Per SCOTUS, initiative created redistricting commissions may be l'histoire

[Sbane]

Didn't realize I hadn't posted the Norcal maps to this thread. Like I said, the u-shaped district is a little odd but can be defended as a "Mountains and Coast" district. Also, it doesn't really help that much because you still have to take in a lot of Republican territory while picking up Lake Tahoe, Truckee and Mammoth Lakes. Except for that, my map is really not that terrible in NorCal.

[ag]

What we have to understand is that gerrymandering IS a serious problem, irrespective of its constitutional permissibility. The founders could not foresee many things. For instance, they could not foresee the DRA. And DRA (and its "professional" analogues, of course) is a horrible tool. Whereas the old Mr. Gerry could make mistakes if he cut to finely, today these things could be done with increasingly horrid precision, pretty much destroying electoral accountability.

I understand all that.  But the Constitution is what it is; you don't ignore it just because you think that by doing so you are solving a problem.   Otherwise what is the point? 

Well,that means that the only solution is then to redistrict Republicans to 5 seats in CA.

[Sbane]

Here are the numbers for the map I posted in this thread. I kept all the districts together with their current occupants for easy comparison and drew the districts in fairly similar regions as the current districts.

CA-1* (La Malfa)- Obama: 59.4-40.6. Brown: 55.5-45.5
CA-2 (Huffman)- Obama: 60.6-39.4. Brown: 54.9-45.1
CA-3 (Garamendi)- Obama: 58.0-42.0. Brown: 55.5-45.5
CA-4 (McClintock)- McCain: 57.6-42.4. Whitman: 60.3-39.7
CA-5 (Thompson)-  Obama: 74.6-24.5. Brown: 69.1-30.9
CA-6 (Matsui)- Obama: 61.0-39.0. Brown: 60.7-39.3
CA-7 (Bera)- Obama: 60.0-40.0. Brown: 60.0-40.0
CA-8 (Cook)- McCain: 60.2-39.8. Whitman: 63.6-36.4
CA-9 (Mcnerney)- Obama: 59.8-40.2. Brown: 54.9-45.1
CA-10* (Denham)- Obama: 60.2-39.8. Brown: 54.3-45.7     Hispanic: 47.5%
CA-11 (De Saulnier)- Obama: 60.1-39.9. Brown: 55.7-44.3
CA-12 (Pelosi)- Obama: 86.4-13.6. Brown: 81.9-18.1
CA-13 (Lee)- Obama: 92.2-7.8. Brown: 90.6-9.4
CA-14 (Spier)- Obama: 74.4-25.6. Brown: 69.4-30.6
CA-15 (Swalwell)- Obama: 68.1-31.9. Brown: 61.1-38.9
CA-16 (Costa)- Obama: 59.5-40.5. Brown: 54.2-45.8     Hispanic: 54.8%
CA-17 (Honda)- Obama: 71.7-28.3. Brown: 66.4-33.6    Asian: 50.3%
CA-18 (Eshoo)- Obama: 74.2-25.8. Brown: 65.5-34.5
CA-19 (Lofgren)- Obama: 70.9-29.2. Brown: 64.2-35.8
CA-20 (Farr)- Obama: 66.6-33.4. Brown: 61.0-39.0       Hispanic: 47.1%
CA-21* (Valadao)- Obama: 60.3-39.7. Brown: 58.7-41.3      Hispanic: 75.3%
CA-22 (Nunes)- McCain: 60.8-39.2. Whitman: 65.5-34.5
CA-23 (McCarthy)- McCain: 63.0-37.0. Whitman: 63.7-36.3
CA-24 (Capps)- Obama: 61.8-38.2. Brown: 52.9-47.1
CA-25* (Knight)- Obama: 59.3-40.7. Brown: 53.7-46.3      Hispanic: 50.1%
CA-26 (Brownley)- Obama: 59.4-40.6. Brown: 51.8-48.2
CA-27 (Chu)- Obama: 60.1-39.9. Brown: 55.7-44.3      Asian: 38.2%
CA-28 (Schiff)- Obama: 72.6-27.4. Brown: 67.4-32.6
CA-29 (Cardenas)- Obama: 74.8-25.2. Brown: 71.5-28.5      Hispanic: 65.5%
CA-30 (Sherman)- Obama: 61.7-38.3. Brown: 52.5-47.5 
CA-31 (Aguilar)- Obama: 58.2-41.8. Brown: 54.4-45.6       Hispanic: 49.9%
CA-32 (Napolitano)- Obama: 66.6-33.4. Brown: 64.9-35.1       Hispanic:70.4%
CA-33 (Lieu)- Obama: 66.1-33.9. Brown: 58.6-41.4
CA-34 (Becerra)- Obama: 80.9-19.1. Brown: 82.5-17.5       Hispanic: 65.4%
CA-35 (Torres)- Obama: 60.1-39.9. Brown: 56.0-44.0      Hispanic: 62.0%
CA-36 (Ruiz)- Obama: 56.8-43.2. Brown: 51.5-48.5      Hispanic: 49.5%
CA-37 (Bass)- Obama: 86.4-13.6. Brown: 84.0-6.0       Hispanic: 39.9% Black: 22.5% White: 25.9%
CA-38 (Linda Sanchez)- Obama: 61.8-38.2. Brown: 58.4-41.6       Hispanic: 67.4%
CA-39* (Royce)- Obama: 58.9-41.1. Brown: 53.6-46.4       Hispanic: 46.1% Asian: 24.0%
CA-40 (Roybal-Allard)- Obama: 73.1-26.9. Brown: 72.1-27.9       Hispanic: 72.5%
CA-41 (Takano)- Obama: 58.2-41.8. Brown: 53.6-46.4       Hispanic: 52.4%
CA-42 (Calvert)- McCain: 58.5-41.5. Whitman: 66.5-33.5
CA-43 (Waters)- Obama: 94.3-5.7. Brown: 93.4-6.6       Hispanic: 63.0% Black: 33.1%
CA-44 (Hahn)- Obama: 63.8-36.2. Brown: 60.2-39.8
CA-45 (Walters)- McCain: 55.8-44.2. Whitman: 67.4-32.6
CA-46 (Loretta Sanchez)- Obama: 59.0-41.0. Brown: 52.8-47.2       Hispanic: 68.0%
CA-47 (Lowenthal)- Obama: 59.0-41.0. Brown: 52.6-47.4
CA-48^ (Rohrabacher)- Obama: 55.3-44.7. Whitman: 53.1-46.9     Hispanic: 30.4% Asian: 26.6%
CA-49^ (Issa)- Obama: 56.3-43.7. Whitman: 53.7-46.3
CA-50 (Hunter)- McCain: 60.5-39.5. Whitman: 68.0-32.0
CA-51 (Vargas)- Obama: 59.3-40.7. Brown: 55.0-45.0       Hispanic: 69.9%
CA-52 (Peters)- Obama: 62.2-37.8. Brown: 53.1-46.9       
CA-53 (Davis)- Obama: 59.0-41.0. Brown: 53.7-46.3

*= pickup (all went from R-->D)
^= swing seat

In 2010, Jerry Brown won 44 out of 53 of these districts while winning the state by a 13 point margin. Pretty solid map, I would say.

[traininthedistance]

Excellent work, sbane. I've started to fiddle around but won't have a full map for awhile (pretty busy with other things at the moment).

In any case, we need to see more of these hardcore California Dem gerrymanders; having them out in the wild should serve– if nothing else– as a good proof-of-concept/counterexample that the citizen's commission wasn't actually this stealth gerrymander that many Pubs claim it to be.  Not when you can see what it left on the table.

[jimrtex]

Why can the people not create redistricting commissions but they have the right to enact voter ID laws? Isn't that also included in the "times, places and manner" of holding elections?

"times, places, and manner" applies to federal elections.   Or do you think that it was a generous grant by the Great White Fathers in Philadelphia to even let the States have their own government?

The People can create redistricting commissions for their State.  They can enact Voter ID laws for their own elections.   The SCOTUS has strongly indicated that States may require additional documentation of citizenship in order to register to vote in State elections.

So voter ID laws don't apply to Congressional and Presidential elections? What?

SCOTUS has indicated that States may require documentation of citizenship for registration for state and local elections, beyond what is required on the federal registration form, and two States do so.  These are quite similar to Voter ID laws, that simply require a voter to document that they are who they say they are.  And Congress has not legislated with respect to voter identification.

[Torie]

In other news, while Train and Bane fantasize about maps on the Cali terrain that will never, ever be drawn (I doubt the Dems will go even go so far as to do what I did, and suspect they will do absolutely nothing actually but enact the existing map (inter alia, Governor Brown not wanting to unduly embarrass himself) for reasons adduced by moi above), here is a "de-gerrymandered" good government map of AZ that the Commission should have drawn, but didn't, due to the Mathis mole machinations. Cheers.

Oh, in an attempt to be as solicitous and helpful to our Dem friends as possible, and resolve all doubts in their favor without deterioration in map quality, the third map below is an alternative for Phoenix that creates 2% to 3% Pub PVI CD's per 2008 figures (subtracting 5.5 points from the inflated favorite son McCain totals to correct for that distortion in the partisan baseline (5.5 points is my guess; the trend in 2008 was 7.31%, and the trend back to the Dems in 2012 was 1.72%, so it could be anywhere from 7.31% to 1.72, and the average of the two trends would be 4.52%), and the averagewhat AZ trended from 2004 to 2008 in the Pub direction). They get this alternative map in exchange for the CA Dems leaving the existing map alone (other than perhaps strengthening Dem incumbents which they really don't need to do anymore (other than perhaps the Costa CD), but I digress).

[/

[politicallefty]

I really hope that SCOTUS doesn't nuke independent redistricting commissions. I'm very consistent in my opposition to partisan gerrymandering (albeit not in terms of unilateral disarmament). However, I do agree with the sentiment here that SCOTUS does appear to be quite likely to strike down the Arizona commission (and at least the California commission by extension).

Based on what I've read, leadership in the California Legislature does appear ready to reopen redistricting if SCOTUS rules that way. You have to look at this from the standpoint of California Democrats. In the Legislature, they are term limited and they almost certainly want to have as many seats open for aspiring legislators to move up. I would also expect Nancy Pelosi to be spending some time in Sacramento this summer. She wants to be Speaker again and a Democratic gerrymander of California would put her that much closer to her goal. There's little doubt she'll have considerable sway in creating any new map.

As others have mentioned, it's quite easy to shore up the more endangered incumbents (and they will all be quite safe). I don't think they'll do anything quite as aggressive as SBane's CA-01, but it is quite nice from a partisan standpoint. (As for Torie's map, despite coming from a more conservative standpoint, Democrats would not leave Chico in a Republican sink. Moving that and/or all of Butte County could shift some other districts more Democratic.) Denham can be easily wiped out by adding Democratic territory to the west. Valadao's district should be redrawn from the ground up, increasing the Democratic margin and shifting significant territory around. I haven't really played around with SoCal (particularly LA County) too much, but I think we can get at least get 2-3 additional districts there. A realistic goal for any map should have Democrats at 43-45 seats in the House.

(Also, if anyone can help me with a fully VRA-compliant map, how many Hispanic-majority and/or coalition districts are required?)

[Torie]

I really hope that SCOTUS doesn't nuke independent redistricting commissions. I'm very consistent in my opposition to partisan gerrymandering (albeit not in terms of unilateral disarmament). However, I do agree with the sentiment here that SCOTUS does appear to be quite likely to strike down the Arizona commission (and at least the California commission by extension).

Based on what I've read, leadership in the California Legislature does appear ready to reopen redistricting if SCOTUS rules that way. You have to look at this from the standpoint of California Democrats. In the Legislature, they are term limited and they almost certainly want to have as many seats open for aspiring legislators to move up. I would also expect Nancy Pelosi to be spending some time in Sacramento this summer. She wants to be Speaker again and a Democratic gerrymander of California would put her that much closer to her goal. There's little doubt she'll have considerable sway in creating any new map.

As others have mentioned, it's quite easy to shore up the more endangered incumbents (and they will all be quite safe). I don't think they'll do anything quite as aggressive as SBane's CA-01, but it is quite nice from a partisan standpoint. (As for Torie's map, despite coming from a more conservative standpoint, Democrats would not leave Chico in a Republican sink. Moving that and/or all of Butte County could shift some other districts more Democratic.) Denham can be easily wiped out by adding Democratic territory to the west. Valadao's district should be redrawn from the ground up, increasing the Democratic margin and shifting significant territory around. I haven't really played around with SoCal (particularly LA County) too much, but I think we can get at least get 2-3 additional districts there. A realistic goal for any map should have Democrats at 43-45 seats in the House.

(Also, if anyone can help me with a fully VRA-compliant map, how many Hispanic-majority and/or coalition districts are required?)

Except for the east San Gabriel Valley, where one might go a tad lower, anything less than a 59% HVAP district (that translates into about 50%+ CHVAP), that can be drawn hitting the 59% figure with adjacent Hispanic communities, is questionable.

[traininthedistance]

In other news, while Train and Bane fantasize about maps on the Cali terrain that will never, ever be drawn (I doubt the Dems will go even go so far as to do what I did, and suspect they will do absolutely nothing actually but enact the existing map (inter alia, Governor Brown not wanting to unduly embarrass himself) for reasons adduced by moi above), here is a "de-gerrymandered" good government map of AZ that the Commission should have drawn, but didn't, due to the Mathis mole machinations. Cheers.

Oh, in an attempt to be as solicitous and helpful to our Dem friends as possible, and resolve all doubts in their favor without deterioration in map quality, the third map below is an alternative for Phoenix that creates 2% to 3% Pub PVI CD's per 2008 figures (subtracting 5.5 points from the inflated favorite son McCain totals to correct for that distortion in the partisan baseline (5.5 points is my guess; the trend in 2008 was 7.31%, and the trend back to the Dems in 2012 was 1.72%, so it could be anywhere from 7.31% to 1.72, and the average of the two trends would be 4.52%), and the averagewhat AZ trended from 2004 to 2008 in the Pub direction). They get this alternative map in exchange for the CA Dems leaving the existing map alone (other than perhaps strengthening Dem incumbents which they really don't need to do anymore (other than perhaps the Costa CD), but I digress).

LOL @ the idea that a tri-chop of Tempe is in any way "de-gerrymandered".  Just sayin'.

[Torie]

In other news, while Train and Bane fantasize about maps on the Cali terrain that will never, ever be drawn (I doubt the Dems will go even go so far as to do what I did, and suspect they will do absolutely nothing actually but enact the existing map (inter alia, Governor Brown not wanting to unduly embarrass himself) for reasons adduced by moi above), here is a "de-gerrymandered" good government map of AZ that the Commission should have drawn, but didn't, due to the Mathis mole machinations. Cheers.

Oh, in an attempt to be as solicitous and helpful to our Dem friends as possible, and resolve all doubts in their favor without deterioration in map quality, the third map below is an alternative for Phoenix that creates 2% to 3% Pub PVI CD's per 2008 figures (subtracting 5.5 points from the inflated favorite son McCain totals to correct for that distortion in the partisan baseline (5.5 points is my guess; the trend in 2008 was 7.31%, and the trend back to the Dems in 2012 was 1.72%, so it could be anywhere from 7.31% to 1.72, and the average of the two trends would be 4.52%), and the averagewhat AZ trended from 2004 to 2008 in the Pub direction). They get this alternative map in exchange for the CA Dems leaving the existing map alone (other than perhaps strengthening Dem incumbents which they really don't need to do anymore (other than perhaps the Costa CD), but I digress).

LOL @ the idea that a tri-chop of Tempe is in any way "de-gerrymandered".  Just sayin'.

Well, yes, and I made the map below for you (basically version two above refined to scrub all the little subunit chops where possible, which is tough because so many of the precincts have large populations in the area) looks just as pretty moving the yellow CD to append the Hispanic CD more of the way along its northern border too, which pushes both AZ-08 and AZ-05 in the Dem direction, because I am such a nice and fair guy, Train, who's always looking out for you - always.



And here is another version, that no doubt, you would think the fairest of them all, and arguably it is, because AZ-08 is less elongated, albeit with more jagged lines. But no, you guess it, the Pubs won't be drawing AZ-08 this way. It makes it into a true swing CD (maybe now slightly tilting Dem). Oh the horror, the horror, of it all!

[traininthedistance]

Well, one unfortunate thing that your map does, Torie, is to chop the rez just south of Phoenix: not that it's something that can't be fixed easy-peasy without changing the basic thrust of your other lines, but it probably is something that folks would want to keep whole even at the expense of incurring extra county chops.

This is a very quick and dirty AZ that strikes me as eminently fair.  Could obviously be refined some:





The thing with that bit of southern Phoenix in 9 is that it's on the other side of a mountain range from downtown and really is more connected to Tempe/Chandler.

Presumably this map is 3-6 most years, with one safe Dem, two lean Dem (both Tucson districts), two lean Rep (Kirkpatrick and Sinema get weakened a few points each– the commission map was a touch generous to them on the margins, but the broad shape of their districts were reasonable), and four safe Rep.  That feels about right for AZ.

[Torie]

I find your map quite hideous, Train. It may be "fair" in a skew sense, but not in any other sense. JMO. (I did the cross the mountain thing there for AZ-07 on its south end to make the map work elsewhere better, but whatever.)

Anyway, putting aside the reservation thing, here is the map that I think is the winner, and what I would have voted for if I had had Mathis' job. It just has the least erosity and chops. And AZ-08 (now numbered AZ-09), while moving about 5 points in the Pub direction, is one that the Dem incumbent might just hold (even if she might not have won it in the first instance). And no, the Pubs won't be drawing this one either. They might pick my version 3 perhaps, but that is about as "fair" as I think they will get. In the numbers below, Obama carried the existing CD twice.

 

[

[traininthedistance]

I find your map quite hideous, Train. It may be "fair" in a skew sense, but not in any other sense. JMO. (I did the cross the mountain thing there for AZ-07 on its south end to make the map work elsewhere better, but whatever.)

Care to elaborate on what, exactly, is "hideous" about it?  Honestly curious.

[socaldem]

BTW, the one I would REALLY like to get rid of is Rohrabacher. Is there a good way of doing that?

The map I am currently drawing gives him a district that voted for Obama by 11 points in 2008 (and Loretta Sanchez gets a 68% Hispanic district), although Brown lost by 7 in 2010. It's a swing seat, with a slight D lean. Of course he might just jump to the adjacent seat and take on Mimi Walters in the primary.

And I totally forgot about Valadao. There are about 4-5 easy pickups for the Democrats.

You are draining Hispanic percentages. That's the problem. Where is Valadao going to pick up more Democrats?  The Dems will pick up that seat anyway in time, and immediately if he vacates. It's trending Dem fast.

Gerrymandering the Valdao district is easy. Two points:

1. The entire reason he won and the entire reason a similar state senate district went to the GOP in two words: Kings County. Kings County is a majority latino county, but many of the latinos don't vote, so the political power rests in white GOP voters concentrated in the northern part of the district, conveniently where they can be easily grabbed and dropped into Nunes' Tulare seat.

Kings County Population: 150,960
Hispanic population: 52.7%

The 2012 vote breakdown was as follows:

Obama     Romney
12,979   17,671
41.4%   56.4%

Now without breaking out Dave's redistricting app, the county is divided into 5 supervisor districts, equal in population. http://www.countyofkings.com/about-us/district-map

A shift of the entire districts 3 and 5 out of the district would have the following effect:

King County in the Valdeo district:

          Obama   Romney
Dist 1 2,095   2,984
Dist 2 2,564   1,421
Dist 4 2,835   2,970
   
Total 7,494   7,375
Obama 50.4%

King County shifted to Nunes:

Dist 3 2,460   4,935
Dist 5 3,025   5,361
Total   5,485   10,296
Obama 34.7%

Obviously, a more careful gerrymander could produce an even more dramatic result than this simple demonstration.

Valdao had a 9,500 vote margin out of Kings County in 2014 and a 17,500 margin out of the county in 2012. It makes a big difference, though wouldn't have been enough to guarantee the Dems victory in either year.

2. Grab more Democratic territory in Bakersfield. The gerrymander has room to grab more Dem and moderate territory in Bakersfield, which should be the base for the next congressman from the district.

[hopper]

Does it make a difference anyway? Almost everything is gerrymandered now. If you want to contest a gerrymander you can go to the Supreme Court with your case. Remember Delay-Mander in 2003 I think TX-23 had to be redrawn.

[Sbane]

In other news, while Train and Bane fantasize about maps on the Cali terrain that will never, ever be drawn (I doubt the Dems will go even go so far as to do what I did, and suspect they will do absolutely nothing actually but enact the existing map (inter alia, Governor Brown not wanting to unduly embarrass himself) for reasons adduced by moi above), here is a "de-gerrymandered" good government map of AZ that the Commission should have drawn, but didn't, due to the Mathis mole machinations. Cheers.

Oh, in an attempt to be as solicitous and helpful to our Dem friends as possible, and resolve all doubts in their favor without deterioration in map quality, the third map below is an alternative for Phoenix that creates 2% to 3% Pub PVI CD's per 2008 figures (subtracting 5.5 points from the inflated favorite son McCain totals to correct for that distortion in the partisan baseline (5.5 points is my guess; the trend in 2008 was 7.31%, and the trend back to the Dems in 2012 was 1.72%, so it could be anywhere from 7.31% to 1.72, and the average of the two trends would be 4.52%), and the averagewhat AZ trended from 2004 to 2008 in the Pub direction). They get this alternative map in exchange for the CA Dems leaving the existing map alone (other than perhaps strengthening Dem incumbents which they really don't need to do anymore (other than perhaps the Costa CD), but I digress).

That map is a nasty gerrymander of Tucscon. And what you did with Tempe was cute too. Do you genuinely believe this is not a Republican gerrymander you have drawn?

[traininthedistance]

Except for the east San Gabriel Valley, where one might go a tad lower, anything less than a 59% HVAP district (that translates into about 50%+ CHVAP), that can be drawn hitting the 59% figure with adjacent Hispanic communities, is questionable.

CA currently has a number of Hispanic districts in other places with percentages lower than that– a quick look seems to indicate that the current 31 and 41, in the Inland Empire, should fit the bill.  Arguably 36 as well.

Really it's only in the Central Valley where you need those gaudy numbers.

[jimrtex]

Based on what I've read, leadership in the California Legislature does appear ready to reopen redistricting if SCOTUS rules that way. You have to look at this from the standpoint of California Democrats. In the Legislature, they are term limited and they almost certainly want to have as many seats open for aspiring legislators to move up. I would also expect Nancy Pelosi to be spending some time in Sacramento this summer. She wants to be Speaker again and a Democratic gerrymander of California would put her that much closer to her goal. There's little doubt she'll have considerable sway in creating any new map.

Legislation by the General Assembly is subject to a referendum.  Once the referendum petition is lodge, the act is suspended.  The General Assembly could attach an urgency clause, which would make the plan immune from a referendum, except that Democrats don't have a 2/3 majority in either house.

In the past, when this has happened, the California Supreme Court has let the enacted plan go into effect on a provisional basis, but that is because the previous plan had the wrong number of congressional districts.  But the current plan has the correct number and was based on the 2000 Census.

In the 1980s redistricting, Chief Justice Liberal Rose Bird also ordered that the legislative gerrymander for the house and senate go into effect, claiming that population changes since the 1970s made the 1970 plan no longer comply with OMOV.   The voters rejected the Jerrymanders by 63-65% margins.  But the incoming legislators elected on the Jerrymandered boundaries, re-enacted the plans and added urgency clauses.   Jerrymander Brown I signed the bills before he left office.

So legislature passes congressional Jerrymander.  Referendum is petitioned for.  The California Consitution requires referendums to be held at the next general election.  The California legislature has recently defined a "general election" to be the election in November of even-numbered years.

Since the Jerrymander referendum will be on the ballot in November 2016, the 2016 congressional districts will be held on the current boundaries.

In addition, there will be an initiative to correct the current redistricting provisions with regard to congressional redistricting.  The redistricting commission will propose a map to the legislature.  The legislature may adopt the commission's map, or propose an alternative.  In that case, there will be a mandatory referendum with the two plans on the ballot.

[Torie]

In other news, while Train and Bane fantasize about maps on the Cali terrain that will never, ever be drawn (I doubt the Dems will go even go so far as to do what I did, and suspect they will do absolutely nothing actually but enact the existing map (inter alia, Governor Brown not wanting to unduly embarrass himself) for reasons adduced by moi above), here is a "de-gerrymandered" good government map of AZ that the Commission should have drawn, but didn't, due to the Mathis mole machinations. Cheers.

Oh, in an attempt to be as solicitous and helpful to our Dem friends as possible, and resolve all doubts in their favor without deterioration in map quality, the third map below is an alternative for Phoenix that creates 2% to 3% Pub PVI CD's per 2008 figures (subtracting 5.5 points from the inflated favorite son McCain totals to correct for that distortion in the partisan baseline (5.5 points is my guess; the trend in 2008 was 7.31%, and the trend back to the Dems in 2012 was 1.72%, so it could be anywhere from 7.31% to 1.72, and the average of the two trends would be 4.52%), and the averagewhat AZ trended from 2004 to 2008 in the Pub direction). They get this alternative map in exchange for the CA Dems leaving the existing map alone (other than perhaps strengthening Dem incumbents which they really don't need to do anymore (other than perhaps the Costa CD), but I digress).

That map is a nasty gerrymander of Tucscon. And what you did with Tempe was cute too. Do you genuinely believe this is not a Republican gerrymander you have drawn?

Tempe doesn't matter much and I fixed it (notice that it is not put in the Mesa Pub vote sink). That "nasty gerrymander" of Tucson keeps AZ-03 out of Phoenix (while keeping the HVAP over 50%), and keeps the straightest lines, with the least erosity, and tries to respect subunits.  My main goal was to try to draw a map that the Pubs might draw, that is anything but some grotesque gerrymander, and is perfectly defensible as respecting good government principles. What it does not do is try to reflect the skew, using inflated partisan baseline numbers. That cannot be remotely said of any map proposed here that the Dems might draw in CA to "get even." And the AZ Pubs should bear that in mind, in order not to give the CA Dems (the "get even" ones), fuel for their fodder.

However, if the CA Dems get their hormones up too high, the AZ Pubs should send the map below to them (let's call it the "krazen AZ-03 Horseshoe map," on which the AZ Pub red racing horse to turn a phrase can gallop), although no doubt there is  more Pub gerrymandering work to do here (there are two to four surplus Pub points left to spare to try to ship into AZ-03), but I think I have accomplished the bulk of it. It's the kind of map you boys are drawing. No, the VRA does not protect AZ-03 actually (one need not connect widely disparate Hispanic communities, and the Hispanics in Tucson are kept together in all events). It was those white liberals around the University of Arizona that were jettisoned out of AZ-03 and into a formerly Pub sink CD. And those folks per amount of population vote in high percentages, so per amount of population, you get a lot of partisan bang for your buck. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail, and we can just settle for my nice little good government, albeit "skewed" map, and call it a day.



Oh, I chopped a Reservation again. Can't have that. The map below is "better" anyway. It looks less erose.

[krazen1211]

Gerrymandering time!

[Sbane]

Toriie, is the current Hispanic district 50% HVAP? I don't think it is and there is no reason to racially gerrymander to such an extent.

A good government map should have one whole district within Pima county. it would be very hard to convince me otherwise. What argument do you even have, besides inflating Hispanic numbers for no reason.

Your map isn't the worst Republican gerrymander (well, the last one is) but is certainly still a gerrymander. Furthermore, it most certainly is not a "good government" map and you should stop calling it that.

[Torie]

Toriie, is the current Hispanic district 50% HVAP? I don't think it is and there is no reason to racially gerrymander to such an extent.

A good government map should have one whole district within Pima county. it would be very hard to convince me otherwise. What argument do you even have, besides inflating Hispanic numbers for no reason.

Your map isn't the worst Republican gerrymander (well, the last one is) but is certainly still a gerrymander. Furthermore, it most certainly is not a "good government" map and you should stop calling it that.

Well we will just have to agree to disagree. AZ-03 is 60% Hispanic (probably just based on population - HVAP might be more like 55%); they really packed it. The "Dem" AZ Commission moved the white liberals in Tucson into AZ-02, and AZ-03 took in lots of Hispanics in the Phoenix area to find the replacement, this time Hispanic, Democrats (which since they tend not to vote in high numbers, is why the Dem Hispanic incumbent's margins tend to be somewhat lackluster now). My little reverse gerrymander just moved the white liberals back out of AZ-02, but instead of going into AZ-03, they went into a Pub vote sink instead.  White liberals (and of course blacks when not leashed by the VRA), are the key groups to move around when gerrymandering.

Obviously krazen is more skilled at this than I am (having a Pub vote sink take in the white liberals, and the Dem Phoenix Hispanic vote sink take in the Hispanics, in a tag team effort to chop Tucson to bits). Now AZ-03 has basically mostly moved to Phoenix, except that rather than Hispanic Phoenix, it's now white Pub Phoenix. The only flaw in his map is that he failed to have all the AZ CD's take in some of Maricopa County, but he got closer than I did. Those Mormons in Mesa and environs are just spreading their seed everywhere as it were.

However, I am not sure kraxen's map is legal under the VRA. Creating an ersatz Hispanic CD like that, losing Hispanics on the perimeters in various locations to take in the core in disparate locations, might be viewed as racial gerrymandering ala that NC map, where SCOTUS axed that Watt CD back when. It may have taken erosity a bit too far. The point being that if an Hispanic (black) CD can be created that is compact, is it legal to make one hideously erose, going all over the state? Interesting question. Maybe Muon2 has a thought on it. It's one thing to create a majority minority CD that can only be done by going all over the place (not mandated of course, but legal); quite another when it is unnecessary to do so, to create the requisite majority minority CD.

Off topic, sbane, but what do you think my signature map is about?  You still in Nashville by the way?

[Torie]

In other news, while Train and Bane fantasize about maps on the Cali terrain that will never, ever be drawn (I doubt the Dems will go even go so far as to do what I did, and suspect they will do absolutely nothing actually but enact the existing map (inter alia, Governor Brown not wanting to unduly embarrass himself) for reasons adduced by moi above), here is a "de-gerrymandered" good government map of AZ that the Commission should have drawn, but didn't, due to the Mathis mole machinations. Cheers.

Oh, in an attempt to be as solicitous and helpful to our Dem friends as possible, and resolve all doubts in their favor without deterioration in map quality, the third map below is an alternative for Phoenix that creates 2% to 3% Pub PVI CD's per 2008 figures (subtracting 5.5 points from the inflated favorite son McCain totals to correct for that distortion in the partisan baseline (5.5 points is my guess; the trend in 2008 was 7.31%, and the trend back to the Dems in 2012 was 1.72%, so it could be anywhere from 7.31% to 1.72, and the average of the two trends would be 4.52%), and the averagewhat AZ trended from 2004 to 2008 in the Pub direction). They get this alternative map in exchange for the CA Dems leaving the existing map alone (other than perhaps strengthening Dem incumbents which they really don't need to do anymore (other than perhaps the Costa CD), but I digress).

That map is a nasty gerrymander of Tucscon. And what you did with Tempe was cute too. Do you genuinely believe this is not a Republican gerrymander you have drawn?

Oh, did you ever draw a map that kept Tucson and adjacent Hispanic areas (I assume that you don't want to chop up the Hispanic community) all in one CD? You keep talking about chopping Tucson, but all the maps chop. The thing is, is that if you keep Tucson whole, sure it's Dem, but doesn't that make AZ-02 safely Pub in turn (you just turned the second Hispanic CD into a white liberal CD)?

Below is a map that keeps Tucson and adjacent burbs and Hispanics together, in a responsible way. Now what?



Maybe something like this?  You know what, I think the Pubs, if not in a krazen mood, might just cut a deal with you.   Moral of the story: once you lose from AZ-02 the white liberals in Tucson to unite the city in one CD, AZ-02 becomes safe Pub. That was the last thing the "Dem" AZ Commission wanted to do. They think your idea sucks, actually.

[traininthedistance]

In other news, while Train and Bane fantasize about maps on the Cali terrain that will never, ever be drawn (I doubt the Dems will go even go so far as to do what I did, and suspect they will do absolutely nothing actually but enact the existing map (inter alia, Governor Brown not wanting to unduly embarrass himself) for reasons adduced by moi above), here is a "de-gerrymandered" good government map of AZ that the Commission should have drawn, but didn't, due to the Mathis mole machinations. Cheers.

Oh, in an attempt to be as solicitous and helpful to our Dem friends as possible, and resolve all doubts in their favor without deterioration in map quality, the third map below is an alternative for Phoenix that creates 2% to 3% Pub PVI CD's per 2008 figures (subtracting 5.5 points from the inflated favorite son McCain totals to correct for that distortion in the partisan baseline (5.5 points is my guess; the trend in 2008 was 7.31%, and the trend back to the Dems in 2012 was 1.72%, so it could be anywhere from 7.31% to 1.72, and the average of the two trends would be 4.52%), and the averagewhat AZ trended from 2004 to 2008 in the Pub direction). They get this alternative map in exchange for the CA Dems leaving the existing map alone (other than perhaps strengthening Dem incumbents which they really don't need to do anymore (other than perhaps the Costa CD), but I digress).

That map is a nasty gerrymander of Tucscon. And what you did with Tempe was cute too. Do you genuinely believe this is not a Republican gerrymander you have drawn?

Oh, did you ever draw a map that had a whole CD in Pima County? You keep talking about chopping Pima, but all the maps chop. The think is, is that if you keep Pima whole, sure it's Dem, but doesn't that make AZ-01 safely Pub in turn?

Well, "have a whole district in Pima" is exactly what my map did.  And yes I'm aware that helps the Pubs in AZ-1; it's a fair tradeoff.  (And it's not like it's even safe Dem or anything, anyway.)

[muon2]

However, I am not sure kraxen's map is legal under the VRA. Creating an ersatz Hispanic CD like that, losing Hispanics on the perimeters in various locations to take in the core in disparate locations, might be viewed as racial gerrymandering ala that NC map, where SCOTUS axed that Watt CD back when. It may have taken erosity a bit too far. The point being that if an Hispanic (black) CD can be created that is compact, is it legal to make one hideously erose, going all over the state? Interesting question. Maybe Muon2 has a thought on it. It's one thing to create a majority minority CD that can only be done by going all over the place (not mandated of course, but legal); quite another when it is unnecessary to do so, to create the requisite majority minority CD.

I think the current VA case touches on that very issue. The lower court, citing other cases, said that VA-3 was drawn with race as the primary factor. The unusual shape including the hopscotch down the river led to that conclusion, and it was recognized that there were other districts that could provide an opportunity for the minority to elect a candidate of choice without the gerrymander.

At the other extreme is a district like IL-4. It was originally created in 1991 and the bizarre shape was upheld, since to directly connect the two Hispanic neighborhoods would have bisected a black majority CD. The operating conclusion was that an unusual shape for a VRA district had to be strongly justified by the state - basically that the burden is on the state to show that a strange-shaped district was the only means to comport with section 2. That concept applied in part in LULAC (TX), where the remade Hispanic CD could not be justified and the map was overturned.

I think Krazen's map could be easily attacked and would be hard to defend.

I found this map that I put together in Nov 2011 during the AZ commission debate.


I wasn't using political data when this was designed, only putting in two Hispanic CDs. It ends up with 6 firm R, 1 lean R and 2 firm D districts.

Also, my districts have an average deviation of only 66, an inequality score of 2. I'm not sure how to calculate erosity in AZ yet.