US House Redistricting: New York

[muon2]

Is this the decade they finally chop Staten Island in half?

You can turn the 13th into a 60% McCain district by ditching the areas along Northern Staten Island to the 8th and picking up all the bloodred territory in Queens.

Its possible if a pro-incumbent gerrymander is in order. Are you sure about those numbers, though?

If there is a compromise pro-incumbent gerrymander, I would imagine that the losses would be an upstate R and a downstate D. Any guesses as to who would be out of a seat in those cases?

He means Brooklyn - but the numbers sound right.

[muon2]

If there is a compromise pro-incumbent gerrymander, I would imagine that the losses would be an upstate R and a downstate D. Any guesses as to who would be out of a seat in those cases?

I fully expect the downstate D to be Ackerman.  It could be Crowley or Maloney, but Crowley is party boss and Maloney is just younger.  Ackerman is probably close to retiring anyway.

Looking upstate - it could really be anyone.  Probably depends on who the establishment likes least.

If its Ackerman, I would guess that Weiner would take over a lot of that district. Much of the Brooklyn area of his CD 9 will be needed to expand 13 and the three black districts.

[muon2]

Here's one way to create an incumbent protection map for the downstate area. I assumed that downstate a D district is eliminated while upstate an R seat will go. I think I was able to find home locations for the incumbents, so let me know if I missed one. Here Ackerman and Weiner are placed together in the new CD 5. I also took the liberty of renumbering a couple of districts to better reflect the general pattern of increasing numbers from SE to NW.



CD 1 (blue, Bishop D): White 78%; Obama 55%
CD 2 (green, Israel D): White 77%; Obama 54%
CD 3 (purple, King R): White 88%; McCain 54%
CD 4 (red, McCarthy D): White 64%, Black 15%; Obama 60%
CD 5 (yellow, Ackerman D, Weiner D): White 52%, Asian 20%, Hispanic 18%; Obama 64%
CD 6 (teal, Meeks D): Black 52%, Hispanic 16%, White 16%; Obama 84%
CD 7 (grey, Crowley D): White 35%, Hispanic 30%, Asian 20%; Obama 74%
CD 8 (slate, Nadler D): White 61%, Asian 21%; Obama 69%
CD 9 (cyan, Grimm R): White 73%; McCain 54%
CD 10 (pink, Towns D): Black 57%, White 23%; Obama 85%
CD 11 (pale green, Clarke D): Black 54%, White 24%; Obama 92%
CD 12 (sky, Velazquez D): Hispanic 61%; Obama 85%
CD 13 (peach, Engel D): White 34%, Black 33%, Hispanic 26%; Obama 79%
CD 14 (olive, Maloney D): White 71%; Obama 80%
CD 15 (orange, Rangel D): Hispanic 46%, Black 28%, White 20%; Obama 93%
CD 16 (lime, Serrano D): Hispanic 63%, Black 30%; Obama 95%

[muon2]

Here's one way to create an incumbent protection map for the downstate area. I assumed that downstate a D district is eliminated while upstate an R seat will go. I think I was able to find home locations for the incumbents, so let me know if I missed one. Here Ackerman and Weiner are placed together in the new CD 5. I also took the liberty of renumbering a couple of districts to better reflect the general pattern of increasing numbers from SE to NW.



CD 1 (blue, Bishop D): White 78%; Obama 55%
CD 2 (green, Israel D): White 77%; Obama 54%
CD 3 (purple, King R): White 88%; McCain 54%
CD 4 (red, McCarthy D): White 64%, Black 15%; Obama 60%
CD 5 (yellow, Ackerman D, Weiner D): White 52%, Asian 20%, Hispanic 18%; Obama 64%
CD 6 (teal, Meeks D): Black 52%, Hispanic 16%, White 16%; Obama 84%
CD 7 (grey, Crowley D): White 35%, Hispanic 30%, Asian 20%; Obama 74%
CD 8 (slate, Nadler D): White 61%, Asian 21%; Obama 69%
CD 9 (cyan, Grimm R): White 73%; McCain 54%
CD 10 (pink, Towns D): Black 57%, White 23%; Obama 85%
CD 11 (pale green, Clarke D): Black 54%, White 24%; Obama 92%
CD 12 (sky, Velazquez D): Hispanic 61%; Obama 85%
CD 13 (peach, Engel D): White 34%, Black 33%, Hispanic 26%; Obama 79%
CD 14 (olive, Maloney D): White 71%; Obama 80%
CD 15 (orange, Rangel D): Hispanic 46%, Black 28%, White 20%; Obama 93%
CD 16 (lime, Serrano D): Hispanic 63%, Black 30%; Obama 95%

A couple years ago Ackerman moved to Roslyn Heights, so you would have him in McCarthy's district

Thanks, my info is clearly a couple of years old. In any case I was working from Sam's speculation that Ackerman would be most likely to retire if one rep was eliminated.

If there is a compromise pro-incumbent gerrymander, I would imagine that the losses would be an upstate R and a downstate D. Any guesses as to who would be out of a seat in those cases?

I fully expect the downstate D to be Ackerman.  It could be Crowley or Maloney, but Crowley is party boss and Maloney is just younger.  Ackerman is probably close to retiring anyway.

Looking upstate - it could really be anyone.  Probably depends on who the establishment likes least.

[muon2]

I'm not sure your changes to SE Brooklyn would be welcomed by local operatives or either of the two congressmen involved, Muon.

Brooklyn was one of the hardest areas on the map, and I suspect it will pose problems for the real mappers. I assume that I have to protect the minority districts of Velazquez, Town and Clarke, as well as maintain a black majority for Meeks in Queens. I started by drawing Velazquez's district which effectively creates a wall across the northern edge of Brooklyn.

Then I started filling in the three black districts. The black districts all need a lot of extra population and the likely area comes from current CD 9 in SE Brooklyn. If CD 6 expands north instead of west to pick up the population, it's hard to maintain the black majority. CD 6 could push east into Nassau, and then force CD 4 to wrap around the north into Queens following the current CD 5, and allow CD 5 to follow the current path of CD 9 into SE Brooklyn.

In any case, what's left must be divided by the Staten Island and Manhattan districts. There's any number of ways one can cut up SW Brooklyn between the two districts. So I picked one that wasn't too erose, but improved the Staten Island district's R performance.

[muon2]

Long Island's population no longer supports 4 entire districts, so if 5 representatives now live on Long Island because Ackerman has moved to Nassau, one of them is almost certainly out of a seat barring extensive crossover into Queens that are not likely IMO.

True. The 2009 census estimates had Nassau plus Suffolk equal to 20 K less than 4/27 of the state's population. That's another reason to predict Ackerman's elimination in the remap.

[muon2]

it's a pretty brutal map for the GOP as far as Long Island is concerned. I'm guessing the GOP is going to want a 1-2-1 map for LI, with the Bishop seat staying somewhat swingy.

But the Democrats probably get what they want.

Without thinking too much about it, I imagine that this could get in the way of a hard-gerrymander of Long Island: http://www.nysenate.gov/district/09

I think the owner of that district would be very disinclined to support a plan that screwed over the Long Island Republican Parties. 

That's basically the district I added to King's current CD to get my map. It strengthens the district and is a reasonable concession from the Dems if they get 3 LI districts. I made CD-1 significantly stronger for the Dems, especially given the results they saw in 2010. A 2% shift from CD-2 would not have hurt Israel in 2010. If its a big deal, it wouldn't be hard to shift another point of Dems from CD-1 to CD-2.

CD 1 (blue, Bishop D): White 78%; Obama 55% (2008 Obama 51%)
CD 2 (green, Israel D): White 77%; Obama 54% (2008 Obama 56%)
CD 3 (purple, King R): White 88%; McCain 54% (2008 McCain 52%)
CD 4 (red, McCarthy D): White 64%, Black 15%; Obama 60% (2008 Obama 58%)

Italicized added from original quote.

[muon2]

Is Anthony Weiner saving Gary Ackerman's career?

Look at a map. Weiner's district should be the one to go.

Could they stretch NY-4 across the Rockaways, circling NY-6, and into the southern bits of NY-9? It makes sense to me. Give other parts of Brooklyn to NY-10, NY-11, and NY-8 on the one side and divide up Queens with Ackerman taking the lion's share and Crowley helping smooth out lines.

It always appeared that one of the non-VRA districts in NYC/LI had to go. Weiner may have given the legislature an easy out.

[muon2]

At any rate, given the bloc voting element in the Gingles test I think you could make a pretty good case that there are no VRA considerations anywhere in New York City except along the line where black and (outer) white Brooklyn meet.

Racialized Democratic party factions, on the other hand, there are aplenty.

Primary votes can also be used to show bloc voting under the Gingles test. I would expect there are still VRA considerations in NYC.

[muon2]

Here's my initial post-Weiner map of the NYC/LI districts. After Weiner's district is chopped, all other incumbents remain in district (I hope). All districts are within 100 of the ideal. There are 3 Black-majority and 3 Hispanic-majority districts. Here's the map and summary.



CD 1 (blue Bishop) Moves from 51.4% Obama to 51.9% Obama
CD 2 (green Israel) Moves from 56.1% Obama to 57.5% Obama
CD 3 (purple King) Moves from 51.9% McCain to 55.1% McCain
CD 4 (red McCarthy) Moves from 58.0% Obama to 53.5% Obama
CD 5 (tan Ackerman) White plurality 45.0%, Asian VAP 28.2%
CD 6 (teal Meeks) Black VAP 50.7%
CD 7 (gray Crowley) White plurality 48.8%, Hisp VAP 23.4%, Black VAP 21.6%
CD 8 (slate Nadler) White majority 55.4%, Asian VAP 27.6%
CD 9 (cyan Grimm) Repaces NY-13, moves from 50.5% McCain to 57.0% McCain
CD 10 (orchid Towns) Black VAP 54.5%
CD 11 (chartreuse Clarke)Black VAP 51.1%
CD 12 (yellow Velazquez) Hisp VAP 59.2%
CD 13 (light blue Engel) Replaces NY-17, White plurality 38.5%, Black VAP 29.8%, Hisp VAP 24.3%
CD 14 (olive Maloney) White majority 68.7%
CD 15 (orange Rangel) Hisp VAP 52.3%, Black VAP 30.5%
CD 16 (lime Serrano) Hisp VAP 64.9%, Black VAP 27.4%

[muon2]

Here's my initial post-Weiner map of the NYC/LI districts. After Weiner's district is chopped, all other incumbents remain in district (I hope). All districts are within 100 of the ideal. There are 3 Black-majority and 3 Hispanic-majority districts. Here's the map and summary.

CD 1 (blue Bishop) Moves from 51.4% Obama to 51.9% Obama
CD 2 (green Israel) Moves from 56.1% Obama to 57.5% Obama
CD 3 (purple King) Moves from 51.9% McCain to 55.1% McCain
CD 4 (red McCarthy) Moves from 58.0% Obama to 53.5% Obama
CD 5 (tan Ackerman) White plurality 45.0%, Asian VAP 28.2%
CD 6 (teal Meeks) Black VAP 50.7%
CD 7 (gray Crowley) White plurality 48.8%, Hisp VAP 23.4%, Black VAP 21.6%
CD 8 (slate Nadler) White majority 55.4%, Asian VAP 27.6%
CD 9 (cyan Grimm) Repaces NY-13, moves from 50.5% McCain to 57.0% McCain
CD 10 (orchid Towns) Black VAP 54.5%
CD 11 (chartreuse Clarke)Black VAP 51.1%
CD 12 (yellow Velazquez) Hisp VAP 59.2%
CD 13 (light blue Engel) Replaces NY-17, White plurality 38.5%, Black VAP 29.8%, Hisp VAP 24.3%
CD 14 (olive Maloney) White majority 68.7%
CD 15 (orange Rangel) Hisp VAP 52.3%, Black VAP 30.5%
CD 16 (lime Serrano) Hisp VAP 64.9%, Black VAP 27.4%

Oh, I dislike that McCarthy district a lot. (ingenious inventiveness though) It just creates a 3 borough mess where the communities have nothing in common. This, I think, makes it harder for a rep. to advocate for their constituencies. Not even sure I would still be in her district.  Ugh, perhaps I'd be chucked into a Meeks district.

There's no question it was the most challenging district to draw. I started with the 3 black districts, and that forced a line across Brooklyn and Queens and into Hempstead in Nassau to get enough black population. At the same time I put in Velazquez' district which needed North Corona to bring the Hisp. numbers up high enough to get a reasonably solid seat (I'd prefer 60%, but 59.2% is fine at VTD granularity).

Those four districts build a wall. I could still split between CD 6 and 10, but then one ends up with a district that is virtually the same as the current NY-9. That leaves no CD-5 for Ackerman.

The expansion of 6 and the tear up of 9 leaves CD 4 to do the ugly work. My original draft was neater, but McCarthy lives at the northern edge of her district in Mineola. Keeping that linked to the Coney Island area resulted in the unpleasant shape in my map.

[muon2]

There is no reason to extend Meeks into Long Island. Expanding a little in the north works just fine.

Yep.  I agree.

Further, I take the general view that it is better to maintain a LI/NYC divide whenever possible. There are naturally some different concerns among the constituencies. LI makes up just barely 4 seats(I believe Cinyc said 35k short) and there are fringe city areas on the border that work well with a LI rep (Orthodox parts of Far Rock w. same rep as Five towns).
I think carving out these majority_____ minority districts for its own sake is getting ridiculous and with ever expanding diversity will become a fools errand. I think it is much better to have some pluralities with districts that have geographic continuity and common concerns. 

As long as there are significant differences in the voting behavior of protected minorities compared to the white population, the Constitution through the VRA will require districts where minorities have the opportunity to elect the candidate of their choice. In areas where the minorities are thinly spread in the general population, there is unlikely to be a need to create those districts, but where they are concentrated differences in voting patterns can be more readily distinguished, so special districts tend to be needed. In any case the situation for a minority must be examined on both the level of the state as well as in each locale.

The state-level facts for NY show that blacks make up 15.2% of the voting age population and Hispanics make up 16.2% of the voting age population. Based on the DeGrandy decision, if NY draws fewer than 4 black-majority and 4 Hispanic-majority districts than they could be open to a challenge if additional seats could be reasonably drawn. Both black and Hispanic populations outside of NYC are too dispersed to provide congressional seat majorities, so 3 districts each is a reasonable upper limit.

There is the additional challenge of making sure that the Hispanic population can control the vote in their districts due to turnout and citizenship factors. This tends to necessitate districts with larger Hispanic majorities to achieve electoral success, and that tends to reduce the number of districts. No agreed upon standard exists for Hispanic districts between the federal Appellate Courts, and many observers expect that SCOTUS will have to deal with this question this decade.

So, the specific issue is what to do about Meeks' district? A cautious mapmaker would want to avoid a clear opportunity for a challenge, and would bring the VAP for that district over 50%. The only choices to do that are an extension into Nassau or a long thin bridge to Harlem or the Bronx. I think everyone would agree that the former is the better choice, since it's arguably the more compact choice and reflects closer communities of interest.

Now in the real world, map makers could get an agreement from major civil rights groups like the NAACP. That agreement could include districts that were a lower percentage, but still likely to allow the minority to elect the candidate of their choice. If the NAACP and other major black civil signed off on a CD 6 with less than 50% black VAP, the chance of a successful challenge diminishes. But, since I don't have that concurrence, I was left with the more cautious route.

[muon2]

I think even the cautious mapmaker would be well-aware that, even if there were anti-black bloc voting in the Democratic primary or general election in SE Queens (which there isn't), the split nature of the surrounding communities means it is a clear the black-preferred candidate would be elected regardless. After all, you're not drawing a 47% black, 46% white sort of seat. You're drawing a 47% black, 21% Hispanic, 17% white, 15% Asian sort of seat--an enormous difference.

I agree that the demographics of the area would allow a district less than 50% black to still be controlled by the black voters. That's why I expect that the civil rights advocates could come to an agreement with the map makers. However, I am not so confident that a precinct analysis of primary and general election voting patterns in Queens won't show statistically significant differences in voting preference among the racial and ethnic groups. I know those differences exist in Chicago. It's based on those voting patterns that a legal challenge would be made.

[muon2]

No legal challenge to keeping Meeks' seat as is is conceivable. Your map, on the other hand... (though it obviously would be upheld).

So with a little squeezing I can make the districts neater. The LI black districts are now all a whisker over 50%. CD 12 gave up a few tenths as well. There is still a piece of CD 6 in Nassau, but it is small. Without it the best I could do is 49.2% black for CD 6. Here's the new map and revised table (changes in green).



CD 1 (blue Bishop) Moves from 51.4% Obama to 51.9% Obama
CD 2 (green Israel) Moves from 56.1% Obama to 59.8% Obama
CD 3 (purple King) Moves from 51.9% McCain to 55.1% McCain
CD 4 (red McCarthy) Moves from 58.0% Obama to 58.3% Obama
CD 5 (tan Ackerman) White plurality 38.5%, Asian VAP 31.4%
CD 6 (teal Meeks) Black VAP 50.2%
CD 7 (gray Crowley) White plurality 48.8%, Hisp VAP 23.4%, Black VAP 21.6%
CD 8 (slate Nadler) White majority 55.4%, Asian VAP 27.6%
CD 9 (cyan Grimm) Repaces NY-13, moves from 50.5% McCain to 57.0% McCain
CD 10 (orchid Towns) Black VAP 50.4%
CD 11 (chartreuse Clarke)Black VAP 50.1%
CD 12 (yellow Velazquez) Hisp VAP 58.9%
CD 13 (light blue Engel) Replaces NY-17, White plurality 38.5%, Black VAP 29.8%, Hisp VAP 24.3%
CD 14 (olive Maloney) White majority 68.7%
CD 15 (orange Rangel) Hisp VAP 52.3%, Black VAP 30.5%
CD 16 (lime Serrano) Hisp VAP 64.9%, Black VAP 27.4%

[muon2]

Just because Torie dislikes him doesn't mean the GOP would be willing to throw King under the bus (I must note he is by far the most senior Republican in New York's delegation.)

It depends on how much the Pubbies are willing to pay to prop up King. Sure, if they want to play the prop up Israel, and maybe Ackerman, in exchange for bleaching out King's CD some more game, OK. If the price is to give up a new GOP seat in Brooklyn, particularly one held by a newly elected Turner, that is just dumb.

If I were the NY Pubbies, I would just give the Dems my map, and say here is what we think is the default option. This is "the court" on which we are going to play. Deal with it.

I fixed my chart above btw, making it even more complicated and confusing.   I estimate that a court drawn map will cause the Dems to absorb net both the seats lost to NY, with the Pubbies breaking even. Or depending on how you view it,  the Pubbies lose a half seat from redistricting if you view NY-26 as unaffected by redistricting, but given that Hochul remains in danger since she was not helped enough by the new lines, the Pubs still come out even.

If it goes to court I think the Latinos will object loudly a map that only has one CD over 55% HVAP. I agree that black districts can elect candidates of choice with less than 50% BVAP - especially in areas with Latino population, but Latinos can readily shoaw that something approaching 60% HVAP is what they need.

That's what drove me towards this map early in the summer after the Weiner story broke.

So with a little squeezing I can make the districts neater. The LI black districts are now all a whisker over 50%. CD 12 gave up a few tenths as well. There is still a piece of CD 6 in Nassau, but it is small. Without it the best I could do is 49.2% black for CD 6. Here's the new map and revised table (changes in green).



CD 1 (blue Bishop) Moves from 51.4% Obama to 51.9% Obama
CD 2 (green Israel) Moves from 56.1% Obama to 59.8% Obama
CD 3 (purple King) Moves from 51.9% McCain to 55.1% McCain
CD 4 (red McCarthy) Moves from 58.0% Obama to 58.3% Obama
CD 5 (tan Ackerman) White plurality 38.5%, Asian VAP 31.4%
CD 6 (teal Meeks) Black VAP 50.2%
CD 7 (gray Crowley) White plurality 48.8%, Hisp VAP 23.4%, Black VAP 21.6%
CD 8 (slate Nadler) White majority 55.4%, Asian VAP 27.6%
CD 9 (cyan Grimm) Repaces NY-13, moves from 50.5% McCain to 57.0% McCain
CD 10 (orchid Towns) Black VAP 50.4%
CD 11 (chartreuse Clarke)Black VAP 50.1%
CD 12 (yellow Velazquez) Hisp VAP 58.9%
CD 13 (light blue Engel) Replaces NY-17, White plurality 38.5%, Black VAP 29.8%, Hisp VAP 24.3%
CD 14 (olive Maloney) White majority 68.7%
CD 15 (orange Rangel) Hisp VAP 52.3%, Black VAP 30.5%
CD 16 (lime Serrano) Hisp VAP 64.9%, Black VAP 27.4%

The three black districts on LI form a wall pushing the core Orthodox areas with Staten Is.

Velazquez' district is ugly, but at almost 59% HVAP it will elect the Latino population's candidate of choice, my guess is that I could and would draw it over 60% with block-level mapping.

[muon2]

Muon2, that is one ugly map!

I doubt a court would ever draw that. Would it change your mind as to what a court might do, if you were aware that the current NY-12, which elects an Hispanic as it is (Velaquez), is only 46.8% Hispanic, and as redrawn it is bumped up to 52.7% Hispanic?  It could be made higher by poaching some Hispanics from NY-15, which is 64.8% Hispanic (the two CD's would trade some precincts), but I doubt a court will do that. I wouldn't as the judge. Hispanics were able to elect a "candidate of their choice" at only 46.8%, so a fortiori they will be able to do so with 52.7% VAP.  My NY-06 is also 15.4% Asian, who also vote lightly in this area, which helps push the Hispanic percentage who actually vote up.  Blacks and whites only make up 30% of the VAP. It is not like Texas, where there is an Anglo/Hispanic competition, with next to no other players in much of Texas, and where the Anglos just don't vote for Hispanics unless they are Pubbies.    NYC by contrast is much more of a Dem machine operation, where the power brokers have a lot to say about who gets nominated. I assume all of the above was why Velaquez was nominated and won the Dem primary in the first instance.

Hopefully a judge is not going to be influenced by politics, and just follow the VRA, and try to connect communities of interest in reasonably compact districts that follow where possible appropriate jurisdictional and geographic boundaries. I think my CD boundaries try faithfully to do that. I gave it a lot of thought. I may have made some errors of course. I don't claim to intimately know the Big Apple, but I think I know it reasonably well.

Make sense?

Chicago is also a machine operation (perhaps more than any other), and testimony from MALDEF made it clear that they weren't going to rely on the machine to nominate their candidates. There are court decisions that say that just because someone from the minority group was elected, it doesn't guarantee that the minority group is able to elect the candidate of their choice.

And then there's the question of which election data to use. It's the primary that matters, not the general, in a city like Chicago. I would view NYC the same way. Primaries in IL can be quite polarized, and MALDEF asked for 65% total Hispanic in a district to believe it would elect a candidate of choice. That usually works out to HVAP around or just under 60%.

[muon2]

OK muon2, but I suspect the NY state judges in 2001 with their map didn't go down that road, although there have been court cases since of course.  I  am quite sure the CD I drew is legal from a VRA standpoint. There is no requirement to create an erose mess at these percentages. In any event, if it needs to be higher for whatever reason, the fix is to swap precincts between NY-15 and NY-06 as I mentioned above.  That is a relatively non erose and community of interest way to do it.  I bet however the Hispanics won't be pushing to do that, and I doubt Velaquez wants a lot of strange new territory anyway, unless perhaps from next door NY-15.

But, strange territory is exactly what you've given Velazquez. I don't think your CD-06 has any of her current district. I do think that what she wants will matter a lot to the national Latino groups. That's why much of my CD-12 is from her current district, as bad as that shape is.

[muon2]

OK muon2, but I suspect the NY state judges in 2001 with their map didn't go down that road, although there have been court cases since of course.  I  am quite sure the CD I drew is legal from a VRA standpoint. There is no requirement to create an erose mess at these percentages. In any event, if it needs to be higher for whatever reason, the fix is to swap precincts between NY-15 and NY-06 as I mentioned above.  That is a relatively non erose and community of interest way to do it.  I bet however the Hispanics won't be pushing to do that, and I doubt Velaquez wants a lot of strange new territory anyway, unless perhaps from next door NY-15.

But, strange territory is exactly what you've given Velazquez. I don't think your CD-06 has any of her current district. I do think that what she wants will matter a lot to the national Latino groups. That's why much of my CD-12 is from her current district, as bad as that shape is.

No per the map I drew, it has almost all of her old territory. Only its CD number changed!  Please look at the map I drew for Lewis making this very point. Thanks.

Now I'm confused. I thought this was your map:





If so, then I read your CD-06 as a district similar to the current NY-07. Velazquez' NY-12 is primarily along the Queens-Brooklyn border with parts stretching south along the East River. Her district seems to be divided between CDs 7, 11 and 13 in the map above.

[muon2]

Yikes!  I thought that was Crowley's CD!  LOL.  My oh my.  OK, thanks muon2.  CD-09 is going to have to cross the border into Queens alas to pick up whites instead of Hispanics north of Broadway.  Man, I didn't realize there were that many Hispanics around. In fact there are so many, that the issue becomes whether to create two solid Hispanic CD's, or one solid and two more marginal perhaps. I see the fix.  It will mess up the map a bit, but not too much. The existing CD's are such a mess that it just got me confused. I thought that when I created a majority Hispanic CD by just giggling the lines a bit, and having looked at the existing Hispanic percentages in Velaquez's CD, that it must have been hers. The percentages just "fit" to well. My bad.

So yes, I did have Crowley and Velaquez swap CD's literally. That dog won't hunt. In any event, Crowley is going to end up with a very Hispanic CD after fixing generating the Velaquez CD with the Brooklyn-Queens border bisecting so that it has a sliver in Queens and a sliver in Kings, and then go and pick up the Hispanics near LaQuardia (sp) airport in Queens (that portion will be new to her).  NYC is segregation city isn't it?

Now you see why ny CD-12 was so bad. I took the existing district for VRA purposes and added the area near LaGuardia to bring the pop up. You may choose to drop the southern tail, but otherwise I expect you'll have something like the district I drew. In drawing CD-12 the way I did I was going for two solid Hispanic districts plus one simple majority Hispanic district.

[muon2]

So yes, I did have Crowley and Velaquez swap CD's literally.

Lol, nothing of the kind. You were just setting up Velazquez a primary against a worthless weak incumbent... in a district drawn so that she might conceivably lose. The incumbent being Maloney.

You don't need 60% or even over 50% Hispanic in New York city by the way... provided that the remainder is atomized. (Except in trying to prove that one more district than the state is willing to draw must be drawn, but we're talking about either a court-drawn or a compromise map here.) A 45% Hispanic, 20% White, 15% Asian, 15% Black seat is an utterly safe Hispanic seat.

The bottom line is this, Torie. Forget this first draft existed. Go back to the drawing board. Start with bringing the minority-held districts up to population without changing their composition far to the adverse. Then do 4 Long Island seats, without bringing King's share down, with McCarthy's extending into New York City. Then draw what you have to from what's left. That's what a court would actually feel it had little choice but to do.

We shall see. I have a draft of the Velaquez CD up to 56% Hispanic or so (it still needs some work on the Bradlee utility is slow on my mac as opposed to a PC for some reason, so it take more time). It does not affect the balance of my map much. It just makes things more erose. I don't understand your McCarthy point at all. What does that have to do with Hispanic CD's?  I will have to study Muon2's map some more. I find his light maps hard to read. Muon2 why can't you make them brighter? Take screen shots damn it! Do it my way. Please!

Screen shots you want? Darker colors? I expect you want a zoom into CD 12, too! Despite the artistic license in my maps, I am a very accommodating individual.

[muon2]

Oh my!  Moving right along, why don't you guys pick apart this map. I did some "minor" surgery. LOL. One things leads to another thing, which leads to another thing, and then an insight, and on and on it goes.  Remember, we are talking about a court drawn map here. Racial gerrymandering is just so much fun. But this puppy I think is really coming together - finally!  

Please be specific as to the flaws. Thanks. Yes, I know, NY-05 goes into Nassau. Lewis doesn't like it. I do. We shall just agree to disagree as to what a court will do there. What are the reasonable alternatives? None in my judgement. I did get rid of that one little spike jutting off to the NE, just to annoy Lewis, taking away one of his silly little bullets that he thinks is made of silver. I love when that happens!  

If this map is now the very embodiment of perfection, I think I may give it to the Pubbies to "help" them bargain with the Dems. Why not?  Life is beautiful.

Yes, NY-14 could probably be made majority Hispanic, if some court wants to screw the blacks. I doubt that will happen. But it is easy to do. Just switch out the blacks for the Hispanics in the Bronx. It might not quite get there, but it should be fairly close.

That certainly looks better for the Hispanics, but Velazquez will still be unhappy. I believe she lives in South Brooklyn, somewhere near Red Hook. Your new district for her starts half a borough away and crosses way into the Bronx. It's that piece in the Bronx you gave to her that I put with Rangel instead. That's how I got 3 Latino majority CDs.

[muon2]

My version was not intended to be what a court would draw, but rather what a court would accept. It was based in a June worldview which meant that NY-9 was on the chopping block, and would make an easy place for the two parties to come to agreement.

I assumed that the Brooklyn reps would largely want their own minority districts as is but with enough new pop to make them whole. As Lewis noted, I found that keeping the basic shape of the current CD-12 intact makes a formidable wall for the black districts, especially if CD-6 can't go far into Nassau. With my self-imposed constraints those four districts along with a much more GOP Staten Island CD pretty much wrote themselves.

Of course that was when it seemed in the GOP's interest to negotiate an end to NY-9 in exchange for much safer holdings for King and Grimm. In principle they could still do that, but they would need substantial control over the upstate map in exchange.

[muon2]

I decided to take a simple look at the upstate districts natural partisan leanings. To do so, I took whole counties and grouped them into areas of one or more districts such that the population was within 4K of the ideal size. Then those areas with more than one district were divided keeping counties intact as much as possible and splitting no towns, such that the districts were within 0.5% of the ideal size. This is the map I got for the upstate 9 (the tenth with Ulster, Orange and Putnam is about 66 K short).



Next I used the Atlas data to get the actual PVIs for these districts.

CD 19: D+5 (pink) Albany
CD 20: R+1 (green) Schenectady
CD 21: R+2 (blue) Utica
CD 22: D+4 (cyan) Syracuse
CD 23: D+4 (lilac) Binghampton
CD 24: R+5 (beige) Niagara Falls
CD 25: D+4 (gold) Rochester
CD 26: R+6 (purple) Elmira
CD 27: D+11 (grey) Buffalo

On paper it should be a very competitive area.

[muon2]

In a "fair" map, would Niagara Falls and Buffalo be placed into a district together or would they prefer to keep the Buffalo seat entirely within Erie county?

Under my rules for a fair map (similar to MI) there should be a district entirely within Erie. That forces Buffalo into the district entirely within Erie so it couldn't link to Niagara Falls. I assume that anyone mapping them linked was doing so to make a stronger R district. As it is, I ended up with an R+5 including Niagara Falls, and R+6 for the 200 K remainder of Erie so it's not that bad for the GOP.

[muon2]

In a "fair" map, would Niagara Falls and Buffalo be placed into a district together or would they prefer to keep the Buffalo seat entirely within Erie county?

Under my rules for a fair map (similar to MI) there should be a district entirely within Erie. That forces Buffalo into the district entirely within Erie so it couldn't link to Niagara Falls. I assume that anyone mapping them linked was doing so to make a stronger R district. As it is, I ended up with an R+5 including Niagara Falls, and R+6 for the 200 K remainder of Erie so it's not that bad for the GOP.

I was thinking more in terms of a CA style mapping rather than a MI style map which many argue isn't that fair. As such partisan considersations were completely irrelevant and my primary concern was whether Niagara Falls had a better justification for being in an urban seat with Buffalo, then a bunch of rural Erie precincts.

Actually the MI rules worked very well in the 1980 and 90 remaps. They were so well-regarded that MI codified them. However they didn't put in any tests for partisan bias, since the issue hadn't occurred. When a single party had control the lack of a cross check allowed the rules to be bent to partisan advantage.

Certainly one could make a CA style judgement that NF should be with Buffalo and then draw a map accordingly. It will strengthen the adjacent GOP districts and make the area less competitive. I think that those type of judgement calls can lead to problems as well as seen in AZ this year.