US House Redistricting: Wisconsin

[muon2]

Are you sure that the GOP needs to throw in the towel on WI-03, in order to make all the GOP incumbents reasonably safe? I define reasonably safe as a Bush 2004 percentage of the two party vote of 54.5% or above. The goal of course is to leash the Dems to just two CD's, one taking in the inner city Milwaukee Dems, and the other taking in Madison, and anything else within conceivable reach that has a bunch of Dems in it. Are there any legal restrictions on gerrymandering in Wisconsin?  I assume the GOP has total control of the process here. Is that correct? I might turn my attention to Wisconsin next, now that I have completed my Michigan psephological CD line drawing artistry to my satisfaction.

Unlike MI, WI has no statutory or constitutional provisions related to congressional redistricting. Despite split control in the last three remaps, an agreed congressional plan emerged, even as the legislative maps went to the courts. The last cycle was especially interesting, since the legislature came to agreement even as WI lost a seat.

This then is the first instance of single party control since the federal one-man-one-vote cases of the 60's. There is no suggestion that it will be anything other than a strictly partisan map.

[muon2]

I doubt that Sensenbrenner would be happy with this map. In the whole counties of your proposed 5th District, Bush managed only 50.94%. In 2008, Obama earned 56.13% in those same counties. Granted, there is a large portion of heavily Republican Waukesha County not included in those figures, but the district still probably has a slight Democratic PVI, and Sensenbrenner is a very polarizing figure, and Kind lives in LaCrosse and will probably run in this district. Sensenbrenner would stand a better chance in your proposed 6th District, which you've left open (Petri lives in Fond du Lac).

EDIT: Actually, at second glace, it appears you have drawn Sensenbrenner into the proposed 6th. He lives in Menomonee Falls, in extreme northeastern Waukesha County. It seems logical that he would prefer the 6th to 5th.

EDIT #2: It's also worth pointing out that you've marginalized your proposed 3rd as well. In the whole counties in your proposed 3rd, Bush in 2004 received 52.20% of the vote, and Obama received 52.35% of the vote. Again, the split counties favor Republicans, and Petri should be able to hold the district, but it could be competitive if the seat becomes vacant. Petri will be 72 years old in 2012, and 80 in 2020, so a vacancy caused by retirement or death is very much possible.

In short, I think it would be far too risky for the GOP to try for a 6-2 map in Wisconsin. They would be better served to shore up their freshmen incumbents and maintain the 5-3 status quo.

I agree that the opinions of the current GOP members will matter a lot in the remap. Past history in WI suggests little shifts in the districts, and I would expect the delegation to want some measure of stability.

[muon2]

2 districts in the Assembly map were thrown out in Milwaukee.

http://media.jsonline.com/documents/baldus-decision-032212.pdf

No partisan effect. Judges are treading very cautiously on rewriting legislative maps after Perry v Perez.

Indeed, to  avoid disrupting other lines, the court emphasizes that the re-drawing of the lines for Districts 8 and 9 must occur within the combined outer boundaries of those two districts.

The court said HCVAP should have been used.

And by contrast the IL case in the same circuit did not use HCVAP. In the Congressional case the court pointed to the effectiveness of HVAP of 59.2% in IL-4 from 1991 and used that as a floor.

[muon2]

Just for kicks, I drew a Wisconsin map that follows the Michigan rules. I found it a most satisfying endeavor. Thank you.  No, the fat man won't be happy. That is part of its charm.




Here is a more subdued map.

It is interesting to compare this to IA rules on the other thread. Here were two versions posted there that both only had a single split of Milwaukee:





The IA rules don't really specify if there should be only single county splits, but the above maps have a deviation of -2794 for CD 1. That's quite large and if I go with a triple split of Milwaukee county and microchops into Milwaukee city I get the following plan with all districts within 400 of the ideal.

[muon2]

Here is the enacted map and stats, and my Michigan rule map and stats.  The game with the Michigan rule map of course vis a vis the 2011 enacted map, was to share the Pub wealth of WI-05 with other Pub held CD's that could use some Pub padding. Sesenbrenner was a pig.

 

I agree that the Pubs missed the mark here, though perhaps not so much as in KS. You also shore up the Pub districts better against a wave since the passed map puts everything at risk except WI-5. I still find the amount of possible partisan manipulation with pure MI rules higher than I like.

I took my preferred county plan and added microchops to even the population (within 100). Not counting the microchops it only splits Milwaukee and only between two CDs. It's something like I would expect a commission to do. It definitely helps the Dems in this case compared to the passed map, but the result is closer to the overall partisan lean of the state. I've included both the approximate PVI from 08 to match your numbers as well as the true PVI with both 04 and 08.



CD 1: (08 +1.7) PVI D+1.7
CD 2: (08 +15.5) PVI D+14.7
CD 3: (08 +3.2) PVI D+3.4
CD 4: (08 +17.6) PVI D+16.7
CD 5: (08 -9.9) PVI R+10.6
CD 6: (08 -5.7) PVI R+7.8
CD 7: (08 +1.7) PVI D+1.9
CD 8: (08 +0.1) PVI R+1.5