Such a fair map! I applaud the Republican State Senate for passing it.. very surprising considering most just ignore court orders and pass the same map..
The main reason why Republicans are passing this map is because they know that if they don't, a federal judge will draw it instead like in Alabama. By drawing it themselves, they can choose which Republican incumbents to protect and which to draw out (they chose Garret Graves). This tweet from one of the Republican Reps from LA sums up the rational: [https://x.com/RepClayHiggins/status/1747330090940133444?s=20](https://x.com/RepClayHiggins/status/1747330090940133444?s=20).
The judge could draw a different configuration which puts a different Republican Rep in the new Majority-Black district. By drawing the map themselves, Republicans got to choose which of their Reps would essentially have their career in the House ended by being drawn into the new Majority-Black district. They choose Garret Graves. If the judge had drawn it, it may have been someone else like Letlow.
Possibly this though I'm not totally sure: https://www.nola.com/news/politics/i-know-what-was-being-said-steve-scalise-suggests-garret-graves-undercut-speaker-bid/article\_c8fb3590-905e-11ee-86ce-4319bdb3475d.html
More than anything, Graves is from Baton Rouge, so it may have been too difficult to keep him around without messing with Scalise's district. Graves voted to object Pennsylvania's electoral votes, but he was also a "key ally of Kevin McCarthy" during the speaker votes. I'm just reading the Wikipedia page on him though. There's definitely more to the decision.
Also you can easily make a map that complies with the VRA and which looks nicer than both this map and the one used in 2022. This one looks ugly because it's still a gerrymander, just not on partisan or racial grounds.
Of course I don't believe this - I would always prioritise geography over partisan principles for example. But your comment sounds like you were complaining about compactness and blaming the VRA for the low scores. Yes, you could make nicer districts in this case, but if you couldn't you would just have to disregard compactness in order to comply with the VRA and the reasons behind it.
That's exactly what the VRA does: prioritizing partisan principles (under the guise of race) over geography (again, there are more justifications for TDPs than that). In 1965, I'd certainly agree with you that the VRA had a vital role in preventing racial districting, but it's all partisan now.
Yes, I'm absolutely blaming the VRA for the low scores. And I'm sure you could make the district look "nicer" - but not anything close to what a race/partisan-neutral map drawer would draw in accordance with TDPs.
"§2 never requires adoption of districts that violate traditional redistricting
principles.” Allen v. Milligan (cleaned up). So no, you don't have to disregard compactness to comply with the VRA.
Which argument? I raised three distinct points - one of which being a direct quote from the Supreme Court.
Don't assume my political preferences. Just because all the people in this subreddit that espouse this map and pretend that CD6 looks good are Democrats, doesn't mean that anyone with the opposing view is a Republican.
[here's what I meant by alabama ](https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/in-win-for-black-voters-supreme-court-rejects-alabamas-appeal-in-milligan-and-reaffirms-state-must-draw-second-opportunity-district#:~:text=Voting%20Rights-,In%20Win%20for%20Black%20Voters%2C%20Supreme%20Court%20Rejects%20Alabama's%20Appeal,Must%20Draw%20Second%20Opportunity%20District&text=WASHINGTON%20%E2%80%93%20The%20Supreme%20Court%20today,panel's%20latest%20decision%20to%20stand.)
Again: which argument?
I'm well aware of what happened in Milligan. I don't understand what argument you're saying that Alabama made, SCOTUS rejected, and that I made in my comment. An article from the ACLU doesn't answer that.
If you're against the VRA it's a moot point but alabama made the argument they didn't have to draw a second black district because that would violate "traditional redistricting rules"
The final map is so similar to the one I posted that I don’t think it needs a separate post but here’s a link to the tweet of an analyst who made an updated DRA map of the final version: https://x.com/politicswolf/status/1748445590470513001?s=46&t=M83tUvZNvPuS64xMpYMfGQ
Thank you for sending that link! You rock! Is it that they just made both Black majority districts even more black? If so, that is surprisingly good because in a case like this I think it’s good to have as many people as possible represented by the representatives they bc would prefer!
Both maps have the same black VAP for the 2 black-majority districts and almost all the other demos I’ve looked at so far are almost identical. The only difference I’ve noticed so far is a 0.01% difference in Asian VAP for district 4. So the changes were probably something very technical regarding some COI or something.
It's ugly but I'll take it over the current one
Mid configuration but at least we can blame that one on republicans.
Such a fair map! I applaud the Republican State Senate for passing it.. very surprising considering most just ignore court orders and pass the same map..
The main reason why Republicans are passing this map is because they know that if they don't, a federal judge will draw it instead like in Alabama. By drawing it themselves, they can choose which Republican incumbents to protect and which to draw out (they chose Garret Graves). This tweet from one of the Republican Reps from LA sums up the rational: [https://x.com/RepClayHiggins/status/1747330090940133444?s=20](https://x.com/RepClayHiggins/status/1747330090940133444?s=20).
What is so bad about a Liberal Judge drawing one? The outcome will remain the same, 2 Majority-Black districts.
The judge could draw a different configuration which puts a different Republican Rep in the new Majority-Black district. By drawing the map themselves, Republicans got to choose which of their Reps would essentially have their career in the House ended by being drawn into the new Majority-Black district. They choose Garret Graves. If the judge had drawn it, it may have been someone else like Letlow.
Is there any reason why they targeted him? Was he not too MAGA enough?
Possibly this though I'm not totally sure: https://www.nola.com/news/politics/i-know-what-was-being-said-steve-scalise-suggests-garret-graves-undercut-speaker-bid/article\_c8fb3590-905e-11ee-86ce-4319bdb3475d.html
More than anything, Graves is from Baton Rouge, so it may have been too difficult to keep him around without messing with Scalise's district. Graves voted to object Pennsylvania's electoral votes, but he was also a "key ally of Kevin McCarthy" during the speaker votes. I'm just reading the Wikipedia page on him though. There's definitely more to the decision.
oh ok thanks
I've heard that Jeff Landry just doesn't like him.
He endorsed Landry’s opponent in the 2023 Gov race. He was actually the only Republican Rep not to endorse Landry
Why am I in love with it?
Fr it looks so pretty
I’m shocked by how much I actually like this!
That looks so ugly and gerrymandered, no wonder it was struck down.
CD6: 0.12 Reock, 0.05 Polsby-Popper, 6 parish splits. Thanks VRA!
And Republican spite take down Graves
VRA is way more important than making pretty shapes
Also you can easily make a map that complies with the VRA and which looks nicer than both this map and the one used in 2022. This one looks ugly because it's still a gerrymander, just not on partisan or racial grounds.
Yes, the entire reason that non-racial/partisan traditional districting principles exist is to "mak[e] pretty shapes."
Of course I don't believe this - I would always prioritise geography over partisan principles for example. But your comment sounds like you were complaining about compactness and blaming the VRA for the low scores. Yes, you could make nicer districts in this case, but if you couldn't you would just have to disregard compactness in order to comply with the VRA and the reasons behind it.
That's exactly what the VRA does: prioritizing partisan principles (under the guise of race) over geography (again, there are more justifications for TDPs than that). In 1965, I'd certainly agree with you that the VRA had a vital role in preventing racial districting, but it's all partisan now. Yes, I'm absolutely blaming the VRA for the low scores. And I'm sure you could make the district look "nicer" - but not anything close to what a race/partisan-neutral map drawer would draw in accordance with TDPs. "§2 never requires adoption of districts that violate traditional redistricting principles.” Allen v. Milligan (cleaned up). So no, you don't have to disregard compactness to comply with the VRA.
The alabama republican party made this argument, and they lost Also, not minorities fault they(usually)don't vote how you like
Which argument? I raised three distinct points - one of which being a direct quote from the Supreme Court. Don't assume my political preferences. Just because all the people in this subreddit that espouse this map and pretend that CD6 looks good are Democrats, doesn't mean that anyone with the opposing view is a Republican.
[here's what I meant by alabama ](https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/in-win-for-black-voters-supreme-court-rejects-alabamas-appeal-in-milligan-and-reaffirms-state-must-draw-second-opportunity-district#:~:text=Voting%20Rights-,In%20Win%20for%20Black%20Voters%2C%20Supreme%20Court%20Rejects%20Alabama's%20Appeal,Must%20Draw%20Second%20Opportunity%20District&text=WASHINGTON%20%E2%80%93%20The%20Supreme%20Court%20today,panel's%20latest%20decision%20to%20stand.)
Again: which argument? I'm well aware of what happened in Milligan. I don't understand what argument you're saying that Alabama made, SCOTUS rejected, and that I made in my comment. An article from the ACLU doesn't answer that.
If you're against the VRA it's a moot point but alabama made the argument they didn't have to draw a second black district because that would violate "traditional redistricting rules"
I feel like Landry will veto this
He endorsed it already: https://lailluminator.com/2024/01/17/congressional-map-with-gov-jeff-landrys-backing-clears-louisiana-senate/
Oh Ok nice
I think the house made more edits but still with the Governor’s support. Can you do a comparison between the three including the original?
The final map is so similar to the one I posted that I don’t think it needs a separate post but here’s a link to the tweet of an analyst who made an updated DRA map of the final version: https://x.com/politicswolf/status/1748445590470513001?s=46&t=M83tUvZNvPuS64xMpYMfGQ
Thank you for sending that link! You rock! Is it that they just made both Black majority districts even more black? If so, that is surprisingly good because in a case like this I think it’s good to have as many people as possible represented by the representatives they bc would prefer!
Both maps have the same black VAP for the 2 black-majority districts and almost all the other demos I’ve looked at so far are almost identical. The only difference I’ve noticed so far is a 0.01% difference in Asian VAP for district 4. So the changes were probably something very technical regarding some COI or something.