underperform their baselines (and there are enough data points to figure such things out) in elections. (Inconveniently enough for such a plan, areas like Allston/Brighton, Back Bay, Brookline, Newton, and Cambridge, all of whom have many white voters who have repeatedly shown perfect willingness to support non-white candidates, are in the immediate vicinity.) Such a move is probably ripe for a court challenge, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that's what is going on here.  

So, yeah, this is new territory.  

36, M, Democrat, MD-03

---

by: Answer Guy @ Tue Jan 18, 2011 at 05:22:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Very nice work!

McGovern (53 in 2012) will never retire, though; he'll be there when he's 80.

---

by: emilysdad @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 19:50:58 PM UTC

population figures

What figures are they using on this app? I know they are not from the current census as local figures hae not been released. Are they from earlier year estimates? If so what years are they from?

---

by: billhos @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 20:27:17 PM UTC

Could the right Republican

possibly win in any of the Cape Cod/Quincy districts? Jeff Perry came close... even with all of the scandal surrounding him.

I miss SSP. Republican, IL-10

---

by: TokenRepublican @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 21:29:58 PM UTC

in an open seat situation

in the worst year for dems in at least 16 years and probably longer

18, Dem, CA-14 (home) CA-09 (college, next year). social libertarian, economic liberal, fiscal conservative.   Everybody should put age and CD here. :)

---

by: jncca @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 21:45:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Only if Keating Retires at the Wrong Time

Rule of thumb for MA, semi-prominent incumbent Democrats do not lose, under any circumstances, unless they are involved in a scandal. The last 2 congressional or statewide Dems to lose were Early and Mavroules in 1992. Both of those were due to scandals. Weld, Romney, Brown, Malone, etc were all elected in open-seat situations. So I gotta think Keating's safe for as long as he wants the seat. There is quite a bit they can do to make him safer. Pushing Keating west into New Bedford and giving Lynch the city of Quincy and northern Plymouth Co. is the most obvious choice.

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)

---

by: shamlet @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 21:48:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Scandal doesn't always do it either...

Think Gerry Studds' Page Scandal. Keating is probably safe, you're right. The only MA pickup I can think of is Tisei running in whichever district Wakefield ends up in.

I miss SSP. Republican, IL-10

---

by: TokenRepublican @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 23:40:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

*and even that

would be a stretch.

I miss SSP. Republican, IL-10

---

by: TokenRepublican @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 23:40:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Scandal Means Money, not Sex

For socially very liberal MA, the two types of scandals are quite different - while $ scandals can get you booted very quickly around here, sex scandals (Studds, Frank, Kennedy) usually aren't a problem.

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)

---

by: shamlet @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 23:49:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And Tierney's Was Definitely a Money Scandal

Which is why I think Tisei vs. Tierney would probably be a tossup race. If Tierney retires, Tisei vs. Driscoll would probably only be Leans D.

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)

---

by: shamlet @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 23:51:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think it will be hard to unseat Rep. Keating

He survived an open-seat contest that was heavily targeted by the NRCC. Yes, Perry was a deeply flawed candidate, but a lot of deeply flawed candidates won (now-Reps. West, Noem, Rivera, Quayle, Pompeo, Ellmers, Walberg, and the list goes on) because the cycle was so Republican.

Rep. Keating should be fine. It's a good question, though.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

---

by: SaoMagnifico @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 22:53:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A few things.

Just as a general observation, it's really amazing how far east MA-01 pushes to account for population loss if you don't draw it as an Olver-Neal catfight by lumping in Springfield. I've tried several maps with the same result, though I always pushed a little farther into the 465 outer loop just because I could, and gave Northampton to Neal just to keep him on his toes (as I believe the current MA-02 does as well).

I would love to see MA-09 redrawn into something like your "eliminate Lynch" plan. Chang-Diaz would not only be a fantastic Rep, she'd be a 200% improvement over Lynch. Though I get the feeling that certain working-class whites in Southie (Lynch's base) would get pretty bitter over that part of your map. Unless you messed with the lines a bit to split parts of Southie into Keating's district. Not sure about your MA-05 on that map, though - I don't think Tsongas would play too well in the near burbs relative to the territory she represents now.

The "eliminate Tierney" map just doesn't work, for the reasons you described. The leg just isn't going to put Markey, the most powerful member of the delegation and a guy not known for his campaign skills, into a contested primary. With minimal effort you could draw it into a Tierney vs. Tsongas contest that Tierney could probably win, but splitting up the north shore as a community of interest probably wouldn't fly regardless.

It really wouldn't hurt Markey if you gave Waltham to Tsongas, especially on the "Frank retires" map, and it would make CD5 a LOT more Democratic.  

---

by: notanothersonofabush @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 21:51:07 PM UTC

Waltham

is actually the most conservative town in that area (far more conservative than Lexington, for example). Scott Brown won it narrowly while he lost every town around it by double-digits.

As for my II-5, the southern part of that district (around Concord) is very, very liberal. That's probably enough to cancel out the more conservative outer Northern Suburbs. (just FYI- I think you might be blurring the line between her and Markey: the colors came out too similar unfortunately, but the line goes from West of Woburn southwest to just North of Framingham.)

Tierney vs. Tsongas doesn't really work, because as you mentioned, Tierney would win that - then he'd probably be representing a district that's even slightly less liberal than his current one. That would be just asking for a takeover by Tisei (or, failing in that, Frank Cousins).  

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)

---

by: shamlet @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 22:27:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree

I went into my reading of this diary thinking I'd prefer getting rid of the ethically contemptible Rep. Tierney than the politically contemptible Rep. Lynch, but I think the map screwing Lynch would be likelier to work.

Democrats have cover for a plan to screw Lynch, too. Some here have noted that socially conservative Boston Irish Democrats in the legislature are likely to oppose efforts to get rid of Lynch, whom they might see as representing their interests in Congress. Well, now they also have Rep. Keating, an Irish American in a D+5 district. They had Delahunt, but his politics were far left of his district; Keating seems more moderate, though perhaps not as conservative as Lynch.

Besides, Chang-Diaz would be a great congresswoman.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

---

by: SaoMagnifico @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 23:00:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lynch Becomes Useful In Some Contexts.

Lynch's district can take a more conservative town or two away from Keating. He's got a base in Boston (Southie and Dorchester; most versions of his seat I've drawn also have a arm into West Roxbury and Roslindale, which are also full of the kind of people who'd like Lynch a heck of a lot more than Barney Frank or even a guy like Capuano) and between that, Milton, and Brockton, it's hard to picture a GOP opponent getting much traction there.  

Not that I'm a big fan of Lynch's by any stretch of the imagination. I just find figuring out what to do about ethically compromised Tierney, boosting shaky seats for Keating and Tsongas, and trying to avoid unpleasant surprises in some of the other districts more compelling than the idea of going after Stephen Lynch. Not to mention that I'd be concerned that a "musical chairs" scenario leaves Lynch standing and someone better gone.  

36, M, Democrat, MD-03

---

by: Answer Guy @ Tue Jan 18, 2011 at 05:31:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Eliminating Tierney probably wouldn't work

There's too many Republicans in the current MA-05 and MA-06 that are drowned out by the strategic placement of Lowell, Lawrence, and the inner ring suburbs. If you put Tierney in with Markey, the district has to be most of the current MA-07 plus Lynn and Salem, which frees up a lot of marginal towns in Essex County. Tsongas and McGovern will have to take them on, and neither will want that.  

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08

---

by: MassGOP @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 23:12:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Perhaps the smartest thing to do...

Would be just to lean hard on Rep. Tierney to retire and court a strong prospective successor who can hold out Tisei or Cousins.

Joe Kennedy III lives in Barnstable on Cape Cod, but he's got the name and judging by his recent speech in Boston, he's got the genes. He's a potential recruit. Mayor Kim Driscoll of Salem, who has been mentioned as a long-shot candidate for Senate in 2012, is perhaps more likely to run (residency won't be an issue). Under Map II (Rep. Lynch drawn into a district with Rep. Capuano), an already D+7 district will probably shift a couple points more Democratic, as shamlet notes; I doubt Driscoll would have any trouble in an open-seat contest, even against a top-tier Republican recruit like Tisei.

The thing is, I doubt Rep. Pelosi would support efforts to ditch Tierney. The two are personal friends, and he's done a lot of work to get close with the Democratic House leadership.

Under a particularly diabolical scenario, the Massachusetts Democratic Party could play one side against the other, using signals to Pelosi to "play telephone" and push Tierney into the Senate race - while recruiting a more attractive candidate like Rep. Capuano, Mayor Setti Warren of Newton, or Joseph Patrick Kennedy II (the aforementioned Kennedy's father), someone who could beat Tierney in a primary, meanwhile setting up the younger Kennedy or more likely Driscoll to run in MA-06. But while that would be a truly masterful display of political brinkmanship on the part of the Massachusetts Democrats, it's probably unlikely, because even after presiding over the entirely avoidable loss of 63 seats in the House, Pelosi is still highly regarded for some goddamn reason.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

---

by: SaoMagnifico @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 23:35:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Under Map II

though, I find it hard to believe Lynch wouldn't run for Senate. So then if Tierney was also in the primary, you'd stand a good chance of splitting the liberal vote and allow lunch-pail Dems to give Lynch the nomination.

Also, while my II-6 is more Democratic than the current MA-6, remember that the vast majority of new Dems in the district are coming straight out of the State Senate district Tisei represented for 20 years (there's pretty much no way around that without really messing up Tsongas and/or Markey.) So that means the changes probably are a wash in a race involving Tisei. Like I've said before, if there's any Republican in America nowadays who can win and hold a D+7 or greater district, it's him.

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)

---

by: shamlet @ Sat Jan 15, 2011 at 23:57:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I wondered about that

The only antidote I can think of - aside from running Kennedy II, who I think might clear the field if he ran, or drawing another conservative Democrat into the race, who would probably never get enough oxygen to sustain a competitive bid with Rep. Lynch in - would be someone like Mayor Warren, a candidate with strong minority and crossover appeal; his main problem, aside from being awfully cagey about a potential bid, is lack of statewide profile.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

---

by: SaoMagnifico @ Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 00:11:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

They key is getting only 1 liberal against Lynch

In a one-on-one Lynch vs. (someone more liberal) primary, Lynch loses. He might bloody up the other candidate, but the liberals are clearly more numerous than the blue-collar Dems here. I think even an unexciting candidate like Capuano could beat him one-on-one. The way Lynch wins is if multiple Liberal candidates start to split the vote.

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)

---

by: shamlet @ Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 00:53:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lynch won the special election primary

for the open seat in 2001 with 40% of the vote as the other liberal candidates split the vote..

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/

---

by: sapelcovits @ Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 01:04:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And both Reps. Tierney and Lynch...

Would lose to Sen. Scott Brown if they ran.

Rep. Tierney isn't even 60 yet; it might be possible to talk him into retiring, and I definitely think the party should make a strong effort there, but he's not likely to bow out for health reasons or anything like that. He might have to be the squeaky wheel, because it looks more realistic to leave his district alone, leave Reps. Olver and Neal alone, and screw Rep. Lynch.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

---

by: SaoMagnifico @ Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 01:43:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why Do You Keep Bringing Up Kennedy?

You keep doing that in this thread, yet as you note, he doesn't live in this district. For purposes of this website it'd seem useful to talk about who'd actually run.

---

by: armand @ Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 01:11:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I was referring...

To the Senate race.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

---

by: SaoMagnifico @ Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 01:38:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Another Flaw In The "Get Lynch" Plan

Setting up Lynch to fall in a primary involves giving him a good chunk of Capuano's district. This leaves a huge void to the south and southeast of Boston, a void full of some pretty red towns. Keating's not going to add much there and you can't cover all that territory with parts of two districts that have to reach Worcester and Newton, respectively.

You've actually got enough people in SEMASS to create a new district unlikely to go Republican, but you've still got to eliminate another seat, and...
* Combining Markey with Tierney leaves Tsongas with a bunch of red towns near the NH border and no way to reach the inner-ring Boston burbs that will probably keep her current seat reasonably safe.  
* Eliminating Frank doesn't help you, surprisingly. Metrowest is somehwat underrpresented as of now.

The best I thing I found along these lines is the Olver v. Neal showdown, but that map I drew gives much of the northwest to McGovern, and gives Frank and Markey chunks of the Blackstone Valley, which seems like an awful lot of districts being radically altered.  

36, M, Democrat, MD-03

---

by: Answer Guy @ Tue Jan 18, 2011 at 06:42:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't have a lot to say on

MA other then its hard to eliminate corner seats.  Tierney-Oliver-Keating you don't so much eliminate a corner as nearby seats into it.  With 5 & 7 being the only seats next to CD6 its hard to imagine Tierney had getting a seat with at least 1/2 of his area.  Of you could take CD8 through CD7 into Lynn but that takes some of CD7 away from Markey.

Markey is senior guy in MA and has a sweet committee spot.  I can't imagine him being placed in a 50-50 race with anyone.  Ditto with Frank.  Tsongas is only MA female so I think she is safe.  Neal is creeping up there on Ways & Means so I can't see a powerful pol like him getting the axe.  Is McGovern's second spot on Rules enough of big deal to get him a pass?  Iffy in my opinion.  

So once you eliminate the corners and the powerful plus the female that leaves CD3-CD8-CD9.  

So you got two Irish guys and an Italian guy with seats in jeopardy in MA.

I say its time for Mr. C. to run for the US senate because he seat is on the chopping block.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 00:50:57 AM UTC

Read the discussion above

Let's not re-hash the massive and complex VRA discussion above, but long story short MA-8 is almost certainly not going away.

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)

---

by: shamlet @ Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 00:55:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

My friend

there is more then one way to skin a cat.  You can have a minority/majority seat with CD8's congressman.

Give Cambridge to CD7--Bring CD6 down to Somerville (through eastern edge of CD7)

Then CD4 (Barney Frank) keeps Brookline & Newton plus a few other surburban towns.  Then Frank takes in our of the minority areas of North Boston.  The white parts of Boston in CD8 goes to CD9.

You can carve up Capuano's seat quite easily and preserve a minority majority seat.  Frank is not have any problem holding just as Congressman C had no problem holding it.

---

by: rdelbov @ Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 18:59:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Amazing

I tested it, and you are very right - it's actually possible to make a majority minority (49% white) district including all of Newton (if you've ever lived in Boston you'd understand my initial incredulity). Wow!

Adding Brookline is a bridge too far though - it pushes it above 50% white. My 4th looks like a wishbone - the head covers the Hispanic sections of Eastie, Chelsea, and Everett, the left tail covers Brighton and Newton, and the right tail covers Roxbury, Dorchester, and Mattapan.

It's still about 70% overlapping with Capuano's district, though, even though it doesn't include most of Cambridge and Somerville. So Frank gets an entirely new district save for Newton. It's probably D+30 or so, so I can't imagine he'll face problems, but at 72 he's probably not going to be happy having to get to know a whole new set of constituents from the ones he's represented for 28 years.

So I stand by my earlier contention that Capuano is very unlikely to wind up without a district, regardless of whether he runs for Senate.

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)

---

by: shamlet @ Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 20:10:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Kinda lucky but

Frank would have a fit without Newton my fallback plan was to slice and dice Cambridge & Somerville to pillage the minority neighborhoods there. That might let you put Newton back in-maybe.   I think, however,  there are very few cities or towns split in redistricting in MA.

So maybe I should admit defeat and go with McGovern.  Its just hard to go corners.  

I wish I had local knowledge but sadly these historic towns are just places on a map.  

MA is just another example of the benefit of piling on seniority as McGovern-Frank-Oliver-Neal-Markey-Lynch have acquired real clout.  Losing of them will be painful but the freshman & Tierney might be hard to root.  

---

by: rdelbov @ Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 23:20:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's why I think Lynch gets the boot

if nobody goes voluntarily.

Cutting up McGovern is problematic because, frankly, who wants to take in Worcester? It would drastically change the dynamic of whomever takes it on, and McGovern would probably give anybody around him a serious headache (if not beat them) in a primary.

Lynch, on the other hand, can be drawn into a district he can't win (with or without Capuano) quite easily.

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)

---

by: shamlet @ Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 23:49:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I can be convinced

about Lynch.  South Boston has dominated a house seat since forever and like Baltimore the whole city used to have three CD's that it dominated.  Does either city even have enough for one seat?

Times have changed.  I guess Lynch is it.

---

by: rdelbov @ Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 02:14:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Could You Do the Oppposite of Option 3?

If John Tierney is the weakest member of the delegation (makes sense, given the district and has wife heading to jail) wouldn't the more obvious approach be to shore him up? Your map and a lot of the comments here get into the considerable difficulties of getting rid of this corner seat. So would it be possible to strengthen Tierney instead? I realize that's note the point of this post. But if one district has to go, and it's hard for it to be this one, could this one be adjusted in ways that'd help save this seat for the Democrats?

---

by: armand @ Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 01:19:22 AM UTC

Tisei

Tierney would be 100% safe if it weren't for Tisei. The problem with trying to shore Tierney up is that you invariably wind up pushing the district more into Tisei's State Senate District, or pushing it into the Merrimack Valley in ways that make Tsongas genuinely vulnerable. The best option for Democrats is A) coax him into retirement, B) eliminate his district (map 3) or C) hope he can beat Tisei in a competitive race in 2012.

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)

---

by: shamlet @ Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 01:30:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A depressing prospect

A primary between Niki Tsongas, who barely scraped into Congress, and John Tierney, with his wife's legal problems, would be depressing to watch.  

---

by: brittain33 @ Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 06:02:04 AM UTC

IV 5 & 6...

Tsongas's district is colored yellow, and your map still clearly has Lawrence colored yellow also...meaning it wasn't moved out her district.

What that map does do is split the City of Methuen between two CDs ,and  you do the same with the Town of Andover. This immediately sinks that map. The Legislative delegation in Boston will not allow these communities to be rendered irrelevant.

*What's the deal with everyone being worried about Tisei?? Tisei would not make it out of a primary, period. Hudak would run again and beat Tisea easily. I'd be more worried about Tarr.

Just the thoughts of a life-long resident of greater Lawrence.

---

by: Padeco @ Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 08:40:14 AM UTC

That was a mistake

Lawrence was in the 6th in an earlier draft of that map.

As for Methuen/Andover, the number of voters there is small (on the order of 10K), so the town splitting was just a convenience on my part to equalize population. I'm sure with more accurate numbers you can devise a set of lines that don't split towns without changing the IV-5/IV-6 line much at all.

And, while I do think Hudak might be a problem in a primary, I think he's a spent force. He lost a race that a baggage-free Some Dude could have won, and that has earned him more than a little animosity, even among the grass-roots. Much of the anti-Tisei sentiment this year (among the 5% of Republicans that actually cared) had to do with the liberal (at least relative to Republicans) Baker picking an even more liberal running mate. If any office should be a (slight) bone to throw to conservatives, LG is it. That's why I think Sean Bielat is probably going to be nominated for it at some point. But when you're talking about a party that hasn't won a congressional election in 16 years, I feel like pragmatism is going to be a stronger force than in other places. But, then again, I'm not a 6th district primary voter. It'd be interesting to watch, for sure.

I think Tarr is probably looking more at the Governor's race in 2014, but I do agree he could be a strong candidate for this seat. The big problem there is that he'll be under tremendous pressure not to let the state senate caucus dip to 3. I think that might be enough to prevent a run.

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)

---

by: shamlet @ Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 15:59:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Also,

what makes you think there will even be a primary? For all the grumbling this year, Tisei didn't face a on-ballot primary challenge. The MAGOP is so small that it's genuinely hard to find one candidate for each race, let alone two.

For example, I had one contested primary on my ballot this year (Auditor) where the establishment candidate won 90-10. I also had 7 spaces where there was no candidate for the R nomination. That should should say something about the likelihood of a serious primary challenge. Not saying it can't happen, just that it's pretty unlikely.

Moderate Libertarian Republican, MA-8 (college) / MD-7 (hometown)

---

by: shamlet @ Sun Jan 16, 2011 at 16:10:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Because I live here

And I know the local Tea Party activists. Don't you think the Republicans are saying the same thing that the bloggers here are saying - that Tierney is relatively weak? Why settle for a "liberal" like Tisei??

Hudak performed well considering he is certifiable. I have never, ever seen the right-wingers work harder for anyone (I don't know what the appeal is..) He absolutely could run again, and yes I think beat Tisei.

---

by: Padeco @ Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 04:43:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I should add

Were I advising Hudak I would encourage him to run again even if Tisei did.

As you pointed out, Tisei didn't have a primary, so he never had to directly appeal to voters on his "own". Hudak, however, was campaigning in his own right, and no doubt has a significant amount of voter data built up.

Hudak also has the fundraising network. Yes, Tisei did well raising money, but he was raising money to defeat an incumbent in state government, and he was doing so as Senate Minority Leader. Hudak's donors would have the same motivation to re-donate...However, because Tisei wouldn't be running for a seat in state government (a race many expected, especially early on, him to be winning) many of his former donors may not be as motivated.

---

by: Padeco @ Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 04:54:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

3 Random Thoughts

I don't see the "consolidated West" scenario happening.  Western Mass (defined here as the 413 area code) has about 100K people more than a single CD; It'd be hard to draw a Olver vs. Neal seat that doesn't stick some of the most conservative voting towns in the state with someone who won't want them. (What you drew there, giving the Worcester-based seat most of Franklin County is about the best option.)

What to do about Keating's district? The best thing to do is to figure out a way to get Randolph in there. My version of the new MA-09 adds Randolph, Braintree, and Holbrook and takes out Abingdon and Hanson. Braintree and Holbrook aren't great additions on paper, as Brown and Baker both won them, but they're way more likely to be familiar with Bill Keating, who's been their DA for a while, than with any likely Republican opponent. Randolph, which is only about 60% non-Hispanic white, was also in Keating's DA turf, and it's a terrific add for any Democrat; Patrick beat Baker there 2-1.  

Regarding what to do about the North Shore...if Tierney goes, you could eliminate that district, give a lot of his territory to Markey and I doubt he'd draw a significant primary challenge. Or, since this district (the 6th as it stands now) needs to grow more than most if it's kept, you could push it into Revere, Winthrop, and Boston depending on the outcome of the need to keep a min-maj district.  

36, M, Democrat, MD-03

---

by: Answer Guy @ Tue Jan 18, 2011 at 04:24:48 AM UTC