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

[Sbane]

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! 

Fajita strips from Orange County to Los Angeles is always an option. A sane gerrymander would pretty much max out where you indicate. As you mention, shoring up the multiple democrats who barely won in 2014 would be the highest priority.

[Sbane]

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.

[Sbane]

Can the Supreme Court rule in such a way so that this only applies to AZ and not CA?

[Sbane]

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?

Ed Royce's district. Give him Pomona.

[Sbane]

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.

[Sbane]

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?

Where are the Dem areas around the Valadao CD?

I just drew a district in that area which is 75% Hispanic and Obama won by 20 points in 2008. And Costa has a 19 point Obama 2008 district, which is 2 points higher than what he has now. Both districts are entirely within the Central Valley.

[Sbane]

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.

Draining Hispanic percentages? If you are talking about including Pomona in CA-39, CA-35 is not that adversely affected by it. The Hispanic percentage in CA-35 is at 62% and it is a solid Democratic district along with a CA-31 that is a couple points more Democratic than the current district. CA-31 is 50% Hispanic.

As for Valadao's district, it is very easy to draw a Democratic district there as long as you avoid most of Tulare and Kings County. You basically put all the small farming towns in Fresno County plus Hispanics in Kern County and a sliver of south Fresno together and you have a solid Democratic district.

Overall, I got 44-7-2. One of those swing districts is Issa's. So he will not be coming back to Congress. A Republican can win in that district, but not Darrel Issa.

[Sbane]

Here is Orange County:


San Diego:

[Sbane]

LA Area:

[Sbane]

Central California:

[Sbane]

When you are drawing those DRA maps for a Dem gerry, I would ignore the 2008 pres numbers. The Dems would certainly want to be no worse than Brown in 2010 to protect against midterm defeats.

All of the Democratic districts are Brown 2010 districts. The two swing districts are Obama/Whitman districts although Obama won both districts in 2012 and Brown won them in 2014.

[Sbane]

How many seats would the democrats get with this map?
Would the majority leader be in trouble?

7 would be the max meaning they would lose 7 seats. Factor in a loss of 2 seats in AZ, and you have a net loss of 5. If we give the two swing districts to the Republicans, that is still a gain of 5 districts in CA for the Democrats.

[Sbane]

How many seats would the democrats get with this map?
Would the majority leader be in trouble?

7 would be the max meaning they would lose 7 seats. Factor in a loss of 2 seats in AZ, and you have a net loss of 5. If we give the two swing districts to the Republicans, that is still a gain of 5 districts in CA for the Democrats.

Do you believe the democrats would be able to draw an even more anti republican map?

It's possible but it gets hard to draw strong enough Hispanic districts at that point and the seats start to become vulnerable in waves. I made sure to strengthen most of the current swing districts, if only by a couple points. Trying to get an additional seat is likely not worth it.

[Sbane]

How many seats would the democrats get with this map?
Would the majority leader be in trouble?

7 would be the max meaning they would lose 7 seats. Factor in a loss of 2 seats in AZ, and you have a net loss of 5. If we give the two swing districts to the Republicans, that is still a gain of 5 districts in CA for the Democrats.

Do you believe the democrats would be able to draw an even more anti republican map?

It's possible but it gets hard to draw strong enough Hispanic districts at that point and the seats start to become vulnerable in waves. I made sure to strengthen most of the current swing districts, if only by a couple points. Trying to get an additional seat is likely not worth it.

So, who survives?

Mclintock, Nunes, McCarthy, Cook, Walters, Calvert and Hunter. Issa and Rohrbacher get the swing districts. I will try to post the numbers for each district and maybe a write up time permitting later on today.

[Sbane]

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.

This map is going to be in the aftermath of a partisan decision by the Supreme Court (doubly so if they also mess with the ACA). The gloves will be off. I am absolutely incensed by the fact the Supreme Court would even think of getting rid of redistricting commissions so that AZ Republicans would have the right to gerrymander. I can only imagine how partisan Democrats feel. The new map would be drawn in an environment where the number one objective will be to F over Republicans, and all Democrats will be united behind that.

Also you say "it isn't done that way". Have you had a chance to look at the OH, PA and especially the NC map?

[Sbane]

http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2015/03/supreme-court-opens-the-door-to-a-democratic-gerrymander/
An interesting article!

Denham should most certainly not have a safe Republican district. His district is possibly the easiest to flip. Overall this plan is just way, way too safe. For example, why should Democratic areas from Steve Knight's district be given to already safe Democratic districts? That's just retarded.

[Sbane]

This map is going to be in the aftermath of a partisan decision by the Supreme Court (doubly so if they also mess with the ACA). The gloves will be off. I am absolutely incensed by the fact the Supreme Court would even think of getting rid of redistricting commissions so that AZ Republicans would have the right to gerrymander. I can only imagine how partisan Democrats feel. The new map would be drawn in an environment where the number one objective will be to F over Republicans, and all Democrats will be united behind that.

Also you say "it isn't done that way". Have you had a chance to look at the OH, PA and especially the NC map?

Strange that you assume it automatically has to be partisan.  It can't possibly be based on, you know, the text of the Constitution. 

If it also gives CA Dems the ability to gerrymander, wouldn't that make it biased in favor of Dems, anyway? 

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?

This is a partisan lawsuit, similar to the latest ACA lawsuit, initiated by the Republican party of Arizona. It would be extremely naive to assume otherwise.

[Sbane]

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?

[Sbane]

That is such a weak gerrymander, Torie. You realize you are drawing a gerrymander, right? Seriously, go take another look at NC.

 My u-shaped district might be a little odd, but even that is not required to get rid of La Malfa. I got a little carried over there with minimal return, and would jettison it in a final map. And getting rid of Denham is oh so easy. Look at my map for an example. Just give him places like Gilroy, Morgan Hill and a small slice of San Jose. All the Bay Area reps represent basically the same areas they were before in my map. Also, you should not use McClintock's district to crack Stanislaus County. Nunes's district should be doing that.

Furthermore, the map I posted here is not the "fajita strips" map. That map would restrict the Republicans to like 5 seats.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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?

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.

I don't care what some partisans want. A whole district within Pima county is what makes sense and what a fair map would draw. Keep the metro area and county whole as much as possible.

And yes, I have drawn a map that keep Pima county together and the leftover population are the Hispanic areas which are put in Grijalva's district.

[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.

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?

I drew a district wholly within Pima County and used the excess to pad the Hispanic numbers in AZ-3. AZ-2 is a swing district with Obama and McCain getting almost the same number of votes. AZ-4 is more than 65% Hispanic. So you can have a district that is wholly within Pima County as well as two districts that can elect Hispanics.

Yeah, I am in Nashville until this summer. Plans after that haven't been finalized yet. Stay tuned!

And the mystery of the map was already solved on page 4 of this thread.