Inside the gerrymandering data top Pa. Republicans fought to keep private

[GMDino]

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-state/2017/12/08/gerrymandering-data-top-Pennsylvania-Republicans-fought-to-keep-private-redistricting-voting-election/stories/201712080123

Quote:Republican lawmakers used detailed data on the partisan leanings of voters when they created the current Pennsylvania congressional map, according to documents federal judges had ordered them to turn over in a trial that began this week.

Lawyers for House Speaker Mike Turzai and Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati had fought to keep private a trove of documents as they prepared for the trial, which began Monday in Philadelphia. They also sought to block the documents in a separate, state gerrymandering trial that begins next week in Harrisburg.

Among them are maps that contain detailed data on partisanship across the state, which experts said appear to confirm widespread suspicion that Republicans had intentionally drawn the map to favor their party. One map’s database contains details for each of nearly 3,000 voting districts in the state, including the races and ethnicities of voters and results from state and national elections from 2004 through 2010. Also included are metrics that appear to rate each voting district’s level of partisanship.

After the judges ordered the documents turned over, lawyers for the Republicans asked that anything not used as evidence in the trial — the data were not introduced, although analysis of it was — be destroyed within 24 hours of the trial’s conclusion.
 

[/url]Jonathan Lai
First trial challenging gerrymandered congressional districts begins in Philadelphia

A spokesman for Turzai dismissed any suggestion that they were trying to conceal the dataset, which he said contained no proof of intent to gerrymander.

But similar datasets have become key pieces of evidence in other gerrymandering challenges across the country, including in North Carolina and in a case out of Wisconsin now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The current congressional map, established in 2011.(Philadelphia Inquirer)

Pennsylvania’s map is considered one of the most extreme congressional gerrymanders in the country. Since the map’s creation in 2011, Republicans have consistently won 13 of 18 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, even as votes across the state have generally split evenly between Democrats and Republicans.

Republicans attempted to hide the data because it “undercuts their story in a big way,”said Michael Li, an expert on redistricting at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. “Why do you have all this data, right? ‘I wasn’t trying to flee the country, but I had $10,000 and my passport in a canvas bag.’ ”

GOP efforts to keep data private
Lawyers for Turzai and Scarnati attempted multiple times to block production of documents, to avoid depositions, to keep logs of documents confidential, and to keep testimony under seal. The judges rejected the bulk of those requests.

Among the documents turned over in the case, Agre v. Wolf, was the spreadsheet containing partisanship data at the precinct level, along with map files containing partisanship data at the county, town, and voting district level.
 

Maddie Hanna and Jonathan Lai
Pa. high court fast tracks gerrymandering case
[url=http://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-state/2017/11/09/State-Supreme-Court-fast-tracks-gerrymander-case/stories/201711090254]
Steve Miskin, a spokesman for Turzai, said the data in question wasn’t exclusively Turzai’s by any means.

“There’s a big fallacy about this data: Everybody used the same data,” Miskin said. “There was no one caucus’ data or one person’s data. We all agreed on the data.”

Lawyers at the Philadelphia-based Public Interest Law Center, which is bringing a state lawsuit against the congressional map, had also attempted to obtain documents from Turzai, but state judges blocked those attempts.

After the center’s lawyers evidently were able to obtain a copy of the data and maps from the federal case, according to an expert report they filed, lawyers for the Republicans tried to block the data from being used in the state case.

Miskin said Turzai was not specifically attempting to keep the dataset and maps from being handed over but was trying to uphold the doctrine of legislative privilege, meant to protect legislators’ ability to freely deliberate as they make law.

In testimony read aloud in court Wednesday from deposition transcripts, a Republican staffer involved in the redistricting process, William Schaller, said mapmakers had election results data from a nonpartisan legislative agency that compiled information from the Pennsylvania Department of State. He confirmed that the data used included election results at the county, town, and precinct levels.

What’s in those spreadsheet and maps
The documents obtained by The Inquirer and Daily News consist of files for 13 maps, each with a dataset attached. Some of those contain generally available data, such as major roads or bodies of water. Another shows the home addresses of the then-incumbent U.S. Representatives; courts have ruled that protecting incumbents is an acceptable principle for redistricting.

Three map datasets contain partisanship data at varying geographies.
Examples of maps drawn using the partisanship data at the county and town levels.(Jared Whalen/Philadelphia Inquirer)

The map with the most detailed data contains information on each of nearly 3,000 voting districts in the state, with information such as racial and ethnic breakdown and election results for races from 2004 through 2010. Also included are the two partisanship scores that, while unclear how they were calculated, appear to measure how Republican or Democratic a precinct votes. The higher a positive value, the greater the margin by which Republicans won in those precincts; the lower a negative value, the stronger the Democratic advantage.

With that precinct-level data, maps can be drawn to precise partisan specifications.

What the experts say it means
Told of the data and what it includes, four experts — Li; Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles; James A. Gardner, a professor at the University at Buffalo School of Law; and Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School —said that the collection of partisanship data itself isn’t unusual or telling, but since the outcome of the mapping heavily favored Republicans, the data suggests an attempt to gerrymander.

“Given a congressional map that appears to seriously lock in members of the Republican Party, it’s a little less benign,” Levitt said.

Such data are actually required in some states, they said, for a positive purpose: To create competitive or politically neutral maps. That’s not what happened here, they said.

“So you’re left with, I guess, at least two plausible accounts: One is unbelievable incompetence,” Gardner said. “And the other is … deliberately trying to partisan gerrymander.”

Even before knowing for sure Pennsylvania lawmakers had the partisanship data, Stephanopoulos said, he was confident they had it.

“It’s completely unsurprising they would have done it. If you’re trying to draw a gerrymander, if you’re trying to draw a map for partisan advantage, you need to have good partisan data,” Stephanopoulos said. “This evidence is confirmation they were thinking about partisanship when they were drawing districts.”

In response to the “so-called experts,” Miskin, the spokesman for Turzai said: “Clearly, by experts using the term ‘gerrymandering,’ and claiming that it’s gerrymandered, they are biased.”

[SunsetBengal]

So, what's the big deal? Districts should be set up so that at the local level we don't have people being in rural areas being affected by voters in larger, incorporated areas.

[GMDino]

(12-08-2017, 11:00 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So, what's the big deal?  Districts should be set up so that at the local level we don't have people being in rural areas being affected by voters in larger, incorporated areas.

Or districts could be set up with even numbers of people in them no matter where they are.

[NATI BENGALS]

(12-08-2017, 11:00 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So, what's the big deal?  Districts should be set up so that at the local level we don't have people being in rural areas being affected by voters in larger, incorporated areas.

The big deal is gerrymandering is a big reason we have a bunch of turds continually getting re elected on both sidEs.

And its a way your government often times silences the opinion of the majority.

If you support those two things...  Well 

[Benton]

(12-08-2017, 11:00 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So, what's the big deal?  Districts should be set up so that at the local level we don't have people being in rural areas being affected by voters in larger, incorporated areas.

These are (roughly) Kentucky's districts. Population-wise maybe it makes sense. Demographic-wise, it's nonsense. The folks in Hickman County (far west river county) and the folks in Casey County (land locked central Kentucky) have virtually nothing in common and about 300 miles in between. But they're in the same Congressional district.

And the bad part is Kentucky's districts aren't even bad compared to most states.

[Mike M (the other one)]

LOL
Like this is a big surprise???
Both sides do it, but it should be done by an independent group that has no affiliation with either party, but it would only be a matter of time before that group became corrupted as well. So it'd only be a temporary Band-Aid.

[GMDino]

(12-14-2017, 12:50 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: LOL
Like this is a big surprise???
Both sides do it, but it should be done by an independent group that has no affiliation with either party, but it would only be a matter of time before that group became corrupted as well. So it'd only be a temporary Band-Aid.

Surprise? No.

In this case the GOP is/was trying to hide the info they used for the redistricting.  Just nice to get some sunlight on the hidden things behind the issue.

I'd prefer a bipartisan group with a community oversight and perhaps the courts with final say.  That might work for awhile.

[Benton]

(12-14-2017, 12:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: Surprise? No.

In this case the GOP is/was trying to hide the info they used for the redistricting.  Just nice to get some sunlight on the hidden things behind the issue.

I'd prefer a bipartisan group with a community oversight and perhaps the courts with final say.  That might work for awhile.

I believe in some states courts do have some say so in redistricting. 

But, overall, we do have community oversight. Elections. No matter how much gerrymandering there is, if enough people make enough noise, they can change the system. It's just by and large, people don't. They say 'yeah, that's bad' and then go back to browsing message boards.

[GMDino]

(12-14-2017, 01:34 PM)Benton Wrote: I believe in some states courts do have some say so in redistricting. 

But, overall, we do have community oversight. Elections. No matter how much gerrymandering there is, if enough people make enough noise, they can change the system. It's just by and large, people don't. They say 'yeah, that's bad' and then go back to browsing message boards.

I totally agree that people complain...and then vote for the same guy/gal.

But they also have their hands tied to a certain extent.

In our county it is not unusual to see the same name on both the D and R ballot.  Running unopposed.

I won't vote for someone running unopposed.

And in local elections you better be a democrat if you want to win (95% of the time)...but on the national/state it can swing either way.

[GMDino]

http://www.pennlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/02/new_pa_congressional_map_is_ou.html++

Quote:Pennsylvania's new Congressional map, as handed down by the Supreme Court

Updated 5:16 PM; Posted 2:43 PM


The new Congressional map for Pennsylvania, as per the state Supreme Court.

258





Here's the first view of the new map for Pennsylvania's 18 districts in the U.S. House of Representatives, as handed down by a majority on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The map is expected to be challenged by the top Republican leaders in the General Assembly, but unless and until they actually prevail in that challenge, these are the new lines effective with the 2018 election cycle.

The primary election date, for the time being, remains May 15.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-20-2018, 12:33 AM)GMDino Wrote: http://www.pennlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/02/new_pa_congressional_map_is_ou.html++

So what did they base the original uncostitutionality on?  I thought so far gerrymandering has been upheld.  

Secondly, I'd say it's one thing for a court to say, "Do it again", versus them doing it themselves.  

[GMDino]

(02-20-2018, 05:05 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So what did they base the original uncostitutionality on?  I thought so far gerrymandering has been upheld.  

Secondly, I'd say it's one thing for a court to say, "Do it again", versus them doing it themselves.  

If I remember the original story about PA correctly the GOP admitted they hired someone to do the lines based on helping them win.  It was a very dumb thing.

And they did tell them to "do it again" but the GOP decided to try and go to court and fight any changes, and they lost.  Now they are trying to go to court to stop this change.

[BmorePat87]

(02-20-2018, 05:05 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So what did they base the original uncostitutionality on?  I thought so far gerrymandering has been upheld.  

Secondly, I'd say it's one thing for a court to say, "Do it again", versus them doing it themselves.  

There are some rules, but usually the rulings are partisan. This story highlights the opinion of the court regarding how the map violate PA's constitution. 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pennsylvania-supreme-court-gerrymandering_us_5a7b8f9de4b08dfc92ffcb68


the reason for the court issuing a map is that the state legislature and governor failed to agree on a replacement before the deadline. 

[BmorePat87]

It's funny reading McDonalds Trump call a balanced map free of gerrymandering "taking" the election

Hope Republicans in the Great State of Pennsylvania challenge the new “pushed” Congressional Map, all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. Your Original was correct! Don’t let the Dems take elections away from you so that they can raise taxes & waste money!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 20, 2018

[GMDino]

(02-20-2018, 08:56 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's funny reading McDonalds Trump call a balanced map free of gerrymandering "taking" the election

Hope Republicans in the Great State of Pennsylvania challenge the new “pushed” Congressional Map, all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. Your Original was correct! Don’t let the Dems take elections away from you so that they can raise taxes & waste money!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 20, 2018

Well for one he probably does believe that since he has the mind of a seven year old and secondly he has to feed the sheep:  "they" are out to get "you" by rigging elections.

Again, irony.  

[NATI BENGALS]

(02-20-2018, 08:56 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's funny reading McDonalds Trump call a balanced map free of gerrymandering "taking" the election

Hope Republicans in the Great State of Pennsylvania challenge the new “pushed” Congressional Map, all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. Your Original was correct! Don’t let the Dems take elections away from you so that they can raise taxes & waste money!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 20, 2018

Its gone past the funny stage for me. 

This is a serious disease infecting the minds of countless people. 

The give him a chance crowd is buying in and the non stop barrage of fake news from fox news is repeated every night. 

The large scale brainwashing misinformation campaign is the most disturbing thing i have seen in American politics in my life.

[Belsnickel]

(02-20-2018, 05:05 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So what did they base the original uncostitutionality on?  I thought so far gerrymandering has been upheld.  

Secondly, I'd say it's one thing for a court to say, "Do it again", versus them doing it themselves.  

There have already been a couple of answers, but I did want to clarify something. The state supreme court is who forced the redraw. They gave the legislature/governor an ultimatum, they appealed to SCOTUS. SCOTUS denied their certiorari because this is a matter of the state constitution, not federal, and SCOTUS doesn't like to get involved in those. SCOTUS does have cases on their dockets regarding the federal status of gerrymandering that have yet to be decided. When SCOTUS kicked it back, legislature/governor failed to comply and so the state supreme court called in experts to draw the map for them.

[BmorePat87]

(02-20-2018, 09:37 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Its gone past the funny stage for me. 

This is a serious disease infecting the minds of countless people. 

The give him a chance crowd is buying in and the non stop barrage of fake news from fox news is repeated every night. 

The large scale brainwashing misinformation campaign is the most disturbing thing i have seen in American politics in my life.

No, you're right. It is sad that the courts have declared an obviously corrupt practice to be unconstitutional and the President is trying to tell people that enforcing a state constitution and fairness essentially amounts to stealing elections.

It's serious because at the very least we should all agree on the idea of an honest and open election and truth in how we talk about our government's structure.