early look at gerrymanders in 2020

[jimrtex]

Another possibility that hasn't been discussed yet: If VRA influence on redistricting is weakened further, could big partisan states like CA, NY, IL, TX et. al just make all of their congressional elections at large?

At large districts were banned in 1967 and nobody seems to be challenging that.

Wasn't the VRA the reason why they were banned? If the VRA is gutted further, doesn't this ban become a moot point?

No.

It wasn't until later that the bizarre idea that voting is a collective right was developed.

Federal statute since the 1840s required election from single-member districts, but there were exceptions following the census reapportionment when the number of representatives changed.

If a state gained representatives, the additional representatives could be elected at large "until" (wink, wink) the state was redistricted. If a state lost representatives, it could elect all of them at large, until redistricting. It is actually more complicated since it is based on the number of districts. A state could gain a representative, and elect him at-large for a decade, and then lose a representative and continue to use the old districts.  See 2 USC § 2a(c).

Following Wesberry v Sanders, congressional districts were challenged across the country (at that time NO state with districts were within a 10% range). Federal courts were proposing as a remedy that elections be held at large (i.e. you can't use these districts, but the people have a right to representation, and there is this statute that provides for at-large elections in certain cases, and a federal judge has no authority to dictate legislation).

In reaction, Congress passed 2 USC § 2c, which provides for single-member district in all cases. The exception was to permit New Mexico and Hawaii to conduct at-large elections one last time in 1968. Hawaii did, New Mexico did not as it was divided into two districts.

As one might expect, Congress did not repeal 2 USC § 2a(c), but it was always assumed that it had been superseded by 2 USC § 2c. But following the 2000 Census when Mississippi lost its 5th Representative, it failed to redistrict. Some low-level court (I think like a J.P. Court) determined it had authority to draw districts, and there was dispute as to whether this was true. Eventually, the SCOTUS ruled that 2 USC § 2a(c) was still valid under certain obscure circumstances (I think there is a supposition that Congress knows what they are doing).

[jimrtex]

Something that hasn't been mentioned yet is that during the next reapportionment, a future congress could use Section 2 of the 14th Amendment to strip CDs (and EVs) from states like NC and TX that have been successfully sued for having voting laws that are too restrictive.  They could penalize these states in the next reapportionment by the differential between turnout there vs. turnout in other states (perhaps compared to the states that have automatic voter registration and/or universal vote-by-mail?).

Where are the representatives and senators for this future hypothetical Congress elected from?

[muon2]

Here's a version of OR I drew from neutral principles. It's an anti-gerrymander, but I'm curious to get an opinion from NOVA Green.



I projected the counties to 2020 from the 2016 estimates. As drawn here are the percent population deviations for the Beaverton and Salem CDs are less than 0.5% and wouldn't need any adjustment. The other CDs are all within 2.3% of the quota, and need minimal shifts to bring them to practicably equal. For example shifting all of the Warm Springs IR into the Gresham-Pendleton CD and the area north of Sexton Mtn Pass into the Eugene CD would be enough to probably meet standards for population equality.

It meets reasonable standards already. They are as equal as practicable using counties.

It is bozo logic that representatives elected from such districts would not be "chosen (...) by the people of [Oregon]"

As soon as SCOTUS determines that "as equal as practicable" is the same as "substantially equal" then I'll entertain the notion that a 10% range on CDs is acceptable. Until then I will assume that SCOTUS intends that the phrases be different and that "as equal as practicable" requires a stricter numerical standard than 10%. I use 1% for CDs since a range close to that has recently been upheld.

[NOVA Green]

Here's a version of OR I drew from neutral principles. It's an anti-gerrymander, but I'm curious to get an opinion from NOVA Green.



I projected the counties to 2020 from the 2016 estimates. As drawn here are the percent population deviations for the Beaverton and Salem CDs are less than 0.5% and wouldn't need any adjustment. The other CDs are all within 2.3% of the quota, and need minimal shifts to bring them to practicably equal. For example shifting all of the Warm Springs IR into the Gresham-Pendleton CD and the area north of Sexton Mtn Pass into the Eugene CD would be enough to probably meet standards for population equality.

Muon--- that's a very clean map (Regardless of whatever Partisan leans might be for various CDs).

Congrats Sir!!!!

I went through the same exercise that you did regarding projected county Pop growth numbers using the 2016 % as a baseline, and then additionally plugged the data into a spreadsheet to estimate population growth by municipality....

So looking at the Map you have my 7/20 population estimates are:

CD-01---   730 k--- Washington/Clatsop/Columbia
CD-02----  740k     Much of Eastern Oregon plus Jackson/Josephine
CD-03----  ? Can't really tell from the map by let's say all of MultCo excepting Gresham/Troutdale, etc (~130-140k)....
CD-04---  708k--- Lane/Linn/Douglas/Coos/Curry
CD-05---  590k + East Multco (Gresham/Troutdale etc...130-140k?)
CD-06---  720k --- Let's call this the "new" CD--- Marion/Benton/Yamhill/Polk/Lincoln/Tillamook

Overall numbers look pretty good from the population requirement standard, except CD-04 is a bit light based upon my projected population growth numbers. Typically in Oregon the redistricting tends to go slightly lower in actual Pop in "higher growth areas" and slightly over in "lower growth areas"....

So here are the legal requirements for anyone not familiar with Oregon Law:


Like all states, Oregon must comply with constitutional equal population requirements. By statute, Oregon further asks that its state legislative districts be of equal population, "as nearly as practicable." [Or. Rev. Stat. § 188.010]

Oregon must also, like all states, abide by section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Oregon statutes establish additional criteria for both state legislative and congressional districts; the legislature may modify these statutes at any time. Currently, Oregon law asks that, as nearly as practicable, districts be contiguous, utilize existing geographic or political boundaries, not divide communities of common interest, and be connected by transportation links. The law also declares that districts will not be drawn for the purpose of favoring a political party, incumbent, or other person.[Or. Rev. Stat. § 188.010]

The Secretary of State has promulgated rules clarifying that, at least when the Secretary of State must draw district lines, she will comply with statutory criteria "to the maximum extent practicable"; these rules further focus "geographic or political boundaries" on county and city lines, focus "transportation links" on the presence of county roads in populated areas, and note that media markets will be considered in "determining communities of common interest." [Or. Admin. R. § 165-008-0060]

Oregon districts are "nested," with every state Senate district containing two state House districts. [Or. Rev. Stat. § 188.010]

http://redistricting.lls.edu/states-OR.php

Traditionally "Eastern Oregon" (Including Central Oregon) is seen as having more of the "communities of common interest" than many other parts of the State, so the one item that might be problematic there would be stretching it all the way over from Gresham to Pendleton.

I'm not saying it wouldn't fly, but many State Senators and Reps might be asking, not to mention residents of the Counties along the Columbia River "Grain Belt" why they are getting lumped into a Portland Suburban Congressional District.

Then you also have the minor problem of moving incumbent CD-02 Republican Rep Greg Walden out of his home City/County (Hood River).

Southern Oregon counties of Josephine/Jackson are a bit more used to being lumped into CD-02, so there probably wouldn't be as much pushback there, but many might ask why a more natural "communities of interest" doesn't bring Southern Oregon Counties into CD-04, rather than stretching suburban Portland way out (Although certainly there is a common transportation connection).

The residents of Southern Oregon counties of Josephine/Jackson do have much more of a natural connection with places like Roseburg, Coos Bay, and Eugene-Springfield than Central/Eastern Oregon.

I do like the concept of a "Central Willamette Valley" (CD-06), combined with some neighboring Coastal Communities, since you'll have a clearly defined "community of interest, although it would make more sense to at least throw Albany into CD-06, considering that Corvallis-Albany are essentially sister cities in terms of regional economy/jobs/etc  ....

Politically your proposed map:

CD-01--- Solid Dem
CD-02--- Solid Rep--- (Although moving out Umatilla combined with High Pop growth in Deschutes and Jackson will make the area more competitive in the 2020s.
CD-03- Heavy Dem
CD-04- Lean Dem--- (Even Post DeFazio taking out Grant's Pass helps a ton). Could well be Tossup with a Moderate Republican (Unlikely to win the 'Pub primaries in this CD however).
CD-05-- Tossup/ Slight Rep Tilt--- East MultCo is the least Democratic part of the County, throw in all of Clackamas County, and heavily Republican Umatilla County, you might well have a Rep CD.
CD-06- Tossup/Slight Dem Tilt---- Benton/Lincoln are solid D, as is Salem, but a Moderate 'Pub could easily win if they play well.

Now what would this look like for Oregon State House & Senate Districts?

Thoughts???

[NOVA Green]

Here's a version of OR I drew from neutral principles. It's an anti-gerrymander, but I'm curious to get an opinion from NOVA Green.



I projected the counties to 2020 from the 2016 estimates. As drawn here are the percent population deviations for the Beaverton and Salem CDs are less than 0.5% and wouldn't need any adjustment. The other CDs are all within 2.3% of the quota, and need minimal shifts to bring them to practicably equal. For example shifting all of the Warm Springs IR into the Gresham-Pendleton CD and the area north of Sexton Mtn Pass into the Eugene CD would be enough to probably meet standards for population equality.

It meets reasonable standards already. They are as equal as practicable using counties.

It is bozo logic that representatives elected from such districts would not be "chosen (...) by the people of [Oregon]"

As soon as SCOTUS determines that "as equal as practicable" is the same as "substantially equal" then I'll entertain the notion that a 10% range on CDs is acceptable. Until then I will assume that SCOTUS intends that the phrases be different and that "as equal as practicable" requires a stricter numerical standard than 10%. I use 1% for CDs since a range close to that has recently been upheld.

Like all states, Oregon must comply with constitutional equal population requirements. By statute, Oregon further asks that its state legislative districts be of equal population, "as nearly as practicable." [Or. Rev. Stat. § 188.010]

Oregon must also, like all states, abide by section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Oregon statutes establish additional criteria for both state legislative and congressional districts; the legislature may modify these statutes at any time. Currently, Oregon law asks that, as nearly as practicable, districts be contiguous, utilize existing geographic or political boundaries, not divide communities of common interest, and be connected by transportation links. The law also declares that districts will not be drawn for the purpose of favoring a political party, incumbent, or other person.[Or. Rev. Stat. § 188.010]

The Secretary of State has promulgated rules clarifying that, at least when the Secretary of State must draw district lines, she will comply with statutory criteria "to the maximum extent practicable"; these rules further focus "geographic or political boundaries" on county and city lines, focus "transportation links" on the presence of county roads in populated areas, and note that media markets will be considered in "determining communities of common interest." [Or. Admin. R. § 165-008-0060]

Oregon districts are "nested," with every state Senate district containing two state House districts. [Or. Rev. Stat. § 188.010]


http://redistricting.lls.edu/states-OR.php

[jimrtex]

Here's a version of OR I drew from neutral principles. It's an anti-gerrymander, but I'm curious to get an opinion from NOVA Green.



I projected the counties to 2020 from the 2016 estimates. As drawn here are the percent population deviations for the Beaverton and Salem CDs are less than 0.5% and wouldn't need any adjustment. The other CDs are all within 2.3% of the quota, and need minimal shifts to bring them to practicably equal. For example shifting all of the Warm Springs IR into the Gresham-Pendleton CD and the area north of Sexton Mtn Pass into the Eugene CD would be enough to probably meet standards for population equality.

It meets reasonable standards already. They are as equal as practicable using counties.

It is bozo logic that representatives elected from such districts would not be "chosen (...) by the people of [Oregon]"

As soon as SCOTUS determines that "as equal as practicable" is the same as "substantially equal" then I'll entertain the notion that a 10% range on CDs is acceptable. Until then I will assume that SCOTUS intends that the phrases be different and that "as equal as practicable" requires a stricter numerical standard than 10%. I use 1% for CDs since a range close to that has recently been upheld.

They are not the same, and the SCOTUS has said there is NO de minimis threshold for "as equal as practicable".  You would have told me before Tennant that 1% was too much.

The phrase "as equal as practicable" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, and as Justice Harlan pointed out in his Wesberry v. Sanders dissent, the majority opinion does not define the term. At the time of the decision, no state with districts was within a 10% deviation range.

The majority apparently plucked it out of an old federal reapportionment statute. At the time it was statute, states constructed their congressional districts from counties, except in the very largest counties.

Who is going to sue, who has standing? Jefferson County was not concerned about the population deviation. They didn't want to be in a district with Charleston.

You can remove most of the deviation from your map by shifting Grant and Wheeler to the Columbia River district.

Anyhow, here is a new idea. Shift Grant and Wheeler to the Columbia River district, and then make certain counties optional representation areas, where voters may choose their congressional district.

8.6% of Josephine voters would choose to be placed in the district to the north. If too many or too few volunteered, they would be chosen by lot. Similarly, 0.5% of Linn voters could choose, as could 7.3% of Tillamook voters, and 15.6% of Multnomah voters.

What happens if you keep Washington and Multnomah together for just beyond two districts, and then put Clackamas with Deschutes (Bend)?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

The idea the California map is a "soft Dem" map is bizarre. Only two districts (Hunter's and McCarthy's) went for Romney with over 60% of the vote, and none went for Trump with over 60% of the vote. There was no packing of California GOP seats the way North Carolina Democrats were packed in 2016. Sure, the commission could have stretched the GOP more thinly, but that would just mean more Clinton-GOP seats would have been Clinton-Dem seats in 2016, and the vast majority of current GOP-held seats, even if won by Romney, would be Dem seats in 2018. California is just a very urban, very expensive, very Hispanic, very Democratic state.

You have zero clue how gerrymandering works.

[This is Eharding, guys]

The idea the California map is a "soft Dem" map is bizarre. Only two districts (Hunter's and McCarthy's) went for Romney with over 60% of the vote, and none went for Trump with over 60% of the vote. There was no packing of California GOP seats the way North Carolina Democrats were packed in 2016. Sure, the commission could have stretched the GOP more thinly, but that would just mean more Clinton-GOP seats would have been Clinton-Dem seats in 2016, and the vast majority of current GOP-held seats, even if won by Romney, would be Dem seats in 2018. California is just a very urban, very expensive, very Hispanic, very Democratic state.

You have zero clue how gerrymandering works.

Then please tell us the maximum number of House seats the California Republican Party can realistically sustain, that is, what an optimal gerrymander for the Republicans there would look like. Such a thing wouldn't even come close to doubling the current number of GOP representatives in California, and far more of them would be at risk of going down in a Democratic wave as a result.

As for breaking up MO-05, Heisenberg and Gass are far too pessimistic for the GOP here. Missouri went for Trump by double digits. There is zero risk for the GOP cracking it between three, and even between two districts. The Michigan GOP's hold over its R seats is far more tenuous than the Missouri GOP's if it cracked MO-05.

[krazen1211]

Then please tell us the maximum number of House seats the California Republican Party can realistically sustain, that is, what an optimal gerrymander for the Republicans there would look like. Such a thing wouldn't even come close to doubling the current number of GOP representatives in California, and far more of them would be at risk of going down in a Democratic wave as a result.

In 2010 the GOP won 19 districts as opposed to the 14 it has now.

The redistricting blew up Gallegy and Dreier's districts and screwed Bilbray and Miller by drawing them into Dem areas. Bono Mack's and maybe Lungren's district slid away from the GOP, but could be flipped back with slightly different lines.

So the GOP could easily have at least 4 more districts.

[Nyvin]

I'd make the argument that if Democrats did gerrymander the CA map in 2010, they would've been better off with a fair one in 2016...fully 7 R-held districts are only marginally Republican (one is fully lean Dem) with only 7 R vote sinks.

Meanwhile the Democrats really only hold 4 marginal seats with all other 35 being pretty safe.

If they originally gerrymandered Ed Royce, Jeff Denham, and Steve Knight as "vote sinks" then those gerrymanders are basically doing nothing but protecting them now.

In other words - If California has a Dem Gerrymander, it turned out to be a dummymander.

[swf541]

Maryland dems as some on DKE have noted could actually have a more aggressive gerrymander and get rid of Harris in MD-1 as well

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Maryland dems as some on DKE have noted could actually have a more aggressive gerrymander and get rid of Harris in MD-1 as well

I toyed with MD in DRA and i was able to draw an MD-01 that went Obama by 10.1 points. All other seats were at least D+5.

[Gass3268]

Maryland dems as some on DKE have noted could actually have a more aggressive gerrymander and get rid of Harris in MD-1 as well

I would far rather have MD Dems use their leverage and offer to put an independent redistricting amendment on the ballot if VA does the same in advance of 2021.

The Maryland legislature passed a resolution that they would move to an independent redistricting system if neighboring states did so as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Source

I could see them all getting involved, except for North Carolina.

[politicallefty]

I'd make the argument that if Democrats did gerrymander the CA map in 2010, they would've been better off with a fair one in 2016...fully 7 R-held districts are only marginally Republican (one is fully lean Dem) with only 7 R vote sinks.

Meanwhile the Democrats really only hold 4 marginal seats with all other 35 being pretty safe.

If they originally gerrymandered Ed Royce, Jeff Denham, and Steve Knight as "vote sinks" then those gerrymanders are basically doing nothing but protecting them now.

In other words - If California has a Dem Gerrymander, it turned out to be a dummymander.

It's not that. I just don't think Democrats could've predicted how the decade unfolded. California voted almost 2-1 for Hillary over Trump, a margin not seen since 1936 (just like her victory in Orange County being the first in said time). The fact is that when you get to those statewide margins, the majority party is going to dominate disproportionately to its overall percentage.

There are only 5-6 districts in California I'd say are more or less impossible for Democrats: CA-01, CA-04, CA-08, (maybe CA-22), CA-23, and CA-50. A Democratic gerrymander could easily pull in CA-04. The Sacramento suburbs are moving leftward fast, but it's taking some time in Placer County. I think an overt Democratic gerrymander could take 48-49 seats if it was done right.

[Gass3268]

Maryland dems as some on DKE have noted could actually have a more aggressive gerrymander and get rid of Harris in MD-1 as well

I would far rather have MD Dems use their leverage and offer to put an independent redistricting amendment on the ballot if VA does the same in advance of 2021.

The Maryland legislature passed a resolution that they would move to an independent redistricting system if neighboring states did so as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Source

I could see them all getting involved, except for North Carolina.

Pennsylvania is too disproportionate in number of seats for the GOP to give up to stop Maryland IMO or even Maryland and Massachusetts.  New York already passed a weak form of commission in 2014.  It's basically the Michigan Rules because the legislature can amend the commissions plan with a simple majority as long as it adheres to certain guidelines.  On a similar note, the WA commission's maps can be edited by the legislature with a 2/3rds majority.  It's unlikely that the Democrats would have 2/3rds, but they almost had it in both chambers in 2009, so it's not impossible if 2018 or 2020 is a Dem wave.

Yeah, but it all likelihood the statewide maps are going to be drawn by Democrats next cycle. That along could bring them to to the table.

[Torie]

In NY, under the new constitutional provisions, the votes of both parties are necessary to draw a map, and certain guidelines (kind of vague), are supposed to be followed. So any gerrymander would need to be a bipartisan one, and if the parties cannot agree, it goes to the courts. So the Pubs are slated to lose a seat upstate, but might gain it back if a Pub seat is drawn in south Brooklyn.

[Nyvin]

It's funny how it's only Dem or swing states that are enacting indy/bipartisan commissions for redistricting.   You really don't see any movement at all on this for Republican states.

[Gass3268]

It's funny how it's only Dem or swing states that are enacting indy/bipartisan commissions for redistricting.   You really don't see any movement at all on this for Republican states.

With the exception of states out west that have initiatives. Like Arizona and maybe Utah here in the future.

[KingSweden]

Something that hasn't been mentioned yet is that during the next reapportionment, a future congress could use Section 2 of the 14th Amendment to strip CDs (and EVs) from states like NC and TX that have been successfully sued for having voting laws that are too restrictive.  They could penalize these states in the next reapportionment by the differential between turnout there vs. turnout in other states (perhaps compared to the states that have automatic voter registration and/or universal vote-by-mail?).

There is a 0% chance of this happening

[NOVA Green]

It's funny how it's only Dem or swing states that are enacting indy/bipartisan commissions for redistricting.   You really don't see any movement at all on this for Republican states.

Yeah--- I've noticed the accidental coincidence that's been going on there for almost two decades now.

I'm sure it's just a statistical anomaly driven by small sample size and not anything deliberate going on, but still this phenomenon seems a bit odd in terms of how it is distributed among the 50 states of the Union....

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So here's the 5-1 Oregon map I drew on AAD. It's not perfect of course since it uses the last Census numbers but it's a good rough outline:




Trump probably didn't break 40% in any of the districts in the Portland area.

[Nyvin]

So here's the 5-1 Oregon map I drew on AAD. It's not perfect of course since it uses the last Census numbers but it's a good rough outline:

Trump probably didn't break 40% in any of the districts in the Portland area.

Looks good, but probably wouldn't work with Oregon state law.

[NOVA Green]

So here's the 5-1 Oregon map I drew on AAD. It's not perfect of course since it uses the last Census numbers but it's a good rough outline:

Trump probably didn't break 40% in any of the districts in the Portland area.

Looks good, but probably wouldn't work with Oregon state law.

That was my exact reaction reviewing the map.

Also, looking at the district that includes Linn & Benton Counties, it is difficult to see how that wouldn't be a slight Lean R CD.

Also the yellow CD that stretches down from some SE PDX precincts, suburbs of Clackamas County (Oregon City for example)  through Marion County and grabs Albany, looks more like a 50-50 district than a Lean Dem district.

I believe as well that BRTD's map is overly fixated on protecting the current OR CD-04 , rather than focusing more on OR CD-05, which I believe is a more vulnerable Democratic CD, considering the overwhelmingly Dem numbers that come out of Lane County.

I posit, that if we were to attempt to Gerrymander legislative districts in Oregon to favor the Democrats, one would need to find a way to split the major Dem vote from Multnomah and Washington Counties throughout multiple congressional districts as a more effective means.

I don't believe that BRTD's map would create a 5-1 Democratic Congressional delegation lead from Oregon...

You have tons of wasted Democratic votes in Multnomah County.... if we're going to split up counties, heavily Democratic Cities like Beaverton in Washington County should move South into a new CD to erase 'Pub margins from some small-town and rural areas from relatively cultural conservative voters in Yamhill, Polk, and Marion Counties...

Still, pretty good map on BRTD's part, although it would not pass judicial review, and would be more likely to lead to a 4-2 (Dem/Rep) Congressional delegation, at least in the short term, until Demographics start to become destiny in the Mid-Valley.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That Linn and Benton county district voted 57-41 Obama/McCain. That's not a Lean R seat. As said I doubt Trump even broke 40%. The yellow district was 61-37 Obama/McCain and Trump cratered in parts of it and probably did even worse. Not a toss up.

[nclib]

Since KY and NE Repub gerrymanders will be limited by not being able to split more counties than necessary, I played around with DRA which of course has 2008 and 2010 numbers, but will probably not be that inaccurate.

Kentucky: Jefferson County only has 17K more people than KY-3. Also, the most Democratic areas are not near the border meaning some Repub precincts have to be excised, and this only moves KY-3 0.1% to the right.

Nebraska: adding Douglas County to whole rural counties only puts McCain at most 50.2%.