US House Redistricting: Washington

[bgwah]

The app has been updated with 2010 census data, including racial data. It also has recent precinct boundaries, but no results. Maybe Alcon should contact Bradlee about that?

[bgwah]

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't seem like a significant number of commuters to me. I grew up in East King County, and have done dozens of trips through the pass... It's like entering a different world, the transition from West to East is quite rapid. That's just my personal opinion, but I'm probably the only frequent poster who has ever lived in the area, so there! I'm not saying there is some "connection" between Vancouver and Yakima, but that's always where they've done it before. The 4th district included Vancouver in the 1970s, IIRC.

[bgwah]

My guess would be Clark (more working in Multnomah) and uh, with the river hint, maybe Franklin (with more working in Benton)?

If not Clark, a more tricky answer might be Asotin. A lot of those folks work in Lewiston, ID.

[bgwah]

I came so close to mentioning Douglas. Drat.

[bgwah]

And despite even the 2000 census showing a number of Kittitas residents commuting to King, the commission still decided to create a Clark to Yakima legislative district instead of some sort of North Bend - Ellensburg district...

But to be honest, I'm a little perplexed as to why we're arguing this again. We covered it pretty thoroughly in the first 100 posts of the thread, and I think we've all made our case for why we think each scenario is most likely. But there's really no way for us to prove it other than by waiting for the commission to draw up a map.

Speaking of legislative districts, now that we have precise 2010 numbers, perhaps we could tackle them.

[bgwah]

I've been starting to draw legislative districts, but obviously it's more time consuming. I've started in the NW. Definitely some interesting possiblities already. The 42nd is very marginal, with even one precinct change having the potential to tip certain elections (Buys vs. Linville comes to mind. It was also barely won by Gregoire, IIRC, but o/c that doesn't matter). However, much of the border with the 40th is currently through the Democratic heart of Bellingham, and the 42nd needs to lose about 9,000 people. If they want to keep it as electorally competitive as it currently is, then they would need to change the border in the suburban areas around Lake Whatcom.

The 40th only needs to shed 3,000, but of course there will be a ripple effect when it absorbs excess 40th, meaning it will need to shed 12,000 people to the south, probably in Skagit County. The border is definitely a little strange right now, so there is no obvious solution to me. Mt. Vernon has too many people to cleanly peel it off. They may have to completely change the borders in Skagit County if they want to keep the cities intact like they do now.

[bgwah]

I see people aren't nearly as opinionated about legislative districts as they are about the great Cascades-crossing debate. I wonder why...

[bgwah]

I see people aren't nearly as opinionated about legislative districts as they are about the great Cascades-crossing debate. I wonder why...

Still working on my first map.  It takes awhile, especially if you are looking out for incumbents.

Especially since there are three incumbents. What a headache.

[bgwah]

http://www.soundpolitics.com/voterlookup.html

[bgwah]

Yes please

[bgwah]

It won't happen, even though I wouldn't be opposed to sharing Seattle's Democratic goodness with the suburban districts.

I actually did try to draw the least white district possible once, though I wasn't following any other rules and had some ridiculous Pasco-to-Seattle district.

[bgwah]

First post!!

I've been playing with Dave's Redistricting since November or so.... and while pretty much all of my cuts have been through Columbia River counties.... what if the second were to take Okanogan and Chelan counties. The 2nd could hold onto Skykomish in N. King county and have the State route 2 "connection" for Chelan and N. Cascades for Okanogan counties.

I know this would make the district considerably more Republican and that endangering incumbents is certainly looked down upon by WA's redistricting commission, however it would be pretty clean cut.

The third would still have to creep up into Yakima county, but a split of the city and its direct suburbs would be spared. Are 2 Cascade crossing too much.... Im going to guess so, but it's certainly another way of looking at it.

Doesn't that road close for much of the year? That would probably be an issue.

[bgwah]

I finally made a map using the census numbers, though it's similar to what I posted earlier.

Anyway:



WA-1: Loses Kitsap and Redmond, gains Everett.
WA-2: Loses Everett.
WA-3: Loses Thurston, Pacific, Lewis, and part of Cowlitz. Gains Klickitat and part of Yakima.
WA-4: Loses Klickitat and part of Yakima, gains Walla Walla.
WA-5: Loses Walla Walla, border with the 4th in Othello slightly altered.
WA-6: Keeps Tacoma (and now includes East Tacoma) as well as expanding a little into its immediate suburbs. Gains Northern Kitsap, but loses the Olympic Peninsula. Resembles the old Bremerton-Tacoma 6th of the 1980s.
WA-7: Largely remains the same. Northern border now follows the Seattle-Shoreline border. Bryn Mawr-Skyway cut out.
WA-8: Loses Pierce County, gains Redmond. Small reconfiguring required somewhere along the border with the 9th--I chose some precincts near Renton.
WA-9: Loses Thurston, East Tacoma, and SW Pierce. Gains East Pierce and Bryn Mawr-Skyway.
WA-10: Fills the void left in Olympia. As an Olympia-Coast-Peninsula district, it somewhat resembles the old 3rd district we had several decades ago. Allows  more compact 1st, 6th, and 9th districts by cutting off the 9th's current tentacle into Olympia, and pushing the 6th into the rest of Kitsap (and thus pushing the 1st completely to the eastside of the Puget Sound).


While I think this map is ideal, it has several political problems. WA-2 changes from slight D to slight R, which would upset Rick Larsen. WA-8 changes from slight R to slight D, which would upset Dave Reichert. WA-9 still tilts D, but less so than before, which may irk Smith. Norm Dicks would have to move. But I like this map because it cleans up a lot of the mess we have in the South Sound (and West Sound).

Herrera and Heck should like it, though.

[bgwah]

Interesting..... What if you traded Everett back into the 2nd, and let the 1st eat up all Monroe/US-2 territory + Skykomish?

Why Would Heck like the third's new shape?

Because he would be in the new, more Democratic WA-10.

And the map is quite ugly if Everett is kept in WA-2, which apparently might happen to protect Larsen based on what somebody  is telling me. It would have to take everything up to the Lake Stevens area (which is where Larsen lives, IIRC), and might just extend all the way to the eastern county border.

[bgwah]

Well, here is my attempt at an incumbent gerrymander... I think this map is an abomination, just FTR.



WA-1: Loses Kitsap. Takes over most of suburban and rural Snohomish County, leaving Democratic Everett for Larsen in WA-2. I also transferred Mukilteo and some unincorporated stuff just south of Everett into WA-2. Increases from 50.5% Murray to 51.4% Murray... I could probably increase the Murray % with a bit more work.
WA-2: See above.
WA-3: To entrench Herrera, Democratic Thurston and Pacific are cut out. Lean R Klickitat and Southern Yakima are given to her. Increases from 52.5% Rossi to 55.8% Rossi.
WA-4: Gains Walla Walla. Loses Klickitat, Southern Yakima, Kittitas, and Chelan.
WA-5: Loses Walla Walla.
WA-6: Loses Grays Harbor, Jefferson, and Clallam. Gains Northern Kitsap and Bainbridge to offset D losses in GH/Jefferson and thus protect Dicks.
WA-7: Loses Tukwila/Burien/White Center. Has to move north and eat up Shoreline and Lake Forest Park; otherwise WA-8 would have to eat up Democratic suburbs which would threaten Reichert...
WA-8: ...To protect Reichert, Redmond (and Kirkland) are kept in the 1st, by use of the above Shoreline method. Because WA-8 is so overpopulated, protecting Reichert is not easy. He gets to mostly keep his Pierce County suburbs, and gains Kittitas and Chelan counties. However, this results in a huge change: All of Renton is moved into WA-9. Newcastle, Mercer Island, the Gold Coast & most of Bellevue have to be moved into WA-9. This would be controversial, as this area has been the population anchor of the 8th since it was created, I imagine. However, it is also the biggest chunk of D voters presently in the 8th. The district increases from 50.8% Rossi to 53.9% Rossi.
WA-9: Gains Eastside cities mentioned above. Loses tentacle into Olympia. At 56.7% Murray, this seat becomes safe Dem---a good tradeoff for Republicans (it's already a very difficult seat for them, so might as well shove some D voters into it and protect Reichert).
WA-10: A 52% Murray district, ripe for Heck's picking.


Couple areas I may continue to work on
1) Make the WA-4/WA-5 split horizontal instead of vertical to make WA-4 less ugly (ie, give Douglas and Chelan to WA-5, while giving SE WA to WA-4)
2) Entrench Larsen more...but this will be even more visually unappealing than it already is, I imagine.

[bgwah]

By shifting the city of Auburn completely into WA-9, we can have WA-8 keep some of its current rural areas in Eastern Pierce County. I find this more visually appealing than my previous "ideal" map, though it does introduce another county split. Reichert still (barely) lives in the 8th district.

[bgwah]

Yeah, he has since moved to downtown Everett. I think he started out in Lake Stevens, hence the confusion. Nevertheless, Everett is only in WA-1 in my ideal map. My abomination (AKA incumbent gerrymander, which tragically may be closer to reality) gives him Everett.

It's not like Congressmen moving is unprecedented, though. Baird moved to Vancouver after the 2000 redistricting, IIRC.

[bgwah]

Yeah, he has since moved to downtown Everett. I think he started out in Lake Stevens, hence the confusion. Nevertheless, Everett is only in WA-1 in my ideal map. My abomination (AKA incumbent gerrymander, which tragically may be closer to reality) gives him Everett.

It's not like Congressmen moving is unprecedented, though. Baird moved to Vancouver after the 2000 redistricting, IIRC.

Also what Jay Inslee did, the definition of shameless.

Well I meant more "Moving to stay in the district you represent," but yeah there's Inslee, too. lol.

[bgwah]

^ I suppose that might be preferable to an I-90 crossing to protect Reichert.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I do keep experimenting with the I-90 crossing. Since the 8th is already so overpopulated, it already needs to cut 138,300 people. Giving it Chelan and Kittitas means it needs to cut 251,668 from its Western portions. Starting off by cutting out Pierce would be most logical, but is this really an incumbent gerrymander, or more of a trade-off for Reichert? He loses the currently most Republican part of his district for a chunk of Republican Eastern Washington.

If you can keep some of Pierce in his district (as I did in one of my maps), you have to start cutting out Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Newcastle.... I imagine there would be some strong opposition to further splitting the Eastside. We're already split between two districts (despite only having 400,000 or so people). Splitting us between three, and getting rid of the historic heart of the 8th wouldn't go unnoticed...

[bgwah]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newhalem,_Washington

route 20 is only open in the summer....

While true, the communities it connects are basically ski/summer homes of the Seattle wealthy. They are forced to take US-2 in the winter and drive up north, but in the summer/fall, N. Cascades is way faster. So... I guess in that sense they are "communities of interest", but I doubt that makes up for 2 county splits.

The average length its open is April 20-Nov 26

If they're just summer/ski homes of people who normally live in Seattle, then surely those folks would be registered in the Seattle area, too? Seems like kind of a flimsy reason to put what would be some genuine Eastern Washingtonians in a Western district.

[bgwah]

Here it is, though it was before election data was added, so I'm just assuming it's 9-1.

[bgwah]

I'm working on a Republican gerrymander now... A 9-1 Rossi map might be possible, however, it would be more like one >80% Murray districts (Seattle, duh) and nine 50-51% Rossi districts, which is more like 1 D, 9 swing. So I'm working on an 8-2 map instead.

[bgwah]

Here is an 8-2 Republican map of Washington. The cyan district is 70% Murray and the yellow district is 74% Murray. The other eight are all 52-53% Rossi.

If Republicans were actually trying to gerrymander WA, they might feel a bit safer with 7-3, as this could easily be a 10-0 Obama map...

[bgwah]

Well I hope you're wrong, Meeker. That map is an abomination. And considering Yakima is still split despite having two East-West crossings, not even Sounder's prediction was entirely correct. I suppose we were all being idealistic with our maps. Just because it's "bipartisan" doesn't mean it can't be a disgusting gerrymander, I guess.

It would be great if the Democrats grew a spine and let the courts draw the map---it is very unlikely it would be any worse for them than that.

Of course, I'm getting upset over Meeker's rumors. Again, I hope you're wrong!

[bgwah]

Those stupid Cascades .

I'm not totally opposed to how you drew the new 8th, while it is certainly way more Republican and it crosses over, it's still competitive, however, two crossings + a three way split of Yakima County is too much.... It was better when it was just between the third and eighth.

It would amusing and slightly depressing at the same time if we had really wasted pages arguing about I-90 vs. Satus, and then the bastards just went ahead and used both crossings.

If Meeker's map is even close to correct, though, I would definitely like to see non-partisan redistricting instead of this awful "bipartisan" garbage.