Skip to main content

View Diary: 'Short' Guide to the VRA (28 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  NY-12 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The NY-12 district that was originally enacted in 1992 was struck down in 1996 as an impermissible racial gerrymander. The state redrew the district in 1997 to be substantially more compact than it had been originally (which says a lot about the preceding configuration).

    The short of it is that I see nothing within the VRA that prevents the elimination of Nydia Velázquez's district. The courts in the late 90s already ruled that it was not required by either Section 2 or Section 5. The subsequent district was justified as being a narrowly tailored 'influence' district which Bartlett now says cannot be required by the VRA.

    Moreover, the 2004 Allen v Pataki ruling found that African-American and Latino voters in New York City were not mutually cohesive in their voting patterns and so a minority-coalition district could not be required for NY-17. There's little reason to think that a similar finding would be unlikely for NY-12.

    That does not, however, preclude the state from drawing a district roughly along the current lines for incumbent-protection purposes.

    •  I think your last sentence is really important (0+ / 0-)

      oftentimes even without VRA considerations, you still have to deal with advocacy groups (eg National Council of La Raza) and incumbent protection concerns. That's a problem if we ever try to unpack districts like, say, NC-12, where Mel Watt will probably want a district dominated by AAs.

      21, male, RI-01 (voting)/IL-01 (college), hopeless Swingnut

      by sapelcovits on Fri May 06, 2011 at 09:33:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site