Talk Elections

General Politics => Political Geography & Demographics => Topic started by: Sounder on December 22, 2010, 09:06:55 PM



Title: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on December 22, 2010, 09:06:55 PM
Washington's redistricting efforts will be interesting as the state adds a 10th Congressional District.   Another interesting factor is Eastern Washington's robust growth has caused it to out grow their two congressional districts.  One or more Western Washington districts will have to straddle the Cascades. 


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on December 22, 2010, 10:05:12 PM
This is one scenario I had in mind.  It is not entirely accurate as I do not have the 2010 data.  


()


Close-up of Western Washington:

()


Changes:

1st:  becomes an entirely east sound district.  Trades Shoreline, Bainbridge, and North Kitsap, for Bellevue and Everett.

2nd: The state's NW district needs to shrink due to strong growth.  It loses South Everett and Skykomish.

3rd:  The state's SW district sheds Olympia and gains Klickitat County and the Westport Peninsula.  

4th: Due to strong growth, the district sheds Chelan, Kittitas, Klickitat, and western Adams County.  Adds Walla Walla and Columbia.

5th: Sheds Walla Walla and Columbia.  Gains Adams panhandle.  

6th: Unites the entire Olympic Peninsula by adding North Kitsap, Bainbridge, and Olympia.  Sheds Lakewood, western Tacoma, and Westport.

7th:  Trades Vashon Island and Lake Forest Park for Shoreline.

8th:  Loses downtown Bellevue, Points Cities, and portions of Pierce and South King.  Adds Woodinville, more Renton, Kittitas, and Chelan.

9th:  Loses Olympia, Lacey, Yelm, and Spanaway.  Adds Vashon Island and portion of the old 8th in Pierce and South King County.  

10th:  the new district includes Tacoma, Lakewood, Lacey, Yelm, and rural Pierce County.


Comments:

- Inslee lives on Bainbridge and would have to move under the above scenario (or retire to run for Governor as has been rumored)

- Not sure exactly where in Auburn Dave Reichert lives, so I may have chopped him out.  It would be easy to get him back in by trading away another piece to the 9th.

- Not sure where in Everett Larsen lives, so he may have been chopped too.  

- All others are secure in their district.

- A possibility to represent the new 10th would be former Congressman and current Insurance Commissioner Mike Kriedler.  I don't see the GOP with a shot there.

- The 7th, 9th, and 10th districts are pretty safe to ultra safe Democrat districts.  The 4th and 5th are safe GOP districts.  The 3rd and 8th lean Republican while the 1st and 6th lean Democrat.  The 2nd is pretty close to a swing district.


More detail:

()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 23, 2010, 01:34:11 AM
According to the OFM, Eastern Washington grew more slowly than Western Washington.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on December 23, 2010, 02:56:17 AM
I'll offer up my take:

()


Close-up of Puget Sound:
()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on December 23, 2010, 02:57:21 AM
Though I have heard that incumbent-protection does play a role in the process and honestly I did not even consider that aspect...


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on December 23, 2010, 03:03:15 AM
True, but large growth in the 4th district will force it to shrink down. 

According to OFM's 7/09 estimates:

Eastern Washington population:  1,484,600

Apportionment population:  673,325 

Surplus population of Eastern Washington after drawing up the 4th and 5th districts:  137,950


Population of Klickitat, Kittitas, and Chelan Counties:  135,495

Put Klickitat in the 3rd (which will likely lose Olympia area) and the other two to districts up north.  I propose the 8th, but there could be other creative solutions.  I prefer the 8th because it is the most populated, trafficked link between east and west.  The prosperous Eastside has turned much of the two eastern counties into their vacation playground and retirement destination.  Plus the two receive Seattle area TV stations, another important link. 




Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on December 23, 2010, 03:08:45 AM

I really dislike that 3rd.  Splitting up the Yakima Valley like that and attaching it the SW WA district doesn't make much sense, especially since there are better connections up north. 


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 23, 2010, 03:33:02 AM
I will post my map again, even though my creepy internet stalker has already seen it :P

()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: minionofmidas on December 23, 2010, 07:33:01 AM
The likelihood of a transcascade district that doesn't include the Columbia Gorge is flat zero. It's just not going to happen.

Which means some kind of split to the Yakima area is probably unavoidable. Unless you want to stretch Herrera's district to the Tri-cities instead.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on December 23, 2010, 04:29:33 PM
The likelihood of a transcascade district that doesn't include the Columbia Gorge is flat zero. It's just not going to happen.


My scenario above has the Columbia Gorge going to the 3rd.  That still leaves over 100,000 people in Eastern Washington without a congressional district.   Snoqualmie Pass is the next logical bridge.  The corridor is populated and already has many links back and forth.  Much of the growth east of the pass is being generated by Eastside Seattle.  Another advantage of going over Snoqualmie Pass is not splitting districts into multiple television markets. 


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Alcon on December 23, 2010, 09:03:03 PM
Welcome to the forum :)

I would look more closely at the growth patterns of Snoqualmie Pass and surrounding environs before you make that claim.  There's some resort property there but there always has been.  Where is this boom growth, Suncadia?  Hardly.  Suncadia casts a trivial number of votes.  Doesn't even have its own precinct.  There are a very negligible number of commuters.  Even the Hyak/Snoqualmie Pass area of the King-Kittitas border is clearly mostly retirees and resort folks, if you look at the voting rolls and Census data.  I doubt more than a handful of people make that gnarly, seasonally-dependent commute.

Yakima County is also frequently split along those lines in legislative districting, and yet we have never had an over-the-mountains district.  Ever.  Lewis and bgwah are right -- there is no good argument for that being the probabilistic outcome.  I'm also pretty sure television markets have little history in being considered a "community of interest" in Washington.

Inslee is running for Governor in 2012, so I doubt keeping Bainbridge in WA-1 will be such a big deal.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on December 23, 2010, 09:28:11 PM


I would look more closely at the growth patterns of Snoqualmie Pass and surrounding environs before you make that claim.  There's some resort property there but there always has been.  Where is this boom growth, Suncadia?  Hardly.  Suncadia casts a trivial number of votes.  Doesn't even have its own precinct.  There are a very negligible number of commuters.   Even the Hyak/Snoqualmie Pass area of the King-Kittitas border is clearly mostly retirees and resort folks, if you look at the voting rolls and Census data.  I doubt more than a handful of people make that gnarly, seasonally-dependent commute.

All of which is more than there is up at Satus Pass, an even higher elevation pass, on a two lane road vs. major interstate freeway.  Greater distance between population areas to boot! 

It is silly to divide up the Yakima Valley because some Seattle centric types don't want any icky EWers in their district.   A Snoqualmie Pass crossing makes the most geographic sense.





Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 23, 2010, 09:59:57 PM
It is silly to divide up the Yakima Valley because some Seattle centric types don't want any icky EWers in their district.

None of us said that. Or anything even remotely like that.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on December 23, 2010, 10:08:12 PM
It is silly to divide up the Yakima Valley because some Seattle centric types don't want any icky EWers in their district.

None of us said that. Or anything even remotely like that.

Never accused any of you of that.  Read the comments at the Seattle Times article on redistricting. 

Linking east and west at Snoqualmie Pass, whether it is the 8th, the new 10th, or some other district, makes a lot of geographical sense. 


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 23, 2010, 10:10:46 PM
Read the comments at the Seattle Times

I can usually find more entertaining ways to kill my braincells ;D


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on December 23, 2010, 10:25:18 PM
Here are some more entertaining examples:

http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/8025/washington-redistricting-v20

()


http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/7787/washington-redistricting-10-cds

()


http://olywa.blogspot.com/2010/11/i-redraw-your-congressional-districts.html

()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 23, 2010, 10:29:15 PM
What website/program are you guys using to make your maps?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Alcon on December 24, 2010, 01:22:55 AM


I would look more closely at the growth patterns of Snoqualmie Pass and surrounding environs before you make that claim.  There's some resort property there but there always has been.  Where is this boom growth, Suncadia?  Hardly.  Suncadia casts a trivial number of votes.  Doesn't even have its own precinct.  There are a very negligible number of commuters.   Even the Hyak/Snoqualmie Pass area of the King-Kittitas border is clearly mostly retirees and resort folks, if you look at the voting rolls and Census data.  I doubt more than a handful of people make that gnarly, seasonally-dependent commute.

All of which is more than there is up at Satus Pass, an even higher elevation pass, on a two lane road vs. major interstate freeway.  Greater distance between population areas to boot! 

It is silly to divide up the Yakima Valley because some Seattle centric types don't want any icky EWers in their district.   A Snoqualmie Pass crossing makes the most geographic sense

Except...the 15th LD currently does through Satus Pass instead of dividing the mountains up by...oh, nevermind.  We'll see how the districts fall.  I certainly disagree with your probability claim, and I think your certainty falls into the category of absurd.  I don't know how many folks in Issaquah or Snoqualmie are "Seattle centric" types, or who suggested that, but I'm still waiting on your evidence of huge Seattle influence on the east side of Snoqualmie Pass.



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: ottermax on December 24, 2010, 02:10:06 AM
I can see the rationale behind putting the Eastside suburbs with Kittitas and Chelan, but when it comes down to it, there are huge differences in the bulk of the populations represented. I think the most significant problem is Chelan, rather than Kittitas. At least Kittitas has a university and the mountain towns that are fairly well linked to the west side, but Wenatchee in Chelan is not very easily reached and I think it's unusual splitting Wenatchee and E. Wenatchee.

The Cascades really do present quite a problem... but I think there will be a creative solution. There may need to be two cross mountain districts.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on December 24, 2010, 06:05:25 PM
I don't know how many folks in Issaquah or Snoqualmie are "Seattle centric" types, or who suggested that, but I'm still waiting on your evidence of huge Seattle influence on the east side of Snoqualmie Pass.



Yakima Herald-Republic via Seattle PI.com: Many make trek across mountains to jobs in King County (http://www.seattlepi.com/local/196639_longcommute25.html?dpfrom=thead)

But for more than 1,000 Kittitas County residents, crossing the Cascade Range to get to work is no more nuts than sitting bumper to bumper in a sea of concrete somewhere on the west side.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on December 24, 2010, 06:27:03 PM
What website/program are you guys using to make your maps?

Dave 2.0, but I tried to use OFM's 7/09 #s as much as possible.   


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Verily on December 24, 2010, 06:29:28 PM
Here's my version, for what it's worth. I modeled the districts off of the current map and kept all incumbents in their current seats. This meant some awkwardness on the Olympic Peninsula because Norm Dicks lives in NE Mason County while Jay Inslee lives on Bainbridge Island, yet the Olympic Peninsula should "naturally" contain only one seat. Oh well.

()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 24, 2010, 07:04:28 PM
Here's my version, for what it's worth. I modeled the districts off of the current map and kept all incumbents in their current seats. This meant some awkwardness on the Olympic Peninsula because Norm Dicks lives in NE Mason County while Jay Inslee lives on Bainbridge Island, yet the Olympic Peninsula should "naturally" contain only one seat. Oh well.

()


Hey Verily. Jay Inslee is actually running for Governor in 2012, so you shouldn't concern yourself with keeping him in the 1st district.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Verily on December 24, 2010, 10:17:57 PM
Taking that into account, here's a new version. I put Island County into the Olympic Peninsula seat because I wanted a separate Olympia seat, and Island County was the only other easily accessible place (via ferry from Port Townsend) that didn't quite feel like I was drawing a seat across the Puget Sound. Still had to split off a bit of western Thurston County, unfortunately.

()



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: muon2 on December 25, 2010, 12:09:33 AM
So, if understand the dynamics in WA with 10 seats, then there is a conundrum on the east side. Either Yakima is split with the city and its immediate suburbs in different districts, or there is a transcasade link over the Snoqualmie Pass.

The numbers would also seem to support keeping Yakima intact (except perhaps for the IR) and the Cascades inviolate, but linking Benton county to Klickitat. I assume that is just as bad politically as the other options, since it would split the tri-cities.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 25, 2010, 12:30:19 AM
So, if understand the dynamics in WA with 10 seats, then there is a conundrum on the east side. Either Yakima is split with the city and its immediate suburbs in different districts, or there is a transcasade link over the Snoqualmie Pass.

The numbers would also seem to support keeping Yakima intact (except perhaps for the IR) and the Cascades inviolate, but linking Benton county to Klickitat. I assume that is just as bad politically as the other options, since it would split the tri-cities.

Based on precedence (including the current 15th legislative district), I'm fairly certain Yakima County will be split.

It's really quite interesting how closely the districts have come to splitting nicely East-West over the past several decades, and I've been saying for a long time that if we get a 10th district that we'll end up with a district containing significant portions of both sides of the state.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on December 25, 2010, 01:58:21 AM
Taking that into account, here's a new version. I put Island County into the Olympic Peninsula seat because I wanted a separate Olympia seat, and Island County was the only other easily accessible place (via ferry from Port Townsend) that didn't quite feel like I was drawing a seat across the Puget Sound. Still had to split off a bit of western Thurston County, unfortunately.

()



I think there are too many county splits in that map:
King: 6 CDs
Pierce: 4 CDs
Thurston 3 CDs

Also how is the 3rd CD linked exactly? Does it link across White Pass? I guess I am not sure if there is even a road between Skamania and Eastern Lewis County. I will say that your map is nice in that it provides a 7-3 democratic advantage  :)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Verily on December 25, 2010, 10:23:19 AM
Taking that into account, here's a new version. I put Island County into the Olympic Peninsula seat because I wanted a separate Olympia seat, and Island County was the only other easily accessible place (via ferry from Port Townsend) that didn't quite feel like I was drawing a seat across the Puget Sound. Still had to split off a bit of western Thurston County, unfortunately.

()



I think there are too many county splits in that map:
King: 6 CDs
Pierce: 4 CDs
Thurston 3 CDs

Also how is the 3rd CD linked exactly? Does it link across White Pass? I guess I am not sure if there is even a road between Skamania and Eastern Lewis County. I will say that your map is nice in that it provides a 7-3 democratic advantage  :)

US-12 connects Lewis to Yakima, while US-97 connects Yakima to Klickitat. There's no connection directly from Lewis to Skamania. (There's also WA-410 that connects Yakima to Enumclaw, but I think it's seasonal.)

Some of the splits are gratuitous, in particular the WA-03 part of Thurston. And some of them, like Gig Harbor with WA-01, make more sense than not splitting the county.

Also, I designed an alternative that splits Seattle but keeps a distinct district for the eastern suburbs of King County. It doesn't seem possible to do so without splitting Seattle otherwise.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on December 25, 2010, 12:11:39 PM
FYI Jay Inslee used to represent WA-04, so even if he wasn't likely vacating his seat I'd say it doesn't matter much where he lives. The guy will move anywhere.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Verily on December 25, 2010, 12:38:20 PM
Here's another version devoted to reducing county splits. It also reintroduces the eastern King County district by splitting Seattle, although I don't think Reichert could win the WA-10 on this map (it now contains a lot more Democratic areas in northern King County and none of Pierce County).

King County is split four ways, Snohomish and Pierce are each split three ways, and Island, Yakima, Cowlitz and Spokane are each split two ways. Every other county is intact.

()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: minionofmidas on December 25, 2010, 12:49:28 PM
Here's another version devoted to reducing county splits. It also reintroduces the eastern King County district by splitting Seattle, although I don't think Reichert could win the WA-10 on this map (it now contains a lot more Democratic areas in northern King County and none of Pierce County).

King County is split four ways, Snohomish and Pierce are each split three ways, and Island, Yakima, Cowlitz and Spokane are each split two ways. Every other county is intact.

()
This one has the advantage of a natural successor district for Reichert. Obviously the situation around Lewis county looks awkward, though I'm sure Herrera won't mind her new district.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on December 25, 2010, 03:49:01 PM


Some of the splits are gratuitous, in particular the WA-03 part of Thurston.

As a resident of there, I don't think it is a problem.  Thurston County is a weird animal.  The southern part identifies more with Centralia and Lewis County, the NW portion considers itself part of the Olympic Peninsula, Yelm and NE corner of the county are heavily influenced by Ft. Lewis and Pierce County. 

Splitting somewhere in Thurston County makes a lot of sense.  A lot more than that crazy trans-Cascade district the puts Longview and Vancouver in separate districts.  Doing the population math, the 3rd almost perfectly fits in Pacific, Lewis, Wahkiakum, Cowlitz, Clark, Skamania, and Klickitat Counties.   Makes geographical sense, and is clean.   Plus it all fits in the Portland TV market.   


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 25, 2010, 05:23:44 PM
Longview can be kept in the third. Only a portion of NW Cowlitz County would need to be removed.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on December 25, 2010, 05:37:58 PM
Longview can be kept in the third. Only a portion of NW Cowlitz County would need to be removed.


SW Washington had 644,200 people on 7/09 according to OFM.   It is large enough to be its own district.   I do not see good logic in splitting it into multiple districts.   To get the remaining population it needs, it could go north into the Lewis County centric portion of Thurston County (Grand Mound) or head up the Columbia Gorge and take in Klickitat County, a Columbia River and former aluminum producing cousin of SW Washington.  




Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on December 25, 2010, 08:12:02 PM
I kind of like Verily's second map, it looks pretty clean, neat. Though I feel like Seattlites would throw a fit over being split in two (though it would be nice to divide up the liberal vote to help in other places). In a bit I will try a democratic gerrymander even though nothing of the sort would happen because of the process.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Verily on December 25, 2010, 11:10:03 PM
Longview can be kept in the third. Only a portion of NW Cowlitz County would need to be removed.


SW Washington had 644,200 people on 7/09 according to OFM.   It is large enough to be its own district.   I do not see good logic in splitting it into multiple districts.   To get the remaining population it needs, it could go north into the Lewis County centric portion of Thurston County (Grand Mound) or head up the Columbia Gorge and take in Klickitat County, a Columbia River and former aluminum producing cousin of SW Washington.  




Except, if you do that, you're going to have to make an even more outrageous split crossing the mountains further north. Someone is going to have to be split up, and the Vancouver/Longview area makes the most sense. Plus, the two have very little in common; Vancouver consists solely of tax evaders from Oregon and is the only place in the state growing significantly faster than the average while Longview is old industry and is in decline.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: jimrtex on December 25, 2010, 11:14:03 PM
According to the OFM, Eastern Washington grew more slowly than Western Washington.
Not very much slower.  If Washington had kept 9 districts, to keep the two in balance requires little more than moving Skamania to the east.

Going from 9 to 10 means that Eastern Washington goes from about 2 to 2.2 districts, and you have to shift 130,000 to the west.  You have 3 choices:

1) Really ugly split of Yakima County
2) Really ugly split of Tri-Cities
3) Kittitas and Chelan go west.

With most all the western population close to I-5, you end up with the districts pretty much chopping off pieces from north to south (start in Vancouver and go north until the district is full; continue in Olypmpia into Tacoma, etc.  Or you can start in Bellingham and go south.  So the 8th western district goes somewhere in the middle in the Seattle area.  But King County grew slower than the state, so to make room for the new seat it has too bulge outward.  But if you can add 130,000 in the middle, rather than the southern end, the changes are less dramatic.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 25, 2010, 11:42:12 PM
According to the OFM, Eastern Washington grew more slowly than Western Washington.
Not very much slower.  If Washington had kept 9 districts, to keep the two in balance requires little more than moving Skamania to the east.

Going from 9 to 10 means that Eastern Washington goes from about 2 to 2.2 districts, and you have to shift 130,000 to the west.  You have 3 choices:

1) Really ugly split of Yakima County
2) Really ugly split of Tri-Cities
3) Kittitas and Chelan go west.

With most all the western population close to I-5, you end up with the districts pretty much chopping off pieces from north to south (start in Vancouver and go north until the district is full; continue in Olypmpia into Tacoma, etc.  Or you can start in Bellingham and go south.  So the 8th western district goes somewhere in the middle in the Seattle area.  But King County grew slower than the state, so to make room for the new seat it has too bulge outward.  But if you can add 130,000 in the middle, rather than the southern end, the changes are less dramatic.

I'm well aware that the Westside only grew a little bit more quickly. I have a huge post about half written up on WA redistricting that covers this... I will post it soon when I'm done. :)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on December 25, 2010, 11:58:48 PM

Except, if you do that, you're going to have to make an even more outrageous split crossing the mountains further north.

The outrageous split is pairing Yakima with Vancouver.  Greater distance apart, higher elevation mountain passes with two lane roads as opposed to interstate freeway, less direct links, different TV markets...  Snoqualmie Pass is the cleanest link. 

Plus I disagree with your Longview/Vancouver comments.  Both are Columbia River ports.  Camas and Longview are both paper towns.  Plenty of former Oregonians and commuters north of the Clark County line in Woodland and Kalama.



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on December 26, 2010, 12:10:31 AM
Vancouver consists solely of tax evaders from Oregon and is the only place in the state growing significantly faster than the average while Longview is old industry and is in decline.

That isn't true either.  

Fastest growing places over the last couple years:

1). Tri-Cities +5.4%
2). Grant County +3.7%
3). Olympia +2.9%
4). Kittitas County 2.8%
5). Vancouver +2.7%




Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Verily on December 26, 2010, 01:06:36 AM
Vancouver consists solely of tax evaders from Oregon and is the only place in the state growing significantly faster than the average while Longview is old industry and is in decline.

That isn't true either.  

Fastest growing places over the last couple years:

1). Tri-Cities +5.4%
2). Grant County +3.7%
3). Olympia +2.9%
4). Kittitas County 2.8%
5). Vancouver +2.7%




The Tri-Cities are embedded in a declining region, though. WA-04, although growing faster than the state as a whole, grew much more slowly than WA-03, and also slower than WA-02, and only barely faster than WA-09.

Somewhat surprisingly, the slowest-growing seat was WA-08, followed by WA-05. WA-01 and WA-06 lagged slightly, while WA-07 pretty much kept pace with the state as a whole.


Deviation from ideal (on a 9-district map) as of the 2009 estimates

WA-03 (Vancouver/Longview/Olympia): +41,828
WA-02 (Everett/Bellingham): +14,539
WA-04 (Tri-Cities): +10,443
WA-09 (Tacoma/Federal Way/Lacey): +6,223

WA-07 (Seattle): -3,213
WA-06 (Olympia Peninsula/Tacoma): -7,986
WA-01 (Kirkland/Edmonds/Shoreline): -11,127
WA-05 (Spokane): -21,238
WA-08 (Bellevue): -29,473


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 26, 2010, 02:08:48 AM
Verily, I think you're using the completely inaccurate numbers from Dave's Redistricting App... Here are the estimates from the OFM. The 8th is the fastest growing district.

Ideal district population: 673,325
1st:  740,097 (66,772)
2nd:  764,906 (91,581)
3rd:  788,476 (115,151)
4th:  763,722 (90,397)
5th:  723,794 (50,469)
6th:  707, 393 (34,068)
7th:  707,220 (33,895)
8th:  811,073 (137,748)
9th:  726,568 (53,243)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on December 26, 2010, 02:10:01 AM


The Tri-Cities are embedded in a declining region, though.

Not according to the population trends.  5 of the 6 fastest growing counties in WA are in or partly in the 4th.


Quote
Somewhat surprisingly, the slowest-growing seat was WA-08, followed by WA-05. WA-01 and WA-06 lagged slightly, while WA-07 pretty much kept pace with the state as a whole.

WA-8 grew the fastest, WA-7 and WA-6 the slowest:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2013739074_redistricting.html

()

You are a fountain of misinformation it seems.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: muon2 on December 27, 2010, 01:53:08 AM
According to the OFM, Eastern Washington grew more slowly than Western Washington.
Not very much slower.  If Washington had kept 9 districts, to keep the two in balance requires little more than moving Skamania to the east.

Going from 9 to 10 means that Eastern Washington goes from about 2 to 2.2 districts, and you have to shift 130,000 to the west.  You have 3 choices:

1) Really ugly split of Yakima County
2) Really ugly split of Tri-Cities
3) Kittitas and Chelan go west.

With most all the western population close to I-5, you end up with the districts pretty much chopping off pieces from north to south (start in Vancouver and go north until the district is full; continue in Olypmpia into Tacoma, etc.  Or you can start in Bellingham and go south.  So the 8th western district goes somewhere in the middle in the Seattle area.  But King County grew slower than the state, so to make room for the new seat it has too bulge outward.  But if you can add 130,000 in the middle, rather than the southern end, the changes are less dramatic.

So, of the three ugly choices, which would you support as a member of the redistricting commission? As I understand the process in WA, the legislature can only shift up to 2% of a district's population after the commission submits a map. That would suggest that whichever of these three paths is selected by the commission cannot be changed by legislative amendment.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: jimrtex on December 27, 2010, 03:14:05 AM
According to the OFM, Eastern Washington grew more slowly than Western Washington.
Not very much slower.  If Washington had kept 9 districts, to keep the two in balance requires little more than moving Skamania to the east.

Going from 9 to 10 means that Eastern Washington goes from about 2 to 2.2 districts, and you have to shift 130,000 to the west.  You have 3 choices:

1) Really ugly split of Yakima County
2) Really ugly split of Tri-Cities
3) Kittitas and Chelan go west.

With most all the western population close to I-5, you end up with the districts pretty much chopping off pieces from north to south (start in Vancouver and go north until the district is full; continue in Olypmpia into Tacoma, etc.  Or you can start in Bellingham and go south.  So the 8th western district goes somewhere in the middle in the Seattle area.  But King County grew slower than the state, so to make room for the new seat it has too bulge outward.  But if you can add 130,000 in the middle, rather than the southern end, the changes are less dramatic.

So, of the three ugly choices, which would you support as a member of the redistricting commission? As I understand the process in WA, the legislature can only shift up to 2% of a district's population after the commission submits a map. That would suggest that whichever of these three paths is selected by the commission cannot be changed by legislative amendment.

(3) Because it also minimizes the changes in other districts.

I'm going to try to move all the excess population into CD 8 and 9 and then split that into three districts.  I think I would be tempted to try and swap Olympia and Tacoma, so that CD 6 becomes Olympia, Bremerton, and the Olympic Peninsula.   So CD 1 transfers its portion of Kitsap to CD 6, and CD 3 shifts its excess to CD 6, CD 9 shifts its portion of Thurston, and perhaps the area around Fort Lewis to CD 6.  This hopefully will produce enough to move Tacoma into CD 9.

I move Chelan and Kittitas to CD 8, along with the excess from CD 2 and CD 7 (CD 1 may need a little to make up for the loss of the Kitsap part of its district.  8 and 9 now have enough ti create 3 districts.  If this works out the Tacoma district becomes CD 10.



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 27, 2010, 03:54:44 AM
If you want to make a realistic map, I would recommend crossing at Skamania-Klickitat.

Of course, with Dave's redistricting app underestimating WA-8's population by 100,000 or so, I wouldn't concern myself with the 8th's boundaries too much.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: jimrtex on December 27, 2010, 11:42:16 AM
If you want to make a realistic map, I would recommend crossing at Skamania-Klickitat.
I you use Washington's numbers, the counties east of the Cascades are entitled to almost 2 of 9 districts (it is a tiny bit short which can be made by including Skamania in the east.

But with 10 representatives, it comes out to 9.2, which means 140,000 people from the East have to be added to West.  If that is not realistic, then it is because Washington's numbers are not realistic.

If you cross in the south, then you either have to split Yakima County or Benton County.   Most of the population in Yakima County is in the north, so the split ends up being in or very near the city of Yakima.  In Benton County, you could end up splitting Richland from Kennewick, and probably end up splitting one or the other cities.

Of course, with Dave's redistricting app underestimating WA-8's population by 100,000 or so, I wouldn't concern myself with the 8th's boundaries too much.
You naively assumed that I even looked at Dave's redistricting app.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: muon2 on December 27, 2010, 12:20:31 PM
According to the OFM, Eastern Washington grew more slowly than Western Washington.
Not very much slower.  If Washington had kept 9 districts, to keep the two in balance requires little more than moving Skamania to the east.

Going from 9 to 10 means that Eastern Washington goes from about 2 to 2.2 districts, and you have to shift 130,000 to the west.  You have 3 choices:

1) Really ugly split of Yakima County
2) Really ugly split of Tri-Cities
3) Kittitas and Chelan go west.

With most all the western population close to I-5, you end up with the districts pretty much chopping off pieces from north to south (start in Vancouver and go north until the district is full; continue in Olypmpia into Tacoma, etc.  Or you can start in Bellingham and go south.  So the 8th western district goes somewhere in the middle in the Seattle area.  But King County grew slower than the state, so to make room for the new seat it has too bulge outward.  But if you can add 130,000 in the middle, rather than the southern end, the changes are less dramatic.

So, of the three ugly choices, which would you support as a member of the redistricting commission? As I understand the process in WA, the legislature can only shift up to 2% of a district's population after the commission submits a map. That would suggest that whichever of these three paths is selected by the commission cannot be changed by legislative amendment.

(3) Because it also minimizes the changes in other districts.


I projected the eastern county populations forward to 4/1/2010 using recent population changes. Based on that It looks like CD 5 would shift Walla Walla to CD 4 and have all but 2 K people from Adams or Columbia and be on the mark.

Then, according to option 3, Klickitat goes to CD 3 and Kittitas and Chelan go to CD 8. I project CD 4 would now be about 8 K over population. One possibility to fix this would be to add East Wenatchee from Douglas to CD 8 and then put the eastern half of Klickitat in CD 4.

Finally CD 3 would only have to lose its portion of Thurston to be over by about 6 K. Presumably it could lose eastern Lewis to whichever district has the rest of Mt Ranier.

This would seem to do less to split communities of interest on the east side than either of the other alternatives.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on December 27, 2010, 02:16:08 PM
Washington State Office of Financial Management has 4/10 estimates (http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/april1/default.asp).  OFM has access to the state's licensing data, so their numbers are pretty good.  In 2000, their estimates beat the census bureau estimates.  The numbers will be off slightly, as OFM estimates place the state's population at 6,733,250 while the 2010 count released last week was 6,724,540.

According to OFM:

Spokane, Stevens, Pend Oreille, Ferry, Okanogan, Lincoln, Adams, Whitman, Asotin, Garfield: 672,850

Benton, Franklin, Walla Walla, Columbia, Grant, Douglas, Yakima: 677,450

Clark, Cowlitz, Lewis, Pacific, Waukiakum, Skamania, Klickitat: 668,850


The Adams Panhandle and the East Wenatchee bench are both good places to even out the population counts.   Using the OFM #s, it looks like the 3rd above would have to grow slightly, so I had them adding the Westport Peninsula.  It is a natural geographic split from the rest of Grays Harbor County and unites Grayland Beach into a single district.



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on December 27, 2010, 02:30:10 PM
If you want to make a realistic map, I would recommend crossing at Skamania-Klickitat.



Then what?  Climb over desolate Satus Pass and snag some distant population from Yakima?  Continue along the desolate Columbia and split up the Tri-Cities? 

There will be 10 Congressional Districts, you need to throw out your old way of thinking.   A lot has changed in the last 40 years.  For one, the Tri-Cities and Vancouver are both significant population centers.   And I doubt that 40 years ago a significant percent of the working population of Kittitas County commuted to King County for work. 


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 27, 2010, 03:52:52 PM
If you want to make a realistic map, I would recommend crossing at Skamania-Klickitat.
I you use Washington's numbers, the counties east of the Cascades are entitled to almost 2 of 9 districts (it is a tiny bit short which can be made by including Skamania in the east.

But with 10 representatives, it comes out to 9.2, which means 140,000 people from the East have to be added to West.  If that is not realistic, then it is because Washington's numbers are not realistic.

If you cross in the south, then you either have to split Yakima County or Benton County.   Most of the population in Yakima County is in the north, so the split ends up being in or very near the city of Yakima.  In Benton County, you could end up splitting Richland from Kennewick, and probably end up splitting one or the other cities.

Thanks for the educational lesson! It's not like I've lived in Washington my entire life, and have been thinking about a possible 10th district and how many people would have to be moved out of Yakima for the past 3 years or so...


...Klickitat County and a portion of Yakima, however, have to be in a bicascadial district. I decided to cross at the southern part of the state based on precedent---districts almost always cross here when they have to. In the 80s, a portion of Clark and all of Skamania Counties were in the fourth, in the 90s a portion of Klickitat was in the 3rd, and now a portion of Skamania is in the 4th. So, I needed about 128,200 people from Yakima County out of the fourth district. I left all of Yakima City in the fourth, however I had to put Union Gap as well as some unincorporated suburban areas to the east and west of Yakima into the third district. All of south Yakima County is in the third...

Or maybe not.


Of course, with Dave's redistricting app underestimating WA-8's population by 100,000 or so, I wouldn't concern myself with the 8th's boundaries too much.

You naively assumed that I even looked at Dave's redistricting app.

And you naively assume that the comment was solely directed at you.


If you want to make a realistic map, I would recommend crossing at Skamania-Klickitat.

Then what?  Climb over desolate Satus Pass and snag some distant population from Yakima?  Continue along the desolate Columbia and split up the Tri-Cities? 

There will be 10 Congressional Districts, you need to throw out your old way of thinking.   A lot has changed in the last 40 years.  For one, the Tri-Cities and Vancouver are both significant population centers.   And I doubt that 40 years ago a significant percent of the working population of Kittitas County commuted to King County for work. 

So why does the 15th legislative district do this? Why do we not have some sort of East King-Kittitas legislative district, or something along those lines, instead? Why does the 15th LD stretch from Clark to Yakima if it's so unrealistic?

()

I'm not saying your suggestion is impossible. I just don't think it is the most likely outcome.

But if I'm being stubborn by looking at Washington's legislative and congressional districts stretching back to statehood, and seeing that the East-West divide has never been bridged anywhere but the Columbia River in 121 years, then so be it.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on December 27, 2010, 08:43:00 PM

So why does the 15th legislative district do this?

Because of the need for 49 evenly populated state legislative districts.  It is nothing like your suggestion of linking distant population centers into one district.  The 15th is largely rural.



Quote
But if I'm being stubborn by looking at Washington's legislative and congressional districts stretching back to statehood, and seeing that the East-West divide has never been bridged anywhere but the Columbia River in 121 years, then so be it.

 Linking just Klickitat County in to a SW WA district makes a lot of sense, which is why they have done it in the past.  

When Washington had 7 Congressional Districts in the 70's, it could evenly put 7 of its 49 legislative districts into each congressional district.  Eastern Washington was two districts short so it took in two SW districts.   Since they were redistricting by legislative district, they did not have the flexibility we have now.  The 3rd, 4th, and 5th were geographical giants back then.  With more districts and more large population centers today, we can be more compact.



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: muon2 on December 27, 2010, 09:23:31 PM

...Klickitat County and a portion of Yakima, however, have to be in a bicascadial district. I decided to cross at the southern part of the state based on precedent---districts almost always cross here when they have to. In the 80s, a portion of Clark and all of Skamania Counties were in the fourth, in the 90s a portion of Klickitat was in the 3rd, and now a portion of Skamania is in the 4th. So, I needed about 128,200 people from Yakima County out of the fourth district. I left all of Yakima City in the fourth, however I had to put Union Gap as well as some unincorporated suburban areas to the east and west of Yakima into the third district. All of south Yakima County is in the third...


If you want to make a realistic map, I would recommend crossing at Skamania-Klickitat.

Then what?  Climb over desolate Satus Pass and snag some distant population from Yakima?  Continue along the desolate Columbia and split up the Tri-Cities? 

There will be 10 Congressional Districts, you need to throw out your old way of thinking.   A lot has changed in the last 40 years.  For one, the Tri-Cities and Vancouver are both significant population centers.   And I doubt that 40 years ago a significant percent of the working population of Kittitas County commuted to King County for work. 

So why does the 15th legislative district do this? Why do we not have some sort of East King-Kittitas legislative district, or something along those lines, instead? Why does the 15th LD stretch from Clark to Yakima if it's so unrealistic?

()

I'm not saying your suggestion is impossible. I just don't think it is the most likely outcome.

But if I'm being stubborn by looking at Washington's legislative and congressional districts stretching back to statehood, and seeing that the East-West divide has never been bridged anywhere but the Columbia River in 121 years, then so be it.

I get the historical precedent that has put all crossings along the Columbia. However, one big factor is the Redistricting Commission and the rules that govern it. Here's what I get from the SOS:

Quote
    * Districts shall have nearly equal population;
    * District lines should coincide with local political subdivisions (such as city and county lines) and “communities of interest”;
    * Districts should be convenient, contiguous (share a common land border or transportation route), and compact;
    * Districts must not favor or discriminate against one political party or group;
    * District divisions should encourage electoral competition.

Clearly both the Snoqualmie pass and Columbia River path meet the third rule. In my previous posts I was trying to gauge how the three main options would satisfy or break the second rule, and it seems that splitting Yakima or the Tri-Cities may violate that rule more than a trans-Cascade district would.

I think we should also look at the fifth rule in considering those options. If I look at the last two presidential elections then CD 4 and 5 are firmly R, while CD 1, 6, 7 and 9 are firmly D. CD's 2, 3, and 8 were the most competitive being within 5% for the 2004 race and voted for Obama with less than his statewide margin in 2008. Shifting CD 3 east to pick up a good portion of the Yakima valley would clearly make it less competitive as it would tilt more strongly R. The effect of shifting part of CD 8 over the mountains does not have to make it so uncompetitive, depending on the choice of King County suburbs that would be in the new district. CD 8 also starts with more of a D lean than CD 3 so shifting more Rs to it serves to increase competition.
 
The Commission is bound to follow the law, and following mapping history is not one of their rules. If they truly consider both preserving communities of interest and providing electoral competition, then they may be forced to use the Snoqualmie Pass option.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 27, 2010, 09:49:19 PM
I also have trouble believing the Democrats on the bipartisan commission are going to allow every swing district to become significantly more Republican.

Linking just Klickitat County in to a SW WA district makes a lot of sense, which is why they have done it in the past. 

When Washington had 7 Congressional Districts in the 70's, it could evenly put 7 of its 49 legislative districts into each congressional district.  Eastern Washington was two districts short so it took in two SW districts.   Since they were redistricting by legislative district, they did not have the flexibility we have now.  The 3rd, 4th, and 5th were geographical giants back then.  With more districts and more large population centers today, we can be more compact.



I hadn't even mentioned the fact that the 4th included most of Clark in the 70s, but if you want to add to the precedence argument... ;)

Do you have a link about the strategy they used in the 70s? It sounds interesting! Maybe we should just add a 50th LD and do it again. :D


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on December 27, 2010, 10:17:55 PM
I also have trouble believing the Democrats on the bipartisan commission are going to allow every swing district to become significantly more Republican.

Linking just Klickitat County in to a SW WA district makes a lot of sense, which is why they have done it in the past. 

When Washington had 7 Congressional Districts in the 70's, it could evenly put 7 of its 49 legislative districts into each congressional district.  Eastern Washington was two districts short so it took in two SW districts.   Since they were redistricting by legislative district, they did not have the flexibility we have now.  The 3rd, 4th, and 5th were geographical giants back then.  With more districts and more large population centers today, we can be more compact.



I hadn't even mentioned the fact that the 4th included most of Clark in the 70s, but if you want to add to the precedence argument... ;)

Do you have a link about the strategy they used in the 70s? It sounds interesting! Maybe we should just add a 50th LD and do it again. :D

Agreed. With the 3rd doubtlessly losing Olympia in the north it likely will not be extremely competitive to begin with in the near term. The 8th is the interesting district to me... depending upon how it is drawn it could remain a swing district or become extremely difficult for Reichert (though if Chelan and Kittitas were added then he would probably be considerably safer).


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on December 28, 2010, 12:12:48 AM

Do you have a link about the strategy they used in the 70s? It sounds interesting!

I haven't been able to find an online version, but I have the legal definitions for most of our historical congressional districts.   When we had 7 districts, they simply list the legislative districts that make up each congressional district.  In previous years it was broken down by county and precinct.   I'll probably have to go over to the state library in Tumwater to get the definitions for the 70's legislative districts.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on December 28, 2010, 12:25:18 AM
The 8th is the interesting district to me... depending upon how it is drawn it could remain a swing district or become extremely difficult for Reichert (though if Chelan and Kittitas were added then he would probably be considerably safer).

Chelan and Kittitas are trending blue.  The newer Wenatchee suburbs are predominately in Douglas County, while the Leavenworth, Entiat, Lake Chelan, and the Lake Wenatchee areas attract nature loving Seattle area lefties.  Klickitat has always been a swing area.

Dave "Wilderness Area" Reichert would be right at home in a district that encompasses all of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness area that he is trying to expand. 


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 28, 2010, 01:18:30 AM

Do you have a link about the strategy they used in the 70s? It sounds interesting!

I haven't been able to find an online version, but I have the legal definitions for most of our historical congressional districts.   When we had 7 districts, they simply list the legislative districts that make up each congressional district.  In previous years it was broken down by county and precinct.   I'll probably have to go over to the state library in Tumwater to get the definitions for the 70's legislative districts.

Do you have any old congressional maps? I had some, but I can't find them! I think I lost the USB drive I had them on. :(

You're definitely obligated to go get interesting stuff from the state library for us, I think. ;) ;D


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on December 28, 2010, 01:42:02 AM

Do you have any old congressional maps?

I'll try to post them tomorrow.  They are digital photographs of an atlas, so they are not great. 


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 28, 2010, 01:57:49 AM

Do you have any old congressional maps?

I'll try to post them tomorrow.  They are digital photographs of an atlas, so they are not great.  

Yeah, I had just snapped mine with my camera, too. No problem. :)

Some interest things I remember:
-The 2nd used to cross the Puget Sound and included some of the Olympic peninsula
-Eastern Washington was cut horizontally between the 4th and 5th, not vertically
-1st was Seattle back in the day, IIRC


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on December 28, 2010, 04:41:22 AM
The historical progression was:

- single statewide district
- two statewide districts
- three statewide districts
- After 1909 it is split into geographical districts
  • 1st - Island, King, Kitsap, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, Whatcom
  • 2nd - Chehalis (Grays Harbor), Clallam, Clark, Cowlitz, Jefferson, Klickitat, Lewis, Mason, Pacific, Pierce, Skamania, Thurston, Wahkiakum
  • 3rd - All of Eastern Washington sans Klickitat
- In 1915 the state gains the 4th & 5th districts
  • 1st - city of Seattle, Kitsap
  • 2nd - remainder of King County, Clallam, Island, Jefferson, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, Whatcom
  • 3rd - Chehalis (Grays Harbor), Mason, Pierce, Thurston, Pacific, Lewis, Cowlitz, Waukiakum, Clark, Skamania
  • 4th - Klickitat, Benton, Yakima, Kittitas, Whitman, Grant, Adams, Franklin, Walla Walla, Columbia, Garfield, Asotin, 
  • 5th - Ferry, Stevens, Lincoln, Spokane, Chelan, Okanogan, Pend Oreille, Douglas
- In 1933 the state gains the 6th
  • 1st - City of Seattle (which only extended north to 85th), Kitsap
  • 2nd - King County portions (areas north of 85th, Bothell, Kenmore, Woodinville, Juanita, Avondale), Snohomish, Skagit, Whatcom, Island, San Juan, Clallam, Jefferson
  • 3rd - Grays Harbor, Mason, Thurston, Pacific, Lewis, Wahkiakum, Cowlitz, Clark, Skamania
  • 4th - Klickitat, Benton, Yakima, Kittitas, Whitman, Grant, Adams, Franklin, Walla Walla, Columbia, Garfield, Asotin, 
  • 5th - Ferry, Stevens, Lincoln, Spokane, Chelan, Okanogan, Pend Oreille, Douglas
  • 6th - Pierce, portion of King County not in the 1st or 2nd (pretty much everything south of Seattle and Juanita (north Kirkland)
- In 1959 the 7th is carved out.
  • 3rd, 4th, and 5th stay the same
  • 1st - Bainbridge Island, northern Seattle, Wilburton (south Bellevue) Bellevue, Kirkland, Kenmore, Woodinville, Shoreline
  • 2nd - Clallam, Island, Jefferson, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, Whatcom, Redmond, Avondale, Duvall, Skykomish
  • 6th - Pierce, Algona, Covington, Kent, Des Moines, Fall City, North Bend, Issaquah, Newcastle,
  • 7th - Kitsap (minus Bainbridge Island), southern Seattle, Burien, SeaTac, Factoria, Skyway, Renton, Mercer Island, Cascade (Fairwood)
- In 1961 all the districts remain the same except:
  • 6th - Pierce, Kitsap (minus Bainbridge Island)
  • 7th - same areas above plus the King County areas that were in the 6th
- In 1969:
  • 1st - Bainbridge Island, Seattle north of Denny Way, Mercer, Island, Bellevue, Shoreline, Kenmore,
  • 2nd - Clallam, NE Jefferson County, Island, San Juan, Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, NE King County
  • 3rd - Western Klickitat County, Skamania, Clark, Cowlitz, Wahkiakum, Lewis, Pacific, Thurston, Grays Harbor, Mason, remainder of Jefferson County,
  • 4th - Yakima, Benton, Kittitas, Whitman, Grant, Adams, Franklin, Walla Walla, Columbia, Garfield, Asotin, remainder of Klickitat
  • 5th - Ferry, Stevens, Lincoln, Spokane, Chelan, Okanogan, Pend Oreille, Douglas
  • 6th - Kitsap (minus Bainbridge Island), Pierce, Vashon Island, King County south of S. 288th and east of 196th SE
  • 7th - remainder of King County
- In 1973 they split the districts by legislative district.  I do not have the legal descriptions of the legislative districts, but it looks like:
  • 1st - north Seattle
  • 2nd - Whatcom, San Juan, Island, Skagit, Snohomish, NE King County
  • 3rd - SE King County, Olympic Peninsula (minus Kitasp), Pierce County (minus Tacoma), SW Washington (minus south and east Clark County, and Skamania)
  • 4th - Clark County along the Columbia from Vancouver, Skamania, Okanogan County west of the Okanogan River, Grant County west to the Cascades, Benton County west to the Cascades
  • 5th - remainder of Eastern Washington
  • 6th - Tacoma and Kitsap
  • 7th - central and south Seattle
- In the 80's an 8th district was added
  • 1st - north seattle suburbs, Bainbirdge, North Kitsap
  • 2nd - NW WA and Olympic Peninsula
  • 3rd - SW WA all the way up to the Chehalis River in Grays Harbor, minus Skamania
  • 4th - Skamania, Klickitat, Benton, Franklin, Yakima, Kittitas, Grant, Okanogan, Chelan, Douglas
  • 5th remainder of Eastern Washington
  • 6th - Tacoma, west and central Pierce, remainder of Kitsap
  • 7th - Seattle
  • 8th - East and south King and Pierce
- In the 90's we pick-up the 9th and that's pretty much where we are now.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: jimrtex on December 28, 2010, 05:06:11 AM
So why does the 15th legislative district do this? Why do we not have some sort of East King-Kittitas legislative district, or something along those lines, instead? Why does the 15th LD stretch from Clark to Yakima if it's so unrealistic?
Yakima County has to be split, since LD 14 is entirely in the county.  LD 13 takes a sliver on the northern edge.  And it is a little bit different putting part of Yakima with Skamania and Klickitat and putting it in with a booming suburban area.

But if I'm being stubborn by looking at Washington's legislative and congressional districts stretching back to statehood, and seeing that the East-West divide has never been bridged anywhere but the Columbia River in 121 years, then so be it.
Before the 1960s they would not have been that concerned about population equality.  I know in the 1960s bunches of LD's were shifted from east to west.  At the end of WWII, Clark was about the same population as Cowlitz and Lewis, and would be just another county that would get stuck on the end of the district

And transportation changes.  When Washington was part of Oregon Territory, Lewis and Clarke (sic) were the first two counties in the area.  Lewis was almost everything west of the Cascades.  It was more or less an accident that the current Lewis ended up where it did after all the other counties were sliced off.  Clarke was everything east of the Cascades but included Fort Vancouver.  It was actually a Columbia Basin district rather than Trans-Cascade.  But it was the part that kept the name, though it lost its 'e'.

There wasn't an interstate highway so that people could easily travel back and forth on a daily basis.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on December 29, 2010, 04:52:47 AM
The only time a CD will cross the Cascades is along the Columbia.

The only time a CD will cross the Cascades is along the Columbia.

The only time a CD will cross the Cascades is along the Columbia.

If you don't already understand this, repeat it to yourself enough times until you do...




Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: muon2 on December 29, 2010, 10:10:04 AM
The only time a CD will cross the Cascades is along the Columbia.

The only time a CD will cross the Cascades is along the Columbia.

The only time a CD will cross the Cascades is along the Columbia.

If you don't already understand this, repeat it to yourself enough times until you do...


OK, I understand what you are saying, and I hear a number of WA posters assert this. So far, I have seen no justification for this other than historical precedent. Perhaps I am naively assuming that the commission will follow the law, rather than merely follow their gut. So, I am open to an argument against a non-Columbia crossing based on WA state law.

These points must be the legal basis for the map:
Quote
    * Districts shall have nearly equal population;
    * District lines should coincide with local political subdivisions (such as city and county lines) and “communities of interest”;
    * Districts should be convenient, contiguous (share a common land border or transportation route), and compact;
    * Districts must not favor or discriminate against one political party or group;
    * District divisions should encourage electoral competition.




Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: minionofmidas on December 29, 2010, 11:59:09 AM
Here:
    * Districts should be convenient

It is safe to say that a district relying on Stevens Pass (ie, putting Chelan wiith the west side) could not be defended in court with a straight face.
Snoqualmie Pass is more rational, seeing as the alternatives rely on Satus Pass instead.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on December 29, 2010, 01:41:49 PM
The only time a CD will cross the Cascades is along the Columbia.

The only time a CD will cross the Cascades is along the Columbia.

The only time a CD will cross the Cascades is along the Columbia.

If you don't already understand this, repeat it to yourself enough times until you do...



This isn't the 70's anymore.  We have 10 districts, and almost 7,000,000 people.   The most logical crossing is at Snoqualmie Pass.  If you don't believe me, drive it.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on December 29, 2010, 02:04:02 PM
Here:
    * Districts should be convenient

It is safe to say that a district relying on Stevens Pass (ie, putting Chelan wiith the west side) could not be defended in court with a straight face.
Snoqualmie Pass is more rational, seeing as the alternatives rely on Satus Pass instead.


Chelan is pretty much geographically isolated from everywhere.   Since it doesn't have 600,000 people, it is going to have to be placed in a district that is centered around a larger population center.   It's most natural linkages are north and east, but those areas are for the most part desolate.  Outside of Moses Lake, it is off to Spokane, Tri-Cities, or Yakima before you find another decent sized population center.   Most of the year from Wenatchee you can get to Issaquah faster than what it takes to get to Spokane or Kennewick. 




Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 29, 2010, 03:43:14 PM
I think Meeker actually has some rationale for his stance... Maybe he should share? :)

The only time a CD will cross the Cascades is along the Columbia.

The only time a CD will cross the Cascades is along the Columbia.

The only time a CD will cross the Cascades is along the Columbia.

If you don't already understand this, repeat it to yourself enough times until you do...


OK, I understand what you are saying, and I hear a number of WA posters assert this. So far, I have seen no justification for this other than historical precedent. Perhaps I am naively assuming that the commission will follow the law, rather than merely follow their gut. So, I am open to an argument against a non-Columbia crossing based on WA state law.

These points must be the legal basis for the map:
Quote
   * Districts shall have nearly equal population;
    * District lines should coincide with local political subdivisions (such as city and county lines) and “communities of interest”;
    * Districts should be convenient, contiguous (share a common land border or transportation route), and compact;
    * Districts must not favor or discriminate against one political party or group;
    * District divisions should encourage electoral competition.

As I previously mentioned, I can't help but suspect all three current swing districts will be made significantly more Republican under such a plan, which would fall under the last two there.

I also think it would be a violation of communities of interest, but I suppose that is more subjective.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on December 29, 2010, 05:21:03 PM
I'm not going to go into too many details, but I'll say I've had multiple lengthy conversations with those directly involved in the process (including one of the members of the Redistricting Commission). You can value that as much as you wish.

The Commission itself isn't entirely opposed to the notion of a King/Kittitas district. The issue is local elected and community leaders - whose input is valued immensely in practice - are extremely opposed to being included in a district with Western Washington. They consider themselves Easterners and want to remain in a district with other Easterners. They don't feel they'll be represented by a district that crosses the Cascades. The political enmity between Eastern WA vs. Western WA runs high.

Unless the folks in Cle Elum decide for whatever reason they don't care anymore (breaking 120+ years of habit...) a district connected by one of the passes simply isn't going to happen. The Washington redistricting process isn't a touchy-feely, non-partisan exercise. It's a very political process that involves a lot of compromise and intangibles that no one outside of party insiders really notice.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on December 29, 2010, 05:32:18 PM


The Commission itself isn't entirely opposed to the notion of a King/Kittitas district. The issue is local elected and community leaders - whose input is valued immensely in practice - are extremely opposed to being included in a district with Western Washington. They consider themselves Easterners and want to remain in a district with other Easterners. They don't feel they'll be represented by a district that crosses the Cascades. The political enmity between Eastern WA vs. Western WA runs high.

What about the opinion of those folks in Yakima or Tri-Cities!?!    You suggest just kicking the can to an even further locale within Eastern Washington.  The reality is that 130,000 or so EWers will be in a predominantly western district.   The most logical splits, if you look at geography and the numbers, is to put Klickitat County in the 3rd and Kittitas and Chelan into a trans-Cascade district, whether it be the 8th or 10th.

A significant chunk of Kittitas County commutes to King County.   How many folks from Tri-Cities or Yakima commute to Clark County (or vice versa?).  

As someone who used to do block boundaries for the elections division, I'll try to poke around and see what the redistricting commission is thinking.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on December 29, 2010, 06:06:50 PM

As I previously mentioned, I can't help but suspect all three current swing districts will be made significantly more Republican under such a plan, which would fall under the last two there.

I also think it would be a violation of communities of interest, but I suppose that is more subjective.

In the last 6 Presidential elections, Klickitat went Democrat 4 times and Kittitas went Democrat 50% of the time.   Chelan is trending blue.  Wealthy nature loving westsiders are moving to places like Leavenworth and Lake Chelan.  

Yes the 3rd will be more Republican, but that is only because it sheds the insanity surrounding The Evergreen Socialist College.   The 2nd should become more Republican too based on the trends.  It can be kept a lean Democrat district if the 8th crosses the Cascades at both Snoqualmie and Stevens, and takes in some of Eastern Snohomish County from the 2nd.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 29, 2010, 06:29:54 PM

As I previously mentioned, I can't help but suspect all three current swing districts will be made significantly more Republican under such a plan, which would fall under the last two there.

I also think it would be a violation of communities of interest, but I suppose that is more subjective.

In the last 6 Presidential elections, Klickitat went Democrat 4 times and Kittitas went Democrat 50% of the time.   Chelan is trending blue.  Wealthy nature loving westsiders are moving to places like Leavenworth and Lake Chelan.   

Yes the 3rd will be more Republican, but that is only because it sheds the insanity surrounding The Evergreen Socialist College.   The 2nd should become more Republican too based on the trends.  It can be kept a lean Democrat district if the 8th crosses the Cascades at both Snoqualmie and Stevens, and takes in some of Eastern Snohomish County from the 2nd.

The Democratic Party's fortunes in Eastern Washington decreased dramatically in the 1990s. 1988 is no longer an accurate reflection of its partisan politics. And of course Perot helped push many counties to Clinton in the 1990s. Obama won the state by 17 points, the largest Democratic victory since 1964. Yet he only won Klickitat by a small fraction of a percent. Just a 19 vote margin, overall. I consider Klickitat a lean R county.

We'll see what they do with Eastern Snohomish County. Lots of interesting possibilities.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CatoMinor on December 29, 2010, 07:29:17 PM
After I had already made several districts I remember Meeker being butt hurt about crossing the Cascades so I corrected myself int time to keep any districts from crossing along the Columbia river.

()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on December 29, 2010, 08:31:25 PM
Butt hurt? What does that even mean?

Anyways, your obsession with me is getting kind of weird, dude. You've got some issues to work out.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: jimrtex on December 30, 2010, 01:43:12 AM
Here:
    * Districts should be convenient

It is safe to say that a district relying on Stevens Pass (ie, putting Chelan wiith the west side) could not be defended in court with a straight face.
Snoqualmie Pass is more rational, seeing as the alternatives rely on Satus Pass instead.
We're going to put Chelan and Kittitas with a King County district.  Depending on how the population works out we take a bit of Douglas as well.



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: jimrtex on December 30, 2010, 02:33:05 AM
I'm not going to go into too many details, but I'll say I've had multiple lengthy conversations with those directly involved in the process (including one of the members of the Redistricting Commission). You can value that as much as you wish.

The Commission itself isn't entirely opposed to the notion of a King/Kittitas district. The issue is local elected and community leaders - whose input is valued immensely in practice - are extremely opposed to being included in a district with Western Washington. They consider themselves Easterners and want to remain in a district with other Easterners. They don't feel they'll be represented by a district that crosses the Cascades. The political enmity between Eastern WA vs. Western WA runs high.

Unless the folks in Cle Elum decide for whatever reason they don't care anymore (breaking 120+ years of habit...) a district connected by one of the passes simply isn't going to happen. The Washington redistricting process isn't a touchy-feely, non-partisan exercise. It's a very political process that involves a lot of compromise and intangibles that no one outside of party insiders really notice.
Hopefully, the redistricting commission will hold hearings throughout the state, for the convenience of the locals.

Spokane, Tri-Cities, Vancouver, Olympia, Seattle, and Bellingham.   Fortunately the Seattle hearing will be convenient for the folks from Wenatchee and Cle Elum, who would get tomatoes (probably nuclear-radiated) tossed at them were they to show up in Richland.

You'll get testimony like this:  Sure its an easy drive in summer, but let me tell you as someone who drives to work everyday over Snoqualmie Pass to my job at Microsoft, or on weekends to watch the Mariners or go to the Pike Street Market it's not always nice in winter.


Let' try something entirely different.

Is it possible to draw three districts based in Eastern Washington?

For simplicity, let's assume that we have 7,000,000 people with a population equivalent to 2.2 districts in the East (1,540,000)

700,000 of that goes to a Spokane-based district.

Split the rest of the east in half (420,000) in each part.  So maybe Yakima and Tri-Cities in one, and start in Kittitas and keep going (perhaps all the way to Idaho).  You then take 280,000 from Clark County and 280,000 from King County to complete the districts.  King County will never notice the extra split.  For Clark County, can you come right along the river and take Vancouver, and then use the rest of Clark County to the north.  Does the Portland media even cover the Washington legislature, unless someone is proposing an income tax? 

This would leave 60% of the districts in the east.  This may actually be the least disruptive plan since it would take western population from the two most populous districts, and you just shift the rest of the population around to make it more balanced.

You could of course play with the numbers some, perhaps taking less of King and more of Clark.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: jimrtex on December 30, 2010, 06:00:54 AM
Let' try something entirely different.

Is it possible to draw three districts based in Eastern Washington?

For simplicity, let's assume that we have 7,000,000 people with a population equivalent to 2.2 districts in the East (1,540,000)

700,000 of that goes to a Spokane-based district.

Split the rest of the east in half (420,000) in each part.  So maybe Yakima and Tri-Cities in one, and start in Kittitas and keep going (perhaps all the way to Idaho).  You then take 280,000 from Clark County and 280,000 from King County to complete the districts.  King County will never notice the extra split.  For Clark County, can you come right along the river and take Vancouver, and then use the rest of Clark County to the north.  Does the Portland media even cover the Washington legislature, unless someone is proposing an income tax? 

This would leave 60% of the districts in the east.  This may actually be the least disruptive plan since it would take western population from the two most populous districts, and you just shift the rest of the population around to make it more balanced.

You could of course play with the numbers some, perhaps taking less of King and more of Clark.
That didn't really work out but this might:

E1: Yakima, Klickitat, Skamania, Clark (has excess of 31K)

E2: Spokane, Pend Oreille, Stevens, Ferry, Lincoln, Whitman, Walla Walla, Columbia, Garfield, Asotin

E3: Kittitas, Cheland, Douglas, Okanagan, Grant, Adams, Benton, Franklin, + King 138K.

So we avoid the split in Yakima, by moving part of King County into the eastern area,

In the West:

W1: Whatcom, Skagit, San Juan, Island, Jefferson* , 231K Snohomish

Western Jefferson is almost unpopulated, so this is from the Port Townsend area.  Whether Jefferson is actually included may depend on where the split in Snohomish is.

W2: Snohomish 495K, King 184K

W3&W4: King

W5: Pierce 426K and King 254K

So King has 2 whole districts, and 184K to north, 138K to east, and 254K to southh

W6: Kitsap and Pierce 411K (needs 19K from either Mason or Thurston_

The split of Pierce appears to be unavoidable, unless Kitsap is placed in a cross-Puget Sound district.

W7: Clark 31K, Cowlitz, Lewis, Thurston, Pacific, Wahiakum, Grays Harbor, Mason, Clallam (excess of 19K from Mason or Thurston to W6).  Also includes western Jefferson.

E1: Vancouver-Yakima
E2: Spokane-Eastern Washington
E3: Tri Cities-Central Washington
W1: Bellingham-Everett(?)-Northern Washingon
W2: Snohomish suburbs-Northern King suburbs
W3: Seattle
W4: Central King suburbs (east of Lake Washington)
W5: Southern King suburbs-Eastern Pierce suburbs
W6: Tacoma-Bremerton
W7: Olympia-Pacific Coast-Western Washington


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Brittain33 on December 30, 2010, 09:57:27 AM
Pronunciation guide to Washington place names, perhaps a helpful resource for other spectators on this thread going as nuts as I am:

http://www.ap.org/washington/pron.html


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Brittain33 on December 30, 2010, 10:09:17 AM
You'll get testimony like this:  Sure its an easy drive in summer, but let me tell you as someone who drives to work everyday over Snoqualmie Pass to my job at Microsoft...

There are such people and perhaps one of them would testify, but they would be unrepresentative of Cle Elum, since from my reading of this data, less than 10% of daily commuters from the town's zip code commute to the west side of the Cascades daily. It's possible to do, but one has to be dedicated and willing to commute more than 2 hours each way. It's 2 and a half hours to Redmond, combine that with getting into Seattle itself and parking to attend a hearing, I wouldn't say "convenient." 2 hours from where I live can take me into one of five other states.

http://hairycow.name/commute_map/map.html#from:98922

Not sure how many people live in the town (less than 2,000 in last census) vs. the zip code, but you're hanging your hat on a few hundred individuals to justify this, at most. Also, I'm not sure what policy purposes it serves to have this person represented by a single representative at home and at work. That would seem to be at odds with the principle of grouping urban cores together into the fewest number of districts and creating separate districts for suburbs in other states.



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on December 30, 2010, 04:34:22 PM
Back in 2000, before King County property values skyrocketed even higher, there were over 1,200 people commuting from Kittitas into King County.  Considering there is a sizable student population there, it is a significant number.  Plus when you factor in the income discrepancy between King and Kittitas, it is even more significant.  

The issue is this:

- should Union Gap be in the same district as Vancouver

or

- should Ellensburg be in the same district as Issaquah

Drive the two routes and it is quite clear which is the way to go.  Plus factor in TV markets, commuters, and it is a slam dunk if you ask me.  


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on December 30, 2010, 05:09:22 PM

Here are the historical districts up through the 70's:

()

()

()

()

()

()

()

()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 30, 2010, 06:03:30 PM
Thanks for posting!!! I'm pretty sure I looked at the same source as you. I also remember trying to figure out what the smallest congressional district in history was  (by land area), because I'm a dork like that. Manhattan had one with ~400,000 people per square mile or so, IIRC, but I don't remember the exact the land area off the top of my head.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 30, 2010, 06:16:33 PM
Also, Sounder, if you're ever at the State Archives and can get the county results for the Sen/Gov races from 1954 and 1956, then we would have a complete record (https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=53&f=0&off=99) back to 1914, which would be cool. Just a suggestion, since you're a lot closer to it than me. :) There are also some gubernatorial races before that (I managed to add 1892 and 1908) but those books are often on the brink of total destruction, so they can be difficult.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on December 30, 2010, 07:43:21 PM
I have a really good 'in' with the S.O.S., I'll see what I can do.  May take some time. 


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on December 30, 2010, 07:49:55 PM
Here is a slightly tweaked version of the one I posted initially in this thread.  I drew it up over OFM's 2000 density map to show where the people are approximately (some areas have grown/densified over the last 10 years).   I added more East Wenatchee in exchange for the Adams panhandle (Othello).  I drew the lines by hand (poorly), so it is not totally accurate, but a good representation. 

()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 30, 2010, 08:48:04 PM
I have a really good 'in' with the S.O.S., I'll see what I can do.  May take some time. 

How does it work? I went to the regional archives in Bellevue once, and I just had to tell them what I wanted and I could come take pics of it, IIRC.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: jimrtex on December 30, 2010, 10:07:57 PM
You'll get testimony like this:  Sure its an easy drive in summer, but let me tell you as someone who drives to work everyday over Snoqualmie Pass to my job at Microsoft...

There are such people and perhaps one of them would testify, but they would be unrepresentative of Cle Elum, since from my reading of this data, less than 10% of daily commuters from the town's zip code commute to the west side of the Cascades daily. It's possible to do, but one has to be dedicated and willing to commute more than 2 hours each way. It's 2 and a half hours to Redmond, combine that with getting into Seattle itself and parking to attend a hearing, I wouldn't say "convenient." 2 hours from where I live can take me into one of five other states.

http://hairycow.name/commute_map/map.html#from:98922

Not sure how many people live in the town (less than 2,000 in last census) vs. the zip code, but you're hanging your hat on a few hundred individuals to justify this, at most. Also, I'm not sure what policy purposes it serves to have this person represented by a single representative at home and at work. That would seem to be at odds with the principle of grouping urban cores together into the fewest number of districts and creating separate districts for suburbs in other states.
1 hour 14 minutes Cle Elum to Newport per MapQuest.  The hearing has moved to be more centrally located.  The 2000 center of population for King County is on Mercer Island.  To avoid a residential area, they are looking for a location near the intersection of I-405 and I-90.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: jimrtex on December 30, 2010, 10:15:44 PM

Here are the historical districts up through the 70's:

So the northern district can include Clallam and Jefferson if that will help make a more convenient split in Snohomish.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on December 30, 2010, 11:16:35 PM

So the northern district can include Clallam and Jefferson if that will help make a more convenient split in Snohomish.


It's kind of silly, since it is only linked via the Port Townsend - Keystone Ferry, but portions of the northern Olympic Peninsula are pretty much isolated from everywhere, so there are no real pressing links to preserve.  I'd like to see the cross sound districts phased away other than perhaps at the Tacoma Narrows now that there are 10 districts.  But looking at history, there have been a lot of ferry linked districts going all the way back to City of Seattle linked with Kitsap County. 



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on December 30, 2010, 11:22:45 PM

How does it work? I went to the regional archives in Bellevue once, and I just had to tell them what I wanted and I could come take pics of it, IIRC.

I'll try the state library first, they have lots of information.  I have only been to the archives building on the Capitol Campus (if it is still there) when I was with the S.O.S.  office.  The last time I was there was when moving the signed and boxed ballot initiatives from the S.O.S. office to the vault over at archives, under armed State Patrol escort.  If they ever nuke Olympia, those ballot initiatives will be safe.  Tim Eyman can rest peacefully. 


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 31, 2010, 05:19:08 AM
I added an Atlas-style 1980s CD map of Washington to the wiki (https://uselectionatlas.org/WIKI/index.php/Congressional_districts_of_Washington), if anyone is curious. I can't find the original I drew it based off of, though... I also added Dave's 1990s and 2000s maps (with the minor edit of properly placing Tacoma in the 6th on the 90s edition).


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on December 31, 2010, 07:45:49 PM
I drew up a new map:

()

South Sound:

()

Seattle:

()



The districts:

Blue - This district unites the University of Washington with Washington State University.  For an even bigger block party, Central Washington University, Eastern Washington University, Gonzaga University, Washington State University Tri-Cities, Washington State University Spokane, Bellevue College, Spokane Falls CC, and Spokane CC are included in this higher education centric district.   I need to tweak the district boundaries some to include the Gorge Amphitheater, an essential meeting place for the district.  Current Rep.: open seat.  Future Rep: Dave Matthews

Pink - Neah Bay and Anatone are finally united into the same congressional district.  After a century of evil gerrymandering that kept these sister cities separate, justice finally prevails.  This district wins as the all time great food producing congressional district, and plans on hosting a future season of Bravo TV's Top Chef.  Current Rep:  Doc Hastings.  Future Rep:  Drew Bledsoe

Cadet Blue? (district centering on Kitsap Peninsula, islands) - The maritime district.  Further justice as Ballard finally frees itself from big bully Seattle.  Linked with other fishing and port towns such as Anacortes, and most of this region's islands.  Point Roberts too, since it is pretty much an island itself.  Mercer Island is also included in this district, linked to the rest of the district by Paul Allen's super secret Mercer Island - Sperry Peninsula tunnel.  Current Rep: Norm Dicks.  Future Rep: Sig Hansen

Yellow:  After a decade and a half of Almost Live! jokes against it, congressional power is the only just remedy for this image challenged part of our region.  The big hair, beer drinking, big truck driving, chew spitters are once again united in a common district.  Because of the area's growing population, I had to disappoint many of the constituents by not being able to include Skagit Speedway in Alger or Grays Harbor Raceway in Elma into the district.  As a consolation prize, they at least have South Sound Speedway near Tenino.  Current Rep:  Dave Reichert.  Future Rep: Kasey Kahne

Orangish Red:  The U.S. 2 District.  Follows the old Stevens Pass route out of Seattle all the way to Spokane.  It was originally only going to include areas west of the mountains, but the essentiality of having an international airport in this district forced it to encompass the Airway Heights area after residents of Mukilteo rejected plans to turn Paine Field into Seattle-Everett International Airport.  Current Rep:  open seat.  Future Rep:  J.P. Patches

Aqua:  The aqua district includes the littoral views of Puget Sound west of Interstate 5.  West Seattle, Burien, and Tacoma will use their united political power to fight the unjust snubbing of the region by Dick's Drive-In during their recent expansion.  Current Rep: Adam Smith.  Future Rep:  Chris Cornell

Purple:  This district represents a once proud, now dead industry of this region: macro brewering.  Uniting the corpses of the once great Rainier Brewery in Seattle and Olympia Brewery in Tumwater, this is our area's rust belt (except the entire rest of the district, which is fine).  Current Rep:  Jim McDermott.  Future Rep: Shawn Kemp (if enough of his children follow him to Seattle)

Green:  Green represents all the money that was given to me by Rick Larsen's people to draw this district.  He knows he is a goner without some big gerrymander.  Current Rep: Rick Larsen.  Future Rep:  Rick Steves

Grey:  Washington's great mountainous northern tier and winter sports capital.  Has the snowfall records and Memorial Cups.  Also has an extensive border with Canada, which probably explains its snowfall and winter sports prowess.  Current Rep:  Cathy Rogers-McMorris.  Future Rep: Jake Locker

Purple: Follows the Columbia up the Wallula Gap to the junction with its largest tributary, the Snake.   The Yakama Nation and Mt. St. Helens are the non-Columbia River portions of the district.  Due to its extensive border with Oregon, foreign relations skills and fluency in the Oregonian language are essential for any candidate thinking about running in this district.  Current Rep:  Jamie Herrera.  Future Rep:  Curt "the original famous Curt Warner" Warner


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 01, 2011, 07:34:26 AM
What did Spokane do to deserve getting Saskatchewaned?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: minionofmidas on January 01, 2011, 07:43:07 AM
What did Spokane do to deserve getting Saskatchewaned?
Why, this:

()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on January 05, 2011, 01:41:43 AM
The Republicans have named their nominees to the Redistricting Commission: Former Gig Harbor State Rep. Tom Huff and (gag) Slade Gorton.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on January 05, 2011, 01:46:31 AM
The Republicans have named their nominees to the Redistricting Commission: Former Gig Harbor State Rep. Tom Huff and (gag) Slade Gorton.

I don't know exactly why, but LOL at Gorton.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: RI on February 16, 2011, 04:13:10 PM
It's clearly necessary gerrymander time!

()

Should be 8-2, at least using 2008 numbers. The south sound districts can swap territory if need be.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on February 16, 2011, 07:01:00 PM
Well, my gerrymander is 9-1 D! :P

()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: RI on February 16, 2011, 07:03:08 PM
Well, my gerrymander is 9-1 D! :P

()

Yours is ugly though. :P


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on February 16, 2011, 07:04:12 PM
No, it's like a pretty spiral! :(


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: RI on February 16, 2011, 07:07:10 PM

I suppose. It sorta makes Seattle into a black hole though.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on February 16, 2011, 07:08:02 PM

I suppose. It sorta makes Seattle into a black hole though.

Evil Seattle is sucking in the good, hard-working Republicans of Eastern Washington into the black hole of liberalness. :)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on February 28, 2011, 02:58:36 PM
The app has been updated with 2010 census data, including racial data. It also has recent precinct boundaries, but no results. Maybe Alcon should contact Bradlee about that? ;)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Alcon on March 02, 2011, 02:31:56 PM
The app has been updated with 2010 census data, including racial data. It also has recent precinct boundaries, but no results. Maybe Alcon should contact Bradlee about that? ;)

Done :)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: muon2 on March 05, 2011, 02:58:20 AM
So, is there any idea yet as to where the 10th CD will be? I lean towards Olympia so the capital can have its own seat. But I don't live there so I hope some f the residents will weigh in.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on March 05, 2011, 04:07:30 AM
The new district could happen just about anywhere between SE Snohomish County and Longview.  Based on where the incumbents live, NE King County, Pierce County, and Thurston County are the obvious front runners.  

I am in Olympia and am hoping to be put into the 6th with the entire Olympic Peninsula.  


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sbane on March 05, 2011, 10:57:07 AM
I think the new district will be a mix of Thurston and Pierce. The 8th probably shrinks into King (or will this be the new district and Reichert gets Pierce and Thurston?), but Auburn should still be in the new district. It could be a relatively safer district for Reichert.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on March 05, 2011, 03:27:34 PM
Because Reichert lives in Auburn, it makes it easy to put the new district either in Pierce County or Seattle's Eastside.  Once again, it all comes down to where they pull the 150,000 or so extra people from Eastern Washington.   Geographically it makes sense using the low central Cascade passes.  Historically they have gone up the Columbia Gorge.  


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Verily on March 05, 2011, 09:12:13 PM
Here's my version of Washington on the Census numbers. WA-08 becomes lean D, WA-03 becomes lean R, new WA-10 is likely D, centered on Olympia.

Yes, Pierce County is split four ways, but the splits are not particularly egregious--Gig Harbor is appropriately put in with the Olympic Peninsula (which now is all in one district again), while the WA-03 parts of Pierce have only about 6,000 residents. (King County is of course split between five districts, but all of those splits are unavoidable.)

WA-03 has year-round road contiguity along the Columbia, from Klickitat County up to Yakima, and from Yakima into Lewis County along US-12.

()

Thoughts?



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: RI on March 05, 2011, 09:14:23 PM
That's almost exactly the map that I usually draw.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Alcon on March 06, 2011, 04:13:05 AM
There's a cleaner way of doing WA-4 & WA-5 county-wise.  Put Okanogan and all of Adams in the 4th, and the only county split is Walla Walla, which now has its rural north in the 4th and everything else in the 5th.

As far as I can tell, without the Columbia River connection, there's no way to avoid completing slicing up the Yakima metro.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Verily on March 06, 2011, 09:51:42 AM
There's a cleaner way of doing WA-4 & WA-5 county-wise.  Put Okanogan and all of Adams in the 4th, and the only county split is Walla Walla, which now has its rural north in the 4th and everything else in the 5th.

That could work. I wanted to put the city of Walla Walla in WA-04 intentionally, though, so as to keep all of the agricultural areas with substantial Hispanic populations in one seat. (WA-04 is 32% Hispanic, WA-05 just 5%.) Could do the map that way, too, though.

Quote
As far as I can tell, without the Columbia River connection, there's no way to avoid completing slicing up the Yakima metro.

Not sure what you mean by the bolded, but yes. Yakima is going to have to get chopped up. I came very close to not having to split the city itself but ended up having to put a couple of precincts in the city of Yakima into WA-04 as well. Might be possible to finesse it so that Yakima city is not split, though.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Kevinstat on March 06, 2011, 10:50:37 AM
WA-03 has year-round road contiguity along the Columbia, from Klickitat County up to Yakima, and from Yakima into Lewis County along US-12.

()

Is WA route 131 seasonal?  It would connect Lewis County to Skamania County (and from Skamania County, Clark County) without one having to leave WA-03 or cross the Cascades twice (albiet once along the Columbia gorge) and cross the Satus Pass to boot.

If route 131 is seasonal and U.S. 12 is this being used as a cross-Cascade connector, why can't I-90 be used as such a connector again?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Verily on March 06, 2011, 11:12:13 AM
US-12 is not seasonal. WA-131 is not seasonal, but the rest of the route, through the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, might be--I'm not sure. It's not a state highway there, though.

As for why this is different from the Snoqualmie Pass--reasonableness. The areas on either side of Snoqualmie Pass have nothing in common with one another, while Lewis County, Clark County and Yakima County are fairly similar. Also, tradition; tradition dictates that the crossing happens along the Columbia, as this map follows.

Edit: The following source says Forest Route 25 is seasonal. No shock. http://www.ericsroads.com/roads/nf25.html


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Alcon on March 06, 2011, 02:39:10 PM
By "without the Columbia River," I naturally meant "with the Columbia River," because I'm terrible.

I also agree -- None of the Snoqualmie connections I tried were anything but ridiculous, even if you accept that Cle Elum, Roslyn and Ellensburg have much to do with East King County.

That could work. I wanted to put the city of Walla Walla in WA-04 intentionally, though, so as to keep all of the agricultural areas with substantial Hispanic populations in one seat. (WA-04 is 32% Hispanic, WA-05 just 5%.) Could do the map that way, too, though.

I mostly did because the only part of Walla Walla County's agricultural areas notably more Hispanic than Walla Walla City, is Eureka, which I suppose could be included in WA-4 in lieu of something more northeastern.  I wouldn't be surprised to see any of these configurations, though.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on March 06, 2011, 04:23:33 PM


WA-03 has year-round road contiguity along the Columbia, from Klickitat County up to Yakima, and from Yakima into Lewis County along US-12.
Thoughts?



The 3rd is brutal.    So is the 6th.  Don't be afraid to carve up Thurston County, it makes sense geographically and culturally. 


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on March 06, 2011, 04:26:49 PM
Yakima is going to have to get chopped up.

No it doesn't.  It shouldn't.  If geography and common sense win out, the low Central Cascade passes should be used as well as the Columbia.



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on March 06, 2011, 04:29:05 PM
why can't I-90 be used as such a connector again?

There is no law against it.  In fact it makes by far the most sense.  Kittitas County is more connected to King County than Yakima County is to any county west of the Cascades.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on March 06, 2011, 04:33:54 PM
.

As for why this is different from the Snoqualmie Pass--reasonableness. The areas on either side of Snoqualmie Pass have nothing in common with one another, while Lewis County, Clark County and Yakima County are fairly similar.

Other way around.  Kittitas County has a significant amount of King County commuters and students from Western Washington.  There is very little in common with SW Washington and the Yakima Valley. 

Look at commuter #s, traffic #s, elevation: Snoqualmie Pass makes by far the most sense.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on March 06, 2011, 04:38:29 PM


I also agree -- None of the Snoqualmie connections I tried were anything but ridiculous, even if you accept that Cle Elum, Roslyn and Ellensburg have much to do with East King County.


Actually it is easy.  Kittitas County, southern Chelan County, and the East Wenatchee Bench have enough people.  Kittitas and Wenatchee are geographically isolated themselves, and have to be placed somewhere. Growth in Kittitas and Chelan has largely driven by westsiders. 


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Brittain33 on March 06, 2011, 04:45:15 PM
We had a very passionate debate of Kittitas vs. Columbia River Gorge on this thread a month or so ago. Check it out.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on March 06, 2011, 05:14:16 PM
Here is a new one using the 2010 census numbers:


Statewide:

()


Puget Sound area:

()


I put the new district in the Central Cascades which pushes the 8th into rural and suburban Pierce and Thurston Counties. 

The population totals for each district range from 672,355 to 672,530.   I had to carve into Clarkston to balance the 4th and 5th, which isn't visible in the above map.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sbane on March 06, 2011, 05:19:21 PM
Why did the 8th need to go into Snohomish? Keep it within King county and put the exurban parts of Snoho in the 2nd which are in the 8th as you have drawn it, and the 1st picks up Everett and surroundings.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on March 06, 2011, 05:36:24 PM
Why did the 8th need to go into Snohomish? Keep it within King county and put the exurban parts of Snoho in the 2nd which are in the 8th as you have drawn it, and the 1st picks up Everett and surroundings.

That's the new 10th.  The 8th gets pushed south towards Auburn where Reichert lives.  The 10th stretches into SE Snohomish County, home to US 2, the 2nd major route through the Cascades.  The 10th is a mountain and foothills district.   For you folks not familiar to the area, google up some pictures of Index and Leavenworth. 





Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Alcon on March 06, 2011, 06:39:55 PM
^^^

Sorry Sounder.  Especially in light of the Yakima City split, I might buy the I-90 connection if it were cleaner.  But I've tried, and it seems much dirtier.  Not only are the splits ugly, but there are also a lot of them.  Also, look how many areas you've completely shifted to new CDs, even in the otherwise easy-to-manage Eastside.

Index and Leavenworth are kind of cherrypicking the most similar East/West sides of that district.  It's more like Google Bellevue and then East Wenatchee...


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: muon2 on March 06, 2011, 07:09:56 PM
The consensus seems to be that the Snoqualmie Pass link is undesirable, but so is a split of Yakima city. The discussion about using US 12 as a connection led me an idea. One can keep Yakima intact and connect it to Vancouver by way of US 12 and I 5. It does put Longview and Kelso in two different districts, but that doesn't seem as bad as some other alternatives.

()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Verily on March 06, 2011, 07:18:01 PM
I don't think keeping the city of Yakima together is worth splitting up the Olympic Peninsula, Longview-Kelso and Thurston County/whatever is going on near Centralia.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Verily on March 06, 2011, 07:21:15 PM
.

As for why this is different from the Snoqualmie Pass--reasonableness. The areas on either side of Snoqualmie Pass have nothing in common with one another, while Lewis County, Clark County and Yakima County are fairly similar.

Other way around.  Kittitas County has a significant amount of King County commuters and students from Western Washington.  There is very little in common with SW Washington and the Yakima Valley.  

Look at commuter #s, traffic #s, elevation: Snoqualmie Pass makes by far the most sense.

No, they don't. We established this before. Estimates of commute time found not a single person in Cle Elum, let alone Ellensburg or Wenatchee, who commuted to Bellevue/Redmond.

Kittitas is very rural, being well known for such things as hay and rodeo. Google Maps shows a small town surrounded by pastures and farmland (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Ellensburg,+Washington&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=32.252269,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Ellensburg,+Kittitas,+Washington&ll=47.001329,-120.49118&spn=0.216812,0.617294&t=h&z=11). There are essentially no farms at all on the King County side of Snoqualmie Pass. It certainly has more in common with the agricultural Tri-Cities and Yakima than it does with high-tech Seattle suburbs.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: muon2 on March 06, 2011, 07:26:27 PM
I don't think keeping the city of Yakima together is worth splitting up the Olympic Peninsula, Longview-Kelso and Thurston County/whatever is going on near Centralia.

I didn't spend much time on the Olympic Peninsula, so that would be easy to adjust as would whether Centralia was with Olympia or not. I was just working on the shape of CD 3 to try to keep Yakima intact.

I'd be curious as to the local views on the merits of splitting Longview from Kelso as a trade for keeping Yakima whole.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on March 06, 2011, 08:52:17 PM
^^^

Sorry Sounder.  Especially in light of the Yakima City split, I might buy the I-90 connection if it were cleaner.  But I've tried, and it seems much dirtier.  Not only are the splits ugly, but there are also a lot of them.

How is it ugly?  

 Look at where the people actually live, look at the geography, look at the roads.   The Yakima split is far uglier.   My above scenario creates clean districts.  The new 10th centered around Snoqualmie Pass and Stevens Pass makes a lot of sense.   The entire district is foothills (Issaquah Alps, Sammamish Plateau, East Hill), foothill valleys (Snoqualmie Valley, Skykomish Valley, Wenatchee Valley, Kittitas Valley and the three passes that link them), and mountains.  

Meanwhile a Yakima split puts together significant population centers with zero connections (way greater number of commuters over Snoqualmie Pass), has a vast area of nothingness in between (unlike the Central Cascade scenario with linear settlements lining the heavily traversed central Cascade passes), linked by lower quality, lesser traversed transportation infrastructure (can take Amtrak to Leavenworth and Wenatchee on top of the two major mountain passes).  That's ugly.  


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on March 06, 2011, 09:02:10 PM
The consensus seems to be that the Snoqualmie Pass link is undesirable,[/img]

There may be a consensus, but why do people believe this?  That data screams otherwise.  Other than historical precedence when the state had way less districts, there is no reason to split up the Yakima Valley.  Kittitas County is heavily dependent on Western Washington.   Wenatchee is a messier split, but it isn't naturally linked much to anything tucked into that pocket around the Columbia River.  Wenatchee has to go somewhere. 

How many of you folks have driven these roads?  In winter?  Snoqualmie Pass is the easiest link between east and west in Washington.  Interstate 84 in Oregon is #2.  Stevens Pass #3.  A central Cascade district can take advantage of both #1 and #3, plus would have the south and west links into Wenatchee. 



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on March 06, 2011, 09:05:08 PM
^^^



Index and Leavenworth are kind of cherrypicking the most similar East/West sides of that district.  It's more like Google Bellevue and then East Wenatchee...

Google is in the 1st and 7th.  East Wenatchee is attracting (Seattle suburban) Eastsiders.  Yahoo and Microsoft have both set up their massive data centers nearby to take advantage of cheap hydro electric power.  



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on March 06, 2011, 09:23:12 PM

No, they don't. We established this before. Estimates of commute time found not a single person in Cle Elum, let alone Ellensburg or Wenatchee, who commuted to Bellevue/Redmond.

1200 people a day commuted to King County from Kittitas County in 2000.  That is a significant number for a small county with almost a third of its population students.   

What's the number between Yakima County and Clark?  Zero?   1200>>>>>>>>0  Simple math. 

Quote
Kittitas is very rural, being well known for such things as hay and rodeo.

The only reason for the hay industry is all of those empty shipping containers heading west back through the ports of Seattle and Tacoma.  What's the difference between forest land and hay land, other than frequency of harvest?  Also, there is a rodeo in Roy.

Quote
a small town surrounded by pastures and farmland[/url]. There are essentially no farms at all on the King County side of Snoqualmie Pass.

Not familiar  with Snoqualmie Valley I guess.  Pike Place market has to get is fine local produce from somewhere.   Ever hear of Carnation Farms?  If not, you must have heard of the Carnation brand that was born there.  There is farmland  right outside of Everett, WA and all the way up the Snohomish Valley.  Monroe fed the northern transcontinental railroad. 


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on March 06, 2011, 09:33:39 PM

I didn't spend much time on the Olympic Peninsula, so that would be easy to adjust as would whether Centralia was with Olympia or not. I was just working on the shape of CD 3 to try to keep Yakima intact.

I'd be curious as to the local views on the merits of splitting Longview from Kelso as a trade for keeping Yakima whole.

You only keep the northern tip of Kitsap in your scenario, which may have to happen anyway (Inslee, ferry link).

As for the splits, Olympia and Centralia have no reason to be together.  SW Thurston is very Centralia centric, so that can be split off too.  Splitting Olympia and Lacey also makes sense as well.  Lacey is predominately military and spill over Central Puget Sound sprawl and is more Tacoma/Seattle centric.  As is Yelm and SE Thurston County.   Olympia and is older built, and is more SW Washington/Olympic Peninsula/Pacific Coast centric.  Tumwater too, except its building. 

Politically, I'd assume Longview-Kelso would want to stay united. 


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: muon2 on March 06, 2011, 09:41:50 PM

I didn't spend much time on the Olympic Peninsula, so that would be easy to adjust as would whether Centralia was with Olympia or not. I was just working on the shape of CD 3 to try to keep Yakima intact.

I'd be curious as to the local views on the merits of splitting Longview from Kelso as a trade for keeping Yakima whole.

You only keep the northern tip of Kitsap in your scenario, which may have to happen anyway (Inslee, ferry link).

As for the splits, Olympia and Centralia have no reason to be together.  SW Thurston is very Centralia centric, so that can be split off too.  Splitting Olympia and Lacey also makes sense as well.  Lacey is predominately military and spill over Central Puget Sound sprawl and is more Tacoma/Seattle centric.  As is Yelm and SE Thurston County.   Olympia and is older built, and is more SW Washington/Olympic Peninsula/Pacific Coast centric.  Tumwater too, except its building. 

Politically, I'd assume Longview-Kelso would want to stay united. 

But what if it's that split or Yakima city split?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sbane on March 06, 2011, 10:46:30 PM
^^^



Index and Leavenworth are kind of cherrypicking the most similar East/West sides of that district.  It's more like Google Bellevue and then East Wenatchee...

Google is in the 1st and 7th.  East Wenatchee is attracting (Seattle suburban) Eastsiders.  Yahoo and Microsoft have both set up their massive data centers nearby to take advantage of cheap hydro electric power.   



I am sorry, but the notion that people commute over the Snoqualmie pass is ridiculous. The growth over the mountains may be driven by west siders, but they aren't commuting over the cascades every morning.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: jimrtex on March 06, 2011, 11:07:59 PM
I am sorry, but the notion that people commute over the Snoqualmie pass is ridiculous. The growth over the mountains may be driven by west siders, but they aren't commuting over the cascades every morning.
There are traffic cameras on the pass.  It's your job to check it out tomorrow morning and afternoon.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: minionofmidas on March 06, 2011, 11:17:31 PM
To put the cat among the pigeons, a minimum change map (with the second's eastern boundary deemed impassable) suggests an unchanged boundary between the third and fourth, and linking Ellensburg and Wenatchee to Olympia via East Pierce.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on March 06, 2011, 11:21:32 PM
To put the cat among the pigeons, a minimum change map (with the second's eastern boundary deemed impassable) suggests an unchanged boundary between the third and fourth, and linking Ellensburg and Wenatchee to Olympia via East Pierce.

Would that mean highway 402 is the connection? Which happens to be closed for several months each year... Once again while I know it doesn't sound as interesting/fun the most likely scenario is that any east/west district will be via the Columbia.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: minionofmidas on March 06, 2011, 11:24:41 PM
It still has Snoqualmie Pass... it just doesn't have all that many King County people.

I drew it but lost the map.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sbane on March 06, 2011, 11:48:59 PM
I am sorry, but the notion that people commute over the Snoqualmie pass is ridiculous. The growth over the mountains may be driven by west siders, but they aren't commuting over the cascades every morning.
There are traffic cameras on the pass.  It's your job to check it out tomorrow morning and afternoon.

Past the King county line presumably?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: minionofmidas on March 07, 2011, 12:11:56 AM
Recreated it. Shift the 1st and 2nd surplusses to the 8th, the 6th and 7th surplusses to the 9th, the 5th surplus to the 4th, then create the 10th from the 3rd, 4th, 8th and 9th.

()

()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on March 07, 2011, 12:22:24 AM
I added an Atlas-style 1980s CD map of Washington to the wiki (https://uselectionatlas.org/WIKI/index.php/Congressional_districts_of_Washington), if anyone is curious. I can't find the original I drew it based off of, though... I also added Dave's 1990s and 2000s maps (with the minor edit of properly placing Tacoma in the 6th on the 90s edition).

Here's the 1970's version I drew up, if you want it.  :)

()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: RI on March 07, 2011, 12:30:11 AM
Recreated it. Shift the 1st and 2nd surplusses to the 8th, the 6th and 7th surplusses to the 9th, the 5th surplus to the 4th, then create the 10th from the 3rd, 4th, 8th and 9th.

()

()

Eww..


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Alcon on March 07, 2011, 12:59:08 AM
Sounder, dude, can you use the Edit function?  Otherwise I reply to one of your posts, and realize there's five more than were posted shortly after.  Thanks :P

I'm not sure what you mean by "Google is in the 1st and 7th"?  East Bellevue is in the 1st and East Wenatchee is somehow suddenly in the Seattle district?  what?

Besides that, I don't know what to say.  If you really feel that the Snoqualmie Pass area has more socioeconomic similarity to East King County (including Bellevue) than the Columbia River connection, that's fine.  I guess we'll find out on redistricting what the commission thinks.

An Olympia-North Grant County district.  Oy vey -- I think we're getting a little exotic here.  I'm working on my own version (I think it may end up superficially similar to bgwah's.)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: jimrtex on March 07, 2011, 01:23:43 AM
I am sorry, but the notion that people commute over the  is ridiculous. The growth over the mountains may be driven by west siders, but they aren't commuting over the cascades every morning.
There are traffic cameras on the pass.  It's your job to check it out tomorrow morning and afternoon.

Past the King county line presumably?
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/traffic/passes/camera.aspx


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sbane on March 07, 2011, 10:32:50 AM
I am sorry, but the notion that people commute over the  is ridiculous. The growth over the mountains may be driven by west siders, but they aren't commuting over the cascades every morning.
There are traffic cameras on the pass.  It's your job to check it out tomorrow morning and afternoon.

Past the King county line presumably?
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/traffic/passes/camera.aspx


LOL the road is entirely empty (note the time stamp on this post). One hell of a commute Jim.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: RI on March 07, 2011, 12:06:13 PM
Most people that I've seen when I've gone over the pass are either in semis or going on trips. Then again, I've never gone over it in the early morning, though I have around rush hour in the evening before. There's a few more cars, but its usually pretty sparse (barring construction or something).


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: minionofmidas on March 07, 2011, 12:09:56 PM
Yeah, all seven vehicles visible at the seven cameras right now are utility vehicles, four of them large trucks.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Alcon on March 07, 2011, 02:43:02 PM
My friend who was pulling an all-nighter watched it periodically from 6 to 8 for me, and said she mostly saw big trucks.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Linus Van Pelt on March 07, 2011, 08:19:51 PM
Afternoon rush hour starting on the west coast:

()

LOL


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: cinyc on March 07, 2011, 08:40:28 PM
My friend who was pulling an all-nighter watched it periodically from 6 to 8 for me, and said she mostly saw big trucks.

I'm not sure why we're bothering to watch road traffic cameras over the pass when county employment data is readily available from the Census bureau:
http://lehdmap.did.census.gov/

Assuming I don't have this backwards, 16.3% of Kittitas County residents (on the other side of Snoqualamie Pass) work in King County, the most of any county other than Kittitas.  6.8% of people working in Kittitas County live in King County, behind Kittitas and Yakima counties.

Again, assiming I have this right, outside of the county, 789 of Kittitas county residents' primary job was in Seattle, 641 in Yakima, 270 in Bellevue and 153 in Spokane, among others.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: jimrtex on March 07, 2011, 08:48:35 PM
My friend who was pulling an all-nighter watched it periodically from 6 to 8 for me, and said she mostly saw big trucks.
The traffic count at North Bend is over twice that at the Kittitas-Grant line.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on March 07, 2011, 09:11:09 PM
I'm sorry, but that just doesn't seem like a significant number of commuters to me. I grew up in East King County, and have done dozens of trips through the pass... It's like entering a different world, the transition from West to East is quite rapid. That's just my personal opinion, but I'm probably the only frequent poster who has ever lived in the area, so there! :P I'm not saying there is some "connection" between Vancouver and Yakima, but that's always where they've done it before. The 4th district included Vancouver in the 1970s, IIRC.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: jimrtex on March 07, 2011, 09:21:11 PM
My friend who was pulling an all-nighter watched it periodically from 6 to 8 for me, and said she mostly saw big trucks.

I'm not sure why we're bothering to watch road traffic cameras over the pass when county employment data is readily available from the Census bureau:
http://lehdmap.did.census.gov/

Assuming I don't have this backwards, 16.3% of Kittitas County residents (on the other side of Snoqualamie Pass) work in King County, the most of any county other than Kittitas.  6.8% of people working in Kittitas County live in King County, behind Kittitas and Yakima counties.

Again, assiming I have this right, outside of the county, 789 of Kittitas county residents' primary job was in Seattle, 641 in Yakima, 270 in Bellevue and 153 in Spokane, among others.
According to the 2000 census about 8% of Kittitasian workers work in King County.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/commuting/mcdworkerflow.html#WA

Here is an interesting trivia.  There are two counties in Washington where the number one county of employment is not the county of residence.  What are the two counties.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: RI on March 07, 2011, 09:30:56 PM
According to the 2000 census about 8% of Kittitasian workers work in King County.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/commuting/mcdworkerflow.html#WA

Here is an interesting trivia.  There are two counties in Washington where the number one county of employment is not the county of residence.  What are the two counties.

Really? I didn't see any.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: cinyc on March 07, 2011, 09:35:48 PM
According to the 2000 census about 8% of Kittitasian workers work in King County.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/commuting/mcdworkerflow.html#WA

Here is an interesting trivia.  There are two counties in Washington where the number one county of employment is not the county of residence.  What are the two counties.

Really? I didn't see any.

There were at least two.  One was on a state border, the other across a river from a bigger town.  It's still true in 2009.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: RI on March 07, 2011, 09:45:03 PM
According to the 2000 census about 8% of Kittitasian workers work in King County.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/commuting/mcdworkerflow.html#WA

Here is an interesting trivia.  There are two counties in Washington where the number one county of employment is not the county of residence.  What are the two counties.

Really? I didn't see any.

There were at least two.  One was on a state border, the other across a river from a bigger town.  It's still true in 2009.

There are two different spreadsheets, I noticed. On the second spreadsheet (the work county origin one) there weren't any. The two counties your referring to are on the first spreadsheet (Asotion and Douglas).


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: jimrtex on March 07, 2011, 10:52:38 PM
According to the 2000 census about 8% of Kittitasian workers work in King County.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/commuting/mcdworkerflow.html#WA

Here is an interesting trivia.  There are two counties in Washington where the number one county of employment is not the county of residence.  What are the two counties.

Really? I didn't see any.

There were at least two.  One was on a state border, the other across a river from a bigger town.  It's still true in 2009.
Both are across a river from a larger town.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on March 07, 2011, 10:53:30 PM
My guess would be Clark (more working in Multnomah) and uh, with the river hint, maybe Franklin (with more working in Benton)?

If not Clark, a more tricky answer might be Asotin. A lot of those folks work in Lewiston, ID.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: cinyc on March 07, 2011, 10:59:15 PM
According to the 2000 census about 8% of Kittitasian workers work in King County.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/commuting/mcdworkerflow.html#WA

Here is an interesting trivia.  There are two counties in Washington where the number one county of employment is not the county of residence.  What are the two counties.

Really? I didn't see any.

There were at least two.  One was on a state border, the other across a river from a bigger town.  It's still true in 2009.
Both are across a river from a larger town.


True.  But one is in another state.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: RI on March 08, 2011, 12:20:52 AM
You can check my post if you want the answer.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on March 08, 2011, 12:30:48 AM
I came so close to mentioning Douglas. Drat. :P


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: jimrtex on March 08, 2011, 01:28:20 AM
My guess would be Clark (more working in Multnomah) and uh, with the river hint, maybe Franklin (with more working in Benton)?

If not Clark, a more tricky answer might be Asotin. A lot of those folks work in Lewiston, ID.

Asotin is one correct answer.

It is actually pretty hard for a substantial suburban area to have more of its working outside the county than in it.  Most of its school teachers, garbage collectors, doctors, and grocery clerks will also live in the county.  If it is a small county, it might not have much internal economic activity, such as stores and doctors.  So in this case it helps that Clarkston is smaller than Lewiston.

Stevens has a pretty surprising share of its residents employed in Spokane County but its not really suburban.

The other county is also across a river from its employment destination.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on March 08, 2011, 04:03:35 PM
Here is another attempt at a Central Cascades 10th district. This version crosses the Cascades via three all-season mountain passes (Snoqualmie, Stevens, & White) as well as seasonal Chinook Pass.  I tried to cut out as much inner suburban Puget Sound and to stick as close to the mountains as possible.  Lacey is the exception.  East Wenatchee stays with Wenatchee, but Selah and the highlands get cut away from Yakima, but is a clean split due to geography.

  I also had to adjust the 4th and 5th back to the old horizontal rectangles.  Moses Lake is the epicenter of the split between those districts.   The populations of all 10 districts are within 94 people of having 672,453 total population.

()


The 9th follows the Highline (plateau west of Valley) down to Tacoma adding it and the older inner suburbs.  The 8th is bounded by the valley to the west and becomes a more compact suburban district.  The new 10th is predominantly rural and peripheral suburban.  Enumclaw (NASCAR racers, Horses), rural Spanaway (Daytona 500 winner), Roy (Rodeo), Monroe (race track), etc.  

()

()



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on March 08, 2011, 04:23:03 PM


I'm not sure what you mean by "Google is in the 1st and 7th"?

That's the Congressional Districts where Google is physically located.   The area between Wenatchee and Quincy is becoming a major data center hub.  T-Mobile is another one there.


Quote
Besides that, I don't know what to say.  If you really feel that the Snoqualmie Pass area has more socioeconomic similarity to East King County (including Bellevue) than the Columbia River connection, that's fine.

The are more connections and commonalities between Cascade mountain towns than there are between Clark County and the Yakima Valley.  Hardly anyone lives or uses the Columbia River connection (on the Washington side of the river, other than freight trains).  Meanwhile a significant chunk of the new population east of the Mountains in the Central Cascades are former Puget Sound area residents and there is a decent amount a commuters and connectivity up there.  There is little to none between Vancouver and Yakima.  



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on March 08, 2011, 04:27:36 PM

There are traffic cameras on the pass.  It's your job to check it out tomorrow morning and afternoon.

The person I know who does the cross Cascades commute works M-Th, so you won't see him up on the pass until 7:30 PM. 

Since we are monitoring Snoqualmie Pass, any volunteers to monitor Satus Pass? 



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on March 08, 2011, 04:32:12 PM
I'm sorry, but that just doesn't seem like a significant number of commuters to me.

You are looking at it from whale King County point of view.  Minnow Kittitas is heavily dependent on King County, not vice versa.  Since the new district needs to be a predominately Western district (opposite of 1970), why not link the portions of Eastern Washington with the most connectivity with Western Washington? 


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on March 08, 2011, 04:38:05 PM


The other county is also across a river from its employment destination.

It could be Douglas County, depending on if the aluminum plant is in operation.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Verily on March 08, 2011, 04:40:21 PM

There are traffic cameras on the pass.  It's your job to check it out tomorrow morning and afternoon.

The person I know who does the cross Cascades commute works M-Th, so you won't see him up on the pass until 7:30 PM.  

Since we are monitoring Snoqualmie Pass, any volunteers to monitor Satus Pass?  



The point was not that people commute over Satus Pass but do not commute over Snoqualmie Pass. Commutes were never mentioned by anyone until you came along, and we have now clearly demonstrated that no one commutes over either pass. (Well, no one has monitored Satus Pass, but it can be safely assumed.)

The point was that Centralia and Vancouver have a lot more in common with Yakima than Bellevue has with Ellensburg in terms of shared interests and demographics, a point you have yet to even make a serious attempt to refute.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: minionofmidas on March 08, 2011, 04:49:59 PM
...let alone Wenatchee.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on March 08, 2011, 04:56:04 PM

The point was not that people commute over Satus Pass but do not commute over Snoqualmie Pass. Commutes were never mentioned by anyone until you came along, and we have now clearly demonstrated that no one commutes over either pass.

The discussion is linking population centers within a congressional district via Snoqualmie Pass or via Satus Pass as I have yet to see anyone propose gutting up Kennewick and Richland yet.   Facts show people indeed commute over Snoqualmie Pass.  A small number, but a significant % for a smaller populated county.

Since it is Satus vs. Snoqualmie, let's compare.  

So how many commuters over Satus Pass?  I can link data and news articles talking about the Snoqualmie commute.


Quote
The point was that Centralia and Vancouver have a lot more in common with Yakima than Bellevue has with Ellensburg in terms of shared interests and demographics, a point you have yet to even make a serious attempt to refute.

That's bunk.  I live here.  Vancouver and Centralia have very few connections with Yakima.  Meanwhile Ellensburg is home to a sizable amount of King County students and a sizable portion of Kittitas County's population commutes to King County.  Kittitas County is heavily dependant on King County.   Meanwhile Clark and Yakima are practically on different planets since these is so much rugged wilderness desolation and poor roads between the two.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: cinyc on March 08, 2011, 05:29:41 PM

The point was not that people commute over Satus Pass but do not commute over Snoqualmie Pass. Commutes were never mentioned by anyone until you came along, and we have now clearly demonstrated that no one commutes over either pass.

The discussion is linking population centers within a congressional district via Snoqualmie Pass or via Satus Pass as I have yet to see anyone propose gutting up Kennewick and Richland yet.   Facts show people indeed commute over Snoqualmie Pass.  A small number, but a significant % for a smaller populated county.

Since it is Satus vs. Snoqualmie, let's compare.  

So how many commuters over Satus Pass?  I can link data and news articles talking about the Snoqualmie commute.

Again, you don't need to watch traffic cameras.  Census has the data.  Only 3.4% of Klickitat County residents worked in Yakima County in 2009.  Believe it or not, more actually worked in King County (5.9%).   No, I have no clue who they might be. 


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Verily on March 08, 2011, 05:35:03 PM
Presumably the 6% who work in King County but are residents of Klickitat County own second homes in Klickitat but claim residence/fill out their Census forms at those homes (but really live somewhere in King County, or maybe a few on Bainbridge Island or Snohomish or Pierce Counties). Probably true of the tiny proportion of Kittitas residents who claim to work in King County, too.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on March 08, 2011, 05:53:38 PM
From 2000:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20001016&slug=TTMB1UN0H

From 2004:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/196639_longcommute25.html?dpfrom=thead


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: cinyc on March 08, 2011, 05:59:35 PM
Presumably the 6% who work in King County but are residents of Klickitat County own second homes in Klickitat but claim residence/fill out their Census forms at those homes (but really live somewhere in King County, or maybe a few on Bainbridge Island or Snohomish or Pierce Counties). Probably true of the tiny proportion of Kittitas residents who claim to work in King County, too.

The proportion of Kittitas residents who work in King County isn't as tiny as you claim.  It was 16.2% of the county's workforce in 2009.  Admittedly, it's not comparable to the percentage of residents of Snohomish (44.2%), Pierce (33.4) or Kitsap (28.1%) who worked in King, but it is the most-frequent outside county of employment for Kittitas residents.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Brittain33 on March 08, 2011, 07:22:40 PM
Does anyone want to draw a map of New York or Georgia under this new standard of linking exurban and rural commuters with the places some of them work? Would be weird, isn't it?

Finding Kittitas commuters like righteous men in Sodom solely to make WA-8 more Republican--and let's be honest, that's all that is about--is, at best, a contestable standard.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: cinyc on March 08, 2011, 08:14:24 PM
Does anyone want to draw a map of New York or Georgia under this new standard of linking exurban and rural commuters with the places some of them work? Would be weird, isn't it?

Finding Kittitas commuters like righteous men in Sodom solely to make WA-8 more Republican--and let's be honest, that's all that is about--is, at best, a contestable standard.

You are grossly misstating the issue.  By my math, Washington State west of the Cascades is about a quarter of a district short of having the population for 8 districts.  The question is where that quarter of a district should come from.  Which areas have the most ties to those on the other side of the mountains is relevant when figuring which areas to append to a district that will be dominated by folks from the other side of the mountains.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Linus Van Pelt on March 08, 2011, 08:21:06 PM
Just so we're all clear, the exact wording of the relevant question, complete with the census form's capitalization, is:

"At what location did this person work LAST WEEK? If the person worked at more than one location, print where he or she worked most last week."

The census does this to avoid weird issues with people who've recently moved, but it will catch temporary business travelers and that sort of thing. Jmfsct for instance would probably now show up as commuting from Texas to Boston. Now obviously 16% of a county isn't at a business meeting in Seattle, but still the statistic will generally overestimate "commuters" in a normal sense.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: ottermax on March 08, 2011, 09:18:40 PM
Okay so maybe it makes sense to add Kittitas County to a Western district, but you'd still need population from other places like Chelan and Douglas County, which are even more of a stretch in terms of connections with Western Washington. I think it's mostly a culture thing. There are a few people who have their summer homes in Chelan or Kittitas County, but the vast majority of Eastsiders are not that wealthy.... The other thing is that most of the people who actually vote in Kittitas and Chelan don't particularly have much in common with the people who vacation there.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: jimrtex on March 09, 2011, 01:11:58 AM

The other county is also across a river from its employment destination.
It could be Douglas County, depending on if the aluminum plant is in operation.
It is Douglas County.  IS the commuting to the aluminum plant or just the city of Wenatchee?




Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: jimrtex on March 09, 2011, 01:38:32 AM
There are traffic cameras on the pass.  It's your job to check it out tomorrow morning and afternoon.

The person I know who does the cross Cascades commute works M-Th, so you won't see him up on the pass until 7:30 PM.  

Since we are monitoring Snoqualmie Pass, any volunteers to monitor Satus Pass?  

The point was not that people commute over Satus Pass but do not commute over Snoqualmie Pass. Commutes were never mentioned by anyone until you came along, and we have now clearly demonstrated that no one commutes over either pass. (Well, no one has monitored Satus Pass, but it can be safely assumed.)

The point was that Centralia and Vancouver have a lot more in common with Yakima than Bellevue has with Ellensburg in terms of shared interests and demographics, a point you have yet to even make a serious attempt to refute.
If you go from Vancouver to Yakima (part) you don't also go to Centralia.

Eastern Washington has more than enough population for 2 districts.  Yakima is closer to Seattle than Vancouver.  The only reason that someone would travel from Yakima to Vancouver, rather than Seattle would be if they were on their way to see a professional basketball game, and even then they would cross the river and use I-84.  Ellensburg certainly has more in common with King County than Yakima (part) does with Vancouver and Portland, let alone Centralia.

Only half of the traffic that crosses Snoqualmie Pass makes it to Grant County.  So even if it is not commuters, it is retirees, escapees, etc. from Seattle.  If they can find work in Ellensburg they won't commute, but they will go to Seattle for major surgery, or to buy a car, or maybe to buy furniture.  They won't go to Spokane.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Brittain33 on March 09, 2011, 09:02:14 AM
Which areas have the most ties to those on the other side of the mountains is relevant when figuring which areas to append to a district that will be dominated by folks from the other side of the mountains.

I get that, and I still think it's weird to fixate on the existence of a few commuters as proof of ties when there are many other factors in the communities themselves that would determine whether they should be represented by a common vote in Congress or not. Whether or not a few people regularly move from one to another, I think it has to be considered as one of many factors, especially if those long-distance commuters are atypical for their community. I really don't think anyone has proven that the economies of those two counties are linked with the westside in a substantial way, and we should also be discussing the nature of the economies in various places--rural, exurban, suburban, etc. and what policies they would seek from a representative. There, the case for the Columbia River connection seems stronger by virtue of linking rural, exurban, and small city areas together, but I don't have personal connection.

The closest discussion of mountain passes I recall is in the Colorado thread, but there I think the issue is of the representative himself being able to visit multiple places in the district easily. (This is why highway links that cut the corner of a neighboring district should hardly disqualify a map.)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Verily on March 09, 2011, 12:23:09 PM
Let's disregard the above debate, which is going in circles as we seem to have fundamental disagreements about what defines communities with shared interests.*

Anyway, another idea came to mind... The commission could decide to cross the Cascades twice! This would seem a little silly as it is unnecessary to do so, but it does preserve all micropolitan areas, unlike other plans which require splitting up one micropolis or another. Here's one possibility. The Tri-Cities are all fully in one district, although some rural areas nearby are cut out; I'm currently working on another version that keeps more of the surrounding countryside with the Tri-Cities-Vancouver seat.


()



*I and brittain, and others, feel that communities with minimal commercial ties that nonetheless have similar political interests (through shared economic and demographic characteristics) are more reasonable to put together in a district than communities with some few commercial ties but few or no shared political interests, while Sounder and cinyc, and others, seem to feel the opposite. All of this assumes geographic neutrality, of course, since in either case we're cutting across a navigable but remote pass through the Cascades.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Verily on March 09, 2011, 01:14:19 PM
Here's another version of the above map, only slightly modified (about 20,000 people moved around between WA-03, WA-09, WA-06 and WA-04). It does get all of the rural areas around the Tri-Cities in one seat, but it might also put a few Tacoma exurbanites in with WA-03, which is not ideal (although it's hard for me to tell where the exurbs end and what parts of southeastern Pierce County are really just rural areas).

()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: jimrtex on March 09, 2011, 02:45:29 PM

*I and brittain, and others, feel that communities with minimal commercial ties that nonetheless have similar political interests (through shared economic and demographic characteristics) are more reasonable to put together in a district than communities with some few commercial ties but few or no shared political interests, while Sounder and cinyc, and others, seem to feel the opposite. All of this assumes geographic neutrality, of course, since in either case we're cutting across a navigable but remote pass through the Cascades.
You either misunderstand or misrepresent our position.

It is not that going across the Snoqualmie Pass is great, but that splitting of Yakima or the Tri-Cities is worse.  While you claim to be putting together "communities" with similar interests you don't recognize that you are splitting a community.

By drawing a line along the Cascade crest you are claiming that there is no community of interest between King and Kittitas.  But when you draw a line through Yakima that is just a boundary line.  I claim that there is a stronger community of interest within Yakima that you are ignoring.  Now if you could explain why part of Yakima has strong ties with Vancouver, while the other has strong ties with Spokane or the Tri-Cities, I can understand why you advocate splitting the county, and perhaps even the city.

The reason that Chelan County was split off from Kittitas was because during winter people had to travel through Seattle or Spokane (where the railroads met) in order to get to the courthouse in Ellensburg.  With development of I-90 over the Snoqualmie Pass it is relative easy to get to Ellensburg from Seattle.  We know that traffic at the Kittitas-Grant line is half of that at of the Kittitas-King line.  So even if people are not commuting, they are visiting their parents who have retired, or to a 2nd home in the mountains.  And even in 2000, 8% of workers who resided in Kittitas worked in King County.

If we were to agree that a split of Yakima is not a good idea, and a district over the Snoqualmie Pass is not a good idea, let's try this:

Eastern Washington plus Skamania and Clark are apportioned 3 districts, while the remainder of the state is apportioned 7 districts.

So:

Vancouver-Yakima: Clark, Skamania, Yakima.

Spokane-Northeast: Spokane and its 4 neighbors + Ferry and Okanogan

Tri-Cities-Transcascadia-Palouse: The rest of eastern Washington.

And since we've accepted the idea of not splitting counties:

West: Thurston, Lewis, Cowlitz, Pacific, Grays Harbor, Mason, Jefferson, Clallam

King+Pierce (4 districts):  

Tacoma-Pierce West

Seattle

King East

King South-Pierce East

Snohomish

Puget Sound-Northwest:  Whatcom, Skagit, Island, San Juan, Kitsap


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on March 09, 2011, 03:36:47 PM
And despite even the 2000 census showing a number of Kittitas residents commuting to King, the commission still decided to create a Clark to Yakima legislative district instead of some sort of North Bend - Ellensburg district...

But to be honest, I'm a little perplexed as to why we're arguing this again. We covered it pretty thoroughly in the first 100 posts of the thread, and I think we've all made our case for why we think each scenario is most likely. But there's really no way for us to prove it other than by waiting for the commission to draw up a map.

Speaking of legislative districts, now that we have precise 2010 numbers, perhaps we could tackle them. ;D


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: cinyc on March 09, 2011, 04:04:55 PM
I have no real dog in this fight.  My only position is that the numbers are what they are and there's no need to count cars when Census can give you the commuting pattern data.  Whether 16% commuting to King in 2009 (versus 8% in 2000) is enough to change the commission's mind on how to draw a district - I don't have a clue.  I just know that it is what it is.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on March 09, 2011, 04:55:12 PM
There, the case for the Columbia River connection seems stronger by virtue of linking rural, exurban, and small city areas together, but I don't have personal connection.

Linking Vancouver (major Portland suburb) to Yakima is linking rural, exurban, and small city areas together?  Vancouver will be the 2nd largest population center in the state of Washington within the next decade or two.  

If you want to link rural, exurban, and small city, use the Central Cascades, but avoid the inner suburbs as much as possible.  The last map I posted does this.  


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on March 09, 2011, 05:10:20 PM
Here's another version of the above map,


You put two incumbents into the 3rd.  Hastings lives in Pasco, Herrea in Clark County.  WA redistricting looks out for incumbents, which is why we probably shouldn't be too quick to put Bainbridge Island into the 6th despite Inslee's Gov. fantasies.

 I have been trying to do a Tri-Cities split, but haven't come up with anything clean yet.  


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: jimrtex on March 09, 2011, 07:19:42 PM
And despite even the 2000 census showing a number of Kittitas residents commuting to King, the commission still decided to create a Clark to Yakima legislative district instead of some sort of North Bend - Ellensburg district...
Where is the Clark to Yakima district in 2000?

But to be honest, I'm a little perplexed as to why we're arguing this again. We covered it pretty thoroughly in the first 100 posts of the thread, and I think we've all made our case for why we think each scenario is most likely. But there's really no way for us to prove it other than by waiting for the commission to draw up a map.

Speaking of legislative districts, now that we have precise 2010 numbers, perhaps we could tackle them. ;D
Only if you draw representative districts as well.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Alcon on March 09, 2011, 07:50:41 PM
And despite even the 2000 census showing a number of Kittitas residents commuting to King, the commission still decided to create a Clark to Yakima legislative district instead of some sort of North Bend - Ellensburg district...
Where is the Clark to Yakima district in 2000?

He's alluding to the 15th legislative district, which spans from eastern Clark County to southern Yakima County.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: jimrtex on March 10, 2011, 01:10:47 AM
And despite even the 2000 census showing a number of Kittitas residents commuting to King, the commission still decided to create a Clark to Yakima legislative district instead of some sort of North Bend - Ellensburg district...
Where is the Clark to Yakima district in 2000?

He's alluding to the 15th legislative district, which spans from eastern Clark County to southern Yakima County.
Yakima is necessarily split by legislative districts.

The district that extends into Clark County also includes Klickitat and Skamania whose population is concentrated along the Columbia River.  The Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area extends into Clark County.

There are 6,000 persons in the area, and the district boundary was drawn very carefully to keep out of the urbanized Vancouver area, with the boundary drawn the metropolis and Washougal.  LD 18 is drawn to include Camas and Washougal to further indicate how remote this area is from Vancouver.

The proposals from the Yakima-splitists would not only include all of Clark County but would extend northward to Centralia.

So in effect the arguement of the Yakima-splitists is: "Since legislative districts necessarily split Yakima County, and in 2000 a district was drawn that carefully took 6000 persons in the most remote area of Clark County, what can be wrong with making an unnecessary cut of Yakima County, grabbing all of the fastest growing suburban area in the state and extending far beyond into western Washington."


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on March 10, 2011, 02:37:29 AM
I've been starting to draw legislative districts, but obviously it's more time consuming. I've started in the NW. Definitely some interesting possiblities already. The 42nd is very marginal, with even one precinct change having the potential to tip certain elections (Buys vs. Linville comes to mind. It was also barely won by Gregoire, IIRC, but o/c that doesn't matter). However, much of the border with the 40th is currently through the Democratic heart of Bellingham, and the 42nd needs to lose about 9,000 people. If they want to keep it as electorally competitive as it currently is, then they would need to change the border in the suburban areas around Lake Whatcom.

The 40th only needs to shed 3,000, but of course there will be a ripple effect when it absorbs excess 40th, meaning it will need to shed 12,000 people to the south, probably in Skagit County. The border is definitely a little strange right now, so there is no obvious solution to me. Mt. Vernon has too many people to cleanly peel it off. They may have to completely change the borders in Skagit County if they want to keep the cities intact like they do now.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on March 11, 2011, 07:29:34 PM
I see people aren't nearly as opinionated about legislative districts as they are about the great Cascades-crossing debate. I wonder why... :P


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: jimrtex on March 12, 2011, 12:18:36 AM
I see people aren't nearly as opinionated about legislative districts as they are about the great Cascades-crossing debate. I wonder why... :P

There are only 7500 residents in the Clark County portion of 15.  This is less than 1/2 the population of Skamania County.  You might reduce changes to current districts if you were to put North Bend in an eastern district or Cle Elum in a western district.  That possibility should not be disregarded.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on March 12, 2011, 12:38:19 AM
I see people aren't nearly as opinionated about legislative districts as they are about the great Cascades-crossing debate. I wonder why... :P

Still working on my first map.  It takes awhile, especially if you are looking out for incumbents.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on March 12, 2011, 01:08:42 AM
I see people aren't nearly as opinionated about legislative districts as they are about the great Cascades-crossing debate. I wonder why... :P

Still working on my first map.  It takes awhile, especially if you are looking out for incumbents.

Especially since there are three incumbents. What a headache.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on March 12, 2011, 03:44:32 PM
Do you have a good list of where they live?  I have been using District finder (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/districtfinder/), but many do not list where they live.  In the larger cities, it gets tougher unless they list what neighborhood they are from.  Other than Sam Hunt and Kathy Haigh, I have no clue specifically where any of them live. 


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on March 12, 2011, 09:05:05 PM
http://www.soundpolitics.com/voterlookup.html


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: muon2 on March 13, 2011, 08:28:13 AM

*I and brittain, and others, feel that communities with minimal commercial ties that nonetheless have similar political interests (through shared economic and demographic characteristics) are more reasonable to put together in a district than communities with some few commercial ties but few or no shared political interests, while Sounder and cinyc, and others, seem to feel the opposite. All of this assumes geographic neutrality, of course, since in either case we're cutting across a navigable but remote pass through the Cascades.
You either misunderstand or misrepresent our position.

It is not that going across the Snoqualmie Pass is great, but that splitting of Yakima or the Tri-Cities is worse.  While you claim to be putting together "communities" with similar interests you don't recognize that you are splitting a community.

By drawing a line along the Cascade crest you are claiming that there is no community of interest between King and Kittitas.  But when you draw a line through Yakima that is just a boundary line.  I claim that there is a stronger community of interest within Yakima that you are ignoring.  Now if you could explain why part of Yakima has strong ties with Vancouver, while the other has strong ties with Spokane or the Tri-Cities, I can understand why you advocate splitting the county, and perhaps even the city.

The reason that Chelan County was split off from Kittitas was because during winter people had to travel through Seattle or Spokane (where the railroads met) in order to get to the courthouse in Ellensburg.  With development of I-90 over the Snoqualmie Pass it is relative easy to get to Ellensburg from Seattle.  We know that traffic at the Kittitas-Grant line is half of that at of the Kittitas-King line.  So even if people are not commuting, they are visiting their parents who have retired, or to a 2nd home in the mountains.  And even in 2000, 8% of workers who resided in Kittitas worked in King County.

If we were to agree that a split of Yakima is not a good idea, and a district over the Snoqualmie Pass is not a good idea, let's try this:

Eastern Washington plus Skamania and Clark are apportioned 3 districts, while the remainder of the state is apportioned 7 districts.

So:

Vancouver-Yakima: Clark, Skamania, Yakima.

Spokane-Northeast: Spokane and its 4 neighbors + Ferry and Okanogan

Tri-Cities-Transcascadia-Palouse: The rest of eastern Washington.

And since we've accepted the idea of not splitting counties:

West: Thurston, Lewis, Cowlitz, Pacific, Grays Harbor, Mason, Jefferson, Clallam

King+Pierce (4 districts):  

Tacoma-Pierce West

Seattle

King East

King South-Pierce East

Snohomish

Puget Sound-Northwest:  Whatcom, Skagit, Island, San Juan, Kitsap


I took a similar approach when I drew my map. Rather than start with separate districts, I looked at groupings of districts. That was especially true for the three eastern/southern districts.

I looked at different combinations on the west side to bring the three up to the correct population. A plan that excluded Kittitas from the e/s-3 was going to create the political effect of putting Kittitas at a disadvantage by being a small minority of a district. Keeping the east intact and running to the I-5 corridor set up more politically balanced districts. Then it became a question of how to best link the two sides without splitting any city.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Alcon on March 13, 2011, 07:18:04 PM
I'm kind of confused by something.  I just compiled Seattle precinct registered voter counts, versus 18+ Census population.  Most of it makes sense, but several wealthy neighborhoods have 100%+ registration rates.  One precinct has 426 people over eighteen and 506 registered voters.  Another supposedly had 98.8% of its 18+ voters cast a ballot in 2010, which suggests to me that it's not all people who've moved but not been marked inactive.  What's going on with that?  Is there some reason the Census would the 18+ count would underestimate (not overestimate) eligible voters?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Bacon King on March 13, 2011, 08:04:33 PM
I'm kind of confused by something.  I just compiled Seattle precinct registered voter counts, versus 18+ Census population.  Most of it makes sense, but several wealthy neighborhoods have 100%+ registration rates.  One precinct has 426 people over eighteen and 506 registered voters.  Another supposedly had 98.8% of its 18+ voters cast a ballot in 2010, which suggests to me that it's not all people who've moved but not been marked inactive.  What's going on with that?  Is there some reason the Census would the 18+ count would underestimate (not overestimate) eligible voters?

In Washington everyone votes by mail anyway, right? I'd assume that means college students are more likely to still vote at home rather than at school, so it's possibly precincts with a lot of kids who are away from college (and would be counted at college for the census) but vote at home.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: cinyc on March 13, 2011, 09:05:04 PM
I'm kind of confused by something.  I just compiled Seattle precinct registered voter counts, versus 18+ Census population.  Most of it makes sense, but several wealthy neighborhoods have 100%+ registration rates.  One precinct has 426 people over eighteen and 506 registered voters.  Another supposedly had 98.8% of its 18+ voters cast a ballot in 2010, which suggests to me that it's not all people who've moved but not been marked inactive.  What's going on with that?  Is there some reason the Census would the 18+ count would underestimate (not overestimate) eligible voters?

Where/how do eligible overseas voters vote in Washington State?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: jimrtex on March 13, 2011, 09:48:29 PM

*I and brittain, and others, feel that communities with minimal commercial ties that nonetheless have similar political interests (through shared economic and demographic characteristics) are more reasonable to put together in a district than communities with some few commercial ties but few or no shared political interests, while Sounder and cinyc, and others, seem to feel the opposite. All of this assumes geographic neutrality, of course, since in either case we're cutting across a navigable but remote pass through the Cascades.
You either misunderstand or misrepresent our position.

It is not that going across the Snoqualmie Pass is great, but that splitting of Yakima or the Tri-Cities is worse.  While you claim to be putting together "communities" with similar interests you don't recognize that you are splitting a community.

By drawing a line along the Cascade crest you are claiming that there is no community of interest between King and Kittitas.  But when you draw a line through Yakima that is just a boundary line.  I claim that there is a stronger community of interest within Yakima that you are ignoring.  Now if you could explain why part of Yakima has strong ties with Vancouver, while the other has strong ties with Spokane or the Tri-Cities, I can understand why you advocate splitting the county, and perhaps even the city.

The reason that Chelan County was split off from Kittitas was because during winter people had to travel through Seattle or Spokane (where the railroads met) in order to get to the courthouse in Ellensburg.  With development of I-90 over the Snoqualmie Pass it is relative easy to get to Ellensburg from Seattle.  We know that traffic at the Kittitas-Grant line is half of that at of the Kittitas-King line.  So even if people are not commuting, they are visiting their parents who have retired, or to a 2nd home in the mountains.  And even in 2000, 8% of workers who resided in Kittitas worked in King County.

If we were to agree that a split of Yakima is not a good idea, and a district over the Snoqualmie Pass is not a good idea, let's try this:

Eastern Washington plus Skamania and Clark are apportioned 3 districts, while the remainder of the state is apportioned 7 districts.

So:

Vancouver-Yakima: Clark, Skamania, Yakima.

Spokane-Northeast: Spokane and its 4 neighbors + Ferry and Okanogan

Tri-Cities-Transcascadia-Palouse: The rest of eastern Washington.

And since we've accepted the idea of not splitting counties:

West: Thurston, Lewis, Cowlitz, Pacific, Grays Harbor, Mason, Jefferson, Clallam

King+Pierce (4 districts):  

Tacoma-Pierce West

Seattle

King East

King South-Pierce East

Snohomish

Puget Sound-Northwest:  Whatcom, Skagit, Island, San Juan, Kitsap


I took a similar approach when I drew my map. Rather than start with separate districts, I looked at groupings of districts. That was especially true for the three eastern/southern districts.
You might not have appreciated that I was suggesting non-equal district populations.  The only county splits would be in King and Pierce Counties.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: jimrtex on March 13, 2011, 11:13:13 PM
I'm kind of confused by something.  I just compiled Seattle precinct registered voter counts, versus 18+ Census population.  Most of it makes sense, but several wealthy neighborhoods have 100%+ registration rates.  One precinct has 426 people over eighteen and 506 registered voters.  Another supposedly had 98.8% of its 18+ voters cast a ballot in 2010, which suggests to me that it's not all people who've moved but not been marked inactive.  What's going on with that?  Is there some reason the Census would the 18+ count would underestimate (not overestimate) eligible voters?
Do Washington election precincts conform to Census Bureau Voter Tabulation Districts?

"tabulation" is a key word, in that Census Bureau tabulates data from census blocks, which don't always conform to election districts (for example, if you had an area bounded by streets but with a park area in the middle, the houses on opposite streets probably have more in common with the houses across the street than those a 1/2 mile away.

It is also up to local officials to delineate VTDs,  In Maine, they are just the intersection of legislative boundaries.  In other places they are ward boundaries, used to elect city or town council members.  Oregon didn't bother, other than in Multnomah County.  For a mail election you really don't need election precincts, since you can generate the ballots based on address and send them to each voter.  They are useful for gerrymandering, and somewhat for validating election results.  You could probably miss 10,000 votes in King County or add an extra 10,000 and no one would notice.  But if you have 2,000 extra or missing in one precinct, or a precinct where Chuck Baldwin gets 1083 votes, and Barack Obama 14, it is more likely to be checked out.

It is also possible that Washington changed its precinct boundaries after they sent their VTD definitions to the census bureau.

High income areas are likely to have high levels of civic participation, especially if it is all single family homes.  There is a greater intent to remain in Seattle.  If it is 50/50 that you will move to Los Angeles or Atlanta in a couple of years, you are more likely to rent, and less likely to care about the government, even if you are wealthy.

The Census Bureau and the governments use different definitions of residence.  Rahm Emanuel and family were probably counted by the Census Bureau as living in D.C. (or Maryland or Virginia), even though he continued to vote in Chicago.  Rich people may have multiple residences.   Seattle weather in April may not be so nice on rich old bones as Tucson or Phoenix.  It probably doesn't apply to these neighborhoods, but military personnel have some flexibility in where they live for tax purposes.  Washington is a good place to "live" since there are no state income taxes.  It is somewhat similar for voting.  So there may be some extra voters around Fort Lewis who haven't been in the state for a while.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on March 13, 2011, 11:15:37 PM
I'm kind of confused by something.  I just compiled Seattle precinct registered voter counts, versus 18+ Census population.  Most of it makes sense, but several wealthy neighborhoods have 100%+ registration rates.  One precinct has 426 people over eighteen and 506 registered voters.  Another supposedly had 98.8% of its 18+ voters cast a ballot in 2010, which suggests to me that it's not all people who've moved but not been marked inactive.  What's going on with that?  Is there some reason the Census would the 18+ count would underestimate (not overestimate) eligible voters?

Where/how do eligible overseas voters vote in Washington State?

While abroad I simply changed my address to overseas and received/mailed my ballot from there. Very simple, got to keep the same precinct and such. When it comes to registration rates I think college students likely count for the difference, almost all Washington college students vote from their home precinct/address, not their college one. For example why would I ever want to vote in Spokane over Olympia?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Alcon on March 14, 2011, 11:59:43 AM
The precincts don't conform everywhere, because some precincts split Census blocks.  They conform fine in Seattle though, and are unchanged.  I think college+overseas may be the answer.  An 117% registration rate still seems out there, but I guess it's possible at the extreme.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on March 14, 2011, 05:05:29 PM

Do Washington election precincts conform to Census Bureau Voter Tabulation Districts?

Most don't.  I worked on the Block Boundary Suggestion Project prior to the 2000 Census, and most precincts outside of the most urban areas  do not meet Census Bureau standards of having physical boundaries (roads, streams, power line cuts, etc.).


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Alcon on March 15, 2011, 12:04:02 AM

Do Washington election precincts conform to Census Bureau Voter Tabulation Districts?

Most don't.  I worked on the Block Boundary Suggestion Project prior to the 2000 Census, and most precincts outside of the most urban areas  do not meet Census Bureau standards of having physical boundaries (roads, streams, power line cuts, etc.).

Definitely true, but that's not a problem with almost all Seattle precincts.

I have a Dave's Redistricting App file of the current Washington LD's that might be helpful in redistricting.  Would anyone like me to find a place to put it online?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on March 15, 2011, 12:33:15 AM
Yes please :)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Alcon on March 15, 2011, 11:22:54 PM
Holy damn...LD redistricting is toughhh.

Eastern Washington was tricky enough:  Keeping the Tri Cities-Walla Walla reps intact, while not really messing up the Spokane incumbents, seems undoable.

I can't figure out how to deal with Clark County's population boom, short of down-shifting a bunch of districts, unless we move over a district.  I see no other way to compensate for a 37k shift.  You have to get into the Tacoma area before you get a district with enough size to start reducing that deficit.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Frodo on March 26, 2011, 11:59:17 AM
A majority-minority congressional district is being proposed -I'd curious to see how everyone here would draw it:

Activists propose 'majority minority' congressional district for Washington (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014602522_redistricting26m.html)

By Jim Brunner
Seattle Times political reporter


As work begins on reshaping Washington's congressional-district boundaries, some local activists want to see the state create a district that — for the first time — would be more than half minority.

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.

"The intent is really to increase representation for communities of color," said George Cheung, director of the liberal-leaning organization.

The new district would stretch from Southeast Seattle to Federal Way. It would follow the boundaries of several legislative districts: the 11th, 30th, 33rd, 37th and 47th.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Verily on March 26, 2011, 12:25:47 PM
One case where the Democrats would probably love such a district as it forces the split of Seattle across multiple districts (much like the talk about a Hispanic district in Colorado forcing the split of Denver).

I doubt it happens, though, and it seems likely that a 49% white seat would still elect a white Congressman.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Alcon on March 26, 2011, 03:26:34 PM
Not to mention, the area doesn't have much of a history of racial bloc voting, let alone "white vs. not" voting.  A pretty silly proposal, IMO.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Dgov on March 26, 2011, 04:27:41 PM
Yeah, on top of that the reason it's "Minority-Majority" is because it winds up being heavily Asian.  Whites are about 49% of VAP, and no other ethnic group comprises more than 20% of the Population, meaning that they're have to all block vote to pick a candidate of choice.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on March 26, 2011, 04:47:52 PM
A majority-minority congressional district is being proposed -I'd curious to see how everyone here would draw it.

Awful idea.  One of the great things about this state is the racial tranquility.  We are the very last state that needs this.   


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on March 26, 2011, 06:16:20 PM
It won't happen, even though I wouldn't be opposed to sharing Seattle's Democratic goodness with the suburban districts. ;)

I actually did try to draw the least white district possible once, though I wasn't following any other rules and had some ridiculous Pasco-to-Seattle district. :P


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on April 05, 2011, 11:47:03 AM
I'm sure I'm way off the mark here, but with the partisan data added I thought I'd see if I could draw a commission-ey map. I tried to hew as closely to the existing district lines as possible, avoid county or city splits (the biggest one is Tacoma, which I had to split between WA-06 and WA-09), and either ignore partisan data or encourage competitive seats (I'm not sure which they go for).

State

()

Seattle area

()

WA-01 (blue) - Instead of jumping across Puget Sound, it stretches across northern King County and farther up into Smohomish. Old district: 56.2% Murray, new district: 56.5% Murray.
WA-02 (green) - Expands very slightly, picking up a little bit of Snohomish and dropping the one random descent into eastern King County. Old district: 50.5% Murray, new district: exactly 50.0% for each (the margin is 118 votes in favor of Rossi).
WA-03 (purple) - This one probably changes the most. Northern end of the district is chopped off, and it moves east to Yakima. Old district: 52.5% Rossi, new district: 55.5% Rossi.
WA-04 (red) - Moves east, losing Yakima and gaining Walla Walla. Old district: 64.4% Rossi, new district: 63.9% Rossi.
WA-05 (yellow) - Loses Walla Walla, gains bits of Franklin County. Old district: 58.6% Rossi, new district: 58.4% Rossi.
WA-06 (teal) - Drops part of Tacoma, picks up islandy parts on the west side of Puget Sound. Old district: 53.1% Murray, new district: 53.0% Murray.
WA-07 (grey) - Seattle and a bit of the suburbs south of it. Old district: 81.0% Murray, new district: 81.5% Murray.
WA-08 (light purple) - Loses Pierce County. Adds a bit of the inner Seattle-area suburbs. Old district: 50.8% Rossi, new district: 53.0% Murray.
WA-09 (sky blue) - Loses the southwestern swath of territory, picks up a bit on the northern and eastern borders. Old district: 52.8% Murray, new district: 54.1% Murray.
WA-10 (magenta) - The new seat. Most of Pierce County, all of Thurston County, and some parts south and southwest of Thurston. 50.9% Rossi.

I don't know if anyone got drawn out of their districts, but the only incumbent that would probably be seriously miffed is Reichert. Losing Pierce County would be a blow to his re-election chances. He could always move to the new WA-10, though.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Verily on April 05, 2011, 02:05:44 PM
The two northeasternmost precincts in King County (Skykomish) can only be reached through Snohomish County (or Chelan County), so they will be in WA-02 (that's why they're in WA-02 now). Also, you can avoid splitting Tacoma if you push WA-06 south into Grays Harbor, then switch some territory around between WA-10 and WA-09.

Also, there's no road connecting Yakima to the rest of your WA-03. You need WA-03 to reach Toppenish; that's where the road from Klickitat comes in to the Yakima Valley. I think this means the city of Yakima has to be split.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on April 11, 2011, 12:08:56 PM
How many Rossi LDs can you draw? (Out of 49)

I've made it to 28.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on April 11, 2011, 01:44:02 PM
Got it to 29 now with one more barely Rossi district.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Alcon on April 11, 2011, 07:08:31 PM
Fyi, the partisan numbers are wrong in any precinct that cast over 1,000 votes for a given candidate (shows up as 0) -- which happened in Benton, Grant, Jefferson, Pierce and Whatcom.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sbane on April 12, 2011, 03:28:14 PM
Here's a Democratic gerrymander of Western Washington (the rest of the map would just be a pubbie pack).
()
()
()

The most marginal district would be the 2nd which is only 52-48 Dem in 2010 as well as CD-1 and 10 which are about 54% Dem. The rest are safe Democratic districts.



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Seattle on April 24, 2011, 06:33:55 PM
First post!! :p

I've been playing with Dave's Redistricting since November or so.... and while pretty much all of my cuts have been through Columbia River counties.... what if the second were to take Okanogan and Chelan counties. The 2nd could hold onto Skykomish in N. King county and have the State route 2 "connection" for Chelan and N. Cascades for Okanogan counties.

I know this would make the district considerably more Republican and that endangering incumbents is certainly looked down upon by WA's redistricting commission, however it would be pretty clean cut.

The third would still have to creep up into Yakima county, but a split of the city and its direct suburbs would be spared. Are 2 Cascade crossing too much.... Im going to guess so, but it's certainly another way of looking at it.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on April 24, 2011, 07:06:01 PM
First post!! :p

I've been playing with Dave's Redistricting since November or so.... and while pretty much all of my cuts have been through Columbia River counties.... what if the second were to take Okanogan and Chelan counties. The 2nd could hold onto Skykomish in N. King county and have the State route 2 "connection" for Chelan and N. Cascades for Okanogan counties.

I know this would make the district considerably more Republican and that endangering incumbents is certainly looked down upon by WA's redistricting commission, however it would be pretty clean cut.

The third would still have to creep up into Yakima county, but a split of the city and its direct suburbs would be spared. Are 2 Cascade crossing too much.... Im going to guess so, but it's certainly another way of looking at it.

Doesn't that road close for much of the year? That would probably be an issue.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Seattle on April 24, 2011, 07:40:28 PM
That is true, however, it is quite busy during the late spring/summer when it is open. I just made up the districts for it (at least partly) and 3rd just creeps up into the Yakima Indian Reservation and into Toppenish.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Alcon on April 24, 2011, 07:51:43 PM
Welcome aboard!  :)  I think you may currently be our only active member from Seattle.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Seattle on April 24, 2011, 08:04:45 PM
Welcome aboard!  :)  I think you may currently be our only active member from Seattle.
Thank you! Lol, I would have thought there would be a few people from Seattle on here.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on April 25, 2011, 06:16:29 PM


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Seattle on May 24, 2011, 12:21:29 AM
I can't wait to see what maps they eventually come out with! While I'd prefer a true nonpartisan commission, where they don't care where the incumbent lives or what the political leanings of the district they create are.... at least we don't have the gerrymander crazy redistricting committees of Illinois or Texas.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on May 27, 2011, 05:27:21 AM
I finally made a map using the census numbers, though it's similar to what I posted earlier.

Anyway:

()

WA-1: Loses Kitsap and Redmond, gains Everett.
WA-2: Loses Everett.
WA-3: Loses Thurston, Pacific, Lewis, and part of Cowlitz. Gains Klickitat and part of Yakima.
WA-4: Loses Klickitat and part of Yakima, gains Walla Walla.
WA-5: Loses Walla Walla, border with the 4th in Othello slightly altered.
WA-6: Keeps Tacoma (and now includes East Tacoma) as well as expanding a little into its immediate suburbs. Gains Northern Kitsap, but loses the Olympic Peninsula. Resembles the old Bremerton-Tacoma 6th of the 1980s.
WA-7: Largely remains the same. Northern border now follows the Seattle-Shoreline border. Bryn Mawr-Skyway cut out.
WA-8: Loses Pierce County, gains Redmond. Small reconfiguring required somewhere along the border with the 9th--I chose some precincts near Renton.
WA-9: Loses Thurston, East Tacoma, and SW Pierce. Gains East Pierce and Bryn Mawr-Skyway.
WA-10: Fills the void left in Olympia. As an Olympia-Coast-Peninsula district, it somewhat resembles the old 3rd district we had several decades ago. Allows  more compact 1st, 6th, and 9th districts by cutting off the 9th's current tentacle into Olympia, and pushing the 6th into the rest of Kitsap (and thus pushing the 1st completely to the eastside of the Puget Sound).


While I think this map is ideal, it has several political problems. WA-2 changes from slight D to slight R, which would upset Rick Larsen. WA-8 changes from slight R to slight D, which would upset Dave Reichert. WA-9 still tilts D, but less so than before, which may irk Smith. Norm Dicks would have to move. But I like this map because it cleans up a lot of the mess we have in the South Sound (and West Sound).

Herrera and Heck should like it, though. :P


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Seattle on May 27, 2011, 08:23:22 PM
Interesting..... What if you traded Everett back into the 2nd, and let the 1st eat up all Monroe/US-2 territory + Skykomish?

Why Would Heck like the third's new shape?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on May 27, 2011, 10:33:47 PM
Interesting..... What if you traded Everett back into the 2nd, and let the 1st eat up all Monroe/US-2 territory + Skykomish?

Why Would Heck like the third's new shape?

Because he would be in the new, more Democratic WA-10.

And the map is quite ugly if Everett is kept in WA-2, which apparently might happen to protect Larsen based on what somebody  is telling me. It would have to take everything up to the Lake Stevens area (which is where Larsen lives, IIRC), and might just extend all the way to the eastern county border.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Seattle on May 28, 2011, 12:00:47 AM
Taking in Everett is the only way he can really keep his seat in pro-republican years. I'd always imagined Heck lived in the Vancouver area, lol.

Any indication on what will happen with the 8th?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on May 28, 2011, 12:31:06 AM
Well, here is my attempt at an incumbent gerrymander... I think this map is an abomination, just FTR.

()

WA-1: Loses Kitsap. Takes over most of suburban and rural Snohomish County, leaving Democratic Everett for Larsen in WA-2. I also transferred Mukilteo and some unincorporated stuff just south of Everett into WA-2. Increases from 50.5% Murray to 51.4% Murray... I could probably increase the Murray % with a bit more work.
WA-2: See above.
WA-3: To entrench Herrera, Democratic Thurston and Pacific are cut out. Lean R Klickitat and Southern Yakima are given to her. Increases from 52.5% Rossi to 55.8% Rossi.
WA-4: Gains Walla Walla. Loses Klickitat, Southern Yakima, Kittitas, and Chelan.
WA-5: Loses Walla Walla.
WA-6: Loses Grays Harbor, Jefferson, and Clallam. Gains Northern Kitsap and Bainbridge to offset D losses in GH/Jefferson and thus protect Dicks.
WA-7: Loses Tukwila/Burien/White Center. Has to move north and eat up Shoreline and Lake Forest Park; otherwise WA-8 would have to eat up Democratic suburbs which would threaten Reichert...
WA-8: ...To protect Reichert, Redmond (and Kirkland) are kept in the 1st, by use of the above Shoreline method. Because WA-8 is so overpopulated, protecting Reichert is not easy. He gets to mostly keep his Pierce County suburbs, and gains Kittitas and Chelan counties. However, this results in a huge change: All of Renton is moved into WA-9. Newcastle, Mercer Island, the Gold Coast & most of Bellevue have to be moved into WA-9. This would be controversial, as this area has been the population anchor of the 8th since it was created, I imagine. However, it is also the biggest chunk of D voters presently in the 8th. The district increases from 50.8% Rossi to 53.9% Rossi.
WA-9: Gains Eastside cities mentioned above. Loses tentacle into Olympia. At 56.7% Murray, this seat becomes safe Dem---a good tradeoff for Republicans (it's already a very difficult seat for them, so might as well shove some D voters into it and protect Reichert).
WA-10: A 52% Murray district, ripe for Heck's picking.


Couple areas I may continue to work on
1) Make the WA-4/WA-5 split horizontal instead of vertical to make WA-4 less ugly (ie, give Douglas and Chelan to WA-5, while giving SE WA to WA-4)
2) Entrench Larsen more...but this will be even more visually unappealing than it already is, I imagine.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on May 28, 2011, 05:44:31 PM
By shifting the city of Auburn completely into WA-9, we can have WA-8 keep some of its current rural areas in Eastern Pierce County. I find this more visually appealing than my previous "ideal" map, though it does introduce another county split. Reichert still (barely) lives in the 8th district.

()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Verily on May 28, 2011, 05:55:47 PM
Interesting..... What if you traded Everett back into the 2nd, and let the 1st eat up all Monroe/US-2 territory + Skykomish?

Why Would Heck like the third's new shape?

Because he would be in the new, more Democratic WA-10.

And the map is quite ugly if Everett is kept in WA-2, which apparently might happen to protect Larsen based on what somebody  is telling me. It would have to take everything up to the Lake Stevens area (which is where Larsen lives, IIRC), and might just extend all the way to the eastern county border.

Wikipedia claims Larsen lives in Everett, in which case it will of course be left in WA-02.

Edit: Hmm, apparently the page for WA-02 and the page for Larsen disagree. Larsen's page says Lake Stevens, but WA-02 says Everett.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on May 28, 2011, 06:12:52 PM
http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/olm112.aspx (http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/olm112.aspx)

I use this page to determine where Congresspeople live. It says Larsen lives in Everett.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on May 28, 2011, 06:24:17 PM
Yeah, he has since moved to downtown Everett. I think he started out in Lake Stevens, hence the confusion. Nevertheless, Everett is only in WA-1 in my ideal map. My abomination (AKA incumbent gerrymander, which tragically may be closer to reality) gives him Everett.

It's not like Congressmen moving is unprecedented, though. Baird moved to Vancouver after the 2000 redistricting, IIRC.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Dgov on May 28, 2011, 07:31:35 PM
Yeah, he has since moved to downtown Everett. I think he started out in Lake Stevens, hence the confusion. Nevertheless, Everett is only in WA-1 in my ideal map. My abomination (AKA incumbent gerrymander, which tragically may be closer to reality) gives him Everett.

It's not like Congressmen moving is unprecedented, though. Baird moved to Vancouver after the 2000 redistricting, IIRC.

Especially since it represents the Incumbent moving back to his original town.  It probably won't be a big deal if Larsen wants to.  Though again, he's losing a bunch of reliable Democratic votes, so i don't know how well he'd take to an Everett-less 2nd district anyway.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on May 28, 2011, 09:17:59 PM
Yeah, he has since moved to downtown Everett. I think he started out in Lake Stevens, hence the confusion. Nevertheless, Everett is only in WA-1 in my ideal map. My abomination (AKA incumbent gerrymander, which tragically may be closer to reality) gives him Everett.

It's not like Congressmen moving is unprecedented, though. Baird moved to Vancouver after the 2000 redistricting, IIRC.

Also what Jay Inslee did, the definition of shameless.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on May 28, 2011, 11:19:06 PM
Yeah, he has since moved to downtown Everett. I think he started out in Lake Stevens, hence the confusion. Nevertheless, Everett is only in WA-1 in my ideal map. My abomination (AKA incumbent gerrymander, which tragically may be closer to reality) gives him Everett.

It's not like Congressmen moving is unprecedented, though. Baird moved to Vancouver after the 2000 redistricting, IIRC.

Also what Jay Inslee did, the definition of shameless.

Well I meant more "Moving to stay in the district you represent," but yeah there's Inslee, too. lol.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on May 28, 2011, 11:23:23 PM
In Inslee's defense, there was a run for Governor in between those Congressional runs.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on May 29, 2011, 11:29:01 AM


It's not like Congressmen moving is unprecedented, though. Baird moved to Vancouver after the 2000 redistricting, IIRC.

Brian Baird's former Olympia home is still within the 3rd District.  He moved to be closer to the largest population center in the district. 


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Seattle on May 29, 2011, 12:10:05 PM
So.... I haven't really figured out how to get pictures on here, but an interesting incumbent protection map would be to have Reichert take in Eastern Snohomish, King, and Pierce, creating an exurban Seattle district. Then, you can put Everett/Lake Stevens into the 2nd, while the first loses the Key Peninsula and takes Bellevue/Redmond north of I-90. The 7th stays about the same, but the northern border is Seattle's border and the southern strechs into White Center/Skyway/Tukwila. The ninth takes in Mercer Island/South Bellevue/Renton and then goes about all the way down into Puyallup. I split Auburn the same way it was last time because I really wasn't sure were Reichert lives. Tacoma/Parkland/N. Lakewood+Key Peninsula+Shelton make a nice compact 6th. The new 10th takes pretty much the Olympic Peninsula, the Pacific counties, Wahkiakum, Lewis, Thurston, and McChord-Lewis/Dupont in Pierce + Castle Rock in Cowlitz. This creats a pretty even district, but it voted for Murray 51%. The third keeps Longview, vancouver, and strechs up evenly into Yakima county. The fourth takes most of Walla Walla county and the fifth is pretty much the same.

1st: 58.1% - 41.9%
2nd: 51.2% - 48.8%
3rd: 45.6% - 54.4% This is probably out of reach of the Dems now
4th: 34.9% - 65.1%
5th: 41.6% - 58.4%
6th: 53.4% - 46.6%
7th: 81.5% - 18.5%
8th: 45.6% - 54.4% Lol, didnt realize it voted exactly the same percentage as the third
9th: 54.7% - 45.3%
10th: 51.0% - 49.0%


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on May 29, 2011, 02:09:21 PM
^ I suppose that might be preferable to an I-90 crossing to protect Reichert.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I do keep experimenting with the I-90 crossing. Since the 8th is already so overpopulated, it already needs to cut 138,300 people. Giving it Chelan and Kittitas means it needs to cut 251,668 from its Western portions. Starting off by cutting out Pierce would be most logical, but is this really an incumbent gerrymander, or more of a trade-off for Reichert? He loses the currently most Republican part of his district for a chunk of Republican Eastern Washington.

If you can keep some of Pierce in his district (as I did in one of my maps), you have to start cutting out Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Newcastle.... I imagine there would be some strong opposition to further splitting the Eastside. We're already split between two districts (despite only having 400,000 or so people). Splitting us between three, and getting rid of the historic heart of the 8th wouldn't go unnoticed...


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Seattle on May 29, 2011, 05:03:28 PM
Would Bellevue really care if it is split from the 8th to the 1st? You'd just be logically extending the 1st further down after Kirkland.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on May 30, 2011, 10:05:59 PM
Here's my plan:

()

1st District:  54.8% Democrat, 45.2% Republican
2nd District:  51.1% Democrat, 48.9% Republican
3rd District:  55.4% Republican, 44.6% Democrat
4th District:  66.2% Republican, 33.8% Democrat
5th District:  58.2% Republican, 41.2% Democrat
6th District:  53.1% Democrat, 46.9% Republican
7th District:  81.4% Democrat, 18.6% Republican
8th District:  52.4% Democrat, 47.6% Republican
9th District:  52.9% Democrat, 47.1% Republican
10th District:  51.3% Democrat, 48.7% Republican

It's very simular to bgwah's ideal map, but with Larsen and possibly Smith in safer districts.  The 10th is only tilting Dem.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Verily on May 30, 2011, 10:25:19 PM
I believe Skykomish is the northernmost pass where a road crosses the Cascades at all, so your WA-02 is clearly impermissible.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on May 30, 2011, 10:31:21 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newhalem,_Washington


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: ottermax on May 30, 2011, 10:52:12 PM

route 20 is only open in the summer....


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Seattle on May 30, 2011, 11:17:01 PM

route 20 is only open in the summer....
While true, the communities it connects are basically ski/summer homes of the Seattle wealthy. They are forced to take US-2 in the winter and drive up north, but in the summer/fall, N. Cascades is way faster. So... I guess in that sense they are "communities of interest", but I doubt that makes up for 2 county splits.

The average length its open is April 20-Nov 26


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Verily on May 31, 2011, 07:21:35 AM
A more interesting use of WA-20, if you were going to do that crossing, would probably be to remove Lynden and other heavily Republican areas in the north from western Washington, which could help solve the problems further south and still have only one crossing of the Cascades.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on May 31, 2011, 05:04:30 PM

route 20 is only open in the summer....
While true, the communities it connects are basically ski/summer homes of the Seattle wealthy. They are forced to take US-2 in the winter and drive up north, but in the summer/fall, N. Cascades is way faster. So... I guess in that sense they are "communities of interest", but I doubt that makes up for 2 county splits.

The average length its open is April 20-Nov 26

If they're just summer/ski homes of people who normally live in Seattle, then surely those folks would be registered in the Seattle area, too? Seems like kind of a flimsy reason to put what would be some genuine Eastern Washingtonians in a Western district.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Seattle on May 31, 2011, 08:37:13 PM

route 20 is only open in the summer....
While true, the communities it connects are basically ski/summer homes of the Seattle wealthy. They are forced to take US-2 in the winter and drive up north, but in the summer/fall, N. Cascades is way faster. So... I guess in that sense they are "communities of interest", but I doubt that makes up for 2 county splits.

The average length its open is April 20-Nov 26

If they're just summer/ski homes of people who normally live in Seattle, then surely those folks would be registered in the Seattle area, too? Seems like kind of a flimsy reason to put what would be some genuine Eastern Washingtonians in a Western district.
I agree, it is a flimsy reason and not very likely. Especially if you are only going to take the Democrat part of the counties, causing county splits.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on May 31, 2011, 10:15:11 PM

route 20 is only open in the summer....
While true, the communities it connects are basically ski/summer homes of the Seattle wealthy. They are forced to take US-2 in the winter and drive up north, but in the summer/fall, N. Cascades is way faster. So... I guess in that sense they are "communities of interest", but I doubt that makes up for 2 county splits.

The average length its open is April 20-Nov 26

If they're just summer/ski homes of people who normally live in Seattle, then surely those folks would be registered in the Seattle area, too? Seems like kind of a flimsy reason to put what would be some genuine Eastern Washingtonians in a Western district.

lol  I just felt like saving those poor souls from being part of the fifth. 


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Jackson on June 05, 2011, 12:01:43 AM
Has anyone tried a rabidly partisan gerrymander?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Jackson on June 05, 2011, 12:36:29 AM
Here is a 8-2 Gerrymander.
()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: RI on June 05, 2011, 12:43:09 AM
Has anyone tried a rabidly partisan gerrymander?

I think bgwah did a 9-1 (maybe 10-0) gerrymander once by splicing up Seattle into every district.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on June 05, 2011, 12:50:59 AM
Here it is, though it was before election data was added, so I'm just assuming it's 9-1. ;D

()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Jackson on June 05, 2011, 01:05:15 AM
I still think my 3rd district is a work of art. ()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on June 05, 2011, 02:33:33 AM
I'm working on a Republican gerrymander now... A 9-1 Rossi map might be possible, however, it would be more like one >80% Murray districts (Seattle, duh) and nine 50-51% Rossi districts, which is more like 1 D, 9 swing. So I'm working on an 8-2 map instead.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on June 05, 2011, 03:21:05 AM
Ftw. ;D


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: minionofmidas on June 05, 2011, 03:21:57 AM
I still think my 3rd district is a work of art. ()
Words cannot express the extent of my disgust. :)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on June 05, 2011, 03:33:24 AM
Here is an 8-2 Republican map of Washington. The cyan district is 70% Murray and the yellow district is 74% Murray. The other eight are all 52-53% Rossi.

If Republicans were actually trying to gerrymander WA, they might feel a bit safer with 7-3, as this could easily be a 10-0 Obama map... ;)

()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Jackson on June 05, 2011, 05:08:41 AM
We have had nearly every seat go for the Democrats within living memory.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: jimrtex on June 07, 2011, 10:34:16 PM
I believe Skykomish is the northernmost pass where a road crosses the Cascades at all, so your WA-02 is clearly impermissible.

Can't you go through Canada and then take a raft down the Columbia?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: BigSkyBob on June 08, 2011, 12:11:50 AM
We have had nearly every seat go for the Democrats within living memory.


As nearly even Washington seat has went to a Republican in living memory.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Verily on June 08, 2011, 02:23:51 PM
I believe Skykomish is the northernmost pass where a road crosses the Cascades at all, so your WA-02 is clearly impermissible.

Can't you go through Canada and then take a raft down the Columbia?

Well, of course. You wouldn't need a raft; you could do that by road. But we're assuming not using international contiguity, otherwise you could connect Detroit to the UP in one district.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Jackson on June 08, 2011, 09:15:37 PM
We have had nearly every seat go for the Democrats within living memory.


As nearly even Washington seat has went to a Republican in living memory.
Within two elections of each other, too!


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Kevinstat on June 12, 2011, 05:12:42 PM
We have had nearly every seat go for the Democrats within living memory.


As nearly even Washington seat has went to a Republican in living memory.
Within two elections of each other, too!

Only one election apart, actually, if we're talking about the 8-1 D result in 1992 followed by the 7-2 R result in 1994.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Jackson on June 13, 2011, 02:50:54 AM
()

In this map, I moved Herrera into a safe Republican seat, removed some heavily Republican precincts from the 8th, and created a Democratic-leaning 10th District. The 6th and 2nd Districts have been made somewhat more Republican, but the incumbents should be able to hold both districts.

 The 8th District, with several exurban Pierce County precincts removed, becomes more swingy. A stronger Democrat (non-Burner/DelBene clone) would likely be able to beat Reichert in the Districts new configuration.

 The 4th and 5th Districts have had several counties and precincts moved around to compensate for population loss.

()

In the North Sound, the 1st District loses northern Kitsap County to the 6th District in exchange for a greater share of suburban Snohomish County and portions of Seattle.

The 7th District loses Vashon Island to the 6th in exchange for Mercer Island. The 2nd loses most of Island County to the 6th.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Seattle on June 13, 2011, 06:48:55 PM
I doubt that they're going to make the 8th more democrat - if anything, they'll try to take Bellevue out, shoring up the 9th or putting it in the 1st. and there probably wouldn't be a weird split in Island county.

What are the murray/rossi percentages for the 6th, 2nd, and 8th?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: jimrtex on June 14, 2011, 12:53:59 PM
Well, of course. You wouldn't need a raft; you could do that by road. But we're assuming not using international contiguity, otherwise you could connect Detroit to the UP in one district.
Ohio. Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin are not foreign countries.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Verily on June 14, 2011, 12:59:23 PM
Well, of course. You wouldn't need a raft; you could do that by road. But we're assuming not using international contiguity, otherwise you could connect Detroit to the UP in one district.
Ohio. Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin are not foreign countries.


If we're saying that, neither are Oregon and Idaho.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on July 01, 2011, 10:55:23 PM
Well I hope you're wrong, Meeker. That map is an abomination. And considering Yakima is still split despite having two East-West crossings, not even Sounder's prediction was entirely correct. I suppose we were all being idealistic with our maps. Just because it's "bipartisan" doesn't mean it can't be a disgusting gerrymander, I guess.

It would be great if the Democrats grew a spine and let the courts draw the map---it is very unlikely it would be any worse for them than that.

Of course, I'm getting upset over Meeker's rumors. Again, I hope you're wrong! :P


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Seattle on July 01, 2011, 11:10:40 PM
Those stupid Cascades ;).

I'm not totally opposed to how you drew the new 8th, while it is certainly way more Republican and it crosses over, it's still competitive, however, two crossings + a three way split of Yakima County is too much.... It was better when it was just between the third and eighth.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on July 01, 2011, 11:17:10 PM
Those stupid Cascades ;).

I'm not totally opposed to how you drew the new 8th, while it is certainly way more Republican and it crosses over, it's still competitive, however, two crossings + a three way split of Yakima County is too much.... It was better when it was just between the third and eighth.

It could be done, but then the 8th has to do this ugly thing into Wenatchee. It's a question of whether you divide Yakima County three ways or divide Yakima County and Chelan County two ways each.

There could also be potential for the 3rd to pick up more of Yakima --> the 8th to pick up more of Pierce --> the 10th to pick up more of Lewis. Then you have to start splitting another county though.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on July 01, 2011, 11:18:31 PM
Those stupid Cascades ;).

I'm not totally opposed to how you drew the new 8th, while it is certainly way more Republican and it crosses over, it's still competitive, however, two crossings + a three way split of Yakima County is too much.... It was better when it was just between the third and eighth.

It would amusing and slightly depressing at the same time if we had really wasted pages arguing about I-90 vs. Satus, and then the bastards just went ahead and used both crossings.

If Meeker's map is even close to correct, though, I would definitely like to see non-partisan redistricting instead of this awful "bipartisan" garbage.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Seattle on July 02, 2011, 12:13:25 AM
If Meeker's map is even close to correct, though, I would definitely like to see non-partisan redistricting instead of this awful "bipartisan" garbage.

I agree, if they come up with some gross gerrymander, I'd like that we move onto an Iowa type redistricting commision. Enough of Slade Gorton and his sleeziness.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on July 02, 2011, 12:30:54 AM
For the record, I agree with both of you. :) Unfortunately I don't see it changing anytime soon though. It would require a constitutional amendment and it makes little sense from a self-preservation perspective for the state legislature to change the system.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: minionofmidas on July 02, 2011, 03:57:30 AM
How many people in the built-up Selah/Yakima portion of the 8th? Any way that could be avoided, perhaps by a huge counterclockwise shift?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on July 02, 2011, 05:31:24 PM
How many people in the built-up Selah/Yakima portion of the 8th? Any way that could be avoided, perhaps by a huge counterclockwise shift?

It's about 55,000 people. It could be avoided with a 3rd taking more of Yakima --> 8th taking more of Pierce --> 10th taking in most of Lewis. This would result in another county getting split up though, along with the 10th becoming more Republican.

It's unfortunate for those affected, but as with the current map (which splits Olympia right down the middle) someone somewhere is going to have be split up to make the numbers work.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on July 04, 2011, 05:44:08 PM
Apparently there's been quite of demand in the Yakima area for a majority-minority legislative district. I played around in the app, it's actually quite easy to draw a fairly compact district that is >70% non-white. Of course, the ripple effect it would have on surrounding districts would need to be considered. Still kind of interesting, though.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on July 04, 2011, 05:59:08 PM
Wouldn't that seat still be heavily Rossi?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Seattle on July 04, 2011, 07:02:05 PM
It would, but not as heavily Rossi if it were not majority-minority. I think it is an interesting idea, but can it be done without messing up surrounding districts too much?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on July 04, 2011, 09:43:18 PM
Here is the proposed district: http://www.aclu-wa.org/sites/default/files/2011-06-06--Exhibit%201.pdf

I tried it out, making the 15th LD (orange) the minority-majority district. It looks fine by itself, but has a noticeable ripple effect on the rest of Eastern Washington's districts. The biggest problem that immediatately surfaces is what to do with Skamania and Klickitat counties, as the minority-majority district blocks Satus Pass.

In my first map, I tried sneaking by via the White Swan precinct to connect Skamania and Klickitat to the city of Yakima. Ideally, the town of White Swan would obviously be kept in a minority majority precinct, but the precinct there is huge so use your imagination. However, I'm not sure we have very good road connectivity even with this sneak-by. But despite that, the benefit of his map is that it manages to keep the rest of Eastern Washington's districts relatively intact. I did change the 9th a bit, having it go into Walla Walla instead of Adams and Franklin.

MAP 1
()



In my second map, the 15th LD (orange) keeps White Swan. The 14th (olive) remains based in northern Yakima County, gaining what it needs left from southern Kittitas. Kittitas has been completely removed from the 13th (salmon). The small-ish remaining portion of northern Kittitas is merged with Chelan to the north in the 12th district (blue). The 12th gains northern Kittitas at the expense of northern Grant. A couple thousand people are shifted around Omak, but otherwise the 12th stays relatively the same. The 7th (a lighter shade of orange?) has gained areas around Omak, but lost Lincoln County. The borders in Spokane County have been slightly altered around the edges to put their populations in equilbrium, but the 3rd (green) and 6th (yellow) didn't change too much. The 4th didn't change much either, losing NE Spokane County in exchange for SE Spokane County.

The 13th (salmon) has changed quite a bit, losing all of Kittitas and moving eastward. It now contains all of Grant, and also eats up Adams, Lincoln, and small portions of Spokane and Whitman in order to make up for losing Kittitas. As you may have noticed, we're seeing a bit of a circular population shift to create the minority district. The 13th has now pushed the 9th (cyan) completely out of Spokane and Adams and even part of Whitman. The 9th gains all of Columbia and Walla Walla, and a bit more of Franklin, to make up for its losses. The effects of the circular push result  in the 16th (green) changing most radically. It transforms from a Walla Walla-Pasco district to a Kennewick-to-Skamania district, as Southern Yakima is impenetrable in this map due to the 15th. The 8th district hasn't changed a ton. It loses Kennewick, but gains Pasco instead.

MAP 2
()

And thus the circular movement is completed---The 15th, which currently goes down to Skamania (and a bit of Clark), is pushed completely north into Yakima County, pushing the 14th north into Kittitas, pushing the 13th east towards Spokane and Whitman, pushing the 9th south and then east into Walla Walla and Franklin, and finally pushing the 16th all the way through Klickitat to Skamania.

The 15th LD is now 73.5% non-white. However, it still voted 53-47 Rossi.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on July 05, 2011, 06:45:10 PM
Well gee, don't all comment at once...


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on July 06, 2011, 03:22:38 AM
Even though nobody cares, I'll continue: I toyed around with a majority-minority congressional district in King County.

Statewide view:
()

King County view:
()


I roughly based this off of the real proposal, but as usual their map makers don't make it as non-white as possible, and of course ignore the ripple effect it would have on other districts in the state.

The 9th district becomes majority-minority, containing South King County and much of South Seattle (though I kept the much whiter West Seattle in the 7th).

With its population pushed close to 200K under with these losses, the 7th extends north to the King County border, taking Shoreline and Lake Forest Park from the 1st. Not enough, obviously, so it also crosses the I-90 bridge, taking in Mercer Island, Newcastle, the Gold Coast, and most of Bellevue from the 8th.

With Shoreline and LFP lost, the 1st absorbs Redmond and a bit of Bellevue from the 8th.

The 8th eats up the whiter parts of the 9th in the suburban Pierce County.

The numbers:
-Dave Reichert would be satisfied: his new district is 54-46 Rossi, just as good if not better than than the proposals where his district extends into Eastern Washington.
-Dicks gets Kitsap, which Meeker claims he wants.
-Heck still gets his new Democratic-leaning 10th district anchored by Olympia, which anyone with a brain could figure out he wants.
-Herrera still gets to cut out leftist Olympia and gain part of Eastern Washington for a more solid 55-45 Rossi district.
-The 1st doesn't change too much, being a 56-44 Murray district.
-The 7th is still solid Democrat (75-25 Murray)



All things considered, the 7th becomes pretty ridiculous looking losing South Seattle and extending to Bellevue. Nobody on the Eastside would like this map, having the region even more mutilated than it already is and put into three districts despite only having ~400,000 people. And the 9th is only 52-48 minority. It does, however, become much more Democratic, voting 65-35 Murray.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on July 06, 2011, 10:31:34 AM
Doesn't Dicks live in Mason (Belfair)?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on July 06, 2011, 12:17:20 PM
Doesn't Dicks live in Mason (Belfair)?

Yeah, Dicks lives just south of Belfair on State Route 106. At least North Mason has to stay in the 6th.

As bgwah's map shows, we can have both a majority-minority district and an Olympia-based 10th. The issue is that Smith isn't going to be a fan of the 9th becoming majority-minority for obvious reasons.

ETA: In fact Smith doesn't even live in the 9th under bgwah's map.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on July 06, 2011, 02:41:05 PM
I don't really expect the majority-minority CD to happen, looking at that map. Besides, it's not like whites wouldn't still dominate the district.

The LD doesn't seem impossible, though.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on July 13, 2011, 04:21:07 PM
Here's something that the people who frequent this thread might be interested in:

http://gardow.com/davebradlee/redistricting/WAStateRedistricting.html


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Kevinstat on July 17, 2011, 10:44:17 AM
How many people in the built-up Selah/Yakima portion of the 8th? Any way that could be avoided, perhaps by a huge counterclockwise shift?

It's about 55,000 people. It could be avoided with a 3rd taking more of Yakima --> 8th taking more of Pierce --> 10th taking in most of Lewis. This would result in another county getting split up though, along with the 10th becoming more Republican.

It's unfortunate for those affected, but as with the current map (which splits Olympia right down the middle) someone somewhere is going to have be split up to make the numbers work.

What if the 8th district was the only district to cross the Cascades, not just the only district to cross the Cascades north of the Columbia River Gorge + the range(s) that the Satus Pass crosses, but the Cascades period (or rather the line between Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, Lewis and Skamania counties on the one hand and Okanogan, Chelan, Kittitas, Yakima and Klickitat counties on the other)?  After Kittitas County, how much of Yakima County could go into the 8th district?  Could all of the core Yakima area be included in the 8th district without the 4th district (which would include the remainder of Yakima County and Klickitat County, as well as the Tri-Cities area, the line between the 4th and 5th perhaps becoming more a line of latitude) relying on the Satus Pass for functional contiguity (ie. all of the 4th district's portion of Yakima County connected by decent roads to Benton County; one could pretend that the Satus pass was at the Klickitat-Yakima boundary to avoind splitting Klickitat County, or better yet have southern Yakima County (but a portion connected to Benton County via decent roads) in the 4th along with Klickitat to make the distinction between Satus Pass and the county boundary irrelevant)?  How many people live in Klickitat County north of Satus (or Yakima County south of Satus) anyway?  Sounder spoke in page 1 of this thread as if his map (which used the Klickitat-Yakima boundary as a boundary between congressional districts) relied on Snoqualmie Pass for functional contiguity rather than Satus Pass, and through all the dabate as to Snoqualmie v. Satus I don't remember people pointing out the range(s) Satus crosses doesn't follow a county boundary.

If Yakima County were still to be deeply divided under such a plan, perhaps some of Skamania County could remain in or some more territory go to the 4th to make for a less deep division of Yakima.  Alternatively, some of Klickitat county could go into a Western Washington district if that made sense from a community of interest perspective.  I know most people here want to have the one trans-Cascade district go along the Columbia Gorge but I thought I'd get people thinking about how the boundary between the 4th and the (3rd?) in a crossing Snoqualmie scenario could be further west than Satus and the Klickitat-Benton county boundary.  Isn't Klickitat county considered part of Eastern Washington (as opposed to Western Washington) after all?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: muon2 on July 17, 2011, 09:30:19 PM
I'm still somewhat partial to my Yakima-Vancouver connection.

The consensus seems to be that the Snoqualmie Pass link is undesirable, but so is a split of Yakima city. The discussion about using US 12 as a connection led me an idea. One can keep Yakima intact and connect it to Vancouver by way of US 12 and I 5. It does put Longview and Kelso in two different districts, but that doesn't seem as bad as some other alternatives.

()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on July 17, 2011, 10:29:49 PM
Starting to sound like Washington as is shouldn't be a state if it's so hard to get to one side from another, not that I'd support splitting it as that'd benefit Republicans.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: minionofmidas on July 18, 2011, 03:37:12 AM
Starting to sound like Washington as is shouldn't be a state.
Well duh, it should be a province. ;D


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on July 18, 2011, 09:39:34 AM
Starting to sound like Washington as is shouldn't be a state.
Well duh, it should be a province. ;D

Hmm... I wouldn't be too opposed to Washington joining Canada. Although my personal dream is to see Cascadia become a reality.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on July 18, 2011, 01:26:20 PM
Ok... I tried to take a stab at two Cascade crossings. Basically Reichart gets to take in Kittitas and Chelan counties, helping to make his district much, much more moderate. Although in this map I do have the 8th gaining a little bit of Redmond which serves to cancel out many of the conservatives on the east side of the mountains.

Looking at the map I think the most important/difficult task for the redistricting group will be deciding where to draw the lines in Central King county between the 8th and the 9th districts.

Anyways, here you go:

()


()

...And numbers!

CD1:  55D 45R (73.5% white) Basically solid D.

CD2:  51.3D 48.7R (79.2% white) I think(?) this is about the same, it would mean that Larsen would always be somewhat vulnerable. It would be hard to get this district very reliably democratic. Slight lean D.

CD3:  44.7D 55.3R (81.5% white) And Herrera jumps for joy at seeing her new and improved district, Solid R. Note: yes, the Yakima county portion of the district is ugly, but it seems that the East side of the state will have to somehow be split in a not-so-lovely fashion anyway you look at it.

CD4:  34.8D 65.2R (58.9% white) Stays solidly R, interesting to note that the white percentage bumps down to below 60% though.

CD5:  41.8D 58.2R (85.5% white) Also solidly R, also note that the two Eastern Washington districts are both the most and least white.

CD6:  53.3D 46.7R (73% white) Moderate D, should be pretty easy for Dicks to hold, also he gets to keep hold of all his precious military bases (McChord, Lewis and even gets to add Bangor to the mix)

CD7:  81.4D 18.6R (63.7% white) Extremely partisan D. If only we could share the Seattle love.

CD8:  50.4D 49.6R (70.8% white) The district that sees the most change. While I added two Eastern Counties to the CD via Snoqualmie Pass the CD remains a tossup. Should the parts of Renton that are in the district get cut out it would probably become a lean R district.

CD9:  52.5D 47.5R (60.4% white) Becomes much more compact and logical. Also remains a lean D district, I think Smith would be fairly happy with this result.

CD10: 51.2D 48.8R (78.7% white) The new district takes in the Olympic Penninsula (except for Mason which stays in the 6th thanks to Dicks living there), Olympia and parts of rural Pierce county. This would be a dynamic district that could move either way in the next few elections although at the moment it would enter into the scene as a slight D leaning district.

Honestly after looking this over I think I still prefer a district that crosses over via the Columbia (basically the 3rd taking in Yakima), it would mean there are only three CDs in the East rather than 4. And personally I refuse to connect Yakima to the 8th, for some reason Chelan and Wenatchee make more sense to me than Yakima.

Thoughts?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: jimrtex on July 18, 2011, 06:27:24 PM
Ok... I tried to take a stab at two Cascade crossings. Basically Reichart gets to take in Kittitas and Chelan counties, helping to make his district much, much more moderate. Although in this map I do have the 8th gaining a little bit of Redmond which serves to cancel out many of the conservatives on the east side of the mountains.

Anyways, here you go:

()

()

Honestly after looking this over I think I still prefer a district that crosses over via the Columbia (basically the 3rd taking in Yakima), it would mean there are only three CDs in the East rather than 4. And personally I refuse to connect Yakima to the 8th, for some reason Chelan and Wenatchee make more sense to me than Yakima.

Thoughts?

I think it does a better job in the west where you have clearly defined districts for Vancouver, Olympia, and Tacoma.

I'd probably include E Wenatchee in the Transcadia district.  Would that be enough to put all of the Yakima Indian Reservation in the East?

And then I'd move Mason into the Olympia district, move the Tacoma district a bit further east (does it split the city), and drop the mid-cities district a bit south.  Possibly include all of the Mount Rainier area in the Transcascadia district, unless there is a problem with splitting counties.

Congressmen don't have to live in their district.  Dicks is 70 and may retire or die before 2020, but the districts live on.

A minor tweak would be to put Skyhomish in the purple district.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: RBH on July 18, 2011, 11:03:04 PM
Here's a map that gives the 2nd through 7th most populous counties their own district. And with Snomanish and Pierce getting one district entirely in the boundaries

()

()
()

Senate results
CD1 (open): 51/49 Murray
CD2 (Larsen): 52/48 Murray
CD3 (Herrera): 57/43 Rossi
CD4 (Hastings): 57.5/42.5 Rossi
CD5 (Rodgers): 58/42 Rossi
CD6 (Dicks): 51.5/48.5 Murray
CD7 (McDermott): 81/19 Murray
CD8 (Reichert): 58/42 Murray
CD9 (Smith): 50.4/49.6 Murray
CD10 (Open): 53/47 Rossi

Wouldn't blame Reichert and Smith for swapping districts with that map.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: RBH on July 19, 2011, 12:16:21 AM
Take 2

()

CD1: 51/49 Murray
CD2: 52/48 Murray
CD3: 58/42 Rossi
CD4: 64/36 Rossi
CD5: 58/42 Rossi
CD6: 53/47 Murray
CD7: 81/19 Murray
CD8: 57/43 Murray
CD9: 50.1/49.9 Murray
CD10: 51/49 Murray

()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on July 19, 2011, 10:02:50 AM
@jimrtex: Actually I originally had Eastern Wenatchee as part of the 8th but decided to change it because it made the 3rd have to jump into Thurston county a little bit (making the new 10th look even more odd). Though if Mason was added to the 10th then a good chunk of Pierce could be taken out of the 10th and it would look considerably better.
Here's an update that makes the above shifts:

()

And the partisan data (which I imagine is very close to what will be the final result of the redistricting process)
WA-03: 44.6D 55.4R
WA-06: 53.7D 46.3R
WA-08: 50.1D 49.9R
WA-09: 52.1D 47.9R
WA-10: 51.3D 48.7R


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on July 19, 2011, 10:29:32 AM
You're giving Dicks way too much of Pierce. He doesn't have Lakewood or Fort Lewis/McChord right now and isn't going to be picking them up.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on July 19, 2011, 10:57:33 AM
You're giving Dicks way too much of Pierce. He doesn't have Lakewood or Fort Lewis/McChord right now and isn't going to be picking them up.

But wouldn't that entail him keeping his hold on Clallam and Jefferson counties?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on July 19, 2011, 11:00:07 AM
You're giving Dicks way too much of Pierce. He doesn't have Lakewood or Fort Lewis/McChord right now and isn't going to be picking them up.

But wouldn't that entail him keeping his hold on Clallam and Jefferson counties?

Yup. Give him back Clallam and Jefferson and give the non-Tacoma parts of Pierce to the 10th.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Joe Republic on July 19, 2011, 11:09:43 AM
You're giving Dicks way too much of Pierce.

Ouch.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: memphis on July 19, 2011, 12:19:55 PM
Starting to sound like Washington as is shouldn't be a state if it's so hard to get to one side from another, not that I'd support splitting it as that'd benefit Republicans.

A lot of the Western states are like that. Try getting from Southern Idaho to Northern Idaho. Or from Vegas to Reno. Or in the most extreme example, from just about anywhere in Alaska to anywhere else.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on July 19, 2011, 01:55:30 PM

Well at least I left his home in-district. Really his district should be completely changed, it doesn't make alot of sense as is currently (Tacoma and Aberdeen in the same district via Port Angeles?)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: muon2 on July 19, 2011, 08:56:47 PM
I've updated my version of WA. I concentrated on keeping cities together as much as possible and Seattle, Olympia and Yakima are all intact. There are about 5000 people split from Tacoma. White Pass on US 12 is the only trans-Cascade crossing.

Politically, all the incumbents remain in their current districts (at least according to Vote Smart). The map create three solid Dem districts (1, 7, 9) and three solid GOP districts (3, 4, 5). The other four are competitive based on the 2010 Senate race: CD 2 - 50.3% R, CD 6 - 50.7% D, CD 8 - 51.9% D, and CD 10 - 52.4% R.

()

()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on July 19, 2011, 09:37:28 PM
I like that map better than your previous versions, Muon, but I still can't see them ever using a Lewis-Yakima crossing.

Anyway, I was naive and idealistic when I made my first maps. It's becoming clear that WA-2 will be gerrymandered to keep Everett in it, and Larsen safe...that WA-8 might cross the Cascades, not because it makes sense, but to save Reichert. That even with that, Herrera's district will also cross into Eastern Washington to make her safer. And of course, thats 1 Democratic strengthening and 2 Republican, so 2010 WA-03 loser Denny Heck will get WA-10 in return.

My next challenge will be to incorporate some of the demands (solidify Larsen, Reichert, and Herrera while making the 10th for Heck) while also trying to incorporate as many of my idealistic preferences as possible. :P


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: muon2 on July 19, 2011, 09:56:46 PM
I like that map better than your previous versions, Muon, but I still can't see them ever using a Lewis-Yakima crossing.


I don't understand why a path along the Columbia then across the Satus Pass is considered better than White Pass. In the end both connect Vancouver and Yakima. Am I missing something?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on July 19, 2011, 10:06:23 PM
I like that map better than your previous versions, Muon, but I still can't see them ever using a Lewis-Yakima crossing.


I don't understand why a path along the Columbia then across the Satus Pass is considered better than White Pass. In the end both connect Vancouver and Yakima. Am I missing something?

There's a number of reasons. Part of it is historical precedence. Part of it is that White Pass can get treacherous to go over during the winter. Part of it is that the southern part of Yakima County fits in with Klickitat and Skamania while putting Yakima proper with Vancouver just feels weird, especially if they aren't connected through anything besides White Pass.

While it might make sense from outsider perspective, it's not going to happen. No one will want it, including Herrera.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: muon2 on July 19, 2011, 10:29:04 PM
I like that map better than your previous versions, Muon, but I still can't see them ever using a Lewis-Yakima crossing.


I don't understand why a path along the Columbia then across the Satus Pass is considered better than White Pass. In the end both connect Vancouver and Yakima. Am I missing something?

There's a number of reasons. Part of it is historical precedence. Part of it is that White Pass can get treacherous to go over during the winter. Part of it is that the southern part of Yakima County fits in with Klickitat and Skamania while putting Yakima proper with Vancouver just feels weird, especially if they aren't connected through anything besides White Pass.

While it might make sense from outsider perspective, it's not going to happen. No one will want it, including Herrera.

But since Dec I've been seeing Vancouver-Yakima links from the natives. Here are two recent versions.


Even though nobody cares, I'll continue: I toyed around with a majority-minority congressional district in King County.

Statewide view:
()




Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on July 19, 2011, 10:35:05 PM
Including Yakima proper in the 3rd is fine so long as it includes a significant part of the rest of the county along with Klickitat. Having Yakima proper being the only part of the area in a western Washington CD isn't going to fly. And relying on US 12 as the only connector won't fly either.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: muon2 on July 19, 2011, 10:48:35 PM
Including Yakima proper in the 3rd is fine so long as it includes a significant part of the rest of the county along with Klickitat. Having Yakima proper being the only part of the area in a western Washington CD isn't going to fly. And relying on US 12 as the only connector won't fly either.

It seems more like historical bias, but OK. My intent was to make keeping Yakima city intact a priority over having Klickitat go to CD 3 with a split of Yakima. I'll take your view under advisement.

Are there thoughts about the other areas of my map?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on July 19, 2011, 11:26:35 PM
Including Yakima proper in the 3rd is fine so long as it includes a significant part of the rest of the county along with Klickitat. Having Yakima proper being the only part of the area in a western Washington CD isn't going to fly. And relying on US 12 as the only connector won't fly either.

It seems more like historical bias, but OK. My intent was to make keeping Yakima city intact a priority over having Klickitat go to CD 3 with a split of Yakima. I'll take your view under advisement.

Are there thoughts about the other areas of my map?

I tend to think they'll try to keep the 4th and 5th split along a vertical line as opposed to the more horizontal division you propose, but they actually have done it that way in the past so it's probably just my bias towards the more recent shapes.

There's nothing really wrong with your map... I think what some of the natives right now are trying to do, is make maps that we think might resemble something the redistricting commission will come up with. It's hard, because we all tend to be somewhat idealistic with our maps, when in fact bipartisan redistricting cares more about protecting incumbents than logical changes in the map. Everett should be moved into WA-1, for example but it will likely stay in WA-2 to keep it more Democratic and protect Larsen. Similarly, as logical as it would be for WA-8 to take Redmond, Redmond is Democratic and Dave Reichert is fighting to survive in an increasingly Democratic region, so it seems unlikely that WA-8 will take in Redmond.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on July 19, 2011, 11:50:19 PM
Anyway, here is my try at a map that aims to be somewhat realistic, but also incorporates some of my idealistic elements. Call it my Idealistic Realist map (pun intended). I haven't changed districts 3, 4, or 5 since my previous version, so for descriptions of those, go back a little.

Statewide view:
()

Puget Sound view:
()


Idealistic changes that I kept:
-WA-8 is entirely within Western Washington.
-WA-3 extends into Eastern Washington via the Columbia River and Satus Pass.
-WA-1 is entirely on one side of the Puget Sound.

Realistic compromises:
-WA-2 keeps Everett.
-WA-1 takes in a bunch of suburban/exurban/rural Snohomish County instead of Everett.
-WA-9 keeps East Tacoma (I would've liked the entire city in one district), since Smith lives there.
-WA-9 takes in the rest of Renton, East Renton, and Kent from WA-8. These areas are largely Democratic, and moving them gives Reichert a safer district. Reichert takes in some more of suburban Pierce, which is Republican, in return.
-WA-6 keeps Mason County, which is where Dicks live. I ended up throwing in Clallam and Jefferson in, too, to keep the area more compact-looking. I would have liked the entire peninsula in WA-10.
-WA-10 loses the peninsula, and takes in more of suburban Pierce instead.

Other changes
-To make up for its losses to WA-10, WA-9 not only takes Renton/Kent etc. from the 8th but has to take some of the cities south of Seattle from WA-7. The border between the 7th and 9th is now exactly along the city of Seattle border, with one exception (a precinct in unincorporated White Center is kept in WA-7).
-WA-7 is, with the exception of that one precinct, made up exactly of Seattle, Vashon Island, and Shoreline.
-WA-1 makes up for losing Shoreline and its part of Seattle by taking the rest of Lake Forest Park, and also gets to keep Redmond now (which, remember, Reichert doesn't want in WA-8).

Voting numbers
-WA-1: 56.2% Murray to 54.4% Murray. Should remain lean Democratic, unless a certain someone moves there. ;)
-WA-2: 50.5% Murray to 51.2% Murray. Larsen only gets a bit safer, but averts the major risk of losing ~100,000 person Everett (which usually votes close to 60% Democrat), which would have put him in a Rossi district.
-WA-3: 52.6% Rossi to 54.6% Rossi. Herrera gets safer without Olympia. Although this district seems fairly Republican already (for Western Washington, at least), it always seem to easily re-elect Baird, and there is a decent Democratic bench in SW WA that Herrerra obviously wants to protect herself from.
-WA-4: Who cares? Safe R.
-WA-5: Who cares? Safe R.
-WA-6: 53.0% Murray to 53.2% Murray. Dicks keeps the seat for life, as if it was ever in doubt.
-WA-7: Who cares? Safe D.
-WA-8: 50.8% Rossi to 51.8% Rossi. Reichert gets a bit more of a cushion in a district he's never managed to win by a large margin. The number could probably increased a bit with more tinkering of the boundary between the 8th and the 9th. He could of course get 1-2 points more Republican with Eastern Washington, though... But plz no!
-WA-9: 52.8% Murray to 55.7% Murray. Smith gets safer, not that he really needed it. I suppose it could hypothetically help if someone like Skip Priest challenged him, though.
-WA-10: Supposed to be a swing district with a slight tilt to the Democrats (and by the Democrats I'm referring to boring Denny Heck. Perhaps if we're lucky Cheryl Crist will run again). It's 50.6% Murray in my map, so I think it meets that requirement.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on July 20, 2011, 09:20:34 AM
Dang, still stuck in with Lewis county. And Bgwah, what's so bad about Heck? He actually seems to be pretty on top of things to me (and ran a pretty good race last year considering the wave).


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on July 20, 2011, 09:46:51 AM
Including Yakima proper in the 3rd is fine so long as it includes a significant part of the rest of the county along with Klickitat. Having Yakima proper being the only part of the area in a western Washington CD isn't going to fly. And relying on US 12 as the only connector won't fly either.

It seems more like historical bias, but OK. My intent was to make keeping Yakima city intact a priority over having Klickitat go to CD 3 with a split of Yakima. I'll take your view under advisement.

Are there thoughts about the other areas of my map?

I can't tell from the zoomed-out map but do you happen to have Mercer Island with Seattle? If so I believe that would be a big no-no. It identifies more with the Eastside of King County than Seattle proper. Also Island county (Whidbey Island) needs to stay in the 2nd, a Sound crossing is pretty unlikely.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: muon2 on July 20, 2011, 12:18:48 PM
Including Yakima proper in the 3rd is fine so long as it includes a significant part of the rest of the county along with Klickitat. Having Yakima proper being the only part of the area in a western Washington CD isn't going to fly. And relying on US 12 as the only connector won't fly either.

It seems more like historical bias, but OK. My intent was to make keeping Yakima city intact a priority over having Klickitat go to CD 3 with a split of Yakima. I'll take your view under advisement.

Are there thoughts about the other areas of my map?

I can't tell from the zoomed-out map but do you happen to have Mercer Island with Seattle? If so I believe that would be a big no-no. It identifies more with the Eastside of King County than Seattle proper. Also Island county (Whidbey Island) needs to stay in the 2nd, a Sound crossing is pretty unlikely.

I have both of those covered. Mercer I. is in CD 8 and Whidbey I. is in CD 2. Vashon I. is in CD 7 with Seattle. The only complete Sound crossing is to link CD 1 from Edmonds to Kingston.

This is the detail area for my map (pink lines are the cities from DRA).

()



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on July 20, 2011, 03:42:32 PM
Dang, still stuck in with Lewis county. And Bgwah, what's so bad about Heck? He actually seems to be pretty on top of things to me (and ran a pretty good race last year considering the wave).

It seems pretty likely that Thurston and Lewis will end up in the same district. And Denny Heck is boring, that's what! :P


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on July 20, 2011, 04:52:38 PM
Dang, still stuck in with Lewis county. And Bgwah, what's so bad about Heck? He actually seems to be pretty on top of things to me (and ran a pretty good race last year considering the wave).

It seems pretty likely that Thurston and Lewis will end up in the same district. And Denny Heck is boring, that's what! :P

:(


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on July 20, 2011, 06:47:33 PM
Sad face yourself.

Now comment on my map!


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on July 20, 2011, 06:52:33 PM
I think it's pretty realistic. The only critique I'd have is to have the 1st and 2nd try to trade some territory to make the 2nd more Democratic and the 1st more Republican.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on July 20, 2011, 10:51:20 PM
I think it's pretty realistic. The only critique I'd have is to have the 1st and 2nd try to trade some territory to make the 2nd more Democratic and the 1st more Republican.

I can tinker with the border a bit more. I don't want it to look too goofy by having some weird tentacle going even further into SW Snohomish.

I may also tinker a bit more with the Yakima area.

I'm thinking I'll probably "submit" something like this as my map though. I know it's probably fairly pointless and the commission doesn't care at all and the whole process is just supposed to make it look like they care what the public thinks, but it can't hurt to try! :)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on July 21, 2011, 09:54:39 AM
Bgwah: are the Tri-Cities area and Central Washington connected via a public road on your map? Or is the connection through Hanford.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: minionofmidas on July 21, 2011, 11:54:09 AM
It seems pretty likely that Thurston and Lewis will end up in the same district.
8) Is that Thurston Moore you're talking about?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on July 22, 2011, 12:52:30 AM
I think it's pretty realistic. The only critique I'd have is to have the 1st and 2nd try to trade some territory to make the 2nd more Democratic and the 1st more Republican.

I can tinker with the border a bit more. I don't want it to look too goofy by having some weird tentacle going even further into SW Snohomish.

I may also tinker a bit more with the Yakima area.

I'm thinking I'll probably "submit" something like this as my map though. I know it's probably fairly pointless and the commission doesn't care at all and the whole process is just supposed to make it look like they care what the public thinks, but it can't hurt to try! :)

They do take public input into account... just so long as it doesn't really affect the partisan outcome of the final maps.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on July 22, 2011, 01:31:47 AM
I think it's pretty realistic. The only critique I'd have is to have the 1st and 2nd try to trade some territory to make the 2nd more Democratic and the 1st more Republican.

I can tinker with the border a bit more. I don't want it to look too goofy by having some weird tentacle going even further into SW Snohomish.

I may also tinker a bit more with the Yakima area.

I'm thinking I'll probably "submit" something like this as my map though. I know it's probably fairly pointless and the commission doesn't care at all and the whole process is just supposed to make it look like they care what the public thinks, but it can't hurt to try! :)

They do take public input into account... just so long as it doesn't really affect the partisan outcome of the final maps.

How inspiring. :P

Do you think I should submit my map? I really don't want be in some awful Bellevue-to-Wentachee district! :(


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on July 22, 2011, 01:40:43 AM
I think it's pretty realistic. The only critique I'd have is to have the 1st and 2nd try to trade some territory to make the 2nd more Democratic and the 1st more Republican.

I can tinker with the border a bit more. I don't want it to look too goofy by having some weird tentacle going even further into SW Snohomish.

I may also tinker a bit more with the Yakima area.

I'm thinking I'll probably "submit" something like this as my map though. I know it's probably fairly pointless and the commission doesn't care at all and the whole process is just supposed to make it look like they care what the public thinks, but it can't hurt to try! :)

They do take public input into account... just so long as it doesn't really affect the partisan outcome of the final maps.

How inspiring. :P

Do you think I should submit my map? I really don't want be in some awful Bellevue-to-Wentachee district! :(

Can't hurt. :)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on August 13, 2011, 02:59:35 PM
Monday the 15th is the deadline for submitting your own maps.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Seattle on August 19, 2011, 08:41:36 PM
I was playing around and you can actually do 10 all D districts, if you start each district in Seattle, with even portions. The lowest are two 50.5% Murray districts, with a little more tweaking in Seattle I can probably get both to 51% without and others dropping below that. The higest is 55%, but with tweaking that would probably drop to 53.5-54% Murray.

It's a truely disgusting abomination.....


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on September 13, 2011, 02:58:23 AM
Drafts should be released today!! :)

though that made turn into a sad face if the horror stories of an 8th Reich-mander are true


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on September 13, 2011, 12:18:59 PM
:( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on September 13, 2011, 12:23:31 PM
wow they might actually be doing a majority-minority district...


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on September 13, 2011, 12:36:56 PM
I think I missed Ceis' proposal. But anyway, here is Huffs. I kinda want to vomit. This map is disgusting.

The only bright spot is that Sammamish is in WA-1 now, which actually seems quite random since Issaquah is still in WA-8... I wonder if this was because... LOL.

Here are some screen shots until better maps surface:

()

()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on September 13, 2011, 12:45:20 PM
Here is Gorton's plan:

()

()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on September 13, 2011, 01:11:10 PM
I'm watching the public commentaries. It's been 100% minorities who support the majority-minority district thus far.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: minionofmidas on September 13, 2011, 01:12:28 PM
Lol.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on September 13, 2011, 01:24:09 PM
Can someone give me the link to where I can find these maps? (I am too lazy to simply google it)

Also Huff is a Republican appointee right? Or are we as dems getting royally screwed in a state that we should have more than an equal say in.


By the Way if Huff's plan is enacted I would probably be protesting in the streets, that thing is an abomination. How many Republican seats would result from that? 5 at a minimum (the 1st, 3, 4, 5, 8, and the 6th as a slight dem lean)? Clever to add in the minority district to try and appear to not be such a partisan hack (once again this is a republican right?)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on September 13, 2011, 01:25:42 PM
Well I missed the Democratic maps apparently. Interesting to see Republicans actively supporting the majority-minority district in an effort to concentrate Democratic votes and give them more seats... But this happens in other states, just didn't think it would happen here.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on September 13, 2011, 01:46:51 PM
Is TVW's website down? I was going to try and watch the proceedings from there but I cant even load the page..


Oh and any way we could get numbers from the maps proposed today or do we basically just have to infer based on what we see?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: RI on September 13, 2011, 02:16:04 PM
What is this I don't even...


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on September 13, 2011, 02:22:54 PM
I was hoping for a more united Eastside. Instead we might get split not between two but four districts. :( I really don't think a majority-minority district (that would still be majority white voters anyway) is worth butchering the rest of the Puget Sound districts.

I wonder if Denny Heck is crying in a corner right now...? :P


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on September 13, 2011, 02:35:06 PM

I know right?  I would consider shooting myself if these maps ever became the real thing.  It's a good thing they probably won't. 


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: BigSkyBob on September 13, 2011, 02:39:07 PM
I think this is the appropriate thread for this map.

Looks like Dennis might be heading West!


http://blogs.dixcdn.com/capitalblog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Redistricting-Map-Ohio-in-color-1.pdf


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on September 13, 2011, 03:01:27 PM
And another thought: could the proposed "majority-minority" WA-10 actually be better for Kucinich than WA-01 or an Olympia-based WA-10? A safe, open Democratic seat that will have a very divided primary for the Democratic side... He just might be able to slip through. And if he did somehow make it to the general, he would probably fare better than he would in the other districts.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on September 13, 2011, 03:43:44 PM
All four proposals have been posted:

http://redistricting.wa.gov/maps.asp


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on September 13, 2011, 04:05:32 PM
Oh, this was today?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on September 13, 2011, 04:06:29 PM
These maps are just so amateur...

And yes, Meeker, it was today! I'm surprised you haven't been following. Looks like Heck might get shafted, with Smith taking Olympia so as to leave South King County for a "majority-minority" district.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on September 13, 2011, 04:09:07 PM
These maps are just so amateur...

And yes, Meeker, it was today! I'm surprised you haven't been following. Looks like Heck might get shafted, with Smith taking Olympia so as to leave South King County for a "majority-minority" district.

I think you may have misunderstood the tone of my post. :)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on September 13, 2011, 04:10:43 PM
These maps are just so amateur...

And yes, Meeker, it was today! I'm surprised you haven't been following. Looks like Heck might get shafted, with Smith taking Olympia so as to leave South King County for a "majority-minority" district.

I think you may have misunderstood the tone of my post. :)

Then share your opinions! :P


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on September 13, 2011, 04:13:11 PM
I tried clicking on Ceis's presentation, but it gave me Foster's instead.  :(


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: RBH on September 13, 2011, 04:17:48 PM
I think this is the appropriate thread for this map.

Looks like Dennis might be heading West!


http://blogs.dixcdn.com/capitalblog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Redistricting-Map-Ohio-in-color-1.pdf

you mean that Dennis isn't allowed in Columbus? He's just as likely to run in Columbus than Seattle.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on September 13, 2011, 04:25:43 PM
@#$!@#$@!

Every last one of them includes a trans-cascade I-90 district. I wonder what Reichert bribed them with to get this result. Though I will say that Herrera-Beutler is getting a bit shafted (although she loses Olympia from all of the plans as well which means that she should be safe save for wave elections)

I think almost the maps are pointing to a 6-4 D advantage, which instead really should be 6-3-1 (D, R, tossup).

So here comes the question:
Which of these horrible monstrosities would you choose if a gun was pointed at your head?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on September 13, 2011, 04:37:21 PM
@#$!@#$@!

Every last one of them includes a trans-cascade I-90 district. I wonder what Reichert bribed them with to get this result. Though I will say that Herrera-Beutler is getting a bit shafted (although she loses Olympia from all of the plans as well which means that she should be safe save for wave elections)

I think almost the maps are pointing to a 6-4 D advantage, which instead really should be 6-3-1 (D, R, tossup).

So here comes the question:
Which of these horrible monstrosities would you choose if a gun was pointed at your head?

Now that I found access to it, probably Ceis's plan.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on September 13, 2011, 04:39:40 PM
I also find Ceis' plan least offensive. Obviously I don't like the 8th district going into Eastern Washington, but I would be in the 1st district in his map anyway. ;)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on September 13, 2011, 05:21:13 PM
And just a random note: I strongly dislike Gorton's plan to re-number the districts. A lot of these districts have encompassed their territory for their entire existence, and some up to a century or so... Throwing that out the window "just because" is ridiculous.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Seattle on September 13, 2011, 05:23:08 PM
I just threw up... okay not literally, but these are disgusting. I could and have drawn maps considerably better than those. Now time to look at them in more detail.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Seattle on September 13, 2011, 06:05:06 PM
I dislike Hoff's the most. Followed by Gorton's followed by Ceis's, followed by Foster's. I think Foster's is a bit better than Ceis's.

Now saying that..... I hate them all.

I even sent a long message to Gorton pointing out every bit of gerrymandering.... but really used it to attack all the maps. I am extremely dissapointed and I'd like for some steps to be taken so that in the next redistricting commission is conducted by a non-partisan group that takes no account into where incumbents live and that there primary concern is keeping communities of interest together, followed by district competitiveness.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on September 13, 2011, 06:15:31 PM
I pitty Slate Gordon.  That senior center he's in must be really boring, or else he wouldn't go to all that trouble just to f**k up our congressional districts.


Edit:  No direspect to old people.  ;)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on September 13, 2011, 08:33:43 PM
Did Huff draw a 6-4 Republican map?! That is ballsy, especially with his bizarre 1st district which somehow avoids touching the Puget Sound.

Edit: Whoops that is definitely a 5-5 map, not a 6-4 map. My bad. Although it's still hideous.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on September 13, 2011, 08:46:07 PM
The final map will look nothing like any of these drafts. I wouldn't give them too much thought.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on September 13, 2011, 08:51:55 PM
The final map will look nothing like any of these drafts. I wouldn't give them too much thought.

How can you be so sure?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on September 13, 2011, 08:53:19 PM
The final map will look nothing like any of these drafts. I wouldn't give them too much thought.

How can you be so sure?

The 1991 drafts looked nothing like the final map.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Alcon on September 13, 2011, 09:06:54 PM
LD maps sux


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: RI on September 13, 2011, 09:15:26 PM

Well, look who decided to show up.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on September 13, 2011, 09:18:14 PM

Huff's map is particularly bad in this department. Take a look at his drawings of the 2nd and 28th.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: greenforest32 on September 13, 2011, 11:22:37 PM
So a 7-3 map is pretty much not happening right? It's 6-4 at best at this point it seems.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on September 13, 2011, 11:29:02 PM

Yeah, where have you been? 


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on September 13, 2011, 11:38:38 PM
So a 7-3 map is pretty much not happening right? It's 6-4 at best at this point it seems.

7-3 was very doable. Considering the Republicans came in with 5-5 maps, I think the Democrats should have come in with 7-3 maps so we could compromise with a 6-4 map.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on September 14, 2011, 02:20:31 AM
"The likelihood of a transcascade district that doesn't include the Columbia Gorge is flat zero. It's just not going to happen."

Ha


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on September 14, 2011, 02:37:48 AM
That was someone else's comment, but nevertheless congratulations are on (perhaps) winning this argument :P

Interestingly enough, when we first argued about a possible 10th and the East-West crossing on SSC in 2008, you were also talking about how McCain would never win the Republican nomination. So... hah, we're even! ;)

Luckily it looks like many of the maps cut Bellevue and much (if not all) of the Eastside out of these trans-Cascade districts (with one exception---the Huff map, which almost everyone agrees is the worst map). I wouldn't mind that too much.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: jimrtex on September 14, 2011, 04:51:07 AM
If the US would build a border fence, there would be a road along the fence, and this would be just like Imperial County to Chula Vista.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Torie on September 14, 2011, 09:25:52 AM
Looking at Huff's map, it may be that the VRA will require such a majority-minority CD no? Perhaps it is a close call, but it is not as if the minority CD is some erose monster.  If so, does it impact the partisan balance between how the CD's are divied up?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Torie on September 14, 2011, 11:22:44 AM
What are the odds that the Commission will fail to agree on a plan, and let the Washington Supreme Court do it?  Do the Washington gurus have any opinion on that?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: minionofmidas on September 14, 2011, 11:24:05 AM
If the US would build a border fence, there would be a road along the fence, and this would be just like Imperial County to Chula Vista.

...except without the (sketchy, sorta-kinda-y) community of interest.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on September 14, 2011, 11:39:19 AM
What are the odds that the Commission will fail to agree on a plan, and let the Washington Supreme Court do it?  Do the Washington gurus have any opinion on that?

Won't happen. The Republicans would much rather take whatever deal the Democrats offer them than risk a court drawn map that would endanger Reichert.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on September 14, 2011, 01:11:26 PM
If the US would build a border fence, there would be a road along the fence, and this would be just like Imperial County to Chula Vista.

...except without the (sketchy, sorta-kinda-y) community of interest.

Also the Northern Border in that area is part of a National Park (North Cascades National Park) which means you would not be able to build a road up there (also it would be closed in Fall/Winter/Spring anyways, just like the North Cascades Highway). Trying to build a road in the National Park would definitely spur protests from the environmental community in the Pacific NW and I probably don't have to mention how influential they are here.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: minionofmidas on September 14, 2011, 01:38:10 PM
Now I think you're getting a little too defensive. It's not as if anybody thinks they would actually build that fence through the mountains. :)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: BigSkyBob on September 14, 2011, 01:53:18 PM
What are the odds that the Commission will fail to agree on a plan, and let the Washington Supreme Court do it?  Do the Washington gurus have any opinion on that?

Won't happen. The Republicans would much rather take whatever deal the Democrats offer them than risk a court drawn map that would endanger Reichert.

If the Democrats actually believe that, it will end up in the Courts. The Republicans aren't going to be that stupid. Already, three of the commissioner have chosen to cross the Cascades in the same way. Seems like we have an agreement on the first element of the final map. Given how much his district shifts East, Reichert would really have to be screwed not to have a better district.

The issue is the new seat. Democrats have been spouting the meme that the final map will be a trade of given Reichert a better seat for giving the Democrats the new seat. The reality is that the bulk of the growth has been in the four districts represented by Republicans. Drawing a fifth Republican seat is as easy of a task as drawing a sixth Democratic district. The natural compromise would be keeping the five Democrats, strengthening Reichert, and drawing a "fair fight" district.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Brittain33 on September 14, 2011, 01:54:16 PM
The reality is that the bulk of the growth has been in the four districts represented by Republicans.

Eastern Washington is growing more slowly than western Washington. That's two of the districts.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on September 14, 2011, 02:03:17 PM
What are the odds that the Commission will fail to agree on a plan, and let the Washington Supreme Court do it?  Do the Washington gurus have any opinion on that?

Won't happen. The Republicans would much rather take whatever deal the Democrats offer them than risk a court drawn map that would endanger Reichert.

If the Democrats actually believe that, it will end up in the Courts. The Republicans aren't going to be that stupid. Already, three of the commissioner have chosen to cross the Cascades in the same way. Seems like we have an agreement on the first element of the final map. Given how much his district shifts East, Reichert would really have to be screwed not to have a better district.

The issue is the new seat. Democrats have been spouting the meme that the final map will be a trade of given Reichert a better seat for giving the Democrats the new seat. The reality is that the bulk of the growth has been in the four districts represented by Republicans. Drawing a fifth Republican seat is as easy of a task as drawing a sixth Democratic district. The natural compromise would be keeping the five Democrats, strengthening Reichert, and drawing a "fair fight" district.

Wrong. Democratic commissioners also have an incentive to keep incumbent members happy and keep them in their existing districts. That wouldn't happen under a court drawn plan. That leaves us in a situation where both sides have strong incentive not to go to court but one side (the D's) have slightly more leverage.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on September 14, 2011, 02:09:15 PM
What are the odds that the Commission will fail to agree on a plan, and let the Washington Supreme Court do it?  Do the Washington gurus have any opinion on that?

Won't happen. The Republicans would much rather take whatever deal the Democrats offer them than risk a court drawn map that would endanger Reichert.

If the Democrats actually believe that, it will end up in the Courts. The Republicans aren't going to be that stupid. Already, three of the commissioner have chosen to cross the Cascades in the same way. Seems like we have an agreement on the first element of the final map. Given how much his district shifts East, Reichert would really have to be screwed not to have a better district.

The issue is the new seat. Democrats have been spouting the meme that the final map will be a trade of given Reichert a better seat for giving the Democrats the new seat. The reality is that the bulk of the growth has been in the four districts represented by Republicans. Drawing a fifth Republican seat is as easy of a task as drawing a sixth Democratic district. The natural compromise would be keeping the five Democrats, strengthening Reichert, and drawing a "fair fight" district.

Wrong. Democratic commissioners also have an incentive to keep incumbent members happy and keep them in their existing districts. That wouldn't happen under a court drawn plan. The leaves us in a situation where both sides have strong incentive not to go to court but one side (the D's) have slightly more leverage.

Yep. Although personally I would prefer the courts to draw the maps; I feel like using common sense and keeping communities of interest together would benefit the dems (although maybe not all of the incumbents).

I am not sure how a 5-4-1 map is 'fair' in a state that leans so heavily to one side. Honestly I feel that a 6-3-1 map would be the most 'fair', one that would ensure that the Eastside district remains the competitive district while conceding the Vancouver district to the R's.

Oh and a question for others: Not a single map has Herrera adding in Yakima. Does anyone else see this as a big risk for the next ten years? The district while still a bit more republican after losing Thurston county wouldn't be nearly as conservative as one that includes more areas to the east. Should Vancouver shift even a bit to the left I feel like it could spell trouble for Herrera..


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on September 14, 2011, 02:51:36 PM
The reality is that the bulk of the growth has been in the four districts represented by Republicans.

Eastern Washington is growing more slowly than western Washington. That's two of the districts.

The 8th and 3rd are in Western and SW Washington.  The 4th, which is in EW grew fast.  Tri-Cities, Vancouver, Olympia, and the deep Seattle periphery were the hot growth spots.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on September 14, 2011, 03:13:05 PM
The reality is that the bulk of the growth has been in the four districts represented by Republicans.

Eastern Washington is growing more slowly than western Washington. That's two of the districts.

Technically Eastern Washington grew a tiny bit faster.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on September 14, 2011, 03:40:50 PM
My favorite comments from the Seattle Times article about the majority-minority proposals:

"You will be like SHARECROPPERS in the nation your ancestors founded."

"Pathetic. Racist voting districts, nothing more."

"The ruling Corporatist Statist party divides itself into Republicans and Democrats to give the illusion of choice to the public so that voting for one or the other is still giving legitimacy to a Corporatist Statist Elite. Citizens arise, Blow it up."

"We already have a minority congressman.Comrade Mc Dermott could not get ecected in 85 % of the districts in the US."


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on September 14, 2011, 03:50:29 PM
I liked how Krist Novoselic was posting in the comments... :P


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: BigSkyBob on September 14, 2011, 04:16:57 PM
The reality is that the bulk of the growth has been in the four districts represented by Republicans.

Eastern Washington is growing more slowly than western Washington. That's two of the districts.

The four Republican-held districts are overpopulated by about 398,000 people, while the five Democratic-held districts are overpopulated by about 274,000 people.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Brittain33 on September 14, 2011, 04:20:44 PM
The four Republican-held districts are overpopulated by about 398,000 people,

How much of that overpopulation is in two districts, WA-8 and WA-3, one of which was held by a Democrat for the past decade?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on September 14, 2011, 04:38:03 PM
The four Republican-held districts are overpopulated by about 398,000 people,

How much of that overpopulation is in two districts, WA-8 and WA-3, one of which was held by a Democrat for the past decade?

Probably the majority. Also I think I should add that at least in WA-3 the most growth was in the Vancouver and Olympia Metro areas which are respectively moderate (perhaps lean GOP) and rabidly liberal.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sounder on September 14, 2011, 06:50:31 PM


How much of that overpopulation is in two districts, WA-8 and WA-3, one of which was held by a Democrat for the past decade?

If Linda Smith never vacated the seat to run for Senate, it probably wouldn't have been in Democrat hands going all the way back to 1994 (except maybe a take over in 2008).  Bush carried the 3rd in 2004.  It is a swing district that leans slightly right.  Take away Olympia and it gets much more right.   Olympia is split into the 9th and the 3rd.  The 9th section grew a lot faster, but the 3rd part of town is considerably heavier Democrat.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on September 14, 2011, 06:52:39 PM
What are the odds that the Commission will fail to agree on a plan, and let the Washington Supreme Court do it?  Do the Washington gurus have any opinion on that?

Won't happen. The Republicans would much rather take whatever deal the Democrats offer them than risk a court drawn map that would endanger Reichert.

If the Democrats actually believe that, it will end up in the Courts. The Republicans aren't going to be that stupid. Already, three of the commissioner have chosen to cross the Cascades in the same way. Seems like we have an agreement on the first element of the final map. Given how much his district shifts East, Reichert would really have to be screwed not to have a better district.

The issue is the new seat. Democrats have been spouting the meme that the final map will be a trade of given Reichert a better seat for giving the Democrats the new seat. The reality is that the bulk of the growth has been in the four districts represented by Republicans. Drawing a fifth Republican seat is as easy of a task as drawing a sixth Democratic district. The natural compromise would be keeping the five Democrats, strengthening Reichert, and drawing a "fair fight" district.

The reality is two of the four Republican seats are swing districts that, while currently having Republican representatives, also voted for Barack Obama. One of them had a Democratic Congressman until last year, when he retired (he probably would've held the seat had he run again). The compromise wouldn't just be strengthening Reichert, but strengthening Herrera as well. The most simple way of strengthening Herrera, and we see this in all 4 of the commission's proposed maps, is to eliminate Democratic stronghold Olympia from her district. So what happens with Olympia, then? This is what could result in the new seat being marginally Democratic. Either by creating the new 10th in the South Sound or by creating a majority-minority district in South King County (which would be solidly Democratic, and then shift other districts like the 9th more towards Olympia, keeping them marginally Democratic). Nevertheless, suburban Thurston and some of suburban Pierce could very well be in this district, and they are much more friendly to the GOP, which is why this seat would only be marginally Democratic. Maybe 50-51% or so Murray---certainly not an impossible seat for the GOP.

Strengthening Reichert can be done multiple ways. If we do expand his district into Eastern Washington, keep in mind that his district was by far the most overpopulated, with something like 138,000 extra people. If we give him Chelan and Kittitas counties in Eastern Washington as the several of the commission's proposals do, you're adding another 113,000 people to the district. Which means 251,000 people  have to be cut from the Western Washington portions of the district. And that leaves a real possibility of some Democratic-friendly areas like Bellevue being cut out from his district. That may result in the 1st absorbing some of it (there are numerous possibilities here, so I'm just speculating). But I could see the 1st being a swing district that may be very marginally Democratic... The commissioners have some very different ideas for the 1st, which of course is an open seat with Inslee running for Governor, so it's harder to figure out what they may do.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: RI on September 14, 2011, 06:52:56 PM
A good portion of that population growth in Eastern Washington was from Hispanics, fyi.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on September 14, 2011, 07:02:15 PM
A good portion of that population growth in Eastern Washington was from Hispanics, fyi.

This is true, but they don't vote nearly as much as whites... It's a bit of a Texas issue. :P


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on September 14, 2011, 07:39:53 PM


How much of that overpopulation is in two districts, WA-8 and WA-3, one of which was held by a Democrat for the past decade?

If Linda Smith never vacated the seat to run for Senate, it probably wouldn't have been in Democrat hands going all the way back to 1994 (except maybe a take over in 2008).  Bush carried the 3rd in 2004.  It is a swing district that leans slightly right.  Take away Olympia and it gets much more right.   Olympia is split into the 9th and the 3rd.  The 9th section grew a lot faster, but the 3rd part of town is considerably heavier Democrat.

I disagree. Linda Smith got elected in that district riding the 94' wave, we need to remember that she won by less than 200 votes in 1996 and that she would have fallen sometime (she wasn't an untouchable political genius).


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on September 14, 2011, 09:47:20 PM
So are there demographic and political numbers for the proposed districts anywhere?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on September 14, 2011, 10:17:22 PM
So are there demographic and political numbers for the proposed districts anywhere?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/14/1016954/-Washington-Redistricting:-Numbers?via=sidebytagfeed


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: minionofmidas on September 15, 2011, 11:32:00 AM
The four Republican-held districts are overpopulated by about 398,000 people,

How much of that overpopulation is in two districts, WA-8 and WA-3, one of which was held by a Democrat for the past decade?
The full breakdown is

8th 21%
3rd 16%
4th 15%
2nd 13%
1st 10%
5th 8%
9th 7%
6th 5%
7th 4%

of the statewide surplus population that the new district needs to be fashioned from.
The two R-held competitive seats, one of the two safe R seats, and the D-held competitive seat top the list, in that order. Three of the four safe D seats are at the bottom.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Alcon on September 15, 2011, 06:20:28 PM
I thought the VRA only applied to a given minority group, not minorities in general


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on September 15, 2011, 07:04:04 PM
I just find the entire idea that minorities can't get elected in this state without their own special districts to be absolutely absurd.

Majority white King County elected minorities as its executives in 1993, 1997, 2001, and 2005.

Majority-white Seattle, which is basically WA-7, had a black mayor for two terms in the 1990s.

A majority-white county council district may very well elect a black county councilman this November, despite only being 2-3% black probably.

John Lovick is black and got elected Snohomish County Sheriff (and as a state legislator before that) despite running in majority-white constituencies.

We were one of the first states to elect a minority Governor.

Jaime Herrera was elected in WA-3, despite it being majority white. One of her main opponents in the Republican primary was also a minority.

Minorities can get elected in Washington without racial gerrymandering. And to suggest otherwise is not just dishonest, but insulting to the rest of us by implying we don't vote for minorities when we clearly have a lengthy track record of doing so.

And really, they're proposing a district that is still 49% white!! And probably about 54-55% 18+ white! And maybe over 60% when you count only voters!

Demographic changes in the 9th district will probalby result in it becoming majority-minority soon anyway. There is absolutely no reason to ruin the rest of the Puget Sound districts for such a pointless reason.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on September 15, 2011, 07:14:04 PM
ok... I tried to make a compromise map between the various plan. Somewhere along the line I think I got lost but I think it could be a good indication of what may come out of redistricting:

()

()

It includes a majority-minority district (even though personally I don't see the point) and the 8th crossing over into the East side of the state via I-90. My goal was to try and tamper down some of the partisan differences (and create an Olympia district simply because I am biased for my home town). I made sure the 10th linked Olympia and areas south of Tacoma since so many of the plans seemed to take that route.

Partisan and Demographic data:

WA1: 52.5D-47.5R (74.7% white)
WA2: 51.3D-48.3R (77.8% white)
WA3: 44.3D-55.7R (83.4% white)
WA4: 35.1D-64.9R (57.3% white)
WA5: 41.7D-58.3R (85.6% white)
WA6: 52.6D-47.4R (79.5% white)
WA7: 78.0D-28.0R (73.1% white)
WA8: 45.2R-54.8R (75.2% white)
WA9: 61.0D-39.0R (49.7% white)
WA10: 53.4D-46.6R (69.0% white)

Honestly looking at the maps I feel like the dems gave up way too much with their versions while the Republicans went for the moon. I am not sure if that hurts the dems negotiating positions going forward.

So in the end:
2 Super-Solid D districts (the 7th and 9th)
1 Likely D district (the new Olympia-based 10th)
3 Lean D districts (the 1st, 2nd, and 6th)
2 Likely R districts (the 3rd and 8th)
2 Solid R districts (the 4th and 5th)

On thing I find interesting is that if population trends continue along the same lines then we could easily see the possibility for a majority-minority district east of the cascades (although it would quite possibly be the most conservative majority-minority district in the nation).

Thoughts? Is this a plausible scenario?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on September 15, 2011, 07:16:24 PM
I just find the entire idea that minorities can't get elected in this state without their own special districts to be absolutely absurd.

Majority white King County elected minorities as its executives in 1993, 1997, 2001, and 2005.

Majority-white Seattle, which is basically WA-7, had a black mayor for two terms in the 1990s.

A majority-white county council district may very well elect a black county councilman this November, despite only being 2-3% black probably.

John Lovick is black and got elected Snohomish County Sheriff (and as a state legislator before that) despite running in majority-white constituencies.

We were one of the first states to elect a minority Governor.

Jaime Herrera was elected in WA-3, despite it being majority white. One of her main opponents in the Republican primary was also a minority.

Minorities can get elected in Washington without racial gerrymandering. And to suggest otherwise is not just dishonest, but insulting to the rest of us by implying we don't vote for minorities when we clearly have a lengthy track record of doing so.

And really, they're proposing a district that is still 49% white!! And probably about 54-55% 18+ white! And maybe over 60% when you count only voters!

Demographic changes in the 9th district will probalby result in it becoming majority-minority soon anyway. There is absolutely no reason to ruin the rest of the Puget Sound districts for such a pointless reason.

While I agree with your rant Bgwah I am afraid that those who get to decide have had a swig of the kool-aid and probably won't be listening to reason anytime soon.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: RI on September 15, 2011, 09:31:56 PM
I highly doubt a new majority-minority district would even elect a minority candidate off the bat anyway. There isn't enough of any one minority group to nominate a candidate of their own volition, even if we assume racial block voting.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: minionofmidas on September 16, 2011, 07:50:55 AM
It's not a "minority-majority seat" in anything but p.r.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on October 14, 2011, 04:38:17 PM
Down to two draft maps for legislative districts: http://redistricting.wa.gov/maps.asp


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on October 14, 2011, 04:41:11 PM
The Republican map of Spokane is really sickening. So is their Clark County map, though the Democrats' map is still somewhat ugly...

Anyway, the Republicans are moving forward with full blown gerrymanders while the Democrats seem to be going in with more sensible maps. I have a bad feeling this is not going to end well.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: jimrtex on October 14, 2011, 08:49:26 PM
The Republican map of Spokane is really sickening. So is their Clark County map, though the Democrats' map is still somewhat ugly...

Anyway, the Republicans are moving forward with full blown gerrymanders while the Democrats seem to be going in with more sensible maps. I have a bad feeling this is not going to end well.

I think the Huff-Gorton plan is more reasonable in keeping Seattle in fewer districts rather than having them stretched out so much.

How much of LD-6 is actually NE of Spokane, populationwise?

If you were to slide LD-17 and LD-49 east, would LD-18 get yanked down into Vancouver?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on October 14, 2011, 10:36:23 PM
The Republican map of Spokane is really sickening. So is their Clark County map, though the Democrats' map is still somewhat ugly...

Anyway, the Republicans are moving forward with full blown gerrymanders while the Democrats seem to be going in with more sensible maps. I have a bad feeling this is not going to end well.

I think the Huff-Gorton plan is more reasonable in keeping Seattle in fewer districts rather than having them stretched out so much.

How much of LD-6 is actually NE of Spokane, populationwise?

If you were to slide LD-17 and LD-49 east, would LD-18 get yanked down into Vancouver?


I do prefer the R version of Seattle (it's almost exactly what I proposed). The Democratic map is probably trying to avoid placing incumbents together, since their weird splits into ultra-Democratic suburbs probably isn't giving them extra seats. And while I don't necessarily approve of that, it doesn't bother me as much as blatant gerrymandering to take out the other party's seats. I suppose it's possible there was some sort of ripple effect that made outer districts slightly more Democratic in return. Hard to be certain at a glance.

I don't know how much of NE Spokane is in the 6th... But as you probably noticed it does a silly swerve around the Spokane Valley to also take in SE Spokane. We see the Senate Majority leader (D) have her district mutilated. The city of Spokane appears to be in four districts. That's ridiculous. No offense but it looks almost... Texan. :P

I tried to answer your question about Clark County, but the redistricting app keeps crashing on me. Maybe tomorrow. :P Both maps do it though, so maybe it's not possible. What annoys me is the "mushroom cloud" 17th LD trying to turn a swing seat into a safe seat.



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: minionofmidas on October 23, 2011, 05:19:30 AM
Something I'd long liked to draw. The third to take all of the Yakima agglomeration... and the fourth to cross Snoqualmie Pass and take in East King to make up the resulting population deficit.
I think it works beautifully. And I also eliminated all those Puget Sound crossings that had always bothered me.

()

Democratic Senate percentages 2010:
1st 57.1%
2nd 50.0% (just under btw)
3rd 43.0%
4th 37.2%
5th 41.7%
6th 50.9%
7th 81.2%
8th 52.4%
9th 56.4%
10th 49.7%

...so 3-3-4 if you take Eastside Republican incumbency into account - Republicans don't have genuine cause to complain. Of course incumbents gonna hate (with unfortunate implications under Washington law).


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on October 23, 2011, 04:01:26 PM
One big problem with that map Lewis: Having the 3rd cross via White Pass would likely cause outrage by one side or the other. Also Democrats would probably be foaming at the mouth and attack the first thing in sight.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: jimrtex on October 23, 2011, 11:31:22 PM
I think it works beautifully. And I also eliminated all those Puget Sound crossings that had always bothered me.
They are part of the regular transportation network of the state.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on October 24, 2011, 12:14:38 AM
I think it works beautifully. And I also eliminated all those Puget Sound crossings that had always bothered me.
They are part of the regular transportation network of the state.

Also there is a bridge across the Tacoma Narrows, so a cross-Puget Sound District is absolutely fine there. Although ferry connected districts aren't that bad..


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: minionofmidas on October 24, 2011, 05:16:03 AM
I think it works beautifully. And I also eliminated all those Puget Sound crossings that had always bothered me.
They are part of the regular transportation network of the state.

Also there is a bridge across the Tacoma Narrows, so a cross-Puget Sound District is absolutely fine there. Although ferry connected districts aren't that bad..
I know, I know, they're better than random mountain crosses obviously. They still annoy me and aren't actually necessary.

Anyways, you could draw that arrangement for the 3rd to 5th without the western changes.

Also, White and Satus. That the main highway from Satus to Yakima runs on the non-reservation, and 4th district, side of the river doesn't impact its usability as a connection.

Oh wait, the connection from Lewis County to Vancouver is in the 6th, obviously. Yeah, I suppose instead of rural parts of Lewis you could use rural parts of Cowlitz. Though you'd have to draw it very closely around Longview, and obviously you'd be introducing an additional county split as the 6th would then have to take a small part of Thurston or Lewis (or cross the Sound after all).


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Verily on October 24, 2011, 11:05:27 AM
You could push the 3rd out of Lewis/Cowlitz entirely, push the 4th further out (entirely out?) of Yakima County, and push the 4th further into eastern King County to balance it out. I think that might actually be better for the Democrats as well.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: minionofmidas on October 24, 2011, 11:20:42 AM
You could push the 3rd out of Lewis/Cowlitz entirely, push the 4th further out (entirely out?) of Yakima County, and push the 4th further into eastern King County to balance it out. I think that might actually be better for the Democrats as well.
It would improve their position in the 8th, and weaken it in the 10th. It would also be bad from a CoI point of view - East King in the 4th arguably makes more sense than Wenatchee in the 8th... but it's still awkward, and the deeper into the continuously built-up plains you go, the more awkward it becomes. As of right now, I manage to almost avoid that, and the area where I don't is cunningly hid around the intersection of 8th, 4th, 1st and 2nd.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on November 19, 2011, 01:49:03 PM
What is taking so long!??!!

:(


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on November 19, 2011, 03:24:19 PM
You have quite the long wait to go, I'm afraid.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on December 16, 2011, 01:16:36 AM
There's a meeting Friday morning where something very close to the final lines for the LD's (except Eastern WA and Seattle) will be revealed. Further patience is required for the final LD lines and anything on the CD front. :)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Seattle on December 16, 2011, 06:27:56 PM
Is there any indication when they will have the CD lines ready?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on December 16, 2011, 06:30:34 PM
They claim they'll have something on Tuesday but I'm pretty skeptical about that.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 18, 2011, 11:15:40 PM
http://redistricting.wa.gov/maps_draft.asp

The legislative district maps are pretty silly in spots, but I guess I've come to expect that. I'm encouraged to see Sammamish being lumped with the Eastside instead of rural King County, though. Hopefully the same will happen with the congressional districts... I do not want to be in a Reichert-mander!


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on December 19, 2011, 12:57:26 AM
Won't you be living in Seattle anyway?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on December 19, 2011, 01:38:17 PM
No congressional district maps tomorrow.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on December 19, 2011, 11:47:37 PM
No congressional district maps tomorrow.

:(


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on December 19, 2011, 11:48:39 PM
I would not expect anything before Christmas, frankly.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on December 22, 2011, 08:34:22 PM
They met again today and say they're close. Meeting scheduled for tomorrow has been cancelled; next meeting on Tuesday. I don't expect them to have anything then but I also wouldn't be surprised.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Seattle on December 24, 2011, 01:08:25 PM
They met again today and say they're close. Meeting scheduled for tomorrow has been cancelled; next meeting on Tuesday. I don't expect them to have anything then but I also wouldn't be surprised.

If they split Seattle, I'm going to be royally pissed. What are the chances of that 'minority majority' district?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 27, 2011, 05:40:45 PM
They're claiming they'll have congressional maps tomorrow.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Jackson on December 27, 2011, 05:48:59 PM
I await with bated breath.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Seattle on December 27, 2011, 06:08:14 PM
Just a random question.... but what was the point of extending the first into Seattle and 7th up into Lake Forest Park in the 2000 redistricting?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 27, 2011, 06:27:54 PM
Just a random question.... but what was the point of extending the first into Seattle and 7th up into Lake Forest Park in the 2000 redistricting?

I'm not sure.

The 1st was the Seattle district for a long time (A Seattle-Kitsap district at times). When they added the 7th district in the 70s, they based it in South King County, adding South Seattle to it. They had 7 legislative districts per congressional district (7x7=49). Of the 8 Seattle LDs, the southern three were in the 7th, and the northern five were in the 1st. The 7th took more of North Seattle during later redistrictings, so the current situation might simply be a remnant of that.

It seems likely that 2010 will see the 1st's migration out of Seattle and Kitsap completed. We'll know for sure tomorrow. :)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 27, 2011, 07:01:25 PM
Are the voting results of the proposed legislative districts available anywhere? Obviously the commissioners use them to draw their maps. I guess they feel like they have to omit this data so fewer people realize that they're partisan hacks.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Seattle on December 27, 2011, 07:05:24 PM
Thanks, okay, that makes sense... except the 7th extends up into Lake Forest Park. For the longest time, I assumed McDermott lived there, but apparently he lives in South Seattle, so that mystery remains.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Jackson on December 27, 2011, 07:28:44 PM
I think we should wait to see what the new districts look like before asking that question.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on December 28, 2011, 11:00:38 AM
Maps are out sometime today!


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: BigSkyBob on December 28, 2011, 02:07:20 PM
Posted:

http://www.redistricting.wa.gov/assets/maps/122811_drafts/C-GC_2.0_Big_Map_Statewide.pdf


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: minionofmidas on December 28, 2011, 02:08:23 PM
Terrible. Stupid.

[starts downloading map]


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 28, 2011, 02:09:47 PM
Yeah, we lost big time. Between Nickels getting 25% in a primary and liquor landsliding, I think it's safe to say Tim Ceis is a joke who should never work again.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: minionofmidas on December 28, 2011, 02:13:18 PM
Yeah, we lost big time. Between Nickels getting 25% in a primary and liquor landsliding, I think it's safe to say Tim Ceis is a joke who should never work again.

Wait, that seems not to be the final map. Or possibly just not technically yet.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: krazen1211 on December 28, 2011, 02:14:36 PM
Am I missing something or does that look REALLY solid for the GOP?

3,4,5,8 look like solid districts, and 1 is reasonably so.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 28, 2011, 02:19:13 PM
Am I missing something or does that look REALLY solid for the GOP?

3,4,5,8 look like solid districts, and 1 is reasonably so.

This is an absolutely fantastic map for the GOP. In fact, you would think Republicans were fully in control of our state government if you did not know we had bipartisan redistricting!


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 28, 2011, 02:26:06 PM
I hope someone investigates Tim Ceis thoroughly. He's a very shady character, and there is a pretty decent chance he was bribed to accept this map.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Seattle on December 28, 2011, 02:34:51 PM
This is a furking disaster! I'm furious..... Splitting Seattle.... what is the second... it's disgusting, or for that matter the 8th. I need to go throttle something :P

At least the 3rd looks 'nice'.

Oh, and Tacoma is split a nice even three ways, lovely.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Joe Republic on December 28, 2011, 02:37:57 PM
I guess Republicans can quit whining about Arizona now.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: BigSkyBob on December 28, 2011, 02:38:07 PM
I hope someone investigates Tim Ceis thoroughly. He's a very shady character, and there is a pretty decent chance he was bribed to accept this map.


Conspiracy theory #1.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 28, 2011, 02:40:22 PM
This is a furking disaster! I'm furious..... Splitting Seattle.... what is the second... it's disgusting, or for that matter the 8th. I need to go throttle something :P

At least the 3rd looks 'nice'.

Oh, and Tacoma is split a nice even three ways, lovely.

The Eastside is now split between three districts as well. We were Austinized.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: krazen1211 on December 28, 2011, 02:42:41 PM
This is a furking disaster! I'm furious..... Splitting Seattle.... what is the second... it's disgusting, or for that matter the 8th. I need to go throttle something :P

At least the 3rd looks 'nice'.

Oh, and Tacoma is split a nice even three ways, lovely.

The 2nd appears to be a 'round up all the Democrats in 5 counties' district. Looks like it includes Bellingham?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 28, 2011, 02:43:54 PM
This is a furking disaster! I'm furious..... Splitting Seattle.... what is the second... it's disgusting, or for that matter the 8th. I need to go throttle something :P

At least the 3rd looks 'nice'.

Oh, and Tacoma is split a nice even three ways, lovely.

The 2nd appears to be a 'round up all the Democrats in 5 counties' district. Looks like it includes Bellingham?

Yes, it does. This is what the Republicans wanted---push all the Democrats into the 2nd so they have a chance at the 1st.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: BigSkyBob on December 28, 2011, 02:46:35 PM
This is a furking disaster! I'm furious..... Splitting Seattle.... what is the second... it's disgusting, or for that matter the 8th. I need to go throttle something :P

At least the 3rd looks 'nice'.

Oh, and Tacoma is split a nice even three ways, lovely.

The 2nd appears to be a 'round up all the Democrats in 5 counties' district. Looks like it includes Bellingham?

Sometimes, those waterfront "communities of interest" just don't work out your way!


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Alcon on December 28, 2011, 02:50:41 PM
I'm calculating the districts as fast as I can (fairly approximately, tbh).  Based on my calculation of the 2nd, the 1st may be fairly nasty for the Dems:

2nd LD
Murray 55.4%
Rossi 44.6%


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: RI on December 28, 2011, 02:52:15 PM
As I said in the other thread, the 1st and 2nd districts are absolutely disgusting. Is the 1st even contiguous at Medina?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Miles on December 28, 2011, 02:56:58 PM
I'm calculating the districts as fast as I can (fairly approximately, tbh).  Based on my calculation of the 2nd, the 1st may be fairly nasty for the Dems:

2nd LD
Murray 55.4%
Rossi 44.6%

I got CD3 to be about 55% Rossi.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: minionofmidas on December 28, 2011, 02:59:25 PM
I like how they took the absolute necessary minimum effort to keep the 1st road-contiguous, in about three places.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Seattle on December 28, 2011, 03:00:42 PM
As I said in the other thread, the 1st and 2nd districts are absolutely disgusting. Is the 1st even contiguous at Medina?

It is, but barely.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Alcon on December 28, 2011, 03:02:18 PM
Yep, 1st CD voted for Rossi:

1st CD
Murray 49.0%
Rossi 51.0%


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Seattle on December 28, 2011, 03:02:42 PM
I like how they took the absolute necessary minimum effort to keep the 1st road-contiguous, in about three places.
I don't even think it is. Highway 9 goes through Sedro Wooley, which is now in the second district.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 28, 2011, 03:06:02 PM
I also got 51.0% Rossi for WA-01.

Burner definitely can't win this seat.

Is Ross Hunter running for Congress? Or maybe Rodney Tom? That would explain Medina's inclusion in WA-01. Or maybe Gorton (Clyde Hill) just didn't want to live in Adam Smith's district, lol.

I'm pretty sure this puts Marko Liias in WA-02. Too bad, he's a good legislator.

Ruderman or Hobbs would be the best candidate for the new WA-01.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: muon2 on December 28, 2011, 03:10:35 PM
Parts of this map are along the lines that many have discussed in this thread over the last year. I think Culture King gets a prize, since his map has all the major parts right except for WA-1 and 2.

ok... I tried to make a compromise map between the various plan. Somewhere along the line I think I got lost but I think it could be a good indication of what may come out of redistricting:

()

()

It includes a majority-minority district (even though personally I don't see the point) and the 8th crossing over into the East side of the state via I-90. My goal was to try and tamper down some of the partisan differences (and create an Olympia district simply because I am biased for my home town). I made sure the 10th linked Olympia and areas south of Tacoma since so many of the plans seemed to take that route.

Partisan and Demographic data:

WA1: 52.5D-47.5R (74.7% white)
WA2: 51.3D-48.3R (77.8% white)
WA3: 44.3D-55.7R (83.4% white)
WA4: 35.1D-64.9R (57.3% white)
WA5: 41.7D-58.3R (85.6% white)
WA6: 52.6D-47.4R (79.5% white)
WA7: 78.0D-28.0R (73.1% white)
WA8: 45.2R-54.8R (75.2% white)
WA9: 61.0D-39.0R (49.7% white)
WA10: 53.4D-46.6R (69.0% white)

Honestly looking at the maps I feel like the dems gave up way too much with their versions while the Republicans went for the moon. I am not sure if that hurts the dems negotiating positions going forward.

So in the end:
2 Super-Solid D districts (the 7th and 9th)
1 Likely D district (the new Olympia-based 10th)
3 Lean D districts (the 1st, 2nd, and 6th)
2 Likely R districts (the 3rd and 8th)
2 Solid R districts (the 4th and 5th)

On thing I find interesting is that if population trends continue along the same lines then we could easily see the possibility for a majority-minority district east of the cascades (although it would quite possibly be the most conservative majority-minority district in the nation).

Thoughts? Is this a plausible scenario?

As you can see he had the shape of southern and eastern WA almost on the dot. He also correctly called the new WA-9 as a majority-minority district (49.67% Non-Hisp White). That majority-minority district seems to be behind the three-way split of Tacoma, though CK didn't need it in his version.

So the real surprise is WA-1 and 2. I take WA 3,4,5, and 8 as politically matching CK's analysis and new WA-10 going to the Dems. It looks to me like the commissioners were trying to compensate for the addition of a new D seat by putting another seat in play. This map would put Larsen in the interesting position of running to hold WA-1 where I think he lives, or running in the open WA-2 which should be a safe seat.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 28, 2011, 03:12:33 PM
Larsen is originally from Lake Stevens, but currently lives in Everett. Larsen will definitely run in WA-02.

WA-1/WA-2 is definitely the big surprise for everybody, I think. We didn't realize how easily the Democrats would cave.

And yeah, CK gets the prize, I guess! Good job, lol.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: redcommander on December 28, 2011, 03:13:03 PM
Well this map is certainly a pleasant surprise. You would think the Democrats would gain something out of a commission in Washington.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Alcon on December 28, 2011, 03:16:28 PM
WA-8

Too lazy to be precise, but it's over 55% Rossi


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 28, 2011, 03:16:54 PM
Ruderman was the first Democrat to win on the Eastside back in the 1990s. She is a skilled politician who can win swing voters in marginally Republican districts. I'm now hoping she'll be the Democratic candidate for WA-01. Hobbs would work, too, but he's kind of an annoying moderate hero at times.

WA-01 is a near-dream district for Koster. It seems probable that he will run again. But he still lost a 50-50 district in a Republican landslide year, so he still might not be favored.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: RBH on December 28, 2011, 03:17:13 PM
hahaha.... wow.. that map sucks in multiple ways.

At least we'll get to see a test of top-two if the WA1 nominees are the most liberal and conservative candidates

there is apparently a road connection through all of WA8, but Google Earth doesn't recommend you use the interstate to get to Wenatchee


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Seattle on December 28, 2011, 03:17:51 PM
The new WA-10 is around 52.6-52.8 Murry, that's a pretty solid D seat.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: krazen1211 on December 28, 2011, 03:21:36 PM
PVIs from RRH.

1. D+1
2. D+7
3. R+3
4. R+13
5. R+6
6. D+5
7. D+29
8. R+3
9. D+16
10. D+5


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: muon2 on December 28, 2011, 03:23:42 PM
Larsen is originally from Lake Stevens, but currently lives in Everett. Larsen will definitely run in WA-02.

WA-1/WA-2 is definitely the big surprise for everybody, I think. We didn't realize how easily the Democrats would cave.

And yeah, CK gets the prize, I guess! Good job, lol.

Ah, my memory of Larsen's residence is out of date. So then both WA-1 and WA-10 are open seats and WA-6 has Dicks paired with Inslee, is that right?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: minionofmidas on December 28, 2011, 03:24:45 PM
Inslee was running for Governor irrespective of the map, so it doesn't matter where he lives.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Alcon on December 28, 2011, 03:25:35 PM
WA-10 appears to be at least 52% Murray


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Chancellor Tanterterg on December 28, 2011, 03:30:53 PM
Democratic gerrymander!


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 28, 2011, 03:33:28 PM
Larsen is originally from Lake Stevens, but currently lives in Everett. Larsen will definitely run in WA-02.

WA-1/WA-2 is definitely the big surprise for everybody, I think. We didn't realize how easily the Democrats would cave.

And yeah, CK gets the prize, I guess! Good job, lol.

Ah, my memory of Larsen's residence is out of date. So then both WA-1 and WA-10 are open seats and WA-6 has Dicks paired with Inslee, is that right?


Yes. And as Lewis said, Inslee is running for Governor, allowing WA-1 to move completely east of the Puget Sound with out any incumbency issues.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Seattle on December 28, 2011, 03:36:18 PM
It appears WA-7 is now just 77.1% Murray, down about five % points, it's also now 72.5% white


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on December 28, 2011, 03:50:46 PM
Whelp, a balsy move by the republicans on the committee, they certainly emerged as the victors. I am still shocked at how the 1st and 2nd came out, this is basically as good as it gets for Republicans.

Oh and thanks for the accolades on my map earlier, I actually thought that was going to be the Republican stretch map but I appear to have been wrong.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Alcon on December 28, 2011, 03:52:09 PM
PVIs from RRH.

1. R+1
2. D+7
3. R+3
4. R+13
5. R+6
6. D+5
7. D+29
8. R+3
9. D+16
10. D+5

I don't really recall how PVI is calculated, but can that really be right?  WA-10 more D than WA-03 is R, and barely less D than WA-05 is R?

And, yes, congrats CK.  sad congrats!


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on December 28, 2011, 03:58:02 PM
Quick question: Why did the Dem appointees agree to this map? Wouldn't the courts have drawn a better deal for us?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: muon2 on December 28, 2011, 03:58:13 PM
PVIs from RRH.

1. R+1
2. D+7
3. R+3
4. R+13
5. R+6
6. D+5
7. D+29
8. R+3
9. D+16
10. D+5

I don't really recall how PVI is calculated, but can that really be right?  WA-10 more D than WA-03 is R, and barely less D than WA-05 is R?

And, yes, congrats CK.

If they calculated it correctly it is average of the two party vote from Pres 2004 and 2008. The average is then compared to 51.3% Dem which is the national average for those two races.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Alcon on December 28, 2011, 04:25:43 PM
On the LD level, the redistricting commission is currently fighting (a hostile conflict) over how minority to make the majority-minority 15th LD in Yakima County.

Spokane County, obviously, is also a point of conflict.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 28, 2011, 04:34:38 PM
  "its well scripted and i appreciate it that"
        "hes good at playing that game"

- Tom Huff


Hahaha, he's the most shameless proponent of gerrymandering.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Brittain33 on December 28, 2011, 05:48:32 PM
The WaPo says the Washington Democratic Party strongly endorsed this map. Interesting.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 28, 2011, 05:49:07 PM
The WaPo says the Washington Democratic Party strongly endorsed this map. Interesting.


Denny Heck and Rick Larsen must have more influence in the party than I thought.

Apparently the establishment will be backing Steve Hobbs in WA-01, which isn't a terrible move given the map.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on December 28, 2011, 07:07:56 PM
My thoughts: While this map is obviously not the best for Democrats, anyone who was really expecting that was being kind of foolish. Regardless of the partisan make-up of the state, the Democrats and Republicans have equal power in our redistricting process and so concessions were obviously going to have to be made to the Republicans compared to a "fair" map. I also think the 1st is winnable with the right candidate, so we could very well end up with a 6-4 map in the end which I think is pretty reasonable.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 28, 2011, 07:37:29 PM
My thoughts: While this map is obviously not the best for Democrats, anyone who was really expecting that was being kind of foolish. Regardless of the partisan make-up of the state, the Democrats and Republicans have equal power in our redistricting process and so concessions were obviously going to have to be made to the Republicans compared to a "fair" map. I also think the 1st is winnable with the right candidate, so we could very well end up with a 6-4 map in the end which I think is pretty reasonable.

The end result isn't terribly shocking, but I still was hoping to avoid the awful lines they came up with. The majority-minority district is simply inexcusable and ruins the entire Seattle-area.

What annoys me even more, was that the Democrats were willing to accept the M-M CD (which obviously benefits the GOP), but then when the Democrats want to make the 15th LD a true majority-minority district (that would also be a swing district), the Republicans refuse and they have to quit for the day! What kind of compromise involves the Republicans getting a chance at a whole CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT and the Democrats not even getting a shot at a legislative district in return?

Huff's map is also very unclear in Spokane (the numbers basically block the view of it completely).

I will admit that I was very naive to think the Democrats would actually ignore the racists arguing for the majority-minority district.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Sbane on December 28, 2011, 07:43:24 PM
Hmm, maybe the complaining about Arizona and definitely about California will stop now. That 1st district is ridiculous. That being said the rest of the map is ok. The Arizona map looks to be drawn to help a Phoenix area Democrat, and this map seems to have been drawn to help a Republican in the Bellingham area. The California map doesn't have anything that ridiculous that can't be explained by VRA constraints. And the Arizona district cannot be explained by the VRA.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on December 28, 2011, 08:04:48 PM
Here's the map, redrawn by me.


()




Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: hfred on December 28, 2011, 08:43:48 PM
Looks pretty good for us. Although I will be moved from a R district to a D district.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: redcommander on December 28, 2011, 09:46:06 PM
So we can assume that if the political environment doesn't better for the President we're looking at a 5-5 delegation next year?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: hfred on December 28, 2011, 09:51:41 PM
So we can assume that if the political environment doesn't better for the President we're looking at a 5-5 delegation next year?
Not quite, a 6-4 Dem advantage is still possible if the Democrats hold the 1st.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Seattle on December 28, 2011, 09:55:38 PM
So we can assume that if the political environment doesn't better for the President we're looking at a 5-5 delegation next year?

No, I wouldn't say that yet. We don't know who the Republican candidate will be for the first and if it only voted 51% Rossi, it really is a 50-50 district.
I'd say there is an equal chance the delegation will be 6-4 D or 5-5.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: muon2 on December 29, 2011, 12:39:35 AM
So we can assume that if the political environment doesn't better for the President we're looking at a 5-5 delegation next year?

No, I wouldn't say that yet. We don't know who the Republican candidate will be for the first and if it only voted 51% Rossi, it really is a 50-50 district.
I'd say there is an equal chance the delegation will be 6-4 D or 5-5.

I think a toss up district is the intent of the mappers. They can fairly say that a new seat was added and it favors neither party. That would be consistent with state law.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 29, 2011, 01:49:35 AM
Animated gif showing 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s:

()

Fun to watch the districts shift.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on December 29, 2011, 03:27:55 AM
I calculated some numbers for the 10th CD.

2010 Senate: Murray 52.8%, Rossi 47.2%
2008 President: Obama 57.2%, McCain 41.0%, Others 1.8%
2008 Governor: Gregoire 54.3%, Rossi 45.7%
2004 President: Kerry 52.3%, Bush 46.2%, Others 1.6%

The Cook PVI is D+4


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: minionofmidas on December 29, 2011, 07:20:57 AM
Hmm, maybe the complaining about Arizona and definitely about California will stop now. That 1st district is ridiculous. That being said the rest of the map is ok.
God, no.

On both the first and the third sentence.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: muon2 on December 29, 2011, 12:01:55 PM
I thought it would be amusing to review of our early thoughts on a 10 district division. This thread (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=68476.0) is from early 2008. :)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 29, 2011, 01:41:25 PM
Aw, you can tell I've never watched the redistricting process before. I was so optimistic and naive, actually thinking logical districts would be drawn! Sigh.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: timothyinMD on December 29, 2011, 08:36:36 PM
We deserve this after getting screwed in Arizona.

The 2nd district makes perfect sense.  All those I-5 cities belong in one seat, the rural areas belong in one seat. 


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Seattle on December 29, 2011, 08:41:13 PM
We deserve this after getting screwed in Arizona.

The 2nd district makes perfect sense.  All those I-5 cities belong in one seat, the rural areas belong in one seat. 
Uh... no. Well, you can make the case that I-5 corridor fits together, but the resulting rural areas in the first are not even road contiguous, and the Northern part of the district has nothing to do with the urban seattle suburbs in King county.

The way the second is now make plenty more sense. Honestly, they could have just pulled out Everett from the second and kept Lake Stevens/Snohomish/Monroe, and boom you have a great tossup district.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: muon2 on December 29, 2011, 11:36:18 PM
We deserve this after getting screwed in Arizona.

The 2nd district makes perfect sense.  All those I-5 cities belong in one seat, the rural areas belong in one seat. 
Uh... no. Well, you can make the case that I-5 corridor fits together, but the resulting rural areas in the first are not even road contiguous, and the Northern part of the district has nothing to do with the urban seattle suburbs in King county.

The way the second is now make plenty more sense. Honestly, they could have just pulled out Everett from the second and kept Lake Stevens/Snohomish/Monroe, and boom you have a great tossup district.

A district can be entirely placed in Snohomish county with about 41K to spare. However Everett has about 100K and can't be removed and leave a whole district. If there is a district entirely within Snohomish part must be used to connect part of Island county through Stanwood, and another part should be used to connect King to Stevens Pass. What's left is a district entirely within Snohomish that is going to lean D.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 30, 2011, 12:15:55 AM
A non-partisan map, where you don't have to care about incumbents or which party would be favored, would have basically resulted in WA-02 containing all of Whatcom, Skagit, Island, San Juan, and part of Snohomish. WA-01 would contain the rest of Snohomish as well as part of King County.

Such a map would result in a swingy 2nd (but likely more Republican than it currently is) and a Democratic 1st. Back in the real world, Rick Larsen wants a safe seat and the Republicans want a chance in one of the districts... so we end up with the crappy map they proposed.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Seattle on December 30, 2011, 12:36:15 AM
We deserve this after getting screwed in Arizona.

The 2nd district makes perfect sense.  All those I-5 cities belong in one seat, the rural areas belong in one seat. 
Uh... no. Well, you can make the case that I-5 corridor fits together, but the resulting rural areas in the first are not even road contiguous, and the Northern part of the district has nothing to do with the urban seattle suburbs in King county.

The way the second is now make plenty more sense. Honestly, they could have just pulled out Everett from the second and kept Lake Stevens/Snohomish/Monroe, and boom you have a great tossup district.

A district can be entirely placed in Snohomish county with about 41K to spare. However Everett has about 100K and can't be removed and leave a whole district. If there is a district entirely within Snohomish part must be used to connect part of Island county through Stanwood, and another part should be used to connect King to Stevens Pass. What's left is a district entirely within Snohomish that is going to lean D.
While you can fit one in Snohomish county, where do you put Whatcom and Skagit counties? It makes no sense to put them into eastern Washington and conntecting them to the Olympic Peninsula, while its been done before, it is not ideal and it makes plenty more sense to simply continue south into Snohomish county.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: muon2 on December 30, 2011, 12:47:57 AM
We deserve this after getting screwed in Arizona.

The 2nd district makes perfect sense.  All those I-5 cities belong in one seat, the rural areas belong in one seat. 
Uh... no. Well, you can make the case that I-5 corridor fits together, but the resulting rural areas in the first are not even road contiguous, and the Northern part of the district has nothing to do with the urban seattle suburbs in King county.

The way the second is now make plenty more sense. Honestly, they could have just pulled out Everett from the second and kept Lake Stevens/Snohomish/Monroe, and boom you have a great tossup district.

A district can be entirely placed in Snohomish county with about 41K to spare. However Everett has about 100K and can't be removed and leave a whole district. If there is a district entirely within Snohomish part must be used to connect part of Island county through Stanwood, and another part should be used to connect King to Stevens Pass. What's left is a district entirely within Snohomish that is going to lean D.
While you can fit one in Snohomish county, where do you put Whatcom and Skagit counties? It makes no sense to put them into eastern Washington and conntecting them to the Olympic Peninsula, while its been done before, it is not ideal and it makes plenty more sense to simply continue south into Snohomish county.

I'm just saying that if you start with King plus the counties over the Cascades you have almost exactly 3 districts. That leaves a natural district in Snohomish, and then one is left with a 1980's style plan that crosses the sound for CD-2. One can argue that Bellingham has as much in common with Port Angeles as it does with Everett, and there's not the crazy county split in the Commission map.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Seattle on December 30, 2011, 12:58:55 AM
Between the cities, sure, but in terms of transportation.... its pretty ridiculous. From Bellingham you would have to drive to Anacortes, go through Deception Pass (a bridge) drive 2/3 through Whidbey Island, get on the Port Townsend - Keystone ferry and then drive from PT to Port Angeles. vs. taking an hour drive on I-5 to Everett.

There is precedent.... but Im talking about in terms of what's more sensible. Counties are big in WA, don't try to crack them, but communities of interest are far more important.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 30, 2011, 01:02:14 AM
Crossing the Puget Sound would just result in splitting another big county (Kitsap, which has been split for a while but has finally been unified in the new map). Alternatively you could go for Grays Harbor, Mason, Pacific, and Wahkiakum counties to minimize county splits... but that would be a very big district.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on December 30, 2011, 01:11:49 AM
ugh... I still can't get over how needlessly horrendous the 2nd is. The mappers could have accomplished all the same objectives without creating such an eyesore.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: muon2 on December 30, 2011, 01:33:13 AM
Crossing the Puget Sound would just result in splitting another big county (Kitsap, which has been split for a while but has finally been unified in the new map). Alternatively you could go for Grays Harbor, Mason, Pacific, and Wahkiakum counties to minimize county splits... but that would be a very big district.

This is what it might look like with a cross-Puget CD-2 using the Cascade crossing from the Commission. I've kept whole districts in all the large counties except Pierce. Except for Pierce the county splits to equalize population remove relatively small parts of the county population. Note that both Snoqualmie and Stevens Passes are used to connect CD 8. I agree that CD 2 is big, but no bigger than CD 5.

()


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 30, 2011, 01:38:51 AM
The 2nd is still huge, but that's not as bad as I was thinking. ;)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: minionofmidas on December 30, 2011, 05:19:28 AM
We deserve this after getting screwed in Arizona.

The 2nd district makes perfect sense.  All those I-5 cities belong in one seat, the rural areas belong in one seat. 
5% of that district's population are rural.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: timothyinMD on December 30, 2011, 02:39:07 PM
Actually I think Slade Gorton's first map is pretty good.  Doesn't have the district 2 squiggle, and would probably elect 5 D 5 R

http://www.redistricting.wa.gov/assets/maps/122811_drafts/c-gc_2-0_color_statewide_handout.pdf


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 30, 2011, 02:52:03 PM
Actually I think Slade Gorton's first map is pretty good.  Doesn't have the district 2 squiggle, and would probably elect 5 D 5 R

http://www.redistricting.wa.gov/assets/maps/122811_drafts/c-gc_2-0_color_statewide_handout.pdf

You just linked the final map?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on December 31, 2011, 04:01:55 PM
The Redistricting Commission still hasn't been able to come to a compromise on the Eastern Washington legislative districts... nor have they resolved the legislative districts that fall on the Pierce/King County lines. The commissioners are only allowed to approve a plan that includes both Congressional and legislative maps, so if they aren't able to compromise in the next 35 hours then the whole thing goes to the State Supreme Court.

I'm confident they'll come up with a map... but the clock is ticking.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 31, 2011, 04:28:42 PM
The Redistricting Commission still hasn't been able to come to a compromise on the Eastern Washington legislative districts... nor have they resolved the legislative districts that fall on the Pierce/King County lines. The commissioners are only allowed to approve a plan that includes both Congressional and legislative maps, so if they aren't able to compromise in the next 35 hours then the whole thing goes to the State Supreme Court.

I'm confident they'll come up with a map... but the clock is ticking.

Yeah, they'll come up with something. And by that I mean the Republicans will win.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on December 31, 2011, 05:29:45 PM
Honestly I would prefer a court-drawn map myself.

...So go dead-lock!!! Whoot!
Don't they only have until today (when is the deadline)?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on December 31, 2011, 05:32:12 PM
Honestly I would prefer a court-drawn map myself.

...So go dead-lock!!! Whoot!
Don't they only have until today (when is the deadline)?

They have until 11:59 PM tomorrow.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on December 31, 2011, 05:39:23 PM
I watched one of the hearings. Huff was basically like "We had an agreement, you guys get to draw the Democratic districts in Seattle and we get to draw the Republican districts in Eastern Washington!"

They're usually very good about appearing all reasonable and non-partisan in public, and taking recesses to go to the real work behind closed doors, so I enjoyed that...

I wonder if there's more to the story. Perhaps Democrats accepted the M-M congressional district that helps Republicans in WA-01, in exchange for a real M-M legislative district in Eastern Washington that would help Democrats, and now the Republicans are trying to have a watered down district they know they'll easily win.

But I can only speculate, as the public isn't actually involved in the process, despite the charades they put up.

I'm also cheering for a court drawn map at this point. I definitely don't expect it to happen, though.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on December 31, 2011, 08:27:48 PM
Commission has been in recess since 2 this afternoon and has extended the recess several times; strong signal that they're making progress on something.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Bacon King on December 31, 2011, 11:07:57 PM
http://www.theolympian.com/2011/12/31/1931862/redistricting-is-headed-to-new.html


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Fuzzybigfoot on January 01, 2012, 12:29:12 AM
Does anyone have the Presidential numbers for each new district? 


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on January 01, 2012, 01:47:18 AM
Crisis averted; compromise Eastern WA plan has been posted. Dems get their majority-minority district in the Yakima Valley.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: CultureKing on January 01, 2012, 03:00:28 AM
yay, I guess? Oh well, I guess we are stuck with horrible CD boundaries for the next 10 years.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on January 01, 2012, 03:36:25 AM
This is still a good deal for the Republicans, IMO. A swing congressional district for a swing legislative district? The Republicans would've been silly not to take it... But that's just my opinion. FTR, I drew the most minority legislative district in Yakima possible, and it was still a fifty-point-something Rossi district. The new 15th will definitely be a swing district.

But from what I understand, the deal also stops the 6th LD from becoming Republican, keeping it as a swing district. So there's that, too, I guess.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Alcon on January 01, 2012, 05:12:27 AM
Looking at the compromise map, I'm not totally clear on what the Dems traded for.  They seem to have gotten their ideal 15th LD and basically their ideal 6th LD too?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: greenforest32 on January 01, 2012, 07:08:09 AM
So these maps are going to be better for Republicans for the U.S. House, state senate, and state house?

Do they have a shot of getting a majority in the state legislature (or one of its chambers)?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on January 01, 2012, 11:17:13 AM
Looking at the compromise map, I'm not totally clear on what the Dems traded for.  They seem to have gotten their ideal 15th LD and basically their ideal 6th LD too?

A 51% Rossi 1st district? :P


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: minionofmidas on January 01, 2012, 11:36:51 AM
Yeah, it's not as if Republicans could risk letting a court draw the congressional map.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on January 01, 2012, 12:02:26 PM
They haven't posted detailed demographics yet... But Wapato, Toppenish, Harrah, White Swan, etc. are not in the district. Looks like it still voted 57% or so Rossi.

In fact it looks like even the most Hispanic part of Yakima (the city) isn't in the district, so I wouldn't be surprised if this district was actually >60% Rossi.

Ha! For a second there I thought there was an actual compromise. But nope. The Republicans won. Again.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on January 01, 2012, 12:06:05 PM
Yeah, on closer inspection it's not the majority-minority district Dems had been pushing but a watered down version.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on January 01, 2012, 12:25:34 PM
And despite the fact that Republicans quite clearly won, Democrats will look like the bad guys engaging in racial gerrymandering for political gain.

Like I've said already, a very impressive win for Gorton & Huff.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on January 01, 2012, 12:46:52 PM
Your definition of "Republicans winning" seems to be "Democrats not getting everything they wanted".


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on January 01, 2012, 12:53:04 PM
Your definition of "Republicans winning" seems to be "Democrats not getting everything they wanted".

No, my definition is the Republicans getting everything they wanted. They even got their ludicrous 1st CD. And what do the Democrats get exchange? Not even a legislative district? Really?

I understand this map has great potential to advance your career, and I'm happy for you as a person. I'm not happy as someone who believes in fair redistricting.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: minionofmidas on January 01, 2012, 01:02:42 PM
They haven't posted detailed demographics yet... But Wapato, Toppenish, Harrah, White Swan, etc. are not in the district. Looks like it still voted 57% or so Rossi.

In fact it looks like even the most Hispanic part of Yakima (the city) isn't in the district, so I wouldn't be surprised if this district was actually >60% Rossi.

Ha! For a second there I thought there was an actual compromise. But nope. The Republicans won. Again.
Ouch.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on January 01, 2012, 01:19:13 PM
I don't really see how the Republicans got everything they wanted but I can tell we're not going to agree.

I guess I'm just easier to please. The CD map will probably yield a 6-4 delegation, likely the same result as a court drawn map. Democratic chances in the legislature are also going to be influenced far more by retirements and candidate recruitment than these maps. We can definitely have majorities in both chambers next year if we play our cards correctly.



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on January 01, 2012, 01:20:43 PM
Illogical districts just bum me out. Especially when they're to the other side's benefit! :P


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on January 01, 2012, 02:29:28 PM
I wouldn't be so annoyed if it wasn't for the fact the likely Dem candidate in WA-01 is a right wing anti-labor hack. He's so bad on labor issues the teacher's union endorsed his Republican opponent last election. So even if won we get a Democratic version of Scott Walker, ugh.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on January 01, 2012, 02:38:53 PM
I suspect Suzan DelBene (Reichert's 2010 opponent) will end up being our nominee.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on January 01, 2012, 02:42:07 PM
Does the legislative map resemble this in any way? This was a thought experiment I did a few months ago to see if I could draw a majority Republican legislature:

()
()

29 Rossi districts in this map.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on January 01, 2012, 02:49:26 PM
^ No, not really.

I suspect Suzan DelBene (Reichert's 2010 opponent) will end up being our nominee.

You think shes willing to drop a couple million again? lol



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on January 01, 2012, 03:20:10 PM
Better her than Darcy Burner.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on January 01, 2012, 03:32:43 PM

My nightmare scenario is the more serious Democrats split the vote allowing Darcy to pull through.

I like Darcy Burner, but she just isn't the right candidate for the district.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: minionofmidas on January 01, 2012, 03:39:37 PM
Does it even matter with the new district?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on January 01, 2012, 03:40:39 PM
Does it even matter with the new district?

Why wouldn't it?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on January 01, 2012, 03:41:19 PM
^ No, not really.

I suspect Suzan DelBene (Reichert's 2010 opponent) will end up being our nominee.

You think shes willing to drop a couple million again? lol

I've got no insider information but I suspect so. Pretty easy to win a divided primary if you dump in $2 million.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: minionofmidas on January 01, 2012, 03:42:19 PM
We are talking of the new 8th, right?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on January 01, 2012, 03:43:11 PM

The 1st. DelBene's home in Medina was conveniently drawn into it. Almost as if it was intentionally drawn so she lived in it...


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on January 01, 2012, 04:05:45 PM

No, Burner is in the 1st now.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on January 01, 2012, 07:26:47 PM
I tried drawing some of last night's Eastern districts. They split a ton of precincts though, so it's approximate:

3rd: 55-45 D
6th: 54-46 R
15th: ~60-40 R (ton of splits, very approximate!)


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on January 01, 2012, 07:31:43 PM
Are those 2010 numbers?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on January 01, 2012, 07:39:08 PM
Yes... I added the current districts in parenthesis for comparison:

3rd: 55-45 D (57-43 D)
6th: 54-46 R (55-45 R)
15th: ~60-40 R (58-42 R)

So the 15th is actually getting more Republican. Hah. It traded a lot of territory (Klickitat and Skamania) with the 14th. The 14th is currently 64-36 R is probably still >60 R (haven't drawn it).


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on January 01, 2012, 07:47:00 PM
Here are the numbers for the most minority 15th possible (which would require an iffy 16th LD stretched out along the state's southern border), keeping the 15th entirely in Yakima County:

64% Hispanic, 27% White, 6% Native American
54% Rossi, 46% Murray


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on January 01, 2012, 08:37:05 PM
Final map will be presented at 7.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on January 01, 2012, 11:05:31 PM
Found these nuggets in an article from The Olympian:

Quote
Based on the 2010 election results, all state House Democrats now in office would have been elected that year under the new legislative boundaries, according to Foster. Plus, former Rep. Dawn Morrell of Puyallup would have won re-election, Foster said.

Gorton said that by the GOP’s definition of competitive or swing districts, 16 legislative districts are in that class – using a complicated formula based on 10 previous races in 2008 and 2010 where the average party split was between 46 percent and 54 percent.

Gorton said that by Democrats’ measure, 15 are swing. Gorton did not identify which ones meet the test.

...

Democrats now control the congressional delegation by a 5 to 4 margin, the state House by 56 to 42, and the state Senate by 27 to 22. Gorton said the final maps awaiting approval leave that pretty much in place.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on January 01, 2012, 11:12:04 PM
Sounds very optimistic. I guess we'll see... :P

They've already pushed their next meeting back to 9. I won't be surprised if they postpone in several more times until just before midnight. :P


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on January 01, 2012, 11:13:47 PM
In 1991 they didn't vote until 11:15, so they're still ahead of schedule!


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on January 02, 2012, 12:55:10 AM
Both maps have been approved unanimously.

Re: 15th LD, looks like the Hispanic part of Yakima City has been included, but not White Swan, Wapato, etc. They would have been difficult to include, though, as you would have to have a Clark-to-Columbia district or something like that as a result.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on January 02, 2012, 12:58:03 AM
Wow. I am so relieved that Slade Gorton's plan to re-number the districts failed.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: minionofmidas on January 02, 2012, 06:33:58 AM
Okay, that explains my confusion. ^-^


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: krazen1211 on January 02, 2012, 10:15:51 AM
Is there a Spokane Democratic legislative district?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on January 02, 2012, 10:22:30 AM
Is there a Spokane Democratic legislative district?

Yes, the 3rd LD which is the urban core of the city. The Senate Majority Leader is actually from there.

Democrats have also held the Senate seat and both House seats in the 6th LD for varying amounts of time since 2006 but currently hold no seats there.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on January 02, 2012, 02:56:49 PM
Where is the 6th?


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: Meeker on January 02, 2012, 03:00:14 PM
Kind of tough to describe it; includes part of the City of Spokane itself plus some surrounding area.

See here: http://redistricting.wa.gov/assets/maps/FINAL_010112_Plans/Legislative/final_legislative_plan_statewide.pdf

And here:
http://redistricting.wa.gov/assets/maps/FINAL_010112_Plans/Legislative/LD_Draft_Handout_Insets.pdf


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on January 03, 2012, 02:42:01 AM
Here's a fun article:
http://olywa.blogspot.com/2011/12/foster-vs-gorton-reliving-60s-with.html

Quote
(Democratic senate leader Bob) Greive consigned the House bill to committee. The sorcerer had a gifted apprentice of his own. Young Dean Foster ran the numbers, tweaked the majority leader’s plan and gave him something to shop around on the House floor. (Slade) Gorton warned that two could play that game.

A lot of people, including some members of his own party, were wary of Slade “because he could just outsmart anybody,” Don Eldridge said. But  Greive  had  way  more  detractors  and  clearly  had  met  his  match  in Gorton. “I tell you, the two of them, that was a combination,” the GOP caucus chairman said. “I’d liked to have been a little mouse in the corner at some of those sessions.” 18  Pritchard said Greive was “Machiavelli on redistricting. He was too smart for everybody . . . until he ran into Gorton,” who “knew every jot, diddle, corner — whatever it was.

Slade Gorton: Fooling Democrats for half a century.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: RI on January 03, 2012, 03:20:59 AM
Spokane wasn't carved up nearly as badly as I feared it might be.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on January 03, 2012, 04:44:58 PM
Does anyone have .drf files for the new legislative districts? Or a voting breakdown for them?

I've checked a few swing districts. The the biggest change I've found is the 42nd, which went from 51.4% Rossi to 53.2% Rossi. The 6th, 35th, and 45th districts are about the same.

Checking some of the incumbentmander Puget Sound districts is a real headache, though.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: jimrtex on January 08, 2012, 09:31:38 PM
I thought it would be amusing to review of our early thoughts on a 10 district division. This thread (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=68476.0) is from early 2008. :)

So other than putting Kitsap rather than Thurston with the Pacific Coast they basically got it right.  I still think that it makes more sense to go from Bremerton across Puget Sound than crossing Hood Canal.  This would also have given Olympia its own congressional district.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on January 08, 2012, 09:41:18 PM
I thought it would be amusing to review of our early thoughts on a 10 district division. This thread (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=68476.0) is from early 2008. :)

So other than putting Kitsap rather than Thurston with the Pacific Coast they basically got it right.  I still think that it makes more sense to go from Bremerton across Puget Sound than crossing Hood Canal.  This would also have given Olympia its own congressional district.

Yeah, I would prefer Bremerton/Kitsap with Tacoma and did so in some of my original proposals. But that would have changed the incumbent's district too much, I guess.


Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: bgwah on January 13, 2012, 04:46:27 AM
Because I can't sleep and I'm bored, I've decided to redistrict King County's council districts. Having only 9 districts for close to two million people annoys me, so I did 19 seats (101,645 people per district).

There isn't a single unnecessary city split. The only two cities that are split (Seattle and Bellevue) have more than 101,645 people and have to be split no matter what.

()

Turned out surprisingly well. :)



Title: Re: US House Redistricting: Washington
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on March 06, 2012, 11:14:15 PM
DKE finally figured out the numbers for the new districts:

WA-01 - 56-42 Obama
WA-02 - 60-38 Obama
WA-03 - 51-47 Obama
WA-04 - 59-39 McCain
WA-05 - 51-46 McCain
WA-06 - 57-41 Obama
WA-07 - 80-18 Obama
WA-08 - 51-47 Obama
WA-09 - 69-30 Obama
WA-10 - 57-41 Obama

WA-01 is a little more Dem than I expected, and WA-03 didn't shift as much as I thought.