US House Redistricting: Arizona

[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...

[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.

[krazen1211]

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

I think I got something like that on the first page. Every district ends up at 65-70% white, except the Tempe/Scottsdale 5th, which is 78% white, but that's ok because some of them are latte liberals.

[krazen1211]

Lewis and Carl, how would a map like this do? I finally tweaked the populations and borders to line them up with the municipal borders.







It should be possible to get all the white Maricopa districts safe R. I don't quite get why Pinal needs to be split when there's no compelling reason to split it.



CD-1: Rural Counties + some Maricopa exurbs.

68% white, 11.4% hispanic, 17.4% native american

CD-2: Eastern Valley suburbs + same rural counties + Hopi reservation

70.9% white, 19.2% hispanic

CD-3: Half of North Phoenix + Peoria + North Glendale

71.4% white, 18.4% hispanic

CD-4: Downtown Phoenix + South Glendale

25.3% white, 59.8% hispanic

CD-5: Tempe + Scottsdale + Half of North Phoenix + Fountain Hills

78.4% white, 12.1% hispanic

CD-6: Mesa + Chandler

69.6% white, 20.2% hispanic

CD-7: Yuma + Santa Cruz + South Maricopa + Half of Tucson

37.7% white, 53.2% hispanic

CD-8: Cochise + Half of Tucson

72.9% white, 18.3% hispanic

CD-9: Pinal + Gilbert + Queen's Creek

68.7% white, 19.2% hispanic

[krazen1211]

You're splitting Gila River. That's right out.

I don't quite get why Pinal needs to be split when there's no compelling reason to split it.

Because it really is two counties from just about any Community of Interest angle you can think of. Not counting the reservation. And not counting the little bit of Tucson suburbia either.
The whole idea of the first district is to keep it out of the metro entirely. That works even better now than before, whether or not you include the Hopi. I would suggest not even contemplating scenarios that change that.

It's not a lot of people, but if I were to draw an R map taking Guadalupe out of the 4th is not something I would allow, either. IIRC Obama cracked 90 there. Protip: When you feel like commenting on something a year after you last looked it up, look it up again. It's just 79%.

Hmm, thanks, I'll think about that.

I thought about routing CD-1 into the north half of Mojave County to pick up the 100k or so people it needs rather than the bitter reaches of Maricopa, to avoid Pinal being split into several pieces as it is now.

It seems to me like the R's need the new district to go in the East Valley; skimming off Gilbert and Chandler just makes too much sense. Putting it in the West Valley ends up further cramming Flake's district while not getting the strength that you need in the new district

[krazen1211]

Both of those are somewhat GOP favored.

[krazen1211]

democrats should demand a safe central phoenix seat for Pastor and a moderately Tucson district for Grijalva. Anything else probably gets you in trouble with the DOJ. A 2-7 or 3-6 is what we should shoot for. Nothing less.

That's very generous of you. Even a full blown GOP gerrymander would give you 2 seats.

[krazen1211]

What.is.this.I.don't.even.

Okay, I get the map 1 Tucson Dem sink. I'd never expect it to happen (Grijalva vs Giffords primary and end to the congressional career hopes of that Palin lovebunny who lost to Giffords and then got his campaign manager onto the redistricting commission) but it does make sense on the ground.
But divvying the Navajo Rez? Seriously?

It's a pair or starting point maps. And they are starting with #2.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2011/08/18/20110818arizona-redistricting-panel-starting-map.html

[krazen1211]

Ok, so what does this mean? It looks like 5-4 at first glance, with all three border districts being at least lean D, but that's be right, can it?

Did they put Tempe in the 7th?

It's a starting point, which is going to be modified, but that map isn't 5-4. Roughly (its hard to map this of course):

Probably doesn't mean a whole lot, but better to start from 2 than 1. This is a very good Maricopa gerrymander for the GOP; and if they avoid putting Pinal with Pima and instead put it with Cochise we will have a good GOP map there too.

1. Obama 49+. McCain 49
2. Obama 50 McCain 49
3. McCain 59, Obama 40
4. McCain 59, Obama 40
5. McCain 59, Obama 40
6. McCain 57, Obama 42
7. Obama 61, McCain 37
8. McCain 56, Obama 43
9. McCain 53, Obama 46.

[krazen1211]

I figure that CD-9 is bordered by I-17 and a horizontal line just north of I-10 (just north of the Pinal/Maricopa  horizontal border to the east). If so it would have a lot of 60-65% Obama precincts along its southern edge, although no 70%+ precincts.

[krazen1211]

For purposes of the partisan complexion of the CD's, these  template grids can essentially disappear once the other four criteria are plugged in. So for purposes of the doing the Dem and Pubbie congressperson body count, these grids are essentially worthless.

Not necessarily worthless. As long as the Pastor district stays at 63% or so Obama, and they really have no reason to tweak that one much at all even based on all 6 criteria, the GOP is in great shape in Maricopa County.

Any adherence to municipal boundaries will not cleave the more Dem western parts of Mesa from the heavy GOP eastern parts.

Here is my 7-2 map that tries to adhere to those municipal boundaries; although I did cheat once.

http://www.redracinghorses.com/diary/918/a-clean-arizona-72-map

[krazen1211]

What are the racial stats on your two southern districts there?
Otherwise very well done. Gosar is probably less than *entirely* safe, but then that'd be asking for a lot. And some districts *could* change too fast to remain safe for the entire decade, but are certainly safe for now.

Both are about  35% VAP Hispanic, which is less than the current CD-7, but about what the Grid Map is showing.

It's a blatant GOP map of course; given the way I cracked Tempe between 2 districts. But I did do other things such as moving CD-4 out of Glendale (which also favors the GOP).

[krazen1211]

Actually, AZ-07 might as well take the rest of Santa Cruz County (only 5,000 folks there to suck up), so this version looks even better.

Incidentally, that's a bigger pack than my map. The issue I had with that was that it makes the lines in Maricopa more challenging to hit 55-57% McCain across the board. I am not a fan of that CD-3 hooking around Glendale, but if you are not careful, one of your Maricopa districts (currently its CD-5) will end up marginal.

The preference in the south of course is to pack Giffords and not Grijalva. Might be unavoidable, however.

[krazen1211]

I don't think it's absolutely unpermissible to crack Tempe, though. Not if you have a good excuse. (Though of course, the final map will be a mild bipartisan gerry in practice, so probably not happening.)
I kind of wonder why you have Grijalva running in the large southern district.

It is certainly possible that he would take a full Tucson district and force Giffords elsewhere. I just assigned by numbers there.

[krazen1211]

By the way, the only CD I drew as AZ-07. The rest are just the old CD's, erased in places.

Anyway, as you no doubt know, per the law,  you need to follow county lines and so forth unless there is a good non-partisan reason not to do so.  So Santa Cruz and Yuma Counties should be kept together, and Maricopa and any other county not named "Pima" not impinged.

Finally, all other things being equal, making more competitive districts rather than less is also in the law, after all the other criteria are met as best they can. So bear that in mind, when you are tempted to "cheat."  The Dems will catch you and point it out to the commission, and tank you.  Yes they will. In other words, only cheat if you are pretty confident you won't get caught because you have a quite plausible cover story, about some communities of interest beyond municipal lines or cross municipal lines BS or something.

Yes, of course. Certainly it is valid to stick CD-7 into those 2 precincts in Pinal/Maricopa to keep the native population together (not that such changes the district by any margin). The splitting of Yuma/Santa Cruz there is also fairly marginal but done for partisan reasons; it likely makes sense to undo those and sacrifice the 10k or so Republicans.

Tempe of course can only be split to ensure that Mesa, Chandler, and Gilbert are not. Unfortunately the Democrats retain the equally valid choice to split Mesa rather than Tempe; pairing Tempe/Chandler/part of Mesa to form a swing/slightly Dem district and a heavily GOP Gilbert/part of Mesa/Fountain Hills district. Surely they will argue for that.

2 parameters set most of the map; the first being that CD-1 takes the northern portion of the state, and the second being that CD-7 exits Maricopa county to the extend possible. It is possible that neither parameter is valid, but historically they have tried to ensure that, as you said, Maricopa does not dominate all the districts.

[krazen1211]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, those two native american precincts in Maricopa have a grand total of about 800 residents and less than 200 voters between them.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What does the grid do to these two cities? Does it split one or both of them, or neither?  Does one of them have to be split? I know nothing about Phoenix really.  I have never worked on it before.

The grid map doesn't take into account municipal boundaries, so it splits a bunch of stuff.

The existing map splits:

Phoenix (inevitable)
Glendale (the Hispanic portions are extracted out)
Tucson (ditto)
Chandler (chopped sort of down the middle)
Mesa (ditto)


My map will remove at least 2 splits, in addition to removing 2 districts from Phoenix entirely (the 2nd and the 7th, although to be fair the 9th is added). The municipalities are very tricky here.

[krazen1211]

Impressive, sir. I see that you split Tempe also, although you did use one of the 2 Hispanic districts to do so.

I suspect one of the weaknesses of this configuration is that the blue and red districts could easily end up with Maricopa reps.

This type of 7-2 map that we have drawn would be a grand slam.

I tried to use your CD-7 (Grijalva) in this map. 5 interior Maricopa districts, the 1 to the north, the 2 to the south, and 1 looping one to gather the rest.

I like that Phoenix is only split 3 ways here. Technically I suppose it is 4, but the light blue 9th has almost none of Phoenix.

[krazen1211]

the northeast and northwest district looks like the 3rd and 4th districts of the 70s and 80s

Yes, that is why i suspect the grid map will be swapped for a Great Native North district like mine.

[krazen1211]

the northeast and northwest district looks like the 3rd and 4th districts of the 70s and 80s

Yes, that is why i suspect the grid map will be swapped for a Great Native North district like mine.

What is the legal reason for departing from the grid up north? And for Phoenix?  Also, the Phoenix island in the grey sky violates compactness.

Well, I actually drew my map well before the grid, and I haven't really tweaked it to exactly match the grid parameters. So I would not look at my map from that angle.

The legal reason, I suppose, is 'Respect for communities of interest'; namely, the entire northern rural and native communities do not want to be represented by anyone from suburban Phoenix. They want their own rep (Gosar) and after complaining about it for decades, finally got it.

[krazen1211]

Why would Tucson and Phoenix be connected in a district when it is no longer necessary, especially when some people in Tucson want to leave the state?

[krazen1211]

Looks good thus far. Compared to the grid:

1. Obama 49+. McCain 49
2. Obama 50 McCain 49
3. McCain 59, Obama 40


The changes look to be favorable to the R's thus far with 2 districts moving in our favor. Even Lewis's map gives the R's a somewhat favorable situation in Maricopa

[krazen1211]

Very much like that map, Torie. It's quite like my map in post #69 and better adheres to the grid.

[krazen1211]

I had a macchiavellian idea about the south this morning, but I see that's not the way it's headed. Which is probably a good thing. The idea was that you could, starting from the grid, have worked in the direction of a Nogales-to-Glendale Hispanic seat that doesn't actually touch Tucson proper, a Dem Tucson-and-points north seat, and a Rep Tucson-Cochise-and-points north seat. That would kinda satisfy the interests of both Dems and Reps on this peculiarly Sonoran commission (except that Grijalva would have been clean drawn out of his district.)

Such a Hispanic district looks like it would be Republican leaning or at least tossup.

Edit: I should read down, you already drew it. Hehe.

In anycase, Torie, the 2001 map's CD-7 is 54.6% Hispanic now. But it was only about 50.x% Hispanic when drawn.



A couple updates that I've read:

1. Border communities (ie Tucson) want 3 congressmen along the border ala the grid map. Not happening, nor does the population support it.

2. Pinal County Republicans want to be with Gila County and not Pima County. Expected.

[krazen1211]

Arizona sues to overturn Section 5.

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/article_3be614ce-cf53-11e0-bbb0-001cc4c03286.html

[krazen1211]

From what I can tell from Vazdul's screen shots, the Commission in its latest map is making the Hispanic percentages in the 2 Hispanic CD's, trashing municipal lines to a substantial extent. It is as if they used Dave Bradlee's software to see where the Hispanics are concentrated, and drew the lines accordingly. That map looks like a Pubbie wet dream to me.

You mean they are going well above and beyond the 50% threshold?