Thread by @RRHElections

A week late, but let's do a thread on the Alabama VRA case and what it might mean for redistricting in 2024. The Supreme Court is expected to reinterpret the VRA--one way or another--next spring, and the Court's new guidelines will change the way states approach redistricting. 1/

Earlier this year, a lower court ordered Alabama to redraw its map (left), which has had one Black-majority district since 1992. Plaintiffs convinced the court that the VRA required Alabama to draw two Black-majority seats (right, for one example). 2/

SCOTUS has long had a 3-factor test (the "Gingles factors") to determine when a VRA district is required:

1. A compact district can be drawn that is at least 50%+1 of a min. group
2. The minority is politically cohesive
3. Whites bloc vote to defeat minorities' candidates

3/

Dem-aligned groups argue that the light blue and yellow districts here are both "compact" enough to trigger VRA protection. Alabama points to the way they slice across counties on racial lines, and leave the dark blue seat separated by a bay with no road crossing. 4/

Spoiler alert: D's are going to lose this lawsuit (another @marceelias flop!), and SCOTUS is going to uphold the current AL map with one VRA seat. SCOTUS has been clamping down on racial gerrymandering for 15 years.

What matters for 2024 is what else SCOTUS does in the process.

Alabama is asking SCOTUS to radically alter VRA standards by requiring challengers to show that the state *intended* to discriminate against a minority before they can bring a claim. This is unlikely to happen; Justice Alito quickly dismissed the argument. 6/

However, Alito--who's written a lot of VRA opinions of late--suggested that the Gingles factors might be revised to require a proposed VRA district to be “reasonably configured” and “the kind of district that an unbiased mapmaker would draw.”

This would be a HUGE change. 7/

Back in the 1990's, many VRA districts were extremely ugly racial gerrymanders. At the time, the DOJ thought that the law required districts to be gerrymandered to pack in as many minorities as possible. That's how you got districts like these: 8/

https://twitter.com/RRHElections/status/1484314241330941953

But since then, SCOTUS has gotten less and less tolerant of racial gerrymandering. In 2017, Justice Thomas (an opponent of most racial classifications) joined the liberals to strike down #NC01--despite R's having worked together with Black Rep. GK Butterfield (D) to draw it! 9/

So under an Alito-Thomas "unbiased mapmaker" standard that further discouraged racial gerrymandering, what states might need to redraw their maps?

We can start with Alabama, which could be told to redraw even if it *wins* the case! 10/

The current AL-07 is much more compact than what Dems want to draw, but still splits Birmingham, Montgomery and Tuscaloosa along racial lines.

The alternative on the right splits only Birmingham, AL-07 is compact and Black-majority, and it's still a 6R-1D map. 11/

Louisiana's #LA02 is perhaps the most obvious racial gerrymander in the Deep South. A tighter Gingles standard (right) could force it to compact to New Orleans--but under Alito's rule, #LA06 could remain Likely R rather than becoming a second D seat. 12/

#SC06 is less gerrymandered, but still splits Charleston and Columbia along racial lines.

Jim Clyburn suggested removing Charleston from #SC06, perhaps thinking a second D seat would follow--but not necessarily. This 5-1 map keeps Charleston AA precincts together. 13/

What about Florida? Well, the old #FL05 is the textbook racial gerrymander that Alito suggested the VRA prohibits. We detailed all the problems that district had under both FL and federal law last winter...but another FL seat could be affected now too. 14/

https://twitter.com/RRHElections/status/1484312692920025088

That would be #FL20, which is...an ugly racial gerrymander that no one would draw without being motivated by race. You can't draw a Black-majority Palm Beach/Broward seat cleanly, unlike AL, LA, and SC above.

Thus, this version of #FL20 may not be permitted by the VRA. 15/

Without a way to draw a Black-majority seat meeting a tighter compactness standard, Florida could easily draw a clean 47% Black #FL20...and also a 31% Black #FL22, creating an opportunity for a Black D to a replace a white D (as the D primary would be Black-plurality) 16/

This much more compact map benefits Black D's and Republicans at the expense of white D's, as #FL23 becomes an R-trending D+3 seat.

(Lest you think "#FL22's primary would be plurality-Black" is a convenient R argument, it's actually Dems' go-to standard in FL redistricting). 17/

The one other state that may wish to revise an ugly racial gerrymander if the standard tightens is Texas, home of the infamous "fajita strips" designed to dilute the overwhelmingly Latino precincts along the RGV by attaching them to far-off rural white counties. 18/

Texas has presumed for years that a compact RGV seat that, like the RGV itself, is 90%+ Hispanic would be illegal. It might draw such a seat if the fajita strips became unlawfully uncompact, leaving the two other RGV seats much redder as a result. 19/

One final long-shot state that could be affected: California, where racial data dominated all other considerations in drawing much of the state. A district like the new #CA20, which packs white voters to make all surrounding districts more Latino, could draw scrutiny. 20/

In sum: although it's not overly likely that any of these states would have to redraw, altering the Gingles factors to prioritize compactness over race would scramble how we think about the VRA. It may lead to cleaner, more competitive, multiracial seats--not a bad thing at all!