Thread by @Redistrict

Thread: yes, the new House map is on track to be slightly more *equitable* (less pro-GOP) than the current one. But keep in mind, it's also on track to feature:

- Even fewer competitive seats
- Even wider disparities in maps' treatment of non-white voters from state to state

I think @mcpli's broader point is fair, but the way I'd frame it is that vastly different standards are being applied to non-white communities in TX vs. IL, AL vs. VA, etc. depending on partisan motive, absent a clearer set of VRA rules from SCOTUS/Congress.

If federal courts unpacked #VA03 to create an additional Black opportunity district in 2016, a consistent interpretation of the VRA would also demand that #AL07, #LA02 and likely #SC06 be unpacked to create second Black majority seats too.

We'll see what courts say this time.

In TX/GA, Republicans shored up their own suburban seats by purging Dem voters who are predominantly non-white, of many races/ethnicities. In IL/NM, Dems rationalized fairly creative gerrymanders by linking minority communities in far-flung parts of those states.

In CA, the commission pretty much drew more Latino majority districts as its first priority. In NC, Republicans claimed they drew race-blind maps but effectively diluted a historically Black seat, #NC01, from 44% to 41% (though there's a strong chance it's overturned in court).

Much of this disparate treatment is a product of courts' and Congress's failure to articulate how lines *should* be drawn fairly. In the past, SCOTUS has said coalition districts (<50% of a single minority) *may* be drawn, but has declined to compel their creation.

In practice, this has created an absolute mess, where the value of non-white votes varies wildly from state to state, w/ the biggest variable being which party happens to control the state.

The disparities will continue to widen until SCOTUS/Congress steps in to act (end).