US House Redistricting: Arizona

[Torie]

Following the grid, respecting jurisdictional lines, compactness and communities of interest, as modified by the VRA. If without degrading the former, one can make CD's more competitive, then go for it. It's all right in the statute. The chairwoman characterizes both the Hispanic CD on the border and the Tucson CD's as competitive. The Hispanic CD clearly is not, except for the weak incumbent, and as I say, pending more data, I suspect the Tucson CD is lean Dem. Of course in 2012, both may fall to the Pubbies. I suspect the Dems are headed towards something worse than what they endured in 2010, particularly where blacks are thin on the ground.

I should add that in general I really like true competitive CD's.  I would draw a zillion of them if I had absolute power. I really want the court to draw NY.  And I am quite sure the Dems don't. Not with 2012 coming up.

In CA it is amazing how many CD's there are that are somewhat close to being competitive (there is a good article on Red Racing Horses on that), but are not quite. It is as if some sinister force were at work, skillfully loading the dice for the Dems but not in too obvious a way. Again, however, in 2012, they may be just competitive enough, for a number of Dems to fall.

[Torie]

What is your definition of competitive? Which districts in California are the offending ones? The Solano County and Ventura county districts are pretty damn competitive. It can't be helped if the Republicans can't nominate someone of caliber due to their rabid base.

Oh and Romney won't be the nominee. How do you feel about that?

Here is the essay to which I referred. I found it kind of interesting, although I question some of the conclusions. What do you think?  

Who are the Pubbies going to nominate again, Sbane?  I mean, I'm OK with peeking at the penultimate chapter of the saga if you are willing to share.

[Torie]

What is your definition of competitive? Which districts in California are the offending ones? The Solano County and Ventura county districts are pretty damn competitive. It can't be helped if the Republicans can't nominate someone of caliber due to their rabid base.

Oh and Romney won't be the nominee. How do you feel about that?

Here is the essay to which I referred. I found it kind of interesting, although I question some of the conclusions. What so you think? 

Who are the Pubbies going to nominate again, Sbane?  I mean, I'm OK with peeking at the penultimate chapter of the saga if you are willing to share.

Not Romney.

That is just not a very "sharing" revelation sbane. 

[Torie]

Continuing our friendly little off topic chat, sbane, I checked on the precinct results in North Las Vegas for that special NV-02 election.  Yes, you guessed it, the turnout was zero.   In a couple of other places, about 2 or 3 voters showed up, so the Clark County election officials hid the results to protect the privacy of the voters who did vote. And there you have it!  

[Torie]

Nah, the game with AZ-01 was to excise Prescott and the Colorado River area where all those rednecks gamble, and buzz the river in their stinkpots while drunk. The Hopi make up about 3 precincts, and Native Americans as a whole maybe 30,000 voters or something. That CD was gamed to death, and the Flagstaff city council Dems got just what they wanted. They probably came in their pants. And then this fixation with 3 border CD's.  The game there was to excise from Tuscon that little county Cochise, in the SE corner - contrary to the grid as well as the balance of the statutory metrics. That tipped that CD.

[Torie]

You start with the grid. It appears earlier in the thread. Deviations from it need a statutory basis. In order to excise Cochise, the Hispanic CD picked up its needed Hispanics all the way up in inner city Phoenix. The chairwoman Mathis thinks even the Hispanic CD on the border is "competitive," which is absurd except perhaps for the uber weak incumbent there. And she thinks AZ-01 is competitive too (with a Dem lean she admits - thanks for that dear), along of course with Tucson, which perhaps is, barely competitive, but I suspect is clearly lean Dem.

This map of course is headed to court, on both procedural and now I suspect, statutory grounds. Mathis apparently shred some documents. That is the charge anyway. The Dems will probably prevail however, since the commission will get the benefit of the doubt, absent a juicy smoking gun. AZ is just a Dem success story. I know they must be thrilled.

[Torie]

Continuing our friendly little off topic chat, sbane, I checked on the precinct results in North Las Vegas for that special NV-02 election.  Yes, you guessed it, the turnout was zero.   In a couple of other places, about 2 or 3 voters showed up, so the Clark County election officials hid the results to protect the privacy of the voters who did vote. And there you have it!  

Hilarious! Now to talk about California some more, it seems like the 31st is an offending candidate as well. Yes, those district suck. But there are other districts with the same partisan numbers that don't suck, like Sanchez's district or the Riverside district. I am very happy with those. And Lois Capps doesn't have a swing district to deal with now. Whitman won it, apparently. On the flip side Dems could complain that Bono Mack's district is unfair as it dilutes the Hispanic vote. That is a district I would draw for a Rep gerrymander and the 47th and the 31st I would draw for a Dem gerrymander. Some might even complain about the Bilbray district. It also has "perfect" partisan numbers for a Rep gerrymander. But the district makes sense. The 10th is another one of those districts, but again makes a lot of sense. The 47th is the worst of the lot, and the 31st shouldn't have been drawn either, though the question becomes where else do you put Rancho.

Bear in mind that even in CA, 2010 was a lean GOP year. The Fiorina baseline has some GOP bias to it. Some of the map I don't understand, but I am not making any charges, because I would need to know what the alternatives were, that were rejected, and these commissions refuse to publish on their websites (in both CA and AZ), what the competing considerations were that caused them to make the decisions that they did. It overall is by no means a horrible map, and certainly better than a partisan gerry, or an incumbent protection plan.  Hopefully it will force the Pubbies to start getting real about what it takes to be competitive in CA. But I am not holding my breath.

[Torie]

Which CD is AZ-08?  It is marked on the map, but I see no CD. I assume Tucson is AZ-02.  The Hispanic border CD is about 56-44 Obama or so, but missing about 55,000 voters in my map. We agree on the Tucson CD numbers, which can be quite precisely drawn. I just assume AZ-01 is pretty heavily Dem, but have not drawn it. It just has to be the way it is drawn it seems to me, but maybe I am missing something.

What this little exercise tells me, is just how hard it is to take politics out of drawing CD's, no matter how hard you try. My tentative point of view is that the courts do the best job. Maybe we should amend the Constitution to so provide! 

[Torie]

Which CD is AZ-08?  It is marked on the map, but I see no CD. I assume Tucson is AZ-02.  The Hispanic border CD is about 56-44 Obama or so, but missing about 55,000 voters in my map. We agree on the Tucson CD numbers, which can be quite precisely drawn. I just assume AZ-01 is pretty heavily Dem, but have not drawn it. It just has to be the way it is drawn it seems to me, but maybe I am missing something.

Pretty sure both of us are referring to the white Tucson district, ie, the successor to the current AZ-08 based on current numbering.

AZ-05 is whatever district has Tempe in it, which is about the only Dem area outside the Pastor district.

The white Tucson CD is 50.4-48.4 Obama.

[Torie]

You start with the grid. It appears earlier in the thread. Deviations from it need a statutory basis. In order to excise Cochise, the Hispanic CD picked up its needed Hispanics all the way up in inner city Phoenix. The chairwoman Mathis thinks even the Hispanic CD on the border is "competitive," which is absurd except perhaps for the uber weak incumbent there. And she thinks AZ-01 is competitive too (which a Dem lean she admits - thanks for that dear), along of course with Tucson, which perhaps is, barely competitive, but I suspect is clearly lean Dem.

This map of course is headed to court, on both procedural and now I suspect, statutory grounds. Mathis apparently shred some documents. That is the charge anyway. The Dems will probably prevail however, since the commission will get the benefit of the doubt, absent a juicy smoking gun. AZ is just a Dem success story. I know they must be thrilled.

Dude, there aren't that many more Hispanics to pick up in Tucscon. There just isn't. Maybe a few precincts worth about 5-6,000 voters. And that would have to be balanced with what can be gotten in Phoenix. The VRA trumps the grid, you know that. And even in the best case scenario for Republicans the Tucson district remains an Obama district, though maybe by a few votes instead of a few points. As for the 1st, it hasn't gotten too much more Dem, even if that is what Flagstaff dem wanted. I don't see how you think that district could have a dem lean. You seem to think the partisan numbers are off by 15-20 points, instead of the 10 points it is from the actual partisan makeup. It's as if AZ isn't a GOP state at all. Maybe I've been transported into a parallel universe and didn't even know it.

Edit: The 1st is about 6 points Republican I think. Lean Republican district, yes, but not a swing district and definitely not a Dem district. And yes I was talking about the Tucson district, using the old numbers.

Oh, there are plenty more Hispanics to pick up in Pima. I drew a map that did it. There is no need to march into Phoenix, just pick up stuff on the outskirts. It would be nice to know what the AZ-01 numbers are. The paper said the the Pubbie incumbent would be toast in that CD.  The CD looks very Dem to me, since it excises most Pubbie areas, except of course for the addition of Cochise. But well, we know the quality of political reporting in newspapers don't we?  It sucks in general.

[Torie]

Did you change the orange Hispanic CD, which presumably is a done deal, unless of course Mathis decides the Dems need more help? Do you agree with me that anything Obama carried in AZ is a lean Dem CD or not?  An dead even CD to me would be one which McCain carried by about 4% (52-48) as a wild guess. Or 3% perhaps. The AZ bias towards McCain was pretty strong.

[Torie]

Don't know Lewis.  They will vet the procedural irregularities, challenge the map as deviating from the statute, and perhaps go for a referendum.  Meanwhile the Commission filed a cross complaint claiming that the AG has no jurisdiction to investigate them at all. And maybe if Mathis chills out in Phoenix, they will fold, and are trying to hammer her. Or maybe they are just clueless. Pubbies in AZ often are. I don't think the Pubbies on the Commission were very effective. I would have insisted on publishing my own stuff on the site myself, for starters.

[Torie]

Did you change the orange Hispanic CD, which presumably is a done deal, unless of course Mathis decides the Dems need more help? Do you agree with me that anything Obama carried in AZ is a lean Dem CD or not?  An dead even CD to me would be one which McCain carried by about 4% (52-48) as a wild guess. Or 3% perhaps. The AZ bias towards McCain was pretty strong.

I think Mccain got about 10 points due to the favorite son effect or whatever it is called. So that means a 2 point Obama district would be a 56-44 Obama district in socal. I still think it's a swing district, but on the Dem side of the ledger. The 50-48 Mccain district that I drew would be about a 54-46 Obama district in socal meaning it would be the perfect swing district. So about a 2 point Mccain district is the middle point in AZ, I think.

54-48 = 6.  50-46 = 4. Times 2 if that is what you meant = 8 or 12.  And here I thought Asians (particularly the Indian iteration thereof) were supposed to be good at math!    Not that I am questioning you, but how did you infer the 10% figure, or 5% swing (I assume the average of 8 and 12)?

[Torie]

Well you changed the numbers! Different facts lead to different results!  50-48 is better for Obama than 51-49 anyway be a few basis points (2/.98 and all of that sort of thing). The two numbers are not fungible.  Moving right along, that leaves the your little inference methodology thingy.  As Reagan used to say, trust but verify.  

[Torie]

Ah, I just resolved my confusion about the "current" "orange" "Obama" district you were referring to. I hadn't looked at the link with the full map before, only the one with the partial map, though I understand it's voted down and only the outstate+South Phoenix map is tentatively approved?
It's quite the nice mean little gerry, I must say.

No, the Hispanic CD in Phoenix has been "finalized," unless and until Mathis gets further "instructions" at least.  It's not part of the "donut hole."

[Torie]

So then assume a 2% indy vote in all those districts. My point still stands. A 10 point over performance would then lead a 50-48 Obama district to become a 55-43 Obama district in socal and a 50-48 Mccain district would become 53-45 Obama district and so on. Happy?

No, because I want to know where you came up with the 10%.  The math thing was just to yank your chain for my personal pleasure. And here is the already drawn Hispanic CD to which I referred. Did you change it, the better to implement your nefarious designs?

[Torie]

I am not in the habit of reading Pbrower's prolixity. It is sort of like panning for gold in a river where that particular gleaming metal was last espied sometime around the invention of the telegraph. I want more immediate satisfaction. I only have so much time left!  

Where is it?

[Torie]

Oh man, that was a long time ago. If you feel like browsing his posting history, go for it. You are a masochist, aren't you?

I think he did repeat this a few times, that the favorite son effect is worth 10 points. Probably pulled it out of his ass, but it seemed right to me. Considering Obama won NV by double digits, AZ should have been about even, if not an Obama state in 2008 with a different nominee but same results.

I am going to have to do the analysis myself eh?  That sucks. I was counting on you to have done this little chore for me, and you failed me!  Yes, the number does not seem out of the box ludicrous. But that doesn't mean it's right. Pbrower was just using some universal favorite son national number, eh, that you plug in like the speed of light?  If so, that bit is ludicrous - and lazy.

[Torie]

Oh man, that was a long time ago. If you feel like browsing his posting history, go for it. You are a masochist, aren't you?

I think he did repeat this a few times, that the favorite son effect is worth 10 points. Probably pulled it out of his ass, but it seemed right to me. Considering Obama won NV by double digits, AZ should have been about even, if not an Obama state in 2008 with a different nominee but same results.

I am going to have to do the analysis myself eh?  That sucks. I was counting on you to have done this little chore for me, and you failed me!  Yes, the number does not seem out of the box ludicrous. But that doesn't mean it's right. Pbrower was just using some universal favorite son national number, eh, that you plug in like the speed of light?  If so, that bit is ludicrous - and lazy.

Yeah, it might be lazy, but he seems to have pulled out the right number. Broken clock is right sometimes. In the national environment of 2008, a close win for Obama in AZ, or a close loss, seems about right. What do you think?

Using POTUS numbers for 2000, 2004, and 2008, 10% seems right on the money. Pubbie plus 8%, 7% and 17% respectively. But one would need to look at more neutral statewide office runs to get a better fix on it. In particular, did McCain run particularly well among Hispanics in AZ vis a vis Pubbie normal, just like Bush?  It may be a bit higher than a 5% swing, but probably no higher than 6% or so, 7% max. The reason why it might be higher than 5% is the trend thing. Nevada was about even to the national vote in 2004, and 5% more Dem in 2008, a trend replicated across the red rock zone. So that might up the favorite son number by one or two points (half of 5%, except less because Obama worked Nevada like it was a Chicago ward). If I had a gun to my head, I would say 6%, rather than 5%. The Pubs have a Hispanic problem, muted in AZ no doubt, but a negative trend nevertheless.

I suspect in 2012 however, a lot of Hispanics won't be voting at all. The ying and the yang.

So you made me work sbane. Happy now? 

[Torie]

Interesting.. exploring the favorite son effect from 1996 to 2008. Favorite son effects are heavily dependent upon the individual in question and probably exhibit diminishing marginal returns.  The effect would be stronger if you haven't had a President from the state as well.

Gore's went from 47% to 42% from 2000 to 2004 with a 3% GOP swing is only a 2% effect.

Clinton, had Arkansas going for him with 53%, Dole 36%. In 2000 it was Bush 51% and Gore just shy of 46%. So like a 14% effect.

Texas went from R+5 in 1996 to R+21 in 2000, Bush had a 8% effect. As Bush did not run in 2008 we had Texas going from R+24 to R+12, with a D+10 movement so a 2% effect?

Yes, and/but McCain has a peculiar hold on AZ. He's almost etched into the landscape like one of those mesas in Monument Valley. And even though the Pubbies are very conservative in AZ, he flushes  the socons down the drain there like they were feces. Well Hayworth sort of was like fecal matter, but that is just my little biased opinion.  And Dems kind of admire him for doing it.

[Torie]

The GOP got some very desirable changes.

http://www.azredistricting.org/Maps/pubmaps/100311/Map_as_of_100211/Cong-Map_as_of_100211.pdf

The Green district is absurd though

The map appears to be a joke, putting aside the partisan break stuff. The law in my view appears to have been totally ignored. It will probably be upheld though. There must be a better way. I wish I knew what that was. Maybe a computer should do it! 

[Torie]

Does the orange 9th district still take in parts of Mesa and Chandler? And from the looks of it, the 1st district becomes even more Democratic as it loses parts of Cochise and picks up West Sedona and what looks like marginal areas of Pinal?

And the Tucscon district becomes 50-48 Mccain, or even more Republican?

That break would make the Tucson CD a true swing CD, I would think. I basically agree with your analysis on that one sbane as it turns out. Well not quite, maybe D +1%. 56% for the 6% favorite son thing, less 4% for the Obama margin, equals 52% to 48%, as the dead even figure. Close enough anyway. The Pubbies should take the seat in 2012 if Giffords does not run, and the Pubbies don't nominate another socon unelectable type as they have been wont to do since the gay guy retired. You are a pretty smart guy. Why didn't you aspire to be a lawyer? 

[Torie]

Does the orange 9th district still take in parts of Mesa and Chandler? And from the looks of it, the 1st district becomes even more Democratic as it loses parts of Cochise and picks up West Sedona and what looks like marginal areas of Pinal?

And the Tucscon district becomes 50-48 Mccain, or even more Republican?

That break would make the Tucson CD a true swing CD, I would think. I basically agree with your analysis on that one sbane as it turns out. Well not quite, maybe D +1%. 56% for the 6% favorite son thing, less 4% for the Obama margin, equals 52% to 48%, as the dead even figure. Close enough anyway. The Pubbies should take the seat in 2012 if Giffords does not run, and the Pubbies don't nominate another socon unelectable type as they have been wont to do since the gay guy retired. You are a pretty smart guy. Why didn't you aspire to be a lawyer? 

Job market sucks for you guys. Not that you would know.

Nope I wouldn't.  I am one lucky guy. But then you already knew that.

[Torie]

The GOP got some very desirable changes.

http://www.azredistricting.org/Maps/pubmaps/100311/Map_as_of_100211/Cong-Map_as_of_100211.pdf

The Green district is absurd though

The funny thing is that the Republicans on the Commission don't seem to think that those changes are very desirable. Mathis, Herrera, and McNulty voted yes, Stertz voted no, and Freeman abstained.

I am not sure the GOP got as much as Krazen assumed. The territory in Cochise added to the Tucson CD seems to have far more cattle than people, three heavily Pubbie albeit small precincts in Santa Cruz were excised, and LDS Stafford in Cochise isn't in it. Maybe I will draw it tonight and find out. It does seem however that about 5 heavily Dem precincts in Tucson were removed.

[Torie]

The GOP got some very desirable changes.

http://www.azredistricting.org/Maps/pubmaps/100311/Map_as_of_100211/Cong-Map_as_of_100211.pdf

The Green district is absurd though

The funny thing is that the Republicans on the Commission don't seem to think that those changes are very desirable. Mathis, Herrera, and McNulty voted yes, Stertz voted no, and Freeman abstained.

Well, the orange district still butchers municipalities.

The GOP should ask for the pieces of Chandler to be removed in exchange for more of Mesa.

You guys got what you wanted in Tucson though. Can't have it all. Unless CD-1 became much more Democratic, which I doubt. It was about 6 points Mccain when I drew it before. Now it's probably 4-5 points Mccain I am guessing. Slight lean Republican and you have a slight lean Democratic district in Phoenix. True swing district in Tucson and the 2 VRA districts. I wish a google maps version of the district is released.

Your wish is my command.