US House Redistricting: Ohio

[muon2]

Word from Marcy Kaptur's office:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just think, you read it here first. A Dayton pairing seems to be a concession to the reality of Columbus. A four prong split into Franklin was the only way to realistically make a 13-3 plan work. Even so, it kept some seats fairly marginal. A 12-4 plan also allows a black influence district to be created in Columbus as well as keep the GOP areas around it safe.

It's interesting that you guys are able to get the Dems down to 3 districts in the NE. Imho that is even more of a reason to give the Dems a seat in Columbus and make sure you don't lose any central or western Ohio seats even in a bad year. It would really suck for the pubbies if a few districts flipped in the northeast as well as Columbus. And the trend is in the wrong direction in Columbus for the GOP.

Thus my rather extensive post about Columbus. It needs a lot of work to mitigate the damage. Otherwise the map is just an exercise in foolishness, in the longer term.

By the way, it is not just 3 Dem CD's in NE Ohio. It is 3 CD's in the entire state! We have the OH-09 snake with a double prong at the end, like that instrument you use to shove stuff around in your fireplace, and then the black - white liberal pack (OH-11), and the down and out quite white pack, but 20% black as it sucks up Dem precincts (OH-06).  The map is just a monster Gerry. It's just brutal. But we live in brutal partisan times - so the Pubbies might just do it.

I've had some intel that suggests that something like Torie's plan is exactly what the GOP is looking at. There must be a 50% black-VAP CD, and it will link Cleveland to Akron, since it can't be created in Cuyahoga alone. The map will also have a Toledo to Cleveland CD and one other Dem CD based in Youngstown. Columbus will be split into wedges.

The only major difference is that they probably won't wrap LaTourette's district. They assume that he can handle an R+0 district, and there is more concern to boost Renacci to hold off Sutton.

[muon2]

Except that, as you know muon2, you can do a quad chop of Columbus without moving OH-07 to the north of the Columbus metro area.  So I am genuinely puzzled. The only reason to do it that I can fathom is to keep Shiver's OH-15 more similar to what it is now. Can you think of any other reason?

I assume it has to do with both Shivers and Tiberi. Perhaps they wanted Austria to move closer to Columbus, and he wasn't going. It does look to me that Beavercreek is better used to offset Dayton than to swing east towards Columbus. You have it that way in your map, too.

[muon2]

Given the actual 12-4 map that came out today, I find the comments on my draft a year ago worth a revisit. My guess is the Dems might happily take it today.

Hey, Muon2, are you going to drink the kook-aid and now put all those Dems in Columbus in one of more GOP districts, rather than just give up, and give them a CD, or, alternatively do something creative, and combine them with some Dems in Cleveland or Akron, thereby creating some hideous looking gerrymander for the ages map, or what? 

What? You didn't appreciate my Sept. offering? Look how neat and compact most of the districts are as well. Of course, with the 5 district pick up this week, a map like this would still cost on GOP member in 2012.

If I assume GOP control, then this was my attempt to maximize their result. I kept counties as intact as possible and kept districts defensibly compact. The VRA district links Akron to Cleveland along the Cuyahoga Valley NP. Based on the nearly even presidential results of 2004 to judge the districts this would be 12-4 in favor of the GOP.

That thing is a monstrosity   Well done

Yep, splitting Dayton and Cinci, plus dividing Columbus and environs up into 4 separate districts to ensure GOP domination in the congressional district is positively evil, Muon. I didn't know you were one of those mad scientist types.

Sadly, I wouldn't put anything this horrid past the Ohio GOP.

[muon2]

Here's a link to the proposed plan as loaded into the contest software through a block equivalency file. You can use the software at the link to pan and zoom all the way to the block level. Use the "Set Map Layers" at the upper left to get rid of the shading for population for the thematic map. When you've zoomed to the block, you can use that same button to turn on mcdplaces for the reference layer to see where community lines are crossed.

https://districtbuilder.drawthelineohio.org/districtmapping/plan/1483/view/

[muon2]

The contest software calculates a partisan rating for each district. It's based on the two party vote from 2008 Presidential race and the Gov, SoS and Auditor races from 2010. Here's the ratings for the proposed map.

OH-01: R 56.25%
OH-02: R 56.82%
OH-03: D 66.22%
OH-04: R 58.40%
OH-05: R 56.61%
OH-06: R 53.86%
OH-07: R 56.16%
OH-08: R 62.00%
OH-09: D 62.32%
OH-10: R 57.85%
OH-11: D 79.67%
OH-12: R 60.94%
OH-13: D 62.30%
OH-14: R 54.36%
OH-15: R 57.47%
OH-16: R 56.62%

[muon2]

What does "partisan rating" mean. Surely it is not the McCain percentages is it? In any event, they certainly Pubbed up OH-01 didn't they?  I mean it goes way beyond anything that I did, but then that is true of the map in general. After the Pubs decided that trying to hold Columbus was just a overreach, and not wise, and ceded it, they just then went for the max, not caring how the map looked.  They just decided to screw the Dems as much as they could, and avoid any of their dozen seats having any possibility of being anything other than Pubbie, no matter what. Boats, erosity, chops - it's all there. I am amused how Tiberi's CD, now shorn of almost all of its Dem precincts, was used to neutralize Athens. It is as if an atom bomb was used when the US invaded Grenada.

It's based on the two party vote from 2008 Presidential race and the Gov, SoS and Auditor races from 2010.

jimrtex and I have been discussion this rating on the competition thread. We suspect it gives a slightly more GOP tinge than exists in reality.

[muon2]

What does "partisan rating" mean. Surely it is not the McCain percentages is it? In any event, they certainly Pubbed up OH-01 didn't they?  I mean it goes way beyond anything that I did, but then that is true of the map in general. After the Pubs decided that trying to hold Columbus was just a overreach, and not wise, and ceded it, they just then went for the max, not caring how the map looked.  They just decided to screw the Dems as much as they could, and avoid any of their dozen seats having any possibility of being anything other than Pubbie, no matter what. Boats, erosity, chops - it's all there. I am amused how Tiberi's CD, now shorn of almost all of its Dem precincts, was used to neutralize Athens. It is as if an atom bomb was used when the US invaded Grenada.

Also, it's Stiver's crazy CD 15 that takes in Athens. Tiberi's 12th stays fairly compact and grabs Mansfield.

[muon2]

Kaptur's office has made a big deal about the ugliness of OH-9 and a state legislator said:

"If Marcy Kaptur were to drive her district, she would have to drive into Lake Erie. She would have to put her car in a boat."

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/09/new_congressional_district_map.html

And the state legislator is completely right. There is no road through that little sliver of land connection in Ottawa County (and of course she'd have to take the Thomas Edison Memorial Bridge over the Sandusky Bay, which she already would need to do and would do if actually driving... and she also can't drive to the islands). But, this was pretty unnecessary. Just swapping one precinct would let her take Route 2.

Another thing I noticed trying to map this was the Ohio GOP split very, very few municipalities. That must be their argument for the atrocious county splits: they left close to all municipalities intact.

Municipal preservation is clearly their rationale for the county splits. It explains why Fudge's CD-11 takes in the GOP towns in NW Summit.

[muon2]

I think this Toledo chop was well beyond what any of us had been expecting.

But in some ways it's not too surprising. In the competition map, all of Lucas is kept intact with the hard R NW counties. The result is a district that is only 51.5% D. By keeping the most heavily black areas of Toledo in CD 9, the remainder is no problem for CD 4 and 5 to absorb.

[muon2]

http://www.tribtoday.com/page/content.detail/id/561887/Dems-come-up-with-districts.html

If "our own" Mr. Fortner also gets to draw the map for Illinois, this might be a good idea.

I would be amazed if Muon2 was not meticulous in trying to hew to the VRA, on which he is basically an "expert."  (He's attended seminars on the topic.)  But maybe the rules of the contest to which he was constrained to hew were less meticulous.

There's a funny little grey area in the Bartlett decision. It only says that if there isn't a compact area where there is 50%+1 of a single minority (VAP), then there is no section 2 claim. The safest path for a mapper is to draw a 50%+1 district if it can exist, but that is not demanded anywhere. On the other hand there is a requirement that a minority district be able to elect the candidate of choice of the minority group.

So here's the grey area - what if an area that includes 50%+1 of a minority could reasonably elect a candidate of choice with less than 50%? The decisions are silent, and many observers expected this would be litigated during this decade.

In IL black groups testified that there were areas where VAPs in the upper 40% range would be sufficient and the IL Dems drew some districts at that standard. Apparently the Ohio NAACP was willing to use 48% as a floor for a Cuyahoga district for similar reasons reached in IL. The competition reflected this view of their partner group, but the GOP in OH took the safer course by staying over 50%+1.

[muon2]

This is my map:

https://districtbuilder.drawthelineohio.org/districtmapping/plan/1585/view/

Were you going to equalize population? I assume that it would be difficult for OH to make a case for anything other than complete equality unless a constitutional amendment was passed to create a compelling interest in some minor inequality.

[muon2]

This is my map:

https://districtbuilder.drawthelineohio.org/districtmapping/plan/1585/view/

Were you going to equalize population? I assume that it would be difficult for OH to make a case for anything other than complete equality unless a constitutional amendment was passed to create a compelling interest in some minor inequality.

I equalized population to the precinct level.  Courts have regularly created congressional districts with less than perfect equality.  Since this would be an interim map, it is unlikely that a court would want to force a change in election procedure while the voters were still considering whether to veto the legislature's plan.

The maximum deviation is 0.064%, and from largest to smallest 0.128%.  Standard deviation is 311, and relative standard deviation is 0.043%.

I don't think I understand the US Supreme Court's insistence on complete equality.  As I understand it, the basis for relative equality of legislative districts is based on the equal protection clause, while that for congress is somehow derived from the constitution that says that representatives should be chosen by the people of the States.

I understand the distinction between Congress and the state legislatures due to specific constitutional language relating to Congress. However, the logic is not clear to me that leads from "chosen ... by the People of the several States" in Art I sect 2 to drawing districts of equal population "as nearly as practicable" in Wesberry v Sanders. Though it seems a stretch, I can at least follow the train of thought in Kirkpatrick v Preisler that goes from the Wesberry language to a standard with "only the limited population variances which are unavoidable despite a good faith effort. to achieve absolute equality, or for which justification is shown." In any case Kirkpatrick controls.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I added up your districts and I get a total that exceeds the actual state population by 10. I found that there is a bug in DistrictBuilder that sometimes fails to shift population out of a district when an area is moved. There is no recalculation feature that could clear the overcount. The only solution I found is to get a blank map and copy the districts one at a time from the miscalculated map. The new map won't have the the error.

[muon2]

Apparently Republicans are proposing to pick off Democratic votes by stretching OH-3 from Columbus to Dayton, making it 42% black and possibly violating court precedents while wrecking one of the few areas of the map that didn't look like Maryland.

Was that the GOP is attempting to pick off Black Democrat legislators?

I think the accurate statement is that GOP legislators had discussions with the Ohio Black Legislative Caucus about the map. If a compromise would be reached that garnered the votes of both groups, then that total would be large enough to prevent a referendum. Recent reports have the OBLC staying with the Dems, but discussions continue.

[muon2]

Apparently Republicans are proposing to pick off Democratic votes by stretching OH-3 from Columbus to Dayton, making it 42% black and possibly violating court precedents while wrecking one of the few areas of the map that didn't look like Maryland.

Was that the GOP is attempting to pick off Black Democrat legislators?

I think the accurate statement is that GOP legislators had discussions with the Ohio Black Legislative Caucus about the map. If a compromise would be reached that garnered the votes of both groups, then that total would be large enough to prevent a referendum. Recent reports have the OBLC staying with the Dems, but discussions continue.

I've read similar reports in the Columbus Dispatch.  The current public position of the OLBC seems to be that they would like to get a plan that all Democrats would be satisfied with and would also maximize the opportunity for Ohio to elect a second black representative.

Without drawing these to see how it would work, here's what I view as likely in a compromise plan: Three districts will be drawn entirely within the three largest counties: Cuyahoga, Franklin, and Hamilton.  Summit, Montgomery, and Lucas counties will be made almost if not entirely whole.  (At the least there would be no three way splits of those counties and no splits of their most populous cities.)  The Columbus area will still hold major influence over at least 3 districts but the proposed OH-15 will be made less insane.  The old OH-10 and OH-7 are the eliminated districts.  The OH-6 Ohio River district will mostly remain intact.  In the end, Democrats will hold the advantage in at least 6 districts.

I would generally agree, but I see small excursions outside the big three counties. For example, a 50%+1 BVAP district in Cuyahoga requires population from neighboring counties, though it doesn't necessarily need Akron. Similarly the BVAP percentage for a Columbus district can be improved by adding population just east of Franklin. I modified a competition map to demonstrate that.

[muon2]

My attempt at a court-drawn map a compromise map with court criteria on everyone's minds.



So bottom line 8-5-3. 9-7 if I break the ties (Renacci to hold, Chabot and Johnson to lose).

If this is an intended compromise, then I think it should look more carefully at pairings first.

For instance, it seemed pretty clear that the GOP was willing to pair Turner and Austria, so I don't see a compromise map that has any other pairing in the SW. There has to be a pairing to compensate for the new Columbus district. You have Tiberi and Stivers together and I don't see the GOP signing off on that.

The rest of the map also needs two other pairs and you have Jordan with Gibbs and Ryan with Sutton. Each party would have to agree to those if a deal is reached. Again, I'm not sure they are the preferred choice of the respective parties.

[muon2]

It will be a bit tricky to put all of the Cinci blacks in one CD without making it fairly marginal, unless those precincts are combined with the most hyper GOP ones in the area.

Precisely. This will displace Mean Jean a bit but no district is really going to switch.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/210/cinci1.png/

A similar link with Warren instead of Clermont would protect all the incumbents.

[muon2]

It will be a bit tricky to put all of the Cinci blacks in one CD without making it fairly marginal, unless those precincts are combined with the most hyper GOP ones in the area.

Precisely. This will displace Mean Jean a bit but no district is really going to switch.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/210/cinci1.png/

A similar link with Warren instead of Clermont would protect all the incumbents.

Yeah, but I couldn't figure out how to nicely do that while also maintaining all of Cincinnati in 1 district.

I took the highlighted phrase above as the operative goal. That allows a split of Cinci.

[muon2]

The OH House will debate a new GOP map tomorrow.

[muon2]

I fail to see how you could draw a map where Chabot is still heavily favored and argue this is the best map for blacks to get black Democrats on board. Has any black Democrat expressed interest in cooperating? Seems like grasping at straws to me...

A Hamilton-only district can get up to about 27% BVAP. Dropping the east side of Cinci and near suburbs with low black pop while replacing them with a lot of Warren Co still leaves 25% BVAP but a GOP lean.

[muon2]

New map.

http://media.cleveland.com/open_impact/other/New-GOP-Congressional-Map.pdf

Appears to have weakened the Turner district a bit. Some minor changes with the Columbus district as well perhaps.

The changes were designed to improve BVAP in some districts.

CDs 6, 11, 13, and 14 are unchanged from the earlier plan. I think all sides are resigned to CD-11 needing over 50% BVAP, so it must go into Akron.

The Columbus CD-3 was the biggest black gainer going to almost 31% BVAP.

Montgomery was made whole in CD 10, raising the BVAP to 17%, though it go up another 1% by adding Springfield, but that would drop the GOP lean by about 2%.

The Lucas split was cut down to two CDs, and the black areas of Toledo increased, but not all of Toledo is in CD-9.

CD-1 had a minimal change swapping out Greenhills in favor of Lincoln Heights. At under 22% BVAP it is still well short of maxing the BVAP percentages for the district which would be at about 27%.

[muon2]

They're still routing Fudge's district down to Akron via a horribly inefficient route.  And they seem to be obsessed with triple-splitting Mercer County. 

Not really.   If you go further east you have to go through Cuyahoga Falls.  This takes two relatively skinny cities in Cuyahoga (Seven Hills and Broadview Heights) and then a couple of townships in Summit County.

Further east, and you start cutting into OH-14 and OH-17 (now OH-13).

Well, Cuyahoga Falls can be split if necessary.  Use Macedonia/Twinsburg (bluer) and Boston Township (sparsely populated) to get down south. 

And OH-14 can make up population by taking more of the rural parts of Portage County, and OH-13 can make up population by taking Canton.  Perfect. 

Your plan works for OH-11, but it would reduce the GOP margin in OH-14 by cutting off Brecksville, Independence and Sagamore Hills. There's not much population in the GOP rural townships of Portage to make up for those aforementioned suburbs.

[muon2]

They really thought that carve-up of Lorain would fly as a compromise?

I don't think Lorain is much of an issue for either side. No incumbent has a significant base there, so it's just a question of dividing the heavily Dem north of the county.

The issue is about how many districts will give the Dems a real chance, and how well urban minorities are kept intact.

[muon2]

See this map:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=124180.msg3023697#msg3023697

Taking Twinsburg and the areas west of there away from OH-14, and replacing them with some other Summit/Portage communities is more or less a wash.  This was mapped assuming that there was the 3-way split of Toledo but I'm sure you could get it to work if you bring OH-04 into Lorain instead. 

I wasn't questioning that your map works. It's just that the GOP map increases the McCain margin to about 2,000 votes or about 0.5%. In a swing district like OH-14 those extra votes matter.

[muon2]

Oh, the map will be voted down all right, but that doesn't mean the Democrats will get to draw the next one.

The GOP should never settle for a 5-5-6 map. Ohio may be an R+1.36 state overall but once you draw the D+30ish seat on the East side of Cleveland the rest of the state is around R+3. A 5-5-6 map would need to be a Democratic gerrymander because the Democrats are so concentrated unless the 6 swing districts are in the R+2 range.

I think the GOP is going to have to sacrifice that awful OH-9 lake thing. The bargaining chip would be a contested seat in Cincinnati or Akron. The GOP should not give up both and should give neither unless there are enough votes to pass the map that way. With neither, we stand at 10-4-2 and with one of them we stand at 9-4-3. I suppose we could attempt to argue that LaTourette's seat is "swingy" and maybe call it 8-4-4.

That's why you can fully expect that if this referendum is successful, they will attempt to repeat the process until they take back part of the state government later in the decade.  The days of partisan map drawing without a 2/3rds majority in OH could be over.

It doesn't appear to me the Dems are willing to spend the money to do all of this. Heck, they are too cheap to even hire paid signature gatherers, and unless they do, and soon, the GOP map will be good for the decade, and the Dems will get squat. Let's see:  every two years, the Dems spend a few million repealing the map, the Pubs re-enact it, the GOP control court uses it as the interim map, and repeat. Hey, that is a good way to drain the Dem coffers. I like it.    You see, the law is flawed.  Who knew? 

It will slowly sink in here I assume, that the Dems don't have that much bargaining power, and they will per present course, soon have zero bargaining power.

One problem for Dem bargaining may have been a partisan insistence on staying together. The GOP might well have conceded a seat or two to the blacks from their original plan for a veto proof majority on the map and no referendum. News reports even suggested that, until the head of the OH Dems pushed for party unity. The party didn't want to settle for a 8-5-3 since the swing seats would be held by GOP incumbents and they would be faced with 10-6 at best given the actual candidates.

[muon2]

Here’s my attempt at a 5-5-6 Ohio. I would classify this as a moderate Democratic gerrymander.
My intent
Democratic: 7,9,11,13,16
Republican: 2,4,8,12,15
“Swingy”: 1,3,5,6,10,14

Notice how many of the “swing” districts are really Republican seats under most circumstances and how flaky 9, 13, and 16 are for the Democrats. This would be an epic Dummymander if they tried to draw it, yet without cutting up OH-11 or making it look hideous, they can’t do much better. The Republican would be favored in every swing district except maybe District 1. Even with Lorain and Elyria gerrymandered into District 5, Latta will likely still win. Once Kaptur retired, OH-9 could be won by a Republican. You can’t do much better than this for the Democrats.

1 Cincinnati D+2
2 Ohio river near Cincinnati R+17
3 Dayton R+1
4 West-Central R+19
5 North-Central R+2
6 Ohio River R+4
7 Columbus D+16
8 Cincinnati Suburbs R+18
9 Toledo D+4
10 Cleveland West EVEN
11 Cleveland East D+27
12 Columbus Northern Suburbs R+10
13 Akron/Medina D+1
14 Lake/Geauga R+3
15 Columbus Southern Suburbs R+11
16 Youngstown/Canton D+6

Although the Democrats might try to go for 5-5-6 if they were in complete control I don't think that's their aim in this situation.  I'm pretty sure they're going to for 4-6-6 which is much easier to do.  That allows you to draw 4 solidly Democratic seats based in Toledo/Lake Erie, Cleveland, Akron, and Youngstown.  Then you have 6 lean Republican seats that Democrats could realistically win: Cincinnati, Dayton, the northeast corner, the Ohio River, and two Columbus districts.  That leaves 6 solid Republican districts: 2 in western Ohio, 2 Cincy suburban districts, a conservative Cleveland outskirts district and a conservative southeastern district.  That would give Democrats the opportunity to win up to 10 districts and Republicans up to 12.  I don't think there is any realistic path for the Democrats to achieve a 5-5-6 map.  They might even willing to settle with a 4-8-2 map as long as the 2 competitive seats were almost evenly split.

Remember that the Dems filed a map that was 4R-1D-11.