US House Redistricting: Michigan

[dpmapper]

Is the goal here to hit the minimum number of county line breaks according to the current counting methods?  I see

2 in Wayne
1 in each of Oakland, Macomb, Kent, Ingham, Washtenaw, Saginaw, Genesee, St. Clair, Grand Traverse, and one TBA involving CD-06

for a total of 12, whereas the theoretical minimum is 9. 

[Torie]

Is the goal here to hit the minimum number of county line breaks according to the current counting methods?  I see

2 in Wayne
1 in each of Oakland, Macomb, Kent, Ingham, Washtenaw, Saginaw, Genesee, St. Clair, Grand Traverse, and one TBA involving CD-06

for a total of 12, whereas the theoretical minimum is 9.  

Below is the 2000 map. It has 13 chops for 15 CD's, for an efficiency rating of 2:

Oakland 3
Wayne 2
Bay 1
Saginaw 1
Calhoun 1
Allegan 1
Kent 1
Washtenaw 1
Shiawassee 1
Macomb 1

It has 3 single chop CD's: MI-10, MI-01 and MI-03.

My map also has 13 chops, for an efficiency rating of 1 with 14 CD's:

Wayne 2
Oakland 2
Macomb 1
St. Clair 1
Genessee 1
Saginaw 1
Grand Traverse 1
Calhoun 1 (CD-06)
Kent 1
Ingham 1
Washtenaw 1

I have 4 single chop CD's: MI-07, MI-01, MI-02 and MI-06.  The loss of one point in efficiency is due to 1) the VRA forcing MI-14 into Macomb, which generates an extra chop, since MI-14 is not wholly within Wayne, and 2) a triple chop of MI-05. As to MI-14 chopping into Macomb, it is either that chop, or MI-12 chopping into Wayne to suck up the Pointes. The map should be legal.

Addendum: And now I got rid of the St. Clair chop (pity that, as it slides MI-12 into an almost dead even marginal), so now I have an efficiency rating of 2, just like the 2000 map, with 12 chops for 14 CD's. The thing is, is that without a chop of Genesee, Saginaw, Ingham and Wastenaw, and the Oakland county contortions, the map really falls apart for the Pubbies. So those needed to be preserved at all costs. I don't think the Pubbies are going to like the PVI numbers much however. There will be a lot of marginal CD's. The Michigan law in short, is in trouble. But the map is not DOA; it's not great, but not horrible either. But all those marginals could be made safe, without all of this county split "silliness."  (The township and city chop thing is not that much of an inconvenience; it just makes the map drawing a bit more time consuming, as one plots how to get most of what one wants, and one does usually get it.)



And here is another version that might work out a bit better. In the first version, MI-02 and MI-03 between them had a GOP PVI of around 2.1%, which is hardly inspiring. This version gets Ionia into the MI-02 and MI-03 zone, in exchange for losing  some territory to MI-01 at the north end of MI-02 which has a Dem PVI of about 3 points. I also tried having MI-04 take Lansing, but that generates an extra chop. A Kent based CD needs to take it.

[dpmapper]

Torie, you weren't paying attention to how Muon described the current (very dumb) counting procedure.  In the current map, since CD-09 is entirely contained in Oakland, it only counts as having 2 chops.  Wayne has only 1 chop currently.  The total is 11; efficiency 4.  In post #220 Muon describes how to get a chop count of 9 for 14 districts. 

I agree that the method for counting chops is stupid and ought to be changed irrespective of what gerrymanders it allows...

[Torie]

Torie, you weren't paying attention to how Muon described the current (very dumb) counting procedure.  In the current map, since CD-09 is entirely contained in Oakland, it only counts as having 2 chops.  Wayne has only 1 chop currently.  The total is 11; efficiency 4.  In post #220 Muon describes how to get a chop count of 9 for 14 districts.  

I agree that the method for counting chops is stupid and ought to be changed irrespective of what gerrymanders it allows...

I counted two chops for Oakland. As for Wayne, the 2000 map has one chop for MI-11, and one for MI-15, unless you are going to start counting from Wayne. My maps and Muon's, have an extra chop because MI-14 is no longer contained in Wayne, but that is required by the VRA, or MI-12 dropping into the Pointes.

In any event, the map below should have fewer chops (MI-05 has but one, and indeed that does reduce the chops to 11), and this map I think might actually work for the Pubbies, although MI-10 will be somewhat marginal, but that will be an open seat. The trick was to switch MI-11 for MI-08 in Wayne. And MI-07 will remain marginal, but slightly more GOP than the number I came up when I did the MI-07 calculations before. It is either this map, or change the law. Come to think of it, MI-08 could take MI-07's territory in Wayne perhaps, if there is a way to deal with the township and city chops, while keeping both MI-13 and MI-15 50% black. That might save another chop, but perhaps not, since MI-07 has only the Wayne chop, and clean lines elsewhere.

[dpmapper]

OK, you're down to 12 county splits by the current metrics.  That's the same as in my map in post 225, which has 4 Dem districts and every GOP district (save one) over 54.5% Bush.  

And sorry to continue to be a pain, but you have too many township splits in Wayne.  I see Sumpter Twp, Canton, Detroit, Taylor, and Dearborn Heights split, when you really should only need 3 splits between the 4 districts.  

Incidentally, you could improve things by exploiting the loophole that 1 whole district + 2 partials in a county is the same as 1 whole + 1 partial.  Give some parts of Oakland (Farmington, South Lyon) to CD-08 and let CD-11 take more of the Ann Arbor area. 

[Verily]

Does Michigan allow touch-point contiguity between municipalities?

[Torie]

Does Michigan allow touch-point contiguity between municipalities?

You mean like my precinct link in Dearborn Heights connecting  MI-14 from the east to its salient in western Wayne?  The law does not say no. What it does say, is that if you have a CD connected with but a theoretical point where one corner of two rectangles touch,  that does not constitute contiguousness.

Come to think of it, the Dems might be fairly happy with this map. Dingell retires, Levin gets MI-11, and Peters can move from Bloomfield Hills a couple of miles to the east in Lapeer County and run in marginal MI-10. MI-07 is marginal to boot, and MI-08 will be somewhat vulnerable to marginal, if Rogers retires. Candice Miller in MI-12 has a marginal seat with a GOP PVI of around 1%.Whether the GOP will stand for this map, as opposed to just deep-six the law is another question.

The guy who would  be deliriously happy however is McCotter. He would be moving from Livonia a mile or two north up to Novi or somewhere ASAP per this map, and never have to campaign again. He could use his campaign money to give to others to buy influence; maybe he will be speaker someday.  MI-09 might be a serious competitor for the most GOP CD in the state.

[Torie]

OK, you're down to 12 county splits by the current metrics.  That's the same as in my map in post 225, which has 4 Dem districts and every GOP district (save one) over 54.5% Bush.  

And sorry to continue to be a pain, but you have too many township splits in Wayne.  I see Sumpter Twp, Canton, Detroit, Taylor, and Dearborn Heights split, when you really should only need 3 splits between the 4 districts.  

Incidentally, you could improve things by exploiting the loophole that 1 whole district + 2 partials in a county is the same as 1 whole + 1 partial.  Give some parts of Oakland (Farmington, South Lyon) to CD-08 and let CD-11 take more of the Ann Arbor area.  

I very much appreciate your comments, dpmapper. They are usually spot on. But as to splits, the Detroit split is between MI-13 and MI-14 (and is mandated by the VRA to boot), the Sumpter split is between MI-07 and MI-08, the Canton split between MI-14 and MI-08, and the Taylor split is between MI-07 and MI-13.  I think that is legal. The splits have to be made to equalize population, and to get both MI-14 and MI-13 above 50% black VAP. The language in the law on which I rely reads as follows: "(v) If it is necessary to break city or township lines to achieve equality of population between congressional districts as provided in subdivision (a), the number of people necessary to achieve population equality shall be shifted between the 2 districts affected by the shift." (Emphasis added.)

Of course, I put the splits to dual uses almost always, but well, if one did not do that, what raison d'etre would gerrymanderers have?  

By the way, you missed the Dearborn Heights chop between MI-14 and MI-07.   One chop is allowed between any two CD's is the rule I think. (Notice how given the Detroit chop, I avoided any other chop between MI-13 and MI-14.)

I don't agree that one CD in a  county plus two partials constitutes but one split, which "loophole" that you presume exists I see that you exploited to the max in your map. I know of no language in the law suggesting such a counter-intuitive interpretation,  and thus am puzzled as to the basis that that inference was drawn.  Counting that way really does not make any sense. As a judge I certainly would not accept that interpretation based on what I know so far. But I would appreciate your sharing with me your reasoning on this issue.

I might note that Muon2 and I had a discussion about this (sort of).  My view was that two partials only count as one split if both partials are but one CD in two non-contiguous chops into a county. If the partial chops into a county are two different CD's, that counts as two chops. Muon2 in a later post came around to agreeing with that method of counting chops, which is the only one that makes any sense really.

[dpmapper]

Muon laid out his interpretation of the rule in post 218:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He then amended it very slightly in post #237 to deal with the case when the n pieces are not contiguous.  But that's it. 

I agree that if this is indeed the rule, it is stupid.  That is why I ignored the rule in my last map, and just went with the "normal" county fragment count.  But according to this method of counting, your map is at 12, which is the same as what I have. 

Regarding townships, I'd argue it's the same principle as counties.  In other words, splitting at most one between districts is a necessary condition towards satisfying the law, but not sufficient.  If there is a loop then there will be a way to lower the number of splits. 

For instance, there is a CD7-CD-14-CD8 circle of split townships.  This means that CD7 can take the rest of Dearborn Heights; CD 14 takes parts of Livonia rather than Canton (for contiguity purposes), and CD8 takes a little bit more of Sumpter.  That lowers the number of splits.  A similar loop exists between 13/14/7. 



More to the point, I don't see how your map improves on my map at all.  We both have the same number of county splits (by either Muon's (nonsensical) metric, or the "standard" metric) and my map's most marginal GOP district is quite a bit safer than yours. 

[Torie]

I see your point about the chops in Wayne, but  your solution pushes MI-14 below 50% black VAP, and thus cannot be done. Canton is blacker than Livonia. And the three precincts lost to MI-14 in Dearborn Heights are substantially black to boot.

I see that you got you extra chop in Shiawassee (sp) by making the west end of the gray CD have clean lines in the west. That is very creative, and allows the greater efficiency of MI-05 taking out Saginaw City. What is you chop county for MI-01? Your map does not show it. Part of the problem, is that your graphics make your maps hard to read for me. I wish folks would use screen shots. In any event, I will try to rip off that aspect of your map, if I can make it work. But Shiawassee has a Dem PVI in 2008 of about 3%-4%, so it is hardly a home run. But it is certainly a single, and maybe a double.

You MI-07 or MI-08 that pokes into Wayne is a Dem lean CD, maybe weak safe Dem CD. Your gray CD is at most but lean GOP. But you make both MI-12 and MI-10 considerably more GOP than my map in compensation, it looks like. Your map is a lot uglier than mine however, and that is not totally irrelevant. Cosmetics matter, and I pay considerable attention to that. You get ugly only when you really have to. Both our maps are a mess in the Detroit metro area of course.

The law does mention compactness by the way, way down the list, after the other imperatives are met. So a really ugly map to get partisan advantage might be vulnerable to the presentation to the court of another map.

I am impressed dpmapper with your talent at this - very impressed.

Oh yes, the way Muon2 counts just isn't going to be accepted by any court. I am going to pull legal rank on Muon2 on this one. I know that if I were a judge I certainly would not accept his formula, with open season for everybody to chop into a county after the first bite, if it has one wholly contained CD. That is why I think he abandoned his only the first bite counts concept, sort of the "one bite" rule in reverse; instead of your dog getting one free bite before you are sued for negligence with the second bite, you go to jail for the first bite, and then all the rest are just great. I don't think so!  

Muon2 wrote this: "I would now conclude that if two discontiguous parts of a county are attached to other counties, but not to the same district then that counts as two county breaks."  Assuming the word "discontiguous" is used to allow two chops by one CD into another county in different spots as counting as but one chop, fine. If it means that if two chops into a county by two different CD's, where the chops are next to each other, counts as but one chop, that's ludicrous. That cannot possibly be what Muon1 meant. He's a lot smarter than that.

[dpmapper]

You MI-07 or MI-08 that pokes into Wayne is a Dem lean CD, maybe weak safe Dem CD. Your gray CD is at most but lean GOP. But you make both MI-12 and MI-10 considerably more GOP than my map in compensation, it looks like. Your map is a lot uglier than mine however, and that is not totally irrelevant. Cosmetics matter, and I pay considerable attention to that. You get ugly only when you really have to. Both our maps are a mess in the Detroit metro area of course.

The part-Wayne CD is at 53.06% Bush '04, slightly better than McCotter's current district.  As I mentioned earlier, I suspect that the southern tier of Wayne suburbs and Monroe County are trending GOP.  Monroe's Obama percentage was -1.6 from where he was nationally, whereas for Kerry it was +.4.  Nor did Dingell do well in these places last year.  The grey CD that takes part of Washtenaw is at 54.67% Bush, though it might be trending the other way.  See post #236 for more numbers. 

 I noticed your recent tallying has been using '08 numbers, whereas way back you were working with '04 numbers - why'd you switch?  

[Torie]

You MI-07 or MI-08 that pokes into Wayne is a Dem lean CD, maybe weak safe Dem CD. Your gray CD is at most but lean GOP. But you make both MI-12 and MI-10 considerably more GOP than my map in compensation, it looks like. Your map is a lot uglier than mine however, and that is not totally irrelevant. Cosmetics matter, and I pay considerable attention to that. You get ugly only when you really have to. Both our maps are a mess in the Detroit metro area of course.

The part-Wayne CD is at 53.06% Bush '04, slightly better than McCotter's current district.  As I mentioned earlier, I suspect that the southern tier of Wayne suburbs and Monroe County are trending GOP.  Monroe's Obama percentage was -1.6 from where he was nationally, whereas for Kerry it was +.4.  Nor did Dingell do well in these places last year.  The grey CD that takes part of Washtenaw is at 54.67% Bush, though it might be trending the other way.  See post #236 for more numbers. 

 I noticed your recent tallying has been using '08 numbers, whereas way back you were working with '04 numbers - why'd you switch?  

The Bush numbers were on the Leips site, and the McCain numbers were not. But now there are all available at the Michigan Secretary of State's office, and I wanted to see the trends. It is also a good way to see what the rather hard core GOP vote is, outside of lower income whites. In the end, determining what is an acceptable PVI is a judgement call, and trends, and demographics, etc., play a part.

As an aside, I suspect the higher income precincts for example in 2012 will trend pretty heavily GOP. I don't meet many folks these days who have much good to say Obama's leadership in that department. The confidence is simply gone. It will be interesting to see how well Obama does in 2012 with the Asian vote as well.

[Torie]

dpmapper, I am still playing with your map (subject to a delay, as I enrich turbotax with a multiplicity of tax returns that I am saddled with generating), but it appears more and more likely that you have drawn the best map that can possibly be drawn in its overall design, if not necessarily the assigning of every precinct, although in general you are spot on there as well. Your clearly know what you are doing, and are one very smart puppy!  The geography between Grand Rapids and Ann Arbor is such, along with county populations, that the options are very limited.

[dpmapper]

dpmapper, I am still playing with your map (subject to a delay, as I enrich turbotax with a multiplicity of tax returns that I am saddled with generating), but it appears more and more likely that you have drawn the best map that can possibly be drawn in its overall design, if not necessarily the assigning of every precinct, although in general you are spot on there as well. Your clearly know what you are doing, and are one very smart puppy!  The geography between Grand Rapids and Ann Arbor is such, along with county populations, that the options are very limited.

Awww, that's sweet of you.   

Michigan is a nice challenge - the statute makes it almost a topological exercise.  Other states are pretty simple in comparison - just find the bluest precincts and smash them together, more or less.   That's why I found it more interesting in PA to make extra conditions like "Bucks and Lancaster stay in one piece" - it puts concrete limits on the amount of ugliness tolerable. 

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

There was a group doing a competition here in Michigan.  I based this one roughly off of my original map here, but edited it a bit to make District 8 more competitive, and to make everything more compact, and have less county splits: https://districtbuilder.michiganredistricting.org/districtmapping/plan/313/view/

[JohnnyLongtorso]

A draft plan got leaked.

[dpmapper]

Huh, they're going for two Oakland/Wayne districts.  I guess they'll argue that they're forced to do so by VRA considerations. 

But if you can do two such districts, why not go for 9-4-1, rather than 9-5?  Pretty conservative. 

The interesting thing about this map is that they take Battle Creek and Mark Schauer out of Walberg's district.  Smart. 

[krazen1211]

This one is solid. Other than Lansing not being in the Flint district, and I really wish they could have liberated the Pointes from being represented by some nutter from Detroit.

[Verily]

Which district is Ann Arbor in on that map?

[JohnnyLongtorso]

The 12th (Dingell).

[Sbane]

I gotta say, that's a solid looking map. Definitely not a dummymander.

[Torie]

Not a bad map. They just threw in the towel on creating a marginal seat, and didn't beef up Rogers in the 8th all that much, while making MI-01 safe. Whether it is "legal" or not is another matter. I am not going to get into that again. That was a nightmare!

[Torie]

Huh, they're going for two Oakland/Wayne districts.  I guess they'll argue that they're forced to do so by VRA considerations. 

But if you can do two such districts, why not go for 9-4-1, rather than 9-5?  Pretty conservative. 

The interesting thing about this map is that they take Battle Creek and Mark Schauer out of Walberg's district.  Smart. 

Except that they aren't "forced" to by the VRA as we well know.   But I think ceding the Dems a seat is going to cause that most interesting law to not be parsed that closely. Who in God's green earth would want to anyway?

[krazen1211]

Pretty sure the Sander Levin district drops to about 52-53% Kerry or so, and 59% Obama. It dropped its best portions.

[Torie]

Pretty sure the Sander Levin district drops to about 52-53% Kerry or so, and 59% Obama. It dropped its best portions.

It lost Southfield, but picked up Pontiac, and some marginally Dem areas in Macomb. It's Dem PVI is not going to drop that much.