US House Redistricting: Arizona

[muon2]

The GOP got some very desirable changes.

http://www.azredistricting.org/Maps/pubmaps/100311/Map_as_of_100211/Cong-Map_as_of_100211.pdf

The Green district is absurd though

The map appears to be a joke, putting aside the partisan break stuff. The law in my view appears to have been totally ignored. It will probably be upheld though. There must be a better way. I wish I knew what that was. Maybe a computer should do it! 

Actually, computers are notoriously bad at drawing districts as soon as there are more than a couple variables to optimize. OTOH, they are very good at evaluating maps based on a lengthy list of criteria. Of course, the humans would need to agree to those criteria.

[muon2]

The GOP got some very desirable changes.

http://www.azredistricting.org/Maps/pubmaps/100311/Map_as_of_100211/Cong-Map_as_of_100211.pdf

The Green district is absurd though

The funny thing is that the Republicans on the Commission don't seem to think that those changes are very desirable. Mathis, Herrera, and McNulty voted yes, Stertz voted no, and Freeman abstained.

Well, the orange district still butchers municipalities.

The GOP should ask for the pieces of Chandler to be removed in exchange for more of Mesa.

You guys got what you wanted in Tucson though. Can't have it all. Unless CD-1 became much more Democratic, which I doubt. It was about 6 points Mccain when I drew it before. Now it's probably 4-5 points Mccain I am guessing. Slight lean Republican and you have a slight lean Democratic district in Phoenix. True swing district in Tucson and the 2 VRA districts. I wish a google maps version of the district is released.

According to the commission report CD-1 and CD-2 are both rated at 51.8% R to 48.2% D, and CD-9 is rated at 50.3% R to 49.7% D. Those seem to be based on a basket of elections from 2008 and 2010. Of the other districts the two HVAP majority districts CD-3
(54.8% HVAP) and CD-7 (57.6% HVAP) are solid D, the others are all solid R.

[muon2]

So how's the Tuscon district rated? It doesn't look much more Republican than the current district.

From what I can discern, it is but only slightly. 1, 2, and 9 are very much swing districts.

Creating competitive swing districts is a clear goal of the commission. There was a presentation last month analyzing the correlation between various averages and the predicted competitiveness, but its not completely clear which average went into their actual district analysis. They discuss a number of models, and the slides don't say which one is adopted.
I'll probably have to watch the video of the meeting to know for sure.

If I look at the table in the presented slides the best correlated average takes the average of the two-party vote in the two 2008 statewide races, the same for the seven 2010 statewide races, and the fraction of registrations between the two parties. That has a partisan split of 54.5% R and 45.5% D statewide. My best guess is that this was used in the commission report on the districts.

For comparison, another measure used 10 years ago was the "Arizona quick and dirty." It uses only the Corporate Commission races from the two most recent elections. That gives 54.3% R to 45.7% D. That would be consistent with the measure I identified in the previous paragraph.

[muon2]

Just calculated the 9th and it's 51.5-47.2 Obama. The dems got exactly what they wanted in Phoenix.

That's weak safe Dem.   That is supposed to be "competitive?"  LOL. They sure did get what they want!  I wonder if the Pubbies will get another referendum up. They must be as mad as hell.

That's why I tries to discern the competitiveness metric used for their plan. Since they have 2010 averaged in as well as registration numbers it comes out 50.3% R. That certainly looks competitive from the Commission's view. It's that 2008 isn't as Dem as it was in most states and 2010 is still a big GOP year in the average.

[muon2]

Just calculated the 9th and it's 51.5-47.2 Obama. The dems got exactly what they wanted in Phoenix.

That's weak safe Dem.   That is supposed to be "competitive?"  LOL. They sure did get what they want!  I wonder if the Pubbies will get another referendum up. They must be as mad as hell.

That's why I tries to discern the competitiveness metric used for their plan. Since they have 2010 averaged in as well as registration numbers it comes out 50.3% R. That certainly looks competitive from the Commission's view. It's that 2008 isn't as Dem as it was in most states and 2010 is still a big GOP year in the average.

In my opinion, the Commission's partisan baseline is garbage - just garbage.

The Commission wanted a metric that was based on actual election results from recent elections. They won't take some election with an imputed shift. Here is the list of elections they could work with (2-way GOP% in parentheses):

2008 Pres (54.3)
2008 Corp Commish (47.6)
2010 AG (51.9)
2010 Gov (56.1)
2010 Mine Commish (57.1)
2010 SoS (58.2)
2010 US Senate (62.9)
2010 Corp Commish (61.0)
2011 Registration (53.3) not an election

What blend would you recommend?

In their presentation, voter registration had the best correlation to the legislative and congressional seats won of any one item on that list. Averaging registration with the 2008 average and 2010 average didn't change the correlation but did shift the partisan computation toward the GOP by 1.2%.

If current registration is the best measure, then each district overestimates the GOP by that same 1.2%. Thus CD-9 would become 51-49 for the Dems. CDs 1 and 2 would be both about 50.6-49.4 for the GOP.

[muon2]

I can see why Republicans aren't happy, but the non-partisan commission did basically acheive its goal if the map ends up giving Republicans 55.55...% of the seats in a state where a favorite son won around 53% of the vote.

I looked at the same feature through the fairness measure used by the Ohio Competition. Each party got a point for a district that was rated for them, except that districts with over 55% of the two-party vote counted 1.5 points, and districts within 51% counted a point for both parties. I used the commission's basket of elections adjusted by 1.5% towards the Dems to compensate for the overweight of the 2010 results (a shift of 2.5% gives the same result).  That gives 8 points R and 7 points D or 53.3% which is very close to the shifted statewide average.

[muon2]

A two-third majority can remove the commissioners, but that can only be seriously used against Mathis. If either of the Democrats is removed the Democratic legislative leaders can just reappoint them ad nasuem. And no replacement for Mathis can be appointed without the consent of the Democrats. So the map will either be:

1. Drawn by this commission
2. Drawn By the State Supreme Court
3. Drawn by the 9th Circuit

Both 2. and 3. might well just impose the commission map as an interim solution if the issue looks like a partisan temper tantrum, in which case the legislature might try a mid-decade redraw and end up in court again.

They could go to referendum, but I am not sure there will be much stomach among low-info voters for it.

They ought to boot the Republican commissioners as well for stupidity, in not including 2006 election results in their 'baseline' standard.

I don't know that they needed to use 2006. I do think they overweighted the 2010 data to the Rs by including all statewide races that year. If they would have picked a subset such as the three closest races, it would be a better measure of overall partisan leanings.

[muon2]

It's just kind of dumb how the parties get to choose who draws the map. The process needs to be taken out of their hands. Let amateurs do it. ...

Basically what I am saying is that it was much, much more preferable to this arrangement where I do believe the commissioners had a motive of trying to create a Phoenix Dem district, even if it meant the Tucson district became more of a swing district.

California's Commission has 5 Dems, 5 Reps and 4 Indies, and requires at least 3 votes from each bloc for passage. (It passed 12-2 with both nays being Republicans, by the way, so it got the bare minimum of minority consent.) Similarly, you could make the final passage in Arizona require four votes.

That would help. Of course the Pubbies on the CA commission were pathetic too, but I really can't get too angry over that map, and a lot of CD's are close enough, that I kind of like the incentive it offers to Pubbies to stop being way out there in never-never land.  In a word, I fantasize it might strengthen a bit my little microscopic wing of the party. But hey, here on this forum, my wing is close to half the party! No doubt, that is in part due to my inspired "leadership." 

It would be a lot better to let ordinary decent citizens draw the maps, rather than trying to form panels of impartial experts chosen based on their partiality.

I think there's a combination of ideas here that could work.

I suggest that the process allow the commissioners to have a partisan intent, but tie them to maps submitted by outsiders. Then force them to select a map based on criteria developed by neither the commission nor the mapmakers. Finally require a supermajority of commissioners to override the criteria and select a map other than the one with the best fit to the criteria.

[muon2]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And therein lies the rub. You are on the right track though. The trick is to create incentives for compromise. One approach is that if both sides cannot agree, they each submit a map to a third party, on whom they have agreed upon in advance (and if they cannot agree the Supreme Court picks such party), which third party would be charged with picking one map or the other which bests follows a set of listed criteria, carefully defined and prioritized, maybe with almost a point system, and if competitiveness is in there, as a lower ranking criteria, not be be touched unless it can be done without much of a point loss otherwise.  Competitiveness too would be carefully defined, and maybe also agreed upon in advance where they is otherwise room to argue, and if cannot be agreed upon, set at trial in advance based on expert testimony and all.

That way each sides takes some risk if they cannot agree (and they can agree upon anything perhaps), and the more aggressive they get with the final map they submit, the more risk they run the other side's map will be picked. And some things that might upset the apple cart later, are set at the beginning, at a time perhaps where the impact of it all is not so well known, so there may be less of a temptation for gamesmanship, because nobody is sure how big the candy bar is that early on.

What do you think?

Here are two possibilities for the criteria that puts them in the hands of neither the commission nor the mapmakers. One welds them into the constitution with all the details for implementation. That may prove to inflexible as one goes forward into future decades. A second approach is to provide the outline of criteria in the constitution with delegation of the details to the legislature. Many political scientists who have studied redistricting think there should be some role for the legislature, and enacting the detailed implementation of the criteria by statute would provide some future flexibility.

[muon2]

The basic problem is that the most meaningful criteria (community of interest stuff, including the VRA issues) tend to be hard to quantify exactly, and thus open to abuse if one party has de facto control over the process - or even if both parties agree on bipartisan gerrying. Indeed, a certain degree of bipartisan gerrying - nothing like the last Illinois map, of course - is implied in the principle.
You can draw up quantifiable rules about splitting counties and compact shapes and stuff - even about competitive districts - but you have no guarantee that the end results will actually make sense on the ground.

That's why I noted a role for the legislature. Academic commentary on the process considers that body to have the best ability to judge what makes sense on the ground. It's just that one wants to avoid giving the legislature the power to draw the lines, since that's where the self-preservation instinct (partisan or individual) shows up most clearly.

[muon2]

Are redistricting commission appointments always this litigious, or is this year just bad for Arizona's Commission?

I think we are seeing an inherent weakness in the independent commission model. Few people are completely independent, since individuals do have opinions that reflect on political choices. A system that is seeking independent members has a challenge to see past simple measures such as party registration.

[muon2]

And what if the next chair doesn't obey the Republicans demands? Are they going to repeat the process over and over again until they find someone that will? This isn't going to stop, because the commission isn't going to draw the map they want, no matter who the chair is.

The problem for the GOP is that the commission is directed to create competitive districts. But the mix of 2008 and 2010 elections isn't particularly representative, and will tend to create slight Dem leans instead of even districts. Only if the commission is willing to adopt a better mix of elections will the GOP find them making better maps.

[muon2]

I still don't like Florence with the western edge of the state. There's not even a contiguous road connection.

[muon2]

That ridiculous pseudocarve of Cochise ended. Positive. And then a huge clockwise shift of small patches as a result... including Schweikert's residence, now outside the large R sink (and in the NE Maricopa R district with Quayle). And the official excuse for that R sink waived by breaching the Maricopa-Pinal line there after all.

And CD1 is still in Pima where it does not belong.
Florence does certainly belong in CD1 though.

It would seem easy and natural to swap the Pinal portion of CD 4 with the Yavapai portion of CD 1.

[muon2]

ballotpedia...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Was it a passed bill appropriation? Budgets often start with $1 line items as place holders for negotiation. They rarely end up there when a bill gets to the floor for a vote.