US House Redistricting: Kansas

[jimrtex]

Hey, as an aside, I "found" a Minneapolis, KS. So now we have Manhattan, Pittsburgh, and Minneapolis. I wonder how many other such towns there are like that in the state. My favorite KS town of course is "Liberal," which isn't "liberal" at all. I wonder what its provenance is.

If this is a go, I will email it to the Speaker, with the screen shot and the drf file. He will probably think I am a pretty obsessive creative (obviously true), and laugh, but what the heck. If you want your name associated with any of this as a fellow state legislator lending "gravitas" to this all, let me know.

Are the plans named after famous politicians or just code names (like if you were naming the prototype of an OS or Iphone?

Ruth_Ann_and_Lynn

Bois_D_Arc

Baxter_Springs

Or maybe based on the Final Four being tonight:

Phog_Allen

James_Naismith (Kansan who invented basketball)

Wilt_Chamberlain (KU basketball player with wing-span as wide as KS-1)

[MilesC56]

This was my crack at it. All whole counties.



McCain % (Old->New)

CD1: 68.6-> 60.0
CD2: 54.8-> 59.0
CD3: 47.9-> 51.5
CD4: 58.2-> 57.2

Huelskamp would take quite a hit, but he should still be safe; this helps to move CD2 and CD3 out of reach for the Dems.

[So the Heroes Fall]

That would piss off every politician in western Kansas and Southeast Kansas and thus wouldn't pass.

[I'm JewCon in name only.]

Hey I remember someone saying Jenkins wanted to keep Manhattan in her district. Do you think  that maybe because she graduated from Kansas State University?

[dpmapper]

So if KS-1 can't take SE Kansas, and it can't take Manhattan, and it can't take KCK, and it can't split Wichita or Topeka, then the only thing left for it to take is Lawrence, no?  The only state legislators that would annoy are Democrats, I'm going to guess.

[Torie]

So if KS-1 can't take SE Kansas, and it can't take Manhattan, and it can't take KCK, and it can't split Wichita or Topeka, then the only thing left for it to take is Lawrence, no?  The only state legislators that would annoy are Democrats, I'm going to guess.

Kind of like this one, although KS-01 takes most of Wyandotte rather than Douglas, which crashed and burned. I think shifting Salina to KS-02 is a problem, as well as KS-01 going into the NE corner of that state to grab Dems.

[dpmapper]

How about this:



Leavenworth is kept with Riley, Manhattan stays in KS-2, Salina/Hutchinson stay in KS-1, Wyandotte is split between KS-3 and KS-2.  

[Torie]

I like it. Very good. I made a few adjustments to better attend to local sensibilities.

[Torie]

Here is some more chatter about KS CD redistricting. Given Jenkins' list of no's (in public at least if not maybe in private), to wit Manhattan in, Topeka in, and SE KS in, that leaves only Lawrence not being added to KS-02 (but to KS-01) per dpmapper's idea.

[muon2]

Here is some more chatter about KS CD redistricting. Given Jenkins' list of no's (in public at least if not maybe in private), to wit Manhattan in, Topeka in, and SE KS in, that leaves only Lawrence not being added to KS-02 (but to KS-01) per dpmapper's idea.

She does seem to be the person with the most constraining wish list.

[dpmapper]

Torie, your KS-4 seems underpopulated.  Not sure one can avoid running it into Montgomery County without shuffling a lot of counties into KS-4 to compensate. 

One thing I noticed is that Leavenworth is part of the KC metro area but Douglas County (Lawrence) is not.  So these last couple maps have the benefit that they'd allow the KS GOP to say that KS-3 is entirely within the KC metro area, with the remainder of the metro area entirely within KS-2.  

If Atchison and the other Missouri River communities complain about being shoved into KS-1, here's an alternative that moves fewer counties between districts:

[Torie]

Another good idea dpmapper, but I must say this KS-01 hit and run on Lawrence in all events is kind of offensive when one looks at a map. Once during the "Kansas War" was enough. I prefer the SE KS to KS-01 "solution" myself, an opinion which of course has zero practical meaning.

[Vasall des Midas]

Maybe Jenkins really wants Lawrence libruls to stay in KS-3, and to be given some posh suburban areas in southern Johnson County instead that'll be also great for fundraising.
Not that she should or will get that, of course.

[Vasall des Midas]

As a thought experiment: Strict minimal change map, as Republican as semi-realistically possible.



Jenkins is at 53.3% R. There's but a tiny sliver of Lawrence city in the 3rd, and its portion of Douglas went for Obama by just 0.3 percentage points.

[muon2]

As a thought experiment: Strict minimal change map, as Republican as semi-realistically possible.



Jenkins is at 53.3% R. There's but a tiny sliver of Lawrence city in the 3rd, and its portion of Douglas went for Obama by just 0.3 percentage points.

A minimal change map would still have to abide by their policy of minimal county splits, ie 3. Instead of going into Geary, could you put all of Nemeha in CD 2 and just balance districts in Shawnee?

[Vasall des Midas]

The Geary exception to that principle is carried over from the current map. I didn't change the boundary there.

[muon2]

The Geary exception to that principle is carried over from the current map. I didn't change the boundary there.

Ah yes. For some reason they split both Geary and Nemeha 10 years ago.

[Vasall des Midas]

The Geary exception to that principle is carried over from the current map. I didn't change the boundary there.

Ah yes. For some reason they split both Geary and Nemeha 10 years ago.

Mostly it's Fort Riley, though I'm not sure all the populated smaller-area precincts are within the Fort? Anyways, the Fort as a CoI is split anyhow.

[jimrtex]

The Geary exception to that principle is carried over from the current map. I didn't change the boundary there.

Ah yes. For some reason they split both Geary and Nemeha 10 years ago.

Mostly it's Fort Riley, though I'm not sure all the populated smaller-area precincts are within the Fort? Anyways, the Fort as a CoI is split anyhow.

The Department of Defense doesn't like the Census Bureau to show where the population is.

[muon2]

Map talk is heating up again.

[Torie]

Map talk is heating up again.

The article mentioned that the neutralize KC from the western plains "solution" might have legal problems with the Kansas SC, which surprised me. I didn't know the legislature was leashed. So I did a google and came up with this. There apparently is some generalized language, which if really applied (that "compact" thing), would basically dictate the plan the State Senate passed it would seem. However, the legislature can change the criteria whenever it wants, so I am a bit confused how any plan could be nixed under state law unless the legislature is foolish enough to pass a plan without "clarifying" that it meets state requirements, leaving just federal law issues, which in the case of Kansas won't constrict at all.

If anyone can mitigate my confusion, it would be much appreciated.

[Vasall des Midas]

Map talk is heating up again.

They are in session again from april 25th.

[muon2]

Map talk is heating up again.

The article mentioned that the neutralize KC from the western plains "solution" might have legal problems with the Kansas SC, which surprised me. I didn't know the legislature was leashed. So I did a google and came up with this. There apparently is some generalized language, which if really applied (that "compact" thing), would basically dictate the plan the State Senate passed it would seem. However, the legislature can change the criteria whenever it wants, so I am a bit confused how any plan could be nixed under state law unless the legislature is foolish enough to pass a plan without "clarifying" that it meets state requirements, leaving just federal law issues, which in the case of Kansas won't constrict at all.

If anyone can mitigate my confusion, it would be much appreciated.

The committees adopted guidelines as part of their process. It doesn't appear to be statutory.

Under the guidelines, I am more convinced that moving SE KS is the best solution to the population deficit of the west. It is the least like the core of CD 2 and can be kept intact as a community of interest in the shift.

[Torie]

Map talk is heating up again.

The article mentioned that the neutralize KC from the western plains "solution" might have legal problems with the Kansas SC, which surprised me. I didn't know the legislature was leashed. So I did a google and came up with this. There apparently is some generalized language, which if really applied (that "compact" thing), would basically dictate the plan the State Senate passed it would seem. However, the legislature can change the criteria whenever it wants, so I am a bit confused how any plan could be nixed under state law unless the legislature is foolish enough to pass a plan without "clarifying" that it meets state requirements, leaving just federal law issues, which in the case of Kansas won't constrict at all.

If anyone can mitigate my confusion, it would be much appreciated.

The committees adopted guidelines as part of their process. It doesn't appear to be statutory.

Under the guidelines, I am more convinced that moving SE KS is the best solution to the population deficit of the west. It is the least like the core of CD 2 and can be kept intact as a community of interest in the shift.

Except for the "compact" thing. The Senate plan has it all, if one wants to be a "guidelines" junkie. Guidelines are great as window dressing when not inconvenient, and one has all the power.  Except here, apparently nobody does.

[muon2]

Map talk is heating up again.

The article mentioned that the neutralize KC from the western plains "solution" might have legal problems with the Kansas SC, which surprised me. I didn't know the legislature was leashed. So I did a google and came up with this. There apparently is some generalized language, which if really applied (that "compact" thing), would basically dictate the plan the State Senate passed it would seem. However, the legislature can change the criteria whenever it wants, so I am a bit confused how any plan could be nixed under state law unless the legislature is foolish enough to pass a plan without "clarifying" that it meets state requirements, leaving just federal law issues, which in the case of Kansas won't constrict at all.

If anyone can mitigate my confusion, it would be much appreciated.

The committees adopted guidelines as part of their process. It doesn't appear to be statutory.

Under the guidelines, I am more convinced that moving SE KS is the best solution to the population deficit of the west. It is the least like the core of CD 2 and can be kept intact as a community of interest in the shift.

Except for the "compact" thing. The Senate plan has it all, if one wants to be a "guidelines" junkie. Guidelines are great as window dressing when not inconvenient, and one has all the power.  Except here, apparently nobody does.

Actually many compactness measures do well when a large district wraps around a small one. For instance in your plan below, the area of CD 1 is so large and mostly rectangular that the extra part in the SE (also nicely compact itself) wouldn't hurt compactness much, when considering how well the other three districts perform in that regard. By comparison the current KS 2 is in many ways worse in terms of its compactness than your CD 1.

I think I will go with this then - yet another version.  It just "feels" right, minimizing the wanderings of KS-04.