US House Redistricting: Connecticut

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Well, if we can have a thread about Idaho...

The only problem here is redistricting apparently requires a 2/3rds vote to pass, so the Republicans will probably block any attempt to make CT-05 any less Democratic. Regardless, he's a map I came up with to make the state pretty solidly 5-0.



Adds Bristol, Southington, Berlin, and Wallingford to CT-05 and cuts out some Republican towns on the edges. Also helps out CT-04 some by adding Ansonia, Derby, and Stratford and chopping off the top of the district. CT-01 and 03 take the Republican territory shed by CT-04 and CT-05 but should remain solidly Democratic. Chris Murphy is drawn out of CT-05 but since he's probably going to run for the Senate, that shouldn't matter. CT-02 is virtually unchanged.

[homelycooking]

You've drawn the Farmington Valley (Simsbury, Avon, Canton, Farmington) into CT-01 and I do not think that would go over well from a non-partisan perspective. That area was represented by Nancy Johnson of CT-05 for the longest time.

DeLauro's district looks like a fusion of CT-03 and the old pre-2002 CT-06, so that is actually feasible.

This map isn't a solid 5-0, since there's really not much you can do to help out Jim Himes in his swing district.

[Senator Napoleon]

There's now talk of adding Bridgeport to the 5th to make it more Democratic. Just LOL!
More realistically, Shelton will be shuffled over to the 5th, helping Caliguri and Jim Homes too.

[homelycooking]

There's now talk of adding Bridgeport to the 5th to make it more Democratic. Just LOL!

Democrats can't really secure CT-05 without putting CT-04 into doubt, and vice versa. They might even want to consider moving Milford from CT-03 to CT-04 and shift some of the GOP-heavy Gatsby territory (Weston, Wilton, etc) to CT-05 in order to even out margins across the two districts.

[Senator Napoleon]

There's now talk of adding Bridgeport to the 5th to make it more Democratic. Just LOL!

Democrats can't really secure CT-05 without putting CT-04 into doubt, and vice versa. They might even want to consider moving Milford from CT-03 to CT-04 and shift some of the GOP-heavy Gatsby territory (Weston, Wilton, etc) to CT-05 in order to even out margins across the two districts.

I don't see that happening with the 2/3 requirement, in any case.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Here's a map that preserves the status quo. As a bonus, I avoided splitting any municipalities (deviations are 151, -684, -697, 1,500, and -268).



According to my calculations, the 2-party vote from 2008 and 2010 is:

CT-01 - 68-32 Obama, 61-39 Blumenthal
CT-02 - 61-39 Obama, 57-43 Blumenthal
CT-03 - 61-39 Obama, 59-41 Blumenthal
CT-04 - 61-39 Obama, 53-47 Blumenthal
CT-05 - 56-44 Obama, 50-50 McMahon (50.35% McMahon, to be precise)

[Vasall des Midas]

Clearly, what Connecticut needs is this.



32.8% Hispanic, 32.3% White, 28.6% Black.

[Verily]

And the countdown begins for when krazen will come in to tell us the Democrats are hypocrites for not advocating that map.

[Vasall des Midas]

The thing is, what with just how decaying Connecticut's inner cities are and how concentrated the state's minorities are there... there'd actually be something of a point. Though, of course, the random connectors between the cities are outrageously stupid, should be replaced with whiter parts of the cities themselves for a noncontiguous seat (that would be marginally less white than this monster.)

[Verily]

Which really shows why MMP would be a better system.

[Vasall des Midas]

And more seats. (Though I suppose the argument above doesn't really hold for the federal congress anyways. Now... if CT's inner cities were dispersed among seats dominated by their democratic non-poor inner suburbs in the CT State House... we'd be onto something.)

[Senator Napoleon]

Update re: Bridgeport. Republicans are trying to move it to the 3rd, creating what would be a reasonably safe R seat in the 4th.

I don't see why they can't just go for a minimum change map. Having a shot at 2 seats is good for Republicans in a solidly blue state and the map maintains CoIs pretty decently.

[Vasall des Midas]

I drew this ages ago as what seemed most reasonable. I don't know the state well enough to be sure, but I do believe the oddities (here kinked out) of the CD1-CD5 boundary serve to help Republicans in CD5.

[muon2]

Here's my version for the GOP.

No town is split and the deviations are within 0.2% (-545, -226, 1269, 320, -816).

[krazen1211]

Putting Bridgeport in with New Haven would give a non white a chance at winning a New England Congressional district.

[muon2]

Putting Bridgeport in with New Haven would give a non white a chance at winning a New England Congressional district.

The district is still 62.3% WVAP. BVAP is 16.3% and HVAP is 15.7%. The Hartford district is actually less white (barely). It has 62.2% WVAP, 14.8% BVAP, and 16.9% HVAP.

[nclib]

Update re: Bridgeport. Republicans are trying to move it to the 3rd, creating what would be a reasonably safe R seat in the 4th.

I don't see why they can't just go for a minimum change map. Having a shot at 2 seats is good for Republicans in a solidly blue state and the map maintains CoIs pretty decently.

The Dems should not compromise to this, especially with the GOP being so aggressive in their states. Dem trifecta in a Dem state, there's no reason it can't be at least status quo, or shore up CT-4 or CT-5, preferably the latter since it's open.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

It's going to the courts anyway.

[smoltchanov]

Quite natural behavior on Republican's part. They have 0-5 plan now, and they are basically offered to prolonge the same plan for next 10 years. Naturally - they refuse. What can they lose? Nothing, it can't get worse then 0-5. So they "gamble" hoping that Court plan (especially if Court is "activist" enough and will try to create "minority-heavy" district) will give them at least 1 winnable district. All is very natural. Democrats would do the same if situation would be reversed.

[muon2]

Quite natural behavior on Republican's part. They have 0-5 plan now, and they are basically offered to prolonge the same plan for next 10 years. Naturally - they refuse. What can they lose? Nothing, it can't get worse then 0-5. So they "gamble" hoping that Court plan (especially if Court is "activist" enough and will try to create "minority-heavy" district) will give them at least 1 winnable district. All is very natural. Democrats would do the same if situation would be reversed.

Minority heavy congressional districts are hard to produce if town lines are generally followed. The minority populations aren't as dense as in other states and the towns they are in are separated by towns with low minority populations. Using whole towns a string that connects New Haven, Waterbury, Meriden, New Brittain, and Hartford is still just over 50% WVAP, and no court would find the justification to do that.

I think my map is about as far as anyone could push on the grounds of creating minority opportunities. Waterbury is the only town with significant minority population, but connecting it to either the Hartford or New Haven districts creates an ugly map with district 5 stretching to the Sound or wrapping east over the top of Hartford.
 

Putting Bridgeport in with New Haven would give a non white a chance at winning a New England Congressional district.

The district is still 62.3% WVAP. BVAP is 16.3% and HVAP is 15.7%. The Hartford district is actually less white (barely). It has 62.2% WVAP, 14.8% BVAP, and 16.9% HVAP.

[Gravis Marketing]

I'm not sure why people should respond to the suggestion seriously given that the VRA is about the community electing someone of their choice, not the race of the person elected; that New England, while no racism-free Eden, doesn't have the racial polarization in voting that other states do; that in any case, Massachusetts just created a majority-minority district; that Connecticut has elected a minority Republican to Congress in living memory from an overwhelmingly white district; and that the only motivation here is a fantasy about creating more Republican districts.

[BigSkyBob]

I'm not sure why people should respond to the suggestion seriously given that the VRA is about the community electing someone of their choice, not the race of the person elected;

No, the VRA states no such thing. A Black politician gerrymandered out of a mixed district would be a violation of the "regression" clause, while a White politician who was gerrymandered out the same district would have no standing even if in the primary the majority of Blacks voted for him, while the majority of Whites voted against him.

[Torie]

It's going to the courts anyway.

To be drawn by five Dem judges.

[Senator Napoleon]

It's going to the courts anyway.

To be drawn by five Dem judges.

I wouldn't expect it to be much different from the current map, which is what Democrats were willing to go for anyway. More Republican obstruction, that's all this is.

[Torie]

So what would a fair court draw, that is the question. Then we can measure what they do draw against that. What really interests me is just hard it is for both sides of the ledger to agree on what is a fair map, even if presumably acting in good faith. That has been my experience on this very site in fact, which is kind of sobering. If we can't do it here, where can it be done?