Talk Elections

Some scenarios are kicked around in this article. It's a rare bit of Democratic cockiness in the current environment,

http://www.chicagonewscoop.org/redistricting-reality-ahead-for-cocky-g-o-p/

They talked about the possibility of creating a Dem-friendly district mid-state based on Champaign, Decatur, and Peoria, and presumably the Quad Cities if they can justify it. I may try to draw these districts with Dave's App tonight because I never considered the possibility of reconstituting a Lane Evans district using different sources...

If I were Pat Quinn, I wouldn't be planning gerrymandered maps right now.  I would be meeting with Snyder and/or Kasich about a bipartisan move to independent redistricting.

No, that's what you'd be doing if you were yourself and somehow found yourself Governor of Illinois by magic. If you were Pat Quinn, IL D internal politics would probably keep you from even consciously entertaining such a commonsense idea. After all, you'll want these people, some of which will hope to serve in Congress soon, to support your administration. :)

A man can dream, right?  I wonder, for the states that currently have independent redistricting and didn't get it by referendum, did it always come up during a deadlock with divided government, or do we ever see examples of one party acting "altruistically"?  I put altruistically in quotes because I would expect that after rare takeover by the permanent outparty (ex. a GOP takeover of Maryland or something like that), there would be every incentive to block the normal winners from their advantage in the future.

(deleted this preliminary thing: see below)

New Jersey's was passed by Democrats in a lame duck session in 1991 after they lost control of the state legislature. The state constitution was amended in 1995.

Schroeder's map is better and more realistic, but I drew a Champaign/Decatur/Peoria district and wanted to share it. It's the blue district that goes NW/SE.

I don't know who lives where/how the lines are drawn, but I saw that three counties/county combinations NW of Chicago are about the right size for districts according to DRA's information. Is there any chance the silver, light blue and light purple districts could exist in the real world?

()

OK, here's a possible Democratic gerrymander. Comments in the next post.
()
()
()

I wonder if one just went wild, whether or not while still comporting with the VRA, the GOP could be held to just two seats, one in the collar counties, and one downstate. :P  You just dilute down the minority districts to the minimum necessary, and string out the Chicago districts to chew up the collar county precincts, and beyond.

(moving from the south to Chicagoland)

light blue: Costello (D), pretty much unchanged.

yellow: R, obviously. Shimkus will run here; Johnson has to decide whether to challenge him or whether to try to hold the orange district.

orange: new D-leaning district with Springfield, Bloomington/Normal & Champaign/Urbana. Not completely unwinnable for the Reps, but pretty tough.

the west-central green district: Schock, R.

purple, along the Mississippi: the key here is putting Rockford in this district, which keeps it roughly the same kind of district it is now (basically labor Dem, but not totally safe in a bad year like 2010), while making it less weird-shaped and freeing up Springfield for the other orange seat).

light green, north-Central: Kinzinger and Hultgren forced into a primary.

and, then, in Chicagoland:
dark green: Rush, 54% black

dark blue: Jackson, 54% black

purple, SW Cook: Lipinski

red: new Mexican district; 61% Hispanic

grey, Davis: 54% black

yellow: Gutierrez - 54% Hispanic

forest green: Quigley

pale blue: Schakowsky. Dold could try to hold it, but it's not happening.

purple, NW Cook: I assume this is a D seat. If it isn't, you could exchange some territory with the green one.

beige: I've put all the minorities in the western suburbs I could find here. Biggert could try to hold it, but it's pretty tough at only 57% white.

brown: Roskam.

pink: assuming what's his name has beaten Melissa Bean, he's forced into a primary with Manzullo.

Not that it matters in IL, but here's where in reps would live on your map.

Shimkus is in Madison county in the light blue district with Costello.

Johnson does live in the orange district. Shock and Shilling are in the districts you would expect.

Manzullo lives in Ogle county which put him in the light green district.

Hultgren lives in the brown district with Roskam, but most of his current state senate district is in the beige district.

Kinzinger is in Kankakee county in the dark green district with Jackson (not Rush).

Rush lives in the grey district with Davis. In 2001 Rush was quite particular about residency both for himself and potential opponents, going so far as to make sure a certain state sen. Obama was drawn out of the district. Biggert also lives in this grey district in the DuPage part.

Dold does live in the pale blue district with Schakowsky. So does Walsh who doesn't live in the 8th, but actually lives quite near Dold (Bean didn't live in the 8th either so it wasn't an issue.) Quigley may also live in this district and is near the edge in any case.

Gutierrez may be in the forest green district, but he doesn't live in the 4th district now.

Lipinski is in the purple district.

Do you have any feeling as to how aggressive the Dems will be Muon2 in getting rid of GOP seats in Illinois?  Will they settle for 2, or go for 6?

I have no inside info at this point, but it would seem reasonable to try to recover the four lost seats from this year. A new Hispanic seat, two suburban ones and one downstate should be possible.

You, my friend, should have run for governor. Why didn't you?  :)

If you check the Michigan redistricting thread, I think I came up with a plan to solve the Detroit metro area conundrum, and would appreciate your comments when you have time. Among other things, this lawyer relies on you for the law on these matters - you are just that good. :P  But I also think beyond that, I came up with the partisan deus ex machina. Unless of course, I missed something, which happens - often. :(

Here's a Dem map of Chicago. It's ugly as hell.

State:

()

Chicago:

()

()

Wider view of NE Illinois:

()

IL-01 (blue, Bobby Rush - D) - Stretches down into Will County to soak up some Republican votes. 53% black.
IL-02 (green, Jesse Jackson Jr. - D) - Same as above; 52% black.
IL-03 (purple, Dan Lipinski - D) This one gets pushed out into the suburbs; it hooks around through DuPage to pull in some parts of northern Cook County. It should still lean Dem, but not as much. Biggert might try to run here; her house is either just inside or more likely just outside the border.
IL-04 (red, Luis Gutierrez - D) - Southern half of his old district; 62% Hispanic.
IL-05 (yellow, Michael Quigley - D) - Had to combine his district with parts of IL-04 to make another Hispanic district. It's 57% Hispanic. Quigley would probably not be the favorite to survive here.
IL-06 (teal, Pete Roskam - R and Judy Biggert - R) - Thrown together, it's actually not a whole lot of either Roskam or Biggert's district. It should be pretty safe for the primary victor, assuming Biggert were to run here.
IL-07 (grey, Danny Davis - D) - Mostly the same, just expands a bit. 56% black.
IL-08 (light purple, open) - Drew McHenry out of the district, so Walsh is put into Manzullo's district. Adds more of Cook County; should be a little less Republican now, Bean would likely make a strong comeback.
IL-09 (light teal, Jan Schakowsky - D) - Moves south somewhat, still safe D.
IL-10 (magenta, Bob Dold - R) - Pretty much the same; if the Democrats can just get someone not named Dan Seals to win the nomination...
IL-11 (very light green, Adam Kinzinger - R) - Drops a bunch of rural area and expands north into Bolingbrook. Should be more of a swing district now. Just get a new candidate, Dems.
IL-12 (light blue, Jerry Costello - D and John Shimkus - R) - All the Dem-leaning territory in the southern half of the state. Should remain safe for Costello. Shimkus lives in this district, but he could easily move into the new IL-13.
IL-13 (pink, open) - Formerly IL-19, the rest of the southern half of the state. Shimkus would go here. Safe R.
IL-14 (brown, Randy Hultgren - R) - Gathers up as much Dem-friendly territory in Kane County, then instead of the old phallic southwest-pointing district, goes northwest through DeKalb to Rockford (cue synthesizer music). Bill Foster could retake this district; the Hispanic percentage increased from 18% to 25%, and the black percentage from 5% to 9%.
IL-15 (orange, Tim Johnson - R) - I tried to put as much not-heavily-Republican territory in this district as possible; it's centered in Champaign-Urbana and Bloomington. Probably wouldn't be too hard for Johnson to hold, but it's not out of the realm of possibility that it could give the Republicans a headache in an open seat.
IL-16 (light green, Don Manzullo - R and Joe Walsh - R) - Cuts out Rockford and stretches east to take in McHenry and parts of Lake and a bit of Cook County. Safe R.
IL-17 (purple, Bobby Schilling - R and Aaron Schock - R) - About as ridiculous as before, with the bonus of adding Peoria to the district. It doesn't, however, stretch all the way south to IL-14. Schock lives in Peoria, but would move to IL-18. Schilling would probably lose to a decent Democrat; again, get a better candidate, Dems.
IL-18 (yellow, open) - Safe R. Schock goes here.

In IL, the congressmen often don't live where you might think. I suspect you would make 5 of the 8 incumbent Dems unhappy with this map.

IL-1 Rush lives at the northern extreme end of his district, and last cycle he was very particular about staying in the district. The map was drawn to keep Obama out of IL-1 in 2000, even though residency is not required. You've put him into Davis' district, and that won't make either happy.

IL-3 Lipinski is in this district, but I don't think he'd be very happy. The DuPage townships you've given him have good organization and regularly vote R, as does a lot of the Cook area. A lot of that area regularly vote for R's for local and state offices. Check the 2004 presidential vote (favorite son Obama is not indicative in IL).

IL-4 This is a wide open seat as you've drawn it. See IL-5.

IL-5 This includes Gutierrez' home and base on the NW side. Quigley lives in Wrigleyville and is in IL-9 as you've drawn it. Also, the difference between Hispanic population
and VAP is about 7.5 to 8% in that area. My conclusion is that you have to go beyond O'Hare or into DuPage or both to be sure of 50% VAP.

IL-6 Roskam, Biggert and Hultgren all live here, but Hultgren would likely run in IL-14 as you drew it.

IL-7 See IL-1.

IL-8 Walsh actually lives in Winnetka near Dold in the SE corner of CD-10. He did grow up in Barrington which is partially in the district you drew, so he would be comfortable there. It's also gained the GOP base of Palatine in Cook, so that helps him.

IL-9 Schakowsky lives here, but you've given this district much of the base from Quigley as well as Quigley's home. Unless Jan is running for another office in 2012, this is not going to play well.

IL-10 This actually does help strengthen the Dems to get rid of Dold.

IL-11 Kinzinger doesn't live anywhere near the district you've drawn. He used to be on the McLean county board at the southern tip of the current CD. This is ideal for Halvorson to hold, if she were the incumbent. However, I tend to think Lipinski will want Joliet to compensate for losing so much of the Chicago part of his district to the new Hispanic seat.

IL-12, 13 This is much like I would expect, too.

IL-14 Not a bad idea for the Dems. Turnout can be a problem in off year elections in Aurora and Rockford so it may be a swing district as drawn.

IL-15 Johnson and Kinzinger both live here, and its the type of pairing I expect will happen for real.

IL-16 Manzullo is in an ideal R hold here.

IL-17 You can make this just a solidly D by dropping Decatur for areas up the Mississippi and across from Peoria. The Dems might want Decatur for your CD-15 instead. It's much better than Effingham.

IL-18 As you noted, Schock can represent whatever hard-R district is left in west central IL.

Someone should tell Wikipedia that they've got so many wrong residences.

So five R's eliminated?

That's why I usually refer to Vote Smart, unless I can find addresses from the State Board of Elections. BTW which ones were off?

It's entirely possible. Obama will be at the top of the ticket again, so there is a balance that must be done between the current incumbent Dems and how many seats they want to put at risk in 2014.

Walsh is listed as living in McHenry, and Kinzinger in Manteno. Hultgren does live outside the district, I mistook the county it was in for Kane.

Walsh's previous campaigns in the 1990s were based on his Winnetka home and he was registered there when he filed for the election. He may have taken a new residence during the campaign to be in the district.

Kinzinger did have an apartment in Manteno for the election and was registered there. His hometown is Bloomington and that is where his political base is.

  I've been looking at the 2005-2009 estimate data and I'm really beginning to doubt if there will be a second Hispanic District.  The population has moved west.  The former bullwarks of the eastern end of the north part of the earmuff--Logan Square, Humbolt Park and West Town have gentrified.  The Logan Square hispanic poulation dropped from 53,847 to 43,235.  I haven't analyzed West Town yet, but am expecting the same.
  The Black population in Chicago dropped by 11% giving wonder as to whether or not 3 majority African American districts can be maintained.  Proviso and Thornton Townships the suburban African American anchors also saw poulation drops.  Two smaller majority African American townships Bloom and Rich did gain in pop, but not enough to supplant the huge Chicago loss.

Ill_Ind

The Chicago Sun-Times posted a nice interactive graphic (http://www.suntimes.com/files/census-map-racial-ethnic.html) this week. It shows the estimated racial and ethnic percentages by census tract in the metro Chicago area. It's based on the 2009 estimates and gives a good idea of where the minority districts will go.

  The New York Times has had one up for a while.  So far I have gone through, looked at, and wrote down the ethnic percentages for every cencus district in Illinois.  Cook Co took longer than all the rest of the state combined.
  Now I'm working on the perspective congressional map--I think 2 Hispanic and 3 AA districts may be possible, but it would be an extremely ugly map.
  Neither side of the present 4th Hispanic District is large enough to stand on its own, so some creative mapping to draw in suburban Hispanic enclaves is a necessity for both.  Same with the AA districts.
  I haven't looked at anything with Illinois 7, but interestingly it contains the fastest growing Chicago neighborhoods--Near North, Near South, Near West and Loop along with some of the fastest decliners--East and West Garfield Park, North Lawndale.  Those areas that have grown have become whiter however.
  As I stated earlier, Logan Square, and West Town have lost considerable Hispanic population as gentrification has made both more white.  South Lawndale dropped like a rock in population, but stayed the same ethnicaly.  Lower West sise did whiten out ever so slightly.  Lots of southwest neighborhoods saw a large influx of hispanics--Archer Heights, Garfield Ridge, Clearing, West Lawn, Chicago Lawn, and the western half of Ashburn--replacing the white residents there.
  Both the AA and Hispanic populations have moved west and into the suburbs.  The AA population more so, as it has declined about 100,000 in Chicago.  The Hispanic population in Chicago overall gained slightly--including a large gain on the southeast side--East Side, South Deering, South Chicago, and Hegewisch areas that wouldn't be able to be drawn into a majority Hispanic District.  JJJ's 2nd had a 15-20% Hispanic population as it stands now.

  One nice thing I found out is that the 77 Chicago Neighborhood boundarries coincide with the census district boundaries.

  More as I go further with this.

Ill_Ind

  I've been going through the population estimates and demographic estimates from sampling data released by the Census Bureas.
  I call it:  There will be no second Hispanic district created in Illinois.  The population is too spread out.  I can create one from the south area, but there is no way that I can see that a free standing majority Hispanic District can be created from the northern area--unless the Dems want to run Quigley against Gutierez--and that defeats the purpose of their controlling the remap.
  Get ready for another 10 years of the earmuff district.

Gutierrez lives in the southern half, no? So it would be Quigley alone in the new Hispanic district. Probably not his first choice, but I don't think he'd be in any real danger of a primary challenge.

Also, so long as you need just the southern part to make a Hispanic district, doesn't it make sense,  if there's only one district, to use the northern Hispanics to make the northern suburban districts more D?

Gutierrez is from the northern part, but he doesn't currently live in the district. Quigley doesn't live that far from him, but he's not in the Hispanic area.

It's not hard to make a southern district that is compact and easily exceeds 50% Hispanic VAP.

The northern one is trickier. One needs to link the current northern part of IL-4 to the Hispanic suburbs and neighborhoods around O'Hare, including the NE part of DuPage. That link probably won't be any wider than a railroad right-of-way at some points. Combining those two areas creates enough VAP to exceed 50%. The number varies from 52-54% depending on how much is cut from the Chicago parts of IL-5.

  I was adding it up by census districts and couldn't get it to work out in the north.  I had it extending out to Addison and Elk Grove townships, but had the Hispanic population at 55% and still 150,000 short on population.  Problem is the gentrification of West Town, Logan Square and a little in Humbolt Park have dropped the Hispanic population in those areas quite a bit.  Thoes are the bulwark of the eastern end of the north part of Il-4.
  I could get south to work, but it wasn't that easy.  I had to incorporate in a long branch down to Joliet to get a 57% Hispanic district--(then work Lipinski's into a reverse earmuff around Joliet--lol).  (Hispanics don't vote in the same percentages as whites or African Americans, so a 57% Hispanic district is absolutely no guarantee of a Hispanic representative.)

Ill Ind

  I forgot to add that if one keeps a single Hispanic district getting a 75%+ Hispanic district is pretty easily accomplished.  BTW I found a path through southern Proviso Township that incorporates even less population than the present one does!!

Ill Ind

57% Hispanic may not even break 50% VAP.

Hey everybody, I just found this forum with google alerts and am working on a website to help analyze redistricting in Illinois called Precinctmaps.com. Right now I'm just getting started in Cook County(about 2/3rds done), making township maps overlayed with 2010 election data to gauge partisan lean.

Anyway, when I've gotten through Cook and collar counties I'll start sharing some redistricting theories. Feel free to reference some of the 2010 election maps I've got up in the mean time.

PS Does anyone in Illinois have the current precinct boundary .shp file for Illinois? I've noticed some of the posts in this thread are using old boundaries currently on the census site (dated 2000, but that really means they were used in the 90's). After looking closely at a couple townships, I decided the census precinct boundary file was junk.

Happy mapping!

The goal here should probably be something like 13-5.

IL-1 and IL-2 can easily take out Kinzinger, IL-9 can take out IL-10. Combine Biggert and Roskam into 1 super GOP suburban district. Redraw the ridiculous Quad Cities district to be something much more Democratic. Then just eliminate something downstate.

It's certainly possible to take out 6 Rs to get a 13-5 delegation. However, I suspect it will require some sitting Ds to move out of their comfort zone in revised districts (eg IL-9 stretching up to WI), and even so, a couple of downstate districts may only be about D+2.

The Quad Cities district was drawn to be as Dem as possible 10 years ago without using Peoria. Presumable it could add Peoria now to boost its numbers. IL-17 could also be split to try to bolster 2 districts per your 13-5 hypothesis.

Are the numbers there to support 3 downstate districts? It seems like the safer bet is to eliminate Schock, draw 2 downstate districts (12, 17), leave Shimkus, Johnson, Hultgren, Manzullo, Roskam alone, and swamp Biggert, Dold, Kinzinger with Chicago votes.

The remaining Republican seat is Walsh; I haven't figured out a way to get rid of him as well without really tortured lines because he's only bordering Republicans, but I guess you run him into Rockford or Cook County.

You're completely right about the D+3 or so limit downstate. It just appears at first glance that trying to attack Johnson as well as Schilling is going to completely backfire.

I've heard the Democratic organization really dropped the ball in Rock Island last Nov. Is there still a much to work with out in IL-17? That was the core of the district, as I recall when I went to college out at WIU.

Anybody crunch the numbers on that area? Can the Rock Island group bounce right back?

13-5 is not hard to achieve at all. Three Republican downstate districts, as well as one in DuPage County and one anchored on McHenry County. All of that can be done very safely.

Just a thought, but it may make more sense to draw fantasy maps with reference to the patterns in this map:

()

Rather than those in this one:

()

Sweet, just noticed the Census finally has the 2010 voter district shapefiles for all 102 counties of Illinois in the TIGER section.

Where would you put the GOP areas of the current CD-14? Is that going to go with McHenry? If so, it's too big and part will have to go with another GOP district. What areas do you add to Rockford to bring it up to size yet still make it winnable for the Dems? I think it's tough to get three downstate Dem districts and have all perform well (ie D+5 or so).

Except for Cook County*, that is the same pattern really. Just a weaker result.

*ie, there are no animals in this room, except for the elephant of course.

It's a related pattern, but there are significant differences in places, some of which might be important when gerrymandering.

That's a weird color scheme... is Illinois turning pink? what are the characteristics of the pink demographic?

The first map is % of the vote for Kerry in 2004; the second is % of the vote for Obama in 2008.

ok, I thought it had to do with gambling expansion and civil unions. lol

Actually no. The first map is Quinn's percentage in 2010.

lol. no one knows... Maybe it's the public anger/outrage index.

No more maps with hot pink.

Has anyone made a Scott Lee Cohen map?

Update:

Population figures for the Cook County districts were brutal. The Rush/Jackson districts are about 150k below each.

I don't think 13-5 is realistic given the updated figures. The Kinzinger seat seems like an obvious target for elimination, Dold can easily be swamped by Schakowsky,  and Biggert can probably be taken out by Quigley and Lipinski. The Costello district isn't exactly a democratic stronghold either.


These districts have to last a decade. Well, technically not, I'm not sure what IL law is, but this might go the way of PA 2000.

They should give Lipinski a swing district.

He actually fits his current district pretty well.

Is there any chance they'd append part of the northern earmuff to IL-7 to keep its population up, while making IL-4 based in the southern half?

The southern part of IL-4 can certainly stand on its own, but attaching the northern part onto IL-7 would reduce the black population below 50%. IL-7 will have to reach more to the south side in IL-1 and 2 to maintain a black majority. The northern part of IL-4 could pick up parts of IL-5 and 6 to become a second Hispanic majority district.

But does that matter? It won't prevent the African-American community in the district from electing the candidate of its choice, not by a long shot, and I thought there were questions about whether three 50.1% districts can be made in Cook County any more, so it may not be on the table. Otherwise, won't IL-7 have to expand at the expense of IL-1 and IL-2?

Three black-majority districts are still possible, but not in Cook County alone. One way is to extend IL-2 into Will and Kankakee. Certainly the Dems could negotiate to have one district under 50% without a legal challenge, but I think then IL-7 would extend into GOP areas to the west, not to the north.

Is it a given that 2 hispanic districts and 3 black districts will help the pubbies?

Not automatically. If the black districts expand south that will carve up IL-11 held by Kinzinger. A 2nd Hispanic district will push other Dem districts into the suburbs and could then reduce either IL-10 or IL-8 by taking up parts of those districts.

  Actually playing with the population figures a bit, it is quite feasible for Il-2 to start at Jesse Jr's house in the South Shore neighborhood and take in the southeast side of Chicago and run south taking in Thornton, Rich, and Bloom townships in Southern Cook County as well as the area in Bremen that it presently encompases.  Then run south in Will taking in Frankfort, Monee, Crete, Green Garden, Will, Washington, and Peotone Townships in Will County.  (Crete and Monee have healthy AA percentages)
  In Kankakee County it can take in Manteno, Sumner, Yellowhead, Ganeer, Momence, Aroma, and Pembroke Townships,  Then inclued the eastern half of Kankakee Township, and the southeast Side of Kankakee (which along with Pembroke Twp have a substantial--if not majority AA population)
  A district like this is the right size and about 55 % AA.
  Disctict 1 can then take in parts of the former District 2 to the north and east, and the remainder of Orland Township to balance the population but still get a district that is about 53% AA.
  This moves District 1 south and east opening up more southside (Englewood, West Englewood, Chicago Lawn, New City) for District 7 to expand.  Also District 7 includes and abuts to some of the faster growing areas of Chicago so population isn't such a big deal--Anyways one can get a 53% or so AA district out of this.
  3 AA districts are pretty feasible.
  I do not see 2 Hispanic ones though--not without demolishing Il-3 and Il 5 anyways.    (For instance a Southern District would have to encompass Joliet.  Getting a Il-3 around that and keeping it Democratic would be pretty hard to acomplish.  I was unable to get a northern standalone district even expanding out into Addison Twp in DuPage and Elk Grove northwest of O'Hare.) The northern part of the earmuff actually lost population along with several areas in West Town and Logan Square no longer having a Hispanic majority.  There was some spread out in areas too such as Belmont-Cragin, Montclair, Portage Park, Irving Park and Albany Park neighborhoods, but it will take the growth in the south added to this to countearct the loss of population in the north to get a reasonable district.
    I think that the earmuff will remain in some form for the next 10 years.
  In 2020 though, if trends remain the same, there will only be 2 AA districts and there will be 2 Hispanic Districts.
Ill_Ind

  Also, if Il-7 is extended west, there is an easy way to still get the earmuff around it.  Right now the north-south connection between the two sections is empty land between I290 and I-294.  They could simply extend it west along I-290 to Salt Creek Forest Preserve, then south to I-88 and then back east again, pulling Elmhurst  and Oakbbrook Terrace into Il-7.

 The population free-possibilities are endless

Ill-Ind

I tried making 2 hispanic districts and couldn't with the final census data.


http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/7726/chicago.png
()






The red district is 51% Hispanic while the slate green one is 47% Hispanic. It might hit 50 by 2020 though.

This map eliminates Lipinski's district by pairing him with Biggert, and swamps Dold, Walsh, and Roskam with Cook County votes.

how does Peter Roskam get elected? Someone with an ACU of 98 shouldn't be able to survive in an EVEN district.

It's more Republican than the PVI would indicate. Republicans heavily control all local offices there.

And it would probably have a more Republican PVI, but Obama won 57% there in 2008, which pushed the numbers left.  Its more like an R + 3 district.

I beleive it was R+3 prior to 2008.

Swing State Project (http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/8584/illinois-with-2-hispanic-districts) had a post yesterday that included two Hispanic districts as well as three black-majority districts.


I know that one can do better than a Hispanic-plurality for the second district, but I wanted to see what one could do at the precinct level in Dave's App. I also wanted to avoid running all the way out to Kane county to link Elgin or Aurora with Chicago. All districts are within 50 persons of the ideal population. Here's an image of my five majority-minority districts:

()

CD 1 (Rush) 51.3% Black VAP
CD 2 (Jackson) 50.7% Black VAP
CD 3 (open) 59.4% Hispanic VAP
CD 4 (Gutierrez) 50.1% Hispanic VAP
CD 7 (Davis) 50.8% Black VAP

All the districts could go up about 1% with block-level mapping. The open CD 4 should be quite viable for a Hispanic candidate, and Gutierrez' incumbency could overcome the reduced VAP in CD 4.

Here's another attempt at Illinois.

State

()

Chicago

()

IL-01 (blue, Bobby Rush - D) - Snakes from the shores of Lake Michigan (where Rush apparently lives) down to Joliet. 52.6% black VAP.
IL-02 (green, Jesse Jackson Jr. - D) - South side of Chicago to Kankakee. 52.4% black VAP.
IL-03 (purple, Dan Lipinski - D) - Expands south into more of suburban Cook County, but should remain safe for Lipinski.
IL-04 (red, Luis Gutierrez - D) - Retains the earmuff shape. 60.4% Hispanic VAP.
IL-05 (yellow, Mike Quigley - D) - Expands west into Elmhurst, but should still be safe Dem.
IL-06 (teal, Pete Roskam - R and Randy Hultgren - R) - Probably a pretty safe Republican district based in DuPage County. Doesn't really seem to be much point in trying to endanger of Roskam, since after 2006 Democrats gave up on beating him in his current district. Hultgren ends up in here since his home is in DuPage, but he'd run in IL-14.
IL-07 (grey, Danny Davis - D) - Gobbles up part of IL-01 in order to maintain its population. 51.7% black VAP.
IL-08 (light purple, Joe Walsh - R) - I'm still unclear as to where Walsh lives, but he'd run here; it's made pretty safe.
IL-09 (sky blue, Jan Schakowsky - D and Bob Dold - R) - Dold gets drawn into Schakowsky's district, but if he wants to remain in Congress he'll move into IL-10, since this is still a safe Dem district.
IL-10 (magenta, open) - Democrats might finally pick this seat up under this configuration, especially if they get someone other than Dan Seals to run. It picks up some Dem-friendly parts of Lake County from IL-08 and drops Dold's best areas from Cook.
IL-11 (light pink, Adam Kinzinger - R and Tim Johnson - R) - Kinzinger gets screwed in this district, as most of it is formerly Johnson's IL-15.
IL-12 (light purple downstate, Jerry Costello - D and John Shimkus - R) - Tried to draw this to squeeze one or two more points of Democratic performance out of it. Shimkus is drawn into the district as a result, but he'd just have to move one county over to what is basically his old district (now IL-15).
IL-13 (pink, Judy Biggert - R) - Adds Kendall County to most of her old territory; probably more Republican now.
IL-14 (brown, open) - I tried to connect as many Dem-friendly suburbs as possible. I think I've come up with something that would be a swing district. Hultgren doesn't live here anymore, but it's where he would run.
IL-15 (orange, open) - As I said above, Shimkus would run here, it's safe Republican and is mostly the old IL-19.
IL-16 (light green, Don Manzullo - R and Bobby Schilling - R) - Sprawls across the northern third of the state now. Safe Republican. Manzullo lives in the little strip that connects IL-17 to Rockford, so just assume that I fixed that because I don't want to redo the maps. Schilling is in the district, but just barely, so he'd run in IL-17.
IL-17 (purple monstrosity, Aaron Schock - R) - An insane monstrosity that gobbles up every Dem-friendly area from Rockford to Springfield. Schilling would run here. Schock ends up in this district since he lives in Peoria, but he'd run in IL-18.
IL-18 (yellow, open) - Pretty similar to the old IL-18, Schock would run here. Safe R.

Despite what the incumbent Democrats may prefer I can't see any map being made without an additional Hispanic district.  I think the "earmuff" district is going to be history.

There aren't enough Hispanics in the north side of the earmuff for a second Hispanic-majority district. You can get up to around 44-45% VAP, and that's it.

()

All it takes is an extension of the northern half of the "earmuff" to the west to take in some Hispanic suburbs. South here is 59.2% Hispanic VAP while the north is 50.2%- it's easy to make it up to 53% VAP or so but I shifted things around to be as tidy as possible while still Hispanic-majority.

Also possible: rather than extending out to Elgin the northern district could remain a pseudo-earmuff and take in part of my map's southern district. Doing so, you could have two districts that were 53-56% Hispanic VAP. (edit: and this would make a bit of since anyway, since Gutierrez is from the northern half of the existing district and it'd allow him to keep his existing district mostly intact).

So, while a second Hispanic district wouldn't exactly be tidy or compact, it isn't very difficult to create.

I was bored and drew an awesome map for Illinois

()

The 5 downstate districts are all composed of whole counties, which I think is good

How far do they deviate from the target population?

Red is +206
Blue/Purple is +501
Beige is -214
Orange is +822
Hot pink is +2689

That's far too great of a deviation, I'm pretty sure.

Haha, the one that was 2689 deviation is a paltry 0.3% deviation, and the others are 0.1% or less.  Who cares.  Besides, the census numbers are already outdated.  You can't make it perfect if you tried

The app has partisan data (2008 election) for Illinois now.

Edit: Well, maybe not, the data is totally screwed up (at least for 2010, I haven't checked the old stuff).

It's supposedly fixed; I haven't tried it yet.

Extreeeeeme Democratic gerrymandering!

State

()

Chicagoland

()

IL-01 (blue) - Blah blah black district #1. 79.8 Obama, 19.5 McCain, 50.6% black VAP.
IL-02 (green) - Blah blah black district #2. 79.2 Obama, 20.1 McCain, 51.0% black VAP.
IL-03 (purple) - Had to expand a bit, but pretty similar to the old district; 62.6 Obama, 36.1 McCain. 34.7% Hispanic VAP.
IL-04 (red) - Earmuffs again. 79.2 Obama, 19.5 McCain, 59.8% Hispanic VAP.
IL-05 (yellow) - Had to go north. 72.9 Obama, 25.7 McCain.
IL-06 (teal) - Dumps a bunch of DuPage, adds more of Cook and part of Kane. Was 56-43 Obama, now 61.4 Obama, 37.2 McCain. Should be a swing district at the very least.
IL-07 (grey) - Blah blah black district #3. 88.7 Obama, 10.7 McCain, 50.9% black VAP.
IL-08 (light purple) - Stretches across the border with Wisconsin, and is now safe Republican. 49.6 Obama, 48.8 McCain.
IL-09 (sky blue) - Expands north into Lake County to take in some Republican territory, but is still safe Dem. 65.9 Obama, 33.0 McCain.
IL-10 (magenta) - Maybe this can finally dislodge Republican hold of this seat. Was 61-38 Obama, now 63.6 Obama, 35.3 McCain.
IL-11 (red downstate) - The former IL-19, a very Republican district at 55.9 McCain, 42.3 Obama.
IL-12 (light purple downstate) - Shores up Costello a bit; was 54-44 Obama, now 57.5 Obama, 40.9 McCain.
IL-13 (pink Chicago suburbs) - Dumps all the most Republican parts of DuPage, Kane, and Will Counties into one district. I believe Roskam and Hultgren end up here along with Biggert. Was 54-45 Obama, now 49.4 Obama, 49.3 McCain.
IL-14 (brown) - Jolet-Bolingbrook-Aurora-DeKalb, if you want to get Canadian about it. Was 55-44 Obama, now 64.6 Obama, 34.1 McCain. Should be Dem-leaning at the very least.
IL-15 (orange) - An interesting way to build a new Dem-friendly district; this contains Peoria, Bloomington-Normal, Champaign-Urbana, Decatur, and Springfield, connected in kind of a triskelion shape. Kinzinger and Johnson are put together. 57.8 Obama, 40.4 McCain.
IL-16 (light green) - Manzullo's district is almost entirely new, but he'd be safe here. 51.4 McCain, 47.1 Obama.
IL-17 (pink western district) - Doubly hurt Schilling by a. making a more Democratic district and b. giving him almost entirely new territory. Takes in west Rockford, and parts of LaSalle. 59.4 Obama, 39.0 McCain.
IL-18 (yellow) - Schock safe. 55.5 McCain, 42.9 Obama.

So, best-case scenario? 13-5 Dem delegation.

Best case for Republicans?

10-8 Republican, but that's assuming they can hold all the seats that are made more Democratic (IL-06, 10, 14, 15, and 17).

Oh, sorry, I was asking if that previous figure was the best case for Republicans, because 13-5 seems kind of low for a Democrat-Tendril gerrymander

Any more spread out than 13-5 and you get into extreme dummymander territory. There's also not much more Dem unpacking that can be done; Quigley's district is about the only district you could draw Democratic voters out of, and it's pretty well protected from being diluted, since the Hispanic district is to the south and heavily-Dem territory is to the north.

And due to Obama's overperformance in Illinois, I wouldn't drop any district percentages in the currently-safe districts below 63-64% Obama.

A series of felony indictments are unleashed on Chicago Democratic members of the House creating a wave of public outcry that forces downstate and suburban Democrats to reject the current systematic overrepresentation of Chicago in the legislature.

Beyond that, the best case scenario is that the GOP wins the Presidency in 2012 and offers the defeated members executive jobs.

Here's my gerrymander, with (sort of) two Hispanic seats:

()
()
()

IL-01 (blue): 52.2% black, 51.1% black VAP, 78.9% Obama, really nothing to see.

IL-02 (dark green): 51.4% black, 50.1% black VAP, 78.2% Obama, nothing else to see beyond how amusing it'd be to have Jesse Jackson Jr. representing those exurbs (though he's not comparable to his father)

IL-03 (purple): 60.6% Obama. Now goes pretty far into DuPage easy to make this a suburban seat for Biggert and I don't care about Lipinski, but the Democrats won't sacrifice him, so I gave him a large chunk of black precincts and some liberal white neighborhoods to keep it Democratic enough. Actually this seat is likely to vote for a Democrat but primary Lipinski, his voters are carved up and I bet the new white Democrats are more likely to be hipster types and the Democrats in DuPage aren't likely to like Lipinski either.

IL-04 (red): The earmuffs are gone. 62.4% Hispanic, 56.9% Hispanic VAP, 76% Obama.

IL-05 (yellow): 64.3% Obama. This is the prime example of screwing over DuPage county. The seat is still Dem enough for Quigley to be fine as long as he doesn't act like Dan Rostenkowski.

IL-06 (teal): A completely new seat basically. Voted for McCain with 49.4% and is naturally pretty safe Republican, Manuzllo will probably want to run here even though he lives just outside of it (that green strip just north of it), it has most of his territory. Though it looks like it has a lot of territory from the old IL-14 that's just superficial as that long tail in the west isn't very populated and IL-14 is really just another suburban district.

IL-07 (gray): This seat still has a black plurality barely (41.4%), but a strong white VAP plurality (45.5%). Still I doubt Danny Davis would mind, he's not going anywhere and a black Democrat is still his most likely successor. At 86.7% Obama this is now the strongest Dem seat in the state, with that differentiation in VAP and those numbers the whites must really be hipsters. Is Chicago's Williamsburg here?

IL-08 (purplish blue): A bunch of Dem leaning suburbs, the black part of Rockford and Dem town of Freeport make this a 59% Obama seat and likely to elect another Democrat.

IL-09 (cyan): 69.1% Obama. Still safe for Schakowsky. I might've drawn her out of the district (I know she lives in Evanston), but she'd still have no problem running here.

IL-10 (magenta red): It's amazing how easy it is to screw over Dold without making it ugly. 62.6% Obama, mostly done by giving the northern half of Evanston to the seat (as noted above). Just find a different candidate this time please.

IL-11 (olive green): 58.2% Obama which is very good for a mostly downstate district. Once again though, please run a different candidate Democrats.

IL-12 (officially called "cornflower blue"): Didn't change it much, there's still some Dem precincts in the outer St. Louis metro (odd, why isn't this place like the Missouri side with those exurbs?) so those were added in to meet ideal population. 55.4% Obama, if Costello has had no problems so far he won't here.

IL-13 (pink): This district is most comparable to the old IL-06 even though it has Biggert's number, but she lives in IL-03. She'd probably run here anyway, but would likely lose the primary to the more conservative Roskam. It's still 56.3% Obama so Roskam isn't exactly a shoo-in but would likely end up if he lost being held by a faux-moderate Kirk-like Republican. Hultgren might live here too but I don't see how he could win the primary.

IL-14 (that red snake): I made this one reddish too because the brown didn't show up very well in the old map before I removed the voting district lines. This seat is 54.2% Hispanic but only 48.7% Hispanic VAP and 73.1% Obama. There's no requirement to draw a new Hispanic seat though and a Hispanic Democrat is the most likely holder, so I don't see it attracting much controversy. Hultgren obviously won't run here.

IL-15 (orange): Just a giant rural downstate seat now that I removed the cities. 56.8% McCain and his best district in the state, so safe for whoever wins the primary of Johnson and Shimkus (I think Johnson lives in the Champaign area which is now removed, but he won't be running the new IL-11).

IL-16 (light green): Much like the current IL-14, this district is misleading geographically, it's really another suburban district and at only 50.2% Obama the most conservative one. It also includes the surprisingly conservative eastern half of Rockford and some boring rural areas. This is the seat all the suburban Republicans will want to run in, Walsh is probably the most likely winner and he even lives here. Hultgren would also probably run here, I think he'd lose the primary based on geography to Walsh but since both are the epitome of "boring white guy (R)" I don't really care too much.

IL-17 (dark purple): Even more erose! This seat now contains the entirety of only one county (Rock Island). 59.4% Obama, the teabagger nut who slipped in last year isn't winning here, once again though I hope the Democrats find a better candidate than the charisma-less BushOklahoma lookalike.

IL-18 (yellow): Another standard rural seat and 53.9% McCain. I think Schock lives in Peoria proper, which the district no longer contains any part of, but this would be the most logical seat for him to run in and I don't see him having any problems winning.

Now thats the stuff!


We shall see if the ILL Dems have the balls do the same.

Ha, I noticed how on the racial map the University of Chicago is a red enclave surrounded by solid blue. Still >90% Obama precincts though, but I never knew that it was deep in the heart of the black neighborhoods of Chicago.

Danny Davis will mind.
It is just about conceivable the Chicago black establishment doesn't mind losing him, though. Or wouldn't if the other two districts are kept a little blacker in return.

I don't see how he could get primaried, and he's talking about running for the Cook County Commission anyway.

Yeah, I think Missouri has shown us that CBC members are going to pitch a fit if they don't get what they want, and order their followers in the legislature to give them districts at the expense of other members of Congress.

It's no doubt possible to avoid diluting Davis' seat too much, but if you do this you have two options:

1-Push Lipinski's seat deeper into Chicago to the white areas downtown. This will keep the seat Democratic, but give Lipinski the type of voters he wants least of all, liberal hipster-type whites.
2-Push Lipinksi's seat into the suburbs, and make it a more heavily DuPage seat, meaning he gets both lots of ultra-partisan Republicans who won't vote for any Democrat who isn't Obama and white latte liberals who won't support him in a primary.

So you can't really avoid diluting Davis without throwing Lipinski under the bus. Do I care if he gets primaried? No. The Democrats in the legislature probably don't either as long as the seat continues to elect a Democrat. But Lipinski no doubt has supporters and connections and his type of Democrats are represented well in the legislature. Try to specifically draw a seat that is reliably Democratic but will be prone to someone with Lipinski's right wing views does seem pretty silly though.

Chicago's African-American population went down, it's unavoidable for Davis' seat not to lose some of the percentage.

And now, for an alternate universe where Bill Brady swept a Republican majority into the legislature, here's a Republican gerrymander:

()
()

IL-01 (blue) - 87.6 Obama, 11.8 McCain, 52.5% black VAP.
IL-02 (green) - 82.8 Obama, 16.5 McCain, 51.5% black VAP.
IL-03 (purple) - 51.6 Obama, 47.0 McCain.
IL-04 (red Cook) - 79.6 Obama, 19.2 McCain, 65.7% Hispanic VAP.
IL-05 (yellow Cook) - 79.1 Obama, 19.5 McCain.
IL-06 (teal) - 55.8 Obama, 42.9 McCain.
IL-07 (grey) - 89.4 Obama, 9.9 McCain, 51.2% black VAP.
IL-08 (light purple NE) - 55.5 Obama, 43.1 McCain.
IL-09 (sky blue) - 68.5 Obama, 30.3 McCain.
IL-10 (magenta) - 56.2 Obama, 42.8 McCain.
IL-11 (red central) - 52.6 Obama, 46.0 McCain.
IL-12 (light purple downstate) - 50.4 Obama, 48.1 McCain.
IL-13 (pink) - 53.5 Obama, 45.2 McCain.
IL-14 (brown) - 54.2 Obama, 44.4 McCain.
IL-15 (orange) - 49.3 McCain, 48.8 Obama.
IL-16 (green NW) - 53.4 Obama, 44.9 McCain.
IL-17 (purple W) - 52.4 Obama, 46.1 McCain.
IL-18 (yellow central) - 51.3 Obama, 46.9 McCain.

I put Dan Lipinski and Judy Biggert in the same district as well as Jerry Costello and John Shimkus. Assuming Shimkus can beat Costello (and I removed as much of the existing 12th as possible), the Republicans would have a 12-6 advantage on this map.

No actual map, but a synopsis of some of what is being planned. 9-8-1.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/section/blogs?blogID=greg-hinz&plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&uid=1daca073-2eab-468e-9f19-ec177090a35c&plckPostId=Blog%3a1daca073-2eab-468e-9f19-ec177090a35cPost%3a11773231-f2d5-4d73-98c4-43b1da969c85&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Rather meek proposal, all things considered.

I guess they weren't willing to draw multiple quad cities districts as has been pictured.


In any case, it looks like:

Dold is chopped and effectively thrown in with Walsh.

Biggert and Kinzinger are thrown into 1 distict, and a new Dem district created.

Schilling remains about as is.


I guess we won't see anything like Kankakee being fed to Jesse Jackson.

9-8-1

() (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/88/981cook.png/)


() (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/34/981whole.png/)


OK, so lets see. I didn't want to spend all day on this because the information might be entirely wrong, but:


CD-01 (blue): Bobby Rush, 52% black, 81% Obama. Just shoved this outward in Cook County.

CD-02: (forest green): Jesse Jackson, 51% black, 79% Obama. Shoved it south into Will County.

CD-03 (purple): Dan Lipinski, 63% Obama. Added areas in Will County as described.

CD-04 (red): Luis Guitierrez, 63% Hispanic, 82% Obama. Added areas by the airport as described.

CD-05 (yellow): Mike Quigley, 69% Obama. Added areas from current IL-10 and IL-09 to the North.

CD-06 (slate green): Peter Roskan, Judy Biggert, 54% Obama. Dupage County vote dump. Safe R.

CD-07 (grey): Danny Davis, 47% black (51% total population, per the article). Adds some Northern Chicago whites, and blacks from the southside districts.

CD-09: (cyan): Jan Schakowsky, 72% Obama. Expands north into Republican Cook County suburbs.


CD-08 (lavendar): vacant, 59% Obama. Basically all of Lake County. I don't think Dold or Walsh lives here, but 1 of them takes it. Historically Republican, but I guess I'll call this a swing.


CD-10: (pink): John Shimkus, 55% McCain). Old IL-19 Not much to say.

CD-11: (light green): vacant, 51% Obama. Kind of a merger of the rural areas of Hultgren and Kinzinger's districts. Safe R.

CD-12: (sky blue): Jerry Costello, 56% Obama. Adds the rest of Madison County. Safe for him.

CD-13: (peach): vacant, 59% Obama. New district created from Joliet and Aurora, west of current CD-04 as described. Probably safe D.

CD-14: (brownish gold): vacant, 57% Obama. New district created out of random bits of existing Republican districts. I'll call this a swing, too.

CD-15: (orange): Tim Johnson, Adam Kinzinger, 51% Obama. Adda Kankakee County (Kinzinger's home). Safe R.

CD-16: (lime green): Don Manzullo, Joe Walsh, 53% Obama. Runs along the northern IL border. Safe R.

CD-17: (navy): Bobby Schilling, Aaron Schock, 57% Obama. Schock would just run in CD-18. I made it a bit cleaner and added Peoria. The article describes this as swing.

CD-18: (yellow): Aaron Schock, 52% McCain. Adds random rural areas in central IL.



So I guess it depends on how you count districts as swing or safe.

I'd say there's 6 certain safe R districts: 6, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18.

The Democrats probably take 1-5, 7, 9, 12, 13.

The remainder are 14, 17, 8. 8 and 14 are the districts in the Northern suburbs where Obama outperformed historical Democrats, and 17 is the Quad Cities Oddball.

9-6-3 D-R-Swing seems somewhat reasonable I guess, or if you count the above 2 as R, it becomes 9-8-1.

so does this map get rid of Peter Roscum?

Nope, it gets rid of Biggert, possibly Schilling, and 1 of Manzullo/Walsh/Dold, who were combined from 3 to 2.

I have no idea whether the information provided is accurate but I followed it as best as I was able.

Realistically you can't get rid of Roskam anyway; he's probably the strongest suburban Republican around in a primary.

Mathematically, all that we can say is that one of the three Black Representatives was bound to have fewer Blacks in his district.

  Illinois map is supposed to come out this morning.  3 AA districts were retained with Davis being at 51% and the others in the low 50's as well.  1 Hispanic district was maintaines, so we have another 10 years with the earmuffs.

  Supposedly a new Democratic friendly district wass created on the Elgin-Joliet axis weat of Chicago dumping Hultgren and Roskam into the same district.  That will be interesting to see.

Ill Ind

Here's another 'reasonable' 11-7 Illinois map along the lines of what was described. Gives them the Dold, Schilling, Biggert districts, and dissolves Hultgren. Costello won't be around forever...


() (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/638/chicagoland.png/)

() (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/215/wholestate.png/)

According to Cook Political Report

http://www.cookpolitical.com/

  A draft State Senate map (that tosses the GOP minority leader into the same district as another freshman GOp member) was released today.  We are still waiting on the State Assembly (2 districts nested in each State Senate District) and the Congressional map.

Ill Ind

:D

I'm not sure that smilie is appropriate. :P

Why not?  Is there a significant difference between :) and :D or do you mean that I shouldn't be happy that the Democrats are actually poised to have a redistricting success?

Yah, a partisan map passed with minimal debate and no public input is not anything to be proud of.

Do either of those actually influence the creation of new maps (outside of a commission or other nonpartisan system)? All of the public hearings here in Virginia didn't do squat.

If they don't (at all), I wouldn't count them as "real" debate/public input.

I'm not proud of it in the way you mean, I dislike gerrymandering by either party.  However, until all states adopt a truly independent redistricting process it seems unreasonable to expect one party not to try to use control of the trifecta to its advantage.  I wasn't proud of it, but I am happy that the Democrats didn't role over and play dead like they did in Arkansas, Missouri, and (with the state legislative maps) Virginia.

Yah, obviously I'm not saying they mustn't. Just that it's nothing to write home to mom about.

Fair enough

And we have a map

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=http:%2F%2Fcapitolfax.com%2Fsb1178-congressional.kmz&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=56.637293,69.169922&ie=UTF8&z=7

1. Bloomington/Decatur/Springfield/Champaign  quad cities district created.

2. Peoria and Rockford added to the Schilling district.

3. CD-12 is left as barely Dem.

4. Joliet/Aurora/Bollingbrook district created. Probably upper 50s Obama.

5. Elgin/Elk Grove/Schaumberg district created. Probably also upper 50s Obama.

6. Dold is about the same.

Krazen, the "quad cities" term applies to Davenport/Moline/Rock Island/Bettendorf on the IL/IA border, not Springfield etc.  Schilling's district is the quad cities district, in other words. 

Lipinski's and Costello's districts look pretty narrowly D to me, just eyeballing it, though they'll probably be safe with the current incumbents.  The green district is also not particularly Dem. 

So 8 Dem incumbents, plus Schilling's district (I assume) and the Joliet/Aurora district for 10.  5 solid GOP (from S to N, blue (Shimkus) brown (Schock) orange (Manzullo) purple (Hultgren/Walsh) red (Roskam)).  3 swingy: green downstate cities district (though I'm guessing Johnson can hold this for the GOP), the green suburban district, and Dold's district...?  Biggert is put into Quigley's district and Kinzinger is swamped by Jackson. 

Not sure why they didn't work DeKalb into a Dem district. Same with Danville, although that one makes a little more sense.

Quigley's district is not nearly as marginal as it looks, at least D+8 or so. Remember it has a bunch of heavily Hispanic areas around Midway, and even Lockport is only around 51% McCain.

Also, the green suburban district is a very impressive gerrymander, around 61% Obama on my calculations using DRA. It will elect a Democrat. There are a couple of places where it's less efficient than it could be; I could squeeze another Obama point or two out without disturbing other Democratic seats. But they did a very impressive job nonetheless.

Hmm, thanks. I didn't think there was any specific historical significance to the term; and that it was only called the quad cities district because, well, it has 4 cities in it.

I believe its only 55% Obama, though. Probably enough to make Johnson sweat a bit but that's it. The Costello district is the same.

Drawing it in DRA now, as best I can...

IL-10 goes from 61% Obama to ~63% Obama.
IL-12 goes up a point from 54% to 55% Obama.
IL-15 goes from 50% McCain to 54% Obama.
IL-16 goes from 53% Obama to about 50% Obama.
IL-17 goes from 56% Obama to about 59-60% Obama - Schock and Schilling are both in this district.
IL-18 goes from 50% McCain to 54% McCain.
IL-19 renumbered to IL-13 is 56% McCain, up from 54% McCain. - Shimkus and Johnson are both in this district.

Not sure where Kinzinger lives; somewhere in McLean County, I presume, but it's split between IL-13 and IL-18.

I'm going crosseyed, I'll try to do the rest later.

Looks like our idiot Costello will be fine.

Lipinski's district is a little weird; he's down to about D+5, but it definitely could be more; they seem to have marooned some overwhelmingly Hispanic precincts in IL-01 for no discernable reason, precincts that could be used to shore up Lipinski instead (while putting suburban areas in IL-01; we're talking precincts that are 90% Hispanic and 2% black, so it's not like the suburbs are any less black than they are).

How much Obama home-state discount are you applying when you say D+5? 

I'm saying it was 58-40 Obama. (That said, Obama didn't overperform in Lipinski's district the way he did elsewhere in Illinois, which is not a huge surprise given how racist the Polish vote often is.)

Obama did 5 points better than Kerry in Lipinski's old seat, so assuming the same here, it's still a 53% Kerry seat, which is more Democratic than all but one or two Republican-held seats. And Lipinski is way more popular than the national Democrats there.

Kinzinger lives in IL-02, LOL. He could move and run in IL-16 but he's going to have primary opposition.

Give Lipinski too Dem of a seat and he likely gets primaried, so I guess his people in the legislature are looking out for him.

Pretty well drawn. They probably placed the 1 guy who can win that seat (Roskam) outside it as he would take the inner vote sink. Walsh I think by residence would go for the outer vote sink.

Biggert would it looks like have to kamikaze Lipinski or retire. Kinzinger after his 2010 performance might try for the Joliet-Aurora district, and Hultgren has to figure out what he wants to do.

I like how IL-17 in a gerrymander became far less erose and all. LOL.

IL-17 is actually a seat that probably could've been left alone, Hare was a weak incumbent, and Schilling is a good pick for the Republican Alan Grayson, someone who got elected in a seat they don't fit ideologically at all by fluke and would go down hard the next election. I don't see Schilling running ahead of Obama's opponent even in Illinois unless the Republican candidate is a crazy in which case he's doomed anyway. But it can't hurt to take the Dem voters in Peoria to prevent another Hare-esque defeat.

The obvious answer is to protect him from a primary challenge from a liberal and/or Hispanic Democrat.

Aurora-Bolingbrook-Joliet is also 61% Obama.

Also, Johnny, yes, but Lipinski's old seat was D+11 (64% Obama), so I don't see why he would be vulnerable to a primary challenge now but neither he nor his father before. Whatever, probably good for the Dems that he can soak up marginal areas.

Part of the reason is that the Chicago seats have to expand, of course.

Here are PDFs of the districts so you can see the township lines. (http://www.ilsenateredistricting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=103:how-to-access-the-adjusted-proposal&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=50)

Okay, here are a few more:

IL-03 goes from 64% Obama to about 59-60% Obama.
IL-06 goes from 56% Obama to about 51-52% Obama.
IL-08 goes from 56% Obama to 61% Obama.
IL-11 goes from 53% Obama to 61% Obama.
IL-14 goes from 55% Obama to about 50-51% Obama.

John Atkinson, the guy challenging Lipinski in the primary who already has $500k in the bank, got put into IL-11.

I think you made a mistake, I have IL-15 as 56% McCain and IL-13 as 54% Obama

Yes, they're backwards.

Here's a complete 2008 breakdown from someone on DKE:

1 - 80.7/18.6 Obama/McCain
2 - 81.0/18.3
3 - 58.4/40.3
4 - 80.4/18.3
5 - 69.9/28.7
6 - 51.3/47.4
7 - 89.4/10.0
8 - 61.3/37.3
9 - 68.5/30.3
10 - 63.0/36.0
11 - 61.2/37.6
12 - 54.7/43.6
13 - 54.2/43.9
14 - 50.7/48.0
15 - 42.8/55.5
16 - 50.1/48.1
17 - 59.7/38.8
18 - 44.5/54.0

So, 12-5-1 (or 11-5-2 if you don't count Costello making his district safe). Pretty good job by the Illinois Democrats, in the end.

Overlap map:

http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=d35d2ae99e8c4e8face75308512c37f9

The average GOP Congressional incumbent outperformed McCain by about 10 points in 2008, and none of their incumbents lost. For Roskam and Kirk that was closer to 14; hence the latter easily winning a 61% Obama district.



The GOP is going to have to get the right guys in the right seats to hold 8 and 11. 10 is pretty obvious: Dold sinks or swims. Kirk of course had an easy time after winning that seat 51/49.

I doubt the 8th or 11th can be held by the Republicans. Roskam and Hultgren will go for the safe districts (6th and 14th, respectively), leaving, what, Joe Walsh (put into the 14th) for the 8th and Adam Kinzinger (who is either in the 2nd, 13th, or 18th, depending on who you believe) for the 11th? Judy Biggert's put into the 5th, so she'll probably just retire. Bob Dold is also probably screwed, since he barely won in a great Republican year against a terrible Democratic candidate. Making his district any more Democratic is probably going to push him over the edge.

Dold is an incumbent now, and most of his territory (although not his house) remains in the 10th. It looks to me though like they added some ultra-leftist latte liberal areas from Jan that will probably never vote GOP, unlike the ticket splitters slightly to the east.

Biggert is an incumbent in about half of that IL-11, and Kinzinger represents Joliet, so I guess it really depends on whether Biggert just calls it quits. This Atkinson guy looks like a top tier challenger, though. Kinzinger's 57% in 2010 is a bit deceptive, but he outperformed the other GOP freshmen.

Roskam is an incumbent in most of that IL-08, but he's not taking it unfortunately, which makes it tricky for them. Probably the most likely to go of the 3. Really depends on whether the Democrats here will vote for a non Christian I suppose.


In all likelihood its a clean sweep, but stranger things have happened. Democrats have kept nominating Dan Seals in IL-10 and nutters from Lower Merion in PA-06 who kept losing.

Assuming that the two-point swing from 61% to 63% Obama were repeated congressionally in Dold's seat, he would have lost this new seat in 2010 49-51 (instead of winning 51-49), let alone in 2012 with Obama at the top of the ticket.

So, it all revolves down to the question of whether, or not, being the incumbent is worth 1.00001% of the vote.

These are merely educated guesses presented as fact.

I agree with Johnny.

Nate Silver estimates that incumbency is worth about 5% if I recall. The issue is that CD-8 (on appearance, the weakest district of the 3) doesn't have a long term incumbent.

A 2 point swing wouldn't have beaten Kirk, and a 5 point swing wouldn't have beaten Roskam. 5 points would have beaten Biggert, however, but only by a very tiny margin.

You can't really calculate an incumbent bounce in areas that weren't in the seat before.

I'm surprised they didn't give Dold a few precincts from Evanston.

I, too, tend to agreee with Johnny. As I said, I consider them educated guessess. But, there are exactly that, educated guesses.

True enough, 5% times what percentage of his old district does he still have?

Unless his district is 80% new to him, that is still the necessary incumbent advantage he needs.

What are the Bush 2004 numbers in the respective districts?

I don't think anyone's figured that out yet, since it requires a lot of number-crunching, rather than just drawing the map in DRA.

I'm sure the residents of fast-growing exurban areas like New Lenox are going to love being represented by racist nutter Bobby Rush in IL-01.   They have little in common with the inner city Chicago ghetto that makes up about 55% of the district.  The city portion of IL-01 is 86% black.  The suburban and exurban parts of that district are 71% white.   The Will County exurban portion is only 2% black.  The district is about 53% black.

Given rates of exurban growth and black flight from Chicago, it might be possible that the district becomes majority suburban by the end of the decade.  That hasn't hurt Jesse Jackson Junior from getting reelected in IL-02, though - but the suburban areas in his district are more black than those in IL-01.

I ask because it's probably the more relevant figure.  Someone will figure it out, eventually.

Fantastic!

The district may become majority suburban, but the Democratic primary vote in the district would not. Similarly, the district could be 40% black and still have a majority of Democratic primary voters be black.

Do you think those 60% Obama districts will become Bush districts? I don't think that would happen even in suburban Chicago.

If they don't like it they can vote against him. We'll see how far that goes.

I doubt it.  I just would like the numbers because, as I said, they are probably more relevant.

It's not exact, but for the suburban districts, I subtract 6-7% from Obama's total and that probably brings it down to where the numbers were in 2004. Of course, not all swing is uniform, but it can give you a slight idea.

It would line up right. Lake County swung 11%, McHenry about 13%, and Dupage 10%.

Def the most disgraceful map yet.  Not a surprise

LOL seriously? And what Republicans do is perfectly fine, huh? Seriously this is like one Dem gerrymander that will happen this time around. The rest of the map's around the country are going to be Dem packs.

It's within the realm of possibility. Certainly would be interesting to look at the Bush numbers.

The current Dold seat is 60% Obama and it was like 52% Kerry.

People, don't take the bait this time--keep it to discussing Illinois. Thx

Atkinson lives in Burr Ridge, which is right on the edge of the new IL-11. He now has to choose between running against Bill Foster (who just announced) or Dan Lipinski. Don Manzullo's going to have a bit of a headache on his hands, with Kinzinger and possibly Walsh running in IL-16.

That's not as easy to calculate as you think.  Illinois' cities and counties are responsible for running elections and reporting results, and their 2004 election reporting is far from uniform.  Some very important, highly Gerrymandered counties - Will (6 CDs) and Madison (3 CDs) - don't make township-level results available on their websites, let alone the precinct-level results that would be necessary to get accurate 2004 numbers given the very high level of Gerrymandering.  Even the Atlas doesn't have that data.  Short of calling up or visiting the relevant county officials to get the precinct canvass books (assuming they exist), it is not possible to get anything but an estimate.

And that's before having to track down any change in precinct boundaries from 2004 to 2010.

What I support is common sense redistricting that respects communities and are derived from natural boundaries.

The problem YOU LIBERALS have is that if that were to happen across the board, you all would be relegated to a minority of 70-90% Democrat seats, while we would have a majority with seats that were 50-70% Republican.  Sorry guys-- not our fault democrats are crowded into a small number of districts.

The Missouri map could have been a little tidier but the outcome would have been the same.
Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma look good.  I hate Louisiana but we were forced to gerrymander it by an archaic racism statute

...insofar that Carnahan would have been out of a job, or at least have to move. Of course, in any remotely cleanish map so would have been Hartzler (losing a primary to Luetkemeyer, with a new Republican from North Missouri) and  Akin (losing the general election to a Democrat, possibly Carnahan), but that's a minor trifle, right? :P

Like the proposed Michigan map? ::)

Yep. Didn't the Democrats take Will County and split it 6 ways?

Under common sense districting Detroit, minus the Hispanic part, would have been shoved into its own district. The law creates a pair of artificially ugly districts rather than 2 that maintain communities of interest.

A good, safe Dem gerrymander. This map should create some very interesting races, both in the primary and the general. The Dold race will be especially interesting to watch if he indeed runs for re-election.

Imagine if Bill Brady were governor, Dems could have been stuck with an incumbent protection map

Last I checked, Illinois' primaries are quasi-open.  Anyone can vote in them, but which primary you vote in goes on the record.  

If enough suburbanites understand that the only way to get rid of racist nutter Bobby Rush is in a Democratic primary, those who otherwise think of themselves as Republican or independent could theoretically vote against him in a Democratic primary if/when the IL-01 balance tips to the suburbs.  Likely?  Probably not - but one can dream of a former Black Panther getting kicked to the curb due to too-cute-by-half racial Gerrymandering gone wrong, can't they?

Cinyc -- wouldn't they have to forgo the rest of the Republican primary ballot though? I have a feeling far more voters would be interested in, say, the Republican presidential race primary (2012) or the Republican governor primary (2014) , than voting Democratic in some scheme :)

Rush is a fossil of the 60's. But as far as I know he has the good sense to keep a low profile, unlike some other nutters (Steve King, Bachmann, Foxx).

  Well, since the GOP will have a presidential primary, and the Dems will not--and also because there are no statewide offices on the ballot in 2012, I don't see a whole lot of GOP primary voters crossing over and voting against Rush in the Dem primary.  If anything, Dems will cross over and vote in the GOP primary.
  I agree--even as an Illinoisan--with liberal tendancies--that Rush can be a total embarrassment.  However the way the district is drawn, there is more than enough of Chicago in there that I'd be suprised if he falls below 70% in a general election.

Ill_Ind

I'm sure I dig hard enough I can find posts by Cinyc expressing outrage at the perhaps millions of African American Democrats in the South stranded in 60-65% McCain districts represented by Republicans who don't give a damn if their record and words alienate every single one of them.

Unless he thinks the white voters of Crete, Illinois are more important and worthy of concern, but that can't be true.

I wasn't talking about a general election or even 2012.  I think the first necessary condition for Rush to fall in a Democratic primary would be the suburban and exurban part of IL-01 becoming more populous than the Chicago part - and that's not going to happen until 2014 at the earliest, and, more likely, 2016, as the population of New Lenox and environs explodes while Chicago's black flight continues.  It is certainly possible that there will be no major Republican primary in 2014 or, even more likely, 2016 if a Republican wins the White House in 2012 - assuming Illinois Republicans can get their act together, back one gubernatorial candidate and/or not primary Kirk.


You are confusing asking a question with outrage or concern.  There is nothing inherently outrageous about the Illinois map or packing IL-01 with white suburbanites who supposedly will never be able to elect their preferred candidate in a primary, let alone the general election.  It is what it is.  The legitimate question is whether mappers have cut things too close by packing the district with exurbanites instead of Chicagoans, who would be more likely to vote for a Chicago machine candidate like Rush.   The dictates of the Voting Rights Act notwithstanding, geography does matter.

  Ill district 1 total population 712,813

Portion that was in the old (2000 iteration) 1st district  534,910

Portion that came from Former CD 11--(New Lenox and Frankfort--Will County--95,983

It's going to be alot later than 2014 or 2016 before the exurbs are going to swamp out the Chicago portion of Rush's district.  Believe me,neither  Bobby Rush nor any of the other African American congressmen would have signed off on that map if their future elections weren't guaranteed.

Ill_Ind

If we can get back to actual redistricting commentary, the state House has reportedly passed the map with a slight alteration to the 13th district (the Springfield-Champaign-Urbana district).

Does it impact any other district? Otherwise it must have been VERY slight.

The only changes were to fiddle with the borders around Champaign-Urbana and Collinsville to put Shimkus into the vote sink 15th and Johnson into the swing district 13th, and it also adjusts the finger into Springfield; it juts in from the south rather than hooking around from the north.

Here are the new maps. (http://www.ilsenateredistricting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=109:how-to-access-the-adjusted-proposal&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=50)

I said suburbs AND exurbs, not just exurbs.  Only 55% of the proposed IL-01 is inside the city limits of Chicago.  The rest is in suburban Cook County (31%) or exurban Will County (14%).   

Inner-city Chicago is losing population due to black flight.  The portion of Will County near New Lenox will likely be one of the fastest growing areas of Will County if not the state once the economy picks up, thanks in part to the fairly recent completion of the I-355 South Extension and the fact that that's where the open land is.  Given that, simple math should tell you that the Chicago part of the district will likely be less than a majority of it by the end of the decade.  Maybe by 2014, perhaps by 2016, but I'd be willing to bet for sure by the 2020 census.  Whether that matters politically is a different issue - Rush is a Democrat and IL-01 will still be heavily Democratic by the end of the decade.  But the Chicagoland demographic shifts are pretty clear.

This chart, courtesy of Daily Kos Elections, is pretty nifty:

()

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/29/980375/-Illinois-Redistricting:-Redistmas-better-than-expected?via=blog_542760

Ok. I'm sorry for applying the wrong motivation here.

DKE crunched the new district numbers for 2010 (including the Treasurer race, for some reason):

IL-01 - 71.4 Quinn, 22.0 Brady; 72.8 Alexi, 23.5 Kirk
IL-02 - 71.5 Quinn, 21.4 Brady; 73.7 Alexi, 22.6 Kirk
IL-03 - 47.5 Quinn, 44.1 Brady; 48.4 Kirk, 46.0 Alexi
IL-04 - 67.4 Quinn, 23.1 Brady; 69.1 Alexi, 24.8 Kirk
IL-05 - 55.5 Quinn, 36.4 Brady; 54.9 Alexi, 40.2 Kirk
IL-06 - 58.3 Brady, 34.9 Quinn; 61.7 Kirk, 33.3 Alexi
IL-07 - 79.4 Quinn, 14.9 Brady; 80.6 Alexi, 16.4 Kirk
IL-08 - 48.1 Brady, 43.6 Quinn; 51.1 Kirk, 43.1 Alexi
IL-09 - 56.2 Quinn, 37.4 Brady; 53.5 Alexi, 42.7 Kirk
IL-10 - 46.8 Quinn, 46.1 Brady; 53.7 Kirk, 42.2 Alexi
IL-11 - 46.8 Brady, 45.1 Quinn; 49.0 Kirk, 45.3 Alexi
IL-12 - 49.7 Brady, 43.9 Quinn; 51.1 Kirk, 42.8 Alexi
IL-13 - 55.8 Brady, 37.2 Quinn; 55.0 Kirk, 38.0 Alexi
IL-14 - 57.9 Brady, 33.6 Quinn; 60.5 Kirk, 32.7 Alexi
IL-15 - 67.4 Brady, 26.6 Quinn; 67.1 Kirk, 26.4 Alexi
IL-16 - 59.0 Brady, 32.3 Quinn; 60.1 Kirk, 31.9 Alexi
IL-17 - 53.7 Brady, 38.9 Quinn; 54.1 Kirk, 38.6 Alexi
IL-18 - 66.6 Brady, 26.6 Quinn; 66.6 Kirk, 26.6 Alexi

The map has passed the Senate, so it's on its way to Quinn's desk.

Kerry Bush numbers.

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_131/-206079-1.html

Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who was elected by a slim 2-point margin in November, received 51 percent, 54 percent and 49 percent in the 8th, 10th and 11th districts, respectively, according to the data.

In 2004, then-President George W. Bush received 49 percent of the vote in the 8th, 46 percent in the 10th district and 49 percent in the 11th district.



As I suspected, no reason at all for 8 and 11 to be automatically gone.

They're not super-safe districts, but after their best year in a generation, Republicans only hold 12 districts that went 49% or less for Bush. Add to that the fact that several of the districts are probably not going to have an incumbent running in them and Obama will be winning them with double-digit margins, and you've got a problem.

I spent a good part of the holiday weekend trying to crunch the Kerry-Bush numbers myself, and then ran into the substantial roadblock of (among others) Cook County and Chicago consolidating precincts since 2004, making direct comparisons impossible without finding the 2004 maps (which aren't on the Internet) or devising another workaround.  But 54-46% for Kerry-Bush IL-10 sounds about right.  I had Kerry with 53.9% of the vote, with definite errors.  

FWIW, I also have the Lake and Cook portions of IL-06 at 39.5% Kerry - but I stopped crunching the numbers after running into the geographical border conundrum.

Here's what I have for '04 (Kerry/Bush), '08 (Obama/McCain), and PVI for each district.

CD 1: 76/22, 80/18, D+28
CD 2: 74/24, 81/18, D+27
CD 3: 53/45, 57/40, D+5
CD 4: 71/26, 79/18, D+26
CD 5: 63/35, 69/29, D+16
CD 6: 41/58, 51/47, R+5
CD 7: 83/14, 89/9, D+37
CD 8: 50/48, 61/37, D+5
CD 9: 63/35, 68/30, D+15
CD 10: 53/45, 63/35, D+8
CD 11: 50/48, 61/37, D+5
CD 12: 50/48, 55/43, D+2
CD 13: 47/50, 54/43, D+1
CD 14: 38/60, 50/48, R+6
CD 15: 36/61, 42/55, R+11
CD 16: 43/56, 50/48, R+4
CD 17: 53/45, 60/38, D+6
CD 18: 37/61, 44/54, R+10

Thanks! 

So IL-10 goes from D+6 to D+8, while IL-03 goes from D+11 to only D+5. Do the mappers hate Lipinski or did they (more likely) run out of Democratic-leaning areas to give him?

As was said previously, the move makes the seat safer for Lipinski in a primary, not for Democrats in a general.

And he's more worried about the primary with a well-funded opponent already announcing his  intentions and his weird healthcare switcheroo vote to the negative.  

It's a machine Democratic area (kinda blue collar, so Lipinski plays well in the general), so I'm not sure how the primary would even manifest itself  if one were to still emerge.

Ah, what could have been. This would be glorious; rest of the state is 53/45. I cut the Davis district and created a new 42% Hispanic district; Jackson and Rush are bumped up to 65% or so.

() (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/33/5pack.png/)

Greg Giroux reports that Quinn has signed the Congressional map into law.

Now that it is law the GOP delegation officially announced that a lawsuit will be forthcoming. I expect that it will be about Latino representation.

I suppose it will be about the lack of Latino representation.

Yep. By contrast, Texas is increasing Latino representation.

http://www.kutnews.org/post/castro-take-doggett-new-congressional-seat

Castro To Take On Doggett for New Congressional Seat

It's not possible to make another 50%+ VAP Hispanic district in Illinois, one with just a plurality would never be ordered by any court, it's already clear about how the court views those districts. Illinois is not Texas, you aren't going to get a plan that gets rid of every white legislator that isn't a Republican.

Since a second Hispanic majority seat has been drawn, and posted here, it is "possible."

I have yet to see a second Hispanic district here that is or goes over 50% VAP, which is pretty much required, as is shown by court cases that have struck down plurality districts.

Here is a map posted here with a second 50.1 VAP Hispanic district.

Here is a second two majority-Hispanic-VAP-district-map that was posted here.

Well, those are an inelegant solution to get you to barely scrape by above 50.0%, which historically hasn't been sufficient for Latino districts.

I understand your partisan motivations here, but that is an ugly and ineffective answer to hold up as ideal.

1) My response wasn't about "ideals," it was in response to a specific claim that drawing two Hispanic districts wasn't possible. Clearly, the answer to that claim is, simply, "Yes, it is possible."


2) It is facetious to note that creating a district for VRA result is "ugly" to when in Illinois the districts are extremely "ugly" in order to achieve a Democratic partisan result. Nor, can the "earmuff" district be considered any prettier than the two districts in the maps above.

potkettle?

No, actually, you're right about the threshold for what is a Hispanic-opportunity seat being quite understandably higher than for a Black-opportunity seat and Krazen's thus being an apples & oranges comparison. Though again, that threshold may be lower in Illinois than it must be in Texas.

Though, I'll also say this: Should a legal challenge result in a second Hispanic-opportunity district being drawn, and Lipinski being drawn out as a result (it seems dubious you can make anybody else the victim. Though the new and long overdue Dem-leaning seat based on Aurora/Joliet/Napierville is liable to become a little more marginal as a result of its boundaries being ungerrymandered), PARTYTIME! Two flies with one swatter! (A fairer map and an obnoxious idiot gone. Three flies if you count the extra Hispanic seat itself.)

He said he hadn't seen them, he never said they weren't possible. If you want to be that literal.

His exact words were,

"It's not possible to make another 50%+ VAP Hispanic district in Illinois..."

So, being "literal" I was exactly right, and he, and you, were exactly wrong.

'kay, so I was reading the post below that. Not that it matters anyhow - it's not possible to draw one that would elect a Hispanic and represent a community of interest, and thus not possible to draw one that can be used to argue your case in court. That random connector strip through whiteyland isn't going to be ordered by any court (whether a court could be found to strike it down, had the Democrats drawn it themselves, is quite another matter. Probably not, though it's happened.) Come back when you have a map that does without Elgin. (Not saying it's literally impossible, as I haven't tried.)

I have no interest in debating what constitutes a "fair" or "gerrymandered" map, but as someone who grew up near Aurora and who went to high school in Aurora I did want to chime in to say that an Aurora/Naperville/Joliet district is NOT by any means "long-overdue".  Draw it if you want, but Aurora has little in common with Naperville, other than the fact that they're large and happen to have grown so that they're next to each other.  Aurora is an old city and has been large, with a sizable poor Hispanic (and some black) population, for decades.  (Think of Lowell in relation to Boston, if you will.)  Naperville, on the other hand, is your classic suburban boom town of the 80's and 90's (fueled by easy access to I-88), with new subdivisions and tons of upper-middle class whites and Asians.  In 1960 it was probably was only at a population of ~30K.  

Aurora is probably most naturally paired with Elgin, to be honest.  Both cities have a similar history of being sizable, semi-industrial Fox Valley cities in Kane County that long ago got a large influx of blacks and Hispanics.  The tri-cities of St. Charles, Geneva, and Batavia have long been linked with Aurora as well (although they're now very different demographically).  

'kay, the area just always struck me as belonging together when compared both to the (whiter and mostly more affluent) inner suburbs between them and Chicago, and the areas beyond. And I always hated the suburbs-to-rural strips of the previous map's incumbentmander. But I'm no expert on the area. :)

(re dpmapper)

()

Just for fun, this is roughly how I would divide Chicagoland if I were drawing pure Community of Interest districts.  

City districts:
Cyan, south Cook suburbs + far south Chicago: 68% black.
Yellow, near west + near south sides of Chicago: 77% black.
Blue, north side of Chicago: this is what I'd call "fashionable Chicago" - the wealthy, the yuppies, the gays, the bohemians.  
Pink, southwest Chicago + Cicero and related inner suburbs: 58.9% Hispanic.
Tan, northwest Chicago + inner west suburbs: 44.8% white, 44.1% Hispanic, very blue-collar/working class, for the most part.  

Suburbs:
These first three have substantial Asian populations (close to 10% or more); the last four do not.  

Teal, north shore: Very wealthy, lots of Jewish voters, starts at Evanston but I stopped going up the shore at North Chicago/Waukegan because that's a pretty stark dividing point, so I went inland to pick up some more middle class suburbs in Cook County.  
Red: Northwest Cook.  Newer suburbs like South Barrington, Hoffman Estates, and Schaumburg (plus a few older ones like Arlington Heights which couldn't fit anywhere else), lots of high-tech (Motorola, etc).  
Light Green: The older core DuPage suburbs of Wheaton, Glen Ellyn, Elmhurst, etc, plus all of
Naperville and the towns south of Naperville (which are basically Naperville-lite).  

Lavender: mostly the rest of Lake County exurbia/suburbia
Purple, near southwest suburbs: mostly older suburbs, quite white at 82.3%.  
Orange: All of Kane county, plus some more Fox River communities in McHenry county.  I also added the Cook County bits of Elgin and the parts of Kendall that are most tied to Aurora.  I did *not* add the DuPage bits of Aurora since they're more similar to Naperville than to the rest of Aurora.  
Brown: Joliet plus Kankakee (these two make a lot of sense together), the rest of rapidly-exurbaning Will County, plus Kendall (which is starting to get some exurban population) and Grundy (had to add something...)  

[In case you're wondering, all of the city districts would be solid D, of course, and most of the suburban districts would be very close to even, with the exception of the teal district which is at 64% Obama.  But even there a Dold vs. Schakowsky matchup would be quite interesting I think, given Jan's socialist sympathies.  Ironically, but maybe not surprisingly, the suburban district that is least Obama-friendly (at 52.7%) is the purple one, home of one Bill Lipinski.] 

I'm not sure I follow your argument, Lewis. The current CD-4 has an extremely thin connector to bridge two distinct communities of interest that both happen to be Hispanic. Since the court OK'ed that bridge, I would expect that another similar linking bridge would also pass the court.


I would agree that a bare 50% VAP majority is unlikely to meet statistical tests needed to show that Hispanics could elect their candidate of choice. However, a compact SW side district can be drawn at 59.4% VAP with DRA as shown in the earlier link to my March post. SCOTUS decisions would suggest that if a compact Hispanic district can be drawn, then the earmuff should not.

If a compact Hispanic CD-3 is required then that leaves the question open for a second Hispanic district. Certainly the proportion would argue for its creation if one can be made to elect a candidate of choice. If the thin connector was legitimate for the NW/SW connection, then why wouldn't it be equally valid for a NW Chicago/Elgin connection?

It's the same old issue whether what would be drawn if a court draws it versus whether what a legislature is absolutely required to do. A court would not draw the district as the Dems drew it, that's not in question at all. The issue is only whether it was illegal for the legislature to do so, and you can be of two opinions on that one, though it's also clear which outcome is more likely (for the map to be upheld). In other words, the same basic scenario as in Alabama and South Carolina, except for the issue of whether the northern seat would elect an Hispanic at all, which makes the case weaker. (Including the common sense option of the court drawing one quite solid but not overpacked opportunity seat plus an "influence" seat.)
The current Gutierrez district's connector that Dems want to keep is razor-thin and outrageously ugly, of course. (The district was created that way back in 1990 because back then that was the only way it could be done. It really should have gone in 2000 - the easiest way to do it would have been to give Gutierrez a solid Hispanic majority seat that also has a lot of Blacks, and Davis a solid Black plurality seat that also has a lot of Hispanics. But I suppose Davis is a weak clown who needs the protection.) But at least it doesn't catch a lot of whites with no community of interest with the two Hispanic areas being connected, which the two-Hispanic seats maps do and which has been used as an argument to strike down seats in the past.
BK thought it was probably possible to draw two 54% Hispanic seats, with the earmuff connector in existence but only a small part of the southerly Hispanic area appended by it. That's probably a more worthwhile idea than the Elgin maps.

()

You mean like this? These two monstrosities are 51.5% Hispanic each.

Does it really have to be quite that ugly? Ugh.

If you look at the Hispanic population in the Elgin/West Chicago/Aurora corridor, it's enough to make a solid Senate district of 200K that can elect candidates of choice for the Hispanics. Even at the coarse level of DRA mapping it can be linked to NW Chicago for a CD with 57% Hispanic VAP.

Interesting. Can you draw us a map with that? (And another Hispanic seat in SW Chicago, of course?) That might be a harder case to answer.

Guitierrez would be the incumbent in the northern 40-45% district. MALDEF desired the split idea because the southern district would give them a fair chance at electing a 2nd Hispanic.

Also, Lipinski can afford to have a less Democratic CD, with his voting record and ethnic ties. (The other Chi. reps would be concerned about having to moderate if their CD's became less than D+10). And even if Lipinski leaves, that CD would still at lean D in most years.

Isn't the northern earmuff Puerto Rican, and Elgin mostly Mexican?  So besides linking a city with an exurb you are combining two distinct groups.

The total current 4th district was 56% Mexican and 11% Portorican in 2000*, so I doubt it. It may well be that the Portoricans live mostly in the northern earmuff, but they're not alone there.

*18% Anglo, 4% Black, 3% Asian and non-hispanic mixed race, 4% non-specified or unclassifiable Hispanic, 4% other specified Hispanic origins

The PR population dominated the very near NW side two decades ago when IL-4 was first assembled. Since then there has been a lot of influx from other Hispanic groups even as the PR population has spread out. Mexican and other Central American groups dominate throughout the region.

So the Republicans released their own map to go with their court challenge. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-illinois-republican-delegation-unveils-own-map-20110805,0,5164038.story) It's supposed to create a second Hispanic district, but... it's only 46.5% Hispanic VAP. Yeah, that's not going anywhere. If you're curious, their map can be seen at the bottom of this pdf (http://capitolfax.com/FairMapPacket8411.pdf). They really hate Rock Island County, because it's split both here and in their proposed state legislative maps they released a few months ago.

Mark Veasey in Texas released a map with even lower figures of hispanics as measured by voter registration.

If anyone has looked at the Republican's map yet, they should post it.  It looks much more fair and less gerrymandered than the one that Democrats passed.  Post it if you can find it.

Well duh. That's because it's a pointless PR exercise, not a serious proposal. These things come in two shapes - fair but somewhat sloppily drawn; or the original map minus the disgusting stuff, but sloppily drawn. Both parties do that.

You can find a copy of the map here:

http://mchenrycountyblog.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/GOP-Cong-Map-Proposed-in-Suit.png


()

Here's a variation of the "The Republicans made us do it" argument.

Has anyone seen the Kerry/Bush results? These would be a better measure in Illinois.

 

No it isn't, but thanks for playing! 

My point was that it is silly to expect EITHER party to simply waste its trifectas unless there is an independent/bipartisan redistricting process in every state (from a practicality standpoint).  It isn't just Republicans making Democrats do it, the reverse is also true, and the only way to break this vicious cycle is for every state to have a California-style independent redistricting commission.  Until that happens, I'd rather see the Democrats respond in kind to gerrymanders than roll-over and play dead in the face of maps like NC, MI, OH, TX, PA, and FL (although I am well aware that this is what BigSkyBob wants to see). 

I don't expect fair maps, persay, just ones that aren't hideously gerrymandered like Ohio this year or Maryland or Massachusetts last time around. I think we ought to be drawing Indiana/Wisconsin type maps that do favor the party who drew them but aren't ridiculous. As for Illinois, I'd like to have seen something a little more even-handed, but it wasn't truly awful.

No, it isn't.

Thats a very nice drawing...

"However, until all states adopt a truly independent redistricting process it seems unreasonable to expect one party not to try to use control of the trifecta to its advantage."

If that isn't the "The Republicans made us do it" argument, what is?

"Until that happens, I'd rather see the Democrats respond in kind to gerrymanders..."

That is the "The Republicans made us do it" argument for gerrrymandering.

"Illinois would have drawn a fair map if only the Republicans hadn't done what they did in Michigan/Texas/whatever, serves them right."

The arguments you point out here and elsewhere are variations on "the system is screwed, so the Dems shouldn't practice unilateral disarmament." Rather different from "we would have disarmed if only the Republicans had gone first."

Correct!  

No it isn't, it is an example of the logical fallacy of quoting out of context.

"Until that happens, I'd rather see the Democrats respond in kind to gerrymanders..."

In context, your remark is stating that you support the Democrats gerrrymandering because Republicans in other states are doing it. That is, you are claiming the effect is your supporting gerrymandering by Democrats, and the cause is Republicans gerrymandering in other states. That's the "The Republicans made me do it!" excuse.

You are smuggling in a false premise here. The issue is not "the system is screwed." If that were merely the issue, the solution would be, "....so, Democrats ought to pass commissions in states they hold the trifecta."

Your real point is the bit about "unilateral disarmament," which is merely a restatement of the  "The Republicans made us do it." argument.


Look, by not "unilaterally disarming" you are claiming that if the Democrats passed commissions, while the Republicans gerrymandered, the net effect would be harmful to the prospects of the Democrats, so the actions of those rascally Republicans are forcing Democrats to gerrymander.

Claiming "the system is screwed" is moral cowardice in the face of evil. What isn't "screwed" is the system, but, rather, the Democrats in Illinois, and Republicans in North Carolina, etc.

Look, politicians stand for office. They ask the people of their states to represent their interests in the legislature. They have no right to offer the excuse of serial killers and drug addicts:

"Stop me before I kill again!"


"Stop me before I shoot up again!"

"Stop me before I redistrict again!"


If you believe, as you claim, that the best interests of the folks they represent lies in passing commissions, then those representatives ought to have the moral courage to put the interest of their constitutents before their partisan interests.

Look, "the system" gave the legislators the ability to pass a commission in both Illinois and North Carolina. They chose the option of gerrymandering.  "The system" wasn't screwed, the people within the system were.

Well, this was a challenge to draw. 2 Hispanic majority VAP districts, 3 Black majority VAP districts that don't extend down into Will and Kankakee, and 11 of the 12 Chicagoland seats at least winnable for Democrats.

()

1st 50.1% Black VAP, 78.8% Obama
2nd 50.2% Black VAP, 81.2% Obama
3rd 55.7% Hispanic VAP, 69.7% Obama
4th 51.1% Hispanic VAP, 76.3% Obama
5th 71.7% Obama
6th 51.8% Obama (ie the R dump)
7th 50.4% Black VAP, 89.2% Obama
8th 64.5% Obama
9th 59.4% Obama
10th 59.6% Obama
11th 57.2% Obama
14th 57.0% Obama

Besides everyone knowing the DRA scheme by heart anyways, the seats are very vaguely where they used to be. Except that the 8th and 9th should be the other way round given where they're based (rather than what the 8th looks like) and for 11th read 13th and for 14th 11th - that's just a mistake I'm too lazy to correct.

The Dummymander is now complete! The map is intended to give Democrats a chance, perhaps a good chance, at 16 seats... but not to guarantee all that many of them. As well as the above stuff. And to at least not split any of the downstate's urban cores. (Though some exceedingly Republican suburbs have been excised in some cases, and anyways the boundaries are sneaky-snakey. There isn't much room for error in a 4-2 downstate map.)

()

()

Chicagoland - changed the numbering as indicated above, and some quite minor changes to do with finding a few trapped precincts (fixing the populations then inspired a rejig south of Aurora.) 9th (former 8th) now 64.7% instead of 64.5%, 11th (former 14th) now 57.1% instead of 57.0%, other shares round identically.

12th (still East St Louis) 55.9% Obama
14th (Peoria and random points nearby) 55.5% Obama
15th (Decatur to Champaign, the wrong way) 54.1% Obama
16th (southern R sink, now apparently showing the fascist salute) 56.7% McCain
17th (places beginning in Rock) 55.2% Obama
18th (northern R sink; the golden apple the central Dem district worms are burrowing into) 56.4% McCain

I particularly like how none of the R sinks border each other.

  Lawsuit over the Dems map tossed out today

Ill_Ind