US House Redistricting: Arizona

[Sbane]

What the heck are they babbling about? That map is basically a dem gerrymander.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http://www.azredistricting.org/maps/pubmaps/092911/cong-EB-v3a.kmz&hl=en&sll=34.161818,-111.928711&sspn=8.21418,17.53418&vpsrc=0&t=h&z=6

The orange district does not even pretend to be neutral.

That's the map that was voted down. This is the map that was approved. The remaining 4 Maricopa County districts have yet to be drawn.

Both the maps look the same, except of course the Maricopa districts haven't been drawn. I doubt CD-2 is up to full population either.

[Sbane]

What the heck are they babbling about? That map is basically a dem gerrymander.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http://www.azredistricting.org/maps/pubmaps/092911/cong-EB-v3a.kmz&hl=en&sll=34.161818,-111.928711&sspn=8.21418,17.53418&vpsrc=0&t=h&z=6

The orange district does not even pretend to be neutral.

That's the map that was voted down. This is the map that was approved. The remaining 4 Maricopa County districts have yet to be drawn.

Both the maps look the same, except of course the Maricopa districts haven't been drawn. I doubt CD-2 is up to full population either.

I assume you are referring to the northwestern district. It isn't up to full population. There is some debate as to which parts of Maricopa to add to it to bring it up to population.

Yes I am. The two maps pretty much look the same to me, though I don't know Arizona precinct by precinct, admittedly.

The Chairwoman Mathis is quoted as embracing competitiveness in the Phoenix area even though that is supposed to be secondary to other considerations which appear not to have been followed in the McNulty map, yet has no interest in competitiveness in the Tucson area.  The Pubs appear to have gotten a good swivving as it were.  It is interesting that the AZ commission site reports almost no substantive news, other than the maps, and their lawsuit to silence the AG. Nothing about votes, who is proposing what, what the issues are, or anything. It is kind of pathetic really. Anyway, it looks like the Dems have been given a couple of CD's, maybe as many as three, that otherwise were not really there. They must be happy.

I guess the map hasn't really been drawn in Maricopa yet. The map Krazen posted was actually rejected. Is the Tucson district minus the Hispanic areas a Dem district?

[Sbane]

Sbane, it looks to me like not too many Hispanics were put in the Hispanic CD from Tucson, and that the Tucson CD per eyeballing it is out of reach for the Pubbies, and that is what the paper says. Meanwhile even though it is specifically prohibited, now they are worried where the incumbents live in Phoenix. Sad.

I drew it out and it seems like most of the heavily Hispanic precincts are picked up by the Hispanic CD. Can't expect it to come in and pick up 30% Hispanic precincts. Also the district is about 50-48 Obama. I don't see how that is out of reach for a Republican. It's a swing district, which is precisely what the Tucson district should be.

[Sbane]

Yes, it would be nice if there was data for other races but I would argue that a 50-48 Obama district would be perfect for a Rep gerrymander in many areas, like OC. Of course thats not the case in AZ. It would be equivalent to a 53-55% Obama district in California. I would say that's a perfect swing district. I would say the previous district was lean Rep, as was the 5th in the Phoenix area. They voted similarly for Bush, which is probably a better benchmark to guage partisanship.

Btw, what criteria is the commission supposed to use that they are ignoring? I think a 50-50 Obama district in the Phoenix area would be a good idea. It would keep whoever was elected in check. No point in having nice gerrymandered districts for both parties so the radicals can roam freely.

[Sbane]

What is your definition of competitive? Which districts in California are the offending ones? The Solano County and Ventura county districts are pretty damn competitive. It can't be helped if the Republicans can't nominate someone of caliber due to their rabid base. In California the problem is that you basically have a Republican gerrymander right now. It wasn't like that in 2000, but it is now due to changes in the state. You cannot expect something like that again.

Oh and Romney won't be the nominee. How do you feel about that?

As for competitiveness in AZ, it ranges from about a 4 point Mccain lead to a 4 point Obama lead. The Tucson district is towards the dem side but it's still a swing district. The Phoenix district should probably be closer to a 2-4 point Mccain district. If Republicans can't win in those district then they DO NOT DESERVE to win congress. Don't expect any sympathy from me. And yes, I do understand the Orange district in the Phoenix area is about a 4 point Obama district. That should and probably will be changed.

[Sbane]

What is your definition of competitive? Which districts in California are the offending ones? The Solano County and Ventura county districts are pretty damn competitive. It can't be helped if the Republicans can't nominate someone of caliber due to their rabid base.

Oh and Romney won't be the nominee. How do you feel about that?

Here is the essay to which I referred. I found it kind of interesting, although I question some of the conclusions. What so you think? 

Who are the Pubbies going to nominate again, Sbane?  I mean, I'm OK with peeking at the penultimate chapter of the saga if you are willing to share.

Not Romney.

[Sbane]

I haven't a clue. Somehow Herman Cain is the flavor of the week, and now we hear that Christie might just jump in. In the end Romney might just come out ahead, but there is obviously a huge chunk of the Republican base that doesn't want to vote for him. I have a few theories why, but I won't "share" them.

As for Cali, that Long Beach to Garden Grove district is the worst offender you could say. But the Dems could fire back and say they made a Latino district in the central valley that a Dem can't win with their eyes closed so that is unfair and blah blah blah. I say the Republicans sack up, get serious, drop the sharia law/omgz learn english omgz/ and mandoglove BS.

[Sbane]

Following the grid, respecting jurisdictional lines, compactness and communities of interest, as modified by the VRA. If without degrading the former, one can make CD's more competitive, then go for it. It's all right in the statute. The chairwoman characterizes both the Hispanic CD on the border and the Tucson CD's as competitive. The Hispanic CD clearly is not, except for the weak incumbent, and as I say, pending more data, I suspect the Tucson CD is lean Dem. Of course in 2012, both may fall to the Pubbies. I suspect the Dems are headed towards something worse than what they endured in 2010, particularly where blacks are thin on the ground.

Districts like the current AZ-1, AZ-5, and AZ-8 have by definition already proven to be competitive over the last decade. The Democrats in that map sought to move all 3 to the left and make them noncompetitive.

We will have to disagree about AZ-8, I think that's how it should be, but you are correct about AZ-5, and that map is pretty "creative" shall we say. I am not saying it should be a Republican district, but it shouldn't be a 51-47 Obama district either. A 2-4 point Mccain district seems in order. Not sure what's going on with AZ-1. I am sure the Dems tried to make it more Democratic, but is the map as drawn also highly Dem? Isn't most of the change due to the fact it picks up the Navajo and the Hopi (I think?) reservations instead of just one last time around? It doesn't pick up the portion of Sedona in Yavapai County, right?

Remember, one more Republican district is being created with this map, so it's natural that there will be some movement on the margins towards the Dems in the other districts. It should be more in the Tucson area, but very less in the Phoenix and outstate districts. The 4th and the 7th have about the same partisan makeup as last time around. Republicans might want to pack it more, but that won't fly. Sorry.

[Sbane]

Continuing our friendly little off topic chat, sbane, I checked on the precinct results in North Las Vegas for that special NV-02 election.  Yes, you guessed it, the turnout was zero.   In a couple of other places, about 2 or 3 voters showed up, so the Clark County election officials hid the results to protect the privacy of the voters who did vote. And there you have it!  

Hilarious! Now to talk about California some more, it seems like the 31st is an offending candidate as well. Yes, those district suck. But there are other districts with the same partisan numbers that don't suck, like Sanchez's district or the Riverside district. I am very happy with those. And Lois Capps doesn't have a swing district to deal with now. Whitman won it, apparently. On the flip side Dems could complain that Bono Mack's district is unfair as it dilutes the Hispanic vote. That is a district I would draw for a Rep gerrymander and the 47th and the 31st I would draw for a Dem gerrymander. Some might even complain about the Bilbray district. It also has "perfect" partisan numbers for a Rep gerrymander. But the district makes sense. The 10th is another one of those districts, but again makes a lot of sense. The 47th is the worst of the lot, and the 31st shouldn't have been drawn either, though the question becomes where else do you put Rancho.

[Sbane]

Nah, the game with AZ-01 was to excise Prescott and the Colorado River area where all those rednecks gamble, and buzz the river in their stinkpots while drunk. The Hopi make up about 3 precincts, and Native Americans as a whole maybe 30,000 voters or something. That CD was gamed to death, and the Flagstaff city council Dems got just what they wanted. They probably came in their pants. And then this fixation with 3 border CD's.  The game there was to excise from Tuscon that little county Cochise, in the SE corner - contrary to the grid as well as the balance of the statutory metrics. That tipped that CD.

What is this grid you keep talking about? Why should the Tucson district be put with Cochise? It doesn't pick up that much population in Santa Cruz County does it? Sure, that could have been sent into Cochise instead, but don't you dare try to crack Tucscon! Grijalva doesn't need white liberals in his district. Anyways, the reason why the Tucson district doesn't pick up Cochise is because it needed to lose population, no?

Ok, this is hilarious, the 8th only picks up 4,000 in Santa Cruz and about the same in Pinal. It should be exactly how it is!

[Sbane]

Ok, so I looked up the grid maps and it seems like grid 1 was used. The Hispanic district shouldn't pick up liberal areas so that is what should be used for Pima county. But your point about the Cochise district then picking up Flagstaff is well taken. That wasn't in the grid. Maybe Flagstaff should have been put in the 2nd and Yavapai in the 1st haha. Still, I don't see how it's overly egregious. But I guess my eyes have been soiled by the maps being drawn in other parts of the country.

[Sbane]

You start with the grid. It appears earlier in the thread. Deviations from it need a statutory basis. In order to excise Cochise, the Hispanic CD picked up its needed Hispanics all the way up in inner city Phoenix. The chairwoman Mathis thinks even the Hispanic CD on the border is "competitive," which is absurd except perhaps for the uber weak incumbent there. And she thinks AZ-01 is competitive too (which a Dem lean she admits - thanks for that dear), along of course with Tucson, which perhaps is, barely competitive, but I suspect is clearly lean Dem.

This map of course is headed to court, on both procedural and now I suspect, statutory grounds. Mathis apparently shred some documents. That is the charge anyway. The Dems will probably prevail however, since the commission will get the benefit of the doubt, absent a juicy smoking gun. AZ is just a Dem success story. I know they must be thrilled.

Dude, there aren't that many more Hispanics to pick up in Tucscon. There just isn't. Maybe a few precincts worth about 5-6,000 voters. And that would have to be balanced with what can be gotten in Phoenix. The VRA trumps the grid, you know that. And even in the best case scenario for Republicans the Tucson district remains an Obama district, though maybe by a few votes instead of a few points. As for the 1st, it hasn't gotten too much more Dem, even if that is what Flagstaff dem wanted. I don't see how you think that district could have a dem lean. You seem to think the partisan numbers are off by 15-20 points, instead of the 10 points it is from the actual partisan makeup. It's as if AZ isn't a GOP state at all. Maybe I've been transported into a parallel universe and didn't even know it.

Edit: The 1st is about 6 points Republican I think. Lean Republican district, yes, but not a swing district and definitely not a Dem district. And yes I was talking about the Tucson district, using the old numbers.

[Sbane]

Continuing our friendly little off topic chat, sbane, I checked on the precinct results in North Las Vegas for that special NV-02 election.  Yes, you guessed it, the turnout was zero.  In a couple of other places, about 2 or 3 voters showed up, so the Clark County election officials hid the results to protect the privacy of the voters who did vote. And there you have it! 

Hilarious! Now to talk about California some more, it seems like the 31st is an offending candidate as well. Yes, those district suck. But there are other districts with the same partisan numbers that don't suck, like Sanchez's district or the Riverside district. I am very happy with those. And Lois Capps doesn't have a swing district to deal with now. Whitman won it, apparently. On the flip side Dems could complain that Bono Mack's district is unfair as it dilutes the Hispanic vote. That is a district I would draw for a Rep gerrymander and the 47th and the 31st I would draw for a Dem gerrymander. Some might even complain about the Bilbray district. It also has "perfect" partisan numbers for a Rep gerrymander. But the district makes sense. The 10th is another one of those districts, but again makes a lot of sense. The 47th is the worst of the lot, and the 31st shouldn't have been drawn either, though the question becomes where else do you put Rancho.

Bear in mind that even in CA, 2010 was a lean GOP year. The Fiorina baseline has some GOP bias to it. Some of the map I don't understand, but I am not making any charges, because I would need to know what the alternatives were, that were rejected, and these commissions refuse to publish on their websites (in both CA and AZ), what the competing considerations were that caused them to make the decisions that they did. It overall is by no means a horrible map, and certainly better than a partisan gerry, or an incumbent protection plan.  Hopefully it will force the Pubbies to start getting real about what it takes to be competitive in CA. But I am not holding my breath.

That's why I think CA-47 is egregious, whereas CA-31 may or may not be. Remember they had to draw a VRA compliant Hispanic district in SBD as well. The only other option I would think was to cross county lines to pick up the Hispanic parts of Riverside and put it with San Bernardino. Which would have resulted in a convoluted rest of the IE map.

Then again, maybe drawing the Latino districts in LA county led to the drawing of CA-47. We can't be sure. I am trying to draw a fair assembly map right now and drawing the Latino districts is a bitch.

[Sbane]

How does this map look? I stayed out of Mesa and Chandler, as well as Scottsdale. Did pick up Paradise valley to make things look nice, but could have just stayed in Phoenix as well. 50-48 Mccain. And the 3rd on my map becomes basically a Mesa-Scottsdale district. And the 9th is Gilbert-Chandler and areas of Pinal.

I also tried to pick up as much Hispanic territory in Tucson as possible without picking up white liberal areas that would make the pubbies happy. About 22,000 people, but probably about 52-53% VAP. I then went down I-10 with my Tucscon district into cochise. Obama still wins the district, but with only 188 votes. 49.4-49.4.

[Sbane]

What was your purpose here? 4-3-2 (4 R, 3 D, 2 tossup seats)? That yellow would certainly be a pure tossup, rather than merely winnable in a good year against a weak incumbent as its predecessor was.

Most of my map is just copying what has been drawn. But the current orange district, which is my 5th, goes in to pick up parts of Mesa, Gilbert and Scottsdale. That makes the district 51-47 Obama and almost lean Dem. I do want to create a swing district, but at the same time not arbitrarily splitting cities.

[Sbane]

Did you change the orange Hispanic CD, which presumably is a done deal, unless of course Mathis decides the Dems need more help? Do you agree with me that anything Obama carried in AZ is a lean Dem CD or not?  An dead even CD to me would be one which McCain carried by about 4% (52-48) as a wild guess. Or 3% perhaps. The AZ bias towards McCain was pretty strong.

I think Mccain got about 10 points due to the favorite son effect or whatever it is called. So that means a 2 point Obama district would be a 56-44 Obama district in socal. I still think it's a swing district, but on the Dem side of the ledger. The 50-48 Mccain district that I drew would be about a 54-46 Obama district in socal meaning it would be the perfect swing district. So about a 2 point Mccain district is the middle point in AZ, I think.

[Sbane]

Well, I guess lawyers don't need to be so good at math? Because you are wrong!

So a 2 point Obama district would be 51-49. 56-5=51

A 2 point Mccain district would be 49-51 Obama. 54-5=49

5*2=10

And I meant a 10 point margin, just in case that was what confused you. So 5 points each from Mccain and Obama's side. Oh and the 10 point margin over performance is a guess, based off Pbrower's work so don't take it to the bank. I thought the broken clock was right at that time.

Also I was discounting the indy vote in my calculations but obviously included it when I talked about the 50-48 Mccain I drew. A 50-48 Mccain district is a 51-49 Mccain district. Does that make any sense?

[Sbane]

So then assume a 2% indy vote in all those districts. My point still stands. A 10 point over performance would then lead a 50-48 Obama district to become a 55-43 Obama district in socal and a 50-48 Mccain district would become 53-45 Obama district and so on. Happy?

[Sbane]

So then assume a 2% indy vote in all those districts. My point still stands. A 10 point over performance would then lead a 50-48 Obama district to become a 55-43 Obama district in socal and a 50-48 Mccain district would become 53-45 Obama district and so on. Happy?

No, because I want to know where you came up with the 10%.  The math thing was just to yank your chain for my personal pleasure. And here is the already drawn Hispanic CD to which I referred. Did you change it, the better to implement your nefarious designs?

Nah, I drew it the best I could. If you are referring to the northwest corner, it seems like they split precincts there. Otherwise it's the same.

And like I said, I got the number from Pbrower's "analysis". If you think it's complete sh**t, that's fine. But then I would ask you how much you think Mccain overperformed in AZ as compared to Socal or the country in general.

[Sbane]

Oh man, that was a long time ago. If you feel like browsing his posting history, go for it. You are a masochist, aren't you?

I think he did repeat this a few times, that the favorite son effect is worth 10 points. Probably pulled it out of his ass, but it seemed right to me. Considering Obama won NV by double digits, AZ should have been about even, if not an Obama state in 2008 with a different nominee but same results.

[Sbane]

Oh man, that was a long time ago. If you feel like browsing his posting history, go for it. You are a masochist, aren't you?

I think he did repeat this a few times, that the favorite son effect is worth 10 points. Probably pulled it out of his ass, but it seemed right to me. Considering Obama won NV by double digits, AZ should have been about even, if not an Obama state in 2008 with a different nominee but same results.

I am going to have to do the analysis myself eh?  That sucks. I was counting on you to have done this little chore for me, and you failed me!  Yes, the number does not seem out of the box ludicrous. But that doesn't mean it's right. Pbrower was just using some universal favorite son national number, eh, that you plug in like the speed of light?  If so, that bit is ludicrous - and lazy.

Yeah, it might be lazy, but he seems to have pulled out the right number. Broken clock is right sometimes. In the national environment of 2008, a close win for Obama in AZ, or a close loss, seems about right. What do you think?

[Sbane]

Does the orange 9th district still take in parts of Mesa and Chandler? And from the looks of it, the 1st district becomes even more Democratic as it loses parts of Cochise and picks up West Sedona and what looks like marginal areas of Pinal?

And the Tucscon district becomes 50-48 Mccain, or even more Republican?

[Sbane]

Does the orange 9th district still take in parts of Mesa and Chandler? And from the looks of it, the 1st district becomes even more Democratic as it loses parts of Cochise and picks up West Sedona and what looks like marginal areas of Pinal?

And the Tucscon district becomes 50-48 Mccain, or even more Republican?

That break would make the Tucson CD a true swing CD, I would think. I basically agree with your analysis on that one sbane as it turns out. Well not quite, maybe D +1%. 56% for the 6% favorite son thing, less 4% for the Obama margin, equals 52% to 48%, as the dead even figure. Close enough anyway. The Pubbies should take the seat in 2012 if Giffords does not run, and the Pubbies don't nominate another socon unelectable type as they have been wont to do since the gay guy retired. You are a pretty smart guy. Why didn't you aspire to be a lawyer? 

Job market sucks for you guys. Not that you would know.

[Sbane]

The GOP got some very desirable changes.

http://www.azredistricting.org/Maps/pubmaps/100311/Map_as_of_100211/Cong-Map_as_of_100211.pdf

The Green district is absurd though

The funny thing is that the Republicans on the Commission don't seem to think that those changes are very desirable. Mathis, Herrera, and McNulty voted yes, Stertz voted no, and Freeman abstained.

Well, the orange district still butchers municipalities.

The GOP should ask for the pieces of Chandler to be removed in exchange for more of Mesa.

You guys got what you wanted in Tucson though. Can't have it all. Unless CD-1 became much more Democratic, which I doubt. It was about 6 points Mccain when I drew it before. Now it's probably 4-5 points Mccain I am guessing. Slight lean Republican and you have a slight lean Democratic district in Phoenix. True swing district in Tucson and the 2 VRA districts. I wish a google maps version of the district is released.

[Sbane]

Thanks.