April 29, 2022

"As Princeton University Professor Sam Wang described, the DeSantis plan will result in ‘one of the most extreme gerrymanders in the country’ — precisely the result Florida voters sought to eradicate in passing the Fair Districts amendment."

Says the complaint in the case reported in "DeSantis congressional map draws lawsuit as governor quietly signs it into law" (Louisiana Illuminator). 

That was published a week ago. I'm noticing it this morning because I was doing a Google News search for "Sam Wang" to find this article I was reading last night: "Princeton University investigating Sam Wang for research misconduct, toxic workplace issues/Head of Princeton Gerrymandering Project faces probe over data manipulation, retaliating against staff" (New Jersey Globe).

While working on New Jersey redistricting, Wang was accused of manipulating data to achieve the outcome he wanted, the three individuals confirmed. “He’d fudge the numbers to get his way,” said one individual. “He had an agenda. He was good at hiding it when he had to, but it was clear Sam wanted Democrats to win and he was willing to cheat to make that happen.” 

Princeton Gerrymandering Project staffers raised considerable objections to a report Wang had written on New Jersey’s congressional redistricting that they said was biased. A senior legal strategist on Wang’s team, a graduate of a top law school who had clerked for two federal judges, worked through the night to rewrite sections that were tilted in favor of the Democratic map in a bid to seek the appearance of greater objectivity. 

The congressional redistricting tiebreaker, former New Jersey Supreme Court Justice John E. Wallace, Jr., said that he relied on Wang’s “evaluation of partisan fairness of the maps” in his amplification of reasons why he voted for the Democratic map. Wallace said that maps submitted by both parties were constitutional and complied with the federal Voting Rights Act....

60 comments:

AlbertAnonymous said...

Nooooo. Democrats cheating?

Just some rando on the interwebz said...

Gerrymandering is one thing both parties are very consistent about. Its totes cool when your party is doing it but a threat to the very core of democracy when the other side is doing it.

Butkus51 said...

Not long ago 2 predominantly hispanic communities in Chicago were linked by using the meridian of 294 for a couple of miles. Nobody lived in that 2-3 mile stretch.

Gee, I wonder which party did that?

rcocean said...

Incredible. A Judge or Professor or Journalist who pretends to be Objective but is actually totally in tank for the Democrats/Liberals. Who woulda thunk it. Anyone remember Larry Sabado or the fake "objective xburts" that used to show up on PBS?

Anyway, one good thing about Trump getting elected is it allowed the SCOTUS to drastically reduce the power of the Federal Judiciary in these endless Gerrymandering disputes. If we had a Kagan run SCOTUS with Garland, then every map with a Republican slant would've been found "unconstitional".

Leland said...

There are many jokes to be made, but not in this era of not funny. Alas gerrymandering is a game played by both sides and required by law. It is impossible to simply make districts with borders that resemble other political subdivisions such as counties or even small states.

Yancey Ward said...

One should examine the actual Florida map for Congressional seats- it is less gerrymandered today than the 2010-2012 map- the districts are more compact, and the one really ridiculous looking district, which had a strong Democrat bias, is gone.

In short, compact districts help Republicans more than Democrats, mostly because Republicans are more spread out, while Democrats are highly concentrated in the cities. Add to that the requirements of the judiciary that states create majority-minority districts, and the Republicans usually have the upper hand redistricting stuff. The judges are then forced to fix Republican "gerrymanders" by creating ones that don't pass the laugh test of believability.

Beasts of England said...

Can you hear me, Dr. Wang?

Original Mike said...

"Says the complaint in the case reported in "DeSantis congressional map draws lawsuit as governor quietly signs it into law" (Louisiana Illuminator)."

You know what's not in the article? Maps. Show me the map and let me be the judge of whether it uses "improper political and geographic boundary splits.".

Bruce Hayden said...

“One should examine the actual Florida map for Congressional seats- it is less gerrymandered today than the 2010-2012 map- the districts are more compact, and the one really ridiculous looking district, which had a strong Democrat bias, is gone.”

“In short, compact districts help Republicans more than Democrats, mostly because Republicans are more spread out, while Democrats are highly concentrated in the cities. Add to that the requirements of the judiciary that states create majority-minority districts, and the Republicans usually have the upper hand redistricting stuff. The judges are then forced to fix Republican "gerrymanders" by creating ones that don't pass the laugh test of believability.”

Compact means that the district map will be harder to challenge. The Dems maybe able to challenge not enough minority majority districts, but they are usually drawn with Republicans working with minorities, cutting the rest of the Dems out a bit.

Critter said...

If there is justice, Wang will lose his job and be shunned by other universities and colleges. Credentials do not guarantee ethics or a moral compass.

ga6 said...

I wonder what Sam thought of the New York state district plan that was so bad (in favor of Democrats) that a court threw it out.

Sam say "but hey, that is for our side".



Yancey Ward said...

Here is the problem for the Democrats- for them to produce a useful gerrymander, they have to cut up the city and assign the hypothetical city's population to 3 or more congressional districts that spread out in a ray from city core into the suburbs and exurbs- in other words, they have to take 90% Democrat areas, to create more 55-45 districts in their favor, but this has a big drawback in Democrat politics- it means the Congressional Black Caucus drops by 90% because they don't win the Democrat primary easily any longer, and when they do, they don't win the general election any longer. Gerrymanders for Democrats favor white candidates, too.

ga6 said...

Want to see snakes and ladders type District maps, look below at both Illinois and Chicago.


https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/the-fix/StandingArt/IllinoisJ.jpg?uuid=sewmgouvEeClCQcM6K0phg

https://www.chicagospace.org/x/Illinois-Congressional-Districts-Map.jpg

Lurker21 said...

There's a lot that can be said against academic overspecialization, but when your big neuroscientist says he wants to head up your election and gerrymandering projects might you not think that maybe he's taking on more than he can reliably and competently handle -- or that there might be some megalomaniacal or avaricious streak in him?

And if you thought that someone from outside of political science would be more balanced and unbiased than someone whose whole life was politics, is that really supported by evidence? Hard scientists can be quite partisan and dogmatic when it comes to things outside their expertise.

But then again, when Wang said he'd eat a bug if Hillary Clinton didn't become president, he did eat a bug in public, so maybe there is a little honor left among abusive fraudsters.

Yancey Ward said...

"The Dems maybe able to challenge not enough minority majority districts, but they are usually drawn with Republicans working with minorities, cutting the rest of the Dems out a bit.

Exactly- the majority-minority requirement handcuffs the Democrats. It isn't any accident that this all started in the late 80s with a Republican DoJ, nor is it an accident that Republicans suddenly were able to compete at winning the House shortly thereafter, going from a party that hadn't held the House in 40 years to one that has held it for 20 of the last 28.

gilbar said...

but it was clear Sam wanted Democrats to win and he was willing to cheat to make that happen.”

this is like, when Jimmy Carter monitored the Venezuelan election, and said they were free and fair?

Yancey Ward said...

A real Republican gerrymander is one that creates the majority-minority districts for the most part.

Aggie said...

This is my surprised face.

Jupiter said...

Kind of sounds like Sam Wang is a lying shit-weasel, doesn't it. Is he a Democrat, by any chance? Say, maybe he could get a job at the NYT! Then you could read his lies every day!

Lurker21 said...

Nor is it an accident that Republicans suddenly were able to compete at winning the House shortly thereafter, going from a party that hadn't held the House in 40 years to one that has held it for 20 of the last 28.

Republicans took over because all those old Southern Democrats died off or had to retire. Maybe they were all killed in an accident, I don't know. It's true that the majority-minority district requirement hurt the Democrats, but that's not the reason they lost the House.

stunned said...

"kleptoc- — yeah — kleptocracy and klep- — the guys who are the kleptocracies. (Laughs.) But these are bad guys."

Luke Lea said...

Yancy Ward wrote: "they have to take 90% Democrat areas, to create more 55-45 districts in their favor, but this has a big drawback in Democrat politics- it means the Congressional Black Caucus drops by 90% . . ."

Actually this would be a big plus in the real world since candidates in districts relatively devoid of blacks would now have to appeal to these minorities in order to win every vote, while successful candidates in highly black districts could no longer cynically ignore the core interests of their constituents (on issues like mass low-skilled immigration) the way they do now as a way to garner large campaign contributions from pro-immigration interest groups outside their districts. Not sure I said that very well.

Mike Sylwester said...

I don't understand why Oriental-Americans favor the Democrat Party.

Robert Marshall said...

Here's a link to the map:
https://redistricting.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=2c92665fc1d14fc2becb3030e23a4595

Doesn't really look that odd to me. Most of the districts seem to have a geographical focus, like 13 through 16 are centered on Clearwater, St Pete, Tampa and Bradenton, respectively. Kind of how things should be done, right?

Elliott A said...

"In Jersey, anything is legal as long as you don't get caught" Bob Dylan. Doesn't discriminate based on who is doing the deed.

Disclaimer; I grew up there!

Mike Sylwester said...

Correction to my comment at 9:42 AM
-----------------------------------

I inadvertently wrote the wrong expression Oriental-Americans.

I meant to write Asian-Americans.

Please make the mental correction.

Skeptical Voter said...

So Wang was winging it---or more precisely "flinging it". I see that the Democrat drawn gerrymandered redistricting map in New York has now been thrown out. The apparent result (if the map is correctly drawn) will be a pickup of either 3 or 4 GOP seats.

The games go on--both sides play.

gilbar said...

Yancy (or somebody) claimed...
It isn't any accident that this all started in the late 80s with a Republican DoJ, nor is it an accident that Republicans suddenly were able to compete at winning the House shortly thereafter

hmmm?
i mean, 1994 IS after the late 80s, but you kinda have to stretch to say SHORTLY THEREAFTER
What happened between? Let's see..
Oh, That's RIGHT! Bill and Hilary! Clinton Happened

gilbar said...

The secret secret, is that MOST people DON'T LIKE democrats

Wa St Blogger said...

Maybe to end Gerrymanding, require that every time a new map is drawn it has to have a dem to rep district ratio equal to the average ratio of votes from the 3 previous major election cycles.

iowan2 said...

This comes under the "trust the experts" Another false narrative leftist use.

Original Mike said...

Blogger Robert Marshall said...
Here's a link to the map:
https://redistricting.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=2c92665fc1d14fc2becb3030e23a4595


Thank you, Robert. Everyone should look at the map. Maybe you can argue district 20 is a little hinkey, but these districts look pretty legit to me. Eric Holder and Marc Elias are weasels. And the import of this comment in the Louisiana Illuminator is now clear:

"compactness and avoiding splits of political and geography boundaries are secondary to the Tier One imperatives to eschew political favoritism or minority voting diminishment."

Yes, we have to produce contrived political maps in order to be non-political. Right…

Chest Rockwell said...

Wasn't this guy in Caddyshack?

Static Ping said...

Being an expert these days is a racket. Again, any position that can provide power, fame, respect, sex, and, especially, money is going to attract the worst elements of society. If the area of expertise is politicized where outcomes are less important or unimportant, it will quickly get infested with political actors who want to cash a paycheck for the cause. Many of these will be credentialed but unqualified. There are occasionally some true believers who are skilled; they tend to be the most dangerous.

I'll also note that just because districts are compact does not mean they are not gerrymandered. I have seen YouTube creators use computer models to generate perfectly reasonable looking Congressional maps that are 90/10 in 50/50 states. If you do not know the geography and the urban centers, you can be easily fooled.

Christopher B said...

Jeez, what do we have to do to kill the "Southern Strategy" myth?

The mythmakers typically draw on two types of evidence. First, they argue that the GOP deliberately crafted its core messages to accommodate Southern racists. Second, they find proof in the electoral pudding: the GOP captured the core of the Southern white backlash vote. But neither type of evidence is very persuasive. It is not at all clear that the GOP's policy positions are sugar-coated racist appeals. And election results show that the GOP became the South's dominant party in the least racist phase of the region's history, and got—and stays—that way as the party of the upwardly mobile, more socially conservative, openly patriotic middle-class, not of white solidarity.

We can distinguish between two sub-regions. The Peripheral South—Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, and Arkansas—contained many growing, urbanizing "New South" areas and much smaller black populations. Race loomed less large in its politics. In the more rural, and poorer, Deep South—Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, and Louisiana —black communities were much larger, and racial conflict was much more acute in the 1950s and '60s. Tellingly, the presidential campaigns of Strom Thurmond, Goldwater, and Wallace all won a majority of white votes in the Deep South but lost the white vote in the Peripheral South.

The myth that links the GOP with racism leads us to expect that the GOP should have advanced first and most strongly where and when the politics of white solidarity were most intense. The GOP should have entrenched itself first among Deep South whites and only later in the Periphery. The GOP should have appealed at least as much, if not more, therefore, to the less educated, working-class whites who were not its natural voters elsewhere in the country but who were George Wallace's base. The GOP should have received more support from native white Southerners raised on the region's traditional racism than from white immigrants to the region from the Midwest and elsewhere. And as the Southern electorate aged over the ensuing decades, older voters should have identified as Republicans at higher rates than younger ones raised in a less racist era.

Each prediction is wrong. The evidence suggests that the GOP advanced in the South because it attracted much the same upwardly mobile (and non-union) economic and religious conservatives that it did elsewhere in the country.


Add to the above that Republicans were winning increasing numbers of races in the South long long before 1994, and there's evidence that blacks start to shift away the Republican Party in the 1930s. This is a reasonable assumption given the internal migration from the white segregationist South to Democrat-controlled cities in the North.

I don't have a link handy but Sean Trende wrote a series of articles in RealClearPolitics in the immediate aftermath of Donald Trump's 2016 victory that showed the rural/urban divide between Republicans and Democrats, which causes the problem of Democrat vote concentration in general, is visible in the election results as early as Clinton's win in 1992.

Tina Trent said...

Example million-and-one reasons why academicians should not be permitted to overrule legislative functions or double-dip by receiving checks for consulting when they're supposed to be on the clock teaching, training, using any university facilities, or, you know, conducting objective research.

They're worse than Medicaid and Disability fraudsters. And we hire detectives to follow those people around and prosecute them.

Of course, law, business, and medical schools would throw such a tantrum about not being permitted to double/triple/and quadruple-dip by offering expert testimony that our legal system would grind to a halt.

I don't care if it's the MD/JD/MBA Kiddies'"summer vacation": the work they performed to become experts is paid for by taxpayers and tuition-paying students; federal grants; nonprofit statuses that protect endowments and shift tax burdens, and tax deductions for their donors.

So, yes, they should offer testimony relating to expertise, but beyond travel and per diems, they should not be paid again for expertise gained on the public dime.

Robert M: The Florida maps actually break up counties and municipalities and populations quite a lot, with the exception of one long county border. Florida District 14 -- once mine by one house in -- is still especially bizarre. It ties the waterfront, from extremely rural to extremely urban, together all the way around Tampa Bay, splitting neighborhoods, towns, and counties, and binding dense urban lefties with farm country, the military base, and retired cops in Apollo Beach. Its population is mostly fish. But it's been like that for a long time, so I don't know if Democrats or Republicans drew it first.

District 13 is just as rural-urban, and it's in the grip of the National HQ of the Scientologists, who have a massive office tower re-fitted on one side for the spaceship to hook into. District 15 looks to be cut to include the terrorist-abetting National HQ of CAIR. 14 used to have the statue of the boot of the tallest man on earth, Al Toamini, but it was literally knocked into another district on this map when it was hit by a truck.

There's a lot of harm in districting, no matter who does it.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

Well, tried to be your paper boy
Tried to be your boy scout
Tried to be your ice cream man
I could not be your soldier
Or even drive your bus
My skills weren't always that obvious
Yeah, but I hope you understand
I'll do the best I can
I ain't no perfect man but Sam I am
I'm a back-talkin' fighter
A silver bullet biter
I'm a flip-flop slider
And a guitar moonlighter
I'm your prove it all nighter
Your holy ghost writer
Pale of shade whiter
I'm your rock 'n' roll driver, oh yeah, oh yeah
That's all I am
I tried to be your oil man
Tried to be your big boss
Tried to be your broker but you took a loss
It's just a hopeless case
And I ain't no lawyer
I only got a few tricks I can show ya
And I hope you understand it
I'll do the best I can
I ain't no Superman but Sam I am
And I'm a feel good doctor
A big bad talker
After midnight walker
Sittin on the bay docker
I'm a sunshine stalker
Hodaddy wave watcher
Heaven's door knocker
Blue, white and red rocker, oh yeah, oh yeah
That's all I am
Well, well listen
I tried to be everything to you
Yeah, but it would not would not do
I got nothin on my resume
But I can rock you and roll you each and everyday
Have mercy on me
I am not sorry
Believe me, it's easy
I'll do my best to be a
Straight shot shooter
A bad motor scooter
Sunny honeymooner
Your heavy metal crooner
Make you wanna holler
Shirt with no collar
Wish I was a couple inches taller
White, blue and red rocker, oh yeah, oh yeah
Uh, I say yeah, yeah, yeah
That's all I am
That's all I am
Baby, baby, baby
Sam I Am

Rabel said...

In linking the Louisiana Illuminator you have stumbled into the network created in 2019 by a new progressive media manipulation operation called "States Newsroom" which is a disinformation campaign posing as a group of independent local news outlets.

It is a deliberate attempt to falsify information, present it as unbiased local news, and deceive the unsuspecting reader.

It has been granted non-profit status and its donors are secret.

It is fake news writ large.

Jupiter said...

The basic premise of this controversy, that a creature like Sam Wang could somehow "study" the issue of gerrymandering, and become an "expert", who therefore knows how to do it "fairly", is typical of the credentialist BS the LDubs spew like a cuttlefish making his getaway. It is either a problem in geometry, or else it is a problem in politics. And Sam Wang is no geometer.

Tina Trent said...

Sorry, I meant State HQ of CAIR. Sami Al-Arian's former stomping grounds.

Skipper said...

Gerrymandering the gerrymander?

rcocean said...

Yeah that "Southern Strategy" sure was raciss!

Segregated Solid South votes for Democrats 1880-1960 = Cool
All all of South votes for LBJ and Carter (1976) = cool
South votes for Nixon 1972 and R's since 1980 = Racist southern strategy.

rcocean said...

90 percent of Academics, Law Professors, and Journalists are Democrats/Liberals. If you think they are "objective" you need a better grip on reality.

Tina Trent said...

Yancy, you're 100% right: Black Democrats and Republicans against White Lefties generally draw the lines. I've taken part in Atlanta in this brand of electoral prostitution. Drives the Earth-Shoe Wearing Fascist Wife-beating White Leftists crazy.

And that's always a good day. Besides, many of these elderly Black Ministers have experienced real oppression. Not the young ones. I draw the oppression line at, say, Jackson and Sharpton. But some 90 year old guy who ran a church on the Southside through Jim Crow is an honor to meet. They'll never vote Republican. But they hold the decent people together, and that's the real battle.

Mr. T. said...

But we are always told to always trust the "experts..."

M Jordan said...

I’ve followed Wang since 2015 when he was calling Hillary with 98% likelihood. I engaged with him several times in the comments. He seemed fair though highly partisan. Then as time went on, just highly partisan.

I’ve got the feeling a huge Tower of Babel is collapsing before our eyes. Twitter employees are scrambling to cover their tracks, delete files, adjust algorithms. The FBI’s failed sting in Michigan has strings that lead to D.C. Jan. 6, strings that are being pulled. The news media is in complete disarray. And R’s are starting to exercise strength.

If conservatives grab control how long before I have to be against them? I give it 10 years, 20 at most. But I’ll likely be dead by then so it’s all good.

Temujin said...

Experts fudging numbers or facts?

This is my shocked face.

Interested Bystander said...

I live in a county in California that's 45% white. I wonder if they cut out any districts especially for white guys like me. Just kidding. Or course they didn't.

Jamie said...

Segregated Solid South votes for Democrats 1880-1960 = Cool
All all of South votes for LBJ and Carter (1976) = cool
South votes for Nixon 1972 and R's since 1980 = Racist southern strategy.


Well, when you start from the premise that if you don't vote for Democrats, you ain't black...

gahrie said...

Segregated Solid South votes for Democrats 1880-1960 = Cool
All all of South votes for LBJ and Carter (1976) = cool
South votes for Nixon 1972 and R's since 1980 = Racist southern strategy.


Well, when you start from the premise that if you don't vote for Democrats, you ain't black.


The Black vote went from 90% Republican to 90% Democrat in the 1930's under FDR. Note this is while the Democrats are still enforcing Jim Crow and segregation in the South. The Southern White vote switched as the Democrats shifted leftwards.

exhelodrvr1 said...

You wang?

n.n said...

Democratic gerrymandering is done with deal makers and breakers, while everyone else is a nonviable [political] token and their life... vote does not matter, hence the democratic/dictatorial duality, which is the second to worst political system.

BUMBLE BEE said...

Face it, Wang is a dick.

BUMBLE BEE said...

As I recall Chicago redistricting favored Barry Soetoro by shifting out of (sceptical) Black/ South Side district over to Wealthy Jewish/white neighborhood. Whoda Thunk It?

DanTheMan said...

Extreme gerrymandering?
How about Florida's old 5th Congressional district...

https://tinyurl.com/6d55aawe

... put in place specifically to elect (over and over and over again) Corrine Brown. She rarely had a challenger, and on those occasions where she did, she refused to even acknowledge their existence, much less debate...

mikee said...

Candidates in gerrymandered districts do have the option of running their campaigns such that opposition voters are convinced to vote for them.

Today's candidates just don't want to work!

/s www.reddit.com/r/antiwork

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Just some rando on the interwebz said...
Gerrymandering is one thing both parties are very consistent about. Its totes cool when your party is doing it but a threat to the very core of democracy when the other side is doing it.


The canonical gerrymandering case was Davis v. Bandemer. Indiana Democrats sued to toss out the 1982 Indiana redistricting, because in 1982 they won a majority of votes for the state House and Senate, but the Republicans won control of both bodies.

The National GOP sided with the Democrat plaintiffs, and the national DNC sided with the Indiana Republicans, because in the country as a whole the Democrats were doing the vast majority of the gerrymandering

For all intents and purposes, gerrymandering won.

So the GOP bore down and focused on winning State Legislative seats, so they could do the gerrymandering.

Having been successful at that (thanks Barack!), the Democrats all of a sudden decided that gerrymandering outside of MA, MD, IL, NY, and CA was immoral and needed to be stopped.

There's nothing hypocritical about pushing a position, losing, and then making the best of the situation you've been given. So I have no problem with what they GOP's doing.

The Dems, OTOH, are hypocritical scum.
MA has a Republican governor. So clearly 50% of voters are willing to vote for the right Republican.

MA has ZERO House GOP members.

I don't want to hear one damn word about "the evils of gerrymandering" from Democrats

Greg The Class Traitor said...

It's 538, so they're hard core biased to the Left

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/florida/

But they have all the maps and data, so you can make up your own mind.

They've got a page for every state, including ones like Alaska that only have one House member

Greg The Class Traitor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Greg The Class Traitor said...

Wa St Blogger said...
Maybe to end Gerrymanding, require that every time a new map is drawn it has to have a dem to rep district ratio equal to the average ratio of votes from the 3 previous major election cycles.

No, that would take major gerrymandering.

Democrats cram themselves into cities where the population vote 705+ Democrat.

Honest redistricting follows five rules:
Compact
Contiguous
Honors natural boundaries
Honors political boundaries (like city limits, country lines)
Puts "like" with "like" (city with city, suburb with suburb, rural with rural, etc)

So long as Democrats continue to congregate in Democrat bubbles, honest redistricting will lead to their victories in "distracted" races being lower than their vote percentages.