NY with 26 CDs in 2020

[muon2]

My understanding of Gingles is that if you don't have 50% in an area, no VRA district is required. So presumably if a black VRA district is required in Queens in addition to the two in Brooklyn, then there is a finding that a suitably "compact" area exists with the population of a CD that is at least 50% for a single minority (compact often loosely construed). My observation is that once there is that finding, 50% BVAP becomes something of a safe harbor. When a map goes below 50% BVAP and is challenged in court then the parties trot out their dueling experts to determine whether or not the sub-50% district can in fact perform for the minority. When courts are called upon to draw the map and a VRA district is required, they tend to go for the safe harbor and avoid that type of expert analysis.

I'm not saying that either of us would like such a district. I am saying that the track record of court-drawn VRA district tends towards meeting the population goals of the Gingles test. I am also saying that if you want to show your plan to NY bloggers (or other interested parties), then it is easiest to justify a district that is at 50%, since we haven't actually done the ecological inference or other techniques needed to demonstrate minority performance. I also think that if one is showing the plan to other parties, then there is utility in pointing out that if one wants to maintain 50% it will require a CD more strangely shaped than the area is used to.

[traininthedistance]

Yeah, I'm quite confident that you could just let the southern Queens district sit somewhere in the mid-40s, entirely within Queens, and it would still be secure for Meeks/kosher for the VRA– use the current Illinois districts as precedent (IIRC a lot of the non-white non-black vote around the fringes of that area is first-gen immigrants anyway, so it might even remain 50%+1 BCVAP).  At some point I will get on making a map that does just that.

[muon2]

Yeah, I'm quite confident that you could just let the southern Queens district sit somewhere in the mid-40s, entirely within Queens, and it would still be secure for Meeks/kosher for the VRA– use the current Illinois districts as precedent (IIRC a lot of the non-white non-black vote around the fringes of that area is first-gen immigrants anyway, so it might even remain 50%+1 BCVAP).  At some point I will get on making a map that does just that.

If it turns out to be 50%+ BCVAP then the problem would be solved. If all parties to a contest agree on some reduced standard, then that's fine, too. In IL the use of sub-50% won in the 7th circuit, but only after competing testimony from experts. A neutral projected map should not rely on a successful expert presentation IMO, despite the unpleasant result. Which goes to my hanging question as to whether this is being designed to show beyond Atlas.

BTW train, did you have any feedback on my partition of Brooklyn?

[Torie]

My understanding of Gingles is that if you don't have 50% in an area, no VRA district is required. So presumably if a black VRA district is required in Queens in addition to the two in Brooklyn, then there is a finding that a suitably "compact" area exists with the population of a CD that is at least 50% for a single minority (compact often loosely construed). My observation is that once there is that finding, 50% BVAP becomes something of a safe harbor. When a map goes below 50% BVAP and is challenged in court then the parties trot out their dueling experts to determine whether or not the sub-50% district can in fact perform for the minority. When courts are called upon to draw the map and a VRA district is required, they tend to go for the safe harbor and avoid that type of expert analysis.

I'm not saying that either of us would like such a district. I am saying that the track record of court-drawn VRA district tends towards meeting the population goals of the Gingles test. I am also saying that if you want to show your plan to NY bloggers (or other interested parties), then it is easiest to justify a district that is at 50%, since we haven't actually done the ecological inference or other techniques needed to demonstrate minority performance. I also think that if one is showing the plan to other parties, then there is utility in pointing out that if one wants to maintain 50% it will require a CD more strangely shaped than the area is used to.

I think your statement is basically right, but 1) as Train says, it is safe to say that say a 48% BVAP CD in this area will be over a 50% BCVAP CD, and that is what matters, and 2) there is no VRA requirement to gerrymander NY-05 so that it reaches way out to South Hempstead to pick up the black community there which is non-contiguous. It is not illegal to do so obviously, but it certainly is not legally required. If the two black areas hook up by 2022, then it becomes a closer issue, but I doubt that will happen. The terrain in-between (Franklin Square) I think is pretty high income, and solidly white, with very few blacks.

Anyway, the best policy is to try to get up to 50% BVAP, but no more if it entails gerrymandering, and if one falls short, only gerrymander (crossing boundaries or getting more erose), if necessary to get to a percentage so a candidate of choice is electable, and then only if the area to be gerrymandered is reasonably contiguous. Thus to me, even if a 48% BVAP CD were not going to elect a candidate of choice, it simply is not justifiable to cross over white areas deep into Nassau County to get there. I do think however that crossing the line into Nassau to pick up the blacks there that are contiguous, with no erosity other than crossing the county line, might well be required however, particularly if the evidence is rather murky, or the trends show a secular decline in the black population, so over the course of the decade, the black incumbent might go the way of Rangel, or certainly a non incumbent might have some trouble. Thus I think picking up minority contiguous areas, particularly with no little or no erosty involved, is the prudent thing to do.

I think I have a pretty good sense of where SCOTUS is at on this issue, having rather closely read the cases.

Anyway, per the below, NY-10 is now at 52% BVAP, and NY-09 is at 52.7% BVAP. That was easy. Also by jiggling the lines between NY-12 and NY-06, NY-06 gets up to 31.6% AVAP, and NY-12 moves up 40 basis points to 56.7% HVAP.

[muon2]

I'm sold on the BCVAP argument. I did some checking and found the following VAP citizenship rates by race/ethnicity using the 2013 3-year ACS:

Bronx: WCVAP/WVAP 90%, BCVAP/BVAP 81%, ACVAP/AVAP 62%, HCVAP/HVAP 72%.
Kings: WCVAP/WVAP 89%, BCVAP/BVAP 82%, ACVAP/AVAP 62%, HCVAP/HVAP 68%.
Queens: WCVAP/WVAP 90%, BCVAP/BVAP 85%, ACVAP/AVAP 61%, HCVAP/HVAP 61%.

If I apply these numbers to Torie's CD-05 (assuming the difference is WVAP) then 50.0% BVAP rises to 54.2% BCVAP. That's well above any number needed to accommodate the slower growth of the black population.

I can apply this to the Hispanic CDs as well. Your Queens CD (Torie 12, muon2 07) is 50.6% HCVAP. Our South Bronx CD 15 is 51.5% HCVAP; it's good, too.

This raises the question as to whether the 2020 Census will ask the citizenship question since it will be required for redistricting. If they don't one can't get an exact number and it is delayed as well.

[jimrtex]

This is a good proxy for what the commission will draw and this is probably what gets adopted if the GOP still controls the state senate in 2021.  However, my understanding is that the NY legislature can vote down the commission maps and take control of the process?  So, in the event of full Dem control, how ugly would they have to get to draw 23 >60% Obama districts?  Would 24 be viable while respecting the VRA?

Either house or the governor can block the first commission plan.  In that case, the commission submits another plan.   If that is rejected, then the legislature takes over, but they must follow the same criteria as the commission, in particular:

"Districts shall not be drawn to discourage competition or for the purpose of favoring or disfavoring incumbents  or  other  particular  candidates  or  political  parties.  The  commission  shall  consider  the maintenance of cores of existing districts, of pre-existing political subdivisions, including counties, cities, and towns, and of communities of interest."

The supreme court has original jurisdiction over (any) lawsuits filed against a plan.

The commission should be more transparent in its process.  Legislative redistricting is often done by a few members, with perhaps adjustments made to secure votes on the redistricting bill or other bills.  If a commission plan is rejected by the legislature, they might be expected to explain why they rejected it.  If the commission plans are rejected, and the legislature passes a plan that is quite dissimilar, a court reviewing the plan will be able to consider the commission plans as proof that the legislative plan violates the constitution.  If the legislature fails to approve any plan, then a special master is likely to start with the commission plan.

[Torie]

How is the commission appointed? Has this all been enacted in law now? Is it just for CD's?

[jimrtex]

My understanding of Gingles is that if you don't have 50% in an area, no VRA district is required. So presumably if a black VRA district is required in Queens in addition to the two in Brooklyn, then there is a finding that a suitably "compact" area exists with the population of a CD that is at least 50% for a single minority (compact often loosely construed). My observation is that once there is that finding, 50% BVAP becomes something of a safe harbor. When a map goes below 50% BVAP and is challenged in court then the parties trot out their dueling experts to determine whether or not the sub-50% district can in fact perform for the minority. When courts are called upon to draw the map and a VRA district is required, they tend to go for the safe harbor and avoid that type of expert analysis.

I'm not saying that either of us would like such a district. I am saying that the track record of court-drawn VRA district tends towards meeting the population goals of the Gingles test. I am also saying that if you want to show your plan to NY bloggers (or other interested parties), then it is easiest to justify a district that is at 50%, since we haven't actually done the ecological inference or other techniques needed to demonstrate minority performance. I also think that if one is showing the plan to other parties, then there is utility in pointing out that if one wants to maintain 50% it will require a CD more strangely shaped than the area is used to.

In NYC, the candidate of choice may be the candidate chosen in the Democratic primary, so you might be forced to push BVAP up over 50% in order to let Asian and Hispanic voters an opportunity to elect their candidate of choice in "their" districts.

[Torie]

My understanding of Gingles is that if you don't have 50% in an area, no VRA district is required. So presumably if a black VRA district is required in Queens in addition to the two in Brooklyn, then there is a finding that a suitably "compact" area exists with the population of a CD that is at least 50% for a single minority (compact often loosely construed). My observation is that once there is that finding, 50% BVAP becomes something of a safe harbor. When a map goes below 50% BVAP and is challenged in court then the parties trot out their dueling experts to determine whether or not the sub-50% district can in fact perform for the minority. When courts are called upon to draw the map and a VRA district is required, they tend to go for the safe harbor and avoid that type of expert analysis.

I'm not saying that either of us would like such a district. I am saying that the track record of court-drawn VRA district tends towards meeting the population goals of the Gingles test. I am also saying that if you want to show your plan to NY bloggers (or other interested parties), then it is easiest to justify a district that is at 50%, since we haven't actually done the ecological inference or other techniques needed to demonstrate minority performance. I also think that if one is showing the plan to other parties, then there is utility in pointing out that if one wants to maintain 50% it will require a CD more strangely shaped than the area is used to.

In NYC, the candidate of choice may be the candidate chosen in the Democratic primary, so you might be forced to push BVAP up over 50% in order to let Asian and Hispanic voters an opportunity to elect their candidate of choice in "their" districts.

Except that there are next to no Pubs on the ground to be seen. They are in those zones basically next to extinct. And I really can't think of an instance where getting the BVAP higher, would also get the Hispanic percentage higher in an adjacent CD. Just the opposite actually, since some precincts have considerable numbers of both Hispanics and blacks (most dramatically along the border of my NY-09 and NY-12). And the black percentage went down in NY-14 because after NY-16 took in the white areas on the west side of the Bronx, it then needed to take some black areas farther east, while avoiding taking Hispanic precincts.

[muon2]

Earlier I posted numbers by county for the growth rates by race/ethnicity, and for the CVAP/VAP ratios. I put those together and built a spreadsheet calculator to get projected 2020 CVAPs. I input the 6 VAP numbers from DRA and it gives me either the BCVAP of HCVAp for the district adjusted for the county. I assume that the Native VAP population is 100% citizens and the Other population has the same citizenship and growth rates as the Asian population.

I used that tool to adjust my map and determine the projected 2020 CVAPs. It turns out that one can put the Jamaica CD entirely within Queens and just break 50% BCVAP. Who knew? In any case it allows me to construct a map with the minimum number of county chops and to follow community district lines within the boroughs when possible. Here are the relevant 2010 VAPs and 2020 CVAPs for the VRA CDs.

CD 05: BVAP 46.3%, BCVAP 50.0%
CD 08: BVAP 52.9%, BCVAP 52.4%
CD 09: BVAP 52.8%, BCVAP 50.9%

CD 07: HVAP 54.9%, HCVAP 52.3%
CD 14: HVAP 58.1%, HCVAP 59.3%
CD 15: HVAP 56.5%, HCVAP 57.8%

For the record the 2010 AVAP in CD 6 is 31.1% which projects to a 28.6% ACVAP in 2020.

[jimrtex]

How is the commission appointed? Has this all been enacted in law now? Is it just for CD's?

Two members appointed by each of the four legislative leaders, who then appoint two persons not affiliated with either major party.  It has authority over all three plans.  The good citizens of New York approved it last November.

http://ballotpedia.org/New_York_Redistricting_Commission_Amendment,_Proposal_1_%282014%29]Proposition 1[/url]

Towards the bottom is a link to "Proposal 1" which has the actual language.  There was a lot of gobbledygook language about senate and assembly districts, much of which was ruled unconstitutional 50 years ago, which now has the commission language grafted to it.

The assembly districts sort of comply with the constitution.  No district crosses any of the 5 NYC borough lines, and only one district crosses the Nassau-Suffolk line (albeit two parcels connected by part of a barrier island), and two districts are share between Putnam and Westchester.

Upstate, county lines are sometimes observed and other times not.

[jimrtex]

In NYC, the candidate of choice may be the candidate chosen in the Democratic primary, so you might be forced to push BVAP up over 50% in order to let Asian and Hispanic voters an opportunity to elect their candidate of choice in "their" districts.

Except that there are next to no Pubs on the ground to be seen. They are in those zones basically next to extinct. And I really can't think of an instance where getting the BVAP higher, would also get the Hispanic percentage higher in an adjacent CD. Just the opposite actually, since some precincts have considerable numbers of both Hispanics and blacks (most dramatically along the border of my NY-09 and NY-12). And the black percentage went down in NY-14 because after NY-16 took in the white areas on the west side of the Bronx, it then needed to take some black areas farther east, while avoiding taking Hispanic precincts.

Which is why a functional test is whether the protected group can choose their candidate of choice in the Democratic primary.  If the group you are protecting is Hispanic or Asian, then not only do you have to keep their CVAP high, you need to keep that of the BCVAP as low as possible.

[cinyc]

Which is why a functional test is whether the protected group can choose their candidate of choice in the Democratic primary.  If the group you are protecting is Hispanic or Asian, then not only do you have to keep their CVAP high, you need to keep that of the BCVAP as low as possible.

And how is that supposed to work, exactly, when some voters are both black and Hispanic?  That is probably most salient in Charlie Rangel's current district, which has many black Hispanics from the Dominican Republic (though some might not be citizens).

[Torie]

Yes, Mike, I drew that NY-05 CD too (or a facsimile thereof), and got to 45.9% BVAP. But it won't be drawn that way. It's more natural for it to take in precincts in Nassau right next door that have much higher black percentages than the jut out areas in Queens, and the CD is cut to the bone, and it may be over time that a higher percentage of Hispanics and Asians there will become citizens as time goes on. Again, it is better to reach for 50% if it can be done in a contiguous area without undue erosty, even if it crosses a county line. One only does what you did if the blacks in Nassau were not right next door. Anyway, I think that is what a court would do, even if the evidence in this close case statistically supports the legality of what you drew based on the citizenship rate estimates (and that is all they are - estimates - not exact numbers).

[jimrtex]

Which is why a functional test is whether the protected group can choose their candidate of choice in the Democratic primary.  If the group you are protecting is Hispanic or Asian, then not only do you have to keep their CVAP high, you need to keep that of the BCVAP as low as possible.

And how is that supposed to work, exactly, when some voters are both black and Hispanic?  That is probably most salient in Charlie Rangel's current district, which has many black Hispanics from the Dominican Republic (though some might not be citizens).

NHBCVAP and HCVAP

[cinyc]

Which is why a functional test is whether the protected group can choose their candidate of choice in the Democratic primary.  If the group you are protecting is Hispanic or Asian, then not only do you have to keep their CVAP high, you need to keep that of the BCVAP as low as possible.

And how is that supposed to work, exactly, when some voters are both black and Hispanic?  That is probably most salient in Charlie Rangel's current district, which has many black Hispanics from the Dominican Republic (though some might not be citizens).

NHBCVAP and HCVAP

Is it clear under the VRA that you have to use NHBCVAP, i.e. that being Hispanic somehow trumps being black? And what if non-Hispanic blacks live in the same neighborhoods as Hispanic blacks and it's otherwise difficult to get to 50%?

[Torie]

Which is why a functional test is whether the protected group can choose their candidate of choice in the Democratic primary.  If the group you are protecting is Hispanic or Asian, then not only do you have to keep their CVAP high, you need to keep that of the BCVAP as low as possible.

And how is that supposed to work, exactly, when some voters are both black and Hispanic?  That is probably most salient in Charlie Rangel's current district, which has many black Hispanics from the Dominican Republic (though some might not be citizens).

NHBCVAP and HCVAP

Is it clear under the VRA that you have to use NHBCVAP, i.e. that being Hispanic somehow trumps being black? And what if non-Hispanic blacks live in the same neighborhoods as Hispanic blacks and it's otherwise difficult to get to 50%?

I am not sure that has been litigated. I suppose it depends on evidence as to voting patterns. If Hispanic blacks vote differently from both Hispanics and non Hispanic blacks, say somewhere in-between if both an Hispanic and black candidate are running in a primary, ala in the Rangel election, then they might be considered their own ethnic group, and not count for either group. Interesting question.

[Torie]

I suspect Torie and I have reversed the roles we played earlier discussing IL when he complained about some liberties I took regarding the rules due to my preference in dealing with areas in Cook. Here I'm pushing to follow the rules, yet I sense from Torie a desire to recognize political expectations in NY.

Anyway, here is my attempt to provide more detail to the upstate districts. I preserve county subdivisions, but I'm not using estimates for the county subdivisions - instead I'm apportioning the county-level projections to the subdivisions on a more uniform basis. It's less accurate, but faster that way. All the districts should be within 0.5% when projected to 2020.

I preserve all UCC cover and pack rules, except the Albany pack. In exchange there are only 6 chops and none are macrochops except the mandatory chops of Erie and Westchester. None of my districts are unusually erose, so I expect a good score there. I don't see why one wants 9 chops (counting both fragments connecting Westchester to upstate) just to avoid the penalty for the Albany pack. Also, by placing Columbia with Dutchess and a piece of Ulster with Orange Torie's map incurs a pack penalty for the NYC UCC, which negates the avoidance of a penalty in the Albany UCC.

Torie's map has some attractive features, but I want to follow up on train's observation on the Rochester UCC. The UCC consists of Monroe and Ontario, and my projection puts their combined population and 870K which is about 12% more than the population of one of 26 CDs. If the UCC expands at all this decade, Wayne is the most likely candidate since the Rochester UCC is already in that county and it wouldn't take much to link up the Palmyra and Newark urban clusters along NY-31.

With that in mind I intentionally put both Ontario and Wayne in the Syracuse district. I slightly overpopulated the Syracuse CD with the intention of taking population from Ontario in that district to beef up the slightly undersized Rochester CD. That way I could keep the UCC cover and pack rules intact there with a minimum of chops. The initial Torie plan would incur both a cover and pack penalty for Rochester.

Note that since a single chop of Ontario in my plan would bring both the Rochester and Syracuse CDs within 0.5% of the projected quota. Similarly chops of just Erie and Steuben are sufficient to bring the other western CDs within 0.5%. In the Hudson valley I selected the counties such that chops in Franklin and Sullivan are sufficient to bring those four CDs within the 0.5% margin. Of the aforementioned chops, only Erie is a macrochop.

Muon2, do you agree the map below has one less penalty chop than yours (I have one more county chop in Madison County that you avoid, and replace a chop of Sullivan with Rockland, but avoid the pack and cover penalty that you incur for the Albany UCC)?  If so, our maps should be competitive. I win the chop contest, but am probably tanked on erosity by the extra macrochop in Saratoga assuming that each town on the CD line counts as a road cut (if that is what happens with macrochops).   Yes, Columbia County had to be sacrificed for the cause.    And that makes NY-18 go to a Dem 3% PVI, given that it needed to cut more deeply into Westchester County, and take in most of the very Democratic Town of Greenberg, but it is what it is.

Odd for me that I would win on chops and lose on erosity, but there you have it.  I really hated what you did to Albany, and worked hard to avoid your map proving to be the king of the hill.  Given the shape of NY state, you can really make the size of the Rockland chop anything you want, by just having all the NYC area CD’s vary a bit in population, and build up to the number you want for the chop to lose the Sullivan County chop. It turns out, none of that was really necessary, but the option was there. This game can get complicated!

By the way, Dutchess should not really be in the NYC UCC area per my visual observations (it's really quite rural, with towns spread out). And it's not really a commuter county, even the southern part. The really suburban action starts in Putnam. Statistics can lie. But it's hard to write into a uniform model statute that UCC areas should be defined by Torie's visual observations. Among other things, I won't be alive forever, as tragic a thought as that may be.