Talk Elections

This appears to be the partisan control map as of 2017. Red = Dem control, Blue = Repub control, Green = Mixed control, Gray = non-partisan or at-large. Probably there will be some shift to the Dems especially among Governors races.

()

Potential gerrymanders

Repub:

UT - keep same map, splitting Salt Lake
NE - add rural areas to NE-2?
KS - add rural areas to KS-3?
MO - could divide K.C. but that could easily backfire
WI - could weaken WI-3
MI - prob. keep same map
IN - could weaken IN-1
OH - keep same map, but if lose a seat, would come from Repubs
OK - could shore map OK-5, but not likely to be necessary
TX - prob. new seats would be split or Democratic plus perhaps a white Austin seat
AR - keep same map
MS - keep same map
AL - keep same map
GA - may even have to concede Dem or swing Atlanta suburbs seat
SC - keep same map, or maybe shore up SC-1 and/or SC-7
NC - keep same map, but if gain new seat, it would be Democratic
FL - prob. keep same map, I'm not too familiar with Fla. politics
TN - could divide Nashville though Cooper has represented rural Tennessee before
KY - could divide Louisville
WV - keep same map
NH - prob. would be similar map regardless of whose in control

Dem:

OR - keep same map, but if gain CD would at best be a swing CD
MD - keep same map
NY - could threaten Syracuse seat; Long Island Repubs would be hard to dislodge
MA - keep same map
RI - prob. will end up at-large but if not, would likely keep same map

What are your thoughts?

Also, does anyone have a guess at which states are likely to gain/lose seats?

Rhode Island losing it's second district is pretty much a guarantee, so that state is a moot point.

Kentucky does have a "keep counties whole when possible" clause in their constitution so I'm not sure KY-3 can be cracked.   Unless they amend the constitution before then obviously.   They have something similar in Nebraska,  but that one is less certain.

In Ohio the GOP *could* crack OH-13 for a 12-3 map, but that is risky for them,  especially if northeast Ohio swings back to the dems in the future.

I have thought about this hypothetical for quite some time - the end result is that we don't know what the maps will even look like. In 2008, the Democrats controlled quite a number of state houses - almost as much as the Republicans do right now. It was all swept away in the 2010 wave. The midterms will give us a better picture in regards to the partisan makeup of chambers and gubernatorial offices.

But then we got issues pushed by certain members. You mention Kansas, however the split between the suburban and rural GOP there created the current lines despite the partisan makeup being a R trifecta in 2010. Perhaps if there is a D in KS-03 in 2020, the district will be spit.

The only state were we can really predict the 2020 maps in Virginia - and that is after the November elections. Then, we will see who controls the Governor and the General Assembly, and what the trendline in the HoD is and can it flip/remain R in time for 2020.

So, no - wait until November 7th 2018 to begin drawing maps. For seat gains/losses, check the locked population estimates thread at the top of this topic forum.

Not necessarily. This time it is a little bit tricky for Democrats in Virginia. There are a few options here:

1. Democrats have to win Gov race both this year and in 2021, ensuring veto power over maps no matter when Republicans do it. Republicans will surely punt the redraw to 2022 if Gillespie loses this year.

or

2. Democrats win a state Senate majority in 2019 and prevent any defections or retirement enticements from the GOP. This allows a veto of a Congressional gerrymander and legislative maps, although a bipartisan gerrymander is a fair bet for the legislative maps.

3. The rarest option - Democrats somehow win a trifecta by 2021 by holding the gov this year and handing heavy losses to the HoD Republicans, winning the state Senate in 2019 and building on HoD gains, and then in 2021 finally win a bare majority while holding the Govs office. Again, this still seems unlikely, even if they get a new HoD map due to the racial gerrymandering lawsuit currently pending.

Either way, the VA Democrats' redistricting situation will not be solved by the 2017 elections alone.

Could the VA GOP really punt the redraw past 2021?   I thought there were laws requiring maps be submitted before the end of 2021.

If nothing else the chances of the VA GOP having a trifecta again for 2020 is almost nil,  with both this year's gov race and the 2019 Senate races...with Trump in the White House to top it off.

Any comments on this in regards to Ohio?
https://ballotpedia.org/Ohio_Bipartisan_Congressional_Redistricting_Commission_Initiative_(2018)

They delayed in the last round and passed the Congressional map in 2012. In 2013, when Republicans had a 20-20 majority with Bolling, they even tried to go back on the Senate map Democrats drew in 2011, but that attempt was eventually killed. The state constitution pretty clearly says maps are to be redrawn in odd years following the census (so 2011, 2021, etc), and there was even a lawsuit, but the state supreme court refused to hear it and a lower court judge said the maps had to be finished in 2011 but "did not forbid" them from being finished the next year, either. I don't really get why a deadline would be instituted if the deadline didn't actually matter. Since that was a lower court, there could be another lawsuit if that happens, although I dunno if anything different occur.

FL: Likely gains at least two districts. Likely gains at least one Democratic district due to urbanization.
TX: Gains two or three districts. At least one likely Democratic because of urbanization.
OH: likely loses a GOP leaning district because rural districts are less populated.
WV: Likely loses a district. Safe R for both districts.
AZ: Likely gains one district.
RI: Likely Loses a district. Safe D at-large district.
NH: Very little change.
MI: Likely loses a district.
NE: Very little change or loses a district. Likely two R districts if NE loses a district.
MT: No change or gains a district.
NV: Very little change.
AL: Likely loses a GOP district.
CO: Likely gains a district.
PA: Likely loses a district.
IL: Likely loses a district.
NC: Likely gains one D district.

Florida can add 1-2 new seats for the GOP and also flip back FL-07 and FL-05. And Texas will be 3 new seats for the GOP! Georgia can be a new seat for the GOP! Just cut GA-02.

Arkansas is going to be interesting.  The gerrymanders may come in the makeup of the primary electorates of each district come 2022.  If legislators in the Delta Region want to have a bigger say in Congress, they might just add all of the Delta to just one district, instead of dividing it between the two currently, which does dilute its influence. 

That is incredibly terrible reasoning. Rural districts are just as populated as urban districts. Since Ohio went for Trump by eight points, it would be easy for the GOP to eliminate Tim Ryan's district if the GOP gerrymander stays. But that gerrymander probably won't stay due to the likely victory of an independent redistricting commission extension initiative in 2018.

RealClear Politics (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/12/22/census_data_shed_light_on_2020_redistricting__132623.html) says it would be difficult to eliminate GOP seats in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan; maybe because rural populations are declining more quickly. Tim Ryan's seat includes urban areas like Akron and Youngstown.

Girl rural areas of the nation are losing population very quickly.  They will have to expand greatly even if the number of districts in a state stays the same.

Which district in West Virginia likely gets eliminated: Mooney's, Jenkins', or McKinley's?

By default, Mooney's (probably). It's sandwhiched between the other two CDs.

Due to their states swinging hard to Trump, it would be incredibly easy for the GOP machines in MI, OH, and PA to eliminate Dan Kildee's, Tim Ryan's, and Matthew Cartwright's districts in 2021. Sadly, a lot of those Obama-Trump voters aren't flipping back, ever. It would have been impossible for the GOP to have done this in 2011, though, as all of these states went for Obama easily.

Youngstown, Flint, Wilkes-Barre are sadly all fast-declining urban areas. That makes the positions of the Dems there even more precarious (except in Ohio, where it is likely nonpartisan redistricting will pass in 2018).

Last I read about reform efforts in Ohio was that they intended to emulate the legislative commission reform passed in 2015 (https://ballotpedia.org/Ohio_Bipartisan_Redistricting_Commission_Amendment,_Issue_1_(2015)), which was pretty weak but still ok when you consider it was a legislative referral to the ballot. Basically they could implement a 4 year gerrymander if they didn't get votes from the minority party, and then 4 years later they do it again, except this time they can even update the gerrymander to account for any trends that have developed since the last map was passed. In that sense, it is even worse. The idea was that at least the minority has a chance in future elections to win more influence on the commission (eg, win the Auditor's race, the Gov race, a legislative chamber, etc). They can also sue if the maps are hyper-partisan but that requires Republican judges to actually rule against their party, which is far from a given if you go by other states.

Point is, if that is indeed the kind of reform that gets implemented, Democrats shouldn't expect it to save them. They would be better off doing away with the 4 year provision and making it truly independent.

Actually drawing another Democratic district in Oregon is pretty easy. Oregon voted for Hillary by almost 11 points. OR-2 is a huge R vote sink. OR-4 is a very margin seat that Hillary won by like 0.1% (I think it might be the closest seat in the country) but has a strong incumbent and the Democrats could just boost it a bit by adding places like Ashland and Bend from OR-2 and shedding the Republican territory, and you have a seat that would be very hard to win for the Republicans even if DeFazio retires but would be about D+4 or so. That means in the remainder of Oregon Hillary would've won it by about 16-17 points, and thus could easily be chopped up so all the districts are at least in the teens margin of victory.

Trump voter=/=House R voter
It would be outrageously foolhardy to draw gerrymanders on that basis, generally. Also, it just screams 'dummymander' to me - Trump won many economically left-wing people in the Rust Belt and to assume they won't ever be won back on presidential level AND they would be reliable House Republican voters is just deeply unwise.

AR used to maintain whole counties, but ditched that in the last cycle. Do you see any chance they go back to a whole county plan?

Especially if the WV leg decides to stick to the rationale that was successful in Tennant v Jefferson County. In that case they defended a whole county plan that minimized the number of people shifted between districts. If they apply that to 2020 and a reduction of one seat, they would divvy up the counties in WV-2 between the other 2 CDs and not shift anyone between CD 1 and 3.

I think you may have misspelled rationalization.

But there is really no choice but to start with dividing up WV-2. And geographically it makes more sense putting the eastern panhandle with WV-1, and Charleston with WV-2.

It appears to be a balanced split putting everything east of Lewis, plus Wirt and Calhoun in WV-1. You could then do some swapping, such as Jackson for Randolph. The current representatives are about as being in the extreme corners of the state as you can get (Wheeling, Huntington, and Charles Town (Jefferson County)). The congressional results look like Idaho got a 3rd seat.

I think the only radical change would be create a river seat that includes Huntington and Wheeling, and keep Charleston with the eastern panhandle.

Quite odd background for Alex Mooney (WV-2). He was Maryland GOP chair and also a Maryland senator until 2011.

Maybe?  It really depends if they want to chop up the 2nd to try and sink Little Rock in a district which is more Republican.  And it also depends on how they may want to divide up the state.  I'm not sure people would want the 1st to go even further into the Mountains, you could see districts which kinda look like this.

() 

Partisan makeup wouldn't change, but it would make 2 districts based in the more rugged part of the state, and allow for one district which is primarily an agricultural district.

I believe the Pennyslvania Democrats control the State Supreme Court, which means that Democrats will probably have the upper hand even with split redistricting.

Legislative only, but if Wolf hangs on he can also block Congressional gerrymanders. Of course, this assumes PA Republicans do not attempt to change the system by putting a constitutional amendment on the ballot before 2021. Last I recall, there were rumblings of reform now that conservatives are on the other side of redistricting.

Democrats do, in fact, control the PA Supreme Court. 2 Republicans and 5 Democrats.

Tim, since when has a dummymander resulted from assuming the congressional vote will resemble the presidential vote, rather than from ignoring the presidential vote and assuming past congressional vote results will always remain? North Carolina has only three Dem districts, and it went for Trump by only four points. Ohio went for Trump by eight points. Surely Ohio can easily afford to lose OH-13 under a GOP gerrymander without it degenerating into a dummymander, and probably OH-09, as well. The majority of Obama-Trump voters were state legislative R voters if a seat was contested, and almost all Obama-Trump voters in GOP-held districts were House R voters.

I understand Romney vote is more strongly predictive of 2017 special election results than Trump vote. That's because presidential election results take time to fully percolate down to the local level. The Arkansas Democratic Party had plenty of fun during the 2000s winning Clinton 96/Bush 2000 voters. Then the 2010s came, and Bush 2000 results all of the sudden became far more predictive of congressional and state legislative vote than in 2006. Matt Cartwright, etc. will survive 2018 easily. But in the 2020s, the current PA-17 will very likely end up R on the House and state legislative level.

It is more difficult to eliminate a populated urban district than a rural district that is losing population. Some Obama-Trump voters live in urban districts that voted for Hillary Clinton and Tim Ryan. Who knows how they voted in House races?

They can either get rid of OH-13 or OH-9...not both.    Cleaveland and Akron are too large for just 1 dem vote sink.   OH-9 has a large part of it's population in western Cuyahoga.

But yes, OH-13 is the most likely to go, but the good news is both Cincinnati and Columbus are both looking good for the Democrats in the future

Hillary Clinton got just 418 more votes in OH-04 than Mitt Romney (who lost Ohio) got in OH-09 (and obviously fewer votes than Donald Trump or John McCain got in OH-09). If GOP machine is willing to risk it, and thinks Trump v. Clinton is the future, the current OH-09 and OH-04 can be transformed into two Obama-Trump districts.

Yes, Cincinnati is an obvious bright spot in the Ohio darkness.

I don't think Democrat will ever get a Hamilton county seat.

Why not? It's urban and swung the most away from Trump of any Ohio county after Delaware.

Yeah but Cincinnati suburbs are still fairly Republican so they could easily split it among two district. Really depends on the outcome of Gill v. Whitford

This is true, but I wonder what adding Kanawha county to the 3rd district will do the dynamics for party primaries in the new "2nd." While it's not that big (190,000 people) it's so much bigger than any other county in the state.

Trump broke the blue wall by combining some Republican policies (opposition to immigration, discomfort with diversity) with many non-Republican policies (invest in infrastructure, no cuts to SS/Medicare/Medicaid, skeptical on trade) that put him more to the center. He swept up a lot of votes with these promises that the Congressional Rs have no interest in and he's breaking nearly all of them. After the GA-6 result, I think it's more likely that the new R voters in 2016 flip back to the Ds (or drop out of politics) than that good Clinton results in affluent districts mean 10+ Rs are going to lose their races in upscale suburban seats where Romney romped.

Cuyahoga County Dems all can be shoved into 1 district in 2021 once the Akron leg is removed!

Nclib NY has an indy commission

I am really curious to see whether the TN GOP will split up Nashville between TN-4,5,6, and 7, which would still create four ~R+15 districts.  It's not particularly hard to do, so I bet some are wishing they had just gone ahead and done it in 2010-12.

Easy GOP gains
Shrink NH-1 away from Carroll/Belknap/Strafford and pick up Nashua suburbs and Salem

If Hogan has a say in MD, just do anything less ridiculous than that abortion of a map they have now

Slice up GA-2

Re-draw lines around Orlando, FL

Slice up TN-5

Slice up KY-3

If Rauner wins re election, eliminate the pie slices radiating out of Chicago

Crack MO-5 between 3 districts

Eliminate the Texas fajita strips, all of the Rio Grande delta can be held in 2 districts, add suburban GOP seats

They'll gain Oregon's 6th no matter what

Most of these would be either illegal or unlikely.

NH - Correct

MD - Only need 60% in MD to override a veto, Democrats are clearly over that threshold in both chambers.

GA - GA-02 is a protected VRA district, so that would be illegal.

FL - Would violate the state constitution.

TN - Correct

KY - State constitution requires whole counties, unless impossible.

IL - Correct

MO - Possible, but risky

Tx - Fajita strips are required by VRA, so illegal.

OR - Probably

Thank you. I'm kinda new to this and i really dont understand the state by state laws of how the VRA has to be applied exactly

So, GA-02's VRA-protected status is why it had to be bumped to Black-majority in 2012? Then, maybe slice it up next decade, and turn GA-07 into an ATL VRA seat (and crack up the more anti-Trump and D-trending suburbs b/w GA-04, 05, 07, and 13? That would make four Georgia VRA seats. Or would GA-02 still need to be VRA even in that circumstance?
I think Jefferson County, KY is already too big to be kept whole in one CD, so it needs to be split into multiple districts (already has parts of KY-04 in it). And I agree, cracking MO-05 is super risky and almost certainly would backfire.

Ohio might get a redistricting commission passed in 2018.

I'm not actually that convinced it would be easy to create another relatively Democratic district in Oregon given laws and precedents regarding how districts are created.

So let's start with the current population and then let's assume that population growth % by county/ cities within counties remains constant at 7/15-7/16 levels, and then let's annualize that growth rate out to 7/20.

The population of the State would be about 4,350,000 or roughly 725k per US-CD, assuming Oregon gains another House Seat.

The estimated population by County would look something like this:

()

Generally the rule in Oregon is that whenever possible, one needs to keep cities within one CD, try to observe county boundaries, especially for heavily rural counties, where the County seat is the center of government, and generally try to observe the whole concept "communities of interest". Additionally, you aren't supposed to be deliberately going and creating blatant partisan Gerrymandered districts.

So let's start with CD-02 as the "Republican Vote Sink"....

Basically the district is going to have to lose some real estate, that will have to end up elsewhere....

1.) You aren't going to be able to chop up Central Oregon (Crook/Deschuttes/Jefferson) without fundamentally separating well defined and understood communities of interest.... Trying to run a skinny district all the way out just to gobble up Bend likely wouldn't meet the Oregon criteria, unless you're also taking in large chunks of heavily Republican territory at the same time.

2.) So, this leaves us with 3 Counties and part of a 4th that are currently in CD-02, where we need to look to grab the extra 200k voters for the district. Hood River and Wasco in the far North could potentially be added into a district in Western Oregon, since there are some linkages between the bulk of the population along the Columbia River Gorge in Hood River and The Dalles and East Multnomah and Clackamas Counties.... The former is overwhelmingly Democratic, and the latter is an ancestral Democratic County with recent Republican leanings.  Then you have Jackson County in the South that has both some heavily Republican Areas, as well as some heavily Democratic communities. Either way the remainder of Josephine County (Grants Pass) will end up in CD-04 adding more Republican Votes.

3.) Jackson County will have to be split regardless, and if we need to give some back to CD-04, we may as well run a clean stretch over from Southern Josephine and grab Ashland, Phoenix, and Jacksonville, plus some Republican Rural areas along the Way....

4.) So now we can leave Wasco in CD-02 taking us up to 553k, meaning we need another 170k from Jackson, which conveniently happens to neatly take in the heavily Republican rural areas in the Eastern and Northern parts of the County as well as Medford.

5.) That should give us Hood River County to play with as part of district in the Portland Area, unless we want to keep it in reserve in case someone gets antsy about that being the only place East of the Cascades not in CD-02.

6.) CD-04--- So now we have a big problem, we've added some pretty solidly Dem turf from Ashland area, but we've also added some heavily Republican territory in Grants Pass, and out population is exceeding its limits. Fine--- let's get rid of the rest of Linn County and move that into another district, since part of it already is, and Mid-Valley areas are used to getting shifted around a little bit...

7.) So what to do with the rest of the State? Ok--- if you look at the population of the three core counties of Metro Portland, their combined population should account for about 1.9 Million by 2020 or 45% of the State Vote, not to mention some spare change from Exurbs around Newburg in Yamhill County. It's only fair that Metro Portland gets 3 CDs predominately located within the Metro area, and another CD that is predominately located in the Mid-Valley.

8.) How to "stretch" the Metro Portland vote in a way the dilutes the strong Democratic Votes, while simultaneously respecting precedent?

9.) It makes sense to split Multnomah into two halves--- West of the Willamette and East of the Willamette. This has been done before, and plus you have a County that will have somewhere around 850k people that will need to be split regardless.

10.) CD-03 would retain all of MultCo East of the River, which would give it a base of about 676k Population. To take the other 45k you would probably need to take in the existing Exurban parts of Clackamas already in the district (Happy Valley, Sandy, Estacada), but you're running out of population, and would need to move some heavily Republican rural areas into CD-05, in what is already a marginal district. I guess you might be able to offset by moving some of the Republican leaning exurbs above into CD-05 instead, but either way....

11.) CD-01 would have West Multnomah (170k), Columbia, Clatsop (92k), Tillamook (27k) for a base of 289k, leaving us with another 436k population.... Well this is pretty much all going to come out of Washington County, so we may as well take all of the rural areas, places like Forest Grove and such, throw in fast-growing Hillsboro (110k), a bunch of unincorporated areas West of Portland, etc

12.) CD-06--- Thinking Tigard and Beaverton would be the base (160k) along with another 42k in the SW portion of the County for 202k in Washington.... Add in Yamhill, Polk, Benton, and Lincoln and you have another 342k for 544k to date.... we still need another 200k Pop. I guess you could throw Linn County into the Mix and some rural parts of Marion.

13.) CD-05--- Would keep existing Democratic suburbs of Milwaukee, Lake Oswego, Gladstone, West Linn, and Uninc Areas around there, throw in Salem-Keizer, Woodborn, and all of the rural areas in Marion along the I-5 corridor, and you're still maintaining much of the district.

Here's a crude map of what that would look like--- haven't run the '16 GE Pres precinct numbers against this, but it looks like you would end up with a potential 5-1 Dem Congressional Delegation, albeit with 2 reachable Republican flip seats (CD-05 and CD-06), assuming that letting go of Linn combined with Ashland overpowering Grants Pass strengthens CD-04.

()

They are not compact and split communities of interest. The only explanation for them is to assign persons to electoral districts on the basis of race.

I don't think the NH GOP would be all for making NH-1 more GOP since that in turn would make NH-2 less competitive.   They probably want to keep both at least somewhat obtainable.   They did draw the districts how they are now in 2011.   Plus taking out the "Dem" parts of Strafford is near impossible, unless you completely bacon-strip the hell out of the district.  

TN-5, MO-5 and most likely OR-6 are probably going to the GOP though if they're free to gerrymander the map (OR-6 due to OR-4 and OR-5 moving north and becoming more Dem, thus leaving the southwest as a GOP district).

They will need to be careful about MO-5 though.

Yeah, GA-02 will be interesting. Getting rid of it would probably open up the state to a court case. Dividing up Jefferson County other than a rump district that makes up most of the county with another coming in to get the reminder would also open the state up to a court case


Every court ruling has mandated the fajita strips as being required by the VRA. If anything it looks like another strip or two will be added by the courts.

The Trumpification of the courts is going to have a big impact. Wouldn't be surprising to see Neil Gorsuch toss this silly Voting Rights Act into history's dustbin.

Should be simple. Equal protection under the law means everyone should be treated the same. No special treatment for certain groups. we should have 435 American districts, not a set number of white, black, asian, hispanic seats. Just American

The VRA attempts to get everyone treated equal....without it white legislatures draw minorities out of representation, or uses voter suppression to achieve that.   See Pre-VRA days.

Also should note that Michigan and Utah could both get commissions by 2021. Would probably result in an additional Democratic seat in both.

We really don't have any idea what the state legislatures will look like either at this point.

Also in Illinois, it's much more likely the dems draw IL-6 as a dem seat,  it's pretty easy to do using 2016 numbers.

At large districts were banned in 1967 and nobody seems to be challenging that.

They have to be careful there. In 2011 they thought they drew IL-12 and IL-13 as Dem leaning seats, but that didn't work out as the decade unfolded. They relied too heavily on the 2008 race repeating in 2012 and incumbents holding those seats thereafter. If Trump runs in 2020, they will have to avoid putting too much weight on anti-Trump votes in 2021, otherwise they may repeat the error of counting too many pro-Obama votes that didn't carry down ballot.

True, but Duckworth did beat Kirk in DuPage.

My hope is that in 2020 is that they learn from there mistake and combine the best Democratic parts in the 12th with the best Democratic parts of the 13th and then shed the rest. Have a line that goes from East St. Louis to Springfield to Decatur with then two arms to Bloomington and Champaign. If they want to get really dirty, go ahead and add Carbondale and Alexander County and use the Mississippi as the connector.

()
Is this a good map? i.e. especially the form of IL-06 I have.

Illinois will have 17 districts in 2022.

I know. I'm asking in particular if they might produce a similar IL-06 post-2022.

The Dems had other political goals in 2011 than just maximizing seats. They wanted to give Duckworth a seat without pairing her against any other Dem or against Roskam. Schakowsky did not want a CD that was primarily in Lake county. Also Gutierrez lives in the northern Hispanic CD (5 on your map), and that had to stay over 59% HVAP, which preserved the wraparound IL-4. See what happens when you impose those constraints.

Well, yes, but the problem comes from the fact that white liberals would swoop in and take the districts and kick all the nonwhite liberals out.

And then there's the second problem of getting mediocrities like Maxine Waters to support something that is guaranteed to end their career.

The GOP would retaliate with selective multi member districting.

Even if they do put odd hooks and extensions into Jefferson and move KY-3 eastward...the eastern part of Jefferson is trending D pretty fast (one of the extreme few places in Kentucky doing so...).   

I don't believe the state constitution would allow the county to be divided between 2 or more districts without having a district entirely within it's borders.

@ BRTD / Compassion Fills the Void

Sir, you have yet to explain your argument as to why the Democrats should be able to craft a safe Democratic seat in OR CD-06.

NcLib posited that the new OR-CD would be at best for a Dems a Swing CD.

You have suggested that dumping a ton of Republican Votes into Eastern Oregon (CD-02) and shoring up CD-04 will create four solid districts where the Democrats should win the Teens.

SingleTexGuyforFun said he thought that the 'Pubs would gain the new CD no matter what.

Gass indicated that would probably be the case.

I have proposed what I think might be the best general template for the Democrats, that should withstand a legal challenge, which would be something like (2) Safe Dem Districts, (2) Lean Dem Districts, (1) Tossup, and (1) Republican District.

We are eagerly awaiting your response, unless this is yet another BRTD "Seagull" dive bomb attempt utilizing the latest Stuka technology, (or should we call them Junkers)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_87



()

 ;)

Some other interesting seats might be KS-3, NE-2, and OK-5.

Nebraska requires whole counties and I could see the moderate Republicans in Kansas siding with the Democrats to draw a fair map again just to stick it to the righties.

Here's a version of OR I drew from neutral principles. It's an anti-gerrymander, but I'm curious to get an opinion from NOVA Green.

()

I projected the counties to 2020 from the 2016 estimates. As drawn here are the percent population deviations for the Beaverton and Salem CDs are less than 0.5% and wouldn't need any adjustment. The other CDs are all within 2.3% of the quota, and need minimal shifts to bring them to practicably equal. For example shifting all of the Warm Springs IR into the Gresham-Pendleton CD and the area north of Sexton Mtn Pass into the Eugene CD would be enough to probably meet standards for population equality.

The idea the California map is a "soft Dem" map is bizarre. Only two districts (Hunter's and McCarthy's) went for Romney with over 60% of the vote, and none went for Trump with over 60% of the vote. There was no packing of California GOP seats the way North Carolina Democrats were packed in 2016. Sure, the commission could have stretched the GOP more thinly, but that would just mean more Clinton-GOP seats would have been Clinton-Dem seats in 2016, and the vast majority of current GOP-held seats, even if won by Romney, would be Dem seats in 2018. California is just a very urban, very expensive, very Hispanic, very Democratic state.

I'm saying Rust Belt Rs would be better off treating them as swing voters rather than solid R voters. I think Obama-Trump people are fickle and ultimately not only is there no guarantee they'll be solid Rs forever, but they could actually become Lean D sometime in the future. The fact they aren't solid R votes necessarily means the GOP would be wise not to count them as solid conservative voters. They could crack the Columbus seat and leave dems with just 3 seats, I agree; but such a map would be wise to split up the suburbs of Columbus to ensure multiple solid GOP seats, not assume the Obama-Trump people will vote them in thick and thin. There's no evidence the GOP has a hold on them; if the GOP manages to hold them through 3 elections, then yes I would agree. But it'll take a while to see how things will shake out.

It's actually possible to crack MO-05 into many GOP seats and create an absolutely solid 8R-1D, but I bet GOP congresscritters wouldn't like the dilution of their seats and the running of seats from downtown KC to the Arkansas border. Outside of a vote-sinked MO-01 and an MO-02 with all of St. Charles, the rest of the state went McCain by somewhat around double digits.

Wasn't the VRA the reason why they were banned? If the VRA is gutted further, doesn't this ban become a moot point?

That's not even remotely close to how the VRA works, This ignorance is astounding.

Well, yes and no. After the VRA was passed in 1965, some folks figured that the Democrats would switch to at large elections to keep electing white liberals instead of blacks. So the 1967 law came to be.

But the concept of requiring single member districts dates back to 1842 and long predates any VRA thing or even the 15th amendment. So there is no reason to link one to the other.

It meets reasonable standards already. They are as equal as practicable using counties.

It is bozo logic that representatives elected from such districts would not be "chosen (...) by the people of [Oregon]"

I'm not familiar with the PA Supreme Court, but it appears that if Wolf is re-elected (likely), PA will have a fair map. PA-5 and PA-9 will go back to Repub Central PA, and PA-6, PA-7, and others will become more Democratic.

No.

It wasn't until later that the bizarre idea that voting is a collective right was developed.

Federal statute since the 1840s required election from single-member districts, but there were exceptions following the census reapportionment when the number of representatives changed.

If a state gained representatives, the additional representatives could be elected at large "until" (wink, wink) the state was redistricted. If a state lost representatives, it could elect all of them at large, until redistricting. It is actually more complicated since it is based on the number of districts. A state could gain a representative, and elect him at-large for a decade, and then lose a representative and continue to use the old districts.  See 2 USC § 2a(c).

Following Wesberry v Sanders, congressional districts were challenged across the country (at that time NO state with districts were within a 10% range). Federal courts were proposing as a remedy that elections be held at large (i.e. you can't use these districts, but the people have a right to representation, and there is this statute that provides for at-large elections in certain cases, and a federal judge has no authority to dictate legislation).

In reaction, Congress passed 2 USC § 2c, which provides for single-member district in all cases. The exception was to permit New Mexico and Hawaii to conduct at-large elections one last time in 1968. Hawaii did, New Mexico did not as it was divided into two districts.

As one might expect, Congress did not repeal 2 USC § 2a(c), but it was always assumed that it had been superseded by 2 USC § 2c. But following the 2000 Census when Mississippi lost its 5th Representative, it failed to redistrict. Some low-level court (I think like a J.P. Court) determined it had authority to draw districts, and there was dispute as to whether this was true. Eventually, the SCOTUS ruled that 2 USC § 2a(c) was still valid under certain obscure circumstances (I think there is a supposition that Congress knows what they are doing).

Where are the representatives and senators for this future hypothetical Congress elected from?

As soon as SCOTUS determines that "as equal as practicable" is the same as "substantially equal" then I'll entertain the notion that a 10% range on CDs is acceptable. Until then I will assume that SCOTUS intends that the phrases be different and that "as equal as practicable" requires a stricter numerical standard than 10%. I use 1% for CDs since a range close to that has recently been upheld.

Muon--- that's a very clean map (Regardless of whatever Partisan leans might be for various CDs).

Congrats Sir!!!!

I went through the same exercise that you did regarding projected county Pop growth numbers using the 2016 % as a baseline, and then additionally plugged the data into a spreadsheet to estimate population growth by municipality....

So looking at the Map you have my 7/20 population estimates are:

CD-01---   730 k--- Washington/Clatsop/Columbia
CD-02----  740k     Much of Eastern Oregon plus Jackson/Josephine
CD-03----  ???? Can't really tell from the map by let's say all of MultCo excepting Gresham/Troutdale, etc (~130-140k)....
CD-04---  708k--- Lane/Linn/Douglas/Coos/Curry
CD-05---  590k + East Multco (Gresham/Troutdale etc...130-140k????)
CD-06---  720k --- Let's call this the "new" CD--- Marion/Benton/Yamhill/Polk/Lincoln/Tillamook

Overall numbers look pretty good from the population requirement standard, except CD-04 is a bit light based upon my projected population growth numbers. Typically in Oregon the redistricting tends to go slightly lower in actual Pop in "higher growth areas" and slightly over in "lower growth areas"....

So here are the legal requirements for anyone not familiar with Oregon Law:


Like all states, Oregon must comply with constitutional equal population requirements. By statute, Oregon further asks that its state legislative districts be of equal population, "as nearly as practicable." [Or. Rev. Stat. § 188.010]

Oregon must also, like all states, abide by section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Oregon statutes establish additional criteria for both state legislative and congressional districts; the legislature may modify these statutes at any time. Currently, Oregon law asks that, as nearly as practicable, districts be contiguous, utilize existing geographic or political boundaries, not divide communities of common interest, and be connected by transportation links. The law also declares that districts will not be drawn for the purpose of favoring a political party, incumbent, or other person.[Or. Rev. Stat. § 188.010]

The Secretary of State has promulgated rules clarifying that, at least when the Secretary of State must draw district lines, she will comply with statutory criteria "to the maximum extent practicable"; these rules further focus "geographic or political boundaries" on county and city lines, focus "transportation links" on the presence of county roads in populated areas, and note that media markets will be considered in "determining communities of common interest." [Or. Admin. R. § 165-008-0060]

Oregon districts are "nested," with every state Senate district containing two state House districts. [Or. Rev. Stat. § 188.010]

http://redistricting.lls.edu/states-OR.php

Traditionally "Eastern Oregon" (Including Central Oregon) is seen as having more of the "communities of common interest" than many other parts of the State, so the one item that might be problematic there would be stretching it all the way over from Gresham to Pendleton.

I'm not saying it wouldn't fly, but many State Senators and Reps might be asking, not to mention residents of the Counties along the Columbia River "Grain Belt" why they are getting lumped into a Portland Suburban Congressional District.

Then you also have the minor problem of moving incumbent CD-02 Republican Rep Greg Walden out of his home City/County (Hood River).

Southern Oregon counties of Josephine/Jackson are a bit more used to being lumped into CD-02, so there probably wouldn't be as much pushback there, but many might ask why a more natural "communities of interest" doesn't bring Southern Oregon Counties into CD-04, rather than stretching suburban Portland way out (Although certainly there is a common transportation connection).

The residents of Southern Oregon counties of Josephine/Jackson do have much more of a natural connection with places like Roseburg, Coos Bay, and Eugene-Springfield than Central/Eastern Oregon.

I do like the concept of a "Central Willamette Valley" (CD-06), combined with some neighboring Coastal Communities, since you'll have a clearly defined "community of interest, although it would make more sense to at least throw Albany into CD-06, considering that Corvallis-Albany are essentially sister cities in terms of regional economy/jobs/etc  ....

Politically your proposed map:

CD-01--- Solid Dem
CD-02--- Solid Rep--- (Although moving out Umatilla combined with High Pop growth in Deschutes and Jackson will make the area more competitive in the 2020s.
CD-03- Heavy Dem
CD-04- Lean Dem--- (Even Post DeFazio taking out Grant's Pass helps a ton). Could well be Tossup with a Moderate Republican (Unlikely to win the 'Pub primaries in this CD however).
CD-05-- Tossup/ Slight Rep Tilt--- East MultCo is the least Democratic part of the County, throw in all of Clackamas County, and heavily Republican Umatilla County, you might well have a Rep CD.
CD-06- Tossup/Slight Dem Tilt---- Benton/Lincoln are solid D, as is Salem, but a Moderate 'Pub could easily win if they play well.

Now what would this look like for Oregon State House & Senate Districts????

Thoughts???

Like all states, Oregon must comply with constitutional equal population requirements. By statute, Oregon further asks that its state legislative districts be of equal population, "as nearly as practicable." [Or. Rev. Stat. § 188.010]

Oregon must also, like all states, abide by section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Oregon statutes establish additional criteria for both state legislative and congressional districts; the legislature may modify these statutes at any time. Currently, Oregon law asks that, as nearly as practicable, districts be contiguous, utilize existing geographic or political boundaries, not divide communities of common interest, and be connected by transportation links. The law also declares that districts will not be drawn for the purpose of favoring a political party, incumbent, or other person.[Or. Rev. Stat. § 188.010]

The Secretary of State has promulgated rules clarifying that, at least when the Secretary of State must draw district lines, she will comply with statutory criteria "to the maximum extent practicable"; these rules further focus "geographic or political boundaries" on county and city lines, focus "transportation links" on the presence of county roads in populated areas, and note that media markets will be considered in "determining communities of common interest." [Or. Admin. R. § 165-008-0060]

Oregon districts are "nested," with every state Senate district containing two state House districts. [Or. Rev. Stat. § 188.010]


http://redistricting.lls.edu/states-OR.php

They are not the same, and the SCOTUS has said there is NO de minimis threshold for "as equal as practicable".  You would have told me before Tennant that 1% was too much.

The phrase "as equal as practicable" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, and as Justice Harlan pointed out in his Wesberry v. Sanders dissent, the majority opinion does not define the term. At the time of the decision, no state with districts was within a 10% deviation range.

The majority apparently plucked it out of an old federal reapportionment statute. At the time it was statute, states constructed their congressional districts from counties, except in the very largest counties.

Who is going to sue, who has standing? Jefferson County was not concerned about the population deviation. They didn't want to be in a district with Charleston.

You can remove most of the deviation from your map by shifting Grant and Wheeler to the Columbia River district.

Anyhow, here is a new idea. Shift Grant and Wheeler to the Columbia River district, and then make certain counties optional representation areas, where voters may choose their congressional district.

8.6% of Josephine voters would choose to be placed in the district to the north. If too many or too few volunteered, they would be chosen by lot. Similarly, 0.5% of Linn voters could choose, as could 7.3% of Tillamook voters, and 15.6% of Multnomah voters.

What happens if you keep Washington and Multnomah together for just beyond two districts, and then put Clackamas with Deschutes (Bend)?

You have zero clue how gerrymandering works.

Then please tell us the maximum number of House seats the California Republican Party can realistically sustain, that is, what an optimal gerrymander for the Republicans there would look like. Such a thing wouldn't even come close to doubling the current number of GOP representatives in California, and far more of them would be at risk of going down in a Democratic wave as a result.

As for breaking up MO-05, Heisenberg and Gass are far too pessimistic for the GOP here. Missouri went for Trump by double digits. There is zero risk for the GOP cracking it between three, and even between two districts. The Michigan GOP's hold over its R seats is far more tenuous than the Missouri GOP's if it cracked MO-05.

In 2010 the GOP won 19 districts as opposed to the 14 it has now.

The redistricting blew up Gallegy and Dreier's districts and screwed Bilbray and Miller by drawing them into Dem areas. Bono Mack's and maybe Lungren's district slid away from the GOP, but could be flipped back with slightly different lines.

So the GOP could easily have at least 4 more districts.

I'd make the argument that if Democrats did gerrymander the CA map in 2010, they would've been better off with a fair one in 2016...fully 7 R-held districts are only marginally Republican (one is fully lean Dem) with only 7 R vote sinks.

Meanwhile the Democrats really only hold 4 marginal seats with all other 35 being pretty safe.

If they originally gerrymandered Ed Royce, Jeff Denham, and Steve Knight as "vote sinks" then those gerrymanders are basically doing nothing but protecting them now.

In other words - If California has a Dem Gerrymander, it turned out to be a dummymander.

Maryland dems as some on DKE have noted could actually have a more aggressive gerrymander and get rid of Harris in MD-1 as well

I toyed with MD in DRA and i was able to draw an MD-01 that went Obama by 10.1 points. All other seats were at least D+5.

The Maryland legislature passed a resolution that they would move to an independent redistricting system if neighboring states did so as well.


Source (http://wtop.com/maryland/2017/03/md-senate-passes-controversial-redistricting-reform-bill/)

I could see them all getting involved, except for North Carolina.

It's not that. I just don't think Democrats could've predicted how the decade unfolded. California voted almost 2-1 for Hillary over Trump, a margin not seen since 1936 (just like her victory in Orange County being the first in said time). The fact is that when you get to those statewide margins, the majority party is going to dominate disproportionately to its overall percentage.

There are only 5-6 districts in California I'd say are more or less impossible for Democrats: CA-01, CA-04, CA-08, (maybe CA-22), CA-23, and CA-50. A Democratic gerrymander could easily pull in CA-04. The Sacramento suburbs are moving leftward fast, but it's taking some time in Placer County. I think an overt Democratic gerrymander could take 48-49 seats if it was done right.

Yeah, but it all likelihood the statewide maps are going to be drawn by Democrats next cycle. That along could bring them to to the table.

In NY, under the new constitutional provisions, the votes of both parties are necessary to draw a map, and certain guidelines (kind of vague), are supposed to be followed. So any gerrymander would need to be a bipartisan one, and if the parties cannot agree, it goes to the courts. So the Pubs are slated to lose a seat upstate, but might gain it back if a Pub seat is drawn in south Brooklyn.

It's funny how it's only Dem or swing states that are enacting indy/bipartisan commissions for redistricting.   You really don't see any movement at all on this for Republican states.

With the exception of states out west that have initiatives. Like Arizona and maybe Utah here in the future.

There is a 0% chance of this happening

Yeah--- I've noticed the accidental coincidence that's been going on there for almost two decades now.

I'm sure it's just a statistical anomaly driven by small sample size and not anything deliberate going on, but still this phenomenon seems a bit odd in terms of how it is distributed among the 50 states of the Union....

So here's the 5-1 Oregon map I drew on AAD. It's not perfect of course since it uses the last Census numbers but it's a good rough outline:

()
()

Trump probably didn't break 40% in any of the districts in the Portland area.

Looks good, but probably wouldn't work with Oregon state law.

That was my exact reaction reviewing the map.

Also, looking at the district that includes Linn & Benton Counties, it is difficult to see how that wouldn't be a slight Lean R CD.

Also the yellow CD that stretches down from some SE PDX precincts, suburbs of Clackamas County (Oregon City for example)  through Marion County and grabs Albany, looks more like a 50-50 district than a Lean Dem district.

I believe as well that BRTD's map is overly fixated on protecting the current OR CD-04 , rather than focusing more on OR CD-05, which I believe is a more vulnerable Democratic CD, considering the overwhelmingly Dem numbers that come out of Lane County.

I posit, that if we were to attempt to Gerrymander legislative districts in Oregon to favor the Democrats, one would need to find a way to split the major Dem vote from Multnomah and Washington Counties throughout multiple congressional districts as a more effective means.

I don't believe that BRTD's map would create a 5-1 Democratic Congressional delegation lead from Oregon...

You have tons of wasted Democratic votes in Multnomah County.... if we're going to split up counties, heavily Democratic Cities like Beaverton in Washington County should move South into a new CD to erase 'Pub margins from some small-town and rural areas from relatively cultural conservative voters in Yamhill, Polk, and Marion Counties...

Still, pretty good map on BRTD's part, although it would not pass judicial review, and would be more likely to lead to a 4-2 (Dem/Rep) Congressional delegation, at least in the short term, until Demographics start to become destiny in the Mid-Valley.

That Linn and Benton county district voted 57-41 Obama/McCain. That's not a Lean R seat. As said I doubt Trump even broke 40%. The yellow district was 61-37 Obama/McCain and Trump cratered in parts of it and probably did even worse. Not a toss up.

Since KY and NE Repub gerrymanders will be limited by not being able to split more counties than necessary, I played around with DRA which of course has 2008 and 2010 numbers, but will probably not be that inaccurate.

Kentucky: Jefferson County only has 17K more people than KY-3. Also, the most Democratic areas are not near the border meaning some Repub precincts have to be excised, and this only moves KY-3 0.1% to the right.

Nebraska: adding Douglas County to whole rural counties only puts McCain at most 50.2%.

What if Jefferson County was split in 2 between two CDs that otherwise split 0 counties?