US House Redistricting: Arizona
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:54:59 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  US House Redistricting: Arizona
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 21
Author Topic: US House Redistricting: Arizona  (Read 69054 times)
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #100 on: August 23, 2011, 12:42:45 AM »
« edited: August 23, 2011, 12:56:04 AM by Torie »

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

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

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

This is a legal exercise and nothing but BRTD. Good luck!  Smiley
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,705
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #101 on: August 23, 2011, 01:49:17 AM »

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

What? You must be misunderstanding me big time.




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

The current AZ-07 contains a lot of white liberal parts of Tucscon on its edges, and it needs to shed a bunch of population, and AZ-08 is the only logical place to put them.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #102 on: August 23, 2011, 02:01:23 AM »

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

OK.  I guess that's it.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,705
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #103 on: August 23, 2011, 02:22:21 AM »


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

have Hispanics from Yuma, Phoenix and Tucson all in one

...exactly like the current map.


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


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

in exchange from moving one CD from reasonably safe Pubbie to reasonably safe Dem, thereby not increasing competitiveness.

Erm not quite. One seat goes from a swing district to reasonably safe Dem, and two districts get a bit more Rep (AZ-01 and AZ-05) and the GOP get a new reasonable safe district.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #104 on: August 23, 2011, 07:51:30 AM »
« Edited: August 23, 2011, 07:53:18 AM by krazen1211 »

Why would Tucson and Phoenix be connected in a district when it is no longer necessary, especially when some people in Tucson want to leave the state?
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #105 on: August 23, 2011, 09:09:55 AM »

Your tan district is also highly unlikely. You'll probably have to cut the entire western portion out.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #106 on: August 23, 2011, 10:18:48 AM »
« Edited: August 23, 2011, 12:33:19 PM by Torie »

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

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

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

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

Here is the grid map again:



And here is my map:



Logged
Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)
Vazdul
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,295
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #107 on: August 23, 2011, 10:33:29 AM »

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

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

It's important to note that it's still an early draft, and conforms only to the VRA and the requirements met by the grid map.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #108 on: August 23, 2011, 11:17:35 AM »
« Edited: August 23, 2011, 11:57:05 AM by Torie »

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

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

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

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

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



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

Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #109 on: August 23, 2011, 11:21:37 AM »

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

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

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

Yep.

The orginal map the Democrats came up with was absurd.

They have had to back down.
Logged
Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)
Vazdul
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,295
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #110 on: August 23, 2011, 11:47:15 AM »

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

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

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

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

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

Yep.

The orginal map the Democrats came up with was absurd.

They have had to back down.

I should just point out that the "orignal map the Democrats came up with" is no more than a (legally required) foundation upon which to build. Since the Commission is not allowed to use the current districts as a baseline, they draw what they call a "grid map" to provide a starting point for redistricting. The "original map" of which you speak is one of these "grid maps." The Commission hasn't even yet considered most of the conditions that they are required to consider, such as respect for communities of interest.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #111 on: August 23, 2011, 12:01:22 PM »
« Edited: August 23, 2011, 01:05:42 PM by Torie »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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



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





Logged
Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)
Vazdul
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,295
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #112 on: August 23, 2011, 02:16:51 PM »

The next meeting of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission will be Thursday, 12:00 PM local time (3:00 PM Eastern). The Hispanic Coalition for Good Government, as well as other individuals and groups, are scheduled to present and submit Congressional and Legislative maps to the Commission. The Commission will also review, discuss, and direct to the mapping consultant, ideas for possible adjustments to Congressional and Legislative grid maps based on constitutional criteria.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #113 on: August 23, 2011, 09:58:35 PM »
« Edited: August 23, 2011, 10:31:10 PM by Torie »

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

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









Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #114 on: August 24, 2011, 08:18:24 AM »

No. Not if he gets any sort of primary challenge. You drew his district out from under his feet.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #115 on: August 24, 2011, 09:17:45 AM »
« Edited: August 24, 2011, 09:43:24 AM by Torie »

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

Gosar lives in Flagstaff.  I don't see him getting a challenge, unless somebody from the Mohave County area which was appended challenges him, or from the Phoenix metro area into which the CD pushed, the latter of which has about 150,000 residents in the district.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #116 on: August 24, 2011, 09:37:45 AM »

Last time the Commission hewed to the grid quite well
Lolwut. There's scarcely a line they didn't change.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #117 on: August 24, 2011, 09:47:32 AM »

Last time the Commission hewed to the grid quite well
Lolwut. There's scarcely a line they didn't change.

Not really as to the basic design except for getting AZ-07 up to 50% Hispanic VAP. That was my impression anyway. Of course the lines change around the edges to unite stuff, and the Commission last time hewed to that metric pretty faithfully. The way the population lies in AZ, with most everyone living in Tuscon or Phoenix, makes it hard to play partisan games given the rules of the road.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #118 on: August 24, 2011, 10:13:10 AM »

It would be interesting to know that the 2001 grid map looked like.

Here's the initial grid:



Here's the draft map based on the grid:




And the final map:



There is a community of interest requirement, and the commission is not dominated by Phoenix Suburban Republicans. Either of these would be sufficient to mark your little wank there as DOA without the other. There will probably be a northern Arizona district much like the current in the end - probably excising Pinal, possibly excising parts of Yavapai, possibly taking in parts of Mojave, possibly taking in Cochise, but substantially the same district - not because it's there right now but because nothing else makes sense. Safford pretty much must by law remain united with the remainder of LDS Nonmetro Arizona (Snowflake, Holbrook etc) and thus can't be used to crack Giffords, as you're doing. The Navajo Nation can't go into a district dominated by exurbs if there are any viable alternatives. There's neither an even remotely compelling excuse for creating two Maricopa-to-Northern-Boondogs seats, nor even much of an incentive for the players involved (rules or no rules, this is still a bipartisan gerrymandering exercise. The GOP wouldn't have sued to get a particular operative onto the commission if there were any doubts about that.) Etc. There are just more problems with your map than... well... things that aren't problems.
There *are* potential legal issues with retiring Grijalva's district from metro Maricopa, actually ("retrogression"), but I agree that it's likely to happen anyways - though I would take even odds that he'll retain Gila River as it belongs with Tohono O'odham and there's no real compelling reason not to ("I can draw a cleaner-looking gerry of Tucson then" isn't one. "Casa Grande needs to go with Mesa while rural Pinal should remain in the northern district" might be one, though, as that along with a different home for the West Maricopa hispanics would make it impossible for the Southern Hispanic seat to reach Gila River.) It does mean that the grid can't stand in Maricopa either, though (apart from Pastor's district). It'll have to be rotated around it - you can't draw a district spanning parts southwest and southeast of town like your tan one, thanks to that geography rule.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #119 on: August 24, 2011, 10:23:57 AM »
« Edited: August 24, 2011, 10:54:14 AM by Torie »

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

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

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

Do you agree with CARL that the third member of the Commission is a partisan Dem hack by the way? Just asking.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #120 on: August 24, 2011, 10:31:51 AM »

Do you have a drf file of the grid? Even though you need to change everything that needs to be changed - ie, almost everything - it's still what you need to start from.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #121 on: August 24, 2011, 10:40:46 AM »

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

Oh btw. Just noticed you fixed my "tan" complaint already before I reiterated it.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #122 on: August 24, 2011, 11:21:59 AM »
« Edited: August 24, 2011, 11:26:24 AM by Torie »

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

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

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

Oh, and 10% of the  voters (unless Hispanic or native American), doesn't mean squat in AZ in general outside of the Phoenix and the Tuscon area in a few parts. The partisan divisions are just not that great, and after putting to bed the two Hispanic CD's, AZ is just too Pubbie.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #123 on: August 24, 2011, 11:51:43 AM »

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

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

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

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

And yeah, I'm drawing a map for you as we speak. Will probably not get it to presentability today. But because of my "didn't start from the grid" caveat, I wouldn't call it my prediction of what will actually happen. Though I did take Vazdul's suggestion that they seemed to be drawing a Tucson-to-Pinal seat (though I assume he just meant Casas Grandes), something I had never considered before. Though as of current, I still have Buckeye in the southwestern seat... ideally, I'll find a way to remove that without pushing it below 50.1 or doing anything else I don't want to do, but I'm leaving it for now.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #124 on: August 24, 2011, 12:02:21 PM »
« Edited: August 24, 2011, 12:16:58 PM by Torie »

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

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

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

Good luck Lewis! 
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 21  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.072 seconds with 12 queries.