Here’s an interesting proposal from some Seattle-area activists: a majority-minority district in the Seattle area.
That could be done, just barely, by combining Southeast Seattle with the suburbs south of the city, where the minority population has exploded over the past decade.
The Win/Win Network, a nonprofit group, drew up the potential “majority people of color” district and plans to submit it to the Washington State Redistricting Commission, the bipartisan panel charged with redrawing the state’s political map this year.
It isn’t as convoluted-looking as you’d think, but it would violate tradition (and usual redistricting commission policy) by splitting Seattle down the middle. (You can see the map at the link.) While north Seattle — maybe the likeliest place outside of Sweden to see a Volvo-on-Volvo traffic accident — is what makes Seattle one of the whitest major cities, south Seattle is very diverse and if you add in its close-in southern suburbs, you literally get to 50.1%. Whether this actually gets forced into being is a big VRA-related puzzle, though; while recent case law (like Bartlett v. Strickland) has dealt with districts where a minority’s share doesn’t reach 50%, I’m not aware of any cases on the issue of creating minority districts where the share tops 50% but it’s a tossed salad of all possible minorities. The implications of that issue could be huge, especially for redistricting California this year.
If you haven’t seen the New York Times’ newest version of its remarkable Census map (now updated with 2010 count data to replace ’05-’09 ACS data), the Seattle example is a neat place to start, especially if you’re having trouble conceiving of the Seattle area as diverse. Go to the dot-based racial distribution map, and find Census tract 281, just north of the airport. This may actually be the most racially balanced tract in the whole nation, more so than anything in Queens or the East Bay, based on my puttering around the map: it’s 26% white, 24% black, 19% Hispanic, and 22% Asian. In fact, here’s a challenge/rainy day activity for you all: if you can find anything more balanced, let us know in comments! (Sorry, no babka.)
This opens up a can of worms in terms of what’s most “balanced,” though, depending on how many races you want to talk about. Tract 919 in Flushing, Queens, is 27% white, 33% Hispanic, and 33% Asian (but only 4% black)… or if you want to go with a 5-way split, check out Tract 9603 (Nanakuli, on the west shore of the island of Oahu), which is 12% white, 18% Hispanic, 17% Asian, 30% multiracial, and 20% Native Hawaiian! I don’t want to limit how you define “balanced,” so feel free to point out any interesting tracts that you find.
UPDATE: I’ve found at least one that seems to beat that Seattle-area tract: it’s Census tract 355108 in Antioch, California (in Contra Costa County): 25% white, 24% black, 24% Hispanic, and 20% Asian.
here in my opinion.
1st should the Washington bipartisan redistricting board choose to create a minority majority seat? There are 4 voting members, two republicans & two democrats, and it takes 3 votes to okay a map. They can certainly create a seat along the lines in this article. I suspect it would not matter must to Congressman McDermott as he very popular with all of these minority groups plus he is in tune with the white liberals in this too. The effect of doing it 50.1% minority or 40.1% minority is meaningless IMO. In this district’s case at least. I have no clue whether the commission will do this map.
The 2nd question is whether under VRA the creation of this type of map is required. If one believes that it completely change redistricting outcomes for 2011-2012. For instance in NJ the commission is not making its map based on this assumption that a coalition seat (50% of various minorities) is required to be drawn. Nor is VA’s legislative map makers or the map drawers in MS or LA drawing that was. We are seeing maps being finalized right now that are not being drawn on this basis. So I would contend that based on my reading of the VRA and past maps plus current maps being drawn that coalition seats are not required to be drawn.
I naturally base this on the fact that a racial gerrymander is involved. The city of Seattle is divided in half with the more Northern white half of the city going to another CD. I see that as a halfmark of gerrymandering for racial purposes and plus no minority reaches the 50% Bartlett threshold.
That’s my two cents.
I just drew one from southern Seattle to Tacoma that’s 49.8% white VAP. However, I don’t see how you can argue that there are underrepresented minorities, since the district is only 20% Asian, 13% black, and 13% Hispanic VAP. That’s not really enough to have an influence on which candidate wins in the district.
Just a cursory glance at the lines suggests that such a South Seattle — Federal Way district (as proposed) would force Dicks and Smith into the same seat.
Even though they’re Ds, they’re still the most powerful congressmen in the WA delegation.
OTOH, Dave’s app doesn’t work for me in Linux, so I can’t test that.
122702 in Kew Gardens New Jersey is
25 percent White
27 percent Black
30 percent Hispanic
14 percent Asian
Tract 50511, between Johns Creek and Lawrenceville, Georgia, is pretty well balanced.
White: 28%
Black: 24%
Hispanic: 27%
Asian: 19%
Track 313 in Northeast Philadelphia provides this balance:
Whites: 27%
Blacks: 25%
Hispanics: 20%
Asians: 23%
Census tract 315 in St. Paul, MN:
24: White
26: Black
15: Hispanic
27: Asian
2: Native American
6: Multiracial
For the upper midwest, that’s about as diverse as it gets. In fact, the census showed St. Paul as now just 55% white, and Minneapolis at around 60% white. St. Paul’s east side is home to one of the country’s largest Hmong populations, and Minneapolis probably has the largest Somali population of anywhere outside of East Africa. For some reason, the Twin Cities seem to like taking in interesting refugee populations.
Census tract 900409 in Dale City, VA
29% White
27% Black
31% Hispanic
and right next door, tract 900407
27% White
33% Black
31% Hispanic
This was drawn in about three minutes, 49.7% White VAP. I guess with carefully selecting precincts you could get 49.3% or so.
12% Black, 13% Hispanic, 20% Asian, 1% Native, 4% Other.
Ward 16, Precinct 4 (Dorchester): 32B, 23W, 23A, 12H, 10 “other”
Ward 10, Precinct 4 (Jamaica Plain): 37W, 23H, 21A, 17B
Ward 10, Precinct 1 (Fenway): 31H, 28B, 27W, 12A
I have never heard anyone call Kansas diverse (especially outside of the Kansas City area), but census tract 18 in Wichita is
37 White
23 Black
22 Hispanic
15 Asian
Census Tract 571504 W28, H29, B21,A17, Multi-racial 4.
I can understand a district meant to make sure a group that traditionally has been underrepresented gets representation. IE Mississippi is close to 40% African-American and we all know without the VRA that instantly becomes 0% of the representation. I can also understand a maj-minority district in a communities of interest map. Like say if the goal was a Seattle based district irregardless of race.
But to create one just for the sakes of creating one fails on two couns. First it targets a group (in this case whites) to NOT get a seat rather than necessarily helps a group get a seat. And second it usually doesn’t even succeed in doing that. A 49% white distict in Seattle will probably elect a white Democrat. Put that 49% white district in a much more conservative area particularly in the South it will instead elect a white Republican.