Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Florida judge rules new election map unconstitutional. Florida legislature submits new map for his consideration, the major changes of which are limited to the date at the top   (nytimes.com ) divider line
    More: Unlikely, League of Women Voters, judicial circuit, Thanksgivings, Florida Supreme Court, congressional districts  
•       •       •

2484 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Aug 2014 at 1:17 PM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



50 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-08-12 11:29:34 AM  
Reminds me of the Massachusetts abortion protest law. 18 feet is constitutional so we'll try for 35 feet next. 35 feet is unconstitutional, so we'll go with 25 for the next round of lawsuits.
 
2014-08-12 12:06:54 PM  
The 4 Dems districts turned into 2 GOP and 2 Dem hasn't been addressed?

Wow, I'm really surprised.

They are trying to run out the clock here.

Might even work.
 
2014-08-12 12:25:15 PM  

quatchi: The 4 Dems districts turned into 2 GOP and 2 Dem hasn't been addressed?

Wow, I'm really surprised.

They are trying to run out the clock here.

Might even work.


Dunno, the judge threatened to delay the election if they didn't fix it.
 
2014-08-12 01:20:39 PM  
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise
 
2014-08-12 01:22:38 PM  
For fark's sake. Why do we let partisan politicians anywhere near the redistricting process?
 
2014-08-12 01:23:34 PM  
Let's keep this dance going, and move ever closer to more states with lawsuits and more unbiased computer-generated districts.

Keep fighting that fight, Republicans. Your backwards agendas may slingshot our country forward to spite you.
 
2014-08-12 01:25:33 PM  

quatchi: The 4 Dems districts turned into 2 GOP and 2 Dem hasn't been addressed?

Wow, I'm really surprised.

They are trying to run out the clock here.

Might even work.


Yup.

FTA: "'There are many cases that have held that elections can proceed under unconstitutional districts when insufficient time remains to redraw the districts,' Mr. Cantero told a joint reapportionment committee."
 
MFK
2014-08-12 01:28:19 PM  
It amazes me that this shiat is still going on brazenly, in the open in the 21st century. If any of these farktards had the smallest semblance of a brain, they'd make it so districts were actually competitive because it keeps lunatics in general out of government. Most areas are politically mixed so if you had districts that were drawn the way they are supposed to - using ONLY geographical and population data, they would mostly be purple. I understand that these assholes are trying to make it "easier for them to win" but all they are doing is creating these districts where a fringe candidate can be openly bought and sold, campaign on a platform of batshiat crazy and STILL easily coast to victory. Everyone, regardless of ideology, should at the very least be able to recognize that having lunatics running the asylum is a terrible idea.
 
2014-08-12 01:29:18 PM  

MFK: It amazes me that this shiat is still going on brazenly, in the open in the 21st century. If any of these farktards had the smallest semblance of a brain, they'd make it so districts were actually competitive because it keeps lunatics in general out of government. Most areas are politically mixed so if you had districts that were drawn the way they are supposed to - using ONLY geographical and population data, they would mostly be purple. I understand that these assholes are trying to make it "easier for them to win" but all they are doing is creating these districts where a fringe candidate can be openly bought and sold, campaign on a platform of batshiat crazy and STILL easily coast to victory. Everyone, regardless of ideology, should at the very least be able to recognize that having lunatics running the asylum is a terrible idea.


Except, of course, the lunatics themselves.
 
2014-08-12 01:36:49 PM  

qorkfiend: MFK: It amazes me that this shiat is still going on brazenly, in the open in the 21st century. If any of these farktards had the smallest semblance of a brain, they'd make it so districts were actually competitive because it keeps lunatics in general out of government. Most areas are politically mixed so if you had districts that were drawn the way they are supposed to - using ONLY geographical and population data, they would mostly be purple. I understand that these assholes are trying to make it "easier for them to win" but all they are doing is creating these districts where a fringe candidate can be openly bought and sold, campaign on a platform of batshiat crazy and STILL easily coast to victory. Everyone, regardless of ideology, should at the very least be able to recognize that having lunatics running the asylum is a terrible idea.

Except, of course, the lunatics themselves.


Which have all been grouped together into one district that will never vote sane.
 
2014-08-12 01:40:15 PM  
MFK:  all they are doing is creating these districts where a fringe candidate can be openly bought and sold, campaign on a platform of batshiat crazy and STILL easily coast to victory.


That is literally the entire point, and they will do everything in their power to make this happen.
 
2014-08-12 01:41:02 PM  
There may be hope. Arizona voters voted for a non partisan board to create the maps. The law was voted in 15 years ago. Once the current map was drawn up, the GOP went apesh*t. They have sued several times. The Governor fired the non partisan member in charge of the drawing of maps. The courts has her reinstated. The GOP sued many times to redraw the maps or throw out the group doing it because they weren't fair to the party. Forget they were pretty representative of the state make up. The party suffered, so that meant the map was no good. But it held.

Things may go good for the idea of fair representation in Florida.
 
2014-08-12 01:42:42 PM  

qorkfiend: MFK: It amazes me that this shiat is still going on brazenly, in the open in the 21st century. If any of these farktards had the smallest semblance of a brain, they'd make it so districts were actually competitive because it keeps lunatics in general out of government. Most areas are politically mixed so if you had districts that were drawn the way they are supposed to - using ONLY geographical and population data, they would mostly be purple. I understand that these assholes are trying to make it "easier for them to win" but all they are doing is creating these districts where a fringe candidate can be openly bought and sold, campaign on a platform of batshiat crazy and STILL easily coast to victory. Everyone, regardless of ideology, should at the very least be able to recognize that having lunatics running the asylum is a terrible idea.

Except, of course, the lunatics themselves.


I think it's also a mix of human psychology.  We're greedy: if we can more in a district we will go for it, even if it hurts others (which we don't think about).  We're scared: making a district "safer" might not really be worth it for us, but we do it anyways because of fear.

Players in a game can make irrational moves based upon human psychology distorting their perception of what is the best course of action.

Of course it is also possible to do it the other way, supersaturate some your opponents districts while sharding others with your constituents and diluting them to approx 40%.  That will definitely produce more seats on the legislature than %voted for you for sure.


More and more the problems I see with our political system could be helped with proportional representative parliament style elections.  It just runs so counter to American culture though.  We pride ourselves on "voting for the man."  I think that's a way for us to pretend we're about partisanship, that "we don't see party" because there may be a specific candidate that we would cross the aisle for.  I think that's self comforting BS.
 
2014-08-12 01:49:54 PM  
There is no rational reason why we shouldn't have uniform nonpartisan redistricting.
 
2014-08-12 01:59:32 PM  

Chummer45: There is no rational reason why we shouldn't have uniform nonpartisan redistricting.


I'll keep saying it in every redistricting thread  Have computer draw 4-5 alternate maps based solely on population density and compactness, send out grand Jury  type summonses for about 100 random citizens, sequester them and let them vote on their favorite map.,

Done and Done.
 
2014-08-12 02:03:02 PM  
One of the problems before was that there was a ton of evidence that they conspired to draw the maps in such a way.

FTA: To avoid raising the ire of Judge Lewis once again, the two Republican chairmen in charge of redistricting put in effect a lockdown of sorts and instructed staff members to refrain from discussing the revised map with anyone outside the Legislature.

So they plan to have any evidence this time.
 
2014-08-12 02:06:46 PM  

Esc7: More and more the problems I see with our political system could be helped with proportional representative parliament style elections. It just runs so counter to American culture though. We pride ourselves on "voting for the man." I think that's a way for us to pretend we're about partisanship, that "we don't see party" because there may be a specific candidate that we would cross the aisle for. I think that's self comforting BS.


Also a throwback to the time when liberal Republicans were not only a thing, but they sat to the left of some conservative Democrats. In that scenario, voting the man is eminently preferable to voting the party.
 
2014-08-12 02:18:33 PM  

qorkfiend: For fark's sake. Why do we let partisan politicians anywhere near the redistricting process?


Becuase the founders thought that local legislators would have a better understanding of how to group constituencies to best account for their representation and that they would be noble enough to avoid blatant partisanship.

Nadie_AZ: There may be hope. Arizona voters voted for a non partisan board to create the maps. The law was voted in 15 years ago. Once the current map was drawn up, the GOP went apesh*t. They have sued several times. The Governor fired the non partisan member in charge of the drawing of maps. The courts has her reinstated. The GOP sued many times to redraw the maps or throw out the group doing it because they weren't fair to the party. Forget they were pretty representative of the state make up. The party suffered, so that meant the map was no good. But it held.

Things may go good for the idea of fair representation in Florida.


Arizona's an interesting case, actually, because we ended up with the reverse of the issue that you see in places like Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina - the independent commission created comparatively few "safe" seats and the Democrats won tight races in the competitive districts.  As a result the state has a 5/4 Dem advantage despite being reliably red.
 
2014-08-12 02:28:06 PM  

nmrsnr: Dunno, the judge threatened to delay the election if they didn't fix it.


The Florida GOP may not have considered the full implications of this. The current Federal delegation to the House for Florida is +7 GOP. If the election is delayed enough, they may not be able to seat the Florida delegation at the start of the 114th Congress, effectively costing the GOP 7 votes towards holding the majority. The GOP is currently looking to be somewhere about +30, so that's not quite to the panic stage, but that's also a non-trivial fraction of their prospective margin for electing a House Speaker, particularly if the Tea Party are feeling unusually obstreperous.

Contrariwise, if the Judge proposes such a drastic delay of the elections, the appeals will be fast and furious; and it's unlikely that Kennedy has gotten more liberal since Bush v Gore or Shelby County v Holder. Nohow -- this has the prospect to be a very high-powered horseshoe nail.
 
2014-08-12 02:40:37 PM  
img.fark.net
can we get the same judge to deal with this nonsense?
 
2014-08-12 02:55:31 PM  

bobothemagnificent: can we get the same judge to deal with this nonsense?


FL judges have no jurisdiction over MD election law. They're not even on the same Federal Circuit (MD is 4, FL is 11).

// PG gets split into "blah people" and "Palin country"
// and Fredneck gets lumped in with Silver Spring?
 
2014-08-12 02:58:25 PM  

MindStalker: One of the problems before was that there was a ton of evidence that they conspired to draw the maps in such a way.

FTA: To avoid raising the ire of Judge Lewis once again, the two Republican chairmen in charge of redistricting put in effect a lockdown of sorts and instructed staff members to refrain from discussing the revised map with anyone outside the Legislature.

So they plan to have any evidence this time.


The judge threw out their last set of maps because a bunch of lobbyists helped in drawing them.

FTA: The redrafted map makes relatively minor changes to the two congressional districts that were ordered redrawn: the Fifth District, held by Representative Corrine Brown, a Democrat, and the 10th District, held by Representative Daniel Webster, a Republican.

So this time they took the lobbyist inspired map, and move the lines in two districts by a block or two.  I suspect the judge will not look kindly upon them handing him back basically the same thing he's already rejected one.
 
2014-08-12 03:02:28 PM  

bobothemagnificent: can we get the same judge to deal with this nonsense?


What makes you think a Florida judge has the right to rule on Maryland's districting?
 
2014-08-12 03:03:28 PM  

Karac: MindStalker: One of the problems before was that there was a ton of evidence that they conspired to draw the maps in such a way.

FTA: To avoid raising the ire of Judge Lewis once again, the two Republican chairmen in charge of redistricting put in effect a lockdown of sorts and instructed staff members to refrain from discussing the revised map with anyone outside the Legislature.

So they plan to have any evidence this time.

The judge threw out their last set of maps because a bunch of lobbyists helped in drawing them.

FTA: The redrafted map makes relatively minor changes to the two congressional districts that were ordered redrawn: the Fifth District, held by Representative Corrine Brown, a Democrat, and the 10th District, held by Representative Daniel Webster, a Republican.

So this time they took the lobbyist inspired map, and move the lines in two districts by a block or two.  I suspect the judge will not look kindly upon them handing him back basically the same thing he's already rejected one.


can we say contempt?
 
2014-08-12 03:28:05 PM  

Chummer45: There is no rational reason why we shouldn't have uniform nonpartisan redistricting.


"Because it is bad for the party that controls the state" is a rational reason.

It is selfish and undemocratic. But it is rational.
 
2014-08-12 03:30:28 PM  
There is NO SUCH THING as non-partisan.   There is only Undeclared partisanship.

Putting these matters into a non-partisan board appointed by the governor only leads to whichever party controls the governorship that year to be able to pretend to be non-partisan and draw the map any way they want.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-08-12 03:38:59 PM  

According to ballotpedia.org:

The Florida Legislature is responsible for redistricting. For state legislative redistricting, the legislature must first pass a joint resolution, which is then sent to the Supreme Court for review. If it is accepted, the plan becomes law. If it is not, the legislature holds a 15 day session to approve a new plan. If the second plan does not pass the Court or if the legislature fails to approve a new plan during the 15 days, the Court has 60 days to design their own plan.

This law does not literally apply to congressional redistricting, but the judge has looked to state legislative redistricting precedent for guidance in this novel situation.
I expect this second plan is the legislature's last chance, the judge will reject it, and a special master will draw up districts.
 
2014-08-12 03:49:10 PM  
Now, I don't know much, but I did actually read some of Mr. Lewis's ruling.  He zeroed in on two features of Florida's current map: how district 5 (minority access) jutted into Seminole county even though it already had a sufficient black population to give that population the representative of its choice, and how district 10 wrapped around district 5.  So long as those two features have been corrected (and they have) the Republicans can claim to have done what the judge asked.  I suppose the judge could go back and say, no I still have a problem with these other things, but that would have to be a new ruling.
That said, even with these minor changes, the Dems' chances of flipping both District 10 and District 7 grew substantially.  They will probably flip in 2016 and flip right back in 2018 if the pattern of the last decade holds.  Left as is, it is unlikely that either district would flip.
 
2014-08-12 04:45:21 PM  

The Why Not Guy: bobothemagnificent: can we get the same judge to deal with this nonsense?

What makes you think a Florida judge has the right to rule on Maryland's districting?


It's not a gerrymandering thread without some conservatroll completely failing to defend the latest bit of Republican gerrymandering shenanigans and instead going "but but Maryland".

Never mind that any Democrat worth his salt (with the possible exception of the two or three Maryland congressmen who would lose their seats) would happily take 100% bilateral disarmament on gerrymandering.
 
2014-08-12 05:12:41 PM  
The Real Derp here...is that the illegal redistricting by the GOP Legislature still LOST the GOP 2 US House seats to the Dems

Florida GOP are just morans
 
2014-08-12 05:15:23 PM  

MFK: It amazes me that this shiat is still going on brazenly, in the open in the 21st century. If any of these farktards had the smallest semblance of a brain, they'd make it so districts were actually competitive because it keeps lunatics in general out of government. Most areas are politically mixed so if you had districts that were drawn the way they are supposed to - using ONLY geographical and population data, they would mostly be purple. I understand that these assholes are trying to make it "easier for them to win" but all they are doing is creating these districts where a fringe candidate can be openly bought and sold, campaign on a platform of batshiat crazy and STILL easily coast to victory. Everyone, regardless of ideology, should at the very least be able to recognize that having lunatics running the asylum is a terrible idea.


This would make sense....but the gerrymandering ensures blacks and Hispanics get elected. Don't ensure that...and "You're a racist"
 
2014-08-12 05:16:31 PM  

GentDirkly: Now, I don't know much, but I did actually read some of Mr. Lewis's ruling.  He zeroed in on two features of Florida's current map: how district 5 (minority access) jutted into Seminole county even though it already had a sufficient black population to give that population the representative of its choice, and how district 10 wrapped around district 5.  So long as those two features have been corrected (and they have) the Republicans can claim to have done what the judge asked.  I suppose the judge could go back and say, no I still have a problem with these other things, but that would have to be a new ruling.
That said, even with these minor changes, the Dems' chances of flipping both District 10 and District 7 grew substantially.  They will probably flip in 2016 and flip right back in 2018 if the pattern of the last decade holds.  Left as is, it is unlikely that either district would flip.


I honestly don't see how district 5 can possibly comply with the state constitution in anything like it's current form.  It is in no way compact and anything stretching from Jacksonville to Orlando has to be basically ignoring county, city, and geographical boundaries.
 
MFK
2014-08-12 05:17:42 PM  

bobothemagnificent: [img.fark.net image 850x450]
can we get the same judge to deal with this nonsense?


Oh Boy!

A post where someone points out that the TWO blue states with Gerrymandered districts is exactly the same as the 30+ red states that have been Gerrymandered!

Guess what bozo? Libtards are against THAT Gerrymandering too!
 
2014-08-12 05:20:14 PM  
How does "contempt of court" sound?
 
MFK
2014-08-12 05:25:59 PM  

FloridaFarkTag: MFK: It amazes me that this shiat is still going on brazenly, in the open in the 21st century. If any of these farktards had the smallest semblance of a brain, they'd make it so districts were actually competitive because it keeps lunatics in general out of government. Most areas are politically mixed so if you had districts that were drawn the way they are supposed to - using ONLY geographical and population data, they would mostly be purple. I understand that these assholes are trying to make it "easier for them to win" but all they are doing is creating these districts where a fringe candidate can be openly bought and sold, campaign on a platform of batshiat crazy and STILL easily coast to victory. Everyone, regardless of ideology, should at the very least be able to recognize that having lunatics running the asylum is a terrible idea.

This would make sense....but the gerrymandering ensures blacks and Hispanics get elected. Don't ensure that...and "You're a racist"


you can take population demographics into account. You just need to leave political data out of the redistricting process.

The thing w/ Gerrymandering is that they know they can't keep ALL of the dems out so they will snake the districts through all the minority areas to get as many of those neighborhoods in one district so instead of voting in their geographic areas, they're corralled into single districts. That's why Florida voted for Obama but their congressional districts are heavy on the republican flavor
 
2014-08-12 05:27:56 PM  

Mithiwithi: It's not a gerrymandering thread without some conservatroll completely failing to defend the latest bit of Republican gerrymandering shenanigans and instead going "but but Maryland".


Yeah, I know, but I can accept that because hey, it's wrong even when my side does it. I just wonder how retarded Bobo needs to be to think a Florida judge can fix a problem in Maryland.
 
2014-08-12 05:46:10 PM  

ucfknightryan: GentDirkly: Now, I don't know much, but I did actually read some of Mr. Lewis's ruling.  He zeroed in on two features of Florida's current map: how district 5 (minority access) jutted into Seminole county even though it already had a sufficient black population to give that population the representative of its choice, and how district 10 wrapped around district 5.  So long as those two features have been corrected (and they have) the Republicans can claim to have done what the judge asked.  I suppose the judge could go back and say, no I still have a problem with these other things, but that would have to be a new ruling.
That said, even with these minor changes, the Dems' chances of flipping both District 10 and District 7 grew substantially.  They will probably flip in 2016 and flip right back in 2018 if the pattern of the last decade holds.  Left as is, it is unlikely that either district would flip.

I honestly don't see how district 5 can possibly comply with the state constitution in anything like it's current form.  It is in no way compact and anything stretching from Jacksonville to Orlando has to be basically ignoring county, city, and geographical boundaries.


You may not have read our redistricting amendments closely.  It's OK, the offending clause was not in the ballot summary.  It is Florida Constitution, Article 3, Section 20.  The important line is "districts shall not be drawn ... to diminish their (racial and language minorities') ability to elect representatives of their choice"  So, "diminish" is a verb that demands we know what the past value was for the sake of comparison.  Well, unfortunately the past set of districts included this Jacksonville-to-Orlando snake which has a 100% chance of giving Jacksonville's black community their candidate of choice.

Any change bringing that district below about 47% black voting age population diminishes the likelihood (if only slightly) that district performing this way.  Even when you look at the fact that the black people who could be split away from this district may be able to control other districts, the likelihood that any one district in North or Central Florida could produce any one black community's candidate of choice is diminished if the Jacksonville-to-Orlando district is not one of those districts.

That said, you are correct that the current form of District 5 (former 3) was never called for by the Voting Rights Act.  Our redistricting amendments seem to go farther than that act did.
 
2014-08-12 05:56:42 PM  
A district centered around Jacksonville's black community that does not include Orlando's black community may elect the latter's candidate of choice about 75% of the time (just making up a number, but I am close enough to the real number for the point I'm about to make to be valid).
A district centered around Orlando's black community that didn't snake up into other metro areas may elect that community's candidate of choice about 50% of the time.
So the odds that in a given cycle neither district performs for black people are (1-75%)*(1-50%)=12.5%.
But the odds that both perform in a given cycle are (75%)*(50%) = 37.5%.
So most district plans that don't include district 5 lower the odds of at least one candidate of choice being elected from 100% to 85-90% while increasing the odds that two are elected from 0% to 30-40%.
Whether or not that is a good deal for black people, and whether or not such a scenario would violate Florida's constitution as amended, those are up for debate.
The Florida League of Women Voters is, in so many words, asking the judge to address this exact question but so far he has refused to do so.  His ruling from last month simply took the Republican logic of, "Hey look, we gave them one district with 100% odds of winning" and said, "That may be a valid goal, but you went beyond even that.  Just get the black population up to 100% control territory and stop adding tentacles there."
 
2014-08-12 06:00:22 PM  
Also note that, if you hate multi-city snakes in your district maps, you will also hate what the plaintiffs, the league of women voters proposed as an alternative.  Their proposal has a snake connecting Jacksonville's black neighborhoods to Tallahassee's.
And if they didn't do that, the "two-district" rough calculation I described above becomes much less favorable to them.
 
2014-08-12 06:03:19 PM  

Dr Dreidel: bobothemagnificent: can we get the same judge to deal with this nonsense?

FL judges have no jurisdiction over MD election law. They're not even on the same Federal Circuit (MD is 4, FL is 11).

// PG gets split into "blah people" and "Palin country"
// and Fredneck gets lumped in with Silver Spring?


The Why Not Guy: bobothemagnificent: can we get the same judge to deal with this nonsense?

What makes you think a Florida judge has the right to rule on Maryland's districting?


media.tumblr.com
Yes, I know a Florida court can't affect MD law.  I just want to borrow the judge and but him in a Maryland court.  Since Palin country has soo much in common with the West Side of Baltimore City.  That makes sooo much sense.  No gerrymandering here...move along.
 
2014-08-12 06:19:22 PM  
Florida's congressional districts are farking insane. Here's the western boundary of Lois Frankel's district.

img.fark.net
 
2014-08-12 06:48:34 PM  

GentDirkly: ucfknightryan: GentDirkly: Now, I don't know much, but I did actually read some of Mr. Lewis's ruling.  He zeroed in on two features of Florida's current map: how district 5 (minority access) jutted into Seminole county even though it already had a sufficient black population to give that population the representative of its choice, and how district 10 wrapped around district 5.  So long as those two features have been corrected (and they have) the Republicans can claim to have done what the judge asked.  I suppose the judge could go back and say, no I still have a problem with these other things, but that would have to be a new ruling.
That said, even with these minor changes, the Dems' chances of flipping both District 10 and District 7 grew substantially.  They will probably flip in 2016 and flip right back in 2018 if the pattern of the last decade holds.  Left as is, it is unlikely that either district would flip.

I honestly don't see how district 5 can possibly comply with the state constitution in anything like it's current form.  It is in no way compact and anything stretching from Jacksonville to Orlando has to be basically ignoring county, city, and geographical boundaries.

You may not have read our redistricting amendments closely.  It's OK, the offending clause was not in the ballot summary.  It is Florida Constitution, Article 3, Section 20.  The important line is "districts shall not be drawn ... to diminish their (racial and language minorities') ability to elect representatives of their choice"  So, "diminish" is a verb that demands we know what the past value was for the sake of comparison.  Well, unfortunately the past set of districts included this Jacksonville-to-Orlando snake which has a 100% chance of giving Jacksonville's black community their candidate of choice.

Any change bringing that district below about 47% black voting age population diminishes the likelihood (if only slightly) that district performing this way.  Even when you look at ...


I've read it.  I just read that phrase as more of a prohibition drawing districts that meet all the other rules but are arranged in such a way as to diminish a minority's influence, rather than requiring all the other rules to be completely ignored (and I don't see how you could come up with District 5 while paying any service to the other requirements) in order to retain minority-majority districts that previously existed.  The fact that in a state with 27 congressional districts we have a single district that includes parts of two cities that are over 120 miles apart is insane.

However I do see how it could be interpreted as you describe and I'm sure there would be a slew of lawsuits about any change that made District 5 less crazy.

Hell, I have to wonder if residents of Orange county constitute the majority of any of the 5 districts the county is cut up between even though there enough people in the county to almost fill two districts by themselves, and District 5 is a big part of why the districts in Orlando are such a mess.  At least they're not as insanely irregular as the old 2000 districts were, but the county is actually cut up between even more districts now than it was before.
 
2014-08-12 07:37:49 PM  

Dr Dreidel: // PG gets split into "blah people" and "Palin country"
// and Fredneck gets lumped in with Silver Spring?


Silver Spring already wanders all over the map.  Why change now?
 
2014-08-12 07:55:28 PM  
qorkfiend:FTA: "'There are many cases that have held that elections can proceed under unconstitutional districts when insufficient time remains to redraw the districts,' Mr. Cantero told a joint reapportionment committee."

This might be the best time for a "Well, Mr. Cantero, I would /love/ to see you bring the relevant Floridian cases to my attention. You have five seconds to comply."
 
2014-08-12 08:52:56 PM  

ZAZ: Reminds me of the Massachusetts abortion protest law. 18 feet is constitutional so we'll try for 35 feet next. 35 feet is unconstitutional, so we'll go with 25 for the next round of lawsuits.


I...feel like those numbers are backwards...
 
2014-08-12 08:57:31 PM  

Karac: MindStalker: One of the problems before was that there was a ton of evidence that they conspired to draw the maps in such a way.

FTA: To avoid raising the ire of Judge Lewis once again, the two Republican chairmen in charge of redistricting put in effect a lockdown of sorts and instructed staff members to refrain from discussing the revised map with anyone outside the Legislature.

So they plan to have any evidence this time.

The judge threw out their last set of maps because a bunch of lobbyists helped in drawing them.

FTA: The redrafted map makes relatively minor changes to the two congressional districts that were ordered redrawn: the Fifth District, held by Representative Corrine Brown, a Democrat, and the 10th District, held by Representative Daniel Webster, a Republican.

So this time they took the lobbyist inspired map, and move the lines in two districts by a block or two.  I suspect the judge will not look kindly upon them handing him back basically the same thing he's already rejected one.


Daniel Webster is to the right of the Duggars. There's no way he would have won without redistricting.
 
2014-08-12 10:28:44 PM  

rynthetyn: Karac: MindStalker: One of the problems before was that there was a ton of evidence that they conspired to draw the maps in such a way.

FTA: To avoid raising the ire of Judge Lewis once again, the two Republican chairmen in charge of redistricting put in effect a lockdown of sorts and instructed staff members to refrain from discussing the revised map with anyone outside the Legislature.

So they plan to have any evidence this time.

The judge threw out their last set of maps because a bunch of lobbyists helped in drawing them.

FTA: The redrafted map makes relatively minor changes to the two congressional districts that were ordered redrawn: the Fifth District, held by Representative Corrine Brown, a Democrat, and the 10th District, held by Representative Daniel Webster, a Republican.

So this time they took the lobbyist inspired map, and move the lines in two districts by a block or two.  I suspect the judge will not look kindly upon them handing him back basically the same thing he's already rejected one.

Daniel Webster is to the right of the Duggars. There's no way he would have won without redistricting.


It also helps to have his opponent be black, female, no prior political experience, and best known for a pro-choice stance... All that said the lady did outperform Obama in the district, somehow, at least as a percentage.
 
2014-08-12 10:56:31 PM  

Dr Dreidel: bobothemagnificent: can we get the same judge to deal with this nonsense?

FL judges have no jurisdiction over MD election law. They're not even on the same Federal Circuit (MD is 4, FL is 11).

// PG gets split into "blah people" and "Palin country"
// and Fredneck gets lumped in with Silver Spring?


Redistrict with Frednecks and PG blahs, connected by a corridor. Add popcorn.
 
2014-08-12 11:36:39 PM  

bobothemagnificent: [img.fark.net image 850x450]
can we get the same judge to deal with this nonsense?


Since Lewis (nice name - The judge's name is actually the same as my brother who actually does have a shot at being a judge some day) is operating under Florida's own laws about redistricting, then no.  And in any event, Md's clusterfark just makes the seats safer for the incumbents, it doesn't specifically rig the game against the party across the state.  Florida is pretty much 50 50 but has somethign like 2/3 rds gop reps.  That is some effective gerrymandering.
 
2014-08-13 09:20:01 AM  

ucfknightryan: GentDirkly: ucfknightryan: GentDirkly: Now, I don't know much, but I did actually read some of Mr. Lewis's ruling.  He zeroed in on two features of Florida's current map: how district 5 (minority access) jutted into Seminole county even though it already had a sufficient black population to give that population the representative of its choice, and how district 10 wrapped around district 5.  So long as those two features have been corrected (and they have) the Republicans can claim to have done what the judge asked.  I suppose the judge could go back and say, no I still have a problem with these other things, but that would have to be a new ruling.
That said, even with these minor changes, the Dems' chances of flipping both District 10 and District 7 grew substantially.  They will probably flip in 2016 and flip right back in 2018 if the pattern of the last decade holds.  Left as is, it is unlikely that either district would flip.

I honestly don't see how district 5 can possibly comply with the state constitution in anything like it's current form.  It is in no way compact and anything stretching from Jacksonville to Orlando has to be basically ignoring county, city, and geographical boundaries.

You may not have read our redistricting amendments closely.  It's OK, the offending clause was not in the ballot summary.  It is Florida Constitution, Article 3, Section 20.  The important line is "districts shall not be drawn ... to diminish their (racial and language minorities') ability to elect representatives of their choice"  So, "diminish" is a verb that demands we know what the past value was for the sake of comparison.  Well, unfortunately the past set of districts included this Jacksonville-to-Orlando snake which has a 100% chance of giving Jacksonville's black community their candidate of choice.

Any change bringing that district below about 47% black voting age population diminishes the likelihood (if only slightly) that district performing this way.  Even when you look at ...

I've read it.  I just read that phrase as more of a prohibition drawing districts that meet all the other rules but are arranged in such a way as to diminish a minority's influence, rather than requiring all the other rules to be completely ignored (and I don't see how you could come up with District 5 while paying any service to the other requirements) in order to retain minority-majority districts that previously existed.  The fact that in a state with 27 congressional districts we have a single district that includes parts of two cities that are over 120 miles apart is insane.

However I do see how it could be interpreted as you describe and I'm sure there would be a slew of lawsuits about any change that made District 5 less crazy.

Hell, I have to wonder if residents of Orange county constitute the majority of any of the 5 districts the county is cut up between even though there enough people in the county to almost fill two districts by themselves, and District 5 is a big part of why the districts in Orlando are such a mess.  At least they're not as insanely irregular as the old 2000 districts were, but the county is actually cut up between even more districts now than it was before.


Orange county voters are certainly a majority in Grayson's district, probably in Webster's as well.
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report