100 Senate Regions

[muon2]

The TX splits don't seem to follow your rules. The DFW urban county cluster is good for two senate districts one of which is the majority-minority carve out, but Johnson and Ellis were left out in your proposal. Also in south TX you split the Austin UCC, but it doesn't create a VRA district or even a real minority opportunity district. The stronger minority situation would link San Antonio to El Paso and bring the Lower Rio Grande northward through Corpus Christi.

I'll post what I'm describing later this morning.

[muon2]

The TX splits don't seem to follow your rules. The DFW urban county cluster is good for two senate districts one of which is the majority-minority carve out, but Johnson and Ellis were left out in your proposal. Also in south TX you split the Austin UCC, but it doesn't create a VRA district or even a real minority opportunity district. The stronger minority situation would link San Antonio to El Paso and bring the Lower Rio Grande northward through Corpus Christi.

I'll post what I'm describing later this morning.

I like your idea for South Texas, but Ellis/Johnson could not fit in the suburban DFW region because of geography and it put the region over the population limit. Unless you have a better way to draw it?

Here's what I put together respecting all the UCCs. 2 VRA districts are established in south TX (58.1% and 67.2% HVAP) and 2 minority coalition districts are established in DFW and Houston. All four were carried by Obama in 2008.

[muon2]

The TX splits don't seem to follow your rules. The DFW urban county cluster is good for two senate districts one of which is the majority-minority carve out, but Johnson and Ellis were left out in your proposal. Also in south TX you split the Austin UCC, but it doesn't create a VRA district or even a real minority opportunity district. The stronger minority situation would link San Antonio to El Paso and bring the Lower Rio Grande northward through Corpus Christi.

I'll post what I'm describing later this morning.

I like your idea for South Texas, but Ellis/Johnson could not fit in the suburban DFW region because of geography and it put the region over the population limit. Unless you have a better way to draw it?

Here's what I put together respecting all the UCCs. 2 VRA districts are established in south TX (58.1% and 67.2% HVAP) and 2 minority coalition districts are established in DFW and Houston. All four were carried by Obama in 2008.

I really like this. Do you happen to have the population and raw vote totals for the inner DFW and Houston regions? I need those to do the add-ups and calculations for PVI's, swings, trends and population deviation.

For DFW: 3,068,901 pop; 37.0% WVAP, 22.8% BVAP, 33.7% HVAP; Pres 08: D 540,244, R 370,312.

For Houston: 3,142,095 pop; 30.5% WVAP, 20.8% BVAP, 40.9% HVAP; Pres 08: D 487,391, R 349,032

I hope that helps. I am also curious how many Latino districts you have in CA. Based on 2010 numbers, there should be at least 3 where Latinos would control the outcome (50% HCVAP or > 60% HVAP).

[muon2]

I am also curious how many Latino districts you have in CA. Based on 2010 numbers, there should be at least 3 where Latinos would control the outcome (50% HCVAP or > 60% HVAP).

Thanks for that!

The Downtown/South Central Los Angeles region is over 50% HCVAP with a large black minority (like 20-25%) and whites only making up like 15%. The region to the east of it in LA County is like plurality Hispanic (around 40%) with a large Asian influence (around 30%) with whites around 25%. I also think the central valley district would also be over 50% or at least pretty close. I wish I could have had official demographic information for this, but my DRA runs extremely slow for basically any state larger than Virginia. Unless there is a place were I could get the data in like a excel sheet. If that was the case I could add everything up from what I have and maybe make some changes.

My thought is that there has to be some county crossings. For example one in LAC from San Fernando to south Central LA. One with the El Monte area linked to Norwalk and then to Santa Ana. Then one built from San Bernardino and Riverside, but I don't know if I can do it without Imperial. If my link allows I'll see what I can build.

[muon2]

As I continue to look at CA between hangs of DRA, I conclude that there should be two 60+ HVAP districts in LAC where one connects to OC with Anaheim/Santa Ana. The best I could do with SB and Riverside was to add Pomona then stretch it all the way to Imperial then back along the border to SW SD county. That only gets to 58% HVAP, so 60+ isn't plausible there.

Other observations of CA. CA is just barely over 12 districts. SoCal minus Kern and Imperial is just right for 7 districts. Kern plus the north is almost exactly 5 districts. So keep Imperial with Arizona, but I'm not sure the Riverside chop follows your rules.

[muon2]

As I continue to look at CA between hangs of DRA, I conclude that there should be two 60+ HVAP districts in LAC where one connects to OC with Anaheim/Santa Ana. The best I could do with SB and Riverside was to add Pomona then stretch it all the way to Imperial then back along the border to SW SD county. That only gets to 58% HVAP, so 60+ isn't plausible there.

Other observations of CA. CA is just barely over 12 districts. SoCal minus Kern and Imperial is just right for 7 districts. Kern plus the north is almost exactly 5 districts. So keep Imperial with Arizona, but I'm not sure the Riverside chop follows your rules.

I really don't know yet what I am going to do with Southern California. I like the fact that Orange and San Diego counties have exactly enough for each to be their own region and I don't think I want to mess with that. I should have noted with my rules that no one rule is more important than the other and I should have noted that minority-majority collation regions, like the South Central Black/Hispanic and the Eastern LA County Asian/Hispanic regions, are acceptable. I feel like due to the sheer size of these regions, having minority collations would be necessary and probably allowable. My fear with making your proposed changes is that it would really mess up and dramatically alter the rest of the regions in the Southwest, especially in Arizona, Nevada and Utah. 

Rules might be equivalent, but the VRA must take priority. Coalition districts don't count for that purpose unless it's clear that the Latinos can outvote the other minorities to get their candidate of choice, which historically has not been the case. I think I have convinced myself that a third CD in SoCal for a Latino isn't practical, so you can leave SD intact and Imperial with Arizona. However, OC is in the same UCC as LAC, so it is reasonable to chop it to get a second solid Latino district.

[muon2]

As I continue to look at CA between hangs of DRA, I conclude that there should be two 60+ HVAP districts in LAC where one connects to OC with Anaheim/Santa Ana. The best I could do with SB and Riverside was to add Pomona then stretch it all the way to Imperial then back along the border to SW SD county. That only gets to 58% HVAP, so 60+ isn't plausible there.

Other observations of CA. CA is just barely over 12 districts. SoCal minus Kern and Imperial is just right for 7 districts. Kern plus the north is almost exactly 5 districts. So keep Imperial with Arizona, but I'm not sure the Riverside chop follows your rules.

I really don't know yet what I am going to do with Southern California. I like the fact that Orange and San Diego counties have exactly enough for each to be their own region and I don't think I want to mess with that. I should have noted with my rules that no one rule is more important than the other and I should have noted that minority-majority collation regions, like the South Central Black/Hispanic and the Eastern LA County Asian/Hispanic regions, are acceptable. I feel like due to the sheer size of these regions, having minority collations would be necessary and probably allowable. My fear with making your proposed changes is that it would really mess up and dramatically alter the rest of the regions in the Southwest, especially in Arizona, Nevada and Utah. 

Rules might be equivalent, but the VRA must take priority. Coalition districts don't count for that purpose unless it's clear that the Latinos can outvote the other minorities to get their candidate of choice, which historically has not been the case. I think I have convinced myself that a third CD in SoCal for a Latino isn't practical, so you can leave SD intact and Imperial with Arizona. However, OC is in the same UCC as LAC, so it is reasonable to chop it to get a second solid Latino district.

I'll look into it, part of the reason I'm so hesitant to make the change is how slow my DRA is, lol!

I'm working on a DRA pic of SoCal with two solid Latino districts in LAC+OC.

Meanwhile, removing the populations of Imperial, Inyo, Mono, and Alpine leaves CA with enough population for exactly 12 districts. The seven northern counties are an additional 440 K removed from CA, plus whatever is removed from Riverside. That means all the CA districts are depopulated in your plan by 1% to 2% on average. I presume there are other overpopulated districts that could give up population. Why depopulate CA so much?

[muon2]

It would be great to see what you can come up with for SoCal, its taking me hours just to draw a single district. I should note that the orange region with San Francisco and the northern Bay area includes Hawaii. I wanted to connect Hawaii with a mainland region could be majority Asian/Pacific Islander. Alaska is easy to connect to the mainland because there are some similarities with the Interior West, but its not as easy with Hawaii and it needs to go somewhere.

Hawaii explains a lot. Did you consider attaching it to LAC? HI would fit very nicely with the non-Latino areas along the west coast of LAC including Hollywood, Santa Monica, Torrance, and Palos Verde, an area that includes LAX. BTW, how much are you moving from Riverside to Arizona?

[muon2]

I got DRA up long enough to put together a map for LA county. The two Latino CDs are both 62% HVAP and should be enough to comply with the VRA. The teal part from LAC can either connect to Ventura, SB, and SLO as here, or to Hawaii.



BTW, if the lime area includes all of Riverside and Imperial the HVAP rises over 48% and it becomes a Latino crossover district. I know that shorts your southern Arizona, but have you considered using the original form of AZ that included Clark NV and NM? That could be divided into three districts after the eastern part of NM was removed. The Reno area could then join with northern CA. I can draw it, if you are interested.

[muon2]

Here's a more complete picture of how I would do SoCal. Overall the seven colored districts are within 40 K of the ideal population. There are two solid Latino VRA districts and one opportunity district.

district 6 (3078K): WVAP 56.6%, HVAP 23.8%, AVAP 11.3%; pres 08: D 66.9%, gov 10: D 59.6%.
district 7 (3057K): WVAP 46.9%, HVAP 27.9%, AVAP 16.6%; pres 08: D 56.4%, gov 10: D 50.7%.
district 8 (3088K): WVAP 11.9%, BVAP 13.9%, HVAP 62.1%, AVAP 10.5%; pres 08: D 82.7%, gov 10: D 81.5%.
district 9 (3070K): WVAP 18.4%, HVAP 62.0%, AVAP 14.8%; pres 08: D 64.8%, gov 10: D 62.0%.
district 10 (3109K): WVAP 53.8%, HVAP 21.1%, AVAP 19.2%; pres 08: D 49.3%, gov 10: D 40.1%.
district 11 (3072K): WVAP 35.3%, HVAP 49.5%; pres 08: D 57.1%, gov 10: D 52.7%.
district 12 (3095K): WVAP 52.9%, HVAP 27.9%, AVAP 11.6%; pres 08: D 55.1%, gov 10: D 46.9%.

[muon2]

Here's a more complete picture of how I would do SoCal. Overall the seven colored districts are within 40 K of the ideal population. There are two solid Latino VRA districts and one opportunity district.

district 6 (3078K): WVAP 56.6%, HVAP 23.8%, AVAP 11.3%; pres 08: D 66.9%, gov 10: D 59.6%.
district 7 (3057K): WVAP 46.9%, HVAP 27.9%, AVAP 16.6%; pres 08: D 56.4%, gov 10: D 50.7%.
district 8 (3088K): WVAP 11.9%, BVAP 13.9%, HVAP 62.1%, AVAP 10.5%; pres 08: D 82.7%, gov 10: D 81.5%.
district 9 (3070K): WVAP 18.4%, HVAP 62.0%, AVAP 14.8%; pres 08: D 64.8%, gov 10: D 62.0%.
district 10 (3109K): WVAP 53.8%, HVAP 21.1%, AVAP 19.2%; pres 08: D 49.3%, gov 10: D 40.1%.
district 11 (3072K): WVAP 35.3%, HVAP 49.5%; pres 08: D 57.1%, gov 10: D 52.7%.
district 12 (3095K): WVAP 52.9%, HVAP 27.9%, AVAP 11.6%; pres 08: D 55.1%, gov 10: D 46.9%.

I'm going to try to use this as a guide and create 2 Hispanic regions. I think I am going to need to make sure the southeastern part of California is available for Arizona.

But I don't see how you can justify both a county split and a UCC chop which happened in your initial map there with Riverside. You really don't do anything like that anywhere else on your map. I can see moving Imperial to AZ and adding San Luis Obispo to SoCal which keeps the population within limits. It does mean that the Inland Empire district would lose some opportunity for Latinos.

[muon2]

If I keep it the way you have it, it really messes up the rest of the Southwest and Rocky Mountain areas. I would probably have to split up Nevada and or Utah. When I have some time I'll try to incorporate some of your ideas, while trying to keep Nevada and Utah together. I definitely want to keep the 2 Hispanic regions.

I think you are too attached to the unity of UT and NV. Yes, you should try to keep states intact, but not at the expense of chopping a UCC county in a state elsewhere. I also think that you are too wedded to putting all the Mormon areas together. I could just as well make the case for reuniting the historic Deseret area for the Mormons which would link all of NV (minus Clark) with UT.

For example, ID+WY+MT are a perfect match for one district, so why not preserve those states as a group. AK can arguably go with coastal WA since there are both flights and ferries between those points, whereas there aren't many if any from ID/MT to AK.

[muon2]

To follow up, here's one way I would embed a variant of my SoCal in the western part of the plan. I did shift Imperial to AZ but split no counties other than those in the LA area (6 districts) and Phoenix (2 districts). Except for the VRA districts, I minimized UCC splits and tried to minimize state line crossings. HI is with SF and AK is with Tacoma.

[muon2]

To follow up, here's one way I would embed a variant of my SoCal in the western part of the plan. I did shift Imperial to AZ but split no counties other than those in the LA area (6 districts) and Phoenix (2 districts). Except for the VRA districts, I minimized UCC splits and tried to minimize state line crossings. HI is with SF and AK is with Tacoma.

This is doable. I might make some changes on the edges, but I like this. What did you do with the Inland Empire district after moving it out of Imperial County, CA?

I added most of Rancho Cucamonga to the IE district to replace Imperial. The effect was to move the VAP to 47.3%. Then the Encino area of LA was shifted from the Coastal district to the Antelope Valley district.

[muon2]

I did a little more population balancing. The new line between 6 and 7 is Mulholland Dr, and between 7 and 11 west of San Bernardino is I-15 and I-210.

district 6 (3075K): WVAP 56.9%, HVAP 24.0%, AVAP 11.0%; pres 08: D 65.0%, gov 10: D 57.8%.
district 7 (3138K): WVAP 49.3%, HVAP 26.2%, AVAP 16.0%; pres 08: D 58.2%, gov 10: D 52.6%.
district 8 (3088K): WVAP 11.9%, BVAP 13.9%, HVAP 62.1%, AVAP 10.5%; pres 08: D 82.7%, gov 10: D 81.5%.
district 9 (3075K): WVAP 18.4%, HVAP 62.0%, AVAP 14.8%; pres 08: D 64.8%, gov 10: D 62.0%.
district 10 (3109K): WVAP 53.8%, HVAP 21.1%, AVAP 19.2%; pres 08: D 49.3%, gov 10: D 40.1%.
district 11 (3086K): WVAP 36.9%, HVAP 47.0%; pres 08: D 56.5%, gov 10: D 51.9%.
district 12 (3095K): WVAP 52.9%, HVAP 27.9%, AVAP 11.6%; pres 08: D 55.1%, gov 10: D 46.9%.

[muon2]

district 6: Obama 870,675; McCain 467,867
district 7: Obama 642,003; McCain 461,698
district 8: Obama 577,193; McCain 121,150
district 9: Obama 512,419; McCain 278,770
district 10: Obama 626,812; McCain 643,847
district 11: Obama 475,037; McCain 366,040