Heading into today's NC ruling, I had assumed that a pro-Democratic ruling would probably add two Democratic-leaning CDs--one in Greensboro, the other in the rural northeastern part of the state.
But based on this decision, the Democrats have more upside
But based on this decision, the Democrats have more upside
The decision doesn't, say, order the GOP to uncrack Greensboro/Black areas of northeast NC.
Instead, it asks Republicans to rely on various statistical measures, like mean-median/efficiency gap, to determine the fairness of the plan.
Instead, it asks Republicans to rely on various statistical measures, like mean-median/efficiency gap, to determine the fairness of the plan.
A map like this one--with two additional Democratic-leaning CDs--would still leave the GOP with a 9-5 edge, an R+11 efficiency gap, and a huge 10 net-pt mean-median gap
So my guess is that the court would *not* going to be happy with a map like that, which merely creates two new Dem seats and leaves in place a significant GOP bias by those measures. If the GOP doesn't do more, the court redraw the map itself--with big downside risk for the GOP
And I'd note that this goes well beyond where the NC court went last time--it was ok with an 8-5 GOP map when it last ordered a new map; it doesn't really seem to me like the equivalent map would pass muster so easily this time
so at this point, i think this is the best sort of map the GOP can hope to get away with (not saying they would, given the court), but this is the best I think a gambling GOP could hope to pull off
it's a 9-5 map in 2020 pres (8-6 in Senate, 7-7 gov) with it has 2 CDs that barely voted for Trump, yielding 7-7 v. the statewide vote. the GOP could hope for a 10-4 outcome in '22.
with this map, the mean-median is still wide at 2.3 pts and the efficiency gap is at 7.9. the court could definitely still strike it down.
but the court didn't set any standards for mean/median, efficiency gap. and i think a gambling GOP could at least argue it's good enough
but the court didn't set any standards for mean/median, efficiency gap. and i think a gambling GOP could at least argue it's good enough
the case, i think, would rest on a comparison to the PA '18 map and the NC '20 redraw, and say that it's basically as fair as those maps (avg mean-median of 2.4 and efficiency gap of 6.7 in '16 pres)
and again, i'm not putting this out there to say this is the likeliest outcome; i'm doing it to say that i think this is the best plausibly defensible case for the GOP at this point.
yeah, i left the VRA CD entirely untouched--the decision made no specific reference to it, as far as i could tell. making the district more D doesn't really help the GOP with 'fairness' measures. and again, a 'best for GOP' for map
https://twitter.com/tam4az/status/1490024846662594561?s=20&t=Nj6XzAvH35IUW9JKIflPbg
I take that back--padding the VRA CD is probably in GOP interest, given that the VRA question wasn't sorted out. They wouldn't want to have to tack on adjusting that later on top of this, and it does help them a bit on partisan fairness
So here we have a map with the efficiency gap at 6.9 and mean/median at 2.6 for '20 pres. It's pretty close to the last Supreme Court approved map (R+6.6 and 2.8 for '16 pres), which is a natural standard for GOP to demand I think
One interesting question for the GOP is whether they can make both of the new light red CD's in GOP trending areas. This map has one of the new light red CDs in Wake County; they could easily lose it by the end of the decade.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
