Ohio - a celebration of the Muon2 rules

[jimrtex]

FWIW, I don't think there is any precedent that a theoretical 50% BVAP CD, that is impossible to draw in practice, or would look ridiculous, triggers Gingles, and I don't think SCOTUS will ever go there. It is going in the opposite direction. I also think 41.5% BVAP is clearly performing. So I don't think there is any case to chop Cleveland, and in particular a macrochop.

Aren't we supposed to balance erosity against chops, so the right course would seem to be to look at both alternatives. If you are saying that there is insufficient black population to trigger Gingles then there is no need to try to draw a performing district - chops and erosity should be the only factors.

Yes, per your rules, you are absolutely correct. But in the real world, such a CD would never be drawn. That is why if I wrote the legislation, I would allow a deviation of the rules to allow drawing performing minority CD's, if both parties agree, and they would in this case, particularly if the NE corner CD is only marginal politically, which it is. If one does not allow this flexibility, I don't think your rules would ever become law, nor adopted by a court.

Doesn't your law violate the 15th Amendment?

[jimrtex]

FWIW, I don't think there is any precedent that a theoretical 50% BVAP CD, that is impossible to draw in practice, or would look ridiculous, triggers Gingles, and I don't think SCOTUS will ever go there. It is going in the opposite direction. I also think 41.5% BVAP is clearly performing. So I don't think there is any case to chop Cleveland, and in particular a macrochop.

Aren't we supposed to balance erosity against chops, so the right course would seem to be to look at both alternatives. If you are saying that there is insufficient black population to trigger Gingles then there is no need to try to draw a performing district - chops and erosity should be the only factors.

Yes, per your rules, you are absolutely correct. But in the real world, such a CD would never be drawn. That is why if I wrote the legislation, I would allow a deviation of the rules to allow drawing performing minority CD's, if both parties agree, and they would in this case, particularly if the NE corner CD is only marginal politically, which it is. If one does not allow this flexibility, I don't think your rules would ever become law, nor adopted by a court.

Doesn't your law violate the 15th Amendment?

Well that never occurred to me. A law that allows the legislature to agree to draw districts so that minorities can have adequate representation where the metrics of the state law in practice otherwise preclude that, violates the 15th amendment? Has anyone made that argument in an analogous context? I would be amazed if that argument ever got any traction.

My understanding is that you propose bypassing persons in order to include persons of one race who would tend to be a political minority in that district, such that they are in effect wasting their time time by even voting, and that you would be seeking to maximize the number of such persons.

Is that not deliberate state action to disenfranchise persons on the basis of their race?

[jimrtex]

In order to increase minority representation, one reduces non minority representation. It's a zero sum game. The idea is to encourage where reasonable that minorities get representation commensurate with their numbers, and that is the law.

The US Constitution is that you can not classify based on race (14th Amendment), particularly with respect to the right to vote (15th Amendment).

You can't take the right to vote from one person and give it to another person.

[jimrtex]

This is the base map, showing projected populations for 2020, assuming 15 congressional districts.



Cleveland 2.504 districts. Stripping Lake and Medina, gives 1.979 for Cuyahoga and Lorain. This could result in Cleveland and the eastern suburbs in one district; and Lorain and the western and southern suburbs.

Columbus 2.411 districts. Franklin and Delaware together is 1.987, resulting in one district with the bulk of Columbus and southern suburbs in one district, and the remainder of Franklin and Delaware in the other. The smaller counties of Licking and Fairfield will form almost 1/2 of another district.

Cincinnati 2.101 districts. A small part of one of the suburban counties will be trimmed off. Hamilton is just over one district, but might have a tiny bit trimmed off.

Dayton 1.029 districts. The UCC can form a district.

Akron 0.905 districts. Adding Geauga has a population of 1.026.

Toledo 0.719 districts. Because of its isolation, the UCC will form the nucleus of a district extending into adjoining counties.

Youngstown 0.544 districts. Youngstown could conceivably be paired with Canton, but by taking up Ashtabula and Lake reacheds 0.960.

Canton 0.481 districts. Canton will be paired with Medina, to contain the five northeastern districts in the most urban areas.

Springfield 0.172 districts. Because Dayton will form a single district. Springfield (Clark County) will be treated as an isolated county.

Mansfield 0.153, Lima 0.132, Wheeling, WV 0.087, Steubenville 0.084, and Huntington, WV 0.077 will be treated as isolated counties.

[jimrtex]

Here is my district map.



1,2. Cleveland -1.0% Cuyahoga divided
3,4. Columbus -0.6% Franklin divided.
5,6, and 7. Cincinnati and Southern (Hamilton and Clermont (or Warren) divided +0.7%.
8. Dayton +2.9%
9. Akron +2.6%
10. Toledo -0.5%
11. Youngstown -4.0%
12. Canton -0.6%
13. East -1.2%
14. North +1.4%
15. West 0.7%

[jimrtex]

This is my detail for the two Cuyahoga districts.



1. Cleveland and eastern suburbs. -1.1%
2. Western and southern suburbs, and Lorain -0.9%. About 60% is in Cuyahoga, 40% in Lorain, which would make it about 75-80% suburbs, with the rest Lorain and Elyria and more rural parts of the county.

The Cleveland district is about as black as you can get in Cuyahoga County, and is pretty compact.

[jimrtex]

This is my detail for the Columbus area:



The OH-3 Green Monster includes Columbus, Bexley, and Perry and Clinton townships. 138,000 in Columbus needs to be transferred to OH-4 to equalize population. This would initially close the crevasse south of Dublin and link Prairie, Franklin, and Sharon townships, as well as provide a connection to Whitehall and Reynoldsburg. Some smaller remnants of townships may be switched to OH-3. The main criteria would be whether more of Columbus would need to be added, than the area that could be rescued.

Perry and Clinton townships are highly fragmented and only have about 4,000 each. Bexley is largely white, and to reach it would require a link through largely black areas. This would mean that the link would be as thin as possible, which gives a strong scent of race-sorting. Whitehall might also be included in the district. It is 19% Black (in 2010) and increasing.

This is a conceptual drawing.



The yellow boundary connects all of OH-4. The red X indicate areas that might be filled in to make OH-3 more compact, based on available population.

[jimrtex]

Cincinnati UCC detail.



OH-5 is Hamilton County minus a few slivers along the eastern edge.

OH-6 is Butler, Warren, the slivers from Hamilton, and northern Clermont, generally closer to the city.

OH-7 is the remainder of Clermont attached to 17 other counties in southern Ohio.

[jimrtex]

Final map including four divided counties: Franklin, Cuyahoga, Hamilton, and Clermont. The first three have population for more than one district, and one district is wholly within each.

[jimrtex]

Nice map, but you need to show the chops to score it.

It shows the chops, other than Columbus.

[jimrtex]

Nice map, but you need to show the chops to score it.

It shows the chops, other than Columbus.

Well the Dayton area CD needs a chop for sure, along with a chop into Geauga. You must not be using the 0.5% variance in population constraint. If that is the case, then we are doing an apples to oranges exercise, with you having your own set of rules.

Is this a requirement in the US Constitution, or federal statute?

[jimrtex]

Nice map, but you need to show the chops to score it.

It shows the chops, other than Columbus.

Well the Dayton area CD needs a chop for sure, along with a chop into Geauga. You must not be using the 0.5% variance in population constraint. If that is the case, then we are doing an apples to oranges exercise, with you having your own set of rules.

Is this a requirement in the US Constitution, or federal statute?

I don't want to revive that discussion, which you had with Muon2. Different metrics make different maps.

What if my map is qualitatively better?

[jimrtex]

Nice map, but you need to show the chops to score it.

It shows the chops, other than Columbus.

Well the Dayton area CD needs a chop for sure, along with a chop into Geauga. You must not be using the 0.5% variance in population constraint. If that is the case, then we are doing an apples to oranges exercise, with you having your own set of rules.

Is this a requirement in the US Constitution, or federal statute?

I don't want to revive that discussion, which you had with Muon2. Different metrics make different maps.

What if my map is qualitatively better?

Higher deviations in population tend to make for maps that fit the other constraints better. I have no idea what population constraint you are using. But it doesn't matter. It is going to be enough of a tough sell to push the 0.5% constraint, that seems pretty safe legally, assuming the states agree to it. Anyway, do your thing.  You will anyway.

A primary reason that the SCOTUS has resisted setting de minimis deviation standards, is that the limits become targets. A scoring system that favors certain thresholds makes them targets.

My map is based on seeking equality within the constraint of respecting county boundaries and UCC communities of interest. The constraint certainly was not to get within some predefined limit. So it is possible that the Muon2 method is not safe legally.

The equality of my plan can be measured by determining the number of persons who would have to be shifted across county lines in order to achieve equality. That is, a measure of whether you were attempting to hit the target or not. It is also a measure of the number of persons victimized by an obsessive compulsion to equalize population.

169,348 persons can be shifted to equalize population, but 77,000 of those are in Clermont. Otherwise it is only 91,519 statewide or about 1/126 Ohioans.

My districts are as equal as practicable, which is the standard set by the SCOTUS for congressional districts.

[jimrtex]

Nice map, but you need to show the chops to score it.

It shows the chops, other than Columbus.

Well the Dayton area CD needs a chop for sure, along with a chop into Geauga. You must not be using the 0.5% variance in population constraint. If that is the case, then we are doing an apples to oranges exercise, with you having your own set of rules.

Is this a requirement in the US Constitution, or federal statute?

I don't want to revive that discussion, which you had with Muon2. Different metrics make different maps.

What if my map is qualitatively better?

Higher deviations in population tend to make for maps that fit the other constraints better. I have no idea what population constraint you are using. But it doesn't matter. It is going to be enough of a tough sell to push the 0.5% constraint, that seems pretty safe legally, assuming the states agree to it. Anyway, do your thing.  You will anyway.

Why is your division of the Cincinnati UCC acceptable? The concept of UCC is so that you can't have districts stretching outward from major cities. One of yours almost reaches Michigan, and the other reaches West Virginia, yet the majority of the population in each is in the Cincinnati suburbs.

[jimrtex]

Why is your division of the Cincinnati UCC acceptable? The concept of UCC is so that you can't have districts stretching outward from major cities. One of yours almost reaches Michigan, and the other reaches West Virginia, yet the majority of the population in each is in the Cincinnati suburbs.

Here is a possible scoring system:

Quota: Population of total area divided by number of elected persons.

Entitlement: Population of sub-area divided by quota. (e.g. the quota for Franklin County is 1.715).

Normalized Population: Population of an area divided by the quota. Conventionally, this is displayed as mixed decimal fraction with three digits of accuracy (to 0.1% of a district population), but should be computed as a rational number.

Magnitude: Entitlement trunctated to whole number that is less than equal to entitlement. Sub-areas with an entitlement of less than a quota have a magnitude of zero.

Sub-areas should have a number of districts equal to the magnitude wholly within them, and no more than magnitude plus one districts wholly or partially within them.

(1) Penalty for failure to have magnitude districts wholly within a sub-area:

Magnitude minus normalized population of the magnitude most populated districts wholly or partially within a sub-area.

(2) Penalty for excessive division:

Normalized population of smallest districts in excess of magnitude plus one largest districts.

(3) Penalty for inequality:

Population that would have to be shifted to reach full equality.

Example:

Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati UCC's have magnitude 2, while Dayton UCC has magnitude of 1. All other UCCs have magnitude of zero.

Franklin, Cuyahoga, and Hamilton counties have magnitude 1, all others have a magnitude of zero.

Columbus (Franklin) has magnitude 1, all others have a magnitude of one.

Scoring of Torie and Jimrtex plans.


Cleveland UCC (magnitude 2):

Torie does not have two districts wholly in UCC, but includes all of UCC within 3 districts. Penalty the portion of the second largest district outside the UCC (population of Ashtabula 0.123).

Jimrtex does have two districts wholly in UCC, but is divided among four districts. Penalty for fourth district (population of Medina 0.231).

Columbus UCC (magnitude 2):

Torie and Jimrtex both have two districts wholly within the UCC, and one district containing the remainder. No penalties.

Cincinnati UCC (magnitude 2):

Torie has one district wholly within the UCC, and two districts partially within the UCC. Penalty for portion of district outside Warren-Ashtabula district 0.432.

Jimrtex has two districts wholly in UCC and a third extending outside the UCC (no penalty)

Dayton UCC (magnitude 1):

Both Torie and Jimrtex have one district wholly in UCC (no penalty).

All other UCCs (magnitude 0):

All are wholly contained in a single district (no penalty)

(Dis)respect for UCC:

Torie: 0.555
Jimrtex: 0.232

Large counties: Franklin, Cuyahoga, Hamilton (magnitude 1)

Torie and Jimrtext have one district wholly in counties, and the remainder in a second district. No penalty.

Large city: Columbus (Franklin) (magnitude 1):

Jimrtex has one district almost entirely in Columbus, with only a full small enclaves preventing this. A small penalty of perhaps 0.030. Torie apparently has a more substantial division of Columbus, likely around 0.100 to 0.200.

Division of small counties/inequality:

It really doesn't matter whether a specific area has been identified as in Torie's map for Geauga, which would be classified as a county split, or simply whether a shift would be necessary to achieve equality. Jimrtex has an inequality of 0.220, with 0.101 of that due to the split of Clermont. Another 0.055 is due to balancing the Dayton and Akron districts, which are present in Tories districts. There is no reason to suppose that the remaining is materially different than Torie's plan.

Total Penalties:

UCC: T 0.555, J 0.232
Counties: T 0.000, J 0.000
Cities: T 0.100-0.200, J 0.030
Inequality: T 0.119, J 0.220

Total: T 0.764, J 0.482

[jimrtex]

Why is your division of the Cincinnati UCC acceptable? The concept of UCC is so that you can't have districts stretching outward from major cities. One of yours almost reaches Michigan, and the other reaches West Virginia, yet the majority of the population in each is in the Cincinnati suburbs.

The GOP should place Butler County into the 1st district, and then condense the 2nd district to parts of Hamilton, Claremont, and Warren County. That covers metro Cincinnati. This would then let the 10th district be the Dayton MSA.

Why in the world would you want to chop Hamilton into halves?  Do you also propose to chop the city of Cincinnati as well? 

How is that worse than your division of the UCC?

Could you score your plan on a district by district basis? I think we have identified a defect in Muon's scoring system.

[jimrtex]

This is a side by side comparison of county-based maps:

Torie: Would require moving 94204 persons (0.122 quotas) across county boundaries to equalize population. It is 94819 persons (0.123 quotas) short of two whole districts in the Cleveland UCC, and 333300 persons (0.433 quotas) short of two whole districts in the Cincinnati UCC. Total adjustment:
522323 persons (0.679 quotas)

The internal boundary length is 1777 miles.


Jimrtex: Would require moving 169348 persons (0.262 quotas) across county boundaries to equalize population. It also has 177734 persons (0.231 quotas) in a fourth district in the Cuyahoga UCC. Total adjustment: 379415 persons (0.493 quotas). The internal boundary length is 1714 miles.