Dave's Redistricting App

[Padfoot]

I spent a couple of hours using the tool in OH where I've spent a good deal of time looking at maps during the last two months. The tool was interesting but it was cumbersome compared to real GIS software. I couldn't grab groups of blocks easily, and I couldn't find pieces that were inadvertently missed. The tool also assumes that within a county each block will change as the county does, so it really can only approximate what has happened this decade within some of the urban counties.

Clicking on the "next unassigned" button will take you to any unassigned blocks.  I had to click multiple times occasionally.  Sometimes the first click would take me off the northwest corner of the map.

Although GIS is probably much more accurate, I found this Dave's App much easier to play with.  The software used for the Ohio competition was very slow IMO and it was difficult to correct mistakes.  It took me about 6 hours to make one map using the GIS software whereas it took me less than 2 hours to complete a map using Dave's App.

[Padfoot]

Here's the map of Ohio I made.  All districts are have a deviation from the ideal population of less than 1000.  I used the new estimates for population and made 16 districts since Ohio is projected to lose 2 after the next census.



Blue: A safer district for Dreihaus-D (OH-1)
Dark Green: Schmidt-R (OH-2), Jordan-R (OH-4), and Austria-R (OH-7) are pitted against each other.  Jordan would likely move to represent the red district.  Austria defeats the reviled Schmidt in the primary
Magenta: Turner-R (OH-3) gets a slightly less friendly district and could face a stiffer challenge.
Red: As I mentioned, Jordan probably moves into this open seat.
Yellow: An open seat which Latta-R (OH-5) may move in on.  This district is more Dem friendly than the current OH-5 but is probably still around R+5 or more.
Blue-Green: This is an open seat and would probably be hotly contested despite the Republican lean.  Wilson-D (OH-6) may move in here giving the Dems a semi-incumbent advantage.
Gray: Boccieri-D (OH-16) Gets a much safer district and cruises to re-election.
Purple: Boner Boehner remains safe.
Cyan: Kaptur-D (OH-9) faces off against Latta-R (OH-5) in a contest she'd almost certainly win.  As mentioned earlier, Latta will likely move to the yellow district.
Pink: I don't think I've take the elf Kucinich out of this district.  Safe Dem regardless.
Yellow-Green: Fudge-D (OH-11) is safe but the district drops below 50% black.
Lilac: Tiberi-R (OH-12) trades most of his black constituents for suburban whites and becomes considerably safer.
Peach: Sutton-D (OH-13) sees a dramatic change in her district but remains safe
Bronze: LaTourette-R (OH-14) faces off against Ryan-D (OH-17) in what will surely be the most contested race in the state.  However, the district has a distinct Democratic tilt to it which will probably put Ryan over the top.
Orange:: I think Kilroy-D (OH-15) is still in this district and it becomes much easier for her to hold.
Neon Green: This district pits Space-D (OH-18) against Wilson-D (OH-6) but Wilson may move.  This district is much more Dem friendly than Space's current district and he should have little trouble holding it even though it probably leans Rep.

[Padfoot]

Here are some zooms of Columbus, Cleveland-Akron, and Cincinnati-Dayton:



The light green district in Cuyahoga County is only 48.56% black but it is still a majority-minority district if you include the 3.52% Hispanic, 2.07% Asian, and 1.28% "other."

[Padfoot]

Amusingly I tried a 4 district Nevada map splitting Reno in half and found out both districts also have to include parts of Las Vegas. West Las Vegas + southern Reno and northern Reno + North Las Vegas, that's kind of an amusing setupu.

I was also surprised by the Nevada map.  I was expecting to fit almost 3 entire districts into Clark County with the fourth being everything else.  It'll be interesting to see how the 4 districts actually end up being drawn and if the Dems win the new district.

[Padfoot]

Here's a redo of Indiana.  I'm not really sure why their districts were so funky looking in the first place.



Indianapolis close-up:

[Padfoot]

Here's Georgia with 14 and a detail of Atlanta.  I'm not sure how this model estimates minority populations for the "new estimates" but if the numbers are in any way accurate then it makes for some interesting demographic shifts.





GA-1 (blue) Not a huge difference from the current 1st.  Some territory from the current 8th added.
GA-2 (green) Again, not a big change.  The racial make-up shifts slightly with a drop in whites and blacks and an increase in Hispanics and Asians.
GA-3 (deep purple) This district becomes less suburban Atlanta based and more rural.  The black population is nearly halved.
GA-4 (red) A cleaned-up version of the current 4th contained entirely within DeKalb County.  White population decreases by about 5% and is replaced mostly by Hispanics.
GA-5 (yellow) Another "clean-up."  District is mostly unchanged.
GA-6 (blue-green) Loses Cherokee and portions of northern Fulton counties and gains more of Cobb county.  Significant increases to minority population here could make this a competitive district. 
Current 6th: 85.6% White, 7.0% Black, 4.0% Asian, 4.5% Hispanic, 0.2% Native American, 0.1% other
My 6th: 66.6% White, 14.2% Black, 6.0% Asian, 11.4% Hispanic, 0.3% Native American, 1.6% other
GA-7 (gray) Shifting entirely within Gwinnett County creates the most dramatic demographic change on the map creating a majority-minority district and an almost certain Democratic pick-up.
Current 7th: 85.2% White, 7.1% Black, 3.8% Asian, 5.4% Hispanic, 0.3% Native American, 0.1% other
My 7th: 46.7% White, 22.1% Black, 10.4% Asian, 19.1% Hispanic, 0.3% Native American, 1.5% other
GA-8 (lilac) The biggest geographic change from the current map.  Loses its northern and southern "tails" and extends east into territory mostly in the current 12th.  There's also a significant demo shift as well.  Current Rep. Marshall (D) could potentially do better or worse depending on how well he does with Rep. Barrow's (D) former constituents.
Current 8th: 64.0% White, 32.6% Black, 0.8% Asian, 2.8% Hispanic, 0.2% Native American, 1.4% other
My 8th: 57.7% White, 36.3% Black, 1.1% Asian, 3.8% Hispanic, 0.2% Native American, 0.9% other
GA-9 (cyan) Swaps some territory with the current 10th.  Mostly unchanged.
GA-10 (pink) Mostly unchanged.
GA-11 (lime green) This district moves out of Cobb county and into the northern parts of the current 6th causing the percentage of black voters to drop by 20%
GA-12 (light blue) Loses some heavily Republican territory to the new 8th making the new 12th a safe Dem district.
GA-13 (peach) Fairly similar to the current 13th but blacks become a near majority with 49%.
GA-14 (bronze) This new district takes in parts of the current 3rd and 8th to the south and west and parts of the current 7th and 10th to the north and east.  This could be a swing district with a Republican lean.
Demographics: 65.1% White, 26.0% Black, 2.0% Asian, 5.5% Hispanic, 0.2% Native American, 1.2% other

[Padfoot]

Arizona with 8 districts.  Maybe if Arizona had an independent redistricting commission they could get something like this rather than the mess that they have.

Part of the problem is Arizona's policy on Native Americans with regards to redistricting.  I doubt even an independent commission would put the Hopi and Navajo tribes in the same district as you've done.

[Padfoot]

Indiana must practically draw itself.  Our maps are quite similar except for the colors.  I wanted to avoid using the gray color for the Indianapolis district since it is hard to see when there are a lot of city boundaries.

A 3-2-2 paln with 2 for Indianapolis is pretty natural.  You probably could not draw a reasonable district that linked Gary and South Bend or South Bend and Fort Wayne; though you might be able to do Fort Wayne and Elkhart.

And a cross-state district north or south of Indianapolis is going to be be pretty ugly and skinny.

It might be harder to draw an 8-district plan.  Perhaps 3 districts centered on Indianapolis but exteding out further, and the corner districts edging extending along the Ohio and Illinois borders.

I think the main difference in our plans is that I drew the Gary district to include Michigan City, splitting LaPorte Couty, rather than going south.  This put all of Kosciusko County in the South Bend district.

Did you use the 2000 population or the estimates?

I used the estimates.  Despite their inaccuracies I figure they give at least a general idea of major population shifts.  As we only have one election left with the current districts I'm not really interested in seeing how they could be redone.  I'm more interested in seeing what the districts could potentially look like in 2012.

[Padfoot]

As to who would go where:

CD-01 - Driehaus.
CD-02 - Schmidt.
CD-03 - I think a non-incumbent Dem would be elected here.
CD-04 - Turner.
CD-05 - Boehner.
CD-06 - Kaptur.
CD-07 - Sutton.
CD-08 - Kucinich.
CD-09 - Fudge.
CD-10 - LaTourette.
CD-11 - Boccieri.
CD-12 - Ryan. Wilson might challenge him here, but I doubt he could win.
CD-13 - Austria and Space would fight it out. Don't know who would come out on top.
CD-14 - Tiberi.
CD-15 - Kilroy.
CD-16 - Jordan and Latta fight for the nomination.

Some of these aren't quite accurate, IMO.

In CD-2 you have Boehner giving up his home base of Butler County to Schmidt.  I highly doubt he'll be moving districts for the likes of her.  If she gets put into any other Republican's district she'll go down in the primary.  Republicans will probably jump at the chance to dump her anyways.
In CD-3 Turner would almost certainly run even if he was defeated.  The Republicans wouldn't increase their chances of losing this seat by having Turner leave it open.
In CD-4 Austria is the most likely Republican to run here.  There's no reason for him to run in CD-13 as he lives in Green County near Dayton.
In CD-5 and CD-16 You'd have Latta and Jordan.  There's no need for them to fight in a primary.  You've actually drawn Latta into the Toledo district and Jordan into the red southwest district but I'm sure they would relocate easily.
In CD-10 it is distinctly possible that Ryan might take on LaTourette.  Ryan is considered a rising star and the Dems have been looking for a strong challenger for LaTourette for some time.  This drawing of the district might be Dem friendly enough to give Ryan the victory.
In CD-12 you could see a primary battle between Wilson and Space.  However, Wilson may opt to run in the open CD-13 instead.

[Padfoot]

Took another stab at Ohio, minus two districts:



OH-06 (light green, Charlie Wilson - D) - Added the non-Youngstown parts of Mahoning and removed some of the southernmost counties, so it should be a little more Democratic now.
OH-12 (orange, Zack Space - D) - formerly OH-18, there's not a whole lot I could do to make Space's district safer. I stretched it up to Huron to make it somewhat less Republican.
OH-16 (very light purple, John Boccieri - D) - Another gerrymander to make Boccieri's district more Democratic.

Wilson's current district already includes Mahoning minus Youngstown.  Also, that OH-12 would probably be the end of Zach Space.  Not that there's much you can do to shore him up, but any major constituent shift like that is going to hurt him a lot unless its all D friendly territory.  I think there's a better way to try to keep Space around but it puts Wilson in a swingy and probably R leaning district.  Here's what I cam up with after going at it again:



Incumbents, Dreihaus (Blue), Schmidt (Green), Kucinich (Pink), Fudge(Yellow-Green), Tiberi (Lilac), Sutton (Peach), Kilroy (Orange), and Boccieri (Bright Green) are all safe.

The Purple district wrapping around Dayton pits Boehner and Jordan against each other in a primary.  I wonder who would win that one? 

The Yellow district has no incumbent and Jordan might be under pressure to move in there.

The Cyan district pits Kaptur against Latta rather than ensuring he won't get stomped by her.  He might opt for the Yellow district regardless of Jordan's decision.

The Dayton based Dark Purple district pits Austria against Turner and is more Dem friendly than Turner's current 3rd district but is probably still R-leaning

The Gray district is empty and Austria might move in here as it should be fairly easy for a Republican to take.

I also sent Ryan into a match with LaTourette and I agree that Ryan has the advantage on paper.

I gave the rest of Mahoning to Boccieri (Bright Green) making him pretty safe.

In the Red district I gave all of Lorain County to Space.  This should be more than enough to counterbalance the smaller R-heavy Ashland and Holmes Counties making this a naturally D-leaning district which Space should have to trouble in.

Wilson (Blue-Green) gets the shaft in my map.  His district is probably still a swing district though and Democrats are currently doing a pretty good job of holding onto economically depressed rural areas despite any slight Republican presidential leanings.

[Padfoot]

Is population decline going to screw LaTourette no matter what happens? It looks like any direction he goes in is going to add Democrats, sometimes in large numbers.

Yes and no.  His base of Lake County is growing along with Geauga County which is far more Republican friendly than its neighbors.  So really, his district has to expand because the Democratic counties are bleeding population.  I guess you could say his district has to gain more Democrats because it's lost too many.

[Padfoot]

Given the results of the 2008 election I wonder if VRA districts are really even necessary in some parts of the country.  I'd wager that in most places a minority candidate wouldn't have too much trouble getting elected in a 35% minority district.  If the minority votes as a bloc for their candidate it would take less than 25% of the white vote to reach 50%.  I honestly think we've reached a point where VRA districts don't really need to be majority-minority districts anymore.  Perhaps 35% is a little optimistic but I think we could realistically move the "requirement" from 50% to 40% and there would be no decrease in the number of minority Congresspeople.  In fact, I would be slightly surprised if there wasn't an increased number of minorities in Congress if states were permitted to draw their districts that way.  Instead of packing all the minorities into one district they could be spread a little thinner giving them more opportunities for success.

[Padfoot]

Given the results of the 2008 election I wonder if VRA districts are really even necessary in some parts of the country.  I'd wager that in most places a minority candidate wouldn't have too much trouble getting elected in a 35% minority district.  If the minority votes as a bloc for their candidate it would take less than 25% of the white vote to reach 50%.  I honestly think we've reached a point where VRA districts don't really need to be majority-minority districts anymore.  Perhaps 35% is a little optimistic but I think we could realistically move the "requirement" from 50% to 40% and there would be no decrease in the number of minority Congresspeople.  In fact, I would be slightly surprised if there wasn't an increased number of minorities in Congress if states were permitted to draw their districts that way.  Instead of packing all the minorities into one district they could be spread a little thinner giving them more opportunities for success.

That may be true but the SCOTUS ruled otherwise this spring in Bartlett v Strickland. There's no obligation to protect districts with less than 50% of a minority group within. If there is 50% or more available the need to protect them is subject to the Gingles test. The test is such that most states will assume that the test applies and create districts that will pass the VRA with that test. With the Bartlett decision, that will mean 50% or more in a district.

The maps I created for IL, AL, and MS on this thread have all been consistent with my understanding of the VRA since Bartlett.

Although I see how these rules were necessary historically, it is unfortunate that they are still being enforced in the same ways today.  I can't see any kind of reform making it through Congress in the near-term though.  Perhaps another 50 years and a few more minority presidents, senators, and governors and people will finally be able to admit that the VRA is outdated.

[Padfoot]

NC-01 is probably not majority-black, which runs into VRA issues. Also, NC-12 goes too far into the suburbs to be safe for Mel Watt.

I also don't know that NC-11 needs to be shored up that much for Shuler. He seems perfectly capable of holding that district, since no serious Republican seems to want to run against him.

Where can I find the VRA rules?

Basically, the rule is that you can't dilute the minority presence in a majority-minority (at least 50.1% black or Hispanic) district. Coalition districts (say, one that was 40% black and 15% Hispanic) are not protected, however.

Worst.  Law.  Ever.  BTW

By its very nature it ensures ridiculous gerrymandering, and it's positive effects for minority representation are highly questionable.  It often leads to the creation of a couple of districts with a 60 percent or greater minority presence when almost any redistricting without the rules would create several districts with 30 percent minority representation.  When you want to dilute the chances of an opposition party picking up more seats, you generally create as many districts with super-majorities of that parties voters as possible.  If your goal were to ensure the election of fewer black candidates, and lessen overall minority political power, then I couldn't think of a much better way to do so than the regulations of the VRA.

You'd probably still have to maintain at least a 40% black minority in order for black candidates to win in most of the South.  30% might be sufficient in some of the northern cities but Southern whites are nearly as polarized towards Republicans as blacks voters are towards Democrats.

[Padfoot]

That district 11 is stretching the rules more than a little.

The only stretch is that the district is drawn solely due to racial considerations, which violates SCOTUS rulings. However, FL is a VRA section 5 state requiring DOJ preclearance, and can create a majority-minority district in central FL. I don't think anyone knows how Obama's DOJ will handle these section 5 cases.

By my count, Florida currently has 3 Hispanic majority districts, 2 Black majority districts, 1 black plurality district (FL-3 is 49.3% black), and one white plurality district (FL-11 is 48.3% White, 27.4% Black, 2.0% Asian, and 20.0% Hispanic).  If that map was acceptable in 2000 I can't see how 4 black districts will be needed in the 2010 redraw unless there has been an explosion in the black population of Florida.  5 Hispanic districts probably makes sense given that group's population growth.

[Padfoot]

By my count, Florida currently has 3 Hispanic majority districts, 2 Black majority districts, 1 black plurality district (FL-3 is 49.3% black), and one white plurality district (FL-11 is 48.3% White, 27.4% Black, 2.0% Asian, and 20.0% Hispanic).  If that map was acceptable in 2000 I can't see how 4 black districts will be needed in the 2010 redraw unless there has been an explosion in the black population of Florida.  5 Hispanic districts probably makes sense given that group's population growth.

I had noticed that FL-3 is currently from Jacksonville to Orlando, but was only a plurality. It does better across the northern border, and if the FL legislature draws it that way, I'm confident it would stand.

I'm surprised that there weren't 4 Hispanic districts in 2000. The only dicey Hispanic district this time is the new one I created as CD-26. It's not too out of line, and it may be in the legislature's interest to create it there to strengthen the GOP in the other Oralndo area districts.

Unfortunately I'm not savvy enough to figure out how to post the map I just made (the map2jpeg program provided is distorting my maps beyond repair).  So I guess I'll just describe it as best I can.  Using 26 districts and the 2008 data I was able to create the following:

A fairly close copy of the current CD-3 with some parts of Orlando dropped and a new stretch over to the black parts of Daytona Beach to create a 49% black district.

CD-11 remains compact in the Tampa area with a plurality of whites at 43% and an additional 24% Hispanics, 28% blacks, and 3% Asians.

I formed a second plurality white district in the Orlando area and made it the new CD-15.  The stats are 46% white, 14% black, 5% Asian, and 33% Hispanic.  The district takes up the southwest corner of Orange Co and the city of Kissimmee and is mostly territory from the current CD-8.  I remade CD-8 to be nearly all of Seminole Co and parts of northern Orange Co.  CD-24 is now all of Brevard and Indian River Cos. with some small segments of Orange and Volusia.  CD-12 is now Osceola Co minus Kissimmee and nearly all of Polk Co.

CD-26, the new district, is essentially all non-Tampa parts of Hillborough Co, plus all of Hardee and Desoto Cos, and parts of Manatee Co north and west of Bradenton.

I was able to mostly preserve CD-17 and CD-23 and they came out as 53% and 52% black respectively.  I removed the finger of CD-23 reaching up to Fort Pearce though.

I did some rearranging around CD-17 to create 4 Hispanic districts.  I added the northwestern corner of the current CD-20 to CD-21.  I then took the remainder of Miami and added it to CD-20 making it 59% Hispanic.  CD-21 drops everything south of Hialeah and is 62% Hispanic.  CD-18 picks up a large chunk of CD-25 in and around Homestead as well as most of the old CD-21's southern tail.  CD-18 ends up being 54% Hispanic.  CD-25 picks up all of Henry Co and almost all of Collier Co and winds up being 60% Hispanic.

So in short I came up with 4 Hispanic districts, 2 black districts + 1 plurality black district, and 2 plurality white districts.  With the exception of CD-3 and the surrounding mess associated with creating CD-23, the map looks fairly compact.  

One thing to note is that Floridians will be voting on three amendments to their state constitution regarding redistricting this year.  Amendments 5 & 6 are backed by the typical alliances associated with redistricting reform while Amendment 7 was written and passed by Republicans in the Florida legislature and is viewed by the backers of the first two amendments as a way to circumvent and nullify their reforms.  I believe both sides have challenged the others' amendment(s) in court to prevent them from making it to the ballot.  If Amendment 7 fails but 5 & 6 are passed we could be in for some major shake-ups in Florida politics come 2012.

[Padfoot]

In response to the earlier attempts to make 3 majority black districts in Louisiana I've produced the following:



The yellow, teal, and green districts are all 51% black and I think this map looks somewhat cleaner than the earlier attempts.

[Padfoot]

Just out of curiosity, what states do we have partisan data for now?  I know we have New York and Texas if you use the "test data" option and we also have Maryland and North Carolina.  Are there any others?

[Padfoot]

Version 2.0 of the app has been released. For those of you with bookmarks directly to the app, you'll need to change it to this URL:

http://gardow.com/davebradlee/redistricting/davesredistricting2.0.aspx

It's certainly an interesting change, but it'll take some getting used to.

I'm not sure I really see what's better about this version.  It seems much harder to use than the old version.  There are no city lines anymore and all of the colors are too muted.  Its also impossible to see anything if you're trying to look at the entire state and you have all the voting districts turned on.