Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 20, 2017, 02:33:01 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
| | |-+  early look at gerrymanders in 2020
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 Print
Author Topic: early look at gerrymanders in 2020  (Read 3223 times)
nclib
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9563
United States


View Profile
« on: July 16, 2017, 06:53:50 pm »
Ignore

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



"George Bush supports abstinence. Lucky Laura."
- sign seen at the March for Women's Lives, 4/25/04

AKCreative
Nyvin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2449
United States


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: July 16, 2017, 07:32:02 pm »
Ignore

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.

« Last Edit: July 16, 2017, 07:37:28 pm by AKCreative »Logged
Oryxslayer
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 68


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: July 16, 2017, 07:35:48 pm »
Ignore

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

That feeling when being a Conservative in the Bay Area just makes you a less Radical Democrat.
Virginia
Virginia C
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7574
Antarctica


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: July 16, 2017, 07:49:18 pm »
Ignore

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

AKCreative
Nyvin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2449
United States


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: July 16, 2017, 07:56:20 pm »
Ignore

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
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 299


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: July 16, 2017, 07:59:13 pm »
Ignore

Any comments on this in regards to Ohio?
https://ballotpedia.org/Ohio_Bipartisan_Congressional_Redistricting_Commission_Initiative_(2018)
Logged

muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12805


View Profile
« 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



Great American Eclipse seconds before totality showing Baily's Beads.
Virginia
Virginia C
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7574
Antarctica


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: July 16, 2017, 09:33:25 pm »
Ignore

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

ERM64man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1538


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: July 16, 2017, 11:08:34 pm »
Ignore

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

Senate endorsements:
AZ: Jeff Flake
CA: Dianne Feinstein
FL: Bill Nelson

ME: Angus King
MI: Bob Young
MT: Jon Tester
NV: Dean Heller
TN: Bob Corker

WV: Joe Manchin
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6814


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: July 17, 2017, 03:29:55 pm »
Ignore

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.

« Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 03:39:26 pm by krazen1211 »Logged
JerryArkansas
jerryarkansas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4197
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 17, 2017, 04:57:39 pm »
Ignore

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
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 299


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: July 17, 2017, 06:30:24 pm »
Ignore

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

ERM64man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1538


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: July 17, 2017, 06:47:34 pm »
Ignore

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

Senate endorsements:
AZ: Jeff Flake
CA: Dianne Feinstein
FL: Bill Nelson

ME: Angus King
MI: Bob Young
MT: Jon Tester
NV: Dean Heller
TN: Bob Corker

WV: Joe Manchin
JerryArkansas
jerryarkansas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4197
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 17, 2017, 06:52:18 pm »
Ignore

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

ERM64man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1538


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: July 17, 2017, 08:51:02 pm »
Ignore

Which district in West Virginia likely gets eliminated: Mooney's, Jenkins', or McKinley's?
Logged

Senate endorsements:
AZ: Jeff Flake
CA: Dianne Feinstein
FL: Bill Nelson

ME: Angus King
MI: Bob Young
MT: Jon Tester
NV: Dean Heller
TN: Bob Corker

WV: Joe Manchin
Southern Speaker/National Archivist TimTurner
TimTurner
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4471
United States


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: July 17, 2017, 08:53:03 pm »
Ignore

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



Vote Lib Dem on May 7 - keep Clegg as deputy PM


http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=244197.0
Different states!
This is Eharding, guys
ossoff2028
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 299


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: July 17, 2017, 09:38:31 pm »
Ignore

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

Virginia
Virginia C
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7574
Antarctica


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: July 17, 2017, 09:51:47 pm »
Ignore

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

Compassion Fills the Void
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 80716
Ukraine


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: July 17, 2017, 10:44:40 pm »
Ignore

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

I'm finally seeing them! September 16.

Southern Speaker/National Archivist TimTurner
TimTurner
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4471
United States


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: July 17, 2017, 10:53:47 pm »
Ignore

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



Vote Lib Dem on May 7 - keep Clegg as deputy PM


http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=244197.0
Different states!
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12805


View Profile
« 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



Great American Eclipse seconds before totality showing Baily's Beads.
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12805


View Profile
« 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



Great American Eclipse seconds before totality showing Baily's Beads.
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8245
France


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: July 18, 2017, 10:35:26 am »
Ignore

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: 4197
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: July 18, 2017, 11:10:46 am »
Ignore

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
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3603


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: July 18, 2017, 02:36:20 pm »
Ignore

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 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines