early look at gerrymanders in 2020
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:47:58 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  early look at gerrymanders in 2020
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5
Author Topic: early look at gerrymanders in 2020  (Read 8087 times)
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,300
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 16, 2017, 06:53:50 PM »

This appears to be the partisan control map as of 2017. Red = Dem control, Blue = Repub control, Green = Mixed control, Gray = non-partisan or at-large. Probably there will be some shift to the Dems especially among Governors races.



Potential gerrymanders

Repub:

UT - keep same map, splitting Salt Lake
NE - add rural areas to NE-2?
KS - add rural areas to KS-3?
MO - could divide K.C. but that could easily backfire
WI - could weaken WI-3
MI - prob. keep same map
IN - could weaken IN-1
OH - keep same map, but if lose a seat, would come from Repubs
OK - could shore map OK-5, but not likely to be necessary
TX - prob. new seats would be split or Democratic plus perhaps a white Austin seat
AR - keep same map
MS - keep same map
AL - keep same map
GA - may even have to concede Dem or swing Atlanta suburbs seat
SC - keep same map, or maybe shore up SC-1 and/or SC-7
NC - keep same map, but if gain new seat, it would be Democratic
FL - prob. keep same map, I'm not too familiar with Fla. politics
TN - could divide Nashville though Cooper has represented rural Tennessee before
KY - could divide Louisville
WV - keep same map
NH - prob. would be similar map regardless of whose in control

Dem:

OR - keep same map, but if gain CD would at best be a swing CD
MD - keep same map
NY - could threaten Syracuse seat; Long Island Repubs would be hard to dislodge
MA - keep same map
RI - prob. will end up at-large but if not, would likely keep same map

What are your thoughts?

Also, does anyone have a guess at which states are likely to gain/lose seats?
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 16, 2017, 07:32:02 PM »
« Edited: July 16, 2017, 07:37:28 PM by AKCreative »

Rhode Island losing it's second district is pretty much a guarantee, so that state is a moot point.

Kentucky does have a "keep counties whole when possible" clause in their constitution so I'm not sure KY-3 can be cracked.   Unless they amend the constitution before then obviously.   They have something similar in Nebraska,  but that one is less certain.

In Ohio the GOP *could* crack OH-13 for a 12-3 map, but that is risky for them,  especially if northeast Ohio swings back to the dems in the future.

Logged
Oryxslayer
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,724


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 16, 2017, 07:35:48 PM »

I have thought about this hypothetical for quite some time - the end result is that we don't know what the maps will even look like. In 2008, the Democrats controlled quite a number of state houses - almost as much as the Republicans do right now. It was all swept away in the 2010 wave. The midterms will give us a better picture in regards to the partisan makeup of chambers and gubernatorial offices.

But then we got issues pushed by certain members. You mention Kansas, however the split between the suburban and rural GOP there created the current lines despite the partisan makeup being a R trifecta in 2010. Perhaps if there is a D in KS-03 in 2020, the district will be spit.

The only state were we can really predict the 2020 maps in Virginia - and that is after the November elections. Then, we will see who controls the Governor and the General Assembly, and what the trendline in the HoD is and can it flip/remain R in time for 2020.

So, no - wait until November 7th 2018 to begin drawing maps. For seat gains/losses, check the locked population estimates thread at the top of this topic forum.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 16, 2017, 07:49:18 PM »

The only state were we can really predict the 2020 maps in Virginia - and that is after the November elections. Then, we will see who controls the Governor and the General Assembly, and what the trendline in the HoD is and can it flip/remain R in time for 2020.

Not necessarily. This time it is a little bit tricky for Democrats in Virginia. There are a few options here:

1. Democrats have to win Gov race both this year and in 2021, ensuring veto power over maps no matter when Republicans do it. Republicans will surely punt the redraw to 2022 if Gillespie loses this year.

or

2. Democrats win a state Senate majority in 2019 and prevent any defections or retirement enticements from the GOP. This allows a veto of a Congressional gerrymander and legislative maps, although a bipartisan gerrymander is a fair bet for the legislative maps.

3. The rarest option - Democrats somehow win a trifecta by 2021 by holding the gov this year and handing heavy losses to the HoD Republicans, winning the state Senate in 2019 and building on HoD gains, and then in 2021 finally win a bare majority while holding the Govs office. Again, this still seems unlikely, even if they get a new HoD map due to the racial gerrymandering lawsuit currently pending.

Either way, the VA Democrats' redistricting situation will not be solved by the 2017 elections alone.
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 16, 2017, 07:56:20 PM »

The only state were we can really predict the 2020 maps in Virginia - and that is after the November elections. Then, we will see who controls the Governor and the General Assembly, and what the trendline in the HoD is and can it flip/remain R in time for 2020.

Not necessarily. This time it is a little bit tricky for Democrats in Virginia. There are a few options here:

1. Democrats have to win Gov race both this year and in 2021, ensuring veto power over maps no matter when Republicans do it. Republicans will surely punt the redraw to 2022 if Gillespie loses this year.

or

2. Democrats win a state Senate majority in 2019 and prevent any defections or retirement enticements from the GOP. This allows a veto of a Congressional gerrymander and legislative maps, although a bipartisan gerrymander is a fair bet for the legislative maps.

3. The rarest option - Democrats somehow win a trifecta by 2021 by holding the gov this year and handing heavy losses to the HoD Republicans, winning the state Senate in 2019 and building on HoD gains, and then in 2021 finally win a bare majority while holding the Govs office. Again, this still seems unlikely, even if they get a new HoD map due to the racial gerrymandering lawsuit currently pending.

Either way, the VA Democrats' redistricting situation will not be solved by the 2017 elections alone.

Could the VA GOP really punt the redraw past 2021?   I thought there were laws requiring maps be submitted before the end of 2021.

If nothing else the chances of the VA GOP having a trifecta again for 2020 is almost nil,  with both this year's gov race and the 2019 Senate races...with Trump in the White House to top it off.
Logged
This is Eharding, guys
ossoff2028
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 292


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 16, 2017, 07:59:13 PM »

Any comments on this in regards to Ohio?
https://ballotpedia.org/Ohio_Bipartisan_Congressional_Redistricting_Commission_Initiative_(2018)
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 16, 2017, 09:06:26 PM »


Also, does anyone have a guess at which states are likely to gain/lose seats?


Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2016 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 6 and a quarter year period between the Census and the estimate. I then applied the annual growth rate to the 2010 reapportionment population to get the 2020 projection. This accounts for the extra overseas population used in reapportionment but not for redistricting. Ten years is a long stretch for a simple model like this, but here are the projected changes.

AL -1
AZ +1
CO +1
FL +2
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
WV -1

There is only one change since my projections last year. CA stays unchanged at 53 instead of adding a seat and FL gains 2 instead of 1 up to 29. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are IL-17, TX-39, CA-53, AZ-10, and FL-29 (#435).
The next five in line are MT-2, AL-7, CA-54, VA-12, and MN-8.

An alternate projection could use just the last two years of estimates to determine the rate of growth for the rest of the decade. That model gives the same projection as the one above, with changes only in the order of the bubble seats.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 16, 2017, 09:33:25 PM »

Could the VA GOP really punt the redraw past 2021?   I thought there were laws requiring maps be submitted before the end of 2021.

If nothing else the chances of the VA GOP having a trifecta again for 2020 is almost nil,  with both this year's gov race and the 2019 Senate races...with Trump in the White House to top it off.

They delayed in the last round and passed the Congressional map in 2012. In 2013, when Republicans had a 20-20 majority with Bolling, they even tried to go back on the Senate map Democrats drew in 2011, but that attempt was eventually killed. The state constitution pretty clearly says maps are to be redrawn in odd years following the census (so 2011, 2021, etc), and there was even a lawsuit, but the state supreme court refused to hear it and a lower court judge said the maps had to be finished in 2011 but "did not forbid" them from being finished the next year, either. I don't really get why a deadline would be instituted if the deadline didn't actually matter. Since that was a lower court, there could be another lawsuit if that happens, although I dunno if anything different occur.
Logged
I’m not Stu
ERM64man
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,747


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 16, 2017, 11:08:34 PM »

FL: Likely gains at least two districts. Likely gains at least one Democratic district due to urbanization.
TX: Gains two or three districts. At least one likely Democratic because of urbanization.
OH: likely loses a GOP leaning district because rural districts are less populated.
WV: Likely loses a district. Safe R for both districts.
AZ: Likely gains one district.
RI: Likely Loses a district. Safe D at-large district.
NH: Very little change.
MI: Likely loses a district.
NE: Very little change or loses a district. Likely two R districts if NE loses a district.
MT: No change or gains a district.
NV: Very little change.
AL: Likely loses a GOP district.
CO: Likely gains a district.
PA: Likely loses a district.
IL: Likely loses a district.
NC: Likely gains one D district.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 17, 2017, 03:29:55 PM »
« Edited: July 17, 2017, 03:39:26 PM by krazen1211 »

Florida can add 1-2 new seats for the GOP and also flip back FL-07 and FL-05. And Texas will be 3 new seats for the GOP! Georgia can be a new seat for the GOP! Just cut GA-02.

Logged
JerryArkansas
jerryarkansas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,536
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 17, 2017, 04:57:39 PM »

Arkansas is going to be interesting.  The gerrymanders may come in the makeup of the primary electorates of each district come 2022.  If legislators in the Delta Region want to have a bigger say in Congress, they might just add all of the Delta to just one district, instead of dividing it between the two currently, which does dilute its influence. 
Logged
This is Eharding, guys
ossoff2028
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 292


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 17, 2017, 06:30:24 PM »

OH: likely loses a GOP leaning district because rural districts are less populated.
That is incredibly terrible reasoning. Rural districts are just as populated as urban districts. Since Ohio went for Trump by eight points, it would be easy for the GOP to eliminate Tim Ryan's district if the GOP gerrymander stays. But that gerrymander probably won't stay due to the likely victory of an independent redistricting commission extension initiative in 2018.
Logged
I’m not Stu
ERM64man
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,747


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 17, 2017, 06:47:34 PM »

OH: likely loses a GOP leaning district because rural districts are less populated.
That is incredibly terrible reasoning. Rural districts are just as populated as urban districts. Since Ohio went for Trump by eight points, it would be easy for the GOP to eliminate Tim Ryan's district if the GOP gerrymander stays. But that gerrymander probably won't stay due to the likely victory of an independent redistricting commission extension initiative in 2018.
RealClear Politics says it would be difficult to eliminate GOP seats in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan; maybe because rural populations are declining more quickly. Tim Ryan's seat includes urban areas like Akron and Youngstown.
Logged
JerryArkansas
jerryarkansas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,536
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 17, 2017, 06:52:18 PM »

OH: likely loses a GOP leaning district because rural districts are less populated.
That is incredibly terrible reasoning. Rural districts are just as populated as urban districts.
Girl rural areas of the nation are losing population very quickly.  They will have to expand greatly even if the number of districts in a state stays the same.
Logged
I’m not Stu
ERM64man
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,747


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 17, 2017, 08:51:02 PM »

Which district in West Virginia likely gets eliminated: Mooney's, Jenkins', or McKinley's?
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,121
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 17, 2017, 08:53:03 PM »

Which district in West Virginia likely gets eliminated: Mooney's, Jenkins', or McKinley's?
By default, Mooney's (probably). It's sandwhiched between the other two CDs.
Logged
This is Eharding, guys
ossoff2028
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 292


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 17, 2017, 09:38:31 PM »

OH: likely loses a GOP leaning district because rural districts are less populated.
That is incredibly terrible reasoning. Rural districts are just as populated as urban districts. Since Ohio went for Trump by eight points, it would be easy for the GOP to eliminate Tim Ryan's district if the GOP gerrymander stays. But that gerrymander probably won't stay due to the likely victory of an independent redistricting commission extension initiative in 2018.
RealClear Politics says it would be difficult to eliminate GOP seats in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan; maybe because rural populations are declining more quickly. Tim Ryan's seat includes urban areas like Akron and Youngstown.
Due to their states swinging hard to Trump, it would be incredibly easy for the GOP machines in MI, OH, and PA to eliminate Dan Kildee's, Tim Ryan's, and Matthew Cartwright's districts in 2021. Sadly, a lot of those Obama-Trump voters aren't flipping back, ever. It would have been impossible for the GOP to have done this in 2011, though, as all of these states went for Obama easily.

Youngstown, Flint, Wilkes-Barre are sadly all fast-declining urban areas. That makes the positions of the Dems there even more precarious (except in Ohio, where it is likely nonpartisan redistricting will pass in 2018).
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 17, 2017, 09:51:47 PM »

That is incredibly terrible reasoning. Rural districts are just as populated as urban districts. Since Ohio went for Trump by eight points, it would be easy for the GOP to eliminate Tim Ryan's district if the GOP gerrymander stays. But that gerrymander probably won't stay due to the likely victory of an independent redistricting commission extension initiative in 2018.

Last I read about reform efforts in Ohio was that they intended to emulate the legislative commission reform passed in 2015, which was pretty weak but still ok when you consider it was a legislative referral to the ballot. Basically they could implement a 4 year gerrymander if they didn't get votes from the minority party, and then 4 years later they do it again, except this time they can even update the gerrymander to account for any trends that have developed since the last map was passed. In that sense, it is even worse. The idea was that at least the minority has a chance in future elections to win more influence on the commission (eg, win the Auditor's race, the Gov race, a legislative chamber, etc). They can also sue if the maps are hyper-partisan but that requires Republican judges to actually rule against their party, which is far from a given if you go by other states.

Point is, if that is indeed the kind of reform that gets implemented, Democrats shouldn't expect it to save them. They would be better off doing away with the 4 year provision and making it truly independent.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,693
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 17, 2017, 10:44:40 PM »

Actually drawing another Democratic district in Oregon is pretty easy. Oregon voted for Hillary by almost 11 points. OR-2 is a huge R vote sink. OR-4 is a very margin seat that Hillary won by like 0.1% (I think it might be the closest seat in the country) but has a strong incumbent and the Democrats could just boost it a bit by adding places like Ashland and Bend from OR-2 and shedding the Republican territory, and you have a seat that would be very hard to win for the Republicans even if DeFazio retires but would be about D+4 or so. That means in the remainder of Oregon Hillary would've won it by about 16-17 points, and thus could easily be chopped up so all the districts are at least in the teens margin of victory.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,121
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 17, 2017, 10:53:47 PM »

OH: likely loses a GOP leaning district because rural districts are less populated.
That is incredibly terrible reasoning. Rural districts are just as populated as urban districts. Since Ohio went for Trump by eight points, it would be easy for the GOP to eliminate Tim Ryan's district if the GOP gerrymander stays. But that gerrymander probably won't stay due to the likely victory of an independent redistricting commission extension initiative in 2018.
RealClear Politics says it would be difficult to eliminate GOP seats in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan; maybe because rural populations are declining more quickly. Tim Ryan's seat includes urban areas like Akron and Youngstown.
Due to their states swinging hard to Trump, it would be incredibly easy for the GOP machines in MI, OH, and PA to eliminate Dan Kildee's, Tim Ryan's, and Matthew Cartwright's districts in 2021. Sadly, a lot of those Obama-Trump voters aren't flipping back, ever. It would have been impossible for the GOP to have done this in 2011, though, as all of these states went for Obama easily.

Youngstown, Flint, Wilkes-Barre are sadly all fast-declining urban areas. That makes the positions of the Dems there even more precarious (except in Ohio, where it is likely nonpartisan redistricting will pass in 2018).
Trump voter=/=House R voter
It would be outrageously foolhardy to draw gerrymanders on that basis, generally. Also, it just screams 'dummymander' to me - Trump won many economically left-wing people in the Rust Belt and to assume they won't ever be won back on presidential level AND they would be reliable House Republican voters is just deeply unwise.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 18, 2017, 07:59:08 AM »

Arkansas is going to be interesting.  The gerrymanders may come in the makeup of the primary electorates of each district come 2022.  If legislators in the Delta Region want to have a bigger say in Congress, they might just add all of the Delta to just one district, instead of dividing it between the two currently, which does dilute its influence. 


AR used to maintain whole counties, but ditched that in the last cycle. Do you see any chance they go back to a whole county plan?
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 18, 2017, 08:02:12 AM »

Which district in West Virginia likely gets eliminated: Mooney's, Jenkins', or McKinley's?
By default, Mooney's (probably). It's sandwhiched between the other two CDs.

Especially if the WV leg decides to stick to the rationale that was successful in Tennant v Jefferson County. In that case they defended a whole county plan that minimized the number of people shifted between districts. If they apply that to 2020 and a reduction of one seat, they would divvy up the counties in WV-2 between the other 2 CDs and not shift anyone between CD 1 and 3.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: July 18, 2017, 10:35:26 AM »

Which district in West Virginia likely gets eliminated: Mooney's, Jenkins', or McKinley's?
By default, Mooney's (probably). It's sandwhiched between the other two CDs.

Especially if the WV leg decides to stick to the rationale that was successful in Tennant v Jefferson County. In that case they defended a whole county plan that minimized the number of people shifted between districts. If they apply that to 2020 and a reduction of one seat, they would divvy up the counties in WV-2 between the other 2 CDs and not shift anyone between CD 1 and 3.
I think you may have misspelled rationalization.

But there is really no choice but to start with dividing up WV-2. And geographically it makes more sense putting the eastern panhandle with WV-1, and Charleston with WV-2.

It appears to be a balanced split putting everything east of Lewis, plus Wirt and Calhoun in WV-1. You could then do some swapping, such as Jackson for Randolph. The current representatives are about as being in the extreme corners of the state as you can get (Wheeling, Huntington, and Charles Town (Jefferson County)). The congressional results look like Idaho got a 3rd seat.

I think the only radical change would be create a river seat that includes Huntington and Wheeling, and keep Charleston with the eastern panhandle.

Quite odd background for Alex Mooney (WV-2). He was Maryland GOP chair and also a Maryland senator until 2011.
Logged
JerryArkansas
jerryarkansas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,536
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: July 18, 2017, 11:10:46 AM »

Arkansas is going to be interesting.  The gerrymanders may come in the makeup of the primary electorates of each district come 2022.  If legislators in the Delta Region want to have a bigger say in Congress, they might just add all of the Delta to just one district, instead of dividing it between the two currently, which does dilute its influence. 


AR used to maintain whole counties, but ditched that in the last cycle. Do you see any chance they go back to a whole county plan?
Maybe?  It really depends if they want to chop up the 2nd to try and sink Little Rock in a district which is more Republican.  And it also depends on how they may want to divide up the state.  I'm not sure people would want the 1st to go even further into the Mountains, you could see districts which kinda look like this.

 

Partisan makeup wouldn't change, but it would make 2 districts based in the more rugged part of the state, and allow for one district which is primarily an agricultural district.
Logged
Sol
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,051
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: July 18, 2017, 02:36:20 PM »

I believe the Pennyslvania Democrats control the State Supreme Court, which means that Democrats will probably have the upper hand even with split redistricting.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.067 seconds with 13 queries.