Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 31, 2014, 08:07:10 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
| | |-+  US House Redistricting: Colorado
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Print
Author Topic: US House Redistricting: Colorado  (Read 12134 times)
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5837
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #75 on: September 25, 2011, 09:41:13 pm »
Ignore


If you are going to convince a court to reduce the number of split counties, there is no reason to 3-way split Arapahoe Count, just because it already is.


When it comes to splits for the court, I'm not sure that keeping Denver intact should have any special preference.


There are historical reasons (Denver had its own congressional district for close to 70 years, and has basically had its own for the past 40 more).  The city and county of Denver are coterminous, which would mean that a split of Denver County would split Denver city.  At the legislative level, integrity of cities is a requirement.

In 2001, the two houses of the legislature deadlocked, and the Democratic-controlled senate refused to even send conferees because they realized that there was a risk that a reasonable person would see the House plan and vote for it.  The Democrats filed in district court in Denver figuring they would get a favorable judge.  They submitted their plan, which would have divided Denver.  The judge threw it in the trash can, and took the Republican plan, and then let the Democrats redraw District 7.  The judge then went into detail about the community of interest that the other districts represented.  When he got to 7, he couldn't think of anything (they do both include a portion of Colfax) but said it was politically balanced.  He was as surprised as anyone that it was the final map.

So given past history and the fact that you would be splitting a city it is quite unlikely a court would order a split, or treat the other counties as equivalent.


Consider that the four big counties Adams, Arapahoe, Denver, and Jefferson are all between 60% and 85% of a CD, so none are substantially larger all smaller than the others. Next, consider that the four counties together are just barely less than the population needed for 3 CDs - in fact at 99.67% of the total they could fall within the 0.5% limit that the court has permitted when a state makes a compelling case to have some population deviation. Otherwise a small amount of population from either Bloomfield or Douglas would make up the difference.

If the big four are to make up 3 CDs, then either one county must be split three ways, or two counties must be each split two ways. I'll assume the goal is to have no county split between more than two districts, since that appears in the GOP plan, and The Dems only show a three-way split of Jefferson for connectivity between Park and Douglas.

If Denver is intact then Arapahoe must be split, since discontiguous parts are surrounded by Denver. If Denver combines with parts of Arapahoe, the natural combination of the remainder is with Adams which becomes the other split county.

A majority HVAP district is not possible at the precinct-level, and probably not at the block level without long tendrils up and down the Front Range. However, a strong influence district is possible, and even if not required it might be a desirable goal given the large Hispanic population in the state. If one is created, Denver must be a part of it. If the Arapahoe inclusions are ignored for the purposes of counting splits, and Denver is kept intact, the best HVAP comes from a combination of Denver and parts of Adams. That would be about 30% HVAP.

So, why not recognize that Denver is no more special than the other big counties, and could be split. If Adams is kept intact, and combined with the most Hispanic areas of Denver a district with a 39% HVAP can be achieved. That would be a substantially better influence district than what could be made by keeping Denver intact. The remainder of Denver would then combine with Aurora and most of Arapahoe, leaving some southwestern parts of Arapahoe to combine with Jefferson.
I don't think that Glendale and Holly Hills should be treated as splits of Arapahoe County.  I would keep them with Arapahoe County, but a judge probably would simply treat them as part of Denver.

Can you keep Aurora, Lakewood, and Denver whole, and draw 3 districts in the 4-county area?

Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8783


View Profile
« Reply #76 on: September 25, 2011, 11:11:37 pm »

Muon, the problem with that seems to be that Douglas County gets stranded in between the 3 Denver districts that you've drawn and the Colorado Springs district and has nowhere to go.  There's really no reason to draw a stark dividing line between Denver/Adams/Arapahoe/Jefferson and Douglas just because the first four happen to add up to 3 districts. 

With the four-county grouping I described, there are really only two choices. Douglas can go with the city of Colorado Springs, while the rest of El Paso goes with eastern CO. Otherwise Douglas can go with eastern CO.

It is interesting to note that if one puts Boulder and Larimer counties together one can get some interesting plans. For instance that combination along with the Douglas + Colorado Springs district allows CD 3 to stay entirely in the west without needing Pueblo. Alternatively one can construct a whole counties (except the big four) plan that stays within 0.5%.
Logged


Partial solar eclipse of April 15, 2014 with a cloud and large sunspot.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27430
United States


View Profile
« Reply #77 on: September 26, 2011, 12:56:49 am »
Ignore

Below is my projected court drawn plan.  I expanded Denver out in the direction that maxed the Hispanic percentage while respecting jurisdictional boundaries, grabbing most of the Hispanic concentration that was there, but giving up a couple of points or three to avoid splitting Aurora and such. I tried to keep CO-04 on the plains without cutting into Pueblo County, and then the rest sort of drew itself. I don't think a judge will trash other considerations to up the Hispanic percentage when it won't make much difference in any conceivable outcome anyway, and I find it striking that the Hispanics are so spread out. They seem to refuse to "ghettoize" themselves in Colorado, and that tells the tale. CO-07 being dead even was an accident. I didn't even look at the partisan percentages until the map was done.

It is not all that different from dpmapper's I see in looking back now. I just didn't want to cut into the mountains in exchange for the parts of Arapahoe and Adams to the east that are identical to the surrounding territory in CO-04 that is identical, particularly given that both counties are so elongated. So I chopped them, and I suspect a court will do to pick up the relatively small amount of population. 4 of the 7 CD's become metro Denver CD's more or less, with the emphasis on more - as they should. Other than that, both of us have the same approach basically.



« Last Edit: September 26, 2011, 01:21:24 am by Torie »Logged

muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8783


View Profile
« Reply #78 on: September 26, 2011, 06:47:57 am »

Here are the two maps I mentioned yesterday. Both are based on dividing the big four counties into three CDs and making CD 7 a Hispanic influence district at 39%. Both plans could easily swap the Denver split for an Adams split.


This plan keeps all counties except Denver and Arapahoe intact and has a maximum deviation of 0.5%.



This plan has a maximum deviation of 9 persons (pretty good for precinct-level manipulation). It minimizes county splits and no county is split between more than two districts. It unites all the counties west of the Rockies as CD3, leaving Pueblo to the east (as is should be). That puts Boulder and Larimer together as well as Douglas with Colorado Springs.

« Last Edit: September 26, 2011, 06:50:46 am by muon2 »Logged


Partial solar eclipse of April 15, 2014 with a cloud and large sunspot.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27430
United States


View Profile
« Reply #79 on: September 26, 2011, 10:26:09 am »
Ignore

Those maps are a pretty radical re-shifting of the deck chairs, Muon2. Do you really think Judge Hoyer will go there?  By the way, he apparently is a highly respected judge and not a hack, which is good.

On a minor note, there is absolutely no road access between Park and Pitkin Counties, which is why I abandoned an earlier draft that appended the two counties together in the Colorado Springs CD. Where I had to reach into the mountains, I hunted around for the few available roads. Judges seem to like roads. Smiley



And here is an alternative, that chops Aurora to take in a nice little square of majority Hispanic precincts, and appends a majority precinct in the south that juts into Denver, dumps into CO-07 the Denver jut out to take in the airport, and nibbles off a couple of relatively low percentage precincts in the north, upping the Hispanic percentage in the Denver CD by 1.1%, up to 30.7%.  I wouldn't break municipal and county lines to get this additional Hispanic percentage, but a judge certainly might reasonably do so.  It increases the Dem percentage in CO-07 by 30 basis points, up to 50.3-47.7% Dem as it turns out. This approach probably dictates that the lines of CO-07 and CO-04 be moved around a bit, which should not make much difference. We are not talking about many people here.



And here is the rejigging of the CO-04 and CO-07 border: 50.4% Dem now for CO-07. Drip, drip, drip. Tongue

« Last Edit: September 26, 2011, 11:47:18 am by Torie »Logged

muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8783


View Profile
« Reply #80 on: September 26, 2011, 12:50:35 pm »

Those maps are a pretty radical re-shifting of the deck chairs, Muon2. Do you really think Judge Hoyer will go there?  By the way, he apparently is a highly respected judge and not a hack, which is good.

I particularly liked my second map. From a non-partisan perspective, I don't understand linking Boulder with the ski counties across the Front Range. I own in Vail and have been in Vail and Aspen and surrounding areas many times. Other than the pockets of Dems in the ski towns, I find little in common between them and Boulder.

So I thought, the better community of interest was to hold the Front Range as a line. That way I could link all the counties west of that line with a slight spill into Huerfano for population equality. Pueblo is a city of the high Plains, not the mountains so I kept it there.

Quote
On a minor note, there is absolutely no road access between Park and Pitkin Lake Counties, which is why I abandoned an earlier draft that appended the two counties together in the Colorado Springs CD. Where I had to reach into the mountains, I hunted around for the few available roads. Judges seem to like roads. Smiley
And I should know better having taken my 4WD vehicle up into the mining camps east of Leadville. In any case you can swap Lake and Clear Creek and remain within 0.5% of the ideal population. Tongue

Quote


And here is an alternative, that chops Aurora to take in a nice little square of majority Hispanic precincts, and appends a majority precinct in the south that juts into Denver, dumps into CO-07 the Denver jut out to take in the airport, and nibbles off a couple of relatively low percentage precincts in the north, upping the Hispanic percentage in the Denver CD by 1.1%, up to 30.7%.  I wouldn't break municipal and county lines to get this additional Hispanic percentage, but a judge certainly might reasonably do so.  It increases the Dem percentage in CO-07 by 30 basis points, up to 50.3-47.7% Dem as it turns out. This approach probably dictates that the lines of CO-07 and CO-04 be moved around a bit, which should not make much difference. We are not talking about many people here.



And here is the rejigging of the CO-04 and CO-07 border: 50.4% Dem now for CO-07. Drip, drip, drip. Tongue



After all the noise about keeping Denver whole, you've split the airport and neighboring areas of the city out of CD 1. If you are going to split that, why not go all the way and split Denver as I did?
Logged


Partial solar eclipse of April 15, 2014 with a cloud and large sunspot.
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5837
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #81 on: September 26, 2011, 01:16:31 pm »
Ignore

Those maps are a pretty radical re-shifting of the deck chairs, Muon2. Do you really think Judge Hoyer will go there?  By the way, he apparently is a highly respected judge and not a hack, which is good.

On a minor note, there is absolutely no road access between Park and Pitkin Counties, which is why I abandoned an earlier draft that appended the two counties together in the Colorado Springs CD. Where I had to reach into the mountains, I hunted around for the few available roads. Judges seem to like roads. Smiley
http://www.colomar.com/ColoradoPlaces/mosquito_pass.html

It would also unite the burro racing community.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27430
United States


View Profile
« Reply #82 on: September 26, 2011, 01:23:39 pm »
Ignore

Well the rationale is that the bit of Denver chopped is a jut because of the new airport, and has some empty land in-between, so if one is hyped up about upping the Hispanic percentage, and given the 8 Hispanic majority precincts in that little square in Aurora right next to Denver, that seemed like something a judge might do. I wouldn't, but Hoyer might. Sure you protected the mountains, but at the cost of shifting Pueblo out of CO-03 which is a big population transfer (and thus a negative - see below). Indeed, given the number of mountain counties that you appended to CO-03, that adds another 70,000 folks or so transferred. Anyway, Highway 80 links Boulder to the nearby ski resorts, and folks in Boulder ski a lot, and that is the way the lines are drawn now. I saw no reason to change them. I did cut back a bit the reach of the Boulder CD into the mountains as it happened. However, it may have some appeal for a judge because it does unite the mountains and the plains, provided it does not otherwise screw up the map.

Moving massive numbers of folks around is a negative to me, and should be to a judge. There needs to be a darn good reason to do it. I did move around a fair amount of folks in Jefferson County, but that is because by moving the Denver CD north to up its Hispanic percentage, that sliced CO-07 in two. So I decided it was time to clean up the map, given that. Bear in mind that the last map was judge drawn, rather than some offensive gerry to protect incumbents or favor one party, so that map will probably get some deference from Hoyer.

Addendum: Oh, I see that we seem to be using different population data. Not good!   Or am I just missing something (always a real possibility with me Tongue )?



« Last Edit: September 26, 2011, 01:52:48 pm by Torie »Logged

muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8783


View Profile
« Reply #83 on: September 26, 2011, 03:54:48 pm »

Well the rationale is that the bit of Denver chopped is a jut because of the new airport, and has some empty land in-between, so if one is hyped up about upping the Hispanic percentage, and given the 8 Hispanic majority precincts in that little square in Aurora right next to Denver, that seemed like something a judge might do. I wouldn't, but Hoyer might.
There's a substantial neighborhood of over 28K people that you chopped out with the airport. It's also a very diverse neighborhood with roughly equal numbers of whites, blacks and Latinos.

Quote
Sure you protected the mountains, but at the cost of shifting Pueblo out of CO-03 which is a big population transfer (and thus a negative - see below). Indeed, given the number of mountain counties that you appended to CO-03, that adds another 70,000 folks or so transferred.
I understand that the connection exists today, but I can't find a rational basis to maintain it other than Pueblo is currently in CD 3 and constituent services would be disrupted by a shift.

Quote
Anyway, Highway 80 links Boulder to the nearby ski resorts, and folks in Boulder ski a lot, and that is the way the lines are drawn now. I saw no reason to change them. I did cut back a bit the reach of the Boulder CD into the mountains as it happened. However, it may have some appeal for a judge because it does unite the mountains and the plains, provided it does not otherwise screw up the map.
Where the folks in Boulder ski shouldn't matter since they don't permanently reside or vote there. There's not even a road connection from Boulder County west over the mountains, so I don't see why a judge thought they should be connected other than politics and historical precedent. The current district only connects Boulder to the I70 pass over rugged terrain through tiny Gilpin County.

Quote
Moving massive numbers of folks around is a negative to me, and should be to a judge. There needs to be a darn good reason to do it. I did move around a fair amount of folks in Jefferson County, but that is because by moving the Denver CD north to up its Hispanic percentage, that sliced CO-07 in two. So I decided it was time to clean up the map, given that. Bear in mind that the last map was judge drawn, rather than some offensive gerry to protect incumbents or favor one party, so that map will probably get some deference from Hoyer.

Addendum: Oh, I see that we seem to be using different population data. Not good!   Or am I just missing something (always a real possibility with me Tongue )?




I just checked my CD 3 again with a blank map and I got my previous result, the net should be -9 people compared to ideal. Unless you have little discontiguous areas that didn't get included in your CD 3, I'm not sure what causes the difference you see.
Logged


Partial solar eclipse of April 15, 2014 with a cloud and large sunspot.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27430
United States


View Profile
« Reply #84 on: September 26, 2011, 04:14:11 pm »
Ignore

My CO-03 is contiguous. So the software tells me, as well as my eye. I think you are using an earlier version of the DRA, and it must have different population numbers. That is the only explanation I can think of.

Yes, that little node I cut out of Denver (22,000 per my software even if 28,000 in yours). First, it probably wasn't in Denver until the airport was built, is separated by empty fields from the balance of Denver and in any event is part of "the jut," is "only" 33% Hispanic, and fattens out the little waist of CO-07 going from north to south to the east of Denver, and I had to cut Denver somewhere to pick up those eight Aurora precincts.  So out it goes!  If I am going to cross jurisdictional boundaries to pick up a point or two of Hispanics that to me doesn't make much if any practical difference, I want the CD to be at least as compact as it was before, it not more so in general.

The Boulder CD is connected to the ski resorts by Highway 80 via its southern precincts, if not by Boulder County itself. That is good enough for me. You are so fussy Muon2.  Smiley

I agree with you about Pueblo, but it was "necessary" as a population equalizer.  But surprisingly, having now done the exercise per your inspiration, if you strip the mountains from the Denver based CD's, CO-03 even with my population numbers does not jut too far out into the plains after losing Pueblo, so that change has some merit if the balance of the map holds reasonably well, and you don't mind the population switches to better bifurcate the mountains from the plains. I don't myself think that is a major objective, but nevertheless has some attraction if the price for doing so is not too high. That much of a population switch might however be a deal killer, unless there is evidence that the folks of Pueblo (or their politicians at least - the folks probably could care less), want the F out of CO-03.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2011, 04:33:40 pm by Torie »Logged

muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8783


View Profile
« Reply #85 on: September 26, 2011, 09:32:47 pm »

My CO-03 is contiguous. So the software tells me, as well as my eye. I think you are using an earlier version of the DRA, and it must have different population numbers. That is the only explanation I can think of.
I checked my numbers by downloading the county counts directly from the Census into a spreadsheet. If I take the counties in my map's CD 3 without Huerfano I get 714,345. If I put Huerfano in I get 721,056. That's consistent with my map where I get 718,448 with half of Huerfano.

You say you checked contiguity for CD 3, but did you check it for the other CDs? I have found that a fragment of an old CD on a tiny parcel can be missed sometimes.

Quote
Yes, that little node I cut out of Denver (22,000 per my software even if 28,000 in yours). First, it probably wasn't in Denver until the airport was built, is separated by empty fields from the balance of Denver and in any event is part of "the jut," is "only" 33% Hispanic, and fattens out the little waist of CO-07 going from north to south to the east of Denver, and I had to cut Denver somewhere to pick up those eight Aurora precincts.  So out it goes!  If I am going to cross jurisdictional boundaries to pick up a point or two of Hispanics that to me doesn't make much if any practical difference, I want the CD to be at least as compact as it was before, it not more so in general.
Given the shape of Adams and Arapahoe I didn't worry about compactness so much in my equal population map. However, in my whole county version I chose to make CD 1 compact as the non-Hispanic district and let the 39% HVAP CD 7 extend east. It would be straightforward to adopt that design onto my equal population map as well. My sense is that if one Denver district is going to be compact, it shouldn't matter which one it is.

Quote
The Boulder CD is connected to the ski resorts by Highway 80 via its southern precincts, if not by Boulder County itself. That is good enough for me. You are so fussy Muon2.  Smiley
I like a clean community of interest. Wink

Quote
I agree with you about Pueblo, but it was "necessary" as a population equalizer.  But surprisingly, having now done the exercise per your inspiration, if you strip the mountains from the Denver based CD's, CO-03 even with my population numbers does not jut too far out into the plains after losing Pueblo, so that change has some merit if the balance of the map holds reasonably well, and you don't mind the population switches to better bifurcate the mountains from the plains. I don't myself think that is a major objective, but nevertheless has some attraction if the price for doing so is not too high. That much of a population switch might however be a deal killer, unless there is evidence that the folks of Pueblo (or their politicians at least - the folks probably could care less), want the F out of CO-03.
Logged


Partial solar eclipse of April 15, 2014 with a cloud and large sunspot.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27430
United States


View Profile
« Reply #86 on: September 26, 2011, 10:09:17 pm »
Ignore

Having done the contiguous check thing for all CD's, again and again, we are very close now - down to a couple of thousand folks maybe, if that. I actually do that for my final serious maps, but well, whatever. You're pretty clever Muon2.  Smiley



Actually, by this - an 842 population difference:

« Last Edit: September 26, 2011, 10:29:26 pm by Torie »Logged

Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27871


View Profile
« Reply #87 on: September 26, 2011, 10:26:03 pm »
Ignore

I find it somewhat amusing that y'all are spending at least 20 times the amount of time a judge/court is going to spend drawing a map.  Seriously.  They look for the easiest solution that's not going to get struck down and move on (which generally revolves around making the most minor changes possible to the old map).  Unless they're partisans.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27430
United States


View Profile
« Reply #88 on: September 26, 2011, 10:37:09 pm »
Ignore

I find it somewhat amusing that y'all are spending at least 20 times the amount of time a judge/court is going to spend drawing a map.  Seriously.  They look for the easiest solution that's not going to get struck down and move on (which generally revolves around making the most minor changes possible to the old map).  Unless they're partisans.

Maybe, but one never knows with a state judge. But in this case, I suspect you're right, and thus I think the first map I suggested is about right, which throws the Hispanics a bone while respecting jurisdictional lines (and thus a good reason not to give them more where such is not the case), but other than that, tries to minimize changes. Denver needs to expand out anyway to pick up population, so why not get rid of its existing extension into the Southern burbs (which did not make sense anyway), and then expand it out north to Hispanic areas which are just hanging there like rip fruit to pick up.
Logged

muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8783


View Profile
« Reply #89 on: September 26, 2011, 10:49:23 pm »

Having done the contiguous check thing for all CD's, again and again, we are very close now - down to a couple of thousand folks maybe, if that. I actually do that for my final serious maps, but well, whatever. You're pretty clever Muon2.  Smiley

Actually, by this - an 842 population difference:



There's an 842 person precinct in Walsenburg. That's the difference here.
Logged


Partial solar eclipse of April 15, 2014 with a cloud and large sunspot.
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5837
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #90 on: September 26, 2011, 11:40:41 pm »
Ignore

Well the rationale is that the bit of Denver chopped is a jut because of the new airport, and has some empty land in-between, so if one is hyped up about upping the Hispanic percentage, and given the 8 Hispanic majority precincts in that little square in Aurora right next to Denver, that seemed like something a judge might do. I wouldn't, but Hoyer might.
There's a substantial neighborhood of over 28K people that you chopped out with the airport. It's also a very diverse neighborhood with roughly equal numbers of whites, blacks and Latinos.
It really should be considered an extension of Montbello, which is the area between the old airport and the road to the new airport.  If you are going to include the SW and SE extensions of Denver, there is no reason to chop that off.


Sure you protected the mountains, but at the cost of shifting Pueblo out of CO-03 which is a big population transfer (and thus a negative - see below). Indeed, given the number of mountain counties that you appended to CO-03, that adds another 70,000 folks or so transferred.
I understand that the connection exists today, but I can't find a rational basis to maintain it other than Pueblo is currently in CD 3 and constituent services would be disrupted by a shift.
When Colorado created 4 congressional districts (it never had 3), CO-4 was created on the Western Slope, CO-1 was Denver, CO-2 was northern Colorado (it was always a doughnut), and CO-3 was southern Colorado, which included Pueblo, El Paso, the lower Arkansas, the upper Arkansas, the San Luis Valley and the headwaters of the Rio Grande.

You're seeing the front range as the natural dividing line rather than the Continental Divide.

CO-4 was created underpopulated, and by the time OMOV came around, it was severely so.  CO-1 and CO-3 were about right, and CO-2 which had grown because of the suburbs, was overpopulated.  So they added CO-4 to CO-3, and dropped Colorado Springs and some of the High Plains.

Maybe you should create a southern Colorado district Holly-Pueblo-Leadville-Gunnison-Grand Junction, and put NW Colorado with Boulder.

Anyway, Highway 80 links Boulder to the nearby ski resorts, and folks in Boulder ski a lot, and that is the way the lines are drawn now. I saw no reason to change them. I did cut back a bit the reach of the Boulder CD into the mountains as it happened. However, it may have some appeal for a judge because it does unite the mountains and the plains, provided it does not otherwise screw up the map.
Where the folks in Boulder ski shouldn't matter since they don't permanently reside or vote there. There's not even a road connection from Boulder County west over the mountains, so I don't see why a judge thought they should be connected other than politics and historical precedent. The current district only connects Boulder to the I70 pass over rugged terrain through tiny Gilpin County.
There is passenger rail service though.  And Trail Ridge is accessed from Lyons which is in Boulder County.   Lake Eldora is near Boulder.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8783


View Profile
« Reply #91 on: September 27, 2011, 05:30:08 am »

Sure you protected the mountains, but at the cost of shifting Pueblo out of CO-03 which is a big population transfer (and thus a negative - see below). Indeed, given the number of mountain counties that you appended to CO-03, that adds another 70,000 folks or so transferred.
I understand that the connection exists today, but I can't find a rational basis to maintain it other than Pueblo is currently in CD 3 and constituent services would be disrupted by a shift.
When Colorado created 4 congressional districts (it never had 3), CO-4 was created on the Western Slope, CO-1 was Denver, CO-2 was northern Colorado (it was always a doughnut), and CO-3 was southern Colorado, which included Pueblo, El Paso, the lower Arkansas, the upper Arkansas, the San Luis Valley and the headwaters of the Rio Grande.

You're seeing the front range as the natural dividing line rather than the Continental Divide.

CO-4 was created underpopulated, and by the time OMOV came around, it was severely so.  CO-1 and CO-3 were about right, and CO-2 which had grown because of the suburbs, was overpopulated.  So they added CO-4 to CO-3, and dropped Colorado Springs and some of the High Plains.

Maybe you should create a southern Colorado district Holly-Pueblo-Leadville-Gunnison-Grand Junction, and put NW Colorado with Boulder.

Interesting ... and it explains how Pueblo and Grand Junction got united. How did Boulder end up linking across the Divide?
Logged


Partial solar eclipse of April 15, 2014 with a cloud and large sunspot.
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13525


View Profile
« Reply #92 on: September 27, 2011, 01:09:45 pm »
Ignore

I find it somewhat amusing that y'all are spending at least 20 times the amount of time a judge/court is going to spend drawing a map.  Seriously.  They look for the easiest solution that's not going to get struck down and move on (which generally revolves around making the most minor changes possible to the old map).  Unless they're partisans.

Maybe, but one never knows with a state judge. But in this case, I suspect you're right, and thus I think the first map I suggested is about right, which throws the Hispanics a bone while respecting jurisdictional lines (and thus a good reason not to give them more where such is not the case), but other than that, tries to minimize changes. Denver needs to expand out anyway to pick up population, so why not get rid of its existing extension into the Southern burbs (which did not make sense anyway), and then expand it out north to Hispanic areas which are just hanging there like rip fruit to pick up.

Aren't the southern and eastern areas of Denver similar to the areas south of it, if we disregard partisanship? If you want to make a Hispanic influence district, add in extreme eastern Jefferson County into the mix as well.

Your map seems to be much more favorable to Republicans while at the same time not picking up Hispanic areas in Jefferson County. I don't see why a "fair" judge would do that. Though that would depend on the definition of fair, wouldn't it? Smiley

30% VAP Hispanic. I can only imagine what the CVAP numbers are (and yes in Denver most of them are immigrants as opposed to Southern and Western Colorado).
« Last Edit: September 27, 2011, 01:14:04 pm by sbane »Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27430
United States


View Profile
« Reply #93 on: September 27, 2011, 02:36:54 pm »
Ignore

I picked up most of the available Hispanics within reach sbane. The problem is that they are so spread out. There are few really heavy Hispanic precincts. To do what I did, I had to lose the southern burbs, which are low percentage Hispanic. They were put into CO-06 which is GOP anyway, and did not affect CO-07. That allowed me to pick up essentially all of the majority precincts to the north of Denver, and no more. The fit was pretty perfect. The Hispanics to the north are in the highest concentration. I tried not to split municipalities, so that meant either all of Aurora had to go into CO-07 or none of it. And I preferred that the Denver CD break into but one additional county.  Anyway, the Denver CD cannot but get a point of two higher in Hispanics (that would be the cut into Aurora which I don't think is appropriate unless mandated by the VRA, and it isn't), without breaking every other reasonable map drawing rule in the book.

The Dems no doubt would want to put these northern precincts into CO-07, thereby diluting and splitting up the Hispanic vote. The Hispanics want an erose 39% Hispanic CD. Neither is appropriate. As a judge I would blow both claims away. My map is fair in my opinion. It is what I would draw as a judge. I drew it without looking at the partisan numbers. That only happened after the fact.
Logged

Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13525


View Profile
« Reply #94 on: September 27, 2011, 04:45:43 pm »
Ignore

Splitting Aurora is a valid concern, I guess, but to me going east on Colfax Avenue makes a lot of sense. Wasn't the current map drawn by the courts? I doubt they would change things much, so they might just continue south. Of course more territory outside Denver is needed this time around than last time, so we shall see. Without an erose map going into Weld County, or something even worse, you cannot draw a true Hispanic influence district. So this map just seems neither here nor there.

And I don't know how much stock the courts keep with this not splitting counties non sense. Sure, it shouldn't be done in a partisan way, but extending the Denver district along Colfax Avenue, which seems to the dividing line between Arapahoe and Adams, makes perfect sense. That area has much more in common with the neighborhoods north of there in the appendage of the city, as well as the areas just south of it in Aurora, than it does with the cities to the north of the city of Denver proper.

Edit: Not to mention the last court drawn map didn't have any qualms about splitting counties.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2011, 05:04:36 pm by sbane »Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13525


View Profile
« Reply #95 on: September 27, 2011, 05:43:48 pm »
Ignore



Here's how you draw a Hispanic influence district in Denver and it's certainly not erose. The only city I split in Adams county seems to be Thornton. I just picked the most Hispanic areas in Jefferson county which is basically a continuation of Denver's Hispanic community anyway. I don't see how you leave them out if trying to draw a Hispanic influence district. 41.4% VAP. Not bad actually.

Of course there is one certain reason you won't like this map, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. The Hispanic areas of Denver have to be split from the white areas to draw a proper Hispanic influence map. It just has to be done. Or else fuggedaboutit!
Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13525


View Profile
« Reply #96 on: September 27, 2011, 05:48:22 pm »
Ignore

I mean come one, your 7th is 23% VAP Hispanic and your 1st is 30% VAP. How much more of an influence district is that?

BTW, I doubt the map I drew will be drawn. I think the map will remain similar to what it is now.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13525


View Profile
« Reply #97 on: September 27, 2011, 06:23:05 pm »
Ignore



What do you guys think about this? The 7th picks up the rest of Denver, Aurora and most of southern Arapahoe County. A few of those cities southeast of Aurora, as well as eastern Arapahoe County is put in the 6th. The 6th picks up most of Jefferson County except for Arvada and Westminster. The 4th picks up Arvada, Westminster, Bloomfield and the rest of Adams County. Then I picked up all of Weld County. I still had about 80,000 people left to put in, so I picked up Louisville and Lafayette in Boulder County but stayed clear of Boulder. Unfortunately I had to split Longmont. That district is 53.7-46.3 Republican. The 6th is 59.8-40.2 Republican. The 7th is 58.3-41.7 Democrat. I don't think it's an unreasonable map, if Hispanics can convince the judge they need an influence district.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13525


View Profile
« Reply #98 on: September 27, 2011, 06:56:55 pm »
Ignore

Ok, I changed things around a bit so I didn't have a district from the northeast corner to the northwest corner of Colorado. I added in rural areas to the 4th instead of suburban Boulder County. It's 57.8-42.2 Republican now. So we have basically a 4-3 Republican map....just like now. Though 53% Republican should be enough for a Republican to win, it would be just a lean Republican instead of a solid Republican district. Consequently, the Democratic 2nd district goes from 54.5% Dem to about 56% Dem.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2011, 06:58:27 pm by sbane »Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13525


View Profile
« Reply #99 on: September 27, 2011, 07:02:23 pm »
Ignore



Here you go. Only the 3rd hasn't been drawn yet. And it will be 55.3-44.7 Republican.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines