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

[Torie]

Read all about it here.

If so, the Pubs get to gerrymander AZ, and bye bye two Dem seats. However, if so inclined, the Dems in CA can retaliate. Sure, they can shore up all the marginal Dem seats, but how many more can they get that seem realistic, without discommoding incumbents, or violating the VRA? I can see Denholm going, and maybe one NorCal seat, and maybe the Antelope Valley seat (tougher that one), but I am not sure how much more is practically possible (that marginal seat around Bakersfield, is already surrounded by very Pub areas, and subject to the VRA), and I suspect Jerry Brown may say just say chill. The current map is already something of a Dem gerrymander, and the Dems have held most of the marginal seats already. The Pubs just struck out in the last election.

I am not sure any other states have independent commissions, in which the legislature had no hand, so those will all survive. Well other than Florida, come to think of it. Probably not too much potential for Pub gains there either.

So this Board may become more active!  

[Torie]

Roguemapper at RRH is finalizing a 48D 5R map of CA.

The pressure from national Democrats would be too much for the CA Dems not to go for as many seats at they can.

Read some more at RRH. It isn't realistic, and isn't going to happen. But hey, draw a map yourself!

[Torie]

Yeah, I'm not even sure why the AZGOP did this in the first place. Are they that pissed off at Colleen Mathis that they'd be willing to throw the entire party under the bus?

Isn't it the case though, that IA-style commissions may still be constitutional, considering that they've still got some legislative input?

Iowa is a legislature created commission (as opposed to initiative created by the voters without legislative input), as to which the Legislature has some input in any case. It's Constitutionally safe. Ditto for all Court drawn maps, ala NY and MN.

[Torie]

Here's an overview of the states/laws that would be impacted.

SD can't be in play with but one seat, and this only obtains to Congressional seats, not state legislative ones, as I understand it. SCOTUS isn't going to get into who gets to vote laws, with what kind of identification.

[Torie]

The problem for the Dems is that the Pub redoubts are a long way away from the Dem concentrations, and San Diego does not have enough Dems to go after the remaining Pubs CD's in that area (plus one seat is an Hispanic seat, so those voters are "trapped"). LA cannot go after the Pub districts in Orange County really, again because the adjacent districts are Hispanic, plus Long Beach, which isn't that Dem. There are Pubs in the NE corner of the state that will be hard to get at, because Sacto isn't that Dem. The Central Valley is already gerrymandered in favor of the Dems due to the Hispanic districts, and the central coast is not that Dem. The exception to this is the Denholm seat, that with some erosity can move some Alameda County Dems into it, plus include Stockton. It will be hard to get at the Victorville CD, because the CD's in the San Garbriel Valley are Hispanic districts (plus one Asian one, also not that Dem). I can see getting rid of the Pub district in the Antelope Valley by moving some San Fernando Valley Dems into it from the non Hispanic San Fernando Valley CD (Brad Sherman's), and probably doing in the Shasta County based Pub district, by attacking it from Santa Rosa County (the other Dem areas up there are already used to keep the the CD that has Vallejo and Napa in it Dem, and it is has no Dems to spare to give away).  

What the Dems can do is make all the marginal Dem seats safe, plus I think take three Pub seats, but more likely two since I don't think they will be too keen to append Santa Rosa County to Shasta. So in addition to doing in the Denholm CD as described above, just weaken the Antelope Valley CD to make it lean Dem by sending some Brad Sherman Dems into it, and removing some more Pubs from Lancaster into the Pub Kern County sink CD, and make CA-07 (the Bera CD), and CA-52 (the Peters seat), safe, and jiggle the lines some to make the Costa seat around Fresno safer, and move Malibu and Topanga to CA-26 to move that seat more out of the marginal Dem category.

So the Pubs get two seats in AZ, and the Dems two in CA. It's a wash. Maybe the Pubs can squeeze one more seat out of Florida, maybe two (make more Pub the Graham and Murphy seats), but it won't be easy, and I tend to doubt they will go there.

[Torie]

There is a simple fix available to states with independent commissions. Follow IA's lead and send plans to the legislature for an up or down vote. In IA the bureau that drafts the bills is given the task of drawing the legislative and congressional maps following statutory criteria. The bureau sends the plans to the legislature for an up or down vote without amendment. If the plan fails it goes back to bureau for another try, perhaps guided by comments the legislature is permitted to send with their rejection. The process is repeated up to three times. If the third plan is rejected, then the matter goes to the courts.

In commission states, just replace the bill drafting bureau with the commission, but otherwise follow that procedure. The legislature stays in the process with the final say on the map.

But in Iowa, didn't the legislature create the structure in the first instance? I am not sure an initiative based law not passed by the legislature, that just has the legislature involved at the end with a mere veto power to send it to the courts, will pass muster, assuming SCOTUS strikes down the AZ structure.

[Torie]

What is the constitutional rationale behind this? It seems utterly nonsensical to me.

The text of the Constitution, that specifically states that it is the state legislatures that draw the lines, rather than merely referring to the states as having that power.

[Torie]

What is the constitutional rationale behind this? It seems utterly nonsensical to me.

The text of the Constitution, that specifically states that it is the state legislatures that draw the lines, rather than merely referring to the states as having that power.

I assume you refer to Article 1, Section 4: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

First of all, one could make the argument that, in States where popular initiatives are recognized, the people itself constitutes one branch of the "legislature". Since the US Constitution contains no precise definition of the term, the legislature has to mean "those who hold legislative power". If the State Constitution recognizes a right for the people to legislate directly through initiatives or referendums, then the people voting for these initiatives are functionally equivalent to elected representatives voting on a bill.

If the power to alter electoral regulation is vested in the holders of legislative power in a given State, then it follows that citizens have the same right as their representatives to enact electoral regulations. Secondly, the exercise of the power must always come with the possibility to delegate such power to a different body. If the people, in their quality of legislators, resolve to grant their redistricting power to a nonpartisan commission, they are merely exercising their Constitutional right to its full extent.

It's a rather tough road to travel to successfully assert that the term "the Legislature," refers not to an elected body, but rather is more inclusive to also the people of the state as a whole  who in some sense hold legislative power via enacting referenda. There would be no need to refer to "the Legislature," if what was intended was that the States can draw the lines via any lawful means, they could have just said "shall be prescribed by each state ... ." The fact that the term "Legislature" is capitalized does not help either.

[Torie]

There is a simple fix available to states with independent commissions. Follow IA's lead and send plans to the legislature for an up or down vote. In IA the bureau that drafts the bills is given the task of drawing the legislative and congressional maps following statutory criteria. The bureau sends the plans to the legislature for an up or down vote without amendment. If the plan fails it goes back to bureau for another try, perhaps guided by comments the legislature is permitted to send with their rejection. The process is repeated up to three times. If the third plan is rejected, then the matter goes to the courts.

In commission states, just replace the bill drafting bureau with the commission, but otherwise follow that procedure. The legislature stays in the process with the final say on the map.

But in Iowa, didn't the legislature create the structure in the first instance? I am not sure an initiative based law not passed by the legislature, that just has the legislature involved at the end with a mere veto power to send it to the courts, will pass muster, assuming SCOTUS strikes down the AZ structure.

I think that will be a question many will be looking at the opinion to determine. There are lots of initiative-based election laws in states that could be impacted based on the questions from the liberal justices. If the ruling stays narrow to the act of redistricting and overturns AZ, will it be because it was by initiative or because it was a plan without legislative approval. The legislature need not be the sole approver of the plan since most states require the Gov's signature on the redistricting bill. It seems to me that initiatives may still be able to dictate the manner in which the legislature performs its redistricting function, even if they can't strip that function entirely.

Yes, except the Legislature can override the Governor's veto, and indeed that is the way any law gets enacted by a State. So that argument I don't think adds much. So, a total preclusion of the Legislature passing what it wants, albeit perhaps with a supra majority, remains questionable. I suppose  referenda could perhaps require that if the Legislature does not hew to certain parameters, then there needs be a supra majority to pass the redistricting law - even before it gets to the Governor's desk. That might be the best analogy to the tracking of the current regime. And that in practice in most cases would get where one wants to go, except in states where one party typically holds the requisite supra majority in the Legislature.

[Torie]

What is the constitutional rationale behind this? It seems utterly nonsensical to me.

The text of the Constitution, that specifically states that it is the state legislatures that draw the lines, rather than merely referring to the states as having that power.

I assume you refer to Article 1, Section 4: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

First of all, one could make the argument that, in States where popular initiatives are recognized, the people itself constitutes one branch of the "legislature". Since the US Constitution contains no precise definition of the term, the legislature has to mean "those who hold legislative power". If the State Constitution recognizes a right for the people to legislate directly through initiatives or referendums, then the people voting for these initiatives are functionally equivalent to elected representatives voting on a bill.

If the power to alter electoral regulation is vested in the holders of legislative power in a given State, then it follows that citizens have the same right as their representatives to enact electoral regulations. Secondly, the exercise of the power must always come with the possibility to delegate such power to a different body. If the people, in their quality of legislators, resolve to grant their redistricting power to a nonpartisan commission, they are merely exercising their Constitutional right to its full extent.

It's a rather tough road to travel to successfully assert that the term "the Legislature," refers not to an elected body, but rather is more inclusive to also the people of the state as a whole  who in some sense hold legislative power via enacting referenda. There would be no need to refer to "the Legislature," if what was intended was that the States can draw the lines via any lawful means, they could have just said "shall be prescribed by each state ... ." The fact that the term "Legislature" is capitalized does not help either.

The Framers probably could not conceive the idea of direct popular government at the State level (something which only began during the Progressive Era), so I doubt they would have bothered to make that distinction explicit.

Nonetheless, Merriam-Webster defines "legislature" as "a group of people with the power to make or change laws". Nowhere is it specified that this group has to be elected.

Nobody thinks legislature means the people as a whole, as opposed to a selected elected group, and you still have the capitalization issue.

[Torie]

Beyond parody.

If you characterize all of this that way, I wonder then how you would characterize this? What words are left to describe it? 

[Torie]

Does this have a real chance of getting struck down?

About 2 to 1 odds is my guess. The only hope for the Commission is that Kennedy, after pounding them in oral argument, might reflect and think better of it all. But then Kennedy was a militant when it came to killing off Obamacare. His moderate reputation is waning. Breyer said nothing by the way in oral argument. That is not a good sign either. He's not afraid of talking if he thinks there is a point to be made that serves the cause of his wing of the Court.

[Torie]

On second look, restricting Republicans to just 10 seats in California won't be so hard to do. And even Jerry Brown won't stop the greedy democrats in the legislature if the SCOTUS delivers such a decision on party line.

What's the fourth seat?

[Torie]

On second look, restricting Republicans to just 10 seats in California won't be so hard to do. And even Jerry Brown won't stop the greedy democrats in the legislature if the SCOTUS delivers such a decision on party line.

What's the fourth seat?

There are so many things that could be done. Think very ugly. For instance, 1 and 4 could be merged, the rest cut into pieces and attached to coastal areas. I mean, by shifting 3 a bit south, you could both strengthen it and bring up 5 - tonnes of spare Dems there and in 2.  Meanwhile, Matsui´s district could be used to strengthen Bera - no problem there. So, choose between La Malfa and McClintock, if you like. Denham, of course, would go fast, and getting rid of Valadao will not be difficult either. Knight should be doable, no? So, 4 should work easily. The question is, can one do 7 or 8?

You boys keeping the VRA in mind?  Where are the Dem areas around the Valadao CD? The Matsui CD will need to be used to help ax Denholm, and buttress Bera. And in in order to cut down the the two Pub CD's east and north of Sacto, the map would need to get really ugly I suspect. I don't think it will happen. The Central Coast is not that Dem, and Monterey County is VRA territory. And the Dem incumbents won't stand for it to boot. I suspect 2 Pub seats is the realistic number (some Dem psephological guru quoted at RRH agrees with me). Most of the surplus Dems will be used to buttress Dem marginal seats, and even that will require a lot of subunit chopping, that in and of itself is controversial. The City of Sacto for example will need to be chopped. Time for some maps! 

[Torie]

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.

[Torie]

The odds the Dems will draw a map such as sbane's, and Brown will sign off on it, are vanishingly small. It just isn't done that way, and neither the electorate, nor the incumbent Dems, will stand for it. Until the program crashed, it is pretty realistic without upsetting the apple cart too much to hold the Pubs down to one seat in Norcal, flushing Denholm and combining the other two Pub seats up there. It does require a nasty chop of Santa Rosa and a traveling CD over Napa to do it however. Basically Santa Rosa chops up about half of one of those seats, and Matsui's CD would take down about a quarter (taking Yuba County and the Dem part of Nevada County, and the balance (mostly Placer County), would move into the Pub sink seat. Then CA-03, the Garamendi seat, could be used to help eviscerate the Denholm seat, taking in Marin, the southern part of Napa, Yolo County, and then move into the Denholm seat.

[Torie]

Well my attempt to jettison a Pub NorCal CD, other than Denholm's, in a map that is even remotely realistic, rather than some "fajita strip" fantasy, proved to be a spectacular failure. Maybe I am just not very good at Dem gerrymanders.  Sure if there were more of a twist, and the SF CD took in Marin, more might be done, but it just isn't going to happen. The Dem incumbents will not stand for pushing their CD's around willy nilly like that, for relatively modest gains.

In the map below, Denholm is blown away, and the least Dem PVI outside the two Pub vote sink CD's is 59.4% Obama. But my guess is that it just isn't going to happen. If the Dems do a new map, in Norcal, they will just move some precincts around to strengthen Bera in CA-07, and weaken Denholm in CA-10. In the rest of the state, it will be to take over the Antelope Valley CD, and strengthen Peters in CA-52. But given that the trends are going Bera's and Peter's way, and for the Dems in the Antelope Valley CD as well, as the white working class slowly fades away, and ditto the Valadio CD in the Kern County area, you know what? I suspect they will do absolutely nothing. The modest Dem gerrrymander that the Commission effected, plus the trends, have largely done the job. You all can write that down. Cheers.

[Torie]

The Republican Party should promptly gerrymander Arizona into 8 Republican seats.

The VRA gives the Dems two Hispanic seats, not one.

[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).

[/

[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.

[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!

[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.

 

[

[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.

[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.