William & Mary Law School 2011 Virginia Redistricting Competition

Similar documents
Redistricting Virginia

Personhuballah v. Alcorn, No. 3: 13-cv-678

Case 3:13-cv REP-LO-AKD Document 37 Filed 12/20/13 Page 1 of 19 PageID# 440

Supreme Court of the United States

TX RACIAL GERRYMANDERING

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. TOM SCHEDLER, in his official capacity as The Secretary of State of Louisiana, COMPLAINT

Case 3:13-cv REP-LO-AD Document 222 Filed 09/17/15 Page 1 of 7 PageID# 5133

Paul Smith, Attorney at Law Jenner and Block Washington, DC. Gerry Hebert, Attorney at Law Washington, DC

Case 3:13-cv REP-LO-AD Document 227 Filed 09/18/15 Page 1 of 18 PageID# 5307

Redrawing the Map: Redistricting Issues in Michigan. Jordon Newton Research Associate Citizens Research Council of Michigan

Remedial Congressional Redistricting Plan Proposed by the Virginia NAACP

Virginia s 3rd District Republican Committee. Official Call for a Convention of the 3rd Congressional District of the Republican Party of Virginia

The Public Interest in Redistricting

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division. v. Civil Action No. 3:14cv852 MEMORANDUM OPINION

NEW YORK STATE SENATE PUBLIC MEETING ON REDISTRICTING DECEMBER 14, 2010

Case 5:12-cv KHV-JWL- Document 231 Filed 05/29/12 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

APPENDIX A IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION. Plaintiffs,

DRAWING LINES: RACIAL GERRYMANDERING IN BETHUNE- HILL V. VIRGINIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS

Prison-based Gerrymandering in Virginia. by Karen Kimball, member of the League of Women Voters of Arlington, Virginia

Redistricting Reform in Virginia: Why It's Needed, Why We Should Care 1

New York Redistricting Memo Analysis

REDISTRICTING FUN U DA D M A EN E TA T L A S L

Legal & Policy Criteria Governing Establishment of Electoral Districts

Case 5:12-cv KHV-JWL- Document 217 Filed 05/28/12 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SPECIAL MASTER S DRAFT PLAN AND ORDER

Citizens Union and the League of Women Voters of New York State

Redistricting in Louisiana Past & Present. Regional Educational Presentation Baton Rouge December 15, 2009

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA DURHAM DIVISION

CITIZENS REDISTRICTING COMMISSION PROPOSAL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Capstone Prospectus Julia Jackson, PUAD 5361 September 2, 2015

CITIZEN ADVOCACY CENTER

Objectives. 1. Warm-Up. 2. National/State Legislatures Worksheet. 3. Congressional Membership Notes. 4. Video Clip US Congress. 5.

Cooper v. Harris, 581 U.S. (2017).

The Very Picture of What s Wrong in D.C. : Daniel Webster and the American Community Survey

Case 3:14-cv REP-AWA-BMK Document 177 Filed 08/08/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 6428

H 7749 S T A T E O F R H O D E I S L A N D

Redistricting 101 Why Redistrict?

LEGAL ISSUES FOR REDISTRICTING IN INDIANA

Redistricting in Virginia: the Current Scene

Supreme Court of the United States

Case 1:11-cv DLI-RR-GEL Document 182 Filed 03/05/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 2214

COMMISSION ON MENTAL HEALTH LAW REFORM CIVIL COMMITMENT HEARINGS: DISTRICT COURT VARIATIONS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division. v. Civil Action No. 3:14cv852 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Case 3:13-cv REP-LO-AKD Document 145 Filed 04/13/15 Page 1 of 21 PageID# 4206

COMPACTNESS IN THE REDISTRICTING PROCESS

Partisan Gerrymandering

Citizens Union and the League of Women Voters of New York State

Redistricting in Louisiana Past & Present. Regional Educational Presentation Monroe February 2, 2010

LEGAL PRINCIPLES. A. The One-Person, One-Vote Standard

July 19, Washington Unified 2018 Districting

City of LEMOORE CALIFORNIA. Staff Report

IUSD ELECTORAL PROCESS UNDER CONSIDERATION. March 27, 2018

Case 3:14-cv REP-AWA-BMK Document 328 Filed 12/14/18 Page 1 of 10 PageID# 10764

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

2. Identify the factors of political socialization. Rank them from #1 (most important) to #5 (least important). Then, explain your ranking.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

MASON-DIXON VIRGINIA POLL

City of Placentia By-District Elections Briefing. February 6, 2018

Summary of the Fair Congressional Districts for Ohio Initiative Proposal

Fair Maps=Fair Elections

Choose or Chosen? An Interactive Exploration of Congressional District Boundaries

City of Oakland 2013 Redistricting Town Hall forum

Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission Legal Overview. July 8, 2011 By: Joseph Kanefield and Mary O Grady

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR MARYLAND GREENBELT DIVISION

Survey Results Summary

Illinois Redistricting Collaborative 2018 Gubernatorial Gerrymandering Survey

Case 2:12-cv RJS-DBP Document 441 Filed 12/21/17 Page 1 of 39 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

Political History of Nevada

March 1 Census Bureau ships North Carolina's local census data to the governor and legislative leaders. June 17 Republicans release redistricting

Reading Between the Lines Congressional and State Legislative Redistricting

RACIAL GERRYMANDERING

Michigan Redistricting Ballot Proposal (VNP)

Case 5:12-cv KHV-JWL- Document 229 Filed 05/29/12 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

OPINION BY. CHIEF JUSTICE HARRY L. CARRICO April 18, FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND Randall G.

Gerrymandering: t he serpentine art VCW State & Local

POPULATION AND POLITICS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF PHILIP P. KALODNER IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY

Foreign American Community Survey. April 2011

Case 5:12-cv KHV-JWL- Document 160 Filed 05/25/12 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 3:14-cv REP-GBL-BMK Document 106 Filed 07/27/15 Page 1 of 29 PageID# 2875

University at Buffalo Law School. Congressional Redistricting Team Presentation

Redistricting & the Quantitative Anatomy of a Section 2 Voting Rights Case

REDISTRICTING IN LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. Educational Presentation December 15, 2010

The 2020 Census, Gerrymandering, and Voter Suppression

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

THE BRAIN GAIN: 2015 UPDATE. How the Region s Shifting Demographics Favor the Lower Manhattan Business District

v. Civil Action No. 3:13cv678

Legal & Policy Criteria Governing Establishment of Electoral Districts

Partisan Gerrymandering

Supreme Court of the United States

Overview. League of Women Voters: The Ins and Outs of Redistricting 4/21/2015

The Mandate of Equipopulous Congressional Districting: Karcher v. Daggett

I just wanted to let you know that, in addition to working. on your two dissents, I am preparing our response to Justice

- 1 - Second Exam American Government PSCI Fall, 2001

Legislative Reapportionment And Congressional Redistricting In Virginia

GUIDE TO DISTRICTING LAW PREPARED FOR THE CHULA VISTA DISTRICTING COMMISSION

Census Bureau ships North Carolina's local census data to the governor and legislative leaders.

ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA. County Board Agenda Item Meeting of September 20, 2014

Illinois Redistricting Collaborative Talking Points Feb. Update

Transcription:

William & Mary Law School 2011 Virginia Redistricting Competition U.S. Congressional General Themes Our team created this map with the goal of improving the way communities of interest ongressional districts while also complying with the legal mandates and general principles guiding the redistricting process. One of the most obvious flaws we identified in the current map is that Richmond, and the two counties that surround the city, are divided among three congressional districts. While Richmond certainly has a diverse population and distinct segments with different interests, we believe that as a metropolitan area there are stronger common ties that bind them together. Many people commute across the county boundaries each day for work, the area schools compete against each other in sports, and everyone watches the same local news stations and reads the same newspapers. The Richmond metropolitan area is the definition of a compact, contiguous, community of interest. This plan keeps these areas almost entirely together while complying with the strict equipopulation requirements articulated by the Supreme Court in cases like Karcher v. Daggett. 1 The second major overhaul is the relo - minority district. The current majority- minority district, District 3, includes parts of Richmond, Newport News, Hampton, Portsmouth and Norfolk. That district was drawn in a way that is not compact, does not represent one distinct community of interest, and stretches understandings of contiguity to expense of every other redistricting principle. A better majority- minority district can be drawn. - minority district does not stretch from Norfolk to Richmond; it instead encompasses the counties to the west of Norfolk and Portsmouth and 1 462 U.S. 725 (1983). 1

circles in the southern border of the state and incudes Petersburg and Hopewell. This new district is more compact and is clearly contiguous, only relying on water contiguity in one area that includes bridge and tunnel crossings. At the same time, this new district also ensures that the overall plan is not retrogressive as it maintains its status as a majority African American voting age population district (50.74%) the creation of the Voting Rights Act. It is a district that does not simply have a majority- minority population, but one in which the population is close enough geographically so that the other interests that bind a community are presented and the a true community of voters can The final major revamping of the Congressional map occurs in Northern Virginia. In the current map, the three Northern Virginia districts weave in and out of each other with little coherence or logical reason other than political considerations. Our map draws these districts in concentric semi- circles moving away from Washington D.C. in recognition that Arlington and Alexandria are more similar to each other than they are to Manassas. This plan puts those voters who are most metropolitan and closest to Washington, D.C. together; it then moves out creating two semi- circle rings around the district closest to Washington, D.C. We believe that in Northern Virginia that voters who live closest to Washington are a community with shared interests and that those who live farther from Washington are a separate and distinct community of interest. This rationale is different from districts in other parts of the Commonwealth, which rely more heavily on county boundaries to identify their communities. Redistricting Criteria Contiguity Our map is fully contiguous. In no case does it rely on point- contiguity and the two districts that rely on water contiguity incorporate bridges, tunnels, and ferries that connect the different parts of the commonwealth. One of the districts crosses water between Hampton, Newport News and Norfolk, which collectively self- identify as Hampton Roads The other district includes the Eastern Shore and Tangier Island, which are not point continuous with any other part of Virginia. We connect these areas along existing bridges, tunnels and ferry routes in order to incorporate the existing communities of interest. 2

Population Equality In the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a series of cases holding that districts of different populations violate the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. 2 The Court pronounced from that point forward, the guiding For U.S. Congressional districts, the Court interpreted its standard strictly, requiring districts be balanced as perfectly as mathematically possible. 3 Compliant with this strict requirement, our map has nine districts of 727,366 persons and two districts of 727,365 persons, thus meeting this standard for perfect distribution. Any Congressional district that does not meet this standard of perfect population distribution is likely to be successfully challenged in court. Voting Rights Act Compliance The Supreme Court has interpreted the Voting Rights Act to require nonretrogression for covered jurisdictions such as Virginia. The current map has one district, the 3rd district, where minorities (African- Americans) make up a majority of the voting age population. Thus, to avoid retrogression, any new plan must have no less than one majority- minority district, as our map does. - minority district has not been without controversy. In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a lower court decision declaring the Virginia 3rd Congressional District an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. 4 To comply with this decision, the state legislature redrew the 3rd Congressional District in 1998 reducing the minority voting age population from 61.60% to 50.47%. Our map meets all of these standards and avoids retrogression by creating our 3rd district, which is also a minority- majority district. Similar to the 1998 district, this district has a black voting age population of 50.74%. Additionally, unlike the current majority- minority district, this new district does not subvert all other redistricting principles such as compactness, contiguity, and communities of interest in its creation. 2 See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) and Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964). 3 Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983). 4 Moon v. Meadows, 952 F. Supp. 1141 (E.D. Va. 1997) (3rd congressional district is unconstitutional racial gerrymander), affirmed sub nom. Harris v. Moon, 521 U.S. 1113 (1997). 3

Communities of Interest Our map also makes vast improvements from the current map by respecting communities of interest to a much greater degree. Our map respects county lines throughout the more rural areas of the state, only breaking up counties in de minimus fashion to comply with strict equipopulation requirements. Changes to the western Virginia districts from the current map also keep the Jefferson and Washington National Forests in the same district. This respects an important community of interest, as those who live near the forest may have very different environmental, property, and land management interests than those in other communities. Keeping them together allows them to elect a representative who can look out for these interests. As mentioned above, our plan also keeps Richmond, a natural community of interest, almost entirely in the bounds of one district. Additionally, it finally acknowledges the realities of Northern Virginian communities based on proximity to Washington, D.C. Our map keeps coastal and port communities in two naturally divided districts and aims to keep military communities together by incorporating such changes as not dividing Davidson Army Airfield in Northern Virginia. Compactness, our map shows an average improvement of 8.77% per district. Importantly, this significant improvement does not occur at the expense of other criteria but indeed to their advantage. 4

District New Plan Compactness Percentage Compactness Comparison Approximation of Current Plan Compactness Percentage* Difference 1 58.60% 39.83% 18.77% 2 41.78% 51.75% - 9.97% 3 45.89% 30.89% 15.00% 4 48.93% 45.00% 3.93% 5 62.19% 46.56% 15.63% 6 45.11% 37.46% 7.65% 7 52.93% 40.90% 12.03% 8 50.07% 40.20% 9.87% 9 48.33% 41.91% 6.42% 10 49.40% 40.70% 8.70% 11 47.76% 39.30% 8.46% Average 50.09% 41.32% 8.77% * Based on default map of U.S. Congressional districts provided by software administrators recreating current district map Conclusion map incorporates many improvements on the current map without sacrificing any redistricting factors to get there. It creates three districts in Northern Virginia that make sense, creates a district to represent Richmond and the surrounding counties, and creates a majority- minority district that accurately encompass a true community of voters. Altogether, it is a substantial improvement to the plan currently in place. 5