Virginia Can Engage in Mid-cycle Redistricting

Monday's redrawing of Virginia Senate Districts was likely Constitutional.

On Monday, Virginia Senate Republicans redrew Virginia's state senate districts utilizing their bare majority due to the absence of Senator Henry Marsh who was a couple hours up the road attending inauguration activities.

I have seen repeated calls for the plan to be struck down as unconstitutional under the Virginia Constitution.  Up until a few days ago, I agreed that mid-cycle redistricting was likely unconstitutional.

I repeatedly heard of a redistricting case from early 2012 in Richmond that prohibited mid-cycle redistricting, but no one seemed to have read the case.

I looked into some arguments, and had changed my mind.

Then I obtained a copy of the opinion.

In part:

The Constitution of Virginia dictates that “[t]he authority of the General Assembly shall extend to all subjects of legislation not herein forbidden or restricted; and a specific grant of authority in this Constitution upon a subject shall not work a restriction of its authority upon the same or any other subject.”  VA. CONST. art. IV, § 14 . . . The Court is unable construe Article II, Section 6, [regarding apportionment] as cabining the General Assembly’s authority to enact decennial reapportionment legislation to 2011 and foreclosing the enactment of such legislation in 2012.  Moreover, the 2004 amendments to this provision, specifically the addition of the word, “decennial,” and the replacement of the date in a section containing two-hundred-fifty-one words, do not support a finding that these revisions divested the General Assembly of its authority to enact decennial reapportionment legislation in 2012 after it failed to do so in 2011."  Slip Op pp. 7-8.

Reading the entire opinion is necessary if you want to understand the breadth and detail of the ruling.  The Judge did leave a loophole for later adjudication, and this legislation may beget the test case for that loophole.

Please note that this opinion is not binding outside of the parties in that case.  Nonetheless, the reasoning is sound, and I do not feel I could say it better myself.

The lawsuit to strike down the bill will likely fail, but the press generated will be damaging.  Republicans concerned about the effects on our statewide ticket this November need to urge the House to reject the legislation and the Governor to veto it.  Pass the bill in the light of day, and we will talk. 

As previously laid out the current senate districts from the Democrats are a travesty.

Power over Virginia property rights can be returned to the citizens in 2012

Virginia has a rare and important statewide matter on the ballot for November.  In addition to the Presidential election, Virginia has a statewide ballot measure where voters will get to decide if private property continues to have meaning or if politically connected developers can seize your property when it is deemed to benefit the public coffers.

An opportunity to permanently curtail the power of both the state and local government in Virginia is upon us.

History

In 2005 the Supreme Court eviscerated the right to keep one's own property when faced with private developers seeking a larger commercial development in the decision of Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005).  Lower middle class residents sought to prevent the City of New London Connecticut from taking their property via eminent domain as the owners argued the property was not being taken for "public use" as required by the 5th Amendment.

Our antagonist in this story, Pfizer, Inc. wanted to build a large scale commercial development, and seizing the property of private homeowners was necessary to achieve Pfizer's goal.  The City of New London used the power of eminent domain, claiming that the improvement to the property would be a "public use."  This public use was couched in terms of increased tax revenue and a wealthier citizenry.

The Supreme Court essentially stated there are no bounds to "public use" as anything that financially benefits a government could now be considered public use.

The uproar among private citizens believing in keeping their small portion of the American dream was heard throughout state legislatures nationwide as laws were passed to placate their worries.  Virginia moved quickly and successfully to pass laws restricting eminent domain to actual public uses at the local level. 

The Dillon Rule

Virginia is a Dillon rule state.  In short the Dillon rule indicates that a local government only has those powers granted to it by the statewide government.  If the Virginia General Assembly decides to grant or revoke a power to a locality, the locality must abide by that grant or revocation.

As localities are governed by the Dillon rule, the General Assembly curtailed the power of localities to use eminent domain to take private property for purposes of bolstering a tax base.

Private property was safe, or so it seemed.

What is actually on the ballot in November 2012?

Oddly, finding anything other than innuendo about the property rights amendment in November is exceedingly difficult.  The public should understand both the provision on the ballot, and the actual language in the amendment.

The language you will see on the ballot is as follows:

"Shall Section 11 of Article I (Bill of Rights) of the Constitution of Virginia be amended (i) to require that eminent domain only be exercised where the property taken or damaged is for public use and, except for utilities or the elimination of a public nuisance, not where the primary use is for private gain, private benefit, private enterprise, increasing jobs, increasing tax revenue, or economic development; (ii) to define what is included in just compensation for such taking or damaging of property; and (iii) to prohibit the taking or damaging of more private property than is necessary for the public use?"

This description is generally accurate, but omits the primary criticism of opponents of the amendment.

The actual text of the Amendment to the Virginia Constitution is as follows:

That the General Assembly shall pass no law whereby private property, the right to which is fundamental, shall be damaged or taken except for public use. No private property shall be damaged or taken for public use without just compensation to the owner thereof. No more private property may be taken than necessary to achieve the stated public use. Just compensation shall be no less than the value of the property taken, lost profits and lost access, and damages to the residue caused by the taking. The terms "lost profits" and "lost access" are to be defined by the General Assembly. A public service company, public service corporation, or railroad exercises the power of eminent domain for public use when such exercise is for the authorized provision of utility, common carrier, or railroad services. In all other cases, a taking or damaging of private property is not for public use if the primary use is for private gain, private benefit, private enterprise, increasing jobs, increasing tax revenue, or economic development, except for the elimination of a public nuisance existing on the property. The condemnor bears the burden of proving that the use is public, without a presumption that it is.

We will come back to the text in a moment.

The controversy over the Property Rights Amendment

Those in favor:  Those in favor of the Amendment appear to be general private property advocates and broadly speaking, farming interests.  They express that we need to enshrine the definition of public use in the Virginia Constitution.  Further, proponents appear to desire that compensation for any taking of private property take into consideration lost profits and lost access.  These are generally not included in the calculation of compensation.  It should be noted that the terms "lost profits" and "lost access" are to be defined by the General Assembly."

Those opposed: Those opposed were local governments through their voluntary collective associations.

Now it seems that the Virginia Association of Counties no longer opposes the Amendment.

The Virginia Municipal League appears to still oppose the Amendment largely due to the "lost profits" issue. 

Apparently the Virginia Democrat powers that be ["VADemSCC"] also oppose the property rights amendment due to the cost and complexity of compliance for local governments.  Additionally, the VADemSCC also feels the Amendment is merely duplicative. 

Why the Amendment is extremely beneficial

Private property rights are not safe, but can be much safer.

1. The Dillon rule allows for grants and revocations of powers.  Although today public use is limited for local governments, a future general assembly might slowly water down the definition of public use.  The doctrine of entrenchment prevents a current legislature form binding future legislatures.  The only solution to prevent the watering down of fundamental rights is this Constitutional Amendment.

2. The General Assembly has been laboring under NO RESTRICTIONS.  Although the General Assembly can pass a law restricting the Governor's office from exercising eminent domain at the state level, that law can be undone completely, or exceptions made on a whim by a subsequent General Assembly.  Once enshrined in the Virginia Constitution, these restrictions can not be undone on a whim or one simple exception.

3. This Amendment contains the holy grail of eminent domain opponents.  Although not discussed in any detail, compensation must be made for "damaged" property, and not just property taken in total.  This allows a landowner to be compensated for something referred to as a "regulatory taking."  This is an instance in which a regulation reduces the value of property.  This is an incredible curb to government power, and significantly bolsters the rights of private landowners of all kinds.

Those opposed neither want to acknowledge nor contest the above three benefits, as the public at large tends to support private property rights in concept. 

Virginia residents, please be sure to register and vote to protect your rights in November.

Joe Morrissey wants to tax you for choosing plastic over paper

Desired partly by environmentalists, partly by people who like taxes, partly by the nanny-statists who think the government should intrude on everything in our lives, and partly by those who think that paper is so preferred over plastic that everyone should think like them, the plastic bag tax may be coming to Virginia.

Del. Joe Morissey (D - Highland Springs) (storied past ignored for purposes of this post) is proposing a $.20 tax on all plastic bags "provided to the consumer by retailers in grocery stores, convenience stores, or drug stores."  HB 124.  In addition to the tax, retailers are incentivized to impose the tax by allowing the retailer to keep a portion of the tax, and by suffering substantial penalties for failing to charge for plastic bags.

The odd result of this is that instead of charging for plastic, most stores in Virginia would likely convert to an all paper bag system.  No tax would need to be collected, and consumers would lose their choice among their shopping bag options.  Next they will regulate the shape and thickness of paper bags to ensure optimum recyclability and minimum landfill usage. 

I am sure the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia appreciate the government overreach in controlling our shopping habits.

Not to worry.  This is exactly the kind of bill that dies an early death in subcommittee. 

Provoking a Virginia election law legal battle: How Gingrich and Perry could still get on the Virginia primary ballot

UPDATE: 12/28/11 ~10:00 AM
Rick Perry jumps into federal court. http://northernvirginialawyer.blogspot.com/2011/12/perry-files-lawsuit-to-get-on-va-ballot.html
National Review links to the article at http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

Update: 12/29/11 ~11:45 AM
I think Gingrich is out of luck.  Looks like a Romney-Paul primary is all but guaranteed in Virginia.

Merry Christmas to Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.  After submission of signatures to qualify for the Virginia Republican Presidential Primary in 2012, they are the only two candidates who will appear on the ballot.

Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry also submitted the requisite number of signatures, but did not qualify to appear on the ballot according to the Republican Party of Virginia.

After Gingrich learned he would be excluded, he referred to his exclusion as Pearl Harbor, and promised to wage a vigorous write-in campaign.

This has frustrated many Virginia Republicans, who currently view Gingrich as the front runner in our great Commonwealth.

There is still a way for Gingrich and Perry to get on the ballot, but it requires fast action.  It can not await the results of back room negotiations.

How did we get here?

Virginia apparently is known for having some of the most onerous ballot access requirements in the country.

Here is what is required generally of primary candidates:

"A candidate for nomination by primary for any office shall be required to file with his declaration of candidacy a petition . . . on a form prescribed by the State Board, signed by the number of qualified voters specified below . . .and listing the residence address of each such voter. Each signature on the petition shall have been witnessed by a person who is himself a qualified voter, or qualified to register to vote, for the office for which he is circulating the petition and whose affidavit to that effect appears on each page of the petition." Va. Code § 24.2-521.

Now what this means is that you have to have a certain number of signatures of qualified voters, and they must be witnessed by a qualified voter who then signs an oath that s/he witnessed the signatures on the petition.

Seems pretty straight forward, the statute then goes on to list the various offices for which the number of signatures are needed:  United States Senate, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, or Attorney General, United States House of Representatives, Senate of Virginia, House of Delegates, a constitutional office, membership on the governing body of any county or city, membership on the governing body of any town, and "for any other candidate, 50 signatures." Va. Code § 24.2-521.

Presidential Primary contenders appear to be missing from the list.

Instead Presidential primary qualification and signature gathering is governed under Va. Code § 24.2-545.

Specifically subsection B states in part:

"Any person seeking the nomination of the national political party for the office of President of the United States . . . may file with the State Board petitions signed by at least 10,000 qualified voters, including at least 400 qualified voters from each congressional district in the Commonwealth, who attest that they intend to participate in the primary of the same political party as the candidate for whom the petitions are filed. Such petitions shall be filed with the State Board by the primary filing deadline. The petitions shall be on a form prescribed by the State Board and shall be sealed in one or more containers to which is attached a written statement giving the name of the presidential candidate and the number of signatures on the petitions contained in the containers."  Va. Code § 24.2-545

This is a similar process to that set out in Va. Code § 24.2-521, but clearly has different requirements for filing other than a specification of the number of signatures required.

Where does the state party come in?

Virginia law then hands off the duty of certifying signatures to the state party.  That's right, the State Board of Elections does not certify any signatures, and the party has control over that process as described further in Va. Code § 24.2-545(B):

"The State Board shall transmit the material so filed to the state chairman of the party of the candidate immediately after the primary filing deadline. The sealed containers containing the petitions for a candidate may be opened only by the state chairman of the party of the candidate. The state chairman of the party shall, by the deadline set by the State Board, furnish to the State Board the names of all candidates who have satisfied the requirements of this section."  Va. Code § 24.2-545(B).

It is the duty of the party to determine who satisfied the signature requirements.  The deadline set by the State Board of Elections is December 27, 2011 pursuant to Va. Code § 24.2-527 (as an aside, although the SBE claims authority to set this deadlines pursuant to Va. Code § 24.2-527, the authority appears to be actually derived from Va. Code § 24.2-545). 

Did the state party rig this process for Romney or did an independent candidate for state office force the RPVA to scrutinize signatures in an unreasonable manner?

In my not so humble opinion, no on Romney and maybe on the lawsuit.

As indicated by Brian Schoeneman here,

”. . . plenty of other candidates with fewer resources have made it onto the Virginia presidential primary ballot since the rules were loosened in 1999. Here’s a quick list:

2008 – Barack Obama, Dennis Kucinich, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, John Edwards; Ron Paul, John McCain, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney.

2004 – Al Sharpton, John Kerry, Wesley Clark, Howard Dean, Joe Lieberman, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Dick Gephardt, Lyndon Larouche.

2000 – Alan Keyes, Gary Bauer, George W. Bush, John McCain, Steve Forbes."

The daunting task of getting on the ballot under the current law in Virginia has been overcome repeatedly by less influential campaigns.  I see no tie to the Romney campaign  (and I have been quite critical of Romney in the past).

As indicated here and here, a lawsuit filed in October 2011 by an independent candidate, challenging the RPVA's process of rubber stamping petition signatures is supposedly the cause of greater scrutiny of petition signatures.  This might be the case.

RPVA came out with a policy for petition verification which is laid out in some detail here.  The problem is I can not find any reference to this policy prior to December 21, 2011, especially the free pass on scrutiny if you submit more than 15,000 signatures.  Looking at the metadata of the adobe document detailing the RPVA's policy regarding signature submission, it was created December 21, 2011, the day before the signature submission deadline.  This appears to be a last minute change, and the most reasonable explanation is the October 2011 lawsuit.

Gingrich seems the most interested in getting on the ballot, so what are his options?

Despite a quick suggestion that he would run a write-in campaign, it is a non-starter in the Commonwealth.  Va. Code § 24.2-529 specifically states, "No write-in shall be permitted on ballots in primary elections."  Also under Va. Code § 24.2-644(C), "At all elections except primary elections it shall be lawful for any voter to vote for any person other than the listed candidates for the office by writing or hand printing the person's name on the official ballot."  In short - no write-ins in the presidential primary.

Gingrich's second option is to try to work within the RPVA to get them to change their minds.  The problem is the RPVA was required to make its decision and transmit the results to the State Board of Elections today.  Once the results are transmitted, I do not see a way the SBE can change its procedures without Court intervention.

Gingrich's third option is to try and have the Virginia legislature pass an emergency measure, changing the requirements for the 2012 primary.  As indicated here, this would be difficult.  I believe it is impossible.

Which leaves us with option four: Litigation!

If Gingrich or Perry want to get on the ballot, they need to sue and sue now

There are numerous junk claims that can be brought: such as the RPVA system of certification is unfair, or was changed at the last minute.  These should be avoided.

There are federal constitutional claims that could be brought challenging the need to have a qualified voter gather signatures, or that signatures need to be on witnessed, and certified two sided forms.  These should also be avoided, although there is a small amount of merit to some of these claims.

The real lawsuit is based on the statutory construction of Va. Code § 24.2-545.  Once again this statute creates an entire system for submitting signatures to qualify to be on the presidential primary ballot.  This statute completely rewrites the process laid out in Va. Code § 24.2-521.  As such, I believe only Va. Code § 24.2-545 governs the gathering and submission of signatures.

Va. Code § 24.2-545 does not require:

            A residence address

            That each signature be witnessed

            That the witness be a qualified voter

The only specific detail required by Va. Code § 24.2-545 is "The petitions shall be on a form prescribed by the State Board . . ."  This is not blanket permission to the SBE to create any requirements on the form it desires.  The rigorous petition gathering requirements of Va. Code § 24.2-521 are noticeably absent from Va. Code § 24.2-545. 

To qualify to be on the ballot under Va. Code § 24.2-545 the signatures of 10,000 qualified voters, and 400 per congressional district are required.  All the superfluous information is not required. 

The way to challenge this is in the Circuit Courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia.  It must be done on an emergency basis, as relief will be unavailable by late January when absentee ballots must be mailed.  Every day of delay increases the chance of a loss in court.  Going to court is no guarantee, but it provides the highest probability of success at altering the primary ballot. 

The Richmond City Circuit Court is accustomed to this type of political emergency lawsuit.  Getting on the ballot is not a public relations issue, it is a legal one.

Gingrich now needs to go pay some lawyers with the money he should have spent on petition gathering.

Great coverage of this issue can be found at two of Virginia's premier conservative blogs:

Bearing drift

Virginia Virtucon

DoJ preclears Virginia House and Senate redistricting plans

Despite unabashed gerrymandering, the Department of Justice has precleared the Virginia House and Senate redistricting plans.

Details here.

The preclearance process is specifically designed to prevent suppression of minority voting power, and not to check other state or federal Constitutional violations.  Having passed this hurdle the only realistic change to House or Senate districts would have to come form a lawsuit.  No one appears to have filed a lawsuit since the passage of these plans, and it is unlikely given the passage of time, that someone with the money and desire would have sat on the sidelines this entire time.

I will take a brief moment to compliment the Department of Justice for preclearing both plans instead of  preclearing the Senate plan while denying preclearance to the House plan.

We may go an entire redistricting cycle without a Virginia redistricting lawsuit with a reasonable chance of success.  Then again Congressional redistricting is yet to be concluded . . . 

Are Virginia Counties utilizing an unconstitutional law to fund charitable organizations?

UPDATE: Sen. Chap Petersen (D- Fairfax) has thrown in his opinion on the importance of the AG advisory opinion.  Generally, he is correct about the interpretation, and identifies a reasonable Constitutional solution.   We still will likely disagree regarding the policy of specific charitable purposes that may or may not be funded if the Constitution is amended.  We can all have that debate if the Constitution is amended.

Greg Letiecq over at BVBL.com periodically raises thorny legal issues.  Today he identified a fascinating one that begs for litigation.  As discussed in his post it appears local governments in Virginia may be regularly exercising unconstitutional authority in making appropriations to charitable organizations.

Below is my commentary on Mr. Letiecq’s post:

First, I agree that the power to appropriate directly to charitable institutions from the G.A. is prohibited by Va. Const. Art. IV § 16. 

For localities:  Localities only have those powers granted to them by the General Assembly.  The questions asked by Greg are valid and unanswered by the January AG opinion.  Va. Const. Art. VII § 3 governs the scope of authority that can be granted to localities, and states in part:

“The General Assembly may provide by general law or special act that any county, city, town, or other unit of government may exercise any of its powers or perform any of its functions. . .”

There is a distinct absence of case law analyzing Va. Const. Art. VII § 3, meaning we are left with nothing to analyze but the actual text of Va. Const. Art. VII § 3.  In my opinion, this necessarily excludes the ability to grant to localities powers the G.A. itself does not possess.  In short, Va. Code § 15.2-953 is unconstitutional to the extent the locality is attempting to exercise the authority to give money to a charity that could not qualify for receipt off funds under the narrow factors of  Va. Const. Art. IV § 16.  Even shorter:  Va. Code § 15.2-953 is unconstitutional.

Remember, it is still appropriate for a charity to provide services pursuant to government appropriations as long as the appropriation is to a government agency that subsequently farms out the payments to non-profits and for-profits to provide social services.  A prime recent example in public discussion is the provision of adoption placement services in Virginia by charities.  Nonetheless, direct contributions to charities by Counties, Cities, and Towns appear to be unconstitutional.

Way to blow the lid off this one Greg.

Sen. Henry Marsh held in contempt by federal judge

On May 13, 2011 Sen. Henry L. Marsh, III (D - Richmond) suffered an awful fate for any attorney.  In a thirty page opinion resolving a summary judgment motion, Federal Judge Jackson L. Kiser spent approximately six pages detailing the facts, circumstances, and law behind his finding of contempt against Sen. Marsh.  Sen. Marsh has been fined $500.00 by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia for filing a late response to the motion, and for failing to notice his own motion.

Original coverage of this issue can be found here.

The opinion can be found here.  The order can be found here.

What did Sen. Marsh do procedurally?

Civil cases generally have scheduling orders that govern the timing of the procedures in the case.  The scheduling order in this instance required summary judgment motions to be filed within a particular time frame.  Sen. Marsh represented the Plaintiff.  Counsel for the Defendant filed a summary judgment motion in accordance with the scheduling order on March 4, 2011.  Pursuant to the electronic filing rules, Sen. Marsh received notice of this motion via an email to his designated email address.  The Plaintiff then had 14 days to file a response.  24 days later, on March 28, 2011 Sen. Marsh filed a motion for extension of time, with an attached memorandum in opposition to the motion.  This memorandum mistakenly was largely constituted of a brief from a different case (Sen. Marsh would later blame this clerical error on his  secretary, Op. p. 15).   On April 1st, 2011 Sen. Marsh filed a “meaningful response” fifteen days beyond the responsive deadline.  On May 5, 2011 a hearing was held.

The effect of the General Assembly session

Among the excuses offered by Sen. Marsh, he claimed that his “main reason” he needed an extension was due to his duties in the General Assembly.  The Court disregarded this reason and suggested Sen. Marsh should have planned better.  Just so the reader understands, the General Assembly adjourned sine die on February 27, 2011.  Sen. Marsh had a week to regroup before the motion was even filed.  By the time he filed for an extension the session had been adjourned for an entire month.

Va. Code § 30-5

There is a little known statute under Virginia law passed particularly to aid members of the General Assembly who are also practicing attorneys.  Va. Code § 30-5 allows a member of the General Assembly who is an attorney in a matter in state court to delay all court proceedings in his or her cases until thirty days after the conclusion of the session.  This law has no application in Federal Court, although the court addresses the statute.  Having invoked this statute myself, I have plenty more to say about it which will be saved for another time.

Results of late filings

There is a strong preference under both Federal and local rules to decide cases on the merits, rather than based on procedural defaults.  For this reason the late filed pleadings were ultimately accepted. Still the summary judgment motion was granted and the case was dismissed.  The Court appeared to accept that the late filings were the fault of the attorney, and instead of penalizing the client, Judge Kiser held Sen. Marsh in contempt for violations of the scheduling order.  The amount of $500.00 is symbolic, but rest assured attorneys take such a finding very seriously.

A final note

One might think I am being too harsh on Sen. Marsh.  In response: He is an elected official.  He chose, and even asked for his public position.  He claimed his public position as an excuse so he could receive relief from procedural rules.  This makes this matter fair game for public scrutiny.  If I see a similar thing happen to another member of the General Assembly, regardless of party, I will report in the same manner. 

UPDATE: As of May 18, Sen. Marsh appears to have paid the sanctions.

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.

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