Mid-2014 county population estimates out tomorrow, March 26

[KingSweden]

Muon and Torie, is it alright if I use some of your estimates/maps on here as a baseline for drawing maps for my timeline?

[muon2]

Muon and Torie, is it alright if I use some of your estimates/maps on here as a baseline for drawing maps for my timeline?

Why not? It's all for Atlas, right?

[muon2]

While I'm looking at the West Coast, here's CA. CA is assumed to gain a CD to 54 in 2020. UCCs are generally preserved, though some splits are hard to avoid without sticking together large regions. Regions are consistent within 5% of a district population, though some multi-district regions may vary by more as a whole, though not by district. In particular Fresno is under as a region and San Diego is over. The numbers show the projected population for each region in terms of the CD quota.

North (1 - lilac): 0.983.
Sacto Valley (1 - purple): 0.975
Sacramento (3 - red): 2.979
Sonoma (1 - lime): 1.048
SF Bay (10 - green): 9.953
Stockton (1 - gray): 0.999
Modesto (1 - orange): 0.970
Fresno (2 - pink): 1.918
Monterey (1 - brown): 0.983
Bakersfield (2 - yellow): 2.043
Los Angeles (20 - beige): 20.031
San Diego (11 - gold): 11.119

[KingSweden]

Muon and Torie, is it alright if I use some of your estimates/maps on here as a baseline for drawing maps for my timeline?

Why not? It's all for Atlas, right?

Absolutely, and I'd credit both you and Torie in the TL.

[muon2]

It's easy to divide ID into two CDs using whole counties. The challenge is that one cannot both preserve UCCs and maintain state highway connectivity. The first plan preserves the Boise UCC, but requires connections using local roads into and through Boise county to connect the north and east parts of the state. The second plan preserves major connections, but must split the two counties of the UCC. In both plans the projected deviation is within 1000 persons.

[jimrtex]

It's easy to divide ID into two CDs using whole counties. The challenge is that one cannot both preserve UCCs and maintain state highway connectivity. The first plan preserves the Boise UCC, but requires connections using local roads into and through Boise county to connect the north and east parts of the state. The second plan preserves major connections, but must split the two counties of the UCC. In both plans the projected deviation is within 1000 persons.

The fastest connection between southern and northern Idaho may be via Washington or Montana.

Couer d'Alene to Pocatello is way faster through Missoula and Butte.  Couer d'Alene to Boise is almost as fast through Spokane and the Tri-Cities as the intra-Idaho alternative.

Option 1, also greatly reduces the risk of zero or two representatives from the Boise area.

[muon2]

Most of the growth in NV is in Clark, and by 2020 it is projected to be almost 3 CDs by itself. Nye is sufficient to bring it within 0.5% of the quota.




The growth in UT is faster than in NV and is spread among more population centers. This division preserves UCCs and stays within 0.5% of the quota. Salt Lake county has one whole CD within making up about 2/3 of its population. The remaining 1/3 (West Valley, West Jordan, Taylorsville, Magna, Kearns, and Copperton) attach to the rest of the yellow counties.

[muon2]

CO is projected to add a CD in 2020 bringing it to 8. That can potentially create some interesting shifts. Most of the growth is around Denver and the UCC would be projected to have just over 4 CDs. Without Broomfield it would be very close to 4 CDs, with Denver having one and the suburban counties taking the other three. Growth in Boulder/Larimer at a 1.5% to 2% annual pace causes CD 2 to contract and it should be able to fit entirely on the eastern slope of the Rockies. El Paso will be large enough for a single CD, and Pueblo would shift to the eastern CD.

[jimrtex]

CO is projected to add a CD in 2020 bringing it to 8. That can potentially create some interesting shifts. Most of the growth is around Denver and the UCC would be projected to have just over 4 CDs. Without Broomfield it would be very close to 4 CDs, with Denver having one and the suburban counties taking the other three. Growth in Boulder/Larimer at a 1.5% to 2% annual pace causes CD 2 to contract and it should be able to fit entirely on the eastern slope of the Rockies. El Paso will be large enough for a single CD, and Pueblo would shift to the eastern CD.

It's like deja vu all over again.  Colorado did not redistrict after gaining a 3rd representative in 1900, nor immediately after gaining the 4th in 1910.   It did create four districts for the 1916 election.

Denver was the 1st district, and the western slope was the 4th district.

The 4th district was much more purely a Western Slope district, with only Lake and Chaffee in the Upper Arkansas east of the Continental Divide.  Even at its origin, the district was underpopulated, which might have been justified by the physical separation at that date.



In 1922 a small adjustment was made, swapping Jefferson and El Paso counties.



These districts would remain fixed (other than annexations by Denver) until Wesberry v Sanders.  At that time, the 4th district was the 2nd least populous district in the country.

In 1966 these districts were used.



When the 5th district was added in the 1970s, the Western Slope was split north/south, and then was later connected to Pueblo.  But now, 100 years later, it is beginning to look like it did when it had its own district.  And Denver still has its own district.

[muon2]

NM is easy to divide into 3 CDs, but the traditional split violates the UCC pack and cover rules. This projection keeps whole counties within 0.5% of the quota and keeps the cover of the Albuquerque UCC.



AZ is not easy. Maricopa is projected to increase it's share of the state from 60% to 62% by 2020, and the UCC that includes Pinal, will go from 65.6% to over 68%. My current projections keep AZ at 9 CDs, so the Phoenix UCC will be about 110K too large for 6 CDs that could be packed there. The extra population would go to the 2 CDs covering the Tuscon UCC providing a connection from Yuma to Pima.



When the state estimate came out last Dec I noted that the population growth had picked up considerably in the last two years, perhaps reflecting the end of the slowdown from the Great Recession. If just the 2012 through 2014 estimates are used, AZ would be expected to gain a seat in 2020 to go to 10 CDs. I used that same set of estimate data to project the AZ counties to 2020. The Phoenix UCC is about 6.8 CDs and here the UCC pack and cover is maintained with 7 CDs. The northern CD is just over 5% over quota. The 2 CDs for Tuscon are just within 5%. There is no connection from Yuma to Pima, but shifting Cochise would allow a connecting chop of Maricopa at the cost of an extra cover.

[Torie]

Does AZ law (as opposed to your rules) actually require that CD's have road connections? It still seems silly to me to chop Maricopa for the sole reason of securing a road connection from Pima to Yuma within the CD.

[muon2]

Does AZ law (as opposed to your rules) actually require that CD's have road connections? It still seems silly to me to chop Maricopa for the sole reason of securing a road connection from Pima to Yuma within the CD.

These are the AZ requirements (from the commission page);

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They don't have a phrase requiring convenient transportation within a district (like WA). The current AZ-3 links the Hispanic parts of Yuma without roads through the Air Force range to the Hispanic parts of Tucson and some of the SW corner of Phoenix. That seems like the kind of jump-over gerrymanders you've tended to resist. I always thought that your suggestion of not crossing CA mountains (way back when) without a significant road was a good one and it seems it should apply in AZ, too.

[Torie]

Well the problem with AZ is that there are just not good alternatives, which is an example of why I tend to favor penalizing appending counties with a link, but not prohibiting it. So in AZ's case, you either chop Maricopa or not, to get to Yuma, and it makes no difference either way when scoring the map.

[muon2]

Well the problem with AZ is that there are just not good alternatives, which is an example of why I tend to favor penalizing appending counties with a link, but not prohibiting it. So in AZ's case, you either chop Maricopa or not, to get to Yuma, and it makes no difference either way when scoring the map.

There are plenty of examples of chops forced due to the combination of county lines and current populations. AZ is no different. There are many partisan gerrymanders aided by contiguity where there is no connection, but not many cases like AZ. Furthermore, with so few counties and a final 0.5% deviation from quota extra chops are virtually inevitable in AZ. An exception to the connection rule here opens the door to far more mischief than the possibility of a forced chop.

[muon2]

TX is projected to gain 3 CDs for a total of 39 in 2020. The lack of county subdivisions and the impact of the VRA make it hard to project much below the scale of counties and UCCs. So, this plan keeps UCCs whole within regions that vary no more than 5% from the quota for their number of CDs.



UCCs (color) # of CDs
El Paso/Midland/Odessa (dark blue) 2
Lubbock/San Angelo (sky blue) 1
Amarillo/Wichita Falls (purple) 1
McAllen/Corpus Christi/Brownsville/Laredo (green) 3
San Antonio/Victoria (brown) 4
Austin (gray) 3
Waco (lilac) 1
Killeen/Abilene (beige) 1
Dallas (red) 10
Sherman/Texarkana (blue) 1
Tyler/Longview (orange) 1
Houston/College Station (yellow) 10
Beaumont (slate) 1

[muon2]

LA can be divided into 6 CDs within 3% of the quota while preserving the UCCs for both pack and cover. What is doesn't do is maintain a VRA district, which some here have questioned its necessity under section 2.



It's interesting to see what these projected districts look like with 2010 data.

CD 1 BVAP 36.1%, Obama 52.9%
CD 2 BVAP 23.7%, Obama 36.0%
CD 3 BVAP 22.9%, Obama 34.1%
CD 4 BVAP 31.8%, Obama 38.8%
CD 5 BVAP 33.0%, Obama 38.1%
CD 6 BVAP 32.5%, Obama 41.8%

The black population is so well distributed among the centers that make up the separate UCCs that none of the CDs breaks 40% BVAP but none are less than 20% BVAP. The state election Dem number in CD 1 on DRA is 57.4%, so it looks like a white Dem could win it, but a black Dem would be a toss up there due to racial bloc voting.

[muon2]

The Mid-South states of the Mississippi valley are generally straight forward to project and aren't expected to change in CD count.

AR stays at 4 CDs and with its many counties can be divided several ways. This plan starts with the current map, adjusts to whole counties and whole UCCs, then shifts few counties to bring the CDs to within 0.5% of the quota.



KY stays at 6 CDs. The Louisville UCC needs a cover of 2 which is done with the Covington CD. With whole counties the plan is within 5% of the quota. Shifting 32K out of Jefferson county puts all CDs within 0.5% of the quota.



TN stays at 9 CDs and Shelby will be a 200K too large for a CD, but the remainder can still easily be BVAP majority. The Nashville UCC will be just over 2 CDs, and this plan preserves the UCC cover, but not the pack which would require at least two chops. All other UCCs are preserved within 1 CD. All Cds are within 0.5% of teh quota except for Nasville which is 1.1% over quota.

[jimrtex]

Here's the top 10 fastest-growing counties by percentage increase from 2013 to 2014 in counties with an estimated population of 10,000 or more as of July 1, 2014, the principal city/region and likely reason for the increase:

And the bottom 5:

2) Hale, TX -3.0% (Plainview; Rural, in between Lubbock and Amarillo, but not close enough to either for sprawl)

Cargill closed plant.

[muon2]

MS will still have 4 CDs in 2020 and I expect will still have a mandate for a BVAP majority CD. There are many whole county combinations that would suffice, but it is useful to see both the UCCs and MCCs (minority county clusters). Minority county clusters are assembled from contiguous counties that have more than 40% BVAP (2010 data) and are used to preserve communities of interest based on a minority population much like UCCs preserve urbanized area communities of interest.

In the map below the three pink circles are UCCs, all less than one CD in size. The green counties are those that meet the criteria for MCCs, and there are three that contain more than one county.



Projecting to 2020 it looks likely that a BVAP majority CD cannot be constructed with the whole Jackson UCC, unlike in 2010 where it could just barely. The Jackson UCC overlaps the Mississippi river MCC and one of those would have to be chopped anyway, so the Jackson UCC is chopped to preserve the VRA CD with the whole MCC. Elsewhere all other UCCs and MCCs are maintained and CDs are within 0.5% of the projected quota.

[Torie]

Mississippi was pretty easy, wasn't it Muon2? Few I suspect would disagree that that is the best possible map, or that the black CD is indeed required under the VRA, and that it probably needs to hew quite closely to the lines that you drew, since the black community it encompasses is all contiguous, even if partially rural and partially urban.

[muon2]

AL is a little trickier. We had a lot of debate about how one might draw rational CDs in 2010, and this map shows the three multi-county UCCs and the large MCC. Because the MCC stretches all the way across the state it has to be chopped. The overlap with the Montgomery UCC pulls the BVAP% of any district containing both way down.



If I assume 7 CDs in 2020 based on my current projection, then a simple plan can be put together that keeps whole counties, cover rules for UCCs and all CDs within 2% of the quota. There is only a minimal chop of the MCC as needed to connect the SE CD. The BVAP of the remaining MCC CD is just over 40%.



To get an CD with a BVAP over 50% without a lot of chops, then the CD links Birmingham city to the MCC through Tuscaloosa. The UCC cover rules are all still in place and there is still only one chop of the MCC as well as a 2% tolerance for the quota.



In my 2020 apportionment projection AL-7 was 435th seat, and alternate models have it losing a seat. If a plan is needed with 56 CDs including a VRA cmpiant on, it is probably impossible to avoid linking to Birmingham. As above, the tolerance in 2% and the UCC covers are preserved.

[Torie]

An MCC is a contiguous minority area? If you put it all in on CD, and get substantially more than 50% BVAP, don't you have a packing issue?  It doesn't look like you hewed to the pack rule for the Birmingham UCC in your first map.

[muon2]

Two years ago in the thread fleshing out the definition of UCCs we spent a lot of time looking at AL. We generally agreed that the Black Belt was a CoI that should not be unduly chopped, yet we also wanted to see what areas might be regarded as contiguous and reveal any gaps. The notion that one should not be forced to bridge across Tuscaloosa if other alternatives were available was important to you. You agreed the 40% BVAP threshold was a good one to distinguish which counties should be clustered. That gave rise to the AL MCC. For these rural counties and directly adjacent urban counties like Montgomery I don't think the packing problem would come into play. When I did MS the other day I replicated the process used two years ago.

In the first map I only claimed to preserve the UCC cover, not the pack. Since the other districts only hewed to a 2% variation and I could keep whole counties I did so for Birmingham as well, since a UCC pack violation counts the same as a county chop and I don't have reasonable county subdivisions for Jefferson or Shelby.

I would also note that in the first map I could chop the Montgomery UCC and add Tuscaloosa to up the BVAP%. With the declining rural population it won't be as effective in 2020 as it was in 2010 to make a high-40's BVAP CD with whole counties. So for purposes of illustration I left it as a low 40's CD keeping the UCC intact.

[Torie]

I was just noting the pack issue. It may be a necessary "evil." What is the BVAP percentage for the black belt CD? I was just saying that if it was substantially over 50%, that might be an issue, although I am not sure about that aspect of the VRA. If a CD takes in a contiguous black area, and there is no second black CD in play, perhaps one can take it all in, without violating the VRA, even if it say 60% or 70% BVAP (absent excessive erosity perhaps). But putting aside the VRA, I would revert to the erosity rules, when one got to 50% BVAP. I don't think it appropriate to treat a MCC as the same as a UCC other than for the purpose above. We do the MCC only for VRA purposes I would think. The 40% rule is however useful as a benchmark for rural counties for purposes of deeming what is contiguous.

Yes, I said before that I don't think the VRA requires a forced bridge to Birmingham, and going there could raise a VRA packing issue if the BVAP percentage is excessive.

[muon2]

The UCC rules exist to identify a community of interest that spans counties and is large enough to influence elections. By invoking UCCs one can get plans that avoid the dilution of that CoI's power, and for large UCCs avoid giving them excessive power. I contend that a minority of sufficient concentration spread over a number of counties represents an equivalent CoI, and a case should be made that redistricting should avoid dilution of their voting power as well. Personally I think using an equivalent approach helps make the case under the VRA that race is not a predominant factor, but one of a number of equivalent factors including county chops, UCCs and erosity. Of course one must avoid packing a minority under the VRA and that in my mind is a separate determination viewed when looking at the totality of a plan.

In the case of a 2020 CD plan in AL the issue will not be one of packing. If the current polarized voting persists I think that a neutrally-drawn CD (ie with the kind of rules we use) can't be drawn in a way that it is likely to elect the candidate of choice of the black minority. The CDs will just be too large, especially if the number drops to 6. With 6 CDs it isn't hard to draw a whole county plan where all 6 CDs vote Pub, and what if the AL legislature does that?. This may well test your assertion that the VRA doesn't require the bridge to Birmingham.