Likely next US districts after 2020

[windjammer]

So apparently:
- OH , MI, MN, RI, WV, IL, PA, AL and NY are going to lose 1 seat
-AZ, OR, CO, NC are going to win 1 seat seat
- FL 2 seats
- TX 3 seats


Anyone interested of drawing potential new maps for that? (or democratic or republican gerrymanders if you want to do so).
I truly wonder if republicans would be able to reduce even more the number of democratic seats in the already republican gerrymandered maps.

[LLR]

That's +2 in Trump 2016 states and -2 in Clinton 2016 states.

For 2012 numbers it's +3 for Romney -3 for Obama

[muon2]

We do a detailed thread on this every year when new estimates are released. The next release of state estimates will be later this month. Until then, here is my work from the 2015 release.

Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2015 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 5 and a quarter year period between the Census and the estimate. I then applied the annual growth rate to the 2010 reapportionment population to get the 2020 projection. This accounts for the extra overseas population used in reapportionment but not for redistricting. Ten years is a long stretch for a simple model like this, but here are the projected changes.

AL -1
AZ +1
CA +1
CO +1
FL +1
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
WV -1

There a number of changes since my projections last year. AL is down, AZ is up, OR is up and VA isn't up. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are CA-53, TX-39, OR-6, CA-54, and AZ-10 (#435).
The next five in line are FL-29, AL-7, VA-12, NY-27, MT-2.

[Mr.Phips]

Hmmm... if I had to guess for the states that are gaining/losing:

AL: obvious -1 GOP district provided VRA 2 is still standing
AZ: +1R, state is a natural GOP pack in the western desert and Phoenix suburbs, but the current map is a soft Dem gerrymander
CO: +1D under any neutral scenario, although Dems are currently 1 state senate seat away from controlling the process and drawing 6D/2R
FL: Would be a 1/1 split under a neutral process, but FL Supreme Court control hinges on the 2018 governor's election and they are the final authority on the current Fair Districts law
IL: -1D, tough to avoid this even if they still control the process
MN: Unclear.  A court map would axe one of the rural Dem held districts but also make the MSP inner suburbs district basically unwinnable for Paulsen.  If Republicans control redistricting, 5R/2D is now easy to do.
MI:  -1 Dem, they will find a way
NC: probably +1 D, don't see a viable way to do a safe 11R/3D map.
NY: -1R, the lost seat is almost surely coming from Upstate
OH: -1D, pending 2020 results, it should be easy to break up OH-13 between the surrounding CDs and have them all vote safely for Trump
OR: +1D if Dems still have control, +1R on any neutral map (and DeFazio's seat may be gone by 2022 either way)
PA: -1R if Wolf gets reelected, -1D if he doesn't
RI: obviously -1D, but a blessing in disguise as I can't see Langevin holding on through to 2030.
TX: 2R/1D most likely.  Although unlikely to happen, a neutral map in TX would be a Dem bonanza
WV: obviously -1R, I think it will be Mooney's district that gets broken up

Note also that VA not gaining a 12th seat is a major blessing in disguise for Democrats.  While 8R/4D could have easily been drawn, it will be impossible to keep VA-10 (and VA-04 if the court order is overturned) safe on an 11 district map even if Republicans are drawing it.

Well if Dems win the governorship in Michigan in 2018, they can force a neutral map there, meaning that the lost seat would be Republican and likely at least another GOP held seat in the Detroit suburbs (probably either MI-08 or MI-11) would almost certainly become more Dem leaning.

Same if Wolf wins again in PA.  A fair map would eliminate a GOP seat (likely in the Pittsburgh area) and break the gerrymander of the Philly suburbs, making PA-06 and PA-07 much more Dem leaning.

[Miles]

IL: -1D, tough to avoid this even if they still control the process

But what if they combine 12 and 13 into a more favorable Dem seat?

[Mr.Phips]

IL: -1D, tough to avoid this even if they still control the process

But what if they combine 12 and 13 into a more favorable Dem seat?

Essentially one district that squiggles all around downstate to pick up Dem votes in East St. Louis, Carbondale, Champaign, and Bloomington.  I'd think that'd be a seat that even Hillary won relatively easily.

[Miles]

^ I think I found that something like this would have been about 57% Obama in 2012:

[Mr.Phips]

^ I think I found that something like this would have been about 57% Obama in 2012:

Very nice and much cleaner looking than I envisioned.

[bagelman]

Hmmm... if I had to guess for the states that are gaining/losing:

AL: obvious -1 GOP district provided VRA 2 is still standing
AZ: +1R, state is a natural GOP pack in the western desert and Phoenix suburbs, but the current map is a soft Dem gerrymander
CO: +1D under any neutral scenario, although Dems are currently 1 state senate seat away from controlling the process and drawing 6D/2R
FL: Would be a 1/1 split under a neutral process, but FL Supreme Court control hinges on the 2018 governor's election and they are the final authority on the current Fair Districts law
IL: -1D, tough to avoid this even if they still control the process
MN: Unclear.  A court map would axe one of the rural Dem held districts but also make the MSP inner suburbs district basically unwinnable for Paulsen.  If Republicans control redistricting, 5R/2D is now easy to do.
MI:  -1 Dem, they will find a way
NC: probably +1 D, don't see a viable way to do a safe 11R/3D map.
NY: -1R, the lost seat is almost surely coming from Upstate
OH: -1D, pending 2020 results, it should be easy to break up OH-13 between the surrounding CDs and have them all vote safely for Trump
OR: +1D if Dems still have control, +1R on any neutral map (and DeFazio's seat may be gone by 2022 either way)
PA: -1R if Wolf gets reelected, -1D if he doesn't
RI: obviously -1D, but a blessing in disguise as I can't see Langevin holding on through to 2030.
TX: 2R/1D most likely.  Although unlikely to happen, a neutral map in TX would be a Dem bonanza
WV: obviously -1R, I think it will be Mooney's district that gets broken up

Note also that VA not gaining a 12th seat is a major blessing in disguise for Democrats.  While 8R/4D could have easily been drawn, it will be impossible to keep VA-10 (and VA-04 if the court order is overturned) safe on an 11 district map even if Republicans are drawing it.

Well if Dems win the governorship in Michigan in 2018, they can force a neutral map there, meaning that the lost seat would be Republican and likely at least another GOP held seat in the Detroit suburbs (probably either MI-08 or MI-11) would almost certainly become more Dem leaning.

Same if Wolf wins again in PA.  A fair map would eliminate a GOP seat (likely in the Pittsburgh area) and break the gerrymander of the Philly suburbs, making PA-06 and PA-07 much more Dem leaning.

also issue one in ohio is supposed to stop gerrymandering

[Virginiá]

also issue one in ohio is supposed to stop gerrymandering

The "reform" they passed in 2015 was only for legislative districts. The wanted to "wait and see how it works" before doing Congressional reform, meaning wait until >2022.

Even then, what they passed wasn't great. It essentially still allows gerrymandering, except the maps would only last 4 years instead of 10 if there was no consensus between the parties. The idea was that a turnover of lawmakers later on could mean a new attempt to get fair maps, but if you rig the legislative districts once you're likely to maintain power through the next round. I think it also allows people to sue if the balance of power is disproportionate, but in state court that means facing a heavily Republican SSC.

Any true reform is going to have to come through the initiative process.

[windjammer]

Regarding Ohio, https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cy2BXjQWIAEuYAV.jpg
The results with a neutral map, Clinton would still have won 6 seats.

[Padfoot]

Given the possibility of 2 states having over 1 million people and only getting 1 House seat each I wonder if we'll see an increase in the House size.

[jimrtex]

So apparently:
- OH , MI, MN, RI, WV, IL, PA, AL and NY are going to lose 1 seat
-AZ, OR, CO, NC are going to win 1 seat seat
- FL 2 seats
- TX 3 seats

Anyone interested of drawing potential new maps for that? (or democratic or republican gerrymanders if you want to do so).
I truly wonder if republicans would be able to reduce even more the number of democratic seats in the already republican gerrymandered maps.

RI, -1 D

NY, seat will be upstate. Downstate the 3 R seats are solid. The Long Island seats will probably have to move to the west, so NY-3 probably can't be flipped. Slaughter is ancient, and barely won in 2014.

Districts with an anchor city (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany) are protected. Also seats in corners are protected. So either NY-22 or NY-23 are the eliminated seats. I would choose NY-23. NY-25 and NY-26 take from NY-27, which in turn grabs a big chunk of western NY-23. NY-22 and NY-24 grab the remainder. The position of NY-19 depends on whether a whole district is lost upstate. If the current 18:9 split changes to 17.8:8.2 then NY-19 moves northward.

So either -1 R, or -1 D if NY-25 is flipped.

PA, -1 R, unless Republicans go eliminate PA-17.

WV, -1 R.

OH, -1 R. The Democratic sinks are well placed. Conceivably, a NW Ohio seat could neutralize Toledo and let OH-5 become a Cleveland seat. Alternatively, you can expand NY-5 in the Cleveland area, in an attempt to knock off Kaptur in a primary.

MI, -1 R. MI-5 could be flipped to go south from Flint.

IL, -1/2 R, -1/2 D. IL-10 gets eliminated as Democrats protect their other incumbents.

MN this could be transformational. It becomes a 4:3 split as St.Cloud is moved out. The outstate districts could all flip as they take in outer suburbs.

If Minneapolis-St.Paul are combined in a single district. Democrats may be able hold on to inner suburban districts. Much safer to keep them separate and add inner suburbs, and two Republican suburban seats. +2R, -3D.

NC, +1 R

FL, +2 R with the seats added in SW and Central Florida. If Polk is taken from FL-9, it pushes FL-7 northward and flips it back R. FL-13 will also expand northward.

So +2 R minimum, to +4 R, -2D maximum.

AL, -1 R

TX, +2R, +1D

CO, CO-4 gets split, but CO-6 becomes vulnerable. +1R

AZ, +1R

OR, if OR-4 is pushed north far enough, it provides an opportunity to create a district in southern Oregon. OR-2 may expand into Clackamas to get enough population. +1 R.

Total about 3.5 to R.

[krazen1211]

Democrats are massively over represented in Texas. +3 R is easy. Condense TX-35 into Austin, and TX-21 gets some parts of San Antonio. Plenty of room to make TX-23 a safe seat. Plus take the heavily over-represented Valley region and condense to 2 districts. +1 R.

Also, take the blacks out of TX-33 so that rascal Veasey can be primaried by a Hispanic. And maybe bust up Gene Greene's TX-29 too. +1 R again.

I am liking this new map.

[Torie]

Democrats are massively over represented in Texas. +3 R is easy. Condense TX-35 into Austin, and TX-21 gets some parts of San Antonio. Plenty of room to make TX-23 a safe seat. Plus take the heavily over-represented Valley region and condense to 2 districts. +1 R.

Also, take the blacks out of TX-33 so that rascal Veasey can be primaried by a Hispanic. And maybe bust up Gene Greene's TX-29 too. +1 R again.

I am liking this new map.

I know you don't like the VRA, but doesn't your Texas fantasy run afoul of it?

NY-25 won't be flipping even though it might move a point or two in the Pub direction by taking in the balance of Monroe County, plus a bit of Ontario, unless the Pub trend upstate continues, so to me the odds are pretty high that a Pub seat will be lost upstate. The seat that will be blown apart into pieces is almost certainly going to be mine, NY-19, as I have discussed (and shared with Will Yandik, but I digress). But there is a Pub seat to be had there in south Brooklyn, and perhaps a tossup seat if one is drawn that takes in Rockland, Orange and Sullivan counties (the old Gilmore seat reborn). So the ultimate result is uncertain.

In MN, when I played with the maps, MN-07 is gone, and the new northern MN-08 is about the same as it is now as to PVI, but that was before the big Pub trend this year, which if it hold, will flip it to Pub. The rest of the CD's don't change much in PVI, although I guess MN-02 could move a bit more Pub.

[Lachi]

Given the possibility of 2 states having over 1 million people and only getting 1 House seat each I wonder if we'll see an increase in the House size.

The house size is regulated by law, it cannot be increased, unless the law is amended.

[krazen1211]

Democrats are massively over represented in Texas. +3 R is easy. Condense TX-35 into Austin, and TX-21 gets some parts of San Antonio. Plenty of room to make TX-23 a safe seat. Plus take the heavily over-represented Valley region and condense to 2 districts. +1 R.

Also, take the blacks out of TX-33 so that rascal Veasey can be primaried by a Hispanic. And maybe bust up Gene Greene's TX-29 too. +1 R again.

I am liking this new map.

I know you don't like the VRA, but doesn't your Texas fantasy run afoul of it?

NY-25 won't be flipping even though it might move a point or two in the Pub direction by taking in the balance of Monroe County, plus a bit of Ontario, unless the Pub trend upstate continues, so to me the odds are pretty high that a Pub seat will be lost upstate. The seat that will be blown apart into pieces is almost certainly going to be mine, NY-19, as I have discussed (and shared with Will Yandik, but I digress). But there is a Pub seat to be had there in south Brooklyn, and perhaps a tossup seat if one is drawn that takes in Rockland, Orange and Sullivan counties (the old Gilmore seat reborn). So the ultimate result is uncertain.

In MN, when I played with the maps, MN-07 is gone, and the new northern MN-08 is about the same as it is now as to PVI, but that was before the big Pub trend this year, which if it hold, will flip it to Pub. The rest of the CD's don't change much in PVI, although I guess MN-02 could move a bit more Pub.

Different people may say different things. Laws change, judges change, and districts change. That's how things go.


In 2011 the Texas Legislature passed the Joe Barton map C185 designed to give Republicans merely 26 of the districts (1 DFW, 3 HOU, 2 SA+AUS, 3 Valley, 1 EP).

Link

Naturally like all maps that went into litigation. At the time the Hispanic groups got another DFW district, but at the time it was described as a 'just there' district, not any sort of special district. I will apply that same standard to the 3 districts in Houston and remove 1. Since then, if anything, cases have gone away from bizarre racial squiggles that cross from Charlotte to Greensboro, or Dallas to Ft. Worth.

In any case, the legislature has the advantage. Despite all the wailing that Hispanic groups did, they ended up losing districts (although they did win a Senate seat). Wendy Davis did more wailing that they lost that district too. Sad! This time they should have to make a deal or else they won't get any districts.

My proposed map is would both have more compact districts than the current map and only give the GOP 30 districts. There's nothing more compact than a circle over most of Austin.


My maps.

TX-28 consists of Webb and Hidalgo Counties
TX-34 consists of Cameron and Hidalgo Counties
TX-15 contains all counties in between Bexar County and the border.
TX-20 consists of Central Bexar County
TX-21 consists of Northeastern and Southern Bexar County
TX-23 consists of Northern Bexar County
TX-11 consists of various West Texas Counties
TX-39 consists of Southeastern Harris County
TX-02 consists of Northeastern Harris County
TX-29 consists of Northwestern and downtown Harris County, and some of the Woodlands
TX-35 consists of Travis County
TX-37 consists of Hays, Comal, and Bastrop Counties
TX-38 consts of portions of Northwest Dallas County and some of Denton and Collin Counties.

[krazen1211]

Lol, Hillary Clinton got 43% of the vote in Texas and only lost by 9.  Whoever runs that loser Abbott out of town on a rail in a Trump midterm will veto anything with less than 17 Clinton seats, if Anthony Kennedy doesn't get around to mandating such proportionality first.

I am pretty sure you are wrong about everything, champ. This sounds suspiciously like the line that Wendy Davis would be competitive against Abbott. Instead she lost her own district!

Mandating proportionality would mean that white liberals in Massachusetts would not be able to draw bleached districts for whites only. Be careful what you wish for.

In any case, my maps have more than 8 Clinton districts.  They might even have close to 15 Clinton districts. Doesn't matter much because the loser party can't win them anyway. You no longer have Eric Holder's Gestapo.

And for the record, Bill Clinton got 43.8% of the vote in Texas in 1996. Hillary Clinton got 43.2% of the vote in Texas in 2016. Great progress!

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Ugh, Texas is still mushrooming?

[Gass3268]

Ugh, Texas is still mushrooming?

Yes.  At some point, Dems just need to accept reality and take their strategy where the people are.

This year was a good start.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Ugh, Texas is still mushrooming?

Yes.  At some point, Dems just need to accept reality and take their strategy where the people are.

To be clear, I don't necessarily have anything against Texas in particular--I've never been there; I have no strong opinion on it--I just think it's ridiculous and unsustainable that any one state should keep growing and growing and growing and growing like this.

[Nyvin]

How is Illinois in danger of losing a Dem seat?

The populations of the non-Chicagoland districts are just barely 700k (three of them are sub-700k) while the districts in the Chicago area all fall into the range of 720k or even 730k.  

Even more if Rauner loses re-election the Dems are pretty much assured full control of redistricting, and the proportional representation mandate going through the courts wouldn't really have any affect since the Chicago districts are all still such massive vote sinks for Dems.

Also I really have a hard time seeing the NC GOP drawing an 11-3 map after the lawsuit that went through earlier this year.  

[Gass3268]

Ugh, Texas is still mushrooming?

Yes.  At some point, Dems just need to accept reality and take their strategy where the people are.

To be clear, I don't necessarily have anything against Texas in particular--I've never been there; I have no strong opinion on it--I just think it's ridiculous and unsustainable that any one state should keep growing and growing and growing and growing like this.

Not as crazy as the growth California had in the 20th Century:

1900 Census: 8
1910 Census: 11 (+3)
1920 Census: 11
1930 Census: 22 (+11)
1940 Census: 25 (+3)
1950 Census: 32 (+7)
1960 Census: 40 (+8)
1970 Census: 45 (+5)
1980 Census: 47 (+2)
1990 Census: 54 (+7)
2000 Census: 55 (+1)
2010 Census: 55

[Mr.Phips]

How is Illinois in danger of losing a Dem seat?

The populations of the non-Chicagoland districts are just barely 700k (three of them are sub-700k) while the districts in the Chicago area all fall into the range of 720k or even 730k.  

Even more if Rauner loses re-election the Dems are pretty much assured full control of redistricting, and the proportional representation mandate going through the courts wouldn't really have any affect since the Chicago districts are all still such massive vote sinks for Dems.

Also I really have a hard time seeing the NC GOP drawing an 11-3 map after the lawsuit that went through earlier this year.  

As I mentioned above, it would be very easy to eliminate a downstate GOP district and then put all of the most Dem areas of downstate into one district designed to elect a Dem.  Additionally, Dems could shore up the 10th by swapping out some more Cook precincts with the 9th and 5th.

[Gass3268]

How is Illinois in danger of losing a Dem seat?

The populations of the non-Chicagoland districts are just barely 700k (three of them are sub-700k) while the districts in the Chicago area all fall into the range of 720k or even 730k.  

Even more if Rauner loses re-election the Dems are pretty much assured full control of redistricting, and the proportional representation mandate going through the courts wouldn't really have any affect since the Chicago districts are all still such massive vote sinks for Dems.

Also I really have a hard time seeing the NC GOP drawing an 11-3 map after the lawsuit that went through earlier this year.  

As I mentioned above, it would be very easy to eliminate a downstate GOP district and then put all of the most Dem areas of downstate into one district designed to elect a Dem.  Additionally, Dems could shore up the 10th by swapping out some more Cook precincts with the 9th and 5th.

Exactly, eliminate IL-12 and combine it's best Democratic parts with the best Democratic parts of IL-13. You can construct a District that goes from Carbondale, up to via the Mississippi River to Belleville/East St. Louis, then up on I-55 to Edwardsville, follow I-55 to Springfield, then take I-72 though Decatur to Champlain, and then finally go up I-74 to Bloomington.