US House Redistricting: Colorado

[Torie]

Hickenlooper as a former mayor of Denver who styles himself as an outsider rather than a political hack probably would veto a plan that split Denver.

If true, that would eliminate the possibility of a Hispanic-majority district, assuming that the census data supports one. Such a district relies on a Denver split, and based on the discussion in the thread it's not clear which party, if either, would benefit. However, if it isn't forced by the VRA, then a veto threat would take it off the table.

I think it would be difficult to force such a plan under the VRA, since that requires evidence that the majority votes against Hispanic candidates when there is a non-Hispanic choice. Given the success of the Salazars in the state, there would have to be specific instances of bloc voting in the Denver area to justify a mandated district.

There's also some doubt as to whether a Hispanic-majority district could exist. The best I've done with Dave's App is 51.8%, and Hispanic VAP is usually 6-8% less than in the population as a whole. In that case the best district for the Hispanic population would be a 40-45% influence district, but those are not mandated and would also require a Denver split. So I assume Hickenlooper would take that off the table as well.

Plus the real number for minority candidate success is adult citizens, not VAP, and as we all know a disproportionate number of Hispanics are not citizens. But under the VRA, Justice Kennedy said only VAP counts, and is only triggered at 50% plus one, when it comes to having to draw a majority-minority CD if it ties together communities of interest, assuming there is indeed a block voting pattern.

[Torie]

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.

[Torie]

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.



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.

[Torie]

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 )?

 

[Torie]

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.  

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.

[Torie]

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.  



Actually, by this - an 842 population difference:

[Torie]

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.

[Torie]

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.

[Torie]

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.

My point of view, and it would be as a judge, is that there is no legal or other justification to break jurisdictional boundaries to up the Hispanic percentage by a few points. It's meaningless. But upping it within the constraints of jurisdictional boundaries, without tearing up too much the existing map, does make some sense. It also makes CO-07 a super competitive CD, which is a bonus, but an accident. I guess as a judge you would do it differently (you don't hew to jurisdictional boundaries, unlike the previous judge who did make that attempt), which is OK, but not what he did or I would do. Clearly Hispanic percentages were not in play 10 years ago, or if they were, the judge blew the Hispanics off. I view my map as a sensible compromise which hews to the metrics of what is a reasonable non partisan map - respecting jurisdictional boundaries, compactness, communities of interest, and so forth.

So I so rule.

[Torie]

Did the court have to pick one map or the other, rather than drawing its own?  If not, this is pretty shocking that a court would find a map drawn by a party the most appropriate.

[Torie]

Does that Dem map make CO-02 kind of marginal?  And CO-07 looks like it moves a couple of points in the Pubbie direction. But yes, CO-06 moves 9 points in the Dem direction. The ying and the yang.

Still, the Dems were kind of gutsy perhaps?  Things might go quite wrong with their little plans, no?

[Torie]

Boulder has very high Independent registration. Don't be fooled; they all vote straight-ticket Democrat (and are probably registered Independent because the Democrats aren't liberal enough). CO-02 is still extremely safe. I am a little curious on the Longmont/Loveland decision. Loveland is a lot more Republican than Longmont (which is around 55% Obama while Loveland is more like 55% McCain), yet they put Longmont in the Republican district and Loveland in the Democratic district. Nothing like inertia, I guess.

It does move CO-07 a couple of points towards the GOP, but Perlmutter is quite safe and personally popular, and that area is trending Democratic regardless.

OK. I think as to Longmont, the speculation is that some Dem lives there who wants to challenge the Pub in CO-04.  I am not sure where I read that - maybe on this thread.

Sbane, I think the judge had to pick one of the plans, and superficially, the Dem plan looks better than the Pub plan to me, which I didn't like much. I am not sure the judge emphasized competition in his ruling. And at least CO-07 got a bit more competitive too, and I suspect CO-06 still leans a tad Pubbie no?  Do you know the McCain percentage there?