Talk Elections

I've always wanted to do this map. Problem is that Gardow hasn't updated the population. But if I were to redraw it, here's what I might do:

A district that takes in the mexican neighborhoods of Chandler and Mesa, all of Tempe, all of Guadalupe, Ahwuhtookee, and South Phoenix.

Then I might make a district that takes in all of CD 4 north of the salt river, the Maricopa portion of CD 7, the pinal portion of CD 7, and maybe some of La Paz and Yuma Counties.

I would then make District 7 entirely within Pima County and basically take in some blue precincts from CD 8

http://tucsoncitizen.com/in-the-aggregate/2011/01/19/redistricting-update-consider-the-hair-successfully-split/

The Arizona Supreme Court has handed down its ruling in the Pearce/Adams lawsuit challenging the eligibility of three of the nominees for the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).

The suit was partially successful - the Court ruled that Republicans Stephen Sossaman and Mark Schnepf are ineligible because of their service on irrigation district governing boards and the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments must selec...

()

Trying to draw the most Native district possible - blue seat is 40% White, 28% Hispanic, 27% Native. Getting it to ~30% would be possible, but not while balancing the other districts. Urban Tucson district just happened as a result. (This has only one Hispanic majority district, so is quite fantastical.)

Isn't that going to be hard to maintain given the growth in Pinal County?

That growth is highly concentrated in the northwest corner. Though you're right - that's the one quite unindian area that got left in just because it had been in before, and where I would have made the next cuts. (The last remaining Indians outside are some more urban Yaqui, and right by the Colorado River.)

I made an AZ Map.. but I can not post it here.

Two Hispanic Majority Districts but each of them are 51% ... so I could create a 5 to 4 GOP to Dem map.

()

()

As you can see, I added the Hopi, Havasupai, Hualapai, Kaibab Paiute, and FDLS to the 1st CD in order to be able to move all of Casas Grandes and Maricopa (the exurb) out - they really, really don't belong here - while keeping Gila River in the 7th (which means moving Coolidge out of the 1st as well, rather less gladly). This may well prove to make all the difference in the district's political lean, of course.
I adjusted the 8th population by moving a few relatively Hispanic precincts in Tucson over to the 7th. This hurts Giffords (or her successor), so equal opportunity employment in that regard. :P
I would have loved to kick La Paz into the 2nd, but keeping the boundary there unchanged made it possible for the 7th to lose all of its (non-Native) metropolitan bit. Well, all but one precinct, actually.
The 4th deficit was made up with a couple of those precincts, the remainder ends up in the 2nd.
The new 9th district takes relatively inner parts of the 2nd and 3rd, the 3rd takes the northern half of the undersized 5th, the 5th takes areas in Chandler and Mesa (I tried to observe the Chandler-Gilbert municipal boundary.)
And because the 6th takes in new exurban territory in Pinal, as mentioned previously, it now curves around Gila River in a rather unseemly way.
I haven't had a close look at partisan figures, but I guess no white Phoenix district is quite as close to swingy as the old 5th was. Though the new 5th may be not much more Republican. I also haven't checked where incumbents live. All districts within 225, except the 4th which is 390 over.

Racial stats (VAP in brackets)
1st 58 - 17 - 22 Native (62 - 15 - 19)
2nd 62 - 29 (68 - 23). It's taken some Hispanic areas west of the 4th...
3rd 79 - 12 (82 - 10)
4th 21 - 64 - 9 Black (27 - 58 - 9 Black)
5th 62 - 24 - 5 Asian (67 - 20 - 5 Asian)
6th 71 - 19 (75 - 16)
7th 33 - 56 - 5 Native (40 - 50 - 5 Native)
8th 69 - 22 (74 - 18)
9th 66 - 23 (71 - 19)

I'm not sure the commission will be ready to end the Hopi silliness. Though I believe if they think to ask the Hopi Nation, they'll find support for the idea.

This is what I came up with, its probably worse for communities of interest, but better for the Republican party.

() (http://img703.imageshack.us/i/arizona.png/)


9th: Pinal + Gilbert + Queen's Creek
6th: Mesa + Chandler
5th: Tempe + Scottsdale + Fountain Hills + Northern Phoenix
3rd: Northern Phoenix + Peoria
4th: same as now
2nd: Sun City + Glendale + the same borders north


For the most part municipal boundaries are observed.

Doesn't look like it, unfortunately.


http://www.nativetimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4786:redistricting-likely-to-renew-navajo-hopi-divide&catid=54&Itemid=30

one thing I find is that it is a shame that Flagstaff and Tempe don't have dem representatives.

One idea I had was to make a district of the following: Coconino County, Navajo County, Apache County, Greenlee County, Graham County, Cochise County, Santa Cruz County and all the 80% Hispanic Precincts in Pima County.

The other district I had in mind was one that takes in all the Mexican precincts from Chandler and Mesa, all of Tempe and Guadalupe, all of South Phoenix and Ahwatukee, and some of the area by Sky Harbor Airport. This district would be similar to the old AZ 1.

Come on guys! Three Hispanics CDs is doable. ;)

Consider that Grijalva nearly lost last year to an Anglo Republican...

Well, to be honest the VAP of his district is probably not up to 50% Hispanic, less so the voters.

It also probably helps that the district has Yuma in it (Hispanic-majority and Republican-voting).  In fact the only reason its D + 6 to begin with is because it has some Liberal whites in Tuscon to beef it up.  The Democrats don't have the strength to hold the district on racial votes alone.

Yeah, I feel that if you try to create three Hispanic VRA districts in Arizona, you may end up with two conservative Anglo Republican representatives in most years.

Admittedly, creating 3 Hispanic-majority districts would probably be good for Grijavala, as he'd lose the South Phoenix area and Yuma area to the new district--the places he does the worst in.  It would basically screw over Giffords however, as the 7th would have to bite into the Democratic-leaning precincts of Tuscon that keep her district competitive.

Which is also why a very leftwing guy is no weaker than a more MoR Hispanic might be.
The district is over 50% VAP on current boundaries and 2010 figures, btw, though not on 2000 figures.

---

I'm not interested in a partisan gerrymander. It's not as if one were going to happen.

Okay, looks like my 2nd and 6th are both empty, Franks is in the 9th, Flake in the 5th, and Quayle and Schweikert are both in the 3rd. Not good.

Cities with populations of about 162,000 and 66,000 don't get to choose their representative on their own.  Especially when they are college towns, many of whose residents vote back home, if at all.

Doubly so when they're surrounded by much larger Republican-leaning areas that easily out-vote them.

Last I checked Flagstaff was between Sedona and the Navajo Reservation. :P

---

As to realistic's question - yes, it can be done. The continous >20% Hispanic areas in Maricopa, not touching on Grijalva's district as I drew it before, are just about the right size for two CDs. Split it down the middle, and the eastern one is 51-34 (44-41 VAP) Hispanic, with enough Blacks and Libruls to continue to elect Pastor, no problems at all, and the western one extends to the county line (I had to move one precinct in Yavapai to CD2 to keep it continuous :D ), is 53-34 (48-40 VAP), and again has quite a few Blacks - in Maricopa, they mostly live in Hispanic-dominated parts of Phoenix proper. So yeah, if the Commission absolutely wanted to, it could draw a map that would likely elect the Hispanic Democrats most years.

Here's the best guess (at this time) based on the numbers presently available.

Current congressional district 2 (Franks, R) with the largest district (972,839) will become a northwest Maricopa county district, losing the northern (non-Maricopa) part of the district to district 1 (Gosar, R)

Current district 1 (Gosar, R) will lose the southern part of the District (Pinal, Gila, Graham and Greenlee) to the new district 9, and gain what is currently the northern part of CD 2.

The new district 9 will be composed of the southern part of current district 1 (Pinal, Gila, Graham and Greenlee) as well as the southern sliver of current district 6, and the Pinal parts of District 7 and 8.

Current district 7 will lose Pinal county part to the new district 9, and the Maricopa part to district 4 (Pastor, D).

Current district 4 (Pastor, D) will pick up Maricopa county part of current district 7, and give up one or two precincts to current district 3.

Current district 3, will picking up territory (and population) from district four (a precinct or two).

Current district 5 (Schweikert, R) will gain a number of precincts  from current district 6 (Flake, R) along the northern and northwestern edges.

Current district 8 will lose the precincts in Pinal county to the new district 9, and around a dozen precincts in central Tucson to current congressional district 7.

Current district 6 lose population to both districts 5 and the new district 9 (as described above)

Under this scenario, the two new congressmen will likely be Russell Pearce (CD 6) and Paul Babeau (CD9).

With the exception of CD 8, the changes indicated will not change the partisan leanings of the existing districts. 

The question in CD 8 is how many Democrat precincts will be transferred to CD 7.  The incumbent Democrat won reelection without a majority of the vote, and would have lost if a half-a-dozen heavily Democrat precincts likely to go to CD 7 had not been in the 8th on the 2010 general election.

Some useful information can be obtained at:

http://www.azredistricting.org/final/congfinal.jpg

Source? The link is to the archived 2000 redistricting commission's website, of course.
Taking those suggestions literally, northern Arizona is a heavy R gerrymander, the Apache and Gila River reservations are split between districts, CD4 is more than a hundred thousand over population and CD 9 under. Oh, and CD 4 is in two disconnected parts, strictly speaking.

Full breakdown: CD1 15k over (easily remedied), CD2 55k over (that's its current Maricopa portion), CD3 on target if left unchanged, CD4 128k over, not including the rural bits in southwest Maricopa that it could only connect to through Pinal, CD5 on target since I added enough to be on target, CD 6 and 9 combined (since its hard to fathom what they meant, exactly, and it doesn't matter really) 171k under, CD7 26k under, CD8 on target.

Well, alright. Shedding enough Hispanic areas in CD2 to 7 and 4, enough not-too-Hispanic-areas in 4 to 3 and 5, moving some areas from 5 to 3 and almost all of Mesa from 5 to 6, gets you this:

()

Native influence is obviously unfairly diluted (18% in CD1 which is also down to 13% Hispanic, 6% in CD9, 3.5% in CD7), even though i undid the split rezzes. CD4 at 67% Hispanic is also a pack of dubious legality. And I still wouldn't bet the farm on all four white Maricopa districts being Republican throughout the decade.

Don't know where you got your numbers.

Here's some of mine (along with source)

While CD 3 is pretty easy to maintain (and a precinct or two) significant change will occur for CDs 1,4,5, and 8.

Substantial change will occur for CD 7 and enomeous change for CDs 2 and 6.

Arizona                                         6,395,017
CD 1                                                 774,310 – 710,224 = 64,086
CD 2                                                 972,839 – 710,224 = 262,615 

CD 3                                                 707,919 -710,224 =  +2,305

CD 4                                                 698,314 – 710,224 = 11,910

CD 5                                                 656,833 – 710,224 = 53,391

CD 6                                                 971,733 – 710,224 = 261,509

CD 7                                                 855,769 – 710,224 = 145,545

CD 8                                                 754,300 – 710,224 = 44,076

Current average (for 8 CDs)         799,002

New average (for 9 CDs)              710,224

http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2011/03/census-numbers-arizonas-legislative-and-congressional-districts-.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BlogForArizona+%28Blog+For+Arizona%29

By following your suggestions.

(Drawing the districts with Dave's Redistricting App, of course. One minor note: It follows "tabulation voting districts" as defined by the census, ie approximations of real voting districts built up from census blocks, rather than the actual census districts. This seems to cause a fairly sizeable discrepancy in CD3 - enough to make up its deficit entirely.)

I think I got something like that on the first page. Every district ends up at 65-70% white, except the Tempe/Scottsdale 5th, which is 78% white, but that's ok because some of them are latte liberals.

Based on Linus' link stating that the Hopi Council will prefer to continue not having a constituency Rep [/hack spin], and on current Maricopa Rep's residency as far as I could figure it out, I drew this variant of my first map. 7 and 8 unchanged (well... I may not have used the exact same precincts in Tucson in drawing it. Not that it matters.) CD1 retains Coolidge and adds Salt River instead of Hopi etc - imagine a fencelink connection for CD6.

()

Keeping Flake in CD6 is unproblematic. Just transfer out Gilbert instead of parts of Mesa.
Franks is in Glendale (parts currently in his CD), Quayle is in North Phoenix and apparently somewhere very near both CD 4 and Scottsdale, and Schweikert is also in the northern part of his district (Fountain Hills), so you need to get creative to keep them apart. Or alternately follow Carl's suggestion and draw the rest of the state based on the current CD3.

The end result is sort of packing Hispanics into CD4 (65%), but also packing ultra-Republican areas into the heavily redrawn CD5.
Time to check whether the commission is actually supposed to look at incumbents...

Here's the commission's guidelines.

"A. DISTRICTS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE UNITED STATES VOTING RIGHTS ACT;

B. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS SHALL HAVE EQUAL POPULATION TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE, AND STATE LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS SHALL HAVE EQUAL POPULATION TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE;

C. DISTRICTS SHALL BE GEOGRAPHICALLY COMPACT AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE;

D. DISTRICT BOUNDARIES SHALL RESPECT COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE;

E. TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE, DISTRICT LINES SHALL USE VISIBLE GEOGRAPHIC FEATURES, CITY, TOWN AND COUNTY BOUNDARIES, AND UNDIVIDED CENSUS TRACTS;

F. TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE, COMPETITIVE DISTRICTS SHOULD BE FAVORED WHERE TO DO SO WOULD CREATE NO SIGNIFICANT DETRIMENT TO THE OTHER GOALS."

Nothing on incumbents. Provision F is interesting... :)

I drew one that had three Hispanic districts all with >50% Hispanic VAP, but it wasn't terribly pretty.

EDIT: Here is my second quick attempt at it. My first one had better numbers, but this one still works. Yellow is 50.4% Hispanic VAP, Silver is 50.7% Hispanic VAP, and Cyan is 50.2% Hispanic VAP.

()

I'm sure someone could do a cleaner version.

Arizona Legislative Districts.

Arizona has only 30 districts, each election 1 Senator and 2 Representatives.

Current map.

()

Phoenix (http://www.azredistricting.org/2004legfinal/2004legfinal_phx_lgr.pdf) and Tucson (http://www.azredistricting.org/2004legfinal/2004legfinal_tsn_lgr.pdf) closeups.

My map.

()

Maricopa / West Pinal

()

Tucson

()

One preliminary note before comparing district-by-district. My map has less deviation than the 2000 map - no district is more than 500 off quota. This required some silly precinct transfers.

Also, I'm drawing the old district / 2010 figures from another document prepared for an entirely different purpose, hence why they include only population change, hispanic percentage and native percentage. Oh yes, 2000 figure is non-hispanic native (/black/asian), 2010 old seat figure is native irrespective of hispanic origin. This is a relevant distinction for some Arizona Native communities (5 Reservations have more Hispanic Native than Non-Hispanic Non-Native residents, including the mammoth Gila River and San Carlos - though in the latter case it's mostly because the non-Native share just is that tiny), but can't be helped now. And for my districts, it's whatever Dave Bradlee uses.

SD1 The Prescott district, this used to also include Sedona and rural country north to and surrounding Flagstaff, while ending at Prescott city limits to the southward.
I shifted it southward to where it's now almost identical to Yavapai County.
2000 84.8% nhw, 10.5% hispanic, 3.0% native (87.5 VAP)
2010 +24.7%, 14.3% hispanic, 2.6% native
my map 81.6% nhw, 13.7% hispanic (85.0 VAP). Native population now negligible - I consider below ~2 or 2.5 negligible, slightly higher with urban Black and Asian populations.

SD2 Combines Navajoland and Flagstaff. And Hopi, Havasupai and Hualapai. Used to just include a corridor to Flagstaff, now has Page and almost all of white rural Coconino added.
2000 68.1% native, 24.2% nhw, 6.0% hispanic (62.2 - 30.2 VAP)
2010 +6.2%, 64.0% native, 8.1% hispanic
my map 54.7% native, 32.8% nhw, 9.0% hispanic (50.8 - 37.8 VAP)
Native share could be massaged upward somewhat by including areas in Navajo County just south of the reservation, but between the political lean of that area, the district still being over 50% as is, and the fact that district 5 also needed population... I didn't bother.

SD3 Based on Mojave County. Loses Page and... that's it, really.
2000 84.2% nhw, 10.3% hispanic, 3.1% native (87.2 VAP)
2010 +27.0%, 14.2% hispanic, 2.8% native
my map 80.2% nhw, 14.9% hispanic (83.5 VAP)

SD4 This used to combine far northwest Maricopa with the southern half (less than that in population) of Yavapai, with the Maricopa part dominant even in 2000. Now, it's shed its rural portion.
2000 86.0% nhw, 9.2% hispanic (88.6 VAP)
2010 +147.6% (that's right!), 9.2% hispanic
my map 84.0% nhw, 8.7% hispanic, 3.5% asian (86.8 VAP)

SD5 Gila, Graham, Greenlee, southern Apache and Navajo (with the Apache reservations in the middle), and now also the Sedona area in both Coconino and Yavapai counties.
2000 63.8% nhw, 17.7% hispanic, 16.4% native (68.2 VAP)
2010 +12.2%, 19.9% hispanic, 16.3% native
my map 63.4% nhw, 19.3% hispanic, 14.2% native (68.0 VAP)

SD6 one of two North Phoenix-to-countyline seats, it didn't change much
2000 83.4% nhw, 10.0% hispanic (85.6 VAP)
2010 +28.7%, 14.6% hispanic
my map 75.8% nhw, 14.8% hispanic, 3.7% asian (79.1 VAP)

SD7 this one had to expand southwards a bit
2000 83.9% nhw, 11.1% hispanic (86.2 VAP)
2010 +11.5%, 14.2% hispanic
my map 78.3% nhw, 13.9% hispanic, 3.6% asian (81.6 VAP)

SD8 Based on Scottsdale, though excluding its innermost (southernmost) part. I added Salt River, Fort McDowell and the rural bits of Maricopa east of them to this district. The reason was that as SD23, which once upon a time was a minority-influence Outer Pinal district, lost Gila River there was no point in keeping it angling over to here as well. I also added Paradise Valley.
2000 91.0% nhw, 4.6% hispanic (92.1 VAP)
2010 +8.7%, 6.0% hispanic
my map 85.3% nhw, 6.0% hispanic, 3.3% asian, 2.6% native (87.3 VAP)

SD9 Peoria, Sun City. This lost a bit of Peoria and its share of Glendale, gained some fairly mixed outer suburbs around El Mirage.
2000 81.2% nhw, 12.4% hispanic (84.7 VAP)
2010 +4.7%, 18.6% hispanic
my map 66.4% nhw, 23.8% hispanic, 4.4% black (72.1 VAP)

SD10 This used to be basically a North Phoenix seat, but it's travelled west.
2000 70.0% nhw, 20.4% hispanic, 3.5% black (73.7 VAP)
2010 -4.7% (yes, that's right, a decline), 30.7% hispanic
my map 60.6% nhw, 27.5% hispanic, 4.8% black (66.0 VAP)

SD11 Another North (East) Phoenix seat, this has travelled southwest - but here that means towards inner city; no other way it can go as the seats north of it needed population too.
2000 83.4% nhw, 10.0% hispanic (85.5 VAP)
2010 -5.2% (oh yeah. The inner suburbs took a hit in Maricopa, not just the barrio), 13.3% hispanic
my map 59.5% nhw, 27.3% hispanic, 5.0% black (65.3 VAP)

SD12 Outer western suburbs - Litchfield Park, Goodyear, Buckeye. Contracted bigtime.
2000 57.9% nhw, 31.5% hispanic, 6.0% black (62.9 VAP)
2010 +121.5%, 36.6% hispanic
my map 57.1% nhw, 29.8% hispanic, 6.2% black (61.8 VAP)

SD13 Hispanic-dominated suburbs, Tolleson, Avondale, Phoenix' West End
2000 60.4% hispanic, 29.0% nhw, 6.6% black (55.1 - 34.8 VAP)
2010 +23.1%, 73.3% hispanic
my map 69.7% hispanic, 18.3% nhw, 7.3% black (65.3 - 22.1 VAP)

SD14 Used to be a gerrymandered monstrosity in Central Phoenix, now mostly in South Glendale actually
2000 64.0% hispanic, 25.4% nhw, 4.9% black (58.1 - 31.4 VAP)
2010 -7.2%, 71.2% hispanic
my map 64.1% hispanic, 23.9% nhw, 6.3% black (57.6 - 30.2 VAP)

SD15 Mirroring SD14... before looking it up it never occured to me that it might have been gerrymandered to be an extra White seat. The things people got away with under the Ashcroft Justice Department... (shakes head) I had tried hard to keep it hispanic despite expanding into southern Scottsdale. Or maybe they figured the votes for both seats to elect Hispanics weren't there anyways?
2000 46.1% nhw, 41.1% hispanic, 5.4% black, 4.1% native (53.3 VAP)
2010 -8.6%, 45.8% hispanic, 4.6% native
my map 59.9% hispanic, 30.2% nhw, 4.8% black (51.7 - 38.0) Musta excluded some Yaqui enclave, or maybe it's just many more reporting as Hispanic now? Probably that.

SD16 The South Phoenix seat parforce
2000 64.7% hispanic, 18.3% nhw, 13.3% black (59.7 - 22.9 VAP)
2010 +46.3% (yeah, you read right. There is a suburban fringe to it just north of South Mountain Park, but that can't explain all of it. Also explains neatly why 15 moving southwards worked out despite the natural boundaries of this seat), 61.8% hispanic, also 3.6% native
my map 58.1% hispanic, 19.7% nhw, 14.8% black (53.0 - 24.5 VAP)

SD17 Tempe. Used to include southern parts of Scottsdale (and exclude southern parts of Tempe), now includes some territory to the south of Tempe instead.
2000 70.0% nhw, 18.9% hispanic, 4.2% asian (73.7 VAP)
2010 +0.2%, 22.9% hispanic
my map 64.5% nhw, 19.3% hispanic, 5.8% asian, 5.5% black (68.5 VAP)

SD18 Inner (western) parts of Mesa.
2000 61.2% nhw, 30.7% hispanic (65.4 VAP)
2010 -5.1% (yessir), 43.0% hispanic (yessir!)
my map 50.1% nhw, 38.5% hispanic, 4.0% black (56.4 VAP)
It had previously excluded the southwest corner of the city; I corrected that.

SD19 Outer (eastern) Mesa, mostly. Grew a little towards the south.
2000 86.2% nhw, 9.6% hispanic (88.9 VAP)
2010 +11.7%, 14.7% hispanic
my map 78.3% nhw, 15.2% hispanic (82.4 VAP)

SD20 Chandler, southern Tempe, that weird bit PINO bit south of South Mountain Park. District 17 grew this way, so had to stretch eastward.
2000 77.8% nhw, 10.7% hispanic, 5.8% asian (80.0 VAP)
2010 +0.9%, 14.3% hispanic
my map 61.4% nhw, 22.1% hispanic, (woah, where did that come from? There's a five precinct block of Hispanic-majority territory in Chandler that I transferred in. Never noticed that before.), 8.4% asian, 4.5% black (65.4 VAP)

SD21 Southeast corner of Maricopa - Queen Creek, western Chandler, now also parts of Gilbert. And used to have the southwest corner of Mesa for some reason.
2000 69.3% nhw, 22.0% hispanic (73.5 VAP)
2010 +57.1%, 21.4% (growth in Queen Creek making the hispanic bits less relevant)
my map 73.4% nhw, 14.7% hispanic, 5.6% asian (76.5 VAP)

SD22 Gilbert and parts of Apache Junction, contracted outwards (actually picked up the remainder of Apache Junction)
2000 81.9% nhw, 11.4% hispanic (84.2 VAP)
2010 +70.7%, 15.1% hispanic
my map 77.2% nhw, 14.1% hispanic (80.7 VAP)

SD23 The district that makes bunny cry. This used to be almost all of Pinal, plus the Pima Reservations. Now it's a strip through Maricopa, Casa Grande, Coolidge, Florence, and the Pinal side of Queen Creek (what do you actually call that area, I wonder?). Oh, and Superior. The map shows this wrongly as including Ak-Chin Reservation, not sure how that happened, but I've corrected it in the figures. Added Casa Grande South precinct instead.
2000 50.0% nhw, 34.6% hispanic, 10.6% native (55.9 VAP)
2010 +115.0%, 32.6% hispanic. 7.7% native (and that's double counting some Pima people...)
my map 58.4% nhw, 29.8% hispanic, 5.3% black (63.3 VAP)

SD24 The Yuma district. Had to expand into west rural Maricopa. Exclusion of that one rural Yuma County precinct was for population balance.
2000 49.4% hispanic, 44.4% nhw (52.5 nhw VAP)
2010 +21.2%, 58.3% hispanic
my map 58.0% hispanic, 36.1% nhw (51.2 hispanic VAP)
So yeah, arguably another new minority district. Though it'll be a few more years before it starts to vote like it. Writing's on the wall though - the Republican State Senate incumbent was held to a 6 point margin in 2010, against a Hispanic opponent.

SD25 A weirdly shaped district - Cochise sans Sierra Vista, Nogales, rural Pima with its huge reservation. And now also Eloy and Gila River.
2000 46.6% nhw, 43.8% hispanic, 7.2% native (52.0 nhw VAP)
2010 +24.2%, 46.0% hispanic, 5.9% native (Tohono rez population fell)
my map 47.4% hispanic, 39.0% nhw, 10.0% native (44.6 nhw - 42.5 hispanic VAP)

SD26 The North Tucson suburbs
2000 80.9% nhw, 13.8% hispanic (83.7 VAP)
2010 +15.5%, 19.0% hispanic
my map 73.8% nhw, 19.2% hispanic (77.8 VAP)

SD27 South Tucson (which is southwest geographically)
2000 49.4% hispanic, 40.4% nhw, 4.1% native (47.2 nhw - 43.0 hispanic VAP)
2010 +16.6%, 56.3% hispanic, 5.7% native (the Yaqui effect in full force!)
my map 53.3% hispanic, 35.6% nhw, 3.6% native (46.8 hispanic - 42.4 nhw VAP)

SD28 northeast Tucson
2000 72.2% nhw, 18.4% hispanic (75.9 VAP)
2010 +0.3%, 20.4% hispanic
my map 71.5% nhw, 18.6% hispanic (75.4 VAP)

SD29 southeast Tucson
2000 50.3% hispanic, 39.3% nhw, 5.5% black (45.1 hispanic - 44.5 nhw VAP)
2010 +9.8%, 55.4% hispanic
my map 54.7% hispanic, 34.6% nhw, 4.9% black (49.0 hispanic - 40.4 white VAP)

These are... interesting... racial breakdowns at first glance. It is however difficult to draw two much more Hispanic seats in Tucson, and both seats were very safe throughout the decade - actually so was SD28 (for White Democrats. While SD26 changed hands twice.)

SD30 Sierra Vista, Green Valley, areas on the far east outskirts of Tucson and now pushing north into the still-rural parts of Pinal, which are 40% Hispanic
2000 78.5% nhw, 12.8% hispanic, 4.1% black (SV's an army town.) (81.9 VAP)
2010 +35.9%, 17.9% hispanic
my map 63.6% nhw, 24.5% hispanic, 4.3% black (66.7 VAP)

Lewis and Carl, how would a map like this do? I finally tweaked the populations and borders to line them up with the municipal borders.

() (http://img821.imageshack.us/i/arizonad.png/)


() (http://img687.imageshack.us/i/closeuph.png/)


It should be possible to get all the white Maricopa districts safe R. I don't quite get why Pinal needs to be split when there's no compelling reason to split it.



CD-1: Rural Counties + some Maricopa exurbs.

68% white, 11.4% hispanic, 17.4% native american

CD-2: Eastern Valley suburbs + same rural counties + Hopi reservation

70.9% white, 19.2% hispanic

CD-3: Half of North Phoenix + Peoria + North Glendale

71.4% white, 18.4% hispanic

CD-4: Downtown Phoenix + South Glendale

25.3% white, 59.8% hispanic

CD-5: Tempe + Scottsdale + Half of North Phoenix + Fountain Hills

78.4% white, 12.1% hispanic

CD-6: Mesa + Chandler

69.6% white, 20.2% hispanic

CD-7: Yuma + Santa Cruz + South Maricopa + Half of Tucson

37.7% white, 53.2% hispanic

CD-8: Cochise + Half of Tucson

72.9% white, 18.3% hispanic

CD-9: Pinal + Gilbert + Queen's Creek

68.7% white, 19.2% hispanic

You're splitting Gila River. That's right out.

Because it really is two counties from just about any Community of Interest angle you can think of. Not counting the reservation. And not counting the little bit of Tucson suburbia either.
The whole idea of the first district is to keep it out of the metro entirely. That works even better now than before, whether or not you include the Hopi. I would suggest not even contemplating scenarios that change that.

It's not a lot of people, but if I were to draw an R map taking Guadalupe out of the 4th is not something I would allow, either. IIRC Obama cracked 90 there. Protip: When you feel like commenting on something a year after you last looked it up, look it up again. It's just 79%.

Hmm, thanks, I'll think about that.

I thought about routing CD-1 into the north half of Mojave County to pick up the 100k or so people it needs rather than the bitter reaches of Maricopa, to avoid Pinal being split into several pieces as it is now.

It seems to me like the R's need the new district to go in the East Valley; skimming off Gilbert and Chandler just makes too much sense. Putting it in the West Valley ends up further cramming Flake's district while not getting the strength that you need in the new district

I think this is my final submission. I will at some point do the sums for my AZ-3 and AZ-6, and I'll rethink it if either comes out too marginal, but that's the only caveat.

()

AZ1
57.0 - 17.8 - 21.3 Native
61.8 - 15.6 - 18.7 Native

Map around Hopi is *I think* the closest to actual (pop.wise) that can be done with tabulation districts. Obviously the real boundary would be the current one.

AZ2
65.8 - 24.1
71.6 - 19.5

Gains the road connection between Mojave and Maricopa. Retreats out of Glendale and Peoria. Heads south into Hispanic suburbs somewhat. Open Republican seat.

AZ3
63.4 - 25.2
68.2 - 21.2

Glendale, Peoria, a bit of northwest Phoenix, some outer suburban areas to the north. The same shape as the old AZ3, but really not the old district at all. Trent Franks is here, would have to put a little effort into it but I think it *should* still be a solid lean R.

AZ4
24.8 - 60.7 - 8.3 Black
30.6 - 54.4 - 8.7 Black

Yes, you see right. I added the Phino bit south of South Mountain. Because that way Tempe and points east could be made to line up exact for two seats.

AZ5
75.3 - 15.9
79.1 - 12.9

Scottsdale, most of North Phoenix, some outer suburbs. Safe for Schweikert. Nobody (as in, no political operative of either party) will be sad to see the back of Ben Quayle.

AZ6
65.6 - 23.6
70.3 - 19.5

Tempe, Mesa, and the northern half of Gilbert. See CD3, for Trent Franks read Jeff Flake. Heh, I suppose he can call his Paulite votes "maverick". Though unlike AZ-3, I suppose Dems have a readily apparent candidate in Harry Mitchell. Then again, he'll be 72.

AZ7
33.9 - 56.8
40.3 - 50.5

The only Pinal precinct left is part of Tohono O'odham. The loss of Gila River is sad - the Native share is down to 3.4% - but is a nonnegotiable part of the whole "two East Valley seats" thingamajig. I also had to keep Buckeye in the district on the other side of the metro.

AZ8
69.2 - 21.8
73.6 - 18.2

Nothing to see here, move along.

AZ9
65.4 - 20.9
69.6 - 17.7

Chandler, Queen Creek, southern half of Gilbert, the suburban parts of Pinal, and the reservations there. Open Republican seat.

()

Question to ask here for lack of a better thread- what was the result of those lawsuits regarding the Republican selections for redistricting commission members? What's the makeup of that body and can conclusions be drawn so far regarding what kind of map they'll produce?

Yeah, the suit to get Rick Stertz, the tax-evading tea party hack and close associate of Senate majority leader Pearce and Giffords opponent Kelly on the shortlist was successful. As should be evident from the fact that a suit was even filed, he has since been selected. The other R pick is one Scott Freeman.
Dems picked one José Manuel Herrera and one Linda McNulty.
And the Independent member is one Colleen Mathis - the one monstrously qualified independent to apply, Paul Bender (he was on the shortlist) was understandably passed over as he's quite obviously an IINO - for all practical purposes a Democrat.

Some controversy about the way it was done. (http://stevemuratore.blogspot.com/2011/03/it-depends-on-what-meaning-of-word-is.html)

No idea what this Mathis person is like politically or otherwise, but obviously no matter what the end map will be some kind of bipartisan compromise. The bottom line is, even with a commission and firm guidelines a redistricting process remains highly political. Especially when the state is so polarized. It just won't be as shamelessly greedy or protective as when legislators draw their own lines, without rules beyond OMOV.

Minor correction. I spotted three Chandler precincts that I had mistakenly assumed to be part of Tempe in my sixth. They have been excised in exchange for two Gilbert precincts.

I've also done the sums on it now - 56.0% McCain (give or take a bit due to the possibility of some incorrect precinct identifications). So yeah, I think that East Valley map ought to stand. -_-

Apparently independent commissions are only good if they do what Republicans want. (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2011/07/14/20110714redistricting-commission-repeal.html)

"House Speaker Andy Tobin, R-Paulden, charged that chairman Colleen Coyle Mathis is not exercising her role as the commission's sole independent.

He claims that her votes for hiring the consultant to the commission, as well as one of its attorneys, were the same as the votes cast by the commission's two Democrats."

Isn't that her job - cast a tiebreaking vote for whoever appears more qualified?

Maybe they'll attempt to make AZ-08 a safer Dem seat?

No.

Hey look, maps! (http://www.azredistricting.org/Maps/default.asp) (First drafts, anyway.)

()
()

What would be the best option for Ann Kirkpatrick? AZ-05 on the second map? (though she wouldn't live there)

Both of those are somewhat GOP favored.

democrats should demand a safe central phoenix seat for Pastor and a moderately Tucson district for Grijalva. Anything else probably gets you in trouble with the DOJ. A 2-7 or 3-6 is what we should shoot for. Nothing less.

"After months of administrative drudgery and political tumult the five-person panel charged with redrawing Arizona’s political districts released its first set of working maps Saturday. The initial “grid” maps only meet two of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission’s six constitutionally mandated criteria - equal population and contiguity. From there, significant adjustments will be made..."

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2011/08/13/redistricting-commission-unveils-first-set-of-maps/

That's very generous of you. Even a full blown GOP gerrymander would give you 2 seats.

Some points of reference in Maricopa and Pima counties would have been nice.

What.is.this.I.don't.even.

Okay, I get the map 1 Tucson Dem sink. I'd never expect it to happen (Grijalva vs Giffords primary and end to the congressional career hopes of that Palin lovebunny who lost to Giffords and then got his campaign manager onto the redistricting commission) but it does make sense on the ground.
But divvying the Navajo Rez? Seriously?

The map is so preposterous (not suprising given that the authors of the map are Democrat party hacks) its highly unlikely to be implemented.

It's a pair or starting point maps. And they are starting with #2.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2011/08/18/20110818arizona-redistricting-panel-starting-map.html

Ok, so what does this mean? It looks like 5-4 at first glance, with all three border districts being at least lean D, but that's be right, can it?

Did they put Tempe in the 7th?

It's a starting point, which is going to be modified, but that map isn't 5-4. Roughly (its hard to map this of course):

Probably doesn't mean a whole lot, but better to start from 2 than 1. This is a very good Maricopa gerrymander for the GOP; and if they avoid putting Pinal with Pima and instead put it with Cochise we will have a good GOP map there too.

1. Obama 49+. McCain 49
2. Obama 50 McCain 49
3. McCain 59, Obama 40
4. McCain 59, Obama 40
5. McCain 59, Obama 40
6. McCain 57, Obama 42
7. Obama 61, McCain 37
8. McCain 56, Obama 43
9. McCain 53, Obama 46.

Ok, so in Maricopa we have:

3 = Yuma and Hispanic parts of Maricopa drowned out (easily, since few voters) by Chandler and Gilbert
5 = Scottsdale and other Republican territory
6 = Tempe drowned out by Mesa
7 = Pastor
8 = Republican parts of current AZ-1 and AZ-2
9 = Republican north Phoenix, not sure why it has such a high Obama number, maybe I'm missing something

I figure that CD-9 is bordered by I-17 and a horizontal line just north of I-10 (just north of the Pinal/Maricopa  horizontal border to the east). If so it would have a lot of 60-65% Obama precincts along its southern edge, although no 70%+ precincts.

Add 4 Flagstaff and parts of the Navajo drowned by Yavapai and Mojave, 5 parts of the Navajo, the Apache and some further rural territory with dem traditions still tappable in congressional races (and some very safe R rural territory too) drowned by exurbs.

My conclusion from reading how the process works, is that these maps are close to meaningless.

Ok, so the idea is "let's do 5 outstate districts, three of them along the border, and then see where the chips fall."?

For purposes of the partisan complexion of the CD's, these  template grids can essentially disappear once the other four criteria are plugged in. So for purposes of the doing the Dem and Pubbie congressperson body count, these grids are essentially worthless.

According to law, the commission must start with a map based only on two of their six criteria: population equality and compactness. Then the later stages incorporate the other four criteria (VRA, municipal boundaries, competitiveness, and a vague "communities of interest" requirement). The goal is to ensure that they're not just drawing the maps based on the existing incumbents' districts. Whether they actually meet this goal at the later stages is, of course, another question.

Not necessarily worthless. As long as the Pastor district stays at 63% or so Obama, and they really have no reason to tweak that one much at all even based on all 6 criteria, the GOP is in great shape in Maricopa County.

Any adherence to municipal boundaries will not cleave the more Dem western parts of Mesa from the heavy GOP eastern parts.

Here is my 7-2 map that tries to adhere to those municipal boundaries; although I did cheat once.

http://www.redracinghorses.com/diary/918/a-clean-arizona-72-map (http://www.redracinghorses.com/diary/918/a-clean-arizona-72-map)

Grid map

()

Krazen's map

()

What are the racial stats on your two southern districts there?
Otherwise very well done. Gosar is probably less than *entirely* safe, but then that'd be asking for a lot. And some districts *could* change too fast to remain safe for the entire decade, but are certainly safe for now.

Both are about  35% VAP Hispanic, which is less than the current CD-7, but about what the Grid Map is showing.

It's a blatant GOP map of course; given the way I cracked Tempe between 2 districts. But I did do other things such as moving CD-4 out of Glendale (which also favors the GOP).

I don't think it's absolutely unpermissible to crack Tempe, though. Not if you have a good excuse. (Though of course, the final map will be a mild bipartisan gerry in practice, so probably not happening.)
I kind of wonder why you have Grijalva running in the large southern district.

AZ-07 was majority VAP Hispanic before, and was drawn in 2001 by the Commission that way overriding all other criteria to conform to the VRA, or what they thought was the VRA.  That is going to happen again. So AZ-07 will need to look like this; in fact it is less grotesque than its current boundaries.  So I think it is close to a done deal. There is next to no room for maneuverability here. So it is going to look like this - period. That is my point of view anyway.

So my suggestion is to just draw AZ-07 the way I did, and move on from there.

()

()

Actually, AZ-07 might as well take the rest of Santa Cruz County (only 5,000 folks there to suck up), so this version looks even better.

()

Incidentally, that's a bigger pack than my map. The issue I had with that was that it makes the lines in Maricopa more challenging to hit 55-57% McCain across the board. I am not a fan of that CD-3 hooking around Glendale, but if you are not careful, one of your Maricopa districts (currently its CD-5) will end up marginal.

The preference in the south of course is to pack Giffords and not Grijalva. Might be unavoidable, however.

() (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/814/backupfull.png/)


() (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/707/backupclose.png/)

It is certainly possible that he would take a full Tucson district and force Giffords elsewhere. I just assigned by numbers there.

By the way, the only CD I drew is AZ-07. The rest are just the old CD's, erased in places.

Anyway, as you no doubt know, per the law,  you need to follow county lines and so forth unless there is a good non-partisan reason not to do so.  So Santa Cruz and Yuma Counties should be kept together, and Maricopa and any other county not named "Pima" not impinged.

Finally, all other things being equal, making more competitive districts rather than less is also in the law, after all the other criteria are met as best they can. So bear that in mind, when you are tempted to "cheat."  The Dems will catch you and point it out to the commission, and tank you.  Yes they will. In other words, only cheat if you are pretty confident you won't get caught because you have a quite plausible cover story, about some communities of interest beyond municipal lines or cross municipal lines BS or something.

If you want to pack AZ-07, try the below, which shoves some white heavily Obama precincts in to AZ-07 (presumably around the U of Arizona), and drops considerably more heavily Hispanic precincts to the east, next to an air force base I think, that are barely Obama. So the Hispanic percentage drops to a bare minimum (50.0-50.1% Hispanic VAP), but the Obama percentage goes up 1%.  But if that hurts the competitiveness of the next door CD, and bearing in mind it drops the Hispanic percentage a tad, you might not get away with it. It does make the CD slightly more compact, as it sheds some of its prong to the east, while reducing the size of that one little jut in from the north south towards downtown. That's your cover.

()

Yes, of course. Certainly it is valid to stick CD-7 into those 2 precincts in Pinal/Maricopa to keep the native population together (not that such changes the district by any margin). The splitting of Yuma/Santa Cruz there is also fairly marginal but done for partisan reasons; it likely makes sense to undo those and sacrifice the 10k or so Republicans.

Tempe of course can only be split to ensure that Mesa, Chandler, and Gilbert are not. Unfortunately the Democrats retain the equally valid choice to split Mesa rather than Tempe; pairing Tempe/Chandler/part of Mesa to form a swing/slightly Dem district and a heavily GOP Gilbert/part of Mesa/Fountain Hills district. Surely they will argue for that.

2 parameters set most of the map; the first being that CD-1 takes the northern portion of the state, and the second being that CD-7 exits Maricopa county to the extend possible. It is possible that neither parameter is valid, but historically they have tried to ensure that, as you said, Maricopa does not dominate all the districts.

Yes, those two native american precincts in Maricopa have a grand total of about 800 residents and less than 200 voters between them.  :)


What does the grid do to these two cities? Does it split one or both of them, or neither?  Does one of them have to be split? I know nothing about Phoenix really.  I have never worked on it before.

Meanwhile, with the VRA having drawn AZ-07, AZ-08 then draws itself as well, going up in its McCain percentage from 53.0% of the two party vote to 55.0% (it will be 54% if you don't get away with the modest little gerry in Tuscon). And yes, I get the native American bit now, and thus the bite out of Graham along with the bite out of Maricopa which you mentioned. :)

()

The grid map doesn't take into account municipal boundaries, so it splits a bunch of stuff.

The existing map splits:

Phoenix (inevitable)
Glendale (the Hispanic portions are extracted out)
Tucson (ditto)
Chandler (chopped sort of down the middle)
Mesa (ditto)


My map will remove at least 2 splits, in addition to removing 2 districts from Phoenix entirely (the 2nd and the 7th, although to be fair the 9th is added). The municipalities are very tricky here.

After having eyeballed it more closely, I am not sure the grid splits either Mesa or Tempe, and that is the starting point - as a matter of law. The prior map is legally irrelevant, except to the extent it reveals the Commission's methodology 10 years ago vis a vis the grid map at that time. If one of the towns is going to be split, there needs to be a non partisan reason to do it. If the grid splits one of the towns, then the presumption is that it shall be split, unless there is a non partisan rebuttal to that.

Except that Arizona's county lines are so strange as to leave, like, Yavapai and Cochise as the only counties where such good reasons do not exist?

Perhaps.  As Sam Spade is wont to say, we shall see.  "Compactness," inter alia, is a legal bullet point.

Yah, I didn't say that all other counties would be split. (And I might have added Yuma and La Paz, unless you're really desperate for that 50.1VAP Hispanic.)

Yes, desperate. It must be done - period.

And now the grid - more or less (the voting districts don't match).  The VRA more or less will get rid of two competitive CD's (and save Grijalva's career while probably ending Gifford's (to the extent it has not already ended)). After subtracting  4 GOP PVI points for the McCain bias (yes it is a full 4 points (and don't argue with me because I'm right!, so add 30 basis points net to Obama's percentages to get the baseline for PVI calculations), AZ-01 is  weak lean Dem, and AZ-02 is swing.  AZ-09 is a  strong lean GOP per the grid, but I suspect the Commission will do a clockwise rotation here to get AZ-09 to pick up the southern end of Scottsdale from AZ-07 (shoving up the Hispanic percentage in AZ-07 which is now right at about 50% Hispanic VAP as well as respecting municipal boundaries). That southern end of Scottsdale is about 55-45 Obama or so, and maybe a bit more. In exchange, AZ-09 will probably lose some heavily GOP precincts on its northwest side. That will probably shove AZ-09 down to  maybe a 2.5% GOP PVI, or a mid lean GOP seat.  Still that will make AZ-09 2 to 3 points more Pubbie than it is now. Stay tuned.

By the way, the CD numbering has been totally changed by the Commission, so forget whatever CD numbers you had in mind before when thinking about individual CD's. It's a whole new ball game.

So given the VRA, AZ-01 will be  a weak safe Pubbie seat (something over a 4% GOP PVI), or very close to it, AZ-02 and AZ-07 safe Dem, and the rest of the seats safe GOP.  So the Dems will have about 2.25 seats, and the GOP 6.75 seats as it were. That is my initial surmise. We shall see what happens when I play with it a bit more. AZ-03 is obviously going to change a lot, and it might influence the overall design here and there  potentially.

()

()

()

Maps used to be here, but have been revised some so are now below in the thread. However others quoted my old text so you can see them in those posts below before my later revision appears. I decided I don't like to clutter threads with zillions of my map revisions!

Impressive, sir. I see that you split Tempe also, although you did use one of the 2 Hispanic districts to do so.

I suspect one of the weaknesses of this configuration is that the blue and red districts could easily end up with Maricopa reps.

This type of 7-2 map that we have drawn would be a grand slam.

I tried to use your CD-7 (Grijalva) in this map. 5 interior Maricopa districts, the 1 to the north, the 2 to the south, and 1 looping one to gather the rest.

I like that Phoenix is only split 3 ways here. Technically I suppose it is 4, but the light blue 9th has almost none of Phoenix.

() (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/41/fullaj.png/)

() (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/29/fullbu.png/)

the northeast and northwest district looks like the 3rd and 4th districts of the 70s and 80s

Yes, that is why i suspect the grid map will be swapped for a Great Native North district like mine.

My split of Tempe just followed the grid. I had no intention of touching that grid split, unless there was a good reason to do so. As it happens, the split just makes the CD's look more compact. And some towns needed to be split to equalize population, and Tempe is it between AZ-07 and AZ-06. Each CD has only one municipal split between them, unless there is a damn good reason for more than one, and there was in a couple of instances. Discipline, discipline baby, is what it is all about.

I might note that I followed the grid for Maricopa, and adjusted it per the legal parameters, without really knowing as an initial matter what the partisan impact would be. Then I checked, as it is relevant actually for "communities of interest" issues, and then checked topography (I am somewhat familiar with it in AZ, to look for arterial connections and mountain barriers). It just happened that the lay of the land, the Commission's choice of the grid, and the VRA, worked for the Pubbies in AZ - big time.

Tuscon was another matter, but that in the end just fell together too - barely.

What is the legal reason for departing from the grid up north? And for Phoenix, where you have a radical change?  Also, the grey sea around the Phoenix island violates compactness, - and communities of interest. It is just a grab bag of rural and exurban areas. That is the rap you will face.

Well, I actually drew my map well before the grid, and I haven't really tweaked it to exactly match the grid parameters. So I would not look at my map from that angle.

The legal reason, I suppose, is 'Respect for communities of interest'; namely, the entire northern rural and native communities do not want to be represented by anyone from suburban Phoenix. They want their own rep (Gosar) and after complaining about it for decades, finally got it.

Except that Mojave County in the current map is not in the northern AZ CD. It would be interesting to know that the 2001 grid map looked like. And the Phoenix metro area has only a small share for both northern CD's - particularly AZ-04, but about two thirds of AZ-05 (at least) is also outside the Phoenix metro area. AZ-03 is a cross over CD. This map actually reduces Phoenix domination vis a vis your concept.

The Hopi in my map might be shoved into AZ-04 by the way. It can be done with this map a lot easier than it was last time.  That changes next to nothing really.

Addendum: Actually two thirds of AZ-05 is in Maricopa County. My bad. But consider AZ-04 your great northern CD. And per below, you can see that AZ-03 is a 50-50 proposition between Phoenix metro and the much more rural hinterlands.

()

And here are the old CD's. As you can see, only AZ-01 was really "free" from either Phoenix or Tucson domination. One CD remains that way, it just is now called AZ-04.  And rural AZ (sort of), gets another half CD from the new AZ-03.

()

A very good map.

Far better than either of the two maps produced by the Commission.

But then, the Commission is composed of three Democrats (one of whom made a claim to be and Independent), and two Republicans. 

Naturally the three Democrats voted to hire a Democrat firm to do the Gerrymandering, er, redistricting.

Here's the initial grid:

()

Here's the draft map based on the grid:

()

Here are transcripts and minutes from the previous Commission's meetings.

http://2001.azredistricting.org/?page=meetings (http://2001.azredistricting.org/?page=meetings)

And the motherload- here are videos of the current Commission's meetings.

http://www.azredistricting.org/Meeting-Info/default.asp (http://www.azredistricting.org/Meeting-Info/default.asp)

You do understand that your split of the Navajo Nation along the grid line has a 0.1% chance of happening, do you Torie?

Oh, and here's a live stream of the current meeting, which is just starting:

http://www.azredistricting.org/stream/default.asp (http://www.azredistricting.org/stream/default.asp)

Perhaps Lewis, you should look at my map more closely. Why on earth would I do that to the Navajos?
:P

Moving right along, AZ-05 is the land of the Mormons, and their lost tribe of Israel friends, the native Americans, to a quite substantial degree. And of course they should be all together (except for the Hopi dissidents who just don't play well with others).  :)

The map is done.  Yes, I know, it's brilliant. Thanks. :)  (Addendum: yes, I know,  it is even more brilliant with this 4th revision of my post after Lewis pointed out the Navajo Reservation split, and I kept working a bit more on municipal unification (getting rid of a tri-chop for Peoria for example), and compactness maximization, and communities of interest connecting.   :P

From the 2001 map, GOP picks up 2 seats in AZ (the new seat plus the Gifford's seat), plus makes a swing CD, AZ-09, move from very weak GOP lean (about a 2% GOP PVI) to weak  GOP safe (4.3% GOP PVI). The old northern CD, then labeled AZ-01, was a about a 4% GOP PVI (so on the cusp between "safe" and "lean"), and is now replaced with two safe northern CD's as well.

The commission never gets to its final (and secondary) parameter, after having maxed the others, to wit, "competitiveness." This map degrades it, but it meets all the paramount parameters I think - to a tee. AZ-07 by the way bounces up from the grid from around 50% Hispanic VAP, to 55.4% Hispanic VAP. In the 2001 map, it was around 60% Hispanic VAP. It needs to be juiced up from the grid - and it is. The Lord wants 50% plus Hispanic CVAP to the extent possible (it isn't with AZ-02, and it takes work to get up even to 50% VAP), and I am here to serve him. :)

()()

The numbers are off because Arizona specializes in huge precincts in places, large numbers of which are over 4,000, and a fair number between 4,000 and 10,000, with a few even larger than that. They will have to be bifurcated.  (Addendum: the map was slightly revised to separate the Hopi from the Navajo, since the Commission will almost certainly do that, just like it did 10 years ago. when it really had to reach to do it.)

()

From the grid, AZ-09 picks up the southern end of Scottsdale per plan, and loses a southern tier of Phoenix precincts to AZ-07, AZ-03 gets all of Chandler, and picks up a bunch of precincts that were in AZ-07 at its southern end, but were on the wrong side of some impassible mountain (that big green precinct in AZ-07 at its now southern edge), plus have nothing in common with the balance of AZ-07 (high income white and Republican) and thus a ludicrous appendage even though in Phoenix (the southern tier of these precincts in Phoenix were already in now AZ-03 per the grid, and I just added the balance of them), and AZ-03 needed the precincts anyway, AZ-06 gets most of Gilbert except the two southern most precincts, and the balance of Mesa (except for a small slice at its NE corner which the grid assigned to AZ-05, and needs to say there), AZ-05 picks up the rest of Gila County, AZ-01 picks up the rest of Greenlee County, and loses its share of Santa Cruz to AZ-02, and all is right with the world.

()  

()

A lagniappe is that I figured out an absolutely gorgeous gerry of Tuscon which also manages to max compactness.  Isn't that just special?  :P

()

Lets see,
An AZ-05 that contains Scottsdale and a large chunk of Native American territory. It voted strongly Republican (58.3% for McCain and has a PVI of R+8). Congratulations, Torie, for putting him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Hayworth) back in the US House of Representatives. :P

An instance where ignoring incumbents can produce worse results. ;)

Electing "him" would be a perfectly okay with me.

Haha.  I get it. Keeping Hayworth out of sight and out of mind is not in the statute books from this legally driven map. But don't worry - be happy. The new AZ-05 has yes, about 15% of Scottsdale's precincts, and a few others that were in the old AZ-05 (see the old AZ-05 currently extant, but not for long), but about 80% of it is not in his CD.  His old CD was chopped up actually, pretty good (between 4 Phoenix area based CD's AZ-03, O7, 08, and O9).  OH, yes, the CD numbering system per the Commission's grid, totally changed. And Hayworth would probably have to run against the GOP incumbent who currently represents AZ-05 in any event, since the other three AZ CD's Phoenix area Pubbies represent are already spoken for, even if they have to move around a bit.   But AZ-03 is open, assuming the current incumbent in AZ-05 does not choose to run there (that southwest tail bit in the map below in tan).  And Hayworth represented about the same number of folks in that new CD, as in the new AZ-05 CD. So I guess Hayworth will have one open CD from which to choose. :P  

()

And below in the yellow is the portion of the new AZ-05 that was in the old AZ-05, about 140,000 folks.

()

Remember that Arizona is a VRA preclearance state. The Republicans might make a fuss about what they want, but they don't have veto power over the map, and the DOJ does.

That is why AZ-02 needs to be 50% VAP Hispanic, and that is the major departure in my map from the Commission's grid map, which will be their starting point.

Having played around a few times but not really completing any map, here's what I see as most logical from a non-partisan standpoint:

-Metro Phoenix interestingly should be left mostly unchanged, just population shifts for equality. AZ-02 is the biggest changed district, but that can be done just by removing the non-Maricopa parts. AZ-06 needs to similarly contract.
-AZ-08 can easily be made an immediate Tucscon-area only district, just with the most Hispanic precincts removed for AZ-07. Removing all of Cochise county likely makes it an Obama seat.
-AZ-01 ends up spanning the entire New Mexico border and takes in much of Pinal County. No longer the ugly split with the rezes by the way because:
-AZ-09 is basically what was severed from AZ-02 and a good chunk of AZ-01 in northwestern Arizona. Including all of Cococino County. Yavapai and Mohave probably make it a fairly safe GOP seat though.

And AZ-04 barely needs to be changed, the Hispanic VAP of AZ-07 can be easily boosted by just removing the non-Hispanic areas on the edges, and it needs to shed quite a bit of population.

Nope, you lose an Hispanic majority CD BRTD. That is very probably illegal. A Tucson area CD only falls way short of of majority Hispanic. You need to take in Yuma. If you go from Tucson to Phoenix to grab Hispanics there, you really blow the grid away, and dilute AZ-07 too much to boot. Sorry. And the map would look like hell.

10 years ago the Commission went out of its way to create two majority Hispanic CD's, departing from the grid, with far more contortions than are necessary this time per my map.

But draw your own map, bearing in mind the grid and the detailed  legal constraints in the state law, plus the VRA, and we shall see what you produce.   Oh, and creating competitive districts is only a factor after all of the other constraints have been met as best they can, so it only comes into play all other things being relatively equal.

This is a legal exercise and nothing but BRTD. Good luck!  :)

What? You must be misunderstanding me big time.

()
()

AZ-04 is virtually unchanged. AZ-07 is now 53.9% Hispanic VAP, an increase from the current bare majority. The new AZ-08 gave 50.8% to Obama.

The current AZ-07 contains a lot of white liberal parts of Tucscon on its edges, and it needs to shed a bunch of population, and AZ-08 is the only logical place to put them.

IC.. You smashed the grid, have Hispanics from Yuma, Phoenix and Tucson all in one, ignore county lines, and increases erosity, in exchange from moving one CD from reasonably safe Pubbie to reasonably safe Dem, thereby not increasing competitiveness.

OK.  I guess that's it.

Well it's not going to work very well with an odd number of districts.


...exactly like the current map.


As Lewis pointed out, this is largely needed in Arizona. I tried to avoid it when possible, but that's going to be needed a lot splitting 14 counties amongst 9 districts, especially with quirky things like the Hopi/Navajo split and ethnic divisions.


Where? If anything the Phoenix metro seats are now much cleaner.


Erm not quite. One seat goes from a swing district to reasonably safe Dem, and two districts get a bit more Rep (AZ-01 and AZ-05) and the GOP get a new reasonable safe district.

Why would Tucson and Phoenix be connected in a district when it is no longer necessary, especially when some people in Tucson want to leave the state?

Your tan district is also highly unlikely. You'll probably have to cut the entire western portion out.

Next to nobody lives in the western bit of AZ-03 (the tan CD), and the nearest population areas are in Phoenix, and it's in Maricopa County to boot.  It could however be appended to AZ-04 or AZ-02.  

BRTD, you are working from the existing map, rather than from the grid, and the purpose of the grid is to avoid being influenced by the existing map. Changes from the grid need need to be justified by the VRA, communities of interest and municipal and county lines, and compactness. If all of those are met well, then if all things are equal you think about competitiveness. Changes from the grid without good reason are illegal. Last time the Commission hewed to the grid quite well, except that it needed old AZ-07 to be 50% Hispanic, so at that time it needed to go to both Yuma and Phoenix and Tuscon to do it. No more. Now it needs to go only to Yuma.

You might try moving what is now AZ-02 into Phoenix rather than Yuma, but you will find you have population problems getting there. Casa Grande has a lot of people. It is a lot easier to just drop it from AZ-02 in favor of Yuma (and there are no people between Yuma and AZ-02 per the grid, so it is easier to pick them up without picking up extraneous Anglos). Your game BRTD is to try to minimize AZ-02's take of Hispanics in Tuscon to buttress up the Gifford's CD into close to a non competitive Dem CD by getting Hispanics into AZ-02 from both from Phoenix and Yuma, in exchange for Tuscon Hispanics that are dumped into AZ-01.  I understand that game. It is just not going to work this time I don't think.

Here is the grid map again:

()

And here is my map:

()

Yesterday the commission discussed a map where they modified the second grid option to conform to the VRA. It looked similar to Torie's map except:

• They didn't do the Hopi-Navajo gerrymander, and
• The tan district on Torie's map went further southeast. It looked more like a Pinal-Tucson district.

It's important to note that it's still an early draft, and conforms only to the VRA and the requirements met by the grid map.

Interesting. I can't find the new map.  IF AZ-03 took the rest of Pinal and some of Pima near Tuscon, chewing in to AZ-01 in my map, what territory did AZ-01 take to replace it?  AZ-02 must have picked up more than just Yuma County if AZ-01 has to take more of Pima.

Was the revised map something like this?  This drops the McCain percentage in AZ-01 down from 54.9% McCain to 54.1% McCain -  a 4.5% GOP PVI from the adjusted baseline.  BRTD would still not be happy!  He wants more - much more. :)

()

Or this, 54% McCain for AZ-01, and a 4.4% GOP PVI (not bad maps really at all come to think of it, even though it departs a bit more from the grid, but not by much):

()

Yep.

The orginal map the Democrats came up with was absurd.

They have had to back down.

That's because the new map hasn't been posted. I watched the live stream yesterday. When the video goes up on the website, I'll see if I can get a screenshot.


I should just point out that the "orignal map the Democrats came up with" is no more than a (legally required) foundation upon which to build. Since the Commission is not allowed to use the current districts as a baseline, they draw what they call a "grid map" to provide a starting point for redistricting. The "original map" of which you speak is one of these "grid maps." The Commission hasn't even yet considered most of the conditions that they are required to consider, such as respect for communities of interest.

Correct. Well stated. And that is exactly what I tried to do. In the end, I played no partisan games at all really.  And picking up that bit of Maricopa and putting it into AZ-02, and having AZ-03 dip down into Pima a bit, does up the Hispanic percentage in AZ-02 by about .5%, allowing some more flexibility in restoring order and some communities of interest and compactness in Tuscon while keep AZ-02 up at 50%+ Hispanic VAP.

()

And here is a cut at Tuscon that I like even better, since it stays in Tuscon, and is rectangular. 54.2% McCain for AZ-01, 50.2% Hispanic VAP for AZ-02.

()

The next meeting of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission will be Thursday, 12:00 PM local time (3:00 PM Eastern). The Hispanic Coalition for Good Government, as well as other individuals and groups, are scheduled to present and submit Congressional and Legislative maps to the Commission. The Commission will also review, discuss, and direct to the mapping consultant, ideas for possible adjustments to Congressional and Legislative grid maps based on constitutional criteria.

Given the direction the Commission is going, per Vazdul's helpful intelligence reports as to the current doings of the Commission,  and what are to me going to be rather obvious further adjustments around the edges, I suspect it will be very hard to argue with the map below in the end. It just meets so well all the legal criteria. Some of the big precincts will need to be chopped to equalize population, and I took that into account, so the equalization will be just between two CD's in each instance.

AZ-02 is down again to 50% Hispanic VAP, but that meets the VRA, and it maxes compactness.  Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose, as to how it all affects the partisan balance. The final tweaks do make AZ-09 only a weak safe Pubbie CD to boot, along with AZ-01, so that is the Dem's consolation card. AZ-03 is hardly uber safe for the Pubbies either. If they run a nutter, he or she will probably lose. The luckiest man in the world is the guy who currently represents northern AZ (formerly AZ-01 and now AZ-04), and beat a Dem incumbent in 2010.  Now he can just dial it in. :)

()()

()

()

No. Not if he gets any sort of primary challenge. You drew his district out from under his feet.

Gosar lives in Flagstaff.  I don't see him getting a challenge, unless somebody from the Mohave County area which was appended challenges him, or from the Phoenix metro area into which the CD pushed, the latter of which has about 150,000 residents in the district.

Lolwut. There's scarcely a line they didn't change.

Not really as to the basic design except for getting AZ-07 up to 50% Hispanic VAP. That was my impression anyway. Of course the lines change around the edges to unite stuff, and the Commission last time hewed to that metric pretty faithfully. The way the population lies in AZ, with most everyone living in Tuscon or Phoenix, makes it hard to play partisan games given the rules of the road.

And the final map:

()

There is a community of interest requirement, and the commission is not dominated by Phoenix Suburban Republicans. Either of these would be sufficient to mark your little wank there as DOA without the other. There will probably be a northern Arizona district much like the current in the end - probably excising Pinal, possibly excising parts of Yavapai, possibly taking in parts of Mojave, possibly taking in Cochise, but substantially the same district - not because it's there right now but because nothing else makes sense. Safford pretty much must by law remain united with the remainder of LDS Nonmetro Arizona (Snowflake, Holbrook etc) and thus can't be used to crack Giffords, as you're doing. The Navajo Nation can't go into a district dominated by exurbs if there are any viable alternatives. There's neither an even remotely compelling excuse for creating two Maricopa-to-Northern-Boondogs seats, nor even much of an incentive for the players involved (rules or no rules, this is still a bipartisan gerrymandering exercise. The GOP wouldn't have sued to get a particular operative onto the commission if there were any doubts about that.) Etc. There are just more problems with your map than... well... things that aren't problems.
There *are* potential legal issues with retiring Grijalva's district from metro Maricopa, actually ("retrogression"), but I agree that it's likely to happen anyways - though I would take even odds that he'll retain Gila River as it belongs with Tohono O'odham and there's no real compelling reason not to ("I can draw a cleaner-looking gerry of Tucson then" isn't one. "Casa Grande needs to go with Mesa while rural Pinal should remain in the northern district" might be one, though, as that along with a different home for the West Maricopa hispanics would make it impossible for the Southern Hispanic seat to reach Gila River.) It does mean that the grid can't stand in Maricopa either, though (apart from Pastor's district). It'll have to be rotated around it - you can't draw a district spanning parts southwest and southeast of town like your tan one, thanks to that geography rule.

After doing the VRA thing, I don't see much moving around of populations from the original 2001 grid and first draft map - just some rather empty land around the edges (except for Phoenix where they tried to unite cities).   Much of what you are saying does not involve that many residents I don't think.  And if for some reason it's a crime to put the Navajo and Apache Reservations in a CD that is majority Phoenix metro (where is that in the law again, and why is that?), that does not involve that many folks either, and you just punch AZ-05 more into the Phoenix metro area, and punch AZ-04 more out.

Why don't you draw your map Lewis for review?  Just a thought.   It doesn't take all that much time. This ain't Ohio.  :)

Oh, and I don't understand the "crack Giffords" comment.  And where's Gila River?  And it's not illegal to drop the Hispanic VAP from 54% or whatever to 50% either. And if it is not illegal, then you can't violate the state law rules. Even if you did everything possible to max the AZ-02 Hispanic take in Tuscon, it would not change the PVI much anyway - just make the lines more erose and cross more municipal boundaries. What you really need to do to prop Giffords up is the BRTD plan of shoving AZ-02 into Phoenix, and more out of Tuscon, and have AZ-01 drop Graham County, departing from the grid.  That would scream partisan gerrymander to me. Last time AZ-07 needed to go to Phoenix to get enough Hispanics. That is not the case now.

Do you agree with CARL that the third member of the Commission is a partisan Dem hack by the way? Just asking.

Do you have a drf file of the grid? Even though you need to change everything that needs to be changed - ie, almost everything - it's still what you need to start from.

Community of Interest. Rural Arizona, pretty much anywhere, doesn't have one with Maricopa.
You'll notice the grid's "northern" district had a sizable bit of Maricopa. The draft had it almost excised in exchange for Yavapai (the southwestern tip there is a reservation) and then after that they figured that rural Pinal (a very different place in 2000 than it is today) was a better fit than Lake Havasu City, and threw even that remainder out because the areas in Pinal had more people.
The "not very many people" are all in excess of 10% of districts... and they are what makes your GOP gerrymander.

Oh btw. Just noticed you fixed my "tan" complaint already before I reiterated it.

You aren't going to draw a map for me, Lewis?  :(

By the way, if you bounce AZ-04 from Maricopa County, and bounce AZ-05 from Northern AZ (except for the Hopi, and I think a long line running for 150 miles to get there via your kind of map is just ridiculous, but that is just me), that still leaves AZ-04 at about 56% McCain or so, and it will not pick up Graham County either if that is the goal. Why do the Hopi get such special treatment?  Lots for folks who dislike each other are put in the same CD.  The little problem that you have to get the Dems in the game is in AZ-04 is excising Mohave and La Paz Counties. Good luck.

I'm sorry if the grid was a GOP "gerrymander." I didn't draw it. To suggest that it is however, some might suggest borders on "hyperbole."  JMO.  And I didn't draw my map with partisan considerations in mind; I just commented on what the effects were of trying to hew to the state law parameters. However, you have many opinions about "communities of interest" in AZ (just how compelling they are I don't know), and certainly know the state better than I do.

Oh, and 10% of the  voters (unless Hispanic or native American), doesn't mean squat in AZ in general outside of the Phoenix and the Tuscon area in a few parts. The partisan divisions are just not that great, and after putting to bed the two Hispanic CD's, AZ is just too Pubbie.

Have you had a look at voting patterns of rural Arizona? The deep south does have deeper divisions, but apart from that?

While I hope the Hopi ridiculousness falls by the wayside, btw, the reason it got special treatment is due to the arcana of US constitutional law, which means that tribes don't have standing in certain kinds of suits, I forget what kind, and the tradition that Representatives serve as standins for them. Whoever represented AZ-1 would have had to sue (as the Hopi Nation) himself (as the Navajo Nation) on some particular upcoming matter. Yeah, it's bizarre. I may also be getting some details wrong.

The grid is not a map of congressional districts. It is not intended to be one. Suburbs-to-rural districts are pubbie gerrymanders usually, and certainly would be in this case - both districts' Republican safeness is anchored in their suburban portion. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... And in the case of the Navajo, we're talking about just about the remotest, not to mention thirdworldish habitations in the lower 48 here.

Safford is a rural LDS town and votes like one. Its inclusion in the former AZ-8 is what creates your safe(ish) GOP seat there (we're talking 30,000 people in the conurbation, giving John McCain 74% of their votes). It got excised between the grid and the first draft the last time, no reason to assume it won't be this time.

And yeah, I'm drawing a map for you as we speak. Will probably not get it to presentability today. But because of my "didn't start from the grid" caveat, I wouldn't call it my prediction of what will actually happen. Though I did take Vazdul's suggestion that they seemed to be drawing a Tucson-to-Pinal seat (though I assume he just meant Casas Grandes), something I had never considered before. Though as of current, I still have Buckeye in the southwestern seat... ideally, I'll find a way to remove that without pushing it below 50.1 or doing anything else I don't want to do, but I'm leaving it for now.

In my opinion, it would be more useful to draw what you think the Commission will draw. That is what I did. Anyway can draw their dream, that comports with their politics. Are you sure that your opinions of what the Commission will draw, should draw, based on the law, aren't being influenced by which team you're on?  Be honest now. :)

By the way Lewis, Graham was put in AZ last time because to meet population requirements, that is what made the CD look nice and compact after Mojave was excised. You will find as you draw AZ-04 across the northern part of the state, including nothing in Maricopa, that you get your population fill long before you reach Graham. You will have to do a punch up to get AZ-05 to grab Prescott to achieve your goals, violating county lines, compactness and everything else - which this time I would think any fair minded person would say it just a Dem gerry - period.

Giffords was screwed by the way the population changed in AZ, forcing old AZ-01's population center point to move towards the northwest and out of the southeast - and by the way the VRA worked, which got the new AZ-02 up to 50% Hispanic VAP by sucking up carefully everything Hispanic in Pima and Yuma, without needing any of Phoenix.

Good luck Lewis! 

Yes. Yes, it would be more useful. But I'm too lazy to go dig for the best map of the grid I can find, then enter it manually into the DRA, when I'm then going to change it all right after that. (Oh, and did you read through the (publically available part of the) 2001 commission's deliberations? Mad kudos in that case. Or did you just make that up on the spot?) Old AZ-1 wasn't forced to move anywhere at all by population changes, of course. It's just barely above target and only "wants" to lose some new exurbs in Pinal. Though I understand that because of the Commission's rules it's drawn anew from spot, leading to more change than if the Commission were working from the old map.

So... with immense caveatting and as only one option etc pp...

()

()

()

The numbering scheme right now is sort of wild here, (small) part grid, (some) part previous district, (mostly) just random. It's obviously going to be vaguely grid-based in actuality (5 of the 8 2000 districts bear the number of the closest draft map district, though 1-3 were changed.)

1 - the northeastern district. Once you got Safford to Sedona (which goes where Flagstaff goes. As a matter of course. County line be damned.) together, you of course need to pick up some areas with more quasi-suburban (but not actually suburban) patterns. Cochise got added here and rural Pinal excised mostly because I was trying to see what the Tucson-to-Pinal district might end up like, and it forces that. The far north of Mojave is FLDS Polygamists and Indians and belongs (belonged in 2000 too, really.) I didn't want to split the Prescott Valley, and that's what forced the split of "real" Mojave (Kingman and Bullhead included, Lake Havasu not). Seligman is of course onI40 between Flagstaff and Kingman and not in any way accessible from Prescott, hence that further split of Yavapai in the north.
53.6-45.0 McCain, 56.6-17.9 White, 21.1 Native. Over 60% White on VAP though. Vague lean R partly because the Dem coalition is hard to hold together - as was true of the old district. Exchanging the remainder of Yavapai for Cochise (so, redrawing the Tucson seat, Pinal, etc pp) and Bullhead City brings McCain up to 55.2, btw. Of course, if the commission'd be doing that it'd move Kingman out as well and add some rural Pinal, bringing your McCain figure down again to about 54.1. That then is almost like the minimum change alignment (other than Hopi and FLDS stuff.)

2 - the part-Phoenix metro seat. There must be one. And there will be exactly one. Unless they do funny keep-districts-alike stuff for Grijalva. As they shouldn't. Sun City and points west (including some Hispanic suburbs around Goodyear, getting drowned out in this district though), Prescott, La Paz, Lake Havasu City.
61.5-37.2 McCain, 71.7-20.3 White

3 - is the grid's number for the Yuma seat. Still with Tucson Hispanics and all the Indians it can find, but now without actual Phoenix suburbs. Except one precinct (Tonopah) that isn't even Hispanic. Just noticed that right now. It does include Green Valley and the fast-growing posh R suburb of Maricopa (in Pinal county) for compactness reasons.
55.4-43.5 Obama, 56.1-33.4 Hispanic, 4.7 Native. 50.2% Hispanic on VAP.

4 - South Phoenix Hispanics. Includes Tolleson and Avondale, but nothing in Glendale.
66.5-32.3 Obama, 65.1-20.2 Hispanic, 8.8 Black. Some people might consider this packing, obviously, but mostly only people trying to construct a gerry for White Dems.

5 - Glendale, Peoria, NW Phoenix.
58.6-40.2 McCain, 62.1-26.4 White. We're getting to the parts of the state I care diddly swat about. I understand I should observe municipal lines (which is why, of the major cities, only Phoenix is split. Though that is split four ways if we're counting the suburbs south of South Mountain.) and that it is a radial city and one should therefore avoid the temptation of creating a north central Phoenix / South Glendale seat and a northern Maricopa seat like the plague. Unless one were trying to draw a no-stops-pulled Dem gerry. Which is pointless. But that's about it.

6 - Uh, why is this number 6? Was that from the grid? Tucson and (southern) Pinal. Ugly line is due to precinct design and population balancing. Though the actual map needs to adhere to census tracts, not precincts.
50.3-48.5 McCain, 67.1-23.3 White
I'd prefer to get Florence and Coolidge in as well but it's 40,000+ people. Wreaks havoc to this surprisingly clean Maricopa map. And would drop the 3rd below 50% Hispanic. (Without excising anything in exchange, adding the area raises the McCain share to 50.5 btw.)

7 - Scottsdale, NE Phoenix.
55.6-43.3 McCain, 76.3-15.3 White. Yawn.

8 - Mesa, Tempe that bit south of South Mountain. Those two indian reservations thrown in for balance. I'd prefer if I hadn't had to do this, it smacks a tiniest bit of gerrymandering given that's it's a marginal seat.
54.7-43.9 McCain, 65.0-23.2 White
 
9 - Gilbert, Chandler, continuously built up parts in Pinal (Apache Junction, Queen Creek. You'll notice this got done between the grid and the draft last time around, too.) And a southern extension to Florence and Coolidge that makes the Maricopa map work.
59.1-39.9 McCain, 68.1-19.4 White.

I apologize if I messed up the municipal boundaries, btw. It's possible in some weird areas.

That thing that you drew is what you think the commission will draw or should draw if it is to best to comport with the law in your opinion, Lewis?  Really?

I see that you found a way to excise Prescott btw. :P

No - see caveats - but it is beyond reasonable doubt closer than the bizarre thing you drew for all points outside the Phoenix metro. Oh, and Cochise. Because I'm not actually sure I'm buying that one yet. Though it does make some sense (unlike your map).
It's not a high standard. Your map couldn't possibly get any grade better than an F.

Why don't you draw your best effort as to what does comport best with the law, or what you think the Commission will draw, and then I can grade your map.

After you do that, I will then draw another map that deals more appropriately IMO with your Maricopa phobia, which may -or may not - interest the Commission. We shall see.

Oh, I give what is apparently not your best effort an F too. We're harsh graders!  :P

Here are the maps that were discussed during Monday's meeting. Again, these are simply modifications to the grid map designed to draw two Hispanic-majority districts. They are far from being the finished product.

I apologize for the low quality, but the quality of the source video leaves something to be desired. Still, at least Arizona gives us an opportunity to observe the process.

First, a statewide view:

()

And here's a close up of the Maricopa County area:

()

The map is color coded to Hispanic percentage; the darker green a precinct is, the more Hispanic it is.

Thanks Vazdul. I just fixed their map where it should be fixed per that drawing. Minor stuff really. So now we shall see just how much they modify it. If Lewis were the swing vote on the Commission, it would be thrown in the trash, and they would start over. The more clockwise you turn the outside of Maricopa wheel, the more Dem it gets. Lewis twisted the dial hard in that direction.  :P

Looks good thus far. Compared to the grid:

1. Obama 49+. McCain 49
2. Obama 50 McCain 49
3. McCain 59, Obama 40


The changes look to be favorable to the R's thus far with 2 districts moving in our favor. Even Lewis's map gives the R's a somewhat favorable situation in Maricopa

OK, if the sun, the moon, and the universe itself revolve around the great AZ north, which must be cleansed of any Phoenix area taint, or we all go to hell, here is version two for Lewis to give me another "F" on (we may be trading "F's" for some time :)).

It has an f'ing logic to it. I followed the f'ing roads, and know that Payson is a summer resort for LDS types trying to get out of the heat from Phoenix, and so on. I also knew Lewis would trash me if I dared separate one freaking native American from their precious homeland (except the Hopi of course in this beyond the looking glass world), so thus the shove of the "Great Red North CD" down to the border of that county that Lewis wants so bad (Graham and its LDS haven Safford), but can't have.  No he can't. Who knew that the Dems' great plot was to bag little old Graham in the Great Red North CD, but it is. Look for every argument they make to be geared towards the great clockwise twist. In this version, I accommodated their avaricious designs, but just enough to tease them - not enough for them to get what they want. I enjoy keeping them frustrated that way, yes I do. :P

Oh by the way, the La Paz thing was done (the "thing" being to excise it from Great Red North CD and dump it into AZ-08), because that is the only way to avoid bifurcating Prescott, which the Commission will hate. Little old Prescott has a lot of people!  

Oh yes, it's a drag to work out another color scheme when I change a map around. This time that took me about 25 minutes to get it to look a way that pleased me. I'm fussy!  Lewis probably hates my color scheme too. Good!  :)

()

()

()

By the way, that rounded northern line of AZ-05 is the Mongollon Rim. It is a quite spectacular feature from the air (it's a cliff that goes for 200 miles or more with the plateau on its north side, and the lower lands on its south side). Look for it next time your fly to LA from Dallas or some such place. You will fly right over it.

Very much like that map, Torie. It's quite like my map in post #69 and better adheres to the grid.

I thought my other map better adhered to the grid. Whatever!  Thanks. :)

And yes in looking back at your map, I see that yours is similar.  Well done sir!

Well duh. That's how it should be. :) (You could gerrymander Maricopa for the Dems, but I don't see why one should do that given there's no point.)

---

Torie? D. In other words, far from optimal and probably not close to the end result, but fathomable.
Lots of obvious issues still, mostly with the blue district.

---

Vazdul - interesting. Are we to take it that that's their idea of what the southern Hispanic district should look like? Ie, that they'll keep it Tucson-to-West End? Interesting detail about getting Eloy in, most of the reason why I didn't was the precinct design wasn't kind to me.
That does look as if they'll eventually excise Tucson from that Chandler-Pinal district. Which of course would probably mean the old 8th probably remains much as is, though perhaps not. I can certainly see why Torie - and a certain R member of the Commission - is fascinated with the alternative.

---

I had a macchiavellian idea about the south this morning, but I see that's not the way it's headed. Which is probably a good thing. The idea was that you could, starting from the grid, have worked in the direction of a Nogales-to-Glendale Hispanic seat that doesn't actually touch Tucson proper, a Dem Tucson-and-points north seat, and a Rep Tucson-Cochise-and-points north seat. That would kinda satisfy the interests of both Dems and Reps on this peculiarly Sonoran commission (except that Grijalva would have been clean drawn out of his district.)

Right, so all they did so far is redraw the 3rd to be over 50% VAP Hispanic, and that left a bit of Tucson in the (2nd, was it?) from the grid.

Drew that map just for the heck of it.

()

Blue district does include Drexel Heights. Its Hispanic VAP proportion (50.6) is actually higher than its Obama share (50.0). Lol, I feel like I'm in Texas.
Some parts of the remainder come well together... not all though.

Incorrect, by the way. As in, they drew it to not be majority VAP Hispanic back then despite (I think) being able to. They drew it to be barely majority Hispanic on total population.

Lewis I guess we are a mutual disadmiration society here. Your map splits the native American community, which was an issue with the Commission 10 years ago (yes, I have started to read the transcripts since you have made so many claims about what their motives were last time, mostly to try to find out what caused them to depart from the grid), that blue district is just a grab bag of Santa Cruz, Phoenix and Yuma, so we have the unnecessary grab bag troika again, and you trash the grid it seems, just like last time. So F again, although this version of yours is not quite the excrescence your last one was, as it wandered up into the Prescott area and beyond, separating that zone from the rest of the northern CD. Sorry. I just don't think you are drawing the CD's the way the Commission is likely to, but rather the way you want to do it that is not patently illegal - maybe.

It would also be more helpful if you would explain just why you think my second map sucks, as opposed to just saying that it does. That is just so Sam Spadian. Whatever.

By the way, per the American Almanac, the old AZ-07 CD pre the 2010 census was 54.6% Hispanic population, so if it wasn't 50% Hispanic VAP, it was close. The VAP thing emerged from the courts post 2001.


Addendum: Oh I see you did not split the native American community, so I retract that. So that is OK, but you do really ignore county lines don't you?  But that part isn't bad, and does match the grid pretty well. However, it makes it tougher to make AZ-02 50% Hispanic VAP without doing the number on AZ-02 that you did, because AZ-02 has to suck up more precincts in Tuscon that are less than 30% Hispanic, or make more of a hash there. In any event, the Dems are going to hate a 50% Hispanic VAP CD that is only 50% Obama. The Hispanics will freak. That is not going to happen. The yellow and blue seats don't make any sense to me however.

Anyway, per my retraction about the native Americans, I give your map a D now. :) And maybe doing a partial punch up into the St. John's area so that AZ-04 can take the rest of Yavapai, makes some sense, although I don't really see it as better, just different. The cut by AZ-08 into that county is just some empty rural precincts (just 4,900 residents are excised from Yavapai), not splitting up anything really. That would not be the case as much with a partial punch up into Apache County. In fact I see now that it would bifurcate St. Johns. Not good. To get rid of that would mean AZ-04 would have to punch into rural Maricopa to pick up about 4,000 residents - an option, but not perfect.

Addendum 2: I think they drew AZ-02 in the revision in haste just to meet the VAP requirement, looking at a map of Hispanic precincts that their advisors gave them, grabbing big green areas without many people, splitting county lines that are not necessary to split. It was just a way to tread water for the time being. To me, since it is not necessary to punch into Pinal, I doubt if that punch will survive.

Anyway, here is the map of the tweaks per what I said above. It works quite well actually (particularly after I noticed that I have two native American precincts in AZ-05 in Gila County by accident, that no doubt Lewis knew, but had no intention of telling me just because).  It does make AZ-01 look more erose however.

()

Such a Hispanic district looks like it would be Republican leaning or at least tossup.

Edit: I should read down, you already drew it. Hehe.

In anycase, Torie, the 2001 map's CD-7 is 54.6% Hispanic now. But it was only about 50.x% Hispanic when drawn.



A couple updates that I've read:

1. Border communities (ie Tucson) want 3 congressmen along the border ala the grid map. Not happening, nor does the population support it.

2. Pinal County Republicans want to be with Gila County and not Pima County. Expected.

It was 50.6% total population, 44.5% VAP as drawn in 2000. The share had risen to over 50% VAP by 2010. Maybe your Almanac has census estimates from somewhere near the end of the decade?
Yeah, if the VAP thing only fully emerged from the courts post 2001, that would help explain it. Anyways, it's so easy to draw two over 50% VAP seats without really cherry picking precincts (while still almost impossible to draw three) that I agree 100% that they will do it. Just pointing it out is all.

Well they have equal ranking to municipalities and features of geography in the law... so yeah, they can basically be safely ignored in many places of the state. Not all of course.

You're talking about the second map, right? It was just an exercise to see if a semireasoble map on that premise could be done, really. I did have the southeastern seat also include Winslow and the Apache rez initially, changed that later because it made for nicer splits in Maricopa.

So there's still no current map of "my map". :)

Presumably, yeah. Basically, they redrew the southwest seat to make it majority Hispanic, and haven't even started on taking communities of interest (and municipal and county boundaries etc) into account. So it will change further.
Probably relevant that they took the grid's Southwest Corner district, not the Tucson-Pinal district, as the starting point.

What's wrong with your map? Why, have you ever looked at your blue district? Starting with the minor issues - it has half of both large Apache rezzes; that'll really need to go of course. I can sort of see where you're coming from with Payson though I doubt anybody in Payson can (but hey, it's not impossible that they'll be told to suck it, what with it being inherited from the grid) but Globe has no business being in that district. Wherever rural Pinal goes, wherever Safford goes, the northern district are all much better options, though who knows.
 And of course you can't actually get from Scottsdale to Apache Junction except through Tempe and Mesa. You'll probably have to exchange it for Tempe (or rethink Maricopa entirely).
Oh, you also still have Gila River split.

Oh, and yeah, Torie, I mildly disapprove of that you don't just keep the standard color scheme. If you did, I'd just refer to your districts by their official numbers. :P

When I described it, I figured it'd work out without Drexel Heights. That'd probably make it a bit more Republican. But you can't without really cherrypicking your Phoenix precincts (both in which precincts go into the two Hispanic seats, and in the line between them to get them balanced). So i figured, ef it. I'm not going to that much work to create such an ugly fantasy map. The yellow district there is too much of a "Hispanic influence" district as is, anyways.
I also played with the notion of extending it to Bisbee and Douglas, but I never drew anything like that in the map.

I change the color scheme to enhance the contrast so it makes it easier to see the CD's. When the lines move around,, sometimes two colors touch that should not. Yes, I noticed the two Apache precincts and fixed the map. That was a slip up. I knew about it and then forgot it. Globe can't go into AZ-01 without putting more pressure - too much probably - on the Hispanic VAP for AZ-02.  It could go into AZ-03 assuming it being "rural" trumps county lines. Whatever, it makes no difference really. Whatever makes the Commission happy.  

Payson is a weekend place for LDS types from Phoenix, and has a nice paved road right into the Phoenix metro area. Punching up from the Phoenix metro area, the two areas with the most ties are Payson and Prescott. The Commission mentioned that about Prescott 10 years ago. It is equally true with Payson these days. (It wasn't when I was a kid and there was only a dirt road to Payson, but then Payson had maybe 100 people as well.)

Good thought about Apache Junction. AZ-03 could take all of Gila (particularly with the two native American precincts gone that makes a lot of sense, and take in Apache Junction. It does make things difficult for the metro area split between AZ-06, 03 and 05, and that will take some work. That won't happen for a few days.

Well, they're bound to make some changes. The mapping consultants referred to Nogales, Tucson, and Yuma as the three concentrations of Hispanics that make a Hispanic-majority district in that area possible (that's almost verbatim), so it's pretty much a given that the district will end up including all three. However, they also talked about cleaning up the lines between that district and the one that replaces the current 8th, should they decide to proceed with the modified map. They also discussed the idea of three border districts, but pretty much dismissed it outright, saying it would be very difficult if not impossible to do while conforming to the VRA. They also said a potential issue with the map was with the northeastern district not being compact enough.

It just keeps getting better all the time.  :)

()

()

()

Or this actually, since Apache Junction is in Pinal.

()

The commission held a meeting today in which they discussed possible changes to the grid maps. I have pictures.

The first map was drawn to accommodate a Colorado River District in the western part of the state. It also has two Hispanic-majority districts. This early draft has several issues; most notably it does not respect tribal boundaries and it splits Flagstaff.
()

This is a close up of Yuma. Darker red indicates a higher Hispanic percentage.
()

This is a close up of Maricopa County. Darker green indicates a higher total population.
()

This is the map from Monday's meeting that has been further altered so as not to split Native American reservations. Testimony before the commission seems to indicate that the Hopi and Navajo are agreeable to being in the same district.
()

Because I was distracted, I missed much of the discussion on legislative maps, but I'm under the impression that two separate maps were drawn to conform to the VRA. Here is the first.
()

This is the same map, color coded to show which districts are Hispanic-majority (the darker green ones). The northeast district is majority Native American.
()

This is a close up of Maricopa County, using the same color scheme as the previous picture. Some of the districts which do not have an outright Hispanic majority are coalition districts.
()

This is a close up of Maricopa County on the second map (I missed the statewide view, unfortunately).
()

This is a comparison between the two legislative maps. Red boundaries are from the second map, green boundaries from the first. Brown boundaries are the same in both plans.
()

Arizona sues to overturn Section 5.

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/article_3be614ce-cf53-11e0-bbb0-001cc4c03286.html

Not fair really.  Whenever I give an answer, I always give my reasoning, and if I don't, you can always ask, because I don't give answers unless I have some solid reason(s) why.

Maybe you speak of the times when I don't give an answer.

Fair enough Sam. I was just frustrated in being told my work product sucked, without being told why. It turned out that Lewis had some good points, although I don't think that put my efforts in the fail zone, but everyone has their own opinion.

From what I can tell from Vazdul's screen shots, the Commission in its latest map is making the Hispanic percentages in the 2 Hispanic CD's, trashing municipal lines to a substantial extent. It is as if they used Dave Bradlee's software to see where the Hispanics are concentrated, and drew the lines accordingly. That map looks like a Pubbie wet dream to me.

You mean they are going well above and beyond the 50% threshold?

It's pretty interesting.

Arizona is underneath pre-clearance because of how Hispanics were tabulated.  At the time (1972) the Census Bureau did not have any separate tabulation for Hispanic's so depending on the state they included persons who had certain surnames, and in others they included persons born in Puerto Rico.  Nevada would have been covered if the same standard had been used as was used for Arizona, and Arizona would have been exempt if the Nevada standard had been used.

In addition, Arizona had provided for bilingual ballots in 1974, but the VRA of 1975 retroactively set a deadline of 1972.  It is similar to the California counties that are covered because military personal didn't vote (or didn't vote where they were based) and California had a literacy test that they no longer enforced.   In some cases, the military bases have been closed for over a decade.

In the previous map, the Native legislative district included the Navajo and Flagstaff. Seems that's not working anymore. (The population on the reservation actually fell.)

Yep.  I think the D of J guy who gave a lecture to them terrified them with retrogression and CVAP chat.   The D of J guy also claimed that the department has CVAP data (of course that is just some statistical construct that could fuel litigation forever). He gave AZ a pretty good spanking.

The VRA is really a nightmare. And I wish I knew what electing a candidate of your choice meant.  I mean do you need more Hispanics to elect an Hispanic if a third of them vote for an Anglo over an Hispanic?  Anyway, I think that means that the AZ-02 Hispanic VAP needs to be maxed because it is close to 55% Hispanic now, and the D of J guy said dropping by more than a precent or two was a problem, and the Hispanic incumbent last time almost went down the tubes, in part because of Hispanic "disloyalty" to him (AZ has a lot of evangelical Protestant Hispanics who have abandoned the barrio mentality). He was saved really by white liberals in Tuscon. It is a real Alice in Wonderland world out there. Surreal really.

In reality, in part it means finding Hispanics who are Democrats, which of course suits Pubbie purposes just fine.

I wonder if the D of J will have a cow if the native American minority is diluted in a district.

Cut out Yuma entirely maybe - it has a lot of Hispanics that don't vote Democratic enough? That would make that Colorado River district idea more workable, and at least the district doesn't switch (EDIT: Wait, what was I trying to say with that last clause? ???). (And it would be a safe R district, of course.)
Oh wait, that retrogresses Yuma Hispanics... damn. So... take the current two districts and drop, as exclusively as possible, white-plurality R-voting precincts? That would, of course, be good for Republicans on the whole... though you can't swallow up further Tucson Libs that way. - nor Tempe ones, might I add. It would lead to that split of Yuma County.

Arizona must draw a Native majority state lege district in the northeast. I don't think that's in the remotest piece of doubt. 'Specially given the decisions in SD last cycle.*
And preferably up the Native percentage as the last edition sometimes elected White Democrats. Adding the Apache probably does that. Though now the district won't be capable of electing White Dems but might be capable of electing White Pubs.

*as in, if push comes to shove, they'll have to break their own laws and draw two single-member seats for the state house one of which will be safe Navajo.

What we need are more lawsuits.  SCOTUS needs to rule again. Hispanics in places like AZ and much of Texas don't block vote, so the whole structure of the VRA as interpreted is absurd and needs to be revamped. Some of the D of J regs need to be dumped. The reality with Hispanics, and whites for that matter in most places these days, is that ideology trumps "race."  Same for blacks in the sense that they won't vote for a black Pubbie much, but for blacks there is an issue of whites tending to shy away from black Dems.

The lawsuits are going fast and furious in Texas, so presumably SCOTUS will have another chance this coming session to wrestle with the VRA versus Hispanics.

Here are some maps for individual districts that were proposed by certain groups during yesterday's meeting.

First, a map proposed by the Hispanic Coalition for Good Government:
()

A close up of their proposed Maricopa County Hispanic district:
()

A close up of the split in Pinal County:
()

A close up of Tucson:
()

And a close up of Yuma:
()

Next is a partial legislative map advocated by the city of Flagstaff:
()

And a map for the northeastern Congressional district advocated by the city of Flagstaff:
()

And statistics for the city of Flagstaff maps:
()

The Hispanics' Phoenix seat is pretty much identical to what I drew two maps above, I think. EDIT: No it's not. I left Glendale alone and included Avondale. Still, southern, eastern and eastern half of northern perimeter should be identical.
Leaving some White Tucson Liberals for Grijalva, or what is that area at the northeast corner of the district's Tucson portion? The Pinal split and the inclusion of Gila River and Ak-Chin are as  they should be... which is by no means saying that that's where they'll indeed end up.
If Grijalva's 2010 showing is supposed to be such a legal concern, I guess the split of Yuma can be considered dried and dusted (it's not as if R members of the commission are going to go after him, either). Not something I'd do personally, though.
So Flagstaff's arguing for the first district to be left exactly as is plus Hopi minus Casas Grandes. Big surprise. -_- (It's what anybody effectively working from the old map and then looking at CoI would suggest. Which you aren't supposed to do, of course. And it helps Dems which is going to be a plus for Flagstaff line-drawers.) Lege map looks has some details that scream gerrymander to me. Some of those troublesome Mormons drawn out of the Navajo-Apache seat and dumped to where Flagstaff and Sedona can much more easily outvote them. Replaced, in the Navajo-Apache seat, with other Mormons 60% of whom are under age. Flip those two areas and the map makes sense.

Well, the City of Flagstaff is run by Dems.  THey turned the grid on its head.  Their gerry looks very nice though.  :)

The Hispanic CD in Tuscon Lewis doesn't give Giffords the time of day Lewis. She's F'ed with that map. The blue is Obamaland.  This sucks more of it than I ever dreamed of doing. :)  That is what happens when you chop Yuma and so forth; it pushes AZ-02 east. Go east young man!

()

They just ignored it entirely and drew what they thought makes sense. It does make sense, too (after all, that's why it was drawn similarly last time), although the fact that what makes sense is good news for Ann Kirkpatrick cannot have escaped them.  (And of course, the northern two thirds of Mojave make just as much more sense as the remaining bit of Pinal... but are more Republican.)

Just noticed that Winslow is also in the lege seat they drew for themselves. Winslow is much the most marginal of the white towns in those two counties, and has a sizable Navajo presence.

I've mapped it. The remainder of Pima is 50.4% McCain and just 48k short of a district - not enough to take in Sierra Vista. They did their homework.
Of course, that also means that the northern seat takes Cochise. Which adds up with the Colorado River district.
Heh, it's only fair. If R's can wetdream about 7-2, D's can wetdream about 4-4-1. Cause that's what all these Dem propositions amount to. Neither will get what he wants, of course.

Really?  I'd like to see the map of Pima that you did.  I have to catch a plane. Thanks.

The Flagstaff wet dream with its Colorado River CD does not take in Cochise by the way.  Did the Dems get their signals crossed?

()

50.3 actually, I misspoke. Precincts and census tracts don't align around Littlefield.

Ah, the Flagstaff map as presented there doesn't align with the Colorado River idea at all - leaves far too few population by the Colorado, the remainder to come from the West Valley again presumably. I'm sure they wouldn't mind the "obvious" swap of Cochise for Prescott.

You need to work on the bit below Lewis. That should up the McCain percentage as to the balance of Pima by a percent or so maybe - maybe close to 2%. You've dumped about a dozen or more blue precincts into AZ-01, plus one weak McCain precinct. Your north south line there is one line of precincts too far to the west, and you ignored the bulge. Naughty!  

()

I'm sure they wouldn't. :P

The grid map, though, splits Pima 3 ways: The Hispanic district, the 1st district that contains a bulk of Pima and Cochise, and the heavy Mormon GOP district based in Gilbert that descends from above.

Any yanking of Yuma County whites out of CD-7 (or its successor) seems like a good thing, even if they go into an already too safe exurban district (current CD-2).

? I have that. Just south of it is where precinct and census tract boundaries sadly diverge. Can't make any major difference, though.

Certainly in my view the great northern district makes some sense, at least to me. The lastest actual map posted by Vadzul does an even better job for the Rs though. The 80% Obama native precincts up north only add up to 100k and will be drowned out by the most GOP parts of Maricopa.

The Grijalva district (which is currently 57% Obama I believe) is going to push 61+% Obama at this rate with these changes.

The Pastor district is already well over 60% even if its not the awesome 66% pack.

Actually, it looks like the line is actually where I have the second set, which puts a lot more blue into AZ-01 if I'm right - even more than Lewis has. If so, it is a concerted effort by the Dems.  They can get plenty more Hispanics in Tuscon, but no, they want to go to Phoenix for them - and Pubbie Hispanics like those on the "wrong" side of the mountain in Phoenix next to Pinal County to boot. I guess their idea of "good government" is Dem government. Who knew?  :P

()

Anyway, this iteration won't see the light of day. It's absurd.

Nope, Torie. Look again. Summit is included. You got the right east-west line on the second try.

As to "absurd and won't see the light of day" - well that and your personal Tucsonwank makes two of them. You could easily amend this map to increase the Hispanic share in Tucson without changing the Dem shares much, by the way.
There's probably just two possible outcomes here. 1) (more reasonable, more likely, but by no means certain) Giffords' district ends up barely changed. 2) Tucson is split three ways, as in the current grid iteration.

Here's what Democrats should fight for, without hope of actually getting it of course.

()

You're not going to get those ridiculous third and fourth districts, and you're not going to get the little grab at Chandler's barrio section (since you can easily exchange it for the remainder of Mesa), but otherwise it's not a bad map actually. Apart from the obvious.

()

1st 52.6% McCain, 54.0% White, 21.6% Native
2nd 63.1% McCain
3rd 61.1% McCain
4th 52.0% McCain, 60.0% White
5th 64.8% Obama, 65.0% Hispanic, 20.6% White
6th 52.0% McCain, 60.9% White
7th 60.9% McCain
8th 55.3% Obama, 57.0% Hispanic, 31.6% White, 51.9% Hispanic VAP
9th 49.8% McCain, 68.3% White

Changing the third and fourth to at least not split as many municipalities (adding northern Glendale to the 3rd in exchange for Paradise Valley, the 4th' share of Scottsdale, and a couple of Phoenix precincts) makes for an odder-looking boundary and shares of 60.5% and 52.5%.
Eliminating the split of Mesa and cleaning up that of Chandler makes for 53.1% and 59.9%.

I've no idea what you're talking about. The part of Phoenix on the wrong side of the mountain (Ahwatukee) is 72% White, 51% McCain, and not included in a Hispanic district in any plan that any Democrat is ever going to devise - they'll want that marginal neighborhood to go with Tempe, thank you very much. (Though part of it is in Pastor's district in the initial grid.)

()

()

A realistic Republican (near-)best case. Also my most grid-based map yet. Favored in 7 of the districts, though several of them are marginal enough that 6-3 may be the likelier outcome on balance.
Numbers follow the grid, for once, as I guess they will.

1 63.7% White, 55.4% McCain. Division of Tucson proper is exactly as at current, btw, but gets rural territory instead of the marginal northern suburbs.
2 69.0% White, 57.4% McCain. Not going to be popular with anybody, but something like it is in the amended grid for now.
3 59.2% Hispanic (53.5% VAP), 60.4% Obama. The only Dem voters Grijalva loses are in Tolleson/West End, and they go to Pastor. Grab of Eloy (the only area added compared to current) maybe doesn't happen.
4 64.3% White, 17.6% Native, 54.5% McCain. There is a certain logic to assuming that the current 4th is the least metro district, so it will be the non metro district. Yuma split and requirement to not split Navajo pretty much defined the boundary (esp. the complete withdrawal from Maricopa).
5 73.2% White, 54.0% McCain. Pretty ugly. You could split Mesa instead of Chandler, don't think it matters much. Paradise Valley grab and Northern reach around are naked R gerries, of course - "justified" by not splitting Central Phoenix three ways.
6 66.9% White, 60.2% McCain. Not much to see here. Boundary with 2nd could be drawn a number of different ways.
7 65.8% Hispanic, (59.6% VAP), 66.2% Obama. Follows the current 4th quite faithfully but does take Tolleson and drop some Whiteleaning, Demleaning Central Phoenix blocs.
8  66.2% White, 59.4% McCain
9 68.0% White, 54.8% McCain. So I found a way to broadly preserve the current 3rd.

Lewis, can you provide info to link your numbers to locations on the map?

I assume people know the color scheme of the DRA by heart. :P

1 - Tucson E & points north
2 - Tucson suburbs to just outside Mesa
3 - Grijalva
4 - northwest
5 - ugly yellow thing
6 - Mesa, Gilbert, part of Chandler
7 - Pastor
8 - West Valley
9 - North Phoenix

The Redistricting Commission is meeting today. The Pinal County Governmental Alliance presented this (http://www.azredistricting.org/Maps/Submitted-Maps/Pinal/PCGA%20CD%20and%20LD%20Map%20Materials.pdf). I missed most of the presentation, so I don't know what was discussed.

They are currently discussing changes to the congressional grid map to accomodate three border districts. They say that the map will be on the website soon, so I shouldn't have to bother with low-quality screenshots.

EDIT: Here (http://www.azredistricting.org/Maps/pubmaps/Cong-River_district_version2-exports/Cong-River_district_version2.pdf) is an update to their "river district" plan, which they've yet to discuss.

And this (http://www.azredistricting.org/Maps/pubmaps/Cong-3_border_dist-exports/Cong-3_border_dist.pdf) is the three border district plan. It still manages to get two Hispanic-majority districts, but it's quite ugly.

Current registration in Arizona:

http://www.azsos.gov/election/voterreg/Active_Voter_Count.pdf

On that map, district 1, 2, 3, 6 all should be safe R. 5 is likely R based on registration matching the current CD-5, and their CD-9 somewhat resembles the current CD-1 in registration. Note that Apache Junction is in CD-9.

if you see my 1980s map thread. You will see that the new 3rd looks almost exactly like the old 2nd district back then. The only difference is that most of the phoenix precincts have been removed.

Here are the legislative maps that the commission is currently discussing.

http://www.azredistricting.org/Maps/pubmaps/Leg-9_minoity_dists_option1-no_split_res-exports/Leg-9_minority_dists_option1-no_split_res.pdf (http://www.azredistricting.org/Maps/pubmaps/Leg-9_minoity_dists_option1-no_split_res-exports/Leg-9_minority_dists_option1-no_split_res.pdf)

http://www.azredistricting.org/Maps/pubmaps/Leg-9_minoity_dists_option2-no_split_res-exports/Leg-9_minority_dists_option2-no_split_res.pdf (http://www.azredistricting.org/Maps/pubmaps/Leg-9_minoity_dists_option2-no_split_res-exports/Leg-9_minority_dists_option2-no_split_res.pdf)

Arizona Capitol Times
 
Horne: Redistricting commissioner claims chairwoman destroyed documents

By Evan Wyloge - evan.wyloge@azcapitoltimes.com

Published: September 7, 2011 at 7:27 pm

One of Arizona’s redistricting commissioners told Attorney General Tom Horne that the commission’s chairwoman destroyed documents used to score mapping firms during a closed-door meeting.

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2011/09/07/horne-redistricting-commissioner-claims-chairwoman-destroyed-documents/

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2011/09/29/redistricting-commission’s-approves-‘donut’-map-dems-call-it-rotten/ (http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2011/09/29/redistricting-commission’s-approves-‘donut’-map-dems-call-it-rotten/)

What the heck are they babbling about? That map is basically a dem gerrymander.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http://www.azredistricting.org/maps/pubmaps/092911/cong-EB-v3a.kmz&hl=en&sll=34.161818,-111.928711&sspn=8.21418,17.53418&vpsrc=0&t=h&z=6

The orange district does not even pretend to be neutral.

That's the map that was voted down. This (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http:%2F%2Fwww.azredistricting.org%2Fmaps%2Fpubmaps%2F092611%2FCong-3_Border_2_Rural_1_Donut-version1A-exports%2FCONG-3_BORDER_2_RURAL_1_DONUT-VERSION1A.kmz&hl=en&sll=34.168218,-111.930907&sspn=9.412226,18.369141&vpsrc=0&t=h&z=6) is the map that was approved. The remaining 4 Maricopa County districts have yet to be drawn.

Ah. It was then misreported here.

http://tucsoncitizen.com/in-the-aggregate/2011/10/01/az-redistricting-maps-final/

Both the maps look the same, except of course the Maricopa districts haven't been drawn. I doubt CD-2 is up to full population either.

I assume you are referring to the northwestern district. It isn't up to full population. There is some debate as to which parts of Maricopa to add to it to bring it up to population.

The Chairwoman Mathis is quoted as embracing competitiveness in the Phoenix area even though that is supposed to be secondary to other considerations which appear not to have been followed in the McNulty map, yet has no interest in competitiveness in the Tucson area.  The Pubs appear to have gotten a good swivving as it were.  It is interesting that the AZ commission site reports almost no substantive news, other than the maps, and their lawsuit to silence the AG. Nothing about votes, who is proposing what, what the issues are, or anything. It is kind of pathetic really. Anyway, it looks like the Dems have been given a couple of CD's, maybe as many as three, that otherwise were not really there. They must be happy. :)

Yes I am. The two maps pretty much look the same to me, though I don't know Arizona precinct by precinct, admittedly. :P


I guess the map hasn't really been drawn in Maricopa yet. The map Krazen posted was actually rejected. Is the Tucson district minus the Hispanic areas a Dem district?

Sbane, it looks to me like not too many Hispanics were put in the Hispanic CD from Tucson, and that the Tucson CD per eyeballing it is out of reach for the Pubbies, and that is what the paper says. Meanwhile even though it is specifically prohibited, now they are worried where the incumbents live in Phoenix. Sad.

Maricopa and Pinal. For some reason, the Mcnulty map split Pinal county 5 ways. That's an Austin style butchering.

I drew it out and it seems like most of the heavily Hispanic precincts are picked up by the Hispanic CD. Can't expect it to come in and pick up 30% Hispanic precincts. Also the district is about 50-48 Obama. I don't see how that is out of reach for a Republican. It's a swing district, which is precisely what the Tucson district should be.

Yes, I drew it too last night. It's lean Dem however, presumably, because AZ is McCain's home state - maybe even weak safe Dem. One would need to see other races to get a better sense of that. The Commission is still imo not following the law however, by putting competitiveness above other factors when it is expressly subordinated in the law to such other factors.  It is as if they are saying, or three of them, OK the VRA screws Dems, so the balance will be pro Dem to make up the lost ground.  We shall see if a Pubbie sink is carved out of the Phoenix - River area to complete the job.

Yes, it would be nice if there was data for other races but I would argue that a 50-48 Obama district would be perfect for a Rep gerrymander in many areas, like OC. Of course thats not the case in AZ. It would be equivalent to a 53-55% Obama district in California. I would say that's a perfect swing district. I would say the previous district was lean Rep, as was the 5th in the Phoenix area. They voted similarly for Bush, which is probably a better benchmark to guage partisanship.

Btw, what criteria is the commission supposed to use that they are ignoring? I think a 50-50 Obama district in the Phoenix area would be a good idea. It would keep whoever was elected in check. No point in having nice gerrymandered districts for both parties so the radicals can roam freely.

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

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

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

What is your definition of competitive? Which districts in California are the offending ones? The Solano County and Ventura county districts are pretty damn competitive. It can't be helped if the Republicans can't nominate someone of caliber due to their rabid base. In California the problem is that you basically have a Republican gerrymander right now. It wasn't like that in 2000, but it is now due to changes in the state. You cannot expect something like that again.

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

As for competitiveness in AZ, it ranges from about a 4 point Mccain lead to a 4 point Obama lead. The Tucson district is towards the dem side but it's still a swing district. The Phoenix district should probably be closer to a 2-4 point Mccain district. If Republicans can't win in those district then they DO NOT DESERVE to win congress. Don't expect any sympathy from me. And yes, I do understand the Orange district in the Phoenix area is about a 4 point Obama district. That should and probably will be changed.

These commissions aren't "non-partisan," they are a set of rules. Once you know the rules, the system can be gamed. The Democrats have taken seriously gaming the system, and the results show. It isn't an accident that the "non-partisan" commission chairwoman happens to have a husband that is active in the Democratic party, or firms with close ties the Democratic party happen to advise such commissions. Nor, is it an accident that key documents explain why the Democratic firms were chosen happen to have disappeared.

In California, the rules appear to be that a winnowing process picks randomly chooses  five Republicans, five Democrats, and four independents. A "non-partisan" map was suppose to emerge because it was acceptable to the majority of all three blocks.  In reality,  redistricting in California was controlled by the folks whom performed, and scored, the interviews for the commissioners. They abused their positions to score liberally highly, conservatively poorly, and, as a result, picked a commission that was a mix of liberal Democrats, liberal independents, and liberal "Republicans."

I'm not sure of mechanics of the Arizona system, so I don't know how they gamed the system. But, the fact that the wife of a Democratic party activist was seated to lead the commission proves that Democrats did in fact game the system.

The only thing that stopped the Democrats from completely screwing the Republicans in Arizona was the fact that Republicans exposed the scam before the maps were finalized. Even then, a map that just happens to throw to Republican Congressmen in the same district, weaken the Republican performance in swing districts, and create a new seat favorable to the Democrats was deemed to "suck" by the wife of a Democratic activist who wrote it. Imagine how badly Republicans would have been shafted in a map had no one been looking!

In Florida, the redistricting reform doesn't have anything to do with reforming redistricting. It is a deliberate attempt to impose so many conflicting standards so that redistricting will be decided by the courts.

Here (http://www.redracinghorses.com/diary/1136/california-congressional-a-month-later) is the essay to which I referred. I found it kind of interesting, although I question some of the conclusions. What do you think?  

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

Not Romney. :P

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

I haven't a clue. Somehow Herman Cain is the flavor of the week, and now we hear that Christie might just jump in. In the end Romney might just come out ahead, but there is obviously a huge chunk of the Republican base that doesn't want to vote for him. I have a few theories why, but I won't "share" them.

As for Cali, that Long Beach to Garden Grove district is the worst offender you could say. But the Dems could fire back and say they made a Latino district in the central valley that a Dem can't win with their eyes closed so that is unfair and blah blah blah. I say the Republicans sack up, get serious, drop the sharia law/omgz learn english omgz/ and mandoglove BS.

Districts like the current AZ-1, AZ-5, and AZ-8 have by definition already proven to be competitive over the last decade. The Democrats in that map sought to move all 3 to the left and make them noncompetitive.

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

We will have to disagree about AZ-8, I think that's how it should be, but you are correct about AZ-5, and that map is pretty "creative" shall we say. I am not saying it should be a Republican district, but it shouldn't be a 51-47 Obama district either. A 2-4 point Mccain district seems in order. Not sure what's going on with AZ-1. I am sure the Dems tried to make it more Democratic, but is the map as drawn also highly Dem? Isn't most of the change due to the fact it picks up the Navajo and the Hopi (I think?) reservations instead of just one last time around? It doesn't pick up the portion of Sedona in Yavapai County, right?

Remember, one more Republican district is being created with this map, so it's natural that there will be some movement on the margins towards the Dems in the other districts. It should be more in the Tucson area, but very less in the Phoenix and outstate districts. The 4th and the 7th have about the same partisan makeup as last time around. Republicans might want to pack it more, but that won't fly. Sorry.

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

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

What is this grid you keep talking about? Why should the Tucson district be put with Cochise? It doesn't pick up that much population in Santa Cruz County does it? Sure, that could have been sent into Cochise instead, but don't you dare try to crack Tucscon! Grijalva doesn't need white liberals in his district. Anyways, the reason why the Tucson district doesn't pick up Cochise is because it needed to lose population, no?

Ok, this is hilarious, the 8th only picks up 4,000 in Santa Cruz and about the same in Pinal. It should be exactly how it is!

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

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

The 1st district is about 46% obama now, up from 44%, due to the swap of Cochise. Tolerable, I suppose. Same with AZ-8, as it takes special gerrymandering to flip that district. Neither are particularly unfair and Gosar should be ok in either. The growing areas in Pinal county are of course the GOP areas, although the district carefully avoids Apache Junction.

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

Ok, so I looked up the grid maps and it seems like grid 1 was used. The Hispanic district shouldn't pick up liberal areas so that is what should be used for Pima county. But your point about the Cochise district then picking up Flagstaff is well taken. That wasn't in the grid. Maybe Flagstaff should have been put in the 2nd and Yavapai in the 1st haha. Still, I don't see how it's overly egregious. But I guess my eyes have been soiled by the maps being drawn in other parts of the country. :P

Really, past practise was to add an equal number of voters to both leading candidates, so a 1-0 precint became 5-4, etc., etc. That little tidbit was uncovered when reconciling the results in the Reid-Ensign race.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The white Tucson CD is 50.4-48.4 Obama.

That's why I think CA-47 is egregious, whereas CA-31 may or may not be. Remember they had to draw a VRA compliant Hispanic district in SBD as well. The only other option I would think was to cross county lines to pick up the Hispanic parts of Riverside and put it with San Bernardino. Which would have resulted in a convoluted rest of the IE map.

Then again, maybe drawing the Latino districts in LA county led to the drawing of CA-47. We can't be sure. I am trying to draw a fair assembly map right now and drawing the Latino districts is a bitch.

Arizona the beautiful:

()

()

7 to 2

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

I have only one quibble with that map. Why is Sedona/Camp Verde not grouped with Flagstaff? That's where it belongs transportationwise etc, and in Sedona's (but not Camp Verde's) case also regarding voting patterns / Dem designs on CD1. You could then excise more Pinal exurbs that don't belong in this district at all. (For a completed non-ridiculous Dem gerry, add Salt River / Fort McDowell and Colorado City - it doesn't vote Dem but it doesn't vote much at all.)
Otherwise, this is the one of about two-and-a-half reasonable ways to draw it that makes sense for Democrats.
AZ-3 is way too close to the old AZ-7, of course, meaning it still has the West End etc area which really doesn't belong in it, but once the debate turned to "retrogression" that was to be expected. The continuous bloc of territory that belongs in the Central Phoenix seat just is too large for one seat.

()

How does this map look? I stayed out of Mesa and Chandler, as well as Scottsdale. Did pick up Paradise valley to make things look nice, but could have just stayed in Phoenix as well. 50-48 Mccain. And the 3rd on my map becomes basically a Mesa-Scottsdale district. And the 9th is Gilbert-Chandler and areas of Pinal.

I also tried to pick up as much Hispanic territory in Tucson as possible without picking up white liberal areas that would make the pubbies happy. About 22,000 people, but probably about 52-53% VAP. I then went down I-10 with my Tucscon district into cochise. Obama still wins the district, but with only 188 votes. 49.4-49.4.

What was your purpose here? 4-3-2 (4 R, 3 D, 2 tossup seats)? That yellow would certainly be a pure tossup, rather than merely winnable in a good year against a weak incumbent as its predecessor was.

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

Most of my map is just copying what has been drawn. But the current orange district, which is my 5th, goes in to pick up parts of Mesa, Gilbert and Scottsdale. That makes the district 51-47 Obama and almost lean Dem. I do want to create a swing district, but at the same time not arbitrarily splitting cities.

Compared to what would have happened without him on the ballot, certainly. Compared to congressional election results, perhaps not so much - Maricopa is traditionally Republican territory, and the "McCain bias" is basically "Obama not overperforming, like he did in similar places everywhere else" rather than Obama actually underperforming. Rural (East and South) Arizona is a different matter, though.

---

A general thought here, one I had a long time ago but perhaps not actually posted. In the selection of the independent commission member, Republicans had one objective - preventing one particular candidate despite being the obviously qualified guy (he worked for the last commission in a leading capacity) because he was obviously an IINO. Most of the selection discussion was apparently held non-publically (I recall someone saying they felt it was actually against the rules). Seems like Pubbies had to agree to Dems' second choice with Mathis.

The other issue is, of course - what are Republicans trying to achieve with their dubious lawsuit etc? Are they perhaps actually giving up on this map and trying to prepare the ground to repeal districting-by-Commission? I assume that would require a referendum?

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

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

Yeah, I don't know either. I just wanted to throw it out there.

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

Well, I guess lawyers don't need to be so good at math? Because you are wrong!

So a 2 point Obama district would be 51-49. 56-5=51

A 2 point Mccain district would be 49-51 Obama. 54-5=49

5*2=10 :P

And I meant a 10 point margin, just in case that was what confused you. So 5 points each from Mccain and Obama's side. Oh and the 10 point margin over performance is a guess, based off Pbrower's work so don't take it to the bank. I thought the broken clock was right at that time.

Also I was discounting the indy vote in my calculations but obviously included it when I talked about the 50-48 Mccain I drew. A 50-48 Mccain district is a 51-49 Mccain district. Does that make any sense? :P

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

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

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

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

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

()

Details might still get changed at the end. If a transfer of a couple of Glendale precincts for a couple of Phoenix precincts makes it possible to avoid another municipal split, for instance. IIRC it happened last time too (though maybe they only actually did it with the state lege districts?)

Much more reasonable. It seems a slightly better and cleaner look would be to move those areas of south phoenix into the Chandler/Gilbert district.

Nah, I drew it the best I could. If you are referring to the northwest corner, it seems like they split precincts there. Otherwise it's the same.

And like I said, I got the number from Pbrower's "analysis". If you think it's complete sh**t, that's fine. But then I would ask you how much you think Mccain overperformed in AZ as compared to Socal or the country in general.

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

Where is it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

So you made me work sbane. Happy now?  :)

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

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

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

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

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

Forgot about Kerry.

Mass in 2000 was D+27.3, in 2004 it was D+25.16. National R swing of +3, so a 1 point effect?

The Hispanics are complaining, again.

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/elections/article_66b808fd-b973-5f82-a62a-08c0944b2310.html

The GOP got some very desirable changes.

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

The Green district is absurd though

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

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

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

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

Is that map contiguous?

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

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

So what are the PVIs for these districts like? I'm guessing the pink one got slightly more Republican (so, tilt R overall), probably two Dem districts in Maricopa along with the Hispanic border district, and the blue one seems like a swing district. Am I at all close?

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

Well, the orange district still butchers municipalities.

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

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

Actually, computers are notoriously bad at drawing districts as soon as there are more than a couple variables to optimize. OTOH, they are very good at evaluating maps based on a lengthy list of criteria. Of course, the humans would need to agree to those criteria. :P

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

Your wish is my command (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http:%2F%2Fwww.azredistricting.org%2Fmaps%2Fpubmaps%2F100311%2FMap_as_of_100211%2FCong-Map_as_of_100211.kmz&hl=en&sll=34.168218,-111.930907&sspn=8.21418,17.53418&vpsrc=0&t=h&z=6).  :)

Thanks. :)

According to the commission report CD-1 and CD-2 are both rated at 51.8% R to 48.2% D, and CD-9 is rated at 50.3% R to 49.7% D. Those seem to be based on a basket of elections from 2008 and 2010. Of the other districts the two HVAP majority districts CD-3
(54.8% HVAP) and CD-7 (57.6% HVAP) are solid D, the others are all solid R.

So how's the Tuscon district rated? It doesn't look much more Republican than the current district.

From what I can discern, it is but only slightly. 1, 2, and 9 are very much swing districts.

Dem PVI per my baseline of Dem +2%.  The Dems were very clever. Vis a vis the Commission's prior map, they sliced a lot of McCain precincts out of the NW suburbs to mostly offset the Cochise County action, while upping the Hispanic percentage in the border Hispanic CD all at the same time!

The currently existing AZ-08 was what you ask? It was: ()   The Dems moved it 3 full points in their direction from its current incarnation. :P

()()

The Tucson district should have been even more Democratic if you ask me! But I guess the Mexicans need their district. And the Phoenix district shouldn't have been dipping in and out of Mesa and Chandler but I guess they wanted a more Dem swing district up there. So Mccain won the Tuscon district by 3 points then? Have you drawn the Phoenix swing district or the 1st yet?

Creating competitive swing districts is a clear goal of the commission. There was a presentation last month analyzing the correlation between various averages and the predicted competitiveness, but its not completely clear which average went into their actual district analysis. They discuss a number of models, and the slides don't say which one is adopted.
I'll probably have to watch the video of the meeting to know for sure. :P

If I look at the table in the presented slides the best correlated average takes the average of the two-party vote in the two 2008 statewide races, the same for the seven 2010 statewide races, and the fraction of registrations between the two parties. That has a partisan split of 54.5% R and 45.5% D statewide. My best guess is that this was used in the commission report on the districts.

For comparison, another measure used 10 years ago was the "Arizona quick and dirty." It uses only the Corporate Commission races from the two most recent elections. That gives 54.3% R to 45.7% D. That would be consistent with the measure I identified in the previous paragraph.

How was this map an improvement for Republicans?

Yeah, looks like it. The Giffords district moved about a point to the right, and that is about it. The more of Pinal County in CD-1, though, the better; as that area will hopefully get the GOP spillover votes moving in from Maricopa and grow faster than the Natives.

5-4 is probably more likely than 6-3 so the Democrats probably net a district. 7-2 is of course very easy to draw with the trifecta but such is life.

And loses Payson. And picks up the Pinal reservations. And some bits of North Tucson inner suburbs. Looks a normally Democratic district, actually. Giffords' goes back into highly competitive territory in exchange.

Anyways, not what I would have drawn as a map, but at 4-2-3 probably identical in outcome.

Anyways, why is Salt River still in the sixth? It's on the road from Mesa to Payson goddammit, the overspill slightly elevated native percentages are in bordering precincts of Mesa, not Scottsdale, and it's totally wasted and outvoted in that district. :P

Meanwhile, that fourth district is a right abomination. Eastern Exurbs with Western Rural (often de facto quasi exurban) areas? Wtf?

0.3% of a percent for McCain. It's precise PVI per my model is 2.15% Dem, making it lean Dem and a toss-up for 2012 (which I assume will  be a good Pubbie year), if Giffords does not run, and the Pubbies put up a competent candidate. No I have not done any of the other CD's, and this one was a bitch to draw. It gave me a headache!  But it's as accurate as it can be. I checked it - again and again. Some of the lines don't precisely match due to the way the precincts are currently drawn, but the variance is very minor.

The only other districts worth calculating are probably the 1st and 9th.

But lawless, because competitiveness was per the wording of the statute expressly subordinated to all the other metrics, which in my opinion the commission trashed. They followed the VRA, and then the Dems did the max that they thought they could get away with is what I see happened. Nothing else much mattered. It is cute that the 3 border CD thing the Dems were pushing proved in the end to be inconvenient to them, so they just went through the motions in hewing to that by appending but one border precinct to AZ-01 - with 1,165 people in it,  just to claim they still did. The Dems probably had this map in their drawer more or less all along. The rest was all for show.

We are going to court!  And my team will probably lose. The end.

Definitely not. That would have resulted in a 3-3-3 map, not 4-2-3 or 4-3-2 (whichever we define this thing as). This map seems to be suffering from "too many objectives" syndrome.

Probably, yeah. After all, it's on record from the last time round that showing a better way to fulfill the commission's official objectives is not enough.

That is too funny. I couldn't figure out why they carved up Cochise County like that.

Which district will be the first to go over 1,000,000 people this decade? 8, 4, or 1?

The way Cochise and Yavapai and Gila and Pima precincts all don't line up with the map perfectly makes this a bitch, but the first is still about 51.0% McCain.

On that swing, Ann Kirkpatrick would have won by 0.1% in 2010. Heh.

As to your first question, the reason for the musical chairs where the Tucson CD switched out the NW burbs for the slice of Cochise that it took was of course a partisan one.

You see, the Dems had a little problem. They needed to take some Hispanics out of the Tucson CD, which causes its Pubbie PVI to go up in a hurry. What to do to mitigate that?  They cast their little avaricious eyes around, and lo and behold, saw these Dem precincts in Cochise near the border and started salivating. But how to get there?

The way to "get there" was to strip out the pretty heavy Pubbie NW Tucson burbs and dump them into AZ-01, so that the Tucson CD needed substantially more people, and then one can suck up those Dem precincts while making the lines look like something other than a snake that would kind of look the way I drew that Pittsburgh CD in PA. That way, the Pubbie territory that the Tucson CD sucks up to make up for the lost Hispanic precincts, is minimized in its Pubbiness - it's but light pink. And I admire it, because it is just the sort of thing I would do in drawing gerried Pubbie CD's.  In a word, it's genius baby.  It's just beautiful - or as I said to the WSJ guy about my Pittsburgh CD, it's well -"gorgeous!" :P

As to AZ-01 getting a tad more Pubbie by playing this game, they dealt with that by playing even more games with AZ-01's border elsewhere, by doing a better Pubbie pack in one or more of the Pubbie CD's.  It's like a symphony, where the whole is more than the sum of its parts, where each instrument synergizes with the others.

As I said, the Dems maxed what they thought they could get away with, without taking on excessive legal risk, and maybe Mathis didn't want to make too obvious that she was in the tank for the Dems, given her little shredding incidents and the like. This map is a Dem hatchet job - and  very skillfully done.

Everybody except Raul Grijalva and whatshisface (Stentz? The hard-right commissioner from Tucson, anyways) would probably have been happier if they'd just moved Douglas and Bisbee into the 3rd. ;D
It also helps from Giffords' perspective that SV is an army town. They can be quite incumbent friendly.

No. This is a Dem hatchet job. You can draw R vote sinks in Arizona much as you can draw D vote sinks in other states, they just don't sink as far.

Arizona is our Washington...a trifecta state saddled with a crappy commission.

Well maybe Lewis that map does not take on further legal risk. Maybe. I have not fly specked Phoenix. Good job though. Was that a prior Dem draft? :P  I bet they had their reasons though for doing what they did. The PVI baseline is also biased. It's too Pubbie. I know better. State races can be idiosyncratic. That is not the most efficacious way to infer the most accurate PVI baseline.  The Pubs of course were pathetic in defending themselves. I wish I had been on that commission!  :)

The Pubs got a good deal out of Washington?

Relative to what a legislature would draw, probably. Seattle almost certainly doesn't stay intact as it historically has.

Well, yeah.

Washington is not decided... but it's pretty much decided that protecting all four Republicans will be the prime consideration.

(And yeah, Grijalva probably would have complained about the district I drew for him. Too little Tucson. Which would have knockon effects in the red district in Glendale probably. Still, there is no reason for a Dem gerry to concede four safe Republican districts in the state. If you're ready to draw competitive districts anyways.)

So it seems like the second map, with the Phoenix area undrawn was better for the pubbies? Because the Dems seems like they got what they wanted in Phoenix, didn't they? I would love to see the Obama numbers in that 9th district. And in Tucson, they barely made the district more Republican, by putting those Republican precincts in the north in CD-1. And CD-1 probably stays about the same, or becomes a click more Democratic due to picking up West Sedona, and the Native reservation in Pinal, as well as losing parts of Cochise, though that might be lean Rep territory, I am not too sure. Oh, and don't count on exurban growth in the 1st either. This is not the 2000's. There will not be a housing boom in this decade, and it certainly won't be happening in Phoenix. The population may still rise, but they will be filling the houses that already have been built. Unless there are a lot of vacant houses, or half built houses in the Pinal part of CD-1, the population won't rise much. I wouldn't count on too much more new construction.

The pubbies got screwed. They should have just stopped complaining. Even Grijalva is safer in this map! Wow. Maybe the pubbies in California should learn a lesson from this. They have a decent map now, considering all the constraints of the VRA. They will get something worse from the Dem legislature and Brown, even if they act like children and hold up the budget to get something favorable to them. They should understand that. One only needs to look at the Obama numbers in the current Rep districts in California to realize what a favorable map they have currently. And they have a chance to knock over some Dem incumbents like Capps for example. They should set their aims higher instead of just trying to protect their ass.

Yes, the Pubs should just let me run the party in CA.  I would turn things around - and in a hurry.  :P

I was looking at the senate districts, which is where the pubbies are really worried/angry about, and some of them should be competitive with the right candidate. The Morgan Hill to SLO district or the Pasadena to Upland district. If they don't win those sorts of districts, they will get stuck at 13 and below the 1/3 threshold. But there are enough competitive districts that they could win the senate with good candidates and luck/move towards the Republicans in California.

Just calculated the 9th and it's 51.5-47.2 Obama. The dems got exactly what they wanted in Phoenix.

That's weak safe Dem. :)  That is supposed to be "competitive?"  LOL. They sure did get what they want!  I wonder if the Pubbies will get another referendum up. They must be as mad as hell.

Since AZ-08 still got more Dem (just not as much as some wanted I guess), I don't know why the GOP is getting too excited unless they are absolutely certain Giffords isn't running again, since Giffords would be unbeatable in that seat.

That's why I tries to discern the competitiveness metric used for their plan. Since they have 2010 averaged in as well as registration numbers it comes out 50.3% R. That certainly looks competitive from the Commission's view. It's that 2008 isn't as Dem as it was in most states and 2010 is still a big GOP year in the average.

It's looking like WA Republicans will be getting a pretty great map, though...

In my opinion, the Commission's partisan baseline is garbage - just garbage.

I wouldn't put the words safe in front of it, but certainly would say it is a lean dem swing district. About D+3.

Don't Democrats get another seat though?

A tad over plus 4% per my metric, and I like my metric. The Commission's garbage metric was deliberate of course. I wonder if the hapless Pubbies called the Dems on it. Probably not. They were pathetic.

I'm trying to figure out CD-1 right now. I will report back soon. Then we can decide how f'ed the pubbies were. But it's only relative. The f'in isn't so bad in these non partisan maps as in the really ugly gerrymanders out there.

Who is the Pubbie incumbent in AZ-09? If it is Quayle, it's gone. If Sweikert (?), he maybe has a 1 in 3 chance, maybe an even chance, of holding it, if the Pubs have a really good year, which they might. But it won't hold.

CD-1= 51.1-47.8 Mccain. Though they split so many precincts that I am not sure it is accurate. If anyone can get the official presidential numbers that would be awesome. From the looks of it, you got a lean Republican swing district here. Though not as Republican as the district in Phoenix is Democratic. Not a huge difference of course but it all adds up....And the Tucson district is basically dead even between Obama and Mccain, which give it a very, very slight dem lean. Giffords will win it, but not sure about others.

We're currently 4-2-3 (D-R-Swing). We'll probably be 4-4-2 afterwards.

With a trifecta I presume the GOP would be cut to 2 seats. At the minimum Reichert would be a goner.

Quayle might live in the district. Schweikert obviously doesn't. :)

That makes Washington the one state that the GOP will benefit from a commission.

About 1% Dem for AZ-01. Even is 52.15% McCain, 47.85 % Obama. Sure it is not an exact science, but that is my best estimate. I am not backing off it, absent a numerically based basis which I missed. Toss-up anyway, which the Pubbie should hold in 2012 if competent, and I assume that he is.

The Commission wanted a metric that was based on actual election results from recent elections. They won't take some election with an imputed shift. Here is the list of elections they could work with (2-way GOP% in parentheses):

2008 Pres (54.3)
2008 Corp Commish (47.6)
2010 AG (51.9)
2010 Gov (56.1)
2010 Mine Commish (57.1)
2010 SoS (58.2)
2010 US Senate (62.9)
2010 Corp Commish (61.0)
2011 Registration (53.3) not an election

What blend would you recommend?

In their presentation, voter registration had the best correlation to the legislative and congressional seats won of any one item on that list. Averaging registration with the 2008 average and 2010 average didn't change the correlation but did shift the partisan computation toward the GOP by 1.2%.

If current registration is the best measure, then each district overestimates the GOP by that same 1.2%. Thus CD-9 would become 51-49 for the Dems. CDs 1 and 2 would be both about 50.6-49.4 for the GOP.

5 points Mccain is even...I don't think so. AZ is a swing state? :P

Mccain by 2 is my dead even point. CD-1 has a Republican lean.

6% for favorite son less 3.7% for Obama margin is 52.3% McCain for even. I explained why I used 6%. The red rock country trended Dem in 2008 vis a vis the nation - except for AZ. So we disagree Sbane which is fine. You use your numbers, and I will use mine. :)

The 4th district does have a logic to it, of course. Even if it's arguably insane troll logic. It includes all the areas that think they're sort-of-part-of-rural-Arizona-but-aren't-really (except those in Pinal and plus half of Yuma). And some outer suburbs. This way, it doesn't have to extend as deep into the Metro proper as it would have if it basically followed the old 2nd.

Of course, if that also makes an R vote sink and an open district (since Franks is in the 8th) that Dewar might even want to run to, I'm sure that's pure coincidence. [/whistles innocently]

Actually Schweikert lives in Fountain Hills which is barely in the district via an odd appendage. Hmmm...

Lol, alright. Wouldn't have thought of checking that.

Ah, my team has hope then!  :)

An odd appendage to the fourth, not the ninth. (Fountain Hills is right west of Fort McDowell Reservation... though I'm not sure the boundary between the two is passable except possibly on foot.)

EDIT: Yes. Yes it is. They built a road at some point over the past fifteen years. Or upgraded one or whatever.

So AZ-09 is an open seat?  Of course, that is the best plan for the Dems, absent having the Quayle doll served up for them into which to stick pins. :P

It'd still have been preferrable if the fourth had been open as well. Ideally Quayle gets the weaker of six and eight and Franks and Schweikert battle it out in the primary for the stronger. Of course that was always going to be a difficult map to draw. ;)

I'm reading that Schweikert isn't running in AZ-9, but in the new AZ-6 and that Quayle will also be running in that seat. The new seat will be wide open.

Yeah seems that way. Not sure if Quayle lives in AZ-6 but he won't win AZ-9 obviously. Schweikert might technically live in the new AZ-4 but he might think he has a better chance against Quayle in the primary in the new AZ-6 than against a Yavapai or Mohave Republican in the new AZ-4.

So Quayle is probably gone unless he can spew enough Tea Party idiocy to get them to turn out in droves for him in the primary and AZ-9 is a Dem gain, with a new Republican from outside Maricopa winning AZ-4.

BTW surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet (unless I missed it), but is the Navajo/Hopi split no longer an issue or whatever? Or did the Hopis maybe decide that they'd rather be stuck with the Navajo than represented by someone from the northwest Phoenix suburbs?

The Hopi told the Commission this time that being on the other side of the Marginot line from the Navajos was no longer job one for them.

I tried to do a better job for the GOP.

http://www.redracinghorses.com/diary/1168/another-arizona-commission-map

I've tried sketching the non-Maricopa districts in Dave's application. It's, indeed, a wow! job for the Dems. Never thought that possible, but when you start drawing it almost makes sense. The 4th district is a real piece of art.

I kind of agree with Lewis the 4th makes sense in a very odd way, but it allows for the election of another non-Maricopa Republican, and really non-Maricopa Arizona is "entitled" to more than just the first district and the two Tucson area seats.

Honestly looking at things from a non-partisan perspective I don't think this map is all that unfair. If there's going to be five districts in Maricopa, 3-2 is certainly more fair than 4-1, or perhaps 3-1-1 as the current AZ-5 is now a legitimate swing district (counting the current AZ-2 as a Maricopa based seat, which it is population-wise even if not geographically. Democrats get over 40% of the votes there consistently so 40% of the seats isn't ridiculous. As for outstate, an R seat, a D seat and two swing seats one leaning R and one leaning D is pretty even too, and it's a pretty evenly split region.

I can see why Republicans aren't happy, but the non-partisan commission did basically acheive its goal if the map ends up giving Republicans 55.55...% of the seats in a state where a favorite son won around 53% of the vote.

BTW what does everyone think of Harry Mitchell trying a comeback in the new AZ-9? It contains Tempe which is his base. I'd be pretty confident he'd go for it if he wasn't already so old, he might just prefer to get a sweet and work-light lobbyist position to pad his retirement fund.

I looked at the same feature through the fairness measure used by the Ohio Competition. Each party got a point for a district that was rated for them, except that districts with over 55% of the two-party vote counted 1.5 points, and districts within 51% counted a point for both parties. I used the commission's basket of elections adjusted by 1.5% towards the Dems to compensate for the overweight of the 2010 results (a shift of 2.5% gives the same result).  That gives 8 points R and 7 points D or 53.3% which is very close to the shifted statewide average.

Here comes the nuclear option!

http://azstarnet.com/article_52defe34-1fb5-5e96-96e9-290448ba49f6.html

The law empowers the governor to recommend the Senate remove any member of the commission who is not doing her or his job. And Mathis has come under fire from Republicans who charge she sides too much with the Democrats.

Well, the real reason to remove her are that her husband is active in the Democratic party,  which she did not disclosed when she applied for the "independent" seat, and, that she may have obstructed justice in destroying documents created by the commission.

Republicans will do anything to win. Their mamas didn't teach them to play fair!

Stop complaining pubbies, just stop. If you had complained less, you would have got a better map before. Seriously, try to win a few swing seats. Morons.

Republicans should stop "complaining," and, start acting to remove her for the reasons stated above. In fact, they should have removed her the instant it became known her husband was active in the Democratic party and she failed to disclose that fact. Had she disclosed that fact in a timely manner, she ought to have removed for consideration for the "independent" seat at that point.

Does this apply to Supreme Court justices?

Of course not, the Supreme Court has a Republican majority :P

Probably. The GOP has a 2/3 majority and could easily kick Mathis off it they chose to, at least unless they draw proper seats.

You have the gall to so characterize those Pubbie pussies on the Commission? Please!  If I were on the Commission we would be in court already, and have a transcript a hundred pages long, and have had a host of whore experts testifying before the commission about just how lawless they were, and how cooked their numbers were, and hopefully obtained some helpful admissions, and been whining to the press on a daily basis,  and on and on. In a word, I know how to play, and they don't. Period.

Anything else you want to get off your chest sbane?  Think of me as your therapist. :)

Supreme Court seats are not distributed by party.

So spouses having conflicts of interest is more important in redistricting than on the Supreme Court? Wow.

I have been looking at the OH map too much!

According to DKE, every AZ incumbent (including Flake) has at least 60% of his/her own current district in one of the new CDs (though not necessarily their home address). That places most of Schweikert's CD in AZ-9, where he may not win. Perhaps he'll run in another CD. Would any other of the Reps run in a less familiar CD?

Strawman. Again, if the Supreme Court was mandated to be 3 Democrats, 3 Republicans, and one Independent, then the exact same standard would apply to Supreme Court justice nominees, and their spouses.  But, Supreme Court nominees are free to have any political positions they please short of advocating the violent overthrow of the government. However, if their spouses had business or financial interests in case likely to come before the court, then that ought to disclosed.

If a commission is structured to include two Republicans, two Democrats, and one independent, then the Republicans ought to be Republicans, not RINOs, the Democrats Democrats, not DINOs and the independent independent, and not a IINO.

4-2-3 is fair - fairest possible, in fact, and pretty much resulting unless you try to rule it out -  but cooking all three competitive districts to actually favor Democrats, with two of them pretty much bordering on secure D, is clearly not.

The Commission is structured to have two members chosen by the state Democratic establishment, two members chosen by the state Republican establishment, and one member chosen by the other four.
As was done. :P

Yes, the law does not say that after you meet the VRA, then gerrymander to make it "fair."  And the reason, putting aside the cooked data, that it is "semi "fair," as muon2 with his little formula noted, is precisely that.  Darn it, if that is the law in AZ, it should be the law in MA!  :)

The Arizona Constitution http://www.azleg.gov/const/arizona_constitution.pdf disagrees with you most vigorously. It explicitly notes that the fifth member cannot be either a Republican or Democrat [as long as those are the two major parties], and must meet criteria for being, and appearing to be, impartial.

Nor does the four commisioners pick the fifth.

They don't? Oh. So I'm misremembering that detail. *shrugs* Who did?

Should be the law in Texas too.

And Illinois. Yes I know, you can play this game longer than I can this time. :P

Effectively it does. Since it presents all the other criteria, which contradict each other to an extent, more or less as one blur, and "communities of interest" and "geographical features" are undefined and unmeasurable anyways, it effectively comes down to "pass the map that satisfies these criteria that has the most competitive districts".

Yeah... bring that law to Massachusetts and you're forced to draw a winnable district for Republicans. Since it can be done without doing too much violence to the map (not nearly as much as the current intra-democratic incumbent-protection-mander does, for instance).

You should send that to the AZ Dems to put in their brief, because that rather weak, but perhaps subjective enough to get some traction, argument, is about all the Dems have going for them really, other than judicial deference to administrative discretion absent clear error.

That's a pretty big one, though - that was pretty much all the court bothered to point out in squashing last time's lawsuit.

I forget who was suing then, probably not one major party as a bloc though.

Yes it is. It needs careful massaging, which is why I posted that rant about how I would have handled matters as a Pubbie on the Commission. Basically the law just needs to be canned. It just didn't work out.

California's Commission has 5 Dems, 5 Reps and 4 Indies, and requires at least 3 votes from each bloc for passage. (It passed 12-2 with both nays being Republicans, by the way, so it got the bare minimum of minority consent.) Similarly, you could make the final passage in Arizona require four votes.

That would help. Of course the Pubbies on the CA commission were pathetic too, but I really can't get too angry over that map, and a lot of CD's are close enough, that I kind of like the incentive it offers to Pubbies to stop being way out there in never-never land.  In a word, I fantasize it might strengthen a bit my little microscopic wing of the party. But hey, here on this forum, my wing is close to half the party! No doubt, that is in part due to my inspired "leadership." :P

So you don't think at least one Republican in Socal was F'ed? Calvert or Miller's district was finished. Unless you think dumping a bit of OC into a Riverside district is "fair". Drier's case is more complicating. In the end the VRA constraints are what screwed him. Can you draw a better district for him? While drawing a VRA hispanic district in SBD county and the SGV as well as giving an Asian heavy district to Chu?

And do you think Gallegly and Capps should switch portions of their districts so they can both be safe and live happily ever after? The point of the redistricting commission was to NOT draw an incumbent gerrymander!

Also do you have any concerns in Norcal? I want to really find out what you consider to be so unfair about the map. Costa's district is only 54-45 Obama. OMGZ UNFAIR!!!!!!!

I haven't ranted that much about the CA map, except I found that Long Beach-Westminster thing troubling, but I have not really studied it in any real depth at all, and no next to nothing about norcal except for characterizations about it, because the place is just so far away from what I know and love. :)

Sure I could draw a much better CD for Drier while keeping the Hispanics happy. That isn't hard. Ditto for that Baca CD, which excludes for example Highland. Just why is that?  As for the Simi Valley exclusion fror the Ventura County CD, it looks like that actually might be the most logical thing to exclude, even though it does hurt the Pubbies. I am a bit confused why another real Hispanic CD was not drawn out of the Coachella Valley and parts of Riverside adjacent, etc., like I did, which would have helped the Pubbies, but maybe there was a reason. Maybe they thought it just reached too far.

In any event,  it would take a lot of work really for me to make a case worthy of my posting it (assuming it can be made), and I just don't have the energy right now. And I am headed back east next week for a week. Will you miss me?  :)

It in all events, it is by no means as egregious as the AZ cf.

Post from the east coast!

As for the Coachella valley, Bono Mack gets another district that is a perfect Republican gerrymander. Just look at the partisan numbers. Not that I don't think it makes sense, but it is what it is. The problem for the Republicans is that they lost the state 61-37 in 2008. And if you really think the Republicans did as well in California as they did nationwide in 2010(I am of the opinion the wave didn't reach California, but can under different circumstances), then you pubbies have more to worry about than some maps.

I agree with you about the LGB-Westminster CD as you already know, but the Drier district seems like it needed to be drawn. I will look more into the Highland exclusion thing though.

And yeah Simi Valley needed to be taken out of Ventura county. Or you push the Santa Clarita district into the SFV, thus putting Thousand Oaks into a Dem district. You cannot have a Rep gerrymander in Ventura County, sorry!

It would be a lot better to let ordinary decent citizens draw the maps, rather than trying to form panels of impartial experts chosen based on their partiality.

I was thinking about that. Pick up some teenaged girls from a TRL taping (is that still going on?) and let them draw pretty shapes on the map.

And, again, you misrepresented the fact that the fifth member must be imparial and neither a Democrat or a Republican.

This is a distinction that does not make a difference because the same people whom picked the five Democrats picked the five Republicans and four independents. The folks that conducted the inteviews, and winnowed the candidates chose not just the commissioners, but, the overwhelming likely outcome of the commission. 

You know, I hope the Republicans still win some minor amendments to the map. And for that it would probably have been useful to step the rhetoric down rather than up.

(The first district really, really, really needs to retreat out of either Pima or Cochise, preferrably Pima. The boundary there makes no sense whatsoever and serves no purpose except gerrying, so is probably strictly speaking against the Commission's rules even as I and the Dems interprete them. I'd also like to see some alterations around the 4th to 6th and 6th to 9th boundaries... which I'm not sure would have much of a partisan effect.)

Geographical features are reasonably defined in the proposition as city and county limits. The Michigan standards are of course quite reasonable checks on partisan gerrymandering.

A district consisting of Tempe, the Southern bit of Arizona, Chandler, and the Eastern Part of Mesa (2 municipal breaks rather than 4) comes in at 49.9% McCain. I linked one earlier. I can reasonably infer that the 9th district zigzagging gains them about 3 points.

Isn't the game over for the CD's as far as the Commission is concerned? Oh, there is a comment period. Meanwhile, it does seem the Pubbies have declared total war (http://tucsoncitizen.com/mark-evans/archives/601) on the map and the Commission, the Dems are stonewalling, and the Pubbies are going to use both judicial and legislative remedies to get rid of the Dem commissioners and Mathis and/or the map or both. There is a court hearing on Nov 7 on both parties' lawsuits.

If there is any justice, the nostrum that pigs get fat, and hogs get slaughtered, will come to pass.

So a new commission gets put in place and a new map drawn Or is it possible the courts draw it?

Maybe they should just use my map. A more Republican 9th in the Phoenix area and a more Democratic Tucson district. And Grijalva is told to keep his mustachioed face shut.

I think at the moment, it is just total chaos. Just what the grand Pubbie plan is to kill this map, is probably under wraps. But it does seem that they mean to use their power to kill it, one way or the other, unless and until the courts somehow stop them. There was no mention of another referenda to end the commission, and I don't know how feasible that is, but that in the end is the nuke  option if all else fails.

The Dems + Mathis don't seem interested in backing down either and modifying their map. (They are clearly not getting their advice from Lewis, who might in this instance be rather helpful to them.) They have been pushing the nuke button with just as much fervor as the Pubbies. It is as if both sides are actually really enjoying this cafeteria food fight. Maybe everyone is on PCP.

Bottom line, Republicans just aren't going to get as many safe seats as they like, not with any makeup of the commission. As it stands, there are only 2 D+ PVI districts on the map, which is hardly a Democratic gerrymander. No party owns the congressional seats, so it's a bit ridiculous for the governor to claim the map is "thievery". Sometimes you just have to get over it, that's what Democrats in many states have to do.

I of course have been ranting that I think the baseline partisan numbers are cooked, so we end up with two safe Dem Hispanic CD's (regarding which everyone and the VRA agree), one weak safe Dem CD (+ 4.2% Dem or something), one weak lean Dem CD (+ 2.15 % Dem), and one tossup CD with a slight Dem tilt (Dem +1%), and three Pubbie packed CD's. You might check out the stuff on the thread above on that one, where a few of us weigh in on that one and make up your own mind. I also think the Dems didn't follow the law in good faith, and did indeed do a gerrymander. Whether it was bad enough to actually constitute an abuse of discretion (a high standard),  is another matter. It would and will take careful spadework to kill the map that way.  But the Dems seem to want to be as helpful as possible in that regard, given their conduct. They need better advice themselves!

They don't have to get over it when they have the power to boot the commission.

Meaning the members or the whole thing? I don't think a proposition to overturn fair redistricting will be overturned. It just won't. Maybe if they played it more safe and only had a proposition to overturn the current map. I don't even know how that would work though.

There seems to be some chatter that the legislature can remove the members by legislation. Yes, I know, it seems odd. As I say, the whole thing is a cf. Really, the courts should just draw the map at this point, but that isn't in the cards either I don't think, unless somehow the Commission can be made totally dysfunctional.

A two-third majority can remove the commissioners, but that can only be seriously used against Mathis. If either of the Democrats is removed the Democratic legislative leaders can just reappoint them ad nasuem. And no replacement for Mathis can be appointed without the consent of the Democrats. So the map will either be:

1. Drawn by this commission
2. Drawn By the State Supreme Court
3. Drawn by the 9th Circuit

Both 2. and 3. might well just impose the commission map as an interim solution if the issue looks like a partisan temper tantrum, in which case the legislature might try a mid-decade redraw and end up in court again.

They could go to referendum, but I am not sure there will be much stomach among low-info voters for it.

Thanks Dan for that most lucid and helpful analysis.

I doubt a court would just use the Commission map over which the whole contretemps ensured with all sorts of procedural irregularities, assuming that they have time to draw a new map, which presumably they should, since it should not take long, particularly with a record before them that they can use. In any event, this might lead to another referendum with some new structure for map drawing, sold under the auspices that so far, no map has been drawn at all but an interim court drawn one, and we need to do better. Just a wild guess.

It's just kind of dumb how the parties get to choose who draws the map. The process needs to be taken out of their hands. Let amateurs do it. Even if the Republicans try to find some sort of ulterior motive in the California map, it just isn't there when one looks at the big picture. Almost everything can be explained due to different constraints. Hell even that LGB-Westminster district can be explained from a race/income basis, if not partisanship. And the commission wasn't even supposed to take partisanship into account. If you are talking about the Drier district, Highland was probably excluded to cut down on the city splits, unless Rialto was also split. The Coachella Valley district just didn't make sense if it had to go pick up Perris or Moreno Valley. It did make sense for an assembly map, and exactly that was drawn. I could go on and on.

Basically what I am saying is that it was much, much more preferable to this arrangement where I do believe the commissioners had a motive of trying to create a Phoenix Dem district, even if it meant the Tucson district became more of a swing district.

They ought to boot the Republican commissioners as well for stupidity, in not including 2006 election results in their 'baseline' standard.

I don't know that they needed to use 2006. I do think they overweighted the 2010 data to the Rs by including all statewide races that year. If they would have picked a subset such as the three closest races, it would be a better measure of overall partisan leanings.

I think there's a combination of ideas here that could work.

I suggest that the process allow the commissioners to have a partisan intent, but tie them to maps submitted by outsiders. Then force them to select a map based on criteria developed by neither the commission nor the mapmakers. Finally require a supermajority of commissioners to override the criteria and select a map other than the one with the best fit to the criteria.

And therein lies the rub. You are on the right track though. The trick is to create incentives for compromise. One approach is that if both sides cannot agree, they each submit a map to a third party, on whom they have agreed upon in advance (and if they cannot agree the Supreme Court picks such party), which third party would be charged with picking one map or the other which bests follows a set of listed criteria, carefully defined and prioritized, maybe with almost a point system, and if competitiveness is in there, as a lower ranking criteria, not be be touched unless it can be done without much of a point loss otherwise.  Competitiveness too would be carefully defined, and maybe also agreed upon in advance where they is otherwise room to argue, and if cannot be agreed upon, set at trial in advance based on expert testimony and all.

That way each sides takes some risk if they cannot agree (and they can agree upon anything perhaps), and the more aggressive they get with the final map they submit, the more risk they run the other side's map will be picked. And some things that might upset the apple cart later, are set at the beginning, at a time perhaps where the impact of it all is not so well known, so there may be less of a temptation for gamesmanship, because nobody is sure how big the candy bar is that early on.

What do you think?

Maybe everyone has decided that the other side is not capable of compromise and adult discussion.
Maybe everyone is right.

Here are two possibilities for the criteria that puts them in the hands of neither the commission nor the mapmakers. One welds them into the constitution with all the details for implementation. That may prove to inflexible as one goes forward into future decades. A second approach is to provide the outline of criteria in the constitution with delegation of the details to the legislature. Many political scientists who have studied redistricting think there should be some role for the legislature, and enacting the detailed implementation of the criteria by statute would provide some future flexibility.

The basic problem is that the most meaningful criteria (community of interest stuff, including the VRA issues) tend to be hard to quantify exactly, and thus open to abuse if one party has de facto control over the process - or even if both parties agree on bipartisan gerrying. Indeed, a certain degree of bipartisan gerrying - nothing like the last Illinois map, of course - is implied in the principle.
You can draw up quantifiable rules about splitting counties and compact shapes and stuff - even about competitive districts - but you have no guarantee that the end results will actually make sense on the ground.

That's why I noted a role for the legislature. Academic commentary on the process considers that body to have the best ability to judge what makes sense on the ground. It's just that one wants to avoid giving the legislature the power to draw the lines, since that's where the self-preservation instinct (partisan or individual) shows up most clearly.

Why don't you draw up an outline of the criteria Muon2, and then Lewis and I can take pot shots at it, and list all the ways that it can be gamed? :)  I still like the idea that if there is deadlock, each side submits their map, and some independent third party picks the one that best comports with the law, based on expert testimony and the like where necessary. I was trying to get as close to the idea as possible, that one side cuts, and the other picks, which can't be implemented here, so I was struggling to come up with the next best thing, that I could think of.

The problem is that both sides will, first, pick an expert they hope is more sympathetic to them than the other side, and then find inside info on the other side's map, and then just submit a map that's not clearly worse than the other side's.

This is (in practice. Nominally it's a committee with one independent to break ties) how they draw lines in New Joisey.

Each side peeking at the other side's map doesn't bother me much (that will probably more or less come out in negotiation anyway). Each side's experts are just paid whores of course. That is how we litigate. The third party who finally decides if the parties cannot cut a deal needs to be carefully chosen of course.

The trick is to create an incentive for the parties to cut a deal, because otherwise they run real risks, and hopefully what is at stake as to what is really in play where the third party could go either way, is not too great. So the parties have an incentive to cut a deal the cuts through all of this, protects some incumbents, or whatever they want to do, because the map the third party picks will have none of that in it. It's carrots and sticks all the way, at every step, is the idea.

The ordinary decent citizens would be a representative panel drawn from the voter rolls (perhaps 1 per 2000 persons) on a geographically stratified basis.

The following is based on Ohio:

A county apportionment area (CAA) is one or more contiguous counties with a population approximately equivalent to an integer number of representatives.

The maximum relative deviation would be 0.07 * sqrt(N), where N is the N number of representatives.  This would rule out Allen, Wood, and Columbiana counties, but could permit some multi-county single member districts to be created.   The intent is to prevent systematic overrepresentation or underrepresentation of larger counties, simply because any error can be evenly distributed.   If a county was entitled to 9.5 representatives, it could theoretically have 10 districts within the 5% safe harbor, but this would require total disregard of city and town boundaries.  The above limit is intended to avoid this situation.

Anyone could submit a plan that would provide CAA for the entire State with a total of 99 representatives.

A plan would be scored in the following manner: (1) 1 point per CAA; (2) An additional point for a single-county CAA; and (3) An additional point for a single district CAA.  (eg Wayne and Richland counties would be worth 3 points).

The highest ranking plan and those with 90% of the points would be presented to the panel of voters, who would rank the plans based on their immediate effect on them.  For example, the Summit County voters might rank plans based on whether they would pair Summit and Medina; Summit and Stark; or Summit and Portage, but would rank plans as equal that had no immediate effect (eg pairing Montgomery with Greene or Preble).

The top statewide plan would be determined using Condorcet methods.  There might be recursion where the rankings of the voters in each CAA of the top statewide plan would be evaluated to see if they concurred with the statewide plan.

CAA's with a single representative would become districts.

All other CAA's would be handled separately and independently.

A township apportionment area (TAA) is one or more contiguous townships (in a CAA) with a population approximately equivalent to an integer number of representatives.  Note, most large municipalities and many smaller ones in Ohio are also townships.

A TAA that includes parts of two counties is said to span the two counties.  No more than one TAA may span any pair of counties (this applies even if the counties are not contiguous).  This spanning rule replaces the current rule on county splits.   A county with 1.4 representatives could be placed in two (or more) districts going into adjacent counties (but not the same ones), rather than being restricted to one district wholly within the county, and the remnant in one other multi-county district. 

An excessively split county is split between more TAAs than the ideal representation of the county, rounded to the nearest integer and one (1) added.  A county with a population equivalent to less than 0.5 representatives is excessively split if it it split between two districts.  A county entitled to 1.6 representatives could be split among 3 districts, while one entitled to 1.4 could be split among 2 districts, without being excessively split.

Enclave townships (such as Bratenahl, Upper Arlington, and Norwood) would be treated as part of the containing township (Cleveland, Columbus, or Cincinnati) for purposes of creating TAA, unless they had sufficient population to form a separate TAA,  So if Cuyahoga County were a CAA, one TAA would include all of Cleveland plus some adjacent cities or townships.

Individuals could submit plans for a CAA comprised of TAAs.  All plans that proposed the most number of TAAs, and the fewest number of excessive county splits, would be submitted to the panel of voters from the affected counties, who would rank them based on their effect on themselves.

TAAs with more than one representative would be divided into Neighborhood Apportionment Areas (Neighborhoods would replace wards, and would be defined in advance of the census). Only one NAA could span a pair of counties or township/cities.  No neighborhoods could be split.

Qualifying plans would create the most NAAs and create the fewest city/township splits (in general, larger cities would be placed in as few districts as possible), while smaller townships and cities would be treated as if they were neighborhoods and not split.

NAAs with more than one representative (these could be extremely rare) would be divided based on proposals for splitting individual neighborhoods.  Only voters in those neighborhoods would vote on the actual split.

Legislative maps are out. Not quite as egregious.

They did split the white liberal population of Tucson in half and connected both to suburbs in order to grab an extra district. They also organized the Tempe area to give the Democrats a shot at 3 districts rather than the 1 they have now, with Democrats favored in 2 of them.

Overall Democrats are capped at 13 seats.

How do you do that? Sure the district grabbed isn't one of the Hispanic districts? (Previous map was two Hispanic districts, one White Democratic district, one White Republican district. Unless I totally misremember. And the Hispanic shares were, IIRC, not so very high... so maybe they figured now that they absolutely need 51.0% VAP and can't do that anymore. Hence my idea of what might conceivably be what's happened here.)

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http:%2F%2Fwww.azredistricting.org%2Fmaps%2Fpubmaps%2F100911%2FLeg-Merge_as_of_100911.kmz&hl=en&sll=34.168218,-111.930907&sspn=12.693328,26.784668&vpsrc=0&t=h&z=7


1 Hispanic district in Tucson
1 Hispanic district stretching to Yuma (although this one has a lot of Republicans in it).
1 Hispanic district stretching to Nogales
2 districts with Tucson white liberals and slightly Republican areas like Catalina Foothills.

Average GOP performance here is 47.2 in both of them; currently the Tucson white liberal population is packed into 1 district.


Phoenix is mostly fine.

4 Hispanic districts
1 white liberal district in Phoenix (currently GOP held)
1 lean GOP swing district in South Phoenix/Chandler
1 white liberal district in Tempe/Mesa


At most the Democrats get these 12 and the 1 in the North. 17 districts are safe GOP.

The Flagstaff/Sedona/Holbrook/Payson thingy is safe GOP? I find that hard to believe.
Also, the color scheme is ridiculous. That district is a quite similar shade to its neighbor in Northeast Maricopa... and not too dissimilar from the Navajo/Apache district.
I notice the old Hispanic-influence district in rural Pinal (which fell to the GOP in 2010) has been bifurcated, and I guess both parts lean GOP quite clearly. Though I'm not entirely sure about the eastern one.

Flagstaff - District 6? Yea, 55.5% Republican, or 1% more than the state as a whole.

It's the weakest of the Republican 17, I suppose. But GOP registration is +9 there.

Districts 8 and 11 are likely safe GOP too, at 56/57% per their scale.

You're forgetting the Snowflake/Taylor/Show Low part of that district, which is uber Mormon and uber GOP. Might go Dem if there are tensions between the Mormon Republicans in Show Low etc. and the non-Mormon Republicans elsewhere, but otherwise probably not (e.g., Mormon Dem v. non-Mormon GOP, or Dem v. Mormon GOP following divisive GOP primary).

Counted that under "Holbrook". :P (Winslow is a much more marginally Republican town, with a Native minority presence, but it rightly got put in the Dine district.)

http://www.rollcall.com/news/arizona_governor_jan_brewer_starts_impeachment_against_redistricting_panel-209840-1.html

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has taken the first step today in what had been previously called “the nuclear option” in seeking a more Republican-friendly redistricting map.

The GOP governor began the impeachment process for removing members from the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission by submitting a letter outlining her grievances to commission Chairwoman Colleen Mathis.

Colleen Mathis is the only one likely to be removed.

She concealed the evidence of her (extreme) partisanship before her appointment (as an alleged Independent).

She has been the leader of consistent efforts to hire only Democrats for staff (and consultants) , have secret (illegal) meetings, and destroy records.

She has violated the explicit instructions for redistricting in the ballot measure creating the commission (espresso pundit has a nice summary).  http://www.espressopundit.com/, see Open and Shut case.

Her illegal activities may well get her indicted (and hopefully some jail time).

Are redistricting commission appointments always this litigious, or is this year just bad for Arizona's Commission?

I think we are seeing an inherent weakness in the independent commission model. Few people are completely independent, since individuals do have opinions that reflect on political choices. A system that is seeking independent members has a challenge to see past simple measures such as party registration.

() (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/805/impeached.png/)

I thought the facts are in this case were that they asked all applicants if their spouse worked for a political party, and she lied! The Commission simply didn't presume all "independents" were suitable candidates. In this case, the system would have excluded her properly because her husband worked on Democratic campaigns.

The system worked reasonably well in the past.

This year the Democrats successfully foisted one of their own on the commission as an ostensible "independent."

They tried to keep "Christians" off the commission and tried to appoint legally ineligible persons to the commission (the Arizona Supreme Court ruled against them).

Mathis engaged in a number of illegal actions including, but not limited to, secret meetings, destroying records and hiding critical documents.

The Congressional map is acknowledged to violate the 'compactness' standard established both by the Supreme Court of the United States and the law stipulating the criteria that the Commission "shall" use in establishing districts.

How do we know Mathis was a rouge agent whom wormed her way through the process? Another possibility is that the fix was on. If so, her impeachment is merely a matter of changing names. The same commission that nominated her, will submit four new names. The four remaining members of the IRC will have to pick one of the four, or the commission will pick which of the four. If the fix is in, the new "independent" nominee will be another Mathis lite. You might just see the new commissioner piously announce that it too late in the process to start from scratch, and that the proposed map, which is functionally a Democratic gerrymander, is "fair," ad nasceum.

Mathis was chosen unanimously by the other four commissioners, from a shortlist of five suitable independents picked by a different commission (that has other, earlier tasks.) I've no idea what would happen if a member resigned or was removed; the case is not covered in this legal overview (http://azredistricting.org/docs/Meeting-Info/AZ-Independent-Redistricting-Commission-Legal-Overview-070811.pdf).
I do not know if Mathis was asked about her husband's political links, or whether she lied about them. I do know that they are not, in and of itself, disqualifying her from serving as the commission's independent member.
As to the last question... it is too late to start from scratch (and be on the safe side re federal laws etc). That's beyond doubt. It's barely not yet too late to do a major redraw sort-of based on the current map though, for, like, another week.

Ah, here it is.
"THE COMMISSION ON APPELLATE COURT APPOINTMENTS OR ITS DESIGNEE [so, the same people who made the shortlist] SHALL NOMINATE A POOL OF THREE CANDIDATES WITHIN THE FIRST THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE VACANCY OCCURS. THE NOMINEES SHALL BE OF THE SAME POLITICAL PARTY OR STATUS AS WAS THE MEMBER WHO VACATED THE OFFICE AT THE TIME OF HIS OR HER APPOINTMENT, AND THE APPOINTMENT OTHER THAN THE CHAIR SHALL BE MADE BY THE CURRENT HOLDER OF THE OFFICE DESIGNATED TO MAKE THE ORIGINAL APPOINTMENT. THE APPOINTMENT OF A NEW CHAIR SHALL BE MADE BY THE REMAINING COMMISSIONERS. IF THE APPOINTMENT OF A REPLACEMENT COMMISSIONER OR CHAIR IS NOT MADE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION OF THE NOMINEES, THE COMMISSION ON APPELLATE COURT APPOINTMENTS OR ITS DESIGNEE SHALL MAKE THE APPOINTMENT, STRIVING FOR POLITICAL BALANCE AND FAIRNESS."

Also, if Mathis is removed before the commission draws a final map or finalizes the current one (they have hearings scheduled up to november 5th) strictly they only have an earliest date to do so, not a latest (except what's set by filing deadlines etc pp), so they would presumably have to wait in doing that until the replacement is chosen.

I wonder if there is any prospect of cutting a deal with a less partisan map in exchange for not bouncing Mathis. That would be by far the simplest course.

Wow, the Republicans sure do hate the rule of law. Cheating the system implemented by the people so they can gerrymander away the people's right to democratic representation. Shameful.

Well, if Mathis stated that her husband doesn't have political links either, and the appelate whatever commission wouldn't have shortlisted if she told the truth, then Republicans do have something of a case.

There is this thing called "research." The fact that you haven't bothered may very well be motivated by a desire to not want to know what is a very unpleasant fact for you.


Yes, they are.


Since states like Florida and New York have hardly even began the process, it, obviously, isn't too late to start from scratch.

Not really. More a case of not wanting to wade into this stuff deeply unless absolutely forced to, and the fact that anything smacking of Arizona Tea Party fails the LAPD test.

I have done a bit of that wading now, I'm still not ready to do as much as it probably requires, and yeah she apparently has "omitted" info on a questionnaire applicants needed to fill out, about her husband's lawyer work for political officeholders... of both parties, btw. (The man actually was a Republican congressional aide once, more than a decade ago)


Yes, they are.
[/quote]Not under the laws of Arizona. The requirements are pretty clear: have been a registered independent for the past x years, not personally stood for office or worked professionally for a campaign the past y years, not a registered lobbyist.

Whether she would or should have been shortlisted may be quite another matter, though. They are supposed to pick the most qualified five from the applicants after all, and the Arizona Supreme Court made its case law in that earlier decision where it forced alterations of the shortlist.

Oh yeah, that Republican who abstained on that map? He's totally siding with Mathis. :o

The AZ state Senate voted last night to bounce Mathis (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/11/arizona-redistricting-/1). Mathis is petitioning the AZ Supreme Court today to object to her removal. Just what her grounds are I have no clue.

The Dems are filing paperwork (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/redistricting/191121-arizona-dems-threaten-recall-effort-to-sway-gop-state-senators-on-redistricting) to recall 4 Pubbie state Senators that I guess they think are vulnerable. Just how that will do them any good vis a vis redistricting also escapes me.