US House Redistricting: Arizona

[freepcrusher]

I've always wanted to do this map. Problem is that Gardow hasn't updated the population. But if I were to redraw it, here's what I might do:

A district that takes in the mexican neighborhoods of Chandler and Mesa, all of Tempe, all of Guadalupe, Ahwuhtookee, and South Phoenix.

Then I might make a district that takes in all of CD 4 north of the salt river, the Maricopa portion of CD 7, the pinal portion of CD 7, and maybe some of La Paz and Yuma Counties.

I would then make District 7 entirely within Pima County and basically take in some blue precincts from CD 8

[krazen1211]

http://tucsoncitizen.com/in-the-aggregate/2011/01/19/redistricting-update-consider-the-hair-successfully-split/

The Arizona Supreme Court has handed down its ruling in the Pearce/Adams lawsuit challenging the eligibility of three of the nominees for the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).

The suit was partially successful - the Court ruled that Republicans Stephen Sossaman and Mark Schnepf are ineligible because of their service on irrigation district governing boards and the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments must selec...

[Vasall des Midas]

Trying to draw the most Native district possible - blue seat is 40% White, 28% Hispanic, 27% Native. Getting it to ~30% would be possible, but not while balancing the other districts. Urban Tucson district just happened as a result. (This has only one Hispanic majority district, so is quite fantastical.)

[jimrtex]

Trying to draw the most Native district possible - blue seat is 40% White, 28% Hispanic, 27% Native. Getting it to ~30% would be possible, but not while balancing the other districts. Urban Tucson district just happened as a result. (This has only one Hispanic majority district, so is quite fantastical.)

Isn't that going to be hard to maintain given the growth in Pinal County?

[Vasall des Midas]

That growth is highly concentrated in the northwest corner. Though you're right - that's the one quite unindian area that got left in just because it had been in before, and where I would have made the next cuts. (The last remaining Indians outside are some more urban Yaqui, and right by the Colorado River.)

[totino]

I made an AZ Map.. but I can not post it here.

Two Hispanic Majority Districts but each of them are 51% ... so I could create a 5 to 4 GOP to Dem map.

[Vasall des Midas]

As you can see, I added the Hopi, Havasupai, Hualapai, Kaibab Paiute, and FDLS to the 1st CD in order to be able to move all of Casas Grandes and Maricopa (the exurb) out - they really, really don't belong here - while keeping Gila River in the 7th (which means moving Coolidge out of the 1st as well, rather less gladly). This may well prove to make all the difference in the district's political lean, of course.
I adjusted the 8th population by moving a few relatively Hispanic precincts in Tucson over to the 7th. This hurts Giffords (or her successor), so equal opportunity employment in that regard.
I would have loved to kick La Paz into the 2nd, but keeping the boundary there unchanged made it possible for the 7th to lose all of its (non-Native) metropolitan bit. Well, all but one precinct, actually.
The 4th deficit was made up with a couple of those precincts, the remainder ends up in the 2nd.
The new 9th district takes relatively inner parts of the 2nd and 3rd, the 3rd takes the northern half of the undersized 5th, the 5th takes areas in Chandler and Mesa (I tried to observe the Chandler-Gilbert municipal boundary.)
And because the 6th takes in new exurban territory in Pinal, as mentioned previously, it now curves around Gila River in a rather unseemly way.
I haven't had a close look at partisan figures, but I guess no white Phoenix district is quite as close to swingy as the old 5th was. Though the new 5th may be not much more Republican. I also haven't checked where incumbents live. All districts within 225, except the 4th which is 390 over.

Racial stats (VAP in brackets)
1st 58 - 17 - 22 Native (62 - 15 - 19)
2nd 62 - 29 (68 - 23). It's taken some Hispanic areas west of the 4th...
3rd 79 - 12 (82 - 10)
4th 21 - 64 - 9 Black (27 - 58 - 9 Black)
5th 62 - 24 - 5 Asian (67 - 20 - 5 Asian)
6th 71 - 19 (75 - 16)
7th 33 - 56 - 5 Native (40 - 50 - 5 Native)
8th 69 - 22 (74 - 18)
9th 66 - 23 (71 - 19)

I'm not sure the commission will be ready to end the Hopi silliness. Though I believe if they think to ask the Hopi Nation, they'll find support for the idea.

[krazen1211]

This is what I came up with, its probably worse for communities of interest, but better for the Republican party.




9th: Pinal + Gilbert + Queen's Creek
6th: Mesa + Chandler
5th: Tempe + Scottsdale + Fountain Hills + Northern Phoenix
3rd: Northern Phoenix + Peoria
4th: same as now
2nd: Sun City + Glendale + the same borders north


For the most part municipal boundaries are observed.

[The Head Beagle]

I'm not sure the commission will be ready to end the Hopi silliness. Though I believe if they think to ask the Hopi Nation, they'll find support for the idea.

Doesn't look like it, unfortunately.

After the 2000 census, the commission heard hours of testimony from the Hopis and Navajos before drawing the odd district separating the tribes. The Navajo Nation challenged the boundaries in court, but a judge upheld them.

The tribal governments have taken no official position this time around, but the Hopi chairman said he'll push to keep his reservation in a different district from the Navajo Nation.

http://www.nativetimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4786:redistricting-likely-to-renew-navajo-hopi-divide&catid=54&Itemid=30

[freepcrusher]

one thing I find is that it is a shame that Flagstaff and Tempe don't have dem representatives.

One idea I had was to make a district of the following: Coconino County, Navajo County, Apache County, Greenlee County, Graham County, Cochise County, Santa Cruz County and all the 80% Hispanic Precincts in Pima County.

The other district I had in mind was one that takes in all the Mexican precincts from Chandler and Mesa, all of Tempe and Guadalupe, all of South Phoenix and Ahwatukee, and some of the area by Sky Harbor Airport. This district would be similar to the old AZ 1.

[realisticidealist]

Come on guys! Three Hispanics CDs is doable.

[Gravis Marketing]

Come on guys! Three Hispanics CDs is doable.

Consider that Grijalva nearly lost last year to an Anglo Republican...

[Dgov]

Come on guys! Three Hispanics CDs is doable.

Consider that Grijalva nearly lost last year to an Anglo Republican...

Well, to be honest the VAP of his district is probably not up to 50% Hispanic, less so the voters.

It also probably helps that the district has Yuma in it (Hispanic-majority and Republican-voting).  In fact the only reason its D + 6 to begin with is because it has some Liberal whites in Tuscon to beef it up.  The Democrats don't have the strength to hold the district on racial votes alone.

[Gravis Marketing]

Yeah, I feel that if you try to create three Hispanic VRA districts in Arizona, you may end up with two conservative Anglo Republican representatives in most years.

[Dgov]

Yeah, I feel that if you try to create three Hispanic VRA districts in Arizona, you may end up with two conservative Anglo Republican representatives in most years.

Admittedly, creating 3 Hispanic-majority districts would probably be good for Grijavala, as he'd lose the South Phoenix area and Yuma area to the new district--the places he does the worst in.  It would basically screw over Giffords however, as the 7th would have to bite into the Democratic-leaning precincts of Tuscon that keep her district competitive.

[Vasall des Midas]

Come on guys! Three Hispanics CDs is doable.

Consider that Grijalva nearly lost last year to an Anglo Republican...

Well, to be honest the VAP of his district is probably not up to 50% Hispanic, less so the voters.

It also probably helps that the district has Yuma in it (Hispanic-majority and Republican-voting).  In fact the only reason its D + 6 to begin with is because it has some Liberal whites in Tuscon to beef it up.  The Democrats don't have the strength to hold the district on racial votes alone.

Which is also why a very leftwing guy is no weaker than a more MoR Hispanic might be.
The district is over 50% VAP on current boundaries and 2010 figures, btw, though not on 2000 figures.

I'm not interested in a partisan gerrymander. It's not as if one were going to happen.

[Vasall des Midas]

Okay, looks like my 2nd and 6th are both empty, Franks is in the 9th, Flake in the 5th, and Quayle and Schweikert are both in the 3rd. Not good.

[cinyc]

one thing I find is that it is a shame that Flagstaff and Tempe don't have dem representatives.

Cities with populations of about 162,000 and 66,000 don't get to choose their representative on their own.  Especially when they are college towns, many of whose residents vote back home, if at all.

[Dgov]

one thing I find is that it is a shame that Flagstaff and Tempe don't have dem representatives.

Cities with populations of about 162,000 and 66,000 don't get to choose their representative on their own.  Especially when they are college towns, many of whose residents vote back home, if at all.

Doubly so when they're surrounded by much larger Republican-leaning areas that easily out-vote them.

[Vasall des Midas]

Last I checked Flagstaff was between Sedona and the Navajo Reservation.


As to realistic's question - yes, it can be done. The continous >20% Hispanic areas in Maricopa, not touching on Grijalva's district as I drew it before, are just about the right size for two CDs. Split it down the middle, and the eastern one is 51-34 (44-41 VAP) Hispanic, with enough Blacks and Libruls to continue to elect Pastor, no problems at all, and the western one extends to the county line (I had to move one precinct in Yavapai to CD2 to keep it continuous ), is 53-34 (48-40 VAP), and again has quite a few Blacks - in Maricopa, they mostly live in Hispanic-dominated parts of Phoenix proper. So yeah, if the Commission absolutely wanted to, it could draw a map that would likely elect the Hispanic Democrats most years.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Here's the best guess (at this time) based on the numbers presently available.

Current congressional district 2 (Franks, R) with the largest district (972,839) will become a northwest Maricopa county district, losing the northern (non-Maricopa) part of the district to district 1 (Gosar, R)

Current district 1 (Gosar, R) will lose the southern part of the District (Pinal, Gila, Graham and Greenlee) to the new district 9, and gain what is currently the northern part of CD 2.

The new district 9 will be composed of the southern part of current district 1 (Pinal, Gila, Graham and Greenlee) as well as the southern sliver of current district 6, and the Pinal parts of District 7 and 8.

Current district 7 will lose Pinal county part to the new district 9, and the Maricopa part to district 4 (Pastor, D).

Current district 4 (Pastor, D) will pick up Maricopa county part of current district 7, and give up one or two precincts to current district 3.

Current district 3, will picking up territory (and population) from district four (a precinct or two).

Current district 5 (Schweikert, R) will gain a number of precincts  from current district 6 (Flake, R) along the northern and northwestern edges.

Current district 8 will lose the precincts in Pinal county to the new district 9, and around a dozen precincts in central Tucson to current congressional district 7.

Current district 6 lose population to both districts 5 and the new district 9 (as described above)

Under this scenario, the two new congressmen will likely be Russell Pearce (CD 6) and Paul Babeau (CD9).

With the exception of CD 8, the changes indicated will not change the partisan leanings of the existing districts. 

The question in CD 8 is how many Democrat precincts will be transferred to CD 7.  The incumbent Democrat won reelection without a majority of the vote, and would have lost if a half-a-dozen heavily Democrat precincts likely to go to CD 7 had not been in the 8th on the 2010 general election.

Some useful information can be obtained at:

http://www.azredistricting.org/final/congfinal.jpg

[Vasall des Midas]

Source? The link is to the archived 2000 redistricting commission's website, of course.
Taking those suggestions literally, northern Arizona is a heavy R gerrymander, the Apache and Gila River reservations are split between districts, CD4 is more than a hundred thousand over population and CD 9 under. Oh, and CD 4 is in two disconnected parts, strictly speaking.

Full breakdown: CD1 15k over (easily remedied), CD2 55k over (that's its current Maricopa portion), CD3 on target if left unchanged, CD4 128k over, not including the rural bits in southwest Maricopa that it could only connect to through Pinal, CD5 on target since I added enough to be on target, CD 6 and 9 combined (since its hard to fathom what they meant, exactly, and it doesn't matter really) 171k under, CD7 26k under, CD8 on target.

[Vasall des Midas]

Well, alright. Shedding enough Hispanic areas in CD2 to 7 and 4, enough not-too-Hispanic-areas in 4 to 3 and 5, moving some areas from 5 to 3 and almost all of Mesa from 5 to 6, gets you this:



Native influence is obviously unfairly diluted (18% in CD1 which is also down to 13% Hispanic, 6% in CD9, 3.5% in CD7), even though i undid the split rezzes. CD4 at 67% Hispanic is also a pack of dubious legality. And I still wouldn't bet the farm on all four white Maricopa districts being Republican throughout the decade.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Source? The link is to the archived 2000 redistricting commission's website, of course.
Taking those suggestions literally, northern Arizona is a heavy R gerrymander, the Apache and Gila River reservations are split between districts, CD4 is more than a hundred thousand over population and CD 9 under. Oh, and CD 4 is in two disconnected parts, strictly speaking.

Full breakdown: CD1 15k over (easily remedied), CD2 55k over (that's its current Maricopa portion), CD3 on target if left unchanged, CD4 128k over, not including the rural bits in southwest Maricopa that it could only connect to through Pinal, CD5 on target since I added enough to be on target, CD 6 and 9 combined (since its hard to fathom what they meant, exactly, and it doesn't matter really) 171k under, CD7 26k under, CD8 on target.

Don't know where you got your numbers.

Here's some of mine (along with source)

While CD 3 is pretty easy to maintain (and a precinct or two) significant change will occur for CDs 1,4,5, and 8.

Substantial change will occur for CD 7 and enomeous change for CDs 2 and 6.

Arizona                                         6,395,017
CD 1                                                 774,310 – 710,224 = 64,086
CD 2                                                 972,839 – 710,224 = 262,615 

CD 3                                                 707,919 -710,224 =  +2,305

CD 4                                                 698,314 – 710,224 = 11,910

CD 5                                                 656,833 – 710,224 = 53,391

CD 6                                                 971,733 – 710,224 = 261,509

CD 7                                                 855,769 – 710,224 = 145,545

CD 8                                                 754,300 – 710,224 = 44,076

Current average (for 8 CDs)         799,002

New average (for 9 CDs)              710,224

http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2011/03/census-numbers-arizonas-legislative-and-congressional-districts-.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BlogForArizona+%28Blog+For+Arizona%29

[Vasall des Midas]

Source? The link is to the archived 2000 redistricting commission's website, of course.
Taking those suggestions literally, northern Arizona is a heavy R gerrymander, the Apache and Gila River reservations are split between districts, CD4 is more than a hundred thousand over population and CD 9 under. Oh, and CD 4 is in two disconnected parts, strictly speaking.

Full breakdown: CD1 15k over (easily remedied), CD2 55k over (that's its current Maricopa portion), CD3 on target if left unchanged, CD4 128k over, not including the rural bits in southwest Maricopa that it could only connect to through Pinal, CD5 on target since I added enough to be on target, CD 6 and 9 combined (since its hard to fathom what they meant, exactly, and it doesn't matter really) 171k under, CD7 26k under, CD8 on target.

Don't know where you got your numbers.

By following your suggestions.

(Drawing the districts with Dave's Redistricting App, of course. One minor note: It follows "tabulation voting districts" as defined by the census, ie approximations of real voting districts built up from census blocks, rather than the actual census districts. This seems to cause a fairly sizeable discrepancy in CD3 - enough to make up its deficit entirely.)