Senate redistricting compromise does little to avoid litigation

As discussed with the original Senate Howell plan, the major litigation problem for the plan was the lack of compact and contiguous districts.  As discussed here, here, and here, in my opinion there were five especially egregious districts.

These districts survived through to the conference plan vetoed by the Governor.

For the most part these districts also survived through the "compromise" being considered now. 

Below are three maps reflecting a comparison of the redistricting lines for the five least compact and contiguous districts.

For each map:

The blue lines reflect the conference plan vetoed by the Governor.

The green lines represent the current compromise plan.

When the lines are the same the blue lines cover the green lines.

For Districts 1, 2, and 3.  There are virtually no differences.  District 3 has been tweaked, but not enough to make it remotely compact.

For District 36 substantial changes have been made to the South Western portion of the District, but the major trouble areas have not been changed.

For District 31 it appears to be identical.

Ignoring for the moment the partisan benefits or detriments of either the conference plan vetoed by the Governor or the current compromise, the compromise plan is still an invitation to litigation.

High resolution version of the maps can be found here.

For other redistricting posts, primary sources, and other information regarding the Virginia Redistricting process in 2011 please see The Road to Redistricting Litigation in Virginia.

Did Virginia Senate Democratic leadership buckle under threat of redistricting litigation?

In my opinion, yes.  It was also the smart political decision.

The new proposal

A new proposal has been reached between Senate Democratic and Republican leadership for the Senate redistricting plan.   As of this posting, the details have not been released, and the proposal still needs approval from both caucuses before it is likely to pass out of the General Assembly and be signed into law.  At least one left leaning blog is lamenting that Senate majority leader Dick Saslaw caved in the negotiations. 

The reason for backing down?

According to Blue Virginia:

“What I'm hearing from multiple sources is that the legal advisers to Dick Saslaw apparently changed their mind, suddenly deciding that the courts were more of a problem than they had thought. So, they advised Saslaw to avoid that route at (almost) all costs.”

IF this is accurate, the legal advice is sound.  As I indicated here, what happens if no plan is reached is up in the air, but the Howell plan for redistricting is a highly unlikely outcome because it raises serious Constitutional questions on its own.

Instead, if no agreement is reached the likely outcome is a very safe plan with an emphasis on compact districts, with little consideration for the protection of incumbents.  Compact districts will generally favor Republicans, as Democrats will generally have districts of overwhelming influence in urban areas, thereby diluting Democratic strength in non-urban areas.  For this reason a compromise on redistricting is the smart outcome for Senate Democrats.

Who made the mistake?

Dick Saslaw made the strategic mistake when he said there was no way he would change the plan, and that he would send the same plan back to McDonnell even if it is vetoed again.  In the grand scheme of things that is a much smaller political mistake than failing to compromise on redistricting.

For other redistricting posts, primary sources, and other information regarding the Virginia Redistricting process in 2011 please see The Road to Redistricting Litigation in Virginia.

(active) Virginia redistricting lawsuit number three makes its way into Federal Court

As discussed on April 20, 2011 there are two active (i.e., not dismissed) redistricting lawsuits filed in Federal Court.  

On April 19, 2011 I discussed the mechanics of a redistricting lawsuit if the legislature fails to successfully pass redistricting plan for the Virginia House, Virginia Senate, or the House of Representatives.  As part of that discussion I indicated how unlikely it is that any such lawsuit will successfully be litigated in the Courts of the Commonwealth.  Essentially, if a case involves interpretation or enforcement of Federal law, which includes the Federal Constitution, the Commonwealth of Virginia has the power to remove the case from state court into Federal Court.

On Friday April 22, the Commonwealth of Virginia removed such a case from the Circuit Court for Hanover County to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.  So now we have three . . .

Lawsuit number 3 - How did we get here?

It appears that on March 25, 2011 three Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in Hanover County Circuit Court alleging the 2001 apportionment plans for the House, Senate, and U.S. Congress violate the Plaintiff’s Virginia Constitutional, and, in some instances, Federal Constitutional rights.  The case does not appear to have been served until last week.  Apparently, as the case was being served the Plaintiff’s returned to Court and were granted relief to file an Amended Complaint.  The Commonwealth of Virginia, as this case involves interpretation and enforcement of the Federal Constitution, removed the case to Federal Court.

The portions of the Complaints addressing legislative apportionment at the state level do not mention the Federal Constitution within the “Count.”  This may have been an attempt to suggest the Federal Courts do not have jurisdiction over the case, thereby preventing removal.  Nonetheless, the Federal Constitution is invoked throughout the remainder of the Complaint, and the likelihood of having the case sent back to Hanover Circuit Court is quite low.

The Plaintiffs are Raymond J. Klotz, Jr., Edward Fleischer, and Gerald Burch, Jr.  Raymond J. Klotz, Jr. appears to be a minor ($2700 plus $1000 donated to a PAC with no partisan denomination) Republican donor.  Edward Fleischer appears to be a minor ($215) Republican donor.  Gerald Burch, Jr. appears to be a minor republican donor and former primary candidate for a House race in 2009.  If I understand correctly Gerald Burch and Jana Burch (a Plaintiff in the other redistricting lawsuit in the Eastern District of Virginia) appear to be married.  I guess they could not agree on which lawyer to hire . . .  Counsel, R. Craig Evans appears to be a minor Democratic donor. 

Procedural issues

This lawsuit has some procedural problems, all of which seem to have been worked out without harm to the Plaintiffs. 

For example:

A. As the case was filed before commencement of the special session it should have been dismissed if filed in Federal Court just like Carter v. SBE I.

B. Filing this case in state court meant it will be delayed, and likely removed to Federal Court anyway.  Essentially it is a waste of time in most instances.

C. The Plaintiffs did not serve the lawsuit for nearly a month, and then served the original Complaint and the Amended Complaint almost simultaneously.  If the lawsuit was meant to be vigorously pursued, service should have been sought earlier.

D. The Plaintiffs moved to include AG Cuccinelli and the “Commonwealth of Virginia” as parties.  These appear to be the only changes in the Amended Complaint.  Neither entity is a necessary party, and certainly the inclusion of these entities did not require an additional Motion and Court appearance, and duplicative service of the Amended Complaint within day of service of the first Complaint.

BUT, as I indicated, none of this appears to have any long term negative consequences.  In fact, had the case been served and removed to Federal Court in early April, the case might have been dismissed just like Carter v. SBE I.

What does the inclusion of this case mean?

It means we have a few more Plaintiffs and attorneys involved in redistricting litigation in the Eastern District of Virginia.  Welcome to the party.

For other redistricting posts, primary sources, and other information regarding the Virginia Redistricting process in 2011 please see The Road to Redistricting Litigation in Virginia.

Virginia redistricting lawsuits in full swing

Gov. McDonnell vetoed the redistricting bill, and plaintiffs marched into Federal Court on Monday and Tuesday.  In my opinion these lawsuits are still premature as the Gen. Assembly needs to have another chance to send a bill to the Governor before we accept that this exercise is futile.  Nonetheless, by filing now these litigants ensure themselves a position driving redistricting litigation if now plan is ultimately passed.

Lawsuit number 1 - they’re back!

Out in the Western District of Virginia the same folks who filed and had their case dismissed in February filed a nearly identical Complaint on Monday.  Here is the Complaint.

The Plaintiffs are Henry Lee Carter and Gregory M. Yates.  According to VPAP, Gregory Yates is a high dollar (almost $60K) Democratic donor (with some Republican donations thrown in).  According to VPAP, Henry Lee Carter is a high dollar (a little over $16K) Democratic donor.  Counsel in the case is Gerald Hebert an expert in election law who has a personal history of Democratic donations.

The Complaint sues the SBE directly, and sues the AG and the Lieutenant Governor.  It is my opinion that none of those people or entities need to be included.  Otherwise, it appears these folks know what they are doing.  In my opinion the proper parties are the members of the SBE and perhaps the Governor.

Lawsuit number 2 - new to the party

In the Eastern District of Virginia some, on Tuesday, new litigants have filed a Complaint to invalidate the 2001 redistricting plan as well.  The Complaint is here.  The Motion to convene a three judge panel is here.  

The Plaintiffs are Jana Burch, Gary Bullis, and Jerome Burke.  Jana Burch does not appear to have a VPAP donor history.  Gary Bullis appears to be a minor ($630) Republican donor.  If this is the same Jerome Burke, he is a minor ($800) conservative Republican donor.  Counsel, Charles E. Adams appears to be a minor Republican donor. 

The complaint sues the “Virginia Board of Elections” and the members of the SBE in the official capacity.  It is the “State Board of Elections,” but the difference in name is irrelevant.  The Complaint is verbose, but otherwise it appears these folks also know what they are doing.

What does this mean?

It means that if the General Assembly and Governor still cannot pass a plan, then a handful of Democrats and Republicans, and the AG’s office, will be arguing with a handful of judges to decide the lines to be drawn for November 2011.  There is plenty of time for more people to file lawsuits, so we will see who dominates the debate in the Courts in another few weeks.

For other redistricting posts, primary sources, and other information regarding the Virginia Redistricting process in 2011 please see The Road to Redistricting Litigation in Virginia.

Is Virginia headed toward a Constitutional crisis over redistricting?

In my opinion, no.  

On Friday April 15, in the middle of the afternoon Virginia Governor McDonnell vetoed the redistricting bill.   There is no current redistricting plan and Majority Leader Dick Saslaw in the Senate has stated he intends  to resubmit the same plan the Governor found offensive.  If Governor McDonnell vetoes it again, Senator Saslaw stated he will not submit another redistricting bill to the Governor.

What follows is what really happens.

Things stay the same?

As bizarre as it might sound, things could stay the same.  The first thing we should all consider is that there are two apportionment bills in existence, one for the Senate, and one for the House.  These bills are presumed Constitutional and enforceable until someone challenges them in Court.  If no one files a lawsuit then the old reapportionment plans could stay in place until 2021. 

Of course the chances of no one filing a lawsuit are quite low as at least some folks already tried to obtain redistricting through the Courts before the special session even convened.  So, what is this lawsuit about?

The basics of the lawsuit

The grounds for the lawsuit could be a state challenge to compactness and contiguousness of the 2001 apportionment bills, or a challenge under the Federal Voting Rights Act, but most likely the lawsuit will simply be a challenge under the Federal Constitutional requirement of one-person one vote.  Presumably compactness could have been sufficiently challenged in 2001.  The Voting Rights Act can give rise to a new challenge under an old plan that without changes now disenfranchises minorities.  But, to have a successful challenge on the basis of mere vote dilution at the state level, one must prove that a district deviates from the ideal district in population by 10% or more.   We have that in Virginia in both the House and the Senate under the 2001 plans.

Because the lawsuit is based on a Federal Constitutional violation it will likely be filed in Federal Court.  And if the case were filed in state court, the Commonwealth could simply remove the case to Federal Court.  A three judge panel will likely be assigned upon motion of one of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 2284.  The three judge panel must hear all requests for a preliminary injunction or final relief. 

There will likely be multiple cases.  All cases filed in the Federal Court for the Eastern District of Virginia will likely be consolidated with all other cases from the same District, and the same thing will likely occur for the Western District of Virginia.  We could potentially have competing three judge panels in the Western and Eastern Districts, although they are likely to do something reasonable to transfer jurisdiction from one Court to the other to avoid competing injunctions.

The lawsuits will ask for a few major items:

1.  Declaratory judgment that the 2001 apportionment statutes are unconstitutional.

2. A prohibitory injunction against the use of the 2001 apportionment statutes.

3. A mandatory injunction requiring use of an alternative apportionment plan, or a method of determining an alternative apportionment plan.

The parties seek injunctive relief

The Plaintiffs will likely seek a preliminary injunction followed by a permanent injunction.  Prohibitory and mandatory injunctions will be sought in both the preliminary and permanent injunction stages.

Short form definitions for injunctions:

Prohibitory injunction - a court order preventing somebody from doing something.  In this instance, a court order prohibiting the Commonwealth from holding elections under an unconstitutional apportionment plan.

Mandatory injunction - a court order requiring someone to do something.  In this instance, a court order requiring the Commonwealth to conduct elections according to a particular plan, or engaging in a course of action to determine a particular plan.

Preliminary injunction - an injunction entered prior to the final hearing in the case.  This is normally very hard to obtain.  Occasionally, as in this instance, the unconstitutionality of the 2001 apportionment statutes is unquestionable and a preliminary injunction is far easier to obtain.

Permanent injunction - an injunction granted pursuant to a final hearing.  This injunction can still be appealed, but it is likely no longer subject to revision by the three judge court. 

Preliminary injunction hearing

At this hearing the rest of the case will likely be decided.  It is nearly impossible to obtain a final hearing in sufficient time before November 2011 to obtain a permanent injunction granting judicial redistricting.  The preliminary injunction hearing is where redistricting in 2011 and likely 2012 will be decided.

The goal at the preliminary injunction hearing is to have the 2001 statutes declared unconstitutional in the short term, and have a different redistricting plan put in place for November 2011 elections.

For more on injunctions, please see my post on injunctions in the Virginia courts here.

Types of relief possible

At both the preliminary and final injunction stages the three Judge Court has broad discretion to fashion an appropriate remedy.  The Court could choose one of the existing redistricting plans, proposed as legislation, passed and vetoed, suggested by the nonpartisan redistricting commission, or even submitted from the public at large.  The Court could assign a special master to determine which plan to follow.  The Court could appoint its own panel of experts to suggest plans.  The Court’s primary goal is to meet legislative intent (and yes the Governor’s veto that is not overridden *should* negate legislative intent for the vetoed plan).  To this end the Court will likely want to send a directive back to the legislature to try again.

The major question at the preliminary stage is will the Court cancel 2011 elections, the answer is maybe.  The legislature could be kept in place only to pass a new apportionment scheme and electoral schedule.  Unlike in 1981, 1991 , and 2001 when redistricting challenges were brought, in 2011 there will be no new plan for the Commonwealth to begin execution.  The major case in 1981, Cosner v. Dalton, 522 F. Supp. 350 (E.D. Va. 1981) required enforcement of an unconstitutional plan for the Senate because the Constitutional House Plan would be disrupted if Senate elections were canceled and the Commonwealth was already preparing for an election based on the unconstitutional Senate plan.  In this instance there is no simultaneously Constitutional plan for the House, and the Commonwealth can not reasonably prepare for an election under the old 

districts.  This makes outright cancellation in 2011 a possibility.

At the preliminary stage the Plaintiffs should focus on showing the existence of a reasonable and benign alternative plan for 2011, and hold out the possibility that the Court could still require the legislature to pass a new plan in early 2012 and hold new elections in the Presidential year.  A three judge panel will make this decision.  As no one judge will control the process they will likely tend to moderate one another’s decision making.  The safest interim redistricting plan with support from a smart and forceful advocate will have the greatest chance of success.  Plaintiffs should file their case with their expert witnesses in hand, a list of viable redistricting plans, and good reasons why all the alternatives are not objectively reasonable.

Who should participate? 

Everyone who cares (and has money) should participate.  There is one guaranteed party with a seat at the table: the Commonwealth of Virginia as represented by the Attorney General.  If you want to speak up in Court you need to file a case, it will likely be consolidated with the others but at least you get to have a say in the matter.

If you want to see how this is done in 2011 please see my prior post about Virginia’s first 2011 redistricting lawsuit.  Do some digging, you might be interested to find a common name in that case, and in some 2011 redistricting legislative action.  

Other blogs

Lloydtheidiot over at tooconservative put up a post on Cosner v. Dalton on Tuesday.  I address why Cosner is inapplicable above.  Contrary to his name, I do not think Lloyd is an idiot and he raises some good points.

GoldmanUSA at BlueVirginia put up a post asking a clear question: will the bill that was vetoed be given as much weight as a duly passed law?  Well, to the simple question, no the bill will be given practically no weight.  If instead the bill that was vetoed is merely competing with other suggested redistricting plans, see my comment above: “the Governor’s veto that is not overridden *should* negate legislative intent for the vetoed plan.”    

For other redistricting posts, primary sources, and other information regarding the Virginia Redistricting process in 2011 please see The Road to Redistricting Litigation in Virginia.

New Virginia Democratic Congressional redistricting plan - worse than the gerrymandered House atrocity

UPDATED
It looks like the congressional redistricting plan from the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus has been released . . . sortof.  A map described as “Senate Democratic Plan” is now available on the Virginia Redistricting website.   It pains me to congratulate the MSM, but: Congratulations to the Washington Post for the scoop on the release of the plan.   

Despite what the Washington Post says, it is largely a rewrite of the gerrymandered plan proposed in the House with the implicit agreement of Virginia’s Congressional delegation.  The details, including the population totals, and minority populations for the proposed districts are not yet available.  So between the House and the Senate plan the major improvement is in the 3 District which is now very compact and represents a clearer cohesive community of interest.  The 11 is just as bad, and there are minor improvements to the 2, and 5 districts.   The proposed first district is worse than the proposed House version, but does not warrant immediate additional scrutiny.

The proposed fourth

The problem with this plan is the bizarre 4 District intended to create a “minority influence” district.  The proposed 4 District is gerrymandered in such a way as to make the Senate Democratic Howell plan look reasonable in comparison.

Here is a map of the proposed fourth:

Here is the Richmond area:

The Richmond area has a number of strangely shaped precincts which , without adjacent precincts, cause odd bottlenecks barely connecting adjacent territory.  In the proposed fourth there is a one hundred foot bottleneck in the 410 precinct, a 700 foot bottleneck in the Reams precinct, and an 800 foot bottleneck in the Five Forks precinct.

The district then runs down to the North Carolina border, and then over east into a gerrymander in Suffolk and Chesapeake Cities.

The oddest part of this gerrymander is the bottleneck in northern Suffolk City designed to capture the Harbour View precinct.  This is the same precinct where special efforts have been made to include the precinct in the proposed Virginia Senate District 1 (my fourth most gerrymandered proposed Senate district).

Conclusion

All told the district looks like a monster with a plume consuming the southern part of the proposed first district consisting largely of Prince George, Surry, and Smithfield Counties.  If those three counties had not been carved out, arguments that the proposed fourth is not compact might very well dissipate.  As it stands, this new Senate plan appears even worse than the proposed House plan in terms of compactness and contiguity.

As with previous posts, higher resolution PDFs of the maps can be found here.

For other redistricting posts, primary sources, and other information regarding the Virginia Redistricting process in 2011 please see The Road to Redistricting Litigation in Virginia.

UPDATE: 16:00 EDT Monday April 11, 2011.  It appears that DLS has sent the map down the memory hole.  There is a suggestion in the Washington Post article, that the maps will be put back up after 4:00 PM April 11, 2011.  Until that time, please enjoy the maps I gathered yesterday April 10, 2011.

UPDATE 2: At approximately 19:00 the maps and underlying data appear to have been posted by DLS.  According to the data, District 4 is the new minority majority district, and District 3 is the "minority influence" district.

UPDATE 3: As of June 9, 2011, the Senate has passed a modified version of its previous plan.  The districts are far more compact and arguably more compact than the House plan.  It is far from perfection, and the majority-minority district barely tops over 50% Black Voting Age Population, making it harder to gain preclearance.  Nonetheless, it has only taken two and a half months, but the Senate Democrats are figuring out how to gain more support by making their plans more reasonable.  The publicly available information on this plan can currently only be found on the Division of Legislative Services redistricting website.

Unfortunate Virginia Congressional gerrymander, may also invite Voting Rights Act challenge

News outlets are reporting that there will be at least some alternative offered in opposition to the Virginia Congressional redistricting plan expected to have broad bipartisan support.  The alternative plan is allegedly going to be offered in part by the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus to create not only one majority-minority district but also a "minority influence" district.

Under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act it is difficult to justify not creating additional majority minority districts, if they can be created from cohesive communities.  On the other hand, under more recent case law, potential "minority influence" districts are not given much deference under the Voting Rights Act.  (This is the case law referenced in my redistricting update from a few days ago. I will develop this case law in a future post.)

Although this new plan may not serve as the background for a successful lawsuit, all Virginians are served by the opportunity to consider additional options.  I look forward to reviewing the plan, and hope it makes some of the heavily gerrymandered districts more compact.

For other redistricting posts, primary sources, and other information regarding the Virginia Redistricting process in 2011 please see The Road to Redistricting Litigation in Virginia.

Virginia redistricting updates:

Virginia House district plan: Passed the House with an overwhelming majority of votes, only a handful of Democratic representatives opposed it.  Passed the Senate with the Senate plan attached as an amendment to the Bill. 

Virginia Senate district plan: Is now attached to the House bill as an amendment.  The House must now vote on the amended bill.  The Virginia Senate modified the plan again.  Some areas were made less atrocious, but the Senate did manage to create my new favorite bottleneck: In District 13 in Chesapeake City the Oak Grove and Bells Mill Li precincts are connected by an approximately 1200 foot stretch of swampland adjacent to the Elizabeth River. 

Virginia Congressional plan:  This was finally released.  The plan is very close to the plan leaked a month ago purportedly supported by the entire Virginia Congressional delegation.  It has some particularly non-compact/non-contiguous districts such as the1, 2, 3, 5, and 11.  What is more interesting about the Congressional plan is the dissatisfaction expressed by the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus.  Perhaps there is a Voting Rights Act lawsuit in the making.  If I have some more time, I will develop the background of Voting Rights Act litigation.

Virginia Governor: The real story is with the Virginia Lieutenant Governor who has come out in opposition to the Virginia Senate plan.  Either this is political theatre to provide some cover for Governor McDonnell when he vetoes, amends, or rubber stamps the state district plans, or L.G. Bolling is trying to increase his profile on a major political issue.

For other redistricting posts, primary sources, and other information regarding the Virginia Redistricting process in 2011 please see The Road to Redistricting Litigation in Virginia.

Virginia Senate redistricting plan designed to invite litigation, Part Four: Ineffective attempts to fix the map

UPDATE: For other redistricting posts, primary sources, and other information regarding the Virginia Redistricting process in 2011 please see The Road to Redistricting Litigation in Virginia.

In an effort to befuddle commentators the, Virginia Senate Democrats keep releasing new plans.  I guess the first map drawn was simply a "working draft."

Versions of the Senate maps were released on Tuesday March 29, Friday April 1, and now Monday April 4.  All of my maps and analysis remained consistent for the first two versions.  The third version made more substantive changes.  For those looking at the redistricting website this version is labeled "SB_JHOWELLL_4_3_11"

Redistricting website: http://redistricting.dls.virginia.gov/2010/RedistrictingPlans.aspx#map

Excellent coverage of the changes can be found here:

http://bearingdrift.com/2011/04/04/senate-dems-to-va-beach-when-you-smoke-crack-hold-it-in/

In my top five least compact and contiguous districts, my major criticisms for number 5-2 remain the same after release of plan three.

But the Senate Democrats significantly altered the least compact and contiguous district, District 3.

My old description and map:

"1.  District 3 - You must look at District 3.  District 3 is on the Chesapeake Bay and tidewater portions of the Commonwealth.  District 3 covers gerrymandered portions of three major peninsulas and areas on the southern part of the James River.  To travel from one end of the district to the other, without leaving the district, one would have to cross three major bodies of water.  Additionally two precincts on the James River appear to have been severed for no reason, Bacon’s Castle appears to no longer be connected to Rushmere.  The entire area along the southern coast of the James River appears out of place, and barely, if at all contiguous with the rest of the district.  If any district would impose substantial difficulties on representation, it is this district.  For these reasons District 3 is the most likely district to warrant a viable challenge on the grounds that it is not compact or contiguous."

NEW DISTRICT THREE

The new District 3 (as of 4/4/2011) no longer includes the Northern Neck of Virginia and instead reaches into areas east of Richmond, to connect the Middle Peninsula and the Virginia Peninsula/Hampton Roads Peninsula by land.

The new map looks like this:

My new description is as follows:

District 3 - You must look at District 3.  District 3 is on the Chesapeake Bay and tidewater portions of the Commonwealth.  District 3 covers gerrymandered portions of two major peninsulas and areas on the southern part of the James River.  To travel from one end of the district to the other, without leaving the district, one would have to cross two major bodies of water.  In order to connect Parts of York County and Poquoson County to the remainder of District 3 one has to travel across water (there is a bridge) to access a portion of the district located on the same peninsula as other portions of the district.  These two portions on the Virginia Peninsula/Hampton Roads Peninsula are not contiguous to each other.  Additionally two precincts on the James River appear to have been severed for no reason, Bacon’s Castle appears to no longer be connected to Rushmere.  The entire area along the southern coast of the James River appears out of place, and barely, if at all contiguous with the rest of the district.  If any district would impose substantial difficulties on representation, it is this district.  For these reasons District 3 is the most likely district to warrant a viable challenge on the grounds that it is not compact or contiguous.

District 3 is still the number 1 least compact or contiguous district in my opinion even after significant improvement.

Previous installments of this series:

Part One: the legal explanation of the Virginia Constitutional requirement of contiguous and compact districts

http://northernvirginialawyer.blogspot.com/2011/03/virginia-senate-redistricting-plan.html

Part Two: The five most offensive districts.

Part Two can be found here:

http://northernvirginialawyer.blogspot.com/2011/03/virginia-senate-redistricting-plan_31.html

Part Three: Maps and details of the five most offensive districts.

http://northernvirginialawyer.blogspot.com/2011/04/virginia-senate-redistricting-plan.html

Virginia Senate redistricting plan designed to invite litigation, Part Three: Maps of the five most offensive districts

UPDATE: For other redistricting posts, primary sources, and other information regarding the Virginia Redistricting process in 2011 please see The Road to Redistricting Litigation in Virginia.

In Part Two, I identified the five most offensive districts.

Part Two can be found here:

http://northernvirginialawyer.blogspot.com/2011/03/virginia-senate-redistricting-plan_31.html

The division of legislative services has fixed a few bugs with their online mapping system, and I am now able to show you the actual maps of the major problem areas in the top five worst districts for compactness and contiguity.

To reiterate my top five least compact and contiguous districts are.

#5 - District 2

#4 - District 1

#3 - District 36

#2 - District 30

#1 - District 3

I will upload higher resolution PDF’s of the images in this post here:

http://www.scribd.com/ppradoslaw/shelf

Districts 1 & 2

 

District 2 was included primarily for the unnecessary leap across the James river to include precincts Thirty Nine, Thirty Seven, and Thirty Eight in Portsmouth.  This map also shows the major problem with District 1, another leap across the James, this time to capture one single precinct, Harbor View.

District 1

In order to capture Harbor View for District 1, the district runs along the northern shore of the James river, and splits the Downtown precinct, in order to maintain the false impression of contiguity.

District 36

This is a full map of District 36.  The major contiguity problems occur in the split districts along the Potomac approximately 2/5 of the way up the coast on this map.

District 30 & 36

This is a close up of the severely gerrymandered portions of the 30 and the 36 where the map was circuitously drawn to capture particular precincts for each district.

District 30

This is the full version of district thirty where one can see the separate southern portion of Fort Belvoir and Mount Vernon, and the western gerrymandered portion.

This is a close up of District 30 along the Potomac, where the district narrows to approximately 800 feet in a split precinct in order to connect a large landmass in southeastern Fairfax County, to the larger portion of the District in South Arlington and Alexandria.

How Districts 30 and 36 should look

This is a Senate plan for northern Virginia created by the Governor’s commission.  Certainly the districts are not identical, but it would be difficult to argue the districts are not compact or contiguous.  

District 3

These maps do not do this justice.  To understand how offensive this district you must go on to the DLS website, download Microsoft Silverlight, and explore this district yourself.

Parts of three peninsulas, and then cross the James River . . .

The lower portion of District 3, on the north shore of the James River is so gerrymandered, that by itself it may have made the top five list.

Recap

There is no substitution for looking at the details of the districts yourself.  The entire plan is so badly gerrymandered, that one has to wonder if the Senate Democrats even considered the possibility of losing their districts in litigation.  

Once again the DLS maps can be found here:

http://redistricting.dls.virginia.gov/2010/RedistrictingPlans.aspx#map

I will upload higher resolution PDF’s of the images in this post here:

http://www.scribd.com/ppradoslaw/shelf