U.S. House Redistricting: Illinois

[minionofmidas]

If I were Pat Quinn, I wouldn't be planning gerrymandered maps right now.  I would be meeting with Snyder and/or Kasich about a bipartisan move to independent redistricting.

No, that's what you'd be doing if you were yourself and somehow found yourself Governor of Illinois by magic. If you were Pat Quinn, IL D internal politics would probably keep you from even consciously entertaining such a commonsense idea. After all, you'll want these people, some of which will hope to serve in Congress soon, to support your administration.

[minionofmidas]

Do you have any feeling as to how aggressive the Dems will be Muon2 in getting rid of GOP seats in Illinois?  Will they settle for 2, or go for 6?

I have no inside info at this point, but it would seem reasonable to try to recover the four lost seats from this year. A new Hispanic seat, two suburban ones and one downstate should be possible.

So five R's eliminated?

[minionofmidas]

Just a thought, but it may make more sense to draw fantasy maps with reference to the patterns in this map:



Rather than those in this one:

Except for Cook County*, that is the same pattern really. Just a weaker result.

*ie, there are no animals in this room, except for the elephant of course.

[minionofmidas]

Danny Davis will mind.
It is just about conceivable the Chicago black establishment doesn't mind losing him, though. Or wouldn't if the other two districts are kept a little blacker in return.

[minionofmidas]

I'm not sure that smilie is appropriate.

[minionofmidas]

Yah, a partisan map passed with minimal debate and no public input is not anything to be proud of.

[minionofmidas]

If they don't (at all), I wouldn't count them as "real" debate/public input.

[minionofmidas]

Yah, obviously I'm not saying they mustn't. Just that it's nothing to write home to mom about.

[minionofmidas]

Part of the reason is that the Chicago seats have to expand, of course.

[minionofmidas]

The Missouri map could have been a little tidier but the outcome would have been the same.

...insofar that Carnahan would have been out of a job, or at least have to move. Of course, in any remotely cleanish map so would have been Hartzler (losing a primary to Luetkemeyer, with a new Republican from North Missouri) and  Akin (losing the general election to a Democrat, possibly Carnahan), but that's a minor trifle, right?

[minionofmidas]

People like you have railed against more VRA districts in Southern states that would take a seat away from Republicans, but yet advocate for them in other states where it benefits Republicans.

potkettle?

No, actually, you're right about the threshold for what is a Hispanic-opportunity seat being quite understandably higher than for a Black-opportunity seat and Krazen's thus being an apples & oranges comparison. Though again, that threshold may be lower in Illinois than it must be in Texas.

Though, I'll also say this: Should a legal challenge result in a second Hispanic-opportunity district being drawn, and Lipinski being drawn out as a result (it seems dubious you can make anybody else the victim. Though the new and long overdue Dem-leaning seat based on Aurora/Joliet/Napierville is liable to become a little more marginal as a result of its boundaries being ungerrymandered), PARTYTIME! Two flies with one swatter! (A fairer map and an obnoxious idiot gone. Three flies if you count the extra Hispanic seat itself.)

[minionofmidas]

He said he hadn't seen them, he never said they weren't possible. If you want to be that literal.

[minionofmidas]

'kay, so I was reading the post below that. Not that it matters anyhow - it's not possible to draw one that would elect a Hispanic and represent a community of interest, and thus not possible to draw one that can be used to argue your case in court. That random connector strip through whiteyland isn't going to be ordered by any court (whether a court could be found to strike it down, had the Democrats drawn it themselves, is quite another matter. Probably not, though it's happened.) Come back when you have a map that does without Elgin. (Not saying it's literally impossible, as I haven't tried.)

[minionofmidas]

'kay, the area just always struck me as belonging together when compared both to the (whiter and mostly more affluent) inner suburbs between them and Chicago, and the areas beyond. And I always hated the suburbs-to-rural strips of the previous map's incumbentmander. But I'm no expert on the area.

(re dpmapper)

[minionofmidas]

'kay, so I was reading the post below that. Not that it matters anyhow - it's not possible to draw one that would elect a Hispanic and represent a community of interest, and thus not possible to draw one that can be used to argue your case in court. That random connector strip through whiteyland isn't going to be ordered by any court (whether a court could be found to strike it down, had the Democrats drawn it themselves, is quite another matter. Probably not, though it's happened.) Come back when you have a map that does without Elgin. (Not saying it's literally impossible, as I haven't tried.)

I'm not sure I follow your argument, Lewis. The current CD-4 has an extremely thin connector to bridge two distinct communities of interest that both happen to be Hispanic. Since the court OK'ed that bridge, I would expect that another similar linking bridge would also pass the court.

The 50% is such a barely there majority that it probably wouldn't give Hispanics an opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice. The better statement for me to make would have been it's not possible to create a second district that would give that opportunity, because that is correct. Frankly, I think the VRA is past it usefulness and the only federal standards on redistricting should be compactness, because that what really counts.

I would agree that a bare 50% VAP majority is unlikely to meet statistical tests needed to show that Hispanics could elect their candidate of choice. However, a compact SW side district can be drawn at 59.4% VAP with DRA as shown in the earlier link to my March post. SCOTUS decisions would suggest that if a compact Hispanic district can be drawn, then the earmuff should not.

If a compact Hispanic CD-3 is required then that leaves the question open for a second Hispanic district. Certainly the proportion would argue for its creation if one can be made to elect a candidate of choice. If the thin connector was legitimate for the NW/SW connection, then why wouldn't it be equally valid for a NW Chicago/Elgin connection?

It's the same old issue whether what would be drawn if a court draws it versus whether what a legislature is absolutely required to do. A court would not draw the district as the Dems drew it, that's not in question at all. The issue is only whether it was illegal for the legislature to do so, and you can be of two opinions on that one, though it's also clear which outcome is more likely (for the map to be upheld). In other words, the same basic scenario as in Alabama and South Carolina, except for the issue of whether the northern seat would elect an Hispanic at all, which makes the case weaker. (Including the common sense option of the court drawing one quite solid but not overpacked opportunity seat plus an "influence" seat.)
The current Gutierrez district's connector that Dems want to keep is razor-thin and outrageously ugly, of course. (The district was created that way back in 1990 because back then that was the only way it could be done. It really should have gone in 2000 - the easiest way to do it would have been to give Gutierrez a solid Hispanic majority seat that also has a lot of Blacks, and Davis a solid Black plurality seat that also has a lot of Hispanics. But I suppose Davis is a weak clown who needs the protection.) But at least it doesn't catch a lot of whites with no community of interest with the two Hispanic areas being connected, which the two-Hispanic seats maps do and which has been used as an argument to strike down seats in the past.
BK thought it was probably possible to draw two 54% Hispanic seats, with the earmuff connector in existence but only a small part of the southerly Hispanic area appended by it. That's probably a more worthwhile idea than the Elgin maps.

[minionofmidas]

Does it really have to be quite that ugly? Ugh.

[minionofmidas]

Interesting. Can you draw us a map with that? (And another Hispanic seat in SW Chicago, of course?) That might be a harder case to answer.

[minionofmidas]

The total current 4th district was 56% Mexican and 11% Portorican in 2000*, so I doubt it. It may well be that the Portoricans live mostly in the northern earmuff, but they're not alone there.

*18% Anglo, 4% Black, 3% Asian and non-hispanic mixed race, 4% non-specified or unclassifiable Hispanic, 4% other specified Hispanic origins

[minionofmidas]

If anyone has looked at the Republican's map yet, they should post it.  It looks much more fair and less gerrymandered than the one that Democrats passed.  Post it if you can find it.

Well duh. That's because it's a pointless PR exercise, not a serious proposal. These things come in two shapes - fair but somewhat sloppily drawn; or the original map minus the disgusting stuff, but sloppily drawn. Both parties do that.

[minionofmidas]

Well, this was a challenge to draw. 2 Hispanic majority VAP districts, 3 Black majority VAP districts that don't extend down into Will and Kankakee, and 11 of the 12 Chicagoland seats at least winnable for Democrats.



1st 50.1% Black VAP, 78.8% Obama
2nd 50.2% Black VAP, 81.2% Obama
3rd 55.7% Hispanic VAP, 69.7% Obama
4th 51.1% Hispanic VAP, 76.3% Obama
5th 71.7% Obama
6th 51.8% Obama (ie the R dump)
7th 50.4% Black VAP, 89.2% Obama
8th 64.5% Obama
9th 59.4% Obama
10th 59.6% Obama
11th 57.2% Obama
14th 57.0% Obama

Besides everyone knowing the DRA scheme by heart anyways, the seats are very vaguely where they used to be. Except that the 8th and 9th should be the other way round given where they're based (rather than what the 8th looks like) and for 11th read 13th and for 14th 11th - that's just a mistake I'm too lazy to correct.

[minionofmidas]

The Dummymander is now complete! The map is intended to give Democrats a chance, perhaps a good chance, at 16 seats... but not to guarantee all that many of them. As well as the above stuff. And to at least not split any of the downstate's urban cores. (Though some exceedingly Republican suburbs have been excised in some cases, and anyways the boundaries are sneaky-snakey. There isn't much room for error in a 4-2 downstate map.)





Chicagoland - changed the numbering as indicated above, and some quite minor changes to do with finding a few trapped precincts (fixing the populations then inspired a rejig south of Aurora.) 9th (former 8th) now 64.7% instead of 64.5%, 11th (former 14th) now 57.1% instead of 57.0%, other shares round identically.

12th (still East St Louis) 55.9% Obama
14th (Peoria and random points nearby) 55.5% Obama
15th (Decatur to Champaign, the wrong way) 54.1% Obama
16th (southern R sink, now apparently showing the fascist salute) 56.7% McCain
17th (places beginning in Rock) 55.2% Obama
18th (northern R sink; the golden apple the central Dem district worms are burrowing into) 56.4% McCain

[minionofmidas]

I particularly like how none of the R sinks border each other.