US House Redistricting: Arizona
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:56:03 AM
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 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 21
Author Topic: US House Redistricting: Arizona  (Read 69026 times)
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #175 on: August 27, 2011, 03:35:30 AM »

Actually, it looks like the line is actually where I have the second set, which puts a lot more blue into AZ-01 if I'm right - even more than Lewis has.


Nope, Torie. Look again. Summit is included. You got the right east-west line on the second try.

As to "absurd and won't see the light of day" - well that and your personal Tucsonwank makes two of them. You could easily amend this map to increase the Hispanic share in Tucson without changing the Dem shares much, by the way.
There's probably just two possible outcomes here. 1) (more reasonable, more likely, but by no means certain) Giffords' district ends up barely changed. 2) Tucson is split three ways, as in the current grid iteration.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #176 on: August 27, 2011, 05:06:41 AM »
« Edited: August 27, 2011, 05:18:12 AM by never met a fence I didn't want to burrow under »

Here's what Democrats should fight for, without hope of actually getting it of course.



You're not going to get those ridiculous third and fourth districts, and you're not going to get the little grab at Chandler's barrio section (since you can easily exchange it for the remainder of Mesa), but otherwise it's not a bad map actually. Apart from the obvious.



1st 52.6% McCain, 54.0% White, 21.6% Native
2nd 63.1% McCain
3rd 61.1% McCain
4th 52.0% McCain, 60.0% White
5th 64.8% Obama, 65.0% Hispanic, 20.6% White
6th 52.0% McCain, 60.9% White
7th 60.9% McCain
8th 55.3% Obama, 57.0% Hispanic, 31.6% White, 51.9% Hispanic VAP
9th 49.8% McCain, 68.3% White

Changing the third and fourth to at least not split as many municipalities (adding northern Glendale to the 3rd in exchange for Paradise Valley, the 4th' share of Scottsdale, and a couple of Phoenix precincts) makes for an odder-looking boundary and shares of 60.5% and 52.5%.
Eliminating the split of Mesa and cleaning up that of Chandler makes for 53.1% and 59.9%.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #177 on: August 27, 2011, 05:22:39 AM »
« Edited: August 27, 2011, 05:25:56 AM by never met a fence I didn't want to burrow under »

Pubbie Hispanics like those on the "wrong" side of the mountain in Phoenix next to Pinal County to boot.
I've no idea what you're talking about. The part of Phoenix on the wrong side of the mountain (Ahwatukee) is 72% White, 51% McCain, and not included in a Hispanic district in any plan that any Democrat is ever going to devise - they'll want that marginal neighborhood to go with Tempe, thank you very much. (Though part of it is in Pastor's district in the initial grid.)
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #178 on: August 28, 2011, 05:37:26 AM »





A realistic Republican (near-)best case. Also my most grid-based map yet. Favored in 7 of the districts, though several of them are marginal enough that 6-3 may be the likelier outcome on balance.
Numbers follow the grid, for once, as I guess they will.

1 63.7% White, 55.4% McCain. Division of Tucson proper is exactly as at current, btw, but gets rural territory instead of the marginal northern suburbs.
2 69.0% White, 57.4% McCain. Not going to be popular with anybody, but something like it is in the amended grid for now.
3 59.2% Hispanic (53.5% VAP), 60.4% Obama. The only Dem voters Grijalva loses are in Tolleson/West End, and they go to Pastor. Grab of Eloy (the only area added compared to current) maybe doesn't happen.
4 64.3% White, 17.6% Native, 54.5% McCain. There is a certain logic to assuming that the current 4th is the least metro district, so it will be the non metro district. Yuma split and requirement to not split Navajo pretty much defined the boundary (esp. the complete withdrawal from Maricopa).
5 73.2% White, 54.0% McCain. Pretty ugly. You could split Mesa instead of Chandler, don't think it matters much. Paradise Valley grab and Northern reach around are naked R gerries, of course - "justified" by not splitting Central Phoenix three ways.
6 66.9% White, 60.2% McCain. Not much to see here. Boundary with 2nd could be drawn a number of different ways.
7 65.8% Hispanic, (59.6% VAP), 66.2% Obama. Follows the current 4th quite faithfully but does take Tolleson and drop some Whiteleaning, Demleaning Central Phoenix blocs.
8  66.2% White, 59.4% McCain
9 68.0% White, 54.8% McCain. So I found a way to broadly preserve the current 3rd.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #179 on: August 28, 2011, 06:55:49 AM »

Lewis, can you provide info to link your numbers to locations on the map?
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #180 on: August 28, 2011, 07:03:11 AM »

I assume people know the color scheme of the DRA by heart. Tongue

1 - Tucson E & points north
2 - Tucson suburbs to just outside Mesa
3 - Grijalva
4 - northwest
5 - ugly yellow thing
6 - Mesa, Gilbert, part of Chandler
7 - Pastor
8 - West Valley
9 - North Phoenix
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 #181 on: September 02, 2011, 04:29:11 PM »
« Edited: September 02, 2011, 04:45:30 PM by Johannes Overgaard, Antillan MP (SPP-Bronseland) »

The Redistricting Commission is meeting today. The Pinal County Governmental Alliance presented this. I missed most of the presentation, so I don't know what was discussed.

They are currently discussing changes to the congressional grid map to accomodate three border districts. They say that the map will be on the website soon, so I shouldn't have to bother with low-quality screenshots.

EDIT: Here is an update to their "river district" plan, which they've yet to discuss.

And this is the three border district plan. It still manages to get two Hispanic-majority districts, but it's quite ugly.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #182 on: September 02, 2011, 04:53:20 PM »

Current registration in Arizona:

http://www.azsos.gov/election/voterreg/Active_Voter_Count.pdf

On that map, district 1, 2, 3, 6 all should be safe R. 5 is likely R based on registration matching the current CD-5, and their CD-9 somewhat resembles the current CD-1 in registration. Note that Apache Junction is in CD-9.
Logged
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #183 on: September 02, 2011, 05:05:49 PM »





A realistic Republican (near-)best case. Also my most grid-based map yet. Favored in 7 of the districts, though several of them are marginal enough that 6-3 may be the likelier outcome on balance.
Numbers follow the grid, for once, as I guess they will.

1 63.7% White, 55.4% McCain. Division of Tucson proper is exactly as at current, btw, but gets rural territory instead of the marginal northern suburbs.
2 69.0% White, 57.4% McCain. Not going to be popular with anybody, but something like it is in the amended grid for now.
3 59.2% Hispanic (53.5% VAP), 60.4% Obama. The only Dem voters Grijalva loses are in Tolleson/West End, and they go to Pastor. Grab of Eloy (the only area added compared to current) maybe doesn't happen.
4 64.3% White, 17.6% Native, 54.5% McCain. There is a certain logic to assuming that the current 4th is the least metro district, so it will be the non metro district. Yuma split and requirement to not split Navajo pretty much defined the boundary (esp. the complete withdrawal from Maricopa).
5 73.2% White, 54.0% McCain. Pretty ugly. You could split Mesa instead of Chandler, don't think it matters much. Paradise Valley grab and Northern reach around are naked R gerries, of course - "justified" by not splitting Central Phoenix three ways.
6 66.9% White, 60.2% McCain. Not much to see here. Boundary with 2nd could be drawn a number of different ways.
7 65.8% Hispanic, (59.6% VAP), 66.2% Obama. Follows the current 4th quite faithfully but does take Tolleson and drop some Whiteleaning, Demleaning Central Phoenix blocs.
8  66.2% White, 59.4% McCain
9 68.0% White, 54.8% McCain. So I found a way to broadly preserve the current 3rd.

if you see my 1980s map thread. You will see that the new 3rd looks almost exactly like the old 2nd district back then. The only difference is that most of the phoenix precincts have been removed.
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 #184 on: September 02, 2011, 05:54:33 PM »

Here are the legislative maps that the commission is currently discussing.

http://www.azredistricting.org/Maps/pubmaps/Leg-9_minoity_dists_option1-no_split_res-exports/Leg-9_minority_dists_option1-no_split_res.pdf

http://www.azredistricting.org/Maps/pubmaps/Leg-9_minoity_dists_option2-no_split_res-exports/Leg-9_minority_dists_option2-no_split_res.pdf
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 #185 on: September 13, 2011, 10:57:57 AM »


Arizona Capitol Times
 
Horne: Redistricting commissioner claims chairwoman destroyed documents

By Evan Wyloge - evan.wyloge@azcapitoltimes.com

Published: September 7, 2011 at 7:27 pm

One of Arizona’s redistricting commissioners told Attorney General Tom Horne that the commission’s chairwoman destroyed documents used to score mapping firms during a closed-door meeting.

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2011/09/07/horne-redistricting-commissioner-claims-chairwoman-destroyed-documents/
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,201
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #186 on: September 30, 2011, 08:32:16 AM »

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2011/09/29/redistricting-commission’s-approves-‘donut’-map-dems-call-it-rotten/
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #187 on: October 01, 2011, 12:22:57 PM »

What the heck are they babbling about? That map is basically a dem gerrymander.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=http://www.azredistricting.org/maps/pubmaps/092911/cong-EB-v3a.kmz&hl=en&sll=34.161818,-111.928711&sspn=8.21418,17.53418&vpsrc=0&t=h&z=6

The orange district does not even pretend to be neutral.
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 #188 on: October 01, 2011, 12:50:36 PM »


That's the map that was voted down. This is the map that was approved. The remaining 4 Maricopa County districts have yet to be drawn.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #189 on: October 01, 2011, 12:53:42 PM »


That's the map that was voted down. This is the map that was approved. The remaining 4 Maricopa County districts have yet to be drawn.

Ah. It was then misreported here.

http://tucsoncitizen.com/in-the-aggregate/2011/10/01/az-redistricting-maps-final/
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #190 on: October 01, 2011, 12:57:56 PM »


That's the map that was voted down. This is the map that was approved. The remaining 4 Maricopa County districts have yet to be drawn.


Both the maps look the same, except of course the Maricopa districts haven't been drawn. I doubt CD-2 is up to full population either.
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 #191 on: October 01, 2011, 02:43:14 PM »


That's the map that was voted down. This is the map that was approved. The remaining 4 Maricopa County districts have yet to be drawn.


Both the maps look the same, except of course the Maricopa districts haven't been drawn. I doubt CD-2 is up to full population either.

I assume you are referring to the northwestern district. It isn't up to full population. There is some debate as to which parts of Maricopa to add to it to bring it up to population.
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 #192 on: October 01, 2011, 03:58:25 PM »

The Chairwoman Mathis is quoted as embracing competitiveness in the Phoenix area even though that is supposed to be secondary to other considerations which appear not to have been followed in the McNulty map, yet has no interest in competitiveness in the Tucson area.  The Pubs appear to have gotten a good swivving as it were.  It is interesting that the AZ commission site reports almost no substantive news, other than the maps, and their lawsuit to silence the AG. Nothing about votes, who is proposing what, what the issues are, or anything. It is kind of pathetic really. Anyway, it looks like the Dems have been given a couple of CD's, maybe as many as three, that otherwise were not really there. They must be happy. Smiley
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #193 on: October 01, 2011, 04:03:01 PM »


That's the map that was voted down. This is the map that was approved. The remaining 4 Maricopa County districts have yet to be drawn.


Both the maps look the same, except of course the Maricopa districts haven't been drawn. I doubt CD-2 is up to full population either.

I assume you are referring to the northwestern district. It isn't up to full population. There is some debate as to which parts of Maricopa to add to it to bring it up to population.

Yes I am. The two maps pretty much look the same to me, though I don't know Arizona precinct by precinct, admittedly. Tongue

The Chairwoman Mathis is quoted as embracing competitiveness in the Phoenix area even though that is supposed to be secondary to other considerations which appear not to have been followed in the McNulty map, yet has no interest in competitiveness in the Tucson area.  The Pubs appear to have gotten a good swivving as it were.  It is interesting that the AZ commission site reports almost no substantive news, other than the maps, and their lawsuit to silence the AG. Nothing about votes, who is proposing what, what the issues are, or anything. It is kind of pathetic really. Anyway, it looks like the Dems have been given a couple of CD's, maybe as many as three, that otherwise were not really there. They must be happy. Smiley

I guess the map hasn't really been drawn in Maricopa yet. The map Krazen posted was actually rejected. Is the Tucson district minus the Hispanic areas a Dem district?
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 #194 on: October 01, 2011, 04:41:20 PM »

Sbane, it looks to me like not too many Hispanics were put in the Hispanic CD from Tucson, and that the Tucson CD per eyeballing it is out of reach for the Pubbies, and that is what the paper says. Meanwhile even though it is specifically prohibited, now they are worried where the incumbents live in Phoenix. Sad.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #195 on: October 01, 2011, 07:45:06 PM »


That's the map that was voted down. This is the map that was approved. The remaining 4 Maricopa County districts have yet to be drawn.


Both the maps look the same, except of course the Maricopa districts haven't been drawn. I doubt CD-2 is up to full population either.

I assume you are referring to the northwestern district. It isn't up to full population. There is some debate as to which parts of Maricopa to add to it to bring it up to population.

Maricopa and Pinal. For some reason, the Mcnulty map split Pinal county 5 ways. That's an Austin style butchering.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #196 on: October 01, 2011, 11:56:12 PM »
« Edited: October 01, 2011, 11:58:03 PM by sbane »

Sbane, it looks to me like not too many Hispanics were put in the Hispanic CD from Tucson, and that the Tucson CD per eyeballing it is out of reach for the Pubbies, and that is what the paper says. Meanwhile even though it is specifically prohibited, now they are worried where the incumbents live in Phoenix. Sad.

I drew it out and it seems like most of the heavily Hispanic precincts are picked up by the Hispanic CD. Can't expect it to come in and pick up 30% Hispanic precincts. Also the district is about 50-48 Obama. I don't see how that is out of reach for a Republican. It's a swing district, which is precisely what the Tucson district should be.
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 #197 on: October 02, 2011, 09:33:13 AM »

Sbane, it looks to me like not too many Hispanics were put in the Hispanic CD from Tucson, and that the Tucson CD per eyeballing it is out of reach for the Pubbies, and that is what the paper says. Meanwhile even though it is specifically prohibited, now they are worried where the incumbents live in Phoenix. Sad.

I drew it out and it seems like most of the heavily Hispanic precincts are picked up by the Hispanic CD. Can't expect it to come in and pick up 30% Hispanic precincts. Also the district is about 50-48 Obama. I don't see how that is out of reach for a Republican. It's a swing district, which is precisely what the Tucson district should be.

Yes, I drew it too last night. It's lean Dem however, presumably, because AZ is McCain's home state - maybe even weak safe Dem. One would need to see other races to get a better sense of that. The Commission is still imo not following the law however, by putting competitiveness above other factors when it is expressly subordinated in the law to such other factors.  It is as if they are saying, or three of them, OK the VRA screws Dems, so the balance will be pro Dem to make up the lost ground.  We shall see if a Pubbie sink is carved out of the Phoenix - River area to complete the job.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #198 on: October 02, 2011, 09:45:42 AM »
« Edited: October 02, 2011, 09:48:07 AM by sbane »

Yes, it would be nice if there was data for other races but I would argue that a 50-48 Obama district would be perfect for a Rep gerrymander in many areas, like OC. Of course thats not the case in AZ. It would be equivalent to a 53-55% Obama district in California. I would say that's a perfect swing district. I would say the previous district was lean Rep, as was the 5th in the Phoenix area. They voted similarly for Bush, which is probably a better benchmark to guage partisanship.

Btw, what criteria is the commission supposed to use that they are ignoring? I think a 50-50 Obama district in the Phoenix area would be a good idea. It would keep whoever was elected in check. No point in having nice gerrymandered districts for both parties so the radicals can roam freely.
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 #199 on: October 02, 2011, 10:01:01 AM »

Following the grid, respecting jurisdictional lines, compactness and communities of interest, as modified by the VRA. If without degrading the former, one can make CD's more competitive, then go for it. It's all right in the statute. The chairwoman characterizes both the Hispanic CD on the border and the Tucson CD's as competitive. The Hispanic CD clearly is not, except for the weak incumbent, and as I say, pending more data, I suspect the Tucson CD is lean Dem. Of course in 2012, both may fall to the Pubbies. I suspect the Dems are headed towards something worse than what they endured in 2010, particularly where blacks are thin on the ground.

I should add that in general I really like true competitive CD's.  I would draw a zillion of them if I had absolute power. I really want the court to draw NY.  And I am quite sure the Dems don't. Not with 2012 coming up. Smiley

In CA it is amazing how many CD's there are that are somewhat close to being competitive (there is a good article on Red Racing Horses on that), but are not quite. It is as if some sinister force were at work, skillfully loading the dice for the Dems but not in too obvious a way. Again, however, in 2012, they may be just competitive enough, for a number of Dems to fall.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 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 0.073 seconds with 10 queries.