US House Redistricting: Connecticut

[muon2]

So what would a fair court draw, that is the question. Then we can measure what they do draw against that. What really interests me is just hard it is for both sides of the ledger to agree on what is a fair map, even if presumably acting in good faith. That has been my experience on this very site in fact, which is kind of sobering. If we can't do it here, where can it be done?

I'll offer my fair solution, though I'm sure there will be objectors.

The goals for my fair map are as follows.
Maintain the core area of the current districts.
Have no more than one town split between any two districts.
Improve compactness in the boundary between CD 1 and 5.

The following map does the above, with shading to show the areas changed.
As drawn the maximum deviation is 49 persons, and exact equality would only require shifts within the existing split towns. The shift would allow the small tentacle of CD 3 in Southbury to be smoothed.

[Napoleon]

The fair map might be the one where a majority of seats were won by both parties.

[BigSkyBob]

I seem to remember "fairness" defined as "Since Republican candidates consistently win 40% of the total vote statewide, the map should create 3 Democratic and 2 Republican districts."

Wait! Silly me! Seems I recall only reading that concerning states with fewer Democrats!

Never mind.

[Skill and Chance]

I seem to remember "fairness" defined as "Since Republican candidates consistently win 40% of the total vote statewide, the map should create 3 Democratic and 2 Republican districts."

Wait! Silly me! Seems I recall only reading that concerning states with fewer Democrats!

Never mind.

The GOP has held 3 of the current 5 seats at various times during the past decade.

[Napoleon]

I seem to remember "fairness" defined as "Since Republican candidates consistently win 40% of the total vote statewide, the map should create 3 Democratic and 2 Republican districts."

Wait! Silly me! Seems I recall only reading that concerning states with fewer Democrats!

Never mind.

Is that really going to be your assertion?

The point of elections is to represent people, not political parties. Districts don't belong to parties and the maps shouldn't be drawn to do so.

The GOP had a majority of seats 40% of the time.

[Torie]

So what would a fair court draw, that is the question. Then we can measure what they do draw against that. What really interests me is just hard it is for both sides of the ledger to agree on what is a fair map, even if presumably acting in good faith. That has been my experience on this very site in fact, which is kind of sobering. If we can't do it here, where can it be done?

I'll offer my fair solution, though I'm sure there will be objectors.

The goals for my fair map are as follows.
Maintain the core area of the current districts.
Have no more than one town split between any two districts.
Improve compactness in the boundary between CD 1 and 5.

The following map does the above, with shading to show the areas changed.
As drawn the maximum deviation is 49 persons, and exact equality would only require shifts within the existing split towns. The shift would allow the small tentacle of CD 3 in Southbury to be smoothed.

I agree that you have the right approach, although existing lines to the extent a previous gerrymander should be ignored. You have one little spike there of CN-03 towards NE towards Hartford impinging a new county, that was there before, true. But it will need to be justified on its merits. A state court is not constrained by the "least change" rule of federal courts, when stepping in to draw a map a dysfunctional state legislature, or commission, could not draw. To me, shape and such are more important than avoiding one municipal split. As to counties in Connecticut, do they really matter?  Is there such a thing as county government?

[Napoleon]

Counties are meaningless.

[traininthedistance]

Counties are meaningless.

I was under the impression that Fairfield County was somewhat meaningful, as that area is oriented more towards NYC than the rest of New England.  But yeah, in general counties don't matter in New England and most of them are just lines on a map now.

[muon2]

So what would a fair court draw, that is the question. Then we can measure what they do draw against that. What really interests me is just hard it is for both sides of the ledger to agree on what is a fair map, even if presumably acting in good faith. That has been my experience on this very site in fact, which is kind of sobering. If we can't do it here, where can it be done?

I'll offer my fair solution, though I'm sure there will be objectors.

The goals for my fair map are as follows.
Maintain the core area of the current districts.
Have no more than one town split between any two districts.
Improve compactness in the boundary between CD 1 and 5.

I agree that you have the right approach, although existing lines to the extent a previous gerrymander should be ignored. You have one little spike there of CN-03 towards NE towards Hartford impinging a new county, that was there before, true. But it will need to be justified on its merits. A state court is not constrained by the "least change" rule of federal courts, when stepping in to draw a map a dysfunctional state legislature, or commission, could not draw. To me, shape and such are more important than avoiding one municipal split. As to counties in Connecticut, do they really matter?  Is there such a thing as county government?

The projection to the NE from CD-3 makes more sense geographically than one to the NW. That runs along the I-91 corridor. In fact if the judges were less partisan, they would move Meriden into CD-3 and Naugatuck into CD-5. However, I was concerned that a panel of Dem judges might not want to take the two big Dem nodes of New Brittain and Meriden both out of CD-5. But I can draw it anyway, and here it is with a maximum deviation of 75 persons.

Counties are meaningless.

Indeed counties have no governmental purpose in Connecticut any more. They are used for some state judicial districts and electoral tabulation. If for some reason they were used for redistricting purposes, then a map that minimized county splits and preserved towns would look like the following. The maximum deviation is 0.3% and it would be easy to pick four towns to split to achieve exact equality.

[krazen1211]

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/6064fb4d133040ff9cd79e35ed888d78/CT--Connecticut-Redistricting/

Connecticut's State Supreme Court says it plans to appoint a special master to help settle the new boundaries for the state's five congressional districts.


GOP is very happy as it increases the chances of a GOP friendly congressional district.

[smoltchanov]

Well, it, probably, depends on who that master will be. But (as was said many times) - Republicans can't get anything worse then they have, so - they can gamble freely.

[krazen1211]

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/6064fb4d133040ff9cd79e35ed888d78/CT--Connecticut-Redistricting/

Connecticut's State Supreme Court says it plans to appoint a special master to help settle the new boundaries for the state's five congressional districts.


GOP is very happy as it increases the chances of a GOP friendly congressional district.

As it turns out, not so. Court instructs special master to preserve current districts.

[Torie]

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/6064fb4d133040ff9cd79e35ed888d78/CT--Connecticut-Redistricting/

Connecticut's State Supreme Court says it plans to appoint a special master to help settle the new boundaries for the state's five congressional districts.


GOP is very happy as it increases the chances of a GOP friendly congressional district.

As it turns out, not so. Court instructs special master to preserve current districts.

It's a Dem controlled court no?  Just why a state court would carry on with a gross gerrymander escapes me, absent partisan bias. That means the Dem gerry will carry on essentially forever basically, since the Pubs are unlikely to control the trifecta ever in Connecticut. Sad.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

The existing map, which the Democratic map is based on, was a bipartisan agreement, not a Democratic gerrymander. It's almost impossible for one party to gerrymander Connecticut since a 2/3ds majority is required to pass a map. And it's not the Democrats' fault the Republicans are slipping in western Connecticut.

[nclib]

Also, Repubs twice had a majority of seats under that map in years only leaning GOP (2002 and 2004).

[Napoleon]

The map will essentially be preserved, unfortunate for a Dem trifecta state and my home state alike.

[Torie]

The existing map, which the Democratic map is based on, was a bipartisan agreement, not a Democratic gerrymander. It's almost impossible for one party to gerrymander Connecticut since a 2/3ds majority is required to pass a map. And it's not the Democrats' fault the Republicans are slipping in western Connecticut.

I stand corrected. I think the existing map is ugly, and assumed it was a gerry. Apparently it was a bipartisan gerry. My bad. Sorry.

[they don't love you like i love you]

The existing map, which the Democratic map is based on, was a bipartisan agreement, not a Democratic gerrymander. It's almost impossible for one party to gerrymander Connecticut since a 2/3ds majority is required to pass a map. And it's not the Democrats' fault the Republicans are slipping in western Connecticut.

I stand corrected. I think the existing map is ugly, and assumed it was a gerry. Apparently it was a bipartisan gerry. My bad. Sorry.

Considering the current map ousted a D incumbent in 2002 when CT lost a seat and elected a Republican majority until a Democratic wave year what ever gave you the idea it was a Democratic gerrymander?

[minionofmidas]

And I seem to recall the consensus that Dems sold out in that redistricting compromise.

The app still doesn't include partisan figures from the state, does it? I really need to test what cleaning up the fifth-to-first boundary actually does.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Don't think so, though you can easily calculate numbers with the info here.

I'd advise turning off county boundaries when drawing maps for New England states.

[Napoleon]

Counties are meaningless.

I was under the impression that Fairfield County was somewhat meaningful, as that area is oriented more towards NYC than the rest of New England.  But yeah, in general counties don't matter in New England and most of them are just lines on a map now.

Fairfield County is distinguished as being part of the NYC metro but as far as governance, nothing is there

[JohnnyLongtorso]

The proposed map:



Edit: Minimal changes to the contentious districts: adds a bit more of Torrington to CT-05, adds more of Shelton to CT-04.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Is the horrible boundary between One and Five really necessary?

[Torie]

Is the horrible boundary between One and Five really necessary?

That is what happens with least change maps, where the prior map was itself a mess. I forget whether the prior map was a Dem gerry, or a compromise map, or whatever, but one thing it was, and is, not, is a good government map.

[Bacon King]

Is the horrible boundary between One and Five really necessary?

That is what happens with least change maps, where the prior map was itself a mess. I forget whether the prior map was a Dem gerry, or a compromise map, or whatever, but one thing it was, and is, not, is a good government map.

The 2001 map was a compromise map, though even then they changed as little as possible except for combining the 5th and 6th districts. They made the new 5th district as PVI-even as possible and pushed both incumbents into it.