US House Redistricting: North Carolina

[Sol]

muon, do you like this map?

I'm not muon, but I don't like the fact that you split Chapel Hill from Durham at all.

[muon2]

muon, do you like this map?

I'm not muon, but I don't like the fact that you split Chapel Hill from Durham at all.

I agree, there are 3 CDs covering the Durham UCC. But I think the AA district tends to force other choices. However, I would ask you, Sol, the same questions in that regard.

Do you believe that an area including a 50% BVAP is sufficiently compact to require a district under section 2?

If it is, then the numbers must reflect the ability of the black population to elect a representative of choice. So what BVAP and Dem% are large enough for you? BVAP doesn't necessarily have to be 50% if there are enough other Dems to elect that candidate out of the primary. Pubs use 50% because that is a safe harbor, but Dems have used numbers down to 45% BVAP when they have negotiated with the minority groups.

If it isn't, then you are looking to maintain a district where a black CoI is one of the factors you are using. How do you want to define that CoI along with other factors to avoid the charge the race was the predominant factor in drawing the district?

[traininthedistance]

This map commits a number of errors, including a) not sticking to a safe VRA harbor at all, b) splitting the Raleigh and Charlotte UCCs one more than necesssary, c) using the Mecklenburg bridge, and d) having deviations as high as +1,840 (districts 1, 4, 9, and 10 are all more than 1K away from the ideal).  But, man, that's not many county splits!  Only four!



1, 8, and 12 are all min-maj by total population but not so by VAP.

I don't think this is ideal (for several reasons, not just the VRA and the Mecklenburg bridge but also because I think a district that combines the cities of Greensboro and Winston-Salem does better justice to the idea of UCCs than the letter of the law that keeps them separate) but I do think it might be food for thought.

[Sol]

I agree, there are 3 CDs covering the Durham UCC. But I think the AA district tends to force other choices. However, I would ask you, Sol, the same questions in that regard.

Do you believe that an area including a 50% BVAP is sufficiently compact to require a district under section 2?

If it is, then the numbers must reflect the ability of the black population to elect a representative of choice. So what BVAP and Dem% are large enough for you? BVAP doesn't necessarily have to be 50% if there are enough other Dems to elect that candidate out of the primary. Pubs use 50% because that is a safe harbor, but Dems have used numbers down to 45% BVAP when they have negotiated with the minority groups.

If it isn't, then you are looking to maintain a district where a black CoI is one of the factors you are using. How do you want to define that CoI along with other factors to avoid the charge the race was the predominant factor in drawing the district?

The difficulty is that the area with a 50% BVAP is compact, but is also very underpopulated. Perhaps if that area were to be kept whole, it would be ok to lower the BVAP.

[muon2]

The idea of a Triad CD is intriguing. The Census doesn't like to merge two MSA's or both the Greensboro Winston-Salem and Raleigh Durham areas could well be consolidated. Already those areas are in the same CSAs.

This map puts all three Triad cities in one CD. That creates a chop of the Winston-Salem UCC, though it wouldn't if the Triad UCCs were combined. The CD 1 here is plurality black and is 44.0% BVAP with 47.6% WVAP. That does force one extra chop of the Raleigh UCC but can be justified if there is a requirement to have a VRA district, and this might be expected to elect a candidate of choice of the black community. The small incursion of CD 5 into CD 4 is a microchop and then all the CDs are within 2000 of the quota.

[Sol]

The idea of a Triad CD is intriguing. The Census doesn't like to merge two MSA's or both the Greensboro Winston-Salem and Raleigh Durham areas could well be consolidated. Already those areas are in the same CSAs.

This map puts all three Triad cities in one CD. That creates a chop of the Winston-Salem UCC, though it wouldn't if the Triad UCCs were combined. The CD 1 here is plurality black and is 44.0% BVAP with 47.6% WVAP. That does force one extra chop of the Raleigh UCC but can be justified if there is a requirement to have a VRA district, and this might be expected to elect a candidate of choice of the black community. The small incursion of CD 5 into CD 4 is a microchop and then all the CDs are within 2000 of the quota.

There are some VRA and UCC issues in your Southeast- you split up the Lumbee 3 ways, and you separate Hoke from Cumberland (although that isn't as problematic)

I still think that CD10 is less than ideal- I'd prefer for the rural counties like Cleveland to be put with Hickory instead of the Charlotte suburbs of Mecklenburg county.

[muon2]

The idea of a Triad CD is intriguing. The Census doesn't like to merge two MSA's or both the Greensboro Winston-Salem and Raleigh Durham areas could well be consolidated. Already those areas are in the same CSAs.

This map puts all three Triad cities in one CD. That creates a chop of the Winston-Salem UCC, though it wouldn't if the Triad UCCs were combined. The CD 1 here is plurality black and is 44.0% BVAP with 47.6% WVAP. That does force one extra chop of the Raleigh UCC but can be justified if there is a requirement to have a VRA district, and this might be expected to elect a candidate of choice of the black community. The small incursion of CD 5 into CD 4 is a microchop and then all the CDs are within 2000 of the quota.

There are some VRA and UCC issues in your Southeast- you split up the Lumbee 3 ways, and you separate Hoke from Cumberland (although that isn't as problematic)

I still think that CD10 is less than ideal- I'd prefer for the rural counties like Cleveland to be put with Hickory instead of the Charlotte suburbs of Mecklenburg county.

This isn't my preferred map, but it does illustrate some possibilities.

The map does have Hoke and Cumberland together so that's not a UCC issue.

There can't be any VRA issue with the Lumbee since they don't make up enough population to qualify as an MCC (40% VAP in a county), let alone the 50% VAP in a district needed to trigger federal consideration.

If the Charlotte UCC has three CDs, at least one of the ring counties has to attach to more rural counties outside the UCC. That's usually going to be either Union or Gaston.

[Sol]

Union makes more sense though.

My point is that your map dilutes the Lumbee vote, which should be strongly avoided.

[muon2]

Union makes more sense though.

My point is that your map dilutes the Lumbee vote, which should be strongly avoided.

Fine, but how would you quantify that as a rule? I have no problem with a local body looking at a number of plans that passed some rigorous test and deciding that they like the one that protects the Lumbee best. I do have a problem with unilateral decisions to protect the Lumbee without any rigorous basis to make that test. I'm sure there are many groups of voters in NC who make a claim that they should be kept whole.

[Miles]

muon, do you like this map?

I don't like the Raleigh area much at all. It would help me to understand your goals there, especially as it relates to .

Do you believe that an area including a 50% BVAP is sufficiently compact to require a district under section 2?

If it is, then the numbers must reflect the ability of the black population to elect a representative of choice. So what BVAP and Dem% are large enough for you? BVAP doesn't necessarily have to be 50% if there are enough other Dems to elect that candidate out of the primary. Pubs use 50% because that is a safe harbor, but Dems have used numbers down to 45% BVAP when they have negotiated with the minority groups.

If it isn't, then you are looking to maintain a district where a black CoI is one of the factors you are using. How do you want to define that CoI along with other factors to avoid the charge the race was the predominant factor in drawing the district?

I mean, I based the western part on your map, and I still get shot down

The "goals" of the the eastern part are pretty darn simple. For CD1, I was trying to keep it over 50.0% BVAP, as I've always done.

[muon2]

muon, do you like this map?

I don't like the Raleigh area much at all. It would help me to understand your goals there, especially as it relates to .

Do you believe that an area including a 50% BVAP is sufficiently compact to require a district under section 2?

If it is, then the numbers must reflect the ability of the black population to elect a representative of choice. So what BVAP and Dem% are large enough for you? BVAP doesn't necessarily have to be 50% if there are enough other Dems to elect that candidate out of the primary. Pubs use 50% because that is a safe harbor, but Dems have used numbers down to 45% BVAP when they have negotiated with the minority groups.

If it isn't, then you are looking to maintain a district where a black CoI is one of the factors you are using. How do you want to define that CoI along with other factors to avoid the charge the race was the predominant factor in drawing the district?

I mean, I based the western part on your map, and I still get shot down

The "goals" of the the eastern part are pretty darn simple. For CD1, I was trying to keep it over 50.0% BVAP, as I've always done.

I just feel that being locked into both a 50% BVAP CD and a Wake-only CD you ended up with the donut-shaped CD 2 and the Durham-Chapel Hill split. Neither is desirable and it doesn't seem like a good trade in an otherwise good map.

That you have a 50% BVAP CD leads me to assume that you believe a VRA CD is required. My questions were designed to see if you would consider a sub 50% CD that still is sufficient to elect a representative preferred by the black community. I think that would give you some better options for the other CDs.

[Miles]

muon, do you like this map?

I don't like the Raleigh area much at all. It would help me to understand your goals there, especially as it relates to .

Do you believe that an area including a 50% BVAP is sufficiently compact to require a district under section 2?

If it is, then the numbers must reflect the ability of the black population to elect a representative of choice. So what BVAP and Dem% are large enough for you? BVAP doesn't necessarily have to be 50% if there are enough other Dems to elect that candidate out of the primary. Pubs use 50% because that is a safe harbor, but Dems have used numbers down to 45% BVAP when they have negotiated with the minority groups.

If it isn't, then you are looking to maintain a district where a black CoI is one of the factors you are using. How do you want to define that CoI along with other factors to avoid the charge the race was the predominant factor in drawing the district?

I mean, I based the western part on your map, and I still get shot down

The "goals" of the the eastern part are pretty darn simple. For CD1, I was trying to keep it over 50.0% BVAP, as I've always done.

I just feel that being locked into both a 50% BVAP CD and a Wake-only CD you ended up with the donut-shaped CD 2 and the Durham-Chapel Hill split. Neither is desirable and it doesn't seem like a good trade in an otherwise good map.

That you have a 50% BVAP CD leads me to assume that you believe a VRA CD is required. My questions were designed to see if you would consider a sub 50% CD that still is sufficient to elect a representative preferred by the black community. I think that would give you some better options for the other CDs.

Definitely. I agree. Since we've been putting CD1 in Raleigh and Durham, thats led me to make some undesirable changes to CD2. That map is a good example; if I didn't take it into Durham, I'd have to take it all the way west to Randolph county. Thats not unprecedented, but I don't like it. I think thats at least one advantage of putting CD1 into the smaller eastern cities, as it gives CD2 more room around Raleigh.

I think district entirely within Wake County should be almost a given for a fair map.

Yeah, I guess I've always tried to keep it over 50.0% BVAP, but I think a lower threshold could suffice. Maybe over 50.0% black total population? But what are the odds of that actually being realistic though?

[muon2]

Definitely. I agree. Since we've been putting CD1 in Raleigh and Durham, thats led me to make some undesirable changes to CD2. That map is a good example; if I didn't take it into Durham, I'd have to take it all the way west to Randolph county. Thats not unprecedented, but I don't like it. I think thats at least one advantage of putting CD1 into the smaller eastern cities, as it gives CD2 more room around Raleigh.

I think district entirely within Wake County should be almost a given for a fair map.

I think that the split of Wake is a chop, and after all our discussion on chops in other states, there was no good rationale to create a benefit for a single county CD. So, like the Lumbee issue, that would be a local preference if the map is suitably fair to make it to the final set. As it is, you are creating a lot of erosity in CD 2 to have your preference in CD 13. OTOH there is a benefit to avoiding extra chops to a UCC. That puts a premium of keeping Durham and Orange in the same CD, with at most a split for a VRA district.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In IL the Dems successfully defended legislative districts with under 50% BVAP when 50% BVAP districts could be drawn. The districts had sufficient non-black Dem voters who would crossover and vote for the primary winner and that winner was likely to be the choice of the black voters. The black interest groups (NAACP, Urban League) supported the plan as well. Politically if the plan improves Dem chances in other districts and still provides a means for the black minority to elect a representative of choice it seems likely to succeed.

[Miles]

I think that the split of Wake is a chop, and after all our discussion on chops in other states, there was no good rationale to create a benefit for a single county CD. So, like the Lumbee issue, that would be a local preference if the map is suitably fair to make it to the final set. As it is, you are creating a lot of erosity in CD 2 to have your preference in CD 13. OTOH there is a benefit to avoiding extra chops to a UCC. That puts a premium of keeping Durham and Orange in the same CD, with at most a split for a VRA district.

So, do you think CD1 could go into Durham city as long as the rest of the county was with Orange?

I like the 45% BVAP threshold, but to get it, I have to go into either Durham or Raleigh.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wow, no kidding. I didn't know that.

[muon2]

I think that the split of Wake is a chop, and after all our discussion on chops in other states, there was no good rationale to create a benefit for a single county CD. So, like the Lumbee issue, that would be a local preference if the map is suitably fair to make it to the final set. As it is, you are creating a lot of erosity in CD 2 to have your preference in CD 13. OTOH there is a benefit to avoiding extra chops to a UCC. That puts a premium of keeping Durham and Orange in the same CD, with at most a split for a VRA district.

So, do you think CD1 could go into Durham city as long as the rest of the county was with Orange?

I like the 45% BVAP threshold, but to get it, I have to go into either Durham or Raleigh.

I agree that's what is needed, and then the question is how little erosity and how few chops are needed to meet the threshold. However, once you have to send a prong into either of those cities the question again arises as to whether the minority area is sufficiently compact as to require section 2 protection. This was the great debate we had over AL maps and whether the prong into Birmingham from the Black Belt was compact enough to trigger the VRA.

If the trigger isn't met I can go back to a map like this with 40.3% BVAP in CD 1 with D+2 that keeps the Minority County Cluster intact (counties over 40% BVAP).

[jimrtex]

I think that the split of Wake is a chop, and after all our discussion on chops in other states, there was no good rationale to create a benefit for a single county CD. So, like the Lumbee issue, that would be a local preference if the map is suitably fair to make it to the final set. As it is, you are creating a lot of erosity in CD 2 to have your preference in CD 13. OTOH there is a benefit to avoiding extra chops to a UCC. That puts a premium of keeping Durham and Orange in the same CD, with at most a split for a VRA district.

So, do you think CD1 could go into Durham city as long as the rest of the county was with Orange?

I like the 45% BVAP threshold, but to get it, I have to go into either Durham or Raleigh.

I agree that's what is needed, and then the question is how little erosity and how few chops are needed to meet the threshold. However, once you have to send a prong into either of those cities the question again arises as to whether the minority area is sufficiently compact as to require section 2 protection. This was the great debate we had over AL maps and whether the prong into Birmingham from the Black Belt was compact enough to trigger the VRA.

If the trigger isn't met I can go back to a map like this with 40.3% BVAP in CD 1 with D+2 that keeps the Minority County Cluster intact (counties over 40% BVAP).

Your CD 1 was:

Senate 2008: Hagan 59.0% Dole 39.0%
Senate 2010: Marshall 52.3% Burr 46.2%
Governor 2008: Perdue 62.3% McCrory 36.0%
Governor 2012: Dalton 54.3% McCrory 44.3%
President 2008: Obama 55.6% McCain 43.8%
President 2012: Obama 55.7% Romney 43,5%

[Sol]

A preface: I decided to work on redistricting NC for my fair redistricting thread. But because it can be kind of ugly, I decided to go here first.

Why do I call redistricting NC ugly? Basically, drawing districts with a lot of the standards that both I and the other mappers use can be a little problematic here- a good example is how a whole county CD-7 and a black majority/opportunity CD-1 completely screws up CD-3, forcing it squirm inland. Similarly, avoiding whole county bridges can mess with COI pretty hugely in Charlotte. Anyway, allow this to be my explanation for the ultra-ugly CD-02, as well as the deviation, which is also a bit higher than I'd like, though it's all within +/-1000. Suffice it to say that this is a rough draft.



NC-01
Deviation: -471
Demographics: 51.5% black (50.4% BVAP)
Voting: 69.6% Obama, 70.4% D
Commentary:
This is basically your standard Black majority NE NC district. I chose to avoid the whole argument about whether NC-01 is required to be black majority by drawing something similar to the status quo, and I chose to go into both Durham and Raleigh because it lets you draw nicer lines to the east.



NC-02
Deviation:+347
Voting: 39.6% Obama, 42.1% D
Commentary:
This the ugly duckling of this particular set, alas. Basically, Pressure from NC-03 forces it to go west (additionally ruining NC-08's nice whole county shape, btw). It's basically a cleaned up version of Renee Ellmers's current district, and it'd probably actually be safer for her without the current district's weird chomp out of SW Wake County. In future drafts, I may look at splitting the Fayetteville County Cluster, since this is pretty yucky at the moment (though I still won't split up the Lumbee!)



NC-03
Deviation: -426
Voting: 45.5% Obama, 48.6% D
Commentary:
This is your coastal district, albeit somewhat squeezed by NC-01 to the North and NC-07 to the south. I took it as far west as I could without dipping into Johnston County, which is something I'm proud of. Walter Jones is probably fairly safe here; A blue dog could be vaguely competitive after he leaves office.



NC-04
Deviation: -726
Voting: 55.4% Obama, 54.5% D
Commentary:
Price's PVI takes a colossal hit here, as Chapel Hill and Durham are forced to swallow a bunch of Greensboro suburbia. It's not the kind of district that would elect a any sort of Pubbie long-term though; even if they won in a wave year, they'd lose big next time around.



NC-05
Deviation: -157
Voting: 33.8% Obama, 36% D
Commentary:
This district makes a little more sense than it looks- the odd shape is due to Iredell County's status as a part of the Charlotte UCC. Anyway, ultra-safe R. Foxx does not live here, but she might run here nonetheless; it's her electoral base.



NC-06
Deviation: +306
Voting: 60.3% Obama, 57.4% D
Commentary:
This is your Winston-Salem/Greensboro district. It's safe D. I have no idea who'd win a primary here, though a Winston-Salem Democrat is probably the strongest bet.



NC-07
Deviation: -187
Voting: 42.8% Obama, 45.7% D
Commentary:
This is a district whose shape I like a great deal - Whole Counties! McIntyre probably wouldn't reconsider his retirement even with this district- Jacksonville and Carteret County are not D friendly.



NC-08
Deviation: +892
Voting: 53.6% Obama, 56.2% D
Commentary:
It is quite hard to avoid a tri-chop of Wake and arrange Charlotte as I have with this district as whole counties, so I just gave up. This district should be favorable to Larry Kissell or one of his ilk.



NC-09
Deviation: -15
Voting: 38.4% Obama, 38.2% D
Commentary:
This is the Charlotte sub/exurbia district that pretty much any map'll have. My particular configuration for the Charlotte area (see maps 10 and 12 for more) is based on some previous stuff from Muon. Anyway, this CD is safe for whatever pub wants to sail in.



NC-10
Deviation: -265
Voting: 42.4% Obama, 42.4% D
Commentary:
This is the other Charlotte area pub seat, though a more apt description might be Charlotte-WNC rurban seat. Safe for McHenry, though he should probably keep his eye on his section of Mecklenburg County.




NC-11
Deviation: +224
Voting: 46.6% Obama, 47.2% D
Commentary:
This is your WNC district, now in whole counties, and taking in a good chunk of the High Country. It's very winnable for the Dems, against either Meadows or Foxx (both live here), provided they don't nominate a left-winger as Asheville and Boone are probably wont to do.



NC-12
Deviation: +48
Voting: 62% Obama, 56.8% D
Commentary:
A fair district based mostly in Charlotte, with a bite out of Union County to even NC-09's pop. numbers. It's safe for the Democrats and it's only gonna get safer. Malcolm Graham probably wins here.



NC-13
Deviation: +426
Voting: 52.9% Obama, 49.1% D
Commentary:
This a whole Wake County district; I used NC-01's jump into Raleigh to do it. It's a very competitive district, which would probably flip back and forth a bit, although a DLC-type Dem would probably be the most capable sort to hold it for the whole decade.

The Whole map:



Anyway, the map is 5D-6R-2T, although NC-04 and NC-08 could be competitive in a huge R wave.

[muon2]

No doubt there are difficult trades to make in NC as your map illustrates. Keeping CD 2 and 3 relatively compact as in my map above forces a split of the Lumbee area. Keeping the Lumbee together in CD 8 pushes CD 7 up the coast and that creates the erose CDs 2 and 3. Then one gets to the question of what if anything is required by the VRA, which you resolved with the status quo, but is much less clear for the next cycle.

[Sol]

No doubt there are difficult trades to make in NC as your map illustrates. Keeping CD 2 and 3 relatively compact as in my map above forces a split of the Lumbee area. Keeping the Lumbee together in CD 8 pushes CD 7 up the coast and that creates the erose CDs 2 and 3. Then one gets to the question of what if anything is required by the VRA, which you resolved with the status quo, but is much less clear for the next cycle.

Would this Central Map be preferable? It splits the Fayetteville UCC (bad!) but has the Lumbee together. NC-02 is a highly competitive district with a tiny GOP lead, while NC-04 is no longer even remotely swingy. NC-08 is safe GOP.

Deviations are +521, +650, -352, and +2, respectively.

[muon2]

No doubt there are difficult trades to make in NC as your map illustrates. Keeping CD 2 and 3 relatively compact as in my map above forces a split of the Lumbee area. Keeping the Lumbee together in CD 8 pushes CD 7 up the coast and that creates the erose CDs 2 and 3. Then one gets to the question of what if anything is required by the VRA, which you resolved with the status quo, but is much less clear for the next cycle.

Would this Central Map be preferable? It splits the Fayetteville UCC (bad!) but has the Lumbee together. NC-02 is a highly competitive district with a tiny GOP lead, while NC-04 is no longer even remotely swingy. NC-08 is safe GOP.

Deviations are +521, +650, -352, and +2, respectively.

At some point we will have to look at chops and erosity to see which plans might be excluded.

[Sol]

At some point we will have to look at chops and erosity to see which plans might be excluded.

I'm ready to rumble!

And, yes I am aware of the fact that NC has a lot of yucky chops- I definitely want to see something prettier!

[JerryArkansas]

Hate bumping this after about a year and a half, but a Fed Court just threw out the map as packing AA in both the 1st and 12th.  Link below

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6pm35vneawizpl7/North%20Carolina.pdf?dl=0

[RBH]

Federal Judge has struck down the 1st and 12th districts as racial gerrymanders.

So... here's a quick attempt at 1st/12th districts.

The districts bordering the 1st: 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 13th

The districts bordering the 12th: 2nd, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th

Districts bordering neither district and not touched: 11th

General plan:

Tidy up the first district to be a bit more compact.
Drop Winston-Salem from the 12th and replace it with some parts of Mecklenberg.
Other changes to level it out.

Statewide:



1st: 48.5 AA/40.6 W (47 AA-44 W VAP), Obama 67-McCain 33, D 69/R 31. 733385 people


2nd: 66 W/16 AA/11 H, McCain 56-Obama 43, R 56/D 44. 733943 people


3rd: 69 W/20 AA, McCain 57-Obama 42, R 55/D 45. 733037 people


4th: 48 W/32 AA/12 H, Obama 72-McCain 27, D 68.5/R 31.5. 732955 people


5th: 73.5 W/15 AA, McCain 55-Obama 44, R 56/D 44. 733691 people


6th: 76 W/15 AA, McCain 55.5-Obama 43, R 56/D 44. 734319 people


7th: 68 W/19 AA, McCain 55-Obama 44.5, R 52/D 48. 733285 people


8th: 64 W/18 AA, McCain 58-Obama 41, R 56.5/D 43.5. 733602 people


9th: 75 W/12 AA, McCain 55-Obama 44, R 60/D 40. 732894 people


10th: 79 W/12 AA, McCain 56-Obama 43, R 56/D 44. 734415 people

11th: 88 W. McCain 58-Obama 40, R 58/D 42. 732689 people


12th: 48 AA/31 W/14 H (46.5/35 VAP). Obama 76-McCain 23. D 72/R 28. 734004 people


13th: 69 W/18 AA. McCain 53-Obama 46, R 55/D 45. 733264 people

That's just the quick map. I don't think a re-map is gonna touch 2 or 4, even as a tidy-up.

Not sure if the criteria is gonna kick Durham out of NC-1, or just kill the NC-12 bacon-strip concept like the changes in Virginia.

[RBH]

I'd think an all-Meck 12th and Durham out of the 1st means that the Dragon 4th is done, impacting the 2nd. And the 9th becomes a district from the Charlotte suburbs to Winston-Salem/Greensboro. Meaning a 9th that is shaped like the 12th, only majority white.

Also, no Senate seat is up in 2018 (so far), so anybody drawn out isn't running for something in 2018. Assuming they don't try making this effective in 2016.

[Miles]

^ The first draft of the map in 2011 had NC-01 without Durham, so it gives you some idea of how the eastern part of the state would look.