US House Redistricting: Iowa

[Kevinstat]

With the 2010 redistricting data for Iowa out, it looks like it's commission (or their computers) won't won't be able to draw a congressional district entirely in the 3x3 block of counties centered on Polk County (Des Moines), unless the tradition (and seeming state requirement) of not splitting counties is broken.  The closest you can get without going outside of the "Des Moines 9" or splitting a county is the Des Moines 9 minus Boone County (the second smallest county in the group) which is 2,568.75 people short of the ideal Iowa congressional district population (most people round the ideal district population to the nearest integer, but I'm not most people even though I don't support chopping people into fractional portions).  That's only 0.34% of the ideal district population, but probably too much to pass muster for a congressional district.  The Des Moines 9 minus Madison County (the smallest county in the group) would be 8,058.25 people (1.06%) too large.  

Since compactness is a criteria in Iowa and is measured by comparing north/south extent with east/west extent, the closest combination of a county or two in the Des Moines 9 being taken out of the district and a county or two outside of it being added to the district might not work.  But it's still something worth checking out to see if you can have a close enough district that puts Des Moines in the center rather than on the end of its district like it is now and was under the last set of lines at least.  I haven't found such a district yet, but I haven't spent much time looking.

Has anyone esle here started to work on Iowa CD plans with the official numbers?

[muon2]

I can get a very compact 10 county district around Des Moines that deviates by less than 200 persons from the ideal.

In the map below only whole counties are used with the 2010 census data. The maximum deviation is 264 and the range is 466 persons. I can estimate the NS/EW compactness ratio using Paint, but the total perimeter compactness is harder to get since it requires counting all the boundary pixels in Paint. IA uses both measures to determine compactness.

 

CD 1 (beige) 761,419; NS/EW = 1.04
CD 2 (slate) 761,853; NS/EW = 1.21
CD 3 (forest) 761,696; NS/EW = 0.71 (but a very small perimeter)
CD 4 (pink) 761,387; NS/EW = 1.07

[JohnnyLongtorso]

I'd guess the Democrats would be happy with that map; it looks like a 2D-1R map with a Dem-leaning IA-03.

[Torie]

I'd guess the Democrats would be happy with that map; it looks like a 2D-1R map with a Dem-leaning IA-03.

Yup. Here are the 2004 numbers, assuming I coded all the counties right. I tried!

                                                            51.25%                                     
               Bush       Kerry        Total        Bush % 2004 GOP PVI
IA-01   161,235   193,385   354,620   45.47%   -5.78%
IA-02   192,150   212,034   404,184   47.54%   -3.71%
IA-03   179,870   181,875   361,745   49.72%   -1.53%
IA-04   218,702   154,604   373,306   58.59%    7.34%

Here are the old numbers by comparison. Not very good for the GOP. IA-04 disappears, and IA-03 moves 32 basis points towards the Dems.

                                                      51.25%     2004                                 
               Bush       Kerry        Total        Bush % GOP PVI   Change         
District 1   138,073   157,380   295,453   46.73%   -4.52%   -1.27%
District 2   135,991   171,561   307,552   44.22%   -7.03%   3.32%
District 3   154,919   154,652   309,571   50.04%   -1.21%   -0.32%
District 4   155,587   148,331   303,918   51.19%   -0.06%   NA
District 5   167,387   109,974   277,361   60.35%   9.10%   -1.76%

[Vasall des Midas]

Especially remarkable as Bush won the current 3rd.

[muon2]

I'd guess the Democrats would be happy with that map; it looks like a 2D-1R map with a Dem-leaning IA-03.

Yup. Here are the 2004 numbers, assuming I coded all the counties right. I tried!

                                                            51.25%                                      
               Bush       Kerry        Total        Bush % 2004 GOP PVI
IA-01   161,235   193,385   354,620   45.47%   -5.78%
IA-02   192,150   212,034   404,184   47.54%   -3.71%
IA-03   179,870   181,875   361,745   49.72%   -1.53%
IA-04   218,702   154,604   373,306   58.59%    7.34%

I'm not sure that the Dem delegation would be pleased. Latham is in CD 3 with Boswell and would present a strong challenge there. Loebsack and Braley are both in CD 2, so presumably one would run in CD 1 and probably relocate as IA congressmen often do after redistricting.

[Torie]

I'd guess the Democrats would be happy with that map; it looks like a 2D-1R map with a Dem-leaning IA-03.

Yup. Here are the 2004 numbers, assuming I coded all the counties right. I tried!

                                                            51.25%                                     
               Bush       Kerry        Total        Bush % 2004 GOP PVI
IA-01   161,235   193,385   354,620   45.47%   -5.78%
IA-02   192,150   212,034   404,184   47.54%   -3.71%
IA-03   179,870   181,875   361,745   49.72%   -1.53%
IA-04   218,702   154,604   373,306   58.59%    7.34%

I'm not sure that the Dem delegation would be pleased. Latham is in CD 3 with Boswell and would present a strong challenge there. Loebsack and Braley are both in CD 2, so presumably one would run in CD 1 and probably relocate as IA congressmen often do after redistricting.

Yes, assuming Latham has an even shot against whomever the Dem candidate is in IA-03, Latham causes the partisan body count tally for Iowa to be GOP -.5, rather than maybe -.75. But overall, the GOP is moving backwards, because they lost a marginal  seat in this round in Iowa (and safe in the hands of Latham). It is only the personality of Latham (and the weakness of Boswell) that at least in the short term, somewhat balances the books (if he wins).

As an aside, the GOP would be in worse shape if Marion County did not end up in IA-03. That is a Dutch influence county, and is the county from which many of the Dutch there decamped, when they heard the good news about Sioux County, and got in their covered wagons, and in a mad rush headed out to Sioux to claim it. It turned out to be a good move, because Sioux has the most expensive and productive farmland in Iowa (other than Scott County typically, where land values are pushed up a bit by being so close to Davenport, and thus having some modest development potential). Sioux has some very wealthy farmers.

[muon2]

So, if the GOP members of the legislature don't like the first map, they can ask for another one by voting down the first. They can demand a smaller deviation, so this is what they might get. The maximum deviation is 230 with a range of 439. It also provides more even NS/EW dimensions between the districts though it increases the perimeters. My guess is this would suit the GOP better.



CD 1 (beige) 761,769; NS/EW = 0.90
CD 2 (slate) 761,380; NS/EW = 0.91
CD 3 (forest) 761,387; NS/EW = 1.15
CD 4 (pink) 761,819; NS/EW = 0.85

[Torie]

Well Muon2's map 2 moves the ball 20 basis points in the wrong direction with respect to IA-03 (one needs to figure out how to get Story County out of IA-03 and keep Marion County in (in map 2 Marion County departed from IA-03, while Story stayed). 

However, map 2 does create an interesting situation in IA-01. Suddenly the most Dem CD in Iowa becomes but lean Dem, and the Dem incumbent there is an under-performer. That is what happens when you switch out a university for the Dutch among other things (Marion County was put in IA-01, while Johnson County was excised to IA-02).

It might be worth going for the gold on this.  20 basis points in exchange for a reasonable shot in IA-01 might just be worth it, particularly if Leach is still around. Plus, the university kids might be less hot for the Dems at the moment, since the Afghan war continues, and jobs are hard to find, and some of the Obama magic for the young might have waned a bit. Change may seem a bit more ominous, and a bit less exciting.

                                                          51.25%       GOP
              Bush         Kerry        Total        Bush %  2004 PVI
IA-01   155,905   163,772   319,677   48.77%   -2.48%
IA-02   194,064   231,036   425,100   45.65%   -5.60%
IA-03   182,947   186,515   369,462   49.52%   -1.73%
IA-04   219,041   160,575   379,616   57.70%    6.45%

[JohnnyLongtorso]

...And the Dems would not be happy with that map.

[Torie]

...And the Dems would not be happy with that map.

Can the Dems then veto map 2, and we move on to map 3? LOL.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Since they still have control of the State Senate, I'm assuming yes.

After looking at it again (and seeing your numbers), I think the first map is pretty much the fairest one you're going to get, considering the state's bleeding population outside of the Dem-friendly areas. You've got one safe Dem district, one safe Rep district, and two districts that could conceivably go either way; IA-02 would probably be pretty marginal, especially with Loebsack in the seat.

[muon2]

...And the Dems would not be happy with that map.

Can the Dems then veto map 2, and we move on to map 3? LOL.

Either chamber or the governor can reject the first or second map. In doing so, they may specify reasons consistent with the standards for IA redistricting. The next map will be prepared based on any reasons given for rejection. However, after the third map the matter goes to the courts. Presumably, the Dems could ask for even less population variation, though I don't think they have to give a reason. If there is a third map, it can be amended like any other bill.

[Torie]

...And the Dems would not be happy with that map.

Can the Dems then veto map 2, and we move on to map 3? LOL.

Either chamber or the governor can reject the first or second map. In doing so, they may specify reasons consistent with the standards for IA redistricting. The next map will be prepared based on any reasons given for rejection. However, after the third map the matter goes to the courts. Presumably, the Dems could ask for even less population variation, though I don't think they have to give a reason. If there is a third map, it can be amended like any other bill.

In that event, the Dems will indeed drop your map 2 in the waste basket. The last thing they want is to put a reasonably safe Dem seat into play. So what is map 3, assuming the Dems pick the "reason" the fix for which just happens to be the most favorable to them (e.g. requiring that Johnson County be put back into IA-01, and Marion County be excised from IA-03)?  And do the courts have to follow the same law, and beyond following it (assuming it has to), are empowered to draw any map that they desire, without any further guidelines?

[So the Heroes Fall]

Boswell is old and not in good health, any Des Moines seat is going to be marginal. Dems won't stand against a 3 Kerry districts map.

[Torie]

Boswell is old and not in good health, any Des Moines seat is going to be marginal. Dems won't stand against a 3 Kerry districts map.

You think the Dems will accept Map 2?

[jimrtex]

I can get a very compact 10 county district around Des Moines that deviates by less than 200 persons from the ideal.

In the map below only whole counties are used with the 2010 census data. The maximum deviation is 264 and the range is 466 persons. I can estimate the NS/EW compactness ratio using Paint, but the total perimeter compactness is harder to get since it requires counting all the boundary pixels in Paint. IA uses both measures to determine compactness.

 

CD 1 (beige) 761,419; NS/EW = 1.04
CD 2 (slate) 761,853; NS/EW = 1.21
CD 3 (forest) 761,696; NS/EW = 0.71 (but a very small perimeter)
CD 4 (pink) 761,387; NS/EW = 1.07

http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Redist/Redist.html

The first rejected plan:

http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Redist/firstplan.htm

The first (rejected) plan had deviation from 182 to -301 (483 total) , with a mean absolute deviation of 130.2

See Senate resolution rejecting plan at second link.

The second plan description (include some deconstruction of the redistricting law)"

http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Redist/June2001report.htm

The second had a mean absolute deviation of 47, and a range of 40 to -94 (134 total).

Do you know if they did anything about the nesting requirement for senate districts?  50/4 -= 12.5.

[Kevinstat]

Do you know if they did anything about the nesting requirement for senate districts?  50/4 -= 12.5.

Iowa had 5 CDs to draw in 2001.

For this year, I read somewhere on this forum that there would be two Senate districts split between different pairs of congressional districts, with one State House district going to each member of the pair of congressional districts that split that Senate district.

[muon2]

...And the Dems would not be happy with that map.

Can the Dems then veto map 2, and we move on to map 3? LOL.

Either chamber or the governor can reject the first or second map. In doing so, they may specify reasons consistent with the standards for IA redistricting. The next map will be prepared based on any reasons given for rejection. However, after the third map the matter goes to the courts. Presumably, the Dems could ask for even less population variation, though I don't think they have to give a reason. If there is a third map, it can be amended like any other bill.

In that event, the Dems will indeed drop your map 2 in the waste basket. The last thing they want is to put a reasonably safe Dem seat into play. So what is map 3, assuming the Dems pick the "reason" the fix for which just happens to be the most favorable to them (e.g. requiring that Johnson County be put back into IA-01, and Marion County be excised from IA-03)?  And do the courts have to follow the same law, and beyond following it (assuming it has to), are empowered to draw any map that they desire, without any further guidelines?

OK, so I now assume that map 2 is sent back. The Sen Dems can't really ask for a political result, but they can say that they want better equality. Perhaps they ask that this map improves upon the current one in terms of population equality.

So I consult the history from 10 years ago ...

http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Redist/Redist.html

The first rejected plan:

http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Redist/firstplan.htm

The first (rejected) plan had deviation from 182 to -301 (483 total) , with a mean absolute deviation of 130.2

See Senate resolution rejecting plan at second link.

The second plan description (include some deconstruction of the redistricting law)"

http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Redist/June2001report.htm

The second had a mean absolute deviation of 47, and a range of 40 to -94 (134 total).

Do you know if they did anything about the nesting requirement for senate districts?  50/4 -= 12.5.

... and I improve on those numbers.



CD 1 (beige) 761,534; NS/EW = 1.23
CD 2 (slate) 761,667; NS/EW = 0.55
CD 3 (forest) 761,574; NS/EW = 1.11
CD 4 (pink) 761,580; NS/EW = 0.58

The mean absolute deviation is 39, with a total range of 133 (-55 to +78).

The compactness does suffer for CD 2 and 4, but that could be the price to get near population equality. That's often a more important consideration for the courts in any case.

[Vasall des Midas]

That looks fairly hideous. What does it do politically?

[Torie]

That looks fairly hideous. What does it do politically?

That I suspect would be the Dems' favorite map. Story, Marion, and Johnson look like they are where the Dems would want them. I won't have time today to crank the numbers. This map may be drawn by the courts.

[Vasall des Midas]

Hardly. You have Waterloo (Black Hawk County) in the "western" district, as a strange easternmost appendage no less. Which not only wastes huge amounts of democratic votes but is also the kind of obviously "wrong" design you can easily get some public opinion against.

I've done the figures, btw.

Bush because you used Bush before, though I now notice that you ignored the third party vote.

NEern CD   52.80 Kerry, 46.38 Bush
Southern CD 49.79 Bush, 49.20 Kerry
Central CD    49.65 Kerry, 49.51 Bush
NWern CD     51.33 Bush, 47.87 Kerry

Ie, this kind of map - completely ignore the state's regions, basically - is what it takes to create a "fair" result as far as partisan strength goes - no wholly safe seats, two basically exact ties.
Safe to say discarding this... thing... won't take as long as it took muon to draw it.

Oh, and Braley and King both live in the northern seat while the southern seat is empty.

[Torie]

I guess Johnson being in the Southern CD is not enough to keep it from going marginal.  That odd pink county thing dangling there in the NE is Waterloo eh? LOL. That would be the sort of thing I would do, say if Iowa were Indiana.   The only "problem" is that the Western CD suddenly has a PVI that is just a handful  of basis points GOP. In a bad year, the GOP could be zeroed out! Particularly given who the incumbent is. Mr. King is not a centrist.

[jimrtex]

OK, so I now assume that map 2 is sent back. The Sen Dems can't really ask for a political result, but they can say that they want better equality. Perhaps they ask that this map improves upon the current one in terms of population equality.

So I consult the history from 10 years ago ...

http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Redist/Redist.html

The first rejected plan:

http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Redist/firstplan.htm

The first (rejected) plan had deviation from 182 to -301 (483 total) , with a mean absolute deviation of 130.2

See Senate resolution rejecting plan at second link.

The second plan description (include some deconstruction of the redistricting law)"

http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Redist/June2001report.htm

The second had a mean absolute deviation of 47, and a range of 40 to -94 (134 total).

Do you know if they did anything about the nesting requirement for senate districts?  50/4 -= 12.5.

... and I improve on those numbers.



CD 1 (beige) 761,534; NS/EW = 1.23
CD 2 (slate) 761,667; NS/EW = 0.55
CD 3 (forest) 761,574; NS/EW = 1.11
CD 4 (pink) 761,580; NS/EW = 0.58

The mean absolute deviation is 39, with a total range of 133 (-55 to +78).

The compactness does suffer for CD 2 and 4, but that could be the price to get near population equality. That's often a more important consideration for the courts in any case.

Read the Legislative Service Bureau response here (which includes some gentle reminders to legislature what the statute actually provides).

http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Redist/June2001report.htm

The attempt to get to very narrow population deviation is based on the US Constitution, as interpreted by the SCOTUS: as near as practicable.  The Legislative Service Bureau interpreted this to mean that their second plan had to have less deviation than the first, but not necessarily the least deviation possible.  The districts have to still observe county lines, be compact, and formed from convenient contiguous territory.

If you can maintain those standards AND have less deviation, then you must because it is practicable, capable of being put into practice (ie it is practicable).

I think that CD 4 would not be considered convenient.

There is not a requirement that the plan have less deviation than the existing plan, even though the senate resolution said it should.

[freepcrusher]

i'm not sure which is a better idea for democrats:

Drawing four districts horizontally to get rid of king

OR

draw a vote sink district for King to make 3 safe dem districts