Cube root congressional districts

[Oryxslayer]

Note that I made most of these maps in the past week, so there are some repeats. I tried to keep county/town/city lines intact with two exceptions. One, I tried my best to fulfill the VRA and create minority access districts wherever and whenever possible. This is becomes a problem in the Border States where HVAP and eligible HVAP vary wildly. Two, if population equity needed to be reached, then I cut regions, trying to use geography and major roads as division lines. Note that tossup in my 2016 ratings slot do not mean tossup, it is a vague term to describe districts that are close in 2008 numbers or are hard to tell who won in 2016. Read the most competitive lists for what I think is actually important, noting that incumbency screws over any or all ratings.
Prepare for a dump, I really wish the site had a spoiler/shrink window to hide text behind a button.

Northeast

Maine

Authors Notes:

The three basic Maine districts are just as geographically obvious as the regular two, as shown by the previous Maine Map. One needs to be based in the Southeast in York and Portland, one along the coast, and one in the upper regions. The question is what goes into which districts. I stuck Bangor in the second, but this is an open question.

Most Competitive:

ME - 02: This is a solidly D leaning district in the Obama era, that probably voted for Clinton by a small margin. Overall, probably Lean D.

ME - 03: This is Trumps best district in the state, and is currently analogous to ME - 02. It would be Safe R, except the area is ancestrally Democrat and could easily have local candidates that are better than the national vote. If a Republican was sitting in the seat come 2016, Safe R, if a Democrat then Likely R.

New Hampshire

Authors Notes:

Similar to Maine, the three basic districts that New Hampshire gets can only be drawn in one basic fashion if you want to split the least counties. One in the southeast centered on Rockingham, one in the center based on Hillsborough, and one occupying all the rest. Why the current NH map deviates from this plan and cuts more despite the Rockingham and Hillsborough district only being about 30K pop short in both instances before cuts. In order to cut the least counties, I opted to grab towns from Merrimack in order to reach population equity for the two districts.

Most Competitive:

Well, they all are, but various degrees.

NH – 01: Similar to the current NH – 01, centered in the south. Obama barely won this district, but Clinton only lost by around 5000 votes. A good Democrat could easily win here, with their natural base in Portsmouth. Likely R.

NH – 02: The new district based around Hillsborough. Hillsborough County in the swing county in New Hampshire, Clinton lost it by 500 votes, mirroring the close statewide race. The towns grabbed in Merrimack are a mixture of Dem and Rep leaning towns. Tossup.

NH – 03: The heir to current NH - 02. Overall, the district is heavily Democrat, yet could very well be more Republican then the current NH - 02 thanks to the addition of Carroll and Laconia and the subtraction of Western Hillsborough. In opposition to NH – 01, which swung to the left, NH - 03 swung towards Trump. Likely D.

Massachusetts

Authors Notes:

Why would I make a MA map when it was the first map provided in this project? Well, biding by my rules, I couldn’t stand by after a took a look at the current map. Why cut Hampden when it is nearly perfect population? Why make CD 2 squiggly arm-like? Why send CD 6 into the Cape when that creates ugly districts? I also wanted to add MM districts so; I guess others can decide which map is better.

Majority Minority Districts:

Massachusetts currently has one Minority white District – MA -07. On my Map, both MA -10 and MA -11 are the heirs to this district. Both are minority white. The 10th has More Hispanics from Chelsea, and the 11th is around 29% black – largely Creole in South Boston and AAs in Brockton. Overall, these districts do not influence the surrounding PVI much, other than pushing CD 6 probably closer to the Republicans.

Most Competitive:

MA  - 04: This district is weird. Population equity in towns forced me to draw north rather than south. The southern district is also more harmonious this way rather than groping around the 11th. The result though is that the Worcester pasts of the district are more rural, and the Norfolk parts are suburban. A traditional moderate Republican has an opening here, even though this district probably trended hard towards Clinton in the suburban precincts. Lean/Likely D.

MA – 06: The most Republican District in MA is a harmonious one. It is a mixture of suburbs and exurbs, with a touching of rural areas in order to get around the Majority Minority Brockton. Romney probably won this district easily.  In 2016 though, much of the suburbs swung heavily towards Clinton, making me confident to say Clinton won this district. However congressionally, it is Lean D.

MA – 08: The South Shore district. In addition to the fiscally conservative Plymouth, this also has the Socially Liberal Cape. Overall, that is the basic pattern of this district, which outvotes the other. In 2016, the South Shore swung heavily to Clinton, making this district confidently Democrat. However, I could easily see this being like IL -10 IRL, a district that loves to spit tickets heavily. Tilt D or Tossup.

Rhode Island

Authors Notes:

Rhode Island only has two districts, so if one really didn’t care then the current map could actually be used. The thing is, the current map is a Dem Gerrymander, splitting Providence between the two districts to cancel out anything else that appears. The map that I drew therefore is a simple uncracking, putting Providence in one district and the rest of the state in the other. Despite this, the second district is not even justifiably competitive despite Trumps gains here. Both are safe Democratic districts.

Connecticut

Authors Notes:

Similar to Massachusetts, I didn’t really have much complaints with the current CT map. Except for the current Connecticut’s 6th, which stretches across the entire state. The only goal going in was to condense the district down, which was achieved very easily. My 5th, despite voting for Obama in 2008, is Safe R thanks to it being centered on Republican Litchfield and the towns it grabs in New Haven and Fairfield are more Conservative then Liberal.

Most Competitive:

CT – 02: This district swung heavily to Trump. He won Windham County for the first time in forever and lost Tolland by a small margin. Thankfully, if you are a Dem, the Hartford parts of district are traditionally Democratic areas. Likely or Lean D.

[Oryxslayer]

Mid-Atlantic

New Jersey







Authors Notes:

New Jersey was drawn before the current New Jersey map was presented on the site. The thing is, the current map makes no effort to draw Majority Minority districts so I kept the map in place. Overall, both maps are fine, however I at least try to keep NJ - 8 and NJ – 10's legacy intact.

Majority Minority Districts:

There are two BVAP districts, two HVAP districts, and a whole lot of coalition/minority white districts. Effect-wise, they probably give the Republicans more districts in New Jersey then they should, however there is not as big of a discrepancy in vote share verses representation as there is IRL.
The 18th is 50% + 1 BVAP, and the 19th, while below 50%, has a divided opposition. Blacks are the only group above 30% VAP representation. This is the best available, a true second 50% BVAP district is impossible.  The 16th and the 17th are both easy 50% + 1 HVAP districts, with opposition to their representation languishing below 30% representation.

The coalition districts are the 8th, 9th and 15th. The 8th and the 9th have white VAP below 45%. The 8th has Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians all making up about the same amount, white the 9th has Hispanics and Asians both being around 22%. The 15th has a 48% white vote, with the minorities being a coalition of Hispanics and Asians.

Most Competitive:

NJ – 02 and NJ – 03: These two districts are very similar. Both have around a 55 – 43 2008 vote. Both have a significant minority population: NJ – 02 has Hispanics in Vineland and Bridgeton and NJ – 03 has African Americans in Atlantic City and Winslow. Both have a heave conservative rural county: NJ – 02 has Salem and NJ – 03 has Cape May. Both swung hard to Trump on the back of rural and working class South Jersey whites. Both ended up extremely marginal with Trump slightly winning NJ – 02, and Clinton probably (not certainty) winning NJ – 03 by a hair. Both were probably Lean or Likely D under Obama however NJ – is probably Tossup or Tilt R, while NJ – 03 is tossup or tilt D.

NJ – 05: This is a district that Obama lost by 4. Situated in Conservative Monmouth, this district shouldn’t be all that competitive despite its relative closeness. Between the minority towns along the coast and the heavy Clinton swings in the wealthy Navesink River area, Democrats have a solid floor. Trump however got some reasonable swings in the interior and the southern towns that are more an extension of Ocean County’s retirement zone. Likely R.

NJ – 07: The other Monmouth based district ends up being saved by the minority districts from voting Democrat. Under Obama, the margins here would make this a prime target for Democrats despite its natural Republican lean. In 2016, with the large swings to Trump, this district is looking more and more out of the picture. Likely R.

NJ – 10: In opposition to NJ – 07 the minority white districts ends up screwing the republican hopes for the 10th. This Somerset based district serves to pick up all the remaining pieces left over by the central belt districts 8 and 9. One of those pieces ends up being Princeton, and its Liberal suburbs. Clinton only built up the margins here by improving over 5% in Somerset, and 10-15% swings in the upper class white bits of other counties. Lean/Likely Dem.

NJ – 12: Morris County. Clinton saw a violent swing in the county, and lost by only 4%. The Republicans here have more to fear in that the 12th makes up the center and South of the County, where some of the stronger swings took place. What is interesting is that Morris technically is almost perfectly one CD. However, the remnants from Essex need a district, and therefore Morris gets cut. The only thing really saving Republicans here is the traditional lean. Tossup.

Maryland

Authors Note:

Maryland has many Majority Minority districts. They are what dominate the map and forces it to adopt the present shape. Perhaps if I was as politically amoral as the MD Democrats, I would twist the CDs into snakes and create 6 true BVAP districts. However, in order to keep them largely logical, there are 4/5 BVAPs. What surprised me more was the number of Safe Republican seats that need to be drawn. Yeah, in MD got a fair map presently, it would be 6 D -2 R. But 8 O – 5 Mc district alignment is rather shocking for a state with a large Black population and the DC suburbs. But perhaps the number of BVAP districts is why such a situation occurs.

Majority Minority Districts:

There are 4 true safe 50% + 1 BVAP districts. Two, both 56% Black, are located in the Baltimore Metro. The other two, the 8th and the 9th, are 52% black and reach out into the Chesapeake to drive down that number and prevent packing. This is my main problem with the current map, the Packing the PG county blacks into one overwhelming BVAP district. A pack so strong it easily fails a section 5 claim. The 11th is 45% BVAP and the Hispanic and White opposition both languish in the low 20s. when combined with the HVAP it is easily Majority Minority.

The Minority White district, the 12th, has 47% white voters. Hispanics are the largest group behind them at 21, then Blacks at 17, and Asians at 12. A white probably makes it through thanks to the divided opposition with a lack of single strong minority block.

Most Competitive Districts:

MD – 07: As we will see as we head into the South, the competitive districts shrink as the minority districts grow. Therefore, there is only one competitive district in Maryland. The 7th is northern Anne Arundel, based around the highly educated suburban North. Team D has a strong base here thanks to Annapolis and Liberal voters along the 95 between DC and Baltimore. Clinton saw respectable swings in this region, but nothing spectacular. With very little separating the parties in 2008, this district should be one of the most competitive in the nation. Tilt R.

[Oryxslayer]

Pennsylvania

Authors Notes:

With Pennsylvania, we get our first taste of the two trends that will become common throughout the rest of this dump. The two are the Sun Belt Surge, and the Rust Belt Retreat (Not playing party favorites here, Sun and Surge and Rust and Retreat simply have the same letter). Clinton confidently won only 10 districts, despite only losing by 1%. Trump, meanwhile won 14 by the same justification. If I push the tossups, they probably broke 2-2, making the map 12 – 16. Comparatively, Obama won 12 by the same justification of a strong victory, to McCain’s 9. Pushing the leaners, it ends up at 17 - 11. Big swing in victories.

Pennsylvania also has the uncomfortable side effect of having few county combinations match up to the total. This requires cuts, and lots of them. Each district does have a geographic center; however, it requires grabbing and cutting other areas to complete itself.

The one area of the map I am not happy with is Pittsburgh. The county has enough pop for 2 districts, and is close to a third. The 25th fit naturally, the northern suburbs + Beaver was a perfect district total. The remaining piece should probably be the exurban/rural bit at the bottom of Alleghany, as I did and added to the 23rd. The problem then becomes which pieces of the county does one add to the Pittsburgh base 27th, and which remains in the 26th? I opted to stick the Southeast and Eastern suburbs in the 26th, since adding the Southwestern suburbs currently in the 27th still requires bits of the East to reach pop parity. Perhaps thought here was a better way to draw it.

Majority Minority Districts:

The Majority Minority districts in Pennsylvania, as in any Rust belt state, exacerbate the Democratic problems. Self-packing is mainly a thing for Democrats in the Rust belt, and mandated Minority districts for said voters does not help their cause.

There are two true 50% + 1 districts, the 1st and the 3rd. The first, based in West Philadelphia and Delaware, has 51.6% BVAP, while the 3rd, based in northern Philadelphia, has 50.4%. The 4th is a strong coalition district, with Black at 43% to whites with 35%. In addition to the 11% Hispanic population, easily pushes minorities above 50. The 2nd meanwhile is 46% white, with an opposition of 20% blacks and 24% Hispanics. In addition to the other groups, this district is above 50, but not by much.

Most Competitive:

PA – 06: This district is entirely based in Chester, which should tell one everything they need to know about the district. Obama won here by 54 – 45, Romney probably won here by a small margin, and Clinton won here by a larger margin. This white, suburban, highly educated district should probably have been pickup in for Dems, however the natural Republican lean of the population is nothing to be discounted - Lean D.

PA – 05, 07, 08: I will briefly mention the three Democratic Suburban district that are all democrat by a similar amount. They all are Dem by a reasonable margin, and all but the 7th swung hard to Clinton, the 7th preferring to stay put. With a strong D base, these are all probably Likely D on their way to Safe D under incumbents.

PA – 09: The first massive Obama -> Trump swing district. Obama won here by 58 - 40 on the backs of the strong Democratic cities of Allentown and Bethlehem. Clinton still won here, but only by around 3K votes. The thing that will probably save the incumbent democrat is the historical lean of the district - Tilt/Lean D.

PA – 10: In contrast to PA – 09, PA – 10 swung very little. Clinton and trump both saw good swings here – Clinton across the central spine of Bucks and Trump in the Northern end of the district. Clocking in at 51 – 47, the district is the heir to swingy Bucks county and should swing between the parties as such. Republicans probably have a slight advantage here due to this part of the Philadelphia suburbs being historically right leaning. Tossup, or Tilt R.

PA – 11: Berks County PA has traditionally been a Republican county, but not by much. It has a hardcore democratic base in the Hispanic community in Reading, and a leaning base in the working class areas around the city. Republicans meanwhile rule the Rural north and the Exurban south end of the county. My 11th takes away much of the north and hands it off to the 14th, which is Schuylkill + the Susquehanna Valley. To reach pop count the district grabs bits of Montgomery. These pieces were about evenly matched in 2008 – Democratic Pottstown and Republican rest, but Trump saw reasonable swings in these bits of the county. This is the tale for Berks itself, which swung heavily to Trump on the back of working class whites. Lean/Likely R.

PA – 12: Scranton + Wilkes-Barre = Trump. This is a historically Democratic district based in the two working class towns. Fortunately, for Democrats, I chose to toss the southern bit of Luzerne where trump saw his strongest swings in the county. Despite this, the Left cannot find a way to outrun the Trump surge across this district. Tossup to Lean R.

PA – 16: An island of competitiveness in a sea of Republican territory. The 16th is the Dauphine district, which gets the addition of Lebanon to make it population equitable. For Republicans this is a boon. Dauphine is a swing district, never voting too strong one way or another, while Lebanon is hardcore R. Trump saw muted swings in Dauphine - Clinton getting nice vote increases in the Harrisburg suburbs, and small yet consistent swings in Lebanon. A Democrat has a path, but that path is very narrow. Likely R.

PA – 25: This district is a combination of two types of voters: the wealthy traditionally conservative North Pittsburgh suburbs and the Working Class small-town Beaver County. In 2008, Obama's strength came from is tight margin in Beaver and his reasonable showing in the suburbs. Since then, Beaver has slid right. Clinton meanwhile was able to nock together 10 – 15% swings across the northern suburbs to counter and push back the Trump surge in the rural Beaver. Lean R.

PA – 26: The South Philadelphia suburbs are in opposition to their northern cousins. The north votes R, the south votes D. The north saw huge swings to Clinton; the south saw less of the huge Clinton swings and even a few Trump surges.  Obama lost the North but won the south. A democrat can easily hold on and increase their margins here, despite the confident Republican base. Lean/Likely D.

PA – 28: In 2008, Obama confidently won Erie and lost the counties below it by small enough margins to sweep this district. In 2016, Trump won all three counties and won Crawford and Mercer by a lot. A local Democratic candidate could perhaps hold on or campaign on the back of those former working class votes. However, the race would not be a walk in the park. Lean R.

[Oryxslayer]

The South

South Carolina

Authors Notes:

BVAP districts and a general lack of competition define the Southern States. South Carolina is no exception. SC’s statewide BVAP population requires two section 5 district with the potential for a third. Once I measured out the central counties that make up the black belt, I found that making 3 districts was the nicest on the lines, without to many tentacles. The thing was, the two black belt BVAP districts naturally cut off the coastal districts from the interior. This made drawing districts two and three incredible challenging. 

The population dispersion along the coast was exactly the right amount for two districts, yet its distribution along the coast made it hell. Finding a way to get into Charleston with one of the BVAP districts was a struggle in of itself. The result though I think is a nice map, with the exception of the necessary but weird Florence tentacle.

Majority Minority Districts:

As stated earlier, there are two 50% + 1 districts: the 1st and the 5th. Both are around 50.2% BVAP, if one doesn’t head into Richland. The 1st is 63.7% Obama, while the 5th is 58% Obama. The first gets these extra Liberals out of Charleston, while the 5th gets those liberal whites out of Sumter and Florence. In both cases, they are a miniscule amount, however they add up to push the Obama margin up.

The 4th is not 50% + 1 however it is a BVAP district justified under the Virginia redistricting of 2016. The white votes are a 47% minority, the Black vote is 45%, and Hispanics + Asians push up the minority vote. Clocking in at 62 – 37 Obama, the district is easily a safe Black district.

Most Competitive Districts:

What, you were expecting competition in South Carolina?

Georgia

Authors Notes:

I made this map before the current Georgia map was posted. I actually like the current map somewhat, except for two things. One - there needs to be 6 -7 BVAP districts based on minority percentage. Two, the cuts made in the Atlanta metro don’t seem to make sense or follow current local lines at all. Therefore, I decided to post this map.

I only am unhappy with two things on the map. First the 15th district, which stretches across the Northeast portion of the state. With the 16th being a BVAP district though, I am not sure what I could have done to consolidate here. Perhaps make a Gainesville based district and an Athens based district. I do not now. The second thing I do not like is the 13th’s cut into Cherokee. This was the only way to achieve population equity, and despite me playing around with population, I couldn’t find a more efficient way.

Majority Minority Districts:

Georgia has Seven BVAP districts. Of these, 5 are in the Atlanta Metro, and two in the Black Belt. Of the Atlanta districts, the 1st has the lowest BVAP percentage at 50.8, the 3rd and the 4th have 52% BVAP, and the 2nd and 5th have 55%.

The 1st is based out of southern Cobb with the addition of Western Atlanta. The 2nd is Fayette, Douglas, and Non-Atlanta Fulton, with a small bit of Southern Atlanta.  District number three is Henry plus Clayton. The fourth contains Newton, Rockdale, Redan in DeKalb, and southern Gwinnett. The 5th is Central Atlanta + Central DeKalb.

The 16th and the 17th are the two Black belt districts. The 17th has 50.5% and the 16th has 54% BVAP. Both are solid Obama districts, and both have several Majority American cities to anchor their vote share.

The final district is the Coalition access district in the Central Atlanta metro – the 6th. This district grabs the large Hispanic population around Norcross, Tucker, and Bethesda in Gwinnet. In addition to the Black vote in the south around Stone Mountain, and the Asian vote spread across the district, the white vote is pushed out of the way. 32% white, 27% Hispanics and Blacks, and 10% Asians. A solid coalition district.

Most Competitive Districts:

GA – 07: This is IRL GA – 06. Or, a more Democratic version of GA – 06 since the Cobb bits are not their own separate district. His district lacks some of the current districts minority population in DeKalb in favor of Atlanta Whites. It also loses Milton and the Half of Roswell on the West side of the Highway. Obama lost the district by 6, and With Clinton’s swings, she probably won by respectable margin. Pure Tossup.

GA – 19: This Savannah based district gets to the same location as GA – 07, but through a different path. The district is 35% BVAP. This is the Democratic base. The Republicans meanwhile have their strengths in the Savannah suburbs and in Brunswick further down the coast. Under the Obama coalition, this is a turnout race, whether Dems can get Black out of Liberty and Savannah, and Republicans can get their voters out of Brunswick and the Suburbs. Clinton won the district by a small margin in 2016, however the results look better for Republicans since her win depended immensely on her gains in Brunswick. Once again, Pure Tossup.

Alabama

Authors Notes:

Alabama’s BVAP and district count open up the discussion to the number of BVAP districts. This is the only excitement going on with the map. Two BVAP districts or three? I personally drew three, since it is rather simple to get three preforming 50% + 1 on the map, especially if one follows the lines set out by IRL AL – 07. All the Republican Districts are Safe R, and all the Democratic districts are Safe D thanks to race line voting.

Majority Minority Districts:

There are two BVAP districts in the Black Belt. The 9th is based out of Mobile and Tuscaloosa, grabbing the Rural blacks in-between. It voted strong for Obama despite its 50.2% BVAP. The 10th is centered on Montgomery and has 51% BVAP. It voted less securely for Obama strangely enough though. If one wanted to get ugly, cuts could be done on Barbour and Russell to make the district safer for a Back Democrat, however I tried to avoid county cuts. The Final BVAP district is 53.5% BVAP and centered on Birmingham – easily Safe Dem.

Mississippi

Authors Notes:

I drew this map before the current MS map was posted. I have no qualms with the map; I am just posting my version. Mississippi actually has the population for three BVAP districts. The thing is, the hardcore race line voting and the dispersed Eastern Blacks make the three district plan actually have no safe AA districts. Therefore, two districts is the maximum. The Legacy of the third BVAP district is the fourth, a district that unifies both the Republican and Democratic Cities in Eastern Mississippi.

Majority Minority Districts:

The 5th and the 6th in the western part of the state are both 61% BVAP and are both similar in Obama margin. The 5th is southern, Jackson based, and the 6th occupies the Delta. They are both fully Safe Democrat.

Louisiana

Authors Note:

I have nothing personally against Miles. I love the work he does for DDHQ, and his maps tend to be high quality. The Problem here with the map though is there needs to be three safe BVAP districts. Louisiana has over 30% BVAP with 10 districts, necessitating three districts. The three districts themselves are easy to create: one centered on New Orleans, one centered on Baton Rouge, and one centered on Shreveport. The end result is that Blue Dogs end up squeezed in all the Safe Republican districts.

The one district I never like drawing in Louisiana is the Metairie – St. Tammany water crossing which is designed to prevent the BVAP districts from taking in to many whites. But eh, it’s a thing that almost always has to happen.

Majority Minority Districts:

The first and the third districts need to exist in any version of the map. A baton Rouge based BVAP and a New Orleans based BVAP district are easily drawn and always safe for a black democrat. Both districts on my map of 55% Black population.
 
The 5th district is the one with the big question mark. It needs to be drawn, however the way it is drawn is the confusing part. I originally had the district go across the northern part of the state, grabbing Blacks from Monroe, Minden, and Bastrop. However, that district was not safe for a black Dem, and it was ugly as all hell. The new district looks nicer, has a 52.5% BVAP, and votes safety for a black Democrat. 

Tennessee

Authors Notes:

Once again, one of the states I made a map for was posted ahead of time. Event though I am posting this, please note the differences. Now, unlike past maps, I actually have a bone to pick with the current Tennessee Map. The map cuts Nashville, and not in an  organic way like I did following the rivers. That said, my map is not perfect, I don’t like how I was forced to toss Murfreesboro into the 9th. On the other hand, I really like how I ended up cutting very few counties, and the counties that were cut ended up being cut rather naturally.

Majority Minority Districts:

There needs to be two BVAP districts in Memphis. Both of my BVAP districts are 52.8% AA voting age population. These are simple, and need to be drawn. The third district I have drawn is the Nashville based 8th. On my map, the BVAP is 35%, and combined with 12% HVAP, and the smaller minorities, it is an easy coalition district. Whites do stand a chance here however at 48% VAP.

Most Competitive Districts:

TN – 04: This is by definition, a Blue Dog district. The core of the population is Clarksville, and the counties bordering the Kentucky Lake traditionally voted Democrat. In 2008, the average of democrats verses Republicans was 48.6 verses 51.4. However, trump saw a surge here among the former Blue Dogs. This is a Republican district at heart, though the right candidate and circumstances cam open it to the democrats. Likely/Safe R.

[Oryxslayer]

Midwest

Ohio

Authors Notes:

Ohio is the archetypical swing state yet it is hard Republican in the congressional map. Trumps gains are reflected hare as formerly solid D districts like the 13th and the 19th become nail-biters. The Democrats have a self-packing problem here and across the rust belt as their voters tend to be urban and minorities, forcing them into small, safe districts. This is embodied by the fact that Obama barely won the majority of districts in 2008, winning OH – 10 by 200 votes. The swing seats are many here, and they lean towards the Republicans.

Majority Minority:

Ohio unfortunately cannot have two true 50% + 1 BVAP districts. I tried drawing the 14th down to Akron and it still didn’t go 50%, only becoming a coalition district with Hispanics. Therefore I tossed the idea in the name for pretty districts.

That 50% + 1 BVAP district is the 11th. Clocking in at 51% BVAP in Eastern Cleveland, it is easily a safe, black, district. Beyond that though is the 24th in western Columbus. Built using the same justification as Virginia in 2016, this district is only 42% BVAP to 47% WVAP. However, the other minority voters and the strong D partisan lean make the district a strong black district. It is still a coalition district, but a hard black one at that.

The other minority district is the Cincinnati based 8th. This district is barely majority minority with 49.7% WVAP, with a BVAP of 42%. This district is Democratic enough that a white probably makes in through and wins in the general, preventing a African American from getting through.

Most Competitive Districts:

OH – 04: This district is Dayton minus about 30K population. I choose to subtract that population from the Woodbourne Southeast corner. This population could easily have been Kettering, or Huber Heights, or any other of the towns in the East by the 5th. The end result though is that Clinton won the district by a handful of votes. This district was a swingy district in 2008, and it became closer in 2016. The Democrats have a base of Urban voters and African Americans, while the Republicans have the working class and suburban voters. Tossup.

OH – 12: This district is the heir to IRL OH – 14 and it is as Republican as its predecessor is. The Democratic base is found in the working class communities along Ashtabula and outer Lake. The Republican votes are found in rural Portage and Geauga, alongside the Lake suburbs. In 2008, McCain won the district by 1%. In 2016, the Trump surge crashed into this district killing most Democratic hopes. Likely R.

OH – 13: A district made up of Youngstown , Warren, and Boardman has to have been a Democratic stronghold since time immemorial. In 2008, Obama won here 61 – 37. In 2016 however, Trump won Trumbull and Clinton barely won Mahoning. The districts historic lean should probably save Democrats here, however the former working-class stronghold is no longer a safe seat. Tilt/Lean D.

OH – 15: In contrast to the wild swings seen across the state, OH – 15 remained rather close to what it previously was. Sure Trump probably won the suburban seat, but not by a margin that pushes the seat beyond its Tossup nature. This is because of the competing types of population. Within the district there are both working class and upper class suburbs. Clinton saw swings in the upper class areas, and Trump got a surge in the working class regions. Overall, the district is still Tossup.

OH – 17: The Canton District is on its way to Republican town. In 2008, Obama won this working class district with 51% of the vote, making it a pure tossup. Since then, the district has shifted first to Lean R, and then even further as Trump surged in working class districts like these. If a Democrat was sitting in this seat before 2016, the seat has become one of the Republicans top pick-ups. Likely R.

OH – 19: The Snake by the Lake is no longer quite as snaky. However, the district, a traditional Democratic working class seat, voted for Trump in 2016. This is a place where a Democrat can easily be caught napping. Republicans have a good pickup opportunity here, with the collapse of the Democratic base. Only urban Lorain, Sandusky, and Elyria hold out as Democratic strongholds. If they are to win, it will be on the backs of the old Democratic working class coalition. Lean R.

Indiana

Authors Note:

Indiana is the state where the Democrats get screwed the most by Trump. Of course, this in part thanks to Obama's decision to contest and then win the traditionally Republican state in 2008. Whatever the case, self-packing screws over the Democrats. Beyond that fact though, the state was fairly easy to draw, and most of the districts line up nicely with the county lines.

Majority Minority:

It is impossible to draw a true 50 % + 1 district in Indiana. The Population count for the districts are too small in pop count to squiggle across the state, and Indianapolis lacks AA voters in the surrounding region to reach that number. That being said, the Indianapolis district can easily be a Minoirty white district. Blacks are 40%  or the VAP, and Hispanics are 9%. Combined together, all the minorities overwhelm the 45.6% WVAP. Unfortunately, the white pop is still too high to justify under the 2016 VA redistricting.

Most Competitive Districts:

IN – 02: The Second lakeshore district was a Safe Democratic one under Obama. South Bend, La Porte, and Portage put the working class and college liberal on the same side. Under Trump’s Working Class coalition, in addition to the small boost from his VP being form Indiana, the District swung hard to the right. In 2016, Trump won this district by a small margin of votes. Democrats probably have the better upside though thanks to the regions traditional loyalties. Tossup.

In – 10: This Southern Indianapolis district was competitive under Obama and it is competitive under Trump. In the southern suburbs are a combination of working class and middle class residents, with much of the upper incomes favoring Hamilton County. Therefore, the Trump surge was felt here, but not by the levels seen in the rest of the state. Like OH – 15, this district probably voted for Trump, but only by a little more then what was its traditional swing. Tilt R.

Iowa

Authors Notes:

Iowa is a state where you are forbidden to cut counties. This makes drawing maps interesting as you one needs to reach population equity through counties. Fortunatly, Polk is only 4.5K voters off of one district, allowing us to preserve the county cut rule. On my map, only two other districts ever have a deviation of over 600 voters, the 4th and the 5th. They have positive amounts that cancel out the deviation from Polk. One of the current Iowa maps has a count cut, and the other has insane levels of deviation, prompting me to draw the map.

The hardest districts to draw were the four western ones. The 6th, 7th, and 1st all fell nicely together. Getting the Cedar Rapids/Iowa City district to line up perfectly and get the other three districts to a reasonably level of deviation was hard. I achieved it in the end, however I cannot say that the 2nd with a deviation of 565 or the 3rd with a deviation of 419 are all that pretty.
Politically, Iowa saw a huge reversal for 2008. That year, Obama had three safe districts, had won two leaning districts, and McCain carried two districts in the west. In 2016, Trump carried three safe districts, Clinton carried two, and then Trump probably won two tossup districts. Iowa is still the elastic state.

Most Competitive Districts:

IA – 02: This is the swing district that maintained its swing since 2008. The 5th district which was Obamas other swing district, however Trump carried every count in the region. The second however, has Ames and Waterloo to anchor the Democratic base, even as the rurals swing away from the Democrats. Trump probably won this district, but not by a crushing margin. Democrats still have a path here, even though the Republicans now hold the keys to the seat. Lean R.

IA – 03: Who would have thought that a district based around Dubuque and Davenport would vote hard for a Republican president? Obama carried this historically Democratic district with a 58 – 40 margin, yet Trump won it on a respectable margin for a swing district. This probably was enough to catch whomever was sitting in this seat for team D napping, and push a Republican into office. This districts historic lean however cannot be ignored, and Dems still have a base here. Lean R.

[Oryxslayer]

Michigan

Authors Notes:

Michigan was the state that got me interested in this project in the first place. Michigan, with its county and local division cut requirements, typically only has one standard base map that can be drawn. Two BVAP districts in Detroit dominate the area, and then two/three other Democratic districts are drawn with the remainder. The there’s an Grand Rapids district, a Lansing district, a Upper Peninsula district, a Flint-Saginaw district, a Thumb district, etc. There is only one basic way you can draw a regular Michigan map by the states restriction that only allows for minimal variance.
This project allowed me an opening to experiment with Michigan. The end result is an interesting Detroit, and statewide districts that are more than city anchors. Michigan reflects its status as a pseudo-swing state well, and the Trump surge in the Rust belt can be seen through those results.

Majority Minority Districts:

Detroit allows for three 50% + 1 BVAP district. They are what dominate the map in the Metro area, they are the reason why the districts in the region all radiate out from the city center. The three majority minority districts, and the coalition district, radiate out to prevent packing, and the other remaining districts fall into the remaining pieces.

The 13th is an East Detroit district. It starts in East Detroit and the reaches north into Macomb due to necessity to avoid spitting town lines to achieve pop parity. It actually ends up grabbing the most democratic parts of Macomb in its borders, since those areas tend to be closer to the Detroit border. It is 51.2% BVAP. The 14th is a West Detroit district. It reaches out into Livonia to prevent black packing and doesn’t go south due to my confusion over Dearborn. It is 51.3% BVAP. District number 15 is a Pontiac based district. It goes from African American Pontiac down through the Suburbs into Detroit to achieve 50.3% BVAP. It, like the 13th, end up grabbing the most Democratic parts of Oakland County simply by the necessities of Geography.

The 17th is a coalition district. It grabs all of the South Detroit minorities in places like Romulus and Lincoln Park and adds them to South Detroit Hispanics and some Detroit blacks. The VAP is 34% BVAP, 12% HVAP to 48% WVAP. It could still elect a white, but the Black vote is large enough to challenge that possibility.

The 16th is confusing because of Dearborn. We all know that Dearborn is an Arab town with a substantial Arab community. However, the Census did not include an option for such a group, and DRA does not have them listed as minorities – only whites. I wonder if we had the true population type, a different minority district could be drawn…

Most Competitive Districts:

MI – 01: The Upper Peninsula district is a base of working class loyalty. Under smaller Districts, the UP based district takes in less of the mainland, to the benefit of team D. The new 1st voted slightly for Obama, and swung hard to Trump. Democrats however have the advantage of this being a ancestrally Democratic area. They could contest the region on the justification of the past, similar to what they did in 2016. Likely R .

MI – 04: The Grand Rapids district is both concise enough and urban enough that Obama won the district with 53%. The region is historically Republican, and this lean makes the seat competitive to Republicans. The district swung to Clinton, who no doubt won the seat. A business class, or suburban Republican is the ideal candidate for the Reps here – democratic victories are built by respectably margins in the Grand Rapids suburbs. Lean D .

MI – 07: Saginaw and Midland gets their own district in MI – 07. Once again in the rust belt, this is a Obama -> Trump district. Without a strong minority base like some of the working class communities throughout the rust belt, the Democrats hopes rest of traditional loyalties in Bay City and Saginaw. Republicans meanwhile can ride trumps coalition to victory. Lean R .

MI – 11: Kalamazoo and Battle Creek are finally separated for Berrien and Van Buren in MI – 11. The thig is, a Democratic District in Western Michigan cannot survive the Trump surge. Going for 56% Obama to barely voting for Clinton shows the gains Republicans have made here. Democrats have the traditional base in Kalamazoo, whereas Republicans have Trumps new coalition in Branch and Calhoun. Tossup.

MI – 12: Jackson and Monroe come together to make a working class district. Located south of Detroit, this district takes in the majority small town, working class white border region. The area has a substantial rural population as well, centered in Hillsdale and outside of the small towns. Obama loosely won this district in 2008 on the backs of Jackson. In 2016, Clinton lost this district, by a lot. A local democrat though could perhaps hitch on to the old working class coalition, despite the Republican advantage. Likely R.

MI – 20 and MI - 21 : MI – 20 and MI – 21 are bothers and opposites. The 20th is Suburban in Oakland, with the addition of Sterling Heights. MI – 21 has the Republican Grosse Pointe and then the working class communities in Mount Clemens and Roseville. The 20th saw swings to Clinton among the suburban voters. MI – 21 was behind Trumps victory in Macomb. Obama won both by small margins, though he won the 20th by a larger margin. The end result is that we have two districts moving in opposite directions. MI – 20 is Lean D, whereas MI – 21 is Lean R.

Wisconsin

Authors Note:

Wisconsin is always a hard state to get a feeling for. In 2008, Obama clearly over preformed, winning almost everywhere in the state by 54 - 44. Then in 2010, Wisconsin began its streak of control over the Republican Party. Scott Walker became the leading protégé of the tea Party. Reince Priebus became party leader. Paul Ryan became Speaker of the House. Then, Wisconsin became the tipping point state that gave Trump the victory. The Democratic vote here, like in any rust belt state, is packed hard into the cities, screwing over their hopes congressionally.

Strangely enough, Wisconsin was the map that gave DRA the most hiccups, crashing no less than four times, sending my progress back to zero twice. Fortunately, the map is easy enough to draw and remember.

Majority Minority Districts:

Wisconsin lacks the concentrated population to get a 50% + 1 BVAP district. It however does have a 48% BVAP district, where the white vote is at 41%. This is a BVAP district as justified under the VA redistricting. If not, it is certainly a minority white district. The first district is located in the African American neighborhoods of Northern Milwaukee. It is Wisconsin’s only section 5 district.
 
Most Competitive Districts:

WI – 02: The Southern Milwaukee district is one of the four districts Clinton won, and one of the two that she one by less the 60%. It is a district with a moderate Hispanic community, suburban communities, and working class towns. The variations in voters have kept this district safety within the Democrats hands despite the Trump Midwest phenomenon. It is Lean D.

WI – 03: Paul Ryan’s district. It voted 53 -45 for Obama in 2008 on the backs on Kenosha and Racine. In 2016, the Trump surge crashed here, however the two big coastal population centers saw less movement then the working class interior. I however cannot gloss over the fact that Trump won every town in the district besides Racine and Kenosha. Despite the swings, the districts traditional closeness leaves it still within the competitive belt - Likely R.

WI – 09: The Southwestern corner district used to be a democratic stronghold. Perhaps it still is if Democrats can recover some of their working class base, however, this district still saw huge swings to Trump. However, thanks it its location and several urban centers, the District still voted Democrat. Republicans have a path here, though it is narrow even if they hold on to the entirety of the Trump coalition. Lean D.

WI – 10: This is where the traditional battled were fought in Wisconsin. The Fox valley is at the confluence of the traditionally Democratic West of the state and the Republican East. Stevens Point offered Democrats a base, while Republicans held an advantage in the rurals. In 2016, this district swung hard to the Right and abandoned its 56% Obama victory. The parties here probably cannot escape their past, though Republicans now have the advantage. Lean R.

[Oryxslayer]

Southwest

Utah

Authors Note:

Utah is another fun state to draw, in a similar fashion to Michigan. While Utah’s current four congressional districts can produce a Democratic district if drawn correctly, it is easier to draw four Right leaning seats. With five or six seats, a SLC based D seat needs to exist under compact and city/town lines needs to exist. Therefore, when partisanship and minorities are no longer a question, it becomes interesting to see how aesthetically pleasing one can draw the Utah districts. I think I succeeded in doing just that when compared to the current map. Whereas the previous map has to statewide seats that cut several extra counties, my map keeps the urban core centralized and neat. I really love how nice the 1st district turned out, especially in how it ended up lining up with the Provo district and the SL based districts.

Colorado

Authors Note:

Colorado is the reverse of the Rust belt, a state where republicans are self-packing. The Denver Suburbs seemed doomed to become a Democratic stronghold, or at leave a Democratic leaning zone. Drawing this map, I felt almost prophetic. In 2020, with the addition of and 8th district, Colorado will have to draw a HVAP district. Such a district will force cuts into Denver spreading the Democratic votes around the metro.

The hardest part about drawing the map was honestly the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th districts. I wanted the 1st district to be a Fort Collins + Greely district, yet I seemingly couldn’t get the 2nd districts’ cut to look nice.  Eventually I found a way to get it to work. The 3rd and 4th also had a similar problem. I wanted the 3rd to be a Rocky mountains district with the 3rd the only district on the Western side of the peaks. Eventually I found a divide that worked out nicely, and didn’t sent the 3rd beyond its base in the rural West.

Majority Minority Districts:

Colorado provides our first introduction to HVAP, and all the caveats that come with it. HVAP does not tell us how many of said Hispanics are actually registered, something that matters a lot in California and Texas. Here though, the 10th is a 51% HVAP district. If it was found to be below population count, then the district could head east to Aurora rather than North to Adams. 

Most Competitive Districts:

CO – 01: The Northern district is always going to be a swing district. The district is made of the entirety of Weld county and northern Larimer County. This piece of Larimer County subtracts the south which includes Loveland and Estes Park. Clinton lost Larimer + Weld when whole by about 20K votes. However, when the Southern, traditionally more conservative bits of Larimer go into the Boulder district simply by proximity, the result becomes more opaque. Obama of course won uninterrupted Larimer + Weld by about 3K votes in 2008, so process of elimination say Clinton lost here by around a respectable 10K votes. Tossup, or Tilt R.

CO – 04: The Rocky Mountain district. It is an Obama by 54% district and has a lot of moving parts in that coalition. Democrats dominate the ski towns in the West, and Republicans rule the rural bits of the East lope between the peaks and Colorado Springs. This produces a negligible difference in partisanship, with Pueblo acting as the equalizer. With Trump winning Pueblo marginally, he wins the 4th marginally. The end result is a district rated as Tossup.

CO – 09: This is a Republican district that could very easily have voted for Clinton. Her swings across the district were huge, sometimes 15% huge. In many precincts, she easily outperformed Obama 2008. The Republicans though have the historical advantage here, with the district easily being part of the upscale GOP wealthy class type that used to form their bedrock. While Democrats play defense in the 4th, they play offense here. Tilt R.

CO – 11: CO – 11 is pretty much Jefferson county minus Southern Columbine and plus the Adams bits of border crossing Westminster. The thing is Jefferson has stopped being a true swing county. While it voted for Bush, it did not vote for Gardner in the Senate. Clinton expanded the margins here, and Democrats benefit from her gains. Likely D.

New Mexico

Authors Notes:

A New Mexico map was posted right before I started writing this, and when I saw it I was dumbfounded. The deviations were large, far above what I consider the 1000 ceiling on normally acceptable pop deviation. There were more cuts then needed. The districts lacked a geographic base. Therefore, I still post my map. There are three statewide districts each with a base: The Northwest, the West, and the East. From there, I created an Albuquerque district and a Albuquerque suburbs district. It ends up looking rather nice, don’t you think?

Swing wise, New Mexico also suffered from Gary Johnson’s candidacy. His large vote share here means that it is harder to tell how high the swings truly are.

Majority Minority Districts:

New Mexico suffers from the simplicity of Census groups and DRA racial divisions. What Hispanics are natural US citizens that are descended from those that had the border cross them, and what Hispanics are Mexican Immigrants? The result is that New Mexico has several HVAP districts.
The 2nd district is situated in Western Bernalillo. It cuts Albuquerque simply to get rid of the whites and add more HVAP. It is 57.9% HVAP. The 5th is similar. The Hispanic population starts in Las Cruces and the goes up the 25 to Albuquerque. It is 57.2% HVAP.

The 4th district is minority white. It is 46.3% HVAP and 47.4% WVAP. Located in the west, the question of historical citizens who had the luck be there when the US took the land, or there are a lot of unregistered VAP.

The 3rd district has only 35% White population. Opposing the white vote are 37% HVAP and 25% Native Population. This is a strong coalition district that keeps the reservations intact.

Most Competitive Districts:

NM – 01: This is the Suburban seat based around Albuquerque, and it is the only seat above 50% white vote.  The margins here though still suggest that Clinton won by a small amount here, even seeing swings in the Eastern Suburbs. Republicans easily have a path here, though with Obama and Clinton winning this seat – even with Gary Johnson, it is harder to see. Lean D.

NM – 05:The HVAP seat that crosses southern New Mexico only voted for Obama with a 56 to 41 voteshare. Other statewide Republicans lost this seat according to Dra, and Clinton won the seat by around 8K votes. That said, there is a path here for Republicans. The Rurals offer a steady base of votes, and Las Cruces itself is a suburb for El paso and Ciudad Juarez. Likely D.

[Oryxslayer]

Nevada

Authors Notes:

Nevada was one of the first districts drawn. The thing is, the border of the district did not respect Clark count internal division lines. It also did not have a HVAP seat. That is why I drew my map. Interestingly, this map could either be more or less beneficial to Democrats depending on what you think of Obama’s 2008 margin. The previous map had the four Las Vegas seats go horizontal across the metro, all ending up at around 55% vote. However Obama won by a ton in 2008, far exceeding what should usually be expected of a Democrat here. Therefore, that past map could have no safe seat for either part except for the Statewide one! My map has quite a few more safe seats in Clark, but also more swing ones.

Majority Minority:

For a state that is often heralded as a Hispanic swing seat, there is only the population for one HVAP seat. That seat is the third, clocking in at 50.5% HVAP. Opposition is divided between blacks at 15% and whites at 26. Chances are though, this is below registered VAP, though that is an open question considering voter registration is pushed hard in swing states. If so, HVAP can be taken from the 5th, which has 28% HVAP, 11% BVAP, 13% Asian VAP, and 44.3% WVAP. Its effect of the region is probably stealing potential Democratic votes from the Henderson district and packing them togeather. This help create the swing district.

Most Competitive Districts:

NV – 02: The Reno based seat is always going to swing. Washoe County makes up about 80-90% of the districts population, thought the Rurals are important. Republicans get anywhere from 4-5K votes from the Rurals in NV – 02, and it is the Democrats job to perform better in Washoe to compensate for those counties. The thing is Washoe is the ultimate swing county. This gives the GOP a tiny advantage here, but not much. Tilt R.

NV – 04: NV – 04 contains Western and Northwestern Las Vegas. This is an area filled with conservative suburbs and democratic minorities. The trend is that the closer to Las Vegas you get in this district, the more Democratic the votes get. It is hard to tell who won here, but guessing from the precinct maps is that Clinton won here by a small amount. Republicans do however have a strong base here. Tossup.

NV – 06: Obama won the Henderson seat in 2008. However, since then the seat has reverted somewhat to its traditional GOP lean. Under normal circumstances, the Republicans drive up the vote here in Henderson. Democrats have a base in Enterprise, and need to push down the GOP margin in Henderson to win. The town of East Las Vegas also offers the Democrats a basket of votes. Overall, Henderson is still the center, in both population and geography, of this district and it still votes right. Tilt/Lean R.

Arizona

Authors Notes:

Arizona is a state where the Democratic vote in 2008 actually probably was undershot. McCain being from the state certainly pushed his margins, and discouraged democrats from turning out in certain areas. In other areas, the eligible HVAP has increased since 2008 – note the drastic change in Yuma County. That brings me to my second major hurdle – HVAP and eligible HVAP. I don’t know whether Hispanic districts require simply 50%, or 50% eligible voters like it appears to have been do with CA 2010 map.

The only problem I have with the current map is mainly natives. The native reservations stray quite noticeably into Coconino, and even an arm reaches into Mojave. This can be seen easily on the racial screen.

Majority Minority Districts:

Access District for HVAP can easily be formed, three are the standard amount here considering Arizona’s population. These are the 4th, the 7th, and the 8th. The 4th is 60% Hispanic, the 7th 61, and the 8th 50.2. The awkward thing here is that the 8th voted the strongest for Obama and probably has the greatest chance of constantly sending a Democrat to congress.
Beyond this is the 1st district. Clocking in just barely over 50% white, it however does boast around 32% native population. It successfully unites the native reservations of Arizona.

Most Competitive Districts:

AZ – 01: The first, being the successor to the current 1st district minus the ugly southern tentacle, is essentially taking its place. A tiny margin separates the two candidates. This, as stated before, is based largely arount the native reservation counties – Apache, Navajo, Coconino, Gila, and Graham. The Democratic base essentially the natives and liberal Flagstaff, while the Republicans get everything else. This district is also a grab bag in swings, with Clinton getting more votes in Coconino, and Trump seeing slight increases elsewhere. Adding another handful of confusion to the pile is the pipeline crisis from the past election which caused Native American voters to turn out at lower levels and a slight amount of them to turn to the Green party. I rate it as Tossup, or Tilt R.

AZ – 04: One of the HVAP districts makes a return as battleground district, though not really for long. In 2006, McCain had a crushing margin in the strong Hispanic county of Yuma, pushing down the vote in Pima and Maricopa. In 2016, Clinton added to her margins here, killing the GOP lean in Yuma. If this holds, this seat is on the road to safe. For now, Likely D.

AZ – 11: This district is the result of what happens when you nest all the surrounding districts nicely. The 9th is nested perfectly in Chandler and Gilbert, and the 10th matches up perfectly with Mesa. Therefore, the Tempe/South Phoenix district is forced up into Scottsdale for votes. Overall, it is reasonably Democratic, and the precinct swings show that Clinton really added to her margins here. Lean/Likely D.

AZ – 12: Like AZ - 11, AZ – 12 is drawn in order to prevent the 13th from getting an arm that reaches down into Glendale. This district hugs northern Phoenix and Urban Glendale. It voted solidly for McCain, and its suburbia holds a strong trend to the Republicans. It is a hard Republican district. The thing it, Clinton saw large swings here, and won quite a few precinct Obama never came close to. I rate the district as Likely R.

[Oryxslayer]

The Big boys get some special treatment.

Florida

FL – 01: Pensacola, Santa Rosa, + Elgin. Safe R.

FL – 02: Panama City based panhandle district. Safe R.

FL – 03: Tallahassee + Gadsden central Florida district. 30% BVAP. There is not enough BVAP in Gainesville to make a BVAP district, and there is too little pop in these districts to drag in to Jacksonville. At the current margins, Safe D.

FL – 04: Eastern panhandle district. Strong Republican rurals and suburbs. Safe R.

FL – 05: Jacksonville suburbs and Conservative white neighborhoods. Nassau adds to the northern parts of the district. Safe R.

FL – 06: Approximately 45% BVAP to 43% Whites. 60 – 40 in Obama votes. Could be a BVAP district, could simply be a Minority Access if not. Safe D.

FL – 07: A tiny Obama victory here is this Gainesville seat. It is a swing seat. Trump got swings in Citrus, Clinton in Gainesville. Obama won here slightly, so did Trump. Tossup.

FL – 08: Ocala and Putnam plus the Ocala forest. Safe R.

FL – 09: The hard R Lake and Sumter alongside western Hernando and Sumter. This is all R territory in addition to the Trump swings. Safe R.

FL – 10: St. Johns and Jacksonville Beach make up the hard Republican lean in the seat. In 2008, Flagler and Daytona Beach gave Democrats a small base here. In 2016, the Trump swings killed any hopes. Safe R.



FL – 11: Pasco and Hernando coasts. In 2008, this was 48.8 to 50.1 for Obama. Obama lost by 3K. A democrat won a house district that roughly followed the same coast in 2013 and then held it in 2014 only to lose it barely in 2016. Team D collapsed here due to the Trump swings. Safe  R.

FL – 12: Clearwater based swing district. A mix of suburban and working class votes. Obama won it, and Trump made gains here. Lean R.

FL – 13: St. Petersburg and Pinellas Park region. Despite St. Petersburg’s reputation, on 14% is African American. Even if there was the population to cross the bay and create 50% + 1 district, the court ruled against a bay crossing district in 2016, so I opted against it. Trump saw swings here, yet the Black vote is still strong.  Likely D.

FL – 14: Tampa Eastern Suburbs and the West end of the I4 – in addition to Lakeland. 63% White, with Hispanics at 20 and Blacks at 12. Safe R.

FL – 15: Imperial Polk minus Lakeland and a Hyper Hispanic precinct in the East, plus some white bits of Osceola. 65% WVAP with Hispanics at 18 and blacks at 13. Safe R.
FL – 16: North Tampa and Immediate West Tampa suburbs. Only 55% White with 10% African American vote and 27% Hispanic. Obama won by a slight amount, and Clinton won by more. Lean D.

FL – 17: Tampa City and the Southern Coastal towns. 46.2% White, and 24.5% Black and Hispanics. Safe D.

FL – 18: Volusia county and bits of the Orland Metro that were a little over the current district count, and northern Brevard to reach population equity. Obama lost by under four here. The Trump surge was real in Volusia, pushing what was once a swing seat into the Republican camp. Likely R.

FL – 19: The Space Coast. Safe R.

FL – 20: Osceola + Hispanics in South Orlando. HVAP seat. Safe D.

FL – 21: Suburban Seminole plus white Maitland and Eastern Orange. 66% White population to 10.4% Black and 17% Hispanics. This is a hard suburban seat that traditionally backed the Republican party yet swung hard to Clinton in 2016. Its previous small margin makes this district even more competitive.  Tossup.

FL – 22: Western Orange County. Conservatives in Apopka and Bay hill give the Republicans a base, only to be outvoted thanks to the heavy minority presence. The district is 41% white, 31.6% BVAP, and 19.4% HVAP. Safe minority access seat. Safe D.

FL – 23: Central Orlando and the Northern suburbs. Majority white, but just barely with 12% BVAp and 27% HVAP. Actually the least Democratic of all the Safe Democratic Orlando seats. Still, Safe D.



FL – 24: Obama barely won this district in 2008, and Clinton lost it hard in 2016. The Republicans have Indian River and Okeechobee as their base, while Dems have working class St. Lucie. Trump swung St. Lucie, and the district swung away from team D. Lean R.

FL – 25: Sarasota and some extra bits. Obama barely lost this district, however trump saw a reasonable swing along the west coast of Florida. The D base is Sarasota itself, the Republican base is the south around Venice. Likely R.

FL – 26: Bradenton, Sun City, and a bunch of the Rurals in Southern Florida. Strangly, there a healthy 18% of voters are Hispanic. Safe R.

FL – 27: Naples and southern Lee. This district is nothing but a Republican beachfront retirement stronghold. Safe R.

FL – 28: Cape Coral and Port Charlotte. Obama came close here, but Republicans still won. Trump swung the region even harder. Safe R.



FL – 29: Martin County plus Jupiter and northern Palm Beach. Martin is hard Republican, and Palm Beach part of the district does not lean any way. The interesting thing is that because of population equity, and the weird BVAP district, the 29th has an arm along the coast. Trump still saw swings up here, and Obama did not in convincingly enough. Likely R.

FL – 30: Wellington and Boynton Beach. 56.6% WVAP to 7% BVAP and 21.6% HVAP. Safe D.

FL – 31: Coral Springs and Mission bay. 59% White to 14.5% Black and 20% Hispanic. Safe D.

FL – 32: Boca Raton and the Broward Coast. This district was cut off from the interior by the BVAP districts. Only 16% Hispanic to the 75% White vote. The beachfront is typically conservative, but Clinton saw some nice swings. Safe D.

FL – 33: A weird mishmash of politics. The Socially Liberal by fiscally conservative Keys, rural Hendry, Hispanic bits of Collier and Lee, along with Hispanic bits of West Miami. 54% HVAP to 35% White. In 2008, this district voted 53 – 46 for McCain. With Clinton’s swings in the Hispanic south Florida, this district could easily be in play. Tossup.

FL – 34: Plantation, Davie, Pembroke Pines, and most of Inner Broward. 49% White, 11% Black, and 33.5% HVAP. Safe D.

FL – 35: The first 50% + 1 BVAP district. Grabs West Palm Beach and heads down to Lauderhill and Tedder through the Everglades. 51.5% BVAP to 25% White and 19.3% HVAP. Safe D.

FL – 36: North Miami through Carol City. A titanic Minorty district, with 50.2% BVAP to 42.3% HVAP. A district like this currently exists. Safe D.

FL – 37: New squiggly BVAP district created by squeezing the population to its limits. 50.1% BVAP, 22.7% White, 22.6% HVAP. Goes from sunrise and Lauderdale down to Miramar and Andover. Safe D.

FL – 38: Homestead and Southern Miami – Dade coast. 61.4% HVAP to 17% BVAP and WVAP. Safe D.

FL – 39: Hialeah based district that runs north into Pembroke Pines and Miramar. 77% HVAP to the 12% White vote and 8% BVAP. Obama just barely lost this district in 2008 – 100 votes! In 2016, Clinton probably won this district by a fine margin considering her swings in Hialeah. Tilt D.

FL – 40: I am afraid this district may count as racial packing. At 84% HVAP, it certainly looks like it. The thing is, I ran out of other groups for the other districts – which are all majority minority themselves. There really isn’t any discrimination here because every other M – D district is an access district. Plus, there are senate districts that roughly line up to this district with a same HVAP. If it is sh**tty, I could redraw and find some whites, but the lines would be even more sh**tty then they currently are. It voted hard for McCain, yet swung to Clinton. Judging by precincts, Trump still won, but not by as much. Lean R.

FL – 41: The Miami – Dade coastal district. Forced into existence by the BVAp districts, and then prolonged by the HVAP districts, the coast is both democratic and Hispanic. 33% WVAP to 60.1% HVAP. Obama won this district less then comfortably, however Clinton saw here largest swings in M – D within this district. Lean/Likely D.

[Oryxslayer]

Texas

TX – 01: El Paso and western suburbs. HVAP district, with 78% of the population as Hispanic voters and on 16% as whites. Safe D.

TX – 02: El Paso east suburbs and the Pecos valley. HVAP district with 83.6% of the population as Hispanic to the 13% of the population that is white. Safe D.



TX – 03: The first Fajita and it is a pseudo-Fajita due to its width. The Fajitas are designed to have most of their population along the border, but grab other counties further north to prevent packing. I don’t like the fajitas, however the courts have upheld them many times, and a map will be described at the end that alternatively does not have them. Republicans lack a base typically in the Fajitas due to the spindly nature of the seats. This one is 81% HVAP to 17% WVAP. Unlike other Fajitas, there is a small republican base in Kerr. Safe/Likely D.

TX – 04: Second Fajita that goes from Mission in Hidalgo north to Bandera. 81.5% Hispanic to 17% white. Safe D.

TX – 05: Fajita that begins in McAllen and Edinburgh, and end in Wilson and Karnes. 81% HVAP to 16% White. Safe D.

TX – 06: the only Fajita that cuts counties in its climb north. Begins in the south with eastern Hidalgo county and Harington and San Benito in Cameron. It ends in the north at Gonzales and Dewitt. The district is 79% Hispanic to 19% White. Safe D.

TX – 07: The last and safest Fajita. It begins in the south at Brownsville and ends at Corpus Christi. 84.5% HVAP to 13% WVAP. Safe D.

TX – 08: Technically a minority white district with 49% White vote to 42.2% HVAP. However, the large number on nonvoting Hispanics probably renders this district as non-preforming. It is centered on Victoria, grabbing the remnants of the Corpus Christi Metro and heads up the coast. Safe R.

TX – 09: HVAP seat in Southwest San Antonio. Keep in Mind the entire County swung towards Clinton, except for some of the Southern Barrios. 70.5% HVAP to 21% WVAP. Safe D.

TX – 10: White district that grabs all the whitest precincts in northern San Antonio. It then adds Comal county to its count in order to equalize in population. The district 59.5% White to 32% Hispanic and despite seeing large Clinton swings, is too Republican o begin with to go competitive. Safe R.

TX – 11: Central and northwestern San Antonio. HVAP seat with 69% of the population being Hispanic to only 23.4% of the population being White. Safe D.

TX – 12: Eastern San Antonio and Suburbs. HVAP seat with only 55% of the population being Hispanic. The BVAP, at 14% is what will ensure a Democrats safety. Safe D.



TX – 13: The Texas Panhandle, featuring Amarillo. 60% White to 32.2% Hispanic. Safe R, and one of the safest and the state.

TX – 14: Odessa, Midlands, and San Angelo. Only 50.5% White to the 42% Hispanic population, however nonvoting Hispanics probably inflate their share of the population. Safe R. 

TX – 15: Lubbock and West Texas. 54% White to 38% Hispanic. Largely rural, and largely Republican. Safe R.

TX – 16: Wichita Falls based North-West Texas seat. The whitest seat so far at 75.6% WVAP. A good mix of rural and urban conservatives. Safe R.

TX – 17: The only white majority white district in Texas that Democrats win. The west Austin district is 64% White to 19% Hispanic and 9.2% Asian. Safe D.



TX – 18: District covering the urban belt between San Antonio and Austin, along with the Southwestern bits on non-Austin Travis. 59% White to 33% Hispanic. Safe R.

TX – 19: East Travis HVAP district. The population is 53% Hispanic, 12% Black, and 31% white. Safe D.

TX – 20: Williamson and the Northwest bits of Travis. The district is 65% white to 22% HVAP. If the democrats ever want to win a majority of seat in Texas, they need to win this won based on Clinton's swings. However, the numbers may not be there. Safe/Likely R.

TX – 21: Large central Texas rural district that has its population centered in the Northwest around Abilene. Hugely conservative, in both the urban and rural bits of the district. Safe R.

TX – 22: Bell County makes up the majority but not all the population in this district. Several rural counties link this district together to make the district equal in population. 56% WVAP, 17.6% BVAP, and 20% Hispanic. Safe R.

TX – 23: The district is centered on Waco, and grabs some of the Metroplex south suburbs. It is 62% White, 12% Black, and 23% Hispanic. Safe R.

TX – 24: South and Western Metroplex, reaching into Tarrant to fix its pop count. Overwhelmingly Safe R.

TX – 25: Southeastern district located between the Austin, San Antonio, and Houston metros. Its population is centered on Brazos County. The district is 61% White, 12.5% Black, and 22% Hispanic. Safe R.



TX – 26: Minority access district that is pretty much Fort Worth. It is 30.8% white, 22.8% Black, and 42% Hispanic. Safe D.

TX – 27: Northern Forth Worth and white suburbs such as Watauga. Interestingly, the district is 21.6% HVAP. However, it is Safe R despite Clinton getting huge swings in nearly the entire non-Black metro.

TX – 28: HVAP seat in eastern Dallas. Included in the district is Mesquite, Balch Springs, and bits of Garland. It is 50.3% Hispanic, 20.5% Black, and 25% White. Safe D.

TX – 29: South Dallas BVAP seat. It has a precinct of Ellis that district 23 needed to shed to reach population equity. The district is 52.4% BVAP, 28.8% HVAP, and 16.5% WVAP. Safe D.

TX – 30: Western Dallas seat that ends up reaching into Carrolton because of the precinct boundaries. It is 53% Hispanic, 12% Black, and 27% White. Safe D.

TX – 31: A traditional swing seat that straddles the border between Dallas and Tarrant. This is because the district is centered on Grand Prairie, which crosses the counties. In the north, it grabs Bedford, Euless, and Irving. The district is 36% White, 15% Black, and 39% Hispanic. This is the first, but not the last district where Clinton’s large swings in the Metroplex help them Dem. Lean D.

TX – 32: Arlington based Southeast Tarrant seat. The district is 48% White, 18% Black, 25% Hispanic, and 6% Asian. Obama only lost by 8% here in what is essentially a 54 – 46 McCain seat. In 2016, Clintons swings can into play in Arlington. Republicans have the traditional base here. Lean R.

TX – 33: Same as TX – 32 only in northern Dallas and University Park. The district is 55.4% WVAP, 13% BVAP, and 25% HVAP. In this traditionally wealthy Republican seat, McCain won 53.6 – 46.4. Clinton’s swings pushed the margins here much closer. Lean R.

TX – 34: Northern seat straddling Tarrant, Dallas, and Denton. This is a suburban seat with many suburban towns like Lewisville, Flower Mount, Coppell, and Southlake. Clinton got swings here, but the initial PVI is too hard to overcome. Safe R.

TX – 35: Exurban seat centered on Denton with Wise and Collin support. Clinton got swings here, but they were small compared to the hardcore conservatism of the seat. Safe R.

TX – 36: Suburban seat with McKinney, Frisco, and Plano. The seat is a typical Republican Metroplex hardcore suburb seat. 63% White, 8% Black, 13.5% Hispanic, and 12% Asian. Safe R.

TX – 37: Weird district incoming. The seat is designed to pick up the reining bits of Garland and Rowlett, grabbing the Rowlett pieces from Rockwall as well. It then grabs some suburbs in Collin. The seat is 55.5% WVAP, 12% BVAP, 18% HVAP, and 11.6% AVAP. If a second Clinton cones along, then seat could be pushed into the competitive zone. Safe R.



TX – 38: The Eastern Metroplex and some other counties. It is overwhelmingly Republican, both the suburban and rural types. Safe R.

TX – 39: Texarkana based in Northeastern Texas. In addition to the main city, there is Paris Texas and Marshall here. Population wise, the district is 15% BVAP and 11% HVAP to 71% White. Safe R.

TX – 40: East Texas seat based in Tyler and Longview. The district is 64% White, 17% Black, and 16% Hispanic. Safe R.

TX – 41: Natchitoches and the East Texas counties all bordering Louisiana. The seat is 70.7% White, 14% Black, and 12.5% Hispanic.  This southern seat is Safe R.

[Oryxslayer]

TX – 42: The Only Tossup seat in Texas to keep that rating from 2008 to 2016. This a minority white seat, with Whites on comprising 48.7% of the electorate. Opposing them are 25.5% of the population that is African American and 21.3% that is Hispanic. In 2008, Obama got his margins mainly from the Jefferson side of Galveston Bay. In 2016, Clinton improved the Democratic margins in Galveston, even as she lost black turnout in Beaumont. Republicans have the slight structural advantage here. Tilt R.

TX – 43:  Rural district between the Metroplex and Houston. The BVAP is 14.8, and the HVAP is 13.8. Opposing it is 69% of the population that is white. Safe R.

TX – 44: Montgomery County. Nothing churns out those Republican votes like Montgomery County. Suburban and exurban in nature, this seat votes Right at the level of the rural West Texas only with a suburban population percentage. Safe R.

TX – 45: Central Houston BVAP seat. 50.3% African American, 33% Hispanic, and 12.3% White. Overwhelmingly Safe D.

TX – 46: HVAP seat in east Houston. 13.7% WVAP, 12% BVAP, and 70% HVAP. Safe D.

TX – 47: Minority White seat in the East Houston suburbs. Like in the Metroplex, Clinton got varying swings all across the non-AA metro. However, here the original margin is not enough. 47% White, and 41% Hispanic. Safe R.

TX – 48 A HVAP seat based in northern Dallas. The population is 10% White, 24% black, and 60% Hispanic. Safe D.

TX – 49: A conservative Suburb seat that straddles the north between the Democratic city center and Republican Montgomery. The seat has 52% WVPA, 17% BVAP and 26% HVAP. However, the districts hard Republican PVI save it from any Clinton swings. Safe R.

TX – 50: Minority White district in West Houston. The seat is 44.4% White, 13.3% black, and 35% Hispanic. Despite Obama only slightly winning the seat, Clinton won it with a larger margin. Likely D.

TX – 51: HVAP seat Southwest Harris. 50.6% HVAP, 15.1% WVAP, 20.8% BVAP, and 11.8% AVAP. Safe D.

TX – 52: The Conservative west Houston neighborhoods along with some bits of the urban sprawl. Remarkably 50.9% White, 9.3% Black, 27.6% Hispanic, and 10% Asian. Clinton saw the strongest swings in the metro here, yet it probably is not enough. Safe R.

TX – 53: The Urban sprawl of northwest Houston. This areas is Republican, and Conservative to a man. The VAP is 52% WVAP, 12% BVAP, 27% HVAP, and 7.5% AVAP. Safe R.

TX – 54: Brazoria and exurban Bend including Rosenberg. This area saw small Clinton swings, in part because of the exurban/rural nature of the seat. It is 50.6% White, 13% Black, 29% Hispanic, and 5% Asian. Safe R.

TX – 55: The district behind Fort Bends swing to the Left. It is Suburban in nature, and a minority access seat. It is 35% White, 22% Black, 20% Hispanic, and 20.5% Asian. Obama barely won the district in 2008, winning it by 400 votes. In 2016, Clinton got huge swings across the entire district. This is well on its way to a safe district. Lean/Likely D.



As I previously said, I would provide a map with the Fajitas redrawn as compact districts. The new districts don’t really change much partisan-wise, the only real seat changing hands is the 7th which is now a Corpus Christi centered seat which is Lean/Likely R. If I was building a map around such South Texas results, then the 8th would not squiggle, and the Republican rurals would make more sense. Remarkably though, this map shows exactly why the Fajitas are a thing. The 5th on this map is 92.6% Hispanic. However, it only has 74,958 votes out of 458,000. This is ~16% turnout rate. The fajitas help equalize when the large border population is ineligible to vote.

[Oryxslayer]

California

CA – 01: Marin County in the North Bay and the Petaluma –Sebastopol bit of Sonoma. Safe D.

CA – 02: North California coast district that goes from Santa Rosa in Sonoma to Humboldt County in the north. The district has 68% of the Population as white, to a 21% Hispanic vote. Safe D.

CA – 03: Northern California - Jefferson district. Population is centered on Redding however, the district also contains the Republican rural north. Safe R.

CA – 04: One of the few California districts where Obama did better than Clinton. Obama won Butte County, and Clinton lost it. Even if a Democrat were to win Butte, it is still outvoted by Yuba City and the rurals. Safe R.

CA – 05: Napa Yolo, and some rurals. This contains the liberal center of UC Davis. 58.2% of the population is white, 29.6% is Hispanic, and 7% is Asian. Safe D.

CA – 06: Solano county plus a few other bits. The district is minority white with 40.6% White, 13.6% black, 24% Hispanic, and 16% Asian. Safe D.

CA – 07: A mixture district that slides in between Lake Tahoe and Sacramento. Contains Liberal Tahoe, conservative Sacramento exurbs, and republican rurals. Safe R.



CA – 08: Asian VAP district on the Peninsula. It contains the Sunset, Excelsior, and Ingleside districts of SF along with Daly City. 25% White, 16.7% HVAP, and 50.9% Asian. Safe D.

CA – 09: The Bay Area peninsula in San Mateo County. Contains Hunters Point in SF, and the most of the suburbs along the peninsula that service both SF and Silicon Valley. It is 48.6% White, 20.8% Hispanic, and 23% Asian. Safe D.

CA – 10: San Francisco. The city’s district is 53% WVAP, 5% BVAP, 15% HVAP and 22.5% AVAP. Hyper levels of Safe D.

CA – 11: Silicon Valley. Contains Palo Alto, Stanford, Menlo Park, and Sunnyvale. It is a minority access district with 42.4% White population, 25% Hispanic, and 26% Asian. Safe D.

CA – 12: Eastern San Jose along with Santa Clara and Los Gatos. The district is 47% White, 20% Hispanic, and 26% Asian. Safe D.

CA – 13: Santa Cruz county and Salinas. 43% White, 48.5% Hispanic. Safe D.

CA – 14: San Jose city center. HVAP district with 50.2% Hispanic population, 17.2% white population, and 26.8% Asian vote. Safe D.

CA – 15: The foothills on both sides of San Jose, southern Santa Clara County including Gilroy, and San Benito. 43.8% White, 25% Hispanic, 27% Asian. Safe D.

CA – 16: Asian Majority Minority district in the South Bay. Contains Fremont and Milpitas. 53.4% Asian, 17.7% Hispanic, and 21.5% white. Safe D.

CA – 17: East Bay district in Southern Alameda County, containing Hayward and San Leandro. Minority Access district, with 27% of the population as white, 11.5% of the population as black, 32.6% of the population as Hispanic, and 25.7% Asian. Safe D.

CA – 18: Liberal Berkeley and Richmond. 43 % white, 12.6% black, 21.5% Hispanic, and 18% Asian. Safe D.

CA – 19: the least Democratic district in the Bay Area, the inner Contra Costa and Alameda district. In contains Pleasanton, Danville, Livermore, and Brentwood. The district is 59.5% White, 16% Hispanic, and 16.8% Asian. Despite the district being less democratic than its neighbors, Clinton swings and the underlying PVI still make it Safe D.

CA – 20: Oakland and Alameda. A true Minority access district. 29.9% WVAP, 22.8% BVAP, 22.6% HVAP, 20.2% AVAP. Overwhelmingly Safe D.

CA – 21: Pittsburg, Concord, Antioch, and Walnut Creek - The Bay Area exurban cities. The district is 47% White, 8% black, 28% Hispanic, and 12% Asian. Safe D.



CA – 22: South Sacramento. The district has 31.2% WVAP, 14% BVAP, 26% HVAP, and 23.4% AVAP. Safe D.

CA – 23: This is the Sacramento East suburbs, with places like Roseville, Citrus Heights, and Fair Oaks. It is white, and traditionally conservative. Clinton however built up a large swing across the district, on top of the already marginal numbers. Tossup.

CA – 24: North Sacramento including the Old City, and some of the Northern more liberal suburbs. 49.6% White, 10.7% Black, 23% Hispanic, and 11% Asian. Safe D.

CA – 25: The Largest district in the State. It travels down the far side of the Central Valley collecting the rurals that make up the California forests like Yosemite. It then travels down through Death Valley and into the rural San Bernardino Mojave. It is 22.5% Hispanic, but that does not stop the rural counties.  Safe R.

CA – 26: A rather strange Minority white district in western San Joaquin and Stockton. The district is 27.6% WVAP, 9.6% BVAp, 40.8% HVAP, and 17.8% AVAP. The minorities put this as a solid access district. Safe D.

CA – 27: Rural and Suburban eastern Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus. Inside the district are such cities as Lodi and Manteca. 51.4% white, 30.1% Hispanic, and 10.8% Asian. McCain won this district, and the swings arguably cancel each other out or tilt towards Trump. Safe R.

CA – 28: Stanislaus County minus the eastern bits. The district is 45.2% WVAP to 42.7% HVAP. Democrats rack up their numbers in Modesto and the small farming towns like Turlo and Patterson. Republicans get their votes from the rural vote, and the suburbs of Modesto and those small towns. Tossup.

CA – 29: Rural central valley. Contains Merced county, southern Madera, and southwestern Fresno. This district is 61% Hispanic to 28.2% white. However, it is a closely fought district. Clinton improved here, and democrats are already stronger in the seat. Lean D.

CA – 30: Like all of the south valley districts, the seats are strong in Hispanic vote, but lower in support for Democrats. This is probably because of the fact that the Hispanics are ineligible or unregistered for voting.  The district contains Clovis and Selma in the south valley. The district is 37.8% white, 50.7% Hispanic, and 7.5% Asian. Safe R.

CA – 31: HVAP in Kings County Plus Visalia and Tulare. The district is 36.5% white and 53.8% Hispanic. Safe R.

CA – 32: Urban Fresno. The district is a HVAP district with 51.3% HVAP, 26.1% WVAP, 7.8% BVAP, and 12% AVAP. Safe D.



CA – 33: Central California coast with most of Monterey and San Louis Obispo counties. It has 58.6% WVAP, and 30.1% HVAP. Safe D.

CA – 34: Santa Barbara County with a little more from Louis Obispo. 49% WVAP to 41.9% HVAP. Safe D.

CA – 35: Western Los Angeles county suburbs. This district contains Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, and Malibu. This district has 68.3% White population, 18.6% Hispanic population, and 8.4% Asian pops. This district was and is a swing district, though Clinton was able to build on the Democratic margin here. Tilt/Lean D.

CA – 36: Rural Kern and Tulare County. The district is 47.6% HVAP, and 41.8% WVAP. This South Valley/Grapevine district is Safe R.

CA – 37: Bakersfield based district. The Voter share here is 53.2% HVAP to 33.7% WVAP. This district despite being more urban, is still republican leaning. Clinton did see respectable swings here, but nothing special. Likely R.

CA – 38: HVAP district with Ventura and Oxnard. 56.8% Hispanic to 34.2% White. Safe D.

[Oryxslayer]

CA – 39: San Bernardino Suburbs and Hesperia/Victorville. 49.3% WVAP to 36.5% HVAP. Safe R.

CA – 40: Lancaster and Palmdale district, or the Northern non-city parts of LA county. 37% WVAP, 13.3% BVAP, and 41.5% HVAP. Clinton saw fine swings here, in a similar fashion to CA – 35, pushing what was a swing district toward team D. Tilt D.

CA – 41: Urban Ontario, Pomona, and Chino. This is a HVAP district with 62.4% of the population as Hispanic to only 22.3% as White. Safe D.

CA – 42: Downtown San Bernardino. HVAP district with 58% HVAP, 13.6% BVAP, and 20.1% WVAP. Safe D.

CA – 43: Fontana and Bloomington, located between Ontario and San Bernardino. HVAp district with 59.6% HVAP, 7.6% BVAP, and 24.4% WVAP. Safe D.



CA – 44: The First LA County district that is based fully inside the city part of the county. The first district is a HVAP district with 65.9% of the population of the Hispanic group. This Covina and La Puente district is Safe D.

CA – 45: HVAP district north of the 44th. It wiggles its way from La Verne and Glendora down to El Monte in order to maximize the HVAP. It is 55.7% HVAP, 27.3% WVAP, and 12.6 AVAP. Safe D.

CA – 46: South East central LA HVAP district based around Norwalk, La Habra, and Pico Rivera. It has a few weird bits due to district 66 “The Chinese Dragon.” It is 67.4% HVAP, 19.8% WVAP, and 9.1% AVAP. Safe D.

CA – 47: Central LA City district that also has the towns of Florence and Graham. 71.7% HVAP district. Safe D.

CA – 48: A district based around the core center of LA County – Lynwood, Compton and South gate. This district is over 80% Hispanic and a safe HVAP. Safe D.

CA – 49: Northern LA Minority district. It has two centers, Glendale and the Hispanic south end of the district. The vote is 54% HVAP, 30% WVAP, and 12.7% AVAP. Safe D.

CA – 50: West and central LA City HVAP district. The vote here is 56.3% Hispanic, 21.7% Asian, and 13.1% White. Safe D.

CA – 51: AVAP district centered on Pasadena and Rosemead. This bubble of Asian votes comes to 52.9% Asian, 28.9% Hispanic, and 15.5% White. Safe D.

CA – 52: HVAP district west of the AVAP district. The district has East Los Angeles as the Southern Hispanic anchor, and Sierra Madre in the North. 63.2% HVAP, 20.6% White. Safe D.

CA – 53: Northern Los Angeles Suburban belt beyond the Hollywood Hills of CD 57. 48.8% WVAP to 33.7% HVAP and 10% AVAP. Safe D.

CA – 54: Northern urban bloat district south of San Fernando. HVAP seat with 55.3% HVAP, 25.6% WVAP, and 13.2% AVAP. Safe D.

CA – 55: District wiggled in between the Hollywood hills and Glendale. The core is Burbank and La Crescenta. 53.2% of the district is white, 10% is Hispanic, and 10.5% is Asian. Safe D.

CA – 56: HVAP seat based out of San Fernando and Santa Clarita. 52% Hispanic to 33.4% White. Safe D.

CA – 57: The Movie District. Contain Hollywood, Beverly Hills, and the Hollywood Hills. Much whiter than anything else in the region. Still has 11.4% HVAP and AVAP. Safe D.

CA – 58: Weird twisted district to product a HVAP seat around the BVAP seat. Contains Culver City and southern Los Angeles City. 56.9% HVAP, 22.1% BVAP, 12.2% WVAP. Safe D.

CA – 59: The one California BVAP seat. It goes from View Park and Inglewood down through Athens to Compton. The district is 50.8% BVAP and 41.5% HVAP. Safe D.

CA – 60: The Los Angeles West Coast. Contains Santa Monica, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, and Venice Beach. The population is 48.5% White, 30.9% Hispanic, and 9% Asian. Safe D.

CA – 61: Perhaps the most conservative seat in LA County outside of the northern reaches. This is because historically, the very wealthy Palos Verdes and rolling Hills exerted a significant conservative pressure. Clinton, however, saw here best swings in LA County here. 37% White, 25% Hispanic, and 28.4% Asian. Safe D.

CA – 62: HVAP seat based out of Long Beach and the Los Angeles harbor. The seat is 55% HVAP, 12.1% BVAP, 18.3% WVAP, and 12% AVAP. Safe D.

CA – 63: A seat that crosses LA – Orange County border around Long Beach and Sunset Beach. It adds in Los Alamitos and some of the northern cities into the district. The seat clock in at 46.2% White, 30.3% Hispanic, and 12.4% Asian. Safe D.



CA – 64: Anaheim based HVAP seat. Also includes Garden Grove and a bit of Orange. Population is 52.3% HVAP, and Asian and White are both 21.8%. Obama won this district slightly, losing the Asian vote here. In 2016, Clinton Improved massively. Likely D.

CA – 65: Traditionally Conservative northwest Orange county seat. The center here is Yorba Linda, including Fullerton and the Chino Hills. The seat has a 44.4% WVAP, 31.8% HVAP, and 18.6% AVAP. Obama lost by a reasonable amount in this traditionally R seat, however Clinton improved upon that margin. This district covers much of the same territory as IRL CA – 39, yet the districts more democratic bits are in the 66th. Calling it Lean R considering the district’s historic trends should be fine.

CA – 66: Whenever I am given a California map and districts smaller then IRL, I always draw a district like this? Why – to many Asians in the LA region to not have a VAP district. Typically, the “Chinese Dragon” goes from Pasadena to Diamond Bar, but this time the Pasadena area got its own AVAP district. So, the Dragon goes south into Westminster and Artesia from Diamond Bar and Rowland Heights. The district is 50.3% AVAP, 22.3% WVAP, and 22.5% HVAP. Despite me calling it a Chinese dragon, most of those Asians are probably traditionally Conservative Vietnamese voters, which made the district a pure tossup in 2008. In 2016, Clinton made gains among this group. Tilt/Lean D is probably a safe bet here.

CA – 67: Central Orange County HVAP seat. The 67th contains Southern Orange, Santa Ana, and Fountain Valley. The district is 66% HVAP, 13.6% AVAP, and 17.9% WVAP. Safe D.

CA – 68: This seat is Irvine and Tustin, and forms the core of central Orange County. It is 49.2% White, 19.2% Hispanic, and 25.9% Asian. The seat was only won by Obama in 2008 by 500 votes. Clinton built up that margin in 2016, but he seat still remains of the margins. Dems have the University City, Republicans have Tustin and Foothill Ranch. Tossup.

CA – 69: The Orange County Coast, featuring Huntington, Newport, and Laguna Beach. The seat has 66.2% WVAP to the 18.9% HVAP and 10.5% AVAP. With less of a minority base, Democrats depend on the white liberals in places like Laguna Beach and Costa Mesa. Obama barely lost in this beachfront district. Clinton Improved on Obama here, and won the more conservative version of this district IRL. Tossup.

CA – 70: The southern end of Orange County. Even with Clinton’s swings, which are strong here, this Ancestrally Republican area stayed with the old party. The Former PVI helped, in addition to the lack of a minority population of notice. Safe R.

CA – 71: A district between liberal Riverside and the conservative belt down near Temecula. The district is HVAP, with 51.9% Hispanic voters, and 29.5% whites. The district is less Democratic then other HVAP districts, and the swings here seem to cancel each other out or a slight tilt towards Clinton. Lean D.

CA – 72: Riverside based district. It is a HVAP district, with a HVAP of 52.2% to a WVAP of 31.5. It is in a similar situation to the district below it, with a negligible swing and a smaller Democratic vote share then other VAP districts. Likely D.

CA – 73: Southern Riverside along the 15, including Temecula, Murrieta, and Sun City. The district is 53.1% White to 30.7% Hispanic. This area saw a mixture of moderate Clinton swings and hard Trump swings. Safe R.

CA – 74: Central Riverside County including Beaumont, Cathedral City, and Palm Desert. The district is 47.6% WVAP, 37.7% Hispanic vote. The district voted 53.2 – 46.8 for Obama. Similar to the other Riverside districts, the margin seems to be negligible. Unlike the others, it seems towards Trump if there is a small swing. Tossup.



CA – 75: A district swaddling the northern San Diego border and the southern Riverside district. It Contains Oceanside, Pendleton, and Bonsall. The district is 50.2% White, and 37.6% HVAP. Clinton saw some good swings here, and since the district was close to marginal in 2008, it moves clser to marginal now. Likely/Lean R.

CA – 76: Carlsbad and Escondido. In 2008, Obama barely lost the district, McCain winning with only a 6K vote margin. Since then, Clinton has surged forward, winning many McCain precincts and pushing down the margin in others. The district is 55.5% WVAP, 298.2% HVAP, and 11.1% AVAP. It is now  Lean D on the way to Likely D.

CA – 77: Solano Beach, Encinitas, and the northern San Diego suburbs. The district is 61.9% White, 11.9% Hispanic, and 20.5% Asian. Safe D.
CA – 78: Northern San Diego and its inner suburbs.  The district is 19% Hispanic and 8% Asian to 62.5% White. Safe D.

CA – 79: Inner city San Diego. 50.6% HVAP, 12.8% Asian, 12.3% Black, and 21.2% White. Safe D.

CA – 80: Southern San Diego, Chula Vista, and Imperial Beach. 56.7% HVAP, 21.7% WVAP, and 13.6% AVAP. Safe D.

CA – 81: Eastern San Diego County with both suburbs, rural areas, and small towns within the scope. 66.7% White, 21.5% Hispanic. Safe R.

CA – 82: HVAP seat with Imperial County and eastern Riverside County with the city of Coachella. 69.6% HVAP, 24.4% White. Safe D.

Well, that’s that. I warned it was a dump. I take all criticism, and am free to correct or respond to those responses. I hope I covered everything.

Oh, and New York is next.

[jimrtex]

Southwest

Colorado

Authors Note:

Colorado is the reverse of the Rust belt, a state where republicans are self-packing. The Denver Suburbs seemed doomed to become a Democratic stronghold, or at leave a Democratic leaning zone. Drawing this map, I felt almost prophetic. In 2020, with the addition of and 8th district, Colorado will have to draw a HVAP district. Such a district will force cuts into Denver spreading the Democratic votes around the metro.

The hardest part about drawing the map was honestly the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th districts. I wanted the 1st district to be a Fort Collins + Greely district, yet I seemingly couldn’t get the 2nd districts’ cut to look nice.  Eventually I found a way to get it to work. The 3rd and 4th also had a similar problem. I wanted the 3rd to be a Rocky mountains district with the 3rd the only district on the Western side of the peaks. Eventually I found a divide that worked out nicely, and didn’t sent the 3rd beyond its base in the rural West.

Majority Minority Districts:

Colorado provides our first introduction to HVAP, and all the caveats that come with it. HVAP does not tell us how many of said Hispanics are actually registered, something that matters a lot in California and Texas. Here though, the 10th is a 51% HVAP district. If it was found to be below population count, then the district could head east to Aurora rather than North to Adams. 

Most Competitive Districts:

CO – 01: The Northern district is always going to be a swing district. The district is made of the entirety of Weld county and northern Larimer County. This piece of Larimer County subtracts the south which includes Loveland and Estes Park. Clinton lost Larimer + Weld when whole by about 20K votes. However, when the Southern, traditionally more conservative bits of Larimer go into the Boulder district simply by proximity, the result becomes more opaque. Obama of course won uninterrupted Larimer + Weld by about 3K votes in 2008, so process of elimination say Clinton lost here by around a respectable 10K votes. Tossup, or Tilt R.

CO – 04: The Rocky Mountain district. It is an Obama by 54% district and has a lot of moving parts in that coalition. Democrats dominate the ski towns in the West, and Republicans rule the rural bits of the East lope between the peaks and Colorado Springs. This produces a negligible difference in partisanship, with Pueblo acting as the equalizer. With Trump winning Pueblo marginally, he wins the 4th marginally. The end result is a district rated as Tossup.

CO – 09: This is a Republican district that could very easily have voted for Clinton. Her swings across the district were huge, sometimes 15% huge. In many precincts, she easily outperformed Obama 2008. The Republicans though have the historical advantage here, with the district easily being part of the upscale GOP wealthy class type that used to form their bedrock. While Democrats play defense in the 4th, they play offense here. Tilt R.

CO – 11: CO – 11 is pretty much Jefferson county minus Southern Columbine and plus the Adams bits of border crossing Westminster. The thing is Jefferson has stopped being a true swing county. While it voted for Bush, it did not vote for Gardner in the Senate. Clinton expanded the margins here, and Democrats benefit from her gains. Likely D.

The division between CO-3 and CO-4. Division of the San Luis Valley, particularly Conejos, in unforgivable. While there is a separation of interest between the Western Slope and the ski areas, you are still better making a north-south split.

Start by shifting Gilpin, Clear Creek, Summit, and Eagle from CO-4 to CO-3 picking up Breckinridge and Vail, in exchange for the remainder of the San Luis Valley, and start working across Archuleta, La Plata, and Montezuma. The goal is to get CO-4 to the Four Corners. If you need some more population in CO-4, shift Pitkin, and then Lake, if this helps you get a bit more north in CO-4. Delta and Montrose could go in either district, though my preference would be to keep them with Mesa (Grand Junction).

I would look at putting the Lower Arkansas Valley (Otero, Crowley, Bent, Prowers) into CO-4. They fit better with Pueblo than Colorado Springs. In  exchange look at moving Teller, Park, Clear Creek, Gilpin into either a Denver district or CO-5.

I doubt that there is a Hispanic VRA district in Denver. First, the majority has to be among voters. While there is a considerable non-Mexican Hispanic community, many will have moved further west, and they may not vote cohesively (i.e. for the Democrat). Replacements have either been gentrifiers, or immigrants, who may be increasingly dispersed where they can find housing in apartments. But the district is OK as a Hispanic influence district. The fact that you admitted to having a target percentage suggests that race was predominating over everything else, especially when you started going out into Aurora.

Using an airport to connect parts of a district is not acceptable. A city with 350,000 people (Aurora) should have its own district, so ignore the county line. Put Sheridan, Englewood, and Cherry Hills into CO-9. CO-8 has to stay in Denver, even it pushes CO-10 further out into Adams.

Up North, I'd start with Boulder-Longmont-Loveland-Fort Collins and the mountain areas in one district; and Weld, Broomfield, and southeastern Boulder County (Lafayette, Lousville, etc.) in the other. This gets the Denver suburbs into a single district. If you need some more population in the eastern district, shift Longmont. It is commutable, and Loveland is closely tied to Fort Collins. It would also avoid a split of Larimer.

[Miles]

Thanks for the other LA map - here are some fixes to my map with that in mind:




I got rid of the Shreveport Blue Dog seat, and now CD6 is 56/43 Obama and over 51% BVAP.

My original CD5 is only plurality-BVAP, but I don't think it would have any problem elected a black rep. For instance, its much less white than EBR Parish as a whole, which has had black Mayor-Presidents since 2005. 

[Heisenberg]

I'll do Kentucky.

[Heisenberg]

KY-01: McCain +22.6
KY-02: McCain +16.5
KY-03: McCain +16.4
KY-04: Obama +30.1
KY-05: McCain +48.2
KY-06: McCain +4.6
KY-07: McCain +15.5
KY-08: McCain +12.9
KY-09: McCain +25.1
KY-10: McCain +32.2

KY-04 is the only Obama district, but KY-06 was close, voted for Gray, and would usually go Democratic at the Congressional level. Maybe KY-07 (Coal Counties) and KY-8 (Eastern Louisville and Frankfort) flip with the right candidate and national environment, but probably not anymore.

[publicunofficial]

Also, publicunofficial, your image host appears to be broken.

Fix'd!

[Oryxslayer]

New York

New York is weird because of the competing swings last year. Both Trump and Clinton were from the state, and both appealed to different segments of New Yorkers. My original theory before the election was that they would both see a home-state effect: Clinton getting hers in NYC and the inner suburbs, whereas Trump gets his Upstate and in the Republican New York suburbs/exurbs/Staten Island. This roughly came true except for that fact that Black turnout dropped so trump increased his margin by a slight amount in Queens, Brooklyn, and the Bronx. So while the swings within the state are perhaps more violent than they should be, the trend line in many of the districts still remains true.







NY – 01: Swing district at the end of Long Island. Southold, and the Hamptons, though most of the population is concentrated in Brookhaven. Within the district’s bit of Brookhaven, lie Patchogue, Sayville, and Medford. The Brookhaven bit is the swing center of the district, with Democrats holding the southern Hamptons and with republicans safe in Southold and Riverhead. Trump got stronger margins than expected for a swing district in Brookhaven. Lean R.

NY – 02: Northern Brookhaven and Republican Smithtown. While Obama once had a base in Brookhaven around Mount Sinai, this has receded in favor of the Trump surge. Safe R.

NY – 03: Southwestern Suffolk County centered on Islip, and Babylon. Democrats have a strong base here with the minority population, which is comprised of 13% Blacks and 27.3% Hispanics. Despite strong margins hare previously, Clinton barely won Babylon and barely lost Islip. Lean/Tilt D.

NY – 04: Southeastern Nassau with the population based around Massapequa and Hicksville. Obama barely lost this historically Republican district, increasing his numbers in the northern towns along the Long Island Expressway. Trump surged in the south, while Clinton got average swings in the North. Likely R.

NY – 05: Northern Nassau district that is the heir to the current NY – 03. The district takes in Democratic Huntington, Port Washington, and North Hempstead, to the Republicans in Oyster Bay and Garden City. Clinton saw some huge swings here, but it shouldn’t be enough to push the district beyond the traditional lean. Tossup.

NY – 06:  A district entirely contained within Hempstead Town. The seat is 49.4% White, 22.8% Black, and 21.7% Hispanic. The seat is pretty much the core of NY – 04 without the more Republican fringes. Safe D.



NY – 07: South Queens district including the Rockaways, St. Albans, Rosedale, Queens Village, and parts of Jamaica. It also includes, Inwood, Woodmere, and Valley Stream in Nassau. The seat is BVAP with 56.5% BVAP, 18.5% WVAP, and 14.2% HVAP. Safe D.

NY – 08: BVAP seat crossing from southwest Queens into southeast Kings. The Queens bit gets most of the population from Howard Beach, Ozone Park, and Jamaica. Kings is just East New York, Canarsie, and Brownsville. 54.5% BVAP, 19.3% HVAP, 11.3% WVAP, and 8.1% AVAP. Safe D.

NY – 09: The Flatlands, Midwood, and the coastal neighborhoods around the Jamaica Bay. 26.3% White, 55.7% Black, and 10.5% Hispanic. Safe D.

NY – 10: Crown Heights and Bedford – Stuyvesant, along with a few bits around Prospect Park. 24% WVAP, 56.3% BVAP, and 13.9% HVAP. Safe D.

NY – 11: Northeastern Queens seat centered on Flushing. The seat is nearly 50% AVAP, however that number cannot be reached with the existing population. The present seat is 25.5% White, 14.4% Hispanic, and 43.7% Asian. Probably elects a Chinese or a Korean due to the demographic makeup. Safe D.

NY – 12: Corona, Elmhurst, and Jackson Heights from Queens along with Hunts Point, Soundview, and Castle Hill. HVAP seat with 59.3% HVAP, 14.8% AVAP, 8.9% WVAP, and 14.9% BVAP. Safe D.

NY – 13: South Kings County district, designed with Gravesend, Sheepshead Bay, Bensonhurst, and Coney Island. The seat is 65.8% White, with only 11.3% Hispanic population and 17% Asian population. The main population groups here are former migrants from the USSR, and Orthodox Jews. Safe R.

NY – 14: Long district created by the remainders from the surrounding VAP seats. The district is 39% White, 24.2% Hispanic, and 28% Asian. It goes from Jamaica Hills and Briarwood, through Forest Hills and Elmhurst, to Sunnyside. Safe D.

NY – 15: Central Kings and Queens district that collects the Hispanic Communities along Bushwick and Atlantic Avenue. In Queens, the district grabs Woodhaven, Richmond Hill, Glendale, Ridgewood, and Maspeth.  In Kings, the seat is built out of Cypress Hills, Bushwick, and Williamsburg. 51% HVAP, 10.9% BVAP, 9.8% AVAP, and 24.5% WVAP. Safe D.

NY – 16: Bayside seat going from Coney Island to the edge of Manhattan. The seat includes Bay Ridge, Sunset Park, Red Hook, Govanus, Kensington, Fort Hamilton, Bath Beach, and a bit of Coney Island. The seat is 44.9% White to its Asian and Hispanic populations which are both 24.9%. Safe D.

NY – 17: Staten Island is near perfectly one whole district, only 7K over-population. The 17th is the Staten Island seat. Obama barely lost this seat by racking up the numbers along the bayside liberals. Trumps was an excellent fit for Staten Island, and this is reflected in the margins. Safe R.

NY – 18: Brooklyn and the southern tip of Manhattan. The district is 57.8% White, 14.6% Hispanic, and 19.3% Asian. Safe D.

NY – 19: A river-crossing district that is the heir of NY – 12. On the Manhattan side, the district is just the Upper East Side. On Long Island, the district grabs Greenpoint from Kings and Astoria, Ditmars-Steinway, and Sunnyside from Queens. 63% White, 17% Hispanic, and 12.8% Asian. Safe D.

NY – 20: Central Manhattan, including the Upper West Side, Chelsea, and Midtown. 66.6% White, 13.3% Hispanic, 11.5% Asian. Safe D.

NY – 21: There are many ways to draw a 50% + 1 BVAP district north of Manhattan. One version does not go into Westchester, and instead heads through the AA/Hispanic precincts in central Bronx. One version does not go into Manhattan, and uses only Mount Vernon and northern Bronx + the AA/HVAP precincts. This version though, always for greater Hispanic accessibility in the surrounding districts. The seat is 12.3% WVAP, 55.9% BVAP, and 26.5% HVAP. Safe D.

NY – 22: HVAP seat in Eastern Bronx. The district is built off Morris Park, Throngs Neck, and the various Pelham neighborhoods. It is 50.3% HVAP, 20.2% BVAP, and 21.7% WVAP. Safe D.

NY – 23: South-Central Bronx district containing Melrose, Concourse, Fordham, Belmont, Claremont Village, and University Heights. The seat is 65.5% HVAP, and 30.4% BVAP. This district is probably the Safest D in the nation with only about 5K votes for McCain.

NY – 24: A Natural Hudson riverside district, with the attachment of East Harlem and its Hispanics. The Along the Manhattan Riverside lie the Washington Heights, Inwood, and Fort George, in addition to the East Harlem appendage. In Bronx, the district is just Riverdale. 50.7% HVAP, 16.5% BVAP, 25.8% WVAP. Safe D.

NY – 25: Inner Westchester county district. The main population center is Yonkers, though New Rochelle, Harrison, and Rye all bring their own baskets of voters. The seat is 54.8% White, 11% Black, and 26.6% Hispanic. Safe D.

[Oryxslayer]

(Note the micro-cut of the 32nd into Saratoga is a mistake and I missed it in haste)

NY – 26: Suburban and exurban district built out of outer Westchester and Putnam. The anchors of Westchester are Tarrytown, White Plains, Courtlandt, and Mount Pleasant. Clinton outperformed Obama’s 2008 margins in Westchester, though she lost by twice as much as Obama in Putnam. This leaves us with a similar end result. Likely/Safe D.

NY – 27: Rockland County based district, with small population grabs in either direction. Irvington and Dobbs Ferry are taken from Westchester, and southern Orange County rounds out the district. The most populated parts of Orange inside the district are the towns of Chester, Woodbury, Monroe, and Cornwall – all Republican. Clinton won Rockland by about 1K more votes than Obama in 2008. She however lost the Rockland bits by more than Obama in 2008. The modest Democratic lean probably sits this suburban district around Lean/Tilt D.

NY – 28: The first of two Hudson Valley district. This one is centered on Democratic Dutchess, Republican Greene, along with southern Columbia County and the Catskill bit of Ulster. Clinton did win Dutchess and the two bits, however Trump won Greene by enough to barely enough to push him over. The Democrats still have the base here, but Trump has the swings. Tossup.

NY – 29: The second Hudson district built out of the west side of the river. The district includes southern democratic Ulster County, and northern republican Orange County. The deciding factor here is Sullivan County, which Obama won in 2008, and Trump won in 2016. If Trump is the new normal, then the exurbs in Orange have too much of a pull for the democrats to challenge effectively. Lean/Likely R.

NY – 30: Albany and Schenectady. Clinton lost some ground when compared to Obama, but she still did fine here. Republicans lack a base. Safe D.

NY – 31: Obama won all of the districts core counties in 2008: Saratoga, Washington, and Rensselaer. In 2016, Clinton only won the stronger democratic bit of Columbia County. If Trumps margins here are the new normal, then this district is well on its well towards team R. Safe R.

NY – 32: Adirondack district. Obama won this district in 2008 convincingly. In 2016, Clinton lost here, though not by as much as other districts since she still held some of the democratic base in the area around Lake Champlain.  Likely R.

NY – 33: Central Upstate district fitting neatly between Binghamton, Albany, and Syracuse. This overwhelmingly White rural/small-town district was Republican leaning before Trump, and went further right under him. Safe R.

NY – 34: Rome, Utica and Watertown. Central Upstate around Lake Oneida and Lake Ontario. Democrats had a small base in Oswego, however, that evaporated with Trump. Safe R.



NY – 35: Only Onondaga County, which itself is only a little overpopulated for a single district. Trump made some gains in this hardcore Democratic county, Clinton still won with a 30K vote margin. Safe D.

NY – 36: The dividing district between the eastern and western portions of Upstate New York. The district contains the Eastern Finger Lakes with Auburn, Ithaca, and Binghamton. In 2008, Obama won the district with a strong 25K vote margin, in 2016; Clinton won it with a 5K vote lead. Tilt D to Tossup.

NY – 37: The Southern Tier: The district heads west from Elmira, travelling along the Pennsylvania border to Jamestown and Lake Erie. Despite this district being the heir to the less Republican IRL NY – 23, it is more Republican due to the lack of Ithaca. Safe R.

NY – 38: The western Finger Lakes and the east Rochester Suburbs. The seat went for McCain, and the best attempt at a Democratic base is those suburbs. Clinton got some large swings in that base, however Trump got larger swings across the rest of the district. Safe R.

NY – 39: Niagara, the rural counties between Buffalo and Rochester, and the west Rochester Suburbs. Unlike the east, the western suburbs are Republican, and the only real point of democratic strength is Niagara city. Tossing in the rurals, the seat is Safe R.

NY – 40: Inner City Rochester and some inner suburbs like Greece and Henrietta. The seat is 61.7% White, 21.8% Black, and 10.1% Hispanic. Safe D.

NY – 41: The first of two Erie County based districts. This seat is Urban Buffalo, Tonawanda, Grand Isle, and Cheektowaga. It is 64.3% White, 23.6% Black, and 7.2% Hispanic. Safe D.

NY – 42: The second Erie County district. The seat is everything not part of Inner Buffalo and the immediate suburbs, including: the outer suburbs, the exurbs, and the rural areas. A tiny amount of population is needed to reach equity; this is grabbed from Wyoming County. These are all Republican areas, with the only exception being Amherst Town. Safe R.

[Oryxslayer]

Also, some replies.

The division between CO-3 and CO-4. Division of the San Luis Valley, particularly Conejos, in unforgivable. While there is a separation of interest between the Western Slope and the ski areas, you are still better making a north-south split.

Start by shifting Gilpin, Clear Creek, Summit, and Eagle from CO-4 to CO-3 picking up Breckinridge and Vail, in exchange for the remainder of the San Luis Valley, and start working across Archuleta, La Plata, and Montezuma. The goal is to get CO-4 to the Four Corners. If you need some more population in CO-4, shift Pitkin, and then Lake, if this helps you get a bit more north in CO-4. Delta and Montrose could go in either district, though my preference would be to keep them with Mesa (Grand Junction).

I would look at putting the Lower Arkansas Valley (Otero, Crowley, Bent, Prowers) into CO-4. They fit better with Pueblo than Colorado Springs. In  exchange look at moving Teller, Park, Clear Creek, Gilpin into either a Denver district or CO-5.

I doubt that there is a Hispanic VRA district in Denver. First, the majority has to be among voters. While there is a considerable non-Mexican Hispanic community, many will have moved further west, and they may not vote cohesively (i.e. for the Democrat). Replacements have either been gentrifiers, or immigrants, who may be increasingly dispersed where they can find housing in apartments. But the district is OK as a Hispanic influence district. The fact that you admitted to having a target percentage suggests that race was predominating over everything else, especially when you started going out into Aurora.

Using an airport to connect parts of a district is not acceptable. A city with 350,000 people (Aurora) should have its own district, so ignore the county line. Put Sheridan, Englewood, and Cherry Hills into CO-9. CO-8 has to stay in Denver, even it pushes CO-10 further out into Adams.

Up North, I'd start with Boulder-Longmont-Loveland-Fort Collins and the mountain areas in one district; and Weld, Broomfield, and southeastern Boulder County (Lafayette, Lousville, etc.) in the other. This gets the Denver suburbs into a single district. If you need some more population in the eastern district, shift Longmont. It is commutable, and Loveland is closely tied to Fort Collins. It would also avoid a split of Larimer.

I followed up on what you stated about Colorado so lets go through the basic stuff.

First off Denver. Thinking about it, there probably wasn't the population for a HVAP seat in 2010. Yes, I could reach 50% + 1, however, turnout and voter registration probably prevent it from functioning efficiently. If we destroy the district, the region becomes much more appealing.

First off, I really love the new 7th. Centered on Aurora, the seat is drawn as a true coalition seat to replace the destroyed HVAP seat - ~39% WVAP with BVAP and HVAP each playing their part. The seat neatly sides into Denver and neatly grabs the northern minority communities. This also allows the 8th to be entirely within Denver. Doth are Safe D.

The 9th - 11th now also neatly follow the county lines and are seated pretty perfectly within their counties. The 9th is all of non-Boulder Adams, some of Douglas, and a bit of Jefferson for equity. The seat sides closer to 50-50 and is probably Tossup now. The 10th instead of being a VAP seat is now all of Adams and a couple of cities that cross the county border. It slides in Democrat PVI and is probably Likely/Safe D. The 11th barely changes and I still rate as Likely D.

I was uncomfortably with sticking the Denver Exurbs in Boulder into Weld. It seemed like the district was reaching into the region in an attempt to crack. However, once I realized the Senate Districts in the region already follow the corridor through the reion, the district was fine to draw. The first now has a slight Dem PVI, and is probably Tossup with a tiny D lean instead of a R one. The 2nd is still Safe D.

I however do not know why you think your version of the 4th is better. Both versions of the district need to cross the Mountains -  the 4th needs to do it anyway. The thing is, such a district that you describe will have multiple communities on either side of the Rockies. Farmers and Eco-Liberals in the west along with the ski counties, and farmers, rural mountain Conservatives, and working class Boulder in the east. The crossing meanwhile is more egregious, going across the state as if the mountains were not even there.

The changes drawing it has on other districts though also turn me away. The 3rd, which previously had a single, or two communities of interest since it was a purely western district, now takes in the Rockies which I had previously avoided. The 5th grabs Park and Teller making it look incredibly weird spiraling across the state and ending in the weird borders around Jefferson and Colorado Springs.

Meanwhile my current district embraces the fact that it needs to cross the Rockies. It is a purely Rocky based district, with population that depend on that fact. The ski counties are a united community, in addition to the non-suburban south slope conservatives. Boulder needs to be in the district. If it is road connections, every county in the district can be reached by road.

Less satisfied with this one than my Missouri map (there were a few cases where there was too much population to really make a single district for a particular region, but too few people to satisfyingly divide it into two districts), but here's Illinois. I believe I've gotten the correct amount of VRA districts out of Cook County.

I like the map, just perhaps try to avoid the cut in Madison and respect local lines in the Chicago Metro. But the core districts are there, which is nice.

[Lachi]

Would there be anyway this could be turned into one big map?

[jimrtex]

Also, some replies.

The division between CO-3 and CO-4. Division of the San Luis Valley, particularly Conejos, in unforgivable. While there is a separation of interest between the Western Slope and the ski areas, you are still better making a north-south split.

Start by shifting Gilpin, Clear Creek, Summit, and Eagle from CO-4 to CO-3 picking up Breckinridge and Vail, in exchange for the remainder of the San Luis Valley, and start working across Archuleta, La Plata, and Montezuma. The goal is to get CO-4 to the Four Corners. If you need some more population in CO-4, shift Pitkin, and then Lake, if this helps you get a bit more north in CO-4. Delta and Montrose could go in either district, though my preference would be to keep them with Mesa (Grand Junction).

I would look at putting the Lower Arkansas Valley (Otero, Crowley, Bent, Prowers) into CO-4. They fit better with Pueblo than Colorado Springs. In  exchange look at moving Teller, Park, Clear Creek, Gilpin into either a Denver district or CO-5.

I doubt that there is a Hispanic VRA district in Denver. First, the majority has to be among voters. While there is a considerable non-Mexican Hispanic community, many will have moved further west, and they may not vote cohesively (i.e. for the Democrat). Replacements have either been gentrifiers, or immigrants, who may be increasingly dispersed where they can find housing in apartments. But the district is OK as a Hispanic influence district. The fact that you admitted to having a target percentage suggests that race was predominating over everything else, especially when you started going out into Aurora.

Using an airport to connect parts of a district is not acceptable. A city with 350,000 people (Aurora) should have its own district, so ignore the county line. Put Sheridan, Englewood, and Cherry Hills into CO-9. CO-8 has to stay in Denver, even it pushes CO-10 further out into Adams.

Up North, I'd start with Boulder-Longmont-Loveland-Fort Collins and the mountain areas in one district; and Weld, Broomfield, and southeastern Boulder County (Lafayette, Lousville, etc.) in the other. This gets the Denver suburbs into a single district. If you need some more population in the eastern district, shift Longmont. It is commutable, and Loveland is closely tied to Fort Collins. It would also avoid a split of Larimer.

I followed up on what you stated about Colorado so lets go through the basic stuff.

First off Denver. Thinking about it, there probably wasn't the population for a HVAP seat in 2010. Yes, I could reach 50% + 1, however, turnout and voter registration probably prevent it from functioning efficiently. If we destroy the district, the region becomes much more appealing.

First off, I really love the new 7th. Centered on Aurora, the seat is drawn as a true coalition seat to replace the destroyed HVAP seat - ~39% WVAP with BVAP and HVAP each playing their part. The seat neatly sides into Denver and neatly grabs the northern minority communities. This also allows the 8th to be entirely within Denver. Doth are Safe D.

The 9th - 11th now also neatly follow the county lines and are seated pretty perfectly within their counties. The 9th is all of non-Boulder Adams, some of Douglas, and a bit of Jefferson for equity. The seat sides closer to 50-50 and is probably Tossup now. The 10th instead of being a VAP seat is now all of Adams and a couple of cities that cross the county border. It slides in Democrat PVI and is probably Likely/Safe D. The 11th barely changes and I still rate as Likely D.

I was uncomfortably with sticking the Denver Exurbs in Boulder into Weld. It seemed like the district was reaching into the region in an attempt to crack. However, once I realized the Senate Districts in the region already follow the corridor through the reion, the district was fine to draw. The first now has a slight Dem PVI, and is probably Tossup with a tiny D lean instead of a R one. The 2nd is still Safe D.

I however do not know why you think your version of the 4th is better. Both versions of the district need to cross the Mountains -  the 4th needs to do it anyway. The thing is, such a district that you describe will have multiple communities on either side of the Rockies. Farmers and Eco-Liberals in the west along with the ski counties, and farmers, rural mountain Conservatives, and working class Boulder in the east. The crossing meanwhile is more egregious, going across the state as if the mountains were not even there.

The changes drawing it has on other districts though also turn me away. The 3rd, which previously had a single, or two communities of interest since it was a purely western district, now takes in the Rockies which I had previously avoided. The 5th grabs Park and Teller making it look incredibly weird spiraling across the state and ending in the weird borders around Jefferson and Colorado Springs.

Meanwhile my current district embraces the fact that it needs to cross the Rockies. It is a purely Rocky based district, with population that depend on that fact. The ski counties are a united community, in addition to the non-suburban south slope conservatives. Boulder needs to be in the district. If it is road connections, every county in the district can be reached by road.

My 4th would be a southern Colorado district. There are not a lot of population centers, so it has to be big. It avoids the inexcusable division of the San Luis Valley, particularly the line between Conejos and Costilla. It crosses the San Juans which are far to the west of the Rockies in the northern and central part of the state. Meanwhile the ski areas in the northern part of the state would be united in a much more compact area. Your map excludes Steamboat and Winter Park, and the worker areas for Aspen.

You can swap Montezuma, La Plata, Archuleta, and Conejos for Pitkin, Eagle, and Summit.

Then swap Jackson and Grand for Clear Creek and Gilpin. It is not easy to get from Boulder to Grand (Trail Ridge Road opened for the summer on Memorial Day). While Jackson is east of the Continental Divide, this is only a technicality. To go down to the Atlantic, you go north in Wyoming.

Since the above is not a swap, you need to replace Clear Creek and Gilpin in CO-4. So move Gunnison to CO-3, and add Rio Grande, Mineral, Hinsdale, San Juan, San Miguel, Dolores, and Ouray to CO-4.

Some of the counties in Colorado are tricky because they include large areas that were never set off as counties because there weren't enough people. Northern Weld is an example of this. But most of the population is Greeley and the farming towns to the south, that are increasingly becoming commuter suburbs. So mentally you can just lop of the northern 2/3 of the county.

[DPKdebator]

Would there be anyway this could be turned into one big map?

We'd have to decide which maps to use first, since there are several states with multiple versions of cube root districts.

[Strudelcutie4427]

Would there be anyway this could be turned into one big map?

We'd have to decide which maps to use first, since there are several states with multiple versions of cube root districts.

We could always vote on them, best way to weed out the overtly partisan ones, kind of like our own independent panel