Downstate Illinois in 2020

[Mr. Illini]

Illinois is almost certain to lose a congressional seat in the 2020 rearrangement.

IL-12 and IL-13 are appearing increasingly difficult for Democrats to win, with IL-13 seeing problems with turnout (Dem base is African-Americans and college students) and IL-12 seeing departing southern Democrats.

In 2020, Dems may look to draw the most Democratic parts of these two districts to lock down a district downstate.

This is one option that they may channel:



This district was 60/40 Obama/McCain in 2008. The demographics are similar to those of the current IL-13.

It includes all of Champaign-Urbana, all of Decatur, the more Democratic southern parts of Springfield, some of the more persistently Democratic portions of Calhoun County, and then most of the St. Louis Metro East suburbs.

Comments? Other ideas?

[muon2]

It's a district they should have drawn in 2011, but Pelosi wanted to gamble on getting a 13-5 delegation from IL. The result is that the delegation is only 10-8 today. An 11-7 would have been a gimme, just by drawing the district you did, but the DCCC overplayed the 2008 Obama factor in crafting the districts.

[Miles]

This district is almost 61% Obama. For 2012, I think I estimated it would have fallen to between 56.5% and 57% Obama.

[Torie]

It's a district they should have drawn in 2011, but Pelosi wanted to gamble on getting a 13-5 delegation from IL. The result is that the delegation is only 10-8 today. An 11-7 would have been a gimme, just by drawing the district you did, but the DCCC overplayed the 2008 Obama factor in crafting the districts.

What are the prospects now in Illinois of getting something on the books of the ballot reducing the ability to shamelessly gerrymander?

[Nyvin]

It's probably not as safe of a district as the OP's, but it has three full counties and is obviously more compact,  plus it follows the interstate in the area quite well.    This is something the Dems might do.

57.8% Obama


how do i print screen

[Nyvin]

It's a district they should have drawn in 2011, but Pelosi wanted to gamble on getting a 13-5 delegation from IL. The result is that the delegation is only 10-8 today. An 11-7 would have been a gimme, just by drawing the district you did, but the DCCC overplayed the 2008 Obama factor in crafting the districts.

What are the prospects now in Illinois of getting something on the books of the ballot reducing the ability to shamelessly gerrymander?

I thought gerrymanders were as American as Apple Pie.....

[Torie]

It's a district they should have drawn in 2011, but Pelosi wanted to gamble on getting a 13-5 delegation from IL. The result is that the delegation is only 10-8 today. An 11-7 would have been a gimme, just by drawing the district you did, but the DCCC overplayed the 2008 Obama factor in crafting the districts.

What are the prospects now in Illinois of getting something on the books of the ballot reducing the ability to shamelessly gerrymander?

I thought gerrymanders were as American as Apple Pie.....

Ah, you remember that bon mot by me. Well, they are. But yes, slowly, ever so slowly, things are moving towards gerrys becoming more un-American.

[Gass3268]

It's a district they should have drawn in 2011, but Pelosi wanted to gamble on getting a 13-5 delegation from IL. The result is that the delegation is only 10-8 today. An 11-7 would have been a gimme, just by drawing the district you did, but the DCCC overplayed the 2008 Obama factor in crafting the districts.

What are the prospects now in Illinois of getting something on the books of the ballot reducing the ability to shamelessly gerrymander?

They shouldn't unless Texas or Pennsylvania does the same.

[muon2]

The Independent Maps group recently announced that it had over 300k signatures towards its goal of 600k by spring. A minimum of 290k valid signatures are needed to get on the ballot in Nov 2016.

[Mr. Illini]

The Independent Maps group recently announced that it had over 300k signatures towards its goal of 600k by spring. A minimum of 290k valid signatures are needed to get on the ballot in Nov 2016.

I will vote against. It must be done at once, as the host of Republican-controlled states don't seem to be easing on this any time soon. Illinois must be a buffer against maps like North Carolina.

[DavidB.]

This map seems like a perfect illustration to use in a Political Science 101 course while discussing gerrymandering.

[Nyvin]

This map seems like a perfect illustration to use in a Political Science 101 course while discussing gerrymandering.

Yeah, it can be the "Look!  Democrats do it too!" after going through the plethora of Republican gerrymanders.

[DavidB.]

Yeah, it can be the "Look!  Democrats do it too!" after going through the plethora of Republican gerrymanders.

My comment was by no means meant as a partisan thing...

[muon2]

The Independent Maps group recently announced that it had over 300k signatures towards its goal of 600k by spring. A minimum of 290k valid signatures are needed to get on the ballot in Nov 2016.

I will vote against. It must be done at once, as the host of Republican-controlled states don't seem to be easing on this any time soon. Illinois must be a buffer against maps like North Carolina.

Ohio has a measure on the ballot and on a percentage basis from the statewide average they are more tilted to the Pubs than NC.

[Torie]

The Independent Maps group recently announced that it had over 300k signatures towards its goal of 600k by spring. A minimum of 290k valid signatures are needed to get on the ballot in Nov 2016.

I will vote against. It must be done at once, as the host of Republican-controlled states don't seem to be easing on this any time soon. Illinois must be a buffer against maps like North Carolina.

Ohio has a measure on the ballot and on a percentage basis from the statewide average they are more tilted to the Pubs than NC.

Which ballot measure does not apply in Ohio to Congressional Districts, right (just state legislative seats)? But yes, Ohio going non partisan in exchange for Illinois going non partisan in redistricting, would be a fair trade.

[muon2]

The Independent Maps group recently announced that it had over 300k signatures towards its goal of 600k by spring. A minimum of 290k valid signatures are needed to get on the ballot in Nov 2016.

I will vote against. It must be done at once, as the host of Republican-controlled states don't seem to be easing on this any time soon. Illinois must be a buffer against maps like North Carolina.

Ohio has a measure on the ballot and on a percentage basis from the statewide average they are more tilted to the Pubs than NC.

Which ballot measure does not apply in Ohio to Congressional Districts, right (just state legislative seats)? But yes, Ohio going non partisan in exchange for Illinois going non partisan in redistricting, would be a fair trade.

Correct. Neither initiative involves congressional districts. Neither constitution addresses congressional districts, which makes sense since they are really not part of the charter of how to run the state.

[Nyvin]

The Illinois gerrymander isn't really all that strong.    The main purpose of it is the two swing seats in the south (which Republicans currently hold both...).

What else is there?   The 3rd or 17th??   Possibly, but really I doubt it'd change much with an independent commission.    It's not like they'd create a Republican gerrymander and eliminate those area's Dem voters.

The Ohio map has a lot more to go after, you can make four Dem seats in the Northeast that aren't that crazy looking, a Toledo seat, a Cinninatti seat.   Maybe a competitive Dayton seat.    It certainly wouldn't be a 12-4 map anymore.

[muon2]

The Illinois gerrymander isn't really all that strong.    The main purpose of it is the two swing seats in the south (which Republicans currently hold both...).

What else is there?   The 3rd or 17th??   Possibly, but really I doubt it'd change much with an independent commission.    It's not like they'd create a Republican gerrymander and eliminate those area's Dem voters.

The Ohio map has a lot more to go after, you can make four Dem seats in the Northeast that aren't that crazy looking, a Toledo seat, a Cinninatti seat.   Maybe a competitive Dayton seat.    It certainly wouldn't be a 12-4 map anymore.

The most likely neutral CD map in OH is 9-7 or 10-6 Pub, but it can go to 8-8 if competitiveness is pushed as a criteria. The Pub skew is due to the requirement of a black district in NE OH. So it represents a shift of 2 or 3 seats from the current map.

Keep in mind that the Dems gambled and lost on a 13-5 map, but a safe 12-6 could have been drawn instead. A neutral 10-8 Dem map represents a 2 seat shift from what they should have drawn and does balance OH.

In any case the most effective gerrymanders are at the state legislative level and that's what the amendments would address.

[Nyvin]

The Illinois gerrymander isn't really all that strong.    The main purpose of it is the two swing seats in the south (which Republicans currently hold both...).

What else is there?   The 3rd or 17th??   Possibly, but really I doubt it'd change much with an independent commission.    It's not like they'd create a Republican gerrymander and eliminate those area's Dem voters.

The Ohio map has a lot more to go after, you can make four Dem seats in the Northeast that aren't that crazy looking, a Toledo seat, a Cinninatti seat.   Maybe a competitive Dayton seat.    It certainly wouldn't be a 12-4 map anymore.

The most likely neutral CD map in OH is 9-7 or 10-6 Pub, but it can go to 8-8 if competitiveness is pushed as a criteria. The Pub skew is due to the requirement of a black district in NE OH. So it represents a shift of 2 or 3 seats from the current map.

Keep in mind that the Dems gambled and lost on a 13-5 map, but a safe 12-6 could have been drawn instead. A neutral 10-8 Dem map represents a 2 seat shift from what they should have drawn and does balance OH.

In any case the most effective gerrymanders are at the state legislative level and that's what the amendments would address.

9-7 in Ohio is pretty reasonable.    It's basically each major city except Dayton getting a Dem seat, with Cleveland getting two (Columbus, Toledo, Cincinnati, Youngtown, Akron, 2 in Cleveland).    The GOP would get whatever is left.

The Dayton seat would lean GOP, but would be somewhat competitive.

[Torie]

The Illinois gerrymander isn't really all that strong.    The main purpose of it is the two swing seats in the south (which Republicans currently hold both...).

What else is there?   The 3rd or 17th??   Possibly, but really I doubt it'd change much with an independent commission.    It's not like they'd create a Republican gerrymander and eliminate those area's Dem voters.

The Ohio map has a lot more to go after, you can make four Dem seats in the Northeast that aren't that crazy looking, a Toledo seat, a Cinninatti seat.   Maybe a competitive Dayton seat.    It certainly wouldn't be a 12-4 map anymore.

The most likely neutral CD map in OH is 9-7 or 10-6 Pub, but it can go to 8-8 if competitiveness is pushed as a criteria. The Pub skew is due to the requirement of a black district in NE OH. So it represents a shift of 2 or 3 seats from the current map.

Keep in mind that the Dems gambled and lost on a 13-5 map, but a safe 12-6 could have been drawn instead. A neutral 10-8 Dem map represents a 2 seat shift from what they should have drawn and does balance OH.

In any case the most effective gerrymanders are at the state legislative level and that's what the amendments would address.

9-7 in Ohio is pretty reasonable.    It's basically each major city except Dayton getting a Dem seat, with Cleveland getting two (Columbus, Toledo, Cincinnati, Youngtown, Akron, 2 in Cleveland).    The GOP would get whatever is left.

The Dayton seat would lean GOP, but would be somewhat competitive.

When I did the exercise of a map hewing to neutral metrics, the Dems pick up a seat around Akron, and the Cincinnati and NE corner seats become swing districts, although by now the Cincy seat is probably lean Dem. So call it about a 1.75 seat Dem pickup.

Oh, and the Dem gerrymander of Maryland is uglier than the one in Illinois by the way, which "stole" 2 seats from the Pubs. And then there is AZ, which turned out to be a Dem gerrymander, which turned 3 Pub seats into a lean Dem seat, a tilt Dem seat, and a tossup seat, for a loss of maybe two seats.  Probably around 2 seats are involved in Illinois. 

[Nyvin]

The Illinois gerrymander isn't really all that strong.    The main purpose of it is the two swing seats in the south (which Republicans currently hold both...).

What else is there?   The 3rd or 17th??   Possibly, but really I doubt it'd change much with an independent commission.    It's not like they'd create a Republican gerrymander and eliminate those area's Dem voters.

The Ohio map has a lot more to go after, you can make four Dem seats in the Northeast that aren't that crazy looking, a Toledo seat, a Cinninatti seat.   Maybe a competitive Dayton seat.    It certainly wouldn't be a 12-4 map anymore.

The most likely neutral CD map in OH is 9-7 or 10-6 Pub, but it can go to 8-8 if competitiveness is pushed as a criteria. The Pub skew is due to the requirement of a black district in NE OH. So it represents a shift of 2 or 3 seats from the current map.

Keep in mind that the Dems gambled and lost on a 13-5 map, but a safe 12-6 could have been drawn instead. A neutral 10-8 Dem map represents a 2 seat shift from what they should have drawn and does balance OH.

In any case the most effective gerrymanders are at the state legislative level and that's what the amendments would address.

9-7 in Ohio is pretty reasonable.    It's basically each major city except Dayton getting a Dem seat, with Cleveland getting two (Columbus, Toledo, Cincinnati, Youngtown, Akron, 2 in Cleveland).    The GOP would get whatever is left.

The Dayton seat would lean GOP, but would be somewhat competitive.

When I did the exercise of a map hewing to neutral metrics, the Dems pick up a seat around Akron, and the Cincinnati and NE corner seats become swing districts, although by now the Cincy seat is probably lean Dem. So call it about a 1.75 seat Dem pickup.

Oh, and the Dem gerrymander of Maryland is uglier than the one in Illinois by the way, which "stole" 2 seats from the Pubs. And then there is AZ, which turned out to be a Dem gerrymander, which turned 3 Pub seats into a lean Dem seat, a tilt Dem seat, and a tossup seat, for a loss of maybe two seats.  Probably around 2 seats are involved in Illinois. 

How do you possibly not have Toledo getting it's own seat?   That coastal monster that's currently called OH-9 would be one of the first things to go with an independent commission.   If you create a simple district in and around Lucas County the seat would be in the range of 60% Obama.   

After that the western half of Cuyahoga and Lorain Co. would get it's own seat and that's in the range of 57% Obama.     Add that one pickup to the Akron and Cincinnati seats and it's pretty easy to get 3 pickup seats with a map redraw (I don't consider OH-13 an "Akron" seat).   

[Torie]

Yes, OH-09 would be the Toledo seat and Dem, just as now, and would withdraw from its Eastern salient. Yes, a Lorain based seat would be a tossup one, bearing in mind that the geography would add Pub areas appending Lorain. So add a half seat there.

[Mr.Phips]

The Illinois gerrymander isn't really all that strong.    The main purpose of it is the two swing seats in the south (which Republicans currently hold both...).

What else is there?   The 3rd or 17th??   Possibly, but really I doubt it'd change much with an independent commission.    It's not like they'd create a Republican gerrymander and eliminate those area's Dem voters.

The Ohio map has a lot more to go after, you can make four Dem seats in the Northeast that aren't that crazy looking, a Toledo seat, a Cinninatti seat.   Maybe a competitive Dayton seat.    It certainly wouldn't be a 12-4 map anymore.

The most likely neutral CD map in OH is 9-7 or 10-6 Pub, but it can go to 8-8 if competitiveness is pushed as a criteria. The Pub skew is due to the requirement of a black district in NE OH. So it represents a shift of 2 or 3 seats from the current map.

Keep in mind that the Dems gambled and lost on a 13-5 map, but a safe 12-6 could have been drawn instead. A neutral 10-8 Dem map represents a 2 seat shift from what they should have drawn and does balance OH.

In any case the most effective gerrymanders are at the state legislative level and that's what the amendments would address.

9-7 in Ohio is pretty reasonable.    It's basically each major city except Dayton getting a Dem seat, with Cleveland getting two (Columbus, Toledo, Cincinnati, Youngtown, Akron, 2 in Cleveland).    The GOP would get whatever is left.

The Dayton seat would lean GOP, but would be somewhat competitive.

When I did the exercise of a map hewing to neutral metrics, the Dems pick up a seat around Akron, and the Cincinnati and NE corner seats become swing districts, although by now the Cincy seat is probably lean Dem. So call it about a 1.75 seat Dem pickup.

I think that any fairly drawn seat in Cincinatti would be lean Dem now.  It'd be the kind of situation where the Republican would have a chance in a midterm, but would then just lose in the Presidential year.