TJ's District Maps Series

[muon2]

I’m not counting the MD and TN maps since I think they probably violate the VRA by chopping Memphis (and in the case of MD an 81% black seat).

Well in that case here's a different Maryland that should fix the VRA issue, with four black-majoirty districts all under 60 percent and a fifth plurality, and additionally finds two whole-county groupings, pretty neatly divided between DC-area and Baltimore-area.

The Eastern Shore is basically the same; I decided to chop one precinct out of Cecil (yes, there's a bridge in the right place) to keep deviations down.  I think this is a district I'd have a hard time splitting even if the rules told me to, luckily I found the other grouping and I didn't find a Shore-splitting map that got three groups out of the state.

As Xahar noted, most of these town lines are just CDPs and local government below the county level means vanishingly little in MD.  Tried to mostly keep to them in spirit anyway.

[map]
[map]

District 1 (Eastern Shore): Obama 43.1%, Dem 45.4%.  Safe R.
District 2 (Harford County & NE Baltco): Obama 39.7%, Dem 43.1%.  Safe R.
District 3 (Inner Baltimore County- Towson, Essex/Dundalk, Owings Mills): Obama 58.7%, Dem 63.7%.  66.3% White/23.6% Black VAP.  Safe D.
District 4 (Most of Baltimore City): Obama 84.8%, Dem 84.5%.  37.3% White/53.1% Black VAP.  Safe D.
District 5 (Baltimore City south and west, Catonsville and associated suburbs mostly in Baltco): Obama 75.2%, Dem 74.8%. 38.8% White/51.9% Black VAP.  Safe D.
District 6 (almost all of Anne Arundel): Obama 47.9%, Dem 50.5%.  Tilt R.
District 7 (Carroll, almost all of Howard): Obama 50.4%, Dem 50.8%.  Tossup.
District 8 (Charles, St. Marys, inner south PG- Suitland, Ft. Washington): Obama 72.6%, Dem 73.2%.  38.7% White/51.5% Black VAP.  Safe D.
District 9 (Calvert, outer PG- Bowie etc.): 79.7% Obama, 79.1% Dem.  31.2% White/58.5% Black VAP.  Safe D.
District 10 (spanning PG and Montgomery- Greenbelt, College Park, Silver Spring): Obama 85.7%, Dem 85.3%.  26.3% White/40.1% Black/24.6% Hispanic VAP.  Safe D.
District 11 (all Montco- Wheaton, Rockville, Gaithersburg): Obama 70.8%, Dem 71.5%.  47.4% White/16.8% Black/18.7% Hispanic/14.7% Asian VAP.  Safe D.
District 12 (mostly Montco with some Frederick- Bethesda, Germantown): Obama 66.3%, Dem 66.1%.  Safe D.
District 13 (Western MD- Frederick, Hagerstown, Cumberland): Obama 44.4%, Dem 43.4%.  Safe R.

8-0-1-1-3... which is actually kind of a bonanza for Republicans given how Democratic the state leans.  But the geography is unkind, and as much consternation as that horrible Carroll-Howard district gives me, it's basically forced.  Oh well.

Obviously drawing a Carroll-Howard district in real life would be insane, and I don't like the Calvert-PG district much at all, but it looks good otherwise. It goes to show how hard it is to draw Maryland with these rules.

Many people would actually like the Carroll-Howard district because of its inherent competitiveness. The general public does not like a plan where all the districts are locked for one party or the other, even though the more politically aware tend to favor districts that will produce a predetermined outcome so they can seek out representatives who think like themselves.

That same split in thinking occurs when people look at places to live and work. Climate, jobs, and schools, along with leisure-time amenities (cultural or recreational) tend to dominate the decision processes for most people. If you poll people who are politically aware they will look at policies in place and those likely to be enacted in a given area, but this is a distinctly minority view.

[traininthedistance]

Many people would actually like the Carroll-Howard district because of its inherent competitiveness. The general public does not like a plan where all the districts are locked for one party or the other, even though the more politically aware tend to favor districts that will produce a predetermined outcome so they can seek out representatives who think like themselves.

That same split in thinking occurs when people look at places to live and work. Climate, jobs, and schools, along with leisure-time amenities (cultural or recreational) tend to dominate the decision processes for most people. If you poll people who are politically aware they will look at policies in place and those likely to be enacted in a given area, but this is a distinctly minority view.

I personally like competitive districts when the states and regions they're a part of contain a lot of competitive precincts/subdivisions, and don't like them when they're just polarized and throw hard-Republican areas in with hard-Democratic areas.

I see a lot of people saying that they like drawing competitive districts in polarized, inflexible states, but I'm just the opposite: in a state like Maryland, a delegation of all safe seats actually reflects the populace well, whereas I'd rather maximize the number of seats up for grabs in places like Colorado instead.

[traininthedistance]

Also, it would be interesting to see a Democratic Michigan rule Ohio drawn; (not that I was trying to help them) but Ohio's geography definitely favors the GOP.

Most likely 17-8 and really not that many seats are competitive.

Just from a quick glance, the Dayton and outer Cuyahoga districts look kinda forced; everything else seems pretty "fair".  Those two districts plus a different split of Columbus seem like the only real low-hanging fruit for a Dem map; you're of course right that the state's geography is quite GOP.

Sure, why not, I'll give it a try (and also see if any county splits can be knocked off of course).

[traininthedistance]

Sorry for the delay on Democratic Ohio... Silverlight is not agreeing with my computer the way it used to.



Anyway... I more or less did my usual thing of going after whole-county groups, no split cities (Cleveland and Columbus the necessary exceptions), 1K max deviations without much regard to partisanship, then snuck it in a little inside the county groups.  I think most of these districts, with the obvious exception of District 8 (which runs from Springfield to downtown Columbus, squeezing out one more competitive seat), could come out of a neutral map. Found a bunch of groups: Cincy (1 through 4); east-central (11 & 12), Lima/NW (14), Toledo/Sandusky (15 & 16), Cleveland-Akron (18 through 22), Canton/Youngstown/far NE (23 through 25); Dayton, Columbus and associated rural areas got thrown together in a large leftovers pile. The weird lines in Lucas have no partisan reason, it's just how I was able to split the districts within tolerance and without splitting towns.  Probably splitting a town might be better there; possibly also with 5/6 where I found the double-prong necessary (those aren't as ugly though).

Cincy/Dayton:


Columbus:


Toledo:


Cleveland:


1 (Cincinnati and near suburbs): Obama 65.9%, Dem 60.9%.  59.9% White/34.0% Black VAP.  Safe D.
2 (East of Cincy burbs, Clermont etc.): Obama 37.7%, Dem 39.8%. Safe R.
3 (West of Cincy burbs, most of Butler): Obama 35.7%, Dem 36.1%.  Safe R.
4 (Middletown/Warren/Xenia): Obama 36.5%, Dem 38.1%.  Safe R.
5 (North of Dayton & Springfield): Obama 35.9%, Dem 39.3%.  Safe R.
6 (all-Montgomery, Dayton etc.): Obama 54.5%, Dem 52.6%. Tilt D.
7 (south OH, Portsmouth/Chillicothe): Obama 41.2%, Dem 52.6%.  Likely R.
8 (Springfield to Columbus): Obama 51.1%, Dem 51.8%.  Tossup.
9 (all-Franklin, Columbus East): Obama 64.2%, Dem 62.1%.  60.4% White/32.3% Black VAP.  Safe D.
10 (North Columbus, little bit of south Delaware Co.): Obama 56.8%, Dem, 54.4%.  Lean D.
11 (SE Ohio, Athens/Steubensville/New Philadelphia): Obama 50.9%, Dem 63.2%.  Tossup.
12 (Newark/Lancaster/Zanesvillle): Obama 41.9%, Dem 46.5%.  Safe R.
13 (Delaware Co, Mansfield): Obama 41.6%, Dem 44.9%.  Safe R.
14 (Lima, NW): Obama 36.0%, Dem 39.7%.  Safe R.
15 (Toledo): Obama 63.9%, Dem 67.2%. Safe D.
16 (Bowling Green/Sandusky): Obama 50.0%, Dem 51.4%.  Tilt R.
17 (Ashland/Medina): Obama 41.8%, Dem 46.4%.  Safe R.
18 (Elyria/Lorain): Obama 55.6%, Dem 60.4%.  Lean D.
19 (west Cleveland/Parma etc.): Obama 61.5%, Dem 66.6%. Safe D.
20 (east Cleveland/Euclid etc.): Obama 80.8%, Dem 81.5%.  37.9% White/57.2% Black VAP.  Safe D.
21 (Portage Co., Solon/Shaker Heights) Obama 60.7%, Dem 64.3%.  Safe D.
22 (Akron): Obama 59.6%, Dem 65.3%. Safe D.
23 (Canton/Massillon): Obama 50.9%, Dem 54.9%.  Tilt D.
24 (Youngstown/Warren): Obama 60.0%, Dem 73.0%.  Safe D.
25 (Lake, Ashtabula, NE): Obama 49.5%, Dem 51.9%.  Tilt R.

8-4-2-2-9.  The two things I'd regard as obviously gerrymandered here are everything about 8 (would be a Safe R district otherwise) and 25's arm down the eastern side of Trumbull (without which it'd be Lean/Likely R).  Possibly also the split between 11 and 12, though I'd also argue that a river district and a Columbus west exurbs district makes sense, as well.

But yeah.  If you make a good faith effort to keep to the rules in OH, all the Dem nudges you can find really just push you back to parity.  Whee.

[traininthedistance]

Quadruple feature!  All the small Northeastern states.  NECTAs were mostly ignored in Maine and New Hampshire on the grounds that minimizing their splits was mutually exclusive with minimizing county splits, and the rules here care about counties.  I guess New Hampshire would be drawn a bit differently despite not having any whole-county groups; the Merrimack Valley NECTA divisions cross Hillsborough and Rockingham in such a way that you'd possibly want to double-span those counties; possibly also around Concord as well.

Maine:




1 (Portland, Saco, Biddeford): Obama 62.2%.  Safe D.
2: (Augusta, Auburn, Brunswick): Obama 56.7%.  Lean D.
3: (Bangor, Aroostook, Downeast): Obama 54.0%.  Tilt D.

3 is whole-county, sending two prongs into Cumberland between 1 and 2 makes for far neater lines than anything else I could find with suitably small deviations.  Not much else to say.


New Hampshire:



1 (Rochester, Portsmouth, Dover): Obama 53.2%.  Tossup.
2 (Concord, north and west): Obama 59.0%.  Safe D.
3 (Manchester, Nashua): Obama 50.8%.  Tilt R.

No whole county districts, but 2 is one town in Belknap away from it.  Also, note how the two largest cities in the state are both in the most Republican district (likely in all of New England, no less!).  Anyway, one safe D and two swingy districts seems about right for NH.

Rhode Island:



1 (Providence, Pawtucket): Safe D.
2 (Warwick, Cranston, Newport): Safe D.

Deviations 466 and 467, no partisan numbers given but let's be real; 1 is higher minority but still two-thirds white.  Would rather have one district entirely in Providence, but sticking Bristol in 1 makes for neater lines and smaller deviations.  Not that it matters.

Delaware:



1 (Wilmington, Newark): Obama 70.6%, 64.7 White / 21.5 Black VAP.  Safe D.
2 (Dover, Slower Lower): Obama 52.5%, Tossup.

I guess this is pretty good for Republicans, given the state's overall results.

[muon2]

Quadruple feature!  All the small Northeastern states.  NECTAs were mostly ignored in Maine and New Hampshire on the grounds that minimizing their splits was mutually exclusive with minimizing county splits, and the rules here care about counties.  I guess New Hampshire would be drawn a bit differently despite not having any whole-county groups; the Merrimack Valley NECTA divisions cross Hillsborough and Rockingham in such a way that you'd possibly want to double-span those counties; possibly also around Concord as well.



Rhode Island:



1 (Providence, Pawtucket): Safe D.
2 (Warwick, Cranston, Newport): Safe D.

Deviations 466 and 467, no partisan numbers given but let's be real; 1 is higher minority but still two-thirds white.  Would rather have one district entirely in Providence, but sticking Bristol in 1 makes for neater lines and smaller deviations.  Not that it matters.

RI being the one state in the series where the map can double for actual CDs.

[traininthedistance]

Massachusetts.  This one is relatively slapdash by my standards, and something prettier might be possible (I actually initially had a prettier Western MA in fact, but scotched it to accommodate a couple slightly underpopulated Middlesex districts).





What is not possible, however, is any whole-county groups: with 14 districts for 14 counties, and with the state-spanning size of Worcester as well as Norfolk's multiple exclaves, even a cursory attempt has convinced me it's impossible.  So, all that was left to do was the usual stuff.  Boston is the only split city, of course, and the "Dem Average" is well and truly useless in all but the most Martha Chokely of situations- race ratings are mostly just based on Obama's numbers, knocking a few points off of course.

1 (Berkshires, Greenfield, Northampton): Obama 68.1%, Dem 60.6%.  Safe D.
2 (Springfield): Obama 61.6%, Dem 49.0%.  Safe D.
3 (Worcester): Obama 57.3%, Dem 44.0%.  Likely D.
4 (Fitchburg, Leominster, Lowell): Obama 56.0%, Dem 41.9%.  Lean D.
5 (all within Essex- Salem, Lawrence): Obama 60.8%, Dem 46.9%.  Safe D.
6 (Lynn, Malden, Melrose): Obama 58.2%, Dem 44.8%.   Likely D.
7 (Camberville and north): Obama 69.3%, Dem 61.5%.  Safe D.
8 (MetroWest, Framingham, Waltham): Obama 61.9%, Dem 50.4%.  Safe D.
9 (Newton, Brookline, western Boston): Obama 74.5%, Dem 65.9%.  Safe D.
10 (Revere, eastern Boston): Obama 78.5%, Dem 72.1%.  41.5% White / 25.7% Black / 21.9% Hispanic VAP.  Safe D.
11 (all within Norfolk- Quincy, Foxboro): Obama 56.0%, Dem 44.1%.   Lean D.
12 (Brockton, South Shore): Obama 54.3%, Dem 41.6%.  Tossup.
13 (New Bedford, Fall River, Attleboro): Obama 61.3%, Dem 48.5%.   Safe D.
14 (Plymouth, Cape, Islands): Obama 56.2%, Dem 44.4%.  Lean D.

I was surprised, actually, that I didn't end up with a mostly-Plymouth County district that could give Generic R better than 50/50 odds, but nope, all the districts were more Obama than his national average.  I think if I ignored county lines then such a thing would be pretty easy and fair to make (don't know if it can be done in a map that keeps to NECTAs instead of counties).

Also, only five of these districts have a Dem average, and yet...  

[traininthedistance]

Kansas and Nebraska.  Throughout both of those states, there are three counties that are larger than a Cube Root district (Douglas, Sedgwick, and Johnson)- those three counties each have one whole district and part of another, with no split towns or cities (with the caveat that I can't tell if Nebraska has townships like Kansas does) and everything else is whole county.  Not too hard to keep deviations tiny when you have lots of little squares to work with.

Kansas:



KC/Johnson County:



1 (Western KS): Obama 28.3%.  Safe R.
2 (Wichita): Obama 43.2%.  Likely R.
3 (Southeast KS): Obama 35.5%.  Safe R.
4(Topeka, Manhattan, Northeast KS): Obama 40.8%.  Safe R.
5 (Kansas City, Lawrence): Obama 56.2%.  Likely D.
6 (JoCo): Obama 44.7%.  Likely R.

District 6 is the furthest from equality at +153; 1, 2, 3, and 5 are all within two digits.  Presumably a 5-1 map most of the time.

Nebraska:



Omaha:



1 (Western NE, Kearny/Grand Island/Hastings): Obama 29.2%, Dem 32.5%.  Safe R.
2 (Lincoln, Southeast): Obama 46.2%, Dem 41.8%.Likely R.
3 (Columbus, Sarpy Co., Northeast): Obama 38.0%, Dem 35.3%.  Safe R.
4 (Omaha): Obama 53.4%, Dem 47.4%.  Tilt D.

Max deviation 269, probably could be goosed a little bit more at the expense of looking uglier. 

[traininthedistance]

Colorado is one of those states where elevating county splits above other considerations leads to some... unfortunate shapes.  In particular I am thinking of that District 9, which is Adams County and 15K worth of random Eastern Plains counties.  But hey, it doesn't have a split!  (Other groups include the whole-county 1 and 2, as well as the two-district group in the north.)  You could probably get a Hispanic-majority district if you had it straddle Adams and Denver, but the exclaves plus that whole-county district means that Denver has to pair with Arapahoe instead, in a fairly large Front Range grouping; best we can do is an all-Denver district that is min-maj by total population, as well as getting the Pueblo district up into the 30s.



Colorado Springs



Denver etc.



1 (Grand Junction, Western Slope): Obama 44.0%, Dem 41.3%.  Safe R.
2 (Pueblo, San Luis Valley, Avon): Obama 52.3%, Dem 49.2%.  68.3% White / 27.6% Hispanic VAP.  Tossup.
3 (Colorado Springs): Obama 42.3%, Dem 36.3%.  Safe R.
4 (Douglas Co., outer El Paso): Obama 37.2%, Dem 31.5%.  Safe R.
5 (Columbine, Centennial, Parker): Obama 48.2%, Dem 42.0%.  Likely R.
6 (Aurora, Englewood, SE Denver): Obama 65.2%, Dem 59.6%.  64.1% White / 11.0% Black / 17.6% Hispanic VAP.   Only 44% White by total population.  Safe D.
7 (Lakewood, Arvada, Broomfield): Obama 55.8%, Dem 50.2%.  Lean D.
8 (Denver north and west): Obama 78.4%, Dem 75.5%.  51.4% White / 10.6% Black / 32.3% Hispanic VAP.  Safe D.
9 (Adams County etc.): Obama 56.7%, Dem 49.2%.  59.4% White / 32.3% Hispanic VAP.  Tilt D.
10 (Greeley, Longmont, Sterling): Obama 49.6%, Dem 44.0%.  Lean R.
11 (Fort Collins, Boulder): Obama 63.1%, Dem 57.7%.  Safe D.

3-2-1-1-4.  Kinda like Virginia, which is fitting.

[Хahar 🤔]

The shape of independent cities in Colorado is really not conducive to whole-county groups.

[traininthedistance]

The shape of independent cities in Colorado is really not conducive to whole-county groups.

Yeah, not so much.

Oklahoma!

Obviously we are splitting Oklahoma and Tulsa Counties, and that's it.  The Tulsa split is almost along town lines; OKC being larger and containing a couple surrounded towns (and having large areas outside of the county as well) is split more thoroughly.

Also the Dem numbers are as useless as Massachusetts, in the opposite direction.  Whee.



Closeup:



District 1 (Lawton, west): Obama 27.4%, Dem 44.8%.  Safe R.
District 2 (Norman, Shawnee, Ada): Obama 34.3%, Dem 47.4%.  Safe R.
District 3 (Edmond, north OKC hinterlands): Obama 29.0%, Dem 39.1%.  Safe R.
District 4 (Oklahoma City): Obama 48.4%, Dem 54.4%.  56.8% White / 17.9% Black / 15.8% Hispanic VAP.  Tilt R.
District 5 (Enid, Stillwater, Broken Arrow): Obama 30.0%, Dem 42.6%.  Safe R.
District 6 (Tulsa): Obama 41.2%, Dem 48.7%.  Safe R.
District 7 (Bartlesville, northeast): Obama 32.7%, Dem 48.1%.  Safe R.
District 8 (Ardmore, Muskogee, southeast): Obama 33.2%, Dem 53.3% (lawl).  Safe R.

FTR, the highest Native percentage is in District 7, at 15.8%.  They're too integrated into the state to really be a factor when drawing districts.

Whee.

[muon2]

Colorado is one of those states where elevating county splits above other considerations leads to some... unfortunate shapes.  In particular I am thinking of that District 9, which is Adams County and 15K worth of random Eastern Plains counties.  But hey, it doesn't have a split!  (Other groups include the whole-county 1 and 2, as well as the two-district group in the north.)  You could probably get a Hispanic-majority district if you had it straddle Adams and Denver, but the exclaves plus that whole-county district means that Denver has to pair with Arapahoe instead, in a fairly large Front Range grouping; best we can do is an all-Denver district that is min-maj by total population, as well as getting the Pueblo district up into the 30s.

This is why I've come to appreciate the UCCs as a constraint on whole county plans. The 4-county, 2-city Denver UCC has about 203K more than 5 CDs with the 11 CD apportionment. In principle there shouldn't be more than 6 CDs to cover that area. You can add Weld, or the excess from El Paso plus some of the Front Range counties to get there.

I've confirmed that a 50% HVAP CD is possible in Denver+ Adams+a bit of Aurora in Arapahoe.

[traininthedistance]

Colorado is one of those states where elevating county splits above other considerations leads to some... unfortunate shapes.  In particular I am thinking of that District 9, which is Adams County and 15K worth of random Eastern Plains counties.  But hey, it doesn't have a split!  (Other groups include the whole-county 1 and 2, as well as the two-district group in the north.)  You could probably get a Hispanic-majority district if you had it straddle Adams and Denver, but the exclaves plus that whole-county district means that Denver has to pair with Arapahoe instead, in a fairly large Front Range grouping; best we can do is an all-Denver district that is min-maj by total population, as well as getting the Pueblo district up into the 30s.

This is why I've come to appreciate the UCCs as a constraint on whole county plans. The 4-county, 2-city Denver UCC has about 203K more than 5 CDs with the 11 CD apportionment. In principle there shouldn't be more than 6 CDs to cover that area. You can add Weld, or the excess from El Paso plus some of the Front Range counties to get there.

I've confirmed that a 50% HVAP CD is possible in Denver+ Adams+a bit of Aurora in Arapahoe.

Yeah, there are plenty of states I've done so far that I'd rather draw differently, with smarter and slightly looser constraints.  Colorado, NJ, Maryland, Connecticut, and Massachusetts could all be improved significantly IMO.